| |
C O M M E N T A R
Y
ACTS
XIV
XIV: 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.{1}
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 [172] 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.
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 [173] 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;{2}
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.
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.{3}
The sacrifices were to be offered to the supposed gods in
person, and not to the image which stood before the city.
[174]
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,{4}
and the example of Job;{5}
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.{6}
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 [175] 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.
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.
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."
21, 22. Having been compelled to fly from Antioch to
Iconium, and from Iconium to Lystra, wading into deeper
dangers at every step, [176] 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.
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,{7}
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."{8}
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;{9}
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.{10}
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 [177] 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.{11}
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;{12}
second, that they were elders, and not an
elder from the Church in Ephesus, who came to meet
Paul at Miletus.{13}
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 [178] which he
prescribes for this office.{14}
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. [179]
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."
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.
{1} @Rom.
x: 17.
{2} On
the faith to be healed. See Com. Acts
iii: 16.
{3} The
criticism of Mr. Howson, vol. 1, p. 193, note upon pulonas
as meaning only the gates of a private court, is
refuted by its frequent use in Revelations for the gates
of a city, @Rev.
xxi: 12, 13, 21-25.
{4} @
Gen. xxxvii: 29-34.
{5} @Job
i: 20.
{6} See
Com. xiii:
1.
{7} Com. vi:
6; xiii:
3.
{8} @Acts
xi: 30.
{9} @Titus
i: 5.
{10} @James
v: 14.
{11} @Acts
xx: 17, 28.
{12} @Titus
i: 5.
{13} @Acts
xx: 17.
{14} @1
Tim. iii: 1-7.
|
|