Acts 13

Acts 13:1-52

The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 13:1-52 Acts 13:1-3 This paragraph is a brief one, but of great importance. It may be spoken of as the watershed of this book. We now enter upon a study of that wonderful movement, of which Paul was the central figure. In this story, without any announcement or reason given, Saul’s name is changed to Paul.

These three verses give the account of the beginning of the great missionary movement. In the first sentence there is the recognition of matters already considered in previous studies: “Now there were at Antioch, in the Church.” The twelfth chapter took us back to Jerusalem, and we saw it pass out of the record of the history of the Christian Church. It is only seen once more in the course of this book, when the council was held at which the Gentiles were set free from all obligations to Judaism. In that chapter moreover we saw the last national Jewish hostility to Christianity, centralized in Herod. In the story of the movement of the Church of God, according to her Lord’s will, toward the uttermost part of the earth, chapter twelve is an interpolation, necessary for the understanding of the whole story.

The story now resumed, takes us again to Antioch, to which we were introduced in chapter eleven. First of all we saw the initiation of the movement. Men of Cyprus and Cyrene preached the evangel to the Greeks, turning aside from the ordinary custom of preaching only to the Jew. There was also the story of its confirmation, when the apostles sent Barnabas to visit the work; and he, preaching the grace of God, was glad, and charged them to remain steadfast to the Lord. Then followed the story of its consolidation, as Barnabas sought Saul of Tarsus, and brought him to Antioch, that he might share with him in the work of teaching and instructing these people. We also had the account of cooperation, when the new Christian Greek believers in Antioch recognized their relationship with their brethren in Jerusalem, and ministered to them in material things.

The movement in Antioch was in continuation of everything that had gone before, but it was characterized by a most remarkable independence. This work was not apostolic, if by apostolic is meant a work under the authority of apostles, for they were not consulted. Men of Cyprus and Cyrene, unnamed men, began the great and gracious work. It was characterized moreover, by unity, for it was again the one Lord, and the one faith, and the one baptism, and the one God glorified. It was finally characterized by infinite variety, for in chapter eleven we have four different words employed to express the method of preaching, and four offices of the Christian Church are all recognized as at work.

The last verse of the previous chapter reads thus, “And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministration, taking with them John whose surname was Mark.” Paul and Barnabas had been to Jerusalem, carrying the gifts of the Antioch Church for the relief of the suffering saints in Jerusalem. Thence they had returned, bringing Mark with them. From this point Antioch was the new base, the new centre of the Divine operations. From it, the messengers were sent forth; to it they returned. In considering the missionary journeyings of Paul, we shall see that in each case he started from Antioch, and reported there. In Antioch the conflict with Judaizing teachers presently became acute.

It was in Antioch also that Peter dissembled, and Paul rebuked him. It was in Antioch that the proclamation of Gentile freedom was made, resulting from the findings of the council in Jerusalem.

To this assembly, this Church in Antioch, the Spirit made known His will; and in responsive cooperation this Church set free Barnabas and Saul, the messengers who were to begin that great missionary work throughout all the district. Of that important event this brief paragraph gives a suggestive account.

There are three lines of consideration which demand our attention; First, that which is central in the paragraph, the declared activity of the Spirit of God: “The Holy Spirit said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” Secondly, the preliminary conditions that made possible this activity of the Spirit. These are revealed in the first phrase, “The Church in Antioch”; and the following description of prophets and teachers ministering to the Lord, and fasting. Thirdly and finally, the resulting cooperation of the Church with the Spirit: “Then, when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”

First then, as to the action of the Spirit. Observe carefully the definiteness of this declaration as to the activity of the Spirit: “The Holy Spirit said.” He made known His will to these people, so that they had neither doubt nor uncertainty in their minds. Moreover this is not the picture of a Church choosing men to be sent forth on missionary enterprise. This is not the picture of a Church discussing the fitness of men for the doing of any particular work. There is a sense in which it would be perfectly accurate to say that the Church had no voice in the selection of these men. The choice was not left to the Church.

The choice was based upon a prior fact in the activity of the Spirit: “Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” It would be idle to speculate as to when these men had been called; but in the second letter to the Corinthians, the twelfth chapter, in the first brief paragraph of four verses we have an account from the pen of Paul of an experience which he had, and one which most certainly affected all his life. He wrote: “I knew a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body I know not; God knoweth) such an one caught up even to the third heaven . . . and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” From the date of that Corinthian letter, which can be placed with comparative accuracy, we know that this wonderful vision of which he never could speak with anything like detail, occurred in Tarsus, before Barnabas sought him.

It may be that it was in that hour, when he was caught into the third heaven, and heard the things he could not utter, that the Holy Spirit called him to all the suffering, the travail, and the triumph of these wonderful missionary journeyings. In the case of Barnabas we have no hint as to the time or manner in which he was called. Looking back over the ground traversed, there may be a clue, in the friendship of these two men. Saul apprehended on the way to Damascus, hurrying away into Arabia, and spending long time in solitude and preparation, appeared at last at Jerusalem. Barnabas was the man who welcomed him, shielding him from the opposition of those likely to misunderstand him. He took care of him, set him on his way back to Tarsus, and left him there.

Directly Barnabas arrived at Antioch, and saw the necessities of the case, without consulting the college of the apostles, he went to Tarsus and sought for Saul. Evidently there was an affinity of mind and thought and purpose between these two men; and the Spirit now said, I have called them, separate them unto Me.

The method of the Spirit with the Church, the assembly in Antioch, is revealed in the command, “Separate Me.” Thereby He called the Church into definite activity with Himself. It has often been affirmed that this message of the Spirit was one delivered only to the little group of men whose names occur here in the passage, the names of men who were either prophets or teachers. I do not so understand the statement. The word of the Spirit was a word through the prophet most likely, to the whole Christian assembly in Antioch; but the Spirit called the Church to separate these men. He called the men to the work, but before they went forth, He called the Church into definite cooperation with Himself in separating them. “Separate Me Barnabas and Saul,” that is, give them freedom and give them authority. Send them forth in the freedom of My own call to them.

Send them forth under the authority of that call, recognized by the will of the assembly in Antioch. The activity of the Church was to be that of submission to the Holy Spirit, not an independent activity. Their freedom and their authority as they went were to be gained through their absolute surrender to, and obedience to the Holy Spirit. “There is one body, and one Spirit.” The Spirit is the life of the body; the body is the instrument of the Spirit. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit of God; the body is the assembly of the saints. The Spirit works through the assembly; but the assembly has no power to move save under the inspiration and impulse of the Spirit. There is one body, and the body must cooperate with the Spirit in separating its members for particular service. “There is one Spirit,” and that Spirit must direct, control, suggest, choose, elect, equip, all who are to do its work.

As we look back to this activity of the Spirit, we have a great revelation of the purpose of God in His Church. It is the picture of the Spirit of God, able to make known His will perfectly to an assembly. It is the picture of an assembly, able to discover His will without doubt, without uncertainty. It is the picture of the Spirit and the assembly, working in perfect harmony, and the results are seen in all the missionary triumphs which followed.

That immediately leads us to enquire, What were the conditions under which it was possible for the Spirit of God thus to make His great and gracious and perfect will known? In the first verse three matters are revealed. The first thing is the Church. “There were at Antioch, in the Church.” The second thing is that of the gifts resident in the Church, “Prophets and teachers.” The third is that of the activity of the Church: “They ministered to the Lord, and fasted.”

The very phrases carry their own exposition. What is the Church? The ecclesia, the called out company. Not to Antioch could the Spirit speak, but to the Church in Antioch; not to the promiscuous crowd thronging the streets of the fair and wonderful city, not to the merchants in the market-place, not to the legislators in their ecclesia-the Greek town council-could the Spirit speak, but to the Christian Church.

How was the Christian Church in Antioch constituted? Certain men of Cyprus and Cyrene had preached in Antioch to these Greek men the Gospel of the Lord Christ; and these men hearing the Gospel of the Lord Christ had believed, and had been baptized by the Holy Ghost. That company of men and women, in living union with the living Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, constituted the Church. There had been no consecration of a building. There had been no apostolic visitation. The Church was not the result of official action; but of the proclamation of the Lord, and belief in Him, and baptism into His life, by the overruling of God.

The Catholic Church is not Anglican, nor Roman, nor Greek, nor Free; but that whole company of men and women baptized by the Holy Spirit into living association with the living Lord. Wherever there is such a company of people, there also is the Church. There was the Church in Antioch. Presently they cooperated with the Church in Jerusalem; but Antioch was independent of Jerusalem; and the Holy Spirit could speak to the Church in Antioch.

In that Church in Antioch were gifts directly bestowed by the Spirit; “prophets and teachers.” Prophets are men of insight and foresight, who seeing into the heart of truth, and far on into the economy of God, as the result of personal fellowship with Him, speak forth the words of God. “Teachers” are men of understanding, who having that understanding, are able to impart their knowledge to others. The Lord, when He ascended on high, received gifts; “He gave some apostles,” they are not mentioned here; “Prophets,” such were here in Antioch; “Evangelists,” they are not mentioned here; “Pastors and teachers,” such were here. Whence came the gifts? From the Lord Himself. How? By the bestowment of the Holy Spirit.

Some of the men are named. Barnabas, whom we know well, was a man of Cyprus. Symeon was called Niger. Not much can be based upon that designation. It may mean that he was a Jew, and that the surname was given to him on account of the swarthiness of his complexion. It may be, as some believe, that he was an Ethiopian, a proselyte, who had taken a Jewish name.

Lucius was of Cyrene. This was a man with a Latin name. Manaen was the foster-brother of the Herod who had murdered John. He was in this company, gifted either as a prophet or a teacher. And finally Saul. What a fine and glorious blend there was in this company!

Thus the Spirit bestows gifts upon men. In Judaism, the son of the high priest succeeded to the priesthood. That is so no longer. There is no succession, because the living Lord is always present. Succession means distance, but the Lord is ever in the midst of His Church.

The activity of the Church is declared in the words, “They ministered to the Lord, and fasted.” The word translated “ministered,” is a most suggestive one, being that from which we derive our word “liturgy.” The Greek word was first employed of civil service in Athenian law. It came to be used in religion and of priestly service. It specially described eucharistic service, that is, the service of praise. Gradually it became the word that indicated set forms of worship. The real thought in it, is that of the exercise of the proper functions of organs in the power of life, the exercise of the organs under the dominion of the spirit of man, intellectual, emotional, volitional. These men in Antioch, not the prophets and teachers only, but the whole Church, were engaged in this sacred ministry to the Lord.

In the epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:14) it is said of the angels, “Are they not all ministering spirits; sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?” The ministering is related to the service. The angels are ministering spirits, that is, those who worship and offer to God; but they are sent forth from that worship to do service.

Isaiah saw the vision of God high and lifted up. He heard the chanting of the seraphim. They were proclaiming the holiness of God. They were fulfilling the function of their angelic life in praising. Then the song of one of these angelic beings was silenced; he was sent forth to do service to the man who needed cleansing. Ministering to the Lord is the function of a worshipping people. They recognize that work is not everything, but that worship is a prime and fundamental necessity. The Church in Antioch had not lost the art of worship.

The outcome of worship is always readiness to obey the Spirit when He sends us forth to work. The Church is an in stitution for worship, its members minister to the Lord, and then they are sent forth to be of service. Worship and work are always intimately associated. If we try and work without worship, we shall disastrously fail. If we worship and never work, we shall become ritualists. The attitude to which the Spirit can reveal Himself is that of worship.

“They ministered to the Lord, and fasted.” The word “fasted” indicates a special season of spiritual exercise, in which the Church, His body, is separated from all activity save that of ministering to the Lord. To a Church in that attitude the Spirit can speak, and the Church will not mistake His voice.

The last matter revealed here is that of the resulting cooperation. Luke writes, “Then,” that is after the Spirit had spoken, and therefore in answer to His word. How did the Spirit speak? We ask these questions still, and fain would discover the answer. One cannot say definitely how the Spirit spoke to the Church at Antioch. At the same time we may surmise, illustrating the story by His methods on other occasions.

I do not for a moment imagine that the assembly heard a voice. That is the mistake we too often make. We try to force ourselves into ecstasies in order to hear the voice, and then we imagine we hear it! That is not the suggestion here. He made known His will to the assembly, probably through one spokesman, whose word produced agreement. We see now the reason of the naming of the prophets and teachers here; Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius, Manaen, Saul.

But we are not told through which of them the Spirit spoke. The method of the Spirit is ever that of obscuring the instrument. In these days of worship and of fasting, one of their number probably rose and spoke, and immediately in the whole assembly there was unanimity, absolute conviction that this was the mind of the Spirit. If we will place ourselves at the disposal of the Spirit He will lead and guide us to-day in the same way as He has ever done, guiding definitely, immediately, positively making known His will.“The Spirit said.” Oh the dignity, the grandeur of this statement! Are we listening for His voice, as these men listened?

When the Spirit had spoken, the work was done decently and in order. They fasted and prayed, this time for the men who were to be separated; and they laid their hands on them. Who laid hands on them? Not apostles, for there was not an apostle amongst them. Consequently the laying on of these hands was the laying on of the hands of prophets and teachers, possibly of members of the Church who were neither. In this great Church every believer stands on an equality with every other believer.

Then they let them go. “They sent them away” is a faulty translation. In the next verse we read: “So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit.” That is not the same word as in this statement. What did they really do? They released them. What did the Spirit do? He sent them. The Church could not send these men forth. The Church could release them, set them free, by caring for all other obligations, by taking responsibility for all that they would need.

The Spirit still directs the Church upon fulfillment of conditions. His choices are those of infinite wisdom. Some must stay in Antioch, and some must go. The Church can be directed by the Spirit on fulfillment of conditions; and when directed, her obedience must be immediate and complete.

The final word is for the individual. No man can go unless the Spirit call him. This is the high doctrine of the ministry. Men cannot make a minister; not even the Church, nor her theological halls. He must be called of the Spirit. Unless he hear that call sounding in his soul, ringing like a trumpet night and day, giving him no rest until he is compelled to say, Woe is me if I preach not; then in God’s name let him stay where he is, in his present calling. But if he hear the call, then let him remember that it is his business to go forward within the fellowship and under the guidance of the Church.

Acts 13:4-12 The method of Luke from this point, perhaps even more markedly than before, is that of selection. Only occasional incidents are recorded. In this paragraph few details are given. These men were sent down to Seleucia, a port of Antioch. They then sailed to Cyprus. At Salamis they proclaimed the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews, and then they passed through the whole island to Paphos.

There is no doubt that they fulfilled their ministry in every, place at which they touched; but there are no details, no account of what they did, or of the victories that were won. Luke has selected certain important incidents, in order to illustrate the method of the Spirit of God in the carrying on of His work. In order to gain the values, we need to give special attention in each case to the principal event, glancing only at the incidental matters.

The first incidental matter in this paragraph is that of Elymas the sorcerer. We know nothing either of his earlier career or of what happened to him afterwards. The blindness that came upon him was for a season. Possibly he came from that blindness, as Paul himself had done, to fuller and more glorious light.

Sergius Paulus is also incidental. We have no knowledge of his earlier career, nor of his subsequent history.

The change of name from Saul to Paul occurs in this paragraph. From this point to the end of the book Luke speaks of him by the Gentile name, Paul, instead of the Jewish name, Saul. At the point when he started forth, set free by the Church at Antioch, sent by the Holy Spirit to the fulfillment of that great ministry for which he had been apprehended, and for which he had been fitted by long training-his ministry to the Gentiles, Luke recorded that his name was also Paul, and from thence he proceeded to speak of him by the Gentile name only.

Another incidental matter at this point is that Paul now comes into prominence. His action when they came to the court of Sergius Paulus was that of a man taking the lead in the great new movement; and we read, “Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos.” Until that moment it had been “Barnabas and Saul,” but from now on, and until the end of the story, Paul is most evidently the leader of his company; and when the two names are put together, it is no longer Barnabas and Saul, but Paul and Barnabas.

There is still another incidental matter; that of the journeying. They touched at Seleucia, the port from which it was possible for them to sail to Cyprus. Arriving at Salamis they preached the Gospel to the Jews in the synagogues, and then journeyed through the whole island. We know nothing of those journeyings; of the trials and triumphs, of the sadnesses and gladnesses that came to them. “When they had gone through the whole island unto Paphos,” something happened which Luke has carefully chronicled.

Let us then fasten our attention upon this central matter of the paragraph. Two phrases give us the key. The first is found in the fourth verse, “Sent forth by the Holy Spirit”; and the second in the ninth verse, “Filled with the Holy Spirit.” The first links the story with all that has preceded it. They were sent forth by the Spirit, and released by the Church at Antioch. The context of this second phrase, “Paul, filled with the Spirit,” reveals an activity of the Spirit which had not been manifested before. Note the startling sternness of the words he employed to Elymas the sorcerer: “O full of all guile and all villany, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” These are the words that follow the declaration that Paul was filled with the Spirit.

These are the words which were the outcome of that special filling. This is something entirely new. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, that swift and sudden and awful discipline, the Spirit was seen to be a Spirit of fiery discipline in the Church. It was the first manifestation of the fact that ought to be the abiding fact, but which, alas, is not an abiding fact, that the atmosphere of the Church of God should be one in which a lie cannot live. Here, however, we have an activity of the Spirit which was that of a fiery attack upon something outside the Church. Let us consider the story in its deepest value, as revealing the activity of the Holy Spirit; observing first the reason of this strange and fiery activity; noticing secondly its method; and finally, its issue.

What was the reason of this attack upon Elymas? The very words of Paul rather startle the age in which we are living. We are not accustomed to such language; we never think now of addressing to any man outside or inside the Church, such words as these, “O full of all guile and all villany.” Remember Paul did not say this about him, but to him. He looked into his face, he fastened his eyes upon him. This is quite definite. This man Paul, contemptible of bodily presence according to his own estimate, looked into the eyes of another man, a Jew, keen, subtle, clever, occult; and looking straight into his face, said: “O full of all guile and all villany, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” Let us carefully bear in mind that this follows immediately upon the declaration that he was filled with the Spirit.

There is no doubt that he was specially filled with the Spirit for the saying of this very thing. Why this anger? Why the fierceness of these words? The answer is that another man was involved, Sergius Paulus.

Let us then look at this man. His name would lead us to believe that he was a Roman. He was certainly a representative of Roman government, and for some reason not declared, he was a man enquiring after truth. Perhaps he was weary at heart of all the materialism in the midst of which as a Roman soldier he lived. His enquiry for truth will probably account for the presence of Elymas at his court. There were at that time very many sorcerers travelling through these cities, and finding their way into places of power on profession of their wisdom in things occult, and their ability to work wonders and signs.

Sergius Paulus was seeking for something above the dust, something a little higher than the material world, asking if there were any reality in the things which men described as supernatural. Then there came to him the story of the arrival and journeying through the island of two men who claimed to preach the Word of God. He desired to hear the Word of God, and therefore sent for Barnabas and Saul. Luke tells us that he was a man of understanding, that is quite simply, a man of thought. There is nothing in this world the devil dreads like a man who dares to think. Such a man will inevitably touch the realm of the spiritual and the supernatural.

He may not come to certainty on these matters, but he will face their possibility. Here was a man of thought, therefore Bar-Jesus was there, and therefore also, he sent for Barnabas and Saul. He is seen between these two forces.

Look for a moment at Elymas. He was a sorcerer. The word may have a rougher suggestion than is warranted. Like Simon Magus, Bar-Jesus was one of the magi, one of the wise men of the time. Things true and false were strangely mixed among these men. The accurate science of to-day was born in the midst of them. Chemistry is the outcome of their alchemy, as astronomy is the outcome of their astrology. It is not easy to discover how far these men were deceived, and how far they were right. Elymas was a man dwelling on the borderline of the occult, able to touch it, professing to be able to work wonders by it.

But he was also a false prophet; and immediately following that statement we are told that he was a Jew. Here then was a man who had been brought up with a knowledge of Hebrew literature, and the things of Hebrew religion; a man who by birth and training had been brought into closest understanding of the highest things in religion. But he was a false prophet, he was uttering things that were not true. Go back to the Old Testament, and discover its teaching about false prophets, as to the nature of the sin committed, as to the judgment that fell upon them. There might have been excuse for Bar-Jesus if he were merely one of the magi, for there was much of light in their teaching, as well as error. But that a Jew should become a false prophet, by professing to be able to do the things he was doing, was sin. When Paul looked at him and spoke so sternly to him, on the human side the very vehemence of what he said was born of the fact, not that he was a sorcerer, but that he was a Jew trafficking with unholy things, in order to win position in the house of Sergius Paulus.

This man withstood Barnabas and Saul, and the word “withstood” suggests a systematic endeavour, as Luke records, to turn aside Sergius Paulus from the faith. We are immediately brought face to face with the reason for this activity of the Spirit. Filled with the Spirit, Paul uttered those strange, startling, burning, scorching words, because Sergius Paulus was in danger. The severest words of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, are reserved for those who stand between men and truth, for those who stand between men and God. Perhaps the supreme chapter in the whole of the Old Testament is that wonderful chapter in the prophecy of Ezeki’el, the prophet of the exile, the prophet of light and hope by the river Chebar, seeing visions of God, diagnosing the actual disease of the scattered people to a remnant to whom he was a minister. He described the false prophets as under the severest judgment of God.

At the close of our Lord’s public ministry He pronounced eight great woes; not one upon sinning men, but all upon those who were false teachers and guides, false interpreters of the will of God. Christ never said anything hard or severe to a sinning man or woman. His severity was reserved for men who failed to guide, when they professed to do so. The noble sarcasm of John Milton expressed the whole wrong, when he described false shepherds as “blind mouths.” Rusldn’s exposition of that phrase was, that shepherds should watch, and they are blind; shepherds should feed, and they only desire to be fed-“blind mouths.” That which called forth the fiery protest of the Holy Spirit through Paul was that this man, a Jew, a prophet, was standing in the way, or attempting to do so, of the soul of a man finding truth, and finding life. That was the reason of the fiercely burning fire.

Notice in the next place the method. The immediate equipment of Paul for this particular work was ’that he was filled with the Holy Spirit. That opens the whole question of New Testament terminology concerning the work of the Holy Spirit, a most prolific and interesting subject, the neglect of which has caused infinite confusion. These phrases of the New Testament are never used interchangeably; the baptism of the Spirit, the anointing of the Spirit, the sealing of the Spirit, the filling of the Spirit. We perpetually mix them, and speak of baptism as a second filling, which the New Testament never does. There are in the New Testament two phrases, very much alike, and yet separate in intention.

The first is “full of the Spirit,” and this indicates that fullness of the Spirit, which is the true life of the believer. The normal life of the believer should be that of being full of the Spirit. Paul undoubtedly was at this moment, baptized by the Spirit into living union with the Lord, anointed by the Spirit for the service which His will appointed, sealed by the Spirit as the property of the Lord unto the day of redemption, having the fullness of the Spirit for the living of all his life. Then there came a moment when there was a special work to be done, and he was filled, suddenly filled by the Spirit, in the sense of being specially equipped for a special work; specially prepared for a special emergency.

What was the result of this filling? Clear discernment; he knew this man through and through, not by his own cleverness, not by mere intuition, but by that immediate filling of the Spirit which became illumination, enabling him to see to the very heart of the man who stood confronting him. He described him in character, “Full of all guile and all villany, son of the devil, enemy of righteousness.” Then he described his sin, “Wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” So this sudden enduement of power meant discernment and speech, speech that was definite, attacking, vehement. We speak of the wooing winsomeness of the Spirit, and thank God, we cannot say too much thereof. “The fruit of the Spirit is love.” The final and perfected issue of the work of the Spirit in the heart of man is love. But the Spirit of love is a Spirit of fire, and that for very love. Why the fierceness of this description?

Why the blunt speech that fell like scorching fire upon the heart of the man who listened? For love of Sergius Paulus; because this man by his teaching, his greed, and by his endeavour to retain position at the court, would “pervert the right ways of the Lord,” withstand the Word of God, attempt to prevent this man entering into the fullness of life. For the sake of Sergius Paulus this Spirit of God immediately equipped Paul, so that he saw and knew and spoke, and became the instrument of judgment.

Yet there is a touch of wonderful tenderness discoverable at the heart of the fierce fire. Paul said to him, “The hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season.” The blindness was the material symbol of the man’s spiritual condition; and Paul, speaking not of his own will, or of his own choice, not pronouncing upon him a doom which he thought he deserved, but becoming the very voice of the Spirit of God speaking out of that sudden equipment, pronounced upon him that judgment of blindness “for a season.” How long it lasted no one knows. What was the issue in the case of Elymas, no one can tell. We must leave it at the point where it is left in the narrative.

What then was the issue of this activity of the Spirit? First, the vindication of truth. Paulus desired to hear the Word of God. For that reason he sent for Barnabas and Saul. The last thing recorded is that he was “astonished at the teaching of the Lord.” Thus this method of the Spirit vindicated the truth which Paul and Barnabas were declaring. But that is not the final word as to issue. It is this he believed. The fiery method of the Holy Spirit as here revealed is vindicated in the fact that Sergius Paulus was brought into the light, and received all the gifts and graces of the Spirit in Whose power these men had come with the message of that great evangel.

In conclusion, to look at this story in its entirety; two things arrest attention; the new opposition, and the new manifestation of the Spirit’s repelling power.

This was a new opposition. The opposition in the earlier part of the Acts against Christianity was not the opposition of Elymas the sorcerer. That earlier opposition was that of the rationalism that denied resurrection, spirit, and angel. From here to the end of the story the opposition was of a different kind. Not that the old Sadducean opposition ceased, but that another antagonism to the Christian Church was manifested. The inspiration of this opposition was love of gain; its weapons were those of a false supernaturalism.

This has run through all the centuries, and is abroad in the world to-day. Trafficking with the occult in the name of religion will always attract the attention of men: and it is one of the grave perils which at this hour is threatening Christian evangelism. The aim of it is to turn men aside from the faith. Perchance it is not consciously the aim of some who practise that which is false in supernaturalism; but it is the aim of the prince of the power of the air, who worketh through the children of disobedience, to prevent the spread of the Gospel. Those who work in heathen lands discover the awful power of this opposition, and it is active in our own land also. There are hundreds who are being moved from the faith delivered to the saints, or prevented from obedience to it, by the charm and the glamour of a supernaturalism which is not according to the revelation of the Word of God.

The repelling force is the force of the Spirit. Elymas the sorcerer was a lover of gain; but in this fiery action of the Spirit there was a love of man. In the case of Elymas, there was a false supernaturalism; but in the case of the Spirit, there was the true supernaturalism. Paul was filled by the Spirit, and then conducted a definite and daring warfare against the thing that was false. The aim of Elymas the sorcerer was to turn aside from the faith; the aim of the Spirit in His repelling activity was to establish this man in the faith.

The opposition of the supernatural and occult is one of the gravest perils threatening the Christian faith. So it ever has been. So it remains at this moment. The Sadducean philosophy which is popular to-day is dying, as it must die. It is true that man cannot live by bread alone. Man cannot be fed on dust.

What we need to fear is traffic with the occult, base spiritualism, and all mental forms of healing, which are apart from the Word of God. Men must be brought into relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Anything and everything that denies Him as perfect Saviour, while offering in His place some substitute of spiritual ideal or occult influence, is the gravest peril of all. There are moments when it is necessary that the Spirit of God should speak in stern denunciation. Let us, however, remember that the only reason for anything of this kind in preaching, and teaching, in speech, must be the reason of our love for man; not because the doctrine is not ours, not because the false view is not in agreement with our mental convictions, but because the false view is hindering men and women from coming into relationship with Jesus Christ. It must be the heart that loves Sergius Paulus that speaks in anger to Elymas the sorcerer.

Acts 13:13-41 In this passage we have Paul’s first recorded address, not by any means the first message which he delivered, but the first which has been preserved for us in the records. In those early days, after his apprehension by Christ, in Damascus he reasoned with the Jews. Then later, in Jerusalem he dealt especially with the Jews of the Greek synagogues. When taken away by the brethren from Jerusalem to Tarsus, where he remained for a number of years, there can be no doubt that he still continued to speak of the things that had become more to him than life.

It is interesting to remember that when Barnabas discovered the grace of God in Antioch of Syria, “He went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul: and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch.” That is a statement that may be read easily and its suggestiveness missed. Dr. Christie has drawn attention to this, pointing out that the word means that it was not easy to find Saul; that when Barnabas arrived in Tarsus he had to seek for him. He suggests that Paul was busily occupied with evangelistic work. Recent investigations prove that through all the region of Tarsus there are remains of Christian Churches. In all probability during those years spent in Tarsus, Paul was passing through the villages, preaching the great Gospel of his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Then at Antioch in Syria he had been for a long period with Barnabas, teaching and instructing.

In this paragraph we find that Paul passed through, from Paphos to Perga in Pamphylia, and it is chronicled quite briefly, “John departed from them, and returned to Jerusalem.” Luke, with a fine delicacy, gives no reason for the going of John Mark. There has been much speculation as to why Mark left Paul at that point. Subsequently he tells us that “Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work” (Acts 15:38). Again no reason is assigned, but that at least shows that Paul considered there had been some deflection on the part of John Mark from the clear line indicated by the Holy Spirit, as they were moving out into the larger work that lay before them. The journey from Perga in Pamphylia to Antioch in Pisidia was one beset with much difficulty.

No account of that difficulty is given here. It is probable that on that very journey, the apostle and Barnabas, and perchance Luke also, had to face those perils of robbers to which he made reference in one of his letters. It may be that Mark knew the peril of the journey, and shrank therefrom. It may be that Mark had not yet escaped from Peter’s influence, even as Peter had not yet escaped from his own more unworthy self. Be that as it may, there came a time when Mark was restored to full fellowship. In that final letter to Timothy, written from the last imprisonment in the Mamertime prison, this man Paul, from whom Mark now parted, and who declined fellowship with him a little later because he feared his fidelity, wrote, “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is useful to me for ministering.”

Arrived in Antioch of Pisidia, Paul uttered the first message which has been preserved for us in outline. It is of great interest in view of the fact which we have noted in our earlier studies, that this man Paul was Hebrew of Hebrews, and was also saturated by early training, with an intense sympathy for the Gentile world, and for the Greek method of thought. The ideals of Hebraism and Hellenism were both active in him.

There are senses in which it is unnecessary for us to consider this address in detail. It was largely historic. In it he stated God’s method with His ancient people up to, and including, the coming of Jesus, His rejection, crucifixion, and resurrection. We are familiar with the details. That which is of interest is the method of the grouping of those details, as standing in a Hebrew synagogue, having other than Hebrews in his audience, he delivered this message. It was a great hour in the history of the Church when Paul rose to deliver this message in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia. Let us consider first, its atmosphere; secondly, its argument; and finally note its appeal.

Antioch in Pisidia was a city of Greek origin, founded by colonists from Magnesia. At the moment when Paul stood there, it was a city under Roman government, part of the great empire; the seat of proconsular government. Moreover it was a city having a Hebrew synagogue, in which this address was given. In that city the three great world-powers and forces dominant at the time, were all represented; and they were the three elements merging in the mental make-up of Paul. There was the fundamental fact of the Greek mental mood; there was the governing force of Rome; and at the centre there was the religious influence of the Hebrew synagogue. Into that synagogue, in the midst of these forces creating the atmosphere, came this man Paul, himself a Hebrew of Hebrews, in profound sympathy with Hebraism; Paul of Tarsus, who had spent his early years in the midst of Greek ideals; Paul, the Roman citizen, freeman of the Roman Empire, with a passion for government.

All these forces were incorporated in his interpretation of Christianity. This was the new missionary.

Think of the atmosphere as created by the audience who listened to him. Notice first, his own company. The phrase “Paul and his company” in the thirteenth verse (Acts 13:13) should not be passed over lightly. Paul had been the assistant of Barnabas, but now he had become the central figure. Barnabas was there; and perhaps Luke was there also, as Dean Alford suggests. There may have been two or three others, but we do not know who they were.

As we think of that company, we are reminded of the words, “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” There, in the Hebrew synagogue, was a Christian Church, the two or three gathered in the Name. I think when Paul delivered this first message, he looked at Barnabas and Luke more often than at the crowd. He spoke in the atmosphere of believing souls, in fellowship with his Lord, and so in fellowship with himself.

Then there were the men of Israel, his own people after the flesh, the people of God, the men of privilege. They had the oracles; to them pertained the covenants, to them were given the promises. As the eyes of this man, Christ-illumined, passed from the little company about him, and saw the men of Israel, he was looking into the faces of people who were peculiarly the people of God.

But there were also others. “And ye that fear God.” That is not a second description of the men of Israel. In the midst of the address he again made a distinction, “Brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and those among you that fear God” (Acts 13:26). In explanation of these two references we may glance at a verse beyond this paragraph: “Now when the synagogue broke up, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 13:43). There the other men are described as “devout proselytes.” These were Greeks, Romans perchance, men who out of the midst of polytheism had been attracted to the religion of the Hebrew, because it was the religion of the one God.

Yet further, in order to understand the atmosphere, we must look, not only at the city of Antioch and at the audience, but at the preacher also. His address was modelled upon the address of Stephen. If we compare the address of Peter, delivered on the day of Pentecost, with this of Paul, their similarity is created by the fact that they had the same truth to proclaim. Both declared the Cross. Both affirmed the resurrection. When that is said, however, the similarity ends.

But to read the address of Stephen which immediately preceded his martyrdom, and then to read this address of Paul, is to see that Paul consciously, or unconsciously, modelled his speech in this synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, upon the address of Stephen. That is a matter full of interest. Paul had heard Stephen’s defence, and had never escaped the power of it. Stephen, full of faith, and of the Holy Spirit, had passed in review the history of God’s ancient people, until he had charged them with sin and folly, and had roused their anger. When they hounded Stephen to his death, Saul had consented, given his vote as a member of the Sanhedrim, had stood, minding the clothes of the men who stoned him. I believe that even then in the heart of Saul the appeal of Stephen sounded like a clarion cry.

It was with him yet; and its power and persuasiveness moved him as he delivered this message in the synagogue at Antioch.

Again notice, that throughout this address Paul spoke from the standpoint of separation from Israel. He spoke to the men of Israel, and all that fear God; and once or twice only in the course of his address did he identify himself with them. For the most part he spoke as separated from them. Moreover, he was in intense sympathy with the Greek outlook. But in Christ, he stood apart from Hebraism and Hellenism, in order that he might demonstrate the glorious comprehensiveness of the Christian message which included both.

Paul declared two things in his argument; first, the Divine government; and secondly, the Divine grace. His message was that God is the One governor; and that the government of the one God is the government of a continuous and overwhelming grace.

The fact of the Divine government was not argued; nor was it presented as a doctrine. It was, however, so constantly referred to, as to make the whole statement an argument and a doctrine. He dealt with the people of Israel from the moment of their deliverance from Egypt. He traced the history of the people, showing how they came out of Egypt into the wilderness. He referred to them as coming into the land of promise, and dealt with their sojourn in the land, until the time of David. Then he omitted entirely their history from Solomon to Nehemiah and Malachi; but linked the history to the Christian movement when he said, “Of this man’s (David) seed, hath God according to promise brought unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” That long period of degeneracy, deterioration, despair, and disaster, that dark gulf of human failure between David and Jesus, he bridged by the pronoun “He” which had reference to God.

Out of David’s seed “He,” God, brought this Man Jesus. In all his dealing with the history of the people he insisted upon the Divine government. As to the coming out of Egypt, “God chose this people,” God “exalted the people,“God” led them forth.” Concerning the forty years in the wilderness, “Suffered He their manners.” The change the revisers suggest in the margin is possible by the alteration of one letter in the Greek, and that form is found in some of the manuscripts. The weight of argument may still be in favour of the rendering, “suffered He their manners”; but if the change be adopted, then what Paul said here was, “He bare them as a nursing Father.” We find the same tender, compassionate thought of patience, in the other rendering, but whichever rendering is taken the emphasis is upon the pronoun “He,” “He suffered their manners,” “He bare them as a nursing Father.” We see the people coming into the land, and Paul says, “He destroyed seven nations before them, “and” He gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years.” That period in which they were without a king, governed in hours of crisis by dictators and judges, he interpreted thus, “He gave them judges until Samuel.” Then of the hour of change, at the commencement of the breakdown in the national history, when they clamoured for a king, Paul says, “He gave them Saul.” When presently the history tells of this man’s death, Paul says, “He … removed him.” Next in the history we see David the king, and again he says, “He raised up David to be their king: to whom also He bare witness.“Finally,” He “the same God,” according to promise, from the seed of David, brought this Man, Jesus.” Then these men of Israel, because they did not understand their own prophets, did not understand Jesus when He came; and they slew Him, and put Him in the tomb. But Paul says, “God raised Him from the dead.”

Thus the Government of God was the fundamental note in the message of this speech in the synagogue at Antioch. God chose, exalted, and led forth a people. God suffered them, or bare them as a nursing Father, in the wilderness. God destroyed nations before them, and gave them the land. God raised up judges in the hours of their difficulty. God gave them Saul when they clamoured for a king.

God removed him from his position. God raised up David. Then came the history of Solomon, the break-up of the kingdom: Judah, Israel, captivity, defeat, and disaster. There was no king, no priest, no prophet. The remnant of the people was living under the Roman yoke. God brought forth Jesus.

The one God is thus declared ever moving forward, in spite of all human failure, toward an ultimate purpose of blessing.

Wonderfully the Divine grace is also revealed in this word of Paul in the synagogue at Antioch. This is the central Christian message to Israel, and to the Gentile. Human failure is recognized. Paul recognized the descent as he reviewed the history of Israel. First there was the weakness of these people in those early days in the wilderness, when He suffered their manners, or bare them as a nursing Father. Then came their waywardness, when they clamoured for a king, and rejected Him. Lastly their wickedness is seen when they asked that Jesus should be slain, and they laid Him in a tomb. All that is a dark picture, of the failure of a people called, chosen, and exalted by God for privilege and purpose.

But that is background only. Paul would impress upon these men of Israel, and the proselytes gathered in the synagogue, not the failure, but the grace that was above it, beyond it, mastering it, moving through it toward the accomplishment of Divine purpose. The grace was original, for He chose them. It was, patient grace; He suffered them, or bare with them as a nursing Father. It was disciplinary grace; He gave them Saul that they might understand at the commencement the real meaning of their failure and desire for a king; and He gave them David, who took hold of the kingdom, and represented the will of God to men. It was fulfilling grace, in spite of Solomon, in spite of Ahab, in spite of Ahaz, in spite of Nebuchadnezzar, in spite of Assyria, in spite of Egypt, in spite of all circumstances and forces and disaster and defeat, He brought a Saviour.

That is the infinite music of the Gospel. When He brought the Saviour into darkness and blindness even among the people of His own choice and exaltation and government they did not know Him.

They read the law and the prophets, which led up to, and promised this great Saviour; but when He came they were blind, and did not understand Him. There is no more wonderfully illuminating word, revealing at once the Divine government and the Divine grace, than that in which the apostle declared that God compelled the folly and sin of these people to fulfill His purpose. They fulfilled the Scriptures they did not understand, by condemning Him Who stood in their midst, according to the purpose of God. Peter declared the same great truth in his first sermon when he said of Jesus, “Him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.“Paul said they” fulfilled them by condemning Him.” Finally it was accomplishing grace; and by three facts he set Jesus before them, as fulfilling the highest expectation, aspiration, and prophesying of the past. The second psalm presents the King. This is the King.

Paul then linked a reference from Isaiah, to the sixteenth psalm, which Peter also quoted in his first sermon; that psalm which predicted that the Holy One should never see corruption. He declared that by the raising of Jesus, He was demonstrated as the King, accepted, and proved to be the hope of Israel and the Saviour of the world.

Such was his argument.

Finally he uttered his appeal. He proclaimed “This Man,” the King, the crucified, the risen Man. Peter had told his hearers in Jerusalem that there was remission of sins. Paul did the same, but he employed another word, the word “justified.” Here a new word came into the language of the Christian Church. Our Lord had employed it in the parable of the Pharisee and Publican. It became Paul’s great word, and to know all its meaning we must study his letter to the Romans. “Justification” is a mightier word than” remission of sins.” It is a word that explains remission of sins, and glorifies that idea. There in the synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia, to men of Israel, and to Greeks attracted by the doctrine of the one God, this man affirmed His government, and His grace; and proclaimed Jesus as fulfilling both, and providing the possibility of justification for every one that believes.

From that proclamation he passed to a word of warning. “Beware.” He quoted from the prophecy of Habakkuk, the prophecy of the man of faith, that revealed the principle of faith as the one principle upon which man must live. So he revealed to these people the fact that it is by faith in this Man that men are justified.

To summarize. This first recorded speech of the great missionary apostle declared the one God, the one purpose of God, the one Saviour. He proclaimed the evangel, which may be summarized in one word, justification by faith. The proof that there is such justification is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This proclamation was for Hebrew and Gentile. Separating himself from each, he included both in his great message; because in Christ he was neither Jew nor Greek. In Christ he had found the One Who brings the Jew and the Greek into life, and into harmony with the will and purpose of God.

Acts 13:42-52 This paragraph contains the account of the things immediately following upon the delivery of Paul’s address in the synagogue at Antioch. It is the story of a strange commotion in the city, of conflict, and of movement; the story of an emotional manifestation, of an intellectual difficulty, and of strange volitional processes. The story is bounded by Sabbath days, but the atmosphere is that of strife.

We have considered the address of the apostle; here we see the results of that address. Imaginatively we can fill in those days between the Sabbaths. We can understand how these men, who had listened to the message in the synagogue, went their way in the schools and in the market-places, and among their friends, talking of the strange, remarkable, and arresting words that they had heard from the lips of this stranger in the city. When the next Sabbath came, and this man was to deliver another message, nearly the whole city gathered together. Antioch in Pisidia was stirred to its very centre. Let us attempt to discover the cause of the unrest, and see how this conflict illustrates certain great principles concerning the preaching of the evangel of Christ.

What then was the cause of this unrest in Antioch in Pisidia? The forty-second verse (Acts 13:42) reads, “And as they went out”-these people who had listened in the synagogue " they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.” In verse forty-four (Acts 13:44), we read, “And the next sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the Word of God.” In the forty-sixth verse (Acts 13:46) Paul, addressing the Hebrews, said, “It was necessary that the Word of God should first be spoken to you.” The forty-eighth verse (Acts 13:48) reads, “The Gentiles . . . glorified the Word of God.” In these statements we discover the secret of the unrest in Antioch. A city was moved to its very centre, divided into conflicting camps of thought, emotion, and volition, by the message of one man; a message characterized in that opening verse by the men who first heard it as " these words “; and described by Luke as “the Word of God,” that being a direct reference to Paul’s discourse.

Therefore if we would understand that which had so profoundly moved Antioch in Pisidia, we must remind ourselves once again of the notes in that discourse. Its unargued supposition was that of the one God. Undoubtedly that was the note that attracted and held the attention of the proselytes in the synagogue, and which appealed to the men of Antioch. The truths which he had affirmed concerning the one God, were those of His perpetual government and His unfailing grace. He traced the history of the Hebrew people, from the original call of Jehovah, through their exodus from Egypt, and the period in the wilderness, to the possession of the land, and the giving of the kings; first Saul, for purposes of discipline; and then David, for purposes of illumination. He passed over the whole period from Solomon to Nehemiah, taking the story up again with the coming of Jesus.

The fundamental truth declared was that of the one God, Who governs. He chose, He exalted, He bore with the patience of a nursing Father the waywardness of the people He had created; He appointed kings and dethroned them; and through the long and dark years of deterioration and degeneration in national life, He prosecuted His own purpose, until at last, from the seed of David after the flesh, He brought Jesus the Saviour.

Paul further showed that the action of the one God in government was always that of an infinite grace; that the inspiration of the activity of the throne was that of undying love.

Thus he had uttered his central teaching; and if he had attracted and held these people by the affirmation of the unity of the Deity, and by the declaration of the perpetual government and grace of God, surely he had strangely startled them as he had declared the Cross of Jesus, and His resurrection. He explained the Cross by the resurrection.

He then made the great affirmation in the hearing of these men that it was possible that they should have remission of sins; and he used the word that occurs for the first time in the history of the Church, which he subsequently elaborated in his great Roman letter, the word “justified.” He ended with this note, that every one that believed in Jesus might receive remission of sins, and be justified freely; Hebrew and Greek, the people of his own blood relationship, and those strangers, men of another type, and another method of mind, and of separate convictions.

These were the things to which the men of Antioch listened in that first discourse, and the result was that of conflicting views, conflicting emotions, conflicting decisions. The conflicting views are revealed in the conflicting emotions.

How was it that a message like this so profoundly moved the city? Because it was a message that touched the deepest things of human life; the truth about God; the question of an age-abiding life, a life that cannot be destroyed, a life that persists through every age and possesses it, but is never influenced by the passing of an age; the fact of sin, and the remission of sins, justification. The address of Paul in the synagogue was not occupied with material things. He did not discuss physical culture, food reform, dress reform, or housing reform. His message was not one that dealt preeminently with questions of the intellect. He did not discuss that difference at which we have looked, and of which he was conscious, between Hebraism and Hellenism.

He entered into no political discussion as to the question of Roman authority. He dealt with the central facts of every human life: God, life, and sin. I do not suggest that this man was ignoring the mental mood in the midst of which he found himself, or that he was uninterested in the mental processes going on around him. He did not hold in contempt the things of the material life: food, raiment, and dwellings. But he did not stay to deal with things accidental, and transient, the things of every human life; but passed to the inspirational centres. When he spoke of God, of age-abiding life, and of sins, and the possibility of true remission, he was dealing with facts which forevermore make their appeal to men, arrest their attention, produce unrest, produce division, intellectual division, emotional division, volitional division.

These are the things that produce the effects to be found through all this book of the Acts of the Apostles.

Let us observe the conflict a little more carefully. First of all it is said that these men were “filled with jealousy,” and then we read, “As the Gentiles heard this, they were glad.” Notice the difference: “filled with jealousy,” filled with gladness. Observe another contrast: “They . . . contradicted the things which were spoken . . . and blasphemed”; “They . . . glorified the Word of God.” Or again, some counted themselves “unworthy of age-abiding life”; others “were ordained to eternal life.” These two declarations are mutually interpretative. In the statement, “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” the word ordained has no reference whatever to any act of God. It refers to the attitude of the men themselves. In the “Emphasized Bible” Mr.

Rotherham has changed the word with great advantage, so that it now reads, they that were disposed to eternal life. Finally some “blasphemed”; while others “believed.” This set of contrasts reveals conflict, division, difference, following upon the preaching of the Word, and produced by the preaching of the Word.

What were the reasons of refusal? Prejudice and selfishness. The intellectual activity of the men who refused the Word, ceased. The refusal of the Word was not intellectual, it was the refusal of prejudice. They listened on the first Sabbath; and there is evidence that they were objecting intellectually. It is found in the fact that as Paul drew to the conclusion of his sermon, he said to them, “Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken in the prophets: Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish.”

But no word was spoken by them of their difficulty, or objection, on the first Sabbath. Indeed it is written that “As they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.” Why then this attitude of refusal? It was not the attitude of intellectual difficulty, but the attitude of prejudice. These men saw that the Gentiles also were listening with eagerness, and that Paul was proclaiming to them the same possibility of privilege as he was proclaiming to the Hebrew. They were prejudiced, selfish; the question of truth was forgotten, and the question of personal privilege became paramount. Out of that closing of the mind against truth, in favour of an ancient prejudice, they counted themselves unworthy of life, they contradicted the things that he said, they blasphemed.

But look at the others. Just as in the first case we saw that prejudice was the outcome of the closing of the mind to truth, so on the other side we see the open mind. These men listened to the Word of this One God, governing in grace, and providing a Saviour, and proclaiming justification, and they allowed the truth to make its appeal to them. To these men truth was supreme, and therefore the true sense of the new privilege was created. The effect of truth in every individual life is conditioned by the opening or the closing of the mind. There is a very significant phrase in the Gospel according to John, “the honest heart.” When there is the honest heart, the open mind, the willingness to receive the truth, to know truth, to follow truth at all costs, the result of the preaching of this doctrine of the apostle is always that of life. But where for any reason the mind is closed against the truth, where prejudice enters in, and arguments are created as the outcome of prejudice, then the result is that of death.

What followed these things? First, “The Word of the Lord was spread abroad throughout all the region.” Secondly, persecution broke out that dogged the steps of Paul through all the rest of his journeyings. Thirdly, the disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit. In the city conflict, intellectual, emotional, volitional; and then the Word of God spread through the whole region. A persecuting city may fling out the messengers, but it can never fling out the work they have done. Left in the city of Antioch in Pisidia was a little group of those who had heard, and had believed, and had received the new gift, and had been made members of the Christ; and they were filled with joy.

Let us glance back over the story for our own profit. Observe first the Christian preachers. The work of the preacher is forevermore to declare the deepest things in the life of man. Christian preachers are not careless concerning material life, or mental matters; but their business is to bring men and women into right relationship with God, to deal with the essential in human nature. Notice also the work following the preaching. Paul and Barnabas urged those who believed to continue; but they definitely turned from the Hebrew to the Gentile.

Said they: “Seeing ye . . . judge yourselves unworthy of the age-abiding life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” How the love of his brethren followed Paul. How it sobbed in tears, and breathed in agony, in his subsequent epistles. He never ceased to love his brethren after the flesh, who never did anything for him after the hour of his conversion to Christ, except persecute him and cause him suffering. Yet mark very carefully his words: “It was necessary that the Word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” The principle involved in that statement is that when people have heard the offer of the age-abiding life through the crucified Christ, if they will not accept it, it is the duty of the prophet, the apostle, the evangelist, to turn to others. If that principle of Paul’s action in the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia were applied to our land to-day, would there not be a great exodus of preachers, an abandonment of pulpits, and of going to the distant lands where men are eagerly waiting for the message?

How far ought this principle to apply? It is a searching question that comes to the soul in pondering this story. It was the action of a splendid courage, an action that appals the soul, and compels pause; but moreover, an action justified by the results.

Again, note the effect of the Christian message; it is life unto life, or death unto death. It produces jealousy or joy, blasphemy or belief; the spirit of hell which persecutes, or the Spirit of holiness which seeks to save. The preaching of the Cross forevermore appeals to the intellect of men, and divides them. It stirs the emotional life, producing opposite and conflicting emotions. It storms the will, and demands belief, or blasphemy. The preaching of the Word divides as nothing else in the wide world can divide.

What is the personal enquiry that grows out of such a meditation? On the one side are those who judge themselves unworthy of age-abiding life; on the other are those who are disposed to the age-abiding life. These will blaspheme, these will believe. On which side do I stand? That question must be answered in the secrecy of the soul.