Acts 14:28

And there they abode long time with the disciples.

And [there] they abode. [The bracketed word has but slender authority].

Long time, [ chronon (G5550 ) ouk (G3756 ) oligon (G3641 ), 'no little time'] with the disciples - how long cannot be certainly determined; but since, from the commencement of the mission until they left Antioch to go up to attend the council at Jerusalem, some four or five years elapsed, and since the missionary journey would occupy less than two years, the difference would be the period of their stay at Antioch. (But see Chronological Table.)

Remarks:

(1) The carping character of the objections made by the Tubingen school of critics to the historical credibility of this book is nowhere more contemptible than in this chapter. The remarks of Baur, of Zeller, and of Schwegler on the sameness of the incidents in different places-on the suspicious resemblance of the cure of this Lystran cripple to times of Peter; on the speech of Lycaonia, as a clumsy invention of the writer; on the legendary character of the worship offered to the missionaries; and on the Jewish character of the expostulation addressed to the rude pagans: these objections have so little even of the semblance of force, that instead of its being necessary to refute them, the difficulty is to conceive how acute critics should waste their time in hunting for them and holding them up. Such arguments-though here and there we are compelled to notice them-we cannot disfigure our pages by refuting in detail. But it may not be out of place to warn young students against being carded away by that show of acute and learned criticism with which these laborious triflers contrive to conceal the shallowness of their argumentation.

(2) At the very opening of this precious History it was observed that it is not so ranch a Record of "the Acts of the Apostles," as of the actings of the glorified Redeemer Himself, who, as Lord of the Church which He hath purchased with His own blood, employed His apostles and others to gather, to organize, and to feed that Church. Such is the view of the Church on earth which this chapter presents to our view. Thus, at Iconium, "long time abode Paul and Barnabas there, speaking boldly in reliance on the Lord (Jesus), who gave testimony to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands." On their way home from this missionary tour they committed all the churches they had formed at their first visit-at Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch - "to the Lord (Jesus) on whom they had believed;" and in reporting at Antioch all their proceedings, they did but "rehearse all that God, had done with them" (as His instruments), and "how He had opened to the Gentiles a door of faith." If this view of the present relation of Christ in heaven to the Church on earth be steadily borne in mind, it will not only throw a glory around this Book of the Church in its earliest stage, but transfigure the true history of the Church of Christ in every age.

(3) The exclamation of the Lycaonians as to Barnabas and Paul, that "the gods had come down to them in the likeness of men," shows what a yearning there is in the hearts even of the most unenlightened tribes after the Incarnation of the invisible Godhead; even as the glad reception of it, with the deep spiritual repose and the elevation of humanity itself which the true Incarnation has imparted, is evidence enough that this is the consummation of the eternal purposes of love to men.

(4) What a contrast does the horror of Barnabas and Paul at the attempted worship of them by the simple Lycaonians present to the self-satisfaction which the idolatrous adulation of the people gave to Herod Agrippa, when they shouted, "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man," and for which the angel of the Lord smote him with the horrible disease of which he died! (Acts 12:21.) But in the light of this horror of our missionaries, what are we to think of that clerical ambition which, once indulged, craved its continuance and growth until nothing would content it short of claims nakedly idolatrous. 'And what would these apostles have done (say Leonhard and Spiegel, quoted by Lechler) if they had seen the adoration of their pretended bones, the worship of their images, and the idolatry which is now practiced with them?' And is the spirit which loves to be so regarded quite dead in some Protestant Churches!

(5) In Paley's incomparable Horae Paulinae-the object of which is to demonstrate the truth of the apostolic Church History, from a great number of 'Undesigned Coincidences' between the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles-an argument is built on the stoning of Paul at Lystra, recorded in this chapter, which is too beautiful not to be here extracted. '"Once (saith Paul) was I stoned" (2 Corinthians 11:25). Does the history relate that Paul, prior to the writing of this letter, had been stoned more than once? The history mentions distinctly one occasion upon which Paul was stoned-namely, at Lystra in Lycaonia. "There came there certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul drew him out of the city, supposing had been dead" (Acts 14:19). And it mentions also another occasion in which "an assault was made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them;" but "they were ware of it (the history proceeds to tell us) and fled unto Lystra and Derbe." This happened at Iconium prior to the date of this [second] letter [to the Corinthians]. Now had the assault been completed-had the history related that a stone was thrown, as it relates that preparations were made both by Jews and Gentiles to stone Paul and his companions; or even had the account of this transaction stepped, without going on to inform us that Paul and his companions "were aware of their danger and fled" - a contradiction between the history and the letter would have ensued. Truth is necessarily consistent; but it is scarcely possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, should thus advance to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it.'

(6) The three-fold procedure of Paul and Barnabas, in revisiting the young churches gathered out by them at their former visit, forms a noble model for that of the Christian churches in our own day whose missionaries are engaged in similar work to that here recorded. First, they "confirm the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the Faith" which they had embraced, and forewarning them of the trials through which they must pass to glory. This was the ministration of the word, which must lie at the foundation of all establishment in the faith and growth in grace. Next, they proceed to organize them, so that they might have within themselves the means of their own consolidation, nurture, and extension. Nor did they do this for them: they simply presided over and directed their own choice of elders from among themselves. 'And yet (as Lechler says) these were youthful communities, in which as yet no long Christian experience, no stedfastness of Christian character, no deep insight, could be sought.' To this it may not be amiss to add the observations of Baumgarten-`It has been a question whether in this organization of their body the Christians were permitted to cooperate, or whether the apostles in these regulations acted as possessing fullness of power, and of themselves nominated and appointed these presbyters.

From all that we have hitherto discovered in the work before us, of the relation subsisting between the apostles and the believers, we find it antecedently impossible to suppose this. It is true, these believers are but recent converts; but still they are unhesitatingly spoken of as believers in the Lord (Acts 14:23), and as such they are partakers of the same Spirit which fills the apostles. Now it is inconceivable that such communion of the Spirit should not have been duly recognized in a matter like this, which most immediately concerned the believers. And, inasmuch as the mode of proceeding in the election of the seven deacons stands forth as a model at all times for the initiatory organization of churches, it is impossible to suppose that in the times immediately succeeding the apostles, the concurrence of the laity in the nomination of bishops should have been held to be so essential as was undeniably the case (see Guericke, 'Christliche Archaeologie,' English translation, pp. 37, 38, and Augusti 'Denkwurdigkeiten,' 11: 259, etc.), unless this had been the practice from the very beginning of the Gentile Church, at whose threshold we are now standing.

On this supposition, the custom of the apostolical missionaries to leave the several bands of Christian converts for a while, to follow a purely internal development becomes easily explicable; for in this period it was the apostle's object that the several characters and capacities which the Holy Spirit had called into being should manifest and distinguish themselves, in order to their attaining to their appropriate position and employment in the Church, by the judgment of the whole body and the ratification of the apostles.' But lastly, our apostolic missionaries spent with each of these young Christian churches a season of prayer with fasting, that they might solemnly "commit them to the Lord on Whom they had believed." What paternal wisdom and grace did this three-fold treatment of these young churches display!

(7) Though the Gentile church at Antioch would to a large extent be prepared for the tidings brought them by Paul and Barnabas, of considerable accessions to Christ from among the pagan of other places, the extent to which Gentile Christianity had spread, could not fail to astonish them; anti taking this in connection with the systematic, persevering, and deadly opposition of the heads of the Jewish community, and most of all when the Gentiles were addressed and appeared ready to flock under the wing of Christ, the impression would grow upon them that the Gospel, spurned away by the Jews, was now to find its home among the Gentiles, and that their own Antioch-honoured to be the birthplace of Gentile Christianity-ought now to consecrate its chief strength to the extension of the Faith and Church of Christ over the wide pagan world, at least to the extent of not grudging its great teachers to that work whenever the providence of God and their own missionary impulses should call for the surrender of them, as in course of time we shall find was the case. (8) The 14th verse of this chapter raises some important questions which may fitly be noticed here. First, Were there more apostles in the strict sense of that term, than the original Twelve; including Matthias, whose appointment in the room of Judas came as near as possible, in the manner of it, to that in which the Twelve were selected and set apart? Second, Since Paul was confessedly on a level, in point of apostolic authority, with these Twelve, are we to regard his case as exceptional; or was he but one of an extended apostolate, which included Barnabas and others in the apostolic age? Third, Even supposing the apostleship of Paul to have been exceptional, must we not still admit that there existed in the apostolic age-outside this circle-a more extended though perhaps lower apostleship, in which are to be reckoned Barnabas and others? Fourth, Should this be granted, was such an apostolate designed to continue in the Church of Christ; and are its permanent possessors the prelatical bishops of those churches which are constituted on the hierarchical principal?-What were the qualifications for the apostleship, in the strictly official sense of that term?

(a) The ability to attest the resurrection of Christ, from having seen Him after He rose from the dead (Acts 1:21; Acts 22:14; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8).

(b) An immediate divine call (Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1).

(c) The possession of miraculous gifts (2 Corinthians 12:12; Romans 15:18).

(d) The consciousness of infallible guidance (Acts 15:28) and of divine authority for the government of the Church 2 Corinthians 10:8).

Now, were these qualifications transmitted, or in their nature transmissible, beyond the apostolic age? With the first age of the Church they of necessity expired; and certainly the whole procedure in the upper room, in the matter of a successor to Judas, supposes the office to be special and intransmissible. In this case the apostleship of Paul must needs have been exceptional. So be himself represents it in 1 Corinthians 15:8; and while every other allusion which he makes to it is of the same tenor, there is nothing anywhere said of Barnabas which clearly ascribes to him the above qualifications. But neither must we, on the other hand, overlook certain facts, which seem to imply that in some sense the term apostle was applied to others besides Paul and the Eleven. Thus, in the verse which has given occasion to these remarks, "the apostles Barnabas and Paul:" compare also Acts 14:4, "Part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles" - meaning Paul and Barnabas.

In confirmation of this we are referred to 1 Corinthians 9:5, where Paul claims the rights of the apostleship for Barnabas as well as himself, as being engaged in the same apostolic work; also Galatians 2:9, where both are spoken of as engaged in the apostleship of the Gentiles. Again, the risen Saviour "was seen (says Paul) of Cephas, then of the Twelve, after that of above five hundred brethren at once ... after that of James, then of all the apostles" (1 Corinthians 15:5) - as if there were many such in addition to "the Twelve." Then, to the Galatians (Galatians 1:19) Paul says, "Other of the apostles saw I none, except James, the Lord's brother" - who certainly was not one of the Twelve, and yet seems here to be called an apostle. Further, we read of "false teachers, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:13); and the great Head of all the churches commends Ephesus for having "tried them which said they were apostles, and were not, and had found them liars" (Revelation 2:2) - as if the number of the apostles had not been so restricted as to preclude deceitful workers from transforming themselves into such, and with such plausible pretensions as to require to be tested before the deceit could be detected.

In a word, we are referred to Romans 16:7 - "Salute Andronicus and Junia (if the name be that of a woman, or 'Junias,' if a man be intended) ... who are of note among the apostles" - which, it is alleged, most naturally means, 'who are noted apostles.' Of these arguments some appear to have hardly any force. Thus, in the last passage, if the person named along with Andronicus is properly rendered Junia, and denotes a woman, few will think that a female apostle is here meant, or that there were any such; and as to the allegation that 'noted apostles' is the natural sense of the words, it is enough to say that a majority of the best critics hold the reverse (see our comment on that verse), and take them same sense as our translators. Then, the argument drawn from 1 Corinthians 15:5 - "seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve ... after that of above five hundred brethren at once

... then of all the apostles" - would seem to prove too much; not only implying that the apostolate was extended far beyond limits of the Twelve even before Christ left the earth-which who can readily believe?-but giving to this additional company of apostles a place (after the "five hundred brethren") very unlike what one would expect of such a body.

On Galatians 1:19 - "Other of the apostles saw I none save James, the Lord's brother" - it is unsafe to rely, as the statement is so ambiguous on this particular point that some think it proof positive that his James is here named as one of the Twelve; while others think that the apostle means here to ascribe no apostleship to this, James at all, and that the meaning simply is, 'Other of the apostles saw I none-but James, the Lord's brother, I did see.' (See the note on that verse.) The argument from the pretensions to apostleship which some false teachers advanced (2 Corinthians 11:13), and whom the Ephesian church is commended for having tried and detected (Revelation 2:2), is much more was plausible; since it seems hard to conceive how, if the apostolate was limited to the original number-only Paul being exceptionally added-such pretensions could be advanced at all, or need to be tried. But why should it be presumed that the limitation of the apostolate, and the exceptional character of Paul's apostleship, must have been so well known to all the churches that no false teacher could have the face to pretend that his claim to the apostleship was as valid as Paul's, or if he did, that the imposture would so immediately discover itself to all real Christians as to supersede the necessity of trying him? Surely this is too much to presume, and our own impression is quite the reverse.

One argument, then, alone remains, which to us appears to have real force-the way in which Barnabas is spoken of in connection with Paul. Supposing Barnabas to have been an apostle, in all respects officially equal with Paul, the language employed in speaking of him is certainly quite suitable; and had we no reasons for coming to a different conclusion, that sense would be quite natural. The only question then is, Do they admit naturally of a sense which would exclude Barnabas from official equality with Paul, or from the apostleship in any strict sense? Two of them surely do. In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul is merely asserting his right to temporal maintenance and the ordinary comforts of domestic life, against those who insinuated that indulgences of this nature were not consistent in those who advanced the high claims which Paul did; and in self-defense he asks whether that was unlawful in him which was permitted to the other apostles, to the brethren of the Lord, and to Cephas, and whether he and Barnabas who were fellow-workers in all the same fields of labour, were to be singled out as alone, of all these, unworthy of such rights.

But does not the apostle expressly say, "we as well as other apostles" (Acts 14:5)? True; but, besides that he has himself chiefly in view in that "we," everyone must see that he is writing (or dictating) with no regard to rigid accuracy of arrangement; for after saying "we as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord," he adds, "and Cephas" - as if Cephas had not himself been one of those other apostles. The other passage (Galatians 2:9) seems less decisive, as it merely affirms that in the dispute about circumcision, when "James, Cephas, and John" - who seemed to be "pillars" of the Jewish party-perceived the grace that was given to Paul, they gave the right hand of fellowship to him and his companion, Barnabas, who together represented and stood for Gentile liberty, and came to the understanding that the two parties should divide the field between them; the one taking charge of the Jewish, the other of the Gentile department.

This, therefore, proves nothing. It only remains, then, to explain our own verse - Acts 14:14 - "the apostles Barnabas and Paul." That the historian does here (and in Acts 14:4) class both under one denomination - "apostles" - is plain enough. But in what sense? Not merely as Paul's companion, but in their missionary character. In no other character had Paul as yet stood forth among his brethren. His distinctively official apostolic authority had as yet no scope for its exercise. And since in the missionary character of his apostleship there was no perceptible, and hardly any real difference-if any at all-between him and Barnabas, why might not our historian, with propriety enough, style them both "apostles," without implying that there was not, and never would be, any difference between the two as apostles? If this be correct, it is easy to see how a certain laxity in the use of the term "apostle" - even by Paul himself, whenever he had not to maintain his own strict apostleship-and so by our historian, might obtain currency, and get into the phraseology of the early Church, without implying that an extended apostolate, to be perpetuated in the Church's bishops, was from the first understood to exist. Such, accordingly, we find to be the fact. The name of 'apostles' was given even to the Seventy disciples by Irenaeus and Tertullian (toward the close of the second and beginning of the third century), and several other fathers write as if there were many apostles. Yet these same writers carefully distinguish between such and the original apostles, strictly so called. As to the figment of an episcopal succession of such apostles, heirs to the original office, there is about as little to support it in solid patristic evidence as there is warrant for it in Scripture.