Acts 14:28

ἐκεῖ omitted with אABCD. Not represented in Vulg.

28. διέτριβον δὲ χρόνον … μαθηταῖς, and they abode no little time with the disciples. St Paul was naturally more attached to Antioch than to Jerusalem, for here was the centre where Gentiles had first formed a Church, and where consequently he found most sympathy with his special labours.

The termination of St Paul’s first missionary journey seems a fitting place to notice the general character of the Apostle’s labours as they are set forth for us by the historian. A space of three or four years at least must be assigned for the duration of this first mission, and as the district traversed was comparatively small, a considerable time must have been spent at each place which was chosen for a centre of labour. This is very clear from St Luke’s narrative. He tells us (Acts 13:49) how ‘the word of God was published throughout all the region.’ He speaks also (Acts 13:52; Acts 14:22) of ‘the disciples’ as though converts had been made in no small numbers. Again at Iconium he mentions (Acts 14:1) that (a great multitude both of Jews and Greeks believed,’ and (Acts 14:3) that ‘long time’ was spent there in striving to overcome the opposition of the ‘unbelieving Jews,’ and at last the whole city seems to have been divided through the influence of the missionaries into two great and warmly opposing factions. Such results were not produced by a couple of unknown Jewish preachers except after long-extended labour. At Lystra they abode long enough to attract crowds to their discourses and to form a congregation of earnest disciples, who did not allow the work to die out. Another proof of the abundant fruit of their labours is the necessity for ordaining elders in the various centres and providing for orderly Church government. It took too no short time, we may feel sure, to secure converts of such a character as to be fit for the presidential offices in every Church. And the subsequent language of St Paul (Acts 15:36) where he speaks of revisiting their brethren in every city where they ‘had before preached the word of the Lord,’ shews that he believed a good foundation had been laid in the various places where they had ministered. We judge from this that the plan of the mission was that Barnabas and Paul made a stay in some centre of population, and there continued their preaching till converts enough and of such a character had been gained to continue the work when the Apostles departed, and some of them so far instructed as to be fit to become teachers to the rest.

It is however when we read of the Christian congregations that the narrative of St Luke becomes most replete with interest. The vision by which St Paul was called (Acts 22:21) declared him expressly chosen to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. In his letter to the Galatians he confirms (Galatians 2:7) what St Luke tells us on this point in the history. Yet the history exhibits him to us as quite acting up to the feelings which he himself has expressed (Romans 10:1), where he declares that his heart’s desire for Israel is that they may be saved, and it shews us how his whole life was in accord with the language of that same Epistle (Romans 11:1) when he completely identifies himself with the children of Israel. Throughout all this missionary tour the Apostle in no instance neglects to publish the glad tidings of salvation first to his own people. The Jews reject him in one place, yet he still goes to their brethren first at the next station to which he comes. In Cyprus both he and Barnabas went first to the synagogue in Salamis. It is true that they preached mightily unto the Gentiles, but the Jews had heard their message first. At Antioch it was in the synagogue that their mission was commenced. They took their places there as ordinary Jewish worshippers, and were asked by the rulers to address the congregation as being brethren and of the same faith. The address which St Paul made on that occasion, the summary of which St Luke has preserved for us, echoes in more than one place the language of the Epistle to the Romans. While in the latter St Paul says (Romans 3:28) ‘we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law,’ the historian relates (Acts 13:39) that he said to the Antiochene congregation in similar terms, ‘By Him all that believed are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.’ In the same way we find in the Epistle St Paul explains to the Romans (Romans 10:19) that God’s purpose had been to rouse His ancient people to jealousy by them that are no people, so at Antioch the history tells us how he said, ‘It was necessary that the word of God should be first spoken to you, but seeing ye adjudge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.’ This is quite in harmony too with Romans 1:16. There the Gospel is proclaimed to be ‘the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,’ but the order in which it is offered is ‘to the Jew first, and afterward to the Gentiles.’

To notice the unanimity of the language of St Paul’s chief Epistle with that of such abstracts of his speeches as are furnished by St Luke has much interest and is of much importance. For there are those who maintain that the St Paul of the Acts is a very different person in character and teaching from the St Paul of the Epistles. To establish such an opinion, those passages in the letters have been singled out and unduly dwelt on, wherein the Apostle speaks severely of the opposition which he met with from the Jews. A theory has been started that in the early Church there were two opposing parties, one named from Peter, the other from Paul, and that the Acts of the Apostles is a work of a late date written with the view of bringing about harmony between them. It cannot therefore be too prominently set forward, that in the narrative of St Luke there is a great deal for which we find an exact counterpart in St Paul’s Epistles. And if the comparison of the history with the letters be extended as far as the materials at our command permit, at every step it will become more and more apparent, that the agreement between the Apostle and the historian exists, because the latter is faithful to what he saw and heard, and his record therefore cannot but harmonize with the spirit and words of him who was the chief actor in the history.