2<\/strong>. as his manner was<\/em> ] See Act 13:5<\/span>; Act 13:14<\/span>; Act 14:1<\/span>, &c.<\/p>\n went in unto them<\/em> ] And was no doubt asked (cf. Act 13:15<\/span>) to offer any exhortation to the people which he might feel moved to do.<\/p>\n three sabbath days<\/em> ] Of course the Jews would assemble on that day in greater number, and for the other days of the week be less accessible.<\/p>\n His manner was – <\/B>His custom was to attend on the worship of the synagogue, and to preach the gospel to his countrymen first, Act 9:20<\/span>; Act 13:5<\/span>, Act 13:14<\/span>.<\/P> Reasoned with them – <\/B>Discoursed to them, or attempted to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. The word used here (<\/SPAN><\/span> dielegeto) often means no more than to make a public address or discourse. See the notes on Act 24:25<\/span>.<\/P> Out of the scriptures – <\/B>By many critics this is connected with the following verse, Opening and alleging from the scriptures that Christ must needs have suffered, etc. The sense is not varied materially by the change.<\/P><\/p>\n Act 17:2-4<\/span><\/p>\n And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Pauls ministry<\/strong><\/p>\n Notice–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It must always be good to consort with good men.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>It must always be good to be associated as closely as possible with a good cause, and Christianity is unquestionably the greatest cause in the world.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>It must always be good to escape from an equivocal position. To believe in One for life and death, who is not confessed, whatever excuses and explanations may be given, must be more or less equivocal.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>It must always be good to remove a little farther from danger; and the shelter, the nourishment, the inspiration of a Church is, as far as it goes, a real safety; it helps in many ways, it ought to hinder in none.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>It must always be good to obey Divine commandment, and as a Church is a Divine institution, connection with a Church must be the fulfilment of a Divine obligation. (A. Raleigh, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n An ancient pattern for modern times<\/strong><\/p>\n This <\/em>is quite an old world, and it is a long time since men and women began to try to find out how the great things in human life should be done, and how to make the best of everything. Many struggles, many failures, have no doubt, been experienced; but there has been, after all, a wonderful survival of the fittest, the best, on the whole. The result is, that there are very few really new things left for us to discover. For the most part, it is practically old things in a new dress–ancient patterns wrought out in modern forms. What wonder, then, if the modern Church of Christ should find her best example of work, and faith in the Church, ministers, and people, in the New Testament histories! I desire to call your attention now to Paul and his hearers, as giving to us a good example in these latter days.<\/p>\n The force of habit<\/strong><\/p>\n Our outward deportment becomes a matter of habit. When a man has become accustomed to any particular course, he cannot avoid acting upon it. Paul could no more have stayed away from the synagogue than he could have given up his food. So there ought to be a principle, made our own by custom, which shall absolutely lead us in the right way with a force which cannot be resisted. And this fact should especially remind us of the duty which we owe to those whom we have in charge. Habits imbibed in youth may affect the happiness and eternal welfare of the child. Observe the importance of–<\/p>\n Pauls custom<\/strong><\/p>\n It was Pauls custom–<\/p>\n Reasoned with them out of the Scriptures<\/strong>.<\/em><\/strong>—<\/em><\/p>\n The use of reason in religion<\/strong><\/p>\n There hath been an opinion too hastily taken up, and too warmly maintained by some, that reason is very little to be hearkened to in matters of religion; that we are to believe nothing but what is expressly taught us in the Word of God, and that we are not to draw consequences from Scripture, and to make them the articles of our faith, but most strictly confine ourselves to the very language of Holy Writ, and admit of no doctrines but what are there in so many words and syllables delivered. Now, true it is that the Scriptures are the adequate rule of our faith; but then it is not also true, nor by us confessed, that nothing is to be looked upon as taught us in Scripture but what is there in so many words delivered. It is the doctrine of our Church that the Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to our salvation; so that nothing is to be required of any man to be believed as an article of faith, which is not read therein, or which may not be proved thereby. This disjunction would be unnecessary if there were not some things which, though they are not read therein, may yet be proved thereby. What is rightly inferred from the Scriptures doth as much challenge our assent as what is literally delivered in the Scriptures.<\/p>\n Rational preaching<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The existence of God (verses 23-29; Rom 1:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The Divine sovereignty (Rom 9:1-33<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Total depravity (Rom 2:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Here it was Christs sufferings, death, and resurrection.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>The resurrection and future state (1Co 15:1-58<\/span>).<\/p>\n When Paul preached before Felix, he reasoned so that Felix trembled. Immediately after he was converted he preached Christ, and reasoned so that he confounded the Jews. After he came to Corinth he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. At length he came to Ephesus, where he reasoned with the Jews, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Because he meant to preach the gospel intelligibly to persons of all characters and capacities, and he knew that in order to do this it was necessary to explain its doctrines, to prove them to be true, that they might be believed; and to answer objections, that the mouths of gainsayers might be stopped.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Because he meant to preach profitably, as well as plainly. It is only through the medium of the understanding and the conscience that preachers can affect the hearts of the hearers.<\/p>\n Improvement:<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It appears from Pauls usual mode of preaching that he was a metaphysical preacher. For, in the first place, he usually preached upon metaphysical subjects, which required the exercise of the highest reasoning powers of man–the existence, the perfections, the sovereignty of God, the free agency of man under a Divine agency, the divinity and atonement of Christ, the nature of holiness, etc., etc.; and he preached upon them metaphysically, that is, he reasoned upon them. He did not merely declaim upon them; but he explained them, proved them, and refuted the most plausible objections ever made against them. Let any minister, at this day, commonly preach upon the same subjects, and in the same manner that Paul did, and he will be called a metaphysical preacher, by those who are pleased with such a different mode of preaching. And we must allow that they are perfectly correct.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>If Paul preached in such a manner, then none have any good reason to speak reproachfully of his manner of preaching.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Some may say that Christ did not preach metaphysically, but only taught plain, practical doctrines, without reasoning upon them; and therefore ministers should follow his example. Answer: There is reason to think that Paul felt his obligation to follow the example of Christ, as much as any preacher ever did. And so far as he deviated from Christs example in preaching, he acted from pure and proper motives. And it is easy to see a good reason why Christ did not undertake to prove the doctrines He taught, for He taught as one having authority that none ought to dispute. But neither Paul nor any other human preacher is clothed with such authority.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Some may say that those who preach upon the same subjects in the same manner that Paul did, do not preach plainly and practically; and therefore are unprofitable preachers. But if Paul was a plain and profitable preacher, why should not those be? And who indeed, generally preach the most plainly and successfully? No man ever preached like metaphysical Paul.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>If Paul, for good reasons, adopted the very best mode, then no other reason can be assigned for disliking it, but a dislike to the doctrines, which his mode of preaching exhibits in the clearest and strongest light.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>If Paul preached plainly, in order to preach profitably, then other ministers ought to preach plainly, for the same purpose. Pauls plain preaching offended and disaffected many of his hearers. But this did not prevent his preaching plainly; for his design in preaching was not to please men, but to profit them, and please God (Gal 1:6-10<\/span>).<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>If ministers ought to preach plainly and profitably, as Paul did, then people ought to approve of their preaching in such a manner, though it be not pleasing to their natural hearts. People have no right to desire preachers to seek to please them simply, but they ought to desire them to seek to save them. (N. Emmons, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Opening and alleging<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Pauls treatment of the Old Testament<\/strong><\/p>\n He treated it as a nut. He broke the shell, opened out the kernel, and presented it as food to the hungry. The Jews were like little children who had a fruit tree in their garden, their fathers legacy. The children had gathered the nuts as they grew, and laid them up with reverence in a storehouse; but they knew not how to break open the shell, and so reach the kernel for food. Paul acts the part of elder brother to their little ones. He skilfully pierces the crust and extracts the fruit, and divides it among them. The passage, e.g., <\/em>that Philip found the Ethiopian reading on the road, or the second psalm, he opened, and from it brought Christ. (W. Arnot, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Devout Greeks,chief women,Jews which believed not<\/strong>.–<\/em><\/p>\n Why Gentiles and women became converts more easily than Jews<\/strong><\/p>\n The inveterate obstinacy of the Jews contrasted sadly with the ready conversion of the Gentiles, and especially of women, who in all ages have been more remarkable than men for religious earnestness, is a phenomenon which constantly recurs in the early history of Christianity. Nor is this wholly to be wondered at. The Jew was at least in possession of a religion which raised him to a height of moral superiority above his Gentile contemporaries; but the Gentile of this day had no religion at all worth speaking of. If the Jew had more and more mistaken the shell of ceremonialism for the precious truths of which that ceremonialism was but the integument, he was at least conscious that there were <\/em>deep truths which lay enshrined behind the observances which he so fanatically cherished. But on what deep truths could the Greek woman rest, if her life were pure, and her thoughts elevated above the ignorant domesticism which was the only recognised virtue of her sex? What comfort was there for her in the cold grey eyes of Athene, or the stereotyped smile of the voluptuous Aphrodite? And when the Thessalonian Greek raised his eyes to the dispeopled heaven of the Olympus, which towered over the blue gulf on which his city stood–when his imagination could no longer place the throne of Zeus, and the session of his mighty deities, on that dazzling summit where Cicero had remarked with pathetic irony that he saw nothing but snow and ice–what compensation could he find for the void left in his heart by a dead religion? By adopting circumcision he might become, as it were, a Helot of Judaism; and to such a sacrifice he was not tempted. But the gospel which Paul preached had no esoteric doctrines, and no supercilious exclusions, and no repellent ceremonials; it came with a Divine Example, and a free gift to all, and that free gift involved all that was most precious to the troubled and despondent soul. No wonder, then, that the Church at Thessalonica was mainly Gentile, as is proved by 1Th 1:9; 1Th 2:14<\/span>, and by the total absence of any Old Testament allusion in both Epistles. (Archdeacon Farrar.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy.<\/strong>—<\/em><\/p>\n The spirit of envy<\/strong><\/p>\n Alas! for this spirit of envy and jealousy coming down through the ages. Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Saul and David, Haman and Mordecai, Othello and Iago, Orlando and Angelica, Caligula and Torquatus, Caesar and Pompey, Columbus and the Spanish courtiers, Cambyses and the brother he slew because he was a better marksman, Dionysius and Philoxenius whom he slew because he was a better singer. Jealousy among painters. Closterman and Geoffrey Kneller, Hudson and Reynolds. Francis anxious to see a picture of Raphael, Raphael sends him a picture. Francis, seeing it, falls in a fit of jealousy, from which he dies. Jealousy among authors. How seldom contemporaries speak of each other! Xenophon and Plato living at the same time, but from their writings you would never suppose they had heard of each other. Religious jealousies. The Mohammedans praying for rain during a drought, no rain coming. Then the Christians began to pray for rain, and the rain comes. Then the Mohammedans met together to account for this, and they resolved that God was so well pleased with their prayers He kept the drought on so as to keep them praying; but that the Christians began to pray, and the Lord was so disgusted with their prayer that He sent rain right away, so He would not hear any more of their supplication! Oh! this accursed spirit of envy and jealousy. Let us stamp it out from all our hearts. A wrestler was so envious of Theagenes, the prince of wrestlers, that he could not be consoled in any way, and after Theagenes died and a statue was lifted to him in a public place, his envious antagonist went out every night and wrestled with the statue, until, one night, he threw it, and it fell on him and crushed him to death. So jealousy is not only absurd, but it is killing to the body, and it is killing to the soul. (T. De Witt Talmage.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 2<\/span>. As his manner was<\/B><\/I>] He constantly offered salvation first to the Jews; and for this purpose attended their Sabbath-days’ meetings at their synagogues.<\/P><\/p>\n As his manner was; who was faithful unto him that had called him, and took all occasions to do his Masters work. <\/P> Out of the Scriptures; the law and the prophets, which they owned to be of Divine authority; and from the Holy Scriptures alone, all knowledge in the things of God and of our salvation must be fetched. If any speak of these matters not according to them, <\/P> it is because they have no light in them, Isa 8:20<\/span>. What scriptures St. Paul alleged are not set down; but they were such as our Saviour had made use of, Luk 24:27<\/span>, for the same purpose. This was customary with Paul, to preach these things unto the Jews first, as Act 13:46<\/span>, till they had put the word of God from them by their incredulity. <\/P> <\/p>\n 2-4. Paul, as his manner was<\/B>alwaysto begin with the Jews. <\/P> went in unto them<\/B>Inwriting to the converts but a few months after this, he reminds themof the courage and superiority to indignity, for the Gospel’s sake,which this required after the shameful treatment he had so latelyexperienced at Philippi (1Th 2:2<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them<\/strong>,…. To the Jews in their synagogue; for though the Jews had put away the Gospel from them, and the apostle had turned to the Gentiles; yet he still retained a great affection for his countrymen the Jews, and as often as he had opportunity, attended their synagogues, in order to preach the Gospel to them;<\/p>\n and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures<\/strong>: that is, out of the Old Testament, concerning the Messiah, the characters of him, the work that he was to do, and how he was to suffer and die for the sins of men; and this he did three weeks running, going to their synagogue every sabbath day, when and where the Jews met for worship; and made use of books, which they allowed of, and of arguments they could not disprove.<\/p>\n As his custom was <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The same construction in Lu 4:16<\/span> about Jesus in Nazareth ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) with the second perfect active participle neuter singular from <\/SPAN><\/span>. Paul’s habit was to go to the Jewish synagogue to use the Jews and the God-fearers as a springboard for his work among the Gentiles.<\/P> For three Sabbaths <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Probably the reference is to the first three Sabbaths when Paul had a free hand in the synagogue as at first in Antioch in Pisidia. Luke does not say that Paul was in Thessalonica only three weeks. He may have spoken there also during the week, though the Sabbath was the great day. Paul makes it plain, as Furneaux shows, that he was in Thessalonica a much longer period than three weeks. The rest of the time he spoke, of course, outside of the synagogue. Paul implies an extended stay by his language in 1Th 1:8<\/span>. The church consisted mainly of Gentile converts (2Thess 3:4<\/span>; 2Thess 3:7<\/span>; 2Thess 3:8<\/span>) and seems to have been well organized (1Th 5:12<\/span>). He received help while there several times from Philippi (Php 4:16<\/span>) and even so worked night and day to support himself (1Th 2:9<\/span>). His preaching was misunderstood there in spite of careful instruction concerning the second coming of Christ (1Thess 4:13<\/span>; 2Thess 2:1-12<\/span>).<\/P> Reasoned <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist middle indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb in the active to select, distinguish, then to revolve in the mind, to converse (interchange of ideas), then to teach in the Socratic (“dialectic”) method of question and answer (cf. <\/SPAN><\/span> in verse 17<\/span>), then simply to discourse, but always with the idea of intellectual stimulus. With these Jews and God-fearers Paul appealed to the Scriptures as text and basis (<\/SPAN><\/span>) of his ideas. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1)“And Paul, as his manner was,”<\/strong> (kata de to eiothos to Paulo) “Then according to, or based on, the custom or ethic with Paul,” wherever there was a synagogue, Act 13:5<\/span>; Act 13:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Went in unto them,”<\/strong> (eiselthen pros autous) “He entered to them,” to approach or witness to them, 1Th 2:1-5<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “And three sabbath days reasoned with them,”<\/strong> (kai epi sabbata tria dieleksato autois) “And upon three successive sabbaths, he lectured or reasoned with them,” Isa 1:18<\/span>; Here Paul boldly spoke to the Jews and Christian converts, 1Th 1:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “Out of the Scriptures,”<\/strong> (apo ton graphon) “From the Scriptures,” drawing conclusions from the Scriptures, based on a study of the words interpreted in contextual setting of their origin, subject matter, prophetic fulfillment, his final standard of appeal, Luk 24:46<\/span>; 1Co 15:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n − <\/p>\n 2. He disputed. Luke setteth down first what was the sum of the disputation; to wit, that Jesus, the son of Mary, is Christ, who was promised in times past in the law and the prophets, who, by the sacrifice of his death, did make satisfaction for the sins of the world, and brought righteousness and life by his resurrection; secondly, how he proved that which he taught. Let us handle this second member first. Luke saith that he disputed out of the Scriptures; therefore the proofs of faith must be fet from [sought at] the mouth of God alone. If we dispute about matters which concern men, then let human reasons take place; but in the doctrine of faith, the authority of God alone must reign, and upon it must we depend. − <\/p>\n All men confess that this is true, that we must stay ourselves upon God alone; yet there be but a few which hear him speak in the Scriptures. But and if that maxim take place among us, − (242) that the Scripture cometh of God, the rule either of teaching or of learning ought to be taken nowhere else. Whereby it doth also appear with what devilish fury the Papists are driven, when they deny that there can any certainty be gathered out of the Scriptures; and, therefore, they hold that we must stand to the decrees of men. For I demand of them whether Paul did observe a right order in disputing or no? at least, let them blush for shame, that the Word of the Lord was more reverenced in an unbelieving nation than it is at this day among them. The Jews admit Paul, and suffer him when he disputeth out of the Scriptures; the Pope and all his count it a mere mock when the Scripture is cited; as if God did speak doubtfully there, and did with vain boughts − (243) mock men. Hereunto is added, that there is at this day much more light in the Scriptures, and the truth of God shineth there more clearly than in the law and the prophets. For in the gospel, Christ, who is the Son of righteousness, doth shed out his beam with perfect brightness upon us; for which cause the blasphemy of the Papists is the more intolerable, whilst that they will make the Word of God as yet uncertain. But let us know, as faith can be grounded nowhere else than in the Word of the Lord, so we must only stand to the testimony thereof in all controversies. − <\/p>\n (242) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Valet inter nos,” is held good among us. <\/p>\n (243) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Ambagibus,” ambiguities. <\/p>\n (2) Paul, as his manner was<\/strong> . . .<\/strong>What we read of as occurring in the Pisidian Antioch (Act. 13:14-15<\/span>), was, we may believe, now reproduced. That he was allowed to preach for three Sabbaths in succession, shows the respect commanded by his character as a Rabbi, and, it may be, by his earnest eloquence. Though he came with the marks of the scourge upon him, he was as fearless as ever, speaking the gospel of God with much contention, not in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance (1Th. 1:5<\/span>). And with this boldness there was also a winning gentleness, even as a nurse cherisheth her children (1Th. 2:7<\/span>). And not a few Gentiles turned from idols to serve the living and true God (1Th. 1:9<\/span>).<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>The chief object of Christian faith. Jesus–Saviour from sin, and fear, and hell, through the power of His sacrifice, and the prevalence of His intercession. Christ, anointed by the Eternal Spirit, and set apart to kingly, prophetic, priestly office forever. No redeemer for man can be imagined of a nobler type, of a fuller efficiency Granted that redemption is necessary, then we have no choice of persons. There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. When the gospel began, Jesus Christ was the one object of faith, and He is so now. By no rearrangement of the materials of revelation, can you have a system of Christianity without Him. The central attractive power gone, the forces will strive with each other, and the motions will be incalculable. There is a throne; someone must sit on it. There is a gate; someone must stand at it to keep it open into the way that leadeth unto life. There is a peril towering high above all other dangers; we need someone to break it and roll it away, and there is no one but Christ. Never was demand more reasonable than this, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The means used to produce faith are now the same. Our apostle met them on the Sabbath day–the day of rest, when they frequented the synagogue, and he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. We, too, open the Scriptures as our book of authority. It is the duty of those who set forth Gods mind in the Scriptures, to reason with men. The Greek word originally means to carry on an argument by way of dialogue. That was the apostolic method of serving Christ; not at all like that of putting on and off clothes, turning the back to the people, going up and down altar stairs. Different, too, from that of the strong doctrinal dogmatist, who asserts and does not reason. To preach Christ is to reason out of the Scriptures, and, in a secondary degree, out of the great book of human life and experience, and also out of the great book of material nature; but in any case it is to reason, to lay out the matter as it seems to ourselves, to press it home upon all whom it concerns; to remonstrate, expostulate, entreat, and then to leave the issue with God.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Along what line the reasoning usually went towards proving that Jesus is Christ. Paul opened the Scriptures, that is, brought out the hidden yet real meanings concerning the promised Messiah, and then alleged that the real Messiah must be a sufferer, and not a splendid Monarch attended with all kinds of visible success. But also a risen Lord, having power over death and life; and from all this came the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is Christ. Each age has its own thoughts and doubts; and the real preachers for any age are those who deal with its thoughts fairly, and dispel its doubts by light of truth and breath of love–but all this with a view to the manifestation and exaltation of Him in whom God is well pleased, and to whom, in His lifting up, all men will at length be drawn.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>The faith is the same now as then. The faith as a feeling, the conviction that is rooted in knowledge, and yet goes deeper than knowledge, that is founded on evidence, but which is itself evidence; for faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I know whom I have believed. Faith is produced by different means, but the precious result is the same faith–faith in Christ, the Sufferer, the Death-destroyer, the Life-giver, the Redeemer of all trusting men. The same feeling. Is this an objection or an offence? It is a great commendation of it. This common faith of the common heart is the historic something that continues through the ages. Systems of government and thought have been forming and vanishing away; civilisations have arisen and have perished; but here is a secret something which has been running along the ages, the line of which has been human hearts, the power of which has appeared resurgent, after all calamities, and which seems destined to run on to the end of time. May I<\/em> share in this feeling? Yes. Then by Gods grace I will!<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>The outward result of this faith is the same. They were persuaded, and consorted with Paul and Silas, and with the other Christian people who were all drawn together by their common faith. Yet now there is rather a largo escape from this. The fish are in the net and held securely there, but somehow they do not get landed. Relievers are made, but somehow a good many of them do not consort, rather take pains, some of them, to let it be known that they do not. Many who really are believers in Christ, do not enter any Christian Church. But–<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>We have an example of keeping the Sabbath and using it for Divine worship. Paul, as his manner [custom] was, went in upon them, and joined in their worship. This worship of God springs out of the religious wants and instincts of the human soul; develops, strengthens, and perfects the aspirations of the soul in its following hard after God, things unseen and eternal. This we all much need. For six days in the week, the rule is, that our time and energies are centred in the struggle for existence and well being, amid things material and transient. It is hard work, too, to rule over the earth, and all that is therein, and have some true dominion over it, as, indeed, we ought to have. But when we have done that for six days, and the seventh day comes, and we rest from world ruling and training, as God rested from His world making–when this Sabbath of the Lord, this Sabbath made for man, has come, what are we to do with it, how use it? Paul and Silas, and the Jews, give us an example. Go to the synagogue, the meeting house, where God meets with His people, and they meet with Him. Go to the synagogue, where God is, and is worshipped by song, by prayer, by all reverent speech and thought, and so shall we attain principles and inspirations for godly living, which will give high, noble meaning, and resolute purpose to our entire lives.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>We have an example of the general object, on which our thoughts should be especially fixed in our seasons of worship. It is God in Christ. God as revealed in Christ. Paul opened and alleged certain things concerning Christ. To him, Jesus Christ was God–God manifest in the flesh, in the form of a servant, and the fashion of a man. In Christ God was revealed in a new and wonderful form, uniting Himself with man as man, and lifting men up to a blessed union and fellowship with Himself. As a name, Jesus the Christ is the best translation of what God is to man, and for man. Jesus means the Saviour, and there is an immensity of meaning in that when you consider the innumerable evils to body and soul for time, and in the far-off eternity, to which sinful men are deservedly and justly exposed. The Christ means the anointed. Christ was set apart as Prophet to interpret and reveal the thoughts and love, and eternal purposes of God in the forms of human speech, life, suffering, and death–the form of a man, intelligible to all men everywhere. He was anointed–set apart as Priest–to appear in the presence of God for us, the sinful; and in the form of a man, through the Eternal Spirit, offer Himself in sacrifice for us, and obtain eternal redemption for us by His own blood. He was the anointed King, to rule over the new kingdom of grace and righteousness, to rule till all enemies to Him and to us shall be put under His foot.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>We have an example of the best means of fixing our thoughts on Christ; securing clear conceptions concerning Him, and certitude of faith in Him. Paul reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. Reason in man is the apex of his spiritual nature–the point at which he touches the infinite in God, and the infinite in God touches and enters into finite man. Man is rational, because he is spiritual in living relation to God, who is a Spirit. He reasoned with them; he appealed to them by facts, by illustrations, by arguments, by principles, that they might know, understand, and believe the truth which he had to proclaim as a rational message from Jesus Christ to them and to all men. He reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. When we reason, we commence from things which are admitted as true in fact, or in principle, on both sides, and then proceed to show that something else must also be true, on the ground of what has been already admitted. Paul and his hearers had things believed in common. Gods Moses, the prophets, the Scriptures as the veracious history of Gods thought and purpose in the past ages. He got the premises, grounds, foundations of his arguments, his syllogisms, in the records of Gods thoughts and deeds, as he reasoned with them to prove that Jesus is the Christ, and that their instant duty was to believe on Him and obey Him as their Saviour King. So it must be still, from the sacred Scriptures, from human experience, that the true preacher must reason, and by reason and reasoning convince the gainsayers, convert the careless, and lead the inquirer to faith in the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>We have an example of what the result should be in those who are hearers of the gospel testimony. Some of them believed and consorted with Paul and Silas. They believed, that is, they were persuaded by Pauls reasonings from Scriptures, and from facts well known and supported by reasonable evidence. In faith their minds looked out and up and saw the real Christ–the Saviour, King–and began, like Paul, to count all things but loss for Him. Precious faith! for it sees Christ, embraces Christ, and, as such, is the root principle of the new life. But having believed, you see, they consorted with Paul and Silas. Man is social. Our very nature compels us to consort with one another. The means of this are doubtless very various. But, this sorting out and consorting of different classes for different purposes, are the strongest, most lasting, when the assortment arises from one faith, one love, one hope, one final end. But those are all found in Christian men and women whose one master faith is God in Christ; whose one controlling master love is God; whose one master inspiration in the darkest hour is the eternal hope of glory; and whose final end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever. <\/em>(Prof. Wm. Taylor.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>The habit of personal devotion.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The habit of practical almsgiving.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The habit of contemplative observation.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>The habit of self-examination.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>The habit of looking to the future rather than the present–that is, of weighing every circumstance, every event, every trial, every sorrow, every prosperity, in the light of eternity. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>To go to church. He didnt drop in now and then to hear the new minister, or remain away because it was too pleasant to stay at home.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>To do his part when he went to church. There is no record of his declining to take a class in Sunday school because it interfered with the hour of his Sunday dinner.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>When he went to church to talk and think about Christ–and he probably found something more practical to do between services than to stand around the church doors and talk about the state of the crops.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>To speak out–and he didnt wait until he could find exactly what style of preaching would best suit the Church at Thessalonica, and shape his sermons accordingly.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>To speak everywhere of a suffering Saviour. It was Pauls custom to suffer anything for that Saviour; it was Pauls custom to make his creed and his deeds correspond. (S. S. Times.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>I am to prove this doctrine from the authority and example of Christ and his apostles. Christ and His apostles often make use of reasoning, both for the establishment of those truths which they taught, and for the confutation of those errors which they opposed. When the tempter took up our Saviour into an exceeding high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, etc. (Mat 4:8-9<\/span>; Deu 6:13<\/span>; Deu 5:16<\/span>). Now these reasonings of our Saviour against His worshipping Satan, and throwing Himself down, are inconclusive if we may not argue from Scripture, and if we must admit of nothing as taught therein which is not there set down in express words, since neither is it said in the former of these texts, that Satan is not to be worshipped, nor in the latter that Christ might not throw Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. When the Sadducees put captious questions to our Saviour about the resurrection of the dead, He showed the weakness of their objections against it by proving to them that the doctrine by them opposed was taught by Moses, whose authority they did not, and could not, dispute (Mat 22:31-32<\/span>). But if those who are against all reasoning from Scripture, who will admit of nothing but what is directly therein contained, had been in the place of the Sadducees, they would not so easily have yielded to our Saviours argument; they would have rejected this testimony from Moses as not direct, and would have required a more formal and plain proof. The apostles, in their writings, follow the steps of their Lord and Master, and prove the truths of the gospel against the Jews, who gainsayed them, not from any passages in the Old Testament in which the gospel truths are expressly and in so many words laid down, but by arguments and reasons drawn from the writings of Moses and the prophets. Thus St. Peter (Act 3:22<\/span>) proves the coming of Christ from those words of Moses (Deu 18:15<\/span>), and His resurrection (Act 2:27<\/span>) from that place of the Psalms (Psa 10:10<\/span>). After the same manner St. Paul (Rom 4:7<\/span>) proves that we are justified, not by the law, but by grace, from those words of the Psalmist (Psa 32:1<\/span>). He proves (Rom 9:33<\/span>) the rejection of the Jews from the prophecy of Isaiah. (Isa 28:16<\/span>), and the vocation of the Gentiles (Rom 9:25<\/span>), from Hoseas having brought in God, saying (Hos 2:23<\/span>). This way of arguing he at all times, and in all parts of his writings, makes use of; from those truths which are expressly read in Scripture, by the laws of reasoning he infers other doctrines which are not there formerly read, but which do from them follow, and are therefore in them virtually contained. Now it is evident, and on all hands acknowledged, that this assertion, Jesus is the Christ, is nowhere laid down in these very words throughout the writings of the Old Testament. Moses and the Prophets do indeed bear witness to Him, but in the testimony they give they nowhere formally declare that Jesus is the Christ. How, then, could the apostles demonstrate this proposition from their writings? Do they not refer us to such passages in the prophets from whence this doctrine, which is not in express words asserted, is by right reasoning regularly deduced? From the several parts of the Old Testament, compared one with another, they form the character of the Messiah, and then they prove that this character did truly belong to that Jesus whom they affirmed to be the Messiah. This method of proving St. Luke has expressed in very proper and apposite words, when he tells us that St. Paul reasoned out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging. The apostle first opened to them the sense of the prophets, explained their words, and when he had thus shown what their scope was, he did then apply the prophesies thus explained to the person, doctrine, and works of Jesus; he compared the predictions with the events, the shadows with the bodies, the figures with the things prefigured; so that by this method the truth of the gospel which they preached was irrefragably demonstrated. Since, therefore, this way of arguing was made use of by Christ and His apostles, we must acknowledge that those things are rightly proved out of Scripture which do evidently follow from the doctrines taught in Scripture, though they are not in so many words anywhere to be found in the Word of God. And as we have the example of Christ and His apostles warranting us, so we have their commands enjoining us to make use of this method of reasoning. Our Saviour bids the Jews (Joh 5:39<\/span>) to search the Scriptures, not barely to consult them, but to compare them; not only to find what they expressly, but what they implicitly taught; not only to read what was plainly said in them, but to discover what might manifestly be deduced from them. The Holy Scriptures would not be so perfect a rule of faith or manners, of what we ought to believe and do, as they are if we were left to judge of either only by what we are there in so many words expressly taught, and might not use our own reasons to infer from them some necessary truths, and some important duties which are there, though not in terms delivered. He would be thought very ridiculous who should plead his being under no obligation from the Scripture to obey the lawful commands of a sovereign princess, because, though he is there required to honour the king, he nowhere reads that he is to honour the queen, and that man is equally absurd who hath no better reason for the denial of a Trinity than that he nowhere finds She word Trinity in the Scriptures, though the doctrine by that word signified is therein contained.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>But against what hath been delivered it may be urged that if we thus give a firm assent to any truths which are not plainly and expressly taught in Scripture, but are only inferred from thence by our own reason, then we make our faith to depend, not upon the word of God, but upon our own reason. But it might as well be urged that when St. Paul sayeth (Rom 10:17<\/span>) that faith cometh by hearing, we make our faith to depend, not upon the testimony of God, but upon the sense of hearing. The ear is that organ or instrument by which we perceive the Word of God preached to us; but the authority of God is that ground or reason upon which we believe the Word of God which we hear. So our reason, or our understanding, is that faculty by which we perceive and know what things are taught us in Scripture: by that we understand the sense and meaning of what is there revealed; but it is the authority of God, who inspired the penmen of Holy Writ, and who by the guidance of this Holy Spirit secured them from error, upon which we found our belief of what, by the use of our reason, we discover to be by them taught. Those who ascribe thus much and no more than this to reason demand only the liberty of opening their own eyes, and of seeing the wonderful things of Gods law; they do not pretend that it is given to them to reveal any new truths to mankind, nor do they usurp an unwarrantable power of framing new articles of faith. All that they demand or ask is, that the right of making use of their own faculties, which is given to everyone by nature, and by the God of nature, may not be denied to them. There is no need that a man should be a prophet, or that he should have any extraordinary capacities of mind, or illuminations of the Spirit, to understand that the same Scriptures which teach him that all men have sinned do consequentially teach him that he is a sinner, or that the Word of God, which doth expressly deny that any shall perish who believe in Christ, doth at the same time virtually pronounce that if he believes he shall not perish. But those who are against all reasoning from Scripture will again ask how can we be sure that the consequences which we draw from Scripture are just and regular? For may not our reason misguide us? And may we not, through mistake, infer such doctrines from Scripture which do by no means follow from it? And if we may be mistaken, why should we venture to believe anything which we think follows from Scripture, but which after all perhaps does not follow? Now, if this reasoning is good, there is an end of all certainty, not only in those inferences which are made from Scripture, and which are levelled against by this sort of arguing, but also in those things which are plainly and expressly taught in Scripture. Men have been mistaken in their judgments concerning things formally delivered in the Word of God. But will it not be said that, if there is any occasion for our drawing inferences from Scripture, then it is plain that the Scriptures are not so easy and clear as they are by the Protestants generally said to be? If we must not only believe what we read in Scripture, but what can be proved from thence, then none will be able to know what is taught in Scripture but such as have skill in drawing consequences; and at this rate we must be skilled in logic before we can pretend to understand the Scriptures. To this I answer that those are very much mistaken who think that we, who maintain the perspicuity of the Scriptures, do assert them to be so easy, as that there should be no use of our rational faculties rightly to understand them. What St. Peter (2Pe 3:16<\/span>) saith of the Epistles of St. Paul, we believe of other parts of Holy Writ, that there are some things in them hard to be understood, and we do not contend that everything therein delivered is suited to the apprehensions of all readers, but only that those things, which all are indispensably bound to know for their souls health, are by all, upon the use of due diligence, intelligible. And even as to those truths which are necessarily to be known in order to our everlasting salvation, we do not affirm that wherever they are delivered in Scripture they are expressed in such terms as to leave no room for a mistake; but that somewhere or other in Holy Writ, they are so expressed that it must be our own fault if we do not rightly apprehend them. We believe, for instance, that the incarnation of Christ, His passion, and resurrection are taught by the prophets as well as by the apostles; but we do not believe that they are so explicitly and fully revealed by the prophets as by the apostles. What is obscurely hinted in the Old Testament is manifestly explained in the New. And when we affirm that the Scriptures are in some points thus intelligible by all Christians, we do not pretend that they may be understood without attention, diligence, and inquiry; but that we may be capable of knowing their sense with the use of these, and other proper methods of gaining instruction. Some truths indeed are written in so large characters that he that runs may read them; but for the discovery of other truths revealed in Scripture, the words by which they are conveyed to our understandings are to be carefully weighed, the sense of them to be nicely and accurately inquired into; all passions and prejudices that may any ways bias our judgments are to be laid aside. In the understanding of such truths as these, there being more room for mistake, there is more occasion for our caution, and the way which we are to go being more intricate, it will be proper for us to take in the assistance of a guide. What of ourselves we could not discover, we may be able to perceive when discovered to us by others, in which case we do not implicitly follow the judgment of those whom we consult, but have our own judgments informed by theirs; we do not see with other mens eyes, but those truths which before were obscure to us, are by others, of greater penetration than ourselves, placed in so clear a light that we may now plainly perceive them with our own eyes; we do not in such a ease follow our instructors, as blind men do their guides, trusting to their guidance without seeing which way they go; but we make such use of them as persons in the dark do of those who carry a light before them to show them the way and to direct their paths. (Bp. Smalridge.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>Paul usually proved the truth of the doctrines which he taught. He did not desire his hearers to believe without evidence. He commended the Bereans, for searching the Scriptures, to see whether his doctrines were agreeable to that standard. In order to reason clearly upon the truth of a proposition, it is often necessary to explain it, to produce arguments in support of it, to answer objections against it. By Pauls proving the doctrines which he taught, we are to understand his reasoning upon them in this manner. This will appear in respect to a variety of subjects upon which he preached. He reasoned plainly and forcibly upon–<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Why he made this his common practice.<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n