|
Homepage |
|
|
|
Grace Children Home |
|
|
|
Kids for Jesus |
|
|
|
Our Indian counterpart |
|
|
|
Guestbook |
|
|
|
Paul, the Apostle |
|
|
|
Paul - II |
|
|
|
Paul - III |
|
|
|
Serving God |
|
|
|
Peter |
|
|
|
Bible Timeline |
|
|
|
Lord's Supper |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
Paul - III
contd... from II
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, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)). 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 (Ephes. 6:4) may imply that
his own father had cast him out at this time. Findlay (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible
(five volumes)) 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 Cor. 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
11:29f). Findlay (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)) 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 Cor. 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 11:23f) 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 11:25ff). 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 4:36f), 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 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, 62ff) argues strongly for identifying the revelation mentioned in Paul's speech
in Acts 22:20f with this visit in Acts 11:30 (Acts 12:25), rather than with the one in Acts
9:29f. 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 Acts 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 (Col. 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 13:10ff) in the exercise of that apostolic power
which he afterward claimed with such vigor (1 Cor. 5:4f; 2 Cor. 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 13:45ff). But the Jews reached the
city magistrate through the influential women, and Paul and Barnabas were ordered to
leave (Acts 13:50f). 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; Galatians 3:1) in South Galatia. Besides,
there is the less likelihood that the matter would have been taken a second time to
Jerusalem (Acts 15:2f) 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 (Acts
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 11:1f) 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 11:19ff) by the help of the contribution (Acts
11:29f). 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 15:4f) to
which instant exception was made by the Judaizing element. There seems to have come
an adjournment to prepare for the conflict, since in Acts 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
9:11f 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 a 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 Acts 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 2:11f), 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 15:19ff;
Galatians 2:9f). 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 Thessalonians 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 15:39f).
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 Cor. 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
Cor. 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," Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five
volumes); Commentary on Galatians; 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 êáß, kaŒñ,
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
kaΖ. 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, 220f, 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 êéyëèïí . . . . êùëõèÝíôåò, dieôñlthon . . . .
koôlutheñntes. 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 Acts
16:1 at Lystra. The proper place for such a forecast was in Acts 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: GALATIA
» See: 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 16:7f) 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 Thes. 3:1f), 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 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 (Phil. 4:15f). 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 Corinthians 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 Cor. 3:1) to Corinth and Galatia, who were preaching "another
Jesus" of nationalism and narrowness, whom Paul did not preach (Galatians 1:6; 2 Cor.
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 Cor. 1-4) that he left and refused to return at Paul's
request (1 Cor. 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 Rev. 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 Cor. 1:9). All this seems to have hastened his departure from Ephesus
sooner than Pentecost, as he had written to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 5:9).
They had written him a letter (1 Cor. 7:1). They sent messengers to Paul (1 Cor. 16:17).
He had sent Timothy to them (1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Cor. 16:10), who seems not to have
succeeded in quieting the trouble. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (spring of 56), and then sent
Titus, who was to meet him at Troas and report results (2 Cor. 2:12f). He may also have
written another letter and sent it by Titus (2 Cor. 2:3f). 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 Cor. 2:12ff; 2 Cor. 7:5-13). The effect on Paul was instantaneous.
He rebounded to hope and joy (2 Cor. 2:14ff) 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 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 20:2f), 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 Galatians belongs to the date of
Acts 15:1f. 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 Cor. 11:5 and 12:11 Paul expressly asserts his equality (with all
humility) with the very chiefest apostles, and in 1 Cor. 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. Galatians
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 11:29f).
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 Cor. 11:28f). He was careful to have a
committee of the churches go with him to report the collection (2 Cor. 8:19f). 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 21:9ff), but Paul is more
determined than ever to go, even if he die (Acts 20:13). He had had three premonitions
for long (Acts 20:22ff), 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 21:18f), 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 21:23f). Paul does not
hesitate to do that (Acts 21:26ff). 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 21:27ff). 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 24:18f). 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 21:30f). 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 21:36f), 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 22:21ff). 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
22:24ff). 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 Acts 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 Phil. 3:1ff 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 1:23ff 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 Tim. 4:20) and when he may have met Timothy, if he did not go on to
Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3). He stopped at Troas and apparently expected to come back here,
as he left his cloak and books with Carpus (2 Tim. 4:13). He was on his way to
Macedonia (1 Tim. 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 Titus 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 Tim. 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 Tim. 1:15ff; 2
Tim. 4:10). Only Luke, the beloved physician, is with Paul (2 Tim. 4:11), and such
faithful ones as live in Rome still in hiding (2 Tim. 4:21). Paul hopes that Timothy may
come and bring Mark also (2 Tim. 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 Tim. 4:17), but he will die (2 Tim. 4:18). The Lord
Jesus stood by him, perhaps in visible presence (2 Tim. 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 Tim. 4:6-8 serve for his
own epitaph. He was ready to go to be with Jesus, as he had long wished to be (Phil.
1:23).
Continued from . . .
»Paul, The Apostle
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, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)), 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 5:14f 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 Cor. 5:14; Phil. 1:21). To gain Christ (Phil. 3:8), to know Christ (Phil. 3:10), to be found in Christ (Phil. 3:9), to know Christ as the mystery of God (Col. 2:2f), to be hid with Christ in God (Col. 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 (Col. 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 (Ephes. 4:6), but in a special sense of the believers in Christ (Romans 8:15f). Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the pre-incarnate Son of God (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-10), who is both God and man (Romans 1:3f). With Paul the agent of creation is Jesus (Col. 1:15f), who is also the head of the church universal (Col. 1:18; Ephes. 1:22f). In the work of Christ Paul gives the central place to the cross (1 Cor. 1:17f; 1 Cor. 2:2; Col. 2:20; Ephes. 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 3:21ff; 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 Cor. 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 Thes. 5:1-11) and not probably at once (2 Thes. 2), but was to be considered as always imminent (1 Thes. 5:2ff). Meanwhile, death brings us to Christ, which is a glorious hope to Paul (2 Cor. 5:1-10; Phil. 1:21ff; 2 Tim. 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 Cor. 3:18). Paul sees God in the face of Christ (2 Cor. 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 Acts of the Apostles, 1909, Date of the Acts 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, Ha
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
