Acts 13:9-11

Then Saul (who also is called Paul).

The crisis in Saul’s history and his change of name

From this point Paul appears as the great figure in every picture, and Barnabas falls into the background. The great apostle now enters on his work as preacher to the Gentiles; and simultaneously his name is changed. As “Abram” was changed into “Abraham” when God promised that he should be the “father of many nations”; as “Simon” was changed into “Peter” when it was said, “On this rock I will build My Church”; so Saul is changed into “Paul” at the moment of his victory among the heathen. What the plains of Mamre were to the patriarch, what Caesarea Philippi was to the fisherman of Galilee, that was Paphos to the tent maker of Tarsus. Are we to suppose that the name was now given for the first time--that he adopted it as significant of his own feelings--or that Sergius Paulus conferred it on him in grateful commemoration of the benefits he had received, or that “Paul,” having been a Gentile form of the apostle’s name in early life conjointly with the Hebrew “Saul,” was now used to the exclusion of the other to indicate that he had receded from his position as a Jewish Christian, to become the friend and teacher of the Gentiles? We are inclined to the opinion that the Cilician apostle had this Roman name before he was a Christian. This adoption of a Gentile name is so far from being alien to the spirit of a Jewish family, that a similar practice may be traced through all the periods of Hebrew history. Beginning with the Persian epoch (B.C. 550-350), we find such names as Nehemiah, Sehammai, Betteshazzar, which betray an oriental origin, and show that Jewish appellatives followed the growth of the living language. In the Greek period we encounter the names of Philip, and his son Alexander, and of Alexander’s successors--Antiochus, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, Antipater; the names of Greek philosophers, such as Zeus and Epicurus; even Greek mythological names, as Jason and Menelaus. When we mention the Roman names adopted by the Jews the coincidence is still more striking--Crispus, Justus, Niger, Drusilla and Priscilla might have been Roman matrons. The Aquila of St. Paul is the counterpart of the Apella of Horace. Again, in the earlier part of the Middle Ages we find Jews calling themselves Basil, Leo, Theodosius, Sophia, and in the latter part Albert, Benedict, Crispin, Denys. It is indeed remarkable that the separated nation should bear in the very names recorded in its annals the trace of every nation with whom it has come in contact and never united. It is important to our present purpose to remark that double names often occur in combination, the one national, the other foreign. The earliest instances are Belteshazzar-Daniel and Esther-Hadasa. Frequently there was no resemblance or natural connection between the two words, as in Herod-Agrippa, Salome-Alexandra, Inda-Aristobulus, Simon Peter. Sometimes the meaning was reproduced, as in Malich-Kleodemus. At other times an alliterating resemblance of sound seems to have dictated the choice, as in Jose-Jason, Hillel-Julus, Saul-Paulus. Thus satisfactory reasons can be adduced for the apostle’s double name without having recourse to the hypothesis of Jerome, who suggests that as Scipio was called Africanus from the conquest of Africa, and Metellus Creticus from the conquest of Crete, so Saul carried away his new name as a trophy of his victory over the heathenism of the proconsul Paulus, or to the notion of Augustine when he alludes to the literal meaning of the word Paulus, and contrasts Saul the unbridled king, the proud, self-confident persecutor of David, with Paul, the lowly, the penitent, who deliberately wished to indicate by his very name that he was “the least of the apostles” and “less than the least of all saints.” Yet we must not neglect the coincident occurrence of these two names just here. We need not hesitate to dwell on the associations which are connected with the name of Paulus, or on the thoughts which are naturally called up when we notice the critical passage where it is first given to Saul. It is surely not unworthy of notice that as Peter’s first Gentile convert was a member of the Cornelian house, so the surname of the noblest family of the Cornelian house was the link between the Apostle of the Gentiles and his convert at Paphos. Nor can we find a nobler Christian version of any line of a heathen poet than by comparing what Horace says of him who fell at Canute, “Animae magnae prodigum Paulum,” with the words of him who said at Miletus, “I count not my life dear unto myself,” etc. And though Saul most probably had the name of Paul at an earlier period, and that it came from some connection of his ancestors (perhaps as manumitted slaves) with some member of the AEmilian Pauli; yet we cannot believe it accidental that it occurs at this point of the inspired narrative. The heathen name rises to the surface at the moment Paul enters on his office as apostle to the heathen. The Roman name is stereotyped at the moment when he converts the Roman governor; and the place where this occurs is the very spot which was notorious for what the gospel forbids and destroys. Here, having achieved his victory, the apostle erected his trophy, as Moses, when Amalek was discomfited, “built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi--the Lord my banner.” (J. S. Howson, D. D.)

Filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all subtlety and mischief.--

Sin and its punishment

Paul’s rebuke, of course, applies to the specific iniquity of Elymas, but with a master hand the apostle at the same time delineates the characteristics of sin in general. The punishment of Elymas is also typical.

I. Sin.

1. Its subtle methods. There is nothing straightforward about sin; nor can there be: for were its nature and consequences clear, it would be universally shunned and abhorred. Its methods, therefore, must needs be crooked and insinuating. Evil is dressed up in the guise of good. The fruit of the tree was made pleasant to the eyes of Eve. So is it all through time.

2. Its mischievous effects. It debases the body, degrades the mind, debilitates the will, and damns the soul.

3. Its Satanic paternity. “The serpent was more subtle than all the beasts of the field.” The devil injects the sinful thought, guides the sinful resolution, helps the sinful action, and enjoys the sinful effect.

4. Its enmity to righteousness. Right and wrong are not coordinate powers which, like adjacent states, can flourish side by side and enter into peaceful alliances with each other. They are ever in irreconcilable antagonism, and the prosperity of the one is absolutely dependent on the destruction of the other.

5. Its perversion of the right ways of the Lord. This is the essence of sin. It is not simply negation, but perversion; and its highest achievement is to secure the acceptance of evil under the guise of good. Elymas, as a Jewish prophet, armed with the authority of a Divine dispensation, threw a spell over the mind of the proconsul, and endeavoured to use his usurped authority for selfish and villainous purposes. Wherein does he differ from the modern hypocrite?

II. Its punishment.

1. Its subtlety is detected.

(1) Sometimes sin overreaches itself; it is not sufficiently comprehensive in its views. Ahab calculated on getting Naboth’s vineyard, but did not calculate on Elijah. So here Elymas overlooked the possibility of the advent of a Paul.

(2) Sometimes its detection is the result of some extraordinary Divine agency--“Saul, filled with the Holy Ghost.” The common saying, “Murder will out.” How often, by a trivial oversight on the part of the criminal, or by some trifling coincidence, has a great crime been revealed.

2. Its mischievous effects are turned upon the sinner. He who sought to blind the intellect of Sergius Paulus is himself made blind. “Be sure your sin will find you out.”

3. The son inherits the father’s punishment. Satan is the prince of darkness, and his children are doomed to walk in darkness. The dark ways in which the devil leads his victims leads to “outer darkness.”

4. Its enmity to righteousness is met by the righteous God. “Though hand join in hand the wicked shall not go unpunished.”

5. Its perversion is met by perversion. “He went about,” etc. (verse 11). (J. W. Burn.)

Reproof: how a true servant of God uses his office of

1. Not in carnal passion, but in the Holy Ghost (verse 9).

2. Not with worldly weapons, but with the sword of the Word, by which he discloses the evil state of the heart (verse 10), and announces the judgment of God (verse 11).

3. Not for death or condemnation, but for warning and for the salvation of souls. (K. Gerok.)

The punishment of Elymas was

I. In correspondence with the transgression. He who blinded others is himself blinded.

II. Striking and convincing for the spectators.

III. With all its severity conducive to amendment by an intimation of the Divine mercy. Paul himself, at his conversion, had been blind for a season, and knew from his experience how profitable this darkness was for internal collection and composure of mind. (Apostolic Pastor.)

The exceptional character of the miracle

The miracles of the New Testament are generally distinguished from the Old by being worthy works of mercy. Two only of our Lord’s were inflictions of severity, and those were attended with no harm to the bodies of men. The same law pervades the miracles of the apostles. One miracle of wrath was worked by Peter and Paul; and we can see sufficient reasons why liars and hypocrites like Ananias and Sapphira, and impostors like Elymas, should be publicly punished, and made examples of. A passage in the life of Peter presents a parallel which is closer in some respects with this interview of Paul with Bar-Jesus. As Simon Magus, “who had long time bewitched the Samaritans with his sorceries,” was denounced by Peter “as still in the gall of bitterness,” etc., and solemnly told that his heart was not right in the sight of God; so Paul, conscious of his apostolic power, and under the power of immediate inspiration, rebuked Elymas as a child of that devil who is “the father of lies,” as a worker of deceit and mischief, etc. He proceeded to denounce an instantaneous judgment, and according to his prophetic word, the “hand of the Lord” struck the sorcerer, as it had once struck the apostle himself--the sight of the magician began to waver, and presently a darkness settled on it so thick that he ceased to behold the sun’s light. This blindness of the false prophet opened the eyes of the deputy. That which had been intended as an opposition to the gospel proved the means of its extension. We are ignorant of the degree of this extension in Cyprus. But we cannot doubt that when the proconsul was converted, his influence would make Christianity reputable; and that from this moment the Gentiles of the island as well as the Jews had the news of salvation brought home to them. (J. S. Howson, D. D.)

Seeking to turn men from the faith

Unprincipled white men have often been great stumbling blocks in the way of Indian evangelisation. An Englishman made his boast that he could induce the Indians again to drink; and providing himself with ardent spirits, he moved in his canoe over to the island where the Indians were encamped. Leaving all at the shore, he went up to the camp, and, inviting the Indians down, brought forth his bottle. “Come,” he said, “we always good friends; we once more take a good drink in friendship.” “No,” said Captain Paudaush, “we drink no more of the fire waters.” “Oh, but you will drink with me; we always good friends”; but while this son of Belial was urging them to drink, the Indians struck up, in the tune of Walsall, the hymn they had lately learned to sing--

“O for a thousand tongues to sing

The great Redeemer’s praise!”

And while the Indians were singing, this bacchanalian, defeated in his wicked device, and looking completely crestfallen, paddled away from the island, leaving the Indians to their temperance and their religious devotions!

An enemy off righteousness

Mr. Beecher once met Colonel Ingersoll, a great American atheist, and Colonel Ingersoll began to discourse on his atheistic views. Mr. Beecher for some time was silent, but, after a time, asked to be allowed to tell a story. On being requested to do so, he said, “As I was walking down town today, I saw a poor man slowly and carefully picking his way through mud, in the endeavour to cross a street. He had just reached the middle of the filth when a big, burly ruffian, himself all bespattered, rushed up to him, jerked the crutches from under the unfortunate man, and left him sprawling and helpless in the pool of liquid dirt, which almost engulfed him.” “What a brute he was!” said the colonel. “What a brute he was!” they all echoed. “Yes,” said the old man, rising from his chair, and brushing back his long white hair, “yes, Colonel Ingersoll, and you are the man. The human soul is lame, but Christianity gives it crutches to enable it to pass the highway of life. It is your teaching that knocks these crutches from under it, and leaves it a helpless and rudderless wreck in the Slough of Despond. If robbing the human soul of its only support on this earth--religion--be your profession, why, ply it to your heart’s content. It requires an architect to erect a building; an incendiary may reduce it to ashes.”

Seeking to turn men from the truth

A boy was impressed in one of Mr. Moody’s meetings. But his mother said he was “good enough without religion,” and threw her influence against Mr. Moody’s efforts to win him to Christ. She succeeded, and some time after Mr. Moody found him in the county jail. “How came you here? Does your mother know of it?” “No, sir, and pray don’t tell her. I came in under an assumed name, and am going to Joliet State prison for four years. She thinks I am in the army.” And Mr. Moody often heard her afterwards, mourning that her boy was killed.