| |
Paul (the Apostle)
|
pol (small; little)
RELATED: Achaicus, Agrippa, Ananias, Apostle(s), Barnabas, Damascus, Felix, Festus, Jesus, Luke, Mark, Nero, Publius, Saul, Timothy, Titus, Trophimus, Tychicus |
WORKS: Colossians,
1 Corinthians,
2 Corinthians,
Ephesians,
Galatians,
Philemon,
Philippians,
Romans,
1 Thessalonians,
2 Thessalonians,
1 Timothy,
2 Timothy,
Titus
|
|
|
|
Easton's Bible Dictionary
=Saul (q.v.) was born about the same time as our Lord.
His circumcision-name was Saul, and probably the name Paul was also given to him
in infancy "for use in the Gentile world," as "Saul" would be his Hebrew home-name.
He was a native of Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, a Roman province in the south-east
of Asia Minor. That city stood on the banks of the river Cydnus, which was navigable
thus far; hence it became a centre of extensive commercial traffic with many countries
along the shores of the Mediterranean, as well as with the countries of central
Asia Minor. It thus became a city distinguished for the wealth of its inhabitants.
Tarsus was also the seat of a famous university, higher in reputation even than
the universities of Athens and Alexandria, the only others that then existed.
Here Saul was born, and here he spent his youth, doubtless enjoying the best education
his native city could afford. His father was of the straitest sect of the Jews,
a Pharisee, of the tribe of Benjamin, of pure and unmixed Jewish blood ( Acts
23:6 ; Philippians
3:5 ). We learn nothing regarding his mother; but there is reason to conclude
that she was a pious woman, and that, like-minded with her husband, she exercised
all a mother influence in moulding the character of her son, so that he could
afterwards speak of himself as being, from his youth up, "touching the righteousness
which is in the law, blameless" ( Philippians
3:6 ).
We read of his sister and his sister's son ( Acts
23:16 ), and of other relatives ( Romans
16:7 , 16:11
, 16:12
). Though a Jew, his father was a Roman citizen. How he obtained this privilege
we are not informed. "It might be bought, or won by distinguished service to the
state, or acquired in several other ways; at all events, his son was freeborn.
It was a valuable privilege, and one that was to prove of great use to Paul, although
not in the way in which his father might have been expected to desire him to make
use of it." Perhaps the most natural career for the youth to follow was that of
a merchant. "But it was decided that...he should go to college and become a rabbi,
that is, a minister, a teacher, and a lawyer all in one."
According to Jewish custom, however, he learned a trade before entering on the
more direct preparation for the sacred profession. The trade he acquired was the
making of tents from goats' hair cloth, a trade which was one of the commonest
in Tarsus.
His preliminary education having been completed, Saul was sent, when about thirteen
years of age probably, to the great Jewish school of sacred learning at Jerusalem
as a student of the law. Here he became a pupil of the celebrated rabbi Gamaliel,
and here he spent many years in an elaborate study of the Scriptures and of the
many questions concerning them with which the rabbis exercised themselves. During
these years of diligent study he lived "in all good conscience," unstained by
the vices of that great city.
After the period of his student-life expired, he probably left Jerusalem for Tarsus,
where he may have been engaged in connection with some synagogue for some years.
But we find him back again at Jerusalem very soon after the death of our Lord.
Here he now learned the particulars regarding the crucifixion, and the rise of
the new sect of the "Nazarenes."
For some two years after Pentecost, Christianity was quietly spreading its influence
in Jerusalem. At length Stephen, one of the seven deacons, gave forth more public
and aggressive testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, and this led to much excitement
among the Jews and much disputation in their synagogues. Persecution arose against
Stephen and the followers of Christ generally, in which Saul of Tarsus took a
prominent part. He was at this time probably a member of the great Sanhedrin,
and became the active leader in the furious persecution by which the rulers then
sought to exterminate Christianity.
This was the moment of his conversion, the most solemn in all his life. Blinded
by the dazzling light ( Acts
9:8 ), his companions led him into the city, where, absorbed in deep thought
for three days, he neither ate nor drank ( Acts
9:11 ). Ananias, a disciple living in Damascus, was informed by a vision of
the change that had happened to Saul, and was sent to him to open his eyes and
admit him by baptism into the Christian church ( Acts
9:11 - 16
). The whole purpose of his life was now permanently changed.
Immediately after his conversion he retired into the solitudes of Arabia ( Galatians
1:17 ), perhaps of "Sinai in Arabia," for the purpose, probably, of devout
study and meditation on the marvellous revelation that had been made to him. "A
veil of thick darkness hangs over this visit to Arabia. Of the scenes among which
he moved, of the thoughts and occupations which engaged him while there, of all
the circumstances of a crisis which must have shaped the whole tenor of his after-life,
absolutely nothing is known. 'Immediately,' says St. Paul, 'I went away into Arabia.'
The historian passes over the incident [Compare Acts
9:23 and 1
Kings 11:38 , 11:39
]. It is a mysterious pause, a moment of suspense, in the apostle's history, a
breathless calm, which ushers in the tumultuous storm of his active missionary
life." Coming back, after three years, to Damascus, he began to preach the gospel
"boldly in the name of Jesus" ( Acts
9:27 ), but was soon obliged to flee ( Acts
9:25 ; 2
Corinthians 11:33 ) from the Jews and betake himself to Jerusalem. Here he
tarried for three weeks, but was again forced to flee ( Acts
9:28 , 9:29
) from persecution. He now returned to his native Tarsus ( Galatians
1:21 ), where, for probably about three years, we lose sight of him. The time
had not yet come for his entering on his great life-work of preaching the gospel
to the Gentiles.
At length the city of Antioch, the capital of Syria, became the scene of great
Christian activity. There the gospel gained a firm footing, and the cause of Christ
prospered. Barnabas (q.v.), who had been sent from Jerusalem to superintend the
work at Antioch, found it too much for him, and remembering Saul, he set out to
Tarsus to seek for him. He readily responded to the call thus addressed to him,
and came down to Antioch, which for "a whole year" became the scene of his labours,
which were crowned with great success. The disciples now, for the first time,
were called "Christians" ( Acts
11:26 ).
The church at Antioch now proposed to send out missionaries to the Gentiles, and
Saul and Barnabas, with John Mark as their attendant, were chosen for this work.
This was a great epoch in the history of the church. Now the disciples began to
give effect to the Master's command: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the
gospel to every creature."
The three missionaries went forth on the first missionary tour. They sailed from
Seleucia, the seaport of Antioch, across to Cyprus, some 80 miles to the south-west.
Here at Paphos, Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul, was converted, and now Saul
took the lead, and was ever afterwards called Paul. The missionaries now crossed
to the mainland, and then proceeded 6 or 7 miles up the river Cestrus to Perga
( Acts
13:13 ), where John Mark deserted the work and returned to Jerusalem. The
two then proceeded about 100 miles inland, passing through Pamphylia, Pisidia,
and Lycaonia. The towns mentioned in this tour are the Pisidian Antioch, where
Paul delivered his first address of which we have any record ( Acts
13:16 - 51
; comp 10:30
- 43
), Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. They returned by the same route to see and encourage
the converts they had made, and ordain elders in every city to watch over the
churches which had been gathered. From Perga they sailed direct for Antioch, from
which they had set out.
After remaining "a long time", probably till A.D. 50 or 51, in Antioch, a great
controversy broke out in the church there regarding the relation of the Gentiles
to the Mosaic law. For the purpose of obtaining a settlement of this question,
Paul and Barnabas were sent as deputies to consult the church at Jerusalem. The
council or synod which was there held ( Acts
15 ) decided against the Judaizing party; and the deputies, accompanied by
Judas and Silas, returned to Antioch, bringing with them the decree of the council.
After a short rest at Antioch, Paul said to Barnabas: "Let us go again and visit
our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see
how they do." Mark proposed again to accompany them; but Paul refused to allow
him to go. Barnabas was resolved to take Mark, and thus he and Paul had a sharp
contention. They separated, and never again met. Paul, however, afterwards speaks
with honour of Barnabas, and sends for Mark to come to him at Rome ( Colossians
4:10 ; 2
Timothy 4:11 ).
Paul took with him Silas, instead of Barnabas, and began his second missionary
journey about A.D. 51. This time he went by land, revisiting the churches he had
already founded in Asia. But he longed to enter into "regions beyond," and still
went forward through Phrygia and Galatia (Acts
16:6 ). Contrary to his intention, he was constrained to linger in Galatia
(q.v.), on account of some bodily affliction ( Galatians
4:13 , 4:14
). Bithynia, a populous province on the shore of the Black Sea, lay now before
him, and he wished to enter it; but the way was shut, the Spirit in some manner
guiding him in another direction, till he came down to the shores of the AEgean
and arrived at Troas, on the north-western coast of Asia Minor ( Acts
16:8 ). Of this long journey from Antioch to Troas we have no account except
some references to it in his Epistle to the ( Galatians
4:13 ).
As he waited at Troas for indications of the will of God as to his future movements,
he saw, in the vision of the night, a man from the opposite shores of Macedonia
standing before him, and heard him cry, "Come over, and help us" ( Acts
16:9 ). Paul recognized in this vision a message from the Lord, and the very
next day set sail across the Hellespont, which separated him from Europe, and
carried the tidings of the gospel into the Western world. In Macedonia, churches
were planted in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea. Leaving this province, Paul
passed into Achaia, "the paradise of genius and renown." He reached Athens, but
quitted it after, probably, a brief sojourn ( Acts
17:17 - 31
). The Athenians had received him with cold disdain, and he never visited that
city again. He passed over to Corinth, the seat of the Roman government of Achaia,
and remained there a year and a half, labouring with much success. While at Corinth,
he wrote his two epistles to the church of Thessalonica, his earliest apostolic
letters, and then sailed for Syria, that he might be in time to keep the feast
of Pentecost at Jerusalem. He was accompanied by Aquila and Priscilla, whom he
left at Ephesus, at which he touched, after a voyage of thirteen or fifteen days.
He landed at Caesarea, and went up to Jerusalem, and having "saluted the church"
there, and kept the feast, he left for Antioch, where he abode "some time" ( Acts
18:20 - 23
).
He then began his third missionary tour. He journeyed by land in the "upper coasts"
(the more eastern parts) of Asia Minor, and at length made his way to Ephesus,
where he tarried for no less than three years, engaged in ceaseless Christian
labour. "This city was at the time the Liverpool of the Mediterranean. It possessed
a splendid harbour, in which was concentrated the traffic of the sea which was
then the highway of the nations; and as Liverpool has behind her the great towns
of Lancashire, so had Ephesus behind and around her such cities as those mentioned
along with her in the epistles to the churches in the book of Revelation, Smyrna,
Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. It was a city of vast
wealth, and it was given over to every kind of pleasure, the fame of its theatres
and race-course being world-wide" (Stalker's Life of St. Paul). Here a "great
door and effectual" was opened to the apostle. His fellow-labourers aided him
in his work, carrying the gospel to Colosse and Laodicea and other places which
they could reach.
Very shortly before his departure from Ephesus, the apostle wrote his First Epistle
to the Corinthians (q.v.). The silversmiths, whose traffic in the little images
which they made was in danger (see DEMETRIUS), organized a riot against Paul,
and he left the city, and proceeded to Troas ( 2
Corinthians 2:12 ), whence after some time he went to meet Titus in Macedonia.
Here, in consequence of the report Titus brought from Corinth, he wrote his second
epistle to that church. Having spent probably most of the summer and autumn in
Macedonia, visiting the churches there, specially the churches of Philippi, Thessalonica,
and Berea, probably penetrating into the interior, to the shores of the Adriatic
( Romans
15:19 ), he then came into Greece, where he abode three month, spending probably
the greater part of this time in Corinth ( Acts
20:2 ). During his stay in this city he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians,
and also the great Epistle to the Romans. At the end of the three months he left
Achaia for Macedonia, thence crossed into Asia Minor, and touching at Miletus,
there addressed the Ephesian presbyters, whom he had sent for to meet him ( Acts
20:17 ), and then sailed for Tyre, finally reaching Jerusalem, probably in
the spring of A.D. 58.
While at Jerusalem, at the feast of Pentecost, he was almost murdered by a Jewish
mob in the temple. (See TEMPLE, HEROD'S.) Rescued from their violence by the Roman
commandant, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Caesarea, where, from various causes,
he was detained a prisoner for two years in Herod's praetorium ( Acts
23:35 ). "Paul was not kept in close confinement; he had at least the range
of the barracks in which he was detained. There we can imagine him pacing the
ramparts on the edge of the Mediterranean, and gazing wistfully across the blue
waters in the direction of Macedonia, Achaia, and Ephesus, where his spiritual
children were pining for him, or perhaps encountering dangers in which they sorely
needed his presence. It was a mysterious providence which thus arrested his energies
and condemned the ardent worker to inactivity; yet we can now see the reason for
it. Paul was needing rest. After twenty years of incessant evangelization, he
required leisure to garner the harvest of experience...During these two years
he wrote nothing; it was a time of internal mental activity and silent progress"
(Stalker's Life of St. Paul).
At the end of these two years Felix (q.v.) was succeeded in the governorship of
Palestine by Porcius Festus, before whom the apostle was again heard. But judging
it right at this crisis to claim the privilege of a Roman citizen, he appealed
to the emperor ( Acts
25:11 ). Such an appeal could not be disregarded, and Paul was at once sent
on to Rome under the charge of one Julius, a centurion of the "Augustan cohort."
After a long and perilous voyage, he at length reached the imperial city in the
early spring, probably, of A.D. 61. Here he was permitted to occupy his own hired
house, under constant military custody. This privilege was accorded to him, no
doubt, because he was a Roman citizen, and as such could not be put into prison
without a trial. The soldiers who kept guard over Paul were of course changed
at frequent intervals, and thus he had the opportunity of preaching the gospel
to many of them during these "two whole years," and with the blessed result of
spreading among the imperial guards, and even in Caesar's household, an interest
in the truth ( Philippians
1:13 ). His rooms were resorted to by many anxious inquirers, both Jews and
Gentiles ( Acts
28:23 , 28:30
, 28:31
), and thus his imprisonment "turned rather to the furtherance of the gospel,"
and his "hired house" became the centre of a gracious influence which spread over
the whole city. According to a Jewish tradition, it was situated on the borders
of the modern Ghetto, which has been the Jewish quarters in Rome from the time
of Pompey to the present day. During this period the apostle wrote his epistles
to the Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and to Philemon, and probably also
to the Hebrews.
This first imprisonment came at length to a close, Paul having been acquitted,
probably because no witnesses appeared against him. Once more he set out on his
missionary labours, probably visiting western and eastern Europe and Asia Minor.
During this period of freedom he wrote his First Epistle to Timothy and his Epistle
to Titus. The year of his release was signalized by the burning of Rome, which
Nero saw fit to attribute to the Christians. A fierce persecution now broke out
against the Christians. Paul was siezed, and once more conveyed to Rome a prisoner.
During this imprisonment he probably wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, the
last he ever wrote. "There can be little doubt that he appered [sic] again at
Nero's bar, and this time the charge did not break down. In all history there
is not a more startling illustration of the irony of human life than this scene
of Paul at the bar of Nero. On the judgment-seat, clad in the imperial purple,
sat a man who, in a bad world, had attained the eminence of being the very worst
and meanest being in it, a man stained with every crime, a man whose whole being
was so steeped in every nameable and unnameable vice, that body and soul of him
were, as some one said at the time, nothing but a compound of mud and blood; and
in the prisoner's dock stood the best man the world possessed, his hair whitened
with labours for the good of men and the glory of God. The trial ended: Paul was
condemned, and delivered over to the executioner. He was led out of the city,
with a crowd of the lowest rabble at his heels. The fatal spot was reached; he
knelt beside the block; the headsman's axe gleamed in the sun and fell; and the
head of the apostle of the world rolled down in the dust" (probably A.D. 66),
four years before the fall of Jerusalem.
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
small; little
Smith's Bible Dictionary
(small, little). Nearly all the original materials for
the life St. Paul are contained in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pauline
epistles. Paul was born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia. (It is not improbable that
he was born between A.D. 0 and A.D. 5.) Up to the time of his going forth as an
avowed preacher of Christ to the Gentiles, the apostle was known by the name of
Saul. This was the Jewish name which he received from his Jewish parents. But
though a Hebrew of the Hebrews, he was born in a Gentile city. Of his parents
we know nothing, except that his father was of the tribe of Benjamin, ( Philemon
3:5 ) and a Pharisee, ( Acts 23:6 ) that Paul had acquired by some means the Roman
franchise ("I was free born,") ( Acts 22:23 ) and that he was settled in Tarsus.
At Tarsus he must have learned to use the Greek language with freedom and mastery
in both speaking and writing. At Tarsus also he learned that trade of "tent-maker,"
( Acts 18:3 ) at which he afterward occasionally wrought with his own hands. There
was a goats-hair cloth called cilicium manufactured in Cilicia, and largely used
for tents, Sauls trade was probably that of making tents of this hair cloth. When
St. Paul makes his defence before his countrymen at Jerusalem, ( Acts 22:1 ) ...
he tells them that, though born in Tarsus he had been "brought up" in Jerusalem.
He must therefore, have been yet a boy when was removed, in all probability for
the sake of his education, to the holy city of his fathers. He learned, he says,
at the feet of Gamaliel." He who was to resist so stoutly the usurpations of the
law had for his teacher one of the most eminent of all the doctors of the law.
Saul was yet "a young man," ( Acts 7:58 ) when the Church experienced that sudden
expansion which was connected with the ordaining of the seven appointed to serve
tables, and with the special power and inspiration of Stephen. Among those who
disputed with Stephen were some "of them of Cilicia." We naturally think of Saul
as having been one of these, when we find him afterward keeping the clothes of
those suborned witnesses who, according to the law, ( Acts 17:7 ) were the first
to cast stones at Stephen. "Saul," says the sacred writer significantly "was consenting
unto his death."
Sauls conversion . A.D. 37.--
The persecutor was to be converted. Having undertaken to follow up the believers
"unto strange cities." Saul naturally turned his thoughts to Damascus. What befell
him as he journeyed thither is related in detail three times in the Acts, first
by the historian in his own person, then in the two addresses made by St. Paul
at Jerusalem and before Agrippa. St. Lukes statement is to be read in ( Acts 9:3-19
) where, however, the words "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,"
included in the English version, ought to be omitted (as is done in the Revised
Version). The sudden light from heaven; the voice of Jesus speaking with authority
to his persecutor; Saul struck to the ground, blinded, overcome; the three-days
suspense; the coming of Ananias as a messenger of the Lord and Sauls baptism,
--these were the leading features at the great event, and in these we must look
for the chief significance of the conversion. It was in Damascus that he was received
into the church by Ananias, and here to the astonishment of all his hearers, he
proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, declaring him to be the Son of God. The narrative
in the Acts tells us simply that he was occupied in this work, with increasing
vigor, for "many days," up to the time when imminent danger drove him from Damascus.
From the Epistle to the Galatians, ( Galatians 1:17 , 1:18 ) we learn that the
many days were at least a good part of "three years," A.D. 37-40, and that Saul,
not thinking it necessary to procure authority to teach from the apostles that
were before him, went after his conversion to Arabia, and returned from thence
to us. We know nothing whatever of this visit to Arabia; but upon his departure
from Damascus we are again on a historical ground, and have the double evidence
of St. Luke in the Acts of the apostle in his Second Epistle the Corinthians.
According to the former, the Jews lay in wait for Saul, intending to kill him,
and watched the gates of the city that he might not escape from them. Knowing
this, the disciples took him by night and let him down in a basket from the wall.
Having escaped from Damascus, Saul betook himself to Jerusalem (A.D. 40), and
there "assayed to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him,
and believed not he was a disciple." Barnabas introduction removed the fears of
the apostles, and Saul "was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem." But
it is not strange that the former persecutor was soon singled out from the other
believers as the object of a murderous hostility. He was,therefore, again urged
to flee; and by way of Caesarea betook himself to his native city, Tarsus. Barnabas
was sent on a special mission to Antioch. As the work grew under his hands, he
felt the need of help, went himself to Tarsus to seek Saul, and succeeded in bringing
him to Antioch. There they labored together unremittingly for a whole year." All
this time Saul was subordinate to Barnabas. Antioch was in constant communication
with Cilicia, with Cyprus, with all the neighboring countries. The Church was
pregnant with a great movement, and time of her delivery was at hand. Something
of direct expectation seems to be implied in what is said of the leaders of the
Church at Antioch, that they were "ministering to the Lord and fasting," when
the Holy Ghost spoke to them: "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto
I have called them." Everything was done with orderly gravity in the sending forth
of the two missionaries. Their brethren after fasting and prayer, laid their hands
on them, and so they departed.
The first missionary journey. A.D. 45-49. --
As soon as Barnabas and Saul reached Cyprus they began to "announce the word of
God," but at first they delivered their message in the synagogues of the Jews
only. When they had gone through the island, from Salamis to Paphos, they were
called upon to explain their doctrine to an eminent Gentile, Sergius Paulus, the
proconsul, who was converted. Sauls name was now changed to Paul, and he began
to take precedence of Barnabas. From Paphos "Paul and his company" set sail for
the mainland, and arrived at Perga in Pamphylia. Here the heart of their companion
John failed him, and he returned to Jerusalem. From Perga they travelled on to
a place obscure in secular history, but most memorable in the history of the Kingdom
of Christ --Antioch in Pisidia. Rejected by the Jews, they became bold and outspoken,
and turned from them to the Gentiles. At Antioch now, as in every city afterward,
the unbelieving Jews used their influence with their own adherents among the Gentiles
to persuade the authorities or the populace to persecute the apostles and to drive
them from the place. Paul and Barnabas now travelled on to Iconium where the occurrences
at Antioch were repeated, and from thence to the Lycaonian country which contained
the cities Lystra and Derbe. Here they had to deal with uncivilized heathen. At
Lystra the healing of a cripple took place. Thereupon these pagans took the apostles
for gods, calling Barnabas, who was of the more imposing presence, Jupiter, and
Paul, who was the chief speaker, Mercurius. Although the people of Lystra had
been so ready to worship Paul and Barnabas, the repulse of their idolatrous instincts
appears to have provoked them, and they allowed themselves to be persuaded into
hostility be Jews who came from Antioch and Iconium, so that they attacked Paul
with stones, and thought they had killed him. He recovered, however as the disciples
were standing around him, and went again into the city. The next day he left it
with Barnabas, and went to Derbe, and thence they returned once more to Lystra,
and so to Iconium and Antioch. In order to establish the churches after their
departure they solemnly appointed "elders" in every city. Then they came down
to the coast, and from Attalia, they sailed; home to Antioch in Syria, where they
related the successes which had been granted to them, and especially the opening
of the door of faith to the Gentiles." And so the first missionary journey ended.
The council at Jerusalem. --
Upon that missionary journey follows most naturally the next important scene which
the historian sets before us --the council held at Jerusalem to determine the
relations of Gentile believers to the law of Moses. ( Acts 15:1-29 ; Galatians
2 )
Second missionary journey . A.D. 50-54. --
The most resolute courage, indeed, was required for the work to which St. Paul
was now publicly pledged. He would not associate with himself in that work one
who had already shown a want of constancy. This was the occasion of what must
have been a most painful difference between him and his comrade in the faith and
in past perils, Barnabas. ( Acts 15:35-40 ) Silas, or Silvanus, becomes now a
chief companion of the apostle. The two went together through Syria and Cilicia,
visiting the churches, and so came to Derbe and Lystra. Here they find Timotheus,
who had become a disciple on the former visit of the apostle. Him St. Paul took
and Circumcised. St. Luke now steps rapidly over a considerable space of the apostles
life and labors. "They went throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia." ( Luke
16:6 ) At this time St. Paul was founding "the churches of Galatia." ( Galatians
1:2 ) He himself gives some hints of the circumstances of his preaching in that
region, of the reception he met with, and of the ardent though unstable character
of the people. ( Galatians 4:13-15 ) Having gone through Phrygia and Galatia,
he intended to visit, the western coast; but "they were forbidden by the Holy
Ghost to preach the "word" there. Then, being on the borders of Mysia, they thought
of going back to the northeast into Bithynia; but again the Spirit of Jesus "suffered
them not," so they passed by Mysia and came down to Troas. St. Paul saw in a vision
a man,of Macedonia, who besought him, saying, "Come over into Macedonia and help
us." The vision was at once accepted as a heavenly intimation; the help wanted,
by the Macedonians was believed to be the preaching of the gospel. It is at this
point that the historian, speaking of St. Pauls company, substitutes "we" for
"they." He says nothing of himself we can only infer that St. Luke, to whatever
country he belonged, became a companion of St. Paul at Troas. The party thus reinforced,
immediately set sail from Troas, touched at Samothrace, then landed on the continent
at Neapolis, and thence journeyed to Philippi. The first convert in Macedonia
was Lydia, an Asiatic woman, at Philippi. ( Acts 18:13 , 18:14 ) At Philippi Paul
and Silas were arrested, beaten and put in prison, having cast out the spirit
of divination from a female slave who had brought her masters much gain by her
power. This cruel wrong was to be the occasion of a signal appearance of the God
of righteousness and deliverance. The narrative tells of the earthquake, the jailers
terror, his conversion and baptism. ( Acts 16:26-34 ) In the morning the magistrates
sent word to the prison that the men might be let go; but Paul denounced plainly
their unlawful acts, informing them moreover that those whom they had beaten and
imprisoned without trial; were Roman citizens. The magistrates, in great alarm,
saw the necessity of humbling themselves. They came and begged them to leave the
city. Paul and Silas consented to do so, and, after paying a visit to "the brethren"
in the house of Lydia, they departed. Leaving St. Luke, and perhaps Timothy for
a short time at Philippi, Paul and Silas travelled through Amphipolis and Apollonia
and stopped again at Thessalonica. Here again, as in Pisidian Antioch, the envy
of the Jews was excited, and the mob assaulted the house of Jason with whom Paul
and Silas were staying as guests, and, not finding them, dragged Jason himself
and some other brethren before the magistrates. After these signs of danger the
brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night. They next came to Berea.
Here they found the Jews more noble than those at Thessalonica had been. Accordingly
they gained many converts, both Jews and Greeks; but the Jews of Thessalonica,
hearing of it, sent emissaries to stir up the people, and it was thought best
that Paul should himself leave the city whilst Silas and Timothy remained-behind.
Some of the brethren went with St. Paul as far as Athens, where they left him
carrying back a request to Silas and Timothy that they would speedily join him.
Here the apostle delivered that wonderful discourse reported in ( Acts 17:22-31
) He gained but few converts at Athens, and soon took his departure and went to
Corinth. He was testifying with unusual effort and anxiety when Silas and Timothy
came from Macedonia and joined him. Their arrival was the occasion of the writing
of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. The two epistles to the Thessalonians--and
these alone--belong to the present missionary journey. They were written from
Corinth A.D. 52, 53. When Silas and Timotheus came to Corinth, St. Paul was testifying
to the Jews with great earnestness, but with little success. Corinth was the chief
city of the province of Achaia, and the residence of the proconsul. During St.
Paul stay the proconsular office was held by Gallio, a brother of the philosopher
Seneca. Before him the apostle was summoned by his Jewish enemies, who hoped to
bring the Roman authority to bear upon him as an innovator in religion. But Gallio
perceived at once, before Paul could "open his mouth" to defend himself, that
the movement was due to Jewish prejudice, and refused to go into the question.
Then a singular scene occurred. The Corinthian spectators, either favoring Paul
or actuated only by anger against the Jews, seized on the principal person of
those who had brought the charge, and beat him before the judgment-seat. Gallio
left these religious quarrels to settle themselves. The apostle therefore, was
not allowed to be "hurt," and remained some time longer at Corinth unmolested.
Having been the instrument of accomplishing this work, Paul departed for Jerusalem,
wishing to attend a festival there. Before leaving Greece, he cut off his hair
at Cenchreae, in fulfillment of a vow. ( Acts 18:18 ) Paul paid a visit to the
synagogue at Ephesus, but would not stay. Leaving Ephesus, he sailed to Caesarea,
and from thence went up to Jerusalem, spring, A.D. 54, and "saluted the church."
It is argued, from considerations founded on the suspension of navigation during
the winter months, that the festival was probably the Pentecost. From Jerusalem
the apostle went almost immediately down to Antioch, thus returning to the same
place from which he had started with Silas.
Third missionary journey, including the stay at Ephesus . A.D. 54-58. ( Acts 18:23
; 21:17 ) --
The great epistles which belong to this period, those to the Galatians, Corinthians
and Romans, show how the "Judaizing" question exercised at this time the apostles
mind. St. Paul "spent some time" at Antioch, and during this stay as we are inclined
to believe, his collision with St. Peter ( Galatians 2:11-14 ) took place. When
he left Antioch, he "went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order,
strengthening all the disciples," and giving orders concerning the collection
for the saints. ( 1 Corinthians 18:1 ) It is probable that the Epistle to the
Galatians was written soon after this visit--A.D. 56-57. This letter was in all
probability sent from Ephesus. This was the goal of the apostles journeyings through
Asia Minor. He came down to Ephesus from the upper districts of Phrygia. Here
he entered upon his usual work. He went into the synagogue, and for three months
he spoke openly, disputing and persuading concerning "the kingdom of God." At
the end of this time the obstinacy and opposition of some of the Jews led him
to give up frequenting the synagogue, and he established the believers as a separate
society meeting "in the school of Tyrannus." This continued for two years. During
this time many things occurred of which the historian of the Acts chooses two
examples, the triumph over magical arts and the great disturbance raised by the
silversmiths who made shrines Diana --among which we are to note further the writing
of the First Epistle to the Corinth A.D. 57. Before leaving Ephesus Paul went
into Macedonia, where he met Titus, who brought him news of the state of the Corinthian
church. Thereupon he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, A.D. 57, and
sent it by the hands of Titus and two other brethren to Corinth. After writing
this epistle, St. Paul travelled throughout Macedonia, perhaps to the borders
of Illyricum, ( Romans 15:19 ) and then went to Corinth. The narrative in the
Acts tells us that "when he had gone over those parts (Macedonia), and had given
them much exhortation he came into Greece, and there abode three months." ( Acts
20:2 , 20:3 ) There is only one incident which we can connect with this visit
to Greece, but that is a very important one--the writing of his Epistle to the
Romans, A.D. 58. That this was written at this time from Corinth appears from
passages in the epistle itself and has never been doubted. The letter is a substitute
for the personal visit which he had longed "for many years" to pay. Before his
departure from Corinth, St. Paul was joined again by St. Luke, as we infer from
the change in the narrative from the third to the first person. He was bent on
making a journey to Jerusalem, for a special purpose and within a limited time.
With this view he was intending to go by sea to Syria. But he was made aware of
some plot of the Jews for his destruction, to be carried out through this voyage;
and he determined to evade their malice by changing his route. Several brethren
were associated with him in this expedition, the bearers no doubt, of the collections
made in all the churches for the poor at Jerusalem. These were sent on by sea,
and probably the money with them, to Troas, where they were to await Paul. He,
accompanied by Luke, went northward through Macedonia. Whilst the vessel which
conveyed the rest of the party sailed from Troas to Assos, Paul gained some time
by making the journey by land. At Assos he went on board again. Coasting along
by Mitylene, Chios, Samos and Trogyllium, they arrived at Miletus. At Miletus,
however there was time to send to Ephesus, and the elders of the church were invited
to come down to him there. This meeting is made the occasion for recording another
characteristic and representative address of St. Paul. ( Acts 20:18-35 ) The course
of the voyage from Miletas was by Coos and Rhodes to Patara, and from Patara in
another vessel past Cyprus to Tyre. Here Paul and his company spent seven days.
From Tyre they sailed to Ptolemais, where they spent one day, and from Ptolemais
proceeded, apparently by land, to Caesarea. They now "tarried many days" at Caesarea.
During this interval the prophet Agabus, ( Acts 11:28 ) came down from Jerusalem,
and crowned the previous intimations of danger with a prediction expressively
delivered. At this stage a final effort was made to dissuade Paul from going up
to Jerusalem, by the Christians of Caesarea and by his travelling companions.
After a while they went up to Jerusalem and were gladly received by the brethren.
This is St. Pauls fifth an last visit to Jerusalem.
St. Pauls imprisonment: Jerusalem. Spring, A.D. 58. --
He who was thus conducted into Jerusalem by a company of anxious friends had become
by this time a man of considerable fame among his countrymen. He was widely known
as one who had taught with pre-eminent boldness that a way into Gods favor was
opened to the Gentiles, and that this way did not lie through the door of the
Jewish law. He had thus roused against himself the bitter enmity of that unfathomable
Jewish pride which was almost us strong in some of those who had professed the
faith of Jesus as in their unconverted brethren. He was now approaching a crisis
in the long struggle, and the shadow of it has been made to rest upon his mind
throughout his journey to Jerusalem. He came "ready to die for the name of the
Lord Jesus," but he came expressly to prove himself a faithful Jew and this purpose
is shown at every point of the history. Certain Jews from "Asia," who had come
up for the pentecostal feast, and who had a personal knowledge of Paul, saw him
in the temple. They set upon him at once, and stirred up the people against him.
There was instantly a great commotion; Paul was dragged out of the temple, the
doors of which were immediately shut, and the people having him in their hands,
were going to kill him. Paul was rescued from the violence of the multitude by
the Roman officer, who made him his own prisoner, causing him to be chained to
two soldiers, and then proceeded to inquire who he was and what he had done. The
inquiry only elicited confused outcries, and the "chief captain" seems to have
imagined that the apostle might perhaps be a certain Egyptian pretender who recently
stirred up a considerable rising of the people. The account In the ( Acts 21:34-40
) tells us with graphic touches how St. Paul obtained leave and opportunity to
address the people in a discourse which is related at length. Until the hated
word of a mission to the Gentiles had been spoken, the Jews had listened to the
speaker. "Away with such a fellow from the earth," the multitude now shouted;
"it is not fit that he should live." The Roman commander seeing the tumult that
arose might well conclude that St. Paul had committed some heinous offence; and
carrying him off, he gave orders that he should be forced by scourging to confess
his crime. Again the apostle took advantage of his Roman citizenship to protect
himself from such an outrage. The chief captain set him free from bonds, but on
the next day called together the chief priests and the Sanhedrin, and brought
Paul as a prisoner before them. On the next day a conspiracy was formed which
the historian relates with a singular fullness of detail. More than forty of the
Jews bound themselves under a curse neither to eat nor drink until they had killed
Paul. The plot was discovered, and St. Paul was hurried away from Jerusalem. The
chief captain, Claudius Lysias determined to send him to Caesarea to Felix, the
governor or procurator of Judea. He therefor put him in charge of a strong guard
of soldiers, who took him by night as far as Antipatris. From thence a smaller
detachment conveyed him to Caesarea, where they delivered up their prisoner into
the hands of the governor.
Imprisonment at Caesarea. A.D. 58-60. --
St. Paul was henceforth to the end of the period embraced in the Acts, if not
to the end of his life, in Roman custody. This custody was in fact a protection
to him, without which he would have fallen a victim to the animosity of the Jews.
He seems to have been treated throughout with humanity and consideration. The
governor before whom he was now to be tried, according to Tacitus and Josephus,
was a mean and dissolute tyrant. After hearing St, Pauls accusers and the apostles
defence, Felix made an excuse for putting off the matter, and gave orders that
the prisoner should be treated with indulgence and that his friends should be
allowed free access to him. After a while he heard him again. St. Paul remained
in custody until Felix left the province. The unprincipled governor had good reason
to seek to ingratiate himself with the Jews; and to please them, be handed over
Paul, as an untried prisoner, to his successor, Festus. Upon his arrival in the
province, Festus went up without delay from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and the leading
Jews seized the opportunity of asking that Paul might be brought up there for
trial intending to assassinate him by the way. But Festus would not comply with
their request, He invited them to follow him on his speedy return to Caesarea,
and a trial took place there, closely resembling that before Felix. "They had
certain questions against him," Festus says to Agrippa, "of their own superstition
(or religion), and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.
And being puzzled for my part as to such inquiries, I asked him whether he would
go to Jerusalem to be tried there." This proposal, not a very likely one to be
accepted, was the occasion of St. Pauls appeal to Caesar. The appeal having been
allowed, Festus reflected that he must send with the prisoner a report of "the
crimes laid against him." He therefore took advantage of an opportunity which
offered itself in a few days to seek some help in the matter. The Jewish prince
Agrippa arrived with his sister Bernice on a visit to the new governor. To him
Festus communicated his perplexity. Agrippa expressed a desire to hear Paul himself.
Accordingly Paul conducted his defence before the king; and when it was concluded
Festus and Agrippa, and their companions, consulted together, and came to the
conclusion that the accused was guilty of nothing that deserved death or imprisonment.
"Agrippa"s final answer to the inquiry of Festus was, "This man might have been
set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar."
The voyage to Rome and shipwreck. Autumn, A.D. 60. --
No formal trial of St. Paul had yet taken place. After a while arrangements were
made to carry "Paul and certain other prisoners," in the custody of a centurion
named Julius, into Italy; and amongst the company, whether by favor or from any
other reason, we find the historian of the Acts, who in chapters 27 and 28 gives
a graphic description of the voyage to Rome and the shipwreck on the Island of
Melita or Malta. After a three-months stay in Malta the soldiers and their prisoners
left in an Alexandria ship for Italy. They touched at Syracuse, where they stayed
three days, and at Rhegium, from which place they were carried with a fair wind
to Puteoli, where they left their ship and the sea. At Puteoli they found "brethren,"
for it was an important place and especially a chief port for the traffic between
Alexandria and Rome; and by these brethren they were exhorted to stay a while
with them. Permission seems to have been granted by the centurion; and whilst
they were spending seven days at Puteoli news of the apostles arrival was sent
to Rome. (Spring, A.D. 61.)
First imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome . A.D. 61-63. --
On their arrival at Rome the centurion delivered up his prisoners into the proper
custody that of the praetorian prefect. Paul was at once treated with special
consideration and was allowed to dwell by himself with the soldier who guarded
him. He was now therefore free "to preach the gospel to them that were at Rome
also;" and proceeded without delay to act upon his rule --"to the Jews first,"
But as of old, the reception of his message by the Jews was not favorable. He
turned, therefore, again to the Gentiles, and for two years he dwelt in his own
hired house. These are the last words of the Acts. But St. Pauls career is not
abruptly closed. Before he himself fades out of our sight in the twilight of ecclesiastical
tradition, we have letters written by himself which contribute some particulars
to his biography.
Period of the later epistles. --
To that imprisonment to which St. Luke has introduced us --the imprisonment which
lasted for such a tedious time, though tempered by much indulgence --belongs the
noble group of letters to Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians and to
the Philippians. The three former of these were written at one time, and sent
by the same messengers. Whether that to the Philippians was written before or
after these we cannot determine; but the tone of it seems to imply that a crisis
was approaching, and therefore it is commonly regarded us the latest of the four.
In this epistle St. Paul twice expresses a confident hope that before long he
may be able to visit the Philippians in person. ( Philemon 1:25 ; 2:24 ) Whether
this hope was fulfilled or not has been the occasion of much controversy. According
to the general opinion the apostle was liberated from imprisonment at the end
of two years, having been acquitted by Nero A.D. 63, and left Rome soon after
writing the letter to the Philippians. He spent some time in visits to Greece,
Asia Minor and Spain, and during the latter part of this time wrote the letters
(first epistles) to Timothy and Titus from Macedonia, A.D. 65. After these were
written he was apprehended again and sent to Rome.
Second imprisonment at Rome . A.D. 65-67. --
The apostle appears now to have been treated not as an honorable state prisoner
but as a felon, ( 2 Timothy 2:9 ) but he was allowed to write the second letter
to Timothy, A.D. 67. For what remains we have the concurrent testimony of ecclesiastical
antiquity that he was beheaded at Rome, by Nero in the great persecutions of the
Christians by that emperor, A.D. 67 or 68.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
pol,
I. SOURCES
1. The Acts:
For discussion of the historical value of the Acts of the Apostles see the article
on that subject. It is only necessary to say here that the view of Sir W.M. Ramsay
in general is accepted as to the trustworthiness of Luke, whose authorship of
the Ac is accepted and proved by Harnack (Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908; The Ac
of the Apostles, translation by Wilkinson, 1909; Neue Untersuch. zur Ap., 1911;
The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, translations by Wilkinson, 1911).
The proof need not be given again. The same hand appears in the "we" sections
and the rest of the book. Even Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the
New Testament, 311) admits the Lukan authorship though dating it in 100 AD instead
of 60-62 AD, against Harnack. The Ac is written independently of the Epistles
of Paul, whether early or late, and supplements in a wonderful way the incidental
references in the epistles, though not without lacunae and difficulties.
2. The Thirteen Epistles:
(1) Pauline Authorship.
See the articles on each epistle for detailed criticism. It is here assumed that
the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, though Pauline in point of
view. One cannot stop to prove every statement in an article like this, else a
large book would be needed. Criticism is not an infallible science. One can turn
easily from the Hatch-Van Manen article on "Paul" in Encyclopedia Biblica (1902)
to the Maclean article on "Paul the Apostle" in the 1-vol HDB (1909). Van-Manen's
part of the one denies all the thirteen, while Maclean says: "We shall, in what
follows, without hesitation use the thirteen epistles as genuine." It is certain
that Paul wrote more epistles, or "letters," as Deissmann (Light from the Ancient
East, 225) insists on calling all of Paul's epistles. Certainly Philera is a mere
"letter," but it is difficult to say as much about Romans. Deissmann (St. Paul,
22) admits that portions of Romans are like "an epistolary letter." At any rate,
when Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 64-82) carefully
justifies the Pauline authorship of both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, it is clear that
the case against them cannot be very strong, especially as Moffatt stands out
against the genuineness of Ephesians (op. cit., 393) and the Pastoral Epistles
(p. 414).
Bartlet, who was once at a loss to know what to do with the Pastorals on theory
that Paul was not released from the Roman imprisonment (Apostolic Age, 1899, 200),
is now quite willing to face the new facts set forth by Ramsay (Expos, VII, viii-ix,
VIII, i), even if it means the admission of a second Roman imprisonment, a view
that Bartlet had opposed. He now pleads for "the fresh approach from the side
of experience, by men who are in touch with the realities of human nature in all
its variety, as well as at home in the historical background of society in the
early Roman empire, that has renovated the study of them and taken it out of the
old ruts of criticism in which it has moved for the most part in modern times"
(Expos, January, 1913, 29). Here Bartlet, again, now eloquently presents the view
of common-sense criticism as seen by the practical missionary better than by a
life "spent amid the academic associations of a professor's chair," though he
pauses to note as an exception Professor P. Gardner's The Religious Experience
of Paul (1912). We may quote Bartlet once more (Expos, January, 1913, 30): "In
the recovery of a true point of view a vital element has been the newer conception
of Paul himself and so of Paulinism. Paul the doctrinaire theologian, or at least
the prophet of a one-sided gospel repeated with fanatical uniformity of emphasis
under all conditions, has largely given place to Paul the missionary, full indeed
of inspired insight on the basis of a unique experience, but also of practical
instinct, the offspring of sympathy with living men of other types of training.
When the Pastorals are viewed anew in the light of this idea, half their difficulties
disappear." One need not adopt Deissmann's rather artificial insistence on "letters"
rather than "epistles," and his undue depreciation of Paul's intellectual caliber
and culture as being more like Amos than Origen (St. Paul, 1912, 6), in order
to see the force of this contention for proper understanding of the social environment
of Paul. Against Van Manen's "historical Paul" who wrote nothing, he places "the
historic Paul" who possibly wrote all thirteen. "There is really no trouble except
with the letters to Timothy and Titus, and even there the difficulties are perhaps
not quite so great as many of our specialists assume" (St. Paul, 15). See PASTORAL
EPISTLES. Deissmann denies sharply that Paul was an "obscurantist" who corrupted
the gospel of Jesus, "the dregs of doctrinaire study of Paul, mostly in the tired
brains-of gifted amateurs" (p. 4). But A. Schweitzer boldly proclaims that he
alone has the key to Paul and Jesus. It is the "exclusively Jewish eschatological"
(Paul and His Interpreters, 1912, ix), conception of Christ's gospel that furnishes
Schweitzer's spring-board (The Quest of the Historical Jesus). Thus he will be
able to explain "the Hellenization of the gospel" as mediated through Paul. To
do that Schweitzer plows his weary way from Grotius to Holtzmann, and finds that
they have all wandered into the wilderness. He is positive that his eschatological
discovery will rescue Paul and some of his epistles from the ruin wrought by Steck
and Van Manen to whose arguments modern criticism has nothing solid to offer,
and the meager negative crumbs offered by Schweitzer ought to be thankfully received
(ibid, 249).
(2) Lightfoot's Grouping.
(Compare Biblical Essays, 224.) There is doubt as to the position of Galatians.
Some advocates of the South-Galatian theory make it the very earliest of Paul's
Epistles, even before the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15. So Eramet, Commentary
on Galatians (1912), ix, who notes (Preface) that his commentary is the first
to take this position. But the North Galatian view still has the weight of authority
in spite of Ramsay's powerful advocacy in his various books (see Historical Commentary
on Galatians), as is shown by Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New
Testament, 90. Hence, Lightfoot's grouping is still the best to use.
(a) First Group (1 and 2 Thessalonians):
1 and 2 Thessalonians, from Corinth, 52-53 AD. Harnack's view that 2 Thessalonians
is addressed to a Jewish Christian church in Thessalonica while 1 Thessalonians
is addressed to a Gentilechurch is accepted by Lake (Earlier Epistles of Paul,
1911, 83) but Frame (ICC, 1912, 54) sees no need for this hypothesis. Milligan
is clear that 1 Thessalonians precedes 2 Thessalonians (Commentary, 1908, xxxix)
and is the earliest of Paul's Epistles (p. xxxvi). The accent on eschatology is
in accord with the position of the early disciples in the opening chapters of
Acts. They belong to Paul's stay in Corinth recorded in Acts 18.
(b) Second Group (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans):
1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, 55-58 AD. This is the great doctrinal
group, the four chief epistles of Baur. They turn about the Judaizing controversy
which furnishes the occasion for the expansion of the doctrine of justification
by faith in opposition to the legalistic contention of the Judaizing Christians
from Jerusalem (Acts 15:1 - 3 ; Galatians 2:1 - 10). The dates of these epistles
are not perfectly clear. 1 Corinthians was written shortly before the close of
Paul's 3 years' stay at Ephesus (Acts 20:31 ; 1 Corinthians 16:8 ; Acts 20:1).
2 Corinthians was written a few months later while he was in Macedonia (2 Corinthians
2:13 ; 7:5 , 13 ; 8:16 - 24). Romans was written from Corinth (Romans 16:23 ;
Acts 20:2 f) and sent by Phoebe of Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). The integrity of Romans
is challenged by some who deny in particular that chapter 16 belongs to the epistle
Moffatt (Intro, 134-38) gives an able, but unconvincing, presentation of the arguments
for the addition of the chapter by a later hand. Deissmann (St. Paul, 19) calls
Romans 16 "a little letter" addressed to the Christians at Ephesus. Von. Soden
(History of Early Christian Literature, 78) easily justifies the presence of Romans
16 in the Epistle to the Romans: "These greetings, moreover, were certainly intended
by Paul to create bonds of fellowship between the Pauline Christians and the Roman
community, and to show that he had not written to them quite exclusively in his
own name." A common-sense explanation of Paul's personal ties in Rome is the fact
that as the center of the world's life the city drew people thither from all parts
of the earth. So, today many a man has friends in New York or London who has never
been to either city. A much more serious controversy rages as to the integrity
of 2 Corinthians. Semler took 2 Corinthians 10 - 13 to be a separate and later
ep., because of its difference in tone from 2 Corinthians 1 - 9, but Hausrath
put it earlier than chapters 2 Corinthians 1 - 9, and made it the letter referred
to in 2 Corinthians 2:4. He has been followed by many scholars like Schmiedel,
Cone, McGiffert, Bacon, Moffatt, Kennedy, Rendall, Peake, Plummer. Von Soden (History
of Early Christian Literature, 50) accepts the partition-theory of 2 Corinthians
heartily: "It may be shown with the highest degree of probability that this letter
has come down to us in 2 Corinthians 10:1 - 13:10." But the unity of the epistle
on theory that the change in tone is a climax to the disobedient element of the
church is still maintained with force and justice by Klopper, Zahn, Bachmann,
Denhey, Bernard, A. Robertson, Weiss, Menzies. The place of the writing of Galatians
turns on its date. Lightfoot (in loc.) argues for Corinth, since it was probably
written shortly before Romans. But Moffatt (Introduction, 102) holds tentatively
to Ephesus, soon after Paul's arrival there from Galatia. So he gives the order:
Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. In so much doubt it is well to follow
Lightfoot's logical argument. Galatians leads naturally to Romans, the one hot
and passionate, the other calm and contemplative, but both on the same general
theme.
(c) Third group (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians):
Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians. Date 61-63, unless Paul reached
Rome several years earlier. This matter depends on the date of the coming of Festus
to succeed Felix (Acts 24:27). It was once thought to be 60 AD beyond any doubt,
but the whole matter is now uncertain. See "Chronology," III, 2, (2), below. At
any rate these four epistles were written during the first Roman imprisonment,
assuming that he was set free.
But it must be noted that quite a respectable group of scholars hold that one
or all of these epistles were written from Caesarea (Schultz, Thiersch, Meyer,
Hausrath, Sabatier, Reuss, Weiss, Haupt, Spitta, McPherson, Hicks). But the arguments
are more specious than convincing. See Hort, Romans and Ephesians, 101-10. There
is a growing opinion that Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were written from
Ephesus during a possible imprisonment in Paul's stay of 3 years there. So Deissmann
(Light from the Ancient East, 229; Paul, 16); Lisco (Vincula Sanctorum, 1900);
M. Albertz (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1910, 551); B. W. Bacon (Journal of Biblical
Lit., 1910, 181). The strongest argument for this position is that Paul apparently
did not know personally the readers of Eph (1:15); compare also Colossians 1:4.
But this objection need not apply if the so-called Ephesian Epistle was a circular
letter and if Paul did not visit Colosse and Laodicea during his 3 years at Ephesus.
The theory is more attractive at first than on reflection. It throws this group
before Romans--a difficult view to concede.
But even so, the order of these epistles is by no means certain. It is clear that
Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were sent together. Tychicus was the bearer
of Colossians (4:7 f) and Ephesians (6:21 f). Onesimus carried the letter to Philemon
(1:10,13) and was also the companion of Tychicus to Colosse (Colossians 4:9).
So these three epistles went together from Rome. It is commonly assumed that Php
was the last of the group of four, and hence later than the other three, because
Paul is balancing life and death (Philippians 1:21) and is expecting to be set
free (Philippians 1:25), but he has the same expectation of freedom when he writes
Philemon (1:22). The absence of Luke (Philippians 2:20) has to be explained on
either hypothesis. Moffatt (Introduction, 159) is dogmatic, "as Philippians was
certainly the last letter that he wrote," ruling out of court Ephesians, not to
say the later Pastoral Epistles. But this conclusion gives Moffatt trouble with
the Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16) which he can only call "the enigmatic
reference" and cannot follow Rutherford (St. Paul's Epistles to Colosse and Laodicea,
1908) in identifying the Laodicean Epistle with Ephesians, as indeed Marcion seems
to have done. But the notion that Ephesians was a circular letter designed for
more than one church (hence, without personalities) still holds the bulk of modern
opinion.
Von Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 294) is as dogmatic as Wrede
or Van Manen: "All which has hitherto been said concerning this epistle, its form,
its content, its ideas, its presuppositions, absolutely excludes the possibility
of a Pauline authorship." He admits "verbal echoes of Pauline epistles"
Lightfoot puts Philippians before the other three because of its doctrinal affinity
with the second group in chapter 3 as a reminiscence, and because of its anticipation
of the Christological controversy with incipient Gnosticism in chapter 2. This
great discussion is central in Colossians and Ephesians. At any rate, we have
thus a consistent and coherent interpretation of the group. Philemon, though purely
personal, is wondrously vital as a sociological document. Paul is in this group
at the height of his powers in his grasp of the Person of Christ.
(d) Fourth Group (1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy):
1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy. The Pastoral Epistles are still hotly disputed, but
there is a growing willingness in Britain and Germany to make a place for them
in Paul's life. Von Soden bluntly says: "It is impossible that these epistles
as they stand can have been written by Paul" (History of Early Christian Literature,
310). He finds no room for the heresy here combated, or for the details in Paul's
life, or for the linguistic peculiarities in Paul's style. But he sees a "literary
nicety"--this group that binds them together and separates them from Paul. Thus
tersely he puts the case against the Pauline authorship. So Moffatt argues for
the "sub-Pauline environment" and "sub-Pauline atmosphere" of these epistles with
the advanced ecclesiasticism (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament,
410). Wrede thrusts aside the personal details and argues that the epistles give
merely the tendency of early Christianity (Ueber Aufgabe und Metbode der Sogen.
New Testament Theologie, 1897, 357). The Hatch-Van Manen article in Encyclopedia
Biblica admits only that "the Pastoral Epistles occupy themselves chiefly with
the various affairs of the churches within `Pauline circles.' "
Moffatt has a vigorous attack on these letters in EB, but he "almost entirely
ignores the external evidence, while he has nothing to say to the remarkable internal
evidence which immediately demands our attention" (Knowling, Testimony of Paul
to Christ, 3rd edition, 1911, 129). Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of
the New Testament, 414) holds that the Pastoral Epistles came from one pen, but
the personality and motives are very vague to him. The personal details in 2 Timothy
1:14 - 18 ; 4:9 - 22 are not on a paragraph with those in The Acts of Paul and
Thekla in the 2nd century. Many critics who reject the Pauline authorship of the
Pastoral Epistles admit the personal details in 2 Timothy, but it is just in such
matters that forgeries are recognizable. To admit these fragments is logically
to admit the whole (Maclean in 1-vol HDB), as Moffatt sees (Intro, 414), however
much he seeks to tone down the use of Paul's name as "a Christian form of suasoriae,"
and "a further and inoffensive development of the principle which sought to claim
apostolic sanction for the expanding institutions and doctrines of the early church"
(ibid., 415). The objection against these epistles from differences in diction
has been grievously overdone. As a matter of fact, each of the four groups has
words peculiar to it, and naturally so. Style is a function of the subject as
well as a mark of the man. Besides, style changes with one's growth. It would
have been remarkable if all four groups had shown no change in no change in vocabulary
and style. The case of Shakespeare is quite pertinent, for the various groups
of plays stand more or less apart. The Pastoral Epistles belong to Paul's old
age and deal with personal and ecclesiastical matters in a more or less reminiscential
way, with less of vehement energy than we get in the earlier epistles, but this
situation is what one would reasonably expect. The "ecclesiastical organization"
argument has been greatly overdone. As a matter of fact, "the organization in
the Pastoral Epistles is not apparently advanced one step beyond that of the church
in Philippi in 61 AD" (Ramsay, The Expositor, VII, viii, 17). The "gnosis" met
by these epistles (1 Timothy 6:20; Titus 1:14) is not the highly developed type
seen in the Ignatian Epistles of the 2nd century. Indeed, Bartlet ("Historic Setting
of the Pastoral Epistles," The Expositor, January, 1913, 29) pointedly says that,
as a result of Hort's "Judaistic Christianity" and "Christian Ecclesia" and Ramsay's
"Historical Commentary on the Epistles of Timothy" (Expos, VII, vii, ix, VIII,
i), "one feels the subject has been lifted to a new level of reality and that
much criticism between Baur and Julicher is out of date and irrelevant." It is
now shown that the Pastoral Epistles are not directed against Gnosticism of advanced
type, but even of a more Jewish type (Titus 1:14) than that in Colossians. Ramsay
(Expos, VIII, i, 263) sweeps this stock criticism aside as "from the wrong point
of view." It falls to the ground. Lightfoot ("Note on the Heresy Combated in the
Pastoral Epistles," Biblical Essays, 413) had insisted on the Jewish character
of the Gnosticism attacked here. As a matter of fact, the main objection to these
epistles is that they do not fit into the story in Acts, which breaks off abruptly
with Paul in Rome. But it is a false premise to assume that the Pastoral Epistles
have to fit into the events in Acts. Harnack turns the objection that Paul in
Acts 20:26 predicted that he would never see the Ephesian elders again into a
strong argument for the date of Luke's Gospel before 2 Timothy 4:21 (The Date
of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, 103). Indeed, he may not have revisited Ephesus
after all, but may have seen Timothy at Miletus also (1 Timothy 1:3). Harnack
frankly admits the acquittal and release of Paul and thus free play for the Pastoral
Epistles Blass (Acta Apostolorum, 24) acknowledges the Pastoral Epistles as genuine.
So also Findlay, article "Paul," in HDB; Maclean in 1-vol HDB; Denney in Standard
BD. Sanday (Inspiration, 364) comments on the strength of the external evidence
for the Pastoral Epistles. Even Holtzmann (Einl(3), 291) appears to admit echoes
of the Pastoral Epistles in the Ignatian Epistles Lightfoot (Biblical Essays,
"Date of the Pastoral Epistles," 399-437) justifies completely the acceptance
of the Pauline authorship. Deissman (St. Paul, 15) has a needed word: "The delusion
is still current in certain circles that the scientific distinction of a Bible
scholar may be estimated in the form of a percentage according to the proportion
of his verdicts of spuriousness. .... The extant letters of Paul have been innocently
obliged to endure again a fair share of the martyrdom suffered by the historic
Paul." See further PASTORAL EPISTLES. |
(3) Paul's Conception of His Epistles
Assuming, therefore, the Pauline authorship of the thirteen epistles, we may note
that they, reveal in a remarkable way the growth in Paul's apprehension of Christ
and Christianity, his adaptation to varied situations, his grasp of world-problems
and the eternal values of life. Paul wrote other epistles, as we know. In 1 Corinthians
5:9 there is a clear reference to a letter not now known to us otherwise, earlier
than 1 Corinthians. The use of "every epistle" in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 naturally
implies that Paul had written more than two already. It is not certain to what
letter Paul refers in 2 Corinthians 2:4--most probably to one between 1 and 2
Corinthians, though, as already shown, some scholars find that letter in 2 Corinthians
10-13. Once more Paul (Colossians 4:16) mentions an epistle addressed to the church
at Laodicea. This epistle is almost certainly that which we know as Ephesians.
If not, here is another lost epistle. Indeed, at least two apocryphal Epistles
to the Laodiceans were written to supply this deficiency. As early as 2 Thessalonians
2:2 forgers were at work to palm, off epistles in Paul's name, "or by epistle
as from us," to attack and pervert Paul's real views, whom Paul denounces. It
was entirely possible that this "nefarious work" would be continued (Gregory,
Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, 191), though, as Gregory argues, Paul's
exposure here would have a tendency to put a stop to it and to put Christians
on their guard and to watch for Paul's signature to the epistles as a mark of
genuineness (2 Thessalonians 3:17 ; 1 Corinthians 16:21 ; Galatians 6:11; Colossians
4:18). This was all the more important since Paul evidently dictated his letters
to amanuenses, as to Tertius in the case of Romans 16:22. In the case of Philemon
1:19, Paul probably wrote the whole letter. We may be sure therefore that, if
we had the other genuine letters of Paul, they would occupy the same general standpoint
as the thirteen now in our possession. The point to note here is that the four
groups of Paul's Epistles fit into the historical background of the Ac as recorded
by Luke, barring the fourth group which is later than the events in Acts. Each
group meets a specific situation in a definite region or regions, with problems
of vital interest. Paul attacks these various problems (theological, ecclesiastical,
practical) with marvelous vigor, and applies the eternal principles of the gospel
of Christ in such fashion as to furnish a norm for future workers for Christ.
It is not necessary to say that he was conscious of that use. Deissmann (St. Paul,
12 f) is confident on this point: "That a portion of these confidential letters
should be still extant after centuries, Paul cannot have intended, nor did it
ever occur to him that they would be." Be that as it may, and granted that Paul's
Epistles are "survivals, in the sense of the technical language employed by the
historical method" (ibid., 12), still we must not forget that Paul attached a
great deal of importance to his letters and urged obedience to the teachings which
they contained: "I adjure you by the, Lord that this epistle be read unto all
the brethren" (1 Thessalonians 5:27). This command we find in the very first one
preserved to us. Once more note 2 Thessalonians 3:14: "And if any man obeyeth
not our word by this ep., note that man, that ye have no company with him." Evidently
therefore Paul does not conceive his epistles as mere incidents in personal correspondence,
but authoritative instructions for the Christians to whom they are addressed.
In 1 Corinthians 7:17, "And so ordain I in all the churches," he puts his epistolary
commands on a paragraph with the words of Jesus quoted in the same chapter. Some
indeed at Corinth (2 Corinthians 10:9) took his "letters" as an effort to "terrify"
them, a thing that he was afraid to do in person. Paul (2 Corinthians 10:11) does
not deny the authority of his letters, but claims equal courage when he comes
in person (compare 2 Corinthians 13:2,10). That Paul expected his letters to be
used by more than the one church to which they were addressed is clear from Colossians
4:16: "And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also
in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea."
If the letter to Laodicea is our Eph and a sort of circular letter (compare Galatians),
that is clear. But it must be noted that Colossians, undoubtedly a specific letter
to Colosse, is likewise to be passed on to Laodicea. It is not always observed
that in 1 Corinthians 1:2, though the epistle is addressed "unto the church of
God which is at Corinth," Paul adds, "with all that call upon the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours." Philemon is, of course,
a personal letter, though it deals with a sociological problem of universal interest.
The Pastoral Epistles are addressed to two young ministers and have many personal
details, as is natural, but the epistles deal far more with the social aspects
of church life and the heresies and vices that were threatening the very existence
of Christianity in the Roman empire. Paul is eager that Timothy shall follow his
teaching (2 Timothy 3:10), and "the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall
be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). It is this larger view of the future
of Christianity that concerns Paul very keenly. The very conception of his ministry
to the Gentiles (Romans 15:16; Ephesians 3:7) led Paul to feel that he had a right
to speak to all, "both to Greeks and to Barbarians" (Romans 1:14), and hence,
even to Rome (Romans 1:15). It is a mistake to limit Paul's Epistles to the local
and temporary sphere given them by Deissmann.
(4) Development in Paul's Epistles
For Paul's gospel or theology see later. Here we must stress the fact that all
four groups of Paul's Epistles are legitimate developments from his fundamental
experience of grace as conditioned by his previous training and later work. He
met each new problem with the same basal truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the
Son of God, revealed to Paul on the way to Damascus. The reality of this great
experience must here be assumed (see discussion later). It may be admitted that
the Act does not stand upon the same plane as the Pauline Epistles as a witness
concerning Paul's conversion (Fletcher, The Conversion of Paul, 1910, 5). But
even so, the Epistles amply confirm Luke's report of the essential fact that Jesus
appeared to Paul in the same sense that He did to the apostles and 500 Christians
(1 Corinthians 15:4 - 9). The revelation of Christ to Paul and in Paul (en emoi,
Galatians 1:16) and the specific call connected therewith to preach to the Gentiles
gave Paul a place independent of and on a paragraph with the other apostles (Galatians
1:16 ; 2:1 - 10). Paul's first preaching (Acts 9:20) "proclaimed Jesus, that he
is the Son of God." This "primitive Paulinism" (Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, 1893,
113) lay at the heart of Paul's message in his sermons and speeches in Acts. Professor
P. Gardner regards Luke as a "careless" historian ("The Speeches of Paul in Acts,"
Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, 386), but he quite admits the central place of
Paul's conversion, both in the Acts and the Epistles (ib; compare also The Religious
Experience of Paul).
We cannot here trace in detail the growth of Paulinism. Let Wernle speak (Beginnings
of Christianity, 1903, I, 224) for us: "The decisive factor in the genius of Paul's
theology was his personal experience, his conversion on the road to Damascus."
This fact reappears in each of the groups of the Epistles. It is the necessary
implication in the apostolic authority claimed in 1 Thessalonians 2:4 - 6 ; 2
Thessalonians 2:15 ; 3:6 , 14. "We might have claimed authority as apostles of
Christ" (1 Thessalonians 2:6). For the second group we need only refer to 1 Corinthians
9:1 f and 15:1 - 11, where Paul justifies his gospel by the fact of having seen
the risen Jesus. His self-depreciation in 1 Corinthians 15:9 is amply balanced
by the claims in 1 Corinthians 15:10. See also 2 Corinthians 10 - 13 and Galatians
1 and 2 for Paul's formal defense of his apostolic authority. The pleasantry in
Romans 15:14 does not displace the claim in Romans 15:16 , 23 f. In the third
group note the great passage in Philippians 3:12 - 14, where Paul pointedly alludes
to his conversion: "I was laid hold of by Jesus Christ," as giving him the goal
of his ambition, "that I may lay hold"; "I count not myself yet to have laid hold."
This concentration of effort to come up to Christ's purpose in him is the key
to Paul's life and letters, "I press on toward the goal." So the golden cord reappears
in Ephesians 3:2 - 13: "How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery,
as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding
in the mystery of Christ." In the fourth group he still recalls how Christ Jesus
took pity on him, the blasphemer, the persecutor, the chief of sinners, and put
him into the ministry, "that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all
his longsuffering, for an ensample of them that should thereafter believe on him
unto eternal life" (1 Timothy 1:16). He kept up the fight to the end (2 Timothy
4:6), for the Lord Jesus stood by him (2 Timothy 4:17), as on the road to Damascus.
So the personal note of experience links all the epistles together.They reveal
Paul's growing conception of Christ. Paul at the very start perceived that men
are redeemed by faith in Jesus as the Saviour from sin through His atoning death,
not by works of the Law (Acts 13:38). In the first group there are allusions to
the "work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ"
(1 Thessalonians 1:3). He speaks of "election" (1 Thessalonians 1:4) and "our
gospel" (1 Thessalonians 1:5) and the resurrection of Jesus (1 Thessalonians 1:10).
The Father, Son and Spirit cooperate in the work of salvation (2 Thessalonians
2:13), which includes election, belief, sanctification, glorification. It is not
necessary to press the argument for the conception of salvation by faith in Christ,
grace as opposed to works, in the second group. It is obviously present in the
third and the fourth. We seem forced to the view therefore that Paul's experience
was revolutionary, not evolutionary. "If we consider the whole history of Paul
as it is disclosed to us in his letters, are we not forced to the conclusion that
his was a catastrophic or explosive, rather than a slowly progressive personality?"
(Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1911, 32). "His gospel was included in
his conversion, and it was meditation that made explicit what was thus implicit
in his experience" (same place) . This is not to say that there was no "spiritual
development of Paul" (Matheson, 1890). There was, and of the richest kind, but
it was a growth of expression in the successive application of the fundamental
Christian conception. The accent upon this or that phase of truth at different
stages in Paul's career does not necessarily mean that the truth is a new one
to him. It may simply be that the occasion has arisen for emphasis and elaboration.
In a broad generalization the first group of the epistles is eschatological, the
second soteriological, the third Christological, and the fourth pastoral (Garvie,
Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 22). But one must not get the notion that Paul
did not have a full gospel of salvation in the first group, and did not come to
the true motive of the person of Christ as Lord till the second, or understand
the pastoral office till the fourth. See emphasis on Paul's work as pastor and
preacher in 1 Thessalonians 2 (first group), and the Lordship of Christ also (1
Thessalonians 1:1 , 3 ; 2 Thessalonians 1:1 ; 2:13), on a paragraph with the Father.
There was a change of accent in each group on questions of eschatology, but in
each one Paul cherishes the hope of the second coming of Christ up to the very
end when he speaks of his own death (2 Timothy 4:8,18). Paul has a whole gospel
of grace in all his epistles, but he presses home the special phase of truth needed
at the moment, always with proper balance and modification, though not in the
form of a system of doctrine. In the first group he relieves the minds of the
Thessalonian Christians from the misapprehension into which they had fallen concerning
his position on the immediate coming of Christ. In the second group Paul vindicates
the gospel of grace from the legalistic addition of the Judaizers who sought to
rob the Gentiles of their freedom by insisting that they become Jews as well as
Christians. This ringing battle is echoed in Acts 15 and is the mightiest conflict
of Paul's career. We hear echoes of it in Philippians 3, but he had won his contention.
In the third group the battle with error has shifted to the province of Asia,
especially the Lycus Valley, where a mystic mixture of Judaism (Essenism) and
heathen mystery-religions and philosophies (incipient Gnosticism) was so rife
in the 2nd century (the various forms of Gnosticism which combined with some aspects
of Christianity). It is possible also that Mithraism was already a foe of Christianity.
The central position and essential deity of Jesus Christ was challenged by these
new and world-old heresies, and Paul attacks them with marvelous skill in Col
and Eph and works out in detail his teaching concerning the person of Christ with
due emphasis on the soteriological aspects of Christ's work and on Christian life.
Bruce (St. Paul's Conception of Christianity) conceives that Paul gives us his
entire conception of Christianity in the four great epistles of the second group,
while B. Weiss (Biblical Theology of the New Testament) sees a more developed
doctrine in the third group. He is in his prime in both groups. In the fourth
group the same struggle lingers on with variations in Crete and even in Ephesus.
The Jewish phase of the heresy is more decided (perhaps Pharisaic), and recalls
to some extent the Judaistic controversy in the second group. Paul is older and
faces the end, and Christianity has enemies within and without. He turns to young
ministers as the hope of the future in the propagation of the gospel of the happy
God. The fires have burned lower, and there is less passion and heat. The tone
is now fierce, now tender. The style is broken and reminiscent and personal, though
not with the rush of torrential emotion in 2 Corinthians, nor the power of logic
in Galatians and Romans. Each epistle fits into its niche in the group. Each group
falls into proper relation to the stage in Paul's life and justly reveals the
changes of thought and feeling in the great apostle. It is essential that one
study Paul's Epistles in their actual historical order if one wishes to understand
the mind of Paul. Scholars are not agreed, to be sure on this point. They are
not agreed on anything, for that matter. See two methods of presenting Paul's
Epistles in Robertson, Chronological New Testament (1904), and Moffatt, Historical
New Testament (1901). |
|
II. MODERN THEORIES ABOUT PAUL
1. Criticism Not Infallible:
Findlay (HDB, "Paul") utters a needed warning when he reminds us that the modern
historical and psychological method of study is just as liable to prepossession
and prejudice as the older categories of scholastic and dogmatic theology. "The
focus of the picture may be displaced and its colors falsified by philosophical
no less than by ecclesiastical spectacles" (same place). Deissmann (St. Paul,
4 f) sympathizes with this protest against the infallibility of modern subjective
criticism: "That really and properly is the task of the modern student of Paul:
to come back from the paper Paul of our western libraries, Germanized, dogmatised,
modernized, to the historic Paul; to penetrate through the `Paulinism' of our
New Testament theologies to the Paul of ancient reality." He admits the thoroughness
and the magnitude of the work accomplished in the 19th century concerning the
literary questions connected with Paul's letters, but it is a "doctrinaire interest"
that "has gone farther and farther astray." Deissmann conceives of Paul as a "hero
of piety first and foremost," not as a theologian. "As a religious genius Paul's
outlook is forward into a future of universal history." In this position of Deissmann
we see a return to the pre-Baur time. Deissmann would like to get past all the
schools of criticism, back to Paul himself.
2. The Tubingen Theory:
Baur started the modern critical attitude by his Pastoralbriefe (1835, p. 79),
in which he remarked that there were only four epistles of Paul (Galatians 1 and
2 Corinthians, Romans) which could be accepted as genuine. In his Paulus (1845)
he expounded this thesis. He also rejected the Acts. From the four great epistles
and from the pseudo-Clementine literature of the 2nd century, Baur argued that
Paul and Peter were bitter antagonists. Peter and the other apostles were held
fast in the grip of the legalistic conception of Christianity, a sort of Christianized
Pharisaism. Paul, when converted, had reacted violently against this view, and
became the exponent of Gentile freedom. Christianity was divided into two factions,
Jewish Christians (Petrinists) and Gentile Christians (Paulinists). With this
"key" Baur ruled out the other Pauline epistles and Ac as spurious, because they
did not show the bitterness of this controversy. He called them "tendency" writings,
designed to cover up the strife and to show that peace reigned in the camp. This
arbitrary theory cut a wide swath for 50 years, and became a fetich with many
scholars, but it is now dead. "It has been seen that it is bad criticism to make
a theory on insecure grounds, and then to reject all the literature which contradicts
it" (Maclean in 1-vol HDB). Ramsay (The First Christian Century, 1911, 195) contends
that the perpetuation of the Baur standpoint in Moffatt's Introduction to the
Literature of the New Testament is an anachronism: "We are no longer in the 19th
century with its negations, but in the 20th century with its growing power of
insight and the power of belief that springs therefrom." Van Marten (Encyclopedia
Biblica) calls the Baur view that of the "old guard" of liberal theology in Germany,
Switzerland, France, Holland, and, to some extent, in Britain.
3. Protest against Baur's View:
But even in Germany the older conservative view of Paul has always had champions.
The most consistent of the recent opponents of Baur's views in Germany is Th.
Zahn (compare his Einlin das New Testament, 2 volumes, 1897-99; Introduction to
the New Testament, 3 volumes, 1910). In Britain the true successor of Lightfoot
as the chief antagonist of the Tubingen School is Sir W.M. Ramsay, whose numerous
volumes (Church in the Roman Empire, 1893; Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 1895;
Paul the Traveler, 1896; Pauline and Other Studies, 1906; Cities of Paul, 1908;
Luke the Physician and Other Studies, 1908; Pictures of the Apostolic Church,
1910; The First Christian Century, 1911) have given the finishing touches to the
overthrow of Baur's contention.
4. Successors to Baur:
But even so, already the Baur school had split into two parts. The ablest representatives,
like H. J. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Harnack, Julicher, Lipsius, von Soden, were
compelled to admit more of Paul's Epistles as genuine than the four principal
ones, till there are left practically none to fight over but Eph and the Pastoral
Epistles. This progress eliminated completely Baur's thesis and approached very
nearly to the position of Lightfoot, Ramsay and Zahn. Von Soden (Early Christian
Literature, 324) still stands out against 2 Thessalonians, but Harnack has deserted
him on that point. But the old narrow view of Baur is gone, and von Soden is eloquent
in his enthusiasm for Paul (ibid., 119): "As we gaze upon the great literary memorials
of the Greeks we may well question whether these Pauline letters are not equal
to them--indeed, do not surpass them--in spiritual significance, in psychological
depths and loftiness of ideal, above all in the art of complete and forcible expression."
The other wing of Baur's school Findlay (HDB) calls "ultra-Baurians." It is mainly
a Dutch school with Loman and Van Manen as its main exponents, though it has support
in Germany from Steck and Volter, and in America from W. B. Smith. These writers
do not say that Paul is a myth, but that our sources (Acts and the 13 epistles)
are all legendary. It is a relentless carrying of Baur's thesis to a reductio
ad absurdum. Van Manen (Encyclopedia Biblica) says of "the historical, Paul" as
distinct from "the legendary Paul": "It does not appear that Paul's ideas differed
widely from those of the other disciples, or that he had emancipated himself from
Judaism or had outgrown the law more than they." When one has disposed of all
the evidence he is entirely free to reconstruct the pictures to suit himself.
Quite arbitrarily, Van Manen accepts the "we"-sections in Ac as authoritative.
But these give glimpses of the historical Jesus quite as truly as the Pauline
Epistles, and should therefore be rejected by advocates of the mythical Jesus.
So the pendulum swings back and forth. One school destroys the other, but the
fact of Paul's personality remains. "The new start is one of such importance that
we must distinguish the pre-Pauline from the post-Pauline Christianity, or, what
amounts to the same thing, the Palestinian sect and the world-religion" (Wernle,
Beginnings of Christianity, I, 159).
5. Appeal to Comparative Religion:
In his Paulus (1904), Wrede finds the explanation of Paul's theology in late Jewish
apocalyptic views and in the oriental mystery religions. Bousset (Die Religion
des Judenthums im New Testament Zeitalter, 1903) seeks to find in the "late Jewish
apocalyptic" "conceptions from the Babylonian and the Irano-Zarathustrian religions"
(Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 173). According to Wrede's view, Paul
is one of the creators of "Christ" as distinct from the Jesus of history (compare
"Jesus or Christ," HJ, suppl., January, 1909). "Wrede's object is to overthrow
the view predominant in modern theology, that Paul loyally and consistently expounded
and developed theology of Jesus" (J. Weiss, Paul and Jesus, 1909, 2). J. Weiss
in this book makes a careful reply to Wrede as others have done; compare A. Meyer,
Jesus or Paul (1909), who concludes (p. 134) dramatically: "Paul--just one who
points the way to Jesus and to God!" See also Julicher, Paulus und Jesus (1907);
Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus (1906); Kolbing, Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu
und Paulus (1906). The best reply to Wrede's arguments about the mystery-religion
is found in articles in the The Expositor for 1912-13 (now in book form) by H.A.A.
Kennedy on "St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions." The position of Wrede is carried
to its logical conclusion by Drews (Die Christus-Mythe, 1909), who makes Paul
the creator of Christianity. W. B. Smith (Der vorchristliche Jesus, 1906) tries
to show that "Jesus" was a pre-Christian myth or god. Schweitzer (Paul and His
Interpreters, 235) sums the matter up thus: "Drews's thesis is not merely a curiosity;
it indicates the natural limit at which the hypothesis advanced by the advocates
of comparative religion, when left to its own momentum, finally comes to rest."
6. The Eschatological Interpretation:
Schweitzer himself may be accepted as the best exponent of the rigid application
of this view to Paul (Paul and His Interpreters, 1912) that he had made to Jesus
(The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910). He glories in the ability to answer
the absurdities of Steck, Loman and Van Manen and Drews by showing that the eschatological
conceptions of Paul in his epistles are primitive, not late, and belong to the
1st century, not to the 2nd (Paul and His Interpreters, 249). He thus claims to
be the true pupil of Baur, though reaching conclusions utterly different. There
is undoubtedly an element of truth in this contention of Schweitzer, but he loses
his case, when he insists that nothing but eschatology must be allowed to figure.
"The edifice constructed by Baur has fallen," he proclaims (p. viii), but he demands
that in its place we allow the "exclusively Jewish-eschatological" (p. ix) interpretation.
There he slips, and his theory will go the way of that of Baur. C. Anderson Scott
("Jesus and Paul," Cambridge Biblical Essays, 365) admits that Paul has the same
eschatological outlook as Jesus, but also the same ethical interest. It is not
"either ..... or," but both in each case. See a complete bibliography of the "Jesus
and Paul" controversy in J. G. Machens' paper on "Jesus and Paul" in Biblical
and Theological Studies (1912, 547 f). As Ramsay insists, we are now in the 20th
century of insight and sanity, and Paul has come to his own. Even Wernle (Beginnings
of Christianity, I, 163) sees that Paul is not the creator of the facts: "He merely
transmits historical facts. God--Christ--Paul, such is the order." Saintsbury
(History of Criticism, 152) says: "It has been the mission of the 19th century
to prove that everybody's work was written by somebody else, and it will not be
the most useless task of the 20th to betake itself to more profitable inquiries."
|
III. CHRONOLOGY OF PAUL'S CAREER
1. Schemes:
There is not a single date in the life of Paul that is beyond dispute, though
several are narrowed to a fine point, and the general course and relative proportion
of events are clear enough. Luke gave careful data for the time of the birth of
Jesus (Luke 2:1), for the entrance of the Baptist on his ministry (Luke 3:1),
and the age of Jesus when He began His work (Luke 3:23), but he takes no such
pains in the Acts with chronology. But we are left with a number of incidental
allusions and notes of time which call for some discussion. For fuller treatment
see CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul, 1910,
181) gives a comparative table of the views of Harnack, Turner, Ramsay and Lightfoot
for the events from the crucifixion of Christ to the close of Acts. The general
scheme is nearly the same, differing from one to four years here and there. Shaw
(The Pauline Epistles, xi) gives a good chronological scheme. Moffatt (Introduction
to the Literature of the New Testament, 62 f) gives theories of 23 scholars: Turner,
"Chronology," in HDB; Neteler, Untersuchung New Testament Zeitverhaltnisse, 1894;
O. Holtzmann, New Testament Zeitgeschichte, 1895, changed in 2nd edition, 1906;
Bartlet, Apostolic Age, xiii; Cornely (compare Laurent), New Testament Studien;
Harnack, Chron. d. altchristl. Lit. bis Eusebius, 233-329; McGiffert, Apostolic
Age, 164, 172; Zahn, Intro, III, 450; Ramsay, "The Pauline Chronology," Pauline
and Other Studies, 345; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 213-33; Wendt, Acts, 53-60,
Meyer, Commentary; Renan, Paul; Bornemann, Thess, 17, Meyer, Comm.; Clemen, Paulus,
I, 411; Giffert, Student's Life of Paul, 242-59; Weiss, Intro, I, 154; Sabatier,
Paul, 13; Julicher, Einl6, 31; Findlay, "Paul" in HDB; Farrar, Paul, Appendix;
Belser, Theol. Quartalschrift; Steinmann, Abfassungszeit d. Gal, 169; Hoennicke,
Die Chronologie des Paulus.
Let us look at the dates given by ten of this list:
| Event |
Turner
|
Bartlet
|
Harnack
|
McGiffert
|
Zahn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Conversion |
AD 35-36
|
31-32
|
30
|
31-32
|
35
|
| 1st visit to Jerusalem |
38
|
34-35
|
33
|
34-45
|
38
|
| 2nd visit to Jerusalem |
46
|
46
|
44
|
45
|
44
|
| 1st missionary tour |
47
|
47
|
45
|
before 45
|
50-51
|
| Meeting in Jerusalem |
49
|
49
|
46-47
|
45
|
52
|
| 2nd missionary tour |
49
|
49
|
46-47
|
46
|
52
|
| 3rd missionary tour |
52
|
52
|
50
|
49
|
54
|
| Arrest in Jerusalem |
56
|
56
|
53-54
|
53
|
58
|
| Arrival in Rome |
59
|
59
|
56-57
|
56
|
61
|
| Death of Paul |
64-65
|
61-62
|
64
|
58
|
66-67
|
| Event |
Ramsay
|
Lightfoot
|
Clemen
|
Findlay
|
Hoennicke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Conversion |
AD 32
|
34
|
31
|
36
|
33-35
|
| 1st visit to Jerusalem |
34
|
37
|
34
|
39
|
36-38
|
| 2nd visit to Jerusalem |
45
|
45
|
..
|
..
|
45-46
|
| 1st missionary tour |
46-48
|
48
|
46
|
46
|
49
|
| Meeting in Jerusalem |
50
|
51
|
48
|
49
|
50-52
|
| 2nd missionary tour |
50-53
|
51
|
49-52
|
49
|
..
|
| 3rd missionary tour |
53-57
|
54
|
53-59
|
53
|
..
|
| Arrest in Jerusalem |
57
|
58
|
59
|
57
|
..
|
| Arrival in Rome |
60
|
61
|
62
|
60
|
60-62
|
| Death of Paul |
67
|
67
|
64
|
67
|
..
|
These tables show very well the present diversity of opinion on the main points
in Paul's life. Before expressing an opinion on the points at issue it is best
to examine a few details. Paul himself gives some notes of time. He gives "after
3 years" (Galatians 1:18) as the period between his conversion and first visit
to Jerusalem, though he does not necessarily mean 3 full years. In Galatians 2:1,
Paul speaks of another visit to Jerusalem "after the space of 14 years." Then
again Luke quotes him as saying to the Ephesian elders at Miletus that he had
spent "3 years" at Ephesus (Acts 20:31). These periods of time all come before
Paul's last visit and arrest in Jerusalem, and they do not embrace all the time
between his conversion and arrest. There is also another note of time in 2 Corinthians
12:2, where he speaks in an enigmatic way of experiences of his "14 years" ago
from the writing of this epistle from Macedonia on the third tour. This will take
him back to Tarsus before coming to Antioch at the request of Barnabas, and so
overlaps a bit the other "14" above, and includes the "3 years" at Ephesus. We
cannot, therefore, add these figures together for the total. But some light may
be obtained from further details from Acts and the Epistles.
2. Crucial Points:
(1) The Death of Stephen.
Saul is "a young man" (Acts 7:58) when this event occurs. Like other young Jews
he entered upon his life as a rabbi at the age of thirty. He had probably been
thus active several years, especially as he was now in a position of leadership
and may even have been a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10). Pontius Pilate
was not deposed from his procuratorship till 36 AD, but was in a state of uneasiness
for a couple of years. It is more probable, therefore, that the stoning of Stephen
would take place after his deposition in the interregnum, or not many years before,
when he would be afraid to protest against the lawlessness of the Jewish leaders.
He had shown timidity at the death of Jesus, 29 or 30 AD, but some of the forms
of law were observed. So nothing decisive is here obtained, though 35 AD seems
more probable than 32 or 33.
(2) The Flight from Damascus.
Paul locates this humiliating experience (2 Corinthians 11:32) when "the governor
under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes." Aretas the Arabian,
and not the Roman, has now control when Paul is writing. The likelihood is that
Aretas did not get possession of Damascus till 37 AD, when Tiberius died and was
succeeded by Caligula. It is argued by some that the expression "the city of the
Damascenes" shows that the city was not under the control of Aretas, but was attacked
by a Bedouin chieftain who lay in wait for Paul before the city. That to me seems
forced. Josephus (Ant., XVIII, v, 3; vi, 3) at any rate is silent concerning the
authority of Aretas over Damascus from 35-37 AD, but no coins or inscriptions
show Roman rule over the city between 35 and 62 AD. Ramsay, however ("The Pauline
Chronology," Pauline and Other Studies, 364), accepts the view of Marquardt (Romische
Staatsalterth., I, 404 f) that it was possible for Aretas to have had possession
of Damascus before 37 AD. The flight from Damascus is the same year as the visit
to Jerusalem, Paul's first after his conversion (Acts 9:26; Galatians 1:18). If
we knew the precise year of this event, we could subtract two or three years and
reach the date of his conversion. Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians gives
38 as the date of this first visit to Jerusalem, and 36 as the date of the conversion,
taking "after 3 years" in a free way, but in his Biblical Essays, 221, he puts
the visit in 37 and the conversion in 34, and says " `after 3 years' must mean
three whole years, or substantially so." Thus we miss a sure date again.
(3) The Death of Herod Agrippa I.
Here the point of contact between the Acts (12:1 - 4 ,19 - 23) and Josephus (Ant.,
XIX, viii) is beyond dispute, since both record and describe in somewhat similar
vein the death of this king. Josephus says that at the time of his death he had
already completed the 3rd year of his reign over the whole of Judea (Ant., XIX,
viii, 2). He received this dignity soon after Claudius began to reign in 41 AD,
so that makes the date 44 AD. He died after the Passover in that year (44), for
Peter was imprisoned by him during that feast (Acts 12:3). But unfortunately Luke
sandwiches the narrative about Herod Agrippa in between the visit of Barnabas
and Saul to Jerusalem from Antioch (Acts 11:29) and their return to Antioch (Acts
12:25). He does not say that the events here recorded were exactly synchronous
with this visit, for he says merely "about that time." We are allowed therefore
to place this visit before 44 AD or after, just as the facts require. The mention
of "elders" in Acts 11:30 instead of apostles (compare both in 15:4) may mean
that the apostles are absent when the visit is made. After the death of James
(Acts 12:1) and release of Peter we note that Peter "went to another place" (Acts
12:17). But the apostles are back again in Jerusalem in Acts 15:4. Lightfoot (Biblical
Essays, 216) therefore places the visit "at the end of 44, or in 45." Once more
we slip the connection and fail to fix a firm date for Paul. It is disputed also
whether this 2nd visit to Jerusalem according to Acts (9:26 ; 11:29 f) is the
same as the "again" in Galatians 2:1. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 59) identifies
the visit in Galatians 2:1 with that in Acts 11:29, but Lightfoot (Biblical Essays,
221) holds that it "must be identified with the third of the Acts" (Acts 15:4).
In Galatians 1 and 2 Paul is not recording his visits to Jerusalem, but showing
his independence of the apostles when he met them in Jerusalem. There is no proof
that he saw the apostles on the occasion of the visit in Acts 11:29 f. The point
of Lightfoot is well taken, hut we have no point of contact with the outside history
for locating more precisely the date of the visit of Galatians 2:1 and Acts 15:4,
except that it was after the first missionary tour of Acts 13 and 14.
(4) The First Missionary Tour.
Sergius Paulus is proconsul of Cyprus when Barnabas and Saul visit the island
(Acts 13:7). The proconsul Paulus is mentioned in a Greek inscription of Soloi
(Hogarth, Devia Cypria, 1889, 114) and Lucius Sergius Paulus in CIL, VI, 31, 545,
but, as no mention of his being proconsul is here made, it is probably earlier
than that time. The Soloi inscription bears the date 53 AD, but Sergius Paulus
was not proconsul in 51 or 52. Hence, he may have been proconsul in 50 or the
early part of 51 AD.It could not be later and may have been earlier.
(5) The First Visit to Corinth.
The point to note here is that Gallio becomes proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12).
Paul has been apparently in Corinth a year and six months when Gallio appears
on the scene (Acts 18:11). Aquila and Priscilla had "lately come from Italy" (Acts
18:2) when Paul arrived there. They had been expelled from Rome by the emperor
Claudius (Acts 18:2). On the arrival of Gallio the Jews at once accuse Paul before
him; he refuses to interfere, and Paul stays on for a while and then leaves for
Syria with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:18). Deissmann (St. Paul, Appendix, I,
"The Proconsulate of L. Junius Gallio") has shown beyond reasonable doubt that
Gallio, the brother of Seneca, became proconsul of Achaia about July, 51 AD (or
possibly 52). On a stone found at Delphi, Gallio is mentioned as proconsul of
Achaia according to the probable restoration of part of the text. But the stone
mentions the fact that Claudius had been acclaimed imperator 26 times. By means
of another inscription we get the 27th proclamation as imperator in connection
with the dedication of an aqueduct on August 1, 52 AD. So thus the 26th time is
before this date, some time in the earlier part of the year. We need not follow
in detail the turns of the argument (see Deissmann, op. cit.). Once more we do
not get a certain date as to the year. It is either. the summer of 51 or 52 AD,
when Gallio comes. And Paul has already been in Corinth a year and a half. But
the terminus ad quem for the close of Paul's two years' stay in Corinth would
be the early autumn of 52 AD, and more probably 51 AD. Hence, the 2 Thessalonian
Epistles cannot be later than this date. Before the close of 52 AD, and probably
51, therefore must come the 2nd missionary tour, the conference at Jerusalem,
the first missionary tour, etc. Deissmann is justified in his enthusiasm on this
point. He is positive that 51 AD is the date of the arrival of Gallio.
(6) Paul at Troas according to Acts 20:6 f.
On this occasion Luke gives the days and the time of year (Passover). Ramsay figures
(St. Paul the Traveler, 289 f) that Paul had his closing service at Troas on Sunday
evening and the party left early Monday morning. Hence, he argues back to the
Passover at Philippi and concludes that the days as given by Luke will not fit
into 56, 58, or 59 AD, but will suit 57. If he is correct in this matter, then
we should have a definite year for the last trip to Jerusalem. Lewin (Fasti Sacri,
numbers 1856, 1857) reaches the same conclusion. The conclusion is logical if
Luke is exact in his use of days in this passage. Yet Lightfoot insists on 58
AD but Ramsay has the advantage on this point. See Pauline and Other Studies,
352 f.
(7) Festus Succeeding Felix.
When was Felix recalled? He was appointed procurator in 52 AD (Schurer, Jewish
People in the Time of Christ, I, ii, 174). He was already ruler "many years" (Acts
24:10) when Paul appears before him in Caesarea. He holds on "two years" when
he is succeeded by Festus (Acts 24:27). But in the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian
text) it is stated that the recall of Felix took place in the last year of Claudius,
or 54 AD. But this is clearly an error, in spite of the support given to it by
Harnack (Chronologie d. Paulus), since Josephus puts most of the rule of Felix
in the reign of Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 1-9; BJ, II, xii, 8-14), not to mention
the "many years" of Paul in Acts 24:10. But the error of Eusebius has now been
explained by Erbes in his Todestage Pauli und Petri, and is made perfectly clear
by Ramsay in Pauline and Other Studies, 349. Eusebius over-looked the interregnum
of 6 years between the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD and the first year of
Herod Agrippa II in 50 AD. Eusebius learned that Festus came in the 10th year
of Herod Agrippa II. Counting from 50 AD, that gives us 59 AD as the date of the
recall of Felix. This date harmonizes with all the known facts. "The great majority
of scholars accept the date 60 for Festus; but they confess that it is only an
approximate date, and there is no decisive argument for it" (Ramsay, Pauline and
Other Studies, 351). For minute discussion of the old arguments see Nash, article
"Paul" in new Sch-Herz Enc; Schurer, Hist of the Jewish People, I, ii, 182. But
if Erbes and Ramsay are correct, we have at last a date that will stand. So then
Paul sails for Rome in the late summer of 59 AD and arrives at his destination
in the early spring ("had wintered," Acts 28:11) of 60 AD. He had been "two whole
years in his own hired dwelling" (Acts 28:30) when Luke closes the Acts. On the
basis of his release in 63 or early 64 and the journeyings of the Pastoral Epistles,
Paul's death would come by early summer of 68 before Nero's death, and possibly
in 67. On this point see later. We can now count back from 59 AD with reasonable
clearness to 57 as the date of Paul's arrest in Jerusalem. Paul spent at least
a year and three months (Acts 19:8,10) in Ephesus (called in round numbers three
years in Acts 20:31). It took a year for him to reach Jerusalem, from Pentecost
(1 Corinthians 16:8) to Pentecost (Acts 20:16). From the spring of 57 AD we thus
get back to the end of 53 as the time of his arrival in Ephesus (Acts 19:1). We
have seen that Gallio came to Corinth in the summer of 51 AD (or 52), after Paul
had been there a year and a half (Acts 18:11), leaving ample time in either case
for the journeys from Corinth to Ephesus, to Caesarea, to Jerusalem apparently
(Acts 18:21), and to Ephesus (Acts 19:1) from the summer of 51 (or 52) we go back
two years to the beginning of the 2nd missionary tour (Acts 16:1 - 6) as 49 (or
50). The Jerusalem Conference was probably in the same year, and the first missionary
tour would come in the two (or three) preceding years 47 and 48 (48-49). The stay
at Antioch (Acts 14:28) may have been of some length. So we come back to the end
of 44 or beginning of 45 for the visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:29 f. Before that
comes the year in Antioch with Barnabas (Acts 11:26), the years in Tarsus in Cilicia,
the "three years" after the conversion spent mostly in Arabia (Galatians 1:17),
Paul's first appearance at the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58). These early dates
are more conjectural, but even so the facts seem to indicate 35 AD as the probable
year of Saul's conversion. The year of his birth would then be between 1 and 5
AD, probably nearer 1. If so, and if his death was in 67 or 68 AD, his age is
well indicated. He was "Paul the Aged" (Philemon 1:9) when he wrote to Philemon
from Rome in 61-63 AD. |
|
IV. EQUIPMENT
Ramsay chooses as the title of chapter ii, in his Paul the Traveler, the words
"The Origin of Paul." It is not possible to explain the work and teaching of Paul
without a just conception of the forces that entered into his life. Paul himself
is still woefully misunderstood by some. Thus, A. Meyer (Jesus or Paul, 1909,
119) says: "In spite of all that has been said, there is no doubt that Paul, with
his peculiar personality, with his tendency to recondite Gnostic speculation and
rabbinic argument, has heavily encumbered the cause of Christianity. For many
simple souls, and for many natures that are otherwise constituted than himself,
he has barred the way to the simple Christianity of Jesus." That is a serious
charge against the man who claimed to have done more than all the other apostles,
and rightly, so far as we can tell (1 Corinthians 15:10), and who claimed that
his interpretation of Jesus was the only true one (Galatians 1:7-9). Moffatt (Paul
and Paulinism, 1910, 70) minimizes the effect of Paulinism: "The majority of Paul's
distinctive conceptions were either misunderstood, or dropped, or modified, as
the case might be, in the course of a few decades." "Paulinism as a whole stood
almost as far apart from the Christianity that followed it as from that which
preceded it" (ibid., 73). "The aim of some scholars seems to be to rob every great
thinker of his originality" (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1). Ramsay
(Pauline and Other Studies, 3) boldly challenges the modern prejudice of some
scholars against Paul by asking, "Shall we hear evidence or not?" Every successive
age must study afresh the life and work of Paul (ibid., 27) if it would understand
him. Deissmann (St. Paul, 3 f) rightly sees that "St. Paul is spiritually the
great power of the apostolic age." Hence, "the historian, surveying the beginnings
of Christianity, sees Paul as first after Jesus." Feine (Jesus Christus und Paulus,
1902, 298) claims that Paul grasped the essence of the ministry of Christ "auf
das tiefste." I own myself a victim to "the charm of Paul," to use Ramsay's phrase
(Pauline and Other Studies, 27). In seeking to study "the shaping influences"
in Paul's career (Alexander, The Ethics of Paul, 1910, 27), we shall be in error
if we seek to explain everything by heredity and environment and if we deny any
influence from these sources. He is what he is because of original endowments,
the world of his day, and his experience of Christ Jesus. He had both essential
and accidental factors in his equipment (Fairbairn, Studies in Religion and Theology,
1910, 469 f). Let us note the chief factors in his religious development.
1. The City of Tarsus:
Geography plays an important part in any life. John the Baptist spent his boyhood
in the hill country of Judea in a small town (Luke 1:39) and then in the wilderness.
Jesus spent His boyhood in the town of Nazareth and the country round. Both John
and Jesus show fondness for Nature in all its forms. Paul grew up in a great city
and spent his life in the great cities of the Roman empire. He makes little use
of the beauties of Nature, but he has a keen knowledge of men (compare Robertson,
Epochs in the Life of Paul, 12). Paul was proud of his great city (Acts 21:39).
He was not merely a resident, but a "citizen" of this distinguished city. This
fact shows that Paul's family had not just emigrated from Judea to Tarsus a few
years before his birth, but had been planted in Tarsus as part of a colony with
full municipal rights (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31 f). Tarsus was the capital
of Cilicia, then a part of the province of Syria, but it had the title of metropolis
and was a free city, urbs libera (Pliny, NH, v.27). To the ancient Greek the city
was his "fatherland" (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 1908, 90). Tarsus was situated on
the river Cydnus, and in a wide plain with the hill country behind and the snow-covered
Taurus Mountains in the distance. It was subject to malaria. Ramsay (ibid., 117)
from Genesis 10:4 f holds that the early inhabitants were Greeks mingled with
Orientals. East and West flowed together here. It was a Roman town also with a
Jewish colony (ibid., 169), constituting a city tribe to which Paul's family belonged.
So then Tarsus was a typical city of the Greek-Roman civilization.
The religions of the times all met there in this great mart of business. But it
was one of the great seats of culture also. Strabo (xiv.6,73) even says that "Tarsus
surpassed all other universities, such as Alexandria and Athens, in the study
of philosophy and educational literature in general." "Its great preeminence,"
he adds, "consists in this, that the men of learning here are all natives." Accordingly,
he and others have made up a long list of distinguished men who flourished at
Tarsus in the late autumn of Greek learning: philosophers--of the Academy, of
the Epicurean and Stoic schools--poets, grammarians, physicians. At Tarsus, one
might say, "you breathed the atmosphere of learning" (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays,
205). But Ramsay (Cities of Paul, 231 f) cautions us not to misunderstand Strabo.
It was not even one of the three great universities of the world in point of equipment,
fame, students from abroad, or general standing. It was not on a paragraph with
Athens and Alexandria, except that "it was rich in what constitutes the true excellence
and strength of a university, intense enthusiasm and desire for knowledge among
the students and great ability and experience among some at least of the teachers"
(ibid., 233). Strabo was very fond of Athenodorus, for instance. No students from
abroad came to Tarsus, but they went from Tarsus elsewhere. But Philostratus represents
Apollonius of Tyana as disgusted with the university and the town, and Dio Chrysostom
describes Tarsus as an oriental and non-Hellenic town.
Ramsay speaks of Tarsus in the reign of Augustus as "the one example known in
history of a state ruled by a university acting through its successive principals."
"It is characteristic of the general tendency of university life in a prosperous
and peaceful empire, that the rule of the Tarsian University was marked by a strong
reaction toward oligarchy and a curtailment of democracy; that also belongs to
the oriental spirit, which was so strong in the city. But the crowning glory of
Tarsus, the reason for its undying interest to the whole world, is that it produced
the apostle Paul; that it was the one city which was suited by its equipoise between
the Asiatic and the Western spirit to mold the character of the great Hellenist
Jew; and that it nourished in him a strong source of loyalty and patriotism as
the citizen of no mean city" (Ramsay, op. cit., 235). The city gave him a schooling
in his social, political, intellectual, moral, and religious life, but in varying
degrees, as we shall see. It was because Tarsus was a cosmopolitan city with "an
amalgamated society" that it possessed the peculiar suitability "to educate and
mold the mind of him who would in due time make the religion of the Jewish race
intelligible to the Greek-Roman world" (ibid., 88). As a citizen of Tarsus Paul
was a citizen of the whole world.
2. Roman Citizenship:
It was no idle boast with Paul when he said, "But I am a Roman born" (Acts 22:28).
The chief captain might well be "afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and
because he had bound him" (Acts 22:29). Likewise the magistrates at Philippi "feared
when they heard that they were Romans" (Acts 16:39), and promptly released Paul
and Silas and "asked them to go away from the city." "To the Roman his citizenship
was his passport in distant lands, his talisman in seasons of difficulties and
danger. It shielded him alike from the caprice of municipal law and the injustice
of local magistrates" (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 203). As a citizen of Rome,
therefore, Paul stood above the common herd. He ranked with the aristocracy in
any provincial town (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31). He would naturally have a
kindly feeling for the Roman government in return for this high privilege and
protection. In its pessimism the Roman empire had come to be the world's hope,
as seen in the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 49). Paul would
seize upon the Roman empire as a fit symbol of the kingdom of heaven. "Our citizenship
is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20); "Ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but
ye are fellow-citizens with the saints" (Ephesians 2:19). So he interprets the
church in terms of the body politic as well as in terms of the Israelite theocracy
(Colossians 2:19). "All this shows the deep impression which the Roman institutions
made on Paul" (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 205). Ramsay draws a striking parallel
under the heading, "Paulinism in the Roman Empire" (Cities of Paul, 70). "A universal
Paulinism and a universal Empire must either coalesce, or the one must destroy
the other." It was Paul's knowledge of the Roman empire that gave him his imperialism
and statesmanlike grasp of the problems of Christianity in relation to the Roman
empire. Paul was a statesman of the highest type, as Ramsay has conclusively shown
(Pauline and Other Studies, 49-100). Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 66) does say:
"His perspective was not imperialistic," but he shows thereby a curious inability
to understand Paul. The vision of Paul saw that the regeneration of the empire
could come only through Christianity. Ramsay strikingly shows how the emperor
dreaded the spiritual upheaval in Paulinism and fought it steadily till the time
of Constantine, when "an official Christianity was victorious, but Pauline Christianity
had perished, and Paul was now a mere saint, no longer Paul but Paul, forgotten
as a man or a teacher, but remembered as a sort of revivification of the old pagan
gods" (Cities of Paul, 78). But, as Ramsay says, "it was not dead; it was only
waiting its opportunity; it revived when freedom of thought and freedom of life
began to stir in Europe; and it guided and stimulated the Protestants of the Reformation."
Suffer Ramsay once more (Pauline and Other Studies, 100): "Barbarism proved too
powerful for the Greek-Roman civilization unaided by the new religious bond; and
every channel through which that civilization was preserved or interest in it
maintained, either is now or has been in some essential part of its course Christian
after the Pauline form." Paul would show the Roman genius for organizing the churches
established by him. Many of his churches would be in Roman colonies (Antioch in
Pisidia, Philippi, Corinth, etc.). He would address his most studied epistle to
the church in Rome, and Rome would be the goal of his ministry for many years
(Findlay, HDB). He would show his conversance with Roman law, not "merely in knowing
how to take advantage of his rights as a citizen, but also in the use of legal
terms like "adoption" (Galatians 4:5), where the adopted heir becomes son, and
heir and son are interchangeable. This was the obsolete Roman law and the Greek
law left in force in the provinces (compare Galatians 3:15). But in Romans 8:16
f the actual revocable Roman law is referred to by which "heirship is now deduced
from sonship, whereas in Ga sonship is deduced from heirship; for at Rome a son
must be an heir, but an heir need not be a son (compare Hebrews 9:15 which presupposes
Roman law and the revocability of a will)" (Maclean in 1-vol HDB). So in Galatians
3:24 the tutor or pedagogue presents a Greek custom preserved by the Romans. This
personal guardian of the child (often a slave) led him to school, and was not
the guardian of the child's property in Galatians 4:2. See Ramsay, Gal, 337-93;
Ball, Paul and the Roman Law, 1901, for further discussion. As a Roman, Paul would
have "nomen and praenomen, probably taken from the Roman officer who gave his
family civitas; but Luke, a Greek, had no interest in Roman names. Paulus, his
cognomen, was not determined by his nomen; there is no reason to think he was
an AEmilius" (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31). It is probable, though not certain,
that Paul spoke Latin (see Souter, The Expositor, April, 1911). He was at any
rate a "Roman gentleman" (Findlay, HDB), as is shown by the dignity of his bearing
before governors and kings and the respect accorded him by the proconsul Sergius
Paulus, the procurator Porcius Festus, and the centurion Julius, whose prisoner
he was in the voyage to Rome. His father, as a Roman citizen, probably had some
means which may have come to Paul before the appeal to Rome, which was expensive
(Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 310). Though a prisoner in Rome, he made Rome "his
best vantage ground and his adoptive home," and it was here that he rose to "his
loftiest conceptions of the nation and destiny of the universal church" (Findlay,
HDB) as "an ambassador in chains" (Ephesians 6:20). As a Roman citizen, according
to tradition, he was beheaded with the sword and not subjected to crucifixion,
the traditional fate of Simon Peter. He saw the true pax Romana to be the peace
that passeth all understanding (Philippians 4:7; compare Rostron, The Christology
of Paul, 1912, 19).
3. Hellenism:
It is not possible "to specify all the influences that worked on Paul in his youth"
(Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 79). We do not know all the life of the times. But he
was subject to all that life in so far as any other Jewish youth was. "He was
master of all the education and the opportunities of his time. He turned to his
profit and to the advancement of his great purpose all the resources of civilization"
(Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 285). I heartily agree with this conception
of Paul's ability to assimilate the life of his time, but one must not be led
astray so far as Schramm who, in 1710, wrote De stupenda eruditione Pauli ("On
the Stupendous Erudition of Paul"). This is, of course, absurd, as Lightfoot shows
(Biblical Essays, 206). But we must not forget Paul lived in a Greek city and
possessed Greek citizenship also (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 33). Certainly the
Greek traits of adaptability, curiosity, alertness, the love of investigation
were marked features of his character, and Tarsus afforded wide opportunity for
the acquiring of these qualities (The Ethics of Paul, 39). He learned to speak
the vernacular koine like a native and with the ease and swing displayed by no
other New Testament writer save Luke and the author of He. He has a "poet's mastery
of language," though with the passion of a soul on fire, rather than with the
artificial rules of the rhetoricians of the day (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient
East, 239 f). Blass (Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905)
holds that Paul wrote "rhythmically elaborated artistic prose--a singular instance
of the great scholar's having gone astray" (Deissmann, Light, etc., 64). But there
is evidence that Paul was familiar with the use of the diatribe and other common
rhetorical devices, though he was very far from being tinged with Atticism or
Asianism. It is certain that Paul did not attend any of the schools of rhetoric
and oratory. Heinrici (Vorrede to 1 Cor. in Meyer's Krit. exeget. Komm.) argues
that Paul's methods and expressions conform more nearly to the cynic and Stoic
diatribe than to the rabbinical dialectic; compare also Wendland und Kern Philo
u. d. kynisch-stoische Diatribe, and Hicks, "St. Paul and Hellenism" in Stud.
Biblical, IV. How extensive was his acquaintance with Greek literature is in doubt.
Lightfoot says: "There is no ground for saying that Paul was a very erudite or
highly-cultivated man. An obvious maxim of practical life from Menander (1 Corinthians
15:33), a religious sentiment of Cleanthes repeated by Aratus, himself a native
of Tarsus (Acts 17:28), a pungent satire of Epimenides (Titus 1:12), with possibly
a passage here and there which dimly reflects some classical writer, these are
very slender grounds on which to build the supposition of vast learning" (Biblical
Essays, 206); but Lightfoot admits that he obtained directly or indirectly from
contact with Greek thought and learning lessons far wider and more useful for
his work than a perfect style or a familiar acquaintance with the classical writers
of antiquity. Even so, there is no reason to say that he made his few quotations
from hearsay and read no Greek books (compare Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament,
52). Certainly he knew the Greek Old Testament and the Jewish Apocrypha and apocalypses
in Greek Garvie is only willing to admit that Paul had such knowledge of Greek
literature and philosophy as any Jew, living among Greeks, might pick up (Life
and Teaching of Paul, 2), and charges Ramsay with "overstating the influence of
the Gentile environment on Paul's development" (Studies of Paul and His Gospel,
8). Ramsay holds that it is quite "possible that the philosophical school at Tarsus
had exercised more influence on Paul than is commonly allowed" (St. Paul the Traveler,
354). Tarsus was the home of Athenodorus. It was a stronghold of Stoic thought.
"At least five of the most eminent teachers of that philosophy were in the university"
(Alexander, Ethics of Paul, 47). It is not possible to say whether Paul artended
these or any lectures at the university, though it is hard to conceive that a
brilliant youth like Saul could grow up in Tarsus with no mental stimulus from
such a university. Carvie (ibid., 6) asks when Paul could have studied at the
university of Tarsus. He was probably too young before he went to Jerusalem to
study under Gamaliel. But it is not probable that he remained in Jerusalem continuously
after completing his studies till we see him at the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58).
He may have returned to Tarsus meanwhile and taken such studies. Another possibility
is that he took advantage of the years in Tarsus after his conversion (Acts 9:30;
Galatians 1:21) to equip himself better for his mission to the Gentiles to which
he had been called. There is no real difficulty on the score of time. The world
was saturated with Greek ideas, and Paul could not escape them. He could not escape
it unless he was innocent of all culture. Ramsay sees in Paul a love of truth
and reality "wholly inconceivable in a more narrow Hebrew, and wholly inexplicable
without an education in Greek philosophy" ("St. Paul and Hellenism," Cities of
Paul, 34). Paul exhibited a freedom and universalism that he found in the Greek
thought of the time which was not so decayed as some think. For the discussion
between Garvie and Ramsay see The Expositor, April and December, 1911. Pfleiderer
(Urchristenthum, Vorwort, 174-178) finds a "double root" of Paulinism, a Christianized
Hellenism and a Christianized Pharisaism. Harnack is more nearly correct in saying
that "notwithstanding Paul's Greek culture, his conception of Christianity is,
in its deepest ground, independent of Hellenism." The Hellenistic influence on
Paul was relative and subordinate (Wendland, Die hell.-rom. Kultur in ihren Beziehungen
zu Judenthum und Christenthum, 3te Aufl, 1912, 245), but it was real, as Kohler
shows (Zum Verstandnis des Apostels Paulus, 9). He had a "Gr inheritance" beyond
a doubt, and it was not all unconscious or subliminal as Rostron argues (Christology
of Paul, 17). It is true that in Athens the Stoics and Epicureans ridiculed Paul
as a "picker up of learning's crumbs"--Browning's rendering (An Epistle) of spermologos.
Paul shows a fine scorn of the sophistries and verbal refinements of the mere
philosophers and orators in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, but all the same he reveals
a real apprehension of the true significance of knowledge and life. Dr. James
Adam (The Religious Teachers of Greece, 360) shows instances of "the real kinship
of thought between Plato and Paul." He does not undertake to say how it came about.
He has a Platonic expression, ta dia tou somatos, in 2 Corinthians 5:10, and uses
a Stoic and cynic word in 2 Corinthians 9:8, autarkeian. Indeed, there are so
many similarities between Paul and Seneca in language and thought that some scholars
actually predicate an acquaintance or dependence of the one on the other. It is
far more likely that Paul and Seneca drew upon the common phrases of current Stoicism
than that Seneca had seen Paul's Epistles or knew him personally. Lightfoot has
a classic discussion of the matter in his essay on "St. Paul and Seneca" in the
Commentary on Php (see also Carr, "St. Paul's Attitude to Greek Philosophy," The
Expositor, V, ix). Alexander finds four Stoic ideas (Divine Immanence, Wisdom,
Freedom, Brotherhood) taken and glorified by Paul to do service for Christ (Ethics
of Paul, 49-55). Often Paul uses a Stoic phrase with a Christian content. Lightfoot
boldly argues (Biblical Essays, 207) that the later Greek literature was a fitter
handmaid for the diffusion of the gospel than the earlier.
Paul as the apostle to the Greek-Roman world had to "understand the bearings of
the moral and religious life of Greece as expressed in her literature, and this
lesson he could learn more impartially and more fully at Tarsus in the days of
her decline than at Athens in the freshness of her glory" (same place). Ramsay
waxes bold enough to discuss "the Pauline philosophy of history" (Cities of Paul,
10-13). I confess to sympathy with this notion and find it in all the Pauline
Epistles, especially in Romans. Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 66) finds "a religious
philosophy of history" in Romans 9-11, throbbing with strong personal emotion.
Paul rose to the height of the true Christian philosopher, though not a technical
philosopher of the schools. Deissmann (St. Paul, 53) admits his language assigns
him "to an elevated class," and yet he insists that he wrote "large letters" (Galatians
6:11) because he had "the clumsy, awkward writing of a workman's hand deformed
by toil" (p. 51). I cannot agree that here Deissmann understands Paul. He makes
"the world of Paul" on too narrow a scale.
4. The Mystery-Religions:
Was Paul influenced by Mithraism? H.A.A. Kennedy has given the subject very careful
and thorough treatment in a series of papers in The Expositor for 1912-13, already
mentioned (see II, 5, above). His arguments are conclusive on the whole against
the wild notions of W.B. Smith, Der vorchristliche Jesus; J.M. Robertson, Pagan
Christs; A. Drews, Die Christus-Mythe; and Lublinski, Die Entstehung des Christenrums
aus der antiken Kultur. A magic papyrus about 300 AD has "I adjure thee by the
god of the Hebrew Jesu" (ll. 3019 f), but Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East,
256) refuses to believe this line genuine: "No Christian, still less a Jew, would
have called Jesus `the god of the Hebrews.' " Clemen (Primitive Christianity and
Its non-Jewish Sources, 1912, 336) endorses this view of Deissmann and says that
in the 1st century AD "one cannot speak of non-Jewish influences on Christology."
One may dismiss at once the notion that Paul "deified" Jesus into a god and made
Him Christ under the influence of pagan myths. Certainly pagan idolatry was forced
upon Paul's attention at every turn. It stirred his spirit at Athens to see the
city full of idols (Acts 17:16), and he caught eagerly at the altar to an unknown
god to give him an easy introduction to the true God (Acts 17:23); but no one
can read Romans 1 and 2 and believe that Paul was carried away by the philosophy
of vain deceit of his time. He does use the words "wisdom" and "mystery" often
in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and in Philippians 4:12, "I (have)
learned the secret," he uses a word employed in the mystic cults of the time.
It is quite possible that Paul took up some of the phrases of these mystery-religions
and gave them a richer content for his own purposes, as he did with some of the
Gnostic phraseology (pleroma, "fullness," for instance). But Schweitzer (Paul
and His Interpreters, 191 f) deals a fatal blow against the notion that the mystery-religions
had a formative influence on Paul. He urges, with point, that it is only in the
2nd century that these cults became widely extended in the Roman empire. The dates
and development are obscure, but it "is certain that Paul cannot have known the
mystery-religions in the form in which they are known to us, because in this fully
developed form they did not exist." Cumont (Lea religions orientales dana le paganisme
romain, 2nd edition, 1909 (ET)) insists repeatedly on the difficulties in the
way of assuming without proof that Mithraism had any influence on Paul. But in
particular it is urged that Paul drew on the "mysteries" for his notions of baptism
and the Lord's Supper as having magical effects. Appeal is made to the magical
use of the name of Jesus by the strolling Jewish exorcists in Ephesus (Acts 18:13).
Kirsopp Lake (Earlier Epistles of Paul, 233) holds that at Corinth they all accepted
Christianity as a mystery-religion and Jesus as "the Redeemer-God, who had passed
through death to life, and offered participation in this new life to those who
shared in the mysteries which He offered," namely, baptism and the Lord's Supper.
But Kennedy (Expos, December, 1912, 548) easily shows how with Paul baptism and
the Lord's Supper are not magical sacraments producing new life, but symbolic
pictures of death to sin and new life in Christ which the believer has already
experienced. The battle is still raging on the subject of the mystery-religions,
but it is safe to say that so far nothing more than illustrative material has
been shown to be true of Paul's teaching from this source.
There is nothing incongruous in the notion that Paul knew as much about the mystery-religions
as he did about incipient Gnosticism. Indeed the two things may have been to some
extent combined in some places. A passage in Colossians 2:18 has long bothered
commentators: "dwelling in the things which he hath seen," or (margin) "taking
his stand upon the things," etc. Westcott and Hort even suspected an early error
in the text, but the same word, embateuo, has been found by Sir W.M. Ramsay as
a result of investigations by Makridi Bey, of the Turkish Imperial Museum, in
the sanctuary of Apollo at Claros, a town on the Ionian coast. Some of the initiates
here record the fact and say that being "enquirers, having been initiated, they
entered" (embateuo). The word is thus used of one who, having been initiated,
enters into the life of the initiate (compare Independent, 1913, 376). Clearly,
then, Paul uses the word in that sense in Colossians 2:18.
For further discussion see Jacoby, Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum;
Glover, Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire; Reitzenstein, Die hell.
Mysterienreligionen; Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire,
III; Thorburn, Jesus Christ, Historical or Mythical.
M. Bruckner (Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen
Religionen und ihr Verhaltnis zum Christentum, 1908) says: "As in Christianity,
so in many oriental religions, a belief in the death and resurrection of a Redeemer-God
(sometimes as His Son), occupied a central place in the worship and cult." To
this Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 193) replies: "What manipulations
the myths and rites of the cults in question must have undergone before this general
statement could become possible! Where is there anything about dying and resurrection
in Mithra?" There we may leave the matter.
5. Judaism:
Paul was Greek and Roman, but not "pan-Babylonian," though he was keenly alive
to all the winds of doctrine that blew about him, as we see in Colossians, Ephesians,
and the Pastoral Epistles. But he was most of all the Jew, that is, before his
conversion. He remained a Jew, even though he learned how to be all things to
all men (1 Corinthians 9:22). Even though glorying in his mission as apostle to
the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:8), he yet always put the Jew first in opportunity and
peril (Romans 2:9). He loved the Jews almost to the point of death (Romans 9:3).
He was proud of his Jewish lineage and boasted of it (2 Corinthians 11:16 - 22
; Acts 22:3 ; 26:4 ; Philippians 3:4 - 6). "His religious patriotism flickered
up within his Christianity" (Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism, 66). Had he not been
a Roman citizen with some Greek culture and his rich endowments of mind, he would
probably not have been the "chosen vessel" for the work of Christ among the Gentiles
(Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 15). Had he not been the thorough Jew,
he could not have mediated Christianity from Jew to Greek. "In the mind of Paul
a universalized Hellenism coalesced with a universalized Hebraism" (Ramsay, Cities
of Paul, 43). Ramsay strongly opposes the notion of Harhack and others that Paul
can be understood "as purely a Hebrew." So in Paul both Hebraism and Hellenism
meet though Hebraism is the main stock. He is a Jew in the Greek-Roman world and
a part of it, not a mere spectator. He is the Hellenistic Jew, not the Aramaic
Jew of Palestine (compare Simon Peter's vision on the house-top at Joppa, for
instance). But Paul is not a Hellenizing Jew after the fashion of Jason and Menelaus
in the beginning of the Maccabean conflict. Findlay (HDB) tersely says: "The Jew
in him was the foundation of everything that Paul became." But it was not the
narrowest type of Judaism in spite of his persecution of the Christians. He belonged
to the Judaism of the Dispersion. As a Roman citizen in a Greek city he had departed
from the narrowest lines of his people (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 47). His Judaism
was pure, in fact, as he gives it to us in Philippians 3:5. He was a Jew of the
stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a Hebrew, of the seed of Abraham
(2 Corinthians 11:22). He shared in full all the covenant blessings and privileges
of his people (Romans 9:1 - 5), whose crowning glory was, that of them came Jesus
the Messiah. He was proud of the piety of his ancestors (2 Timothy 1:3), and made
progress as a student of Judaism ahead of his fellows (Galatians 1:14). His ancestry
was pure, Hebrew of the Hebrews. (Philippians 3:5), and so his family preserved
the native Palestinian traditions in Tarsus. His name Saul was a proof of loyalty
to the tribe of Benjamin as his cognomen Paul was evidence of his Roman citizenship.
In his home he would be taught the law by his mother (compare Galatians 1:14),
as was true of Timothy's mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5). In Tarsus he
would go to the synagogue also. We know little of his father, save that he was
a Roman citizen and so a man of position in Tarsus and possibly of some wealth;
that he was a tent-maker and taught his son the same trade, as all Jewish fathers
did, whatever their rank in life; that he was a Pharisee and brought up his son
as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), and that he sent the young Saul to Jerusalem to study
at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Paul always considered himself a Pharisee
as distinct from the Sadducaic scepticism (Acts 23:6). Many of the Pharisaic doctrines
were identical with those of Christianity. That Paul did not consider himself
a Pharisee in all respects is shown later by his conflict with the Judaizers (Galatians
2 ; Acts 15 ; 2 Corinthians 10 - 13). Paul says that he was reared as a strict
Pharisee (Acts 26:5), though the school of Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) was not
so hard and narrow as that of Shammai. But all Pharisees were stricter than the
Sadducees. So Jerusalem played an important part in the training of Saul (Acts
22:3), as Paul recognized. He was known in Jerusalem as a student. He knew Aramaic
as well as Greek (and Latin), and could speak in it so as to attract the attention
of a Jewish audience (Acts 22:2). Paul was fortunate in his great teacher Gamaliel,
who was liberal enough to encourage the study of Greek literature. But his liberality
in defending the apostles against the Sadducees in Acts 5:34 - 39 must not be
misinterpreted in comparison with the persecuting zeal of his brilliant pupil
against Stephen (7:58). Stephen had opened war on the Pharisees themselves, and
there is no evidence that Gamaliel made a defense of Stephen against the lawless
rage of the Sanhedrin. It is common for pupils to go farther than their teachers,
but Gamaliel did not come to the rescue. Still Gamaliel helped Saul, who was undoubtedly
his most brilliant pupil and probably the hope of his heart for the future of
Judaism. Harnack (History of Dogma, I, 94) says: "Pharisaism had fulfilled its
mission in the world when it produced this man." Unfortunately, Pharisaism did
not die; in truth has never died, not even from Christianity. But young Saul was
the crowning glory of Pharisaism. An effort has recently been made to restore
Pharisaism to its former dignity. Herford (Pharisaism, Its Aim and Method, 1912)
undertakes to show that the Gospels have slandered Pharisaism, that it was the
one hope of the ancient world, etc. He has a chapter on "Pharisaism and Paul,"
in which he claims that Paul has not attacked the real Pharisaism, but has aimed
his blows at an unreal creation of his own brain (p. 222). But, if Paul did not
understand Pharisaism, he did not understand anything. He knew not merely the
Old Testament in the Hebrew and the Septuagint translation, for he quotes from
both, though usually from the Septuagint, but he also knew the Jewish Apocrypha
and apocalypses, as is shown in various ways in his writings (see articles on
these subjects). Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters) carries too far his idea
that Paul and Jesus merely moved in the circle of Jewish eschatology. He makes
it explain everything, and that it cannot do. But Paul does show acquaintance
with some of these books. See Kennedy, Paul's Conception of the Last Things (1904),
for a sane and adequate discussion of this phase of the subject. Pfleiderer pursues
the subject in his Paulinism, as does Kabisch in his Eschatologie. So Sanday and
Headlam use this source in their Commentary on Romans. Paul knew Wisd, also, a
book from the Jewish-Alexandrian theology with a tinge of Greek philosophy (see
Goodrick, Book of Wisd, 398-403; compare also Jowett's essay on "St. Paul and
Philo" in his Epistles of Paul). Paul knew how to use allegory (Galatians 4:24)
in accord with the method of Philo. So then he knew how to use the Stoic diatribe,
the rabbinical diatribe and the Alexandrian allegory. "In his cosmology, angelology,
and demonology, as well as eschatology, he remains essentially Jewish" (Garvie,
Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 17). When he becomes a Christian he will change
many of his views, for Christ must become central in his thinking, but his method
learned in the rabbinical schools remains with him (Kohler, Zum Verstandnis, etc.,
7). Here, then, is a man with a wonderfully rounded culture. What of his mental
gifts?
6. Personal Characteristics:
Much as we can learn about the times of Paul (compare Selden, In the Time of Paul,
1900, for a brief sketch of Paul's world), we know something of the political
structure of the Roman world, the social life of the 1st century AD, the religious
condition of the age, the moral standards of the time, the intellectual tendencies
of the period. New discoveries continue to throw fresh light on the life of the
middle and lower classes among whom Paul chiefly labored. And, if Deissmann in
his brilliant study (St. Paul, A Study in Social and Religious History) has pressed
too far the notion that Paul the tent-maker ranks not with Origen, but with Amos
the herdman (p. 6, on p. 52 he calls it a mistake "to speak of Paul the artisan
as a proletarian in the sense which the word usually bears with us"), yet he is
right in insisting that Paul is "a religious genius" and "a hero of piety" (p.
6). It is not possible to explain the personality and work of a man like Paul
by his past and to refer with precision this or that trait to his Jewish or Greek
training (Alexander, Ethics of Paul, 58). "We must allow something to his native
originality" (same place) . We are all in a sense the children of the past, but
some men have much more the power of initiative than others. Paul is not mere
"eclectic patchwork" (Bruce, Paul's Conception of Christ, 218). Even if Paul was
acquainted with Philo, which is not certain, that fact by no means explains his
use of Philo, the representative Jew of the Hellenistic age. "Both are Jews of
the Dispersion, city-dwellers, with marked cosmopolitan traits. Both live and
move in the Septuagint Bible. Both are capable of ecstatic and mystical experiences,
and have many points of contact in detail. And yet they stand in very strong contrast
to one another, a contrast which reminds us of the opposition between Seneca and
Paul. .... Philo is a philosopher, Paul the fool pours out the vials of his irony
upon the wisdom of the world" (Deissmann, Paul, 110). Deissmann, indeed, cares
most for "the living man, Paul, whom we hear speaking and see gesticulating, here
playful, gentle as a father, and tenderly coaxing, so as to win the hearts of
the infatuated children--there thundering and lightning with the passionate wrath
of a Luther, with cutting irony and bitter sarcasm on his lips" (ibid., 16 f).
(1) Personal Appearance.
We have no reliable description of Paul's stature and looks. The Ac of Paul and
Thecla (section3) have a protraiture thus: "Baldheaded, bowlegged, strongly built,
a man small in size, with meeting eyebrows, with a rather large nose, full of
grace, for at times he looked like a man and at times he had the face of an angel,"
and Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, 32) adds: "This plain and unflattering
account of the apostle's personal appearance seems to embody a very early tradition,"
and in chapter xvi he argues that this story goes back to a document of the 1st
century. We may not agree with all the details, but in some respects it harmonizes
with what we gather from Paul's Epistles Findlay (HDB) notes that this description
is confirmed by "the lifelike and unconventional figure of the Roman ivory diptych,
`supposed to date not later than the 4th century.' " (Lewin's Life and Epistles
of Paul, Frontispiece, and II, 211). At Lystra the natives took Barnabas for Jupiter
and Paul for Hermes, "because he was the chief speaker" (Acts 14:12), showing
that Barnabas had the more impressive appearance, while Paul was his spokesman.
In Malta the natives changed their minds in the opposite direction, first thinking
Paul a murderer and then a god because he did not die from the bite of the serpent
(Acts 28:4 - 6). His enemies at Corinth sneered at the weakness of his bodily
presence in contrast to the strength of his letters (2 Corinthians 10:9). The
attack was really on the courage of Paul, and he claimed equal boldness when present
(2 Corinthians 10:11), but there was probably also a reflection on the insignificance
of his physique. The terrible bodily sufferings which he underwent (2 Corinthians
11:23 - 26) left physical marks (stigmata, Galatians 6:17) that may have disfigured
him to some extent. Once his illness made him a trial to the Galatians to whom
he preached, but they did not scorn him (Galatians 4:14). He felt the frailty
of his body as an earthen vessel (2 Corinthians 4:7) and as a tabernacle in which
he groaned (2 Corinthians 5:4). But the effect of all this weakness was to give
him a fresh sense of dependence on Christ and a new influx of divine power (2
Corinthians 11:30 ; 12:9). But even if Paul was unprepossessing in appearance
and weakened by illness, whether ophthalmia, which is so common in the East (Galatians
4:15), or malaria, or recurrent headache, or epilepsy, he must have had a tough
constitution to have endured such hardship to a good old age. He had one infirmity
in particular that came upon him at Tarsus (2 Corinthians 12:1-9) in connection
with the visions and revelations of the Lord then granted him. The affliction
seems to have been physical (skolops te sarki, "a stake in the flesh" or "for
the flesh"), and it continued with him thereafter as a messenger of Satan to buffet
Paul and to keep him humble. Some think that this messenger of Satan was a demon
that haunted Paul in his nervous state. Others hold it to be epilepsy or some
form of hysteria superinduced by the visions and revelations which he had had.
Compare Krenkel, Beitrage (pp. 47-125), who argues that the ancients looked with
such dread on epilepsy that those who beheld such attacks would "spit out so as
to escape the evil (compare modern knocking on wood"); compare qui sputatur morbus
in Plautus (Captivi, iii.4, 17). Reference is made to Galatians 4:14, oude exeptusate,
"nor did ye spit out," as showing that this was the affliction of Paul in Galatia.
But epilepsy often affects the mind, and Paul shows no sign of mental weakness,
though his enemies charged him with insanity (Acts 26:24 ; 2 Corinthians 5:13
; 12:11). It is urged in reply that Julius Caesar, Alfred the Great, Peter the
Great, and Napoleon all had epilepsy without loss of mental force. It is difficult
to think headache or malaria could have excited the disgust indicated in Galatians
4:14, where some trouble with the eyes seems to be indicated. The ministers of
Satan (2 Corinthians 11:15) do not meet the requirements of the case, nor mere
spiritual sins (Luther), nor struggle with lust (Roman Catholic, stimulus carnis).
Garvie (Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 65, 80) thinks it not unlikely that "it
was the recurrence of an old violent temptation," rather than mere bodily disease.
"Can there be any doubt that this form of temptation is more likely to assail
the man of intense emotion and intense affection, as Paul was?" But enough of
what can never be settled. "St. Paul's own scanty hints admonish to caution" (Deissmann,
Paul, 63). It is a blessing for us not to know, since we can all cherish a close
bond with Paul. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 37) calls special attention to
the look of Paul. He "fastened his eyes on" the man (Acts 13:9 ; 14:9). He argues
that Paul had a penetrating, powerful gaze, and hence, no eye trouble. He calls
attention also to gestures of Paul (Acts 20:24 ; 26:2). There were artists in
marble and color at the court of Caesar, but no one of them cared to preserve
a likeness of the poor itinerant preacher who turned out to be the chief man of
the age (Deissmann, Paul, 58). "We are like the Christians of Colesage and Laodicea,
who had not seen his face in the flesh" (Colossians 2:1).
(2) Natural Endowments.
In respect to his natural endowments we can do much better, for his epistles reveal
the mind and soul of the man. He is difficult to comprehend, not because he conceals
himself, but because he reveals so much of himself in his epistles. He seems to
some a man of contradictions. He had a many-sided nature, and his very humanness
is in one sense the greatest thing about him. There are "great polar contradictions"
in his nature. Deissmann (St. Paul, 62) notes his ailing body and his tremendous
powers for work, his humility and his self-confidence, his periods of depression
and of intoxication with victory, his tenderness and his sternness; he was ardently
loved and furiously hated; he was an ancient man of his time, but he is cosmopolitan
and modern enough for today. Findlay (HBD) adds that he was a man possessed of
dialectical power and religious inspiration. He was keenly intellectual and profoundly
mystical (compare Campbell, Paul the Mystic, 1907). He was a theologian and a
man of affairs. He was a man of vision with a supreme task to which he held himself.
He was a scholar, a sage, a statesman, a seer, a saint (Garvie, Studies in Paul
and His Gospel, 68-84). He was a man of heart, of passion, of imagination, of
sensibility, of will, of courage, of sincerity, of vivacity, of subtlety, of humor,
of adroitness, of tact, of genius for organization, of power for command, of gift
of expression, of leadership--"All these qualities and powers went to the making
of Jesus Christ's apostle to the nations, the master-builder of the universal
church and of Christian theology" (Findlay, HDB; see Lock, Paul the Master Builder,
1905; and M. Jones, Paul the Orator, 1910).
I cannot agree with Garvie's charge of cowardice (Life and Teaching of Paul, 173,)
in the matter of the purifying rites (Acts 21:23) and the dividing of the Sanhedrin
(Acts 23:6). The one was a mere matter of prudence in a nonessential detail, the
other was justifiable skill in resisting the attack of unscrupulous enemies. One
does not understand Paul who does not understand his emotional nature. He was
"quick, impetuous, strenuous, impassioned" (Bevan, Paul in the Light of Today,
1912, 26). His heart throbs through his epistles, and he loves his converts like
a mother or a lover (Findlay, HDB) rather than a pastor. We feel the surging emotion
of his great spirit in 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Romans, Philippians, 2 Timothy in particular. He had the spiritual temperament
and reaches his highest flights in his moments of rhapsody. He has elasticity
and rebound of spirit, and comes up with the joy of victory in Christ out of the
severest trials and disappointments. His ambition is great, but it is to serve
Christ his Lord. He is a man of faith and a man of prayer. For him to live is
Christ. He has a genius for friendship and binds men to him with hooks of steel--men
like Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Luke, Titus (Speer, The Man Paul, 1900, 111). He
is not afraid to oppose his friends when it is necessary for the sake of truth,
as with Peter (Galatians 2:11) and with Barnabas (Acts 15:35). "While God made
Paul like the other apostles out of the clay whereof ordinary men are fashioned,
yet we may say that He took extraordinary pains with his education" (Fairbairn,
Studies in Religion and Theology, 471). If ever a man, full-blooded and open-eyed,
walked the earth, it was Paul. It is a debatable question whether Paul was married
or not. He certainly was not when he wrote (1 Corinthians 7:7; 9:5). But, if he
was a member of the Sanhedrin when he cast his vote against the disciples (Acts
26:10), as his language naturally means, then he had been married.
There is in Paul the gift of leadership in a marked degree. He, though young,
is already at the head of the opposition to Stephen (Acts 7:58), and soon drives
the disciples out of Jerusalem.
(3) Supernatural gifts.
He had his share of them. He had all the gifts that others could boast of at Corinth,
and which he lightly esteemed except that of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:18 - 29).
He had his visions and revelations, but would not tell what he had seen (2 Corinthians
12:1 - 9). He did the signs of an apostle (2 Corinthians 12:12 - 14). He had the
power to work miracles (1 Corinthians 4:19 - 21) and to exercise discipline (1
Corinthians 5:4 ; 2 Corinthians 13:1 - 3). But what he cared for most of all was
the fact that Jesus had appeared to him on the road to Damascus and had called
him to the work of preaching to the Gentiles (1 Corinthians 15:8). |
7. Conversion:
No other element in the equipment of Paul is comparable in importance to his conversion.
(1) Preparation.
It was sudden, and yet God had led Saul to the state of mind when it could more
easily happen. True, Saul was engaged in the very act of persecuting the believers
in Jerusalem. His mind was flushed with the sense of victory. He was not conscious
of any lingering doubts about the truth of his position and the justice of his
conduct till Jesus abruptly told him that it was hard for him to kick against
the goad (Acts 26:14). Thus suddenly brought to bay, the real truth would flash
upon his mind. In later years he tells how he had struggled in vain against the
curse of the Law (Romans 7:7). It is probable though not certain, that Paul here
has in mind his experience before his conversion, though the latter part of the
chapter may refer to a period later. There is difficulty in either view as to
the "body of this death" that made him so wretched (Romans 7:24). The Christian
keeps up the fight against sin in spite of defeat (Romans 7:23), but he does not
feel that he is "carnal, sold under sin" (Romans 7:14). But when before his conversion
did Paul have such intensity of conviction? We can only leave the problem unanswered.
His reference to it at least harmonizes with what Jesus said about the goad. The
words and death of Stephen and the other disciples may have left a deeper mark
than he knew. The question might arise whether after all the Nazarenes were right.
His plea for his conduct made in later years was that he was conscientious (Acts
26:9) and that he did it ignorantly in unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13). He was not willfully
sinning against the full light as he saw it. It will not do to say with Holsten
that Saul was half convinced to join the disciples, and only needed a jolt to
turn him over. He was "yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples
of the Lord" (Acts 9:1), and went to the high priest and asked for letters to
Damascus demanding the arrest of the disciples there. His temper on the whole
is distinctly hostile to Christ, and the struggle against his course was in the
subconscious mind. There a volcano had gathered ready to burst out.
It is proper to ask whether Paul had known Jesus in the flesh, but it is not easy
to give a categorical reply. It is possible, though hardly likely, that Paul had
come to Jerusalem to study when Jesus as a boy of 12 visited the temple, and so
heard Jesus and the doctors. That could be true only in case Paul was born 5 or
6 BC, which is quite unlikely. It is possible again that Paul may have remained
in Jerusalem after his graduation the school of Gamaliel and so was present in
Jerusalem at the trial and death of Jesus. Some of the ablest of modern scholars
hold that Paul knew Jesus in the flesh. It will at once seem strange that we have
no express statement to this effect in the letters of Paul, when he shows undoubted
knowledge of various events in the life of Christ (compare Wynne, Fragmentary
Records of Jesus of Nazareth, 1887). It is almost certain, as J. Weiss admits
(Paul and Jesus, 41), that in 1 Corinthians 9:1 Paul refers to the Risen Jesus.
The passage in 2 Corinthians 5:16 is argued both ways: "Wherefore we henceforth
know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh,
yet now we know him so no more." J. Weiss (ibid., 41-55) argues strongly for the
view that he knew Jesus in the flesh. But in the first clause of the sentence
above Paul means by "after the flesh," not acquaintance, but standpoint. It is
natural to take it in the same way as applied to Christ. He has changed his viewpoint
of Christ and so of all men. Weiss pleads (ibid., p. 40), at any rate, that we
have no word saying that "Paul had not seen Jesus in person." It may be said in
reply that the fact that Jesus has to tell Paul who He is (Acts 9:5) shows that
Paul did not have personal acquaintance with Him. But the question may be left
in abeyance as not vitally important. He certainly had not understood Jesus, if
he knew Him.
(2) Experience.
Space does not, permit a discussion of this great event of Paul's conversion at
all commensurate with its significance. A literature of importance has grown up
around it besides the lengthy discussions in the lives and theologies of Paul
(see e.g. Lord Lyttleton's famous Observations on Saul's Conversion, 1774; Fletcher's
A Study of the Conversion of Paul, 1910; Gardner, The Religious Experience of
Paul, 1911; Maggs, The Spiritual Experience of Paul). All sorts of theories have
been advanced to explain on naturalistic grounds this great experience of Christ
in the life of Paul. It has been urged that Paul had an epileptic fit, that he
had a sunstroke, that he fell off his horse to the ground, that he had a nightmare,
that he was blinded by a flash of lightning, that he imagined that he saw Jesus
as a result of his highly wrought nervous state, that he deliberately renounced
Judaism because of the growing conviction that the disciples were right. But none
of these explanations explains. Mere prejudice against the supernatural, such
as is shown by Weinel in his Paulus, and by Holsten in his able book (Zum Evangelium
d. Paulus und Petrus), cannot solve this problem. One must be willing to hear
the evidence. There were witnesses of the bright light (Acts 26:13) and of the
sound (Acts 9:7) which only Paul understood (Acts 22:9), as he alone beheld Jesus.
It is claimed by some that Paul had a trance or subjective vision, and did not
see Jesus with his eyes. Denney (Standard Bible Dictionary) replies that it is
not a pertinent objection. Jesus (John 21:1) "manifested" Himself, and Paul says
that he "saw" Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), that Jesus "appeared" (1 Corinthians
15:8) to him. Hence, it was both subjective and objective. But the reality of
the event was as clear to Paul as his own existence. The account is given 3 times
in Acts (chapters 9 ; 22 ; 26) in substantial agreement, with a few varying details.
In Acts 9 the historical narrative occurs, in Acts 22 Paul's defense before the
mob in Jerusalem is given, and in Acts 26 we have the apology before Agrippa.
There are no contradictions of moment, save that in chapter 26 Jesus Himself is
represented as giving directly to Paul the call to the Gentiles while in chapters
9 and 22 it is conveyed through Ananias (the fuller and more accurate account).
There is no need to notice the apparent contradiction between Acts 9:7 and 22:9,
for the difference in case in the Greek gives a difference in sense, hearing the
sound, with the genitive, and not understanding the sense, with the accusative.
Findlay (HBD) remarks that the conversion of Paul is a psychological and ethical
problem which cannot be accounted for save by Paul's own interpretation of the
change wrought in him. He saw Jesus and surrendered to Him.
(3) Effect on Paul.
His surrender to Jesus was instantaneous and complete: "What shall I do, Lord?"
(Acts 22:10). He could not see for the glory of that light (Acts 22:11), but he
had already seen "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of
Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:6). The god of this world could blind him no longer.
He had seen Jesus, and all else had lost charm for Paul. There is infinite pathos
in the picture of the blind Saul led by the hand (Acts 9:8) into Damascus. All
the pride of power is gone, all the lust for vengeance. The fierceness of the
name of Saul is well shown in the dread that Ananias has and the protest that
he makes to the Lord concerning him (Acts 9:10 - 14). Ananias doubtless thought
that the Lord had made a strange choice of a vessel to bear the message of Christ
to the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15), but there was
hope in the promise of chastisement to him (Acts 9:16). So he went, and calls
him "Brother Saul." Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit, the scales fell from
his eyes, he was baptized. And now what next? What did the world hold in store
for the proud scion of Judaism who had renounced power, place, pride for the lowly
Nazarene? He dared not go back to Jerusalem. The Jews in Damascus would have none
of him now. Would the disciples receive him? They did. "And he was certain days
with the disciples that were at Damascus" (Acts 9:19). Ananias vouched for him
by his vision. Then Saul took his courage in his hands and went boldly into the
synagogues and "proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20). This
was a public committal and a proclamation of his new creed. There was tremendous
pith and point in this statement from Saul. The Jews were amazed (Acts 9:21).
This is the core of Paul's message as we see in his later ministry (Acts 13 ;
17:3). It rests at bottom on Paul's own experience of grace. "His whole theology
is nothing but the explanation of his own conversion" (Stalker, Life of Paul,
45). We need not argue (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 51) that Paul
understood at once the full content of the new message, but he had the heart of
it right. |
|
V. WORK
1. Adjustment:
There was evidently a tumult in Paul's soul. He had undergone a revolution, both
intellectual and spiritual. Before he proceeded farther it was wise to think through
the most important implications of the new standpoint. Luke gives no account of
this personal phase of Paul's career, but he allows room for it between Acts 9:21
and 22. It is Paul who tells of his retirement to Arabia (Galatians 1:17) to prove
his independence of the apostles in Jerusalem. He did not go to them for instruction
or for ecclesiastical authority. He did not adopt the merely traditional view
of Jesus as the Messiah. He knew, of course, the Christian contention well enough,
for he had answered it often enough. But now his old arguments were gone an4t
he must work his way round to the other side, and be able to put his new gospel
with clearness and force. He was done with calling Jesus anathema (1 Corinthians
12:3). Henceforth to him Jesus is Lord. We know nothing of Paul's life in Arabia
nor in what part of Arabia he was. He may have gone to Mt. Sinai and thought out
grace in the atmosphere of law, but that is not necessary. But it is clear that
Paul grew in apprehension of the things of Christ during these years, as indeed
he grew to the very end. But he did not grow away from the first clear vision
of Christ. He claimed that God had revealed His Son in him that he might preach
to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:16). He claimed that from the first and to the very
last. The undoubted development in Paul's Epistles (see Matheson, Spiritual Development
of Paul, and Sabatier, The Apostle Paul) is, however, not a changing view of Christ
that nullifies Paul's "original Christian inheritance" (Kohler, Zum Verstandnis
des Apostels Paulus, 13). Pfieiderer (Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development
of Christianity, 3rd edition, 1897, 217) rejects Colossians because of the advanced
Christology here found. But the Christology of Col is implicit in Paul's first
sermon at Damascus. "It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the significance
and value of the Cross became clear to him almost simultaneously with the certainty
of the resurrection and of the Messiahship of Jesus" (Garvie, Studies, etc., 57).
The narrow Jew has surrendered to Christ who died for the sins of the world. The
universal gospel has taken hold of his mind and heart, and it will work out its
logical consequences in Paul. The time in Arabia is not wasted. When he reappears
in Damascus (Acts 9:22) he has "developed faith" (Findlay, HDB) and energy that
bear instant fruit. He is now the slave of Christ. For him henceforth to live
is Christ. He is crucified with Christ. He is in Christ. The union of Paul with
Christ is the real key to his life. It is far more than a doctrine about Christ.
It is real fellowship with Christ (Deissmann, Paul, 123). Thus it is that the
man who probably never saw Christ in the flesh understands him best (Wernle, Beginnings
of Christianity, I, 159).
2. Opposition:
Saul had "increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt in
Damascus, proving that this is the Christ" (Acts 9:22). Now he not merely "proclaims"
as before (Acts 9:20); he "proves." He does it with such marvelous skill that
the Jews are first confounded, then enraged to the point of murder. Their former
hero was now their foe. The disciples had learned to run from Saul. They now let
him down in a basket through the wall by night and he is gone (Acts 9:23). This
then is the beginning of the active ministry of the man who was called to be a
chosen vessel to Gentiles, kings, and Jews, There was no need to go back to the
wilderness. He had gotten his bearings clearly now. He had his message and it
had his whole heart. He had not avoided Jerusalem because he despised flesh and
blood, but because he had no need of light from the apostles since "the divine
revelation so completely absorbed his interest and attention" (Garvie, Life and
Teaching of Paul, 33). No door was open as yet among the Gentiles. Sooner or later
he must go to Jerusalem and confer with the leaders there if he was to cooperate
with them in the evangelization of the world. Saul knew that he would be an object
of suspicion to the disciples in Jerusalem. That was inevitable in view of the
past. It was best to go, but he did not wish to ask any favors of the apostles.
Indeed he went in particular "to visit Cephas" (margin, "to become acquainted
with" Galatians 1:18). They knew each other, of course, as opponents. But Saul
comes now with the olive branch to his old enemy. He expressly explains (Galatians
1:19) that he saw no other apostle. He did see James, the Lord's brother, who
was not one of the Twelve. It seems that at first Peter and James were both afraid
of Saul (Acts 9:26), "not believing that he was a disciple." If a report came
3 years before of the doings at Damascus, they had discounted it. All had been
quiet, and now Saul suddenly appears in Jerusalem in a new role. It was, they
feared, just a ruse to complete his work of old. But for Barnabas, Saul might
not have had that visit of 15 days with Peter. Barnabas was a Hellenist of Cyprus
and believed Saul's story and stood by him. Thus, he had his opportunity to preach
the gospel in Jerusalem, perhaps in the very synagogues in which he had heard
Stephen, and now he is taking Stephen's place and is disputing against the Grecian
Jews (Acts 9:29). He had days of blessed fellowship (Acts 9:28) with the disciples,
till the Grecian Jews sought to kill him as Saul had helped to do to Stephen (Acts
9:29). It was a repetition of Damascus, but Saul did not wish to run again so
soon. He protested to the Lord Jesus, who spoke in a vision to him, and recalls
the fate of Stephen, but Jesus bids him go: "For I will send thee forth far hence
unto the Gentiles" (Acts 22:17 - 21). One martyr like Stephen is enough. So the
brethren took him down to Caesarea (Acts 9:30). It was an ominous beginning for
a ministry with so clear a call. Where can he go now?
3. Waiting:
They "sent him forth to Tarsus" (Acts 9:30). Who would welcome him there? At Jerusalem
he apparently avoided Gamaliel and the Sanhedrin. He was with the Christians and
preached to the Hellenistic Jews. The Jews regarded him as a turncoat, a renegade
Jew. There were apparently no Christians in Tarsus, unless some of the disciples
driven from Jerusalem by Saul himself went that far, as they did go to Antioch
(Acts 11:19). But Saul was not idle, for he speaks himself of his activity in
the regions of Syria and Cilicia during this "period of obscurity" (Denney, Standard
Bible Dict.) as a thing known to the churches of Judea (Galatians 1:21). He was
not idle then. The way was not yet opened for formal entrance upon the missionary
enterprise, but Saul was not the man to do nothing at home because of that. If
they would not hear him at Damascus and Jerusalem, they would in the regions of
Syria and Cilicia, his home province. We are left in doubt at first whether Paul
preached only to Jews or to Gentiles also. He had the specific call to preach
to the Gentiles, and there is no reason why he should not have done so in this
province, preaching to the Jews first as he did afterward. He did not have the
scruples of Simon Peter to overcome. When he appears at Antioch with Barnabas,
he seems to take hold like an old hand at the business. It is quite probable,
therefore, that this obscure ministry of some 8 or 10 years may have had more
results than we know. Paul apparently felt that he had done his work in that region,
for outside of Antioch he gives no time to it except that in starting out on the
second tour from Antioch "he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches"
(Acts 15:41), churches probably the fruit of this early ministry and apparently
containing Gentiles also. The letter from the Jerusalem conference was addressed
to "the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" (Acts
15:23). Cilicia was now part of the Roman province of Syria. So then we conclude
that Saul had a Gentileministry in this region. "Independently, under no human
master, he learned his business as a missionary to the heathen" (Findlay, HDB).
One can but wonder whether Saul was kindly received at home by his father and
mother. They had looked upon him with pride as the possible successor of Gamaliel,
and now he is a follower of the despised Nazarene and a preacher of the Cross.
It is possible that his own exhortations to fathers not to provoke their children
to wrath (Ephesians 6:4) may imply that his own father had cast him out at this
time. Findlay (HDB) argues that Saul would not have remained in this region so
long if his home relations had been altogether hostile. It is a severe test of
character when the doors close against one. But Saul turned defeat to glorious
gain.
4. Opportunity:
Most scholars hold that the ecstatic experience told by Paul in 2 Corinthians
12:1 - 9 took place before he came to Antioch. If we count the years strictly,
14 from 56 AD would bring us to 42 AD. Paul had spent a year in Antioch before
going up to Jerusalem (Acts 11:29). Findlay (HDB) thinks that Paul had the visions
before he received the call to come to Antioch. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul,
41) holds he received the call first. "Such a mood of exaltation would account
for the vision to which he refers in 2 Corinthians 12:1 - 4." At any rate he had
the vision with its exaltation and the thorn in the flesh with its humiliation
before he came to Antioch in response to the invitation of Barnabas. He had undoubtedly
had a measure of success in his work in Cilicia and Syria. He had the seal of
the divine blessing on his work among the Gentiles. But there was a pang of disappointment
over the attitude of the Jerusalem church toward his work. He was apparently left
alone to his own resources. "Only such a feeling of disappointment can explain
the tone of his references to his relations to the apostles (Galatians 1:11 -
24)" (Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul, 41). There is no bitterness in this tone--but
puzzled surprise. It seems that the 12 apostles are more or less absent from Jerusalem
during this period with James the brother of the Lord Jesus as chief elder. A
narrow Pharisaic element in the church was active and sought to shape the policy
of the church in its attitude toward the Gentiles. This is clear in the treatment
of Peter, when he returned to Jerusalem after the experience at Caesarea with
Cornelius (Acts 11:1 - 18). There was acquiescence, but with the notion that this
was an exceptional case of the Lord's doing. Hence, they show concern over the
spread of the gospel to the Greeks at Antioch, and send Barnabas to investigate
and report (Acts 11:19 - 22). Barnabas was a Hellenist, and evidently did not
share the narrow views of the Pharisaic party in the church at Jerusalem (Acts
11:2), for he was glad (Acts 11:23) of the work in Antioch. Probably mindful of
the discipline attempted on Simon Peter, he refrained from going back at once
to Jerusalem. Moreover, he believed in Saul and his work, and thus he gave him
his great opportunity at Antioch. They had there a year's blessed work together
(Acts 11:25). So great was the outcome that the disciples received a new name
to distinguish them from the Gentiles and the Jews. But the term "Christian" did
not become general for a long time. There was then a great Greek church at Antioch,
possibly equal in size to the Jewish church in Jerusalem. The prophecy by Agabus
of a famine gave Barnabas and Saul a good excuse for a visit to Jerusalem with
a general collection--"every man according to his ability"--from the Greek church
for the relief of the poverty in the Jerusalem church. Barnabas had assisted generously
in a similar strain in the beginning of the work there (Acts 4:36), unless it
was a different Barnabas, which is unlikely. This contribution would help the
Jerusalem saints to understand now that the Greeks were really converted. It was
apparently successful according to the record in Acts. The apostles seem to have
been absent, since only "elders" are mentioned in Acts 11:30.
The incidents in Acts 12, as already noted, are probably not contemporaneous with
this visit, but either prior or subsequent to it. However, it is urged by some
scholars that this visit is the same as that of Galatians 2:1 - 10 since Paul
would not have omitted it in his list of visits to Jerusalem. But then Paul is
not giving a list of visits, but is only showing his independence of the apostles.
If they were absent from Jerusalem at that time, there would be no occasion to
mention it. Besides, Luke in Acts 15 does recount the struggle in Jerusalem over
the problem of Gentileliberty. If that question was an issue at the visit in Acts
11:30, it is quite remarkable that he should have passed it by, especially if
the matter caused as much heat as is manifest in Galatians 2, both in Jerusalem
and Antioch. It is much simpler to understand that in Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1
- 10 we have the public and the private aspects of the same issue, than to suppose
that Luke has slurred the whole matter over in Acts 11:30. The identification
of the visit of Galatians 2 with that in Acts 11:30 makes it possible to place
Galatians before the conference in Jerusalem in Acts 15 and implies the correctness
of the South Galatian theory of the destination of the epistle and of the work
of Paul, a theory with strong advocates and arguments, but which is by no means
established (see below for discussion at more length). So far as we can gather
from Luke, Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem with John Mark (Acts 12:25),"
when they had fulfilled their ministration" with satisfaction. The Pharisaic element
was apparently quiescent, and the outlook for the future work among the Gentiles
seemed hopeful. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 62) argues strongly for identifying
the revelation mentioned in Paul's speech in Acts 22:20 f with this visit in 11:30
(12:25), rather than with the one in Acts 9:29 f. There is a textual problem in
Acts 12:25, but I cannot concur in the solution of Ramsay.
5. The First Great Mission Campaign:
Acts 13 and 14, 47 and 48 AD: Paul had already preached to the Gentiles in Cilicia
and Syria for some 10 years. The work was not new to him. He had had his specific
call from Jerusalem long ago and had answered it. But now an entirely new situation
arises. His work had been individual in Cilicia. Now the Spirit specifically directs
the separation of Barnabas and Saul to this work (Acts 13:2). They were to go
together, and they had the sympathy and prayers of a great church. The endorsement
was probably not "ordination" in the technical sense, but a farewell service of
blessing and good will as the missionaries went forth on the world-campaign (Acts
13:3). No such unanimous endorsement could have been obtained in Jerusalem to
this great enterprise. It was momentous in its possibilities for Christianity.
Hitherto work among the Gentiles had been sporadic and incidental. Now a determined
effort was to be made to evangelize a large section of the Roman empire. There
is no suggestion that the church at Antioch provided funds for this or for the
two later Campaigns, as the church at Philippi came to do. How that was managed
this time we do not know. Some individuals may have helped. Paul had his trade
to fall back on, and often had resort to it later. The presence of John Mark "as
their attendant" (Acts 13:5) was probably due to Barnabas, his cousin (Colossians
4:10). The visit to Cyprus, the home of Barnabas, was natural. There were already
some Christians there (Acts 11:20), and it was near. They preach first in the
synagogues of the Jews at Salamis (Acts 13:5). We are left to conjecture as to
results there and through the whole island till Paphos is reached. There they
meet a man of great prominence and intelligence, Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul,
who had been under the spell of a sorcerer with a Jewish name--Elymas Bar-jesus
(compare Peter's encounter with Simon Magus in Samaria). In order to win and hold
Sergius Paulus, who had become interested in Christianity, Paul has to punish
Bar-jesus with blindness (Acts 13:10) in the exercise of that apostolic power
which he afterward claimed with such vigor (1 Corinthians 5:4; 2 Corinthians 13:10).
He won Sergius Paulus, and this gave him cheer for his work. From now on it is
Paul, not Saul, in the record of Luke, perhaps because of this incident, though
both names probably belonged to him from the first. Now also Paul steps to the
fore ahead of Barnabas, and it is "Paul's company" (Acts 13:13) that sets sail
from Paphos for Pamphylia. There is no evidence here of resentment on the part
of Barnabas at the leadership of Paul. The whole campaign may have been planned
from the start by the Holy Spirit as the course now taken may have been due to
Paul's leadership. John Mark deserts at Perga and returns to Jerusalem (his home),
not to Antioch (Acts 13:13). Paul and Barnabas push on to the tablelands of Pisidia.
Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 93) thinks that Paul had malaria down at Perga
and hence desired to get up into higher land. That is possible. The places mentioned
in the rest of the tour are Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14), and Iconium (Acts
13:51), Lystra (Acts 14:8), and Derbe (Acts 14:20), cities of Lycaonia. These
terms are ethnographic descriptions of the southern divisions of the Roman province
of Galatia, the northern portion being Galatia proper or North Galatia. So then
Paul and Barnabas are now at work in South Galatia, though Luke does not mention
that name, using here only the popular designations. The work is wonderfully successful.
In these cities, on one of the great Roman roads east and west, Paul is reaching
the centers of provincial life as will be his custom. At Antioch Paul is invited
to repeat his sermon on the next Sabbath (Acts 13:42), and Luke records at length
the report of this discourse which has the characteristic notes of Paul's gospel
as we see it in his epistles. Paul may have kept notes of the discourse. There
were devout Gentiles at these services. These were the first to be won, and thus
a wider circle of Gentiles could be reached. Paul and Barnabas were too successful
at Antioch in Pisidia. The jealous Jews opposed, and Paul and Barnabas dramatically
turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:45). But the Jews reached the city magistrate
through the influential women, and Paul and Barnabas were ordered to leave (Acts
13:50). Similar success brings like results in Iconium. At Lystra, before the
hostile Jews come, Paul and Barnabas have great success and, because of the healing
of the impotent man, are taken as Mercury and Jupiter respectively, and worship
is offered them. Paul's address in refusal is a fine plea on the grounds of natural
theology (Acts 14:15 - 18). The attempt on Paul's life after the Jews came seemed
successful. In the band of disciples that "stood round about him," there may have
been Timothy, Paul's son in the gospel. From Derbe they retrace their steps to
Perga, in order to strengthen the churches with officers, and then sail for Seleucia
and Antioch. They make their report to the church at Antioch. It is a wonderful
story. The door of faith is now wide open for the Gentiles who have entered in
great numbers (Acts 14:27). No report was sent to Jerusalem. What will the Pharisaic
party do now?
6. The Conflict at Jerusalem:
Acts 15 ; Galatians 2 , 49 AD: The early date of Galatians, addressed to these
churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia before the Conference in Jerusalem does not allow
time for a second visit there (Galatians 4:13), and requires that the Judaizers
from Jerusalem followed close upon the heels of Paul and Barnabas (Galatians 1:6
; 3:1) in South Galatia. Besides, there is the less likelihood that the matter
would have been taken a second time to Jerusalem (Acts 15:2) if already the question
had been settled in Paul's favor (Acts 11:30). It is strange also that no reference
to this previous conference on the same subject is made in Acts 15, since Peter
does refer to his experience at Caesarea (15:9) and since James in Acts 21:25
specifically ("we wrote") mentions the letter of Acts 15 in which full liberty
was granted to the Gentiles. Once more, the attack on the position of Paul and
Barnabas in Acts 15:1 is given as a new experience, and hence the sharp dissension
and tense feeling. The occasion for the sudden outbreak at Antioch on the part
of the self-appointed (Acts 15:24) regulators of Paul and Barnabas lay in the
reports that came to Jerusalem about the results of this campaign on a large scale
among the Gentiles. There was peril to the supremacy of the Jewish element. They
had assumed at first, as even Peter did who was not a Judaizer (Acts 10), that
the Gentiles who became disciples would also become Jews. The party of the circumcision
had made protest against the conduct of Peter at Caesarea (Acts 11:1 f) and had
reluctantly acquiesced in the plain work of God (Acts 11:18). They had likewise
yielded in the matter of the Greeks at Antioch (Acts 11:19) by the help of the
contribution (Acts 11:29 f). But they had not agreed to a campaign to Hellenize
Christianity. The matter had to stop. So the Judaizers came up to Antioch and
laid down the law to Paul and Barnabas. They did not wait for them to come to
Jerusalem. They might not come till it was too late (compare Barnabas in Acts
11). Paul and Barnabas had not sought the controversy. They had both received
specific instructions from the Holy Spirit to make this great campaign among the
Gentiles. They would not stultify themselves and destroy the liberty of the Gentiles
in Christ by going back and having the Mosaic Law imposed on them by the ceremony
of circumcision. They saw at once the gravity of the issue. The very essence of
the gospel of grace was involved. Paul had turned away from this yoke of bondage.
He would not go back to it nor would he impose it on his converts. The church
at Antioch stood by Paul and Barnabas. Paul (Galatians 2:2) says that he had a
revelation to go to Jerusalem with the problem. Luke (Acts 15:3) says that the
church sent them. Surely there is no inconsistency here. It is not difficult to
combine the personal narrative in Galatians 2 with the public meetings recorded
in Acts 15. We have first the general report by Paul and Barnabas to the church
in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4) to which instant exception was made by the Judaizing
element. There seems to have come an adjournment to prepare for the conflict,
since in 15:6 Luke says again that "the apostles and the elders were gathered
together to consider of this matter." Between these two public meetings we may
place the private conference of Paul and Barnabas with Peter, John and James and
other teachers (Galatians 2:1 - 10). In this private conference some of the timid
brethren wished to persuade Paul to have Titus, a Greek Christian whom Paul had
brought down from Antioch (a live specimen!), offered as a sacrifice to the Judaizers
("false brethren") and circumcised. But Paul stood his ground for the truth of
the gospel and was supported by Peter, John and James. They agreed all around
for Paul and Barnabas to go on with their work to the Gentiles, and Peter, John
and James would push the work among the Jews (a division in sphere of work, like
home and foreign missions, not a denominational cleavage). Here, then, for the
first time, Paul has had an opportunity to talk the matter over with the apostolic
teachers, and they agree. The Judaizers will have no support from the apostles.
The battle was really won in their private conference. In the second public meeting
(Acts 15:6 - 29) all goes smoothly enough. Ample opportunity for free discussion
is offered. Then Peter shows how God had used him to preach to the Romans, and
how the Jews themselves had to believe on Christ in order to be saved. He opposed
putting a yoke on the Gentiles that the Jews could not bear. There was a pause,
and then Barnabas and Paul (note the order here: courtesy to Barnabas) spoke again.
After another pause, James, the president of the conference, the brother of the
Lord Jesus, and a stedfast Jew, spoke. He cited Amos 9:11 f to show that God had
long ago promised a blessing to the Gentiles. He suggests liberty to the Gentiles
with the prohibition of pollution of idols, of fornication, things strangled,
and blood. His ideas are embodied in an unanimous decree which strongly commends
"our beloved Barnabas and Paul" and disclaims responsibility for the visit of
the Judaizers to Antioch. The Western text omits "things strangled" from the decree.
If this is correct, the decree prohibits idolatry, fornication and murder (Wilson,
Origin and Aim of the Ac of the Apostles, 1912, 55). At any rate, the decision
is a tremendous victory for Paul and Barnabas. If the other reading is correct,
Jewish feelings about things strangled and blood are to be respected. The decision
was received with great joy in Antioch (Acts 15:30 - 35). Some time later Peter
appears at Antioch in the fullest fellowship with Paul and Barnabas in their work,
and joins them in free social intercourse with the Gentiles, as he had timidly
done in the home of Cornelius, till "certain came from James" (Galatians 2:11),
and probably threatened to have Peter up before the church again (Acts 11:2) on
this matter, claiming that James agreed with them on the subject. This I do not
believe was true in the light of Acts 15:24, where a similar false claim is discredited,
since James had agreed with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 15:19; Galatians 2:9). The
new ground for complaint was that they had not settled the question of social
relations with the Gentiles in the Jerusalem conference and that Peter had exceeded
the agreement there reached. Peter quailed before the accusation, "fearing them
that were of the circumcision" Galatians 2:12) To make it worse, "even Barnabas
was carried away with their dissimulation" (Galatians 2:13). Under this specious
plea Paul was about to lose the fruit of the victory already won, and charged
Peter to his face with Judaizing hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11 - 14). It was a serious
crisis. Peter had not changed his convictions, but had once more cowered in an
hour of peril. Paul won both Barnabas and Peter to his side and took occasion
to show how useless the death of Christ was if men could be saved by mere legalism
(Galatians 2:21). But the Judaizers had renewed the war, and they would keep it
up and harry the work of Paul all over the world. Paul had the fight of his life
upon his hands.
7. The Second Mission Campaign:
Acts 15:36 - 18:22; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 49-51 (or 52) AD: The impulse to go
out again came from Paul. Despite the difference in Galatians 2:13, he wished
to go again with Barnabas (Acts 15:36), but Barnabas insisted on taking along
John Mark, which Paul was not willing to do because of his failure to stick to
the work at Perga. So they agreed to disagree after "sharp contention" (Acts 15:39).
Barnabas went with Mark to Cyprus, while Paul took Silas, "being commended by
the brethren to the grace of the Lord." Luke follows the career of Paul, and so
Barnabas drops out of view (compare later 1 Corinthians 9:6). Paul and Silas go
"through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches" (Acts 15:41). They pass through
the Cilician gates to Derbe, the end of the first tour, and go to Lystra. Here
they pick up Timothy, who more than takes Mark's place in Paul's life. Timothy's
mother was a Jewess and his father a Greek. Paul decided therefore to have him
circumcised since, as a half-Jew, he would be especially obnoxious to the Jews.
This case differed wholly from that of Titus, a Greek, where principle was involved.
Here it was a matter merely of expediency. Paul had taken the precaution to bring
along the decrees of the Conference at Jerusalem in case there was need of them.
He delivered them to the churches. It has to be noted that in 1 Corinthians 8-10
and in Romans 14 and 15, when discussing the question of eating meats offered
to idols, Paul does not refer to these decrees, but argues the matter purely from
the standpoint of the principles involved. The Judaizers anyhow had not lived
up to the agreement, but Paul is here doing his part by the decision. The result
of the work was good for the churches (Acts 16:4).
When we come to Acts 16:6, we touch a crucial passage in the South-Galatian controversy.
Ramsay (Christianity in the Roman Empire, chapters iii through vi; History and
Geography of Asia Minor; Paul the Traveler, chapters v, vi, viii, ix; The Expositor,
IV, viii, ix, "replies to Chase"; "Galatia," HDB; Commentary on Gal; The Cities
of Paul; The Expositor T, 1912, 1913) has become by his able advocacy the chief
champion of the view that Paul never went to Galatia proper or North Galatia,
and that he addressed his epistle to South Galatia, the churches visited in the
first tour. For a careful history of the whole controversy in detail, see Moffatt,
Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 90-106, who strongly supports
the view of Lightfoot, H.J. Holtzmann, Blass, Schurer, Denney, Chase, Mommsen,
Steinmann, etc. There are powerful names with Ramsay, like Hausrath, Zahn, Barrlet,
Garvie, Weizsacker, etc. The arguments are too varied and minute for complete
presentation here. The present writer sees some very attractive features in the
South-Galatian hypothesis, but as a student of language finds himself unable to
overcome the syntax of Acts 16:6. The minor difficulty is the dropping of kai,
between "Phrygia" and "Galatic region" by Ramsay. It is by no means certain that
this is the idea of Luke. It is more natural to take the terms as distinct and
coordinated by kai. In Paul the Traveler, 212, Ramsay pleads for the aorist of
subsequent time, but Moulton (Prolegomena, 133) will have none of it. With that
I agree. The aorist participle must give something synchronous with or antecedent
to the principal verb. In Expository Times for February, 1913, 220, Ramsay comes
back to the "construction of Acts 16:6." He admits that the weight of authority
is against the Textus Receptus of the New Testament and in favor of dielthon ....
koluthentes. He now interprets the language thus: "Paul, having in mind at Lystra
his plan of going on to Asia from Galatia, was ordered by the Spirit not to preach
in Asia. He therefore made a tour through the Phrygio-Galatic region, which he
had already influenced so profoundly from end to end (Acts 13:49)." But there
is grave difficulty in accepting this interpretation as a solution of the problem.
Ramsay here makes the narrative in Acts 16:6 resumptive and takes us back to the
standpoint of 16:1 at Lystra. The proper place for such a forecast was in 16:1,
or at most before 16:4, which already seems to mark an advance beyond Lystra to
Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia: "and as they went on their way through the cities."
Besides, "the Phrygio-Galatic region" lay between Lystra and Asia, and, according
to Ramsay, after the prohibition in Lystra, he went straight on toward Asia. This
is certainly very artificial and unlike the usual procedure. According to the
other view, Paul had already visited the churches in Lycaonia and Pisidia on his
former visit. He wished to go on west into Asia, probably to Ephesus, but was
forbidden by the Holy Spirit, and as a result turned northward through Phrygia
and the regions of Galatia, using both terms in the ethnographic sense. Paul was
already in the province of Galatia at Derbe and Lystra. The matter has many "ins
and outs" and cannot be argued further here. It is still in debate, but the present
interpretation is in harmony with the narrative in Acts. See also GALATIA; GALATIANS,
EPISTLE TO THE.
By this view Paul had not meant to stop in Galatia proper and did so only because
of an attack of illness (Galatians 4:13). It is possible that Luke may have come
to his rescue here. At any rate, he finally pushes on opposite Mysia and Bithynia
in the extreme north and was forbidden by the Spirit from going on into Bithynia.
So they came down to Troas (Acts 16:7) when Luke ("we," Acts 16:10) appears on
the scene and the Macedonian call comes to Paul. Thus Paul is led out of Asia
into Europe and carries the gospel successively to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea,
Athens, and Corinth. The gospel is finally planted in the great provinces of Macedonia
and Achaia. In Philippi, a Roman colony and military outpost, Paul finds few Jews
and has to go out to a prayer-place to find a few Jewish women to whom he can
tell the story of Jesus. But he gains a start with Lydia and her household, and
soon arouses the hostility of a company of men who were making money out of a
poor girl's powers of divination. But before Paul and Silas leave the jail, the
jailer is himself converted, and a good church is established. At Thessalonica
Paul has great success and arouses the jealousy of the Jews who gather a rabble
and raise a disturbance and charge it up to Paul. At Philippi appeal was made
to prejudice against Jews. At Thessalonica the charge is made that Paul preaches
Jesus as a rival king to Caesar. In Berea Paul and Silas have even more success
till the Jews come from Thessalonica and drive Paul out again. Timothy, who has
come out from Philippi where Luke has remained, and Silas stay in Berea while
Paul hurries on to Athens with some of the brethren, who return with the request
for Timothy and Silas "to come to him with all speed." Apparently Timothy did
come (1 Thessalonians 3:1), but Paul soon sent him back to Thessalonica because
of his anxiety about conditions there. Left alone in Athens, Paul's spirit was
stirred over the idolatry before his eyes. He preaches in the synagogues and argues
with the Stoics and Epicureans in the Agora who make light of his pretensions
to philosophy as a "babbler" (Acts 17:18). But curiosity leads them to invite
him to speak on the Areopagus. This notable address, all alive to his surroundings,
was rather rudely cut short by their indifference and mockery, and Paul left Athens
with small results for his work. He goes over to Corinth, the great commercial
city of the province, rich and with bizarre notions of culture. Paul determined
(1 Corinthians 2:1 - 5) to be true to the cross, even after his experience in
Athens. He gave them, not the flashy philosophy of the sophists, but the true
Wisdom of God in simple words, the philosophy of the cross of Christ (1 Corinthians
1:17 - 3:4). In Corinth Paul found fellow-helpers in Aquila and Priscilla, just
expelled from Rome by Claudius. They have the same trade of tentmakers and live
together (Acts 18:1 - 4), and Paul preached in the synagogues. Paul is cheered
by the coming of Timothy and Silas from Thessalonica (Acts 18:5) with supplies
from Philippi, as they had done while in Thessalonica (Philippians 4:15). This
very success led to opposition, and Paul has to preach in the house of Titus Justus.
But the work goes on till Gallio comes and a renewed effort is made to have it
stopped, but Gallio declines to interfere and thus practically makes Christianity
a religio licita, since he treats it as a variety of Judaism. While here, after
the arrival of Timothy and Silas, Paul writes the two letters to Thessalonica,
the first of his 13 epistles. They are probably not very far apart in time, and
deal chiefly with a grievous misunderstanding on their part concerning the emphasis
placed by him on the Man of Sin and the Second Coming. Paul had felt the power
of the empire, and his attention is sharply drawn to the coming conflict between
the Roman empire and the kingdom of God. He treats it in terms of apocalyptic
eschatology. When he leaves Corinth, it is to go by Ephesus, with Aquila and Priscilla
whom he leaves there with the promise to return. He goes down to Caesarea and
"went up and saluted the church" (Acts 18:22), probably at Jetus (fourth visit),
and "went down to Antioch." If he went to Jerusalem, it was probably incidental,
and nothing of importance happened. He is back once again in Antioch after an
absence of some 3 or 4 years.
8. The Third Mission Campaign:
Acts 18:23 - 21:14 ; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Romans, 52 (or 53)-57 (or
58) AD: The stay of Paul at Antioch is described as "sometime" (Acts 18:23). Denney
(Standard Bible Dictionary) conjectures that Paul's brief stay at Jerusalem (see
above) was due to the fact that he found that the Judaizers had organized opposition
there against him in the absence of the apostles, and it was so unpleasant that
he did not stay. He Suggests also that the Judaizers had secured letters of commendation
from the church for their emissaries (2 Corinthians 3:1) to Corinth and Galatia,
who were preaching "another Jesus" of nationalism and narrowness, whom Paul did
not preach (Galatians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 11:4). Both Denney and Findlay follow
Neander, Wieseler, and Sabatier in placing here, before Paul starts out again
from Antioch, the visit of certain "from James" (Galatians 2:12), who overpowered
Peter for the moment. But I have put this incident as more probably before the
disagreement with Barnabas over Mark, and as probably contributing to that breach
at the beginning of the second tour. It is not necessary to suppose that the Judaizers
remained acquiescent so long.
Paul seems to have set out on the third tour alone--unless Timothy came back with
him, of which there is no evidence save that he is with Paul again in Ephesus
(Acts 19:22). What became of Silas? Paul "went through the region of Galatia,
and Phrygia, in order, establishing all the disciples" (Acts 18:23), the opposite
order to Acts 16:6, "through the region of Phrygia and Galatia." According to
the North-Galatian view, here followed, he went through the northern part of the
province, passing through Galatia proper and Phrygia on his way west to Ephesus.
Luke adds, "Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus" (Acts
19:1). The ministry of Apollos in Ephesus (Acts 18:24 - 28) had taken place before
Paul arrived, though Aquila and Priscilla were still on hand. Apollos passed over
to Corinth and innocently became the occasion of such strife there (1 Corinthians
1 - 4) that he left and refused to return at Paul's request (1 Corinthians 16:12).
Paul has a ministry of 3 years, in round numbers, in Ephesus, which is full of
excitement and anxiety from the work there and in Corinth. He finds on his arrival
some ill-informed disciples of John the Baptist who are ignorant of the chief
elements of John's teaching about repentance, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Acts
19:2 - 7), matters of which Apollos had knowledge, though he learned more from
Priscilla and Aquila, but there is no evidence that he was rebaptized as was true
of the 12 disciples of John (Robertson, John the Loyal, 290-303). The boldness
of Paul in Ephesus led in 3 months to his departure from the synagogue to the
schoolhouse of Tyrannus, where he preached for 2 years (Acts 19:8 - 10) with such
power that "all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord." It is not
strange later to find churches at Colosse and Hierapolis in the Lycus Valley (compare
also Revelation 1:11). Paul has a sharp collision with the strolling Jewish exorcists
that led to the burning of books of magic by the wholesale (Acts 19:11 - 20),
another proof of the hold that magic and the mysteries had upon the Orient. Ephesus
was the seat of the worship of Diana whose wonderful temple was their pride. A
great business in the manufacture of shrines of Diana was carried on here by Demetrius,
and "this Paul" had hurt his trade so much that he raised an insurrection under
the guise of piety and patriotism and might have killed Paul with the mob, if
he could have got hold of him (Acts 19:23 - 41). It was with great difficulty
that Paul was kept from going to the amphitheater, as it was. But here, as at
Corinth, the Roman officer (the town clerk) defended Paul from the rage of his
enemies (there the jealous Jews, here the tradesmen whose business suffered).
He was apparently very ill anyhow, and came near death (2 Corinthians 1:9). All
this seems to have hastened his departure from Ephesus sooner than Pentecost,
as he had written to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:8). His heart was in Corinth
because of the discussions there over him and Apollos and Peter, by reason of
the agitation of the Judaizers (1 Corinthians 1:10 - 17). The household of Chloe
had brought word of this situation to Paul. He had written the church a letter
now lost (1 Corinthians 5:9). They had written him a letter (1 Corinthians 7:1).
They sent messengers to Paul (1 Corinthians 16:17). He had sent Timothy to them
(1 Corinthians 4:17 ; 16:10), who seems not to have succeeded in quieting the
trouble. Paul wrote 1Co (spring of 56), and then sent Titus, who was to meet him
at Troas and report results (2 Corinthians 2:12). He may also have written another
letter and sent it by Titus (2 Corinthians 2:3). The sudden departure from Corinth
brought Paul to Troas ahead of time, but he could not wait for Titus, and so pushed
on with a heavy heart into Macedonia, where he met him, and he had good and bad
news to tell (2 Corinthians 2:12 ; 7:5 - 13). The effect on Paul was instantaneous.
He rebounded to hope and joy (2 Corinthians 2:14) in a glorious defense of the
ministry of Jesus (compare Robertson, The Glory of the Ministry; Paul's Exultation
in Preaching), with a message of cheer to the majority. of the church that had
sustained Paul and with instructions (2 Corinthians 8 and 9) about the collection
for the poor saints in Jerusalem, which must be pushed to a completion by Titus
and two other brethren (possibly also Luke, brother of Titus, and Erastus). Timothy
and Erastus had been sent on ahead to Macedonia from Ephesus (Acts 19:22), and
Timothy sends greetings with Paul to the Corinthians in a letter (2 Corinthians)
which Paul now forwards, possibly by Titus. The latter part of the epistle (1
Corinthians 10 - 13) deals with the stubborn minority who still resist the authority
of Paul as an apostle. On the proposed treatment of these chapters as a separate
epistle see the earlier part of this article. Paul seems to wait a while before
going on to Corinth. He wishes the opposition to have time to repent. During this
period he probably went round about to Illyricum (Romans 15:19). He spent three
months in Greece (Acts 20:2), probably the winter of 56 and 57.
We have placed Galatians in the early part of this stay in Corinth, though it
could have been written while at Ephesus. Romans was certainly written while here,
and they both treat the same general theme of justification by faith. Ramsay (Expos,
February, 1913, 127-45) has at last come to the conclusion that Ga belongs to
the date of Acts 15:1 f. He bases this conclusion chiefly on the "absolute independence"
of his apostleship claimed in Galatians 1 and 2, which, he holds, he would not
have done after the conference in Acts 15, which was "a sacrifice of complete
independence." This is a curious interpretation, for in Galatians 2:1 - 10 Paul
himself tells of his recognition on terms of equality by Peter, John and James,
and of his going to Jerusalem by "revelation," which was just as much "a sacrifice
of complete independence" as we find in Acts 15. Besides, in 2 Corinthians 11:5
and 12:11 Paul expressly asserts his equality (with all humility) with the very
chiefest apostles, and in 1 Corinthians 15:10 he claims in so many words to have
wrought more than all the apostles. Perhaps messengers from Galatia with the contributions
from that region report the havoc wrought there by the Judaizers. Ga is a tremendous
plea for the spiritual nature of Christianity as opposed to Jewish ceremonial
legalism.
Paul had long had it in mind to go to Rome. It was his plan to do so while at
Ephesus (Acts 19:21) after he had gone to Jerusalem with the great collection
from the churches of Asia, Galatia, Achaia, and Macedonia. He hoped that this
collection would have a mollifying effect on the Jerusalem saints as that from
Antioch had (Acts 11:29). He had changed some details in his plans, but not the
purpose to go to Jerusalem and then to Rome. Meanwhile, he writes the longest
and most important letter of all to the Romans, in which he gives a fuller statement
of his gospel, because they had not heard him preach, save his various personal
friends who had gone there from the east (Acts 16). But already the shadow of
Jerusalem is on his heart, and he asks their prayers in his behalf, as he faces
his enemies in Jerusalem (Romans 15:30 - 32). He hopes also to go on to Spain
(Romans 15:24), so as to carry the gospel to the farther west also. The statesmanship
of Paul comes out now in great clearness. He has in his heart always anxiety for
the churches that consumes him (2 Corinthians 11:28). He was careful to have a
committee of the churches go with him to report the collection (2 Corinthians
8:19). Paul had planned to sail direct for Syria, but a plot on his life in Corinth
led him to go by land via Macedonia with his companions (Acts 20:2 - 4). He tarried
at Philippi while the rest went on to Troas. At Philippi Paul is joined again
by Luke, who stays with him till Rome is reached. They celebrate the Passover
(probably the spring of 57) in Philippi (Acts 20:6). We cannot follow the details
in Acts at Troas, the voyage through the beautiful Archipelago, to Miletus. There
Paul took advantage of the stop to send for the elders of Ephesus to whom he gave
a wonderful address (Acts 20:17 - 38). They change ships at Patara for Phoenicia
and pass to the right of Cyprus with its memories of Barnabas and Sergius Paulus
and stop at Tyre, where Paul is warned not to go on to Jerusalem. The hostility
of the Judaizers to Paul is now common talk everywhere. There is grave peril of
a schism in Christianity over the question of Gentile liberty, once settled in
Jerusalem, but unsettled by the Judaizers. At Caesarea Paul is greeted by Philip
the evangelist and his four daughters (prophetesses). At Caesarea Paul is warned
in dramatic fashion by Agabus (compare Acts 11:28) not to go on to Jerusalem (Acts
21:9), but Paul is more determined than ever to go, even if he die (Acts 20:13).
He had had three premonitions for long (Acts 20:22), but he will finish his course,
cost what it may. He finds a friend at Caesarea in Mnason of Cyprus, an early
disciple, who was to be the host of Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:16).
9. Five Years a Prisoner:
Acts 21:17 - 28:31 ; Philippians; Philemon; Colossians; Ephesians, 57-62 (or 63)
AD: Paul had hoped to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (Acts 20:16). He seems to have
done so. Luke gives the story of Paul in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and the voyage to
Rome in much detail. He was with him and considered this period of his ministry
very important. The welcome from the brethren in Jerusalem was surprisingly cordial
(Acts 21:17). On the very next day Paul and his party made a formal call on James
and all the elders (Acts 21:18), who gave a sympathetic hearing to the narrative
of God's dealings with Paul and the Gentiles. He presented the alms (collection)
in due form (Acts 24:17), though some critics have actually suggested that Paul
used it to defray the expenses of the appeal to Caesar. Ramsay's notion that he
may have fallen heir by now to his portion of his father's estate is quite probable.
But the brethren wish to help Paul set himself right before the rank and file
of the church in Jerusalem, who have been imposed upon by the Judaizers who have
misrepresented Paul's real position by saying that he urged the Jewish Christians
to give up the Mosaic customs (Acts 21:21). The elders understand Paul and recall
the decision of the conference at which freedom was guaranteed to the Gentiles,
and they have no wish to disturb that (Acts 21:25). They only wish Paul to show
that he does not object to the Jewish Christians keeping up the Mosaic regulations.
They propose that Paul offer sacrifice publicly in the temple and pay the vows
of four men, and then all will know the truth (Acts 21:23). Paul does not hesitate
to do that (Acts 21:26). He had kept the Jewish feasts (compare Acts 20:6) as
Jesus had done, and the early disciples in Jerusalem. He was a Jew. He may have
had a vow at Corinth (Acts 18:18). He saw no inconsistency in a Jew doing thus
after becoming a Christian, provided he did not make it obligatory on Gentiles.
The real efficacy of the sacrifices lay in the death of Jesus for sin. Garvie
(Life and Teaching of Paul, 173) calls this act of Paul "scarcely, worthy of his
courage as a man or his faith in God." I cannot see it in that light. It is a
matter of practical wisdom, not of principle. To have refused would have been
to say that the charge was true, and it was not. So far as the record goes, this
act of Paul accomplished its purpose in setting Paul in a right light before the
church in Jerusalem. It took away this argument from the Judaizers. The trouble
that now comes to Paul does not come from the Judaizers, but from "the Jews from
Asia" (Acts 21:27). If it be objected that the Jerusalem Christians seem to have
done nothing to help Paul during his years of imprisonment, it can be said that
there was little to be done in a legal way, as the matter was before the Roman
courts very soon. The attack on Paul in the temple was while he was doing honor
to the temple, engaged in actual worship offering sacrifices. But then Jews from
Ephesus hated him so that they imagined that he had Greeks with him in the Jewish
court, because they had seen him one day with Trophimus in the city (Acts 21:27).
It is a splendid illustration of the blindness of prejudice and hate. It was absolutely
untrue, and the men who raised the hue and cry in the temple against Paul as the
desecrator of the holy place and the Law and the people disappear, and are never
heard of more (Acts 24:18). But it will take Paul five years or more of the prime
of his life to get himself out of the tangled web that will be woven about his
head. Peril follows peril. He was almost mobbed, as often before, by the crowd
that dragged him out of the temple (Acts 21:30). It would remind Paul of Stephen's
fate. When the Roman captain rescued him and had him bound with two chains as
a dangerous bandit, and had him carried by the soldiers to save his life, the
mob yelled "Away with him" (Acts 21:36), as they had done to Jesus. After the
captain, astonished that "Paul the Egyptian assassin" can speak Greek, grants
him permission to stand on the steps of the tower of Antonia to speak to the mob
that clamored for his blood, he held their rapt attention by an address in Aramaic
(Acts 22:2) in which he gave a defense of his whole career. This they heard eagerly
till he spoke the word "Gentiles," at which they raged more violently than ever
(Acts 22:21). At this the captain has Paul tied with thongs, not understanding
his Aramaic speech, and is about to scourge him when Paul pleads his Roman citizenship,
to the amazement of the centurion (Acts 22:24). Almost in despair, the captain,
wishing to know the charge of the Jews against Paul, brings him before the Sanhedrin.
It is a familiar scene to Paul, and it is now their chance for settling old scores.
Paul makes a sharp retort in anger to the high priest Ananias, for which he apologizes
as if he was so angry that he had not noticed, but he soon divides the Sanhedrin
hopelessly on the subject of the resurrection (compare the immunity of the disciples
on that issue when Gamaliel scored the Sadducees in Ac 5). This was turning the
tables on his enemies, and was justifiable as war. He claimed to be a Pharisee
on this point, as he was still, as opposed to the Sadducees. The result was that
Paul had to be rescued from the contending factions, and the captain knew no more
than he did before (Acts 23:1 - 10). That night "the Lord stood by him" and promised
that he would go to Rome (Acts 23:11). That was a blessed hope. But the troubles
of Paul are by no means over. By the skill of his nephew he escaped the murderous
plot of 40 Jews who had taken a vow not to eat till they had killed Paul (Acts
23:12 - 24). They almost succeeded, but Claudius Lysias sent Paul in haste with
a band of soldiers to Caesarea to Felix, the procurator, with a letter in which
he claimed to have rescued Paul from the mob, "having learned that he was a Roman"
(Acts 23:26 - 30). At any rate he was no longer in the clutches of the Jews. Would
Roman provincial justice be any better? Felix follows a perfunctory course with
Paul and shows some curiosity about Christianity, till Paul makes him tremble
with terror, a complete reversal of situations (compare Pilate's meanness before
Jesus). But love of money from Paul or the Jews leads Felix to keep Paul a prisoner
for two years, though convinced of his innocence, and to hand him over to Festus,
his successor, because the Jews might make things worse for him if he released
him (Acts 24). The case of the Sanhedrin, who have now made it their own (or at
least the Sadducean section), though pleaded by the Roman orator Tertullus, had
fallen through as Paul calmly riddied their charges. Festus is at first at a loss
how to proceed, but he soon follows the steps of Felix by offering to play into
the hands of the Jewish leaders by sending Paul back to Jerusalem, whereupon Paul
abruptly exercises his right of Roman citizenship by appealing to Caesar (Acts
25:1 - 12). This way, though a long one, offered the only ray of hope. The appearance
of Paul before Agrippa and Bernice was simply by way of entertainment arranged
by Festus to relieve his guests of ennui, but Paul seized the opportunity to make
a powerful appeal to Agrippa that put him in a corner logically, though he wriggled
out and declined to endorse Christianity, though confirming Paul's innocence,
which Festus also had admitted (Acts 25:13 - 26:32). Paul was fortunate in the
centurion Julius who took him to Rome, for he was kindly disposed to him at the
start, and so it was all the way through the most remarkable voyage on record.
Luke has surpassed his own record in Acts 27, in which he traces the voyage, stage
by stage, with change of ship at Myra, delay at Fair Havens, Crete, and shipwreck
on the island of Malta. More is learned about ancient seafaring from this chapter
than from any other source (see the article PHOENIX, and Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck
of Paul, 1866). In it all Paul is the hero, both on the ships and in Malta. In
the early spring of 60 another ship takes Paul and the other prisoners to Puteoli.
Thence they go on to Rome, and enter by the Appian Way. News of Paul's coming
had gone on before (his epistle had come 3 years ago), and he had a hearty welcome.
But he is now an imperial prisoner in the hands of Nero. He has more liberty in
his own hired house (Acts 28:16 , 30), but he is chained always to a Roman soldier,
though granted freedom to see his friends and to preach to the soldiers. Paul
is anxious to remove any misapprehensions that the Jews in Rome may have about
him, and tries to win them to Christ, and with partial success (Acts 28:17 - 28).
And here Luke leaves him a prisoner for 2 years more, probably because at this
point he finishes the Book of Acts. But, as we have seen, during these years in
Rome, Paul wrote Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians. He still has
the churches on his heart. They send messengers to him, and he writes back to
them. The incipient Gnosticism of the East has pressed upon the churches at Colosse
and Laodicea, and a new peril confronts Christianity. The Judaizing controversy
has died away with these years (compare Philippians 3:1 for an echo of it), but
the dignity and glory of Jesus are challenged. In the presence of the power of
Rome Paul rises to a higher conception than even that of the person of Christ
and the glory of the church universal. In due time Paul's case was disposed of
and he was once more set free. The Romans were proverbially dilatory. It is doubtful
if his enemies ever appeared against him with formal charges.
10. Further Travels:
The genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles is here assumed. But for them we should
know nothing further, save from a few fragments in the early Christian writings.
As it is, some few who accept the Pastoral Epistles seek to place them before
64 AD, so as to allow for Paul's death in that year from the Neronian persecution.
In that case, he was not released. There is no space here to argue the question
in detail. We can piece together the probable course of events. He had expected
when in Corinth last to go on to Spain (Romans 15:28), but now in Rome his heart
turns back to the east again. He longs to see the Philippians (1:23) and hopes
to see Philemon in Colosse (Philemon 1:22). But he may have gone to Spain also,
as Clement of Rome seems to imply (Clement ad Cor 5), and as is stated in the
Canon of Muratori. He may have been in Spain when Rome was burned July 19, 64
AD. There is no evidence that Paul went as far as Britain. On his return east
he left Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5). He touched at Miletus when he left Trophimus
sick (2 Timothy 4:20) and when he may have met Timothy, if he did not go on to
Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). He stopped at Troas and apparently expected to come back
here, as he left his cloak and books with Carpus (2 Timothy 4:13). He was on his
way to Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3), whence he writes Timothy in 65-67 a letter full
of love and counsel for the future. Paul is apprehensive of the grave perils now
confronting Christianity. Besides the Judaizers, the Gnostics, the Jews and the
Romans, he may have had dim visions of the conflict with the mystery-religions.
It was a syncretistic age, and men had itching ears. But Paul is full of sympathy
and tender solicitude for Timothy, who must push on the work and get ready for
it. Paul expects to spend the winter in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), but is apparently
still in Macedonia when he writes to Titus a letter on lines similar to those
in 1 Timothy, only the note is sharper against Judaism of a certain type. We catch
another glimpse of Apollos in Titus 3:13. Paul hits off the Cretans in 1:10 with
a quotation from Epimenides, one of their own poetic prophets.
11. Last Imprisonment and Death:
68 (or 67) AD: When Paul writes again to Timothy he has had a winter in prison,
and has suffered greatly from the cold and does not wish to spend another winter
in the Mamertine (probably) prison (2 Timothy 4:13 , 21). We do not know what
the charges now are. They may have been connected with the burning of Rome. There
were plenty of informers eager to win favor with Nero. Proof was not now necessary.
Christianity is no longer a religio licita under the shelter of Judaism. It is
now a crime to be a Christian. It is dangerous to be seen with Paul now, and he
feels the desertion keenly (2 Timothy 1:15 ; 4:10). Only Luke, the beloved physician,
is with Paul (2 Timothy 4:11), and such faithful ones as live in Rome still in
hiding (2 Timothy 4:21). Paul hopes that Timothy may come and bring Mark also
(2 Timothy 4:11). Apparently Timothy did come and was put into prison (Hebrews
13:23). Paul is not afraid. He knows that he will die. He has escaped the mouth
of the lion (2 Timothy 4:17), but he will die (2 Timothy 4:18). The Lord Jesus
stood by him, perhaps in visible presence (2 Timothy 4:17). The tradition is,
for now Paul fails us, that Paul, as a Roman citizen, was beheaded on the Ostian
Road just outside of Rome. Nero died June, 68 AD, so that Paul was executed before
that date, perhaps in the late spring of that year (or 67). Perhaps Luke and Timothy
were with him. It is fitting, as Findlay suggests, to let Paul's words in 2 Timothy
4:6 - 8 serve for his own epitaph. He was ready to go to be with Jesus, as he
had long wished to be (Philippians 1:23). |
VI. GOSPEL
I had purposed to save adequate space for the discussion of Paul's theology, but
that is not now possible. A bare sketch must suffice. Something was said (see
above on his epistles and equipment) about the development in Paul's conception
of Christ and his message about Him. Paul had a gospel which he called his own
(Romans 2:16). I cannot agree with the words of Deissmann (St. Paul, 6): "St.
Paul theologian looks backward toward rabbinism. As a religious genius Paul's
outlook is forward into a future of universal history." He did continue to use
some rabbinical methods of argument, but his theology was not rabbinical. And
he had a theology. He was the great apostle and missionary to the heathen. He
was a Christian statesman with far-seeing vision. He was the loving pastor with
the shepherd heart. He was the great martyr for Christ. He was the wonderful preacher
of Jesus. But he was also "Paul theologian" (Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul,
chapter v) . There are two ways of studying his teaching. One is to take it by
groups of the epistles, the purely historical method, and that has some advantages
(compare Sabatier, The Apostle Paul). But at bottom Paul has the same message
in each group, though with varying emphasis due to special exigencies. The same
essential notes occur all through. The more common method, therefore, is to Study
his gospel topically, using all the epistles for each topic. A measure of historical
development may still be observed. Only the chief notes in Paul's gospel can be
mentioned here. Even so, one must not turn to his epistles for a complete system
of doctrine. The epistles are "occasional letters, pieces de circonstance" (Findlay,
HDB), and they do not profess, not even Romans, to give a full summary of Christian
doctrine. They are vital documents that throb with life. There is no theological
manual in them. But Paul's gospel is adequately stated repeatedly. Paul's message
is Christocentric. Jesus as Messiah he preached at once on his conversion (Acts
9:20 , 22). He knew already the current Jewish Messianism to which Jesus did not
correspond. The acceptance of Jesus as He was (the facts about Him and teachings)
revolutionized his Messianic conceptions, his view of God, and his view of man.
"When he takes and uses the Messianic phraseology of his day, he fills it with
a meaning new and rich" (Rostron, Christology of Paul, 31). Paul was not merely
a new creature himself, but he had a new outlook: "Wherefore we henceforth know
no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet
now we know him so no more. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature:
the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. But all things are
of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry
of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,
not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word
of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:16 - 19). Perhaps no single passage in Paul's
Epistles tells us more than this one of the change in Paul's theological conceptions
wrought by his conversion. His view of Christ as the revealer of God (God in Christ)
and the manifestation of love for men (of God, who reconciled us to Himself, reconciling
the world to Himself) and the means (through Christ) by whom God is able to forgive
our sins ("not reckoning unto them their trespasses") on the basis of the atoning
death of Christ ("wherefore"; for this see 2 Corinthians 5:14 f just before 5:16)
with whom the believer has vital union ("in Christ") and who transforms the nature
and views of the believer, is here thoroughly characteristic. Paul's passion is
Christ (2 Corinthians 5:14; Philippians 1:21). To gain Christ (Philippians 3:8),
to know Christ (Philippians 3:10), to be found in Christ (Philippians 3:9), to
know Christ as the mystery of God (Colossians 2:2), to be hid with Christ in God
(Colossians 3:3)--this with the new Paul is worth while. Thus Paul interprets
God and man, by his doctrine of Christ. To him Jesus is Christ and Christ is Jesus.
He has no patience with the incipient Cerinthian Gnosticism, nor with the docetic
Gnosticism that denied the true humanity of Jesus. The real mystery of God is
Christ, not the so-called mystery-religions. Christ has set us free from the bondage
of ceremonial legalism. We are free from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13).
Grace is the distinctive word for the gospel (Romans 3 - 5), but it must lead
to sanctification (Romans 6 - 8), not license (Colossians 3). Paul's Christology
is both theocentric and anthropocentric, but it is theocentric first. His notion
of redemption is the love of God seeking a world lost in sin and finding love's
way, the only way consonant with justice, in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ
His Son (Romans 3:21 - 31). The sinner comes into union with God in Christ by
faith in Christ as Redeemer and Lord. Henceforth he lives to God in. Christ by
the help of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8; Galatians 5). Paul presents God as Father
of all in one sense (Ephesians 4:6), but in a special sense of the believers in
Christ (Romans 8:15). Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the pre-incarnate Son
of God (2 Corinthians 8:9 ; Philippians 2:5 - 10), who is both God and man (Romans
1:3). With Paul the agent of creation is Jesus (Colossians 1:15), who is also
the head of the church universal (Colossians 1:18 ; Ephesians 1:22). In the work
of Christ Paul gives the central place to the cross (1 Corinthians 1:17 ; 2:2
; Colossians 2:20 ; Ephesians 2:13 - 18). Sin is universal in humanity (Romans
1:18 - 3:20), but the vicarious death of Christ makes redemption possible to all
who believe (Romans 3:21 ; Galatians 3:6 - 11). The redeemed constitute the kingdom
of God or church universal, with Christ as head. Local bodies (churches) are the
chief means for pushing the work of the kingdom. Paul knows two ordinances, both
of which present in symbolic form the death of Christ for sin and the pledge of
the believer to newness of life in Christ. These ordinances are baptism (Romans
6:1 - 11) and the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17 - 34). If he knew the mystery-religions,
they may have helped him by way of illustration to present his conception of the
mystic union with Christ. Paul is animated by the hope of the second coming of
Christ, which will be sudden (1 Thessalonians 5:1 - 11) and not probably at once
(2 Thessalonians 2), but was to be considered as always imminent (1 Thessalonians
5:2). Meanwhile, death brings us to Christ, which is a glorious hope to Paul (2
Corinthians 5:1 - 10 ; Philippians 1:21 ; 2 Timothy 4:18). But, while Paul was
a theologian in the highest and best sense of the term, the best interpreter of
Christ to men, he was also an ethical teacher. He did not divorce ethics from
religion. He insisted strongly on the spiritual experience of Christ as the beginning
and the end of it all, as opposed to mere ritualistic ceremonies which had destroyed
the life of Judaism. But all the more Paul demanded the proof of life as opposed
to mere profession. See Romans 6-8 in particular. In most of the epistles the
doctrinal section is followed by practical exhortations to holy living. Mystic
as Paul was, the greatest of all mystics, he was the sanest of moralists and had
no patience with hypocrites or licentious pietists or idealists who allowed sentimentalism
and emotionalism to take the place of righteoushess. His notion of the righteousness
demanded by God and given by God included both sanctification and justification.
In the end, the sinner who for Christ's sake is treated as righteous must be righteous.
Thus the image of God is restored in man by the regenerating work of the Spirit
of God (2 Corinthians 3:18). Paul sees God in the face of Christ (2 Corinthians
4:6), and the vision of Christ brings God to all who see.
LITERATURE
Out of the vast Pauline literature the following selections may be mentioned:
(1) General Works:
Addis, Christianity and the Roman Empire, 1893; Bartlet, The Apostolic Age, 1899;
Bohlig, Die Geisteskultur yon Tarsos, 1913; Clemen, Primitive Christianity and
Its Non-Jewish Sources, 1912; Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, 1911;
Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1910; Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology,
1912; Dollinger, Gentile and Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ, translation,
1862; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, 1882, Darkness and Dawn, 1893; Ferrero,
Greatness and Decline of Rome, 1908; Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under
the Early Empire; Glover, Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, 1910;
Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verst. d. New Testament, 1903; Hausrath,
Time of the Apostles, translation; Neander, Planting and Training of the Christian
Church, translation; McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age,
1897; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia,
1895, The First Christian Century, 1911; Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen,
1910; Ropes, The Apostolic Age, 1906; Schurer, HJP; Weizsacker, The Apostolic
Age in the Christian Church, 1894-95.
(2) Introductions:
E. Burton, Chronicle of Paul's Epistles; Clemen, Die Chron der Paulinischen Briefe,
1893, Die Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe, 1894; Findlay, Epistles of
Paul the Apostle, 1893; Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, 1876; Gregory,
Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1900; Herr, Prolegomena to Romans and Ephesians,
1895; Harnack, The Ac of the Apostles, 1909, Date of the Ac and the Synoptic Gospels,
1911, History of Early Christian Literature until Eusebius, 1897; Holtzmann, Einleitung3,
1892; James, Genuineness and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, 1906; Julicher,
Introduction to the New Testament, 1903; Lake, Earlier Epistles of Paul, 1911;
Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 1911; Peake, Critical
Introduction to the New Testament, 1909; Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament,
1892; R. Scott, Epistles of Paul, 1909; Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, 1903; von
Soden, History of Early Christian Literature, 1906; B. Weiss, Present State of
the Inquiry Concerning the Genuineness of Paul's Epistles, 1897; Zahn, Introduction
to the New Testament, 1909.
(3) Commentaries:
For exegetical commentaries on special epistles see special articles For the ancients
see Chrysostom for the Greeks, and Pelagius for the Latins. For the Middle Ages
see Thomas Aquinas. For the later time see Beza, Calvin, Colet, Estius, Grotius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Wettstein, Bengel. Among the moderns note Alford, Beet (Romans-Colossians),
Boise, Bible for Home and School, Cambridge Bible for Schools, Cambridge Greek
Testament, New Century Bible; Drummond, Epistles of Paul, Ellicott (all but Romans
and 2 Corinthians), Expositor's Bible, Expositor's Greek Testament; Holtzmann,
Hand-Comm. zum New Testament; Jewett (1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Galatians),
Lightfoot (Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and Notes), Lietzmann,
Handbuch zum New Testament; Meyer (translation, revised German editions), Zahn,
Kommentar zum New Testament.
(4) Lives and Monographs:
Albrecht, Paulus der Apestel Jesu Christi, 1903; Bacon, The Story of Paul, 1904;
Bartlet, article in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition; Baring-Gould, A Study
of Paul, 1897; Baur, The Apostle Paul(2), 1845; Bevan, Paul in the Light of Today,
1912; Bird, Paul of Tarsus, 1900; Campbell, Paul the Mystic, 1907; Chrysostom,
Homiliae in Laude S. Pauli, Opera, volume II, edition Montf. (more critically
in Field's edition); Clemen, Paulus, 1904; Cone, Paul the Man, the Missionary,
1898; Cohu, Paul in the Light of Recent Research, 1910; Conybeare and Howson,
Life and Epistles of Paul (many editions); Deissmann, Paul, 1912; Drescher, Das
Leben Jesu bei Paulus, 1900; Drury, The Prison Ministry of Paul, 1910; Eadie,
Paul the Preacher, 1859; Farrar, Life and Work of Paul (various editions); Erbes,
Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus und Petrus, 1899; Fletcher, A Study of the Conversion
of Paul, 1911; Forbes, Footsteps of Paul in Rome, 1899; Fouard, Paul and His Mission,
1894, Last Years of Paul, 1897; Gardner, Religious Experience of Paul, 1911; Garvie,
Life and Teaching of Paul, 1909, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1911; Gilbert,
Student's Life of Paul, 1899; Heim, Paulus, 1905; Honnicke, Chronologie des Lebens
Pauli, 1904; Iverach, Paul, His Life and Time, 1890; Johnston, The Mission of
Paul to the Roman Empire, 1909; M. Jones, Paul the Orator, 1910; Kennedy, Paul
and the Mystery-Religions, 1913; Kohler, Zum Verstandnis d. Apostels Paulus, 1908;
Lewin, Life and Epistles of Paul, 1875; Lock, Paul the Master Builder, 1905; Lyttleton,
Observations on Saul's Conversion, 1774; Myers, Saint Paul (various editions);
Matheson, Spiritual Development of Paul, 1891; Means, Paul and the Ante-Nicene
Church, 1903; Noesgen, Paulus der Apostel der Heiden, 1908; Paley, Horae Paulinae,
1790; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 1896, Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, Cities
of Paul, 1908, Luke the Physician and Other Studies, 1908, Pictures of the Apostolic
Church, 1910; Renan, Paul, 1869; A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul,
1909, The Glory of the Ministry or Paul's Exultation in Preaching, 1911; Sabatier,
The Apostle Paul, 1896; Selden, In the Time of Paul, 1900; Schweitzer, Paul and
His Interpreters, 1912; Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul4, 1880; Speer, The
Man Paul, 1900; Stalker, Life of Paul, 1889; Taylor, Paul the Missionary, 1882;
Underhill, Divine Legation of Paul, 1889; Weinel, Paul (translation, 1906); Whyte,
The Apostle Paul, 1903; Wilkinson, Epic of Saul, 1891, Epic of Paul, 1897; Wrede,
Paulus(2), 1907 (translation); Wright, Cities of Paul, 1907; Wynne, Fragmentary
Records of Jesus of Nazareth by a Contemporary, 1887.
(5) Teaching:
A.B.D. Alexander, The Ethics of Paul, 1910; S.A. Alexander, Christianity of Paul,
1899; Anonymous, The Fifth Gospel, 1906; R. Allen, Christelegy of Paul, 1912;
M. Arnold, Paul and Protestantism, 1897; Ball, Paul and the Roman Law, 1901; Breitenstein,
Jesus et Paul, 1908; Bruce, Paul's Conception of Christianity, 1898; Bruckner,
Die Entstehung der Paulinischen Christologie, 1903; Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulin.
Predigt und die kyn. Diatribe, 1910; Chadwick, Social Teaching of Paul, 1907,
Pastoral Teaching of Paul, 1907; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus,
1909; Dickie, Culture of the Spiritual Life, 1905; Dickson, Paul's Use of the
Terms Flesh and Spirit, 1883; Du Bose, Gospel according to Paul, 1907; Dykes,
Gospel according to Paul, 1888; Everett, Gospel of Paul, 1893; Feine, Paul as
Theologian (translation, 1908); Greenough, Mind of Christ in Paul; Goguel, L'Apotre
Paul et Jesus Christ, 1904; Harford, The Gospel according to Paul, 1912; Hicks,
"St. Paul and Hellenism," Stud. Bibl., IV; Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus,
1898; Julicher, Paulus und Jesus, 1907; Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus, 1906; Kennedy,
Paul's Conceptions of Last Things, 1904; Knowling, Testimony of Paul to Christ
(3rd edition, 1911); A. Meyer, Jesus or Paul? 1909; Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism,
1910; Montet, Essai sur la christologie de Saint Paul, 1906; Nageli, Der Wortschatz
des Apostels Paulus, 1905; Oehler, Paulus und Jesus, 1908; Paterson, The Pauline
Theology, 1903; Pfleidercr, Paulinismus, 1873, Influence of the Apostle Paul on
the Development of Christianity, 1885; Prat, La theologie de Saint Paul, 1907;
Ramsay, The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day, 1913; Resch, Paulinismus
und die Logia Jesu, 1904; Rostron, The Christology of Paul, 1912; Simon, Die Psychologie
des Apostels Paulus, 1897; Somerville, Paul's Conception of Christ, 1897; Stevens,
The Pauline Theology, 1894; Thackeray, Relation of Paul to Contemporary Jewish
Thought, 1900; J. Weiss, Paul and Jesus, 1909; Paul and Justification, 1913; Williams,
A Plea for a Reconstruction of Paul's Doctrine of Justification, 1912; Wustmann,
Jesus und Paulus, 1907; Zahn, Das Gesetz Gottes nach der Lehre des Apostels Paulus(2),
1892. |
A. T. Robertson
Tags:
apostle, baptized by ananias, barnabas, beheaded in rome, bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, blinded by light, chronology of paul, epistle, former persecutor of christians (jesus), missionary, native of tarsus, paul, prisoner, refused to travel with mark (2nd mission), road to damascus (conversion), roman jew, saul, silas, tent maker
Comments:
|
 |
|
