Acts 15

Acts 15:1-41

The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 15:1-41 - Acts 16:1-11 Acts 15:1-35 This has sometimes been called the story of the first council of the Christian Church. To that description of the gathering in Jerusalem Farrar in his “Life and Work of St. Paul” objected, for excellent reasons. He showed that the council in Jerusalem was not a convention of delegates, but a meeting of the Church at Jerusalem, to receive a deputation from the Church at Antioch, and to consider a subject of grave importance in the matter of missionary enterprise. He pointed out moreover, that this gathering in Jerusalem was for purposes of consultation, and not for final and dogmatic decision. Yet it may be good to retain the name of council, if we would understand what a council should be, and see wherein the grave errors of many subsequent councils have consisted.

Almost all councils subsequent to the first have attempted to fix some habit of ritual, or to give final form to the expression of some great truth. Neither of these things was attempted in the gathering in Jerusalem. The true function of a council as herein revealed, is that of considering an immediate subject, and finding an immediate application of principle. Nevertheless such consideration and such finding must necessarily have a most important bearing on future development. When the council met in Jerusalem, it gathered to consider a problem that was immediate, which was created at Antioch, the new centre of missionary enterprise; a problem created by the arrival there of men of Judaea, who were charging these new Gentile converts,-mark this most particularly,-not that they should be circumcized; but that unless they were circumcized they could not be saved. The council met to consider this matter, to hear the report of those who were sent by the Church at Antioch; not in order to learn what the Church at Jerusalem had to say authoritatively and finally, in order that it should be obeyed; but for purposes of conference, and that the larger fellowship of Christian people might be taken into account when facing so grave a situation.

Luke’s picture must be interpreted by Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Without suggesting that either account is untrue, it is quite certain that if they be read together we shall catch a different tone. There is a touch in Paul’s account of the story, which reveals how keenly he felt certain attitudes taken up toward him, even on the part of the apostolic band. We cannot read Paul’s account of the council, and of its findings, without seeing that had they been other than they were, he would not have obeyed them. He was not seeking the authority of the Church at Jerusalem. He was not asking for an expression of truth by James or by Peter, ex cathedra.

He was there for purposes of consultation; and had the finding been one that put the Gentiles into bondage, he would have broken with Jerusalem, and all the apostles, in the interests of truth. There are evidences in his account of the story, of the fact that there was a good deal of dissension, and difference, and argument, before finality was reached.

But when the history is read as Luke has recorded it, then we discover not so much the details of difference, as the ultimate harmony of decision. The story becomes the more interesting when we recognize these two things; when we see that in the first assembly, and in subsequent discussions, there were very many differences, and some touch perhaps of bitterness. Yet at last, there came a great and holy and wonderful moment, when that assembly of Christian believers, with different opinions, after discussion, based upon a master-principle, were able to say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us.”

Let us first observe the story of the council, and then attempt an application of its findings to our own day.

It is well that we should first enquire what the difference of opinion was, that gave rise to the council. When we have discovered it, we may consider the discussion that ensued, and finally look briefly at the decision arrived at. To get back into the atmosphere is to understand the naturalness of the difficulty. To the Jew, Christianity was the fulfillment and continuity of the old economy. Therein he was distinguished entirely in his mental attitude from the mental attitude of the new converts in Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and throughout that district. The religion of Jesus Christ to the mind of the Hebrew believing into Him, was not a religion that destroyed the religion of his fathers, but fulfilled it.

The religion of Jesus Christ had grown out of the religion of his fathers, was the continuity of one Divine movement. Paul’s address in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia dealt with the great doctrines of the unity of God in order to capture the mind of the Greek; but he spoke also of the whole Hebrew movement, and saw its fulfillment in Christ and in His evangel.

But the new movement in Antioch of Syria was a movement not influenced by that tradition. Indeed, the movement at Antioch had not even an apostolic tradition behind it; it began with Christ, and the men of Antioch therefore were quite careless as to the things preceding, and had no interest in them.

Mark these differences. The Christian Jew, looking upon his Christianity as the direct outcome, continuity, and fulfillment, of the august religion of his fathers, came to Antioch and into all these cities; and found Greek Christians, who had no relation with the Hebrew religion or tradition; whose Christianity began in their knowledge of Christ. Immediately we see the naturalness of the difficulty. These men, many of them perfectly sincere, said that these Greek Christians could not be saved by beginning in the middle of a process; that it was not enough that they began with Christ. They must also be brought to everything that prepared the way for the Christ. They must conform to the law of Moses, and the ritual of Moses.

This difficulty was serious, for it was one which would be repeated in new centres. It would accentuate within the Christian fact, a conflict between Hebraism and Hellenism, which had been so profound and bitter in the years prior to that fact. When Saul of Tarsus was apprehended by Jesus Christ for a special purpose, it was the apprehension of a man in whom the two ideals of Hebraism and Hellenism met, in whom they had been at conflict until Christ found him, but in whom they were now merged into one great Christian mental attitude. He was Hebrew of Hebrews, but he was Saul of Tarsus. The idea of bondage and denial and sacrifice, was the idea of Hebraism; the idea of liberty and culture and the fulfillment of life, was the idea of Hellenism. In Christ he had found that through bondage men come into liberty; that through death men come into life; that through all that Hebraism stood for, men realize all that Hellenism suggests.

That was the victory won in Saul of Tarsus. Now if through these new Churches in the midst of Hellenism, Hebraism was to reassert certain of its old rites, there would be cleavage in the Christian movement. That was the peril of the situation. If these teachers from Judaea had been victorious, then through those earliest years, lasting until now, there would have been division between the Hebrew Church of Christ, and the Gentile Church of Christ; and the bitterness caused by such division would have been mutually destructive, and the testimony of Christ to the world would have been lost. So that it was not merely a dispute about a rite or ceremony, but something far profounder that gave rise to this council in Jerusalem.

Before passing from this contemplation of the difficulty, having touched upon its naturalness and its seriousness, there is yet another element to be noticed in the danger that threatened the Church. Circumcision in the original purpose of God was ordained for the cure of self-righteousness. It was an outward and visible sign or symbol of the fact that this people was separated to God, and dependent upon God; that all they were, and were able to do in the world, arose from the activity and the government of God. At once we see wherein the Hebrew people in the process of the ages had entirely missed the meaning of the rite, for which they were now prepared to fight. Circumcision was now being made the instrument of self-righteousness. That which was intended to mark its destruction, or to indicate its absence, had become the sign and the cause of its possession.

Circumcision, and all the rites and ceremonials of Hebrew observance, had become evasions of the true purpose of God; opiates by the use of which men drugged their souls to the clamant cry of righteousness. That is always the danger of ritualism. The religion of the most high God had been made subservient to the observance of external rites. Paul saw the peril of grafting a ritual on to the Christian Church, putting a rite or a ceremony in the place of essential spiritual life and communion. That was the inspiration of his anger and passion; and presently, of his strong and stern denunciation of Peter, when subsequently to the council, Peter went down to Antioch and dissembled. These were not small matters.

They were fundamental matters. This was a difference involving the very genius of religion, as to the profoundest things of Christianity.

Concerning the discussion, the two passages, this fifteenth chapter of the Acts, and Paul’s story in Galatians, are mutually interpretive. Evidently Paul and Barnabas were graciously received by the Church. Evidently also there was a private conference between Paul and Barnabas and the elders. That is admitted in the sixth verse of this fifteenth chapter, “And the apostles and elders were gathered together to consider of this matter.” It is quite briefly stated by Luke. What happened in that conference we are not told, but it was a quiet and private conference. The deputation from Antioch in Syria consisted of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, and perchance two or three others.

The story of their reception is told in verse four: They “were received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed " in Jerusalem what they had been doing all the way. They told how they had left Antioch rejoicing in the triumphs won; they told the story of Perga and Attalia. Arrived in Jerusalem, they simply rehearsed the triumphs of the Gospel, they did not raise the difficulty.

In the Galatian letter Paul is careful to state what happened at this point. In the second chapter and second verse he says, “I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.” That is Paul’s account of what happened when the apostles and the elders were gathered together with the deputation, the church not being present. Paul laid before them, not the story of his triumphs, but his Gospel. At the first reception he rehearsed the story of all God had been doing in the district; but to that smaller select company, he rehearsed the Gospel, he told what he had been preaching, he went over the ground of the truth he had been proclaiming.

Having discussed his Gospel with the apostles, and having, as we learn in Galatians, won the approval of Peter, James, and John, the church assembled again; and there followed the discussion in the council. In this there are three things to notice: first, the address of Peter; secondly, the address of Barnabas and Paul (which was the speaker it is impossible to say, for the speech is not reported); and finally, the address of James.

Peter contributed two things to the discussion: a fact, and a deduction. The speech of Peter is not that of the theologian. He was not arguing about a doctrine. He was not entering into the delicate and difficult discussion as to rites and ceremonies. Peter, bold, blunt, and magnificent, said in effect, Here is a fact, and here is a deduction. The fact was that God had sent him to the Gentiles, and gave to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius the Spirit of God, “making no distinction.” The deduction he made was that they should not tempt God.

On the sin of tempting God there is light in the history of the Old Testament; there is light in Hebrews and in Corinthians; and supremely there is light in the temptation of our Lord in the wilderness. To tempt God is to refuse to follow His guidance. Said the tempter to Jesus, “If Thou art the Son of God, cast Thyself down”; and Jesus said, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”; that is, thou shalt not refuse to wait for His guidance and direction, thou shalt not initiate adventures in order to see whether or not He will help in circumstances which are not of His will. Said Peter, Here is the fact, God has already given the Gentile all grace without ceremony, ritual, rite, and observance. Here is the deduction: do not be afraid to follow God, even though He seems to be breaking through things dear to our heart; do not tempt God, by refusing His guidance.

Paul and Barnabas simply rehearsed, saying in effect that Peter’s fact had been multiplied by facts throughout all these cities. They had been sent by that Church in Antioch, upon which some men now would superimpose a bondage and a yoke, through Seleucia, and Cyprus, from Salamis to Paphos, from Perga in Pamphylia into the new Antioch in Pisidia, away on through Iconium and Lystra, to Derbe; and everywhere facts had been multiplied, God had given the gifts of grace, and the gift of the Spirit, without rite and without ceremony.

The final speaker was James. He first referred to Peter’s fact, admitting it, reemphasizing its importance and value. “Symeon hath rehearsed.” He then showed how Peter’s fact, and the facts of Paul and Barnabas were in perfect harmony with prophetic foretelling. He quoted the great word from the prophecy of Amos, in which it is predicted that through the triumph and restoration of Israel the Gentiles also should receive blessing;-a prophecy not perfectly fulfilled even until this hour; to be fulfilled undoubtedly, in the economy of God; -a prophecy fulfilled in principle on the day of Pentecost when that little Hebrew community became the true Israel of God; and immediately following, when the prophetic promise was fulfilled in the experience of the Gentiles. Then James said, “Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them.” Before proceeding to consider the judgment, note the particular emphasis of that word. To translate quite literally, James said, “Wherefore I decide,” or “I think”; and we must interpret the word decide by the word think. Much has been based upon that “I decide” of James.

It has been said that he was the bishop of Jerusalem, that he was in authority over the Church in Jerusalem; but there is not a vestige of proof in the narrative itself, and for the traditions that have gathered round the story, I am bound to say I have no respect. It has been pointed out that the pronoun “I,” “decide” is emphatic in the Greek.

An emphatic pronoun depends after all upon the tone and emphasis. The emphatic I must be interpreted in harmony with the rest of the New Testament and the Bible. Jt is absurd to believe that James at this moment gave his personal opinion as the final word, from which there could be no appeal. He, the practical man, the writer of the epistle, the brother of the Lord, spoke last; and in his speaking gave with due reserve, and with a consciousness of the importance of the views of others, his strong opinion. The very emphasis on the I shows that he was only expressing a personal conviction. Nevertheless with that opinion the Church agreed. The decision to which they came was not the decision of a man, It was such a decision that when they registered it and wrote it and sent it to Antioch, they did not say, After consultation, James, the bishop, speaking ex cathedra, has decided, They said something far more full of dignity, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

The decision was first of all characterized by unanimity. It was the expression of the conviction of the apostles and the elders and the Church; and the secret of the unanimity was that of the presidency of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

The terms of the decision may be stated in other language, because this record is so much the language of that particular time. The decision immediately was that they would not trouble the Greek Christians any further, but that they charged them concerning things they were not to do. The decision for all time was first, that no ceremony is needed to make men Christ’s; and secondly, that observances are necessary on the part of men who are Christ’s. They would not trouble them further, would not harass them, crowd them, jostle them, press them, put them into difficulty, with habits and observances which were not essential to salvation,-the things of ritual, Nevertheless they charged them that being Christ’s men, they must observe the attitudes and habits of loyalty to His moral standards; they must abstain from the pollution of idols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood. Such were the decisions.

What then were the results? They may thus be summarized: rest in Antioch; and a period of preparation for future work. This council came between the first and second missionary journeys of the apostle, and constituted a necessary pause, the passing of a difficulty that had risen, its settlement once and forever, so that whenever Judaizing teachers in days to come should pass through that district and teach these doctrines, they would be known as not having apostolic or Christian authority. It was an important decision, one that affects the whole history of the Church from that moment unto this.

In conclusion, what are the applications of this story to ourselves? There is something we do well to consider in the method of the findings. The supreme word flames with light upon this page: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” It marks a progression or development from a centre to something external. Communion with Christ by the Holy Spirit lies at the very root of that word. The second thing is the outcome of the first; that of the unity of the Church by the Spirit. The final thing is that of the unanimity of the Spirit and the Church. There will never be unanimity unless it be based on unity. There never will be the realization of unity save in response to a fundamental union; a union between the members of the Church and the living Lord by the Holy Spirit.

This picture of the council in Jerusalem is that of a company of men and women, sharing the life of Christ, desiring only to know the mind of the Lord, having no selfish views for which to contend. These are the conditions upon which it is possible for any such assembly to say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” The Church does not seem to be able to say it today, either a local church, or the great councils of the Church. We must freely admit we very seldom hear this language. We do read that a matter was carried by an overwhelming majority, but that is a very different thing. An overwhelming majority often leaves behind it a minority disaffected and dangerous. We shall come to unanimity when we are prepared to discuss freely, frankly, our absolute differences, on the basis of a common desire to know the mind of the Lord.

If we come to a meeting of diaconate Or Church, a Christian council, having made our minds up that so it must be, then we hinder the Holy Spirit, and make it impossible for Him to make known His mind and will. But if we come, perfectly sure in our minds, but wanting to know what the Lord’s mind is, then ere the council ends, to-day as yesterday, the moment will come when we shall be able to say with a fine dignity and a splendid force, It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us.

If that be the lesson of the method of the findings, what is the message of the findings? What has this council of the long ago to say to us to-day? Its first lesson is that the Christian man and the Christian Church is free from the bondage of Hebraism. There is a sense in which we are not influenced by Hebraism. There is a sense in which Judaism makes no appeal to us. Therefore to state the principle in other words: nothing is necessary to salvation, other than faith in Christ, and consequent life m the Spirit; neither baptism, nor the Lord’s Supper, nor the observance of any ordinance, or ceremony. Let us decide as did this council, that we will trouble men no further, that we will no more insist upon this rite or that ceremony in order to salvation.

The second lesson is that of the necessity for bondage to the law of the Spirit of life. There must be, on the part of all Christian souls, abstention from the haunts and the habits of idolatry; abstention from many practices, not in themselves unlawful, in order to a testimony of separation; and the observance of the laws of humanity. These Gentiles must abstain from things strangled, and from blood. That was not Hebraism. That was not the law of Moses. It was said long before Moses.

In the covenant of God with Noah, when humanity started out again upon a new movement, the law was given. So for these Judaizing teachers, James’ quotation was one full of wisdom. He stepped outside the Hebrew economy, and referred to the laws that regulated human life, apart from Hebraism, and said these people were to observe the human law.

So the findings of the council which have perpetual application are those of freedom from rites and ceremonies as means of salvation; observance of all habits that mark us as separate from idolatry, and from the practices of idolatry; and devotion to the Divine ideal of human life, and to the keeping of the laws for the wellbeing of human life.

Acts 15:36 - Acts 16:10 It is quite evident that there is a gap in the history between verses thirty-five and thirty-six. The last words in the previous paragraph declared that “Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, teaching and preaching the Word of the Lord, with many others also.” That gap is supplied by a brief paragraph in the Galatian letter (Galatian 2:11-21). Peter visited Antioch, and when he came, acted in the true spirit of the findings of the council, in that he sat at meat with the Gentiles, making, to use his own words, “no distinction.” Evidently a little later on there came down from Jerusalem men influenced by the Judaizers. When they came, they were not told of the dispute, but Peter-to use Paul’s very strong word-“dissimulated,” in that, in the presence of these men he ceased to eat with the Gentiles. Against that activity, in which Barnabas evidently sympathized for the moment, Paul made the vigorous protest recorded in the Galatian passage. The ending, however, was evidently one of peace. Rebuked by Paul, the dissimulation of Peter ended, and no bitterness remained in the heart of either.

When the difficulty was settled, and the future line of action was clearly defined, Paul began to prepare immediately for further journeyings, and work. The subject of supreme interest in the second missionary journey of Paul is that of the invasion of Europe. Once again the circle widens, and we see the apostle crossing the boundary line into Europe. The call of the man of Macedonia was answered, and the evangel carried yet further afield.

In this paragraph we finally reach Troas, full of historic interest; Troas on the coast line, washed by that sea which, at its other extremity, touches the Continent beyond; Troy, the historic battleground between Europe and Asia. The story of those battles we have read in Homer and in Virgil. It was to that point the great apostle came at the end of the present paragraph.

That invasion of Europe was not in the mind of Paul, but it was evidently in the mind of the Spirit. He did not start from Antioch on this second journey with any intention of going to Europe. The closing words of the paragraph read thus: “And when he had seen the vision, straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the Gospel unto them.” That little word “concluding” is full of interest and value. It marks the ultimate result of processes. Paul began the journey by desiring to revisit churches already founded. He ended at Troas with a vision, a surprise, a new call, an open door, and vast expanses stretching out before his eyes, of the possibility of new work, and with the conviction that this was the mind of the Lord.

The period of time covered by this paragraph (Acts 15:36-41 thru Acts 16:1-10) must have been considerable; but in reading the condensed narrative of Luke, it is evident that everything leading up to the vision was tentative, preliminary, and that some greater movement was ahead. The “conclusion " referred to in the final words was the result of all the preceding incidents.

An analysis of the passage brings into prominence certain separated incidents of personal experience. There is the story first, of contention and of the separation between Paul and Barnabas. Then follows the account of how Paul started on his journey in the comradeship of Silas, and found Timothy at Lystra. Then we have the record of a further movement, on to Troas, and we see Paul and the man of Macedonia. The supreme value of the paragraph, however, is to be found in synthesis, rather than analysis. When we look at these separated incidents in the light of certain declarations concerning the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we shall see the strange and contradictory and troublesome events merging into a mosaic, until the pattern stands clear and beautiful upon the page, of the Divine overruling and the Divine government.

Let us therefore consider the paragraph in these two ways, glancing at the incidents of human experience, and endeavouring particularly to observe the unifying Divine guidance. This is the great value of this paragraph. There is something full of conflict here. The smooth and rhythmic movement of the earlier part of the book for a moment seems to end. Here are cross-currents, and difficulties, dissension between two men whose union had been one full of value, and force. Then purposes were frustrated, intentions thwarted; Paul wanted to revisit those cities to which he had already been with Barnabas; but he never reached them on this journey.

He did visit cities where the Gospel had been preached, but not the cities where he had founded churches. Instead of following a course through Perga and Pamphylia, he was driven through Syria and Cilicia. When presently, that work being accomplished, he crossed through the Taurus ranges, and came to Derbe and Lystra, then he fain would have moved in a certain direction, but the Spirit hindered him, and drove him yet another way. When again his face was set toward the northern country of Bithynia, and he would have evangelized there, the Spirit again drove him in another direction. The sweep of the river is troubled, but it moves forward in the counsel of God. The spiritual value of the paragraph is evidently that of its revelation of the guidance of the Spirit of God, by the hindrances of the people of God.

To glance at the incidents first. It was Paul’s purpose to return to the cities already visited, to see how they fared. Concern for his children was in his heart, but infinitely more than that. He had concern for those churches because they were centres from which the Gospel was to be sent yet further afield. It was an eminent teacher who once said that he would rather perfect one saint to the work of ministering, than call hundreds of people to the beginnings of Christian life. This man also felt the enormous importance of making the Church what it ought to be in any given centre, in order that the Church might fulfill its true function in that centre.

The underlying passion of the apostle was not merely to see his brethren, but to see how the churches fared, because of his conception of the importance of their work. As they were about to start, there occurred the contention between Paul and Barnabas; and we must not smooth this down and say that it was a quiet discussion.

The Greek word translated “contention” is the word from which we derive our word paroxysm. I am greatly comforted whenever I read this. I am thankful for the revelation of the humanity of these men. If I had never read that Paul withstood Peter to the face, and that Paul and Barnabas had a contention, I should have been afraid. These men were not angels, they were men. It is very interesting to study the differing opinions as to who was to blame. There are most eloquent defences of Paul and of Barnabas, as to who was right, and who was wrong. Amid differing opinions, a man may have one of his own.

My own sympathy is entirely with Barnabas, notwithstanding the fact that the Church at Antioch sent Paul and Silas out by the grace of God; and the account does not say that they gave a benediction to Barnabas and Mark. Perhaps they were both right. Paul was severe, because Mark had failed them once, and he felt that no man could go to this work, who having put his hand to the plough had looked back. Mark had gone away from them when their faces were set toward the difficulties of Perga and Pamphylia. He had not gone with them to the work. Barnabas felt that Mark should have another chance. Perhaps there is a sense in which Paul and Barnabas were both right. Mark profited by the actions of both.

Mark sailed away to Cyprus with Barnabas, and they pass out of the story in the Acts of the Apostles. We do know something more of Mark. When he had been with Barnabas some time, he was restored to Paul’s fellowship; for when Paul wrote to the Colossian Church, he spoke of him as his “fellow-worker,” commended him to the Church; and in his last hours, besought that Timothy would bring him with him. The last thing we know about Mark, the “servant of Jesus,” whom Paul for a time would not trust, but to whom Barnabas gave a second chance, is that it was he who wrote the Gospel of the perfect Servant. Perhaps his moral courage was stiffened by Paul’s severity, and confirmed by the tenderness of Barnabas.

Paul now went forward to the churches of Syria and Cilicia. We have had no account of the planting of any churches in Cilicia. Tarsus was the chief city of Cilicia. Paul may have planted them in those years before Barnabas found him. At any rate he went there now, confirming the churches of Cilicia.

So we reach the second incident. It is evident that Paul moved away from Cilicia, from Tarsus, through those Taurus ranges, and went to Derbe. It is difficult to measure the journeys by time limits, but it was probably five years since he was at Derbe, the place of peaceful evangelism, at the end of a troublesome campaign. No details are given.

At last Paul came to Lystra, the place of the stones, the scars of which were still upon his body; the memories of the day when they beat fast and furiously upon him were still with him. At Lystra he found Timothy. How often God’s servants return, after years of absence, to some rough and rugged place of battle, and of blood, and of agony, and find the fruitage. When did Timothy become a disciple? The question cannot be answered dogmatically, but the probability is that he became a disciple in those days of Paul’s previous visit. Paul had once been a young man, and had watched the stoning of a saint called Stephen, minding the clothes of such as stoned him.

He had heard the dying prayer, and the vision of the face of Stephen had fastened like goads in his heart and life. At Lystra he had gone through Stephen’s experience; and perchance another man had seen the stones hurled. Now he went back to find Timothy in the place of stones, and from that moment there was formed that rare and beautiful friendship, the friendship of an old man for a young man.

Timothy was the son of a Jewess. His father was a Greek, We have seen how in all this movement, the ideals of Hebraism and Hellenism were merged and fulfilled in the teaching of Jesus. Paul had now found a man in whose very blood the two fires mingled, in whose mental calibre the two ideas were found, a man by nature at once Hebrew and Greek; and by grace he was well reported of by the brethren. From that moment a companion was found for Paul; and he was found at Lystra, the place of the stones.

We know certain facts concerning his service. Two of Paul’s letters were addressed to him. Six of Paul’s letters have this man associated with him in the superscription, those of the second epistle to the Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, the first and second letters to the Thessalonians, and Philemon. Timothy was with him on this second missionary journey. Timothy was at Ephesus with him in the days of strife. Timothy accompanied him on his last journey to Jerusalem. Timothy was with him in his first imprisonment. For Timothy he sent, in the loneliness of the second imprisonment. He became his son, his child, his comrade in the fight, and so the stoning of years ago now blossomed into this great benediction of a new comrade in the work that lay before him.

So they passed on. Here we might dwell upon the apparently strange act of Paul in taking this man Timothy, and submitting him to the rite of circumcision. Notice carefully what immediately followed. After the rite Timothy and Silas went with him through the churches, taking the decrees of the council at Jerusalem, which provided that the Gentiles were not to be compelled to submit to circumcision as necessary to salvation. This is surely an illustration of the wonderful adaptability of this man. Paul has been criticized for this action, but I do not believe that such criticism is justified.

This was a case of expediency, in order to the fulfillment of ministry. Paul knew that the Jew would criticize. Very well then, not for his sake, but for the sake of his becoming all things to all men, if by any chance he may win some, let this man who had been brought up in the Hebrew religion, submit to the rite of the Jew, and so create his opportunity for speaking to the Jew also.

So we come to the last incident, and to the things immediately preceding it. Paul was prevented from preaching by the action of the Holy Spirit. He would have preached in proconsular Asia, one of the provinces, and he was prevented. The Holy Spirit forbade him. He therefore turned in the other direction, and went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia. That was the beginning of the work in Galatia.

In the Galatian letter, in chapter four, we have the account of how he first came to preach in Galatia: “Ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the Gospel unto you the first time.” Luke says the Holy Spirit forbade him preaching in Asia, and he preached in Galatia. Paul says because of an infirmity of the flesh he came first to Galatia. In this letter we have that which was local and incidental. In Luke’s account there is the recognition of the government and driving of the Spirit. It is not necessary for us to imagine that Paul heard the voice of the Holy Spirit forbidding him. That was not the method of the Divine government or guidance.

The local and the incidental fact was some affliction, some illness, which made it impossible for him to travel through proconsular Asia, and which turned him aside, perchance for rest and quietness, with the issue that he preached in Galatia.

Then presently they again moved forward, and their hearts were set on Bithynia, where they fain would have preached. Then the phrasing alters, not that they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit, but by the Spirit of Jesus. This was not another Spirit. It is but another way of referring to the Holy Spirit. The truth declared is that these men, in fellowship with Christ, simply could not go to Bithynia. They were driven on.

There are many who will understand this story from their own experience. Paul wanted to preach in Bithynia, but somehow he could not. The Spirit of Jesus drove him on. There seemed no value in this long journey, striking west. The north was luring him. Bithynia with its scattered tribes, was there.

He would fain preach, but he could not. So he was driven west, until he came to Troy. There was given to him the vision of a man of Macedonia, and at Troy Luke joined him, for there the language of the narrative passes from the singular to the plural. Paul saw the vision, and straightway hastened toward Macedonia. I sometimes wonder whether Luke was not the man of Macedonia, whether he did not come to call him, and ask that he would join him. I do not deny the vision.

Peter saw a vision, and then saw the real man. Perchance the vision of the night was granted to this man at Troy, and then came Luke the actual man. Now the whole journey was explained. The new door was opened. Such are the incidents.

I think we shall miss the value of the story entirely if we commence with the declarations of the guidance of the Spirit. When Luke wrote the book he put in those declarations, and he was quite right; but if we get back into the actual atmosphere of this paragraph we shall surely see Paul strangely puzzled. Quarrelling with Barnabas, parting from him, he wanted to preach the Gospel; and so he passed through Syria and Cilicia, and came to Derbe and Lystra, and there he met Timothy. Then he fain would go on to proconsular Asia, and he could not do it; he was sick, he was ill, an infirmity of the flesh was upon him; and he could not go on. It was necessary that he should take another direction, and he went into Galatia, and preached there. Then he turned back again.

There was no reason that he could understand. It is a picture of cross currents, of difficulty, perplexity, and darkness. Then he felt the lure of Bithynia, and he would go there. No, he must go west, and on he went, perplexed. Then came the vision of the man of Macedonia; and when he talked it over with Luke in other days, and Luke would write the story, he told that which at the moment he did not know. The Spirit forbade him preaching in Asia.

The Spirit of Jesus drove him ever and ever on toward Troas. Thus upon the paragraph there is stamped first the fact of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The fact for us is demonstrated by all that follows Philippi, Thessalonica, Bercea, Athens, Corinth. All these resulted. If this man had preached in proconsular Asia, had gone up to Bithynia, what of Philippi, what of Thessalonica, what of Bercea, what of Athens, and what of Corinth? The guidance of the Spirit was subsequently recognized by these men.

Notice too, that the declarations concerning the driving of the Spirit, and the guidance of the Spirit, are put in at the points of supreme difficulty, where the guidance of the Spirit conflicted with their own intentions. Here is a wonderful outlook on life. A man can look back and say: There was the point where I desired to go a certain way, and circumstances prevented. But these men say the Holy Spirit prevented. Here was a moment when I was moved to a service that drew me north, and I could not go; something forbade me. But these men say, the Spirit of Jesus drove me against my own inclination.

The supreme value of this story is its revelation of the fact of the guidance of the Spirit, when there is no revelation of the method of that guidance. In our attempt to interpret what seems to be the supreme value, our only peril is lest we try and explain the method, whereas as a matter of fact the method is hidden.

How far can we see the method? Only so far as to know no method is revealed. The Spirit overruled the separation between Paul and Barnabas. With what issues? The separation gave two missionaries for work, for their revisiting of the churches, and the regions beyond. The Spirit guided through Paul’s illness, which necessitated his taking another direction.

The Spirit guided by the consciousness of this man’s fellowship with Jesus, so that he was driven in that fellowship in a westerly course. The Spirit guided by the vision of the man of Macedonia. Here is the revelation of the fact that the Spirit guides, not by flaming visions always, not by words articulate in human ears; but by circumstances, by commonplace things, by difficult things, by dark things, by disappointing things. The Spirit guides and moulds and fashions all the pathway.

The important thing, however, is that the man whom the Spirit will guide is the man who is in the attitude in which it is possible for the Spirit to guide him. So we look again at this man, and we find an attitude of life revealed. It is that of loyalty to the Lord, faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and constant watchfulness. There is where we too often fail. It is when a man is in fellowship with the Lord that he sees that the disappointment and the difficulty are also under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the watcher for the Lord who sees the Lord.

If we make up our minds that the way of guidance is the way of flaming vision, and rolling thunder, and an articulate voice, and a lifting to a height of ecstasy, then we may never be guided. But if we are watching for Him, we shall find Him guiding us in the day of difficulty and the day of disappointment, and the day of darkness; when it seems as though the rhythmic and majestic flow of the river has ceased, and we are in cross currents, and are tempest-tossed. The Holy Spirit forbade proconsular Asia, by permitting the apostle to be so sick, that he had to travel another way. What we need then, is confidence in the guidance of the Spirit in the hours when no voice is heard, and no vision is seen. If we will follow then, the hour of vindication will come, there will come the vision, there will come the man of Macedonia. His voice will be distinctly heard, and then we shall conclude that God would have us go into Macedonia.

Then we shall understand the strange experiences. Why does He drive us west when we would go north? I do not know. At the limit of the west so far as land is concerned, a man of Macedonia came to him. Then he understood the denial, the pressure, and the disappointment, and why he could not go to Bithynia.

The beauty of this paragraph for us is that it presents conditions with which we are most familiar. It shows how the Holy Spirit guides still in the line of the Divine purpose, even when we see no supernatural sign. Faber sang a song of truth that he is the greatest of victors who knows that God is on the field when He is most invisible.

Whether it be that the individual life is filled with sorrows, or whether the perplexity of life is overwhelming, or whether the strife of national crisis is about us, God’s in His heaven, and He is overruling and guiding, and out of the chaos He is bringing the cosmos. The Spirit leads men and women who look and watch and wait and follow. It was a time of groping and uncertainty. Ways which they desired were shut against them. It was a time of direction and a time of certainty. The route was marked in the economy of God to Troas, to Macedonia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Bercea, Athens, Corinth.

If Paul had gone to Bithynia he might have stayed there. Oh, to go, not where I may choose, even by my love of the Lord, but where I am driven by the Lord’s command. Circumstances of difficulty are opportunities for faith, and the measure of our perplexity in service and in Christian life is the measure of our opportunity. Let us follow the gleam, though the darkness threaten to envelop. Let us be true to the inward monitor, and if in being true, suddenly illness prevent, and we cannot follow, then rest in the Lord in the darkness, and know that God’s shortest way to Troas may be athwart our inclinations and purposes. It is better to go to Troas with God, than anywhere else without Him.