St. Paul’s missionary labours commenced from the period when the Holy Ghost said, “Separate me Barnabas and Paul for the work whereunto I have called them” (Acts xiii. 2); an order, doubtless, given at Antioch in Syria, as they soon after started from Seleucia, the port of Antioch, for Cyprus, the native home of Barnabas. Antioch was then the capital of Northern Syria, and as much, if not more than Jerusalem, the centre of Christian evangelization. Hence, the natural reason why at Antioch men were “first called Christians.” Seleucia, too, at the mouth of the Orontes, about twenty miles below Antioch, was the “key of Syria,” and had, recently, obtained from Pompey the title of a “Free City,” an honour which it long retained. Dr. Yates (long a resident in the neighbourhood), in an interesting memoir on this city (in the Museum of Classical Antiquities), mentions that the names of the piers at the mouth of its harbour still preserve a record of St. Paul’s voyage, the southern one being called after him, and the northern after Barnabas. Structures so vast as these may easily have remained to the present day, for Pococke states that some of the stones “are twenty feet long by five deep and six wide, and fastened together by iron cramps.” The voyage from Seleucia to Cyprus is, generally, short and easy.
The first place they made in the island was Salamis,[[114]] whence they proceeded right across it to Paphos, the residence of the Roman governor, Sergius Paulus, “a prudent man.” Here we have the remarkable story of Elymas the sorcerer, and of the conversion of the governor on witnessing the miracle by the hand of St. Paul. Cyprus was at that time, as may be gathered from Dio Cassius, under the direct government of the Emperor of Rome, together with Syria and Cilicia; but, a little later, this historian adds that Augustus restored it to the Senate. St. Luke’s title, therefore, of proconsul is correct, as that invariably given to the rulers of the provinces belonging to the Senate. A Cyprian inscription in Boeckh confirms this view. The occurrence of a person called a “sorcerer” at the court of the Roman governor is quite in accordance with the manners of the times. Thus, Juvenal sarcastically speaks of the “Orontes flowing into the Tiber.”[[115]]
[114]. Salamis was on the east side of the island, nearly opposite to Syria; and, in early times, the capital of the island. It was destroyed by the Romans, but rebuilt with the name of Constantia. It was a little to the north of Famagousta, the name of which, curiously enough, is not of Latin origin, as might be supposed, but a lineal descendant of the original Assyrian Ammochosta.
[115]. Juven. Sat. iii. 60; ib. vi. 584, 589; Horat. Od. i. xi.; Sat. ii. 1; and Juven. iii. 13, and vi. 542, point out the number of Jewish impostors of the lowest kind with whom Rome was then infested: Juvenal, vi. 553, indicates the influence the so-called Chaldean astrologers possessed there.
It has been often thought that, from the miracle over Elymas, dates the change of the name of the apostle from Saul to Paul, and certain it is that, subsequently to the words “Then Saul (who is also called Paul)” (Acts xiii. 9), the first name does not occur again; moreover, in his fourteen Epistles the apostle invariably calls himself Paul. So happened it in earlier days, when Abram was changed into Abraham. It has been further supposed that, as Barnabas was a native of Cyprus, the apostles were induced to visit that island first; but, for their crossing to Attalia in Pamphylia, in preference to any other port, no reason can be assigned, though we may conjecture that they acted on information obtained in Cyprus. The communication was no doubt easy and probably constant. Attalia, as we have pointed out, was then, as now, a place of some consequence, and almost the only port of southern Asia Minor: thence they proceeded up the steep and rugged defiles of the Pamphylian mountains to Perga, and, ultimately, to Antiochia in Pisidia. The sacred writer records no event on their route thither, except the secession of Mark, which probably took place soon after they had landed; nor has he even given the reason that influenced Mark; but this may have been as Matthew Henry has suggested: “Either he (Mark) did not like the work, or he wanted to go and see his mother.” St. Paul, we know, felt acutely, what he might fairly have considered as little short of a desertion; indeed, this secession led, as we shall see hereafter, to the separation between himself and Barnabas on the eve of his second missionary journey.
Whatever Mark’s reasons, certain it is he did depart, and that St. Paul pushed on with characteristic bravery through a country the nature of which we have described when speaking of Cremna, Sagalassus, and of the probable position of Perge; and which may be comprehended, in all its fulness, by those who have time to study the valuable researches of Leake and Hamilton, Spratt and Forbes, Arundell and Sir Charles Fellows. It has been reasonably conjectured that, St. Paul travelling, as he probably did a little before the full heat of the summer had commenced, attached his small party to some large group or caravan travelling inwards and northwards in the same direction. Many travellers, and especially Sir Charles Fellows, have pointed out the annual custom prevailing among the dwellers along the southern shores of Asia Minor, of leaving their homes at the beginning of the hot weather, and of migrating with their cattle and household property to the cooler valleys of the mountains.
With regard to Antioch in Pisidia, we have already shown that Mr. Arundell was the first to point out that some ruins, now called Yalobatch, can scarcely be any other than those of this Antioch. We need not, therefore, dwell any longer on this point, simply adding, that, from its great commercial importance, St. Paul must have found there many resident Jews, while we know that there was at least one synagogue.
On arriving at Antioch, the narrative in the Bible goes on to say that the Apostles “went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and sat down”; then, after the reading the Law, as was and still is, the usual custom, the rulers of the synagogue desired them to speak, and St. Paul gave one of his most characteristic addresses, being, at first, well received by his own countrymen, and, especially so, by those persons who, having given up idol-worship, were usually known as proselytes. He was, therefore, invited to preach on the following Sabbath-day, the intervening week having been, no doubt, well employed in constant meetings between St. Paul and these proselytes, and in earnest addresses and exhortations. Hence, we are told that, on this second occasion, “came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” But this was more than the Jews could endure: so they stirred up the “chief men of the city,” and the Apostles were soon after (we are not told how soon) “expelled out of their coasts,” that is, ordered to go beyond the limits of the Roman colony of Antioch; though, as they returned to it again, shortly afterwards, it is likely that no formal decree of banishment was promulgated against them. On this “they shook off the dust of their feet against them.”[[116]]
[116]. The action used by the Apostles was, it will be remembered, in obedience to the direct words of our Lord: “Whosoever,” said He, “shall not receive you nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them” (Matt. x. 14; Mark vi. 11; Luke ix. 5). It was, in fact, a symbolical act, implying that the city was regarded as profane. It may be presumed that the “devout and honourable women” (Acts xiii. 50) were proselytes.
St. Paul’s speech, on the second Sabbath, is worthy of note as that in which he first definitely stated the object of his mission; for, when thus attacked by his own countrymen, he turned upon them with the words, “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but, seeing ye put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts xiii. 46). Strabo (vii. 3) has pointed out that “feminine influence” was a remarkable characteristic of the manners of Western Asia in his day, and of this we find the Jews availing themselves, on this occasion. Leaving Antioch, then, the Apostles turned nearly south-east to Iconium, which, as we have already stated, was, in those days, the chief town of the sub-district of Lycaonia. The treatment the Apostles received at Iconium was not very different from that they had experienced at Antioch. Here, as there, “the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles,” but were not, for some time, successful in their designs, as the Apostles were able to abide there a long time, “speaking boldly in the Lord.” In fact, as at Ephesus, “the multitude of the city was divided, and part held with the Jews, and part with the Apostles” (xiv. 4). In the end, however, the Jews prevailed: so the Apostles had to save themselves from being stoned, by flight “unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about” (ver. 6), “and there,” it is added, “they preached the Gospel.”