H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts Chapter One THE FORTY DAYSAct_1:1-5 1 The former treatise I made, O Theophilus,—The “ former treatise” is the first treatise that Luke wrote; this was the Gospel according to Luke. Here is a continuation of the subject matter with which Luke closed his first volume. This is volume two of his writings. “ Theophilus” is addressed in the Gospel according to Luke as “ most excellent Theophilus.” It is not known who he was; some think that he was a man of honorable estate, and that Luke addressed both of his books to him; others think that as “ Theophilus” means “ friend of God,” or “ lover of God,” Luke is writing to all who love God; that he adopted this name to indicate any believer in Christ. However, this is improbable. “ Theophilus” is a Greek name probably applied to some Roman citizen. concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,—This gives the scope of Luke’ s first or “ former treatise.” He had “ traced the course of all things accurately from the first” (Luke 1:3), and wrote m detail about all that Jesus “ began both to do and to teach.” God and Christ begin, but there is no ending in their working; Jesus began working and teaching in the Gospel accord¬ing to Luke, and he is still working through the Holy Spirit in his church. The works of Jesus and the teachings of him go together; he lived his life and preached his doctrine; the entire earthly min¬istry is summed up by Luke in all “ that Jesus began both to do and to teach.” It is significant that Luke here puts what Jesus did before that which he taught; Jesus preached his own life. It was lived before his disciples and then taught to them. This is the way that Jesus placed it. “ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19.) 2 until the day in which he was received up,—The ascension of Jesus was the end of his earthly ministry; soon his heavenly ministry would begin; hence, this finds a place both in the gospel and in the Acts. The first two chapters of Luke record a brief ac¬count of the birth and childhood of Jesus, and then from the third chapter to the end of his record Luke gives what Jesus did and taught from his entrance on his public work to his ascension. The ascension of Christ took place “ after that he had given command¬ment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had cho-sen.” Jesus is represented in the Bible as acting by the special aid of the Holy Spirit; hence, he is said (Acts 10:38) to have been anointed with the Holy Spirit, and (Luke 4:1) to have been full of the Holy Spirit. God gave the Spirit to Jesus not “ by mea¬sure.” (John 3:34.) An account of his choosing the twelve apostles is found in Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:13-16. 3 to whom he also showed himself alive—After his resurrection Jesus remained on earth “ by the space of forty days” before he ascended. He made many appearances to his apostles during this time; we have a record of some of these appearances in Mat¬thew, Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus presented himself to them under different circumstances in such a way that they could not doubt that he had been raised from the dead. “ By many proofs,” he established the fact of his resurrection. The resurrection was the evidence that Jesus’ death was not mere martyrdom, but triumphant atonement. The resurrection was to be the subject of the preaching of the apostles; hence, they were left without a doubt as to his resurrection. The King James Version uses the word “ in¬fallible,” but the Revised Version omits it with the assumption that a proof implies certainty. “ After his passion” means after his suf¬fering and death. “ Passion” is from the Greek “ pathein,” and is used absolutely of Christ’ s suffering. (Acts 17:3 Acts 26:23.) During the forty days there are more than ten definite appearances mentioned; Jesus was not with them continually as he was before his death. The ascension was ten days before Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came; Moses was in the mount at the giving of the law forty days (Exodus 24:18), and Jesus fasted forty days (Matthew 4:2) just after his baptism. We are given the subject that Jesus discussed while with his apostles; he spoke to them “ the things concerning the kingdom of God.” “ The kingdom of God” appears thirty-three times in the Gospel according to Luke; fifteen times in Mark; four times in Matthew, who elsewhere has “ the kingdom of heaven” ; one time in John; and six times in the Acts. No distinction is to be made between “ the kingdom of God” and “ the kingdom of heaven.” 4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them—Among those things that Jesus taught his disciples during this period of forty days was “ repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem: . . . but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:47-49.) The law was to go forth from Zion, and the word of God from Jerusalem. (Isaiah 2:3.) The apostles were all Galileans far from home and in dan¬ger (John 20:19), but as Jesus had been denied the home com¬forts of Nazareth (Luke 4:16), so his disciples were all to remain in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came. It is called “ the promise of my Father.” (Luke 24:49; John 16:16-27 John 15:26.) Jesus had also emphasized this promise. (Luke 12:11-12; John 14 to 16.) 5 for John indeed baptized with water;—John baptized "with water,” but Jesus promised that his apostles should "be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” This baptism in die Holy Spirit is the promise of the Father. It was a promise made in the Old Testament which Peter quoted at Pentecost. Some of the apostles, if not all, had been disciples of John, and had heard John make the promise. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26.) Some had heard of the new birth. (John 3:3-5.) Now they were to know what it really meant, as they already knew in part. (John 20:22.) It is called a "baptism” to indicate the abundant and overwhelming outpouring of the Spirit which over¬whelmed the spirit of the apostles in the Holy Spirit. "Water” was the element in which John baptized, and "the Holy Spirit” was the element in which the apostles were to be baptized. TO THE Acts 1:6-8 6 They therefore, when they were come together,—At one of the appearances of Jesus, during these forty days, probably his last appearance before his ascension, while they were all together, his apostles asked him: "Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” This shows that even after the resurrection of Jesus his apostles did not understand the nature of his kingdom. It was clear in their minds that he came to establish a kingdom, but they were still laboring under the misconception that his kingdom would be an earthly one. The word "restore” as used here is from the Greek, "apokathistaneis,” and as a double compound, it means "to restore to its former state.” The apostles asked him if he would restore the political kingdom to the Jews as it was in the days of David and other kings. Here is proof that the apostles needed “ the promise of my Father” before they began to spread the message of the risen Christ; they could not preach the gospel of the kingdom until they understood the nature of the kingdom. The apostles still looked for a political kingdom, and needed the en¬lightenment of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the gospel. 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know—Jesus passed over for the moment the nature of the kingdom and spoke more definitely as to the point which they made emphatic “ at this time.” They had asked Jesus whether he would “ at this time” re¬store the kingdom to Israel; so Jesus tells them that it was not for them now “ to know times or seasons.” He had repeatedly taught them the nature of his kingdom before he was crucified, but they had failed to comprehend his meaning; now during the forty days that he remained here after his resurrection and before his ascen¬sion, they asked him about the time of restoring the kingdom. “ Times and seasons” was not for them to know now; they must wait until the Holy Spirit comes to guide them into a fuller knowl¬edge of the truth and the nature of his kingdom. “ The Father hath set within his own authority” the time when the kingdom would be established. Christ named neither the day nor the hour: he wanted his apostles to watch and pray, and wait: they were to wait in the school of the pious, but not many days. God had at his own disposal the time for the kingdom to begin its work. Jesus does not teach them at this time the time or the character of the great future events which the Father has reserved under his own control. This is true of the second coming of Christ (Mark 13:32), where Jesus recognizes the Father’ s reservation of the question of time to himself exclusively. 8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you:—They should receive power, or strength; the power was from on high (Luke 24:49), or it was the promise of the Father, which was the baptism of the Holy Spirit; they needed this in order to do their work. They were not to have a profitless knowledge as they had asked for, but they were to have the power to bear witness for Jesus and convince people of the truth of his kingdom; they needed strength which was to come from a great promise. They needed the power and wisdom which their adver¬saries could neither gainsay nor resist; in this way they would be enabled to become Christ's witnesses. Their question was ample proof of their need of this new “ power.” “ Power,” as used here, comes from the Greek “ dunamin,” and is used frequently with reference to the Holy Spirit. All needed power to equip them for the work that they were to do would be furnished by the Holy Spirit; hence, it was by the Holy Spirit’ s agency that the apostles were to preach the gospel to the entire world. and ye shall be my witnesses—Here Jesus gives a program of their missionary work. They are to begin in Jerusalem, and then advance to Judea, or the region round about Jerusalem; then they are to advance into Samaria, or the country beyond Judea, and continue in an ever-widening circle until they have reached “ the uttermost part of the earth.” The commission as here given to bear witness for Christ was to go beyond the limits of Palestine; even to the ends of the earth, they were to spread the gospel. The apostles were to go throughout the known world; wherever they could find, or make, an opportunity, they were to bear their testimony respecting Jesus. The providence of God would be with them, and the Holy Spirit would direct them, so that they could thus make the gospel known throughout the world. “ Ye shall be my witnesses” throughout the world; the peculiar mission of the church is to preserve to the world the living memory of a risen Christ. Further sections of the book of Acts record how this was done. OF JESUS Acts 1:9-11 9 And when he had said these things,—While his words were yet in their ears (Luke 24:51), and while their eyes were still gazing on him, the ascension took place. They were to be witnesses of it, and they saw it plainly and could describe it vividly and accur¬ately. Jesus was first raised from the earth in visible manner, and as he continued to rise higher and higher, their eyes followed him ascending; a cloud received him and surrounded and enclosed him and removed him out of their sight. Jesus had instructed them as their Prophet and Teacher; he had laid his command on them as their King; and now as their great High Priest he is to bless them as they bear witness for him throughout the world. Matthew and John (except indirectly in John 6:62) do not mention the ascension. Mark and Luke very briefly record the fact. There is no display, no expletives or exclamations, in narrating this wonderful event; the fact is stated in a simple, direct, natural way that em¬phasizes its truthfulness. Jesus went up to Mount Olivet just before the ascension, though he could have ascended just as well from a plain or in a valley. 10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven—The astonished disciples continued looking up where Jesus had disap¬peared, as if hoping to see him again. Suddenly “ two men stood by them in white apparel.” The past perfect active indicative of “ paristemi,” an intransitive form, is used here, and means literally, “ had taken a stand by them.” The apostles did not see these two angels until they were standing beside them; they had human forms and white clothing. The angels at the tomb are described in a similar way. (Mark 16 Mark 5; Luke 24:4; John 20 John 12.) 11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee,—The angels addressed the apostles as “ men of Galilee” ; they were all Galileans now; all the apostles except Judas Iscariot were Galileans, and five of them came from the village of Bethsaida. The angels asked: “ Why stand ye looking into heaven?” There was work to be done for Jesus; they are to return to the city of Jerusalem and wait for the descent of the Holy Spirit. The angels further instruct them that “ this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven, 31 And when they had prayed,—God answered their prayers by this physical manifestation; the “ place was shaken” where they had assembled with the other disciples. Also “ they were all filled with the Holy Spirit,” which was a renewal of the Holy Spirit re¬ceived on Pentecost. The apostles were strengthened anew by the Spirit’ s influence; they rose above the fear of the rulers’ threats, and continued with boldness to bear testimony in the name of Jesus. It should be observed that these pious men went to the Lord in prayer under these trying circumstances. It is encourag-ing to Christians to have the fellowship and companionship of oth¬ers in the work of the Lord; the apostles went to this company of disciples. It may be observed also that the enemies of God cannot thwart the purposes of God. They continued to speak “ the word of God with boldness” wherever occasion presented itself. shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.” The angels connect the ascension with the second advent; the ascension of Jesus is thus made a promise of his second coming. No representative of Jesus will come the second time, for “ this Jesus” that they saw disappear shall reappear. He is to come “ in like manner” as he ascended. Jesus himself foretold (Matthew 26:64) that he should hereafter come “ on the clouds of heaven.” WAITING FOR THE PROMISE Acts 1:12-14 12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem—The usual name in the Bible for this mountain is “ mount of Olives,” and is used eleven times in the New Testament. (Matthew 21:1; Mark 13:3; Luke 22:39; John 8:1.) “ Olivet” is the Greek word here mean¬ing “ olive orchard” or “ olive yard.” This mountain was “ nigh unto Jerusalem.” The Mount of Olives is on the east of Jerusa-lem, and must be passed by those who go from Jerusalem to Beth¬any ; hence, Luke’ s expression, “ He led them out until they were over against Bethany.” (Luke 24:50.) No one knows the exact spot on the Mount of Olives from which Jesus ascended; it was “ a sabbath day’ s journey off.” Different parts of the Mount of Olives were, of course, more or less distant from Jerusalem. “ A sabbath day’ s journey” was about two thousand yards, or about three- quarters of a mile from the city wall. Luke says here that the Mount of Olives was a Sabbath day’ s journey from Jerusalem, not that Jesus was precisely that distance when he ascended. Bethany was on one side of the Mount of Olives, at the foot of the moun¬tain, on the east side, “ about fifteen furlongs off” (John 11:18), or nearly two miles from Jerusalem, and the ascension was “ over against Bethany.” (Luke 24:50.) 13 And when they were come in,—When the apostles came into the city of Jerusalem from the ascension, “ they went up into the upper chamber.” Some claim that this “ upper chamber” was the same room that was occupied by Jesus when he ate the passover, which is described both by Mark and Luke as a “ large upper room.” (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12.) This was in a pri¬vate house, as is indicated in Luke 22:11; and not in the temple, as is indicated in Luke 24:53. “ The upper chamber” is a phrase which suggests a well-known place, and this is as definite as we can make it. In this room the eleven were abiding, not in the sense of dwelling, but of sojourning; they were waiting for the promise of the Father. Here we have a list of the apostles; this is the fourth record or list of these names found in the New Testament. The lists of the apostles in the New Testament are as followsMat_10:2-4 Peter Andrew James John Philip Bartholomew Thomas Matthew James of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon the Zealot Judas Iscariot Mark 3:16-19 Peter James John Andrew Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas James of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon the Zealot Judas Iscariot Luke 6:14-16 Peter Andrew James John Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas James of Alphaeus Simon the Zealot Judas of James Judas Iscariot Acts 1:13 Peter John James Andrew Philip Thomas Bartholomew Matthew James of Alphaeus Simon the Zealot Judas of James (Matthias) The list of apostles is grouped by fours into three groups; Peter heads all the lists as leader; Philip heads the list of the second group in all four of the lists; and James of Alphaeus heads the list of the last group in all four of the lists. Luke varies his roll in his gospel and Acts; Andrew follows Peter in the gospel, and in Acts he is the fourth; while John is the fourth in the gospel and second in Acts. Luke changes the order in the second group, but the arrangement is the same in the third group. Peter, James, and John are the only apostles whose names are mentioned again in the Acts; they are mentioned here at the beginning of the history of the church. When the roll is called by Luke in Acts the name of Judas Iscariot is omitted. 14 These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer,—The disciple company consists of four separately mentioned classes of persons: (1) the eleven apostles; (2) certain devout women, including Mary the mother of Jesus; (3) the brethren of Jesus, James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3); (4) the other disciples of Jesus. The Greek word for “ one accord,” “ homothumadon,” means more than being together in one outward society; it means concord or oneness of mind and of spirit. They were together “ in one place” because they had one purpose, and were of oneness of soul. They “ continued stedfastly in prayer” ; that is, they let nothing interfere with their prayers. They had been told to wait for the fulfillment of the promise, and that it would not be many days, so they spent their time in prayer. This was the best preparation that they could make for the great event of the descent of the Holy Spirit. This is the last mention that we have of Mary the mother of Jesus; the New Testament leaves her on her knees in prayer waiting, with the others, for the descent of the Holy Spirit. OF Acts 1:15-26 15 And in these days Peter stood up—Peter had denied his Lord after the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed unto him, but we now find him in his old place impetuously speaking for the apostles. He had been forgiven, and had received a special message sent to him by the risen Saviour (Mark 16:7), and a special charge given him (John 21:15-18). He is here strengthening his brethren; he does not apologize for the sin of Judas, but rather reminds them that “ he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry.” Some think that Peter was the oldest of the apostles; hence, he took the lead. There “ was a multitude of persons gathered together, about a hundred and twenty.” The word for “ gathered” is not in the Greek here, but it does occur in Matthew 22:34, and it seems to be the same idea in Luke 17:35. The entire number of disciples is not mentioned as being one hundred and twenty, but that number was gathered together in Jerusalem ; evidently there were others scattered through the country. (1 Corinthians 15:6.) There is no significance in the number “ one hundred and twenty.” 16 Brethren, it was needful that the scripture should be fulfilled,—“ Brethren” literally means “ men, brethren, or brother men.” Women are included in this address, though “ andres” refers only to men. Peter reminds them that the prophecy given by David through the Holy Spirit concerning Judas must be fulfilled. He evidently refers to Psalms 41:9, which referred first to Ahithophel, and in John 13:18 to Judas; hence, Peter here indirectly states that David wrote Psalms 41. Judas led the company of Jews and Romans to the Garden of Gethsemane to betray Jesus. Peter here found three things foretold, which had to be fulfilled: (1) that the traitor was to be one of themselves; (2) what his fate would be; (3) that his office from which he had been ejected was to be filled by another. 17 For he was numbered among us,—Peter is not ashamed to state that one of the twelve betrayed the Master; inspiration has been true to the fact and recorded this betrayal. One might think that it would be injurious to the cause of Christ to record the fact that one of his disciples betrayed him; however, Judas fulfilled the conditions of the prophecy. (Psalms 41:9 Psalms 109:2-5.) Judas had a mouth of deceitfulness, the lying tongue, the groundless enmity, the requital of evil for good; yet he was numbered among the twelve apostles. 18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward—Judas “ obtained” this field, or acquired it indirectly with the money which he received for the betrayal of Jesus. (Matthew 26:14-26 Matthew 27:3-8.) Verses 18 and 19 are not a part of Peter’ s speech, but seem to have been parenthetically included in Luke’ s account. The field was bought with the money that Judas received for be¬traying the Savior; he brought it back and threw it at the feet of the chief priest, and they took the money and purchased this property; they would not put the money in the treasury. (Matthew 27:5-8.) This field was bought by the chief priest in order to bury strangers in it. Matthew further says: “ That field was called, The field of blood.” (Matthew 27:3-8.) Luke here states that Judas fell “ headlong” and “ burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” Matthew states that Judas “ went away and hanged himself.” (Matthew 27:5.) There is no contradiction here, as he could have hanged himself and then fallen and “ burst asunder.” Evidently in his attempt to hang himself the traitor’ s body fell and was mangled as described here by Luke. 19 And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem;—The fate of Judas and the way in which the purchase money was obtained caused the name to be changed from “ the potter’ s field” to “ The field of blood,” and all people recognized the appropriateness of this name. “ Akeldama” is the Aramaic word which Peter explained to mean “ The field of blood.” “ Aramaic” was the cor¬rupt Hebrew which was spoken in Palestine at that time. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,—Peter here quotes from Psalms 69:25 and Psalms 109:8. He changes the plural of the first quotation into the singular as David was speaking of many enemies of his own, and Judas was the instrument through which the many enemies of Jesus work out their will; hence, the punishment which came upon Judas as the chief of¬fender. Peter illustrates and points to its fulfillment in prophecy. The disciples would be disturbed at the treachery of Judas, but Peter answers by pointing to predictions in the Psalms which proved that none of these things were accidental; they were known long before by Jehovah. “ His office let another take” means that an¬other must be selected to fill the place that Judas was selected to fill. 21-22 Of the men therefore that have companied—The apostles were to be witnesses of Jesus; Peter here states the conditions required in the one who is to be appointed to take the place of Judas. He mentions two things; namely, that they should have been a disciple of Jesus “ from the baptism of John,” and that they should have accompanied him after his resurrection. This is another way of saying that one should have known and followed Jesus from the first of his personal ministry to his trials, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. These apostles were careful in selecting the successor to Judas’ place; the one selected must be a competent witness; no one can be selected who is not an eyewitness of the things to which he must testify, so that his knowledge may be firsthand and his evidence trustworthy. Peter had quoted from the Psalms that the place was vacant and that another should fill it; hence, he proceeded at once under the guidance of God to complete this task. 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas,— With the qualifications before them, “ they” began their search for one who met all qualifications. They found two who met these qualifications. It is supposed that these two were selected from the company that was assembled. It is not clear as to who is in¬cluded in “ they” ; some think that the entire assembly selected or found the two who were qualified; others think that only the apostles were included in the “ they.” Those who take the view that the assembly selected the two who had the qualifications draw the conclusion that the church may select its officers today. They should remember that the church had not been established at this time, and that this is no precedent for selecting officers in the church. “ Joseph called Barsabbas” also bore the name “ Justus” ; he was a well-known disciple at that time, and had been a companion of Jesus for three or more years, but we know nothing further about him. There have been different interpretations as to the meaning of his name; we cannot make him the same as “ Barnabas” mentioned in Acts 4:36. “ Matthias” is the contracted form of “ Mattathias,” and is the equivalent of the Greek, “ Theodore,” which means “ gift of God.” 24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord,—Luke here gives only the substance of the prayer that was prayed; it is very probable that Peter led in this prayer, and that they all prayed with him. Some claim that this prayer was addressed to Jesus, and others that it was addressed to God. “ Lord” may refer to God and Christ. It is the same Greek word that Peter used four times in answering Jesus (John 21:15-17 John 21:21), and that the eleven used after the resurrection in speaking to Jesus (Acts 1:6). Jesus had not at this time become the Mediator and High Priest, as his church had not been established. “ Who knowest the hearts of all men” literally means who “ heart knowing all men.” There is a similar expression applied to God: “ Jehovah searcheth all hearts” (1 Chronicles 28:9) and “ I, Jehovah, search the mind, I try the heart” (Jeremiah 17:10). Since God knows the hearts of all men, he is asked to “ show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen.” It is clear that the Lord had chosen; that he was to make known which one should take the place of Judas. The Lord knew the heart; they knew only the men with their qualifications; hence, they asked the Lord to “ show” or “ point out” by some visible or other means which one of the two he had chosen. They wanted only the one that the Lord had chosen. 25 to take the place in this ministry—It is clear that they desire one to take Judas’ place and to become an apostle with them; they want him to participate in the office of the apostleship “ from which Judas fell away” that he might go to his own place. Judas had been chosen to the place by Jesus, but he was disqualified by his wickedness and went to his own place, and now another must be chosen by the authority of God to take his place. 26 And they gave lots for them—The Jews were familiar with the process of casting lots; this method of decision by lot was an Old Testament custom. The land of Canaan was divided and as¬signed to the different tribes by lot. (Numbers 26:55.) The guilt of Achan seems to have been determined by lot (Joshua 7:14); the king of Israel, Saul, was selected by lot (1 Samuel 10:20-21); the same method was used in determining the “ scapegoat” (Leviticus 16:8). Proverbs 16:33 indicates how the lot was cast. There are different ways by which the lot was cast, but we need not discuss these. The only thing practical here is that the apostles placed the responsibility of the selection on the Lord, and he made the choice; so Matthias was chosen by the Lord, “ and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” The Greek word for “ numbered” is not the same as in verse 17, but is a word used in one form to signify the person who was selected. Some have doubted as to whether the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit in selecting Matthias; they claim that Matthias was never an apostle. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 1Act 1:1-2. A of Jesus of Nazareth, designed to convince men that he is the Christ, would most naturally begin with his birth and terminate with his ascension to heaven. Such was the “ former narrative” which Luke had addressed to Theophilus, and he alludes to it as such in introducing his present work: (1) “The former treatise I composed, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, (2) until the day in which, having given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up.” This reference to his former narrative is most appropriate in its place, inasmuch as the one now undertaken is based entirely upon it. The specific reference to “ the day in which, having given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up” is still more in point, from the fact that all the authority which the apostles had for the labors Luke is about to narrate was derived from the commandment given on that day. The history of that day furnishes but one commandment then given, which was the apostolic commission. In this commission, then, Luke locates the starting point of his present narrative. If we would appreciate the narrative thus briefly introduced to us, we must begin with the author, by a proper understanding of this commission. During the personal ministry of Jesus, he authorized no human being to announce his Messiahship. On the contrary, whenever he discovered a disposition to do so, he uniformly forbade it, and this not only to various recipients of his healing power, but to the apostles themselves. When Peter made the memorable confession, “ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” we are told that, at the close of the conversation, “ he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” Such was his uniform injunction on similar occasions. Even when Peter, James, and John had witnessed his transfiguration, and heard God himself proclaim him his Son, as they came down from the mount, “ Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man is risen from the dead.” This stern prohibition, quite surprising to most readers of the New Testament, may be accounted for, in part, by a desire to avoid that political ferment, which, in the existing state of the public mind, might have resulted from a general belief among the Jews that he was their Messiah. But there is a much more imperative reason for it, found in the mental and moral condition of the disciples themselves. Their crude conceptions of the Messiahship, their gross misconception of the nature of the expected Kingdom, their misunderstanding of much that he had taught them, and their imperfect remembrance of that which they had understood, rendered them incapable of presenting his claims truthfully, not to say infallibly, to the world. Moreover, their faith had not, as yet, acquired the strength necessary to the endurance of privations and persecutions. While laboring under these defects, they were most wisely prohibited from preaching that he was the Christ. During the last night he spent on earth, Jesus at length informed them that this restriction would soon be removed, and they should receive the qualifications necessary to be his witnesses. He says, “ The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you.” “ I have many things to say to you, but you can not bear them now; howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth.“ “ He shall testify of me: and you also shall testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.” In these words they have a promise that they shall testify of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit for their guide; but the promise looks to the future for its fulfillment. Finally, “ in the day in which he was taken up,” he gives them the commandment which is to unseal their lips, and authorizes them to preach the glad tidings to every creature. Without this commandment, they could not have dared to tell any many that he was the Christ; with it, they are authorized to begin the labors which our historian is about to narrate. But even yet there is one restriction laid upon them; for they have not yet received the promised qualifications. “ He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem; but await the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me.” Such was the necessity for the commandment in question, and for the limitation which attended it when given. The items of which it is composed are not fully stated by either one of the historians, but must be collected from the partial statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Matthew presents three of them, as follows: “ Go, disciple all nations, immersing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever I have commanded you.” Mark presents five items in these words: “ Go preach the gospel to every creature; he who believes and is immersed shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned.“ Luke simply states that Jesus said, “ Thus it behoved the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” If we combine these items, by arranging them in their natural order of succession, we will have the commission fully stated. The command quoted by Mark, “ Preach the gospel to every creature,” necessarily comes first. The command, “ Disciple all nations,” is next in order; for it is by means of preaching that they were to make disciples. But when a man is made a disciple he becomes a believer; and Matthew and Mark agree in the statement that he who believes, or in Matthew's style, he who is discipled, is then to be immersed. Luke, however, says that repentance must be preached, and as repentance precedes obedience, we are compelled to unite it with faith, as antecedent to immersion. Next after immersion comes Mark's statement, “ he shall be saved.” But salvation may be either that which the pardoned sinner now enjoys, or that to be enjoyed after the resurrection from the dead: hence this term would be ambiguous but for Luke's version of it, who quotes that “remission of sins” is to be preached. This limits the meaning of the promise to that salvation which consists in remission of sins. Next after this comes the command, “ teaching them to observe and do” what I have commanded you. Finally, they were to proclaim that they who believed not, and, consequently, complied not with the terms of the commission, should be condemned. In brief, they were commanded to go into all the world, and make disciples of all nations by preaching the gospel to every creature; to immerse all penitent believers into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, promising such the remission of their sins; then teaching them all their duties and privileges, as disciples of Jesus. In the mean time, all were to be assured that he who believed not should be condemned. Making this commission the starting point of his narrative, Luke proceeds, after a few more preliminary observations, to relate the manner in which it was executed. This is the key to the whole narrative. We will find the apostles adhering strictly to its guidance. Their actions will furnish a complete counterpart to the items of their commission, and the best exposition of its meaning. For the strongest confirmation of the brief exposition just given, we refer to the course of the narrative as set forth in the following pages. Acts 1:3. As our author is about to present the apostles testifying to the resurrection of Jesus, he sees proper, in his introduction, to state briefly the ground of the qualifications for this testimony. He does this in the remainder of the paragraph of which we have already quoted a part: (3) “To whom, also, he presented himself alive, after his suffering, by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days, and speaking the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” From the concluding chapters of the former narrative, we learn more particularly the nature and number of these infallible proofs. These, having been fully stated by himself and others, are not here repeated. We learn here, however, a fact not there related: that the space from the resurrection to the ascension was forty days. Acts 1:4-5. To account for the delay of the apostles in Jerusalem after receiving their commission, and to prepare the reader for the scenes of the coming Pentecost, the historian next relates a part of the conversation which had taken place on the day of the ascension: (4) “And being assembled with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me. (5) For John, indeed, immersed in water; but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence.” The command not to depart from Jerusalem is mistaken, by some commentators, for the commandment mentioned above, as being given on the day he was taken up. But, in truth, as we have already seen, the commission constituted that commandment, while this is merely a limitation of the commission, in reference to the time and place of beginning. The “promise of the Father” which they were to await, is the promise of the Holy Spirit, which they had heard from him on the night of the betrayal, and which they now learn, is to be fulfilled in by their immersion in the Spirit. On this use of the term immersion see the Commentary, ii. 16– 18. Acts 1:6-8. We are informed by Matthew that Jesus prefaced the commission by announcing, “ All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me.” It was, probably, this announcement that led to the inquiry which Luke next repeats. Being informed that all authority is now given to him, the disciples expected to see him begin to exercise it in the way they had long anticipated. (6) “Now when they were come together, they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? (7) But he said to them, It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has appointed in his own authority. (8) But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.” The question, “ Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” indicates two interesting facts: First, that the apostles still misconceived the nature of Christ's kingdom; second, that the kingdom was not yet established. Both these facts deserve some attention at our hands, especially the latter. Their misconceptions consisted in the expectation that Christ would re-establish the earthly kingdom of Israel, and restore it to its ancient glory, under its own personal reign. In his reply, the Savior does not undertake to correct this misconception, but leaves it as a part of that work of enlightenment yet to be effected by the Holy Spirit. The time at which the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated is the point of transition from the preparatory dispensation, many elements of which were but temporary, into the present everlasting dispensation, which is to know no change, either of principles or of ordinances, in the course of time. It is necessary to determine this point in order to know what laws and ordinances of the Bible belong to the present dispensation. All things enjoined subsequent to this period are binding upon us as citizens of the kingdom of Christ; but nothing enjoined as duty or granted as a privilege, under former dispensations, is applicable to us, unless it is specifically extended to us. It requires no less divine authority to extend into the kingdom of Christ the institutions of the Jewish kingdom than it did to establish them at first. This proposition is self-evident. To fix, therefore, most definitely this period is a matter of transcendent importance, and must here have all the space that it requires. It is a question of fact, to be determined by positive Scripture statements. The expression “ kingdom of heaven” is used only by Matthew. In the connections where he uses this expression, the other three historians uniformly say “ kingdom of God.” This fact shows that the two expressions are equivalent. Explaining the former by the latter, we conclude that the “ kingdom of heaven” is not heaven, but simply a kingdom of God, without regard to locality. This kingdom is also called by Christ his own, as the Son of man; for he says, “ There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.“ The Apostle Paul also speaks of the “ kingdom of God's dear Son,” and says “ He must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet.” Of the kingdom of God, then, Jesus is the king; hence the time at which he became a king is the time at which “ the kingdom of Christ and of God” began. Furthermore, as it was Jesus, the Son of man, who was made the king, it is evident that the kingdom could not have commenced till after he became the Son of man. This consideration at once refutes the theory which dates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of Abraham. But it is not only Jesus the Son of man, but Jesus who died, that was made king. “ We see Jesus,” says Paul, “ who was made a little lower than the angels, on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” It was after his death, and not during his natural life, that he was made a king. It is necessary, therefore, to reject the other theory, which locates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of John the Immerser. Finally, it was after his resurrection and his ascension to heaven that he was made a king. For Paul says, “ Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” It is here we are to locate that glorious scene described by David and by Paul, in which God said to him, “ Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” He “ sat down on the right hand of the throne of God,” and the Father said, “ Let all the angels of God worship him.” At this word, among the gathering and circling hosts of heaven, every knee was bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is “ Lord of lord and King of kings.” It was then that the kingdom of God was inaugurated in heaven; and it was in immediate anticipation of it, with all things in readiness and waiting, that Jesus said to his disciples, as he was about to ascend on high, “ All authority, in heaven and on earth is given to me.” Having now fixed the time at which the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven, we are prepared to inquire when it began to be administered on earth. It began, of course, with the first administrative act on earth, and this was the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. On that occasion, Peter says, “ This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear.” “ Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.“ This event is here assumed as the proof of his exaltation, and the history shows it to be the first act of the newly-crowned King which took effect on earth. These facts are consistent with no other conclusion than that the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated on earth on the first Pentecost after his ascension. We might assume that the above argument is conclusive, and here dismiss the subject, but for some passages of Scripture which are supposed to favor a different conclusion. It was said by Jesus, “ The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it.” Again: “ Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for your neither go in yourselves, nor will you suffer those who are entering, to go in.” And again: “ If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then is the kingdom of God come to you.” It is argued, from these and kindred passages, that the law and the prophets ceased, as authority, with the beginning of John's ministry; that the kingdom of heaven then began, and men were pressing into it, while Scribes and Pharisees were striving to keep them from entering it; and that Jesus recognizes it as an existing institution, in the remark, “ Then is the kingdom of God come to you.” But there are other passages in the gospels which appear to conflict with these, and are inconsistent with this conclusion. The constant preaching of John, of Jesus, and of the Seventy, was, “ The kingdom of heaven is at hand;” eggike, “is near.” Jesus exclaims, “ Among them who are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Immerser; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom is greater than he.” Again: “ There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.” And, finally, the question we are now considering, “ Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” It is evident, from these passages, first, that John was not in the kingdom, for otherwise the least in the kingdom could not be greater than he; second, that the generation then living were yet to see the kingdom of God; third, that the disciples themselves were still looking for it in the future. If it be urged, in reference to the first of these conclusions, that the kingdom, of which John was not a citizen, is the kingdom in its future glory, the assumption is refuted by the very next verse in the context: “ From the days of John the Immerser till now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” Whatever may be the true interpretation of these rather obscure words, they certainly can refer to the kingdom of glory. Now, no hypothesis upon this subject can be accepted which does not provide for a complete reconciliation of these apparently conflicting passages of Scripture. The hypothesis that the kingdom was inaugurated by John can not do so; for, in that case, it is inconceivable that John himself was not a member of it, and equally so that he should constantly preach, “ The kingdom of heaven is near.” Again: if it was inaugurated during the personal ministry of Jesus, it is unaccountable that he should state, as a startling fact, that some of those present with him should live to see it, or that the disciples themselves should be ignorant of its existence. This hypothesis, therefore, is incapable of reconciling the various statements on the subject, and must, for this reason, be dismissed. On the other hand, if we admit, according to the irresistible force of the facts first adduced in this inquiry, that the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven when Jesus was coronated, and that it began to be formally administered on earth on the next succeeding Pentecost, there is no difficulty in fully reconciling all the passages quoted above. It was necessary to the existence of the kingdom on earth not only that the king should be upon his throne, but that he should have earthly subjects. In order, however, that men should acknowledge themselves his subjects the moment that he became their king, it was necessary that they should be previously prepared for allegiance. This preparation could be made in no other way than by inducing men, in advance, to adopt the principles involved in the government, and to acknowledge the right of the proposed ruler to become their king. This was the work of John and of Jesus. When men began, under the influence of their teaching, to undergo this preparation they were, with all propriety of speech, said to be pressing into the kingdom of God. Those who opposed them were striving to keep them from entering the kingdom; and to both parties it could be said, “ The kingdom of God is come to you.” It had come to them in the influence of its principles. “ From the days of John the Immerser the kingdom of heaven was preached,” not as an existing institution, but in its elementary principles, and by asserting the pretensions of the prospective king. Thus, we find that the various statements in the gospels upon this subject, when harmonized in the only way of which they are capable, lead us back to our former conclusion, with increased confidence in its correctness. We may pursue the same inquiry in an indirect method, by determining when the previous kingdom of God among the Jews terminated. As they both, with their conflicting peculiarities, could not be in formal existence among the same people at the same time, the new one could not begin till the old one terminated. That the law and prophets were until John, Jesus declares; but he does not declare that they continued no longer. On the contrary, he was himself “ a minister of the circumcision,” and kept the law till his death. The law and the prophets were, until John, the only revelation from God. Since then the gospel of the coming kingdom was preached in addition to it, and was designed to fulfill the law and the prophets by preparing the people for a “ better covenant.” Even the sacrifices of the altar, however, continued, with the sanction of Jesus, up to the very moment that he expired on the cross. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The preceding verse states something of the subject matter of Luke's former book, and the present tells of the event at which it concluded its narrative. Was taken up refers to the ascension of Jesus, recorded in Luke 24:51. These commandments pertain to the "Great Commission" given to the apostles, to go and preach the Gospel in all the world. (See Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47-48.) 3 Whom means the apostles referred to in the preceding verse, who were to be the witnesses for Jesus in the nations of the world. In order for them to be qualified as witnesses to the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead, it was necessary for him to show himself to them. Passion is from PASCHO, and Thayer's general definition is, "to feel, have a sensible experience, to undergo; to suffer sadly, be in bad plight." As Luke uses it, it refers to the sufferings and death of Jesus on the cross. Showed himself alive indicates how long after his death it was that he showed himself, namely, after his resurrection, since he was alive. Infallible proofs comes from one Greek word , and Thayer's definition is, "That from which something is surely and plainly known; an indubitable [unquestionable] evidence, a proof." A proof that was merely reasonably sure was not enough, but it must be so evident that it would be impossible to misunderstand it, and there were to be many of them. That would enable the apostles to say, "we know that Jesus lived after his death on the cross, for we saw him, heard him speak, and had this experience so often that it could not have been any delusion or imagination. And this kind of experience extended over a period of forty days, which would make it impossible to have been mistaken about it. Another thing that confirmed their recognition of the identity of Jesus, was the fact that he talked with them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, a subject that no stranger would have known anything about, especially if he had been an impostor. 4 This book reaches back over the last part of the Gospel record, which connects the line of thought regarding Christ. The assembling mentioned in this verse took place before Jesus made his ascension, at which event this book is supposed to begin. The promise of the Father was the bestowal of the) Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth. That promise may be found in Joe 2:28-29; John 14:16-17; John 15:26; Matthew 3:11. The apostles were not to depart from Jerusalem until they had received this Spirit, since it was necessary for their guidance in the work assigned to them. 5 When John predicted the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11), he also included that of fire. But he was talking to a mixed multitude, in which were some whom John knew would live and die in sin and finally be cast into the lake of fire. And there also were some in his audience who were destined to become apostles, and hence would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John's speech was addressed to the multitude as a whole. But when Jesus uttered the promise of this verse, he was talking to his apostles only, so it was unnecessary to say anything about the baptism of fire. 6 The apostles held to their notion that Christ was going to erect a temporal kingdom like the one the Jews had before, and deliver it to them as a restoration of their power as a nation. They had given up that hope for a time on account of the death of Jesus (Luke 24:21). But after his resurrection, they seemed to think they had been a little hasty in their despondency, and that now perhaps he would give them the kingdom, hence the question of this verse. 7 The specific time or date of the plans of the Father were not to be announced beforehand to the apostles. That is why they were told to tarry in Jerusalem until they received the Holy Spirit, and then they would know all they needed to know to carry on the work for which they had been called. 8 Power is from DUNAMIS, which means might or ability. The Holy Ghost or Spirit was to impart this qualification to the apostles, so that they could take the testimony to the uttermost parts of the earth. The need for such power was the reason they were told to wait in Jerusalem for the descent of the Spirit as promised through the prophets. 9 This verse corresponds with the closing ones of the book of Luke. Both places record the ascension of Jesus, but the present one only mentions the cloud; the other merely says he disappeared. The cloud feature in the ascension is significant, because Revelation 1:7 says that He will come in the clouds. That agrees also with what will be stated in verse 11 of the present chapter. 0 Looked steadfastly toward heaven. The last word is from OURA-NOS, which is the only word in the Greek New Testament for the English word "heaven." Yet the inspired writers speak of the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2) which means there are a first and second. Hence we have three definitions of the word in Thay-er's lexicon, which I will quote in their order: "1. The vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it. 2. The sideral or starry heavens. 3. The region above the sideral [starry] heavens, the seat of an order of things eternal and consummately [entirely] perfect, where God dwells and the other heavenly beings." Jesus finally entered the third heaven, but the one the disciples saw Him enter was the first. It was logical that Jesus went "up" to heaven, since that is the only direction that can be realized by human eyes. But the term is accommodative only, for literal directions as to altitude are based on the earth; "up" meaning away from the earth, and down meaning toward it. Were the earth and other material bodies destroyed, there would be no "up" or "down" as we use those terms. Whether Jesus left the earth at noon or midnight, he would still have gone "up" as we use the word. The two men in white apparel were the "angels" of John 1:51. 1 Jesus will come in like manner, which is why Revelation 1:7 says he will come in clouds, and also adds that "every eye shall see him." That prediction explodes the heresy that Jesus has come to the earth in such a manner that only the self-styled "witnesses" can see him. 2 In Luke's Gospel record, he merely states (chapter 24:52) that the disciples returned to Jerusalem with great joy. In our present verse he states from where they made the journey, namely, from the mount called Olivet, which is the same as the Mount of Olives, a distance from Jerusalem of a sabbath day's journey, or about three-quarters of a mile. The law of Moses has nothing to say about "a sab-bath day's journey," but that was a tradition of the Jews, based on a strained interpretation of Exo 16:29 and Joshua 3:4. Neither Jesus nor the inspired writers endorsed the tradition, but on account of its common use, the term came to have a secular meaning as to distance. 3 Where abode does not mean they resided there, as the word generally denotes, but that they were remaining or passing the time there. That was in obedience to the command of Jesus that they "tarry" and wait for the coming of the "power from on high" (Luke 24:49). The word both commonly denotes that two things only are being considered, but Thayer explains the Greek as meaning, "things are thus connected which are akin, or which are united to each other by some inner bond, whether logical or real." The men named were related to each other as apostles of Christ. 4 While waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples were improving the time by religious devotions. These exercises included the women, for it says they continued thus with the women. This is the last time the mother of Jesus is mentioned by name in the New Testament; others are named of that term, but not His mother. His brethren means the children of Joseph and Mary; not his disciples, for they were already named in verse 13. 5 As usual, Peter was the spokesman on this occasion. The hundred and twenty disciples means the ones who were present in this assembly. In 1 Corinthians 15:6 Paul says that Jesus was seen (after his resurrection) by "above five hundred brethren," most of whom were living when the apostle wrote the epistle. Just where they were when the assembly was going on mentioned in the present verse we do not know, for only the apostles had been commanded to tarry at Jerusalem; the others were there by their own voluntary desire only. 6 The Holy Spirit had not yet come down, but the divine record afterwards indicates full approval of all the proceedings, hence we must conclude that what Peter and the others said and did was by the guidance of the Lord. Peter began his speech with a reference to Psalms 69:22-25, pertaining to the conduct and fate of Judas. 7. This means that Judas had been included among the apostles. The verse also indicates that the purpose of the present session was to secure a man to become an apostle in the place of Judas. 8 Purchased a field refers to the "potter's field," mentioned in Matthew 27:7. With the reward of iniquity. Judas did not personally have any part in purchasing this field, for it was done after his death (Matthew 27:5-8). The phrase means the field was bought with the money that Judas had received as a reward for betraying Jesus. Falling headlong. If two statements seem to disagree, they should not be taken as a contradiction if it is possible for both to be true. The other record of the death of Judas says he "hanged himself." There were no "up-to-date" scaffolds available in those days, so Judas would naturally select a place, such as a tree near a precipice, for clearance of his body when he plunged from the footing under him. Then when his weight pulled suddenly on the limb (as the tradition reports it), his body broke it off and he was ruptured as he fell down upon the rocks below. 9 There is nothing strange in the general knowledge of the affair of Judas. The suicide of a man prominently associated with Jesus could not escape the attention of the people. And the setting aside of a piece of land that ordinarily was discarded, would naturally bring forth many inquiries, and that in turn would suggest the title given to the place. Field of blood. Judas did not actually shed the blood of Jesus, neither did the crucifixion directly shed it. The law of capital punishment in Genesis 9:6 says, "He that sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Nobody would think this is restricted to cases where the veins of another were literally opened and the blood poured out, either in the act of murder or the punishment for it. Were that the case, a murderer could escape the penalty by merely using some other method of slaying his victim besides bloodletting. The origin of the term is in the declaration of God that the blood is the life (Genesis 9:4). From this truth the term "bloodshed" came to mean any act of violence that would cause one to lose his life. Judas caused Jesus to lose his life by violence, and hence he was properly charged with bloodshed. 0 The quotation being cited is in Psalms 69:25. Habitation means a house or place of dwelling, and to be desolate means that it was to be deserted. There is no information that the home of Judas was ever occupied by others, or that he left any family to take charge of it. Bishoprick is from , and is the word for "office of a bishop" in 1 Timothy 3:1. Thayer defines the word as, "oversight, office, charge," which explains why it was applied to the apostle Judas. Let another take denotes clearly that the man who is about to be appointed as apostle was to take the place of Judas, and should therefore be regarded as an apostle after the Lord has indicated his choice. 1 One of the qualifications required in the man to be placed in office as an apostle, is that of constant association with the others and with the Lord Jesus. This idea of being "with him" is set forth in Mark 3:14. 2 The extent of time when this association was to have been had was from the baptism of John to the ascension of Jesus. Such an experience would qualify him to be a witness of the resurrection of Jesus, because the death and return to life of the Lord took place between those two events. The proper man would be ordained to the office of apostle. (See the notes on ordain at John 15:16.) 3 Appointed is from HISTEMI, which Thayer defines in this place, "To bid to stand by." It has the same meaning as our modern word "nominate," but not placed in any office as yet. They named Barsabas called Justus, and Matthias, who were to "stand by" and be ready for whatever might be determined upon. 4 As far as the apostles knew, each of these men named for the office left vacant by Judas' death was qualified. But the Lord could see defects that man could not, or could observe superior qualities of one over the other that could not be known by human beings. That is why they prayed to the Lord who knoweth the hearts of all men, to make the final choice between their candidates. 5 Ministry is from , and its general meaning is "service." The word will apply to anyone and to any activity that is of service to the Cause of Christ. The apostleship was a specific service to be administered only by those qualified and authorized to do it. Judas fell from his position as apostle by transgression, hence was responsible for his actions. His own place meant perdition according to John 17:12. 6 The appointment of an apostle was such an important event, that I believe a full explanation should be made of the lot as a means of determining the selection. The word is from KLEROS, which Thayer defines, "An object used in casting or drawing lots." He than explains the performance, "which was either a pebble, or a potsherd, or a bit of wood . . . the lots of the several persons concerned, inscribed with the: names, were thrown together into a vase, which was then shaken, and he whose lot first fell out upon the ground was the one chosen." Fell is used figuratively, as it is used in Romans 14:4, where Paul uses the statement, "to his own master he standeth or falleth." This also is according to Robinson's definition for the Greek word for "fall" which is, "To fall to or upon any one, Acts 1:26." A natural question would be why such a thing as a "game of chance" would be used in determining the selection of an apostle. That was still in the period when the Lord used "sundry times and diverse manners" (Hebrews 1:1) to communicate his will to mankind. When He was pleased to use the lot on any matter, he would see that the proper piece would come out. That is the meaning of Pro 16:33, and it is the reason the apostles prayed that the Lord would "show whether [which] of these two thou hast chosen." The inspired writer is the one who says Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles, which he would not have done, had the proceeding not been in harmony with the divine will. Hence we must understand that Matthias was the man divinely selected to take the place of Judas, and to fill out the original quota of the "twelve apostles." H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 2 DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRITAct_2:1-13 1 And when the day of Pentecost was now come,—The apos¬tles had now been waiting about a week “ for the promise of the Father.” There were three annual feasts of the Jews— the Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. The Passover commemorated the salvation of the first born in Egypt; the Pentecost celebrated the beginning of their harvest; and the Feast of Tabernacles commemorated their sojourn in the wilderness. There were four names given to this feast: (1) “ Feast of Harvest” (Exodus 23:16); (2) “ Feast of the First-Fruits” (Leviticus 23:17; Numbers 28:26); (3) “ Feast of Weeks” (Exodus 34:22; Deuteronomy 16:10); (4) “ Pentecost.” The last name is found only in the New Testament; it came fifty days after the Passover, and came on the first day of the week. In many respects it was considered the greatest feast of the year, and brought more people into Jerusalem than any of the other feasts. Some have contended that it commemorated the giving of the law upon Mount Sinai as it was, as they claimed, fifty days from the time they left Egypt to the giving of the law. There is no reference in the scriptures to this event in connection with this feast. At this time the Jews were scattered among all the civilized nations of the earth; many had come to the Passover, and had remained over to keep the Feast of Pentecost; also many came to this feast that had not attended the Feast of the Passover. On this day probably more Jews were in Jerusalem than at any other day in the year. This was a memorable day with the Jews, and became the birthday of the church. It was an opportune time for the Holy Spirit to come as a fulfillment of the promise made by Jesus. All things are now ready; Jesus had ascended to the Father about a week before this, after telling the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit; they had spent much of the time in prayer, and were now ready for the advent of the Holy Spirit. “ They were all together in one place.” We do not know what place this was; probably it was the same room where they had spent the week. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven—While the group was waiting for the promise of the Holy Spirit, suddenly a sound came “ as the rushing of a mighty wind.” There is no evidence that there was “ a mighty wind,” but the sudden sound was like that of a storm or hurricane. The sound “ filled all the house where they were sitting.” This describes the posture that they occupied at the moment that this sound came. This sound “ came from heaven” as of a violent wind rushing along; this was the first miracle or manifestation of the great event. 3 And there appeared unto them tongues—This was the second miracle of the visible manifestation of the descent of the Holy Spirit. There appeared “ tongues parting asunder,” or tongues parting among them; it seems that there was one great sheet of light, and that this broke up into different parts called “ tongues,” and rested on each one of them. This was not “ fire” ; it was “ like as of fire” ; it is not said that there was either fire or wind; there was a noise and there were tongues; but there was felt neither blast nor burning. The noise was like a gust of wind borne violently along, and bringing with it tongues of flame which, distributing themselves among the disciples, settled for a moment on the head of each. There were not “ cloven tongues,” but there was one tongue that rested upon each person. Some have contended that the tongue on each person was parted or forked, but this is not the meaning of the Greek word. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit,—Here we have the third event— they were “ filled with the Holy Spirit.” The first was the sound which affected the ear, the second was the tongues which affected the eye, and now the Holy Spirit came upon them. These three events, the sound “ from heaven,” the appearance unto them “ tongues parting asunder,” and “ all filled with the Holy Spirit,” came close together, but whether in quick succession or all together at the same moment cannot be determined with certainty. As a result of the Holy Spirit’ s coming upon them they “ began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” It seems clear that the Holy Spirit here came only upon the apostles; they were Galileans, and verse 7 says that those who were speaking were Galileans. It is not to be understood that the company of one hundred and twenty mentioned in chapter 1 were all filled with the Holy Spirit, because not all of these were Galileans. They were speaking as “ the Spirit gave them utterance.” They were not uttering unintelligible sounds nor using mere jargon of syllables with no meaning; their sentences were clear and their words distinct, so that “ every man heard them speaking in his own language.” Hence, they used such language and such words as could be understood. There were probably twelve to fifteen different languages or dialects spoken by the multitude on this day; there were fifteen countries and provinces named, but we do not know whether there was a different dialect for each country. 5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews,—Only a small portion of the Jews lived in Jerusalem or Palestine at this time; the greater number were natives of other lands dwelling in large colonies or in small communities. “ Dwelling at Jerusalem” literally means “ there were being housed in Jerusalem,” either temporarily or permanently in the city, Jews who were devout, religious men; they had a sacred regard for the law of Moses and the worship according to that law. “ Devout men” literally means “ taking hold well” ; that is, “ cautious,” “ fearing.” The Jews were widely scattered over the Roman Empire at this time, and only the “ devout” ones would make the long journey to Jerusalem to keep this feast. 6 And when this sound was heard,—There has been much discussion as to the meaning here; some think that the “ sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind” was heard and brought the multitude together; others think that their speaking “ with other tongues” was noised abroad and thus brought the multitude to¬gether. It could have been both; the miraculous manifestation, both of the physical appearance of the sound like that of a violent tempest and that of the speaking of tongues, when noised abroad, brought the curiosity-seeking multitude together. It is clear that the multitude did not come together until after the Holy Spirit had come upon the apostles. As the multitude assembled they were amazed, or caused to stand out by themselves, with wide open astonishment. The wonder grew and grew and spread and spread until the whole city had been brought together. This furnished the occasion for the proclamation of the gospel. 7-8 And they were all amazed and marvelled,—“ Amazed” and “ marvelled” are from different Greek words, and describe the state of confusion and astonishment that prevailed over the multitude. In their bewildered and astonished condition they were unable to account for such conditions, and asked: “ Are not all these that speak Galilaeans?” This was one of the main forms of their exclamations; these men who were speaking were from only one province, and yet they were speaking the different dialects of all the people represented. Some think that the entire company of a hundred and twenty were speaking, but this is not sustained by the evidence, as all of those speaking were recognized to be Galileans. Greek was almost universally spoken over the whole of the eastern part of the Roman Empire, but most districts had their own dialect ; Aramaic was spoken in Palestine, and the people of Lycaonia h^d a language of their own; hence, Luke meant to say that the utterances of the disciples, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were made in a variety of dialects or languages. 9-11 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers—The countries mentioned here are in geographical order; the Parthians and Medes and Elamites lived far eastward beyond the Tigris River and the Caspian Sea; the Jews had been scattered there for several hundred years. “ The dwellers in Mesopotamia” are mentioned next, and they lived between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers; “ Mesopotamia” means “ between the rivers.” -The Jews had been taken as captives there; the Babylonian captivity was “ between the rivers,” and some of the Jews never returned from that captivity. Next the Judeans are mentioned, because they designated a dialect of southern Palestine as distinguished from that of Galilee. Next in order are mentioned five provinces in Asia Minor; they are Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia; Cappadocia is in the southeastern portion of Asia Minor; Pontus is in the northeastern part bordering the Black Sea; Asia, meaning not the continent nor Asia Minor, but a smaller territory, the Roman province of that name which included the little countries of Mysia, Lydia, and Caria, bordering on the Aegean Sea and opposite to Greece. Phrygia and Pamphylia were located a little south of the central part of Asia Minor. Egypt is next mentioned, which was in Africa, south of the Mediterranean Sea, and Libya was west of Egypt, bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Many Jews dwelt in all these countries in Egypt as well as in Asia Minor; large colonies of Jews dwelt in Egypt, so that a Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, had been made at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian Era. “ Sojourners from Rome” were thought to be Romans who were proselytes or dwelling in Jerusalem for trade. “ Jews” means those born of JewisJi parents; “ proselytes” means those who were born of Gentile parents, or were of mixed parentage, partly Jewish and partly Gentile, but had become Converts to the Jewish religion. It cannot be determined whether both classes came from all the countries or from Rome only. It is sure that sojourners at Rome are included. Cretans were from the island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea; the Arabians were the Jews who had settled in Arabia; a large number of Jews had settled in Arabia. 12-13 And they were all amazed, and were perplexed,—The effect that these wonderful things had on the multitude is here briefly described by the words “ amazed, and were perplexed.” They were confounded, “ perplexed,” and “ amazed” at what they saw and heard. They turned in their amazement to each other and asked: “ What meaneth this?” Literally their question meant: “ What will this be,” or “ become.” They believed that it was a sign or omen that signified something remarkable, but they did not know what to think of it. This question also describes a further state of their feeling— they were, in addition to being confounded, perplexed, and amazed, awestruck. Some attempted to dismiss the matter with the suggestion that “ they are filled with new wine.” “ New wine” is from the Greek “ gleukous,” which means “ sweet wine,” but was considered highly intoxicating; “ sweet wine” kept a year was very intoxicating. There is some discussion as to who the “ others” were; some had asked, “ What meaneth this ?” but “ others” mocked and accused them of being “ filled with new wine.” Some think that those who made this accusation were other than those who had been mentioned. However, it seems that in the confusion and amazement some asked the question and others made the accusation; they were not agreed as to the cause of the manifestations which they saw and heard. THE CHURCH AT Act_2:14 to Acts 6:7 PETER’ S ADDRESSAct_2:14-36 14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven,—Each step in the progress of the history is important; Peter had been selected to be the spokesman, for to him had been committed the “ keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19); he had waited in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit had come; he, with the others, was now ready to testify for Jesus. Through the miraculous manifestations the multitude had assembled and were anxious to know the cause of these momentous manifestations. They have given Peter an opportunity, or an invitation to speak, and he stood “ up with the eleven” and made his address. Peter and the eleven make the twelve apostles now. Peter becomes the spokesman for the twelve. The large crowd and the confusion of tongues demanded loud speaking; hence, he “ lifted up his voice.” By this means he demanded the attention in order that he might say to them what the Holy Spirit prompted him to speak. He first addressed the “ men of Judaea,” or literally, men, Judeans, and dwellers at Jerusalem; he addressed them in a respectful way and received a respectful hearing. 15-16 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose----Peter first clears the situation; he removes the accusation that some had brought against them; this must be done before he can proceed with the more important things which the Spirit was to speak through him. The apostles had spent the time of vigilant waiting in prayer, as all devout Jews were accustomed to doing before the worship at Pentecost; hence, the charge that they were drunken was a serious one at this time, more serious than at other seasons; for, in the eyes of the Jews, it was a greater sin to be drunken at this time than at others. The impetuous Peter is now calm and courageous; he flatly denies the charge that he and his comrades are drunken. The charge had been made without proof; hence, circumstances were strongly against the assumption of his accusers. It was in the morning hour of prayer, only the third hour of the day; no Jew, certainly no devout Jew, would eat or drink before this hour was past. Men that got drunk did so at night, and this was only nine o’ clock in the morning. The accusation was so absurd that Peter passes it by with the emphatic denial and the ob¬servation that all could make. He now points them to the real cause of all that they had heard and seen. He directed the atten¬tion of these pious Jews to one of their own prophets, Joel. 17-21 And it shall be in the last days, saith God,—This quotation from Joel is one of the scriptures that the Jews relied upon to prove the coming of the Messiah; they were correct in their un¬derstanding that it referred to the Messiah’ s kingdom, but they were in error with respect to Jesus as being that Messiah. He claimed to be, but they rejected his claim; he proved that he was the Messiah, but they refused to accept the proof; they did not be¬lieve the evidence. “ The last days” had come, and God had poured “ forth of my Spirit,” and a literal fulfillment was at that time taking place in their very midst. The “ wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath,” were taking place at that time. “ The sun shall be turned into darkness” ; this had been done at the crucifixion of Jesus. (Luke 23:45.) “ Before the day of the Lord come, that great and notable day,” has received various interpretations. The darkening of the sun with all the physical phenomena that go with it may have a primary fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem; this expression usually designates some time of fearful judgments. Whatever the prophecy of Joel may mean, Peter said that what was occurring at that time were the things which Joel said would come to pass in “ the last days,” and hence “ the last days” were now upon them. At this time “ whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” In the midst of these alarming events and wonders and terrible phenom¬ena that foretold awful judgments, opportunity would be given to all who would “ call on the name of the Lord” to be saved. That time was now, and they should begin calling upon the name of the Lord. The promise of deliverance, the “ door of hope,” had now come to them, and the blessings were conditioned on their calling on the name of the Lord. 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words:—Peter’ s sermon may be divided into three divisions: (1) an explanation of the outpour¬ing of the Holy Spirit with the fulfillment of the promise as made by Joel; (2) a description of the Lord upon whom they should call; and (3) a pointed appeal to acknowledge the Messiahship of Jesus who had been crucified, buried, raised from the dead, and ascended back to the Father. The first part of Peter’ s address begins with verse 14 and closes with verse 21; the second part begins with verse 22 and closes with verse 28; the third part begins with verse 29 and closes with verse 36. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God—In the audience there are those who knew Jesus as “ the Nazarene,” so he uses the title so that they could not misunderstand him. When Jesus asked the Jews and Romans in the Garden of Gethsemane whom they sought, they answered: “ Jesus of Nazareth.” (John 18:5 John 18:7.) Jesus was not only “ a man approved of God,” but he was proved to be from God. “ Approved,” as used here, means to “ show to be true,” or “ to prove” to be true. All the miracles of Jesus are here included in “ mighty works and wonders and signs” ; three words to cover all that God did through Jesus. They could not deny the miracles wrought by Jesus. 23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel—This shows that Jesus was delivered by the Jews to the Roman authorities according to a definite plan that had been outlined by the prophets. Jesus willingly, when his hour came, gave himself into the hands of his enemy, and let them do what they would with him. God had willed the death of Jesus (John 3:16) and the death of Judas (Acts 1:16), but that fact did not clear Judas of the re¬sponsibility and guilt (Luke 22:22). Judas acted as a free moral agent; hence, Peter could say that “ ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.” This places guilt upon those who took part in the crucifixion of Jesus. The Jews cried, “ Crucify, crucify him” (Luke 23:21), and Pilate attempted to constrain them, but finally gave sentence against Jesus. Peter here made a bold charge against his hearers. They charged Peter and the other apostles with being drunk, but he charged them with the crucifixion of their Messiah. 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death:—They had, with the hands of lawless men, crucified the Son of God, but God had raised him from the dead; what they did to Jesus is put in contrast with what God did for him. The works of man are frequently put in contrast with the works of God. This strong antithesis is emphasized frequently in the preaching of the apostles. When the time came, or when his hour arrived, God delivered Jesus into the hands of the wicked Jews; when they crucified him, God raised him from the dead, because it was not possible for the powers of death to keep him in the grave. It was as much the “ determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” to raise Jesus from the dead as it was to deliver him into the hands of lawless men to be crucified. There had been rumors of the resurrection in Jerusalem of Jesus, but Peter now stands without equivocation and declares the fact of his resurrection. 25-28 For David saith concerning him,—Peter here quotes Psalms 16:8-11; he attributes his prophecy to David. It is noticed that quotations in the New Testament from the Old Testament are not “ word for word” and punctuation exact; often the Holy Spirit gives the meaning and not the exact words. David often spoke concerning himself, but the Holy Spirit who spoke through David also spoke of Christ; hence, a prophecy would have a primary fulfillment and an ultimate fulfillment. The sepulcher of David was in the city of Jerusalem. (1 Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16.) The site of David’ s tomb was then known to every Jew. David as a prophet took upon himself the task to speak of the Messiah as he was guided by the Holy Spirit; hence, he was not speaking altogether of himself when he referred to his flesh seeing corruption. “ Hades” means the “ unseen world.” David died and was buried and his tomb was in their midst; his body had decayed; hence, David could not have spoken of himself, but of the Messiah. Peter now argued that this prophecy of David that his body should not see corruption could not have referred to David himself, but to the Messiah. 29-31 Brethren, I may say unto you freely—Here begins the third part of Peter’ s address. He shows them that David died and was buried within the city of Jerusalem, and that his tomb was with them and that his body had decayed; hence, David as a proph¬et did not apply the language to himself, but being a prophet he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne. Peter here refers to Psalms 132:11. Furthermore, Peter argues that God has fulfilled that oath and promise to David and that Christ was raised from the dead to sit on David’ s throne. Peter here declares that David knew that in Psalms 16:10 he was describing the resurrection of the Messiah. David as king occupied the throne of the nation of Israel, the national people of God. The Messiah, who was to descend from him, was in like manner to be King of God’ s people, his spiritual people; hence, the Messiah was to sit on David’ s throne ruling the people of God. The royal government among the Lord’ s national people was, properly speaking, a theocracy; that is, a government of which God was considered the Supreme Ruler, while the earthly king was God’ s agent. Christ or the Mes¬siah was to sit on David’ s throne, or to be his successor, by becom¬ing the King of God’ s spiritual people. 32 This Jesus did God raise up,—Again, the Jews crucified Jesus, but God raised him up and has made the apostles witnesses of that resurrection. Peter now had proved that the prophecy was not fulfilled in David, and could not refer to him, or to an earthly king or person long after him; but it did refer to the Messiah. Then he affirmed that God did raise up Jesus from the dead, and proceeded to prove that this Jesus is the Christ. The “ we” who “ are witnesses” of the resurrection includes the twelve apostles, and may include other disciples who had seen Jesus after his resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:6.) 33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted,—God had raised Jesus from the dead that he might sit on David’ s throne, which is here called “ the right hand of God exalted.” Jesus was not only raised from the dead, like Lazarus or the daughter of Jairus to die again, but he was raised from the dead to be exalted to the right hand of God. Again we see the contrast between what the Jews had done for Christ and what God had done. There is a similar phrase in Psalms 98:1 : “ His right hand, and his holy arm, hath wrought salvation for him.” He had prom¬ised that if he returned to the Father he would send the Holy Spirit; since he had returned to the Father he has now sent the Holy Spirit. The physical manifestations which so confused and astonished the multitude were evidences that the Holy Spirit had come and they saw and heard these things. 34-35 For David ascended not into the heavens:—Peter further argues and proves that the prophecy here did not apply to David. He quotes Psalms 110:1. David had not ascended into the heavens, but Jesus had. It is clear that David understood this to refer to some other than himself; David with the Holy Spirit saw the Messiah come to the earth, suffer and die, be buried, raised from the dead, and ascend back to the Father, and seated at his right hand. This prophecy of David as to the Lord had been fulfilled. Some in that audience could recall that a few weeks before this time the Pharisees had been confused by a question about the meaning of this same passage, and they could not answer Jesus; if they had answered him truly they would have conceded his claim. (Matthew 22:42-45.) 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know—“ Let all the house of Israel” is equivalent to saying “ let every house of Israel”; this appeal could be made only to Israel, for they only had known the prophecies, and they only had received the promises. “ Know assuredly” is equivalent to believing the evidence that Peter had given to establish the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and therefore the Son of God. This was another way of telling them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The fact that they were to believe was that God had “ made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.” Jesus who had been crucified, God had raised from the dead, exalted him to heaven, and set him on his own right hand; in this way God had shown that Jesus was the Messiah. He has been made “ Lord” or ruler; he has all authority in heaven and on earth; he also had been made “ Christ,” which means the Anointed One. This concluded Peter’ s address; it closed with an appeal to believe the evidence that had been presented. THE FIRST Act_2:37-41 37 Now when they heard this,—The effect of Peter’ s address is now briefly narrated; it was a wonderful address and there were wonderful results. The simple declaration of facts, together with prophecies which supported the claim of Jesus as the Savior of the world, had such an effect on the hearts of the people that many were moved. “ They were pricked in their heart,” which means that they were stung with remorse at the exceeding wickedness of their crime in the crucifixion; they must have been amazed at the stupid blindness with which they had acted. The leaders and the people had closed their eyes to the teaching of the prophecies which had spoken of their Messiah. “ Pricked” is from the verb “ katanusso,” which means “ to pierce, to sting sharply, to stun, to smite.” Peter’ s sermon carried conviction, and they felt keenly the sting of their conviction; hence, they asked Peter “ and the rest of the apostles,” “ What shall we do?” This shows that they regarded the other apostles with Peter as witnesses for Christ. Since he had brought conviction to them, surely Peter and the rest of the apostles would know what to do. They had been with J esus; they had seen him and talked with him since his resurrec¬tion ; they had seen him as he ascended; surely the Messiah would leave some word with them as to what they should do in order to receive remission of their sins. They recognize that there is something that they must do. 38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized—This is possibly one of the most mooted scriptures in the New Testament; many theological controversies have been based on this verse. It should be remembered that after being convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and knowing that they had crucified him, they asked what they must do. This verse gives the answer to that question. While much controversy has been had about the meaning of the answer, it is plain and simple enough. These believers are told to “ repent ye.” John had taught repentance and Jesus had taught repentance. He had included repentance in the com¬mission. (Luke 24:47.) “ Repent” had been the clarion cry of John in the wilderness (Matthew 3:2); it was the gospel call of Jesus (Mark 1:15); it was the demand of the apostles as they went out on their limited commission (Mark 6:12). They were not only to repent, but they were to “ be baptized.” In giving the commission, Jesus said: “ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” John and Jesus had both preached baptism; Jesus had placed baptism in the commission; hence, the apostle Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, gave the answer and told them what they should do. “ Repent ye” is singular, while “ be baptized every one of you” is in the plural. There is here also a change from the second to the third person; this change shows a break in the thought; the first thing to do is make a radical and complete change; this is done in repentance; then let each one be baptized “ in the name of Jesus Christ.” This is the same as the command in Matthew 28:19. There is no distinction between “eis to onoma” and “en toi onomati” with “baptizo,” since “eis” and “en” are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 “en toi onomati Iesou Christou” occurs, but “eis to onoma” is found in Acts 8:16 Acts 19:5. The use of “ onoma” means in the name or with the authority of one, as “ eis onoma prophetou” (Matthew 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. unto the remission of your sins;—The Greek is “eis aphesin ton hamartion humon” ; this is the phrase over which there has been so much controversy. It seems to be clear. After Peter con¬vinced the multitude that they had crucified the Messiah and that God had exalted him and that he was now at the right hand of God, in this state they asked: “ What shall we do?” Evidently they were asking what to do to obtain remission of sins. Peter answers them and tells them to do two things—repent and be baptized. This is to be done by every one of them “ in the name of Jesus Christ,” “eis aphesin ton hamartion humon” “ unto the remission of your sins.” Much depends on the meaning of “eis” ; some have claimed that it means “ because of” ; hence, they claim that baptism is “ because of the remission of sins” ; or one receives remission of sins before baptism. Others claim that “eis” means “for,” “in order to,” “unto” the remission of sins. Repentance and baptism are both “eis aphesin ton hamartion humon.” Herewith is submitted the best scholarship on the translation of “ eis” and its accompanying phrase. MEANING OF “EIS” IN Acts 2:38 TranslationNameDenominationWork‘ for the putting away” ‘ for, to or toward” ‘ unto, for, in order to” ‘ for, unto” ‘ for, unto” ‘ end toward which” ‘ in reference to” ‘ unto, to” ‘ is always prospective” ‘ aim, purpose” ‘ purpose” ‘ in order to” ‘ the object to be obtained” ‘ unto, in order to receive” unto’ ‘ unto, to this end” ‘ denotes object” ‘ with a view to” ‘ unto” ‘ might receive” ‘ in order to” ‘ unto, to the end” ‘ into, to, toward” ‘ in order to” Abbot Alexander Axtell Benson Bickersteth Butcher Adam Clarke Dill Ditzler Godet Goodwin Harkness Harmon Harper Hovey Jacobus Meyer McLintock Church of England Presbyterian Baptist Methodist Church of England Presbyterian Methodist Baptist Methodist Presbyterian Congregationalist Baptist Methodist Baptist Baptist Presbyterian Lutheran Methodist Presbyterian Methodist Methodist Congregationalist Baptist ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Commentary on Bible” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Commentary on Bible” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Wilkes-Ditzler Debate” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Commentary on John” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” McLintock &Strong Encyclopedia ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” Greek-English Lexicon Baptist Quarterly, 1878 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.—Peter, by the Holy Spirit, promised two things on the condition that they repented arid were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ—“ the remission of your sins” and “ the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Much controversy exists as to whether this meant the Holy Spirit as a gift in that measure that the apostles now enjoyed, or whether “ the gift of the Holy Spirit” was the ordinary measure that belonged to all Christians. It seems that some of the early Christians received miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit, and that this is what Peter meant. Joel had been quoted by Peter as being fulfilled at this time; hence, the Spirit dispensation was now beginning and those who obeyed the gospel would receive all the blessings promised by this dispensation. 39 For to you is the promise, and to your children,—“ The promise” is the promise mentioned above; it was what Christ had termed “ the promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4), and described as the baptism “ in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” This promise carried with it the blessings of salvation in Christ and all that accompanied a faithful life in his service. “ To your children” includes the Jews, and “ all that are afar off” includes the Gentiles; hence, all flesh would receive the blessings of the Holy Spirit. The limitations were set by the qualifying clause, “ even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.” The Lord calls people by his gospel: “ Whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14.) “ Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:13-14.) “ And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45.) This shows how they are to learn of Jesus and how they are to call upon him. The gospel is to be preached which makes known Christ to the world; people hear it and believe it; they obey its commands and receive its blessings; in this way they come to God through Christ. 40 And with many other words he testified,—Luke did not record all that Peter said on this occasion; he gave a brief outline of the address that Peter made. The address may be formally ar¬ranged as follows: PETER’ S ADDRESSIntroduction: 1. Defense of the Apostles 2. Explanation of the Events I. The Theme— Jesus Is the Christ II. The Proof 1. The Works of Jesus 2. His Resurrection a. Quotation from David b.Exposition of Quotation c.The Witness of the Disciples 3. The Gift of the Holy Spirit PromisedPeter exhorted the people to “ save” themselves from “ this crooked generation.” Peter’ s “ many other words” exhorted the people to accept Jesus as the Messiah. “ Crooked” is from the Greek “ skolias,” which is a word opposite of “ orthos,” which means “ straight”; they were “ crooked” mentally, morally, and spiritually, since they were unbelieving Jews who had crucified their Messiah. , ,,,,41 They then that received his word were baptized:—Some ancient manuscripts omit the word “ gladly,” and the Standard Version follows the oldest manuscripts. They received the word by believing and obeying the gospel. People receive Christ today by receiving his teachings. Jesus said: “ He that receiveth whom¬soever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (John 13:20.) “ He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.” (Luke 10:16.) To hear the apos¬tles was to hear Christ, and to hear Christ was to hear God who sent him; hence, when they received the words of the apostles spo¬ken by the Holy Spirit they were hearing the words of Christ, and therefore the word of God. They were baptized; all who received the word were baptized; the Holy Spirit through Peter had commanded them to be baptized. Those who were baptized were “ added unto them” ; that is, those who were baptized were added together, added to the church; there were “ about three thousand souls.” Some think that these three thousand were added to the hundred and twenty, but since the phrase “ unto them” is in italics, or supplied, they were simply added together. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH Acts 2:42-47 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles* teaching—These new disciples were not fickle; they “ continued” in those things which they were taught. Here are mentioned four things in which they continued: (1) “ apostles’ teaching,” (2) “ fellowship,” “ in the breaking of bread,” and (4) “ the prayers.” The teaching here mentioned is that which Jesus commissioned when he told his apostles to teach all the baptized ones everything that he had commanded. (Matthew 28:20.) “ Fellowship” here means that common interest and mutual participation in those things which concern the welfare of each other. “ Breaking of bread” comes from “ klasei,” which is used only by Luke, and only in the phrase “ breaking of bread” ; the kindred verb for “ break” occurs often, but, like the noun, only of breaking bread; hence, it is used to designate the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper. “ The prayers” means that all the services were accompanied with prayer; only stated times were given to prayer under the law, but now the prayers are offered continually, at any time and all time. (See Luke 5:33.) 43 And fear came upon every soul:—Wonder and amazement pervaded the entire group; the attention of the public was attracted to the disciples. “ Fear” is used here in the sense of deep rever¬ence and awe. “ Many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” The mockers were put to silence and awe came over them, and they were deterred from further opposition, even though they did not repent. The apostles were able to work many miracles, though no particular one is described at this point except the one in the next chapter, and that one is noticed only because it is con¬nected with the arrest of the apostles. 44-45 And all that believed were together,—Some have thought that this means that they lived together in one house, but this is impossible since three thousand were converted on this day. It simply means that they “ were together” in mind, in purpose, in faith, and in heart. It refers to the unity of spirit and mind and not so much to unity of organization. They “ had all things com¬mon.” This clause seems to convey the idea of community of goods, lands, and possessions. It does not mean that everyone sold everything that was possessed, but that all held their posses¬sions as a trust for the good of all. Christianity teaches that we are responsible for the welfare of each other and that we should render service, money, and everything for the welfare of others. “ But whoso hath the world’ s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17.) Many of these Jews had come from a distance and had brought but little with them; their sojourn was longer than they expected; hence, they did not have sufficient supplies. In this condition those who did have gladly shared with those who had not. 46-47 And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord—This was not “ communism,” but the disciples had their property at the disposal of the common good as it was needed. The disciples were still worshipping in the temple, as no wide separion had as yet come between the Christians and Jews. They broke their bread at home, and rejoiced in all of the temporal blessings that God had given to them. Those who contributed of their means to those who had not rejoiced in the opportunity to help others; while those who received help rejoiced that there were those who loved them and were able to help them. It was an occasion of all rejoicing together. The description of these early disciples closes with their praising God and finding “ favor with all the people.” “ And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved.” The word “ church” is left out of the Standard Version asfnd “ to them” is expressed; hence, the meaning is that those who heard the word, believed it, repented of their sins, and were baptized, were by this process added together, and thus formed the church. Every step was taken by divine guidance, and all rejoiced in the unity of the faith and in the love and fellowship of each other. As we leave this instructive chapter we are impressed with the power of the gospel as preached by Peter. We also are impressed with the simple procedure of the apostles in thus forming the church. The church is now functioning under the direction of the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit. We see how people become Christians and we see them living the Christian life. Luke, the historian, is ready now to proceed further with the expansion of the church. J.W. Commentary On Acts 2Act 2:1. Thus far our author has been engaged in preliminary statements, which were necessary to the proper introduction of his main theme. He has furnished us a list of the eleven apostles, and the appointment of the twelfth; rehearsed briefly their qualifications as witnesses of the resurrection; informed us that they were in Jerusalem, dwelling in an upper room, but spending the most of their time in the temple, and waiting for the promised power to inaugurate on earth the kingdom of Christ. He now proceeds to give an account of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and enters upon the main theme of the narrative, (1) “When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” The day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the Passover. It was celebrated, according to the law of Moses, by offering the first fruits of the wheat harvest, in the form of two loaves made of fine flour. On account of the seven weeks intervening between it and the Passover, it is styled, in the Old Testament, “ the feast of weeks.” But the fact that it occurred on the fiftieth day, gave it, in later ages, under the prevalence of the Greek language, the name of Pentecost, which is a Greek adjective meaning fiftieth.This is one of the three annual festivals at which the law required every male Jew of the whole nation to be present. The condemnation and death of Jesus had occurred during one of these feasts, and now, the next universal gathering of the devout Jews is most wisely chosen as the occasion for the vindication of his character and the beginning of his kingdom. It is the day on which the law was given on Mount Sinai, and henceforth it is to commemorate the giving of a better law, founded on better promises. It is remarkable that the day of giving the law was celebrated throughout the Jewish ages, without one word in the Old Testament to indicate that it was designed to commemorate that event. In like manner, the day of the week on which the Holy Spirit descended has been celebrated from that time till this, though no formal reason is given in the New Testament for its observance. The absence of inspired explanations, however, has not left the world in doubt upon the latter subject; for the two grand events which occurred on that day— the resurrection of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are of such transcendent importance, that all minds at once agree in attributing to them, and especially to the former, the celebration of the day. That we are right in assuming that this Pentecost occurred on the first day of the week, there is no room for doubt, though Dr. Hackett advocates a different hypothesis. After stating that the Lord was crucified on Friday, he says, “ The fiftieth day, or Pentecost (beginning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of the Passover) would occur on the Jewish Sabbath.” He seems to have forgotten, for the moment, that Friday was “ preparation day,” and that Saturday was, therefore, the first day of unleavened bread. According to the law, the count began on “ the morrow after” this day, which was Sunday. Counting seven full weeks and one day from that time, would throw the fiftieth day, or Pentecost on Sunday, beginning at six o'clock Saturday evening, and closing at the same hour Sunday evening. As certainly as Jesus arose on Sunday, he died on Friday; and as certainly as this Friday was the preparation day of the Passover, so certainly did the Pentecost occur on Sunday. Why Luke uses the expression, “ When the day of Pentecost was fully come,” is best explained in this way. The day began with sunset, and the first part of it was night, which was unsuited for the purpose of these events. The day was not fully come until daylight.It is important to determine who are the parties declared by Luke to be “ all with one accord in one place;” for upon this depends the question whether the whole hundred and twenty disciples, or only the twelve apostles, were filled with the Holy Spirit. The words are almost uniformly referred, by commentators, to the hundred and twenty. Any who will read the first four verses of this chapter, noticing the connection of the pronoun “ they,” which occurs in each of them, will see, at a glance, that it has, throughout, the same antecedent, and, therefore, all the parties said in the first verse to be together in one place, are said in the fourth to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and to speak in other tongues. The question, then, Who were filled with the Holy Spirit? depends upon the reference of the pronoun in the statement, “They were all together in one place.” Those who suppose that the whole hundred and twenty are referred to, have to go back to the fifteenth verse of the preceding chapter to find the antecedent. But, if we obliterate the unfortunate separation between the first and second chapters, and take the last verse of the former into its connection with the latter, we will find the true and obvious antecedent much nearer at hand. It would read thus: “ The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” It is indisputable that the antecedent to they is the term apostles; and it is merely the division of the text into chapters, severing the close grammatical connection of the words, which has hid this most obvious fact from commentators and readers. The apostles alone, therefore, are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. This conclusion is not only evident from the context, but it is required by the very terms of the promise concerning the Holy Spirit. It was to the apostles alone, on the night of the betrayal, that Jesus had promised the miraculous aid of the Spirit, and to them alone he had said, on the day of ascension, “ You shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit.” It involves both a perversion of the text, and a misconception of the design of the event, to suppose that the immersion in the Holy Spirit was shared by the whole hundred and twenty. Acts 2:2. It was the apostles, then, and they alone, who were assembled together: (2) “And suddenly there came a sound out of heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” What house this was has been variously conjectured; but the supposition of Olshausen, that it was one of the thirty spacious rooms around the temple court, described by Josephus and called oikoi, houses, is most agreeable to all the facts. Wherever it was, the crowd described below gathered about them, and this required more space than any private house would afford, especially the upper room where the apostles had been lodging. Acts 2:3-4. Simultaneous with the sound, (3) “There appeared to them tongues, distributed, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. (4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” This is the immersion in the Holy Spirit which had been promised by Jesus, and for which the apostles had been waiting since his ascension. It is highly important that we should understand in which it consisted, and the necessity for its occurrence. There is not, in the New Testament, a definition of the immersion in the Holy Spirit, but we have here what is possibly better, a living instance of its occurrence. The historian gives us a distinct view of men in the act of being immersed in the Spirit, so that, in order to understand it, we have to look on, and tell what we see and hear. We see, then, flaming tongues, like flames of fire, distributed so that one rests upon each of the twelve apostles. In the clause, “ it sat upon each of them,” the singular pronoun it is used after the plural tongues, to indicate that not all, but only one of the tongues sat upon each apostle, the term distributed having already suggested the contemplation of them singly. We see this, and we hear all twelve at once speaking in languages to them unknown. We see a divine power present with these men, for to no other power can we attribute these tongues. We hear the unmistakable effects of a divine power acting upon their minds; for no other power could give them an instantaneous knowledge of language which they had never studied. The immersion, therefore, consists in their being so filled with the Holy Spirit as to be attended by a miraculous physical power, and to exercise a miraculous intellectual power. If there is any other endowment conferred upon them, the historian is silent in reference to it, and we have no right to assume it. Their ability to speak in other languages is not an effect upon their tongues directly, but merely a result of the knowledge imparted to them. Neither are we to regard the nature of the sentiments uttered by them as proof of any miraculous moral endowment; for pious sentiments are the only kind which the Spirit of God would dictate, and they are such as these men, who had been for some time “ continually in the temple, praising and blessing God,” and “ continuing with one consent in prayer and supplication,” would be expected to utter, if they spoke in public at all. We have already said something of the necessity of this event; but, at the risk of some repetition, we must here advert to the subject again. What the apostles needed, at this point in their history, was not moral courage, or devoutness of spirit; for they had already recovered from the alarm produced by the crucifixion, and were now boldly entering the temple together every day, and spending their whole time in devout worship. Their defects were such as no degree of courage or of piety could supply. It was power that they wanted— power to remember all that Jesus had taught them; to understand the full meaning of all his words; of his death; of his resurrection; to pierce the heavens, and declare with certainty things which had transpired there; and to know the whole truth concerning the will of God and the duty of men. There is only one source from which this power could be derived, and this the Savior had promised them, when he said, “ You shall receive power (dunamin,) when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” This power they now received, and upon the exercise of it depends the entire authority of apostolic teaching. But power to establish the kingdom and to proselyte the world involved not merely the possession of the miraculous mental power above named, but the ability to prove that they did not possess it. This could best be done by an indisputable exercise of it. To exercise it, however, by merely beginning to speak the truth infallibly, would not answer the purpose, for men would inquire, How can you assure us that this which you speak is the truth? To answer this question satisfactorily, they gave such an exhibition of the superhuman knowledge which they possessed as could be tested by their hearers. They might have done this by penetrating the minds of the auditors, and declaring to them their secret thoughts or past history; but this would have addressed itself to only one individual at a time. Or they might, like the prophets of old, have foretold some future event, the occurrence of which would prove their inspiration; but this would have required some considerable lapse of time, and would not, therefore, have answered the purpose of immediate conviction. There is, indeed, but one method conceivable, by which they could exhibit this power to the immediate conviction of a multitude, and that is the method adopted on this occasion, speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. If any man doubts this, let him imagine and state, if he can, some other method. True, they might have wrought miracles of healing, but this would have been no exhibition of miraculous mental endowments. If wrought in confirmation of the claim that they were inspired, it would have proved it; still, the proof would have been indirect, requiring the minds of the audience to pass through a course of reasoning before reaching the conclusion. The proof, in this case, is direct, being an exhibition of the power which they claimed. By the only method, then, of which we can conceive, the apostles, as soon as they became possessed of the promised power, exhibited to the multitude an indisputable exercise of it. It should be observed, that this exhibition could be available to its purpose only when individuals were present who understood the languages spoken. Otherwise, they would have no means of testing the reality of the miracle. Hence, to serve the purpose of proof where this circumstance did not exist, the apostles were supplied with the power of working physical miracles; and inasmuch as this circumstance did not often exist in the course of their ministry, they had resort almost uniformly to the indirect method of proof by a display of miraculous physical power. Acts 2:5. The circumstances of the present occasion were happily suited to this wonderful display of divine power, the like of which had never been witnessed, even in the astonishing miracles of Moses and of Jesus. (5) “Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.” The native tongues of these Jews were those of the nations in which they were born, but they had also been instructed by their parents in the dialect of Judea. This enabled them to understand the tongues which were spoken by the apostles, and to test the reality of the miracle. Acts 2:6-12. “And when this sword occurred, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect.” The historian here seems to exhaust his vocabulary of terms to express the confusion of the multitude upon witnessing the scene. Not content with saying they were confounded, he adds, (7) “And all were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all these are speaking Galileans? (8) And how do we hear, each one in our own dialect in which we were born? (9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites; and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, (10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene; and Roman strangers, both Jews and proselytes, (11) Cretes and Arabians; we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.“ Not yet satisfied with his attempts to express their feelings, Luke adds, (12) “And they were all amazed, and perplexed, saying one to another, What does this mean?“ Acts 2:13. We have in this last sentence an instance of the peculiar use of the term all in the New Testament, to signify a great mass; for after saying that “all were amazed,” etc. Luke immediately adds, (13) “But others, mocking, said, These men are full of sweet wine.” The wine was not new, as rendered in the common version; for new wine was not intoxicating; but it was old, and very intoxicating, though by a peculiar process it had been kept sweet. In order that we may discriminate accurately concerning the effects of this phenomenon, we must observe that the only effects thus far produced upon the multitude, are perplexity and amazement among the greater part, and merriment among the few. It was impossible that any of them, without an explanation, could understand the phenomenon; and without being understood, it could have no moral or religious effect upon them. It was, indeed, quite natural, that some of the audience, to whom most of the languages spoken at first sounded like mere gibberish, and who were of too trivial a disposition to inquire further into the matter, should exclaim that the apostles were drunk. This being true of the phenomenon while unexplained, it is evident that all the moral power which it is to exert upon the multitude must reach their minds and hearts through the words in which the explanation is given. To this explanation our attention is now directed. Acts 2:14-15. “Then Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said to them, Men of Judea, and all you who dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and hearken to my words: (15) for these men are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” After all that has been said of this defense against the charge of drunkenness, it must be admitted that it is not conclusive; for men might be drunk, as they often were and are, at any hour of either day or night. Still, the fact that men are not often found drunk so early in the day, rendered the defense sufficiently plausible to ward off the present effect of a charge which had been preferred in mere levity, while Peter relies upon the speech he is about to make for a perfect refutation of the charge, and for an impression upon the multitude, of which they little dreamed. He proceeds to speak in such a way as only a sober man could speak, and this is the best way to refute a charge of drunkenness. Acts 2:16-18. Peter continues: (16) “But this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel; (17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (18) And on my men-servants and on my maid-servants, in those days, I will pour out from my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” From this passage it is evident that the immediate effects of the outpouring of the Spirit, so far as the recipients are concerning, are mental, and not moral effects. The prophesy contemplates, not a miraculous elevation of the moral nature, but an inspiration of the mind, by which prophesy, and prophetic dreams and visions would be experienced. If the entrance of the Holy Spirit into men, to operate by an abstract exertion of divine power, which is certainly the nature of the operation here contemplated, was designed to take effect immediately upon the heart, it is certainly most unaccountable, that neither by the prophet foretelling the event, not by Luke describing it, is one word said in reference to such an effect. On the contrary, the only effects foretold by the prophet are dreams, visions, and prophesy, and the only one described by the historian is that species of prophesy which consists in speaking in unknown tongues. We desire to note such observations as this, wherever the text suggests them, in order to correct prevailing errors upon this subject. It will be found the uniform testimony of recorded facts, that the power of the Holy Spirit took immediate effect upon the intellectual faculties, leaving the moral nature of inspired men to the effect of the ideas revealed, in precisely the same manner that the hearts of their hearers were affected by the same ideas when uttered by inspired lips. It is quite common with pedobaptist writers and speakers to make use of the expression, “ I will pour out my Spirit,” to prove that pouring may be the action of baptism. The substance of the argument, as stated by Dr. Alexander, as follows: “ The extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit are repeatedly described, both in the language and the types of the Old Testament, as poured on the recipient. . . . This effusion is the very thing for which they (the apostles) are here told to wait; and therefore, when they heard it called a baptism, whatever may have been the primary usage of the word, they must have seen its Christian sense to be compatible with such an application.” That the apostles must have expected something to occur, in their reception of the Holy Spirit, to which the term baptism would properly apply, is undoubtedly true, for Jesus had promised that they should be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But, in the event itself, there are two facts clearly distinguishable, and capable of separate consideration: 1st. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon them, called an outpouring. 2d. The effect which followed this coming. It is important to inquire to which of these the term baptism is applied. Dr. Alexander, and those who argue with him, assume that it is applied to the former. He says, “ This effusion is the very thing,” which they had “ heard called a baptism.” If this assumption is true, then the conclusion follows, that baptism consisted in that movement of the Spirit expressed by the word pour: otherwise there would be no ground for the assumption that the word pour is used as an equivalent for the word baptize. If the act of pouring, then, was the baptism, most undoubtedly the thing poured, was the thing baptized; but it was the Holy Spirit that was poured, and not the apostles; hence, the Holy Spirit, and not the apostles, was baptized. The absurdity of this conclusion drives us back to search for the baptism in the effect of the outpouring, rather than in the outpouring itself. This, indeed, the language of the Savior unquestionably requires; for he says, “ You shall be baptized.” These words express an effect of which they were to be the subjects. This effect can not be expressed by the term pour, for the apostles were not and could not be poured. The effect was to depend upon the coming or pouring; for Jesus explains the promise, “ You shall be baptized in the Spirit,” by saying, “ You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” This is still further proof that it is an effect which the outpouring of the Spirit produced, that is called a baptism. But if it be said, that, at any rate, we have here a baptism effected by pouring, we reply that this very fact proves the baptism and the pouring to be two different things; and that an immersion may be effected by pouring.We further remark, that there was no literal pouring in the case; for the Holy Spirit is not a liquid, that it might be literally poured. The term pour, here, is used metaphorically. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The sound was what filled all the house; not the wind nor the Spirit. The sound came from heaven or the region of the atmosphere, since that is the place where winds originate, being the movements of the air. 3 There appeared unto them, the apostles, these tongues, for none but they had been promised the "power from on high" on this occasion. Cloven is from a Greek word that has been translated by such terms as "parted, disparted, distributed, separated," etc. The significance was that the apostles were to speak in various tongues or languages. That was not only for use on this occasion, but they were expected to "go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature," and to do that it would be necessary for them to be able to speak several hundred languages. These cloven tongues were like fire, but it does not say they were fire. They sat upon each of the apostles, indicating that each apostle would be able to speak in as many kinds of tongues as occasion required when he got out into the world. 4 It was the house that was filled with the sound, but it was they, the apostles, who were filled with the Holy Ghost. This enabled them, each of them, to speak with other tongues. This refutes the theory that the Lord assigned to each apostle the ability to speak with some specific foreign tongue, giving him the task of speaking to some of the foreigners present. That will not do anyway, for there were fifteen or more tongues represented at Jerusalem, but there were only twelve apostles, and hence there would not have been enough speakers to go round on that plan. 5 These Jews were dwelling at Jerusalem temporarily only. They had come there to attend the feast of Pentecost as required by the law of Moses. 6 When this was noised abroad. I believe the pronoun "this" refers to the circumstance as a whole, not merely to the "sound," for the text states only that it "filled the house," not the whole vicinity. But such a performance as happened on that occasion could not but be reported by those nearest the scene, and that would bring the multitude to the place to see "what it was all about" When they got to the place they were con founded, which means they were confused or amazed, to discover that these men could all so speak that each of them in the multitude could understand the speakers, although no two of them spoke the same tongue, whenever they used that of the country where they were born. 7 Are not all these which speak Galileans? It is true that Galilee and its people did not have a very exalted place in the estimation of many in the time of Christ and the apostles. However, that was not the reason the multitude made the remark here. It was in reference to the fact that all of these spokesmen were of that group and generally spoke in a tongue peculiar to themselves. (See Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59.) But here they were departing from their own native speech, and using those of the Jews from other, countries all over the world "under heaven." 8 Wherein we were born denotes the language peculiar to the country where they were born and where they had acquired the individual speech. 0 This paragraph with a part of the next, names the various countries from where these Jews had come to be present at the feast of Pentecost. The number of the different places has been given a variety of counts, ranging from 15 to 17, depending on how technically the distinctions are made. The information as to their location is a matter of simple history or geography, and I do not think that space needs to be used here for that purpose. 1 The pronouns we and our refer to the people from the several countries named; them means the apostles. Tongues being plural is significant, and denotes that the apostles were speaking in more than one tongue. All of this was done for the purpose of demonstrating the miraculous power and divine authority being vested in the apostles, and not with the intention of imparting any doctrinal information to the multitude. That was to come later, after the attention or interest had been sufficiently fixed for them to listen thoughtfully. Wonderful works as a phrase comes from the Greek word , and Thayer's definition is, "magnificent, excellent, splendid, wonderful." It does not mean "works" as some physical or material deeds, but that God's ability to enable these apostles to speak in this extraordinary manner was wonderful. 2 Doubt is from which Thayer defines, "To be entirely at a loss, to be in perplexity." Some of the multitude had a respectful attitude toward the situation, but were perplexed over it and honestly wondered what it all meant. 3 Mocking means to sneer or make fun, which was done by a different part of the people than the ones who were honestly and respectfully perplexed. New wine is from the one Greek word GLEUKOS, and Thayer defines it, "sweet wine," and he explains the definition to mean, "The sweet juice pressed from the grape." I have consulted seven other lexicons, and they all agree with Thayer on the meaning of the word. If that be true, then the question would arise, how could the apostles be drunk on such an article? They could not, but it was an indirect and cowardly way these scoffers took of accusing the apostles of being drunk. And Peter took it to mean that, for in his reply he did not deny the accusation on the ground that new wine would not make anyone drunk; he knew they were insincere in the foolish charge. 4 Peter, standing up with the eleven. The apostles all stood up as a token that what Peter was about to say would be the word of all the apostles. They did not all speak at this time, for that would have been disorderly. Besides, the miraculous demonstrations had all been done as far as was necessary for the purpose of evidence. There will not be any further miracle performed except that of inspiration, to enable Peter to preach the Gospel with unerring accuracy and authority. We are not told Just what language he used, but we know it was one that the entire multitude could understand. Verse 7 tells us the multitude (assembled from 15 or 17 countries), said one to another, etc. This shows they knew some kind of tongue that was common to all of them, else they could not have conversed with each other. Whatever that tongue was, it doubtless was the one the apostle used. Having stood up for a more effective way of addressing that vast throng, Peter urged them to give serious attention to his words. 5 These are not drunken. The unkind critics had only accused the apostles of being full of new wine, but Peter knew they were wanting to besmirch them with the charge of drunkenness, and hence he treated their remark from that viewpoint only. The third hour is the same as our 9 A. M. Isaiah 5:11 indicates that it was not the common practice to begin drinking in the early part of the day. Those people who arose early in the morning for that purpose were of a class that the prophet was condemning. Peter meant that it was too early in the day for these apostles to have become drunken, even if they had been using fermented wine, as that is a slow intoxicant anyway. And that would be especially true of these men who had been in the assembled condition all day, due to the sacredness of the occasion. 6 The passage to which Peter refers and quotes is in Joe 2:28-32. The pronoun this refers to the entire line of events that was predicted by the prophet, and that had just started with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. Having made the reference to Joel's prediction, Peter goes ahead and quotes the entire passage, although some of the things will not take place on the day of Pentecost. The things predicted were to begin their fulfillment at that time, and others were to come at the proper time later, which will be explained as the commenting on the verses proceeds. 8 Last days means the closing days of the Jewish Dispensation. That era was still in force until the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, and Peter then introduced the Gospel of Christ and the church was set up. Upon all flesh indicated that the Gospel was to be given to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. That was one of the things that Joel saw in the over-all vision that was to start on this day of Pentecost. But that item did not come until the conversion of Cornelius in chapter 10. Sons and daugh- ters shall prophesy was another item that came later, but it was actually fulfilled according to chapter 21:9. 0 This paragraph refers to the events recorded in Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44-45. Of course no literal changing into blood and smoke took place, but the conditions were such that the terms were a fitting illustration. Before is used as if it said, "just before," or "only a short while before." The darkness that came as Jesus was on the cross came only 50 days before the day of Pentecost. In a period of time spread out over as large a scale as several centuries, a space of 60 days would be virtually the same date for each of the events predicted. The circumstance is mentioned by way of identifying the noted prediction. Such an event as the failing of sunshine in the middle of a day, that happened as Jesus was on the cross, had never occurred before. And when it did come so short a time before the day on which the Holy Spirit came down, the people would easily associate the two events as parts of the same prediction. Another thing to consider, the time of the Passover (which was also that of the crucifixion) was so near the feast of Pentecost that many pious Jews just "remained over," hence among those on this great day now at hand, were many who had personally seen that darkening of the sun, which would help to verify the prediction. 1 Call is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, "To call upon (on one's behalf) the name of the Lord, i. e., to invoke, adore, worship, the Lord, i, e., Christ." It is the same Greek word for "calling" in chapter 22:16, where the context shows that calling on the name of the Lord for salvation means to obey His commands. 2 Having quoted in full the prophecy of Joel, Peter proceeded to recite the story of Jesus, describing briefly the outstanding deeds of his life, which he will do through several verses, bringing the narrative down to His death and resurrection, and even to the very hour then at hand. He asserted that men were not asked to receive Christ merely on the claims of God, but that He had testified to his Son's divinity by enabling him to perform wonders and signs. The apostle further reminded them that they knew about these things, and they never disputed it as we shall find. And the fact that Peter accused this very crowd of guilt in the crucifying of Jesus, verifies my remarks on verses 19, 20. that many of these people had been in Jerusalem at the time when Jesus was on the cross and the sun was darkened for three hours. 3 Determinate counsel. It was determined by the Lord God that his Son should die by violence, and it was also foretold through the foreknowledge of God. (See Luke 22:22; Revelation 13:8.) Had it not been the will of God that Jesus should be delivered into the hands of wicked men, they never could have taken and killed him. (See Matthew 26:53-54.) But this determination of God did not excuse the wicked Jews, for their motive was an unrighteous one. Ye have taken was what the Jews did by their perverted Sanhedrin, and by wicked hands means those of the Roman soldiers, because the Jews could not legally put a man to death. 4 Loosed the pains of death. Death does not bring any pain afterward to a righteous man. The statement means that God released his Son who had been bound in a death that had been accompanied by pain. Not possible. The impossibility was on the part of the bondage of death, not God, for he determined his Son should rise again. 5 David speaketh concern, ing him means that David made a prophecy concerning Christ. (See Psalms 16:8-11.) In this passage David represents Christ as saying the things that are set down in this verse through 28. In these verses all of the pronouns of the first person refer to Christ, while the second and third person pronouns mean God. The present verse expresses the confidence of Christ that God would always be at hand to support and comfort him. 6 Christ rejoiced because of a hope he had concerning his fleshly body. He knew that he must die, and that his fleshly body would be without its soul for a time. The usual result of such a separation of soul and body is for the latter to decay. Jesus not only had hope that involved his soul (inner .man), but also one that was favorable for his fleshly body. That twofold hope will be revealed in the next verse. 7 When a man dies, his soul (inner man) goes to the unseen or intermediate realm, called Hades in the Greek New Testament, which is rendered "hell" by the King James translators. His body remains on the earth, and after three days it will begin to decompose or see corruption. This fact explains the words of Martha in John 11:39. But this noted passage means that the soul of Jesus was not to remain in hell (Hades) long enough for his body that had been placed in the tomb of Joseph to start decaying. That was why it was neces sary for Jesus to be raised from the dead after three days. 8 Hast made known is past tense as to grammatical form, but it is a prediction that God would fully reveal to his Son the ways of life, or plan of salvation through his own blood. This assurance filled Jesus with joy because of the agreeable countenance or face of his Father. 9 The listeners might not understand the form of language where one writer would speak as it meaning himself, but was really talking for another. To show them that David was not writing about himself personally, Peter reminded them that he had been dead all these years, because his tomb (still occupied) was yet with them, whereas his prediction concerned a person who was to leave his grave after three days. 0 Having explained that David was not writing about himself, Peter thought it well to account for his statements. They showed that he was personally interested in Christ because he was to be his (David's) own famous descendant. The most significant item was that this descendant was some day to sit upon the throne (of course in a spiritual sense) left vacant by the change in dispensations. 1 To do as just predicted. it would be necessary for him to come forth from the grave so that he could establish that throne. "Being a prophet," it was possible for David to make the prediction of the resurrection. 2 We means the apostles who had seen Jesus after his resurrection. 3 After all these verses from 16, Peter comes directly again to the purpose of his speech; to explain the meaning of what the multitude had seen and heard. That it was according to a promise that the Holy Ghost was to be shed forth upon the apostles. 5 Coming back to David, Peter reminds them again that the prophet had not ascended to heaven and was therefore not at God's right hand. That would explain that another noted prophecy could not have meant him (David), for it says that the Lord (who was Christ) was to sit on the right hand of God, until he (Christ) had become a universal con-querer. This prediction is in Psalms 110:1. 6 Peter laid the foundation consisting of prophecy and its fulfillment, citing facts that could not be doubted nor disputed. Upon that foundation he declared that Jesus, the very one they had crucified, had been made by the God of Heaven, both Lord and Christ. The first word means a ruler, and the second denotes one who is anointed. The sentence means that God had anointed his Son to be the ruler of His people. 7 Pricked is from KATA-NUSSO which Thayer defines, "To pain the mind sharply, agitate it vehemently." They were pained because they were convinced they had killed the very One whom God ordained to be the Saviour of the world. That fact also meant to them that some great condemnation was in store for them unless something could be done about it. In their grief and feeling of guilt, the only thing they could say was to ask the apostles what they should do. 8 This verse has two distinct parts; command and promise. The command would have to be obeyed at once in order to obtain the desired result, while the promise would be carried out according to the Lord's own plan, to be observed as we consider the conditions connected therewith. Repent means to turn from a sinful course and choose a righteous one. Be baptized means to be buried in water, the details of which will be discussed at Acts 8:38. For is from EIS, which means In order to, or into, the remission of sins. The gift of the Holy Ghost (or Spirit) was the promise, and it meant that the Holy Ghost was to be given, not that it was to give something to anyone, for it is in no place spoken of as a giver. Besides, in Acts 10:44-45, the terms "Holy Ghost" and "the gift of the Holy Ghost" are used in the same sense, proving that the promise that Peter meant in this verse was the Holy Ghost was to be given. The inevitable question that comes up, is what was this gift or when was it to be given? This verse does not answer that question, hence we must look elsewhere for the answer. Acts 19:2 shows that men did not receive this Holy Ghost simultaneously with repentance and baptism, else Paul would not have asked the question he did, for he thought he was talking to people who had been baptized with "Christian baptism." The information we are seeking may be found in Acts 8:14-17. The people of Samaria had been baptized just as Peter commanded, yet they had not received the Holy Ghost until the apostles came and laid hands on them. Hence the conclusion is unavoidable, that when Peter made the promise in Acts 2:38, he meant that if they would repent and be baptized, they would be entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost whenever an apostle laid hands on them. 9 The promise that is meant may be learned from the companion passage in chapter 3:25, where Peter is speaking on the same subject, but where he calls it "the covenant." It was first made to Abraham (Genesis 12:3), and concerned both Jews and Gentiles. That is why our present verse says it is to all that are afar off. That same phrase is used in Ephestans 2:17, where the context plainly indicates that it means the Gentiles. The promise was that both Jew and Gentile were to be offered the blessing of salvation through Christ, who was the promised descendant of Abraham. 0 To exhort means to insist on doing one's known duty. Peter had clearly shown the Jews their duty, then it was fitting that he should exhort them to do it Save yourselves means for them to do their part in their salvation by performing the duty mentioned in verse 38. Untoward is from SKOLIOS which is defined, "perverse, wicked." To save themselves from that wicked generation, means to escape the fate awaiting it, by obeying the commands the apostle had just given. 1They that gladly received his word were baptized. This is a very significant statement. Baptism, like all other commandments from the Lord, must be acts of faith in order to benefit one. And when a man has been convinced of the truth, and has been shown his duty as set forth in that truth, he will obey it without hesitation or question. As we proceed in the study of this book, it will frequently be observed that the act of baptism followed the belief of a sinner, and it will be stated in a manner that implies it to be a matter-of-course that if he believes the word he will obey. Unto them is not in the original but is supplied by the translators. However, the last verse of the chapter furnishes information that people who were saved (by obedience to the Gospel) were added to the church. We do not know how many of the three thousand were baptized on that day, since the text does not deal with that question. But we may properly conclude that ere the day was gone, the "membership" of the newly-founded church had come to be that numerous. And then, as the days passed by, whenever a person obeyed the Gospel, the Lord added him to the church. 2 They means the three thousand (and all others daily being saved). Continued steadfastly. Both words come from the Greek word PROS-, which Thayer defines, "to give constant attention to a thing." That explains how some of the items of the verse could be observed as the Lord expected, even though the nature of them required only that they be done periodically. One such item is the breaking of bread, which we know was to be done only on the first day of the week (chapter 20:7). This verse is a historical statement of the general practice of the early disciples, and not a set form or order of worship for the public assembly. Besides, some of the items are too individual in their character to be restricted to the public assembly. Apostles' doctrine means the teaching of the apostles. In all of their religious activities, whether private or public, they were guided by the teaching that the inspired apostles had given and were giving them. Fellowship is from , which is defined in Thayer's lexicon, "The share which one has in anything, participation." That would include financial contribution, but does not apply to that item exclusively. And of course all true disciples would make their entire life a matter of prayer, in recognition of the need for divine guidance, and as expressions of their love for and devotion to the Lord. 3 This fear was not one of terror, but rather a feeling of profound awe settled upon the vast throng who had seen and heard such great things. They had witnessed the demonstrations that followed the descent of the Holy Spirit. They had also been brought to see the light of divine truth, and made to rejoice in the pardon of their sins. The wonders and signs were done by the apostles, not by the ones who had been baptized that day. This is another proof that they did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost at the time of their bap tism, for if they had they would have been able to perform signs and wonders (chapter 10:45, 46; 19:6). 4 Common is from KOINOS, and Thayer defines it at this place with the one word that is used in the text. He then explains it, to mean, "belonging to several." Robinson defines it, "common, shared alike by all." This will be more specifically brought out in the next verse. 5 Possessions is from KTEMA, and Robinson defines it, "a possession, property, estate," which agrees with the definition of Thayer. Goods is from a Greek word that has a more general meaning. But since the first word in the passage is shown to apply specifically to real estate, we know the second refers to their personal belongings. Many of these disciples had come from far countries to attend the feast of Pentecost. They had not intended remaining at Jerusalem so long, consequently had not made preparation for such a prolonged stay. In their newfound joy they were loath to leave the community. This induced the resident disciples to create this common fund by turning all their property into money and placing it in one pool, to be drawn from according to the needs of the various members. It should be remembered that no apostle instructed the disciples to start this movement, but it was purely a voluntary action upon the part of the disciples. The Bible in no place teaches or encourages the practice of communism or socialism. On the contrary, it teaches the principle of individual holding of property, granted and guaranteed by the law of the land, with the result that as long as the world stands there will be men who have titles to property, and those who have not; there will be rich and will also be poor people. (See Genesis 23:17-20; Matthew 26:11; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Galations 2:10; James 2:1-5; James 4:13-14.) This arrangement of the community of goods was not instituted in any city outside of Jerusalem that we know of. It was not a divine system, and finally got some people into serious trouble as we shall see in a later chapter. 6 Continuing is from the same word as continued steadfastly in verse 42, and has the same definition in each passage. The continuing was done daily, hence we know the breaking bread was not the Lord's Supper, for that was done only on the first day of the week (chapter 20:7); it referred to partaking of food for material purposes in this passage. It was a season of general visiting and social happy times together as brothers and sisters in Christ. Did eat their meat means they partook of their food. Singleness of heart means with humbleness and sincerity. Like figure. The only comparison the apostle makes is between the water of the flood and that of baptism. No writer in the New Testament ever refers to the ark as a type of the church. The fact that Peter does specify the one item and call it a figure, but makes no mention of any other comparison shows it was not because he was so far away from the subject. There are too many items that are against the theory. The people are said to have been saved by water, yet that element came after the people entered the ark, while baptism is necessary before people can enter the church. Again, there were unclean beasts taken into the ark, while only those who are saved or clean are added to the church (Acts 2:47). Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. This statement indicates that baptism is a washing of the whole body. No one would have formed the erroneous idea that baptism was intended as a cleaning bath for the body had the rite been performed by sprinkling, for all would know that such an act would not cleanse anything. The explanation is suggested by the practice in Old Testament times of washing the bodies of animal sacrifices in water. Answer is from and Thayer defines it at this place as folio s: "A demand; earnest seeking, i.e. a craving, an intense desire, to long for something." That which is desired is a good conscience toward God. When a sinner is taught that he must be baptized for the remission of sin, and he has the desire to do right, he will not have a good conscience until he obeys this command. The above explanation is inserted to avoid an erroneous idea about baptism, after which the writer resumes the subject of salvation by baptism. The information is added that the salvation is accomplished by the resurrestion of Jesus Christ. Had He not come from the dead it would not have availed anything for a man to be baptized. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 3 THE LAME MAN HEALED Acts 3:1-10 1 Now Peter and John were going up into the temple—This miracle is selected from among the many miracles that the apostles wrought because it brought the apostles into conflict with the au¬thorities ; opposition and persecution started at this time; this mir¬acle led to the arrest of the apostles, which was the beginning of a religious persecution as relentless, bloody, and violent as any that is known in the history of the church. “ Peter and John” are now associated, and went up “ into the temple at the hour of prayer.” Peter and John were sent together to prepare the Passover meal (Luke 22:8); they were together at the sepulcher (John 20:3); they were together fishing after the crucifixion (John 21:7); and John helped Peter to get into the palace of the high priest (John 18:16). Again they were together now going into the temple at the ninth hour, “ the hour of prayer.” “ The ninth hour” was about three o’ clock, according to our count, in the afternoon. These apostles continued to observe the hour of prayer according to the law of Jewish worship; it also furnished them the occasion to preach to the people who came to worship at that hour. 2-3 And a certain man that was lame—It was customary for the afflicted and maimed to be placed near the place of worship; this was especially true when they depended upon public charity for their living. People were more liberal when going to worship or at worship, and these unfortunates, with their friends, took ad¬vantage of the situation. This lame man was born with some mal¬formation of his ankles or feet; he was unable to walk and his friends carried him and placed him “ daily at the door of the tem¬ple” ; hence, he was a well-known and familiar character. He was placed at the “ gate” or “ door” that “ is called Beautiful.” There were nine gates used as entrance into the court, four, respectively, on the north and the south, and one on the east side; the west side had no gate. A part of the court was called the “ court of women” to distinguish it from “ the court of men.” It is thought that this gate “ called Beautiful” was an entrance which led from the “ court of the Gentiles” to the “ court of the women.” This is the only mention in the Bible of. the door which is “ called Beautiful.” When the lame man saw “ Peter and John” as they were about to enter the temple, he “ asked to receive an alms.” “ Alms” is singu¬lar number, and was in early times spelled “ almesse” ; the beggar simply asked for “ a gift” or “ gifts.” At this time he knew nothing of Peter and John except that they were Jews and had come to the temple to worship. 4-5, And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him,—Peter and John looked at the lame beggar; they looked with such a gaze that it would attract attention; then Peter said to him: “ Look on us.” This emphasized his attention on the apostles. He expected “ to receive something from them.” The expectation had been aroused by their gazing upon him and the command for him to look upon them; he naturally expected to receive some gift. He desired to receive something and this desire helped to heighten his expectation. The serious and earnest manner of the apostles confirmed his expectation. 6 But Peter said, Silver and gold have I none;—The apostles had no worldly wealth; they were endued with power to per¬form miraculous cures. They could use this power “ in the name of Jesus Christ” ; hence, they commanded him to “ walk.” Peter and John had no money; the possessions which had been sold did not belong to the apostles; such things were used for the common welfare and not for the personal use of the apostles. “ Walk” is from the original “ peripapei,” and has the idea of to begin to walk and then go on walking; the beggar is thus commanded to do that which he had never done in his life. Peter was willing and anx¬ious to give him what he could. We do not know how much time had passed since the day of Pentecost, and it is probable that this was not the first miracle that Peter had wrought. (Acts 2:43.) Peter speaks as one who has had experience; his language is firm and carries assurance. “ In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” is a common phrase and connects the Christ with the Jesus of Nazareth. According to John’ s account, the name “ Nazareth” was included in the title of the superscription on the cross (John 19:19); we know that the place was of no repute in the eyes of the Jews (John 1:46). The obscure origin as well as the shameful death of Jesus was a stumbling block to the Jew. There were other people named “ Jesus” ; there was but one “ Jesus of Nazareth.” 7 And he took him by the right hand,—He was encouraged by the extension of Peter’ s hand, and as it was grasped by the right hand of the lame man, Peter raised him to his feet. It seems that Peter had to pull him up on his feet before he would attempt to walk. Luke was a physician; and he uses words that a physician would use; he knows how a physician would deal with his patient and he gives one of those minute coincidences which go to prove that Luke the physician was the author of the Acts. The lame man “ immediately” began to walk as “ his feet and his ankle-bones received strength.” Here again we see the physician’ s description of the incident. Some think that it should be “ the soles of his feet” received strength. 8 And leaping up, he stood, and began to walk;—Again Luke gives a detailed description of the exercises that he took; he leaped up; then he stood for a moment and gained his equilibrium, then he began to walk. The progressive steps show the progress that he made. As he was assured that he could walk he went into the temple. The man had been lame from birth and did not know how to walk; it seems that he began by a jump, then a walk and went into the temple repeating the new exercises, and praised God. He was so joyful over the fact that he could walk that he “ walking, and leaping,” went to the place to praise God. He did not go into the holy place of the temple, as only priests had access to it. He was thankful for the blessing and was now ready to worship God. 9-10 And all the people saw him walking—This was the hour of prayer in the afternoon; many people had assembled or were coming to the temple for worship; they observed the man and knew that it was the one that they had seen begging at the gate. This miracle showed that the apostles had the power to heal; the man who had been healed did not praise the apostles, but God; he gave God the praise for his being able to walk. There was abun¬dance of witnesses to testify that he had been healed; they saw and could not deny that which they saw had been done. This would beget respect and confidence in the apostles as the witnesses for Christ. Everyone believed that this man who was now walking and leaping about the temple courts was the same person as the cripple; there was no charge of pretense or deception about the healing; there were too many witnesses, too many knew the facts about the deformed man for anyone to question the fact of the wonderful cure. This filled the people with wonder and amazement. It was a sign from heaven as the Jewish rulers on a former occa¬sion had demanded of Jesus. (John 6:30.) The conduct of the man clearly showed that he was now perfectly healed. PETER’ S ADDRESS TO THE Act_3:11-26 11 And as he held Peter and John, all the people ran—In his gratitude he held to Peter and John; he would not let them go. These apostles had been the agents through whom he had received the blessing; he wished all to know to whom he was indebted for his great blessing. While he kept near Peter and John, and as the people looked upon the man that had been healed, they must also behold Peter and John. This would draw attention to Peter and John. In the amazement of the occasion the people gathered or literally “ ran together,” and assembled “ in the porch that is called Solomon’ s.” Solomon’ s porch was on the east side of the temple; it was a covered colonnade and was named for Solomon; it over-looked the Kedron valley. Some think that it was built by Solo¬mon, hence its name. The people assembled here to see what would further occur, and see the men who had wrought such a miracle. 12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people,—When the people assembled, this gave Peter an audience, and he began at once to preach to them. He had the attention of the peo¬ple, because the man who had been held was before them. He made three chief points: (1) the miracle was the work of God to glorify Jesus; (2) the Jews denied Jesus from ignorance, but he fulfilled the prophecy; (3) therefore they should repent and be saved by the gospel. He addressed them as “ men of Israel” ; this was a respectful address. He then interrogated them as to the cause of their astonishment. He claimed no credit for what had been done, and did not want them to think that they had healed the man by their own power and godliness. It is noticed that Peter includes John in his speech. This denial that Peter makes clears the way to ascribe unto God all honor and glory. 13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob,—God had revealed himself to Moses as “ the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.” (Exodus 3:6.) Peter by mentioning these pa¬triarchs stirred reverence in their hearts; this was a good way to begin his sermon. It was the very God of the patriarchs who had sent Jesus of Nazareth, and the same God who had glorified him. Jesus is mentioned here as “ his Servant Jesus.” This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 52:13 about the Messiah except the name “ Jesus,” which Peter adds; many think that this should be translated “ child.” Perhaps there were some in the audience who had cried out against Jesus: “ Crucify, crucify him.” Hence, the charge that they had “ delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate.” We learn here that Pilate “ had determined to release him.” It is clear from Luke 23:16-20 that Pilate had determined to release Jesus, but the multitude was persuaded by the rulers to ask Pilate to re¬lease Barabbas and crucify Jesus. (Matthew 27:20; Mark 15:11¬14.) Hence, the charge that Peter brought against them. 14-15 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One,—These Jews understood that this had reference to the Messiah. (Psalms 16:10.) The demoniacs called him by this title. (Mark 1:24.) In prophecy he is also called “ the Just,” or “ Righteous One.” (Isaiah 45:21; Zechariah 9:9.) A sharp contrast is here drawn between what the Jews did to Jesus and what God did to him; they “ killed the Prince of life,” but “ God raised” him from the dead. Frequently we have this contrast brought out by the apostles; they denied Jesus, but God owned him; they crucified him, but God raised him from the dead. If the resurrection could have been de¬nied, they would have done so. They could not deny the crucifix¬ion of Jesus, neither could they deny the resurrection. The apos¬tles were witnesses to this fact. 16 And by faith in his name—By faith in the name of “ the Prince of life” “ hath his name made this man strong.” The man was not healed by the faith of the apostles, but by the faith of the apostles and the faith of the man. The apostles had faith in Jesus; they had faith in his power, and that he would give them power to heal the man. The man had faith in the apostles and in Jesus, for he praised God for his blessing. “ Name” is equivalent to “ power” ; hence, “ in the name of Jesus” is equivalent to “ by his power.” This crippled man was above forty years old (Acts 4:22), and he must have heard of the miracles that Jesus did and those the apostles were then doing. (Acts 2:43.) Peter here in¬sisted upon three things that proved a divine agency in the mira¬cle: (1) their knowledge of the man’ s previous condition; (2) the completeness of the cure; (3) the public, open manner of the heal¬ing ; it was done “ in the presence of you all.” 17 And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance—Their ignorance is admitted; but their ignorance does not clear them of guilt. The Jews could have known that Jesus was the Messiah; they should have known that he was; but the fact still remains that they were ignorant of his divinity. Jesus while on the cross prayed: “ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34.) Paul persecuted the church in ignorance, and he said: “ I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” (1 Timothy 1:13.) Their ignorance did not justify their crime, nor excuse them; but it was ground for calling on them to repent. 18 But the things which God foreshowed—All the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ; as the types under the law fore¬showed the Christ, so the prophets pointed the people to the Mes¬siah. Even the crucifixion was foretold; Christ frequently told his apostles that he would die for the sins of the world. Their crime, though real, was carrying out God’ s purpose. (John 3:16; Acts 2:23 Acts 17:3 Acts 26:23.) Their crime in crucifying Jesus did not prevent the fulfillment of what God foreknew and foretold; in fact, their crime was foretold. Even in their ignorance and wickedness the Jews were contributing toward the fulfillment of the prophecy. Peter emphasized the fulfillment of the prophecies before this Jewish audience. 19 Repent ye therefore, and turn again,—Peter repeats in substance in this address what he had said in Acts 2: 38. Verse 38 of chapter 2 is a parallel of this verse. There he had given evi¬dence that Christ was the Son of God; they were convinced or be¬lieved his evidence; they asked what to do; Peter told them to re¬pent and be baptized, in the name of or by the authority of Christ, unto the remission of their sins, and then they should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Here he tells them to “ repent” and “ turn again” “ that your sins may be blotted out,” “ so there may come sea¬sons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” In both state¬ments, after they believed, they were commanded to “ repent” ; in the first they were told to “ be baptized,” but in the second they are told to “ turn again” ; in the first they are told that their repentance and baptism were “ unto the remission of your sins,” but here after repentance and turning again they are promised “ that your sins may be blotted out.” Evidently the blotting out of sins is equivalent to the remission of sins, and being baptized is tan¬tamount to turning again. “ Blotted out” literally means “ to wipe out, rub off, erase, smear out.” “ Seasons of refreshing,” lit¬erally from the Greek, “ anapsuxis,” “ to cool again or refresh,” or “ cooling, reviving with fresh air.” The “ seasons of refreshing” depend on their repentance and turning again and having their sins erased or forgiven. 20 and that he may send the Christ—This verse has called forth much controversy. The coming of Christ the second time seems to be the meaning here. What would their repentance and turning again have to do with the coming of Christ ? Evidently the coming again of Christ, like the coming of the times of refreshing, depends upon their repentance and turning again; as people were converted, conditions would be more favorable for the coming again of Christ. Christ came the first time to redeem the world; his second coming will complete that redemption. 21 whom the heaven must receive until the times—This Jesus who is here promised to return must remain in heaven until the “ times of restoration of all things/’ Peter has told them that this Jesus whom they had crucified had ascended back to heaven, and that now the heaven must receive and retain until the time for his return; the Messiah is to reign over God’ s people until he re¬turns. “ Times of restoration” comes from the Greek, “ apokatasta- seos,” and is a double compound word composed of “ apo,” “ kata,” and “ histemi,” and is only used here in the New Testament; it seems to be a technical medical term, and means complete restora¬tion to health. The first coming of Christ marked the beginning of the period of restoration, and the second coming marks the end of that period; all who are converted and live the Christian life repro¬duce the Christ life in his church until all things are ready for the final restoration. The scope or the prophecies included both the first and the second coming of Christ, and therefore included the period known as the “ restoration” of all things. The prophecies were those mentioned by Zacharias in Luke 1:70; the writer there referred to such Messianic predictions as Psalms 111:9; Jeremiah 25:5-6 Jeremiah 30:10; Daniel 9:24-26. 22 Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God—This prophecy may be found in Deuteronomy 18:15-19, and Peter quotes it without many variations from the Septuagint, Greek version of the Old Testament; Moses was a lawgiver, leader, ruler, and deliverer, as well as a prophet; his prophecy had not been fulfilled. The Jews acknowledged that this had reference to the Messiah; they asked John the Baptist: “ Art thou the prophet?” John answered that he was not; and they asked him then: “ Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the proph¬et?” (John 1:21-25.) Here Peter identifies “ the prophet” with the Christ; this is exactly what the Jews had done. The Messiah was to be one from among the Jews; he was to bring blessings to every nation on the earth. They should obey this prophet “ in all things whatsoever” he should command them. Just as the children of Israel were to obey Moses, their deliverer, lawgiver, ruler, their leader, so the people now are to obey Christ as he is their Deliverer from sin, their Lawgiver, their Leader, their King, and Prophet. 23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken—Jesus said that Moses wrote of him. “ For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46.) The Jews could not obey Moses without obeying Christ, since Moses com¬manded them to obey the prophet that God would raise up from among them like unto him. The one who refused to obey this prophet, the Christ, should “ be utterly destroyed from among the people.” This declares that God himself would visit punishment upon those who refused to accept Christ. It was plainly expressed in the law that an apostate Israelite should be cut off from the peo¬ple. (Exodus 12:15 Exodus 12:19 Exodus 22:20; Numbers 19:13.) The New Testament language is that “ shall be cast forth into the outer darkness” (Matthew 8:12); “ shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). This expresses the fearful consequences of rejecting Christ. 24 Yea and all the prophets from Samuel—Samuel was not the first prophet in Israel; Enoch was the first prophet that we read about in the Bible (Jude 1:14-15); Samuel was the founder of the school of the prophets; hence, Peter says that “ all the prophets from Samuel” and those who came after him “ told of these days.” Samuel and every school of the prophets taught of the Messiah, and hence the days of which Peter now spoke. These prophets pre¬dicted the blessings or judgments that were to come, and especially the glories of the Messianic reign, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and “ these days.” They could not reject Peter’ s address without rejecting the Christ, and in rejecting the Christ they would be rejecting all of their prophets. 25 Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant—The Jews were “ the sons of the prophets,” and were members “ of the covenant,” not in the sense of being lineal descendants of the prophets, but in the sense of being heirs to all promises, predic¬tions, and blessings of the covenant. The promise here referred to was first made to Abraham (Genesis 12:3 Genesis 18:18 Genesis 22:18); and later to Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 26:4 Genesis 28:14). The prophet had arisen, of whom Moses had spoken, and all the promises made in the Abrahamic covenant belonged to these hearers whom Peter ad-dressed ; they were the heirs of the temporal blessings of this cove¬nant and had access to the spiritual blessings through faith in Christ. The Abrahamic promise included “ all the families of the earth” ; this would include the Gentiles as well as the Jews, but as Peter’ s hearers were Jews, special application is here made to them. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant,—Some translations have “ his Son” instead of “ his Servant.” The Greek is “ tou paida autou,” as in verse 13, as the Messiah was God’ s servant. This is in harmony with Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18. The con¬clusion of the whole matter is that salvation will come to them through their faith in Jesus and their turning from sin. In this address Peter gave the evidence that the lame man had been healed by the power of Jesus whom they had crucified and whom God had raised from the dead; he has ascended back to the Father and there will remain until the restoration of all things. Peter bore a threefold testimony concerning Christ: (1) he is the power by which all miracles are worked (verses 12-17); (2) the redeemer of all souls (verses 18-21); (3) the fulfillment of all the prophecies (verses 22-26). J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 3Act 3:1-10. Thus far, the labors of the apostles had met with uninterrupted and most astonishing success. Luke is now about to introduce us to a series of conflicts, in which success and temporary defeat alternate in the history of the Jerusalem church. (1) “Now Peter and John were going up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. (2) And a certain man, lame from his birth, was carried thither, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of those entering into the temple: (3) who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked alms. (4) And Peter, earnestly looking on him, with John, said, Look on us. (5) And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive something from them. (6) But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not; but what I have, this I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. (7) And seizing him by the right hand, he lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankles received strength; (8) and leaping forth, he stood and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. (9) And all the people saw him walking and praising God, (10) and recognized him, that it was he who had sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple. And they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.” This is by no means the first miracle which had been wrought by the apostles since the day of Pentecost; for we have seen, in Acts 2:43, that many signs and wonders had been wrought, by which the people were filled with awe. But the circumstances attending this miracle were calculated to awaken, as it did, an unusual excitement. The Beautiful gate of the temple, so called because of its magnificent folding doors, fifty feet high and forty feet wide, covered with gold and Corinthian brass, was the favorite pass-way into the temple. The subject of this cure, being laid every day at this gate to beg, was well known to all who frequented the temple. From the natural curiosity of the benevolent in reference to the afflictions of those to whom they minister, it was probably known to all that he had been a cripple from his birth. Besides this, the time of the cure was when a multitude of pious people were entering the temple for evening prayer; and their attention was unexpectedly arrested by the leaping and shouting of the man who was healed. As they witnessed his ecstasy and saw him clinging to Peter and John, no one asked the meaning of the scene, for all saw at once that the cripple had been healed by the apostles, and they stood gazing in amazement upon Peter and John. Acts 3:11-15. The apostles took a position in one of the open colonnades which faced the inner side of the temple wall, called Solomon's Portico. (11) “And while the lame man who was healed was holding fast Peter and John, all the people ran together to them on the portico called Solomon's, greatly wondering.” The admiration of the multitude was directed toward Peter and John; and was understood by Peter to indicate that they attributed the cure rather to the singular holiness of himself and John, than to the power of their master. He determined to take advantage of the circumstances, by turning their excited thoughts into the proper channel. (12) “Then Peter, seeing this, answered to the people, Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you look earnestly on us, as though by our own power or piety we have caused this man to walk? (13) The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his son Jesus, whom ye delivered up, and rejected in the presence of Pilate, when he had determined to let him go. (14) But you rejected the holy and just, and desired a murderer to be granted to you; (15) and you killed the author of life, whom God has raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.” In this passage the apostle makes the same statement, in substance, with which he introduced the main theme of his former discourse. The antithetical style adopted on this occasion gave to it a force scarcely excelled by his former discourse, while it was even more penetrating to the consciences of his hearers. The fact that the God of their fathers had glorified Jesus, is contrasted with the fact that they had delivered him up to die; their refusal to let him be released, with the cruel Pilate's determination to let him go; their rejection of one holy and just, with their demand that a murder should be released to them; and their murder of him, with his authorship of all life. These four points of antithesis form the four steps of a grand climax. Whom the God of our fathers glorified, you have delivered up to die. Your criminality is heightened by the fact, that when even a heathen judge declared him innocent, and desired to release him to you, you rejected him. Even this does not express the enormity of your guilt, for you yourselves knew him whom you rejected to be holy and just, and preferred the release of one whom you knew to be a murderer. But above all, in murdering him, you put to death the author of life, who has arisen from the dead. We might challenge the pages of all the classics for a climax more thrilling in its effect upon the audience, or for a happier combination of climax and antithesis. The effect upon the multitude was overwhelming. The facts declared were undeniable, except the resurrection, and of this the men who had just healed the cripple were the witnesses. Acts 3:16. But Peter does not stop short with this climax, terminating in the resurrection from the dead. He proceeds to prove his present power and glory by the facts which were then filling them with amazement. (16) “And his name, through faith in his name, has made this man strong, whom ye see and know. Even the faith which is through him, has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” In this verse, there is one of those repetitions common with extemporaneous speakers, and designed to express more guardedly a thought already uttered. Perhaps the formula employed by Peter in the act of healing, “In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk,” suggested to him the phraseology, “ his name, through faith in his name, has made this man strong.” But lest the superstitious audience might imagine that there was some charm in the mere name of Jesus, a mistake which was afterwards made by certain Jews in Ephesus, he adds, “ The faith which is through him has given him this perfect soundness.” The faith was not that of the cripple; for it is clear, from the description, that he had no faith. When Peter said to him, “ Look on us,” the man looked up, expecting to receive alms. And even when Peter told him, in the name of Jesus, to rise up and walk, he did not attempt to move till Peter “ took him by the right hand, and lifted him up.” He exhibited no faith, either in Jesus, or in Peter's healing power, till after he found himself able to stand and walk. We must locate the faith, therefore, in the apostles; and in this we are sustained by the fact that the exercise of miraculous power, by those in possession of spiritual gifts, was always dependent upon their faith; Peter was empowered to walk upon water; but, when his faith wavered, he began to sink, and Jesus said, “ O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” Nine of the apostles, once, having failed to cast out a demon, asked Jesus, “ Why could we not cast him out?” He replied, “ Because of your unbelief.” In answer to their prayers, also, many miracles were wrought, but it was only “ the prayer of faith” which could heal the sick. It must be here observed that faith was necessary to the exercise of spiritual gifts, already imparted, and that no faith, however strong, ever enabled the uninspired to work miracles. The notion, therefore, which has existed in some minds, from time to time, ever since the apostolic period, that if our faith were strong enough, we, too, could work miracles, has as little foundation in scripture as it has in experiment. Acts 3:17-18. At this point in the discourse there is a marked change in Peter's tone and manner, which we can attribute to nothing else than some visible indication of the intense pain produced by what he had already said. He had made a most terrific onslaught upon them, and exposed their criminality in unsparing terms; but now, induced by some perceptible change in their countenances, he softens his style, and extenuates their fault. (17) “And now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. (18) But those things which God had before announced through the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath thus fulfilled.” That they acted in ignorance of the real character of Jesus was an extenuation of their crime, but it did not render them innocent; for the preceding remarks were intended to convict them of crime, and in his preceding discourse he charged that with wicked hands they had crucified and slain him. Peter assumes, what none of them could honestly deny, that it was by wicked motives they were impelled to the fatal deed. In connection, with this assertion of their criminality, he states another fact hard to be reconciled with it in the philosophy of man, that, in the commission of this crime, God was fulfilling what he had declared through his prophets should be done. Once before, in speaking of this same event, Peter had brought these two apparently conflicting facts, the sovereignty of God, and the free agency of man, into juxtaposition, when he said, “ Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain.” That God had predetermined the death of Jesus can not be denied without contradicting both the prophets and the apostles; and that they acted wickedly in doing what God had determined should be done, Peter affirms, and three thousand of them on Pentecost, with many more on this occasion, admitted it. If any man can frame a theory by which to philosophically reconcile these two facts, we will assent to it, if we can understand it; but unless both facts, unaltered have a place in the theory, we must reject it. We reject every man who denies either of the facts; but while he admits them both, we will not dispute with him about the theory upon which he attempts to reconcile them. This much, fidelity to the word of God on the one hand, and brotherly kindness on the other hand, demand of us. In the mean time, it is better to follow Peter's example. He lays the two facts side by side, appealing to the prophets for the proof of one, and to the consciences of men for the proof of the other, and there he leaves them, seeming not to realize that he had involved himself in the slightest difficulty. It is folly to attempt to climb where we are certain of a fall. Acts 3:19-21. Having now fully demonstrated the Messiahship of Jesus, and exposed the criminality of those of who had condemned him, the apostle next presents to his hearers the conditions of pardon. (19) “Repent, therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, and that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, (20) and he may send Jesus Christ, who has before preached to you, (21) whom heaven must retain until the time of the restoration of all things which God has spoken, through the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began.”Here, as in his former statement of the conditions of pardon, the apostle makes no mention of faith. But, having labored, from the beginning of his discourse, to convince his hearers, they necessarily understood that his command, based as it was, upon what he had said, implied the assumption that they believed it. A command based upon an argument, or upon testimony, always implies the sufficiency of the proof, and assume that the hearer is convinced. Moreover, Peter knew very well that none would repent at his command who did not believe what he had said; hence, in every view of the case, he proceeded, naturally and safely, in omitting mention of faith. In the command, “ Repent and turn,” the word “ turn” expresses something to be done subsequent to repentance. There is no way to avoid this conclusion, unless we suppose that turn is equivalent to repent; but this is inadmissible, because there could be no propriety in adding the command turn, if what it means had been already expressed in the command repent. We may observe, that the term reform, which some critics would employ instead of repent, would involve the passage in a repetition not less objectionable. To reform and to turn to the Lord are equivalent expressions, hence it would be a useless repetition to command men, Reform, and turn.In order to a proper understanding of this passage, it is necessary to determine the exact scriptural import of the term repent. The most popular conception of its meaning is “ godly sorrow for sin.” But, according to Paul, “ godly sorrow works repentance in order to salvation.” Instead of being identical with repentance, therefore, it is the immediate case which leads to repentance. Paul says to the Corinthians, in the same connection, “ Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that you sorrowed to repentance.” This remark shows that it is sorrow which brings men to repentance, is also implies that there may be sorrow for sin without repentance. That there is a distinction between these two states of mind, and that sorrow for sin may exist without repentance, is also implied in commanding those on Pentecost who were already pierced to the heart, to repent. It is also evident from the case of Judas, who experienced the most intense sorrow for sin, but was not brought to repentance. His feeling is expressed by a different term in the original, which is never used to express the change which the gospel requires, and is equivalent to regret, though sometimes, as in his case, it expresses the idea of remorse.In thus tracing the distinction between “ godly sorrow” and “ repentance,” we have ascertained the fact that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and this must constitute one element in the definition of the term. Whatever it is, it is produced by sorrow for sin. Is it not, then, reformation? Reformation is certainly produced by sorrow for sin; but, as we have already observed, turning, which is equivalent to reforming, is distinguished, in the text before us, from repenting. The same distinction is elsewhere apparent. John the Immerser, in requiring the people to “ bring forth fruits meet for repentance,” clearly distinguishes between repentance and those deeds of a reformed life which he styles fruits meet for repentance. With him, reformation is the fruit of repentance, not its equivalent. The distinction is that between fruit and the tree which bears it. When Jesus speaks of repenting seven times a day, he certainly means something different from reformation; for that would require more time. Likewise, when Peter required those on Pentecost to repent and be immersed, if by the term repent he had meant reform, he would certainly have given them time to reform before they were immersed, instead of immersing them immediately. Finally, the original term is sometimes used in connection with such prepositions as are not suitable to the idea of reformation. As a general rule it is followed by apo, or ek, which are suitable to either idea; but in 2 Corinthians 12:21, it is followed by epi with the dative: “ Many have not repented, epi, of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have committed.” Now men do not reform of their evil deeds, neither will the preposition, in this case, bear a rendering which would suit the term reform. Reform, then, does not express the same idea as repent, but, as we have seen above, reformation is the fruit or result of repentance. Seeing now that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and results in reformation, we can have no further difficulty in ascertaining exactly what it is; for the only result of sorrow for sin which leads to reformation, is a change of the will in reference to sin. The etymological meaning of metanoia is a change of mind; but the particular element of the mind which undergoes this change is the will. Strictly defined, therefore, repentance is a change of the will, produced by sorrow for sin, and leading to reformation. If the change of will is not produced by sorrow for sin, it is not repentance, in the religious sense, though it may be metanoia, in the classic sense. Thus, Esau “ found no place for metanoias, a change of mind, though he sought it carefully with tears.” Here the word designates a change in the mind of Isaac in reference to the blessing which he had already given to Jacob; but this change did not depend upon sorrow for sin, hence it was not repentance, and should not be so translated. Again, if the change of will, though produced by sorrow for sin, is one which does not lead to reformation, it is not repentance; for there was a change in the will of Judas, produced by sorrow for sin, yet Judas did not repent. The change in his case led to suicide, not to reformation; it is, therefore, not expressed by metanoeo, but by metamelomai. Our definition, therefore, is complete, without redundancy. We can now perceive, still more clearly than before, that in the command, “ Repent and turn,” the terms repent, and turn, express two distinct changes, which take place in the order of the words. Their relative meaning is well expressed by Dr. Bloomfield, who says that the former denotes “ a change of mind,” the latter “ a change of conduct.” Mr. Barnes also well and truly remarks: “ This expression ('be converted,') conveys an idea not at all to be found in the original. It conveys the idea of passivity— BE converted, as if they were to yield to some foreign influence that they were now resisting. But the idea of being passive in this is not conveyed by the original word. The word properly means to turn— to return to a path from which one has gone astray; and then to turn away from sins, or to forsake them.” That turn, rather than be converted, is the correct rendering of the term, is not disputed by any competent authority; we shall assume, therefore, that it is correct, and proceed to inquire what Peter intended to designate by this term. As already observed, it designates a change in the conduct. A change of conduct, however, must, from the very necessity of the case, have a beginning; and that beginning consists in the first act of the better life. The command to turn is obeyed when this first act is performed. Previous to that, the man has not turned; subsequent to it he has turned; and the act itself is the turning act. If, in turning to the Lord, any one of a number of actions might be the first that the penitent performed, the command to turn would not specially designate any of these, but might be obeyed by the performance of either. But the fact is that one single act was uniformly enjoined upon the penitent, as the first overt act of obedience to Christ, and that was to be immersed. This Peter's present hearers understood. They had heard him say to parties like themselves, “ Repent and be immersed;” and the first act they saw performed by those who signified their repentance, was to be immersed. When, now, he commands them to repent and turn, they could but understand that they were to turn as their predecessors had done, by being immersed. The commands turn, and be immersed, are equivalent, not because the words have the same meaning, but because the command, “ Turn to the Lord” was uniformly obeyed by the specific act of being immersed. Previous to immersion, men repented, but did not turn; after immersion, they had turned, and immersion was the turning act.We may reach the same conclusion by another course of reasoning. The command Turn occupies the same position between repentance and the remission of sins, in this discourse, that the command Be immersed had occupied in Peter's former discourse. He then said, “ Repent and be immersed for the remission of sins;” now he says, “ Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out.” Now, when his present hearers heard him command them to turn in order to the same blessing for which he had formerly commanded them to be immersed, they could but understand that the generic word turn was used with specific reference to immersion, and the the substitution is founded on the fact that a penitent sinner turns to God by being immersed.This interpretation was first advanced, in modern times, by Alexander Campbell, about thirty years ago, and it excited against him then an opposition which still rages. The real ground of this opposition is not the interpretation itself, but a perversion of it. The word conversion being used in popular terminology in the sense of a change of heart, when Mr. Campbell announced that the word incorrectly rendered in this passage, be converted, means to turn to the Lord by immersion, the conclusion was seized by his opponents that he rejected all change of heart, and substituted immersion in its stead. He has reiterated, again and again, the sense in which he employed the term convert, and that the heart must be changed by faith and repentance previous to the conversion or turning here commanded by Peter; yet those who are determined upon doing him injustice still keep up the wicked and senseless clamor of thirty years ago. The odium theologicum, like the scent of musk, is not soon nor easily dissipated. There are always those to whose nostrils the odor is grateful. There are several facts connected with the use of the original term, epistrepho, in the New Testament, worthy of notice. It occurs thirty-nine times, in eighteen of which it is used for the mere physical act of turning or returning. Nineteen times it expresses a change from evil to good, and twice from good to evil. The term convert, therefore, were retained as the rendering, a man could, in the scriptural sense, be converted to Satan as well as to God. But be converted can never truly represent the original, though it is so rendered six times in the common version. The original is invariably in the active voice, and it is making a false and pernicious impression on the English reader to render it by the passive voice. If we render it truthfully by the term convert, we would have such readings as these: “ Repent and convert;” “ lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and should convert, and I should heal them,” &c. In a correct version of the New Testament, the expression be converted could not possibly occur; for there is nothing in the original to justify it. Not less worthy of observation is the fact, that while the change called conversion is popularly attributed to a divine power, as the only power capable of effecting it, and it is considered scarcely less than blasphemy to speak of a man converting another, or converting himself, yet the original word never does refer either to God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit, as its agent. On the contrary, in five of its nineteen occurrences in the sense of a change from evil to good, it is employed of a human agent, as of John the Immerser, Paul, or some brother in the Church; and in the remaining fourteen instances, the agent is the person who is the subject of the change. Thus, men may be properly said to turn their fellows, yet the subjects of this act are never said to be turned, but to turn to the Lord. The term invariably expresses something that the sinner is to do. These observations show how immeasurably the term convert has departed, in popular usage, from the sense of the original which it so falsely represents, and how imperious the necessity for displacing it from our English Bibles. The word turn corresponds to the original in meaning, in usage, in inflections, and translates it unambiguously in every instance. Peter commands his hearers to repent and turn, in order to three distinct objects: first, “ That your sins may be blotted out;” second, “ That seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;” third, “ That he may send Jesus Christ who was before preached to you.” It is supposed, by the commentators generally, that the last two events are contemplated by Peter as cotemporaneous, so that the “ seasons of refreshing” spoken of are those which will take place at the second coming of Christ. That there will be seasons of refreshing then, is true; but there are others more immediately dependent upon the obedience here enjoined by Peter, to which the reference is more natural. The pardon of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which were immediately consequent upon repentance and immersion, certainly bring “ seasons of refreshing,” which might well be made the subject of promise to hearers supposed to be trembling with guilty apprehension. The reference of these words is, doubtless, to the gift of the Spirit; for they occupy the same place here that the gift of the Spirit did in the former discourse. Then, after repentance, immersion, and the remission of sins, came the promise of the Holy Spirit; now, after the same three, somewhat differently expressed—i. e., repentance, turning to the Lord, and blotting out of sins— comes the promise of “ seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” They are, then, the fresh and cheering enjoyments of him whose sins are forgiven, and who is taught to believe that the presence of the approving Spirit of God is with him. The third promise, that God would send Jesus Christ, who was before preached to them, was dependent upon their obedience, only in so far as they would thus contribute to the object for which he will come, to raise from the dead, and receive into glory, all who are his. It is qualified by the remark, “ whom heaven must retain until the times of the restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” It is difficult to determine the exact force of the term restoration in this connection. It is commonly referred to a state of primeval order, purity, and happiness, which, it is supposed, will exist just previous to the second coming of Christ. But the apostle speaks of a restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets. Now, there are many things spoken of by the prophets beside those which refer to the final triumphs of the truth, and all these are included in the expression. Some of these things will not consist, individually considered, in restoration, but in destruction. Still, the prevailing object of all the things of which the prophets have spoken, even the destruction of wicked nations and apostate Churches, is to finally restore that moral saw which God originally exercised over the whole earth. It is doubtless this thought which suggested the term restoration, though reference is had to the fulfillment of all the prophesies which are to be fulfilled on earth. Not till all are fulfilled will Christ come again. Acts 3:22-23. For the twofold purpose of giving confirmation to the claims of Jesus, and warning his hearers as to the consequences of rejecting him, the apostle next introduces a well-known prophesy of Moses. (22) “For Moses, indeed, said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up for you, from among your brethren, like me: him shall ye hear in all things, whatever he shall say to you. (23) And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.” Whether Peter was right in applying this prophesy to Christ depends upon the likeness between him and Moses. This likeness may be traced in many subordinate incidents of his history, but lies chiefly in that which distinguishes both Moses and Christ from all other prophets. Moses as a deliverer of his people, and an original lawgiver. No prophet had been like him in these two particulars. The chief mission of the other prophets, so far as their cotemporaries were concerned, was to enforce the law of Moses. But Christ had now come, speaking by his our authority, offering a more glorious deliverance to the people than that from Egypt, and issuing new laws for the government of men. This proved that he, and he alone, was the prophet spoken of by Moses, and Peter's hearers now perceive that the authority of Moses himself binds them to the authority of Jesus, and that they must hear him, on the penalty of destruction if they refuse. Acts 3:24. Not content with bringing to bear the testimony of Moses, Peter adds to it the combined voices of all the prophets: (24) “And, indeed, all the prophets, from Samuel, and those following in order, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days.” This declaration is to be understood only of those prophets whose predictions are recorded in the Old Testament, for to those alone could Peter appeal in proof of his proposition. It was conceded by the Jews, that all the prophets had spoken of the days of the Messiah, and it was already proved, by Peter's preceding remarks, that Jesus was the Messiah; hence the argument is now complete. Acts 3:25-26. Having completed his argument, in which the Messiahship of Jesus was demonstrated by the miraculous cure they had witnessed, and by the testimony of all the prophets, from Moses and Samuel down to Malachi, Peter next makes a powerful appeal to his hearers, based upon their veneration for the fathers of their nation, and for the covenant which God had made with them. (25) “You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kingdoms of the earth be blessed. (26) Unto you first, God, having raised up his son Jesus, has sent him to bless you, in turning away each one of you from his iniquities.” This was a tender appeal to their national sympathies, made more effective by the statement that to them first because of their relation to the prophets and to Abraham, God had sent his risen Son to bless them, before visiting the rest of the world. The use here made of the promise to Abraham shows the true interpretation of it. It is to be fulfilled, according to Peter, in turning living men away from their iniquities. Those only, therefore, who, under the influence of the gospel, turn away from their iniquities, can lay claim to the blessings contemplated in this promise. That all the kindreds of the earth were to be blessed does not affect this conclusion, except to extend its application to those of all nations who should, at any period of time, turn from their iniquities. The Universalian view of this promise is contradicted by all the apostolic comments upon it; for they all unite in denying the blessing to any but those who in this life believe and turn to the Lord. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 3:2. As the apostles approached the temple the following events took place. An "object of charity" was lying just outside of the temple, where the people coming and going would see him and perhaps bestow upon him a gift of money. This man was forty years old and had been a cripple from birth. The Old Testament does not give the special name of beautiful to any gate of the temple. The passage says it was called that, which indicates that the people had come to speak of it in that way, which probably was because of its appearance after Herod had remodeled and adorned the building (Luke 21:5). Robinson has the following to say of this gate: "Supposed by some to have been the large gate leading from the court of the Gentiles to the court of the Israelites, over against the eastern side of the building, called by the Rabbins the gate of Nicanor, and described by Josephus as covered with plates of gold and silver, and very splendid and massive." 3Act 3:3. The original word for alms means generally any favor or mercy or pity bestowed upon an unfortunate person, but its most specific definition is, "a donation for the poor," and this is what the lame man asked of Peter and John. 4Acts 3:4. When Peter told the lame man to look on us, he should have concluded that some kind of favor was in store for him other than a gift of money, for such an action would not have required that he look at them. 5Acts 3:5. But the lame man had never been treated to anything but the kindness of those who carried him to the place daily, and the alms that people bestowed on him. Hence he did not form the conclusion here suggested, but instead he gave the apostles an earnest look, expecting to receive some money. 6Acts 3:6. Silver and gold have I none. We are not to suppose that the apostles were paupers, but they had no occasion for carrying supplies of money around with them, for Jesus had assured them that the necessities of life would be given them. In the present case however, if Peter had possessed an abundance of money, it would not have benefited the lame man physically as to his infirmity. He told the man to rise up and walk, but preceded the order with a statement as to the source of the power. We should understand that not only did Peter derive his ability to heal the man from the Lord, but he wished him also to know upon whom he was to trust for his recovery. 7Acts 3:7. Miraculous cures may be performed with or without any outward cooperation on the part of the patient. Jesus required the blind man to go wash the clay off his eyes, but He previously had put the anointment on the eyes of the patient. Peter commanded the lame man to rise up and walk, but he encouraged him by taking the initiative and grasping his hand and helping him to arise. This verse tells us in what way the man was lame; it was a weakness in his feet. The mere act of taking him by the hand did not heal him, for any other person could have done that; there had to be some miraculous power exerted by the apostle. It is stated that the healing was immediate, which was always the case with genuine miraculous cures. Professed divine healers of today always require "time and patience" for their cases, which proves they are frauds. 8 Acts 3:8. A lame man might use enough will power to come to his feet, but he would not be able to show much energy in the enforced action. This man leaped up, and he did not stop with that; he walked and leaped alternately, and continued his movements along with the apostles, so that he entered with them into the temple. While doing all this he was praising God. Why did he do that, when it was Peter who had lifted him up? The answer is in the statement of the apostle that he was to arise in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The man had been carried each day and laid by the gate. He knew that in that act those men had used more physical force upon him than Peter did, as far as the outward performance was concerned, and yet no improvement in his condition had ever been experienced. The only conclusion he could reach was that it was God working through Peter, and that caused him to give his praise to the right one. 9Acts 3:9. The whole event was so evident and public that all the people saw it, and that means there were a great many who witnessed it, for it was in a prominent spot, and there were thousands of Jews in the city at that time. 0Acts 3:10. They knew it was the man who had been seen at the gate of the temple, for he had appeared there daily for a long time, and it was easy to recognize him. The natural effect upon the people was that they were filled with wonder and amazement. They knew it was not their own imagination that was affecting them, nor could it have been a forced action on the part of the lame man, for they were too well acquainted with the nature of his case to allow such a conclusion. 1Act 3:11. Held is from KRATEO, and Robinson defines it in this place, "So to hold one fast, i. e., to hold fast to him, to cleave to him." Thayer defines it in the same way then gives the explanation, "To hold one fast in order not to be sent away." This action was perfectly natural. The man had been a cripple since his birth, and had to depend upon alms for a living. Now he was healed and had become an able-bodied man so that he could be on his own. However, since the condition was another one that might be described by the familiar phrase "too good to be true," he had a feeling of dependency that made him afraid to leave the apostles. Another thing that should be considered about his action, it emphasized the part the apostles had in the recovery. When the people saw this man clinging so firmly to the apostles, it announced publicly that they were the actors in the deed, and that the former lame man knew it. Another result that was natural was the gathering of all the people near the scene, for it was an extraordinary thing that had happened. Solomon's porch was a convenient and comfortable place for the crowd to gather; a description of this porch is given at John 10:23. 2Act 3:12. Peter was able to speak with inspiration, but ordinary reasoning would have brought the conclusion indicated here. The people could see the lame man holding fast to the apostles, and as they were greatly wondering, it was because they thought these men had caused the patient to be cured through some mysterious virtue of their own. It would have been easy for them to obtain a following from this multitude because of the frame of mind that possessed them. But Peter was the faithful apostle of Christ, and humbly told the crowd that it was not in them (the apostles) that the lame man had found his recovery. 3Act 3:13. The circumstance gave Peter another opportunity for preaching Christ to the people. The crowd was composed of Jews, and they were the people who were responsible for the condemnation of Jesus. They were acquainted with the Old Testament (John 5:39), and knew about the promise that was made to the fathers that a descendant of theirs was to come into the world to bless the nations of the earth. Now Peter connected that promise with the very man they of this audience had caused to die. Peter showed them as being worse even than Pilate, who would have been willing to let Jesus go. The apostle told them that God had glorified that very man in spite of their intended destruction of his great plans. Glorified is from DOXAZO, which Thayer defines in this passage, "To exalt to a glorious rank or condition." It was a stinging rebuke to these people, not only to accuse them of condemning Jesus, but to be told that God had over-ruled their malicious attempt and had exalted their victim to a rank in glory. 4Acts 3:14. This verse names two distinct crimes the Jews committed, either of which would have entitled them to the serverest condemnation. It refers to the time when they were to name the prisoner to be released under a custom of that season (Luke 23:16-21). They denied freedom to a holy and just person against whom no charge had been sustained. In their choice of prisoners they did not name one who was even an ordinary evildoer, but called for a man who was a murderer and a member of a seditious gang. 5Acts 3:15. The Jews could not lawfully put any man to death, and did not personally put Jesus on the cross. But Peter told them they had killed Him, and it was because they were the ones who caused it to be done. Prince is from a word that means the author or leader in an important movement. That is true of Christ as announced by John, "In him was life, and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). The apostles almost invariably mentioned the resurrection of Jesus when ever they told of his death. Many persons have been killed by the people who were objectionable to them for some reason, but none of them ever lived again until the event of Christ. He not only came back to life, but God did the raising of him, thereby defeating the plans of the Jews who pretended to believe in Him, while disbelieving in his Son. Peter was not relating this to the multitude on some mere hearsay, but declared we are witnesses. 6Acts 3:16. Through faith in his name. The name and power of Jesus would not have caused this man to be healed, had he not manifested faith in that name by making what attempt he could to arise. The faith which is by him. Not only was the lame man required to have faith in the name of Jesus, but Peter could perform the miracle only because he also had faith in the name of Jesus. 7Acts 3:17. Ignorance does not excuse anyone in wrongdoing, but it may explain how it came about. The word is from AGNOIA, which Thayer defines, "Want of knowledge." The idea is different from being lacking in common intelligence, for then they might not have been held so strictly to account. But the information was available had they made use of it; they did not, and were like Israel of old who did not know, simply because they did not consider (Isaiah 1:3). Wot is an obsolete word for "know" as the apostle was considering his own frame of mind. As to the rulers, they were the ones in power and who were chiefly responsible for the death of Jesus. 8Acts 3:18. The Jews were condemned for having Jesus slain, because they had an evil motive in the act. But Peter informed them that in doing so, they fulfilled the words of the prophets concerning the fate that was to come upon the Son of God. 9Acts 3:19. The first Gospel discourse is in chapter 2, which consists mainly of the story of Jesus, and closes with an exhortation for the hearers to recognize Him as the Lord. The present passage is the second discourse that is recorded, and consists of the same matter as the first, although the wording is somewhat different. The present verse corresponds with chapter 2:38 in thought. "Repent and be baptized" is equivalent to repent and be converted. "For the remission of sins" is the same as that your sins may be blotted out. "Gift of the Holy Ghost" corresponds with times of refreshing, and of course it all comes from the presence of the Lord. 0Acts 3:20. Peter then deviates slightly in his subject matter, and speaks of the sending of Jesus Christ which refers to His second coming to earth; the same Jesus who was preached (prophesied about) before in the Scriptures. 1Act 3:21. The next phase of this discourse explains some things that must take place before Jesus comes again. Receive is used in the sense of giving a guest continued hospitality or reception, until it is the desired and proper time for him to leave. In the case of Jesus, that time will not come until certain things that were predicted of him have been fulfilled. Robinson defines the word in the Greek for restitution, "full establishment," and Peter tells us that he refers to the predictions that had been made by the holy prophets, that were to be accomplished by Christ. We understand these things were to be brought to pass through the services of the apostles, while Jesus is still on his Father's right hand it) Heaven. 2Act 3:22. Peter next specifies one of the predictions that Moses made concerning the prophet who was to come up from among the Jewish people (Deuteronomy 18:18-20). That prediction called upon the people to hear the prophet in whatever he said to them. 3Act 3:23. The fate of all who refused to hear (heed) that prophet was that he be destroyed from among the people. The form of that threat is based on the usages of the times of Moses, when the "law of sin and death" was in force (Romans 8:2). Its meaning under Christ is that all who refuse to hear him, will be condemned as disobedient in this world, and will be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" when he comes again (2 Thessalonians 1:9). 4Acts 3:24. Prophets, from Samuel. There were other men before the days of Samuel who made prophetical statements, so there must have been a special sense in which he was regarded as one. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: "Samuel was not only a prophet like others, but he was also the first of the regular succession of prophets." 1 Kings 19:16 says God spoke to Elijah as follows: "Elisha the son of Shaphat shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room," which verifies the quotation from the Encyclopedia, and shows there was a succession of national prophets. The mention of Samuel by Peter indicates that he was the first of the prophets in that succession. Other prophets after Samuel spoke of the time when the promise made to the fathers would be fulfilled. 5Acts 3:25. Covenant in this verse is the same as the promise in chapter 2:39. Children of the prophets and of the covenant. How could men be children of a covenant? The word children is from HUIOS, and Thayer explains that one meaning of the word is, "One to whom anything belongs; those to whom the prophetic and covenant promises belong; for whom a thing is destined." Peter meant that the people to whom he was speaking were intended by the Lord as among those who were to be benefited by the covenant. It is the same as the statement in chapter 2:39 that" the promise is unto you and your children." 6Acts 3:26. Unto you first. Peter was speaking to Jews, and he meant to tell them that they were to receive the blessings of the promised seed of Abraham before the Gentiles. (See Acts 13:46; Romans 1:16.) Turning away every one of you from his iniquities in this discourse, corresponds with "save yourselves from this untoward generation," in Acts 2:40. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 4 FIRST — PETER AND JOHN Act_4:1-22 1-2 And as they spake unto the people,—Peter and John had gone up to the temple at the ninth hour, which was the hour of prayer, and had healed the lame man; this excited and brought a multitude of people together in Solomon’ s porch of the temple, and Peter explained to the multitude the healing of the lame man and proceeded to preach Jesus as the Christ to them. The Jewish au¬thorities felt the charge of crucifying the Messiah; they must either confess their guilt or suppress the testimony against them. Some of them chose to stop Peter and John from bearing testimony that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Messiah promised. The “ Sadducees” joined the rulers in suppressing the testimony. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead; hence, when the resurrection of Jesus was preached, it antagonized them and they were ready to help suppress the doctrine of the resurrection. As the kingdom of God advances under the ministry of the apostles, the kingdom of darkness is also aroused, and sets itself in active opposition. The priests were divided into twenty-four courses, each of which served a week in the temple; the priests mentioned here are probably those on duty for that week. “ The captain of the temple” was the ruler of the house of God (1 Chronicles 9:11; 2 Chronicles 31:13; Nehemiah 11:11); he was a priest whose duty was to command the guard of Levites stationed in the temple; he posted the sentinels at night and preserved peace during the day; his presence implied that the authorities were afraid of a disturbance from the crowd surrounding the apostles. The distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees had grown out of national differences dating from the time of the captivity; they were a small but powerful party of the priestly nobles who were supported by the temple dues, and had come to regard religion as a matter of profitable living rather than a service to God. They disliked any popular movement which might disturb the steady accumulation of temple revenues; they saw in the preaching of Jesus that their source of revenue would be diminished. 3 And they laid hands on them,—To lay “ hands on them” was to arrest them; so they were arrested and put in “ ward” or in prison; probably the prison was one of the chambers of the temple; Peter and John had gone up to the temple at the hour of prayer, and now they find themselves at “ eventide” in prison. They were put in prison until the next morning, as no trial could take place before the next day. They often quoted Jeremiah 21:12, but violated this with respect to the trial of Jesus; the day closed with the twelfth hour or sunset. 4 But many of them that heard the word—In contrast with the opposition “ many of them that heard the word believed.” “ The number of the men came to be about five thousand” ; it is noticed here that “ the number of the men” became about five thou¬sand; this says nothing about the number of women. Two ques¬tions have been raised here: (1) Did five thousand believe for the first time that day? (2) Did the whole number of Christians now become five thousand? Were five thousand converted here? or were there only two thousand converted here? and the two thousand added to the three thousand on Pentecost made the number five thousand? The best scholarship is in favor of two thousand converted on this occasion, and so the number “ came to be about five thousand.” It is very likely that others were converted besides those mentioned on Pentecost and those at this time, as some time had elapsed between Pentecost and this day. The church increased rapidly. 5-6 And it came to pass on the morrow,—The apostles are now put on trial before the Sanhedrin; this was the highest court of the Jewish nation; “ the morrow,” or the day, had dawned and they could proceed legally with their trial. We have here men¬tioned the different classes who composed the Sanhedrin. The San¬hedrin was supposed to be composed of twenty-four chief priests, or rulers of the twenty-four courses into which the priests had been divided, and twenty-four elders and twenty-four scribes; this would make the number of the Sanhedrin to be seventy-two; the high priest was ex officio a member of the Sanhedrin. It seldom had its full quota. “ Annas” is mentioned in Luke 3:2 with Caiaphas as being both of them high priests; Annas was father-in-law of Caiaphas (John 18:13), and had some rank above Caiaphas. This is accounted for from the fact that while by the Jewish law the office of high priest was held for life, it was shifted at pleasure by the Roman authorities; hence, while but one would be the high priest according to Jewish law, the office might have passed to several others by the authority of the Romans, who deposed and appointed whom they pleased. Here Annas is designated as the high priest (in the eye of the Jewish law the only one), while Caiaphas is named also as holding the title under the Romans. John and Alexander were relatives of Annas and Caiaphas, and must have been well known. There were also present “ many as were of the kindred of the high priest.” Some think that these were the members of the family of the high priest whose ancestors had lately enjoyed the high priesthood. Some authorities claim that Annas lived to see five sons and a son-in-law high priests, and for nearly fifty years enjoyed the real power of the high priesthood. Caiaphas was a Sadducee, and since he had been made high priest by the Roman authorities, he was willing to do anyting that the Roman authorities demanded. 7 And when they had set them in the midst,—When the Sanhedrin assembled that morning, and all of the kindred of the high priest were present, they “ set them in the midst.” The San¬hedrin usually sat in a semicircle in the room, and the accused and witnesses occupied a place in the center. When Peter and John were thus placed, they were asked: “ By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?” “ By what power” means the same as “ in what name” ; some think that they meant to ask: “ What sort of power, or in what kind of name,” have ye done this? It was impossible to deny the cure; the lame man now healed was in their midst; so the Sadducees asked for the authority or source of power for doing what they had done. This was the very question that the apostles wanted, for it would give them the best opportunity to preach Christ unto them. 8-9 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit,—It seems that they were filled with the Holy Spirit for the present occasion; they had been promised such aid when they should be brought before rulers for the sake of Christ. (Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12 Luke 21:14-15.) “ Ye rulers of the people, and elders,” is a very respectful way of addressing the Sanhedrin. Christianity demands that we be respectful even to our enemies; the apostles set the example of being respectful to rulers. The high court or Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-two persons of rank; hence, the apostles recognize and honor the rank of the members of the Sanhedrin. Peter now puts the case on its merits and forces the Sanhedrin to pass judgment on their doing a good deed to an unfortunate man. Surely these honorable men will not object to the apostles doing “ a good deed” to “ an impotent man.” They cannot object to the good deed with¬out putting themselves against doing that which is good. Next they will want to know by what authority this good deed was done. They have a right to inquire into this matter, and the apostles are anxious to tell them that it is by the authority of Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, but who has been raised from the dead. 10 be it known unto you all,—Peter is not ashamed or afraid to give the greatest publicity to what he had done and taught; he is anxious for the entire membership of the Sanhedrin and all who were present to know. He at once tells them that the man was made whole “ in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” ; he also is bold enough to accuse them of crucifying this Jesus, and that God had raised him from the dead. They had asked, “ By what power, or in what name,” and Peter now tells them that it was “ in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” “ Jesus” means Savior; “ Christ” means the anointed, the Messiah who was predicted in the Old Testament; “ of Nazareth” designates which Jesus, as the one that they had crucified and the one that God had raised from the dead. Peter thus charges the Sanhedrin of the high crime of crucifying the Messiah. Instead of the Sanhedrin placing Peter and John on trial, these apostles now put the Sanhedrin on trial; they are forced to defend the crime which they had committed or acknowledge their guilt. 11 He is the stone which was set at nought—Reference is here made to Psalms 118:22; Jesus is the stone which was set at nought. Jesus had already made application of this Psalm to him¬self. (Matthew 21:42.) Both Paul and Peter later referred to this prophecy and applied it to Christ. (Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4-6.) The Sanhedrin as the rulers of the people had rejected Christ and refused to build upon him, but he has now become the “ chief, corner stone.” Their rejection of Christ went to prove him to be the true stone of whom the prophets spoke. 12 And in none other is there salvation:—We must admire the boldness of Peter and John as they stood in the midst of the Sanhedrin and declared that even the members of the Sanhedrin could be saved only by accepting this Jesus of Nazareth whom they had condemned and crucified. This Jesus is the author of all salvation ; the miraculous cure of this lame man and all others is only the lower department of his salvation; he is to save not only the body, but the soul. Although the Sanhedrin had rejected Christ once, Peter tells them that there is given them an opportunity to repent; he also informs them that there is no “ other name under heaven, that is given among men,” wherein people must be saved. There is no second Savior; Jesus the Christ is the only Savior. The Jews hoped to be saved because they were of Abraham’ s seed (John 8:33-39), or because they claimed to trust in Moses (John 5:45-46). But Abraham and Moses pointed to the Christ whom they had rejected. It is important that the gospel be preached since there was none other in whom there is salvation “ wherein we must be saved.” In the Greek the “ we” is the last word in the Greek sentence; it means “ we”— priests, elders, scribes, fishermen— all of us here must be saved by faith and obedience in the Christ. 13 Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John,—It was an inspiring scene to see the Sanhedrin assembled in a semicircle, sitting in their dignity and clothed with the highest au¬thority granted unto the Jewish race, and observe two prisoners, Peter and John, standing accused by the Sanhedrin, to turn and bring such grave charges against the Sanhedrin! It took courage to do this; the members of the Sanhedrin observed their boldness and observed that they were “ unlearned and ignorant men.” “ Unlearned,” as used here, means unlettered men without technical training in the professional rabbinical schools of Hillel or Shammai; Jesus himself was regarded as not having learned letters. (John 7:15.) “ Ignorant,” as used here, is “ one in a private station, as opposed to one in office or in public affairs; there¬fore, one without professional knowlege, a layman; hence, generally ignorant, ill-informed.” These apostles were not cultured and trained in the schools of that day, but they had a knowledge far su¬perior to all of the culture and education and training of the mem¬bers of the Sanhedrin. They were caused to wonder or marvel at such boldness.. “ They took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” They began to recognize them as men that had seen and had been associated with Jesus. 14 And seeing the man that was healed standing—The lame man was standing there before their eyes in proof of what Peter had said. They did not pretend to deny the miracle, neither were they prepared to acknowledge the real source of his cure. They had nothing to say; their mouths were closed; no argument could be made and no accusation could they charge against the apostles. What would they do under such circumstances ? 15-16 But when they had commanded them to go aside—In their confused state they asked the apostles to retire so that they could confer among themselves as to what was the best thing to do. They acknowledged that a notable deed had been done and that they could not deny it, and they knew that such publicity had been given to it that “ all that dwell in Jerusalem” knew of it. Instead of asking what they should do to be saved, they asked how they should stop the apostles from preaching in the name of Jesus. They acknowledged that they could not deny what had been done, which implies that they would have denied if they could have done so successfully. 17 But that it spread no further among the people,—These admissions were made to each other in the absence of the apostles, and an agreement was reached that they “ threaten them” that they speak no more “ in this name.” This was done that “ it spread no further among the people.” “ Spread,” as used here, means “ be distributed.” It is the same idea as expressed in 2 Timothy 2:17 : “ Their word will eat as doth a gangrene,” or literally, “ will have distribution or spreading” as a gangrene. There was no inquiry as to the truth of their salvation, but an anxious inquiry as to how they could put a check on these apostles. They assumed that the teaching of the apostles was pernicious and that it must be suppressed; their only concern was as to the best way to suppress it; hence, they proposed to threaten the apostles and not let them teach any more. 18 And they called them, and charged them— After reaching a decision in the absence of the apostles, they summoned the apos¬tles again into their presence and made known to them the decision that they were “ not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.” The two words, “ speak” and “ teach,” are used to make the com¬mand more rigid; the original conveys the idea that they were not to let the name of Jesus pass their lips again. They severely threatened them and charged them that they were not to use “ the name of Jesus” at all. 19-20 But Peter and John answered and said unto them,—This reply of the apostles shows the strong ground which they took; God spoke by the miracle which they had done, and the San¬hedrin, however authorized, had no right to contradict God. It was the business of the Sanhedrin to inquire whether Peter and John were speaking by the authority of God, but their right ex¬tended no further; they had no right to suppress anything that God authorized to be taught. Peter and John again put a matter to the Sanhedrin that it could not answer. They asked “ whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God.” The Sanhedrin was in a dilemma. If the Sanhedrin said it is right to hearken unto God when God authorizes the thing to be done, then the apostles would continue to speak in the name of Jesus; but if the Sanhedrin should say that it was right to hearken unto its decision, then it would be teaching to go contrary to the authority of God. Peter gave them to understand that they would continue to obey the authority of God regardless of the decision and threats of the Sanhedrin. This was an open defiance of the authority of the Sanhedrin, when it conflicted with the authority of God. This was also an implication that the authority of the San¬hedrin was in defiance of the authority of God. The Sanhedrin was to learn that there were some things that it could not do; it could not put to silence the apostles. 21 And they, when they had further threatened them,—The Sanhedrin was put to silence; they had no further arguments to offer, charges to make, or warnings to give; they repeated with emphasis the threatenings that had been made. They “ further threatened them” ; that is, they added further threatenings to those that had been first announced. They let them go free, not because they were reconciled to them, or that they acknowledged that the apostles were right, but because they were unable to find in a legal way how “ they might punish them.” The Sanhedrin did not inflict punishment because “ of the people.” They were afraid of the people; they did not want the people to rise up against the rulers; the miracle was so manifest and so well known that “ all men glorified God for that which was done.” Hence, the people would be ready to take the part of the apostles against their persecutors. The enemies of Jesus also feared the people. (Mark 12:12.) It would be dangerous for the rulers to deal severely with the apostles in the face of such public enthusiasm. 22 For the man was more than forty years old,—There was a reason for the age of the man being given. He had been lame all his life; he was not a child, but a man fully matured, and had been in this condition so long his acquaintance was extensive. This made the case a notable one in favor of the apostles and the cause of Christianity. The rulers were helpless except to threaten; the truth and the apostles had triumphed this time. All human cures had been exhausted and failed; the apostles with the power of Jesus had triumphed in the case. PETER AND JOHN SET FREE; REPORT TO THE ; THEIR PRAYERAct_4:23-31 23 And being let go, they came to their own company,—Here we have a turn in the history. The apostles so soon as they were released “ came to their own company.’’ They came to the Christians and reported “ all that the chief priests and the elders had said unto them.” They reported what the chief priests and elders had said in threatening them; and it is also possible that they reported just what they had said to the Sanhedrin. Peter and John had been tried before the Jewish court and they had been tri¬umphant in their defense; they now reported all to the other Christians. The entire company of Christians now numbered several thousand. It is noted that the Sanhedrin is here called “ the chief priests and the elders.” 24 And they, when they heard it,—When the disciples heard the report of Peter and John, they “ lifted up their voice to God with one accord.” They all prayed to God; they were united in their prayer. Did one lead and the others repeat aloud the petition after him? Was there a general form of prayer already known to all? Or did one lead and the others join mentally or by responses with “ Amen” ? We do not know just how they proceeded; we only know that “ with one accord” they addressed God as the one who had made “ the heaven and the earth and the sea.” This prayer addressed Jehovah as the Creator and Governor of the universe. The same God who made the world has prophesied of Christ and provided against all his enemies. 25-26 who by the Holy Spirit,—Again we have reference made to Psalms 2:1-2, and it is ascribed to David. Reference here made to this Psalm shows that it was prophetic, and had reference to Christ in whom it is so remarkably fulfilled. “ Why did the Gentiles rage” had reference to the nations who were not of Israel, and “ the peoples” generally are included by the Jews; hence, both Jew and Gentile “ raged” against Christ. The Greek for “ rage” is “ ephruaxan,” and literally means “ to neigh like a horse, to prance or stamp the ground, to put on lofty airs.” This is the only time the word is used in the New Testament. “ Imagine” is from the Greek “ emeletesan,” and means “ to practice, to caution, as orators and rhetoricians.” “ The kings of the earth” mean the rulers and governors, and include the Jewish “ Sanhedrin” with all its mighty power. All of the forces were “ gathered together” against “ the Lord, and against his Anointed.” The Psalm is quoted and ap¬plied to Jesus as the Christ, and the heathen or Roman soldiers, the people of the Jews, kings of the earth such as Herod and Pon¬tius Pilate, and the rulers, or Sanhedrin, were all opposed to Christ. 27-28 for of a truth in this city—The apostles continued their prayer with the assembly of disciples and made mention of the op¬position “ against thy holy Servant Jesus” ; some translate “ holy Child Jesus.” God had anointed him with the Holy Spirit at his baptism; hence, he was the “ Christ,” as “ Christ” means “ anointed.” (Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 52:13; Zechariah 3:8.) “ Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,” were gathered together and put Jesus to death. He was brought before Herod and Pilate in his mock trials; he was subjected to trial before the Sanhedrin; the Jews and Roman soldiers conspired together to put Jesus to death. The actors in this dreadful tragedy had no design to fulfill prophecy; they only acted of their own free will, and were guilty of the greatest crime known to man, yet they were doing that which fulfilled the predictions concerning them. The death of Jesus was a fulfillment of prophecy and was necessary to his resurrection. 29, 30 And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings:—The apostles prayed for courage to go on and preach the gospel, for God to continue his power with them in working miracles and con¬firming his word, and for God to be with them as they continued to speak boldly in the name of Jesus. They were under the heavy threatenings of the Sanhedrin; they wanted to be protected from the threatenings of the opposition so they could continue freely to testify for Christ. This was to be done by God’ s stretching “ forth thy hand to heal.” By exerting his miraculous power in healing the sick and the lame, God would be confirming what the apostles preached; this was all to be done “ through the name of thy holy Servant Jesus.” The apostles did not pray for safety or deliverance from the threats, or that their persecutors be crushed; they asked as “ bondservants” for boldness to speak the word and continue the work which they had begun. They prayed that the “ signs and wonders” should prove to the people the power of Jesus. UNITY OF THE CHURCH; FOR COMMON GOODAct_4:32-37 32 And the multitude of them that believed—The disciples of Christ now numbered several thousand; they were all in and around Jerusalem; they had not been scattered at this time. The entire company were united; they “ were of one heart and soul.” They were many in number, but one in spirit. One of the most striking things that may be said about the early church was its per¬fect oneness of heart and soul. It is not possible to make a clear distinction between “ heart” and “ soul.” “ Kardia,” as used here, means not only the seat of the affections, but the center of the entire complex being, physical, moral, and intellectual. “ Psuche” is frequently used in the New Testament to mean “ life.” (Matthew 2:20 Matthew 20:28; Acts 20:10; Romans 11:3.) Those who owned property regarded it not as their own, but freely used it for the com¬mon weal of others; they “ had all things common.” The property was held for the common use, but the rights of property were not abolished, nor the individual holding of property declared to be wrong. This was an emergency, and all were willing and anxious to use whatever they possessed for the common good. 33 And with great power gave the apostles their witness— The apostles bore witness to the resurrection with great power; the resurrection was the offensive doctrine to the Sadducees; it was the very heart of the gospel; hence, the apostles bore witness to what they had seen and heard. They kept on giving their wit¬ness with power after the answer to their prayer. “ Great power” means the force of argument accompanied with spiritual power. “ Great grace was upon them all.” The entire membership of the church found favor with each other and with others. The lives that they were now living commended them to others. The original word for “ grace” is the same as the word for “ favor” in Acts 2:47. Hence, the same idea is expressed; therefore, great favor was felt toward the Christians on the part of the people generally. 34-35 For neither was there among them—No one among them was allowed by his brethren to be in want, for no one among them was in want. Those who owned the property sold it and used the money to relieve those who were in destitute circumstances. It should be remembered that a great company of Jews had assembled in Jerusalem for the Passover, and then remained over for the Pentecost feast. They brought possessions enough to last them until this feast had passed. But many of them had been converted and continued their sojourn in Jerusalem until their supply had been exhausted. They were now new creatures in Christ; they had begun a new life; they had new hopes and new purposes; they had not learned the full meaning of Christianity. Some of them were in need, not because they had been idle, neither because they had squandered their possessions, nor yet because they were shiftless; but their means had been exhausted and they now were in need. In this emergency those who had possessions were ready to distribute as each had need. There is no “ communism” practiced here; there was no denial of property rights, nor an encourage¬ment to idleness; but an emergency had arisen and they had enough of the spirit of Christ to supply the needs of those who were in distress. 36-37 And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas—“ Barnabas” is derived from two Hebrew words which mean “ son of teaching” or “ preaching” ; the two Greek words, here translated “ son of consolation,” may also mean “ son of preaching or exhortation.” His name was “ Joseph” ; he is here mentioned as one illustration of those who are mentioned in verse 34, who sold his possessions and brought the money to the apostles for them to distribute it as there was need. The apostles named this Joseph “ Barnabas,” and he is known better by this name than any other. It seems clear from this fact that all did not actually sell their property, but were ready to do so as the need arose; but Barnabas actually sold his field and gave to the apostles the price. It is very likely that as a preacher his gift was in persuasion and exhortation. In Acts 11: 23 the very word “ parekalei,” which means “ exhorted,” is used of Barnabas. Paul describes such a preacher in 1 Cor. 14: 3. He is in a broad sense of the word called an apostle. (Acts 14: 14.) He was of the tribe of Levi and a native of Cyprus, which was an important island in the Mediterranean Sea. He was a Levite and “ a man of Cyprus by race,” which means that he was a Jew and was born in Cyprus of Jewish parents; the Greek literally means “ a Levite, a Cyprian by birth” ; he was both a Jew and a Cyprian. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 4Acts 4:1-3. Just at this point in Peter's discourse: (1) “And while they were speaking to the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, (2) being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead. (3) And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day; for it was already evening.” This sudden disturbance of the interested audience, by a body of armed men rushing through their midst and seizing Peter and John, is the beginning of a series of persecutions with which Luke is about to follow the account of the first peaceful triumphs of the apostles. We would naturally, at first thought, expect to find the parties to this violent proceeding identical with the chief persecutors of Jesus, supposing that the same motives which had excited opposition to him would perpetuate it against his disciples. But the Pharisees were his most bitter enemies, the Sadducees being comparatively indifferent to his pretensions, while here we see the Sadducees leading the attack upon the apostles, and we will soon see the leader of the Pharisees interfering to save them from threatened death. In order to appreciate this unexpected change in the aspect of the parties, we must note a little more carefully the ground of opposition in each case. The supposition sometimes entertained that Jesus was hated by men simply because there is in human nature an innate aversion to truth and holiness, is not less false to the facts of history than to the nature of fallen men. It is disproved by the fact that it was not the mass of his cotemporaries who hated him, as the supposition would require, but chiefly, and almost exclusively, the Pharisees. That portion of the people who were most depraved, according to external appearances, heard him gladly, and delighted to praise him, while the Pharisees, who were most of all noted for their piety, were the men who hated him most. Neither were they actuated simply by an aversion to his holiness; for they had a more substantial, if not a better reason for hating him. If he had been content merely to go about doing good, and teaching righteousness, “ letting other people alone,” he might have passed his days in peace. But such was not his sense of duty. He knew that his teaching could not have proper effect unless the erroneous doctrines of the Pharisees, who were then the chief teachers of Israel, were dislodged from the public mind, and the mask of hypocrisy, which had secured them their great reputation for piety, were stripped off. He undertook, therefore, an offensive warfare upon their doctrinal tenets and their religious pretensions. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew contains an epitome of this warfare on his part, than which there is not a more withering philippic on record in all literature. Such denunciation necessarily provoked the most intense hatred on the part of such Pharisees as were too deeply imbued with the prevailing spirit of the party to be reached by the truth. By this very fact, however, they made it more evident to the people that they deserved all the denunciation which he hurled against them. On the other hand, the Sadducees were so well pleased with his successful assaults upon their hereditary and too powerful enemies, that they forgave, in some degree, his known opposition to their favorite doctrine, and felt for him some friendly sympathy. With the apostles the relations of these parties were as naturally reversed. Instead of assaulting, in detail, the doctrinal tenets of any party, they confined their labors, at first, to testimony concerning the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. This confirmed the chief distinctive doctrine of the Pharisees, who believed in a resurrection, and it left their other tenets, for the time being, unnoticed. But the whole force of this preaching was leveled against Sadduceean infidelity in reference to the resurrection, and it therefore aroused this party to an activity never exhibited before. They rushed in and arrested Peter and John, “ being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead.” They were seconded in this violent movement by the priests who were at the time officiating in the temple, and who were either identified with the Sadducees, or were enraged because the apostles, in the very midst of the temple, were drawing away the people from waiting upon their services. The “ captain of the temple,” with his guard, was doubtless subject to the orders of the chief of the officiating priests, and executed the arrest. Acts 4:4. The audience who had been listening to Peter must have been thrown into intense excitement by the arrest, and the disciples among them, doubtless, expected to see re-enacted, in the persons of Peter and John, the murderous scenes which had terminated the life of their master. Notwithstanding this excitement, however, the words of Peter were not without a decided effect upon the hitherto unbelieving portion of his hearers; for Luke says: (4) “But many of those who were hearing the word believed, and the number of the men became about five thousand.” Whether this number includes the three thousand who were added on Pentecost or not, has been a matter of some dispute, but it is generally agreed by critics that it does. If those who believed on the present occasion were alone intended, the writer would have said the number en, was, instead of egenethe, became, about five thousand. Acts 4:5-6. The prisoners having been arrested late in the afternoon, all further proceedings were adjourned till the next day, and Peter and John had the quiet of a night in prison for reflection and mutual encouragement ere they were brought to trial. (5) “And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes, (6) and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together in Jerusalem.” This assembly was the great Jewish Sanhedrim, and the parties here named are the different officials who constituted that tribunal. Who John and Alexander were is not now known. Annas and Caiaphas are historical characters, conspicuous in the history of the trial of Jesus, and also prominent on the pages of Josephus. Between the latter and Luke there is an apparent discrepancy, in reference to their official position at this time, Luke calling Annas the high priest, and Josephus attributing that dignity to Caiaphas. According to Josephus, Valerius Gratus, the immediate predecessor of Pontius Pilate, had removed Annas from the high priesthood, and after having appointed and removed three others, one of them, Eleazar, the son of Annas, finally left Caiaphas in office, when he was superseded by Pilate. The Apostle John informs us that Caiaphas was son-in-law to Annas. According to the law of Moses the high priest held office during life; hence, in deposing Annas, the Roman governor violated the Jewish Law, and the act was religiously null and void. Annas was still high priest by right, and for this reason is so styled here by Luke. The Jews, also, recognized his right, by taking Jesus before him for trial, though he, not daring to claim the office, sent them to Caiaphas. In his former narrative, Luke also mentions them both as being high priests at the same time. This is best explained by the fact that one was rightfully entitled to the office, and the other was exercising it by illegal appointment. The “ kindred of the high priest” embraced not only the chief members of his immediate family, but also some of the deposed high priests, who were all, in great probability, connected with the one high priestly family, and thereby entitled to seats in the Sanhedrim. Acts 4:7. When the court was assembled, the prisoners were introduced, and the cripple, who had been healed had the boldness to appear by their side. (7) “And placing them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have you done this?”This is not the first time that Peter and John had been together in the presence of this august assembly. As they gazed around for a moment, and recognized the faces of their judges, they could not fail to remember that terrible morning when their masters stood there in bonds, and they themselves, full of fearful misgivings, stood in a distant part of the hall, and looked on. The fall, and the bitter tears of Peter, on that occasion, were now a warning and a strength to them both, and their very position brought to mind some solemn words of Jesus which had never acquired a present value till now. “ Beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in the synagogues, and you shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what you shall say. For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your father that speaks in you.” Cheered by this promise, they now stand before their accusers and judges with a boldness unaccountable to the latter. The prisoners had been arrested without a formal charge being preferred against them, and the court was now dependent upon what might be extorted from them, for the ground of their accusation. The question propounded to them is remarkable for its vagueness. By what power, or, in what name, have you done this? Done what? might have been the answer. Done this preaching? or this miracle? or what? The question specified nothing. There was no one particular thing done by Peter, on which they dared fix attention; but they frame an indefinite question, in attempting to answer which they evidently hoped he would say something on which they might condemn him. Acts 4:8-10. They could not, however, have asked a question which suited Peter any better. It left him at liberty to select any thing he had done as the subject of reply, and, therefore, he chose to select that deed, which, of all that had been done, they were most unwilling to hear mentioned. He frames his answer, too, with a more direct reference to the other terms of their question, than they either desired or anticipated. (8) “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (9) If we are examined this day concerning the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he had been saved, (10) be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him doth this man stand before you sound.” This statement needed no proof, for the Sanhedrim could not deny, with the man standing before them, that the miracle had been wrought, nor could they, with plausibility, attribute the deed to any other power or name than that assumed by Peter. To deny that it was a divine power would have been absurd in the estimation of all the people; but to admit that the power was divine, and yet reject the explanation given by those through whom it was exercised, would have been still more absurd. Acts 4:11-12. Realizing the advantage which he had now gained, Peter pushes his adversaries into still closer quarters, by adding: (11) “This is the stone which was despised by you builders, which has become the head of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved.” In this passage, he places his proud judges in the ridiculous attitude of searching about vainly for a stone to fit the corner of the foundation, while persistently rejecting the real corner-stone, without which the building can be reared. And, leaving the figurative language of David, he more fully declares, that there is no salvation for man except in the name of the very Jesus whom they had crucified. This proposition is universal, and shows that the redemption effected by Jesus will include every human being who shall finally be saved. Acts 4:13-14. Instead of answering evasively and timidly, as was expected of men in their social position, when arraigned in such a presence, the apostles had unhesitatingly avowed the chief deed of yesterday's proceedings, with the name in which it had been done, stating all in the terms most obnoxious to their hearers. (13) “Now, seeing the freedom of speech of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were illiterate and private men, they were astonished, and recognized them, that they had been with Jesus. (14) But beholding the man who was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.” There was total silence for awhile, when Peter ceased speaking. Not a man in the Sanhedrim could open his mouth in reply to Peter's brief speech. He had avowed every obnoxious sentiment on account of which they had been instigated to arrest him, yet not one of them dares to contradict his words, or to rebuke him for giving them utterance. The silence was painful and embarrassing. Acts 4:15-16. Finally, the silence was broken by a proposition that the prisoners be withdrawn. (15) “And having commanded them to go aside out of the Sanhedrim, they conferred among themselves, (16) saying, What shall we do to these men? For that, indeed, a noted miracle has been wrought by them, is manifest to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we can not deny it.” This admission, in their secret deliberations, shows the utter heartlessness and hypocrisy of their proceedings, and it is astonishing that they could any longer give each other countenance in such a course. Acts 4:17. The real motive which controlled them, and under the influence of which they kept each other in countenance, was an unconquerable desire to maintain their old influence with the people. This is manifested in the conclusion to which they came. (17) “But, that it may be spread no further among the people, let us strictly threaten them, that they speak, henceforth, to no man in this name.” The man who made this proposition no doubt thought that he had most satisfactorily solved a difficult problem, and the majority were too well pleased to find some means of escape from their present awkward predicament, to look very shrewdly into the probable success of the measure proposed. It was a safe course, if not a very bold one, and as there was no obstacle in the way but conscience, the could find no difficulty in pursuing it. Acts 4:18. The resolution was no sooner formed than acted upon. (18) “And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus.” How Luke learned the particulars of the secret consultation which resulted in this injunction, we are not informed, though it is not difficult to imagine. Gamaliel, Saul's teacher, and perhaps Saul himself, was present as a member of the Sanhedrim; and a great company of the priests themselves afterward became obedient to the faith. These and other conversions from the ranks of the enemy opened up channels for such information in abundance. Acts 4:19-20. The apostles, if at all anxious concerning their personal safety, might have received this stern command in silence, and retired respectfully from the assembly. (19) “But, Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right, in the sight of God, to hearken to you rather than to God, do you judge. (20) For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” This was an open defiance of their power, with a direct appeal to their own consciences for a vindication of it. The apostles were not willing that their silence should be construed into even a momentary acquiescence in such a command, and they spoke in such a manner as to be distinctly understood. Acts 4:21-22. It was a sore trial to the haughty spirits of the Sanhedrim to brook such defiance; but a desire to conciliate the people, mingled, no doubt, with a secret fear of the consequences of putting to death men who had exercised such power, restrained their wrath. (21) “And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, not finding how they might punish them, because of the people; for all glorified God for what was done. (22) For the man on whom this miracle of healing was wrought was more than forty years of age.“ Acts 4:23-30. The apostles had now humbled the pride of their adversaries, and went away from the assembly in triumph. But they were uninflated by their present prosperity, as they had been undaunted by their recent danger. They had now attained that lofty degree of faith and hope which enables men to maintain a steady calmness amid all the vicissitudes of life. The course they immediately pursued is worthy of remembrance, and of all imitation. (23) “And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported what the high priests and the elders had said to them. (24) And when they heard it, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said: Sovereign Lord, thou God who hast made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them; (25) who through the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? (26) The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his anointed. (27) For, of a truth, against thy holy son Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontus Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (28) to do what thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (29) And now, Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant to thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, (30) by stretching out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy son Jesus.” This prayer was uttered by one of the brethren, and the expression, “ they lifted up their voice with one accord,” indicates the perfect unity of sentiment with which they followed the words of the leader. In all the prayers of the apostles, we observe strict appropriateness, in the ascription to God with which they open, and a remarkable simplicity in presenting the exact petition, and no more, which the occasion demands. On a former occasion, they had set before him two men, that he might choose one for the apostolic office, and they addressed him as the “ heart-knower;” now they desire his protecting power, and they style him the “ Sovereign God who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that is in them.” They remind him that, according to his own words by David, kings and rulers, in the persons of Herod and Pilate, had risen up against his anointed while the people and the Gentiles were imagining vain things; and they pray him to “ behold the threatening,” and grant to his servants boldness to speak the word in defiance of all opposition. In these days of passion and war, in which it is common for prayers to be filled with earnest entreaties for victory over our enemies, and sometimes with terrible maledictions against those who are waging war against our supposed rights, it is quite refreshing to observe the tone of this apostolic prayer. These men were not in danger of losing some mere political power or privilege, but the dearest and most indisputable right they had on earth was denied them, and they were threatened with death if they did not relinquish it; yet, in their prayers, they manifest no vindictive nor resentful spirit; but, in reference to their enemies they simply pray, Lord, behold their threatenings. Their gentle spirits never could have conceived that unblushing impiety which now so often brings men upon their knees for the very purpose of pouring out in the ears of God those violent and destructive passions which he has forbidden us to allow a place even within our hearts. By such prayers men seek to make God a partisan in every angry contention among men, as though he were nothing more than themselves. Much needs to be said upon this unhappy theme, but it can not be said here. In praying for boldness the apostles give an intimation of the manner in which they expected it to be imparted to them. It was not by some direct and internal spiritual impact, but by external manifestations of his continued presence and favor: “by stretching out his hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be wrought through the name of Jesus.” Acts 4:31. The prayer for boldness was answered at once, and in the way they had requested. (31) “And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness.” The shaking of the house, attended by a conscious renewal of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, gave them the boldness for which they prayed, because it assured them that God was still with them. Acts 4:32-35. From this brief account of the first conflict of the young congregation, Luke again turns, to view more minutely the internal condition of the Church. Their religious life was now more fully developed, than at the period glanced at in the close of the second chapter, and his description is more in detail. (32) “Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did one of them say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. (33) And with great power the apostle gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was upon them all. (34) Neither was there any among them who lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands, or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the feet of the apostles; and it was distributed to each, as any one had need.” Considering the immense numbers of this congregation, and that they were so suddenly drawn together from every class of society, it is certainly remarkable, and well worthy of a place in this record, that they were “of one heart and of one mind.” But the most signal proof of the power of the gospel among them was the almost entire subsidence of selfishness. Among the heathen nations of antiquity, systematic provision of the wants of the poor was unknown; and even among the Jews, whose law was watchful for the welfare of the poor in many respects, those who became insolvent were sold into temporary bondage to pay their debts. It was, therefore, a new thing under the sun, to see a large community selling houses and lands to supply the wants of the poor. It could but give additional weight to all that was said by the apostles, and for this reason Luke breaks the thread of his statements concerning it, to throw in the remark, that “ With great power the apostles gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was among all.” This remark does not mean that the testimony of the apostles was more distinct or positive, or that it was sustained by more signal miracles than before; for neither of these is possible. But it means that their testimony had more power with the people; and this is attributed to the harmony observed within the Church, together with their unheard-of benevolence, which combined to give them “ great favor” with the people. The fact that distribution was made to each as he had need, shows that it was only the needy who received any thing, and that there was no equalization of property. The sale of property and consecration of the proceeds was voluntary with each individual, and not an established law of the Church. This is evident from the question of Peter to Ananias, below: “ While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?” Acts 4:36-37. After stating that many brethren who had property sold it, and gave up the proceeds, Luke now gives an individual instance of this liberality, introduced, no doubt, on account of the subsequent celebrity of the individual. (36) “Now Joses, who was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles, (which is, when translated, son of exhortation,) a Levite, a Cyprian by birth, (37) having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles.” This surname was given to Joses on account of his excellence in horatory address, and not on account of the consolation which he afforded by his liberality. The original term paraklesis, rendered consolation in the common version, is a verbal noun used to express both the act of the verb parakalein and the effect produced by it. We have no one word in English to represent it in these two senses; but exhortation expresses the act, and consolation the effect. We have, therefore, exhortation eight times in the common version, when the paraklesis is connected with the agent, but always consolation when the reference is to the recipient. As Barnabas is contemplated at the agent, in this case, it should be exhortation, not consolation. This criticism is confirmed by the history of Barnabas. When the Church in Jerusalem heard that a congregation was planted in Antioch, they sent Barnabas thither, who “exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they should cleave to the Lord.” This exhorting being the object for which he was sent, his selection for the mission indicates his superiority in that kind of talent. Perhaps it was chiefly on account of this talent, in which Paul was deficient, that Barnabas became the traveling companion of this apostle. It is a talent much more rare than mere logical power, and has always been highly prized by the Churches. It is quite probable that the land sold by Barnabas constituted his whole estate. Having no family dependent on him, he consecrated his life to unrequited missionary labor. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Four IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To study the beginning of the persecution against the church, and the reason for it 2) To note the apostolic response to persecution, and continued progress of the church in Jerusalem SUMMARY The first case of persecution against the church is described in this chapter. Peter and John are put into custody because their preaching on the resurrection of Jesus disturbed a number of the religious leaders (in particular the Sadducees who denied any resurrection, Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8). In spite of this, the number of men who believed came to be about five thousand (Acts 4:1-4). After a night in jail, Peter and John are brought before the council, including the high priest and members of his family. Challenged to explain themselves, Peter proclaims the healing was done by the name of Jesus Christ, the very one they crucified yet whom God raised from the dead and who has now become "the chief cornerstone" (cf. Psalms 118:22), and in whose name alone salvation is now available. Amazed at Peter and John's boldness, and unable to deny that the lame man had been healed, the council sends them outside and confer among themselves. They decide to prevent the spread of the apostles' doctrine by threatening Peter and John not to preach or teach in the name of Jesus. The apostles respond that they must speak what they have seen and heard. The council, unable to do anything more at this time because of the people, simply threaten the apostles once again and let them go (Acts 4:5-22). Returning to their companions, Peter and John report what has been said. Prayer is offered, asking for boldness in view of the persecution foretold in Psalms 2:1-2, and for signs and wonders to continue in the name of Jesus. At the conclusion of the prayer, the place where they prayed was shaken and all were filled the Holy Spirit, emboldening them to speak the Word of God (Acts 4:23-31). The chapter ends with a description of the continued growth of the church, with the oneness of the brethren and the empowered testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Jesus. The great liberality continues, meeting the needs of the saints. One example in particular is noted, that of Barnabas, whose work is featured later in the book (cf. Acts 11:22-30 Acts 13:1 to Acts 15:41), and whose liberality stands in stark contrast to what takes place in the next chapter (Acts 4:32-36). OUTLINE I. THE ARREST OF PETER AND JOHN (Acts 4:1-22) A. BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL (Acts 4:1-12)1. Peter and John taken into custody a. By the priests, captain of the temple, and the Sadducees b. Who were upset by their preaching in Jesus the resurrection from the dead c. Kept overnight until the next day d. The number of those who believed came to be about five thousand 2. Their appearance before the Council (Sanhedrin) a. Before the rulers, elders and scribes b. Before Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, along with other family members of the high priest c. Peter and John challenged to explain by what power or name they have acted 3. Peter's response as led be the Spirit a. Were they being judged for doing a good deed to a helpless man in making him well? b. It was by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth he was made whole 1) Whom they crucified 2) Whom God raised from the dead 3) Who is the stone rejected by the builders, and has become the chief cornerstone - cf. Psalms 118:22c. There is salvation in no other name under heaven B. NOT TO TEACH (Acts 4:13-22)1. The council's reaction a. What the council saw 1) The boldness of Peter and John a) Perceived as uneducated and untrained men b) Realized as having been with Jesus 2) The man who had been healed a) Standing with Peter and John b) Against whose healing nothing could be said b. What the council reasoned 1) A notable has occurred, evident to all, none could deny 2) To prevent further spread, to threaten the apostles c. What the council did 1) Commanded Peter and John 2) Not to speak at all or teaching in the name of Jesus 2. Peter and John's reply a. Shall they listen to the council or God? b. They cannot but speak what they have seen and heard 3. Peter and John released a. Upon further threatening b. Finding no way of punishing them, c. Because of the people, who glorified God for what had been done d. For the man who was healed was over forty years old II. THE PRAYER FOR (Acts 4:23-31) A. PETER AND JOHN RETURN (Acts 4:23)1. To their brethren 2. To report all that had been said to them B. THEIR PRAYER (Acts 4:24-30)1. Addressed to the Lord God, Creator of all things a. Who prophesied by the mouth of His servant David b. Of the nations' rage and plotting against His Christ c. As fulfilled by Herod and Pilate, by Gentiles and Israel d. Who did according to His predetermined purpose 2. Asking for all boldness in the face of such threats a. That His servants may speak His word b. That His hand might stretch out 1) To heal, to do signs and wonders 2) Through the name of His holy Servant Jesus C. THE ANSWER (Acts 4:31)1. The place in which they were assembled was shaken 2. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit 3. They spoke the word of God with boldness III. THE OF THE CHURCH (Acts 4:32-37) A. THEIR UNITY (Acts 4:32)1. The multitude of believers were of one heart and one soul 2. None claimed their possessions as their own; they had all things in common B. THEIR (Acts 4:33)1. With great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of Jesus 2. And great grace was upon them all C. THEIR (Acts 4:34-37)1. None among them lacked what they needed a. For all who possessed lands or houses sold them b. The proceeds were laid at the apostles' feet c. Distribution was made as each had need 2. The example of Joses a. Called Barnabas, Son of Encouragement, by the apostles b. A Levite of the country of Cyprus c. Sold land, and laid the money at the apostles' feet REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The arrest of Peter and John (Acts 4:1-22) - The prayer for boldness (Acts 4:23-31) - The progress of the church (Acts 4:32-37) 2) Who came upon Peter and John while they were speaking? (Acts 4:1)- The priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees 3) Why were they upset with Peter and John? (Acts 4:2)- Because they preached in Jesus the resurrection of the dead 4) Why did that upset them? (cf. Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8)- The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection 5) What did they do with Peter and John? (Acts 4:3)- Placed them in custody until the next day 6) How many men had come to believe in Christ? (Acts 4:4)- About five thousand 7) Who joined the rulers, elders and scribes on the next day? (Acts 4:5-6)- Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and other members of the family of the high priest 8) What did they ask Peter and John? (Acts 4:7)- "By what power or by what name have you done this?" 9) What name did Peter given them? (Acts 4:8-10)- The name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth 10) What had the religious leaders done? What had God done? (Acts 4:10)- Crucified Jesus - Raised Jesus from the dead 11) What else did Peter say about Jesus? (Acts 4:11-12)- He is the rejected stone which has become the chief cornerstone (cf. Psalms 118:22) - There is salvation in no other name but His 12) What did the religious leaders see, perceive, and realize about Peter and John? (Acts 4:13)- Their boldness - That they were uneducated and untrained men - That they had been with Jesus 13) What could the religious leaders not deny? (Acts 4:14)- That the man standing with Peter and John had been healed 14) After Peter and John were put out of the council, what did the council confer among themselves? (Acts 4:15-17)- They could not deny such a notable miracle - To prevent the spread of the apostles' doctrine, to severely threaten them 15) What did the council command Peter and John? How did they respond? (Acts 4:18-20)- Not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus - "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge." - "...we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." 16) After threatening the apostles some more, why did the council not punish them further? (Acts 4:21-22)- Because of the people, who glorified God for what had been done 17) Once released, what did Peter and John do? (Acts 4:23)- Returned to their companions and reported all the council had said 18) What did they then do? (Acts 4:24)- Pray to God 19) What Messianic prophecy did they refer to in their prayer? (Acts 4:25-26)- The one found in Psalms 2:1-2 20) Who were mentioned as a fulfillment of opposing God and Christ? (Acts 4:27)- Herod and Pilate; the Gentiles and the people of Israel 21) In their opposition against God, what had they actually done? (Acts 4:28)- What God had determined before to be done 22) In their prayer, what did the apostles ask of God? (Acts 4:29-30)- To consider the threats and give His servants boldness to speak His word - To grant healing signs and wonders to be done in the name of Jesus 23) What happened in response to their prayer? (Acts 4:31)- The place where they assembled shook; they were all filled with the Holy Spirit - They spoke the word of God with boldness 24) What manifested the oneness of the believers at that time? (Acts 4:32)- They had all things in common 25) What manifested the greatness enjoyed by the church at that time? (Acts 4:33)- With great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of Jesus - Great grace was upon them all 26) What manifested their love and generosity at that time? (Acts 4:34-35)- Those who had lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds to the apostles - Distribution was made as anyone had need 27) Who was singled out as an example of their liberality? (Acts 4:36-37)- Joses, a Levite from Cyprus named Barnabas (Son of Encouragement) by the apostles This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 4:2. Grieved is from , which the Thayer lexicon defines at this place, "To be troubled, displeased, offended, pained, worked up." The Sad-ducees did not believe in the resurrection and would naturally resent any teaching in favor of the subject. The main cause of this displeasure, however, was that the apostles were telling that it was through Jesus that the dead would be resurrected. They had already come to hate Him because of His exposure of their sins and inconsistencies (Matthew 16:1-4 Matthew 22:23 Matthew 22:34), and now to have Him held up to the people as the hope of the resurrection, a doctrine they rejected with all the bitterness possible, was more than they could stand. 3Act 4:3. Laid hands on them means they arrested the apostles. Hold is another word for "prison," but they were put there and held "without charge" for the time, because it was too late in the day to have any hearing on the case. 4Acts 4:4. Howbeit is not in the original text, and does not serve any important purpose, although it is not out of line with the thought of the passage. The original does justify the statement that many believed. That is a frequent expression used by the inspired writers to mean that the people obeyed the commands given them. If the word is used in a restricted sense it will say so, as in the case of the rulers in John 12:42. Number of the men was, etc. The Englishmen's Greek New Testament renders this passage, "the number of men became about five thousand." Moffatt translates it, "bringing up their number to about five thousand." It means that the new believers made on this occasion, added to what, they already had, made the total number of disciples in fellowship with the apostles about five thousand. 6Acts 4:5-6. This paragraph shows a meeting of the council or Sanhedrin (verse 15), to see what could be done about the stir that was being caused over the work and preaching of the apostles. According to Thayer, the rulers were leading men of the Jews who were members of the Sanhedrin. The elders in this case is defined by Thayer, "Members of the great council or Sanhedrin," then explains "because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from the elderly men." Scribes came to have a very influential position in the time of Christ and the apostles. A full description of the word is given with the comments at Matthew 13:52. Annas and Caiaphas are both mentioned in connection with the high priesthood. That was due to some interference by the secular government in the affairs of the Jews. (See the comments at Luke 3:2.) All we know of John and Alexander is that they were leading men in Jerusalem at this time, and related in some way to the high priest. Others of the high priesthood who were not so outstanding are merely referred to as such. 7Acts 4:7. After this meeting of the Sanhedrin was called, they brought Peter and John out of the prison where they had been held overnight, and placed them in the midst of the assembly. The last word of the verse is a pronoun that refers to the healing of the lame man. No attempt was made to deny the fact for it was too well known for them to try that plan in their persecution of the apostles (verse 16). Hence they were foolish enough to think they could oppose the work by showing that it was done illegally. As though any law could be made that would forbid' curing a man of a physical infirmity! Power is from DUNAMIS and means strength or ability. This was another question that showed how desperate the council was in its desire to punish the apostles. Whatever might have been the power that was used, if it actually healed a man of a life-long infirmity, and without doing anyone else any harm, there could not possibly be any wrong about it. But these persecutors would not depend solely on the one point of attack; they also demanded to know by what name they had done the deed, which means by what authority they did it. One of Thayer's definitions of the original word is, "To do a thing by one's command and authority, acting on his behalf, promoting his cause." This was also a foolish question, and could not in any way touch the matter of right and wrong in the deed performed. If a man was pretending to offer remedial services to the public independent of the laws of the land, and was suspected of defrauding people, it would be entirely proper to require him to "show his license." But nothing of that kind was being done, for the actual healing of the patient had been done without any infringement of authority, either human or divine. However, the apostles did actually perform their deed under authority to act, as we shall soon see. 8Acts 4:8. Filled with the Holy Ghost. This does not mean that Peter Just then was filled with the Spirit, for he received that in the second chapter in fulfillment of the promise made the apostles by Jesus (John 14:16), and it was to abide with them forever. The writer means that Peter was qualified to speak with authority to this audience, because he was in possession of the Holy Ghost or Spirit. All persons present were expected to hear what Peter said, but the rulers and elders were the ones who had taken the lead in this action against the apostles, hence it was appropriate to make his address especially to them. 9Acts 4:9. To be examined means to be questioned and investigated. Peter did not object to being questioned, but he did not consider that they had even accused him of anything wrong, much less been shown any testimony that was claimed to hint at such a thing. Instead, he virtually held his investigators up to shame by the statement that the investigation was over a good deed done to the impotent (weak) man. 0Acts 4:10. In all of the circumstances that ever came upon the apostles that concerned their work, they never failed to use the opportunity for preaching Christ to the hearers. Peter not only told them that it was in the name of Jesus that the deed was done, but he reminded them that it was the same person whom they had crucified. This was not said in the spirit of petty resentment, for an inspired apostle would not need to resort to that sort of speech. It was in order to show them that even death on the cross did not prevent Him from accomplishing his intended work for mankind. As definite proof that death could not overthrow the plans of Jesus, Peter reminded them that God had raised his Son from the grave. 1Act 4:11. While the vital facts concerning the experiences of Christ were under consideration in this "investigation," Peter cited these leading Jews t(, a prophecy in Psalms 118:22, which they had fulfilled by slaying Jesus. And when God overruled their wicked deed and brought his Son out from the grave, and seated him on the throne in Heaven, he caused that Son to be the head of the earner. 2Act 4:12. All of the discourses of the apostles contained the same thoughts, even though they were not always worded alike. This verse corresponds to chapter 2:36, 38 and 3:16, 19, and is similar in thought to the "closing exhortations" of evangelistic sermons today. Peter made a strong and exclusive claim for Christ. He not only declared that salvation could be had in Him, but that no salvation could be found in any other. Under heaven given among men. There is much truth involved in this phrase, for it designates the only part of the universe where any means of salvation is being offered. Under heaven would denote that no salvation is planned (or needed) for beings living in Heaven. Among men restricts. the realm outside of heaven to the place where men live as human beings, and that would exclude those in the unseen world or Hades, even though they are "under heaven." Must is from DEI which Thayer defines, "It is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper." Robinson gives the general definition, "It is binding on anyone, it behooves one to do, i. e., one must, one ought." He then says that in the New Testament it means, "It. behooves, it must needs, one must or ought." The passage does not teach that anyone must be saved at all, for the matter of accepting salvation is one to be decided by man; "Whosoever will may come." The verse means that if a man is saved, it must be through the name (or authority) of Christ. 3Act 4:13. The lexicon defines the original for boldness to mean, "Freedom in speaking, unreservedness in speech; openly, frankly; free and fearless confidence, cheerful courage." Perceived is from , which Thayer defines at this place, "To lay hold of with the mind; to understand, learn, comprehend." Unlearned and ignorant does not refer to their natural intelligence, for even their enemies did not think the apostles were lacking along that line; had they thought so, they would not have been so uneasy about their influence with the people. The phrase means the apostles were not cultured in the art of learning as taught in the public institutions, but were private citizens without what the world would call "education." The leaders in the Sanhedrin perceived (realized) that the apostles were without these advantages of learning, yet beheld their boldness and ability of speech, and that caused them to marvel. They had to account for it in some way, which they did by concluding that the men had been with Jesus. These Jewish leaders did not know what Jesus had taught his apostles, but many of them had heard Him speak and had known how bold and outspoken he was. Now they conclude that the apostles had been with Jesus so much that they had imbibed the same spirit of courage and force of speech, which'made them (the leaders in the Sanhedrin) fearful of the influence they might have over the common people. 4Acts 4:14. It refers to the boldness of Peter and John. The reason the Jews could not say anything against their outspoken claims for the power of Jesus by which they were working, was that the man whom they had healed was right there with them, and was standing, something no one had ever seen him do before. 5Acts 4:15. Commanded them means they ordered the apostles to leave the Sanhedrin while a consultation was being held. It was much like the circumstance where a jury is taken out of the court room, while the lawyers argue over some question of the testimony, as if they feared the men might catch some truth they did not want them to hear. 6Acts 4:16. These Jews knew they could not deny the fact of the lame man's recovery. And it would not have been so bad if only they knew about it; but it was manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem. 7Acts 4:17. Threaten means an indefinite warning that something very bad will be done, without stating what that will be. It is an intimation that does not have any specific charge, as the word is being used in this case. It is very much like the warning of some irresponsible parent or guardian, "If you do not behave yourself, you will wish that you had." These rulers knew they could not cite any law that was being violated by the preaching of the apostles, hence they thought they could daunt them by their cowardly threats. 8Acts 4:18. The leaders in the Sanhedrin concluded that they did not have any recourse to the law, hence all they could do was to threaten the apostles. They brought their victims back into the assembly and ordered them to cease speaking in Christ's name. 9Acts 4:19. The apostles made a respectful but firm reply to the order against speaking in the name of Christ. They made no reference to the threat, doubtless regarding such a subject such a petty thing that it was beneath their dignity. But they put the issue in its true light by showing that the leaders of the Sanhedrin were demanding more consideration for themselves than they allowed the apostles to show for God. 0Acts 4:20. Cannot but speak has a double force as to obligation. The apostles had seen Jesus after his resurrection, and had heard him command them to tell the story to others. Therefore when they preached the Gospel of Christ they were dealing with matters of evidence on which they could speak without any guesswork. They also were under the duty to speak these things to the world, or else they would be guilty of failing in their obligation to Him who had commissioned them for the work. 1Act 4:21. Because of the people. Public sentiment is a powerful influence, and when it is aroused in favor of a good cause, not many leaders are willing to defy it, especially if they are desirous of maintaining a popular standing. The Sanhedrin officials knew there was nothing in the deed of healing a lame man that could call for any punishment, and if they attempted such a thing the public would unite against it, because they had already expressed an attitude of glory to God for the good deed. 2Act 4:22. It would have been useless to claim the whole circumstance was a delusion, for the man was more than forty years old who had been healed. A mere child or very young man might have been said to be ready for improvement through the course of nature. Such a theory would not be accepted concerning a man forty years old. 3Act 4:23. Their own company means the believers who were assembled (verse 31), no doubt waiting to see the outcome of the action against the apostles. When Peter and John were released they went and joined the gathering of disciples and made a report. 4Acts 4:24. The report did not discourage the believers but strengthened their faith. It did not even cause any dissension among them, for they spoke with one accord. They offered a prayer to God whom they recognized to be the Maker of all things. 5Acts 4:25. One reason the disciples were not discouraged, was the fact that what had occurred to the apos- tles was a fulfillment of one of the prophecies. They were acquainted with the predictions that David made in Psalms 2:1-2, but acknowledged that it was God speaking through the mouth of the Psalmist. The prediction is in the form of a question, because the prophetic style is not always in the regular form of literal language. Heathen is from ETHNOS, which means the nations in general who are not Jews. The leaders of the Sanhedrin were Jews, but they could accomplish their purposes against Christ and the apostles only by resorting to the Roman courts which were Gentile. Rage is from PHRUSSO, and its general definition is, "To neigh, stamp the ground, prance, snort; to be high-spirited." Imagine is from MELETAO, which Thayer defines, "To meditate or devise, contrive." Vain is from KENOS and is defined, "Vain, fruitless, without effect." The idea is that the enemies of the Lord planned and schemed to destroy the work He was doing on the earth, even to the extent of persecuting his Son first, then the servants who were doing His work. But the prediction was that their schemes would prove to be in vain, for God would finally overrule all to the good of the world. 6Acts 4:26. This verse is somewhat indefinite, meaning that the powers of government in various domains among men would be arrayed against the Lord (the Divine Ruler) and his Christ (or Anointed One). 7Acts 4:27. Of a truth. It was a true prediction that David made, for such opposition actually took place within the knowledge of these disciples. Herod was in the line set up by the Maccabees, and was supposed to represent the interests of the Jews. Pilate was a governor in the Roman Empire, and represented the heathen or Gentile nations. Gentiles and people of Israel are named as a general summing up of the forces that worked against the Lord. The Herod who is named in this verse is Antipas, son of Herod the Great; he is the one mentioned in Luke 23:7-12. 8Acts 4:28. They did not do this planning for the purpose of carrying out the work of God, for they were enemies of Him. The statement means that their schemes were what God had aforetime determined should be done. But although their work was according to the plans of God, they were not justified, for their motive was wicked throughout. 9Acts 4:29. The disciples called the attention of the Lord to the threaten-ings of the Sanhedrin, but not to ask for any personal relief from persecutions. Instead, they prayed for divine help for the speakers of truth, that they might be able to speak the word with all boldness. The last word is from the same original as in 13, meaning to be outspoken and fearless in proclaiming the truth. They were not worrying about what sufferings it might bring on them; they were concerned only in the effectiveness of the truth that was going to be offered to the people. 0Acts 4:30. Knowing that human might alone would not avail, they asked the Lord to confirm the preaching by demonstrations of miraculous power. It should be observed that they wished all of this to be done in the name of Jesus, the very One whose name they had been forbidden by the Sanhedrin to proclaim. 1Act 4:31. In the days of miracles, God sometimes answered prayers with a physical demonstration, or by something that could be discerned by the natural sense (John 12:27-30), and the present case is another of such an evidence. Were all filled with the Holy Ghost. In the book of Acts there are no less than ten places where the expression to be "full" or "filled" with the Holy Ghost is used. It is said of both official and unofficial disciples; sometimes applying to the apostles and at others referring to the ordinary disciples. Since we know that the quail-cations of the apostles were greater than those of any other Christians, we should understand that the expression under consideration is one with various shades of meaning, and the connection must always be considered in each instance for determining the force of the term. It would be natural to ask how two people could be "full" of anything, and yet one of them have more of it than the other. The passage in John 3:34 should always be remembered when the subject of the Holy Ghost or Spirit is being studied. That statement shows that the Spirit can be measured or limited according to the will of God. But the mistake that is commonly made is to limit the word "full" or "measure" to the one quality of volume. But that is not a correct or necessary conclusion. A room could be "full" of smoke and still be capable of admitting more of it by making it more dense. A disciple could be full of the Holy Ghost, yet the density of it not be such as to enable the possessor to perform the same works as could the apostles. And so in the present verse, they were filled with the Holy Ghost in such measure or density or strength, that it encouraged them to speak the word with boldness. In the case of the apostles, the measure was such that they could testify with great power, which was what the other disciples prayed for in verse 30. 2Act 4:32. Was his own (personally), but that it was to be deposited in the common stock of money. For a complete discussion of this subject, see chapter 2:44, 45. 3Act 4:33. The great power came in answer to the prayer of the other disciples in verse 30, and it consisted in the miraculous deeds that they performed upon the people. The question might be asked, what would the miraculous performances of the apostles have to do with the resurrection of Jesus. It confirmed the testimony they were giving that they had seen Jesus alive after his death on the cross. Had they been false witnesses of that claim, they never could have performed the miracles, for God would not work with them in their activities. All of this proved that when they affirmed that Jesus had appeared to them after his resurrection, they were telling the truth. 4Acts 4:34. As to the merits of this community of resources, see the comments at chapter 2:44, 45. For the present verse and onward, we shall study the outworkings of the system with various kinds of disciples. 5Acts 4:35. The money received for their property was deposited with the apostles. That was logical since no other officials had been designated for any special work. 7Acts 4:36-37. We might wonder at the purpose of this paragraph, as it seems to be mentioned casually without any connection with the line of narrative being run. But it really does have a related purpose in what Luke knew he was about to report on the subject. There was to be given the sad story of some people who met with disaster because of their dishonesty. The present instance was given first to show that some disciples fulfilled their promise and came up to the agreement without a fault. The details of identity for this man are im-portant because of the prominent place Barnabas occupies later in the work of the Lord. We shall hear much of him while studying this book, and even in one of the epistles of Paul he will be named (1 Corinthians 9:6). H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 5 ANANIAS AND Acts 5:1-11 1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife,—Luke now turns to the dark side of the picture in the his¬tory of the early church; he selected two illustrations of those who sold lands and possessions; he has just described what Barnabas did, and now turns to another case which is put in contrast. “ A certain man named Ananias” and his wife Sapphira sold a piece of land. “ Ananias” was a name very familiar among the Jews; it means “ the grace of the Lord.” “ Sapphira” means “ beautiful” ; her name is mentioned twice in connection with the sin. “ With Sapphira his wife” is the way Luke presents her. The two illus-trations here were intended to be brought in contrast, as the con¬junction “ but” introduces this sentence; these illustrations lose some of their force by the division into chapters; this division was not made by Luke. 2 and kept back part of the price,—Ananias took the lead in this sin, but his wife knew of it and entered into the sin with him; they pretended to deliver up the entire amount which they had re¬ceived for the land. His wife was fully acquainted with his pur¬pose and agreed to join him in practicing the deception. The praise that Barnabas received for what he had done was too much for Ananias; he wanted to obtain the same praise, but he was not willing to make the sacrifice that Barnabas made; he wanted praise for giving all while he had given only a part. He started “ the Ananias Club” which has given a different meaning to his name—“ Jehovah hath been gracious.” 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart—This is the first sin recorded against any member of the church; it may not be the first sin that any of them committed, but it is the first one of which we have a record. We do not know how old the church was at this time, since we do not know how long it had been since Pentecost. We are not told how Satan filled the heart of Ananias to “ lie to the Holy Spirit.” We do know that Ananias permitted Satan to fill his heart; Ananias was held responsible for what he did, and therefore, he permitted Satan to prompt him to do the evil. There seems to be an inspiration of the devil as well as an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We may infer here that Satan is a real being acting upon and influencing men to do evil; that An¬anias had the power to resist Satan’ s influence, or he should not have been punished. Peter accused him of lying by keeping back a part of the price, and attempting to deceive; he thus attempts to deceive the Holy Spirit, since the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit. 4 While it remained, did it not remain thine own?—It was the property of Ananias and his wife; they volunteered to sell it; the price was in their hands, and they could do with it what they pleased. This shows that the disciples who owned property were not forced or commanded to dispose of that property; those who did so showed liberality and charity. Peter impresses upon him that he had not “ lied unto men, but unto God.” The community of goods was not compulsory; it was permitted and encouraged be¬cause of the emergency of the case; Peter does not say that Ana¬nias had not lied unto men at all, but that the gravity of his offense was that he thought to deceive God. 5-6 And Ananias hearing these words—Ananias died by the special visitation of God as a punishment for his hypocrisy and his attempt to deceive men in whom the Holy Spirit eminently dwelt, and thus attempting to deceive the Holy Spirit and God. “ Great fear came upon all that heard it.” This statement of Luke does not have reference merely to the time between the death of Ananias and Sapphira, but was made by the historian to show the effect that the death of Ananias had on all of the disciples. Some of the “ young men arose” and carried the body of Ananias out and buried it. The circumstances required a speedy burial; neither the place nor the circumstance would admit of much formal preparation for a funeral. It was customary among the Jews to bury on the same day that death occurred; coffins or caskets were not in use at that time, and they simply “ wrapped him round” with possibly his mantle that he had worn. This was done without delay and with¬out sending his wife word. It is very likely that all was done under the direction of the apostle Peter. The age and ability of the younger men made them suitable persons to bury the body. Some think that Luke described the wrapping with bandages as a physician would bandage a broken limb; however, others think that the young men used their own mantles in preparing the body for this speedy burial. 7 And it was about the space of three hours—It would seem strange that the death of the husband and the burial of his body should take place and his wife, Sapphira, not know anything about it. The custom, hot climate, and the strong sense of defilement from contact with a dead body would all tend to hasten burial, be¬sides the sense of awe caused by the manner of his death. The three hours would give time for the burial and for the young men to return from the burial. His wife came in about this time. We do not know where they were at this time, but probably in some well-known meeting place in Jerusalem. 8 And Peter answered unto her,—It seems that before she had learned of the death of her husband Peter asked her if the land had been sold for a certain price; he very likely specified the price that Ananias had mentioned. Sapphira answered the question and designated that price. “ Yea, for so much/’ Peter may have pointed to the pile of money that Ananias brought in when he asked her the question. Peter’ s question would awaken her con¬science and prompt her to tell the truth; but instead of confessing her sin she confirmed the lie told by Ananias. 9 But Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together—Sapphira was given the opportunity to confess her wrong and correct it, but she persisted in the sin. Peter then asked why she had agreed with Ananias “ to try the Spirit of the Lord.” Here Peter refers to “ the Holy Spirit” as “ the Spirit of the Lord,” because the Lord had sent the Holy Spirit. He then called her attention to the fact that the young men who had buried her husband had just returned, and that “ they shall carry thee out.” It seems that this case, whether intentional or not, was to “ try the Spirit of the Lord,” or put the Holy Spirit to the test to see whether the apostles or Holy Spirit could detect any hypocrisy or deception. Such was the nature of their conduct that it in¬volved a doubt whether their sin would ever be known, or a dis¬belief as to the knowledge and holiness of God. So deep was their sin, so utterly regardless were they of the presence of God, that they committed this crime against the Holy Spirit. Peter announced to her that her death would immediately take place. 10 And she fell down immediately at his feet,—Very close to the place where her husband had died and close to the place where the money was piled, Sapphira died. Her death, like that of An¬anias, was regarded as supernatural. The young men who had bur¬ied her husband came in and “ found her dead,” and carried her out and “ buried her by her husband.” Literally, they buried her “ face to face to her husband.” The swift judgment of God was visited upon her, thus impressing upon all in the church the fearfulness of sin. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church,—The church was purified of this awful sin. “ If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, and such are ye.” (1 Corinthians 3:17.) Fear came upon “ the whole'church.” Here for the first time in Acts we find “ ekklesia,” from which we get the word church. The word is used twice in Matthew (16: 18) where it is used to designate all believers in Christ and (18: 17) where it is used to designate the local body. In Acts 7:38 it is used to designate the whole congregation of Is¬rael, while in Acts 19:32 it is used to designate a public assembly in Ephesus; but in Acts 8:3 it is applied to the church which Saul was persecuting in their homes when not assembled. SIGNS AND WONDERS Acts 5:12-16 12 And by the hands of the apostles—Frequently we have the signs and wonders attributed to “ the hands of the apostles.” The awful judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira was followed by “ many signs and wonders” which were “ wrought among the peo¬ple.” Just as the exclusion of Achan was followed by victories of Israel at Ai (Joshua 7, 8), so these signs and wonders followed the cleansing of the church by the death of Ananias and Sapphira. “ Signs and wonders”— in Acts 2:43 it is put “ wonders and signs.” Miracles in the New Testament are described by four names— “ signs,” “ works,” “ wonders,” and “ powers.” They are “ signs” of the presence and power of God, of the truth of divine revelation; “ works” include all the doings of God which are supernatural; “ wonders” give the astonishing manifestations of God, attracting men’ s attention to him; “ powers” because they reveal the almighty power of God to help and save. Again we find the disciples “ all with one accord in Solomon’ s porch.” They assembled here when attracted by the healing of the lame man a few days before this. (Acts 3:11.) 13 But of the rest durst no man join himself—The miracles of the apostles had such an effect on the multitude that “ no man” attempted to “ join himself to them.” Who are meant by “ the rest” ? It seems to stand in contrast with “ all” in verse 12. If it does, then “ the rest” might refer to Pharisees, rulers, and the crowd generally; but others think that it has reference to the apos¬tles, and that the other disciples stood in awe of them and did not come near them. Christians and others were smitten with terror at the death of Ananias and Sapphira; and awed by the power of the apostles to know the secret thoughts of persons as shown by Peter discerning their falsehood, and seeing they were putting the Holy Spirit to the test in planning to deceive him, felt afraid to come near the apostles, and kept at a distance from them. While the people feared to join themselves to their company, yet they magni¬fied them for the superhuman knowledge and power they showed. 14 and believers were the more added to the Lord,—“ Prosetithento” is the Greek from which we get “ added” ; “ mallon” is the Greek for “ more.” It means literally that believers “ kept being added.” “ Both of men and women” describes the “ believers” ; only believers were added to the Lord; no infants or irresponsible persons were added to the Lord. The distinction between “ andres” and “ gunaikes,” or “ men and women,” may be considered in con¬nection with “ andres” in Acts 4:4. To be added “ to the Lord” is to be “ added to the church” ; and “ to be added to the church” is to be “ converted” ; hence, only converted ones were added to the church. 15 insomuch that they even carried out the sick—This verse seems to look back to verses 12 and 13, which show that the mem¬bership increased, together with the influence of the church, as the “ many signs and wonders” were wrought. Miracles were wrought, the disciples met together as a distinct body in Solomon’ s porch, the membership was much increased, so that they brought forth the sick for miraculous healing by the apostles. The places of public resort were not sufficient to accommodate the great num-ber that came for healing. They carried their sick “ into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches,” so that as Peter passed by, “ at the least his shadow might overshadow some one of them,” and they be healed. In his daily passing to and fro they hoped to be healed even by his shadow; that is, the power of the Holy Spirit would heal them through even Peter’ s shadow. This shows the great fear and reverence that the people had for the apostles who could work such miracles; it also shows the faith that they had in God through the preaching of Peter and John. 16 And there also came together the multitude—Not only were the sick brought to the apostles from Jerusalem, but the “ multitude from the cities round about Jerusalem” brought their sick and those who were vexed with “ unclean spirits,” and “ they were healed every one.” This states more clearly and fully the de¬tails of what had been stated in verse 12. It was a manifestation “ of signs and wonders” greater than any before mentioned in the history of the church thus far. Jesus had said: “ He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father.” Here was a fulfillment of this promise by Jesus. “ Unclean spirits” mean those who are possessed with demons. Some think that they were fallen angels who, being depraved themselves, seek to make others depraved. (Zechariah 13:2; Luke 4:33.) The sick and the demoniacs are here as in Luke 6:18 distinguished. The demoniacs may be associated with the sick as they usually are, for one possessed of a demon suffered bodily from the possession, and was relieved when the demon was cast out. It is noted that there were no favors, but all were cured. PETER AND JOHN AGAINAct_5:17-25 17 But the high priest rose up,—Here we see another step taken by the enemies of the early church. Peter and John had been thrust into prison overnight to await their trial in the morn¬ing. (Acts 4:3.) The “ high priest” was probably Annas, who is named as high priest (Acts 4:6), or it may have been Caiaphas, who was acting high priest at the time by Roman authority. According to the law, Annas was high priest until his death. (Numbers 35:25 Numbers 35:28 Numbers 35:32.) “ Rose up” has been variously inter¬preted ; some think that it simply means to rise from one’ s seat or bed (Matthew 9:9; Mark 1:35; Luke 4:29); others give it a figura¬tive meaning as to be raised from the dead (Matthew 17:9; Mark 6:14; Luke 9:8); still others give it the meaning to follow a course without giving some reason for doing so. It seems here that this is the meaning; Annas with the Sadducees, who were opposed to the resurrection from the dead, began anew the persecution of the apostles. “ Sect of the Sadducees” means those who taught against the resurrection and held to other tenets of faith. “ Sect” comes from “ hairesis,” which means “ to choose an opinion, parties, fac¬tions.” (1 Corinthians 11:19; Galatians 5:20.) It is also applied to the Pharisees (Acts 15:5 Acts 26:5) and to Christians (Acts 24:5-14 Acts 28:22). 18 and laid hands on the apostles,—Peter and John were ar¬rested and this time they were put “ in public ward” ; that is, in the public prison. They were not put in prison for punishment, but for detention until they could be examined; however, they were made to associate with all sorts of criminals in this prison. The arrest is described in the same words as before—“ laid hands” on them. (Acts 4:3.) 19 But an angel of the Lord by night—This is put in con¬trast with what the high priest and Sadducees did for them; they put them in prison, but “ an angel of the Lord” visited, comforted, and delivered them. There are at least six distinct acts ascribed to angels by Luke in the Acts. (5: 19; 8: 26; 10: 3; 12: 7, 23; 27: 23.) “ Angel” is found twenty times in Acts. The angel here opened the prison doors and released the apostles. This act on the part of the angel gave courage and confidence to the apostles; it astonished, perplexed, and awed the Sadducees and prepared the way for the release of the apostles; it confirmed the faith of the disciples and held the favor of the people. The “ angel” did more than merely open the prison door; he “ brought them out” and gave them a command. 20 Go ye, and stand and speak in the temple—The angel commanded them, after releasing them from prison, to go and “ stand and speak in the temple.” That is, they were to take their places as usual, and with courage stand and teach. They were not to linger, but go at once; they were to go to the temple and speak “ to the people all the words of this Life.” They were to speak the words of eternal life which Christ revealed; speak the words of the resurrection life, which the Sadducees denied. Peter once had said of Jesus: “ Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68.) These words were committed to the apostles, and the angel now bids them speak these words to all the people. Jesus not only had the words of eternal life, but he gives life to those who obey him. (2 Timothy 1:10; 1 John 5:11.) “ I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” said Jesus. (John 14:6.) “ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:4.) 21 And when they heard this, they entered into the temple— The apostles did not delay; they went early, “ about daybreak,” and began teaching those who came to the temple at that early hour. They had been forbidden by the Sanhedrin to speak any more in the name of Christ, but seemingly in defiance to all authority of men they continue to preach the resurrection. The high priest assembled the Sanhedrin and “ called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel,” and made ready to try the apostles. The high priest came, and “ they that were with him,” meaning the Sadducees; men of influence were also invited to be present; it seems that they wanted to have a strong and influential meeting. “ The senate” is from the Greek “ ten gerou sian,” and means the old men. After the council with its promi¬nent men had assembled they “ sent to the prison-house” to have the apostles brought to them. All things were ready for the trial, but the presence of the prisoners; hence, they sent for them. 22-23 But the officers that came found them not—The officers must have been greatly surprised when they came to the prison and found the prison doors closed and fastened as the guard had left them, but no prisoners within. It must have been a foolish feeling for them to be guarding an empty prison, or to go for prisoners who were already free and publicly preaching in the temple. These “ officers” were not Roman soldiers, but Jewish civil officers or servants of the Sanhedrin. There were no marks of prison doors being broken nor the walls battered; everything was in good order, but the prisoners were absent. It seems that the angel had miraculously opened the prison doors and brought the prisoners out without the guards or keepers knowing anything about it. 24 Now when the captain of the temple—The Standard Version omits “ high priest,” and mentions only the “ captain of the temple and the chief priests” ; the “ captain” was the ruler of the house of God; he was not a military officer, but had charge of the guard of priests and Levites who watched the temple at night. “ The chief priests” were the heads of the classes or courses of the priests. There were twenty-four divisions of priests and each divi¬sion had its “ chief.” The Sanhedrin was composed of chief priests, elders, and scribes. All were confused as well as perplexed about the affair; they did not know how the prisoners had escaped, but that which concerned them most was what would be the final outcome of preaching the name of Jesus. 25 And there came one and told them,—As the Sanhedrin was thrown into a state of confusion and astonishment when the report that the prisoners were gone reached it, there came another report which added to the state of perplexity; this report was that the apostles were “ in the temple standing and teaching the people.” They had been put in prison for preaching Christ; an angel had released them without the authorities knowing it; and now to their great surprise the apostles were in the temple doing that which they had been forbidden to do and in seeming defiance of the au¬thority of the Sanhedrin. The apostles were at their old work, fearlessly teaching the people in the temple. The fearless apostles were too powerful to be roughly treated and the Sanhedrin did not know what to do. PETER’ S ADDRESS TO THE Act_5:26-32 26 Then went the captain with the officers,—The apostles were rearrested by the captain and officers, and “ without violence” brought before the Sanhedrin. They did not bind the apostles, but with all consideration for them they brought them before the coun¬cil. There were at this time several thousand Christians; nearly all of these were still in Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin was in the minority, and “ feared the people” ; they were afraid that the people would stone them. This shows the great influence that the number of disciples had over the Jewish authorities. Peter and John not only stood very high in the estimation of the people, but they were quite popular at this time. The officers and Sanhedrin were not concerned about what was right, but rather what was expedient. 27-28 And when they had brought them,—Peter and John were not afraid to be brought before the Sanhedrin; they knew that they had followed a course that seemed to defy the authority of the council, but they knew that they were in the right; this made them bold to continue their course. When they were brought before the Sanhedrin, they were “ set” in the place of the accused in the presence of the Sanhedrin. The accused usually stood in the semicircle and made their defense. The spokesman for the Sanhedrin, probably the high priest, said: “ We strictly charged you not to teach in this name.” The apostles knew the charge, but knew that God was with them in what they were doing. Instead of obeying the charge of the council, they were now charged with having “ filled Jerusalem” with their teaching. So many had heard and obeyed the gospel that they could truly say that Jerusalem had been filled with the teachings of Jesus. They further explained to the apostles or charged them that they in¬tended “ to bring this man’ s blood upon us.” The blood of Jesus was already upon them; the Sanhedrin had condemned him to death and had asked Pilate to confirm its decision; it now feels the guilt, but is not ready to repent. The simple and obvious answer is that the teachings of the apostles, in view of the Sanhedrin, tended to arouse the people, so that they would avenge the death of Jesus upon their rulers. They were ready enough to accept that responsibility before Pilate (Matthew 27:25), but now they are not willing to accept the responsibility. Caiaphas, or the high priest, did not mention the name of Jesus, but spoke of him as “ this man.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered—It seems from this that there were other apostles than Peter and John, but no others have been mentioned. Peter, speaking for the apostles and for all disciples, said: “ We must obey God rather than men.” Here Peter, as in Acts 4:19, states the principle that should govern all Christians. When there is a conflict between the authority of God and men, we must obey God; God comes first; obedience to his authority takes precedence over all other authorities. Here the conflict is between obedience to the Sanhedrin or obedience to God. Peter, without any evading or equivocation, states positively, clearly, and emphatically that he and the other apostles are going to obey God. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus,—Again there is brought in sharp contrast what the rulers had done to Jesus and what God had done; they had falsely charged him, mockingly con¬demned him, and shamefully crucified him, but God had raised him from the dead. “ Epixulou” is the Greek for “ tree” ; it originally meant “ wood, timber.” (Luke 23:31; Acts 5:30 Acts 10:39; 1 Peter 2:24.) The term “ slew,” in the original, means “ to take in hand, manage, to lay hands on, manhandle, kill.” He was put to death by crucifixion on the cross. This describes what man had done to him. 31 Him did God exalt with his right hand—To continue the description as to what God had done for him, he has been exalted and is now at the right hand of God as “ a Prince and a Saviour.” “ A Prince,” as having authority and so must be obeyed; he has all authority in heaven and on earth; as “ a Saviour,” he uses his au¬thority to give salvation unto all who obey him. Jesus is now Prophet, Priest, and King; he is a Savior to those only who accept him as their Lord. He gives “ repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.” Repentance is given by teaching them to turn from their sins and by granting the opportunity unto them; remission of sins is granted to those who obey his will. Jesus has been raised from the dead and exalted to the right hand of God that he might be the King and Savior of those who put their trust in him. 32 And we are witnesses of these things;—The apostles were witnesses of the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension; these three main topics were emphasized in the preaching of the apostles. Peter also states that the Holy Spirit is also witness of the things which they preached, “ whom God hath given to them that obey him.” The Holy Spirit is given to those only who obey him. This is the conclusion of Peter’ s second address to the council. So we have the Holy Spirit and the apostles as witnesses for Christ and against the Sanhedrin. The three lines of his de¬fense were as follows: (1) We must obey God; (2) the facts in the life of Jesus show that we have not obeyed God; (3) the Holy Spirit is witness with us of all these things. Hence, if the apostles were wrong, the Holy Spirit was wrong. SPEECH OF Acts 5:33-42 33 But they, when they heard this, were cut to the heart,—This expresses the effect that Peter’ s address had on the council; instead of being convinced and turning from their evil course, they were “ cut to the heart,” but not of the conviction of their sins. Instead of blessing the apostles for speaking to them the word of life, or preaching to them the gospel, they were “ minded to slay them.” The original, “ dieprionto,” means “ to saw into, to cut into, to saw asunder” ; here it is rage that cuts into their hearts, not conviction of their sins as in Acts 2:37. There is one other use of this term, in the speech of Stephen (Acts 7:54) we have the same expression. 34 But there stood up one in the council,—There are four things said about Gamaliel here: (1) He was one of the council, a member of the Sanhedrin; (2) he was a Pharisee; if not the most influential, he was a leader among the Pharisees, while many of the other members were Sadducees; (3) he was a doctor of the law, or a teacher of the law; (4) he was respected and honored by all the people. The council feared the people, and as Gamaliel had such influence with the people it was prudent for them to hear him; hence, he asked that the apostles be put out so that he could address the council himself in the absence of the apostles. 35 And he said unto them, Ye men of Israel,—Gamaliel ad¬dressed them as “ men of Israel” ; these were common words of ad¬dress to the council. Gamaliel proceeded then to give a timely warning as to what should be done with the apostles. He calls upon them to take heed to themselves as to what they were about to do. This does not mean that some danger is about to befall them, but that they should be careful or cautious about reaching a decision. 36 For before these days rose up Theudas,—Gamaliel now shows his wisdom by reminding them of some illustrations that mere pretenders will come to nought. Much discussion has been raised as to who Theudas was and what he did. It does not mat¬ter who he was; they were familiar with him and knew just what he had done. Josephus mentions a Theudas, who was a leader in an insurrection, but he could not have been this Theudas, for his rebellion was fifteen years later than this time. The times were full of revolts and rebellions, and as not less than three insurrec-tionary leaders were called Judas, and four Simon, there may have been two of the name of Theudas. This Theudas led about four hundred off, and was finally slain with his company. 37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee—This Judas was one of those who led an insurrection about the time of the “ taxing” or “ enrolment.” Josephus mentions a Judas of Galilee who made a revolt against the Roman enrollment which was ordered while Cyrenius or Quirinus was governor; he also mentions that his sons were executed, but does not tell what became of Judas; however, Gamaliel says here that “ he also perished,” and all that were with him were either killed or scattered abroad. 38-39 And now I say unto you,—Gamaliel, after reciting these illustrations of those who had failed in their efforts to reform or rebel, gives his advice. He now says, “ Let them alone” ; that is, literally, “ stand off” or “ aloof and suffer them” to go on. He gives his reasons or argument for his advice. He advises that their work can be left to the dealing of God, which, in case of Theudas and Judas, as cited, had brought the wicked counsels to nought. Furthermore, if these men were doing the work of God, they would be fighting against God to oppose them. This was a shrewd argument for Gamaliel, and was suited to the critical case of the apostles; Gamaliel does not imply that he was a secret disciple of Jesus or that he leaned toward the apostles. Gamaliel's reasoning seems to be clear; from the cases mentioned he inferred that if these apostles had no other basis but such as those that Theudas and Judas had, they would come to nought and the Sanhedrin would have no use to oppose them; but on the other hand, if the work that the apostles were doing was of God, it would be vain for the council to oppose it— nay, worse, for it would be in vain, and even worse than that, they would be found fighting against God. 40 And to him they agreed:—The argument of Gamaliel had influence on the Sanhedrin; the council yielded; the apostles were recalled; to give vent to their malice, and perhaps in their thought, to atone somewhat for this concession to moderate measures, they beat the apostles, and then repeated their futile injunction to speak no more in the name of Jesus; then they let them go. This Gamaliel was the same one who had taught Saul of Tarsus. Some think that Saul was present; if so, what did he think of the counsel of his old professor? The members of the Sanhedrin may have felt that their honor was at stake, and that, if the apostles departed untouched, they themselves would be regarded as having proceeded against innocent men; hence, to save their honor and the honor of the court, and to make the impression that the apostles were guilty of some offense, they were scourged. This was a frequent, though a very disgraceful, punishment among the Jews. Jesus had warned his apostles of such treatment. (Matthew 10:17.) 41 They therefore departed from the presence of the council,^—The apostles considered it an honor to be followers of Jesus “ by evil report and good report." (2 Corinthians 6:8.) Jesus had pre¬pared them to meet ill treatment. (John 15:20.) The apostles departed from the Sanhedrin “ rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name." No greater indignity could be put upon them than to be subjected to judicial scourging; such treatment would fill many with indignation, anger, or grief over the terrible injustice they suffered; but the apostles counted themselves fortunate, and they considered it an honor to suffer for Christ. 42 And every day, in the temple and at home,—The apostles continued to disregard the authority of the Sanhedrin and to obey God; they continued to teach in the temple and in every house. The two fields of apostolic work here mentioned are the public teaching at the temple, and the private teaching at home. Where crowds gathered and the disciples met, they continued to teach. The mission of the church is to carry the gospel to those who do not have it, and to edify itself in the things of God. This may be done by teaching “ from house to house" (Acts 20:20) and publicly in the temple. “ Teach" and “ preach" are used here to describe the nature of the work of the apostles; “ didaskontes" is the original for “ teaching,” and “ euaggelizomenoi” is the original for “ preaching” or “ evangelizing.” This is the first use of the specific word for “ preach” in the Acts; it is the same word from which the English term “ evangelize” comes, and means to proclaim good news. It is used frequently by Luke and Paul. (See Luke 2:10 Luke 9:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:6; Romans 1:15; 1 Corinthians 15:1; Galatians 1:23; Ephesians 2:17.) From the scourging the apostles went to preach Christ as the Savior of the world. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 5Acts 5:1-2. In close connection with this unprecedented liberality of the brethren, we are now introduced to a remarkable case of corruption, of which it was the occasion. The praise always lavished on disinterested benevolence sometimes prompts illiberal men to make a pretense of liberality. But the mere desire of praise is incapable of subduing selfishness, so as to make a truly liberal heart; for it is itself a species of selfishness. In contrast with the course of Barnabas, we are told: (1) “But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, (2) and kept back part of the price, his wife being also privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the feet of the apostles.” This language implies, what is distinctly avowed by the wife below, that this part was represented as the whole price of the possession. Acts 5:3-4. “But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled thy heart, to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? (4) While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why hast thou put this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.” Here Peter brings together the influence of Satan, and the free agency of the tempted, just as he had, in former discourses, the free agency of men, and the purposes of God. He demands of Ananias, “ Why has Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit,” and, in the same breath, “ Why hast thou put this thing in thy heart?” The existence and agency of the tempter are distinctly recognized, yet it is not Satan, but Ananias who is rebuked; and he is rebuked for doing the very thing that Satan had done, showing that he is as guilty as though Satan had no existence. Indeed, he is rebuked for what Satan had done. The justice of this is manifest from the fact that Satan had no power to fill his heart with evil, without his co-operation. That he had rendered this co-operation, threw the responsibility upon himself. Peter's knowledge of the deception was the result not of human information, but of the insight imparted to him by the Holy Spirit. This is necessary to the significance of the entire incident, as well as to the purport of Peter's own words. Acts 5:5. The exposure of Ananias was very surprising, but neither the audience, nor perhaps Peter, was prepared by it for the event which immediately followed. (5) “And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and expired. And great fear came upon all who heard these things.” There is no evidence that Peter had any will of his own in this matter; but it was an act of divine power exerted independent of the apostolic agency. The responsibility, therefore, attached not to Peter as an officer of the Church, but to God as the moral governor of the world. The propriety of the deed may be appreciated best by supposing that Ananias had succeeded in his undertaking. His success would not only have turned the most praiseworthy feature of the new Church into a source of corruption and hypocrisy, but it would have brought discredit upon the inspiration of the apostles, by showing that the Spirit within them could be deceived. Thus the whole fabric of apostolic authority, which was based upon their inspiration, would have fallen, and precipitated the entire cause into hopeless ruin. The attempt, therefore, presented a crisis of vital importance, and demanded some such vindication of their inspiration as could neither be mistaken nor forgotten. The immediate effect of the event was just the effect desired: “ great fear came upon all who heard these things.” Acts 5:6. The scene was too awful for lamentation, or for needless funeral services. As when Nadab and Abihu fell dead at the door of the tabernacle with strange fire in their censers, there was no weeping nor delay. All were stricken with horror, as they saw the curse of God fall upon the wretch. (6) “And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.“ Acts 5:7. Sapphira was not present. (7) “And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.” How she remained so long ignorant of the fate of her husband, we are not informed, though it is a most extraordinary circumstance. He had died suddenly, in a manner which had excited everybody; had been buried; and three hours had passed; yet his wife, who must have been in the vicinity, has no intimation of it, but comes into the very assembly where it had occurred, without a word reaching her ear upon the subject. There is no way to account for this, but by the supposition that there was a concerted determination on the part of the whole multitude to conceal the facts from her. This was a most unnatural determination, and one difficult of execution, except on the further supposition that Peter commanded the multitude to restrain their natural impulses, and let her know nothing until he himself was ready to reveal it to her. This course was necessary in order to effectually expose her. Acts 5:8-10. She came in prepared to act out fully the part which she had agreed upon with her husband. (8) “Then Peter answered her, Tell me whether you sold the land for so much? She said, Yes; for so much. (9) Then Peter said to her, Why is it that you have agreed together to put to proof the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. (10) Then she immediately fell at his feet and expired: and the young men coming in found her dead, and carried her out, and buried her by her husband.” In her case, Peter knew what was about to take place, and declared it; but there is no indication that he exerted his own will or miraculous power to cause her death. We regard her death, like that of Ananias, as a miracle wrought independent of the power lodged in the apostles. In the question, “ Why have you agreed together to put to proof the Spirit of the Lord?” Peter expresses the result of their agreement, though it may not have been what they had in view. They did put the Spirit to proof, by testing his powers. If he had failed under the test, the consequences, as we have suggested above, would have been disastrous. But now that the test applied has triumphantly vindicated the fullness of apostolic inspiration, it was not likely that such another attempt could be made. Acts 5:11. The failure of the plot proved as propitious to the cause of truth as its success would have been disastrous. (11) “And great fear came upon all the Church, and upon all who had heard these things.” This fear was excited, not only by the sudden and awful fate of the guilty pair, but also by the fearful nature of that spirit-searching knowledge imparted to the apostles. The disciples were now filled with more just conceptions than before of the nature of inspiration, and the unbelieving masses who heard of the event were awed into respect and reverence. Acts 5:12-13. Increased activity of the apostles followed, and their office was still further magnified. (12) “And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all, with one accord, in Solomon's Portico, (13) and of the rest no man dare join himself to them, but all people magnified them.” It was the apostles alone who were in Solomon's Portico, as is evident from the fact that the term apostles, in the first clause of the 12th verse , furnishes the only antecedent to the pronoun they, in the statement, “ they were all, with one accord,” etc. This being so, “ the rest,” who dared not join themselves to them, must include other disciples, as well as the unbelieving multitude. It need not be concluded, from this, that the disciples stood off at the same fearful distance with unbelievers; but that they were so filled with awe by the exhibition connected with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira, that they dare not approach the apostles with the familiarity which had marked their former intercourse with them. Such a feeling was at first experienced by the apostles themselves in the presence of Jesus, and was well expressed by Peter, when he and his companions made the first miraculous draught of fishes: falling down at the knees of Jesus, he exclaimed, “ Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” That such a feeling was also experienced by the whole Church, at this time, has just been stated by the historian, in verse 11 , where he says, “ Great fear came upon all the Church.” Acts 5:14. The statement just made, that “ of the rest no man dared to join himself to them,” can not mean that persons dared not join the Church, for the reverse is now stated. (14) “And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.” The increased awe in the presence of the apostles, with which the people were inspired, made them listen with increased respect to their testimony concerning Jesus, and brought them in greater numbers to obedience. Acts 5:15-16. The connection of Luke's next statement, introduced by the adverb so that, is somewhat obscure: but I presume he intends to state a result of all the facts just mentioned. Signs and wonders were done by the apostles; the people magnified them, and believers were the more added to the Lord. (15) “So that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. (16) There came also a multitude out of the cities round about to Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those vexed by unclean spirits, who were all healed.“ Acts 5:17-18. The excitement which now prevailed throughout Jerusalem and the neighboring villages, and found utterance in the most enthusiastic praise of the apostles, was too much for the equanimity of the dignitaries who had so strictly forbidden them to preach or teach in the name of Jesus. (17) “Then the high priest rose up, and all who were with him, being the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with zeal, (18) and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the public prison.” Here we have the same Sadducees at work who had arrested and threatened Peter and John. They were “ filled with zeal;” but it was a zeal inspired less by love for their own cause, than by hatred for that which was triumphing over it. The advocates of error will generally appear quite easy, and sometimes, even generous, when their cause is merely standing still; but their zeal is always kindled when the truth begins to make inroads upon them. The zeal of these Sadducees was fanned to its fiercest heat by recent events, and they determined to execute the threats with which they had recently dismissed two of the apostles, making all the twelve their present victims. Acts 5:19-21. When they were all seized and cast into prison together, the apostles could but expect that they would now feel the entire weight of the wrath which was treasured up against them. (19) “But an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors in the night, and led them forth, and said, (20) Go stand in the temple, and speak to the people all the words of this life. (21) And having heard this they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and those who were with him, and called together the Sanhedrim, and all the eldership of the children of Israel, and sent into the prison to have them brought.” The apostles were already in the temple, teaching the early worshipers as if nothing unusual had occurred, when the Sanhedrim met and sent to the prison for them. Acts 5:22-23. After some delay, the officers returned into the presence of the Sanhedrim without their prisoners. (22) “But when the officers arrived, and did not find them in the prison, they returned and announced, (23) saying, The prison we found closed with all safety, and the guards standing before the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one within.” This appalling circumstance would have been sufficient, with less determined men, to stay all hostile proceedings, and even to disperse the court who had assembled for the trial for the apostles. Acts 5:24-26. The startling announcement was not without serious effect even upon the stubborn Sadducees. They were staggered by it, and knew not at first what to do or think. (24) “Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple, and the chief priest heard these words, they were perplexed concerning them, what this might come to. (25) But some one came and announced to them, Behold, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people.” This announcement relieved the perplexity of the Sanhedrim, by enabling them to proceed with business, and relieving them from the unpleasant necessity of dispersing without a good excuse. They now dispatch a more honorable guard after the apostles than they had, at first; for the captain of the temple himself takes command. (26) “Then the captain went with the officers, and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned.” The clause, “ lest they should be stone,” is so arranged as to furnish a reason for both the preceding statements, that they “feared the people,” and that they “ brought them without violence.” The enthusiasm of the people had been much increased, no doubt, by the angelic deliverance, which was by this time well known about the temple. Acts 5:27-28. We have now a very lively and graphic description of the arraignment and trial of the apostles. (27) “And having brought them, they placed them in the Sanhedrim, and the high priest asked them, (28) saying, Did we not strictly command you not to speak in this name? And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” These words contain two specific charges against the apostles, disobedience to the Sanhedrim, and an effort to bring upon them the blood of Jesus. Acts 5:29-32. To these charges the apostles candidly and fearlessly respond. (29) “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” This answers the first charge. They plead guilty, but justify themselves by the authority of God. Peter and John had left the Sanhedrim before, with the words, “ Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken to men more than to God, do you judge.” Now, as if that question was decided, they declare, “ We ought to obey God rather than men.” They then answer the second charge by a restatement of the facts: (30) “The God of our fathers had raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, having hung him on a tree. (31) This man has God exalted to his own right hand, a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. (32) And we are his witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” This was repeating, with terrible emphasis, the very thing which was charged against them as a crime. In the declaration that Jesus had been exalted a Prince and a Savior, “ to grant repentance to Israel and remission of sins,” it is implied that repentance, as well as remission of sins, is in some sense granted to me. But to grant repentance can not mean to bestow it upon men without an exercise of their own will; for repentance is enjoined upon men as a duty to be performed by them. How, then, can that which is a duty to be performed, be said to be granted to us? We will readily perceive the answer to this question, by remembering that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and that it belongs to God to furnish men with the facts which will awaken this sorrow. Without revelation, men would never be made to feel that sorrow for sin which works repentance; but in the revelation of Jesus Christ we are furnished with the chief of these motives, and because of this, he is said to grant repentance. Acts 5:33. The Sanhedrim had been astonished at the boldness of Peter and John on their former trial, but had contented themselves with severe threatenings. Now, both their commands and their threats, having been despised, and the bold innovators daring to defy them once more, they lost, for a moment, all the restraint which had been imposed by the fear of the multitude. (33) “Now when they heard this, they were exasperated, and determined to slay them.“ Acts 5:34-39. At this crisis the madness of the Sadducees was suddenly checked by the prudent counsel of one of the opposite party. The Pharisees were less exasperated, because their leading dogma was sustained by the apostles, and they saw that any imprudent proceedings were likely to involve the whole Sanhedrim in trouble, without regard to party; therefore, Gamaliel interposes his advice. (34) “But a certain Pharisee in the Sanhedrim, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people, arose and commanded to put the apostles out for a little while.” This removal of the prisoners, like that of Peter and John before, was designed to prevent them from taking encouragement from any admissions which might be made during the pending discussion. They were, accordingly, withdrawn. (35) “And he said to them, Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you are about to do respecting these men; (36) For before these days, Theudas arose, declaring himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, attached themselves; who was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nothing. (37) After this man, Judas the Galilean rose up, in the days of the enrollment, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. (38) And now I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this purpose or this work is from men, it will be destroyed; (39) but if it is from God, you are not able to destroy it; lest you even be found to fight against God.” A question has been raised as to whether Luke is not guilty of an anachronism in this report of Gamaliel's speech, by making him refer to a Theudas, who is mentioned by Josephus, and who flourished many years later, under the reign of Claudius Cæsar. Such a reference could not possibly be made by Gamaliel; and if it was made by Luke, he is not only guilty of the anachronism, but, what is far worse, of giving a false report of Gamaliel's speech. Rather than admit a hypothesis involving such consequences in reference to a historian of unimpeached veracity, we must suppose that some impostor by the name of Theudas did flourish at the time here alluded to by Gamaliel. Judas the Galilean is also mentioned by Josephus, whose account of him agrees with this given by Gamaliel. The enrollment is most likely the same referred to in Luke 2:1 . Upon the fate of these two impostors, Gamaliel bases his advice to the Sanhedrim, in reference to the apostles. The moral merits of this advice may be differently estimated, according to the point of view from which he contemplate it. If we regard it as a general rule of procedure in reference to religious movements, it must be regarded as a mere time-serving policy. Instead of waiting to see whether such a movement is going to prove successful or not, before we take ground in reference to it, the lover of truth will promptly investigate and decide its merits without regard to public opinion. But if we regard Gamaliel as only giving a reason why men should not persecute a cause which they are not prepared to accept, it was certainly most judicious advice. When we have decided against a cause, we should render a reason for our decision, and then leave it to the developments of Providence, well assured that whatever is not from God will come to nothing without any violent agency on our part. We should also be afraid to resist with violence or passion any thing bearing a semblance to truth, lest we fight against God, and be ourselves overthrown. The last clause in Gamaliel's speech, “ Lest you be found even to fight against God,” indicates a suspicion, on his part, that such a result was by no means impossible. In view of the many miracles which had been wrought by the apostles, and their miraculous deliverance from prison the very night before, it is strange that something more than a suspicion to this effect did not possess the mind of Gamaliel, and of all the Sanhedrim. It was, doubtless, owing to serious misgivings on this point, that the embittered Sadducees yielded so readily to advice from the opposite party. Acts 5:40. There was no opposition to Gamaliel's advice. (40) “And they obeyed him; and having called the apostles, and scourged them, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.” Scourging was so common in the Roman empire, even of men untried and uncondemned, and was so common a fate of Christians at the time Luke was writing, that he mentions it here rather as a matter of course. It is the first time, however, that it was experienced by the apostles, and was, probably, harder to endure than it ever was afterward. Acts 5:41-42. However painful the scourging was, it did not cause any resentful manifestations on the part of the sufferers, but they bore it cheerfully. (41) “Then they departed from the presence of the Sanhedrim, rejoicing that they were thought worthy to be dishonored for his name. (42) And every day, in the temple, and from house to house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” The Sanhedrim had now tried both threats and scourging upon the apostles without checking their activity, and as there was nothing further for them to try but death, which they were not yet prepared to inflict, they relinquished for awhile their efforts. In this first contest, therefore, the apostles were completely victorious, and compelled their adversaries to abandon the field. The apostles taught and preached not only publicly in the temple, but “ from house to house.” In this they give an example to the ministry of all ages, which is well worthy of imitation. Private instruction and admonition bring the teacher and the taught into closer contact, and secure an individuality of effect not attainable in a public assembly. It can not, therefore, be well dispensed with; but he who employs it most diligently will, other things being equal, employ his energies most successfully. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Five IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To examine the sin of Ananias and Sapphira in lying to the Holy Spirit 2) To note the amazing signs and wonders that were done by the apostles, in which all were healed 3) To consider the apostles' response when government seeks to stifle the preaching of the gospel SUMMARY In contrast to the remarkable liberality in the church as described in the previous chapter, we are now told of the example of Ananias and Sapphira. A husband and wife who sold a possession, they tried to mislead the apostles that they were giving the entire proceeds. Confronted one at a time by Peter and found guilty of lying against the Holy Spirit, they both fall dead, bringing great fear upon all (Acts 5:1-11). Highly esteemed among the people, the apostles continue doing many signs and wonders among the people and in the temple (Solomon's Porch). Believers were added to the Lord in increasing numbers, who then brought the sick out into the streets on beds and couches, that perhaps the shadow of Peter might fall on some of them. A multitude from the surrounding cities brought those who were sick and tormented, and everyone was healed (Acts 5:12-16). Once again the high priest and those of Sadducees are filled with anger. They have the apostles placed into custody. During the night, an angel of the Lord frees them and commands the apostles to continue to teach in the temple. In the morning when the council convenes, the prison is found secure but empty. When told that the apostles are teaching in the temple, officers are sent to bring the apostles peacefully to the council. When the high priest charges them of disobeying the command not to teach in the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 4:18), the apostles reply "We ought to obey God rather than man." They further proclaim that God raised Jesus (whom the council had murdered) and has exalted Him to be Prince and Savior who offers repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. To this the apostles claim to be witnesses, along with the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him (Acts 5:17-32). Infuriated, the council plots to kill the apostles. However, one in the council, a Pharisee and highly respected teacher of the law by the name of Gamaliel (cf. Acts 22:3), advises the council to leave the apostles alone. Based upon the history of other "movements" that had failed, Gamaliel reasons that if the apostles were doing the work of men, it would come to naught. But if it was the work of God, the council could do nothing to stop it and would only be fighting against God. The council is willing to heed his advice, though the apostles are beaten and charged not to speak in the name of Jesus before being released. The apostles leave the council rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame in the name of Jesus, and continue right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ every day in the temple and in every house (Acts 5:33-42). OUTLINE I. ANANIAS AND (Acts 5:1-11) A. THEIR PLOT TO DECEIVE (Acts 5:1-2)1. They sold a possession, but kept back part of the proceeds 2. Ananias brings a part to the apostles, Sapphira aware of his intention to deceive B. THE DEATH OF ANANIAS (Acts 5:3-6)1. Peter challenges Ananias a. Why has he allowed Satan to enter his heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? 1) The land was his to use 2) The money was his to control b. He has not lied to men, but to God! 2. Ananias drops dead a. Upon hearing the words of Peter b. Creating great fear on those who heard c. Carried out by young men and buried C. THE DEATH OF (Acts 5:7-11)1. Peter confronts Sapphira a. She enters three hours later, unaware b. Did she sell the land for a certain amount? Yes, she answers c. Why did she agree with her husband to the test the Spirit? d. Those who buried her husband are ready to carry her out 2. Sapphira falls dead a. Immediately at the feet of Peter b. Carried out by young men and buried by her husband c. Creating great fear upon all the church and all who heard II. THE POWER OF THE (Acts 5:12-16) A. WITH ONE ACCORD IN SOLOMON'S PORCH (Acts 5:12-13)1. Many signs and wonders were done by the apostles among the people 2. While none dared join them, they were esteemed highly B. HEALING ALL WHO BROUGHT TO THEM (Acts 5:14-16)1. Believers were increasingly added to the Lord 2. They brought the sick out on the street a. Laying them on beds and couches b. That at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on them 3. A multitude gathered from the cities surrounding Jerusalem a. Bringing the sick and those tormented by unclean spirits b. They were all healed III. THE OF THE (Acts 5:17-42) A. , THEN FREED (Acts 5:17-21)1. The apostles put into the common prison a. By the high priest and those of the sect of the Sadducees b. For they were filled with indignation 2. The apostles freed by an angel of the Lord a. Who came at night, opened the prison doors, and brought them out b. Who charged them to return to the temple and speak the words of life c. Which they did, entering the temple in the early morning B. BEFORE THE COUNCIL (Acts 5:21-33)1. The council calls for the apostles to be brought from the prison a. The officers are unable to do so, for the apostles are not there! b. Despite the secure doors, and guards standing outside 2. The council has the apostles brought from the temple a. The council is informed that the apostles are teaching the temple b. The apostles are brought to the council peacefully, for fear of the people 3. The high priest challenges the apostles a. Were they not strictly commanded to teach in Jesus' name? b. You have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, intending to bring this Man's blood on us! 4. Peter and the apostles respond a. We ought to obey God rather than man b. God has raised Jesus, whom you murdered c. God has exalted Jesus to His right hand 1) To be Prince and Savior 2) To give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins d. We are witnesses to these things 1) And so is the Holy Spirit 2) Whom God has given to those who obey Him 5. The council's immediate reaction a. They were furious b. They plotted to kill the apostles C. THE ADVICE OF (Acts 5:34-39)1. Gamaliel stands up in the council a. A Pharisee, a teacher of the law b. Held in respect by all the people c. Who commands the apostles be put outside for awhile 2. Gamaliel cautions the council a. To be careful what they do with the apostles b. Remember what happened to Theudas 1) A man claiming to be someone, joined by 400 men 2) He was slain, and those who obeyed him came to nothing c. Remember what happened to Judas of Galilee in the days of the census 1) He drew away many people after him 2) He also perished, and those who obeyed him dispersed d. His advice regarding the apostles: leave them alone 1) If their work is of men, it will come to nothing 2) If it is of God, it cannot be overthrown and you will be fighting against God D. THE ' (Acts 5:40-42)1. The council's decision a. They agree with Gamaliel to let the apostles go b. But first beat them and command them not to speak in the name of Jesus 2. The apostles' reaction a. They depart rejoicing they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name b. They continued to teach and preach Jesus daily in the temple and in every house REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) - The power of the apostles (Acts 5:12-16) - The persecution of the apostles (Acts 5:17-42) 2) Who is introduced as having sold a possession? (Acts 5:1)- Ananias and Sapphira, husband and wife 3) What did the husband do? Was the wife aware of it? (Acts 5:2)- He kept back part of the proceeds and brought a part to the apostles; yes, she was 4) What did Peter charge the husband of doing? In what way? (Acts 5:3)- Lying to the Holy Spirit - By keeping back part of the price (but implying he was giving all of it) 5) Who did Peter say he had lied to? (Acts 5:4)- Not to men but to God This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 5:2. Kept back part of the price. There was no wrong in this for the whole system was voluntary to begin with. This item will be noticed again in a later verse. Being privy to it. This phrase is from which Thayer defines, "To see (have seen) together with others." The Englishman's Greek New Testament renders it, "being aware of it." The husband doubtless took the lead in the transaction, but the wife's knowledge of what was being done made her a full partaker in the deed. The whole family of Achan was stoned because the goods was stored in the tent, so that they had knowledge of it (Joshua 7:21). If a person has knowledge of an evil deed and does not object to it, he is thereby made as guilty as the actual perpetrator. However, the wife of Ananias went further than guilty knowledge as we shall soon learn. 3Act 5:3. Jesus said that the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44), hence Peter told Ananias that Satan had caused him to lie. Keeping back part of the money is mentioned again in connection with the sin of Ananias, but that is still not what constituted his sin. The mere fact of retaining part of the money would not be a lie, but the cause of his guilt will be shown before the case is finished. 4Acts 5:4. This verse clearly shows that Ananias could have kept possession of his land and not been blamed. And even after he sold it, he could have kept all of the money and still been guiltless, since no divine command had been given for any of this arrangement. Not only so, but Ananias could have brought a part of the money only and have been accepted. The sin is mentioned in the close of this verse, which was the committing of a lie as will be explained soon. And what made it all the more condemnable was their attempt to deceive man, thinking thereby to escape the judgment of God. But Peter informed Ananias that he had not lied to men (only) but unto God. 5Acts 5:5. Hearing these words. Even a human court of justice does not sentence and execute a prisoner without first informing him of the crime laid against him. Hence it was just for Ananias first to hear the accusation he was under, after which he was stricken with immediate death. Great fear means that a profound feeling of awe came over all the people by the mighty demonstration of the Lord's wrath against sin. Peter never as much as touched Ananias, yet at his words of denunciation of the shameful attempt to deceive the Lord, he fell down dead as if by a stroke of lightning. The crowd was thus made to know that the Lord had sent the punishment. 6Acts 5:6. Wound him up means the young men drew his garments up close around him, which was the only burial shroud that was given this unworthy character. He was taken out for immediate burial, as it was sometimes the custom anyway to bury on the day of death. 7Acts 5:7. Had Ananias and his wife come together in the first place, she might have tried to change her story when she saw the fate of her husband. But that would have been a change outwardly only, and one born of terror and not from a godly sorrow. The text says only that she came in; nothing said about her having any of the money. Of course it would have been foolish for her to bring it, for her husband had already brought all of the amount they had received for the land according to the story in their conspiracy. So her presence at this time was only to confirm the statement of her husband. 8Acts 5:8. For so much. This phrase is all from which Thayer defines at this place, "For so much," just as it is in the text. Robinson combines his definition and explanation in one sentence and gives us, "Of a specific amount, so much and no more." The necessary conclusion is that when Sapphira came into Peter's presence, he named the amount that her husband had brought, then asked her if that was exactly the price they had received for their property. She confirmed it by repeating the very word the apostle had used. This was the first time that the lie of which they were accused of doing was directly stated as far as the record informs us. But Peter did not have to hear the falsehood verbally for his own information; he was being informed by the Holy Spirit. The statement was drawn from her so that all could know about the wicked attempt of this couple to practice deception. 9Acts 5:9. It is always bad for men to commit wrong when they act individually, but worse when they conspire with others in the act. The daughters of Zelophehad made this point in their plea for their fathers' estate (Numbers 27:1-7), and the Lord accepted their reasoning. Peter charged Ananias and his wife with agreeing together in their covetous lie. He accused them of trying to tempt the Spirit of the Lord, and such a sin was condemned even in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 6:16). The text does not inform us directly as to any instructions previously given to these burial servants. However, the necessary inference is that they were told to "stand by" and complete their task when it was ready for them. In compliance with such an understanding, they were at that very moment at the door, waiting to perform their duty in the sad affair. 0Acts 5:10. Yielded up the ghost means her spirit left her body as was done in the case of her husband. This gives us another instance that proves there is something in a human being besides his body and that they separate when death occurs. This woman's body was buried in the same tomb as that of her husband. 1Act 5:11. This was the same kind of fear that is mentioned in verse 5, except that with the church it would include a feeling of reverence for the majesty of the Lord. 2Act 5:12. There was a continual need for the evidence of signs and wonders at that time, because the New Testament had not been composed and the people did not have any written instructions. But when the apostles performed the miracles it proved them to be the true servants of God. When they spoke to the multitudes, therefore, they were heard as the authentic representatives of the Lord. At the time of these events the assembly of all the people in general was in Solomon's porch, the same place where they saw the lame man who had been healed (chapter 3:11). 3Act 5:13. The rest refers to unconverted persons, but not to all such, for it immediately says the people magnified them. Hence the rest must refer especially to those not favorably disposed toward the apostles and other faithful disciples. They would not join themselves to them means they stayed away from the assembly. But some others were sufficiently interested to remain in the gathering, and even mag'n'ified (lauded or admired) the apostles. 4Acts 5:14. The aforesaid conclusion is justified by this verse which says that believers were added to the Lord. 5Acts 5:15. Insomuch should be connected with the statement in verse 12, about the "signs and wonders" that were performed by the apostles. Those wonders had produced so much interest among the people that they began to bring their sick folks into the vicinity. They had so much faith in the work of the apostles that even the presence of Peter was thought by them to be sufficient to heal them. Such an act was like those performed by the woman. in Mark 5:27, and the men in Matthew 14:36. 6Acts 5:16. This verse tells us that the people were not disappointed in their efforts recorded in the preceding one, for they were healed every one. The healing was done by the Lord as a reward for the faith that had been shown by their actions. Vexed with unclean spirits is the same as being possessed of devils. (See the note on the subject of being possessed of devils at Matthew 8:28.) 7Acts 5:17. The Sadducees are mentioned especially as being in sympathy with the high priest in ooposition to the apostles. That is understandable because they were disbelievers in the resurrection, which was the outstanding fact that the apostles had been stressing in their work in connection with the story of Christ. 8Acts 5:18. It has been a prominent weakness of man from the beginning that if he does not like the teaching someone is giving, the way to stop it is by persecuting the teacher. Jeremiah was put into a dungeon because the king did not like his teaching (Jeremiah 38:6), and John the Baptist was imprisoned and slain because of his teaching that was objectionable to some wicked people (Matthew 14:1-11). The Sadducees thought they could stop the preaching of a resurrection by imprisoning the apostles. Common prison means one "belonging to the people or state, public." It was the kind of detention place where captives in time of war were locked up. 9Acts 5:19. The tomb of Joseph that had been sealed with a Roman stamp was no hindrance to the act of an angel in opening the place (Matthew 28:2). Likewise, the Lord's angel was able to open the door of this public prison and free the apostles. 0Acts 5:20. The angel did not tell them to "make good their escape" and flee while they had a chance. That is what he would have done, had his purpose been only to help them to avoid further persecution. Instead, he told them to go into the temple, the most public place in the city, and resume their preaching of the same facts that had got them into trouble in the first place. Life is from ZOE, which Thayer defines at this place, "Real life after the resurrection." Robinson defines it, "Eternal life, salvation." Since the Greek word generally means life of any kind, we can understand why the angel specified this life in his instruction to the apostles. The great issue at that time was the question of the resurrection which the Sadducees denied. That would make it especially appropriate for them to emphasize the truth of the resurrection, even in the face of possible further and more bitter persecution. 1Act 5:21. This "jail delivery" by the angel was made in the night, and the apostles made no delay in carrying out the instructions of the angel, but entered the temple early tin the morning and taught All of this was unknown to the Jews, who called a meeting of the Sanhedrin in the morning to handle the case of the apostles, and sent officers to the prison to bring the captives into court. 4Acts 5:24. Doubted is from a word that means to wonder or be perplexed. Grow is from GINOMAI, which has such a wide range of meanings that it would be hard to settle on a definite one in any one place. Some idea of the word may be gathered from the fact that in the King James Version, the word is translated by 39 different terms; one of them is "be," used 249 times. The verse simply means the captain and chief priests did not know what to make of the situation revealed by the report. 5Acts 5:25. It would be difficult to imagine the surprise these Jewish leaders must have felt upon the news of this verse. They were already perplexed over the mere absence of the apostles from the prison, with the parts of the building intact and the keepers at their post of duty. They might finally have recomposed themselves and made further investigation with a view of discovering some unfaithfulness in the keepers. But before they had time for anything of the kind, here came the officers with this strange report. That would shut out any surmise of crookedness on the part of the keepers, for had the apostles been able and disposed to bribe the keepers, it would have been from a motive of cowardice, and in that case they would have fled from the city. 6Acts 5:26. In view of the foregoing considerations, they could but conclude that some unseen power stronger than theirs was working on behalf of the apostles, and that it would be dangerous for them to mistreat their prisoners. Without violence means they did not use or even threaten to use physical force upon the apostles. Had they done so, public sentiment that was on the side of the apostles was so strong, that the officers would have suffered violence from the people. 7Acts 5:27. The council was the Sanhedrin, the highest court the Jews were allowed to have in the time of Christ and the apostles. It had the power to arrest a man and examine him, and pass its own judgment upon the case. But if it passed a verdict of capital punishment, the case had to be taken before the secular court that operated under the Romans before it could be executed. 8Acts 5:28. The faithfulness of the apostles in preaching the Gospel of Christ was proved by the statement of these enemies, that they had filled Jerusalem with it. Bring this man's blood upon us. These rulers knew that if the people were fully informed of the story of Jesus as he was dealt with in Jerusalem, they would hold them (the Jewish rulers) responsible for His death. In a threatening attitude, they reminded the apostles of their order not to teach in the name of Christ. 9Acts 5:29. We ought to obey God rather than men. This is one of the most important sentences in the New Testament concerning the conduct of man. It states a rule or principle that should be observed whenever two or more requirements are made on one that conflict with each other, and yet where they come from sources that are supposed to have authority to command. For instance, children are commanded to obey their parents in all things (Colossians 3:20); wives are commanded to submit themselves unto their husbands (Ephesians 5:22), and Christians are commanded to be subject unto the higher powers or laws of the land (Romans 13:1). If any one of these sources of authority should give a command that would interfere with one's duty to God, then that child or wife or disciple should refuse to obey it, regardless of the possible consequences. 0Acts 5:30. Having made the reply shown in the preceding verse, the apostles began to preach to these wicked Jews the very doctrine they had forbidden them to preach anywhere. As was always the case, they began their story with the resurrection of Jesus. But they also connected that subject with the guilt of their hearers in the death of the One in whose name they were preaching. 1Act 5:31. Exalted with his right hand. Other translations word it "at" or "to" his right hand, and likewise the lexicon so defines it. The word right in this place comes from DEXIOS, which never means "right" in contrast with "wrong," but always means the right hand instead of the left, and hence has no moral significance. It is the rule for men to use their right hand in their one-handed manual activities, while it is an exception to use the left. When such an exception exists the writer will generally call attention to it (Judges 3:15 Judges 20:16). There is no information in the Bible why God created man thus, we only know it is so. And the fact has been a source of some figurative uses of the word, meaning the more exalted or honorable place with reference to the person of God or Christ or any other being of dignity. God overruled the wicked purposes of the Jews and exalted his Son to be a Prince (leader) and a Saviour for all who would accept him. Give repentance means to give Israel the chance to repent (reform) their lives, with the promise that their sins would be forgiven. 2Act 5:32. We are his witnesses. This denotes that the apostles were witnesses to the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead. So is also the Holy Ghost. Jesus had said (John 16:7) that if he did not go away (back to Heaven) the Comforter (Holy Ghost) would not come. Therefore, the fact that He did come and was possessed by disciples, was a proof (witness or testimony) that Jesus had arisen from the dead and had ascended to his Father. As to how or when the gift of the Holy Ghost was received, see the comments on chapter 2:38. 3Act 5:33. Cut is from DIAPRIO, which Thayer defines at this place, "to be sawn through mentally," and explains it to mean, "to be rent with vexation." This was different from the case in chapter 2:37, which says they were "pricked in their heart," which means they were overwhelmed with a conviction of guilt. In the present instance the Jewish leaders were overcome with anger, because they realized that everything the apostles said was true, yet they were not in a penitent frame of mind. Instead of wanting to do the right thing as did the ones on Pentecost, they plotted to bring violence upon the apostles. Took counsel denotes that they held a consultation to decide on some means by which they could have the apostles slain. They knew they would have to do some kind of scheming to get it done, for they could not lawfully slay anybody (John 18:31). 4Acts 5:34. Gamaliel was a member of the Sanhedrin, the man referred to by Paul in Chapter 22:3. He was a doctor or teacher of the law of Moses. We know nothing about his qualifications of education in the branches of secular learning. The frequent expressions that represent him as a "professor" in the sense that term is used in connection with schools of literary training are only guesswork. But he did have a good reputation among the people, and his advice was regarded with respect. 5Acts 5:35. Gamaliel advised the council to be careful how they proceeded against the apostles. But he did not ask them to act solely on his general suggestion; he proposed to support it with some facts with which they were evidently acquainted, or at least which they accepted as true due to their respect for Gamaliel. 6Acts 5:36. Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary says the following about this Theudas: "A Jewish revolutionist in the reign of Augustus [Caesar] who instigated a political uprising in Palestine that came to an inglorious end." We may also read the account of Josephus in his Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 5, Section 1, as follows: "Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator [agent] of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem." Some historians question whether this is the same Theudas as the one Luke writes about, while others say he is the same. All agree, however, that the account in Josephus is true, and we know it corresponds with the description as Gamaliel gave it. 7Acts 5:37. I shall quote from Jo-sephus, Wars. Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 1:"Under his [Coponius, an agent] administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders." As a further support of the account of Gamaliel touching the downfall of the claims of Judas, I shall quote Jo-sephus, Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 5, Section 2: "And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cy-renius came to take account of the estates of the Jews" [for the purpose of taxing them]. 9Acts 5:38-39. Gamaliel based his reasoning on the outcome of the historic cases to which he referred. He was considering the subject very much along the line of some familiar sayings that "history repeats itself," or that "time will tell." On that principle, he thought these Jewish leaders need not be so concerned about the activities of the apostles. He was correct in saying that if their work was of God, they would not be able to overthrow it. This passage has been used by professed disciples today, to show that we should not oppose any new doctrine or institution that might appear among us, but should let time decide whether it is right or wrong. There are at least two phases of this reasoning that shows it to be a perversion. Gamaliel was only a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and had no special authority that we know of. The most that could be said about his speech was that it was his personal judgment as to the better procedure to follow toward the apostles, and hence it was no authentic principle on which to handle the question of conduct in the affairs of the church. Again, even if it had been a statement produced by approval of the Lord, that would not make it a proper rule today. The New Testament was not in existence at that time, and hence there was no written document by which to test new teachers or new propositions. Today we have the completed book given to the church by the inspired apostles. If something appears among us that is new (to us), and that could easily occur, we do not have to wait until experience has tested it, but can learn at once whether it is "of God," by examining it in the light of the New Testament. (See 1 Peter 4:11.) 0Acts 5:40. The leaders of the Sanhedrin accepted the advice of Gamaliel, not to do anything too rash against the apostles. It was not because of any just feeling of righteousness or fair consideration for the prisoners, for they just could not stand to let them go until they had given them a parting threat accompanied with a beating. 1Act 5:41. It was and still is an honor to suffer persecution for the name of Jesus (1 Peter 4:16): it indicates that one is living a godly life (2 Timothy 3:12). 2Act 5:42. Their persecutions did not intimidate the apostles, even to the extent of decreasing the amount or frequency of their preaching, but they preached daily. Neither did they seek for private spots or places of safety to do their work. They preached in the temple, the most public building, and in every private house, where they ran a risk constantly of coming in contact with some telltale member of the Sanhedrin. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 6 THE SEVEN CHOSEN Acts 6:1-7 1 Now in these days, when the number of the disciples—Luke, as a faithful historian, now narrates further development of the church; a gradual unfolding of gospel principles is made in the preaching of the gospel, and a gradual development in the organi¬zation of the church. The church was established on Pentecost; the historian now reaches a point where the church is four or five years old. The increase in the number of disciples brought about a com¬plication of affairs, and gave an opportunity for the apostles to ar¬range in a more systematic order for the work and discipline of the large and growing number of disciples. “ Now in these days” is a phrase of indefinite time; it is generally understood that the ascen¬sion took place about A.D. 30; some think that it was in A.D. 29 and others in A.D. 33; the date is immaterial. The first six chap¬ters of Acts are generally supposed to cover a history of four or five years; hence, at this time the church would be that old. This was a period of great prosperity, as the number of disciples increased daily. “ A murmuring” or “ muttering” or complaining arose among “ the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews.” “ Grecian Jews” were “ Hellenists,” or Jews who were born and reared in another coun¬try than Palestine; “ Hebrews” were the Jews who were of pure Jewish blood and spoke the Hebrew language. Paul said that he was “ a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5), which meant that he was of pure Hebrew blood and that he spoke the Hebrew lan¬guage. The cause of this complaint was because the widows among “ the Grecian Jews” were “ neglected,” or “ overlooked,” in “ the daily ministration.” This “ murmuring” or whispering of discon¬tent is a sin frequently condemned in the New Testament. (Philippians 2:14; 1 Peter 4:9.) This complaint seems to have been against the apostles, as they had charge of the funds that had been contrib¬uted. (Acts 4:35 Acts 4:37 Acts 5:2.) “ Daily ministration” shows that there was a daily distribution of things which were needed. This sin of neglect is the second sin that is recorded against any mem¬ber of the church. 2 And the twelve called the multitude—Here we have “ the twelve” apostles mentioned, showing that for these few years of the church all twelve of the apostles were still at Jerusalem. This shows that Matthias was regarded as one of the apostles, for it would take him to complete the list of “ the twelve.” (Acts 1:26.) The number of disciples here is spoken of as “ the multitude of the disciples.” The apostles stated that it was not best, or satisfactory, for them to give their time to ministering to tables, “ serve tables.” They had a higher and more important work to do— preaching the word. In order for them to “ serve tables” they would necessarily have to “ forsake the word of God” in part at least. “ Tables,” as used here, does not mean money tables as in John 2:15, but rather the tables used in the common daily distribution of the food. “ Ministration” is from the Greek “ diakonia,” and means the same as “ to serve.” The Greek word “ diakonia,” or “ diakonos,” as used here, has the same meaning as used in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13; it is usually translated “ deacon.” There are three English words in our version by which “ diakonos” is translated; they are “ minister,” “ servant,” and “ deacon.” Sometimes it is translated “ bond servant” or “ bondman” ; it is frequently used to designate a “ minister of the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Ephesians 3:7.) The word “ deacon” is almost a transcription of “ diakonos.” (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-12.) It is also applied to Phoebe. (Romans 16:1.) 3 Look ye out therefore, brethren,—The term “ look ye out” means to “ look at” in order to select, to “ seek out” as persons for office. The entire multitude of disciples was instructed to do this. They were to select “ from among” themselves “ seven men.” There is no significance in the number “ seven” except that it is a sacred number and usually implies completeness. This number was con¬sidered sufficient for the work that they were to do. The qualifica¬tions are specified; they were to be “ men of good report,” “ full of the Spirit,” and men “ of wisdom” ; these “ we” may appoint over this business. The first qualification “ of good report” is important ; it is mentioned in Acts 10:22 Acts 16:2; 1 Timothy 5:10. The second qualification was that they were to be “ full of the Spirit” ; this phrase is frequently used in regard to spiritual gifts and miraculous powers. (Acts 2:4 Acts 4:8.) Furthermore, they were to be men “ of wisdom,” which means that they were to have practical sagacity, good sense, and sound judgment. “ Whom we may ap¬point” has received much discussion. Some think that the “ we” has reference only to the apostles; others think that it includes the entire church and apostles; since the apostles are directing in this, it seems clear that it includes only the apostles. 4 But we will continue stedfastly in prayer,—“ We” here designates the same “ we” in the preceding verse; it is clear that it includes the apostles. The apostles would “ continue stedfastly” ; that is, would adhere to that which they had been doing. (Romans 12:12; Colossians 4:2.) The apostles had been spending much time in prayer; they were determined to continue “ in prayer” ; this does not merely mean private prayer, but here in the sense of public worship. (Acts 16:13.) If the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, needed to continue “ stedfastly in prayer,” how much more do we need to pray! “ The ministry of the word,” in which they were to steadfastly continue, means serving as preaching and teaching the word. Here, again, we have the word “ diakonia,” as used in verse 1, but here it has reference to preaching as the spe¬cial ministry with which the apostles were concerned. 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude:—The suggestion made by the apostles met with the hearty approval of “ the whole multitude/’ There was no dissent in the meeting; they unanimously concurred in the direction given by the apostles, and proceeded according to their direction. They chose Stephen, Phil¬ip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus. All these names are from the Greek language, and indicate the gener¬osity of the Hebrew portion of the multitude in putting this matter in the hands of “ the Grecian Jews” from whom the complaint had come. “ Stephen” is mentioned first as he was the most conspicu¬ous of the group; “ Philip” is the next one mentioned. We have a record of Stephen and also of Philip in the later history of the church; but we do not have any mention of the others after their appointment. Philip is to be distinguished from Philip the apostle. This Philip is “ Philip the evangelist.” (Acts 21:8.) Some of Philip’ s labors in Samaria and elsewhere are mentioned in the Acts; Stephen was the first martyr; and some think that Nicolaus is mentioned in Revelation 2:6-15. The other four names are not re¬ferred to elsewhere in the New Testament. Some have contended that the Greek names do not prove that these were all from the “ Grecian Jews” ; they think that three of the seven were Hebrews, three Grecians, and one a proselyte. 6 whom they set before the apostles:—After the selection of these seven men who were qualified as mentioned in verse 3, they were placed before the apostles who prayed and “ laid their hands upon them.” Much discussion has been had as to the form of “ or¬daining” these men. The imposition of hands was a practice of long standing among the Jews. Jacob laid hands on the sons of Joseph (Genesis 48:13-14); it is recorded also that Moses laid hands on Joshua (Deuteronomy 34:9); the Levites were set apart to the service of the tabernacle by the imposition of hands (Numbers 8:10); hands were laid on the scapegoat to impart to it the sins to be carried away (Leviticus 16:21). The laying on of hands was a sym¬bol of the impartation of the gifts and graces which were needed to qualify them for their new duties; this was accompanied with prayer that God would bestow the necessary gifts upon them. Some have thought that this is the beginning of the officers in the church known as “ deacons” ; it may be, but these men are not called deacons. We do not know whether they were appointed in this case of emergency, and ceased when the supplies were ex¬hausted, or when the church was scattered abroad. (Acts 8:1.) It is claimed that they did the work of “ deacons,” and that their work is described by the same Greek word that is used for “ dea¬cons” ; this may be true, but the fact remains that they are no¬where in the New Testament called “ deacons.” 7 And the word of God increased;—“ Increased,” as used here, is from “ euxanen,” which means “ kept on growing all the more” because the apostles were now relieved from the daily min¬istration of the food. The number of disciples “ multiplied” as the result of the increased activities of the apostles in preaching the word. “ Multiplied” is from the original “ eplethuneto,” which means that the preaching of the apostles and the multiplication of the number of disciples kept pace with each other. “ A great com¬pany of the priests were obedient to the faith.” The priests were usually Sadducees; it was a sad day for Annas and Caiaphas and all the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17) when such a large num¬ber of priests became obedient to the faith. Three things are men¬tioned here to show the progress of the church: “ the word of God increased,” “ the number of the disciples multiplied,” and “ a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” “ Obedient to the faith” is equivalent to obeying the gospel; “ faith” here means “ faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the gospel.” GOSPEL IN JUDEA AND SAMARIAAct_6:8 to Acts 8:25 STEPHEN AND TRIEDAct_6:8-15 8 And Stephen, full of grace and power,—Stephen was de¬scribed as “ a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” when he was selected; here he is described as being “ full of grace and power.” “ Grace” is used here in the sense of favor with God; “ power” does not merely mean strength and fortitude, but some unusual power, enabling him to be the instrument of doing great wonders or miracles among the people. It is thought that Stephen was a “ Grecian Jew,” who had accepted Christ; he worked “ great wonders and signs among the people.” 9 But there arose certain of them—This verse has confused many commentators, and given them no little trouble. “ The syna¬gogue of the Libertines” were the Jews who were one time slaves, but had been given their liberty. Some think that they were merely Jews of Rome, who had been taken there as captives by Pompey. “ Libertines” comes from the Latin which means “ freed¬man,” or “ the son of a freedman.” It is said that there were two hundred eighty synagogues in Jerusalem; these places of worship and study were in all the cities of later times where there were Jews enough to maintain one. Luke here speaks of five such synagogues in Jerusalem—“ Libertines,” “ Cyrenians,” “ Alexandrians,” “ Cilicia,” and “ Asia.” There were probably enough “ Hellenists” in Jerusalem to have five such synagogues. Cyrene was in Africa, about halfway between Carthage and Alexandria; it contained a large number of Jews, who constituted one-fourth of its entire population. (Mark 15:21; Acts 13:1.) Alexandria was the capital of Egypt, and was founded by Alexander the Great. In no city save Jerusalem were there so many Jews, nor had they so much power anywhere out of Palestine; the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made at Alexandria for Jews there. Cilicia was at the southeast corner of what is now called Asia Minor; it contained a large number of Jews; Asia in the New Testament always means the northwest corner of Asia Minor, which had Ephesus for its capital. Stephen engaged all of these syna¬gogues in controversy about Christ. 10 And they were not able to withstand the wisdom—Stephen was “ full of grace and power" and representatives of these synagogues were unable to meet his arguments. He spoke with such fearlessness, clearness of argument, understanding of the prophecy, and power of the Spirit that his speech was irresistible. 11 Then they suborned men, who said,—“ Suborned” is from “ hupoballo,” which originally meant “ to put under like a carpet, to bring men under one’ s control by suggestion or money.” Here it means that they put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud. These men for money or for some wicked motive bore wit¬ness that they had heard Stephen “ speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.” They brought the same accusa¬tion against Christ. (Matthew 26:65; Mark 2:7.) Punishment for blasphemy against God was death by stoning. (Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13:6-10.) They charged Stephen with blaspheming Moses, and concluded their charge that he had blasphemed God. 12-13 And they stirred up the people,—The original, “ sunek- inesan,” means they shook the people together like an earthquake. The wrangling Libertines and the others of verse 9 were the leaders of this mob against Stephen; with the testimony of these false witnesses they “ stirred up” the people; the elders and the scribes rushed upon Stephen and brought him into the council. After Stephen was brought into the presence of the council, again they “ set up false witnesses” who testified that “ this man ceaseth not to speak words against this holy place, and the law.” They enlarged upon the testimony that was first borne; this time they add that Stephen not only blasphemed Moses and God, but that he spoke “ words against this holy place,” meaning Jerusalem, or the temple. They made wild charges against Stephen that he had spoken against the law and the temple; it is supposed that they had reference to what Stephen had spoken in their synagogues. 14 for we have heard him say,—Probably Stephen had warned the people that if they persisted in their opposition to Jesus their city and temple would be destroyed. Jesus himself had made declarations of the same import. (Matthew 26:61; Luke 19:41-44.) They perverted what Jesus had said, and now they put a wrong construction on what Stephen says. Jesus had predicted the destruction of the temple, but it was to be done by the Gentiles. The enemies of Stephen were unable to meet his arguments, and they resorted to violent means; this was a confession that they could not withstand his arguments. Their charges were false, and they proceeded upon false accusations. 15 And all that sat in the council,—Probably Saul of Tarsus sat in this council with others and saw the face of Stephen shine as though “ it had been the face of an angel.” His face was lighted up with divine radiance. The members of the council literally gazed upon him as if they had seen “ the face of an angel.” Even his ene¬mies saw his face as if it were the face of an angel, but they were too wicked to turn from their evil course. The face of Moses shone in a similar way when he came down from the mountain. (Exodus 34:30; 2 Corinthians 3:7.) We do not know where Peter and John were at this time; it seems that Stephen stood alone before the Sanhedrin as did Jesus; however, he was not alone, for he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. (Acts 7:56.) There was lit¬tle that Peter and John could do at this time; Gamaliel did not in¬terpose this time, for the Pharisees were behind the charges against Stephen. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 6Acts 6:1. From the preceding account of the struggle, between the apostles and the Sadducees, Luke now turns to consider, briefly, the internal condition of the Church during the same period. Though the mass of the disciples had attained many of the excellencies of Christian character, they were still but men, and liable to the partialities and prejudices of men. This became manifest in a manner which at first threatened serious consequences. (1) “Now, in those days, the disciples having multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenist against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” The disciples in Jerusalem now numbered largely over five thousand. In so large a multitude, it was almost impossible to look after the wants of all with equal care, and some unintentional oversight must unavoidably occur. The “ daily ministration” is undoubtedly that distribution from the funds contributed by the brethren, which was made “ to every one according as he had need.” That it was made daily, confirms our former conclusion, that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy. The Hellenists were Jews of foreign birth and Greek education, and were so called because of their conformity to the manners of the Hellenes, as Greeks were called. Many of them were, perhaps, not permanent residents in Jerusalem, but had remained there after Pentecost on account of their interest in the new religion. They were the more likely to be neglected, because less familiarity known to the apostles and their assistants. Acts 6:2-4. This unforeseen circumstances suggested to the apostles the propriety of insinuating a new office in the Church. Though the Holy Spirit was given to guide them into all the truth, its additional instruction was given only as circumstances required. They were not theorists, with a constitution and by-laws drawn up in advance, to which, under all circumstances, the Church must conform; but they allowed the condition of the congregation, from time to time, to dictate the provisions which should be made, and therefore the provisions which were made precisely such as were needed. Hitherto the Church had been without an officer of any kind, except the apostles; for the supposition advanced by some writers, that the young men, oi neoteroi, who buried Ananias and Sapphira, were regularly-appointed officers, is without foundation, except in the analogy of later and unscriptural organizations. Seeing, then, that the Church in Jerusalem existed for a time under the control of the apostles alone, it follows that a Church may now exist under the written teaching alone of the same apostles. But seeing, further, that when circumstances required it, other officials were appointed, it follows that all Churches among whom similar wants arise should provide themselves in the same way. All Churches, however, will inevitably find need for such officers as the New Testament authorizes; hence they should procure them without unnecessary delay. When the murmuring came to the ears of the apostles they acted promptly. (2) “Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said, It is not well that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. (3) Therefore, brethren, look out among you seven men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (4) But we ourselves will continue in prayer and the ministry of the word.” The alternative with the apostles was to “ leave,” in some degree, “ the word of God,” and serve the tables satisfactorily, or turn this business over to other hands, and “ continue in prayer and the ministry of the word” as uninterruptedly as before. They showed their superior regard for the latter ministry by choosing the latter course. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles that the whole “ multitude of the disciples” should take part in the selection of these officers. No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of officers of the Church. The multitude were limited, however, by apostolic authority, to the choice of men of a certain description. They must be men of “ good repute;” not merely good men, but men whose goodness was accredited among the brethren. They must also be men who were “ full of the Holy Spirit.” Whether this means that they must be possessed of miraculous powers, or merely that they must exhibit abundantly the fruits of the Spirit, it is difficult to determine. The circumstances, that up to this time no miracles had been wrought, so far as we know, by any of the apostles, and that, immediately after the appointment of the seven, Stephen appears “ doing great wonders and miracles among the people,” seem to indicate that they were merely full of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary way, but received miraculous powers when the hands of the apostles were laid upon them. On the other hand, the expression, “ full of the Holy Spirit,” generally means possessed of the miraculous powers of the Spirit. Whatever may be the decision of this question, it is certain that when a disciple was “ full of the Spirit” in either sense, the religious sentiments were in lively exercise, and this is all that can be required in a candidate for the same office at the present day. The office which the apostles are about to institute and fill is easily identified with that of the deacon as described in the third chapter of First Timothy. The seven are not styled diakonoi, deacons, but they were selected to attend to the daily diakonia, (verse 1) and their service is expressed by the verb diakoneo, (verse 2) the same which expresses the duty of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:10-13. The chief duty for which they were appointed, was “to serve tables,” diakonein trapezais; yet this duty need not prevent them from discharging any other functions for which they were qualified, and for which they could find time. God exacts the employment of every talent that is committed to us, and has appointed no work to be done which is too holy for the humblest disciple. We therefore find one of the seven deacons soon after in the front rank of the defenders of the faith; while another, after the dispersion of the Church, preaches in Samaria, and immerses both the Samaritans and the Ethiopian nobleman. Those who deny to deacons, at the present day, the same privileges, impose a restriction which is in direct conflict with the word of God. As to the title evangelist, afterward applied to Philip, see the “ Commentary on Acts,” xxi. 8. Acts 6:5-6. The proposition of the apostles so wisely provided for an obvious want, that there could be no hesitation about prompt compliance with it, (5) “And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, (6) whom they placed before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid their hands on them.” It is a remarkable proof of the generosity of the Church at large, that all these are Greek names, indicating that they were selected from the very party whence the murmuring had proceeded. It was as if the Hebrews had said to the Hellenists, We have no selfish ends to accomplish, not any jealousy toward you who complain, therefore we give the whole business into your hands, and will fearlessly trust our poor widows to your care. So generous a trust could not be betrayed, except by the basest of men. All that is now known of five of these men is the fact of their appointment to this office. Their names are not again mentioned in the New Testament. It need not be presumed, from this, that they were subsequently inactive or unfaithful, but simply that Luke selected, for his brief narrative, a chain of events in which others were the actors. Of Nicolas, it is said that he was “ a proselyte of Antioch,” which means that he was a Gentile who had been proselyted to Judaism before he was converted to Christ. Thus we see that, even at this early period, the apostles had no objection to the reception of Gentiles, provided they had been circumcised. Stephen is specially described as “ a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit,” not because the others were destitute of these excellencies; for one of the qualifications necessary to a selection was that they should be men “ full of the Holy Spirit.” But if the seven were distinguished above others in this respect, Stephen may have been distinguished in the same way among the seven. The object of the imposition of hands, on this occasion, has been a subject of some dispute; some contending that it was merely to impart miraculous gifts to the seven, and others, that it was the ceremony of their induction into office. Miraculous gifts were often conferred by the apostles in this way, and there is much probability, to say the least, that they were now conferred upon the seven; but the context forbids us to suppose that this was the only object of the ceremony. The apostles had commanded the disciples to do one thing, and they themselves proposed to do another. The multitude were to “look out” the men, “ whom,” say the apostles, “ we may appoint over this business.” The part performed by the apostles was their appointment to office. But all the apostles did was to pray and lay on their hands; hence, this was the ceremony of their appointment. It stands upon record as a precedent, and should be complied with in similar cases. The fact that men can not now confer a miraculous gift by laying on hands, does not relieve them from the obligation to impose hands as a ceremony of appointment to office. The question as to who should perform this ceremony should give no trouble. The parties who directed in the organization of the Church were the official on this occasion, and so, according to the precedent, should it always be. Whoever plants a Church, or sets one in order, should lay hands on its officers. When there are peculiar circumstances not anticipated by the precedent, they should be provided for according to the wisdom of those concerned, being careful not to violate the precedent. The example of the apostles is binding in this, as in all cases not peculiar to the apostolic office, or to the condition of the early Churches. Acts 6:7. The appointment of the seven over the business of daily ministration to the poor was intended to supply an existing deficiency in the organization of the Church. The more efficient organization gave greater efficiency to the labors of all. (7) “And the word of God increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly multiplied, and a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith.” This is the first intimation of the accession of any of the priests to the new faith. It was the most signal triumph yet achieved by the gospel, for the priests of the old religion were more interested in maintaining it than were any other class among the Jews. The peculiar relation which the priesthood sustain to any system of religion must always render them the chief conservators of obsolete forms, and the most formidable opponents to the introduction of new truth. When the priests of an opposing system begin to give way, it is ready to fall. No fact yet recorded by Luke shows so strikingly the effect of the gospel upon the popular mind in Jerusalem. The expression used concerning these priests, that they became “ obedient to the faith,” is worthy of notice as implying that there is something in the faith to be obeyed. This obedience is not rendered in the act of believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it. But faith in Jesus as the Messiah requires obedience to him as Lord; hence obedience rendered to him is styled obedience to the faith. It begins with immersion, and continues with the duties of a religious life. Paul declares that the grand object of the favor and apostleship conferred upon him was “ for obedience to the faith among all nations.” Without it, faith itself is of no avail, for all who “obey not the gospel,” whatever may be their faith, will be “ destroyed from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power.” There is another expression in this verse worthy of notice, because of its singular contrast with modern phraseology in such connections. It is said, “ The word of God increased,” and the specifications are, that the number of disciples was greatly multiplied, and that a great multitude of the priests became obedient. At the present day such incidents are often introduced by remarks of this kind: “ There was a precious season of grace;” “ The Lord was present in his saving power;” “ A gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” etc. So great a departure from Scripture phraseology clearly indicates a departure from scriptural ideas. When men are engrossed with the conception that conversion is an abstract work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, they are likely to express themselves in this unauthorized manner. But Luke, who had no such conception, saw in the increase of the disciples an increase of the word of God; by which he means not an increase in the quantity of revelation, but in its effect. The more favorable circumstances which now existed within the Church, by the cessation of recent murmuring, and the introduction of a better organization, gave greater weight to the word that was preached, and greater success was the consequence. Acts 6:8. We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors and death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is thus briefly sketched: (8) “Now Stephen, full of faith and of power, did great wonders and signs among the people.” The power by which he wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was “ full of faith.” This accords with the fact already observed, (3:16,) that the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spiritual gifts depended upon the degree of their faith. Acts 6:9-10. The activity of Stephen, though probably not greater than that of the apostles during the same period, naturally attracted to him more especial attention, because he was a new actor in the scene, and one who had hitherto occupied a subordinate position. The opponents of the gospel were aroused into renewed activity. The first persecution occurred upon the surprising success of Peter and John in Solomon's Portico; the second, upon the triumphs which followed the death of Ananias and Sapphira; and the third now springs up upon the appearance of new advocates of the faith. (9) “Then there arose certain persons from the synagogue called the synagogue of the Freedmen and Cyrenians, and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen; (10) and they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke.”The policy of the opposition is now changed. Having been deterred, by fear of the people, and by division of sentiment in their own ranks, from resorting to extreme violence, and finding that threats and scourging were unavailing, they now resort to discussion, expecting, by superior learning, to confound men who could not be forced into silence. The parties who entered the lists of debate were all foreign-born Jews. The Freedmen were Jews who had been set free from Roman slavery; the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from the north of Africa; the Asians and Cilicians from the peninsula of Asia, the last-named being from the native country of Saul of Tarsus. The fact that Saul was a leader in the contest now begun identifies the attacking party as Pharisees; for he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and “ brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel.” The violent proceedings of the Sadducees having been checked, in part, by the counsel of Gamaliel— the great teacher of the Pharisees— the apostles had gone on in their ministry, not merely proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, but prosecuting the second part of their commission, “ teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever Christ had commanded.” This somewhat relieved the Sadducees from the brunt of attack, and turned it upon the Pharisees, whose traditions were directly assailed by the maxims of true piety and morality. The consequence was, a rallying of this party to an activity not manifested before since the death of Christ. Having nearly all the learning and talent of their nation in their ranks, and especially the literary culture and wealth of the foreign Jews, they resorted with great confidence to disputation. The seven deacons, who were also foreigners, were naturally brought into more direct contact with these foreign-born disputants; and Stephen, who was the most gifted of the seven, soon found himself engaged, single-handed, in a conflict with them all. This is the first time the disciples measured the strength of their cause in open discussion. Hitherto the young converts had enjoyed no opportunity to compare the arguments by which they had been convinced with those which learning and ingenuity might frame against them. But now they were to hear both sides of the great question presented, with the odds of number, learning, and social position all on the side of their opponents. It was an interesting crisis, and it needs no very vivid imagination to realize the palpitating anxiety with which the disciples resorted to the place of discussion. Their fondest hopes were realized; for it soon became evident that Stephen had all the facts and the statements of Scripture in his favor, so that “ they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke.” By the “ spirit by which he spoke,” I suppose Luke refers to the Holy Spirit, who supplied him with whatever knowledge and wisdom he may have lacked. In entering freely into this discussion, Stephen acted in accordance with the example of his master, and that of all the apostles. Their example makes it the duty of all disciples to whom God has given the necessary wisdom, to defend in discussion, against all opposition, the truth as it is in Jesus. Whoever does so, in the fear of God, and with a devout zeal for the salvation of men, will find his enemies unable to resist him. Acts 6:11-14. When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against Stephen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find their subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they pursued in the case of Jesus. (11) “Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” This was the indictment upon which the further proceedings were based, and it was circulated boisterously among all classes. (12) “And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim, (13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; (14) For we have heard him saying, that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” This is the first time that “ the people” are represented as taking part against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the “ fear of the people” had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the Sadducees, who had conducted those persecutions, had but little popular influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy. The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in circulation a slanderous report, which was cunningly directed against a single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled them to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a strong popular feeling in their own favor. The general charge against Stephen was speaking blasphemy “ against Moses and God,” otherwise expressed, “ against this holy place, and the law.” The change of phraseology arises from the fact that the temple and law were the visible representatives of Moses and of God. The specifications under this charge were these: “ We have heard him saying that this Jesus will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” It is quite likely that Stephen was guilty of the specifications; but they fell very far short of the crime of blasphemy against Moses and against God. In thus teaching, he was really honoring Moses, by insisting upon the very termination which Moses himself had assigned to his own law, while he honored God by receiving him whom God had sent. Acts 6:15. As Stephen stood before the Sanhedrim, thus falsely and hypocritically accused, and fully aware of a determination to condemn him without regard to evidence or justice, he could but remember the similar accusation of Jesus, of Peter and John, then of all the apostles; and his heart must have swelled at the thought of being identified with them in suffering. The baseness of his persecutors— who, under pretense of zeal for Moses and the law, were violating the one and dishonoring the other, by seeking the lives of the only men who believed his words— must have filled him with indignation, while love for the truth which he was defending, and for the Redeemer for whom he was suffering, was kindled afresh, and the power of a glorious hope inspired him with the most invincible courage. Emotions so intense and so lofty spread a glow upon his countenance which attracted the attention of the whole audience. (15) “And all who sat in the Sanhedrim, looking earnestly upon him, saw his face as if it were the face of an angel.” There is no need to suppose anything supernatural in his appearance, such as a halo of light enveloping his countenance; for a countenance naturally fine and expressive, when lit up by emotions so intense and heavenly as those which must then have swelled the breast of Stephen, would be sufficient to suggest such a comparison. If there were any brethren present, with what tearful delight they must then have gazed upon the hero of faith! And if any of the members of the Sanhedrim were still capable of nobler sentiments, how intense must have been their agitation! The trial proceeds: "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Six IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To note how the church in Jerusalem handled their internal problems 2) To examine the process of selecting and appointing those who serve in the Lord's church 3) To evaluate the charges that were brought against Stephen SUMMARY As the disciples in Jerusalem multiplied in number, it is not surprising to read of problems increasing as well. This chapter describes problems from within and without the congregation. Hellenists (Jewish Christians who adopted Grecian culture) complained that the Hebrews (Jewish Christians who sought to preserve Jewish culture) neglected their widows in the daily distribution (cf. Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:34-35). The apostles, desiring not to be distracted from their own work, summon the disciples and charge them to select seven men whom the apostles might appoint to take care of this responsibility. Seven are selected by the people and appointed by the apostles through prayer and the laying on of hands. With the problem solved, the word of God spread and the number of disciples multiplied greatly, including the obedience of many priests (Acts 6:1-6). Stephen, one of the seven, began doing many wonders and signs. Opposition arose from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen who disputed with Stephen. Unable to resist the Spirit and the wisdom of which he spoke, they resorted to false witnesses to stir up the people, elders, and scribes. Brought before the council, Stephen was charged with blasphemy against the temple and the law of Moses. The chapter ends with the council looking at Stephen, seeing his face as the face of an angel (Acts 6:7-15). OUTLINE I. THE OF THE SEVEN (Acts 6:1-7) A. THE PROBLEM (Acts 6:1)1. As the church grew, there arose a complaint 2. The Hellenists were complaining against the Hebrews 3. The Hellenistic widows were being neglected during the daily distribution B. THE (Acts 6:3-6)1. The twelve apostles summon the multitude of disciples a. It was not good that the apostles leave the word of God to serve tables b. The congregation should select seven men that the apostles might appoint 1) Of good reputation 2) Full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom c. So the apostles might give themselves to prayer and the word of God 2. The multitude is pleased, and select seven men a. Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit b. Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch 3. The seven men are appointed by the apostles a. Having prayed b. Laying hands on them C. THE RESULT (Acts 6:7)1. The word of God spread, the number of the disciples multiplied 2. Many of the priests were obedient to the faith II. THE CHARGES AGAINST STEPHEN (Acts 6:8-15) A. HIS (Acts 6:8-10)1. Full of faith and power, he did great wonders and signs among the people 2. Disputed with some from the Synagogue of the Freedmen a. Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia b. Who were unable to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke B. THE (Acts 6:11-14)1. They secretly induced men to charge him with blasphemy against Moses and God 2. They stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes a. To come and seize him b. To bring him to the (Sanhedrin) council 3. They set up false witnesses who charged Stephen with blasphemy against: a. The holy place (temple): "We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place" b. Against the law (of Moses) "...and change the customs which Moses delivered to us" C. HIS (Acts 6:15)1. All who sat in the council looked steadfastly at him 2. They saw his face as the face of an angel REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The selection of the seven (Acts 6:1-7) - The charges against Stephen (Acts 6:8-15) 2) As the church in Jerusalem grew in number, who raised a complaint? Why? (Acts 6:1)- The Hellenists against the Hebrews - The Hellenistic widows were being neglected in the daily distribution 3) When the apostles summoned the disciples, what did they first say to them? (Acts 6:2)- "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables" 4) What proposal did the apostles offer? (Acts 6:3)- For the congregation to select seven whom the apostles could appoint over this business 5) What qualifications did the apostles lay down for the selection of the seven? (Acts 6:3)- Men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom 6) What would this enable the apostles to do? (Acts 6:4)- Give themselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word 7) What were the names of the seven men who were selected? What is unique about their names? (Acts 6:5)- Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, Nicholas - They are all Grecian (Hellenistic) names 8) How did the apostles appoint those whom the congregation selected? (Acts 6:6)- Through prayer and the laying on of hands 9) As the word of spread, what two things occurred? (Acts 6:7)- The number of the disciples multiplied greatly - A great many of the priests were obedient to the faith 10) What did Stephen, one of the seven, do among the people? (Acts 6:8)- Great signs and wonders 11) Who began to dispute with Stephen? (Acts 6:9)- Some from the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, others from Cilicia and Asia) 12) What were they unable to do? (Acts 6:10)- Resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which Stephen spoke 13) What did they secretly induce men to say? (Acts 6:11)- "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God" 14) What did they stir up the people, elders, and scribes to do? (Acts 6:12)- To seize Stephen and bring him to the council 15) What did they set up false witnesses to say? (Acts 6:13-14)- "This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law" - "We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us" 16) As those in the council looked at Stephen, what did they see? (Acts 6:15)- His face as the face of an angel Verse 1 This very short chapter narrates the preliminaries of Stephen's martyrdom, noting that it occurred following a period of great growth and prosperity for the new faith (Acts 6:1), that Stephen's rise to prominence was a result of his appointment as one of the seven chosen to administer the distribution of food to the needy, an appointment brought about by complaints of neglecting the Grecian widows (Acts 6:2-7), and that his popularity, ability in debate, and fearless proclamation of the truth resulted in a Pharisaical plot against him, leading to his arrest (Acts 6:8-15). Many things of very great significance come to view in this little chapter: there was the first instance of the laying on of the hands of the apostles; there appeared the first violent opposition of the Pharisees; there occurred the first expansion of the church's organization beyond that of the governing apostles; there was a second threat to the unity of the disciples, deriving from the allegations of neglect of a certain class receiving charity; and there was the exceedingly significant record of "a great company of the priests" accepting the faith in Jesus Christ. Now in these days when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:1) In these days ... indicates a considerable time-lapse after the establishment of the church in A.D. 30, probably a period of six or eight years. Murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews ... Both classes of these "Jews" were Christians, but there was a language barrier. The Jews of Palestine spoke Aramaic, and those of the Diaspora spoke Greek; many of the latter were living in Jerusalem at that time but were natives of the provinces. "In the Jewish world as a whole there was some tension, and this survived between the two groups,"[1] even after they became Christians. Murmuring ... Most scholars assume that there was justification for this action, basing their opinion upon the assumption that the Grecian widows were actually "neglected." However, it is not clear from this verse that Luke intended any admission to that effect; but neither is it denied. It is this word "murmuring" which casts some doubt on the extent of that "neglect," for "murmuring" almost invariably carries with it an imputation of guilt in the persons doing the murmuring; and it rarely implies any guilt in those murmured against. "How long shall I bear with this evil generation which murmur against me?" (Numbers 14:27). As Spurgeon said of the murmuring of Israel in the wilderness: The tendency of human nature is to murmur, complain, find fault, a very easy thing to do, the very word "murmur" being made of two infantile sounds - MUR MUR! There is no sense in it, no wit in it, no thought in it, being the cry rather of a brute than of a man, just a double groan![2]The vice of murmuring is specifically condemned in Philippians 2:14,1 Corinthians 10:10; and this student of God's word refuses to see in the incident before us any justification whatever for the murmuring that took place regarding the daily distribution of food to the needy. In the very nature of such distributions, it was inevitable that some should receive less, others more, and that almost any person desiring to find fault could easily have "discovered" some basis for alleging it. Significantly, the apostles spoke not a word of blame regarding either those who murmured or those who had done the distributing. They simply changed the administration of the charities with a view to eliminating all further excuses for any murmuring. Their Widows ... As McGarvey noted: The fact that this distribution was made daily, and that the widows were the principal recipients, confirms our former conclusion that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy.[3]Elam made a deduction based upon this episode, as follows: There may be only two classes in the church, namely, the givers and the receivers. Each one belongs to one of these classes. If one is unable to give, that one is in the class of receivers and needs to be given to.[4][1] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 128. [2] Charles H. Spurgeon, Sermons (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company), Vol. IX, p. 389. [3] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), p. 103. [4] E. A. Elam, Elam's Notes on Bible School Lessons (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1931), p. 191. Verse 2 And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God and serve tables.The twelve ... "shows that Matthias was one of the apostles, for it would take him to complete the list of the twelve."[5]It is not fit that we should ... Many commentators read this as if it said, "It is not fit that we shouldCONTINUE to serve tables," assuming that until this incident the twelve had personally distributed the food to the needy; but such is not stated here, nor is it likely that the twelve had been doing such work, except perhaps, occasionally, volunteers, in all probability, having done the most of it. Serve tables ... The word "serve" has the meaning of "minister to," and is rendered from the Greek word [@diakonia], a derivative from [@diakonos], the latter term being rendered "by three English words in our version: ; SERVANT, and DEACON."[6] It is upon this rather precarious basis that the men here appointed are often called "deacons." Significantly, the record here does not so name them, nor is there very much similarity between their status and that of the deacons Paul commanded Timothy to appoint. The men here were not assistants to elders of the church, but to the Twelve; and, furthermore, they were endowed by a laying on of the hands of the apostles. Perhaps the best name for them is the Seven, as Luke himself called them (Acts 21:8). [5] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Acts (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1953, p. 95. [6] Ibid. Verse 3 Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.The traditional deductions from this episode, namely, (1) that the men here appointed were installed in the office of deacon, and (2) that the work of deacons is restricted to the church's "business" affairs, are by no means necessary. McGarvey was sure that "The deacon's office was here first created and supplied with incumbents";[7] and "That no ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of church officers."[8] However, the Seven were not "elected" at all; they were "appointed" by the apostles. Therefore, to the extent of this episode's application to "church officers," it is the right of nominating elders and deacons which is vested in the congregation, rather than the right of election or appointment of such officers. Despite this, the question is somewhat academic, because neither apostles nor elders can rule any congregation without taking into account the considered judgment of its membership. [7] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 107. [8] Ibid., p. 104. Verse 4 But we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word.Continue stedfastly ... What the apostles here proposed was to "continue" as they had already been doing, namely, devoting their total resources to the propagation of the truth. This verse denies the supposition that, until this time, the apostles had been doing all of the distributing of food to the needy. See under Acts 6:2. The ministry of the word ... Nothing is any plainer in the New Testament than the priority of the word and doctrine of Christ over every other consideration, even that of taking care of the poor. Neither area of responsibility is to be neglected; but the first duty is that of ministering the word itself. Verse 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus a proselyte of Antioch.Stephen ... is mentioned first, as Luke's narrative was about to recount his martyrdom. The qualifications that he had as a man of faith and full of the Holy Spirit were not his alone but belonged to all of the group nominated by the multitude. Philip ... Concerning this nominee, Johnson said: He was distinguished as "Philip the Evangelist." He gave the gospel to Samaria, converted the eunuch, and afterward lived and labored at Caesarea (Acts 21:8).[9]Nicolaus ... A great deal of interest attaches to this last named of the Seven. First, he is the only one designated a proselyte, and the only one whose native city is given, the latter fact calling forth this comment from Bruce: That the only member of the Seven to have his place of origin named should belong to Antioch - Syrian Antioch, of course, is a mark of Luke's special interest in that city; and this helps to confirm the tradition that he himself was an Antiochene."[10]Two of the Ante-Nicene writers connected the name of Nicolaus with the heresy named in Revelation 2:6. Irenaeus wrote: The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolaus who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence ... teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.[11]Of course, it is no greater wonder that one of the Seven should have proved to be unworthy than that one of the Twelve should have been a traitor. Nevertheless, serious doubt is cast upon Irenaeus' charge of heresy against Nicolaus, it being far more likely that a group of sinners pretending to be his followers adopted his name in an effort to further their evil teaching, as appears in this comment from Victorinus who wrote the first known commentary on Revelation. In his comment on Revelation 2:6, he said: The Nicolaitanes were in that time false and troublesome men, who, as ministers under the name of Nicolaus, had made for themselves a heresy ... etc.Revelation 2:6 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. VII, p. 346.">[12] Regarding the fact that all seven of this group had Greek names, the conclusions of scholars are contradictory. Some assume that all seven were members of the dissenting or complaining party.[13] Lange thought it probable that "some of the seven were Hebrews"[14] with Greek names; and Boles noted that some think that "three of the seven were Hebrews, three Grecians, and one a proselyte"![15] (Quite a political maneuver!) It is obvious that we simply do not know. [9] B. W. Johnson, Notes on the New Testament (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 439. [10] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 129. [11] Irenaeus, Against Heresies in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. I, p. 352. Revelation 2:6 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. VII, p. 346.">[12] Victorious, Commentary on Revelation 2:6 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. VII, p. 346. [13] E. A. Elam, op. cit., p. 190. [14] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1866), p. 105. [15] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 97. Verse 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them.They laid their hands upon them ... The Seven were already "full of the Holy Spirit" in the sense ordinary; and therefore something more is intended here. Luke himself connected the laying on of the apostles' hands with the gift extraordinary of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:18); and coupled with Luke's statement a moment later that one of the Seven did "great wonders and signs among the people" (Acts 6:8), the teaching appears to be that the apostles here endowed the Seven with miraculous powers. To view the laying on of hands as a mere ceremony of ordination is incorrect. For more elaborate discussion of the laying on of hands, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6:2. Verse 7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.Increased ... exceedingly ... At a number of places in Acts, namely, here, Acts 9:30; Acts 12:24; Acts 16:5; Acts 19:20, and Acts 28:31, Luke paused to note the continued success of the gospel. C. H. Turner pointed out that Acts is thus cut into six panels covering, on an average, about five years each.[16]A great company of the priests believed ... Only here is there such a declaration in the New Testament, and the importance of the truth revealed here is superlative. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 6:2. This is the only place in the New Testament where the work of the deacons is shown. Their qualifications are stated in another passage (1 Timothy 3:8-12), but the work belonging to men as official deacons is not to be found in any passage but this verse. The twelve means the apostles who were busy delivering instructions to the people on spiritual matters. Not reason denotes it would not be acting with good judgment. Leave the ward of God would mean a ceasing of their preaching the word of God. Serve is from , and Thayer's definition at this place is, "To minister, i. e., supply food and the necessaries of life." He then comments, "To provide, take care of, distribute, the things necessary to sustain life, Acts 6:2. Absolutely, those are said to take care of the poor and the sick, who administer the office of deacon in the Christian churches, to serve as deacons." It is interesting to know that, the six words "use the office of a dea con" in 1 Timothy 3:10 all come from this one Greek word translated serve in our present verse. Incidentally, this shows that we should regard the men whom the apostles appointed as being deacons. In truth, were we to reject them as deacons, then we would be left with the baffling situation of having been given important qualifications of deacons, but no instructions as to what they were to do, for no information on that subject is in any other place. It is true that the Greek word in general, without any consideration of the context, could mean unofficial as well as official deacons, and also their work might consist of any manner of service. In that general sense, all members of the church are deacons, both men and women. But we cannot put that meaning unto the word in the present instance, for the apostles stated the kind of service for which they proposed to appoint (making them officials) the men; that was shown in the word tables. This is from TRAPEZA, which Thayer defines, "a table," then gives his explanation, "a table on which food is placed, an eating table." He gives a specific definition of the word in our verse which is, "To set a table, i. e., food before one." This settles the question of the work belonging to men as deacons, that it is to see that food is provided for those who are needy. The amount of loose thinking and acting on this subject that has been done is deplorable. Many people think that the work of the deacons is to "pass the emblems." Others even today will insist that it is the place of the deacons to "attend to any of the temporal affairs of the congregation." They will then expose the weakness and inconsistency of their position by allowing those things to be done by almost any member of the congregation, even though they may not possess half of the qualifications required of deacons. If the elders see fit to ask the deacons to perform some of the temporal affairs of the church, that is their right, and these men may comply with the request of the rulers. But they should not do so as deacons, for such things are no part of the office of deacons. 4Acts 6:4. After completing the arrangements for taking care of the temporal needs, the apostles said they would devote their time to spiritual matters. 5Acts 6:5. A spirit of cooperation prevailed between the apostles and the multitude of disciples. Stephen is mentioned especially in connection with being full of the Holy Ghost. It, was fitting to give him special mention in view of the glorious work he did in defending the faith, and sealing his courage in a violent death. But we know the others also had the qualifications, for they were required of them all and the apostles would not have appointed them had they not been qualified as stipulated. Philip is the same one who became known as "the evangelist," who preached to the people of Samaria. Nothing is said of any of the others that we know about, except what is said of them as a group working in conjunction with the apostles. 6Acts 6:6. Having selected these men according to instructions, the multitude presented them to the apostles who laid hands on them, accompanying the act with prayer. 7Acts 6:7. Word of God increased. After the deacons were appointed to handle the temporal needs of the disciples, the disturbances were evidently calmed. That gave the apostles fuller opportunity for preaching the word of God, and this is why the word increased is used, meaning increased occasions for offering it to the people. The aforesaid furtherance of the preaching resulted in the increase of disciples in Jerusalem. Another thing that helped the spread of the Gospel, was the work of the deacons who engaged in the preaching as well as attending to their official work. For while the specific function of the deacons is to care for the temporal needs of the congregation, that does not need to prevent them from spiritual activities as their talents and opportunities permitted. The mention of priests becoming obedient to the faith is for the purpose of showing the growing influence that the word of God was having among those who were usually opposed to the work of Christ. 8Acts 6:8. Stephen could do these miracles because the hands of an apostle were laid on him (verse 6). The New Testament was not in existence yet and it was necessary to have men equipped to support their preaching with such special evidence. This is taught in Ephesians 4:8-14, where Paul is considering both the temporary and the permanent form of the plan of salvation under Christ. But while these deacons could preach the word, and even confirm it with miracles, they could not bestow such power upon others, not having that "measure" of the Spirit Hence after they would make converts to the Gospel, it required the hands of an apostle to confer miraculous power on them. (See chapter 8:14-17.) 9Acts 6:9. Certain of the synagogue. The first definition in the lexicon for synagogue is, "In the New Testament, an assembly of men." It is used in the same sense as "a congregation." For a full description of the subject, see the notes at Matthew 4:23. Libertines. In his historical comments of this word Thayer gives the following: "Jews who had been made captives by the Romans under Pompey but were afterward set free; and who, although they had fixed their abode at Rome, had built at their own expense a synagogue at Jerusalem which they frequented when in that city. The name Libertines adhered to them to distinguish them from the free-born Jews who had subsequently [afterward] taken up their residence in Rome." Cyrenians were Jewish dwellers in Cy-renaica who were in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and gave their name to one of the synagogues of that city. Alexandrians were Jewish colonists of Alexandria in Egypt, who were admitted to the privileges of citizenship and had a synagogue in Jerusalem. Cilicia was a province lying on the northeast shore of the Mediterranean Sea, and was the native country of Paul. The Asia that is meant here is a part of the province of Asia Minor (today known as Turkey). Jews from these various places were in Jerusalem on account of the feast of Pentecost, and were displeased with the teaching of Stephen. 0Acts 6:10. One part of the definition for resist in the lexicon is "to withstand," and means that although the Jews from all the places named combined in disputing with Stephen, they were not able to meet his claims for the doctrine of Christ. Wisdom is from SOPHIA which Thayer defines, "Wisdom, broad and full intelligence." Spirit is from PNEUMA which the same lexicon defines in this passage, "The disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one; the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire." The personal intelligence of Stephen was backed up by the Spirit that was given him through the laying on of the hands of an apostle. This explains why those envious Jews could not "meet the arguments" that he put before them. 1Act 6:11.. Suborned is from HUPO-BALLO which Thayer defines, "To instruct privately; instigate, suborn." It means they influenced these false wit nesses in an underhanded sort of way that was in the nature of a bribe. The inspired writer says that Stephen spoke with wisdom and spirit, so we know these witnesses made false statements, even though we do not have any record of what they said up to this point. But his speech that is recorded in the next chapter will show us that they were the ones who had blasphemed, for that speech is made up of a respectful recital of the history of many centuries, and that account was written by Moses whose inspiration Stephen recognized. 2Act 6:12. Stephen was out before the public where he had a perfect right to be; he was preaching the Gospel, which every Christian has a right to do. They means the people from the different countries named in verse 9, who had disputed with Stephen but could not show anything wrong with his teaching. On the strength of the false witnesses of verse 11, they worked up a riotous spirit among the people under their leaders. These men ignored all rules of justice and forced him into the council (Sanhedrin). 3Act 6:13. Once within the grasp of that prejudiced assembly it was not hard to produce false witnesses, for they had already been prepared in mind for such a work by the crookedness mentioned in verse 11. The accusations of this verse are general, and if looked at without any explanation would certainly make an unfavorable impression on any court, and more so on one that was already ill-disposed toward a prisoner. It would be a very wicked thing to blaspheme the holy place (Jerusalem with its temple) and the law (of Moses). To blaspheme means to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate" [falsely accuse.] 4Acts 6:14. These false witnesses pretended to specify concerning the general accusations of verse 13. The falsity of the charges will be realized by all who will follow the teaching of Jesus while he was on the earth. He always spoke respectfully concerning Moses, and censured the hypocritical Jews for not being true to the law. Change the customs. Jesus never taught that in the sense those enemies placed in the term. It is true He often announced that a change of rules was to take place among God's people, but heshowed that even Moses predicted such a change. (Deuteronomy 18:18-20.) 5Acts 6:15. Angel is from ANGELOS, and its primary meaning Is, "A messenger, one who is sent," according to both Thayer and Robinson. There could be nothing in the face of a man from the physical standpoint that would show any indication of his being a messenger, except when considered on the negative basis. Had Stephen been guilty of the evil things charged against him, his face or countenance would have reflected it, for he certainly would have had "a guilty look." Instead of such an expression, the countenance of this righteous man had the appearance of one who was faithfully delivering the message (the business of an angel) of Him whose truth was offered for man's benefit. Stephen was not cowed or in the least intimidated by the brazen stare fixed toward him by the crowd in the council. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 7 STEPHEN’ S DEFENSEAct_7:1-53 1 And the high priest said,—Stephen’ s defense, at first view, is a condensed outline of Jewish history from the call of Abraham to the temple. It will be observed that in all the prominent pe¬riods of their history God did not confine himself to the Holy Land, nor to the temple; he appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia, to Joseph and Israel in Egypt, to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai; hence, God’ s glorious appearings to their fathers were outside of the land of Canaan, and before the temple had an existence. “ The high priest” presided over the Sanhedrin; the council had felt uneasy for some time, as the history of the church reveals; its members had felt for a while quite satisfied on the death of Jesus, but when his resurrection was preached and proved so conclusively by the testimony of the apostles, and when the church had multi¬plied in such great numbers, the Sanhedrin now was most uncom¬fortable. The high priest asked Stephen with regard to the charges that the council made against him: “ Are these things so ?” This is mild language, more so than that addressed to Christ. (Matthew 26:62.) His question to Stephen was equivalent to the question: “ Guilty or not guilty?” This gave Stephen the opportunity to make his defense. 2 Brethren and fathers, hearken:—Stephen addressed the council in a very respectful way; he included the bystanders as “ brethren,” and the council as “ fathers.” Paul made a similar ad¬dress. (Acts 22:1.) “ The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham” before he dwelt in Haran. Stephen begins by calling Abraham “ our Father,” and the narrative proceeds to set forth the successive steps of God’ s dealing toward them under the Abra- hamic covenant. No vision is recorded in the Old Testament of God’ s appearance to Abraham in Mesopotamia, but it is implied, as it is said that God brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees. (Genesis 11:31 Genesis 15:7; Nehemiah 9:7.) In Genesis 12:1, Abram is said to have been called after he dwelt in Haran. “ Mesopotamia” is the region between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. 3 and said unto him, Get thee out of thy land,—Stephen here gives the divine instruction which is given in Genesis 12:1. Abraham was called out of Ur with the special object of removing him away from the influence of his idolatrous surroundings. His people served other gods there. (Joshua 24:2.) He was to leave his native land and his kinspeople and go into a land which Jeho¬vah would show him. He was not told where he should go; and “ by faith Abraham . . . went out, not knowing whither he went.” (Hebrews 11:8.) 4 Then came he out of the land—Abraham left Mesopotamia and took with him his father Terah and Lot; they dwelt in Haran about five years. Terah was seventy years old when Abram was born (Genesis 11:26); and Abraham was seventy-five when he left Haran (Genesis 12:4). Then Terah would have been one hundred forty-five years old at that time; but Terah lived to be two hundred five. (Genesis 11:32.) Thus it is supposed that Terah must have lived about sixty years after Abraham started for Ca-naan. There are several explanations offered, as Stephen refers to Terah’ s spiritual death by relaxing into idolatry. However, the most satisfactory explanation is that critics wrongly assume Abram to be the eldest son of Terah, whereas he may have been the youngest, and Haran, who died in Ur, may have been the eldest, or even Nahor. 5 and he gave him none inheritance in it,—Abraham did not get the land for a living possession; it was promised to him for his heirs; he bought a burial place for his wife Sarah. (Genesis 23:20 Genesis 50:13.) This gave him no right of possession to live there. He buried his wife in the cave of Machpelah; this was his only posses¬sion. This promise was made to Abraham that his seed should in¬herit the land even before Abraham had an heir. (Genesis 12:7 Genesis 13:15-16.) 6 And God spake on this wise,—These promises were made to Abraham while he had no child, that “ his seed should sojourn in a strange land.” This sojourn should result in their bondage and evil treatment for “ four hundred years.” It was God’ s plan to delay the fulfillment of the promise. The four hundred years may be stated in round numbers as in Exodus 12:40-41. Paul says that the law came four hundred thirty years after the promise (Galatians 3:17); so that the four hundred thirty years of Exo 12:40 probably included the patriarchs’ residence in Canaan (Genesis 15:13-14; Exodus 3:12). 7 And the nation to which they shall be in bondage—This nation was Egypt. God said that he would judge this nation, and this was done when he told Moses from the burning bush that Is¬rael should come out of Egypt and serve him “ in this place,” meaning Mount Horeb. Thus the council was reminded that Is¬rael was to worship Jehovah in Sinai, and not alone in the temple, nor alone in Canaan. 8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision:—“ The covenant of circumcision” was the covenant that God made with Abraham to give his posterity this land. The seal or sign of this covenant was circumcision; it was the covenant marked by circum¬cision. (Genesis 17:9-14; Romans 4:11.) The covenant of circumci¬sion was given the year before Isaac was born. (Genesis 17:21.) “ The eighth day”— each male child should be circumcised on the eighth day. Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, or sons of Jacob, were circumcised. 9 And the patriarchs, moved with jealousy against Joseph,—“ Jealousy” here comes from the original “ zelosantes,” which means “ to burn or boil with zeal, and then with envy.” (Acts 5:17.) The brothers of Joseph were excited to envy against him be¬cause of Jacob’ s partiality toward him. (Genesis 37:3-4.) They sold him into Egypt. (Genesis 37:25-28.) However, God was with him. (Genesis 39:2 Genesis 39:21.) Stephen is merely giving an outline of the story which occupies much space in Genesis. 10 and delivered him out of all his afflictions,—For a record of this, see Genesis 41:38-45 Genesis 41:54. God was with him in all of his afflictions in Egypt, and finally elevated him “ before Pharaoh king of Egypt.” He was finally made governor over Egypt and all of Pharaoh’ s house. “ Pharaoh” is not a name of a king, but a title, the Egyptian title meaning “ a great house.” 11 Now there came a famine over all Egypt—Here another stage in the history is noted as part of the same plan of providen¬tial development in the case of the covenant people. The famine is recorded in Genesis 41:54; it was very severe. Stephen reaches the climax by saying, “ Our fathers found no sustenance.” Notice that Stephen continues to speak of “ our fathers,” which identifies him with the council and all who were present. “ Sustenance” is from the original “ chortasmata,” and means “ to feed with grass or herbs.” In the New Testament it includes food for men and ani¬mals, but in Genesis 24:25 Genesis 24:32 it is fodder for the cattle, a first neces¬sity for owners of herds of cattle. 12 But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt,— Jacob heard that there was “ grain” in Egypt. The Greek for corn or grain is “ sitia,” and means grain, such as wheat and bar¬ley, but not our maize or Indian corn; it is an old word for provi¬sions, victuals. Jacob remained in Canaan while ten of his sons went into Egypt the first time. 13 And at the second time Joseph was made known—While Joseph was ruler over Egypt the famine occurred; he controlled the distribution of the grain; he had been in Egypt many years and his brothers did not recognize him and he did not make himself known unto them the first time. The second time Joseph was made known to his brethren, and Pharaoh assisted Joseph in mak¬ing arrangements to bring his father into Egypt. 14 And Joseph sent, and called to him Jacob—Genesis 45:17¬21 gives an account of Joseph’ s sending for his father; Jacob, with all of his kindred, “ threescore and fifteen souls,” went down into Egypt. Stephen counts some grandchildren of Joseph and so makes it seventy-five, whereas Genesis 46:26 has sixty-six, and then the next verse makes it seventy, including Jacob and Joseph with his two sons. 15-16 And Jacob went down into Egypt;—Jacob went into Egypt and lived there seventeen years and died; his body was brought out of Egypt and buried in the cave of Machpelah, where Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah were buried, and where he had buried Leah. Abraham had bought the cave of Machpelah as a burying place from Ephron the Hittite at Hebron (Genesis 23:16); while Jacob bought a field from the sons of Hamor at Shechem (Genesis 33:19; Joshua 24:32). Abraham had built an altar at Shechem when he entered Canaan. (Genesis 12:6-7.) 17-18 But as the time of the promise drew nigh—The prom¬ise here referred to may be that made to Abraham in Genesis 12:7, “ Unto thy seed will I give this land” ; or it may refer to the one recorded in Genesis 15:16, “ And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again.” “ The people grew and multiplied in Egypt,” and prospered until “ there arose another king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.” This “ Pharaoh” did not remember with grati¬tude nor acknowledge Egypt’ s obligation to Joseph. Stephen may have quoted from Exodus 1:8 at this point. 19 The same dealt craftily with our race,—“ Dealt craftily” is from the Greek “ katasophizomai,” which means “ to make wise, to become wise, then to play the sophist” ; however, in the New Tes¬tament it is used to mean “ to use fraud, craft, deceit.” Pharaoh required the children of Israel to “ cast out their babes to the end they might not live.” It seems that Pharaoh, besides the command to cast every infant son into the river Nile, treated the Hebrews with such rigor that, through dread of training up any children to endure their own hard lot, they in some instances abandoned their daughters also to death. The purpose and plan of this king was to keep the nation of Israel from multiplying and growing stronger; hence, he required the parents to abandon their children and let them die. (Exodus 2:2-3.) Pharaoh was afraid that the Israelites would multiply so fast and become so strong that they would rebel against the Egyptian king. 20 At which season Moses was born,—Amram of the tribe of Levi and the family of Kohath married Jochebed and had at least two children before Moses was born, Miriam and Aaron. It is not known whether these children were born before the king’ s decree was issued; but it is known that Moses was born while this decree was in force and his mother, Jochebed, refused to obey the king’ s orders and preserved Moses because he “ was exceeding fair.” He was nourished at home for three months in defiance of the new Pharaoh’ s orders. 21 and when he was cast out,—Jochebed, after nourishing him for three months in her own house, made preparations for him to be found by Pharaoh’ s daughter with the hope that she would spare the child. Pharaoh’ s daughter came down and found the child and “ nourished him for her own son.” Stephen had been ac¬cused of blaspheming Moses; he refutes the charge by reverently rehearsing the history of Moses, and also shows how God guarded all these changes; this emphasized the proof that his providential care would now, as in the past, overrule all the changes to advance his kingdom. 22 And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom—Moses was “ mighty in his words and works,” which refers to his later life; he said of himself: “ Oh, Lord, I am not eloquent, ... I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.” (Exodus 4:10.) The priestly caste in Egypt was noted for its knowledge of science, astronomy, medi¬cine, and mathematics; this reputation was proverbial. (1 Kings 4:30.) It was said of Jesus that he “ was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.” (Luke 24:19.) Jesus was a prophet like unto Moses. (Acts 3:22.) 23 But when he was well-nigh forty years old,—Moses was forty years old at this time; Exodus 2:11 says that “ when Moses was grown up,” and Hebrews 11:24 says “ when he was grown up.” The Jews understood this to mean forty years which he had spent as the son of Pharaoh’ s daughter; then he was in Midian forty years; then forty years in the wilderness, making his age one hundred twenty years. “ It came into his heart” to visit his brethren at this time when he was forty years of age; we are not told how he was impressed with the thought of delivering his brethren from Egyp¬tian bondage at this time. 24-25 And seeing one of them suffer wrong,—While down in the land of Goshen visiting his brethren he saw an Egyptian, presumably a taskmaster, smiting one of his brethren, and Moses slew the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand. (Exodus 2:12.) He may not have intended to kill the Egyptian, but having done so, he concealed his body in the sand. He “ went out the second day” and “ two men of the Hebrews . . . striving together” (Exodus 2:13), and rebuked the one that was in the wrong. He thought that his brethren “ understood that God by his hand was giving . . . deliverance” to the children of Israel. They did not understand; neither is there anything said in Exodus about his intentions at this time. God intended to deliver them by the hand of Moses, but Moses was not prepared at this time to become their deliverer; neither was this the way that God would deliver them. 26 And the day following he appeared unto them as they strove,—Here Moses attempted to establish peace between two of his brethren, but they did not understand his intentions. Stephen knew that they were familiar with the history. As they were of the same race, and both under oppression, it was not in harmony with the relationship for them to be fighting among themselves; some think that there is implied here the fact that they should re¬serve their strength to contend together against the common enemy. 27-28 But he that did his neighbor wrong—The one that was in the wrong resented the correction and reminded him what he had done to the Egyptian. A record of this is found in Exodus 2:14. It does not appear that Moses assumed any authority over them; it seems that they should have understood what Moses was doing and should have been in sympathy with him. However, Moses saw that what he had done to the Egyptian was known, and that his brethren would not accept him as their deliverer. 29 And Moses fled at this saying,—When Pharaoh heard what Moses had done, “ he sought to slay Moses.” (Exodus 2:15.) Moses became a sojourner in the land of Midian. “ Midian” was a son of Abraham by Keturah. (Genesis 25:2.) His descen¬dants occupied the region extending from the eastern shore of the Gulf of Akabah to the borders of Moab on the one side, and to the vicinity of Sinai on the other. Here he married Zipporah, daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian. (Exodus 2:16-22.) He had two sons by Zipporah, born while he was in Midian. 30 And when forty years were fulfilled,—Moses sojourned in Midian in the region about Mount Sinai forty years. While there, an angel appeared to him and summoned him by the signal of “ a flame of fire in a bush.” This corresponds with the statement in Exodus 7:7 that Moses was eighty years old when he appeared before Pharaoh, and one hundred twenty years old when he died. (Deuteronomy 29:5 Deuteronomy 31:2 Deuteronomy 34:7.) The angel appeared to Moses at the end of the forty years’ sojourn in the land of Midian. 31-32 And when Moses saw it,—A flame of fire in a bush would not excite wonder; but if the flame kept on burning and the bush was not consumed, it would excite attention. (Exodus 3:2.) Moses approached the bush to discover the cause of this wonder. When he did so, a voice was heard, saying, “ I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.” This is the way that God called him; Moses thus further becomes ac¬quainted with God. When Moses heard the voice, he “ trembled, and durst not behold.” It was a fearful thing to stand in the pres¬ence of God. The angel here is termed Jehovah himself; the angel was a messenger of Jehovah. 33 And the Lord said unto him,—Jehovah told Moses to take off his shoes as he was standing on holy ground; Jehovah was rep¬resented there by the angel and the bush that was aflame. Moses was in the presence of God; hence, he should remove his sandals. It was considered an act of reverence to remove the shoes; this is still considered an act of reverence in the eastern country. We re¬move the hat as an act of respect and reverence. They removed their sandals. 34 I have surely seen the affliction of my people—This is what Jehovah said to Moses as Moses stood there in reverence for the presence of Jehovah. (Exodus 3:7.) God had seen the affliction of his people; he saw how they were treated by the Egyptians. He had foretold this suffering. (Genesis 17; Nehemiah 9:9; Psalms 106:44-45; Isaiah 63:7-14.) Here Moses is directed as a leader to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage. Stephen is honoring Moses in all of the history that he recites. 35 This Moses whom they refused, saying,—Here Stephen emphasizes that this Moses who was rejected forty years previous to this time now has the command to go back to Egypt and deliver Israel from bondage. Many think that he was not commissioned the first time to deliver Israel. The council must have seen the parallel suggested in Stephen's words; their fathers had rejected Moses, yet God sent him; so they rejected Jesus, but God sent him to deliver them. Moses is called here a “ deliverer” ; he is also called a “ ruler.” There is a deadly parallel between Moses and Christ that the Sanhedrin must see; they must also see that they are doing to Christ and his disciples just what was done to Moses. Moses was ruler, lawgiver, deliverer, and prophet; Christ was all this to the people, but they rejected him. Moses was encouraged and supported by the angel which represented the presence of God. 36 This man led them forth, having wrought wonders—Moses and Aaron went before Pharaoh and wrought miracles; the ten plagues brought on Egypt were among the “ wonders and signs” which Moses wrought in Egypt; but not all of these “ wonders and signs” were done in Egypt. Some of them were “ in the Red sea,” and for forty years in the wilderness. Though rejected, Moses delivered the afflicted Israelites; so Christ wrought many “ wonders and signs” among the people, yet he was rejected and crucified. Again, they must see the point in Stephen’ s recital of this history. 37 This is that Moses, who said—After reciting the history of Moses up to this point, Stephen now tells the council that Moses said: “ A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me.” Peter had quoted this same prophecy (Acts 3:22-23) when speaking in the temple, and applied it to Christ. The Sanhedrin must have been familiar with the application of this prophecy to Christ. Stephen now reminds the council that Moses himself declared that at some future time God would raise up a great prophet like unto Moses. “ This” Moses is used five times here in Stephen’ s speech. (Verses 35, 36, 37, 38, 40.) Stephen’ s purpose is to show that “ this Moses” whom he honored had predicted the Messiah as a prophet like himself, and that this fulfillment was to be found in Jesus of Nazareth. Hence, they are opposing Moses, and he is loyal to Moses; but they, in rebellion to Moses, were falsely accusing Stephen. 38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness—This prophecy is found in Psalms 22:22; there it is “ assembly” ; it is also quoted in Hebrews 2:12, and is there translated “ congregation” ; here in Stephen’ s speech it is translated “ church.” It is the same Greek word, “ ekklesiai,” and is better translated “ congregation.” Moses is here represented as receiving the law from an angel, as in Hebrews 2:2; Galatians 3:19, and so was a mediator between the angel and the people; but Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant. (Hebrews 8:6.) Exodus does not speak of an angel; there Moses received the law from Jehovah. “ Living oracles” means life-giving oracles, divine utterances. (Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11.) Moses was with the congregation and with the angel on Mount Sinai, where the law, called “ lively” or “ living oracles,” literally “ living words,” was given. 39-40 to whom our fathers would not be obedient,—At Mount Sinai, while Moses was up in the mountain for forty days, the people asked Aaron to make a calf of gold for them to wor¬ship ; they did not know what had become of Moses. They acknowl¬edged that he had brought them out of Egypt. Here again is a contrast between the way Israel treated Moses and the honor God placed upon him; Israel refused Moses as a deliverer, and wanted to go back to the bondage of Egypt. They “ turned back in their hearts unto Egypt,” but did not really go back into Egypt. They did go back to the idolatry of Egypt in calling for Aaron to make them “ gods.” (Exodus 16:3 Exodus 17:3; Numbers 14:4; Ezekiel 20:8.) The pillar of cloud and of fire went before the Israelites as a sym¬bol of God’ s presence (Exodus 13:21-22; Numbers 10:34 Numbers 10:36; Nehemiah 9:12), but they wished a symbolic representation of Jehovah more striking to their sensual hearts, so long accustomed as they had been to the image worship of the Egyptians. They spoke language of contempt about Moses. They did not know what had become of him, and perhaps did not care. 41 And they made a calf in those days,—This verse describes their idolatrous worship. Aaron made the calf and also the people made it. (Exodus 32:3 Exodus 32:35.) Stephen calls it “ the idol.” The peo¬ple said it was their way of worshiping Jehovah. It is thought that they made “ a calf” of gold because they were accustomed to seeing the Egyptians worship the bull Apis at Memphis as the symbol of Osiris, the sun. The Egyptians had another sacred bull, Mnevis, at Heliopolis. The Israelites “ rejoiced in the works of their hands.” They rejoiced in the calf they had made, as if it were Je¬hovah whom they professed to worship. Idolatry is so foolish! (Isaiah 44:9-20.) 42-43 But God turned, and gave them up—The Israelites forsook God, and he gave them up to their idolatrous ways after pleading with them and warning them for many long years. “ Gave them up” is from the original “ paredoken” ; this same form occurs three times like clods on a coffin in a grave in Romans 1:24 Romans 1:26 Romans 1:28, where Paul speaks of God giving the heathen up to their lusts. They worshiped the host of heaven (Deuteronomy 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16 2 Kings 21:3; 2 Chronicles 33:3 2 Chronicles 33:5 ; Jeremiah 8:2 Jeremiah 19:13); which means the sun, moon, and stars. This quotation is from Amos 5:25-27. Stephen makes application here in such a way as to impress upon the Sanhedrin the wickedness of the people and God’ s giving them up to follow their own idolatrous hearts. “ Tabernacle of Moloch” is the place of worshiping Moloch; Moloch was the god of the Amorites, to whom children were offered as live sacrifices; it was an image with a head of an ox with arms outstretched in which children were placed, and underneath fire was placed so as to consume the offering. “ The star of the god Rephan” is supposed to be the star Saturn to which the Egyptians and others gave worship. Israel turned away from Jehovah and turned to these idols. For these sins the Israelites were to be carried beyond Babylon, or as some versions read, “ beyond Damascus” ; however, “ beyond Damascus” to the Jewish mind meant Babylon. 44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony—“ The tabernacle of the testimony” has reference to the tabernacle in the wilderness. (Exodus 25:22 Exodus 38:21.) The Ten Commandments were placed in the ark of the covenant, and the ark was kept in the most holy place. Stephen seems to pass on from the conduct of Israel to his other argument that God is not necessarily worshiped in a particular spot. Moses had been called up in the mountain and had been given a pattern of the tabernacle, and even warned: “ See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount.” (Hebrews 8:5.) So the place of worship was at the tabernacle, but as the tabernacle was moved around, the place of worship changed. Stephen is preparing to show that they have changed from the religious customs of Moses themselves. 45-46 Which also our fathers, in their turn,—The tabernacle with all of its equipment was built in the wilderness, and at the death of Moses, after their sojourn of forty years in the wilderness, Joshua became the leader and led the Israelites across the river Jordan into the promised land. The tabernacle was brought across the river Jordan and used in the land of Canaan for a long period. They continued to use the tabernacle until the days of David; King David made preparation to build a permanent house for Je¬hovah. He was not permitted to build this house. 47 But Solomon built him a house.—David had found favor with Jehovah; he was raised to sit on the throne and made king over Israel; God established David’ s kingdom (1 Samuel 13:14; Psalms 89:20-37); but he would not permit David to build the temple (2 Samuel 7:2 ff). David’ s son Solomon was permitted to build the temple; David gave to Solomon material that he had collected for the temple, and also the pattern. Solomon then built the temple (2 Samuel 7:2 ff.). David’ s son Solomon was permitted to built and ready for use. 48-50 Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses—Though Solomon built a magnificent house, yet he did not suppose that Jehovah could be circumscribed within the walls of the temple. Jehovah God “ dwelleth not in houses made with hands.” These were the words of Solomon when the temple was dedicated. (1 Kings 8:26-27 1 Kings 8:43; 2 Chronicles 6:18 2 Chronicles 6:39.) Stephen here quoted from Isaiah 66:1-2, which emphasizes that Jehovah cannot be confined to a material building, but his throne is in heaven and the earth is his footstool; hence, no house could contain him. No house could be large enough and magnificent enough to contain him who made the universe. The argument seems to be that if the universe which God made could not contain him, how much less this temple which had been made by the hands of man. This is what Solomon said in his prayer at the dedication of the temple. (2 Chronicles 6:18.) 51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart—It is thought that Stephen was interrupted at this point; hence, the turn that his address takes. “ Stiffnecked” is from “ sklerotracheloi,” which is a compound word and means that they were hard in neck; that they would not bow the neck to Jehovah; they were stubborn. “ Uncircumcised in heart and ears” means that they were not will¬ing to believe or obey in their hearts; neither were they willing to hear with their ears. Circumcision was a sign that they submitted to God; hence, uncircumcised in heart would mean that in heart they would not submit to God, and therefore were not God’ s peo¬ple. “ Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit” ; they resisted the Holy Spirit by rejecting the words that the Holy Spirit spoke through Stephen to them. “ Resist” is from the Greek “ antipiptete,” which means “ to fall against, to rush against.” This is the only place that it is used in the New Testament, but it is used in the Old Testament which is here quoted. (Numbers 27:14.) Hence, the meaning is that they had fallen against the Holy Spirit as one would against an enemy. Stephen had completed his historical argument and he now makes an application of it. 52-53 Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?—There is an implied charge here that they had persecuted all of the prophets, and that they were still persecuting the disci¬ples of Jesus. This was the same spirit that their fathers had in persecuting the prophets. He simply charges them as possessing the same evil spirit that the fathers had when they persecuted the prophets and “ killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One.” The prophets that foretold of Christ were persecuted and killed; hence, when the “ Righteous One” came as a fulfillment of those prophecies, they continued to exercise the spirit of persecution and destroyed him. Stephen becomes more pointed in his application and says: “ Of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers.” This was a fearful indictment against the council and all who sympathized with the council. Stephen’ s accusation here is so fearful that the Sanhedrin will not let it pass. He further states that they had “ received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not.” This has reference to the law of Moses; the one whom they had charged Stephen with blaspheming. Yet they were blaspheming Moses and the law by persecuting the disciples of Christ. Instead of trying Stephen, Stephen put the Sanhe¬drin on trial. Four thoughts stand out in this address of Stephen; it is well to note the lines of argument that he has presented before leaving his address. The first thought is that God’ s dealings with his people showed continual progress; the end was not reached by a single leap, but by development. As proof of this he recited the story of Abraham, to.whom the land was promised; he did not reach the promised land until some years after he was called, and he did not get the covenant of circumcision till later. The second thought is that the temple is not exclusively holy; he makes this stand out so clearly that his hearers could not fail to get it. God had appeared to Abraham in a heathen land, in Mesopotamia; Joseph had his entire glorious career in Egypt; Jacob, because of the famine, had gone down into Egypt. In another heathen land Moses found God. The signs and wonders were done in Egypt, in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness. The law was given from Mount Sinai, another foreign country. The third thought showed the long-suffering of God and his many mercies, though the people had gone into idolatry. Joseph was ill-treated by his brethren; their rejection of Joseph was a parallel to the rejection of Christ by the Jews. They rebelled against Moses, and in the same way they had rebelled against Christ who was the Messiah and the one who fulfilled the prophecies. The fourth point was that he showed the falsity of the charge that they had made against him by quoting so frequently from Moses and the prophets. In a burst of im¬passioned words he charges the council and the race of Jews with its long-continued crime, its murder of the “ Righteous One,” and its outrage of the law given by angels. STEPHEN’ S DEATH Acts 7:54 to Acts 8:2z 54 Now when they heard these things,—“ These things” refer to what Stephen had said in his defense, and especially to the things that he had said in verses 51-53. “ They were cut to the heart,” which literally means “ sawn through,” as in Acts 5:33. They were not convicted of their sin; they hardened their heart and turned from the truth. This was the effect that Stephen’ s speech had on them; he became the occasion for their hardening their hearts. “ They gnashed on him with their teeth.” This was an expression of the frenzy of rage, only restrained by a brute-like grinding of the teeth. Stephen’ s address had the same effect on his auditors that Peter’ s address had on the Sadducees. Stephen had sent a saw through the hearts of the Pharisees, and they with a loud noise, and a grinding and gnashing of their teeth, like a pack of hungry, snarling wolves, rushed upon Stephen. No uglier sight could be pictured than we have here of these frenzied, religious people. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit,—There is a wide contrast in the spirit manifested by Stephen and that of the mem¬bers of the Sanhedrin. Again it is stated that Stephen was “ full of the Holy Spirit,” and what he said and did was guided by the Holy Spirit. Stephen “ looked up stedfastly into heaven.” He turned his face heavenward and away from such ugly expressions as could be seen on the faces of these frenzied people. As he looked into heaven he “ saw the glory of God,” which was a vision of God and his glory. Stephen also saw “ Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” At this time Jesus was “ standing” as if he had arisen to encourage Stephen in his contention for Christ. This is the only reference to the attitude of Jesus as “ standing” after he ascended to heaven. Jesus is usually represented as “ sit-ting” in the majesty and sovereignty of his glory. No one else saw the vision but Stephen, and there is no use to speculate as to the reality of it. 56 Behold, I see the heavens opened,—Stephen described his vision there to this frenzied people. Some think that Stephen here referred to the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 26:64. Stephen here refers to Christ as “ the Son of man” ; this was a name frequently used by Christ when speaking of himself, but never by any other speaker or writer, save Stephen. Such a vision must have comforted Stephen and enabled him to receive with meekness the affliction of stoning. 57-58 But they cried out with a loud voice,—The charge that Stephen had made against them, that they had killed Jesus, was made very irritating now by the declaration that Stephen saw Jesus so exalted. It was an offensive proclamation of the doctrine of the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied; it was also reas¬serting that the crucified Jesus was coequal with God. They must have regarded this statement of Stephen as one of the strongest ex¬amples of blasphemy, spoken here in the presence of the Sanhe¬drin; hence, they “ stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord.” The word for “ stopped” literally means to hold their ears together with their hands, as if to say that they would not lis¬ten to such blasphemous words. No trial was had; no vote was taken; no question was raised about what was the right thing to do; they rushed upon him as the hogs did down the cliff when the demons entered them. (Luke 8:33.) They rushed him out of the city with their wild violence “ and stoned him.” They were scrupulous to observe the letter of the law with murder in their hearts. (Leviticus 24:10-16; Numbers 15:35-36; 1 Kings 21:13; Hebrews 13:12.) “ Witnesses” laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. This is the first mention that we have of Saul. The witnesses had to cast the first stone. (Deuteronomy 17:7; John 8:7.) They laid aside the outer garments to have free access with their arms. 59 And they stoned Stephen,—As Stephen prayed, he was stoned; the witnesses against him had taken off their outer garments and Saul had kept the clothes of those who did the preliminary stoning. (Deuteronomy 17:7.) It has been discussed frequently as to whether the Sanhedrin passed sentence on Stephen; some think that there was no decision or judgment rendered, and that the Sanhedrin with others became infuriated at Stephen’ s speech and rushed upon him, took him out of the city, and stoned him without any formal trial or decision. Others think that a decision was ren¬dered hastily and the execution as hastily carried out. Another difficulty has been discussed, and that is that the Jews could not put to death anyone they tried; the Sanhedrin could pass the judicial sentence of death, but could not carry it out. (John 18:31.) They could pass the sentence of death (Matthew 26:66; Mark 14:64), and were as guilty as if they had executed their sentence. Stephen’ s prayer was made to Jesus to receive his spirit. The prayer to Jesus was equivalent to calling on the Lord. (Acts 9:21 Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2.) Jesus had encouraged his disciples to expect mansions of rest. (John 14:2.) He had also spoken of everlasting habitations (Luke 16:9), or “ eternal tabernacles.” This is similar to Jesus, as he expired on the cross. “ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost.” (Luke 23:46.) 60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice,—Again Stephen’ s prayer is similar to that of his Lord’ s (Luke 23:34), “ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” The spirit of Christ is a spirit of forgiveness; it leads us to love our enemies and to bless them that curse us, and to pray for them who despitefully use us. (Matthew 5:44.) As they pelted his body with stones, Stephen took the posture of kneeling in prayer. His last moments were spent in prayer; “ and when he had said this, he fell asleep.” “ Fell asleep” is from the Greek “ ekoimethe,” which is used to denote “ to put to sleep” ; our English word “ cemetery” comes from this Greek word, and means “ the sleeping place of the dead.” This is an appropriate figure for the death of the saints. Jesus used the term “ sleep” for “ death.” (Matthew 9:24; Mark 5:39; John 11:11-12.) Paul also used the term “ sleep” for death. (1 Corinthians 15:18 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14.) Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death.—“ Saul” is later the apostle Paul; he was present when Stephen was stoned and held the clothes of those who stoned Stephen. He was not only “ consenting unto his death,” but the Greek shows that he approved of it and that he took pleasure in the death of Stephen. Later he so confessed (Acts 22:20), and encouraged the killing of the first Christian martyr (Romans 1:32). Saul was willing to be known as really participating in the transaction. The first picture that we have of Saul is that he is engaging in the murder of the first Christian martyr. At that time he is described as “ a young man” (Acts 7:58), which may be interpreted as thirty or forty years old; this term and kindred ones were used with greater latitude than we now use them. In Paul’ s letter to Philemon (verse 9) he calls himself “ the aged” ; this letter was written probably in A.D. 62 to 64. The martyrdom of Stephen is generally placed in A.D. 34 or 35. If Paul was between sixty and seventy years of age when he wrote to Philemon, he was between thirty and forty at the death of Stephen. And there arose on that day a great persecution—This was the first of a number of waves of persecution that swept over the early church. This persecution of Stephen was the first of such violent opposition to the church; the martyrdom of Stephen acted like the first taste of blood to a wild beast. “ They were all scattered abroad” ; the word “ all” is used in a general sense, meaning, in popular language, “ very many.” They were scattered “ throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria.” Samaria was the middle division of Palestine at that time, and was just north of Judea; it lay between Judea on the south and Galilee on the north. “ Except the apostles” ; that is, all were scattered except the apostles who remained with the small remnant of the church in Jerusalem. We are not told why the apostles remained in Jerusalem at this time; they were guided by the Holy Spirit, and God had some purpose in their remaining at Jerusalem. Acts 8:2 And devout men buried Stephen,—“ Devout” comes from the Greek “ eulabeis,” and is used only four times in the New Testament. (Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5 Acts 8:2 Acts 22:12.) “ Devout,” as used in Acts 10:2, comes from the Greek “ eusebes.” It is not known whether these “ devout men” who buried Stephen were Christians; some think that they were Jews who were kindly dis¬posed toward Christianity. However, others think that they were Christians because they “ made great lamentation over him.” “ Lamentation” here comes from “ kopeton,” and means “ to beat the breast.” This is the only place it is used in the New Testa¬ment. This was a distinguished honor paid to Stephen; there were those who deeply lamented his death and willingly bore testi¬mony to his worth. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 7Acts 7:1. “Then said the high priest, Are these things so?” Stephen responds in a long and powerful discourse. There is great diversity of opinion among commentators, as to the logical bearing and connection of this discourse. We would naturally expect to find in it— if we regard it as properly a defense— a formal response to the charge which had been preferred. But it contains no direct answer to any of the specifications. He neither admits nor denies what was charged in reference to the destruction of the temple by Jesus and the changing of the customs delivered by Moses; though his silence may be regarded as an admission that the witnesses had spoken the truth on these points. Neither does he formally answer to the charge of blasphemy against Moses and against God, or against the holy temple and the law. The only thing in the discourse that has even an indirect bearing in this way, is his frequent reference to facts contained in the writings of Moses, which has been understood, by some commentators, as intended to indicate a degree of respect for Moses inconsistent with a disposition to speak blasphemy against him. But if such was his purpose, it is unaccountable that he should have pursued so indirect a course, instead of distinctly avowing the sentiments he intended to indicate. Again, this supposition can not account for the introduction of so many facts connected with the persecution of various individuals. The best statement of the drift of the discourse, I think, is this: The charge against him was hypocritically preferred, and his judges had no intention to investigate it, but were using it merely as an excuse for his predetermined condemnation to death. They were now giving him somewhat the form for a trial, to keep up appearances before the people. Under such circumstances, Stephen knew that it would be useless to offer a formal defense; and, therefore, he does not undertake it. He sees, however, that his persecutors were identifying themselves, by their proceedings, with the unbelieving and persecuting portion of their forefathers, and he determines to make them stand forth to the people in this their true position. In prosecuting this purpose he selects his material from the writings of Moses, and shows that his accusers are with the persecuting party, while his Master and himself are side by side with Moses and others whom they had persecuted: Thus he hurls back upon them, and fastens on them, effectually, the charge which they had falsely preferred against him. Acts 7:2-4. We will now take up the different sections of the discourse, treating each separately, and showing their connected bearing upon his main purpose. Before exhibiting the manner in which Moses was treated by the ancestors of his audience, he first shows that the mission on which Moses came was a subject of prophesy: thus indicating, at the outset, an analogy between it and that of Christ. To do this, he must begin with Abraham, to whom this prophesy was first given; but his reference to Abraham is only for the historical introduction of his main theme. (2) “And he said: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, (3) and said to him, Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I will show thee. (4) Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and thence, after his father died, he removed into this land in which you now dwell.“ Acts 7:5-8. Having now introduced Abraham, and brought him into the land of Canaan, Stephen quotes the prophesy, connected with the fulfillment of which he is to find the chief points of his argument. (5) “And he gave him no inheritance in it, not a footprint: and he promised to give it for a possession to him and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (6) But God spoke thus: That his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and they should bring them into bondage, and afflict them four hundred years. (7) And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage, I will judge, said God, and after these things they shall come forth, and serve me in this place. (8) And he gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac, Jacob; and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs.” The period of four hundred years is taken by Stephen from Genesis 15:13, where God expresses himself, in round terms, of a period which was, more accurately, four hundred and thirty years, as we find in Exodus 12:40-41. This was not the period of their actual sojourn in Egypt; but, as we learn from Paul, (Galatians 3:17,) and from the genealogical tables in Genesis and Exodus, it extended from the call of Abraham to the departure from Egypt. Acts 7:9-16. The speaker next proceeds to recount the circumstances which brought the people down into Egypt, in order that the rejection of Joseph, and the final salvation of the whole family through him, might stand out before his hearers, and be made to bear upon his final conclusion. (9) “And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt. And God was with him, (10) and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. (11) Now, there came a famine on all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance. (12) But Jacob, having heard that there was grain in Egypt, sent out our fathers the first time. (13) And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph's kindred was made known to Pharaoh. (14) Then Joseph sent and called to him his father Jacob and all his kindred, seventy-five souls. (15) And Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, (16) and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulcher which Jacob bought for a sum of money from the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.” There is a numerical discrepancy between moses and Stephen, in reference to the number of Jacob's family when they went into Egypt. Stephen makes then seventy-five, while Moses states them at seventy, including Joseph's family and himself. The Septuagint translation of Genesis agrees with Stephen. Various methods of reconciling these statements are proposed, of which the only satisfactory one is this. The number given by Moses includes all “ who came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives.” The number given by Stephen must, then, include five of their wives, who were, probably, all that were then living. The translators of the Septuagint, having some historical evidence, now lost to us, that five of their wives went with them, saw fit to fill up the number in their translation, and Stephen followed their enumeration. It was Jacob, and not Abraham, who purchased the sepulcher from the sons of Emmor, as is certain from the history given in Genesis 33:19-20; yet it is attributed to Abraham here in the common version, and most of the Greek manuscripts. It is far more likely, however, that the manuscripts should err, in a case of this kind, than that the error should have been committed by Stephen or by Luke. I have, therefore, not hesitated to insert the name of Jacob, instead of Abraham, in the text. Dr. Bloomfield says, “ The best critics are of the opinion that Abraham is spurious.” Acts 7:17-29. From this glance at the leading points in the history of Joseph, Stephen advances to the case of Moses, showing that his brethren rejected him in like manner, and were also finally delivered by him. (17) “But when the time of the promise of which God had sworn to Abraham was drawing near, the people increased and were multiplied in Egypt, (18) until another king arose who knew not Joseph. (19) The same dealt craftily with our kindred, and afflicted our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, in order that they might not live. (20) In which time Moses was born, and was exceedingly beautiful. He was nourished in his his father's house three months. (21) And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. (22) And Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and was powerful in words and in deeds. (23) And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to look after his brethren, the children of Israel. (24) And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended and avenged him who was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian. (25) Now he thought that his brethren would understand that God would, by his hand, give them salvation; but they did not understand. (26) The next day he appeared to them as they were fighting, and would have brought them to peace, saying, Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong one another? (27) But he who was wronging his neighbor thrust him away, saying, Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? (28) Do you wish to kill me as you killed that Egyptian yesterday? (29) Then Moses fled at this word, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian where he begot two sons.” In the rejection of Moses by his countrymen, when he was seeking to deliver them from bondage, according to the promise of God, Stephen has before the minds of the Sanhedrim another case bearing upon his final conclusion. It is true, that as yet they could not anticipate the use he intended to make of it, but the obscurity of his design awakened their curiosity, and rendered their mortification the more intense when at last it was suddenly developed. If they could have anticipated it, they would have stopped his mouth at the beginning. Acts 7:30-37. There were other incidents in the life of Moses fully as much to his purpose as this; and to these he proceeds to advert. (30) “And when forty years were completed, there appeared to him, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. (31) When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight, and as he drew near to observe it, the voice of the Lord came to him. (32) I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and did not dare to observe it. (33) And the Lord said to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet; for the place on which thou standest is holy ground. (34) I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and have come down to deliver them; and now, come, I will send thee into Egypt. (35) The same Moses whom they rejected, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him at the bush. (36) He led them out, after doing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. (37) This is the same Moses who said to the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you from your brethren like me; him shall ye hear.” In this passage, the speaker has not only presented, in a most emphatic manner, the contrast between the rejection of Moses by his brethren, and his appointment by God to the very office of ruler and deliverer, which they refused him, but has also made a further advance toward his final purpose, by introducing the prophesy uttered by this same Moses concerning the Messiah. This prophesy was still more apposite, because it refuted the charge that he had spoken blasphemy against Moses, in saying that Christ would change the customs appointed by him. If Moses himself foretold the coming of a successor who should supersede him, he alone pays proper respect to Moses who submits to his successor. Acts 7:38-40. To keep prominent the ill treatment received by Moses at the hands of the people, the speaker proceeds to note their conduct in the wilderness. (38) “This is he that was in the congregation in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living oracles to give to us. (39) Whom our fathers were not willing to obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back into Egypt, (40) saying to Aaron, Make us Gods who shall go before us; for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.” This instance of their rejection of Moses was much more flagrant than the first, seeing that it occurred immediately after the most splendid manifestations of God's presence with him; and that, in the very words which they addressed to Aaron, they acknowledged that it was he who had brought them out of Egypt. These circumstances also render more striking the analogy which Stephen is about to develop between him and Jesus; for he also had been rejected, notwithstanding the admission, by his enemies, that he had wrought miracles. Acts 7:41-43. Stephen next shows that the same people who so often rejected the servants of God, likewise rejected God himself. (41) “They made a calf in those days, and brought sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. (42) And God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, even as it is written in the book of the prophets, O house of Israel, have you offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness? (43) You have even taken up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which you made, to worship them; and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” With this brief glance at the subsequent fate of the people who had so often rejected their deliverers, covering a period of many centuries, and terminating with their captivity in Babylon, Stephen concludes his summary of facts; but, previous to the final application, which he saw would raise a storm in the Assembly, he has a few words in reference to the temple. Acts 7:44-50. Instead of either admitting or denying the charge of blasphemy against the temple, he undertakes to show the true religious value of that building. This he does, by first alluding to the movable and perishable nature of the tabernacle, which preceded the temple, and then, by showing, from the prophets, that the presence of God is not limited to temples made with hands. (44) “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, saying to Moses that he should make it according to the pattern which he had seen; (45) which also, our fathers, having received, brought in with Joshua within the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, (46) who found favor before God, and desired to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. (47) But Solomon built him a house. (48) Yet the Most High dwells not in temples made with hands, as says the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. What house will you build for me? says the Lord; or what is my place of rest? (50) Did not my hand make all these things?” By this statement, the speaker intrenches himself behind undisputed facts of their own history, and the sentiments of their own prophets, in reference to the temple, and is now ready to spring upon them the whole concealed power of the carefully arranged facts from the life of Moses and of Joseph. Acts 7:51-53. As Joseph, the divinely-selected savior of his brethren, had been sold by those brethren into slavery; and as Moses, divinely selected to deliver Israel from bondage, was at first rejected by them to become a sojourner in Midian, and was then sent back by the God of their fathers to be rejected by them again and again, notwithstanding the most indisputable manifestations of God's presence with him; and as all the prophets had met with a similar fortune, so, now, the final prophet, of whom Moses and all the prophets had spoken, had been rejected and slain by the sons of these persecuting fathers. The combined power of all these facts and analogies is now concentrated in the closing paragraph of the speech, and expressed in these terrific words: (51) “Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are always resisting the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. (52) Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? They murdered those who announced before concerning the coming of the Just One, of whom now you have been the betrayers and murderers; (53) who received the law through the ranks of angels, and have not kept it.”The pent-up fires which had burned within the breast of Stephen from the beginning of these unjust proceedings, and had given an angelic glow to his features at the beginning of his speech, had been carefully smothered and controlled during the progress of his argument; but now that the restraints of the argument were withdrawn, they had burst forth in these scorching and blazing words. Acts 7:54-60. The exasperation of the Sanhedrim was the more intense, from the fact that the denunciation hurled upon them was not a sudden burst of passion, but the deliberate and sustained announcement of a just judgment. They had not been able to resist, in debate, the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke, and now their efforts to convict him of crime had recoiled terribly upon their own heads. They had no course now left them, but the usual resort of unprincipled partisans when totally discomfited, and to this they rushed with fearful rapidity. (54) “When they heard these things, they were exasperated, and gnashed their teeth upon him. (55) But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, (56) and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. (57) Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord, (58) and cast him out of the city, and stoned him. And the witnesses laid off their garments at the feet of a young man called Saul. (59) And they stoned Stephen, calling on the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. (60) And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul was consenting to his death.” This was a strange way for a court to break up; the whole body of seventy grave rabbis, whose official duty it was to watch for the faithful and regular proceedings of law, leaving their seats, and rushing with the wild mob, amid hideous outcries and tumultuous rage, to the sudden execution of a prisoner absolutely untried and uncondemned. But the maddest pranks ever played upon this mad earth are witnessed when wicked men set themselves in uncompromising opposition to God and his holy truth. So uniformly has this been true in history, that, at the present day, when such opposition is to be sustained, whether on great or insignificant occasion, no well-informed man expects aught else than disregard of all the rules of justice and propriety. If the infuriated scenes which have been enacted under such circumstances, in the history of Christianity, could be dramatically represented, the performance might be appropriately styled, The Madman's Drama. The vision witnessed by Stephen, while the Jews were gnashing their teeth upon him, need not be understood as the real opening of the heavens, so that the things within them could be seen by the human eye, but only a representation to his eyes, such as those granted to John in the isle of Patmos. It was vouchsafed both for his own encouragement in the hour of death, and that the remembrance of the words in which he described it, and the hue of countenance with which he gazed upon it, might remain indelibly impressed upon the minds of those who were present. There was at least one in the audience upon whom, we have reason to believe, this impression was deep and lasting. The young man Saul never forgot it; but, long afterward, when bending under the weight of many years, he makes sad mention of the part he took in these dreadful proceedings. The death of Stephen was an event of most thrilling interest to the young Church, and well deserves the large space allotted to it by the historian. The disciples had embarked, with all their interests, both temporal and eternal, in the cause of one, who, though he proved himself mighty to deliver, while present with them, had now gone away beyond the reach of vision, and no longer held personal converse with them. They had struggled on faithfully thus far, and, amid many tears, some stripes, and much affliction, they had still found a deep satisfaction of soul in his service. It was demonstrated that their faith could sustain them in life, even amid very bitter trials; but it was not yet known how it would sustain them in the hour of death. No one of their number had yet tried the dread reality, and no man can now tell how much their spirits may have wavered in the prospect, and inclined backward toward the faith of their fathers, distrustful of the new arm of salvation. How great the strength, therefore, and how sweet the consolation imparted to every heart, when the first who died was so triumphant in the pangs of death! After witnessing the scene, they could go onward in their tear-dimmed course of suffering, without one fear or care for that within the grace, or beyond it. At the late day in which we live, which has been preceded by the happy death of millions of Christians, and which is often yet made deeply glad by their triumphs in the trying hour, we are not able to appreciate the eagerness with which the first disciples drank in the consolations of this glorious death. It was a fortuitous and most fitting preparation for the fiery ordeal through which the Church were immediately afterward called to pass. We omit any notice of the part taken by Saul in this shocking tragedy till we come to comment on the ninth chapter, where his career becomes the leading theme of the historian. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Seven IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To review Stephen's defense to the charge of blasphemy against the temple and the Law 2) To note the remarkable manner in which the first martyr for Christ died SUMMARY The previous chapter ended with Stephen before the Sanhedrin council facing accusations that he spoke blasphemy against the temple and the Law (cf. Acts 6:13-14). Chapter seven contains Stephen's defense to these charges, and the account of his martyrdom. Stephen responded by reviewing the call of Abraham and God's promise to him and the nation of Israel. He then described how God used Moses to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage and led them for forty years through the wilderness. Yet Israel rebelled against Moses, through whom God gave the Law. Not only in the incident involving the golden calf, but throughout their wilderness wanderings Israel continued to worship false gods (cf. Amos 5:25-27). Turning to the matter of God's dwelling place, Stephen acknowledged the role of the tabernacle of Moses and the temple of Solomon, but contended that God does not dwell in temples made with hands (cf. Isaiah 66:1-2). He concluded by charging the council of resisting the Holy Spirit just like their ancestors, for as their fathers persecuted and killed the prophets who foretold the coming of the Just One (Christ), so they became His betrayers and murderers. Indeed, they were the ones who have not kept the Law (Acts 7:1-53). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 7:2. From this verse through verse 50 is Stephen's answer to the question put to him by the high priest. A simple denial of the accusations would have been the whole truth, but Stephen's purpose was to give the entire historical background of the issue at stake; not only to show their charges to be false, but also to present a basis of truths and facts for the conclusion he intended to draw in their hearing. We shall see that when all this was done, it showed up these false accusers to be really the ones who could justly be charged with the things they maliciously said against him. The speech will consist of the history that began with Abraham and ended with Solomon. In addition to Stephen's principal reason for reciting these historical matters, I shall comment on the verses in their order because of their general interest. Fathers is used in the sense of respect for them as being among the older members of the Jewish nation, and hence those who should be respectfully interested in the history of their race. Before he dwelt in Charran (Haran). Genesis 12:1 says that God had said for Abraham to make this move, even before the command stated in that verse, and that is the reason for Stephen's phrase underlined in this place. 3Act 7:3. Which I shall show thee is significant, and denotes that the patriarch was not told even what country it was when the Lord first appeared to him. He was to obey the command purely upon his faith in the wisdom and goodness of God. That is why Paul says, "and he went out, not knowing whither he went" (Hebrews 11:8). 4Acts 7:4. Abraham moved immediately out of his home territory which was the land of the Chaldeans (called "Ur of the Chaldees" in Genesis 11:31). This place was in the general territory of that later containing the city of Babylon. To reach the land of Canaan (where God intended him to go), it was necessary for Abraham to journey up and around the northern extremity of the country, due to the geographical character of the land. (See the historical note given with Isaiah 14:31, in volume 3 of the Old Testament Commentary.) When his father was dead. The necessary inference is that Abraham's father became more infirm on account of old age, so that the Lord suffered Abraham to pause in this land of Haran until his father was dead. We know this pause was not displeasing to God, for Stephen says that after the death of his father,;he (meaning God) removed him into this land, which indicates that Abraham was acting in God's favor. 5Acts 7:5. Gave him none inheritance. Let us not become confused over this phrase and the account in Genesis 23:9-20. Abraham became a possessor of that real estate in the land of Canaan, but he bought it with money, and thus obtained it by his own business transaction; he even refused to accept it as a gift from the owners. But inheritance is from , and Thayer defines it, "an inheritance, property received by inheritance." Abraham did not receive a foot of that land in that way, but it was promised that he would indirectly receive it some day through his descendants. When he had no child is mentioned to show Abraham's faith in the promises of God. 6Acts 7:6. This prediction is recorded in Genesis 15:13, and refers to the hardships of the Israelites in Egypt. Strange land means one outside their own promised land. 7Acts 7:7. Will I judge refers to the plagues that God brought upon the Egyptians (Exodus 7-12). Serve me in this place means their service at Mount Sinai. 8Acts 7:8. This verse includes the years from Abraham's 99th to the birth of Jacob's Sons in Mesopotamia and Canaan. 9Acts 7:9. The patriarchs means the brethren of Joseph who sold him to travelers going to Egypt God was with him denotes that assistance was given Joseph from the Lord because he was righteous and was being persecuted. 0Acts 7:10. This verse includes the events of Genesis 41. 1Act 7:11. This verse includes the events of Gen 41:30-31. 2Act 7:12. See Genesis 42:1-3. 3Act 7:13. This is recorded in Genesis 43, 44, , 45. 4Acts 7:14. Threescore and fifteen souls. For an explanation of this phrase, see the comments on Genesis 46:26-27, in volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary. 5Acts 7:15. Our fathers meant the sons of Jacob and other early ancestors. 6Acts 7:16. The last word in the preceding verse is "fathers," and they are the ones who were buried in Sychem. No explanation is offered by the historians or critical works of reference of the name of Abraham in the place of Jacob, concerning the purchase of this burying place. But all of them are agreed as to the particulars of the transaction. and hence we may be assured that some incidental fact or custom in use at the time of Stephen's speech would explain it if we had access to the literature of those days. 7Acts 7:17. God promised to Abraham that his posterity would become a great nation, and would be delivered from their bondage in a strange land. It was getting along near the time for' the fulfillment of that promise, hence the people were becoming numerous. 8Acts 7:18. Knew not Joseph. (See the comments on Exodus 1:8.) 9Acts 7:19. Dealt subtilly means to use schemes or tricks to get advantage of them. One of such was to take the supply of straw from them, when they knew that the crop had been gathered and that nothing but stubble could be found. (See Exodus 5:10-14.) Cast out their young children refers to the decree that all male infants should be drowned. 0Acts 7:20. Exceeding fair is explained by Thayer to mean he was fair "unto God," and the Greek text does have those words. The significance of this subject will be realized when we consider the history that will be cited at verse 25. 1Act 7:21. Read this history in Exodus 2:3-10. 2Act 7:22. This information is not given in any other place in the Bible, but Stephen was speaking by the Spirit and his report is authentic. 3Act 7:23. Full forty years is more definite than the account in Exodus 2:11, which says he "was grown." Came into his heart. Moses acted on his own authority only, for there is no information that God told him to take on the work at that time. 4Acts 7:24. There is no question about the injustice of the Egyptian's attack upon the Hebrew. The point is that Moses acted before he was told to by the Lord. The details of this episode are given in Exodus 2:11-14. 5Acts 7:25. He supposed his brethren would have understood, etc. This proves the point made in the two preceding paragraphs; Moses acted on his own supposition. The question will be raised as to why Moses formed this notion. The information is given in Josephus, Antiquities, Book 2, Chapter 9, Section a. That paragraph is too long to be quoted in full, but I shalt give the gist of it and the reader may verify it by consulting the history of Josephus. The father of Moses had gone to God in prayer concerning the danger his people were in and had received assurances that deliverance would be provided. That, as Abraham had been blessed with a son who meant so much to him, so, through the child soon to be born to him and his wife, great deliverance would be experienced by their people. It is reasonable to conclude that Moses' father had told him about that prayer and the promise, and hence Moses "supposed" all of his brethren had heard about it also. 6Acts 7:26. Them means his brethren mentioned in the preceding verse. Exodus 2:13 states that it was two Hebrews who were striving. Moses thought he would interfere with the wrangle, and no doubt he was acting on the supposition just explained above. 7Acts 7:27. The one who objected to the attempt of Moses was the one who was in the wrong. That is frequently the case today, for when a man is doing what is wrong he will resent any interference with what he says is "his business." However, Moses could not have given a satisfactory answer to the question asked by this Hebrew. 8Acts 7:28. When Moses "looked this way and that way" (Exodus 2:12), he either did not see everybody who was near, or the avenged Hebrew reported the event. 9Acts 7:29. Exodus 2:15 tells us that Pharoah heard about the deed of Moses and tried to have him slain. That caused him to flee the country in fear, and go into the land of Midian, a country lying between the two arms of the Red Sea. Where he begat two sons condenses the history in Exodus 2:15-22. 0Acts 7:30. Forty years were expired from the time Moses came into the land of Midian. In the course of this period Moses cared for the flocks of his father-in-law. He was with them when he came into the region of Sinai, where the angel appeared to him. 1Act 7:31. He wondered because the bush was burning but was not being consumed, and decided to investigate the situation. (See Exodus 3:1-3.) 2Act 7:32. Fathers is often used as a general reference to the early ancestors of the race, but here it applied to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Moses was overawed by the voice and the scene before him. 3Act 7:33. Put off thy shoes. It was customary in that country to remove one's shoes in the presence of a dignitary as an act of courtesy, very much as a man will lift his hat under like circumstances. Holy ground did not refer to the essential quality of the earth, for it was the same place where Moses had been taking the sheep for pasture. But in the present instance it was holy because of the person who was present, and the purpose for the appearance of the angel. A place is holy where and when holy proceeding takes place. 4Acts 7:34. I have seen, I have seen. Both phrases are in the original, and the inflection of the terms is somewhat different in each case, showing the purpose of the statement is for emphasis. God was speaking to Moses by the angel in the bush. Having seen the afflictions of his people in Egypt, God proposed sending Moses to deliver them. 5Acts 7:35. Stephen does not include the conversations between God and Moses about his (Moses') fitness for the commission: that record is in Exodus 3, 4. But he remind his hearers that the very man who the Hebrew resented was the one God sent to rule over them. He is getting his speech shaped up for application to his hearers. 6Acts 7:36. This brief verse covers the history from Exodus 7 to Joshua 5. 7Acts 7:37. This prophecy is in Deuteronomy 18:18-20. 8Acts 7:38. Church is from , and Thayer gives its primary meaning to be, "A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly." In the present passage he defines it, "The assembly of the Israelites." With the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai. God gave the law at Sinai through the services of angels (Galatians 3:19). 9Acts 7:39. In their hearts turned back. The Israelites could not return to Egypt literally, but their desire to do so made them as guilty as if they had done so. 0Acts 7:40. Moses had gone up into the mountain to receive the law, and the people became restless because of his absence; they demanded of Aaron that he make the idol. 1Act 7:41. In response to the cry of the people, Aaron made the calf out of the gold they had brought from Egypt. 2Act 7:42. Gave them up denotes that if a man is determined to do wrong God will not use force to prevent it. Host of heaven means the sun and other heavenly bodies. As it is written refers to Amos 5:25. The statement is in question form, but the thought is an admission from God that his people went through that form for forty years. 3Act 7:43. The preceding verse seems to speak well of ancient Israel but the present one shows the other side of the story. It begins with the word yea, while the corresponding verse in Amos 5:26 starts with "but." The point is that Israel was not satisfied to sacrifice to the true God but also took up idolatrous worship. Moloch and Remphan were heathen gods that the Israelites worshipped by making figures (images) of them for that purpose. The last sentence is a prediction of the Babylonian captivity. 4Acts 7:44. Tabernacle of witness. The tabernacle was a visible and constant symbol of the wisdom and goodness of God, so that Israel could always have His presence. 5Acts 7:45. Fathers that came after. Most of the older men died in the wilderness for the sin at Kadesh-barnea (Exodus 32:8-11), and it was their descendants who brought in the tabernacle to Canaan. Jesus is from IESOUS, and Smith's Bible Dictionary says it is "the Greek form of the name Joshua," and Thayer's lexicon agrees with it. Joshua was the leader of the Israelites when they crossed the Jordan. Possession of the Gentiles. These were heathen nations living in Canaan when the Israelites came, and they were attacked by Joshua and driven out (Joshua 12). Unto the days of David. Joshua did his duty in fighting the heathen, but on account of the unfaithfulness of Israel, God suffered some of the nations to remain in the land to harass them for many years. 6Acts 7:46. The preceding verse does not mean that no heathen existed in the land after David's time. The pause in the narrative at him is because of his outstanding importance in the affairs of Israel, the ancestors of these rebellious Jews to whom Stephen was speaking. David was in the favor of God and desired to find a tabernacle, referring to his desire to build the temple (2 Samuel 7:1-3). 7Acts 7:47. The reason that Solomon and not David was permitted to build the temple is shown in 1 Chronicles 22:6-10. 8Acts 7:48. God permitted Solomon to build the temple to replace the tabernacle. That was not because He wanted a better building in which to dwell for he does not dwell ("settle down") in man-made temples. Saith the prophet is reference to Isaiah 66:1. He uses earthly structures only as a place for people to meet with him spiritually. 9Acts 7:49. God is a personal (though spiritual) Being, and his dwelling place is in Heaven. What house will ye build me was quoted by Stephen because these Jews had boasted so often of their temple, and pretended to be offended at anyone who even intimated that it would ever be destroyed. (See chapter 6:14.) 0Acts 7:50. God was already the Maker of all things in the universe, hence it was foolish for the Jews to think they could build a temple as a permanent dwelling for Him. 1Act 7:51. Stephen made his long speech to portray the history of the Jews, showing a record of continual rebellion against the law of God and persecution of His true servants. His application was by showing these Jews before him that their conduct was running "true to form." Stiffnecked means stubborn, and uncircumcised in heart and ears denotes their unconsecrated minds as manifested by resistance against the Holy Ghost. 2Act 7:52. A man is not to be blamed for the sins of his forefathers, unless he imitates those sins and boasts of his relation to the ancestors. These rebellious Jews had done that very thing, and were following in the steps of their immediate fathers who had slain Jesus as predicted by the holy prophets of God. 3Act 7:53. The law which the disobedient Jews were resisting had been given through the agency of angels (Galatians 3:19). 4Acts 7:54. To be cut to the heart means to be rent asunder in mind, and caused to gnash or grind their teeth in an insane fit of anger. 5Acts 7:55. Full of the Holy Ghost is explained at Acts 4:31. Saw the glory of God. No man in normal condition can see God and live (Exodus 33:20). When He wanted Saul to see Jesus in the glorified state, he performed a miracle for the purpose; he did the same thing for Stephen. 6Acts 7:56. In defiance of their threatening gesture, Stephen declared his vision of the very One whom they had murdered, standing in glory at the right hand of God. 7Acts 7:57. Stopped their ears was an admission that the truth being spoken by Stephen was unwelcome to them, but they had no honorable means of meeting it. 8Acts 7:58. The Jews told Pilate it was not lawful for them to put any man to death. That was true, but it was not the real motive for their plea that Pilate have Jesus slain. It did not prevent them from carrying out their murderous rage upon Stephen, who had not even been sentenced by any court, religious or secular. Witnesses. The law (Deuteronomy 17:7) required that the witnesses to a crime must be first in an execution. That is why Jesus said what he did to the men who had witnessed the sin of the woman (John 8:7). Laid down their clothes. When any manual action was to be done, it was the usual practice for the men to lay aside their loose outer garments. As a guard to protect them, they were placed in charge of someone standing by, and this was done by placing the garments at the feet of Saul, of wbcm we will hear much in later chapters. 9Acts 7:59. Stephen was calling upon God while the Jews were hurling stones at him. Receive my spirit shows Stephen had an inner being that was not within reach of these murderers. (See Matthew 10:28.) 0Acts 7:60. Before his body collapsed, Stephen kneeled in prayer to God. Cried with a loud voice. The first word is from KRAZO which Thayer defines at this place, "to call out aloud, speak with a loud voice." It was not the involuntary outburst of a body because of pain, but an intelligent utterance so expressed that all in the crowd could hear. Charge is from HISTEMI and Thayer defines it, "to cause to stand." It does not mean that these men were to be declared innocent, for that would be endorsing sin. The prayer meant for God not to hold it against them. Jesus prayed for his Father to forgive his murderers, but that did not mean it should be done before they repented, which they did on Pentecost. Likewise, the prayer of Stephen means for God to forgive these murderers whenever they repented. Fell asleep is a figurative way of saying that Stephen died. (See notes on literal and figurative language at Matthew 9:24.) Stephen's death is the first one on record that was imposed in persecution for faith in Jesus. There will be others committed to which reference will be made later. H. Leo Boles Commentary For Acts 8 DEATH of STEPHENAct_7:54-60 and Acts 8:1-2 Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death.—“ Saul” is later the apostle Paul; he was present when Stephen was stoned and held the clothes of those who stoned Stephen. He was not only “ consenting unto his death,” but the Greek shows that he approved of it and that he took pleasure in the death of Stephen. Later he so confessed (Acts 22:20), and encouraged the killing of the first Christian martyr (Romans 1:32). Saul was willing to be known as really participating in the transaction. The first picture that we have of Saul is that he is engaging in the murder of the first Christian martyr. At that time he is described as “ a young man” (Acts 7:58), which may be interpreted as thirty or forty years old; this term and kindred ones were used with greater latitude than we now use them. In Paul’ s letter to Philemon (verse 9) he calls himself “ the aged” ; this letter was written probably in A.D. 62 to 64. The martyrdom of Stephen is generally placed in A.D. 34 or 35. If Paul was between sixty and seventy years of age when he wrote to Philemon, he was between thirty and forty at the death of Stephen. And there arose on that day a great persecution—This was the first of a number of waves of persecution that swept over the early church. This persecution of Stephen was the first of such violent opposition to the church; the martyrdom of Stephen acted like the first taste of blood to a wild beast. “ They were all scattered abroad” ; the word “ all” is used in a general sense, meaning, in popular language, “ very many.” They were scattered “ throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria.” Samaria was the middle division of Palestine at that time, and was just north of Judea; it lay between Judea on the south and Galilee on the north. “ Except the apostles” ; that is, all were scattered except the apostles who remained with the small remnant of the church in Jerusalem. We are not told why the apostles remained in Jerusalem at this time; they were guided by the Holy Spirit, and God had some purpose in their remaining at Jerusalem. Acts 8:2 And devout men buried Stephen,—“ Devout” comes from the Greek “ eulabeis,” and is used only four times in the New Testament. (Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5 Acts 8:2 Acts 22:12.) “ Devout,” as used in Acts 10:2, comes from the Greek “ eusebes.” It is not known whether these “ devout men” who buried Stephen were Christians; some think that they were Jews who were kindly dis¬posed toward Christianity. However, others think that they were Christians because they “ made great lamentation over him.” “ Lamentation” here comes from “ kopeton,” and means “ to beat the breast.” This is the only place it is used in the New Testa¬ment. This was a distinguished honor paid to Stephen; there were those who deeply lamented his death and willingly bore testi¬mony to his worth. Acts 8:3-4 3 But Saul laid waste the church,—The first seven chapters of Acts give a history of the origin or beginning of the church and its development in Jerusalem; so far all of the events narrated about the church occurred in the city of Jerusalem. It seems that for the first three to five years the church was confined to Jerusalem, but after the martyrdom of Stephen, the persecuting spirit, which had already so often attempted to silence the apostles, be¬came more decided and even unrelenting. It prevailed to such an extent that the Christians were induced in large numbers to leave the city, and go abroad even beyond their own country. (Acts 11:19.) The persecution which was designed to crush the rising cause of the gospel was overruled by God into an occasion of its rapid advancement. The followers of Christ, wherever they went, made known the gospel, and multitudes were converted to Christ. The history from now on takes us to regions beyond Jerusalem. Saul was a leader in the persecution. He not only persecuted Christians publicly, but visited homes, and “ dragging men and women” out of their homes, “ committed them to prison.” He was empowered, as he himself said (Acts 26:10), by the chief priests to persecute Christians. 4 They therefore that were scattered abroad—It is probable that the events took place in A.D. 37; this was the year in which Tiberius died and Caligula succeeded him. There was a time when there was no Roman governor in Judea, and the Jewish factions reigned supreme. Hence, the opponents of Christianity visited Christian homes and thrust Christian men and women into vile prisons, and then brought them before the elders in the syna¬gogue, who tried to force them to deny Jesus; on their refusal some of them were put to death (Acts 22:4 Acts 26:10), others were beaten (`), and all suffered many outrages (1 Timothy 1:13). They that “ were scattered abroad went about preaching the word.” They traveled far and wide through various regions; they did not confine themselves to the Jewish territory, but some of them went as far as Phoenicia, the island of Cyprus, and Antioch in Syria. (Acts 11:19.) By going beyond the Jewish territory they would be in less danger of being pursued by the hostility of the chief priests, and might hope to enjoy comparative security. It is probable that some went as far as Rome, for Andronicus and Junias were disciples before Paul’ s conversion. (Romans 16:7.) “ Preaching the word” is from the Greek “ euaggelizomenoi ton logon,” and means “ evangelizing” or “ gospelizing” the word. All of those scattered were emergency preachers; they were men stirred to activity by zeal for the Lord. They visited the country, towns, and villages, and even went into the homes of those who would permit them, and told them about Jesus, the Savior of the world. We see here another illustration of the providential law, which appears to be an irretrievable calamity and it is not only overruled, but designed from the beginning to promote the very cause which it seems to threaten with disaster and defeat. PHILIP IN SAMARIA Acts 8:5-8 5 And Philip went down to the city of Samaria,—This Phil¬ip was one of the seven selected at Jerusalem to help look after the Grecian widows in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:5.) He was also called later “ Philip the evangelist.” (Acts 21:8.) So this was not Philip the apostle, for the twelve apostles remained at Jerusalem. The apostles are mentioned in Acts 8:14 in distinction from Philip. We do not have Philip the apostle mentioned any more in Acts. “ The city of Samaria” is located in the country of Samaria; so there was a city and a country by the same name. The city of Samaria was built by Omri, king of Israel. (1 Kings 16:24.) It became the capital of the kingdom of the ten tribes, or northern kingdom. It was destroyed several times and rebuilt. Philip “ went down” to this city; Jerusalem was situated on a higher elevation than Samaria. He “ proclaimed unto them the Christ.” He preached that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. The Samaritans of half-heathen descent accepted and professed a corrupted Judaism; they looked for the Messiah, who was to rebuild the temple on Mount Gerizim, and restore everywhere the law of Moses. (John 4:25.) This is the first instance cited of the expansion noted in verse 4; proclaim is here translated from “ ekerussen,” which means “ to preach and keep on at it.” It is different from “ euaggelizomenoi” in verse 4, where the good news is spread. To proclaim Christ is to preach the gospel. Samaria had been expressly named by Christ as a region in which his disciples were to bear witness of him. (Acts 1:8.) 6 And the multitudes gave heed with one accord—“ Gave heed” is from “ proseichon,” which means that they kept holding the mind on the things which were spoken by Philip; it carried the meaning of “ spellbound.” The entire multitude “ with one accord” listened attentively to what Philip preached and were astonished at the signs which he did. Great throngs of people crowded around Philip and listened with eager attention; the Holy Spirit aided the preaching of the word with “ signs” or miracles. These miracles were to be the “ signs” that the message which Philip preached was from God; they were such as could leave no doubt in the minds of those who witnessed them. 7-8 For from many of those that had unclean spirits,—The kind of miracles mentioned were such that there could be no doubt that God had wrought them. “ Unclean spirits” were cast out and came out “ with a loud voice” ; this would attract the attention of the multitude to the one who was afflicted. The cry may have been a testimony to the Messiahship of Christ. (Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41.) Then again it may have been just an inarticulate shout of rage; it is to be noticed that demoniac possession is clearly distinguished in this passage from ordinary disease, for “ many that were palsied, and that were lame, were healed.” Under the general name “ palsied,” several infirmities may be in¬cluded ; sometimes it meant apoplexy, which affected the whole body, and sometimes a paralysis of a part of the body. The preaching, and the curing of the disease, caused much joy in that city. SIMON THE Acts 8:9-13 9 But there was a certain man, Simon—“ Simon” was a com¬mon name among the Jews; it is a contraction from “ Simeon.” There are ten men mentioned in the New Testament by this name. This Simon is known as “ Simon Magus,” or “ Simon the sorcerer.” There were many sorcerers, or those who deceived the people by certain tricks and deceptions. Nothing further is known of this Simon except what is mentioned here. He had used sorcery for some time and had “ amazed the people of Samaria,” and had pretended himself to be “ some great one.” Simon was an impostor, and it is amazing how gullible people are in the presence of such deceivers. He practiced his magic arts and pretended that he could do wonderful things. Simon has become a famous character in the early history of the church in Samaria. His pretended miracles were not discovered by the people; they thought that he was what he claimed to be, “ some great one.” 10 to whom they all gave heed,—It seems that he had been successful in practicing his magic art until he had deceived all the people in that country. They listened to him from the “ least to the greatest,” and all praised him, thinking that the “ power of God which is called Great” was exercised through him. They were led to regard him as having a most intimate connection with the Deity, and as having power to affect seriously the destiny of men. 11 And they gave heed to him,—Tradition has it that Simon went about accompanied by a woman named Helena who was also a “ power of God.” He taught a great first principle, hidden but omnipresent; this principle manifested itself in two different ways — as an active and spiritual principle and as a passive and receptive principle. The first is the good, the latter the evil; the first is the great “ power of God” manifesting itself from the recovery of the other or passive receptive principle. Simon himself was the incarnation of the active principle, which made for salvation; Helena was the incarnation of the passive reception principle. Her life of degradation was a type of the deterioration of the visible universe, and her recovery by Simon was the process of salvation by the great power of God made visible. This dualism, with its simple, almost childish, symbolism, its male and female principles, its opposition of good and evil, was the source out of which Simon constructed his system. Simon had so amazed the people by his pretended supernatural powers that they gave heed to him in whatsoever he did or claimed. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching—When Philip went among these deluded people and preached Jesus as the Mes¬siah and the Savior of the world, and accompanied his preaching with the real “ signs” or miracles, they believed him. Philip’ s mir¬acles were put in direct contrast with the pretended works of Simon; Philip cast out demons, cured the palsied, and healed the crippled so that the people could see what he had done. Many of them were thus healed and knew that there was no deception prac¬ticed by Philip. It is noted that when they believed, “ they were baptized, both men and women.” On Pentecost after they believed Peter’ s preaching, they asked what to do, and they were told that they should repent and be baptized “ unto the remission of your sins.” (Acts 2:38.) Hence, in every instance where people turned to the Lord, or believed the gospel, they were baptized. 13 And Simon also himself believed:—Simon heard Philip and saw what Philip did; he “ believed: and being baptized,” he continued for some time with Philip. There was no difference be¬tween the faith of Simon and that of the other people in Samaria. “ Simon also himself believed” : he believed the same thing that the others believed, and he was baptized as were the others. Jesus had said: “ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16.) Simon “ believed” and was “ baptized” ; hence, he had the remission of his sins, for Jesus had said that the one who believed and was baptized should be saved. “ He continued with Philip,” and saw the “ signs and great miracles wrought” by Philip. “ Continued” is from the Greek “ proskartereo,” and is used in Acts 1:14 Acts 2:42 Acts 2:46, and means originally “ to persist obstinately in.” For some time at least he continued with Philip, hearing his preaching and seeing the miracles that he wrought. He saw the wide contrast in what Philip was doing and what he had pretended to do. He was “ amazed” or astonished at what Philip was able to do; he saw the reality of working miracles by the hand of Philip. PETER AND JOHN IN SAMARIA Acts 8:14-25 14 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem—The apostles were still at Jerusalem, though the church had been scat¬tered. The apostles heard the good news of the success that Philip had in Samaria, and it was thought best to send someone there with apostolic authority to encourage and confer on the believers some extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit; so Peter and John were sent. It must have been an occasion of rejoicing on the part of the apostles when they heard that the Samaritans had received the gospel of Christ. (Matthew 10:5; Acts 1:8.) It should be no¬ticed that the apostles “ sent” Peter and John as their messengers; it will be recalled also that John had at one time sought to call down fire on a Samaritan village. (Luke 9:54.) 15 who, when they were come down,—Peter and John went down to Samaria and prayed for the disciples there; they prayed “ that they might receive the Holy Spirit.” There were special gifts of the Holy Spirit which could be given by the apostles; these gifts would confirm the disciples in the faith. Sometimes they were imparted by the laying on of hands. These gifts are to be dis¬tinguished from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 16 for as yet it was fallen upon none of them:—“ It was fallen upon” none of them; “ pneuma” is the word for “ spirit” here, and the translation should be “ he,” rather than “ it” ; it is not a cor¬rect form to use “ it” for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead and is a personality, or spiritual being; Jesus frequently referred to him with the personal pronoun and the masculine gender. (John 14:16-17 John 15:26 John 16:13-14.) These Samaritans had only been “ baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” ; hence, they had received remission of sins, but had not re¬ceived a miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. 17 Then laid they their hands on them,—The laying on of hands did not occur at Pentecost (Acts 2:4 Acts 2:33) nor in Acts 10:44; these were baptisms of the Holy Spirit, and were administered by the Lord; the Holy Spirit given by the laying on of hands was a measure of the Holy Spirit not so full as‘ the baptism. Some have concluded that the Holy Spirit in its miraculous form could be given only by the apostles; hence, Peter and John had to go to Samaria. We do not know that all who believed in Samaria received this miraculous endowment of the Holy Spirit; neither do we know whether Simon received this measure. Some have concluded that Simon and all the believers in Samaria had hands laid on them and a miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon them, but the evidence is not clear and does not warrant such a conclusion. 18-19 Now when Simon saw that through the laying on—There was something that Simon could see in the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Spirit; he observed a transference of power from the apostles to the believers. Simon wanted the power to bestow gifts upon others; he “ offered them money” for the power to be¬stow miraculous gifts upon others. Simon had been for some time practicing magic arts and deceiving the people; but now he thought that he could obtain with money the power not only to work miracles himself, but to give others the power to work miracles. Simon had not as yet risen above the mercenary spirit. Simon’ s whole attitude is that of a professional trickster or deceiver ; he fancied that he could by money be instructed how to ac¬quire, use, and impart, all in the way of trade, these powers. From this act of Simon’ s comes our word “ simony,” the crime of buying, selling, or bargaining for spiritual functions. 20 But Peter said unto him,—Peter was filled with holy and righteous indignation at Simon’ s proposition; he used language as strong as we find anywhere in Peter’ s teaching or writings; “ thy silver perish with thee” was the condemnation; this expresses his abhorrence of the proposal and shows Simon the imminent danger to which he was exposed with such a condition of heart. Peter also sounded a solemn warning to him of the end that would befall him if he followed such a course. Simon thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money; he is to learn that the bless¬ings of God, and especially the power to bestow miraculous gifts on others, cannot be had with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter:—“ Lot” comes from the Greek “ kleros,” and means “ part” ; it means that Simon should have no “ part” in the matter of bestowing the Holy Spirit on others. “ Part nor lot,” the first denoting any share or portion, and the second one determined or assigned. “ In this mat¬ter” literally means in this word (Luke 1:4; Acts 15:6), and has direct reference to the power of communicating the Holy Spirit. However, some think that it has reference to the preaching of the gospel; hence, they would say that Simon had no part in preaching the gospel; the context seems not to bear out this thought. “ For thy heart is not right before God,” or “ straight” ; Simon’ s heart was not “ right,” or “ straight,” or “ straightforward,” as it ought to be, but was seeking crooked, perverse, and secret ways. (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; 2 Peter 2:15.) 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness,—Peter here gives the second law of pardon— the law of forgiveness to the er¬ring Christian. He is commanded to “ repent,” and “ pray” for for¬giveness. Simon as a Christian had made the mistake of thinking that he could purchase the communication of the Holy Spirit to others with his money; hence, Peter tells him to repent “ of this thy wickedness” ; this shows what wickedness he was to repent of; his former sins had been forgiven, and now he is guilty of another sin, and it is this one that he is instructed to repent of and “ pray the Lord” that “ the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee.” Again we see that the sin of which he was to repent was “ the thought of thy heart” of thinking that he could purchase that power with his money. “ If perhaps” means that there is some chance of his forgiveness; though his sin was great, yet if he would repent and pray God there is a hope of his being cleansed of it. Some think that Peter had in mind the sin mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 12:31, but Peter does not close the door of hope here. “ If perhaps” means “ if it be possible,” or since it is possible. 23 For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness—“ Gall,” as used here, is an emblem of exceeding great wickedness; “ gall” is from the Greek “ cholas,” and means to pour out a yellowish green bile or gall; it is used only twice in the New Testament— here and in Matthew 27:34. “ Gall and wormwood” (Deuteronomy 29:18); in Hebrews 12:15 we have a “ root of bitterness,” or a bitter root; “ bond of iniquity” means that he would be in the bondage of sin and under the curse of the sin. The ancients considered that the gall of noxious reptiles was the source of their venom, and Peter warns Simon that unless repentance comes he will become worse and worse until he becomes all venom; Simon is warned that unless he repents a chain or band of iniquity will enslave him. This was a dangerous condition for him to be in. 24 And Simon answered and said,—Simon saw the danger that he was in; evidently he repented and prayed God, and even asked Peter to pray for him, as though his own prayer was not sufficient to obtain forgiveness. Simon is anxious to escape the penalty for his sin, and hopes that Peter can avert it; Peter had by the Holy Spirit diagnosed his case correctly. Simon was a con¬verted man, but was in sin at this point. We are led to believe that Simon surely repented and corrected his life. The inspired record drops the matter here and draws the curtain, so that we see Simon no more. Some claim that Simon was never penitent, and therefore never forgiven; they say that there is no evidence that Simon ever prayed for himself. However, the fact that he asked Peter to pray for him seems to imply that he was praying for himself. Surely he would not ask Peter to do for him what Peter had commanded him to do for himself. 25 They therefore, when they had testified—Peter and John had been sent down to Samaria to encourage those who had be¬lieved and to bestow such miraculous gifts upon the believers as the Holy Spirit deemed wise to confirm the word of the Samari¬tans. Luke the historian has lingered on the case of Simon, and now, having disposed of that notable case, states that Peter and John preached the word of the Lord to them while there and then returned to Jerusalem. However, they “ preached the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.” The preaching of the gospel among the Samaritans was not confined to the city where it had begun, but extended to many of the smaller towns through which Peter and John passed on their return to Jerusalem. Peter and John furthered the work of Philip among the Samaritans; Luke closes the record of Philip’ s work in Samaria, and he is next di¬rected to go to the Ethiopian eunuch. OF THE EUNUCH, SAUL, AND Act_8:26 to Acts 12:25 OF THE EUNUCH Acts 8:26-40 26 But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip,—The historian now turns from the brief record of the work of Peter and John in Samaria to the further work that the Holy Spirit had for Philip. It is not stated how the angel of the Lord spoke unto Phil¬ip, and there is no use in our guessing at it. It is enough to know that the message was conveyed to Philip in language that Philip understood and obeyed. The command was given to Philip in Sa¬maria. He was commanded to “ arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza.” He is not required to go to Jerusalem, but to get upon the road leading from Jerusalem to Gaza. Gaza is one of the oldest places men¬tioned in the Bible; it first occurs in Genesis 10:19, as a frontier town of the Canaanites, and later as the southernmost of the five cities of the Philistines, to whom it really belonged, even after it was formally assigned to Judah. (Joshua 15:47; Judges 1:18.) Palestine was divided into three divisions at this time— Galilee was the extreme northern division, Samaria was the middle division, and Judea the southern division. Gaza was in Judea. Gaza was about sixty miles southwest from Jerusalem, and had been de¬stroyed in 96 B.C., but was rebuilt, and was a city of importance at this time. Philip would pass west of Jerusalem on his way from Samaria and would intercept the road between Jerusalem and Gaza; this was a journey of from sixty to seventy miles. “ The same is desert.” It has been a matter of much dispute as to whether this means the way was desert or whether the city was deserted; some have contended that the city was deserted at this time; however, others think that Gaza was not deserted until later. This phrase is considered as not being the language of the angel, but is the language of Luke the historian. There were two roads, some think three, from Jerusalem.to Gaza; Philip was told to take the “ desert” road, probably the one by Hebron which went through the desert hills of southern Judea. Any place which was thinly peopled and unfit for cultivation was called “ desert” ; hence, the angel sent Philip to a desert road, in which he was not likely to encounter travelers much less to meet with such an adventure as did there befall him. It is “ desert” in the sense of being uninhab¬ited, and not in the sense of there being no water. 27 And he arose and went:—Philip obeyed promptly the in¬struction received from the angel. Attention is now directed to “ a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians.” It is not known whether the eunuch was a Jew or a proselyte of the Jewish religion. He was certainly zeal¬ous in going the long distance to Jerusalem to worship. He is in¬troduced to us as “ a man of Ethiopia.” “ Ethiopia” is the general term for that part of Africa now known as Nubia and Abyssinia; this portion of Africa was ruled for a long time by queens. “ Candace” was the general title of their queens, as rulers of Egypt were called “ Pharaoh,” and those of Rome were called “ Caesar.” This eunuch had “ great authority,” as he was “ over all her trea¬sure.” Hence, he was the treasurer of this country, and had been honored with great authority. Eunuchs were often employed by oriental rulers in high stations; they were not allowed to be Jews in the full sense, but only proselytes of the gate. (Deuteronomy 23:1.) This eunuch seems to have held the same office under Candace that Blastus held in the court or family of Herod Agrippa. (Acts 12 :20.) The word “ treasure,” as used here, means royal treasure. The purpose of his visit to Jerusalem is clearly stated; he went there “ to worship” ; this meant that he went to worship according to the law of Moses. 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot,—“ Returning” seems to be a favorite Greek verb with Luke. (Acts 1:12 Acts 8:25.) It seemed that he was returning by way of Egypt to his own country; his first stage or journey was from Jerusalem to Gaza. He was riding in his chariot. He was “ sitting in his char¬iot" and “ was reading the prophet Isaiah." “ Was reading" is from the original “ aneginosken," which means that he was reading aloud as Philip “ heard him" reading. This was common among the orientals; some think that he had purchased this roll of Isaiah in Jerusalem and was reading from the Septuagint Version. The Jews when on a journey were accustomed to employ their time in reading their scriptures. One of the commands enjoined by the rabbis upon the Jews was that a Jew, when on a journey without a companion, should study the law. He was reading “ the prophet Isaiah." 29 And the Spirit said unto Philip,—It should be noted that the Holy Spirit spoke to the preacher, not to the one to be con¬verted; Philip is directed to “ go near, and join" himself to the chariot. If the eunuch had been from some eastern country he might have been riding a camel; but chariots were common in Egypt. Here we get the first intimation of Philip’ s journey to this section of the country; he is to interview the man who is riding in this chariot. Philip may have been standing there waiting for fur¬ther direction when the eunuch came along. 30 And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading—Philip obeyed promptly the command given by the Holy Spirit. It should be noted here that there have been cooperating three agen¬cies to bring to the eunuch a knowledge of the gospel— namely, an angel, the Holy Spirit, and Philip the preacher. The angel and the Holy Spirit have not spoken to the man to be converted; they have cooperated in bringing Philip to the eunuch. Philip heard the eunuch reading; hence, the eunuch was reading aloud. Philip may have recognized the scripture that was being read. He asked: “ Understandest thou what thou readest?" It will be noticed fur¬thermore that “ Philip ran" to the eunuch; that is, he hastened to do what the Holy Spirit commanded. Here was a soul unconverted, and an opportunity is given to convert him. Philip’ s ques¬tion refers to the meaning and application of the words that the eunuch was reading. The eunuch did not know that the very words that he was reading were a prophecy concerning Jesus. It is very likely that he had heard something of Jesus while he was in Jerusalem; surely he would have heard something about Christian¬ity while there. It is always a profitable question to ask when one is reading: “ Understandest thou what thou readest?” Reading is of very little profit if one does not understand what is read. 31 And he said, How can I,—The eunuch felt the need of someone to guide him in understanding what he was reading; his question here seems to imply, “ How can you expect a stranger without aid to understand what puzzles your most learned doctors?” “ Guide me” is the expression which is employed for the guidance given by a teacher to a pupil. Jesus used this expression frequently in reproaching the blind guidance which the scribes and Pharisees were giving to the people who came to them for instruc¬tion. (Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39.) He uses also the same word for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13.) He then asked Philip to join him and instruct him. He seems to have recognized in Philip one who could guide him; he desired to learn and graciously invited Philip “ to come up and sit with him” in the chariot. This shows that the eunuch was an anxious inquirer of the truth, but bewildered and ready to be taught. 32-33 Now the passage of the scripture—“ The passage” is from the Greek “ perioche,” and means either of the section or the contents of the scripture; the eunuch was reading one particular passage, which we know as Isaiah 53:7-8. This quotation is taken from the Septuagint Version, which varies some from the Hebrew text. This scripture describes the sufferings of an innocent and unresisting person; what perplexed the eunuch was to whom this referred. The declaration means that in his humiliation his right to justice was taken away; and who will be heirs or followers of him since his life was violently taken away? The Messiah patiently submitted, without murmuring to the ignominy and death; he made no complaint, though treated violently and unjustly; he was submissive, like the innocent lamb. Jesus was taken away from prison and from judgment; he was taken away to death by a violent judicial procedure. Pilate had declared that he found no fault in him. (Luke 23:4; John 18:38 John 19:6.) Jesus could have claimed a verdict of “ not guilty” ; but he let this sentence or judgment pass without claiming protection under it. The question is asked: “ His generation who shall declare? for his life is taken from the earth.” The idea of extinction is conveyed here, but his apostles and disciples were to declare his generation; the apostles were to bear witness of him, and the Holy Spirit was sent to bear witness of him, and he was now ready to do so through Philip to the eunuch. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip,—The point of difficulty in the mind of the eunuch was to whom did this scripture in Isaiah refer. Of whom is the prophet speaking? This question was very interesting, and perhaps more so, because of what the eunuch had heard in Jerusalem. We do not know whether he began obscurely to connect this passage with what he may have heard concerning Jesus; hence, he at once frankly asked Philip the question. He was encouraged to do so by the interest that Philip manifested in him, and by Philip's accepting the invitation to ride with him. 35 And Philip opened his mouth,—This question gave Philip the opportunity to instruct the eunuch; he had a good text, and an anxious learner. Philip knew, and he was as anxious to teach the eunuch as the eunuch was to learn. He began with this scripture and “ preached unto him Jesus.” “ Preached unto him Jesus” comes from the Greek “ eueggalisato autoi ton Iesoun,” which is the Greek for “ evangelize.” Philip had no doubt about the Messianic meaning of this passage, and he knew that Jesus was the Messiah. Philip “ evangelized unto him Jesus” ; he taught him about Jesus. Philip showed that the language of Isaiah had been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, and particularly the manner of his death, and then his resurrection and the ascension. To “ preach” Jesus is to preach his commands. Philip in preaching Jesus not only preached his death, burial, resurrection, but the commission that he gave to his apostles just before his ascension. Philip preached the terms of remission of sins. 36 And as they went on the way,—They continued to ride along the way, Philip preaching Jesus and the eunuch listening intensively. This'was a most serious and important occasion; the eunuch hears Philip preach the commands of the gospel; and as they went along, “ they came unto a certain water.” It is to be noted that they “ came” to this water. We must suppose that Philip traveled for some time with the eunuch, for it would take some time to teach the eunuch all that he needed to know about Jesus. Much discussion has been had as to where the eunuch was baptized. Luke does not tell us, hence we do not know. We do know that they “ came unto a certain water,” and that there was enough water for Philip and the eunuch to go “ down into the water.” Philip had preached Jesus in such a way that the eunuch learned that he should be baptized. No inspired preacher of the gospel then preached Jesus without preaching the baptism that Jesus commanded; no gospel preacher today can preach Jesus without preaching the command to be baptized. (37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart,)—Verse 37 is left out of the Standard Version, but a footnote is inserted, saying that “ some ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part, verse 37.” It was found in one manuscript in the latter half of the second century, as it was quoted by “ Irenaeus,” who was active from the year A.D. 170 to A.D. 210. It is supposed that this verse was written in the margin and later was transcribed as a part of the original text. Even if the verse be an interpolation, and should be left out, it does not change in any way the thought; nothing is added by retaining the verse so far as doctrine is con¬cerned, and nothing certainly is lost by omitting the verse. However, the early records that contain it show that very early in the history of the church such a question was asked and such an¬swer was given. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still:—Evidently the eunuch had a chariot driver, since he “ commanded the chariot” to stop. When the chariot stopped, “ they both went down into the water” ; it was necessary that they go down into the water in order to do what was commanded to be done. The purpose of their going down into the water was to baptize the eunuch. Philip had preached Jesus to the eunuch and he had learned from such preaching that he was to be baptized; he also had learned or knew that it was necessary to go down into the water to be baptized. Both the baptizer and the one to be baptized went into the water, and Philip baptized the eunuch after they went down into the water. The eunuch must have laid aside his garments and descended into the water and was buried in baptism “ in the name of our Lord Jesus” ; this was the authority for Philip’ s baptizing the eunuch. 39 And when they came up out of the water,—They did not come up from the “ edge of the water,” but up “ out of the water.” (Mark 1:10.) Philip had done what he was directed to do; he had been led to the eunuch who was an unconverted man, and was ready to receive the truth. Philip had preached to him the truth of the gospel; he had heard it, believed it, and had been baptized; now he had the promise of Jesus that “ he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16.) Philip was now “ caught away” by “ the Spirit of the Lord.” Some look at this as a miracle; however, Philip was “ caught away” from the eunuch by the Holy Spirit in the way that he was led to the eunuch. The Greek for “ caught away” is “ herpasen,” which sometimes means suddenly and miraculously carried away. Hence, according to the view of some, he was literally snatched away from the presence of the eunuch as was Elijah. (1 Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 2:11; Ezekiel 3:12 Ezekiel 3:14; 2 Corinthians 12:2 2 Corinthians 12:4.) The eunuch saw Philip no more, but went on his way rejoicing in the salvation that he had found in Christ. The next and only other account that we have of the eunuch is not in the Bible but in tradition; Luke draws the curtain here and we see the eunuch no more. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus:—“ Azotus” is the name for the ancient city of the Philistines, “ Ashdod.” It was about thirty miles from Gaza, on the way to Joppa. Philip “ preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.” Philip did evangelistic service through the country there “ till he came to Caesarea,” where he made his home and headquarters (Acts 21:8) and was known as the “ evangelist.” It will be noted that Philip preached the gospel “ to all the cities” in that section of the country. The route which Philip would naturally take on this journey led through Lydda and Joppa and we may trace the effects of his preaching in the appearance in Acts 9:32 Acts 9:36. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 8Acts 8:1-4. The enemies of the disciples had now tried and exhausted all the ordinary methods of opposing the truth. Under the leadership of the Sadducees they had tried, first threatening, then imprisonment, and then stripes. They were about to follow this with the death of the twelve, when the milder counsels of the yet unexasperated Pharisees had prevailed, and resort was had to discussion. But the cause which had prospered under the imprisonment and scourging of its chief advocates bounded forward with astonishing rapidity when the strength of its plea was brought before the people in open discussion. Its learned opponents were completely discomfited. Foiled in their efforts, the Pharisees were now ready to unite with the Sadducees in a common persecution. They selected Stephen as the first victim, because he had been their most formidable opponent in the discussion. They had determined to proceed in their bloody purpose with the forms of law; but, in a moment of frenzy, they had broken loose from all restraint, and dispatched their victim with the violence of a mob. Once embarked in this mad career, nothing less than the utter extermination of the Church could satisfy them. Hence the historian proceeds to inform us that, (1) “On that day there arose a great persecution against the Church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad through the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (2) Yet devout men carried Stephen to burial, and made great lamentation over him. (3) But Saul wasted the Church; entering into the houses, and dragging forth both men and women, he committed them to prison. (4) Nevertheless, they who were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word.”The grief of a community at the loss of a good man is more intense when he falls in the performance of some part characteristic of his life. But it is most intense when death, at such a moment, is precipitated by injustice and violence. It is not surprising, therefore, that the burial of Stephen should have been attended with “ great lamentation.” The perilous condition of the congregation— some of whom were being hourly cast into prison, and most of whom were contemplating flight— could but deepen their grief. The funeral services were soon followed by a general dispersion of the disciples. With much bitterness of heart, they left behind them their native city and their individual homes, to seek refuge among strangers. But the bitterness of their temporal loss must have been slight, to the truly devoted among them, compared with the disappointment of their brightening hopes concerning the speedy triumph of the gospel. How bitter, too, must have been the disappointment of the twelve, at suddenly finding themselves left alone in the great city, the congregation of many thousand disciples whom they had collected— all scattered and gone! While the thought of the brethren and sisters fleeing for life, and of the many already languishing in prison, they could have but regarded their own lives as in imminent danger. But, supposing that the time for which Jesus had limited their stay in Jerusalem had not yet expired, they courageously stood at their post, regardless of consequences. The present distress and flight of the disciples had resulted, not from the mere fact that they believed in Jesus, but more especially from the zeal and persistency with which they pushed his claims upon the attention of others. Seeing that they had now lost everything, by this course, a worldly prudence would have taught them to be, thenceforward, more quiet and unobtrusive in the propagation of their faith. Even the interests of the cause itself, which had been jeopardized by the boldness with which Stephen had attacked the prevailing iniquity, might have been urged in favor of a change of policy. But this time-serving expediency was reserved for the disgrace of a later age. It never took large possession of the heroic hearts of the early disciples. On the contrary, the scattered disciples “went everywhere preaching the word.” The result was the rapid spread of the gospel into the cities of Judea, and even into Samaria. Thus, the apparent ruin of the single Church in Jerusalem resulted in the springing up of many Churches throughout the province— proving, for the thousandth time in the world's history, how impotent is the hand of man when fighting against God. As the blows of the blacksmith's hammer upon the heated iron scatter the scintillations in every direction, so the effort of wicked Jews to crush the Church of Christ only scattered its light more widely abroad. Acts 8:5. Among the many who now went everywhere preaching the word, the historian chooses to relate here the labors of only one. (5) “Then Philip went down into the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them.” This Philip was one of the seven, and his name stands in the list next to that of Stephen. The reason why Luke selects his labors for this place in the history, is because he was the first to preach the gospel in Samaria. Jesus had commanded them to testify first in Jerusalem; then in Judea; then in Samaria; and then to the uttermost part of the earth. Luke follows them in the regular prosecution of this programme. Acts 8:6-11. When Philip first entered the city of Samaria, the public mind was in a condition most unfavorable to the reception of the gospel. The practice of magical arts was quite common among the Jews and Samaritans of that age; and the masses of the people of all nations were very superstitious in reference to them. At the time now referred to, the people of Samaria were so completely under the influence of a magician, that one less bold than Philip would have had no hope of success in preaching the gospel to them. But he had confidence in the power of the gospel, and commenced his labors with a firm purpose. His success was far beyond what could have been anticipated. (6) “And the multitudes, with one accord, attended to the things spoken by Philip, in hearing and seeing the miracles which he wrought. (7) For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many, paralyzed and lame, were healed. (8) And there was great joy in that city. (9) But a certain man named Simon was in that city before, practicing magic and astonishing the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was some great one: (10) to whom they all gave attention, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. (11) And they gave attention to him because he had astonished them with magic arts for a long time.” We are here introduced to another case of conversion, with a very brief account of the means and influences by which it was effected. These demand careful consideration. It is in order that the perfect adaptation of the gospel means employed by Philip may the more strikingly appear, that Luke is particular to state the previous mental condition of the people. They had been so much astonished by the magic arts of Simon, that the prevailing conviction was, “ This man is the great power of God.” The dreamy genius of Neander has caught up some vague tradition of the fathers concerning a supposed theosophy involved in this expression; and, by a common sympathy in mysticism, rather than by the force of his reasoning, has transmitted it to many recent commentators. But the sober judgment, content with more natural conclusions, finds in it only the impression which such arts as Simon practiced usually make upon a superstitious multitude. The tricks of his legerdemain they supposed to be exhibitions of divine power. The first work for Philip to do was to prostrate the influence of Simon by undeceiving the people. To accomplish this object, he has recourse to the power of the Holy Spirit. This power, addressed to the eye in the healing of lameness and paralysis, and the casting out of demons; and to the ear, in preaching Christ to them, soon arrested the attention of the multitude. There was a prompt and universal decision in the public mind in favor of the miracles wrought by Philip, and against the pretensions of Simon. What the distinction between these miracles and Simon's astonishing tricks, which led to so prompt a decision, we are not able to say, because we know not what these tricks were. Suffice it to say, that this single incident should put to silence forever that species of skepticism which resolves all the miracles of Christ and the apostles into occult art and optical illusions; for here are these arts, in their most delusive form, brought into direct conflict with apostolic miracles; and so palpable is the distinction, that it is at once discovered and acknowledged by the whole multitude. Acts 8:12. The unmistakable reality of the miracles wrought by Philip convinced the people that he was attended by the power of God; and that was enough to make them acknowledge the authority of God in what he communicated to them. In order that men may believe the Gospel, it is only necessary that they believe it to be, in reality, the word of God. But the Holy Spirit convinced them that what they heard was the word of God, by attending it with a sensible demonstration of the power of God. That they believed was but the natural result of what they saw and heard. (12) “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were immersed, both men and women.” Being convinced that they heard the word of God, they believed it because it was the word; and, for the same reason, they yielded to its authority. Their obedience was not the result of any inherent power in the word, apart from its authorship; for if it were believed to be the word of man, it would have no authority and no power. All the authority and power which are in it, therefore, result from the belief that God is its author. This belief was effected, in the present instance, by the Holy Spirit, through miraculous attestations; hence, the whole change wrought in the parties may be styled the work of the Holy Spirit. The simple facts of the kingdom over which Christ was reigning, thus attested, were set forth before the people, and, upon belief of these, attended by a willingness to comply with their requirements, they were immersed without delay. This was but a faithful execution of the commission, which says, “ He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved.” Acts 8:13. The most signal triumph achieved on this occasion was that over Simon himself. Luke gives it the prominence of a separate statement, in these words: (13) “And Simon himself also believed, and when he was immersed he continued with Philip, and beholding the signs and great miracles which were done, he was astonished.” The commentators nearly all agree that Simon's faith was not real, but feigned; and that the statement that he believed is made according to the appearance, and not according to the reality. They urge that subsequent developments prove the insincerity of his professions, and compel us to adopt this conclusion. It must be confessed, that at the time Philip might have been deceived by him; but this could not be said of Luke, who wrote subsequent to all the developments in the case. If his object was to describe the events as it appeared to Philip, he might retain, in the first instance, the mistake of Philip; but we would expect, on this supposition, a subsequent correction. No such correction, however, is given; neither is there any evidence that Luke intended to represent the case as it appeared to Philip. On the contrary, he speaks from his own stand-point, and had all the facts before him which we have before us. His statement, therefore, should control our judgment, and he says, not that Simon feigned belief, but that he believed. We conclude, then, that he did, in the true and proper sense of the word, believe.Some commentators, disposed to admit the statement that Simon believed, still deny the sufficiency of his faith, and urge that it was deficient in its object. But the historian makes no distinction between what Simon believed, and what was believed by the Samaritans. They “ believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ;” and Luke adds, without qualification, that “ Simon himself also believed.” He believed, then, what Philip preached; be believed the gospel. This conclusion is based upon statements too positive and unambiguous to be set aside because of any difficulty in reconciling them with facts subsequently developed. Acts 8:14-17. Before recording the sequel of Simon's case, Luke introduces an incident, which, on account of its singularity in New Testament history, demands very careful consideration. (14) “Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John; (15) who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. (16) For as yet he had fallen upon none of them, only they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. (17) Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” It would be useless to incumber these pages with the many unsatisfactory explanations of this procedure with which commentaries abound. We will be content with a simple effort to learn what it teaches, by a careful consideration of the facts. We notice, then, first, That the Samaritans had believed the gospel, and been immersed. They were, then, according to the commission, and according to Peter's answer on Pentecost, pardoned, and in possession of that “ gift of the Holy Spirit,” which was promised on condition of repentance and immersion. Second, After they had been in possession of this gift, for a period sufficient for the news to reach Jerusalem, the whole body of the apostles united in sending to them Peter and John. Third, Previous to the arrival of Peter and John, none of them had received the miraculous gift of the Spirit. Fourth, Upon the imposition of hands by the two apostles, accompanied with prayers, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, conferring miraculous gifts. From these facts we may draw several conclusions. 1st. Whatever other objects may have been contemplated in the mission of the two apostles, such as confirming the faith of the disciples, and assisting Philip in his labors, it is quite certain that the chief object was the impartation of the Holy Spirit. What they did when they arrived in Samaria was certainly the object for which they went. But the chief thing which they did was to confer the Holy Spirit; hence, this was the chief object of their visit. If, however, Philip could have conferred this gift, the mission, so far as the chief object of it is concerned, would have been useless. This affords strong evidence that the miraculous gift of the Spirit was bestowed by no human hands except those of the apostles. That such was the conclusion of Simon, who was an interested witness of this proceeding, is evident from the proposition he made to Peter, to purchase from him this power. If all who had the Spirit could impart it to others, he need only to have sought the gift himself, knowing that this would include the power to impart it. But his offer to buy this power, and that from an apostle, shows that the apostles alone possessed the power of imparting the Spirit. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in the only other instance of the kind recorded in Acts, that of the twelve disciples in Ephesus, the same gift was bestowed by the hands of an apostle. The case of Timothy is no exception, as has been supposed, to this conclusion; for, although Paul states that the gift which was in him was given him through prophesy and “ the laying on of the hands of the eldership;” yet he exhorts him, in the second epistle, “ Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands.” These two statements can be reconciled either by supposing that Paul refers to the gift of office in the former, and the gift of the Spirit in the latter; or, that the eldership united with Paul in laying on hands, while it was the apostolic part of the service which imparted the Spirit, the eldership participating, because at the same time he was ordained to the work of an evangelist. 2d. From the fact that these disciples enjoyed pardon and membership in the Church before receiving the miraculous gift, it is evident that this gift was not necessary to the enjoyment of either of these blessings. Yet, strange to say, the mystic power of an ultra spiritualism has thrown these plain facts into the utmost confusion in the minds of some great men. Witness the following from Neander, in reference to the condition of the Samaritans previous to the visit of Peter and John. “ They had not yet attained the consciousness of a vital communion with the Christ whom Philip preached, nor yet to the consciousness of a personal divine life. The indwelling of the Spirit was as yet something foreign to them, known only by the wonderful operation which they saw taking place around them.” This assertion is evidently in direct conflict with the commission, and with the promise of Peter, that those who would repent and be immersed should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul also teaches that the indwelling of the Spirit is characteristic of all who are Christ's; and certainly all are Christ's who have been immersed into the name of Christ, as had been these Samaritans. 3d. The statement that “ as yet he had fallen on none of them, only they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus,” thrown in parenthetically in explanation of the mission of Peter and John, necessarily implies that there was no such connection between immersion into Christ and the miraculous gift of the Spirit, as that the latter might be inferred from the former. This gift, then, was not common to the disciples, but was enjoyed only by those to whom it was specifically imparted. Seeing that this extraordinary gift of the Spirit was not necessary to the conversion and pardon of these parties, nor to the indwelling of the Spirit, it is proper to inquire for what purpose it was bestowed. We have already observed, in commenting on Acts 1:8, that the design of bestowing it upon the apostles was to endow them, intellectually, with power to establish the kingdom, and to furnish miraculous attestation of their mission. In general, miracles were designed to indicate the divine sanction of the procedure with which they were connected; but when the miracle assumed a mental form, it was designed to qualify the party for some mental labor. The young Church in Samaria had hitherto been guided by the infallible teaching of Philip, and more recently, by that of Peter and John. But these brethren must, in executing their high commission, soon depart to other fields of labor. If, in doing so, they should leave the Church in the condition in which Peter and John found it, there would be no means left them of increasing their knowledge of the new institution, and none but their uncertain memories of retaining with accuracy what they had already learned. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 8:2. The original for lamentation is defined by Thayer, "lamentation with beating of the breast," and Robinson defines it in the same way. It was a formal demonstration of grief that such a righteous man should die as he did. 3Act 8:3. The church as an established organization cannot be overthrown, for it was destined to "stand for ever" (Daniel 2:44). But it can be hindered in its work, and its individual members can be persecuted and even put to death in certain instances. That is what Saul did, for havoc means to "treat shamefully or with injury." It states he was entering into every house, which shows he was not attacking the church as an assembled unit. Haling is defined "to draw, drag," and denotes that disciples were used roughly while being taken to prison. 4Acts 8:4. Therefore indicates a conclusion is to be drawn from facts stated or understood. Saul was persecuting the disciples so cruelly that they fled from the community and went into various territories. Preaching the word was not a part of the conclusion from therefore, but was added for our information to show that the disciples were not weakening in their love for the word. Their being scattered is the only part that is offered as a conclusion after the word therefore. The motive in preserving their lives was that they might be able still to defend the faith in other places. Chapter 11:1.9 names some of the places where they went preaching. 5Acts 8:5. Cornelius is commonly referred to as the first Gentile convert to the Gospel, which is correct. This verse says that Philip (one of the seven deacons) preached to the people of Samaria. All people who were not full blooded Jews were regarded as Gentiles, hence some confusion might arise here. But the explanation is in the fact that the Samaritans were distinguished from the Gentiles proper because they were a mixed race, part Jew and part Gentile, both in their blood and in their religion. The history of their origin is in 2 Kings 17, volume 2 of the Old. Testament Commentary. 6Acts 8:6. With one accord denotes that no dissension arose among the people over the preaching of Philip. He was able to perform these miracles by the laying on of the apostles' hands in chapter 6, verse 6. 7Acts 8:27. There is no history available that tells us whether this eunuch was a Jew or Gentile. If he was a Jew born in Ethiopia, he would be an Ethiopian by nation. The question that is sometimes raised is how it can be said that Cornelius was the first Gentile convert, if this eunuch was an Ethiopian by race. That need cause no confusion, for there were proselytes to the Jewish religion all through the years, and such persons were regarded as Jews. That is why this man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, for that was the headquarters of the Jewish system. It also explains why he was reading the book of Isaiah. (For notes on the proselytes, see Matthew 23:15.) 8Acts 8:8. This joy was natural, for doubtless the afflictions had been suffered for many years. Both the afflicted and their friends would rejoice over the miraculous relief. 9Acts 8:9. Used sorcery is from MAGEUO which Thayer defines, "To be a magician; to practice magical arts." In past ages, God suffered Satan to exert supernatural power through the agency of men (Exodus 7:11-12 Exodus 7:22 Exodus 8:18-19). Because of the real existence of such works, it was possible for men to impose on the credulity of the people and thus pass for such supernaturally-endowed performers even though they were frauds. Whether Simon was the former or the latter kind of actor we are not informed. 0Acts 8:10. Any such demonstrations that would seem to be divine would have a profound effect on the people, and cause them to think the performer was a man of God. 1Act 8:11. Bewitched is from which means, "to amaze, astonish, throw into wonderment," hence it refers to some effect Simon had on the mind and not the body. 2Act 8:12. When they believed . . . they were baptized. It will be seen that the inspired writer takes it for granted when a man believes the Gospel he will also obey it. (See the comments at chapter 2:41.) Men and women. We never read in the scriptures that infants or young children were baptized; it is always men or women. 3Act 8:13. Simon himself believed. This is the statement of Luke and therefore must be taken as the truth, and not merely that Simon pretended to believe. And when 'he was baptized. (See the comments on the preceding verse about this form of expression.) Continued is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, "To adhere to one, to be his adherent; to be devoted or constant to one." We have no reason to think that Simon was not genuinely interested in the work of Philip. The record says that Simon continued with Philip because he saw the miracles that were performed, and John 20:30-31 expressly says that the signs and wonders were performed to produce belief. 5Acts 8:14-15. Philip preached the word of God and even performed miracles in proof of his authority. But he could not confer the Holy Ghost on his converts in the measure necessary to enable them to work miracles; none by apostles could do that.. And since converts in those days were promised such a gift (chapter 2:38), the apostles went down to Samaria to confer it. 6Acts 8:16. These people had obeyed the Gospel but had not received the Holy Ghost, which shows that the gift was not bestowed simultaneously with baptism. 7Acts 8:17. This gift was not to make them Christians or bring them forgiveness of sins; their obedience to the Gospel did that for them. 8Acts 8:18. The inspired Luke says that Simon saw a certain fact, not that he only thought he saw it. Hence this verse is insipred authority for saying it was through -laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given. He offered them money. This was what constituted the sin of Simon (see next verse). It does not indicate that Simon's primary obedience was not sincere. (See the comments on verse 13.) Disciples who have been in the church for years are known to commit sin, so it is not to be doubted that a .babe scarcely out of his spiritual swaddling clothes might backslide also. 9Acts 8:19. Simon was not asking merely for the power to perform ran acles; he might have received that sooner or later as the others di& But he wanted the power that was possessed by the apostles, so he could lay hands on others and give them ability to perform miracles. The sight of the performance of the apostles seemed to arouse his former interest in that which was marvelous, so that he yielded to the temptation and offered to buy that which cannot be valued in "dollars and cents." 0Acts 8:20. Money perish with thee is a declaration of solemn truth, not in the sense of a special denunciation. We know that money is destined to pass away some day, and so also will evil men if they do not repent. Money perish . . . because, etc. This was an evil thought and constituted the sin of Simon. 1Act 8:21. Part means a share of something that is "assigned" to one, and lot denotes something won or "obtained by lot." There is not a great deal of difference I between the two words in question, but the use of them together makes a statement that is more emphatic, and rules out both measures of the Holy Ghost. That which the apostles only could possess would not have been given Simon even if he had not been corrupt in heart. But that condition prevented him from receiving even the measure that other disciples were promised to receive. 2Act 8:22. The original word for wickedness often means some very bad bodily conduct, but Simon had not done anything of that kind. One word in Thayer's definition is "depravity," and that would apply in this case. Nothing but a depraved mind would think the Holy Ghost could be bought with money. Hence Peter told him to repent of the thought of Ms heart. Perhaps ordinarily denotes a doubt, which would not be a proper sense to attach to the word when thinking of the mercy of God. The original carries the idea of an earnest frame of mind on the part of Simon as if he should say, "Lord, I beseech thee," etc. Repent and pray is the law of pardon for a disciple when he has sinned. Chapter 2:38 gives the law for one who has never been a child of God, and that is to "repent and be baptized." An alien sinner would not avail himself anything to repent and pray, neither would It avail anything for an erring disciple to repent and be baptized, because baptism is to be performed only once. 3Act 8:23. Gall and bitterness are virtually the same in thought, and are used together for the sake of emphasis. It denotes a state of mind that is poisoned with depravity. Iniquity is defined in the lexicon, "unrighteousness of heart." The heart of Simon was bound up in a state of depravity, indicated by the sordid estimate that he placed on the value of the Holy Ghost 4Acts 8:24. Simon wished Peter to pray that he be released from the guilt of these things, meaning the state of corruption in his mind and the judgment of God that such a condition of mind would deserve. The scripture does not tell us anything about the conduct of Simon after this, and secular history is uncertain about the subject. 5Acts 8:25. They means Peter and John who returned to Jerusalem, but preached in many of the Samaritan villages on their way. 6Acts 8:26. The New Testament was not completed and the apostolic period was still with the world. In that situation God used various means to get his will to men. It should be carefully noted that he never did tell a sinner directly what to do to be saved. But until the plan of salvation was put on record where everyone could read it, the Lord used miraculous means to contact the sinner. In the present instance an angel (in what form he appeared we are not told) appeared to Philip who had just done his wonderful work in Samaria. The only thing the angel did was to ,tell Philip where to go. God knew where the preacher would meet the man to whom the Gospel message was to be delivered. Desert is from EREMOS which means an "uninhabited wilderness," and has reference to the physical condition of the land. 8Acts 8:28. Chariots were made for two purposes: war, and transportation in times of peace. The eunuch was riding in one of the latter. 9Acts 8:29. The angel was used to direct Philip into the general location of the eunuch, and after arriving there, the Spirit gave him specific instrutions about joining the chariot. But it should be noted in each case that the eunuch never learned anything about his duty until he got it from the preacher. (See Romans 10:14.) 0Acts 8:30. Philip was evidently traveling on foot, for after reaching the chariot (and entering it) he journeyed on with the eunuch. The speed of the chariot also was slow enough that Philip was able to overhear what tie eunuch was reading, and also to enter into conversation with him. 1Act 8:31. In answer to Philip's question, the eunuch said he could not understand what he was reading without a guide. This should not surprise us, for he was reading in one of the prophetic books, and we are told that even the prophets themselves did not know "what it was all about" when they were inspired to do their writing. (See Matthew 13:17; 1 Peter 1:10-12). The attitude of Philip indicated his willingness to explain the scripture, and the eunuch asked him to sit with him in the chariot. 3Act 8:32-33. This scripture is in Isaiah 53:7-8; it is in the past tense as to grammatical form, but that is a common thing in the prophetic writings. It pictures the unresisting attitude of Jesus when he was sentenced and executed upon the cross. Judgment was taken away means Jesus was treated with injustice. Declare is defined, "to set forth, recount, relate in full," and generation means one's descent. The question is asked in the sense of asserting that no one can declare the family descent of Jesus. The reason is given in the words, his life is taken from the earth. Jesus died without having produced any fleshly offspring, because his only purpose in this world was to leave behind him a spiritual family. (See Ephesians 3:15.) 4Acts 8:34. See the comments on verse 31 for the eunuch's question. 5Acts 8:35. Opened his mouth. No sinner was ever induced to accept salvation by miraculous means, but it was always by the use of words. (See chapter 11:14.) Began at the same scripture denotes he explained the passage to be referring to Jesus. But after that start of his speech, the context indicates that he taught the eunuch the acts of faith that Jesus requires of sinners in order to receive forgiveness of sins. 6Acts 8:36. The Old Testament says nothing about baptism, hence the eunuch could have learned about it only from Philip. This proves beyond any question that to preach Jesus means to tell of His requirements, including baptism in water. Certain is from TIS which Thayer defines, "a certain, a certain one." Water is from HUDOR, and the definitions of Thayer and Robinson agree, but the latter is fuller at this passage which is, "A stream, river." Hence a certain water means a permanent body of water, and one large enough for two men to enter. (See verses 38, 39.) The only material element necessary for baptism being present, the eunuch wished to know if he might be baptized. 7Acts 8:37. There was just one item in his duty still undone that had to precede baptism, which was the good confession. (See Romans 10:9-10.) Philip told the eunuch that if he believed with all his heart thou mayest. The last two words are from EXESTI, which Thayer defines, "it is lawful." Robinson defines it, "It is lawful, it is right, it is permitted, one may." Philip meant it would be scriptural for him to baptize the eunuch if he was a believer in Jesus. The contrary would necessarily be true, that it would be unscriptural to baptize a person who is not a believer. That would make it unscriptural to baptize infants since they cannot believe. The confession of the eunuch was his own as far as the wording was concerned, for no one told him just how it was to be made. In 1 Timothy 6:13 Paul says that Jesus made a good confession before Pilate, yet his words were merely "thou sayest" in answer, to the governor's question (Matthew 27:11.) This shows that no formal kind of confession should be considered necessary. The form the eunuch used is all right, and so is any other that means that one believes Jesus to be the Son of God. 8Acts 8:38. A chariot is an inanimate object and cannot receive an intelligent order. Hence Philip addressed his command to the driver, for had he been doing his own driving he would not have commanded the chariot either. All of this proves that at least three persons were present at this baptism. The remark and question of the eunuch, also the answer of Philip and the eunuch's confession all took place after they came in sight of the "certain water," and they were still in sight of it when the command was given for the chariot to stop. This is another proof that the water was of some considerable size. Into is from is and is properly translated in the King James version. They both had to go down into the water for the act of baptism. The word baptize is from BAPTIZO, and Thayer defines it, "To dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge." Robinson defines it, "To dip in, to sink, to immerse." Groves defines it, "To dip, immerse, plunge." Greenfield's definition is, "To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink." In its noun form, Donne-gan defines it, "An object immersed, submerged, soaked." 9Acts 8:39. Come up out of the water gives emphasis to the comments in the preceding verse on the necessity of going down into the water. Into and out of are opposite terms, and agree with the necessary movements in performing baptism. However, the purpose for the statement is to inform the reader that no supernatural act was done until the baptismal service was concluded. Philip had to make his way into this territory in whatever manner was available, but now that the object of his journey was accomplished, the Spirit of the Lord used some means of snatching him away suddenly out of the eunuch's sight; but he went on his way rejoicing in his new relation to the Lord. 0Acts 8:40. Azotus was a town north of Gaza, the place to which Philip was told by the angel to go. Going on in his northward journey, he preached in all the cities to which he came until he reached his destination which was Caesarea on the coast. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 9 OF SAULAct_9:1-19 1 But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter—Saul was first mentioned in Acts 7:58, and again in Acts 8:1-3; now we come to his conversion. There we find him as a persistent per¬secutor of the church; here we find him “ yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord.” His attitude and conduct is put in contrast to that of Philip by the conjunction “ but.” Some translations have “ and,” but others seem to translate “ eti” as “ yet,” as if some time had elapsed between the death of Stephen and the events that we are now to consider. “ Breathing threatening and slaughter” does not mean “ breathing out,” but “ breathing in” or “ breathing on.” It means that the very breath that Saul breathed encouraged him on to persecute the disciples of Christ. The figure is like a war horse who sniffs the smell of bat¬tle; he becomes anxious to persecute Christians. We are not told of any other death than that of Stephen, but we are led to believe that many others were put to death. Surely Saul’ s anger was greatly excited by the success of the early church, and with great zeal he put forth every effort possible to stop the progress of the church. He was orderly about what he was doing, as he had the authority of the “ high priest.” 2 and asked of him letters to Damascus—It is probable that the high priest here mentioned was Caiaphas, who was a chief of the Jews and exercised authority in such matters. “ Letters to Da¬mascus” means that Saul was granted authority to persecute Christians along the way and in the city of Damascus. Saul, a Pharisee, makes request of a Sadducee (the high priest) to perse¬cute the disciples of Christ. Julius Caesar and Augustus had granted the high priest and Sanhedrin jurisdiction over Jews in foreign cities; so later Paul said that he received his authority to go to Damascus from the priests (Acts 26:10) and “ the estate of the elders” (Acts 22:5); that is, the Sanhedrin. It seems that Paul had finished his persecution in Jerusalem and now wishes to extend it beyond to Damascus. “ Damascus” is said to be the old¬est city in the world; it was about a hundred and fifty miles north¬east from Jerusalem and watered by the river Abana. A great number of Jews dwelt in this city; it seems that Christians had found refuge from Saul’ s persecution in Judea and had gone to Damascus. Paul’ s language in Acts 26:11 seems to imply that Damascus is merely one of the other “ foreign cities” to which he carried the persecution. “ The Way” is frequently used by Luke to describe Christianity as “ the Way” of life. (Acts 19:9 Acts 19:23 Acts 22:4 Acts 24:14 Acts 24:22.) Luke also speaks of the way of salvation (Acts 16:17) and “ the way of the Lord” (Acts 18:25). Jesus called himself “ the way” (John 14:6), the only way to the Father. Paul had authority to arrest both men and women and bring them to Jerusalem to be tried before the Sanhedrin. 3-4 And as he journeyed, it came to pass—We are not told what mode of travel Paul used in making this journey to Damas¬cus. He probably used the best mode that could be had at hand, which was horseback, or on a camel or ass or mule, or in a char¬iot ; he would make the journey by land. There were two roads by which Saul could make his journey— one the caravan road which led from Egypt to Damascus, and kept near the coast line of Pales¬tine till it struck eastward to cross the Jordan at the north point of the Sea of Galilee; to connect with this road Saul would have had first to go westward from Jerusalem to the sea. The other road led through Neapolis and crossed the Jordan south of the Sea of Galilee, and passed through Gadara and on northeastward to Da¬mascus. We do not know which road Saul traveled. As he “ drew nigh unto Damascus” there suddenly “ shone round about him a light out of heaven.” In Acts 22:6 we are told that the time of day was “ about noon” when the vision was seen, and in Acts 26:13 Paul says that “ at midday” the light was “ above the brightness of the sun.” The midday glare of the sun in that country was ex¬ceedingly bright, yet the glory of Christ as seen by Paul far sur¬passed the glory of the sun. Paul, smitten with blindness, “ fell upon the earth,” and “ heard a voice saying,” “ Saul, Saul, why per¬secutest thou me?” This voice was clear and distinct to him, but seems to have been a mysterious sound to others; the voice spoke in the Hebrew tongue. (Acts 26:14.) In all three of the ac-counts given by Luke he uses the transliteration of the Hebrew way of spelling Saul, “ Saoul,” while in every other case the Greek form “ Saulos” is used. The disciples of Christ are one with him. (Matthew 10:40 Matthew 25:40 Matthew 25:45; Luke 10:16; John 15:1-5.) Hence, to persecute Christians was to persecute Christ; Saul thought that he was persecuting the disciples of an impostor who had been crucified as a malefactor. He now is to see that he was persecuting the Messiah by persecuting his disciples. 5, 6 And he said, Who art thou, Lord?—“ Lord” is here used in reverence and in response to the question; this title could not have been used at this moment in all the fullness of its meaning. It seems to mean: “ Whose voice do I hear ?” The response came at once: “ I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” In Acts 22:8 Paul gives the fuller form of the sentence: “ I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” By using this name Saul could gain a direct knowledge of the voice that was speaking to him, and know that he was persecuting Christ in persecuting his disciples. The voice is very specific, denoting definitely and accurately just what Saul was doing in persecuting Christians; it carried a conviction as well as preferring a charge. This voice told him that he should go into the city and there he would be instructed as to “ what thou must do.” In Acts 26:16-18 we have what Ananias told Saul. The Authorized Version adds “ it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” ; that is, it is hard to kick against the “ pricks” or goads used to spur an ox. 7 And the men that journeyed with him—We are not told how large a company Saul had with him; hence, there is no use to guess at the number. “ Stood speechless” simply means that they came to a stop; in Acts 26:14 they are described as “ all fallen to the earth,” but there is no contradiction here. “ Speechless” means they were mute. Those that were with Paul heard “ the voice, but beholding no man,” but in Acts 22:9 we have the statement “ but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” There is no contradiction here. They heard the voice, but did not understand what it said; hence, in that sense they did not “ hear” the voice. Those with Paul heard the sound, but did not understand the words; they saw the light, but did not see the form of the Christ; they had fallen to the ground and remained motionless. 8 And Saul arose from the earth;—When Saul, who had fallen to the earth with the others, arose “ his eyes were opened,” but “ he saw nothing.” Some translations say he “ saw no man.” His eyes were open, but he did not have the power to discern or see clearly objects that were before him. He was led “ by the hand, and brought” into Damascus. Saul at this time presents a sad and pathetic picture; Saul, the persecutor, clothed with authority from the Sanhedrin, now becomes the convicted, blind, and helpless one, and has to be led with the authority with which he was clothed, in this helpless condition, into the city of Damascus to wait for fur-ther instruction. 9 And he was three days without sight,—In his helpless con¬dition Saul the persecutor is led into Damascus. He has now reached his destination; he had left Jerusalem to go to Damascus. Little did he think that he would enter Damascus in such a helpless and humbled condition. He began praying, and for “ three days” he was “ without sight,” and did “ neither eat nor drink.” Verse 11 tells us that he was praying. The mental anguish for a time over¬powered the natural craving for food. 10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus,—This disciple was named “ Ananias” ; it was a common name among the Jews, and is to be thought of as meaning “ Jehovah is gracious.” This Ananias had the respect of both Jews and Christians in Da¬mascus (Acts 22 Acts 12); he was “ a devout man according to the law,” and “ well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there.” Here he is described as “ a certain disciple” ; the disciple that bap-tized Saul was no high dignitary in the church; he was just “ a cer¬tain disciple.” 11 And the Lord said unto him,—We do not know when or how Ananias became a disciple; he may have been one of those converted on Pentecost; the Lord spoke to him in a vision; he was told to go to the street “ which is called Straight” and inquire at the house of Judas for Saul; he was further instructed that Saul was praying. This street was called “ Straight,” and is said to extend in a direct line from east to west, and was a mile long. Ananias received from the Lord in the vision direct and accurate information so that he could locate Saul without delay. Ananias was ready to render service in the name of the Lord; we do not have him mentioned anywhere else except in Acts 22:12, which is in connection with the conversion of Saul. Nothing is further known about Judas where Saul was sojourning; he may have been one of the Christians, or he may have been one to whom Paul had letters. We are not told for what he was praying; probably he was praying for his sight and for more light in a spiritual way. 12 and he hath seen a man named Ananias—The Lord in this vision told Ananias where to find Saul, and also told him that Saul had seen “ a man named Ananias coming in,” and that he would lay his hands on him that he might receive his sight. It seems that there had been two simultaneous visions— Saul had re¬ceived one and Ananias the other. Ananias was now told just what he should say and do to Saul. In Acts 22:13-16 Saul is told what he should do; he received his sight at that time, and was in¬formed that he should become a witness for Christ and should suffer many things for him. He was told to arise and be baptized, “ and wash away thy sins.” 13-14 But Ananias answered, Lord,—Ananias hesitated be¬cause he had heard “ from many of this man” ; he had heard of the bitter persecution that Saul had waged against “ thy saints at Jeru¬salem” ; he had also heard of Saul’ s “ authority from the chief priests” to persecute Christians in Damascus. Here we learn that the disciples were called “ saints” ; that is, “ sanctified ones,” early in the history of the church. Paul frequently uses this word and applies it to Christians. This is the first time that the word is used and applied to Christians; Saul was deeply impressed with this word and addressed at least six of his epistles to those who were “ called saints.” “ Saints” mean the same as those who “ call upon thy name.” 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way:—Ananias is as¬sured of the vision and its meaning, and is commanded to obey it. The instruction is that Saul was to be “ a chosen vessel” unto the Lord, and that he was to bear his name “ before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.” Here Saul is said to perform the task of being a witness for Christ to three classes— namely, “ Gen¬tiles,” “ kings,” and “ the children of Israel.” “ Chosen vessel” sim¬ply means “ a vessel of choice or selection” ; Jesus chose Saul be¬fore Saul had chosen Jesus as his Lord. He makes Saul an earthen vessel (2 Corinthians 4:7), an unworthy vessel for so great a treasure. His chief work was to be among the Gentiles. (Galatians 2 : 8; Ephesians 3:6-12.) Saul fulfilled this commission in going before kings when he appeared before Agrippa at Caesarea (Acts 26:1¬32); perhaps he went before Emperor Nero at Rome, and pleaded his cause before the tribunals of the Roman governors, Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, and Festus (2 Timothy 4:16-17). 16 for I will show him how many things he must suffer— Saul had made others suffer for Christ; he had persecuted them even unto death; now he is to suffer more than he has caused oth¬ers to suffer. He said in his address to the elders of the church at Ephesus that “ the Holy Spirit testifieth unto me in every city, say¬ing that bonds and afflictions abide me.” (Acts 20:23.) In writ¬ing to the church at Corinth later Paul gave a long list of persecu¬tions and sufferings which he had endured for Christ. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10 2 Corinthians 11:23-28.) 17 And Ananias departed, and entered—Ananias now was convinced that he would obey the vision, and he at once departed to find the man who needed his services. He entered into the house and placed his hands on Saul and said: “ Brother Saul,” the Lord who appeared to you on the way has sent me to you that “ thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Ananias addressed him as “ brother” ; whether this was because of the Jewish relation, or because of their relation in Christ is not made clear; it has been the occasion of much discussion. This comes about by not knowing at what point Saul was converted. Saul was not converted until he was baptized into Christ; forgive¬ness of sins, with Saul, took place after his obedience to the gospel, just as it did with all others. Paul says that he and others were baptized into Christ. (Romans 6:3-4.) Hence, as Paul had not been baptized into Christ when Ananias first addressed him, he must have addressed him as a fellow member of the Jewish family. 18-19 And straightway there fell from his eyes—Immedi¬ately when Ananias came to Saul and placed his hands upon him, Saul received his sight. His vision came to him suddenly as if “ scales” had fallen from “ his eyes.” The original for “ scales” is “ lepides,” and comes from the verb “ lepo,” which means “ to peel.” Luke does not say that actual “ scales” fell from the eyes of Saul, but that it felt that way to him as his sight was restored to him. Saul “ arose and was baptized” ; it seems that he was baptized by Ananias (Acts 22:16), and his sins were forgiven, and he could claim promises of salvation through faith in Christ. Some think that this left a permanent defect in Paul’ s eyes; however, there is no direct evidence of it. Saul at once “ took food and was strengthened.” He had been fasting for three days, and now since he has been refreshed in soul, he is also refreshed in body. He remained with the disciples in Damascus for “ certain days” ; we do not know how long he remained there; it is probable that he spent these days in private devotion and in private intercourse with the disciples. “ Certain days” is a phrase used by Luke to mean a short space of time. (Acts 10:48 Acts 15:36 Acts 16:12 Acts 24:24 Acts 25:13.) PAUL’ S AT Act_9:20-22 20 And straightway in the synagogues—The “ certain days” were very profitable days. Saul who is now converted; he visited without delay the synagogues and “ proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God.” The preaching of Jesus to the Jews was a stumbling block; nevertheless, Saul now boldly went into the synagogues and where he could have opportunity told the people that Jesus of Naz¬areth who had been crucified, buried, and raised from the dead was the Messiah of the Old Testament scriptures. Strange indeed that he who had gone to Damascus to punish those who believed in Christ is now proclaiming him from the synagogues. Henceforth, Saul is ready to stand on this platform: “ Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” 21 And all that heard him were amazed,—Those who heard Saul were “ amazed” ; that is, they continued to sense in themselves astonishment at this violent reversal in Saul the persecutor; they were not so much astonished at what he preached as they were at the sudden turn that had taken place in the preacher. They began to inquire: “ Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name?” Saul’ s fame as a leader in persecution had even reached Damascus. He “ made havoc of them” who be¬lieved on Jesus. “ Made havoc” is from the Greek “ northesas,” which means “ to lay waste” ; hence Saul laid waste the church in Jerusalem by his persecution. He had even gone to Damascus with “ this intent,” that if he found disciples of Christ he would bind them and bring them before the chief priests. All knew why Saul had come to Damascus, and all now knew that he preached Jesus as the Son of God. Some think that Saul, when he left Je¬rusalem to go to Damascus, had instructed the rulers of the syna¬gogue or the Sanhedrin had instructed the synagogue to receive Saul as the agent of persecution; but now they are greatly aston¬ished that instead of waging his persecution he proclaims the divin¬ity and Messiahship of Jesus. 22 But Saul increased the more in strength,—Saul’ s conver¬sion would necessarily excite opposition to those who had not ac¬cepted Christ; Saul necessarily had to give his reasons for the change, and his reasons for believing that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Opposition would increase against him, and Saul would necessarily have to increase “ the more in strength” until he was able to demonstrate without any doubt that Jesus was the Christ. He was strengthened for this great task. (Romans 4:22; Philippians 4:13; 1 Timothy 1:12; 2 Timothy 2:1 2 Timothy 4:17.) “ Proving” is from the Greek “ sunbibazon,” and means that Saul put things side by side, and so making a comparison and forming a conclusion that Jesus was the Christ. Saul not only grew in Christian life, but he also grew as a preacher of the gospel. He not only proved that Jesus is the Christ, but he “ confounded the Jews,” which means that they were “ poured together, commingled.” PAUL ; ESCAPED IN A BASKETActrs 9:23-25 23 And when many days were fulfilled,—“ Many days” here denote an indefinite period of time; some think that it includes at least three years; they draw this conclusion from Galatians 1:17-18, where Paul says, that he “ went away into Arabia; and again I re¬turned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jeru¬salem.” The order of events seemed to have been as follows: (1) Saul struck down on the road to Damascus near the city (Acts 9:3-8); (2) three days of blindness and prayer to God in the house of Judas on the street called Straight (verse 9); (3) sight re¬stored, baptized, and received some measure of the Holy Spirit (verses 10-19); (4) preached that Jesus is the Christ in the syna¬gogues with such power and spiritual force that the Jews were confounded (verses 19-22); (5) sudden departure to Arabia for solitary communion with God (Galatians 1:17-18); (6) back to Da¬mascus; (7) conspiracy to slay him (verse 23); (8) escape to Jerusalem (verse 25); (9) disciples afraid of him (verse 26); (10) Barnabas vouches for his conversion (verse 27); (11) takes the place of Stephen and preaches to the Hellenists (verse 29) ; (12) conspiracy to slay him (verse 29); (13) sent to Caesarea, and thence to Tarsus (verse 30). 24 but their plot became known to Saul.—The Jews were not able to withstand Saul’ s arguments, and hence resorted to persecu¬tion. They plotted to kill Saul; they “ watched the gates also day and night,” thinking that he might attempt to escape, and they would fall on him and kill him. It seems that the governor of the city used the garrison of soldiers to watch the gates so that Saul would not escape. “ In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me: and through a window was I let down in a basket by the wall, and escaped his hands.” (2 Corinthians 11:32-33.) It may be that the Jews prevailed upon Aretas to furnish the guard to keep Saul from es¬caping. The Jews were powerful in Damascus, and hence would have a great influence on Aretas. 25 but his disciples took him by night,—Saul was successful in convincing some that Jesus was the Son of God; here “ his disci¬ples,” that is, the disciples that Saul had made by preaching the gospel, were also disciples of Christ. One night they let Saul down “ through the wall, lowering him in a basket.” Some think that he was let “ through a window.” The Greek is “ dia tou tei- chous,” and is explained by Saul in 2 Corinthians 11:33 as being “ through a window” ; or “ dia thuridos,” which means a window that opened into the house on the inside of the wall. Rahab let the spies escape “ by a cord through the window.” (Joshua 2:15.) “ In a basket” is from “ en sphuridi,” and is the word used when the four thousand were fed. (Matthew 15:37; Mark 8:8.) Large baskets were made of reeds, and are distinguished from the smaller kind. This escape by night by the help of the men whom he had come to destroy was an occasion that Saul never forgot. PAUL AT Acts 9:26-29 26 And when he was come to Jerusalem,—We do not know just how long it has been since Saul left Jerusalem; it seems that the Jewish authorities there had lost sight of him; evidently they had not known of his long disappearance into Arabia and his sec¬ond period of preaching in Damascus. Saul attempted to “ join himself to the disciples,” but they were not willing to receive him. There had been political changes in Judea since the persecution began three years before; a change of emperors and of policy had taken place, so that Jews were themselves being persecuted, and had little time to persecute the Christians. Communication with Damascus was slow and difficult; this was especially true on ac¬count of the hostility which had arisen between Aretas the ruler of Damascus and Herod the ruler of Judea. Saul’ s escape had been too hurried for him to obtain letters of commendation; he was in Damascus but a short time after his conversion, and the disciples in Jerusalem had not heard from him for more than two years, and could not be sure that he had continued in the faith. Some think that the meaning here is that they doubted Saul’ s sincerity; this was his first visit to Jerusalem since he left as a persecutor. 27 But Barnabas took him,— Barnabas, who introduced Saul to the apostles, has already been mentioned as a Levite of Cyprus (Acts 4:36) and, from the nearness of Cyprus to Cilicia and the distinction of the schools of Tarsus, some have thought that Barna¬bas may have been known to Saul before they came to Jerusalem. Barnabas declared to the apostles that Saul had seen the Lord; it was necessary for Saul, like the other apostles, to have seen the Lord in order to be a witness of the resurrection; hence, his sight of the risen Christ is always brought forward. Barnabas also de¬clared to the apostles that Saul had preached boldly “ in the name of Jesus” in Damascus. It seems that at this time Barnabas pre¬sented Saul only to Peter and James (Galatians 1:18-19), the representative leaders; the other apostles may have been away on preaching tours as we know Peter and John had been. It seems that Saul conversed with Peter and James. This James is called “ the Lord’ s brother,” and may be said to have been the half brother of Jesus. Peter was convinced that Saul had been converted and kept him as a guest for “ fifteen days.” Saul had gone to Jerusalem to see Peter, but not to receive a commission from him. He received his commission to preach from the Lord. (Galatians 1:1-5 Galatians 1:11-17.) 28-29 And he was with them going in and going out—Saul remained quietly at the home of Peter for fifteen days (Galatians 1:18-19), and visited others at that time. It seems that Barnabas and Peter and James opened all the doors for Saul and the fear of the disciples ceased; they received him as a brother in the Lord. Saul, now in the city of Jerusalem, preached boldly “ in the name of the Lord.” He came in contact especially with “ the Grecian Jews,” or Hellenists. It should be remembered that it was as the leader of the Hellenistic Jews of the synagogue (Acts 6:9) that Saul had first appeared in the history of the disciples of Christ. Saul is seeking to undo the evil that he had then done by preaching to them the faith which he had then opposed, and presenting the very arguments and truths that had been most prominent in Stephen’ s address. Saul could not preach Christ to these Jews without an¬tagonizing them. He did not shrink, but spoke boldly to them as did Stephen; they resisted his teaching and sought to kill him as they had done Stephen. Saul was no coward; he did not merely run from the enemy, but escaped that he might continue preaching the gospel as God’ s power to save. PAUL IN TARSUS; CHURCH EDIFIEDAct_9:30-31 30 And when the brethren knew it,—The fact that the disci¬ples in Jerusalem helped Saul to escape shows that they had re¬ceived him into their fellowship and were willing to help him in every way possible, consistent with the teachings of Christ. The brethren assisted him in leaving Jerusalem, and “ they brought him down to Caesarea.” Caesarea was the seaport on the Mediterra¬nean coast, and was on the great road from Tyre to Egypt, and about halfway betweeen Joppa and Dora; it was about seventy miles from Jerusalem. It was the seaport from which Saul could set sail for Tarsus. It seems that the brethren accompanied Saul down to Caesarea. Saul gives a different reason in Acts 22:17 for leaving Jerusalem; God revealed to him in a vision that an¬other sphere of work awaited him. In Galatians 1:21 Saul tells us that he went from Jerusalem to Syria and Cilicia; hence, some have in¬ferred that the “ Caesarea” mentioned here is “ Caesarea Philippi,” which was situated at the foot of Mount Hermon, on the direct road to lower Syria. Tarsus was Saul’ s birthplace; he tells us that he was “ a Jew, of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city.” (Acts 21:39.) Saul tells us that he was engaged in preaching the gospel in that region (Galatians 1:21-23), and we are led to believe that he was eminently successful (Acts 15:23 Acts 15:41). Some think that during this period Saul converted to Christ some of his own relatives (Romans 16:7 Romans 16:11 Romans 16:21), and possibly his sister and her son (Acts 23:16). Although Saul was denied the privilege of preach¬ing Christ in Jerusalem, yet an open door was before him in other regions. 31 So the church throughout all Judaea—Some versions read “ churches,” but the Greek is “ ekklesia,” and is in the singular; at this time there were churches scattered over Judea, Galilee, and Samaria (Galatians 1:22), but Luke either regards the disciples in Palestine as still members of the one great church in Jerusalem or he employs the term “ ekklesia” in a geographical or collective sense covering all of Palestine. “ Church” is used in the strictly local sense in Acts 8:1 Acts 8:3 and in Matthew 18:17, and in the general spiritual sense in Matthew 16:18. Here “ the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace” ; this seems to be used in the general sense. The church was edified: such preachers of the gospel and teachers would edify the church: not a line of the New Testament had been written at this time and all of the teach¬ing was oral, yet the church was greatly “ edified.” The term “ edi¬fied” comes from the Greek “ oikodomoumene,” and means “ to build up a house” ; this term or figure is used frequently by Paul; Peter speaks of “ a spiritual house.” (1 Peter 2:5.) Great politi¬cal changes had taken place at this time which worked advant- y to the peace of the church. Petronius was appointed governor of Syria in A.D. 40, and a firm government was restored; in the same year Emperor Caligula ordered his statue to be set up in the temple at Jerusalem, and the Jews had to use all their energy to prevent this form of idolatry. In A.D. 41, Herod Agrippa I was made ruler in Judea and Samaria; all these events would prevent the persecution which had taken place with impunity during the three or four preceding years of anarchy; this would give opportu¬nity for the disciples of Christ to have peace and to continue to edify the church and enjoy “ the comfort of the Holy Spirit.” The “ peace” here means a freedom from war and persecution, whether from Jews or Romans; “ being edified” refers to a growth in the knowledge of Christ and a gain in spiritual power; “ was multiplied” refers to increase in number of places to which the gospel was successfully carried, and to the gain in the number of disciples also where the gospel had been proclaimed. PETER CURES AENEAS Acts 9:32-35 32 And it came to pass, as Peter went throughout all parts,—Luke in arranging his materials gave an account of Peter and John going from Jerusalem down to Samaria, and there bestowing spiritual gifts upon the Samaritans and then mentioning the inci¬dents connected with Simon the sorcerer; here we left Peter in Samaria. Next Luke gave an account of Philip and the eunuch, and then an account of the conversion of Saul and the incidents that followed. He now returns to Peter. So far this section of the book of Acts may be described as the acts of Peter; however, it is evident that only a part of the general outline of work that Peter did is given. Luke does not follow Peter’ s course, as in a biography, but confines himself to tracing the steps by which he had been led to the part he played in the great work of the conversion of the Gentiles. In leaving Samaria Peter “ went throughout all parts,” and finally “ came down also to the saints that dwelt at Lydda.” Here again we have “ the saints” mentioned. “ Lydda” is the same as “ Lod” in the Old Testament. (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37 Nehemiah 11:35.) Lydda was about ten miles from Joppa, and was on the highway between Jerusalem and Joppa; it was a day’ s journey from Jerusalem. 33 And there he found a certain man named Aeneas,—This name implies that he belonged to the Hellenistic section of disci¬ples. As Peter went about doing good he was led to this man. He had been sick for eight years; he “ had kept his bed eight years” ; Luke being a physician tells us the specific disease with which he was afflicted; he was “ palsied” ; “ palsy” is a contraction of the word “ paralysis.” The term is used by the ancient physi¬cians in a much wider sense than by our modern men of science; it included not only what we call paralysis, but also catalepsy and tet¬anus; that is, cramps and lockjaw. Since he was bedfast for eight years, the miracle of his cure would be more famous. 34 And Peter said unto him, Aeneas,—As in the cure of the cripple at the temple (Acts 3:6), Peter makes known that he is but the messenger of Christ, and that the power to heal comes through Christ. We do not know whether Aeneas was a disciple, but it seems reasonable to infer that he was among “ the saints,” and that Peter was brought to him. He is commanded to “ arise, and make thy bed.” Literally, he was commanded to spread his bed for himself; he was commanded to do that which others for years had done for him. This was proof that he could take care of himself, and immediately he obeyed Peter. This shows that the cure was miraculous. No doubt Peter remembered the time when four men brought a man with the same disease to Christ at Caper¬naum and that Jesus had commanded the man to “ arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.” (Mark 2:1-11.) 35 And all that dwelt at Lydda—This miracle had a wonder¬ful effect on the people in Lydda; “ Sharon” was not a city or town, but was a section of country about thirty miles long from Joppa to Caesarea. Those who saw Aeneas healed were now ready to accept the preaching of Peter; they “ turned to the Lord,” which means that they heard the gospel, repented of their sins, were baptized into Christ, and were thus numbered among “ the saints,” or added to the church. PETER RAISES DORCAS Acts 9:36-43 36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha,—Joppa was on the Mediterranean coast and about ten miles from Lydda; there was “ a certain disciple” there who bore the name of “ Tabitha,” which is also interpreted to mean “ Dorcas.” Dorcas is called a disciple that it may be seen that under the gospel there is no distinction between male and female. (Galatians 3:28.) “ Tabitha” is the Aramaic form of a Hebrew proper name which means “ a gazelle” (Son 4:5), as does the Greek word “ Dorcas.” Dorcas is described as being a woman “ full of good works and almsdeeds.” There is nothing said about a husband, and so it is inferred that she was unmarried. Dorcas is the second woman mentioned by name after Pentecost; the first one mentioned is Sapphira. (Acts 5:1.) We are not told what “ the good works” were that Dorcas had done; however, they showed Peter “ the coats and garments which Dorcas made,” and probably these were made for the poor and widows who in that country were a most unfortunate class. Dorcas continued to do such good work while she lived. 37 And it came to pass in those days,—Luke does not tell the disease with which Dorcas suffered and died; some have thought that it was due to her overexertion in helping others; this is merely a conjecture. The body was placed in an upper room, ac¬cording to Jewish custom, and was prepared for burial. She was not buried with that rapidity with which Ananias and Sapphira were buried. Perhaps an evidence of faith is seen in the delayed burial as the sequence shows. 38 And as Lydda was nigh unto Joppa,— Peter was at Lydda and Dorcas lived at Joppa. The friends of Dorcas had heard that Peter was at Lydda, and “ sent two men unto him,” entreating him to come to Joppa without delay. Lydda was nine or ten miles from Joppa; it was too late to send for a physician, but not too late to send for Peter. We are not told why they sent for Peter; some have thought that they anticipated what Peter would do. They knew that Peter had wrought some great miracles in the name of Jesus, though we have no record thus far of his raising anyone from the dead. They were very urgent in their request for Peter to come without delay; they wanted him to hasten, as every hour of delay tended toward the decay of the body. 39 And Peter arose and went with them.—Peter responded at once to the urgent request and returned with the two men who had come for him. When he arrived without delay they took him “ into the upper chamber” where the body of Dorcas was. “ All the widows stood by him weeping,” and displayed to him some of the “ coats and garments which Dorcas made” while she was alive. “ The widows” were either the poor widows whom Dorcas had helped, or those who had been associated with her in the good work with which her life was filled. “ Coats” is from the Greek “ chitonas,” and means “ the shirt-like undergarment or tunic” ; “ garments” is from the Greek “ himatia,” which means the outer garment, the mantle. Dorcas had made these and the widows were displaying them as an appeal to Peter to help them in some way. This presented a very vivid and pathetic picture; to see the pros¬trate body of Dorcas lying cold and stiff in death, and to see the work of her hands which had blessed and helped so many, and to hear the grief-stricken widows sobbing in sorrow for the loss of their friend and sister; it must have made a very strong appeal to Peter. 40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down,—Surely Peter remembered what his Lord had done at the house of Jairus. (Mark 5:40; Luke 8:54.) After putting all out of the room, Peter kneeled down and prayed. Peter’ s praying alone in the presence of the corpse reminds one of the prayer of Elijah (1 Kings 17:20); and that of Elisha (2 Kings 4:33). After pray¬ing Peter turned “ to the body” and said: “ Tabitha, arise.” Here Peter displayed sublime faith in the name of the Christ, for he com¬manded the dead to come to life. He is following closely the ex¬ample of Jesus which he had observed at the house of Jairus. Peter had been present three times when Jesus had raised the dead: (1) the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:40-41); (2) the raising of the son of the widow at Nain (Luke 7:11-15) ; (3) the raising of Lazarus (John 11:36-44). The dead obeyed the voice of Peter, and Tabitha opened her eyes, and “ when she saw Peter, she sat up.” She arose as one awaking from sleep. “ She sat up” is from “ anakathizo,” and is used only here and in Luke 7:15; it is a medical term often used. 41 And he gave her his hand,—Peter extended his hand to her and assisted her by raising her up. She was now alive and Peter rendered her what assistance she needed; Jesus took Jaims’ daughter’ s hand before she was restored to life. After she had been restored to life and was now in normal condition, he called “ the saints and widows,” and presented Dorcas to them. “ Saints and widows” are mentioned here, not that the “ widows” were not “ saints,” but the widows' are mentioned to distinguish them from the main body of disciples, who are here called “ saints,” because the widows were the more grieved at the death of Dorcas. 42 And it became known throughout all Joppa:—The result of this miracle was to confirm the preaching of the gospel. This was a notable incident and it became known to all those who dwelt in Joppa, and as a result of this, “ many believed on the Lord.” The faith of the disciples was strengthened and others believed on the Lord. The effect of this miracle was similar to that of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. (John 11:45.) It does not say “ all,” as in the case of Lydda and Sharon (verse 35), as Joppa was a large place, and all the inhabitants did not come to witness the miracle. 43 And it came to pass, that he abode many days in Joppa —Again we have “ many days,” which means a considerable time. (Acts 8:11 Acts 9:23.) Peter abode in the house of a man by the name of Simon; his occupation was that of a tanner. Since we do not know the length of time expressed by “ many days,” and as it may mean ten days, ten months, or ten years, we cannot calculate, with any accuracy, the chronology of the events. The trade of “ a tanner” was held abominable to the Jews, as he would have to han¬dle unclean animals. It seems that Peter was gradually getting away from his Jewish prejudices; this will help to prepare him for the vision that is recorded in the next chapter. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 9 Acts 9:1-2. These is a sudden transition in our narrative at this point, and it assumes more the character of a biography. The writers of sacred history, in both Testaments, devote the greater part of their space to biographical sketches. The greater familiarity of the masses of the people with such portions of the Bible fully attests the wisdom of this course. This familiarity is the result of a deeper impression made upon the heart, and, consequently, upon the memory. We accept it, therefore, thankfully, that Luke, in his sketch of apostolic labors, was directed to record, somewhat connectedly, the labors of Paul, rather than detached sketches from the lives of all the apostles. What is lost to our curiosity in reference to the other apostles is far overbalanced by the more thrilling effect of a continuous personal narrative. This effect is all the more thrilling, from the selection of him, who, among all the apostles, was “ in labors most abundant.” Saul has already been introduced to the reader in the account of Stephen's martyrdom. By the aid of his own subsequent statements concerning himself, we are able to trace his history to a still earlier period. The early education and ancestral remembrances of a man have much to do in forming his character and shaping his career. Those of Saul were calculated to thrust him into the very scenes in which he first figures in history. He was born in the city of Tarsus, in Cilicia, not far from the period at which Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He was of pure Jewish extraction, of the tribe of Benjamin, and descended from pious ancestry. This insured his careful instruction in Jewish history, and such portions of the law of Moses as he could understand in childhood. His parents were Pharisees, and, therefore, his understanding of the Scriptures was modified by the peculiar interpretations and traditions of that sect, while his prejudices were all enlisted in its favor. Besides this religious instruction, he was taught the trade of tent-making. The goat's hair which was used in this manufacture was produced in Cilicia in such abundance, and of so fine a quality, that the manufactured article acquired the name Cilicium, from the name of the province. The wisdom of his parents in teaching him this trade as a means of providing against the unfortunate contingencies of life, will be fully exemplified in the course of this narrative. The child was being educated, under the eye of an overruling Providence, for a future unthought of by either himself or his parents. His residence in a city where the Greek language prevailed was not the least important circumstance bearing upon his education. Like the children of foreigners in our own country, though the ancestral tongue was the language of the fireside, on the streets and in all places of public resort he was compelled to employ the language of the adopted country. In this way he acquired that familiarity with the Greek, which enabled him, in after-life, to employ it with facility both in writing and speaking. It was only his earliest childhood that was thus devoted to parental instruction, and to the acquirement of the Greek language and a trade; for he was “ brought up” in the city of Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel. Under the instruction of this learned Pharisee, whose prudence and whose calm indifference to the cause of Christ we have had occasion to notice, in commenting on the second trial of the apostles, his Pharisaic prejudices must have been intensified, with his knowledge of the law was enlarged, and his zeal for it inflamed. A youth of Paul's intellectual capacity would be expected to make rapid advances with the opportunities which he now enjoyed, and so, he tells us, he did. “ I made progress in the Jew's religion above many my equals in age in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” This pre-eminence among his school-fellows was accompanied by the strictest propriety of religious deportment; so that he could appeal, after the lapse of many years, to those who knew him in his youth, though now his enemies, to testify that, “ according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.” He could even declare that he was, “ touching the righteousness that is in the law, blameless.” Such was his character, and his reputation, when he finished his course of instruction in the school of Gamaliel. If the usual supposition concerning Saul's age is correct, it is not probable that he was in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, or for several years previous. If he had been, it would be unaccountable that in all his epistles he makes no allusion to a personal knowledge of Jesus. The supposition that he was at that time still confined in the school of Gamaliel is not only inconsistent with his supposed age, which could not have been less than thirty at the time he is introduced to us, but it is insufficient to account for his ignorance of events over which the every children of Jerusalem rejoiced. The supposition that he left the school and returned to Tarsus previous to the immersion preached by John, and reappeared in Jerusalem after the ascension of Jesus, is most agreeable to all the known facts in the case. By an absence of a few years he had not forfeited his former reputation, but appears now as a leader in the movements against the Church. We have already, in commenting on Acts 6:9, ventured the assumption, that among the Cilicians there mentioned as opponents of Stephen, Saul bore a leading part as a disputant. Such a position of his superior learning and piety would naturally assign him, and his prominence at the stoning of Stephen affords evidence in favor of this assumption. The law required that the witnesses upon whose testimony an idolater was condemned to death should throw the first stones, in the execution of the sentence. In accordance with this law, the witnesses against Stephen, preparatory to their cruel work, laid off their cumbrous outer-garments, at the feet of Saul, who “ was consenting of his death.” After the death of Stephen, he still maintained the position of a leader, and continued to commit men and women to prison, until the Church was entirely dispersed. Many of those committed to prison met with the fate of Stephen. This fact is not stated by Luke, but is confessed by Paul in his speech before Agrippa. Many others were beaten in the synagogues, and compelled to blaspheme the name of Jesus as the condition of release from their tortures. After the congregation in Jerusalem had been dispersed, Saul doubtless thought that the sect was effectually crushed. But soon the news came floating back from every quarter, that the scattered disciples were building up congregations in every direction. One less determined than Saul might have despaired of final success is destroying a cause which had thus far been promoted by every attack made upon it, and which even sprung up with increasing strength from apparent destruction. But his was a nature which gathered new resolution as obstacles multiplied before him; and thus he appears in the present text, which, after so long delay, we must now have before us. (1) “But Saul, yet breathing out threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, (2) and requested from him letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he found any of that way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” Why he selected Damascus as the scene of his first enterprise, rather than some of the cities of Judea, is acknowledged by Olshausen as “ difficult to determine.” But when we remember the sensitiveness of patriots, in reference to the reputation of their country and its institutions in foreign lands, the difficulty disappears. The ancestral religion of the Jew was his pride and boast in every land. It was bitter enough to the proud Pharisee that it should be brought into disrepute among a portion of the population at home; but when the hated authors of this reproach began to spread it abroad in surrounding kingdoms, it was beyond endurance. When the news reached Jerusalem that this dishonoring heresy had begun to spread in the ancient and celebrated city of Damascus, where thousands of Jews then lived, and had obtained a religious influence over a large portion of the population, the exasperation of the Pharisees knew no bounds, and Saul, with characteristic ardor, started in pursuit of the fugitives. He had reason, of course, to believe, that, upon requisition of the high priest, the authorities of Damascus, which was then embraced within the dominions of the Arabian king Aretas, would deliver up the disciples as fugitives from justice. That he was correct in this is sufficiently demonstrated by the zeal with which the governor afterward lent the aid of his guards to the orthodox Jews, for the purpose of seizing Paul himself. Acts 9:3. The storm of passion with which Saul started from Jerusalem would naturally subside, in some degree, in the course of the five or six days necessary to perform on foot the journey of one hundred and forty miles, leaving him in a calmer mood, and better prepared for the scenes which transpired near the close of the journey. (3) “And as he journeyed, he came near to Damascus, and suddenly there flashed around him a light from heaven.” This occurred at noon, when the sun was shining with full meridian strength upon the sandy plain which he was traversing, yet the light from heaven was “ above the brightness of the sun.” We are now fairly introduced to the history of Saul's conversion, and must note carefully the entire process, both with reference to the specific changes effected, and the influences which produced them. In order that we may have the case fully before us, we will draw upon the parallel passages in the twenty-second and twenty-sixth chapters for such additional facts as they furnish. Acts 9:4. “And he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He not only heard this voice, but, gazing, while his eyes could endure it, into the midst of the glory, he saw distinctly the being who spoke to him. The question he heard, by the simple force of the word persecute, carried his mind forward to his bloody purpose in Damascus, and back to his bloody deeds in Jerusalem. Nor was this the only involuntary motion of his mind upon the instant; for here we must locate the additional words, “ It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.” This language reveals to us that Saul's conscience had not been altogether at rest during his persecutions, but that, like an unruly ox, he had been kicking against a goad, which urged him to a different course. Although he had acted ignorantly, and in unbelief, yet it was with so many misgivings, that he ever afterward regarded himself as the chief of sinners, having been the chief of persecutors. His conscience must have been instantaneously aroused by this reference to its past goadings. Acts 9:5-6. Though his conscience was now aroused, and he knew full well that the vision before him was from heaven, he can not comprehend it until he knows who it is that speaks to him and asserts himself the object of his persecutions. (5) “And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute.” It is impossible for us, who have been familiar with the glory of our risen Savior from our infancy, to fully appreciate the feelings which must have flashed, like lightning, into the soul of Saul, upon hearing these words. Up to this moment he had supposed Jesus an impostor, cursed of God and man; and his followers blasphemers worthy of death; but now, this despised being is suddenly revealed to him in a blaze of divine glory. The evidence of his eyes and ears can not be doubted. There he stands, with the light of heaven and the glory of God around him, and he says, “ I AM JESUS!” “ Now is Jesus risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.” Stephen was a blessed martyr, and I have shed innocent blood. My soul is guilty. “ O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” I have gloried in my shame. All that I have gained is lost. It is filth and refuse. I will throw myself upon his mercy. (6) “And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” The die is cast. The proud spirit yields, and the whole mighty current of that soul is turned back in its channel, to flow forever, deeply and strongly, in the opposite direction. The glorious power of the one great gospel proposition was never more forcibly illustrated than on this occasion. A moment ago, Saul was sternly, and with fearful calmness, pressing to the destruction of the cause of Jesus, but now he is a trembling suppliant at his feet. What has produced this change? It is not the fact that he has seen a light and heard a voice. For when he fell to the ground in alarm, his unbelief and ignorance still remained, and he still had to ask the question, “ Who art thou?” Thus far, he is no more convinced that Jesus is the Christ than he was before; but he is convinced that the vision is divine, and this prepares him to believe what he may further hear. When that heavenly being, whose word he can not doubt, says, “ I am Jesus,” one new conviction, that must, from its very nature, reverse all the purposes of his life, takes possession of his soul. To stifle its effects he is not able; to resist its impulse is contrary to the honesty of his nature; and he has no time, if he would, to steel his heart against it. The change flashes over him in an instant, and he lies there a penitent believer. The word of the Lord, miraculously attested, gives him faith. The conviction that Jesus, whom he had persecuted in the person of his disciples, is really the Lord of glory, brings him to repentance. He mourns over his sins, and yields his will. These facts reveal the glorious simplicity of gospel salvation; and while we contemplate them, the sickly talk about “ irresistible grace,” which floats, like the green scum on a stagnant pool, over the pages of many commentaries, in reference to this conversion, is swept away, while the sights and sounds which haunt the memory of many a superstitious convert are driven back to dwell with the ghosts and hobgoblins of a night of ignorance now nearly gone. To the question, What wilt thou have me to do? the Lord gave an answer which naturally divides itself into two parts. One part is given by Luke, in the verse before us, and by Paul, in his speech to the Jerusalem mob; the other, in the speech before Agrippa. The latter contains his commission as an apostle, and is expressed in these words: “ I have appeared to thee for this purpose, to appoint thee a minister and a witness of the things which thou hast seen, and of those in which I will appear to thee, delivering thee from the people and the Gentiles, to whom I now send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the authority of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among the sanctified, by faith in me.” In this sentence, which we will notice more at length in its proper connection, Jesus states the object of his personal appearance to Saul, and gives him his commission as an apostle. The former was necessary to the latter; for an apostle must be a witness of the resurrection, and this he could not be without having seen him alive since his crucifixion. Having now seen him, not only alive, but glorified, his evidence was afterward classed with that of the original apostles and witnesses. If he had been converted without having seen the Lord, he would not have been an apostle, unless the Lord had afterward appeared to him to make him one. Instead of this, the Lord chose to appear to him in connection with his conversion. While this appearance was necessary to his apostleship, we may not assume that it was necessary to his conversion, unless we take the strange position that it was impossible for him to be convinced in any other way. Before Saul could enter upon the office of an apostle, it was necessary that he should become a citizen of the kingdom of which he was to be a chief officer. The other portion of the Savior's reply has reference to his duty in this particular. It is stated by Luke in these words, constituting the last clause of verse 6, of which we have already quoted a part: “Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” Saul's own statement of it is more minute: “ Arise and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning all the things which are appointed for thee to do.” The things which he was to do as an apostle had just been told him, and concerning these there had been no previous appointment. The things which had been appointed for him to do concerned him in common with all other penitent sinners. These having been already appointed by the Lord himself, and their execution committed to the hands of faithful men, the Lord shows respect to his own transfer of authority, by sending the suppliant to Damascus to learn them. During his personal ministry, Jesus sometimes spoke pardon, at once, to penitent sinners. But, since his resurrection from the dead, and the appointment, by formal enactment, of the terms of pardon, there is no instance of this kind. Moreover, his refusal to tell Saul his appointed duty, or to pardon him on the spot, establishes the presumption that he will not do so in any case. If there ever was an occasion on which we would expect the glorified Savior to speak pardon, in person, to a sinner, it is here, when he is in actual conversation with the penitent, and the request is formally preferred. But he refuses to do so. Those, therefore, who imagine themselves to have received a direct communication of pardon from Christ, either orally, or by an abstract spiritual agency, are deluded. They claim for themselves what was not accorded to Saul, and what is inconsistent with the order established in the kingdom of Christ. The reply to all inquirers, if Christ should now speak, would be, as it was then, Go to Damascus, and it shall be told you; Go to the apostles and evangelists of the New Covenant, and the answer will now be given you by Peter, Philip, Ananias, in the same words, and by the same authority, that it was then. Acts 9:7. While the conversation was passing between Saul and Jesus, the conduct of his companions is thus described by Luke. (7) “Now, the men who were journeying with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no man.” Paul gives a different account of their demeanor, by saying that they all fell to the ground; but the two accounts harmonize very naturally. The first effect of such an apparition would naturally to be prostrate them all; but his companions, not being held in this position by any direct address to them, would naturally arise after the first shock was over, and fleeing to a safe distance, there stand gazing, in mute terror, upon the glory which enveloped their leader. This supposition is confirmed by the fact that Paul represents the falling to the earth as occurring before the voice was heard, while their standing speechless is connected by Luke with the close of the conversation. This supposition helps to account for a well-known verbal discrepancy between these two accounts. Luke says they heard the voice; Paul says “ they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.” The discrepancy arises from the ambiguous use of the verb hear. There is nothing more common, among all nations, than for one who is listening to a speaker, but, either from his own confusion or the indistinctness of the speaker's articulation, can only catch an occasional word, to exclaim “ I don't hear you;” although the sound of the voice reaches him continually. It is in this sense of the word hear, that the companions of Saul, in the confusion of their effort to escape from the scene, failed to hear the voice. They heard the sound, but did not understand the words. Acts 9:8-9. When the vision disappeared, Saul promptly obeyed the commandment given him. (8) “And Saul was raised from the earth, but when his eyes were opened he saw no one, and they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. (9) And he was there three days without seeing, and did neither eat nor drink.” The physical effect of the intense light into which he had gazed upon his eyesight was not more painful than the moral effect of the whole scene upon his conscience. The former made him blind; the latter filled him with remorse. To this feeling alone can we attribute his total abstinence from food and drink. The awful crime of fighting murderously against God and Christ was pressing upon his soul, and as yet he knew not what to do that he might obtain pardon. His Jewish education, if not his natural instinct, prompted him to pray, and this he was doing with all fervor; but the hands he lifted up were stained with blood— the blood of martyrs; and how could he hope to be heard? No penitent ever had greater cause for sorrow, or wept more bitterly than he. Acts 9:10-12. While this scene of anguish was transpiring in the presence of the astonished Jews who surrounded Saul, the Lord was not unmindful of the promise he had made him. As he had sent him to Damascus to learn what to do, he provides him with a teacher. (10) “Now there was a certain disciple in Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision, Ananias! And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. (11) And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go upon the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas, for one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold, he is praying, (12) and has seen in a vision a named named Ananias coming in and putting his hand upon him that he might receive his sight.” It will be observed, that, in these directions, the Lord does not tell Ananias what to tell Saul to do. This omission only proves that Ananias already knew perfectly what such a person should be told to do, and corresponds with the fact that the things in which he was to be instructed were “ the things appointed for him to do.” It is well to pause for a moment here, and inquire what progress has been made toward the conversion of Saul, and by what means the progress made has been effected. That he is now a believer, it is impossible for any man who has followed the narrative intelligibly to doubt. That he is also a penitent is equally certain. But the Holy Spirit— by whose direct agency alone, it is taught by man, a man can be brought to faith and repentance— has not yet been imparted to him, nor does he receive it till after the appearance of Ananias. Such an agency of the Spirit, then, is not necessary to faith and repentance. Moreover, as we have already observed, the only influence yet brought to bear upon him was that of the words of Jesus, proved to be of divine authority by the miraculous vision. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 9:2. Desired of him letters. Paul says he was "mad" against the saints (chapter 26:11), but there was "method in his madness." He never acted independently of the authorities whom he regarded as having the right to punish offenders. These letters showed his authority to arrest the disciples, and they designated even the city and circumstances in which he was empowered to act. The original word for way means a way of life, and in our passage it refers to the way being professed by the disciples. Saul had the authority to bind disciples as an officer would put irons on a criminal. 3Act 9:3. The Lord let Saul proceed until he was near his destination (Damascus), then caused the light to envelop him. Saul afterward described this light as being "above the brightness of the sun" (chapter 26:13). 4Acts 9:4. Chapter 26:14 says they all fell to the ground, but in Luke's original account of the event we have only he falling to the ground. That evidently was because Saul was the only one in the group who was to receive the full effect of the shock. The other men did not even know the source or meaning of the voice. (See comments verse 7). 5Acts 9:5. Who art thou? Saul did not know it was the Lord speaking or he would not have asked the question. The word translated Lord is rendered "sir" 12 times in the King James version, which means merely a title of respect and was all that Saul meant. It is Luke that tells us it was the Lord speaking, who told Saul that He was the person whom he was persecuting. This charge was made on the principle of Mat 25:45. Pricks is from KEN-TRON which Thayer defines, "an iron goad," and explains it to mean, "for urging on oxen, horses and other beasts of burden." If an animal kicks back when his master prods him with the goad, it only makes it pierce him the more. Likewise, if Saul continues to rebel against the authority of the Lord, it will make his experience that much more disagreeable at last. 6Acts 9:6. Saul then addressed Jesus as Lord in the true sense. He was convinced of his terrible error and began to tremble. Unlike Felix (chapter 24:25) who trembled only, Saul asked what he should do. Of course, that meant with reference to his personal duty to get right with the Lord. But Jesus would not give him that information, and told him where to go for it. (See comments at chapter 8:26.) However, Jesus did give him some other information, which is written in chapter 26:16-18. 7Acts 9:7. Hear is from AKOUO, and the lexicon gives several distinct meanings, but they may be classified under three heads; I shall quote Thayer's definitions for the three: "1. To be endowed with the faculty of hearing. 2. To attend to, consider. 3. To understand, perceive the sense of what is said." The particular sense of the word in any given place must be determined by the context. Hence we know the word is used with the first meaning here; they merely knew by their ears that a voice was speaking, while in chapter 22:9 the third meaning is used. Seeing no man was because the voice came from Heaven, and no one but Saul was to see Jesus then. 8Acts 9:8. When the remarks of the Lord were concluded, Saul arose from the earth. The dazzling light that struck him to the ground also closed his eyes, and upon arising he naturally opened them. However, he was unable to see on account of what the light had done to his sight. (See chapter 22:11.) He had to be led by the men who had come with him, who took him into the city of Damascus. 9Acts 9:9. Smith's Bible Dictionary says, "The instance given of individual fasting under the influence of grief, vexation or anxiety are numerous." It was natural, therefore, for Saul to fast in view of the change in his plans, including the strange blindness.. 0Acts 9:10. Any disciple has the right to tell the story of Jesus and baptize the believer& We have seen that the Lord never told any man directly what be must do to be saved (chapter 8:26), hence this disciple was to do that for Saul. 1Act 9:11. The Lord mentioned the fact of Saul's praying to assist Ananias in identifying him. Saul was a Jew and would have the right to pray under the Mosaic religion. We are not told specifically the subject of Saul's prayer, but it is not strange that he would be praying under the circumstances. It would also be reasonable to think he was praying for help in his undone condition, and that it was in reply to his prayer that the Lord permitted him to have the vision of Ananias coming to heal his blindness. 2Act 9:12. All inspired visions are one form of predictions. God had caused Saul to see this vision, now He was sending Ananias to fulfill it for him. 4Acts 9:13-14. The report of Saul's activities against the disciples was so widespread it had reached the city of Damascus before he arrived. The remarks of Ananias were not made with the idea of giving the Lord any information; so worthy a disciple would know better than that. They were the natural expression of his sincere emotions, and the Lord regarded them as such since he did not give him any rebuke. 6Acts 9:16. The fulfillment of this prediction is described at chapter 20:23; 21:11; 2 Corinthians 6:4-10 2 Corinthians 11:23-28. After such a devoted life filled with persecutions, Paul closed it by shedding his blood upon the block (2 Timothy 4:6). 7Acts 9:17. It will be well to take another look at the matter of being filled with the Holy Ghost. (See the comments at chapter 4:31.) Also the subject of the "measure" of the Spirit should receive further consideration. The measure that would cause one to be baptized with the Holy Ghost, even. has some variation. The Gentiles in the house of Cornelius were baptized with the Holy Ghost (chapter 11; 15-17), yet all they could do was to speak in tongues (chapter 10:46). Ananias did not lay hands on Saul for the same purpose that the apostles laid hands on others, for they did that to baptized believers only, while this was done to Saul before he was baptized (as it was done in the case of Cornelius' groups, it being an emergency): that shows it was another emergency or special case. God needed another apostle, and instead of sending the Holy Ghost as it was done on Pentecost, He gave Ananias the special commission and power to install the man Saul into office. Ananias called him brother Saul because they were members of the same Jewish race. 8Acts 9:18. As it had been means that what fell from his eyes was like scales. The reason Saul was baptized is given at chapter 22:16. In both passages it should be noted that Saul arose to be baptized, because that ordinance is done by immersion. 9Acts 9:19. Received meat means he took food after his period of fasting. Certain days is really indefinite, and denotes merely that Saul remained with the disciples in the city where he had become one himself. 0Acts 9:20. Saul began at once to discharge his assignment of preaching Christ. He did this in the synagogue where the Jews assembled to read the law. 1Act 9:21. It should be expected that the people would be amazed at the preaching of Saul. He did not merely subside from his persecution of the disciples, but became an active pro-claimer of the faith he had been opposing. 2Act 9:22. Increased in strength denotes that he became more powerful in proclaiming the Gospel. He confounded (confused and bewildered) the Jews by showing from their own scriptures that Jesus was the Christ predicted therein. 3Act 9:23. The preaching of Saul finally roused the Jews to anger, and they plotted to kill him whenever he came outside the city walls. 4Acts 9:24. They lay secretly near the gates, where they expected to attack him as he came through. Saul learned about their plot, which really proved to be to his advantage. Knowing that his enemies were lying near the gates, he was left to feel safe in escaping if he could by-pass those places. 5Acts 9:25. According to 2 Corinthians 11:32-33, the secular officers joined with the Jews in their plot by maintaining a military guard near the gates of Damascus. But the disciples helped Saul to escape by lowering him down the outside of the wall in a basket, a vessel made by plaiting reeds or ropes. 6Acts 9:26. When Saul was come to Jerusalem. This was after he had been in Arabia and returned to Damascus, a period of three years after his conversion (Galatians 1:16-18). When he assayed (tried) to join the disciples they were afraid of him, thinking he was only posing as a disciple in order to get an advantage of them. 8Acts 9:27-28. Barnabas was a native of Cyprus (chapter 4:36) which was not far from Damascus. It was natural that he would be more or less familiar with the events that took place in that city, especially as they concerned the religion he professed. His introduction of Saul to the apostles was satisfactory, so that he was with them in their movements in and out of Jerusalem. 9Acts 9:29. Wherever Saul went, he was persecuted for preaching in the name of Jesus. Grecians were Greek-speaking Jews as explained at chapter 6:1. 0Acts 9:30. Caesarea was a seaport from which Saul sailed for his old home Tarsus. He was not idle while there, but preached "the faith he once destroyed" (Galatians 1:21). 1Act 9:31. Rest is from EIRENE which Thayer defines, "a state of national tranquility; exemption from the rage and havoc of war." Then in its application to our passage he explains it to mean, "of the church free from persecutions." This indicates the extent and success of Saul's persecutions of the church as it pertained to the uneasiness caused among the disciples. Fear is used in the sense of reverence for the Lord. It shows us that while persecutions will not take from true disciples their love for Christ (Romans 8:35-39), yet they may hinder them from advancing in numbers and strength. This will be the last we will hear of Saul until we get to chapter 11:25, 26. 2Act 9:32. The condition of "rest" which the churches were enjoying opened up opportunities for the further spread of the Gospel. Peter used this situation to travel among the churches of Palestine and made Lydda one of his stopping places. 4Acts 9:33-34. Palsy was a form of paralysis that rendered the victim helpless from weakness. This man's case was of eight years' standing and hence was not imaginary. To make his bed was especially appropriate since his ailment was one of weakness. The cure was immediate as were all of the cases of miraculous healing. 5Acts 9:35. Saw him and turned to the Lord. While the New Testament was in the making, the Lord empowered his apostles and other workers to perform miracles as evidence of their connection with Him. (See John 20:30-31; Ephesians 4:8-14.) 6Acts 9:36. Joppa was a seaport about ten miles from Lydda. The original word for good works means the general conduct is good and practical, and almsdeeds refers especially to things done for those in need, which is indicated in verse 39. 7Acts 9:37. Thayer defines the original for upper chamber, "The highest part of the house, the upper rooms or story where the women resided." Here is where they laid Dorcas after preparing her body for burial. 8Acts 9:38. The miraculous work of Peter had become Known to the people of Joppa. Desiring him to come could have been only in the hope of restoring Dorcas to life. 9Acts 9:39. Widows stood by. These were the ones for whom the "alms-deeds" of verse 36 were done. Their weeping was a sincere expression of appreciation for what Dorcas had done for them. While she was with them. Her body lay in their presence as they did this, which is another proof that there is something in a human being that leaves the body and the world when death occurs. 0Acts 9:40. We are not told why Peter wished to be alone while performing this miracle, but it was not the first time such a thing was done. (See 1 Kings 17:19-23; 2 Kings 4:32-36; Matthew 9:25.) Life was restored to the woman at the voice of Peter, and she opened her eyes only upon hearing it. She had enough physical strength to sit up, but was evidently somewhat weak from her recent illness. 1Act 9:41. Gave her his 'hand. Peter restored the woman to life independent of any cooperation on her part, as a matter of course, but he encouraged her to "arise" by giving her his hand. The miracle having been performed, he called her friends back into the room and presented her alive to them. 2Act 9:42. Many believed. See notes on verse 35 for the use of miracles in making believers. The case of Dorcas was reported throughout the city of Joppa. 3Act 9:43. The decision to spend more time in the city is mentioned as a mere incident, but it connects up with the events of the next chapter. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 10 PETER’ S VISION Acts 10:1-16 1 Now there was a certain man in Caesarea,—Caesarea at this time was the most prominent city in Palestine, and was virtually the capital; it was built by Herod the Great as a seaport, which he had founded on the ruins of Samaria; it was named “ Caesarea” after Caesar Augustus. “ Cornelius” is a Roman name, and this “ certain man” may have been a descendant of the great Cornelian family of Rome; however, there were many Romans bearing this name. He was “ a centurion,” which means that he was a leader of a hundred soldiers; “ centurion” comes from the Latin “ centurio,” and means one hundred. “ Of the band called the Italian band,” means that the soldiers that made or composed this “ band” or “ cohort” were from Italy; the Italian cohorts were sent to any part of the empire where they were needed. It is possible that the soldiers of this cohort could have been Roman citizens who lived in Caesarea. 2 A devout man who feared God---Cornelius is described as being “ de¬vout,” “ one that feared God with all his house,” one “ who gave much alms to the people,” and one who “ prayed to God always.” It seems that he worshiped God with all earnestness and devotion, and taught his house to do the same; he was liberal in that the Jewish people among whom he was stationed needed help and he gave of his means to help them; he continued praying to God and seemed to be anxious for greater knowledge of God’ s way. However, this good man, Cornelius, was an unsaved man; he was unconverted. 3 He saw in a vision openly,—Cornelius was not in a trance, but was engaged in prayer when an angel appeared to him. He was not in a dream, but “ saw in a vision” the angel. The Greek “ oramati” means “ something seen” ; it is not the same word as used for Peter’ s “ trance” in verse 10. The Jews had three regular hours of prayer; the hour when the evening sacrifice was offered in the temple was the hour also of prayer, and this was the time when Cornelius was praying. It was supposed to be about three o’ clock in the afternoon. Cornelius did not call the messenger “ an angel,” but the men sent to Peter spoke of an angel. 4 And he, fastening his eyes upon him,—Cornelius looked steadfastly at the angel, and became frightened and exclaimed: “ What is it, Lord?” It seems that Cornelius recognized the angel of God as a messenger from God; hence, he addressed the angel as “ Lord.” Such a messenger coming so unexpectedly frightened Cornelius. The angel responded and told Cornelius that his “ prayers” and his “ alms” had “ gone up for a memorial before God.” “ Memorial” means a remembrance; it comes from the Greek “ mnemosuon,” and is used only one other time in the New Testament by Jesus concerning the act of Mary of Bethany. (Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9.) The prayers of Cornelius had as¬cended like incense and were remembered by God; he had faith to pray to God that God would in some way answer his prayer. 5-6 And now send men to Joppa,—The angel gives Cornelius definite instruction as to what he should do; Peter was at Joppa, and the angel instructs Cornelius to send men to Joppa and “ fetch one Simon, who is surnamed Peter.” The information that Corne¬lius is to receive must come through human agency. Note the sev¬eral particulars mentioned by the angel; men are to go to Joppa; they are to bring a man by the name of Simon; this Simon was called Peter; he lodged with another Simon who was a tanner; Simon the tanner lived “ by the sea side.” The Jewish name, “ Simon,” is mentioned, and then the name “ Peter,” which de¬scribes minutely the preacher for whom he should send. Next the city where he was sojourning, and the name and occupation of the man with whom Peter was dwelling; then the exact location of the house is given. With these minute and accurate directions the messengers of Cornelius could find Peter without any delay. Philip the evangelist was probably in Caesarea. (Acts 8:40.) Why was not Philip called ? We are not told; however, Peter had “ the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19), and he is to give by the Holy Spirit the conditions of salvation to the Gentiles; Peter is to open the door to the Gentiles. 7-8 And when the angel that spake unto him—So soon as the angel had finished his message to Cornelius, preparation began to be made to carry out in detail all that had been commanded. Cornelius selected “ two of his household-servants, and a devout soldier” and dispatched them immediately. The angel “ departed,” apparently as a man would walk away; it is not said that he “ van¬ished” as Jesus did after his resurrection. (Luke 24:31.) Cornelius promptly selected men whom he could trust— two of his household servants and a devout soldier. Probably the two ser¬vants were to bear the message to Peter and the soldier was to act as guard for them. It seems that they started that evening, and would be able to arrive at Joppa, thirty miles away, the next day soon after midday. Cornelius “ rehearsed all things” to these men before he dispatched them to Joppa. It seems that Cornelius put great faith in the message of the angels, and also equal faith in these three men whom he sent for Peter; he recited to them his vision and conversation with the angel; they reverently listened to him and hastened to obey his orders. 9 Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey,—The roofs of the houses in that country were built flat, and there was a stairway on the outside that led to the roof. The roof of the house was the place where worship and conversation were usually had. Samuel chose this place for his conference with Saul before he anointed him king. (1 Samuel 9:25-26.) The housetop was used for religious purposes also. (Jeremiah 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5.) We see from verses 23 and 24 that the journey from Joppa to Caesarea occupied more than one day, so that the vision of Cornelius took place on the day before the trance of Peter, and the messengers had time almost to accomplish their journey before Peter was pre¬pared to receive them; the distance between Caesarea and Joppa was thirty Roman miles. Peter had gone upon the housetop to pray; it was about the sixth hour, or about noon. The Jews had three periods in the day for prayer— third hour or nine o’ clock, sixth hour or noon, and the ninth hour or three. o’ clock in the af¬ternoon. 10 and he became hungry,—“ Hungry” comes from the Greek “ prospeinos,” and means “ very hungry” ; that is, exceedingly hun¬gry. His appetite for food was very strong; he “ desired to eat.” His hunger and longing for food was so strong that it was beyond his control; it was about noon and they were making ready the noon meal in Simon the tanner’ s house. While in this extremely hungry condition, “ he fell into a trance.” “ Trance” here comes from the Greek “ ekstasis,” which means that “ an ectasy came upon him,” in which trance he passed out of himself and from which one came to himself. (Acts 11:5 Acts 12:11 Acts 22:17.) A trance is dif-ferent from a vision. In a “ trance” the bodily senses are dormant or inactive, while in a “ vision” the bodily senses are active and awake. Peter had a mental vision, but not a dream, for the trance differs from the dream. 11-12 and he beholdeth the heaven opened,—In this trance Peter saw as it were “ a certain vessel descending” like a great sheet, which was let down through the opened heaven by four cor¬ners to the earth. What Peter saw was an extended sheet, the four corners of which were held up, as it were, by cords let down from the four extremities of the opened sky. Enclosed as it were in this great sheet were “ all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven.” The classification here included sheep, oxen, swine, and all other “ fourfooted beasts” and creeping things of all kinds and all kinds of birds; there was a mixture of both clean and unclean animals. The vision repre¬sented the whole animal creation, yet fish are not mentioned; per¬haps fish are not mentioned because the sheet had no water, though they were clean and unclean. (Leviticus 11:9; Deuteronomy 14:9.) It will be noted that there are three groups named: fourfooted beasts, creeping things, and birds; these three great groups were in the sheet, and “ all kinds” of each group. “ Wild beasts” is omitted in the best texts. 13 And there came a voice to him,—As Peter was hungry before he fell into the trance, here is presented the means of satisfy¬ing his hunger, and by the command in which he is directed to kill without distinction among all that he sees, this would indicate that the law of Moses concerning the choice among living creatures, or the distinction between clean and unclean animals, had been abrogated. Peter was told to “ rise” ; that is, from his knees in prayer, or his reclining posture. The animals were clean and unclean, but the clean animals had become unclean by contact with the unclean, and Peter is told by a voice from heaven to break the Mosaic law, and in his eating do away with the distinction between Jew and Gentile. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord;—Peter refused to ease his hunger by violating the law by which he had been governed as a Jew; he had never “ eaten anything that is common and unclean.” This was one of the distinctions which separated the Jews from the Gentiles; but Peter is to learn that there is a better, truer distinc¬tion between God’ s people than that of choosing diferent kinds of animals for food. Peter showed his usual abrupt determination by the answer that he gave; he is polite but firm in his refusal; he gives his reason for his firm decision. He had never violated this law and he firmly declares that he will not do so now. 15-16 And a voice came unto him again the second time,—After Peter’ s clear and emphatic refusal, the voice stated, “ What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.” The lesson for Peter was clear; he should not make “ common” that which God had “ cleansed.” “ And this was done thrice.” Does this mean that the whole vision was repeated three times, or that the voice gave the command three times? Some claim that the whole scene was re¬peated three times; but many others understand that the voice came three times to emphasize the one lesson: Peter was not to call the Gentiles “ common” or “ unclean” when God had arranged to give to them the blessings of salvation through Christ. It seems that the vessel was let down from heaven only once, and then taken back “ up into heaven.” Peter was to learn that all nations might be admitted to the kingdom of God upon the same terms of the gospel. Acts 10:17-48 17-18 Now while Peter was much perplexed—It seems that Peter came out of “ the trance” and was disturbed or confused as to what was meant by the vision. He seems to have understood the vision, but did not know the application or spiritual significance of it. While he was in this “ perplexed” state, the three men who had come from Caesarea were at the gate of Simon the tanner’ s house, and making inquiry as to whether “ Simon, who was surnamed Peter,” was stopping there. The messengers from Cornelius, by inquiry, had found the lodging place of Peter and were making in¬quiry for him. Luke, the writer, takes pains to make clear the close connection of providential guidance in the successive steps that have brought the messengers of Cornelius from Caesarea to Pe¬ter in Joppa. Peter saw a little later very clearly that these were all providential and designed coincidences controlled by the hand of God. 19 And while Peter thought on the vision,—As Peter was trying to solve the mystery, the Holy Spirit said to him: “ Behold, three men seek thee.” Peter was turning over the vision in his mind and seeking for its significance, and the Holy Spirit now in¬tercedes and directs him. The “ voice” no longer seemed to come from heaven to the outward ear, but was heard as not less divine in the secret recesses of his soul, and he is further directed as to what he should do. 20 But arise, and get thee down,—Peter is told that he should not hesitate or doubt as to the meaning of the strange vision; he is to understand that it came from God and that he should follow it. He was to walk, as it were, blindfold, but he should trust in the assurance of faith in the hand that was guiding him. As once before (John 13:7) Peter knew not yet what his Lord was doing, but was to know hereafter; Peter and the messen¬gers from Cornelius were alike acting under the guidance of God. We see here the divine hand in bringing the preacher of the gospel into the presence of the unsaved. The two visions of Cornelius in Caesarea and of Peter in Joppa occurred in teaching the same truth: God calls Jews and Gentiles to salvation through the same gospel. 21 And Peter went down to the men,—Peter at once went down from the housetop and said to the messengers from Corne¬lius, “ I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?” Peter was as yet ignorant of the reason of their coming. He had learned three things: (1) that God was about to teach him some new truth, but the precise character of it was dimly seen; (2)that the Holy Spirit had sent these three messengers to him; (3)that he was to go with them. The reason for their coming Peter could learn from the men; the light they would throw upon the vision was gradually to appear clearer and clearer to him. 22 And they said, Cornelius a centurion,—The messengers from Cornelius began at once and very briefly and pointedly told Peter the full message that they had brought from Cornelius. They described Cornelius as a “ centurion, a righteous man and one that feareth God, and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews.” After describing Cornelius they then told Peter that God had warned him “ by a holy angel to send” for Peter that he might “ hear words” from him. Very likely this reminded Peter of an¬other centurion whose name is not recorded, who was stationed at Capernaum, and had built a synagogue for the Jews. (Luke 7:5.) There was a message from God that Peter had that Cornelius needed to hear; Peter had the gospel as God’ s power to save, and Cornelius was an unsaved man; hence, he needed to hear the words that Peter had for him. 23 So he called them in and lodged them.—Here, according to the translators of the Standard Version, should close the twen¬ty-second verse. The New Testament was divided into verses by Robert Stephen in A.D. 1551, and his division into verses has been observed since that time; but it would have been better to have in¬cluded the words here in verse 22, and that division would have corresponded to the paragraph division. And on the morrow he arose— Peter had lodged the three men overnight and was ready the next morning to start on the journey from Joppa to Caesarea. He selected six Jewish brethren to go with him. (Acts 11:12.) These six brethren are called “ they of the circumcision that believed.” Peter took them for his compan¬ions that he might, if need be, afterwards appeal to them for testi¬mony of what was done, and to explain why he had acted as he did. Probably he informed them of the message which the ser-vants of Cornelius had brought, and of the vision that he had seen in the trance, as well as what the Holy Spirit had said to him. 24 And on the morrow they entered into Caesarea.—After keeping the three men overnight Peter arranged with six Jewish brethren to go with him to Caesarea; they arrived in Caesarea the second day about three o’ clock after they left Joppa. It seems that it took Peter and his company longer to make the journey from Joppa to Caesarea than it had taken the three men from Caesarea to arrive in Joppa. Cornelius was waiting for them to arrive; he did not know just what time Peter and his company would arrive, but he had “ called together his kinsmen and his near friends” to hear what Peter had to say. They returned to Caesarea the fourth day after Cornelius sent the messengers. (Verse 30.) It is very probable that Peter and his company did not leave Joppa so early and promptly as we might expect, since they did not arrive in Caesarea until about three o’ clock the following day. It will be noted that only the kinsmen of Cornelius “ and his near friends” were present when Peter arrived. 25 And when it came to pass that Peter entered,—When Peter entered the house of Cornelius, Cornelius graciously met him, “ and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.” Cornelius regarded Peter as a messenger from God and sought to do honor to him; “ worshipped” is from the Greek “ prosekunesen,” and means a high degree of reverence and not actual worship, for Cor¬nelius was not an idolator, and would not have worshipped Peter as a god. However, it seems that Peter understood Cornelius to be worshiping him. 26 But Peter raised him up,—It seems clear that Peter under¬stood that Cornelius was not merely doing him homage, but that his acts were intended as worship; hence, he corrected Cornelius and told him to “ stand up,” and then added, “ I myself also am a man.” Peter did not want to receive the homage that Cornelius was offering, for such belonged not to man, but to God alone. 27 And as he talked with him,—The introduction and conver¬sation began without, for they talked together and then Peter went in. When he came in he found “ many come together” ; the con¬versation without had taken some time as the term “ talked with him” implies a long conversation; the “ many” who were in the house shows the influence and prominence of Cornelius. 28 and he said unto them, Ye yourselves know—Peter now gives an explanation for his entering the house of Cornelius, a Gentile; he appeals to the knowledge of Cornelius and his friends, and they thus knew the strict regulations that the Jews observed in their association with the Gentiles. Peter says that “ it is an unlaw¬ful thing” for a Jew “ to join himself or come unto one of another nation.” “ Unlawful” comes from “ athemitos,” which means con¬trary to law or custom; it is used in this form only twice in the New Testament; Peter uses the term both times, here and in 1 Peter 4:3; it means a violation of established order. The position in which Peter found himself was strangely unfamiliar, so much so that he can scarcely help apologizing, even to Romans, for his con¬duct. The separative ceremonial law, partly Mosaic, and partly traditional with the Jews, had built up a barrier which was difficult to overcome. However, God had showed Peter by the vision on the housetop that he should call no “ man common or unclean.” Perhaps Peter saw this clearer now than he had done before. 29 wherefore also I came without gainsaying,—Peter had been deeply impressed with the lesson that had been taught him, and so soon as he learned what God wanted him to do without “ gainsaying,” or “ without answering back,” or doubting he obeyed and came at once. “ I ask therefore with what intent ye sent for me.” No time is wasted, no delay is had; Peter at once inquires why Cornelius, a Gentile, had sent for him. Perhaps Peter had not been instructed by the Holy Spirit; it was left for Cornelius to re-veal his vision to Peter. In this way Peter could take his own vi¬sion and that of Cornelius and put them together and learn what God wanted him to do. 30-31 And Cornelius said, Four days ago,—This statement, “ four days ago,” has been interpreted several ways, partly due to different readings of the Greek text; some read, “ From the fourth day until this very hour, the ninth, I was praying in my house; and behold a man stood in my presence in bright garments.” The Greek text appears to mean that four days before Cornelius was praying until the ninth hour, the very hour of the day which it was when he was talking to Peter. This makes the time of Peter’ s ar¬rival to be after the ninth hour of the day. Cornelius relates his experience to Peter, the six Jewish brethren, and the kinsmen and near friends who had assembled. These verses can best be understood and studied in connection with the other accounts given to¬gether in verse 3. There is no new point emphasized in the re¬hearsal given here by Cornelius. 32 Send therefore to Joppa,—Here also Cornelius repeats what is stated in verses 5 and 6 with no additional thought. The Authorized Version adds: “ Who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.” However, this phrase does not appear in the best Greek texts. 33 Forthwith therefore I sent to thee;—Cornelius had been instructed to send for Peter and he did not delay, but sent the three men the same afternoon that he had received the instruction. He commends Peter for coming so promptly by saying: “ Thou hast well done that thou art come.” He thus commends Peter and encourages him in the task that is now before Peter by saying: “ We are all here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that have been commanded thee of the Lord.” Cornelius not only com¬mends Peter for his courage in breaking away from Jewish cus¬toms, but he takes no offense at the implied superiority of the Jews over the Gentiles; he tells Peter that his circle of close friends are present to hear the message from God that Peter has. This audi¬ence was fertile soil for the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. They were not only “ present in the sight of God,” but they were there “ to hear all things” that God commanded to be done. Cornelius recognizes Peter as being a messenger of God, and hence he has a message from God. 34-35 And Peter opened his mouth, and said,—“ Opened his mouth” is a solemn form of beginning an address, and is used fre¬quently in the New Testament. (Matthew 5:2 Matthew 13:35; Acts 8:35 Acts 18:14.) “ Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of per¬sons.” Peter now is fully convinced that God had sent an angel to Cornelius and had given him the vision on the housetop that he might know that God was no respecter of persons; that the barrier between Jew and Gentile had been removed in Christ. God is no “ respecter of persons/’ but he is a respecter of character. A “ re¬specter of persons” is one who receives or treats others, not accord¬ing to what they are, but according to their outward circumstances, such as wealth or social position, nationality, or color. All men alike need salvation; God loves all men and Christ died for all; there is one and the same plan of salvation for all; hence, those who faithfully comply with the terms of salvation receive it. Peter now understands that the Gentiles are to enjoy salvation in Christ as are the Jews. God had sent him among the Gentiles and had prepared him by a vision for the venture, and he had learned that he, a Jew, had not defiled himself in God’ s sight by association with the Gentiles. Peter had also learned that the Gentile was the same in the sight of God as the Jew, and that God would treat him in the same way. 36 The word which he sent unto the children of Israel,—Peter further learns that the gospel which came to the Jews was also intended to go to the Gentiles, for “ he is Lord of all.” “ The word” which was preached concerning Christ by John the Baptist, and then by Christ and his apostles, and now by the disciples of Christ, was the gospel or “ good tidings of peace” which should be enjoyed in Christ. Since the gospel is a gospel of peace, obedience to it reconciles both Jew and Gentile in Christ. Christ is the Sav¬ior, not only of the Jews, but of Gentiles, of the entire world. 37 that saying ye yourselves know,—Peter affirms that Cor¬nelius and his company knew something about Jesus of Nazareth; Caesarea was in Palestine and all Palestine had learned of Jesus. Cornelius may have been in Jerusalem during the personal minis¬try of Christ; at any rate, Peter affirms that Cornelius knew of him since it had been “ published throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee.” During the personal ministry of Christ he had evangelized Judea and Galilee; since the death of Christ the apos¬tles had preached in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, and those who were scattered from Jerusalem had gone everywhere preach¬ing the word. (Acts 8:1 Acts 8:4.) Peter limits the publication of this gospel to the time of John’ s baptism. The oral gospel of the apos¬tles began with the baptism of John and ended with the death of Christ, so far as the limited commission was concerned. The works of Christ were so public and so widespread that some knowledge of them had come to Cornelius; hence, Peter has a foundation upon which to instruct Cornelius. 38 even Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him—To distinguish which Jesus, Peter designates that it is “ Jesus of Naza¬reth.” God had anointed him with the Holy Spirit and had given him power to work miracles. He was anointed with the Holy Spirit when he was baptized. (Luke 3:22.) After his baptism he “ went about doing good,” and exercising the power that God had given him in “ healing all that were oppressed of the devil.” Those who had evil spirits and demons were oppressed by the devil. Peter here recognized the reality of the devil. The reason assigned for his being able to do this was that “ God was with him.” Nicodemus had confessed that “ no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2.) 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did—Jesus had made his apostles his witnesses. (Acts 1:8.) The apostles had followed him from his early ministry to his crucifixion; they had seen him after his resurrection and saw him ascend to the Father; hence, they could be his witnesses “ both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem.” They had borne witness of him in Jerusalem and in Judea. Peter could say to Cornelius that he had heard of these things, but his apostles had seen them; Peter knew them at firsthand, so he was a competent witness. He could say that he knew when, where, to whom, and under what circum¬stances all these things which Cornelius had heard about were done. The Jews, in whose country and chief city these good things were done, slew this Jesus of Nazareth, “ hanging him on a tree.” Peter had used this expression once before. (Acts 5:30.) Peter represented in Acts 2:23 the crucifixion as an act of the rul¬ers and people of Jerusalem, and not of the Roman governor. 40-41 Him God raised up the third day,—Again Peter brings in contrast what the people did for Jesus of Nazareth and what God did for him— the people crucified him, but God raised him from the dead; the people were working contrary to God. Not only were the apostles witnesses, but God himself bore witness of Jesus by raising him from the dead. The Jews thought that they had destroyed Jesus by crucifying him, but this only gave God the occasion to prove more conclusively that Jesus was the Messiah, his Son. Peter makes it clear that Jesus appeared to the apostles, and not to “ all the people,” but just to chosen witnesses; these wit¬nesses were not deceived, for they “ ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” It is difficult for us to understand how Jesus could eat and drink after the resurrection as is stated here by Peter and also in Luke 24:41-43; yet Peter makes it clear that there was no possible way by which these witnesses could be de¬ceived. 42 And he charged us to preach unto the people,—Not only were Peter and others to be witnesses for Christ, but they were to preach him to others; in fact, they were to preach the gospel to the whole creation. (Mark 16:15.) Here Peter shows Cornelius his commission from Christ to preach what he had seen and heard and experienced. Among the things that he should preach was that Christ died for the sins of the world, that he was buried and raised from the dead and made his ascension back to the Father, and that he was “ ordained of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead.” Christ is now the Judge; his life and character are the standard by which every man is to judge himself; he shows the ideal way to live; he is also to be the Judge at the last day. “ Judge of the living and the dead” covers all past, present, and fu¬ture. 43 To him bear 3II the prophets witness,—All the prophets pointed to Jesus. Peter had declared “ all the prophets from Sam¬uel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days.” (Acts 3:24.) The important thing that the prophets bore witness to, and that the apostles were witnesses of, is “ that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.” Peter has made the claim that the entire Old Testament prophecy bore witness to the universality of the gospel, and that the condition of salvation was through obedience to Christ. The remission of sins is through the name of Jesus and belongs to those who believe on him; Peter had preached before that there is no “ other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12.) On the day of Pentecost Peter had told believers, when they asked what to do, that they should “ repent ye, and be baptized ... in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins.” (Acts 2:38.) 44 While Peter yet spake these words,—We may know that Cornelius and his company were listening with deep interest to Peter, with emotions as intense as those which possessed anyone, and suddenly “ the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word.” He did not come by the laying on of hands, but came on these Gentiles as he did on the day of Pentecost on the Jews. (Acts 11:15.) Peter had not formally finished his address when the interruption of the Holy Spirit came. Joel had prophesied that God would “ pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17), and the Jews had received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and now he comes upon the Gentiles; hence, “ all flesh” had now received the Holy Spirit, for the race of man was divided at that time into Jew and Gentile. 45 And they of the circumcision that believed—Peter had taken six Jewish brethren with him; they are spoken of here as “ they of the circumcision.” From this point on Luke refers to the two classes of disciples, Jewish and Gentile. The Jewish disciples who had accompanied Peter from Joppa were amazed because the Gentiles had received the gift of the Holy Spirit. The miracle proved what Peter had said with a fullness of proof for which Peter himself perhaps was not prepared; these Gentiles had faith and the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit may be called a baptism of the Holy Spirit. 46-47 For they heard them speak with tongues,—“ With tongues” means that they spoke with new and strange tongues as they did on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:4 Acts 2:11.) They were praising God with these new tongues. There was the same kind of need of the outward manifestation of the Holy Spirit at this time that there was on Pentecost. The speaking of tongues always ac¬companied the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This convinced Peter, and he asked who could forbid “ the water, that these should not be baptized.” He gave as his reason that they had received the Holy Spirit as the Jews had; hence, they were entitled to all the privi¬leges of the gospel. They had believed Peter’ s testimony; hence, had believed on Jesus; it is evident that they were penitent of all their sins because they could not be saved with their sins; now they are to be baptized. Baptism was one of the prerequisites to remission of sins. 48 And he commanded them to be baptized—Peter was speaking by the authority of God; he was speaking by the Holy Spirit; hence, God through Peter commanded them to be baptized “ in the name of Jesus Christ.” Peter and the six Jewish brethren who were present could baptize this company in a short time, but Peter commanded others to do the baptizing. Paul refrained from baptizing some, as may be inferred from his letters to the Corin¬thians. (1 Corinthians 1:14-17.) Peter may have acted from a similar motive. After they were baptized they earnestly requested that Peter and the Jewish brethren “ tarry certain days” with them. The implication is that Peter remained with Cornelius some time. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 10Acts 10:1-2. The scene changes from Joppa to Cæsarea, about thirty miles northward along the Mediterranean shore; and we are introduced to another case for conversion, a Gentile and a soldier. (1) “There was a certain man in Cæsarea named Cornelius, a centurion of the cohort called Italian, (2) a devout man, and one who feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God continually.” We desire to examine, with great care, the process of this man's conversion, and begin by noticing the present religious elements of his character. He is a “ devout man”— a man of deep religious feelings. He is not a devout pagan, but he “ fears God,” the true God. He must, then, be somewhat acquainted with the Jewish religion. He is not identified with the Jews, being uncircumcised. He is not a timid or unfaithful worshiper of God, but has taught all his family the same worship. He gives much alms to the people, and is a praying man. At first glance, it might appear strange that such a man should need conversion. There are many men, at the present day, in whose favor not so much can be said, who flatter themselves that their prospects for eternity are good. They are honest in their business, honorable in their intercourse with men, good husbands and fathers, generous to their neighbors, and benevolent to the poor; what have they to fear at the hands of a just and merciful God? They forget that their obligations to God are infinitely higher than those to men, even to the dearest friends on earth; and that, therefore, it is the most inexcusable of all sins persistently refuse him the worship which is his due. This offense takes the hue of the blackest ingratitude, when we remember the blood which has been shed to touch our hearts, and to open up to us the way of pardon and eternal life. Of this crime every man is guilty who does not worship the living God, and submit to the ordinances of Jesus Christ. But Cornelius was a praying man, a devout worshiper of God, besides possessing every other virtue claimed by self-righteous sinners; yet it was necessary for even him to hear “ words by which he might be saved.“ Until a man can claim for himself something more than is here said of him, he may not flatter himself with the hope of salvation. Under the former dispensation, the piety and fidelity of Cornelius would have given him an honorable place among the holy men of God; but this alone could not suffice him now. Jesus the Christ had stepped in between God and man, and opened, through the rent vail of his flesh, the only access to God. All heaven had confessed his authority, and the holy disciples on earth had come to the Father by him. But Cornelius was still calling upon God, without the name of Christ, and seeking to approach him by the old, not by the new and living way. He was in the same condition with any pious but unbelieving Jew of that or of our own age. It was necessary to his salvation that he should believe in Jesus and obey him. This would secure to him the pardon of his sins, which he had not and could not secure by worshiping according to the law. Acts 10:3-6. This defect in his religious character was not a fault; it was only a misfortune. He was doing the best he knew how; and, if we may infer what he prayed for, from what he obtained in answer to his prayers, he was praying for additional knowledge, and perhaps for an interest in the salvation offered through Christ. Such a prayer, offered by such a man, is always acceptable to God. On a certain day he had fasted till in the afternoon, and at three o'clock was praying within his house, when, (3) “He saw distinctly in a vision, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him and saying to him, Cornelius. (4) He looked intently upon him, and was full of fear, and said, What is it, Lord? He said to him, Thy prayers and thine alms have come up for a memorial before God. (5) And now, send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon who is surnamed Peter. (6) He is lodging with a certain Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea-shore. He will tell you what you ought to do.”Here is an unconverted man praying, and his prayer is answered. But the circumstances of the man, the nature of the prayer, and the answer given, are all essentially different from those of unconverted men who are taught to pray by the Protestant sects of the present day. The man was not instructed in a knowledge of the Redeemer, and the way of salvation, and of his own interest in the same, but neglecting his duty, as in the case with the modern sinner. Neither was he praying for pardon, while postponing obedience to the gospel, as in these cases; but his prayer was for a knowledge of his duty, and he had no one by to instruct him. The answer to his prayer was given, not, as is now so often pretended, by sending forth the Spirit into his heart to speak his sins forgiven, but by sending an angel to tell him where he can find a man who will guide him in the way of salvation. In the case of the eunuch, an angel appeared to the preacher and sent him to the inquirer. In this case, the angel appears to the inquirer, and tells him to send for the preacher. In both cases, the only work of the angel was to bring the two men together, face to face. Thus, again, we seen an insuperable necessity, in case of a scriptural conversion, for the presence and co-operation of a human agent, showing that the divine influences, whatever, and however numerous they may be, reach the heart through the word of truth. The prayer of Cornelius was answered, like that of Saul, by referring him to inspired authorities within the Church. This shows how vain, at the present day, must be every prayer for direct answers from heaven, in reference to the pardon of sins. If a verbal answer to such prayers could be obtained, we are bound to conclude, from these precedents, that it would still be, “ Go to Damascus and it shall be told you,” or “ Send men to Joppa for Simon whose surname is Peter, and he will tell you what you ought to do.” Peter and Ananias are before us now, with the same instruction which they gave then, and it is useless for us to offer for what we have in hand, prayers which Saul and Cornelius offered for what had not yet been granted. The directions given by the two teachers, in these cases, and by other inspired men, is all that God granted to sinners then, and it is certainly all that we have a right to ask for now. The necessity for the spoken word in order to the conversion of men is not only exhibited in these mission of angels, but it also explains the occurrence, in the two cases of Cornelius and the eunuch, of an agency not discernible in other cases. If no heavenly messenger had been sent to Philip, he could not have known that there was an Ethiopian on the road to Gaza, reading his Bible, and ready to hear the gospel. And if no angel had appeared to Cornelius, he could not have known that he had any interest in the blood of Jesus, or any right to send for Peter. No human being could have informed him, because all others, including Peter, were as ignorant of it as himself. An interposition from heaven is necessary; but when it occurs, it provides only for just such demands of the case as could not be supplied without it. The multitude on Pentecost needed no such angelic aid, for the preacher was before them, and each party was conscious of the right to speak, on the one hand, and the right to obey, on the other. So with us. When we wish any information, or the enjoyment of any religious privilege, we have the apostles before us, face to face. Their words are in our hands, and may be in our minds and hearts. We have no need for heavenly apparitions or illuminations; and if we expect them, we will be disappointed, or deluded. If a man in ignorance prays for a knowledge of salvation, this incident in the case of Cornelius, instead of encouraging him to pray on, actually answers his prayer, by telling him to send for some man who understands the gospel, and will guide him as Peter did Cornelius. Before proceeding further in this case of conversion, we wish the reader to observe that enough has occurred already to secure Cornelius' recognition as a genuine convert, by the prevailing Protestant parties of this day. Let any man come before the Church with such an experience as his, saying, “ I have been for many years a devout man, worshiping God as well as I knew how, giving alms to the poor, praying continually, and teaching all my family the fear of God. Yesterday afternoon, at three o'clock, I was praying, according to my custom, when suddenly a holy angel stood before me, and said, Thy prayers and thine alms have come up for a memorial before God.” Who would doubt that he was “ powerfully converted,” or dare to insinuate that there was anything else necessary in this case? He would receive the right-hand of fellowship at once. Yet, so different was the apostolic procedure, that the man was now only prepared to hear words by which he might be saved. How long will religious men allow their inventions and traditions to nullify the word of God? Acts 10:7-8. (7) “And when the angel who spoke to Cornelius went away, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of those who attended him, (8) and having fully related all these things to them, he sent them to Joppa.” The two servants are included in the household, who with him feared God, and the soldier selected had also learned the same great lesson. None but men of such character would be suitable messengers in a case like this. Acts 10:9-16. The scene of the narrative now changes again, from Cæsarea back to Joppa, and to the house of the tanner, where we left the Apostle Peter. Leaving the messengers of Cornelius on the way, Luke anticipates their arrival, and relates how Peter was prepared for the favorable reception of their message. (9) “Now, on the next day, while they were on their journey, and were drawing near to the city, Peter went up upon the house to pray, about the sixth hour. (10) He was very hungry, and desired to eat; but while they were preparing, he fell into a trance, (11) and saw heaven opened, and saw a certain vessel descending, like a great white sheet tied by the four corners, and let down to the earth; (12) in which were all kinds of four-footed animals and wild beasts and reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing common or unclean. (15) And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has cleansed, do not you call common. (16) This was done three times, and the vessel was taken up again into heaven.” In order to fully appreciate the necessity for this vision, we must remember the prejudice of the Jews against uncircumcised Gentiles. Previous to the Babylonish captivity, they had too great an inclination to intimacy with their idolatrous neighbors; but that terrible affliction cured them of idolatry, and when they returned to their own land, they put away, at the instigation of Nehemiah, all the idolatrous wives among them. This was the beginning of a reaction toward the opposite extreme, and such a state of feeling was finally induced, that, in the traditions of the elders, it was regarded as a sin even to go into the house of one who was uncircumcised. The disciples of Jesus had been educated from their childhood to an intense degree of this prejudice, and there were facts in the history of Jesus calculated to foster rather than to eradicate it. They had heard him say, “ I am not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” They had seen him work no miracle for a Gentile except under the protest, “ It is not proper to take the children's food and cast it to dogs.” And when he had sent them out on their first mission, he had commanded them, “ Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and enter not into a city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” It is true, that in their final commission he had commanded them to disciple and immerse all nations; but they very naturally interpreted this in the light of past experience, and concluded that all nations were to be gradually absorbed into the Jewish commonwealth by circumcision, and afterward brought into the Church. They had not hesitated, therefore, to immerse proselytes, and even to give them office in the Church, though they still regarded it as a sin to enter the house of a Gentile who was uncircumcised. This fact in the mental state of the apostles shows that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth at once, but their knowledge was extended according to the demands of the occasion. It was a prejudice, however, belonging to them as Jews, which had prevented them, thus far, from perceiving the particular truth here involved; and this involves the conclusion that prejudices previously were capable of impeding the inspiring influence, so that special measures were required for their eradication. The time had now arrived when this prejudice must be uprooted from the heart of Peter. If it were a part of the work of the indwelling Spirit to act immediately upon the heart, then there need be nothing more done with Peter than for the Spirit thus to act. But there is not the slightest intimation of any such action. On the contrary, influences of an entirely different nature are brought to bear upon him, and to them the effect is plainly attributed. A series of significant objects are presented to his eye, certain words are addressed to his ear, and a combination of facts are brought to bear upon his understanding. Falling into a trance, while hungrily awaiting his noonday meal, he sees descending from heaven, and then spread out before him, a great sheet full of animals, both clean and unclean. This vision conveys no meaning, until he hears the words, “ Arise, Peter; kill and eat.” He now understands it as indicating that he shall eat unclean animals. But this is so shocking to his sense of propriety that he exclaims, in perplexity, even to the invisible God who had spoken to him, “ Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing common or unclean.” But he is commanded, “ What I have cleansed, do not you call common.” The vessel is brought near to him, and the same words repeated three times. Then the vision closes, and he recovers from the trance. Acts 10:17-20. Restored now to his natural state of mind, Peter remains upon the housetop, reflecting upon the vision, and wondering if there was not some meaning in it besides that in reference to unclean animals. The question was soon solved. (17) “Now when Peter was doubting in himself what this vision which he had seen could mean, behold, the men who were sent from Cornelius, having inquired out the house of Simon, were standing at the gate; (18) and calling, they inquired if Simon surnamed Peter was lodging there. (19) But Peter was still thinking of the vision, and the Spirit said to him, Behold, three men are seeking you. (20) Arise, therefore, and go down and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them.” In the skillful arrangements of divine wisdom, all the separate influences which are to remove Peter's prejudices are adjusting themselves for combined and harmonious action. Those men have been on their journey two days, but God had measured their steps to the house of Simon, and timed the appearance of the vision to the motion of their feet, so that when they reach the gate he is still on the house-top absorbed in reflection; but ere they are admitted to the house, the Spirit has sent him down to meet them, and to go with them. Acts 10:21-22. He knows nothing, as yet, of the nature of their mission, neither does he yet understand any better than before the meaning of the vision. (21) “Then Peter went down to the men, and said, Behold, I am he whom you are seeking. What is the cause for which you are come? (22) And they said, Cornelius, a centurion, a just man, and one who fears God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by a holy angel to send for you into his house, and to hear words from you.” Upon hearing these words, the whole truth at once flashed upon the mind of Peter, and the agencies which for two days had been preparing to uproot his prejudice, sprang upon it with their combined force. No less than an angel from God has sent these men to call me into the house of a Gentile, to preach the gospel to him. My vision of clean and unclean beasts is explained. God has cleansed the Gentiles, and I am no longer to call them unclean. The Spirit has commanded me to go with these men, without doubting. The authority of God, of an angel, of the Holy Spirit, all impel me. I can resist no longer. His prejudice is gone, and doubtless he feels a new thrill of joy as his heart tremulously enlarges to take the whole world within the embrace of his philanthropy. Acts 10:23. As the Spirit had directed, he does not hesitate as to the line of duty, but at once announces to the messengers that the journey shall begin to-morrow. (23) “Then, calling them in, he lodged them; and on the next day Peter went out with them, and certain brethren from Joppa went with him.” It was a wise precaution that he took other brethren with him, so that the whole of this new movement might be properly attested by competent and disinterested witnesses. Acts 10:24. During the four days which had elapsed, Cornelius had made no secret of the vision he had witnessed, but had communicated it to such friends as were likely to take the same interest in it with himself. Having presumed, with all confidence, that Peter would come, and knowing the time that the journey would require, all was in readiness for his arrival. (24) “On the next day they entered into Cæsarea. Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his kinsmen and intimate friends.” These friends and relatives, it must be remembered, and not the mere family of Cornelius, were the chief part of the audience about to be addressed by Peter. Acts 10:25-27. (25) “Now as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshipped. (26) But Peter raised him up, and said, Stand up. I myself also am a man. (27) And conversing with him, he came in and found many who had come together.” It is not in keeping with the character of Cornelius to suppose that he rendered to Peter such worship as is due to God. But prostration was the common attitude of approach to a superior, as it yet is in eastern countries, and Cornelius was but complying with this custom. To Peter, however, it appeared as if he intended something more, and hence the rebuke. Acts 10:28-29. Upon entering the house of this Gentile, side by side with him, and into the presence of others who were likewise uncircumcised, Peter deemed it proper to inform them of his reason for thus departing from a well-known Jewish custom. (28) “And he said to them, You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to attach himself to, or to come into the house of one of another nation. Yet God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (29) Therefore, I came without objecting when I was sent for. I ask, then, for what purpose you sent for me?” This speech shows clearly that Peter had interpreted the vision of unclean beasts as referring to men as well as to animal food. Acts 10:30-33. (30) “Then Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour, and at the ninth hour I was praying in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel, (31) and said, Cornelius, your prayer is heard, and your alms are had in remembrance before God. (32) Send, therefore, to Joppa, and call for Simon who is surnamed Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea-shore. When he comes he will speak to you. (33) Immediately, therefore, I sent for you, and you have done well that you have come. Now, then, we are all present here before God to hear all things which are by God commanded you.” In this last remark Cornelius speaks for his friends who were assembled, as well as for himself. As was becoming the occasion, he had gathered in, to hear the expected messenger, only those who were willing to hear him as a messenger of God. In the statement that they were all present before God to hear what he had commanded, there was an implied pledge to obey what they might hear, and there is no doubt, from the sequel, that such was their purpose. Acts 10:34-35. The scene before Peter enlarges his conceptions of the purpose of God; for he now sees that his mission is designed not for the benefit of Cornelius alone, but for a large number of his Gentile friends; and if for all these, then, there is to be no further national limitation to the gospel. He gives utterance to this conception. (34) “Then Peter opened his mouth and said, In truth I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons; (35) but, in every nation, he that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” This expansive thought was sufficient to burst asunder all the exclusive bonds of the Mosaic institution, and should be sufficient now to explode the equally injurious theory of an arbitrary predestination of certain men and angels to their eternal destiny. It is a positive declaration that God respects not persons but character. To fear him, and to work righteousness, and not any other distinction between persons, is the ground of acceptability with him. Acts 10:36-38. Cornelius has now related to Peter such an experience, as, we have seen above, would secure him recognition as a genuine convert to Christ among Protestant sects; but Peter was so far from regarding it in this light, that he proceeds to preach to them as he would to other sinners. We will consider his speech by the sections into which it naturally divides itself. (36) “You know the word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all,) (37) the word which was published throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the immersion which John preached, (38) concerning Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power; who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him.” From this it appears that Cornelius and his friends were familiar with the personal history of Jesus, and even with the message of peace which God has caused him to preach to the children of Israel. The information which they lacked, therefore, was only that which referred to their own interests in that message. Acts 10:39. Not content with assuming that these facts were familiar to them, Peter gives them a surer foundation for their convictions, by presenting the testimony upon which he relies to prove the facts. (39) “And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they slew, hanging him upon a tree.” In view of the fact that Cornelius had been “ warned from God by a holy angel,” to send for Peter and hear what he had to say, no confirmation of this his testimony was needed. They were prepared to receive everything he might say to them as a message from God. Acts 10:40-41. The crowning fact of the gospel comes next in the statement. (40) “Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly, (41) not to all the people, to be witnesses chosen by God beforehand, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he arose from the dead.” Here Peter states, by way of commending to his hearers the evidence of the resurrection, a fact which has been so differently construed by infidels, as to be made a ground of objection to it; that is, that the witnesses were chosen for the occasion. Whether Peter or the infidels are right in judgment, depends entirely upon the grounds of the choice. If they were chosen because of a dishonest desire to prove the fact, or because of the ease with which they might be deceived into the belief of a fact which had no real existence, then it may be rightly regarded as a suspicious circumstance. But the reverse is true in both particulars. Such was the situation of the witnesses, that there was great danger both to property and person, in giving their testimony, and therefore every motive to dishonesty prompted them to keep silent rather than to testify. They were also the least likely of all the men of Israel to be deceived, because of their long familiarity with the person of him who was to be identified. Peter, then, was right; for the fact that such witnesses were chosen beforehand is proof that no deception was intended; while the fact that they “ did eat and drink with him after he arose from the dead,” rendered it impossible for them to be deceived. Acts 10:42-43. Having now followed the career of Jesus from the beginning to his resurrection and exhibition of himself alive to the witnesses, Peter proceeds in regular order to the next historical fact, the giving of the apostolic commission. (42) “And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who is ordained by God the judge of the living and the dead. (43) To him all the prophets testify that every one who believes in him shall, through his name, receive remission of sins.” The declaration that every one who believes in him shall receive remission of sins has been construed as proof that remission of sins is dependent on faith only. But the fact that Peter is here stating what Jesus commanded the apostles to preach should prevent such a construction of his words; for, in the commission to which he refers, immersion is connected with faith, as a condition of pardon. His words must be construed consistently with this fact. There is no difficulty in doing this, for it is a common apostolic usage to employ faith as an equivalent for the conditions of pardon. To deny that immersion is for remission of sins, because, in a condensed statement like this, it is not specifically mentioned, is not less subversive of the truth than to deny that repentance is a condition because it is not mentioned. It is not sufficient to reply to this, that repentance was always implied in genuine faith; for it certainly was not more uniformly attendant upon faith than was immersion. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 10:2. Cornelius was a Gentile and lived under the Patriarchial Dispensation, which made it appropriate for him to worship God in the manner described. That dispensation, like the two others, had its better as well as less devoted members, and Cornelius was one of the best. He was a busy man in practical matters, so his praying to God always means he was continually a praying man. 3Act 10:3. He saw evidently denoted it was so plain that it could not leave any doubt as to what he saw. God was about to put an end to the Patriarchial Dispensation, and selected one of the best men in that system for the occasion. That was significant and showed that the change was not made just because the system was an absolute failure. The angel was not to tell Cornelius what to do to be saved, but to direct him to a man who would tell him. (See the comments at chapter 8:26.) 4Acts 10:4. Was afraid means he was overcome with awe at the appearance of this being. It was at the ninth hour which is three o'clock P. M., in broad daylight, so that no mysterious condition surrounded the place. He used the word lord in the sense of "sir," a title of great respect, and inquired what he wanted of him. Before telling him of his duty, the angel first quieted his fears with some words of commendation for his past life. Memorial is from which Thayer defines, "a memorial (that by which the memory of any person or thing is preserved), a remembrance." It denotes that God had not overlooked his righteous life, and was going to use him as the first Gentile to be offered membership in the Christian Dispensation. 5Acts 10:5. Up until now Cornelius had lived in accordance with the obligations of the Patriarchal Dispensation. That system was for the Gentiles and had been in force since the days of Adam. In the meantime the Jewish Dispensation had been "added" (Galatians 3:19) as the system for the Jews, and that was lifted from them by the cross (Colossians 2:14), leaving the Gentiles still under the Patriarchal Dispensation for a few years. Now that, too, was to be discontinued, and Cornelius was to do something else. That placed him under a new obligation, cancelling the authority of the former system. From now he was expected to do something else in order to be saved, and he was told to send for Peter at Joppa that he might tell him what it was. 6Acts 10:6. Specific directions were given so that the right Simon would be called for. Oughtest is from DEI which Thayer defines, "It is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper," and he explains it at this place to mean, "Necessity in reference to what is required to attain some end." It has been rendered "must" 58 times in the King James translation. He shall tell thee. This is in keeping with the Lord's plan not to tell sinners directly what to do to be saved. (See chapter 8:26.) 8Acts 10:7-8. Most public officers have their servants to wait on them in the affairs of the home, and military men who compose a bodyguard. Cornelius sent a group of three from these two classes to go to Joppa. 0Acts 10:9-10. The story now leaves the three men in their journey but nearing the city of Joppa the following day. Meanwhile Peter went upon the roof of the house to pray. Homes had fiat roofs and they were occupied in much the same way as verandas are used today. It was at noon and Peter was hungry, but the meal was not ready, hence it furnished an opportunity for the Lord to add another portion to the story. A trance differs from a dream in that it occurs while the person is physically awake, but is lost to the immediate surroundings; a sort of "daydream." When the Lord uses that plan for making a special revelation, he will cause the person to "draw in his mind from the things around him," and see with his mind's eye the things He wishes him to see. 1Act 10:11. Saw heaven opened refers to the region above him that could be seen with the natural eye under ordinary circumstances. A square piece of cloth could be gathered up by the four corners and thus form a vessel in which objects could be held. The four corners represented the "four corners of the earth," and denoted that God was about to offer an additional opportunity to mankind for salvation, that would include the Gentiles or nations of the whole earth. 3Act 10:12-13. The Jews were restricted against eating certain kinds of animals that were considered unclean (ceremonially). They likewise held themselves above the Gentiles and regarded them as "dogs" (Matthew 15:26-27). The time had come when the Lord was going to consider any of the nations of the world good enough to be offered the Gospel, and he was introducing the subject by this object lesson. It was to be literally true that under the new dispensation no religious objections would be made against any kind of meat (1 Timothy 4:3-4). Likewise, no discriminations were to be made against any race of mankind, whether Jew or Gentile. 4Acts 10:14. Peter took the language of the Lord to be used literally of these living creatures, and that perhaps He was putting him to the test. Common means food that the common classes of mankind used. 5Acts 10:15. What God hat% cleansed is explained at verses 12, 13. 6Acts 10:16. This (conversation) was done thrice, the second being mentioned in the preceding verse. After the three times, the vessel was taken back out of Peter's sight. 7Acts 10:17. Peter pondered over the vision as to what it signified, and by that time the men sent by Cornelius had arrived at Simon's gate. 8Acts 10:18. The men specified whom they wanted according to the instruc-tions they received from Cornelius. 9Acts 10:19. The Lord was supervising this whole drama and bringing the various parts of it together at just the right time. Peter was still wondering about the vision at the time these men were making their inquiry. The "voice" of verses 13 and 15 is here seen to have been the Spirit, speaking on behalf of the Lord. 0Acts 10:20. The purpose of the Spirit in speaking was to reassure Peter that the call was legitimate. That would prepare him to receive whatever message they gave him. 1Act 10:21. Peter identified himself to the three men, which was the only response we have recorded as to their inquiry when they arrived at the gate. The Spirit had not told him what the men wanted, but simply assured him they were there because of Him. 2Act 10:22. In answer to Peter's question the men told their story. The original for warned at this place is defined by Thayer, "To be divinely commanded, admonished, instructed." Admonition always implies that some danger is possible for the one being admonished. Cornelius had been asked to learn his duty from Peter, and should he neglect it his soul would be in danger. This verse adds the information that Cornelius (though a Gentile) had a good reputation among the Jews. 3Act 10:23. It being evening of the day after the men started from home, Peter procured lodging for them over night; the next chapter will explain about certain brethren. 4Acts 10:24. Morrow after means the next day after the group left the house of Simon the tanner. By way of tabulating the days, if the men left the house of Cornelius on Monday, they got back on Thursday. Cornelius was not selfish about the good words he expected to hear, but had assembled his relatives and friends who were waiting for Peter. 5Acts 10:25. It was very natural for Cornelius to offer worship to the man who was to show him the way of salvation. We do not know what actions he attempted further than his falling down at the feet of Peter. For information on the various meanings of the word "worship," see the notes on Matthew 2:2. 6Acts 10:26. Peter's remark that he was himself also a man indicates that what Cornelius was attempting to offer was a kind due only to the Lord. 7Acts 10:27. The above conversation took place near the entrance of the house of Cornelius. Peter then went on in and observed that quite an audience had assembled. 8Acts 10:28. The first part of this verse states the long-standing attitude of the Jews toward the Gentiles. Peter makes his application of this vision of the sheet and the conversation in connection with it. In that instance nothing was said about common or unclean men; only articles of food. But the apostle understood the lesson and stated it to this assembled audience. 9Acts 10:29. Acting upon the lesson as he understood it, he came without gainsaying, which means without calling it in question. Being convinced that whatever was the purpose in calling him, it was proper, he asked them what that purpose was. 2Act 10:30-32. This paragraph corresponds with verses 3-6 in its main thoughts. It adds the information that he was fasting at the time the man (angel) appeared. 3Act 10:33. Cornelius was the spokesman in this reply to Peter's question. He was appreciative of the fact that Peter had come at his request. In the original conversation there was nothing said directly about the commandments coming from the Lord, but Cornelius recognized that He was back of all this, because the angel told him it was God who had remembered his good deeds. We are all here . . . to hear. This denotes an audience that was open to the words of the Lord. 4Acts 10:34. Opened his mouth. (See the comments at Matthew 5:2.) God is no respecter of persons is from which Thayer defines, "an accepter." It has the idea of one who can be bribed or induced to show partiality in bestowing mercy. 5Acts 10:35. Through the combination of several circumstances, Peter was convinced that all races were equally acceptable to God if they feared him and lived righteously. 6Acts 10:36. Peter then began his sermon about Jesus, whose life's story was begun among the children of Israel, and which declared that Jesus was Lord (or ruler) of all. 7Acts 10:37. The work for Jesus began with the introductory labors of John in the wilderness, and consisted of his baptism of the people, connected with belief of the story that Jesus was to come. 8Acts 10:38. Literal anointing was done by rubbing oil over a person being introduced into an office. Figurative anointing was done by bestowing the Holy Spirit upon someone who was expected to have a prominent work under God. When the word is extended to apply to unofficial persons, it means to be endowed with the words which the Holy Spirit gave the disciples through the apostles. (See 1 John 2:27.) Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost and power at his baptism (Matthew 3:16-17). Devil is from which means the being called Satan, who is considered responsible for the entrance of sin and disease into the world. 9Acts 10:39. We are witnesses was made possible by the arrangement recorded in Mark 3:14, which also is in line with Peter's statement in chapter 1:21, 22. 1Act 10:40-41. Openly does not mean generally, but evidently, "by many infallible proofs" (chapter 1:3). The witnesses were the apostles, who were chosen beforehand for that purpose. Having seen Jesus alive, and eaten with him and handled him, they could testify from personal knowledge that Jesus lived again after his three days and three nights in the tomb. 2Act 10:42. Unlike his previous speeches, Peter did not accuse his hearers of guilt when he mentioned the death of Jesus, but the event needed to be told in connection with the resurrection. For the meaning of ordained, see the notes at John 15:16. The quick are the people who will be living when Jesus comes. The dead will be raised, and all will be judged by this One who was ordained for that work. (See chapter 17:31.) 3Act 10:43. All the prophets witness. The Gentiles were not expected to be acquainted with the Old Testament prophecies. The purpose Peter had in mentioning this was to show Cornelius and his group that it had long been God's will to offer salvation to all the world who would believe, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. 5Acts 10:44-45. It is better to consider these two verses together because of their relation to each other. Notice that the terms Holy Ghost and gifts of the Holy Ghost are used for the same event, showing that the Holy Ghost was the thing given. The gift was not bestowed to make them disciples, for they were told next to be baptized. The reference to the astonishment of the disciples of the Jewish nation, and the argument Peter makes in verse 47, shows that God bestowed the gift as an evidence that from then on the Gentiles would be acceptable to become converts to Christ. (See Romans 15:16.) 8Acts 10:46-48. These verses may be bracketed and entitled, "end of the Patriarchal Dispensation." Speaking with tongues was necessary as evidence that these Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost. Upon all the accumulated evidence before Peter, which began with his trance on the roof of the house, he proposed baptism in water for these believers. In His name. The first word is from EN, and means upon the authority of the Lord. It shows Peter's right to command the baptism, and not as a "formula" to be uttered by the baptizer. It was natural for them to wish Peter to spend some time with them. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 11 PETER HIS TO Act_11:1-18 1 Now the apostles and the brethren—The distance from Caesarea, the home of Cornelius, to Jerusalem was about seventy miles. We do not know how long after the conversion of Cornelius and his household until the news reached Jerusalem; Cornelius had invited Peter and the other brethren to “ tarry certain days” with him, and the implication is that they did so. The news of the conversion of Cornelius, and especially the news of Peter’ s going into the house of a Gentile, was startling to Jewish Christians; they had, as yet, not learned that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews; neither had they heard of the vision that Peter had and the command to go to the Gentiles. It seems that the news came to Jerusalem and the other Judean churches before Peter had left Caesarea. 2-3 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem,—Peter was accompanied by the six Jewish brethren who had gone with him from Joppa to Caesarea, and now came with him to Jerusalem. We may now see the purpose Peter had in taking these six Jewish brethren with him to Caesarea; they were to be witnesses with him, and it seems that Peter had gone to Jerusalem to defend himself and to impart to the church there the news of the reception of the Gentiles. “ They that were of the circumcision,” or the Jewish Christians, “ contended” with Peter, and brought the accusation against him that he went “ in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” “ Contended” is from the Greek “ diekrinonto,” and here means “ to separate oneself apart, to take sides against, to make a cleavage.” So Peter is at once put on the defense; it is clear here that Peter was not regarded as any kind of “ pope” or overlord. The Jewish Christians must have contended that the distinction between Jew and Gentile should be maintained in the church; hence, they should not mix socially with Gentiles, the un-circumcised, nor eat with them. “ Uncircumcised” means men having not been circumcised; it is used here as a contemptuous expression; they did not object to Peter’ s preaching to the Gentiles, but they did object to his going into the house and eating with them. 4-6 But Peter began, and expounded the matter—When Peter came before the other “ apostles” and “ brethren,” he explained in a very deliberate and detailed way that he had been convinced that God wanted the gospel preached to the Gentiles. He gave the facts that convinced him, thinking that the arguments that convinced him would convince others that the Gentiles should have the blessings of the gospel. A great work had been done in the name of Christ and Peter is called on to defend himself for his part in it. Peter’ s mildness and patience in explaining the entire matter to them was put in contrast with the heat and excitement that his accusers manifested. Peter’ s rehearsal was so simple and truthful that it carried conviction. He told exactly where he was, what he was doing, and all things connected with his trance. 7-10 And I heard also a voice saying unto me,—There was a clear issue between Peter with respect to his conduct and the other apostles and brethren; the charge was: “ Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” (Verse 3.) This issue involved the one of bringing Gentiles into the church without their becoming Jews. Luke, the writer, through the Holy Spirit, deemed it wise to give the two records of this set of events— the one in chapter 10 and the other here. This shows that great im¬portance and significance was attached to the event. God himself, the God of the Jews, had directed Peter to do what he had done. (Verses 5-10.) God had convinced Peter with a vivid illustration while Peter was in a trance. (Verse 6.) God had directed Cornelius to send for Peter; to confirm the fact, an angel was sent to Cornelius bidding him send for Peter. These Gentiles had become Christians without becoming Jews; the Holy Spirit had come upon them as he had upon the Jews on Pentecost. While Jesus was on earth teaching the Jews had asked him for “ a sign from heaven,” and now Peter gives these disciples a sign from heaven. (Matthew 16:1; Luke 11:16.) 11-14 And behold, forthwith three men stood—Peter rehearsed the matter in the detailed order that the events occurred, so that his report of them might impress the minds of his hearers, as the events themselves did to his own mind. Peter’ s vision had scarcely ended when these three men from Caesarea called for him. “ Forthwith three men stood before the house in which we were.” Further evidence was that the Holy Spirit commanded Peter to go with them, “ making no distinction.” That is, Peter should go to the Gentiles with the gospel as freely as he would to the Jews; “ these six brethren” accompanied Peter and were now present to bear witness that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit and to testify just what Peter had done. So Peter confessed to the charge that was brought against him, and the other six were guilty of the same charge. Peter has made it clear that he did not go to the Gentiles and eat with them of his own initiative; he went under the direct orders of God and the Holy Spirit; these six Jewish brethren could bear witness to this fact. 15 And as I began to speak,—Cornelius had been told by the angel that Peter, when brought from Joppa, would “ speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.” (Verse 14.) Now Peter began to speak these words unto this good, yet unsaved, man; he had not been speaking very long (Acts 10:34-44) when the Holy Spirit came upon the company assembled at Cornelius’ house as he had “ on us at the beginning.” The “ beginning” mentioned here was Pentecost. Peter recalls very vividly the events at Pentecost; this was the beginning of the church; it was the beginning of the preaching of the gospel in its fullness; it was the beginning of the work of the apostles under the Great Commission; it was the beginning of the Christian dispensation. The Holy Spirit came upon these Gentiles as it did upon the Jews “ at the beginning.” According to the best chronologists, Pentecost occurred A.D. 30 to 33, and the conversion of Cornelius took place about A.D. 40; hence, it has been eight or ten years since Pentecost; the church was eight or ten years old at the conversion of Cornelius. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon the household of Cornelius was a baptism of the Holy Spirit. There had been nothing like this since Pentecost; hence, Peter says that the Holy Spirit came on the house of Cornelius as it did on the Jews “ at the beginning.” Therefore, there had been no baptism of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost; if there had been Peter could have referred to the numerous other incidents and not have had to go back to Pentecost. This also shows that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not to convert people, for Peter would only have had to refer to any case of conversion to prove his point. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord,—When the Holy Spirit came on the Gentiles, Peter remembered how Jesus had said: “ John indeed baptized with water; but ye, shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:5.) The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a mark of the divine acceptance of Gentiles as disciples. If God had conferred on the Gentiles the baptism of the Holy Spirit, how can man refuse to them all the blessings of the gospel ? How can Christian Jews call men common and unclean upon whom God has bestowed the baptism of the Holy Spirit ? 17 If then God gave unto them the like gift—Here Peter reached the climax of his argument; he and other Jewish Christians could not refuse those whom God had accepted; he could not withstand God. The argument is clear and forceful. To reject the Gentiles and refuse to let them enjoy all the blessings of the gospel would be to “ withstand God.” If God gave to them the same gift which he gave to the Jews on believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, Peter could not reject the Gentiles. The argument forces the other apostles and brethren to withdraw their charge against Peter, or commend him for what he had done, and rejoice with him in the conversion of the Gentiles. 18 And when they heard these things,—The accusation against Peter was withdrawn; the wrangling ceased; the critics even “ glorified God.” They rejoiced that God had “ granted repentance unto life” to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. Peter now sees in this incident the same principle for which Paul con¬tended at a later date. (Acts 15:8.) The Jews were now satisfied that God had called Gentiles as well as Jews; it is clear here that the Jews could not live as Jews and be Christians, and that the Gentiles could not live as Gentiles and be Christians; that “ there can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28.) CHURCH IN ANTIOCH FOUNDED Acts 11:19-21 19 They therefore that were scattered abroad—Luke, the historian, here picks up the thread of events where he left it in Acts 8:1. All the thousands of disciples that had been converted at Jerusalem were scattered abroad except the apostles; the persecution of the church began with the martyrdom of Stephen, and some of those who were scattered abroad went “ as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch.” These, however, preached the gospel “ to none save only to Jews.” The persecution which followed the death of Stephen had a twofold effect: (1) the dispersed disciples preached Christ and established churches within Palestine; (2) churches were established beyond Palestine, “ Phoenicia” was a district, about a hundred twenty miles long and fifteen miles broad, which lay to the north of Palestine on the shores of the Mediterranean, and on the slopes of Lebanon; its chief cities were Tyre, Sidon, and Tripolis; it formed a part of the Roman province of Syria. The gospel was preached and churches were established in Phoenicia. (Acts 21:1-4 Acts 27:3.) “ Cyprus” was a large and fertile island nearly opposite Antioch, while Antioch was the capital of the Roman province of Syria; it was situated on the Orontes River, about sixteen miles from the sea, with Seleucia for its seaport. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene,—Here we have a contrast with those who preached the gospel “ to none save only to Jews,” as there were “ some of them” who were scattered abroad, “ who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also.” The best authorities consider “ the Greeks” here as meaning the Gentiles; however, some authorities understand it to mean “ Grecian Jews.” (Acts 6:1.) These men from “ Cyprus and Cyrene” were “ Hellenists,” Greek-speaking Jews, who, having lived abroad, had learned to speak the Grecian language; however, they spoke “ unto the Greeks.” “ Hellenists” is used to mean those Jews who had been abroad and spoke the Grecian language; but “ Hellenes” means the Gentiles who did not become Jewish proselytes. Hence, the contrast and the new departure lie in the fact that before this the disciples sought to convert to Jesus only the Jews, including the Grecians who were Jews, but now they began to preach to the Gentiles as such. This was after the conversion of Cornelius, and probably in the year A.D. 42. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them:—“ The hand of the Lord” is an Old Testament phrase (Exodus 9:3; Isaiah 59:1) and is used frequently by Luke (Luke 1:66; Acts 4:28 Acts 4:30 Acts 13:11). This was proof that the Lord was with them in preaching the gospel to Gentiles; it also confirmed the word which was preached to them. As a result of this “ a great number that believed turned unto the Lord.” Turn to the Lord is a common expression for Gentiles who believed on Christ. (Acts 14:15 Acts 15:19 Acts 26:18 Acts 26:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:9.) “ A great number” of Gentiles were converted ; we do not know how many, but we do know that a church was established in Antioch. Antioch now is to become the center from which the gospel is spread throughout the Gentile world, as Jerusalem was the center of preaching the gospel to the Jews. COMES TO ANTIOCH Acts 11:22-24 22 And the report concerning them—The church had been established at Antioch and was composed largely of Gentile Christians. The conversion of Cornelius and the discussion which followed his conversion prepared the apostles and the church at Jerusalem for the good news of the young but fast-growing church at Antioch. News did not travel fast at that time, but the church in Jerusalem heard of the establishment of the church at Antioch, and “ sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch.” The first mention we have of Barnabas was a very favorable one. (Acts 4:36-37.) Here he sold his field and “ brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” for distribution in helping those in need. The next mention that we have of him is when he introduced and commended the new convert Saul to the apostles at Jerusalem. (Acts 9:27.) Now we have the church at Jerusalem sending him to Antioch. Barnabas belonged to Cyprus; he was sent to Antioch as Peter and John had been sent to Samaria. (Acts 8:14.) Barnabas was a good man, judicious, broadminded, and generous. He was of the tribe of Levi, spoke Greek, and was well qualified to mix with the people of Antioch; they could trust him to give wise counsel and to bring an accurate report to Jerusalem. 23 who, when he was come,—Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit; he was possibly acquainted with those who had gone to Antioch and first preached the gospel there; as he was a Grecian Jew, he would be in sympathy with the Gentile converts, and would be welcomed by the Christians in Antioch of both Jews and Gentiles. When Barnabas saw “ the grace of God” he was glad. He “ ex¬horted them all.” His first name was Joseph, but the apostles surnamed him Barnabas, “ which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation.” (Acts 4:36.) Barnabas had a special gift for work of this kind; he exhorted these Christians with one purpose of heart to “ cleave unto the Lord.” “ Cleave” here is from the original “ pros- menein,” and means “ to keep on remaining loyal” to the Lord; he exhorted them to be persistent; this was needed in such a pagan city as Antioch. 24 for he was a good man,—Very few times in the Bible is one called “ a good man” ; Barnabas came in this class. He was good and full of the Holy Spirit. This explains his conduct. Besides being really good, he was full of the Holy Spirit and faith. As a result of his labors “ much people was added unto the Lord.” These people were added to the Lord when they were added to the church; they were added to the church when they heard the gospel, believed it, repented of their sins, and were baptized into Christ. This is the way people were added to the Lord. It should be noticed how prominent “ the Lord” is made here. Christ is called “ the Lord Jesus” (verse 20); the “ hand of the Lord” was with them (verse 21); and the believers turned “ unto the Lord” (verse 21); Barnabas encouraged the people to cleave “ unto the Lord” (verse 23); and much people was added “ unto the Lord” (verse 24). The result of Barnabas’ visit to Antioch was that “ much people was added unto the Lord” ; that is, literally, a great multitude was added to the Lord. We now have a large congrega¬tion of disciples in Antioch. PAUL BROUGHT TO ANTIOCH Acts 11:25-26 25 And he went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul;—After Saul’ s conversion he went into Arabia and returned to Damascus; next we find him in Jerusalem; he did but little work in Jerusalem ; Barnabas had commended him to the apostles and the church there, but it was thought best for Saul to go to another field; so when it was found that the Jews were seeking to kill him, the brethren “ brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.” (Acts 9:30.) It seems that he did not remain idle in Cilicia (Galatians 1:21), but preached the gospel in Cilicia and Syria (Acts 15:41). The work was too heavy for Barnabas in Antioch, so he went to Tarsus, about eighty miles away, to find Saul. “ Seek” is from the original “ anazetesai,” and means “ to seek or hunt up” ; the word suggests that Barnabas had some difficulty in finding Saul. The Holy Spirit guided Barnabas in his search, and Barnabas had full confidence in Saul as being the right person to help in the great work at Antioch. 26 and when he had found him,—After finding Saul and reporting to him of the great work that had been done at Antioch, Saul accepted the invitation to join Barnabas in the work of the Lord in that field. They labored together “ for a whole year” “ with the church” at Antioch. This is the second time Barnabas introduces Saul; Barnabas here and for more than a year later appears as the leader, and not Saul. (Acts 13:1-2.) Barnabas leads in the first great work that is done with Saul. They not only preached the gospel to the unsaved, but they edified the church: they “ taught much people.” and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.—Up to this time believers in Christ had been called “ believers,” “ disciples,” “ saints,” “ brethren,” “ those of the Way” ; but now they receive a new name. Much discussion has been had as to who called them “ Christians.” “ Were called” shows that they not only called themselves by that name, but that others called them by that name. “ Were called” is from the original “ chrematisai,” and has the force of divine command. (Matthew 2:12 Matthew 2:22; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22.) However, some claim that the word does not have that meaning here, but that it has the same meaning as Romans 7:3, and means to be called or named by someone else from one’ s business. Some contend that the name was given by their enemies as a name of contempt. It matters but little as to who first coined the name and applied it to the disciples of Christ, since we have the name divinely approved by Peter in 1 Peter 4:16. Here Peter, speaking or writing by the Holy Spirit, says: “ If a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name.” The other instance in divine record where the name is used is in Acts 26:28, where Agrippa acknowledges that Paul is persuading him to be a Christian. “ Christians” is from the Greek “ Christianous” ; this termination was frequent in Latin in the early days; whether this name was derived from the Latin or not, the termination became common enough in Greek, and therefore there is no necessity to ascribe the name “ Christianos” to a Roman origin. Later “ Christianos” was modified to “ Chrestianos” (both words being pronounced alike). Each of the three languages has contributed to the formation of this word. The thought is Jewish, denoting the Anointed One; the root, Christ, is Greek; the termination, ianoi, is Latin. So in the provi-dence of God, the same three nations whose differing dialects pro¬claimed above the cross, “ Jesus the King of the Jews,” now unite in forming a word which for all time shall be applied to those who follow Christ. Antioch, the center from which the gospel radiated among the Gentiles, has given us the common name, Christian. THE FAMINE AND RELIEF Acts 11:27-30 27 Now in these days there came down prophets—“ In these days” means the time while the church at Antioch was being increased with a great multitude of Gentile converts during the year’ s residence there of Barnabas and Saul. “ Prophets” came down “ from Jerusalem unto Antioch.” Many think of a prophet as one who foretells future events; this is included in the term, but does not cover its meaning entirely. The word is a compound Greek word, “ pro,” which means “ before, in front of” ; and “ phemi,” which means “ to speak” ; hence, “ prophet” means to speak before, in front of, or speak beforehand, in behalf of, instead of one; hence, it means one who speaks for God; hence, a teacher. Judas and Silas are called prophets. (Acts 15:32.) They were not just “ foretellers,” but they were “ forthtellers.” These teachers came from Jerusalem to Antioch to instruct further the disciples in Antioch. 28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus,—This Agabus is mentioned again in Acts 21:10; he was from Judea, and by a very simple object lesson he foretold the imprisonment of Paul at Jerusalem. At this time Agabus “ signified by the spirit” that there should “ be a great famine over all the world.” Luke, the historian, records that this took place during “ the days of Claudius.” The date of this severe famine was A.D. 45. “ Agabus” means “ locust,” he predicted this great famine literally over all the inhabited earth which occurred during the reign of Claudius Caesar. His reign was from A.D. 41 to A.D. 54, and this famine in A.D. 45. Some authorities put it at other dates as A.D. 44, 46, and 48; some claim that this great famine continued from A.D. 44 to A.D. 48. 29 And the disciples, every man—The Gentile Christians volunteered to send help to the Christians in Judea; this was an act of Christian charity on their part to help their Jewish brethren. We are not told how much relief was sent, but “ every man according to his ability” purposed to send relief. The prophecy of this fam¬ine was made in order to give the disciples time to collect money and food in advance of the need; the disciples believed Agabus and proceeded at once to prepare for the relief. The warning of Agabus stirred the Christians in Antioch so that they determined to do what they could for those in distress. 30 which also they did,—When the time came that the relief was needed, the church at Antioch selected Barnabas and Saul to take the relief to those who were suffering in Judea. After the famine began and after the persecution by Herod, and Herod’ s death in A.D. 44, most of the Christians at Jerusalem were proba¬bly poor. Barnabas and Saul carried the relief “ to the elders.” This is the first mention of “ the elders” of the church. The word “ elders” here comes from the Greek “ presbuterous,” from which we get our word “ presbyters.” In Acts 20: 17 and verse 28 “ elders” and “ bishops” are used interchangeably, as in Titus 1:5 Titus 1:7. It is probable that the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem took place after the events recorded in Acts 12:1-23. This visit is omitted in Galatians 1:18 Galatians 2:1. Jerusalem is not mentioned here, but Judea is mentioned; this has caused some to think that the relief was not sent to the elders of the church at Jerusalem. Barnabas was especially suited to carry this relief to the suffering because he had come down from Jerusalem. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 11Act 11:1-3. The novel scene which had transpired in Cæsarea was soon reported abroad over the country. (1) “Now the apostles and brethren throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God. (2) And when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision disputed with him, (3) saying, You went into the house of men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.” The prejudice from which Peter had been delivered was still preying upon the hearts of his Jewish brethren, including the other apostles. The same change is now to be wrought in them which had already been effected in him. But there is no repetition, in their case, of the vision and voices which had occurred in his. On the contrary, there is nothing brought to bear upon them but what is contained in the words of Peter. Acts 11:4-17. (4) “But Peter related the matter to them in order from the beginning, saying, (5) I was in the city of Joppa, praying, and saw, in a trance, a vision, a certain vessel like a great sheet descending, let down from heaven by the four corners, and it came to me. (6) Having looked intently into it, I perceived and saw four-footed animals, and wild beasts, and reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. (7) And I heard a voice, saying to me, Arise, Peter; kill and eat. (8) But I said, Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth. (9) But the voice from heaven answered me, What God has cleansed, do not you make common. (10) This was done three times, and all was drawn up into heaven again. (11) And behold, three men immediately came to the house in which I was, sent to me from Cæsarea, (12) and the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. But these six brethren also went with me, and we entered into the man's house. (13) Then he told us that he had seen an angel in his house, standing and saying to him, Send to Joppa, and call for Simon who is surnamed Peter, (14) who will speak words to you by which you and all your house will be saved. (15) And while I was beginning to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them as upon us in the beginning. (16) Then I remembered the word of the Lord, that he said, John immersed in water, but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit. (17) Since, then, God gave to them the same gift as to us who already believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I should be able to withstand God?” The events here rehearsed by Peter had removed his own prejudice, and now, through the words which he addressed to the brethren, the same vision of unclean animals, with the command to kill and eat; the same command of the Spirit to go with the Gentile messengers; the authority of the angel who had ordered him to be sent for; and, finally, the same immersion of those Gentiles in the Holy Spirit, are all pressing upon their minds and hearts, with precisely the same import that they did upon his. Acts 11:18. The effect of these influences was the same upon them that it had been upon Peter. (18) “When they heard these things they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God to the Gentiles also granted repentance in order to life.” So greatly are their hearts enlarged, that they now glorify God for the very things on account of which they had just been censuring Peter. We have, in this incident, an exhibition of the actual method by which the minds of Christians were enlightened, and their hearts enlarged. We see that Peter was first enlightened by a combination of facts, visions, and words, so as to understand the will of God in the matter, and that through this enlightened understanding he was made to feel the weight of divine authority. Although the Spirit of God dwelt in him continually, and imparted ideas to his understanding directly, yet, when his heart was to be relieved from an injurious prejudice, the end was accomplished by means of ideas communicated to his understanding. Thus the case stands with Peter, who occupies the position of an original recipient of truth. With the brethren in Jerusalem, who occupied the exact position toward this particular subject which we do to all revealed truth, there is this difference, that all the influence, both upon the understanding and the emotional nature, exerted in their case, reached them through Peter's words. Still, the influence was not inherent in the words, but in the facts of which the words were the medium of communication. Moreover, the facts had such an influence only because they indicated the will of God. It was then, at last, the moral power of God, embodied in the facts reported by Peter, but brought to bear through the words of Peter, which so changed their hearts. They had only to believe what Peter reported, in order to feel this power. If they had retained their prejudice after this, they would have felt that they were resisting God. In precisely this way the converting and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit reaches the hearts of men now. We do not have direct communication with heavenly beings, as Peter had, but, like the brethren in Jerusalem, we hear from his lips, and the lips and pens of other original recipients, the same truth which affected their minds and hearts, and we find ours affected by it in the same way. When we resist, we are resisting not Peter and Paul, but the Holy Spirit, by whom they spoke and wrote. The fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in us is no proof that his action upon our moral sentiments is direct or immediate; for he dwelt in Peter, and in the apostles who arraigned Peter; yet his action upon even their hearts was mediate, through ideas communicated. He who asserts for us a species of spiritual influence which was not exerted even upon the apostles and other inspired me, is, to say the least, a daring speculator. Acts 11:19. The scene of the narrative is now about to change to another Roman province, and to the city of Antioch. Preparatory to this transition, the historian glances back over a period of several years, to the dispersion of the Jerusalem Church. He had made that event his point of departure in rehearsing the labors of Philip and the early history of Saul, and now, with a degree of system in his arrangement which should not be overlooked, he starts again at the same point to sweep over another part of the wide field before him. (19) “Now they who were scattered abroad from the persecution which arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to none but Jews.” From this we learn that while Philip was preaching in Samaria, and Saul in Damascus and Arabia, others of the brethren were spreading the truth into Phenicia, the island of Cyprus, and Antioch in Syria. Thus the knowledge of salvation was sounded out from Jerusalem simultaneously into all the surrounding provinces. Acts 11:20-21. Among the brethren engaged in these labors, Luke chooses to follow in a narrative only those who founded the Church in Antioch. (20) “And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, having come into Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. (21) The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.” These men were not immediately from Cyprus and Cyrene, but were a part of those dispersed from Jerusalem. The expression, “ Some of them,” referring to the preceding sentence, thus designates them. The Hellenists were doubtless numerous in Antioch, from the fact if its being the chief commercial city of Western Asia; and these brethren, being also Hellenists, were best suited for reaching their ears. Acts 11:22-24. Jerusalem was still the chief center of religious influence, being the chief residence of the apostles. They kept a watchful eye upon the movements of brethren in all directions, supplying help and counsel according to the demand of circumstances. They were anxious to hear of every new success, and the brethren were equally glad to report it. (22) “Then tidings of these things came to the ears of the Church in Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. (23) When he arrived and saw the favor of God, he rejoiced, and exhorted them all with purpose of heart to cling to the Lord. (24) For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and faith; and a great multitude were added to the Lord.” It is not often that Luke bestows a direct encomium upon the characters of whom he writes, as he does here upon Barnabas. But it was proper, in this case, that the selection of Barnabas for this mission, in preference to other brethren, should be accounted for by stating the noble qualities which led to the choice. He was certainly a most proper man to send to a congregation of young disciples, to exhort them to cling to the Lord. Acts 11:25. While Barnabas was engaged in these faithful labors in Antioch, he seems to have longed for the co-operation of a kindred spirit. He had not forgotten the converted persecutor, whom he had kindly taken by the hand when all the apostles were suspicious of him, and introduced to the confidence of the brethren. An act of kindness often makes as deep an impression on the heart of the benefactor as on that of the recipient. The heart of Barnabas had followed Saul when the brethren sent him away to Tarsus, and now that he needs a fellow-laborer, his heart directs him where to seek. (25) “Then Barnabas departed to Tarsus to seek Saul; (26) and having found him he brought him to Antioch.” The attachment being mutual, he found no difficulty in securing the object of his mission. Acts 11:26. The united efforts of two such men as Barnabas and Saul, in a community where the gospel was already favorably heard, could not fail of good results. (26) “And it came to pass, that during a whole year they were associated together in the Church, and taught a great multitude; and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” There has been much dispute as to whether this new name was given by Barnabas and Saul under divine authority, or by the Gentiles of Antioch, or by the disciples themselves. It would serve no practical purpose to decide between the latter two suppositions, for, with whichever party it originated, it was subsequently accepted by the disciples in general. As to the supposition that the name was given by direct revelation through Barnabas and Saul, a thorough discussion of its merits would require more verbal criticism than is suited to the design of this work, and, at the same time, be less decisive in reference to the authority of the name in question, than the course of investigation which we prefer to institute. We retain, therefore, the common version of the passage, which is sustained by the great mass of critics of all ages and all parties, while we seek a more certain basis on which to rest the divine authority of the new name than verbal criticism can establish. If the New Testament furnishes any names for the people of God, its authority in reference to their use is not less imperative than in reference to any other use of language. We can have no more right, in this case, to substitute other names for them, or to add others to them, than to do the same in reference to the names of the apostles, of the Holy Spirit, or of Christ. Religious names are significant. They not only distinguish the bodies to which they belong, as do modern names of individuals, but they distinguish them by a condensed description of their peculiarities. All the peculiarities of a religious denomination are expressed by the denominational name in its current import. Hence, to call a Baptist by the name Methodist would be worse than to call Smith by the name of Jones; for, besides miscalling him, it would be misrepresenting his religious principles. It is true, that, in thus miscalling the Baptist, you have not changed him into a Methodist, for he remains the same by whatever name you call him. Still, you have miscalled him and done him injustice. Truth and justice, therefore, require us to use religious names with reference to their significance. If denominational names are significant, those originally applied to the body of Christ are not less so. They distinguish the people of God by designating some of their peculiarities. These peculiarities were found either in the relations which they sustained, or in the character which they exhibited to the world. The first relation which attracted the attention of the world, as they followed Jesus from place to place, was that of teacher and pupils. This suggested the name disciples, or learners, by which they were first designated, and which is the most common designation in the gospel narratives. From the fact that there were disciples of John, with whom they might be confounded, they were, at first, styled “ disciples of Jesus.” But when John had decreased, and Jesus had increased, the limiting words were dispensed with, and the term disciple was appropriated, so that, standing alone, it always meant a disciple of Jesus. In the four gospels the limiting words are commonly employed; but in Acts, where Luke is giving some of their history as a great people spreading through the earth, after once calling them “ disciples of the Lord,” at the time Saul starts after them to Damascus, he drops the limiting words, and thence throughout the whole narrative he calls them simply the “ disciples.” When the disciples assumed a new relation to their teacher, it necessarily brought them into a new relation to one another. From the nature of the moral lessons which they were learning, and which they were required to put into immediate practice, this relation became very intimate and very affectionate. It gave rise to their designation as “the brethren.” They were so styled first by Jesus, saying to them: “ Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are brethren.“ This term, however, as a distinctive appellation of the whole body, is used only once in the gospel narratives, where John says of the report that he would not die: “ This saying went abroad among the brethren.“ In Acts it frequently occurs in this sense; but still more frequently in the Epistles. The latter being addressed to the brethren, and treating of their mutual obligations, this term most naturally takes precedence in them, and the term disciple, which is used in speaking of a brother rather than to him, is as naturally omitted. This accounts for the fact that the latter term is not once found in the Epistles. This increasing currency of the term brethren in the later apostolic age is intimately associated with the introduction of another name which came into use in the same period. Jesus frequently called the disciples his own brethren, and taught them, in praying to say, “Our Father, who art in heaven;” but the title, “ children of God,” which grew out of the relation thus indicated, was not applied to them during this early period. It is not so applied in any of the gospels but John's, and in this only in two instances, where it is evident that he is using the phraseology of the time in which he writes rather than of the period of which he writes. This appellation, as a current and cotemporaneous title, is found only in the Epistles, being brought into use after the disciples had obtained more exalted conceptions of the blessed privileges and high honors which God had conferred upon them. It extorted an admiring comment from John, in his old age: “ Behold, what manner of love the Father bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God!“ By this time the disciples exhibited to the world a well-defined character. It was such as identified them with those who, in the Old Testament, were called saints, and this suggested the use of this term as one of their appellations. The persecutions which they were enduring still further identified them with the holy “ prophets who were before them.” This name occurs first on the lips of Ananias when he objected to approaching Saul of Tarsus. He says to the Lord, “ I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints in Jerusalem.” In the Epistles this name is used more frequently than any other. All of the names we have now considered are well adapted to their specific purposes; but all of them presuppose some knowledge of the people whom they are intended to distinguish. An entire stranger would not at first know who was meant by the disciples, or the brethren; but would ask, Disciples of whom? brethren of whom? Nor would he know who were the children of God, or the saints, until you had informed him to what certain characters these terms apply. There was need, therefore, of a name less ambiguous to those who had the least information on the subject— one better adapted to the great world. This, like all the others, originated from circumstances which demanded it for immediate use. When a Church was established in Antioch, it became an object of inquiry to strangers, brought thither by the pursuits of commerce, from all parts of the world. They were strangers to the cause of Christ in reference to all but the wonderful career of its founder. The whole world had heard something of Christ, as the remarkable personage who was put to death under Pontius Pilate, though many had heard nothing of the early history of his Church. From this fact, when strangers came to Antioch, and heard the new party who were attracting so much attention there, called Christians, they at once recognized them as followers of that Christ of whom they had already heard. This explains the fact stated in the text, that “ the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” The fact that Luke here adopts it, and that both Paul and Peter afterward recognized it, gives it all the validity of inspired usage, and, therefore, all the weight of divine authority. That it is a New Testament name is undisputed, and this renders its divine authority indisputable. This name, whether given by divine or by human authority, was not designed as an exclusive appellation, seeing that the others were continued in use after its introduction. It merely took its proper place among the other names, to answer its own special purpose. To sum up the facts now adduced, the New Testament usage in reference to names is this: When the followers of Jesus were contemplated with reference to their relation to him as their great teacher, they were called disciples. When the mind of the speaker was fixed more particularly on their relation to one another, they were styled brethren. When their relation to God was in the foreground, they were called children of God. When they were designated with special reference to character, they were called saints. But when they were spoken of with the most general reference to their great leader, they were called Christians. A practical observance of the exact force of each of these names would soon conform our speech to the primitive model, and would check a tendency to exalt any one name above another, by giving to each its proper place. The names now enumerated are all that are furnished by the New Testament. We have assumed above that it would be subversive of divine authority for disciples to adopt any other names. The truth of this assumption is demonstrated by the rebuke which Paul administers to the Corinthians for this very sin. He says to them: “ It has been declared to me, my brethren, by them who are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you immersed into the name of Paul?” Now, if it was sinful for these brethren to assume the names of men, how can it be innocent in us to do the very same thing? The question demands the most solemn and trembling consideration of this generation. It is no extenuation of this fault to urge that the divisions which now exist are of a different character from those in Corinth; for the difference is entirely in their favor. They had not gone so far as to divide the Church into separate organizations, but had merely formed parties within it, like the parties of the present day, which sometimes exist within a single denomination. The sin of to-day is, therefore, much greater than theirs. It is equally vain to excuse our sin, by urging that the party names now worn are necessary, in order to distinguish the parties from one another. If the existence of the parties themselves were authorized by the Scriptures, this excuse would be valid; for we could not censure ourselves for the unavoidable results of that which is itself right. But the existence of party divisions constitutes the chief crime in the case, and leads to the sin of party names, as stealing leads to lying. The thief must inevitably lie, or acknowledge his theft; so the partisan must either cling to his party name, or give up his party. The name, in the mean time, is a necessary evil, but, being self-imposed, it is none the less evil from being necessary. Not to multiply words upon this point, it is sufficiently evident, from the above considerations, that parties and party names among Christians should be obliterated. If we say that it is impossible to obliterate them, we are simply saying that it is impossible to bring Christians back to the New Testament model— for, in the New Testament period, there were no such divisions, and therefore a restoration of that state of the Church would be the destruction of parties and party names. If this is impossible, it can only be from one cause, and that is, that men professing to take the word of God as their guide are so hypocritical in this profession, that they will, at all hazard, persevere in despising its authority in reference to a prominent item of duty. How shameful it is, that men will uphold parties and party names, which they know perfectly that a strict conformity to the New Testament would utterly destroy! There is only one means of escape from this crying sin. Those who love God must break loose at once, as individuals, from the bondage of party, and take a position where they may be upholders of no party, and wearers of no party name. All who act thus will find themselves planted together on the plain letter of the Scriptures, as their only rule of faith and practice. In addition to the observations already submitted on this topic, we remark that every significant name which a man wears imposes some obligation upon him, and appeals to him incessantly, though silently, to discharge this obligation faithfully. Does a man in foreign country declare himself an American, he realizes that there is a peculiar demeanor required by the fact, and feels constantly called upon to act worthy of the name he wears. Even a man's patronymic, which means no more than that he belongs to a certain family, is forever warning him not to disgrace the name of his father. So it must be with all religious names. Is a man called a disciple of Jesus? He remembers that it is the part of a disciple to learn what his teacher imparts, and to imitate his example. Whenever he is reminded that this is his name, he feels the necessity of studying the teachings of Jesus, and walking in his footsteps. Whenever he finds himself neglecting these duties, his very name rebukes him. This thought was not overlooked by the great Teacher himself. He says to those Jews who believed on him, “ If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Again he says, “ It is enough for the disciple to be as his teacher;” and “ whosoever does not bear his cross and come after me, can not be my disciple.“ Thus he gives emphasis to that exhortation which the name itself is constantly sounding in the ear of conscience. But the disciple is also one of the brethren— a brother to the Lord Jesus, who is the oldest brother of a large family. This name is full of affection and sympathy. I can not meet a man and call him brother, without some thought of the fraternal sympathy which should exist between us. If, when my heart is poisoned by unkind feelings toward a disciple, he meets me and calls me brother, I feel reproached by the word, and am choked in the attempt to pronounce it in return. It will never let me forget the law of love. Its influence is recognized by Peter, who says, “ Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently.” There is another obligation involved in this name, arising from the fact that the brothers in one family stand on an equal footing in reference to authority, no one having supremacy over the others, but all subject to the father. Jesus makes use of this fact as the ground of a serious injunction. “ Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are brethren; and call no man on earth your Father, for One who is in heaven is your Father; neither be called Leaders, for one is your Leader, the Christ.” The fact that we are brethren is thus made to bear directly against that thirsting for titles of distinction, and for rank and authority in the Church of Christ, which is invariably the offspring of an unholy ambition. The modern Leaders of sects— the ghostly Fathers of mystic Babylon, and the swelling titles by which Doctors of Divinity, and the Reverend and Right Reverend Bishops and Archbishops of the present age are distinguished, exhibit the most flagrant contempt for this solemn commandment of the Lord. A man who understands the meaning of the fact that he is one among many brethren, is guarded, by the humility of this title, from participation in a sin like this. If such are the obligations implied in the names disciple and brethren, what shall we say of that more exalted title, children of God? It originates from a supposed likeness between them and their Father. We are commanded to love our enemies, to bless them who curse us, to do good to them who hate us, and pray for them who persecute us, that we may be children of our Father who is in heaven. Thus the very highest moral obligations imposed in the word of God must ever press upon the soul of him who ears this title, inciting him to become a partaker of the divine nature. When, in addition to these appellations, you call a man a saint, you thrust him as a companion into the midst of all the holy men of old, and make him struggle to be like them. So palpable is the force of this name, that the mass of professed Christians have long since ceased to wear it. When men apostasized from what its meaning indicates, it hung so heavily upon the conscience, that it became like a coal of fire on their heads, and they found relief in throwing it off from themselves and appropriating it to a few of the worthy dead. If we would ever come back from the long apostasy of ages, we must learn to wear the name saint, and walk worthy of the company with which it identifies us. The term saint means a holy one, and Peter exhorts, “ As he who called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of behavior; because it is written, Be ye holy for I am holy.” The name Christian embodies within itself, in a more generic form, all the obligations specifically expressed by the other names. Being derived from the name of him who is “ head over all things for the Church,” whose name is above every name, it is a title of peculiar honor and glory. It calls upon the man who wears it to act a part in consonance with the historic memories which cluster around it, and encourages him with the reflection that he wears a high dignity even when despised and spit upon by the powers of earth. So thought Peter, when this name was most despised. He says, “ If any suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this account.” “ If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you; for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.” When the servant of Christ remembers that all these names belong to him; that, because he is supposed to be learning of Christ, he is called a disciple; because he is one of the happy and loving family of equals, they call him brother; because the Father of that family, whose character he strives to imitate, is God himself, he is called a child of God; that, because he is presumed to be holy, he is called a saint; and that, for all these reasons, he wears the name of him who by his mediation and intercession enables him to be all that he is, how powerful the incentive to every virtue, constantly yet silently pressing upon his conscience, and how stern the rebuke to every vice! When we turn from this deep and holy philosophy of scriptural names, to consider the import of mere partisan badges, how heartless they all appear! The constant and only influence of party names is to intensify mere partisan feelings. The man who wears the name Methodist feels called upon by the fact to simply act like a Methodist; and when that name is appealed to among those who honor it, it is only to exhort one another to diligence in that which is peculiarly expected of a mere Methodist. So with all other party names. There is nothing in any of them to excite the longings of a sin-sick soul, and hence they are never appealed to when sinners are exhorted to repent. On the contrary, the most zealous partisans are often heard to assure sinners, “ Our object is not to make Presbyterians of you, or Methodists, or Baptists; but we want you to become Christians.” How strange it is that men will pertinaciously cling to names which they are thus ashamed of in the presence of penitent sinners, when there are others at hand given by God himself, full of honor to the wearer, and of attraction to all who seek salvation! Acts 11:27-30. We have dwelt long upon the new name given in Antioch; we must now consider other interesting events which occurred there about the close of the year in which Barnabas and Saul labored there together. (27) “In those days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, (28) and one of them, named Agabus, arose and signified through the Spirit that there would be a great famine throughout the whole world, which also occurred in the days of Claudius. (29) Then the disciples, every one according as he was prospered, determined to send relief to the brethren who dwelt in Judea; (30) which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.” This is the first account we have of the gift of prophesy among the disciples, but Agabus and his companions appear to have been already known as prophets, doubtless from previous exercise of this gift. The brethren, therefore, did not hesitate to give full credit to the prediction, and knowing that such a famine must cause peculiar distress among the extremely poor in Judea, they were prompt to supply their wants even before the period of distress arrived. Their benevolence is not less remarkable than that of the Church in Jerusalem at the beginning. The poor for whom that Church provided were in their midst, and suffering from present want; but the disciples in Antioch anticipate a state of distress yet in the future, on the part of brethren to whom they are personally unknown, and provide for it in advance. No more striking evidence could be given, at once, of their benevolence, and their confidence in the predictions of their own prophets. This benevolent supply was sent to the Elders, by whom, we are to understand, it was distributed to the final recipients. This is the first time that elders, as a distinct class, are mentioned in connection with the congregations of disciples. They are mentioned, however, as a class of officials then well known, and, consequently, we must infer that they had been appointed in the Churches at a still earlier period. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Eleven IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To glean from Peter's own account of the conversion of the household of Cornelius, what was the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles 2) To note the beginning of the Lord's church in Antioch, and the early ministry of Barnabas and Saul SUMMARY The apostles and brethren in Judea soon heard of the Gentiles' conversion. When Peter returned to Jerusalem, brethren who were "of the circumcision" (i.e., Jewish Christians) took issue with his eating with uncircumcised men. Peter carefully explained the sequence of events, including the vision in Joppa and the manner in which the Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as he began to speak to them. The baptism of the Spirit on the Gentiles was understood to indicate that Gentiles were now allowed to hear the words of salvation, and that they could repent in order to have life (Acts 11:1-18). Luke then records how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Antioch. Those scattered after the persecution of Stephen (Acts 11 :Acts 8:1 Acts 8:4) included men from Cyprus and Cyrene who began preaching Jesus to the Hellenists (Grecian Jews). When a great number believed and turned to the Lord, the news was soon heard by those in the church at Jerusalem. Barnabas was sent to Antioch, and rejoiced in what he saw. He first spent sometime encouraging them by himself, but later went to Tarsus to find Saul. For a full year they worked together with the church in Antioch and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch, and in hearing from the prophet Agabus that there was going to be a famine, they displayed their Christ-like character by sending relief according to their ability to brethren in Judea. This they did, sending it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:19-30). OUTLINE I. OF THE (Acts 11:1-18) A. PETER BY JEWISH (Acts 11:1-3)1. Apostles and brethren in Judea hear that Gentiles received the Word of God 2. Peter challenged upon his return to Jerusalem a. Those of the circumcision contend with him b. They accuse him of eating with the uncircumcised B. PETER THE ' (Acts 11:4-18)1. He explains the events in the order in which they occur a. His vision in Joppa with the sheet and the unclean beasts b. The voice from heaven: "What God has cleansed you must not call common." c. The arrival of men from Caesarea at the conclusion of the vision d. The Spirit telling him to go with them, accompanied by six brethren e. How Cornelius was told to by an angel to send for Peter who would tell him words by which they would be saved f. How as he began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles just as upon the apostles at the beginning 2. Peter's reaction to the events a. He remembered the Lord's promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit b. He reasoned that if Gentiles received the same promise as they did when they believed, who was he to stand in God's way? 3. The reaction by those who heard Peter's account a. They became silent, and then glorified God b. They concluded that God has granted Gentiles repentance to life II. THE OF AND SAUL (Acts 11:19-30) A. THEIR WORK IN ANTIOCH (Acts 11:19-26)1. Those scattered by persecution preach the word a. They travel as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching only to the Jews b. Some from Cyprus and Cyrene preach to the Hellenists in Antioch 2. They enjoy great success in Antioch a. The hand of the Lord is with them b. A great number believe and turn to the Lord 3. Barnabas arrives in Antioch a. Sent by the church in Jerusalem b. Glad to see the grace of God c. Encouraging them to continue with the Lord with purpose of heart d. He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith e. A great many people are added to the Lord 4. Saul arrives in Antioch a. Brought from Tarsus by Barnabas b. Assembling with the church for a whole year, teaching a great many people c. The disciples are first called Christians in Antioch B. THEIR WORK IN JUDEA (Acts 11:27-30)1. Prompted by prophets coming from Jerusalem to Antioch 2. Agabus shows by the Spirit that there will be a famine 3. The disciples determine to send relief to brethren in Judea 4. They send it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- Conversion of the Gentiles defended (Acts 11:1-18) - The ministry of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:19-30) 2) What had the apostles and brethren in Judea heard? (Acts 11:1)- That the Gentiles had received the word of God 3) When Peter returned to Jerusalem, who contended with him? Why? (Acts 11:2-3)- Those of the circumcision (Jewish Christians) - Because he had eaten with the uncircumcised 4) How did Peter recount the events that had happened? (Acts 11:4)- In order from the beginning 5) What happened while Peter was praying in Joppa? (Acts 11:5)- In a trance he saw a vision with an object like a great sheet let down from heaven 6) What did he see as he observed it closely? (Acts 11:6)- All kinds of animals, creeping things and birds 7) What did a voice tell Peter to do? How did Peter respond? (Acts 11:7-8)- "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." - "Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth." 9) What was Peter then told? (Acts 11:9)- "What God has cleansed you must not call common." 10) How many times was this repeated? (Acts 11:10)- Three times 11) What happened at that very moment? (Acts 11:11)- Three men stood before the house, having been sent to him from Caesarea 12) What did the Spirit tell Peter to do? Who went with him? (Acts 11:12)- To go with them, doubting nothing - Six brethren 13) Upon arriving at the man's house, what was Peter and his companions told? (Acts 11:13)- How he (Cornelius) had seen an angel, was told to send to Joppa for Peter 14) What was Cornelius told Peter would tell him? (Acts 11:14)- Words whereby he and his household would be saved 15) What happened as Peter began to speak? (Acts 11:15)- The Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household, as upon the apostles at the beginning (Acts 2:1-4) 16) What did that bring to Peter's remembrance? (Acts 11:16)- Jesus' promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) 17) What conclusion did Peter draw? What did those who heard him conclude? (Acts 11:17-18)- Who was he to withstand God? - God has granted Gentiles repentance to life 18) What did those who were scattered after Stephen's death do? (Acts 11:19)- Traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching to Jews only 19) What did some from Cyprus and Cyrene do when they came to Antioch? (Acts 11:20)- Preached the Lord Jesus to the Hellenists (Grecian Jews) 20) What was the response? (Acts 11:21)- A great number believed and turned to the Lord 21) What did those in Jerusalem do when they heard the news? (Acts 11:22)- Sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch 22) When Barnabas saw what happened, what was his reaction? (Acts 11:23)- He was glad, and encouraged them to continue with the Lord with purpose of heart 23) What kind of man was Barnabas? What kind of results accompanied his ministry? (Acts 11:24)- A good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith - A great many people were added to the Lord 24) Who did Barnabas go to find in Tarsus? What did the two men do? (Acts 11:25-26)- Saul - Returned to Antioch and assembled with the church for a year, teaching many people 25) What were disciples called for the first time in Antioch? (Acts 11:26)- Christians 26) Who came to Antioch from Jerusalem? What did one of them show by the Spirit? (Acts 11:27-28)- Prophets - Agabus showed that there would be a great famine throughout the world 27) What did the disciples decide to do? How did they do it? (Acts 11:29-30)- To send relief to the brethren in Judea, according to their ability - They sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 11:2. When Peter got back to Jerusalem, they of the circumcism, meaning the Jews, had a contention with him. 3Act 11:3. It was objectionable to them for Peter to have associated with the Gentiles, but it was made worse for him to eat with them. In those days it was regarded as one of the strongest signs of social intimacy, to sit down together with others at a meal. (See 1 Corinthians 5:11.) See the notes at Matthew 9:11 about eating with others. 1Act 11:4-11. See the notes on chapter 10:9-18. 2Act 11:12. These six brethren are the "certain brethren" of chapter 10:23. They were taken along to be witnesses of the events in the household of Cornelius. Peter referred to them as a verification of what he was reporting. 4Acts 11:13-14. See the comments on chapter 10:30-33. 5Acts 11:15. See notes on chapter 10:44, 45. Also note that Peter says the Holy Ghost fell on them as it did on the apostles at the beginning. As to what "measure" it was that was given them, see the comments at chapter 4:31. 6Acts 11:16. Then is an adverb of time and refers to the moment when the Holy Ghost fell. That event reminded Peter of what John said in Matthew 3:11. See the comments on that verse as to why Peter does not mention the baptism of fire. 7Acts 11:17. Peter again calls the gift received by them and the Gentiles a like gift. Had he even hesitated about baptizing these Gentiles he would have been resisting God, for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost on them was to show that they were acceptable to God upon obedience to the Gospel ordinance. 8Acts 11:18. The brethren showed the right spirit when Peter presented the facts to them. They did not merely give a reluctant agreement, but gave God the glory for what he had bestowed on the Gentiles. Granted repentance unto life means God gave the Gentiles the chance to repent (reform their lives), with the promise of forgiveness of sins. 9Acts 11:19. This subject is mentioned in chapter 8:1, 4, but the places are not named in that passage. To the Jews only. That was because they had left Jerusalem before the Gentiles had been accepted into the Gospel work. 0Acts 11:20. The Grecians were Jews who spoke the Greek language. 1Act 11:21. The Lord blessed the labors of these men by causing their work to be received. The result was that a great number became disciples. 2Act 11:22. The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch (in Syria), because the scattered disciples had carried the Gospel message as far as to that city. 3Act 11:23. The mission of Barnabas was to encourage the new converts, also to exhort them regarding their responsibility. Purpose of heart denotes a service into which one puts his whole heart. 4Acts 11:24. Full of the Holy Ghost. (See the notes at chapter 4:31.) The work and influence of Barnabas resulted in many more conversions. 5Acts 11:25. The last account we had of Saul was when the brethren helped him get started towards this town of Tarsus (chapter 9:30). The work at Antioch was growing in numbers and influence, and Barnabas believed that the help of Saul would be beneficial, hence he went to Tarsus to find him. 6Acts 11:26. These two men spent a year with the church, teaching them their duties that follow induction into the Lord's service. Called Christians. The second word is defined in the lexicon, "a follower of Christ," hence it is not likely that enemies would attach that title to them as in disrespect, for the disciples themselves claimed to be that, and rejoiced in the thought of being known by that name. The first word is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, "to assume or take to one's self a name from one's public business." That is exactly what was done in this case, for the (religious) business of the disciples was to work for Christ which made the name Christian an appro-prite one for them. 7Acts 11:27. Among the miraculous gifts bestowed upon the disciples in the early period of the church was that of prophesying. Peter cited the prediction of it in his reference to Joel's writings, in chapter 2:17. 8Acts 11:28. This famine is verified by Josephus; Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 2, Section 5. I shall quote only one sentence from his lengthy paragraph: "Whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal." The context shows Josephus was writing of the days of Claudius Caesar. All the world was a common phrase to refer to the Roman Empire. 9Acts 11:29. The disciples at Antioch were in better circumstances than those in Judea, and concluded to send them some relief. This was done on the basis of voluntary contributions, and the giving was according to each man's ability. That is the principle on which all giving is to be done by Christians (1 Corinthians 16:2). 0Acts 11:30. Sent it to the elders. We learned at chapter 6:2 that the deacons are the ones whose work is to distribute the funds for the necessities of life. That was always true, but the work of those officials, like everything else pertaining to the affairs of the church, is under the supervision of the elders. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 12 OF JAMES Acts 12:1-2 1 Now about that time Herod—“ About that time” was A.D. 44, as Herod’ s death occurred in this year; Barnabas and Saul came from Antioch to Jerusalem after the persecution by Herod near the close of A.D. 44 or the beginning of A.D. 45. “ Herod the king,” this was Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great; he was ruler over Palestine from A.D. 42 to A.D. 44; he was the son of Aristobulus, the nephew of Herod Antipas, the brother of Herodias, and the father of Herod Agrippa II. He went to Rome at an early age, was educated at the court of Tiberius, and had become a companion of Caligula. He determined “ to afflict certain of the church.” It had been probably more than eight years since the persecution over the death of Stephen ceased with the conversion of Saul; but the disciples were not popular in Jerusalem with either Sadducees or Pharisees. 2 And he killed James—This James was the brother of John and was closely associated with Peter during the personal ministry of Jesus. Peter, James and John formed the inner circle of the apostles. He was the son of Zebedee, and was one of the first dis¬ciples of Jesus. At one time James and John were ambitious to be nearest Jesus in his kingdom, and James felt sure that he could drink of the same cup of suffering as Jesus (Matthew 20:20-25), and his death shows that he stood the test. James was the first of the apostles to die, and his brother John was the last. The martyrdom of James showed the early disciples that God did not always mean to interpose to deliver the apostles, and also taught them that they were to be partakers of the sufferings of Christ. It is thought that James was killed about the close of A.D. 43. He was killed “ with the sword.” There were four modes of capital punishment in use among the Jews, namely; (1) stoning; (2) burning; (3) decapita¬tion; (4) strangling. “ Stoning” was authorized by the law of Moses; crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and was not prac¬ticed save under Roman governors. AND OF PETERAct_12:3-19 3 And when he saw that it pleased the Jews,—It is likely that Herod had pleased both the rulers of the Jews and the people, because James, one of the leaders of the disciples, had been killed; this encouraged Herod to attempt to destroy other leaders among the Christians; hence, “ he proceeded to seize Peter also.” The Pharisees had always hated the disciples because they taught the resurrection of the dead; the Pharisees, no doubt, had heard of Peter’ s making common with the Gentiles; hence, they would be eager to have Peter destroyed. Luke, the historian, here indirectly locates the time of the year when Peter was arrested; those were the days of unleavened bread. The Feast of the Passover came on the fourteenth day of the first month, Abib, or Nisan; the feast of “ unleavened bread” followed the Passover and continued seven days. (Exodus 12:12-13 Exodus 12:29-30; Leviticus 23:5-8; Deuteronomy 16:1-8.) Since the feast of unleavened bread followed the Passover so closely, the same name was applied to both feasts; the Passover was sometimes called the feast of unleavened bread, and the feast of unleavened bread was called the Passover; both came in the first month of the Jewish year, Abib, or Nisan, and correspond to our latter part of March and the first of April. (See Luke 22:1.) 4 And when he had taken him,—It seems that there was some delay in the arrest of Peter; we know not the cause of the delay, but when he was found he was put in prison and they “ delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him” ; that is, he was given to a band of four soldiers on guard at one time, two within, one on each side of Peter, bound one to each of his arms with chains, a third posted outside the door, and a fourth in the passage leading to the outside gate. It was customary to relieve the soldiers from duty every three hours, at each of the watches night and day; hence, sixteen soldiers were responsible for him. In addition to this, the prison doors were fastened and a great iron gate helped to make secure the prisoner. Escape from the prison was humanly impossible. Perhaps Peter was so imprisoned and held secure because they remembered that he at one time escaped from prison (Acts 5:19), and they did not intend that he should get away this time. He was kept in prison until after “ the Passover,” and then he was to be killed. Here we have this feast called “ the Passover,” and in verse 3 it is called “ the days of unleavened bread.” Herod would not execute Peter during the Passover festival, because that would offend the Jews whom he wished to please. “ Bring him forth to the people” is similar to the description of the trial of Jesus. (Luke 22:66.) Herod intended to execute Peter within a week or ten days, but he did not know that his own death was nearer than that of Peter. 5 Peter therefore was kept in the prison:—Peter was in the inner prison or lower ward and would be led to the judgment seat where Herod Agrippa would sit so soon as the festal days were ended. (John 19:13.) There is an emphatic contrast here. Peter was kept in prison, but “ prayer was made earnestly of the church unto God for him.” Here was a battle between the church and the world, the world attempting to destroy Peter and the church praying for him. We have King Herod, soldiers, prison, chains, iron gates on the one side, and a company of Christians praying on the other side; what will be the outcome ? The prayers were made “ earnestly,” without ceasing. (Luke 22:44.) It was a trying time with the church at Jerusalem; the apostle James had been killed and Peter was to be the next victim) hence, the disciples prayed “ earnestly.” This word comes from the Greek “ ektenes,” which means “ strained,” and from “ ekteino,” which means “ to stretch” ; it is the same word as used with respect to the prayer of Jesus (Luke 22:44), and is the same Greek word translated “ fervently” in 1 Peter 1:22. 6 And when Herod was about to bring him forth,—When the time arrived, or the festal days were ended, Herod had in mind to execute Peter the following day; but “ the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers” ; and was bound “ with two chains.” It should be noted that although the time of execution was near, yet Peter “ was sleeping” ; he was not disturbed about his condition. The two soldiers were chained to Peter and Peter was between them. The guards were on duty and standing “ before the door” of the prison; hence, the two guards outside were keeping the door and the two soldiers within were chained to Peter with two chains. Perhaps Peter may have remembered what Jesus had said to him about his death, that he should live to be an old man. (John 21:18.) 7 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him,—“ An angel of the Lord” is here introduced by Luke with the same phraseology as Luke used with respect to the visit of the angel to the shepherds. (Luke 2:9.) This angel stood by Peter while he was asleep; “ a light shined in the cell” with splendor and attended the presence of the angel; this light did not awaken Peter, so the angel “ smote Peter on the side, and awoke him.” When he was awake the angel said: “ Rise up quickly.” The angel roused Peter, he did not help him to arise, but commanded him to get up. “ His chains fell off from his hands.” The soldier who was appointed to guard a prisoner had the chain fastened to the wrist of his left hand, while the right hand remained at liberty to punish the prisoner if he attempted to escape; but Peter had chains around both hands as he was bound to two soldiers with two chains. 8 And the angel said unto him,—The angel gave further in¬struction to Peter and told him to gird himself and put on his san¬dals. For convenience Peter had unbound his girdle, unfastened his sandals, and was sleeping with his garment loosely over him; when he arose at the angel’ s touch it would fall loosely at his feet, so he would need to gird himself. Peter would need to be clad as he was about to make a journey from the prison; he obeyed at once and the angel commanded him to cast his garment about him and follow him. The sandals worn at that time covered only the soles of the feet and were bound on the foot with a strap. 9 And he went out, and followed;—Perhaps the angel had caused a deep sleep to come upon the soldiers, so they were harm¬less as Peter escaped; Peter went out and followed the angel. The angel was in the form of a man and Peter “ knew not that it was true which was done by the angel” ; he thought that he “ saw a vision.” Peter was puzzled and did not know that the reality of escape was being made; he had had a vision in Joppa (Acts 10:10) which Luke described as an ecstasy. Peter was so surprised that he scarcely knew whether he was asleep or awake. 10 And when they were past the first and the second guard,—The outer guards were stationed one nearer to the inner door of the prison and the other at some greater distance away; so when the angel had led Peter past these guards, “ they came unto the iron gate that leadeth into the city.” This description, with the words which immediately follow about the street into which they came, indicate that the prison in which Peter was kept was in the midst of the city. When they came to the iron gate it opened “ of its own accord” to them and “ they went out” and “ passed on through one street” and immediately the angel left Peter. The angel had delivered Peter and now Peter could make his way alone. We have no means of knowing just where in Jerusalem this prison was located. 11 And when Peter was come to himself,—“ Come to him¬self” is from the Greek “ heautoi genomenos,” which means “ be¬coming at himself” ; it is the same expression used in Luke 15:17 where the prodigal son “ came to himself,” and means that he came to himself, as if he had been on a trip away from himself. Peter came out of his semidazed condition, and had all of his senses under control. He knew what had occurred— that the Lord had sent his angel and delivered him out of the hands of Herod and “ from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.” The Jews were ex¬pecting Herod to put Peter to death; they were anxious for him to do that so that Christianity would be checked. 12 And when he had considered the thing,—When Peter came to himself and realized that God had preserved him from death, “ he came to the house of Mary the mother of John whose surname was Mark.” It is probable that the disciples were accustomed to meeting at the house of Mary, so Peter’ s mind worked rapidly and he decided to go and find protection and companionship there. There are six Marys mentioned in the New Testament; they are as follows: (1) Mary of Cleophas (John 19:25); (2) Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2); (3) Mary the mother of Mark (Acts 12:12); (4) Mary, sister of Lazarus (Luke 10:42); (5) Mary, a Roman Christian (Romans 16:6) ; (6) Mary the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:30). When Peter arrived at the house of Mary he found “ many were gathered together and were praying.” It seems that the praying had been going on all night, and a large number of the disciples were there. At another time the disciples gathered to pray (Acts 4:31) after Peter had told the disciples of the threats of the Sanhedrin. “ The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working.” (James 5:16.) 13 And when he knocked at the door—It is not strange that the door at the house of Mary would be fastened, as it was night and great fear was upon the disciples. Peter came to the door and knocked; this was the outer door, as there was a passage leading from the street to the inner court; just inside was a small room, like a porter’ s lodge, and a door admitting into the room from the court. A damsel by the name of Rhoda came to answer the knock. “ Rhoda” means “ rose.” It was customary to name the daughters of the house after the most beautiful objects, as “ Esther” which means a star; “ Hadassah” which means “ myrtle” ; “ Dorcas” which means “ antelope” ; “ Margarita” which means “ pearl” ; “ Susannah” which means “ lily” ; “ Deborah” which means “ bee” ; and “ Tamar” which means “ palm tree.” “ Damsel” was used of a young female slave, as well as of a young girl; the narrative implies that she was more than a servant. 14 And when she knew Peter’ s voice,—Peter must have been a frequent visitor to Mary’ s house, and a frequent speaker to the disciples, as his voice was familiar even to the damsel. In her ex¬citement and haste, when she recognized Peter’ s voice, she ran back into the house without opening the gate for Peter; she reported to the company that Peter was without and that he stood “ before the gate.” 15 And they said unto her,—The company within did not believe Rhoda; they saw she was excited and said to her: “ Thou art mad.” However, the damsel “ confidently affirmed that it was even so.” She seems to have been so earnest and so sincere that the company was convinced that something had occurred to her; hence, they were ready to say: “ It is his angel.” The Jews be¬lieved in the guardian angel, and they thought that Peter’ s “ angel” had assumed the voice of Peter. (Matthew 18:10.) These disciples perhaps thought that Peter’ s angel had come to make known to them something about Peter. 16 But Peter continued knocking:—The maiden had left the gate unopened and reported in excitement that Peter was at the gate; while she was gone Peter continued to knock for entrance, and when the gate was opened, “ they saw him, and were amazed.” It seems that all heard the knocking and several must have gone to the gate, and when it was opened, they were amazed to find Peter standing there. Surely they were not praying for Peter’ s delivery, or else they would not have been so amazed at an answer to their prayer; they were praying for him, but we do not know the peti¬tions of their prayer. 17 But he, beckoning unto them—The company seems to have been as much excited as the maiden who first heard his voice; however, Peter motioned with his hand for them to keep silent. “ Beckoning” with the hand is from the Greek “ kataseisas tei cheiri,” and literally means “ shake down with the hand” ; the speaker indicated by a downward movement of the hand his desire for silence; Peter was anxious for every precaution to be taken that no noise be made to attract attention to him. While the Lord had protected him from Herod by releasing him from prison, yet Peter does all that he can in righteousness to remain out of the hands of Herod. He told the little company “ how the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison.” It seems that James and others of the brethren were not present; there was no place in Jerusalem where all the disciples could meet. It is evident that this James was the Lord’ s brother, and he is now one of the leading men of the church at Jerusalem. (Galatians 1:19.) James is here recognized by Peter as a man of great influence. James was present in Jerusalem when the question of circumcision was decided. (Acts 15:13.) After informing the group at the house of Mary as to how he was released from prison and giving orders to report his release to James and the other brethren, Peter departed “ and went to another place.” We are not told where he went; he may have left Jerusalem. Mary’ s house was too well known for him to remain there if he would escape from Herod. Peter must use all precaution and means of escape, so he may have left Jerusalem. (Matthew 10:23.) 18 Now as soon as it was day,—Early next morning the soldiers discovered that Peter had escaped, and “ there was no small stir among the soldiers.” “ Stir” is from the Greek “ tarachos,” and means “ to agitate;” it is used only twice in the New Testa¬ment, here and in Acts 19:23. Very likely the sixteen soldiers, or “ four quaternions” of soldiers were greatly disturbed over the es¬cape of Peter; they were responsible for the prisoner with their lives. (Acts 16:27 Acts 27:42.) 19 And when Herod had sought for him,—The next morn¬ing, which was the day of execution, Herod sought for Peter, but could not find him. We know not what report the soldiers gave to Herod; Herod, following a custom or law in Rome, “ examined the guards, and commanded that they should be put to death.” “ Examined” is from the Greek “ anakrinas,” which means “ to sift up and down, to question thoroughly.” (Luke 23:14; Acts 4:9 Acts 28:18.) The soldiers were ordered to be put to death; this was the ordinary Roman routine and not a proof of special cruelty on the part of Herod Agrippa. After this Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and remained there for a time; Herod, like the Roman governor, though his principal residence was at Jerusalem, yet had also a palace at Caesarea; he spent his time in either city as cir¬cumstances required. DEATH OF HEROD AGRIPPA IAct_12:20-2320 Now he was highly displeased with them—Herod was greatly “ displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon.” Tyre and Sidon were on the Mediterranean coast in Phoenicia; we are not informed here why he was so displeased with these cities. Tyre and Sidon were trading seaports, and much of the goods shipped at these ports passed through Galilee; Herod could divert a great deal of it to Caesarea or Joppa. Phoenicia was so populous that it depended on its neighbors for food, and much of that came from Galilee. Herod was in position to do much harm to these cities. However, agreement was reached with each other and they came to Herod. It seems that Tyre and Sidon had made “ Blastus the king’ s chamberlain their friend” ; hence, through him they asked for peace “ because their country was fed from the king’ s country.” The hostility between the Phoenicians and Herod was not an open war, but the representatives of Tyre and Sidon, together with Blastus, prevailed upon Herod to let the supplies be brought to these cities. Blastus had charge of his master’ s sleeping apartment and, to some extent, of his person. He had the duty of introducng visitors to him and remained in an adjoining room so that he would be ready when the king wanted him. 21 And upon a set day Herod arrayed himself in royal apparel,—The day was one appointed for holding a festival on which to make vows for Caesar’ s safety; Herod arrayed himself in his royal apparel and “ sat on the throne, and made an oration unto them.” We are told a vast multitude assembled to see the festival and games, and before these, the king, in all the pride of high state, appeared on the second day in a robe “ made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment, being illumi-nated by the fresh reflection of the sun’ s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a terror over those that looked intently upon him.” (Josephus, Antiquities, 19:8.) 22 And the people shouted,—When Herod made his speech, the people shouted his praise and said: “ The voice of a god, and not of a man.” They attributed to him the honor of a god, and their praise was tantamount to worship. The crowd repeated their flattering adulation to gain Herod’ s favor; their worship of him was pleasing to his vanity. This flattery was highly acceptable to Herod as he sat on his throne in the presence of a vast assembly Of ambassadors who had come to him as a distinguished ruler with the special purpose of removing his displeasure toward the cities of Tyre and Sidon. 23 And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him,—Luke does not tell us that this angel was visible; his record does imply that Herod’ s death was a judgment from God; he had failed to give God praise; he received the honor which belonged to God; hence, his punishment was considered as divine judgment. “ He was eaten of worms” and died. “ Worm” is from the Greek “ sko lex,” and was used of “ intestinal worms” ; there are several cases recorded in ancient history of such deaths. Josephus says that Herod Agrippa lingered for five days, and says that the rotting of his flesh produced worms; this is in harmony with Luke’ s description. It is recorded that Herod died in August, A.D. 44. Herod died a most revolting death, and much more shocking than a sud¬den stroke of death. RETURN OF SAUL AND Act_12:24-25 24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.—This statement is given to show the contrast between what man was attempting to do to stop the growth of the church and what God was doing for it. “ Grew and multiplied” is from the Greek “ euxanen kai eplethuneto,” and means “ a very rapid increase;” persecutions did not stop the growth of the disciples, neither did it check the number of converts; in fact, the more bitter and severe the perse¬cution the more rapidly did the church increase. The cause of Christ cannot be destroyed by persecution. The history of the church as revealed in Acts shows that the church multiplied more rapidly under persecution than at other times. 25 And Barnabas and Saul returned—Agabus had come from Jerusalem to Antioch and had prophesied of a “ great famine over all the world” (Acts 11:27-28), and the disciples at Antioch de¬termined to send relief to the Jewish brethren in Judea; they did this and sent their contribution by Barnabas and Saul; hence, Barnabas and Saul went to Jerusalem. We left them there as chapter 11 closed. When they had “ fulfilled their ministration” they returned to Antioch and brought with them “ John whose sur¬name was Mark.” Mark was the son of Mary into whose house Peter had gone after his escape from prison. Mark was a cousin of Barnabas. (Colossians 4:10.) So far the historian, Luke, has narrated the facts of the beginning of the church on Pentecost; then its extension among the Jews and Samaritans. He has touched upon the extension of the church among the devout Gentiles, and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Some attention has been given to the persecution of the early church. Peter has been the central figure in the history of the spread of the church among the Jews; he was the apostle of the circumcision. Now the historian turns attention to the labors of Paul as the apostle to the uncircumcised or Gentiles; Antioch be¬comes the center from which the gospel is extended among the Gentiles “ unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8.) J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 12Act 12:1-2. The historian does not follow Barnabas and Saul in their tour through the districts in Judea, but, leaving them for awhile, introduces a very interesting episode concerning events that were then transpiring in Jerusalem. (1) “Now, about that time, Herod the king stretched forth his hand to afflict certain persons of the Church, (2) and killed James the brother of John with the sword.” The persecutions which we have hitherto noticed were conducted by religious partisans in Jerusalem, without any active assistance on the part of the civil authorities. We are now introduced to one in which the reigning prince is the leader, while the old enemies of the truth are working behind the curtain, if at all. This Herod was a grandson of that Herod by whom the infants of Bethlehem were slaughtered, and a nephew of “ Herod the Tetrarch,” by whom John the Immerser was beheaded. He grew up in Rome, where he wasted what fortune he had inherited in princely extravagance; but while doing so he acquired an intimacy with Caius Cæsar, afterward the famous Caligula of history. When the latter ascended the throne, at the death of Tiberius, he elevated his friend Agrippa, as this Herod was most usually called, to a kingdom, which was subsequently enlarged by Claudius until it embraced all the territory ruled by his grandfather Herod the Great. He was now in the zenith of his power, and living in the utmost magnificence. Why he undertook this persecution it is difficult to tell, unless he was instigated to it by the old enemies of the Church. This appears most probable from Luke's statement below, that he seized Peter because he saw that the death of James pleased the Jews. A number of brethren suffered in this persecution, though James the brother of John is the only one who is said to have suffered death. He is designated as the “ brother of John” to distinguish him from the other James, who is the author of the epistle bearing this name. He was the first of the apostles to suffer death, and his brother John was the last. In the death of both were fulfilled the words of Jesus, uttered on a memorable occasion, when they asked him for a seat, one at his right hand, and the other at his left. He asked them if they were able to undergo the immersion which he would undergo. They said, “ We are able.” He replied, “ You shall, indeed, drink of my cup, and be immersed in the immersion in which I am immersed; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.” As the sword of the executioner was made bare, and the neck of James laid upon the block, he could but remember these words. He understood, too, far better than when he first made the request, what it is to sit at the right hand of Jesus. Why James was selected for this murderous example, in preference to any other of the apostles, we are not informed; but we have already seen that the brunt of persecution uniformly fell upon those most prominent in the scenes which were the immediate occasion of it. This consideration gives some ground for the conclusion that, though Peter and John had hitherto acted the most prominent part in Jerusalem, at this time James stood in the foreground in the conflict with the unbelieving Jews. Acts 12:3-4. When a man engages in a wicked enterprise, his conscience makes him timid while left to himself; but the applause of the multitude enables him to drown the voice of conscience, and rush on madly to the end. Agrippa may have hesitated when he found his hands stained with the blood of an apostle; but when the people applauded, he hesitated no longer. (3) “And seeing that it was pleasing to the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. But it was in the days of unleavened bread. (4) And having apprehended him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him, intending, after the Passover, to bring him out to the people.” A public execution during the feast of unleavened bread would have been exceedingly incongruous with the religious solemnities of the occasion: hence this delay. The four quaternions of soldiers who guarded Peter consisted of sixteen men, each quaternion consisting of four. It was enough to keep four men on guard during each of the four watches of the night. They, together with the strength of the prison doors, were deemed sufficient for the utmost security. Acts 12:5. We have noticed that when Peter and John were dismissed from the Sanhedrim, with a threat of violence if they dared any more to speak or teach in the name of Jesus, they came to their own company, and all united in prayer to God for courage. Now that James has been murdered, and Peter is in prison awaiting the same fate, we find the brethren once more unitedly appealing to God. (5) “Peter, therefore, was kept in prison, but fervent prayer was made by the Church to God for him.” When we reflect that the circumstances affecting the disciples were calculated in the highest degree to exasperate them against the murderers of their brethren, and stimulate them to active measures for the defense of their own lives, it is exceedingly to their credit that they were engaged in fervent prayer. If they had been taught the modern doctrine that Christians may rightly resist, with violence, the assaults of tyrannical rulers, and, whatever the weakness on their own part, may confidently appeal to the God of battles in vindication of their rights, their feelings, and their conduct, under these circumstances, must have been far different from what they were. If ever there was an occasion on which the boasted first law of nature, the right of self-defense, would justify resistance to oppression, it existed here. But, instead of the passion and turmoil of armed preparation, we hear from the midnight assemblies of the disciples the voice of fervent prayer. Where prayer is, acceptable prayer, there is no passion, no thirst for revenge, or purpose of violence. These men were disciples of the Prince of Peace. Acts 12:6. Time wore away in painful suspense until the Passover was gone by. (6) “And when Herod was about to bring him forth, in that night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and the guards before the door were guarding the prison.” He was securely kept, according to the most ingenious method of the Roman army. Besides the prison-doors, and the guards without, his arms were pinioned by two chains, each to the arm of a soldier on the right and left, so that he could not move without disturbing one or both. If Herod was actuated, in adopting these precautions, by a desire to prevent a rescue, he ought to have known that Peter's brethren never fought with carnal weapons, even to save the life of a brother. Or if he feared a miraculous escape of his prisoner, and intended that the guards should kill him upon the first movement of that kind, he ought to have remembered that all the twelve had once walked out of a prison in that city without hindrance either from the iron doors or the armed soldiers. But wicked men are prone to forget the warnings of the past, and continue to repeat, in endless succession, the blunders of their predecessors. Acts 12:7-11. Though Peter undoubtedly expected to die the next day, he seems to have slept as soundly as the soldiers to whom he was chained. All was dark and still within the prison until a late hour of the night, when the scene suddenly changed. (7) “And behold, an angel of the Lord, stood by, and a light shone in the prison; and striking Peter on the side, he raised him up, saying, Rise up quickly. His chains fell from his hands. (8) And the angel said to him, Gird yourself, and bind on your sandals. He did so. And he said to him, Cast your mantle about you and follow me. (9) And he followed him, going out, and did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. (10) But having passed through the first and second guard, they came to the iron gate which leads into the city, which opened to them of its own accord; and going out, they went forward one street, and immediately the angel departed from him. (11) Then Peter, coming to himself, said, Now I know in reality that the Lord has sent his angel, and delivered me from the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the Jewish people.” It is not at all strange that Peter thought, at first, that he was dreaming; for the deliverance was entirely unexpected, and was effected in the most wonderful manner, and amid the bewilderment usual upon being suddenly aroused from deep sleep. When he found himself alone in the street, and had collected his senses, he knew that it was a reality, and felt like one waking from a singular dream. Acts 12:12. When the angel departed, he stood in the street for awhile, reflecting upon the incident, and considering what he should do. In the house of Mary the sister of Barnabas, a number of disciples were at that very hour engaged in prayer in his behalf. He knew nothing of this, but, guided either by the proximity of the house, or the well-known character of its inmates, he turned in that direction. (12) “When he understood the matter, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying.“ Acts 12:13-16. Although the condition of Peter was the burden of the prayers of these disciples, they were by no means expecting his deliverance, and were most likely praying that he might be enabled to endure with fortitude a death which they regarded as inevitable. (13) “And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a servant girl named Rhoda came to hear who it was. (14) And recognizing the voice of Peter, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in and told that Peter was standing before the gate. (15) But they said to her, You are mad. But she positively affirmed that it was really so. Then they said, It is his angel. (16) But Peter continued knocking, and when they had opened the door and saw him, they were astonished.”When we remember that these disciples were so familiar with miracles, it is rather surprising that the deliverance of Peter should have caused so much astonishment. It shows that they were still disposed, like ourselves, to estimate the probabilities of even what God may do, by the difficulties of the execution. This is really judging of God by the standard of human ability. While we are compelled to approach the unknown through the known, we will, perhaps, never rise above this weakness. Still, it should not, even in the most difficult cases, check the fervency of our prayers. They undervalued the power or the willingness of God to grant their desires, in the day of miracles, as we undervalue his power to work without miracles; yet their prayers were none the less fervent or persistent. When Rhoda insisted that it was Peter at the gate, and the disciples said, It is his angel, they undoubtedly had allusion to the popular superstition of their day, that a man's guardian angel sometimes assumed his form. Before this, the twelve had twice imagined that they saw a disembodied spirit; once when they saw Jesus walking on the water, and once when he miraculously entered a closed room where they were sitting. These facts show how strong a hold the popular superstitions had upon their minds. But while the conception that angels sometimes assumed the forms of those whom they guarded, and that disembodied spirits were sometimes visible, was superstitious, we must not forget that beneath this superstition there was a solemn reality. Jesus says, “ Take heed that you despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Paul asks, “ Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall inherit salvation?” And David, under the old economy, says, in his own poetic style, “ The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them who fear him.” In view of these statements, we can not doubt that the ministration of angels in behalf of the saints is still a reality. Acts 12:17. Apprehensive of a pursuit, Peter did not remain long with the brethren in the house of Mary. (17) “But, beckoning to them with his hand to be silent, he related to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison, and said, Tell these things to James and the brethren. And going out, he went to another place.” Whether this other place was a place of concealment in the city, or an entirely new field of labor, is not known. The prominence given to the name of the surviving James, in this speech of Peter, shows that he already occupied a prominent position among the brethren. We will, hereafter, see that he continued to occupy this position. Acts 12:18-19. The escape of Peter had been altogether unobserved by the soldiers who guarded him. The two who were chained to him in the prison slept on till day, and those guarding the outside changed their watches at the regular hours without suspecting any thing wrong within. (18) “Now when it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. (19) And when Herod had sought for him and found him not, he examined the guards and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and abode there.” The military law of the Romans required that guards who allowed the escape of a prisoner, and rendered no satisfactory account of it, should be put to death. But it is impossible to believe that on this occasion Herod was governed by an honest sense of military duty. He must have known that the escape of Peter was miraculous, and the execution of the guards was an act of insane fury. A conscience stained by the blood of an apostle and of sixteen faithful soldiers could not find rest in the place where the deeds were done; and doubtless this had much to do with the removal of his residence to Cæsarea. Acts 12:20-23. The historian pursues the history of this murderous prince a little further. (20) “Now Herod was enraged against the Tyrians and Sidonians. But they came to him with one accord, and having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, desired peace, because their country was nourished by that of the king. (21) And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration to them. (22) And the people cried out, The voice of a God, and not of a man. (23) And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory, and being eaten by worms, he expired.” Josephus says of the “ royal apparel” in which he was arrayed, that it was woven wholly of silver threads, the glittering of which, in the morning sun, suggested the idolatrous exclamation of the multitude. He also relates that Herod was seized with pains in the bowels, so violent that he had to be carried into the palace, and lingered five days in excruciating torments from the worms also mentioned by Luke. This historian mentions some circumstances of a superstitious character in connection with this terrible event, but his account agrees substantially with that of Luke. Thus was the righteous judgment of God, which is chiefly reserved for the future state, displayed even in the world, for the terror of wicked men and the encouragement of the righteous. Acts 12:24. It was impossible that this providential and sudden death of Herod, occurring so soon after the murders which he had committed in Jerusalem, should not seriously affect the public mind. We are not surprised, therefore, that Luke adds: (24) “But the word of the Lord grew and multiplied.” Once more the efforts of men to crush the cause of Christ resulted in the extension of its triumphs. Acts 12:25. This narrative concerning the death of James, the imprisonment of Peter, and the miserable death of Herod, is thrown in between the arrival of Paul and Barnabas on their mission to the poor saints, and their return to Antioch. It is most probable that they were in Jerusalem at the feast during which Peter lay in prison. (25) “Now Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John who was surnamed Mark.” This is the first appearance in public life of the evangelist Mark, whose education in the house of Mary his mother, and whose subsequent familiarity, first with Barnabas and Saul, and afterward with Peter, very happily fitted him for the gospel narrative which we have from his pen. We will have more to say of him hereafter. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Twelve IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To note the martyrdom of James, and the miraculous release of Peter from prison 2) To review the untimely death of Herod, and the continued success of the word of God SUMMARY This chapter records the efforts by King Herod to harass the church in Jerusalem. This Herod was Agrippa I, son of Herod Antipas (who beheaded John the Baptist, M att 14:1-12), and grandson of Herod the Great (who slew the infants at Bethlehem, Matthew 2:1-16). Successfully killing James the brother of John with the sword, Herod had Peter arrested and imprisoned, intending to bring Peter before the people after the Passover. Herod's plans were thwarted when an angel of the Lord freed Peter from prison. After meeting with brethren at the home of Mary, mother of John Mark, Peter sent word to James and the brethren of his miraculous release. When Peter was not found in the prison, Herod had the guards examined and executed. Herod then went down to Caesarea (Acts 12:1-19). While at Caesarea, the people of Tyre and Sidon came to Herod to appeal for peace. When he gave them an oration, the people praised his speech as "the voice of a god and not of a man." Failing to give glory to God, an angel of the Lord struck Herod and he died. The word of God, however, grew and multiplied. Barnabas and Saul, having completed their ministry to the saints in Judea (cf. Acts 11:29-30), returned from Jerusalem to Antioch accompanied by John Mark. At this point in Luke's narrative of the history of the church, the focus turns from the ministry of Peter to the ministry of Paul (Acts 12:20-24). OUTLINE I. THE BY HEROD THE KING (Acts 12:1-19) A. JAMES KILLED WITH THE SWORD (Acts 12:1-2)1. Herod begins to harass some from the church 2. He killed James the brother the John B. PETER , FREED BY AN ANGEL (Acts 12:3-19)1. Peter seized during the days of Unleavened Bread a. Since Herod saw that it pleased the Jews b. Intending to bring Peter before the people after Passover 2. Peter released by an angel a. Constant prayer was being offered by the church b. Though bound with chains between two guards, with more before the door c. An angel stands before Peter, along with a shining light d. The angel strikes Peter on the side, and raises him; chains fell off e. Told to gird himself, tie his sandals, put on his garments, and follow f. Thinking it was a vision, Peter follows the angel past the guards and into the city 3. Peter rejoined with his brethren a. He realizes that the angel has delivered him from Herod b. He comes to the house of Mary, mother of John Mark, where many are praying c. He is first left standing at the door by Rhoda, then astonishes the brethren when they come to the door d. He relates what happened, sends word to James and the brethren, and departs 4. Peter's release causes a stir a. Herod is unable to find Peter b. Herod examines the soldiers and has them put to death c. Herod leaves Judea and goes to Caesarea II. THE DEATH OF HEROD THE KING (Acts 12:20-25) A. HIS LAST ORATION (Acts 12:20-22)1. The people of Tyre and Sidon appeal for peace to Herod through Blastus, the king's aide 2. On a set day, in royal apparel and on his throne, Herod gives them an oration 3. The people praise him as having the voice of a god and not of a man B. STRUCK DOWN BY AN ANGEL (Acts 12:23)1. An angel of the Lord strikes him immediately because he did not give glory to God 2. He is eaten of worms and dies C. WORD OF GOD (Acts 12:24-25)1. The word of God grows and multiplies 2. Barnabas and Saul return from Jerusalem with John Mark, fulfilling their ministry REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The persecution by Herod the King (Acts 12:1-19) - The death of Herod the King (Acts 12:20-25) 2) How did Herod begin to harass the church? (Acts 12:1-3)- By having James the brother of John killed with the sword - By having Peter put in prison 3) When was Peter imprisoned? When did Herod intend to present him to the people? (Acts 12:3-4)- During the Days of Unleavened Bread - After Passover 4) How did the church respond to Peter's imprisonment? (Acts 12:5)- They offered constant prayer to God in his behalf 5) How was Peter bound, the night before Herod intended to bring him before the people? (Acts 12:6)- With two chains between two soldiers, and guards before the door of the prison 6) As the angel freed Peter and led him out of the prison, what was Peter thinking? (Acts 12:7-9)- That he was seeing a vision 7) After the angel led Peter into the city and then left, what did Peter come to realize? (Acts 12:10-11)- The Lord had sent His angel to deliver him from Herod and the expectation of the people 8) Where did Peter first go? What were the people there doing? (Acts 12:12)- The house of Mary, mother of John Mark - Praying 9) Who answered the door? How did she react? (Acts 12:13-14)- A girl named Rhoda - She recognized Peter, but in her excitement left him standing at the door 10) What did the people think she had seen at the door? (Acts 12:15)- Peter's angel 11) After they finally went to the door and let him in, what instructions did Peter give? (Acts 12:16-17)- To tell what happened to James and the brethren 12) When Peter was not found in the prison on the next day, what happened? (Acts 12:18-19)- There was a big stir among the soldiers - Herod had the guards examined, then executed 13) Where did Herod then go? Who came with an appeal for peace? (Acts 12:19-20)- From Judea down to Caesarea - The people of Tyre and Sidon 14) When Herod gave them an oration, what did the people say? (Acts 12:21-22)- "The voice of a god and not of man!" 15) What happened to Herod? Why? (Acts 12:23)- An angel of the Lord struck him, so that he was eaten by worms and died - Because he did not give glory to God 16) Despite Herod's effort to harass the church, what was the result? (Acts 12:24)- The word of God grew and multiplied 17) Who returned from Jerusalem, and whom did they bring with them? (Acts 12:25)- Barnabas and Saul, having fulfilled their ministry - John Mark Verse 1 A comparison of the last verses of Acts 11 and this chapter (Acts 12) suggests that Barnabas and Paul made that trip to Jerusalem with relief for the victims of the famine at about the time of the events given in Acts 12, this being in 44 A.D., a date determined by the death of Herod Agrippa I. That monarch had succeeded in putting together the whole domain of his grandfather Herod the Great, and had also been given the title of king by Claudius. He was a staunch friend of the Jews and was no doubt influenced by them to make the move to destroy Christianity. He martyred James, seized and imprisoned Peter, planning to execute him publicly after the Passover festivities. Nowhere in the New Testament does the intervention of Almighty God on behalf of his church appear any more timely and dramatic than in this chapter. With their friend on the throne, the Jewish hierarchy decided to exterminate Christianity; and there was no reason why they could not have succeeded, except for the intervention of the Father in heaven. When the earthly fortunes of the Christians seemed the most precarious, however, providential events took place with sudden finality, lifting the threat completely. At the precise instant when one apostle was already dead, another imprisoned and condemned, and the entire Twelve proscribed by an all-powerful ruler acting as a Jewish deputy in the whole procedure, out of a desire to please his subjects, at that very moment God sent an angel to release Peter and shortly thereafter struck Agrippa dead. The same event doomed secular Israel. The Encyclopedia Britannica has this regarding Herod's death: His sudden death in 44 A.D. ... at Caesarea during games in honor of Claudius was a disaster for Jewry, because with all his faults of sycophancy and ostentation he had successfully kept the balance between Rome and the Jews and shown that the two could co-exist to the advantage of both.[1]It is ironic that the Jews who had, in the elevation of Herod Agrippa I, achieved for themselves tolerance and accommodation, should at the same time have refused so adamantly to extend the same to Christians; and that God's thwarting of their campaign against the body of Christ, by the summary execution of Herod, also by that same event removed the one man who could have preserved their own toleration by Rome. The final result of what took place when God sent an angel to destroy Herod Agrippa was realized some 20 years later when Titus and Vespasian destroyed Jerusalem. The finger of God is clearly seen in this chapter. ENDNOTE: [1] Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 11, p. 512. Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church. (Acts 12:1) About that time ... means about the time of Saul and Barnabas' journey to Jerusalem with relief for the victims of the famine. Stretched forth his hands to afflict ... This vigorous and fatal movement of the supreme authority in the land against the young church was exceedingly serious. The motivation was clearly that of pleasing the Jews (Acts 12:3); and, if Herod Agrippa had proceeded indefinitely with that policy, there could never have been any end of it except the total destruction of Christianity. For a discussion of the ten Herod's mentioned in the New Testament, see my Commentary on Mark, underMark 6:17. Verse 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. And those were the days of unleavened bread.Only seven words in the Greek, translated by eleven in English, recount the martyrdom of the first apostle; and such restraint by the sacred historian shows how different are the words of inspiration from those of ordinary writers. It should be noted that the New Testament records no appointment of a successor to James. Why? He is still an apostle, still "reigning over the twelve tribes of (spiritual) Israel" as Jesus promised (Matthew 19:28). Death never removed an apostle. It was not death but transgression that removed Judas (Acts 1:25). As Wesley said, "So one of the brothers went to God the first, the other the last, of the apostles."[2] This has been viewed by some as a kind of mystical fulfillment of the desire of James and John to sit "one on the right hand, the other on the left" of the Lord in his kingdom. Days of unleavened bread ... This refers to the great annual Passover feast of the Jews; and, as it was at Passover that our Lord suffered, Peter must have associated his own imprisonment and impending death with the events of our Lord's Passion. ENDNOTE: [2] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House), in loco. Verse 4 And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.Quarternions ... This was the name of a group of four soldiers, and four quaternions would be sixteen men appointed to guard Peter. After the Passover ... This refers not to Passover day, but to the whole celebration of Passover which lasted eight days. Intending to bring him forth ... Herod planned a public execution of Peter, an event which the Jewish hierarchy and the Jerusalem rabble would have celebrated with the utmost enthusiasm. Things looked very bleak for the Christian faith at that moment. Verse 5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made earnestly of the church unto God for him.Prayer ... for him ... Webster and Wilkinson's Greek Testament declares that "The Greek intimates that it was incessantly kept up, always going on."[3] Thus it was a kind of perpetual prayer meeting that the church organized on behalf of Peter. If it is wondered why this was not done for James, answer probably lies in the suddenness with which he was executed almost as soon as he was apprehended, giving no time for such an effort as this on behalf of Peter. With regard to all the snide remarks commentators have made about the church's praying for Peter's release and their total surprise when it occurred, two things are pertinent: (1) It is not declared that they prayed for Peter's release. It could be that they were praying that Peter's faith would not fail, as it had so conspicuously failed when he denied the Lord. (2) If they were praying for his release, this being not at all unlikely, then the surprise would have been at the dramatic suddenness and manner of it. ENDNOTE: [3] Ibid. Verse 6 And when Herod was about to bring him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the guards before the door kept the prison.PETER'S WAS A TYPE OF SINMany of the old commentators allegorized this remarkable episode; and despite the fact that the New Testament does not refer to it as an allegory, there are undeniably elements of an astounding allegory in this event. Just as Paul allegorized the history of Abraham and his two wives in Galatians, we shall allege an allegory here, but at the same time receiving the episode as history. The visit of the wisemen to the infant Jesus (Matthew 2:1) has been allegorized for ages, as more particularly noted in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 2:1. The deliverance of Peter in this chapter was declared by Matthew Henry to "represent our redemption by Christ, which is not only the proclaiming of liberty to the captives, but the bringing them out of the prison house.[4]Of course, this making of Peter's condition a fitting allegory, or illustration, of the terror, helplessness, and shame of man's condition in sin, should not be read as applicable to Peter's character. He was not only free from any unusual degree of sin, but he was a worthy member of the sacred Twelve, one of the most glorious characters earth ever knew. It was his condition in Herod's prison that is referred to here. Note the following: Peter was a captive ... all sinners are captives of Satan (2 Timothy 2:24-26). He was guarded ... Satan likes to stand watch over his victims to prevent their escape. Every Bible teacher knows that as soon as some young person has learned enough to obey the gospel and is ready to be baptized, someone over in another part of town will elect him president of a Sunday school class he hasn't attended in a year. It is the old strategy of Satan to post a guard and set a watch to keep a man from obeying the gospel even when he has already made up his mind to do it. He was bound with two chains ... Everyone in sin is bound with chains, even if they are nothing but the chains of habit. Procrastination from day to day becomes at last a chain stronger than iron. He was asleep ... Sleep is a state of insensitivity, inactivity, insecurity, and illusion. In the spiritual sense, every sinner is asleep (Romans 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:6). He was in darkness ... Like the night of sin, the blackness of midnight had settled over Herod's prison. He was naked ... Peter had cast off his garment in order to be relieved of the suffocating heat of the dungeon. All sin and spiritual deficiency are nakedness (Revelation 3:17-18). He was condemned to death ... This is the state of every unredeemed sinner on earth (John 3:18). Thus, Peter's condition in that dungeon of Herod is remarkably suggestive of the sin-condition of every unredeemed person on earth. It is likewise true that his deliverance had overtones of applicability to the soul's conversion from sin. ENDNOTE: [4] Ibid. Verse 7 And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shined in the cell: and he smote Peter on the side, and awoke him, saying, Rise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.Several things entered into Peter's deliverance. (1) There was a prayer meeting, mentioned later in Luke's narrative here, but already going on, and for days previously. (2) There was a messenger, in this case an angel of the Lord; but always there is a messenger when people are to be saved. "How shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14). (3) There was light in that prison. The angel delivered the word of God to Peter; but the word of God is always light (Psalms 119:105); and like the "light" delivered to every sinner by faithful preachers of the word of God, it consisted of a command to arise and act. "Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). (4) Here the angel commanded Peter to get up and put on his sandals, and follow. He smote Peter on the side ... Older readers of these lines will recall the manner of Pullman porters on passenger trains who always awakened their charges in exactly the same manner as here, striking them gently on the side, through the curtains, there never having been devised a better way of doing it without startling or frightening the sleeper. Thus, in an infinitesimal detail such as this, one sees the glorious truth of the word of God. Verse 8 And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And he did so. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.And he did so ... Peter's response to God's message was exactly what it should have been. If the apostle had been like many today who are commanded to obey the word of God, he might have said, "Sh-sh-sh, Angel, don't wake up the guard!" Or he might have said, "Well, thanks, Angel, I'll think about it! Some other time, I just might do what you say." Still another possible response was, "Well, Angel, I won't promise you anything. You know how it is. I'd like to get out of here all right; but you know we might wake somebody up, and that would be bad. The jailer would not like that!" Are not the excuses which men make ridiculous? (5) The fifth thing that entered into Peter's deliverance was the falling off of his chains. They fell off when he rose to obey the word of the angel. The application is in this, that men's chains of sin will fall off when they arise and are baptized into Christ; and they will never fall off until this is done. (6) Then Peter followed the angel. See next verse. Verse 9 And he went out, and followed; and he knew not that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he saw a vision.Think of the importance of following. Peter's chains had fallen off, but he was still in Herod's dungeon; and his deliverance would be meaningful only when the iron gates closed behind him as he went out. Verse 10 And when they were past the first and the second guard, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth into the city; which opened to them of its own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and straightway the angel departed from him.That great iron gate stands for death in this allegory. No man is safe from the fury of the evil one until death has ended his probation. To leave off following the Lord before death is to die in Satan's dominion and under his control. That is why an apostle said, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord" (Revelation 14:13). Peter did not leave off following the angel until the iron gate opened and closed behind him. That gate took twenty-five men to open and close it. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 12:2. This James was one of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21). 3Act 12:3. Peter was not slain but was put into prison. Days of unleavened bread denotes it was the time of the feast of the Passover (Leviticus 23:4-8). 4Acts 12:4. A quaternion consisted of four soldiers, and four of them would make 16 soldiers charged with the guarding of the prison, changing their shifts every three hours. Two of the ones on duty were with the prisoner and two watched the gate. Easter is from PASCHA. Thayer defines it, "The paschal festival, the feast of Passover." It has no connection with Easter as that term is used today. 5Acts 12:5. Without ceasing is from the Greek word EKTENES, and Thayer defines it, "Intent, earnest, assiduous [persistent]." The prayers were continuous and earnest. 6Acts 12:6. Sleeping between two soldiers. (See the notes at verse 4.) 7Acts 12:7. An angel of the Lord would be given supernatural power, by which he could perform this service to Peter unknown to the soldiers. (See Hebrews 1:13-14.) 8Acts 12:8. Peter had taken off his sandals and outer garment when he was preparing for sleep. The angel meant for him to resume them, tightening his belt about him. 9Acts 12:9. Wist [knew] not that it was true. The last word is from ALETHES, which Thayer defines with the same word used in the text, and adds by way of explanation, "an actual occurrence." Peter thought he was in a trance and was seeing a vision only. 0Acts 12:10. First and second ward were the two soldiers stationed some distance apart to guard the prison. (See notes at verse 4.) The same supernatural power that loosened the chains unknown to the soldiers in the prison (verse 7), enabled them to pass these other soldiers unseen. The iron gate was what closed the outer wall of the entire prison structure. Opened of his own accord. The Lord was still working in the case and miraculously removing all the barriers to Peter's freedom. Passed through one street. The angel remained with Peter until they were safely out of reach of the prison officers and guardsmen, then disappeared. 1Act 12:11. Come to himself. After the angel disappeared, Peter observed that he was on one of the streets of the city, out of the vicinity of the prison. He knew that to be there it was necessary to escape the two soldiers lying by him, and the two near the gate, likewise get through the iron gate in the prison outer wall. This is what caused him to come to himself and to conclude that his experience was not "only a dream." 2Act 12:12. Considered the thing. The last two words are not in the original. The phrase means that after Peter had come to himself he considered the whole situation and decided to call at the home of one of the disciples. It was at the home of Mark's mother, where a prayer service was being conducted on his behalf. 3Act 12:13. Door of the gate. The last word refers to the porch in front of a house, and the first is the smaller opening through which to pass into the porch. Came to hearken means to inquire or to ask, "who is it?" 4Acts 12:14. When Peter answered her question she recognized his voice. She was so joyously surprised she seemed to forget to open the door. She left Peter standing and knocking and went to tell the group that Peter was at the gate. 5Acts 12:15. We are not told just what the church said in its prayer for Peter. If it was a scriptural prayer, the disciples placed their request on condition "if the Lord will." The favorable answer to the prayer was so gladdening that they thought it was "too good to be true." The girl was so positive about her report they thought some explanation should be resorted to that would harmonize all the phases of the situation. Their solution was that it was his angel. After his definition of the Greek word for angel, Thayer explains that "guardian angels of individuals are mentioned in Matthew 18:10; Acts 12:15." Funk and Wagnalls Standard Bible Dictionary says the following: "There was a popular idea that each person had assigned to him a special guardian angel, and it is to this that Jesus refers in Matthew 18:10. Peter's escape from prison (Acts 12:15) is an illustration of the thought that when such guardian angel appeared on earth he took the form of the person guarded." Luke does not say anything for or against such a theory, since in the present instance the experssion was that of the astonished group, and their statement had no authority in the nature of inspiration. 6Acts 12:16. The continual knocking made it necessary to open the door. Their amazement caused them to make some kind of clamor. (See next verse.) 7Acts 12:17. Peter indicated with his hand that he wished them to be quiet and listen. He then rehearsed the manner in which he was released from prison. He asked them to tell the good news, first to James and then to the other brethren. This was James the Lord's brother, and the writer of the epistle that bears his name. Special mention is made of him because of his prominence in the work at Jerusalem. (See chapter 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cortinthians 16:7; Galatians 1:19 Galatians 2:9 Galatians 2:12.) After giving the group his request, Peter went into another place. That meant some spot in Jerusalem, for in chapter 15:7 we find him in the city and speaking to the assembly on the issue before it. 8Acts 12:18. By the aid of the angel, Peter had escaped prison unseen by the soldiers, hence the confusion over his absence, but we know that the soldiers were innocent. 9Acts 12:19. Examined is from , and Thayer defines it, "To hold an investigation; to interrogate, examine, the accused or witnesses." The keepers would not be able to give Herod any information as to the escape of their prisoner, hence they were condemned to a death they did not deserve. Caesarea "was the official residence of the Herodian kings," according to Smith's Bible Dictionary, hence we have the statement that Herod went there and abode. 0Acts 12:20. Highly displeased is from , which is defined in Thayer's lexicon, "to carry on war with great animosity; to be very angry, be exasperated." Adjoining countries frequently have trouble with each other; we do not know what was the cause of Herod's displeasure. But the country of Tyre and Sidon became anxious for peace because it depended on Palestine for necessary products. (See 1 Kings 5:11; Ezekiel 27 Ezekiel 17.) A chamberlain is an intimate servant to a king, and the people of Tyre and Sidon induced this one to use his influence with his master. As a result, Herod agreed to drop hostilities and fixed a date when he would grant a hearing to the interested partisans. 1Act 12:21. When the set day arrived, Herod put on his royal garments and made a speech (of conciliation) to the people, which aroused them to making foolish compliments. 2Act 12:22. In their wild joy the people said that Herod was a god. 3Act 12:23. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 19, Chapter 8, Section 2, says that Herod did not rebuke the people for their flattery. Our passage merely states that Herod was eaten of worms and died. But the passage in Josephus cited above says, "A severe pain arose in his abdomen, and began in a most violent manner. . . . When he had said this, his pain was become violent. . . . And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his abdomen for five days, he departed this life." 4Acts 12:24. The significance of this verse is that in spite of all the disturbances going on between rival countries, the word of God gained many adherents. 5Acts 12:25. Fulfilled their ministry. Acts 11:29-30 shows this mission was to take the contribution collected at Antioch for the famine-stricken disciples in Judea. When they came back to Antioch they brought with them Mark, who is the writer of the book that bears his name. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 13 HISTORY OF THE CHURCH: PAUL AS THE CHIEF ACTOR SECTION ONE PAUL’ S FIRST JOURNEYAct_13:1 to Acts 14:28 PAUL AND IN CYPRUSAct_13:1-12 1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church—“ Antioch” was the capital of the Greek kingdom of Syria, and afterward became the residence of the Roman governor of the province. It was situated on the Orontes River, about sixteen miles from its mouth; its seaport was Seleucia. At Antioch was established the first church among the Gentiles, of which we have a record (Acts 11:20-21) ; here the disciples of Jesus were first called “ Christians” (Acts 11:26); here Paul exercised, so far as is distinctly recorded, his first systematic work (Acts 11:22-26 Acts 14:26-28 Acts 15:35 Acts 18:22-23) ; here he started on the beginning of his first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-3); and to Antioch he came on his return from his missionary journey (Acts 14:26). Paul began and ended his sec-ond missionary journey at this place. (Acts 15:36 Acts 18:22.) Antioch was also the starting point of the third missionary journey, which was brought to an end by his imprisonment at Jerusaem and Caesarea. prophets and teachers,—Some distinction is to be made be¬tween these terms; all prophets were teachers, but not all teachers were prophets; as all judges are lawyers, but not all lawyers are judges. A prophet had a higher or greater measure of the Holy Spirit. It seems that Barnabas, Symeon, and Lucius were proph¬ets and Manaen and Saul were teachers— three prophets and two teachers. Barnabas heads the list (Acts 11:22), and Saul comes last; Symeon is thought by some to be “ Simon of Cyrene,” who carried the cross for Jesus. (Mark 15:21.) Lucius of Cy rene was probably one of the original evangelists. (Acts 11:20.) The name is another form of “ Luke,” but it is certainly not “ Luke, the beloved physician.” Manaen shows how the gospel had reached some of the higher classes, as he was foster brother of Herod the tetrarch. This was Herod Antipas; “ foster-brother” is from the Greek “ suntrophos,” and means “ one nourished with or brought up with one.” Saul is the last mentioned, but soon to be placed first. (Verses 9-13.) 2 And as thy ministered to the Lord,— The work that Barnabas and Saul were doing is called “ ministered to the Lord” ; hence, to preach the gospel to the unsaved and to edify the saints is to minister to the Lord. (Matthew 25:31-46.) While they were fasting the Holy Spirit commanded the other “ prophets and teach¬ers” to “ separate me Barnabas and Saul” for the work which they had been called to do. Jewish Christians were keeping up the Jewish fast. (Luke 18:12.) We note that fasting was practiced in the selection of elders of the church. (Acts 14:23.) Fasting was a voluntary act on the part of Christians. “ Separate me” is from the Greek “ aphorisate de moi” ; this separation was for a spe¬cial purpose and should be obeyed at once. Barnabas and Saul had both been called for this work sometime ago, but now they are to be set apart in a special way to do in a larger sense the work for which they were now prepared and to which they had been called. Here Barnabas is mentioned before Saul again, showing that he is still regarded as the leader. We do not know how the Holy Spirit spoke to these, but very likely through one of the other prophets and teachers. 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed—It may be that when they had finished the fast mentioned in verse 2 they prayed for the Lord to guide them further, and to bless Barnabas and Saul as they go into the field. Hands were laid upon them and they were sent away. The subject of prayer, fasting, and laying on of hands has provoked much discussion to but little profit. Some have contended that such a procedure was essential to the “ ordination” of elders, preachers, and evangelists; it has been claimed that such a procedure should be followed today. Others have claimed that hands were laid upon others by a superior, and to confer some spiritual gift; hence, when spiritual gifts ceased, this procedure ceased. Still others have contended that this was merely a solemn way of impressing upon one the serious and important duties that one should perform. We know what was done here, but we do not know that God intended it to be a precedent for inducting anyone into an office of the church or setting one apart to any special work. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit,—Luke again refers to the Holy Spirit as the authority for sending forth Barnabas and Saul to the preaching of the gospel; he does not intimate that there was any “ church authority,” or any ecclesiastical authority connected with this work. The Holy Spirit directed in this affair, and the church at Antioch is not even mentioned. Barnabas and Saul left Antioch and went about sixteen miles down the Orontes River to Seleucia, the seaport of Antioch; from Seleucia they “ sailed to Cyprus,” a distance of eighty to one hundred miles in a southwestern direction. Several reasons are assigned for their going to Cyprus; Barnabas was a native of this island and was acquainted with conditions there; again, it was on the way to Asia Minor by sea; then Paul was a native of Cilicia, just north of Cyprus ; again, some of the disciples driven from Jerusalem by persecution had preached the gospel in Cyprus. (Acts 11:19.) 5 And when they were at Salamis,—Salamis was on the eastern extremity of Cyprus, and the nearest port to Antioch. This seems to be the first place that they “ proclaimed the word of God” ; here they went into “ the synagogues of the Jews,” and preached the gospel. It was the invariable rule of Paul to preach to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. (Romans 1:16.) There was a large number of Jews on this island; hence, there was a plurality of synagogues. They had as their attendant John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, and the author of the Gospel according to Mark, and son of Mary of Jerusalem. (Acts 12:12 Acts 12:25.) 6-8 And when they had gone through the whole island—Cyprus is about one hundred fifty miles long and sixty miles wide, extending in length northeast and southwest. It is probable that they preached and taught at other places as they did at Salamis. Paphos was the capital of Cyprus, and was situated on the western coast of the island; the Roman governor lived here. They “ found a certain sorcerer” living at Paphos; he was a Jew and a false prophet by the name of “ Bar-Jesus.” “ Sorcerer” here comes from the Greek “ magon,” but does not always yield to this translation; it means one who is a magician. It is clear that he was ascribing his magical tricks to God and wanted his speech and prophetic state¬ments to be taken at full face value. “ Bar-Jesus” means the son of a man named Jesus. He is called “ Elymas,” which means “ a wise man” ; it is an Arabic name given to this Jew. He withstood Bar¬nabas and Saul, attempting to turn aside “ the proconsul from the faith.” Elymas saw that his influence and power were gone if Sergius Paulus believed; hence, he sought with all of his influence to keep Sergius Paulus from believing what Barnabas and Saul preached. 9 But Saul, who is also called Paul,—The apostle to the Gen¬tiles is called by two names. In the history of his life and work among the Jews he is called by his Jewish name Saul; but now that he is beginning his labors among the Roman Gentiles, his Roman name is used from this time on. Luke presents this new name in a remarkable way; the “ also” does not mean that the name “ Paul” was given now for the first time, but that he had al¬ways had it. Saul was a common name among the Jews; but now Luke uses “ Paul” except when there is reference to his previous life. (Acts 22:7 Acts 26:14.) Paul’ s work was chiefly among the Gentiles; he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin and wore the Jewish name of the first king of Israel. (Philippians 3:5.) “ Filled with the Holy Spirit” means that a fuller measure of the Holy Spirit came upon him in this case of emergency, so that he could with power rebuke the sorcerer miraculously. The Holy Spirit may also have enabled Paul to have an insight into the character of this wicked man. Some think that the phrase “ fastened his eyes on him” shows that Paul’ s eyes were weak and that he had to strain himself to see Elymas; however, there is no evidence of this. 10 and said, O full of all guile and all villany,—Paul denounced Elymas with the severest terms that we have recorded in the New Testament. He used four of the strongest terms in de¬nouncing the sorcerer: (1) “ full of all guile” ; (2) full of “ all vil¬lany” ; (3) “ son of the devil” ; (4) “ enemy of all righteousness.” “ Guile” is from the Greek “ delo,” which means “ to catch with bait” ; hence Paul denounces Elymas as a trickster. “ Villany” comes from “ rhaidiourgias,” and means “ one who does something adroitly and with ease” ; with deadly accuracy Paul pictured this deceiver. “ Son of the devil” is from the Greek “ diabolou,” and means “ a slanderer like the devil.” (John 8:44.) It is strange that Elymas, or Bar-Jesus, “ son of Jesus,” should be more appro¬priately called “ son of the devil.” “ Enemy of all righteousness” means personal enemy to all justice, and seems to sum up the meaning of the other terms. Paul emphatically and interrogatively commanded him to cease perverting “ the right ways of the Lord.” Elymas, the false prophet, was making the right ways of the Lord crooked. 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee,—Not only did Paul denounce Elymas in the most scathing terms, but he cursed him with blindness for a time; this curse was by “ the hand of the Lord.” He sought someone to guide him. The blind¬ness was to be “ for a season” (Luke 4:13), if it should please God to restore his sight. We know not how long the sorcerer remained blind, neither do we know whether he ever repented. Elymas should have been brought to repentance, since he should know that his blindness was brought upon him for perverting the gospel which Paul preached. “ The hand of the Lord” frequently meant a condemnation. (Exodus 9:3; Judges 2:15.) 12 Then the pronconsul, when he saw—When the proconsul saw Elymas smitten with blindness he believed what Paul preached; he saw that the Lord was with Paul and enabled him to perform this miracle; hence, he was with him in what he was teaching. Very likely the pronconsul was perplexed by the teach¬ing of Barnabas and Paul and that of Elymas, but this miracle helped him to see which taught the truth. He was astonished at the manner of teaching and the confirmation of the teaching by this miracle. PAUL AND IN PERGA AND ANTIOCH IN PISIDIAAct_13:13-14 13 Now Paul and his company—Up to this point Luke has “ Barnabas and Saul,” but from now on it is “ Paul and Barnabas” ; frequently the events cluster around just Paul. Paul is mentioned first with three exceptions (Acts 14:12 Acts 15:12 Acts 15:25); so com¬pletely does Paul get the attention from Luke that Barnabas and Mark are called “ his company.” They “ set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia.” Paphos was on the west end of Cyprus, and they sailed in a northwestern direction to Perga, a town on the mainland. Perga was about one hundred fifty miles from Paphos. Mark, for some cause, left Paul and Barnabas at Perga and returned to Jerusalem. So far Paul and Barnabas have visited Cyprus, the native land of Barnabas, and close to Cilicia, the homeland of Paul. 14 But they, passing through from Perga,— Paul and Barn- bas did not remain long in Perga; Luke does not record that they even preached the gospel in Perga on this visit, yet Perga was the capital of Pamphylia. Leaving Perga they traveled north about a hundred miles to “ Antioch of Pisidia.” Modern scholars have placed this Antioch in Phrygia, but Luke locates it in Pisidia. This Antioch was at the foot of the Taurus Mountains; it was reached by a difficult road over the mountains infested by robbers; here they found a synagogue and attended services there on the Sabbath. The Jews who had not become Christians still met in their synagogues on the Sabbath. When Paul and Barnabas en¬tered the synagogue they “ sat down” as any worshiper would. It would seem that there was but one synagogue of the Jews in Antioch, as “ they went into the synagogue on the sabbath.” PAUL’ S FIRST SERMONAct_13:15-43 15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets—The “ synagogue,” in its derivation, means “ congregation” ; it came into use during the exile in Babylon; however, some think that it had a much earlier origin. It is true that it reached its development after the return from Babylonian captivity. Wherever there were as many as ten Jews in a town or a city, a synagogue was built. Among the items of worship was “ the reading of the law and the prophets.” The law was first read in the synagogue till 163 B.C., when Antiochus Epiphanes prohibited it; then the reading of the prophets was substituted for the reading of the law. However, the Maccabees restored the reading of the law, but the reading of the prophets was continued. “ The rulers of the synagogue” had the responsibility of selecting the readers and the speakers for the ser¬vice. (Mark 5:22 Mark 5:35-38; Luke 8:49 Luke 13:14; Acts 18:8 Acts 18:17.) After the usual reading, according to custom, the ruler of the syna¬gogue called on anyone who was known to be competent to teach to interpret the word or make a religious address to the congregation. It may be that this ruler knew that Paul and Barnabas were men giving their lives to teaching, and coming from Jerusalem they would receive a special invitation. So the ruler very courteously invited them to speak. Paul took advantage of the occasion and made the address which follows. 16 And Paul stood up,—It was the custom of the Jews to sit while speaking (Luke 4:20), but the Greeks and Romans stood while speaking (Acts 17:22). It is generally understood that Paul on this occasion arose from his seat and stepped upon the platform and then took his seat as he began to speak; or he may have followed the Roman custom and stood during his entire address. Paul is the recognized leader now and the more gifted speaker (Acts 14:12) so that he responds to the invitation of the ruler. Paul “ beckoning with the hand” to get the attention of the audience, and to begin in a formal way his address. This was a dramatic gesture for quiet and order. (Acts 12:17 Acts 21:40.) After his gesture for silence Paul addressed them as “ men of Is¬rael” who feared God. This was a very dignified and solemn way of beginning this most important address to the worshipers in the synagogue at this hour. 17 The God of this people Israel—Here we have Paul’ s first recorded address; he begins as did Stephen (Acts 7:2-53) with the history of the Jewish race and reciting many events in their history. It is probable that Paul was present and heard Stephen’ s speech and remembered it; then Paul was familiar with the history of his own race. God had chosen Abraham, the father of the Jewish race, and had multiplied his seed in Egypt until they became a mighty race there; he then by the hand of Moses or “ with a high arm led he them forth” out of Egypt. The phrase, “ chose our fathers,” refers to the call of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. 18 And for about the time of forty years—The children of Is¬rael were led out of Egyptian bondage, across the Red Sea, into the wilderness and down to Mount Sinai; here the law was given to them; they built the tabernacle and sojourned in their wander¬ings forty years in the wilderness. God fed them with the manna (Exodus 16:35; Duet. 8: 16), and cared for them in the wilderness “ as a nursing-father.” God endured, bore with them continually during the forty years as a father bears with a wayward son, using every loving means to reclaim him and prepare him for a noble and useful life. 19-20 And when he had destroyed seven nations—After the sojourn of forty years in the wilderness, and after the death of Moses, Joshua led the children of Israel across the Jordan into the land of Canaan. This land had been promised to Abraham. (Genesis 12:7 Genesis 13:15 Genesis 15:18; Galatians 3:16.) Canaan was inhabited by seven nations— Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Per izzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. (Deuteronomy 7:1.) These seven na¬tions were mightier than the children of Israel, yet God gave “ their land for an inheritance” to the seed of Abraham. “ For about four hundred and fifty years” is an expression that has caused much trouble with commentators. It is difficult to harmonize the chronological dates. It is not clear when the four hundred fifty years begin or when they end; this complicates the interpretation of the “ four hundred and fifty years.” In 1 Kings 6:1 it is stated that Solomon began building the temple in the four hundred eightieth year after the exodus from Egypt. Paul here reckons the time as follows: wanderings in the wilderness (verse 18), forty years; under the judges (verse 20), four hundred fifty years; reign of Saul (verse 21), forty years; total, five hundred fifty years. To this total we must add the entire reign of David (forty years) and the first three years of the reign of Solomon to get to the time when the building of the temple was begun. Therefore, adding these forty-three years, the entire period of time amounts to five hundred seventy-three years. There is a discrepancy between the five hundred seventy-three years based on Paul’ s reckoning and the four hundred eighty years referred to in Kings— a difference of ninety-three years. However, this is accounted for by the fact that ninety-three years must be subtracted, as there are ninety-three blank years as recorded in the book of Judges. In Numbers 6:12 the Nazirite lost time if he did not comply with the law, so Israel when not ruled by the judges was ruled by foreign nations. (Judges 3:8 Judges 3:14 Judges 4:3 Judges 6:1 Judges 13:1.) This amounts to ninety- three years, which makes the calculation correspond to the figures as given by other writers. 21 And afterward they asked for a king:—The people re¬belled against God’ s order of government and demanded a king; so God gave them Saul of the tribe of Benjamin who reigned forty years. The Old Testament does not state the length of Saul’ s reign. It is a striking coincidence that the speaker Saul or Paul refers to the ancient Saul as belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, his own tribe. 22 And when he had removed him,—Saul was killed in battle (1 Samuel 31:4), or he fell upon his own sword and died; Jehovah had rejected Saul and had made plans for another to take his place (1 Samuel 15:23). David, of the tribe of Judah, was next selected to take Saul’ s place; here he is described as a man after God’ s own heart. (1 Samuel 13:14; Psalms 89:20.) The quotations given by Paul here are not literal, but the sense of the text is quoted; Paul quotes in such a way that the Bible explains itself, and David is seen to be a type of Christ. 23-24 Of this man's seed hath God—The Messiah was to come from the descendants of David according to the promise. The promise is repeated frequently in Old Testament scripture. (2 Samuel 7:12; Psalms 132:11; Isaiah 11:1 Isaiah 11:10; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Zechariah 3:8.) Paul tells his audience that God has fulfilled this promise to David, and that the Messiah has come who was a Savior, and that John was the first to preach that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. John “ first preached before his coming the baptism of re¬pentance to all the people of Israel.” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3.) Paul simply shows here that John had come and had made ready the people prepared for the Lord; that John was the messenger who came before the Lord. 25 And as John was fulfilling his course,—Some thought that John was the Messiah, but John corrected their false conception and pointed them to Jesus; he said that he was not even worthy to unloose the shoes of the Messiah. The people thought that John was a prophet and a great character, but John declares that the Christ was so much greater than he as the master is greater than the servant that did the most menial service. 26 Brethren, children of the stock of Abraham,—All Jews gloried in the fact that they were descendants of Abraham. Paul addresses these Jews and honors them as among those who feared God. Paul not only addressed those who were of the lineage of Abraham, but all who “ among you that fear God” ; that is, to all proselytes and strangers with you, if they fear God, “ the word of this salvation” is “ sent forth.” Jesus used similar language in speaking to the woman at the well. (John 4:22.) Here Paul pre¬sents Jesus to them as the fulfillment of the prophecies and as the Savior of the world. 27 For they that dwell in Jerusalem,—Paul here in a very tactful way presents the crucifixion of Jesus. He includes that portion of the Jewish race that dwelt in Jerusalem “ and their rul¬ers” as the ones who had crucified Jesus; he very delicately states that they did it because they did not know Jesus, “ nor the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath.” They fulfilled the prophecies in condemning Jesus. The implication is that these Jews at Jerusalem and their rulers would not have condemned him had they known him. Peter had said that it was done in igno¬rance. (Acts 3:17.) Later, Paul wrote to Timothy that his per¬secution was done in ignorance, and that he obtained forgiveness because he was ignorant of what he was doing. (1 Timothy 1:13.) The ignorance of the people and rulers mitigated the degree of their guilt, but it did not remove it; the fact still remains that they could have known that Jesus was the Messiah. Hence, it was will¬ing ignorance and prejudice that caused them to condemn Jesus. “ The voices of the prophets” is used here because the “ voices” were heard as they were read aloud each Sabbath in the syna¬gogue. In their ignorance they condemned Jesus and fulfilled the prophecies concerning his sufferings. 28 And though they found no cause of death—The Sanhe¬drin charged Jesus with blasphemy, but could not prove it. (Matthew 26:65 Matthew 27:24; Luke 23:22.) At the time that Paul was speaking no part of the New Testament was written, but Paul knew that Jesus was innocent. Although the Jews and rulers could not prove their charges against Jesus, and also Pilate knew that their charges were not true, “ yet asked they of Pilate that he should be slain.” This was the most serious charge that Paul had made; he proceeds without fear to press the claims of Jesus as the Messiah and Savior of the world. Paul’ s words here are equiva¬lent to a charge of causeless murder against the leaders of Judaism. This ought to have smitten with horror all who heard for the first time these charges. Pilate yielded to the clamor of the Jews and gave his consent for Jesus to be crucified. (Luke 23:14 Luke 23:22-24.) 29 And when they had fulfilled all things— Paul follows closely the details of the crucifixion of Jesus. When the Jews and Roman authorities had done all that they could to Jesus, they had fulfilled the prophecies. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took the body of Jesus from the cross and buried it in Joseph’ s new tomb. (Matthew 27:57-60; John 19:38-39.) However, Paul gives the outline of the course followed, and may have had in mind that the Jews asked Pilate to have the bones of Jesus broken that his body should not remain on the cross during the Sabbath. (John 19:31.) Paul does not distinguish the details here. The cross is spoken of as “ the tree” ; the original Greek is “ xulou,” and means not only “ tree,” but “ wood.” (Acts 5:30 Acts 10:39; Galatians 3:13.) 30-31 But God raised him from the dead:—Again what man did to Jesus is brought in contrast with what God did for him; man crucified him, but God “ raised him from the dead.” Jesus was seen “ for many days” after he was raised from the dead before he ascended back to God. “ For many days” means forty days in all. (Acts 1:3.) He was seen by many as Paul enumerates in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. Those who had seen Jesus after his resurrection were made witnesses for him. The apostles were nearly all from Galilee; hence, they had followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem and they were made his witnesses. This is the point that Peter used in his argument with such powerful effect on the day of Pente¬cost, and at another time. (Acts 2:32 Acts 3:15.) The special work of the apostles was to witness for Christ. (Acts 1:8 Acts 1:22 Acts 2:32 Acts 3:15 Acts 5:32 Acts 10:41.) Paul enforces his argument by making the resurrection a proof that Jesus is the Son of God. (Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.) 32-33 And we bring you good tidings of the promise—Paul here includes Barnabas as bringing to them the gospel which was promised to the fathers; God had fulfilled his promise in raising up Jesus from the dead. This promise was not only made to David, but was also made by Isaiah. (Isaiah 55:3.) Paul further quotes from Psalms 16:10, which is a repetition of the promise. The promise received its fulfillment by the resurrection of Jesus; not his being raised up as the seed of David, but his being raised from the dead. “ Thou art my Son” is the same as acknowledging him¬self as the Father; hence, God is his Father; he is the Son of God. The quotation which is here given not only refers to the birth of Jesus, but to his entire ministry on earth. 34 And as concerning that he raised him up—The resurrec¬tion of Jesus was distinguished from all other instances which had before taken place in that he was henceforward beyond the power of death. Lazarus and others who had been raised from the dead died again and returned to corruption, but not so with Jesus. He was raised to see corruption no more; hence, he was the first fruits of the resurrection; the first fruits of them that slept. (Romans 6:9 : 1 Corinthians 15:20 1 Corinthians 15:23.) “ I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David” is a quotation from Isaiah 55:3. This means that they were promised the mercies which had been promised to David. The chief point in the promises was the coming of the Savior through David’ s posterity, and this Savior, who was to be the spir¬itual king of the Lord’ s people, was to have an uninterrupted do¬minion. (Luke 1:33.) In order that this dominion should be an unbroken, uninterrupted one, it was necessary that when Jesus was raised up from the dead his resurrection should be an entire and final triumph over death; death must have no more power over him. This quotation from Isaiah shows that God had promised to David that the Messiah would come through his descendants, and that he would conquer death; hence, when Jesus was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven, entirely and forever beyond the reach of death, he began his reign over his kingdom, and is now upon David’ s throne. 35-37 Because he saith also in another psalm,—Again Paul quotes from the Psalms; this time Psalms 16:10. Paul makes an application of this to Christ. He reasoned and showed that it could not apply to David, for David had lived his life and “ served the counsel of God,” and died and was buried, and his flesh de¬cayed or saw corruption, so this could not apply to David. “ But he whom God raised up saw no corruption.” Paul quoted some of the Psalm that Peter used on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:25¬31.) Paul argued as Peter did that David died and underwent corruption, but Christ was raised and saw no corruption; hence, these prophecies were fulfilled in Christ. Paul had now presented evidence that Jesus was the Messiah; he had quoted and inter¬woven in his speech the prophecies that pertained to the Christ and showed their fulfillment in him. The scriptures had been fulfilled in the persecution, trials, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and as¬cension of Jesus. 38-39 Be it known unto you therefore,—Again Paul rea¬soned as did Peter on Pentecost. (Acts 2:36.) This very man whom the Jews had crucified and whom God had raised from the dead was the one that Paul preached as the Savior of man, and the one through whom they could have remission of sins. “ Remission of sins” is from the Greek “ aphesis hamartion,” and is used fre¬quently by Luke. The keynote of Paul’ s message was the remis¬sion of sins through Christ; this was the message that Peter preached on Pentecost, and on other occasions. (Acts 2:38 Acts 5:31 Acts 10:43.) This salvation came through Jesus Christ, but they must believe on him, for it is through faith in him that all are to be justified. Paul not only shows that Jesus is the Messiah, and Son of God, and that salvation is through him, but he further shows that the law of Moses was too weak to give redemption; they could not be justified by the law of Moses from their sins; hence, the need of a Savior. The law of Moses required perfect obedience; the sacrifices under the law did not justify the disobedience. “ The righteous shall live by his faith.” (Habakkuk 2:4.) This faith is open to all, and whosoever believeth in Jesus shall be justified. 40-41 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you—After proving that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of men, Paul concludes his address with a solemn warning based upon the predictions of the prophets. The only way that they could escape the condemnation pronounced by the prophets was to accept Christ. The general warnings contained in that part of the Old Testament are called ‘‘ the prophets” ; the fearful condemnation predicted by the prophets were as sure to be fulfilled on those who rejected Christ as they were fulfilled in the coming of Christ. God’ s predictions of punishment and condemnation are as sure to be ful¬filled as his predictions of blessings. Whatever Jehovah has predicted through his prophets will be fulfilled. While Paul uses “ prophets” in the plural, he cites a quotation from only one. (Habakkuk 1:5.) The sin which he warned Israel against was the de¬liberate rejection of the long-promised Messiah; and the punish¬ment in which the despisers of Jesus would perish was carried out to its bitter end only a few years after Paul’ s words were spoken in the synagogue at Antioch; the destruction of Jerusalem and the complete disintegration of the Jewish nation took place about A.D. 70. 42 And as they went out,—They listened intently to Paul’ s address; this was the first time that they had heard of the Christ. It seems that they were not ready to accept him, neither were they ready to reject him; hence, they asked that Paul and Barnabas speak to them again on the same subject the next Sabbath. Perhaps the invitation came from the rulers of the synagogue. 43 Now when the synagogue broke up,—As the people dis¬persed from the synagogue “ many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas.” Two classes are men¬tioned here— Jews and “ devout proselytes.” “ Devout proselytes” means “ worshiping proselytes,” as described in verses 16 and 25, as “ ye that fear God.” “ Proselyte” is from “ proseluton,” and here is understood to mean “ the uncircumcised Gentiles” who attended the synagogue worship; however, the Greek “ proselutoi” usually means those who had become circumcised, or “ proselytes of righ-teousness” ; it is also used to apply to “ proselytes of the gate” who had not yet become circumcised; it may have this meaning here. “ Proselutoi” occurs only four times in the New Testament, here and in Matthew 23:15; Acts 2:10 Acts 6:5. Paul and Barnabas en¬couraged those who followed them to further study these matters and exhorted them urgently “ to continue in the grace of God.” It seems from these words that some were inclined to believe them, possibly may have believed. Barnabas means “ Son of exhorta¬tion,” and he was given this name, it seems, because of his special gift along this line. (Acts 4:36-37.) When he came to Antioch the first time he exhorted the church there. (Acts 11:23.) Summing up the points emphasized in Paul’ s first recorded address, it is as follows: Subject: JESUS IS THE . Proof from History.1. God chose and exalted a people (Acts 13:17). 2. He delivered them from Egypt (Acts 13:17). 3. He gave them a country (Acts 13:18-19). 4. He provided judges for them (Acts 13:20). 5. At their request he gave them a king (Acts 13:21). 6. Removed Saul and raised up David (Acts 13:22). 7. From David’ s seed came Jesus (Acts 13:23). II. Proved Jesus to Be a Deliverer.1. By the testimony of John (Acts 13:24-25). 2. By his rejection, which prophecy foretold (Acts 13:26-29). 3. By his resurrection, a fact attested. a. By eyewitnesses (Acts 13:30-32). b. By scriptures (Acts 13:33-37). III. His Appeal and Warning.1. Encouragement to believe (Acts 13:38-39). 2. Warnings from the prophets (Acts 13:40-41). THE SECOND SPEECH AT ANTIOCHAct_13:44-52 44 And the next sabbath almost the whole city—It is very likely that Paul and Barnabas spent a busy week in Antioch of Pisidia and preached Christ to everyone as opportunity presented itself. This would create an interest in the appointment that he had for the following Sabbath. (The Jews still met on the Sab¬bath in their synagogues.) So the following Sabbath a very large attendance assembled, “ almost the whole city was gathered to¬gether to hear the word of God.” It is not probable that “ almost the whole city” could assemble in the synagogue, but Paul could speak to the multitude from the synagogue and Barnabas could speak to those who assembled and could not gain entrance to the synagogue. Not only Jews and proselytes, but heathens or Gen¬tiles assembled; even those who were not accustomed to meeting with the Jews came together “ to hear the word of God.” This shows that Paul and Barnabas during the week had not only preached the gospel to the Jews and “ devout proselytes,” but they had also preached to Gentiles. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes,—When the Jews saw this mixed multitude, “ they were filled with jealousy” ; they were not willing to share the blessings and salvation of the God of Abraham with the Gentiles; no such crowds came to the syna¬gogue when they were speakers; hence, they were jealous of these new preachers from Antioch and Jerusalem. “ Jealousy” is from the Greek “ zelou,” which means “ to boil” ; so these rabbis boiled with envy when they saw the crowds gathered to hear Paul and Barnabas. Jealousy must find an outlet, so they “ contradicted” what Paul and Barnabas preached. “ Contradicted” is from the Greek “ antelegon,” and means “ to speak against, to say a word in opposition to” ; they interrupted the service and publicly opposed Paul and Barnabas. They “ blasphemed.” “ Blasphemed” is from the Greek “ blasphemountes,” and means “ to speak against” ; Paul and Barnabas spoke by inspiration, and when these Jews contra-/ dieted what they preached, they were contradicting the HoJ^ Spirit; they were blaspheming God. This shows the extreme to which one will go when filled with envy and jealousy. Here again the prophecies were being fulfilled. (Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 10:19.) It frequently occurs that those who begin by contradicting end by blaspheming. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly,—Paul is not the only speaker here, as Barnabas is also speaking; they accepted the challenge of the rabbis; they would leave their synagogue, but not without a word of explanation; hence, they said: “ It was nec¬essary that the word of God should first be spoken to you.” (See Romans 1:16.) The effect of this rejection of the preaching of the gospel by the Jews was to give occasion to preach to the Gentiles. “ Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles” (Romans 11:12), the Gentiles should now re¬joice in the hearing of the gospel. They judged themselves un¬worthy of eternal life by rejecting the gospel. They thrust it from them; they blasphemed Paul and Barnabas who brought to them the word of God; by so doing they judged themselves “ unworthy of eternal life.” They had taken a definite stand against the gospel and judged themselves not worthy of the love of God and the sal¬vation in Christ; hence, Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles. 47 For so hath the Lord commanded us,—In declaring that he would “ turn to the Gentiles,” Paul quoted Isaiah 49:6, showing that he was fulfilling the prophecy in turning to the Gentiles with the gospel. Paul used their own prophets and scriptures to justify his preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. He also showed that the Messiah was not to be confined in his redemption of man to the Jews. The aged Simeon who, though waiting for the “ consolation of Israel,” yet saluted the rising of the same glorious light over the darkened Gentile land. (Luke 2:25-32.) This also is in keeping with the program that Jesus had given his disciples just before he made his ascension; they were to be his witnesses “ unto the utter¬most part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8.) 48 And as the Gentiles heard this,—When the Gentiles heard that they were included, even in the Jewish prophecies, and under¬stood that the Savior of the world had come, “ they were glad, and glorified the word of God.” They rejoiced in the opportunity that they had for believing in the Christ. “ And as many as were or¬dained to eternal life believed” ; the Greek is “ hosoi esan tetagme- noi eis zoen anionion.” The word “ tetagmenoi,” or “ ordained,” is considered by many as not being the best translation. “ Appointed” seems to be a better translation; hence, it would mean that as many as were “ appointed” to eternal life believed. This translation has been interpreted to mean those who were fore¬ordained to eternal life believed. If this be true, then all the rest were doomed to eternal destruction, and there was no use for Paul to preach the gospel to them. The root in the Greek is “ tasso,” and its primary meaning is “ to set in order, to place in a certain order.” The word occurs eight times in the New Testament, and is translated “ ordained” only in this instance. Some have sug¬gested that it is a better translation to say that as many as were disposed to eternal life believed. Still another translation is that “ as many as were determined for eternal life believed.” All who believe in Christ, repent of their sins, and are baptized into him are “ ordained,” “ diposed,” “ determined,” or “ destined” to eternal life. It does not matter which translation one accepts, the meaning is that those who accept Christ may enjoy redemption in him. Accepting Christ is an act of one’ s own will. 49 And the word of the Lord was spread abroad—Paul and Barnabas met with great success in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. Although the Jews rejected it here, yet many of the Gentiles accepted it. This indicates that Paul and Barnabas re¬mained some time in the regions of Antioch; Antioch in Pisidia would thus naturally become a center for preaching the gospel in this section. The gospel spread beyond the town, and in the neighboring villages the citizens had an opportunity to hear the gospel and be saved. 50 But the Jews urged on the devout women—“ The Jews” did not remain idle; their persecuting zeal led them to enlist the help of “ the devout women of honorable estate.” It seems that the Jews were not so numerous in Antioch as they had only one syna¬gogue, but they had influence with people of prominence. “ The devout women of honorable estate” means the women among the proselytes of high station; the Jews influenced these Gentile women who had been worshiping according to the law of Moses. (Acts 17:4.) The prominence of women in public life here at Antioch is in accord with what is known of conditions in the cities of Asia Minor. “ The chief men of the city” are probably the officials or other prominent men in the city. These Jews were tactful enough to influence these men through the women who were proselytes of distinction. Now Paul and Barnabas and the young converts have three classes of enemies— the rulers of the Jews with other Jews, “ the devout women of honorable estate,” and “ the chief men of the city.” Paul refers to this persecution in his second letter to Timothy. (2 Timothy 3:11.) They “ cast them out of their borders.” The persecution may have been a tumul¬tuous outbreak. 51 But they shook off the dust of their feet—Paul and Bar¬nabas as they left followed the command which Jesus gave to his disciples when he sent them out on their limited commission. (Luke 9:5.) This was a tendency against those who received not the truth. When they left Antioch they traveled in a southeast di¬rection, about sixty miles to Iconium. Iconium was a large city in Lycaonia. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy—Paul and Barna¬bas and all the Gentile Christians in Antioch of Pisidia rejoiced in the salvation in Christ. The persecution of the Jews had the oppo¬site effect to that which they intended, for the disciples were “ filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit” ; this occurred frequently in the early days of the church. (Acts 4:8 Acts 4:31 Acts 9:17 Acts 13:9.) The blood of the martyrs is still the seed of the kingdom. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 13Act 13:1. We have already seen that Barnabas and Saul had labored one whole year together in the city of Antioch, and we now learn that at the close of this period there were other inspired teachers associated with them. (1) “Now there were in the Church in Antioch certain prophets and teachers, Barnabas and Simeon called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenian, and Manaen, foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” It will be observed that, in this catalogue of names, that of Barnabas stands first, and that of Saul last. As it was customary at that period to arrange names in the order of their notability at the time contemplated, we may infer that Barnabas still occupied a position of pre-eminence, while Saul was as yet comparatively undistinguished among the inspired teachers. Nothing more is known of Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen than is here stated; but this is enough to show that the future instruction of the congregation might be safely committed to their hands. Acts 13:2-3. (2) “As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate for me Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them. (3) And when they had fasted and prayed and laid hands on them, they sent them away.” This command of the Holy Spirit is not the call of Barnabas and Saul to their peculiar work, but refers to a call which had been previously given. It shows that Barnabas as well as Saul had received a special call to labor among the Gentiles. They had, hitherto, most probably, been associated together mainly through geniality of spirit. This geniality may also have furnished the main reason why they were directed by the Holy Spirit to continued their labors together. The design of the ceremony of fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands observed on this occasion is variously understood. There are only two interpretations of it which are worthy of notice. First, it is assumed that the design was to confer on Barnabas and Saul the power of working miracles. The only proof offered in support of this assumption is the fact that neither of them is said to have wrought miracles previous to this time, while they both exhibited miraculous powers shortly after. But this is to argue from the silence of the Scriptures, and is, necessarily, inconclusive. They may have worked miracles before this time, notwithstanding this silence. In the case of Saul, indeed, there is almost positive proof that he did so. The Lord had given him a special commission as an apostle when he first appeared to him on the way to Damascus, and Ananias was sent to him that he “ might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.“ Immediately after his immersion he began to discharge his apostolic office, and had been thus engaged three years previous to his first return to Jerusalem. Another whole year had been spent in the same work in Antioch, besides the interval of his residence in Tarsus. But an essential mark of the apostolic office was the power to work miracles. This Paul himself assumes, in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, among whom his apostleship has been denied. As conclusive proof of his apostleship, he says, “ Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you, in all patience, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.“ If these signs are the proof of apostleship, then he must have been able to exhibit them from the time that he began to be an apostle; and this was more than four years previous to the imposition of hands by the prophets and teachers in Antioch. This fact, coupled with the statement of Ananias, that he was sent to him that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit, indicates clearly that his miraculous endowments dated from his immersion. The first supposition, then, in reference to the design of the ceremony we are considering, proves to be not only unfounded, but inconsistent with the facts of the case. The second, and doubtless the true interpretation, is this: That the imposition of hands, accompanied by fasting and prayer, was, in this case, as in that of the seven deacons, merely their formal separation to the special work to which they had been called. This, indeed, is sufficiently evident from the context. What they did was doubtless what they had been told to do by the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit simply said to them, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them.” The fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands was, then, merely their separation to this work. It was a ceremony deemed by infinite wisdom suitable to such a purpose; and, therefore, whenever a congregation has a similar purpose to accomplish, they have, in this case, the judgments and will of God, which should be their guide. The solemn simplicity of this apostolic ceremony stands in striking contrast with the pompous mummery which often characterizes “ ordination” services in modern Churches. No less striking is the contrast between the humility of Saul and the ambitious spirit of many modern clergyman who are extremely exacting in reference to the punctilios of ecclesiastical rank. Though an apostle by special commission, he was “ ordained” by his humble fellow-laborers in Antioch. This fact shows that the idea of superior rank and authority had not then begun the work of ruin which it has since accomplished, in filling the minds of preachers with the same lust of office and power which characterizes the intrigues of political partisans. Acts 13:4-5. We now follow Barnabas and Saul to their new field of labor. Their departure from Antioch is thus announced by Luke: (4) “So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia, and thence sailed into Cyprus. (5) And when they were in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues. And they had John as an assistant.” Seleucia was the seaport nearest to Antioch, distant some fifteen or eighteen miles, and near the mouth of the river Orontes, on the bank of which Antioch is situated. Embarking upon some trading vessel, they sailed to the port of Salamis, which is at the eastern end of the island of Cyprus. In choosing this island as the first point in the wide world to which they directed their steps, they were, doubtless, guided not by the natural partiality which Barnabas may have felt for it as his native land, but by that fixed principle in the apostolic labors which taught them to cultivate first those fields which promised the most abundant harvest. The fact that this was the native island of Barnabas gave him hope of a more ready access to many old associates. Besides, the gospel had already been proclaimed here with some success among the Jews, and in the city of Salamis, as we learn from the text just quoted, there was more than one Jewish synagogue. What duties were performed by John, in his capacity as “ an assistant,” can not be specifically determined with certainty. The term assistant would indicate that he performed, under their direction, a part of the same labor in which they were themselves engaged. The fact, however, that Saul was not in the habit of immersing his own converts, but imposed this duty on his assistants, renders it highly probable that this was at least one of the duties performed by John. Acts 13:6-7. Luke is entirely silent in reference to the effect of the apostolic preaching in Salamis, leaving us to suppose that it was not great. After stating that they preached in the synagogues of the Jews, he follows them in their further progress through the island. (6) “And having passed through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain magician, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, (7) who was with Sergius Paulus the proconsul, a prudent man, who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.” Every reader of ancient history has observed that statesmen and generals were in the habit of consulting oracles and auguries, and that they generally kept about them some one supposed to have the power of interpreting the signs of approaching good or evil. In this particular period, the educated Romans had become skeptical in reference to their heathen oracles, but Jewish pretenders still had access to their confidence on the credit of the ancient Jewish prophets. With a knowledge of the true God superior to that of even the greatest philosophers among the Greeks, because derived from the Jewish Scriptures, this Bar-Jesus very naturally gained the confidence of even the prudent Sergius Paulus. When, however, two other Jews appeared in Paphos, claiming to bring additional revelations from the God of Israel, the same prudence which had prompted the proconsul to reject the heathen oracles in favor of the Jewish pretender, now prompted him to send for Barnabas and Saul, that he might hear the word of God from them. Such a mind as his could not fail to hear with profit. Acts 13:8-12. While listening to the gospel, there were some indications that he was inclined to believe it. (8) “But the magician Elymas, for so is his name translated, withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith. (9) Then Saul, who is also Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his eyes on him, (10) and said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? (11) And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell upon him a mist, and darkness, and he went about seeking persons to lead him by the hand. (12) Then the proconsul, seeing what was done, being astonished by the Lord's teaching.” This is the only miracle wrought by an apostle to the injury of any one's person. It is to be accounted for, not by supposed resentment on the part of Saul, nor by a desire to make a special example of Bar-jesus. But the case was such that some display of power over the person of the false prophet was the readiest way to convince the proconsul. When Moses went into Egypt he found it necessary to impose many personal inflictions upon the priests, in order to destroy Pharaoh's confidence in them. The present case was similar to that. The conflict in the mind of Sergius Paulus was between the claim of Bar-jesus to prophetic powers, and that of the apostles. The best way to settle this question was to denounce him in his true character as a son of the devil and an enemy of all righteousness, and then prove the justice of the denunciation, by exerting miraculous control over his person. As he groped about, calling upon one and another of the frightened bystanders to lead him by the hand, the falsity and iniquity if his pretensions stood confessed, and the divine mission of the apostles was demonstrated. The proconsul was fully convinced, and astonished at teaching which was attended by such power. This triumph over Bar-jesus, and the consequent conversion of Sergius Paulus, forms an epoch in the life of the Apostle Paul. Hitherto he has occupied a subordinate position, and his name has come last in the list of himself and his fellow-laborers. But hereafter he is to occupy the foreground of almost every scene in which he acts. Heretofore, Luke has written “ Barnabas and Saul;” hereafter he writes, “ Paul and Barnabas.” He had been, up to this time, known by no other name than Saul, being so called not only by Luke, but by Jesus and Ananias. Luke, though writing long after this name had gone into disuse, remembering the custom which thus far prevailed, thus far retains it in his narrative. But, from this time forward he uses the name Paul exclusively; and that this was the universal custom, we infer from the fact that he is so called by all others who mention his name; by the Lord Jesus; by the mob in Jerusalem; by the centurion under Lysias; by his own nephew; by Lysias the chiliarch; by Festus; and by Peter. There are only two suppositions worthy of notice, by which to account for this change of name. First, that he had both the Hebrew name Saul, and the Latin name Paul, before this time, and perhaps from his infancy; but the conversion of the proconsul Paulus led to the exclusive use of his Latin name thereafter. This supposition, however, can not account for the entire absence of the name Paul previous to this event. Moreover, while it is true that many Jews of that day had both a Hebrew and a Latin or Greek name, there is no evidence that such had been the case with Saul. The other supposition is, that he received this new name by common consent, in commemoration of the conversion of Paulus. This conversion was a signal triumph; it was accomplished by his intrumentality alone, and was the beginning of the pre-eminence which he afterward maintained over Barnabas and all subsequent follow-laborers. So bold and startling an incident, though it might have been regarded as common-place in his subsequent career, attracted attention now, because it was the first of the kind in his history, and because it secured a conversion of which even Barnabas, under the circumstances, might have despaired. Surprised by the event, and observing the extreme similarity between his name and that of his distinguished convert, which differed only in a single letter, and sounded very much alike, his friends very naturally conceived the idea of changing his name, as they did. It was in perfect harmony with a prevalent custom of the time. Its universal reception soon followed as a matter of course. It argues no vanity in Paul that he adopted this name; for he could scarcely avoid the adoption into his own use of a name by which he had become universally known. There is nothing in the event, therefore, to encourage men in pompously sounding abroad their own achievements, but much to encourage us in honoring a brother whose boldness and success are worthy of praise. Acts 13:13. Without pausing to give more detailed accounts of the success of the gospel in Cyprus, our historian now hurries us away with the two apostles upon the further prosecution of their tour. (13) “Now those about Paul set sail from Paphos, and went to Perga of Pamphylia. But John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem.” So completely has Paul now become the central figure on the pages of Luke, that here, instead of following his former phraseology, and saying that “ Barnabas and Saul” set sail from Paphos, the whole company are described as “ those about Paul.” Why they chose the regions north of Pamphylia, in Asia Minor, as their next field of labor, we are not informed. Luke is equally silent in reference to the reason why John Mark, at this particular juncture, departed from them, and returned to Jerusalem. He informs us, however, at a later period, that Paul censured him for so doing. It is very plausibly suggested by Mr. Howson, that he was influenced by fear of the dangers which lay in their way, the mountains before them being commonly infested with robbers. He remarks that “ No population, through the midst of which he ever traveled, abounded more in those 'perils of robbers' of which he himself speaks, than the wild and lawless clans of the Pisidian highlanders.” Acts 13:14-15. Luke does not longer to recount the dangers through which the two travelers may have passed in crossing the mountains, but describes their progress in these few words: (14) “But they, having departed from Perga, arrived in Antioch of Pisidia, and entering into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, they sat down. (15) And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, and said, Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” This is a very life-like description of the order of worship in a Jewish synagogue, and of the readiness with which the apostles gained access to the ears of their Jewish kinsmen upon their first advent in a new field of labor. The direct invitation given them to address the people was doubtless prompted by some vague knowledge of their characters as public speakers, furnished, perhaps, by themselves. Acts 13:16. To this invitation Paul responded, by immediately arising and addressing the audience. It need not be supposed, in order to account for the leadership which he now assumes, that he had laid formal claim to superiority over Barnabas; for when two men, of generous spirit, are co-operating together under trying circumstances, he who possesses the greater courage and promptness will eventually assume the foremost position, even without a special agreement to that effect. Such was the constant danger and embarrassment of the two missionaries, that the question was, who is willing to go forward, rather than, who has the right to be heard first. Paul's manner, in arising to open the gospel message among these strangers, was bold and commanding. It is thus described by Luke: (16) “Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand, said, Men of Israel, and ye who fear God, give audience.” This gesture, described as beckoning with the hand, was characteristic of Paul's manner, as well shall have occasion to observe frequently hereafter, and was well calculated to arrest the attention of an audience. It is the manner of one who knows what he is about to say, and feels confident of its importance. Besides the Jewish audience present, Paul addressed a number of Gentiles, such as were in the habit of attending Jewish worship in almost every Gentile city, and many of whom, like Cornelius, had learned to worship the true God. He distinguishes the two classes, by addressing the former as “ Men of Israel,” and the latter, as “ Ye who fear God.” Acts 13:17-24. After thus arresting the attention of his hearers, he approaches his main theme, by a rapid glance at some of the most cherished events in Jewish history. (17) “The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with a high hand led them out of it; (18) and about the time of forty years nourished them in the wilderness. (19) And having destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave their land to them as an inheritance. (20) After these things, he gave them judges about four hundred and fifty years, until the prophet Samuel. (21) Then they desired a king, and God gave them Saul, the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years. (22) And having removed him, he raised up to them David for a king, to whom he also gave testimony and said, I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man according to my own heart, who will do all my will. (23) From this man's offspring God has, according to his promise, raised up to Israel a Savior, Jesus; (24) John having preached, before his coming, the immersion of repentance to all the people of Israel.” This glance at the history of history, from their departure out of Egypt to the reign of David, is a very circuitous method of approaching the announcement of Jesus as a Savior; but, instead of being a defect in the speech, it is one of its chief excellencies. Every speech must be judged with reference to the special character of the audience addressed. The Jews had a glorious history, of which they were justly proud; and any happily expressed allusions to its leading facts always awakened in their hearts the most lively emotions. These incidents furnished the inspiration of their songs, the themes of their orators, the foundation of their national pride, and their comfort in persecution. Whoever, of their own people, appeared most deeply touched by their memories, had the readiest access to their sympathies, and he who would treat them with indifference or contempt, incurred their utmost hatred. Before such an audience, if Paul had abruptly introduced the name and the new doctrine of Jesus, he might have appeared an apostate from the Jewish faith, seeking to supplant it by something entirely new, and would therefore have kindled the resentment of his Jewish hearers at once. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 13:2. See the notes on Matthew 6:16 on the subject of fasting. The Holy Ghost speaks only through men, so this instruction was made through one of the prophets in the church. Separate is from which Thayer defines, "To appoint, set apart, one for some purpose." Barnabas and Saul were to be thus appointed for a special work to which the Lord had called them. 3Act 13:3. We know from chapter 8:18 that it required the laying on of an apostle's hands to confer any miraculous gift. Besides, Saul was already an apostle -of Christ with the power to confer such gifts, hence no hands were laid on him for that purpose. But since such a manual act was used . in those days for that important office, it came to be also a gesture of approval, similar to giving the "right hand of fellowship" (Galatians 2:9). The church at Antioch sent them on this mission, which is one of the meanings of being an apostle. 4Acts 13:4. The Holy Ghost sent them forth by speaking through the church. This was the start of the first "missionary journey." Seleucia was a seaport town, from where they sailed to Cyprus, an island in the Mediterranean Sea. 5Acts 13:5. Salamis was one of the two chief cities of Cyprus, situated on its eastern coast. Here the missionaries preached in the synagogue of the Jews because they could meet people there. It Was John Mark who was going with them as a minister. The original for that word is defined in the lexicon, "Any one who serves with his hands, a servant" John Mark went with them as an attendant to do whatever service that was needed. 6Acts 13:6. Paphos was the other chief city of the island and it was situated on the western shore. Sorcerer is from MAGOS which is the word for "wise men" in Matthew 2:1. See the notes at that place for a fuller explanation of the word. This sorcerer was using whatever talent of wisdom he had to make false predictions and to oppose the truth. Bar-Jesus was the proper name given to this man as his personal name. Elymas (verse 8) was a common noun applied to him because of some special meaning derived from the name. 7Acts 13:7. -Sergius Paulus was the deputy (acting governor) of the island, which was a part of the Roman Empire. This man was prudent (very intelligent) and wished to hear what Barnabas and Saul were preaching. 8Acts 13:8. Elymas the sorcerer (See verse 6) was associated with the deputy in some way, and tried to prevent him from believing the Gospel. He was a Jew by race, and feared that if the deputy became a believer it would affect his standing with him. 9Acts 13:9. Also is called Paul. A common but erroneous saying is that Saul's name was changed to Paul. The text only says that he was also called Paul. Thayer says that Saul was his Jewish name, while Paul (from PAULUS) was a Latin proper name. From here on the name Saul will not be applied to him except historically when referring to his conversion. Filled with the Holy Ghost. (See notes at chapter 4:31.) 0Acts 13:10. Subtilty means deceitfulness, which the sorcerer used with a mischievous motive. Child of the devil. The first word is explained at John 17:12. 1Act 13:11. Hand of the Lord was said to let the deputy know that he (Paul) was working under Him. A man who is so blind that he cannot see even the sun is certainly very much so, although this was to be on this man only for a season. This miracle was immediate, as all of them were that the Lord brought to pass. The fact the man sought for someone to lead him proved the genuineness of the deed. 2Act 13:12. The deputy believed when he saw the miracle. That was according to the Lord's purpose for miracles, stated in John 20:30-31. 3Act 13:13. Pamphylia was in Asia Minor, and was a province of the Roman Empire. We are not told why John (Mark) deserted them, but the act was so distasteful to Paul that it later caused a serious dispute between him and Barnabas (chapter 15:37-40). 4Acts 13:14. Pisidia was another province in Asia Minor adjoining Pam-phylia, in which the present Antioch was situated. The Jews assembled in the synagogues on the sabbath day to hear the reading of the law, since copies of it were scarce and only a few people could possess it. The preachers went into it because it gave them an opportunity to speak to the people about the Gospel. It was the custom to invite persons in the audience to speak, after the reading service was completed. 5 Acts 13:15. Sent unto them, saying. The first word is from , which Thayer defines at this place, "to say through a messenger." In a large room and in a numerous gathering of people, it would be more courteous and orderly for the rulers at the front of the auditorium to have a messenger go to the visitor and personally invite him to speak. 6 Acts 13:16. Paul stood up according to the custom in that community for public speakers. Beckoning with his hand was a gesture as an invitation or request for the people to give their attention to him. Ye that fear God was not said in flattery, but was an honest comment based on the fact that they were at that place for the purpose of hearing the reading of the law of God. 7Acts 13:17. As a preparation for his main subject, the story of Christ, Paul rehearsed the history of the Jews, beginning with their sojourn in Egypt. High arm means one of great might and authority. 8Acts 13:18. Suffered he their manners means that God tolerated them, not that He endorsed them. Instead, He frequently punished them for their sins. 9Acts 13:19. The seven nations are named in Deuteronomy 7:1. Joshua conquered 31 kings (chapter 12:24), but many of them ruled only over single cities. The seven nations were important groups in Canaan. The division of the land is in Joshua, chapters 15, 16 and 17, and the division was decided by means of the lot. 0Acts 13:20. This is the only passage that states the entire period of the judges. Until Samuel is said because he was the last one of the judges (1 Samuel 7:15). 1Act 13:21. This is the only passage that states the length of Saul's reign. 2Act 13:22. The throne was not only removed from Saul's house but also from his tribe (Benjamin), and given to David of the tribe of Judah. It remained in that tribe as long as the kingdom existed. 3Act 13:23. The importance of David was due to the fact that he was to become the ancestor, both fleshly and spiritually, of the Saviour of Israel and all the world. 4Acts 13:24. John had first preached refers to the work of John as the forerunner of Jesus, baptizing people in preparation for His service. Baptism of repentance means that John baptized those only who repented. (See Matthew 3:7-8.) 5Acts 13:25. This verse is explained at John 1:19-27. 6Acts 13:26. Paul was showing these Jews that they were the ones who were first to be concerned in the promise made to Abraham. (See verse 46.) 7Acts 13:27. The leaders among the Jews did not know (recognize) Jesus nor the prophecies that went before concerning h i m. Notwithstanding, when they condemned him (Jesus), they fulfilled them (the prophecies that foretold that condemnation). 8Acts 13:28. In spite of there being no charge sustained against Jesus, the Jews called for his death. In so doing they fulfilled the prophecies about him. (See verse 27.) 9Acts 13:29. The pronoun they refers to both the enemies and the friends of Jesus, for it was the friends who placed him in the tomb. But the next verse shows that the enemies were still interested in His death, for they placed a guard about the tomb in the hope that he would not be able to come out alive. In this sense they laid him in the tomb. 0Acts 13:30. This brief verse means that God overruled the acts and expectations of the Jews, by raising his Son to life. 1Act 13:31. As a rebuke to the murderers of Jesus, God saw to it that many "disinterested" people would have full opportunity to see Jesus after his resurrection. 3Verses 32, 33. Glad tidings is another term for "Gospel," and Paul was announcing it to this synagogue audience. Second Psalm. The quotation stated by Paul can be found in no other place than the Psalm that is so numbered today. This proves that the Book of Psalms was arranged as to chapter numbers then the same as today. 4Acts 13:34. No more to return to corruption means that Jesus arose from the dead to die no more. Sure mercies of David. The second word is from HOSIOS which Thayer defines at this place, "The holy things (of God) promised to David." These things included the resurrection of his illustrious descendant, Jesus, to die no more. 6Acts 13:35-36. Jesus was to be raised from the dead, but God also promised David that his "son" was not to remain in the grave long enough to decay. (Psalms 16:9-10.) 7Acts 13:37. Served his own generation denotes that David did his duty in serving God in that age or generation. After doing that, however, he died and his body went back to the dust, while the One concerning whom the promise was made to David -was raised before His body had time to decay, thus fulfilling the promise made to the patriarch. 8Acts 13:38. This man, was said to emphasize that Christ and not David--the new law and not the old--is the only means by which one must obtain forgiveness of sins. 9Acts 13:39. By him has the same force as the italicized words in the preceding verse. The law of Moses could not bring the justification that is possible by belief in Christ. 0Acts 13:40. Paul referred to a statement in Habakkuk 1:5. 1Act 13:41. The prophet was writing about ancient Israel and the judgments that were brought upon them through the Chaldeans. Paul warned the Jews in his audience that a like judgment might come upon them. It was similar to his statements in Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:11. 2Act 13:42. The synagogues were public places and came to be attended by Gentiles as visitors. They were less prejudiced than the Jews and wished to hear more of the subject that Paul was preaching. Next sabbath would be the next gathering in the synagogue. 3Act 13:43. Congregation is from the same Greek word as synagogue. (See the notes at Matthew 4:23.) The more favorable among the Jews, also the Gentiles who had become proselytes to the Jewish faith, were so well impressed that they accompanied Paul and Barnabas as they went on their way out into the city. Seeing their attitude, Paul encouraged them to continue in the good life they were following. He was not ready to make a direct appeal for them to take their stand for the Gospel; that will come soon. 4Acts 13:44. In the week following the events just mentioned, the news of them was spread so that a large crowd came the next sabbath to hear the word. 5Acts 13:45. No outspoken opposition was manifested against the preaching of Paul until the Jews saw the great throng of people. Their envy was so bitter that they even blasphemed the work of the preachers, denying the truths they were uttering. 6Acts 13:46. The Gospel was intended for the whole world, but the Jews were to be given the "first chance" for it. Indeed, it was not even offered to the Gentiles until the case of Cornelius. And on that principle Paul made his first appeals to the Jews in his preaching. But when they rejected the favor, Paul considered it as rendering themselves unworthy of everlasting life. In turning to the Gentiles he was acting in keeping with the events of chapter 10. 7Acts 13:47. Paul verified his work by quoting Isaiah 49:6. 8Acts 13:48. Gentiles heard this means the announcement of Paul that he was turning to them with the word of God. The Bible does not contradict itself, and the whole of God's dealings with man shows that no person will be either saved or lost by any predestined decree, but that all who will may be saved. The passages on the subject are too numerous to be cited here, but the reader should see 2 Peter 3:9. All of the words in our verse are correctly translated, but the construction of the sentence is inaccurate. The proper form is, "As many as believed were ordained to eternal life," and the reader should see the notes at John 15:16 on the word "ordain." 9Acts 13:49. This publishing of the word was due to the conversion of the Gentiles throughout that territory, who repeated the good news to others. 0Acts 13:50. These devout and honorable women were of the better class of citizens, who generally had much respect for established law. The Jews worked on their emotions and got them so excited that they became uneasy about the work of Paul and Bar-nabas. The result of the excitement was a movement of persecution against the preachers. This expelling was not a formal or legal act, but a persecuting one that forced them to leave. 1Act 13:51. Shook off the dust. (See the notes on Matthew 10:14.) Iconium was a large city in the next province, a place of many wealthy people. 2Act 13:52. Notwithstanding the opposition of the envious Jews the disciples were happy. (See the notes on chapter 4:31 on being filled with the Holy Ghost.) H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 14 PAUL AND AT ICONIUMAct_14:1-7 1 And it came to pass in Iconium—Paul and Barnabas were successful in preaching the gospel in Iconium; when they arrived there Paul and Barnabas both “ together” went into the synagogue of the Jews. They took advantage of the assembling of the Jews to preach the gospel to them. As has been indicated Paul first went to the Jews with the gospel and then to the Gentiles. (Romans 1:16.) Paul had an advantage in that he knew the scriptures and was speaking by the Holy Spirit. By going into the synagogue he would not only reach the Jews, but would also reach the pious “ proselytes,” and through them could contact other Gentiles. It is very likely that they went into the synagogue often, and “ so spake” the word of God that “ a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed.” They “ so spake” the truth in Christ; that is, spoke with such humility and conviction, with such earnestness and interest, that “ a great multitude” of Jews and “ Greeks” were converted. “ Greeks” here may include both proselyte Greeks and heathen Greeks; it may include all others except Jews. 2 But the Jews that were disobedient—The Jews who disbelieved were the “ disobedient” Jews who “ stirred up the souls of the Gentiles” against Paul and Barnabas. To disbelieve is to disobey, and to believe usually means to obey. “ Disobedient” comes from the Greek “ apeithesantes,” and means “ to be unwilling to be persuaded,” or to withhold belief, and then also to withhold obedience; they refused to allow themselves to be persuaded by the truth preached by Paul and Barnabas. They used their influence on the Gentiles against Paul and Barnabas; through these disbelieving and disobedient Jews the Gentiles were disposed not to hear the gospel, but to help persecute the preachers of the gospel. 3 Long time therefore they tarried there—The “ long time” here may include several months; Paul and Barnabas spoke boldly “ in the Lord,” or without fear they preached the gospel; though they had been threatened and knew that their preaching would provoke persecution, yet they did not yield to the opposition. God bore witness to the truth of the gospel by enabling them to perform miracles. The miracles which Paul and Barnabas were able to perform were God’ s testimony to the truth that they had preached. Though the Jews stirred up the Gentiles against Paul and Barnabas, yet many were converted, even “ a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed.” (Verse 1.) 4 But the multitude of the city was divided;—When the gospel was preached some accepted and some rejected it; some were kindly disposed toward Paul and Barnabas, while others were bitterly opposed to them; the “ multitude of the city was divided.” The very things which produced strong conviction in some stirred bitterness in others; the earnest man always stimulates others to earnestness, either of agreement or enmity. Here Barnabas is included “ with the apostles,” though he was not an apostle in the sense that Peter, John, and Paul were. This is the first instance in the Acts that Paul is called an apostle. “ Apostle” comes from the Greek “ apostolos,” and means “ one who is sent out.” Luke applies the word elsewhere in the Acts only to the twelve. Paul claimed to be an apostle, and equal with the other apostles. (Galatians 1:1 Galatians 1:16-18.) The common use of “ apostolos” is found in John 13:16 and 2 Corinthians 8:23. Paul used the word and applied it to James the Lord’ s brother Galatians 1:19); to Epaph- roditus (Philippians 2:25) as the messenger of the church in Philippi; to Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 2:6; Acts 18:5); and to Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:6-7.) He even calls the Judaizing teachers “ false apostles.” (2 Corinthians 11:13.) The two parties here were Christians and non-Christians; it is likely that the Christians were in the minority. 5-7 And when there was made an onset—Both Jews and Gentiles made an attack on Paul and Barnabas. “ Onset” is from the Greek “ horme,” and means “ a rush or impulse” ; the word is used only twice in the New Testament, here and in James 3:4. It is probable that no assault was actually made, but one was planned, and they were eager to carry it out. The rulers of the Jews and the magistrates of the city could not have participated in mob violence, and the plot to stone Paul and Barnabas seems to point to Jewish instigation for enforcing the punishment of blasphemy. Paul and Barnabas learned of the plot to stone them and went to Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia; they preached the gospel in these cities and in other regions. Lystra was about eighteen miles south from Icon- ium, and Derbe was about twenty miles east of Lystra. This was a wild and desolate country; it was a region that was barren of trees; Lystra was the chief city. In these rural towns it seems that there were no synagogues, and Paul and Barnabas preached to the scattered Jews and to the heathen population. PAUL AND AT LYSTRA AND DERBE Acts 14:8-20 8 And at Lystra there sat a certain man,—While Paul was speaking to some group, he observed “ a certain man” who was crippled in his feet; he never had walked. It seemed that he was seated on the ground, but he was no beggar; he was one whose history from his infancy was known to the greater number who heard Paul speak. This case is very much like the lame man that Peter and John healed. (Acts 3:1-11.) Luke, the physician, gives a good description of the condition of this man. It would take a miracle to heal this man. 9-10 The same heard Paul speaking:—As there was no synagogue in Lystra, possibly Paul and Barnabas were speaking in an open-air meeting; this crippled man was in the audience and heard Paul speaking. Paul observed him and saw that he had sufficient faith to be cured. Here again we note that Paul, “ fastening his eyes upon him” (see Acts 13:9), said “ with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet.” Paul raised his voice so that everyone in the audience who was listening to him heard what was said; he attracted the attention of his hearers to this crippled man. It was a strange command to these heathen people to command one who had never walked to stand upon his feet. The man obeyed immediately and “ leaped up and walked” ; the Greek is “ helato kai per iepatei,” which means “ he leaped up with a single bound and began to walk.” The sudden leaping up and walking shows that Paul had power to cure the man; his healing was not gradual or continuous, but was immediate or instantaneous. He walked as a dem¬onstration of the miracle of his healing. 11 And when the multitude saw what Paul had done,—The multitude was astonished when they saw this lame man leap up and walk, and “ they lifted up their voice” and began to shout the praises of Paul and Barnabas in the “ speech of Lycaonia.” It seems that Paul had been speaking in the Greek language, and now they spoke in their own language. It seems that neither Paul nor Barnabas understood this language, for it was not until the oxen and garlands were brought that they saw what the people meant; yet they understood Paul and Barnabas. “ The speech of Lycaonia” was a dialect peculiar to Lycaonia. This shows that the gift of tongues did not give the apostles power to speak or to understand all dialects. The Lycaonians saw the healing; they rec0gnized it as supernatural; so they exclaimed: “ The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.” This shows that the natives were simple and idolatrous. 12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter;—They called Barnabas, Jupiter, and Paul, Mercury; Luke assigns the reason for this that Paul was the “ chief speaker.” Here Barnabas is mentioned before Paul. “ Mercury” was the god of eloquence; the heathen mythologies abound with appearances of their deities in human shape; they said that Jupiter and Mercury wandered through the neighboring country of Phrygia. “ Hermes” is the Greek name for Mercury, and “ Zeus” is the Greek name for Jupiter. “ Zeus,” the king of the gods, was of stately and commanding presence; there may be some hints as to Paul’ s appearance in this incident. 13 And the priest of Jupiter—The statue, or the temple containing the statue, was outside the city gates; the statue of Zeus, or Jupiter, stood beside the approach to the city without the wall; the double gates leading into the city adjoined this temple. It seems that the procession came to the porch or outer door with the “ oxen and garlands” in order to make sacrifice unto Paul and Barnabas. The “ garlands” were placed on the oxen before they were slain; it was common with these heathen people to sacrifice bullocks to Ju¬piter and Mercury. The way the sacrifice was made was to cut the throats of the oxen and receive the blood in a vessel, and take the blood and pour it on the altar, and make a feast and eat the flesh. 14-16 But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul,—Here Barnabas is mentioned first, and is called an apostle. It seems that on this occasion Barnabas received from the people the chief honor; hence, Luke places his name first; he is also called an apostle; though he was not an apostle in the sense that the twelve were, or even as was Paul, yet he was an apostle in the sense that he was sent out by the church at Antioch. When Paul and Barnabas heard and learned what the natives were about to do, they “ rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude” and stopped their wild and heathenish custom. Paul and Barnabas were astonished that these natives should attempt to pay such hornage and worship to them. However, it gave them a splendid occasion to direct the worship to the true and “ living God.” As they were worshiping, or about to worship, it becomes a fitting occasion to instruct them in the true worship. This Paul and Barnabas attempted to do. They declared unto them that they were just men, not gods, with “ like passions” as other men. “ Passion” comes from the Greek “ pascho,” and means “ to experience.” It is used here and in James 5:17; it means “ of like nature” more exactly and affected by like sensations. After clearing their minds on this point, Paul and Barnabas began preaching Christ to them; they brought “ good tidings,” or the gospel, to them. “ Good tidings” comes from the Greek “ euaggelizomenoi,” and means the same as “ gospelizing” or “ evangelizing.” We now have Paul’ s preaching to the Gentiles free from any Jewish environment, and he makes the same line of argument seen in Acts 17:21-32 and Romans 1:18-23. “ Living God” is put in contrast to idols or gods made of wood or stone; these idols are dumb and inactive, but the living God is active, for he “ made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is.” What a contrast between the God who created the heavens and the earth and the god that these heathens worshiped! God had been merciful to the people before Christ came, but now he wants all to know Christ; he permitted the people “ to walk in their own ways,” but now they must follow the Christ who is the Savior of the world. For wise reasons God permitted men to see what they could and would do, and in this way become better prepared to receive newer light. Paul makes the same argument in Acts 17:30 in his speech at Athens. He also makes the same argument in Romans 1, 2, , 11. The ignorance and the sins of the Gentile world had been allowed to run their course, as the law of Moses had been allowed to do its partial and imperfect work among the Jews. Now they are to hear the gospel and be saved by it. 17 And yet he left not himself without witness,—Here again we have the outline of what is presented in Romans 1:19-20. God gave rains and fruitful seasons and blessed them through the natu¬ral laws; Paul recognizes God in the operation of natural laws. We should be able to see the hand of God in nature; “ the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” (Psalms 19:1.) The “ living God” was not like Jupiter, but during all this time attracted men by his graciousness toward them; the goodness of God was still attracting them to see his larger and richer goodness in the gospel of Christ. 18 And with these sayings scarce restrained they—We have only a brief outline of the speech that Paul made; he had a difficult task in keeping these natives from making their sacrifices; it had been a hard thing to do, but finally Paul and Barnabas won and the natives left off their worship which they had planned to give Paul and Barnabas. No mention is made here of the success that Paul and Barnabas had at Lystra. Among the more conspicuous converts were the devout Jewesses, Lois and her daughter Eunice, and the young Timothy. (2 Timothy 1:5.) 19 But there came Jews thither from Antioch and Iconium:—These enemies of Paul and Barnabas came a distance from eighty to a hundred miles; this shows how determined they were to persecute Paul and Barnabas and to keep people from accepting the truth. The opposition aroused against a man or a cause is sometimes proof of his power or the power of the truth. The intense opposition here bears evidence of the force of the truth as preached by Paul and Barnabas. Men do not stone dead trees for their fruit, or arm themselves against weak cowards, or grow excited over a weak opponent. These Jews came and “ persuaded the multitudes” to stone Paul. What a contrast! At one time they are about to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods, but at another time they are ready to stone them to death. Popular feelings cannot be relied upon. The sudden change of feeling here is as startling as that which transformed the “ Hosannas” of the multitude at Jerusalem into the cry of “ Crucify him.” (Matthew 21:9 Matthew 27:22.) They fell upon Paul and stoned him and “ dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.” The manner of punishment, stoning, shows that the punishment was planned by the Jews; they were eager to satisfy themselves that they were inflicting punishment on a blasphemer; stoning him to death, and casting him out to be buried with the burial of lower animals, or his flesh to be consumed by dogs and vultures. It was an instance in Paul’ s life that he mentioned later. (2 Corinthians 11:25.) The sufferings endured at Lystra stand out at the close of his life, in the vista of past years, with a marvelous distinctness. (2 Timothy 3:11.) 20 But as the disciples stood round about him,—The disci¬ples followed the mob as it dragged the body of Paul out of the city. Perhaps they were going to give his body a decent burial. It may be that Lois, Eunice, and Timothy were all present weep¬ing over the supposed dead body of Paul, but as they stood around Paul rose up “ and entered into the city.” We do not know how Barnabas escaped being stoned; he may not have been present when they attacked Paul. But the next day Paul and Barnabas left Lystra and went to Derbe. This was a distance of about twenty miles southeast from Lystra. This journey must have oc¬cupied several hours, and was a difficult journey for Paul in his present condition. THEIR RETURN TO ANTIOCH IN SYRIA Acts 14:21-28 21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city,—Derbe was not so large a city as Lystra, and after Paul and Barnabas had evangelized in that city, they were ready to return or go elsewhere. It seems that they were not disturbed by the Jews at Derbe; neither do we know how long they remained in Derbe. They are now at the end of their first missionary tour and are ready to return. Derbe was the frontier city of the Roman Empire ; the shortest route from Derbe to Antioch in Syria would have been to have gone by land through Cilicia and visited Tarsus, Paul’ s native city, and on through the kingdom of Antiochus to Antioch, but they chose to return and visit the churches that they had established. So they “ returned to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch” in Pisidia. 22 confirming the souls of the disciples,—“ Confirming” is from the Greek “ episterizontes” ; it is used here and in Acts 15:32 Acts 15:41. Each time the word is used in Acts it has reference to the churches. It means to make more firm, to give additional strength. The churches were encouraged “ to continue in the faith,” which means that they were to remain steadfast. “ The faith,” as used here, comes from the Greek “ tei pistei,” and means more than trust or belief; it may have the meaning of the entire gospel. These new converts were from heathenism, and were per¬secuted ; some family ties had been broken, social ties severed, and they were in need of encouragement. So Paul exhorted them that “ we” must endure great tribulations in order to enter “ into the kingdom of God.” The new converts were thus warned of the persecution and tribulation that would befall them. Paul here recognizes that “ the kingdom of God” had been established and that these Christians were in it. 23 And when they had appointed for them elders in every church,—Here it seems that Paul and Barnabas had established churches at the different places where they had preached. “ Church,” as used here, means the local congregation. The congregations needed some form of organization; hence, elders were appointed. The rulers in these little groups of disciples were “ elders” or “ bishops.” “ Elders” here is from the Greek “ presbuter ous.” It means here men of age and dignity; these leaders were selected from the elderly men who presided over the assemblies, and managed the affairs of the church. “ Elders” is the term used in speaking of Jewish communities, while “ bishops” is the term applied in speaking of Gentile communities. The solemn duties and responsibilities were impressed upon them by prayer and fasting; in this way they were commended “ to the Lord, on whom they had believed.” It seems that this was done in the public assembly where the prayers were offered. To be “ commended” to the Lord was to be entrusted with the responsibilities of carrying on the work of the church, which was the work of the Lord. They had trusted the Lord in becoming disciples, and now they are entrusted with the Lord’ s work. It should be noted that the “ elders” were appointed in “ every church.” There was a plurality of elders in each church; this is the New Testament order. Nothing is said about the mode of “ appointing” the elders. The word “ appointed” is from the Greek “ cheirotoneo,” and originally means to “ extend the hand” ; “ cheir” means hand, and “ teino” means “ to stretch” ; hence, the original meaning was to stretch forth the hand, to vote by show of the hands; finally it came to mean to appoint with the approval of an assembly, and then to appoint without regard to choice. Various interpretations have been given to this; writers and commentators who favored the Episcopal form of church government have said that it meant the imposition of hands to set the persons apart for the office of elders; those who favored the Presbyterian form of government have said that it meant to select and set apart men that may have been previously elected or chosen by the members; those who favored the Congregational form of church government have held that it implied a selection of officers by the members. Since the New Testament does not tell us how the elders were appointed, it seems that any method which promotes unity and does not violate a principle may be used. 24-26 And they passed through Pisidia,—It seems that they returned by the same route that they had traveled in reaching these points. Antioch was in Pisidia. After leaving Antioch on their return, they passed through Pisidia and into Pamphylia. They preached in Perga; they retraced their steps until they came to Perga; here they halted. It was the place where John Mark had left them, and on their first visit we are not told that they preached in Perga. We are not told what success they had in Perga at this time. On their return journey, instead of taking ship at Perga, they crossed by land to Attalia; this was a seaport of Pamphylia, and from here they sailed to Antioch in Syria, “ from whence they had been committed to the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled.” Luke, the historian, does not record any of the events that took place from the time that they set sail from Attalia until they arrived at Antioch in Syria. They had accomplished the work to which they had been consecrated; they are now back at their starting point and ready to give a report of their work. 27-28 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together,—When they returned to Antioch the church was gathered together; that is, the church assembled to hear the report that Paul and Barnabas had to make. They had many experiences to rehearse; Paul could tell them about the persecution and suffering that he had had to endure. In the report they gave God praise for all that had been done; “ they rehearsed all things that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles.” After reporting what God had done with them in converting the Gentiles, “ they tarried no little time with the disciples” at Antioch. We do not know how long they remained at Antioch. It seems that they left Antioch about A.D. 44 or 45, and it is estimated that they were gone on the first tour two or three years. We know that they were back in Jerusalem in A.D. 50; hence, they must have remained in Antioch “ no little time,” or about two years. SUMMARY OF PAUL’ S FIRST JOURNEYDistance from Antioch in Syria to Seleucia, sixteen miles by land; Seleucia to Salamis, ninety miles by water; Salamis to Paphos, one hundred fifty miles by land; Paphos to Perga, one hundred fifty miles by water; Perga to Antioch in Pisidia, one hundred miles by land; Antioch in Pisidia to Iconium, sixty miles by land; Iconium to Lystra, eighteen miles by land; Lystra to Derbe, twenty miles by land; total distance, six hundred four miles. Of the six hundred four miles from Antioch in Syria to Derbe two hundred forty miles were made by water. The return journey was about the same distance, which would make twelve hundred eight miles; this was a long journey at that time with the ancient modes of travel. Paul and Barnabas had traveled the twelve hundred eight miles and had established more than half a dozen churches within the two or three years that they were gone on this journey. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 14Acts 14:1-2. In Iconium the two missionaries met with better success than in Antioch, but they encountered similar opposition, and from the same source. (1) “Now it came to pass in Iconium, that they went together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude, both of the Jews and the Greeks, believed. (2) But the unbelieving Jews stirred up and disaffected the minds of the Gentiles against the brethren.” The multitude of Jews and Gentiles who believed must have been “ great,” not in comparison to the whole population, but to the number who were usually convinced under such circumstances, and especially to the number who had just been convinced in Antioch. For we see that the unbelieving Jews were still an influential body, and the remark that they “ disaffected the minds of the Gentiles” indicates that the masses of the Gentiles were still unbelievers. It should not escape the notice of the reader, that the conviction of these people is attributed distinctly to the force of what the apostles spoke. They “so spoke that a great multitude believed.” This is one among many incidental remarks of Luke, which indicate that he had no conception of the modern doctrine that faith is produced by an abstract operation of the Holy Spirit, and which confirm by historic facts the doctrine of Paul, that faith comes by hearing the word of God. Acts 14:3-7. This divided and excited state of the public mind continued during the whole time that Paul and Barnabas remained in the city. (3) “They continued there a long time, speaking boldly respecting the Lord, who bore testimony to the word of his favor, and granted signs and wonders to be done through their hands. (4) Yet the multitude of the city was divided: some were with the Jews, and others with the apostles. (5) But when an onset was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to abuse and stone time, (6) they, being aware of it, fled down to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra, and Derbe, and the surrounding country; (7) and there they preached the gospel.” In the rapid sketch which Luke is giving us of this rather hurried missionary tour, he makes no definite note of time, to indicate how long the two missionaries remained at any particular place. The above remark, that they continued in Iconium “ a long time,” is the only note of the kind in the tour, and it is very indefinite. It only indicates that their stay here was long in comparison with that at most other places during this tour. Though their preaching here was not as successful as might have been expected from the length of time employed, it received abundant attestations of the Lord's approval. The proof of this fact adduced by Luke is quite different from that often adduced for a similar purpose by modern writers. Now, the proof that a man's ministry is “ owned and accepted” by the Lord, is found in the “ abundant outpourings of the Spirit” which attend it; and this, in other words, means the number of “ powerful conversions” with which it is rewarded. But the Lord's method of bearing testimony to the word of his favor, according to Luke, was by “ granting signs and wonders to be done” by the hands of the preachers; while not a word is said, either by him or any other inspired writer, of such a spiritual attestation as is now confidently referred to. This shows that our modern revivalists have confounded the attestations of the word by signs and miracles, which was common, in apostolic times, with the exciting scenes which now occur in their revivals. This mistake not only confounds things essentially different, but assumes that the apostles were accustomed to scenes of which they never dreamed. Moreover, it erects a false and very injurious standard by which to judge whether a man's ministry is acceptable to God. If the preacher who is most successful in gaining converts is the one whose ministry is most acceptable to God, then there is not the same value in earnest piety, a blameless life, and watchful oversight of the flock which the apostolic epistles would lead us to believe; since it sometimes occurs that men who obtain the fame of great “ revivalists,” are quite deficient in these essential characteristics of an acceptable minister of the Word. The onset made by the multitude, like the similar proceedings in Antioch, was instigated by the unbelieving Jews, though effected chiefly by the Gentiles and the rulers of the city. The escape of the missionaries must have been narrow, and was probably owing to the kindness of some stranger, whom Paul and Barnabas may have remembered with gratitude, but whose name will not be known to the great world till the day of eternity. Acts 14:8-12. The district of Lycaonia, into which the apostles had fled, was an interior district of Asia Minor, lying north of the Taurus Mountains, but of very indefinite boundaries. The exact situation of the two towns, Lystra and Derbe, is not now known. With the character of the people, however, which is the important consideration in a narrative like this, we are made sufficiently acquainted by the narrative itself. It was one of those retired districts, remote from the great marts of trade and the routes of travel, where the people retained their primitive habits, spoke their primitive dialect, and knew little of either the civilization of the Greeks, or the religion of the Jews. This rude state of society will account for some of the peculiarities of the following narrative. Finding no Jewish synagogues, to afford them an assembly of devout hearers, the missionaries took advantage of such other opportunities as offered, to get the ears of the people. Having succeeded in collecting a crowd in Lystra, they met with the following incident: (8) “A certain man in Lystra was sitting, impotent in his feet, a cripple from his birth, who had never walked. (9) The same was listening to Paul speaking, who, looking intently upon him, and seeing that he had faith to be healed, (10) and said with a loud voice, Stand upright on your feet; and he leaped and walked about. (11) The multitude, seeing what Paul did, lifted up their voice in the speech of Lycaonia, and said, The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men. (12) And they called Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul, because he was the chief speaker, Mercury.” Although Paul had been speaking to them of the true God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, until the cripple, at least, believed; yet, when the miracle was wrought before them, all their heathenish ideas rushed back upon their minds, and they at once supposed that they stood in the presence of gods. Such was the natural conclusion of men who had been educated from childhood to believe the strange inventions of heathen mythology. It was an honest mistake, committed through ignorance. Their conclusion as to which of the gods had appeared, was as natural and as instantaneous as their conviction that they were gods. They had a temple, or a statue, or perhaps both, in front of their city, as we learn below, to the honor of Jupiter; hence any god who might appear to them would be naturally taken for him. But when two gods appeared together, the one who acts as chief speaker could be no other than Mercury, the god of Eloquence, and the constant attendant of Jupiter in his terrestrial visits. The remark of Luke that Paul was called Mercury “ because he was the chief speaker,” shows that he was familiar with Greek mythology. Acts 14:13. The people felt the warmest gratitude for the visit of their supposed gods, and gave expression to their feeling in the most approved method. (13) “Then the priest of the Jupiter that was before the city brought bulls and garlands to the gates, and, with the people, wished to offer sacrifices to them.” The garlands of flowers were designed, according to a well-known custom of the ancients, to deck the forms of the bulls about to be offered. It is not altogether certain whether the “ gates” referred to are those of a private court within which Paul and Barnabas may have retired when first greeted as gods, or the gates of the city, of which there may have been two or more in the same part of the wall, and near which the apostles may have remained with a part of the crowd. The latter I regard as the most probable supposition. The sacrifices were to be offered to the supposed gods in person, and not to the image which stood before the city. Acts 14:14-18. Nothing could have been more unexpected or more painful to the humble missionaries, than a demonstration of this kind. The purpose of the priest and the crowd with him was, doubtless, communicated to them before the rites were commenced. (14) “Which when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard, they rent their clothes, and ran into the crowd, crying aloud, (15) and saying, Men, why do you do these things? We are men of like passions with yourselves, preaching the gospel to you, that you should turn from these vanities to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; (16) who in generations past suffered all the Gentiles to go on in their own ways; (17) although he did not leave himself without testimony, doing good, and giving you rains from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness. (18) And by saying these things they with difficulty restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them.” The habit of rending one's clothes under the influence of sudden passion, which Paul and Barnabas had inherited from their ancestors, and fell into on this occasion, appears very singular to the taste of western nations. The earliest historical traces of it are found in the family of Jacob, and the example of Job; and the latest in the instance before us, which is the only one recorded of the apostles. How so childish and destructive a custom could have originated, it is difficult to imagine; but when once introduced, it is easy to see how it might be transmitted by imitation, until the use of more costly garments would put a stop to it with the economical, or the the restraints of a more enlightened piety would mollify the passions of the religious. It was, certainly, very inconsistent with the calm self-possession inculcated by Christ and the apostles; but we can excuse Barnabas and Saul on this occasion, in consideration of their early habits, which often spring unexpectedly upon men in a moment of sudden excitement. In describing their effort to restrain the idolatry of the multitude, Luke once more reverses their names, saying Barnabas and Saul, as he did before the conversion of Sergius Paulus. This is because Barnabas was called Jupiter, and was the chief figure in this scene. The care with which Luke changes the order of their names, according as one or the other is most prominent, confirms what we have said of the pre-eminence of Barnabas previous to the commencement of this missionary tour. Though Barnabas, on this occasion, received the chief honor at the hands of the people, yet Paul continued to play the part of Mercury which the people had assigned him; for the speech to the idolaters bears unmistakable marks of his paternity. Mr. Howson notices the coincidence between the exhortation to the Lystrians, that they “ should turn from these vanities to the living God,” and his remark to the Thessalonians, that they had “ turned from idols to serve the living and true God;” between the remark that “ in generations past God suffered the Gentiles to go on in their own ways,” and his statement to the Athenians, that “ the times of this ignorance God had overlooked;” and finally, between the argument by which he proves that God had not left himself without testimony among the heathen, and that in Romans, where he says (to quote the common version,) “ The invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” To which I would add, that the coincidence in thought between this speech, so far as reported, and that made in Athens to another company of idolaters is so striking, that the latter might be regarded as the same speech, only modified to suit the circumstances of the audience and the peculiarities of the occasion. The speech and manner of the apostles finally brought the people back to their senses. It was a sad disappointment to know that their wonderful visitors were only men like themselves, and this conviction left them in great bewilderment as to the nature of the superhuman power which Paul had exerted. Acts 14:19. This state of suspense was most favorable to the acceptance of Paul's own explanation of his miraculous power, and consequently to their belief of the gospel; and we can not doubt that some of the disciples, whom we afterward find there, owed their conviction, in part, to the circumstance. But with those who did not promptly embrace the faith, the same suspense made room for explanations unfavorable to conviction, and such explanations were soon given. (19) “But Jews from Antioch and Iconium came thither, and having persuaded the multitude, and stoned Paul, they dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.” The readiness with which a people who had so recently offered divine honors to Paul were persuaded to stone him to death, though at first glance surprising, is but a natural result of all the circumstances. That portion of them who had been prominent in the idolatrous proceedings felt mortified at the discovery of their mistake, and were naturally inclined to excuse their own folly by throwing censure upon the innocent objects of it. The Jews stimulated this feeling by urging that Paul was an impostor, and that all the honorable women and chief men of Antioch and Iconium had united in driving him away from those cities. This enabled them to charge him with willful deception, and as their feelings were already keyed up to their utmost tension they were easily swayed to the opposite extreme, and at a nod from the Jews they were ready to dash him to pieces. That Paul, rather than Barnabas, was the victim of their wrath, resulted from the fact that both here and in the cities from which the Jews had come, he was the chief speaker. The same circumstance which had given him the inferior place in their idolatry, gave him, finally, the superior place in their hatred. Acts 14:20. Although Paul's physical constitution was feeble, he had, as is often the case with such constitutions, great tenacity of life. The mob left him, thinking he was dead. (20) “But while the disciples were standing around him, he rose up, and entered into the city, and the next day he went out with Barnabas into Derbe.“ Acts 14:21-22. Having been compelled to fly from Antioch to Iconium, and from Iconium to Lystra, wading into deeper dangers at every step, who can tell the feelings with which the wounded missionary enters the gate of another heathen city, bearing visible marks of the indignity he had suffered, to excite the contempt of the people? We know, from the expression given to his feelings on some other occasions, that now they must have been gloomy indeed. But he who brings light out of darkness caused a refreshing light to shine upon the darkening pathway of his faithful servant, by granting him here a peaceful and abundant harvests of souls. (21) “And when they had preached the gospel in the city, and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, (22) confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.” Luke passes hurriedly over these scenes; but the uninspired imagination loves to linger among them, to sympathize with the suffering apostles in their afflictions and comforts, and also with the congregations in the four cities, as the two brethren, who had come among them like visitors from a better world, were bidding them farewell, and leaving them to make their own way through many temptations into the everlasting kingdom of God. Acts 14:23. They were left as “ sheep in the midst of wolves;” but they were committed to the care of the great Shepherd of the sheep, and were supplied with under-shepherds to keep them in the fold. (23) “And having appointed for them elders in every Church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.” Here we have the same prayer and fasting, connected with the appointment of elders, which we have already noticed upon the appointment of the seven deacons in Jerusalem, and upon the sending forth of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch. The laying on of hands, which was a part of the ceremony on those occasions, is not here mentioned; but as we have already seen that it was a part of the ceremony of appointment to office, and as the apostles are said to have appointed these elders, we may safely infer that it was not omitted. As the office exercised by these elders, and the number of them in each congregation, have been made subjects of controversy, we will devote some space to grouping a few facts which bear upon these points. The passage before us contains the earliest mention of the appointment of elders, yet these were by no means the first elders appointed. For Paul and Barnabas, when sent to Jerusalem with a contribution for the poor saints, delivered it to “ the elders.” This shows that there were already elders in the Churches in Judea. Paul and Barnabas, on their present tour, appointed elders in every Church; Titus was left in Crete that he might set in order the things that were omitted, and appoint elders in every city; and James takes it for granted that every Church has elders, by directing, in his general epistle, that the sick should call for the elders of the Church, to pray for them and anoint them with oil, with a view to their recovery. In view of these facts, it can not be doubted that the office of elder was universal in the apostolic Churches. That the term elder is used as an official title, and not merely to indicate the older members of the Church, is sufficiently evident from the fact that men became elders by appointment, whereas an appointment can not make one an old man. The fact that these officers were called elders indicates that they were generally selected from the elderly class; still, it does not necessarily imply that, to be an elder officially, a man must be an elder in years. Terms which are appropriated as official titles do not always retain their original meanings. Whether advanced age is necessary to the elder's office is to be determined, not by the official title, but by the qualifications prescribed. But, inasmuch as no such qualification is anywhere prescribed, we conclude that any brother who possesses the qualifications which are prescribed, may be made an elder, though he be not an old man. The term bishop in our common version, rendered in some English versions overseer, is but another title for this same officer. This is evident, first, from the fact that the same brethren of the congregation in Ephesus, who came down to Miletus to meet Paul, are styled by Luke “elders of the Church,” and by Paul, bishops. Second, In the epistle to Titus, Paul uses the two terms interchangeably. He tells Titus that he left him in Crete to ordain elders in every city, prescribes some of the qualifications for the office, and assigns as a reason for them, “ for a bishop must be blameless,” etc. If Washington, in his Farewell Address, had advised the American people to always elect as President a man of known integrity, and had given as a reason for it that the chief magistrate of a great people should be of blameless reputation, it would be as reasonable to deny that the terms president and chief magistrate are used interchangeably, as that the terms elder and bishop are in the passage. That there was a plurality of elders in each congregation could hardly be disputed by an unbiased reader of the New Testament. Two facts, alone, would seem sufficient to settle this question: first, the fact that Titus was to ordain elders, not an elder, in every city; second, that they were elders, and not an elder from the Church in Ephesus, who came to meet Paul at Miletus. The objection sometimes urged, that there may have been several Churches in each of these cities, and that the plurality of elders was made up of the single elders from the individual Churches, is based upon a conjecture utterly without historic foundation. But if the argument from these passages were waived, the issue is conclusively settled by the statement of our text, that Paul and Barnabas, “ appointed elders in every Church.” A plurality of elders, therefore, and not a single one, were appointed for each Church. A full exhibition of the duties of the elder's office, and of the moral and intellectual qualifications requisite to an appointment thereto, belongs to a commentary on the First Epistle to Timothy, rather than on Acts of Apostles. We will not, therefore, consider them here, further than to observe that the duties were such as can not be safely dispensed with in any congregation; while the qualifications were such as were then, and are now, but seldom combined in a single individual. Indeed, it can not be supposed that Paul found in the young congregations of Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and every other planted during this tour, men who could fill up the measure of the qualifications which he prescribes for this office. But he appointed elders in every Church, hence he must have selected those who came nearest the standard. It is not an admissible objection to this argument, that inspiration may have supplied the defects of certain brethren in each congregation, so as to fully qualify them; for moral excellencies, which are the principal of these qualifications, are not supplied by inspiration. The truth is, the qualifications for this office, like the characteristics prescribed for old men, aged women, young men and women, and widows, respectively, are to be regarded as a model for imitation, rather than a standard to which all elders must fully attain. It were as reasonable to keep persons of these respective ages out of the Church, until they fill up the characters prescribed for them, as to keep a Church without elders until it can furnish men perfect in the qualifications of the office. Common sense and Scripture authority both unite in demanding that we should rather follow Paul's example, and appoint elders in every Church from the best material which the Church affords. The qualifications to be prescribed for one who would fill an office depend upon the duties of the office. Imperfection in the qualifications leads to proportionate inefficiency in the performance of the duties. Seeing, then, that but few men are found possessing, in a high degree, all the qualifications for the office of bishop, we should not be surprised that its duties have generally been more or less inefficiently performed. Much less should we, as so many have done, seek a remedy for this inefficiency, in an entire subversion of the Church organization instituted by the apostles. After all that can be said to the contrary, the apostolic plan has proved itself more efficient than any of those invented by men. Those congregations of the present day which are under the oversight of an efficient eldership, other things being equal, come nearer, in every good word and work, to the apostolic model of a Church of Christ, than any others in Christendom. And those which have a comparatively inefficient eldership will compare most favorably with those under an inefficient pastorship of any other kind. Finally, such inefficiency is not, after all, more frequently found in the eldership than in what is popularly styled the ministry. This must be so, from the fact that the qualifications for the office, public speaking alone excepted, are more frequently found combined in three or four men, than in one, whether pastor, or class-leader, or whatever may be his title. The folly, therefore, of abandoning the apostolic eldership in favor of any other organization, is demonstrated by history; while its wickedness must be apparent to every one who esteems apostolic precedents above human expedients. To seek an escape from the condemnation due for this wickedness, by asserting that the apostles left no model of Church organization, is only to add to the original crime by perverting the Scriptures to excuse it. So long as it stands recorded that Paul and Barnabas “ appointed for them elders in every Church,” and so long as the duties of these officers remain carefully prescribed in the apostolic epistles, so long will it be false to deny that the apostles left us a definite model of Church organization, and wicked in the sight of God to abandon it for any other. Acts 14:24-26. Leaving Antioch of Pisidia, the apostles returned as far as the sea-coast by the same route through which they had gone up into Pisidia. (24) “And passing through Pisidia, they came into Pamphylia; (25) and having spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. (26) Thence they sailed to Antioch, whence they had been commended to the favor of God for the work which they had performed.” Perga, on the river Cestrus, a few miles above its mouth, was the point at which they had disembarked on their first arrival from Cyprus. They had made no delay there at first, but now we are told that they “ spoke the word in Perga.” Luke's silence in reference to the result of this effort is an indication that it was not very decided. It is probable that their design was simply to usefully employ an interval during which they were waiting for a vessel bound to Antioch. This conjecture is confirmed by the fact that they finally left Perga by land, and walked down to Attalia on the sea-coast, where they would be likely to meet with a vessel without so long delay. They were not disappointed; for “ thence they sailed to Antioch.” Acts 14:27-28. The apostles had now completed their missionary tour, and there could but be great anxiety in the congregation who had sent them forth, to know the result of their labors. It was the first mission ever sent to the heathen world. The missionaries were as eager to report the success with which their sufferings and toil had been crowned, as the congregation were to hear it. He who returns from a hard-fought field bearing good tidings, pants beneath the burden of his untold story. (27) “And having arrived and assembled the Church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. (28) And they continued there no little time with the disciples.” In the statement that God had “ opened a door of faith to the Gentiles,” this is an allusion both to the opening of that national inclosure which had hitherto confined the gospel almost exclusively to the Jews, and the introduction of the distant Gentiles through that door into the Church. Before this, faith had been to them inaccessible; for “ how shall they believe on him of whom they had not heard?” But now that the preachers had been sent out to them, the door was open, and faith was accessible to all. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Fourteen IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To continue tracing the route of Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey 2) To note the increasing persecution endured by the apostle Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 3:10-11) 3) To give special attention to their appointment of elders in every church SUMMARY Luke continues his narration of events during Paul's first missionary journey. Upon arriving in Iconium, Paul and Barnabas again visited the local synagogue. Response to their message was positive among both Jews and Greeks, but soon opposition again came from unbelieving Jews. Even so, Paul and Barnabas stayed "a long time" in Iconium, speaking boldly and performing signs and wonders. Eventually the opposition became violent, forcing Paul and Barnabas to flee to Lystra and Derbe (Acts 14:1-6). In Lystra, Paul healed a man crippled from birth (similar to Peter, cf. 3:1-10). The people assumed that Paul and Barnabas must be gods, and so named them Zeus (Barnabas) and Hermes (Paul). When the priest of Zeus prepared to offer sacrifices, the apostles tore their own clothes and barely restrained them by an impassioned speech. Not long after, Jews from Antioch and Iconium persuaded the multitudes to stone Paul and drag him outside the city. Though assumed to be dead, Paul was able to return to the city and departed the next day with Barnabas to Derbe where they preached the gospel and made many disciples (Acts 14:7-21). From Derbe, Paul and Barnabas retraced their steps, strengthened the disciples in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (Pisidia) and appointed elders in every church with prayer and fasting. Passing through Pisidia they came to Pamphylia where they preached the gospel in Perga. From there they went down to Attalia and then sailed to Antioch (Syria) from which they began their journey, where they reported to the church all that God had done with them. There they stayed for "a long time" (Acts 14:21-28). OUTLINE I. IN ICONIUM, LYSTRA, DERBE (Acts 14:1-21) A. MINSTRY AND IN ICONIUM (Acts 14:1-6)1. Speaking at the local synagogue leads many Jews and Gentiles to believe 2. Unbelieving Jews stir up and poison the minds of the Gentiles against the brethren 3. Paul and Barnabas stay a long time, speaking boldly and performing signs and wonders 4. The city becomes divided, and an attempt is made by Gentiles and Jews along with their rulers to abuse and stone them 5. Made aware of the planned violence, Paul and Barnabas flee to Lystra and Derbe B. AND IN LYSTRA AND DERBE (Acts 14:7-21)1. Paul and Barnabas preach there and in the surrounding region 2. In Lystra Paul heals a man crippled from birth 3. The people proclaim Paul and Barnabas to be gods, the priest of Zeus sought to offer sacrifices to them 4. Tearing their clothes, Barnabas and Paul proclaim themselves to be men who preach the one true living God and scarcely restrain the people from sacrificing to them 5. Jews arrive from Antioch and Iconium and persuade the multitude to stone Paul 6. Presumed dead, Paul is dragged outside the city where later as he is surrounded by disciples he revives and returns to the city 7. The next day Paul and Barnabas depart to Derbe where they preach the gospel and make many disciples before beginning their return trip through Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch II. AND ELDERS (Acts 14:22-23) A. THE (Acts 14:22)1. Paul and Barnabas exhort them to continue in the faith 2. They warn them: "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God." B. ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH (Acts 14:23)1. Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every church with prayer and fasting 2. They commend them to the Lord in whom they believed III. RETURN TO ANTIOCH OF SYRIA (Acts 14:24-28) A. THE JOURNEY HOME (Acts 14:24-26)1. Passing through Pisidia, they come to Pamphylia 2. After preaching in Perga, they go down to Attalia 3. From there they sail to Antioch of Syria, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work accomplished on their journey B. THEIR REPORT AND STAY AT ANTIOCH (Acts 14:27-28)1. Paul and Barnabas report to the church all that God had done with them, and how He opened a door of faith to the Gentiles 2. They stay a long time in Antioch with the disciples REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- Preaching in Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 14:1-21) - Confirming disciples and appointing elders (Acts 14:22-23) - Return to Antioch of Syria (Acts 14:24-28) 2) Upon their arrival in Iconium, what did Paul and Barnabas first do? (Acts 14:1)- They spoke at the Jewish synagogue, producing faith in many Jews and Greeks 3) What did the unbelieving Jews do in response? (Acts 14:2)- They stirred up and poisoned the minds of the Gentiles against them 4) What did Paul and Barnabas do? Who was with them and how? (Acts 14:3)- Stayed a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord - The Lord, who bore witness to His word by granting signs and wonders to be done by the apostles' hands 5) As the city became divided, what attempt was made against Paul and Barnabas? (Acts 14:4-5)- To stone them 6) How did they respond to such a threat? (Acts 14:6-7)- By fleeing to the cities of Lystra and Derbe, and preaching the gospel there 7) What miracle did Paul perform in Lystra? (Acts 14:8-10)- He healed a man crippled from birth 8) How did the people react? What names did they give to Paul and Barnabas? (Acts 14:11-12)- They thought that gods had come in the likeness of men - Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes 9) Who attempted to lead the city in offering sacrifices to them? (Acts 14:13)- The priest of Zeus, whose temple was in the front of the city 10) How did Barnabas and Paul restrain the crowd from offering the sacrifices? (Acts 14:14-18)- By tearing their clothes and crying out to the multitude - By professing themselves to be but men, and encouraging them to turn to the living God 11) How did the apostles describe the true God? (Acts 14:15-17)- As the Creator of all things who bore witness of Himself through His blessings to mankind 12) Who then came to the city and persuaded the people to stone Paul? (Acts 14:19)- Jews from Antioch (Pisidia) and Iconium 13) After Paul revived from his stoning, where did he and Barnabas go? (Acts 14:20)- First back to Lystra, and then on to Derbe 14) What happened in Derbe? When they left, where did they go? (Acts 14:21)- They preached the gospel and made many disciples - They retraced their steps, going back through Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch 15) What did they do as they made their way through such cities? (Acts 14:22-23)- Strengthened the brethren, exhorting them to continue despite persecutions - Appointed elders in every church with prayer and fasting, commending them to God 16) Where they go after passing through Pisidia? What did they do there? (Acts 14:24-25)- To Perga in Pamphylia, where they preached the gospel 17) From where did they then sail? (Acts 14:25-26)- Attalia 18) What is significant about Antioch of Syria? (Acts 14:26)- It was where they started and ended their missionary journey 19) What did Paul and Barnabas do upon their arrival? (Acts 14:27)- Gathered the church together and reported what God had done with them to open a door of faith among the Gentiles 20) How long did Paul and Barnabas remain in Antioch of Syria? (Acts 14:28)- A long time This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2`1Act 14:21. Derbe was the farthest city to which they went in this part of their journey, which was given advance notice in verse 6. After preaching here, they retraced their steps and entered the very city where Paul was supposed to have been killed, then going on as far as Antioch where they did some wcrk with the disciples they made at the previous visit. 3Act 14:3. Gave testimony was done as it was in Mark 16:20. This was necessary because the New Testament had not been produced, and something was required to prove that the preachers were not frauds. 4Acts 14:4. The multitude was divided in sentiment between the Jews and the apostles. The last word will be explained at verse 14. 6Acts 14:5-6. This assault did not reach the stage of actual attack, for the men heard about it and escaped. The word means "a hostile movement" according to Thayer, and would have ended in violence had Paul and Bar-nabas remained in the city. Lystra and Derbe were in another province nearby. and the preachers stopped at Lystra first. 7Acts 14:7. Persecution did not dampen the devotion of the missionaries, for at every opportunity they preached the Gospel to all who would hear it. 8Acts 14:8. Impotent means to be weak, and this man had been too lame in his feet to walk, having been that way since his birth. 9Acts 14:9. Faith to be healed. Paul knew the man showed the proper attitude toward the preaching, and that frame of mind would prompt him to cooperate with the apostle. 0Acts 14:10. Paul put that faith to a test by telling the man to stand. Sure enough, he proved his faith by his works by leaping and walking. 1Act 14:11. Lycaonia was the province where Lystra was situated. This miracle was so unusual that the heathen people of the country thought Paul and Barnabas were gods; that is, the planets (which these people worshiped) in the form of men. 2Act 14:12. The planets Mercurius and Jupiter had these characteristics as indicated in the work of Paul and Barnabas, according to the heathen mythology. 3Act 14:13. True to their opinion of the preachers, the heathen priest of that city was preparing to do homage to them as gods. The oxen were for the purpose of sacrifice, and the garlands were to be used as crowns. 4Acts 14:14. Apostles Barnabas and Paul. The first word is from which Thayer defines, "A delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders." The outstanding idea in the word is, "one sent." Both these men had been "sent" out by the church at Antioch (chapter 13:3, 4), and hence were apostles of that church. It is true that. Paul was an apostle of Christ independent of the church at Antioch, but when the two are mentioned together as apostles, it means their commission from that church. They manifested much displeasure at the attempt to treat them as gods. 5Acts 14:15. Some men would be vain enough to enjoy being worshiped, but. Paul and Barnabas were true worshipers of the God of creation. A part of their mission among the heathen was to lead them out of such vain worship. Instead of worshiping the planets, men should honor Him who created those planets. (See James 1:16-17.) 6Acts 14:16. God suffered nations to walk in their own ways. That is different from permitting it, for that would be equivalent to endorsing it. 7Acts 14:17. The witness consisted of the blessings of nature. These heathen should know that none of the planets could bestow such things on the world. 8Acts 14:18. It took all of this teaching to prevent the people from performing religious services to Paul and Bar-nabas. 0Acts 14:19-20. Persecution is a persistent evil, even following the victims from place to place. Note the inspired writer says only that they supposed that Paul was dead. There is no evidence of any miracle having been performed upon Paul to revive him. Neither is there any proof that he was unconscious. A man can be so stunned that he would be unable either to move or speak for a whip, and yet retain full consciousness. But this condition did not continue very long, for the disciples were standing about him, and they certainly would not have neglected doing something for his body before long. But without any help, while they were looking on, Paul got up and went into the city, with no sign of bodily injury indicated. Therefore, to connect this incident with 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 is pure speculation. 2Act 14:22. Paul's persecution did not discourage him, but he did not want the disciples to be so either. The work in this city consisted in confirming or strengthening these brethren. And lest they might think that the things just happening showed that "something was wrong," he told them that entrance into the kingdom of God must be accompanied with much tribulation. 3Act 14:23. The original word for ordain in this place is defined by Thayer "To elect, appoint, create." Notice that they ordained elders in every church, which clearly shows that a plurality of elders in each congregation is the Lord's arrangement. Prayer and fasting was a voluntary devotional service performed in keeping with the solemnity of the occasion. 4Acts 14:24. They passed through these places before (Acts 13:13-14). 5Acts 14:25. Perga was in Pamphylia, the city where Mark deserted the work. They again preached in that city before going on to the seaport town of Attalia in Lycia. 6Acts 14:26. From Attalia they sailed to Antioch in Syria, the place from which they started out on the work for which the church had recommended them. 7Acts 14:27. The first thing Paul and Barnabas did was to report their work to the church. That gives us a good example of how evangelists should act toward the congregation that is sponsoring their work. The church has the right to know where their evangelists have been and what they have been doing. The most important item of news was the opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles. 8Acts 14:28. This long time of their stay with the disciples will include an important visit to Jerusalem, which is reported in the next chapter. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 15 DISPUTE ABOUT SETTLEDAct_15:1-35. RAISED AT ANTIOCH IN SYRIAAct_15:1 1 And certain men came down from Judaea—Paul and Barnabas had just reported “ all things” that God had done for the Gentiles through them, and that he had “ opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles.” (Acts 14:27.) Now certain ones came down “ from Judaea,” or Jerusalem, claiming to have been sent by the apostles at Jerusalem. (Verse 24.) They attempted to close the door that opened to the Gentiles. These brethren from Jerusalem came to Antioch with Jewish prejudice and exclusive narrowness. They claimed that the Gentile Christians could not be saved with¬out circumcision. Thus they made the Jewish rite of circumcision a condition of Gentile salvation; they claimed that the church at Jerusalem authorized them to so teach. The church at Antioch was composed of Jew and Gentile converts. (Acts 11:19-20.) This was the place where such a question would be raised; the Jews and Gentiles had not been accustomed to meeting together for worship, except as the Gentiles became proselytes to the Jewish religion. But now in the early church Gentiles who were not proselytes and Jews were brought together in the church. We do not know to what extent this question disturbed the church at Antioch, but from what follows it seems that it involved great issues. Now when these teachers came from Jerusalem and began to teach that the Gentile Christians must be “ circumcised” according to “ the custom of Moses” or they could not be saved, such teaching would arouse both the Jewish and Gentile portion of the church at Antioch. Hence, the teaching of those from Jerusalem would likely cause dissension. PAUL AND SENT TO Acts 15:2-5 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension—Paul and Barnabas “ tarried no little time” with the church at An¬tioch; during this time these brethren came down from Jerusalem and insisted that the Gentile Christians be circumcised; Paul and Barnabas opposed them and “ had no small dissension and questioning with them.” There seems to have been a very heated argu¬ment. “ Dissension” comes from the Greek “ staseos,” which literally means “ strife,” a standing against it; it means an established order or opinion; a strife, one party holding to the established custom, and the other opposing them. “ Questioning” comes from “ zeteseos,” and means “ a seeking” or “ examining together, a muual questioning and discussion.” Finally the church appointed “ Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them” to go to Jerusalem “ unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Paul gives an account of this in Galatians 2:1-10. It seems that Paul suggested their going to Jerusalem. (Galatians 2:1.) It seems that these teachers from Jerusalem had reported that they were contending for circumcision of the Gentiles because the church at Jerusalem had so instructed them. Paul knew that it was best then to go to Jerusa¬lem and to settle the matter, not for himself, but for those who did not know any better. We are told in Galatians 2:1 that Paul took Titus with him. It is usually reckoned that this journey of Paul’ s to Jerusalem was his third visit to that city since his conversion, and that it occurred about A.D. 50. 3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church,—The church at Antioch not only, at Paul’ s suggestion, requested these brethren to go to Jerusalem, but it assisted them in making the journey by helping to defray expenses and by their prayers and encouragement; they were thus “ brought on their way by the church.” They passed through Phoenicia and Samaria by land. It was a journey of about three hundred miles southward along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, through Tyre and Sidon, cities of Phoenicia, and on through Samaria, probably where Philip had preached the gospel, and on to Jerusalem. As they went along the way, and as they had opportunity, they declared “ the conversion of the Gentiles,” which “ caused great joy unto all the brethren.” The great joy caused to the brethren of Phoenicia and Samaria by the recital of the conversion of the Gentiles shows the general sympathy with Paul and Barnabas. 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem,—They left Antioch for Jerusalem to take the matter to “ the apostles and the elders,” so when they came to Jerusalem “ they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders.” The entire church was interested in the question. We know not how many of the apostles were present, neither do we know how many elders were in the church at Jerusalem. It should be noticed that though the apostles were there with all their apostolic authority, yet they recognized the “ elders” of the church there, and took them into consultation with them. It seems that when they arrived they received a hearty welcome and that they lost no time in rehearsing “ all things that God had done with them.” Paul and Barnabas implied in their rehearsal that what they had done, it was God doing it through them; therefore, God had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision, and that the Jewish brethren ought to accept them. 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees—These Pharisees believed; they were Christians, but had been con¬verted from the “ sect of the Pharisees” to Christianity. The teach¬ers at Antioch who had come down from Jerusalem are not described as Pharisees. Here for the first time we learn that some of the Pharisees had become Christians, and it is fair to imply that those who went out from Jerusalem to Antioch were from among these converted Pharisees. They were bold in their declaration and clear in the statement of the issue. They said: “ It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” This brings the issue to the fore; it is whether the Gentile Christians should be circumcised. AND ELDERS IN COUNCILAct_15:6-29 6 And the apostles and the elders were gathered together—Luke does not mention the “ church” as he did in verse 4, but “ the apostles and the elders” are mentioned; we know that the church is included here as we learn from verses 12 and 22. The “ whole church” was called together to consider this matter with “ the apostles and the elders.” The apostles, with their authority, no doubt, took the lead, and thus the church with its elders was trained under the guidance of the apostles. The importance of the matter was recognized and was given due consideration. 7 And when there had been much questioning,—It seems that a very full and free discussion was had; both sides were heard without partiality; this is the only fair way to discuss any matter over which there is a diversity of sentiment. “ Questioning” is from the Greek “ zeteseos,” and is the same word as used in verse 47. Here it means “ debating,” as that is what was had. Some contended for the affirmative, the Gentile Christians should be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas with others took the negative of this proposition. After much discussion “ Peter rose up” and expressed himself. He referred to the case of Cornelius; he was a Gentile and was converted to Christ by the preaching of the gospel by Peter. God had accepted the entire household of Cornelius as Christians; even the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11) had also accepted the Gentiles as Christians without requiring them to be circumcised. Peter reminds the church of this and refreshes their memory, for he says it had been “ a good while ago.” According to the best chronology, it had been at least ten years since the conversion of Cornelius, and it had been about twenty years since Pentecost, so the church at this time was about twenty years old. It was fitting for Peter to speak at this time; he had waited until both sides had been heard and now it is his time as an apostle, and with the experience that he had had at the house of Cornelius and the church at Jerusalem, to speak as he did. 8-9 And God, who knoweth the heart,—God had given the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-45); this shows that God, who knoweth all things, had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; Peter had related the incident to the church at Jerusalem and the church had accepted the Gentiles as Christians without circumcision (Acts 11:18.) God had made no distinction between the Jew and Gentile, and man should make no distinction. Peter seemed to be somewhat surprised that there should be no difference, but God had made none, and he had to accept that fact. Peter gives an additional thought that both Jews and Gentile were accepted by God on the basis of their faith in Christ; neither Jew nor Gentile was to be accepted as Christians by keeping the law of Moses. Their hearts were purified by faith; anyone who believed in idolatry had an impure heart, and those who believed in Christ, in the sense of accepting Christ, had a pure heart. Both Jew and Gentile had to hear the same gospel, believe the same gospel, repent of their sins, and be buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in a new life, in order to become Christians ; no distinction so far as the terms of remission of sins are concerned; no distinction so far as acceptance to God. 10 Now therefore why make ye trial of God,—Peter puts the matter in an interrogative form and asks, “ Why make ye trial of God?” as though God had made a mistake when he gave the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius and accepted them without circumcision. They were refusing to accept that which God had accepted, or they were rejecting those whom God had accepted. They were laying down conditions that God had not imposed on the Gentiles, and placing a yoke upon the Gentiles that even the Jews were not able to bear. No Jew ever kept the law of Moses perfectly ; even those who were now insisting on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians had not kept faithfully the law, yet they wanted to place that yoke upon the Gentile Christians. Peter shows here that they not only opposed God, but they were incon¬sistent with themselves. The figure of “ a yoke” is used here, and is the same that Paul used in Galatians 5:1. Peter had been slow to see this point, as it took a miracle to convince him of the truth of it at Joppa and Caesarea. Peter has made four points that stand out distinctly: (1) he was directed by God to receive the Gentiles, as in the case of Cornelius; (2) God endorsed the reception of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit; (3) faith produced precisely the same effect in both Jew and Gentile; (4) the Jews have no right to put on the Gentiles a yoke which God had not put on them. 11 But we believe that we shall be saved—The salvation which both Jew and Gentile could enjoy came through the grace of God. “ Grace” means the unmerited favor of God; the free grace of God was expressed by his sending Jesus to earth to die for the sins of the world. The conditions of remission are faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to his commands. Salvation was not to come through the law of Moses, but through Christ. We have in this verse the last recorded words of Peter in the Acts. 12 And all the multitude kept silence;—The church had assembled with its elders and the apostles; now “ the multitude kept silence” ; the multitude became silent after Peter’ s speech; he had profoundly impressed the multitude and had presented such clear and forcible arguments that there was nothing that could be said with profit. Again, the church had learned to respect the apostles when they spoke. Paul and Barnabas now spoke. Here again Barnabas is mentioned before Paul, because he was better known at Jerusalem than Paul. Paul and Barnabas rehearsed “ what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” Again, Paul and Barnabas give God the praise and honor for all that had been done among the Gentiles. Three times (Acts 14:27 Acts 15:4 Acts 15:12) Paul is described as telling the facts about the work that was done among the Gentiles; the rehearsal of the facts was more powerful than mere argument. God had done wonderful things among the Gentiles, and had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision. The Jewish Christians put themselves in opposition to God when they insisted on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians. Paul and Barnabas merely testified to the facts and left the Jewish Christians to make application of them and to draw their own conclusions; there was only one conclusion to draw, and it was in favor of Paul and Barnabas. 13-14 And after they had held their peace,—There had been a general discussion in which all who wished took part; then Peter made a speech and presented invincible arguments; then Paul and Barnabas briefly rehearsed what God had done for the Gentiles through them, with the clear conclusion that God had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; now James makes the final speech. This James has been called “ James the Just,” and he was considered a representative of the Jewish Christians. The Judaizing teachers possibly counted on him as a champion of their views, for they later made the wrong use of his name against Peter at An-tioch. (Galatians 2:12.) This is the James who was the author of the epistle of James; he was not one of the twelve apostles, but after the death of James (Acts 12:2), the brother of John, he became a leader in the church at Jerusalem. James reviewed the argument made by Peter as to how “ God visited the Gentiles” to preach the gospel to them, and “ take out of them a people for his name.” James here has reference to Cornelius and his household; they had been called out from among the heathen to be God’ s chosen just as Israel was. James clearly sees the hand of God in Peter’ s course at Caesarea, and in what Paul and Barnabas had done among the Gentiles. 15-18 And to this agree the words of the prophets;—It was startling to the Jewish Christians that God would extend the privileges of the gospel to the Gentiles; however, they should have known that the Messiah was to be a universal Savior. The prophets of Israel had foretold of the acceptance of the Gentiles. The prophet Amos is quoted here (Amos 9:11-12) by James, but the quotation is not a literal quotation from the Old Testament; some of the words are changed, but James, by the Holy Spirit, is giving the meaning of the prophecies. While James quotes only one prophet, Amos, yet he uses “ prophets” in the plural. Other prophets had foretold the acceptance of the Gentiles. (Isaiah 2:2-4 Isaiah 49:6; Micah 4:1-4.) The interpretation of the quotation given by James is that “ the tabernacle of David” had been wrecked, but that it would be rebuilt and that the Gentiles would be admitted into it. The prophecy from Amos speaks first of the fall of the Jewish race, next the promise that God would build a new church on the ruins of the old and gather the Gentiles into it, and finally those who were saved would enjoy salvation only through the Messiah. The picture here is the wrecked tent or tabernacle which was erected was boughs of trees at the Feast of Tabernacles, and which was rebuilt annually. “ Tabernacle of David” is from the Greek “ skenen Daueid,” and is a poetical figure of the throne of David. (2 Samuel 7:12.) In the rebuilding of the spiritual house of David, believers are to come from all nations of the earth. By the figure of a place falling to ruins, the devastated state of the kingdom is represented; the prosperity to be bestowed was to come in the days of the Messiah, and would consist of spiritual blessings, and a kingdom of righteousness would be established by the Messiah and the Gentiles would seek the Lord and become his people. 19-20 Wherefore my judgment is,—James now, speaking by the Holy Spirit, gives his judgment in the matter. It seems that James was acting as chairman of the meeting, and that it was left to him to sum up and conclude the whole matter. He is now ready to do this. The conclusion that James expresses is “ that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God.” This decision coincided with the decision that Paul and Barnabas had already reached and had preached. It was against the Judaizing teachers. James’ decision, as expressed, was somewhat in the form of a motion; the question had been discussed and now James moved that the entire church coincide with Paul and Barnabas, and that they write. James agrees with Peter in his support of Paul and Barnabas in their contention for the freedom of the Gentiles from the law of Moses. A further admonition of James is that “ we write unto them” and give them such help and encouragement as they may need. In this letter James suggests that they “ abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.” Four things are here mentioned: (1) pollution of idols; (2) fornication; (3) what is strangled; (4) abstain from blood. The words which James uses here denote formal decision sent by special messengers to the Gen¬tile Christians. “ Pollutions of idols” means the worship of idols, and especially eating the meats offered unto idols; one who in any form worships an idol is said to be unclean; hence, they should refrain from the pollution of idols. Idolatry, fornication, and murder were common sins among the heathen; these Gentile Christians had left all of these things when they became Christians, and are now exhorted not to return to them. The law of Moses enjoined certain restrictions about the eating of blood and respecting the life of animals; the Gentile Christians are not to be controlled by the law of Moses; they are to observe the general principles of righteousness and holiness. 21 For Moses from generations of old—The law of Moses was read in every synagogue on the Sabbath; there was usually a teacher that interpreted or gave the meaning of the law. Hence, to “ preach” Moses was to preach and interpret the law of Moses; so to “ preach” Christ is to preach the gospel, or to preach the law of Christ. Wherever there was a synagogue Moses was preached on the Sabbath. There have been different views as to why James made this statement. Some think that James here answers an ob-jection that the Jewish Christians might advance; that is, if such freedom were granted to the Gentiles, the law of Moses would decline in authority; others think that it was not necessary to write these things to Jewish Christians, for they had the law of Moses; a third view regards these words as spoken in the interest of peace and harmony between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. It seems that James had reference in a general way to the general practice of the Jews, and it was not necessary to place the burden of the law upon the Gentiles. The Jews had for a long time been taught to respect the law of Moses; they did not have to lose any respect for Moses or for the law, but they were to see that salvation came through Christ, and not through the keeping of the law. 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders,—A unanimous decision was reached, since “ the apostles and the elders, with the whole church,” decided to select some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and there give the deci¬sion reached by the church at Jerusalem. We are not told how they reached the decision, whether all the members were consulted, or whether the membership expressed agreement with the apostles and the elders. The apostles and elders led in the agreement as they did in the discussion. This was a great victory for Paul and Barnabas and for the truth. However, James was practical, and did not stop with just the speeches and the decision; it must be conveyed to the church at Antioch. While they trusted Paul and Barnabas, yet they followed the wise course in selecting some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and bear the decision as a message to the church at Antioch. So they selected “ Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.” Some have thought “ Judas called Barsabbas” was a brother of Barnabas, but there is no evidence to this effect. Silas is probably the abbreviated form of Silvanus, who later became one of Paul’ s companions in traveling. (1 Peter 5:12.) Judas and Silas were “ chief men among the brethren.” Such men would carry weight with the church at Antioch. 23 and they wrote thus by them,—The letter written was brief, yet it was clear and emphatic. The form of the letter shows that “ the apostles and the elders” and brethren include “ the whole church” ; hence, it is a letter from the church at Jerusalem to the church at Antioch. The importance of this letter is enhanced in value by the fact that the Jerusalem church was the center of Christianity among the Jews, and the church at Antioch was the center among the Gentiles; this will help to bring together the Jewish and Gentile Christians. The letter is addressed to the Gentile Christians in “ Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” The decision reached affected all Gentile Christians in every country, but only Syria and Cilicia are mentioned. This geographical notice of the Gentile Christians gives some idea as to the effect of the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; the harvest had been great. This also shows the activity of the church at Antioch in preaching the gospel to the regions round about. 24 Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us—Recognition is given here of those Judaizing teachers who had gone from Jerusalem to Antioch, claiming to have been sent out by the church at Jerusalem; condemnation or denial is made of their being sent by the church at Jerusalem. Hence, they had no apostolic authority for insisting that the Gentile Christians should be circumcised; neither did the church at Jerusalem en¬dorse them. The church at Jerusalem felt in some measure to be responsible for the trouble these teachers had caused the church at Antioch, but now they are repudiated and a correction of their teachings is made. Hence, these teachers went of their own accord and on their own responsibility, and did not represent the church at Jerusalem. Their teaching had subverted the souls of the Gentile Christians. “ Subverting” comes from the Greek “ anaskeuzo,” and means “ to pack up baggage, to plunder, to ravage” ; this is a vivid picture of the havoc wrought by the Judaizers among the simple-minded Greek Christians in Antioch. 25-26 it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord,—So there was a unanimous decision reached. The apostles, elders, and the “ whole church” had come to “ one accord” about this matter. “ Having come to one accord” is from the Greek “ geno- menois homothumadon,” and clearly means that the final unity was the result of the private and public talks or discussion which was had on the subject. We are not told whether the Christians from “ the sect of the Pharisees” (verse 5), who at first contended that “ it is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keepear that all were convinced. Here again we have the order: “ Barnabas and Paul,” instead of “ Paul and Barnabas.” This is the order that was used before Paul’ s first missionary journey, when he became the more prominent of the two. (Acts 11:30 Acts 13:2.) Barnabas in this official letter stands before Paul, because Paul had spent but little time in Jersalem, while Barnabas among the Christians there had for some time been a well-known character and honored leader. The church at Jerusalem recognized the great danger that Paul and Barnabas had suffered, as they are described in this letter as “ men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” They recognized the courage and heroism of Paul and Barnabas; this fact also proved the sincerity of Paul and Barnabas. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas,—Judas and Silas would confirm by word of mouth that which was written in the letter. Here we see another reason for sending Judas and Silas along with Paul and Barnabas. Nothing is said in the entire ac¬count of Luke of the presence of Titus who went along with Paul and Barnabas. (Galatians 2:1-3.) Judas and Silas could not only confirm what was written, but they could represent the church at Jerusalem. They would testify to the genuineness of the letter and would strengthen the decision that had been reached; their presence and testimony would have a good effect also on the Gentile Christians. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,—Here the authority of the Holy Spirit accompanies the decision written in the letter. This showed that the decision reached was the will of God, and that those who so expressed themselves were expressing the will of God. The decision was not merely man’ s decision or opinion, but was the inspired will of God. No burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians other than what the Holy Spirit placed upon them. Only such “ necessary things” were required by the Holy Spirit. The restrictions named did constitute some burden, but it was necessary for their salvation. Some think that these “ necessary things” were only “ necessary” for the times in which they lived, but are not necessary for Christians today; how¬ever, it seems that these things are as necessary today as they were at that time. 29 that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols,—James had mentioned these things in his speech. (Verse 20.) They now write them in the letter which is to be sent. In his speech James stated that they should “ abstain from the pollutions of idols,” but now it is written that they should “ abstain from things sacrificed to idols.” Some discussion has been had as to the meaning of abstaining “ from blood.” Some think that it means to abstain from murder; others, to abstain from the eating of blood as forbidden by the law of Moses. It seems clear here that “ the blood” is the blood of animals and that it should not be eaten. (Leviticus 17:10-15.) The heathen caught the blood of the animal in a vessel when the animal was slain and ate it as food; this was not allowed to the Jew for the reasons assigned in Leviticus 17:13-14 and Deuteronomy 12:16 Deuteronomy 12:23. God had forbidden Noah and his descendants to eat blood. (Genesis 9:4.) Then it was incorporated in the law of Moses, and seems to be forbidden of Christians today. “ Things strangled” means that they were to refrain from eating the flesh of animals that had been strangled. “ Strangled” comes from the Greek “ pniktou,” and means “ life taken without shedding the blood” ; hence, animals strangled had the blood left in the body, and in eat¬ing the flesh one would eat the blood. They were to keep them¬selves from fornication, or live chaste lives. The letter concludes that if the Gentile Christians would observe these things it would be well with them, and then concludes with “ fare ye well.” This comes from the Greek “ valete,” and means “ be ye strong.” This was a common way of closing a letter. AT ANTIOCHAct_15:30-35 30 So they, when they were dismissed,—It seems that there was some formal dismissal or sending of Paul and Barnabas, Judas and Silas, away from Jerusalem. We are not told how they journeyed from Jerusalem to Antioch, but they probably went through Phoenicia and Samaria and comforted the disciples on the way by telling them of the decision at Jerusalem. This would encourage other Christians to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and it would encourage the Gentiles to accept the gospel. When they arrived at Antioch, they “ gathered the multitude together,” or the church was assembled, and “ they delivered the epistle.” It should be noted that the message is not called “ a judgment,” “ a sentence,” “ an order,” or “ a decree” ; it is simply called “ the epistle.” This was the first or beginning of the New Testament scripture, the first of the epistles; it was addressed to Christians in Antioch, in Syria, and Cilicia; later other epistles were written. Since this one has been incorporated in the book of Acts, emphasis has not been given to it that probably would have been given had it been separate and independent from the history in Acts. 31 And when they had read it,—There was a formal sending away from the church at Jerusalem and a formal reception of these brethren at Antioch. It seems that there was no delay in gathering the church together at Antioch and reading the epistle. It gave great consolation to the church at Antioch. “ Consolation” comes from the Greek “ paraklesei,” which means “ encouragement” ; consolation and exhortation are very close akin. There was great rejoicing at Antioch, and especially among the Gentile Christians there. 32 And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets,—The first mention of Judas and Silas (verse 22) classes them as “ chief men among the brethren” ; now they are spoken of as “ prophets.” “ Prophetai” is the same word used for Paul and Barnabas and Agabus (Acts 11:27-30) ; it means “ for speakers for Christ.” These brethren were useful while at Antioch, for they exhorted the brethren and confirmed them in the faith. It was a happy time with the church at Antioch to have this question set¬tled, for it had given much trouble. 33 And after they had spent some time there,—We do not know how long Judas and Silas remained at Antioch, but long enough to encourage the church there. It seems that they were dismissed in a formal way as they were received in a formal way. “ Dismissed in peace” was a formal dismissal. (Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50 Luke 8:48; Acts 16:36.) Probably Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem to give an account to the church there, but Silas soon returned to Antioch and he and Paul became fellow workers. 34 But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.—This verse has been omitted by the revisers because it is not found in the older manuscripts and in many of the chief versions. It was evidently a marginal insertion to explain how Silas was conveniently at hand (verse 40) for Paul to choose him as a companion in travel. 35 But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch,—Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch. As they tarried in Antioch they taught and preached “ the word of the Lord.” During the sojourn of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch the dispute took place between Paul and Peter as related in Galatians 2:11-16. Luke omits this episode, but relates the dispute between Paul and Barnabas. (Verse 39.) “ Teaching” means to instruct; hence, they instructed the church. While “ preaching” means the proclamation of the gospel, it is sometimes applied to evangelists who proclaim the gospel to aliens. “ Teaching” is expounding the word of the Lord, while “ preaching” is evangelizing or proclaiming the gospel. There were many other teachers and preachers in Antioch. PAUL’ S SECOND JOURNEYAct_15:36 to Acts 18:22 PAUL SELECTS SILAS Acts 15:36-41 36 And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas,—Paul takes the initiative as the leader; he had publicly rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-21) and is anxious to go back to the fields where he has planted churches. He desired to return and “ visit the brethren in every city” where he and Barnabas had preached “ the word of the Lord.” He was anxious to see how the young churches were getting along, and to give them any further instructions that they might need. We must know that the “ some days” and the “ some time” that expired while the church was busy in the development of leaders and teachers kept up the zeal of the church. A com¬monly accepted chronology of Acts makes the interval between the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem and the beginning of Paul’ s second missionary journey somewhat more than a year. 37 And Barnabas was minded to take with them John—Barnabas wished and willed to take along with them John Mark, his cousin. Mark had started with them on the first tour, but had turned around at Perga (Acts 13:13) and returned to Jerusalem. It was to the house of Mary the mother of Mark that Peter went after his release from prison (Acts 12:12). 38 But Paul thought not good to take with them him—Barnabas had resolved to take Mark with him, and may have spoken to him and arranged with him to go, but Paul thought it was not best to take Mark since he “ withdrew from them from Pamphy¬lia,” and did not continue with them on their first journey. Here was a difference in judgment; we are not to understand that the Holy Spirit guided either one of these good men, as it was a mere difference in human judgment as to what was expedient in the matter. Since Mark had turned back on the first journey, Paul was not willing to risk taking with them as a helper one who had left them in the midst of the work on their first journey. 39 And there arose a sharp contention,—“ Contention” here comes from the Greek “ paroxusmos,” and is our word for “ paroxysm” in English; it means to sharpen as of a blade, and of the spirit. It seems that the “ Son of consolation,” Barnabas, lost his temper in a dispute over his cousin, and Paul uses sharp words toward his benefactor and friend. It is frequently the case that little irritations of life give occasion for violent explosions. Some think that the incident between Paul and Peter (Galatians 2:11-21) was known to Mark, and that Mark took sides with Peter; hence, Paul was not so kindly disposed to take Mark with them; he would have been a hindrance to the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles had he gone with them and held to the view that the Gentiles should be circumcised. However, we do not know any more than is recorded here. The result of the contention determined Paul and Barnabas to separate and each follow his own independent course. We know that Paul held no malice toward Barnabas and Mark. Barnabas is not mentioned again in Acts, but both Barnabas and Mark are mentioned by Paul in a way that showed confidence had been restored, for Paul speaks of them in warm commendation in his letters to Corinth, Colosse, and Timothy. (1 Corinthians 9:6; Colossians 4:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:11.) “ Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus.” Cyprus was the home of Barnabas; this was the first place visited by Paul and Barnabas on their first tour. Paul’ s mention of Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9:6 shows that Barnabas was busy in the work of the ministry, and the later mentions of Mark show that Paul had confidence in him and commended him very highly. 40 but Paul chose Silas, and went forth,—Silas had returned to Jerusalem with Judas after his visit to Antioch, but now we find him back in Antioch. Paul was commended by the brethren to the grace of God which shows that his selection of Silas was approved by the church at Antioch. It seems that the sympathy of the church at Antioch was with Paul rather than with Barnabas in the contention between Paul and Barnabas. Silas was a suitable com¬panion for Paul; he had influence in the church in Jerusalem (verse 22) and was apparently a Roman citizen also. (Acts 16:37.) Silas, or Silvanus, is mentioned in the epistles by Paul and Peter. (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Peter 5:12.) It is remarkable that Peter mentions both Mark and Silas as with him at the same time. (1 Peter 5:12-13.) 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia,—Paul and Silas went forth on Paul’ s second missionary tour to confirm the churches and to establish other churches. They are to further the cause of Christ especially among the Gentiles. It is interesting to know that Barnabas went to his native Cyprus, and Paul went to his native Cilicia, each to regions familiar from childhood. Paul and Silas would have to go through a part of Syria in order to reach Cilicia if they traveled by land. The letter from the church at Jerusalem to the Gentile Christians would be of special interest to the churches in Syria and Cilicia, as it was addressed to the Christians in these provinces. (Acts 15:23.) The reading of this letter would confirm the churches in these sections, but the presence of Paul and Silas would have great influence on the churches. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 15Acts 15:1. At this point in the narrative our historian makes a sudden transition from the conflicts of the disciples with the unbelieving world to one almost as serious among themselves. There never was a national antipathy more intense than that felt by the Jews to the whole Gentile world. It was the more intense, from the fact that it was imbedded in their deepest religious sentiments, and was cultivated in all the devotions. In the hearts of the disciples this feeling had, by this time, been so far overcome, that they had admitted the propriety of receiving uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church. But they found it more difficult to convince themselves that Gentiles were to be admitted into social and domestic intimacy. Hence, when Peter returned from the house of Cornelius to Jerusalem, the chief objection urged against him was, not that he had immersed Gentiles, but “ Thou didst go into the house of men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” This was the full extent to which the judaizing party in the Church were prepared, at that time, to push their objections. But when men take an unreasonable and obstinate stand against any cause, they frequently assume more extravagant ground as the cause they are opposing advances. While but a few Gentiles had come into the Church, the pharisaic party objected only to domestic association with them; but now that Paul and Barnabas had succeeded in opening a door of faith to the whole Gentile world, and it was likely that the Jews, who had hitherto constituted almost the whole body of the Church, were soon to become only a small element in its constituency, their fears were excited, and their demands became more exorbitant. Paul and Barnabas were still in Antioch. (1) “And certain men came down from Judea, and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the law of Moses, you can not be saved.” As we learn from a subsequent part of this chapter, they were not content with merely enjoining circumcision, but also exacted the observance of all the law of Moses, to which circumcision was only preliminary. The success of this party would have perpetuated Judaism, and forever have neutralized those philanthropic principles of the gospel which the experience of the world and the wisdom of God alike had shown to be necessary to the moral renovation of the human race. Acts 15:2. If Paul and Barnabas had ever been, since their conversion, blinded by these narrow views, their labors among the Gentiles would have wrought a change in their feelings, and prepared them to see the subject in a better light. They opposed the new propositions with all their powers; and though they did not succeed in silencing their opponents, they brought the discussion to a fortunate conclusion. (2) “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.”If the brethren in Antioch had estimated at its proper value the authority of an inspired apostle, they would have yielded implicitly to Paul's decision without this mission to Jerusalem. But they were as yet too little accustomed to reflection upon the profound mystery of apostolic infallibility to properly accredit it; and their deep prejudices on the subject under discussion was a serious obstacle in the way of clear thought. It is probable that apostolic authority is more highly appreciated now than it was then; yet the prejudices of sect and party are so intense, that even now the dictum of a living apostle would prove insufficient, in millions of cases, to convince men of their errors. Like the disciples in Antioch, who had the testimony of Paul, men now are not easily satisfied with a single inspired statement upon a point in dispute, or with the statements of a single apostle, but demand an accumulation of even divine testimonies. It is probable that Paul would have objected to making this appeal to the other apostles, on the ground of its apparent inconsistency with his own claims to inspired authority, had not the proposition been sustained by an express revelation of the divine will. In the second chapter of Galatians, where Mr. Howson very clearly proves that Paul has reference to this journey, he says: “ I went up by revelation and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” It was the divine purpose to settle the question, not for the Church in Antioch alone, but for all the world and for all time. Acts 15:3. Their journey to Jerusalem, which was accomplished by land, lay through two sections of country which had already been evangelized to a considerable extent. (3) “Being sent forward by the Church, they passed through Phenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy to all the brethren.” The Churches in Samaria did not, of course, sympathize with the Jewish prejudices, and although in Phenicia there were doubtless many Jews, yet the Gentile element sufficiently predominated to enable the brethren there, like the Samaritans, to rejoice that the gospel was spreading into the heathen world. Acts 15:4. After a pleasant journey among rejoicing Churches, they reached Jerusalem. (4) “And when they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the Church, and by the apostles and elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.” They proceeded, in Jerusalem, as they had upon their return to Antioch, to give a history of their missionary tour. This was done in the presence of the Church, the apostles also being present. Acts 15:5. The Judaizers did not hesitate to declare fully their own position. (5) “But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, rose up, saying, It was necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” This party is here identified as converts from the old sect of the Pharisees. We have had no account hitherto of any large accessions to the Church from this party; but this incidental remark shows that some of these obstinate opposers of the truth had yielded, and were now occupying positions of influence in the congregation. Paul now once more meets some of his companions in the persecution of the disciples, not to harmonize with them, nor to dispute with them in the synagogues concerning the claims of Christ; but to contend, within the Church itself, against that same disposition to perpetuate the law which had made them formerly fight against the gospel. He had a bad opinion of some of them, which must have been well-founded, or he would not have given the public utterance to it which he did at a subsequent period. He styles them, in the Epistle to the Galatians, “ False brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.” Having witnessed a rapid increase of the congregations under the pressure of the persecutions and disputations to which they had formerly resorted, these wily enemies of the truth determined at length to corrupt and destroy, under the guise of friendship, a cause whose progress they could not impede by open enmity. They well knew, what some of the brethren had failed to discover, that the doctrine of Christ would be rendered powerless if it could only be hampered by bondage to the law. Even to this day the mass of religious teachers have failed to learn this lesson, though the experience of ages has demonstrated its truth. The essential issue between Paul and the Pharisees had reference to the perpetuation of the law of Moses in the Church of Christ, and the same issue has been in debate, under various aspects, from that day to this. Paul defeated the attempt of these Judaizers to fasten circumcision on the Church; but subsequent Judaizers imposed infant immersion, and finally, infant sprinkling as a substitute. What the early Pharisees failed to accomplish in the face of apostolic opposition, the later Pharisees did accomplish under a thin disguise. The unsuccessful attempt of those Pharisees to “ spy out the liberty which the disciples had in Christ Jesus, and bring them into bondage” under the law, has been successfully accomplished by these, in teaching men that the Church of Christ originated in Abraham's family, and that the Jewish tribes and the Christian congregations constitute but one identical Church. The Roman apostasy perpetuates the pompous ritual and daily sacrifice of the old temple; religious zealots slaughter Canaanites in the form of modern heretics; professed Christians go to war under the old battle-cry of “ The sword of the Lord and of Gideon;” the Latter-day Saints emulate the Turks in the multiplication of wives; and for all these corruptions authority is found in the laws and customs of ancient Israel. The intelligent reader of the New Testament knows scarcely which of these errors is most repugnant to the truth; but must, like Paul, struggle with untiring energy and ceaseless vigilance to uproot them all from the minds of men. Acts 15:6. After the Pharisees had stated their position, distinctly affirming that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law, it seems that the assembly adjourned to meet up again at another hour. The next meeting is then announced in these words: (6) “Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.” Neither this nor the former meeting was composed exclusively of the apostles and elders, for we have seen, from verse fifth, that the messengers were received by the Church, and we learn, from the twenty-second verse below, that at this second meeting the whole Church were present. There had been, however, previous to either of these, a private interview between Paul and the chief men of the Church, for the purpose of coming to some distinct understanding of the subject before it was laid before the multitude. This we learn from Paul himself, who says: “ I communicated to them that gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them who were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain.” This language implies that his course was approved by these brethren of reputation, who were, doubtless, the apostles and other inspired men. Their approval of his course shows that the objections afterward urged were preferred by another class of men. The public discussion was not for the purpose of bringing about an agreement among inspired men, for they really did not differ after the facts were stated by Paul and Barnabas. But it was an effort, on the part of the apostles, to bring the other brethren to the same conclusion in which they themselves had already united. Acts 15:7-11. Luke does not report all that was said, but only those speeches that were decisive, and that brought the controversy to a close. Merely alluding, therefore, to the first part of the discussion, he says: (7) “And when there had been much discussion, Peter arose and said to them, Brethren, you know that, a good while ago, God made choice among us that the Gentiles through my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe. (8) And God, who knows the heart, bore witness for them, giving to them the Holy Spirit even as he did to us. (9) He made no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (10) Now, then, why do you put God to the proof, by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But we believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as they.” The position of the Pharisees not only condemned the course of Paul and Barnabas, but also involved a censure of Peter, who was the first of all the apostles, as he here asserts, to preach the Word to Gentiles. When arraigned once before for his conduct in the case of Cornelius, he had vindicated his procedure by relating the miraculous evidences of God's will which had been his guide; and now, to accomplish the same end with these brethren, he adduces the most decisive of those miracles, the gift of the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles. Having given to them the same gift as to the apostles on Pentecost, and having imposed upon them none of the purifying rites of the law, but simply purifying their hearts by faith, he assumes that God had made no difference between them and the Jewish brethren. Now, to attempt to impose the law upon them, in the face of these evidences of God's will to the contrary, would be putting God to the proof of his determination to maintain his own authority. It would, moreover, be imposing a yoke which the Jews themselves had never been able to bear successfully. This yoke is not circumcision, for there is no difficulty in submitting to that; but it was the law, under whose provisions no man could live without incurring its condemnation. His concluding statement, that “We believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the Lord Jesus, in the same manner as they,” involves two important conclusions: First, That it is not through the merit of obedience to the law that we are to be saved, but through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ. This favor is extended in the pardon of sins. Second, That the Gentiles are saved in the same manner as the Jews. By using the plural we believe, instead of I believe, he doubtless intended to express not only the conviction of his own mind, but that of the party with whom he acted, including the other apostles. It was a decision of the inspired teachers against the Pharisees. Acts 15:12. This brief statement of facts had so good an effect upon the multitude, that Barnabas and Paul determined to follow it by a rehearsal of similar facts in the history of their own labors among the Gentiles. (12) “Then all the multitude kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul relating what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” Their remarks on this occasion were not a repetition of what they had said in the former meeting, when they had set forth “ all that God had done with them,” but were confined to the “ signs and wonders” by which God had indicated his approbation of their ministry. The reversal of the order in which Luke now habitually names these two brethren indicates that Barnabas, whose name is first, was the first speaker. This gave Paul the closing argument on those events. Acts 15:13-21. So far as recent indications of God's will were concerned, the argument was now complete and unanswerable; but the Jewish mind was prone to an underestimate of passing events, while they looked back with superior reverence to the law and the prophets. The Apostle James, knowing that they would reject all possible cotemporaneous evidences, if they appeared to conflict with the written word, determined to close up this avenue of escape from the argument already presented by sustaining it with the authority of the prophets. (13) “And, after they were silent, James answered, saying, Brethren, hear me. (14) Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name, (15) and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written, (16) After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins, and set it upright, (17) that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, says the Lord, who does all these things. (18) Known to God from eternity are all his works. (19) Therefore, my judgment is, not to trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God; (20) but to write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols. and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses, for generations past, has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” In this speech James shows that God, who knows from eternity what his own works would be, had foretold, through the prophet, the work which he was then performing through the labors of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul. He had said that he would rebuild the tabernacle of David, in order that the residue of men, who had not known the Lord before, “ even all the Gentiles, upon whom his name is called,” should seek after the Lord; and now, he had, through these apostles, selected from among the Gentiles “ a people for his name.” The prophesy clearly covered all the ground claimed for it, and made the argument complete. There was room for no other conclusion than the one which James deduced, that they should impose on the Gentiles, so far as the class of restrictions under consideration were concerned, only those necessary things which were necessary independent of the Mosaic law. Idolatry, with all the pollutions connected with it, was known to be sinful before the law of Moses was given; and so was fornication. The eating of blood, and, by implication, of strangled animals, whose blood was still in them, was forbidden to the whole world in the family of Noah. In the restrictions here proposed by James, therefore, there is not the slightest extension of the law of Moses, but a mere enforcement upon the Gentiles of rules of conduct which had ever been binding, and were to be perpetual. They are as binding to-day as they were then. To deny this would be to despise the combined authority of all the apostles, when enjoining upon the Gentile world, of which we form a part, restrictions which they pronounce necessary. One would be surprised that it was thought necessary to mention to Gentiles, who had turned to the Lord, the sinfulness of fornication, did we not know that among heathen nations of antiquity it was deemed innocent, and even sometimes virtuous. The controversy now pending, in reference to the identity of the Jewish Church with the Church of Christ, renders it necessary that we should here pay some special attention to one remark made by James in this speech. He applies the prophesy concerning the rebuilding of the “ tabernacle of David” to the reception of the Gentiles into the Church, and it is hence argued that this prophesy contemplated a reconstruction and extension of the dilapidated Jewish Church, and not the construction of a new one. The whole argument turns upon the meaning of the expression “ tabernacle of David.” If the metaphorical word tabernacle here means the Jewish Church, the argument would have force. But the Mosaic institution never sustained such a relation to David that it could, with propriety, be styled the “tabernacle of David.” If such had been the reference, the expression would undoubtedly have been, the tabernacle of Moses, which would have been unambiguous. But David was a king, and had a promise from God, that his “throne should be established forever;” that there should not fail him a man on the throne of Israel. This promise God confirmed with an oath, saying, “ I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations.” According to the apparent meaning of this promise, it had long since failed; for it had been many generations since a descendant of David had occupied his throne. It was during this period, in which the royal house of David was in ruins, that Amos uttered the prophesy, “ I will return, and build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; I will build again the ruins thereof, and set it upright.” The term tabernacle, therefore, must be put for the family who dwell in the tabernacle, and the reconstruction of it the re-establishment of the royal dignity which the family had lost. Hence, when the birth of Jesus was announced to Mary, the angel said: “ The Lord shall give to him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Thus, the promise, when properly understood, is seen to refer neither to a continuous line of Jewish kings, descended from David, nor to a reconstruction of the Jewish Church, but to the perpetual reign of Jesus, the “ seed of David according to the flesh.” When, therefore, Jesus sat down upon his throne in heaven, the tabernacle of David was rebuilt, and now, by the labors of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, the remainder of the prophesy of Amos was being fulfilled, by the extension of his kingdom among the Gentiles. The closing paragraph of this speech appears, at first glance, to have no immediate connection with the preceding argument. But it was, doubtless, designed to anticipate an objection. The Pharisees might object, If you thus ignore the statue of Moses, his writings will fall into contempt, or be neglected by the people. No danger of this, says the speaker, for Moses is preached in every city, and read in the synagogues every Sabbath, and has been for generations past. Acts 15:22-29. The speech of James brought the discussion to a close. The will of God upon the subject was now so clearly exhibited that the opposition was totally silenced, and it remained only to determine the best method of practically carrying out the proposition submitted by James. (22) “Then it pleased the apostles and the elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men from among themselves with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch; Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, (23) writing by their hand these words: The apostles, and elders, and brethren, to the brethren from the Gentiles, in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, greeting: (24) Since we have heard that certain persons who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, telling you to be circumcised and to keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment, (25) it seemed good to us, being of one mind, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26) men who have hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (27) We have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, who also will tell you the same things orally. (28) For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, (29) that you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which, if you keep yourselves, you will do well. Farewell.” By the construction of the Greek, we learn that it was Paul and Barnabas, and not Judas and Silas, who are commended in this letter as “ men who have hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 15:30-31. The object of sending Judas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas was doubtless that they, having been entirely unconnected with the conversion of Gentiles, and above suspicion of undue partiality toward them, might use their personal influence with the Jewish brethren to induce them to accept the teaching of the epistle. Their journey, and the effect of the epistle, are thus stated: (30) “So, then, being sent away, they went to Antioch, and having assembled the multitude, they gave them the epistle. (31) When they read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.” The brethren residing in Antioch had not become partisans in the controversy, but had been distressed by the conflict between Paul and Barnabas and the Pharisees from Jerusalem, and desired only a satisfactory settlement of the question. The epistle, therefore, afforded them “ consolation,” and they cheerfully yielded to its requirements. The triumph of Paul and Barnabas over their pharisaic opponents was most signal and complete. And it appeared all the more signal to the brethren in Antioch, from a fact not recorded by Luke. We learn from Paul's own account of the visit to Jerusalem, that Titus, who was a Gentile, went with him, and that strenuous efforts were there made to have him circumcised; but Paul returned to Antioch, with Titus still uncircumcised, and with his whole course indorsed by the apostles, the elders, and the whole Church. This ought to have settled the controversy forever. Before dismissing the subject of this appeal to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, we must notice briefly the use that is made of it by the advocates of representative assemblies in the Church, for judicial and legislative purposes. Romanists, and the advocates of episcopacy generally, find in the assembly in Jerusalem the first “general council,” and have styled it “ The Council of Jerusalem.” The Presbyterians find in it the first synod; and others still appeal to it in general terms, as authority for assemblies of brethren to decide questions of doctrine and discipline. In order that it may properly be used as a precedent for any of these assemblies, it must be made to appear analogous to them in its essential features. But its essential features are: First, That it was occasioned by an appeal from one congregation to certain parties in one other congregation, in reference to a disputed question which the first felt unable to decide. Second, That the parties to whom the appeal was made were inspired men, who could say of their decision, when made, “ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us;” i. e., to the Holy Spirit as the divine arbiter, and to us as obedient subjects of his authority. It was the inspiration, and, consequently, the infallibility of the party appealed to, that suggested and that justified the appeal. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 15:2. Paul and Barnabas understood the subject but could not satisfy the brethren. It was decided that they should go to Jerusalem about the matter, that being the first church, and the place where the other apostles were making their headquarters. Certain brethren from Antioch were to go with Paul and Barnabas. 3Act 15:3. Being brought on their way was done by an escort of honor, similar to the circumstance in chapter 21:5. Phenice and Samaria lay between Antioch and Jerusalem, and in passing through those regions Paul and Barnabas informed the brethren of the Gentile conversions, which was good news and caused much rejoicing. 5Acts 15:5. Which believed is said to denote that these Pharisees had accepted the Gospel. These were the kind of brethren who had caused the disturbance at Antioch, and they were agitating the same heresy before the group from that city. 6Acts 15:6. The authority of the twelve apostles was universal (Matthew 19:28 Matthew 28:19-20), but they were then working especially with the Jerusalem church; at the same time they respected the elders of the congregation and worked with them. It should be noted that this whole matter was in the hands of the church at Jerusalem, and it was thus not a "church council" as Rome uses that term. 7Acts 15:7. After the discussion had gone on for some time, Peter "took the floor" to make a fundamental report touching the issue involved, referring to his own personal experience. The choice that God made is recorded in chapter 10:5, 6, which made it fitting that Peter should "speak up" at the turn of the discussion. 8Acts 15:8. Knoweth the hearts. God would not have chosen the household of Cornelius for this initial work of offering the Gospel to the Gentiles, had He not seen in them a heart that was worthy of the great epoch. 9Acts 15:9. He put no difference in that both Jew and Gentile could become pure in heart by accepting the faith of the Gospel and not by the law of Moses. 0Acts 15:10. Nor we were able to bear. The last word is defined in the lexicon by "endure," and the term able does not refer to physical strength, but that it was more than they felt prepared to endure. God never intended the ritualistic yoke of the law to be perpetual, but these Judaizers would have made it permanent. 1Act 15:11. Instead of that formal, severe yoke of the law, Peter declared that he and the Gentiles could be saved by the grace of God through Christ. 2Act 15:12. The disturbers of verse 5 were quieted by the speech of Peter, which gave Paul and Barnabas an uninterrupted opportunity to report their work among the Gentiles. They proved the righteousness of their work by detailing the miracles God enabled them to perform among the people. 3Act 15:13. This James was not one of the twelve apostles, but he was a very outstanding man in the church at Jerusalem. (See the notes and references on the subject at chapter 12:17.) He was the next spokesman and his advice will be respected. 4Acts 15:14. Simeon means Simon Peter, and James is referring to what he declared in verse 7. A people for his name means that the Gentiles were to become a part of God's people and wear His name. 5Verses 15-17. James not only endorsed the statement of Peter, but quoted the prophecy that foretold it. (See the prediction in Amos 9:11-12). 8Acts 15:18. All of this was according to what God always knew he was going to do. With Him all dates are the same as "now" (Isaiah 46:10). 9Acts 15:19. Sentence is from KRINO, and Thayer's definition at this place is, "To be of opinion, deem, think." But we must bear in mind that this opinion was inspired by the Holy Ghost. (See verse 28.) That opinion was that the Gentiles converted to Christ were not to be troubled with the Jewish ordinances. 0Acts 15:20. The law against eating blood is older than the law of Moses, having been given in Genesis 9:4. And that against fornication is still older, being implied by the statement in Genesis 2:24. For if this union makes them one flesh, then no other person can have relations with one of this pair without committing fornication. Hence these two laws are permanent regardless of what Dispensation is in force. But the subject of eating meat that had been offered to idols is a later one, and the law against it is based on special conditions that are more or less local. The Gentiles had practiced it so much that the Jews had an abhorrence for it. For that reason these Gentile Christians were told to abstain from it because of the Jews who were already somewhat prejudiced against the Gentiles; otherwise there would not have been any wrong in itself for them to eat it. That is the reason Paul taught as he did in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 on this subject. Things strangled were forbidden because the blood would not have been all removed from the beast. 1Act 15:21. Because this law of Moses was known wherever there was a synagogue of the Jews, it was not expedient to offend them unnecessarily by eating this meat. 2Act 15:22. The judgment of James was accepted by the entire group, the apostles, elders and the whole church. Paul and Barnabas were not left to return to Antioch and expect the church there to rely solely on their word for the decision of the Jerusalem church. They selected two chief men among the brethren to go with them, carrying a written document backed up by the apostles and elders. 3Act 15:23. This document began as a greeting to the Gentile brethren, not only those in Antioch, but also those in the whole provinces of Syria and Cilicia. 4Acts 15:24. We have heard . . . went out from us. This shows that the disturbers were acting without the knowledge and consent of the church in. Jerusalem. The original word for subverting is defined by Thayer, "to unsettle." The agitation of these Juda-izers confused the minds of the Gentile Christians. 5Acts 15:25. The chosen men were Judas and Silas (verse 22). 6Acts 15:26. Hazarded their lives means they had risked their lives for the sake of the Gospel. One notable case was that of Paul at Lystra, chapter 14:19. 7Acts 15:27. The main purpose of sending Judas and Silas was to confirm the letter by their oral testimony. That would prove the document was genuine as from the church. 8Acts 15:28. This denotes that the letter was inspired by the Holy Ghost. 9Acts 15:29. This is the same as verse 20, with a friendly closing additional. 0Acts 15:30. When Paul and his group reached Antioch, they assembled the multitude to which the epistle was delivered, since all were interested. 1Act 15:31. Consolation is properly translated, for a part of Thayer's definition of the original word is "encouragement." It was reassuring to these Gentile brethren to know they did not have to take up the burdensome ordinances of the Jewish system. They also looked favorably upon the exhortation to abstain from the evils named in the letter. 2Act 15:32. Judas and Silas being prophets. Those were the days of spiritual gifts and these brethren possessed that of prophecy. That was doubtless the reason they were named as chief men and sent along with Paul and Barnabas to confirm the letter. 4Acts 15:33-34. They were let go. Silas and Judas were given friendly release so that they could return to Jerusalem, but Silas preferred to remain at Antioch longer. 5Acts 15:35. Paul and Barnabas remained at Antioch for the time, since that was their regular headquarters. They employed their time teaching and preaching the word. The italicized words are used interchangeably all through the New Testament because the distinction is slight. The second has special reference to the first announcement of the Gospel, and the first meaning to give further instruction concerning the things preached. 6Acts 15:36. The term "missionary" is commonly used to mean a worker in new fields, but the present verse says they were to revisit the places where they had been. Hence the "second missionary journey" of Paul does not start until chapter 16, verse 10. 7Acts 15:37. Mark was a cousin to Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). I do not know whether that influenced him in this contention or not. 8Acts 15:38. Paul mistrusted Mark's stability on account of his desertion of the work at Pamphylia. (See chapter 13:13 for the account of this circumstance.) 9Acts 15:39. The original for contention is defined in Thayer's lexicon by the one word "irritation." Robinson defines it, "A paroxysm, sharp contention." It should be noted that no "doctrinal" difference came up between these brethren; it was only a matter of judgment. And after they each went his own way, they preached the same Gospel; neither was there ever any personal ill feeling between them. Instead, Paul made favorable mention of Barnabas afterward (1 Corinthians 9:6; Galations 2:9). 0Acts 15:40. Silas had come with Judas from Jerusalem (verses 22, 34) and had remained. That made him available for the work with Paul on the next journey. Being recommended means they started on this journey with the good wishes of the brethren. Nothing is said on that subject about Barnabas, either for or against him. That is because the writer is continuing only with his report of Paul's work. 1Act 15:41. Confirming the churches means to strengthen and establish them. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 16 PAUL THE : TIMOTHYAct_16:1-5 1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra:—The journey of Paul on the second missionary tour appears to have been by land northward from Antioch around the northeastern point of the Mediterranean Sea and thence westward to Tarsus. Derbe was the last point that Paul and Barnabas had visited on their first missionary tour; Lystra was the place where they had stoned Paul and “ dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.” (Acts 14:19.) Paul and Barnabas had left Lystra and gone to Derbe, but Paul is not afraid to return to Lystra. Lystra and Derbe were cities of Lycaonia. Timothy, or Timotheus, one of Paul’ s earliest converts (1 Timothy 1:2), was the son of a Jewess and a Greek (2 Timothy 1:5), who had been trained by his mother, Eunice, and his grandmother, Lois, in the Old Testament scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15). Timothy had been converted at Lystra and had been pressed into the service by the Christians there. (1 Timothy 1:18.) He had been given a gift by the elders of the church at Lystra and was now invited by Paul to accompany him on this tour. (1 Timothy 4:14.) Paul’ s work took him among Jews as well as Gentiles, and the Jews would have looked upon Timothy as an apostate had he not been circumcised, so Paul, to avoid offense, circumcised the young man. Timothy afterward worked with Paul (Romans 16:21), and was his messenger to the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 4:17) and to the church at Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 3:2-6.) He was at Rome with Paul. (Philippians 1:1 Philippians 2:19; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1.) Timothy suffered much for the truth with Paul. (Hebrews 13:23.) 2 The same was well reported of—“ Well reported of” is from the Greek “ emartureito,” and means “ a continuous witness” ; Timothy had good witness of his Christian life in his hometown of Lystra and also in Derbe; he had exercised his gifts and graces for the ministry and had been commended by the brethren. The phrase used here to describe Timothy is the same as that used to describe Cornelius (Acts 10:22) and Ananias (Acts 22:12). Timothy had been silently preparing himself for his work in the world by his work at Lystra and Iconium. Probably four or five years had elapsed since Paul had preached the gospel in these cities. 3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him;—Paul saw that Timothy would be not only a good gospel preacher and a great help to him, but that he would be a help to Timothy. The apostles desired to train younger men who could carry on the work after they had passed away; the elders and older ones in the church today should train the young men to carry on the work of the Lord. Later Paul wrote to Timothy and said: “ The things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:2.) Silas had taken the place of Barnabas, and Timothy is to take the place of Mark. Paul took Timothy and circumcised him; anyone could perform this rite. Paul did not do this as a Christian act, for he had contended that it was not necessary to circumcise either Jew or Gentile in order to become a Christian. The decision at Jerusalem had made it clear that the Gentile could become a Christian without circumcision, and that a Jew did not have to cease practicing circumcision in order to be a Christian; circumcision had nothing to do with becoming a Chris¬tian or with living the Christian life. Timothy’ s father was a Greek or a Gentile, and while his mother and grandmother were faithful in teaching him the Old Testament, yet he had not been circumcised. He had now been a Christian for four or five years, but had not been circumcised. The conduct of Paul here was an instance of his accommodation to Jewish prejudices, and did not involve any departure from his previous views of Christian duty and Christian liberty. 4 And as they went on their way through the cities,—Wherever Paul and Silas went they delivered “ the decrees” which had been “ ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem.” This shows Paul’ s loyalty to the church at Jerusalem and to the other apostles. However, Paul did this because it was the will of God that it should be done. The word “ decrees” here is from the Greek “ dogmata,” and that is from the Greek verb “ dokeo,” which means “ to give an opinion.” It is used of public decrees of rulers (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7), and of the requirements of the Mosaic law (Colossians 2:14). Here it is used to designate the regulations or conclusions reached at Jerusalem. These “ decrees” would encourage Gentile Christians, or encourage Gentiles to accept the gospel; they would also instruct the Jews as to the will of God on this question. Some claim that the word implies that Paul left copies of these “ decrees” wherever he went. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith,—“ Strengthened” is from the Greek “ esterounto,” and means “ to make firm and solid.” It is used here and in Acts 3:7 Acts 3:16— only three times in the New Testament. The blessings of God rested upon the work of Paul, Silas, and Timothy, and the churches increased “ in number daily.” The number of churches and of members was increased, for both ideas may be contained in this verse. The results of the work of Paul and his company were that the churches were confirmed in the faith, established in the truth of the gospel, and the number of churches and members were daily increased. PAUL ENTERS EUROPE Acts 16:6-12 6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia,—“ Phrygia” at this time was a broken portion of Asia Minor, under the jurisdiction of three or four distinct governors; it was west of Antioch in Pisidia; its chief cities mentioned in the New Testament are Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis. “ Galatia” was a great midland district of Asia Minor, east of Phrygia, inhabited by the descendants of the Gauls, who invaded Greece and Asia in the third century B.C. It became a formal province of Rome in A.D. 26. Paul laid the foundation of the Galatian churches, to which he wrote his epistle to the Galatians on this missionary tour. While he was in Galatia he was attacked by sickness. (Galatians 4:13-14.) He was not permitted by the Holy Spirit to speak the word or preach in Asia on this trip. “ Asia” represents the provinces of Lydia, Mysia, and Caria. 7-8 and when they were come over against Mysia,— The territories or provinces then were not very well defined or outlined ; hence, it is difficult to set the boundaries of these provinces. Luke here says that Paul had been hindered by the Holy Spirit from going west into Asia, but went northward so as to come in front of Bithynia; this journey would take him directly through Phrygia and the north Galatian country. “ Bithynia” was a district on the Black Sea; Paul was not allowed to deviate from the course that led directly to Europe. It should be noticed that the Holy Spirit led Paul away from the scene of his former labors and into new fields. He had been warned not to preach in Asia, and he had taken this as a sign to continue in the peninsuala and to return to Galatia by Bithynia; he was checked again; he had now only one way to travel, and that was westward to the seacoast; so he and his companions went along the southern border of Mysia, and passing by that region he came to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night:—Troas bears the name of the ancient Troy which was a seaport on the Helles- point. This Troas was about four miles from the site of the ancient Troy. Paul and his company were led westward to this city, and here the Lord caused Paul to have a vision one night, and in this vision he saw a man of Macedonia, standing and “ beseeching him” by saying: “ Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” “ Vision” is from the Greek “ horama,” and includes something that is seen. We are reminded here of the vision of Peter and Cornelius. Some think that this “ man of Macedonia” was Luke; we know that Luke joins Paul’ s company at Troas. Paul was miraculously granted this vision, as he had been divinely prohibited visit¬ing other places; he is now divinely guided to go into Europe. This vision does not come in the form of a command from Christ, but it comes in the form of a petition from man. Paul understood the vision and at once made preparation to go into Europe. 10 And when he had seen the vision,— Paul “ straightway,” or immediately, “ sought to go forth into Macedonia,” for he concluded “ that God had called us to preach the gospel unto them.” Paul’ s answer to the call was earnest and instant; he was a man of action and was ready to obey the call at once. Luke introduces himself into the narrative by the pronoun “ we” ; he was a physician (Colossians 4:14) and a Gentile (Colossians 4:11 Colossians 4:14); it is possible that this means that Luke had been preaching the gospel in those re¬gions and that he was happy to join the company with Paul. Luke accompanied Paul into Macedonia, and was with him at Samothrace, Neapolis, and Philippi. The way Luke introduces himself with the pronouns “ we” and “ us” shows that he was a preacher of the gospel as well as a physician. The clause, “ that God had called us to preach the gospel,” shows that he included himself with Paul, Silas, and Timothy as preachers of the gospel. Nothing is said here about their preaching the gospel in Troas, yet Paul makes reference to the church there in 2 Corinthians 2:12. Acts 20:6 shows that there was a church at Troas. 11-12 Setting sail therefore from Troas,—Samothrace was an island in the Aegean Sea on the Thracian coast, about sixty miles in a direct line from Troas. “ Samothrace” is one of the most ancient names of the island of Samos, but in order to distinguish it from another Samos, in the sea, it was called by the come,” or “ Samos of Trace,” it being not far from the country of Thrace. “ Neapolis” was a seaport in Macedonia. Luke was familiar with terms of travel by water. On this trip they had the wind in their favor and were able to take a straight course. They went from Neapolis to Philippi, a distance of about twelve miles inland. Philippi was a Roman colony, and was the capital or chief city of Macedonia. They tarried at this place certain days. LYDIA Acts 16:13-15 13 And on the sabbath day we went forth—Paul and his company wasted no time after arriving at Philippi; on the Sabbath day, the Jewish Sabbath, Paul’ s company went “ without the gate by a river side” and found some women who were accustomed to meeting there for prayer. It seems that there was no synagogue in Philippi and that these women went to this accustomed place for worship. The little river Gangites or Gargites was one mile west of the town. Philippi was a military outpost of the Roman government, and but few Jews lived there. It may be that Paul and his company had located this place of prayer before this time; they probably saw it as they entered Philippi. The rule of the rabbis required ten men to constitute a synagogue, but here had gathered only a group of women. Where the Jews had no synagogue they sometimes had a building or an open-air place near the river or sea; they needed the water for ceremonial washings. While in Babylon “ by the rivers” they sat down. (Psalms 137:1; Ezra 8:15 Ezra 8:21.) Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome, and therefore from colonies (Acts 18:2), and it may be that this Roman city had obeyed that order. “ We sat down, and spake unto the women” that gathered there. Sitting was the Jewish attitude for public speaking; it was not mere conversation, but more likely conversational preaching of an expository character. Luke uses the pronoun “ we,” including himself, Paul, Silas, and Timothy, but Paul was the chief speaker. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia,—“ Lydia” was a com¬mon name among the Greeks and Romans; it was itself a province in Asia Minor; she was born in Thyatira which was in Lydia. Thyatira was one of the seven churches of Asia mentioned in Revelation 2:18; it was famous for its purple dyes. Lydia was a seller of purple, either the coloring matter or the fabric already dyed. The purple color was esteemed very highly by the ancients. There was great demand for this fabric, as it was used on the official toga at Rome and in Roman colonies. The term “ royal purple” is still used. (Luke 16:19.) Lydia was a woman of some means to carry on such an important business so far from her native city; some think that she was a free-woman, since racial names were often borne by slaves. Lydia “ worshipped God” ; she heard Paul and his company preach the gospel. She was either a Jewess or a proselyte to the Jewish religion. The Greek for “ worshipped” is “ sebomene,” and means “ a God-fearer, or proselyte of the gate.” It may be that she had become a proselyte while in Philippi; she was only a sojourner in Philippi, for Paul writes a letter to the church at Philippi later, but does not mention Lydia, the first con¬vert of the church there. “ Whose heart the Lord opened” simply means that her mind was enlightened by the preaching of the gospel. “ Opened” is from the Greek “ dienoixen,” which means “ to open up wide or completely like a folding door.” A person’ s heart is said to be closed up against instruction when it is unwilling to hear it or to obey it. Jesus opened the mind of the disciples to understand the scriptures. (Luke 24:45.) God had led Paul and his company to Lydia, and they had preached the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit to her, and caused her to understand; hence, in this way the Lord “ opened” her heart. She gave “ heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul.” Here Paul is made the chief speaker. “ To give heed” is from the Greek “ prosechein,” and means “ to hold the mind on, or to keep the mind centered on” the things which were spoken by Paul, whose words gripped her attention. 15 And when she was baptized, and her household,—Both Lydia and all who composed her family received the truth which Paul presented; her household consisted of persons in her employ. The Gangites River was near, as this prayer meeting was held “ by a river” ; so Lydia was baptized in the river. “ Household” is from the Greek “ oikos,” and originally meant the building, and then it came to mean the inmates of the house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia’ s “ household” included any others than “ the women” whom she had employed. There is no evidence that her household included any infants, as the household of Cornelius, the jailer, and Crispus evidently had no infants in them. There is no evidence that Lydia even was married or had a husband or had children. There is no evidence here of infant baptism. After her conversion she persuaded Paul and his company to sojourn with her for a while. Peter’ s reception at the house of Simon, the tan¬ner, and the entertainment of Lydia are instances of the hospitality which was characteristic of early Christians. PAUL AND SILAS IN PRISON Acts 16:16-24 16 And it came to pass, as we were going—Paul and his company continued to visit the place of prayer by the riverside in Philippi after the conversion of Lydia and her household for some days; we are not told just how long they continued to visit this place; they could get an audience there and hence preach the gos¬pel to those who gathered there. One day while they were on their way to this place of prayer “ a certain maid having a spirit of divination” met them; Luke is in the company, as he uses the pro¬noun “ us.” This maid was a slave, and she was possessed with “ a spirit of divination” ; the Greek is “ pneuma puthona,” which means the spirit of python. “ Python” was the spirit that traditionally guarded Delphi. In Greek mythology Python was a dragon, which was slain by Apollo, who was called the Pythian Apollo; and as Apollo was the god of oracles, his priests were said to be inspired by him. This slave girl was owned by joint owners who used her powers as a source of revenue, and it appears that they made large sums of money from her unfortunate condition. 17 The same following after Paul and us—This maiden followed Paul, Silas, and Luke: Timothy may have been in the company. As she followed them she “ cried out” to those who were in hearing distance that “ these men are servants of the Most High God” ; the heathen used this inscription for the Supreme Being; her testimony was like that borne by the demoniacs to Jesus as “ Son of the Most High God.” (Luke 8:28.) Demons frequently bore testimony to the divinity of Jesus. (Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24 Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41.) This maiden may have heard Paul preach about Jesus as “ the way of salvation.” She knew the mission of Paul and his company; he preached Jesus to sinners as the way of salvation. 18 And this she did for many days.—She kept this testimony before the public by repeating her words for “ many days.” Paul was not willing to receive the testimony of this “ spirit of divination” ; he wanted the faith of people to be based upon the word of God, the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and not upon the testimony of demons. Paul, “ being sore troubled” at the persistent testimony of this maiden, rebuked the spirit by saying: “ I charge thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” Paul recognized the demon or evil spirit in her and spoke to it. He commanded the spirit “ in the name of Jesus Christ,” or by his authority, to come out of her. This was according to the promise of Jesus. (Mark 16:17.) Paul did not want any evidence from this source, as he did not want the homage of the people of Lystra. (Acts 14:14.) The evil spirit obeyed immediately and came out of her. 19 But when her masters saw—When those who jointly owned her saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they were angry with Paul and Silas and seized them and “ dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers." “ The marketplace" was the Roman forum near which would be the courts of law as in our courthouse square. They were seeking for revenge; hence, they had Paul and Silas arrested and brought before the proper authori¬ties for trial and punishment. 20-21 and when they had brought them unto the magistrates,—“ Magistrates" is from the Greek “ strategois," and literally means “ leader of an army, or general"; but in civic life it means a governor. “ Strategois" is the Greek rendering of the Latin “ praetores," or praetors; the Roman praetors were accompanied by “ lictors," who bore rods with which to punish those who were convicted. The joint owners of this slave girl attempted to prejudice the court before any evidence was given; they said these men, “ being Jews," caused trouble in the city. They caused the trouble by setting “ forth customs" which, they said, they were not according to law to receive, “ or to observe," as Roman citizens. There is a sharp contrast between Paul and his company, “ being Jews,” and those who were making the charge as Roman citizens. Roman magistrates would not pass sentence on abstract theological questions (Acts 18:15), but if the peace was disturbed or a secret sect was organized, the magistrates would pass sentence on these things. The Roman law forbade Romans to introduce or practice any new religion; they were required to worship their own gods and no others. The Jews were permitted to practice their own religion, provided they did not attempt to proselyte Roman citizens. Hence, when Paul and Silas preached Jesus, they were preaching a new religion and were subject to prosecution and punishment according to the Roman law. The owners of this girl sought vengeance on Paul and Silas by thus bearing witness against them. 22 And the multitude rose up together against them:—There was no mob, as Paul and Silas were in the hands of officers, but a sudden and violent uprising of the people reinforced the charges that had been made against them; there was a strong ap¬peal to race and national prejudice. This violent uprising had its influence on the “ magistrates,” and they “ rent their garments off them,” and commanded that Paul and Silas be beaten “ with rods.” The magistrates did not tear their own clothes off themselves, but did tear the clothes off Paul and Silas that the lictors might beat their bare backs with their rods. The magistrates gave the orders that Paul and Silas be beaten with rods. Paul later said: “ Thrice was I beaten with rods.” (2 Corinthians 11:25.) This may have been one of the times. 23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them,— “ Many stripes” is from the Greek “ pollas plegas” the Jewish law was forty stripes save one, or thirty-nine stripes. (2 Corinthians 11:24.) The Roman custom depended on the whims of the judge; it was a severe ordeal. It was the custom to inflict the stripes on the naked body. After Paul and Silas were beaten they were then put in prison and the jailer given strict orders to keep them safely. Luke does not include himself or Timothy in this punishment. 24 who, having received such a charge,—The jailer was given strict orders to put them in prison, and was given such strict orders that he thought he would put them in the safest place, so he “ cast them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” “ The inner prison” was the third compartment of the prison. In a Roman prison there were usually three distinct parts: (1) the communiora, or where the prisoners had light and fresh air; (2) the interiora, shut off by strong iron gates with bars and locks; (3) the tullianium, or dungeon, the place of execution or for one condemned to die. Not only were they put in the inner prison, but their feet were placed “ in the stocks.” Usually the “ stocks” were fixed so that the arms and legs, and even necks of the prisoners were confined; but here only the feet were placed in the stocks. “ Stocks” was an instrument of torture as well as confinement, consisting of heavy pieces of wood with holes, into which the feet were placed in such a manner that they were stretched widely apart so as to cause the sufferer great pain. Paul and Silas were placed in such torture during this eventful night. THE JAILER Acts 16:25-34 25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying—“ Midnight” was one division of the watches. Paul and Silas were suffering from stripes, loss of blood, hunger, and the stocks in which they were fastened. It seems that they had not slept any up to this time, yet in the midst of their suffering and inconvenience of position, they could pray to God and sing his praises. They were praying and singing simultaneously, and blending together their petition and praise. Their wounds were undressed, filth and ver¬min that infested prisons of that day added to their pain, while their position was one of torture, sleep was out of the question, but they had the privilege and comfort of prayer. Other prisoners heard their prayers and songs; they were “ listening to them.” It was an unusual occurrence for prisoners to be praying and praising God; Paul and Silas sang the gospel, and men who would not listen to a sermon heard the gospel in song. Other prisoners were not the only ones who heard Paul and Silas; God and Christ, for whom they were suffering, heard them. 26 and suddenly there was a great earthquake,—Luke and Timothy were not in prison; we know not why they were not cast into prison with Paul and Silas; hence, Luke regards this “ earthquake,” Greek “ seismos,” or shaking of the earth as an answer to prayer. (Acts 4:31.) This was a very violent earthquake, for it even was felt down to the foundations of the prison walls and the doors were broken open, and the staples of the chains fell out of the walls. The opening of the doors and the loosening of the chains by the earthquake is difficult to understand unless one understands the construction of the prisons of that time. The quaking of the earth forced the door posts apart from each other so that the bar which fastened the door slipped from its hold, and the door swung open. The chains and stocks were detached from the wall which was shaken so that they were loose from the wall. 27 And the jailor, being roused out of sleep—Such an earthquake would naturally arouse the jailer and frighten all of the prisoners. It is noted that neither the groans nor singing of hymns had kept the jailer from sleeping; nothing but the terror of an earthquake could disturb him. When he saw that the prison doors were open, he naturally supposed that the prisoners had all escaped and, knowing that he would have to pay the penalty for their escape with his own life, he “ was about to kill himself.” By the Roman law the jailer was subject to the same death as the escaped prisoners would have suffered; suicide was preferred by many to the death and torture that they would have to suffer. Sometimes jailers were selected from the lowest class, and sometimes from the criminal class (Acts 12:19 Acts 27:42), and were punished by death if the prisoners escaped. It appears that the prisoners were too frightened to escape, or did not have time to escape before the jailer made his appearance. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying,—Paul was master of the situation here as he frequently was at other times. He saw what the jailer was about to do, and checked him by crying with a “ loud voice.” “ Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.” The earthquake had loosened the staples of the chains which were fastened in the wall and then to the prisoners, and the bars of the doors had been loosened and the doors opened, but no prisoner had escaped; it may be that the chains were still on the prisoners and prevented a hasty escape; at any rate, none of them had escaped. Some have questioned the accuracy of Luke’ s account by saying that Paul could not see what the jailer was about to do, as the jailer could not see that the prisoners had not escaped; however, there was enough light for Paul to see what was about to be done; the jailer saw the prison doors open without any other light, and so Paul could and did see what the jailer was about to do. 29-30 And he called for lights and sprang in,—When the jailer heard Paul’ s assuring command, he called for lights and made a hasty investigation and found that Paul had spoken the truth to him; he then, “ trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas.” In some way he connected the earthquake and the safety of the prisoners with Paul and Silas. He may have known something of their miraculous power, and especially the cure of the slave girl for which Paul and Silas had been thrust into prison. It is very probable that the jailer first attended to his proper duties and secured all the prisoners before he came to Paul and Silas; his life was at stake, and he would promptly see that the prisoners were safe before he did anything else. It seems very unreasonable that he would neglect attention to the other prisoners and come and fall down at the feet of Paul and Silas. The jailer brought Paul and Silas out of the inner prison and probably into the court and asked: “ Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” He left the other prisoners inside and realized that he must now deal with these men of whom he had heard something as servants of the “ Most High God.” The jailer did not ask what he should do to be saved from the wrath of his superiors; he had nothing to fear from them, since the prisoners were all safe. Neither did he ask what he should do to save himself from the anger of heathen gods, for his appeal would not be to Paul and Silas, as they did not worship these gods. The answer that Paul gave implies the meaning of his question; he is asking what he must do to be saved from his sins. 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus,—He had asked both Paul and Silas what he should do to be saved from his sins, and now both are included in the answer; “ they said” is the expression that Luke uses. “ Believe on the Lord Jesus” is the an¬swer to this direct question. Faith in the Christ, personal trust in him as a Redeemer, is required. “ And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12.) The answer is brief, simple, plain, and accurate; not only could he be saved through faith in Christ, but his entire household could be saved; in fact, everyone could be saved on the same terms of the gospel. 32 And they spake the word of the Lord unto him,—The answer was that the jailer should believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; but he cannot believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world, as his Savior, without evidence. “ So belief cometh of hearing, and hearng by the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17.) He could not believe without first hearing the evidence of testimony concerning the Christ; hence, “ they spake the word of the Lord unto him” and to all “ that were in his house.” Paul and Silas preached the gospel to them so that he could obey their command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul and Silas had sung the gospel to the prisoners, and they now preached it to the jailer and all that were in his house. As a heathen the jailer was ignorant of both the truths and commands of the gospel; these were taught him by Paul and Silas; hence, his faith would have a true foundation. They spoke the word of the Lord not only to the jailer, but to those who were in his house; this shows that the jailer's household was composed of those who were capable of hearing and understanding the gospel ; hence, they were responsible if they did not hear and obey the gospel. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night,—“ He took them” implies that he took them away from one place to that of another; we are not informed as to where he took them, but we know that he took them to a place where there was much water, for he “ washed their stripes.” This shows that he not only believed the words that had been preached to him, but that he was penitent of his sins, and was willing to do everything that he could for the comfort and ease of Paul and Silas. He “ was baptized, he and all his, immediately.” There was no delay in his doing what he was commanded to do. In giving the commission Jesus had said: “ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16.) The jailer had heard the gospel, he believed it, was penitent of his sins, and is now baptized; on these conditions and obedience to them, he could claim remission of sins. All who had heard the gospel in the jailer’ s household, and all who believed it, were baptized. It is worthy of note that there was no delay in their being baptized; no one deferred baptism by the instruction of an inspired guide, but, on the other hand, in every case of their hearing, believing, repent¬ing of their sins, baptism was attended to immediately. 34 And he brought them up into his house,—The jailer now does all that he can for Paul and Silas. As a jailer he was not acting illegally, for while he was responsible for the prisoners, he was under no obligations to fulfill this duty in any particular way. Paul and Silas would not try to escape, and the jailer had confidence in them as servants of God. The jailer must be responsible for the safekeeping of his prisoners, and he now feels safe about Paul and Silas. After bringing them “ up into his house” he “ set food before them, and rejoiced greatly.” He had occasion to rejoice. We note the contrast between the jailer’ s joy and the dread of the magistrates. (Acts 16:38.) A great change had taken place within a short time in the jailer’ s house. It is very likely that the trouble and arrest of Paul and Silas took place at the third hour of the day, or nine o’ clock in the morning, and they had probably been fasting for nearly twenty-four hours. We do not know who this jailer was, but some have suggested he was Stephanas. (1 Corinthians 1:16 1 Corinthians 16:15 1 Corinthians 16:17.) Lydia and her household were the first converts in Europe and at Philippi; the jailer and his household were the next; hence, the nucleus of the church at Philippi was the households of Lydia and the jailer. Later Paul wrote a letter to this church. PAUL AND SILAS FROM PRISONAct_16:35-40 35 But when it was day, the magistrates sent—The magis¬trates or praetors and lictors knew nothing about what had taken place during the night, but they surely had learned something about the earthquake and its effects. All that Luke has related took place in the night, so the next morning early the authorities sent the lictors or sergeants and commanded them to “ let those men go.” There had been no further inquiry as to the charges against Paul and Silas, no regular trial, but the magistrates were uneasy. No reason is given for the change of mind of the magistrates ; the jailer received orders to release Paul and Silas. 36 And the jailor reported the words to Paul,—No doubt the jailer received the words with joy, because he was now in sympathy with Paul and Silas and would be glad to see them go without further trial or punishment. He even invited Paul and Silas to “ come forth, and go in peace.” Paul and Silas had not taken advantage of the jailer simply because they were preachers of the gospel; although they had baptized the jailer and his household, yet they asked no favors of him that would involve him in any way with the authorities. Paul and Silas knew a better way, and did not obey the orders of the jailer. 37 But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us publicly, —The reply of Paul is very full of brevity and energy, and brings a serious charge against the magistrates. He charges the authorities with the following: (1) beating them publicly; (2) beating uncondemned men; (3) beating with rods men that are Roman citizens; (4) after beating them they had been cast into prison. These four charges were serious; Paul knew that they were, and he does not hesitate to prefer these charges. The magistrates had done so much publicly, and they now sought to release Paul and Silas privately; they attempted to evade the charges and escape any punishment that was due them. Paul rightly demanded vindi¬cation; he demanded that they acknowledge their mistakes and correct them. They were too eager to cast Paul and Silas into prison, and they are now too eager to dismiss them; they have prisoners on their hands with whom they must now reckon. If Paul and Silas had gone away secretly, a stain would have rested on their reputation, which would have reflected dishonor on the gospel they preached. Paul’ s reply was that they publicly declared them criminals by the treatment given them, and now they must publicly declare their innocence. They had violated the Roman law in beating Roman citizens before they were condemned; they had done this openly; that is, publicly; they had put them in prison without a fair trial; these were all serious charges. 38 And the serjeants reported these words—The “ serjeants” were the lictors, whose duty it was to carry the rods and scourge those who were sentenced to punishment. The sergeants were sent by the magistrates to release or have released Paul and Silas. When the magistrates heard that Paul, and probably Silas, were Roman citizens, they “ feared” because they had scourged and im¬prisoned Roman citizens without a fair trial. Paul submitted to scourging by his own countrymen five times (2 Corinthians 11:24), but never claimed the rights as a Roman citizen to the Jews. The magistrates did not know that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, as Lysias did not know it. (Acts 22:27.) No one challenged Paul’ s claim as a Roman citizen at any time; it was a grave offense to make a false claim to Roman citizenship. To violate the Roman law with respect to Roman citizenship subjected a magistrate to the danger of being summoned to Rome to answer for his offense; the punishment for this crime was death and confiscation of goods. This accounts for the fear that these magistrates had when they heard of Paul’ s Roman citizenship. Death was the penalty for making a claim to Roman citizenship when it was false; seldom did anyone make a false claim because of the severe penalty; hence, they believed Paul’ s statement. 39 and they came and besought them;—It is very probable that the magistrates made due amends for the wrongs they had done to Paul and Silas. They now urgently besought them to leave the city. “ They asked” them to leave the city. “ Asked” is from the Greek “ eroton,” and means that they kept on begging them to leave the city for fear of further trouble The magistrates had no right to command or demand that they leave the city, but they asked them as a favor and as a means of preventing any further trouble. Paul and Silas were willing to go, but not secretly; Paul would not desert the young converts nor bring a scandal on the name of Christ by a secret departure; they departed leisurely in such a way as to clear their own names of any blame or shame that might be attached to their imprisonment. Paul and Silas were vindicated, and they could now leave the city. 40 And they went out of the prison,—When they left the prison they went to the house of Lydia where the disciples assem¬bled there to greet them. “ The brethren” here include Luke and Timothy, the jailer and those who were baptized with him, and others who were converted in Philippi. Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke were all guests of Lydia before Paul and Silas’ imprison¬ment. (Verse 15.) It is very likely that the church at Philippi first met in the house of Lydia. Paul and Silas “ comforted” the brethren. Who needed comforting more than Paul and Silas? Yet they comforted others. After comforting the brethren Paul and Silas “ departed” ; Luke and Timothy did not accompany them, but remained at Philippi; some think that Luke remained until Paul returned to Philippi. From Luke’ s use of the pronouns “ we” and “ us,” we learned that he was with Paul and Silas from Troas to Philippi. He uses a different mode of expression in this verse; namely, the use of the third person, “ they” ; this shows that the writer did not accompany Paul and Silas from Philippi; he continues to use the third person in his narrative until he comes to Acts 20:5, where the use of the first person is resumed. By a study of these passages and of Act 20:6, it appears probable that Luke remained in Philippi until Paul returned to this city on his way to Asia Minor and to Jerusalem. Luke mentions Timothy in Acts 17:14, and from that passage we learn that he was afterward at Berea with Paul and Silas. Paul left him there with Silas when he him¬self went to Athens; hence, we conclude that Timothy was left with Luke at Philippi, while Paul and Silas went through Amphip- olis and Apollonia to Thessalonica. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 16Acts 16:1-2. Without giving the least detail of Paul's labors in Syria and Cilicia, Luke hurries us forward to his arrival in Derbe and Lystra, the scenes respectively of the most painful and the most consoling incidents which occurred on his former tour. His chief object in this seems to be to introduce us to a new character, destined to play an important part in the future history. (1) “Then he came down into Derbe and Lystra, and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, son of a believing Jewess, but of a Greek father; (2) who was well attested by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium.” Not only the mother, but also the grandmother of the disciple was a believer; for Paul afterward writes to him: “ I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, that first dwelt in thy grandmother Lois, and in thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded also in thee.” From this it seems that both the mother and grandmother had preceded him into the kingdom; for it is clearly of their faith in Christ, and not of their Jewish faith, that Paul here speaks. With such an example before him, it is not surprising that the young disciple should be found well attested by all the brethren who knew him. The fact that he was thus attested not only at Derbe and Lystra, within the vicinity of his residence, but also in the more distant city of Iconium, renders it probable that he was already known as a public speaker. On the occasion of Paul's former visit to Lystra, we learned that while he lay dead, as was supposed, after the stoning, “ the disciples stood around him.” Timothy was doubtless in the group; for he was Paul's own son in the faith, and must have been immersed previous to the stoning, as Paul left the city immediately after. The scene occurred just at the period in Timothy's religious life, the period immediately subsequent to immersion, when the soul is peculiarly susceptible to the impress of noble example. The recesses of the heart are then open to their deepest depths, and a word fitly spoken, a look full of religious sympathy, or a noble deed, makes an impression which can never be effaced. In such a frame of mind Timothy witnessed the stoning of Paul; wept over his prostrate form; followed him, as if raised from the dead, back into the city; and saw him depart with heroic determination to another field of conflict in defense of the glorious gospel. It is not wonderful that a nature so full of sympathy with that of the heroic apostle to extort from the latter the declaration, “ I have no one like-minded with me,” should be inspired by his example, and made ready to share with him the toils and sufferings of his future career. Acts 16:3. The discriminating and watchful eye of Paul soon discovered qualities which would render this youth a fitting companion and fellow-laborer, and it was by his request that Timothy was placed in the position which he afterward so honorably filled. (3) “Paul wished him to go forth with him, and took him, and circumcised him on account of the Jews who were in those quarters; for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” The circumcision of Timothy is quite a remarkable event in the history of Paul, and presents a serious injury as to the consistency of his teaching and of his practice, in reference to this Abrahamic rite. It demands of us, at this place, as full consideration as our limits will admit. The real difficulty of the case is made apparent by putting into juxtaposition two of Paul's statements, and two of his deeds. He says to the Corinthians, “ Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing;” yet to the Galatians he writes: “ Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” When he was in Jerusalem upon the appeal of the Antioch Church, brethren urgently insisted that he should circumcise Titus, who was with him, but he sternly refused, and says, “ I gave place to them by subjection, no, not for an hour.” Yet we see him in the case before us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this “ on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters.” In order to reconcile these apparently conflicting facts and statements, we must have all the leading facts concerning this rite before us. We observe, first, that in the language of Jesus, circumcision “ is not of Moses, but of the fathers.” The obligation which the Jews were under to observe it was not originated by the law of Moses, or the covenant of Mount Sinai; but existed independent of that covenant and the law, having originated four hundred and thirty years before the law. The connection between the law and circumcision originated in the fact that the law was given to a part of the circumcised descendants of Abraham. We say a part of his descendants, because circumcision was enjoined upon his descendants through Ishmael, through the sons of Keturah, and through Esau, as well as upon the Jews. Since, then, the law did not originate the obligation to be circumcised, the abrogation of the law could not possibly annul that obligation. He shall be forced, therefore, to the conclusion, that it still continues since the law, unless we find it annulled by the apostles. Again: its perpetuity is enjoined in the law of its institution. God said to Abraham: “ He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” An everlasting covenant is one which continues as long as both parties to it continue to exist. The covenant concerning Canaan was everlasting, because it continued as long as the twelve tribes continued an organized people to live in it. The covenant of Aaron's priestly dignity was everlasting, because it continued in Aaron's family as long as such a priesthood had an existence. So the covenant of circumcision must be everlasting, because it is to continue as long as the flesh of Abraham is perpetuated. This will be till the end of time; hence circumcision has not ceased, and can not cease, till the end of the world. This conclusion can not be set aside, unless we find something in the nature of gospel institutions inconsistent with it, or some express release of circumcised Christians from its continued observance. It is, then, inconsistent with any gospel institution? Pedobaptists assume that it was a seal of righteousness, and a rite of initiation into the Church; and as baptism now occupies that position, it necessarily supplants circumcision. It is true, that Paul says: “ Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while yet uncircumcised;” but what it was to Abraham, it never was not any of his offspring, seeing that the child eight days old could not possibly have any righteousness of faith while yet uncircumcised, of which circumcision could be the seal. Again: it was not to the Jew an initiatory rite. For, first, the law of God prescribing to Abraham the terms of the covenant says: “ The uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Now, no man can be cut off from a people who is not previously of them. Regarding the Jewish commonwealth, therefore, as a Church, the infant of eight days was already in the Church by natural birth, and circumcision, instead of bringing him into it, was a condition of his remaining in it. In the second place, this conclusion from the terms of the covenant is made indisputable by a prominent fact in Jewish history. While the twelve tribes were in the wilderness forty years, none of the children born were circumcised. The six hundred thousand men over twenty years of age who left Egypt all died in the wilderness, and an equal number were born in the same period; for the whole number of men at the end of the journey was the same as at the beginning. When they crossed the Jordan, therefore, there were six hundred thousand male Jews, some of them forty years of age, who had not been circumcised, yet they had been entering the Jewish Church during a period of forty years. After crossing the Jordan Joshua commanded them to be circumcised, and it was done. This fact not only demonstrates that circumcision was not to the Jews an initiatory rite, but throws light upon its real design. The covenant of circumcision was ingrafted upon the promise to Abraham of an innumerable fleshly offspring, to keep them a distinct people, and to enable the world to identify them, thereby recognizing the fulfillment of the promise, and also the fulfillment of various prophesies concerning them. In accordance with this design, while they were in the wilderness, in no danger of intermingling with other nations, the institution was neglected. But, as soon as they enter the populous land of Canaan, where there is danger of such intermingling, the separating mark is put upon them. From these two considerations, we see that there is no inconsistency between circumcision and baptism, even if the latter is admitted to be a seal of righteousness of faith, which language is nowhere applied to it in the Scriptures. Neither is there inconsistency between it and any thing in the gospel scheme; for Paul declares: “ In Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love.” Thence, he enjoins: “ Is any man called, being circumcised, let him not be uncircumcised; is any called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised.” So far as faith in Christ, and acceptability with him are concerned, circumcision makes a man neither better nor worse, and is, of course, not inconsistent with the obedience of faith in any respect whatever. We next inquire, Are there any apostolic precepts which release converted Jews from the original obligation to perpetuate this rite? Paul does say, “ If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing;” and this, certainly, is a prohibition to the parties to whom it is addressed. If it was addressed to Jewish Christians, then it is certainly wrong for the institution to be perpetuated among them. But neither Paul nor any of the apostles so understood it. That Paul did not is proved by the fact that he circumcised Timothy; and that the other apostles did not, is proved conclusively by the conference which took place in Jerusalem upon Paul's last visit to that place. James says to him, “ You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. Do this, therefore, that we say to you. We have four men which have a vow on them. Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses, in order that they may shave their heads, and all may know that the things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself walk orderly, and keep the law.” This speech shows that James considered it slanderous to say that Paul taught the Jews not to circumcise their children; and Paul's ready consent to the proposition made to him shows that he agreed with James. Yet this occurred after he had written the epistle to the Galatians, in which he says, “ If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” There could not be clearer proof that this remark was not intended for Jewish Christians. Even James, in the speech from which we have just quoted, makes a distinction, in reference to this rite, between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. He says: “ Concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written, having decided that they observe no such thing; save, only, that they keep themselves from idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” This remark refers to the decree issued by the apostles from Jerusalem, which Paul was carrying with him at the time that he circumcised Timothy. It should be observed, that there never did arise among the disciples any difference of opinion as to the propriety of circumcising Jews. This was granted by all. But the controversy had exclusive reference to the Gentiles; and the fact that the Judaizers based their plea for circumcising Gentiles upon the continued validity of the rite among the Jews, is one of the strongest proof that all the disciples considered it perpetual. If Paul, in disputing with them, could have said, that, by the introduction of the gospel, circumcision was abolished even among the Jews, he would have subverted, at once, the very foundation of their argument. But this fundamental assumption was admitted and acted upon by Paul himself, and no inspired man ever called it in question. That it was the Gentiles alone who were forbidden to be circumcised, is further evident from the context of this prohibition in Galatians. This epistle was addressed to Gentiles, as is evident from the remark in the fourth chapter, “ Howbeit, then, when you knew not God, you did service to them who by nature are no gods?” The circumcision of the Gentiles is not, however, considered apart from the purpose for which it was done. It is often the purpose alone which gives moral character to an action; and in this case it gave to this action its chief moral turpitude. The purpose for which the Judaizers desired the Gentiles to be circumcised was that they might be brought under the law as a means of justification. Hence Paul adds to the declaration we are considering: “ I testify again to every man who submits to circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. You have ceased from Christ, whoever of you are being justified by the law, you have fallen away from favor.” This can not refer to Jews, for it would make Paul himself and all the Jewish Christians “ debtors to do the whole law;” a conclusion in direct conflict with one of the main arguments of this epistle. It must, then, refer to Gentiles who were considering the propriety of circumcision as a condition of justification by the law. We can now account for Paul's stern refusal to circumcise Titus. He was a Gentile, and could not with propriety be circumcised unless he desired to unite himself nationally with the Jewish people. But if, with Paul's consent, he should do this, his example would be used as a precedent to justify all other Gentile disciples in doing the same; and thus, in a short time, circumcision would cease to be a distinguishing mark of the offspring of Abraham, and the original design of the rite would be subverted. Moreover, to have circumcised him under the demand that was made by the Pharisees, would have been a virtual admission that it was necessary to justification, which could not be admitted without abandoning the liberty of Christ for the bondage of the law. The case of Timothy was quite different. He was a half-blood Jew, and therefore belonged, in part, to the family of Abraham. He could be circumcised, not on the ground of its being necessary as a part of a system of justification by law, but because he was an heir of the everlasting covenant with Abraham. This, however, was not the chief reason for which Paul circumcised him, for Luke says it was “ on account of the Jews who dwelt in those quarters; for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” In this reason there are two considerations combined, the latter qualifying the former. The fact that his father was known to be a Greek is given to account for the fact that Paul yielded to the prejudices of the Jews. If his father and mother both had been Jews, Paul might have acted from the binding nature of the Abrahamic covenant. Or if both had been Greeks, he would have disregarded the clamor of the Jews, as he had done in the case of Titus. But the mixed parentage of Timothy made his case a peculiar one. The marriage of his mother to a Greek was contrary to the law of Moses. Whether the offspring from such a marriage should be circumcised, or not, the law did not determine. The Jewish rabbis taught that the mother should not circumcise the child without the consent of the father, which was to admit that his circumcision was not obligatory. Paul did not, then, feel bound by the Abrahamic covenant to circumcise him, but did so to conciliate the “ Jews who dwelt in those quarters,” who had, doubtless, already objected to the prominent position assigned to one in Timothy's anomalous condition. It was, as all the commentators agree, a matter of expediency; but not, as they also contend, because it was indifferent whether any one were circumcised or not, but because it was indifferent whether one like Timothy were circumcised or not. It was an expediency that applied only to the case of a half-blood Jew with a Greek father; and it would, therefore, be most unwarrantable to extend it to the case of full-blooded Jews. The remark of Paul that “ Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God,” is readily explained in the light of the above remarks, and of its own context. It is immediately preceded by these words: “ Is any man called being circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised.” And it is immediately followed by these words: “ Let every man abide in the calling wherein he is called.” So far, then, is this text from making it indifferent whether a Christian become circumcised or not, that it positively forbids those who had been in uncircumcision before they were called, to be circumcised; while it equally forbids the other party to render themselves uncircumcised; which expression means to act as if they were uncircumcised by neglecting it in reference to their children. For to become uncircumcised literally is impossible. That circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, means, therefore, simply that it is indifferent whether a man had been, before he was called, a Jew or a Gentile; but it is far from indicating that it is innocent in a Jew to neglect this rite, or in a Gentile to observe it. If we have properly collated the apostolic teaching on this subject, the conclusion of the whole matter is this: that Christian Jews, Ishmaelites, or Edomites, are under the same obligation to circumcise their children that the twelve tribes were in Egypt, and that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau were during the period of the law of Moses. This being so, the pedobaptist conceit that baptism has taken the place of circumcision is shown to be absurd, by the fact that circumcision still occupies its own place. It is undeniable that during the whole apostolic period Jewish disciples observed both baptism and circumcision, and as both these could not occupy the same place at the same time, their proper places must be different. According to apostolic precedent, both should still continue among the Jews; neither one taking the place of the other, but one serving as a token of the fleshly covenant with Abraham, the other as an institution of the new covenant, and a condition, both to Jew and Gentile, of the remission of sins. Acts 16:4-5. After so long delay upon the circumcision of Timothy, we are prepared to start forward again with the apostles, cheered as they were by this valuable addition to their company. (4) “And as they passed through the cities they delivered to them to observe the decrees which had been adjudged by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. (5) And the Churches were confirmed in the faith, and were daily increasing in number.” These decrees were everywhere needed, in order to unite in harmonious fellowship the Jewish and Gentile converts. Presented by Paul, who had been sent to Jerusalem for them, and by Silas, who had been sent out with high commendation by the apostles, to bear them to the Gentiles, that came with their full force to the ears of the brethren, and produced the happiest effects. The peace and harmony which they helped to confirm the brethren in the faith, and the daily increase in number was the result of this happy condition of the Churches. Acts 16:6-8. The neighboring cities of Derbe and Lystra, where Paul was joined by Timothy, constituted the limit of his former tour with Barnabas into this region of country. He makes them now the starting point for an advance still further into the interior, and to the western extremity of Asia Minor. (6) “Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the district of Galatia, being forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, (7) they went to Mysia, and attempted to go on through Bythinia, and the Spirit did not permit them. (8) So passing by Mysia they went down to Troas.” From this hurried sketch of the tour through Phrygia and Galatia, it might be inferred that nothing of special interest occurred during its progress. But we learn from Paul himself that it was far otherwise in Galatia. In his epistle to the Churches there, he lifts the vail of obscurity thrown over this part of his life, and brings to light one of the most touching incidents in his eventful career. More than one congregation sprang up under his personal labors there, who owed their knowledge of salvation to an afflicting providence affecting himself. He writes to them: “ You know that on account of infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you at the first.” This statement does not mean merely that he was suffering in the flesh at the time; but the expression di asthenian indicates that the infirmity was the cause which led him to his preaching to them. The infirmity was evidently that “ thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet him,” which he had prayed in vain to the Lord to take from him. For he says to them: “ My temptation which was in my flesh you despised not, nor rejected, but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.” It is probable that he had intended to pass through this region without stopping, but some unusual violence of the humiliating and irritating malady compelled him to forego the more distant journey, and make some stay where the Word was so gladly received by these brethren. Though Paul felt that strangers like these would be likely to despise him and reject him, on perceiving the malady with which he was afflicted, yet this people listened to his annunciation of eternal truth as if they heard an angel of God, or Jesus Christ Christ himself. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 16:2. This disciple had a good reputation at Lystra and Iconium. 3Act 16:3. Circumcism was a Jewish rite, and the national blood was in the veins of Timothy which made it right for him to be circumcized. Because of the Jews. The rite was not necessary to salvation (Galatians 5:6), but Paul performed it on Timothy on the principle of 1 Corinthians 9:20. 4Acts 16:4. The decrees refers to the requirements stated in chapter 15:29. Note that they were ordained by the apostles and the elders of the Jerusalem church, hence not a decision of a "council of churches" as Rome teaches. 5Acts 16:5. Churches established. The starting of a church is not the same as establishing one. That has to be done by additional instruction concerning Christian duties. 7Acts 16:7. Mysia and Bithynia were in another part of Asia Minor than the Asia of the preceding verse. Paul assayed or made plans to do some work in those parts but was not permitted to do so because the Lord had other work for them to do. 9Acts 16:8-9. In obedience to the divine orders, Paul journeyed on until he came to Troas, the Troy of history. This is the time and place where the familiar Macedonian call was made upon Paul in a vision. The Gospel had never been preached in Macedonia, hence this will be new territory and the real start of his "second missionary journey." 0Acts 16:10. Vision is from HOROMA which Thayer defines, "That which is seen, a sight, spectacle; a sight divinely granted in an ecstacy, a vision." We endeavored means they made preparations for the voyage. The first personal pronoun we denotes that Luke was in the group with Paul. Assuredly gathering means that they concluded with certainty. 2Act 16:11-12. Samothracia was an island where Paul made his first stop over night. Next day he sailed on and landed at Neapolis on the coast of Macedonia. He went on to Philippi for the first stop of some days. This place was important because of its being a Roman colony. That means a commu nity of Roman citizens located there in Macedonia, but remaining subject to the mother country. (See verse 21.) 3Act 16:13. The sabbath did not mean anything special to Paul except as an opportunity to preach to some people. Out by a river side some women were wont (accustomed) to conduct a prayer meeting on the sabbath, day. Paul entered into the group and began talking to them about the Gospel. 4Acts 16:14. Smith's Bible Dictionary says Lydia was a Jewish proselyte, which accounts for her being present at the prayer meeting on the sabbath day, and also explains why she worshipped God. One meaning of opened is to have things explained so that the heart (mind) could understand what is said. The Lord did this for Lydia through the preaching of Paul, and the result was that she attended or accepted it. 5Acts 16:15. When she was baptized. The wording of this phrase takes it for granted that a penitent believer in the Gospel will obey it. Her household. One part of the lexicon definition of this word is, "the inmates of a house"; it does not necessarily mean that they are related to each other. The inmates of Lydia's house were able to attend to the things spoken by Paul. Judged me to be faithful means that they regarded her as a true convert, and would be pleased to be her guests for some time. 6Acts 16:16. This damsel did not possess anything supernatural as a bestowal from God. She had some kind of factulty by which she bewitched her patrons and made them think she could foretell events. She was somewhat like the modern "fortunetellers," and brought a good income for her sponsors. 7Acts 16:17. All that the girl said was the truth concerning Paul and his group, but the Lord will not accept testimony from such characters as she. 8Acts 16:18. Paul became tired of being hounded by this troublesome person. Said to the spirit. Whatever faculty she had -of an extraordinary kind was what Paul commanded to leave the damsel, so that she would not have ability to mislead the people. shameful treatment mentioned is recorded in Acts 16:19-24, after which they came to Thessalonica. But the persecution did not keep them from continuing their good work of preaching the Gospel. Instead, it made them bold ("confi-dent"--Thayer) in speaking it to them. Contention means earnestness and anxiety, which describes the attitude of Paul on account of the opposition that had been waged against him. In other words, Paul regarded the issues as being a contest between truth and error, and he was determined to perform his part of the struggle with the same zeal that men showed when they entered the arena of the athletic games. 1Act 16:20-21. They were not fair enough to state their true grievance, that they had been shorn of their means of unrighteous gain. Instead, they dealt only in generalities, and made false charges against Paul and Silas about their teaching. Being Romans is explained at verse 12. 2Act 16:22. Rent off their clothes in order to administer a scourging. That was done by requiring the victim to lie down with his naked back exposed to the scourger, and a heavy thong of leather or ropes was lashed across the body. 3Act 16:23. Stripes means wounds made by blows inflicted with a heavy whip. The original for safely is defined "assuredly" in Thayer's lexicon, which denotes to take every precaution possible to prevent the prisoners from escaping. 4Acts 16:24. Such a charge indicated that the jailor felt a special responsibility for keeping of the prisoners. Stocks is from XULON and the primary definition is, "that which is made of wood." Thayer describes the instrument as follows: "A log or timber with holes in which the feet, hands, neck of prisoners were inserted and fastened with thongs." Inner prison means a cell with its own door locked, on the inside of the general prison which is also enclosed with locked doors. 5Acts 16:25. Persecution can torture and hamper the body, but it cannot affect the spirit of a devoted servant of God, except to stir it to greater praises to Him who always hears the prayers of the righteous. Those of Paul and Silas were expressed at an hour of the night when men are usually asleep. The righteous men here were tortured into sleeplessness, but their songs of praise to God rang out into the midnight darkness and awakened the other prisoners. 6Acts 16:26. The power that loosened the doors and bands was the same that released Peter in chapter 12:7-10. With God one miracle is as easy as another. 7Acts 16:27. The Lord would not interfere with the Just operation of secular government. Doubtless the other prisoners were being held lawfully, and God would not perform a "jail delivery" in opposition to the law. Hence he unfastened all the fetters but saw to it that no one escaped. It was sure death to a jailor to let his prisoners escape, especially after receiving such a charge (verse 24). He thought he would prefer suicide to the shame of being executed for failure in his duties. 8Acts 16:28. All was darkness, yet Paul knew the jailor was about to kill himself. Loud noise was necessary to overcome the frenzy of the officer. We are all here was spoken by divine knowledge, for Paul could not have seen all the conditions naturally. 9Acts 16:29. Called for a light was necessary because it was utter darkness in the cell where Paul and Silas were held. Sprang in means he rushed in excitedly and with trembling. He fell down before Paul and Silas because the miracle convinced him these men had been imprisoned unjustly. 0Acts 16:30. Brought them out indicates the preachers were taken outside the jail. What must I do to be saved? The jailor knew that Paul and Silas were religious men, and that their imprisonment was in connection with their religious belief. But being a heathen, he knew nothing of the merits of their teachings. Now the miraculous demonstration on behalf of them convinced him that they represented some great and righteous Being, whose law it would be dangerous to ignore. That also made him realize that he was due to suffer some kind of punishment unless something was done to prevent it, hence the question he asked of Paul and Silas. 2Act 16:31-32. The jailor was a heathen and knew only the worship of idol gods. Paul's answer to his question meant only to cite him to the proper source of salvation. It was like telling an inquiring patient to put his trust in Doctor Blank, with the understanding, of course, that he would show confidence by doing what the doctor told him to do. We know that was all the statement of Paul meant, for he immediately spake unto him the word of the Lord, which would have been unnecessary had the answer in verse 31 been all the jailor needed to do to be saved. 4Acts 16:33-34. Here was a situation similar to that in chapter 8:35, 36. In one verse Philip preached Jesus and in the next the eunuch asked to be baptized. In our present case the preachers spoke the word of the Lord, then the hearer arranged to be baptized. All of this shows that "the word of the Lord" means the commandments of the Lord including baptism. Acts 16:30 says the jailor brought them out, and then verse 34 says he brought them into his house. The baptizing took place between the two movements, which is explained by the act of immersion which requires their going to some place where there was plenty of water. Washed their stripes means the jailor bathed the wounds that the magistrates had inflicted on Paul and Silas, as a means of giving them some relief from their injuries. After the baptism the jailor served food to the preachers, while he and his household rejoiced in their newly-found religion. 6Acts 16:35-36. The officers evidently had learned something of the situation, and knew they had violated the law by their brutal treatment of the missionaries. They wished to get rid of them in as quiet a manner as possible. The jailor passed the word on to Paul and Silas and told them they might go. 7Acts 16:37. Paul felt that such an unjust treatment as had been publicly inflicted on them should be reversed in as public a manner also. He refused to go in such a humiliating manner and demanded the responsible officers come in person and release them. 8Acts 16:38. Being a Roman citizen entitled one to special consideration, and Paul and Silas had been denied such favors. 9Acts 16:39. In their anxiety over the unlawful treatment of the prisoners, the officers came in person and very respectfully requested them to leave. 0Acts 16:40. Paul and Silas did not leave the city until they had first visited the church in the house of Lydia, the first convert they had made in the place. It is remarkable that the very ones who had been the victims of cruel persecution were the ones to offer comforting words to others. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 17 PAUL AND SILAS AT Acts 17:1-9 1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis—Paul and Silas left Philippi and “ passed through Amphipolis and Apollonian They journeyed southwest from Philippi about thirty- three miles and came to Amphipolis, which was a Roman military station; Apollonia was about thirty miles farther on, in the district of Macedonia known as Mygdonia, and was about thirty-seven miles from Thessalonica. It seems that Paul and his company did not stop very long in these cities; some think that it was not wise for them to remain so near Philippi as Apollonia. In neither city was there a synagogue as a center of worship; these cities could be evangelized better from Philippi and Thessalonica. Thessalonica was the largest city in Macedonia; the article before “ synagogue” implies that this was the chief, if not the only, synagogue of the district; hence, it is concluded that the other towns passed through had no synagogues. 2-3 and Paul, as his custom was,—Paul followed “ his custom” of going to the Jews first. Later he wrote: “ For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16.) Paul preached the gospel “ to the Jew first” and then to the Gentiles. The Jews met in their synagogue and, since Paul was a Jew, he had access to the synagogue and went there and preached Christ; he used the Jewish center of worship as a place from which to radiate the gospel to the Gentiles. Here he remained “ for three sabbath days,” and reasoned “ from the scriptures,” the Old Testament, and proclaimed Jesus as the Christ unto them. It is to be understood that Paul and his company were busy the other days of the week preaching from house to house the unsearchable riches of Christ. “ Opening” and “ alleging” mean that he made plain what was before announced and asserted with reasons for his assertion. He showed from the scriptures that it was necessary for Christ to suffer, to be crucified, buried, and raised from the dead; hence, it was no reproach on Christ that he had been crucified; the prophets had foretold this. 4 And some of them were persuaded,—Some of the Jews believed or were convinced by Paul’ s reasoning. It seems that Paul’ s teaching was by arguments which they were unable to refute. Those who believed “ consorted with Paul and Silas.” “ Consorted” is from the Greek “ proskleroo,” which means “ to assign by lot” ; hence, those who believed were given to Paul and Silas by the grace of God. These believers cast in their lot with Paul and Silas and decided to be associated with them. A few of the Jews were convinced, but a great number “ of the devout Greeks,” proselytes of the gate, believed; these were heathen by birth who had embraced a part of the Jewish faith. They did not have the religious prejudices which clung so closely to the Jews. Many of “ the chief women” also believed. Many women of the highest social standing became believers here as they did at Phi¬lippi and Berea. There seem to have been four classes who were converted at this place: (1) Jews; (2) Greek God-fearing proselytes; (3) other Greeks; (4) honorable women. 5 But the Jews, being moved with jealousy,—This means the unbelieving Jews. Our English words “ zeal” and “ jealousy” are from the same Greek word “ zelos.” These unbelieving Jews were filled “ with jealousy.” They did not like to see so many drawn away from their own party; they were jealous of Paul and Silas as the Jews were jealous of the leadership of Christ. They knew how to raise a mob; they went to “ certain vile fellows of the rabble” and raised a mob and “ set the city on an uproar.” It is strange that the Jewish rabbis would resort to such base methods of opposing the truth; it is also strange how such ones could excite the people so as to cause an uproar in the city. “ Vile fellows of the rabble” mean those who had no calling, but lounged around the market place in the hope of picking up a chance living, and who were ready for anything bad or good that might present itself. There must have been many Jews in Thessalonica. This mob, excited by religious prejudice and jealousy, made an attack on the “ house of Jason.” It seems that he was the host of Paul and Silas; we know nothing more of him than is revealed here. The name is found in the list of those whom Paul speaks of as his “ kinsmen,” but this may be quite a different person. (Romans 16:21.) They sought to bring Jason and his guests out to the people who were infuriated and ready to do them violence. 6-7 And when they found them not,—Paul and Silas were not found; it is not known where they were. They then seized Jason and “ dragged” him and “ certain brethren before the rulers.” Their failure to find Paul and Silas augmented their anger, and they sought to take vengeance on Jason and any other Christians whom they could lay hands on. They brought them before the city officials; Thessalonica was a free city. During these three weeks Paul and Silas had made many disciples and a congregation or church had been formed. They preferred the charge against Paul and Silas that they had “ turned the world upside down,” or had disturbed the peace wherever they had gone. “ The world” means the inhabited earth, and especially the whole Roman Empire, which embraced a very large portion of the known world. Perhaps their accusation was exaggerated, as men moved by the spirit of jealousy do not correctly represent their enemies. They furthermore charged Jason with having received these disturbers of the peace. Jason was charged with aiding and plotting with Paul and Silas as traitors. They specify before the rulers that they were teaching and acting “ contrary to the decrees of Caesar.” Paul in preaching Jesus preached him as a King; these grossly prejudiced accusers did not understand the nature of his kingdom or the sense in which Jesus was King. This was the same charge with which the Pharisees and Herodians had attempted to catch Jesus. (Mark 12:14.) It is the same charge that the Sanhedrin made against Jesus to Pilate. (Luke 23:2.) The Jews here, as before Pilate (John 19:15), renounced their hope of a Messianic King. 8-9 And they troubled the multitude—These Jews, by bringing Jason and other Christians before the rulers, caused more disturbance than Paul and Silas had caused; they created confusion; when the rulers heard the accusation they were disturbed. They were ignorant of many of the facts, nevertheless they were troubled about the matter. They would not let Jason and the brethren go until they had put them under bond not to disturb the peace. The exact point of this guarantee is not stated; however, it is implied that they did not want preached that which had caused the disturbance; they may have requested that Paul and Silas leave the city. The charge that they brought against the brethren was serious, but the proof was meager, so all that could be done was to take security of the brethren. AT BEREA Acts 17:10-14 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas—Berea was about fifty miles southwest of Thessalonica. Paul’ s labors had not been in vain in Thessalonica; he had established a church there. (1 Thessalonians 1:7 f 1 Thessalonians 2:13 1 Thessalonians 2:20.) Two of the brethren, Aristarchus and Secundus, later accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4), and Aristarchus finally went with him to Rome (Acts 27:2). The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas from Thessalonica. They left at night, and Timothy either left with them or soon followed them, for we find him at Berea. (Verse 14.) Paul was not able to return to Thessalonica, but later sent Timothy back to the church there. (1 Thessalonians 3:2.) Paul found a synagogue at Berea and immediately began preaching there. We are not told how long they were on the way coming to Berea. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica,—This is a great commendation of the Jews at Berea. “ More noble” is applied first to nobility of birth, but here it applies to character. They received Paul’ s preaching “ with all readiness of mind,” but they examined “ the scriptures daily” to ascertain whether he was preaching the truth. Evidently Paul had used the Old Testament scriptures, and they were examining these to verify what Paul preached. It does not appear how long they continued searching the scriptures, but evidently long enough to satisfy their own minds as to the truth. It is refreshing to find that the people of Berea exercised greater candor, more openness of mind, and intelligence than those at Thessalonica. Paul expounded the scriptures daily in Thessalonica, but the Bereans, instead of resenting his interpretation, examined the scriptures for themselves. 12 Many of them therefore believed;—As a result of their fair-mindedness, their honesty of heart, and their faithful searching of the scriptures, many believed. Among the number that believed were some “ Greek women of honorable estate.” These were women of rank; they were influential, and may have been the wives of the chief citizens. The work of the apostles here as elsewhere extended beyond the synagogue. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica—The persecution that had begun at Thessalonica was now carried fifty miles away to Berea. When the Jews in Thessalonica heard that Paul and Silas had gone to Berea and had proclaimed the gospel there, they “ came thither likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitudes.” Paul and Silas had left Thessalonica by night, which implies that they secretly left Thessalonica, and the Jews did not know where they had gone; but as soon as they learned, they became active and went to Berea and caused trouble there. They “ stirred,” shaking the crowds like an earthquake, and “ troubled” the multitude like a disturbing tornado. The Jews had been successful in Thessalonica, and this gave them courage to go to Berea and oppose Paul there. We do not know how long Paul had been in Berea when they came; he had been there long enough to establish a church. Progress was being made until these Jews came from Thessalo¬nica; then a whirl of excitement disturbed the labors of Paul and Silas. 14 And then immediately the brethren sent forth Paul—They acted with haste and sent Paul away, while Silas and Timothy remained in Berea. We are not told what charges were preferred against Paul, but probably the same ones that were made at Thessalonica. Paul was to go “ as far as to the sea,” which means the Aegean Sea. This gives the impression that the movement was a feint in order to baffle the pursuers, while Paul went in another direction. Silas and Timothy were not exposed to the dan¬ger that Paul was; hence, they could abide in Berea. Paul was the leader and was in the greater danger; Silas and Timothy could bring the news to Paul when they left Berea to go to Paul. PAUL’ S ADDRESS AT ATHENS Acts 17:15-34 15 But they that conducted Paul—Some of the brethren accompanied Paul as a guide and for partial protection. He went as far as Athens. We do not know who escorted him; neither do we know whether he went by land or by sea. It is generally thought that he went by sea. The distance between Berea and Athens by land is about 250 Roman miles; this would take about twelve days to make the journey, whereas three days would have been sufficient for the voyage by sea; hence, the conclusion by many that he went by sea. After reaching Athens, Paul commanded his escorts to tell Silas and Timothy that they should come to him “ with all speed.” Without delay they departed. Paul was alone in Athens and would not be able to go about his work until they came. Later history shows that they were unable to reach him at Athens, but joined him at Corinth. (Acts 18:5.) 16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens,—Athens has a very interesting history; it has been called one of the most beau¬tiful cities in the world; it was situated about five miles inland northeast of the Saronic Gulf, an arm of the Aegean Sea; four famous mountains lie around it, and four still more famous hills were within the city; the first one was Lycabettus, the Acropolis, the Areopagus, or Mars’ Hill, the Pnyx, on which the assemblies of the people were held and Demosthenes spoke his oration. The name of Athens was synonymous with the most graceful concep¬tions of art and the profoundest study of philosophy. While Paul waited here, “ his spirit was provoked within him” as he saw that the city was “ full of idols.” Athens was wholly given to idolatry. It is said that Athens had more idols or images than all the rest of Greece. Pretonius satirically said it was easier to find a god than a man in Athens; Xenophon calls the city one great altar, one great offering to the gods. This was enough to stir Paul to preach the gospel to them. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue—While waiting for Silas and Timothy, Paul was busy. He went into the synagogue and there reasoned with the Jews and “ the devout persons” ; we must know that since Paul’ s spirit was “ provoked within him” that he must have preached the gospel with great power. Such a mind as Paul’ s, freighted with such a message as his, could not begin to move in such an atmosphere without soon encountering opposition. Wherever he could find people, in the synagogue, at idol worship, in the market place, he preached Christ to them. Two classes are found here— the native Jews and Gentile worshipers, whether proselytes or not, we do not know. He had access to the Gentile world through these devout persons, while his first appeal was yet to the Jews. “ The marketplace” is generally supposed to designate the great place known as the ancient “ forum,” or old market place. It was a famous place, because Socrates taught there, and all the great philosophers taught or discoursed to the people there. 18 And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic—In Paul’ s day there were two systems of philosophy prominent throughout the Roman world; they are regarded as conflicting, though in many points they resemble each other. “ Epicurean” is named from its founder, Epicurus; he lived 342-270 B.C. His disciples were known as the school of the “ garden,” from the garden in Athens where the master instructed them, in distinction from the disciples of the “ porch” or the academy where the Stoics met. Epicurus taught that the end of living was pleasure; he taught that the enjoyment of tranquil pleasure was the highest end of human existence. “ Stoic” philosophers were the advocates of the theory founded by Zeno. “ Stoic” was derived from “ Stoa,” “ a porch.” Zeno taught that God was the soul of the world, or the world was God; that everything was governed by fate, to which God himself was subject; they denied the immortality of the soul. The Stoic philosophers taught that virtue was its own reward, and vice its own punishment; that pleasure was no good, and pain no evil. Both classes of philosophers were in Athens and encountered Paul. They asked: “ What would this babbler say?” “ Babbler,” as used here, means a “ seed picker” ; it was applied to a bird that picks up seeds as food; hence, Paul is called a “ seed picker,” or has picked up some crumbs of knowledge. In contempt they compared him to the small bird that fed on small seeds, and said that he preached a strange religion, “ because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.” Little did they understand what this meant at that time. 19-20 And they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus,—This does not mean that they used force or arrested him; they constrained him, or escorted him to “ the Areopagus” ; this place also bears the name “ Mars’ Hill.” Here had often as¬sembled the noblest blood of Athens, the politicians of highest rank, the best orators, and the most profound philosophers. It was at this place that Socrates was arraigned and condemned. “ The Areopagus,” as used here, was not the hill, but the council of the Areopagus, which sat in some hall in the market place. We are to think of Paul as being surrounded by philosophers and professors of the Athens University, and lecturers who occupied chairs in the university. They asked Paul concerning “ this new teaching” of which they had heard. They added that he had brought “ certain strange things” to their ears. Hence, they would like to know more about these things. They make a polite request of him that he tell them more about his “ new teaching” or “ strange gods” which he set forth. They must be commended for their de-sire to know; they are different from the Jews and others at Thes- salonica and Berea, who ran Paul out of the cities. 21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers)—Luke, the historian, has put in this historical explanation of the Athenians; it shows why they were eager to hear Paul. These men of Athens were so eager to hear or learn something new that they took Paul, a stranger, to the great place of discussion to hear him. They were ready to hear anything that was new. The natives of Athens and the strangers who sojourned there alike were eager to hear the new things. They spent their leisure time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear something “ new,” something later than the latest notion that they had learned. It seems that they had leisure time and they devoted or spent their time in hearing and telling what is new. Demosthenes in his first great Philippic orations says the same thing of them: “ Tell me, do you, going round, still wish to ask in the market, is there any news? Can there be any-thing newer than that a Macedonian?” etc. Novelty was their life’ s pursuit; so without having any regard for the importance of the teaching, they were ready to listen because it was new. 22 And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus,—There was a crowd of spectators and philosophers present, and Paul seized the opportunity to preach Christ to this strange audience, as he did in Caesarea later before Herod Agrippa and the crowd of prominent people gathered by Festus. Paul did not speak as a man on trial, but as one attempting to get a hearing for the gospel of Christ. He “ stood” that he might be heard by all. He addressed them according to their accustomed way of being addressed. “ In all things I perceive that ye are very religious.” The Authorized Version says “ superstitious,” but here we have “ religious.” The Greek is “ hos deisidaimonesterous” ; “ Deisidaimon” is a neutral word from “ deido,” to fear, and “ daimon,” deity. The Greeks used it either in the good sense of pious or religious or the bad sense of superstitious. Thayer suggests that Paul used it “ with kindly ambiguity” ; while others think that Luke uses the word to represent the religious feeling of the Athenians which bor¬dered on superstition. In Acts 25:19 Festus uses the term “ deisidaimonia” for “ religion.” 23 For as I passed along, and observed—Paul introduced his speech by an observation which he had made while sojourning in Athens and waiting for Silas and Timothy to come there. He had observed “ the objects” of their worship; he had observed the idols which they worshiped, as well as their worshiping their idols. Paul has been described as standing on an elevated platform, surrounded by the learned and the wise of Athens, the multitude being perhaps on the steps and in the vale below. Paul had directly before him the far-famed Acropolis with its wonders of Grecian art, and beneath him on his left the majestic Theseum, the earliest and still most perfect of the Athenian structures, while all around other temples and altars filled the entire city. He had passed along the streets and had given attention to their devotion in prayer and worship; he had noticed their altars, images, and inscribed names of their gods. He had also observed their inscription, “ To AN UNKNOWN GOD.” Some think that Paul referred to Jehovah whom the Jews worshiped, and who was unknown to these Athenians. Others think that the inscription read “ to the unknown gods.” “ Unknown” is from the Greek “ agnostos.” The Athenians acknowledged by their inscription that they did not know the God that Paul preached; hence, Paul’ s opportunity to declare unto them the God and Father of our Lord the Christ. They worshiped in ignorance, but Paul would have them know the true God. 24 The God that made the world—Jehovah God was not to be confused with any of their numerous gods save with this “ Unknown God.” Paul declares Jehovah God as the one who “ made the world and all things therein.” He is the creator of all things. He was no Epicurean god, who dwelt apart and in constant repose ; nor was the world a thing of chance as the Athenian philosophers taught. He was the creator of the world and everything in it; he is also “ Lord of heaven and earth,” and being such a God, he dwells not in temples made by hands, but fills the earth. 25 neither is he served by men’ s hands,—Jehovah God is not served by human hands, as if he needed help like man; he was not made by the hands of men, and does not need the assistance of men to exist. He is the author of all life, and of all things. The heathen clothed their gods with costly garments, overlaid them with silver and gold, carried them in state, installed them at banquets, and brought them costly offerings of food and drink. The God that Paul served, and the one that he now declares or makes known to these Athenians, gives life, sustains it, and gives every good thing that man enjoys. 26 and he made of one every nation of men—God created Adam and then formed Eve, and from this one pair has come all the nations of earth. The nations and races of men have a common origin; God made them all, and hence is their creator. The Greeks, like the Jews, thought themselves of finer nature, a superior race in origin, character and destiny. Paul instructs them of the brotherhood of man; this was indeed strange to Greek ears; they had an idea of different origins, different gods, different religions for different nations. Paul thus starts to reason with them about one God, Creator of all, and deduces from it one religion, one origin for all, one brotherhood, one salvation for the race. God had fixed the limits of their territory as he had determined the duration of their existence. It was this God who had given their seasons, spring, summer, fall, and winter; he had ordained seedtime and harvest and prepared the earth for man’ s habitation. 27 that they should seek God,—All things which God has given to man should encourage man to seek to know his Creator, and to know him as his great Benefactor. The gift of this bountiful earth, with its teeming productions and supplies for human need, coupled with its beautiful and wise adaptations to man’ s well-being, should move man to seek after more and higher knowledge of the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Paul here pictures the blind groping of the darkened heathen mind after God to ‘‘ find him.” “ Feel after him” is a vivid picture of the darkened and benighted condition of those who thought themselves to be wise. The evidences of God were round about them; yet they did not know him. “ He is not far from each one of us” in his blessings and gifts. 28 for in him we live, and move,—The proof of God’ s nearness, not Stoic pantheism, but real existence of God, was evident and surrounded man, is that man is said to exist in God. This shows how near God is to us, and how vitally and intimately we are connected with him. We are entirely dependent upon him for life and for everything that sustains life; there should be no difficulty in finding him if one is inclined in heart to know him. Paul declares further that “ for we are also his offspring.” He is our Creator; he is our origin; we exist in him; we are dependent upon him; we must look to him for everything. Paul here quotes one of their poets; his quotation is from Aratus of Soli in Cilicia; he lived about 270 B.C., and was a Stoic philosopher. Cleanthes, a Stoic philosopher, who lived 300 to 220 B.C., has the same words in his “ Hymn to Zeus.” Possibly Cleanthes used the words first. The passage reads: “ For we all greatly need Jupiter, for we are his offspring— full of grace, he grants men tokens of favor.” 29 Being then the offspring of God,—Paul uses tact and skill here. “ We,” including himself, ought not to have such a low con¬ception of “ the Godhead” ; they had formed too low a conception, and Paul would refine and elevate their conception of God. “ Godhead” literally means “ the divine.” It comes from the Greek, “ to theion,” and means the divine nature like “ theiotes” in Romans 1:20. Paul uses in Colossians 2:9 the Greek “ theotes.” Some think that Paul used “ to theion” here to get back behind all their notions of various gods to the real nature of God. The divine nature of God cannot be like “ gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.” The “ Godhead” includes God the Creator, Christ the Savior, and the Holy Spirit; these cannot be represented by any material thing. 30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked;—“ The times” ; that is, before a revelation of God was given through Christ; this was a period of “ ignorance,” “ agnoias.” The past his¬tory of the heathen world was a history of idolatry, involving the grossest ignorance of God, and of all that was truly good. These Athenians confessed their ignorance by their inscription of an altar to “ An Unknown God.” These long times of heathen ignorance God overlooked, passed over, “ winked at” ; the time has now come when he will not overlook such ignorance, but “ commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent.” Things have changed now since Christ has come with a full knowledge of God and has revealed God’ s will to man. The command to repent implies their guilt of sin in their idolatry. The universal duty of repentance Paul enforces by the consideration of the judgment. All have sinned and all must repent; this is true not only of the Athenians, but of all men in every generation. 31 inasmuch as he hath appointed a day—This day of judgment had been appointed long ago, but through Christ it has been made known with greater clearness. All who know Christ now know that God has raised him from the dead; by his resurrection all are to know that they are to be judged by him. Paul’ s argument has advanced through different stages; he has spoken first of God as the Creator of the world and of man; then he argued that man should exalt God above all things that he has made; this should lead them to seek after him. Now the days of God’ s revelation through nature are at an end, and he has spoken through his Son whom he raised from the dead, to prove that he was the Son of God. Now through him God will judge the world; hence, all men should prepare themselves for the judgment by repentance. 32-33 Now when they heard of the resurrection—It may be that these Athenians who had brought Paul to the Areopagus to hear him stopped his speech and would let him proceed no further. Neither party among his hearers would have any sympathy with the doctrine of the resurrection and the final judgment. “ Some mocked” just as did some men on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:13.) The Epicureans believed that this life was all there was to life; the Stoic teachers taught that all would finally be absorbed in the Godhead; hence, they would not believe in the resurrection from the dead. It seems most likely that the Epicureans would be the ones who mocked Paul, and perhaps it was these “ others” who said; “ We will hear thee concerning this yet again.” This reminds one of Felix’ s decision. (Acts 24 Acts 25.) Paul “ went out from among them.” This shows that he was not on trial nor under any judicial restraint. He had presented them the truth of God; they had understood him; he had nothing more to offer them; hence, he left them to seek others more favorably inclined to hear the truth. 34 But certain men clave unto him,—There were three classes among Paul’ s hearers; (1) the Epicureans who mocked the truth; (2) those who procrastinated and promised to hear him again; (3) those who believed him. Among those who believed was “ Dionysius the Areopagite.” There were several men and at least one woman of position who accepted his teaching. Dionysius was a member of the great Athenian Council; his position, influence, and learning caused his name to be mentioned here. It is thought that Dionysius had some supervision of the entire public administration. The woman who believed was named “ Damaris.” We are not told for what she was noted; she must have been a woman of distinction and power since her name is given. Tradition has it that a church was founded here later, and the Parthenon became a Christian temple. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 17Acts 17:1. Luke now drops the pronoun of the first person, in which he has spoken of the apostolic company since they left Troas, and resumes the third person, which shows that he remained in Philippi after the departure of Paul and Silas. He also speaks of the these two brethren as if they constituted the whole company, until they are about to leave Berea, when Timothy is again mentioned. This leads to the presumption that Timothy remained with Luke, to still further instruct and organize the infant congregation in Philippi. Leaving the cause thus guarded behind them, Paul and Silas seek another field of labor. (1) “And having passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they went into Thessalonica, where was the synagogue of the Jews.” The distance from Philippi to Amphipolis was thirty-three miles; from Amphipolis to Apollonia, thirty miles; and from Apollonia to Thessalonica, thirty-seven miles; making just one hundred miles to the next city which the apostles undertook to evangelize. The whole of this distance was over one of those celebrated military roads built by the Romans, and elegantly paved with flag-stones. At Philippi there was no synagogue, and the swift passage of Paul and Silas through Amphipolis and Apollonia indicates that there was none in either of those cities; hence the synagogue in Thessalonica was the only one in a large district of the country, for which reason it is styled “the synagogue of the Jews.” The existence of a synagogue in a Gentile city was always an indication of a considerable Jewish population. Thessalonica, on account of its commercial importance, was then, and continues to be, under its modern name Salonica, a great resort for Jews. It was a knowledge of this fact, no doubt, which hastened Paul to this city, anticipating, through the synagogue, a more favorable introduction to the people than he had enjoyed at Philippi. Acts 17:2-3. (2) “And according to Paul's custom, he went in to them, and for three Sabbath days disputed with from the Scriptures, (3) opening them, and setting forth that it was necessary that the Christ should suffer, and arise from the dead, and that this Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” This was certainly a well-chosen course of argument. One of the chief objections which the Jews urged against Jesus during his life was his humble and unpretending position in society, which was inconsistent, in their estimation, with his claims to the Messiahship. And since his resurrection, the preaching of the Christ as crucified was, to the mass of the Jews, a scandal, because it appeared an impeachment of the prophets to proclaim the despised and crucified Jesus as the glorious Messiah whose coming they had predicted. But Paul begins his argument with the Thessalonian Jews, by showing that the writings of the prophets themselves made it necessary that the Messiah “ should suffer and arise from the dead.” Having demonstrated this proposition, it was an easy task to show that “ this Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” It was well known that he had suffered death, and Paul had abundant means of proving that he had risen again. This proof was not confined to his own testimony, as an eye-witness of his glory, though we may well suppose that he made use of this, as he did on subsequent occasions. But he gave ocular demonstration of the living and divine power of Jesus, by working miracles in his name. This we learn from his first epistle to the Church in this city, in which he says: “ Our gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance; as you know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.” The power of the Holy Spirit, working miracles before them, gave an assurance of the resurrection and glory of him in whose name they were wrought, which the “ word only” of all the men on earth could not give. Without such attestation, the word of man in reference to the affairs of heaven has no claim upon our confidence; but with it, it has a power which can not be resisted without resisting God. This course of argument and proof occupied three successive Sabbaths. During the intervening weeks the two brethren carefully avoided every thing which might raise a suspicion that they were governed by selfish motives. They asked no man in the city for even their daily bread. They received some contributions to their necessities from the brethren in Philippi, but the amount was so scanty as to still leave them under the necessity of “ laboring night and day.” Acts 17:4. The effect of arguments and demonstrations so conclusive, accompanied by a private life so irreproachable, was quite decisive. (4) “Some of them believed, and adhered to Paul and Silas; of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.” In this description the parties are distributed with great exactness. The expression “ some of them” refers to the Jews, and indicates but a small number. Of the “ devout Greeks,” who were such Gentiles as had learned to worship God according to Jewish example, there was a “ great multitude,” and not a few of the “ chief women,” who were also Gentiles. The great majority of the converts, therefore, were Gentiles; and Paul afterward addresses them as such, saying, “ You turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God.” Acts 17:5-9. Such a movement among the devout Gentiles, whose presence at the synagogue worship was a source of pride to the Jews, was exceedingly mortifying to those Jews who obstinately remained in unbelief. Their number and popular influence in Thessalonica enabled them to give serious trouble to Paul and Silas. (5) “But the unbelieving Jews, being full of zeal, collected certain wicked men of the idle class, and raising a mob, set the city in an uproar. And rushing to the house of Jason, they sought to bring them out to the people. (6) But not finding them, they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the city rulers, crying out, These men, who have turned the world upside down, have come hither also; (7) whom Jason has received; and they are all acting contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there is another king, Jesus. (8) And they troubled the people and the city rulers, when they heard these things; (9) and having taken security of Jason and the others, they released them.” In the accusation preferred by the Jews there were two specifications, each one of which had some truth in it. Nearly everywhere that Paul and Silas had preached, there had been some public disturbance, which was in some way attributable to their preaching. But their accusers were at fault in throwing the censure on the wrong party. The fact that angry excitement follows the preaching of a certain man, or set of men, is no proof, either in that day or this, that the preaching is improper, either in matter or manner. When men are willing to receive the truth, and to reject all error, the preaching of the gospel can have none but peaceful and happy effects. But otherwise, it still brings “ not peace, but a sword,” and is the “ savor of death unto death.” The apostolic method was to fearlessly preach the truth, and leave the consequences with God and the people. The other specification, that the brethren acted contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there was another king, Jesus, shows that Paul, while opposing the Jewish idea that the Messiah was to be an earthly prince had not failed to represent him as a king. He represented him, indeed, as the “ King of kings, and Lord or lords.” But the accusation contained a willful perversion of his language; for these Jews knew very well, as their predecessors before the bar of Pilate knew, that Jesus claimed to be no rival of Cæsar. If he had, they would have been better pleased with him than they were. One reason why the Gentiles and city rulers were so readily excited by this accusation was the fact that the Jews had then but recently been banished from Rome, as we learn from a statement below in reference to Priscilla and Aquila. The unbelieving Jews in Thessalonica, anxious to prove their own loyalty, adroitly directed public odium toward the Christian Jews, as the real disturbers of the public peace, and enemies of Cæsar. Acts 17:10. Such was the state of feeling in the city that Paul and Silas saw no prospect of accomplishing good by further efforts, while the attempt would have been hazardous to the lives of brethren. (10) “Then the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night, to Berea; who, when they arrived, went into the synagogue of the Jews.” This city lies about sixty miles south-west of Thessalonica. It contains, at the present day, a population of fifteen or twenty thousand, and was, doubtless, still more populous then. Here again the apostles find a synagogue, and make it the starting point of their labors. Acts 17:11. We have now, at last, the pleasure of seeing one Jewish community listen to the truth and examine it like rational beings. (11) “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” Their conduct can not be too highly commended, nor too closely imitated. The great sin of the Jews was a refusal to examine, candidly and patiently, the claims of the gospel. Having fallen into error by their traditions, they resisted, with passion and uproar, every effort that was made to give them additional light, or to expose their errors. Their folly has been constantly re-enacted by religious partisans of subsequent ages, so that the progress of truth, since the dark ages of papal superstition, has been hedged up, at every onward movement, by men who conceived that they were doing God service in keeping his truth from the people. If such men live and die in the neglect of any duty, their ignorance of it will be so far from excusing them that it will constitute one of their chief sins, and secure to them more certain and more severe condemnation. There is no greater insult to the majesty of heaven than to stop our ears when God speaks, or to close our eyes against the light which he causes to shine around us. The cause of Christ, as it stands professed in the world, will never cease to be disgraced by such exhibitions of sin and folly, until all who pretend to be disciples adopt the course pursued by these Jews of Berea; search the Scriptures, upon the presentation of every thing claiming to be God's truth, and “ see whether these things are so.” Unless the word of God can mislead us, to follow implicitly where it leads can never be unacceptable to its Author. Acts 17:12. If the claims of Jesus are false, an honest and thorough investigation of them is the best way to prove them so. If they are true, such an investigation will be certain to convince us and to bless us. With the Bereans, the logical result of a daily investigation is stated thus: (12) “Therefore, many of them, and not a few of the honorable men and women who were Greeks, believed.” It was not here, as in Thessalonica, that “some of them” and “ a great multitude of Greeks” believed; but it was “many of them,” and “ not a few of the Greeks.” That they believed, is distinctly attributed to the fact that they “ searched the Scriptures;” showing again, that faith is produced by the word of God. Acts 17:13-14. There seemed to be no serious obstacle to the gospel in Berea, and the disciples may have begun to flatter themselves with the hope that the whole city would turn to the Lord, when an unexpected enemy sprung upon them from the rear. (13) “But when the Jews of Thessalonica knew that the word of God was preached by Paul in Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. (14) Then the brethren immediately sent Paul away, to go as if to the sea; but Silas and Timothy remained there.” There was always sufficient material for a mob, in a the rude heathen population of a city as large as Berea, and there was always sufficient appearance of antagonism between the gospel as preached by Paul, and the laws and customs of the heathen, to enable designing men to excite the masses against it. Hence, the easy success of these embittered enemies from Thessalonica, who, in addition to other considerations, could ask if Bereans would tolerate men who had been compelled to fly by night from Thessalonica. The statement that the brethren sent Paul away to “ go as if to the sea,” certainly implies some disguise of his real purpose. The only supposition answerable to the phraseology employed is, that he started in the direction of the sea, and then turned, so as to pursue the land route to Athens, which was the next field of labor. Mr. Howson, who insists that he went by sea, does not display his usual ability in arguing the question. Paul once traveled from Corinth to Berea by land, and why not now from Berea through Athens to Corinth? The fact that it was the more tedious and less usual route, being two hundred and fifty miles overland, is a good reason why he should have chosen it the more certainly to elude pursuit. Whether by land or by sea, the apostle now leave Macedonia, and starts out for another province of ancient Greece. He has planted Churches in three important cities of Macedonia. Of these, Thessalonica occupied the central position, with Philippi one hundred miles to the north-east, and Berea sixty miles to the south-west. Each of these becomes a radiating center, from which the light of truth might shine into the surrounding darkness. We have the testimony of Paul himself, that from at least one of them the light shone with great intensity. He writes to the Thessalonians: “ From you has sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God is spread abroad, so that we have no need to say any thing.” There was no need of Paul's voice at any more than central points, when he could leave behind him congregations such as this. No doubt much of their zeal and fidelity were owing to the fostering care of such men as Silas and Timothy, and Luke, whom the apostle occasionally left behind him. Acts 17:15-17. (15) “Now they who conducted Paul led him to Athens; and having received a commandment to Silas and Timothy that they should come to him as quickly as possible, they departed. (16) And while he was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit was roused within him, when he saw the city given to idolatry. (17) Therefore, he disputed in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market-place daily with those who happened to be there.” In the ancient world there were two distinct species of civilization, both of which had reached their highest excellence in the days of the apostles. One was the result of human philosophy; the other, of a divine revelation. The chief center of the former was the city of Athens; of the latter, the city of Jerusalem. If we compare them, either as respects the moral character of the people brought respectively under their influence, or with reference to their preparation for a perfect religion, we shall find the advantage in favor of the latter. Fifteen hundred years before, God had placed the Jews under the influence of revelation, and left the other nations of the earth to “ walk in their own ways.” By a severe discipline, continued through many centuries, the former had been elevated above the idolatry in which they were sunk at the beginning, and which still prevailed over all other nations. They presented, therefore, a degree of purity in private morals which stands unrivaled in ancient history previous to the advent of Christ. On the other hand, the most elegant of the heathen nations were exhibiting, in their social life, a complete exhaustion of the catalogue of base and beastly things of which men and women could be guilty. In Athens, where flourished the most profound philosophy, the most glowing eloquence, the most fervid poetry, and the most refined art which the world has ever seen, there was the most complete and studied abandonment of every vice which passion could prompt or imagination invent. The contrast in reference to the preparation of the two peoples to receive the gospel of Christ is equally striking. In the center of Jewish civilization the gospel had now been preached, and many thousands had embraced it. It had spread rapidly through the surrounding country; and even in distant lands, wherever there was a Jewish synagogue, with a company of Gentiles, who, by Jewish influence, had been rescued from the degradation of their kindred, it had been gladly received by thousands of devout men and honorable women. But nowhere had its triumphs penetrated far into the benighted masses outside of Jewish influence. The struggle now about to take place in the city of Athens is to demonstrate still further, by contrast, how valuable “ a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ” had been the law and the prophets. Walking along the streets of a city whose fame had been familiar to him from childhood, and seeing, in the temples and statues on every hand, and the constant processions of people going to and from the places of worship, evidence that “ the city was given to idolatry;” though a lonely stranger, who might have been awed into silence by the magnificence around him, Paul felt his soul aroused to make one mighty struggle for the triumph, even here, of the humble gospel which he preached. His first effort, as usual, was in the Jewish synagogue. But there seem to have been none among the Jews or devout Gentiles there to receive the truth. The pride of human philosophy, and the debasement of refined idolatry had overpowered the influence of the law and the prophets, so that he fails of his usual success. He does not, however, despair. Having access to no other formal assembly, he goes upon the streets, and places of public concourse, and discourse to “ to those who happened to be there.” Acts 17:18. By efforts so persistent he succeeded in attracting some attention from the idle throng, but it was of a character, at first, not very flattering. (18) “The certain of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him, and some said, What will this babbler say? And others, He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign demons; because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.” The persistency with which he sought the attention of every one he met suggested the epithet “babbler,” and the prominence in his arguments of the name of Jesus and the resurrection suggested to the inattentive hearers that these were two foreign demons whom he was trying to make known to them. The two classes of philosophers whom he encountered were the antipodes of each other, and the practical philosophy of each was antipodal to the doctrine of Paul. The Stoics taught that the true philosophy of life was a total indifference to both the sorrows and pleasures of the world; while the Epicureans sought relief from life's sorrows in the studied pursuit of its pleasures. In opposition to the former, Paul taught that we should weep with those who weep, and rejoice with those who rejoice; and in opposition to the latter, that we should deny ourselves in reference to all ungodliness and worldly lusts. Acts 17:19-21. Notwithstanding the contempt with which Paul was regarded by some of his hearers, he succeeded in arresting the serious attention of a few. (19) “And they took him and led him to the Areopagus, saying, Can we know what this new doctrine is, of which you speak? (20) For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. We wish to know, therefore, what these things mean. (21) For all the Athenians, and the strangers dwelling there, spent their time in nothing else than telling or hearing something new.” The Areopagus was a rocky eminence, ascended by a flight of stone steps cut in the solid rock, on the summit of which were seats in the open air, where the judges, called Areopagites, held court for the trial of criminals, and of grave religious questions. The informal character of the proceedings on this occasion shows that it was not this court which had summoned Paul, but that those who were interested in hearing him selected this as a suitable place for the purpose. This is further evident from the note of explanation here appended by Luke, that the Athenians and strangers dwelling there, spent their time in nothing else than telling and hearing something new. It was more from curiosity, therefore, that they desired to hear him, than because they really expected to be benefited by what they would hear. Acts 17:22-31. After persevering, but necessarily disconnected conversational efforts on the streets, Paul has now an audience assembled for the special purpose of hearing him, and may present his theme in a more formal manner. He has now an audience of Jews and proselytes, but an assembly of demon-worshipers. He can not, therefore, open the Scriptures, and begin by speaking of the long-expected Messiah. The Scriptures, and even the God who gave them, are to them, unknown. Before he can preach Jesus to them, as the Son of God, he must introduce to them a true conception of God himself. It was this consideration which made the following speech of Paul so different from all others recorded in Acts. We will first hear the whole discourse, and then examine the different parts in their connection with one another. (22) “Then Paul stood up in the midst of the Areopagus, and said: Men of Athens, I perceive that in every respect you are devout worshipers of the demons. (23) For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom, therefore, you worship without knowing him, him I announce to you. (24) The God who made the world, and all things which are in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands. (25) Neither is he served by the hands of men, as though he needed any thing, for it is he who gives to all men life and breath and all things, (26) and has made from one blood all nations of men, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, having determined their prearranged periods, and the boundaries of their habitations, (27) that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, although he is not far from each one of us. (28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.' (29) Being, then, the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Deity is similar to gold or silver, or stone graven by the art and device of man. (30) Now the times of this ignorance God has overlooked; but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, (31) because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, of which he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” The excellence of an argumentative discourse is measured by the degree of adaptation to the exact mental condition of the audience, and the conclusiveness with which every position is established. It would be difficult to conceive how this discourse could be improved in either of these particulars. The audience were worshipers of demons, or dead men deified. Nearly all their gods were supposed to have once lived on the earth. They regarded it, therefore, as an excellent trait of character to be scrupulous in all the observances of demon worship. Paul's first remark was not that they were “ too superstitious,” nor that they were “ very religious;” though both of these would have been true. But the term he employs, deisedaimonestirous, from deido to fear, and daimon a demon, means demon-fearing, or given to the worship of demons. This was the exact truth in the case, and the audience received the statement of it as a compliment. The second remark is introduced as a specification of the first: “ For, as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.” After erecting altars to all the known gods, so that a Roman satirist, said it was easier to find a god in Athens than a man, they had extended their worship even to such as might be in existence without their knowledge. No specification could have been made to more strikingly exemplify their devotions to demon worship. The commentators have suggested many hypotheses by which to account, historically, for the erection of this altar, all of which are purely conjectural. It is sufficient to know, what the text itself reveals, that its erection resulted from an extreme desire to render due worship to all the gods, both known and unknown. Having spoken in this conciliatory style, both of their worship in general, and of this altar in particular, Paul next excites their curiosity, by telling them that he came to make known to them that very God whom they had already worshiped without knowing him. They had, by this inscription, already confessed that there was, or might be a God to them unknown; hence they could not complain that he should attempt to introduce a new God to their acquaintance. They had also rendered homage to such a God while they knew him not; hence they could not consistently refuse to do so after he should be revealed to them. Thus far the course of the apostle's remarks was not only conciliatory, but calculated, and intended, to bind the audience in advance to the propositions and conclusions yet to be developed. He next introduces the God to whom he refers as the God who made the world, and all things in it, and who is Lord of both heaven and earth. That there was such a God, he assumes; but the assumption was granted by a part of his audience, the Stoics, and the Epicureans found it difficult to account to themselves for the fact that the world was made, without admitting that there was a God who made it. He endeavors to give them a just conception of this God, by presenting several points of contrast between him and the gods with whom they were familiar. The first of these is, that, unlike them, “ He does not dwell in temples made with hands.” All around the spot where he stood were temples in which the gods made their abode, and to which the people were compelled to resort in order to communicate with them. But that the God who made heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made by human hangs, he argued from the fact that he was “Lord of heaven and earth;” which implies that he could not be confined within limits so narrow. This was enough to establish his superiority to all other gods in power and majesty. The next point of contrast presented has reference to the services rendered the gods. His hearers had been in the habit of presenting meat offerings and drink offerings in the temples, under the superstitious belief that they were devoured by the gods. But Paul tells them that the unknown God “ is not served by the hands of men as though he needed any thing; for it is he who gives to all men life and breath, and all things, and has made from one blood all nations of men,” and appointed beforehand their periods, and the boundaries of their habitations. These facts demonstrate his entire independence of human ministrations, and exhibit, in a most striking manner, the dependence of men upon him. They not only sustain the point of contrast presented by Paul, but they involve an assumption of the most special providence of God. By special providence, we mean providence in reference to individual persons and things. If God gives to all men life and breath and all things, he acts with reference to each individual man, to each individual breath that each man breathes, and to each particular thing going to make up all the things which he gives them. Again, if God appoints beforehand the “periods” of the nation (by which I understand all the great eras in their history,) and the “ boundaries of their habitations,” he certainly directs the movements of individual men; for the movements of nations depend upon the movements of the individual men of whom they are composed. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 17:2. Three sabbath days. The Jews would be engaged in their regu lar occupations through the week, and on the sabbath days they would assemble to hear the reading of the Scriptures. Paul based his reasoning on things written in that very book. 3Act 17:3. Thayer defines opening as follows: "To explain, expound," and alleging is virtually the same, except that it is a somewhat closer application of the statements in the Old Testament. Paul showed these Jews that their own Scriptures set forth the doctrine that he was giving them, namely, the death and resurrection of Jesus (Psalms 16:8-10). Having proved by their own sacred writings that Jesus was to fulfill such predictions, he declared Him to be the Christ. 4Acts 17:4. Consorted means they associated with Paul and Silas because they believed their teaching. The devout Greeks were the ones religiously inclined, and chief women were the leading persons among the female sex. 5Acts 17:5. The original for lewd is defined "bad" and baser sort means the loafers around the markets. Such characters would be inclined toward the kind of service these envious Jews needed in their wicked plots. Paul and Silas were staying in the house of Jason (verse 7), but at the present time were not "at home." 6Acts 17:6. Being disappointed at not finding the preachers, they took their spite out on Jason and other brethren by forcing them before the rulers of the city. Turned the world upside down was a reference to the success accomplished by Paul's preaching. 7Acts 17:7. Whom Jason hath received was said as explanation for having him now in the presence of the rulers. Do contrary to the decree of Caesar was a false charge. Paul always taught obedience to the laws of the land, but he did not agree with the contentions of the Jews about the law of Moses. 8Acts 17:8. The rulers owed their official position to Caesar, and did not want any condition to arise that might endanger their place in the public affairs. That is why the report of the envious Jews troubled them and the people. 9Acts 17:9. Taken security denotes that they either required a deposit of money, or found some responsible person to stand good for their conduct toward the laws of the land. Such an arrangement would satisfy Caesar should he hear about the commotion in one of his provinces in Macedonia. 0Acts 17:10. When Paul was chased from one city to another he continued his work for Christ. Berea was another city of Macedonia and contained a synagogue. 1Act 17:11. Noble is from eugenes and it means of better breeding; more highly cultured. Such a character caused them to be more reasonable in their attitude toward the preaching of Paul and Silas. Instead of attacking them enviously, they investigated their claims by reading up on the subject. If the preachers made an argument based on the statements of the Old Testament, the Bereans looked into the book to see if they were telling the truth: that was fair for both speaker and hearer. 2Act 17:12. Finding that Paul was giving them the truth, many were made believers. Honorable is from which Thayer defines, "of good standing, honorable, influential, wealthy, respectable." All classes need and are offered the benefits of the Gospel, but it is well to know that it found those who accepted it among the high ranks of society as well as the lower classes. 3Act 17:13. The envy of the Jews knew no bounds, so when they heard of the work of the Guspel at Berea they pursued the preachers there. Stirred up the people means they worked up a sentiment against Paul which cut off further opportunity for his work there. 4Acts 17:14. The feeling seemed to be more sharp against Paul than against Silas and Timotheus, so that he was induced to leave for other parts leaving them for the present. 5Acts 17:15. An escort of brethren went with Paul on his sea voyage until they came to Athens, which was the chief city of Greece, the province joining Macedonia on the south. From there they returned to Berea, taking back with them an order for Silas and Timotheus to come to Paul as soon as possible. 6Acts 17:16. Paul could not wait until Silas and Timotheus came to him when he saw the conditions. Given to idolatry is rendered "full of idols" in the margin, which is correct as may be seen by other verses it this chapter. 7Acts 17:17. Therefore is not a conclusion from the preceding verse because the synagogue was a meeting place of the Jews who were not idolaters. But the people in the market were a mixed group and contained idolaters. The verse means that Paul followed his usual practice of preaching the Gospel, first in the synagogue where he could meet the Jews, then in any other place where he could find some hearers. 8Acts 17:18. Athens was the chief city of Greece and the seat of learning and civilization for that province. Hence Paul would encounter various classes of citizens whose ears were alert for any literary or philosophical subject that might be introduced. The Epicureans were a class founded by Epicurus, who taught that fleshly pleasure should be the chief purpose of man on earth. The theory of the Stoicks was almost opposite of the Epicureans, but it was based chiefly on the supposed importance of philosophy. It is easy to see why both these groups would criticize the Gospel which seeks to find true pleasure in humble devotion to the risen Lord. 9Acts 17:19. Areopagus and Mars' hill (verse 22) were names for the same place, which was the highest court in Athens in the days of the apostles. Not only were criminal cases tried in this court, but also any subject thought to affect the public welfare. 0Acts 17:20. Thus far there was nothing particularly objectionable to the Athenians in the teaching of Paul, but he had raised their curiosity by introducing a new subject, or one that was strange which means an outside or unknown (to them) matter. They told him they wished to know what it all meant. 1Act 17:21. The inspired writer throws in this verse by way of explanation of the curious inquiry of the people. Nothing was as exciting to them as the prospect of hearing something that had not been told them before. It will develop that what Paul had to offer the Athenians was new to them, but yet did not meet their demands that it must be something new along the lines of philosophy. 2Act 17:22. Paul was invited to speak before this highest court in Athens. His audience was composed of idolaters and various classes of philosophers and Greek statesmen. His introduction was not intended as a criticism but rather a friendly comment. The adverb too is not justified by the Greek original, for it does not have any separate word in the Greek at this place. It is a part of the original for superstitious, so the phrase too superstitious should be rendered "very religious." This extensive religious attitude was indicated by the presence of so many idols or altars. (See verse 16.) 3Act 17:23. Paul had not seen them engaging in their idolatrous services. Devotions is from SEBASMA which Thayer defines, "whatever is religiously honored, an object of worship." An altar was an elevated place on which to offer sacrifices. Among the places Paul saw was one that had an inscription written upon it which read to the unknown god. The occasion for such an altar is explained by Horne, Introduction, Volume 1, Page 90, as follows: "The Athenians, being afflicted with a pestilence, invited Epimenides to lustrate [purify with sacrifice] their city. The method adopted by him was, to carry several sheep to the Areo-pagus, whence they were left to wander as they pleased, under the observation of persons to attend them. As each sheep lay down, it was sacrificed on the spot to the propitious [gracious] God. By this ceremony, it is said, the deity was satisfied; but as it was still unknown what deity was gracious, an altar was erected to the unknown God on every spot where a sheep had been sacrificed." It is not known just what actually took place, but since all blessings come from the true God, if any miraculous cure was bestowed upon the community, it was through the goodness of Him; hence the Athenians ignorantly gave the credit for their great blessing to the right One, whose existence and power Paul declared unto them. These idolaters actually did worship the true God though ignorantly. (See the note at Matthew 2:2 on worship.) 4Acts 17:24. The God who made everything in the universe could not be expected to dwell (be confined) in manmade temples, and certainly not in as small and lifeless a thing as an altar of earth or stone, such as the Athenians had erected for the purpose. 5Acts 17:25. The Athenians offered their worship to God in connection with a supposed case of healing, hence Paul selected a word from their vocabulary that pertains to the art of medicine and healing. Worship in this passage is from which Thayer defines, "to heal, cure, restore to health." The word also means "to serve," but Paul used it in the first sense because the Athenians were worshiping God (unknowingly) in connection with their experience in the healing of the epidemic. Since God is the source of all the creatures of life and health, it would be foolish for such to think they could grant healing to Him through the works of their hands. 6Acts 17:26. One blood. The Lord said that the blood is the life of all flesh (Leviticus 17:14), and God is the creator of all flesh. The conclusion is that all life originated with Him, therefore it is foolish to think that he can be represented by objects made of metal or stone. Determined the times before appointed. Not that the moral conduct of man has been predetermined by the Lord regardless of his own will, for that would rule out any human responsibility. But the statement just means that the universe did not come "by chance," but was the intelligent work of God, who did set a boundary to the habitation of man which is the face of the earth. 7Acts 17:27. This restricted location for man's habitation away from the visible presence of God made it necessary that they seek the Lord. If haply, etc., is said in the sense as if it said, "with the intent that man would seek or feel after the invisible God and succeed in finding Him through the evidence shown in chapter 14:17." 8Acts 17:28. If we live in Him with all our activities of life, it follows that He is greater than any of us or anything that we can make, which is another argument against man-made images of God. Making reference to their own heathen poets was good psychology. They would be bound to accept their own authors, and finding that they taught the same things as Paul, it would incline them to think favorably of the statements of the apostle. Chief of the quotations was the one that spoke of man as the offspring of God. 9Acts 17:29. It would be inconsistent to think that living, intelligent beings like men could be the offspring of a God who was represented by objects made of stone or metal. 0Acts 17:30. Winked at is from HUPER-EIDON which Thayer defines, "to overlook, take no notice of, not attend to." The heathen in times past did not have the complete information that was to be given the whole world through the Gospel, hence God did not hold them to strict account. That leniency was to end with the period of the law of Christ, and all men were then required to come to repentance. (See 2 Peter 3:9.) 1Act 17:31. Appointed a day but not a "date." If God has predetermined just when the judgment day is come, it must be learned from some passage other than this one. It means only that God has made an appointment with the risen One to be the judge of the people of the world whenever the proper day arrives. By raising Jesus from the dead, God not only proved that He is able to manage "all things after the counsel of his own will" (Ephesians 1:11), but gave notice that all must meet the risen Jesus as the Judge. 2Act 17:32. The Athenians were interested in philosophical subjects only, as they regarded them, and the resurrection from the dead did not come under that classification in their estimation. Some of them made fun of the matter, but others were a little more polite and promised to give it their attention at some other time. 3Act 17:33. Paul did not take their promise seriously, but departed from the court and went elsewhere in the city. 4Acts 17:34. The preaching of Paul was not an entire failure as to results, for one member of the Aeropagite court became a believer, also some private persons. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 18 PAUL AT CORINTHAct_18:1-18 1 After these things he departed from Athens,—Paul left Athens and went to Corinth; this city was between forty-five and fifty miles from Athens, in a course west by a little south. Corinth was the capital of Achaia, and the chief city of this province. Corinth had been destroyed by Mummius in 146 B.C., and had been restored by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C. Much of the sculpture and fine arts that had adorned the old Corinth was destroyed. Paul visited the new Corinth. The destruction of the old Corinth was so complete that it passed into a proverb. The new Corinth soon surpassed its former state in wealth and splendor, and became a vast commercial center. The laxity of the morals of Corinth was proverbial. Paul made reference to this in his letter to the church later. (1 Corinthians 5:1 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.) Paul went into the midst of this city which had less promise, at first, than Athens, but, ultimately, far more fruitful in results. 2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila,—When Paul came to Corinth, being a Jew, he would naturally seek some companion among the Jews; he may have gone to the synagogue and met Aquila there. Luke calls him “ a certain Jew” from “ Pontus.” It is also significant to know that Paul “ found” him. The Jews had certain guilds by which they kept together whether in street or synagogue. His birth in Pontus indicates that he belonged to the dispersion of the Jews of that province (1 Peter 1:1) which lay between Bithynia and Armenia. Here we meet first with “ his wife Priscilla.” She was a prominent woman and stood high in social position so that her name is sometimes placed before that of her husband. (Verse 18; Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:19.) Some think that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians when Paul met them; others think that Paul converted them. We do not know, and no history gives any record by which we may determine. They sojourned later with Paul during his long residence at Ephesus; and once (Romans 16:3-4), Paul tells us, they “ laid down their own necks” for him. If they were Christians when Paul met them, they are the two most ancient known members of the primitive church at Rome. They had been driven from Rome because of the order which had been given by Claudius; this was about A.D. 49; Claudius had ordered the Jews to leave Rome because of the constant tumult that they instigated. Jews were unpopular in Rome; it has been estimated that there were twenty thousand Jews in Rome at that time. 3 and because he was of the same trade,—This is the first mention that we have of Paul’ s occupation or trade. Every Jewish boy was carefully taught a trade; one rabbi among the Jews said that a father had just as well teach his boy to steal as to fail to teach him a trade. Aquila was a tentmaker; this was Paul’ s trade. They had at least three things in common now— they were of the same race, being Jews; of the same trade, tentmakers; and now of the same faith, both Christians. Tentmaking was a common occupation in Paul’ s native Cilicia; these tents were made of rough goat’ s hair; goats abounded in the hill country of Cilicia. This tent cloth was generally known as “ Cilicium.” Paul alludes to the toil of his hands. (Acts 20:34.) He makes other allusions to working with his own hands to support himself and others. (1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8.) 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath,—This was Paul’ s invariable rule; he preached the gospel “ to the Jew first” and then to Gentiles. He went to the synagogue on the Sabbath because the Jews met on the Sabbath. His going into the synagogue on the Sabbath was in no sense endorsing the Jewish Sabbath as a day to be observed by Christians. On these Sabbaths Paul “ reasoned” and “ persuaded” both “ Jews and Greeks” to accept Jesus as the Messiah and Savior of the world. He convinced them by his reasoning that Jesus was the Christ, and persuaded them to accept him as such. As the “ Greeks” here are mentioned with the Jews in the synagogue, it is to be understood that they were proselytes. 5 But when Silas and Timothy came—Paul had left Silas and Timothy at Berea (Acts 17:14), and had given instruction to those who had conducted him to Athens for Silas and Timothy to come “ to him with all speed” (Acts 17:15). It seems they did not get to Athens before Paul left; hence, they came to Corinth. The coming of Silas and Timothy greatly encouraged Paul; they brought gifts from Macedonia to him which relieved him for the time being of tentmaking, so that he could give all of his time to preaching the gospel. (2 Corinthians 11:9; Philippians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 3:6.) Paul “ was constrained” to preach “ to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.” Being now free from the burden of working with his hands, Paul gave his time to preaching and convincing the Jews of the Messiahship of Jesus. “ Constrained” is from the Greek “ suneicheto” and was used once very solemnly by Christ. (Luke 12:50.) It indicates an intense divine impulse, urging to a work which would not be delayed or hindered by anything. The Authorized Version translates this as “ pressed in the spirit,” but the Revised Version gives a better translation. The meaning seems to be that he was engrossed by the word, or engrossed by the preaching of the gospel. He had been relieved of anxiety and toil by the arrival of Silas and Timothy with the gifts from Macedonia, and was now giving all of his time to preaching the word. 6 And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed,— We know not how long Paul had now been in Corinth; he had reasoned in the synagogue and persuaded his hearers to accept the Christ as their Savior. Some of them refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah and even indulged in reproachful and reviling language against Paul and the Christ. When they took this attitude Paul turned from them; he knew that he could do them no good by further reasoning and persuading them. “ He shook out his raiment,” and thus signified to the Jews his deep abhorrence of their conduct and his unwillingness to be associated with them intimately any longer. This is similar to the act of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:51), and the instruction Jesus gave his disciples (Matthew 10:14). “ Your blood be upon your own heads” ; this was not a curse, but a solemn disclaimer of responsibility. (Ezekiel 3:18 f Ezekiel 33:4 Ezekiel 33:8 f.; Acts 20:26.) The Jews had used this expression in assuming responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ. (Matthew 27:25; see also Matthew 23:35.) Paul was not responsible any further; he had preached Christ to them and they had rejected him. Now he turns to the Gentiles. 7 And he departed thence,—Paul now left the synagogue and, probably by invitation, went into the house joining the synagogue; this was owned by “ a certain man named Titus Justus.” We do not know much about this Titus. He was evidently a Roman citizen, and was not the Titus who afterwards became a companion of Paul; however, some think that he was. Paul assembled the converts to Christianity in his house and taught them there. This “ Titus Justus” “ worshipped God.” Evidently he was a proselyte; the phrase “ worshipped God” is the one that is frequently used to designate a proselyte to the Jewish worship. Paul probably continued to lodge with Aquila and Priscilla, but taught all who would come to him in the house of Titus Justus. 8 And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue,—Crispus is mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:14. Paul baptized him. (1 Corinthians 1:14.) He was distinguished as a ruler of the synagogue; there may have been more than one synagogue in Corinth as we read in verse 17 of Sosthenes, the “ ruler of the synagogue.” However, Sosthenes may have been appointed immediately after Crispus was converted. Luke sums up the results by saying that “ many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” This was the order and steps of the conversion of all. First the gospel is preached, people hear the gospel, believe it, repent of their sins, and are baptized; they are then in Christ and are called Christians. Paul baptized, in addition to Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas. However, Silas and Timothy were now assisting him, and would care for those who desired to be baptized. 9 And the Lord said unto Paul in the night by a vision,—The Lord encouraged Paul in his work. “ Be not afraid” literally means “ stop being afraid,” and go on speaking, and do not become silent. We know now why Paul should be afraid; he was threatened with danger and was becoming discouraged. Anyone discouraged needs encouragement; the Lord gave him a clear intimation of his will, either changing a purpose which was forming in Paul’ s mind, or confirming his sense of duty to remain. 10 for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee—These are the words which the Lord used to encourage Paul; he had spoken to him at night in a vision. Jesus had promised to be with those who preached his gospel. (Matthew 28:20.) Here he is promised that no man should harm him; this seems to imply that someone was seeking or threatening to do Paul harm. The Lord encourages him by saying that no one should so harm him. Another reason why he should continue to preach in Corinth was that “ I have much people in this city.” In a prospective sense there were many in Corinth who would obey the gospel if they had opportunity. They could become the people of God by hearing, believing, repenting of their sins, and being baptized into Christ. There were much people, not yet saved, but who would accept the gospel when they heard it. This should have been encouragement enough for Paul. 11 And he dwelt there a year and six months,—We do not know how much time Paul spent in Corinth before this encouragement was given to him. Some think that he was in Corinth about two years in all; his work extended beyond the city (2 Corinthians 11:10), and there was a church in Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). We cannot be certain as to the length of his stay in Corinth, as verse 18 speaks of his remaining there “ yet many days,” which may be added to the “ year and six months” of this verse. He taught “ a year and six months” undisturbed, until Gallio was appointed “ proconsul” ; then trouble began, but Gallio refused to be disturbed with the charge. 12-13 But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia,—This Gallio was a brother of Seneca, who was a Stoic teacher and tutor of Nero. He was a man of culture and refinement. Seneca said of him: “ No one of mortals is so pleasant to one person as he is to all.” The Jews “ with one accord rose up against Paul.” They made an insurrection against Paul; they seized him and “ brought him before the judgment-seat.” It was the custom of the provincial governors of the Roman Empire to hold their courts on certain days of the week; these were commonly held in the market place. The “ judgment-seat” was of two kinds: (1) fixed in some public place; or (2) movable and taken about by the magistrate, to be set up in whatever spot he might designate. They preferred the charge against Paul that he persuaded “ men to worship God contrary to the law.” They did not mean by this that Paul was persuading people to worship God “ contrary to the law” of Moses; they meant the Roman law, or the law of the province of Achaia. This is obvious since they brought Paul before Gallio and preferred the charge; he would have nothing to do about judging disputes contrary to the law of Moses. Their contention was that though Jews had been banished from Rome as a measure of policy, Judaism as such was still a legal religion to be tolerated and recognized by the Roman authority. Their charge was that he was preaching a new religion that was not recognized by the laws of Rome. 14 But when Paul was about to open his mouth,—Paul was ready to answer the charge, but before he could speak, Gallio ended the whole matter. It was not necessary for Paul to speak. The proconsul could hardly have resided in Achaia for eighteen months without hearing of the new covenant that Paul was promoting; he knew the Jews and probably knew something about Paul. In any case, from his standpoint, it was not a matter to be brought into his court. He said that if it was a matter of “ wrong or of wicked villany” then he would attend to the matter and hear their accusation. If Paul had been guilty of doing wrong to anyone, or if he had violated any of the laws of the province, Gallio would hear them. 15 but if they are questions about words and names—Cases of injustice and open violence came properly under the authority of Gallio’ s court, but if the Jews were disturbed about “ questions” on “ words and names” of their own law, he had no interest in such. He was not interested in a parcel of questions about words and names; he did not care whether “ Jesus” should also be called “ Christ” or “ Messiah” ; Gallio knew that the Jews split hairs over words and names. He was not inclined to sit in judgment and settle disputes that arose among the Jews over their religious ritual. They should settle their own disputes; “ look to it yourselves” ; he turned the matter over to them with the statement that he was not willing to occupy his time with such small matters. 16-17 And he drove them from the judgment-seat.—The Jews were confused at his abrupt dismissal of the charge that they brought against Paul. He drove them from his judgment seat; the words here imply a magisterial act; the order was given to his officers to clear the court, and the Jews who did not immediately retreat were exposed to the ignominy of blows from the officers. The Greeks then “ laid hold on Sosthenes,” who was the “ ruler of the synagogue.” They beat him in the presence of Gallio, and Gallio gave no attention to it. Had Paul been violating any of the Roman laws he would have condemned him. He looked upon the affair as being one of their own quarrels about some phase of their religion, and he let them have their way about it. The beating of Sosthenes was a small detail that belonged to the police court, and not for the proconsul’ s judgment. Sosthenes was, on this occasion, the chief object of their rage and ill-treatment; some think that this is the Sosthenes mentioned by Paul as one of his companions. (1 Corinthians 1:1.) It has been a question of much dispute as to why he was beaten by the Greeks; some have speculated in regard to this that Sosthenes, being the leader, was defeated in his case before Gallio, and hence needed to be punished for bringing such trivial charges. Some claim that it is not clear as to who beat Sosthenes; whether it was the infuriated Jews or whether the Gentiles; however, it seems clear that the Gentiles so punished Sosthenes. 18 And Paul, having tarried after this—It is not certain whether “ tarried after this yet many days” means that Paul tarried longer than the “ year and six months,” as mentioned in verse 11, or that this time is included in the “ year and six months.” However, the context seems to indicate that it was in addition to the time mentioned in verse 11. Paul was vindicated; there was no reason for haste in leaving, and he usually left after such a crisis was past. He took his leave of the church and “ sailed thence for Syria.” Antioch in Syria was his destination; he embarked and sailed first to Ephesus. He took Priscilla and Aquila with him. Cenchreae was a seaport of Corinth, and about ten miles southeast from Corinth. Priscilla here, as in Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:19, is named first on account of the prominent part she took in the church. A church had been planted at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1) probably by Paul during his residence at Corinth. There is some dispute about whether it was Aquila or Paul who had the vow and had “ shorn his head in Cenchreae.” Grotius, Wieseler, Meyer, Howson, and others refer it to Aquila. They claim that this clause is parenthetic and belongs to Aquila. The participle is masculine; hence, cannot refer to Priscilla. Since “ Priscilla and Aquila” are joined, and since the clause, “ having shorn his head in Cenchreae,” is parenthetical, it cannot refer to Aquila. Hence, we conclude that it was Paul who had the vow and that he had shorn his head in Cenchreae. The other participles in this verse refer to Paul without any doubt; hence, we are justified in saying that it refers to Paul. We do not know what vow Paul had taken nor why he had made a vow; hence, we do not know why this reference to the vow. Paul, as a Jew, kept up his observance of the ceremonial law for some instances, but refused to impose it upon the Gentiles. PAUL RETURNS TO ANTIOCH IN SYRIAAct_18:19-22 19 And they came to Ephesus,—Ephesus was nearly due east from Cenchreae across the Aegean Sea; it could have been reached in two or three days under favorable sailing. Ephesus was the capital of the province of Asia; it was situated on the western shore of Asia Minor. Paul left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus. Before leaving Ephesus Paul entered into the synagogue and “ reasoned with the Jews.” “ Reasoned” seems to be Luke’ s fa¬vorite word for Paul’ s discourses in the synagogue. (Acts 17:2 Acts 17:17 Acts 18:4 Acts 19:8-9.) 20-21 And when they asked him to abide—Frequently Paul has been run out of the synagogue by the Jews, but this is one time that he was asked “ to abide a longer time,” but he did not think it necessary to do so. He gave as his reason for not remaining, “ I will return again unto you if God will,” and set sail from Ephesus on his journey to Antioch. Paul was encouraged enough to make promise to return to them, “ if the Lord will.” (James 4:13-15.) “ If the Lord will” was a common expression among the early Christians. (Romans 1:10 Romans 15:32; 1 Corinthians 4:19 1 Corinthians 16:7; Hebrews 6:3.) Paul did return and Luke hastens to record the facts and results. (Acts 19:1.) It would require about a month to sail from Ephesus to Caesarea. In chapters 20 and 21 it is a seven weeks’ voyage; however, sojourns were made on the way. 22 And when he had landed at Caesarea,—Caesarea was on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea; it was on the western border of the land of Canaan or Palestine. It was the Roman cap¬ital of Judea. Paul went from Caesarea “ up” to Jerusalem and there “ saluted the church,” and then went “ down” to Antioch. Geographically speaking, this was correct; the location of Jerusalem was much higher in elevation than Antioch in Syria. Paul saluted “ the church” ; this shows that the church at Jerusalem was still considered the “ mother church” at the time Luke wrote. This was Paul’ s fourth visit to the church in Jerusalem after his conversion. When he came to Antioch, his second missionary journey was terminated. It had occupied about three years; during this time he had traveled through large districts of Asia Minor, visited the European cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth; he had returned by way of Ephesus and the sea to Caesarea, Jerusalem, and to Antioch. The Jews had violently resisted him in nearly every place except Athens and Ephesus; however, churches were organized not only in Galatia, but also in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth; perhaps churches were established in other places. PAUL’ S THIRD JOURNEYAct_18:23 to Acts 21:16 , AQUILA, AND APOLLOS AT EPHESUSAct_18:23-28 23 And having spent some time there,—Paul now remained at Antioch for some time; we cannot tell how long he sojourned there. It was now probably A.D. 54, and Paul begins his third great missionary journey. He left Antioch and probably went first to Tarsus; then he went in a northwest direction through Galatia, and then turning southwest journeyed through Phrygia and on to Ephesus. Probably this was the last time that Paul ever saw Antioch. Some place the visit of Peter to Antioch, to which Paul re¬fers in Galatians 2:11ff., at this time. Paul begins his third journey without a Barnabas or a Silas to help him. 24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos,—Apollos was born in Alexandria, which was a celebrated city and seaport of Egypt on the Mediterranean Sea, twelve miles from the mouth of the Nile River. It was named Alexandria in honor of Alexander the Great, who founded it, 332 B.C. Many Jews had gone to Alexan¬dria, as it was a famous place of learning. The Alexandrian library was the greatest in the world. Apollos is described as “ an eloquent man” ; that is, a learned man. The Greek word “ logios” can mean either a man of words or a man of ideas; Apollos was probably both learned and eloquent. He was especially “ mighty in the scriptures.” He knew well the Old Testament. Later Paul wrote that he planted and Apollos watered. (1 Corinthians 3:6.) Paul found Apollos at Ephesus on this visit. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord;— This is the same term used in Luke 1:4. Apollos was instructed before he came to Ephesus. He had received only the instruction as prepared by John the Baptist. (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3.) He had been taught by John, or by some of John’ s disciples, as to the Messiahship of Christ, and knew some of the facts of his life, doctrines, and miracles. He may not have heard of the death, burial, and resurrection and ascension of Christ, neither did he know about the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. He was zealous and “ taught accurately the things concerning Jesus” so far as he knew; however, he knew only the baptism of John. He did not know of the baptism in water into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. John’ s baptism was a “ baptism of repentance.” (Mark 1:4; Acts 13:24 Acts 19:4.) John knew and preached the coming of the Messiah, and had borne testimony that Jesus was the Messiah. 26 and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue.—He entered the synagogue and taught boldly what he knew of the Christ. He expounded to the Jews what he knew. Priscilla and Aquila, who had accompanied Paul on his return from Cenchreae to Ephesus, heard Apollos and saw that he knew so little about the Christ. “ They took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately.” They taught Apollos the gospel as they had learned it from Paul. We are to understand that they showed him that Christ had fulfilled the prophecies, and had done just what John the Baptist predicted that he would do. Apollos was an apt student and learned rapidly; he wanted to know the full truth, and Aquila and Priscilla so taught him. Aquila and Priscilla “ took him unto them,” which means that they took him to their home and into their hearts. 27 And when he was minded to pass over into Achaia,—Apollos was at Ephesus, which was on the eastern coast of the Aegean Sea; Achaia was due west of Ephesus; it was the province south of Macedonia; Achaia and Macedonia composed Greece. The brethren at Ephesus encouraged Apollos and “ wrote to the disciples to receive him.” Since Apollos wanted to go into Achaia, the brethren wrote a letter of introduction to the disciples in Cor¬inth to receive him. Paul referred to this letter later (2 Corinthians 3:1), and pointed out that he himself needed no such letter of com¬mendation. Priscilla and Aquila were well known in Corinth, and their approval would carry much weight. Apollos was very useful in Achaia, for he “ helped them much” who had become Christians. It was by the grace of God that they had learned of Jesus Christ and had become Christians. 28 for he powerfully confuted the Jews,—Apollos was al¬ready “ an eloquent man” and “ mighty in the scriptures,” and had now been taught “ the way of God more accurately,” so he was powerful in arguing with the Jews about the Christ. To confute means to contest in rivalry; Apollos entered into a public debate with the Jews showing that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Apollos was so popular in Corinth that later a party arose in the church with the motto: “ I am of Apollos.” (1 Corinthians 3:4.) We lose sight of Apollos here and get a last glimpse of him in Titus 3:13. He is in company with Zenas, the lawyer. It seems that he had been laboring at Crete, and there also had gathered around him a distinct company of disciples. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 18Acts 18:1. Having met with so little encouragement in the literary capital of Greece, the apostle next resorts to its chief commercial emporium. (1) “After these things Paul departed from Athens, and went to Corinth.” This city was situated on the isthmus which connects the Peloponnesus with Attica. Through the Saronic Gulf and Ægean Sea on the east, it had direct communication with all the great Asiatic cities, and with Rome and the west through the Gulf of Corinth and the Adriatic. It was, therefore, a place of great commercial advantages; and, at the time of Paul's visit, was the chief city of all Greece. Its advantages for trade had attracted the large Jewish population which the apostle found there. Acts 18:2-3. Paul entered this large city a stranger, alone, and penniless. What little means he had brought with him from Macedonia was exhausted, and his first attention was directed to the supply of his daily wants. He knew what it was to suffer “ hunger and thirst;” but he had been taught to look to heaven and pray, “ Give us this day our daily bread.” A kind Providence found him lodging and means of livelihood. (2) “And having found a certain Jews named Aquila, born in Pontus, and Priscilla his wife, lately come from Italy because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome, he went to them. (3) and because he was of the same trade, he remained with them, and worked; for they were tent-makers by trade.” To be thus under the necessity of laboring as a journeyman tent-maker was certainly a most discouraging condition for one about to evangelize a proud and opulent city. From the calm and unimpassioned style in which Luke proceeds with the narrative, we might imagine that Paul's feelings were callous to the influence of such circumstances. But his own pen, which often reveals emotions that were not known to Luke, gives a far different representation of his feelings. Writing to the Corinthians after long years had passed away, and all transient emotions had been forgotten, he says, “ I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.” Though keenly sensitive to all the distressing influences which surrounded him, he had, withal, so strong confidence in the power of truth, and so gloried in the very humility of the gospel, that he never despaired. The companionship of two such spirits as Aquila and Priscilla afterward proved to be, was, doubtless, a source of great encouragement to him. Acts 18:4-5. Notwithstanding all the discouragements of his situation, he devoted the Sabbaths, and whatever portion of the week his manual labor would permit, to the great work. (4) “But he discoursed every Sabbath in the synagogue, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. (5) And when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.” It will be recollected by the reader, that Silas and Timothy, whose arrival is here mentioned, had tarried in Berea, and that Paul had sent back word to them, by the brethren who conducted him to Athens, to rejoin him as soon as possible. He had also “ waited for them in Athens,” before his speech in the Areopagus. We would suppose, from Luke's narrative, that they failed to overtake him there, and now first rejoined him in Corinth. But Paul supplies an incident in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which corrects this supposition. He says: “ When we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left alone in Athens, and sent Timothy to establish you and to comfort you concerning your faith.” This shows that Timothy, at least, had actually rejoined him in Athens, and had been sent back to learn the condition of the congregation in Thessalonica. His present arrival in Corinth, therefore, was not from his original stay in Berea; but from a recent visit to Thessalonica. Probably Silas had remained till now in Berea. The arrival of Silas and Timothy brings us to a new period in the life of Paul, the period of his letter-writing. We have already made some use of his epistles to throw light upon the somewhat elliptical narrative before us; but we shall henceforth have them as cotemporary documents, and will be able to fill up from them many blanks in Paul's personal history. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Corinth soon after the arrival of Timothy, as is proved by the concurrence of the two facts, that, on the return of Silas and Timothy, as seen in the text, just quoted, they found Paul in Corinth, and that, in the epistle itself, Paul speaks of their arrival as having just taken place at the time of writing. Several statements in this epistle throw additional light upon the state of Paul's feelings during his first labors in Corinth. He was not only “ pressed in spirit,” as stated by Luke, “ in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling,” as he himself says to the Corinthians but he was racked with uncontrollable anxiety concerning the brethren in Thessalonica, for whom he would have been willing to sacrifice his own life, and who were now suffering the severest persecution. The good report brought from them by Silas and Timothy gave him much joy, but it was joy in the midst of distress. He says: “ When Timothy came to us from you, and brought us good tidings of your faith and love, and that you have remembrance of us always, desiring greatly to see us, as we also to see you, therefore, brethren, we were comforted over you in all our affliction and distress by your faith: for now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord.” It was, therefore, with a zeal newly kindled from almost utter despair, by their good report from Thessalonica and the arrival of his fellow-laborers, that he now so “ earnestly testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.” Acts 18:6-7. The increase of Paul's earnestness was responded to by an increased virulence in the opposition of the unbelieving Jews. (6) “But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said to them, Your blood be upon your own head; I am clean. Henceforth I will go to the Gentiles. (7) And he departed thence, and went into the house of a man named Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was adjacent to the synagogue.” When they began to resist his preaching with passion and violent imprecations, he could no longer hope to do them good, and to press the subject further upon them would be to cast pearls before swine. Upon leaving the synagogue, he was not driven into the streets for a meeting-place; but, as was usually the case, while he was urging, with so little success, the claims of Jesus upon the Jews, at least one Gentile, who had learned to worship the true God, heard him more favorably, and offered him the use of his private dwelling, which stood close by. Justus was not yet a disciple, but, as suits the meaning of his name, he was disposed to see justice done to the persecuted apostle. Acts 18:8. Although he left the synagogue in apparent discomfiture, he was not without fruits of his labors there. (8) “But Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were immersed.” It was very seldom that men of high position in the Jewish synagogues were induced to obey the gospel. It is greatly to the credit of Crispus, therefore, that he was among the first in Corinth to take this position, and this, too, at the moment when the opposition and blasphemy of the other Jews were most intense. He must have been a man of great independence of spirit and goodness of heart— the right kind of a man to form the nucleus for a congregation of disciples. The conversion of these Corinthians is not detailed so fully as that of the eunuch, of Saul, or of Cornelius, yet enough is said to show that it was essentially the same process. “ Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were immersed.” They heard what Paul preached, “ that Jesus is the Christ.” This, then, is what they believed. That they repented of their sins is implied in the fact that they turned to the Lord by being immersed. To hear the gospel preached, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and to be immersed, was the entire process of their conversion, briefly expressed. Acts 18:9-10. Although his success, when about leaving the synagogue must have been a source of some comfort to Paul, an incident occurred just at this period, which shows that he was far from being relieved, as yet, from the “ weakness and fear, and much trembling,” which had oppressed him. (9) “Then the Lord said to Paul in a vision by night, Be not afraid; but speak, and be not silent; (10) for I am with you, and no man shall assail you to hurt you. For I have many people in this city.” The Lord never appeared by a vision to comfort his servants, except when they needed comfort. The words “ Be not afraid” imply that he was alarmed, and the assurance that no one should hurt him implies that his alarm had reference to his personal safety. His very success had, doubtless, fired his opponents to fiercer opposition, and his recent sufferings at Philippi seemed about to be repeated. But, at the darkest hour of his night of sorrow, the light of hope suddenly dawned upon him, and he was strengthened with the assurance that many in the city would yet obey the Lord. In the declaration, “ I have many people in this city,” the Lord called persons who were then unbelievers, and perhaps idolaters, his people. This would accord with the Calvinistic idea that God's people are a certain definite number whom he has selected, many of whom are yet unconverted. But it can not prove this doctrine, because it admits of rational explanation upon another hypothesis. He knew that these people would yet believe and obey the gospel, and he could, therefore, with all propriety of speech, call them his by anticipation. Such is no doubt the true idea. An expression similar to this occurs in the eighteenth chapter of Revelations, where the angel, announcing the downfall of the mystic Babylon, cries: “ Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.” It has been argued, from this, that God has a people in the apostasy, who are already accepted as his own. But the language, like the statement, “ I have many people in this city,” may be used simply in anticipation. The most that can be argued from it, is that he knew a people would come out of Babylon whom he could accept, and that he called them his people on account of that fact. Acts 18:11. Under the assurance given by the Lord in the vision, Paul was encouraged to continue his labors. (11) “Then he continued there a year and six months, teaching among them the word of God.” Instead of the more usual expression, “preaching the word of God,” we have here “teaching the word of God.” This change of phraseology is not without a purpose. It indicates that Paul's labor, during this period, consisted not so much in proclaiming the great facts of the gospel, as in teaching his hearers the practical precepts of the Word. He was executing the latter part of the commission as recorded by Matthew: “ Teaching them to observe and do all that I have commanded you.” Acts 18:12-13. The next paragraph introduces an incident which occurred within this period of eighteen months, and which is worthy of special notice, because of several peculiarities not common to the scenes of apostolic suffering. (12) “While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews, with one accord, rose up against Paul and led him to the judgment-seat, (13) saying, This man is persuading men to worship God contrary to the law.” Here we have the same charge, in form, which was preferred against Paul at Philippi and Thessalonica, causing all the trouble which befell him in those cities. But the charge, in those instances, was preferred by Greeks, with reference to the Roman law; while, in the present, the Jews had the boldness to prefer it in their own name, with reference to their own law. This fact indicates a degree of confidence in their own influence which we have not seen exhibited by the Jews in any other Gentile city. Acts 18:14-16. In this case, however, they had to deal with a man of far different character from the magistrates of Philippi, or the city rulers of Thessalonica. Gallio was a brother of Seneca, the famous Roman moralist, who describes him as a man of admirable integrity, amiable, and popular. Such was the character which he exhibited on this occasion. Instead of yielding to popular clamor, as did so many provincial and municipal officers, before whom the apostles were arraigned, he examined carefully the accusation, and seeing that it had reference, not to any infraction of the Roman law, but to questions in regard to their own law, he determined at once to dismiss the case. (14) “But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it were a matter of injustice or wicked recklessness, Jews, it would be reasonable that I should bear with you. (15) But since it is a question concerning a doctrine and words, and your own law, do you see to it; for I do not intend to be a judge of these matters. (16) And he drove them from the judgment-seat.” This is the only instance, in all the persecutions of Paul, in which his accusers were dealt with summarily and justly. The incident reflects great credit upon Gallio. Acts 18:17. Prompt and energetic vindication of the right, on the part of a public functionary, will nearly always meet the approbation of the masses, and will sometimes even turn the tide of popular prejudice. Whether the disinterested public were favorable or unfavorable to Paul before the decision, we are not informed; but when the case was dismissed, the spectators were highly gratified at the result. (17) “Then all the Greeks seized Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat; and Gallio cared for none of these things.” For once, the heart of the unconverted multitude was with the apostle, and so indignant were they at the unprovoked attempt to injure him, that when it was fully exposed, they visited upon the head of the chief persecutor the very beating which he had laid up for Paul. Sosthenes was most probably the successor of Crispus, as chief ruler of the synagogue, and may have been selected for that position on account of his zeal in opposing the course which Crispus had pursued. The beating which the Greeks gave him was a riotous proceeding, which Gallio, in strict discharge of his duty, should have suppressed. That he did not do so, and that Luke says, “ Gallio cared for none of these things,” has been generally understood to indicate an easy and yielding disposition, which was averse to the strict enforcement of the law. This, however, is inconsistent with the promptness of his vindication of Paul, and his indignant dismissal of the accusers. I would rather understand it as indicating a secret delight at seeing the tables so handsomely turned upon the persecutors, prompting him to let pass unnoticed a riot, which, under other circumstances, he would have rebuked severely. The rage and disappointment of the Jews must have been intense; but the rough handling which their leaders experienced admonished them to keep quiet for a time. Acts 18:18. This incident occurred some time previous to the close of the eighteen months of Paul's stay in Corinth, as we learn from the next verse. (18) “Now Paul, having still remained for many days, bade the brethren farewell, and sailed into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having sheared his head in Cenchrea; for he had a vow.” It is after the arraignment before Gallio, and previous to his departure from Corinth, that we best locate the date of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. That it was written in Corinth is determined chiefly by a comparison of its contents with those of the First Epistle. The congregation was still suffering from the same persecution mentioned in the First Epistle, and there was still among them some improper excitement in reference to the second coming of the Lord. Both these circumstances indicate that it was written shortly after the first; as soon, perhaps, as Paul could hear from them after their reception of the first. That it was after the arraignment before Gallio, is sufficiently evident, I think, from the absence of those indications of distress in the mind of the writer, which abound in the First Epistle. He did not enjoy this comparative peace of mind until after the persecutions of the Jews culminated and terminated in the scene before Gallio's judgment-seat. Many eminent commentators have contended that it was Aquila, and not Paul, who sheared his head at Cenchrea. The argument by which they defend this position is based upon the fact that the name of Aquila is placed after that of his wife Priscilla, and next to the participle keiramenos, having sheared, for the very purpose of indicating that the act was performed by him. Others, who insist that it was Paul, reply that the order of the names is not conclusive, inasmuch as they occur in this order in three out of the five times that they are mentioned together in the New Testament. My own opinion is that it was Paul, and my chief reason for so thinking is this: the term Paul is the leading subject of the sentence, to which all the verbs and participles must be referred, unless there is some grammatical necessity for detaching one or more of them, and referring them to another subject. Priscilla and Aquila are subjects of the verb sailed (understood): “ Paul sailed into Syria, and with him (sailed) Priscilla and Aquila.” But if it was intended also to refer the act of shearing to Aquila, the English would require the relative and verb instead of the participle: “ with him Priscilla and Aquila who had sheared his head,” instead of “ Priscilla and Aquila, having sheared his head.” The Greek, in order to express this idea, would also have required the article or relative after Aquila. In the absence of such a modification of the construction, we must refer the terms keiramenos, having shaved, and eike, had, to the leading subject of the sentence, with which agree all the other verbs, prosmeinas, tarried; apotaxamenos, took leave of; and exepei, sailed away. The objection that Paul could not have taken such a vow consistently with his position in reference to the law of Moses, is fallacious in two respects. First, It assumes a degree of freedom from legal observances on the part of Paul which his conduct on subsequent occasions shows that he had not attained. Second, It assumes, without authority, that this vow was one peculiar to the law, which it would be improper for Christians to observe. The vow of the Nazarite would certainly be improper now, because it required the offering of sacrifices at its termination. But this was not that vow, seeing the hair was sheared in Cenchrea; whereas the Nazarite's hair could be sheared only at the temple in Jerusalem. What the exact nature of the vow was, we have now no means of determining. The only practical value of this incident arises from its bearing upon present practice. But this is altogether independent of the question whether it was Paul or Aquila who had the vow. If we admit it was Aquila, the presence of Paul, and the approbation indicated by his silence, gives to it the apostolic sanction. We conclude, therefore, that disciples would be guilty of no impropriety in making vows, and allowing their hair to grow until the vow is performed. But it must not be inferred, from this conclusion, that we are at liberty to make foolish or wicked vows, which would be better broken than kept. Acts 18:19-22. Embarking at Cenchrea, which was the eastern port of Corinth, on a voyage for Syria, the frequent commercial intercourse between Corinth and Ephesus very naturally caused the vessel to touch at the latter city, which was the destination of Priscilla and Aquila. (19) “And he went to Ephesus, and left them there. He himself went into the synagogue and discoursed to the Jews. (20) They requested him to remain longer with them, but he did not consent, (21) but bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep the coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return to you, God willing. (22) And he set sail for Ephesus; and having gone down to Cæsarea, he went up and saluted the Church, and went down to Antioch.” The context plainly implies that the Church which he “ went up and saluted” was that in Jerusalem, and not, as some have supposed, that in Cæsarea; for it had just been said that he must reach Jerusalem, and the statement that he “ went up,” especially as it occurs after reaching Cæsarea, implies that he went up where he had intended to go. The final termination of his journey, however, was not Jerusalem, but Antioch, whence he had started with Silas on his missionary tour. The two missionaries had gone through Syria and Cilicia; had revisited Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium; and had taken a circuit through Phrygia, Galatia, and Mysia, to Troas on the Archipelago. Thence they had sailed into Europe, and had made known the gospel throughout Macedonia and Achaia, planting Churches in the principal cities. Setting sail on their return, Paul had left an appointment in Ephesus, where he had formerly been forbidden by the Spirit to preach the Word; had revisited Jerusalem, and was now at the end of his circuit once more to gladden the hearts of the brethren who had “ commended him to the favor of God,” by rehearsing all that God had done with him, and that he had opened still wider “ the door of faith to the Gentiles.” Whether Silas had returned with him we are not informed. What changes had taken place in Antioch during his absence is equally unknown. The historian has his eye upon stirring events just ahead in Ephesus, and hastens all the movements of the narrative to bring us back to that city. Acts 18:23. In accordance with this plan, he gives but a brief glance at the apostle's stay in Antioch, and the first part of his third missionary tour. (23) “Having spent some time there, he departed, passing through the district of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, confirming all the disciples.” The historian now leaves Paul in the obscurity of this journey among the Churches, and anticipates his arrival in Ephesus, by noticing some events there, which were, in the providence of God, opening the way for his hitherto forbidden labors in that city. Acts 18:24-26. (24) “Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born in Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. (25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord, and, being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning the Lord, understanding only the immersion of John. (26) He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But Aquila and Priscilla, having heard him, took him and expounded to him the way of the Lord more accurately.” The distinguished position which Apollos acquired, after this, in the Church at Corinth, and the familiarity of his name among disciples of all subsequent ages, renders it a matter of some interest to acquire an accurate conception of his personal endowments and his subsequent history. The former are set forth in the two statements, that he was “ eloquent,” and that he was “ mighty in the Scriptures.” The gift of eloquence is a natural endowment, but culture is necessary to its effective development. That he was an Alexandrian by birth gives assurance that he was not wanting in the most thorough culture; for Alexandria, being the chief point of contact between Greek and Jewish literature, was the chief seat of Hebrew learning in that and some subsequent generations. The Alexandrian Jews, who constituted a large element in the population of that city, were noted for their wealth and their learning. That he was “ mighty in the Scriptures,” shows that he had been educated to a thorough knowledge of the word of God. The apostles, being inspired, and able to speak with miracle-confirmed authority, were not entirely dependent upon purely scriptural proofs. But he, being uninspired, was entirely dependent upon the use of the prophesies and types of the Old Testament, in proof of the Messiahship. In a day when a knowledge of the word of God had to be acquired from manuscripts, and in which the art of reading was acquired by only a few, it was no ordinary endowment to be familiar with the Scriptures. Such an attainment is rare, even in the day of printed Bibles, and among preachers who profess to devote their lives chiefly to the study of the Bible. Indeed, the amount of clerical ignorance now extant would astonish the masses of men, if they only had the means of detecting it. What were the exact attainments of this distinguished man in reference to the gospel is a question of some difficulty, though in reference to it there is a very general agreement among commentators. It is generally agreed that he understood no more of the gospel than was taught by John the Immerser; and of this the statement that he understood only the immersion of John is considered sufficient proof. But I confess myself unable to reconcile this supposition with two other statements of the historian, equally designed to give us his religious status. The first is the statement that he was “instructed in the way of the Lord;” and the second, that he “ taught accurately the things concerning the Lord.” That the term Lord refers to the Lord Jesus Christ can not be doubted by one who consider's Luke's style, and observes the connection of thought in the passage. But for Luke to say, at this late period, that a man was instructed in the way of the Lord and taught it accurately, certainly implies a better knowledge of the gospel than was possessed by John; for he preached him as one yet to come, and knew nothing of his death, burial, or resurrection. The two expressions combined would, if unqualified, convey the idea that he understood and taught the gospel correctly, according to the apostolic standard. They are qualified, however, by the statement that he “ understood only the immersion of John.” This is the only limitation expressed, and therefore we should grant him all the knowledge which this limitation will allow. Whatever a man must lack, then, of a thorough knowledge of the gospel, who knows no immersion but that of John, we must grant that Apollos lacked; yet the other things of the Lord he taught accurately. His ignorance had reference to the points of distinction between John's immersion and that of the apostles, which were chiefly these, that John did not promise the Holy Spirit to those who were immersed, and did not immerse into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Whatever confusion of thought upon kindred topics is necessarily involved in ignorance of these two things, Apollos must also have been subject to; but we are not authorized to extend his ignorance any further than this. On these points he was instructed by Priscilla and Aquila, and was then able to teach the things concerning the Lord more accurately. There is no evidence whatever that he was reimmersed. Acts 18:27-28. For some reason unexplained, Apollos concluded to leave Ephesus, and visit the Churches planted by Paul in Achaia. (27) “And when he desired to cross into Achaia, the brethren wrote, urging the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he afforded much aid to those who through favor had believed: (28) for he powerfully and thoroughly convinced the Jews in public, clearly showing by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.” This is the earliest mention of letters of commendation among the disciples. It shows that they were employed simply to make known the bearer to strange brethren, and commend him to their fellowship. The parties to whom Apollos afforded much aid were not, as some have contended, “ those who believed through his gift;” for the term charis is never used in the sense of either a spiritual or a natural gift. Neither, for the same reason, can we render the clause, “ he aided through his gift those who believed.” Favor is the true meaning of the original term, and it stands connected in the sentence with the participle rendered believed. If there were any incongruity in the idea of believing through favor, we might, with Bloomfield, connect it with the verb, and render the clause “ he afforded much aid, through favor, to those who believed.” But through this is the only instance in which parties are said to have believed through the favor of God, it is true of all disciples; for the favor of God both supplies and the object of faith, and brings before men the evidence which produces faith. Luke's own collocation of the words, therefore, should guide us, and it rules us to the rendering, “ he afforded much aid to those who through favor had believed.” Apollos mightily convinced the Jews in Achaia; whereas Paul's converts had been mostly among the Gentiles. This was, no doubt, owing to the peculiarity of his endowments, giving him access to some minds which were inaccessible to Paul. A variety of talents and acquirements among preachers is still necessary to the success of the gospel among the immense variety of the minds and characters which make up human society. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Eighteen IN THIS CHAPTER1) Examine the final travels of Paul's 2nd Journey, from Corinth back to Antioch of Syria 2) Review the work of Aquila and Priscilla, and Apollos 3) Observe the beginning of Paul's 3rd Journey SUMMARY Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. He found Aquila and Priscilla. He stayed with them, as they were of the same trade, tentmakers. Aquila and Priscilla had left Rome because of the command by Claudius. During this time, Paul taught in the synagogue and "persuaded both Jews and Greeks." Silas and Timothy then joined Paul at Corinth, coming from Macedonia. Paul taught the Jews that "Jesus is the Christ." They opposed him. Paul told them, "Your blood be on your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." Paul then went to Justus' house, which was next to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and his household believed. Many Corinthians believed and were baptized. The Lord spoke to Paul in a vision, encouraging him to be bold and to continue to speak; for the Lord would be with him. Paul continued teaching there another year and a half. The Jews then took Paul before the proconsul of Achaia, Gallio, charging that he "persuades men to worship God contrary to the law." Gallio refused to be a "judge of such matters" and drove them away from the judgment seat. [I and II Thessalonians may have been written.] (Acts 18:1-17) Paul remained there a while longer. Next, Paul, Aquila and Priscilla set sail for Syria. As they were departing, Paul had his hair cut off at Cenchrea as part of a vow. Paul left Aquila and Priscilla in Ephesus, as they were traveling. Paul did not remain in Ephesus, as he wanted to keep the feast in Jerusalem. He sailed on to Caesarea, greeted the church there, and went on to Antioch. (Acts 18:18-22) Paul departed from Antioch of Syria to begin the 3rd journey. He traveled through Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the disciples. Apollos of Alexandria is then introduced as an "eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures." Apollos traveled to Ephesus and spoke boldly in the synagogue. He taught the way of the Lord, but he only knew the baptism of John. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and "explained to him the way of God more accurately." Apollos then traveled to Achaia and "greatly helped" the believers. "He vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." (Acts 18:23-28) OUTLINE I. THE APOSTLE PAUL IN CORINTH (continuing the 2nd Journey) (Acts 18:1-17) A. PAUL TAUGHT IN CORINTH (Acts 18:1-17)1. Found Aquila and Priscilla a. Worked and stayed with Aquila and Priscilla b. They were tentmakers by trade 2. Paul taught in the synagogue every Sabbath a. He persuaded by Jews and Greeks 3. Paul preached that Jesus is the Christ a. Silas and Timothy join Paul, arriving from Macedonia b. Jews opposed Paul and blasphemed c. Paul decided to go to the Gentiles 4. Paul went to Justus' house (by synagogue) and taught a. Crispus, ruler of the synagogue, believed (and his house) b. Many Corinthians believed and were baptized c. The Lord spoke to Paul, "Do not be afraid, but speak..." d. Paul continued teaching the Word of God there 18 months 5. Jews brought Paul before Gallio, proconsul of Achaia a. Charged that Paul persuaded men to worship God "contrary to the law" b. Gallio refused to hear the case, as it was not a "matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes" c. Gallio drove them from the judgment seat and ignored them II. PAUL TO ANTIOCH OF SYRIA (Acts 18:18-22) A. PAUL CORINTH, AND SAILED FOR SYRIA (Acts 18:18)1. After the encounter before Gallio, Paul remained a good while 2. Paul, with Aquila and Priscilla, sailed for Syria 3. Paul had taken a vow; at the end, he cut his hair at Cenchrea a. Cenchrea was a port that served Corinth (approx. 8-9 miles) b. Upon expiration of the vow, the hair was cut off B. PAUL ARRIVED AT EPHESUS, WITH AQUILA AND (Acts 18:19-22)1. Paul leaves Aquila and Priscilla in Ephesus 2. Paul entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews a. The Jews asked him to stay longer b. Paul declined, as he wanted to keep the feast in Jerusalem c. Paul indicated he would return; thus he departed 3. Paul landed at Caesarea, greeted the church, and went to Antioch a. Recall Cornelius and his household/friends' conversion b. Paul arrived in Antioch in completion of the 2nd journey III. PAUL BEGAN THE 3rd JOURNEY (Acts 18:23-28) A. PAUL TO THE REGIONS OF GALATIA AND PHRYGIA (Acts 18:23)1. Paul departs Antioch, beginning the 3rd journey 2. He travels through Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the disciples B. APOLLOS IN EPHESUS AND ACHAIA (Acts 18:24-28)1. Apollos of Alexandria was "eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures" 2. Apollos arrived in Ephesus and taught the "way of the Lord" a. He knew only the baptism of John b. Aquila and Priscilla took him aside c. They explained "more accurately" the way of God to Apollos 3. Apollos desired to go to Achaia a. The brethren wrote a letter to those in Achaia to receive him b. Apollos helped the believers there c. He vigorously showed that "Jesus is the Christ" from the Scriptures and "refuted the Jews publicly" REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main events in this chapter?- Paul teaches in Corinth (Acts 18:1-17) - Paul returns to Antioch of Syria (Acts 18:18-22) - Paul begins the 3rd journey (Acts 18:23) - Apollos taught more "accurately" by Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:24-28) 2) Why were Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth rather than Rome? (Acts 18:2)- Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart Rome (Acts 18:2) 3) What was the common occupation of Paul and Aquila and Priscilla? (Acts 18:3)- Tentmakers (Acts 18:3) 4) What did Paul do every Sabbath? (Acts 18:4)- Reasoned in the synagogue (4) - Persuaded both Jews and Greeks (4) 5) When Silas and Timothy joined Paul, what was he compelled to testify by the Spirit and to whom? (Acts 18:5)- That Jesus is the Christ; to the Jews (Acts 18:5) 6) What was the reaction of the Jews? (Acts 18:6)- They opposed him and blasphemed (Acts 18:6) 7) How did Paul respond and to whom was he going next? (Acts 18:6)- "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean." (Acts 18:6) - "From now on I will go to the Gentiles." (Acts 18:6) 8) Whose house did Paul enter and where was it located? (Acts 18:7)- Justus' house (he worshipped God) (Acts 18:7) - Next door to the synagogue (Acts 18:7) 9) What resulted with the people of Corinth? (Acts 18:8)- Crispus, ruler of the synagogue believed with his household (Acts 18:8) - Many Corinthians believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8) 10) After the vision from the Lord, how long did Paul remain there? (Acts 18:11)- A year and six months, teaching among them (Acts 18:11) 11) What was Gallio not willing to be a judge over? (Acts 18:15)- Question of words and names and your own [Jewish] law (Acts 18:15) 12) After a good while, Paul departed. Who accompanied him and where did they go? (Acts 18:18-19)- Aquila and Priscilla accompanied Paul (Acts 18:18) - They sailed for Syria (Acts 18:18) - Paul left Aquila and Priscilla in Ephesus (Acts 18:19) 13) Why did Paul not stay longer in Ephesus? (Acts 18:21)- He was intent on keeping the feast in Jerusalem (Acts 18:21) 14) After his arrival in Antioch of Syria, where did Paul go? What did he do? (Acts 18:23)- He went over the region of Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23) - He strengthened all the disciples (Acts 18:23) 15) In Ephesus, when Aquila and Priscilla heard Apollos speak, what did they do? (Acts 18:25-26)- They took him aside and explained to him more accurately the way of God (Acts 18:26) - He only knew the baptism of John (Acts 18:25) 16) What did Apollos do in Achaia? (Acts 18:27-28)- He greatly helped those who had believed (Acts 18:27) - He vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 18:28) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 18:2. Aquila was not a native of Italy but had resided for some time in Rome. Claudius (Caesar) was the Roman emperor, and for some reason (not very clearly explained by the historians and commentators) had formed a dislike for the Jews and had banished them from the city; Paul met this man and his wife Priscilla. 3Act 18:3. Same craft means the same trade or occupation, which was tent-making. That was Paul's trade also, which naturally caused them to have a common interest in each other, so that Paul made his stay with them. This association gave him an opportunity to instruct them thoroughly in the Gospel, so that they became earnest disciples who were able to teach others. (See verse 26). 4Acts 18:4. Reasoned is from the same word as "disputed" in chapter 17:17. Paul did this on the sabbath days because the Jews met then to read the law, and the Greeks often attended as spectators. 5Acts 18:5. The original for pressed is defined by Thayer, "to urge, impel." Silas and Timotheus finally reached Paul (chapter 17:15), and their arrival encouraged him to put all the more pressure in his preaching of the Gospel, affirming in the ears of the Jews that Jesus was Christ (the Anointed). 6Acts 18:6. Opposed themselves means they set themselves in opposition to the teaching of Paul. Shook his raiment was an old custom of expressing one's attitude toward something very evil. Blood be upon your own heads. Whatever punishment they suffered would be their own fault because they had refused to hear the warnings of the Gospel. Paul usually gave the Jews first chance in his teaching, but if they rejected it he would turn to the Gentiles. (See chapter 13:46.) 7Acts 18:7. Paul left the synagogue and went into a nearby house, whose owner was a worshiper of God. (See the note at Matthew 2:2 on worship.) 8Acts 18:8. The audience in the synagogue had rejected Paul's teaching, but the chief ruler was an exception and became a believer, together with the members of his household. Hearing, believed, and were baptized. That was the scriptural procedure then and it is so today. A sinner must hear in order to believe (Romans 10:14), and if he truly believes, he will be baptized in obedience to the One in whom he believes. 9Acts 18:9. Be not afraid of the opposition mentioned in verse 6 or any other that might be threatened against him, but preach the Gospel to all he can meet. 0Acts 18:10. No man . . . to hurt thee. Paul was to be opposed, but he would not be overcome by the enemy because the Lord assured him that He would be with him. This is the same assurance that he wrote to the brethren in Rome (Romans 8:31). I have much people in this city. This was said in prospect because the Lord knew there were many who would accept the Gospel when Paul reached them with it. It was said on the same principle that Jesus meant when he said "I have other sheep" in John 10:16. 1Act 18:11. Verse 8 says that many of the Corinthians became obedient believers, so it was among them that Paul taught the word. And in a period of 18 months many more would hear and obey, so that the church in that city became one of the largest in numbers. 2Act 18:12. A deputy was an inferior officer in the government of Rome in one of the provinces. Achaia was a name given to Greece by the Romans. The ever-envious Jews brought Paul before the secular ruler in a disorderly manner. 3Act 18:13. Contrary to the law. They charged that Paul's teaching was contrary to the law of Moses. That was a false charge, because Paul had shown on more than one occasion that the Gospel system had even been predicted by the Old Testament. 4Acts 18:14. Paul could and would have answered the false charge; but the "judge on the bench" interrupted him. He told the Jews that he would hear their complaints on any matter that pertained to lawlessness against the laws of the land. 5Acts 18:15. The thought in this verse is that the Jews were wanting this man who was a secular judge, to hear a case of theirs that was strictly a religious dispute. He told them that he would not be a judge of such matters. 6Acts 18:16. This verse means that Gallio dismissed the case and cleared the court room of the complainants. This judge set a precedent that should be observed today. No secular court has any business meddling in religious controversies, and professed disciples of Christ ought to know better than to bring religious disputes into such courts. 7Acts 18:17. The Greeks were the Gentile spectators in the court of Gallio and had heard the remarks to the Jews that he made in answer to their complaint. Sosthenes was a Jew and doubtless was a leader in the uprising against Paul. Their sympathy would naturally be for the apostles and against the Jews who had not always shown a favorable attitude toward the Gentiles. Hearing the declaration of Gallio, that he would not interfere with any dispute of the Jews concerning their religion, they decided to take the opportunity of showing their feeling against this would-be persecutor of Paul by this personal attack. While this action was one pertaining to "law and order," yet Gallio knew it was caused by religious agitation, and, being disgusted by the attempt of the Jews to invade his court with an improper issue, took some satisfaction out of seeing them thus punished, hence he cared for none of those things. 8Acts 18:18. Cenchrea was a port of Corinth, from which Paul sailed for the shores of Asia Minor. Shorn his head. The Jews had a custom of making personal vows, and at the termination of the period a man was to cut his hair that had been let grow while the vow was in force. This part of the formality was similar to the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6:5-18, but it was not otherwise bound by the other requirements. For the custom of voluntary vows, see Leviticus 27:2; 1 Samuel 1:11; 2 Samuel 15:7. 9Acts 18:19. When Paul and his companions, Aquila and Priscilla, arrived at Ephesus, he separated from them and went into a synagogue as he was accustomed to do to preach. 0Acts 18:20. Paul's teaching seemed to meet with favor among his hearers, for they asked him to remain longer, which his plans would not permit. 1Act 18:21. Keep this feast. It was the feast of Pentecost, one of the national feasts of the Jews. Paul was a Jew and had a right to observe the national customs of his race. (See chapter 16:3.) After a brief stay at Ephesus he again sailed. 2Act 18:22. Paul landed at Caesarea on the coast of Palestine. As a brief "side trip" he went to Jerusalem to salute the church. We are not given any account of this visit further than the present statement. After this incident the great apostle to the Gentiles went to Antioch (in Syria), thus ending his second missionary journey. 3Act 18:23. This is the beginning of what is commonly called Paul's third "missionary journey." (See the comments at chapter 15:36.) But he really revisited some churches that had been started previously, to strengthen or establish them. A church can be started in a little while, but it takes time and further teaching to establish it. 4Acts 18:24. Eloquent is defined "skilled in speech" in Thayer's lexicon. Mighty in the scriptures means he was well acquainted with the Old Testament, and had learned something of the early teaching pertaining to the New. He was regarded as a good man and one devoted to the Lord. 5Acts 18:25. Apollos was not a careless man, and always taught others accurately as far as he had learned, but at this time he knew no baptism except what John preached and practiced. That subject will be explained at chapter 19:4. 6Acts 18:26. Aquila and Priscilla had been instructed by Paul (verses 2, 3), and were able to supply the points that Apollos lacked. It should be noted that they expounded the way of God, showing an instance where a woman helped to get a preacher better acquainted with the teaching of the Gospel. 7Acts 18:27. Achaia was a name that the Romans gave to Greece. After Apollos was through with his work at Ephesus he wished to go over into Greece, and we will find that he stopped at Corinth. He left Ephesus with the recommendation of the brethren. After arriving in Greece he helped the believers who had experienced the grace of God. 8Acts 18:28. Apollos approached the Jews with the same kind of arguments that Paul had used, namely, showing them that their own scriptures (the Old Testament) predicted the coming of Jesus as the Christ or the Anointed One. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 19 PAUL AT EPHESUSAct_19:1-12 1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth,—Luke, the writer of Acts, left the narrative of Paul’ s journey and recorded the incidents about Apollos. While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul came to Ephesus; so Paul did not get to see Apollos while he was at Ephesus. Paul passed through “ the upper country” and came to Ephesus. The “ upper,” as used here, means that part of the country to which men go up away from the sea; it is applied here to the more eastern parts of Asia Minor. Paul’ s journey was very likely through the districts of Lycaonia, Galatia, and Phrygia; he had visited these on his second missionary tour. He “ came to Ephesus,” according to the conditional promise which he had made when he left Ephesus. ( Acts 18:21.) When he ar¬rived he “ found certain disciples” there. These men are called “ disciples” because they were, like Apollos, to a certain extent in¬structed concerning Jesus, and what they already knew drew them to listen to Paul who came to teach the disciples and preach the gospel. 2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit—In talking with them Paul learned that they were very deficient in their knowledge of the gospel. He asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Their reply showed how little they knew about the gospel. They answered: “ Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given.” These “ disciples” believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, but they had not heard anything further than what John had preached. They had never heard of the gift at Pentecost; they had heard of the Holy Spirit, for John spoke of him. (Matthew 3:11; John 1:33.) So they had heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit, but not that he had come on Pentecost. It is difficult to understand why they knew so little about the Holy Spirit. 3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized?—Paul suspects that they had not been baptized intelligently; hence, he asks: “ Into what then were ye baptized ?” He recognizes that they were baptized “ into” something; he implies that scriptural baptism is “ into” something; hence, his question. They very promptly answered: “ Into John’ s baptism.” This is the last mention in the New Testament of John the Baptist. These “ disciples” had been baptized “ into John’ s baptism,” but they had not grasped the meaning of it. Evidently they had been baptized by some of John’ s disciples after John’ s baptism had ceased; hence, their baptism was not valid. John’ s baptism was out of date; it was only in force during John’ s ministry, and was not to be continued. 4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance,—Here we have a fuller comment on the meaning of John’ s baptism. John’ s baptism is frequently described as a “ baptism of repentance.” John came to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Luke 1:17.) Those who submitted to John’ s baptism pledged that they would receive the Christ when he came; John did not want to make disciples merely for himself; he wanted them to believe on “ the one that cometh after me.” (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:15.) Evidently these disciples had been baptized, but had not accepted Christ. It seems clear that they had not accepted Christ because they did not know of him. 5 And when they heard this,—So soon as they learned from Paul of the Christ “ they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” We have no evidence that the apostles were rebaptized, neither others who were baptized by John; their baptism was accepted; but these were commanded to be baptized “ into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Their baptism was not accepted. Luke does not give a formula here for baptizing, but simply explains that these men were baptized in obedience to their faith in Christ. These disciples had never received such a baptism as Christ ordained ; hence, they had to be baptized in order to enter Christ. 6-7 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them,—This was not a baptism of the Holy Spirit; no human agency or administrator had any part in the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Hands were laid on the Samaritans by Peter and John (Acts 8:16), and in Damascus in the case of Paul (Acts 9:17). Here a supernatural or miraculous gift was bestowed upon these as “ they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” The speaking with tongues and prophesying was external and positive proof that the Holy Spirit had come on these twelve who were now fully obedient to the gospel and were ready for faithful service in his name. There were about twelve men in this number. There is much discussion as to why the inspired historian should use the word “ about.” There is no use to speculate as to why this term is used. 8 And he entered into the synagogue,—Since the incident of John’ s disciples is mentioned before anything else, it seems probable that Paul had found them among the few Christian brethren in Ephesus, and began teaching them before he visited the synagogue. The Jews met in their synagogue for worship on the Sabbath, and Paul went there and “ spake boldly for the space of three months.” It seems that Christians held their religious services in the synagogue; he gave his Jewish brethren full opportunity to hear the gospel in its fullness. He may have just entered the synagogue on their Sabbath, but it seems that he not only entered on the Sabbath during this three months’ sojourn, but on other occasions he taught the people who assembled there. Again we have Paul’ s “ reasoning and persuading” ; he convinced them by his reasoning and the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, and he persuaded them to accept him as their Savior. He taught them “ the things concerning the kingdom of God.” Paul’ s idea of the “ kingdom of God” was that it was the church of God which had been purchased with the blood of Christ. (Acts 20:28.) Paul understood and taught that the kingdom had been established. 9 But when some were hardened and disobedient,—Paul was permitted to speak longer in the synagogue here without interruption than any other place, unless it be Corinth. Paul had the same experience here that he had at other places; some believed and some disbelieved. Those who disbelieved hardened their heart and began to speak “ evil of the Way before the multitude.” Paul was not a coward; he did not leave the synagogue simply because some opposed him. Evidently he saw the Jewish obstinacy and turned away from them. He left the synagogue and took the disci¬ples and reasoned “ daily in the school of Tyrannus.” The disbelieving Jews showed their hardness of heart by reviling Christ, his teaching, his disciples, and Christianity, “ the Way.” (Acts 9 Acts 2.) Paul separated the disciples, and now the meeting place became the lecture room of Tyrannus. He had done the same thing at Corinth. (Acts 18:7.) “ School” is from the Greek “ schole,” and meant, originally, “ to hold on, leisure,” and then in later Greek, a “ place where there is leisure.” This is the only instance of its being used in the New Testament. The name “ Tyrannus” is a common one, and means “ tyrant.” We know nothing about this Tyrannus; we do not know whether he was a heathen or a Jew. 10 And this continued for the space of two years;—Paul had been in Ephesus more than three months when he was forced to go to the lecture room of Tyrannus. He continued to preach the gospel here “ for the space of two years.” He continued edifying the saints and preaching to all who would come. He may have continued longer in Ephesus, and sojourning in the house of Aquila and Priscilla for some months. He remained here long enough for all who dwelt in that province to have opportunity to hear the gospel. Paul seems to have remained in Ephesus, but the gospel spread all over the province. Paul heard of the trouble that existed in the church at Corinth and wrote a letter to the church while at Ephesus; this letter seems to have been lost. (1 Corinthians 5:9.) He wrote the first Corinthian letter while at Ephesus. 11-12 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:—Paul was endowed with miraculous gifts; he had the power to work miracles. He confirmed the word that he preached by working miracles. In Ephesus magicians and exorcists had claimed to work miracles; some superstitious people had believed in them. Paul had power to do even greater things than they even claimed. They even took handkerchiefs from Paul to the sick. Paul did not have to visit the sick, but handkerchiefs and aprons were carried from Paul and the diseases were healed and evil spirits cast out of those who possessed them. “ Handkerchiefs” were common in the eastern country to use to wipe perspiration from the face. “ Aprons” were the same as napkins. Paul did manual work at Ephesus (Acts 20:34) and so used handkerchiefs and aprons. These special miracles would emphasize the work that Paul was doing; the people could know that he was a teacher from God, because God was with him in these great miracles. THE SEVEN SONS OF SCEVA Acts 19:13-20 13 But certain also of the strolling Jews,—These “ strolling Jews” were “ exorcists,” who traveled from place to place and practiced their spells of sorcery which was connected with the name of Solomon. Jesus alluded to them in Palestine. (Matthew 12:27; Luke 11:19.) “ Exorcists” comes from the Greek “ exorkizo,” which means “ to exact an oath” ; they used an oath as a spell or a charm. These men regarded Paul as one of their own; they attempted to use the name of Christ as did Paul in performing his miracles. They did not know Christ, but their formal oath was: “ I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.” This case is similar to that of Elymas the sorcerer (Acts 13:8), and that of Simon Magus (Acts 8: 21). They had not learned the difference between the real miracles that Paul performed and the pretended ones of the exorcists. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva,—We do not know who Sceva was; some think that he was a high priest. Some think that the Greek here should be translated “ ruler” instead of priest. His name is of Latin origin. “ Chief priest” means one who is at the head of one of the twenty-four courses of the Levitical priesthood; hence, we cannot tell whether he had been at the head of one of the twenty-four courses of priests of the temple, or had once been the high priest at Jerusalem. He had seven sons who were engaged in sorcery; they were exorcists. 15 And the evil spirit answered—These seven sons of Sceva attempted to cast out an “ evil spirit.” The evil spirit answered: “ Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?” The meaning is, the Jesus whom you mention I recognize, and the Paul whom you mention I know, but you, who are you? The evil spirit did not recognize in the sense of obeying the authority of these seven sons. “ I know” is from “ genosko,” with respect to Jesus, and from “ epistomai,” with respect to Paul; so the verbs are different, and carry a different meaning. The spirit here spoke through the man as in Mark 3:11. 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was—This shows that the evil spirit spoke through the man who was afflicted. Instead of this evil spirit obeying these exorcists, it leaped on them. “ Both of them” seems to imply that only two of the seven were attempting to practice upon this evil spirit; however, “ both” is from the Greek “ amphoteron,” and means “ all” or more than “ two” ; hence, here “ amphoteroi” includes all seven; “ both” in old English was used for more than “ two.” The defeat was so pronounced that the sons of Sceva “ fled out of that house naked and wounded.” The word “ naked” here comes from the Greek “ gum nous,” and probably means only torn garments. “ Wounded” is from the old verb “ to wound.” It is used in the New Testament only here and in Luke 20:12. A similar case is found in Mark 5:3-4, where no one could control the evil spirit. 17 And this became known to all,—This had a wonderful effect on the people of Ephesus; they learned of it, and all who had practiced hidden arts were so extensively known that fear fell upon them all when they learned what this evil spirit had done to the sons of Sceva. They thought that an undefined power resided in the sacred name of Jesus, and fear fell upon them as it did upon the church when Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead. (Acts 5:5 Acts 5:10.) It was a perilous thing for men to use the name of Jesus rashly; all people thought more of this name now than they had before. Hence, the name of Jesus was profoundly respected. 18 Many also of them that had believed came,—The fear of Jesus came upon the superstitious idolaters of Ephesus, and also upon the church. Luke is faithful to record the facts and does not hesitate to mention any shame that may have come upon the church. This was a humiliating confession and shows how many of the early converts were imperfect in their lives. Many of these early converts had kept some of the things which they had before their conversion; they practiced these things before their conversion and had not given them up, but now, since fear had come upon them, they were ready to destroy everything that pertained to this sorcery. 19 And not a few of them that practised magical arts—It seems that those who had been converted who had practiced the magical art, and even those who were not converted that practiced it, were ready now to quit the practice and destroy their books. They brought “ their books together and burned them in the sight of all.” These books were filled with incantations, recipes for love philters, formulas for casting out evil spirits, and such like. Ephe¬sus swarmed with magicians and astrologers. The Christians brought their books and the others were led to renounce their evil practices; hence, they were ready to destroy their books. They burned them in the presence of all; this was a confession of the evils that they had practiced, and an open declaration to cease such evil works. “ They counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.” Ephesus was largely populated with Greek citizens and probably the silver pieces were the Greek “ drachmae/’ or the Latin “ denarius” ; probably the total cost was about ten thousand dollars. This was a great sacrifice. No doubt that many of these books were rare and possessed a peculiar value of their own from the precious secrets they were supposed to contain. The results of preaching the gospel to the Ephesians and the confirmation of the word by miracles are thus seen in the effect that it had on these people to cause them to suffer such a great loss. 20 So mightily grew the word—While the people were in this state of mind the word of God increased among them. Since they had given up their magical arts, they were now ready to accept something else; hence, the truth as preached by Paul found lodgment in their hearts. The full meaning of the word rendered “ mightily” is “ with overpowering force and strength, which nothing could resist.” No wonder we find a large church at Ephesus. “ The word of the Lord” grew and “ prevailed” ; that is, it kept growing and gaining strength; this was a day of triumph for Christ in Ephesus; Ephesus for centuries after this was a center of Christian power. Timothy came to Ephesus as also did John the apostle. THE MOB; SILVER SHRINES OF DIANAAct_19:21-41 21 Now after these things were ended,—After the burning of the books on magical arts, Paul had it in heart to leave Ephesus. Paul “ passed through Macedonia and Achaia” on his way “ to Jerusalem.” Paul had probably written the first Corinthian letter while he was at Ephesus. He had a twofold object in this visit. The first was to stir up the faith of the churches, and correct any disorders which might be disturbing their development. The second was to bring to a close the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem. (Romans 15:25; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3.) After he had completed his journey to Jerusalem he had it in heart to go to Rome. He said: “ I must also see Rome.” This had been a long-cherished plan of Paul’ s; he refers to it very distinctly in his letter to the church at Rome. (Romans 1:13; see also Romans 15:23-24 Romans 15:28.) 22 And having sent into Macedonia two of them—Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on to Macedonia while “ he himself stayed in Asia” for a longer time. He had sent Timothy to Corinth (1 Corinthians 4:17), and had requested the church to treat him with kindness; he expected him to return, and he evidently had before Paul left Ephesus; he then sent Titus to Corinth to finish what Timothy had not quite succeeded in doing with instructions to meet him in Troas. Now Timothy and Erastus (Romans 16:23; 2 Timothy 4:20) go on to Macedonia to prepare the way for Paul. For some rea¬son Paul was delayed; he gives a reason for this in 1 Corinthians 16:8 f. There was a great opportunity for Paul to do more work in Ephesus ; Pentecost came toward the end of May, and in this month the festival of Artemis, or Diana, was held in Ephesus; a great multitude would come to the city, which would give Paul an opportunity to preach the gospel to a great number; however, Paul did not remain till Pentecost. 23 And about that time there arose—Some trouble arose about this time concerning “ the Way.” “ The Way” is a very familiar term, and is used frequently by Luke as synonymous of the disciples of Christ. (Acts 9:2 Acts 19:9 Acts 22:4 Acts 24:14 Acts 24:22.) This term may have originated in the words which Christ had used of himself when he said: “ I am the way and the truth and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6.) There had always been opposition to Christianity, but there seems to have developed more opposition now than at some previous time. The fight with wild beasts in 1 Corinthians 15:32, whatever it was, was before that epistle was written, and so before this new uproar. Paul as a Roman citizen could not be made to fight with wild beasts, but he so pictured the violent opponents of Christ in Ephesus. 24 For a certain man named Demetrius,—We do not know whether this Demetrius is the one spoken of in 3 John 1:12; however, he was from the neighborhood of Ephesus. Demetrius had something to do with this “ no small stir” about the disciples of Christ. He was a silversmith and made images or shrines of Diana. He had a profitable business, and just at this time before the feast he would sell many of his shrines. A great multitude would come into the city to worship Diana, and they would want to take a shrine or image of Diana back home with them. Evidently Paul had condemned the practice of idolatry and this would hurt Demetrius’ business; so many of the Ephesians had become Christians and had destroyed their idols that Demetrius was much concerned about his trade. We see that Demetrius was more concerned about making money than he was about becoming a Christian; he cared nothing about others becoming a Christian, but he did want to sell his shrines to them. 25 whom he gathered together,—Demetrius got busy; he gathered those who were of the same craft and persuaded them to join him in opposing Paul’ s preaching. Perhaps Demetrius was chief among those of his trade; trade unions or guilds were found among almost every kind of trade in the Roman Empire in apostolic times. This shows how easily the workman of the trade could be summoned to discuss anything relating to the trade, and how a disturbance could be had. 26 And ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus,—Here we have the argument that Demetrius makes to his fellow craftsmen to persuade them to join him in his opposition to the preaching of Paul. Not only in Ephesus, “ but almost throughout all Asia,” Paul had injured their trade by preaching Christ. Demetrius may have exaggerated some to excite his fellow craftsmen to action. What Paul had preached had greatly disturbed his business. Demetrius does not mean the entire continent of Asia, but the province of Asia Minor. All the roads in Asia Minor centered in Ephesus; from its position it was almost as much a meet¬ing place of eastern and western thought as was Alexandria. Pilgrims came from all parts of Asia Minor to visit the famous shrine of Diana. Demetrius not only exaggerated his statements to his fellow craftsmen, but he also exaggerated the effect of Paul’ s work. We know that Paul had established churches in Ephesus, Laodicea, and Colosse; John in Revelation speaks of the churches in Pergamum, Smyrna, Thyatira, Sardis, and Philadelphia. He correctly represented Paul’ s teaching when he said that he preached against their idolatrous worship. 27 and not only is there danger that this our trade—Demetrius in further arguing his case before his fellow craftsmen said that not only their trade was in danger, but that “ the temple of the great goddess Diana” was in danger of being abandoned. Demetrius mentioned his business first, and then the destruction of the shrine next; he knew that they would feel more keenly the force of his argument if he mentioned their business first. Again, he mentions the magnificence of “ the great goddess Diana” “ whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.” Here again he exaggerates; however, the temple of Diana was the most famous in the world, and a place of resort for people from all parts of Asia Minor and Greece. The temple of Diana was one of the wonders of the an¬cient world, and the glory and pride of all the Ephesians. If people followed the teachings of Paul they would give up their idolatry, and that would leave the temple desolate. Summing up De-metrius’ argument he makes but two points: his trade would be injured and their religion would be in danger. He appealed to two of the strongest sentiments that rule the human heart— their financial interests and their religion. Selfish interests and appeal to their prejudice caused a riot and the city was full of tumult. 28 And when they heard this—Demetrius’ speech was very effective; he had made it probably in some open space near the place where the shrines were made. The people “ were filled with wrath” and started an uproar. They shouted unanimously: “ Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” This was similar to the cry, “ O Baal, hear us,” by the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel in the days of Elijah. (1 Kings 18:26.) The idol was enshrined in the temple; it was different from the Greek goddess, Diana, which was represented as fair and beautiful, standing with a bow in her hand and a stag at her side as a huntress. “ Diana of the Ephesians” was a crude many-breasted female figure, ending below the breasts in a square pillar curiously carved with ancient symbols of bees, flowers, and corn. It was reputed to have fallen down from heaven. 29 And the city was filled with the confusion:—Lewin, in his “ Saint Paul,” describes this mob as follows: “ The illiterate artisans, soured by reduced wages or want of employment, were roused into a state of frenzy, and full of rage they sallied forth into the streets to wreak vengeance on the object of their blind fury. The living mass rolled along, and the thousands of idlers, whom the games had attracted to Ephesus, swelled their numbers at every step, and the whole city was soon in a state of confusion.” They “ rushed with one accord into the theatre,” but failing to find Paul, they then seized Gaius and Aristarchus, who had traveled with Paul from Macedonia. This Gaius is not mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament. He is not the one from Derbe (Acts 20:4), nor the one from Corinth (Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 1:14), and probably not the one to whom John writes (3 John 1:1). Aristarchus was of Thessalonica (Acts 20:4), and went with Paul to Rome (Acts 27:2) and became of his own accord a sharer of Paul’ s exile and captivity (Colossians 4:10), and was Paul’ s fellow worker (Philemon 1:24). The mob rushed into the theatre, and being disappointed at not finding Paul, Gaius and Aristarchus were attacked. 30 And when Paul was minded to enter—Paul was no cow¬ard ; he was ready to die for his Lord. He was loyal to his brethren and wanted to help them. It seems that he was out of reach of the mob when they seized Gaius and Aristarchus, and was anxious for their safety and zealous for the truth. The disciples would not permit him to risk his life with the mob. It is likely that he was dwelling with Aquila and Priscilla, who at this or some other time at Ephesus, “ laid down their own necks” for his life. (Romans 16:4.) The brethren at Ephesus joined these two faithful disciples in restraining Paul from such danger. 31 And certain also of the Asiarchs,—“ Asiarchs” were chief officials; there were ten in number who were chosen annually to superintend the games and festivals held in honor of the emperor and the gods. The games of Ephesus were held in the month of May in honor of Diana. Some of these officials were friends of Paul. It is interesting to observe that so many of those in high official position were friends of Paul. The apostle had great power in attracting honorable friends, such as Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, and Festus, and the centurion on the voyage to Rome. It is remarkable that such leading and prominent men in this heathenish sport should have shown such a friendly and solicitous care for Paul. They used their influence on Paul to restrain him from going into the theatre where the infuriated mob had assembled. 32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another:—The mob was greatly confused; some cried one thing, and some another ; many of the mob did not know why they had assembled. Verse 32 is a further description of what is recorded in verse 29. The vast multitude had assembled with a vague idea that something was wrong; they did not know what; hence, they could not act intelligently on anything. It seems strange that Demetrius, who was responsible for the mob, should remain in the background and not inform the mob as to its purposes. 33 And they brought Alexander out of the multitude,—Some think that this Alexander was the same as the coppersmith of 2 Timothy 4:14, whom Paul declared had done him much harm. “ Coppersmith” may be used in the general sense of “ metalworker,” and he may have been a fellow craftsman of Demetrius; this would give him some influence. The Jews put Alexander forward, because they were afraid that they would be confused with Paul, Gaius, and Aristarchus; the Jews opposed idolatry as did the Christians. Alexander was put forward to defend the Jews; he “ beckoned with the hand” ; that is, he rapidly waved his hand up and down to quiet the people so that he could speak to them. It seems that he was not permitted to speak. 34 But when they perceived that he was a Jew,—When the angry mob learned that Alexander was a Jew, they gave no heed to his request to speak to them. They knew that he was a Jew by his features, speech, or manner of dress. The crowd now became unanimous in their opposition to Alexander’ s speaking; they would not hear him. The uproar continued for about “ the space of two hours” ; they were wild with fury, excitement, and superstition ; they continued shouting their slogan: “ Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” Again they remind one of the procedure on the part of the worshipers of Baal in the days of Elijah, who “ called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us.” (1 Kings 18:26.) 35 And when the townclerk had quieted the multitude,— Ephesus was a free city and elected its own officers; the recorder or secretary was the chief magistrate of the city, though the proconsul of the province of Asia lived there. The functions of this officer, in some respects, correspond to those fulfilled by the recorder of modern times; among his duties were the guardianship and tabulation of the state papers, the archives of the city, and in drawing up the public records. He began to address the multitude by paying tribute to the city and referring to Ephesus as the “ temple-keeper of the great Diana.” He appealed to their superstition and to their civic pride. He meant to say, why imperil your cherished privileges granted by the Roman government by an un¬necessary uproar about a question which no one would doubt ? He appeals to their superstition and religion by referring to the fact that all knew that the image “ fell down from Jupiter.” Like other venerated idols, the statue of Diana was supposed to have fallen from the skies. He soothed the vanity of the crowd by his appeal to the world-wide fame of Ephesus and her image which fell down from heaven. The heavens were considered the home of Jupiter. Zeus, or Jupiter, was considered ruler of the sky or heavens. 36 Seeing then that these things cannot be gainsaid,—The town clerk called attention to some undeniable facts as he and they thought. The legends were accepted without any proof; the town clerk reasoned as if no one would deny them. Since no one could rob Ephesus of its glory or the statue of Diana of its honor, they need not be so disturbed; they ought to be quiet and not do any¬thing rash. It was useless to be so excited about that from which no harm could come; this was the town clerk’ s first argument. 37 For ye have brought hither these men,—The town clerk here implies that they had acted rashly in precipitating the riot. The second argument that the town clerk makes is that Paul and his companions were not wicked men; they were “ neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess.” They had done nothing to cause such an uproar. He reasoned that Paul and his com¬panions have done nothing which would arouse their indignation. This statement shows how Paul had preached against error; he seems to have preached positive truths rather than making a direct attack on their error. He had hurt no religious prejudice by rude invectives; he was no blasphemer of the gods of Greece and Rome, but led men to the knowledge of truth by positive and kind repre¬sentation of it. Paul had not shunned to preach the truth to them; this truth opposed all of the errors to which they were wedded; but he had preached the truth in such a way that they could not take offense at him, if we take the statement of the town clerk at face value. However, it may be that he was exaggerating and highly complimenting Paul and his companions in order to appease the anger of the crowd. 38 If therefore Demetrius, and the craftsmen—A third argument that the town clerk used called attention to the proper channels through which Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen could go with any grievance that they may have. This is an appeal to them to be law-abiding citizens, and let the proper authorities handle any violation of a law. This argument condemns Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen for causing such an uproar. The law was open; the Roman officials held court at intervals in Ephesus. In addition Ephesus was a free city, and had its local courts and magistrates. It may be that the court was in session at the time. The town clerk here makes a definite appeal to the people to proceed orderly and legally, and not resort to mob violence. The “ procon¬suls” were the governors and judges in these matters. In the time of Paul, Asia was a senatorial province and was governed by a proconsul; however, the term is used here in the plural, while only one of these officials held office in the senatorial province. The term seems to have been used in a general sense. 39 But if ye seek anything about other matters,—The town clerk further argues the question that if they had any grievance whatsoever there were well-established laws by which all these matters could be settled. There was “ the regular assembly” ; this was not a “ regular assembly” ; it was an irregular one; it was not a legally organized assembly for settling disputes. Charges of illegal conduct should be settled in the regular legal way; if they wished to go further and pass resolutions about any matter, this could be done in the regular way, and not rashly by an excited and infuri¬ated assembly. The crowd of citizens that the town clerk was addressing was simply a mob gathering; their decisions could have no weight, and such a meeting would only tend to damage the city in the eyes of the Roman government. The term “ assembly,” as used here, is from the Greek “ ekklesiai,” which is the same word that is translated “ church.” 40 For indeed we are in danger—This is the concluding argument that the town clerk makes. The city was in danger by such a procedure of losing some of its prestige as a “ free city.” Some of the liberties were in danger by the conduct of this mob; these people were responsible for such illegal proceedings. They were responsible to their own city government; responsible to the officers of the city; furthermore, they were responsible to the Roman government for such illegal assembly as was now convened. They were in danger of being “ accused concerning this day’ s riot,” and that too without any just cause for their proceedings. The highly esteemed liberties which the city claimed might be forfeited by this mob. There was a Roman law which made it a capital offense to raise a riot. This mob was unable to defend itself if brought before the proper authorities. 41 And when he had thus spoken,—It seems that the town clerk had great weight. The town clerk reasoned well; the offense which they had committed was not likely to be passed over lightly by the proconsuls; it would not be thought a legitimate excuse that they had laid hold of two Jews whom they wanted to put to death. After thus reasoning with them “ he dismissed the assembly.” Here he gives a noble name to the assembly, that of a recogized mm; this would protect them against the charge to which they were liable. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 19Acts 19:1-7. Having sketched briefly the visit of Apollos to Ephesus, and thus prepared the way for an account of Paul's labors in the same city, the historian now reaches the point for which he had so hurriedly passed over the apostle's journey from Antioch through Galatia and Phrygia and around to Ephesus. The appointment which he left in Ephesus, as he passed through on his way to Jerusalem, is now to be fulfilled. (1) “Now while Apollos was in Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper districts, came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, (2) said to them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? But they said to him, We have not so much as heard that the Holy Spirit is given. (3) He said to them, Into what, then, were you immersed? They said, Into John's immersion. (4) Then Paul said, John indeed immersed with the immersion of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him who would come after him, that is, on the Christ Jesus. (5) And when they heard this they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (7) All the men were about twelve.” This passage is valuable chiefly because it shows how the apostles dealt with parties who, at that time, were immersed with John's immersion. This, no doubt, was Luke's object in introducing it. In order to understand the case, it is necessary to keep distinctly in view the facts stated of the parties previous to and subsequent to their immersion by Paul. They are called disciples, and were known as such when Paul found them; for it is said “ he found certain disciples.” They were disciples, not of John, but of Jesus; for the uniform currency of the term disciple, throughout Acts, requires us to so understand it. This is further evident from Paul's question, “ Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” The term believed evidently refers to Jesus as its object. They were known, then, as disciples of Jesus, and were so recognized by Paul. Up to the moment of his conversation with them, Paul knew nothing of any irregularity in their obedience; for this was made known, to his surprise, during the conversation. When, therefore, he asked the question, “ Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” he could not have referred to that gift of the Spirit which all disciples receive; for he would take this for granted, from the fact that they were disciples. He must, then, have had reference to the miraculous gift, which some disciples did not receive. It is inconceivable that these disciples were ignorant of the existence of the Holy Spirit, hence a literal rendering of their reply, “ We have not so much as heard that there is a Holy Spirit,” would convey a false idea. The supplement given is necessary to complete the sense, as it is in John 7:39, where it is said, “ The Holy Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet risen.” The term given must be supplied, in the latter case, in order to avoid the denial of the existence of the Spirit previous to the resurrection; and, in the former, to avoid the declaration of an ignorance on the part of these men inconsistent with the fact that they were disciples. This answer at once revealed to Paul that there was some irregularity in their religious history; for no one could be properly discipled without learning that the Holy Spirit was to be given. He at once perceived, too, that the irregularity must have been connected with their immersion; for he inquires, “ Into what, then, were you immersed?” If the gift of the Spirit had no connection with immersion, this inquiry would have been inapposite, and Paul would not have propounded it. But the apostles taught as Peter did on the day of Pentecost, when he said, “ Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” It is only on the supposition that Paul knew this to be the universal teaching of rightly-informed brethren, that he inferred something wrong about their immersion, from their ignorance of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This supposition, however, which is a necessary, not an optional one, makes the whole matter very plain. Paul's first question had reference to the miraculous gift of the Spirit; but when they said they knew not that the Holy Spirit was given, he saw that they were ignorant of even the ordinary gift, which is promised to all who repent and are immersed, and that they were immersed without proper instruction. Their reply, that they were immersed into John's immersion, relieved the case of all obscurity, and Paul then understood it perfectly. He explained, that John's immersion was one of repentance, to be followed by faith in the Messiah when he should come. Those immersed by him believed that the Messiah was coming; but they did not, until after their immersion, believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor did they have a promise of the Holy Spirit. They were not, therefore, immersed into the name of Jesus or that of the Holy Spirit. This is further evident from the fact that Paul commanded these twelve to be “ immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus,” which the authority of the commission requires us to understand as equivalent to the expression, “ into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” These points of defect, however, were not peculiar to the immersion of the twelve, but attached also to that of the twelve apostles, the hundred and twenty disciples, and the five hundred who saw Jesus together in Galilee after the resurrection, none of whom were reimmersed. What, then, led to the immersion of these parties? If their immersion had taken place, like that of all the others just named, while John's immersion was still an existing institution, no reason could be given for their reimmersion. This, then, forces us to the conclusion that they had been immersed with John's immersion after it had ceased to be administered by divine authority. Apollos had been recently preaching this obsolete immersion in Ephesus, and these persons may have been immersed by him. If so, they submitted to an institution which had been abrogated more than twenty years, and this was the defect that led to their reimmersion. The general conclusion, from all the premises, is this: that persons who were immersed with John's immersion, while it was in lawful existence, were received into the Church of Christ without reimmersion. But persons who were thus immersed, after the introduction of apostolic immersion, were reimmersed. The reason why Apollos was not reimmersed as well as the twelve, was, doubtless, because, like the apostles and the other original disciples, he was immersed during the ministry of John. Acts 19:8-12. It is worthy of note that Paul commenced his labors in Ephesus by rectifying what he found wrong in the few disciples already there, before he undertook to add to their number. It is an example worthy of imitation to the full extent that may be found practicable. When he had accomplished this, he was prepared to grapple with the Jewish and pagan errors which pervaded the community. (8) “Then he went into the synagogue, and spoke boldly for about three months, discussing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. (9) But when some were hardened and unbelieving, and spoke evil of the way before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the disciples, discussing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. (10) This continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. (11) And God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, (12) so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried from his person to the sick, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.” This scene in the Jewish synagogue is quite uniform in its details, with other which we have noticed. Here is the same earnest argument and persuasion upon the one invariable theme; the same increasing obstinacy and evil speaking on the part of the unbelieving Jews, and the same final separation of Paul and the few who believed, from the synagogue and the majority who controlled it. As the private house of Justus had been his retreat in Corinth, the school-house of Tyrannus was his resort in Ephesus. Such incidents have their counterpart in the history of all men who have attempted, from that day to this, to correct the religious teachings of their cotemporaries. All such attempts are regarded by prevailing religious parties as troublesome innovations, and the houses erected for public worship are often closed against them. But such petty annoyances are not sufficient now, as they were not then, to suppress the truth. Paul, in the school-house of Tyrannus, had access to the ears of many who would never have entered a synagogue, and who were conciliated by the very fact that it was the Jews who persecuted him. The circumstances gained him a favorable hearing from the Greeks, while the unusual miracles wrought gave overwhelming attestation to the words he spoke. Acts 19:13-17. It is difficult to imagine how men could witness miracles so astonishing and not acknowledge the presence of divine power. We would suppose that even atheism would be confounded in the presence of such manifestations, and that the most hardened sinner would tremble. How deep the depravity, then, of men, even Jews by birth and education, who would see in them nothing but the tricks of a skillful and designing magician. Simon the sorcerer had offered to purchase this power with money, and Bar-jesus had sought to convince Sergius Paulus that it was a cheat; but the former was made to tremble under the withering rebuke of Peter, and the latter had been smitten with blindness by the power which he reviled. A similar display of human depravity, followed by a castigation equally severe, occurred in connection with the unusual miracles just mentioned. (13) “Then certain of the wandering Jewish exorcists undertook to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had wicked spirits, saying, We adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches. (14) And they were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish high priest, who did this. (15) But the wicked spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I am acquainted with; but who are you? (16) And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaped upon them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled, naked, and wounded, out of the house. (17) And this became known to all the Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus, and fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.” Nothing is more mortifying, or better calculated to provoke the contempt of the community, than the unexpected exposure of mysterious pretensions such as were assumed by these exorcists. The spirit was enraged at their insulting pretensions, and doubtless enjoyed the joke of exposing them. The seven resisted until they were stripped and wounded, when they fled, presenting a very ludicrous aspect as they passed along the streets. While all Ephesus was laughing at them, it was remembered that the spirit acknowledged the authority of Jesus, and of Paul, and that a licentious use of the name of Jesus was the cause of all their trouble. The mirth awakened by the event was soon changed to reverence for the name of Jesus, which they now saw was not, as the exorcists had pretended, a mere conjurer's talisman. Acts 19:18-20. The exposure of the seven exorcists reflected discredit upon all the pretenders to magic in Ephesus, while the name of Jesus was magnified. The effects upon the public mind were immense and astonishing. (18) “Then many of those who believed came and confessed and declared their practices. (19) And many of those who practiced curious arts, brought together their books, and burned them before all. And they counted the value of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. (20) So mightily did the word of God grow and prevail.” The believers who “ came and confessed and declared their practices,” had not, till now, realized the impropriety of those arts, which their heathen education had taught them to regard with reverence. That others, who were not yet disciples, did the same thing, and even burned up their books, is a striking proof of the fear that fell upon them all. The pieces of silver in which the value of the books was computed were doubtless the Attic didrachma; for it was a Greek city, and this was the most common silver coin among the Greeks. It was worth fifteen cents of Federal money, and the value of all the books was seven thousand five hundred dollars; a sufficient indication of the extent to which these arts prevailed, and of the number and value of the books written in explanation of them. This whole account is in full accordance with the profane history of Ephesus, which represents it as the chief center of magic arts in the whole Roman empire. Acts 19:21-22. The conclusion of the preceding events brought Paul to a period of comparative quiet, in which he began to think of leaving Ephesus. (21) “When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, and go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome. (22) So he sent into Macedonia two of those who were ministering to him, Timothy and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.”It is supposed by some that, previous to this period, Paul had made a short visit to Corinth, and returned again to Ephesus. This supposition is based upon expressions in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which are understood to imply such a visit. I regard the evidence, however, as insufficient for a safe conclusion, and will, therefore, treat the narrative as though no such visit had taken place. The reader who is curious to investigate the question should refer to Mr. Howson on the affirmative, and Paley on the negative. The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Ephesus, as we learn from the remark, (chapter 16:8-9,) “ I will tarry in Ephesus until Pentecost; for a great and effectual door is opened to me, and there are many adversaries.” It was also during the present visit that it was written, for, during his first visit, he did not tarry at all. The exact date of the epistle is best fixed within the period covered by the words “ he himself stayed in Asia for a season;” for it was then that “ a great and effectual door” was first opened to him. Other evidences of the date concur with these, and are fully stated by Mr. Howson. This is not really the first epistle Paul wrote to the Corinthians; for in it he speaks of another, which he had previously written, upon the subject of fornication. He says: “ I wrote to you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators.” This is all we know of the subject-matter of the epistle, which is lost; and perhaps it was for the reason that it treated of this subject alone, and in a less detailed method than does the epistle now called the first, that it was not preserved with the other two. Subsequent to the date of the lost epistle, some members of the household of Chloe had brought him information of great disorders and corruption in the Church in Corinth. He learned that the congregation was distracted by party strife; that fornication, and even incest were still tolerated by them; that some of them were engaged in litigation before the civil courts; that his own apostolic authority was called in question; that their women, contrary to the prevailing rules of modesty, took part in the worship with unvailed faces; that some confusion and strife had arisen in reference to the spiritual gifts among them; that some among them were even denying the resurrection; and that the Lord's supper was profaned by feasting and drunkenness. Besides all this, he had received a letter from them calling for information in reference to marriage and divorce, and the eating of meats offered to idols. To answer their questions, and to correct and rebuke these disorders, was the object of the epistle. The temper in which it is written appears calm and stern; yet it is not conceivable that Paul could hear of corruptions so gross in a Church which had cost him so much labor and anxiety, without intense pain. Though no such feeling was allowed to manifest itself in the epistle, he was constrained afterward, to confess it, and say to them, “ Out of much affliction and anguish of heart, I wrote to you, with many tears.“ It was, therefore, with a heart full of anguish in reference to some results of his past labors, but buoyed up by the opening of a wide and effectual door in his present field, that he sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, but remained himself in Asia for a season. Acts 19:23-27. (23) “Now, about that period, there arose no small stir concerning the way. (24) For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, brought no little employment to the artisans by making silver shrines of Diana, (25) Calling them together, and the workmen employed about such things, he said, Men, you understand that by this employment we have our wealth. (26) And you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but in almost the whole of Asia, this Paul, by his persuasion, has turned away a great multitude, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands; (27) and not only is this our business in danger of coming into contempt, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana will be despised, and the majesty of her whom all Asia and the world worships will be destroyed.” This is the most truthful and candid of all the speeches ever uttered against Paul. The charge that he had said these were not gods which were made with hands, was literally true, and free from exaggeration. The appeals, too, by which he sought to stir up the passions of his hearers, were candid; for he appeals directly to their pecuniary interest, which was suffering; to their veneration for the temple, which was counted one of the seven wonders of the world and to their reverence for the goddess who was the chief object of their worship. The statement of the effects already produced by Paul's preaching throughout the city and the province, endangering their whole system of idolatry, was equally truthful. Whether he is entitled to the same degree of credit in reference to the motive which prompted him, is more doubtful; for the fact that the class of men in Ephesus had the greatest pecuniary interest in the worship of Diana were the first to defend her sinking cause, is a suspicious circumstance, especially when we remember that these artisans had better reason than any others to know that the pieces of silver which they had molded and polished with their own hands were not gods. It appears to have been a corrupt determination to save their traffic at all hazards, which made them ignore the evidence of their own senses, and rendered them impervious to the arguments and demonstrations of Paul. Acts 19:28-29. The prospect of pecuniary ruin enraged the artisans, while their veneration for the goddess suggested the best theme on which to give vent to their wrath before the people. (28) “And when they heard this they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. (29) And the whole city was filled with confusion; and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theater.” The outcry, “ Great is Diana of the Ephesians,” awakened the old enthusiasm of all the idolaters who heard it, and the tone of rage with which it was uttered, suggesting some assault upon the honor of the goddess, threw the gathering mob into a frenzy. It was a kind of providence in reference to Paul, that he happened to be out of their reach. Not finding him, they seize his companions, and rushing into the theater, where criminals were sometimes exposed to wild beasts, they are about to take the part of the wild beasts themselves. What was the fate of Gaius and Aristarchus is not here stated, though both names occur afterward in the history, and probably designate the same individuals. Acts 19:30-31. When Paul heard the tumult, and knew that his companions had been dragged within the theater, he could but suppose that they were torn to pieces. This thought alone was intensely harrowing to his feelings; but it was still more so to know that they were suffering in his stead. He could not endure to remain inactive at such a crisis, but resolved to die with them. (30) “But Paul, having determined to go in to the people, the disciples would not permit him; (31) and some of the Asiarchs, also, who were his friends, sent to him and entreated him not to trust himself within the theater.” By such means he was restrained from his desperate purpose, after having fully made up his mind to die. The desperation to which he was driven he afterward describes to the Corinthians in this touching language: “ We would not have you ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were exceedingly pressed down beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life: but we had within ourselves the sentence of death, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead.” Giving up all hope of life, as he started toward the theater, and trusting in Him who raises the dead, when the tumult had subsided, and he was assured of safety, he felt much as if he had been raised from the dead. He therefore says, in the same connection, “ Who delivered me from so grievous a death, and is delivering, in whom I trust that he will even yet deliver us: you also helping by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed on us by means of many persons, thanks may be given by man on our behalf.” Acts 19:32-34. Leaving the apostle, for a time, in the cloud of sorrow which we will find still enveloping him when we meet him again, we turn to witness the proceedings within the theater. (32) “Now some were crying one thing and some another; for the assembly was confused, and the greater part knew not on what account they had come together. (33) And they put forward Alexander out of the crowd, the Jews urging him forward. And Alexander, waving his hand, wished to make a defense to the people. (34) But knowing that he was a Jew, all with one voice, for about two hours, cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” There were two reasons why the Jews should feel some anxiety to defend themselves before this mob. First, It was well known in Ephesus that they were as much opposed to idols and idol worship as were the disciples. Second, The fact that the apostle and many of his brethren were Jews, naturally attracted toward all the Jews the hatred which had been aroused against them. A courageous and manly adherence to their own principles would have prompted them to share with the disciples the obloquy of their common position; but they were endeavoring to persuade the multitude that Paul and his party should not be identified with themselves. The cowardly trick was perceived by the multitude, as soon as they perceived that it was a Jew who was trying to address them, and they gave it the rebuke it deserved by refusing to hear him. Acts 19:35-41. The rage of an excited multitude, unless it find some new fuel to keep up the flame, will naturally subside in a few hours. While it is at its height, it becomes only the more furious the more it is opposed; but when it begins to subside, frequently a few well-chosen words are sufficient to restore quiet. Acting upon this principle, the city authorities had not, thus far, interfered with the mob; but when they were exhausted by long-continued vociferation, the following well-timed and well-worded speech was addressed to them. (35) “But the public clerk, having quieted the people, said, Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of Ephesus is a worshiper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? (36) Seeing, then, that these things can not be spoken against, you ought to be quieted, and do nothing rashly. (37) For you have brought hither these men, who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your goddess. (38) If, then, Demetrius, and the artisans who are with him, have a complaint against any one, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls; let them accuse one another. (39) But if you are making inquiry concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. (40) For we are in danger of being called to account for this day's tumult, there being no cause for which we will be able to give an account of this concourse. (41) And having spoken thus, he dismissed the assembly.”This is evidently the speech of a man well skilled in the management of popular assemblies, and, doubtless, its happy adaptation to the circumstances is what suggested to Luke the propriety of preserving it. It is probable that the speaker, like the Asiarchs who interfered to keep Paul out of danger, was a friend to the apostle, and a man of too much intelligence to receive with blind credulity the popular delusion in reference to the temple and image of Diana. The speech, indeed, has a ring of insincerity about it, indicating that the speaker was merely humoring the popular superstition for the special purpose before him. Upon this hypothesis the speech appears the more ingenious. The confident assumption that the divine honors bestowed on their goddess, and the belief that her image fell from heaven, were so well known that no man would call them in question, was soothing to their excited feelings, and the remark that the unquestionable certainty of these facts ought to make them feel entirely composed on the subject, brought them, by a happy turn of thought, to the very composure which he desired, and which they fancied was the result of a triumphant vindication of their cause. Advancing, then, to the case of the disciples, like a trained advocate, he ignores the real charge against them, that of denying that they are gods which are made with hands, and declares that they are neither temple robbers, nor revilers of their goddess. Then, as for the men who had excited them to this disturbance, the proconsular courts were the proper place for complaints like theirs, and they had no right to disturb the people with such matters. Finally, he gives them a gentle hint as to the unlawfulness of their assemblage, and the probability that they would be called to account for it by the Roman authorities. This last remark had special force with the majority, who, according to Luke, “ knew not on what account they had come together;” and the whole speech was well aimed toward the result which followed, the dispersion of the mob. The city authorities had reason to congratulate themselves that so fierce a mob had been so successfully controlled, and the disciples could but be thankful to God that they had escaped so well. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Nineteen IN THIS CHAPTER 1) Note that those only baptized in John's baptism, were taught to believe in Jesus and were baptized in His name 2) Examine how Paul taught in the area of Ephesus for some two years 3) Review what happened when false teachers (exorcists) attempted to cast out evil spirits in the name of Jesus 4) Examine the uprising caused by Demetrius and his fellow silversmiths SUMMARY When Paul arrived in Ephesus, he found some disciples who had only been baptized in John's baptism. He instructed them that they should believe on Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. They spoke in tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-7) Paul spoke boldly about the kingdom of God in the synagogue in Ephesus for three months. Some were hardened and spoke evil of "the Way." Paul then went to the school of Tyrannus, reasoning daily with the disciples. Paul continued this for two years. [Galatians may have been written at this time.] All of Asia heard the Word of the Lord. (Acts 19:8-10) God worked miracles through Paul. Even handkerchiefs and aprons brought from Paul drove out diseases and evil spirits. Some itinerant Jewish exorcists called on the name of the Lord Jesus to drive out evil spirits. Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, did this as well. An evil spirit in a man recognized the name of Jesus and Paul, but did not recognize them. The man with the evil spirit leaped on them, overpowered them and prevailed against them. They fled naked and wounded. Both Jews and Greeks heard of this in Ephesus, and the name of the Lord was magnified. Many who practiced magic brought their books together and burned them. The books were worth about fifty thousand pieces of silver. The word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed. (Acts 19:11-20) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 19:2. Paul knew that in those days a baptized believer was entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost (see the comments at chapter 2:38), but he also knew that even their baptism did not automatically bestow that gift until an apostle had laid hands on them (chapter 8:18). He did not know whether that special favor had yet been given to them, hence the question stated in this place. When they told him they had not heard anything about such a subject as the Holy Ghost, it showed that something was wrong. 3Act 19:3. In answer to his question about their baptism, they told Paul that they had been baptized unto John's baptism. (See chapter 18:25.) 4Acts 19:4. The difference between "John's baptism" and "Christian baptism" is indicated in this verse. When John baptized a man he was required to believe on Christ who was to come. He had not yet come and hence no person could be baptized into His name or by his authority. But John was dead and Christ had come when Apollos was preaching, hence it was unscriptural to use John's baptism. Both baptisms were "for the remission of sins," and both had to be preceded by repentance (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38). But the latter was by the authority of Christ which put the believer into His name. 5Acts 19:5. These were rebaptized and it was into the name of Christ. No person but John could use his baptism, but the ones whom he baptized never had to be baptized again, for they were then prepared for the service of Christ. 7Acts 19:6-7. What happened when Paul laid hands on them, was what he was inquiring about in verse 2. Only those who were baptized with "Christian baptism" were entitled to that gift, and even then it required the hands of an apostle. 8Acts 19:8. Disputing is from the same word as "reasoned" in chapter 17:2. By reasoning on the subject, Paul was able to persuade some in favor of the kingdom of God. 9Acts 19:9. After three months of effort before the general multitudes assembling in the synagogue, the opposition to the truth became such that Paul concluded he could accomplish more by working elsewhere. Separated the disciples means he withdrew with the ones who were truly interested and who were eager to hear more of the truth. School is from the Greek word SCHOLE. Robinson defines it, "leisure, rest, vacation, attention, devotion, study." He then explains it to mean, "A place of learned leisure, where a teacher and his disciples came together and held discussions and disputations." Thayer defines it, "Freedom from labor, leisure; a place where there is leisure for anything, a school." Moffatt renders it, "lecture-room." This "school," then, was a place maintained by Tyrannus, a kind of public auditorium that was open to the public for the free use of any persons who wished to engage in cultural and recreational activities. 0Acts 19:10. This school was frequented by many people of all races and from all over Asia, for in the two years that Paul spent in his teaching there, the word of the Lord was heard throughout that area. 2Act 19:11-12. Special miracles denotes those that were not commonly performed even in the days of miracles. God is able to accomplish any kind of wonders and by whatever means He wills. As an encouraging support for the work of the apostle in this center of various thought and activity, the Lord saw fit to use the pieces miraculously that had been in contact with the preacher. 3Act 19:13. Vagabond Jews were some who were wandering around from house to house. An exorcist was a person who expelled demons from men by pronouncing some mysterious sentence, or by commanding the evil spirit by some important name. But even evil characters can be imitated and their work be pretended to be done by mere impostors. The present ones were frauds and pretended to be working through the name of Jesus; and to add weight to their pretense, they used the name of Paul. 4Acts 19:14. Sceva was a high priest, and he had seven sons who were practicing this fraud, attempting to cast out a devil from an unfortunate man. 5Acts 19:15. Jesus I know. This evil spirit was telling the truth, for the devils were originally in heaven and had been cast out because of sin (2 Peter 2:4), and it was there that they had their acquaintance with Jesus. That accounts for the statements in Mark 1:24 Mark 1:34. Since these men were frauds the spirit did not recognize them. 6Acts 19:16. Being possessed with a devil did not have the same effect on every person. In the present instance it produced unusual physical strength and activity. Acting through the man in whom the devil was dwelling, it pounced upon these pretenders and they fled from the house in fright and stripped of their clothing. 7Acts 19:17. The word fear is used in the sense of respect in this verse, since it caused the name of the Lord Jesus to be magnified by both Jews and Greeks. 8Acts 19:18. This respectful fear was proved by their confession of evil deeds. 9Acts 19:19. These penitent Jews and Greeks did not stop with mere confessions, for the event about the exorcists convinced them that the business of dealing in trifles was wrong. Curious arts is from , which is defined by Thayer as things "impertinent and superflous," and he explains it to mean "arts of magic." These were chiefly a system of superstitious performances, and they had their recipes written in books by which they would mislead their victims. When they became penitent over their sinful practices, they proved their sincerity by burning the collection of their evil formulas. Moffatt renders the value of the books to be 2,000 pounds of silver 0Acts 19:20. The word of God grew, because every genuine demonstration of repentance was attributed to the power of that word over the minds of men. The increase of the word means that the number of believers in the word was increased. 1Act 19:21. Purposed in the spirit means that it was Paul's personal plans to accomplish the things stated. While he always intended doing and saying the things that were in harmony with the Holy Spirit, this was not an inspired purpose, for part of it was not carried out as he had purposed. He did actually see Rome, but not until he was taken there as a prisoner (chapter 28:16). 2Act 19:22. Paul's purpose was to leave Ephesus and go through Macedonia and Achaia (Greece), but he did not intend starting at once, for he wished to spend some more time in the city. Timotheus and Erastus usually traveled with Paul as coworkers, but he released them to go ahead and work in the region of Macedonia while he was still in Asia. 3Act 19:23. That way is a phrase applying to the Gospel plan, so used because of its preeminence. (See verse 9; chapter 9:2.) The original word for stir is defined, "commotion, stir, tumult" in Thayer's lexicon. It was because of the interference it was making with many of the evils in the community. 4Acts 19:24. Diana was a heathen goddess and a temple was built for her at Ephesus. Demetrius and his fellow workers made a great deal of money by forming shrines, which were small models of the temple, selling them to travelers who wished them for souvenirs. 5Acts 19:25. Demetrius became concerned over the prospect of losing this business and he called a meeting of his partners in the trade. 6Acts 19:26. Demetrius called attention of his fellows to the preaching of Paul, stating that it had extended throughout Asia. The part of Paul's preaching that worried him was that against idolatry, especially the kind that was the work of human hands. 7Acts 19:27. These men were not concerned about the merits of the religious issue, but feared that financial loss would come to them if people were made to believe in the one living God. That is the meaning of the statement, our craft [business or occupation] is in danger. It was the old story of men being more interested in their financial than in their spiritual welfare. Yet they pretended to be concerned about the dignity of the idolatrous goddess, that was worshiped by the world. 8Acts 19:28. The inflamatory speech of Demetrius aroused the mob spirit of these tradesmen, causing them to make a boistrous shout in behalf of the goddess. 9Acts 19:29. The cry spread until it affected the whole city, throwing it into confusion. The excited people let their wrath be exhibited against the associates of Paul. They took them by force into a place where public performances were put on. 0Acts 19:30. Paul wished to appear in this public place to reply to the complaints of the mob. Fearing that he might be harmed by the angry populace, the disciples prevented him from entering the theatre. 1Act 19:31. Sent unto him denotes that a general state of confusion existed, so that special means had to be used to communicate with Paul. 2Act 19:32. This state of disorder made it impossible to discern just what the concourse was about or what the issue was. 3Act 19:33. A riot is regarded by all civilized nations as something worthy of being condemned. The Jews feared that their people would be blamed by the Greeks for the present uprising. They selected this prominent member of their race to speak in their behalf, and he prepared to make an address for that purpose. 4Acts 19:34. This outcry was the opposite of an ovation. It was a disorderly explosion of anger and disrespect against the attempt of a Jew to make a speech in the public theatre of the Greek people. This raving mob was so worked up and tumultuous that it took two hours to get it quieted. 5Acts 19:35. A townclerk was a secretary or public scribe; a man supposed to be informed in matters of law and order. After two hours he was able to get the uproar subdued so that he could speak to the people. His purpose was to state the legal and fair aspects of the situation. He proposed to show that there was no call for such a demonstration in defense of the temple of Diana. That it was common knowledge that the people were devoted worshipers of their goddess, which it was believed had come down from Jupiter, another god of the Greeks. 6Acts 19:36. The reputation of the goddess in the eyes of the Greek people was not even questioned by them, hence there was no reason for being reckless or unnecessarily hasty in acting against Paul and his companions. 7Acts 19:37. The townclerk was not siding with Paul in his teaching, but wished to show his fellow citizens that they were mistreating him and his friends contrary to the principles of human rights. Robbers of churches is from which means those who commit sacrilege or who rob temples. Paul had not made any vicious attack on the goddess of the Greeks, but had emphasized the authority of the God of Heaven. But these heathen had correctly concluded that if the God whom Paul preached was the only true one, then all manmade objects of worship were false. 8Acts 19:38. The reasoning of the town-clerk was that provision had been made by the law of the land, whereby all just complaints could be handled. Deputies were men authorized to represent the government in the disputes arising between man and man. 9Acts 19:39. By other matters he meant subjects that were differences of opinion only and not involving any personal misconduct. Lawful assembly means one called by the proper authorities and in accordance with the law. 0Acts 19:40. The townclerk feared that the higher authorities might bring a complaint against the community because of the riot. 1Act 19:41. The mob was dispersed without further disorder, because the people had been shown the lawlessness of their actions. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 20 PAUL Acts 20:1-6 1 And after the uproar ceased,—There is no evidence that “ the uproar” of the mob caused Paul to leave Ephesus; it might have hastened his departure. He had determined before that event to leave the city. (Acts 19:21-22.) Luke, the writer, is very brief here and passes over without a word an important period in Paul’ s life. We are able to fill up the gap in the narrative from scattered references in Paul’ s writings, especially from Second Corinthians. It seems that Paul left Ephesus by land and went by land to Troas; he waited there anxiously for Titus (2 Corinthians 2:13), whom he had sent to Corinth on a mission connected with the collection then being made by the Gentile churches for the relief of the poor saints in Jerusalem. For some cause Titus was delayed, and Paul sailed from Troas to Macedonia, where Titus met him with news from Corinth. (2 Corinthians 7:6.) Some think that Paul met Titus at Philippi, where he wrote the second Corinthian letter. 2 And when he had gone through those parts,—We do not know why Luke did not tell of Paul’ s sojourn in Troas (2 Corinthians 2:12 f), nor of the meeting with Titus in Macedonia (2 Corinthians 2:13 to 2 Corinthians 7:16), nor of Paul’ s visit to Illyricum (Romans 15:19 f.), to give time for the second letter to Corinth to do its work. Paul finally came into Greece or Achaia and came to Corinth, whither he had at last come again after repeated attempts, delays, and pauses. Paul followed his usual custom of visiting and conferring with the churches already established. (Acts 15:41 Acts 18:23.) We may know that Paul preached the gospel on his way to Corinth (2 Corinthians 10:16), and made excursions into the surrounding parts of Achaia, with Corinth as his headquarters. 3 And when he had spent three months there,—The historian Luke here briefly refers to Paul’ s second residence in Corinth. Some think that this was his third visit to Corinth. (2 Corinthians 13:1.) He may have made a short trip to Corinth during his three years’ stay at Ephesus. He had been away from Corinth three years, and in that period many changes had taken place in the church. There were the disputes about the Lord’ s Supper, the divisions into different partisan groups, the immoral lives of some of the members, and many other evils that needed to be corrected. During the three months of his stay at Corinth, Paul wrote the great epistle to the Romans. (Romans 15:25 Romans 16:1.) The Galatian letter was possibly written at this time also. A plot was laid against Paul by the Jews while he was there, as he was about to “ set sail for Syria.” Paul, having heard of this plot, changed his course and, instead of sailing for Syria, he returned “ through Macedonia.” We do not know what this plot was, but we do know that it caused Paul to make a circuitous route through Macedonia. 4 And there accompanied him as far as Asia,—Seven brethren accompanied Paul: Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. We know nothing further of Sopater; Aristarchus has been mentioned before (Acts 19:29) ; he was on the ship with Paul on the way to Rome (Acts 27:2); and he is mentioned in Colossians 4:10 as Paul’ s fellow prisoner. We know nothing further of Secundus; Gaius was probably a friend of Timothy, who was from Lystra, a neighboring city to Derbe. Tychicus is mentioned four times in Paul’ s writings during his imprisonment at Rome. (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7; 2 Timothy 4:12; Titus 3:12.) Trophimus was with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:29), and is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:20. Paul was carrying a contribution contributed by the Gentile churches; hence, these brethren could assist him and serve as a bodyguard to him. 5 But these had gone before,—It is probable that only the last two went before and were waiting for the company at Troas. Here the language of the narrative suddenly changes from the third person to the first; Luke has now joined Paul’ s company. Paul and Luke were together from the time of the arrival of Paul at Troas (Acts 16:8); they crossed over together into Europe, but when Paul left Philippi (Acts 16:40), Luke was left behind, and, it has been supposed, made Philippi the center of his work for several years. Now again, after the lapse of five or six years, they meet. The remainder of the Acts is told by an eyewitness of the various events recorded; we conclude that from this time till Paul was entrusted to the charge of the soldiers at Rome Luke was continually with him. Many think that the seven brethren went before and waited for Paul and Luke to come to Troas. 6 And we sailed away from Philippi—Philippi was about ten or twelve miles from the seaport, Neapolis. They had come to Philippi by land. They remained there during “ the days of un¬leavened bread.” This was the Passover. The Passover proper lasted only one day, the fourteenth day of the first month, but there followed the Passover seven days, known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread; hence the two feasts were united and one name included tba Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, or the Feast of Unleavened Bread included the Passover. Paul was a Jew and Luke was a Gentile. The passover was to be eaten in Jerusalem ; it may be that Paul remained here during this time to preach the gospel to Jews that might assemble. Again, the Feast of Unleavened Bread is mentioned as a chronological note of time; Paul did not tarry at Philippi to observe the Passover, but remained there that Luke might arrange and prepare for the journey. They set sail for Troas and arrived in “ five days” ; six years before this Paul had made the voyage in the opposite direction in two days. (Acts 16:11.) It may be that adverse winds delayed their sailing. They remained in Troas seven days. PAUL AT TROAS Acts 20:7-12 7 And upon the first day of the week,—This is the first time that we have mentioned services “ upon the first day of the week.” Paul had written First Corinthians before this; in that letter he had designated that collections or contributions should be taken on the first day of the week. (1 Corinthians 16:2.) He tells us that he had given the same “ order to the churches of Galatia.” (1 Corinthians 16:1.) This shows that it had become a well-established custom for the early Christians to meet on the first day of the week; this custom is now a command, or rather, there is a command for this collection to be taken on the first day of the week. They had met at Troas or gathered “ together to break bread” on “ the first day of the week.” “ To break bread” is from the Greek “ klasai arton,” which is the same as in Acts 2:42. This is used for the Lord’ s Supper; hence, we have here the purpose of their gathering together on the first day of the week. Paul was present and “ discoursed with them,” purposing to leave Troas on the following day. However, he “ prolonged his speech until midnight.” Paul’ s preaching was incidental, though instructive. Paul reasoned with them, and the conversation was used to solve doubts and clear away difficulties which might be in the way of some young Christians. 8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber—They were gathered in an “ upper chamber” for the services. The upper room was used for devotional purposes; it was so located as to be retired and free from disturbance. It was located on the third story. The lights are mentioned by Luke to portray the scene, and it would at once be noticed if anyone absented himself from the audience. 9 And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus,—Perhaps this young man sat on the window sill where the seats extended out over the street; the window was not of glass; hence, one could fall out the window very easily. This “ certain young man” is called a “ lad” in verse 12. Paul’ s discourse continued until midnight and the young man was “ borne down with deep sleep,” and while asleep, “ he fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead.” Eutychus was not merely taken up for dead, but “ was taken up dead.” This is recorded by Luke, the physician, who was present and knew all the particulars. 10 And Paul went down, and fell on him,—Paul went down the stairway, which was usually outside and led down to the street. Paul “ fell on him” similar to what Elijah (1 Kings 17:21) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:34) did; Paul very likely placed his body upon the body of Eutychus as did Elijah and Elisha, and accompanied his action with prayer. Paul told the anxious ones who stood around that they should not make such ado, for the young man’ s life was in him. This is similar to what Christ said at the house of Jairus. (Luke 8:52-53.) Paul did not say that Eutychus had not been dead, but that after his efforts life was there. Some had attempted to prove that Eutychus was not dead, but the language clearly implies that he was dead, but now is alive. 11 And when he was gone up, and had broken the bread,— Commentators are not agreed as to whether the Lord’ s Supper was meant by “ had broken the bread” or a common meal. If this was the Lord’ s Supper, and if they counted the day from midnight to midnight as we count it, then they ate the Lord’ s Supper on Mon¬day ; if they ate the Lord’ s Supper on Monday, they did not do what they met to do on the first day of the week; again, if this was the Lord’ s Supper, and if they began counting time from sunset to sunset, then they ate the Lord’ s Supper on the first day of the week. If this does not refer to the Lord’ s Supper, it refers to a common meal; this would mean that they had already eaten the Lord’ s Supper, and now, since there had been an interruption in Paul’ s discourse by the falling of Eutychus out of the window, Paul took nourishment and continued his speech. It seems better to conclude that this was not the Lord’ s Supper, but that it was a common meal which Paul ate in preparation for his expected de¬parture. It is mentioned with particular reference to Paul, not to the worshiping company; hence, we conclude that the Lord’ s Supper had been observed at an earlier period of the meeting, and therefore, on the first day of the week, as they had met for that purpose on that day. 12 And they brought the lad alive,—The young man was brought into the assembly room in a normal condition; the word “ brought,” not “ carried,” shows that he was in a normal condition. The disciples were encouraged by Paul’ s speech and comforted by the fact that the young man was alive and in a normal condition. Paul and his company departed as they had intended, and left the brethren further instructed and hopeful as the Lord’ s people. AT MILETUS WITH THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH AT EPHESUSAct_20:13-38 13 But we, going before to the ship,—The company, including Luke, as the pronoun “ we” shows, set sail from Troas for Assos; this town was in Mysia on the north shore of the Gulf of Adramyttium, about twenty miles from Troas by land, and about thirty miles by sea. Paul had gone by land and had instructed his company to meet him at Assos. Some think that Paul’ s company had chartered a vessel and could make stops wherever ordered. 14 And when he met us at Assos,—The company came to Assos, where Paul joined them, and then came to Mitylene. Mitylene was the capital of Lesbos, and was about thirty miles from Assos. Mitylene was the birthplace of Sappho, the female poet, and the poet Alcaeus. It could be reached from Assos in one day’ s journey. 15 And sailing from thence,—It was a day’ s journey from Mitylene to Chios. The island of Chios is about five miles distant from the mainland; it was in the Aegean Sea. The next day the vessel “ touched at Samos.” The island of Samos lies off that part of the coast of Asia Minor, where the ancient Ionia joined on to Caria; it has been famous both in ancient Greek and modern Euro¬pean history. On the mainland opposite, at the termination of the ridge of Mycale, lay Trogyllium, for which the apostle’ s vessel made without stopping in Samos. The next day the vessel sailed to Miletus. Miletus had been a most famous seaport in earlier Greek history, but in the days of Paul its fame was eclipsed by Ephesus. It seems that they arrived at Miletus the fourth day after leaving Troas. Miletus was about twenty-eight miles south of Ephesus by land, and lay near the mouth of the Meander; it was one day’ s sail from Trogyllium. 16 For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus,—Paul sought to evade stopping at Ephesus; at this time he did not wish to revisit the church there, lest the many friends and their pressing solicitations should delay his voyage. He did not have any time to spare, as he wanted to reach Jerusalem in time to be there at the Feast of Pentecost. If Paul could get to Jerusalem by Pentecost he could present the gifts of the Gentile churches in the presence of the great crowd of foreign Jews who would assemble in Jerusalem at the Pentecostal feast, and thus spread abroad in all lands the great fact that the Gentile Christians were one with their Jewish brethren; this would impress them that the disciples of the Lord were one body. 17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus,—Some think that had the ship been entirely at Paul’ s disposal he would have asked the elders at Ephesus to meet him at Trogyllium, which is very near Ephesus. Had he gone to Ephesus he would probably have been compelled to stay longer than he wished to stay. It would take more than one day for Paul to send his messenger to Ephesus and summon those whom he wished to see. If they came to him on the next day that would be consumed in their conference, and the voyage could hardly be begun again till the third day at the earliest. He sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church to meet him. The term “ elders” here is from the Greek “ presbuterous,” from which we get our term “ presbytor.” The first term “ elder” applied to a disciple of Christ is found in Acts 11:30, and then again Acts 15:4 Acts 15:6 Acts 15:22. The “ elders” are not “ apostles,” but are “ bishops.” (Philippians 1:1.) The “ elders” in this verse are called “ bishops” in verse 28. The duties of the elders are the ministration of the affairs of the church, conducting public worship, preaching the gospel to sinners, and edifying the membership. 18 And when they were come to him,—It is difficult to analyze Paul’ s address to the elders of the church of Ephesus at this time; it is full of personality, instruction, and persuasion. He first appealed to their knowledge of his manner of life among them; it had been about four years since he began his work at Ephesus. In fact, most of his work in Asia was done in Ephesus; these elders knew his work at Ephesus and had heard of his labors elsewhere in Asia. They knew Paul’ s manner of life and could vindicate him against any of the reports circulated to his injury. 19 serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind,—Paul was not puffed up; he did not boast of what he had done or what he could do; he served the Lord with “ all lowliness of mind.” Paul was clothed with humility and had a humble mind as he taught the people and preached a crucified Lord. He preached with ‘‘ tears.” He wrote to the church at Corinth “ with many tears.” (2 Corinthians 2:4.) In writing the church at Philippi he rehearsed some things to the church there, and then said that he now told them “ even weep¬ing” at the time he wrote the Philippian letter. (Philippians 3:18.) This shows how earnestly and sincerely Paul engaged in the work of the Lord. They knew the trials and plots that endangered Paul’ s life. Though the Jews had at first desired him to return to them, they soon fell into the same hostility of others. The Jews who rejected the gospel became Paul’ s worst enemies. 20 how I shrank not from declaring unto you anything—Amidst all the plots and hostilities to which Paul was subjected he did not keep back “ anything that was profitable” to them. Everything that pertained to life and godliness had been declared by Paul. He preached the gospel publicly in the synagogue of the Jews and in the public assembly of the Gentiles; he preached the gospel in private “ from house to house” ; he preached Christ pub¬licly and in private circles, in the church or place of worship, and in the dwellings. Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, set the example of teaching the word of God, both publicly and privately. 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God,—Paul testified of all the things that were profitable to their salvation; “ testifying” is from the Greek “ diamarturomenos,” and was used by Peter in Acts 2:40, where Luke used the same word to describe Peter’ s preaching. Again Luke uses “ Jews and to Greeks,” thus including both as Paul did in Romans 1:16. He preached “ repentance toward God” and “ faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Repentance is required of Jews and Greeks, and faith is needed by the Jews as well as the Greeks. Faith and re¬pentance go together; to the alien they cannot be separated. John the Baptist came to make ready a people prepared for Christ by preaching repentance toward God; Christ preached repentance toward God, and Paul, in preaching to the Athenians, first presented to them the true God, then called on them to repent of their idola¬tries which had dishonored God; after that he presented Christ as the crucified and risen Lord. (Acts 17:29-31.) All sin is against God; hence, repentance must be toward God. The writer here does not mean to say that repentance to the alien precedes faith. Such a position would teach that men repent toward God before they believe in God, and repent toward Christ before they believe in him. 22-23 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit—Here Paul mentions his journey to Jerusalem; he was now on his way and could not go to Ephesus and tarry there, as he was hastening on to Jerusalem. “ Bound in the spirit” means that he was bound in his own spirit; it is the same as in Acts 19:21, where he “ purposed in the spirit.” However, some have interpreted these words to mean that Paul was constrained by the Holy Spirit to make the journey to Jerusalem; the context seems to indicate that it is Paul’ s spirit. He did not know what would befall him; he was not concerned about the persecutions that would come upon him, as he was willing to die for Christ. The Holy Spirit testified that “ bonds and afflic-tions” awaited him in every city where he went. The Holy Spirit had called Paul to the work (Acts 13:2), and had moved the dis¬ciples (Acts 21:4) and Agabus (Acts 21:11) to warn Paul of the sufferings which were at hand. Perhaps many other warnings came to Paul that Luke does not record. 24 But I hold not my life of any account as dear unto myself,—Paul had given his life to Christ; it was not held as dear to himself, and he was willing to spend and be spent in order to further the cause of Christ. Paul glorified in tribulations (2 Corinthians 12:10 f); he did not regard his life as valuable in comparison with his joyfully completing his career and attaining the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Paul is determined to run the race to the end and to preach the gospel of the grace of God to all who would hear him. The race with Paul will last as long as life lasts; he will not faint in the middle of sufferings which awaited him. Later Paul said: “ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.” (2 Timothy 4:7.) The gospel is here called “ the gospel of the grace of God” because it was given by the grace of God. Grace means the free favor of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that ye all,—We do not know that Paul ever saw Ephesus again; it seems that Paul did not expect to see these elders again. Paul had preached “ the kingdom” at Ephesus. Daniel had prophesied (Daniel 2:44) that God would set up his kingdom; John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles before Pentecost preached that it was “ at hand” ; after Pentecost the apostles preached that the kingdom was in existence and that Christians were citizens in the kingdom; so here we find that Paul went about preaching the kingdom. 26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day,—Paul is very personal ; he is speaking face to face with the elders of the church at Ephesus; he could call them to witness that he was stating the truth to them. He had kept nothing back that pertained to the redemption of souls. He had taught them what to do to become Christians, and had taught them how to live the Christian life, and now he could declare “ that I am pure from the blood of all men.” He had taught them the will of God and had warned them of the doom of those who would not obey the gospel. As a watchman standing on the wall, he had warned all; hence, he was not chargeable with their destruction; his skirts.were clear from the blood of all, as he had faithfully warned all of their duty and of the coming wrath. (Ezekiel 3:18-21.) Paul had declared the whole counsel of God here as he had at Corinth. (Acts 18:6.) 27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you—He had not withheld anything from them that was needful for them to know or do for their own salvation. “ The whole counsel of God” means all the counsel of God that concerned Paul’ s work as a preacher of the gospel and an apostle of Christ. Paul had not suppressed anything that pertained to the salvation of souls. The one who suppresses what he ought to declare is guilty of the blood of those who are lost. Paul had found great comfort in the Ephesian church, more power to declare the “ mystery” of the gospel. (Ephesians 3:4.) God had revealed to Paul all things concerning Christ, salvation, the kingdom of God, and its relation to men; Paul had declared all that had been revealed unto him. 28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock,—The first duty belonging to elders is to take heed to themselves; they are to be “ ensamples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:3.) They have the responsibility of setting an example before others; they must take heed that they are worthy examples. Another phase of their responsibility is to look after the flock. The church is here repre¬sented as “ the flock.” They are to look after “ all the flock,” not just a few of the members. “ Flock” is from the Greek “ poimnioi,” which is contracted from “ poimenion.” (John 10:16.) The Holy Spirit had made them bishops; the Holy Spirit had made them bishops by describing the qualifications and through the church had called them to be “ bishops.” “ Bishops” here is from the Greek “ episkopous,” and is the same as “ elders” in verse 17; hence, elders and bishops are just different terms applied to the same men. All who are elders today in a scriptural sense have been made elders by the Holy Spirit. “ To feed the church” is a duty imposed upon the elders; as shepherds they are to see that the flock receives proper nourishment. The “ elders” were to watch over the flocks as “ bishops” and to tend and feed as “ shepherds.” Here the church is called “ the church of the Lord,” because the Lord had “ purchased with his own blood” this institution. Every member of the church has been brought with the price of the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:20); the church is composed of members; hence, the church has been purchased with the blood of Christ. 29 I know that after my departing—Paul, with the Holy Spirit, knew what would take place. After his departing, not his death, but his leaving them, “ grievous wolves” would “ enter in among” them, “ not sparing the flock.” Paul keeps up the figure of a flock, with shepherds, and ferocious wolves destroying the flock. “ Grievous wolves” means those that are savage, harsh, and rapa¬cious. Jesus had described false teachers as “ ravening wolves.” (Matthew 7:15.) These false teachers would destroy the faith of the members; here Paul makes reference to teachers of dangerous doctrines, whether Judaizers or heathen theosophists such as the Gnostics. 30 and from among your own selves shall men arise,—Paul further predicts that false teachers should arise “ from among your own selves” who would disturb the church. False teachers would arise among the elders of the church at Ephesus. The church at Ephesus became notorious in after days as a seat of a great Gnostic heresy; even in the New Testament writings, not fewer than six of the pioneers of these false teachers are mentioned as belonging to Ephesus; they are: Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20), Phygelus and Hermogenes (2 Timothy 1:15), and Philetus. In 3 John 1:9 we read of Diotrephes who lived at Ephesus. The church at Ephesus is condemned for its false teachers later by John. (Revelation 2:2.) 31 Wherefore watch ye,—Paul not only warned these elders and the church at Ephesus, but put them on their guard and asked them to watch carefully. This was one phase of the duties of elders. He had held himself up as an example to them, and now he warned them. He calls to their attention that “ by the space of here declares his solemn motives in preaching the gospel to them. One of the slanders against Paul was that he was raising the collection for himself and not for the poor. He includes “ apparel” because much of the wealth in that eastern country consisted largely in fine apparel. (Genesis 24:53; 2 Kings 5:5; Psalms 45:13 f.) "three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears.” Paul did not cease admonishing them night and day with all the earnestness of his soul to be on their guard and watch themselves and the flock over which they were to preside. Paul did not mean to be exact as to time. It was about three years; two of these he taught publicly in the school at Tyrannus (Acts 19:10) ; three months preceding he had taught in the Jewish synagogue (Acts 19:8); and previously he had been in Ephesus with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:19). It was usual among the Jews to reckon a part of a day for a whole one, and so a part of a year might, in a general statement, be reckoned for a whole year. He warned them “ with tears” ; this shows how deep and tender was his solicitude for the welfare of the church. 32 And now I commend you to God,—As he is about to leave them he can do no better than to commend them to God; the apos¬tle who had preached the gospel to them, and who had instructed them in living the Christian life, now commends them to God who is able to build them up and to give them an inheritance “ among all them that are sanctified.” The precious truths of God are here spoken of as the “ word of his grace” ; as grace and truth came through Christ (John 1:17), so the words that came through Jesus may be called the words of grace. God’ s people today have nothing else to guide them but “ the word of his grace.” Those who are in Christ are sanctified; they have been sanctified by the truth. (John 17:17.) God alone can give an inheritance in heaven; hence, he has promised all who are faithful to him the crown of life. (Revelation 2:10.) 33 I coveted no man’ s silver,—Paul did not preach for money; he was conscious of having been actuated by no personal or worldly considerations. He did not preach for the love of money, nor display of talent, nor to gratify a selfish ambition; he had only a simple and sincere desire to serve his Lord and his church. He here declares his solemn motives in preaching the gospel to them. One of the slanders against Paul was that he was raising the col¬lection for himself and not for the poor. He includes “ apparel” because much of the wealth in that eastern country consisted largely in fine apparel. (Genesis 24:53; 2 Kings 5:5; Psalms 45:13 f.) 34 Ye yourselves know that these hands—Paul needed no further proof or evidence; he could appeal to their own knowledge as to how he had worked with his hands and earned the necessities of life. He not only worked to support himself, but helped to support those who were with him. (1 Corinthians 9:12 1 Corinthians 9:15.) Paul could hold up his hands in their sight as witnesses that he had worked and had honestly provided his own support. We have learned that Paul was a tentmaker, and that he frequently ministered to others. He said to the church at Corinth, while he was in Ephesus, that “ we toil, working with our own hands.” (1 Corinthians 4:12.) 35 In all things I gave you an example,—Not only did he give them an example as to how to live, but he gave them an example that they should work with their own hands to support themselves and to help support those that preach the gospel. He toiled not only for himself, but for others. Here he quotes one of the unwritten sayings of our Lord: “ It is more blessed to give than to receive.” These words were well known and quite familiar to his listeners, yet they are not found in any of the four writers of the gospel. They enforce with solemn distinctness the duty of liberality to the poor; they possess a far deeper meaning, for they assert as an eternal truth the higher blessedness of giving as compared with receiving. It may be that the full truth of this statement of our Lord in all its length and breadth and depth and height will never be fully understood by any but the redeemed, and not by them till they enter the city of the Lamb of God. 36 And when he had thus spoken,—As he finished his address to these elders, Paul “ kneeled down and prayed with them all.” The early Christians were in the habit of “ kneeling” in prayer on ordinary occasions. We read that Stephen, while they were stoning him to death, kneeled in prayer. (Acts 7:60.) Such a posture is a fitting attitude in prayer; this was the posture that Jesus took. (Luke 22:41.) 37 And they all wept sore,—Paul had a tender feeling for these brethren; he knew their weakness, and he knew their responsibilities. He wept with them. They “ fell on Paul’ s neck and kissed him.” “ Kissed” is from the Greek “ katephiloun,” and means a repetition of the act; they kept on kissing or kissed repeatedly ; some think that one after the other fell on his neck and kissed him by turns. They held Paul in high esteem, and had great affection for him. 38 sorrowing most of all for the word—The greatest cause of their grief was the thought that they would probably see Paul no more. He had said to them that they should see his “ face no more” (verse 25), and this was the chief source of their sorrowing. Some think that Paul and the elders were wrong in this; they think that Paul revisited Ephesus after his first imprisonment in Rome; however, this is not clear. There is no statement that we can correctly interpret that he ever visited Ephesus again. His address had made a solemn impression on them, and his deep affection for them bound him to them, and their affection for Paul bound them to him. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 20Acts 20:1. (1) “After the tumult had ceased, Paul called to him the disciples, and bade them farewell, and departed to go into Macedonia.” Thus ended the long-continued labors of the apostle in Ephesus. The “ great and effectual door,” which he saw open before him but a few weeks previous, had now been suddenly closed; and the “ many adversaries,” for the noble purpose of resisting whom he had resolved to remain in Ephesus till Pentecost, had prevailed against him. He had accomplished much in the city and province, but there seemed now a terrible reaction among the people in favor of their time-honored idolatry, threatening to crush out the results of his long and arduous labors. When the disciples, whom he had taught and warned with tears, both publicly and from house to house, for the space of three years, were gathered around him for the last time, and he was about to leave them in a great furnace of affliction, no tongue can tell the bitterness of the final farewell. All was dark behind him, and all forbidding before him; for he turns his face toward the shore across the Ægean, where he had been welcomed before with stripes and imprisonment. No attempt is made, either by Luke or himself, to describe his feelings, until he reached Troas, where he was to embark for Macedonia, and where he expected to meet Titus returning from Corinth. At this point, a remark of his own gives us a clear insight to the pent-up sorrows of his heart. He writes to the Corinthians: “ When I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and a door was opened to me by the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not my brother Titus; but took leave of them, and came away into Macedonia.” We have followed this suffering apostle through many disheartening scenes, and will yet follow him through many more; but only on this occasion do we find his heart so sink within him that he can not preach the gospel, though the door is opened to him by the Lord. He had hoped that the weight of sorrow which was pressing him down above his strength to bear, would be relieved by the sympathy of the beloved Titus, and the good news that he might bring from Corinth; but the pang of disappointment added the last ounce to the weight which crushed his spirit, and he rushed on, blinded with tears, in the course by which Titus was coming. A heart so strong to endure, when once crushed, can not readily resume its wonted buoyancy. Even after the sea was between him and Ephesus, and he was once more among the disciples of Macedonia, he is still constrained to confess, “ When we had come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were afflicted on every side; without were fightings; within were fears.” Finally, however, the long-expected Titus arrived with good news from Corinth, and thus the Lord, who never forgets his servants in affliction, brought comfort to the overburdened heart of Paul, and enabled him to change the tone of the second letter to the Corinthians, and express himself in these words: “ Nevertheless, God, who is the comforter of those who are lowly, comforted us by the coming of Titus, and not by his coming only, but by the consolation with which he was comforted in you, telling us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me, so that I rejoiced the more.” But the news brought by Titus was not all of a cheering kind. He told of the good effects of the former epistle; that the majority of the Church had repented of their evil practices; that they had excluded the incestuous man; and that they were forward in their preparation for a large contribution to the poor saints in Judea. But he also brought word that Paul had some bitter personal enemies in the Church, who were endeavoring to injure his reputation, and subvert his apostolic authority. For the purpose of counteracting the influence of these ministers of Satan, encouraging the faithful brethren in their renewed zeal, and presenting to them many solemn and touching reflections suggested by his own afflictions, he addressed them the epistle known as the Second to the Corinthians, and dispatched it by the hand of Titus and two other brethren, whose names are not mentioned. That we are right in assuming this as the date of this epistle, is easily established. For First, He refers, in the epistle, to having recently come from Asia into Macedonia, which he had now done according to the history. Second, He wrote from Macedonia, when about to start from that province to Corinth. But he was never in Macedonia previous to this, except when there was as yet no Church in Corinth, and he was never here afterward on his way from Asia to Corinth. Acts 20:2-3. The career of the apostle for the next few months is not given in detail, but the whole is condensed into this brief statement: (2) “And when he had gone through those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he went into Greece; (3) and having spent three months there, he resolved to return through Macedonia, because a plot was laid against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria.” Several events transpired in the interval thus hurriedly passed over, a knowledge of which is accessible through epistles written at the time, and which we shall briefly consider. When Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem on the mission from the Church in Antioch, as recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, it was formally agreed, among the apostles then present, that Peter, James, and John should labor chiefly among the Jews, and Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles. It was stipulated, however, that the latter should assist in providing for the poor in Judea. “ This,” says Paul, “ I was also forward to do.” In accordance with this agreement, we find that he was now urging a general collection in the Churches of Macedonia and Achaia for this purpose. The Churches in Achaia, indeed, were ready for the contribution a whole year before this, and Paul had written to them in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, “ Upon the first day of the week, let each of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no collections when I come.” For prudential considerations, such as prompted him so often to labor without remuneration from the Churches, he was not willing to be himself the bearer of this gift, although the Churches in Macedonia had entreated him to do so. He at first, indeed, had not fully intended to go to Jerusalem in connection with it, but had said to the Churches, “ Whomsoever you will approve by letters, them will I send to take your gift to Jerusalem; and if it be proper that I should go also, they shall go with me.” The importance of the mission, however, grew more momentous as time advanced, so that he resolved to go himself, and the enterprise became a subject of most absorbing interest. The circumstance which led to this result was the increasing alienation between the Jews and the Gentiles within the Church. The decree of the apostles and inspired brethren in Jerusalem, though it had given comfort to the Church in Antioch, where the controversy first became rife, and had done good everywhere that it was carried, had not succeeded in entirely quelling the pride and arrogance of the judaizing teachers. They had persisted in their schismatical efforts, until there was not a wide-spread disaffection between the parties, threatening to rend the whole Church into two hostile bodies. By this influence the Churches in Galatia had become almost entirely alienated from Paul, for whom they once would have been willing to pluck out their own eyes, and were rapidly led back under bondage to the law of Moses. The Church in Rome, at the opposite extremity of the territory which had been evangelized, was also disturbed by factions, the Jews insisting that justification was by works of law, and that the distinctions of meats and holy days should be perpetuated. Such danger to the cause could but be to Paul a source of inexpressible anxiety; and while it was imminent he concentrated all his energies to its aversions. Already engaged in a general collection among Churches composed chiefly of Gentiles, for the benefit of Jewish saints in Judea, and knowing the tendency of a kind action to win back alienated affections, he pushes the work forward with renewed industry, for the accomplishment of this good end. He presents this motive to the Corinthians, in the following words: “ For the ministration of this service not only supplies the wants of the saints, but also superabounds to God, by means of many thanksgivings (they glorifying God, through the proof supplied by this ministration of your subjection to the gospel of Jesus Christ which you have confessed, and of the liberality of your fellowship for them and for all,) and by their prayers in your behalf, having a great affection for you on account of the exceeding favor of God which is in you.” He here expresses as great confidence in the good result of the enterprise, as if it were already accomplished, and the Jews were already overflowing with affection to the Gentiles, and offering many thanksgivings and prayers to God in their behalf. Thus he felt while stimulating the liberality of the brethren; but when the collections were all made in the Churches, and he was about to start from Corinth to Jerusalem with it, his anxiety was most intense, and he began to fear the alienation of the Jews was so great that they would not accept the gift, and thus the breach he was trying to close would be opened wider. We know this by the almost painful earnestness with which he calls upon the brethren at Rome to pray with him for the success of his efforts. He says: “ Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that you strive together with me in prayer to God for me, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judea, and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted by the saints.“ If he called thus earnestly for the prayers of the distant Church at Rome, how much more must he have enlisted those of the Churches in Achaia and Macedonia, who were immediately concerned in the enterprise itself! We have here the spectacle of a man who was regarded with suspicion, if not with positive dislike, by a large portion of his brethren, securing from others who were involved with him in the same reproach, a self-denying contribution for the temporal wants of the disaffected party; and, then, fearing lest their disaffection was so great as to lead them to reject the gift— a fear which would cause most men to withhold it entirely— he calls upon all the donors to unite in persistent prayer that it might not be rejected. The object of it all, too, was to gain no selfish ends, but to win back the alienated affections of brethren, and to preserve the unity of the body of Christ. No nobler instance of disinterested benevolence can be found in the history of men. The prosecution of the enterprise as we will hereafter see, was in keeping with the magnanimity of its inception. But before we consider it further, we must briefly notice some kindred facts. For the same grand purpose which prompted the great collection, Paul wrote, during his three months' stay in Corinth, the two epistles to the Galatians and the Romans. This we have already assumed in our references to them as cotemporaneous with the collection. The most conclusive evidence for assigning to them this date may be briefly stated as follows: In the epistle to the Romans, Paul expressly states that he was about to start for Jerusalem with the contribution which had been collected. But this could have been said only toward the close of his present stay in Corinth. Moreover, Gaius, who lived in Corinth, was his host at the time of writing to the Romans; and Phoebe, of the Corinthian seaport Cenchrea, was the bearer of the epistle. As for Galatians, it contains a reference to Paul's first visit to them, implying that he had been there a second time. His words are: “ You know that it was on account of sickness that I preached the gospel to you at the first.” It was written, then, after his second visit. But this leaves the date very indefinite, and there are no other notes of time within the epistle itself to fix it more definitely. There is, however, a close correspondence in subject-matter between it and the epistle to the Romans, indicating that they were written under the same condition of affairs, and about the same time. This, in the absence of conflicting evidence, is considered conclusive. It is not certain which of the two was written first, but, as in Romans, Paul speaks of his departure for Jerusalem as about to take place, it is more probable that Galatians was written previous to this. In both, the apostle contends by authority and by argument against the destructive teaching of the judaizing party, striving, by this means, to put them to silence at the same time that he was aiming, by a noble act of self-denial, to win back their good-will, both to himself and to the Gentiles, whose cause he had espoused. Having dispatched these two epistles, and collected about him the messengers of the various Churches, the apostle was about to start for Syria by water, when, as the text last quoted affirms, he learned that a plot was laid against him by the Jews, which determined him to change his course. This plot was probably an arrangement to waylay him on the road to Cenchrea, and perhaps both rob and murder him. Having timely notice of the danger, “ he determined to return through Macedonia,” and started by another road. Acts 20:4-5. (4) “And there accompanied him, as far as Asia, Sopater of Berea; Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica; Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. (5) These, going before, waited for us at Troas.” This sentence brings us again into company with two familiar companions of Paul, from whom we have been parted for some time. The name of Timothy has not occurred in the history before, since he was dispatched with Erastus from Ephesus into Macedonia. He had, however, joined company again with Paul while the latter was in Macedonia, as we learn from the fact that his name appears in the salutation of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Luke, the other party here introduced, has not been an eye-witness of the scenes he was describing since the scouring of Paul and Silas in Philippi. His significant we and us were discontinued then, and are not resumed until he says, in this verse, “ These, going before, waited for us in Troas.” The probability is, that he had resided in that city during the whole of this period, and now, as Paul was passing through on his way to Jerusalem, he once more joined the company. During his absence the narrative has been very hurried and elliptical. We shall now, for a time, find it circumstantial in the extreme. Acts 20:6. The delay of Paul at Philippi may be well accounted for by the strong affection which he bore toward the congregation there, and his present expectation that he would see their faces in the flesh no more. (6) “And we, after the days of unleavened bread, sailed away from Philippi, and came to them in Troas in five days, where we remained seven days.” The “ days of unleavened bread” here mentioned remind us that it had been nearly one year since the close of Paul's labors in Ephesus; for he was awaiting the approach of Pentecost when the mob was aroused by Demetrius. He probably left there between the Passover and Pentecost, and as the Passover had now returned again, the time he had spent in his tour through Macedonia and Achaia and back to Philippi must have occupied ten or eleven months. The voyage from Philippi to Troas occupied, as here stated, five days, though, on a former occasion, they had sailed from Troas and reached Philippi in two days. The delay on this trip is suggestive of adverse winds. The brethren who had preceded Paul and Luke to Troas had already spent there the five days occupied by the latter on the journey, and a portion of the seven days of unleavened bread which they spent in Philippi. The seven additional days now spent there by the whole company, making an aggregate of more than two weeks, gave sufficient time to accomplish much in a community where a door was already opened by the Lord. Acts 20:7. The last period of seven days included and was terminated by the Lord's day. (7) “And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break the loaf, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the next day, and continued his discourse till midnight.” This passage indicates both the day of the week in which the disciples broke the loaf, and the prime object of their meeting on that day. It shows that the loaf was broken on the first day of the week; and we have no apostolic precedent for breaking it on any other day. The disciples came together on that day, even though Paul and Luke and Timothy, and all he brethren who had come from Greece, were present, not primarily to hear one or more of them discourse, but “ to break the loaf.” Such is the distinct statement of the historian. That such was an established custom in the Churches is implied in a rebuke administered by Paul to the Church at Corinth, in which he says: “ When you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's supper.” Now, for this they would not have deserved censure, had it not been that to eat the Lord's supper was the proper object of their assemblage. These facts are sufficient to establish the conclusion that the main object of the Lord's-day meeting was to break the loaf. This conclusion will be of service to us in seeking to determine the frequency with which the loaf was broken. If the prime object of the Lord's-day meeting was to celebrate the Lord's supper, then all the evidence we have of the custom of meeting every Lord's day is equally conclusive in reference to the weekly observance of the Lord's supper. But the former custom is universally admitted by Christians of the present day, and therefore there should be no dispute in reference to the latter. It must, in candor, be admitted, that there is no express statement in the New Testament that the disciples broke the loaf every Lord's day; neither is it stated that they met every Lord's day. Yet the question, how often shall the congregation meet together to break the loaf, is one which can not be avoided, but must be settled practically in some way. The different religious parties have hitherto agreed upon a common principle of action, which is, that each may settle the question according to its own judgment of what is most profitable and expedient. This principle, if applied by congregations instead of parties, is a safe one in reference to matters upon which we have no means of knowing the divine will, or the apostolic custom. But when we can determine, with even a good degree of probability, an apostolic custom, our own judgment should yield to it. So all parties have reasoned in reference to the Lord's day. The intimations contained in the New Testament, together with the universal custom known to have existed in the Churches during the age succeeding that of the apostles, has been decided by them all as sufficient to establish the divine authority of the religious observance of the Lord's day; and yet they have not consented to the weekly observance of the Lord's supper, the proof of which is precisely the same. As a practical issue between the advocates of weekly communion and their opponents, the questions really has reference to the comparative weight of evidence in favor of this practice, and of monthly, quarterly, or yearly communion. When it is thus presented, no one can long hesitate as to the conclusion; for in favor of either of the intervals last mentioned there is not the least evidence, either in the New Testament, or in the uninspired history of the Churches. On the other hand, it is the universal testimony of antiquity that the Churches of the second century broke the loaf every Lord's day, and considered it a custom of apostolic appointment. Now it can not be doubted that the apostolic Churches had some regular interval at which to celebrate this institution, and seeing that all the evidence there is in the case is in favor of a weekly celebration, there is no room for a reasonable doubt that this was the interval which they adopted. It is very generally admitted, even among parties who do not observe the practice themselves, that the apostolic Churches broke the loaf weekly; but it is still made a question whether, in the absence of an express commandment, this example is binding upon us. This question is likely to be determined differently by two different classes of men. Those who are disposed to follow chiefly the guide of their own judgment, or of their denominational customs, will feel little influenced by such a precedent. But to those who are determined that the very slightest indication of the divine will shall govern them, the question must present itself in this way: “ We are commanded to do this in memory of Jesus. We are not told, in definite terms, how often it shall be done; but we find that the apostles established the custom of meeting every Lord's day for this purpose. This is an inspired precedent, and with it we must comply. We can come to no other conclusion without assuming an ability to judge of this matter with more wisdom than did the apostle.” We return to the meeting in Troas. The extreme length of Paul's discourse on this occasion is in striking contrast with the brevity of his other speeches, as reported by Luke. It is to be accounted for by the anxiety of the apostle, in bidding them a final farewell, to leave the brethren as well guarded as possible against the temptations which awaited them. Acts 20:8-10. The long and solemn discourse was interrupted at midnight, by an incident which caused great alarm, and some confusion, in the audience. (8) “Now there were many lamps in the upper chamber where we were assembled; (9) and there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, who was borne down by deep sleep: and as Paul was discoursing a very long time, borne down with sleep, he fell from the third story down, and was taken up dead. (10) But Paul went down, and fell upon him, and embraced him, and said, Be not troubled, for his life is in him.” It is assumed by some writers, that the young man was not really dead, and Paul's remark, “ his life is in him,” is adduced in proof of the assumption. If this remark had been made when Paul first saw him, it might, with propriety, be so understood, but as it was made after he had fallen upon him, and embraced him, action evidently designed to restore him, it should be understood as only a modest way of declaring that he had restored him to life. Acts 20:11. The alarm produced by the death of Eutychus, the astonishing display of divine power in his restoration to life, and the stillness of the midnight hour in which it all transpired, could but add greatly to the solemnity which already pervaded the audience. Their feelings were too deeply wrought upon to think of sleep, and the meeting was still protracted. They returned to the upper chamber, where the lights were still burning, and the elements of the Lord's supper remained as yet undistributed. Paul, notwithstanding the length and earnestness of his discourse, was still unexhausted. (11) “And having gone up, and broken the loaf, and eaten it, he conversed yet a long time, even till daybreak, and so he departed.” Thus the whole night was spent in religious discourse and conversation, interrupted, at midnight, by a death and a resurrection, and this followed by the celebration of the Lord's death, which brings the hope of a better resurrection. The whole scene concluded at daybreak, in one of those touching farewells, in which the pain of parting and the hope of meeting to part no more, struggle so tearfully for the mastery of the soul. It was a night long to be remembered by those who were there, and will yet be a theme of much conversation in eternity. It is a question of some curiosity whether it was at daybreak on Sunday morning or Monday morning, that this assembly was dismissed. They were assembled in the early part of the night, yet the time of their assembling was included in the “ first day of the week.” If the brethren in Troas were accustomed to begin and close the day at midnight, according to the Greek custom, it must have been Sunday night when they met. But if they reckoned according to the Jewish method, which began and closed the day with sunset, then they must have met on what we call Saturday night; for in this case the whole of that night would belong to the first day of the week, and Sunday night to the second day. It is supposed, by many commentators, that the Greek method prevailed, and that they met Sunday night; but, with Mr. Howson, I am constrained to the other opinion; a conclusive proof of which I find in the fact, that if the meeting was on Sunday night, then the loaf was broken on Monday morning; for it was broken after midnight. There can be no doubt of this fact, unless we understand the breaking of the loaf, mentioned in the eleventh verse, as referring to a common meal. But this is inadmissible; for, having stated, (verse 7,) that they came together to break the loaf and now stating, for the first time, that Paul did break the loaf, we must conclude that by the same expression, Luke means the same thing. To this objection that Paul alone is said to have broken and eaten the bread, I answer, that this would be a very natural expression to indicate that Paul officiated at the table; but, on the other hand, if it is a common meal, it would be strange that he alone should eat, especially to the exclusion of his traveling companions, who were going to start as early in the morning as he did. I conclude, therefore, that the brethren met on the night after the Jewish Sabbath, which was still observed as a day of rest by all of them who were Jews or Jewish proselytes, and considering this the beginning of the first day of the week, spent it in the manner above described. On Sunday morning Paul and his companions resumed their journey, being constrained, no doubt, by the movements of the ship, which had already been in the harbor of Troas seven days. His example does not justify traveling on the Lord's day, except under similar constraint, and upon a mission as purely religious as that which was taking him to Jerusalem. Acts 20:12. Recurring again to the incident concerning Eutychus, in order to state more particularly the gratification which the brethren felt at his recovery, Luke here remarks: (12) “And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.” The close connection of this remark with the departure of Paul and his company, and its disconnection from the statement concerning the resumption of the meeting, indicate that it refers to their bringing him away from the meeting. Acts 20:13. Paul and his whole company departed at an early hour in the morning, and the meeting breaking up at daybreak for this purpose. But their routes for the day were different. (13) “We went forward to the ship, and sailed for Assos, intending there to take in Paul; for so he had appointed, intending himself to go on foot.” The coasting voyage of the ship around Cape Lectum to Assos was about forty miles, while the distance across was only twenty. This would enable Paul to reach that point on foot about as soon as the ship could sail there with favorable winds. His motive in choosing to walk this distance, and to go alone, has been a subject of various conjectures. But the deep gloom which shrouded his feelings, caused by prophetic warnings of great dangers ahead; by the critical state of the Churches everywhere; and by the final farewell which he was giving to Churches which he had planted and nourished, naturally prompted him to seek solitude for a time. On shipboard solitude was impossible, and while in port there was always a group of disciples or a whole congregation claiming his attention. His only opportunity, therefore, during the whole voyage, for solitary reflection, such as the soul longs for amid trials like his, was to seize this occasion for a lonely journey on foot. Amid the more stirring scenes of the apostle's life, while announcing, with oracular authority the will of God, and confirming his words by miraculous demonstrations, we are apt to lose our human sympathy for the man, in our admiration for the apostle. But when we contemplate him under circumstances like the present, worn down by the sleepless labors of the whole night; burdened in spirit too heavily for even the society of sympathizing friends; and yet, with all his weariness, choosing a long day's journey on foot, that he might indulge to satiety the gloom which oppressed him, we are so much reminded of our own seasons of affliction, as to feel, with great distinctness, the human tie which binds our hearts to his. No ardent laborer in the vineyard of the Lord but feels his soul at times ready to sink beneath its load of anxiety and disappointment, and finds no comfort except in allowing the very excess of sorrow to waste itself away amid silence and solitude. In such hours it will do us good to walk with Paul through this lonely journey, and remember how much suffering has been endured by greater and better men than we. Acts 20:14-16. The ship and the footman arrived together. (14) “And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and went to Mitylene. (15) Sailing thence, the next day we arrived opposite Chios. In another day we came to Samos, and remaining all night at Trogyllium, on the following day we went to Miletus; (16) for Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, so that he might not spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were possible for him, to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.” If the ship had been under Paul's control, he could have spent at Ephesus the time which was spent at Miletus, without delaying his arrival in Jerusalem. The fact, therefore, that he avoided Ephesus, to keep from losing time, shows that the vessel was not under his control, but that a visit to Ephesus would have required him to leave the ship he was on, and take passage on some other bound for that port. This might have caused delay, and the uncertainty of meeting at Ephesus a vessel bound for Syria might have protracted the delay too long to reach Jerusalem in the time desired. The mention of the matter by Luke shows that Paul felt some inclination to revisit Ephesus, that he might witness the present results of his protracted labors there. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 20:2. Paul spent some time with the churches in Macedonia, such as Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea. Greece was the province immediately south of Macedonia. 3Act 20:3. Syria was a part of Asia, and it contained such important places as Troas and Ephesus. After spending some time in Greece, Paul intended crossing by water over to Asia. Hearing of a plot of some kind being formed by the Jews, he changed his plans and retraced his journey through Macedonia. 5Acts 20:4-5. These persons were associated with Paul in the good work, but were evidently not involved in the plot of the Jews. They went on ahead across the sea and stopped at Troas where they awaited the coming of Paul and Luke, he being with Paul as the first personal pronoun us denotes, and as he is the author of this book (chapter 1:1). 6Acts 20:6. Having been in Philippi some time (verse 3) on this return journey, he and Luke went aboard a ship bound for Troas, where the group of the preceding paragraph was waiting for them. Days of unleavened bread is mentioned only by way of indicating the date or time of year that had arrived. 7Acts 20:7. Break is from the same Greek word as it is in other places, regardless of whether a common meal is meant or that of the Lord's Supper. The connection must determine in each case as to what sense is used. In the present passage it could not mean a common meal, for the disciples would not come together for that purpose; they went "from house to house" (chapter 2:46). Likewise, they would not have done so especially on the Lord's day any more than on some other day. The conclusion, then, is that it means the Lord's Supper. Another unavoidable conclusion is that the Lord's Supper is to be observed by disciples who come together, and not done as a private performance in some convenient place suitable to the personal program of temporal entertainment. The preaching of Paul was incidental because he chanced to be present, not that they came together for that purpose. However, the incident gives us an apostolic precedent for having preaching at the time of the regular Lord's day assembly if a preacher is present. The long sermon was occasioned by the plans of Paul who intended continuing his journey the next day, and the interest in such a rare opportunity of hearing this great apostle held the services to the late hour. 8Acts 20:8. Lights is from the Greek word LAMPAS, which was a device used as a torch and was fed with olive oil. The writer had just stated that Paul continued his speech until midnight, and his mention of the many lights was to explain how an assembly could conveniently extend its services that far into the night. 9Acts 20:9. This verse is a simple statement of an event not especially important in itself, but furnishing an opportunity for Paul to work a miracle. The inspired writer is the one who says that the young man was taken up dead, so that it was not just the im-gination of an excited crowd. 0Acts 20:10. It should be observed that Paul said his life is in him after he had embraced him. The act of embracing the young man was when the miracle was performed that brought the life back into his dead body. ( See similar acts in 1 Kings 17:21; 2 Kings 4:34.) 1Act 20:11. Broken bread. This was not the act for which the disciples had come together, for they did not know that such a lengthy service would be had when they assembled. But having been awake most of the night, and as Paul was soon to leave on a journey, it was courteous for them to set refreshments before him for his support. 2Act 20:12. This verse is an afterthought upon the event of the miracle of verse 10, showing the joyful effect of the apostle's performance for the young man and friends. 3Act 20:13. The entire group was making its way in the return from this third missionary journey, but Paul went on foot as far as Assos where the party was to join him. 4Acts 20:14. At Assos the boat landed and took in Paul, then proceeded and came to Mitylene, a town on the island of Lesbos. 5Acts 20:15. Three days after leaving Mitylene the group reached Miletus. 6Acts 20:16. Miletus was 36 miles south of Ephesus, and in the time of Paul it was on the coast. He did not wish to spend much time hi Asia (a small district in Asia Minor), because the feast of Pentecost was near at hand, and he was eager to be in Jerusalem at that time. For information about observing Jewish customs and days, see the comments at chapter 16:3 and 18:21. 7Acts 20:17. Paul knew he would lose less time by calling these elders to him while waiting for the ship to resume its journey, than for him to make this "detour" to Ephesus to see them. Chapter 14:23 states that Paul ordained elders in every church, and evidently that included those at Ephesus. 8Acts 20:18. The Ephesian elders complied with the request of Paul by coming to Miletus to meet him. This was to be a very important occasion, for Paul was to have a heart-to-heart talk with these rulers of the church, in which there will be some outstanding information that will be useful for all of us. 9Acts 20:19. These elders knew about the severe trials the apostles had suffered, for many of them had taken place in their city (chapter 19). 0Acts 20:20. That was profitable. The apostle never imposed any obligations or information upon the elders of the churches that would not be of assistance to them in their great work for the Lord. There are no "nonessentials" in the things the inspired writers have left to the world. Paul's teaching was done in the synagogue (publicly) and in the homes (from house to house). 1Act 20:21. Repentance here seems to be required before faith, which is really not the order of the items pertaining to the Gospel. (See the comments at Mark 1:15.) 2Act 20:22. The original word for bound is defined "To put under obligation" by Thayer. Paul was always guided in his teaching and conduct of his office as an apostle, by the Holy Spirit that was sent to "guide him into all truth" (John 16:13). 3Act 20:23. The Spirit did not give Paul the details of what was to come upon him, but he was told that he was to have a hard time. This "blanket" information really made a severer test of his faith than a minute statement might have been. 4Acts 20:24. None of these things move me means that Paul was not disturbed by the prospect of persecutions, nor did he let it change his purpose to serve Christ faithfully to the end. Finish my course with joy. The true servant of God expects to receive his reward at the end of the race, not while the conflict of this life is going on. The ministry refers to the charge delivered to Paul to "fight the good fight" (2 Timothy 4:7) by testifying for the Gospel. 5Acts 20:25. Paul did not make this sad prediction by inspiration. He did not know what particular experiences were awaiting him, but he knew that he would not be permitted to labor among the churches as extensively as before. 6Acts 20:26. Take you to record means he was testifying to these elders with regard to his work among them. Pure from the blood denotes that he would not be held responsible for any unfavorable lot that might come upon them in the future. 7Acts 20:27. This verse explains the statement in the preceding one. A preacher of the Gospel may not have the ability or opportunity to declare everything that pertains to the plan of salvation, and if so he will not be held accountable for such lack. But if he shuns or evades to proclaim- a single requirement of the counsel of God that he could have made known, he will be charged with the full results of such evasion of duty. 8Acts 20:28. Overseers is from EPIS-KOPOS and is the same word that is translated "bishop" in other passages. The word is defined by Thayer, "An overseer, any curator, guardian or superintendent." There is but one class of ruling officers in the church of the New Testament, and they are called by the three words, elders, overseers and bishops. The exception is the case of evangelists who have charge of churches not having elders (Titus 1:5). God is the family name of the Deity, of which Christ is a member, making that word his own name as well as that of his Father. Hence the name church of God is equivalent to "church of Christ." It is his church because he purchased it with his own blood. The elders are commanded to feed this church which is likened to a flock, and the word in the original is , which is also defined, "To rule, govern." The Holy Ghost makes men overseers by revealing the qualifications and manner of appointment of such officers (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9). 9Acts 20:29. The warning of this verse refers to false teachers from the outside, who would creep into the congregation and corrupt the members. 0Acts 20:30. Of your own selves means that false teachers would arise among the elders. It is a fact borne out by history, that the great apostasy known as the "Dark Ages," was started within the eldership of the church, but this is not the most appropriate place to go into the details of that subject. 1Act 20:31. The three main duties of the elders are to feed, rule and watch. The first two are commanded in verse 28, and the third is stated here. Hebrews 13:17 states for what or why the rulers are to watch, namely, for the souls of the flock, because the elders will have to give an account of their work with the members of the flock. The warning of three years included that recorded in chapter 19:8, 10. 2Act 20:32. Commend you to God denotes that he advised them to look to God and to his word. That word is able to build them up or edify them in their work for Him. Such a life would make them heirs of the reward that is prepared for all who are sanctified or set apart for the service of the Lord. 3Act 20:33. Paul was not preaching the Gospel with the motive of obtaining the personal possessions of the brethren. 4Acts 20:34. As proof of the preceding statement, Paul reminded them of his manual labor for the temporal support, of himself and his traveling companions. (See chapter 18:3.) Not that it would not have been right for him to receive financial support in his work, for he taught elsewhere that such support would have been right (1 Corinthians 9:4 1 Corinthians 9:14). But he refers to his own secular work as proof that temporal support was not his purpose in preaching the Gospel. 5Acts 20:35. Another purpose Paul had in his manual labor was to set an example of working to supply the needs of those who cannot work. The words of Jesus quoted are not recorded elsewhere in the New Testament, but Paul could repeat them by inspiration. 8Acts 20:36-38. This paragraph does not require any particular explanation. It is a word picture of a very pathetic leave-taking between Paul and the elders. His conviction that they would never meet again was the saddest item in the circumstance. The labors in the midst of many trials and persecutions for the cause of Christ, had a tendency to bind the followers of the Lord close together. The manner of embracing upon the neck was a custom of those times. The elders went with Paul as far as they could, then parted from him as he entered the ship. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 21 PAUL RETURNS TO Act_21:1-16 1 And when it came to pass that we were parted—After the discourse to the elders of the church at Ephesus at Miletus, Paul dismissed them and left Miletus and sailed southward to Cos, which was a small island about forty miles from Miletus; it seems that the vessel was under the direction of Paul, as he could sail as he pleased and make such stops as he wished. They could stay at a place as long as they pleased. It seems that the wind was favorable for sailing and they made the journey in one day. The next day they sailed from Cos to Rhodes, and from Rhodes to Patara. Rhodes is fifty miles southeast of Cos, and Patara is east of Rhodes. 2 and having found a ship crossing over—Paul sailed on the Mediterranean Sea southeast to Phoenicia. They changed vessels at Patara, as they “ found a ship” going to Phoenicia. It was more than four hundred miles from Patara to Jerusalem; it seems that from Patara Paul and his company took a larger vessel, one that could sail across the open sea. Phoenicia is on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea and northwest of Palestine. 3 And when we had come in sight of Cyprus,—Paul’ s company, now making the journey in a larger vessel than they first had, sailed a direct route to Phoenicia and left Cyprus to the left. They proceeded and landed at Tyre; the ship was to unload her burden at this place. “ Syria” was the name given to the entire eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea from Cilicia to Egypt. Paul was now on his way to Jerusalem; he could now easily find means of conveyance to that city. Tyre is the chief city of Phoeni¬cia ; it was about three hundred fifty miles from Patara, and under favorable conditions could be reached in four or five days’ sailing. Tyre had been one of the most famous cities of the ancient world. Hiram, king of Tyre, aided Solomon in building the temple in about 1000 B.C. (1 Kings 15:18.) Many prophets prophesied about Tyre. (Isaiah 23; Ezekiel 26-28; Amos 1:9-10.) Christ visited Tyre and its vicinity. (Matthew 15:21; Mark 7:24.) 4 And having found the disciples,—“ Having found” indicates that some time and trouble were had in locating the disciples; “ having found” is from the Greek “ aneurontes,” which means “ to seek for, to find by searching.” There was a church in Tyre, but the city was large, and the number of disciples may have been small. Paul had gone through Phoenicia on his way to Jerusalem at one time. (Acts 15:3.) Paul and his companions “ tarried there seven days.” Among the disciples at Tyre were some who warned Paul of the dangers that awaited him at Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit had already told Paul that bonds and affliction awaited him at Jerusalem. (Acts 20:23.) At this time Paul is warned by the disciples not to go to Jerusalem; they did not want Paul to suffer the persecutions that awaited him. 5-6 And when it came to pass that we had accomplished—When Paul and his company had remained in Tyre seven days, they made preparation to proceed on their journey to Jerusalem. The disciples at Tyre, including the wives and children of the disciples, accompanied Paul to the outskirts of the city. They remained with him as long as they could. The entire company of disciples was so interested in him that they were ready to give him any assistance that he might need. They treated him as did the disciples at Miletus. (Acts 20:37-38.) This is the first mention of children in connection with the early church. Before parting, they kneeled down “ on the beach,” and prayed together; this was a fitting separation of these disciples who loved each other so much. After the prayer they “ went on board the ship,” but the disciples in Tyre returned home. Some think that this was the same ship on which they had sailed from Patara; others see no reason for con¬cluding that it was the same. 7 And when we had finished the voyage from Tyre,—They sailed from Tyre, a distance of about thirty miles south, to Ptolemais. There was a church at Ptolemais, and Paul and his company “ saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day." Some think that the church here was founded by Philip, the evangelist, or some other disciples who were driven from Jerusalem by the persecution some twenty years previous to this. (Acts 11:19.) 8 And on the morrow we departed,—The company left Ptole¬mais and continued south to Caesarea; it is not known whether this part of the trip was made by sea or by land. It was possible to make the journey by sea; however, some think that the verb seems rather to leave us to infer that it was a land journey; there was a good road between the two places. When they arrived at Caesa¬rea, they entered “ into the house of Philip the evangelist." This distinguishes him from the apostle Philip, one of the twelve. His evangelistic work followed the death of Stephen. The word “ evan¬gelizing" is from the Greek “ eueggelizeto," and was used of Philip in Acts 8:40. The earliest of the three New Testament examples of the word “ evangelist" (Acts 21:8; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5) is found here. This Philip was one of the seven. (Acts 6:5.) He was selected with the others at Jerusalem to help serve tables. We find him busy after he left Jerusalem. (Acts 8:5-13 Acts 8:26-40.) 9 Now this man had four virgin daughters,—Philip’ s daughters were Christians; they were walking in their father’ s steps; they “ prophesied," which meant more than to predict future events. Philip had the honor of having in his home four virgin daughters with a gift of prophecy; there was a certain phase of work in the early church that was done by women. Phoebe was a servant of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1), and Philip's daughters had the gift of prophecy. These daughters of Philip had the power to interpret a divine message. God inspired women as well as men when they could be used in his service. They had a mission to proclaim the gospel in their own womanly way. (Acts 2:17 Acts 18:26; Joe 2:28-29; 1 Corinthians 11:5 1 Corinthians 14:24.) These four daughters, being virgins, unmarried, could devote their whole time to the service of the church. 10 And as we tarried there some days,—We do not know how long they remained in Caesarea, or in the house of Philip; but during their sojourn a disciple by the name of Agabus, who had prophetic gift, came from Judea. This may have been the same Agabus mentioned in Acts 11:28, who foretold the coming famine at Antioch, as the prophets mentioned on that occasion had re¬cently come from Jerusalem; this name was somewhat unusual; hence, it is thought that this Agabus was the same. He was not prominent as was Barnabas. It seems that Paul had made the journey quicker than he had thought, and could remain in Caesa¬rea “ some days.” This was Paul’ s third time to visit Caesarea. His first visit was on his journey from Jerusalem to Tarsus (Acts 9:30) ; his second visit was on his return at the close of his second missionary tour (Acts 18:22). 11 And coming to us, and taking Paul’ s girdle,—Agabus very vividly impressed his prophecy or prediction by an object lesson. He took Paul’ s girdle and bound “ his own feet and hands” with it, and then said that the owner of this girdle should be bound and delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. He gave the Holy Spirit as authority, or rather spoke by the Holy Spirit. Old Tes¬tament prophets often employed symbolic deeds. (1 Kings 22:11; Jeremiah 13:1-7; Ezekiel 4:1-6.) Jesus used the symbolism of Pe¬ter’ s girding himself to impress a lesson. (John 21:18.) Agabus was just from Jerusalem, and the Holy Spirit revealed to him what would be done to Paul when he arrived in Jerusalem. 12 And when we heard these things,—Luke and the others who had traveled with Paul joined the disciples at Caesarea in attempting to persuade Paul not to “ go up to Jerusalem.” This dra¬matic warning that Agabus gave was in addition to that which was given at Tyre. (Acts 21:4.) This was the same as Paul had confessed at Miletus. (Acts 20:23.) It seems strange that Luke and the other messengers, together with Philip and his daughters, joined in persuading Paul not to go to Jerusalem. It seems that Paul was determined to go to Jerusalem, and that no one could dissuade him. This reminds one of the fixed determination of Martin Luther to go to “ the Diet of Worms” ; Spalatin persuaded Luther not to go, but he replied: “ Though devils be as many in Worms as tiles upon the roofs, yet thither will I go.” No one could prevent Paul’ s going to Jerusalem at this time. 13 Then Paul answered, What do ye,—It was hard for Paul to resist the earnest, pathetic, and forceful pleadings of his brethren and sisters; he had due respect for their judgment and their interest in him; he knew as well as they that danger and persecu¬tion awaited him at Jerusalem. However, Paul was not one who would shrink from duty because of danger, neither was he one who would change his course to avoid persecution. Their weeping and strong solicitations could not alter his determination. He was un¬der a higher guidance than theirs, and was ready, if God willed it, to die at Jerusalem; moreover, they could add to his bur-den by their weeping over him. Paul had had abundant warnings of the dangers he must encounter as a Christian and as an apostle; he had always expected them, and had made up his mind to meet them without flinching. (Acts 9:16 Acts 20:22-23.) He was not to be turned away from the path of duty, however hazardous it might be. He would very gladly spend and be spent for the cause of Christ. (2 Corinthians 12:15.) 14 And when he would not be persuaded,—When the company of disciples saw that Paul would not yield to their persuasion, they ceased to persuade him and said: “ The will of the Lord be done.” Since Paul would not let them persuade him and have their own way, they were willing for the Lord to have his way. Many times we are resigned to the Lord’ s way because we cannot have our own way. They seem, finally, to understand that Paul had a higher leading than theirs in what he was doing. Painful events were seen by Paul’ s friends, but these sufferings appeared to Paul so evidently to lie in his path of duty that it would be wrong in him to avoid them by failing to go forward in that path. 15 And after these days we took up our baggage—Caesarea is about sixty-four miles north of Jerusalem. Some think that Paul and his companions put their baggage on pack horses and carried it to Jerusalem. However, we do not know. The English word now used always of the vehicle that carries was in common use at the time of the Authorized Version for the things carried. It is from the Greek “ episkeuasamenoi,” which originally meant the things necessary to pack up or saddle horses. They “ went up to Jerusalem.” Jerusalem was situated on a higher elevation than Caesarea; hence, they would naturally go “ up” to Jerusalem. 16 And there went with us also certain of the disciples—When the brethren could not persuade Paul to stay away from Jerusalem, it seems that some of them prepared to go with him. They would naturally go up to the Pentecost feast; multitudes of the Jews would go to Jerusalem the last day before the feast began. The brethren would also like to be present to assist Paul and to witness the greetings of the church at Jerusalem extended to Paul. They took with them “ one Mnason of Cyprus” ; he was an “ early disciple,” and the company would lodge with him. There has been some difficulty in translating this verse; some think that it should be rendered that Paul and his company were brought to Mnason’ s house. This Mnason was originally from Cyprus; he may have become a disciple on the day of Pentecost. Since Jerusalem would be filled with visitors, it would be difficult to find a lodging place; but as Mnason was known to some of them, they would make sure of a lodging place with him. This ends Paul’ s third missionary journey. He left Philippi and came to Miletus; next he came to Cos, then to Rhodes, then to Patara, and finally came to Tyre; they spent a week at Tyre; next they came to Ptolemais, then to Caesarea, and finally to Jerusalem. The narrative of this voyage is that of an eyewitness; Luke, the writer, includes himself. It seems that the ship left Troas on the first day of the week; four days were spent in the voyage to Miletus, and probably they remained there three days; three days were occupied in sailing thence to Patara, and probably four days in sailing to Tyre; seven days were spent in Tyre, and three days in coming to Caesarea. It is thought that Paul arrived at Caesarea about ten days before Pentecost; the journey had been made very rapidly, for the wind was favorable from Troas, and as the moon was full, the voyage from Patara to Tyre was made, not by coasting, but by running across the open sea. PAUL AT Act_21:17 to Acts 23:35 PAUL MOBBED IN THE TEMPLEAct_21:17-26 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem,—Paul and his company made the journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem, sixty-four miles, in about two days. They were received by the brethren in Jerusalem, and especially those of Mnason’ s household with glad¬ness. There are three sets of Christians at Jerusalem mentioned: “ the brethren,” whom Paul met privately at the house of Mnason; (2) “ the elders,” or officers of the church in Jerusalem, who were present at his official reception; (3) “ the multitude,” or the entire number of Jewish Christians, both belonging to Jerusa¬lem and those who were present at the Pentecost feast. 18 And the day following Paul went—Paul did not idle away any time; “ the day following” his arrival in Jerusalem, he, with his companions in travel, went to see James; James the son of Zebedee had been killed by Herod previous to this time. (Acts 12:2.) The James mentioned here is the same who is recognized as a leader in the church at Jerusalem. (Acts 12:17 Acts 15:13.) This may have been “ James the less.” (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40.) There are five James mentioned in the New Testament— James, the son of Zebedee, and brother of John; James, the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve apostles; James the less; James, the Lord’ s brother (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3); and James in Luke 6:16, as the brother of Judas. “ All the elders were present” at this meeting. It seems that there was a special interview which had been arranged for Paul with James and the elders of the church in Jerusalem. This was important, as many injurious reports had gained circulation respecting Paul’ s course. 19 And when he had saluted them,—At this official reception, it was thought important for “ all the elders” to be present, and to hear a detailed report of Paul’ s work. He gave a minute account of his work among the Gentiles; he would report that many Gen¬tiles had forsaken their idols and were living faithful to God. No doubt at this time he introduced Trophimus, with the others, who had brought the generous gifts from the Gentile churches to be distributed among the poor saints in Jerusalem and Judea. This would show that he had taught the Gentile Christians to practice charity toward those who were in need. It seems that Paul, in spite of the reports, won the favor of the church in Jerusalem. 20 And they, when they heard it, glorified God;—The Jewish Christians rejoiced in the fact that the Gentiles had been accepted by the Lord; they received with thanksgiving the offerings that Paul brought; however, they proceeded cautiously because there were “ many thousands there” “ among the Jews” who believed. This shows that there were many Christians among the Jews in Jerusalem and surrounding country at this time. The Greek, “ posai muriades,” literally means an indefinite number, and is the old word for “ ten thousand” (Acts 19:19) or “ myriads” (Luke 12:1; Acts 21:20; Jude 1:14; Revelation 5:11 Revelation 9:16). It is surprising to know that there were so many Christians in Jerusalem after the persecution which had scattered the early disciples. (Acts 8:1-5.) The number mentioned here may include the Christians from neighboring towns in Palestine and some foreign countries who had come to the Feast of Pentecost. All these were “ zealous for the law.” “ Zealous” is from the Greek “ zelotai,” and means “ to burn with zeal, to boil.” There was a party of “ Zealots,” a group of what would be called “ extremists,” or “ hotheads.” One of this party was Simon Zelotes. (Acts 1:13.) James and the elders at Jerusalem attempt now to harmonize Paul’ s work among the Gentiles and the Gentile converts with this great multitude of Jewish Christians who were zealous for the law. 21 and they have been informed concerning thee,—The report had reached Jerusalem that Paul had taught “ all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses,” and that they should not “ circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” It seems that these Judaizers had brought trouble to Peter (Acts 11:2) and also to Paul (Acts 15:1 Acts 15:5). The charge against Paul was not true; he had never taught that the Jews among the Gentiles should not circumcise their children; neither had he taught that they should not keep the ceremonial law of the Old Testament. Their charge against him was a malicious half¬truth, for Paul had preached Christ, and that was more than advis¬ing the Jews to sink down to the level of Gentiles. Paul had never taught Jews that when they became Christians they were not to circumcise their children; he himself had circumcised Timothy. (Acts 16:3.) Paul was a true follower of Christ and had taught that circumcision, the seal of the covenant which was superseded in Jesus Christ (Romans 4:11), had become of no effect in the relation between man and God (1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 5:6 Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:11-14). These Judaizing teachers saw what the end of such teach¬ing was sure to be. “ To walk after the customs” was to follow the ceremonial law. The charge was brought against Stephen (Acts 6:14) that he would change “ the customs which Moses delivered unto us.” The charge against Paul with respect to the Mosaic rites was true only in the sense of his denying their necessity to the salvation of souls. 22 What is it therefore?—The question asked here simply means: Paul, what is to be done about this? James and the elders at Jerusalem do not believe the misrepresentations against Paul; however, many of the Jewish brethren do believe them. They would hear that Paul had come to Jerusalem; there was no effort to conceal that fact; they are ready to meet the issue in as tactful a way as possible. They know that the many Jewish Christians would be anxious to see Paul and to hear the reports that he had to make. By asking this question, James and the elders are requesting Paul to cooperate with them in satisfying the Jewish Christians. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee:—It seems that Paul would not have opportunity to meet all the Jewish Christians and explain the situation to them, but they advise Paul to do something which the whole community would observe or hear about, and which would show them and all men that Paul did reverence the Mosaic law. Paul knew that the law was fulfilled in Christ; he respected that law for that which it had done for the Jews, and be¬cause it came from God. It seems that after some deliberation the elders thought out a plan of procedure by which Paul could set the whole matter straight. They called to his attention that there were “ four men that have a vow on them.” They propose to use this as a matter to clear Paul of the false charges which were made against him. This seems to be a temporary Nazirite vow. (Numbers 6:13-15.) Either Paul or Aquila had such a vow on leaving Cen- chreae. (Acts 18:18.) 24 these take, and purify thyself with them,—James and the elders suggested that Paul take the four men who had a vow upon them, and who evidently were Christians, and pay his and their ex¬penses that they might fulfill their vow; this was to be done so that the Jewish Christians would see that Paul had proper respect for the law. James and the elders were attempting to offset the preju¬dice that some had against Paul. This has given commentators generally much trouble; they have attempted to harmonize Paul’ s conduct here with his teachings concerning the law. Confessedly, it is a difficult task. Different comments have been offered as a solution. They are as follows: (l)That Paul at this time did not have a complete revelation of God’ s will; (2) that Paul did not understand even what he had written by inspiration; (3) that Paul dissembled, acted hypocritical; (4) that Paul did not do as James and the elders suggested that he do; (5) that he compromised principle for the sake of unity; (6) that he did from policy what he would not have done by religious principle. No. 1 does not seem to satisfy the conditions, as Paul had revelation enough of God’ s will to know at this time what to do. No. 2 does not elimi¬nate the difficulty, and places Paul in a state of ignorance as to what he had formerly taught; neither can we agree to the position that Paul was hypocritical. No. 4 seems to contradict (verse 26). No. 5 makes Paul a compromiser and surrenders in part that which he knew to be the will of God; neither can we agree that Paul acted merely from policy, which would make him a hypocrite. It seems that Paul had not taught Jewish Christians to disrespect the law of Moses. In fact, Paul and other faithful Christians among the Jews were the only ones who properly respected the law. Christ fulfilled the law; ‘‘ for Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Romans 10:4.) The law was given by Jehovah until Christ should come; Paul understood this. He never thought that Christians had to keep the law in order to be saved; neither did he at any time so act as though the keeping of the law had anything to do with his salvation. Paul said: “ To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the gospel’ s sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-23.) The above quotation describes the conduct of Paul here as elsewhere; he never acted from mere policy, but was guided by principle. We are to understand his conduct here in the light of the above. Since the law of Moses contained some ceremonial rites, these could be ob¬served for the sake of peace and harmony without violating a principle. 25 But as touching the Gentiles that have believed,—James and the elders are making further suggestions to Paul with explanations concerning the Gentile Christians. James was present in Jerusalem when the question of circumcision was discussed with Paul and Barnabas and others. (Acts 15:13.) The decision reached there with James, Peter, and the elders of the church with Paul and Barnabas was that the law of Moses should not be im¬posed on the Gentiles. (Acts 15:28-29.) The four things mentioned in the letter that was written at that time are mentioned here; namely (1) abstain from things sacrificed to idols; (2) from blood; (3) from what is strangled; (4) from fornication. Everything settled in Jerusalem at that time and embodied in the letter is to remain exactly as it was. The liberty of the Gentile Christians was not to be touched by the law. 26 Then Paul took the men,—It was permitted for one man to bear the expense of another in keeping the Nazirite vow. Numbers 6:9-12 recites the law governing the Nazirite vow. The “ charges” involved the payment (1) for the act of shaving the head for which there was a fixed fee to priest or Levite; (2) for the sacrifices which each Nazirite had to offer; namely, two doves or pigeons, a lamb, a ram, a basket of unleavened bread, a meat offering, and a drink offering. Paul agreed to pay for the expenses of the four in their fulfilling their vow. It seems that he appeared in the temple each day for the four. He thus kept his vow in fellowship with the four men, and when the period of his vow was ended and that of the others, the proper offerings were made for each one of them. THE RIOT AND PAUL’ S Act_21:27-40 27 And when the seven days were almost completed,—There is some discussion as to “ the seven days” mentioned here; it is not known whether this has reference to the week of the Pentecost feast or the seven days required for keeping the vow and purification as required by law. Near the close of the seven days “ Jews from Asia” caused trouble; in fact, there was an outburst of wild fury instigated by these Jews from Asia. Perhaps these were some of the Jews who had come “ from Asia” to the Feast of Pen¬tecost and who had heard Paul preach at Ephesus or in some other place of Asia; they had persecuted him in their own district and had stirred up the people in Jerusalem against him before he arrived. They saw Paul “ in the temple” ; he was probably in the court, along the inner wall of which there were small chambers in which the Nazirites used to live while fulfilling the last seven days of their vow. This court was separated with a wall from the court of the Gentiles. These infuriated Jews laid hands on Paul while he was there in the court of the temple. 28 crying out, Men of Israel, help:—They made an attack on Paul as though he had committed some crime; they called upon their fellow Jews to help them. Paul was seized with the marks of his Nazirite vow upon him. (Acts 24:18.) They shouted their accusation against him which they had already spread among the people. (Acts 21:21.) They had accused him of attempting to make Jews become as uncircumcised Gentiles, and that he had spoken against the law of Moses and had blasphemed the temple. They brought this same charge against Christ. (Mark 14:58.) Also this charge was brought against Stephen where Paul was one of the number. (Acts 6:13-14.) They added to this charge that he had brought Gentiles “ into the temple,” and had “ defiled this holy place.” Their accusation was that he had defiled it by making it common. The Jews hated Paul for his work, and were not careful about the charges which they brought against him. 29 For they had before seen with him—These “ Jews from Asia” had seen Trophimus, a Gentile Ephesian, with Paul in the city, and they now saw some strange Jews with Paul in the court of the temple, and they hastily assumed that Paul had taken Trophimus into the temple with him. They were in error; they did not take time to investigate; they were so eager to prefer charges against Paul, and more anxious to find some cause for accusing him, that they did not take sufficient time. Perhaps they were honest, but honestly mistaken. They based their charges against Paul on a mere supposition, but their supposition was false; they did not care whether it was false or true, it served them well to make charges against Paul. 30 And all the city was moved,—These “ Jews from Asia” were successful in stirring up a riot against Paul. The city was “ moved” ; that is, stirred with violent emotion. The same word is used by Tertullus in stirring up a riot against Paul later. (Acts 24:5.) “ The people ran together” in their excitement; they came from all quarters of the city when they heard the noise; the cry spread like wildfire over the city, and the people rushed pell-mell into the court of the temple. They laid hands on Paul, and “ dragged him out of the temple.” They were saving the temple by dragging Paul out of it. It seems clear that the ceremonies of Paul's vow were not yet accomplished, and if they did not violently lay hands on him he could flee to the altar for protection. The keepers of the temple closed the gates to prevent anyone disturbing further the worship in the temple. 31 And as they were seeking to kill him,—It seems that the intention of the mob was to kill Paul; that is, beat him to death in the crowd and no one could be charged with his murder; they could accomplish their aim in killing Paul and avoid any individual responsibility for it. When the “ chief captain” heard what was going on, he rushed to Paul’ s rescue. Herod the Great had built a strong fortress, the castle of Antonia, on a rock on the northwest corner of the temple area; it overlooked the temple, and was con¬nected by two flights of stairs with the outermost courts of the temple on the northern and western sides. The Romans always kept this castle strongly garrisoned with troops to overawe Jerusalem. At festivals, when Jerusalem was filled with excitable crowds, the garrison consisted of a cohort or “ band” of one thou¬sand men. The “ chief captain” of this number was called “ Chiliarch.” When the chief captain heard that all Jerusalem was in confusion, he hastened with his men to the scene of action. 32 And forthwith he took soldiers—The “ chief captain” “ took soldiers and centurions” and hastened “ down upon them.” The chief captain did not go with the view of protecting Paul, but to find out what was the matter, and seeing Paul in the hands of the mob, he arrested him, supposing that he had done something worthy of arrest. The mob “ left off beating Paul” when the “ chief captain and the soldiers” appeared on the scene. The mob probably thought that the Roman law would do justice, and if Paul were found by the chief captain to have been wrongfully treated they would be brought to an account. Furthermore, the chief captain with his soldiers could overpower the mob and make them let Paul go free. 33 Then the chief captain came near,—The Roman official came and formally arrested Paul, “ laid hold on him,” and com¬manded him to be “ bound with two chains.” Paul was bound with chains as though he were a violent and seditious person; probably they thought that he was the leader of a band of assassins. (Acts 21:38.) Inquiry was made as to who Paul was, and what he had done. He had been arrested, and the one making the arrest did not know who he was or what accusation was brought against him. It seems that the chief captain asked Paul his name, and asked the crowd what he had done; naturally they were the ones to prefer the charges; he did not know Paul, and thinking him to be a crimi¬nal, he would not believe what Paul stated. Not many criminals will state accurately their own crimes. 34 And some shouted one thing, some another,—When in¬quiry was made as to the charges against Paul, no unanimous charge could be made; some preferred one charge and some another. Many of the mob knew neither Paul’ s name nor what he had done; hence, they could give no clear answer to the inquiry. The verb used here by Luke is the one he uses to express the con¬fusion of the multitude which shouted against Jesus. (Luke 23 : 21.) Luke is the only writer of the New Testament that uses this verb. The chief captain had made an honest effort to learn what charges were made against Paul, but could not learn from the mob; they did not know themselves; hence, he had Paul brought into the castle. “ The castle” here signifies the barracks which the Romans had in the tower of Antonia; this was near the scene of action. 35-36 And when he came upon the stairs,—Mob violence and uproar were common in Jerusalem during the feasts, and the Roman authorities attempted to keep order; the officers were severe on those who raised an insurrection or incited trouble. The castle in which the “ chief captain” resided was near the temple; he rescued Paul from the mob, and when he could not learn from the mob, neither could he ascertain from Paul in the midst of such confusion, he sought to take him as a prisoner into his castle where he could make an investigation and ascertain the cause of the trouble. As the soldiers took Paul, the mob sought to take him away from the soldiers; they followed after Paul and shouted: “ Away with him.” It seems that the crowd pressed with more fury upon Paul when they saw that he was now to be taken out of their hands. Some of the soldiers had to lift Paul from his feet and carry him up the stairs till he was out of reach of the mob. 37 And as Paul was about to be brought—As Paul was about to be brought into the castle he asked the “ chief captain” if he might say something to the infuriated mob. The chief captain had not yet learned anything about the character of the man that he had suddenly rescued from death; his first supposition was entirely erroneous. When Paul asked if he might speak to the mob, he used the Greek language. This caused the chief captain to ask: “ Dost thou know Greek ?” The officer had seized Paul as the best means of quieting the riot; he thought his prisoner a Jewish desperado, and was greatly surprised to find him a cultured man who could speak the Greek language. 38 Art thou not then the Egyptian,—The chief captain expected an affirmative answer; this Egyptian had given the Romans much trouble; he had “ stirred up to sedition” the people and had “ led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins.” It seems that the first thing which began to correct the false impression of the chief captain was that Paul was a cultured man, able to speak the cultural language, Greek. Then he inquired further if he were not the leader of that band who had caused so much trouble to the Roman government. From this time the Roman official seems to change his attitude toward Paul; he now accepts what Paul states as the truth. The desperado that the chief captain had in mind had led out “ into the wilderness the four thousand men” who were styled “ the Assassins.” He was a man of much influence since he could lead out “ four thousand men.” Josephus tells how this one was one of the many impostors of the time. “ Assassins” is from the Greek “ sikarion,” and is the same as the Latin “ sicarius,” and means “ one who carried a short sword” ; he carried this under his cloak and was a cutthroat. These “ Assassins” killed men by daylight in the midst of the city of Jerusalem. They did not form a band of soldiers, but secretly worked with their short daggers by going into the crowd at the feasts and wounding their adversaries, and when they had fallen the murderers mixed with the crowd and joined in the outcry against crime. They passed unsuspected for a long time. 39 But Paul said, I am a Jew,—Paul answered the chief captain and made his denial by stating simply who he was. He de¬clared himself to be a Jew “ of Tarsus in Cilicia.” Tarsus was the metropolis of Cilicia, and a city remarkable for its culture and the zeal of its inhabitants for philosophic studies. It was “ no mean city” ; that is, it was a city of prominence. Tarsus was one of the great cities of the empire, and had a great university there. Paul was a citizen of this city, which was an honorable distinction. After briefly telling the chief captain who he was and that he was a citizen of the proud city of Tarsus, he asked the privilege “ to speak unto the people.” Paul desired to speak to his people, and in Jerusalem. That infuriated mob was as ignorant of the gospel as though the Christ had never come, suffered and died in that city. Surely, if anyone could, Paul could get them to see the truth by telling them how Jesus had revealed himself to him. He now had a chance. It seems that the chains were taken off of Paul and he was permitted to stand there and speak to his Jewish brethren. 40 And when he had given him leave,—They were still on the stairs; Paul was above them and out of their reach; they were beneath Paul and from his elevated position he could speak to them with ease if they would hear him. The chief captain promptly gave Paul permission to speak to the people. He “ beckoned with the hand unto the people.” He “ beckoned with the hand,” which meant that he demanded their attention. By his beckoning, the gesture gained an audience very readily, and a “ great silence” was ob-served. Paul used tact in handling this mob; he now spoke in the native tongue of the Jews; he spoke in the Hebrew language. The people of Jerusalem knew this language better than they knew the Greek; Paul could speak in either the Hebrew or the Greek lan¬guage. It seems that Jesus used this language on special occa¬sions. (Mark 5:41 Mark 14:36 Mark 15:34.) Paul is given opportunity to make his first defense; he does so with courage and clearness. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 21Act 21:1-3. The vessel proceeded by a coasting voyage along the southern shore of Asia Minor. (1) “And it came to pass, when we had separated from them, and set sail, that we ran with a straight course and came to Cos; and the next day to Rhodes, and thence to Patara. (2) And finding a ship going across to Phenicia, we embarked and set sail. (3) Passing in sight of Cyprus, and leaving it to the left, we sailed to Syria, and landed at Tyre, for there the ship was to unload her cargo.” The change of vessels at Patara must have been occasioned by the fact that the one in which they had hitherto sailed was not bound for a Phenician port. That the new vessel is said to be going across to Phenicia, and that it left Cyprus on the left, is an indication that the other was going to cling still further to the coast of Asia Minor, and was probably bound for Antioch. Acts 21:4. The time employed by the sailors in putting out freight, and taking on board a fresh cargo, gave Paul another opportunity for communing with brethren on shore. (4) “And having found the disciples, we remained there seven days. They told Paul, through the Spirit, not to go up to Jerusalem.” Here Paul met a repetition of those prophetic warnings which had already cast a gloom over his feelings, and so much alarmed were the brethren at the prospects before him, that they entreated him to go no further. We are not to understand that these entreaties were dictated by the Spirit; for this would have made it Paul's duty to desist from his purpose; but the statement means that they were enabled to advise him not to go, by knowing through the Spirit, what awaited him. The knowledge was supernatural; the advice was the result of their own judgment. Acts 21:5-6. When the seven days had passed, including, most likely, a Lord's day, in which the disciples came together to break bread, another scene of painful parting occurred, like that at Miletus. (5) “And it came to pass that when we completed those days, we departed and went our way, they all, with their wives and children, conducting us forward till we were out of the city. And we kneeled down on the shore and prayed. (6) And bidding each other farewell, we went on board the ship, and they returned home.” Unlike the scene at Miletus, the sorrow of manly hearts was here accompanied by the tenderness of female sympathy and the tears of children. The tears of the company were bitter, but they were sanctified and made a blessing to each heart, by prayer. Thus, though all before the apostle, during this journey, was darkness and danger, all around him and behind him was earnest prayer to God in his behalf. Borne forward upon the current of such devotion, he was able to breast the storm, and defy all the powers of earth and hell. Acts 21:7. The journey by water was soon completed, and the remainder of the distance was performed on foot. (7) “And from Tyre we went down to Ptolemais, completing the voyage, and saluted the brethren, and remained with them one day.” If the vessel had been going forward to Cζsarea without delay, they had better have continued on board than to have traveled the distance of thirty or forty miles to that city on foot. We conclude, therefore, that the vessel either intended lying in port for awhile, or did not intend to touch at Cζsarea. The fact that Paul found brethren in Tyre and Ptolemais on the coast of Phenicia, where he had never preached before, reminds us once more of the dispersion of the Church in Jerusalem, and the fact that “ they who were scattered abroad upon the persecution which arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenicia, speaking the Word to none but the Jews.” Acts 21:8-9. The single day spent with the brethren in Ptolemais was sufficient for the solemn admonitions which Paul was leaving with all the Churches, and for another painful farewell. (8) “And the next day we departed, and went to Cζsarea. And entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. (9) Now he had four daughters, who were virgins, and who prophesied.” When we parted from Philip, after the immersion of the eunuch, he had prosecuted an evangelizing tour through Azotus and the intermediate cities, to Cζsarea. It was probably while he was engaged in this tour that Peter had come to Cζsarea, and immersed the family and friends of Cornelius. When Philip arrived, he found the nucleus of a Church, and here we still find him, after a lapse of more than twenty years. He seems never to have returned to Jerusalem, to resume his position as a deacon of that Church, but accepted the providential arrangement by which he was thrown out into a wider field of usefulness, and thenceforward was known as Philip the evangelist. That he had four maiden daughters, who had the gift of prophesy, indicates the strict religious training which he had given to his family. Acts 21:10-14. During the interval spent with the family of Philip, another, and the last of the prophetic warnings which Paul encountered on this journey was given, causing a scene of sorrow similar to those at Miletus and Tyre. (10) “And while we were remaining several days, there came down from Jerusalem a certain prophet named Agabus; (11) and he came to us, and took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus says the Holy Spirit: So shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (12) And when we heard this, both we and they of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. (13) But Paul answered, What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord Jesus. (14) And when he would not be persuaded, we held our peace, saying, The will of the Lord be done.” Agabus was the same prophet who went from Jerusalem to Antioch, and announced the famine which caused the mission of Paul and Barnabas into Judea with a contribution for the poor. It was a singular coincidence that the same man should now meet him, after the lapse of so many years, when entering Judea on a similar mission, and warn him of his own personal danger. The dramatic manner in which his prophesy was delivered gave Paul a more distinct conception of the afflictions which awaited him. If his traveling companions had hitherto been silent when brethren were entreating him to desist from the journey, as is implied in the narrative, their courage now failed them, and they joined in the entreaties of the brethren in Cζsarea. The fearfulness of his prospects was a sufficient trial to his own courage, when he enjoyed at least the silent sympathy of his chosen companions; but when they deserted him, and threw the weight of their influence upon the weight already too heavy for him, the effect was crushing to his heart, though the steadfastness of his purpose was not shaken. The duty imposed upon him by the fearful condition of the Church at large was paramount to all personal considerations, and he felt willing to be bound and to die in his efforts to maintain the honor of the name of the Lord Jesus by preserving the unity of his body. Upon this declaration of his sublime self-devotion, the brethren felt unable to offer another objection, and gave expression to their reluctant resignation by the remark, “ The will of the Lord be done.” Acts 21:15-16. (15) “And after those days, we packed up our baggage, and went up to Jerusalem. (16) Some of the disciples from Cζsarea went with us, conducting us to one Mnason, a Cyprian, and an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.” The journey had been accomplished in time for the feast of Pentecost. This is made to appear by enumerating the days spent on the journey from Philippi. Leaving that city immediately after the days of unleavened bread, which was seven days after the Passover, he reached Troas in five days, where he spent seven. Four days were occupied in the passage from Troas to Miletus. Two are sufficient to allow for the stay at Miletus. In three he sailed from Miletus to Patara, which place he left the same day he reached it; and two more days, with favorable weather, would take him to Tyre. There he spent seven days, and three in the journey thence to Cζsarea. Allowing two days more for the journey from Cζsarea to Jerusalem, we have enumerated only forty-two of the forty-nine days intervening between the Passover and Pentecost, leaving seven for the stay at the house of Philip. That the feast of Pentecost did transpire immediately after his arrival in Jerusalem, is indicated by the immense multitude of Jews then assembled there, and the presence of some from the province of Asia, who had known Paul in Ephesus. Nothing but the annual feasts brought together in Jerusalem the Jews from distant provinces. Acts 21:17. The period which had been looked forward to for months with prayerful anxiety had now arrived, and Paul was to know, without further delay, whether or not the service which he had for Jerusalem would be accepted by the saints. To his unspeakable relief, the historian was able to say, (17) “Now when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.” If Luke had given any account of the contribution Paul was bringing, we should have expected him to say something more definite about its reception than is implied in this remark. But, as he saw fit to omit all mention of the enterprise, we are at liberty to infer, from the glad reception given to the messengers, that the gift they bore was also welcome. The main object of Paul's visit and of his prayers was now accomplished. He had finished this much of his course and his ministry with joy, and his heart was relieved from its chief anxiety. Whether the Lord would now accept his prayer for deliverance from the disobedient in Jerusalem, he felt to be a matter of minor importance. Acts 21:18-26. After the general statement that they were gladly received by the brethren, Luke proceeds to state more in detail what followed. (18) “And on the day following, Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) And having saluted them, he related particularly what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) When they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous for the law. (21) Now they heard concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What, then, is it? The multitude must by all means come together; for they will hear that you have come. (23) Do this, therefore, which we tell you. We have here four men who have a vow upon them. (24) Take them, and purify yourself with them, and bear the expenses for them, in order that they may shear their heads, and all may know that those things of which they have heard concerning you are nothing; but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But as respects the Gentiles who have believed, we have already written, having decided that they observe no such things, only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day went with them into the temple purified, announcing the fulfilling of the days of purification, when an offering should be offered for each one of them.” This I confess to be the most difficult passage in Acts to fully understand, and to reconcile with the teaching of Paul on the subject of the Mosaic law. We shall have the exact state of the question before our minds, by inquiring, first, What was the exact position of the Jerusalem brethren in reference to the law? second, What had Paul actually taught upon the subject? and, third, How can the course pursued by both be reconciled to the mature apostolic teaching? First. It is stated, in this speech, of which James was doubtless the author, that the disciples about Jerusalem were “ all zealous for the law.” They recognized the authority of Moses as still binding; for they complained that Paul taught “ apostasy from Moses.” The specifications of this apostasy were, first, neglect of circumcision; second, abandonment of “ the customs.” By “ the customs” are meant those imposed by the law, among which, as seen in their proposition to Paul, were the Nazarite vows, with their burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and meat-offerings, and, as seen in Paul's epistles, abstinence from unclean meats, and the observance of Sabbath-days, holy days, new moons, and Sabbatic years. Second. Our iniquity into Paul's teaching on the subject must have separate reference to what he had taught before this time, and what he taught subsequently. None of his oral teachings on the subject are preserved by Luke, hence we are dependent for a knowledge of his present teaching upon those of his epistles which were written previous to this time. In none of the specifications above enumerated did he fully agree with his Jewish brethren. True, he granted the perpetuity of circumcision; yet not because he acknowledged with them the continued authority of the law, but because of the covenant with Abraham which preceded the law. As for the law, he taught that it had been “ a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster;” that, “ now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that in which we were held;” that we are “ become dead to the law by the body of Christ.” In repudiating the authority of the law, he necessarily repudiated all obligation to observe “ the customs.” In reference to all these, he afterward said to the Colossians, that God had “blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” “ Let no man, therefore, judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbaths; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ.” While thus repudiating the obligation to observe the ordinances, he admitted the innocence of their observance, and forbade any breach of fellowship on account of it, laying down in reference to them all, this rule: “ Let not him who eats, despise him who eats not; and let not him who eats not, judge him who eats.” In reference, therefore, to meats and days, he and the judaizers agreed that the Jews might observe them; and they differed as to the ground of this conclusion: the latter affirming that it was a matter of duty; the former holding that it was a matter of indifference. Thus far we have omitted special mention of one custom, because its importance demands for it a separate consideration. We refer to sacrifices. It is evident, from the transaction before us, as observed above, that James and the brethren in Jerusalem regarded the offering of sacrifices as at least innocent; for they approved the course of the four Nazarites, and urged Paul to join with them in the service, though it required them to offer sacrifices, and even sin-offerings. They could not, indeed, very well avoid this opinion, since they admitted the continued authority of the Mosaic law. Though disagreeing with them as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered. Third. The commentators uniformly agree that Paul was right, and that the rites observed on this occasion are to be referred to that class which are indifferent, and in reference to which Paul acted upon the principle of being a Jew to the Jew, that he might win the Jew. This would not be objectionable, if the proceeding had reference merely to meats and drinks, holy days, etc., to which it appears to be confined in their view; for all these were indifferent then, and are not less so at the present day. Who would say that it would now be sinful to abstain from certain meats, and observe certain days as holy? But it is far different with bloody sacrifices. If disciples, either Jewish or Gentile, should now assemble in Jerusalem, construct an altar, appoint a priesthood, and offer sin-offerings, they could but be regarded as apostates from Christ. But why should it be regarded as a crime now, if it was innocent then? The truth is, that, up to this time, Paul had written nothing which directly conflicted with the service of the altar, and he did not yet understand the subject correctly. His mind, and those of all the brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this subject that they were before the conversion of Cornelius, in reference to the reception of the uncircumcised into the Church. If we admit that the proposition above quoted from Galatians, affirming that “ we are no longer under the law,” was, when fully understood, inconsistent with the continuance of the sacrifice, we make his case only the more likely like Peter's in regard to the Gentiles; for he announced propositions, on Pentecost, which were inconsistent with his subsequent course, until he was made to better understand the force of his own words. Peter finally discovered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered that he was wrong, in his connection with the offerings of these Nazarites. Some years later, the whole question concerning the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians, and especially in Hebrews. In the last-named Epistle, written during his imprisonment in Rome, he exhibited the utter inefficiency of animal sacrifices; the sacrifice of Christ, once for all, as the only sufficient sin-offering; and the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by that of Christ, who was now the only high priest and mediator between God and man. After these developments, he could not, for any earthly consideration, have repeated the transaction with the Nazarites; for it would have been to insult the great High Priest over the house of God, by presenting, before a human priest, an offering which could not take away sin, and which would proclaim the insufficiency of the blood of the atonement. We conclude, therefore, that the procedure described in the text was inconsistent with the truth as finally developed by the apostles, but not with so much of it as was then understood by Paul. This conclusion presents but another proof that the Holy Spirit, in leading the apostles “ into the truth,” did so by a gradual development running through a series of years. When Paul finally was enabled to understand and develop the whole truth on this subject, no doubt the opinions and prejudices of the more liberal class of Jewish disciples yielded to his clear and conclusive arguments. But, doubtless, some still clung to the obsolete and unlawful service of the temple, assisting the unbelieving Jews to perpetuate it. Then came in the necessity for the destruction of their temple and city, so that it should be impossible for them to longer offer sacrifices which had been superseded. The destruction of the temple was not the legal termination of the Mosaic ritual; for it ceased to be legal with the death of Christ; but this brought to an end its illegal continuance. Before we dismiss this passage, there are two more points claiming a moment's attention. First, the justness of the accusation which the brethren had heard against Paul. He had certainly taught the Jews that they were no longer under the law, and that “ the customs” were no longer binding, and this was, in one sense, “ apostasy from Moses.” But he had not, as he was charged, taught them to abandon the customs; for he had insisted that they were innocent; and, in reference to circumcision, he had given no ground of offense whatever. Hence the charge, as understood by those who preferred it, was false; and it was with the utmost propriety that Paul consented to disabuse their minds, though the means he adopted for that purpose was improper. The last point claiming attention is the nature of the purification which Paul underwent. The statement which we have rendered, he “ purified himself with them,” is understood, by some commentators, to mean that he took part in their vow of abstinence. But for this meaning of the term, agnizo, there is no authority in the New Testament; everywhere else it means to purify, and Paul's own statement to Felix, that “ they found me purified in the temple,” in which he speaks of the same event, and uses the same word, is conclusive as to its meaning here. It will be remembered that no Jew who, like Paul, had been mingling with Gentiles, and disregarding the ceremonial cleanness of the law, was permitted to enter the outer court of the temple without being purified. This purification he must have undergone, and there is no evidence that he underwent any other. But it is said that he purified himself “ with them,” which shows that they, too, were unclean. Now, when a Nazarite became unclean within the period of his vow, it was necessary that he should purify himself, shear his head on the seventh day, and on the eighth day bring certain offerings. Then he lost the days of his vow which had preceded the uncleanness, and had to begin the count anew from the day that the offering was presented. This is fully stated in the sixth chapter of Numbers, where the law of Nazarite is prescribed. Such was the condition of these Nazarites, as is further proved by the notice given of the “ days of purification,” and the mention, in the next verse below, of “the seven days,” as of a period well known. Nazarites had no purification to perform except when they became unclean during their vow; and there was no period of seven days connected with their vow, except in the instance just mentioned. In this instance, as the head was to be sheared on the seventh day, and the offerings presented on the eighth, there were just seven whole days employed. Paul's part was to give notice to the priest of the beginning of these days, and to pay the expenses of the offerings; but he had to purify himself before he went in for this purpose. Acts 21:27-30. (27) “Now when the seven days were about to be completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, aroused the whole multitude, and laid hands on him, (28) crying out, Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law and this place, and has even brought Greeks into the temple, and polluted this holy place. (29) For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him, whom they thought Paul had brought into the temple. (30) And the whole city was moved, and the people ran together, and seizing Paul, dragged him out of the temple; and the doors were immediately closed.” If Paul's own brethren in Jerusalem has become prejudiced against him on account of his teaching in reference to the law, it is not surprising that the hatred of the unbelieving Jews toward him should be intense. Their treasured wrath was like a magazine, ready to explode the moment a match should be applied; and to charge him with defiling the holy place, which they believed that he had already reviled in every nation, was enough to produce the explosion. It is not the custom of mobs to investigate the charges heaped upon their victims; hence, without knowing or caring to know, whether he had really brought Trophimus into the temple, they seized him and dragged him out into the court of the Gentiles. The doors of the inner court were closed, to prevent the defilement of that holy place by the blood which was likely to be shed. Acts 21:31-34. For the second time in his history the Roman authorities came to Paul's rescue from the hands of his countrymen. (31) “And as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the chiliarch of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar, (32) who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down upon them. And when they saw the chiliarch and the soldiers, they quit striking Paul. (33) Then the chiliarch drew near and seized him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and inquired who he was, and what he had done. (34) But some of the multitude cried out one thing, and some another; and not being able to know the certainty on account of the tumult, he commanded him to be led into the castle.” The inability of the mob to agree upon any charge against him shows the precipitancy with which they had rushed upon him, while the multiplicity of charges which they vociferated shows the intensity of their hatred. The chiliarch was indifferent through total ignorance of the case, and desired to act prudently; hence he determined to protect the prisoner, and hold him for examination under more favorable circumstances. Acts 21:35-39. It was but a short distance to the castle of Antonia, which overlooked the temple inclosure, and was connected with it by a stairway. Thither the apostle was rapidly borne, the mob pressing after him. (35) “And when he was on the stairs, he was borne by the soldiers, on account of the violence of the multitude. (36) For the crowd of people followed, crying out, Away with him! (37) And when he was about to be led into the castle, Paul said to the chiliarch, May I say something to you? He said, Do you understand Greek? (38) Are you not that Egyptian, who formerly made an insurrection, and led out into the wilderness four thousand Assassins? (39) Paul said, I am a Jew, of Tarsus, in Cilicia; a citizen of no unknown city; and I beseech you, permit me to speak to the people.” This conversation shows that the chiliarch was utterly ignorant of the character and history of his prisoner. The best conclusion he could form from the confused outcries of the mob was the one indicated in the question just quoted. When he learned that he was a Jew, he was still more perplexed concerning the rage of the people, and not less astonished at the coolness displayed by Paul. In the hope of learning something more definite, he at once gave him liberty to speak, and stood by, an interested hearer. Acts 21:40. “And when he gave him permission, Paul, standing upon the stairs, waved his hand to the people. And when there was general silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,” "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Twenty-One IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To explore the warnings that Paul received as he journeyed to Jerusalem 2) To review the arrival of Paul in Jerusalem 3) To examine Paul's arrest in the temple 4) To observe Paul's request to address the violent mob as he entered the barracks This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 3Act 21:3. Discovered Cyprus means they came in sight of that island, but passing it on their left they sailed on into Syria, the larger territory of which Phenicia was a small part. The ship landed at Tyre, an important seaport of the last named country. Here the ship was to unload its cargo which made a delay in the journey of seven days. 4Acts 21:4. Through the Spirit applies to the general condition of persecution that would beset Paul, not that it was an inspired directive for him not to go. 5Acts 21:5. Brought us on our way means that they all went with them to "see them off." Leave-taking was often done in connection with a prayer service. It was done when Paul and the elders separated (chapter 20:36). 6Acts 21:6. After saying good-bye they separated. The disciples went to their homes and Paul and his company went into the ship which was ready to sail again. 7Acts 21:7. Paul and his group ended their sea travel at this town. There were some brethren here with whom they visited for one day. 8Acts 21:8. This traveling was done by land, bringing them to Caesarea which was the headquarters of the Roman government in Palestine. Philip was one of the deacons appointed in chapter 6. He is called the evangelist because of such work as he did as recorded in chapter 8. 9Acts 21:9. These virgins were the maidens mentioned elsewhere and their prophesying fulfilled the prediction made in Joe 2:28-29 and quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17-18. 0Acts 21:10. This is the same Agabus who made a prediction in chapter 11:28. The primary meaning of a prophet is a foreteller, although it is not restricted to that definition, but sometimes is used of those who edify or exhort (1 Corinthians 14:3). Agabus was a prophet of the former kind, those being the days of spiritual gifts. 1Act 21:11. See the note on "prophets acting" at 1 Kings 20:35 in volume 2 of the Old Testament Commentary. Agabus took this dramatic manner of making his prediction to impress its importance upon the group. 2Act 21:12. The whole group believed the prediction of Agabus, and in their anxiety and love for Paul, tried to persuade him not to go up to Jerusalem. 3Act 21:13. Paul did not worry over the prediction, but he was vexed because of the attitude of the group. He declared his willingness to go even further in his endurance for the sake of Jesus. He was willing to die for him if need be, although Agabus had not included that in his prediction. 4Acts 21:14. The will of the Lord be done indicates their resignation to whatever lot might befall the beloved apostle. His fortitude had the effect of reconciling them to the program that Christ might have mapped out for him. 5Acts 21:15. Took up our carriages is all from , which Thayer defines, "To pack up and carry off." We means Luke, Paul and the others of their company. 6Acts 21:16. Mnason was formerly of the island of Cyprus but was now living in Jerusalem. He was returning home with this group and arrangements were made for them to stay with him. 7Acts 21:17. Brethren received us gladly indicated a friendly attitude toward the brethren of Paul's group. This was not only because of the common interest they had in the cause of Christ, b 8Acts 21:18. The prominence of this James has been mentioned before. He is the one called "the Lord's brother" in Galiatians 1:19, and is the one in Acts 12:17 Acts 21:18; 1 Corinthians 15:7 and Galatians 2:12. It is understandable, then, why Paul sought his company in the presence of the elders. 9Acts 21:19. One of the main subjects of interest in those days was the admittance of the Gentiles to the benefits of the Gospel. 0Acts 21:20. While many of the brethren rejoiced in the conversion of the Gentiles, they were confused as to their proper relation to the national customs of the Jews under the law of Moses. Zealous of the law means they had a desire to continue the aforesaid customs of the law even though they had embraced the Gospel. They had the right to do so (chapter 16:3; 18:21), but did not understand why thy,, Gentiles did not also. 1Act 21:21. Paul taught that no one was to be justified by the law of Moses. This teaching of the apostle was misunderstood and some thought that he also opposed the Jews who observed the old practices even though they did it merely as national customs. These elders understood Paul's position on the subject, but many of the Jewish brethren did not, and they were informing him of the situation. 2Act 21:22. Paul was told that there would be an assembling of these zealous Jewish disciples in order to inquire into the subject. 4Acts 21:23-24. As a proof that Paul had not turned against the law as far as the national customs were concerned, they told him of an opportunity just at hand where he could engage in one of those customs, which was in regard to vows and the formalities required. The directions for observing this vow are in Numbers 6 th chapter. 5 Acts 21:25. This refers to Acts 15:23-29. 6Acts 21:26. Paul complied with the advice of the elders. When he did so he carried out a principle he set forth in 1 Corinthians 9:20. 7Acts 21:27. Paul had to be in the temple to perform the custom mentioned in the preceding verse. That attracted the attention of the Jews of Asia, a small Roman province in which was the city of Ephesus. They had known of Paul's work in their home city, and still had a prejudice against him. They raised a commotion among the people and caused them to threaten Paul with violence. 8Acts 21:28. Like most riotous demonstrations, the motive was a false accusation. The mob accused Paul of opposing the law. (See comments at verses 20, 21.) They even accused him of bringing some Greeks (Gentiles) into the temple for the purpose of corrupting it. 9Acts 21:29. When people have the motive of persecuting a man whose teaching they do not like but cannot meet, they will take things for granted and form wrongful conclusions. Paul was seen with one Trophimus somewhere in the city, then the people presumed that he had taken him into the temple to corrupt it. 0Acts 21:30. A general uproar was caused and Paul was forcibly taken out of the temple. The doors were closed to prevent him from returning should he get loose. 1 Act 21:31. Went about to kill him means they were actually beginning their acts of violence, and intended to continue until they had him killed (verse 32). Word of the riot reached the ears of the captain of the military. 2Act 21:32. The captain took a crew of soldiers with him to the scene of the riot. The appearance of this company caused the mob to cease beating Paul. 3Act 21:33. The captain partook of the mob spirit and mistreated Paul, although the apostle had not even been accused by any officer. 4Acts 21:34. The riotous clamor of the mob confused the captain so that he concluded to remove Paul from them for further investigation, all the while treating him very roughly. The castle was the place that contained the barracks of the soldiers. 5Acts 21:35. The mob spirit was so violent that Paul had to be carried by the soldiers to get him through the crowd to a place of personal safety. 6Acts 21:36. Away with him was an outburst of rage prompted by the spirit of murder, for Paul had not even been accused by any legal witness. 7Acts 21:37. While this military police was pushing Paul along, he asked permission to make a speech to the people in his own behalf. This request was made in the Greek language, which surprised the captain who thought Paul was an Egyptian. 8Acts 21:38. The only fact that was present in both the case of the Egyptian and that of Paul, was that there was an uproar among the people. But the apostle was not to blame for the present riot, a truth seemingly unknown to the chief captain. 9Acts 21:39. Paul did not answer the captain with a direct "no," but stated in brief his identity. Instead of being an Egyptian he was a Jew. Tarsus was no mean city which means it was no insignificant place. Paul's nativity, then, was an honorable and noted one. On that basis he again asked permission to speak to the people. 0Acts 21:40. After being given license or permission to speak, Paul stood on the stairway to be in sight and hearing of the people, making a signal with his hand requesting their attention. When talking to the captain (verse 37) who was a Gentile, Paul used the Greek tongue. Now that the crowd was mostly Jewish, he used their own language which he knew they could understand and would respect. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 22 PAUL’ S ON THE TEMPLE STAIRSAct_22:1-30 1 Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence—We enter now upon a series of pleas made by Paul in his self-defense; this is the first of five pleas which are recorded in the following chapters. These pleas are made under different circumstances, and lead to the close of the book of Acts. This is Paul’ s first formal vindica¬tion of himself before his own people. He uses the same greeting that Stephen used. (Acts 7:2.) “ Fathers” here may include members of the Sanhedrin and rulers and doctors of the law. Paul here, like Stephen, mentions his ancestors; this is done by way of conciliation. “ Defence” is from the Greek “ apologia,” and is the word from which we get “ apology” ; however, Paul is not making an “ apology” in the sense that we use the term, but is using it in its original sense, which means “ defence” without implying any wrong that he had done. 2 And when they heard that he spake—Paul spoke to them in his and their native tongue, the Hebrew language. By his speak¬ing in the Hebrew he would show himself a Jew and familiar with their language and law. They may have expected him to speak in the Greek language. It had the desired effect, for when they heard him speak in the Hebrew language, the mob quieted down and was willing to listen to him. 3 I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia,—Paul shows himself by birth and education to be a Jew; though of foreign birth, never¬theless, a Jew in the strictest sense. Perhaps Paul put the em¬phasis on “ I,” which means “ I am indeed a Jew.” Paul is not boasting, but he does set forth those things which distinguish him as a Jew. Tarsus was a city of the province of Cilicia. Paul prob¬ably lived in Tarsus until he was eleven years of age, not later than thirteen years of age, as the Jewish parents put their sons in train¬ing at the age of twelve. “ Gamaliel” was an eminent Jewish teacher at Jerusalem. The custom was for the teacher and student to sit, the teacher on a higher level than the student. Hence, the expression “ at the feet of Gamaliel.” Gamaliel was the grandson of the famous rabbi Hillel, and so esteemed as a scribe that it was said, “ When Gamaliel died, the glory of the law ceased.” Paul had been “ instructed according to the strict manner of the law” of the Jews. Paul was “ a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5), and as touching the law, “ a Pharisee” (Acts 26:5). Paul had been “ zealous for God,” even as these Jews were now. He had learned better, and wished to teach them better. 4 and I persecuted this Way unto the death,—Paul had men¬tioned his former zeal for the law to let them know that at one time he was as they now are; yet it was the deepest grief and shame to him that he had been as they were now. (1 Corinthians 15:7-10.) “ This Way” is frequently used by Luke as a term for Christianity; it was familiar to disciples or Christians. Paul had formerly pur¬sued them unto death; he threw them into prison without regard to sex; he showed his intense zeal for the law by his bitter persecution of Christians. 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness.—The Gamaliel mentioned here by Paul is probably the same Gamaliel men¬tioned in Acts 5:34. The high priest who had commissioned Paul (Acts 9:2 Acts 9:14) was not in office at this time, but the documents of his predecessor were in possession of the present high priest. “ Estate” has an old sense of the “ assembly” ; hence, “ the estate of the elders” means the assembly or council or Sanhedrin. Paul had received authority by letters to go to Damascus “ to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished.” Paul was clothed with the highest authority that could be conferred upon him; he had authority from the highest priest and from the Sanhedrin. At that time he was determined to stop the spread of Christianity. (Acts 8:1 Acts 8:3 Acts 26:11.) 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey,—There are three accounts of Paul’ s conversion— one in chapter 9, another in chapter 22, and the third in chapter 26. These separate ac¬counts show only such minor variations as would naturally occur when only the substantial facts are mentioned. “ It came to pass” ; that is, it occurred as Paul journeyed and approached Damascus. Here he mentions that it was “ about noon,” which is not men¬tioned in chapter 9; in Acts 26:13, in his defense before Agrippa, Paul says it was at “ midday.” This “ great light” “ from heaven” was very brilliant to exceed the brightness of the sun at midday. 7 And I fell unto the ground,—In Acts 9 Saul “ fell upon the earth” (verse 4), and “ arose from the earth” (verse 8), but here he “ fell unto the ground” ; no difference in meaning; in Acts 26:14 it is related that they all fell “ to the earth.” 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord?—The answer given to this question was: “ I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” In chapter 9 Luke gives the answer as: “ I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” (Acts 9:5.) In Acts 26:15 the answer is: “ I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” 9 And they that were with me beheld—In Acts 9:7 Luke says that the men who accompanied Paul “ stood speechless, hear¬ing the voice, but beholding no man,” but here the record says that “ they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” In Acts 9 we have Luke’ s record of the events, but here we have his record as giving what Paul said; here he is quoting Paul. Some have pointed out a contradiction in the record here and in Acts 9. There is no contradiction. Two different points of time in the event could be referred to; again, they heard but did not perceive; and again, they heard the voice or sound, but did not hear or distinguish the words. In Acts 26:14 we learn that the voice was “ in the Hebrew language.” It may be that those who were with Paul did not understand the Hebrew language; hence, would hear the noise or sound, but would not understand. We are to under-stand that the attendants saw and heard enough to satisfy them of the miraculous appearing of Christ, but were not allowed to see his person or understand his words. We have here one of the evi¬dences of the genuineness of this report of Paul’ s speech in that Luke did not try to avoid apparent discrepancies in details between the words of Paul and his own record already given. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord?—In answer to his question, the Lord told Saul to “ arise, and go into Damascus.” The Lord did not tell Saul further what to do; he did not forgive his sins or convert him here. Saul must hear the gospel, which is God’ s power unto salvation. Saul was directed to go into Damascus, and there he should receive fuller instruction about “ all things which are appointed for thee to do.” Paul was to meet Ananias in Damascus for further instruction. It should be noted that there were other things which Saul must do. 11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light,—The light was about the brightness of the Eastern noonday sun; it blinded Paul; some think that the glare of that light never quite left Paul, and that his eyes never recovered their full strength after this event. This supposition is based on Paul’ s expression: “ Ye would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.” (Galatians 4:15.) Paul was led by his traveling companions into Damascus where he was to meet Ananias. 12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law,—In Acts 9:10 Luke calls Ananias a disciple. Here Paul speaks of him as “ a devout man according to the law.” He was of good report among the Jews that dwelt in Damascus. This description was suited to conciliate his audience in every lawful way. This was consistent with the account which appears in Acts 21:20 in the words of James as to “ how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed.” In this defense Paul is mak¬ing it clear that his change was brought about by divine agencies. He was at one time as they are now, but he has changed, and the Lord is responsible for the change; hence, they should not blame Paul. 13 came unto me, and standing by me said unto me,—Paul now shows that Ananias came to him by divine authority. Ananias was commissioned by the Lord to do what he did. He addressed Paul with, “ Brother Saul.” This showed that Ananias recognized Saul as a brother Jew; it does not show that Ananias recognized Saul at this time as a Christian. Paul had addressed these hostile Jews as “ Brethren and fathers.” (Acts 22:1.) This does not mean that Paul recognized these hostile Jews as Chris¬tians. Ananias restored sight to Paul; this showed Paul that Ananias was commissioned by the Lord; he had power to work miracles. Paul received his sight and looked upon Ananias. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers—Paul here quotes what Ananias said to him in part. Ananias gives in substance what was revealed to him about Saul’ s mission. Paul keeps constantly before his hearers that he is following divine instruction; that the change that he has made was brought about by divine agencies. Ananias is still loyal to the God of Israel, and speaks of him as “ the God of our fathers.” Paul is to know the will of God and “ to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth.” This emphasizes that Paul was chosen of God to know God’ s will and to see Christ. Paul was not only to know God’ s will to save men, but he was to know his will about what he was to do and to suffer in the service of God. Christ is frequently called “ the Righteous One.” (Acts 3:14 Acts 7:52.) Paul was made an apostle by seeing Christ and being commissioned by him. (1 Corinthians 9:1 1 Corinthians 15:8; Galatians 1:1 Galatians 1:11-12.) 15 For thou shalt be a witness—Paul was to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ and to preach his gospel to the unsaved. He was called, as were the other apostles, and sent out as a witness. He was a chosen vessel of the Lord “ to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.” (Acts 9 : 15.) However, Paul does not mention “ Gentiles” here, as it would arouse Jewish prejudice against his cause. He does say that he is to be a witness of Christ “ unto all men” of all that he had seen and heard. Paul is very tactful in making this address. Paul in witnessing for Christ based his teachings on facts of knowledge and experience as did the other apostles. 16 And now why tarriest thou?—After instructing Paul as he was commissioned to do, Ananias encouraged him to do what the Lord commanded him to do; he was encouraged to do this immediately; he should not tarry or delay. He is now given more definite instruction as to what he should do. Paul was prostrate, or in a recumbent posture; hence, he is commanded to arise, and “ be baptized.” “ Baptisai” is in the first aorist middle voice of the verb, not the passive form as in Acts 2:38. It literally means “ cause thyself to be baptized, or suffer someone to baptize thee.” “ And wash away thy sins” states the purpose of his baptism. “ Apolousai” literally means “ get washed off” as in 1 Corinthians 6:11. This signifies that baptism is in order to the remission of sins or the cleansing of sin. Paul’ s sins were not forgiven when he saw and heard the Lord on the way to Damascus. As Paul’ s body was to be washed in the act of baptism, so his sins were to be forgiven. “ Calling on his name” means invoking the name of Christ in so doing. He was thus commanded to do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. Here baptism is clearly set forth as one of the conditions of the remission of sins, and not merely as a symbol of what had already been done. 17-18 And it came to pass, that, when I had returned to Jerusalem,—It seems that it was after three years absence (Galatians 1:18) that Paul returned to Jerusalem. Paul had left Jerusalem for Damascus with authority to persecute Christians; he was con¬verted and ceased his persecution and went to preaching Christ, going into Arabia and then returning to Damascus, and after three years went to Jerusalem. When he came to Jerusalem this time he went into the temple to pray and fell into a trance. A mention of this showed that he still honored the temple as the house of God. This is a visit recorded in Acts 9:29 when the Jews sought to kill Paul. This “ trance,” or state of ecstasy, was a special divine in-fluence under which Paul was brought while praying. Peter fell into a trance while on the housetop. (Acts 10:10.) Later he spoke of this trance as a vision. (Acts 10:17.) In this trance Paul saw the Lord, and the Lord spoke to him and said: “ Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem.” The reason as¬signed was because “ they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me.” Paul must leave Jerusalem, as they would not hear his testimony concerning Jesus; hence he goes and preaches to the Gentiles. 19 And I said, Lord, they themselves know—Paul here recounts the persecutions that he had brought against Christians. He seems to plead with the Lord that men cannot help receiving the testimony from one who had previously been such an enemy of Jesus of Nazareth. These words of Paul seemed to be now addressed to his hearers so that they may be impressed with strength of the testimony given by one who had imprisoned Christians. Paul had imprisoned and beaten Christians for believing on Christ. 20 and when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed,—Paul seems further to argue his case by recounting the persecution that he brought upon the disciples of the Lord. He was present at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58); this was the first mention that we have of Paul. Paul stood by and encouraged those who stoned Stephen. He says that he was keeping the garments of them that slew him. Some think that Saul at this time was a member of the Sanhedrin, and that he was superintending the execution of Stephen. “ Witness” is from the Greek “ marturos,” from which we get “ martyr.” The word was in its transition state at this time; hence, “ Stephen thy witness,” would mean “ Stephen thy martyr.” 21 And he said unto me, Depart:—The Lord did not discuss the matter with Paul. His answer was clear and emphatic; “ de¬part” ; that is, get out of Jerusalem. The words of the Lord were dignified but imperative. The Lord added that he would send Paul “ far hence unto the Gentiles.” This narration would impress the Jewish multitude that it was Paul’ s wish to labor among his own people, but that Christ had commanded him to go to the Geniles. When they heard the word “ Gentile” they were ready to destroy Paul. Paul’ s voice was drowned by the uproar of the mulitude, and he was taken into the castle for safety and for further investigation and examination. 22 And they gave him audience unto this word;—“ This word” does not mean the word “ Gentile,” but the Greek literally means this saying or this announcement that he was sent to the Gentiles. This reminds one very much of the ending of Stephen’ s speech as recorded in Acts 7. When Paul made his reference to Stephen the crowd may have been cut to the heart, and may have begun to gnash with their teeth. However, when the mention of the hated Gentiles was made, the old frenzy broke out, aggravated by the thought that Paul, standing on the stairway, was out of their reach. The crowd now shouted: “ Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.” They could not conceive of their Messiah as having given such orders to such a base fellow as Paul. Paul’ s claim seemed so absurd and blasphe¬mous to them that they would not hear him any longer. 23-24 And as they cried out, and threw off their garments,—There are three acts mentioned here which express their great rage. Their loud and clamorous shouts, their throwing off their garments, and their casting dust into the air, all express their infuriated confusion, and their determination to destroy Paul if they could lay hands on him. Shouting with deafening cries, and tearing off garments, and hurling dust into the air are ways by which they showed their bitterness and furious anger. They thew off their outer robes or coverings to allow free gesticulation; they threw dust at Paul (2 Samuel 16:13), and shouted incessantly. The chief captain or Roman officer saw that it was no use for Paul to talk longer; hence, he commanded Paul to be brought into the castle. He gave orders that Paul should “ be examined by scourging.” He commanded Paul to be tortured until he should confess to some crime. The “ chief captain” could not understand Hebrew, and did not know what Paul had said; he only saw that Paul’ s speech had infuriated the mob again, and that in their opinion he was a criminal worthy of death. He thought that something must be done. “ Scourging” was inflicted on a victim to extract the truth; the victim was put to torture, to compel him to confess his crime. Scourging is described as the mildest form of examination; a wooden post was erected in a slanting position, and the feet and hands were made fast to it with thongs, and blows applied with the scourge or whip, formed of three lashes or thongs made of leather or small cords, to which some iron points or sharp-cornered pieces of metal were fastened. Lysias did not care to see the torture applied, so he commanded others to scourge Paul. 25 And when they had tied him up with the thongs,—As they were making preparation to scourge Paul, he asked the centurion who was standing by: “ Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned ?” It seems that they had already tied Paul and had him ready to inflict the punishment, when the centurion who was directing the punishment was astonished to learn that Paul was a Roman citizen. Roman historians sometimes speak of centurions as presiding over punishment, and an of¬ficer of that rank seems to have had charge of the crucifixion of Jesus. (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47.) It was contrary to the Roman law to begin an examination of a Roman citi¬zen by scourging. The chief captain had violated this law in or¬dering Paul to be scourged. 26 And when the centurion heard it,—When the centurion learned that Paul was claiming the rights of a Roman citizen, he reported at once to the chief captain and said: “ What art thou about to do? for this man is a Roman.” Literally, the centurion said: “ What are you about to do? for this man is a Roman.” This was a warning to the chief captain not to go any further. Paul did not mean that he was a “ Roman” by birth or residence, but in right and privilege, he was a Roman citizen. It was easy to find out whether a prisoner was making a false claim to being a Roman citizen; the punishment for such a claim was death. Both the chief captain and the centurion admitted Paul’ s claim to be true. 27 And the chief captain came and said—When the chief captain learned from the centurion that Paul was claiming the rights of a Roman citizen, he went at once to Paul and put the question directly to him: “ Art thou a Roman ?” Paul answered emphatically; “ Yea,” The chief captain was now satisfied that Paul’ s claim was true; he was subject to penalty for commanding Paul to be scourged. 28 And the chief captain answered,—It was difficult for the chief captain to believe that Paul was a Roman citizen; hence, he said: “ With a great sum obtained I this citizenship.” There were usually three ways by which one enjoyed the rights of Roman citi¬zenship; namely, by purchasing citizenship with a large sum of money; next, by having citizenship conferred upon one because of some great service to the Roman government; and third, by being born a Roman. To be born a Roman citizen seems to have been more honorable than to purchase the rights of citizenship. This centurion enjoyed his rights of citizenship through purchase, but Paul was “ Roman born.” We are not told how he obtained citizenship by birth. It was not because he was born in Tarsus, for Tarsus was not a colony, but only a free city; birth in a free city did not necessarily confer Roman citizenship. Paul’ s father or grandfather had probably received the honor for some service to the state; his father or grandfather might have even purchased their Roman citizenship. It matters but little how he obtained this; we are confronted with the fact that he was freeborn. Hence, he stood in a more honorable relation to the Roman government than did the chief captain. 29 They then that were about to examine him—Those who had bound Paul quickly loosed him and departed from him. Even the chief captain was afraid because he had commanded the Roman citizen to be scourged. Lysias, the chief captain, knew the Roman law, so he at once released Paul; he was about to commit a greater crime than even Paul was accused of. Paul may have had some pas and abundant references in the city by which he was ready to prove his claim to citizenship. The action of the chief captain could be interpreted as taking sides with a Jewish mob; hence, he is careful now to protect the safety of Paul. Paul had not only been bound, but he was tied up to the whipping post. It was not contrary to law to bind a Roman citizen in order to secure him for trial, so Paul remained in chains, fastened to a soldier, while living in Rome awaiting his trial before Caesar. (Acts 28:20.) However, it was illegal to inflict the indignity of tying to the whipping post as slaves were accustomed to being tied. 30 But on the morrow, desiring to know the certainty—Paul remained in the custody of the chief captain until the next day. The chief captain desired to know the reason for the Jews’ accusation against Paul. He had failed in his attempt to find out from Paul; so his next course was to order the Sanhedrin to as¬semble and have Paul brought before it. It seems that he left Paul there for the council to examine and report on the case. He may have left the guard with Paul until after charges were ascertained. The chief captain commanded “ the chief priests” and “ all the council to come together.” The “ chief priests” are mentioned as the most important class; then the council as second class was men¬tioned. The chief captain seems to have left Paul before the coun¬cil to examine and report on the case. Our next is a study of Paul before the council. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 22Act 22:1-2. (1) “Men, brethren, and fathers, hear my defense, which I now make to you. (2) And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, they kept the greater quiet.” It is happily remarked by Mr. Howson, that, had he spoken in Greek, the majority of his hearers would have understood him; but, “ the sound of the holy tongue in that holy place fell like a calm upon the troubled waters.” It was a mark of respect for Jewish nationality which they were not prepared to expect from Paul; and the result was, that the silence, which was only general at the waving of his hand, became universal at the utterance of his first sentence. Acts 22:3-16. (3) “And he said, I myself am a Jew; born in Tarsus of Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strictest doctrine of the law of our fathers, and was zealous toward God as you all are this day. (4) I persecuted this way, even to death; binding and delivering into prisons both men and women; (5) as the high priest and the whole body of the elders are my witnesses: from whom, also, I received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring those who were there bound to Jerusalem, that they might be punished. (6) But it came to pass, as I journeyed and was drawing near to Damascus, about noon, a great light from heaven suddenly flashed around me. (7) I fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? (8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? He said to me, I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you persecute. (9) Now, they who were with me saw the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him who spoke to me. (10) And I said, Lord, what shall I do? And the Lord said to me, Arise, and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning all things which are appointed for thee to do. (11) And, as I could not see for the glory of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and went into Damascus. (12) And one Ananias, a pious man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who dwelt there, (13) came to me, and stood, and said to me, Brother Saul, look up. And that moment I looked up upon him. (14) And he said, The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will, and to see the Just One, and to hear the voice of his mouth. (15) For you shall be a witness for him to all men, of what you have seen and heard. (16) And now, why do you tarry? Arise, and be immersed, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Such portions of this speech as are necessary to the full understanding of Paul's conversion, we have considered in commenting on the ninth chapter. The words of Ananias, “ Arise and be immersed,” probably demand a moment's additional notice, on account of the use which has been made of them by many pedobaptist writers and speakers of an inferior grade. It is urged that the words should be rendered, “ Standing up, be baptized;” and that they indicate that Paul was baptized on the spot, without leaving the house. We might admit the rendering without granting the conclusion; for the command to be baptized required him to do whatever was necessary to that act. If the act was immersion, it required him to go where it could be performed, however great the distance, and the words are entirely consistent with that idea. If he was to be immersed, he must, of necessity, arise from his prostrate or sitting position for that purpose. If he was to be sprinkled, he might as well have remained, as candidates for that ceremony now commonly do, upon his knees. Acts 22:17-21. After this brief account of his course of persecution and his conversion, he advances to the events which occurred upon his return to Jerusalem, and which led to that peculiar ministry that had excited the hatred of his hearers. (17) “And it came to pass, when I returned to Jerusalem, and was praying in the temple, that I was in a trance, (18) and saw him saying to me, Make haste, and depart quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive your testimony concerning me. (19) And I said, Lord, they know that I was imprisoning and beating in every synagogue those who believe on thee, (20) and when the blood of thy witness, Stephen, was shed, I myself was standing by, and consenting to his death, and guarding the raiment of those who slew him. (21) And he said to me, Depart, for I will send you far hence to the Gentiles.” By allowing Paul to speak, Lysias expected to learn something about the charges against him, supposing that he would address himself immediately and strictly to a defense. What must have been his surprise, then, to hear him, after asking the people to hear his defense, proceed with a narrative, the bearing of which upon the case was so obscure? It must be confessed that the speech afforded very little of the light that he was seeking; and even to men who are better prepared to understand it than he, it is still a source of astonishment. Here is a man in the hands of a heathen soldiery, with a prison-door opening behind him, and before him a mob thirsting for his blood, whom to appease would save him from prison, and, perhaps, from death, yet appearing to be utterly oblivious to the danger which surrounded him, and though permitted to speak, making not the slightest effort to obtain release. He could most truthfully have denied bringing Greeks into the temple, or speaking improperly of the people, the law, or that holy place; but he was so far elevated above all selfish considerations, that he desired no vindication of himself not involving a vindication of the cause he was pleading. He saw before him a deluded multitude rushing blindly to destruction, and though they were thirsting for his own blood, he pitied them, and resolved to give them light. Under the smart of the bruises they had inflicted on him, and amid their wild outcries, he remembered when he once took part in similar mobs, and the blood of Stephen rose up before his vision. This enabled him to excuse their rage, and, as the vision of Christ glorified, which he had witnessed on the road to Damascus, had changed him from a persecutor to a disciple, he resolved to try its effect upon them. He did not altogether miscalculate its power; for they listened to the whole account of his conversion with profound attention. The narrative demonstrated the divine authority of Jesus, and enabled Paul to assume, as a basis for his further argument, that it was proper to do whatever he might command. He then proceeds to account for his going to the Gentiles. It was not my own choice, for I desired to stay in Jerusalem. But the Lord commanded me in a vision to leave the city. I even remonstrated against his decision, when he peremptorily commanded, “ Depart, for I will send you far hence to the Gentiles.” Acts 22:22-24. When he reached this point in his discourse, he appeared to the mob about to vindicate the course which they condemned as criminal, instead of apologizing for it, and their rage was renewed. (22) “Now they heard him up to this word, then raised their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth! For it is not fit that he should live. (23) And as they were shouting, and tossing up their garments, and casting dust into the air, (24) the chiliarch commanded him to be led into the castle, saying that he should be examined by scourging, in order that he might know on what account they cried out so against him.” The idea of scourging a man who is assailed by a mob, to make him confess the cause for which he is assailed, is most abhorrent to all proper sense of justice, yet it prevailed in the most enlightened heathen nations of antiquity. Rome, it is true, exempted from its effects all who enjoyed the rights of citizenship; but the existence of such a distinction in a matter in which all human beings should have equal rights, is a further proof of their ignorance of the true principles of public justice. To the enlightening and rectifying influence of Christianity, modern nations are indebted for many happy changes in jurisprudence. Acts 22:25-29. When Paul was led within the castle, the executioner made immediate preparation for his cruel work. (25) “And as he was bending him forward with the straps Paul said to the centurion, who was standing by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned? (26) When the centurion heard this, he went and told the chiliarch, saying, Take heed what you are about to do, for this man is a Roman. (27) Then the chiliarch came and said to him, Tell me, are you a Roman? And he said, Yes. (28) And the chiliarch answered, With a great sum I obtained this citizenship. And Paul said, But I was born so. (29) Then they who were about to examine him immediately departed from him; and the chiliarch was alarmed, when he knew that he was a Roman, and that he had bound him.” Previous to applying the scourge, the victim was bent forward upon a reclining post, to which he was bound by straps. It was this binding which caused the alarm of the chiliarch, and not the binding of his arms with chains. The latter was legal, and hence Paul remained so bound, but the former was illegal. It was just at the critical moment, when he was bent forward upon the post, and the straps were being adjusted, that the quiet assertion of citizenship caused his release, and struck terror into the heart of the officer. Notwithstanding this exemption was extended only to a favored few, we can but admire the majesty of a law, which in a remote province, and within the walls of a prison, suddenly released a prisoner from the whipping-post, by the simple declaration, “ I am a Roman citizen.” Acts 22:30. Lysias was disposed to do his duty, but he experienced great difficulty in deciding what is was. He had first inquired of the mob; had then heard a speech from Paul; and had now gone as far as he dared toward the trial by scourging; yet he knew nothing more about the charges against his prisoner than he did at first. He determined to make one more effort. (30) “On the next day, desiring to know the certainty as to what he was accused of by the Jews, he released him from his bonds, and commanded the high priests and the whole Sanhedrim to come together, and brought Paul down, and placed him before them.” "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Twenty-Two IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To explore Paul's address to the Jerusalem mob 2) To understand how Paul used his Roman citizenship to avoid scourging 3) To observe Paul taken before the Sanhedrin council SUMMARY Paul addressed the crowd as "brethren and fathers" in Hebrew. The mob became very quiet when they heard that. Paul began his defense by providing his background: He was a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia; he was brought up in Jerusalem at the "feet of Gamaliel;" he was taught "according to the strictness of our father's law;" and he was zealous toward God, just like them. Paul added that he had persecuted the Way to the death. He bound and delivered men and women to prison. He acted under the high priest's and elders' authority. Paul called upon their witness for himself. He had received letters from them to travel to Damascus to bring those of the Way back to Jerusalem for punishment. Paul then described the Lord's appearance to him on the road to Damascus. At about noon, a bright light shined around Paul. He fell to the ground. The Lord asked him why he was persecuting Him. The Lord identified Himself as Jesus of Nazareth. Paul asked, "What shall I do, Lord?" The Lord told him to go into Damascus and he would be told what to do. He was led by the hand into Damascus by his companions, because he could not see. Paul then described his obedience to the gospel when taught by Ananias. Ananias came to Paul. He restored his sight. Ananias told Paul that he had been chosen to "know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth." Paul was to be "His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard." Ananias told Paul what to do to be forgiven of his sins. He asked Paul, "Why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Next, Paul described how the Lord had sent him to the Gentiles. Paul returned to Jerusalem. He was praying in the temple, and was in a trance. The Lord appeared to him and told him to quickly depart from Jerusalem for the Jews would "not receive your testimony concerning Me." Paul attempted to explain to the Lord that he could make the Jews understand. He responded that the Jews knew of his persecution of those of the Way. He added that he had even consented to the death of Stephen, holding the killer's clothes. The Lord told Paul of His plans for him. Paul was to depart. He was sent far away to the Gentiles. (Acts 22:1-21) The Jews listened until the Gentiles were mentioned. When the Jews heard that he was sent to the Gentiles, they raised their voices, "...he is not fit to live!" They tore their clothes and threw dust in the air. At this point, the Romans prepared to examine Paul under scourging. The Roman commander ordered that Paul be brought into the barracks. The commander wanted to know why they shouted so against Paul. He ordered that Paul should be examined under scourging. The soldiers bound Paul with thongs. Paul asked the centurion standing nearby, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?" The centurion told this to the commander. The commander asked Paul if he was a Roman citizen, and Paul affirmed that he was. The commander then indicated that he had purchased his citizenship at a great price; however, Paul noted that he was a Roman by birth. The soldiers were frightened by this. They were afraid because they had bound a Roman citizen, and they were about to scourge him. (Acts 22:22-29) The commander still wanted to know why he was accused by the Jews. The next day, Paul was released from his bonds. The chief priests and the council were commanded to appear, and Paul was brought before them. (Acts 22:30) OUTLINE I. PAUL THE MOB (Acts 22:1-21) A. PAUL BEGAN HIS DEFENSE (Acts 22:1-2)1. Paul addressed the crowd as "brethren and fathers" 2. The mob became very quiet when they heard him speak in Hebrew B. PAUL HIMSELF AS SIMILAR TO THEM (Acts 22:3-5)1. Paul's description of himself included: a. He was a Jew b. Born in Tarsus of Cilicia c. Brought up in Jerusalem at the "feet of Gamaliel" d. Taught in the "strictness of our father's law" e. Zealous toward God - like them 2. Paul persecuted the Way to the death a. He bound and delivered men and women to prison b. He acted under the high priest's and elders' authority and witness c. He had received letters to go to Damascus to bring those of the Way to Jerusalem for punishment C. PAUL THE LORD'S ON THE ROAD TO (Acts 22:6-11)1. At about noon, on the road to Damascus, a bright light shined around Paul a. He fell to the ground b. He heard Jesus ask him why he was persecuting Him c. The Lord identified Himself as Jesus of Nazareth 2. Paul asked the Lord what he should do a. Paul's traveling companions saw the light but did not hear the voice (or understand it) b. Paul asked, "What shall I do, Lord?" c. The Lord told Paul to go into Damascus and he would be told what to do d. He was led by the hand into Damascus by his companions, because he could not see D. PAUL HIS TO THE GOSPEL WHEN TAUGHT BY ANANIAS (Acts 22:12-16)1. Ananias came to Paul a. He restored Paul's sight b. Ananias told Paul that he had been chosen to "know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth" c. Paul was to be "His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard" 2. Ananias told Paul what to do to be forgiven of his sins a. He asked Paul, "Why are you waiting?" b. "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" E. PAUL THE LORD SENDING HIM TO THE (Acts 22:17-21)1. The Lord spoke to Paul a. Paul returned to Jerusalem; he was praying in the temple b. He was in a trance and the Lord appeared to him c. The Lord told him to quickly depart from Jerusalem for the Jews would "not receive your testimony concerning Me" 2. Paul attempted to explain to the Lord that he could make the Jews understand a. Paul responded that the Jews knew of his persecution of those of the Way b. He added that he had even consented to the death of Stephen, holding the killer's clothes 3. The Lord told Paul of His plans for him a. Paul was to depart b. He was sent far away to the Gentiles II. PAUL CLAIMED HIS ROMAN (Acts 22:22-29) A. THE JEWS UNTIL THE WERE (Acts 22:22-23)1. When the Jews heard that he was sent to the Gentiles, they raised their voices, "...he is not fit to live!" 2. They tore their clothes and threw dust in the air B. ROMANS TO EXAMINE PAUL UNDER (Acts 22:24)1. The Roman commander ordered that Paul be brought into the barracks 2. The commander wanted to know why they shouted against Paul 3. He ordered that Paul should be examined under scourging C. PAUL THE ROMANS OF HIS ROMAN (Acts 22:25-29)1. The soldiers bound Paul 2. Paul asked the centurion, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?" 3. The centurion told this to the commander 4. The commander verified Paul's Roman citizenship a. He asked Paul if he was a Roman citizen, and Paul affirmed b. The commander indicated that he had purchased his citizenship, but Paul noted that he was a Roman by birth 5. The soldiers were frightened by this - his citizenship a. They were afraid because they had bound a Roman citizen b. They were afraid because they were about to scourge a Roman citizen III. PAUL TAKEN BEFORE THE COUNCIL (Acts 22:30) A. THE SOUGHT FOR THE JEW'S (Acts 22:30)1. The commander wanted to know why he was accused by the Jews 2. Paul was released from his bonds 3. The chief priests and the council were commanded to appear 4. The commander brought Paul before them (Sanhedrin) REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main events in this chapter?- Paul addressed the Jerusalem mob (Acts 22:1-21) - Paul claimed Roman citizenship (Acts 22:22-29) - Paul was taken before the Sanhedrin council (Acts 22:30) 2) When Paul addressed the mob, what caused them to become quiet? (Acts 22:1-2)- He spoke to them in the Hebrew language (Acts 22:2) 3) List the information that Paul used to describe himself? (Acts 22:3-5)- He was a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 22:3) - Brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) - Was taught according to the "strictness of our fathers' law" (Acts 22:3) - He was zealous toward God, like them (Acts 22:3) - He persecuted the Way to death, binding and delivering men and women to prison (Acts 22:4) - High priest and elders bear him witness (Acts 22:5) - He received letters from them to bring Christians to Jerusalem to be punished (Acts 22:5) 4) What was the question that Paul heard on the road to Damascus? (Acts 22:6-7)- "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 22:7) 5) How did the Lord answer Paul's question, "Who are You, Lord?" (Acts 22:8)- "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting." (Acts 22:8) 6) When Paul asked, "What shall I do, Lord?" what was the answer? (Acts 22:10)- "Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do" (Acts 22:10) 7) Why was Paul led by the hand into Damascus? (Acts 22:11)- Paul could not see because of the "glory of that light" (Acts 22:11) 8) Why did Paul have the Damascus road encounter? (Acts 22:14-15)- That he should know His will, see the Just One, and hear His voice (Acts 22:14) - He was to be His witness to all men of what he had seen and heard (Acts 22:15) 9) At this point, did Paul still have his sins? What did he need to do to have them forgiven ("washed away")? (Acts 22:16)- Yes, he still needed to "wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16) - He had to be baptized (immersed) to "wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16) 10) While in a trance in the temple, what did the Lord say to him? (Acts 22:17-18)- "Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me" (Acts 22:18) 11) At what word did the Jewish mob stop listening to Paul? (Acts 22:21-22)- "...I will send you far from here to the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21-22) 12) Why did the commander want to bind and scourge Paul? (Acts 22:24)- So that he might know why they shouted so against him (Acts 22:24) 13) What did Paul ask the centurion, as they were binding him? (Acts 22:25)- Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned? (Acts 22:25) 14) What was the reaction to Paul's question? (Acts 22:26-29)- The centurion told the commander that Paul was a Roman (Acts 22:26) - The commander confirmed that he was a Roman by birth (Acts 22:27-28) - The soldiers became afraid - they had bound and were about to scourge a Roman citizen (Acts 22:29) 15) Who was Paul set before next and why? Was he still bound? (Acts 22:30)- Chief priests and all their council - Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30) - To know for certain why Paul was accused by the Jews (Acts 22:30) - Paul's bonds had been released (Acts 22:30) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 22:2. The more silence. An audience will be more willing to listen to a speaker if it knows that the language to be used is one that can be understood. As soon as Paul began to speak the people realized that he was using the dialect that was being spoken in that territory. 3Act 22:3. A part of Paul's defence consisted in answering the question of the chief captain in chapter 21:33 as to "who he was." He was a Jew of Tarsus, which was recognized even by the Romans as an important city, to the extent that Augustus had made it a "free city," which means that all of its population would be classed as Roman citizens with all the privileges and honors accorded to such residents. As to Paul's cultural training, he had been instructed in Jerusalem by Ga-maliel, a great teacher of the law. As to his religious attitude, he was as zealous toward God as were these Jews before him. 4Acts 22:4. This way means the Gospel system of living. Paul's mention of persecuting its followers was to show that he had once shared the same opinion of them that was now being held by his hearers. That should at least suggest that he must have good reasons for his present position. 5Acts 22:5. Paul referred to the facts mentioned in this verse to show that his former opposition to the way was done under the recognized authorities of the Jews, and that he was not merely a fanatic acting for the purpose of acquiring personal notoriety. 6Acts 22:6. The original account of Paul's conversion is in chapter 9, and it is repeated here to show the background of his activities that hadbrought him into conflict with the Jews. He had almost reached Damascus, the destination in the commission authorized by the Sanhedrin, when his progress was halted by a light from heaven over which neither Jews nor Gentiles had any control. 7Acts 22:7. The account here and that in chapter 9:4 mentions simply that Paul fell to the ground, while chapter 26:14 says they all fell dawn. Both accounts are true, but Paul was the only one who heard the question from the voice. 8Acts 22:8. Paul (or Saul) knew that the person to whom he was talking was not on the earth. When he was told that it was the person whom he was persecuting, he did not express any surprise or question as to how he could be persecuting anyone who was not among men. He understood the subject of responsibility and association to mean that "he that despiseth you [the disciples] despiseth me" [Jesus]. 9Acts 22:9. For comments on heard, see chapter 9:7. 0Acts 22:10. See the comments at chapter 9:6. 1Act 22:11. The glorious power of the light was due to the personality of Jesus, who was then at his Father's right hand in the glory world. 2Act 22:12. Ananias was a disciple of Christ as well as having been devout under the regulations of the law. (See chapter 9:12.) 3Act 22:13. Ananias called him Brother Saul because they were both Jews, and had been servants of God under the Mosaic system. 4Acts 22:14. Saul had to see the Just One in order to be a witness of his resurrection. It was the wisdom of God that Saul should also hear the voice of Jesus, which would add weight to his testimony for the divinity of the risen Christ. 5Acts 22:15. The testimony of Saul was to be based on seeing and hearing. 6Acts 22:16. Both in this instance and In chapter 9:18, Saul is said to have risen to be baptized. That was because the rite had to be performed by immersion. Wash away thy sins. The first word is used literally because the act of baptism really washes the body, and that act is necessary for the remission of sins. (See Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22). Calling on the name of the Lord is associated with the act of obedience to the command of the Lord, which shows how such calling is to be done. 7Acts 22:17. Come again to Jerusalem was three years later (Galatians 1:17-18). 8Acts 22:18. The Lord knew the stub-borness of the people of Jerusalem, that they would not receive Paul's preaching, and hence he should not waste it on them. 0Acts 22:19-20. Paul refers to his former persecution of the disciples as an argument that the people of the city would certainly believe him to be sincere now. A man who had taken as active a part as he in opposition to the cause of Christ, would certainly leave no doubts of the genuineness of his conversion. 1Act 22:21. The Lord still knew best and was not willing for Paul's labors to be given to these inappreciative people. The apostle was to be sent away to preach the Gospel among the Gentiles. 2Act 22:22. Gave him audience unto this word. The Jews had an envious feeling against the Gentiles, and when Paul made his remark of being sent to this hated race by the Lord, they could not stand it any longer. 3Act 22:23. This verse manifests a state of mind that is disordered, and it explains why they cried out in the preceding verse that Paul should be destroyed. They did not even intimate any specific reason for their demand against the apostle, but instead they acted like madmen. 4Acts 22:24. The chief captain was a Roman and a Gentile, and did not understand what that commotion was all about. He ordered Paul to be brought into the castle (the place that contained the soldiers' barracks) for bodily protection from the rage of the crowd. He also intended to torture (scourge) him in order to force him to tell the truth, which was an ancient practice that served as a form of "lie detector." As if the great apostle Paul had to be forced into telling the truth! 5Acts 22:25. The centurion was the military officer assigned the duty of taking Paul into custody. Being a Roman will be explained at verse 28. 6Acts 22:26. It was a serious offence to claim falsely to be a Roman. The mere statement of Paul, therefore, made a deep impression on the centurion. 7Acts 22:27. Again Paul's word was all that was required, yet the captain wished to have the word personally from the lips of the apostle. 8Acts 22:28. Freedom is from , which Thayer defines, "Citizenship, the rights of a citizen," and Robinson defines it in the same way. Being born within the territory of the Roman Empire did not always confer upon one the full rights of citizenship. Some special favors might be conferred upon a region that made all of its population full citizens of the Empire. That had been done for Tarsus, the city where Paul was born, which made him a full citizen of the nation. Sometimes a man could bribe the officers in charge and buy his citizenship, which was the way the captain obtained his. 9Acts 22:29. Examine him means to make a judicial investigation, and it was to have been done in connection with a scourging. (See verse 24). The persons who had been called to carry out the scourging were dismissed. The captain was afraid because he had acted rashly in his rough handling of a Roman citizen. He felt that he might be called to account for improper conduct of his office. 0Acts 22:30. On the morrow the captain concluded to take a more orderly course and "sift the case to the bottom" by calling in the accusers of his prisoner. He loosed him from his bonds and summoned the Sanhedrin to take charge of the situation. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 23 PAUL BEFORE THE Act_23:1-10 1 And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council,—Paul fixed his eyes intently on the council; he had been brought before it to answer for his conduct. He was not a criminal— he had done nothing wrong. The Sanhedrin had discovered that Paul was ac¬cused of some religious offense; he was summoned before the council that they might find out what the accusations were; Paul himself did not know what the charges were. He had not been in the hall of the council since he had sat as a member of the court probably twenty-two years ago. He politely addressed the mem¬bers of the council and declared his sincerity at once. He declared that he had lived “ before God in all good conscience until this day.” “ Conscience” comes from the Greek “ suneidesis,” and means “ joint knowledge.” The Latin is “ conscientia,” from which our English “ conscience” is derived. The Greek word for “ lived” means “ having a citizenship.” This statement simply means that Paul had performed the duties of a citizen in a good conscience to God. (Philippians 3:6 Philippians 3:20.) Paul declared that he had lived in such obedience to God’ s law that he had a clear conscience; it does not mean that he is claiming that he had not sinned. (1 Timothy 1:15.) 2 And the high priest Ananias—The smiting on the mouth was a judicial and symbolic mode of silencing the speaker from saying what was improper or false. Ananias is not to be confused with Annas. (Acts 4:6.) Ananias is thought to have been the son of Nebedaeus, and was appointed high priest by Herod in A.D. 48. History describes him as being violent, cruel, and gluttonous. It is recorded that he was assassinated about ten years later. 3 Then said Paul unto him,—Paul very boldly rebuked the high priest for his conduct. He said: “ God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.” “ Whited wall” is the reflection of a stronger figure used by Christ, “ whited sepulcher.” (Matthew 23:27.) Paul gives his reason for the injustice done to him. “ Sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law.” The spirit of the law of Moses forbade one to be condemned without first being heard. Paul shows the inconsistency between theory and fact; Ananias should have upheld the dignity of the law by obeying it himself. His conduct is similar to mob violence today. The victim may need punishment, but for unconstituted authority to mete out the punishment is illegal. Paul here impeaches the high priest in the name of Christ. 4 And they that stood by said,—The attendants and servants of the high priest and the Sanhedrin rebuked Paul for his speech. The high priest was God’ s representative in spite of his bad character. (Deuteronomy 17:8 f.) These attendants claim for Ananias all the dignity, sanctity, and prerogative of his office as God’ s high priest; this was against what Paul had already plainly intimated, that Ananias was acting in direct opposition to God. Paul made reply to these attendants which showed that he understood the situation. 5 And Paul said, I knew not, brethren,—This shows that Paul did not know that it was the order of the high priest for him to be smitten. Some take the view that Paul did not know that An¬anias was the high priest. Surely, Paul, who had served as a member of the Sanhedrin, and who was familiar with the proceedings of the council, would know the high priest. We cannot conceive of such ignorance on the part of Paul; hence, we must look for another view of the matter. The Greek means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. Some think that Paul’ s eyesight was not good, and that he did not recognize Ananias as the high priest. It matters not what interpretation may be given to Paul’ s language, he recog¬nized, and so do we, that he was not treated justly. He quotes Exodus 22:28, showing that he knew the law. 6 But when Paul perceived—Paul quickly saw the attitude of the Sanhedrin toward him; he saw that he could not get a fair hearing before the Sanhedrin. He further saw that there were two parties in the council, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He knew the difference between these parties and tactfully brought them to clash with each other. He declared that he was a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee. He refers to this later in his letter to the church at Philippi. (Philippians 3:5.) He further declared that he was called in question because of the resurrection of the dead. This is not out of harmony with the statement that he did not know what charges would be preferred against him. He mentions this point at another time. (Acts 24:21.) The chief point of difference be¬tween Pharisees and Sadducees was the resurrection; this was Paul’ s chief point in preaching the gospel. If Christ had not been raised from the dead, his preaching was false. (1 Corinthians 15:13-14.) 7 And when he had so said,—Paul’ s declaration started in the Sanhedrin a discussion on the great question of the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees were bitterly opposed to the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection. The party cries were at once heard, and Paul was prevented from going on with his argument for the resurrection of the dead, the res¬urrection of Christ. The difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees had grown out of national differences dating from the time of the captivity; they were partly social and partly religious. The Sadducees were the Jewish aristocracy; they aimed at pre¬serving the temple service and the written regulations of the law of Moses. Their theory or teaching limited man’ s existence to this present life, and hence they denied a resurrection and a future life. The Pharisees became the leaders of the people in the days of the Persian and Greek rule; they were the unwavering champions of the ceremonial separation under Roman authority. The Pharisees believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, and through that faith Paul and many others had been brought to acknowledge the crucified and risen Lord. 8 For the Sadducees say—The Sadducees denied the res¬urrection, angels, and spirits. These points constitute the chief doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees believed in a negative doctrine; they denied three things: (1) the resurrection, believing that the soul dies with the body; (2) the existence of angels and (3) the existence of spirits. The Sadducees cared very little for religion; they dropped out of history soon after the first century of the Christian era. The Pharisees believed in a future life, the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of both angels and spirits. 9 And there arose a great clamor:—The dissension grew fiercer until there was a great clamor. The excitement was very great and broke out in an uproar. The “ scribes” belonged to the party of the Pharisees; they were the learned expounders of the law, and would naturally take the lead in such an argument. Hence, they took sides with Paul and defended him against the Sadducees, their enemies. They said: “ We find no evil in this man.” They were ready to take sides with Paul even before they had heard him; this shows their bias and prejudice. A few moments before this they were ready to condemn him, but now they are defending him. They “ strove’ ' with the Sadducees. “ Strove” is from the Greek “ diamachomai,” and means “ to fight it out,” “ to fight back and forth fiercely.” In their defense of Paul they said: What does it matter “ if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel” ? They were willing to admit that perhaps a spirit or an angel had spoken to Paul; at least they were willing to admit this in their contention with the Sadducees. 10 And when there arose a great dissension,—The Sanhedrin was composed of about seventy to seventy-two men; we do not know what ratio of them belonged to the Pharisees. It seems that the Sadducees tried to seize and kill Paul, while the Pharisees attempted to rescue and protect him. The council itself became as bad as the mob that had tried to kill Paul the day before. The chief captain, Lysias, knew that Paul was a Roman citizen, and that he was held responsible for him; so he feared that Paul should be “ torn in pieces by them” ; therefore, he commanded his “ soldiers to go down and take” Paul from the council and “ bring him into the castle.” Paul was hastily rescued from the Sanhedrin and delivered safely in the castle. Paul handled the situation very tactfully; he had been brought before a prejudiced court; he saw that the court could be divided, and that too over one of the things which he had preached; hence, he turned the two divisions against each other and put them to fighting each other, one party trying to protect him, and the other trying to kill him. The Roman authority then stepped in and brought him to safety. PLOT TO KILL PAULAct_23:11-25 11 And the night following—Paul was now a prisoner; the chief captain, Lysias, held him as a prisoner. Conditions were unavorable to Paul; he is discouraged, cast down, full of gloomy doubts. There is no mention of any sympathy from the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. At this time, when all seem to have for¬saken him, “ the Lord stood by him.” He strengthened and encouraged Paul by saying, “ Be of good cheer.” Paul had desired to preach the gospel to his own people in Jerusalem; he had two op¬portunities, and twice he had to be rescued from those who sought to kill him. The first instance is recorded in Acts 9:26-30, and the second is here. The Lord, who had appeared to him on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:5), in the temple (Acts 22:17-18), and at Corinth (Acts 18:9), now appeared to him and comforted him with the promise that he would be able to fulfill his desire to preach the gospel at Rome (Acts 19:21; Romans 1:11-13 Romans 15:23). The promise was of further service to the Lord among the Gen¬tiles, and especially at Rome. 12 And when it was day,—At the very time that the Lord was encouraging Paul, the Jews were plotting to kill him. These forty Jews who were planning to murder Paul were in the end to send him to Rome to preach the gospel there. We are not told whether these Jews were Pharisees or Sadducees; the inference is that they were in favor with the Sadducees who had so violently opposed Paul in the council. They bound themselves “ under a curse” that they would “ neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.” These forty Jews “ anathematized themselves.” The Greek “ anathematizo” means “ to place one under a curse.” King Saul took an “ anathema” that imperiled the life of his son Jona¬than. (1 Samuel 14:24.) The Greek for “ banded together” is “ poiesantes sustrophen,” and literally means “ having made a conspiracy.” This pledge not to eat nor drink was a very ancient form of oath or vow. (1 Samuel 14:24; 2 Samuel 3:35.) 13 And they were more than forty—Some think these forty were Assassins and of the Zealots, which was a wild and fanatical party of that time. The number “ forty” shows how many enemies Paul had; it also shows how difficult it would be to keep the secret from Paul’ s friends. We do not know what curse they took upon themselves if they failed to carry out their desire. 14 And they came to the chief priests—These forty Jews who had bound themselves under an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul came “ to the chief priests and the elders” and reported their oath. David had divided the priests into twenty-four courses or classes. The head of each of these classes was called a “ chief priest.” The “ elders” were the rulers of the cities; they may have included some members of the Sanhedrin. It seems clear that the chief priests and those of the elders here mentioned be¬longed to the party of the Sadducees. This band of assassins felt free to go to the Sanhedrin and make known their intentions; they knew that the Sanhedrin was in sympathy with their efforts to kill Paul. Jesus had predicted that “ whosoever killeth you shall think that he offered service unto God.” (John 16:2.) 15 Now therefore do ye with the council signify—Paul was still in the hands of Lysias, the chief captain. This band of assassins told the Sanhedrin in detail their plan. The council was to call on the chief captain to send Paul to the council that Paul may be examined further; they were to call upon Paul and kill him before he came to the council. The council was to make a formal or legal request for a regular and legal investigation; it was assumed that Lysias would be disposed to grant the request. The forty men as¬sured the council that they would do their part and would kill Paul before he came to the council. This would keep the council in the clear, as they thought. The conspirators had stated their case clearly and had revealed the plot to the council which seemed ready to cooperate with them in destroying Paul. 16 But Paul’ s sister’ s son heard—This is the only reference that we have of Paul’ s family in the Acts. In his letter to the Romans Paul speaks of his “ kinsmen” who lived in Rome. (Romans 16:7 Romans 16:11.) His friends here, and afterwards at Caesarea (Acts 24:23), appear to have been permitted to visit him, which shows that the authorities did not think him to be a criminal. It is not certain that Paul’ s sister resided in Jerusalem; neither is it certain that the young man who informed Paul lived in Jerusalem. He was granted permission to visit Paul. We do not know that Paul’ s nephew was a Christian; neither do we know how he gained his information. The fact that the young man “ entered into the cas¬tle” and told Paul of the plot shows that Paul’ s friends had free access to him. 17 And Paul called unto him one of the centurions,—Paul, even as a prisoner, exercised some authority over others; he called one of the “ centurions” or officers to him, and requested this centurion to take “ this young man” to “ the chief captain.” Paul did not trust the centurion with the secret that had been brought to him; he wanted the young man to tell the chief captain from his own mouth the plot that had been laid for him. We gather here that Paul’ s nephew was a “ young man.” Although Paul had been assured of his safety by the Lord (Acts 23:11), he used all precaution and proper means for his safety. God’ s promise does not dispense with the legitimate means that we must use. This young man had some important business with the chief captain, and Paul desired that he be escorted to him by a centurion. 18 So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain,—The centurion was kind enough to take Paul’ s nephew to the chief captain. It is not known that the chief captain or the centurion knew that the young man was Paul’ s nephew. The centurion re¬ported that Paul had called him and asked him to bring “ this young man” to the chief captain, as he had “ something” to say to him. The Roman officers now seem to be careful to treat Paul with kindness, since they know that he is a Roman citizen. Their pre¬vious treatment of him, when they thought he was only a Jew, exposed them to severe penalties of the law should Paul or his friends bring a complaint against them. It was a wise policy for the officers to give Paul as much freedom as possible and to grant his friends the privilege of communicating with him. This helps us to understand the willingness of the centurion to take the young man to Lysias, and the readiness of Lysias to grant a private interview with the young man. 19 And the chief captain took him by the hand,—In verse 18 the centurion refers to “ Paul the prisoner” ; Paul later, in writ¬ing some of his letters, refers to himself as a prisoner. (Ephesians 4:1.) The chief captain received the young man with courtesy; he “ took him by the hand,” which indicated an eager interest in what concerned the case of this prisoner; he showed the young man that he had confidence in him. He took the young man “ aside” and “ asked him privately” what matter he had to bring to him. This shows that the chief captain was eager to get all the information that he could. We do not know the age of this young man; the Greek “ neanias” is the same word that is used with respect to Paul in Acts 7:58; it is also the same word that is used for Eutychus in Acts 20:9. 20 And he said, The Jews have agreed—The young man reported faithfully and accurately the plot that he had learned whereby the Jews had determined to kill Paul. This shows that the conspirators clearly represented the state of Jewish feeling to¬ward Paul in Jerusalem. The young man was able to quote accu¬rately the language of the conspirators. The young man reports that the Jews had agreed to ask Lysias to bring Paul before the council “ as though thou wouldest inquire somewhat more exactly concerning him.” But the conspirators had said to the council to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin so that the Sanhedrin might make further examination of Paul. There seems to be a slight discrep¬ancy here. It may be that the inquiry was proposed to both parties, and the young man only refers to that by Lysias through courtesy to him. 21 Do not thou therefore yield unto them:—The young man now pleaded with Lysias not to yield or listen to the request from the Jews or the Council. The Greek here signifies “ be not thou persuaded by them,” or obey not their request. The young man gave the reason for Lysias’ not yielding to their entreaty by saying that “ there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men” who had determined not to eat nor to drink till they had killed Paul. He further urged that these Jews were now ready and “ looking for the promise from thee” to bring Paul before the council. The Jews waited for the expected promise from the chief captain, and had made ready the ambuscade by which they hoped to get rid of Paul without the Sanhedrin having any apparent hand in the murder. The young man’ s language implies that the council had agreed to the base plot, or that he believed that they would do so. The haste which Lysias exercised in getting Paul out of the city implies that he and the other Roman officials believed the report of the young man. 22 So the chief captain let the young man go,—The chief captain was satisfied with the report, and believed that the young man had told the truth. He enjoined secrecy on the part of the young man that he should not let anyone know that he had re¬ported the Jews to him. His sympathies were clearly with Paul. He cautioned the young man not to let anyone know what he had reported. He did this to avoid any interference with his own plans, or a new conspiracy; also to avoid danger to the young man for revealing the secret; and again to avoid any explanation of his conduct to the Jewish leaders. He did not want the Jews to sus¬pect that his action was based on any knowledge of their plot. He exercised his own rights in sending a prisoner under such circum¬stances to the governor at Caesarea. 23 And he called unto him two of the centurions,—Lysias acted with military promptitude; he ordered two centurions with two hundred soldiers or legionnaires and seventy cavalry and two hundred light armed troops to escort Paul to Caesarea. This was a large escort; he took every precaution to protect the safety of Paul and to deliver him to the Roman authorities at Caesarea. They left “ at the third hour of the night.” This was at nine P.M. It was early enough for them to travel a full night’ s journey under cover of the darkness. With a military guard of two hundred foot soldiers or heavy armed soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred light armed footmen, four hundred seventy soldiers and their officers, Paul was safe from any mob force of conspirators who might try to seize him from the soldiers and kill him. 24 and he bade them provide beasts,—“ Beasts” is from the Greek “ ktene,” and may mean asses or horses; it does not mean war horses. These beasts were for Paul and some soldier to ride. More than one would be needed for Paul’ s use, as he was chained to a soldier; one or more would be needed for baggage. Some have inferred that the entire force was to be mounted on “ beasts” ; but the order was to provide beasts that Paul might be set thereon. He was to be brought to “ Felix the governor.” Felix was a brother of Pallas, the notorious favorite of Claudius. He and his brothers had been slaves, but were now freedmen; Felix was made procurator of Judea by Claudius A.D. 52; he held this position until Festus succeeded him. He was married to Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I, with the hope of winning the favor of the Jews. Felix was one of the most depraved men of his time; Tacitus says of him that “ with all cruelty and lust he exer¬cised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave/’ The term “ governor” means “ leader,” and was applied to leaders of all sorts. 25 And he wrote a letter—Lysias “ wrote a letter” to Felix the governor. This was the formal and official explanation why Paul was sent to the higher officer for trial; it was called “ elogium” ; this letter was not an accusation against Paul, but rather a statement favorable to him. Some understand that Luke here gives only the substance of the letter and does not give a copy of it. A copy of the letter may have been given Paul after his appeal to Caesar; it was probably written in Latin. The letter was probably read in open court before Felix and its contents could be learned. PAUL SENT TO Act_23:26-35 26 Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor—Paul was sent with a Roman escort of four hundred seventy soldiers from Jerusalem to Caesarea; this was a distance of about seventy miles. Felix was the governor, and Claudius Lysias was the chief captain. Felix was a higher official than Lysias; hence, the very courteous and formal salutation or greeting as given here. “ Most excellent” is a term used by Luke in addressing Theophilus. (Luke 1:3.) This salutation is usual in addressing men of high rank; it is similar to “ most excellent” in Acts 24:3. “ Claudius Lysias” is a Latin name, and “ Felix” is a Greek. Some think that the letter was written in Latin; others think that it was in Greek; we do not know in what language it was written. 27 This man was seized by the Jews,—Lysias here wishes to be understood that he interfered for Paul on account of learning that he was a Roman citizen; this would seem to gain him some favor for his loyalty. However, the truth was that he had unlawfully bound a Roman citizen. He concealed the injustice that he had done to Paul. We see here the difference between the simple truth of the history and the cunning artifice of the skeptical Lysias. This is what we would naturally expect from a clever worldly politician, who had more regard for the favor of his superiors than he had for the truth. Lysias did rescue Paul before he learned that Paul was a Roman citizen, but he had violated the Roman law before doing this. 28 And desiring to know the cause—Lysias proceeds to state the matter in such a way as to show his official acts were to be commended. Lysias, like Gallio, cared for none of those things which disturb the Jews, and regarded their religious affairs as of no consequence. Lysias intended to show that the prisoner had been treated illegally, and that he had done all that he could to learn the charges against Paul. He had taken Paul, he says, before the Jews’ council. This was to ascertain the nature of his crime. 29 whom I found to be accused—Lysias further states that when he brought Paul before the Sanhedrin he found him accused of violating some of the laws of the Jews. The only accusation that he learned against Paul was that he had violated the law of Moses; this had nothing to do with the Roman law. This is a confession that he had not violated Roman law and was not worthy of death or bonds. Then why should Lysias send him to Felix. Lysias proceeds to give his reason for sending Paul to Caesarea. 30 And when it was shown to me—Roman officers in reporting a prisoner to a higher official must give the charges. Lysias had no crime to charge against Paul, but the determined attempts on the part of the Jews to kill him seemed to demand further inquiry. He does not mention in this letter the fact that Paul was in danger of being torn into pieces before the council; he does declare his knowledge of the plot to kill Paul. This was sufficient ground for sending a Roman citizen where he might be expected to have a fair trial according to Roman law. He states that he charged Paul’ s accusers to go to Caesarea and make their charges known to Felix. Lysias does not seem to state the facts as they are. There is nothing in the record that shows that he commanded the accusers to appear before Caesar’ s court. He may have done so; at least, he says in this letter that he did. “ Farewell” is added by many ancient authorities, but is omitted here. It will be observed that Lysias does not represent Paul as a convict, but as one who had been rescued from a mob. 31 So the soldiers, as it was commanded them,—This letter of Lysias is inserted by Luke, and breaks the continuity of the historical events. Verse 31 takes up the facts and continues them. The soldiers obeyed the command and brought Paul by night to Antipatris. This place was formerly called “ Capharaba.” It was rebuilt by Herod the Great and called by him “ Antipatris” in memory of his father, Antipater. It was more than forty miles from Jerusalem, and more than halfway from Caesarea. They journeyed all night and made good time. Paul was now out of reach of his conspirators. 32 But on the morrow they left the horsemen—“ On the morrow” may mean the morning of the arrival at Antipatris, or it may mean the day after they arrived there. It seems that some time would be given for rest after journeying all night. It matters but little as to whether it means the next day after leaving Jerusalem or the next day after arrival at Antipatris. “ They left the horsemen” to go on with Paul. The journey on to Caesarea was through a hilly region where there was much danger. There were four hundred seventy, and four hundred of them returned to Jerusalem, while the seventy horsemen continued with Paul. We are not told why these four hundred turned back; they had orders to go as far as Caesarea. (See verse 23.) 33 and they, when they came to Caesarea—Those who were in charge of the cavalry went on with Paul to Caesarea and presented Paul with the letter from Lysias to Governor Felix. In this way they executed their commission. It was probably a journey of five or six hours from Antipatris to Caesarea. They waited further orders from the governor. Paul thus entered Caesarea with the pomp of attendance very unlike the humble guise in which he had left it. They entered Caesarea in daylight, and such a parade would have attracted many curious eyes. Philip and other Christians of Caesarea must have been startled to recognize the rapid fulfillment of prophecy concerning Paul’ s journey to Jerusalem. 34 And when he had read it,—When Felix read the letter from Lysias, he inquired from what province Paul came. He was informed by Paul or some other one that Paul was from Cilicia, which was an imperial province. He did not inquire whether Paul was a Roman citizen; that was stated in the letter of Lysias to Felix. Felix probably inquired of his native province that he might ascertain whether he had jurisdiction over him; it seems that Felix would have gladly avoided trying Paul. There were laws regulating provincial relations, and one government was not at liberty to rely entirely on another’ s letter, but must himself make thorough investigation. This Felix did. 35 I will hear thee fully,—Since Cilicia was an imperial province, Felix had jurisdiction over the trial of Paul. He informed Paul that he would hear him “ fully” when his accusers came. This meant that he would give Paul’ s case a formal examination, and implied that he would give him a fair trial. Felix commanded Paul to be “ kept in Herod’ s palace.” This was built by Herod the Great; Judea was now a Roman province, and the palace of its former kings had become the governor’ s official residence. It appears that Paul was dealt with kindly. It seems that Paul was kept near the governor’ s place of residence. Paul was under honorable restraint, “ a Roman, and uncondemned.” Paul was guarded or detained by soldiers, and had to wait the slow processes of a trial. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 23Act 23:1-2. No sooner had the prisoner and the Sanhedrim come face to face, than the chiliarch must have perceived that he was again to be disappointed in his efforts to understand the case; for, instead of preferring formal charges against Paul, the proceedings were opened by calling upon him to defend himself: (1) “Then Paul, looking earnestly on the Sanhedrim, said: I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (2) Then the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him, to smite him in the mouth.” No doubt the blow was as prompt as the word. The interruption was as unexpected as it was exasperating. Acts 23:3-5. For once in the history of his persecution, the provocation was too great for Paul, and found vent in a burst of anger. (3) “Then said Paul to him, God shall smite thee, thou whitewashed wall. And do you sit to judge me according to the law, and command me to be smitten contrary to the law? (4) But those who were standing by said, Do you revile God's high priest? (5) Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” The flash of anger was but momentary. No sooner were the words spoken than his habitual self-control regained its ascendancy. He frankly admits that he had done wrong, but excuses himself by the fact that he knew not that it was the high priest. If he had been disposed to further excuse himself, by urging that the high priest deserved all he had said of him, his plea would have been true, but insufficient. For how can we return good for evil, if we return to men their deserts? It were well if his example should be imitated by all disciples who meet with injustice at the hands of their rulers. Acts 23:6-10. The presence in which Paul stood was not unfamiliar to him. He doubtless remembered the faces of many in the Sanhedrim, and was intimately acquainted with the party feelings which often distracted their councils, and which had been known to stain the streets of Jerusalem with blood. Seeing that they were determined not to do him justice, he resolved to take advantage of their party feuds in order to secure his own safety. (6) “But when Paul knew that one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrim, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (7) And when he had said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. (8) For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. But the Pharisees confess both. (9) And there arose a great outcry; and the scribes, who were of the Pharisees' party, arose and contended, saying, We find no evil in this man. And if an angel or a spirit has spoken to him, let us not fight against God. (10) And there being a great dissension, the chiliarch, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from their midst, and lead him into the castle.” It will be observed, that in stating the difference between the two parties, Luke uses the term both when the reference is to three specifications, viz.: resurrection, angel, and spirit. This arose, no doubt, from the fact that the three specifications are really combined in two, as the existence of angels or spirits involves but the one question of the existence of purely spiritual beings. Under ordinary circumstances, it is not probable that so violent a dissension could have been so easily excited. The circumstance is indicative of an unusual exasperation of the parties just preceding this event. Such a state of things, combined with the complete agreement declared by Paul with the Pharisees on the points at issue, naturally inclined them to favor this release. He declared this agreement in strong terms, asserting not only that he was a Pharisee, but the son of a Pharisee, and that it was for the hope peculiar to the party that he was arraigned as a criminal. They saw that the establishment of his doctrine would certainly be the ruin of the opposing sect, and losing sight, for a moment, of its effects upon their own party; forgetting, too, the ill-founded charge against Paul, in reference to the law and temple, they declared that they could find no fault in the man. Perhaps, also, the awkward position they were in with reference to the proof of those charges rendered them somewhat willing to find an excuse for admitting his innocence. But the slightest hint, on their part, of his innocence, was sufficient to arouse the Sadducees, because they saw that it was prompted chiefly by hatred to themselves. On the part of the Sadducees, the two most violent passions to which they were subject, hatred toward the disciples and jealousy toward the Pharisees, combined to swell the uproar which broke up the deliberations of the assembly. Paul was near being a victim to the storm which he had raised, when the Roman soldiery came to his rescue. Lysias was once more disappointed in his efforts to learn the truth about his case, and must have been in greater perplexity than ever, as he commanded the soldiers to lead him back into the castle. Acts 23:11. If we had some epistle from Paul's pen, written at this time, it would tell of great distress and despondency; for such a state of mind is clearly indicated by an event which now transpired. (11) “And the night following, the Lord stood by him and said, Take courage, Paul, for as you have testified concerning me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.” It is not to be presumed that this personal appearance of the Lord to encourage him occurred when it was not needed, or when encouragement could be supplied in an ordinary way. It is quite certain, therefore, that Paul's spirit was greatly burdened that night. The long-dreaded bonds and afflictions, which had hung like a dark cloud before him on his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, had now at last fallen upon him. Thus far, since his arrest, he may have been cheered by the hope that the fervent prayers of himself and many brethren, which, in anticipation of these calamities, had been urged at the throne of favor for months past, would prove effectual for his deliverance, and for the realization of his long-cherished desire to visit Rome. But his speeches before the mob and the Sanhedrim had only exasperated his enemies, who were now, more than ever, intent upon his destruction; and his jailer, though disposed to do justice, knew not what to do but to keep him in prison. In whatever direction he could look, prison walls or a bloody grave stood before him, and hedged up his way, either to Rome or to any other field of future usefulness. But just at the proper moment to save him from despair, the solemn assurance is give, that his long-continued prayers would yet be answered, and he should preach the Word in Rome as he had done in Jerusalem. In tracing the fulfillment of this promise, we shall witness a remarkable illustration of the workings of providence in answer to prayer. Acts 23:12-16. The light did not immediately dawn upon his prospects, but the darkness continued for a while to grow deeper. (12) “And when it was day some of the Jews made a conspiracy, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. (13) And there were more than forty who made this agreement. (14) They went to the high priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing till we have killed Paul. (15) Now then, do you, with the Sanhedrim, notify the chiliarch to bring him down to you to-morrow, as though you would inquire more accurately concerning him, and we, before he comes near, are ready to slay him. (16) But the son of Paul's sister heard of their lying in wait, and came and entered into the castle, and told Paul.” It is difficult for a conspiracy for this kind, requiring the consultation of so many persons, to be concocted and executed with perfect secrecy. Especially is it so when the intended victim is one about whom the whole community is, at the time, intensely excited. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that some of Paul's many friends heard of it, and that his nephew undertook the dangerous task of communicating it to him. He at once saw, that, notwithstanding the assurance of safety given the night before, the danger of his situation was more alarming than ever. The chiliarch could not well refuse to grant so reasonable a request; and if it is granted, his doom is sealed. If the Pharisees who had befriended him in the Sanhedrim had not become indifferent to his fate, they had been outwitted, so that the Sadducees were about to make the request in the name of the whole Sanhedrim without consulting them. Acts 23:17-22. A moment's reflection was sufficient to show Paul that his only hope of safety was in the chiliarch, and, therefore, he at once had the facts communicated to him. (17) “Then Paul called to him one of the centurions, and said, Lead this young man to the chiliarch; for he has something to tell him. (18) He then took him and led him to the chiliarch, and said, The prisoner, Paul, called me to him and requested me to lead this young man to you, who has something to say to you. (19) The chiliarch took him by the hand, and drawing aside in private, asked him, What is it that you have to tell me? (20) And he said, The Jews have agreed to request you that you bring down Paul into the Sanhedrim to-morrow, as though they would inquire more accurately concerning him. (21) But do not be persuaded by them; for there lie in wait for him more than forty men of them, who have bound themselves under a curse neither to eat nor drink until they have slain him. And they are now prepared, expecting a promise from you. (22) Then the chiliarch dismissed the young man, charging him to tell no one that you have made known these things to me.” The injunction of secrecy was prompted in part by a desire for the young man's safety; but chiefly by an unwillingness that the Jews should know the real cause of the steps he was about to take. If they should discover that their machinations could influence his policy, they might be emboldened to give him further trouble. Acts 23:23-30. There were at least three lines of policy between which the chiliarch could have chosen. If he had been disposed to gratify the Jews, he might have given Paul up to their malice, without probability of being known to his superiors as accessory to the murder. If he had preferred to defy their power, and display his own, he might have sent him down to the Sanhedrim under a strong guard. Or if he desired to protect Paul, yet to avoid giving unnecessary offense to the Jews, he might send him away that night before their request was laid before him. It reflects credit upon his character that he chose the course which both justice and prudence dictated. (23) “And he called to him two of the centurions, and said, Make ready two hundred soldiers, and seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen, to go to Cæsarea at the third hour of the night, (24) and provide beasts, in order that they may mount Paul and take him to Felix the governor. (25) And he wrote a letter in this form: (26) Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor Felix, greeting. (27) This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be killed by them, when I came with the soldiery and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. (28) And desiring to know the cause for which they accused him, I led him down into their Sanhedrim, (29) and found him accused concerning questions of their law, but having nothing laid to his charge worthy of dead or of bonds. (30) And it being disclosed to me that a plot against the man was about to be executed by the Jews, I immediately sent him to you, commanding his accusers to say before you what they have against him. Farewell.” But for one misrepresentation in this letter, there would be nothing discreditable to Lysias in this whole affair. He had acted like a just and prudent man in managing a difficult case; but in reporting to his superior, he so states the facts as to give himself credit to which he was not entitled. He states that his first rescue of Paul was prompted by the fact that he was a Roman citizen; whereas, in truth, he knew nothing of Paul's citizenship till after he had seized him and had prepared to scourge him. Thus a motive was claimed which was not real, and a fault which he had committed was suppressed. When we remember, however, that it is a common fault with military commanders to make the most favorable reports of their achievements, we are not disposed to give Lysias a low rank among his compeers for veracity. The statement that he had commanded Paul's accusers to say before Felix what they had against him, was not strictly true; for, at the time of writing, he had given no such command. But it was not intended to deceive the governor; for he intended to issue the order before the letter could be received. When this order was issued, the Jews were bitterly disappointed, and the forty conspirators had a prospect of a good long fast. They naturally felt some ill-will toward Lysias, as we shall see manifested hereafter, for snatching their victim out of their hands. The letter also shows, that though Lysias could not understand the exact nature of the charges against Paul, he knew that they had reference to the Jewish law, and was satisfied that what they accused him of was not worthy either of death or of imprisonment. Under this conviction, if he had not been constrained to send him away for safety, he would, probably, have released him. Acts 23:31-35. (31) “Then the soldiers, according to what was commanded them, took Paul and conducted him by night to Antipatris, (32) and, on the next day, they returned to the castle, leaving the horsemen to go forward with him. (33) They went to Cæsarea, delivered the epistle to the governor, and presented Paul before him. (34) And when the governor read the epistle, he asked of what province he was, and, learning that he was from Cilicia, (35) he said, I will hear you when your accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept under guard in Herod's palace.” This was a palace erected by Herod the Great, who built Cæsarea. When the troops guarding Paul has passed beyond the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, there was no further use for the powerful force of infantry; hence the return of the four hundred soldiers and spearmen. The distinction between these two classes is, that those called soldiers belonged to the regular Roman legions, while the spearmen were light-armed troops attached to the legions. This incident in Paul's history has been made to bear a part in the controversy as to whether military service is compatible with Christianity. It is urged that Paul could not consistently accept the services of an army of four hundred and seventy men to protect his life from a Jewish mob, unless he acknowledged the rightfulness of military service. But the facts in the case are not suitable to the argument. He did not, in the exercise of his freedom, voluntarily call for military interference; but the military had already interfered, without consulting his wishes, and taken violent possession of him; and his request was, that they should exercise the power which they had chosen to assume, for his safety rather than for his destruction. If a man were confined within the den of a gang of robbers, he might, with all propriety, request them to keep him out of the reach of another gang who were seeking his life. Such a request would be no more an indorsement of highway robbery than Paul's request, expressed through his nephew, was an indorsement of military service. There is not an instance on record in which the apostles ever called for military interference in their times of suffering and persecution. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Twenty-Three IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To consider the events of Paul before the Sanhedrin 2) To review the plot by the Jews for Paul's life 3) To examine Paul's transport to Caesarea to appear before Governor Felix SUMMARY When Paul was before the Sanhedrin council, he stated that he had lived in "all good conscience before God." Ananias, the high priest, commanded that he be struck on the mouth. Paul responded, not knowing that he was the high priest, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?" Those standing nearby asked Paul if he would "revile" the high priest. Paul then quoted the scriptures, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people." Paul recognized that there were Sadducees and Pharisees present in the Sanhedrin. He made it known that he was a Pharisee, and that he was being judged concerning "the hope and resurrection of the dead." This caused a dissension among the Sanhedrin, as the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection. The scribes of the Pharisees spoke out that they found nothing evil in Paul. The Roman commander became afraid that harm would come to Paul, so he ordered the soldiers to take Paul back to the barracks. (Acts 23:1-10) The following night, the Lord appeared and spoke to Paul. He was to be the Lord's witness at Rome, as he had testified for Him in Jerusalem. Some Jews then planned to kill Paul. More than forty Jews banded together and took an oath to kill him before they ate or drank anything. The plotting Jews went to the chief priests and elders to present their plan. They requested that the chief priests and elders would contact the commander, and have Paul appear before the council again for further inquiry. The forty or more Jews would lie in wait to kill him along the way. Paul's nephew heard of the ambush plot. He went to Paul in the barracks and told him what he heard. Paul had his nephew taken to the commander. The commander took him aside and heard the plot. The commander told the young man to tell no one that they had spoken about the plot. Paul's nephew then departed from the commander. (Acts 23:11-22) Next, Paul was to be sent to Felix at Caesarea by night. The commander had two centurions prepare the men to take Paul. 200 Soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen were readied. They were to take Paul to Caesarea at the third hour of the night. Paul was to go before governor Felix. The commander wrote a letter to Felix to accompany Paul. The commander, Claudius Lysias, addressed the letter to "the most excellent governor Felix." The letter summarized the situation with Paul. The Jews had seized Paul and were about to kill him. Troops were sent to rescue Paul. In an attempt to learn of the Jews' accusation of Paul, he took him before the Sanhedrin council. He only learned that Paul was accused "concerning questions of the law," but nothing deserving death or imprisonment. The commander learned of a plot to ambush and kill Paul. Due to this discovery, he sent Paul to Felix and ordered his accusers to appear before Felix to state their charges against him. The letter gave Felix the background. The soldiers, horsemen, and spearmen took Paul by night to Antipatris. The next day, the horsemen continued, and took Paul to Caesarea, while the soldiers and spearmen returned. They presented Paul and the letter to Felix. The governor inquired where Paul was from and understood that he was from Cilicia. He agreed to hear Paul when his accusers arrived. Felix had Paul held in Herod's Praetorium. (Acts 23:23-35) OUTLINE I. PAUL BEFORE THE COUNCIL (Acts 23:1-10) A. THE HIGH PRIEST ANANIAS FOR PAUL TO BE STRUCK ON THE MOUTH (Acts 23:1-3)1. Paul stated he had lived in "all good conscience before God" 2. Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth 3. Paul responded, not knowing that Ananias was high priest a. Paul said, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!" b. Paul noted that he had commanded him to be struck contrary to the law B. PAUL DID NOT ANANIAS AS HIGH PRIEST (Acts 23:4-5)1. When Paul spoke to Ananias, those standing near asked, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 2. Paul did not know Ananias was the high priest a. Paul quoted scripture in response b. "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people" C. THE WAS DIVIDED (Acts 23:6-10)1. Paul recognized that there were Sadducees and Pharisees present in the Sanhedrin 2. Paul made it known that he was a Pharisee and was being judged concerning "the hope and resurrection of the dead" a. This caused a dissension among the Sanhedrin b. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection; the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection c. The scribes of the Pharisees spoke out that they found nothing evil in Paul 3. The Roman commander became afraid that harm would come to Paul 4. The commander ordered the soldiers to take Paul back to the barracks II. THE JEWISH PLOT AGAINST PAUL'S LIFE (Acts 23:11-22) A. THE LORD SPOKE TO PAUL (Acts 23:11)1. The Lord appeared and spoke to Paul the following night 2. Paul was to be the Lord's witness at Rome B. THE JEWS PLANNED TO KILL PAUL (Acts 23:12-15)1. More than forty Jews banded together and took an oath to kill Paul before they ate or drank anything 2. The plotting Jews went to the chief priests and elders to present their plan a. The chief priests and elders were to contact the commander b. They wanted Paul to be called before the council again for further inquiry c. The forty Jews would lie in wait to kill him along the way C. THE PLOT WAS (Acts 23:16-22)1. Paul's nephew heard of the ambush plot 2. He went to Paul in the barracks and told him what he had heard 3. Paul had his nephew taken to the commander a. The commander took him aside and heard the plot b. The commander told the young man to tell no one that they had spoken about the plot c. Paul's nephew departed from the commander III. PAUL WAS SENT TO FELIX AT BY NIGHT (Acts 23:23-35) A. THE HAD TWO PREPARE TO TAKE PAUL (Acts 23:23-24)1. 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen were prepared 2. They were to take Paul to Caesarea at the third hour of the night 3. Paul was to go before governor Felix B. THE WROTE A LETTER TO FELIX (Acts 23:25-30)1. Claudius Lysias was the Roman commander's name 2. The letter was address to "the most excellent governor Felix" 3. The letter summarized the situation with Paul a. The Jews had seized Paul and were about to kill him b. Troops were sent to rescue Paul c. To learn of the Jews' accusation, the commander took Paul before the Sanhedrin d. He only learned that Paul was accused "concerning questions of the law," but nothing deserving death or imprisonment e. The commander learned of a plot to ambush and kill Paul f. Due to this, he sent Paul to Felix and ordered his accusers to appear before Felix to state their charges against him C. PAUL WAS TAKEN TO AND TO FELIX (Acts 23:31-35)1. The soldiers, horsemen, and spearmen took Paul by night to Antipatris 2. The next day, the horsemen continued, and took Paul to Caesarea, while the soldiers and spearmen returned 3. They presented Paul and the letter to Felix a. Felix inquired where Paul was from and understood that he was from Cilicia b. He agreed to hear Paul when his accusers arrived c. He had Paul held in Herod's Praetorium REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main events in this chapter?- Paul before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1-10) - The Jewish plot against Paul's life (Acts 23:11-22) - Paul was sent to Felix at Caesarea by night (Acts 23:23-35) 2) How did Paul begin his address to the Sanhedrin? (Acts 23:1)- "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." (Acts 23:1) 3) How did the high priest Ananias respond? (Acts 23:2)- He commanded him to be struck on the mouth (Acts 23:2) 4) Why did Paul take issue with that action? (Acts 23:3)- They were supposedly judging him according to the law, but they were acting contrary to the law by striking him (Acts 23:3) 5) Did Paul know that Ananias was the high priest? (Acts 23:4-5)- No (Acts 23:5) 6) What did Paul recognize (or "perceive") about the council? (Acts 23:6)- He recognized that one part was Sadducees and the other Pharisees (Acts 23:6) 7) What was the noted difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees? (Acts 23:7-8)- Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, nor angels or spirits (Acts 23:8) - Pharisees believed in the resurrection, and angels and spirits (Acts 23:8) 8) For what did Paul say he was being judged? (Acts 23:6)- "concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead" (Acts 23:6) 9) Who said, "We find no evil in this man?" What was their recommendation? (Acts 23:9) - The scribes of the Pharisees' party (Acts 23:9) - "let us not fight against God" (Acts 23:9) 10) Why did the commander order that Paul be taken to the barracks? (Acts 23:10)- He was afraid he would be "pulled to pieces" (Acts 23:10) 11) Who appeared to Paul the following night? What did He say? (Acts 23:11)- The Lord (Acts 23:11) - "Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome." (Acts 23:11) 12) What did some of the Jews band together to do? What was their oath? About how many banded together? (Acts 23:12-13)- They banded together to kill Paul (Acts 23:12) - Not to eat or drink until they killed Paul (Acts 23:12) - More than forty Jews (Acts 23:13) 13) Describe the plot to kill Paul. (Acts 23:14-15)- The plotting Jews wanted the Sanhedrin council to call back before them for "further inquiries" (Acts 23:15) - They planned to ambush (kill) Paul before he arrived (Acts 23:15) 14) Who heard about the ambush? Who did he go tell? What did he do next? (Acts 23:16-22)- Paul's sister's son (Paul's nephew) heard about the ambush (Acts 23:16) - He went to the barracks and told Paul (Acts 23:16) - Paul had him taken to the commander (Acts 23:17) - The commander took him aside privately, and Paul's nephew described what he had heard about the ambush (Acts 23:19-21) - The commander let him go, and told the young man to tell no one that he had discussed this with him (Acts 23:22) 15) What did the commander do after learning of the plot? (Acts 23:23-30)- He told two centurions to prepare men to go to Caesarea (Acts 23:23) - 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen (Acts 23:23) - They were to take Paul to Felix by night (Acts 23:23-24) - He wrote a letter to Felix, summarizing Paul's situation (Acts 23:25-30) 16) What question did Felix ask upon receiving Paul and the letter? (Acts 23:33-34)- He asked what province Paul was from (Acts 23:34) - He learned that he was from Cilicia (Acts 23:34) 17) When did Felix agree to hear Paul's case? (Acts 23:35)- When his accusers arrived (Acts 23:35) 18) Where was Paul kept, while waiting for the accusers? (Acts 23:35)- Herod's Praetorium (Acts 23:35) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 23:2. Ananias had the common but erroneous idea that if a man is conscientious he is right. To him the statement of Paul meant that he had never done anything wrong. He thought that such an assertion from one who had been opposing Judaism so persistently was one of arrogance. Smiting one on the mouth was an act of con tempt and humiliation, and not one especially considered as a physical punishment. 3Act 23:3. Whited wall was a figure of speech that meant Ananias was a hypocrite. It was similar to the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:27. The hypocrisy of Ananias consisted in his posing as an administrator of justice under the law, and then directing an unlawful action against a prisoner who had not so much as been legally accused. It was like a judge in the courts of our land who will swear a jury to decide a case according to the law and evidence, then require it to bring in a "directed verdict." God shall smite thee was doubtless an inspired prediction. Smith's Bible Dictionary says Ananias was assassinated at the beginning of the last Jewish war. 5Acts 23:4-5. Paul agreed that the rulers of God's people should not be spoken against, and even cited the law that forbids such a speech (Exodus 22:28). But the history of those times shows that Ananias was an evil character, who had been in difficulties with the civil authorities and had once been deposed from his office. Afterward, however, he assumed the place as president of the Sanhedrin, which is the meaning of Paul's words "sittest thou to judge" (verse 3). Knowing him to have been a usurper, the remark of the apostle, I wist [knew] not, etc., was the apostle's way of ignoring his assumption, thus showing him not to be entitled to the usual judicial courtesy. 6Acts 23:6. Having disposed of their quibble over the highpriesthood of Ananias, Paul used the divided condition of sentiment in the Sanhedrin to bring to the fore the fundamental principle of the Gospel, the truth of which was the basis of his diffictulties with the Jews. (See the note at Matthew 16:12 on the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees.) With regard to the most important difference between these sects, the belief in the resurrection, Paul declared he was a Pharisee. 7Acts 23:7. Paul's declaration of faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, divided the multitude and set them at variance among themselves. 8Acts 23:8. See the comments at verse 6. 9Acts 23:9. Paul's declaration of faith had the effect he expected. The Pharisees believed in the existence of angels and spirits (verse 8), hence they were prepared to listen to Paul as an inspired man. Moreover, they have given us a point on the subject of authoritative teaching, namely, to oppose the word of an inspired man is the same as fighting against God. 0Acts 23:10. In the riot among the two sects of the Jews, their attention was turned upon Paul who was regarded as the cause of the disturbance. There was even so much indication of violence against him that the chief captain feared for his bodily safety. The reader should note that this act of soldiers under lawful direction was solely for the purpose of protecting Paul from mob violence. This should be remembered when considering the falsehoods of Tertullus in chapter 24:6, 7. Paul was removed from the Sanhedrin by the soldiers and taken into the castle for his bodily safety. 1Act 23:11. The imprisonment of Paul in the soldiers' barracks was a friendly act as it pertained to his personal safety, but the whole situation was one of apparent danger, and one that had many discouraging phases. It was an appropriate time for the Lord to speak words of cheer to him. Bear witness also at Rome. See the comments at chapter 19:21 as to when he would bear this testimony at Rome. 3Act 23:12-13. A curse means some kind of harm to be wished upon one. This harm was to come upon these Jews if they ate or drank until they had killed Paul. It was a rash proposal, but there is no evidence that they stuck to it though Paul was not killed. 4Acts 23:14. They notified the chief priests of their curse, thinking it would impress them with the genuineness of their determination. 5Acts 23:15. Paul was in the castle or barracks, and these Jews suggested that the priests ask the captain to bring the prisoner before the Sanhedrin again on the pretext of a fuller hearing. That would have given them an opportunity of killing him. 6Acts 23:16. Paul's nephew heard of the plot and told him of it. 8Acts 23:17-18. Paul arranged a meeting of his nephew with the captain. 0Acts 23:19-20. The young man first told the captain of the request that was soon to be made of him by this wicked band of 40 Jews. 1Act 23:21. The young man then told him of the plot to kill Paul if he should be allowed to appear outside the castle, and he urged him to deny their request. 2Act 23:22. The captain bound the young man to secrecy and then dismissed him, but he intended to act on behalf of Paul's safety. 3Act 23:23. This was a military escort to conduct Paul to Caesarea, the headquarters of the Roman government in Palestine. Altogether there were 470 military men in the escort, some of whom had special services to perform. The horsemen were included to continue the guarded journey after the others returned to Jerusalem (verse 32). This journey was begun at 9 P. M. according to our time. 4Acts 23:24. Felix the governor was a ruler at Caesarea on behalf of the Roman Empire. 6Acts 23:25-26. Claudius Lysias was the chief captain at Jerusalem. As a judicial courtesy, he wrote a letter to Felix explaining why he was sending Paul to him. 7Acts 23:27. This part of the letter is a truthful report of the rescue of Paul by the soldiers of the captain, recorded in chapter 21:32-34. 8Acts 23:28. The captain understood that the council (Sanhedrin) was a place where the Jews held their examinations of accused persons. 9Acts 23:29. The captain regarded the dispute between Paul and the Jews to be mostly a religious one and not such as he should try. 0Acts 23:30. The court of Felix also was a secular one, but the captain felt that Paul's personal safety required that he appear there. Besides, the Jews had intimated that Paul was a general disturber of the peace (chapter 21:28), and hence it seemed proper for the court at Caesarea to hear what the accusers had against him, they having been commanded also to appear at Caesarea for that purpose. 2Act 23:31-32. Antipatris was about halfway between Jerusalem and Caesarea. The entire military escort went that far, at which place it was thought that most of the danger was over. The day after leaving Jerusalem they reached that place, from which all of the escort except the horsemen started back to Jerusalem, and the horsemen conducted Paul the rest of the jorney to Caesarea. 3Act 23:33. Upon arrival, the horsemen presented Paul to the governor, and also delivered the epistle that was sent by the chief captain. 4Acts 23:34. This inquiry was to learn whether he should have jurisdiction in the case. Cilicia (the province containing the birthplace of Paul) was in such jurisdiction. 5Acts 23:35. While waiting for the accusers to appear, Paul was to be kept in a place built by Herod, but now being occupied by Felix. Some one of. the buildings attached thereto was Paul's prison, pending the arrival of his accusers. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 24 PAUL AT Act_24:1 to Acts 26:32 PAUL’ S BEFORE FELIXAct_24:1-9 1 And after five days the high priest Ananias—“ After five days” may mean either after five days from Paul’ s departure from Jerusalem or his arrival in Caesarea; it is not clear as to the exact meaning; no one can determine from the context. Roman usage required that a case referred to a higher court should be tried as soon as possible. The high priest, Ananias, came down to Caesarea “ with certain elders,” probably of the Sadducean party. The fact that the high priest came with them indicates that the Sadducees considered this an important case; as one of their fundamental doctrines, the resurrection was at stake. It will be further noted that they “ came down,” as Jerusalem was on a higher elevation. Caesarea was about seventy miles from Jerusalem on the seacoast. They brought with them “ an orator, one Tertullus.” Tertullus was a Roman lawyer. There were many Roman lawyers in those days who went to the provinces to gain training in the practice of law that they might go to Rome and practice their profession. Tertullus “ informed the governor against Paul” ; that is, he made formal charges against Paul. 2-3 And when he was called, Tertullus began—When the case was called and both sides were present. Tertullus began his formal charges against Paul. He began with exaggerated flattery of Felix, the Roman judge. He intended by his flattery to ingratiate himself into the good graces of Felix. Historians tell us that Felix had suppressed riots among the people and had been an officer of the peace, but Tertullus shrewdly does not mention any specific riot that he had quelled; he makes general statements to flatter Felix. He acknowledged “ with all thankfulness” the many things that Felix had done for the peace and welfare of the nation. He hails Felix as the reform governor; this pleased Felix. 4 But, that I be not further tedious unto thee,— Tertullus proceeds with tact, and introduces his case in a very winning way. He does not want to encroach upon the good deeds that Felix has done; neither does he want to claim the time of Felix which could be given to Felix’ s further good reforms. He is still flattering Felix. He entreated Felix to hear the case of his “ clemency.” “ Clemency” is from the Greek “ epieikes,” and means “ reasonable, likely, fair” ; it also may mean gentleness. The clemency of Felix was an invention of Tertullus’ flattery; Felix was well known as an avaricious man; he was not a lover of righteousness. 5-6 For we have found this man—Tertullus now presents in a very logical way the charges that the Jews had against Paul. As we analyze Tertullus’ speech, we find that he made one general accusation against Paul; he was “ a pestilent fellow.” “ Pestilent” comes from the Greek “ loimon,” and it means “ pest, plague, pestilence.” It is used only twice in the New Testament, here and in Luke 21:11. The greatest gospel preacher in the world was charged with being a pest. In addition to this general charge, there were three specific charges. He was “ a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world,” which meant that he was rebellious and excited sedition wherever he went. Probably Tertullus could refer to the tumult at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) and at Ephesus (Acts 19:28). The second charge was that he was “ a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” ; this was a charge of heresy, and was the chief offense that the Jews had against Paul. However, here Tertullus makes it an offense against the laws of the empire, as Paul was teaching a religion that was not licensed by the state; in this charge Paul is accused of introducing strange gods. “ Sect of the Nazarenes” is used here with a sneer as applied to Jesus and his followers. “ Sect” is from the Greek “ hair- esis,” and is the word from which we get “ heresy.” The third charge was that he had profaned the temple. This was not true. Tertullus identifies himself in this speech with the Jews, as he is pleading their cause. 7 This verse is omitted from the Standard Version. Some ancient authorities insert: “ And we would have judged him according to our law. 7 But the chief captain Lysias came, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, 8 commanding his accusers to come before thee.” This quotation includes part of verse 8. The Revised Version leaves out verse 7, and its translaors regard verse 7 as an interpolation which was added clearly to prejudice Felix against Lysias. Some think that it was added as a clumsy attempt to complete the speech of Tertullus.) 8 from whom thou wilt be able,—Tertullus perpetrates another astute trick by saying that Felix would find Paul guilty of all that he had charged against him. He attempts to prejudice Felix against Paul before anything is said by Paul. He stated that Felix would learn the truth of these things after he had examined Paul. Some authorities think that Tertullus means that Felix would find these things true after an interview with Lysias; others think that he would find them true after examining Paul. This seems to be the meaning. “ Examining” is from the Greek “ anakrinas,” and means to examine thoroughly up and down, as in Luke 23:14. It does not mean to examine by torture. 9 And the Jews also joined in the charge,—Ananias and the elders who accompanied him endorsed the charges made by Tertullus, and testified that the accusations against Paul were true. We are not told how they affirmed the truthfulness of the charges made by Tertullus; it may have been simply by gestures, or they may have been called upon by Felix to speak for themselves. It will be noted that Tertullus and the Jews kept back the fact that Paul was a Roman citizen; neither does it appear that Tertullus knew that Lysias had informed Felix that Paul was a Roman citizen. PAUL’ S DEFENSE BEFORE FELIXAct_24:10-27 10 And when the governor had beckoned—There is a wide contrast between Paul’ s defense and the accusation that Tertullus made against him. Tertullus had begun his speech with lying flatteries and distorted facts. Paul’ s tone was that of frankness and truthfulness. When the governor signified that Paul could speak, he began by courteously acknowledging the facts concerning Felix. Felix had now been judge for about six years; this was more than the average duration of a procuratorship. Hence, Paul’ s expres¬sion, “ many years,” was not an exaggeration. Felix, after having ruled for a short time with divided authority, had superseded Cumanus in A.D. 52 or 53. Paul did not stand before Felix as a criminal ; he was glad of the opportunity to speak; he cheerfully made his defense. 11 seeing that thou canst take knowledge—Felix knew many of the facts and could ascertain the truthfulness of Paul’ s statements. He refuted the general charge of Tertullus by appealing to the facts which Felix knew. Paul had arrived in Jerusalem, had an interview with the elders of the church there, and had begun the seven days of purification. The seven days were almost ended when Paul was arrested; he was then brought before the Sanhedrin, and a conspiracy was formed against him and he was sent to Caesarea. He was now brought before Felix, and the trial seems to have taken place on the fifth day after he left Jerusalem. These “ twelve days” may be reckoned as follows: first day, Paul arrived at Jerusalem and met with James (Acts 21:15) ; second day, he had made his first visit to the temple as a Nazirite; third to seventh days, he performed the Nazirite ceremonies and was arrested by Claudius Lysias; eighth day, he was brought before the Sanhedrin; ninth day, he was informed of the assassination plot and left that night for Caesarea; tenth day, he arrived at Antipatris; eleventh day, he was delivered over to Felix in Caesarea; twelfth day, he was in the palace of Herod, thirteenth day, he appeared before Felix. 12 and neither in the temple did they find me—Paul here urged that the accusation of exciting sedition was incapable of proof; nowhere had he publicly disputed with the purpose of exciting a tumult; nor had he gone preaching and speaking up and down the streets of the city. Felix had been governor between six and seven years and was well acquainted with all the seditions, and from personal knowledge could say that Paul had not been engaged in any of the insurrections. He had only been in Palestine or in Jerusalem about twelve days, and five of these he had spent as a Roman prisoner; he simply had not had time, even if he had been so disposed, to engage in plots against the Roman government. On the contrary, he had come to Jerusalem to worship, and had not come to engage in discussion; neither had he gathered a crowd in the synagogue or the city. He did not belong to any mob; neither had he engaged in any plot. 13 Neither can they prove to thee—Paul flatly denies their charges by appealing to the facts which were known to Felix. The charges that Tertullus and the Jews had made were mere assertions ; they did not have the proof of their charges; neither could they produce the proof, as the accusations were contrary to the well-known facts. Paul had no hired lawyer to plead for him, but the simple facts recited by him spoke eloquently for his freedom. 14 But this I confess unto thee,—Paul had nothing to keep back; he had nothing in his life as a Christian for which he was ashamed. But “ this I confess unto thee” ; Paul acknowledged that he was a Christian and that Tertullus and the Jews called Chris¬tianity “ a sect.” Paul did not call the church “ a sect” ; it was not a sect, but after the way which they called a sect he worshiped God. Christianity was never a “ sect” ; it is not a “ sect” today. “ Sect” means a division and a divergence. Tertullus had used the term in a bad sense (verse 4), of which the Nazarenes were a schismatic offshoot from the body of the Jewish worshipers. The word translated “ heresy” is the same that is here translated “ sect.” Paul here claims Christianity to be the real, whole of Judaism, and not a “ sect” of it. The essence of the law of Moses pointed to Christian¬ity ; the only use of the law of Moses was to bring the people to Christ. Christianity was the full, ripe fruit of Jerusalem. Paul believed in the law of Moses and in the prophets; he knew that Christianity was set forth both by the law and by the prophets. 15 having hope toward God,—Paul presented three reasons why his way of worship was not “ a sect” or “ heresy” ; it was the only righteous and living way. First, he served the same God that “ our fathers” served; this meant that Christianity was of God, as was the law of Moses. He had the same hope that the fathers and the prophets had, and this hope was to be realized through Christianity. The Jews were at that time looking for a Messiah; Paul pointed out that this Messiah had already come. The difference between Paul and the Jews was that they were looking for the Messiah, and Paul had already received him. Paul furthermore reaffirmed his belief in the resurrection “ both of the just and un¬just.” He affirmed that belief in the resurrection was a cardinal teaching of the Jewish faith, from which he had never swerved. He was really more orthodox with respect to the law and the prophets than were the Sadducees who denied the resurrection. 16 Herein I also exercise myself—“ Herein” Paul exercised himself in the belief as stated in verses 14 and 15. He had been faithful in believing and practicing all that the law and the prophets taught; he had been conscientious in this, and had a clear conscience “ toward God and men.” His belief in the resurrection was the field in which he trained himself to live a becoming life in God’ s presence with the expectation of judgment before God. The fact of the resurrection was with Paul a stern solemnity and modified his whole life and conduct. Paul’ s words must have been bitter to Ananias; however, Paul was courageous enough to speak the truth without fear or favor. Paul’ s rule of life was to keep himself from sin, knowing that he should be judged according to the deeds done in the body. A belief in the resurrection implied a belief in a future life. 17 Now after some years I came—If Paul went up to Jerusalem in Acts 18:22, which it seems that he did, it was some five years ago. At least four years had elapsed since he had been to Jerusalem. The alms which Paul here mentions were the sums of money that he and his companions had collected in the churches of Macedonia and Achaia for the relief of the church at Jerusalem. This is the only mention in the Acts of Paul’ s generous work of which we hear so much in Paul’ s epistles. (Romans 15:25; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4.) Paul mentions this to show that he had been interested and engaged in a good work of collecting sums of money to disperse among the poor brethren, and was not what the Sadducees represented him to be. Every statement that Paul makes is a clear refutation of the charges made against him. 18 amidst which they found me purified in the temple,—Paul here states the facts with respect to his visit to Jerusalem and his manner of life while in the city. Paul was keeping his vow of a Nazirite (Acts 21:23-26) when he was arrested. In fact, he was engaged in this service when they seized him. He had no crowd, neither had he excited any tumult. Paul stated that there were “ certain Jews from Asia” ; this either means that those who found Paul in the temple were Jews from Asia Minor (Acts 21:27), or else it may be a more general statement. 19 who ought to have been here—It is to be observed that none of those “ forty” Jews who had banded themselves together not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul were here to make charges against him. Possibly Felix did not know of this plot against Paul, but the high priest and other members of the Sanhedrin who were present before Felix did know of it. Those who were present and preferring charges against Paul were not present when he did that of which they were assusing him. The present witnesses did not have firsthand evidence; those who had any evidence at all were not present. These Asiatic Jews are not mentioned after the riot, though they almost succeeded in having Paul put to death. 20 Or else let these men themselves say—Paul had stood before the council; the high priest and some members of the council were present now before Felix. Paul reminds them that no charges were proved against him while he stood before the counthe high priest and other members of the Sanhedrin to state any charges that were proved against him in his trial before the Sanhedrin. His argument is that those who first preferred charges against him and caused him to be brought before the Sanhedrin were not now present, but members of the Sanhedrin are present, and even these cannot state any charges that were proved against him. 21 except it be for this one voice,—Paul here makes an exception to his statement above. He was charged by the Sadducees as teaching the resurrection from the dead. It is noticeable how often Paul refers to this point. Even in his legal defense Paul drives the wedge between Pharisees and Sadducees; if he can by any means show how near the truth the Pharisees are by their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, he can more easily bring them to believe in the Christ who has been crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Paul knew that some members of the Sanhedrin, and many of the Jews, would sympathize with him in his preaching the resurrection from the dead. His preach¬ing the resurrection from the dead was the only thing that had come directly under the notice of the Sanhedrin, and it had been the cause of division in the Sanhedrin itself. Paul understood clearly his case, and did not waste words; he presented his case truly and accurately and briefly before Felix. Tertullus and the Jews had no case at all. 22 But Felix, having more exact knowledge—Felix was not ignorant of the teachings of Christ; during the years he had held office in Judea and Samaria, at Jerusalem as well as Caesarea, he had frequent opportunities to learn what Christians taught and how they lived; even Philip, one of the seven (Acts 6:5), lived at Caesarea. Felix had a more “ exact knowledge” of Christianity than the high priest and other Jews gave him credit of having. He should have released Paul, and would have done so, had he not sought to please the Jews. After hearing Paul’ s defense he knew that he was innocent. However, he could not condemn Paul, but he could compromise with the Jewish party by retaining Paul as a prisoner. We do not know that “ Lysias the chief captain” ever came to Felix; we hear no more of him. This was Felix’ s way of conciliating the Jews. Felix had another motive in retaining Paul as a prisoner. 23 And he gave order to the centurion—While Felix retained Paul as a prisoner, he gave orders to the centurion to show Paul kindness, and to permit Paul’ s friends “ to minister unto him.” There were three kinds of imprisonment among the Romans: (1) the imprisonment in the common prison as Paul and Silas were kept at Philippi; (2) the military arrest, when the prisoner was chained to a soldier; this appears to have been the form of imprisonment to which Paul was relegated during his Roman confinement ; (3) the free custody in which the arrested party was usually released on bail. Paul speaks of his chains in Acts 28:20, this shows the kind of imprisonment that Paul had. Indulgence was given Paul in respect to food, lodging, and friends, but this did not include removal of his chains. 24 But after certain days,—We do not know how long the “ certain days” were. Some think that Felix had been away from Caesarea for a time, and when he returned he sent for Paul. He brought his wife, “ Drusilla,” “ who was a Jewess.” Under the influence of Felix she had left her former husband. She was one of three daughters of Herod Agrippa I; her sisters were Marianne and Bernice: her father murdered James; her great-uncle, Herod Antipas, beheaded John the Baptist; her great-grandfather, Herod the Great, had the babes of Bethlehem killed. It is said that Drusilla was gifted with great beauty. It is said that she perished at the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Felix sent for Paul to hear him “ concerning the faith in Christ Jesus.” It may be that since he had his wife with him she was also eager to learn more of “ the faith in Christ Jesus.” It seems that Felix and Drusilla were in earnest in their inquiry about the Christ. We may know that Paul was glad of the opportunity to preach Christ to these wicked rulers. 25 And as he reasoned of righteousness,—Perhaps Felix and Drusilla did not hear just what they wanted to hear. After presenting Christ to them Paul reasoned of “ righteousness.” “ Righteousness” is from the Greek “ dikaiosmes,” which meant upright conduct; this condemned Felix who had murdered a high priest, had been tyrannical, had taken bribes, and had been an unrighteous ruler. Paul also reasoned with him about “ self-control.” “ Self-control” is from the Greek “ egkrateias,” which means temperance in this life, including especially continence and chastity. Drusilla in his presence was a witness of Felix’ s unbridled passions. Again, Paul reasoned to these unrighteous and intemperate rulers of “ the judgment to come.” He pointed out that certain judgments would overtake them, and that they would not escape punishment for their wickedness. Felix and Drusilla had lived as though they would never have to give an account for their deeds; Paul very forcibly brings them to face the consequences of their wicked deeds. Felix seems to have been brought under conviction, but Drusilla does not seem to have been affected. Felix knew himself to be a profligate, avaricious and mean; his conscience was awakened only to be stilled. He was “ terrified,” frightened, and dismissed Paul, saying that he would call for him at “ a convenient season.” That “ season” never came. Felix becomes an example of the many millions who are lost by procrastination. 26 He hoped withal that money would be given him—Here we have another motive of Felix for keeping Paul in prison. Paul had mentioned in the presence of Felix that he had taken “ alms” to the poor saints in Jerusalem. Felix evidently drew the idea that Paul or his friends would give him money to release him. This greed of gain in the very act of administering justice was the root evil of the weak and wicked character. Since Paul had money, or some of his friends were wealthy, why should not Felix get money from one or both of them? He sent for Paul often and “ communed with him.” Perhaps Felix would have passed sentence and released Paul, if it had not been that he hoped to get some money from Paul. Paul did not offer any bribe, and so Felix continued to have hope that he would buy his freedom. 27 But when two years were fulfilled,—Paul lingered in prison in Caesarea for two years; he was waiting for the second hearing under Felix which never came. Caesarea became the compulsory headquarters for Paul for two years. We know nothing of his history during this period; some think that Luke was with him, and that Paul and Luke had repeated conversations together; from these conversations, guided by the Holy Spirit, Luke was enabled to write at least the latter portion of the book of Acts, which tells about Paul and his missionary labors. Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. Felix desired to gain favor with the Jews and left Paul a prisoner to be disposed of by Festus. The change of ad¬ministration was caused by the complaints which the Jews brought against Felix, and which led Nero to recall him. This was about A.D. 60. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 24Acts 24:1. When the Jews were commanded by Lysias to present their accusation before Felix, though disappointed in their first plot, they still hoped to accomplish his destruction, and made no delay in following up the prosecution. (1) “Now, after five days, Ananias the high priest, with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus, came down, and informed the governor against Paul.” It is most natural to count these five days from the time that Paul left Jerusalem, as that was the date at which the Jews were informed by Lysias of the transfer of the case. Acts 24:2-9. The orator, Tertullus, was employed to plead the case before Felix, and the high priest and elders appeared as witnesses. (2) “And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: (3) Seeing that by you we have attained to great tranquility, and a prosperous administration is effected for this nation by your foresight, in every respect and in every place, we accept it, most excellent, Felix, with all thankfulness. (4) But that I may not delay you too long, I entreat you to hear us, in your clemency, a few words. (5) For we have found this man a pest, exciting sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. (6) He also attempted to profane the temple; when we seized him, and wished to judge him according to our own law. (7) But Lysias the chiliarch came, and with great violence snatched him out of our hands, (8) and commanded his accusers to come before you. From him you yourself may be able, by examination, to obtain knowledge of all these things of which we accuse him. (9) And the Jews assented, saying that these things were so.” The complimentary words with which this speech is introduced were not undeserved by Felix; for he had restored tranquility to the country, when it was disturbed, first by hordes of robbers; afterward by organized bands of Assassins, and more recently, by that Egyptian for whom Lysias at first mistook Paul. In suppressing all these disturbances, his administration had been prosperous. The accusation against Paul, sustained by the testimony of the Jews, contained three specifications. It charged him, first, with exciting the Jews to sedition; second, with being the ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes; third, with profaning the temple. Tertullus also took occasion to vent his indignation against Lysias, for interfering by violence, as he falsely alleged against him, with the judicial proceedings of the Sanhedrim. Finally, he asserts that Felix would be able, if he would examine Lysias, to gain from his lips a knowledge of all of which they were now informing him. Acts 24:10-21. (10) “Then Paul answered (the governor nodding to him to speak): Knowing that you have been for many years a judge for this nation, I do the more cheerfully defend myself: (11) for you are able to know that there are not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. (12) And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor about the city, did they find me disputing with any one, or exciting sedition among the multitude; (13) neither are they able to prove the things of which they accuse me. (14) But this I confess to you, that according to the way which they call a sect, I so worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are in the law, and those written by the prophets, (15) having hope toward God, which they themselves also entertain, that there is to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. (16) And in this do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and man. (17) Now after many years, I came to present alms to my nation, and offerings, (18) in the midst of which, certain Jews from Asia found me in the temple, purified, not with a multitude, nor with tumult. (19) They ought to be here before you and accuse me, if they have any thing against me. (20) Or let these themselves say if they found any wrong in me when I was standing before the Sanhedrim, (21) except in reference to this one sentence which I uttered when standing among them, Concerning the resurrection of the dead, I am called in question by you this day.” This speech contains a distinct reply to each specification made by Tertullus. In answer to the charge of stirring up sedition, he shows first, that it had been only twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem. As it had now been five days since he left there, and he had been in prison one day previous to leaving, his previous stay there could have been only six days, which would have afforded no sufficient time for stirring up sedition. Moreover, they could not prove that he was engaged even in disputation with any one, in the temple, in the synagogues, or in any party of the city. As to being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, he frankly confesses that he belongs to what they call a sect: yet he believes all the law and the prophets, hopes for a resurrection of the dead, and is habitually struggling to lead a conscientious life. Finally, in reference to the charge of profaning the temple, implying disrespect for the Jewish people, he declares that the very object of his visit to Jerusalem was to bear alms to the people; and that when the Jews from Asia seized him in the temple, he was purified, and engaged about alms-giving, and the offerings of the temple. In conclusion, he notes the significant fact, that those who first seized him, and knew what he was doing, were not there to testify; while he challenges those who were present to state a single act of his that was wrong, unless it were the very heinous offense of declaring that he believed, with the great mass of the Jews, in the resurrection of the dead. The last point was made, and presented in the ironical form which it bears, in order to show Felix that it was party jealousy which instigated his Sadducee prosecutors. Acts 24:22. His defense, though he had no witnesses present to prove his statements, had the desired effect upon Felix. (22) “And when Felix heard these things, knowing more accurately concerning that way, he put them off, and said, When Lysias the chiliarch comes down, I will thoroughly examine the matters between you.” In this decision he took Tertullus at his word; for he had already said that he could learn all about the affair by examining Lysias. But the decision is attributed to his “ knowing more accurately concerning that way,” showing that he had come to the same conclusion with Lysias, that Paul was accused merely about questions of the Jewish law, and not of crime against Roman law. Acts 24:23. When the Jews were dismissed, if Felix had possessed a strict regard for justice, he would have released Paul. As it was, he only relaxed the rigor of his previous confinement. (23) “And he commanded the centurion that Paul should be guarded, but have relaxation, and to forbid none of his friends to minister to him or visit him.” His confinement was now the least rigorous which was considered compatible with safe-keeping. He was under what was called the military custody, being placed in charge of a soldier, whose left arm was chained to Paul's right, and who was responsible with his own life for the safety of his prisoner. The guards were relieved at regular intervals, and the “ relaxation” allowed Paul was, probably, an occasional release from the chain. Acts 24:24. (24)“Now, after some days, Felix came, with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.” Drusilla, according to Josephus, was a daughter of Herod Agrippa, whose persecutions of the apostles, and miserable death, we have considered in commenting on the twelfth chapter. She was a woman of remarkable beauty, the lawful wife of Azizus, king of Emesa, but was now living in adulterous intercourse with Felix. Concerning Felix, Tacitus testifies, that “ with every kind of cruelty and lust, he exercised the authority of a king with the temper of a slave.” Acts 24:25. Under the summons to speak concerning the faith in Christ, Paul was at liberty to choose the special topic of discourse, and did so with direct reference to the character of his hearers. (25) “And as he reasoned concerning righteousness and temperance, and judgment to come, Felix, being full of fear, answered, Go your way for this time, and when I have a convenient season, I will call for you.” The common version, “ Felix trembled,” may be true, but it is claiming more for the effect of Paul's discourse than is asserted by Luke. He was “ filled with fear,” which shows that Paul addressed him on these appropriate topics, not in a spirit of bravado, but in that earnest and solemn strain which alone can penetrate the heart. This feeling was the beginning necessary to a change of life; but lust and ambition smothered the kindling fires of conscience, and the common excuse of alarmed but impenitent sinners was urged to get rid of the too faithful monitor. It is a sad warning to all who thus procrastinate, that to neither Felix nor Drusilla did the season ever come which they thought convenient to listen to such preaching. Felix was soon dismissed in disgrace from his office; and Drusilla, with a son by Felix, perished in that eruption of Mount Vesuvius which ingulfed the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Acts 24:26-27. True to the character which Tacitus attributes to Felix, Luke adds that (26) “Hoping also that money would be given to him by Paul, so that he would release him, he therefore sent for him the oftener, and conversed with him. (27) But after two years Felix received Portius Festus as a successor; and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul bound.” Having learned, from Paul's own lips, that he had been up to Jerusalem to bear alms from distant Churches to the poor, and knowing something, perhaps of the general liberality of the disciples toward one another, he could have no doubt, judging them according to the usage of the age, that they would be willing to purchase Paul's freedom at a high price. That it was not done, shows that the disciples had too elevated a standard of morality to buy from a corrupt judge release from even unjust and protracted imprisonment. These two years, if we judge from the silence of history, were the most inactive of Paul's career. There are no epistles which bear this date; and though his friends and brethren had free access to him, we have no recorded effects of their interviews with him. The only moments in which he emerges into our view, from the obscurity of his prison, are those in which he appeared before his judges. We shall, on this account, contemplate his conduct on these occasions with the deeper interest. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Twenty-Four IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To review the accusation of the Jews presented by Tertullus 2) To consider Paul's defense before Felix 3) To observe Felix's delay in rendering judgment of Paul SUMMARY The chief priest, elders and Tertullus, an orator, came from Jerusalem to Caesarea to make accusations and to provide evidence against Paul. Tertullus was an eloquent spokesman. He began by giving Felix great praise. He said, "We enjoy great peace. Prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight. We accept it...with all thankfulness." Next, he levied the charges against Paul. They found Paul to be a "plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world." They found him to be a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" and he "tried to profane the temple." Tertullus reviewed the events at the temple. The Jews had seized Paul. They wanted to judge him according to their law; however, the Roman commander, Lysias, took Paul "with great violence" from them. Lysias took Paul to Felix and commanded the Jews to bring their accusations against Paul before him. The attending Jews agreed with Tertullus. (Acts 24:1-9) Paul was then given opportunity to provide his defense before Felix. Paul indicated that he was happy to speak for himself. He recognized Felix to have been a judge of the nation for many years. Paul reviewed the events as his defense to the Jewish accusations. He had gone up to Jerusalem to worship about twelve days prior. The Jews did not find Paul disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogue or in the city. Paul stated that they could not prove these accusations. He confessed that he worshipped God "according to the Way" - which they call a "sect." He believed all the things written in the Law and Prophets. Paul stated that he had "hope in God," just as they do, "that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." As a result, he strove to have a "conscience without offense toward God and men." Paul had returned to Jerusalem after many years to bring alms and offerings to his nation. This was the time when some Jews from Asia (who had not come before Felix), found Paul "purified in the temple," and "neither with a mob nor with tumult." If they had an accusation against Paul, they should have come before Felix at this time. Paul asked those Jews present if they had found any wrongdoing in him, when he stood before the Sanhedrin council. The only statement that Paul thought they may have objected to was what he had cried out among them, "Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day." (Acts 24:10-21) Given that Felix had a "more accurate knowledge of the Way," he adjourned the proceedings. He stated that he would make a decision on the case when Lysias the commander came to Caesarea. Paul was held by the centurion, but was given liberties - his friends were allowed to visit him and provide for him. Later, Felix and his wife, Drusilla, called for Paul. Drusilla was Jewish. They heard Paul "concerning faith in Christ." Paul reasoned before them about "righteous, self-control, and the judgment to come." This caused Felix to become afraid. He sent Paul away; he indicated he would call for him at a more "convenient time." Felix hoped for a bribe from Paul to release him. Felix sent for him often. After two years, Porcius Festus succeeded Felix as governor. Felix wanted to do the Jews a favor, so he "left Paul bound." (Acts 24:22-27) OUTLINE I. THE ARRIVED AND WERE MADE (Acts 24:1-9) A. THE CHIEF PRIEST, ELDERS AND ARRIVED IN (Acts 24:1)1. They came to provide evidence against Paul 2. Tertullus was brought as an orator 3. He was an eloquent spokesman B. THE (Acts 24:2-9)1. Tertullus began by giving great praise to Felix a. "We enjoy great peace" b. "Prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight" c. "We accept it...with all thankfulness" 2. The charges were then levied against Paul a. They found Paul to be a "plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world" b. They found him to be a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" c. He "tried to profane the temple" 3. Tertullus stated that the Roman commander, Lysias, took Paul with "great violence" from them a. The Jews had seized Paul b. They wanted to judge him according to their law c. The commander had taken Paul and had commanded them to appear before Felix to make their accusations 4. The attending Jews agreed with Tertullus' accusations II. PAUL GAVE HIS DEFENSE BEFORE FELIX (Acts 24:10-21) A. FELIX FOR PAUL TO SPEAK (Acts 24:10)1. Paul stated that he would defend himself 2. He recognized Felix to have been a judge of the nation for many years B. PAUL THE EVENTS AS HIS DEFENSE (Acts 24:11-21)1. Paul had gone up to Jerusalem to worship about twelve days prior 2. They did not find Paul disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogue or in the city 3. Paul stated that they could not prove these accusations 4. He confessed that he worshipped God "according to the Way" - which they call a "sect" 5. He believed all the things written in the Law and Prophets 6. Paul stated that he had "hope in God," just as they do, "that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust" a. As a result, he strove to have a "conscience without offense toward God and men" 7. Paul had returned to Jerusalem after many years to bring alms and offerings to his nation a. This was the time when some Jews from Asia (who had not come before Felix), found Paul "purified in the temple," and "neither with a mob nor with tumult" b. If they had an accusation against Paul, they should have come before Felix at this time 8. Paul asked those Jews present if there had been found any wrongdoing in him while before the Sanhedrin council a. The only statement that Paul thought they may have objected to was what he had cried out among them, "Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day." III. FELIX DELAYED OF PAUL (Acts 24:22-27) A. FELIX THE AND HELD PAUL (Acts 24:22-23)1. Given that Felix had a "more accurate knowledge of the Way," he adjourned the proceedings 2. He stated that he would make a decision on the case when Lysias the commander came to Caesarea 3. Paul was held by the centurion a. Paul was given liberties b. His friends were allowed to visit him and provide for him B. FELIX HEARD PAUL MORE TIMES (Acts 24:24-26)1. Felix and his wife, Drusilla, called for Paul a. Drusilla was Jewish b. They heard Paul "concerning faith in Christ" 2. Paul reasoned before them about "righteous, self-control, and the judgment to come" a. Felix was afraid b. He sent Paul away; he indicated he would call for him at a more "convenient time" 3. Felix hoped for a bribe from Paul to release him a. Felix sent for him often C. FESTUS FELIX (Acts 24:27)1. After two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix as governor 2. Felix wanted to do the Jews a favor, so he "left Paul bound" REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main events in this chapter?- The accusers arrived and the accusations were made (Acts 24:1-9) - Paul gave his defense before Felix (Acts 24:10-21) - Felix delayed the judgment of Paul (Acts 24:22-27) 2) How long was Paul held waiting for his accusers? (Acts 24:1)- Five days (Acts 24:1) 3) Who was Tertullus and what role did he play? (Acts 24:1-2)- Tertullus had travelled with the high priest and elders (Acts 24:1) - He was an orator; he presented the accusations before Felix (Acts 24:1-2) 4) How was Paul described in the charges by Tertullus? (Acts 24:4-6)- A plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews worldwide, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) - He tried to profane the temple (Acts 24:6) 5) How did the Jews want to handle this, according to Tertullus? (Acts 24:6)- They wanted to judge him according to their law (Acts 24:6) 6) Why were the Jews not able to carry out their plan? (Acts 24:7)- Commander Lysias came by and took Paul with great violence (Acts 24:7) 7) What did Lysias command them to do? (Acts 24:8)- He commanded Paul's accusers to come before Felix (8) 8) How did the Jews react to Tertullus presentation? (Acts 24:9)- They assented, and maintained that those things were so (Acts 24:9) 9) How many days prior had Paul's situation occurred in Jerusalem? (Acts 24:11)- Twelve days earlier (Acts 24:11) 10) How did Paul answer their accusations? (Acts 24:12-13)- He had not been found in the temple disputing with anyone, nor was he found inciting the crowd (Acts 24:12) - Nor had they found him doing these things in synagogues or in the city (Acts 24:12) - Paul stated that they could not prove these accusations (Acts 24:13) 11) According to what did Paul say he worshipped God? What did the Jews call this? (Acts 24:14)- According to the Way (Acts 24:14) - The Jews called it a sect; Tertullus specifically called it the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:14 Acts 5) 12) What did Paul say he had a hope in God to happen? (Acts 24:15)- That there would be a resurrection of the dead (Acts 24:15) 13) Who did Paul say would be resurrected? (Acts 24:15)- The dead - both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15) 14) Because of the resurrection, what did Paul always strive to do? (Acts 24:16)- To have a conscience without offense toward God and men (Acts 24:16) 15) How did the Jews from Asia find Paul in the temple? (17-18)- They found Paul purified in the temple (Acts 24:18) - He was neither with a mob nor with a tumult (Acts 24:18) 16) Where did Paul say those Jews from Asia ought to have been if they had anything against him? (Acts 24:19)- They ought to have been there before Felix (Acts 24:19) 17) What statement did Paul cry out while before the Sanhedrin council in Jerusalem? (Acts 24:21)- "Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day." (Acts 24:21) 18) Felix adjourned the proceedings. When did he say he would decide the case? (Acts 24:22)- When Lysias the commander comes down (Acts 24:22) 19) When Felix commanded the centurion to keep Paul, what did he allow? (Acts 24:23)- The centurion was to all him liberty, and to allow his friends to visit him and provide for him (Acts 24:23) 20) Why did Felix and Drusilla send for Paul? (Acts 24:24)- They wanted to hear him concerning the faith in Christ (Acts 24:24) 21) What did Paul reason about before Felix and Drusilla? (Acts 24:25)- He reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25) 22) How did Felix respond to Paul? (Acts 24:25)- He became afraid, and said "Go away for now, when I have a more convenient time, I will call for you." (Acts 24:25) 23) What did Felix hope Paul would do? (Acts 24:26)- He hoped Paul would bring money to release him (Acts 24:26) 24) Who succeeded Felix after two years? (Acts 24:27)- Porcius Festus succeeded Felix (Acts 24:27) 25) How did Felix leave Paul? Why? (Acts 24:27)- Felix left Paul bound (Acts 24:27) - He did this as a favor to the Jews (Acts 24:27) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 4Acts 24:2-4. Tertullus, like many court lawyers of our day, was not scrupulous in handling the truth, or in his manner of treating a serious case that pertained to the personal rights of a citizen. This paragraph is devoted to pure flattery of the governor, for the purpose of prejudicing him against Paul. I do not think this part of his speech needs any further comments. 5Acts 24:5. An orator is supposed to make his speech before a court after the accusers and witnesses have said their part. But Tertullus acted both as accuser and witness, before the legal accusers were even present, like the unprincipled lawyer that he was. The most of this verse is false, but, the part pertaining to Paul's leadership among the Nazarenes is true. And that was the chief grievance the Jews had against Paul, because they had previously had that feeling against Jesus, the founder of the sect of the Nazarenes. The last word was applied to Christians by the Jews, in reference to Jesus who had lived at Nazareth. 7Acts 24:6-7. This was a falsehood. (See chapter 21:30-34.) 8Acts 24:8. By examining of whom was an admission that the court had not heard any testimony furnished by Paul's accusers, thereby convicting himself (and the court) of gross injustice. 9Acts 24:9. Assented means the Jews agreed with what Tertullus had said; yet they did not even pretend to have any witnesses to present to Felix. 0Acts 24:10. Paul began his speech with remarks that were respectful and complimentary, but not in the nature of flattery. Having been in a public position over Judea for many years, Felix could appreciate the truths Paul intended stating before him. 1Act 24:11. But twelve days. The events to which Paul refers had occurred so recently, that it would be easy to find testimony to the contrary if any doubt was felt by Felix. 3Act 24:12-13. This paragraph is a general denial of all the charges of disorder made against Paul, and he challenged his accusers to present their testimony. 4Acts 24:14. To confess does not mean to admit any wrongdoing; it is only an admission of certain facts of which he was not ashamed, but which were objectionable to his critics. Paul does not admit that he is worshiping God through heresy, but, that he is serving Him with the system that his accusers called by such a name. He further states that the law (of Moses) and the prophets had taught that same system to be coming sometime. 5Acts 24:15. In this verse the apostle expressed the real subject that was the motive for their objection to him, namely, a belief in the resurrection. Which they themselves also allow. The Pharisees professed to believe in the resurrection, but denied that it was through Jesus whom they had crucified (chapter 4:2). 6Acts 24:16. Conscience is from SUNEI-DESIS and Thayer's main definition is, "The soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending the one, condemning the other." This definition states the action of the conscience, but it can act on improper information as well as proper. When Paul was persecuting Christians his conscience commended him for it, because his information (which was erroneous) was to the effect that the disciples of Christ were evildoers. In our present verse he means he had always exercised himself in a way that he thought would be right regarding both God and man. His good conscience while persecuting Christians was due to the improper information that he had received. The popular idea is not true that the conscience is "A creature of education," for it is a part of every human being. However, it is true that the conscience may be educated, and it depends on the character of that education whether it will commend or condemn what it should. 7Acts 24:17. The alms refers to the collections that were made by the various churches (Romans 15:25-31; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4). The offerings were according to some Jewish customs that Paul still had the right to perform as a Jew, since they were both secular and religious, and Paul did them as the former. 0Acts 24:18-20. This paragraph is explained at chapter 21:27-29. 1Act 24:21. See the comments on verses 14 and 15. 2Act 24:22. Felix now had a somewhat clearer view of the situation, to the extent that he wanted to see the case through after the other parties to it appeared. He promised Paul to hear the whole matter when the captain arrived. It might be stated, however, that so far as the record shows, neither Lysias nor witnesses ever appeared. 3Act 24:23. Paul was detained as a prisoner, but the soldier who was made responsible for his keeping was commanded to let him have many liberties usually not given. 4Acts 24:24. Felix came. He was not residing outside the community; the second word means, "to make a public appearance," according to the lexicons. His interest had been aroused by Paul's speech to the extent he wished to hear more about the faith he was preaching. We will hear more about his wife in the next verse. 5Acts 24:25. The subjects of this verse are in response to the request in the preceding one, to discuss the faith in Christ, which shows that the Gospel contains more than just the "first principles." These subjects were especially appropriate at this time, for both Felix and his wife were very unrighteous people. He had induced her to desert her former husband to marry him, for no other motive than lust on the part of each. Thayer defines the original word for temperance, "Self-control," then explains it to mean "the virtue of one who masters his desires and passions, especially his sensual [fleshly or carnal] appetites." Judgment to come is defined by Thayer, "The last or final judgment." Being a judge himself and acquainted with the dignity of judicial sentences, Felix could feel the weight of Paul's prediction and was made to tremble, which is defined in the lexicon "to be terrified." A convenient season. The second word does not appear in the original Greek as a separate term. The phrase is from KAIROS which Thayer defines "opportune or seasonable time." The word has been translated in the King James Version by the single word "time" in 63 places. 6Acts 24:26. The "convenient season" never appeared as far as the record informs us, for the same purpose that Paul had been called the first time. However , Felix was so depraved as to think the apostle would try to bribe the court into releasing him, and for that purpose he did call for him frequently. 7Acts 24:27. After two years Felix was replaced by Festus because he had incurred the displeasure of the Romans. During those two years Paul was kept as a prisoner, his accusers never having appeared. In spite of this situation, to gratify the hatred of the Jews toward him, Felix kept Paul bound when he relinquished his office to Festus. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 25 PAUL BEFORE FESTUSAct_25:1-12 1 Festus therefore, having come into the province,—Festus was made governor by the emperor, Nero, in A.D. 60, and died two years afterward. He was a better man than Felix and there is a strong contrast between the honesty and straightforwardness of Festus and the wickedness of Felix. It seems that he rested one day in Caesarea and then went to Jerusalem. “ After three days” means that he arrived in Caesarea one day, rested the next day, and the third day started for Jerusalem. This is the same language used of the resurrection of Christ, “ after three days,” which means “ on the third day.” 2-3 And the chief priests and the principal men—When Festus arrived in Jerusalem the chief priests and important men among the Jews informed Festus against Paul. It seems that they placed formal charges against Paul before the governor and asked him to send Paul to Jerusalem to be tried there. They placed charges against Paul and then asked for.themselves a favor; they had formed a plot to kill Paul on the way. These religious leaders, under the guise of seeking justice, were plotting to commit the greatest injustice to another. This plot was similar to the one that had been laid two years before. (Acts 23:12.) They intended to conceal themselves along the way and seize Paul from the Roman guard and put him to death. Festus did not know of their plot. 4 Howbeit Festus answered, that Paul was kept—Festus an¬swered the Jews that Paul was a prisoner in Caesarea, and that he would soon return to Caesarea. This spoiled the plot that the Jews had laid to kill Paul. Festus denied their request. Some think that Festus had either been informed of the enmity on the part of the Jews against Paul, or that he wished to keep free from any of the troubles that arose at Jerusalem. Festus was a wise and firm official. He refused to alter judicial arrangements on private requests, and assured the Jews that the case would be taken in regular order as Felix had left it. 5 Let them therefore, saith he,—Since Paul was a prisoner in Caesarea, and since Festus was ready to return to Caesarea, he advised that some of the important or prominent Jews would go with him and make their accusations against Paul in Caesarea. The men “ of power” among the Jews simply meant the members of the Sanhedrin. Luke changes from the indirect discourse in verse 4 to the direct in verse 5. Festus demanded that the charges against Paul should be supported by the leaders and representatives of the people, and not by a hired lawyer like Tertullus. 6 And when he had tarried among them—Festus remained in Jerusalem eight or ten days, and then went to Caesarea. Note again that “ he went down unto Caesarea.” This is true to the topoaphy of the country. He lost no time; the next day after his arrival in Caesarea he called for Paul to be brought before him. This would give a formal presentation of his case. Some of the prominent Jews had gone “ down” from Jerusalem to Caesarea as Festus had invited them. (See verse 5.) Festus “ sat on the judgment- seat.” The “ judgment-seat” was an elevated throne or seat, reached probably by a step; sometimes it was fixed in some open place and was movable; it was the symbol of authority of a Roman judge, and is frequently mentioned in the New Testament. (Matthew 27:19; John 19:13; Acts 18:12 Acts 18:16-17 Acts 25:6 Acts 25:10 Acts 25:17; Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10.) 7 And when he was come, the Jews,—When Paul was brought before the judgment seat of Festus, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem made many “ grievous charges” against him; however, they were unable to prove any of their charges. The enemies of Paul were as prompt in preferring charges against him as was Festus in speeding up the trial. When Paul came into court the Jews “ stood round about him” ; that is, they took their stand as witnesses and accusers around him. It seems that they had no lawyer at this time, but appeared in mass and made their charges. Nothing is said as to the nature of the charges further than that they made many “ grievous changes.” Perhaps they were no more grievous than the charges made by Tertullus two years before. It is very likely that their charges were a repetition and reiteration of the former charges. 8 while Paul said in his defence,—It is likely that Paul also repeated his defense, which he made before Felix, and in reply to the charges preferred by Tertullus. Paul sums up the charges that they made against him, and puts them in three classes: (1) those against the law of the Jews; (2) those against the temple; (3) and those against Roman law. Festus was interested only in offenses committed against Roman law. We would infer that since Paul’ s defense indicated three counts of the indictment the Jews had made these three classes of charges. As the Jews alleged that he had broken the law of Israel, which Rome recognized as the religion of the province, he was therefore subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. They made this charge, perhaps, that they might get Festus to send Paul to Jerusalem; if he did so, they could carry out their plot to kill him. 9 But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews,—This is the charge that was brought against Felix. (Acts 24:27.) For some cause Festus, like Felix, feared the Jews. Festus asked Paul if he would be willing to go up to Jerusalem and there appear before him. If Festus was unwilling to give Paul justice in Caesarea, where his regular court was held, what assurance did Paul have that he would get justice before him in Jerusalem? Festus would have less courage to give justice in Jerusalem, where he was surrounded with influential Jews, than he had in Caesarea. Paul knew this. It is probable that Festus would have turned Paul over to the Jews in Jerusalem had he gone there for his trial. Festus’ proposal was an informal statement that there was no case against Paul; that Paul had not committed any crime that Roman law could condemn. 10 But Paul said, I am standing before Caesar’ s judgment- seat,—Paul refused on just grounds to be taken to Jerusalem for trial. Paul’ s reply was emphatic and decisive. He had no hope of receiving justice from the Sanhedrin; he had no hope of receiving justice from Festus who feared the Jews. His only course was to appeal to Caesar. As a Roman citizen he had this right; no man or official could deny a Roman citizen of his right to appeal his case to the higher court. Festus had shown prejudice in favor of the Jews; this indicated that Paul would not receive justice in another trial before Festus. Paul declared his innocence as to any violation of Jewish law or Roman authority. He fearlessly confronted Festus with the fact that Festus knew that he was innocent of the charges brought against him. 11 If then I am a wrong-doer,—In further declaring his innocence Paul expressed willingness to suffer even death if he were guilty of a crime that demanded the death sentence. On the other hand, if he were not guilty of the things of which he was accused, he demanded, as a Roman citizen, the right to appeal his case to Caesar. Paul was a Roman citizen, and even Festus could not send Paul to Jerusalem to be tried by the Sanhedrin. Originally, the Roman law allowed an appeal from the magistrate to the peo¬ple, but the emperor of Rome represented the people, and so the appeal to Caesar was the right of every Roman citizen. In his appeal to Caesar, Paul took his case out of the hands of Festus. Perhaps Paul’ s long desire to see Rome (Acts 19:21; Romans 15:22-28), and the promise of Jesus that he would see Rome (Acts 23:11), may have helped Paul in deciding to make this emphatic appeal to Caesar. 12 Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council,—Festus advised “ with the council.” “ Council” comes from the Greek “ sumboulion.” This word in the New Testament usually means “ counsel,” as in Matthew 12:14, but here alone as an assembly of counselors or “ council.” Here it means the chief officers and advisers of the procurator or governor. These local advisers were necessary and helped the judge or governor, as he needed their ex¬perience and advice. Such men were appointed in all provincial courts to advise the procurator on matters of Roman law; they formed his cabinet officers. After Festus had advised with his “ council,” he returned to his judgment seat and pronounced the formal announcement of an appeal: “ Thou hast appealed unto Caesar: unto Caesar shalt thou go.” The Roman Caesar at this time was the notorious and wicked Nero. Some think that Festus meant to say that Paul had not bettered his case by making the appeal. FESTUS AND AGRIPPA Acts 25:13-2713 Now when certain days were passed,—Each of the characters before whom Paul was brought had a memorable history. “ Agrippa,” as mentioned here, is King Herod Agrippa II; he was the son of Agrippa I who died so miserably at Caesarea. (Acts 12:21-23.) He was the great grandson of Herod the Great, and was the last of the famous Herodian princes, who played so distin¬guished a part in the story of Israel during the last fifty years of the existence of the Jews as a separate nation. Agrippa ruled over a very small portion of his father’ s territory; the remainder had been made into a Roman province of Judea. Agrippa II resided at Caesarea Philippi; he died at an advanced age, having survived the fall of Jerusalem many years; it is thought that he died in A.D. 99. Bernice was a sister of Agrippa II; she was a sister also of Dru- silla. Her beauty was famous. Her history reads like a terrible romance. She married at an early age her uncle, Herod, king of Chalcis; she was left a widow while young and went to reside with her brother, Agrippa II. Polemo, king of Cilicia, adopted the Jewish religion and made Bernice his wife; however, she soon deserted him, and again returned to her brother, Agrippa II, with whom it is said she lived in illicit relationship. Later, she became the mistress of Titus, son of Vespasian, who took her to Rome, but public indignation was so great that he did not marry her. Festus had just recently been appointed governor and Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea and congratulated him on the honors which had been conferred upon him. 14-15 And as they tarried there many days,—The time of the sojourn of King Agrippa and Bernice was indefinite, “ tarried there many days” ; the original may mean “ more than one, or several days.” There was sufficient time for Festus to discuss Paul’ s case with King Agrippa. It would help confirm the friendship of Agrippa and Bernice for Festus to advise with Agrippa about Paul’ s case. Festus does not make any official report to Agrippa, but engages him in an informal, personal talk about the case for his advice. Agrippa was more familiar with Jewish affairs than Festus ; he had greater experience as an official; hence, he would be of service to Festus in advising him. We get from this conversation that the Jews had asked the death sentence on Paul without a fair trial. The Jews had evidently made two proposals to Festus: (1) that he should condemn and punish Paul without trial; (2) that he should bring Paul to Jerusalem for trial there, purposing to have him killed on the road. Festus further informed Agrippa that Paul had been left by Felix; hence, it was, perhaps, an old and difficult case. This would be a good reason for Festus advising with Agrippa about it. 16 To whom I answered, that it is not the custom—It may be that Festus did some boasting in the presence of Agrippa; the record is not clear that he answered the Jews as he claimed that he did. It may not be an accurate representation of the case by Festus. It may be that the Jews did ask for sentence against Paul, and it may be that they did not. Roman officials were often unreliable ; Festus had such a good opportunity to boast of his loyalty to justice that he likely exaggerated in his own favor. Festus stated a point of Roman law and the rights of a Roman citizen. The accused had a right to demand that his accusers meet him “ face to face” and make their charges, and give the accused the opportunity of defending himself. Paul had told Festus exactly what Festus says that he told the Jews. Those who accused Paul to Festus had not met Paul face to face. Ishmael was then high priest in place of Ananias. 17 When therefore they were come together here,—Festus here relates accurately the facts. While he was in Jerusalem Paul’ s accusers asked that Paul be brought to Jerusalem; Festus refused to let him be brought to Jerusalem, but told them that he would soon return to Caesarea and that they could come to Caesarea and prefer their charges against Paul. They did so, and Festus promptly demanded that Paul be brought before his judgment seat the next day. 18 Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up,—Festus continues his recitation of the details of the trial. When Paul’ s accusers bore witness against him and preferred their charges, and Paul made his defense, Festus saw that there was no proof offered as he had expected. Perhaps Festus was influenced by Paul’ s accusers at Jerusalem, and supposed that Paul was guilty of sedition and disloyalty to the emperor. However, he discovered that the charges were nothing but the vaguest rumors which could not be proved. 19 but had certain questions against him—Festus discovered that the real point urged against Paul was connected with matters devoid of interest to a Roman; no Roman law had been violated by Paul. Festus, in speaking to Agrippa, a Jewish king, would not knowingly use an offensive term. Furthermore, he showed his ignorance of the entire matter when he said that the charges against Paul were of “ their own religion, and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” Festus merely understood that Paul was affirming, with other Pharisees, not the general doctrine of a resurrection, but as bearing specific testimony that Jesus had been raised from the dead, while the others denied his affirmation. Festus was like Gallio at Corinth. (Acts 18:17.) This remark shows that Luke gave only a short abstract of Paul’ s speech before the Sanhedrin and of his defense before Agrippa; we are not told that he even mentioned the name of Jesus; yet this name, and the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, had made the strongest impression on the mind of the Roman governor. “ Religion,” as used here, comes from the Greek “ deisidaimonias,” and is translated in the Authorized Version as “ superstitious.” The Greeks used this word to mean “ pious,” or “ religious,” or “ superstitious.” Paul used the word in Acts 17:22. 20 And I, being perplexed—Festus had already determined what to do, and it was difficult for him to justify his conduct in not releasing Paul at once, and not put the government to the expense of an appeal to Caesar. He reports accurately that he had asked Paul if he would go to Jerusalem and be judged of these matters. Festus was ignorant as to how to conduct a judicial trial about these matters of religion; to him they seemed to belong to a Jewish court; at least, this is what he says to Agrippa. This was his smooth excuse for proposing to deliver Paul over to the Jews, though it was contrary to Roman custom, as he had formerly stated. (Verse 16.) Festus stated before Agrippa not what he had formerly said, but what had since occurred to him upon reflecting. 21 But when Paul had appealed—When Paul made his appeal to Caesar, Festus had no further jurisdiction over him but to send him to Rome. There seems to be an undercurrent in Festus’ conversation of his displeasure at the appeal to Caesar. He had to grant the appeal, but it was a reflection on Festus’ fairness and justice that a Roman citizen should prefer the imperial tribunal at Rome to his own. Festus had proposed to remove the trial to Jerusalem ; this had forced Paul to take the step of his appeal. The term “ emperor,” as used here, by many is translated “ Augustus.” The Greek is “ Sebastos,” and is a reverent title for the ruler of Rome. 22 And Agrippa said unto Festus,—After hearing Festus relate the details of the case, Agrippa became interested. Perhaps he had frequently heard of Paul and he desired to hear him. It may not have been a desire to satisfy his curiosity, but more to learn something about Christianity from its greatest advocate. Agrippa’ s courteous suggestion or request to Festus was promptly accepted, and Festus promised Agrippa that he should hear Paul the next day. This was as soon as arrangements could properly be made. 23 So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come,—According to promise, Festus made arrangements for Paul to be brought before Agrippa the next day. Luke’ s description is so vivid that one would think that he was an eyewitness to the parade. Much or “ great pomp” was displayed on this occasion. King Agrippa, Bernice, “ the chief captains,” or chiliarch, leader or captain of a thousand soldiers, and “ the principal men of the city,” together with Festus and his attendants— all these dressed in their royal garments and official robes— made a gorgeous display. The place of assembly was near Festus’ court. After the procession had passed in and were seated, Paul, the prisoner, was brought in. The splendor of the procession and the glittering appearance of the court, Roman and Jewish guards, and the Sanhedrin officials, all made a very imposing scene, and showed an emphatic contrast to the humble prisoner in chains. About eighteen years before this event Herod, the father of Agrippa, was smitten by an angel of the Lord as punishment for his pride. (Acts 12:23.) We have here one of the direct fulfillments of the prophecy of Jesus to his disciples when he said that they would be brought “ before governors and kings” “ for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.” (Matthew 10:18.) Christ had said to Ananias, who was sent to Saul, that he would “ bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.” (Acts 9:15.) We now have Paul standing be¬fore rulers and kings. 24 And Festus saith, King Agrippa, and all men—Festus now with equal pomp and dignity introduced the case to those who were assembled. Festus believed that the feeling against Paul among the Jews was general; he had come in contact only with Paul’ s enemies. Nothing new is stated in the introduction that Festus made except that the Jews of Caesarea had joined with those from Jerusalem in urging that Paul be put to death, and that they had asked Festus to pass such a sentence on him. Festus ad¬dressed Agrippa with a courteous title. It is very likely that the Sadducees from Jerusalem had been able in the course of two years to excite much animosity against Paul among their party in Caesarea; hence, when Festus came to Caesarea, these influential men joined the Sadducees from Jerusalem in demanding the death sentence upon Paul. 25 But I found that he had committed—Festus is frank and fair in stating that he had not found Paul “ worthy of death.” These words were emphatic on the part of Festus; they admit that Paul’ s accusers had failed to prove their charges. However, Festus was bound to send a formal report as to the matter, out of which the case of appeal arose, and he was in doubt as to what he should send to Caesar, and needed the advice and co-operation of Agrippa. Perhaps Paul would have been set at liberty had it not been for the persistent clamor of the Jews against him. However, since Paul had made an appeal to Caesar, Festus must send him. These points are mentioned to show the exact condition of the case; Paul’ s appeal had stopped all judicial proceedings except at Rome. This was not a judicial hearing, but only one for further information, which Festus now declared. 26 Of whom I have no certain thing to write—It was the rule or law when a case was appealed to the emperor to transmit a detailed account of the crime charged, and also to give a full report of the legal proceedings which had taken place in connection with the case. It is clear that Festus must admit Paul’ s innocence, but he reiterated that pressure from the Jews had caused him to retain Paul. Festus referred to the emperor as “ my lord.” Augustus and Tiberius had refused to let anyone address them with such a title, but Caligula and Nero permitted such an address, and even gloried in this title. Festus pleaded for help from the other Roman officials, and especially from King Agrippa. He hoped that from this examination of Paul he would be able to formulate definitely what he should send to the emperor. This was a compli¬ment to his other officials, and especially an act of courtesy toward King Agrippa. 27 For it seemeth to me unreasonable,—It seemed ridiculous to Festus to send a prisoner who had appealed his case to Rome without informing the higher court of the charges that were made against him. Festus hoped that the interview before Agrippa would bring out some fresh facts which had been kept in the background ; at least, he thought that the Roman official, King Agrippa, who was more familiar with Jewish religion, would help him to formulate what he should send to Caesar. It is remarkable how much trouble a single humble man gave to the Jews and the Roman courts. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 24Acts 25:1-5. The long imprisonment of Paul seems not in the least to have moderated the hatred of his enemies; but upon the change of governorship they renewed their efforts for his destruction. (1) “Now when Festus had come into the province, after three days he went up from Cζsarea to Jerusalem. (2) And the high priest and the chief men of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, (3) requesting as a favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, preparing an ambush to kill him on the way. (4) But Festus answered that Paul should be kept in Cζsarea, and that he himself would shortly depart thither. (5) Let the influential men among you, said he, go down with me, and if there is any thing wrong in this man, accuse him.” He further told them, as we learn from his speech to Agrippa, that it was contrary to Roman law to condemn a man to death before he had an opportunity for defense, face to face with his accusers. All this shows that Festus was, at this time, disposed to see justice done. He, of course, knew nothing of the plot to waylay Paul: for they kept this purpose concealed, while they professed another. Acts 25:6-8. He made no delay in granting them the promised hearing. (6) “And when he had remained among them not more than ten days, he went down to Cζsarea, and the next day sat upon his judgment seat, and commanded Paul to be brought. (7) And when he arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around, bringing many and heavy charges against Paul, which they were not able to prove: (8) while he answered in defense, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Cζsar have I at all offended.” The specifications embraced in this defense are the same as in the defense against the speech of Tertullus before Felix, showing that the charges were still the same. Being a “ ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes” was his sin against the law; the false imputation of taking Greeks into the temple, his sin against that holy place; and the excitement of sedition among the Jews, his sin against Cζsar. In the last specification, reference was had to the mobs which the Jews were in the habit of exciting against him, whose crimes were thus charged upon him. Acts 25:9. The accusers not being able to prove their charges, and the prisoner having plead not guilty to each specification, he should have been unconditionally released. But Festus, notwithstanding the fairness of his answer to their demands in Jerusalem, was now disposed to yield to the clamor of the Jews. (9) “But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem, there to be judged concerning these things before me?” It is possible that Festus still knew nothing of the plot to murder Paul by the roadside; but he knew that the Jews desired his death, and he here exhibited a willingness to give them the opportunity which they desired. Acts 25:10-11. The purpose of the Jews was well understood by Paul. He remembered the purpose of the similar request preferred before Claudius Lysias, and perceived that his only safety was in frustrating their present attempt. Fortunately, the very imprisonment which exposed him to danger also furnished the means of his safety. (10) “Then Paul said, I am standing at Cζsar's judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you yourself very well know. (11) If I am a wrong-doer, and have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die. But if there is nothing in these things of which they accuse me, no man is able to deliver me up to them. I APPEAL TO CΖSAR.” This appeal every Roman citizen had the right to make, and it required a transfer of the case to the imperial court in Rome. The statement, “ I stand at Cζsar's judgment-seat,” was intended to justify him in refusing to be taken for trial away from Cζsarea, which was the appointed capital of the province where the courts were properly held. His appeal to Cζsar, like his communication to Lysias, which secured his rescue in Jerusalem, is claimed as a sanction of military power. But, like that, it is only a demand made upon the military power which was holding him in unjust confinement, not to add to this injustice the crime of yielding him up to assassination. It is not an appeal from a free man to military power for protection; neither was there any necessity for the use of violence in granting his request on either occasion. Acts 25:12. This appeal put an end to the trial, as it did to the murderous hopes of Paul's enemies. (12) “Then Festus, having conferred with his council, answered, You have appealed to Cζsar; to Cζsar you shall go.” The conference with his advisers was probably in reference to Paul's right to make the appeal; for he would hardly have dared, if the right was unquestioned, to hesitate about allowing it. His answer indicates some irritation under the severe rebuke of Paul's last speech. Acts 25:13. The custom of extending congratulations to men newly inducted into high office, which has prevailed in every age of the world, led to the next important incidents of Paul's confinement in Cζsarea. (13) “Now when some days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Cζsarea to salute Festus.” This Agrippa was the son of the Herod who murdered the Apostle James. He was, at this time, king of Chalcis, but afterward of Galilee. Bernice was his sister. She had been married to her uncle, Herod, former king of Chalcis, but he had died, and she was still a widow. She afterward married Polemo, king of Cilicia. Like nearly all the Herod family, both male and female, she was licentious and ambitious. But she and Agrippa, being Jews by birth, were better able to understand Paul's case than Festus. Acts 25:14-21. Festus knew that the charges against Paul had reference to the Jewish law; but he still had not a sufficient understanding of the case to report it intelligibly to the emperor, as he now had to do, under Paul's appeal. He determined, therefore, to obtain the benefit of Agrippa's more familiar acquaintance with Jewish affairs. (14) “And when they had passed many days there, Festus set forth before the king the facts concerning Paul, saying, There is a certain man left a prisoner by Felix, (15) concerning whom, when I was in Jerusalem, the high priests and elders of the Jews informed me, demanding judgment against him. (16) To whom I answered, that it is not the custom of the Romans to deliver any man up to death before the accused has the accusers face to face, and has an opportunity for defense concerning the accusation. (17) Then they came hither, and I, making no delay, sat on the judgment-seat the next day, and commanded the man to be brought: (18) concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such things as I supposed. (19) But they had against him certain questions concerning their own demon-worship, and concerning a certain Jesus who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. (20) And I, being perplexed in the dispute about this matter, asked if he wished to go to Jerusalem, and there be judged concerning these things. (21) But Paul made an appeal to be kept for the examination of Augustus, and I commanded him to be kept till I shall send him to Cζsar.” From this speech it appears that the perplexity of Festus was not so much in reference to the main issue between the Jews and Paul, as in reference to the bearing which the case had upon Roman law. He discovered that the main issue between the parties had reference to that “ Jesus who had died, and whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” This Jesus being claimed by Paul as an object of worship, he supposed it was an instance of that demon-worship, or worship of dead men deified, which was common among the Greeks and Romans. It is for this reason that he characterizes all their charges against him as “ certain questions concerning their demon-worship.” By overlooking the exact mental status of the speaker, and the etymological force of the term deisideimonia, commentators have failed to give it the proper meaning both here and in Acts 17:22. Acts 25:22. It is not probable that this was the first time that Agrippa had heard either of Paul or of Jesus. No doubt he had heard much of both, and had some curiosity to hear more. The singular circumstances which now surrounded Paul added much to his curiosity, and afforded the means of gratifying it. (22) “Then Agrippa said to Festus, I wish to hear the man myself. To-morrow, said he, you shall hear him.“ Acts 25:23-27. (23) “On the next day, therefore, Agrippa and Bernice having come with much pomp, and entered into the audience-chamber, with the chiliarchs and the prominent men of the city, at the command of Festus Paul was brought forth. (24) Then Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, you see the man concerning whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both in Jerusalem and here, crying out that he ought not to live any longer. (25) Now I perceived that he had done nothing worthy of death; but he himself having appealed to Cζsar, I determined to send him, (26) concerning whom I have nothing certain to write to my lord. Wherefore, I have brought him before you, and especially before thee, King Agrippa, that, after examination had, I may have something to write. (27) For it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not to designate the charges against him.” Festus belonged to one peculiar class of men, who found it difficult to decide how to treat Christians. The bigoted Jews, whose national prejudices were assailed by the new preachers, were prompt to decide that “ they ought not to live any longer.” The blind devotees of heathen worship, like those in Philippi and Ephesus, were of the same opinion; especially when the new doctrine came into conflict with their worldly interests. The firm friend of impartial justice, such as Gallio, could easily see that they were unjustly persecuted. But to the skeptical politician, like Festus, who regarded all religion as a mere superstitious homage paid to dead heroes, and who aimed to so administer government as to be popular with the most powerful class of his subjects, it was a more difficult question. He saw clearly that Paul was guilty of nothing worthy of death or of bonds; therefore, he would not consent that the Jews should kill him; yet he was equally unwilling to offend them by releasing him. He was incapable, from his worldly and selfish nature, of appreciating Paul's noble devotion to the good of humanity, and equally unable to understand the enmity of the Jews toward him. He must now, of necessity, send him to the emperor, but he confessed that he had no good reason to give the emperor for doing so, and was about to do an unreasonable act. In this predicament it was quite natural that he should call for the advice of Agrippa. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Twenty-Five IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To consider the circumstances in which Paul appealed to Caesar 2) To observe Paul before King Agrippa SUMMARY Shortly after Festus arrived in Caesarea, he went to Jerusalem. The high priest and chief men informed Festus of Paul. They petitioned him, asking Festus a favor, to bring Paul back to Jerusalem. The Jews planned an ambush to kill Paul along the road as he traveled. Festus indicated that he would shortly be traveling back to Caesarea, and invited those Jews in authority to travel there as well. They could accuse Paul there. After remaining in Jerusalem about ten days, Festus returned to Caesarea. He called Paul before the judgment seat the next day. The Jews attended and laid serious complaints against Paul; however, they could not prove them. Paul answered, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all." Festus then asked Paul if he would go to Jerusalem with him. He suggested that he would judge Paul there. This was recommended to Paul because Festus wanted to do the Jews a favor. Paul responded that he stood at Caesar's judgment seat, "where I ought to be judged." He told Festus he had done no wrong to the Jews, "as you very well know." Paul was willing to die, if he had committed anything worthy of death. But, he had no guilt of the things for which the Jews accused him. Paul was not going to be delivered to the Jews - he was a Roman citizen. Paul then appealed to Caesar. Festus replied, "You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" (Acts 25:1-12) A few days later, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to greet Festus as the new governor, replacing Felix. Festus laid Paul's case before Agrippa. He noted that Felix had left Paul a prisoner with his case not resolved. He recalled that the chief priests and elders of the Jews informed him about Paul during his recent visit to Jerusalem. Festus recounted to Agrippa that he had told the Jews that it was not Roman custom to deliver the accused for "destruction" without the accused having the opportunity to answer the charges face to face. Upon Festus' return to Caesarea, he had Paul come before the judgment seat. He discovered nothing wrong in Paul, other than there were some questions about "their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." Festus asked Paul to go to Jerusalem, since he was "uncertain" about these matters. At that point, Festus noted that Paul appealed to Caesar. After Festus' explanation of Paul's case, Agrippa requested to hear Paul himself. Festus said to Agrippa, "Tomorrow you shall hear him." Paul was brought before King Agrippa the next day, following much pomp upon the entry of Agrippa and Bernice into the auditorium with the commanders and other prominent men of the city. Festus explained the situation to Agrippa and the others. He reported that the Jews claimed Paul was not "fit to live any longer." However, Festus stated that he found Paul had committed nothing deserving death. He noted that Paul had appealed to Caesar, and he was going to send him. Festus indicated that he had nothing to write to Caesar about Paul. He hoped that after Agrippa's examination of Paul, he may have something to write. He thought it was unreasonable to send an appeal to Caesar without specifying the charges. (Acts 25:13-27) OUTLINE I. PAUL TO CAESAR (Acts 25:1-12) A. THE JEWS FESTUS TO RETURN PAUL TO (Acts 25:1-5)1. Shortly after Festus arrived, he went to Jerusalem 2. The high priest and chief men informed Festus of Paul 3. They petitioned him, asking a favor, to bring Paul back to Jerusalem a. The Jews planned an ambush to kill Paul along the road 4. Festus invited those Jews in authority to travel to Caesarea with him a. They could accuse Paul there B. PAUL STOOD BEFORE FESTUS IN (Acts 25:6-9)1. After remaining in Jerusalem about ten days, Festus returned to Caesarea a. He called Paul before the judgment seat the next day 2. The Jews laid serious complaints against Paul a. They could not prove them b. Paul answered, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all." 3. Festus asked Paul if he would go to Jerusalem with him a. Festus wanted to do the Jews a favor b. Festus suggested that he would judge Paul there C. PAUL TO CAESAR AND AVOIDED A RETURN TO (Acts 25:10-12)1. Paul stated that he stood at Caesar's judgment seat, "where I ought to be judged" a. He said he had done no wrong to the Jews, "as you [Festus] very well know" 2. Paul was willing to die, if he had committed anything worthy of death a. He had no guilt of the things the Jews accused him b. He was not going to be delivered to the Jews - he was a Roman citizen, and he then appealed to Caesar 3. Festus stated, "You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" II. PAUL'S CASE WAS HEARD BY KING AGRIPPA (Acts 25:13-27) A. FESTUS PAUL'S CASE TO KING AGRIPPA (Acts 25:13-22)1. A few days later, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to greet Festus 2. Festus laid Paul's case before Agrippa a. He noted that Felix had left Paul a prisoner b. The chief priests and elders of the Jews informed Festus about Paul c. He told the Jews that it was not Roman custom to deliver the accused for "destruction" without the accused having the opportunity to answer the charges d. Festus had Paul come before the judgment seat e. Festus discovered nothing wrong, other than there were some questions about "their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive" f. He asked Paul to go to Jerusalem, since he was "uncertain" about these matters g. Then Paul appealed to Caesar 3. Agrippa requested to hear Paul himself a. Festus said to Agrippa, "Tomorrow you shall hear him" B. PAUL STOOD BEFORE AGRIPPA AND BERNICE (Acts 25:23-27)1. Paul was brought before King Agrippa the next day, following much pomp upon the entry of Agrippa and Bernice 2. Festus explained the situation to Agrippa and the men gathered a. Festus reported that the Jews claimed Paul was not "fit to live any longer" b. Festus stated he found that Paul had committed nothing deserving death c. He noted that Paul had appealed to Caesar, and he was going to send him d. Festus indicated that he had nothing to write to Caesar about Paul e. He hoped that after Agrippa's examination of Paul, he may have something to write, for he thought it unreasonable to send an appeal to Caesar without specifying the charges REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main events in this chapter?- Paul appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:1-12) - Paul's case was heard by King Agrippa (Acts 25:13-27) 2) After arriving in the province, how many days was it before Festus went from Caesarea to Jerusalem? (Acts 25:1)- Three days (Acts 25:1) 3) Of what did the high priest and chief men inform Festus? (Acts 25:2-3)- Informed him against Paul and petitioned him (Acts 25:2) - They asked a favor for Festus to send Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 25:3) 4) What was the real plan of the Jews for Paul? (Acts 25:3)- They were laying an ambush to kill him on the road (Acts 25:3) 5) How did Festus respond to the Jews' request? (Acts 25:4-5)- Paul would be kept in Caesarea; he was going there shortly (Acts 25:4) - The Jews with authority were to go to Caesarea to accuse him (Acts 25:5) 6) When did Paul come before the judgment seat of Festus? (Acts 25:6)- Festus returned to Caesarea after about 10 days in Jerusalem (Acts 25:6) - He called Paul to the judgment seat the next day (Acts 25:6) 7) The Jews laid many serious complaints on Paul. Were they able to prove them? (Acts 25:7)- They were not able to prove any of them (Acts 25:7) 8) List the three things Paul had not offended against. (Acts 25:8)- He had not offended against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar (Acts 25:8) 9) Why did Festus ask Paul to go to Jerusalem? (Acts 25:9)- He wanted to do the Jews a favor (Acts 25:9) 10) Where did Paul believe he should be judged? (Acts 25:10)- Where he was - at Caesar's judgment seat (Caesarea) (Acts 25:10) 11) Did Paul recognize that Festus found no wrong in him? (Acts 25:10)- Yes, he stated that to Festus; "as you very well know" (Acts 25:10) 12) What was Paul trying to avoid by appealing to Caesar? (Acts 25:11)- None of their accusations had been proven; therefore, he did not want to go back to Jerusalem before the Sanhedrin (Acts 25:11) 13) How did Paul have the right to appeal to Caesar? (Acts 25:11)- Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 25:11; cf. Acts 22:25-28) 14) How did Festus respond to the appeal? (Acts 25:12)- He conferred with the council and then said, "You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" (Acts 25:12) 15) Why had Agrippa and Bernice come to Caesarea? (Acts 25:13)- To greet Festus (Acts 25:13) - He was the new governor, replacing Felix (cf. Acts 24:27) 16) What did Festus tell Agrippa about, after they had been there many days? (Acts 25:14-15)- He told them about Paul's case (Acts 25:14) - He told them how the Jews had informed him about Paul (Acts 25:15) 17) How did Festus describe his response to the Jew's request? (Acts 25:16)- It was not the Roman's custom to delivery any man to destruction with allowing the accused to answer his accusers face to face (Acts 25:16) 18) What questions was Festus uncertain about? (Acts 25:18-20)- Questions "about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." (Acts 25:19-20) 19) What was Agrippa's response to Festus? (Acts 25:22)- "I also would like to hear the man myself" (Acts 25:22) 20) While before Agrippa, what did Festus state that the Jews cried out about Paul in Jerusalem? (Acts 25:24)- He was "not fit to live any longer" (Acts 25:24) 21) What was Festus' finding in Paul's case? (Acts 25:25)- He had committed nothing deserving of death (Acts 25:25) 22) What was Festus' dilemma in which he found himself? How was he hoping Agrippa could help? What did he find unreasonable? (Acts 25:26-27)- Paul appealed to Caesar, but no charges were against him (Acts 25:26) - He hoped to have something to write based on Agrippa's examination of Paul (Acts 25:26) - It was unreasonable to send Paul to Caesar without charges (Acts 25:27) Verse 1 Here are two defenses of Paul, one legal and formal, after which Paul appealed to Caesar, and the other formal enough, but without any legal significance. Nevertheless, we shall treat them as two separate defenses. Each is important and significant in its own right. The first of these was before the new governor Festus (Acts 25:1-12); the second was before Festus and his guests King Agrippa and his sister Bernice (Acts 25:23-27). All of the next chapter is taken up with Paul's address in the presence of royalty. Festus therefore, having come into the province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. (Acts 25:1) PORCIUS FESTUS TAKES OVERWhile it may be true, as Boles said, that "Festus was a better man than Felix, there being a strong contrast here between the honesty and straightforwardness of Festus and the wickedness of Felix,"[1] it is true, nevertheless, that Festus was a worse governor, affording a startling proof that a strong evil ruler is sometimes better than a good weak one. The incompetence of Festus must have been the laughingstock of the whole temple crowd in Jerusalem. He was naive, totally ignorant of the devices of the people he had come to rule, agreeable, gullible, and obsessed with such a desire for popularity that he would gladly have sacrificed an innocent man to enhance his standing with the Sanhedrinists. It was that latter trait which, at the last, marred Felix's handling of Paul's case. As Howson declared: Another governor of Judaea opened the prison that he might make himself popular; and Felix from the same motive riveted the chains of an innocent man. Thus the same enmity of the world against the gospel which set Barabbas free left Paul bound.[2]Festus would fall into the same error as Felix. Up to Jerusalem ... Although Caesarea was his capital, Festus quite properly understood that Jerusalem, as the largest city of his province and the center of the religious hierarchy of Israel, was of major concern to him; hence the trip so soon after entering into his new dominion. [1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Acts (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1953), p. 388. [2] J. S. Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1966), p. 614. Verse 2 And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews informed him against Paul; and they besought him, asking a favor of him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem; laying a plot to kill him on the way.The pressure of this request from the leading Jews was implicit in the fact that they were powerful enough to have "brought about the removal of Festus' predecessor";[3] and they doubtless thought they could take advantage of Festus' newness in office and his natural desire to please such an important group of his subjects. Laying a plot to kill him ... Festus, of course, had no idea whatever of the murderous duplicity and cunning deceit of the religious apparatus in the Judean capital. He should have known that the "favor" they had asked of him was based upon some damnable scheme of their own; but Festus seems to have accepted their request as honorable. It was his jealousy for his own prerogatives which led him to deny their request, as in the next verse. ENDNOTE: [3] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott's Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 162. Verse 4 Howbeit Festus answered, that Paul was kept in charge at Caesarea, and that he himself was about to depart thither shortly. Let them therefore, saith he, that are of power among you go down with me, and if there is anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him.This was a mortal danger to Paul; for if Festus had honored the request of the high priest and his group to bring Paul to Jerusalem, the apostle would almost certainly have been killed. Festus would not have sent such a large escort as Lysias had sent, for he was ignorant of any danger. God, however, protected Paul, using the new governor's vanity as the motivation of his denial of the "favor" they coveted. Thus, as Wesley said: "By what invisible springs does God govern the world! Festus' care to preserve the imperial privileges was the means of preserving Paul's life."[4]ENDNOTE: [4] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House), in loco. Verse 6 And when he had tarried among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and on the morrow he sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought.D. PAUL'S FOURTH DEFENSE: THE SPEECH BEFORE FESTUSCommentators have lavished praise on Festus for this prompt hearing; but there is no indication that his promptness was due to anything other than the insistence of the high priestly conclave on action as soon as possible. What is in evidence here is not a new governor's anxious desire to further justice, but a servile willingness to appease Paul's bitter enemies in Jerusalem. Verse 7 And when he was come, the Jews that had come down from Jerusalem stood round about him, bringing against him many and grievous charges which they could not prove.The Jews that had come down ... These had evidently traveled with Festus (Acts 25:5), and no doubt had exercised every possible strategy of ingratiation and fawning cultivation of the man they hoped to manipulate. This group was headed by the high priest, an imposing figure indeed; and many a procurator could tell of the power of such a man. Significantly, the high priest just two years earlier had been Ananias; but God had already struck that "whited wall," and he had been replaced. "The high priest at this time was Ismael the son of Fabi, who had been appointed by Agrippa."[5]Charges which they would not prove ... These are of no particular interest at this point, as it may be certainly concluded that the charges were the same as those reviewed in the last chapter, with whatever variations the priests might have used in an effort to dress up their worthless case against Paul. They were as ineffective before Festus as they had been before Felix. Luke did not bother to record them in detail; and Paul's defense is summarized (in the next verse), where it is evident that his reply was the same as before. ENDNOTE: [5] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 339. Verse 8 While Paul said in his defense, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all.For all their cunning, the priests overreached themselves by alleging Paul's sinning against Caesar; for Festus could hardly have let that charge be tried by them. That it was not true is evident in Festus' apparent willingness to declare Paul innocent of the charges against Caesar, if Paul would consent to be tried by the Jews on the other allegations (Acts 25:9). The Caesar mentioned here was Nero, the time being, according to Ramsay, in 59 A.D.[6]ENDNOTE: [6] Sir William M. Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolical Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 293. Verse 9 But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged before me?Paul very well knew that the incompetent Festus was no match for the temple Jews who had no intention whatever of trying Paul; all they wanted was to expose him sufficiently that their assassins could kill him; after all, it must be supposed that after two years those forty conspirators were getting pretty hungry. One may feel nothing except contempt for a governor like Festus. Felix would have had far too much sense to suppose that such a proposal could end in anything except death for Paul, had it been accepted. Paul's only hope of saving his life lay in exactly what he did, appealing to Caesar. Verse 10 But Paul said, I am standing before Caesar's judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews I have done no wrong, as thou also very well knowest. If then I am a wrong-doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if none of those things is true whereof they accuse me, no man can give me up unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.This was absolutely the only avenue left open to Paul. The namby-pamby Festus knew he was innocent, but insisted on taking him to Jerusalem, where Paul would certainly have been murdered. "Woe unto thee, O land, when thy king is a child" (Ecclesiastes 10:16). Festus was a "child" in understanding. Paul's rebuke of this governor, in such an appeal, was fully deserved; but his abrupt appeal to Caesar must have come as a shocking surprise to Festus. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 25:2. The leading Jews lost no time in approaching Festus with their complaints against Paul. 3Act 25:3. Desired favor means they asked Festus to grant them the favor of having Paul brought from Caesarea to Jerusalem. The inspired writer is the one who is telling the purpose of the Jews to lie in wait and kill Paul in the journey. 4Acts 25:4. Festus evidently knew nothing of the murderous intent of the Jews, but supposed they preferred having Paul tried in their own court; it was in keeping with court form to refuse their request under the circumstances. 5Acts 25:5. Festus invited the proper persons to accompany him to Caesarea and press their complaint aginst Paul. If there be any wickedness indicates he thought the Jews had some serious charge against the defendant. 6Acts 25:6. After spending ten days in Jerusalem, Festus returned to his own Jurisdiction at Caesarea. He did not delay the matter at hand, but summoned Paul to be brought before him the next day after arriving from Jerusalem. 7Acts 25:7. The Jews had never appeared at Caesarea while Felix was in office, though they had two years to do so. For some reason they seemed to think they would succeed better with their case before Festus. Many and grievous complaints were doubtless general, and it was not definitely shown whether Paul was accused as an offender against the secular or the religious laws, or both. 8Acts 25:8. Whichever they meant, Paul denied having transgressed against either. 9Acts 25:9. For reasons of political policy, Festus changed his attitude toward the request of the Jews. He proposed to try Paul at Jerusalem as they had requested. 0Acts 25:10. In view of the twofold phase of the complaints made against him, Paul insisted that he should stand trial before Caesar, the secular ruler. 1Act 25:11. If I . . . committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die. This sentence is against the sentimentalists who oppose capital punishment, and who claim the New Testament does not endorse it. If that penalty is wrong in God's sight, then it would be impossible for a man to commit anything worthy of death, and Paul would not have admitted such a possibility, which he did by the words "if I have." Also, if capital punishment is wrong, then Paul would not have given his consent to it, which he did by not refusing to die. But since he denied any guilt whatsoever, and was a Roman citizen entitled to the rights of such a standing, he appealed his case to the highest secular court in the world, whose headquarters were at Rome. 2Act 25:12. This council was not the Sanhedrin, but a consultation with the advisers of Festus. After the consultation, Festus, as the "lower court," granted the appeal. 3Act 25:13. The full name of this man was Herod Agrippa II, who was a ruler in another part of the Roman Empire, and who came to make a friendly judicial call upon Festus. He was accompanied by his sister Bernice, with whom he was suspected to be living in the intimacy of husband and wife. 5Acts 25:14-15. Festus told his royal guest of Paul, and of the circumstances that brought him as a defendant before him. 6Acts 25:16. In this verse Festus states the just procedure of the Roman government in the case of one facing trial for life. The present "recess" in the case was caused by the absence of Paul's accusers who were supposed to appear soon. 8Acts 25:17-18. The preliminary hearing showed to Festus that the charges against the defendant were nothing like what was expected to be offered. 9Acts 25:19. In the opinion of Festus, the issue between Paul and the Jews was only a matter of superstition with Paul; that he was affirming the resurrection of a man by the name of Jesus who had died. As far as Festus could see, such a question was not worth all the bother the Jews were making, and hence there certainly must be something more serious that had not been brought out. 0Acts 25:20. The above opinions are all that Festus stated to Agrippa as his reason for proposing moving the case to the Jewish courts in Jerusalem, there to be tried by him. However, verse 9 gives us another motive he had for the proposal. 1Act 25:21. When Festus granted the appeal of Paul, that took the case out of his hands, and he was waiting to get the "appeal papers" ready to send up to the higher court. Augustus is from a Greek word that was one of the titles of the Roman emperors, not a personal name as in other cases. 2Act 25:22. Doubtless it was curiosity mainly that prompted the request of Agrippa, but verses 26, 27 show the real motive of Festus in granting it. 3Act 25:23. This verse describes the important audience that gathered in the official auditorium to see and hear the speech of Paul. 4Acts 25:24. Festus gave Paul a respectful introduction to his audience. 5Acts 25:25. Agrippa had not been asked to listen as a trial judge, for Paul had already taken his case to another court. The statement of Festus, therefore, in declaring Paul innocent of any capital crime, was not an effort to prejudice Agrippa. 7Acts 25:26-27. My lord means the Roman emperor, whose personal name was Nero. Here was a strange situation; Festus had agreed to send a prisoner up to the highest secular court in the world, and yet had no charge of any importance on which to send him. He thought that if Paul were allowed to speak, something might be said as a basis for a charge. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 26 PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPAAct_26:1-32 1 And Agrippa said unto Paul,—After Festus had introduced the case, Agrippa seems to assume the chairmanship of the meeting; so he addressed Paul and told him that he was permitted to speak for himself. Agrippa as a king and guest presides at the grandest place. No charges are preferred against Paul; Festus had admitted that he had no proof of any charges. When Paul was granted the privilege of speaking for himself, he “ stretched forth his hand.” This was the usual gesture for silence. Paul now stood before the assembly as a prisoner, with one arm, probably his left arm, chained to the soldier who guarded him. A wide contrast in earthly pomp and glory between Paul, an innocent prisoner in chains, and the royal robed court is here seen. 2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa,—Paul now makes “ his defence.” It is not a “ defence” in the strictest sense of that word; Paul is only being examined that Festus may learn more about him. Paul did not flatter King Agrippa when he said, “ I think myself happy,” but was speaking courteously to the king. He was glad of the opportunity to preach Christ. The accusations which were made against him involved the gospel. It is only another opportunity for Paul to preach the gospel. Agrippa could understand Paul in all his references to Jewish beliefs and hopes. Paul’ s beginning in his defense before Felix (Acts 24:10) was adorned with courteous language. 3 especially because thou art expert in all customs—Agrippa knew the Jewish religion; he knew the sects of Pharisees and Sad- ducees; he knew their expectations of a Messiah, their ceremonial laws; hence, he could hear Paul with patience and understanding. Paul’ s defense is divided into two divisions: (1) his early life which was well known as a Pharisee (Acts 22:3; Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:5-6), and (2) his life as a prisoner. Agrippa II was especially fitted to act as judge, for he was not merely a ruler of Jewish lands, and the appointed guardian of the temple, but he was also in religion, professedly at least, a Jew. His father, Agrippa I, was famous for his rigid observance of Jewish rites. 4-5 My manner of life then from my youth up,—Paul’ s early life in Tarsus and in Jerusalem was open and known to all. Here Paul emphasizes his training and beliefs before his conversion. It is thought that Paul went as a youth to Jerusalem from Tarsus to get his education. Since all the Jews knew of his early life they could testify, if they would, that Paul belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, and was very jealous of all the tenets of faith and practice of the Pharisees. “ After the straitest sect’’ comes from the Greek “ akribestaten hairesin,” which is a superlative expression. Paul was most rigid and precise in his life as a Pharisee. The word for “ sect” is the same as that used in Acts 24:5, and is sometimes translated “ heresy.” “ Religion” is from the Greek “ threskeias,” and is the old word for religious worship or discipline. Paul knew the rules of the Pharisees, and he lived rigidly according to these rules. 6-7 And now I stand here to be judged—Thus far Agrippa could bear testimony to the truthfulness of all that Paul had said. It was his belief in the fulfillment of an old national hope that had brought him to the place that he now stands as a prisoner before Agrippa. The Pharisees had firmly and persistently hoped in the promises of God that a Messianic kingdom would be established, and Paul in preaching Christ was declaring that that hope had been realized. It was a strange paradox! Paul was now a pris¬oner for the very thing which the Jews emphasized so strongly and believed so confidently, and now he was made a prisoner by the Jews themselves! Paul had made the resurrection of Christ the basis of his gospel of the Messianic kingdom, and this had enraged the Jews. Paul declared that Jesus, who had been crucified and buried, was now raised from the dead, but the Jews denied this. (Acts 25:19.) 8 Why is it judged incredible with you,—Paul turned suddenly from Agrippa to the audience. “ Incredible” means “ unfaithful” (Luke 12:46), “ faithless” (John 20:27), or “ unbelievable.” It is from the Greek “ apiston.” The Greek shows that Paul is not only addressing Agrippa, but his audience. If God can or does raise the dead, why should anyone not believe that he has raised Jesus? If he has raised Jesus, has not the crucified One become the Christ? All that Paul had done was to preach that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah; he had preached that this Jesus had been crucified, buried, and raised from the dead, and that he was now at the right hand of God, reigning over his Messianic king¬dom. Why should Agrippa and others not believe in him ? 9 I verily thought with myself—Here Paul in his defense makes a turn to his conversion. His words express sympathy for those who are now as he was before his conversion; he had been led from unbelief to faith; he will not become discouraged even in Agrippa in a like transition. (1 Timothy 1:12-17.) Paul did not reason himself into Christianity by a chain of arguments, but he was brought into the highest degree of faith in it from the highest degree of prejudice. Paul is politely saying that he could excuse them more readily, because he was then sincerely doing the same kind of wrong to others which he was suffering then as a prisoner. 10 And this I also did in Jerusalem:—Paul here relates some incidents of his persecution of Christians before he was converted. He was an official persecutor of the saints under the direction of the Sanhedrin. He mentions “ the chief priests" who were Saddu- cees, though he himself was a Pharisee. Both Pharisees and Sad- ducees were then joined in persecuting Christians. When they were put to death, he says: “ I gave my vote against them.” The Greek “ katenegka psephon” literally means “ I cast down my pebble.” The ancient Greeks used white pebbles for acquittal (Revelation 2:17) and black ones for conviction or condemnation. They liter¬ally cast the pebbles into the urn. Many think from this that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, and if a member of it, that he was married at that time, as no one was permitted to be a member of the Sanhedrin who was unmarried. It is possible to take this language figuratively as meaning that he gave his approval; hence, he would not be necessarily a member of the Sanhedrin. It seems more likely that he was a member. We know that he was not married when he wrote 1 Corinthians 7:7 f. It is possible that he was a widower at the time he wrote First Corinthians. 11 And punishing them oftentimes—Paul had no mercy on Christians at that time. Paul describes very accurately his zeal in persecuting Christians. He went from one synagogue to another in Jerusalem searching for Christians that he might bring them be¬fore the proper authorities and punish them. Sometimes the local Sanhedrin sat in the synagogues and were judges under Jewish law; punishment was administered in the presence of the judges and in the synagogues. (Matthew 10:17 Matthew 23:34; Mark 13:9.) “ I strove to make them blaspheme” indicates that he was not success¬ful in making them “ blaspheme.” He attempted to make them “ blaspheme” because the sentence of death was passed upon the one who blasphemed. In his mad efforts to cause them to blaspheme he used every means available. To “ blaspheme” means to speak against God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Christians did not yield and maintained their integrity before God. “ Being exceedingly mad against them” means that Paul not only acted in ignorance (1 Timothy 1:13), but that he might plead the temporary insanity of madness. He even went into strange cities, or “ foreign cities,” which means that he went into cities outside Judea, perhaps in Galilee and Samaria, and especially Damascus. 12-13 Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus—Paul was clothed with his official authority as he journeyed to one of these “ foreign cities,” Damascus. This is the third account in Acts of Paul’ s conversion; the other two accounts are found in chapters 9 and 22. In this third account of Paul’ s conversion some new de¬tails are introduced; they are as follows: (1) it was at midday (verse 13); (2) the light was “ above the brightness of the sun” (verse 13) ; (3) this light enveloped not only Paul, but those “ that journeyed with me” (verse 13) ; (4) the whole company fell to the earth (verse 14); (5) Jesus spoke “ in the Hebrew language” (verse 14); (6) he said, “ It is hard for thee to kick against the goad” (verse 14); and (7) a much fuller account of what Jesus said to him, and in particular how he commissioned him to preach to the Gentiles (verses 16, 18). The variations noted in the three records of his conversion impress us with the truthfulness of the narrative, because they are so natural as to be a certain accompaniment of the same story told at different times. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth,—Paul and the entire company traveling with him were smitten to the earth, and Paul heard the voice of the Christ speaking to him in the Hebrew language, and asking him why he persecuted Christ. The voice quoted a proverb: “ It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.” This is found as a proverb in both Greek and Latin literature; some think that there was a similar proverb among the Hebrews. A reference to this proverb by Paul at this time would impress upon Festus and Agrippa Paul’ s culture and education. This throws some light on the state of Paul’ s mind before his conver¬sion. Some think that Paul was already stifling conscientious doubts and scruples, and that he is warned against rebelling against God’ s will and wounding his conscience the more deeply. The “ goad” was a stick six or eight feet long. The plow had but one handle and the plowman held the plow with one hand and the goad in the other; it was carried horizontally and used to prod the ox to make him go faster or obey the plowman. If the ox kicked when pricked with the goad he received a severer prod. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord?—Here the record is brief; Saul simply asks who spoke to him, or “ Who art thou, Lord?” The record of the answer of Jesus is equally brief; he simply says, “ I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” The word “ persecute” is the Latin “ persequor,” which means “ to follow through or after.” Paul was following the disciples of Jesus and punishing them; to persecute a disciple of Jesus is to persecute him. 16 But arise, and stand upon thy feet:—Paul had been cast down; now he is to be raised up; he was smitten down and hum¬bled before God that he might be exalted. There was no occasion for Paul to be afraid; he is summoned to a new and nobler work. He is to cease his persecution of Christ and go preach him as the Savior of man. He was to become a witness for Christ both in what he had already seen and heard and what he was yet to see and hear. Paul was an apostle because Jesus had appeared to him, taught him, and commissioned him. (1 Corinthians 9:1 1 Corinthians 15:8.) Paul had other visions besides the one on the road to Damascus. (Acts 18:9 Acts 23:11; 2 Corinthians 12:2.) Paul is here given a twofold mis¬sion : (1) he is to be “ a minister,” which meant a servant; the service was to proclaim remission of sins and an inheritance among the saints to the Gentiles; (2) furthermore, he was to be “ a wit¬ness” ; that is, he was to testify what he had seen and heard. The witness oftentimes must go further than verbal testimony: he must suffer and perhaps die for Christ. “ Witness” and “ martyr” are represented by the same word in the Greek, “ martures.” 17-18 delivering thee from the people,—“ Delivering” is from the Greek “ exairoumenos,” which means both “ to choose out, to select” one from many and also “ to rescue, to deliver.” Some commentators hold to one meaning here and others to the latter sense; even some have given it both meanings. It seems that the American Standard revisers have given it the correct meaning. It must have been an encouragement to Paul to recall the assurance given him; he could face the trials and persecution with the assur¬ance that the Lord would “ deliver” him from the enemy. We have here condensed what Jesus said to Saul: (1) as he lay on the ground; (2) by the mouth of Ananias; (3) and in the vision in the temple. Paul was commissioned to convince, enlighten, and instruct. By enlightening the people they could see their lost con¬dition; by instructing them they would know how to “ turn from darkness to light,” and be delivered “ from the power of Satan unto God” ; they would then be cleansed of their sins and receive a prom¬ise of “ an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith” in Christ. “ Satan” is from the Greek “ satana,” and means “ adversary,” the inveterate adversary of God and all good; Satan is the head of the kingdom of evil, and of the whole hierarchy of evil spirits and evil influences. (2 Corinthians 11:14; Ephesians 1:21 Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:9.) Paul’ s recitation of these words of Jesus to him justifies himself before this cultured audience for his response to the command of Jesus, which resulted in Paul’ s arrest and imprisonment. 19-20 Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient— Paul here makes a direct address to Agrippa. He had made it clear that his command had come from God, his message was a “ heavenly vision.” He emphasized the divinity and authority by which he was commanded; he omitted the personal affliction of blindness and restoration to sight. The divine authority of his com¬mand is made clear to Agrippa; this would impress Agrippa more than the others. For Paul to be disobedient to this command from heaven would have been disobedience to God. How could any de¬vout Jew refuse to obey the command? Next Paul began to recite what he did; he began to declare “ both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles” the gospel of God. This included a demand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance of sins, and obedience in baptism. This sketch of Paul’ s work showed to Agrippa that he began with his own people, and then went to the Gentiles. His service both to Jew and Gentile, according to his commission, was promptly rendered; he did not hesitate for a moment, but began at once. We know from the record that Luke has given that it is easy to trace Paul’ s preaching at Damascus and Jerusalem. Barnabas testified that he preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus (Acts 9:27), and that in Jerusalem he disputed against the Grecian Jews (Acts 9:28-29), but we have some difficulty in fixing the exact date of his preaching throughout all the country of Judea. “ Works worthy of repentance” is an expression frequently used by John the Baptist. (Matthew 3:8.) This meant the natural fruit of true repentance. 21 For this cause the Jews seized me—Paul here tells Agrippa why he was arrested or seized by the Jews; first, because he went about preaching the gospel, and especially because he de¬livered the message to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews, thereby proclaiming that the kingdom of the Messiah made no distinction on account of nationality. Paul’ s unpardonable sin in the eyes of the Jews was his preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul had been seized violently and illegally; he had been retained as a pris¬oner without cause; he now stood before Agrippa in chains as a prisoner for obeying God. 22 Having therefore obtained the help—Paul attributed the help that he had obtained from God as the source of his strength to continue suffering for Christ Jesus. The divine assistance enabled him to continue his work. The same source from which his com¬mission had come was the source of his help. The memories of the stoning which he had received at Lystra, the persecutions of Phi¬lippi, Corinth, and Thessalonica, the danger in the theatre of Ephe¬sus, and the later deadly perils at Jerusalem, all were endured by the help that was from Jehovah. Paul did not regard rank or age; he preached the gospel “ both to small and great.” He had preached the gospel to the poor, and now he was preaching it to King Agrippa and Governor Festus and the nobility of Caesarea. He had not gone beyond “ what the prophets and Moses did say should come.” He neither added to nor left off anything that had been said through Moses and the prophets. 23 how that the Christ must suffer,—The prophets had foretold the sufferings that Christ would endure; some give the inter¬pretation of “ must suffer” to mean that there was no escape of Christ from suffering; others give this the meaning of his nature as to how he may suffer; that is, the degree of sufferings that he could endure. When John the Baptist called Jesus “ the Lamb of God,” it was a new idea to those who had studied Isaiah and learned that the Messiah would be the suffering “ servant” of God. Paul here showed two things: (1) that the Messiah was divinely destined to suffer; and (2) that the Messiah having suffered was the first fruits of the resurrection of the dead. Christ having been raised from the dead would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles. “ People” usually means God’ s people, Israel, as distinguished from the heathen. 24 And as he thus made his defence,—At this point Paul was rudely interrupted by Festus; it seems that he forgot the usual dignity of his office and burst out into a loud laugh of scorn and said; “ Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad.” “ Mad” is from the Greek “ mainei,” which means “ raving.” Festus did not understand Paul’ s enthusiasm and his speaking of visions and the resurrection of the dead. He thought that Paul’ s “ much learning” was turning him to madness. “ Much learning” literally means “ many letters.” (John 7:15.) Our word “ mania,” or “ maniac,” comes from the Greek “ manei.” Paul had not displayed any high degree of learning, but what he had said was beyond the comprehension of Festus. 25 But Paul saith, I am not mad,—Paul was not “ mad” ; he was not a “ maniac” as Festus declared, but spoke the truth. He spoke words of truth and not vain imaginations or fancies; he had no disease of the mind; his words were well chosen and expressed accurately what he had seen, heard, and experienced. Paul ad¬dressed Festus with his usual courtesy. He had not spoken words of fancy, but solid facts; not wild flight of the imagination, but lit¬eral and exact truth. 26 For the king knoweth of these things,—Festus did not understand, but King Agrippa understood. Agrippa was a Jew by practice, and knew about the hopes that the nation had in a coming Messiah; he knew something of the predictions of the prophets. He had heard much about Paul; hence, he understood Paul. Paul knew that his manner of life before his conversion and after his conversion was known to the public; furthermore, he knew that the crucifixion and burial and resurrection of Christ were public facts. Christians did not try to keep them secret, but published them to the world. The Jews had attempted to stop the preaching of these facts, but had failed to do so. Paul’ s experiences were not kept secret either; his vision on the road to Damascus, his coming to Jerusalem, and all that he had done had been published. Agrippa knew all these things. After answering Festus. Paul turned and continued his address to Agrippa. 27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets?—Paul had “ cornered” Agrippa; he makes this direct appeal to Agrippa. As a professor of the Jewish religion Agrippa had accepted the proph¬ets; hence, Paul’ s direct challenge to him. He must now reject the prophets or believe Paul. He must give up the Jewish religion or believe what Paul had preached. Paul probes the heart of Agrippa a little deeper when he added: “ I know that thou believ¬est.” There was nothing left now for Agrippa but to believe what Paul had preached or to reject it. To reject it would be to reject the prophets and the Jewish religion. Agrippa might dis¬pute Paul’ s interpretation of prophecy, but he could not as a Jew and in the presence of a Jew speak of Paul as Festus had. 28 And Agrippa said unto Paul,—Agrippa is forced to make reply; he could not evade; neither could he deny what Paul had said. Paul had not accused his enemies of any crime. His “ de¬fence” was the preaching of the gospel; he did not plead for him¬self, but reasoned and persuaded Agrippa to accept Christ. What a turn affairs had taken! The Authorized Version has Agrippa saying: “ Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” “ En oli- gio” does not mean “ almost,” but it is not clear as to what it does mean. Some think that it may refer to “ time,” “ in little time,” while others think that it means “ with small effort you are trying to persuade me to be a Christian” ; while still others think that Agrippa is speaking ironically, but not unpleasantly. He seems to push it aside for the time being, as if to say: “ Do you think that you can make me become a Christian by your speech making?” Festus was contemptuously ignorant; King Agrippa was sadly in-different. “ Christian” is here used the second time by Luke. The first time is in Acts 11:26. There were many reasons for hin¬drances in the way of Agrippa’ s becoming a Christian. His wealth, his throne, his companion, his associations with Bernice and others, all were hindrances in becoming a Christian. Perhaps his nature was touched and he was, like Felix, made to tremble; but also like Felix, he procrastinated, with no intention ever to accept the Christ. 29 And Paul said, I would to God,—Paul makes a very happy response to Agrippa. We can gather some from Paul’ s answer as to what Agrippa meant. If Agrippa spoke ironically or sarcasti¬cally, Paul ignored his tone and responded courteously and sympa¬thetically. “ Whether with little or with much” may be translated “ both in little and in great” ; it may mean that Paul says: “ I would pray to God, not as you put it, lightly, but as fully as I can,” or “ I would pray to God that whether persuaded with little evidence or much,” or I would pray to God that “ both in a little measure and in a great measure” Agrippa might become a Christian. He desired that Agrippa become as he was “ except these bonds.” He would have Agrippa and all others be Christians, but would have them free from the persecution and bonds which he had to endure. Paul had been brought before the assembly chained after the Roman fashion to a soldier or soldiers who kept guard over him. These chains had not been removed while Paul made his “ defence.” Paul was bound in chains, but Agrippa and the others were in the bonds of ignorance, bonds of sin, and bonds of imperfection. 30-31 And the king rose up, and the governor,—The entire company led by King Agrippa “ rose up” as if to dismiss Paul’ s ad¬dress. The royal assembly had gathered with pomp; some of them may have been moved with curiosity; others to do honor to King Agrippa; but they withdrew— some of them hopelessly ignorant of what they had heard; others withdrew with indifference, and pos¬sibly tired of listening to Paul; still others with some conviction and a clearer understanding of Paul’ s case. When they had retired, “ they spake one to another,” and expressed themselves as being convinced that Paul had done “ nothing worthy of death or of bonds.” They may have assembled with different motives and viewpoints, but they are all agreed on this one thing; namely, Paul is innocent. Paul’ s words had made a favorable impression on them. However, they were all puzzled as to what disposition to make of Paul’ s case. Paul had won none of them to Christ, but he had won their favor. Festus was left by their confusion in the same predicament that he was before Paul made his “ defence.” Why did they not set him free ? 32 And Agrippa said unto Festus,—This answers why Paul had not been set free. Agrippa told Festus that Paul could have been set free “ if he had not appealed unto Caesar.” Paul had ap¬pealed to Caesar only because Festus had tried to get him to go to Jerusalem and be tried there. Festus comes out with no honor in the case. Since Agrippa had some influence with Caesar, it may be that Festus could write something favorable to Paul when send¬ing him to Rome. The authorities could not free themselves from the responsibility for the safe custody of Paul, and by releasing him, they would expose his life to the conspiracies of the Jews. So at least Paul gained that safe journey to Rome which he had for many years been wishing to make. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 26Acts 26:1-3. Festus having stated the case, and the assembly being in waiting, the king assumed the presidency of the assembly. (1) “Then Agrippa said to Paul, You are permitted to speak for yourself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and offered his defense: (2) I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall defend myself this day before you, touching all the things of which I am accused by the Jews; (3) especially as you are acquainted with all the customs and questions among the Jews. Wherefore, I beseech you to hear me patiently.” It must have been his left hand which he stretched forth as he began this exordium, for his right was chained to the soldier who guarded him. The compliment to Agrippa for his acquaintance with Jewish customs and controversies was not undeserved. It afforded Paul unfeigned gratification to know, that, after so many efforts to make himself understood by such men as Lysias, Felix, and Festus, he was at length in the presence of one who could fully understand and appreciate his cause. Acts 26:4-8. After the exordium, he proceeds to state, first, his original position among the Jews, and to show that he was still true to the chief doctrine which he then taught. (4) “My manner of life from my youth, which was from the beginning among my own nation in Jerusalem, all the Jews know, (5) who knew me from the beginning, if they were willing to testify, that, according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee. (6) Even now, it is for the hope of the promise made by God to the fathers, that I stand here to be judged; (7) to which promise our twelve tribes, by earnest worshiping night and day, hope to attain. Concerning this hope, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. (8) What! Is it judged a thing incredible among you, that God should raise the dead?” The Pharisees were the least likely of all the Jewish sects to be unfaithful to Jewish institutions. It was, therefore, much in Paul's favor that he was able to call even his enemies to witness that from his youth he had lived in the strict discipline of that sect. It was yet more so, to say that he was still a firm believer in the leading doctrine of the party, and to reiterate the assertion made on two former occasions, that it was on account of the hope of a resurrection that he was accused. This was not the avowed cause, but it was the real cause of their accusations; for the assumptions that Christ had risen from the dead was the ground-work of all Jewish opposition and persecution. He interprets the promise made by God to the fathers, by which he doubtless means the promise, “ In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed,” as referring to the resurrection, because that is the consummation of all the blessings of the gospel. He exposes the inconsistency of his enemies by observing, that it was even Jews who were accusing him of crime in demonstrating this great hope so cherished by the twelve tribes. Then, turning from Agrippa to the whole multitude. he asks, with an air of astonishment, if they really deem it an incredible thing that God should raise the dead. If not, why should he be accused of crime for declaring that it had been done? Acts 26:9-11. To still further illustrate his former standing among the Pharisees, he describes his original relation toward the cause of Christ. (9) “I thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus, the Nazarene, (10) which I also did in Jerusalem. Many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the high priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my vote against them. (11) And in all the synagogues I punished them often, compelling them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.” With such a record as this, there was no room to suspect him of any such bias as would render him an easy or a willing convert to Christ. On the contrary, it must have appeared to Agrippa, and the whole audience, most astonishing that such a change could take place. Their curiosity to know what produced the change must have been intense, and he proceeds to gratify it. Acts 26:12-18. (12) “Whereupon, as I was going to Damascus, with authority and commission from the high priests, (13) at midday, O King, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining around me and those who were journeying with me. (14) And when we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking to me, and saying, in the Hebrew dialect, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads. (15) And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute. (16) But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to choose you for a minister and a witness of the things which you have seen, and of those in which I will appear to you; (17) delivering you from the people and the Gentiles, to whom I now send you (18) to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among the sanctified by faith in me.” On the supposition that Paul here spoke the truth, Agrippa saw that no prophet of old, not even Moses himself, had a more authoritative or unquestionable commission than he. Moreover, the same facts, it true, demonstrated, irresistible, the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. As to the truth of the narrative, its essential features consisted in facts about which Paul could not be mistaken, and his unparalleled suffering, for more than twenty years, together with the chain even now upon his arm, bore incontestable evidence of his sincerity. But being an honest witness, and the facts such that he could not be mistaken, the facts themselves must be real. It is difficult to conceive what stronger evidence the audience could have had in favor of Jesus, or what more triumphant vindication of the change which had taken place in Paul. Acts 26:19-21. By these facts the speaker proceeds to justify his change of position, and his subsequent career. (19) “Whereupon, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision; (20) but announced, first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem, and in all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works suitable to repentance. (21) On account of these things the Jews seized me in the temple, and attempted to kill me.” This is a more detailed statement of the cause of Jewish enmity, which had been more briefly expressed by the statement that it was concerning the hope of the resurrection that he was accused. Acts 26:22-23. That the Jews had not succeeded, with all their mobs, and conspiracies, and corruption of rulers, in destroying his life, was a matter of astonishment, and Agrippa might well admit that it was owing to the protecting providence of God. (22) “Having, however, obtained help from God, I have stood until this day, testifying both to small and great, saying nothing else than those things which Moses and the prophets did say should be, (23) that the Christ should suffer, and that he first, by his resurrection from the dead, should show light to the people and to the Gentiles.” Here he assumes that, instead of dishonoring Moses, he and his brethren alone were teaching the things which both Moses and the prophets had foretold; that it was required, by their writings, that the Messiah should suffer and rise from the dead. By the statement that Christ first showed light to the people and the Gentiles by his resurrection, he must mean that he was the first to bring the subject into clear light, by an actual resurrection to glory; for there had already been some light upon it, as is proved by Paul's previous statement in reference to the hope to which the twelve tribes had been, in all their worship, seeking to attain. Acts 26:24. At this point in his speech, Paul was interrupted by Festus. It was a very strange speech in the ears of that dissolute heathen. It presented to him a man who from his youth had lived in strict devotion to a religion whose chief characteristic was the hope of a resurrection from the dead; who had once persecuted to death his present friends, but had been induced to change his course by a vision from heaven; and who, from that moment, had been enduring stripes, imprisonment, and constant exposure to death, in his efforts to inspire men with his own hope of a resurrection. Such a career he could not reconcile with those maxims of ease or of ambition which he regarded as the highest rule of life. Moreover, he saw this strange man, when called to answer to accusations of crime, appear to forget himself, and attempt to convert his judges rather than to defend himself. There was a magnanimity of soul displayed in both the past and the present of his career, which was above the comprehension of the sensuous politician, and which he could not reconcile with sound reason. He seems to have forgotten where he was, and the decorum of the occasion, so deeply was he absorbed in listening to and thinking of Paul. (24) “And as he offered these things in his defense, Festus cried, with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself. Much learning has made you mad.“ Acts 26:25. Paul saw at once, from the tone and manner of Festus, as well as from the admission of his great learning, that the charge of insanity was not intended as an insult; but that it was the sudden outburst of a conviction which had just seized the mind of the perplexed and astonished governor. His answer, therefore, was most respectful. (25) “But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth words of truth and soberness.” He saw, however, that Festus was beyond the reach of conviction; for a man who could see in the foregoing portion of this speech only the ravings of a madman, could not easily be reached by the argument, or touched by the pathos of the gospel. Acts 26:26-27. In Agrippa Paul had a very different hearer. His Jewish education enabled him to appreciate Paul's arguments, and to see repeated, in that noble self-sacrifice which was an enigma to Festus, the heroism of the old prophets. As Paul turned away from Festus and fixed his eye upon the king, he saw the advantage which he had over his feelings, and determined to press it to the utmost. He continues: (26) “For the king understands concerning these things, to whom also I speak with freedom: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. (27) King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.“ Acts 26:28. With matchless skill the apostle had brought his proofs to bear upon his principal hearer, and with the boldness which only those can feel who are determined upon success, he pressed this direct appeal so unexpectedly, that the king, like Festus, was surprised into a full expression of his feelings. (28) “Then Agrippa said to Paul, You almost persuade me to be a Christian.” Under ordinary circumstances, such a confession would have struck the auditory with astonishment. But under the force of Paul's speech, there could not have been a generous soul present that did not sympathize with Agrippa's sentiment. Acts 26:29. Paul's reply, for propriety of wording and magnanimity of sentiment, is not excelled in all the records of extemporaneous response: (29) “And Paul said, I could pray to God, that not only you, but all who hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.” It was not till he came to express a good wish for his hearers and his jailers, a wish for that blessedness which he himself enjoyed, that he seemed to think again of himself, and remember that he was in chains. Acts 26:30-32. The course of remark and the feeling of the audience had now reached that painful crisis in which it was necessary either to yield at once to the power of persuasion, or to break up the interview. Unfortunately for the audience, and especially for Agrippa, the latter alternative was chosen. The heart that beats beneath a royal robe is too deeply encased in worldly cares to often or seriously entertain the claims of such a religion as that of Jesus. A spurious religion, which shifts its demands to suit the rank of its devotees, has been acceptable to the great men of the nations, because it helps to soothe an aching conscience, and is often useful in controlling the ignorant masses; but men of rank and power are seldom willing to become altogether such as the Apostle Paul. They turn away from too close a pressure of the truth, as did Paul's royal auditory. (30) “When he had said these things, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and those seated with them; (31) and when they had gone aside, they conversed with one another, saying, This man had done nothing worthy of death or of bonds. (32) And Agrippa said to Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Cæsar.” The decision that he had done nothing worthy of death or of bonds was the judgment of the whole company, while Agrippa went further, and said that he ought, by right, to be set at liberty. If Festus had decided thus honestly before Paul had made his appeal, he would have been released; but as the appeal had now been made, to Cæsar he must go. Whether Festus now knew any better than before what to write to Cæsar, Luke leaves to the imagination of the reader. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Twenty-Six IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To consider Paul's defense before King Agrippa 2) To review Paul's question on belief of the prophets to Agrippa 3) To observe King Agrippa, Festus, and others in deliberation on Paul SUMMARY Paul went before King Agrippa and made his defense. In the beginning, Paul reviewed his life as a Jew - before his conversion. King Agrippa gave Paul permission to speak for himself. Paul began by acknowledging that Agrippa was an "expert" in the Jewish customs and questions concerning the Jews. Paul told of his former life as a Jew/Pharisee. Paul had spent his early life in Jerusalem - all the Jews knew this. He was a member of the strictest sect, the Pharisees. Paul noted that he was being judged for the "hope of the promise made by God to our fathers." Paul reiterated that this was the core of the accusation - this "hope." Paul asked Agrippa, "Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?" Paul then stated that he originally thought he should act contrary to Jesus. He cast Christians into prison, voted for their deaths, punished them, compelled them to blaspheme; he even persecuted them to foreign cities. Paul then told of the Lord's appearance on the road to Damascus. While Paul was engaged in persecuting Christians, he journeyed toward Damascus. At midday, a bright light shone on him and his companions. They all fell to the ground. The Lord spoke to Paul in the Hebrew language. The Lord identified Himself as Jesus. The Lord told Paul of the purpose of His appearing: to make him a minister and witness of the things he had seen and of the things that would be revealed to him. Paul was sent by the Lord to the Gentiles, to open their eyes - that they may receive forgiveness of sins. Paul told Agrippa that he had to be obedient to the heavenly vision. He declared the Gospel in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea, and then to the Gentiles. Paul told the Gentiles to "repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance." He said for these things the Jews seized him at the temple and tried to kill him. He recognized that God had helped him to that very time. Paul only preached those things which the prophets and Moses had said would come to pass: that Christ would suffer; that Christ would be the first to rise from the dead; and, that He would proclaim light to the Jews and Gentiles. Festus then interrupted Paul. He interjected at Paul's defense with a loud voice. He said, "Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!" Paul replied, "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak words of truth and reason." He pointed out that Agrippa knew of these things. Paul further noted that none of these things had been "done in a corner." (Acts 26:1-26) Paul asked King Agrippa if he believed the prophets. He had a brief dialogue with Agrippa about his belief. He addressed King Agrippa, "do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe." Agrippa replied, "You almost persuade me to become a Christian." Paul responded that he would, for not only Agrippa, but for all who heard him to become Christians. Of course, Paul did not desire for any to be in bonds, as he was. (Acts 26:27-29) King Agrippa, Festus, and the others then deliberated about Paul. No charges were found against him. They said, "This man is doing nothing deserving of death or chains." Agrippa pointed out that Paul might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar. (Acts 26:30-32) OUTLINE I. PAUL MADE HIS DEFENSE BEFORE KING AGRIPPA (Acts 26:1-26) A. PAUL AS A JEW - BEFORE HIS (Acts 26:1-11)1. King Agrippa gave Paul permission to speak for himself 2. Paul began by acknowledging that Agrippa was "expert" in the Jewish customs and questions about the Jews 3. Paul told of his former life as a Jew/Pharisee a. Paul had spent his early life in Jerusalem - all Jews knew this b. He was a member of the strictest sect, the Pharisees c. Paul noted that he was being judged for the "hope of the promise made by God to our fathers" d. Paul reiterated that this was the accusation - this "hope" e. Paul asked Agrippa, "Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?" f. Paul originally thought he should act contrary to Jesus g. Paul cast Christians in prison, voted for their deaths, punished them, compelled them to blaspheme; he even persecuted them to foreign cities B. PAUL TOLD OF THE LORD'S ON THE ROAD (Acts 26:12-18)1. While Paul was engaged in persecuting Christians, he journeyed on the road to Damascus a. At midday a bright light shone on him and his companions b. They all fell to the ground c. The Lord then spoke to Paul in the Hebrew language d. The Lord identified Himself as Jesus e. The Lord told Paul of the purpose of appearing: to make him a minister and witness of the things he had seen and of the things that would be revealed to him f. Paul was sent by the Lord to the Gentiles, to open their eyes - that they may receive forgiveness of sins C. PAUL THE LIGHT TO THOSE IN (Acts 26:19-23)1. Paul told Agrippa that he had to be obedient to the heavenly vision a. He declared the Gospel in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea, and then to the Gentiles b. Paul told the Gentiles to "repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance" 2. Paul said for these things the Jews seized him at the temple and tried to kill him a. Paul recognized that God had helped him to that time 3. Paul only preached those things which the prophets and Moses had said would come to pass a. That Christ would suffer b. That Christ would be the first to rise from the dead c. That Christ would proclaim light to the Jews and Gentiles D. FESTUS PAUL (Acts 26:24-26)1. Festus interjected at Paul's defense with a loud voice a. He said, "Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!" 2. Paul replied to Festus a. He said, "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak words of truth and reason." b. Paul pointed out that Agrippa knew of these things c. Paul further noted that none of these things had been "done in a corner" II. PAUL ASKED AGRIPPA IF HE THE (Acts 26:27-29) A. PAUL HAD A WITH KING AGRIPPA ABOUT HIS BELIEF (Acts 26:27-29) 1. Paul addressed Agrippa, "do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe." 2. Agrippa replied, "You almost persuade me to become a Christian." 3. Paul responded that he would for not only Agrippa, but for all who heard him to become Christians a. Of course, Paul did not desire for any to be in bonds, as he was III. KING AGRIPPA, FESTUS, AND OTHERS ABOUT PAUL (Acts 26:30-32) A. NO CHARGES WERE FOUND AGAINST PAUL (Acts 26:30-32)1. Agrippa, Festus and the others went aside to deliberate a. They said, "This man is doing nothing deserving of death or chains." 2. Agrippa pointed out that Paul might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main events in this chapter?- To consider Paul's defense before King Agrippa (Acts 26:1-26) - To review Paul's question on belief of the prophets to Agrippa (Acts 26:27-29) - To observe King Agrippa, Festus, and others in deliberation on Paul (Acts 26:30-32) 2) What did Paul indicate that King Agrippa was "expert" in? (Acts 26:3)- All customs and questions which have to do with the Jews (Acts 26:3) 3) In what city did Paul state that from his youth he spent with his own nation? (Acts 26:4)- Jerusalem (Acts 26:4) 4) What sect had Paul been a part? What word did he use to describe it? (Acts 26:5)- Pharisees (Acts 26:5) - "strictest" (Acts 26:5) 5) What did Paul say he was being judged for? (Acts 26:6)- "for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers" (Acts 26:6) 6) [Fill in the blank] "Why should it be thought ___________ by you that God raises the dead?" (Acts 26:8) 7) List some of the things that Paul did "contrary to the name of Jesus." (Acts 26:9-12)- Shut up saints in prison (Acts 26:10) - Cast his vote against them for death (Acts 26:10) - Punished Christians (Acts 26:11) - Compelled them to blaspheme (Acts 26:11) - Persecuted Christians even to foreign cities (Acts 26:11) 8) What did Paul see on the road to Damascus? What time of day? How bright was it? (Acts 26:12-13)- Paul saw a light from heaven (Acts 26:13) - At midday (13) - Brighter than the sun (Acts 26:13) 9) After falling to the ground, what language did the Lord speak to Paul? (Acts 26:14)- Hebrew (Acts 26:14) 10) What did the voice ask Paul? (Acts 26:14)- "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 26:14) 11) Who did the voice say he was? (Acts 26:15)- "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting." (Acts 26:15) 12) Why did the Lord appear to Paul? (Acts 26:16)- "to make you a minister and witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will reveal to you" (Acts 26:16) 13) To whom (what people) was Paul sent? (Acts 26:17)- Gentiles (Acts 26:17) 14) What was Paul to do for these people? For what purpose? (Acts 26:18)- To open their eyes (Acts 26:18) - To turn them from darkness to light (Acts 26:18) - To turn them from the power of Satan to God (Acts 26:18) - "that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me" (Acts 26:18) 15) What did Paul declare that they should do? (Acts 26:19-20)- They should repent (Acts 26:20) - They should turn to God (Acts 26:20) - They should do works befitting repentance (Acts 26:20) 16) Because of his obedience to that heavenly vision, what did the Jews do to Paul? (Acts 26:21)- They seized Paul in the temple (Acts 26:21) - They tried to kill Paul (Acts 26:21) 17) How was Paul able to stand before Agrippa that day? (Acts 26:22)- Through the help of God (Acts 26:22) 18) What 3 things did Paul say in accordance with the prophets and Moses? (Acts 26:22-23)- Christ would suffer (Acts 26:23) - Christ would be the first to rise from the dead (Acts 26:23) - Christ would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles (Acts 26:23) 19) What did Festus say to Paul at this point? (Acts 26:24)- "Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!" (Acts 26:24) 20) How did Paul respond to Festus? (Acts 26:25)- "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak words of truth and reason." (Acts 26:25) 21) Where were all of these things NOT done? (Acts 26:26)- "not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26) 22) What did Paul ask King Agrippa? (Acts 26:27)- "do you believe the prophets?" (Acts 26:27) 23) What did King Agrippa say in response to Paul? (Acts 26:28)- "You almost persuade me to become a Christian." (Acts 26:28) 24) What did Agrippa, Festus and the others say among themselves? (Acts 26:31)- "This man is doing nothing deserving of death or chains." (Acts 26:31) 25) What did Agrippa then say to Festus? (Acts 26:32)- "This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." (Acts 26:32) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 26:2. Paul made a complimentary speech to Agrippa, but it was not flattery as we shall see. He had good reasons for his happy feelings over the situation. 3Act 26:3. Paul here states the reasons for his happiness expressed in the preceding verse. Agrippa was not of pure Jewish blood, yet he was brought up under the influence of Jewish teaching, and was acquainted with the law of Moses. This would qualify him to appreciate the things that Paul would say. 4Acts 26:4. Paul was brought up in Jerusalem (chapter 22:3), so that the leaders of his own nation had full opportunity for knowing about his manner of life. 5Acts 26:5. Most straitest is a double superlative and hence is an improper translation. The two words are derived from AKRIBES (by superlative inflection), and Thayer defines it "most exact." Paul means that he was a member of the Pharisees who were the most exacting of the Jews in their adherence to the law of Moses. They should have known, therefore, that he would not violate that law as the Jewish leaders charged him. 7Acts 26:6-7. The promise has a general reference to the benefits expected to come to the world through the seed of Abraham (Christ), but the special item of those benefits was the resurrection from the dead (verse 8). The Pharisees professed to believe in the resurrection as well as did Paul, but they resented his teaching that it was to be accomplished through Jesus (chapter 4:2). 8Acts 26:8. Why should it be thought, etc. The resurrection from the dead would not be any more impossible with God than any of the other works of His providence, therefore it was unreasonable to call that particular miracle in question. 9Acts 26:9. The apostle then took up the history of his personal case to show that his present conduct and teaching was a complete change from what it had once been. (See the comments on this subject at chapter 22:4.) 0Acts 26:10. A saint is one who is "set apart for God, to be, as it were, exclusively his," according to Thayer. It is one of the names applied to the followers of Christ who are elsewhere called Christians and disciples. Paul's mention of the authority of the chief priests was to show he acted according to the recognized law of the Jews. 1Act 26:11. Compelled them to blaspheme. The American Standard Version translates this clause, "strove to make them blaspheme," which is evidently the meaning of the apostle. The first word is from the same original as "compellest" in Galatians 2:14, where we know that Peter did not actually induce the Gentiles to do the things mentioned, for Paul's rebuke put a stop to his perversion. But he was using pressure for the purpose of forcing them to do as he contended. Likewise, Paul tried to terrorize the disciples into blaspheming the name of Christ, but they suffered death or imprisonment before denying their Lord. Unto strange cities means those on the outside. His last campaign was to reach to Damascus which was a city "outside" Palestine. 3Act 26:12-13. At midday the sun would be straight over them, hence a light that would be above the brightness of the sun would indeed be a strong one. 4Acts 26:14. All of the group fell to the ground but only Paul (or Saul) heard the voice. (See the comments at chapter 9:5 for the meaning of pricks.) 5Acts 26:15. This is also explained at chapter 9:5. 6Acts 26:16. Jesus did not appear to Paul to make him a Christian; men were appointed for that work. But an apostle must have seen the Lord after his resurrection, and that is why, he appeared to Paul. Having been a witness of the fact that Jesus was alive, he was also to minister or serve Him by telling it to others. 7Acts 26:17. Paul's delivery from his enemies was to be continued until the work for which he had been appointed had been accomplished. 8Acts 26:18. Open their eyes spiritually to the truths of the Gospel. Darkness is ignorance of those truths, and light is the knowledge of them. Satan is the minister of darkness, and God is the source of divine light. Forgiveness of sins was to be the personal benefit conferred on those who accepted these truths. Inheritance means a share of the spiritual possessions enjoyed by the sanctified, which denotes the same as the "saints" in verse 10, and this state was to be obtained by faith in the risen Lord. 9Acts 26:19. Not disobedient refers to the assignment to preach as the next verse shows. Chapter 9:20 says he "straightway" preached Christ in the synagogues. 0Acts 26:20. First unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem. According to Galatians 1:18 it was three years before Paul preached at Jerusalem and other places in Judea. 1Act 26:21. Paul had done nothing that called for any punishment whatsoever, much less that of being slain. He therefore wished this court to know the truth of the motive for being persecuted by the Jews. 2Act 26:22. Paul again declared that his preaching was according to the predictions of the very writings that the Jews professed to believe. It is good to hear him give God the glory for his endurance, as he stood in the hearing of this mixed judicial court. 3Act 26:23. In this verse Paul specifies the most important one of the "things" of which he made mention in the preceding one. That was the fact that Christ was the first that rose from the dead (to die no more, Romans 6:9). And that this great fact was bringing light to the Gentiles (as well as to the Jews). 4Acts 26:24. Learning is from GRAMMA which Thayer defines, "Any writing, a document or record." Paul had made such wide reference to the writings of ancient scribes that Festus thought such knowledge had thrown him into a state of frenzy, to the extent -that he had lost control of himself. 5Acts 26:25. Paul made a direct denial of the charge concerning his mental condition, soberness being from a Greek word that means "self-control." But his reply to Festus was respectful and one that recognized his standing. Thayer says the word for noble is "used in addressing men of conspicuous rank or office." 6Acts 26:26. The king means Agrippa for whose special hearing Paul was making this speech, and who was acquainted with the ancient writings to which the apostle had referred. Corner is from GONIA which Thayer defines, "A secret place." This thing means the story of Jesus including his public life, crucifixion and evidences of his resurrection, all of which was known to thousands of people. 7Acts 26:27. Agrippa was acquainted with the Old Testament writings, and this question of Paul was a challenge to the king to make a consistent application of them. 8Acts 26:28. Agrippa was logical enough to see the conclusion required from the premises that Paul had cited. He really believed the truth of the prophetic statements, and the facts and truths connected with the story of Christ clearly connected Him with the prophecies. His unwillingness to go all the way that his conclusions would lead, was not from any doubts as to the rightful claims of the Gospel upon his life. But many personal interests of a worldly nature intervened against his better judgment. He was willing only to make the concession to Paul that is expressed by the famous sentence that has become the subject of song and poetry in various literature. 9Acts 26:29. This verse expresses the sincere interest of the apostle in the spiritual welfare of his distinguished listeners. There is no sign of personal triumph in his remarks, for he realizes that nothing short of wholehearted obedience to Christ will avail anything for the unsaved, hence Yes wish was for the completeness of the conviction that was acknowledged by Agrippa. Except these bonds. How gracious was this remark, which shows the complete absence of bitterness, or any feeling that others too should be humiliated who were no better than he. 1Act 26:30-31. At the conclusion of Paul's speech the meeting "broke up" and the royal hearers went aside to confer with each other. That was not in order to decide on a verdict, for such action had been taken from them by the appeal of the prisoner. But to see if either of them had discovered "somewhat to write" to Caesar (chapter 25:26). It was admitted that no such discovery had been made, but rather that the prisoner was not worthy even of bonds. 2Act 26:32. Agrippa was the visiting jurist who was invited to give a critical ear to the speech of the prisoner. It was proper, therefore, for him to express the opinion that we have recorded. Had it not been for the appeal that Paul had made, he could have been released from all custody at this time. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 27 PAUL’ S VOYAGE TO ROMEAct_27:1 to Acts 28:10 FROM TO CRETEAct_27:1-121 And when it was determined that we should sail for Italy,— We do not know how long Paul remained in Caesarea as a prisoner ; it seems that there had been some doubt whether he was to be sent to “ Italy.” The time for sailing was now fixed. Luke and Aristarchus are now with Paul and are included in the “ we” of this verse. Some think that Luke was allowed to go as an attendant or slave of Paul; this was permissible under Roman law. It is possible that Luke was not with Paul during his trials before Felix, Fes tus, and Agrippa. The details and minute accuracy of Luke’ s account of this voyage and shipwreck reveal more about the ancient seafaring than may be read in other literature. “ Other prisoners” and “ a centurion named Julius” were with Paul. It is to be noted that Paul is classed with other prisoners. The Julian house, like the Cornelian (Acts 10:1), was an illustrious one in Italy. Julius, like other centurions mentioned in the New Testament (Matthew 8:5; Mark 15:39; Acts 10:1), commands our respect. “ The Augustan band,” or “ cohort,” is thought to have been a corps of legionary centurions; the Augustan band may have been an independent cohort assigned to that particular service, and known as the Augustan or Imperial, because it corresponded in some sense to the emperor’ s lifeguard at Rome. 2 And embarking in a ship of Adramtyttium,—Paul’ s voyage to Rome and the shipwreck as recorded in this chapter. The “ Ship of Adramyttium” was a ship belonging to Adramyttium, a seaport of Mysia, on the western coast of Asia Minor, probably on its return journey from Caesarea. “ Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica" accompanied them. He is mentioned in Acts 19:29 Acts 20:4; Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24. 3 And the next day we touched at Sidon:—This was proba¬bly in August A.D. 59 or 60. Sidon was sixty-seven miles from Caesarea; it was the rival of Tyre. The ship stopped here for trade. Jalius was very kind to Paul and permitted him to leave the ship and visit for a while with “ his friends and refresh himself.” It may be that he had received orders from Festus and Agrippa to treat Paul courteously. At any rate, he was very kind to Paul and granted him favors that other prisoners did not receive. Paul had time to receive some personal comforts and clothing for the voyage. After two years in prison at Caesarea we may well believe that such things would be needed and acceptable to Paul. 4 And putting to sea from thence,—The ship remained at Sidon long enough to transact some business, which gave Paul some time with his friends. They sailed from Sidon “ under the lee of Cyprus,” which direction was northward along the coast, and by the east side of Cyprus past the northeast point of that island. Cyprus was thus on the left between the ship and the wind from the northwest. The Estesian winds were blowing from the northwest so that they could not go straight across from Sidon to Pa tara with Cyprus on the right. “ Lee” is the side sheltered from the wind. 5 And when we had sailed across the sea—The winds seem to have driven them farther north than the direct course which they should have followed. They sailed across the sea “ which is off Cilicia and Pamphylia.” The current runs westward along the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia and the land would protect them from the wind. The ship came to Myra, “ a city of Lycia.” Myra was about two and a half miles from the coast of Lycia; it was near the mouth of the river Andriacus; Myra was at one time the metropolis of Lycia. Lycia is a province joining Pamphylia on the west. It is thought that the ship spent fifteen days struggling along the Pamphylian coast. 6 And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria—This ship was from Alexandria in North Africa; it was bound directly for Italy with a cargo of wheat on board and two hundred seventy-six passengers. It is thought to have been one of the fleet of grain ships in use to carry wheat from Egypt to Italy. It must have been driven out of its direct course by the wind. The Alexandrian ships were very large; the vessel was steered, not by a rud¬der, but by two broad oars, one on each side of the stern. The rig consisted of one, or more than one, large square sail; flags floated from the top of the mast, as in modern vessels. The ancients had no compass, and all charts and instruments were very imperfect. This rig was specially favorable for running with the wind, but they could sail within seven points of the wind; they could make about seven knots an hour. A “ knot” is a nautical mile, or 6,085 feet; hence, it would sail about 8.5 miles. These merchant ships were very large and could carry ten or eleven hundred tons; Josephus states that the ship in which he was wrecked had six hundred persons on board. The centurion transferred his prisoners to this ship. 7 And when we had sailed slowly many days,—The ship was large and heavy laden; the wind was contrary and they made very slow progress for many days. The prevailing wind was northwest, which was contrary to their course; hence, the ship worked slowly along from Myra to Cnidus. The distance from Myra to Cnidus is about one hundred thirty miles, but it seems that they were two or three weeks in making the journey on account of the strong westerly winds. The general direction of the coast till they reached Cnidus was westward. The ship was protected from the north by the land, but was open to head winds from the west, against which they struggled slowly on. The ship on leaving Cnidus seems to have turned southwest and “ sailed under the lee of Crete, over against Salmone.” Salmone was at the eastward end of the island of Crete; here they turned westward again and were protected from the northerly winds by the island of Crete; they sailed along the southern coast of Crete. 8 and with difficulty coasting along—They sailed along westward, protected by the island of Crete until they came to a place “ called Fair Havens.” “ Fair Havens” is on the south coast of Crete; it lies a few miles east of Cape Matala, beyond which the coast suddenly trends to the north. “ Lasea,” the ruins of which were discovered in 1856, was about two hours’ walk from Fair Havens. Fair Havens and Lasea are not mentioned by any writer except Luke. 9 And when much time was spent,—Much time was spent at Fair Havens waiting for favorable weather or making arrangements for the continuation of the journey. “ The voyage was now dangerous,” and Luke adds, “ because the Fast was now already gone by.” The ancient considered navigation on the Mediterranean unsafe from early October until the middle of March; the most dangerous season was from the middle of September to the middle of November. Navigation on the open sea was discontinued during that season. In A.D. 59 the “ Fast” occurred on October 5. The great Day of Atonement, as fixed by the law of Moses, occurred on the tenth day of Tisri (September-October). (Leviticus 16:29 Leviticus 23:27; Numbers 29:7.) It is not certain whether this was A.D. 59 or A.D. 60. In A.D. 60 the “ Fast” occurred on September 23. Since Paul and his companions were accustomed to reckoning time from tne Day ot Atonement, it is natural for Luke, who traveled with Paul, to mention this “ Fast.” “ Paul admonished them” of the great danger, but it seems that they did not heed his admonition. 10 and said unto them, Sirs, I perceive—Paul warned the captain and centurion and others that “ the voyage” would not only be dangerous, but “ with injury and much loss.” Some think that a consultation was held whether they should remain in the harbor, which lay open to many winds, though sheltered from the northwest, or try to get to the safe harbor of Phoenix at the western end of the island. Paul had warned them that there would be much loss of property and lives if they continued at this time. It seems that they did not heed Paul’ s warning; the centurion was in charge of the soldiers. 11 But the centurion gave more heed to the master—It is natural that the centurion who had charge of the soldiers would give more heed to what the captain and owner of the ship would say than to what a prisoner would say. The centurion was responsible for the soldiers, the prisoner, and the cargo of wheat; it was thought that this was a government ship. “ Master” is from the Greek “ kubernetei,” and means the steersman, pilot, sailing master. The centurion could not risk the criticism that would come upon him if he followed a prisoner’ s advice rather than those who controlled the vessel. 12 And because the haven was not commodious—It seems that a conference was held with those in control as to what should be done. Luke gives Paul’ s advice on the matter, and then states that there was division in judgment of the crew. The majority who advised the attempt to reach Phoenix were by no means sure that it would be successful— all were doubtful because of the present condition. Phoenix was a harbor in the south of Crete west from Fair Havens; it is said to be a safe harbor in winter, well closed in from the wind and from breakers; the harbor looked toward the east, or “ looking northeast and southeast.” There are two ways of interpreting the Greek; one is looking southwest and northwest, and the other is “ looking northeast and southeast.” It depends on the viewpoint from which one observed the harbor. If one is on the land and looks toward the harbor, the direction will be “ northeast and southeast,” but if one is in the harbor and looking toward the land, it will be southwest and northwest. The better interpretation is as the Revised Version has it. THE STORM AND Act_27:13-44 13 And when the south wind blew softly,—While in Fair Havens the stormy northwest wind ceased; a gentle breeze came from the south; they set sail for the harbor of Phoenix; they meant to keep close to the shore of Crete as it was safer. Phoenix was about forty miles west of Fair Havens on the southern shore of Crete. It was natural to hope that the south wind would con¬tinue long enough for them to sail the forty miles, as it would take but a few hours for the voyage. They were so sure that they did not even take up the boat that they were towing behind the ship; they took up anchor and sailed close to shore around Cape Matala, a point on the south side of Crete a few miles west of Fair Havens. 14 But after no long time—In a short time after they set sail a violent northeast wind came down on the ship from over the hills of Crete and they could not face it, and had to go before it. This “ tempestuous wind” “ is called Euraquilo.” “ Euraquilo” describes the character of the wind; it comes from the Greek “ Eurakulon,” and is not found anywhere else in the New Testament; it has been called a “ hybrid” compounded of the Greek “ euros,” meaning “ east wind,” and the Latin “ aquilo,” meaning “ northeast.” The name here gives the direction of the wind. 15 and when the ship was caught,—The wind was so violent that the ship was unable to face it and go further but had to yield to the wind and be driven in its direction. The wind here is represented as seizing the ship so that it was not able to look in the eye of the wind; that is, to face it, and suddenly changed its course to the direction that the gale was going; the ship scudded before the wind. 16 And running under the lee of a small island—The ship was forced to run “ under the lee” for protection there; a small is¬land named “ Cauda,” or “ Clauda,” furnished the protection. Cauda was about twenty-three miles to the southwest of Crete. The ancients towed a small vessel behind, and it was very difficult to get this small vessel aboard. They were about to lose it. Luke uses the pronoun “ we” which indicates that the passengers as well as the sailors were forced to work and help rescue the small boat; it had to be lifted on board the ship. Their future safety depended on their saving this boat. 17 and when they had hoisted it up,—An ancient ship with sails was exposed to extreme dangers from such bursts of wind ; the straining of the great sail on a single mast was more than the hull could bear, and the ship was exposed to the storm and in danger of foundering in the open sea. Hence, “ under-girding,” with ropes or chains passing around the vessel, would help to hold the ship intact. Next they lowered all the sails, fearing that the gale might drive them southwest upon the “ Syrtis,” which meant the great African quicksands. The greater and lesser “ Syrtis” were on the north coast of Africa; the one was west of Cyrene, and the other near Carthage; they were the dread of Mediterranean sailors in Roman times. This verse does not imply that the ship was then near the Syrtis; the greater Syrtis is here meant. After making this preparation by girding the ship and lowering the sail, they let the vessel drift. 18-19 And as we labored exceedingly with the storm,—As the storm grew more furious the experienced sailors saw that the ship would not be able to weather it; hence, they put everyone to work. They labored with the storm the first day, and the second day they began to throw part of the cargo overboard. It is to be remembered that the ship was laden with wheat bound for Italy. The sailors and soldiers “ with their own hands” on the third day threw overboard “ the tackling of the ship.” “ Tackling” is from the Greek “ skeuen,” which means the furniture of the ship that could be spared. The danger was more imminent, and a part of the ship’ s gear would not have been thrown overboard without urgent necessity. The danger was great and increasing every moment; they had now disposed of the cargo of wheat and must suffer the loss of the furniture or equipment of the ship. The “ tackling” which they threw overboard must refer to that furniture which would be useless in time of storm. 20 And when neither sun nor stars shone—The weather was so cloudy, and the storm so furious and continued so long that the danger increased hourly. It should be remembered that the great reason which made ancient navigation perilous in winter was that the sky is then more overcast than at other seasons. They did not have efficient compass and were to large extent dependent upon the sun and stars for their bearings and steerings when the compass was not available. “ All hope” of rescue was lost. Two stages in the progress of increasing fear have been mentioned; the third stage was absolute despair. It was at this psychological moment, when no escape through human agency was possible, that Paul inter¬posed with divine encouragement. They did not know where they were drifting; no land was in sight; the ship was strained and pos¬sibly leaking; the tempest was high; and “ all hope that we should be saved was now taken away.” 21 And when they had been long without food,—Another thing which increased the hardship during this emergency was the lack of regular food. The fires were put out; the provisions were soaked with water; every effort that could be suggested for safety of the lives and ship was made. In the midst of the storm, when gloom and despair had settled heavily upon all, Paul stood in their midst and said: “ Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have set sail from Crete.” He did not remind them of this in order to taunt them, but chiefly to impress them more forcibly with the counsel which he was now about to give. Paul interfered four times, twice unsuccessfully and twice successfully; he spoke twice from his own experience and good judgment; he spoke twice to tell his vision which promised them safety in the end. (See verses 10, 21-26, 31, 33-35.) Paul had advised them to winter in Fair Havens; his advice was discussed, but rejected. Paul was the only one who was calm and able to encourage the others by his message from God; he was the only one who could encourage them not to give way to despair, but keep up their strength for what was before them; Paul alone had the presence of mind to prevent the escape of the sailors. 22 And now I exhort you to be of good cheer;—Paul, a pris¬oner, assumes authority to give advice and encourage the company. No doubt Paul’ s look and tone of voice helped his words to give encouragement to those in despair. It was unusual for a man, even a prisoner, to stand in the midst of a scene of misery and dejection with such calm confidence as Paul portrayed. Paul as¬sured them that there would “ be no loss of life among” them; he added that the only loss that would be sustained was the ship. No doubt that they were greatly encouraged when he gave the ground or basis of his encouragement. 23 For there stood by me this night an angel—Paul gave further reason for their taking courage; he recited his vision that night. Paul was a servant of God; he had committed his life to God and was in his care; hence, he was cheerful when others were disturbed, trustful when others doubted. Paul had seen an angel of God, and this angel had given courage to him. He now gives God the honor for his courage and assurance; he did not take any credit to himself as being wiser than others; he only pointed them to the God whom he served as being able to take care of him and others. 24 saying, Fear not, Paul;—This angel assured Paul that he should “ stand before Caesar.” Paul had been praying, and the angel came in answer to his prayer, and gave him the courage that he now manifested. “ God hath granted thee all them that sail with thee” shows that Paul had been praying, not only for himself and his Christian companions, but also for all on the ship. The lives of those that sailed with Paul had been presented to him as a gift. Since Paul was to stand before Caesar that meant that he would be brought safely through the present danger. There is no assurance here that all would become converted; only the safe arrival of all is meant. 25-26 Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer:—The faith that Paul had in God gave him an advantage over the others; he was made both captain and pilot of the ship; his calmness and courage enabled him to take the place of the centurion in caring for the prisoners. The most useful man on board was Paul, because he believed in God and God took care of him. Paul spoke with as¬surance when he warned them that they should be “ cast upon a certain island.” It is very probable that Paul preached the gospel to all that were on the ship, and gave them his reason for believing in God. Since he predicted that they would be cast upon a certain island, it appears that some details of the manner of their preservation had been made known to Paul by the angel. 27 But when the fourteenth night was come,—It is not clear as to the point of time that the “ fourteenth night” is calculated; it is very probable that the time is reckoned from their leaving Fair Havens. The ship was driven “ to and fro in the sea of Adria.” “ Adria” was a name given to the wide sweep of the Mediterranean lying between Greece, Italy, and Africa; this was not the Adriatic Sea as we now know it. “ About midnight the sailors” thought that “ they were drawing near to some country.” Possibly the sound of the breakers, the white lines of foam seen through the darkness, were interpreted by the experienced sailors that they were drawing nigh to land. They did not know their location; hence, they did not know the country or land that they might be near; they were in total darkness and lost on the wild tempest of waters. 28 and they sounded, and found twenty fathoms;—“ Sounded” is from the Greek “ bolisantes,” and is apparently from “ bolis,” which means “ a missile or dart,” and hence to throw down the lead into the sea, to heave the lead, to take soundings. A “ fathom” is reckoned as six feet; hence, the depth of the water at that point was one hundred twenty feet; however, “ after a little space,” or “ a little later,” they “ sounded” again, and found the depth to be only “ fifteen fathoms,” or about ninety feet; this was proof that a shore was near; they did not know what kind of shore, whether it was sandy or rocky; they feared that it was rocky. 29 And fearing lest haply we should be cast ashore—There was great fear that the ship would be cast upon a rocky shore; hence, “ they let go four anchors from the stern.” These “ four anchors” should be sufficient to hold the ship in position; however, it was unusual to anchor the ship from the “ stern.” The usual way of anchoring a ship was from the bow. In this situation, had they anchored by the bow, the ship would have swung round from the wind and would have been more difficult to manage after the storm ceased. The harbor of St. Paul’ s Bay, in Malta, is still good for small ships. The ship had been drifting since it left Cauda. It is about four hundred seventy-six miles from Cauda to Malta. The only thing that they could do would be to wait for daylight. If the sailors had headed the ship toward the northwest to keep it from being driven upon the quicksands, it would have been beaten back by the northeast gale and would have drifted westward. 30 And as the sailors were seeking to flee—The hour of danger naturally aroused the instinct of self-preservation to the exclusion of better feelings. It was easy for the sailors to urge that the ship needed anchors fore as well as aft, and, while pretending to be occupied about this, to lower the boat which they had before hoisted on deck (Acts 27:16), and so effect their escape. The boat, it might appear, was necessary to their purpose, as their aim was not merely to pass anchors from the bow, but to carry them out to the full tether of the cable’ s length. This was a treacherous act on the part of the sailors. 31 Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers,—The shrewd observance of Paul detected what the sailors were doing, and he spoke to the centurion, and to the soldiers. He said: “ Ex¬cept these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” Paul had the courage to rebuke their action and to warn them of the danger of such a course. He had been assured of protection and safety by the angel of the Lord, but he could not supinely lie down and leave it all to God; he must do all that he could in order to be protected by God. The soldiers and prisoners could not handle the large ship under such critical conditions, so the presence and help of the sailors were essential to the safety of others. All should have been grateful to Paul for his thoughtful vigilance in these hours of dark¬ness and danger. 32 Then the soldiers cut away the ropes—Apparently there were four classes on board the ship; namely (1) the officials, in¬cluding captain, pilot, and centurion; (2) sailors; (3) soldiers; (4) prisoners. The sailors were attempting to flee, and when the soldiers heard what Paul had said they cut the rope by which the small ship had been lowered and let it fall off; this prevented the sailors from escaping. The soldiers settled the question with mili¬tary promptitude. The boat was left to drift off into the darkness and perhaps was dashed to pieces on the rocks. God had promised Paul that all should be saved; hence, he insists that all cooperate harmoniously in order to fulfill that promise. 33 And while the day was coming on,—While they were waiting for day to dawn, Paul again assumes the lead and takes command and “ besought them all to take some food.” Nothing could be done in the emergency until daylight; sleep was impossible; and anxiety and fear intense. Paul advised that since they had been fasting about fourteen days some food be taken. He knew that strength would be needed for hard work when morning came; he also knew that if they would take nourishment they would be encouraged for further duties. Soldiers and sailors would need something that would draw them together after the incident just mentioned; all were liable to be discouraged and irritable. It is not clear whether the waiting means fourteen days of continuous fasting, or only fourteen successive nights of eager watching without food. Paul probably means that they had taken no regular meals, and only bits of food now and then, as the word for “ fasting” is not that which is commonly used in the New Testament to express entire abstinence from food. 34 Wherefore I beseech you to take some food:—Paul encouraged all of them “ to take some food.” Paul had promised them their lives, but they must work and cooperate with him for their safety. Paul, a captive going to judgment, yet what a leader of men he is! It was necessary that they take nourishment for their “ safety.” The Greek for “ safety” is “ soteria,” which means personal or physical “ safety,” and not spiritual salvation. Paul meant that the preservation of his fellow passengers depended on their keeping up their strength. He reassures them that “ not a hair” should “ perish from the head of any of” them. This is a proverbial expression for safety. (1 Samuel 14:45; 2 Samuel 14:11; 1 Kings 1:52; Luke 21:18.) 35 And when he had said this,—Paul had given advice that they take some nourishment; he now sets the example by taking nourishment himself. Some have said that this was the Lord’ s Supper to Paul, Luke, and Aristarchus; however, it appears to be only a common meal, as Paul had encouraged all to take nourish¬ment. The Lord’ s Supper was never intended to furnish physical nourishment to anyone. Paul “ gave thanks to God” and then began to eat. “ Thanks” is from the Greek “ eucharistesen,” and means giving thanks, as did our Lord on different occasions. (Luke 24:30.) 36 Then were they all of good cheer,—Paul’ s words and example inspired cheerfulness and courage. It is wonderful how one calm, deliberate person can have such influence on others. The cheerfulness and hopefulness of Paul had spread to the entire company ; they now looked to him as their friend and leader, and followed his example in eating. The giving of thanks to God called attention again of all to God, whom Paul served, and who had protected them and promised safety to them. 37 And we were in all in the ship—The number is here given, either as a fact that had been omitted before, and was not without its interest, or probably because then for the first time, they were all gathered at their meal. Luke, the writer, had taken the trouble to count them. These two hundred seventy-six were under the influence now of Paul. This was a large company to be on this ship; however, the grain ships were large and frequently carried passengers. Some have interpreted the Greek to mean seventy- six, as this number is found in some ancient manuscript; these manuscripts are not of sufficient weight to change the text. 38 And when they had eaten enough,—“ Eaten” is from the Greek “ koresthentes,” and means “ to satisfy, to satiate.” Hence, they were filled. The first effect of this was seen in renewed activity for work. They began now to lighten the ship. The “ wheat” which they now cast out was a part of. the cargo which had been reserved probably for provisions. It appears that they had only thrown overboard a part of the cargo as mentioned in verse 18. As they could no longer continue in the ship, it was not necessary to keep the ship burdened with this wheat. They hoped to keep the ship floating until they could reach the shore. 39 And when it was day, they knew not the land:—None of the sailors, neither the officers, recognized the land when daylight came. They perceived “ a certain bay with a beach.” It was such a sandy beach as would suit to run the ship ashore. The main coast was not safe for such an attempt. Some think that it was strange that they did not know the land, for Melita was a well-known island, having an admirable harbor, familiar to Alexandrian sailors; however, these sailors were not at this moment in the harbor, but on a part of the coast which they had never before seen. They held a consultation together to decide what to do; they decided to attempt to run ashore. This required the help of experienced sailors, and showed that Paul was right in having the sailors kept on board. (See verse 31.) 40 And casting off the anchors,—“ Casting off” is from the Greek “ perielontes,” and literally means “ having taken away from around” ; that is, all four anchors from around the stern. These were left in the sea; they let the anchors go and the ropes fell down into the sea. They thought that they would have no further use for them. At the same time they loosed the bands of the rudders; the ancient ships were equipped with two rudders; these had been made fast and raised out of the water when the anchors were cast out. Since they now are to attempt to steer the ship toward the beach, they need to let down the rudders again into the water. Next, they hoisted “ up the foresail to the wind.” “ Foresail” is from the Greek “ artemona,” and scholars have been puzzled as to which sail is indicated; the majority of scholars have agreed that it is “ foresail.” This does not mean what we understand as the “ mainsail.” “ Wind,” as used here, means a breeze, and the change of words seems to imply that there was a lull in the fury of the gale. 41 But lighting upon a place where two seas met,—Instead of landing on a smooth, sandy beach, the ship was run and grounded on a mudbank between the small island and the coast. Unexpectedly the ship stuck in this mud bar. The ship did not touch dry land, but stuck fast in the bank over which the water was too shallow to allow the ship to go further; they were still some distance from the shore. The waves swept through the channel behind the island and struck the stern of the ship sideways, and the ship began to break in pieces. Modern scholars who have attempted to trace the journey of Paul have found just such conditions as described here by Luke, showing the accuracy of his description. The front part of the ship was stuck in the mud, while the hind part was in deep water and exposed to the force of the two currents; it seems that the hinder part of the ship was broken of? and the entire crew and passengers crowded to the fore part. 42 And the soldiers’ counsel was to kill the prisoners,—The soldiers were as cruel as the sailors. (Acts 28:30.) The sailors were willing to leave the soldiers and prisoners to perish, and now the soldiers want to kill the prisoners. Their excuse was to keep any of them from escaping. The soldiers were responsible for the lives of the prisoners. (Acts 12:19.) The Roman law made the soldiers answerable with their own lives for the prisoners placed under their charge. 43 But the centurion, desiring to save Paul,—Paul had won the friendship of the centurion; he had been instrumental in saving the entire crew. The centurion was not without gratitude; hence, he would seek some way to save Paul. The centurion was in charge of the soldiers, and they must obey his command. He suggested as an alternative that the soldiers who could swim should “ cast themselves overboard” and get to the land first; they could then take charge of the prisoners as they swam to land. The cen¬turion was in full command of the soldiers; he had not in the confusion lost his thoughtfulness and presence of mind. By his suggestion there would be a body of soldiers ready on shore to help those who only could float thither by the aid of something to which they were clinging. We know that Paul had already been shipwrecked three times before this, and had been in the deep a night and a day. (2 Corinthians 11:15.) Hence, we may conclude that he was among those who swam to land. Many think that the centurion’ s suggestion included not only the soldiers who could swim, but even the prisoners who could swim were commanded to go to shore. It is probable that this suggestion came from Paul, as he had had experience in such trials. 44 and the rest, some on planks,—This strengthens the idea that all who could swim, both soldiers and prisoners, were commanded to do so. The others were to float on planks and such other things as could be had from the ship. It appears that there had been some broken pieces of timber from the bulwarks, loose spears, tables, stools, and other pieces of furniture, which could be used by those who could not swim. ‘‘ All escaped safe to the land.” This shows that Paul’ s prophecy (Acts 27:24) was fulfilled; Paul, the prisoner, is the guide in the voyage, the hero in the shipwreck, and the example to all in calmness. J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 27Acts 27:1-2. Not long after the interview with Agrippa, Paul saw an immediate prospect of departing upon his long-purposed voyage to Rome. The answer to his prayers was about to be realized, and the promise made him by night in the prison of Claudius Lysias that he should yet testify of Jesus in Rome as he had done in Jerusalem, was about to be fulfilled. This was being accomplished, not by any direct divine interference, but by a providential combination of circumstances. The machinations of the Jews, the corruption of Felix, the indecision of Festus, the prudence of Paul, and the Roman statute in behalf of citizens, had all most strangely, yet most naturally, combined to fulfill a promise of God made in answer to prayer. (1) “And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners to a centurion of the Augustan cohort, named Julius. (2) And embarking on a ship of Adramyttium, we put to sea, intending to sail to places along the coast of Asia, Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.” Here, again, we find the significant “we” of Luke, showing that he was again in Paul's company. The last time we met with this term was upon the arrival of the apostolic company in Jerusalem. He had probably not been far from Paul during the two years of imprisonment in Cæsarea, and was now permitted to accompany him to Rome. Aristarchus was also a voluntary companion of the prisoner, as we infer from the manner in which his name is mentioned. There were, however, other prisoners on board. As the ship belonged to Adramyttium, which is on the coast of Mysia, it was now homeward bound, and was not expected to take the prisoners further than its own destination. But as they were about to touch at several “ places along the coast of Asia,” they could calculate upon falling in with some vessel bound for Rome. Acts 27:3. The apostolic company are now fairly launched upon their voyage, the details of which constitute a peculiar and most interesting passage in sacred history. (3) “And the next day we landed at Sidon: and Julius, treating Paul humanely, permitted him to go to the friends, and partake of their kindness.” Here we learn that Paul found friends, who were, doubtless, brethren, in the city of Sidon. Thus we find that both the Phenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, to whose wickedness the Savior once so significantly alluded, had, ere now, received the gospel. With the brethren in the former place Paul had spent a week on his voyage to Jerusalem, and now the beginning of another voyage, not much less mournful, is cheered by the hospitality of those in the latter. Acts 27:4. (4) “And having put to sea from that place, we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were contrary.” As the proper course of the ship was westward, the contrary wind must have come from that quarter. With a favorable wind she would have passed to the south of Cyprus; but in tacking to make headway against a contrary wind, they necessarily passed to the east and north-east of that island, leaving it on the left. An additional reason for taking this tack may have been a desire to take advantage of a current which flows westward along the southern shore of Asia Minor, as far as the Archipelago, and greatly favors the progress of westward-bound vessels. Acts 27:5-6. Passing around the north-east point of Cyprus, the vessel entered the open to the south of Cilicia and Pamphylia. (5) “And when we had sailed across the sea along Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra, a city of Lycia. (6) There the centurion found a ship of Alexandria, sailing for Italy, and put us on board of it.” Thus, according to expectation, they fell in with a vessel bound for Italy, and left the ship of Adramyttium. Their new vessel was one of the many grain ships which supplied Rome with bread from the granaries of Egypt. She was a vessel of good size, accommodating, on this voyage, two hundred and seventy-six passengers. She had, probably, undertaken to sail direct from Alexandria to Rome; but the same contrary winds which had thus far retarded the progress of the other vessel had compelled her to sail far to the northward of the direct route. Acts 27:7-8. The wind was still contrary when they left Myra. (7) “And having sailed slowly many days, we reached Cnidus with difficulty, the wind not favoring us, and sailed under the lee of Crete, over against Salmone; (8) and coasting along it with difficulty, we came into a place called Fair Havens, near which was the city of Lasea.” From Myra to the island of Cnidus is only one hundred and thirty miles; hence it must have been slow sailing to be “ many days” reaching that place. From that island their course to Cape Salmone, which was the most eastern point of the island of Crete, was a little to the west of south. The wind, to turn them this much out of their course, could have been but little, if any, north of west. The lee of Crete, under which they sailed, was the southern shore, which but partially protected them from the wind, rendering it difficult to keep near the shore until they reached the harbor called Fair Havens. This was about half way the length of the island. Acts 27:9-12. The voyage, thus far, had been so tedious that winter was approaching, and it was deemed unsafe to attempt to complete it before spring. It became a question, however, whether they would spend the winter where they were, or seek a more desirable winter haven. (9) “Much time having now elapsed, and navigation being already unsafe, because the fast had already passed, Paul admonished them, (10) saying, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with violence and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives. (11) But the centurion believed the master and the owner of the ship rather than the things which were spoken by Paul. (12) And the harbor being inconvenient to winter in, the majority advised to depart thence, so as, if possible, to reach Phoenix, and spend the winter there, a harbor of Crete looking to the south-west and north-west.” Paul's advice to the mariners was the beginning of an activity in behalf of the ship and crew which forms the chief matter of interest in the remainder of the voyage. We will yet see how nearly his prediction was fulfilled. He did not claim for it the authority of inspiration, and, therefore, we should not claim it for him; but he had some experience at sea, and expressed the result of his own judgment. It was quite natural, however, that the centurion, who seems to have had control of the matter, should put more confidence in the judgment of the owner and the master than in his. He had not yet learned to appreciate his prisoner as he did subsequently. The description given of the harbor of Phoenix had occasioned some perplexity to commentators. As the wind was blowing from north of west, a harbor “ looking to the north-west and south-west,” from the shore, would be entirely exposed to the weather; whereas this description is given to show that it was a safe harbor in which to spend the winter. Mr. Howson is undoubtedly right in assuming that Luke supposes the beholder to be looking from the water, where a vessel would lie at anchor, toward the inclosing shore, and means that to him the harbor would look to the north-west and the south-west. Such a harbor would be safe against any wind in the quadrant from south-west to north-west, and was precisely such as was needed at that time. Acts 27:13. The harbor called Fair Havens lay on the east side of Cape Matala, which they would have to round in order to reach Phoenix; but it could not be rounded in the face of a north-west wind, hence they had to wait for the wind to change. (13) “Now when the south wind blew moderately, thinking they had gained their purpose, they weighed anchor, and sailed close by the shore of Crete.” They felt that all was secure, and even had their boat swinging astern, as they tacked slowly along the smooth sea under a gentle southern breeze. It was deceitful lull, the prelude to unexpected disasters. Acts 27:14-17. (14) “But not long after, a tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon, struck, against her, (15) and the ship being seized by it, and unable to face the wind, we gave up and were driven by it. (16) And running under the lee of an island called Clauda, with difficulty we were able to secure the boat. (17) When they had taken it up, they used helps, undergirding the ship. And fearing lest they should fall into the Syrtis, they lowered the sail, and so were driven.” It was just as they were rounding Cape Matala, and expected to be borne by the southern wind directly to Phoenix, that they were whirled away by this tempest. The direction from Crete to Clauda is south-west; the wind, therefore, must have been from the north-east. This is indicated by the name Euroclydon, which Bloomfield translates “the wave-stirring easter.” Such a wind, varying from north-east to south-east, is said still to prevail in those seas. While passing under the lee of Clauda, the island checked the violence of the storm, and enabled them to take some precautions which were impossible in the open sea. The first of these was to “ secure the boat,” which had thus far drifted astern, and was likely to be dashed in pieces. The second was to undergird the ship, a process called frapping in modern style, which consists in passing heavy cables under the hull, and fastening them securely on the deck, to prevent the timbers from parting under the force of the waves. The third precaution was to lower the sails, so as to prevent the vessel being driven too rapidly before the wind. Acts 27:18-20. (18) “And being exceedingly tempest-tossed, the next day we lightened the vessel, (19) and on the third day, with our own hands we cast out the tackling of the ship. (20) And as neither the sun nor the stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest lay on us, at last all hope that we should be saved was taken away.” The sailors now began to realize the truth of Paul's prediction about the character of the voyage, and they were prepared to listen to him with more respect when he addressed to them the following speech: Acts 27:21-26. (21) “Now, after long abstinence, Paul stood in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, you should have hearkened to me, and not have sailed from Crete, and gained this harm and loss. (22) And now, I exhort you to be of good cheer; for there will be no loss of life among you, except of the ship. (23) For there stood by me this night an angel of God, whose I am and whom I serve, (24) saying, Fear not, Paul; you must be brought before Cæsar; and behold, God has given you all those who are sailing with you. (25) Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer; for I believe God, that it will be even as it was told me. (26) But we must fall upon a certain island.” Paul's former prediction was already fulfilled in part, and they all believed that it was about to be in full. His reference to it was designed both to rebuke them for not heeding it, and to remind them of its correctness. His present prediction conflicted with the former in reference to loss of life; but their lives had been so completely despaired of, that they were not disposed to find fault with the former prediction, even in this particular. The present, however, was certainly spoken upon divine authority; and if we suppose the former to have been also, then the security of their lives may be regarded as a boon granted to Paul in answer to prayers offered subsequent to the first prediction. That their safety was in some sense owing to him, is evident from the words, “ God has given to you all those who are sailing with you.” Acts 27:27-29. Notwithstanding the assurance of final safety, their danger, for a time, became more imminent. (27) “And when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven along in the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors supposed that they were drawing near to some land; (28) and having sounded, they found it twenty fathoms. And going a little farther, they sounded again, and found it fifteen fathoms. (29) Then fearing lest they should fall upon breakers, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for day.” From this time till day-break, the ship lay with her bow to the shore, where the waves were dashing fearfully over the hidden rocks; and was held back from inevitable destruction only by the four anchors cast astern. It was a period of fearful suspense, rendered hideous by the darkness of the night and the raging of the storm. They “ wished for day,” but they knew not whether it would bring relief, or only render them more certain of destruction. Acts 27:30-32. Under circumstances like these, both the nobler and the baser traits of human character have fair opportunity to exhibit themselves. The strong and skillful have often been known to save themselves without concern for the more helpless; while, at times, the utmost magnanimity has been displayed by the few. Both traits of character were exhibited here; one by the sailors, the other by Paul. (30) “Now the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and letting down the boat into the sea, under pretense of casting anchors out from the bow; (31) when Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, Unless these remain in the ship, you can not be saved. (32) Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off.” Here we see that while the sailors, who alone could have any hope of steering the vessel safe to land, were selfishly leaving the passengers to their fate, and the soldiers were so paralyzed with fear as not to discover their design, Paul was perfectly self-possessed, and was watching for the safety of all. He had an assurance from God that no lives would be lost, yet he was just as watchful as though no such promise had been given; and he assured the soldiers that they would not be saved if the sailors were permitted to leave the vessel. We have here a happy illustration of the manner in which God's decrees and human free agency harmonize to produce a given result. It was a decree of God that the passengers and crew should be saved, and it was certain to be accomplished; but the voluntarily watchfulness of Paul, and the desire of self-preservation on the part of the soldiers, were contingencies on which the result depended, and which contributed to it. In determining, therefore, that a thing shall be done, or declaring that it will be done, God anticipates the voluntary action of parties concerned, and only interferes, by miracles, where such action would fail of the contemplated result. In the matter of salvation, we should act as Paul did in this case: be as watchful and laborious as though God had promised us no assistance, yet as confident of divine assistance as though all were dependent on it alone. Acts 27:33-36. In a time of extreme danger like the present, a man who is able to maintain complete self-possession has great control over those who are alarmed. Paul had already displayed his coolness and watchfulness to the soldiers, and had outgeneraled the sailors; consequently he became at once the leading spirit in the whole ship's company. During the entire inactivity of the crew, while swinging at anchor and waiting for daylight, he endeavored to impart his own calmness to them all. (33) “Now while day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take some food; saying, This is the fourteenth day that you have been waiting, and continued fasting, having taken nothing. (34) Wherefore, I beseech you to take some food; for this is for your preservation; for not a hair shall fall from the head of any of you. (35) And when he had thus spoken, he took a loaf and returned thanks to God before all, and broke it, and began to eat. (36) Then all were of good cheer, and they also took some food.” The remark that they had taken no food for fourteen days must be interpreted in the light of the circumstances. It is not a remark of the Luke addressed to his readers, but one of Paul, addressed to his hearers. If they had taken any food at all during the time, which they certainly did, unless they were sustained by a miracle, they could but understand him as merely expressing, in strong terms, their severe abstinence. Such was undoubtedly his meaning. If Luke had been describing the fact in his own words instead of Paul's, perhaps he would have stated it to us with some qualification. Here, again, the apostle assures them that no harm shall befall them, yet in the same breath urged them to eat heartily, as a precaution for their safety. Their safety, though certain, was still dependent upon their exertions, and, in order that they might have strength for the labor before them, it was necessary that they should break their long and exhausting fast. The cheerfulness of Paul, as he gave thanks to God, broke the loaf, and began to eat, inspired them all with new courage. As their excitement subsided, their appetites returned; and a hearty meal, which generally smooths a rough temper, and acts as a sedative upon all mental excitement, completed her restoration of general cheerfulness, and prepared them to undertake, with alacrity, the work yet to be done. Acts 27:37-38. The gathering of the whole ship's company to partake of this meal seems to have suggested to the historian to mention, here, the number of persons on board. (37) “Now all the souls in the ships were two hundred and seventy-six. (38) And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, casting the wheat into the sea.” This was all done between the time of eating and daylight, and was no inconsiderable labor. It was designed to lessen the draught of the vessel, so that when run ashore she might float into the shallow water. Acts 27:39-41. All was now done that could be, until daylight should reveal the nature of the shore ahead. (39) “And when it was day they did not recognize the land. But they discovered a certain inlet having a sandy shore, into which they determined, if it were possible, to thrust the ship. (40) And having cut away the anchors, they abandoned them to the sea; at the same time loosing the rudder-bands, and hoisting the foresail to the wind, they held toward the shore. (41) And falling into a place between two seas, they ran the ship aground; and the bow sticking fast, remained immovable; but the stern was broken by the violence of the waves.” At every point, except the one to which the vessel was steered, the shore was rocky; for this point was selected because it had a sandy shore. It required some seamanship to land where they did. While lying at anchor, the rudders, which were merely paddle-rudders, one at each side of the stern, had been lashed up, to prevent them from fouling with the four anchor-cables also astern. These were loosed to guide the vessel; and the foresail was unfurled to give the vessel the impetus necessary to a successful use of the rudders. By a skillful use of both she was steered clear of the rocks, and stranded on the sandy beach. Here “ two seas met;” that is, the waves from two different points met each other, and spent their combined force upon the stern of the vessel, and she was rapidly going to pieces. Acts 27:42. At this critical juncture there was exhibited by the soldiers an instance of depravity even greater than that of the sailors the night before. They owed their present prospect of safety to the watchfulness of Paul, yet they felt no apparent gratitude to him, and while hoping to escape themselves, they were regardless of the lives of himself and the other prisoners. (42) “Now the purpose of the soldiers was, that they would kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim out and escape.” Such is the depravity of human nature, when void of religious truth, and trained to the cruelties of war. Acts 27:43-44. But God had a purpose and a promise to fulfill, which did not admit of such a disposition of the prisoners, and the more cultivated nature of the centurion was the means of saving them. The incidents of the voyage had made an impression upon his mind most favorable to Paul, and he would not ignore the gratitude which he owed him. (43) “But the centurion, determined to save Paul, kept them from their purpose, and commanded those who could swim to cast themselves out and go first to land; (44) and the remainder, some on boards, and some on fragments of the ship. And thus it came to pass that all escaped safe to land.” Paul's last prediction was literally fulfilled, and his fellow-prisoners owed their lives to the centurion's partiality for him. "ACTS OF THE " Chapter Twenty-Seven IN THIS CHAPTER 1) To observe how Paul's trip to Rome began 2) To notice how Paul warned of a disaster and was ignored 3) To examine how the tempestuous sea became disastrous for the ship 4) To contemplate how all were saved in the shipwreck at Malta SUMMARY When it was decided that the prisoners should sail to Italy, Julius, a centurion of the Augustan Regiment, took custody. They boarded a ship of Adramyttium to sail along the Asian coast. Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, accompanied Paul. When the ship arrived at Sidon, Julius treated Paul kindly. He was allowed to go to his friends and receive care. They then sailed near Cyprus, Cilicia, Pamphylia, and arrived at Myra. There, the centurion found an Alexandrian ship headed to Italy. They boarded this ship and departed. They sailed slowly for many days, as the wind made it difficult to sail. They continued to sail with difficulty near Cnidus and Crete off Salmone. Next, they arrived at Fair Havens, near the city of Lasea. (Acts 27:1-8) A great amount of time had passed, and sailing became dangerous. Paul advised, "I perceive that this voyage will end with disaster and much loss..." The centurion ignored Paul, and rather listened to the helmsman and ship-owner, who considered the harbor "not suitable to winter in." The majority wanted to sail on to Phoenix, a harbor of Crete. (Acts 27:9-12) The south wind began to blow softly. Supposing this favorable, they put out to sea. They sailed close to Crete. Shortly after sailing, a "tempestuous head wind arose, called Euroclydon." The ship was driven south of an island called Clauda. The sailors secured the ship with cables/ropes by passing them underneath the hull. The following day, they lightened the ship. The third day, they threw the ship's tackle overboard. After several days in the storm, all hope was given up. They had not eaten for many days. Paul reminded them that he had recommended to not sail from Crete. Paul then assured them there would be no loss of life; only the ship would be lost. This message came from an angel of God. Paul affirmed his faith/trust in God that this surely would come to pass. Paul further revealed that the ship would run aground. After fourteen nights, the sailors sensed they were near land. They took soundings and determined they were nearing land. It was dark. They dropped four anchors to avoid running aground and prayed for daylight. The sailors lowered the skiff to appear that they were putting out more anchors; however, they intended to leave the ship. Paul told the centurion and soldiers, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved." The soldiers cut the ropes to the skiff and let it fall away. As the day dawned, Paul encouraged them to eat. It had been fourteen days since they had eaten. Paul indicated they needed food for nourishment and survival. He reminded them they all would be safe. Paul then took bread, gave thanks to God, and began to eat before them. They were all encouraged by Paul and ate as well. After they had eaten enough, they threw the wheat into the sea to lighten the ship. There were two hundred seventy-six people aboard the ship. (Acts 27:13-38) At daylight, they saw a bay with a beach, though they did not recognize the land. They desired to drive the ship onto the beach. They let the anchors go into the sea, hoisted the main sail, and headed for the beach. The ship ran aground "where two seas met" and the "prow stuck fast" - the ship was immovable. The waves violently began to break up the ship. The soldiers planned to kill the prisoners to keep any from escaping. The centurion stopped the soldiers' plan. He wanted to save Paul. The centurion commanded all who could swim to jump overboard and swim for shore. The rest floated on boards or parts of the ship. They all escaped safely to the island. (Acts 27:39-44) OUTLINE I. TRIP TO ROME BEGAN (Acts 27:1-8) A. SAILED A SHIP OF (Acts 27:1-5)1. It was decided that the prisoners should sail to Italy 2. Julius, a centurion of the Augustan Regiment, took custody 3. They boarded a ship of Adramyttium to sail along the Asian coast 4. Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, accompanied Paul 5. At Sidon, Julius treated Paul kindly a. Paul was allowed to go to his friends and receive care 6. They sailed near Cyprus, Cilicia, Pamphylia, and arrived at Myra B. SAILED A SHIP OF (Acts 27:6-8)1. At Myra, the centurion found an Alexandrian ship headed to Italy 2. They boarded this ship and departed a. They sailed slowly for many days b. The wind made it difficult to sail 3. They continued to sail with difficulty near Cnidus, Crete off Salmone 4. They arrived at Fair Havens, near the city of Lasea II. PAUL WARNED OF (Acts 27:9-12) A. SAILING BECAME ; PAUL WARNED OF (Acts 27:9-10)1. Much time had passed, and sailing became dangerous 2. Paul advised, "I perceive that this voyage will end with disaster and much loss..." B. THE IGNORED PAUL'S WARNING (Acts 27:11-12)1. The centurion listened to the helmsman and ship-owner rather than Paul 2. They considered the harbor "not suitable to winter in" 3. The majority wanted to sail on to Phoenix, a harbor of Crete III. THE SEA (Acts 27:13-38) A. A WIND BLEW (Acts 27:13)1. The south wind blew softly 2. Supposing this favorable, they put out to sea 3. They sailed close to Crete B. THE TEMPEST BEGAN (Acts 27:14-20)1. Shortly after sailing, a "tempestuous head wind arose, called Euroclydon" 2. The ship was driven south of an island called Clauda 3. The sailors secured the ship with cables/ropes, passing them underneath 4. The following day, they lightened the ship 5. The third day, they threw the ship's tackle overboard 6. After several days in the storm, all hope was given up C. PAUL ASSURED THE MEN OF (Acts 27:21-26)1. They had not eaten for many days 2. Paul reminded them: he had recommended to not sail from Crete 3. Paul then assured them there would be no loss of life; only the ship would be lost - the message came from an angel of God 4. Paul affirmed his trust in God to the men by saying, "for I believe God that it will be just as it was told me" 5. Paul further revealed that the ship would run aground D. THE CREW TO ABANDON THE SHIP (Acts 27:27-32)1. After fourteen nights, the sailors sensed they were near land 2. They took soundings and determined they were nearing land 3. It was dark; they dropped four anchors to avoid running aground and prayed for daylight 4. The sailors lowered the skiff to appear they were putting out more anchors; but they intended to leave the ship 5. Paul told the centurion and soldiers, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved." 6. The soldiers cut the ropes to the skiff and let it fall away E. THE TEMPEST BEGAN (Acts 27:33-38)1. As the day dawned, Paul encouraged them to eat; it had been fourteen days since they had eaten 2. Paul indicated they needed food for nourishment and survival 3. He reminded them they all would be safe 4. Paul took bread, gave thanks to God, and began to eat before them 5. They were all encouraged by Paul and ate as well 6. After they had eaten enough, they threw out the wheat to lighten the ship 7. There were two hundred seventy-six people aboard the ship IV. AT MALTA (Acts 27:39-44) A. TO DRIVE THE SHIP ONTO THE BEACH (Acts 27:39-41)1. At daylight, they saw a bay with a beach 2. They desired to drive the ship onto the beach 3. They let the anchors go into the sea, hoisted the main sail and headed for the beach 4. The ship ran aground "where two seas met" and the "prow stuck fast" - the ship was immovable 5. The waves violently began to break up the ship B. THEY SWAM AND/OR FLOATED TO SHORE; ALL WERE SAVED (Acts 27:42-44)1. The soldiers planned to kill the prisoners to keep any from escaping 2. The centurion stopped the soldiers' plan a. He wanted to save Paul 3. The centurion commanded all who could swim to jump overboard and swim for shore a. The rest floated on boards or parts of the ship 4. They all escaped safely to the island REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER 1) What are the main events in this chapter?- Paul's trip to Rome began (Acts 27:1-8) - Paul warned of a disaster and was ignored (Acts 27:9-12) - The tempestuous sea became disastrous for the ship (Acts 27:13-38) - All were saved in the shipwreck at Malta (Acts 27:39-44) 2) Where were they to sail? (Acts 27:1)- Italy (Acts 27:1) 3) To whom were the prisoners, including Paul, delivered? (Acts 27:1)- Julius, a centurion of the Augustan Regiment (Acts 27:1) 4) Who was also sailing with Paul? (Acts 27:2)- Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica (Acts 27:2) - Luke was travelling along as well -- "we" and "us" (Acts 27:2) 5) How did the centurion treat Paul at Sidon? (Acts 27:3)- He treated Paul kindly and allowed him to go to his friends and receive care (Acts 27:3) 6) Why did they sail under the shelter of Cyprus? (Acts 27:4)- The winds were contrary (Acts 27:4) 7) Where did the centurion find the Alexandrian ship? (Acts 27:5-6)- Myra, a city of Lycia (Acts 27:6) 8) What caused the ship to sail slowly for many days? (Acts 27:7)- The wind did not permit them to proceed (7) 9) What was the name of the port near the city of Lasea? (Acts 27:8)- Fair Havens (Acts 27:8) 10) Now that the Fast was over, what was the condition for sailing? (Acts 27:9)- Sailing conditions were dangerous at that time of year (Acts 27:9) 11) Did the centurion heed Paul's warning? Who did he listen to? (Acts 27:11)- No, he was "more persuaded" by others (Acts 27:11) - The helmsman and the owner of the ship (Acts 27:11) 12) What did the majority advise to do? (Acts 27:12)- To set sail for Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, and winter there (Acts 27:12) 13) What did the sailors use to undergird the ship? Why? (Acts 27:17)- They used cables/ropes (Acts 27:17) - They afraid of running aground (Acts 27:17) 14) On the third day, what did they throw overboard? (Acts 27:18-19)- The ship's tackle (Acts 27:19) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 27:2. The first ship sailing in the desired direction was from the city of Adramyttium. This Aristarchus was the same who was with Paul in chapter 19:29. 3Act 27:3. The ship landed next day at Sidon, a seaport on the coasts of Asia. While the ship was anchored here, Paul was permitted to visit his friends among the disciples. 4Acts 27:4. To sail under means "to sail close by," according to Thayer. They sailed near the shore of this island to shield them from the winds that were blowing against them. 5Acts 27:5. Sea of Cilicia and Pam-phylia means the waters bordering on those provinces. Passing on they landed at Myra in Lycia, another province of the Roman Empire. 6Acts 27:6. At Myra all on board had to change to another ship. 7Acts 27:7. Scarce were come means they just barely made it to reach Cnidus on account of the opposing wind. Going on in a southwestern direction, they sailed between the islands of Salmone and Crete, passing nearer the former. 8Acts 27:8. Hardly (with difficulty) they sailed round along the southern shore of Crete and came to a harbor called fair havens, near the city of Lasea. 9Acts 27:9. The fast was now already past. The fast was the period of the Atonement which came on the 10th day of the 7th month (Leviticus 23:27). This ceremonial day had nothing to do with the sailing, but it so happened that it came about the beginning of a stormy season on the Mediterranean. The reference to it was merely as a date, indicating the season of the year when it was generally dangerous to sail. 0Acts 27:10. I perceive is from THEOREO, and the several definitions in the lexicon present the idea of a conclusion based on what one has seen or can see, in connection with his better judgment. From such a basis, Paul advised that it would be a risk to both their lives and to the ship for them to sail. 1Act 27:11. It was natural to prefer the judgment of these men to that of Paul since they were experienced seamen, and should have been in position to judge. 2Act 27:12. Just because the place was not commodious (convenient) where they were in which to winter, the majority of the crew advised leaving. They thought they could reach the haven of Phenice which faced the northwest and southeast. Due to some "weather conditions" with which I am not acquainted, this was thought to offer a safe place in which to remain until spring. 3Act 27:13. South wind blew softly. Such a wind seemed favorable, both as to direction and intensity. It would gently press them north and west along Crete. 4Acts 27:14. The chief characteristic of Euroclydon was that of churning up the water into huge waves, which accounts for the difficulties they had with the body of the ship. Thayer defines the word, "A S. E. wind raising mighty waves. 5Acts 27:15. Let her drive means they did not try to control the direction of the ship, but let it float in whatever direction the wind and waves drove it. 6Acts 27:16. Running under denotes going south of the island and passing near the shore. At this place the conditions had become so severe that they had difficulty to come by the boat, which means they could hardly manage the boat. 7Acts 27:17. The boat referred to was a lifeboat, which had been towed up to now because the waters were calm when they started. The word for boat is from SKAPHE which Robinson defines, "A skiff, boat." They hoisted this boat (with "much work," verse 16) up on deck, then gave their attention to the ship. To strengthen the hull, they passed ropes or chains around it and drew them up tight. Strake sail means they lowered the sails for fear the wind in them would force the ship into the quicksands. From now on they let the ship drift as it would with the wind and waves. 8Acts 27:18. Lightened the ship means they threw overboard some of the goods, thereby easing the weight the ship was compelled to carry in the storm. 9Acts 27:19. Tackling means the furniture, apparatuses and all other equipment of the ship. The situation was so grave the disciples assisted in throwing these things out. 0Acts 27:20. The obscurity of sun and stars indicates the storm continued throughout day and night. Not having any compass in those days, mariners had to depend on the heavenly bodies for their direction. This condition continued for so many days that all on board (except Paul) despaired of ever reaching land. 1Act 27:21. The long abstinence was natural under the terrible strain of the conditions. Paul was very kind and respectful, yet properly chided the group for having rejected the advice he offered them while at Crete. 2Act 27:22. Paul bade them to be of good cheer since the only loss that was to come to them would be regarding the ship; he then explained why he was thus assured. 4Acts 27:23-24. Stood by me . . . angel. (See Hebrews 1:13-14.) It was God's will for Paul to appear before Caesar; many results were to come from that great event. 6Acts 27:25-26. Paul predicted the wreck of the ship, which was to intervene before the personal rescue of the crowd or his appearance before Caesar. 7Acts 27:27. Two weeks after leaving Crete the mariners thought they saw indications of being near land. They were being driven back and forth in Adria, the Adriatic Sea, which is that part of the Mediterranean between Greece and Italy. 8Acts 27:28. They sounded (measured the depth with a line and weight) and found it twenty fathoms, or about 120 feet. After going only a little further they found it fifteen fathoms, or about 90 feet. 9Acts 27:29. At that rate they feared the water would soon be too shallow for the ship to float. They cast four anchors out of the rear of the boat to hold it from moving, while waiting for daylight to come when they could see better about conditions. 0Acts 27:30. The sailors lowered the lifeboat under color (pretending) that they intended placing some anchors at the forepart of the ship, but in reality for the purpose of abandoning the ship and taking to the lifeboat. 1Act 27:31. The Lord promised to bring all the persons on board alive through the storm. However, He expected the cooperation of all concerned, especially the ones who were trained in affairs of water travel, hence Paul made this statement to the soldiers. 2Act 27:32. To prevent the escape of the shipmen, the soldiers cut the ropes and let the lifeboat go. As it was an emergency, the military men acted in this commandeering manner to save the lives of the whole group. 4Acts 27:33-34. While waiting for daylight, Paul advised them to break their fast for their- health. Too long abstinence from food would be injurious, and besides, as their ultimate escape was assured, there was no reason for them to punish themselves more. 7Acts 27:35-37. Paul led the way and began to eat, after giving thanks for the bread. The group of 276 persons then took courage and also partook of the food. 8Acts 27:38. After satisfying their hunger, they decided to ease the strain on the boat further by casting the wheat into the sea. 9Acts 27:39. Knew not the land denotes that they did not recognize it. All creeks of necessity have shores, so we learn that a clearer translation would be that they thought they saw a bay with a beach that would be a desirable place for a "forced landing." 0Acts 27:40. Had taken up all comes from one Greek word which Thayer defines, "to cast loose." The italicized word themselves refers to the anchors which they abandoned in order to relieve the ship of the weight. The rudders were large oars used to steer the ship. While at anchor they would be hoisted out of the water and held by bands or ropes; these were now cut loose. They next raised the mainsail and started toward the "bay" mentioned in the preceding verse. 1Act 27:41. Where two seas met all comes from , which Thayer defines, "an isthmus or tongue of land," and he explains it, "the extremity of which is covered by the waves." Both sides of this projection of land were washed by the sea which formed a sort of whirlpool, into which the forepart of the ship was thrust and stranded. The rear part of the boat was then lashed with the violence of this "whirlpool" and crushed. 2Act 27:42. When the jailer in chapter 16:27 thought his prisoners had escaped, he intended killing himself rather than be executed (as he thought) by the officers. The soldiers in our verse wanted to kill the prisoners, rather than face their superior officers under the charge of allowing the prisoners to escape. This indicates the harsh rules the Roman government established regarding the responsibility of those having charge of prisoners. It also explains why the Jews felt the necessity of assuring protection for the watchers at the tomb of Jesus. (Matthew 28:12-14.) 3Act 27:43. Paul was one of the prisoners and would have shared the fate of the others, had the soldiers been suffered to carry out their purpose. Whether the centurion cared much for the other prisoners we are not told. But his respect for the apostle Paul moved him to dissuade the soldiers from their evil design. Instead, he gave orders for all to get to land in whatever way they could. 4Acts 27:44. Some of the crowd were able to swim to shore. Others made it to safety by the aid of boards and pieces of the ship that helped them to float. H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 28 THREE MONTHS IN MELITAAct_28:1-10 1 And when we were escaped,—When the crew and all the passengers were safely on shore, they learned that the island was “ called Melita.” No doubt the sailors would have recognized the island had they approached it in the usual way. This island is now known as “ Malta” ; it is located about sixty-five or seventy miles south of Cilicia or Sicily; it is nine miles wide and seventeen miles long; it now belongs to Great Britain. At one time it was thought that the shipwreck was near the island of Meleda, but that view is no longer held. The island of Malta fits the description in every way, and was on the direct route to Syracuse and Rhegium. 2 And the barbarians showed us no common kindness:— “ Barbarians” is from the Greek “ barbaroi,” and is a word used by the Greeks who called all men “ Barbarians” who did not speak Greek (Romans 1:14), not “ barbarians” as meaning rude or uncivilized ; it simply meant “ foreign folk.” The term originally meant “ uncouth repetition,” Greek, “ barbar,” not understood by others. (1 Corinthians 14:11.) Paul used the term with “ Scythian” in Colossians 3:11, and here it meant that they were not Christians. The inhabitants of the island showed “ no common kindness” to the stranded crew and passengers. They were very kind to the strangers; “ they kindled a fire,” “ received us all,” made no distinction between the different classes represented in the company. It was cold, and the natives showed due consideration for the unfortunate ones who had been shipwrecked. The shipwrecked were wet from swimming to land, so the natives made a fire to warm and dry them. 3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks—We see Paul here making himself useful by helping as he had done along the journey before the shipwreck. It appears that he and other prisoners helped to throw overboard some of the cargo to lighten the ship. A poisonous serpent had hidden itself in the driftwood that Paul gathered, and when the wood was placed on the fire, this “ viper,” which was in a state of torpor because of the winter season, came out and “ fastened” on Paul’ s hand. The serpent was warmed into activity by the heat and bit Paul. It is claimed by some that Luke’ s record is not true, since there are no poisonous reptiles there now. However, the fact that there are no poisonous vipers on Malta now does not prove that Luke’ s statements are false. The island now has a larger population than it had at that time. Such animals are driven away and destroyed by civilized man. Many sections of our own country were infested with dangerous animals and poisonous serpents at one time, but now the present-day civilization has driven them away, and many species have even become extinct. 4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous creature—The natives on the island were superstitious; they could see that Paul was a prisoner, and they naturally suspected that his crime was no small one; they concluded that he was a murderer, and though he had escaped death in the sea, “ yet Justice hath not suffered to live.” They personified “ Justice,” and expected Paul, as a condemned man, to fall down dead. They reasoned that Paul had fortunately escaped drowning in the sea, but now justice had overtaken him. They knew the bite of a viper would produce death. 5 Howbeit he shook off the creature—There is nothing in the Greek to represent “ venomous” as used in verse 4, and the translators did not repeat it in verse 5. “ Creature” is from the Greek “ therion,” and the ancient medical writers applied the word to “ venomous serpent,” and especially to vipers. The Greek “ ther¬ion” has an interesting history. “ Treacle” means “ molasses,” and comes from “ theriake,” and means an antidote made from the flesh of vipers. Paul shook off this viper into the fire and felt no harm from its bite. Paul was not excited, but had perfect composure, because he recalled the two promises: (1) that of Christ to his disciples concerning serpents (Mark 16:18; Luke 10:19); and (2) the promise that he should preach the gospel in Rome; therefore, he would not die before he reached that city. 6 But they expected that he would have swollen,—In their superstitious minds and the conclusion which they had erroneously reached, they expected Paul to fall down dead. As seen above, they had concluded that he was some notorious criminal. However, when Paul suffered no harm from the venomous viper, they went to the other extreme in their reasoning, and “ said that he was a god.” They waited long enough for the poison to take effect, and when it did not, they easily jumped to the extreme position that he was “ a god.” They expected Paul’ s hand or body to “ have swollen” ; this was the usual effect of the bite of a viper, making itself apparent in a very short time. “ Swollen” is from the Greek verb “ pimpremi,” which means “ to blow, to burn, to inflame, to cause to swell.” They also expected Paul to fall down dead. The two common results of the viper’ s bite were a swollen body and death. Paul did not suffer either one, so “ they changed their minds.” 7 Now in the neighborhood of that place—Near the place where the shipwrecked crew and passengers landed was “ the chief man of the island” ; he was called “ Publius.” Publius is called Protos,” which was the official title of the ruler of the island. He received Paul and his companions, Luke and Aristarchus, and showed great favor to them by entertaining them. It is not known whether Julius, the centurion, or the other officials were invited. They were entertained for “ three days courteously.” Some think that the entire company was entertained by Publius; it is very likely that he would invite Julius, as Paul was in his charge as a prisoner. 8 And it was so, that the father of Publius lay sick—Publius’ father lay sick of a fever. “ Sick” is from the Greek “ sunechomenon,” which means “ held together” ; “ fever” is from the Greek “ puretois,” and means intermittent attacks. “ Dysentery” is from the Greek “ dusenterioi,” and is another medical term which Luke uses; these two diseases are commonly found together. Paul went into Publius’ father and prayed, and laid his hands on him and healed him. Paul followed the same course as Peter in the case of Tabitha. (Acts 9:36-43.) Paul was given miraculous power on this occasion to heal Publius’ father. Luke, who was a physician, was with Paul, but nothing is said of his prescribing anything for the sick man. This is another fulfillment of the promise made by Jesus in Mark 16:18. 9-10 And when this was done,—The fact that Paul had cured Publius’ father was speedily made known throughout the island. Nothing is said about Paul’ s preaching the gospel; that is taken for granted, and the miracles which he performed confirmed his words. His preaching and working miracles went together. As the people learned that there was one who could heal all these diseases, they brought the afflicted and diseased to Paul and he cured them. Naturally the ruler of the island and the people would bestow great honors on one who had such power as to heal instantly the disease. They showed their honors in a very substantial way, for when Paul and the others sailed from the island, “ they put on board such things as we needed.” It should be remembered that the shipwreck had lost everything in the sea; not only Paul and other Christians received help from the natives, but all who needed help received clothing and provisions. These tokens of respect showed the kindness and appreciation of the natives. The good things which came to the soldiers and sailors came because of Paul. Naturally, the gospel would be commended to all, as Paul took no honor or credit to himself; he always gave his Lord honor and credit for what he taught and did. PAUL AT ROMEAct_28:11-31 ARRIVAL AT ROMEAct_28:11-16 11 And after three months we set sail—It was now about February; the Day of Atonement or Fast occurred on the tenth of Tisri (September-October). (Leviticus 16:29 Leviticus 23:27; Numbers 29:7.) This day occurred in A.D. 59 on October 5, and in A.D. 60 it oc¬curred on September 23. We do not know how long after the Day of Atonement before the ship left Fair Havens (Acts 27:8); then there came the fourteen days of Act 27:27, bringing us near the end of October or the beginning of November. Three months from this would be the beginning of February. This was a little early for general navigation on the Mediterranean Sea at that time. The crew, of course, was anxious to sail at the earliest opportunity ; they were anxious to reach their destination. There was another ship in the harbor from Alexandria; it had wintered “ in the island,” and since it probably belonged to the same company to which the stranded crew belonged, they prepared to sail on this vessel. Its sign was “ The Twin Brothers,” or Castor and Pollux. Castor and Pollux were deities of sailors whose figures were painted on one side of the ship; this sign was the name of the ship. Hence, Paul and his company board another grain ship of Alexandria bound for Rome. 12 And touching at Syracuse,—The ship left the island of Melita or Malta and sailed nearly due north to Syracuse; this was a direct course. The distance from Malta to Syracuse was about eighty miles; Syracuse was the principal place on the island of Sicily. They remained three days here, and Paul may have found some Christians with whom he could visit during this time. Ships from Alexandria to Italy usually stopped here; the stay there of three days was probably waiting for a favorable wind. 13 And from thence we made a circuit,—“ Circuit” is from the Greek “ perielthontes,” and means “ to go around,” but here it appears to mean “ casting loose” ; the ship was not able to make a straight course to Rhegium; this was a town on the Italian side of the Straits of Messina. We are told that the ancient coins of Rhegium exhibit Castor and Pollux as twin brothers. After one day a south wind began, and on the second day they arrived at Puteoli. The distance from Rhegium to Puteoli was about one hundred eighty miles, and if the ship sailed seven knots, or seven nautical miles an hour, it would require about twenty-six hours to make the voyage. Puteoli was the customary port for the Alexandrian grain ships. “ Puteoli” is derived from the springs “ Putei,” which abound there, or from the bad odor of the waters. It was the principal port south of Rome. Paul could look upon the well-known beauty of the Bay of Naples, and upon Vesuvius. 14 where we found brethren,—We know from the list of names recorded in Romans 16 that the Christian brethren were at this time numerous in Rome. It appears that there were also Christians at Puteoli. This is the only mention of a congregation in Italy outside of Rome. Paul and his company tarried here seven days. Many have thought that he tarried there to spend the Lord’ s day with them as in Acts 20:6-7 at Troas and in Acts 21:4 at Tyre. It appears that the centurion granted Paul much liberty. This is to be expected since Paul had proved himself to be an extraordinary prisoner, and had saved the lives of the centurion and others. After remaining there the seven days they came to Rome. This bare statement of the fact of their arrival is made by Luke to show the end of their journey. Luke, the historian, now turns aside in the next sentence to mention circumstances connected with their route from Puteoli. This is the climax of the book of Acts (Acts 19:21 Acts 23:11), but it is not the close of Paul’ s career. Many scholars have contended that a new paragraph should begin with verse 15. Paul had now reached Rome, but not as he had at one time expected. (Romans 15:22-29.) 15 And from thence the brethren,—The news that Paul was on his way to Rome reached Rome or the church there before Paul arrived. It appears that the brethren from Puteoli forwarded the news to Rome, and the brethren from Rome came to meet Paul. Paul’ s meeting with the brethren refreshed him. (Acts 18:5; Romans 1:11-12 Romans 15:32; 2 Corinthians 13 2 Corinthians 7:6.) Some of them came as far as “ The Market of Appius,” which was about forty-three miles from Rome. Others met him at “ The Three Taverns,” which was about thirty-three miles from Rome. It appears that there were two separate groups of brethren from Rome, one in advance of the other. Among these were possibly Aquila and Priscilla and others named in Romans 16. We see here two very distinct charactersitics of Paul— the appreciation of help derived from the presence of friends and the gratitude which such services inspired in him. Paul saw that Christ was already at Rome; he was encouraged at the thought that Rome was receptive of the gospel. 16 And when we entered into Rome,—Luke is still with Paul; this is seen by the use of the pronoun “ we.” Paul was now in Rome, but a prisoner. Julius, the centurion, into whose hands Paul had been committed, now turned him over to the proper authorities. Some very ancient authorities insert in the text “ the centurion delivered the prisoners to the Chief of the camp” ; however, Paul was permitted “ to abide by himself with the soldier that guarded him.” It is not certain who was the chief officer to whom Paul was committed; some think that he was Burrus who was prefect of the Praetorian Guard from A.D. 51 to 62; others think that he was turned over to the captain of the peregrini. We may be sure that the centurion, Julius, recommended Paul very highly to the officer who took charge of him. The kind terms in which Festus reported the case, and Paul’ s noble conduct and helpfulness on the voyage, would combine to influence the officer to grant to Paul every privilege and comfort within his power. Paul first retired to a friend’ s house (Acts 28:23), and then rented an apartment for himself (Acts 28:30). Wherever he was he was fastened by a chain to a soldier. Prisoners with light offenses charged against them were granted many favors. Paul tells us that he gradually became known to the greater number of the imperial bodyguard. (Philippians 1:12-13.) Different soldiers relieved each other of this duty from time to time; this gave Paul an opportunity to preach the gospel to many of them. WITH THE JEWS Acts 28:17-29 17 And it came to pass, that after three days—Probably the “ three days” were spent in arranging a lodging for Paul and con¬ferring with Christians who had long waited for him to visit them. Paul called together “ those that were the chief of the Jews” ; this by some is translated “ those that were of the Jews first,” and the prominent Gentiles later. However, it seems clear that it is bet¬ter to regard the chiefs of the Jews, such as rulers and elders of the synagogue and heads of the principal Jewish families that had settled in Rome; it may have included also the scribes and some of the wealthier traders among the Jews. There were many Jews in Rome at this time. There were seven synagogues in Rome at this time. There was not room for Paul to receive all at the same time, and he would naturally invite those who were best informed and most influential. Paul being a prisoner and chained to a soldier could not go to any of their synagogues; hence, he must invite them to come to him. When they came together Paul made it clear that he had “ nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers.” He had not come to Rome to prefer any charges against the Jews; he had appealed to Caesar in order to save his own life. He had been delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem and had been forced to make an appeal to Caesar. 18 who, when they had examined me,—Although Paul was a prisoner and under appeal to Caesar, he had done nothing to his people; the Romans, after examining him, had declared him inno¬cent of any violation of Roman law or Jewish law; he had appealed to Caesar, not to accuse his own race, but to save his own life; he was a prisoner because he had accepted Jesus as the Messiah of his nation, and regarded his resurrection from the dead as evidence of the resurrection and of the Messiahship of Christ. How could Paul say that he had been delivered by the Jews into the Roman authorities? Lysias, the captain, had rescued Paul from a mob of Jews; he had been tried before Felix, then before Festus, and last before Agrippa. These Roman officials would have released Paul had it not been for the clamor of the Jews. 19 But when the Jews spake against it,—The verdict of the Roman authorities in each case was that Paul was not worthy of death or guilty of any crime. They wished to release Paul, but the Jews “ spake against it,” and Paul was forced to make his appeal to Caesar in order to save his own life. Paul speaks with kindness and courtesy about the opposition of the Jews to him. He uses conciliatory words and phrases such as “ brethren,” “ the people,” “ our fathers,” “ the hope of Israel,” and “ not that I had aught whereof to accuse my nation.” Paul did not wish to be an instru¬ment in the hands of Roman tyranny; he knew the hardships his people had suffered in Rome, and that at different times they had been banished from Rome. 20 For this cause therefore did I entreat you—Here Paul gives his reason for sending for them or inviting them to come to him. He desired to speak to them and clear himself of whatever false reports may have been sent to Rome, or that Jews visiting Jerusalem from Rome may have heard in Jerusalem about him. Paul is a prisoner in chains; he must explain why he is a prisoner. He is forced to make his defense. He is a prisoner “ because of the hope of Israel.” The hope for which he suffered was twofold: (1) the expectation of the Messiah as bringing in the kingdom of heaven, which was cherished by every Israelite; (2) the hope of the resurrection from the dead, which he proclaimed as attested to by the resurrection, which proved that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. 21 And they said unto him,—After hearing Paul’ s explana¬tion, some among them spoke and assured Paul that they had “ nei¬ther received letters from Judaea” concerning Paul, nor “ did any of the brethren” from Jerusalem make any report or “ speak any harm” of him. “ Letters” is from the Greek “ grammata,” which means an official document from the Sanhedrin containing charges against Paul. They do not mean to say that they had never heard of Paul, but that no official charges had been preferred against him in any way, either written or oral. The Jews in Judea had no def¬inite reason to communicate with the Jews in Rome respecting Paul; they did not expect Paul to ever go to Rome; and since Paul’ s appeal to Caesar, it would have been almost impossible for them to have sent messengers who would arrive before Paul. Paul had sailed toward the very close of navigation for that season on the Mediterranean, and others could not have left Caesarea till the following spring. Again, it may be possible that after Paul’ s im¬prisonment of two years at Caesarea the enmity of the Jews had cooled off. 22 But we desire to hear of thee—They had heard something about this new “ sect” which had risen among the Jews; it was ev¬erywhere spoken against. They had received no favorable report concerning it. They are to be commended in their fairness to hear Paul’ s side. “ Sect” is from the Greek “ haireseos,” and is the same from which our word “ heresy” comes. This would indicate that the number of Christians in Rome was small. If the edict of Claudius or the expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2) was due to disturbance over Christ, then even in Rome the Jews had special reason for hostility toward Christians. Their language here indicates that there was a sharply drawn line of cleavage between Jews and Christians. Paul did not admit that Christianity was a “ sect” ; this is the way the Jews regarded it. Paul did not .egard Christianity as a new religion, nor as a substitute for the Jewish religion, but rather as a lawful and rightful successor of the Jewish religion; the old foretold the new; its hopes centered in the Messiah. Paul declared that the Messiah had come, and he would proclaim this flower and fruit of the old faith. 23 And when they had appointed him a day,—“ Appointed” is from the Greek “ taxamenoi,” and means a formal arrangement, as in Matthew 28:16, when Jesus appointed the mountain as the meeting place in Galilee; the Jews fixed a day, but Paul likely made suggestions. They came into Paul’ s lodging place, not his own hired house (verse 30), but to a house where he stayed as a guest. A larger number of Jews came at this time than had come at first. Paul had told them that for the sake of the Messianic hope of Israel he was bound with the chain that held him; he now expounded that this hope was from the Old Testament, and showed how at each stage it was fulfilled in the kingdom of Jesus the Christ. He spoke what Festus and Agrippa had refused to hear (Acts 26:22-28); and his audience at this time, or at least part of it, was sympathetic, for they remained a long time with him. “ Expounded” is from the Greek “ exetitheto,” and means “ to set forth,” as in Acts 11:4 Acts 18:26. Paul set forth the whole matter, testifying about the things of “ the kingdom of God,” and “ persuading them concerning Jesus.” How far his “ persuading” was effective must be determined by the context, though the word itself sometimes means to convince. “ Persuading” is from the Greek “ peithon,” and means “ to persuade, to reason with, to convince.” This was a golden opportunity for Paul, and he drew his arguments from “ the law of Moses” and “ from the prophets.” All believed the law and the prophets; there was common ground here; so Paul placed the prophecies of the kingdom of God, and of the Messiah to come, side by side with the life, death, and res¬urrection of Jesus; he showed the Jews how perfectly Jesus had fulfilled the law and the prophets. 24 And some believed the things which were spoken,—Here we have the results of Paul’ s preaching to this goodly company of Jews. They divide themselves into two companies: (1) those who believed his preaching; (2) those who disbelieved. We have no way of telling which was the larger company. “ Believed,” here, is from the Greek “ epeithonto” ; this is not the usual Greek word employed for “ believed” ; it leads to the same state of mind through a crisis of being convinced or persuaded. “ Disbelieved” is from the Greek “ epistoun,” and means “ to disbelieve, continue to disbelieve.” Hearers usually divide themselves into the two class¬es— believers and disbelievers. 25 And when they agreed not among themselves,—“ Agreed not” is from the Greek “ asumphonoi ontes,” which means “ without symphony, out of harmony, dissonant, discordant.” The figure is that they were like the various parts of a tune set to different keys; they were discordant, inharmonious. Who agreed not? It is difficult to determine whether those who disbelieved were in such discordant attitudes, or whether those who believed and those who disbelieved were so discordant. The context that follows leads us to infer that the disbelievers were inharmonious. Before the gathering was dismissed, Paul spoke and quoted the prophet Isaiah, and applied the prophecy to the disbelievers. The prophecy here quoted is from Isaiah 6:9-10; no passage is quoted so often in the New Testament as this. It occurs five times in Matthew 13:14; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40 and here. Jesus had used this quotation from Isaiah and applied it to the Jews; Paul now makes the same application of it. 26 saying, Go thou unto this people,—The quotation used by Paul here from Isaiah had been used by Christ as describing the spiritual state of the Jews of Palestine (Matthew 13:13; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10), while John (John 12:40) reproduces them as giving the solution of the apparent failure of Christ’ s personal ministry. It appears that Paul was following Christ in the use of this quotation. They should hear words with the outward organ of hearing, but they would not understand the real meaning; their failure was due to a stubborn disposition of mind, and not a lack of mental ability. However, a stubborn heart led to deeper dullness of hearing, greater blindness, and obstinacy of mind; these were so great that they would not turn to God. Their willfull rejection of the Messiah brought to them a hardness of heart. 27 For this people’ s heart is waxed gross,—Literally, this means that their hearts had “ become fat” as applied to the body; hence, they were dull, stupid, so that it was difficult to make an impression on them. They did not wish to see; they had closed their eyes. If they had seen, they would have had to give up their sinful pleasures, their selfish living, and their wicked ways. They would have had to separate themselves from friends and be persecuted, suffer, and perhaps die for the sake of Christ. If they should hear and see and understand, they would turn around and go back to God. If they should do this, God would heal them, cleanse them of their sin. Within about ten years from this time Jerusalem was completely destroyed, the temple broken down and obliterated, and the Jews were no longer a nation. They did not see the certain doom that awaited them for their rejection of the Messiah. 28 Be it known therefore unto you,—Here Paul sadly sounds a note of warning to these disbelieving Jews. Since they rejected the Messiah and the salvation that came through him, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, turned from them to the Gentiles. He had the assurance that the Gentiles would hear. Paul’ s words here are similar to the ones that he had spoken under like circumstances at Antioch in Pisidia. (Acts 13:46.) Paul must preach the gospel; “ woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:16.) If the Jews will not hear him, he must turn to those who would hear him. The Jews could destroy themselves, but they could not de¬stroy the kingdom of God or prevent the Messiah from reigning over his kingdom. The Gentiles would hear. “ They will also hear.” These are the last words of Paul recorded in Acts; they are the last words of the historian Luke of his life. In these words there is a note of triumph blending with a note of sadness; he re¬gretted that his people would not hear the gospel and accept the Messiah and be saved; this brings sadness to him. He rejoiced that the Gentiles would hear and be saved. His preaching would not be in vain to them. 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, having much disputing among themselves—Some of the best ancient manuscripts do not have this verse; hence, it is left out in the American Standard Revision. However, some ancient authorities insert it as follows: “ And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, having much disputing among themselves.” It describes accurately, doubtless, what actually took place. Some think that this verse was written on the margin to relieve the apparent abruptness of the narrative between verses 28 and 30, and has been inserted in the text of some manu¬script by some transcriber who thought it had been accidentally omitted from the text of his copy.) PAUL A AT ROME TWO YEARSAct_28:30-31 30 And he abode two whole years—Paul has now changed his abiding place from some temporary abode to a more permanent one. Luke gives no account of these years. He had brought Paul to Rome; the gospel had now reached the center of the known world. This is what concerned Luke most. All this time Paul was a prisoner of state; the expenses incurred were probably defrayed by friends at Rome and in the provinces. Paul was, during the day, chained to a soldier, and probably in the night two soldiers watched him, according to the sentence of the Roman law. The New Testament contains four of Paul’ s epistles which were written while in prison at Rome— the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians, and a short letter to Philemon. From these let/ters we learn that Luke, Timothy, Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, and Tychicus were among the friends who, during the whole or part of this time, were with Paul. During “ two whole years” Paul dwelt in “ his own hired dwelling” ; the Greek “ misthomati,” from which we get “ hired,” means “ hired for a price.” We do not know anything further about Paul’ s hired “ dwelling.” We may be sure that Paul lived as economically as possible since he was dependent upon the gifts of Christians. (Philippians 4:14-15.) As a prisoner, he could not sustain himself as he did at Corinth and Ephesus. (Acts 18:3 Acts 20:34; 2 Corinthians 11:9.) Paul was a prisoner two years at Caesarea before he came to Rome, and now he has been a prisoner two years in Rome. We do not know why his trial was delayed; his appeal would have to wait its turn. When his case came up for trial the records of it from Festus may have been lost in the shipwreck; hence, an order for an official copy would have to be sent for from Caesarea, and the hearing postponed until the copy of the record arrived. Hence, Paul’ s case would lose its place in the court calendar and there would be a longer delay in reaching it again. Paul’ s frequent references in his prison epistles as a prisoner confirms this view. (Ephesians 6:19-20; Philippians 1:1 Philippians 1:13; Colossians 1:1 Colossians 4:3 Colossians 4:18;Philemon 1:1.) 31 preaching the kingdom of God,—Paul had great privileges as a prisoner; his friends could visit him and receive instruction from him; he had opportunity to write a number of letters to the churches. He preached “ the kingdom of God” to all who came to him. “ Preaching” is from the Greek “ kerusson,” and “ teaching” comes from the Greek “ didaskon.” “ Preaching” means “ heralding,” while “ teaching” means “ instructing.” He was not hindered in this work. He was allowed complete freedom of speech, and he used his liberty to speak out boldly to all who came to him to hear the gospel. He tells us himself that other Christians who saw a bound prisoner speak so freely were encouraged by his example and the gospel was spread. (Philippians 1:12-14.) none forbidding him.—Paul had now been a prisoner four years— two years were spent in Caesarea and two more years have been spent in the Roman prison. Perhaps he spent a longer time than the two years mentioned here. Paul continued faithfully, dili¬gently, and boldly to proclaim salvation through Christ Jesus. Luke has now completed his first purpose; he wrote to assure Theophilus of the certainty of the facts concerning “ all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was re¬ceived up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen.” (Acts 1:1-2; see Luke 1:4.) He now closes his book. With Paul at Rome the gospel has spread and reached a climax; from Jerusalem it has won its way from city to city, province to province, over Jewish hatred and prejudice and Gentile idolatry to the metropolis of the world. Luke’ s record is a triumphal spread of Christianity until it has covered the civilized world; his closing words are a suitable conclusion for the book of Acts. Although Paul was a prisoner in Rome for “ two whole years,” he was not idle. A portion of the New Testament scriptures were written while he was a prisoner. It is interesting to recount the many blessings and rich productions that have come from prison walls and chains. Savonarola wrote his Commentaries on Psalms 31, 51 during his month of imprisonment before his execution; this shows that, though he had much spiritual conflict, neither his faith nor his comfort yielded to his persecution. Francis Baker composed the hymn, “ Jerusalem, My Happy Home,” while a prisoner in the tower; Walter Raleigh wrote his “ History of the World” and some poems while a prisoner in the same tower. John Bunyan wrote his “ Pilgrim’ s Progress” while he languished in Bedford jail. Paul, while imprisoned in Rome, wrote four epistles— Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Paul crowned his labors by the composition of these books of the New Testament as a prisoner for Christ Jesus; thus in prison Paul did some of the most important work of his life— work that has rendered him immortal in its usefulness. He did not spend his time in murmuring and complaining, but wrote from this prison to the Philippians to “ rejoice in the Lord always: again I will say, Rejoice.” (Philippians 4:4.) Furthermore, it is interesting to note Paul’ s companions and visitors during his imprisonment. Romans 16:3-15 contains a list of salutations of Paul to Christians in Rome; this was written probably thirteen years before Paul reached Rome. In this list he mentions twenty-three men and eight women, of whom three are spoken of as his kinsmen and four in connection with their households. In addition to these, Paul mentions in his epistles as his special companions and friends the following: Timothy (Colossians 1:1); Epaphras, a fellow prisoner (Philemon 1:23) ; Onesi mus, a slave (Philemon 1:10); Tychicus, a minister who delivered the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians (Ephesians 6:21-22; Colossians 4:7-8) ; Aristarchus (Colossians 4:10) ; Mark, the writer of the gospel which bears his name (Colossians 4:10) ; Justus, who is also called “ Jesus” (Colossians 4:11); Luke, the author of Luke and the Acts (Colossians 4:14); Demas (Philemon 1:24); Epaphroditus, who brought a gift to Paul from the Philippians and carried back Paul’ s letter to them (Philippians 2:25 Philippians 4:18); and some member of Caesar's household (Philippians 4:22). PAUL’ S RELEASE, SECOND , AND DEATH Paul had made an appeal to Caesar; this brought him to Rome. He was retained a prisoner in Rome for at least two years, waiting for his trial. What was the outcome or final decision of this trial? The Acts closes before he had his trial. Some think that he continued in prison for a long time and finally died a martyr. Some good scholars doubt his release at this trial. They claim that since the New Testament is silent on the question, and that early profane history is uncertain as to the results, it cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy as to the final result. However, others are sure that Paul was released and preached the gospel for some years, and was finally imprisoned the second time in Rome and suffered martyrdom. Those who have so concluded base their conclusions on several important facts and inferences. In Paul’ s prison letters we learn that he expected to be released. (Philippians 1:25 Philippians 2:23-24; Philemon 1:22.) We do not know whether Paul entertained this hope as a matter of judgment or whether he had special revelation by the Holy Spirit. It does not matter, since a fair conclusion from these scriptures warrants us in believing that he hoped to regain his liberty. Moreover, Clement, a disciple and companion of Paul, affirms that Paul, before his martyrdom, traveled “ to the boundary of the West,” which is an expression applied to the trans-Alpine country; some think that he even visited Spain. Eusebius, the father of church history, states the common belief of the early churches that Paul went forth to proclaim the gospel and afterwards came to Rome a second time and suffered martyrdom under Nero. It is thought that during his second imprisonment he wrote Second Timothy. The close of Paul’ s life is veiled from our eyes, but no cloud dims, or ever can dim, the splendor of the services of that life for God and for humanity. Coleridge has described that life as being “ cultivated, refined, heroic, versatile, magnetic; a born interpreter of truth, a leader of men, a creator of life, and an epoch-making genius.” J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 28Acts 28:1-2. (1) “And after they had escaped, they knew that the island was called Melita. (2) Now the barbarians showed us no little philanthropy; for they kindled a fire, on account of the rain that was falling, and on account of the cold, and brought us all to it.” In calling the islanders barbarians, Luke adopts the style of the Greeks, by whom all nations were styled barbarians except themselves. The term had not the same sense of reproach which it bears now; yet those to whom it was applied were regarded as comparatively uncivilized. Their kindness to the shipwrecked strangers was true philanthropy, being prompted by the simple fact that they were men in distress. It was a most timely relief to the drenched and chilled and exhausted voyagers. Acts 28:3-6. While they were endeavoring to make themselves comfortable around the fire, an incident occurred which had an important bearing upon the future welfare of the travelers. (3) “Now Paul, having gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, a viper came out from the heat, and fastened on his hand. (4) And when the barbarians saw the beast hanging from his hand, they said one to another, No doubt this man is a murderer; whom, though he has escaped from the sea, Justice permits not to live. (5) Then he shook off the beast into the fire, and suffered no harm. (6) But they were waiting for him to swell up, or suddenly fall down dead. And when they had waited a great while, and saw that no harm came to him, they turned about, and said that he was a god.” This scene is like that at Lystra reversed. There the people first took Paul for a god, and afterward stoned him. Here they first suppose him to be a murderer, and then a god. Their bad opinion of him had not been based upon the mere fact that he was bitten by a serpent, for they knew that innocent men were liable to the same misfortune, but by the occurrence of this incident in so close connection with his safe escape from an almost hopeless shipwreck. The fact that he was a prisoner helped them to the conclusion that he had committed murder, and was now receiving a just retribution in a violent death. They attributed his punishment to the goddess of justice, using the Greek term Dike, the name of that goddess. When, after watching a long time, they found that the bite, so fatal to other men, had no effect on him, their heathen education led them irresistibly to the conclusion that he was god. It is almost universally conceded that the island here called Melita is the modern Malta, which lies directly south of Sicily. The evidence for this conclusion is fully summed up by Mr. Howson, to whom the inquisitive reader is referred. Acts 28:7. The admiration awakened by this event among the rude populace finally led to a more comfortable entertainment of the ship's company. (7) “In the regions around that place were the estates of the chief man of the island, Publius by name, who received us and entertained us courteously three days.” This “ chief man” is supposed to have been the Roman governor of the island. It was an instance of distinguished hospitality, to entertain for three days, with food and lodging, two hundred and seventy-six strangers. Acts 28:8-10. But no man ever loses by such hospitality, especially if it be extended to a servant of God. Publius was not without a reward for his kindness. (8) “And it came to pass that the father of Publius lay afflicted with fever and dysentery; to whom Paul went in, and having prayed, laid his hands upon him, and healed him. (9) When this was done, others also in the island who had diseases came and were healed. (10) And they honored us highly, and when we were departing, loaded us with such things as we needed.” The voyagers had lost every thing in the shipwreck, yet, through the services of Paul, they had lacked nothing during their stay on the island, and were now about to leave it with all the necessaries for the remainder of the voyage, supplied free of cost. At the beginning of the voyage Paul was one of the most unobserved of all the passengers; but he had gradually become the chief dependence of the whole company, and had acquired an ascendency over every mind. Much of this was due to his inspiration; yet native force of character and superior talent, place them where you will, will elevate their possessor to distinction and authority. Especially will this be true in times of danger and difficulty. We can not suppose that Paul healed diseases so generally among the islanders, without mentioning the name of Jesus. On the contrary, though Luke makes no mention of it, we can not doubt that, from the palace of the governor to the remotest hamlet of the island, the name and power of Jesus were fully proclaimed during the three months of the apostle's stay. Acts 28:11-14. (11) “Now after three months we set sail in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the island, whose emblem was Castor and Pollux. (12) And landing at Syracuse, we remained there three days. (13) Thence, taking an indirect course, we arrived at Rhegium. And after one day, a south wind sprang up, and we went the next day to Puteoli. (14) Finding brethren there, we were entreated to remain with them seven days; and so we went to Rome.” Castor and Pollux were represented, in Greek mythology, as sons of Jupiter, and the patron deities of sailors. Their images, carved or painted on the prow, served the purpose of distinguishing this vessel, as do the names painted upon ships and steamboats at the present day. The ship would now be called the Castor and Pollux. Syracuse, the famous capital of Sicily, where they remained three days, was directly in their route, and the delay was probably for the purposes of trade. From this place to Rhegium they were again troubled with unfavorable winds, as is evident from their sailing by an “ indirect course,” and the mention of a south wind springing up the second day after they reached this port. The south wind was directly in their course, and they sailed rapidly before it to Puteoli, accomplishing a distance of one hundred and eighty miles on the next day after they started. It was, doubtless, an unexpected pleasure to Paul to find brethren in Puteoli, and equally unexpected to them to have the great apostle to the Gentiles in their midst. The request that he should remain with them seven days indicates a desire to have him present at their Lord's-day meeting. It is suggestive of a season of religious intercourse, terminated by the day on which the disciples came together to break the loaf. The ship had reached her final port; for Puteoli, situated on the northern side of the Bay of Naples, was the chief landing-place for vessels engaged in the trade between Rome and Egypt. The remainder of the journey was to be performed on foot, and there was nothing to prevent Paul's delay with the brethren, except the will of the centurion, who was under too great obligations to him to refuse any reasonable request. Acts 28:15. The delay of seven days was long enough for news to reach the brethren in Rome, that Paul was in Puteoli on his way to their city. (15) “And the brethren, having heard from that place concerning us, came out to meet us as far as Appii Forum and Three Taverns. When Paul saw them he thanked God and took courage.” The two place here mentioned were about ten miles apart, and it was doubtless two different companies who met them, having left Rome at different times. One party had come about forty miles, to Appii Forum, and the other about thirty, to the places called Tres Tabernζ, or Three Taverns. Such a mark of respect extended to him in his bonds was highly gratifying, and no wonder that he “ thanked God and took courage.” Acts 28:16. Finally, the gates of “ the eternal city,” as it was proudly styled, were entered. The prisoners were at the end of their long journey, and soon learned the disposition to be made of them for the time being. (16) “And when we came into Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the Prζtorian Prefect; but Paul was permitted to dwell by himself, with the soldier who guarded him.” The Prζtorian Prefect was commander of the imperial guards, and had custody of all persons to be tried before the emperor. It was probably the influence of Julius, the centurion, in his favor, which obtained for Paul the distinguished privilege of living in his own rented house, with only a single guard. Paul had now accomplished a journey which he had contemplated for many years, and had met with some of the brethren whom he had called upon two years and a half ago, to strive together with him in prayer to God that he might come to them with joy, by the will of God, and with them to be refreshed. God had twice promised him that he should visit Rome, and now the promise was fulfilled, and his prayers were answered. But how different his entrance into the imperial city from what he had fondly hoped! Instead of coming in a free man, to appear in the synagogue, and in the forum, for the name of Jesus, he is marched in between files of soldiers, reported to the authorities as a prisoner sent up for trial, and kept night and day under a military guard. How poor his prospect for evangelizing the vast population! If Paul the tent-maker, a penniless stranger, had commenced his labors in the commercial emporium of Greece, “ in weakness, and in fear and in much trembling,” how shall Paul the prisoner, with all the suspicion of crime which attaches to such a situation, begin the work of salvation in the capital of the whole world? The prospect was sufficiently disheartening; but he had one consolation which he did not enjoy in Corinth. He was not a stranger here; but was well known to all the brethren, who had heard his Epistle to the Romans read in the Lord's-day meetings, and who were eager to form his personal acquaintance. He had already thanked God and taken courage, when some of them had met him on the way, and now he was emboldened, by their sympathy, to send forth even from his prison-walls a voice of warning to the vast multitudes around him. Acts 28:17-20. He made no delay in beginning his work; and his first appeal, according to his uniform custom, was addressed to his own kinsmen according to the flesh. (17) “And it came to pass, after three days, that he called together the chief men of the Jews; and when they had come together, he said to them, Brethren, I have done nothing against the people, or the customs of the fathers; yet I was delivered a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans; (18) who, having examined me, were disposed to release me, because there was no cause of death in me. (19) But the Jews opposing it, I was compelled to appeal to Cζsar; not that I had any thing of which to accuse my nation. (20) For this cause I have requested to see you, and speak to you. For it is on account of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.” The propriety of this interview, and of the individual statements in the speech, is quite obvious. It might have been supposed, from the fact that he was accused by the Jews, that he had been guilty of some crime; and from his appeal to Cζsar, that he intended to prefer charges against his accusers. The fact that the Romans would have released him but for the opposition of the Jews, was much in his favor on the first point; and on the latter, his own disavowal was sufficient. His closing remark, that it was for the hope of Israel that he was bound with a chain, was well calculated to enlist their sympathies; for it was no uncommon thing for Jews to be persecuted. Acts 28:21-22. The response of the Jews was candid and becoming. (21) “And they said to him, We have neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor has any of the brethren who had come reported or spoken any evil concerning you. (22) But we think it proper to hear from you what you think; though concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is everywhere spoken against.” It is rather surprising that they had heard nothing of the exciting scenes of Paul's life in the last two years; but it often thus happens that events pass almost unnoticed by a living generation, which are destined, in subsequent ages, to figure as the leading events of history. By hearing nothing, however, they had heard nothing prejudicial to him, except that the sect of which he was an advocate had a bad reputation. If they had acted on the principle which often governs predominant religious parties, this would have been sufficient to turn away their ears. Doubtless, they had acted somewhat on this principle toward the preachers of the gospel who had preceded Paul in Rome; but the direct personal appeal which he made to them, and the conciliatory manner and matter of his address, induced them to think proper to hear what he thought. In these words, they gave good expression to an important rule of conduct; for, however a party who attempts to show us the truth may be spoken against, it is always proper to hear them before pronouncing sentence against them. Acts 28:23-24. Before the Jews took leave of Paul, they made arrangements for a formal and deliberate hearing of what he thought. (23) “And having appointed him a day, there came to him into his lodging a greater number, to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning till evening. (24) Some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.” Sufficient time was occupied to place the whole subject before them, and to support each separate proposition with suitable evidence. The result was such a division of sentiment as almost uniformly attended the preaching of the gospel. Acts 28:25-28. From what follows, we have reason to suppose that the unbelieving party gave some unbecoming expression to their sentiments. (25) “And disagreeing among themselves, they dispersed, Paul saying one word: Well did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, (26) saying, Go to this people and say, With hearing you will hear and will not understand, and seeing, you will see and not perceive; (27) for the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them. (28) Be it known to you, therefore, that the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it.” The purpose of henceforth turning to the Gentiles, implied in the last remark, indicates that far the larger portion of his hearers rejected the gospel. The quotation from Isaiah furnishes the true explanation of the failure of the gospel to effect the salvation of all who hear it fully proclaimed. The theory that the human soul must be regenerated by an immediate influence of the Holy Spirit, or that the Spirit must impart a special force to the Word in individual cases, before the gospel can be received, is an attempt to explain this matter; but it is not consistent with the explanation here given by Paul. Upon those theories, when a part of Paul's hearers went away unbelievers, the reason was that they had not enjoyed a divine influence which was granted to the others. On Paul's theory, however, the Lord had done as much for the one party as for the other; and the reason why one party were not believers was because, unlike the others, their ears were dull of hearing, and their eyes were closed. Neither was this condition superinduced without their own volition; for they are expressly charged with closing their own eyes. As they closed them voluntarily, they could have kept them open. Had they done so, it is implied that the process would have been reversed. They would have seen the truth; seeing it to be the truth, they would have given it a respectful hearing; hearing they would have understood it, and would have turned to the Lord that they might be healed. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2Act 28:2. Barbarous sometimes means to be rude in speech; rough, harsh. It also means to speak in a foreign tongue. At our place Thayer says it is not used reproachfully, and that the inhabitants were of Phoenician origin, who had some refinement of manners. These facts explain the kind treatment they gave the shipwrecked group. 3Act 28:3. A cold rain was falling and Paul was building a fire for warmth. A viper is a poisonous snake that came out of 'the- sticks and clung to his hand. It had evidently been sheltering itself among the sticks and was numb from the cold. The heat brought it to its feeling and caused it to attack him as might be expected to be done by such a creature. 4Acts 28:4. The islanders were rather superstitious and thought this incident was the work of some supreme being. They thought Paul was trying to escape just punishment. 6Acts 28:5-6. They fully expected to see Paul drop dead. Seeing his mastery over it, they reversed their opinion and said he was a god. While that was not the object of the miracle, it, did serve to prove Paul and his companions to be good men. 7Acts 28:7. Same quarters means that same part of the island. Publius was probably the governor of the island, because he had possessions sufficient to give hospitality to Paul and his group for a period of three days. 8Acts 28:8. Paul had a chance to "return the favor" by healing the father of Publius of a serious disease, which he did by laying his hands miraculously on him. 9Acts 28:9. The good deed done for Publius' father was reported over the island. As a result, others came to Paul and were healed of diseases. 0Acts 28:10. We are not told just how these honors were manifested while Paul and his companions remained on the island. But when they were ready to leave, the natives gave them a supply of the necessities of life. 1Act 28:11. Castor and Pollux was the label inscribed on the side of the ship. The words were derived from some legend about heathen gcds. 3Act 28:12-13. The stop of three days at Syracuse was either because of the conditions of the weather, or to perform the regular business of a vessel. Fetched a compass means they took a circuitous route by the place, and coming to Puteoli they landed for a few days. 4Acts 28:14. Smith's Bible Dictionary says Puteoli was "the great landing-place of travelers to Italy," so it is not surprising that some brethren would be there. 5Acts 28:15. The brethren at Rome heard of Paul's voyage toward their city and came to meet him. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, Appi forum was 43 miles from Rome and Three taverns was 33. The same information is given in Thayer's lexicon under the word . Paul was heartened by seeing this brotherly welcome from those who were willing to brave the uncertainties of the sea to meet this "prisoner of Jesus Christ." 6Acts 28:16. Thayer says the captain of the guard was the "captain of the Roman emperor's body-guard." To this officer the centurion delivered his prisoners, thus discharging the duty that was imposed upon him at Caesarea. But Paul was not placed in the soldiers' camp; instead, he was permitted to dwell separately with a single soldier as his guard. This would give him opportunity for seeing persons in whom he was interested. 7Acts 28:17. Paul called these Jews men and brethren because of their common blood, not that they were brethren in Christ. He related how he was made a prisoner of the Romans by the Jews, though he was not guilty of wrong-doing against any laws. 8Acts 28:18. Who means the Romans into whose hands Paul had been delivered. Finding nothing wrong in him, they were disposed to discharge him from all accusations. 9Acts 28:19. Paul appealed unto Caesar as a defendant, and not as a complainant against his nation. That is, he merely wished to clear his own good name, not that he wanted to cause his Jewish brethren any trouble. 0Acts 28:20. Lest he might be misjudged by his Jewish brethren, however, he thought it well to explain the presence of the chain that was attached to him. Hope of Israel refers to the hope of a resurrection through Christ. That was the reason why he called them to him three days after arriving in their city. 1Act 28:21. These Jews had heard the report about the disciples in general, but had not received any news of accusations against Paul personally. 2Act 28:22. Because of the unfavorable report these Jews had heard about the disciples, they wished to have Paul's personal story. Sect is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, "a sect or party." 3Act 28:23. These Jews professed to believe the Old Testament, hence Paul used it as a basis for his speeches. He showed them that their own religious literature had foretold the coming of the kingdom of God, the institution referred to as a "sect." 4Acts 28:24. As usual, the hearers disagreed among themselves over what they heard. 5Acts 28:25. Because of the disagreement between themselves the Jews departed. Before they left Paul spoke one word, meaning one quotation from Esaias (Isaiah). 6Acts 28:26. Go unto this people denotes that Isaiah was to carry a message to this people, the Jews. Hear . . . not understand . . . see . . . not perceive. This all means the Jews would refuse to make the proper use of their mental faculties. 7Acts 28:27. Waxed gross denotes they had become stupid through their own prejudice. Their motive for such an attitude was to reject the reformation of life that the teaching of the Gospel might work in them. 8Acts 28:28. This announcement to the Jews was on the same basis as set forth in such passages as chapter 13:46. The Jews were given the first opportunity of hearing the Gospel. When the Gentiles had the divine truth offered to them, they showed a greater readiness to receive it. 9Acts 28:29. Had great reasoning. The Jews did not agree among themselves upon the teaching of Paul, hence they got into dispute over it. They were familiar with the law as Paul quoted it, but their prejudice prevented them from accepting his teaching. 0Acts 28:30. Hired house means a rented building which Paul used at his own expense. He was still in custody, hence could preach only to those who came in unto him. 1Act 28:31. No man forbidding him all comes from which Thayer defines, "without hindrance." We know that men objected to the preaching of Paul, but God sustained him so that the preaching of the cause of Jesus Christ continued with great zeal.