Acts 16

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 16 PAUL THE : TIMOTHYAct_16:1-5 1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra:—The journey of Paul on the second missionary tour appears to have been by land northward from Antioch around the northeastern point of the Mediterranean Sea and thence westward to Tarsus. Derbe was the last point that Paul and Barnabas had visited on their first missionary tour; Lystra was the place where they had stoned Paul and “ dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.” (Acts 14:19.) Paul and Barnabas had left Lystra and gone to Derbe, but Paul is not afraid to return to Lystra. Lystra and Derbe were cities of Lycaonia. Timothy, or Timotheus, one of Paul’ s earliest converts (1 Timothy 1:2), was the son of a Jewess and a Greek (2 Timothy 1:5), who had been trained by his mother, Eunice, and his grandmother, Lois, in the Old Testament scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15). Timothy had been converted at Lystra and had been pressed into the service by the Christians there. (1 Timothy 1:18.) He had been given a gift by the elders of the church at Lystra and was now invited by Paul to accompany him on this tour. (1 Timothy 4:14.) Paul’ s work took him among Jews as well as Gentiles, and the Jews would have looked upon Timothy as an apostate had he not been circumcised, so Paul, to avoid offense, circumcised the young man. Timothy afterward worked with Paul (Romans 16:21), and was his messenger to the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 4:17) and to the church at Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 3:2-6.) He was at Rome with Paul. (Philippians 1:1 Philippians 2:19; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1.) Timothy suffered much for the truth with Paul. (Hebrews 13:23.) 2 The same was well reported of—“ Well reported of” is from the Greek “ emartureito,” and means “ a continuous witness” ; Timothy had good witness of his Christian life in his hometown of Lystra and also in Derbe; he had exercised his gifts and graces for the ministry and had been commended by the brethren. The phrase used here to describe Timothy is the same as that used to describe Cornelius (Acts 10:22) and Ananias (Acts 22:12). Timothy had been silently preparing himself for his work in the world by his work at Lystra and Iconium. Probably four or five years had elapsed since Paul had preached the gospel in these cities. 3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him;—Paul saw that Timothy would be not only a good gospel preacher and a great help to him, but that he would be a help to Timothy. The apostles desired to train younger men who could carry on the work after they had passed away; the elders and older ones in the church today should train the young men to carry on the work of the Lord. Later Paul wrote to Timothy and said: “ The things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:2.) Silas had taken the place of Barnabas, and Timothy is to take the place of Mark. Paul took Timothy and circumcised him; anyone could perform this rite. Paul did not do this as a Christian act, for he had contended that it was not necessary to circumcise either Jew or Gentile in order to become a Christian. The decision at Jerusalem had made it clear that the Gentile could become a Christian without circumcision, and that a Jew did not have to cease practicing circumcision in order to be a Christian; circumcision had nothing to do with becoming a Chris¬tian or with living the Christian life.

Timothy’ s father was a Greek or a Gentile, and while his mother and grandmother were faithful in teaching him the Old Testament, yet he had not been circumcised. He had now been a Christian for four or five years, but had not been circumcised. The conduct of Paul here was an instance of his accommodation to Jewish prejudices, and did not involve any departure from his previous views of Christian duty and Christian liberty. 4 And as they went on their way through the cities,—Wherever Paul and Silas went they delivered “ the decrees” which had been “ ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem.” This shows Paul’ s loyalty to the church at Jerusalem and to the other apostles. However, Paul did this because it was the will of God that it should be done. The word “ decrees” here is from the Greek “ dogmata,” and that is from the Greek verb “ dokeo,” which means “ to give an opinion.” It is used of public decrees of rulers (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7), and of the requirements of the Mosaic law (Colossians 2:14). Here it is used to designate the regulations or conclusions reached at Jerusalem. These “ decrees” would encourage Gentile Christians, or encourage Gentiles to accept the gospel; they would also instruct the Jews as to the will of God on this question. Some claim that the word implies that Paul left copies of these “ decrees” wherever he went. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith,—“ Strengthened” is from the Greek “ esterounto,” and means “ to make firm and solid.” It is used here and in Acts 3:7 Acts 3:16— only three times in the New Testament. The blessings of God rested upon the work of Paul, Silas, and Timothy, and the churches increased “ in number daily.” The number of churches and of members was increased, for both ideas may be contained in this verse. The results of the work of Paul and his company were that the churches were confirmed in the faith, established in the truth of the gospel, and the number of churches and members were daily increased.

PAUL ENTERS EUROPE Acts 16:6-12 6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia,—“ Phrygia” at this time was a broken portion of Asia Minor, under the jurisdiction of three or four distinct governors; it was west of Antioch in Pisidia; its chief cities mentioned in the New Testament are Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis. “ Galatia” was a great midland district of Asia Minor, east of Phrygia, inhabited by the descendants of the Gauls, who invaded Greece and Asia in the third century B.C. It became a formal province of Rome in A.D. 26. Paul laid the foundation of the Galatian churches, to which he wrote his epistle to the Galatians on this missionary tour. While he was in Galatia he was attacked by sickness. (Galatians 4:13-14.) He was not permitted by the Holy Spirit to speak the word or preach in Asia on this trip. “ Asia” represents the provinces of Lydia, Mysia, and Caria. 7-8 and when they were come over against Mysia,— The territories or provinces then were not very well defined or outlined ; hence, it is difficult to set the boundaries of these provinces. Luke here says that Paul had been hindered by the Holy Spirit from going west into Asia, but went northward so as to come in front of Bithynia; this journey would take him directly through Phrygia and the north Galatian country. “ Bithynia” was a district on the Black Sea; Paul was not allowed to deviate from the course that led directly to Europe. It should be noticed that the Holy Spirit led Paul away from the scene of his former labors and into new fields. He had been warned not to preach in Asia, and he had taken this as a sign to continue in the peninsuala and to return to Galatia by Bithynia; he was checked again; he had now only one way to travel, and that was westward to the seacoast; so he and his companions went along the southern border of Mysia, and passing by that region he came to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night:—Troas bears the name of the ancient Troy which was a seaport on the Helles- point. This Troas was about four miles from the site of the ancient Troy. Paul and his company were led westward to this city, and here the Lord caused Paul to have a vision one night, and in this vision he saw a man of Macedonia, standing and “ beseeching him” by saying: “ Come over into Macedonia, and help us.” “ Vision” is from the Greek “ horama,” and includes something that is seen. We are reminded here of the vision of Peter and Cornelius. Some think that this “ man of Macedonia” was Luke; we know that Luke joins Paul’ s company at Troas. Paul was miraculously granted this vision, as he had been divinely prohibited visit¬ing other places; he is now divinely guided to go into Europe.

This vision does not come in the form of a command from Christ, but it comes in the form of a petition from man. Paul understood the vision and at once made preparation to go into Europe. 10 And when he had seen the vision,— Paul “ straightway,” or immediately, “ sought to go forth into Macedonia,” for he concluded “ that God had called us to preach the gospel unto them.” Paul’ s answer to the call was earnest and instant; he was a man of action and was ready to obey the call at once. Luke introduces himself into the narrative by the pronoun “ we” ; he was a physician (Colossians 4:14) and a Gentile (Colossians 4:11 Colossians 4:14); it is possible that this means that Luke had been preaching the gospel in those re¬gions and that he was happy to join the company with Paul. Luke accompanied Paul into Macedonia, and was with him at Samothrace, Neapolis, and Philippi. The way Luke introduces himself with the pronouns “ we” and “ us” shows that he was a preacher of the gospel as well as a physician. The clause, “ that God had called us to preach the gospel,” shows that he included himself with Paul, Silas, and Timothy as preachers of the gospel. Nothing is said here about their preaching the gospel in Troas, yet Paul makes reference to the church there in 2 Corinthians 2:12. Acts 20:6 shows that there was a church at Troas. 11-12 Setting sail therefore from Troas,—Samothrace was an island in the Aegean Sea on the Thracian coast, about sixty miles in a direct line from Troas. “ Samothrace” is one of the most ancient names of the island of Samos, but in order to distinguish it from another Samos, in the sea, it was called by the come,” or “ Samos of Trace,” it being not far from the country of Thrace. “ Neapolis” was a seaport in Macedonia. Luke was familiar with terms of travel by water. On this trip they had the wind in their favor and were able to take a straight course. They went from Neapolis to Philippi, a distance of about twelve miles inland. Philippi was a Roman colony, and was the capital or chief city of Macedonia. They tarried at this place certain days.

LYDIA Acts 16:13-15 13 And on the sabbath day we went forth—Paul and his company wasted no time after arriving at Philippi; on the Sabbath day, the Jewish Sabbath, Paul’ s company went “ without the gate by a river side” and found some women who were accustomed to meeting there for prayer. It seems that there was no synagogue in Philippi and that these women went to this accustomed place for worship. The little river Gangites or Gargites was one mile west of the town. Philippi was a military outpost of the Roman government, and but few Jews lived there. It may be that Paul and his company had located this place of prayer before this time; they probably saw it as they entered Philippi. The rule of the rabbis required ten men to constitute a synagogue, but here had gathered only a group of women.

Where the Jews had no synagogue they sometimes had a building or an open-air place near the river or sea; they needed the water for ceremonial washings. While in Babylon “ by the rivers” they sat down. (Psalms 137:1; Ezra 8:15 Ezra 8:21.) Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome, and therefore from colonies (Acts 18:2), and it may be that this Roman city had obeyed that order. “ We sat down, and spake unto the women” that gathered there. Sitting was the Jewish attitude for public speaking; it was not mere conversation, but more likely conversational preaching of an expository character. Luke uses the pronoun “ we,” including himself, Paul, Silas, and Timothy, but Paul was the chief speaker. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia,—“ Lydia” was a com¬mon name among the Greeks and Romans; it was itself a province in Asia Minor; she was born in Thyatira which was in Lydia. Thyatira was one of the seven churches of Asia mentioned in Revelation 2:18; it was famous for its purple dyes. Lydia was a seller of purple, either the coloring matter or the fabric already dyed. The purple color was esteemed very highly by the ancients. There was great demand for this fabric, as it was used on the official toga at Rome and in Roman colonies. The term “ royal purple” is still used. (Luke 16:19.) Lydia was a woman of some means to carry on such an important business so far from her native city; some think that she was a free-woman, since racial names were often borne by slaves.

Lydia “ worshipped God” ; she heard Paul and his company preach the gospel. She was either a Jewess or a proselyte to the Jewish religion. The Greek for “ worshipped” is “ sebomene,” and means “ a God-fearer, or proselyte of the gate.” It may be that she had become a proselyte while in Philippi; she was only a sojourner in Philippi, for Paul writes a letter to the church at Philippi later, but does not mention Lydia, the first con¬vert of the church there. “ Whose heart the Lord opened” simply means that her mind was enlightened by the preaching of the gospel. “ Opened” is from the Greek “ dienoixen,” which means “ to open up wide or completely like a folding door.” A person’ s heart is said to be closed up against instruction when it is unwilling to hear it or to obey it. Jesus opened the mind of the disciples to understand the scriptures. (Luke 24:45.) God had led Paul and his company to Lydia, and they had preached the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit to her, and caused her to understand; hence, in this way the Lord “ opened” her heart. She gave “ heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul.” Here Paul is made the chief speaker. “ To give heed” is from the Greek “ prosechein,” and means “ to hold the mind on, or to keep the mind centered on” the things which were spoken by Paul, whose words gripped her attention. 15 And when she was baptized, and her household,—Both Lydia and all who composed her family received the truth which Paul presented; her household consisted of persons in her employ. The Gangites River was near, as this prayer meeting was held “ by a river” ; so Lydia was baptized in the river. “ Household” is from the Greek “ oikos,” and originally meant the building, and then it came to mean the inmates of the house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia’ s “ household” included any others than “ the women” whom she had employed. There is no evidence that her household included any infants, as the household of Cornelius, the jailer, and Crispus evidently had no infants in them. There is no evidence that Lydia even was married or had a husband or had children. There is no evidence here of infant baptism.

After her conversion she persuaded Paul and his company to sojourn with her for a while. Peter’ s reception at the house of Simon, the tan¬ner, and the entertainment of Lydia are instances of the hospitality which was characteristic of early Christians.

PAUL AND SILAS IN PRISON Acts 16:16-24 16 And it came to pass, as we were going—Paul and his company continued to visit the place of prayer by the riverside in Philippi after the conversion of Lydia and her household for some days; we are not told just how long they continued to visit this place; they could get an audience there and hence preach the gos¬pel to those who gathered there. One day while they were on their way to this place of prayer “ a certain maid having a spirit of divination” met them; Luke is in the company, as he uses the pro¬noun “ us.” This maid was a slave, and she was possessed with “ a spirit of divination” ; the Greek is “ pneuma puthona,” which means the spirit of python. “ Python” was the spirit that traditionally guarded Delphi. In Greek mythology Python was a dragon, which was slain by Apollo, who was called the Pythian Apollo; and as Apollo was the god of oracles, his priests were said to be inspired by him. This slave girl was owned by joint owners who used her powers as a source of revenue, and it appears that they made large sums of money from her unfortunate condition. 17 The same following after Paul and us—This maiden followed Paul, Silas, and Luke: Timothy may have been in the company. As she followed them she “ cried out” to those who were in hearing distance that “ these men are servants of the Most High God” ; the heathen used this inscription for the Supreme Being; her testimony was like that borne by the demoniacs to Jesus as “ Son of the Most High God.” (Luke 8:28.) Demons frequently bore testimony to the divinity of Jesus. (Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24 Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41.) This maiden may have heard Paul preach about Jesus as “ the way of salvation.” She knew the mission of Paul and his company; he preached Jesus to sinners as the way of salvation. 18 And this she did for many days.—She kept this testimony before the public by repeating her words for “ many days.” Paul was not willing to receive the testimony of this “ spirit of divination” ; he wanted the faith of people to be based upon the word of God, the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and not upon the testimony of demons. Paul, “ being sore troubled” at the persistent testimony of this maiden, rebuked the spirit by saying: “ I charge thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” Paul recognized the demon or evil spirit in her and spoke to it. He commanded the spirit “ in the name of Jesus Christ,” or by his authority, to come out of her. This was according to the promise of Jesus. (Mark 16:17.) Paul did not want any evidence from this source, as he did not want the homage of the people of Lystra. (Acts 14:14.) The evil spirit obeyed immediately and came out of her. 19 But when her masters saw—When those who jointly owned her saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they were angry with Paul and Silas and seized them and “ dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers." “ The marketplace" was the Roman forum near which would be the courts of law as in our courthouse square. They were seeking for revenge; hence, they had Paul and Silas arrested and brought before the proper authori¬ties for trial and punishment. 20-21 and when they had brought them unto the magistrates,—“ Magistrates" is from the Greek “ strategois," and literally means “ leader of an army, or general"; but in civic life it means a governor. “ Strategois" is the Greek rendering of the Latin “ praetores," or praetors; the Roman praetors were accompanied by “ lictors," who bore rods with which to punish those who were convicted. The joint owners of this slave girl attempted to prejudice the court before any evidence was given; they said these men, “ being Jews," caused trouble in the city. They caused the trouble by setting “ forth customs" which, they said, they were not according to law to receive, “ or to observe," as Roman citizens. There is a sharp contrast between Paul and his company, “ being Jews,” and those who were making the charge as Roman citizens. Roman magistrates would not pass sentence on abstract theological questions (Acts 18:15), but if the peace was disturbed or a secret sect was organized, the magistrates would pass sentence on these things. The Roman law forbade Romans to introduce or practice any new religion; they were required to worship their own gods and no others.

The Jews were permitted to practice their own religion, provided they did not attempt to proselyte Roman citizens. Hence, when Paul and Silas preached Jesus, they were preaching a new religion and were subject to prosecution and punishment according to the Roman law. The owners of this girl sought vengeance on Paul and Silas by thus bearing witness against them. 22 And the multitude rose up together against them:—There was no mob, as Paul and Silas were in the hands of officers, but a sudden and violent uprising of the people reinforced the charges that had been made against them; there was a strong ap¬peal to race and national prejudice. This violent uprising had its influence on the “ magistrates,” and they “ rent their garments off them,” and commanded that Paul and Silas be beaten “ with rods.” The magistrates did not tear their own clothes off themselves, but did tear the clothes off Paul and Silas that the lictors might beat their bare backs with their rods. The magistrates gave the orders that Paul and Silas be beaten with rods. Paul later said: “ Thrice was I beaten with rods.” (2 Corinthians 11:25.) This may have been one of the times. 23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them,— “ Many stripes” is from the Greek “ pollas plegas” the Jewish law was forty stripes save one, or thirty-nine stripes. (2 Corinthians 11:24.) The Roman custom depended on the whims of the judge; it was a severe ordeal. It was the custom to inflict the stripes on the naked body. After Paul and Silas were beaten they were then put in prison and the jailer given strict orders to keep them safely. Luke does not include himself or Timothy in this punishment. 24 who, having received such a charge,—The jailer was given strict orders to put them in prison, and was given such strict orders that he thought he would put them in the safest place, so he “ cast them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” “ The inner prison” was the third compartment of the prison. In a Roman prison there were usually three distinct parts: (1) the communiora, or where the prisoners had light and fresh air; (2) the interiora, shut off by strong iron gates with bars and locks; (3) the tullianium, or dungeon, the place of execution or for one condemned to die. Not only were they put in the inner prison, but their feet were placed “ in the stocks.” Usually the “ stocks” were fixed so that the arms and legs, and even necks of the prisoners were confined; but here only the feet were placed in the stocks. “ Stocks” was an instrument of torture as well as confinement, consisting of heavy pieces of wood with holes, into which the feet were placed in such a manner that they were stretched widely apart so as to cause the sufferer great pain. Paul and Silas were placed in such torture during this eventful night. THE JAILER Acts 16:25-34 25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying—“ Midnight” was one division of the watches. Paul and Silas were suffering from stripes, loss of blood, hunger, and the stocks in which they were fastened. It seems that they had not slept any up to this time, yet in the midst of their suffering and inconvenience of position, they could pray to God and sing his praises. They were praying and singing simultaneously, and blending together their petition and praise. Their wounds were undressed, filth and ver¬min that infested prisons of that day added to their pain, while their position was one of torture, sleep was out of the question, but they had the privilege and comfort of prayer. Other prisoners heard their prayers and songs; they were “ listening to them.” It was an unusual occurrence for prisoners to be praying and praising God; Paul and Silas sang the gospel, and men who would not listen to a sermon heard the gospel in song. Other prisoners were not the only ones who heard Paul and Silas; God and Christ, for whom they were suffering, heard them. 26 and suddenly there was a great earthquake,—Luke and Timothy were not in prison; we know not why they were not cast into prison with Paul and Silas; hence, Luke regards this “ earthquake,” Greek “ seismos,” or shaking of the earth as an answer to prayer. (Acts 4:31.) This was a very violent earthquake, for it even was felt down to the foundations of the prison walls and the doors were broken open, and the staples of the chains fell out of the walls. The opening of the doors and the loosening of the chains by the earthquake is difficult to understand unless one understands the construction of the prisons of that time. The quaking of the earth forced the door posts apart from each other so that the bar which fastened the door slipped from its hold, and the door swung open. The chains and stocks were detached from the wall which was shaken so that they were loose from the wall. 27 And the jailor, being roused out of sleep—Such an earthquake would naturally arouse the jailer and frighten all of the prisoners. It is noted that neither the groans nor singing of hymns had kept the jailer from sleeping; nothing but the terror of an earthquake could disturb him. When he saw that the prison doors were open, he naturally supposed that the prisoners had all escaped and, knowing that he would have to pay the penalty for their escape with his own life, he “ was about to kill himself.” By the Roman law the jailer was subject to the same death as the escaped prisoners would have suffered; suicide was preferred by many to the death and torture that they would have to suffer. Sometimes jailers were selected from the lowest class, and sometimes from the criminal class (Acts 12:19 Acts 27:42), and were punished by death if the prisoners escaped. It appears that the prisoners were too frightened to escape, or did not have time to escape before the jailer made his appearance. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying,—Paul was master of the situation here as he frequently was at other times. He saw what the jailer was about to do, and checked him by crying with a “ loud voice.” “ Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.” The earthquake had loosened the staples of the chains which were fastened in the wall and then to the prisoners, and the bars of the doors had been loosened and the doors opened, but no prisoner had escaped; it may be that the chains were still on the prisoners and prevented a hasty escape; at any rate, none of them had escaped. Some have questioned the accuracy of Luke’ s account by saying that Paul could not see what the jailer was about to do, as the jailer could not see that the prisoners had not escaped; however, there was enough light for Paul to see what was about to be done; the jailer saw the prison doors open without any other light, and so Paul could and did see what the jailer was about to do. 29-30 And he called for lights and sprang in,—When the jailer heard Paul’ s assuring command, he called for lights and made a hasty investigation and found that Paul had spoken the truth to him; he then, “ trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas.” In some way he connected the earthquake and the safety of the prisoners with Paul and Silas. He may have known something of their miraculous power, and especially the cure of the slave girl for which Paul and Silas had been thrust into prison. It is very probable that the jailer first attended to his proper duties and secured all the prisoners before he came to Paul and Silas; his life was at stake, and he would promptly see that the prisoners were safe before he did anything else. It seems very unreasonable that he would neglect attention to the other prisoners and come and fall down at the feet of Paul and Silas. The jailer brought Paul and Silas out of the inner prison and probably into the court and asked: “ Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” He left the other prisoners inside and realized that he must now deal with these men of whom he had heard something as servants of the “ Most High God.” The jailer did not ask what he should do to be saved from the wrath of his superiors; he had nothing to fear from them, since the prisoners were all safe. Neither did he ask what he should do to save himself from the anger of heathen gods, for his appeal would not be to Paul and Silas, as they did not worship these gods. The answer that Paul gave implies the meaning of his question; he is asking what he must do to be saved from his sins. 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus,—He had asked both Paul and Silas what he should do to be saved from his sins, and now both are included in the answer; “ they said” is the expression that Luke uses. “ Believe on the Lord Jesus” is the an¬swer to this direct question. Faith in the Christ, personal trust in him as a Redeemer, is required. “ And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12.) The answer is brief, simple, plain, and accurate; not only could he be saved through faith in Christ, but his entire household could be saved; in fact, everyone could be saved on the same terms of the gospel. 32 And they spake the word of the Lord unto him,—The answer was that the jailer should believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; but he cannot believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world, as his Savior, without evidence. “ So belief cometh of hearing, and hearng by the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17.) He could not believe without first hearing the evidence of testimony concerning the Christ; hence, “ they spake the word of the Lord unto him” and to all “ that were in his house.” Paul and Silas preached the gospel to them so that he could obey their command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul and Silas had sung the gospel to the prisoners, and they now preached it to the jailer and all that were in his house. As a heathen the jailer was ignorant of both the truths and commands of the gospel; these were taught him by Paul and Silas; hence, his faith would have a true foundation. They spoke the word of the Lord not only to the jailer, but to those who were in his house; this shows that the jailer’s household was composed of those who were capable of hearing and understanding the gospel ; hence, they were responsible if they did not hear and obey the gospel. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night,—“ He took them” implies that he took them away from one place to that of another; we are not informed as to where he took them, but we know that he took them to a place where there was much water, for he “ washed their stripes.” This shows that he not only believed the words that had been preached to him, but that he was penitent of his sins, and was willing to do everything that he could for the comfort and ease of Paul and Silas. He “ was baptized, he and all his, immediately.” There was no delay in his doing what he was commanded to do. In giving the commission Jesus had said: “ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16.) The jailer had heard the gospel, he believed it, was penitent of his sins, and is now baptized; on these conditions and obedience to them, he could claim remission of sins. All who had heard the gospel in the jailer’ s household, and all who believed it, were baptized. It is worthy of note that there was no delay in their being baptized; no one deferred baptism by the instruction of an inspired guide, but, on the other hand, in every case of their hearing, believing, repent¬ing of their sins, baptism was attended to immediately. 34 And he brought them up into his house,—The jailer now does all that he can for Paul and Silas. As a jailer he was not acting illegally, for while he was responsible for the prisoners, he was under no obligations to fulfill this duty in any particular way. Paul and Silas would not try to escape, and the jailer had confidence in them as servants of God. The jailer must be responsible for the safekeeping of his prisoners, and he now feels safe about Paul and Silas. After bringing them “ up into his house” he “ set food before them, and rejoiced greatly.” He had occasion to rejoice. We note the contrast between the jailer’ s joy and the dread of the magistrates. (Acts 16:38.) A great change had taken place within a short time in the jailer’ s house.

It is very likely that the trouble and arrest of Paul and Silas took place at the third hour of the day, or nine o’ clock in the morning, and they had probably been fasting for nearly twenty-four hours. We do not know who this jailer was, but some have suggested he was Stephanas. (1 Corinthians 1:16 1 Corinthians 16:15 1 Corinthians 16:17.) Lydia and her household were the first converts in Europe and at Philippi; the jailer and his household were the next; hence, the nucleus of the church at Philippi was the households of Lydia and the jailer. Later Paul wrote a letter to this church.

PAUL AND SILAS FROM PRISONAct_16:35-40 35 But when it was day, the magistrates sent—The magis¬trates or praetors and lictors knew nothing about what had taken place during the night, but they surely had learned something about the earthquake and its effects. All that Luke has related took place in the night, so the next morning early the authorities sent the lictors or sergeants and commanded them to “ let those men go.” There had been no further inquiry as to the charges against Paul and Silas, no regular trial, but the magistrates were uneasy. No reason is given for the change of mind of the magistrates ; the jailer received orders to release Paul and Silas. 36 And the jailor reported the words to Paul,—No doubt the jailer received the words with joy, because he was now in sympathy with Paul and Silas and would be glad to see them go without further trial or punishment. He even invited Paul and Silas to “ come forth, and go in peace.” Paul and Silas had not taken advantage of the jailer simply because they were preachers of the gospel; although they had baptized the jailer and his household, yet they asked no favors of him that would involve him in any way with the authorities. Paul and Silas knew a better way, and did not obey the orders of the jailer. 37 But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us publicly, —The reply of Paul is very full of brevity and energy, and brings a serious charge against the magistrates. He charges the authorities with the following: (1) beating them publicly; (2) beating uncondemned men; (3) beating with rods men that are Roman citizens; (4) after beating them they had been cast into prison. These four charges were serious; Paul knew that they were, and he does not hesitate to prefer these charges. The magistrates had done so much publicly, and they now sought to release Paul and Silas privately; they attempted to evade the charges and escape any punishment that was due them. Paul rightly demanded vindi¬cation; he demanded that they acknowledge their mistakes and correct them. They were too eager to cast Paul and Silas into prison, and they are now too eager to dismiss them; they have prisoners on their hands with whom they must now reckon. If Paul and Silas had gone away secretly, a stain would have rested on their reputation, which would have reflected dishonor on the gospel they preached. Paul’ s reply was that they publicly declared them criminals by the treatment given them, and now they must publicly declare their innocence. They had violated the Roman law in beating Roman citizens before they were condemned; they had done this openly; that is, publicly; they had put them in prison without a fair trial; these were all serious charges. 38 And the serjeants reported these words—The “ serjeants” were the lictors, whose duty it was to carry the rods and scourge those who were sentenced to punishment. The sergeants were sent by the magistrates to release or have released Paul and Silas. When the magistrates heard that Paul, and probably Silas, were Roman citizens, they “ feared” because they had scourged and im¬prisoned Roman citizens without a fair trial. Paul submitted to scourging by his own countrymen five times (2 Corinthians 11:24), but never claimed the rights as a Roman citizen to the Jews. The magistrates did not know that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, as Lysias did not know it. (Acts 22:27.) No one challenged Paul’ s claim as a Roman citizen at any time; it was a grave offense to make a false claim to Roman citizenship. To violate the Roman law with respect to Roman citizenship subjected a magistrate to the danger of being summoned to Rome to answer for his offense; the punishment for this crime was death and confiscation of goods.

This accounts for the fear that these magistrates had when they heard of Paul’ s Roman citizenship. Death was the penalty for making a claim to Roman citizenship when it was false; seldom did anyone make a false claim because of the severe penalty; hence, they believed Paul’ s statement. 39 and they came and besought them;—It is very probable that the magistrates made due amends for the wrongs they had done to Paul and Silas. They now urgently besought them to leave the city. “ They asked” them to leave the city. “ Asked” is from the Greek “ eroton,” and means that they kept on begging them to leave the city for fear of further trouble The magistrates had no right to command or demand that they leave the city, but they asked them as a favor and as a means of preventing any further trouble. Paul and Silas were willing to go, but not secretly; Paul would not desert the young converts nor bring a scandal on the name of Christ by a secret departure; they departed leisurely in such a way as to clear their own names of any blame or shame that might be attached to their imprisonment. Paul and Silas were vindicated, and they could now leave the city. 40 And they went out of the prison,—When they left the prison they went to the house of Lydia where the disciples assem¬bled there to greet them. “ The brethren” here include Luke and Timothy, the jailer and those who were baptized with him, and others who were converted in Philippi. Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke were all guests of Lydia before Paul and Silas’ imprison¬ment. (Verse 15.) It is very likely that the church at Philippi first met in the house of Lydia. Paul and Silas “ comforted” the brethren. Who needed comforting more than Paul and Silas? Yet they comforted others. After comforting the brethren Paul and Silas “ departed” ; Luke and Timothy did not accompany them, but remained at Philippi; some think that Luke remained until Paul returned to Philippi.

From Luke’ s use of the pronouns “ we” and “ us,” we learned that he was with Paul and Silas from Troas to Philippi. He uses a different mode of expression in this verse; namely, the use of the third person, “ they” ; this shows that the writer did not accompany Paul and Silas from Philippi; he continues to use the third person in his narrative until he comes to Acts 20:5, where the use of the first person is resumed. By a study of these passages and of Act 20:6, it appears probable that Luke remained in Philippi until Paul returned to this city on his way to Asia Minor and to Jerusalem. Luke mentions Timothy in Acts 17:14, and from that passage we learn that he was afterward at Berea with Paul and Silas. Paul left him there with Silas when he him¬self went to Athens; hence, we conclude that Timothy was left with Luke at Philippi, while Paul and Silas went through Amphip- olis and Apollonia to Thessalonica.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 16Acts 16:1-2. Without giving the least detail of Paul’s labors in Syria and Cilicia, Luke hurries us forward to his arrival in Derbe and Lystra, the scenes respectively of the most painful and the most consoling incidents which occurred on his former tour. His chief object in this seems to be to introduce us to a new character, destined to play an important part in the future history. (1) “Then he came down into Derbe and Lystra, and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, son of a believing Jewess, but of a Greek father; (2) who was well attested by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium.” Not only the mother, but also the grandmother of the disciple was a believer; for Paul afterward writes to him: “ I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, that first dwelt in thy grandmother Lois, and in thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded also in thee.” From this it seems that both the mother and grandmother had preceded him into the kingdom; for it is clearly of their faith in Christ, and not of their Jewish faith, that Paul here speaks. With such an example before him, it is not surprising that the young disciple should be found well attested by all the brethren who knew him. The fact that he was thus attested not only at Derbe and Lystra, within the vicinity of his residence, but also in the more distant city of Iconium, renders it probable that he was already known as a public speaker. On the occasion of Paul’s former visit to Lystra, we learned that while he lay dead, as was supposed, after the stoning, “ the disciples stood around him.” Timothy was doubtless in the group; for he was Paul’s own son in the faith, and must have been immersed previous to the stoning, as Paul left the city immediately after. The scene occurred just at the period in Timothy’s religious life, the period immediately subsequent to immersion, when the soul is peculiarly susceptible to the impress of noble example. The recesses of the heart are then open to their deepest depths, and a word fitly spoken, a look full of religious sympathy, or a noble deed, makes an impression which can never be effaced. In such a frame of mind Timothy witnessed the stoning of Paul; wept over his prostrate form; followed him, as if raised from the dead, back into the city; and saw him depart with heroic determination to another field of conflict in defense of the glorious gospel. It is not wonderful that a nature so full of sympathy with that of the heroic apostle to extort from the latter the declaration, “ I have no one like-minded with me,” should be inspired by his example, and made ready to share with him the toils and sufferings of his future career. Acts 16:3. The discriminating and watchful eye of Paul soon discovered qualities which would render this youth a fitting companion and fellow-laborer, and it was by his request that Timothy was placed in the position which he afterward so honorably filled. (3) “Paul wished him to go forth with him, and took him, and circumcised him on account of the Jews who were in those quarters; for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” The circumcision of Timothy is quite a remarkable event in the history of Paul, and presents a serious injury as to the consistency of his teaching and of his practice, in reference to this Abrahamic rite. It demands of us, at this place, as full consideration as our limits will admit. The real difficulty of the case is made apparent by putting into juxtaposition two of Paul’s statements, and two of his deeds. He says to the Corinthians, “ Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing;” yet to the Galatians he writes: “ Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” When he was in Jerusalem upon the appeal of the Antioch Church, brethren urgently insisted that he should circumcise Titus, who was with him, but he sternly refused, and says, “ I gave place to them by subjection, no, not for an hour.” Yet we see him in the case before us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this “ on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters.” In order to reconcile these apparently conflicting facts and statements, we must have all the leading facts concerning this rite before us. We observe, first, that in the language of Jesus, circumcision “ is not of Moses, but of the fathers.” The obligation which the Jews were under to observe it was not originated by the law of Moses, or the covenant of Mount Sinai; but existed independent of that covenant and the law, having originated four hundred and thirty years before the law. The connection between the law and circumcision originated in the fact that the law was given to a part of the circumcised descendants of Abraham. We say a part of his descendants, because circumcision was enjoined upon his descendants through Ishmael, through the sons of Keturah, and through Esau, as well as upon the Jews. Since, then, the law did not originate the obligation to be circumcised, the abrogation of the law could not possibly annul that obligation. He shall be forced, therefore, to the conclusion, that it still continues since the law, unless we find it annulled by the apostles. Again: its perpetuity is enjoined in the law of its institution. God said to Abraham: “ He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” An everlasting covenant is one which continues as long as both parties to it continue to exist. The covenant concerning Canaan was everlasting, because it continued as long as the twelve tribes continued an organized people to live in it. The covenant of Aaron’s priestly dignity was everlasting, because it continued in Aaron’s family as long as such a priesthood had an existence. So the covenant of circumcision must be everlasting, because it is to continue as long as the flesh of Abraham is perpetuated. This will be till the end of time; hence circumcision has not ceased, and can not cease, till the end of the world. This conclusion can not be set aside, unless we find something in the nature of gospel institutions inconsistent with it, or some express release of circumcised Christians from its continued observance. It is, then, inconsistent with any gospel institution? Pedobaptists assume that it was a seal of righteousness, and a rite of initiation into the Church; and as baptism now occupies that position, it necessarily supplants circumcision. It is true, that Paul says: “ Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while yet uncircumcised;” but what it was to Abraham, it never was not any of his offspring, seeing that the child eight days old could not possibly have any righteousness of faith while yet uncircumcised, of which circumcision could be the seal. Again: it was not to the Jew an initiatory rite. For, first, the law of God prescribing to Abraham the terms of the covenant says: “ The uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Now, no man can be cut off from a people who is not previously of them. Regarding the Jewish commonwealth, therefore, as a Church, the infant of eight days was already in the Church by natural birth, and circumcision, instead of bringing him into it, was a condition of his remaining in it.

In the second place, this conclusion from the terms of the covenant is made indisputable by a prominent fact in Jewish history. While the twelve tribes were in the wilderness forty years, none of the children born were circumcised.

The six hundred thousand men over twenty years of age who left Egypt all died in the wilderness, and an equal number were born in the same period; for the whole number of men at the end of the journey was the same as at the beginning. When they crossed the Jordan, therefore, there were six hundred thousand male Jews, some of them forty years of age, who had not been circumcised, yet they had been entering the Jewish Church during a period of forty years. After crossing the Jordan Joshua commanded them to be circumcised, and it was done. This fact not only demonstrates that circumcision was not to the Jews an initiatory rite, but throws light upon its real design. The covenant of circumcision was ingrafted upon the promise to Abraham of an innumerable fleshly offspring, to keep them a distinct people, and to enable the world to identify them, thereby recognizing the fulfillment of the promise, and also the fulfillment of various prophesies concerning them. In accordance with this design, while they were in the wilderness, in no danger of intermingling with other nations, the institution was neglected. But, as soon as they enter the populous land of Canaan, where there is danger of such intermingling, the separating mark is put upon them. From these two considerations, we see that there is no inconsistency between circumcision and baptism, even if the latter is admitted to be a seal of righteousness of faith, which language is nowhere applied to it in the Scriptures. Neither is there inconsistency between it and any thing in the gospel scheme; for Paul declares: “ In Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love.” Thence, he enjoins: “ Is any man called, being circumcised, let him not be uncircumcised; is any called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised.” So far as faith in Christ, and acceptability with him are concerned, circumcision makes a man neither better nor worse, and is, of course, not inconsistent with the obedience of faith in any respect whatever. We next inquire, Are there any apostolic precepts which release converted Jews from the original obligation to perpetuate this rite? Paul does say, “ If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing;” and this, certainly, is a prohibition to the parties to whom it is addressed. If it was addressed to Jewish Christians, then it is certainly wrong for the institution to be perpetuated among them. But neither Paul nor any of the apostles so understood it. That Paul did not is proved by the fact that he circumcised Timothy; and that the other apostles did not, is proved conclusively by the conference which took place in Jerusalem upon Paul’s last visit to that place. James says to him, “ You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law.

And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. Do this, therefore, that we say to you. We have four men which have a vow on them. Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses, in order that they may shave their heads, and all may know that the things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself walk orderly, and keep the law.” This speech shows that James considered it slanderous to say that Paul taught the Jews not to circumcise their children; and Paul’s ready consent to the proposition made to him shows that he agreed with James. Yet this occurred after he had written the epistle to the Galatians, in which he says, “ If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” There could not be clearer proof that this remark was not intended for Jewish Christians. Even James, in the speech from which we have just quoted, makes a distinction, in reference to this rite, between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. He says: “ Concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written, having decided that they observe no such thing; save, only, that they keep themselves from idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” This remark refers to the decree issued by the apostles from Jerusalem, which Paul was carrying with him at the time that he circumcised Timothy. It should be observed, that there never did arise among the disciples any difference of opinion as to the propriety of circumcising Jews. This was granted by all. But the controversy had exclusive reference to the Gentiles; and the fact that the Judaizers based their plea for circumcising Gentiles upon the continued validity of the rite among the Jews, is one of the strongest proof that all the disciples considered it perpetual. If Paul, in disputing with them, could have said, that, by the introduction of the gospel, circumcision was abolished even among the Jews, he would have subverted, at once, the very foundation of their argument. But this fundamental assumption was admitted and acted upon by Paul himself, and no inspired man ever called it in question. That it was the Gentiles alone who were forbidden to be circumcised, is further evident from the context of this prohibition in Galatians. This epistle was addressed to Gentiles, as is evident from the remark in the fourth chapter, “ Howbeit, then, when you knew not God, you did service to them who by nature are no gods?” The circumcision of the Gentiles is not, however, considered apart from the purpose for which it was done. It is often the purpose alone which gives moral character to an action; and in this case it gave to this action its chief moral turpitude. The purpose for which the Judaizers desired the Gentiles to be circumcised was that they might be brought under the law as a means of justification. Hence Paul adds to the declaration we are considering: “ I testify again to every man who submits to circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. You have ceased from Christ, whoever of you are being justified by the law, you have fallen away from favor.” This can not refer to Jews, for it would make Paul himself and all the Jewish Christians “ debtors to do the whole law;” a conclusion in direct conflict with one of the main arguments of this epistle. It must, then, refer to Gentiles who were considering the propriety of circumcision as a condition of justification by the law. We can now account for Paul’s stern refusal to circumcise Titus. He was a Gentile, and could not with propriety be circumcised unless he desired to unite himself nationally with the Jewish people. But if, with Paul’s consent, he should do this, his example would be used as a precedent to justify all other Gentile disciples in doing the same; and thus, in a short time, circumcision would cease to be a distinguishing mark of the offspring of Abraham, and the original design of the rite would be subverted. Moreover, to have circumcised him under the demand that was made by the Pharisees, would have been a virtual admission that it was necessary to justification, which could not be admitted without abandoning the liberty of Christ for the bondage of the law. The case of Timothy was quite different. He was a half-blood Jew, and therefore belonged, in part, to the family of Abraham. He could be circumcised, not on the ground of its being necessary as a part of a system of justification by law, but because he was an heir of the everlasting covenant with Abraham. This, however, was not the chief reason for which Paul circumcised him, for Luke says it was “ on account of the Jews who dwelt in those quarters; for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” In this reason there are two considerations combined, the latter qualifying the former. The fact that his father was known to be a Greek is given to account for the fact that Paul yielded to the prejudices of the Jews. If his father and mother both had been Jews, Paul might have acted from the binding nature of the Abrahamic covenant.

Or if both had been Greeks, he would have disregarded the clamor of the Jews, as he had done in the case of Titus. But the mixed parentage of Timothy made his case a peculiar one.

The marriage of his mother to a Greek was contrary to the law of Moses. Whether the offspring from such a marriage should be circumcised, or not, the law did not determine. The Jewish rabbis taught that the mother should not circumcise the child without the consent of the father, which was to admit that his circumcision was not obligatory. Paul did not, then, feel bound by the Abrahamic covenant to circumcise him, but did so to conciliate the “ Jews who dwelt in those quarters,” who had, doubtless, already objected to the prominent position assigned to one in Timothy’s anomalous condition. It was, as all the commentators agree, a matter of expediency; but not, as they also contend, because it was indifferent whether any one were circumcised or not, but because it was indifferent whether one like Timothy were circumcised or not. It was an expediency that applied only to the case of a half-blood Jew with a Greek father; and it would, therefore, be most unwarrantable to extend it to the case of full-blooded Jews. The remark of Paul that “ Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God,” is readily explained in the light of the above remarks, and of its own context. It is immediately preceded by these words: “ Is any man called being circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised.” And it is immediately followed by these words: “ Let every man abide in the calling wherein he is called.” So far, then, is this text from making it indifferent whether a Christian become circumcised or not, that it positively forbids those who had been in uncircumcision before they were called, to be circumcised; while it equally forbids the other party to render themselves uncircumcised; which expression means to act as if they were uncircumcised by neglecting it in reference to their children. For to become uncircumcised literally is impossible. That circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, means, therefore, simply that it is indifferent whether a man had been, before he was called, a Jew or a Gentile; but it is far from indicating that it is innocent in a Jew to neglect this rite, or in a Gentile to observe it. If we have properly collated the apostolic teaching on this subject, the conclusion of the whole matter is this: that Christian Jews, Ishmaelites, or Edomites, are under the same obligation to circumcise their children that the twelve tribes were in Egypt, and that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau were during the period of the law of Moses. This being so, the pedobaptist conceit that baptism has taken the place of circumcision is shown to be absurd, by the fact that circumcision still occupies its own place. It is undeniable that during the whole apostolic period Jewish disciples observed both baptism and circumcision, and as both these could not occupy the same place at the same time, their proper places must be different. According to apostolic precedent, both should still continue among the Jews; neither one taking the place of the other, but one serving as a token of the fleshly covenant with Abraham, the other as an institution of the new covenant, and a condition, both to Jew and Gentile, of the remission of sins. Acts 16:4-5. After so long delay upon the circumcision of Timothy, we are prepared to start forward again with the apostles, cheered as they were by this valuable addition to their company. (4) “And as they passed through the cities they delivered to them to observe the decrees which had been adjudged by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. (5) And the Churches were confirmed in the faith, and were daily increasing in number.” These decrees were everywhere needed, in order to unite in harmonious fellowship the Jewish and Gentile converts. Presented by Paul, who had been sent to Jerusalem for them, and by Silas, who had been sent out with high commendation by the apostles, to bear them to the Gentiles, that came with their full force to the ears of the brethren, and produced the happiest effects. The peace and harmony which they helped to confirm the brethren in the faith, and the daily increase in number was the result of this happy condition of the Churches. Acts 16:6-8. The neighboring cities of Derbe and Lystra, where Paul was joined by Timothy, constituted the limit of his former tour with Barnabas into this region of country. He makes them now the starting point for an advance still further into the interior, and to the western extremity of Asia Minor. (6) “Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the district of Galatia, being forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, (7) they went to Mysia, and attempted to go on through Bythinia, and the Spirit did not permit them. (8) So passing by Mysia they went down to Troas.” From this hurried sketch of the tour through Phrygia and Galatia, it might be inferred that nothing of special interest occurred during its progress. But we learn from Paul himself that it was far otherwise in Galatia. In his epistle to the Churches there, he lifts the vail of obscurity thrown over this part of his life, and brings to light one of the most touching incidents in his eventful career. More than one congregation sprang up under his personal labors there, who owed their knowledge of salvation to an afflicting providence affecting himself. He writes to them: “ You know that on account of infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you at the first.” This statement does not mean merely that he was suffering in the flesh at the time; but the expression di asthenian indicates that the infirmity was the cause which led him to his preaching to them. The infirmity was evidently that “ thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet him,” which he had prayed in vain to the Lord to take from him.

For he says to them: “ My temptation which was in my flesh you despised not, nor rejected, but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.” It is probable that he had intended to pass through this region without stopping, but some unusual violence of the humiliating and irritating malady compelled him to forego the more distant journey, and make some stay where the Word was so gladly received by these brethren. Though Paul felt that strangers like these would be likely to despise him and reject him, on perceiving the malady with which he was afflicted, yet this people listened to his annunciation of eternal truth as if they heard an angel of God, or Jesus Christ Christ himself.

His distress of mind and weakness of body were calculated to give a mellower tone to his preaching, and to awaken a livelier sympathy in truly generous hearts, and such was the effect on them. He says: “ I bear you witness, that if it had been possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and have given them to me.” Thus, out of the most unpropitious hour in which this faithful apostle every introduced the gospel to a strange community, the kind providence of God brought forth the sweetest fruits of all his labors; for there are no other Churches of whose fondness for him he speaks in terms so touching. This serves to illustrate the meaning of the Lord’s answer, when Paul prayed that the thorn might depart from his flesh: “ My favor is sufficient for you; for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” His weakest hour, wherein he expected to be despised and rejected, he found the strongest for the cause he was pleading, and the most soothing to his own troubled spirit. It was experience like this which enabled him, in later years, to exclaim, “ Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong.” Paul’s own judgment seems to have been much at fault, during this period, in reference to the choice of a field of labor. Contrary to his purpose, he had been delayed in Galatia, “ on account of infirmity of flesh;” and then, intending to enter the province of Asia, of which Ephesus was the capital, he was “ forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the Word there.” Finally they attempted to go into Bythinia, “ and the Holy Spirit did not permit them.” Feeling his way around the forbidden territory, he finally went down to Troas, on the shore of the Ægean Sea. Acts 16:9-10. Here he learns the object which the Spirit had in view, while turning him aside from one after another of the fields which he himself had chosen. (9) “Then a vision appeared to Paul in the night. There stood a man of Macedonia, entreating him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us. (10) And when he saw the vision, we immediately sought to go forth into Macedonia, inferring that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel them.” This overruling of Paul’s purpose, coupled with the absence of it at other times, indicates something of the method by which the journeyings of inspired men were directed. While their own judgment led to a judicious choice, it was permitted to guide them; but when it failed, as was likely to be the case, through their ignorance of the comparative accessibility of different communities, or the circumstances of individuals, they were overruled by some controlling providence, like Paul in Galatia; directed by angels, like Philip in Samaria; or by the Spirit, like Peter in Joppa; restrained from some purpose, like Paul and Silas when attempting to enter Asia and Bythinia; or called away across the sea, as he was now, by a vision at night. We will yet see that, as in the cases of Philip and of Peter, the prayers of individuals ready to hear the gospel were connected with the divine interference by which Paul and Silas were now being directed. Preachers of the present day have no authoritative visions by night to guide them, and the supposition indulged by some, that they are at times prompted by the Spirit as Paul was, is nothing more than the conceit of an enthusiast, while it is nothing less than a claim to inspiration. But Paul was often guided merely by the indications of Providence, and so may it be with us. If we are attentive to these indications, we shall be under the guidance of that same All-seeing Eye which chose the steps of Paul. If the way of our choosing is entirely blocked up, at times, or some stern necessity turns us aside from a settled purpose, we may regard it as but the firmer pressure of that hand which leads us, for the most part, unseen and unfelt. Acts 16:11-12. An opportunity was offered without delay, for the apostolic company to make the contemplated voyage to Macedonia. (11) “Therefore, setting sail from Troas, we ran by a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day to Neapolis; (12) and thence to Philippi, which is the first city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony. And we abode in that city some days.” Samothrace is an island in the Archipelago, about midway between Troas and Neapolis. Neapolis was a seaport of Macedonia, and the landing place for Philippi. The remark that they sailed to Samothrace, and the next day to Neapolis, shows that they spent the night at Samothrace, which accords with the custom of ancient navigators, who generally cast anchor at night, during coasting voyages, unless the stars were out. This voyage occupied a part of two days. Philippi was not the chief city of that part of Macedonia, as rendered in the common version, but the first city; by which is meant, either that it was the first which Paul visited, or the first in point of celebrity. I think the latter is the real idea; for it is obvious from the history that this was the first city Paul visited, and of this the reader need not be informed. But it was the first city of that region in point of celebrity, because it was the scene of the great battle in which Brutus and Cassius were defeated by Marc Antony. Thessalonica was then, and is yet, the chief city of Macedonia. The observant reader will here notice a change in the style of the narrative, which indicates the presence of the writer among the companions of Paul. Hitherto he had spoken of them only in the third person; but when about to leave Troas, he uses the first person plural, saying, “we sought to go forth into Macedonia,” and “we ran to Samothrace,” etc. It is only by such a change in the pronoun employed, from the third to the first person, and from the first to the third that we can detect the presence or absence of Luke. From this indication we conclude that he first joined the company in the interior of Asia Minor, just previous to entering the city of Troas. The company with whom we are now traveling is composed of Paul and Silas, Timothy and Luke. Acts 16:13-15. Upon entering this strange city, the first on the continent of Europe visited by an apostle, Paul and his companions must have looked around them with great anxiety for some opportunity to open their message to the people. The prospects were sufficiently forbidding. They knew not the face of a human being; and there was not even a Jewish synagogue into which they might enter with the hope of being invited to speak “ a word of exhortation to the people.” By some means, however, they learned that on the bank of the river Gangas, which flowed by the city, some Jewish women were in the habit of congregating on the Sabbath-day, for prayer. Thither the apostles directed their steps, determined that here should be the beginning of their labors in Philippi. (13) “And on the Sabbath-day we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made, and sat down, and spoke to the women who had collected there. (14) And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God, was listening; whose heart the Lord opened, so that she attended to the things spoken by Paul. (15) And when she was immersed, and her house, she entreated us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and remain there. And she constrained us.”With Bloomfield, I reject the criticism of the most recent commentators, who render the second clause of verse 13, “where was wont to be a place of prayer.” Besides the reasons suggested by this learned author, I would observe, first, that the term proseuche is nowhere else in the New Testament used in the sense of a place of prayer, but always means prayer.

Nothing but a contextual necessity, therefore, would justify a different rendering here. Again, the expression enomizeto einai means was accustomed to be, and it is never said of a place, or building, that it is accustomed to be where it is. We now see one reason for that singular prohibition which had been steadily turning Paul aside from the fields which he had preferred, until he reached the sea-shore; and of that vision which had called him into Europe. These women had been wont to repair to this river-bank for prayer. God had heard their prayers, as in the case of Cornelius, and he was bringing to them the preacher through whose words they might obtain faith in Christ, and learn the way of salvation. Long before either they or Paul knew anything of it, God was directing the steps of the latter, and timing the motion of the winds at sea, with reference to that weekly meeting on the river’s bank, as he had once done the flight of an angel and the steps of Philip with reference to the eunuch’s chariot. Now, as in those two cases, he has brought the parties face to face. He answers the prayers of the unconverted, not by an enlightening influence of the Spirit in their hearts, but by providentially bringing to them a preacher of the gospel who knows the way of salvation. The statement that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended to the things spoken by Paul, is generally assumed by the commentators as a certain proof that an immediate influence of the Spirit was exerted on her heart, in order that she should listen favorably to the truth. Their interpretation of the words is expressed in the most orthodox style by Bloomfield, thus: “ The opening in question was effected by the grace of God, working by his Spirit with the concurrent good dispositions of Lydia.” Dr. Hackett says her heart was “ enlightened, impressed by his Spirit, and so prepared to receive the truth.” Whether this is the true interpretation or not, may be determined by a careful examination of all the facts in this case. First: The term open is evidently used metaphorically, but in a sense not at all obscure. To open the mind is to expand it to broader or more just conceptions of a subject. To open the heart is to awaken within it more generous impulses. What exact impulse is awakened, in a given case, is to be determined by the context. Second: The impulse awakened in Lydia’s heart was not such a disposition that she listened favorably to what Paul said, but, “ that she attended to things” which he spoke. The facts, in the order in which they are stated, are as follows: 1st. “ We spoke to the women.” 2d. Lydia “ was listening.” 3d. God opened her heart. 4th. She attended to the things spoken. The fourth fact is declared to be the result of the third.

It was after she “ was listening” that God opened her heart, and after her heart was opened, and because of this opening, that she attended to what she had heard. What the exact result was, then, is to be determined by the meaning of the word “attended.” The term attend sometimes means to concentrate the mind upon a subject, and sometimes to practically observe what we are taught.

The Greek term prosecho, here employed, has a similar usage. It is used in the former sense, in Acts 8:6, where it is said the people, “attended to the things spoken by Philip, in hearing and seeing the miracles which he wrought.” It is used in the latter sense in 1 Timothy 4:13, where Paul says, “ Till I come, attend to reading, to exhortation, to teaching;” and in Hebrews 7:13, where to attend to the altar means to do the service at the altar. That the latter is the meaning in the case before us is clearly proved by the fact that she had already listened to what Paul spoke, or given mental attention to it, before God opened her heart so that she attended to the things she had heard. Now, in hearing the gospel, she learned that there were certain things which she was required to attend to, which were, to believe, to repent, and to be immersed. To attend to the things she heard, then, was to do these things. That immersion was included in the things which Luke refers to by this term is evident from the manner in which he introduces that circumstance.

He says, “ And when she was immersed,” etc., as if her immersion was already implied in the preceding remark. If such was not his meaning, he would not have used the adverb when, but would simply have stated, as an additional fact, that she was immersed. Having the facts of the case now before us, we inquire whether it is necessary to admit an immediate influence of the Spirit, in order to account for the opening of her heart. We must bear in mind, while prosecuting this inquiry, that the opening in question was such a change in her heart as to induce her to believe the gospel, to repent of her sins, and to be immersed, thereby devoting her life to the service of Christ. Her heart had been contracted by the narrowness of Jewish prejudices, which were obstacles, in some degree, to the reception of the gospel; but she was a “ worshiper of God,” which inclined her to do whatever she might learn to be the will of God. In seeking to account for the change effected, we must also bear in mind the well-settled philosophical principle, that when an effect can be accounted for by causes which are known to be present, it is illogical to assume a cause which is not known to be present. Now, in Lydia’s case, it is not asserted that an immediate action of the Spirit took place in her heart; neither can it be known that such a cause was present, unless this is the only cause which could produce the effect. But it is known that all the power which can be exerted through the words of an inspired apostle preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, was present.

And it can not be denied, that when the gospel, thus presented, is listened to by one who is already a sincere worshiper of God, as Lydia was, the heart may be so expanded by it from the narrowness of Jewish prejudice as to admit of faith, repentance, and obedience. The assumption, therefore, that her heart was opened by an abstract influence of the Spirit, is entirely gratuitous and illogical, while the real cause is patent upon the face of the narrative in the preaching done by Paul. If it be objected to this conclusion, that it is said God opened her heart, and not Paul, we answer, that God by his Spirit was the real agent of all that was effected through the words of Paul. For it was the Spirit in Paul who spoke to Lydia, and it was the fact that the Holy Spirit was in him which compelled her to believe what he might say, and gave his words all their power. Hence, so far is the statement of the text from being inconsistent with our conclusion, that the opening of her heart through Paul’s words is the clearest proof that it was effected by the Holy Spirit as the prime agent. If, in conclusion of this inquiry, we compare Lydia’s case with that of the eunuch, or of Cornelius, who were in similar states of mind previous to conversion, and needed a similar opening of the heart, we find that it was effected in the same way, through the power of miraculously attested truth, and that the only difference is in the phraseology in which Luke chooses to describe it. If, from these facts, we attempt a general conclusion, it is, that when any narrowness of heart, produced by improper education, or otherwise, stands in the way of salvation, the Lord removes it, and opens the heart, by the expanding and ennobling influence of his truth. This is true of the saint as well as the sinner, as is well illustrated by the case of Peter and the other apostles in connection with the family of Cornelius. The statement that Lydia’s household were immersed with her has been taken by nearly all pedobaptist writers as presumptive evidence in favor of infant baptism. Olshausen, however, while affirming that “ the propriety of infant baptism is undoubted,” has the candor to admit that “ It is highly improbable that the phrase her household should be understood as including infant children.” He also affirms that “ There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of children in the age of the apostles, nor can the necessity of it be deduced from the nature of baptism.” Dr. Alexander also remarks that “ The real strength of the argument lies not in any one case, but in the repeated mention of whole households as baptized.” But Dr. Barnes states the argument in the more popular style, thus: “ The case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. For, (1) Her believing is particularly mentioned. (2) It is not intimated that they believed. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that they did not. (3) It is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed.” Dr. Alexander’s statement of the argument is that generally employed by debatants; that of Dr. Barnes the one most common among preachers and teachers who have no opponent before them. In reference to the former it is sufficient to say, that “ the repeated mention of whole households as baptized” affords not the slightest evidence in favor of infant baptism, unless it can be proved that in at least one of these households there were infants. It there were infants in one, this would establish the presumption that there might be in some others. But until there is proof that there were infants in some of them, it may be inferred that the absence of infants was the very circumstance which led to the immersion of the whole family.

Indeed, a fair induction of such cases fully justifies this inference in reference to Lydia’s case. There is positive proof that there were no infants in any other family whose immersion is mentioned in the New Testament. There were none in the household of Cornelius; for they all spoke in tongues, and believed. There were none in that of the jailer; for they all believed and rejoiced in the Lord. None in the household of Stephanas; for they “ addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” Now, inasmuch as one of the peculiarities of all households who were immersed, of whom we know the facts, was the absence of infants, we are justified in the conclusion, no evidence to the contrary appearing, that this was also a peculiarity of Lydia’s household. The argument, therefore, as stated by Dr.

Alexander, is not only inconclusive, but, when properly viewed, establishes a presumption quite the reverse. The argument, as stated by Dr. Barnes, is based entirely upon the silence of the Scriptures. He says: “Her believing is particularly mentioned;” but “ it is not intimated that they believed. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that they did not.” Now, if the mere silence of Luke in reference to their faith implies strongly that they did not believe, his silence in reference to Lydia’s repentance implies as strongly that she did not repent. In some cases of conversion, the repentance of the parties is “ particularly mentioned.” “ It is not intimated” that Lydia repented; therefore, says the logic of Dr. Barnes, “ there is a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of” baptism without repentance.

If men are allowed thus to prove what is Scripture doctrine, by what the Scriptures do not mention, there is no end to the doctrines and practices which the Bible may be made to defend. If Dr. Barnes were compelled to meet the argument in reference to Lydia’s repentance, he would do it very easily, and, in so doing, would refute his own in reference to the baptism of her children. He would show that we know that Lydia repented, because none but those who repented were admitted to baptism on other occasions. Just so, we know that all baptized on this occasion believed, because none but believers were baptized on other occasions. Not till he can prove, from other statements of the Scriptures, that persons were baptized by the apostles without faith, can he establish the presumption that these parties were not believers, simply because their faith is not mentioned. Dr. Barnes concludes his note on this case, by saying, “ It is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized on the faith of the parent.” This is true. But it is equally true, that it is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized without an infant among them. The presence, therefore, of one or more infants, which is essential to the argument, remains absolutely without proof. The mere absence of proof is not the worst feature of the pedobaptist assumptions in this case. For the assumption that infants were here baptized depends upon five other assumptions, the falsity of either of which would vitiate the whole argument. It is assumed, First, That some of the household were baptized without faith. Second, That Lydia was, or had been, a married woman. Third, That she had children. Fourth, That one or more of her children were infants.

Fifth, That her infant children were so young as to necessarily be brought with her from Thyatira to Philippi. Now, so long as it remains possible that all the parties baptized were believers; or that Lydia was a maiden; or that she was a married woman or widow without children; or that her children were of a responsible age; or that her younger children were left at home in Thyatira when she came to Philippi to sell her purple cloths; so long as any one of these hypotheses can possibly be true, so long will it be impossible to prove an instance of infant baptism in her household. One more suggestion is necessary to a full statement of the argument in this case. When Lydia invited Paul’s company to lodge in her house, they were backward about complying, as is evident from the remark that “ she constrained us.” Now there can be no probable reason assigned for this reluctance, but the fact that it was her house, and the brethren felt it a matter of delicacy to be the guests of a woman. To the full extent of the probability of this supposition, which is heightened by the fact that she calls the house her own, is it probable that she was an unmarried woman, and, therefore, improbable that she had infant children. Thus we find that all the known facts in the case are adverse to the argument in favor of infant baptism. Acts 16:16-18. We are next introduced to an incident which led to a decided change in the fortunes of Paul and Silas. (16) “And it came to pass, as we were going to prayer, there met us a certain female servant, having a spirit of divination, who brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. (17) The same followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, These men are servants of the most high God, who show us the way of salvation. (18) She did this for many days. But Paul, being much grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.” Demons exhibited a knowledge of the person of Jesus, and the mission of himself and the apostles, which seems not to have been derived from preaching. This was a superhuman knowledge. But there is no evidence known to me that they could foretell future events, though it was believed by the heathen generally that they could. It was the prevalent confidence in the vaticinations of persons possessed by them that enables this girl to bring her owners much gain. If Paul had reasoned as many do at the present day, he would have been glad that this girl followed him with such a proclamation. It was the very thing of which he was trying to convince the people of Philippi, who already had confidence in the demoniac. Why, then, was he not rejoiced at so powerful co-operation, instead of being grieved, and shutting the mouth of an apparent friend? It must be because he saw the matter in a far different light from that in which it appears to those advocates of “ spirit rappings,” who exult in them as affording strong confirmation of the gospel. The course pursued by Paul was the same with that of Jesus, who invariably stopped the mouths of demons when they attempted to testify to his claims. The propriety of this course will be apparent upon observing: First, That to have permitted demons to testify for the truth would have convinced the people that there was an alliance between them and the preachers. Second, This supposed alliance would have caused all the good repute of Jesus and the apostles to reflect upon the demons, and all the evil repute of demons to reflect upon them. It was an ingenious effort of the devil to ally himself with Jesus Christ, in order the more effectually to defeat his purposes. If Christ and the apostles had given countenance to demons while telling the truth, they could have used their indorsement to gain credence when telling a lie; and thus, believers would have been left to the mercy of seducing spirits, fulfilling, with the apparent sanction of Christ, the prophesy of Paul that, “ In the latter times men shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, speaking lies in disguise, having the conscience seared with a hot iron.” To guard against this result, it was necessary to exorcise all demons who ventured to speak in favor of the truth. In the present instance, Paul could not pursue the settled course of the apostles, without greatly depreciating the value of the slave; and doubtless it was an extreme reluctance to interference with the rights of property which had induced him to submit to the annoyance of so many days. At length, seeing no other means of relief, he cast the demon out, and, in doing so, framed the exorcising sentence in such a way as to indicate an antagonism between the demon and Jesus Christ; saying, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her.” The immediate obedience of the spirit demonstrated the authority of the name by which Paul spoke, and thus the very attempt of the devil to gain an apparent alliance with Jesus through this demon was made the occasion of demonstrating the divine power of the latter. Acts 16:19-21. (19) “Then her masters, seeing that the hope of their gain was gone, seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market-place to the rulers, (20) and leading him forward to the magistrates, they said, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, (21) and are announcing customs which it is unlawful for us, being Romans, to receive or to observe.” In this accusation, the real cause of complaint was concealed, for several reasons: First, The disinterested multitude would naturally sympathize with the girl who had been restored to her mind, rather than with the masters who had made her misfortune a source of profit. Second, To have made prominent the fact that Paul, by a word, had expelled the demon, would have made an impression favorable to him and his cause. But the Jews and their religion were particularly obnoxious to the Romans, and hence, when the accusation was made by men of wealth and influence, that these men, “being Jews,” were introducing customs contrary to the religion and laws of Rome, it was easy to excite the populace against them. Acts 16:22-24. (22) “And the multitude rose up against them, and the magistrates, having torn off their garments, commanded to beat them with rods. (23) And having laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely; (24) who, having received such a commandment, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” It appears that the magistrates gave them no opportunity to defend themselves, but simply yielded to the clamor of the multitude, in utter disregard of all the forms of justice. It was that same miserable truckling to the passions of a mob, whom they ought to have ruled into sobriety and reason, which has stamped with infamy the name of Pontius Pilate. Acts 16:25. The condition of the two brethren, as night drew on, was miserable to a degree scarcely conceivable. Besides the physical pain of sitting in a dark dungeon, with their backs bleeding from the scourge, and feet fastened in the stocks to prevent even the relief which a change of position might afford, their minds were racked with a sense of the deep injustice done them; with the reflection that such was the return they met at the hands of men for whom they had sacrificed their all on earth, and their present reward for faithful service of the Lord; and with the most mournful anticipations of their future fate. Most men, under such circumstances, would have been wild with rage against their persecutors, unconcerned for the fate of an unfriendly world, and full of doubts as to the protecting favor of God. But in the darkest and bitterest hour of their sufferings, these faithful disciples brought forth the richest fruits of their faith and piety. (25) “But at midnight Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God, and the prisoners heard them.” Men do not pray when they are enraged, nor when they are hopeless. The soul must recover from the turmoil of violent passion, before it can offer thoughtful prayer.

But still greater composure is necessary to induce a disposition to engage in singing. One in deep distress may be soothed by the music of other voices, but is not inclined to join in the song itself. That Paul and Silas prayed at midnight is the clearest evidence that the tempest of their feelings, which must, at the whipping-post, and when first thrust within the dungeon and fastened in the stocks, have driven away all sober thought, and smothered all utterance, had by this time subsided. And that, after praying, they “ sang praises to God,” shows how quickly the soothing effects of prayer had still further calmed and cheered their spirits. The song they sang was not a plaintive strain, suited to the sorrows of the lonely prisoner; but it swelled up in those firm and animated tones which are suited to the praises of God. How rich the treasures of faith and hope which can thus cheer the gloom of a midnight dungeon, and calm the spirit of the bleeding prisoner of Jesus Christ! Acts 16:26. The song of the apostles was a strange sound to the other prisoners, but one most welcome to heaven; and God, who appeared almost to have forsaken his servants, came to their relief in a manner peculiar to himself, yet most surprising to all within the prison. (26) “And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken, and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bonds were loosed.” The prisoners were all awake when this occurred, having been awakened by the singing, and must instinctively have connected the phenomenon with those midnight singers. Acts 16:27. The jailer seems not to have heard the singing, but was awakened by the motion of the earthquake, the slamming of the doors, and the clanking of the fetters which fell from the hands of the prisoners. (27) “And the jailer, awaking out of sleep, and seeing the prison-doors open, drew his sword, and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had fled.” It was not so dark as to prevent him from seeing, to some extent, what had taken place. He supposed that the prisoners had, as a matter of course, all rushed out through the open doors. He knew what the penalty, under Roman law, for allowing prisoners to escape, was death; and that peculiar code of honor among the Romans, which made them prefer to die by their own hands, rather than by that of an enemy or an executioner, drove him to this attempt at suicide. Acts 16:28. He had already planted the hilt of his sword upon the floor, and was about to cast himself upon the point of it, when Paul, who must now have left his dungeon, saw what he was doing, and arrested his mad purpose. (28) “But Paul cried, with a loud voice, saying, Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” Reassured by this statement, and by the calmness of the tone in which it was uttered, he drew back from the leap he was about to make into eternity. Acts 16:29-30. As soon as he could collect his senses, he recollected that the calm speaker who had called to him had been preaching salvation in the name of the God of Israel; and he immediately perceived that the earthquake, the miraculous opening of the doors, and the unlocking of chains and handcuffs were connected with him and his companion. In an instant he recognizes the divine authority, and, glancing into the black eternity from which he had suddenly been rescued, his own salvation, rather than the safety of his prisoners, at once absorbs his thoughts. (29) “Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas; (30) and led them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” That he asked this question proves that he had some conception of the salvation of which Paul had been preaching; and that he trembled, and fell at their feet, shows that he was overwhelmed with a sense of danger, and painfully anxious to escape from it. At sunset, when coldly thrusting the bleeding apostles into the dungeon, he cared but little for this question. In the midst of life and health, when all goes well with us, we may thrust this awful question from us; but when we come within an inch of death, like the jailer at midnight, hanging over the point of his own sword, it rushes in upon the soul like a lava torrent, and burns out all other thoughts. Acts 16:31-32. Leading the brethren into his family apartment, he received a full and satisfactory answer to his question. (31) “They said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house. (32) And they spake the word of the Lord to him, and to all who were in his house.” Those who advocate the doctrine of justification by faith only, appeal with great confidence to this answer of the apostle, as proof of that doctrine. We can not enter upon the merits of this doctrine, except as it is affected by this and other passages in Acts. To state the argument in its strongest form, it would stand thus: In answer to the question, What shall I do to be saved? one thing is commanded to be done: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ;” and one thing is promised. “You shall be saved.” Now, then, Paul could not have made this promise on this one condition, unless he knew that all who believe on the Lord Jesus are saved. No less than the universal proposition that all who believe shall be saved, would justify the conclusion that if the jailer believed, he would be saved. Paul, then, assumes this universal proposition, and, therefore, it must be true. But there are some who believe, and are consequently saved, who have never been immersed; therefore, immersion does not constitute a part of what we must do to be saved. The fallacy of this very plausible argument is to be found in the ambiguous usage of the term believe. This ambiguity does not arise from the fact that there are different kinds of faith; but from the fact that the term is sometimes used abstractly, and sometimes to include the repentance and obedience which properly result from faith. Whatever is affirmed of faith only must necessarily contemplate it in the former sense. But in that sense it can not secure justification, as is proved by the force of those passages which treat of it in this sense. John, in his gospel, says: “ Among the chief rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” James also says: “ As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” In those passages faith is considered separately from the works which should follow it, and is declared to be dead, or inoperative. Now, the statement of Paul to the jailer is not, that if he would believe on the Lord Jesus Christ with a dead faith, or a faith so weak as to be overpowered by worldly motives, he should be saved; but he evidently contemplates a living faith— a faith which leads to immediate and hearty obedience. In this usage of the term it is true that not only the jailer, but every other believer may be promised, “ Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.” Yet it is equally true that the salvation does not result from the faith only; and that it is not enjoyed until the faith brings forth the contemplated obedience. If faith without works is dead, then it remains dead as long as it remains without works. It thus remains until the believer is immersed, if he proceed according to apostolic example; therefore, faith without immersion is dead. Paul acted upon this principle in the case before us. For, after telling him, in the comprehensive sense of the term believe, that if he would believe on the Lord Jesus he should be saved, he immediately gives him more specific instruction, and immerses him the same hour of the night.

Those who argue that the jailer obtained pardon by faith alone, leave the jail too soon. If they would remain one hour longer, they would see him immersed for the remission of his sins, and rejoicing in the knowledge of pardon after his immersion, not before it. There is another aspect of this answer to the jailer which must not be passed by; for it confirms what we have already said, and at the same time harmonizes this with other inspired answers to the same question. To Saul, who was a penitent believer, and sent to Ananias to learn what he should do, the latter replied: “ Arise and be immersed and wash away your sins.” To the Jews on Pentecost, who had faith, but faith only, Peter commands: “ Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” But to the jailer, who was a heathen, Paul commands, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ;” and intending more fully to develop the manner in which his faith should be manifested, promises, “ and you shall be saved.” Thus each answer is adapted to the exact religious state of the party to whom it is addressed, requiring first that which is to be done first, and enjoining to be done only that which had not been done. The conduct of the jailer in prostrating himself before Paul and Silas, and crying out, “ What shall I do to be saved?” shows that he already believed them to be messengers of God, and understood that their message had reference to the salvation of men. But there is no evidence that his faith or his information extended beyond this. Having commanded him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, it was necessary to put within his reach the means of faith; and this Paul proceeds to do by preaching “ the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” Acts 16:33-34. The preaching, as would be expected under circumstances so favorable, had the desired effect both upon the jailer and his household. (33) “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was immersed, he and all his, immediately. (34) And having led them into his house, he set food before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” Those pedobaptist writers who claim the example of the apostles in favor of affusion and infant baptism attempt to find support for these practices in this case of conversion. Their argument for affusion depends entirely upon the assumption that the baptism was performed within the prison. If this assumption were admitted, it would prove nothing in favor of affusion so long as it is possible that there were conveniences for immersion within the prison. But the assumption is in direct conflict with the facts in the case. The facts are briefly as follows: First, When the jailer was about to commit suicide, Paul saw him, which shows that he was then outside of his dungeon, in the more part of the prison. Second, Hearing Paul’s voice, the jailer sprang into the prison, and “led them out“— not dungeon, but out of the prison.

Third, Being now out of the prison, “ they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” While speaking, then, they were in the house, and not in the prison. Fourth, “ He took them and washed their stripes, and was baptized.” The verb took, in this connection, implies the removal of the parties to some other spot for the washing and baptizing. Whether to some other part of the house, or out of the house, it does not determine. But, fifth, when the baptizing was concluded, “ he led them into his house,” which shows that, before it was done, he had taken them out of the house. Between the moment at which he took them out of the house and the moment he brought them into it, the baptizing was done. But they would not, at this hour of the night, have gone out, unless there was some necessity for it, which the demands of affusion could not supply.

The circumstances, though not in itself a proof of immersion, afford strong circumstantial evidence in its favor, and is suggestive of that river on the banks of which Lydia first heard the gospel, and in which she was immersed. It has been suggested that the party could not have passed through the gates of the city at this hour of the night; but there is no evidence that Philippi was a walled town. Again, it is sometimes objected, that the jailer had no right to take his prisoners outside the jail; and that Paul and Silas showed, by their conduct on the next morning, that they would not go out without the consent of the authorities. But this is to assume that the jailer would rather obey men than God, and that Paul and Silas were so punctilious about their personal dignity that they would refuse to immerse a penitent sinner through fear of compromising it. Such assumptions are certainly too absurd to be entertained when once observed; but, even if we cling to them, they can not set aside the fact, so clearly established above, that the jailer did lead them out of the prison. As for the assumption that infants were baptized here, we have already observed, in commenting on Lydia’s conversion, that it is precluded by the fact that all the household believed. “ He rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” Moreover, Paul and Silas spoke the Word to “all who were in the house,” yet they certainly did not preach to infants. As there were no infants in the house while hearing, and none while subsequently believing and rejoicing, there could be none at the intermediate baptizing. Before dismissing this case of conversion, which is the last we will consider in detail in the course of this work, we propose a brief review of its leading features, that we may trace its essential uniformity with those already considered. The influence which first took effect upon him was that of the earthquake, and the attendant opening of the prison-doors. This produced a feeling of alarm and heathenish desperation. It awakened within him no religious thought or emotions until the voice of Paul had recalled all that he had known of the apostolic preaching, when he instantly perceived that the miracle had been wrought by the God whom Paul and Silas preached. The proper effect of miraculous attestation of a messenger of God is next apparent in his rushing forward, falling before them, and exclaiming, “ Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” He is now a believer in the divine mission of the apostles, but not yet a believer in Jesus Christ. Whatever he hears from these men, however, he is ready to receive as God’s truth.

He hears from them the “ word of the Lord,” and the next we see, he is washing from the neglected stripes of the prisoners the clotted blood, and submitting to immersion. That he was immersed proves that he was both a believer and a penitent. After immersion, he rejoices. The case exhibits the same essential features which we have found in all others; the same word of the Lord spoken and attested by miraculous evidence; the same faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, followed by repentance, and the same immersion, followed by the same rejoicing. Thus we trace a perfect uniformity in the apostolic procedure, and in the experience of their converts. Acts 16:35-36. When the magistrates gave orders for the imprisonment of Paul and Silas, it would naturally be supposed that they intended to make some further inquiry into the charges preferred against them. But we are told, (35) “When it was day, the magistrates sent the officers, saying, Release those men. (36) The jailer told Paul these words, The magistrates have sent word that you be released. Now, therefore, depart, and go in peace.” This order was given without any further developments known to the magistrates, at least so far as we are informed, and shows that they had only imprisoned the brethren, as they had scourged them, to gratify the mob; and now that the clamor of the mob had ceased, they had no further motive to detain them. Acts 16:37-39. To be thus released from prison, as though they had simply suffered the penalty due them, would be a suspicious circumstance to follow the missionaries to other cities; and, fortunately, the means of escaping it were at hand. (37) “But Paul said to them, They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and do they now cast us out privately? No. But let them come themselves, and lead us out. (38) The officers told these words to the magistrates, and when they heard that they were Romans, they were alarmed. (39) And they came, and entreated them, and led them out, and asked them to depart out of the city.” If the fact of their having been scourged and imprisoned should follow them to other cities, it would do them no harm, provided it were also known that the magistrates had acknowledged the injustice done them, by going in person to the prison, and giving them an honorable discharge. As it was a capital crime, under the Roman law, to scourge a Roman citizen, and Paul and Silas both enjoyed the rights of citizenship, they had the magistrates in their power, and could dictate terms to them. The terms were promptly complied with; for men who can be induced to pervert justice by the clamor of an unthinking mob will nearly always prove cowardly and sycophantic when their crimes are exposed, and justice is likely to overtake them. By making complaint to the proper authorities, Paul might have procured their punishment; but he had been taught not to resent evil, and was himself in the habit of teaching his brethren. “ Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” His conduct, on this occasion, happily illustrates this precept. If he had appealed to the Roman authorities for the punishment of his tormenters, he would have been avenging himself in the most effectual method. But to yield, as he did, this privilege, was to leave vengeance in the hands of God, to whom it belongs. By this course Paul gained the approbation of God, and the admiration of posterity, while justice lost nothing; for the unresenting demeanor of the apostle “ heaped coals of fire on their heads,” and the Judge of all the earth held their deeds in remembrance. The incidents justifies Christians in making use of civil laws to protect themselves, but not to inflict punishment on their enemies. Acts 16:40. When they were discharged, they took their own time to comply with the polite request of the magistrates. (40) “Then they went out of the prison, and went into the house of Lydia; and having seen the brethren, and exhorted them, they departed.” Who these “ brethren” were, besides Luke and Timothy, we can not tell; but the presumption is, that they were others who had been immersed during their stay in the city.

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Sixteen IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To trace the route of Paul and Silas on their missionary journey

2. To consider whether the Spirit led Paul through impressions or some other less subjective way

3. To study carefully the conversions of Lydia and the Philippian jailer

SUMMARY With this chapter we find Paul on his second missionary journey that began in Acts 15:40 with Paul and Silas passing through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening churches along the way. In Derbe and Lystra, Paul enlisted a young disciple named Timothy who would become a life-long fellow-worker in the kingdom. His mother was a believing Jew (cf. 2 Timothy 1:5) but his father was Greek, so with many Jews in the region Paul had Timothy circumcised. As Paul’s company traveled through Phrygia and Galatia, they delivered the decrees from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem and strengthened the churches (Acts 16:1-5).

With the guidance of the Holy Spirit they found themselves in Troas, where Paul had a vision of a man from Macedonia asking for help. Concluding that the Lord was calling them to preach the gospel there, Paul’s company left Troas accompanied by the author of Acts himself, as indicated by the first person pronoun plural “we” (Acts 16:6-10).

From Troas to Samothrace and then Neapolis, the company finally arrived in Philippi. A major city of Macedonia and Roman colony, it marked Paul’s first ministry on the European continent. On the Sabbath Paul and his companions went down to the river where women were praying. As Paul spoke, a religious business woman of Thyatira named Lydia listened. The Lord opened her heart to heed Paul, which resulted in her and her household being baptized. She then persuaded Paul and his companions to stay at her house (Acts 16:11-15).

Paul and his company were soon followed by a slave girl possessed by a spirit of divination that made money for her owners through fortune telling. For days she cried out, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” While true, it annoyed Paul (probably because it was not of her own free will) and he cast the spirit out in the name of Jesus. This greatly angered the girl’s masters, who had Paul and Silas beaten and imprisoned. At midnight while Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns, a great earthquake shook the prison and broke free their chains. Assuming all had fled, the jailer was about to kill himself when Paul stopped him. When the jailor asked what he must do to be saved, Paul and Silas told him to believe on the Lord Jesus, and then proceeded to teach him and his family the word of the Lord. That same night, the entire family was baptized. In the morning, the magistrates sent word to release Paul and Silas, but Paul demanded a personal release as they were Roman citizens who were beaten and imprisoned without trial. Scared, the magistrates came and pleaded with Paul and Silas to leave the city, which they did after a short visit to Lydia’s house to encourage the brethren. Note that the author’s return to the use of “they” indicates that Luke stayed behind in Philippi (Acts 16:16-40).

OUTLINE I. TIMOTHY JOINS PAUL AND SILAS (Acts 16:1-5) A. TIMOTHY’S (Acts 16:1-3)1. Paul and Silas travel to Derbe and Lystra, where they meet Timothy 2. A disciple, whose mother was a Jewish Christian and father was Greek 3. Well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium

B. TIMOTHY’S (Acts 16:3)1. Paul wants Timothy to join him 2. Paul has Timothy circumcised, on account of the Jews in the region

C. TIMOTHY’S FIRST MISSION (Acts 16:4-5)1. Traveling with Paul and Silas, they deliver the decrees from Jerusalem 2. The churches are strengthened, increasing in number daily

II. THE CALL (Acts 16:6-10) A. BY THE SPIRIT (Acts 16:6-8)1. Passing through Phrygia and Galatia, the Spirit forbids them from preaching in Asia 2. Nearing Mysia, they try to go to Bithynia, but the Spirit does not permit them 3. Bypassing Mysia, they arrive in Troas

B. CALLED BY A VISION (Acts 16:9-10)1. Paul has a vision of a Macedonian man asking for help 2. Paul and his companions conclude God wants them to go to Macedonia 3. The use of “we” indicates Luke, the author, has now joined them

III. AT (Acts 16:11-40) A. THE OF LYDIA (Acts 16:11-15)1. From Troas, by way of Samothrace and Neapolis, Paul’s company arrive at Philippi of Macedonia, a Roman colony 2. On the Sabbath, they meet with women gathered by the river to pray and Paul speaks 3. Lydia, who worshiped God, listens and the Lord opens her heart to heed Paul 4. She and her household are baptized, and persuades Paul’s company to stay at her house

B. THE OF THE JAILER (Acts 16:16-40)1. On the way to prayer, Paul’s and his companions are followed by a slave girl a. Who was possessed with a spirit of divination b. Who had brought her masters much profit through fortune telling 2. She proclaims Paul’s company to be servants of God, proclaiming the way of salvation a. This she does for many days, which annoys Paul b. Paul therefore casts out the spirit in the name of Jesus 3. Her masters seize Paul and Silas, and drag them before the magistrates a. Where they are accused as troublemakers, teaching unlawful customs b. Where they are beaten with rods, then imprisoned with feet in stocks 4. At midnight, Paul and Silas are praying and singing hymns, the prisoners listening 5. There is a great earthquake, opening the doors and loosening the prisoners’ chains 6. The jailer comes in, assumes all have escaped, prepares to kill himself 7. Paul cries out with a loud voice to stop him, assuring him that all were still there 8. The jailer asks for a light, falls before Paul and Silas, and asks what he must do to be saved a. They first tell him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ b. They then speak the word of the Lord to him and his household c. That same hour he washes their stripes, then he and his household are baptized d. He then takes Paul and Silas to his house, feeds them, and rejoices that he and his household has believed in God 9. The next day the magistrates send officers to release Paul and Silas a. When the jailer tells Paul he is free to go, Paul demands that the magistrates come personally, as they have beaten Roman citizens without a trial b. So the magistrates come, release Paul and Silas, and plead for them to leave the city 10. Returning to Lydia’s house, Paul and Silas encourage the brethren, then leave Philippi

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- Timothy joins Paul and Silas (Acts 16:1-5)

• The Macedonian call (Acts 16:6-10)
• Conversions at Philippi (Acts 16:11-40)

2. Where did Paul go after passing through Syria and Cilicia (1; cf. Acts 15:41)- Lystra and Derbe

3. Who did Paul want to travel with him? What is said about him? (Acts 16:1-2)- A disciple named Timothy

• Son of a Jewish woman who believed, and whose father was Greek
• Well spoken of by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium

4. Why did Paul have him circumcised? (Acts 16:3)- Because of the Jews in that region that knew his father was Greek

• I.e., not to be saved, but to conciliate his relationship with other Jews (cf. w/Titus, Galatians 2:3-5)

5. What did Paul’s company deliver as they traveled? What was the reaction? (Acts 16:4-5)- The decrees to keep as determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem

• The churches were strengthened in number and grew daily

6. How did the Spirit guide Paul’s company in their travels? Where did they wind up? (Acts 16:6-8)- By forbidding them to preach in Asia; not permitting them to go into Bithynia

• In Troas

7. What vision did Paul have? What did he and his companions conclude? (Acts 16:9-10)- A man in Macedonian apparel pleading with him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us”

• The Lord had called them to preach the gospel to those in Macedonia

8. From Troas, where did they go? Who evidently joined them at Troas? (Acts 16:11-12)- Samothrace, Neapolis, and then to Philippi, a major city of Macedonia and Roman colony

• Luke, the author of Acts, as indicated by the pronoun “we”

10. Where did Paul’s company go on the Sabbath? What did they do? (Acts 16:13)- The riverside where prayer was customarily made; they spoke to the women gathered there

11. Who heard them? What kind of woman was she? What happened as she listened? (Acts 16:14)- Lydia, a seller of purple from Thyatira

• A worshiper of God
• The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul

12. What happened next? Afterwards, what did she do? (Acts 16:15)- She and her household were baptized

• She persuaded Paul and his company to stay at her house

13. Who began to follow Paul and his company? What did she do? (Acts 16:16-17)- A slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination, who earned money by fortune telling

• Followed them for many days, saying “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation”

14. Why do you think Paul was greatly annoyed? What did he then do? (Acts 16:18)- Her proclamation was not freely given, by compelled by the spirit that possessed her

• He cast out the spirit in the name of Jesus Christ

15. What sequence of events followed this miracle? (Acts 16:19-24)- Her masters dragged Paul and Silas to the marketplace and before the authorities

• They roused the multitude against Paul and Silas, the magistrates had them beaten with rods
• Paul and Silas were then secured in the inner prison with their feet in stocks

16. What did Paul and Silas do while imprisoned? (Acts 16:25)- Prayed and sang hymns while other prisoners listened

17. What led to the jailer asking what he must do to be saved? (Acts 16:26-30)- There was a great earthquake, all the doors were opened and chains loosened

• The jailer assumes all escaped and was about to kill himself
• Paul stops him, telling him that all the prisoners were present

18. What does Paul say and do in answer to the jailor’s question? (Acts 16:31-32)- Tells him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved

• Speaks the word of the Lord to him and his household

19. What happened that same hour of the night? (Acts 16:33)- The jailer took Paul and Silas and washed their stripes

• The jailer and all his family were baptized immediately

20. What else did the jailer do for Paul and Silas? How would you describe his attitude? (Acts 16:34)- Brought them into his home and fed them

• Happy that he and his household believed in God

21. When word was sent for Paul and Silas to be released, how did Paul respond? (Acts 16:35-37)- He demanded the magistrates appear in person, because they had beaten Romans without being properly condemned

22. How did the magistrates respond? (Acts 16:38-39)- With fear, then personally pleading with Paul and Silas to leave the city

23. Leaving the prison, what did Paul and Silas do before departing the city? (Acts 16:40)- Encouraged the brethren at the house of Lydia

24. Who evidently stayed behind at Philippi? (Acts 16:40)

• Luke, the author of Acts, as indicated by the pronoun “they”

Verse 1 This chapter has the continuation of the second missionary tour, relating the revisiting of Lystra and Derbe (Acts 16:1-5), the Macedonian call (Acts 16:6-10), the conversion of Lydia and others in Philippi (Acts 16:11-15), the healing of the demoniac girl (Acts 16:16-18), beating and imprisonment of Paul and Silas (Acts 16:19-24), earthquake and conversion of the jailer (Acts 16:25-33), and the concluding of their efforts in Philippi, in which Paul and Silas receive the apology of the authorities, are released, and depart from Philippi after seeing the brethren (Acts 16:35-40). And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra; and behold a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek. The same was well reported of by brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. (Acts 16:1-2) LYSTRA AND DERBEPaul’s being stoned at Lystra on the first tour was not an indication of failure, because out of that tragic experience glorious fruit of the gospel appeared. On his second return to Lystra, Paul was rewarded by the emergence of a young convert who was destined to be a faithful companion of the great apostle, and whose name would adorn two of the 27 New Testament books. These verses reveal the good reputation of Timothy, not only in his home community of Lystra, but also in the more important city of Iconium as well. Mother was a Jewess … Her name was Eunice, Timothy’s grandmother (Eunice’s mother) being Lois (2 Timothy 1:5). Luke did not give the names, since he was primarily concerned with the racial problem relating to the circumcision of Timothy. Despite the fact of Timothy’s father being a Greek, Eunice had reared him in the Hebrew faith; and, in this circumstance, Paul decided to circumcise him. Verse 3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.To go forth with him … Paul, seeing in this promising young man the qualities which would commend him to the work of a missionary, decided to take him along on the journey. Circumcised him … This was not for the purpose of enabling Timothy to become a Christian, for that he already was, having obeyed the gospel on the first tour. Neither was it for the purpose of admitting Timothy into any higher fellowship, or any more abundant grace; the reason for it being simply the one bluntly stated: “because of the Jews that were there.” For they all knew his father was a Greek … This is to explain the anticipated objections from Jews. Knowing Timothy’s father was a Greek, they would have assumed that Timothy had never been circumcised. Furthermore, they would have raised trouble for Paul over that issue wherever possible; and therefore, purely as a matter of expediency, Paul met it by the circumcision of Timothy. Those who have accused Paul of inconsistency in this, in the light of his adamant refusal to circumcise Titus (Galatians 2:3), have failed to discern the essential differences in the two situations. Titus, a Greek (thought by some to be Luke’s brother), had no Jewish connection whatever; and there could have been no excuse at all for circumcising him, except, as the Pharisee Christians demanded, that of making his circumcision a precondition of salvation; and that Paul never for a moment allowed. Verse 4 And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered them the decrees to keep, which had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem.The essential message of those decrees was that Gentiles were not to be burdened by circumcision and law-keeping; and by providing copies of them for the young churches, Paul protected them against the devices of the Judaizers. This was the position Paul had required the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to accept. Even the four prohibitions regarding idols, fornication, blood and things strangled were grounded not in the law of Moses primarily, but in God’s teachings which antedated the Mosaic covenant (Genesis 9:3-5). Verse 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.Having been freed, for the time being, from the troublesome insistence of the Judaizers, the churches prospered spiritually and numerically. The issue, however, was not dead; the Pharisee-Christians would trouble the whole world of that day by their efforts to subvert Christianity by mixing elements of Judaism with it; and the issue would not be effectively removed until the armies of Vespasian and Titus removed the Jewish state, the daily sacrifices, and the temple itself in 70 A.D., a full twenty years later. The books of Hebrews and Romans were addressed, in part, to this very issue; and Galatians, written about this time (50 A.D.), is full of it. How strange it is that the Judaizers have never disappeared. Even now, nearly two millenniums afterward, the Judaizers are still in business: (1) attempting to bind sabbath-observance on Christians, (2) dragging instruments of music into the worship (even though David himself was condemned for that), (3) devising daily “sacrifices,” such as that of the Mass, (4) ordaining a “priesthood” separate from the “laity,” (5) the lighting of sacred candles, (6) the requirement of certain periods of official, formal fasts, and (7) the imposition of diet restrictions, etc., etc. Verse 6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.THE CALLPhrygia and Galatia … The exact boundaries of these cannot certainly be known, due to the dual usage of the term “Galatia,” the view preferred here being that the churches of south Galatia (the larger Roman province) which Paul had founded on the first tour were again revisited in this. It is only fair, however, to note that Lightfoot and many others suppose that the more restricted meaning of “Galatia” as applied to the country north of those churches was at this point visited and evangelized by Paul. Here they suppose Paul was delayed by illness (Galatians 4:13), and seized the opportunity of preaching and founding numerous Celtic or Gallic churches which are nowhere mentioned in the book of Acts.[1]Forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia … The word “Asia” here does not refer to the continent, but to the Roman province of that name which lay west of the cities evangelized in south Galatia on the first tour. In it were the great city of Ephesus, and also the other cities mentioned in Revelation: Sardis, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Pergamum, and Thyatira. It was only natural that Paul should have planned to evangelize those places, but the Holy Spirit forbade him. How did this prohibition come to Paul? Was it some subjective impression borne inward upon his soul by God’s Spirit, or did it come in the direct words of some recognized prophet in the early church? In the light of Luke’s own explanation in Acts 20:23 and Acts 21:10, the latter possibility seems the correct one. ENDNOTE: [1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 839. Verse 7 And when they came over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not. And passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.Mysia … was at the northern border between Asia and Bithynia; but when Paul would have passed through Asia into Bithynia, he was again forbidden by the Spirit of God. For more on Troas, see under Acts 20:5. Spirit of Jesus … The Spirit of Jesus is here recognized as exactly the same as the Spirit of God, indicating forcefully that the full deity and godhead of Jesus Christ was fully accepted and received by the Christians at that mid-point of the first century. Plumptre stresses the dogmatic importance of this verse as: Confirming the doctrine that the Holy Spirit stands in the same relationship to the Son as to the Father, and may therefore be spoken of either as the Spirit of God, or of Christ (Romans 8:9), or of Jesus.[2]ENDNOTE: [2] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 104. Verse 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: There was a man of Macedonia standing, beseeching Paul, and saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 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.A vision … Here is an instance in which God evidently spoke to Paul subjectively, by means of a vision; but the element of uncertainty persists in the fact that they “concluded” that God’s message was in the vision, making the decision to rest, in part, upon their deduction, and not as being based on a firm command of the Father. Regarding the prohibitions which had been placed in Paul’s way, forbidding his preaching in Asia and then in Bithynia, and the natural deduction from themselves that they should not return to lands already evangelized, and all this coupled with the instance of Paul’s vision; it is not amiss to discover in the providential guidance thus given Paul a substantial amount of deliberate judgment and common sense; nor does this deny the fact that God actually guided them; it is the manner of his doing so which is apparent here. Straightway we sought to go into Macedonia … Here surfaces the first of the famous “we” passages of Acts, indicating that at Troas Luke became a member of Paul’s company. Boles understood this passage as teaching that Luke was already a preacher of the gospel to the Gentiles, basing it on the following: Concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel unto them … By the use of “us,” Luke showed that “He included himself with Paul, Silas and Timothy as preachers of the gospel."[3]Further comment on Luke is made in the introduction to his Gospel in my Commentary on Luke, pp. 3-6. ENDNOTE: [3] H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1963), p. 255. Verse 11 Setting sail therefore from Troas, we made a straight course to Samothrace, and the day following to Neapolis; and from thence to Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, the first of the district, a Roman colony: and we were in this city tarrying certain days.No mention is made of Paul’s preaching in Troas at this time; yet, a bit later, there is revealed to have been a church there (Acts 20:5). Was that church the result of Luke’s preaching? Given the implied fact of Luke’s being a preacher of the gospel and the usual reticence of the sacred writers to speak of themselves, it may be supposed that he founded the Troas church, but this is not certain. Straight course to Samothrace … This journey in a single day was possible because of a favoring wind; because, “on a later occasion (Acts 20:6), a voyage from Philippi to Troas took five days."[4]Neapolis … means “Newtown”; and they continued there from Samothrace, as Neapolis afforded a more favorable route to Philippi. Philippi … the first of the district … a Roman colony … It is somewhat difficult to know exactly what is indicated by these words. Some have concluded that by “first of the district” Luke meant the most important town in the district, others supposing that it means merely that this was the first city they came to in their journey inland. Arguments may be cited to prove either viewpoint; and perhaps it was both. From the standpoint of Christianity, this is not merely the first of the district, but the first of Europe, for it was here that the gospel message was planted by means of the conversions related in this chapter. The congregation which developed there was very dear to Paul, and to them he addressed the book of Philippians. Historically, it was founded by Philip of Macedon and controlled the gold mines of Pangaeus,[5] thus providing the financial muscle to propel the armies of Alexander the Great to world conquest. The Romans possessed the city following the battle of Pydna, 168 B.C.; and it was here that Brutus and Cassius were defeated by Antony and Octavian in 42 B.C.[6] On January 17,27 B.C., the Roman Senate conferred on this Octavian the title of Augustus Caesar.[7] Philippi was made a Roman colony with many privileges, notably that of citizenship, and was provided with military roads and fortifications. The Egnatian Way, a famous Roman road, passed from Philippi due south some eight miles to the port of Neapolis.[8][4] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 104, [5] The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1962), p. 985. [6] E. M. Blaiklock, Cities of the New Testament (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 39. [7] The Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1961), p. 686. [8] The New Bible Dictionary, op. cit., p. 985. Verse 13 And on the sabbath day we went forth without the gate by a river side, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down, and spake unto the women that were come together.On the sabbath day … There was no synagogue in Philippi, but whatever Jews might have been in the area could have been expected to observe prayers on the sabbath, and the preachers “supposed” such a place of prayer to be a certain site on the river’s edge. If Luke had been a citizen of Philippi, as many have believed, it is rather strange that he would not have known certainly of this place of prayer. Bruce commented that “From this time Luke apparently spent some years in Philippi."[9] The fact of there having been no synagogue means that there were fewer than ten Jewish men living in Philippi, that being the number required before a synagogue could be built.[10] In the absence of a synagogue, the Jews often provided places of prayer by the rivers, or other suitable locations, the custom of going to the rivers for these sites dating from the Babylonian captivity (Psalms 137:1; Ezra 8:15 Ezra 8:21). “Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome and therefore from the colonies (Acts 18:2), and it may be that Philippi had obeyed this order.” The river in this case was the Gangites. [9] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 330. [10] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 256. Verse 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul.Lydia, a seller of purple … An expensive purple dye, made of the murex shell, was one of the most valuable commodities of antiquity; and Lydia’s engaging in trade of such a product surely indicates some considerable capital. This was the dye that gave rise to the words “royal purple,” suggested by the fact that royalty and the extremely rich were the principal purchasers of it. Of Thyatira … What a strange providence is this that, whereas Paul had been forbidden to preach in the province of Asia, in which Thyatira was located, it was nevertheless a citizen of Thyatira who became the first European convert. (Rome of course had many Christians, but it was in character as the great central metropolis of the empire, and not as being in the usual sense European.) One that worshiped God … These words emphasize the deeply religious character of Lydia. Whose heart the Lord opened to give heed … The obvious means by which God opened the heart of Lydia was that of preaching the gospel to her. Since God gave the gospel, the results produced by it were properly said to be God’s action. There is not the slightest suggestion in this place that any fiat on God’s part, or any direct action of the Holy Spirit, performed any kind of operation whatever upon Lydia, independently of the word of the gospel proclaimed to her. Verse 15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.And when she was baptized … As DeWelt observed: The New Testament conversions all end with the baptism of the convert. Not with their prayer experience but with their baptism; not with their testimony, but with their baptism.[11]And why was she baptized? Because the commandment thus to obey the Lord was included in the preaching of these who spoke unto her the word of salvation, there being no other reasonable explanation of why she was baptized. And her household … The allegation that this household included infants is denied by the earlier statements that the evangelists “spake unto the women that were come together” (Acts 16:13), thus making it mandatory to find Lydia’s household in that group of women. The household baptisms of the New Testament afford no support whatever for the notion that infants should be baptized. She constrained us … It is not likely that Paul and company would have accepted any casual invitation to accept accommodations provided by the devout Lydia; however, the manner in which she put the invitation, coupled with her insistence upon it, constrained them. They would not long remain, however; for events would shortly occur which would thrust Paul forward on his journey. ENDNOTE: [11] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 219. Verse 16 And it came to pass, as we were going to the place of prayer, that a certain maid having a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. The same following after Paul and us cried out, saying, These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim unto you the way of salvation. And this she did for many days. But Paul, being sore troubled, turned and said to the spirit, I charge thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And it came out that very hour.As we were going to the place of prayer … Evidently, Paul and company made daily visits to the place of prayer. This caught the attention of the demoniac girl; and, for some time, she made a habit of following them and crying out an endorsement of their message. Spirit of divination … The Greek here has “A Python spirit,” thus Luke identified this unfortunate girl as one coming from the pagan temple at Delphi, where the Pythian Apollo was worshiped, the python being sacred to him, and his devotees being said to have the python spirit. Luke’s identification of this girl with that pagan establishment contains no suggestion whatever of any validity in their outlandish claims. Rather, Paul’s addressing the “spirit” in her clearly indicates exactly the same kind of demon possession so often healed by our Lord. Servants of the Most High God … The Gerasene demoniacs used this same expression regarding Jesus (Mark 5:7), this speech of the girl thus proving the fact of her being possessed by a demon. Paul being sore troubled … Paul’s problem was simple, but difficult as well. The slave-masters who were exploiting this alleged soothsayer were making a lot of money out of her. They knew she was a fraud, else they would have believed it when she identified Luke and Paul and company as servants of the Most High God showing the right way of salvation. Paul therefore knew that if he cast the demon out of her, there would be a sharp conflict with the evil men who owned her. He delayed acting as long as he properly could, hoping perhaps that she would desist; but when she continued, Paul cast the demon out. He, even as the Lord, could not afford an endorsement of one so clearly evil; and furthermore, any sign or miracle that Paul might have performed would have been seized upon by the masters of the girl in an effort to exploit such to their own benefit. Verse 19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they laid hold on Paul and Silas, and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.McGarvey, and others, have pointed out a somewhat humorous pun in Luke’s Greek at this place. He said, “That when the evil spirit WENT OUT, the masters saw that the hope of their gain WENT OUT."[12]The retaliation Paul had evidently feared took place at once. ENDNOTE: [12] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), II, p. 98. Verse 20 And when they had brought them unto the magistrates, they said, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, and set forth customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, or to observe, being Romans.This action was founded on racial hatred, supported by falsehood, aggravated by physical violence on the part of the accusers. The words “rulers” in Acts 16:19 and “magistrates” in Acts 16:20 refer to the same officials, the marketplace corresponding to the forum in Rome. There were two of these magistrates (duumvirs) corresponding to the consuls at Rome. Such officials often “received the courtesy title of `praetors,’ which is the title Luke used here."[13]These men, being Jews … This was the principal basis of the attack on Paul and Silas, Luke and Timothy apparently being allowed to pass unmolested, because being Greeks (Timothy was half Greek), they would not have had the typical Jewish appearance of Paul and Silas. There was nothing honest or forthright about this brutal movement against Paul and Silas, being simply an exercise in spite, brought on by the spoilation of their evil use of the demon-possessed girl.

There was no formal trial of any kind and no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves; it was a case of “mob justice” in which the population willingly participated. The magistrates were shamefully delinquent in their duty in the scene which emerges here. ENDNOTE: [13] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 840. Verse 22 And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrate rent their garments off them, and commanded to beat them with rods. And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely who, having received such a charge, cast them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.Under the system of Roman administration throughout the ancient empire, the police attendants of public officials carried bundles of rods, or cane, bound in a circle around an axe, symbolizing the power of the authorities to chastise and to execute, a representation of this ancient device being visible today on the reverse side of the U.S. dime. Many stripes upon them … The actual beating was inflicted upon the bare flesh, hardly any form of punishment being any more savage and brutal. Three times Paul was thus compelled to suffer for Christ (2 Corinthians 11:25). Inner prison … stocks … The jailer who seems also to have had some knowledge of his prisoners nevertheless resisted any humane impulse that might have come to him; and, instead of “keeping them safely” as charged, added the element of torture to their imprisonment by putting them in stocks. This prevented their being able either to sit up or to lie down, and must have been a most painful and unnecessary humiliation imposed upon them by the pagan jailer. God would speak to him, however, before the night was over. Verse 25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns unto God, and the prisoners were listening to them.This is one of the most thrilling things ever recorded of the apostolic missionaries and has inspired many a sermon and printed article on “Songs at Midnight.” The bleeding, suffering apostles uttering their prayers and singing the praises of God under circumstances such as they were in was something which must indeed have amazed and enthralled the other prisoners. It was midnight, not merely in that jail, but throughout the great pagan empire also, a midnight of morals, humanity, and justice, as well as that of night; but within the inner dungeon there were songs of praise to the true God and suffering saints who offered themselves to the Father in prayer. In a wider sense, the prayers and songs raised at Philippi would at last permeate the pagan empire itself and erect the cathedrals of the historical church upon the ruins of the Roman autocracy. Paul and Silas had the grace to forgive, before they were asked, and to trust where they could not see. Verse 26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison-house were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened; and everyone’s bands were loosed.A great earthquake … In some circumstances it is impossible to draw a line between the natural and the supernatural; but the conduct of the mistreated apostles in that jail was such that, when the earthquake came (from whatever cause), every listener who had heard them praying and singing would at once have concluded that God had thus answered their petitions; and we do not hesitate to draw the same conclusion. The circumstance of every door being opened and all stocks being released encourages the deduction that God here acted on behalf of his servants. Verse 27 And the jailor, being roused out of sleep and seeing the prison doors open, drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.Pagan that he was, the jailer lived by a harsh code and was willing to die by it. Philippi was the place where “Cassius, unable to survive defeat, covered his face in the empty tent, and ordered his freedman to strike the blow."[14] Here his messenger Titinius held it to be a Roman’s part to follow his master as a suicide; and here “Brutus bade adieu to his friends and ended the last struggle for the republic by self-inflicted death."[15]Not many suicides are mentioned in the Bible. There are those of Samson (Judges 16:29-30), Saul and his armor-bearer (1 Samuel 31:4-5; 1 Chronicles 10:4-5); Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17:23), Zimri (1 Kings 16:18), and Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:18). In pagan lands, however, suicide was an accepted manner of solving a problem, as in the case before us. [14] J. S. Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), p. 237. [15] Ibid. Verse 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.The fact of none of the prisoners having fled is itself remarkable, showing that they responded to Paul’s evident insistence that none should seek to escape, which would appear from Paul’s ability in this matter to speak for all of them. There having been no light in the dungeon, some have wondered how Paul saw the jailer; but Harrison observed that “Paul from the inner prison could see the outline of the jailer in the doorway."[16] If the doorway was on a line between the jail and the jailer’s residence (lights had already been lighted in the residence), Paul’s seeing what was going on would have been quite easy. ENDNOTE: [16] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 444. Verse 29 And he called for lights and sprang in, and, trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?What must I do to be saved? … This question occurs at three places in Acts, identically in each instance as to meaning, and varying only slightly in form: (1) “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37), (2) “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), and (3) “What shall I do, Lord?” (Acts 22:10). The answers as given in each instance are: (1) “Repent and be baptized every one of you, etc.” (Acts 2:38), (2) “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31), and (3) “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Why this diversity in the answers? As the late J. H. Childress said, “If one were to ask how to get a Ph.D. degree, a college graduate might be told one thing, a high school graduate another thing, and a boy in grammar school something else, with all of the various answers being strictly true.” It is exactly such a thing which is in view in these passages. Salvation, as proclaimed in the New Testament, requires, absolutely, that sinners should: (a) Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (b) Repent of their sins and transgressions (c) Be baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. In (1), above, the people on Pentecost had already met requirement (a), and were therefore told to fulfill (b) and (c). In (2), above, the jailer had fulfilled no requirement at all, so the apostles told him to fulfill (a), not with any view of exempting him from (b) and (c), but as the thing to be done first. Proof that he fulfilled the other two is seen in his repentance and baptism “the same hour of the night.” In (3), above, Saul of Tarsus was already a believer and had been in penitent prayer for three days and nights; therefore, the inspired preacher told him to fulfill (c), “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, etc.” (Acts 22:16). The advocates of “faith only” as God’s plan of redemption for alien sinners take their stand upon the filmsiest of foundations when they attempt to make Paul’s instructions to this jailer as to what he should do first a statement of ALL that he was commanded to do. The narrative itself effectively refutes the “faith only” theorists. Verse 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house:Spake the word of the Lord … A great deal of teaching was most certainly included in the midnight instructions which the apostolic preacher provided, much of which we may only guess about, with reference to content; but one thing is certain: “the word of the Lord” which they addressed to him included the commandment that he should be baptized into Christ. The fact that men deny this is not any more amazing than Satan’s denial of God’s word to Eve, when the evil one said, “Ye shall not surely die.” Verse 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.This is another so-called “household” baptism; but no infants were mentioned; and the fact of Paul and Silas having spoken unto them the word of the Lord (Acts 16:32) proves that no infants are in view here. The jailer did not merely “believe” in the Lord; he repented of his sins, as indicated by the washing of stripes he himself might have inflicted. That he was also baptized is clearly stated, not as something which he eventually did, but as being done “immediately,” the same hour of the night. If there was any device by which the Holy Spirit might have revealed to men any more certainly that baptism was a requirement of this jailer to be met before he could be saved, this writer cannot imagine what it might have been. Verse 34 And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.Having believed in God … is used as a synecdoche here for the whole bundle of things by which he had become a follower of Christ; and this use of such a figure to stand for the various things he had already done is exactly the same as the use of it earlier for the various things he was required to do. Thus, here is a perfect example of how Paul and the other New Testament writers used “faith” or “believe” as a short form for a number of related actions. Rejoiced greatly … The rejoicing followed his baptism, as so frequently in the New Testament; and as DeWelt was quoted earlier, “The conversions in the New Testament end, not with the testimony of the converts, but with their baptism.” Scriptural conversion does not exist apart from it. Verse 35 But when it was day, the magistrates sent the sergeants, saying, Let these men go.There could have been some second thoughts on their part about the illegal proceedings of the day before; and by such a release of the prisoners they probably hoped to forestall any repercussions. Verse 36 And the jailor reported the words to Paul, saying, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore come forth, and go in peace.Go in peace … This seems to imply that one of the conditions of their release was that the preachers should leave town; but if that was their intention, the magistrates were in for a shock. Verse 37 But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men that are Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they cast us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and bring us out.Paul said unto them … Not the jailer only, but the sergeants also, were addressed. Men that are Romans … This indicates that Silas also was a Roman citizen, that possibly being one of the reasons Paul had for choosing him for the journey. It is a mistake to suppose that Paul misrepresented the facts in claiming for Silas an equal status with himself as a Roman citizen. One is amazed that some commentators suggest such a thing. Let them come themselves and bring us out … The crime committed by the magistrates in beating and imprisoning Roman citizens without due process of law was a serious one. “The Valerian and Porcian laws exempted Romans from degrading forms of punishment,"[17] and these had been in force for centuries. No documentation was required. The simple statement, “I am a Roman citizen,” took all proceedings against a prisoner out of the hands” of local authorities. If it be wondered why Paul and Silas did not make such declarations the day before as they were being punished, the answer is that they did. As Hervey said, “The magistrates probably refused to listen”;[18] and it was probably their remembrance of such protests that led to their reversal of judgment so early the next day. There is also the possibility that the ones in charge of the beating did not communicate the protest to the magistrates. Paul’s refusal to leave the jail, however, except on condition of being personally escorted out of it by the magistrates was a master stroke. It did much to establish the legality of their deeds in the popular mind and was doubtless a source of infinite encouragement to the brethren. Moreover, the implied condition (at first) to the effect that they should get out of town was also negated. Despite the fact of Paul’s probable intention of soon leaving Philippi, he avoided any appearance of being thrown out of the city. [17] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 340. [18] A. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Vol. 18, 2p. 32. Verse 38 And the sergeants reported these words unto the magistrates: and they feared when they heard they were Romans; and they came and besought them; and when they had brought them out, they asked them to go away from the city.They feared … This was natural, because there were instances of very high Roman officials losing their positions and suffering drastic penalties for violating the traditional laws regarding citizens. They besought them … In context, this was humiliating to the magistrates; and their consenting to do it is a measure of their concern over violations they had committed. The facts here, with the words “when they heard they were Romans,” strongly suggest that Paul and Silas’ protests at the time of punishment were not relayed to the magistrates. They asked them to go away … The words show that the apostles were not ordered, but requested, to leave the city, a request Paul and company honored, after due deliberation, and without doing so hastily. Verse 40 And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed.Perhaps it was already time for Paul to leave. The hatred incurred by the healing of the demoniac, the unwillingness of the magistrates for them to remain there, and the fact that staunch converts to the faith had already been won; and, over and beyond all this, the call of many cities and villages where the gospel had never been heard - all these things would have inclined Paul to honor the request of the magistrates and depart. He did not leave, however, without returning again to the hospitable home of Lydia, where, probably, the brethren gathered to be comforted and to express their fond farewells. They comforted them … means that the apostles, especially Paul and Silas, comforted the brethren! There is something astounding about this. Those men who had been so shamefully treated, abused, beaten, illegally cast into prison, suffering the torture of stocks in the inner dungeon - those men comforted the brethren! How noble, unselfish and beautiful is that scene in which men whose backs were still raw and bloody from the scourge are cast in the role of comforters for young Christians whose distress at such events, while real enough, was nevertheless mental rather than physical. This is one of the grandest statements in Scripture.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 161. What was Paul’ s first stop ? 2. Tell whom he found at this place. 3. Explain his nationality. 4. What was his reputation ? 5. State what Paul wished him to do. 6. What did he do to him first? 7. Harmonize this with previous chapter. 8. As they journeyed what did they deliver ? 9. Where had these been ordained ? 10. State the progress made by the churches. 11. What restrictions were made on them by the Holy Ghost? 12. To what city did they finally come? 13. What appeared to Paul? 14. State the call made on him. 15. What assurance did Paul have now? 16. Name their first important stop. 17. What colony was here? 18. To where did they go on the Sabbath day ? 19. Tell what often took place here. 20. Who were resorting here? 21. Name one of Paul’ s hearers. 22. Was she a religious woman ? 23. How much of her family was baptized ? 24. What request did she make? 25. Who met Paul on the way to prayer service? 26. State the use her masters made of her. 27. Repeat her statement about Paul and Silas. 28. Was this the truth? 29. Why should Paul object to her? 30. What fact angered her masters? 31. To what place did they draw the preachers? 32. State the accusations lodged against them. 33. Was any part of them true ? 34. What was first done to Paul and Silas ? 35. State the charge given to the jailer. 36. How did he arrange to observe this charge? 37. Where and when was the next prayer service ? 38. Was it a secret prayer? 39. What happened then? 40. Did this release Paul and Silas? 41. Explain action of the jailer in 27th verse. 42. How were the preachers released ? 43. Repeat the inquiry of the jailer. 44. Why was he told only to believe ? 45. What was further spoken unto him ? 46. Who were baptized? 47. When was it done ? 48. Was it done in the house? 49. What act of hospitality did the jailer show ? 50. Show that no infants were baptized here. 51. Give the magistrates’ orders in the morning. 52. Why would Paul go? 53. How was Paul a Jew, also a Roman? 54. How did this fact- impress the magistrates ? 55. Describe their conduct toward Paul and Silas. 56. Into what house did they enter ?

Acts 16:1-40

Acts 16:6. This Asia was one of the smaller provinces of Asia Minor. We are not told why the Lord did not want them to do any preaching in that territory.

Acts 16:2

2Act 16:2. This disciple had a good reputation at Lystra and Iconium.

Acts 16:3

3Act 16:3. Circumcism was a Jewish rite, and the national blood was in the veins of Timothy which made it right for him to be circumcized. Because of the Jews. The rite was not necessary to salvation (Galatians 5:6), but Paul performed it on Timothy on the principle of 1 Corinthians 9:20.

Acts 16:4

4Acts 16:4. The decrees refers to the requirements stated in chapter 15:29. Note that they were ordained by the apostles and the elders of the Jerusalem church, hence not a decision of a “council of churches” as Rome teaches.

Acts 16:5

5Acts 16:5. Churches established. The starting of a church is not the same as establishing one. That has to be done by additional instruction concerning Christian duties.

Acts 16:7

7Acts 16:7. Mysia and Bithynia were in another part of Asia Minor than the Asia of the preceding verse. Paul assayed or made plans to do some work in those parts but was not permitted to do so because the Lord had other work for them to do.

Acts 16:8-9

9Acts 16:8-9. In obedience to the divine orders, Paul journeyed on until he came to Troas, the Troy of history. This is the time and place where the familiar Macedonian call was made upon Paul in a vision. The Gospel had never been preached in Macedonia, hence this will be new territory and the real start of his “second missionary journey.”

Acts 16:10

0Acts 16:10. Vision is from HOROMA which Thayer defines, “That which is seen, a sight, spectacle; a sight divinely granted in an ecstacy, a vision.” We endeavored means they made preparations for the voyage. The first personal pronoun we denotes that Luke was in the group with Paul. Assuredly gathering means that they concluded with certainty.

Acts 16:11-12

2Act 16:11-12. Samothracia was an island where Paul made his first stop over night. Next day he sailed on and landed at Neapolis on the coast of Macedonia. He went on to Philippi for the first stop of some days. This place was important because of its being a Roman colony. That means a commu nity of Roman citizens located there in Macedonia, but remaining subject to the mother country. (See verse 21.)

Acts 16:13

3Act 16:13. The sabbath did not mean anything special to Paul except as an opportunity to preach to some people. Out by a river side some women were wont (accustomed) to conduct a prayer meeting on the sabbath, day. Paul entered into the group and began talking to them about the Gospel.

Acts 16:14

4Acts 16:14. Smith’s Bible Dictionary says Lydia was a Jewish proselyte, which accounts for her being present at the prayer meeting on the sabbath day, and also explains why she worshipped God. One meaning of opened is to have things explained so that the heart (mind) could understand what is said. The Lord did this for Lydia through the preaching of Paul, and the result was that she attended or accepted it.

Acts 16:15

5Acts 16:15. When she was baptized. The wording of this phrase takes it for granted that a penitent believer in the Gospel will obey it. Her household. One part of the lexicon definition of this word is, “the inmates of a house”; it does not necessarily mean that they are related to each other. The inmates of Lydia’s house were able to attend to the things spoken by Paul. Judged me to be faithful means that they regarded her as a true convert, and would be pleased to be her guests for some time.

Acts 16:16

6Acts 16:16. This damsel did not possess anything supernatural as a bestowal from God. She had some kind of factulty by which she bewitched her patrons and made them think she could foretell events. She was somewhat like the modern “fortunetellers,” and brought a good income for her sponsors.

Acts 16:17

7Acts 16:17. All that the girl said was the truth concerning Paul and his group, but the Lord will not accept testimony from such characters as she.

Acts 16:18

8Acts 16:18. Paul became tired of being hounded by this troublesome person. Said to the spirit. Whatever faculty she had -of an extraordinary kind was what Paul commanded to leave the damsel, so that she would not have ability to mislead the people.

Acts 16:19-24

shameful treatment mentioned is recorded in Acts 16:19-24, after which they came to Thessalonica. But the persecution did not keep them from continuing their good work of preaching the Gospel. Instead, it made them bold (“confi-dent”–Thayer) in speaking it to them. Contention means earnestness and anxiety, which describes the attitude of Paul on account of the opposition that had been waged against him. In other words, Paul regarded the issues as being a contest between truth and error, and he was determined to perform his part of the struggle with the same zeal that men showed when they entered the arena of the athletic games.

Acts 16:20-21

1Act 16:20-21. They were not fair enough to state their true grievance, that they had been shorn of their means of unrighteous gain. Instead, they dealt only in generalities, and made false charges against Paul and Silas about their teaching. Being Romans is explained at verse 12.

Acts 16:22

2Act 16:22. Rent off their clothes in order to administer a scourging. That was done by requiring the victim to lie down with his naked back exposed to the scourger, and a heavy thong of leather or ropes was lashed across the body.

Acts 16:23

3Act 16:23. Stripes means wounds made by blows inflicted with a heavy whip. The original for safely is defined “assuredly” in Thayer’s lexicon, which denotes to take every precaution possible to prevent the prisoners from escaping.

Acts 16:24

4Acts 16:24. Such a charge indicated that the jailor felt a special responsibility for keeping of the prisoners. Stocks is from XULON and the primary definition is, “that which is made of wood.” Thayer describes the instrument as follows: “A log or timber with holes in which the feet, hands, neck of prisoners were inserted and fastened with thongs.” Inner prison means a cell with its own door locked, on the inside of the general prison which is also enclosed with locked doors.

Acts 16:25

5Acts 16:25. Persecution can torture and hamper the body, but it cannot affect the spirit of a devoted servant of God, except to stir it to greater praises to Him who always hears the prayers of the righteous. Those of Paul and Silas were expressed at an hour of the night when men are usually asleep. The righteous men here were tortured into sleeplessness, but their songs of praise to God rang out into the midnight darkness and awakened the other prisoners.

Acts 16:26

6Acts 16:26. The power that loosened the doors and bands was the same that released Peter in chapter 12:7-10. With God one miracle is as easy as another.

Acts 16:27

7Acts 16:27. The Lord would not interfere with the Just operation of secular government. Doubtless the other prisoners were being held lawfully, and God would not perform a “jail delivery” in opposition to the law. Hence he unfastened all the fetters but saw to it that no one escaped. It was sure death to a jailor to let his prisoners escape, especially after receiving such a charge (verse 24). He thought he would prefer suicide to the shame of being executed for failure in his duties.

Acts 16:28

8Acts 16:28. All was darkness, yet Paul knew the jailor was about to kill himself. Loud noise was necessary to overcome the frenzy of the officer. We are all here was spoken by divine knowledge, for Paul could not have seen all the conditions naturally.

Acts 16:29

9Acts 16:29. Called for a light was necessary because it was utter darkness in the cell where Paul and Silas were held. Sprang in means he rushed in excitedly and with trembling. He fell down before Paul and Silas because the miracle convinced him these men had been imprisoned unjustly.

Acts 16:30

0Acts 16:30. Brought them out indicates the preachers were taken outside the jail. What must I do to be saved? The jailor knew that Paul and Silas were religious men, and that their imprisonment was in connection with their religious belief. But being a heathen, he knew nothing of the merits of their teachings. Now the miraculous demonstration on behalf of them convinced him that they represented some great and righteous Being, whose law it would be dangerous to ignore. That also made him realize that he was due to suffer some kind of punishment unless something was done to prevent it, hence the question he asked of Paul and Silas.

Acts 16:31-32

2Act 16:31-32. The jailor was a heathen and knew only the worship of idol gods. Paul’s answer to his question meant only to cite him to the proper source of salvation. It was like telling an inquiring patient to put his trust in Doctor Blank, with the understanding, of course, that he would show confidence by doing what the doctor told him to do. We know that was all the statement of Paul meant, for he immediately spake unto him the word of the Lord, which would have been unnecessary had the answer in verse 31 been all the jailor needed to do to be saved.

Acts 16:33-34

4Acts 16:33-34. Here was a situation similar to that in chapter 8:35, 36. In one verse Philip preached Jesus and in the next the eunuch asked to be baptized. In our present case the preachers spoke the word of the Lord, then the hearer arranged to be baptized. All of this shows that “the word of the Lord” means the commandments of the Lord including baptism. Acts 16:30 says the jailor brought them out, and then verse 34 says he brought them into his house.

The baptizing took place between the two movements, which is explained by the act of immersion which requires their going to some place where there was plenty of water. Washed their stripes means the jailor bathed the wounds that the magistrates had inflicted on Paul and Silas, as a means of giving them some relief from their injuries. After the baptism the jailor served food to the preachers, while he and his household rejoiced in their newly-found religion.

Acts 16:35-36

6Acts 16:35-36. The officers evidently had learned something of the situation, and knew they had violated the law by their brutal treatment of the missionaries. They wished to get rid of them in as quiet a manner as possible. The jailor passed the word on to Paul and Silas and told them they might go.

Acts 16:37

7Acts 16:37. Paul felt that such an unjust treatment as had been publicly inflicted on them should be reversed in as public a manner also. He refused to go in such a humiliating manner and demanded the responsible officers come in person and release them.

Acts 16:38

8Acts 16:38. Being a Roman citizen entitled one to special consideration, and Paul and Silas had been denied such favors.

Acts 16:39

9Acts 16:39. In their anxiety over the unlawful treatment of the prisoners, the officers came in person and very respectfully requested them to leave.

Acts 16:40

0Acts 16:40. Paul and Silas did not leave the city until they had first visited the church in the house of Lydia, the first convert they had made in the place. It is remarkable that the very ones who had been the victims of cruel persecution were the ones to offer comforting words to others.