Later Judaism thus preserved the manifoldness of prophecy. There was

exaggeration and there was one-sidedness; but in Judaism as a whole

the promise was preserved. One element at most was forgotten--the

suffering servant and his sacrificial death. The death of the

Messiah was no easy conception. The disciples had difficulty with

it. When Peter heard of it, he took Jesus, and began to rebuke him.

Matt. 16:22. The lesson was not easy, but it had to be learned. And

it was worth learning. The cross is the heart of the gospel.

Thus in Jesus nothing was left out, except what was false. The

whole promise was preserved. The revealer of God, the ruler of the

kingdom, the great high priest, the human deliverer, the divine

Lord--these are the elements of the promise. They find their union

in Christ. Leave one out, and the promise is mutilated. Such

mutilation is popular to-day. The whole Christ seems too wonderful.

But the Church can be satisfied with nothing less.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Beecher, "The Prophets and the Promise," pp.

173-420.

LESSON VII

THE BOOK OF THE ACTS

The teaching of the lesson may be begun with some very simple

questions. If rightly put, they will open up a fresh way of

looking at a New Testament book. The way will thus be prepared for

considering the deeper elements of the lesson. If interest can be

aroused in the book itself, the contents of the book, in the lessons

which follow, will be studied with much livelier attention.

1. AUTHORSHIP

Who wrote the book of The Acts? How do you know? The former question

will probably be answered without difficulty, but the latter may

reveal difference of opinion. Many of the students will know that

The Acts was written by the same man as the Gospel of Luke. But that

does not settle the question. How do you know that Luke was written

by Luke? The name does not occur in the Gospel itself. The title,

"According to Luke," was probably added later. So, in order to

determine the authorship both of Luke and of The Acts, recourse must

be had to Christian tradition.

Fortunately, however, tradition in this case is quite unimpeachable.

In the first place, although the author of The Acts is not named in

the book, yet the book is not an anonymous work. Undoubtedly the

name of the author was known from the beginning. For the book is

dedicated to an individual, Theophilus. Evidently Theophilus knew

who the author was. Information about the author could thus be had

from the start. If, therefore, Luke did not really write The Acts,

some one has removed the name of the true author and substituted

"Luke" in place of it. That is an exceedingly unlikely supposition.

In the second place, it is evident quite independently of any

tradition that the book was written by an eyewitness of part of

Paul's missionary journeys. This fact appears from the so-called

"we-sections" of the book. In certain portions of the narrative

the author uses the first person instead of the third. Of this

peculiarity there is only one satisfactory explanation. The author

uses the first person when he is describing the experiences in which

he himself had a part. When, for example, the author says, not,

"They made a straight course to Samothrace," but "We made a straight

course," Acts 16:11, he means that he was present on that voyage.

This natural supposition is confirmed by the character of the

"we-sections." These sections are full of such a wealth of artless

detail that no one but an eyewitness could possibly have written

them.

The only possible way of avoiding the conclusion that a companion

of Paul wrote the book of The Acts is to maintain that although

such a man wrote the "we-sections" some one else wrote the rest of

the book. But that is unlikely in the extreme. If a later author

had been simply using as a source a diary of a companion of Paul,

he would surely either have told us he was quoting, or else have

changed the first person to the third. By leaving the third person

in he would simply have been producing nonsense. Everyone knew who

the author of the book was. The book is dedicated to a definite

man. The author evidently could not have palmed himself off as

a companion of Paul even if he would. And if he desired to do

it, he would not have chosen this remarkable way of doing it. Of

course if he had been a mere thoughtless compiler he might have

copied his source with such slavish exactness as to leave the "we"

in without noticing that in the completed work it would produce

nonsense. But he was most assuredly not a mere compiler. If he used

sources, he did not use them that way. The book shows a remarkable

unity of style. Modern research has demonstrated that fact beyond

peradventure. There is a remarkable similarity of style between the

"we-sections" and the rest of the book. Only one hypothesis, then,

does justice to the facts. The author of the "we-sections" was also

the author of the whole book. When he comes to those parts of the

narrative in which he himself had a part, he says very naturally

"we," instead of "they."

The book of The Acts, then, was written by a companion of Paul. That

fact stands firm, even apart from any tradition. And that is the

really important fact. If the book was written by an eyewitness, the

particular name of the eyewitness is comparatively unimportant. But

the tradition as to the name is without doubt correct. There is not

the slightest reason for calling it in question. What the book of

The Acts itself says about its author fits exactly what Paul says

about Luke.

2. DATE

The authorship of The Acts is certain. The date, however, is not so

clear. The book was written by Luke. But when was it written? The

latter question cannot be answered with perfect precision. At least,

however, since the book was written by Luke, it must have been

written during the lifetime of a companion of Paul. A. D. 100, for

example, would be too late, and A. D. 90 would be unlikely. A good

deal can be said for putting the date at about A. D. 63. This early

date would explain the abrupt ending of the book.

One of the most curious things about The Acts is that the narrative

is suddenly broken off just at the most interesting point. The

trial of Paul is narrated at very great length, but we are not

told how it came out. The final decision, the climax of the whole

long narrative, is just at hand; but with regard to it we are

left altogether in suspense. Was Paul released? Was he condemned

and executed? The author does not say. His silence requires an

explanation.

The simplest explanation would be that Luke wrote his book at the

very point of time where the narrative is broken off. Of course he

could not tell us any more if nothing more had happened. He brought

his narrative right up to date. Nothing more was possible.

It is true, other explanations may be proposed.

(a) It has been suggested, for example, that The Acts closes so

abruptly because the author was saving something for another work.

As The Acts is the continuation of the Gospel of Luke, so a third

work, it is said, was planned as the continuation of The Acts. But

even so, it seems rather strange that the author should not have

given at least a hint of the outcome of that trial in order to take

the edge off our curiosity. He has done something like that at the

conclusion of his Gospel; why not also at the conclusion of The Acts?

(b) But perhaps the ending is not so abrupt as it looks. The

author's purpose, it is said, was not to write a biography of Paul,

but to show how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome. When

Rome was reached, then the narrative was broken off. Biographical

details--even the most interesting details about the most

interesting character--were ruthlessly excluded. The plan of the

book had been accomplished. For this explanation there is much to be

said. But the trouble with it is that especially in the latter part

of the book the author as a matter of fact does show considerable

interest in biographical details. The trial and shipwreck of Paul

are narrated with a fullness which is quite out of proportion to

the rest of the history. After such a full account of the trial, it

remains rather strange that the author has said not a word about the

outcome.

Either of these last two explanations is perfectly possible.

Possibly The Acts was written as late as A. D. 80. But the early

date at least explains the peculiar ending best of all.

3. SOURCES

Where did Luke get the materials for his work? Did he use written

sources as well as oral information? The question has been discussed

at very great length, but without much uniformity in the results. If

he used written sources, at least he used them skillfully, placing

upon them the imprint of his own style. The book possesses genuine

unity.

The really important fact about the sources of the book of The

Acts is a negative fact. Whatever the sources were, the Pauline

epistles were not among them. Compare the passages where Paul and

Luke narrate the same events--for example Gal., chs. 1, 2, with

the corresponding passages in The Acts--and it becomes evident

that the two narratives are entirely independent. Luke did not use

the Pauline epistles in writing his book. That is an exceedingly

significant fact. It shows that The Acts is an independent witness.

What is more, it strengthens materially the argument for the early

date of The Acts. The Pauline epistles at a very early time began

to be collected and used generally in the Church. In A. D. 100,

for example, they would certainly have been used by anyone who was

writing an account of Paul's life. Since, therefore, the book of The

Acts does not use them, that book must have been written earlier,

and probably very much earlier. Even in A. D. 80, it would perhaps

have been strange that the epistles should not have been used.

4. PURPOSE

The proper purpose of a historian is to tell the truth. And Luke

was a genuine historian. His own account of his method, Luke 1:1-4,

shows that he knew the meaning of historical research, and the

character of his books bears this out. Luke did not permit any

desire of putting Christianity in a good light, or of defending one

kind of Christianity against another, to interfere with the primary

duty of truthfulness.

That does not mean, however, that the book of The Acts is like some

modern university dissertations--written simply and solely in order

to say some new thing, whether interesting or no. No great historian

goes to work that way. Of course Luke had an interest in his subject

matter. Of course he was convinced that Christianity was a great

thing, and was full of enthusiasm in narrating its history. In that

he was perfectly right. Christianity really was a great thing. The

best celebration of its greatness was a narration of the facts.

Christian faith is based on fact. Luke wrote, not only in the Gospel

but also in The Acts, in order that his readers might know the

certainty concerning the things wherein they were instructed. Luke

1:4.

5. LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS

The author of The Acts was well acquainted with the Old Testament.

He was able to catch the spirit of the primitive Palestinian church.

His books exhibit the influence of the Semitic languages. But he

was also capable of a Greek style which would have passed muster

in the schools of rhetoric. Luke 1:1-4, for example, is a typical

Greek sentence. Evidently Luke could move with ease in the larger

Greek world of his time. His references to political and social

conditions are extraordinarily exact. His narrative is never lacking

in local color. He knows the proper titles of the local officials,

and the peculiar quality of the local superstitions. His account

of the shipwreck is a mine of information about the seafaring of

antiquity. Evidently he was a keen observer, and a true traveler

of a cosmopolitan age. His narrative is characterized by a certain

delightful urbanity--an urbanity, however, which is deepened and

ennobled by profound convictions.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Warfield, "Acts, Timothy, Titus and Philemon," in

"The Temple Bible," pp. i-xxvii. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible":

Purves, article on "Acts of the Apostles." Purves, "Christianity

in the Apostolic Age," pp. 1-8. M'Clymont, "The New Testament and

Its Writers," in "The Guild Text Books," pp. 41-46. Hastings,

"Dictionary of the Bible": Headlam, article on "Acts of the

Apostles."

LESSON VIII

THE CROSS AND THE RESURRECTION THE FOUNDATION OF APOSTOLIC PREACHING

1. THE RESURRECTION A FACT OF HISTORY

Which of the books of the New Testament contain the evidence for

the resurrection of Jesus? That question will serve to begin the

teaching of the lesson. In answer to it, the students will probably

mention the four Gospels. To the Gospels, however, should be added

especially the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

The passage in First Corinthians is deserving of very careful

attention. For, unlike the Gospels, that epistle can be dated to

within a year or so. It was written only about twenty-five years

after the crucifixion. Even though possibly some of the Gospels

were written still earlier, the precision with which the epistle

can be dated makes its witness particularly valuable. Furthermore,

the author of the epistle is well known. No one doubts that First

Corinthians was written by Paul, and Paul is the best-known man of

apostolic times. Evidently his witness to the facts is of the utmost

value.

Paul himself was a direct witness of the resurrection. He saw the

risen Lord. I Cor. 9:1; 15:8. In I Cor. 15:1-8, however, he does not

content himself with his own witness, but reproduces the testimony

of others in an extended list. That testimony had come to Paul by

ordinary word of mouth. "I delivered unto you first of all," says

Paul, "that which also I received." In what follows there is a list

of the appearances of the risen Christ. "He appeared to Cephas;

then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren

at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are

fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles;

and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me

also." Evidently these appearances are not conceived of merely as

"visions," but as events in the external world. The mention of the

burial, v. 4, is a plain hint that what Peter and the rest saw was

the body of Jesus raised from the tomb.

That view of the matter is amply confirmed in the Gospels and in

the book of The Acts. In the Gospels, we are told that the tomb was

found empty on the morning of the third day after the crucifixion.

It was found empty by some women and by Peter and John. Since the

tomb was empty, the body which appeared to the disciples had some

connection with the body which had been taken down from the cross.

Furthermore, the Gospels and The Acts make the bodily character of

the appearances abundantly plain. Jesus did not merely appear to the

disciples at a distance. He walked with them on the road to Emmaus.

He broke bread with them. He came into the very midst of them when

they were assembled in a room. Thomas could even touch his hands

and his side. These are merely examples. Clearly the testimony

of the disciples is testimony not to mere spiritual experiences,

but to the bodily presence of the Lord. It may be admitted that

the body was a glorified body. After his resurrection Jesus was

freed from the limitations of his earthly life. Nevertheless, he

was not merely a "spirit." Luke 24:39. There was some real, though

mysterious, connection between the glorified body and the body that

had been laid in the tomb. The New Testament attests not merely the

immortality of Jesus, but his resurrection.

The resurrection, in these days, is hard to accept. For it is a

miracle. Against any miracle there is a tremendous presumption. In

this case, however, the presumption has been overcome. It has been

overcome by the character of Jesus. It is in the highest degree

unlikely that an ordinary man should rise from the dead; but it

is not unlikely that Jesus should have risen. The resurrection is

unique. But so is the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The two wonders

support one another. Explain away the testimony to the resurrection,

and your task is not done. You must also explain away that sinless

life. If Jesus rose from the dead he had a unique experience. But

that is to be expected. For Jesus himself was unlike any other of

the children of men. There are mysteries in his life that have never

been explained.

The resurrection of Jesus is a well-attested fact of history. The

proof of it is cumulative. Any one of the proofs might be regarded

as insufficient when taken alone, but when taken together they are

overpowering. The sinless, unearthly character of Jesus separates

him from the rest of men, so that probabilities which apply to

others do not apply to him. His mysterious self-consciousness

involves so lofty a claim, that if he was not divine he was

a megalomaniac--he whose calmness and strength have left an

impression which the centuries have done nothing to efface! The

specific testimonies to the empty tomb and to the plain bodily

appearances of the risen Lord are independent and varied. Finally,

unless the resurrection be a fact, the very origin of the Christian

Church becomes an insoluble mystery. The resurrection alone can

explain the sudden transformation of a company of weak, discouraged

men into the conquerors of the world.

The resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history. It is not an

aspiration of the heart. It comes ultimately through the testimony

of the senses. The apostles came forward with a piece of plain

information. They were witnesses to a fact in the external world.

That fact has put a new face upon life. It is good news of salvation.

2. THE RESURRECTION CONFIRMED BY EXPERIENCE

The resurrection is a fact of history. Accept it as true, and you

can have hope for time and for eternity. At this point, however,

some men experience a difficulty. How can the acceptance of a

historical fact satisfy the longing of our souls? Must we stake our

salvation upon the intricacies of historical research? Surely some

more immediate certitude is required.

The objection would be valid if history stood alone. But history

does not stand alone. It has suffered from a false isolation.

A Christian certitude that is founded solely upon history is

insufficient. History is necessary, but not sufficient. We need

history, but we need something else as well.

A historical conviction of the resurrection of Jesus is not the end

of faith, but only the beginning. If faith stops there, it will

never stand the fires of criticism. We are told that Jesus lives. So

much is a matter of testimony, a matter of history. If we believe

the witness, then we can have hope. But the religious problem of our

lives has not yet been solved. Jesus lives. But what good is it to

us? If he lives, we need to find him. We need to find him, and we

can find him. We accept the message of the resurrection enough to

make trial of it. And making trial of it, we find that it is true.

Jesus is found to be alive, for he makes answer to our prayer, and

heals us. We never could have come to him unless we had accepted

the historical evidence for the resurrection. But starting with

that historical belief we went on to the blessed experience of

salvation. Christian experience cannot do without history. But it

adds to history that directness, that immediateness, that simplicity

of conviction, which delivers us from fear. We began with history.

But we went on to experience. "Now we believe, not because of thy

speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is

indeed the Saviour of the world."

3. THE DEATH

Jesus is alive. If we find him, he will heal us. But how shall we

find him? In the New Testament we receive instruction.

In the New Testament a strange fact stares us in the face. The New

Testament seems far more concerned with the death of Jesus than

with the details of his life. Learned men have tried in vain to

explain that curious fact. In elaborate treatises they have sought

the explanation. But it is really very simple. The New Testament

emphasizes the death of Jesus because that is what Jesus did for

us--or rather, coming after his perfect obedience to the law, it is

the culmination of what he did for us. In the account of Jesus' life

we are told what Jesus did for others. That account is absolutely

necessary. Without it we should never have been interested in Jesus

at all. But it is to us a means to an end, not an end in itself.

We read in the Gospel what Jesus did for others. For one he placed

his fingers in the ears and said, "Be opened"; to another he said,

"Arise, take up thy bed, and walk"; to another, "Thy sins are

forgiven." These things are what Jesus did for others. But what has

he done for us? The answer of the New Testament is plain. For us he

does not say, "Arise and walk." For us--he died. That mysterious

thing which was wrought on Calvary--that was his work for us. The

cross of Christ is a mystery. In the presence of it theology walks

after all with but trembling, halting footsteps. Learning will never

unlock its meaning. But to the penitent sinner, though mysterious,

though full of baffling riddles, it is plain enough. On the cross

Jesus dealt with our sin. Our dreadful guilt, the condemnation of

God's law--it is wiped out by an act of grace. It seemed inseparable

from us. It was a burden no earthly friend could bear. But Christ

is Master of the innermost secrets of the moral world. He has

accomplished the impossible, he has borne our sins.

By the cross he has healed us. But through whom does he apply the

healing touch? Through no one, save his Spirit. For he is here

himself. If we are seekers for him, then this day our search is

over.

The death of Christ, in the modern Church, is often subordinated.

Exclusive emphasis is laid upon the holy example and teaching of the

Galilean prophet. The modern theologians would be right if there

were no such thing as sin. If there were no such thing as guilt, and

if there were no such thing as a dreadful enslaving power of evil,

then a noble ideal might be sufficient. But to talk about an ideal

to a man under the thralldom of sin is a cruel mockery.

Sin may indeed be glossed over. Let us make the best of our

condition, we are told, let us do the best we can, let us simply

trust in the all-conquering love of God. Dangerous advice! By it a

certain superficial joy of life may be induced. But the joy rests

upon an insecure foundation. It is dangerous to be happy on the

brink of the abyss. Permanent joy can come only when sin has been

faced honestly, and destroyed. It has been destroyed by the death

and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is true that God is loving. He has manifested his love, however,

better than by complacency toward sin. He has manifested it by the

gracious gift of a Saviour.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Denney, "The Death of Christ." Orr, "The

Resurrection of Jesus." Crawford, "The Doctrine of Holy Scripture

Respecting the Atonement."

LESSON IX

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The author of The Acts has given a wonderful picture of the early

days of the Christian Church. The teacher should endeavor to present

the picture before the mental vision of the class. History should

not be studied merely as a dry record of events. The events should

be seen as well as understood. They can be seen by what is called

the historical imagination. The term "imagination" often contains a

suggestion of unreality. But that is a secondary use of the word.

"Imagination" means "picturing." You can make a picture of what

really happened as well as of what happened only in fiction. The

historical imagination is a very important faculty in the student of

the New Testament. In many persons it is almost wholly lacking. But

fortunately it may be acquired.

In the lessons that follow, great stress should be laid upon

the simple memorizing of the course of events. Advanced study,

or topical study, is useless unless it is based upon an orderly

acquaintance with the contents of The Acts. History comes

first--then the interpretation of the history.

The dominant note in the early chapters of The Acts is the note of

joy. After the three dark days of discouragement, after the quiet

period of waiting, the life of the Church suddenly bursts forth with

power. Everything is fresh and new. Difficulties and dangers have

not yet emerged. Even persecution is lacking. The Church enjoys

favor with the people. Thousands are converted in a day.

1. THE GIFT OF TONGUES

The gift of tongues, as it was exercised on the day of Pentecost, is

not altogether an isolated phenomenon. It appears also elsewhere in

The Acts, Acts 10:46; 19:6, though it may be doubted whether in all

three cases it assumed exactly the same form. In the First Epistle

to the Corinthians, Paul discusses the gift at considerable length.

I Cor., ch. 14. It is interesting to compare that passage with the

passage in the second chapter of The Acts.

There are a number of resemblances between the two. Both Paul

and Luke represent the gift of tongues as a supernatural thing,

a special endowment from the Spirit of God. Both Paul and Luke,

furthermore, represent the gift as an ecstatic, temporary expression

of spiritual exultation rather than as a faculty intended to be

practically useful in the work of the Church. On the other hand,

there are such marked differences between the two accounts as to

make it evident that the gift as it was manifested at Pentecost was

very considerably different from that which was exercised in the

church at Corinth.

The speaking with tongues as Paul describes it was a kind of

ejaculation, expressive of the religious life of the speaker, but

incomprehensible to others. In order, therefore, to make the gift

edifying to the congregation at large there had to be some one

else present who was in possession of another gift, the gift of

interpretation. The speaking with tongues at Pentecost, however,

was a miraculous use of various languages. Some have supposed

that Luke is describing rather a new language, which possessed

the supernatural quality of being understood by men of various

nationalities. The most natural interpretation of the passage,

however, is that which has just been suggested. The disciples,

filled with the Spirit, spoke some in one language and some in

another, or perhaps the same individuals used different languages at

successive moments. The outsiders received various impressions of

the strange phenomenon. Some, mocking, declared that the disciples

were drunk. These, we may suppose, were men who came into contact

with those disciples who were speaking some language known only

to another group among the hearers. The general impression seems

to have been wonder at the miraculous gift. The gift of tongues

provided an opportunity for the first Christian preaching. In just

this form it was perhaps never repeated. It was a unique gift

provided for an absolutely unique occasion.

2. THE SPEECHES

Ancient historians often put imaginary speeches into the mouths

of their characters. The speeches were intended to represent not

what was actually said but what might have been said under the

circumstances. This procedure of the historians was not intended

to deceive the readers. It was merely a literary form, a method of

vivid description.

Luke, however, seems not to have allowed himself even the license

which was regarded as allowable by the best historians of antiquity.

The speeches in The Acts are apparently either verbatim reports of

what was actually said, or else summaries based upon trustworthy

tradition. If they had been composed freely by the historian himself

their characteristic differences and their perfect adaptation to

different occasions would be difficult to explain.

The speeches of Peter and of the earliest disciples, in particular,

are very different from those of Paul. They contain a number of

features which occur either not at all or only rarely in the rest

of the New Testament. The designation of Jesus as "the Servant,"

for example, a designation taken from the latter part of Isaiah, is

characteristic of these speeches. Another characteristic designation

of Jesus is "Prince" or "Prince of life." Acts 3:15; 5:31. In

general, the representation of Jesus in the early chapters of The

Acts is just what might have been expected under the circumstances.

At the beginning of the Church's life, everything is simple and easy

of comprehension even by outsiders. The apostles represented Jesus

first as a man approved of God by the miracles which he had wrought.

To have delivered up such a man to death was itself a grievous sin.

But that was not all. This Jesus who was crucified had been raised

from the dead; and both in his death and in his resurrection he

had fulfilled the Messianic predictions of the ancient prophets.

He was then nothing less than the Christ. Now, too, his period of

humiliation was over. He had been given the full powers of Lordship.

From him had come the wonder-working Spirit. It will be observed

that these speeches, though they begin with what is simplest and

easiest of acceptance by an outsider, really contain, at least in

germ, the full doctrine of the divine Christ.

3. THE CONVERTS

The body of disciples who were assembled before the day of Pentecost

consisted of only about one hundred and twenty persons. Acts 1:15.

After the notable sermon of Peter, which was spoken in explanation

of the gift of tongues, three thousand were converted. A little

later the Church possessed five thousand men. Acts 4:4.

The outward sign of conversion was baptism. "Repent ye," said Peter,

"and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto

the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit." Baptism was not altogether new. It had been practiced

not only among converts to Judaism, but especially by John the

Baptist. Christian baptism, however, is sharply distinguished from

the baptism of John. Mark 1:7,8; Acts 18:25; 19:1-6. Both were

expressive of repentance. But Christian baptism was connected

specifically with Jesus, and also with the bestowal of the Spirit.

Baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ," or "into the name of the

Lord Jesus." It was the sacrament by which the convert signified

his cleansing from sin and his entrance into that peculiarly close

relation to Christ which is of the essence of Christian experience.

In itself, of course, the rite of baptism is useless. But when

accompanied by faith it is a means of real blessing. Baptism, like

the other Christian sacrament, the Lord's Supper, was instituted

by Christ himself. Matt. 28:19. In The Acts the full trinitarian

formula of baptism is not given. "In the name of Jesus Christ" is

sufficient to designate the sacrament.

4. JOY AND FEAR

The mysterious power that was working among the disciples was

beneficent. It accomplished miracles of healing. As in the case

of Jesus himself so now among his disciples the Spirit of God was

manifested in the expulsion of demons. Matt. 12:28; Acts 5:16. The

Spirit was manifested also in the healing of disease.

One cure, in particular, is narrated with a wealth of vivid detail.

The healing of the lame man led to the opposition of the Sanhedrin.

It led also to favor among the people. All the people ran together

in Solomon's porch greatly wondering. Acts 3:11. Peter and John took

no credit for what they had done. They attributed the miracle solely

to the power of Jesus. It was the same Jesus against whom the crowd

had shouted, "Crucify him, crucify him," only a few weeks before.

Surely a reason for remorse rather than joy! But God is gracious.

Through Jesus, the crucified One, salvation was offered even to the

murderers. Repentance was followed by rejoicing. The envy of the

Sanhedrin was held in check. A notable miracle had been wrought.

That miracle was not isolated. Many signs and wonders were wrought

by the hands of the apostles. The people even "carried out the

sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that, as

Peter came by, at the least his shadow might overshadow some one of

them." Acts 5:12-15. Perhaps we are to understand that that method

of seeking cure was actually successful. Certainly it was an unusual

method. But God adopts unusual methods at unusual times. He adapts

his mercy to the needs of men.

The general impression left by the early chapters of The Acts is an

impression of light and gladness. There is opposition, but it is

powerless against triumphant joy. One incident, however, introduces

a discordant note. It is the incident of Ananias and Sapphira.

The early Church was animated by a spirit of self-sacrifice. Many of

the disciples sold their possessions and devoted the price to the

common good. One of those who did so was Joseph Barnabas, who was to

be prominent in the subsequent history.

A certain man, Ananias, however, and Sapphira his wife, after they

had sold their possession kept back part of the price. In itself

that was not necessarily wrong. Their sin was the sin of deception.

They pretended to have given all, though they had really given only

a part. A more destructive sin could scarcely have been imagined.

They had lied unto the Holy Spirit. Such conduct would bring

contempt upon the Church. Ananias and Sapphira discovered that God

cannot be trifled with. And the judgment wrought upon them inspired

fear in all who heard.

It is well that this incident has been recorded. It prevents a

one-sided impression of the Church's life. The power that animated

the Church was beneficent. But it was also terrible and mysterious

and holy. In the presence of it there was joy. But that joy was

akin to fear. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the

living God." The lesson is of permanent value. The Spirit of God

must be received with joy. But not with a common joy. Not with the

joy of familiarity. But rather with the wondering, trembling joy of

adoration.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp.

21-46. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Weeks, Feast

of" and "Temple." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Lumby, "The

Acts of the Apostles," 1880, pp. 1-61. "The Bible Commentary," vol.

ii: Cook, "The Acts of the Apostles," pp. 351-386. Ellicott, "A

New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. ii: Plumptre,

"The Acts of the Apostles," pp. 1-28. Rackham, "The Acts of the

Apostles," pp. 1-69. These commentaries will be designated hereafter

by the names of the authors only.

LESSON X

THE FIRST PERSECUTION

The persecution which arose in connection with Stephen marks a

turning point in the history of the Church. Up to that time, the

disciples had been content, for the most part, with laboring in

Jerusalem. Now they were forced out into a broader field. One result

of the persecution was the geographical extension of the Church.

Another result was perhaps even more important. The extension

caused by persecution was not merely geographical; it was also,

perhaps, intellectual and spiritual. The Church was really from the

beginning in possession of a new religious principle, but at first

that principle was not fully understood. Persecution probably helped

to reveal the hidden riches. The Pharisees were keener than the

disciples themselves. Hostility sharpened the vision. The disciples

themselves were still content to share in the established forms

of Jewish worship; but the Pharisees saw that they were really

advocates of a new principle. Christianity, unless it were checked,

would supersede Judaism. The Pharisees were right. Jealous fear

detected what ancestral piety had concealed.

The hostility of the Jews perhaps helped to open the eyes of the

Church. No doubt, a development was already at work. Persecution

was the result as well as the cause of the new freedom. Stephen

was persecuted possibly just because his preaching went beyond

that of Peter. With or without persecution, the Church would have

transcended the bounds of the older Judaism. It contained a germ of

new life which was certain to bear fruit. But persecution hastened

the process. It scattered the Church abroad, and it revealed the

revolutionary character of the Church's life.

With the coming of Jesus a new era had begun. Judaism had before

been separate from the Gentile world. That separation had been due

not to racial prejudice, but to a divine ordinance. It had served

a useful purpose. Jewish particularism should never be despised;

it should be treated with piety and gratitude. It had preserved

the precious deposit of truth in the midst of heathenism. But its

function, though useful, was temporary. It was a preparation for

Christ. Before Christ it was a help; after Christ it became a

hindrance.

Persecution was not the beginning of the new freedom. Freedom was

based upon the words of Jesus. It had become plainer again, perhaps,

in the teaching of Stephen. Furthermore, if freedom was not begun by

the persecution, it was also not completed by it. The emancipation

of the Church from Judaism was a slow process. The unfolding of that

process is narrated in The Acts. Even after the Church was scattered

abroad through Judea and Samaria, much remained to be done.

Cornelius, Antioch, Paul were still in the future. Nevertheless,

the death of Stephen was an important event. It was by no means the

whole of the process; but it marks an epoch.

The gradual rise of persecution should be traced in class--first

the fruitless arrest of Peter and John and their bold defiance;

then the arrest of the apostles, the miraculous escape, the

preaching in the temple, the re-arrest, the counsel of Gamaliel,

the scourging; then the preaching of Stephen and the hostility of

the Pharisees. The opposition of the Sadducees was comparatively

without significance. The Sadducees were not Jews at heart. They

might persecute the Church just because the Church was patriotically

Jewish. But the Pharisees were really representative of the existing

Judaism. Pharisaic persecution meant the hostility of the nation.

And it implied the independence of the Church. If the disciples were

nothing but Jews, why did the Jews persecute them?

In what follows, a few details will be discussed.

1. THEUDAS AND JUDAS

Judas the Galilean, mentioned by Gamaliel, Acts 5:37, appears also

in Josephus. His insurrection occurred at the time of the great

enrollment under Quirinius, the Syrian legate. This enrollment was

different from that which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem at

the time of the birth of Jesus. Luke 2:2-5. That former enrollment

occurred before the death of Herod the Great in 4 B. C. Luke 1:5;

Matt. 2:1. The enrollment to which Gamaliel referred was carried out

after the deposition of Archelaus in A. D. 6.

With regard to Judas all is clear. But Theudas is known only from

Acts 5:36. The Theudas who is mentioned in Josephus is different,

for his insurrection did not occur till about A. D. 44, after

the time of Gamaliel's speech. Gamaliel was referring to some

insurrection of an earlier period. The name Theudas was common, and

so were tumults and insurrections.

2. THE SEVEN

It has been questioned whether the seven men who were appointed to

assist the apostles were "deacons." The title is not applied to

them. The narrative does, indeed, imply that they were to "serve

tables," Acts 6:2, and the Greek word here translated "serve" is the

verb from which the Greek noun meaning "deacon" is derived; but the

same word is also used for the "ministry [or service] of the word"

in which the apostles were to continue. V. 4. The special technical

use of the word "deacon" appears in the New Testament only in Phil.

1:1; I Tim. 3:8,12. Compare Rom. 16:1.

Nevertheless, though the word itself does not occur in our passage,

it is perhaps not incorrect to say that the seven were "deacons."

Their functions were practically those of the diaconate; their

appointment, at any rate, shows that the apostles recognized the

need of some such office in the Church. It is not quite clear what

is meant by the expression, to "serve tables." The reference is

either to tables for food, or else to the money tables of a banker.

If the former interpretation be correct, then the deacons were to

attend especially to the management of the common meals. Even then,

however, the expression probably refers indirectly to the general

administration of charity, a prominent part of the service being

mentioned simply as typical of the whole.

3. THE SYNAGOGUES

The Greek word translated "Libertines" in Acts 6:9 comes from the

Latin word for "freedmen." The freedmen here mentioned were probably

descendants of Jews taken by Pompey as slaves to Rome. The Jewish

opponents of Stephen therefore included Romans, men of eastern and

middle north Africa, and men of eastern and western Asia Minor.

These foreign Jews, when they settled in Jerusalem, had their own

synagogues. It is doubtful how many synagogues are mentioned in our

passage. Luke may mean that each of the five groups had a separate

synagogue, or he may be grouping the men of Cilicia and Asia in one

synagogue. The wording of the Greek perhaps rather favors the view

that only two synagogues are mentioned--one consisting of Libertines

and men of Cyrene and Alexandria, and the other consisting of

Cilicians and Asians.

4. THE SPEECH OF STEPHEN

In defending himself, Stephen gave a summary of Hebrew history. At

first sight, that summary might seem to have little bearing upon the

specific charges that had been made. But the history which Stephen

recited was a history of Israel. "You are destroying the divine

privileges of Israel"--that was the charge. "No," said Stephen,

"history shows that the true privileges of Israel are the promises

of divine deliverance. To them law and temple are subordinate. From

Abraham on there was a promise of deliverance from Egypt. After

that deliverance another deliverance was promised. It is the one

which was wrought by Jesus. Moses, God's instrument in the first

deliverance, was rejected by his contemporaries. Jesus, the greater

Deliverer, was rejected by you. We disciples of Jesus are the true

Israelites, for we, unlike you, honor the promises of God."

Other interpretations of the speech have been proposed. For example,

some find the main thought of the speech to be this: "The wanderings

of the patriarchs and the long period of time which elapsed before

the building of the temple show that true and acceptable worship of

God is not limited to any particular place." At any rate, the speech

requires study--and repays it.

What was said in the last lesson about the speeches of The Acts

in general applies fully to the speech of Stephen. The very

difficulties of the speech, as well as its other peculiarities, help

to show that it represents a genuine tradition of what, in a unique

situation, was actually said.

5. MARTYRDOM

The word "martyr" is simply the Greek word for "witness." That

is the word which is translated "witness" in Acts 1:8. "Ye shall

receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall

be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa and Samaria,

and unto the uttermost part of the earth." There, of course, there

is no special reference to dying for the sake of Christ. It is

primarily the ordinary verbal testimony which is meant. The special

meaning "martyr" is not often attached to the Greek word in the New

Testament. Probably even in Acts 22:20, where the word is applied to

Stephen, it is to be translated "witness" rather than "martyr."

Martyrdom, then, is only one kind of witnessing. But it is a very

important kind. Men will not die for what they do not believe. When

Stephen sank beneath the stones of his enemies he was preaching a

powerful sermon. The very fact of his death was a witness to Christ.

The manner of it was still more significant. Stephen, crying in the

hour of death, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," Stephen dying with

words of forgiveness on his lips, "Lord, lay not this sin to their

charge," was a witness indeed.

The Church can never do without that kind of witnessing. True,

it may not now often appear as actual martyrdom. But bravery is

needed as much as ever--bravery in business, men who will not say,

"Business is business," but will do what is right even in the face

of failure; bravery in politics, men to whom righteousness is

more than a pose; bravery in social life, men and women who will

sacrifice convention every time to principle, who, for example,

will maintain the Christian Sabbath in the face of ridicule. Modern

life affords plenty of opportunities for cowardice, plenty of

opportunities for denying the faith through fear of men. It also

affords opportunities for bravery. You can still show whether you

are of the stuff that Stephen was made of--above all, you can show

whether you are possessed by the same Spirit and are a servant of

the same Lord.

6. THE RESULT OF THE PERSECUTION

The persecution resulted only in the spread of the gospel. Gamaliel

was right. It was useless to fight against God. The disciples were

in possession of an invincible power, and they knew it from the very

beginning. When Peter and John returned from their first arrest,

the disciples responded in a noble prayer. Acts 4:24-30. Herod

and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

gathered together against Jesus, had accomplished only what God's

hand and God's counsel foreordained to come to pass. So it would be

also with the enemies of the Church. When the disciples had prayed,

"the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together; and they

were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spake the word of God

with boldness." The answer to that prayer was prophetic of the whole

history of the Church.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"

pp. 40-42, 47-55. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on

"Gamaliel," "Theudas," "Judas" (6), "Deacon"; Purves, article on

"Stephen." Ramsay, "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 44-65.

Rackham, pp. 69-111. Lumby, pp. 61-97. Plumptre, pp. 28-47. Cook,

pp. 386-406.

LESSON XI

THE FIRST GENTILE CONVERTS

This lesson treats of a number of steps in the extension of the

gospel. The beginning is the purely Jewish Church that is described

in the first chapters of The Acts; the goal is the Gentile

Christianity of Paul. Gentile Christianity was not produced all at

once. The extension of the gospel to Gentiles was a gradual process.

The present lesson is concerned only with the early stages. The

teacher should present the lesson in such a way as to emphasize the

main feature of the narrative. The main feature is the central place

assigned to the Holy Spirit. Though the extension of the gospel to

the Gentiles was a process, that process was due not to mere natural

development, but to the gracious leading of God.

As was observed in Lesson X, Stephen perhaps introduced into the

Church a more independent attitude toward the existing Judaism.

There is no reason, indeed, to suppose that he thought either of

preaching to Gentiles or of forsaking the ceremonial law. But

possibly he did venture to exhibit the temporary and provisional

character of the temple worship as compared with the promises of

God. Indirectly, therefore, though certainly not directly, Stephen

opened the way for the Gentile mission.

The persecution was another step in the process. It scattered the

Jews abroad into regions where Gentiles were more numerous than in

Jerusalem, and served perhaps also to reveal to the Church itself

its incompatibility with Pharisaic Judaism.

The evangelization of Samaria was another important step. Though the

Samaritans were only half Gentiles, they were particularly detested

by the Jews. In preaching to them, the disciples were overcoming

Jewish scruples, and thus were moving in the direction of a real

Gentile mission. The baptizing of the Ethiopian may have been

another step in the process.

The most important event, however, was the conversion of Cornelius

and his household. Here the issue was clearly raised. Cornelius did

not, like the Ethiopian, depart at once after baptism to a distant

home. His reception into the Church was a matter of public knowledge.

Luke was well aware of the importance of the story about Cornelius.

That appears from the minuteness with which the story is narrated.

After it has been completed once, it is repeated, at very

considerable length, as a part of Peter's defense at Jerusalem. The

effect is as though this incident were heavily underscored.

The importance of the Cornelius incident appears also in the

fact that it gave rise to criticism. Apparently this was the

first serious criticism which the gradually widening mission had

encountered within the Church. There is no suggestion of such

criticism in the case of the preaching in Samaria. But now a much

more radical step had been taken. Peter had eaten with uncircumcised

men. Acts 11:3. A more serious violation of Jewish particularism

could hardly have been imagined.

In defense, Peter appealed simply to the manifest authorization

which he had received from God. That authorization had appeared

first of all in the visions which Peter and Cornelius had received,

with other direct manifestations of the divine will, and also more

particularly in the bestowal of the Spirit. If the Spirit was given

to uncircumcised Gentiles, then circumcision was no longer necessary

to membership in the Church. In the narrative about Cornelius, there

is a remarkable heaping up of supernatural guidance. Vision is

added to vision, revelation to revelation. The reason is plain. A

decisive step was being taken. If taken by human initiative, it was

open to criticism. The separateness of Israel from other nations was

a divine ordinance. Since it had been instituted by God, it could

be abrogated only by him. True, Jesus had said, "Make disciples of

all the nations." Matt. 28:19. But the how and the when had been

left undecided. Were the Gentiles to become Jews in order to become

Christians, and was the Gentile mission to begin at once? Those were

grave questions. They could not be decided without divine guidance.

That guidance was given in the case of Cornelius.

Peter's defense was readily accepted. "And when they heard these

things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to

the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life." The active

opposition to the Gentile mission did not arise until later. But how

could that opposition arise at all? Since God had spoken so clearly,

who could deny to the Gentiles a free entrance into the Church?

After the case of Cornelius, how could any possible question arise?

As a matter of fact--though it may seem strange--the acceptance of

Cornelius did not at first determine the policy of the Church. That

incident remained, indeed, stored up in memory. It was appealed to

years afterwards by Peter himself, in order to support the Gentile

Christianity of Paul. Acts 15:7-9,14. But so far as the practice

of the Jewish Church was concerned, the Cornelius incident seems

to have remained for a time without effect. The bestowal of the

Spirit upon Cornelius and his friends was regarded, apparently, as

a special dispensation which fixed no precedent. Before engaging in

further preaching to Gentiles, the Church was waiting, perhaps, for

manifestations of the divine will as palpable as those which had

been given to Peter and to Cornelius.

This attitude is rather surprising. It must be remembered,

however, that for the present the Church was fully engrossed in

work for Jews. Undoubtedly, a Gentile work was to come, and the

Cornelius incident, as well as what Jesus had said, was regarded

as prophetic of it, Acts 11:18; but the time and the manner

of its institution were still undetermined. Were the Gentile

converts generally--whatever might be the special dispensation for

Cornelius--to be required to submit to circumcision and become

members of the chosen people? This and other questions had not yet

even been faced. Engrossed for the present in the Jewish mission,

the Church could leave these questions to the future guidance of God.

In what follows, a number of special points will be briefly

discussed.

1. PHILIP

After the baptism of the Ethiopian, "the Spirit of the Lord caught

away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way

rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he

preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Cæsarea." The

meaning of these words is not perfectly plain. Are we to understand

that Philip was carried away to Azotus by a miracle, or is nothing

more intended than a sudden departure under the impulsion of the

Spirit? The latter interpretation is not at all impossible. What

has been emphasised in the whole narrative is the strangeness, the

unaccountableness of Philip's movements. This appears particularly

in the sudden separation from the eunuch. The eunuch expected

further conference with Philip but suddenly Philip rushed off, as

though snatched away by a higher power. All through this incident,

there is something strangely sudden and unexpected about Philip's

movements. Human deliberation evidently had no part in his actions.

He was under the immediate impulsion of the Spirit.

The narrative leaves Philip at Cæsarea, and there he appears years

afterwards, at the time of Paul's last journey to Jerusalem. Acts

21:8,9. Luke was at that time one of the company, and may have

received directly from Philip the materials for the narrative in the

eighth chapter of The Acts. Philip appears in Christian tradition,

but there is some confusion between Philip the evangelist and Philip

the apostle.

2. SIMON MAGUS

Simon the sorcerer, or "Simon Magus," is an interesting figure.

He has laid hold of the fancy of Christendom. From his name--with

reference to Acts 8:18,19--the word "simony" has been coined to

designate the sin of buying or selling any sort of spiritual

advantage. Simon is very prominent in Christian tradition, where he

is regarded as the fountainhead of all heresy.

3. CORNELIUS

Cornelius was a "centurion," or captain of a company in the Roman

army consisting of about one hundred men. The "Italian band" to

which he belonged was apparently a "cohort," composed of soldiers

from Italy. Cornelius was stationed at Cæsarea, the residence of the

procurators of Judea. With the favorable description of his attitude

to the Jews and to the Jewish religion, Acts 10:2, should be

compared what Luke, in his Gospel, records about another centurion.

Luke 7:4,5. These are sympathetic pictures of the "God-fearing"

adherents of Judaism, who formed so important a class at the time of

the first Christian preaching.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"

pp. 59-67, 91-98. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on

"Samaria," "Samaritan," "Philip" (7), "Simon" (9), "Cæsarea,"

"Cornelius." Ramsay, "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 66-104.

Rackham, pp. 111-124, 141-163. Lumby, pp. 97-108, 122-142. Plumptre,

pp. 47-55, 63-73. Cook, pp. 407-413, 419-430.

LESSON XII

THE CONVERSION OF PAUL

Christianity a supernatural thing and a gift of God's grace--that is

the real theme of the lesson. The theme is brought home by means of

an example, the example of the apostle Paul.

The religious experience of Paul is the most striking phenomenon

in the history of the human spirit. It really requires no defense.

Give it sympathetic attention, and it is irresistible. How was it

produced? The answer of Paul himself, at least, is plain. According

to Paul, his whole religious life was due, not to any natural

development, but to an act of the risen Christ. That is the argument

of the first chapter of Galatians. He was advancing in Judaism, he

says, beyond his contemporaries. He was laying waste the Church.

And then suddenly, when it was least to be expected, without the

influence of men, simply by God's good pleasure, Christ was revealed

to him, and all was changed. The suddenness, the miraculousness of

the change is the very point of the passage. Upon that marvelous act

of God Paul bases the whole of his life work.

Shall Paul's explanation of his life be accepted? It can be accepted

only by the recognition of Jesus Christ, who was crucified, as a

living person. In an age of doubt, that recognition is not always

easy. But if it be refused, then the whole of Pauline Christianity

is based upon an illusion. That alternative may well seem to be

monstrous. The eighth chapter of Romans has a self-evidencing power.

It has transformed the world. It has entered into the very fiber of

the human spirit. But it crumbles to pieces if the appearance on

the road to Damascus was nothing but a delusive vision. Let us not

deceive ourselves. The religious experience of Paul and the whole

of our evangelical piety are based upon the historical fact of the

resurrection. But if so, then the resurrection stands firm. For the

full glory of Pauline Christianity becomes a witness to it. The

writer of the epistle to the Romans must be believed. But it is that

writer who says, "Last of all ... he appeared to me also."

The wonder of the conversion can be felt only through an exercise

of the historical imagination. Imagine the surroundings of Paul's

early life in Tarsus, live over again with him the years in

Jerusalem, enter with him into his prospects of a conventional

Jewish career and into his schemes for the destruction of the

Church--and then only can you appreciate with him the catastrophic

wonder of Christ's grace. There was no reason for the conversion of

Paul. Everything pointed the other way. But Christ chose to make of

the persecutor an apostle, and the life of Paul was the result. It

was a divine, inexplicable act of grace--grace to Paul and grace

to us who are Paul's debtors. God's mercies are often thus. They

are not of human devising. They enter into human life when they are

least expected, with a sudden blaze of heavenly glory.

In the review of Paul's early life various questions emerge. They

must at least be faced, if not answered, if the lesson is to be

vividly presented.

1. PAUL AT TARSUS

In the first place, what was the extent of the Greek influence

which was exerted upon Paul at Tarsus? The question cannot be

answered with certainty, and widely differing views are held. It is

altogether unlikely, however, that the boy attended anything like

an ordinary Gentile school. The Jewish strictness of the family

precludes that supposition, and it is not required by the character

of Paul's preaching and writing. It is true that he occasionally

quotes a Greek poet. I Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12; Acts 17:28. It is

true again that some passages in Paul's letters are rhetorical--for

example, I Cor. 1:18-25; ch. 13--and that rhetoric formed an

important part of Greek training in the first century. But Paul's

rhetoric is the rhetoric of nature rather than of art. Exalted

by his theme he falls unconsciously into a splendid rhythm of

utterance. Such rhetoric could not be learned in school. Finally, it

is true that Paul's vocabulary is thought to exhibit some striking

similarities to that of Stoic writers. But even if that similarity

indicates acquaintance on the part of Paul with the Stoic teaching,

such acquaintance need not have been attained through a study of

books.

However, the importance of Paul's Greek environment, if it must

not be exaggerated, must on the other hand not be ignored. In the

first place, Paul is a consummate master of the Greek language.

He must have acquired it in childhood, and indeed in Tarsus could

hardly have failed to do so. In the second place, he was acquainted

with the religious beliefs and practices of the Greco-Roman world.

The speech at Athens, Acts 17:22-31, shows how he made use of

such knowledge for his preaching. In all probability the first

impressions were made upon him at Tarsus. Finally, from his home in

Tarsus Paul derived that intimate knowledge of the political and

social relationships of the men of his day which, coupled with a

native delicacy of perception and fineness of feeling, resulted in

the exquisite tact which he exhibited in his missionary and pastoral

labors. The Tarsian Jew of the dispersion was a gentleman of the

Roman Empire.

That Aramaic, as well as Greek, was spoken by the family of Paul is

made probable by Phil. 3:5 and II Cor. 11:22. The word "Hebrew" in

these passages probably refers especially to the use of the Aramaic

("Hebrew") language, as in Acts 6:1, where the "Hebrews" in the

Jerusalem church are contrasted with the "Grecian Jews." "A Hebrew

of Hebrews," therefore, probably means "an Aramaic-speaking Jew and

descended from Aramaic-speaking Jews." In Acts 21:40; 22:2 it is

expressly recorded that Paul made a speech in Aramaic ("Hebrew"),

and in Acts 26:14 it is said that Christ spoke to him in the same

language. Conceivably, of course, he might have learned that

language during his student days in Jerusalem. But the passages just

referred to make it probable that it was rather the language of his

earliest home. From childhood Paul knew both Aramaic and Greek.

2. THE INNER LIFE OF PAUL THE RABBI

The most interesting question about Paul's life at Jerusalem

concerns the condition of his inner life before the conversion. Paul

the Pharisee is an interesting study. What were this man's thoughts

and feelings and desires before the grace of Christ made him the

greatest of Christian missionaries?

The best way to answer this question would be to ask Paul himself.

One passage in the Pauline epistles has been regarded as an answer

to the question. That passage is Rom. 7:14-25. There Paul describes

the struggle of the man who knows the law of God and desires to

accomplish it, but finds the flesh too strong for him. If Paul is

there referring to his pre-Christian life, then the passage gives

a vivid picture of his fruitless struggle as a Pharisee to fulfill

the law. Many interpreters, however, refer the passage not to the

pre-Christian life but to the Christian life. Even in the Christian

life the struggle goes on against sin. And even if Paul is referring

to the pre-Christian life, he is perhaps depicting it rather as it

really was than as he then thought it was. The passage probably does

not mean that before he became a Christian Paul was fully conscious

of the fruitlessness of his endeavor to attain righteousness by the

law. Afterwards he saw that his endeavor was fruitless, but it is

doubtful how clearly he saw it at the time.

It would, indeed, be a mistake to suppose that Paul as a Pharisee

was perfectly happy. No man is happy who is trying to earn

salvation by his works. In his heart of hearts Paul must have

known that his fulfillment of the law was woefully defective.

But such discontentment would naturally lead him only farther on

in the same old path. If his obedience was defective, let it be

mended by increasing zeal! The more earnest Paul was about his law

righteousness, the more discontented he became with his attainments,

so much the more zealous did he become as a persecutor.

Some have supposed that Paul was gradually getting nearer to

Christianity before Christ appeared to him--that the Damascus

experience only completed a process that had already begun. There

were various things, it is said, which might lead the earnest

Pharisee to consider Christianity favorably. In the first place,

there was the manifest impossibility of law righteousness. Paul had

tried to keep the law and had failed. What if the Christians were

right about salvation by faith? In the second place, there were

the Old Testament prophecies about a suffering servant of Jehovah.

Isa., ch. 53. If they referred to the Messiah, then the cross might

be explained, as the Christians explained it, as a sacrifice for

others. The stumblingblock of a crucified Messiah would thus be

removed. In the third place, there was the noble life and death of

the Christian martyrs.

These arguments are not so weighty as they seem. Paul's

dissatisfaction with his fulfillment of the law, as has already

been observed, might lead to a more zealous effort to fulfill the

law as well as to a relinquishment of the law. There seems to be

no clear evidence that the pre-Christian Jews ever contemplated a

death of the Messiah like the death of Jesus. On the contrary the

current expectation of the Messiah was diametrically opposed to

any such thing. And admiration of the Christian martyrs is perhaps

too modern and too Christian to be attributed to the Pharisee.

The fundamental trouble with this whole argument is that it proves

merely that the Pharisee Paul ought to have been favorably impressed

with Christianity. So he ought, but as a matter of fact he was not

so impressed, and we have the strongest kind of evidence to prove

that he was not. The book of The Acts says so, and Paul says so

just as clearly in his letters. The very fact that when he was

converted he was on a persecuting expedition, more ambitious than

any that had been attempted before, shows that he was certainly

not thinking favorably of Christianity. Was he considering the

possibility that Christianity might be true? Was he trying to stifle

his own inward uncertainty by the very madness of his zeal? Then,

in persecuting the Church, he was going against his conscience. But

in I Tim. 1:13 he distinctly says that his persecuting was done

ignorantly in unbelief, and his attitude is the same in his other

epistles. If in persecuting the Church he was acting contrary to

better conviction, then that fact would have constituted the chief

element in his guilt; yet in the passages where he speaks with the

deepest contrition of his persecution, that particularly heinous sin

is never mentioned. Evidently, whatever was his guilt, at least he

did not have to reproach himself with the black sin of persecuting

Christ's followers in the face of even a half conviction.

Accordingly, the words of Christ to Paul at the time of the

conversion, "It is hard for thee to kick against the goad," Acts

26:14, do not mean that Paul had been resisting an inward voice of

conscience in not accepting Christ before, but rather that Christ's

will for Paul was really resistless even though Paul had not known

it at all. Christ's loving plan would be carried out in the end.

Paul was destined to be the apostle to the Gentiles. For him to try

to be anything else was as useless and as painful as it is for the

ox to kick against the goad. Christ will have his way.

Thus before his conversion Paul was moving away from Christianity

rather than toward it. Of course, in emphasizing the suddenness of

the conversion, exaggerations must be avoided. It is absurd, for

example, to suppose that Paul knew nothing at all about Jesus before

the Damascus event. Of course he knew about him. Even if he had been

indifferent, he could hardly have failed to hear the story of the

Galilean prophet; and as a matter of fact he was not indifferent

but intensely interested, though by way of opposition. These things

were not done in a corner. Paul was in Jerusalem before and after

the crucifixion, if not at the very time itself. The main facts in

the life of Jesus were known to friend and foe alike. Thus when in

the first chapter of Galatians Paul declares that he received his

gospel not through any human agency but directly from Christ, he

cannot mean that the risen Christ imparted to him the facts in the

earthly life of Jesus. It never occurred to Paul to regard the bare

facts as a "gospel." He had the facts by ordinary word of mouth from

the eyewitnesses. What he received from the risen Christ was a new

interpretation of the facts. He had known the facts before. But they

had filled him with hatred. He had known about Jesus. But the more

he had known about him, the more he had hated him. And then Christ

himself appeared to him! It might naturally have been an appearance

in wrath, a thunderstroke of the just vengeance of the Messiah.

Probably that was Paul's first thought when he heard the words, "I

am Jesus whom thou persecutest." But such was not the Lord's will.

The purpose of the Damascus wonder was not destruction but divine

fellowship and world-wide service.

3. PAUL'S EXPERIENCE AND OURS

In one sense, the experience of Paul is the experience of every

Christian. Not, of course, in form. It is a great mistake to

demand of every man that he shall be able, like Paul, to give day

and hour of his conversion. Many men, it is true, still have such

a definite experience. It is not pathological. It may result in

glorious Christian lives. But it is not universal, and it should

not be induced by tactless methods. The children of Christian homes

often seem to grow up into the love of Christ. When they decide

to unite themselves definitely with the Church, the decision need

not necessarily come with anguish of soul. It may be simply the

culmination of a God-encircled childhood, a recognition of what

God has already done rather than the acquisition of something new.

But after all, these differences are merely in the manner of God's

working. In essence, true Christian experience is always the same,

and in essence it is always like the experience of Paul. It is no

mere means of making better citizens, but an end in itself. It is no

product of man's effort, but a divine gift. Whatever be the manner

of its coming, it is a heavenly vision. Christ still lives in the

midst of glory. And still he appears to sinful men--though not now

to the bodily eye--drawing them out of sin and misery and bondage

to a transitory world into communion with the holy and eternal God.

The result of Paul's vision was service. How far his destination as

apostle to the Gentiles was made known to him at once is perhaps

uncertain. It depends partly upon the interpretation of Acts

26:14-18. Are those words intended to be part of what was spoken at

the very time of the conversion? There is no insuperable objection

to that view. At any rate, no matter how much or how little was

revealed at once, the real purpose of Christ in calling him was

clearly that he should be the leader of the Gentile mission. Gal.

1:16. He was saved in order that he might save others. It is so

normally with every Christian. Every one of us is given not only

salvation, but also labor. In that labor we can use every bit of

preparation that is ours, even if it was acquired before we became

Christians. Paul, the apostle, used his Greek training as well as

his knowledge of the Old Testament. We can use whatever talents we

possess. The Christian life is not a life of idleness. It is like

the life of the world in being full of labor. But it differs from

that life in that its labor is always worth while. Connection with

heaven does not mean idle contemplation, but a vantage ground of

power. You cannot move the world without a place to stand.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp.

68-85. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": article on "Damascus."

Ramsay, "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 113-120; "St. Paul

the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 29-39; "The Cities of

St. Paul," pp. 85-244 (on Tarsus). Conybeare and Howson, "The Life

and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. ii and iii. Lewin, "The Life and

Epistles of St. Paul," chs. i and iv. Stalker, "The Life of St.

Paul," pp. 1-42. Rackham, pp. 124-135, 421-424, 462-470. Lumby, pp.

108-116, 302-307, 344-349. Plumptre, pp. 55-61, 150-152, 165-167.

Cook, pp. 413-417, 498-500, 516-519.

LESSON XIII

THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH

Christianity originated in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire, in

the midst of a very peculiar people. At first, it was entirely out

of relation to the larger life of the time. The atmosphere of the

Gospels is as un-Greek as could be imagined; the very conception of

Messiahship is distinctively Jewish.

Yet this Jewish sect soon entered upon the conquest of the empire,

and the Jewish Messiah became the Saviour of the world. Starting

from Jerusalem, the new sect spread within a few decades almost

to the remotest corners of the civilized world. This remarkable

extension was not the work of any one man or group of men. It seemed

rather to be due to some mysterious power of growth, operating in

many directions and in many ways. In this manifold extension of the

gospel, however, the central event of to-day's lesson stands out

with special clearness. Christianity began as a Jewish movement,

quite incongruous with the larger life of the empire. What would be

the result of its first real contact with the culture of the time?

This question was answered at Antioch.

At Antioch, the principles of the Gentile mission had to be

established once for all--those principles which have governed the

entire subsequent history of the Church. The extension of the gospel

to the Gentiles was not a mere overcoming of racial prejudice,

for the separateness of Israel had been of divine appointment; it

involved rather the recognition that a new dispensation had begun.

Primitive Christianity was not governed merely by considerations of

practical expediency; it sought justification for every new step

in the guidance of the Spirit and in the fundamental principles of

the gospel. The development of those fundamental principles was

necessary in order to show that Christianity was really more than

a Jewish sect. Then as always, religion without theology would

have been a weak and flabby thing. Christianity is not merely an

instrument for the improving of social conditions, but rather an

answer to the fundamental questions of the soul. It can never do

without thinking, and Christian thinking is theology.

Fortunately the church at Antioch did not long remain without a

theologian. Its theologian was Paul. Paul was not the founder of the

church at Antioch; but the theology of Paul was what gave to that

church its really fundamental importance in the history of the world.

The lesson for to-day is of extraordinary richness and variety.

Much can be learned, for example, from the characters of the story.

Barnabas, with his generous recognition of the great man who was

soon to overshadow him; those obscure men of Cyprus and Cyrene, not

even mentioned by name, whose work at Antioch was one of the great

turning points of history; Agabus, the prophet, and the charitable

brethren of Antioch; Rhoda, the serving girl, and the prayerful

assembly in the house of the mother of Mark--every one of these

teaches some special lesson. One lesson, moreover, may be learned

from them all--God is the real leader of the Church, and true

disciples, though different in character and in attainments, are all

sharers in a mighty work.

In what follows, an attempt will be made to throw light upon a few

of the historical questions which are suggested by the narrative in

The Acts, and to picture as vividly as possible the scene of these

stirring events.

1. THE ACTS AND THE PAULINE EPISTLES

The differences between the narrative in The Acts and the account

which Paul gives of the same events have caused considerable

difficulty. This very difficulty, however, is by no means an unmixed

evil; for it shows at least that Luke was entirely independent of

the Epistles. If he had employed the Epistles in the composition

of his book he would surely have avoided even the appearance of

contradicting them. The divergences between The Acts and the Pauline

Epistles, therefore, can only mean that Luke did not use the

Epistles when he wrote; and since the Epistles came to be generally

used at a very early time, The Acts cannot have been written at so

late a date as is often supposed. But if the book was written at an

early time, then there is every probability that the information

which it contains is derived from trustworthy sources.

Thus the very divergences between The Acts and the Pauline Epistles,

unless indeed they should amount to positive contradictions,

strengthen the argument for the early date and high historical

value of the Lucan work. The independence of The Acts is supported

also by the complete absence of striking verbal similarity between

the narrative in The Acts and the corresponding passages in the

Epistles. Even where the details of the two accounts are similar,

the words are different. The few unimportant coincidences in

language are altogether insufficient to overthrow this general

impression of independence.

The most natural supposition, therefore, is that in The Acts and in

the Epistles we have two independent and trustworthy accounts of the

same events. This supposition is really borne out by the details of

the two narratives. There are differences, but the differences are

only what is to be expected in two narratives which were written

from entirely different points of view and in complete independence

of one another. Contradictions have been detected only by pressing

unduly the language of one source or the other. Thus, in reading The

Acts alone, one might suppose that Paul spent the whole time between

his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem in Damascus, and

that this period was less than three years; but these suppositions

are only inferences. Apparently Luke was not aware of the journey to

Arabia; but an incomplete narrative is not necessarily inaccurate.

Again, in the account of that first visit to Jerusalem, the reader

of The Acts might naturally suppose that more than one of the Twelve

was present, that the main purpose of the journey was rather to

engage in preaching than to make the acquaintance of Peter, and

that the visit lasted longer than fifteen days; and on the other

hand, the reader of Galatians might perhaps suppose that instead

of preaching in Jerusalem Paul remained, while there, in strict

retirement. Again, however, these suppositions would be inferences;

and the falsity of them simply shows how cautious the historian

should be in reading between the lines of a narrative. Finally, the

differences between Paul and Luke are overbalanced by the striking

and undesigned agreements.

In Galatians, Paul does not mention the visit which he and Barnabas

made in Jerusalem at the time of the famine. This conclusion has

been avoided by those scholars who with Ramsay identify the "famine

visit" with the visit mentioned in Gal. 2:1-10. The more usual view,

however, is that Gal. 2:1-10 is to be regarded as parallel, not with

Acts 11:30; 12:25, but with Acts 15:1-30. The second visit mentioned

by Paul is thus identified with the third visit mentioned by Luke.

Paul did not mention the famine visit because, as was probably

admitted even by his opponents in Galatia, the apostles at the time

of that visit were all out of the city, so that there was no chance

of a meeting with them. The subject under discussion in Galatians

was not Paul's life in general, but the relation between Paul and

the original apostles.

2. THE PREACHING TO "GREEKS"

In Acts 11:20, the best manuscripts read "spake unto the Hellenists"

instead of "spake unto the Greeks." The word "Hellenist" usually

means "Grecian Jew." Here, however, if this word is to be read, it

must refer not to Jews, but to Gentiles; for the contrast with the

preaching to Jews that is mentioned just before, is the very point

of the verse. Perhaps at this point the manuscripts which read

"Greeks" (that is, "Gentiles") are correct. In either case, the

meaning is fixed by the context. These Jews of Cyprus and Cyrene,

when they arrived at Antioch certainly began to preach regularly to

Gentiles.

3. PETER'S ESCAPE FROM PRISON

In Acts 12:1-24, Luke brings the account of affairs in Jerusalem up

to the time which has already been reached in the narrative about

Antioch. The journey of Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem, Acts 11:30;

12:25, supplied the connecting link. While the church at Antioch was

progressing in the manner described in Acts 11:19-30, a persecution

had been carried on in Jerusalem by Herod Agrippa I. The escape of

Peter is narrated in an extraordinarily lifelike way. Evidently

Luke was in possession of first-hand information. The vividness of

the narrative is very significant. It shows that the unmistakable

trustworthiness of The Acts extends even to those happenings which

were most clearly miraculous. The supernatural cannot be eliminated

from apostolic history.

4. ANTIOCH

Antioch on the Orontes was founded by Seleucus Nicator, the first

monarch of the Seleucid dynasty, and under his successors it

remained the capital of the Syrian kingdom. When that kingdom was

conquered by the Romans, the political importance of Antioch did

not suffer. Antioch became under the Romans not only the capital of

the province Syria but also the residence of the emperors and high

officials when they were in the east. It may be regarded as a sort

of eastern capital of the empire.

The political importance of Antioch was no greater than its

commercial importance. Situated near the northeastern corner of the

Mediterranean Sea, where the Mediterranean coast is nearer to the

Euphrates than at any other point, where the Orontes valley provided

easy communication with the east and the Syrian gates with the west,

with a magnificent artificial harbor at Seleucia, about twenty miles

distant, Antioch naturally became the great meeting point for the

trade of east and west. It is not surprising that Antioch was the

third city of the empire--after Rome and Alexandria.

The city was built on a plain between the Orontes on the north

and the precipitous slopes of Mount Silpius on the south. A great

wall extended over the rugged heights of the mountain and around

the city. A magnificent street led through the city from east to

west. The buildings were of extraordinary magnificence. Perhaps as

magnificent as the city itself was the famous Daphne, a neighboring

shrine and pleasure resort, well-known for its gilded vice.

The dominant language of Antioch, from the beginning, had been

Greek. The Seleucids prided themselves on the Greek culture of

their court, and Roman rule introduced no essential change. Of

course, along with the Greek language and Greek culture went a

large admixture of eastern blood and eastern custom. Like the other

great cities of the empire, Antioch was a meeting place of various

peoples, a typical cosmopolitan center of a world-wide empire. The

Jewish population, of course, was numerous.

Such was the seat of the apostolic missionary church. Almost lost

at first in the seething life of the great city, that church was

destined to outlive all the magnificence that surrounded it. A new

seed had been implanted in the ancient world, and God would give the

increase.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"

pp. 85-90, 98-110. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on

"Agabus," "Antioch," "Arabia," "Aretas," "Barnabas," "Herod" (3).

Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 40-69;

"Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 121-128. Lewin, "The Life

and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. v, vi and vii. Conybeare and Howson,

"The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," ch. iv. Stalker, "The Life of

St. Paul," pp. 44-63. Lumby, pp. 116-122, 142-155, 307-309. Cook,

pp. 416-418, 430-433, 500, 501. Plumptre, pp. 60-62, 73-79, 152.

Rackham, pp. 136-141, 163-184.