And when Saul was come to Jerusalem he essayed to Join himself to the disciples.
Saul’s emotions on returning to Jerusalem
He was returning to it from a spiritual as Ezra had from a bodily captivity, and to his renewed mind all things appeared new. What an emotion smote his heart at the first distant view of the Temple, that house of sacrifice, that edifice of prophecy. Its sacrifices had been realised, the Lamb of God had been offered; its prophecies had been fulfilled, the Lord had come unto it. As he approached the gates, he might have trodden the very spot where he had so exultingly assisted in the death of Stephen, and he entered them perfectly content, were it God’s will, to be dragged out through them to the same fate. He would feel a peculiar tie of brotherhood to that martyr, for he could not now be ignorant that the same Jesus who in such glory had called him, had but a little time before appeared in the same glory to assure the expiring Stephen. The ecstatic look and words of the dying saint now came fresh upon his memory with their real meaning. When he entered into the city, what deep thoughts were suggested by the haunts of his youth, and by the sight of the spots where he had go eagerly sought that knowledge which he had so eagerly abandoned. What an intolerable burden had he cast off! He felt as a glorified spirit may be supposed to feel on revisiting the scenes of its fleshly concern. (J. S. Howson, D. D.)
Saul’s first visit after his conversion to Jerusalem
I. His admission to Church membership.
1. Sought. “He essayed,” i.e., endeavoured to join himself to the disciples. Amongst them was Peter--an object of special attraction (Galatians 1:18). He had heard, doubtless, of his wonderful sermon at Pentecost, and otherwise from the Christians at Damascus. James was there, too, the Lord’s brother. This endeavour to get into the new fellowship indicated--
(1) A wonderful change in his social character. Three years before, the disciples were the object of his indignation.
(2) The law of social life. There is a craving for intercourse with those of kindred thoughts, sympathies, and alms.
2. Obstructed. “They were all afraid of him.” It would seem that he had no letters of commendation from Damascus, owing to the hurried manner of his escape. So that we are not surprised at the panic here. This obstruction, however, must have been--
(1) Painful to him. He had been a Christian three years, had held fellowship with the disciples at Damascus, had preached boldly there, and had studied the Christian faith and cultivated the Christian life in the Solitudes of Arabia. So he must have felt it hard, though just, to have been now suspected.
(2) Natural. Purity and peace required caution, and the apostle’s case was a suspicious one, with the persecution fresh upon the memory.
3. Attained. This was through the kind offices of Barnabas, a man known and honoured by them, and possibly an acquaintance of Saul’s. As Cyprus was only a few hours’ sail from Cilicia, Barnabas, in introducing Saul, pleads on his behalf the only sufficient qualification for Church membership (verse 27).
4. Enjoyed (verse 28). He would--
(1) “Come in” to them with some new thought, new impressions, new deeds wrought for Christ, which would stimulate and cheer the brethren.
(2) “Go out” with their prayers, counsel, love, bracing him for heroic work. Blessed the man who has a spiritual home. Such homes are where moral giants are trained.
II. His proclamation of the gospel (verse 29).
1. The subject of his ministry. “In the name of the Lord Jesus”--a subject he once hated, and which he preferred to many subjects which, as a man of genius and learning, he might have taken. He viewed everything through it, and judged the world by it.
2. Its sphere--“Grecians”--Hellenistic Jews. The same zeal which had combated Stephen now defended the cause for which he died.
3. Its style.
(1) “Boldly.” Nothing but an invincible courage could have enabled him to appear before such an audience on such a theme.
(2) He “disputed.” He did not, as a fanatic would, declaim, but submitted theses for discussion.
4. Its results.
(1) Persecution to himself.
(2) Increased sympathy of the Church (verse 30). (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Saul at Jerusalem
1. It was in blindness that he had first entered Damascus, and now he is forced to flee from it under the friendly cover of darkness. As he proceeded to Jerusalem, he could not pass the scene of his conversion without a holy shudder. Every turn of the road must have reminded him of his eastward journey. But he hurries westward a changed man. And he must have wondered how he should meet his instigators, and have surmised how they would curse him. And if he passed the place of Stephen’s martyrdom, his soul must have trembled in its gratitude to sovereign mercy.
2. His arrival created as much doubt among the Christians as it had done at Damascus. He did not attempt to take them by storm, and parade the glory of his conversion, but humbly sought admission, but his veracity was questioned, and they deemed him to be a wolf in lamb’s clothing--no small trial for one who had done and suffered so much under his new convictions. But Barnabas kindly interfered and vouched for his sincerity, and then was he admitted to fellowship.
3. The apostle of the circumcision and the apostle of the Gentiles dwelt for “fifteen days” under one roof. What conversations, discussions, and projected enterprises from two minds so unlike in structure and discipline, and yet so very like in zeal and courage! Peter loved Palestine, yet Paul loved it none the less that his heart embraced the world. The former felt at home in the sphere of the Old Testament, the other stretched beyond it while he did not forsake it. Peter did what he knew to be his duty in repairing to the house of Cornelius, but he did not feel at perfect liberty to repeat such deeds; while the untrammelled Paul exclaims, “Inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles I magnify mine office.” In a word, Peter was like the Jordan, the stream that belonged exclusively to his fatherland, though a foreigner, like Naaman, might once be healed in it; but Paul resembled the “great sea,” which washes the shores of the three continents. Saul stayed only a fortnight in Jerusalem, but he was not and could not be idle. Four features of his preaching come into view.
I. The class to whom he addressed himself were the hellenists. The Jews born in Judaea were victims of narrowness and prejudice: the “genius of the place” held them in bondage. But the Jews born and brought up in other countries had mingled with other races, and their minds were expanded with literary and commercial intercourse. As one of them, Saul specially appealed to them. For there are certain ties of blood, education, and language which are to be recognised even in the advocacy of the truth. Saul did not fling the gospel in the face of the high priest, nor go to the temple and harangue the fanatical crowds. He was no unreasoning fanatic, unable to hold his tongue or control his temper; no agitator, reckless as to circumstances. He was, indeed, a man of one idea, but it did not so overmaster him that he knew not when, how, and where to develop it.
II. His preaching took the form of disputation. He did not come forth simply with a “set speech,” but after he spoke he allowed the free criticism of all his statements. He met his opponents openly and fully, prepared to reply to their questions and to respond to their challenge. One opponent might question his interpretation of the law or the prophets; or another would affirm some base thing about our Lord’s life, or some stupid and malignant thing about his religion, while to the one and the other Saul would speak with loving soul, reasoning out the validity of his interpretation and teaching the truth as to the facts of the Master’s career and death. And though another disputant, with a leer and a frown, should refer to his conversion, the allusion could neither shame nor intimidate one who “had seen that Just One, and heard the voice of His mouth.”
III. His preaching was bold, for his convictions were thorough. He believed, therefore he spake. Had there been any suspicions that possibly after all he might be in error--then his preaching might have been faltering. But Saul’s mind could not admit the possibility of a doubt; and the glorified Jesus being his shield, he was not alarmed at “what man shall do.” He could not modify, and he would not recant. Pressed on every side by the Grecians, he was impervious alike to execration and ridicule--a mighty man of valour, clad in “the whole armour of God.”
IV. He was bold in the name of the Lord Jesus, i.e., he not only preached Christ, but he claimed His express authority for so preaching Him. Timidity would be treachery to his Master, cruelty to the world, and unfaithfulness to his own convictions. And all this brave outspokenness was not the arrogance of a “novice,” but the courage which one feels who has vowed fidelity both to God and to man, and who is supported by the grace which never fails. Conclusion: That Saul’s appearance should impress some needs not be doubted, but the multitude refused to believe. Nay, they went about to slay him. In the meantime he had enjoyed a remarkable vision in the Temple, in which he saw Christ and heard Him say, “Get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning Me.” As Saul had been only two weeks there, he wished to remain a little longer, and, probably with the advice of Peter, thought of selecting Jerusalem as a field of labour. Another scene like Pentecost might be anticipated, and Peter might be hoping much from the ardour, erudition, and eloquence of his junior colleague. Man proposes, but God disposes. But as Saul did nothing without a reason, he honestly tells the Lord why he had come to labour in Jerusalem (Acts 22:19-20). The ground taken by Saul is very intelligible. The population of Jerusalem had known what he was, and he wished them to know what he had become. Therefore he thought that on the spot where such points were notorious, he had a special claim to be heard against himself and in favour of that system which he had adopted from the best of all reasons. Moses, when summoned to go to Egypt, pleaded want of eloquence; Gideon would not march till the fleece had been wetted, nay, till the omen had been reversed; Jeremiah urged his youth and inexperience when called to the prophetic office; Jonah set sail for Tarshish, instead of proceeding to Nineveh; Ananias, when bidden to seek out a stranger who had recently arrived at Damascus, demurred; and Saul, thinking himself possessed of special qualifications for a sphere of labour which he preferred, was backward toward that very work for which he had been born and called, and in which he so soon achieved signal success, and won imperishable renown. “Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?” “The right man in the right place,” has become a popular expression for mutual adaptation. Saul did not verify the saying either in Damascus or Jerusalem, but it might be truly predicted of him through his whole subsequent career, when he spoke, travelled, toiled, and suffered, as one “appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” (J. Eadie, D. D.)
Church membership
I. The character of the persons on whom the duty of Church membership devolves.
1. It is the duty of all who call themselves Christians to separate themselves from the world and to unite themselves with a particular Church; yet, before they can do this in a scriptural manner, they must exercise repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; they must “first give themselves to the Lord, and then to His people according to His will.” Personal must precede social religion. “A Christian is the highest style of man”--he is a disciple of Christ; he believes His gospel; he loves Him; he imitates His example; he yields obedience to His commands; and he lives, not unto himself, but unto Him who died for him and rose again.
2. That none but such persons are qualified for Church membership is evident from the New Testament. In the case before us, when “Saul essayed to join himself to the disciples,” they did not receive him till they had ascertained from Barnabas that he was a disciple indeed. And when the apostle wrote to the Churches he had formed he addressed them to “the saints”--to the “beloved of God”--to the “faithful in Christ Jesus,” etc. And if persons of another character gained admission, they were “to put away that wicked person,” and to “withdraw from every brother that walked disorderly.”
3. Besides this direct evidence that personal piety is an essential prerequisite for Church communion, there are other considerations to show its necessity. Without personal piety--
(1) A man can have no spiritual communion with the Church--“for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
(2) He is morally unable to promote the great objects for which the Church of Christ was established.
(3) His Church membership may only serve to confirm his self-righteousness and self-deception.
4. The Church would soon lose its distinctive character, and possess nothing of religion but the name.
II. The indispensable duty of all such persons to unite themselves in membership with a Church of Christ. This appears--
1. From the fact that the Christian Church is instituted by the authority of Christ. He is “the head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.” “Upon this rock,” says He, “I will build My Church.” “The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.” Besides, when Christians are addressed, it is not only in their personal, but also in their social capacity. They are described not as scattered stones, but as a spiritual temple--not as a house only, but as a city--not as distinct and separated individuals, but as “fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” And the will of Christ, in this respect, is quite in accordance with the social character of man, and with the natural tendency and influence of personal piety. Not to unite with His Church, therefore, is to disregard His authority, to impeach His wisdom, and to set an example of spiritual celibacy, which, if followed by all, would subvert his institutions, and render a Church of Christ entirely unknown.
2. The uniform conduct of the primitive Christians. In the pure and primitive ages of Christianity, the several Churches contained the whole number of the faithful. Then everyone who acknowledged himself a Christian felt it to be a duty to join himself to the disciples of Christ, though he thereby risked his property, his liberty, and his life.
3. The command of Christ, relative to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” was a command given, not to an individual, but to a society. It was to be celebrated by “those who came together in the Church.” The same authority which commands, “Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is,” also commands this, and you act in defiance of that authority, whether you forsake the public worship of God, or neglect communion with the Church of Christ.
III. The advantages which a prompt performance of this duty will secure. Your communion with the Church of Christ--
1. Will warrant the exercise of confidence in prayer, and authorise you to expect the blessing of God. Whilst you live in the neglect of this duty, I do not see how you can consistently exercise the one, or expect the other. When we reverence the Redeemer as our Lawgiver, we may consistently expect Him to become our Intercessor, and when we ascend the hill where His blessing is promised, we may confidently expect that there it will be commanded.
2. Will furnish you with additional means and motives for perseverance in holiness. You will be brought under the immediate charge and care of the pastor, and become associated with brethren who will watch over you with charity, and sympathise with you in your sorrows and your joys, and pray for you. Besides which, you will be surrounded with obligations to circumspection, arising from the sacredness of your relationship. You will then be no longer an isolated individual, like a flower in a wilderness, wasting its sweetness in the desert air, dimmed in its beauties, and stunted in its growth; but, being planted in the house of the Lord, you will flourish like the palm tree, and grow like a cedar in Lebanon, still bringing forth fruit even in old age.
3. Will be a source of much holy peace and joy. There is a sweet and sacred pleasure which springs from the conviction of having acted according to the Divine command.
IV. The objections and apologies by which those who neglect this duty attempt to justify or to excuse their conduct.
1. “I am not yet qualified for Church membership.” If by this you intimate that you are not Christians, then your fear is just; or if you refer to the righteousness which is of the law, you have not yet attained it, and you never will. But perhaps you mean a more mature and perfect character. If so, you have mistaken the design of the institution. The Church is formed expressly for the reception of all who repent and believe the gospel; and they are commanded to enter it, not when their Christian graces are matured, but in order that they may be matured. It is at once a nursery for the babe in Christ, a school for the education of the young man, and a sanctuary for the refuge and repose of “such an one as Paul the aged.”
2. “I can go to heaven without being a member of a Church.” Does not the ingratitude and presumption which this objection manifests, render it unworthy of a reply? Is there not a degree of haughtiness and flippancy in such a sentiment, which betrays a heart which is not right in the sight of God? Suppose you do go to heaven without it--will the recollection of your neglect and disobedience be any source of pleasure to you when you get there? Go to heaven without it! Shame on the man who professes to follow the Lamb, and yet tells us that he can travel to heaven by trampling on His institutions, and enter there, not by the door, like an honest man, but by some other way, like a thief and a robber.
3. “I have a relative or friend who is not willing that I should become a member of the Church.” Now, if you were to state this apology fully, you would add, “and therefore I have determined to consult his will rather than the will of Christ.” But further, if your relative or friend be not pious, is your present conduct likely to make him so? Will he not suspect your loyalty and love to the Redeemer, and learn by your example to be negligent and disobedient? If your relative or friend will not accompany you to the Cross and to the Church, you must go alone.
4. “I fear that the Church will not receive me.” No Church constituted according to the New Testament will refuse to receive you if you profess and manifest repentance and faith. If you are a Christian, however young and feeble, Christ has received you, and it would be at our peril to reject you, for the Church is not ours.
5. “I fear that, at some future time, I may bring dishonour on the cause of Christ.” But is there nothing dishonourable in your present conduct? Besides, are you more likely to be safe in the world than in the Church? And is Christ less likely to preserve you when you are keeping His commandments? (J. Alexander.)
Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles.--
Barnabas and Saul
The first association of two names, afterwards linked together for good or evil, is fraught with interest. How much more the earliest combination of Barnabas and Saul--to issue in widespread blessing for the Church and the world. It is significant, however, that Barnabas alone had the genius to detect the genuineness of Saul’s conversion, and his latent possibilities. How many splendid lives have been gained for the Church, in the teeth of the Church’s opposition, by the kindness and sagacity of some one man.
I. What Barnabas did; as exhibiting the conduct of a true brother.
1. “He took him.”
(1) Sympathised with his painful position.
(2) Relieved him from his embarrassing isolation.
(3) Identified himself with him by taking his stand on the same platform. And thus--
(4) Effectually helped him in circumstances, where from his previous record he was powerless.
2. He “brought him to the apostles.” He was not satisfied with sending a letter of recommendation, or with telling Saul to “mention his name”--a cheap and easy method often adopted nowadays--but went with him to vouch for his character, and to accept all responsibility for him. How many good Christians today are outside the fold because of the unjust suspicions of their fellow Christians! And how much room there is for a Barnabas in those Churches where mere orthodoxy or respectability rule instead of the Spirit of Christ.
II. What barnabas said: as defining the character of a true convert.
1. “How that he had seen the Lord.” The vision of Christ as Saviour and Lord essential to true conversion. Paul himself confesses as much (Galatians 1:15-16).
2. “That he had spoken to Him.” “Behold he prayeth” was the assurance Christ gave to Ananias of Paul’s conversion.
3. “That he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.” Paul tells us that when a man believes, he will speak. “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.” (J. W. Burn.)
Sympathy: its practical value
To the generosity and clear-sightedness of Joseph of Cyprus, on this and on a later occasion, the apostle owed a vast debt of gratitude. Next only to the man who achieves the greatest and most blessed deeds is he who, perhaps himself wholly incapable of such high work, is yet the first to help and encourage the genius of others. We often do more good by our sympathy than by our labours, and render to the world a more lasting service by absence of jealousy, and recognition of merit, than we could ever render by the straining efforts of personal ambition. (Archdeacon Farrar.)