Horæ Apostolicæ

[Resource Manager]

Let us now turn to the history. From the abrupt manner in which the writer introduces the name in that passage (Acts 19:33), it is clear that he supposes him to be a person well known by report to Theophilus, and to most of his readers.” They drew Alexander (not, one Alexander) out of the mul­titude.” He must, therefore, have been some one at Ephesus, whose name was of notoriety when St. Luke wrote, at the close of St. Paul’s first imprisonment. Was he then a favourer or an adversary of the apostle? The question is solved by the eagerness of the Jews to thrust him forward, that he might make a defence to the people. Their object must have been to increase the odium against the apostle, and to remove it from themselves, and Alexander was the pleader whom they thought the best adapted for this purpose. Now, who could be more likely to answer their design than a Jew of determined character, who had once been a disciple, but since been expelled from the church, and who was now full of bitter hatred against it? Alexander the coppersmith, if the same who had been shortly before excommunicated, along with Hymenæus, for his blasphemous speeches, would just be the advocate they would desire, to work evil to the apostle at that crisis; and his later conduct justified their expectations, since he is singled out, six years later, for the malignity and success of his opposition.

 

This agreement between the two epistles and the history, though it results only from a minute comparison, on adopt­ing in each case the more probable opinion, can never, perhaps, from the brevity of the passages, be considered certain and demonstrative. Yet when we find that the ex­communication of Alexander is thrown back, by the address at Miletus, to the time just before the tumult, and that some Alexander, well known in the church, was then prominent as the chosen mouthpiece of the Jews; when we remember that it was Demetrius the silversmith who raised the disturbance, by getting together the workmen of similar trades, and hence that Alexander the coppersmith was more likely than other Jews to gain a hearing; when we remember, too, that it was Jews from Asia or Ephesus who caused the apostle’s first imprisonment, and their malice which also led to his apprehension a second time, and thus procured his death, there seems to be a chain of circumstantial evidence, to prove the identity, which may well satisfy a thoughtful mind. And this being once allowed, it is certain that no coincidence can be more evidently beyond the suspicion of an artificial origin. The correspondence must have resulted from reality, and from that alone.

[Resource Manager]

No. VII.

 

2 Tim. 4:19. “Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the house­hold of Onesiphorus.”

 

These are here the only parties to whom St. Paul sends his greeting. To learn the reasons of this special notice we must consult the first part of the letter, and the previous history. Onesiphorus had shown special kindness to St. Paul during his former stay at Ephesus, and more lately at Rome. His household, therefore, who were still at Ephesus, had a claim to his peculiar love. Aquila and Priscilla had not only lived and wrought with him, both at Corinth and Ephesus, but even had laid down their own necks to save him from danger. They were at Ephesus when he wrote the first time to Corinth; at Rome, about a year later, when he addressed a letter to that church; and now, after six years, they are implied to be at Ephesus again. This exclusive mention of Onesiphorus, whose kindness is recorded here only, and of Aquila and Priscilla, whose intimacy with the apostle appears in the history, and in two earlier letters, is a feature of reality not easy for any counterfeit to produce.

[Resource Manager]

No. VIII.

 

2 Tim. 4:20, 21. “Erastus abode at Corinth: but Tro­phimus have I left at Miletum sick. Do thy diligence to come before winter.”

 

The coincidence with regard to Erastus, a citizen of Corinth, has been noted in the Horæ. Two points, however, require elucidation; how far these statements are in harmony with the route of St. Paul, and their real drift, as a message to Timothy.

 

It has been shown that the two former letters were pro­bably written at or near Corinth, where the apostle must have stayed a short time, after visiting Macedonia, and before the circuit of Epirus. Since Erastus was a citizen of Corinth, it is likely that he would stay there, after attending the apostle so far on his circuit. Also, if St. Paul travelled from Mace­donia to Troas, where he left the cloak with Carpus, he would be likely to proceed to Miletus, as he had done before, when he parted from the Ephesian elders. If he was arrested there, before Timothy had returned from the interior district, the knowledge that Erastus had stayed at Corinth, and that Tro­phimus had been left sick at Miletus, would probably reach him first by this letter. All these indications of the route fully agree.

 

But why does the apostle mention these persons? It has been supposed that they were meant for an instruction to Timothy to call on them in his way, and bring them with him. This is possible, but hardly probable. The presence of Luke, Mark, and Timothy, would be enough for his purpose. The object seems rather to explain how it happened that Luke alone was with him, and to show the pressing need that Mark and Timothy should come to him. With this view he first reminds him how many of his former helpers were absent, one of them through cowardice, and the others by commissions given them on the previous circuit. He next relieves his anxiety about his own charge, by telling him that Tychicus, the fittest sub­stitute, had been sent away to supply his absence, who was probably the bearer of this letter. “Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus.” Presently he remembers that there were two others of his helpers whose absence he had not explained, Erastus and Trophimus. Having thus shown how widely his companions were scattered, only Luke being now with him, he renews his entreaty once more, with all the urgency of love. “Do thy diligence to come before winter.”

 

All this bespeaks reality in a manner which can be mis­taken by no thoughtful and serious mind.

[Resource Manager]

BOOK II.

 

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

 

Introduction.

 

The argument, unfolded in the Horæ Paulinæ, not only proves the authenticity of St. Paul’s letters, but supplies most powerful evidence to confirm the truth and accuracy of the narrative in the book of Acts. This proof, however, is partial and incomplete, since those parts of the history with which the letters are contemporary form hardly one-fifth of the whole. It is true that many statements of the historian, in the rest of the work, are also confirmed by the same letters; but still the assertions respecting earlier occurrences which these contain are different in their own nature from the facts which they substantiate at the very time of their being written. Hence it is desirable to extend the argument to the whole nar­rative, and to exhibit those internal coincidences, which prove it to be authentic history. Since the instances to be given are independent of each other,. a rigorous classification is super­fluous. Those will, in general, be placed first in order which are derived from the history alone; next, those which require a comparison with the letters; and lastly, those which suppose the letters to have been already proved authentic, before they can supply a valid argument.

[Resource Manager]

No. I.

 

First of all, the book of Acts is consistent with itself, in the local origin which it ascribes to the new religion of Christ, and in its allusion to the prejudice it had to encounter on this very account. The statements, in each case, are plainly inci­dental, natural, and almost necessary in their own context, but all agree thoroughly with each other.

 

The first occurs in the words of the angels, at the Ascension. “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11.)

 

The second in the language of the Jews on the day of Pentecost.

 

Acts 2:6-8. “Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”

 

Two others occur in the discourses of Peter to Cornelius, and of Paul at Antioch.

 

Acts 10:36, 37. “The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) that word I say ye know, which was published throughout all Judæa, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.”

 

Acts 13:30, 31. “But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.”

[Resource Manager]

In these four passages, the same fact appears under various forms, that the preaching of Christ began from Galilee, and that the apostles were all Galilæans, and had come up together with Jesus before his death, from Galilee to Jerusalem. The title used so repeatedly, Jesus of Nazareth, is in harmony with these statements. If the founder of the new doctrine had his home at Nazareth, it was a natural consequence that his first disciples should be Galilæans.

 

But if these statements are thought to be too plain, and the fact itself too certain, to constitute any argument, there is a further coincidence, entirely free from this suspicion. If the pew doctrine arose in Galilee, its founder lived at Nazareth, and all his first disciples were Galilæans, it is very natural that this should arouse the prejudices of the Jews, especially those who lived at Jerusalem, and regarded the holy city as the natural centre of their religious system, and the great fountain of ecclesiastical authority.     It is equally natural that the dislike and hatred of the gospel, aggravated by this local preju­dice, should display itself in some nickname of reproach applied to these teachers from despised Galilee.

 

Now this fact, so natural and inevitable under the real cir­cumstances, is incidentally disclosed to us, not in the narrative itself, which might be open to suspicion, but in the very place where it would be likely to appear, the discourse of a public accuser. Let us examine the words of Tertullus, pleading against St. Paul before the Roman governor.

 

Acts 24:4, 5. “Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes?

 

Nothing can be more natural and consistent than these statements; that, since the founder of the gospel lived at Nazareth, his first disciples should be from Galilee; that the odium of the new doctrine should be increased among the Jews of Judæa, and their rulers at Jerusalem, by its obscure and provincial origin; that their dislike and contempt should give currency to an opprobrious nickname; and finally, that a professional accuser should make use of this nickname, in seeking to crush a hated teacher of the new faith, and to render his cause odious to the Roman governor. Yet how truthful, and evidently undesigned, is the way in which it is introduced by the historian, who never hints the existence of such a nick­name, when speaking in his own person. The sting of this reproach is clearly essential, in a faithful report of the orator’s address to Felix; while the fact, that this was the nickname in popular use against the disciples, is an undesigned confirma­tion of the whole history.

[Resource Manager]

No. II.

 

Acts 4:36, 37. “And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”

 

There is an observable, though secret harmony, as professor Blunt has remarked, in all the notices of the history of Bar­nabas.    We are here told that he was a native of Cyprus; and this statement is a key to explain several facts in the course of the narrative.

 

And first, when Saul came up to Jerusalem, after his con­version, and was suspected by all the disciples, we are told that it was Barnabas who took him, and brought him to the apostles. Now Saul was a native of Tarsus, the chief town of Cilicia, and Cyprus was usually annexed to that province. It was a city famous for its schools, to which many resorted. And since Barnabas was a Levite, and had landed property, he would most probably be well acquainted with Tarsus, and the more eminent Jews of that place. It appeals elsewhere from this history, that Saul was the son of a Pharisee, and sent to Jerusalem to complete his education (23:6, 22:3). Hence, the family would in all probability be known to Bar­nabas; while his proverbial gentleness, as “the son of con­solation,” would further dispose him to notice the young con­vert, and make him the fittest person to introduce him to the other disciples.

 

Again, when the first Gentile converts were gathered at Antioch, tidings came to the mother church, “and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.” No reason is assigned for their choice. Beside, however, his general qualifications, we are told, a little before, that it was men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who had been the instruments in these conversions. How natural, then, and suitable, that Barnabas, the most eminent believer from Cyprus in the pa­rent church, should be sent to examine their success, and superintend their further labours, in this new and important sphere.

Again, when Barnabas and Saul set out on their first cir­cuit among the heathen, “they departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they scaled to Cyprus,” (13:4). In this island the first convert from the idolatrous heathen, of whom we have a record, was brought to the faith, in the person of the Roman deputy, Sergius Paulus. This choice of Cyprus for their first station on their journey, is readily explained, when we re­member that Barnabas was “a Levite of Cyprus.”

 

On their second journey, when Paul and Barnabas parted company, we find a similar coincidence. “Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto, Cyprus.” He naturally chose to visit first his native island, the earliest scene of their labours in their former journey.

 

These coincidences are found in the narrative, when taken alone, and are sufficiently striking. But their effect will be in-creased by a comparison with St. Paul’s letters. We there learn, quite incidentally, at the close of the Epistle to the Co­lossians, that Mark was “sister’s son to Barnabas.” (Col. 4:10.) By this passing hint, three or four other features of internal harmony are brought to light.

 

First, it follows that “Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark,” was the own sister of Barnabas. It is no wonder, then, that her house was a place of chief resort to the early Christians, and that “many were gathered together, praying.” A sister of Barnabas, if a sharer in her brother’s faith and piety, would naturally hold an eminent place among the early believers at Jerusalem.

[Resource Manager]

Next, it is explained further, why Barnabas and Saul, on their return from Jerusalem, should “take with them John, whose surname was Mark.” It was natural that the uncle should select his own nephew for his future companion, if otherwise qualified.

 

Again, it was when they loosed from Paphos and came to Pamphylia, that “John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem.” Since his mother was the sister of Barnabas, Cyprus would be her native island; and the journey of Mark, so far, might be accounted for by his local attachments, apart from a deep interest in the cause of Christ. And hence, per­haps, the refusal of St. Paul afterwards to receive him for his companion in the second journey.

 

Lastly, when the dispute arose, the zeal of Barnabas in favour of Mark, and his separation from St Paul, rather than part with his young friend, is explained, in part, by the rela­tion between them. His sister’s son would be the object of a peculiar affection on that ground alone. And thus the ties of nature would conspire with the gentleness of disposition, in “the son of consolation,” to produce a more lenient interpreta­tion of Mark’s former secession, and a fuller confidence in his faithfulness for the time to come.

 

When we compare these different incidents, and observe how they enter into the very texture of the narrative, while they secretly correspond with each other, the remark of pro­fessor Blunt is hardly too strong, that “the harmony pervading everything connected with Barnabas is enough in itself to stamp the book of Acts as a history of perfect fidelity.”

[Resource Manager]

No. III.

 

Acts 7:58. “And they cast him out of the city, and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.”

 

This is the first mention in the history of that great apostle, whose labours and conversion occupy almost two-thirds of the whole narrative. It must strike one, at first sight, as very abrupt. Even allowing that the fierce zeal of the young pharisee would make him forward in such a cause, why should a young man, and he too a stranger in Jerusalem, be so pro­minent in the narrative? There were numbers of zealots, equally fierce against the new sect, who might seem to have a better claim to appear.

 

Though the earnest, conscientious zeal of the youthful bigot will doubtless go far to explain his abrupt appearance, there is another circumstance, overlooked by most readers, which completes the explanation. In the narrative of his conversion, his native place first comes into view, in the words of our Lord in vision, “Inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus; for, behold, he prayeth.” In his own words to the chief captain it is stated more fully still. “I am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city,” (21:39.) Now if we turn to inquire who were the leaders in the contro­versy with Stephen, the historian has the following statement. “There arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and some of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake: then they suborned men.” Hence it appears that two synagogues of foreign Jews were the leaders in the persecution, and that one of them belonged to the Jews of Cilicia and Asia. How natural that a young Cilician Jew, of Tarsus the capital, and trained at the feet of Gamaliel for several years at Jerusalem, should appear in the foreground at the time of the martyr’s death.

[Resource Manager]

No. IV.

 

Acts 8:5. “Then Philip went down to the city of Sa­maria, and preached Christ unto them.” (5:25:) “And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord,

returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.”

 

It is plain how simply and naturally this visit of Philip to Samaria flows out of the narrative of the previous persecution, and is followed by the preaching of Peter and John in the Samaritan villages.

 

Now the sequence of the history, so natural and unforced in itself, presents a marked coincidence with the previous statement of the historian, where he places on record the parting words of our Lord to his apostles. “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth,” Acts 1:8. The history, without the least effort or violence, falls exactly into this order. The church, first of all, was founded in Jerusalem (Acts 2:1). It then spreads to the cities round about (ch. 5:16). After the martyrdom of Stephen, for the first time it extends to Samaria, by the preaching of Philip, of Peter, and John (ch. 8:5-25). Then, and not before, pro­vision is made for the call of the Gentiles, first by the con­version of Saul, and his commission to be the apostle of the Gentiles; and next, by that of Cornelius, when Gentile converts were actually gathered into the fold of Christ. Yet the prediction is given so briefly, and the order of events is so natural and spontaneous, as to evince clearly the absence of all artificial design.

[Resource Manager]

No. V.

 

Acts 8:40. “But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through, he preached in all the cities, till he came to Cæsarea.”

 

Here the history of Philip ceases abruptly, and the narrative of Saul’s conversion begins. We are left to conjecture why Cæsarea should be the end of his journey. It might have been his previous home; or else, while persecution raged at Jeru­salem, he might choose this main seaport of Palestine, as the place best suited for carrying on his missionary labours among the multitudes of Grecian Jews, who kept arriving or setting out from the Holy Land.  The historian passes all these conjectures in silence, and simply leaves the evangelist at Cæsarea. He then relates the conversion of Saul, the resurrection of Tabitha, the conversion of Cornelius, the formation of the first Gentile church at Antioch, the persecution of Herod, and martyrdom of James, with the sudden death of the persecutor. He continues with a narrative of the first circuit of Barnabas and Saul, the return to Antioch, and the council at Jerusalem; the second circuit of Paul and Silas, the entrance into Europe, the preaching of the apostle at Philippi, at Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens, and his stay of eighteen months at Corinth, We have then his return, by way of Ephesus, to Jerusalem and Antioch, a second circuit through Galatia and Phrygia, till he comes down to the coast, and takes up his abode for three years at Ephesus. Then follows his journey through Macedonia to Corinth, and again from Corinth to Philippi, where the historian rejoins him. The course of their voyage is next given, with the accuracy of an eye-witness, by Troas, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Trogyllium, and Miletus; then by Coos, Rhodes, and Patara, and by the western side of Cyprus, to Tyre, with their short delay in that place with the dis­ciples. They next arrive at Ptolemais, and then at Cæsarea, where their voyage is at an end. And here the evangelist comes into sight once more, with an explanation why the historian parted from him before on his reaching this city. “And the next day, we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Cæsarea: “and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophecy,” Acts 21:8, 9.

 

Thus it appears, by this incidental statement, that Philip took up his abode at Cæsarea, and had children in that place, who trod in the steps of their father’s faith, and were now, it would seem, grown up to full age, which might very well be the case, after an interval of about twenty years. The junc­ture in the loops of the Mosaic tabernacle was not more perfect than the correspondence of these two passages with each other. Yet who that reads them in their own context can possibly imagine that this agreement is artificial.

[Resource Manager]

No. VI.

 

Acts 6:1-5. “And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.—And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.”

 

The party who complain, in this narrative, are the Grecians, or Jews who spoke the Greek language, and were the minority at Jerusalem. The apostles advise that seven men should be selected from the disciples, to redress the alleged grievance. The choice is left with the whole multitude, and no restriction is imposed, except that they should be “men full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.” Yet it appears, in the most indirect manner possible, that they were all chosen from among the party who felt aggrieved. All the names, without one exception, are clearly Grecian.

 

Now that such should have been the case is very natural, when we remember the description, just before, of the glowing love among the early Christians, which seems to have had no interruption until this unhappy murmuring arose. The cir­cumstance is as beautiful in the moral lesson it affords, as historically probable from the other facts already recorded, Yet how indirectly it is revealed by the historian, who simply mentions the names of the seven who were chosen, but forbears a single word of comment!

[Resource Manager]

No. VII.

 

The conversion of Saul is related three times in the book of Acts, once by the historian, and twice by the apostle him­self; in the former case before a Jewish, in the latter before a mixed audience, consisting mainly of Gentiles. The com­parison of these accounts will bring to light several marks of truth, in the partial variation amidst substantial agreement

 

Acts 9:1-9. “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the syna­gogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus; and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou per­secutest; it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.”

 

Acts 22:4-11. “And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders; from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.”

 

Acts 26:10-18. “Many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

 

Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and com­mission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

[Resource Manager]

There is one apparent contradiction, between the first and second of these accounts, which alone may exclude every suspicion of a merely artificial and collusive agreement. The companions of Saul, according to the historian, “heard the voice, but saw no man.” Yet he reports St. Paul himself to have told the Jews, that they “saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” The seeming opposition is not hard to reconcile. It is perfectly consistent that the companions of Saul might see the light, without being able to discern the person of our Lord, which was visible to Saul only. And this solution, in one case, which an exact comparison supplies to us, will suggest another, precisely similar, as to the voice. They heard the voice (tῆς φωνῆς) but they did not hear the voice of him that talked with me (τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι). Both the difference of the two phrases, and the analogy with regard to the light, teach us that they heard the sound of the voice, but could not distinguish the words that were uttered. The traditional idea of the Bath-kol among the Jews, was a sound from heaven, like thunder, accompanied by articulate words. On this view both statements are fully reconciled, and the scope of each appears the very same. His companions saw and heard enough to confirm the reality of of the vision, but were not permitted to see and hear the person and words of our Lord, a privilege reserved for the future apostle alone.

 

The substantial agreement of the three accounts is evident, but might equally exist, whether the history were spurious or genuine. It is in the minute variations, and their exact pro­priety in each instance, that these passages become a proof that the narrative is real.

 

The commission from the high priest is mentioned in each passage, but with some difference. First, by the writer him­self, in the simple order of time. “He went to the high priest, and desired letters.” In the apostle’s defence before the Jews, with an appeal to him as a present witness, and with a fuller mention of the whole Jewish council. “As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders; from whom also I received letters, etc.” In the defence before Agrippa, since here it was of less importance, except to show the notoriety of his conduct, it is introduced in a parenthesis. “Whereupon as I went to Damascus with au­thority and commission from the chief priests, etc.” This is in thorough keeping with the circumstances and special object in every instance.

 

The voice spake to Saul in the Hebrew tongue. This cir­cumstance, as being minute, is naturally omitted in the direct narrative (9:4), and as naturally specified by Paul himself, (26:14), since the account of an eye and ear witness has commonly more of detail than suits a general history. Why, however, in this case should he not have specified it on both occasions alike? The answer is easy, that before the Jews he was himself speaking in the Hebrew tongue. (Acts 22:2.)

[Resource Manager]

There is a similar variation in the descriptive names. The historian describes the objects of the persecution by their simple title, “the disciples of the Lord.” The apostle, before the Jews, employs a neutral term, which could not arouse their prejudices, “them of this way.” But before Agrippa, where there was no such need of caution to avoid offending the ears of bigots, he indulges his own feelings, by giving them a title of honour which aggravates his own guilt.— “Many of the saints did I shut up in prison.” In like manner, when speaking to the Jews, he gives the national title of “brethren” even to the unbelieving Jews of Damascus. This is one of those con­ciliatory touches which mark a real discourse.

 

Again, the message is given at much greater length in the address to Agrippa. It was natural for St Paul himself to give a more particular account of it than the historian. On the other hand, this additional matter would have defeated his purpose in the address to the Jews, which was to prepare them gradually for the unwelcome statement, that he was sent “far away to the Gentiles.” But this same part was especially suitable to mention before Festus to Agrippa, since it justified all his later conduct. “Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” All this is an example of entire consistency with the actual cir­cumstances.

 

The vision itself is described twice in nearly the same words. Yet the first defence has two slight additions, that it was about noon, and that the light was great. In the second defence, where the apostle was more at liberty to state his own impressions, it is given still more fully. “At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the bright­ness of the sun,” and its reality is indirectly confirmed by the words “shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.”

 

Again, the history mentions simply the fact of his blind­ness, but the apostle states its cause, as an eye-witness would naturally do.—“And when I could not see for the glory of that light.”

 

All these minute differences are accounted for at once, if the vision really occurred, and the two defences were really made, just as given in the history; but can be reasonably ex­plained in no other way.

[Resource Manager]

No. VIII.

 

The interview of Ananias with the apostle, which followed the vision, is related, twice only, in these words:—

 

Acts 9:10-18. “And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem.   And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be rilled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.”

 

Acts 22:12-16. “And one Ananias, a devout man ac­cording to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be bap­tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

 

Here, also, there are many features of minute propriety, which reveal themselves on close observation. There is a substantial agreement, while yet the varieties present an evident coincidence with the general object of the history, and the special purpose of the apostle’s defence.

 

First, the account is omitted entirely before Festus and Agrippa, since it was not needful to explain the conduct of the apostle. The vision in the way to Damascus was a suffi­cient warrant, when the words of the Lord were fully given. But the same motive which led St. Paul to be silent, before the Jews, about the commission to the Gentiles in that first vision, rendered the mention of Ananias necessary, in order to prepare for the mention of it in the later vision at Jeru­salem. The unwelcome truth is thus announced, only when it has had the authority of three Divine messages.

 

Next, the historian calls Ananias a disciple; but the apostle, “a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there.” Such a description was admirably suited to his immediate object, to conciliate his audience in every lawful way. How consistent it was with the other account appears from Acts 21:20, in the words of James: “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law.”

 

The words of Ananias have two parts, one before, and the other after, Saul’s recovery of sight. In the defence before the Jews the former part is shortened, for the same reason that the vision to Ananias is omitted, since the repeated mention of Jesus as Lord might arouse their prejudices too violently. Hence only what is essential is given, in the words, “Brother Saul, receive thy sight.” The second part is given fully, for two reasons. The title used, “The God of our fathers,” was adapted to conciliate a Jewish audience; while that ascribed to our Lord was also the gentlest assertion of his claims, the Just One, and the unwelcome disclosure that was to follow is mitigated, being introduced by the more general statement.— “Thou shalt be a witness to all men, of what thou hast seen and heard.” In the history, the speech is omitted, but its immediate effect is related, that “he arose and was baptized.”

 

Even in the recovery there is a remarkable propriety in the narrative. The historian describes it, as it would be observed by the bystanders. “Immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales, and he received sight forthwith.” But the apostle, by one slight touch, places his own experience of the change vividly before us. “And the same hour I looked up upon him.” The first object he saw was a Christian brother, the messenger to him of mercy from the Lord. All these fea­tures imply a history of real events, with a real apology before a Jewish audience.

[Resource Manager]

No. IX.

 

Acts 11:12,13. “And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: and he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter.”

 

The report given by Peter, and the direct narrative of the historian, are almost verbal copies of each other, only that the apostle confines himself to that order in which the circum­stances disclosed themselves to him. Hence he begins with his own vision, and mentions that of Cornelius, only as reported by Cornelius himself. Yet here we have two or three cir­cumstances added, which bespeak the reality of his vindica­tion. He mentions the number of his companions, and alludes to them as present, to confirm his statement It was equally natural that he should call them “these six brethren,” when they were by his side, as that the history should speak of them more generally as “certain brethren from Joppa,” or “they of the circumcision, as many as were with Peter.”

 

The presence of these six brethren is an equally natural circumstance. They had just witnessed an event which filled them with wonder, so foreign was it from their own expect­ations. They must have known what mingled curiosity and suspicion it would excite among the whole Jewish church at Jerusalem. How probable, and almost inevitable, that they would accompany Peter, to confirm his statements by their own testimony! And hence the words, “Moreover these six brethren accompanied me,” form one of those minute touches, which distinguish the statements of a contemporary from those of a remote historian.

 

One further coincidence may be traced in the words of Peter, which is lost in our version. “He showed us how he had seen the angel, etc.” Why is the article prefixed? That the reason is not at all self-evident appears from the fact, that our translators have passed it by as unmeaning. Yet a little reflection will explain it. When Peter came to Jerusalem, the rumour of what had occurred had reached the church, and gave rise to their expostulation with him. However vague and general the account, it would be sure to make mention of that angelic vision to Cornelius, which had been spoken of before a large company, and which the six brethren had probably made known before the discussion occurred. Hence St. Peter would naturally allude to it as a fact which they had learned already. “And he showed us how he had seen the angel in his house.” This is another of those minute touches of reality which mark authentic history.

[Resource Manager]

No. X.

 

Acts 13:1. “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.”

 

This mention of one Lucius of Cyrene, among the foremost teachers at Antioch, completes a chain of notices which agree remarkably together.

 

Among the multitude of foreign Jews on the day of Pen­tecost, who marvelled at the gift of tongues, and who probably furnished most of the three thousand converts, we have ex­press mention of those who came “from the parts of Lybia about Cyrene.”

 

When the seven deacons were appointed, and Stephen wrought great wonders among the people, among the fore­most of his adversaries were they of the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians. It is very likely that on both of these occasions there would be not a few converts from among the Jews of Cyrene.

 

On the dispersion, again, which followed the death of Stephen, we are told that some travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching to Jews only. “And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus.”

 

Now since it appears that Cyrenian teachers took a main part in founding the church of Antioch, it is quite natural and consistent that, even in this short list, we should find one “Lucius of Cyrene.” It is also possible that the Roman sur­name of Simeon “that was called Niger” (or black) may be explained by the supposition that he also was a Cyrenian or African Jew. If not, we may suppose him to represent the teachers of Cyprus, as Lucius was the most distinguished of those from Cyrene.

[Resource Manager]

No. XI.

 

Acts 13:8, 9. “But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.”

 

The repeated mention of a double name, in the case of the sorcerer and the apostle, suggests another mark of real history, which extends through the whole work. This consists in the agreement of the names and surnames with the probable cir­cumstances in almost every instance.

 

The native language of Palestine was the Syriac, or that modified form of Hebrew which prevailed after the return from Babylon. Yet many causes had induced an extensive prevalence of the Greek tongue,—the rule of a Grecian dynasty, for three centuries, in Syria and Egypt, the erection of many Greek cities, the systematic policy of Herod the Great and his sons, and the necessities of commerce, since Greek was the constant medium of commercial and literary intercourse. More recently, Judæa had become a Roman province. A Roman army was constantly resident among them, and mul­titudes of Roman Jews resorted to the annual feasts. Hence the three languages were more or less mixed together, Greek and Syriac struggling for the mastery, with a considerable infusion of Latin words and phrases also.

 

The effect of this state of things in Palestine will be naturally seen in the proper names. Names, which are strictly such, are usually left untranslated, but when they are significant surnames, it is natural to translate them into the most familiar language. Also some names are usual in one country and others in another. With these prefatory remarks, let us now consider the names that meet us in the history.

 

First, the names of the apostles are all Jewish, with two exceptions. But Peter, we know otherwise, is only a sur­name, answering to the Syriac, Cephas, while his proper name, Simon, was Jewish. Philip is the only purely Greek name; and this is easily explained, since Philip the tetrarch had been ruler of the district nearest to Galilee, from the time of our Lord’s birth. It was always usual for parents to name their children after the rulers of their own day.

 

Next, one of the two candidates for the apostleship was “Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus.” The two names are both Jewish; but the surname is Roman, and is retained, like the two Hebrew names, in the Greek history. It might possibly be given him by the Romans in Judæa for his integrity, and hence applied to him by others as an un­translated surname.

 

The names in the assembly of Jewish priests are, Annas and Caiaphas, John and Alexander. Three of these are Jewish, the last is purely Greek. It is, however, well known that it had been a frequent name among the Jewish rulers. A king Alexander, and a queen Alexandra, had governed them before Hyrcanus, and one of the sons of Herod, a favourite with the people, had the same name.

 

Again, Joses was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles.   It was a name of honour, given him at Jerusalem, where Hebrew prevailed; and hence the historian expounds its meaning—the son of consolation. Ananias and Sapphira are both of them Hebrew names also, and the first of them occurs three times, once here, once as the name of a disciple at Damascus, and again as the name of the Jewish high priest.

[Resource Manager]

Two centurions only are named in the history, and both of the names are eminently Roman. Cornelius was the name of a Roman family, and Julius had become doubly common from the reputation of Julius Cæsar. The names of the two com­panies are equally appropriate, the Italian, from the country, and the August, from the title of the emperor.

 

The disciple at Joppa was named Tabitha, by interpreta­tion, Dorcas. The historian speaks of her under the latter name, but makes Peter address her under the former. The mixture and conflict of the native or colloquial, and the literary language, could scarcely be shown in a more expressive way.

 

We have next the mention of “John, whose surname was Mark.” The name is Jewish, the surname Roman. Now from the Gospel of Mark it is plain that this evangelist had to do afterwards with the Latin Christians. It is quite possible that his mother, the sister of Barnabas, was married to one of the ἐπιδημοῦντες Ρωμαῖοι, or Roman Jews dwelling at Jerusalem, who are mentioned earlier in the history. In this case he would naturally have a Hebrew name and a Roman surname; while in his missionary labours, the latter name, being much more distinctive, would supersede the former.

 

The apostle himself was the child of a zealous Jew, and was also by birth a Roman citizen (23:6, 22:28). Accord­ingly the history tells us that he had two names, one of a Jewish king, and the other of a Roman family, as the Con­queror Paullus Æmilius, and the Roman deputy, Sergius Paulus, may prove. There is thus an indirect coincidence between his double character and the double name which he bore. It is in exact agreement with these remarks, that he begins to assume his Roman, in preference to his Jewish name, at the opening of his first missionary circuit among the Gentiles. For the change is evidently not from the mere choice of the historian, but a real fact in the history. It appears in the wording of the apostolic decree, and in the language of the Jewish exorcists and Gentile craftsmen at Ephesus.

 

We have next the names of the two prophets, Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas. The former has a Jewish name and surname, each of them found elsewhere, in Joseph Bar­sabas, called Justus, and in Judas the brother of James. The other is probably Roman, and a contraction of Silvanus, which is evidently a Roman name. Accordingly, we find that Judas returns to Jerusalem, as if his calling were rather the gospel of the circumcision; while Silas remains at Antioch, and is chosen by Paul as the fittest companion on his mission to the Gentiles. It is a coincidence still more striking, that Silas, who has a Roman name, proves to be really a Roman citizen (16:37, 38). “They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans.....And the Serjeants told these words unto the magistrates; and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans.”

 

Again, Timothy, the son of a Greek father, had a purely Greek name; yet one which is naturally indicative of the faith of his Jewish mother. Lydia, a Greek from Thyatira, has a Greek name, borrowed from the neighbouring province. The names of Dionysius and Damaris are equally in keeping with their country. Those of Aquila and Priscilla are apparently Roman, and though Pontus was his birthplace, it is very pos­sible that, during a long residence at Rome, these names of Latin origin had superseded any other. The names of Paul’s com­panions are equally in harmony with their origin. They are all Greek, except Secundus and Gaius, which are Roman names. Yet Sopater and Aristarchus were Jews, as we learn from the epistles, but Jews of the dispersion, from Thessalonica and Berea.

 

We have another agreement in the case of the chief captain, Lysias. We are told that he was not a Roman citizen by birth, but obtained that freedom at a great cost. Accordingly, his name, Lysias, is thoroughly Greek, though his prenomen, Claudius, is Roman. From first to last the harmony is un­obtrusive, and still complete. The character of the names agrees perfectly with the history of the persons to whom they belong.

[Resource Manager]

No. ΧII.

 

Acts 16:12. “And from thence we came to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony.”

 

Here a fact is mentioned, in passing, which appears in no other historian, and yet is confirmed by the evidence of corns, that Philippi was a Roman colony. Now let us observe how the same truth comes out in the subsequent narrative. After the dispossession of the damsel, who had a spirit of divination, we read as follows:—

 

“And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the market place, unto the rulers, and brought them to the magis­trates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, and teach customs which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans”

 

It is this appeal to their pride, as Romans, which seems to excite the violence of the multitude, and hurry the magistrates on to acts really unlawful. “And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them.” Thus the whole account really hinges on the brief notice above, that Philippi was “a colony.” Nor is the force of the coincidence much affected, if we suppose that the mention of this fact is prospective, and not incidental. Though not undesigned, it will equally have clear marks of reality. There is so much said as may be consistent with a design to explain the tumult, but not so much as to be con­sistent with any fraudulent purpose. For the whole is con­tained in three words, and the allusion is as brief and transient as it was possible to be.

[Resource Manager]

No. XIII.

 

There is a remarkable unity of statement, in various pas­sages, with regard to the high reverence paid to the character of a Roman citizen. This is a harmony without possibility of being the result of design, since it is so thoroughly unwrought into the texture of the history.

 

The first instance occurs at Philippi, after the tumult men­tioned above. It will be desirable to give the whole context.

 

Acts 16:35-39. “And when it was day, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, Let those men go. And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace. But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily?    Nay, verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. And the Serjeants told these words unto the magistrates; and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans. And they came and besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city.”

 

Many chapters, and several years intervene, before the subject is introduced again. When Paul was brought before Gallio at Corinth, the cause was dismissed, before any question of citizenship could arise. But on his last return to Jeru­salem, and after his defence before the people, the narrative continues.

 

“And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest; for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have tortured him; and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.”

 

The coincidence between these two narratives is striking, and still it is evidently undesigned. The fact related is essential, in each case, to the sequence of the history. On the former occasion, it explains the departure from Philippi, and here, the renewed examination before the Jewish council. There is a further harmony, even in the features of contrast. At Philippi, the magistrates had proceeded to the utmost reach of injustice, without suffering the apostles to raise their voice against it. Hence the indignant tone of the apostle, “Nay, verily, but let them come themselves and fetch us out.” In the present instance, the chief captain was not only ignorant that Paul was a Roman citizen, but had reason to suspect, from the fury of the Jews against him, that he must have been guilty of some notorious crime. Hence that inquiry just before: “Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?” This explains the modest expostulation, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?”

.

Nor is this the whole of the coincidence. We have seen that the chief captain is represented to have been seriously alarmed, when he learned that he had bound a Roman citizen. How does he extricate himself from the danger which his rashness had brought upon him? First, by a scrupulous and even zealous care to protect him from violence; and next, by making a merit of his conduct on this very ground. When the dissension arose in the council, “the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, com­manded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.” When he learns of the conspiracy, he sends no less than four hundred and seventy soldiers for his escort to Antipatris. The words of his letter reveal the motive of his conduct, to wipe away the memory of his fault, in binding a Roman citizen, by double zeal in behalf of his privileges.

 

“Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix, greeting. This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman.”

 

Hence he not only conceals the binding of Paul, and the command to scourge him; but by a politic anachronism, represents the rescue at the first to have been the effect of his own zeal, in vindicating the safety and honour of a Roman citizen. This is just what we might expect under the circum­stances, from a clever worldling, who had more regard for the favour of his superiors than for truth. Yet it furnishes an indirect testimony to the dignity of the Roman citizen, more striking, perhaps, than even the two former, while the harmony of all the three passages is complete.

[Resource Manager]

No. XIV.

 

Acts 21:10. “And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judæa a certain prophet named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.”

 

The same prophet, Agabus, previous to St. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, had come down to Antioch, and there announced the approaching famine. It is in both cases a similar gift which is ascribed to him, and exercised under similar circumstances, to warn of coming trials. But the passage is here quoted, not for this agreement, which deserves a passing notice, but for a difficulty which has to be removed, and which turns on examination into a minute coincidence. If the apostle hurried past Ephesus, because he was anxious to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, how are we to account for his tarrying at Cæsarea many days?

 

Our first step towards solving this doubt consists in a more exact version. The word used is not many (πολλας), but a good many, several, or more than usual (πλειους). There is a tacit comparison with their stay at other places on their journey, of which several were only of one day, and the two longest of seven days, at Troas and Tyre. Hence an interval of ten to fourteen days would fully satisfy the statement.

 

Next, we may infer, from the various details of the nar­rative, that such must really have been the length of their stay at Cæsarea. They sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, were five days on their voyage, and tarried seven days at Troas, of which the last was the Lord’s day. Hence the first day of unleavened bread would be Thursday, and eighteen days expire with their departure from Troas. We have one day’s voyage to Mitylene, a second to Chios, a third to Trogyllium, and a fourth to Miletus, in all twenty-two days. We may allow two clear days for the delay at Miletus, the voyage being resumed immediately after the parting interview. Three days brought them to Patara, making a total of twenty-seven days. Four days, since the wind seems to have been favourable, would bring them to Tyre, where they tarried seven days. One day was spent on the voyage from Tyre, and at Ptolemais, and another in reaching Cæsarea, a total of thirty-nine days. Hence there would be thirteen days left, inclusive of both extremes, till the day of Pentecost. Now it is plain that the apostle waited at Cæsarea, that he might go up to Jerusalem on the eve of the feast-day; so that the expression of St. Luke is perfectly accurate, and the whole narrative thoroughly consistent. And since there is no further allusion to the circumstance, that the design of reaching Jerusalem by the Pentecost was attained, the whole is a clear example of undesigned coincidence.

[Resource Manager]

No. XV.

 

Acts 21:29. “For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.”

 

There are several circumstances in this whole account, which agree remarkably with each other, and with the previous history. And first, we were told previously, that “of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus” accompanied the apostle on his journey. It is consistent that “Trophimus the Ephesian” was seen with him at Jerusalem. But how came he to be at once recognised as a Gentile? We are told that it was “the Jews which were of Asia,” or from Ephesus and its neighbourhood, who raised the outcry. But why should these Jews be more forward than any other, in raising a tumult against the apostle? In the first place, the Jews of this district were not the most backward in opposing the gospel, even in the time of Stephen, but are mentioned distinctly among his adversaries. And, what is more important, Ephesus was the latest scene of Paul’s continued residence. He had stayed nowhere so long, and nowhere had encountered such furious opposition. Hence it is very natural that Jews from Asia should be the ringleaders in exciting a tumult against him; that they should recognise Trophimus, who came from their own city, and know him to be a Gentile; and that their hasty passion should infer that Paul had brought this Gentile stranger into the temple. His intercourse with such Gentiles was itself an infraction of Jewish habits and prejudices, which Peter only surmounted after a double vision; and hence they would readily infer the commission of a similar offence, by the introduction of Trophimus into the temple.

[Resource Manager]

No. XVI.

 

There is something strange, at first sight, in the conduct of Gamaliel, Acts 5:33-40. The whole Jewish council seem on the point of adopting extreme measures against the apostles, and their death is almost determined upon, when this eminent teacher of the law interferes. It was at his feet that Saul was trained up (22:3), and imbibed his fierce zeal against the infant church.    And yet Gamaliel is the very party who mitigates the decision, interposes prudential reasons, nay, even seems to intimate a possibility of truth in the apostle’s message. “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”

 

Let us now compare the account of Paul’s trial, and see whether it will not help to explain the mystery.

 

Acts 23:6-9. “But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dis­sension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.”

 

We see here how strong was the jealousy of these two parties, and how rooted their antipathy, where their respective opinions were concerned. The Pharisees are turned, for the moment, from fierce persecutors into zealous advocates of the apostle, when his words give them a fair opening for maintain­ing their creed against the heterodoxy of the Sadducees. They are willing to suppose that he has really had a vision from a spirit or angel, and that their rivals might be fighting against God through their own incredulity. The whole is an extreme instance of the jealousy between them, since both had been forward in the persecution, till this watchword of strife was given.

 

Let us now return to the former passage, and see whether the conduct of Gamaliel is not explained by this later occur­rence. And first, the leaders in the persecution were Sadducees. “Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.” In the next place, it was a doctrinal offence which was charged upon them. “Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine.” Again, the answer of Peter, while an explicit testimony to the claims of Jesus, is an equally plain avowal of the doctrine of the resurrection. “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus.” When Gamaliel interposes, it is noted that he was “a Pharisee, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people.” He might probably fear lest the Sadducees, under the cover of their zeal against the apostles, were securing a triumph for their party, and aiming a covert blow at the orthodox creed of the Pharisees. Hence, while he would not shield the apostle entirely, he would interpose the whole weight of his authority, and that of his followers, to hinder a Sadducean high priest from crushing these irregular, but powerful advocates, of the doctrine of a resurrection. “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” It is difficult, when the two passages are compared, to resist the natural conclusion, that such were the motives of Gamaliel; and the two occurrences thus present a striking specimen of unobtrusive coincidence.