Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 11:25

Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

25. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus ] The oldest MSS. omit “Barnabas.” Read, “And he went forth to Tarsus.”

for to seek Saul ] that he, to whom the Lord had appeared, and who had been marked as a “chosen vessel” (Act 9:15) to bear the name of Christ before the Gentiles, might come with him to share in this new work of preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Then departed … – Why Barnabas sought Saul is not known. It is probable, however, that it was owing to the remarkable success which he had in Antioch. There was a great revival of religion, and there was need of additional labor. In such times the ministers of the gospel need additional help, as men in harvest-time need the aid of others. Saul was in this vicinity Act 9:30, and he was eminently suited to assist in this work. With him Barnabas was well acquainted Act 9:27, and probably there was no other one in that vicinity whose help he could obtain.

To Tarsus – See the notes on Act 9:11.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 11:25-26

Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus for to seek Saul.

Saul brought to Antioch; buried talent called forth to its appropriate field of labour

How Saul had been employed all this time (Act 9:30) we have no means of ascertaining. We cannot well doubt that he would bring the claims of Christianity before philosophers and urge the proofs that Jesus was the Messiah in the synagogue; nor can we doubt that his labours would be in some degree successful. The work at Antioch required one like Saul, and in our age a telegraphic despatch would have summoned him; but then Barnabas had to go and find him. Notice–

I. The emergency which had then occurred in the Church. Observe that–

1. The ideas of Christians up to that time had been limited. It was a slow process by which the attention of the apostles was directed to the regions beyond Palestine, and even then their thoughts were directed to Hebrews.

2. The events at Antioch could not well be mistaken as bearing on this point. The gospel had been preached there to heathen with great power and success.

3. The name Christian was conferred and adopted just as this enlarged view of the nature of their religion was becoming the common view of the Church.

II. The ample field, on which the talents of Saul, now summoned from obscurity, might act.

1. Antioch itself. This Syrian capital, by its wealth, its commerce, its accessibility, its communication with the other parts of the world, its numbers, was one of the most important centres of influence; and we may readily understand, therefore, why he was called by Providence to labour there.

2. The world itself would be suggested as a field for which Saul was especially qualified; and which, in his call, he had been designated to occupy. The new idea was one which could not be confined in its operations to Antioch, for the principles which made it proper to preach the gospel there, made it proper to preach it everywhere. The events now occurring could not but suggest to a mind like Sauls the fact that the whole world was to be visited by like influences of the Spirit of God.

III. The arrangements for calling talent forth to accomplish the Divine purposes.

1. Talent is found in one of these forms.

(1) In preparation for the future.

(2) In obscurity.

(3) Employed in a purpose corresponding to the design for which it was created.

(4) Perverted and abused. These forms may exist separately, or two of them may be combined. Thus talent in preparation, and as yet in obscurity, may be combined, for the occasion may not yet have arisen to call it forth. We have no reason to doubt that while Saul was in Arabia and in Tarsus he was preparing for his great work.

2. There is talent created in each age of the world, for all the purposes of that age. It is not developed from the past; nor is it the production of the mere laws of nature or hereditary; it is as much a new creation as would be the introduction of a new world. There was nothing in Stratford-on-Avon that could produce Shakespeare; nor anything in his father of which Lear, and Hamlet, and Othello could be the development. The mind of Shakespeare was as really an act of creation as the creation of a world. So with Johnson, Milton, Michael Angelo. These minds were made of such capacity, power, and adaptedness to a particular end, as God pleased; and were brought upon the earth at, when, and how He saw best. There is a difference between the Divine arrangements for the physical wants of the world, and for its mental and moral wants. In the former case, long before man was upon the earth, God had created all that the race would need in all its history. Mind, on the contrary, He brings upon the earth as it is wanted. At every period there is a class of minds needed to carry the world forward in its ordinary course–in working the fields already cultivated. As, however, the worlds most marked advances are not by a steady ascent, but rather per saltum, so (when the time arrives for such a new elevation) God creates the mind or minds fitted to the occasion. Thus some great lawgiver, poet, painter, soldier, philosopher. Such men as Moses, Caesar, etc., lay the foundation for new epochs, and such epochs really constitute the history of the progress of the world.

3. Under this arrangement much talent may be hidden; much may be in a state of almost unconscious preparation. How little did Washington, amid the quiet scenes at Mount Vernon, how little Oliver Cromwell, on his farm, dream of the great part each was to act in the history of the world! The emergency came. There was enough for those great men to do, and God had endowed them with talent sufficient to do all that was needful to be accomplished in their age.

4. Emergencies do arise to call forth the talent which God has conferred. When liberty is endangered, when reforms are to be effected, when the world is to he prepared for some new and signal advance, then talent before hidden is brought forward to do its work. Such–in a more eminent degree than aught else–was the period when, after so long a preparation, and when the fulness of the time was come, the Son of God was called from His obscurity in darkened Galilee. Such also–subordinate to that higher purpose, but still so marked in its character as to constitute a new epoch in the worlds history–was the calling forth of Saul to act his part on the great theatre of human affairs. (A. Barnes, D. D.)

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

What the world called the Church, and what the Church calls itself

Nations and parties often call themselves by one name, and are known to the world by another. These outside names are generally given in contempt; and yet they sometimes hit the very centre, and so by degrees get to be adopted as an honour. So it has been with the name Christian. It is never used in the New Testament by Christians about themselves. It occurs here in Agrippas half-contemptuous exclamation, and in 1Pe 4:16. Consider–

I. This name given by the world to the Church, which the Church has adopted.

1. Observe the circumstances under which it was given. A handful of Jews from Jerusalem had come down to Antioch, and there they preached the gospel to heathen, and their success has for its crowning attestation that it compelled the sarcastic Antiochenes to find out a new name for this new thing; to find out a new label for the new bottles into which the new wine was being put. Clearly the name shows–

(1) That the Church was beginning to attract the attention of outsiders.

(2) That there was a novel element in the Church. The earlier disciples had been all Jews. But here is something that could not be called either Jew or Greek, because it embraces both. The new name is the first witness to the cosmopolitan character of the primitive Church.

(3) That even these superficial observers had got hold of the right notion of what it was that did bind these people together. They called them Christians–Christs men, Christs followers. If they had called them Jesuits that would have meant the followers of the mere man; but it is not Jesus the Man, but Jesus Christ, the Man with His office, that makes the centre and the bond of the Christian Church.

2. Plain lessons lie on the surface.

(1) The Church should draw to itself the notice of the world not by advertising, and ostentation, and singularities. If you are live Christians it will be plain enough to outsiders. What shall we say of leaven which does not leaven, or of light which does not shine? Are the worlds names for themselves enough to describe you by, or do you need another to be coined for you? The Church that does not provoke the attention of outsiders is not the Church as Christ meant it to be.

(2) The clear impression made by our conduct should be that we belong to Christ. The eye of an outsider may be unable to penetrate the secret of the deep sweet tie uniting us to Jesus, but there should be no possibility of his overlooking the fact that we are His. He should manifestly be the centre, guide, impulse, pattern, strength and reward of our whole lives. Do you think that, without your words, if you, living the way you do, were put down into the middle of Pekin, the wits of the Chinese metropolis would have to invent a name for you; and, if so, the name that would naturally come to their lips would be Christians–Christs men. If you do not, there is something wrong.

(3) It is a very sad thing when the worlds inadequate notions of what makes a follower of Jesus Christ get accepted by the Church. The name Christian ran all over Christendom in the course of a century and a half, largely because it was a conveniently vague name. Many a man is quite willing to say, I am a Christian, that would hesitate a long time before he said, I am a believer; a disciple.

II. Side by side with this vague, general, outside name the more specific and interior names, by which Christs followers at first knew themselves.

1. Disciples, the name employed almost exclusively during the time of Christs life upon earth, sets forth Christ as being the Teacher, and His followers His scholars, who learned at His feet. Now that is always true. He teaches us still by the record of His life, and by the living influence of that Spirit whom He sends forth to guide us into all truth. But that name is not enough, and so after He had passed from earth, it unconsciously and gradually dropped out of the lips of the disciples, as they felt deepened bond uniting them to Him who was not only the Teacher of the Truth, which was Himself, but was their sacrifice and Advocate with the Father. And for all who hold the essentially imperfect conception of Jesus Christ as being mainly a Teacher, either by word or by pattern, it is worthy of consideration that the name of disciple was speedily felt to be inadequate to represent the bond that knit men to Christ.

2. Teacher and scholars move in a region which, though it be important, is not the central one. And the word that was needed next lifts us into a higher atmosphere. Believers, they who yield not merely intellectual submission to the dicta of the Teacher, but living trust in the Redeemer. We believe a truth, we trust a Person; and that trust is the one thing that binds men to God, and the one thing that makes us Christs men. Apart from it, we may be very near Him, but we are not joined to Him. By it, and by it alone, the union is completed, and His power and grace flow into our spirits.

3. The name saints has suffered perhaps more at the hands both of the world and of the Church than any other. It has been by the latter restricted to the dead, and further restricted to those who excel, according to the fantastic, ascetic standard of mediaeval Christianity. It has been used by the world with a bitter emphasis to mean a pretender to be better than other people, whose actions contradict his claim. But the name belongs to all Christs followers. It makes no claim to special purity, for the central idea of the word saint is not purity, but separation. The New Testament idea of saint has in it these elements–consecration, consecration resting on faith in Christ, and consecration leading to separation from the world and its sin. And that must be the experience of every true Christian. All Christs people are saints, not as being pure, but as being given up to Him, in union with whom alone will the cleansing powers flow into their lives and clothe them with the righteousness of saints.

4. Brethren–a name much maltreated both by the insincerity of the Church, and by the sarcasm of the world. An unreal appellation which has meant nothing, so that the world has said that our brethren signified a good deal less than their brothers. But the main thing about that name is not the relation of the brethren to one another, but their common relation to their Father. As society gets more complicated, as Christian people get unlike each other in education and social position, it gets more and more difficult to feel that any two Christian people, however unlike each other, are nearer each other in the very roots of their nature, than a Christian and a non-Christian, however like each other. It is difficult to feel that but for all that it is a fact. And now I wish to ask you whether you feel more at home with people who love Christ, or whether you like better to be with people who do not. The duties of your position, of course, oblige each of you to be much among people who do not share your faith; but for Christian people to make choice of heart friends, among those who have no sympathy with their love to Jesus Christ, does not say much for the depth and reality of their religion. A man is known by the company he keeps, and if you deeply feel the bond that knits you to Christ, and really live near to Him, you will be near your brethren. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

The name Christian

I. When it was given.

1. Not until twelve years, apparently, of most intense life, persecution, growth, did the Christians receive any abiding name, which serves to show us that God cares for things, not names. God makes the things, man gives the names; yet how much controversy is merely about names.

2. Not until after the disciples had become known among the Gentiles. The Jews would never have given us this holy name.

II. Where. In Antioch. Which was–

1. Beautiful. Situate on the Orontes, where it breaks through between Lebanon and Taurus; the scenery magnificent, itself splendidly adorned, and surrounded with groves and gardens.

2. Rich. The capital of Syria and the third city of the world; centre of traffic between east and west.

3. Pleasure-loving. The meeting place between the lively Greek and self-indulgent Eastern, with every inducement and advantage for enjoyment.

4. Wicked. Antioch was exceptionally depraved. Borne was horribly bad; but when the satirist wished to say that Rome was made tenfold more corrupt, he wrote that Orontes had emptied itself into the Tiber.

5. Heathen. Here were the notorious groves of Daphne, where Apollo was worshipped with all magnificence and vice.

III. Why. That is not quite so certain; but we may safely say that it came about thus: The Antiochenes noticed some among them who differed from others. The beauty of the place they regarded with sober admiration; its riches and business they cared little for: they were industrious, used no trickery, abandoned many trades altogether, and did not grieve much if they lost their money; its amusements they shunned, and as for the sins of the place, they both avoided and rebuked them. Then the heathen were astonished, and asked, Who has taught you this? Who has given you this new-fangled view of the beauty, wealth, pleasure, and sin (as you call it) of Antioch? Who has forbidden you to worship our gods? To this the answer was ever,

Christ has told us that the world and its beauty pass away; but He has told us of a new heaven and earth far better. He has taught us to think but little of the worlds wealth, for He has given us treasure in heaven. He has taught us to look for higher pleasures, and to beware of yours, lest they lead us to sin and death. He has taught us above all to know and hate sin, and not to give to your gods that which is His due. So, the Antiochenes would say, this is your God. Yes, they would reply, we are His, and cannot take the absorbing interest you do in the beauty, wealth, pleasure, sin, and idolatry of Antioch. Some among the heathen would believe, the rest would scoff and call them Christians. (R. Winterbotham, M. A.)

The Christian name

1. At first sight this might seem to be a piece of information such as is to be met with in an old chronicle, or in Notes and Queries, and it probably was meant to correct the idea that the disciples were first called Christians at Jerusalem. But we have here much more than this.

2. The name of a man or society is not like a label, which may be detached from a piece of lifeless furniture; it is a factor of which account must be taken for good or evil. Men have borne names which they have felt to be a stigma–an active cause of discouragement and failure. Men have also inherited names which have lifted themselves into a fellowship with a past of high effort. And, in religion names have a mighty power of shaping thought and sympathy. This applies to the greatest of names–Christians.

I. How came the disciples by this name?

1. It comes into view together with the first attempt to preach the gospel to the pagan world. The Jews would not have given it. They believed in a coming Christ, but rejected the true Christ. But His appearance was an entirely new and original idea to pagans, and the constant repetition of His name would suggest to the keen-witted Greeks to call the disciples Christians.

2. It is probable that the name was a nickname, meant to suggest that those who could do nothing but talk about their Christ were a set of fanatics to be laughed out of existence. The ease was parallel to the feeling about Christ crucified at Corinth.

II. There were other names by which the disciples were known.

1. Before: Brethren, Disciples, Elect, Saints, Faithful.

2. After: Gnostics, men who had a knowledge of Divine things–Theophori, Christopheri (God bearers, Christ bearers), Nazarenes, and at Rome especially, impostors, magicians, Galileans, sophists, atheists, Sarmentitii, desperate men, who were indifferent to death; Parabolani, men who lived only to die, Biathanati, men whose garments smelt of the faggot, etc.

3. Since: Catholic, a name of commanding power, but this describes a quality, Christian, the substance of true religion; the one views it in relation to mankind, the other in its source and author; Catholic might be dissociated from Christ–Christian never.

III. The import and glory of the Christian name. The apostles highly prized it: James calls it that worthy name; St. Peter a name for which it is a glory to suffer. It is a great distinction–

1. To be a learner in the one great school of truth. This is the very least that the name can mean, just as those who followed Plato were called Platonists.

2. To be in the service of such a commander as Christ. We know the feeling which attaches in our army to being in the best regiments; to be in the regiment led by Jesus Christ across the centuries, ought to satisfy a nobler ambition.

3. To be endowed with a new nature–that of Christ the Lord. Compared with this, how poor is noble birth! A Christian is a member of the aristocracy of heaven.

IV. The responsibility of the bearers of this great name.

1. It is a summons to unity.

(1) Because it distinguishes the disciples from others it has been stigmatised as a badge of division. Human, it is contended, would represent a more adequate bond of brotherhood. But the aim of Christianity is to make one synonymous with the other and the name is a pledge that it will one day do so.

(2) This name is borne by millions of Christian worshippers who are divided widely from each other. But the name implies amid all their divisions the substantial loyalty of all to Christ.

2. It is a call to holiness. Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. Application: Let us remember this name–

(1) In the morning.

(2) At night.

(3) In the hour of death. (Canon Liddon.)

The Christian name

We may consider this name in various views; as a name of distinction from the rest of the world, who know not Christ, or reject Him; as a patronymic name, pointing out the Founder of the Christian Church; as a badge of our relation to Christ as His servants, His children, His bride; as intimating our unction by the Holy Spirit; as Christ was anointed by the Holy Spirit, or above measure, as a name of appropriation, signifying that we are the property of Christ and His peculiar people. But my present design confines me to consider the Christian name–

I. As a catholic name, intended to bury all party denominations.

1. The name Gentile was odious to the Jews, and the name Jew to the Gentiles. The name Christian swallows up both in one common and agreeable appellation. He that hath taken down the partition wall, has taken away partition names, and united all His followers in His own name (Col 3:11; Gal 3:28; Zec 14:9).

2. It is but a due honour to Christ, the founder of Christianity, that all who profess His religion should wear His name; and they pay an extravagant compliment to his ministers when they take their denomination from them. Had this humour prevailed in the primitive Church there would have been Paulites from Paul, Peterites from Peter, Johnites from John, Barnabites from Barnabas, etc. Paul took pains to crush the first risings of this party spirit in Corinth (1Co 1:12-15). But alas! how little has this convictive reasoning of the apostle been regarded. Not to take notice of Jesuits, Jansenites, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc., in the popish Church, where, having corrupted the thing, they act very consistently to lay aside the name, what party names have been adopted by the Protestant Churches, whose religion is substantially the same. To be a Christian is not enough nowadays, but a man must also be something more. But where is the reason or propriety of this? I may indeed believe the same things which Luther or Calvin believed: but I do not believe them on the authority of Luther or Calvin, but upon the sole authority of Jesus Christ, and therefore I should not call myself by their name, as one of their disciples, but by the name of Christ, whom alone I acknowledge as my only Master and Lord.

3. To guard against mistakes on this head I would observe that every man has a right to choose for himself in matters of religion. In the exercise of this right he will find that he agrees more fully with some particular Church than others, and thereupon it is his duty to join that Church; and he may, if he pleases, assume the name which that Church wears, by way of distinction from others; this is not what I condemn. But for me to glory in the denomination of any particular Church as my highest character, to lay more stress upon the name of a Presbyterian era Churchman than on that of Christian; to make it the object of my zeal to gain proselytes to some other than the Christian name; to connive at the faults of those of my own party, and to be blind to the good qualities of others, or invidiously to misrepresent or diminish them; these proceed from a spirit of bigotry directly opposite to the generous catholic spirit of Christianity.

II. As a name of obligation upon all that bear it to be Christians indeed, or to form their temper and practice upon the sacred model of Christianity. To be a Christian, in the popular and fashionable sense, is no difficult or excellent thing. It is to be baptized, to believe, like our neighbours, that Christ is the Messiah, and to attend upon public worship once a week. In this sense a man may be a Christian, and yet be habitually careless about eternal things; a Christian, and yet fall short of the morality of many of the heathens. To be a Christian in this sense is no high character; and if this be the whole of Christianity it is very little matter whether the world be Christianised or not. But to be a Christian indeed is the highest character and dignity of which the human nature is capable. To be a Christian is–

1. To depart from iniquity (2Ti 2:19). What, then, shall we think of the profligate, profane Christians, that have overrun the Christian world? Can there be a greater contradiction? A loyal subject in arms against his sovereign, an ignorant scholar, a sober drunkard, a charitable miser, an honest thief, is not a greater absurdity, or a more direct contradiction. Therefore, if you will not renounce iniquity, renounce the Christian name. Alexander had a fellow in his army that was of his own name, but a mere coward. Either be like me, says Alexander, or lay aside my name.

2. To deny yourselves and take up the cross and follow Christ (Luk 9:23). To deny ourselves is to abstain from the pleasures of sin; to deny our own interest for the sake of Christ. To take up our cross is to bear sufferings, to encounter difficulties, and break through them for His sake. To follow Him is to trace His steps and imitate His example whatever it cost us. These are the terms if you would be Christians. These He honestly warned mankind of when He first called them to be His disciples (Luk 14:25, etc.). What, then, shall we think of those crowds who retain the Christian name, and yet will not deny themselves of their sensual pleasures, nor part with their temporal interest for the sake of Christ? A Christian, without self-denial, and a supreme love to Jesus Christ, is as great a contradiction as fire without heat, or a sun without light, a hero without courage, or a friend without love.

3. To be a follower or imitator of Christ (1Co 11:1; 1Pe 2:21; Rom 7:22; Php 2:5). Conclusion: I might add that the Christian name is not hereditary, but you must be born anew of the spirit to entitle you to this new name; that a Christian is a believer, believing in Him after whom he is called as his only Saviour and Lord, and that he is a true penitent.

You may hence see–

1. That the Christian character is the highest in the world, it includes everything truly great and amiable. To acquire the title of kings and lords is not in your power; to spread your fame as scholars, philosophers, or heroes, may be beyond your reach; but here is a character more excellent, more amiable, more honourable than all these, which it is your business to deserve and maintain. And this is a dignity which beggars and slaves may attain.

2. That if all the professors of Christianity should behave in character, the religion of Christ would soon appear Divine to all mankind, and spread through all nations of the earth. It would be as needless to offer arguments to prove it Divine as to prove that the sun is full of light: the conviction would flash upon all mankind by its own intrinsic evidence. (S. Davies, M. A.)

The Christian name

I. What. All that the name has come to mean was quite unintended by the Antiochenes. But the question now is not what these ancient people meant, but what, after nineteen centuries of Christian literature and life, it has come to mean. Undoubtedly it comprehends–

1. Faith in Christ.

2. Love to Christ.

3. Imitation of Christ.

4. Union with Christ, with all the effects which flow from these, such as obedience to Christs will, loyalty to Christs cause, fellowship with Christs people, profession of Christs principles, and the blessed hope of being with Christ forever. Without each of these in a greater or less degree no man is entitled to the Christian name.

II. Where. At Antioch.

1. An unlikely place, one would think. Why should the worshippers of physical beauty, the slaves of lust, the devotees of gain, the priests of a false religion, and the teachers and disciples of an agnostic philosophy care a straw about the followers of a crucified Jew whose teachings ran counter to all their desires, practices, traditions, and disbeliefs, much less trouble to give them a new name? But experience should teach us that people are not so indifferent as they seem. With every motive to ignore the Christianity of today, people are earnestly noting and talking about it.

2. Really a most likely place. Here Christianity stood out in marked contrast to all the Antiochenes had ever known. It was a new thing. Its positive belief, purity, charity, brotherhood, stood in contrast with the prevalent scepticism, iniquity, and selfishness of the place. Light cannot but be seen in darkness, and of all places Christianity must have been most conspicuous at Antioch. It compelled attention, and the symptom of this attention was the name Christian.

3. The best place. No city in the world except Rome and Alexandria afforded such facilities for the dissemination of the knowledge of this name. Antioch was the Liverpool of the age. Let once a religious movement get well rooted in the great northern port, and all the world will soon hear of it.

III. By whom.

1. Perhaps by matter of fact men who wanted a word which they could use in current conversation and be universally understood when talking of this new movement. Just as when a name was required to describe the followers of Aristotle or Plato in ancient, and of Luther and Pusey in modern times, the convenient designations were Aristotelians, etc.

2. Perhaps by wits and scoffers, who gladly availed themselves of the opportunity of fixing the name of a crucified malefactor on fanatics whose tenets were only worthy of laughter or scorn.

3. Perhaps by admirers who saw a resemblance between the disciples and all that was known of Christ.

IV. When. When a new name was required to describe a new thing. Up till now all Christians were Jews, but even now there were such characteristics that marked them off from the rest of their race that a separate designation was required. When, however, Greeks came into the fold a distinctive name became imperative, and one was found which covered both Jew and Greek.

V. Why. Because the disciples were–

1. Consecrated to Christ.

2. Always talking about Christ.

3. Ever seeking to secure disciples for Christ.

VI. With what results. The name–

1. Gradually superseded every other name.

2. Still towers above every other name. All genuine Christians are glad to subordinate denominational distinctions.

3. Will eventually be the only name. (J. W. Burn.)

The disciples called Christians

I. Although everyone admits that the appellative Christian is derived from our great Master Christ, there is considerable variety of opinion as to the way in which it was so derived.

1. The view taken by one class of expositors is, that this appellative was first given in derision and contempt.

2. A second opinion is, that the title in question was first assumed by the Christians themselves, as a new and significant distinction.

3. But a more probable account of this matter is, that the name Christian was first adopted by Divine appointment and authority.

(1) The word translated called, in the text, is sometimes used in the sense of to warn, or appoint by Divine authority.

(2) The mere fact of the first use of the term Christian being recorded in so abbreviated and important a history as that of the Acts would argue that it was an event of much interest to the Church of Christ in all succeeding ages.

(3) As it is mentioned in immediate connection with the teaching of Barnabas and Paul, it is not unreasonable to infer that those holy men instructed the disciples at Antioch not only to believe in Christ, but also to adopt His name.

II. Having considered the derivation and meaning of the name, we must not inquire respecting the character; for it is one thing to be called a Christian, and another thing to be one. Suppose that, with the New Testament in our hand, we were required to give some account of one of those early Antiochian Christians; we should, without fear of contradiction, assert the following particulars:–

1. That he was a man who received and believed the doctrines of the Lord Christ.

2. Our disciple at Antioch, one of those first called Christians, would place his confidence in the Lord Jesus as his Saviour, and in Him alone.

3. He would be one that yielded implicit obedience to the commands of the Son of God.

4. He would consider the Lord Jesus Christ as that perfect and illustrious example he was bound by every obligation to imitate.

(1) Do Christians imitate the Lord Jesus?–then are they an inoffensive people; for He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners (Heb 7:26).

(2) Are Christians imitators of Christ? then are they a useful people; for He went about doing good, and then gave Himself a ransom for all.

(3) Are Christians people who follow the example of the holy Jesus? then are they a holy and devout people; for He frequented the temple and the synagogue, to pray in public; and retired to the mountains summit, to pray in private; and in that exercise sometimes wasted the hours of the night!

III. It only remains to deduce certain consequences in which we have all an intimate and deep concern.

1. The first is, that no man can become a Christian, in the evangelical sense of the word, without the intervention of Divine mercy and power.

2. The next is, that as a religious designation, the term Christian is of itself quite sufficient; and that all sectarian additions are but proofs of the infirmity or depravity of men. On this subject I venture to advise–

(1) That you esteem denomination as Christian, only as its members embrace the truth, imbibe the spirit, and obey the commands of Christ; and–

(2) That you glory in the name of Christian, and make no account of any other.

3. It is clear from what has been advanced, that to assume the name without sustaining the character of a Christian is a serious evil. No man can be so called without being eternally better or worse for it!

4. It is evident from the whole, that to be called a Christian, and to be one, is the supreme happiness of man! Oh the honour! to have that dear, that sacred, that exalted name, named upon us! Christians!–happy people! Innumerable, exceeding great and precious promises are theirs. Then why hesitate a moment to become an entire and decided Christian? To this high and unspeakable honour you are all invited; Oh, spurn not this mark of infinite mercy, condescension, and love! (James Bromley.)

The Christian nickname

A father once planned a pleasant surprise for his son who was just beginning to think for himself. In a corner of his garden he wrote with his finger his boys name in soft mould. The furrows he then sowed with seeds of cress. A few days after this, as was expected, the astonished lad came running in with the news that his name was growing up out of one of the flower beds. Then, with the explanation immediately rendered, followed the lessons–that nothing comes by chance; that many mysteries can be traced out very easily by a little patient study; that it is possible for men to seem to do many things of their own accord, when really it is God who overrules even the powers of nature to His own glory; and that, noble and excellent a thing as it is to have a Christian name, it is always worth while to ask where it comes from, and what it actually means. Here is a use for the illustration at once. Our young people, coming into life, find the name of Christian meeting their eyes at every turn, almost as if it had grown up out of the ground of human history with no hand to plant the seed.

I. Where was it that the name was first received? Twenty miles from the Mediterranean, just at the point where Syria joins Asia Minor, stood a town so magnificent that even the fastidious Greeks called it Antioch the beautiful, and the Romans the Queen of the East. But, as too often happens in this world, Antioch was as vile as it was beautiful. No man cared for God or for his fellow man.

II. Who gave the name? The Romans or the local inhabitants of Antioch under their sway. The term reads like the rest of Latin appellations. They called the followers of Herod Herodians, of Vitellius Vitellians, and so they easily invented the name of Christians from the name of Christ. Hence we see that in the beginning it was a mere nickname; probably they hissed it out hatefully, and pointed their fingers at the man who gloried in a crucified Leader. All we need to say, however, is that the beautiful city is today lying in unsightly ruins; and if anyone were to ask what Antioch was, the answer would be, the town where the disciples were first called Christians. That nickname preserves Antioch from being forgotten.

III. What does the name mean? One who goes after Christ as His Redeemer and Pattern. Change only one of the letters, and we have the whole significance; a Christian is a Christ-man. And this includes these things at the least: one who has learned about Christ; one who trusts to Christ for pardon; one who resembles Christ in his life; and one who gives to Christ his entire heart in a lasting love.

1. The first of these it might be assumed we all have already. Those person would be called heathen who had never been told of Jesus life and death.

2. But, most of all, we need to see that we are sinners; then we shall perceive how gracious God was in sending His only Son to die for us; and then we shall be ready to accept Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

3. Then, to be a Christian means that one shall grow like the Saviour. God has given us four portraits of Him in the Gospels. These we can study constantly.

4. Then we are to give our hearts to Christ in a loving service. We are to go about doing good, as He did. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

What is it to be a Christian

1. The Divinity of Christ is the object of the Christians worship.

2. The condescension and atonement of Christ are the objects of the Christians gratitude and trust.

3. The life and teachings of Christ are the subjects of the Christians example and belief.

4. The reign of Christ is the object of the Christians confidence and joy.

5. The return of Christ is the object of the Christians expectation. Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. (Homiletic Monthly.)

Christian life

The history of Christianity at Antioch is on a small scale the history of Christianity in the world. Study the growth of one tree, and you will have a knowledge of the laws which regulate development in the vegetable world. The flowers that bloom today obey the same laws as did those of Paradise, and the Churches of today spread themselves after the same fashion as did that of Antioch. It is of the first importance, then, that we should know all that the name Christian means.

I. Choice. Choice does not rule everywhere. We did not choose whether we would have life, parents, name, country, or not. And there are some things connected with Christianity which may be put in the same list–Christian land, books, thoughts, facts, etc. We are not Christians because we live among these circumstances, any more than a man becomes a horse by being put into a stable, any more than a sheeps clothing makes a sheep. Doubtless there are thousands who believe that baptism makes them Christians, just as Pagans believed that, by going through certain rites, they obtained the favour of the gods. But the New Testament teaches that Christianity is to be chosen. There must be first a willing mind–not a mere non-rejection of Christianity, but a clear acceptance of Christ. There is something inspiriting in this. Christ appeals to our manhood. He does not treat us like children to be led by the hand, nor compel us to a kind of religious slavery, but teaches us to stand erect in our humility.

II. Obedience. Authority is essential to all life. Natural life must be regulated by well known rules, which we did not invent, but which we found invented for us. So with spiritual life and communion. We may be improving their outward forms and adapting them to the changing culture of the age. But we must build on the same foundations, and progress on the same principles as the earliest Christians did–in one word, bow to the authority of Christ. The Church has suffered from the usurped authority of kings, parliaments, bishops, mobs; but the Churchs true Head is Christ. Alas for the Churches, they have too often lived as though the Head were a mere caput mortuum. But the Head of the Church is a mind that thinks of its difficulties and trials; it governs a hand that can guide it in all its devious paths; it moves a will that can defend it, and has a mouth by which the law of God can be made known.

III. Separation. One of the reasons why Christians were so much hated was that they stood aloof from the common enjoyments of life. But this was inevitable, for the festivities and customs of Greece and Rome were so leavened with idolatry and sin that indulgence in the one involved complicity with the other. The early Christians consequently were in danger of asceticism, and were tempted to confound what was innocent with what was sinful. Society, thanks to Christian influence, is not now so corrupt. And yet our danger lies in too much laxity and indifference. Depravity has not been charmed away, and there is no less peril in the worlds friendship today than there was eighteen hundred years ago. If, then, we would do good service in the world we must separate from its evil. The hope of the Church is in its clean hands and pure heart. Separation from all known evil is the mark alike of the Christian soul and the Christian community.

IV. Willingness to suffer for Christ (1Pe 4:16). (S. Pearson, M. A.)

What constitutes a Christian

A friend of mine was staying at a farm in the South of Scotland. The district was supposed to be very religious; and one afternoon, while sitting in the dining room, my friend and the hostess fell into a conversation about Church affairs. The lady was quite well informed of the difference between these two great branches of the Presbyterian Church, the Free and the Established; but when her visitor asked if there were many real Christians in the parish, she only stared in blank amazement as she replied, Why, we are all Christians. But, continued her friend, it is true Christians I mean, not merely nominal Christians, but men and women who have really trusted Christ with their souls, and are trying to convince and persuade their fellows to do the same. But the distinction between real and nominal Christians seemed too subtle for her, and all she replied was, But we are all Christians, we were all born Christians! Her guest, however, was determined, if possible, to bring home the difference to her, and mentioning a man welt known in the locality for his drunken and disorderly habits, asked, Would you call K–a Christian? Yes, I suppose he must be. Then there is G–, mentioning a gentleman equally well known for his godly and philanthropic life, would you call him a Christian? Yes!–the yes came more heartily this time. Then both these men are Christians. There is no difference between them. Oh, yes, there is a difference. Then what is that difference? But she would not attempt to define it. She wished to keep that comfortable delusion that we are all Christians, whose principal Christian duty is to go to church on Sunday and put a penny in the plate. It is from such lukewarm, nominal Christians that the Church must shake herself loose before she can take her true place as a militant force against the powers of evil. (H. Hamilton.)

Nominal Christians

To what sort of a character should we attach the name of Christian; what life is it deserves that? The medals given to the Indians at the treaty of Red River were supposed to be of silver, but were really of a baser metal. Said an Indian chief, striking his in such a way that the deceit was apparent, I think it would disgrace the Queen, my mother, to wear her image on so base a metal as this.

What is it to be a Christian

A little child was once asked what it was to be a Christian, and she wisely answered, It is just to do what Jesus would do if He was a little girl and lived at our house.

A Christian by profession and practice

The Christian man is to be something like a physician. You know we call a physician a professional man. Well, how does he profess? There is a large brass plate on his door and a big bell, and everybody knows what the brass plate and the bell mean. That is part of his profession. What else? How does he profess to be a physician? He goes into company, and his dress is like anybody elses. You do not see a box of lancets hanging at his side; you do not observe that he is dressed in any peculiar costume. He is a physician, and he is always a physician; but his profession is carried on by his practice. This is how a Christians profession is to be carried on, by his practice. The man is a physician professionally, because he really does heal people and write prescriptions and attend to their wants. I am to be a Christian in my actions, my deeds, my thoughts, my words. Therefore, if anybody wants a Christian, I should be known by my words and my acts. When we used to go to school, we would draw houses, and horses, and trees on our slates, and we remember how we used to write house under the house, and horse under the horse, for some persons might have thought the horse was a house. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

What constitutes a Christian

Four things are necessary to constitute a Christian.

1. Faith makes a Christian.

2. Life proves a Christian.

3. Trials confirm a Christian.

4. Death crowns a Christian.

What is a Christian

A young convert arose in the prayer meeting and said, A few days since the foreman of my room came to me and said, Henry, are you a Christian! I replied, Yes, sir, I am. At least I am trying to be. I look to the Lord for strength and grace! And then I could think of nothing better to say, so I thought I would ask him a question; so I said, Mr. Smith, are you a Christian? He replied, I go to church! Then I didnt know what to say. But a few days before this conversation a boy of about twelve years old came into the shop and asked for work. When the foreman told him he had none for him, he told a pitiful story of the sickness of his father and mother. The foreman then asked him if he had ever worked in a jewellers shop, and he replied, No, sir, but I have worked next door to one! So, when I could not think what to say to my foreman, this came into my mind, and I said, Mr. Smith, do you remember the little boy who came in here the other day and said he once worked next door to a jewellers shop? Yes. Do you think that working next to a jewellers shop made him a jeweller? No. Do you think that going to church makes you a Christian? Who does not see that the answer of this young convert razes to the earth all the refuges of our dear friends away from the Saviour, who have become accustomed to substituting fallacies for reasons, and good deeds of their own for faith in Christs blood and New Testament obedience? Many who are deferential and reverential in the presence of the gospels proclamations say that, while such a way as it prescribes is doubtless proper for most people, they must be allowed to present, as the ground of their hopes, their uniform kindness to Christian ministers, their constant readiness to aid in their support, their presence and devout behaviour in church service, their compassionate and self-sacrificing ministrations to the unfortunate, their honourable business dealing, and their high regard, generally, for the rights of men. These are grand things. True Christianity is very far from discarding them; it insists upon them. But with equal vigour it protests against their substitution for the faith which works by love. This is evidently working next door to a jewellers shop. (Christian Age.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 25. To Tarsus, for to seek Saul] The persecution raised against him obliged him to take refuge in his own city, where, as a Roman citizen, his person was in safety. See Ac 9:29-30.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Saul, or Paul, being Barnabass friend and acquaintance, whom Barnabas had brought to the knowledge of the apostles, Act 9:27; he goes now to seek him, that they might advise and strengthen one another in the work of the Lord.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

25. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsusfor to seek SaulOf course, this was after the hasty despatchof Saul to Tarsus, no doubt by Barnabas himself among others, toescape the fury of the Jews at Jerusalem. And as Barnabas was thefirst to take the converted persecutor by the hand and procure hisrecognition as a disciple by the brethren at Jerusalem (Ac9:27), so he alone seems at that early period to have discernedin him those peculiar endowments by virtue of which he was afterwardsto eclipse all others. Accordingly, instead of returning toJerusalem, to which, no doubt, he sent accounts of his proceedingsfrom time to time, finding that the mine in Antioch was rich inpromise and required an additional and powerful hand to work, heleaves it for a time, takes a journey to Tarsus, “finds Saul”(seemingly implyingnot that he lay hid [BENGEL],but that he was engaged at the time in some preaching circuitseeon Ac 15:23), and returns withhim to Antioch. Nor were his hopes disappointed. As co-pastors, forthe time being, of the Church there, they so labored that the Gospel,even in that great and many-sided community, achieved for itself aname which will live and be gloried in as long as this world lasts,as the symbol of all that is most precious to the fallen family ofman:”The disciples were called CHRISTIANSfirst in Antioch.” This name originated not within, butwithout, the Church; not with their Jewish enemies, by whomthey were styled “Nazarenes” (Ac24:5), but with the heathen in Antioch, and (as the formof the word shows) with the Romans, not the Greeksthere [OLSHAUSEN]. It wasnot at first used in a good sense (as Act 26:28;1Pe 4:16 show), though hardlyframed out of contempt (as DEWETTE, BAUMGARTEN,c.) but as it was a noble testimony to the light in which the Churchregarded Christhonoring Him as their only Lord and Saviour,dwelling continually on His name, and glorying in itso it was feltto be too apposite and beautiful to be allowed to die.

Ac11:27-30. BY OCCASIONOF A FAMINEBARNABAS AND SAULRETURN TO JERUSALEMWITH A CONTRIBUTION FORTHE RELIEF OF THEIRSUFFERING BRETHREN.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus,…. “In Cilicia” to seek Saul; who had been sent thither by the brethren that he might escape the rage of the Grecians, who sought to slay him, Ac 9:29.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

To seek for Saul ( ). First aorist (effective) active infinitive of purpose. is a common verb since Plato, but in the N.T. only here and Luke 2:44; Luke 2:45, to seek up and down (), back and forth, to hunt up, to make a thorough search till success comes. It is plain from Ga 1:21 that Saul had not been idle in Cilicia. Tarsus was not very far from Antioch. Barnabas probably knew that Saul was a vessel of choice (Ac 9:15) by Christ for the work among the Gentiles. He knew, of course, of Saul’s work with the Hellenists in Jerusalem (9:29) and echoes of his work in Cilicia and Syria had probably come to him. So to Tarsus he goes when he saw the need for help. “He had none of the littleness which cannot bear the presence of a possible rival” (Furneaux). Barnabas knew his own limitations and knew where the man of destiny for this crisis was, the man who already had the seal of God upon him. The hour and the man met when Barnabas brought Saul to Antioch. The door was open and the man was ready, far more ready than when Jesus called him on the road to Damascus. The years in Cilicia and Syria were not wasted for they had not been idle. If we only knew the facts, it is probable that Saul also had been preaching to Hellenes as well as to Hellenists. Jesus had definitely called him to work among the Gentiles (9:15). In his own way he had come to the same place that Peter reached in Caesarea and that Barnabas now holds in Antioch. God always has a man prepared for a great emergency in the kingdom. The call of Barnabas was simply the repetition of the call of Christ. So Saul came.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

To seek [] . Strictly, like our “hunt up” [] .

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

Barnabas Enlists Paul as Educational Helper at Antioch Church, V. 25, 26

1) “Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus,” (ekselthen de eis Tarson) “Then he (Barnabas) went forth of his own will and accord to Tarsus,” birthplace of Saul, the one he vouched for, that he might be accepted into the company of fellowship of the church brethren at Jerusalem, whom the Jerusalem brethren later sent forth from Jerusalem to Tarsus, Act 9:26-30.

2) “For to seek Saul: (anazetesai Saulon) “To search for Saul,” whose whereabouts was not definitely known, except that some six years previously he was sent forth there by the same Jerusalem church that had more recently sent Barnabas to Antioch, Act 11:22-24. From Saul’s conversion and baptism in the Damascus, Syria area, Act 9:1-20, A.D. 35 to this time A.D. 42 had been near seven years of which little is known, except a brief time he spent in Damascus and Jerusalem, as he recounted it later, Gal 1:15-24. Barnabas, in this gesture of search for Paul, showed an unselfish concern for the need of the brethren in Antioch, above his own care for any place of honor or preeminence, an evidence of his being filled with or controlled by the Holy Spirit, Act 11:24; Eph 5:17.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

25. Barnabas’ simplicity is commended to us now the second time, that whereas he might have borne the chiefest swing at Antioch, yet went he into Cilicia that he might fet [fetch] Paul thence, who he knew should be preferred before him. Therefore we see how, forgetting himself, he respecteth nothing but that Christ may be chief; how he setteth before his eyes the edifying of the Church alone; how he is content with the prosperous success of the gospel. Therefore, Barnabas is no whit afraid lest Paul do any whit debase him by his coming, so he glorify Christ.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(25) Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus.The act is every way significant. It indicates the assurance that Saul would approve of the work which had been going on at Antioch, and the confident belief that he was the right person to direct and organise it. It probably implies also some intercourse with the Apostle, by letter or message, since his departure from Jerusalem. In the absence of any direct record, we can only infer that Saul had remained at Tarsus, carrying on his occupation as a tent-maker (Act. 18:3), and preaching the gospel there and in the neighbouring cities of Cilicia (see Note on Act. 15:41) to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. It is clear that he must have heard of the grace of God that had been manifested at Antioch with great joy, and accepted the invitation to join in the work there with a ready gladness.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

25. Barnabas Tarsus Saul Barnabas also may have been Saul’s friend in youth; he was his certifier to the apostles. And now that Paul has retired to his native Tarsus, Barnabas feels that Saul, the man of mighty spirit, Christ’s chosen apostle to the Gentiles, is the very man for this mighty, wicked Gentile Antioch. Saul, heretofore in the shade, is now, though for a while subordinate to Barnabas, forevermore drawn forth, like a Damascus blade from its scabbard.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And he went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.’

Barnabas was not only a great man, but a humble one, and he was willing to call to his side a man who would one day surpass him. He recognised that what was involved was too much for him, and even possibly that someone of a superior calibre of reasoning to himself, was needed here (that is one of the signs of true greatness). So he set out for Tarsus to seek out (‘hunt out’ – see Act 9:30; Act 21:39; Act 22:3; Luk 2:44-45) Saul whom he knew would be the ideal man to take on the responsibility with him. And when he had found him he brought him to Antioch.

That Saul had continued to proclaim the Good News in Tarsus and Cilicia we need not doubt. Some have suggested that a number of the punishments which he described in 2Co 11:23-27, which are not mentioned elsewhere, might have been dispensed to him by the synagogues of Tarsus and Cilicia. (We can remember how the Cilicians treated Stephen). Others have argued that Php 3:8 suggests that he had been disinherited by his family. But it is all surmise, although he clearly suffered these things at some time.

Then for a whole year he and Saul laboured together among the people of God (‘the church’), and they taught ‘large numbers of people’. And so great was the impact of the work that it came to the attention of the inhabitants of the city, and they began to speak of the believers as Christiani (‘Christ-men’ – ‘Christians’). They were no longer being seen as semi-Jews who followed the Jewish Messiah. They were being seen as a distinctive people. This had its dangers. Once Christianity was seen as separate from Judaism it would lose the favoured status of being a Licit Religion which Judaism enjoyed, and would become liable to persecution. But that would not be yet.

There are three elements to the name Christiani. It contains the name of the Jewish Messiah, expressed in Greek (Christos) with a Latin ending ‘-iani’. It was thus cosmopolitan, and was very suitable for the new cosmopolitan Christian church.

This giving of a name to the Christians in Antioch was clearly seen as significant by Luke. This church was the first one which had been formed and united together by the conversion of large numbers of both Jews and Greeks. The giving of a name (whoever gave it) was therefore seen as an indication of its recognition by God and His Son. The Gentiles, equally with the Jews, were seen by God and by men as Christ-men, and acknowledged by God as such.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: (26) And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

As the Holy Ghost hath been pleased to have it recorded, where the honored spot was, from whence the Lord’s family first derived the high privilege of being called Christians, I think it well merits our attention. It should seem, that before, and about this period, the faithful in Christ Jesus, were variously distinguished in names, who spake of them in derision, called them Nazarenes, Galileans, men who trouble our city, and teach customs which are not lawful: Act 16:20-21 . who have turned the world upside down: Act 17:21 , and, as they called Paul, a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: Act 14:5 . so no doubt the whole community were considered the same. And, whether the name of Christians was first given to them by their enemies, or by friends, is not said, though I confess to me it appears, as though it evidently came from the Lord. But one thing is certain, the scoffer used it in reproach. And for many generations after, as well as then in Antioch, the foes to the cross considered nothing more opprobrious, than when they called a man, Christian. Paul said for himself and companions, that they were esteemed the filth and off-scouring of all things, 1Co 4:13 .

I have already said, that to me, I confess, it appears to have come immediately from the Lord. And my reasons are these. It was the Lord’s promise, that when the Gentiles should see Christ’s righteousness, and all kings his glory, that then the Church should be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord should name, Isa 65:15Isa 65:15 . And the name itself doth not simply mean a follower of Christ, or one professing Christ, (though the enemies of Christ, perhaps mean no other, when they call the Lord’s people Christians,) but the name means anointed ones. Thus in that beautiful passage of the prophet, where Christ is represented as going forth for the salvation of his people, it is added, even for salvation with thine anointed, Hab 3:13 . That this passage refers to Christ, is beyond all dispute, for this going forth can mean no other, and so Micah describes Christ, whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting, Mic 5:2 ; Mat 2:6 . And the Church, is specially, and properly, Christ’s people. In proof, see Psa 110:3 ; Mat 1:21 ; Joh 17:6 . And when it is said by Habakkuk, that the Lord went forth for salvation with his anointed; though the word is in the singular, yet it is put as meaning the whole body. In a similar passage in Zechariah, the word to the same purport is plural. These are the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth, Zec 4:14 . And if, as may be supposed, (though I presume not to speak decidedly,) those two mean the Lord’s witnesses, Jew and Gentile, these correspond to the anointing of Christ’s Church, which is but one and the same, Son 6:9 ; Joh 10:16 ; Rev 11:3-4 . Some indeed render the words of the Prophet, when he saith, thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed, even for salvation for thy Christ’s, that is the same word anointed, for Christ means anointed. So much for the name.

I must not dismiss the subject of the Church being first called Christians at Antioch, without remarking further, that supposing, (as I have ventured to state, the hand of the Lord was in the appointment, what a singular mercy it was, that from such a place, and at such a time, the Lord should Mr 1-16. And is it not so now? yea, hath it not been the same in all ages? Psa 2 throughout. Reader! depend upon it, the truths of our God were never more opposed than in the present hour. I mean the pure, distinguishing truths, which peculiarly belong to the Gospel. Men may be called Christians, yea, indeed, they are called so, because they are born under the meridian of Christianity. And, for the same reason, the same men had they been born in Turkey, would have been called Mohammedans. But a man must be new-horn to be really and truly a Christian, as those at Antioch were, when branded by the carnal at that place, with the name of Christian. And if you, my brother, are truly a Christian, an anointed one in Christ by regeneration, and know, as you cannot then but know by that blessed work of the Holy Ghost wrought in you, your union with Christ and communion in all that belongs to Christ’s being justified wholly by Him, sanctified in Him, and professing before all the world, that your everlasting All depends upon Him; an open profession of these glorious truths, and a corresponding conduct in life and conversation, answering to the same, will bring upon you reproach as much as true believers in Christ did the saints of old at this famous city, when the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. The offence of the cross hath never ceased. And unless men temporize, and give in to the conformity of the times, now, as much as then, they who will live godly in Christ Jesus, must suffer persecution, 2Ti 3:17 . There is a fashionable gospel in the present day, which all the world may follow, and yet escape reproach. But none who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth, will go free. Reader! it will be your province of duty, now I have performed mine on this subject, to enquire after the real cause for which you are called Christian. And I shall leave the subject with you, only first requesting you to consult those two striking Scriptures of the Lord Jesus on the point, as both addressed to Pharisees, Luk 16:14-15 and Joh 3:3 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

XVIII

SAUL FROM HIS CONVERSION TO HIS ORDINATION

See list of references below.

The theme of this section is the history of Saul from his conversion and call to the apostleship, up to his ordination as an apostle to the Gentiles; that is, it extends from Act 9 over certain parts of Acts up to chapter 13, but not all of the intervening chapters of Acts. The scriptures are Act 9:17-30 ; Act 11:25-30 ; Act 22:17-21 ; Gal 1:5-24 ; Act 15:23-41 ; 2Co 11:23-27 ; 2Co 11:32-33 ; 2Co 12:1-4 ; Act 26:20 , which you have to study very carefully in order to understand this section. The time covered by this period is at least nine years, probably ten years, of which we have very scanty history. We have to get a great part of our history from indirect references, and therefore it takes a vast deal of study to make a connected history of this period.

Two scriptures must here be reconciled, Act 9:19-26 and Gal 1:15-18 . The particular points conflicting are that Luke in Act 9 seems to say that immediately, or straightway, after his conversion Saul commenced to preach at Damascus, and the Galatian passage says that straightway after his conversion he went into Arabia and remained there a long time before he returned to Damascus. The precise question involved in the account is, Did Paul commence to preach “straightway” after his conversion, as Luke seems to represent it, or did he wait nearly three years after his conversion before he began to preach? Luke’s account in Act 9 seems on its face to be a continuous story from Damascus back to Jerusalem, without a note of time, except two expressions: “And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus,” and then a little lower down he uses the expression, “when many days were fulfilled.” Luke’s account says nothing about Saul’s leaving Damascus, his long absence and return there. In a very few words only he tells the story of three years. With his account only before us, we would naturally infer that Saul began to preach in Damascus “straightway” after his conversion, but we would also infer that this preaching was continuous there after he commenced, until he escaped for his life to go to Jerusalem. But the Galatian account shows that he left Damascus straightway after his conversion, went into Arabia, returned to Damascus, and then took up his ministry there, and, after three years, went to Jerusalem. This account places the whole of his Damascus ministry after his return there.

The issue, however, is not merely between Luke’s “straightway” and the Galatian “straightway,” though this is sharp, but so to insert the Galatian account in the Acts account as not to mar either one of the accounts, and yet to intelligently combine the two into one harmonious story. In Hackett on Acts, “American Commentary,” we find the argument and the arrangement supporting the view that Paul commenced to preach in Damascus before he went into Arabia, and in chapter II of Farrar’s Life of Paul we find the unanswerable argument showing that Paul did not commence to preach until after his return from Arabia, and that his whole ministry at Damascus was after that time, and then was continued until he escaped and went to Jerusalem.

The Hackett view, though the argument is strong and plausible in some directions, breaks down in adjustment of the accounts, marring both of them, and failing utterly in the combination to make one intelligent, harmonious story. The author, therefore, dissents strongly from the Hackett view and supports strongly that of Farrar. In other words, we put in several verses of the letter to the Galatians right after Act 9:19 .

Let us take Act 9 , commencing with Act 9:17 : “And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus.” And Gal 1:15 reading right along: “But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.” All of that must follow Act 9:19 . Then we go back and read, beginning at Act 9:20 : “And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God,” that is, straightway after he returned from Arabia. Then read to Act 9:25 , and turn back to Gal 1:18 : “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas.” Then go with Act 9:26 : “And when he was come to Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples.” The following is a harmony of these scriptures:

It is intensely important that you have this harmony of all these scriptures. You divide all of this into four parts just like the Broadus method in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I have in four parallel columns made the harmony complete in the passages mentioned, showing how far to read, and then taking up the one that supplies, so that one can read the entire story without a break. In column 1 of this harmony read Act 9:17-19 ; in column 2, Gal 1:15-17 ; returning to column 1 read Act 9:20-25 and 2Co 11:32-33 ; then in column 2, Gal 1:18 (except the last clause); then back to column I and read Act 9:26-27 ; in column 2, Gal 1:18 (last clause) and Gal 1:19-20 ; then back to column I, read Act 9:28-29 (except last clause); then in column 3 read Act 22:17-21 ; in column 1, Act 9:29 (last clause) to Act 9:31 ; in column 2, Gal 1:21-24 ; in column 4, Act 11:25-30 ; Act 12:25 . This is the harmonious story of Paul. Then read for purposes of investigation, Act 15:23-41 in order to get the information about his Cilician work, also read 2Co 11:23-27 to find out what part of the sufferings there enumerated took place in Cicilia. Then read 2Co 12:1-4 , as this pertains to Cilicia. Then read Act 26:20 and ask the question, When did he do this preaching in Judea, and was it during his Cilician tour? This gives all the scriptures. Carefully read it over in the order in which the scriptures are given. It makes the most perfect story that I have ever read. It does not mar any one of the four separate cases. It does combine into one harmonious story and gives us an excellent harmony of these scriptures.

The value of this harmony is very evident. This arrangement mars no one of the several accounts of the story, but does combine them into one harmonious story, and provides an explanation for Luke’s “certain days,” “many days,” the Galatian “three years,” Luke’s “straightway,” and the Galatian “straightway.”

With this harmony before us, we can see why Luke is so very brief on the account of Paul in Act 9 . His plan is to tell the story of the Jerusalem church up to the end of Act 12 . All matters apart from that are briefly noted, and only as they connect with Jerusalem, the center. But from Act 13 he makes Antioch the center, and we are told of his arrest, and later on he shifts back to Jerusalem, and then back to Rome, and thus winds up the history. Remember the centers: First center, Jerusalem; second center, Antioch; third center, Jerusalem, and fourth center, Rome.

Saul did not commence preaching at Damascus immediately after his conversion because he had nothing to preach. He had not yet received the gospel. A man cannot by sudden wrench turn from propagating the Pharisee persecution to propagating the gospel of Jesus Christ. He must have the gospel first, and must receive it direct from the Lord. After you take up the New Testament passages showing how he received the gospel, you will see that he did not receive it while at Damascus. Indeed, we have the most positive proof that he did not receive it there.

But why did he go into Arabia, where in Arabia, and how long there? Being willing to accept Christ as his Saviour, he needs time for adjustment. He needs retirement. He needs, like every preacher needs after conversion, his preparation to preach and to know what to preach. He went into Arabia for this purpose, and, of course, Arabia here means the Sinaitic Peninsula, or Mount Sinai. Up to his conversion he had been preaching Moses and the law given on Mount Sinai. Now he goes into Arabia to Mount Sinai, the very place where God gave the law to Moses, to study the law and the gospel, and comes back to us, having received of the Lord the gospel as explained in Galatians.

There are some analogous cases. The other apostles had to have three years of preparation, and under the same teacher, Jesus. They would have done very poor preaching if they had started immediately after their conversion. Jesus kept them right there, and trained them for three years. Now Paul commences with the three years’ training, and he goes to Arabia and receives the three years’ preparation under the same teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ himself. He not only knows the facts of the gospel as we know them from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but as one that was there right at the time, and he gets it firsthand from the Lord Jesus Christ himself telling him all the important facts bearing upon the remaining of the incarnation of Jesus, where he came from in coming to the earth, how much he stooped, what the coming signified, of his death, his burial, his resurrection, his ascension. We get the harmony of the gospel by studying the books, but he did not get it as we do, but by direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ. He introduces a statement concerning the revelation that he received, and he is careful to tell the Corinthian church how that Christ died, was buried, and rose again in three days. It took three years and a half in the analogous cases of other apostles.

Elijah went into Arabia and into this very mountain when he was perplexed; and there came an earthquake, and God was not in the earthquake; and there came a fire, and God was not in the fire, but there came a still, small voice showing Elijah what he must do. Take the case of Moses when the revelation was made to him that he was to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Egyptians. God told him the methods and the means and sent him into the same Sinaitic Peninsula. He stayed there forty years in study and preparation, and then delivered Israel.

John the Baptist remained in the wilderness thirty years in order to preach six months. Neither did Jesus open his mouth to preach a sermon until after his baptism, and was led into the wilderness and tempted of the devil, and then came back and immediately commenced to preach. More hurtful mistakes are made by unprepared people taking hold of the Scriptures than in any other way. A certain colonel, when asked by a zealous young preacher, “Well, colonel, what do you think of my sermon,” answered, “Zealous, but weak.”

We have only to read Gal 4 to see the significance of Sinai and Jerusalem, which shows the revolutions which took place in his mind while he was in Arabia. If the apostle Paul had not gone into Arabia, but had been sent to Judea under the old covenant, which is Jerusalem, as Jerusalem now is, the Christian world would have been a Jewish sect. You have only to read to see how certain of the apostles clung to the forms and customs of the Jewish law and claimed that one could not be a Christian without becoming a Jew and being circumcised. What would have been the effect if God had not selected this great life and revealed to him the ministry of the gospel that had been rejected by the Jews and given to the Gentiles, so that foreigners and aliens might become citizens and saints? For a more elaborate discussion of this subject see the author’s sermon on the Arabian visit.

Just before the ministry at Damascus he went into Arabia and returned. He was in Arabia over two, perhaps three years. As he stayed about three years before he went back to Jerusalem, his ministry was not very long in Damascus. The record says, “straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus,” etc. What kind of sermons did they have? The Jews over at Damascus that were still holding to the Mosaic law could not yet understand this revolutionary preaching, and right there at Damascus, he received one of the five Jewish scourgings that are mentioned in 2 Corinthians, which gives a list of the number of times he received the forty stripes save one, and the number of times beaten with the Roman rods, and the number of times scourged with the Jewish scourge. Finding the scourging was not sufficient, they laid a plot against him. They conspired and set a watch at every gate all around the city to kill him. The walls at Damascus have houses built on them, as you can see to this day. They put him in a basket and from a window in the upper story they letrbim down by the wall. Aretas was king of Damascus at this time) and he stationed soldiers at every gate to keep watch, and while they were watching the gates, Paul escaped from the window in an upper story, as given in the thrilling account of 2Co 11:32-33 . Also Luke gives the account, saying that the brethren let him down in a basket by the wall. Now he being let down, started to Jerusalem. Three years have elapsed since he left there, a persecutor, and he returns now a preacher of the Lord Jesus Christ. That presents this connected account.

But why did he want to go to Jerusalem to see Peter? Commentaries say he wanted to get information from Peter; Catholics say that Peter was Pope. Whatever he wanted to get, I think he derived nothing from Peter. When he came there they expressed distrust of him. If he had commenced to preach at Damascus “straightway” after his conversion, in three years’ time some notice would have gotten to Jerusalem, and there would not have been this distrust when he got there. Only one had heard of this change and his beginning to preach, and that was Barnabas, of the Jewish church. When Barnabas related Paul’s experience, they received him and he went in and out among them. But he was there only two weeks.

He commenced immediately to preach to the Grecians, and it stirred up the people as it did at Damascus, and they were so intensely stirred that they laid a plan to kill him. So he left, and there are two reasons for his leaving. When the brethren saw the Jews were about to kill him, they sent him to Caesarea and over to Tarsus. That is one of the reasons for his leaving. Paul gives an entirely different reason. He says, “And it came to pass when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the Temple, I was in a trance, and Jesus came unto me saying, Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. Get thee far hence and preach to the Gentiles,” and he, therefore, went.

Here was the Cilician ministry, its sufferings and its revelations. He was over there five years, and some of the sufferings enumerated in 1 Corinthians II are bound to have occurred in that period; some of the shipwrecks, some of the scourges, some of these stonings. In 2Co 12 he says, “I knew a man in Christ, fourteen years ago,” so if you drop back fourteen years you find yourself there with Paul in Cilicia. In 2Co 12:1-4 we find the revelations that occurred there. One of the revelations there was that marvelous revelation that he received (2Co 12:4 ): “How that he was caught up into Paradise.” Here the question arises, Was it in this tour that he preached on the coasts of Judea? In Acts he seems to say that he preached at Damascus first and then at Jerusalem, and in Cilicia, and on the coasts of Judea. We have no history of his preaching on the Judean coasts beyond his statement, and if he did not preach on the coasts of Judea at that time, when do we find a period in his life before that where he could have preached on the Judean coasts? On his way to the Jerusalem conference. Therefore, he says, “While I was in Cilicia, and the five years I was at Tarsus, and just a little way from Tarsus on the Judean coasts.”

Let us consider the Antioch ministry. The record says Barnabas had gone to Tarsus in order to find Saul and bring him back with him, and that Barnabas and Saul preached a year at Antioch. A great many were brought into the church. It was the first time in the world where Jew and Gentile were in the same church together, socially, eating and drinking with each other. But Paul now makes his second visit to Jerusalem. The last of chapter II tells us that Agabus, one of the prophets, foretold a drought in Judea, and Paul and Barnabas took a collection over to them. Later, when Paul is making his last visit to Jerusalem, Agabus meets him and gives that remarkable prophecy which we find in Act 21 , about what would happen to Paul if he went to Jerusalem, he having received the revelation from the Holy Spirit. But the condition of Jerusalem when he arrived was awful. Herod, as we find in Act 12 , was persecuting the church, and had killed James and imprisoned Peter. Paul comes just at that time. On his return to Antioch he finds a new companion, Mark.

The Romanists place here Peter’s first visit to Rome. They take two passages of scripture, one Act 2 , where Peter visits all parts, and they say when he left Jerusalem this time he went to Rome, and got back to Jerusalem in time for that big council in Act 15 . So far as Bible history goes, there is not a bit of testimony that Peter ever saw Rome. I think he did, but we do not get it from the Bible.

Here arises another question, Did the shock of our Lord’s appearance to Saul on the way to Damascus, likely injure him physically in a permanent way, and permanently affect his sensibilities? My opinion is that it did. He was never a strong man after that. His eyes always gave him trouble. Though the scales fell from his eyes, and he was not entirely blind, his eyes were weak, and he had to grope his way in walking. There are two pictures of Paul which greatly contrast his physical appearance. Raphael gives us a famous cartoon of Paul at Athens, and one of the most famous pictures of the great apostle. We find a copy of it in most Bible illustrations, certainly in any Roman Catholic Bible. Another picture is by the artist, Albrecht Durer. It is called a medallion, a carved picture, and it presents a little, ugly, weak, bald-headed, blear-eyed Jew. Durer’s picture is the one that fits Paul’s account of himself, and not Raphael’s.

I here commend, in addition to Conybeare and Howson’s Life of Paul and Farrar’s History , Lightfoot on Galatians.

QUESTIONS 1. What is the theme of this section?

2. What is the scriptures?

3. What is the time covered by this period?

4. What two scriptures must here be reconciled?

5. What is the problem here?

6. What is the Hackett view of it?

7. What is the real solution of it?

8. Show how the scriptures are made to fit this scheme.

9. How may we show the harmony of these scriptures?

10. What is the value of this harmony?

11. Why did not Saul commence preaching at Damascus immediately after his conversion?

12.Why did he go into Arabia, where in Arabia, & how long there?

13. What are the analogous cases cited?

14.What was the added value of this preparation to Saul?

15.What sermon commended in this connection & have you read it?

16. Describe the ministry at Damascus.

17. Why did he want to go to Jerusalem to see Peter?

18. Explain the distrust there & its bearing on preceding question.

19. How long was he there?

20. What of his ministry while there?

21. What two reasons for his leaving?

22. How long was the Cilician ministry, and what its sufferings and its revelations?

23. Was it in this tour that be preached on the coasts of Judea?

24. Describe the Antioch ministry, and how long was it?

25. What carried Paul on his second visit to Jerusalem, and when does Agabus again appear in this history?

26. What was the condition of Jerusalem when he arrived?

27. Where do the Romanists place Peter’s first visit to Rome?

28. On Paul’s return to Antioch, what new companion had he?

29. Did the shock of our Lord’s appearance, to Saul on the way to Damascus likely injure him physically in a permanent way, and permanently affect his sensibilities?

30. What two pictures of Paul greatly contrast his physical appearance, and which is most likely true to nature?

31. What special authority on this period, in addition to Conybeare and Howson, and Farrar’s History, commended?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

Ver. 25. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus for to seek Saul ] Not fearing to be outshined by him, who was now grown an admirable preacher, and an insatiable worshipper of Christ, a but seeking the setting-up of Christ’s kingdom by all means possible. To rejoice in and to improve the good parts of others for a public benefit (though it eclipseth thy light), and that from the heart, this is indeed to get above others; this is more than to excel others in any excellence, if this be wanting.

a Insatiabilis Dei cultor. Chrysost.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

25. ] This therefore took place after ch. Act 9:30 ; how long after , we have no hint in the narrative, and the question will be determined by various persons according to the requirements of their chronological system. Wieseler and Schrader make it not more than from half a year to a year: Dr. Burton, who places the conversion of Saul in A.D. 31, nine years. Speaking priori , it seems very improbable that any considerable portion of time should have been spent by him before the great work of his ministry began. Even supposing him during this retirement to have preached in Syria and Cilicia, judging by the analogy of his subsequent journeys, a few months at the most would have sufficed for this. For my own view, see Prolegg. to Acts, vi.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 11:25 . Luke gives no reason why Barnabas goes to seek Saul, but Barnabas who had already vouched for Saul’s sincerity before the Church of Jerusalem, Act 9:27 , could scarcely be ignorant that the sphere of his friend’s future work was to be the Gentile world. In Act 9:30 Saul was sent away to Tarsus, and now Barnabas goes to Tarsus to seek him; each statement is the complement of the other, and a long period intervenes not marked by any critical event in Saul’s history. So also Paul’s own statement, Gal 1:21-22 , marks the same period, and the two writers complete each other. Ramsay, St. Paul , pp. 45, 46, on Luke’s style and reading in [244] above. , cf. Luk 2:44-45 , nowhere else in N.T., a word therefore not only common to, but peculiar to Luke’s writings. : giving idea of thoroughness; it was not known at what precise spot Saul was prosecuting his work, so the word implies effort or thoroughness in the search; implies the same uncertainty. In LXX, cf. Job 3:4 ; Job 10:6 , 2Ma 13:21 . Calvin comments on the fresh proof of the “simplicitas” of Barnabas; he might have retained the chief place at Antioch, but he goes for Paul: “videmus ergo ut sui oblitus nihil aliud spectat, nisi ut emineat unus Christus”.

[244] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

for to seek. Literally to seek up and down. Greek. anazeteo. Here, Luk 2:44.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

25.] This therefore took place after ch. Act 9:30; how long after, we have no hint in the narrative, and the question will be determined by various persons according to the requirements of their chronological system. Wieseler and Schrader make it not more than from half a year to a year: Dr. Burton, who places the conversion of Saul in A.D. 31,-nine years. Speaking priori, it seems very improbable that any considerable portion of time should have been spent by him before the great work of his ministry began. Even supposing him during this retirement to have preached in Syria and Cilicia,-judging by the analogy of his subsequent journeys, a few months at the most would have sufficed for this. For my own view, see Prolegg. to Acts, vi.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 11:25-26

PAUL BROUGHT TO ANTIOCH

Act 11:25-26

25 And he went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul;-After Sauls conversion he went into Arabia and returned to Damascus; next we find him in Jerusalem; he did but little work in Jerusalem ; Barnabas had commended him to the apostles and the church there, but it was thought best for Saul to go to another field; so when it was found that the Jews were seeking to kill him, the brethren brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. (Act 9:30.) It seems that he did not remain idle in Cilicia (Gal 1:21), but preached the gospel in Cilicia and Syria (Act 15:41). The work was too heavy for Barnabas in Antioch, so he went to Tarsus, about eighty miles away, to find Saul. Seek is from the original anazetesai, and means to seek or hunt up; the word suggests that Barnabas had some difficulty in finding Saul. The Holy Spirit guided Barnabas in his search, and Barnabas had full confidence in Saul as being the right person to help in the great work at Antioch.

26 and when he had found him,-After finding Saul and reporting to him of the great work that had been done at Antioch, Saul accepted the invitation to join Barnabas in the work of the Lord in that field. They labored together for a whole year with the church at Antioch. This is the second time Barnabas introduces Saul; Barnabas here and for more than a year later appears as the leader, and not Saul. (Act 13:1-2.) Barnabas leads in the first great work that is done with Saul. They not only preached the gospel to the unsaved, but they edified the church: they taught much people.

and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.-Up to this time believers in Christ had been called believers, disciples, saints, brethren, those of the Way; but now they receive a new name. Much discussion has been had as to who called them Christians. Were called shows that they not only called themselves by that name, but that others called them by that name. Were called is from the original chrematisai, and has the force of divine command. (Mat 2:12 Mat 2:22; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22.) However, some claim that the word does not have that meaning here, but that it has the same meaning as Rom 7:3, and means to be called or named by someone else from ones business. Some contend that the name was given by their enemies as a name of contempt. It matters but little as to who first coined the name and applied it to the disciples of Christ, since we have the name divinely approved by Peter in 1Pe 4:16. Here Peter, speaking or writing by the Holy Spirit, says: If a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name. The other instance in divine record where the name is used is in Act 26:28, where Agrippa acknowledges that Paul is persuading him to be a Christian. Christians is from the Greek Christianous; this termination was frequent in Latin in the early days; whether this name was derived from the Latin or not, the termination became common enough in Greek, and therefore there is no necessity to ascribe the name Christianos to a Roman origin. Later Christianos was modified to Chrestianos (both words being pronounced alike). Each of the three languages has contributed to the formation of this word. The thought is Jewish, denoting the Anointed One; the root, Christ, is Greek; the termination, ianoi, is Latin. So in the provi-dence of God, the same three nations whose differing dialects proclaimed above the cross, Jesus the King of the Jews, now unite in forming a word which for all time shall be applied to those who follow Christ. Antioch, the center from which the gospel radiated among the Gentiles, has given us the common name, Christian.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

to Tarsus: Act 9:11, Act 9:27, Act 9:30, Act 21:39

Reciprocal: Luk 5:7 – that they should Act 13:1 – prophets Act 15:34 – it pleased Act 22:3 – in Tarsus 2Co 11:26 – journeyings Gal 1:21 – I came Gal 2:1 – Barnabas

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5

Act 11:25. The last account we had of Saul was when the brethren helped him get started towards this town of Tarsus (chapter 9:30). The work at Antioch was growing in numbers and influence, and Barnabas believed that the help of Saul would be beneficial, hence he went to Tarsus to find him.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 11:25. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul. The history of St. Paul is here resumed, suddenly and somewhat indirectly, from Act 9:30, which corresponds with Act 22:21, and Gal 1:21. We have no information regarding the length of time he spent at Tarsus, or his manner of employment when there. But we cannot imagine him to have been idle in his Masters cause; and to this period is probably to be assigned the formation of those Cilician churches of which we find mention afterwards in Act 15:41, at the beginning of the Second Missionary Journey. We feel sure also that this time of exile, like the time of retirement in Arabia (Gal 1:17), was made use of for the deepening of his religious life and his further Divine illumination.

As to the errand of Barnabas, for the purpose of seeking out Saul and bringing him to Antioch, it is evident that the future Apostle of the Gentiles was by no means lost sight of by the Church, but that the resuming of his active public work was earnestly desired. It is possible that Barnabas knew something of that vision in the Temple, recorded in Act 22:21, when Saul was designated as Apostle to the Gentiles. It has also been conjectured that this searching out of Saul, and associating him with himself in the work among the new Syrian Christians, was part of the commission given to Barnabas. Thus the case of Antioch would be similar to that of Samaria, to which place Peter and John were sent (Act 8:14), and would be accordant with our Saviours habit of sending two and two on missionary work. However this may be, the character of Barnabas is at this point set before us in a most attractive light, in that he brought out of retirement one whose eminence was sure to supersede and eclipse his own. This has been forcibly noted by Calvin; and it has been illustrated, in modern history, by the conduct of Farel with respect to Calvin himself (see Alexanders Commentary). Renan, with all his strange inconsistencies and wild theories, sometimes displays extraordinary sagacity in seizing the true import of points of the apostolic history; and his remarks concerning Barnabas are very just and happy. He says that Christianity has been unjust towards this great man in not placing him in the first rank among its founders, that every good and generous thought had Barnabas for its patron. As to the particular point before us, the bringing of Saul to Antioch, Renan says: Gagner cette grande me . . . se faire son inferieur, preparer le champ le plus favorable au deploiement de son activite en oubliant soi-meme, cest la certes le comble de ce qua jamais pu faire la vertu; cest la ce que Barnabe fit pour Saint Paul. La plus grande partie de ce dernier revient lhomme modeste qui le devanca en toutes choses, seffaca devant lui, decouvrit ce quil valait, le mit en lumiere . . . prvint le tort irremediable que de mesquines personalites auraient pu faire loeuvre de Dieu.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, A further instance of the piety of that good man. Barnabas having a great zeal and fervent desire that the gospel might be more and more prompted, he went to Tarsus to seek out Saul, that they might join together in the work of Christ; and having found him, he brought him to Antioch: where, for a whole year, they instructed the church in that city, and taught much people.

Oh how happy is it for the church of Christ, when her ministers, laying aside all private interest, do unitedly apply themselves to promote the common interest of Christianity, by propagating the gospel far and near!

Observe farther, How the believers, both Jews and Gentiles, were united in one common name at Antioch: the Jews had hitherto called them Nazarites and Galileans, and they called themselves disciples, believers, brethren, and those of the church; but now in this place, Antioch, they were first called Christians: A very great honour conferred on this Gentile city, which exalted her now above Jerusalem itself.

At Antioch, a Gentile city, Christ set up his standard for the Gentiles, and displayed his banner, and puts his own name on the despised Gentiles. They who before were counted dogs, and the off-scouring of all things, have now the venerable name of Christ imposed upon them. “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”

Note lastly, that the disciples did not call themsleves Christians first at Antioch, much less did their enemies give them that name; but they had it by divine authority imposed upon them; God would have Christ’s disciples called Christians,

1. As scholars, who receive their denomination from their master, they are taught to learn and imitate Christ, whose name they bear.

2. As the word Christians signifies anointed ones, it put them in mind of their divine unction, which they have received from the Holy One, whereby they are made kings and priests unto God. We are at this day called reformed Christians.

God grant that we may not cheat ourselves with an empty and insignificant name; but let us fill up that glorious title, and be reformed in our lives, as well as in our religion; beautifying our holy profession by an holy and becoming conversation; otherwise an unbaptize heathen, at the great day, will not change estate with many baptized Christians.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Act 11:25-26. Then departed Barnabas Namely, after some abode at Antioch, perceiving, probably, that he wanted an assistant in his labours; to Tarsus, to seek Saul Whose departure thither was mentioned, chap. Act 9:30. And finding him there According to his expectation, he gave him, it seems, such an account of the state of things at Antioch, and such a view of the extensive usefulness which appeared to present itself there, that he prevailed with him to accompany him at his return to that populous and celebrated city. Probably he judged, that since he was by country a Greek, though by descent a Hebrew of the Hebrews, he would be peculiarly fit to assist him in his great work, especially considering, on the one hand, his accomplishments as a scholar, and, on the other, his extraordinary conversion and eminent piety and zeal. And, continuing there a whole year, they taught much people Instructed them in the doctrines, privileges, and duties of Christianity. And the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch A title that was really an honour to them, and by which, from this time, they were generally denominated, being before termed Nazarenes and Galileans.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

25. While Barnabas was engaged in these faithful labors in Antioch, he seems to have longed for the co-operation of a kindred spirit. He had not forgotten the converted persecutor, whom he had kindly taken by the hand when all the apostles were suspicious of him, and introduced to the confidence of the brethren. An act of kindness often makes as deep an impression on the heart of the benefactor as on that of the recipient. The heart of Barnabas had followed Saul when the brethren sent him away to Tarsus, and now that he needs a fellow-laborer, his heart directs him where to seek. (25) “Then Barnabas departed to Tarsus to seek Saul; (26) and having found him he brought him to Antioch.” The attachment being mutual, he found no difficulty in securing the object of his mission.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

25. Not only did Barnabas heartily endorse the procedure, but of his own accord he went away to Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, hunted up his old friend and schoolmate, Saul, and brought him to Antioch to help push the evangelistic work among the Gentiles. You see plainly from this transaction the decisive contrast between the Apostolic church and modern ecclesiasticisms, ruled by men pursuant to laws of their Own manufacture, not only independently but even defiantly of the Holy Ghost, whose work is as manifest this day as ever; but blind men do not see anything. Preachers who fail to see the work of the Holy Ghost in the present holiness movement are no kin to Barnabas. If they were only like him, full of the Holy Ghost and faith, they would all see the work of God, give it their endorsement and lend a helping hand to push the battle for souls wherever they saw the work of the Holy Ghost among the people, even though it capsize some of their man-made rules and regulations. God has provided that valuable gift, discernment of spirits (1Co 12:10) for all of His Spirit-filled people, which in every case enables them to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in contradistinction to that of other spirits, human and diabolical. Good Lord, revive again the Apostolic church in its New Testament simplicity, ruled by the Holy Ghost alone; of course, not without human instrumentality, cognizant of the Spirit and His work, and gladly acquiescent in the same.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 25

To Tarsus; whither Saul had gone, as related in Acts 9:30.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

11:25 {6} Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

(6) There was no contention amongst the apostles, either with regard to usurping, or with regard to holding places of degree.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

As the church in Antioch continued to grow, Barnabas and perhaps others sensed the need for Saul’s help. Consequently Barnabas set out to track him down in Tarsus, where Saul had gone (Act 9:30). Saul was an ideal choice for this work since God had given him a special appointment to evangelize Gentiles (Act 22:21). Moreover he had considerable experience in ministry already, probably about nine years of it since his conversion. [Note: See the appendix "Sequence of Paul’s Activities" at the end of these notes.]

Some Bible scholars have deduced that Saul’s family in Tarsus had disinherited him (cf. Php 3:8). Some also believe he endured some of the afflictions he described in 2Co 11:23-27 while he ministered in and around Tarsus. These included persecution by the Jews, probably for trying to evangelize Gentiles. Furthermore some say he had the revelation to which he referred in 2Co 12:1-4 while he was ministering near there. He was undoubtedly very active in missionary work around Tarsus during his residence there even though we have no record of it.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)