Paul at Antioch, it was merely a passing incident, perhaps unknown to Luke, or omitted because
it had no bearing on the course of events recorded by him. On the other hand, he mentions the
"sharp contention" between Paul and Barnabas, because it resulted in a division of the missionary
work, Paul and Silas going to Syria and Cilicia, Barnabas and Mark sailing away to Cyprus
(15:39–41). Of this Paul says nothing, because it had no bearing on his argument with the Galatians.
Paul’s conciliatory course toward James and the Jews, as represented in the Acts, is confirmed by
his own Epistles, in which he says that he became a Jew to the Jews, as well as a Gentile to the
Gentiles, in order to gain them both, and expresses his readiness to make the greatest possible
sacrifice for the salvation of his brethren after the flesh (1 Cor. 9:20; Rom. 9:3).
The Truthfulness of the Acts.
The book of Acts is, indeed, like every impartial history, an Irenicum, but a truthful Irenicum,
conceived in the very spirit of the Conference at Jerusalem and the concordat concluded by the
leading apostles, according to Paul’s own testimony in the polemical Epistle to the Galatians. The
principle of selection required, of course, the omission of a large number of facts and incidents.
But the selection was made with fairness and justice to all sides. The impartiality and truthfulness
of Luke is very manifest in his honest record of the imperfections of the apostolic church. He does
not conceal the hypocrisy and mean selfishness of Ananias and Sapphira, which threatened to
poison Christianity in its cradle (Acts 5:1 sqq.); he informs us that the institution of the diaconate
arose from a complaint of the Grecian Jews against their Hebrew brethren for neglecting their
widows in the daily ministration (61 sqq.) he represents Paul and Barnabas as "men of like passions"
with other men (14:15), and gives us some specimens of weak human nature in Mark when he
became discouraged by the hardship of missionary life and returned to his mother in Jerusalem
(13:13), and in Paul and Barnabas when they fell out for a season on account of this very Mark,
who was a cousin of Barnabas (15:39); nor does he pass in silence the outburst of Paul’s violent
temper when in righteous indignation he called the high-priest a "whited wall" (23:3); and he speaks
of serious controversies and compromises even among the apostles under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit—all for our humiliation and warning as well as comfort and encouragement.
Examine and compare the secular historians from Herodotus to Macaulay, and the church
historians from Eusebius to Neander, and Luke need not fear a comparison. No history of thirty
years has ever been written so truthful and impartial, so important and interesting, so healthy in
tone and hopeful in spirit, so aggressive and yet so genial, so cheering and inspiring, so replete with
lessons of wisdom and encouragement for work in spreading the gospel of truth and peace, and yet
withal so simple and modest, as the Acts of the Apostles. It is the best as well as the first manual
of church history.§ 86. The Epistles.
The sermons of Stephen and the apostles in Acts (excepting the farewell of Paul to the
Ephesian Elders) are missionary addresses to outsiders, with a view to convert them to the Christian
faith. The Epistles are addressed to baptized converts, and aim to strengthen them in their faith,
and, by brotherly instruction, exhortation, rebuke, and consolation, to build up the church in all
Christian graces on the historical foundation of the teaching and example of Christ. The prophetsA.D. 1-100.