Part II:

Christianity Established Among

the Gentiles

The Principles and Practice

of the Gospel

LESSON XIV

THE GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES

It was a dramatic moment when Paul and Barnabas, with their helper,

set sail from Seleucia, on the waters of the Mediterranean. Behind

them lay Syria and Palestine and the history of the chosen people;

in front of them was the west. The religion of Israel had emerged

from its age-long seclusion; it had entered at last upon the

conquest of the world.

The message that crossed the strait to Cyprus was destined to be

carried over broader seas. A mighty enterprise was begun. It was an

audacious thought! The missionaries might well have been overpowered

by what lay before them--by the power of a world empire, by the

prestige of a brilliant civilization. How insignificant were their

own weapons! Would they ever even gain a hearing? But though the

enterprise was begun in weakness it was begun in faith. At their

departure from Antioch the missionaries were "committed to the grace

of God."

The account of this first missionary journey is one of the most

fascinating passages in The Acts. The interest never flags; incident

follows incident in wonderful variety. In reading this narrative,

we are transplanted into the midst of the ancient world, we come

to breathe the very atmosphere of that cosmopolitan age. In the

lesson of to-day the teacher has an unusual opportunity. If he uses

it well, he may cause the Bible story to live again. Absolutely

essential to that end is the judicious use of a map--preferably

something larger than the small sketch map of the Text Book. A

travel narrative without a map is a hopeless jumble. The map is an

aid both to memory and to imagination. Tracing the route of the

missionaries on the map, the teacher should endeavor to call up the

scenes through which they passed. The student should be made to see

the waters of the Mediterranean, with the hills of Cyprus beyond,

the interminable stretches of the Roman roads, the lofty mountains

of the Taurus, the perils of rivers and the perils of robbers, the

teeming population of the countless cities--and through it all the

simple missionaries of the cross, almost unnoticed amid the turmoil

of the busy world, but rich in the possession of a world-conquering

gospel and resistless through the power of the living God.

1. THE PROPHETS AND TEACHERS

Both prophecy and teaching were gifts of the Spirit. I Cor.

12:28-31. Prophecy was immediate revelation of the divine plan or

of the divine will; teaching, apparently, was logical development

of the truth already given. Which of the men who are mentioned in

Acts 13:1 were prophets and which were teachers is not clear. If any

division is intended it is probably between the first three and the

last two. For this grouping there is perhaps some slight indication

in the connectives that are used in the Greek, but the matter is not

certain. Perhaps all five of the men were possessed of both gifts.

Lucius was perhaps one of the founders of the church, for he

came from Cyrene. Compare Acts 11:20. Manaen is an interesting

figure. He is called "foster-brother" of Herod the tetrarch. The

word translated "foster-brother" is apparently sometimes used in

a derived sense, to designate simply an intimate associate of a

prince. If that be the meaning here, then at least one member of the

church at Antioch was a man of some social standing. In Antioch,

as in Corinth, probably "not many wise after the flesh, not many

mighty, not many noble" were called, I Cor. 1:26; but in Antioch as

in Corinth there were exceptions. The Herod who is here meant is

Herod Antipas, the "Herod" of the Gospels.

2. ELYMAS

When the Jewish sorcerer is first mentioned he is called

Bar-Jesus--that is, "son of Jesus," Jesus being a common Jewish

name. Then, a little below, the same man is called "Elymas the

sorcerer," and the explanation is added, "for so is his name by

interpretation." Apparently the new name Elymas is introduced

without explanation, and then the Greek word for "sorcerer" is

introduced as a translation of that. The word Elymas is variously

derived from an Arabic word meaning "wise," or an Aramaic word

meaning "strong." In either case the Greek word, "magos," for which

our English Bible has "sorcerer," is a fair equivalent. That Greek

word is the word that appears also in Matt. 2:1,7,16, where the

English Bible has "Wise-men"; and words derived from the same root

are used to describe Simon of Samaria in Acts 8:9,11. The word

could designate men of different character. Some "magi" might be

regarded as students of natural science; in others, superstition and

charlatanism were dominant.

3. SAUL AND PAUL

At Acts 13:9 Luke introduces the name "Paul"--"Saul, who is also

called Paul." Previously the narrative always uses the Jewish name

"Saul"; after this "Paul" appears with equal regularity, except in

the accounts of the conversion, where in three verses a special,

entirely un-Greek form of "Saul" is used. Acts 22:7,13; 26:14. Since

in our passage in the original the name of the proconsul, Paulus, is

exactly like the name of the apostle, some have supposed that Paul

assumed a new name in honor of his distinguished convert. That is

altogether unlikely. More probable is the suggestion that although

Paul had both names from the beginning, Luke is led to introduce the

name Paul at just this point because of the coincidence with the

name of the proconsul. Even this supposition, however, is extremely

doubtful. Probably the Roman name, which Paul uses invariably in

his letters, is introduced at this point simply because here for

the first time Paul comes prominently forward in a distinctly Roman

environment.

4. PAUL AND BARNABAS

Connected with this variation in name is the reversal in the

relation between Paul and Barnabas. Previously Barnabas has been

given the priority; but immediately after the incident at Paphos the

missionaries are designated as "Paul and his company," Acts 13:13,

and thereafter when the two are mentioned together, Paul, except at

Acts 14:12,14; 15:12,25, appears first. In the presence of the Roman

proconsul, Paul's Roman citizenship perhaps caused him to take the

lead; and then inherent superiority made his leadership permanent.

5. THE RETURN OF JOHN MARK

The reasons for John Mark's return from Perga to Jerusalem can

only be surmised. Perhaps he was simply unwilling, for some reason

sufficient to him but insufficient to Paul, to undertake the

hardships of the journey into the interior. Certainly it was an

adventurous journey. Paul was not always an easy man to follow.

The severity of Paul's judgment of Mark was not necessarily so great

as has sometimes been supposed. One purpose of the second journey

was to revisit the churches of the first journey. Acts 15:36.

Whether for good or for bad reasons, Mark, as a matter of fact,

had not been with the missionaries on a large part of that first

journey, and was, therefore, unknown to many of the churches. For

this reason, perhaps as much as on account of moral objections, Paul

considered Mark an unsuitable helper. In his later epistles Paul

speaks of Mark in the most cordial way. Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; II

Tim. 4:11. In the last passage, he even says that Mark was useful to

him for ministering--exactly what he had not been at the beginning

of the second missionary journey.

6. HARDSHIPS AND PERSECUTIONS

It is evident from II Cor. 11:23-27 that Luke has recorded only a

small fraction of the hardships which Paul endured as a missionary

of the cross. The tendency to lay exaggerated stress upon martyrdom

and suffering, which runs riot in the later legends of the saints,

is in The Acts conspicuous by its absence. Of the trials which are

vouched for by the unimpeachable testimony of Paul himself, only

a few may be identified in the Lucan narrative. It is natural,

however, to suppose that some of the "perils of rivers" and "perils

of robbers" were encountered on the journey through the defiles of

the Taurus mountains from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, and the one

stoning which Paul mentions is clearly to be identified with the

adventure at Lystra. In II Tim. 3:11 Paul mentions the persecutions

at Antioch, Iconium and Lystra.

7. GEOGRAPHY OF THE FIRST JOURNEY

The first missionary journey led the missionaries into three Roman

provinces: Cyprus, Pamphylia and Galatia. The name "Galatia" had

originally designated a district in the north central part of Asia

Minor, which had been colonized by certain Celtic tribes several

centuries before Christ. By the Romans, however, other districts

were added to this original Galatia, and in 25 B. C. the whole

complex was organized into an imperial province under the name

Galatia. In the first century after Christ, therefore, the name

Galatia could be used in two distinct senses. In the first place, in

the earlier, popular sense, it could designate Galatia proper. In

the second place, in the later, official sense, it could designate

the whole Roman province, which included not only Galatia proper,

but also parts of a number of other districts, including Phrygia and

Lycaonia. Of the cities visited on the first missionary journey,

Pisidian Antioch--which was called "Pisidian" because it was near

Pisidia--and Iconium were in Phrygia, and Lystra and Derbe in

Lycaonia; but all four were included in the province of Galatia.

Many scholars suppose that the churches in these cities were the

churches which Paul addresses in the Epistle to the Galatians. That

view is called the "South Galatian theory." Others--adherents of

the "North Galatian theory"--suppose that the epistle is addressed

to churches in Galatia proper, in the northern part of the Roman

province, which were founded on the second missionary journey. This

question will be noticed again in connection with the epistle.

8. TIME OF THE FIRST JOURNEY

Luke gives very little indication of the amount of time which was

consumed on this first journey. The hasty reader probably estimates

the time too low, since only a few incidents are narrated. The

rapidity of the narrative should not be misinterpreted as indicating

cursoriness of the labor. The passage through Cyprus, Acts 13:6, was

probably accompanied by evangelizing; the extension of the gospel

through the whole region of Antioch, v. 49, must have occupied

more than a few days; the stay at Iconium is designated as "long

time," Acts 14:3; the change of attitude on the part of the Lystran

populace, v. 19, was probably not absolutely sudden; not only Lystra

and Derbe but also the surrounding country were evangelized, v.

6; and finally the missionaries could hardly have returned to the

cities from which they had been driven out, v. 21, unless the heat

of persecution had been allowed to cool. Perhaps a full year would

not be too high an estimate of the time that was occupied by the

journey, and still higher estimates are by no means excluded.

9. THE SCENE AT LYSTRA

The account of the incident at Lystra is one of those inimitable

bits of narrative which imprint upon The Acts the indisputable

stamp of historicity. Lystra, though a Roman colony, lay somewhat

off the beaten track of culture and of trade; hence the extreme

superstition of the populace is what might be expected. It may seem

rather strange that Paul and Barnabas should have been identified

with great gods of Olympus rather than with lesser divinities or

spirits, but who can place a limit upon the superstition of an

uncultured people of the ancient world? The identification may

have been rendered easier by the legend of Philemon and Baucis,

which has been preserved for us by Ovid, the Latin poet. According

to that legend, Zeus and Hermes appeared, once upon a time, in

human form in Phrygia, the same general region in which Lystra was

situated. Zeus and Hermes are the gods with whom Barnabas and Paul

were identified; the English Bible simply substitutes for these

Greek names the names of the corresponding Roman deities. The temple

of Zeus-before-the-city and the preparations for sacrifices are

described in a most lifelike way, in full accord with what is known

of ancient religion. We find ourselves here in a somewhat different

atmosphere from that which prevails in most of the scenes described

in The Acts. It is a pagan atmosphere, and an atmosphere of ruder

superstition than that which prevailed in the great cities. The

"speech of Lycaonia," v. 11, is an especially characteristic touch.

Apparently the all-pervading Greek was understood at Lystra even by

the populace; but in the excitement of their superstition they fell

very naturally into their native language.

As in the case of Peter's release from prison, so in this incident,

wonderful lifelikeness of description is coupled with a miracle. The

scene at Lystra is unintelligible without the miraculous healing of

the lame man, with which it begins. It is impossible, in The Acts as

well as in the Gospels, to separate the miraculous from the rest of

the narrative. The evident truthfulness of the story applies to the

supernatural elements as well as to the rest. The early Christian

mission is evidently real; but it is just as evidently supernatural.

It moved through the varied scenes of the real world, but it was not

limited by the world. It was animated by a mysterious, superhuman

power.

* * * * *

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

111-122. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Cyprus,"

"Antioch" (2), "Iconium," "Lystra," "Derbe," "Galatia." Hastings,

"Dictionary of the Bible": Muir, article on "Cyprus"; Massie,

article on "Bar-Jesus"; Headlam, article on "Paulus, Sergius";

Ramsay, articles on "Antioch in Pisidia," "Iconium," "Lystra,"

"Derbe," "Galatia." Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman

Citizen," pp. 64-129; "The Cities of St. Paul," pp. 247-419;

"Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 129-153. Lewin, "The Life

and Epistles of St. Paul," chapter viii. Conybeare and Howson, "The

Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chapters v and vi. Stalker, "The

Life of St. Paul," pp. 65-71. Lumby, pp. 155-183. Cook, pp. 437-451.

Plumptre, pp. 79-93. Rackham, pp. 194-238.

LESSON XV

THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM

The lesson for to-day deals with one of the most important events in

apostolic history. At the Jerusalem council the principles of the

Gentile mission and of the entire life of the Church were brought

to clear expression. If the original apostles had agreed with the

Judaizers against Paul, the whole history of the Church would have

been different. There would even have been room to doubt whether

Paul was really a disciple of Jesus; for if he was, how could he

come to differ so radically from those whom Jesus had taught? As a

matter of fact, however, these dire consequences were avoided. When

the issue was made between Paul and the Judaizers, the original

apostles decided whole-heartedly for Paul. The unity of the Church

was preserved. God was guiding the deliberations of the council.

1. THE ACTS AND GALATIANS

The treatment of to-day's lesson in the Student's Text Book is

based upon the assumption that Gal. 2:1-10 is an account of the

same visit of Paul to Jerusalem as the visit which is described in

Acts 15:1-29. That assumption is not universally accepted. Some

scholars identify the event of Gal. 2:1-10, not with the Apostolic

Council of Acts 15:1-29, but with the "famine visit" of Acts 11:30;

12:25. Indeed, some maintain that the Epistle to the Galatians not

only contains no account of the Apostolic Council, but was actually

written before the council was held--say at Antioch, soon after the

first missionary journey. Of course this early dating of Galatians

can be adopted only in connection with the "South Galatian theory";

for according to the "North Galatian theory" the churches addressed

in the epistle were not founded until after the council, namely at

the time of Acts 16:6.

Undoubtedly the identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with Acts 11:30;

12:25, avoids some difficulties. If Gal. 2:1-10 be identified

with Acts 15:1-29, then Paul in Galatians has passed over the

famine visit without mention. Furthermore there are considerable

differences between Gal. 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-29. For example, if

Paul is referring to the Apostolic Council, why has he not mentioned

the apostolic decree of Acts 15:23-29? These difficulties, however,

are not insuperable, and there are counter difficulties against the

identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with the famine visit.

One such difficulty is connected with chronology. Paul says

that his first visit to Jerusalem took place three years after

his conversion, Gal. 1:18, and--according to the most natural

interpretation of Gal. 2:1--that the visit of Gal. 2:1-10 took place

fourteen years after the first visit. The conversion then occurred

seventeen years before the time of Gal. 2:1-10. But if Gal. 2:1-10

describes the famine visit, then the time of Gal. 2:1-10 could not

have been after about A. D. 46. Counting back seventeen years from

A. D. 46 we should get A. D. 29 as the date of the conversion, which

is, of course, too early.

This reasoning, it must be admitted, is not quite conclusive. The

ancients had an inclusive method of reckoning time. According to

this method three years after 1914 would be 1916. Hence, fourteen

plus three might be only what we should call about fifteen years,

instead of seventeen. Furthermore, Paul may mean in Gal. 2:1 that

his conference with the apostles took place fourteen years after the

conversion rather than fourteen years after the first visit.

The identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with the famine visit is not

impossible. But on the whole the usual view, which identifies the

event of Gal. 2:1-10 with the meeting at the time of the Apostolic

Council of Acts 15:1-29, must be regarded as more probable. The

Apostolic Council probably took place roughly at about A. D. 49. The

conversion of Paul then should probably be put at about A. D. 32-34.

2. THE JUDAIZERS

Conceivably the question about the freedom of the Gentiles from the

law might have arisen at an earlier time; for Gentiles had already

been received into the Church before the first missionary journey.

As a matter of fact, indeed, some objection had been raised to the

reception of Cornelius. But that objection had easily been silenced

by an appeal to the immediate guidance of God. Perhaps the case of

Cornelius could be regarded as exceptional; and a similar reflection

might possibly have been applied to the Gentile Christians at

Antioch. There seemed to be no danger, at any rate, that the

predominantly Jewish character of the Church would be lost. Now,

however, after a regular Gentile mission had been carried on with

signal success, the situation was materially altered. Evidently the

influx of Gentile converts, if allowed to go on unhindered, would

change the whole character of the Church. Christianity would appear

altogether as a new dispensation: the prerogatives of Israel would

be gone. The question of Gentile Christianity had existed before,

but after the first missionary journey it became acute.

Perhaps, however, there was also another reason why the battle

had not been fought out at an earlier time. It looks very much as

though this bitter opposition to the Gentile mission had arisen only

through the appearance of a new element in the Jerusalem church.

Were these extreme legalists, who objected to the work of Paul and

Barnabas--were these men present in the Church from the beginning?

The question is more than doubtful. It is more probable that these

legalists came into the Church during the period of prosperity

which followed upon the persecution of Stephen and was only briefly

interrupted by the persecution under Herod Agrippa I.

These Jewish Christian opponents of the Gentile mission--these

"Judaizers"--must be examined with some care. They are described not

only by Luke in The Acts but by Paul himself in Galatians. According

to The Acts, some of them at least had belonged to the sect of the

Pharisees before they had become Christians. Acts 15:5.

The activity of the Judaizers is described by Luke in complete

independence of the account given by Paul. As usual, Luke contents

himself with a record of external fact, while Paul uncovers the

deeper motives of the Judaizers' actions. Yet the facts as reported

by Luke fully justify the harsh words which Paul employs. According

to Paul, these Judaizers were "false brethren privily brought in,

who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ

Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Gal. 2:4. By calling

them "false brethren" Paul means simply that they had not really

grasped the fundamental principle of the gospel--the principle

of justification by faith. They were still trying to earn their

salvation by their works instead of receiving it as a gift of God.

At heart they were still Jews rather than Christians. They came in

privily into places where they did not belong--perhaps Paul means

especially into the church at Antioch--in order to spy out Christian

liberty. Gal. 2:4. Compare Acts 15:1.

The rise of this Judaizing party is easy to understand. In

some respects the Judaizers were simply following the line of

least resistance. By upholding the Mosaic law they would escape

persecution and even obtain honor. We have seen that it was the

Jews who instigated the early persecutions of the Church. Such

persecutions would be avoided by the Judaizers, for they could

say to their non-Christian countrymen: "We are engaged simply in

one form of the world-wide Jewish mission. We are requiring our

converts to keep the Mosaic law and unite themselves definitely

with the people of Israel. Every convert that we gain is a convert

to Judaism. The cross of Christ that we proclaim is supplementary

to the law, not subversive of it. We deserve therefore from the

Jews not persecution but honor." Compare what Paul says about the

Judaizers in Galatia. Gal. 6:12,13.

3. THE APOSTOLIC DECREE

At first sight it seems rather strange that Paul in Galatians does

not mention the apostolic decree. Some have supposed that his words

even exclude any decree of that sort. In Gal. 2:6 Paul says that

the pillars of the Jerusalem church "imparted nothing" to him. Yet

according to The Acts they imparted to him this decree. The decree,

moreover, seems to have a direct bearing upon the question that

Paul was discussing in Galatians; for it involved the imposition of

a part of the ceremonial law upon Gentile Christians. How then, if

the decree really was passed as Luke says it was, could it have been

left unmentioned by Paul?

There are various ways of overcoming the difficulty. In the first

place it is not perfectly certain that any of the prohibitions

contained in the decree are ceremonial in character. Three of

them are probably ceremonial if the text of most manuscripts of

The Acts is correct. Most manuscripts read, at Acts 15:29: "That

ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and

from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep

yourselves, it shall be well with you." Here "things offered to

idols" apparently describes not idolatrous worship, but food which

had been dedicated to idols; and "blood" describes meat used for

food without previous removal of the blood. This meaning of "blood"

is apparently fixed by the addition of "things strangled." Since

"things strangled" evidently refers to food, probably the two

preceding expressions refer to food also. According to the great

mass of our witnesses to the text, therefore, the apostolic decree

contains a food law. A few witnesses, however, omit all reference

to things strangled, not only at Acts 15:29 but also at v. 20 and

at ch. 21:25. If this text be original, then it is possible to

interpret the prohibitions as simply moral and not at all ceremonial

in character. "Things offered to idols" may be interpreted simply

of idolatry, and "blood" of murder. But if the prohibitions are

prohibitions of immorality, then they cannot be said to have

"imparted" anything to Paul; for of course he was as much opposed to

immorality as anyone.

However, the more familiar form of the text is probably correct.

The witnesses that omit the word "strangled" are those that attest

the so-called "Western Text" of The Acts. This Western Text differs

rather strikingly from the more familiar text in many places. The

question as to how far the Western Text of The Acts is correct is a

hotly debated question. On the whole, however, the Western readings

are usually at any rate to be discredited.

In the second place, the difficulty about the decree may be overcome

by regarding Gal. 2:1-10 as parallel not with Acts 15:1-29 but with

Acts 11:30; 12:25. This solution has already been discussed.

In the third place, the difficulty may be overcome by that

interpretation of the decree which is proposed in the Student's Text

Book. The decree was not an addition to Paul's gospel. It was not

imposed upon the Gentile Christians as though a part of the law were

necessary to salvation. On the contrary it was simply an attempt

to solve the practical problems of certain mixed churches--not

the Pauline churches in general, but churches which stood in an

especially close relation to Jerusalem. This interpretation of the

decree is favored by the difficult verse, Acts 15:21. What James

there means is probably that the Gentile Christians should avoid

those things which would give the most serious offense to hearers of

the law.

* * * * *

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

125-166. Lightfoot, "Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians," pp.

123-128 ("The later visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem"), 292-374 ("St.

Paul and the Three"). Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman

Citizen," pp. 48-60, 152-175. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St.

Paul," ch. ix. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St.

Paul," ch. vii. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 108-118. Lumby,

pp. 185-200. Cook, pp. 451-458. Plumptre, pp. 93-101. Rackham, pp.

238-259, 263-270.

LESSON XVI

THE GOSPEL CARRIED INTO EUROPE

From the rich store of to-day's lesson only a few points can be

selected for special comment.

1. TITUS AND TIMOTHY

At Lystra, Paul had Timothy circumcised. Acts 16:3. This action

has been considered strange in view of the attitude which Paul had

previously assumed. At Jerusalem, only a short time before, he had

absolutely refused to permit the circumcision of Titus. Evidently,

too, he had regarded the matter as of fundamental importance. Had

Titus been circumcised, the freedom of the Gentile Christians would

have been seriously endangered.

The presence of Titus at the Apostolic Council is mentioned only by

Paul in Galatians. It is not mentioned in The Acts. Indeed, Titus

does not appear in The Acts at all, though in the epistles he is

rather prominent. This fact, however, really requires no further

explanation than that the history of Luke is not intended to be

exhaustive. The restraint exercised by the author of The Acts has

already been observed, for example, in a comparison of the long list

of hardships in II Cor. 11:23-27 with what Luke actually narrates.

The helpers of Paul whom Luke mentions are usually those who

traveled with him. Titus was sent by Paul on at least one important

mission, II Cor. 7:13,14, but was apparently not his companion on

the missionary journeys. Luke does not concern himself very much

with the internal affairs of the churches, and it is in this field

that Titus is especially prominent in the epistles. With regard

to the presence of Titus in Jerusalem, the different purposes of

the narratives in Galatians and in The Acts must be borne in mind.

The non-circumcision of Titus, so strongly emphasized by Paul, was

merely preliminary to the public action of the church in which Luke

was interested. Luke has thought it sufficient to include Titus

under the "certain other" of the Antioch Christians who went up with

Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.

The different policy which Paul adopted in the case of Timothy, as

compared with his policy about Titus, is amply explained by the wide

differences in the situation.

In the first place, when Titus was at Jerusalem, the matter of

Gentile freedom was in dispute, whereas when Timothy was circumcised

the question had already been settled by a formal pronouncement of

the Jerusalem church. After Paul had won the victory of principle,

he could afford to make concessions where no principle was involved.

Timothy was recognized as a full member of the Church even before

his circumcision. Circumcision was merely intended to make him a

more efficient helper in work among the Jews.

In the second place--and this is even more important--Timothy

was a half-Jew. It is perhaps doubtful whether Paul under any

circumstances would have authorized the circumcision of a pure

Gentile like Titus. But Timothy's mother was Jewish. It must always

be borne in mind that Paul did not demand the relinquishment of

the law on the part of Jews; and Timothy's parentage gave him at

least the right of regarding himself as a Jew. If he had chosen to

follow his Gentile father, the Jews could have regarded him as a

renegade. His usefulness in the synagogues would have been lost.

Obviously the circumcision of such a man involved nothing more than

the maintenance of ancestral custom on the part of Jews. Where no

principle was involved, Paul was the most concessive of men. See

especially I Cor. 9:19-23. The final relinquishment of the law on

the part of Jews was rightly left to the future guidance of God.

2. THE ROUTE THROUGH ASIA MINOR

The difficulty of tracing the route of the missionaries beyond

Lystra is due largely to the difficulty of Acts 16:6. A literal

translation of the decisive words in that verse would be either

"the Phrygian and Galatian country" or "Phrygia and the Galatian

country." According to the advocates of the "South Galatian theory,"

"the Galatian country" here refers not to Galatia proper but to

the southern part of the Roman province Galatia. "The Phrygian

and Galatian country" then perhaps means "The Phrygo-Galatic

country," or "that part of Phrygia which is in the Roman province

Galatia." The reference then is to Iconium, Pisidian Antioch and

the surrounding country--after the missionaries had passed through

the Lycaonian part of the province Galatia (Derbe and Lystra) they

traversed the Phrygian part of the province. The chief objection

to all such interpretations is found in the latter part of the

verse: "having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word

in Asia." It looks as though the reason why they passed through

"the Phrygian and Galatian country" was that they were forbidden to

preach in Asia. But South Galatia was directly on the way to Asia.

The impossibility of preaching in Asia could therefore hardly have

been the reason for passing through south Galatia.

Apparently, therefore, the disputed phrase refers rather to some

region which is not on the way to Asia. This requirement is

satisfied if Galatia proper is meant--the country in the northern

part of the Roman province Galatia. When they got to Pisidian

Antioch, it would have been natural for them to proceed into the

western part of Asia Minor, into "Asia." That they were forbidden

to do. Hence they turned north, and went through Phrygia into

Galatia proper. When they got to the border country between Mysia

and Galatia proper, they tried to continue their journey north into

Bithynia, but were prevented by the Spirit. Then they turned west,

and passing through Mysia without preaching arrived at last at the

coast, at Troas.

Nothing is said here about preaching in Galatia proper. But in Acts

18:23, in connection with the third missionary journey, it is said

that when Paul passed through "the Galatian country and Phrygia" he

established the disciples. There could not have been disciples in

the "Galatian country," unless there had been preaching there on the

previous journey. On the "North Galatian" theory, therefore, the

founding of the Galatian churches to which the epistle is directed

is to be placed at Acts 16:6, and the second visit to them, which

seems to be presupposed by the epistle, is to be put at Acts 18:23.

If it seems strange that Luke does not mention the founding of these

churches, the hurried character of this section of the narrative

must be borne in mind. Furthermore, the epistle seems to imply

that the founding of the churches was rather incidental than an

original purpose of the journey; for in Gal. 4:13 Paul says that

it was because of an infirmity of the flesh that he preached the

gospel in Galatia the former time. Apparently he had been hurrying

through the country without stopping, but being detained by illness

used his enforced leisure to preach to the inhabitants. It is not

impossible to understand how Luke came to omit mention of such

incidental preaching. On the second missionary journey attention is

concentrated on Macedonia and Greece.

3. THE MOVEMENTS OF SILAS AND TIMOTHY

When Paul went to Athens, Silas and Timothy remained behind in

Macedonia. Acts 17:14. They were directed to join Paul again as soon

as possible. V. 15. In Acts 18:1,5 they are said to have joined him

at Corinth. The narrative in The Acts must here be supplemented by

the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. What Luke says is perfectly

true, but his narrative is not complete. According to the most

natural interpretation of I Thess. 3:1-5, Timothy was with Paul in

Athens, and from there was sent to Thessalonica. The entire course

of events was perhaps as follows: Silas and Timothy both joined

Paul quickly at Athens according to directions. They were then sent

away again--Timothy to Thessalonica, and Silas to some other place

in Macedonia. Then, after the execution of their commissions, they

finally joined Paul again at Corinth. Acts 18:5; I Thess. 3:6. Soon

afterwards, all three missionaries were associated in the address of

First Thessalonians.

4. PAUL AT ATHENS

In Athens Paul preached as usual in the synagogue to Jews and

"God-fearers"; but he also adopted another and more unusual

method--he simply took his stand without introduction in the

market place, and spoke to those who chanced by. This method was

characteristically Greek; it reminds us of the days of Socrates.

In the market place, Paul encountered certain of the Epicurean

and Stoic philosophers. Both of these schools of philosophy had

originated almost three hundred years before Christ, and both were

prominent in the New Testament period. In their tenets they were

very different. The Stoics were pantheists. They conceived of the

world as a sort of great living being of which God is the soul. The

world does not exist apart from God and God does not exist apart

from the world. Such pantheism is far removed from the Christian

belief in the living God, Maker of heaven and earth; but as against

polytheism, pantheism and theism have something in common. Paul in

his speech was able to start from this common ground. In ethics, the

Stoics were perhaps nearer to Christianity than in metaphysics. The

highest good they conceived to be a life that is led in accordance

with reason--that reason which is the determining principle of the

world. The passions must be conquered, pleasure is worthless, the

wise man is independent of external conditions. Such an ethic worked

itself out in practice in many admirable virtues--in some conception

of the universal brotherhood of mankind, in charity, in heroic

self-denial. But it lacked the warmth and glow of Christian love,

and it lacked the living God.

The Epicureans were materialists. The world, for them, was a

vast mechanism. They believed in the gods, but conceived of them

as altogether without influence upon human affairs. Indeed, the

deliverance of man from the fear of the gods was one of the purposes

of the Epicurean philosophy. The Epicureans were interested chiefly

in ethics. Pleasure, according to them, is the highest good. It

need not be the pleasure of the senses; indeed Epicurus, at least,

the founder of the school, insisted upon a calm life undisturbed by

violent passions. Nevertheless it will readily be seen how little

such a philosophy had in common with Christianity.

The conditions under which Paul made his speech cannot be determined

with certainty. The difficulty arises from the ambiguity of

"Areopagus." "Areopagus" means "Mars' hill." But the term was also

applied to the court which held at least some of its meetings on

the hill. Which meaning is intended here? Did Paul speak before

the court, or did he speak on Mars' hill merely to those who were

interested? On the whole, it is improbable at any rate that he was

subjected to a formal trial.

The speech of Paul at Athens is one of the three important speeches

of Paul, exclusive of his speeches in defense of himself at

Jerusalem and at Cæsarea, which have been recorded in The Acts.

These speeches are well chosen. One of them is a speech to Jews,

Acts 13:16-41; one a speech to Gentiles, Acts 17:22-31; and the

third a speech to Christians, Acts 20:18-35. Together they afford

a very good idea of Paul's method as a missionary and as a pastor.

As is to be expected, they differ strikingly from one another. Paul

was large enough to comprehend the wonderful richness of Christian

truth. His gospel was always the same, but he was able to adapt the

presentation of it to the character of his hearers.

At Athens, an altar inscribed TO AN UNKNOWN GOD provided a starting

point. The existence of such an altar is not at all surprising,

although only altars to "unknown gods" (plural instead of singular)

are attested elsewhere. Perhaps the inscription on this altar

indicated simply that the builder of the altar did not know to which

of the numberless gods he should offer thanks for a benefit that he

had received, or to which he should address a prayer to ward off

calamity. Under a polytheistic religion, where every department of

life had its own god, it was sometimes difficult to pick out the

right god to pray to for any particular purpose. Such an altar was

at any rate an expression of ignorance, and that ignorance served as

a starting point for Paul. "You are afraid that you have neglected

the proper god in this case," says Paul in effect. "Yes, indeed,

you have. You have neglected a very important god indeed, you have

neglected the one true God, who made the world and all things

therein."

In what follows, Paul appeals to the truth contained in Stoic

pantheism. His words are of peculiar interest at the present day,

when pantheism is rampant even within the Church. There is a great

truth in pantheism. It emphasizes the immanence of God. But the

truth of pantheism is contained also in theism. The theist, as well

as the pantheist, believes that God is not far from every one of us,

and that in him we live and move and have our being. The theist, as

well as the pantheist, can say, "Closer is he than breathing, and

nearer than hands and feet." The theist accepts all the truth of

pantheism, but avoids the error. God is present in the world--not

one sparrow "shall fall on the ground without your Father"--but

he is not limited to the world. He is not just another name for

the totality of things, but an awful, mysterious, holy, free and

sovereign Person. He is present in the world, but also Master of the

world.

* * * * *

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

177-197. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Troas,"

"Philippi," "Thessalonica," "Athens," "Areopagus," "Stoics,"

"Epicureans," "Corinth," "Gallio," "Silas." Ramsay, "St. Paul the

Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 175-261; "Pictures of the

Apostolic Church," pp. 197-239. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of

St. Paul," chs. x, xi, and xii. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life

and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. viii, ix, x, xi, and xii. Stalker,

"The Life of St. Paul," pp. 71-81. Lumby, pp. 200-239. Cook, pp.

458-476. Plumptre, pp. 101-124. Rackham, pp. 260-263, 271-331. For

information about the recently discovered Gallio inscription, see

"The Princeton Theological Review," vol. ix, 1911, pp. 290-298:

Armstrong, "Epigraphical Note."

LESSON XVII

ENCOURAGEMENT FOR RECENT CONVERTS

The Pauline Epistles fall naturally into four groups: (1) the

epistles of the second missionary journey (First and Second

Thessalonians); (2) the epistles of the third missionary journey

(Galatians, First and Second Corinthians and Romans); (3) the

epistles of the first imprisonment (Colossians and Philemon,

Ephesians and Philippians); (4) the epistles written after the

period covered by The Acts (First Timothy, Titus and Second Timothy).

Each of these groups has its own characteristics. The first group

is characterized by simplicity of subject matter, and by a special

interest in the second coming of Christ. The second group is

concerned especially with the doctrines of sin and grace. The third

group displays a special interest in the person of Christ and in

the Church. The fourth group deals with organization, and with the

maintenance of sound instruction.

1. SIMPLICITY OF THE THESSALONIAN EPISTLES

The reason for the peculiarities of First and Second Thessalonians

has often been sought in the early date of these epistles. On the

second missionary journey, it is said, Paul had not yet developed

the great doctrines which appear at later periods of his life. This

explanation may perhaps contain an element of truth. Undoubtedly

there was some progress in Paul's thinking. Not everything was

revealed to him at once. The chief cause, however, for the

simplicity of the Thessalonian epistles is not the early date but

the peculiar occasion of these epistles. Paul is here imparting

his first written instruction to an infant church. Naturally he

must feed these recent converts with milk. The simplicity of the

letters is due not to immaturity in Paul but to immaturity in the

Thessalonian church. After all, at the time when the Thessalonian

epistles were written, the major part of Paul's Christian

life--including the decisive conflict with the Judaizers at Antioch

and Jerusalem--lay already in the past.

At any rate the simplicity of the Thessalonian epistles must not be

exaggerated. In these letters the great Pauline doctrines, though

not discussed at length, are everywhere presupposed. There is the

same lofty conception of Christ as in the other epistles, the same

emphasis upon his resurrection, the same doctrine of salvation

through his death. I Thess. 1:10; 5:9,10.

2. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

Undoubtedly the second advent, with the events which are immediately

to precede it, occupies a central position in the Thessalonian

epistles. A few words of explanation, therefore, may here be in

order.

Evidently the expectation of Christ's coming was a fundamental part

of Paul's belief, and had a fundamental place in his preaching. "Ye

turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to

wait for his Son from heaven"--these words show clearly how the hope

of Christ's appearing was instilled in the converts from the very

beginning. I Thess. 1:9,10. To serve the living God and to wait for

his Son--that is the sum and substance of the Christian life. All

through the epistles the thought of the Parousia--the "presence" or

"coming"--of Christ appears as a master motive. I Thess. 2:19; 3:13;

4:13 to 5:11,23,24; II Thess. 1:5 to 2:12.

This emphasis upon the second coming of Christ is explained if Paul

expected Christ to come in the near future. The imminence of the

Parousia for Paul appears to be indicated by I Thess. 4:15: "For

this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are

alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise

precede them that are fallen asleep." This verse is often thought to

indicate that Paul confidently expected before his death to witness

the coming of the Lord. Apparently he classes himself with those who

"are left unto the coming of the Lord" as over against those who

will suffer death. In the later epistles, it is further said, Paul

held a very different view. From Second Corinthians on, he faced

ever more definitely the thought of death. II Cor. 5:1,8; Phil.

1:20-26. A comparison of I Cor. 15:51 with II Cor. 5:1,8 is thought

to indicate that the deadly peril which Paul incurred between the

writing of the two Corinthian epistles, II Cor. 1:8,9, had weakened

his expectation of living until Christ should come. After he had

once despaired of life, he could hardly expect with such perfect

confidence to escape the experience of death. The possibility of

death was too strong to be left completely out of sight.

Plausible as such a view is, it can be held only with certain

reservations.

In the first place, we must not exaggerate the nearness of the

Parousia according to Paul, even in the earliest period; for in II

Thess. 2:1-12 the Thessalonians are reminded of certain events that

must occur before Christ would come. The expression of the former

epistle, I Thess. 5:2, that the day of the Lord would come as a

thief in the night, was to be taken as a warning to unbelievers to

repent while there was yet time, not as a ground for neglecting

ordinary provision for the future. In Second Thessalonians Paul

finds it necessary to calm the overstrained expectations of the

Thessalonian Christians.

Furthermore, it is not only in the earlier epistles that expressions

occur which seem to suggest that the Parousia is near. Rom. 13:11;

Phil. 4:5. And then it is evident from II Cor. 11:23-29 and from

I Cor. 15:30-32 that Paul had undergone dangers before the one

mentioned in II Cor. 1:8,9, so that there is no reason to suppose

that that one event caused any sudden change in his expectations.

Lastly, in I Cor. 6:14 Paul says that "God both raised the Lord, and

will raise up us through his power." If that refers to the literal

resurrection, then here Paul classes himself among those who are to

die; for if he lived to the Parousia, then there would be no need

for him to be raised up.

It is therefore very doubtful whether we can put any very definite

change in the apostle's expectations as to his living or dying

between First Corinthians and Second Corinthians. A gradual

development in his feeling about the matter there no doubt was.

During the early part of his life his mind dwelt less upon the

prospect of death than it did after perils of all kinds had made

that prospect more and more imminent. But at no time did the

apostle regard the privilege of living until the Parousia as a

certainty to be put at all in the same category with the Christian

hope itself. Especially the passage in First Thessalonians can

be rightly interpreted only in the light of the historical

occasion for it. Until certain members of the church had died, the

Thessalonian Christians had never faced the possibility of dying

before the second coming of Christ. Hence they were troubled. Would

the brethren who had fallen asleep miss the benefits of Christ's

kingdom? Paul writes to reassure them. He does not contradict their

hope of living till the coming of Christ, for God had not revealed

to him that that hope would not be realized. But he tells them

that, supposing that hope to be justified, even then they will have

no advantage over their dead brethren. He classes himself with those

who were still alive and might therefore live till Christ should

come, as over against those who were already dead and could not

therefore live till Christ should come.

Certain passages in the epistles of Paul, which are not confined to

any one period of his life, seem to show that at any rate he did

not exclude the very real possibility that Christ might come in

the near future. At any rate, however, such an expectation of the

early coming of Christ was just as far removed as possible from the

expectations of fanatical chiliasts. It did not lead Paul to forget

that the times and the seasons are entirely in the hand of God. It

had no appreciable effect upon his ethics, except to make it more

intense, more fully governed by the thought of the judgment seat of

Christ. It did not prevent him from laying far-reaching plans, it

did not prevent his developing a great philosophy of future history

in Rom., chs. 9 to 11. How far he was from falling into the error he

combated in Second Thessalonians! Despite his view of the temporary

character of the things that are seen, how sane and healthy was his

way of dealing with practical problems! He did his duty, and left

the details of the future to God. Hence it is hard to discover what

Paul thought as to how soon Christ would come--naturally so, for

Paul did not try to discover it himself.

3. THE PERSONS ASSOCIATED IN THE ADDRESS

Almost always other persons are associated with Paul in the

addresses of the epistles. With regard to the meaning of this

custom, extreme views should be avoided. On the one hand, these

persons--usually, at any rate--had no share in the actual

composition of the epistles. The epistles bear the imprint of one

striking personality. On the other hand, association in the address

means something more than that the persons so named sent greetings;

for mere greetings are placed at the end. The truth lies between

the two extremes. Probably the persons associated with Paul in the

address were made acquainted at least in general with the contents

of the epistles, and desired to express their agreement with what

was said. In the Thessalonian epistles Silas and Timothy, who had

had a part in the founding of the Thessalonian church, appear very

appropriately in the address.

A question related to that of the persons associated in the

addresses is the question of the so-called "epistolary plural."

The epistolary plural was analogous to our "editorial we" it was

a usage by which the writer of a letter could substitute "we" for

"I" in referring to himself alone. In many passages in the letters

of Paul it is exceedingly difficult to tell whether a plural is

merely epistolary, or whether it has some special significance. For

example, whom, if anyone, is Paul including with himself in the "we"

of I Thess. 3:1? In particular, the question often is whether, when

Paul says "we," he is thinking of the persons who were associated

with him in the address of the epistle. On the whole it seems

impossible to deny that Paul sometimes uses the epistolary plural,

though his use of it is probably not so extensive as has often been

supposed.

* * * * *

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

197-203. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves (supplemented),

article on "Thessalonians, Epistles to the." Hastings, "Dictionary

of the Bible": Lock, articles on "Thessalonians, First Epistle to

the" and "Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the." M'Clymont, "The

New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 47-57. Ramsay, "Pictures of the

Apostolic Church," pp. 240-246. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp.

85-107. Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers,"

vol. iii, pp. 125-170: Mason, "The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to

the Thessalonians." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges":

Findlay, "The Epistles to the Thessalonians." Zahn, "Introduction

to the New Testament," vol. i, pp. 152-164, 203-255. Milligan, "St.

Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians." The two last-named works are

intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but

can also be used by others.

LESSON XVIII

THE CONFLICT WITH THE JUDAIZERS

1. APOLLOS

Before the arrival of Paul at Ephesus an important event had

taken place in that city--the meeting of Aquila and Priscilla

with Apollos. Apollos was a Jew of Alexandrian descent. He had

already received instruction about Jesus--perhaps in his native

city. Of all the great cities of the Roman Empire Alexandria alone

was approximately as near to Jerusalem as was Syrian Antioch. The

founding of the church at Alexandria is obscure, but undoubtedly it

took place at a very early time. At a later period Alexandria was

of the utmost importance as the center of Christian learning, as

it had been already the center of the learning of the pagan world.

Until instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos had known only

the baptism of John the Baptist. Apparently one important thing

that he had lacked was an acquaintance with the peculiar Christian

manifestation of the Holy Spirit. He seems to have been trained

in Greek rhetoric, whether the word translated "eloquent" in Acts

18:24 means "eloquent" or "learned." Apollos did not remain long

in Ephesus, but went to Corinth, where, as can be learned from

First Corinthians as well as from The Acts, his work was of great

importance.

2. GALATIANS A POLEMIC

After studying first the Thessalonian epistles and then Galatians

in succession the student should be able to form some conception

of the variety among the epistles of Paul. Certainly there could

be no sharper contrast. First and Second Thessalonians are simple,

affectionate letters written to a youthful church; Galatians is

one of the most passionate bits of polemic in the whole Bible. We

ought to honor Paul for his anger. A lesser man might have taken a

calmer view of the situation. After all, it might have been said,

the observance of Jewish fasts and feasts was not a serious matter;

even circumcision, though useless, could do no great harm. But Paul

penetrated below the surface. He detected the great principles that

were at stake. The Judaizers were disannulling the grace of God.

3. THE ADDRESS. GAL. 1:1-5

The addresses of the Pauline epistles are never merely formal. Paul

does not wait for the beginning of the letter proper in order to say

what he has in mind. Even the epistolary forms are suffused with the

deepest religious feeling.

The opening of the present letter is anticipatory of what is to

follow. Dividing the opening into three parts--the nominative (name

and title of the writer), the dative (name of those to whom the

letter is addressed), and the greeting--it will be observed that

every one of these parts has its peculiarity as compared with the

other Pauline epistles.

The peculiarity of the nominative is the remarkable addition

beginning with "not from men," which is a summary of the first

great division of the epistle, Paul's defense against the personal

attack of his opponents. Since the Epistle to the Galatians is

polemic from beginning to end, it is not surprising that the very

first word after the bare name and title of the author is "not."

Paul cannot mention his title "apostle"--in the addresses of First

and Second Thessalonians he had not thought it necessary to mention

it at all--without thinking of the way in which in Galatia it was

misrepresented. "My apostleship," he says, "came not only from

Christ, but directly from Christ."

The peculiarity of the dative is its brevity--not "beloved of God,

called to be saints," or the like, but just the bare and formal "to

the churches of Galatia." The situation was not one which called for

pleasant words!

The greeting is the least varied part in the addresses of the

Pauline epistles. The long addition to the greeting in Galatians is

absolutely unique. It is a summary of the second and central main

division of the epistle, Paul's defense of his gospel. "Christ has

died to free you. The Judaizers in bringing you into bondage are

making of none effect the grace of Christ, manifested on the cross."

That is the very core of the letter. In all of the Pauline epistles

there is scarcely a passage more characteristic of the man than the

first five verses of Galatians. An ordinary writer would have been

merely formal in the address. Not so Paul!

The exultant supernaturalism of the address should be noticed.

This supernaturalism appears, in the first place, in the sphere of

external history--"God the Father, who raised him from the dead."

Pauline Christianity is based upon the miracle of the resurrection.

Supernaturalism appears also, however, in the sphere of Christian

experience--"who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver

us out of this present evil world." Christianity is no mere easy

development of the old life, no mere improvement of the life, but a

new life in a new world. In both spheres, supernaturalism is being

denied in the modern Church. Pauline Christianity is very different

from much that is called Christianity to-day.

Finally, this passage will serve to exhibit Paul's lofty view

of the person of Christ. "Neither through man," says Paul, "but

through Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ is here distinguished sharply

from men and placed clearly on the side of God. What is more, even

the Judaizers evidently accepted fundamentally the same view. Paul

said, "Not by man, but by Jesus Christ"; the Judaizers said, "Not by

Jesus Christ, but by man." But if so, then the Judaizers, no less

than Paul, distinguished Jesus sharply from ordinary humanity. About

other things there was debate, but about the person of Christ Paul

appears in harmony even with his opponents. Evidently the original

apostles had given the Judaizers on this point no slightest excuse

for differing from Paul. The heavenly Christ of Paul was also the

Christ of those who had walked and talked with Jesus of Nazareth.

They had seen Jesus subject to all the petty limitations of human

life. Yet they thought him divine! Could they have been deceived?

4. THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE. GAL. 1:6-10

The thanksgiving for the Christian state of the readers, which

appears in practically every other of the Pauline epistles, is here

conspicuous by its absence. Here it would have been a mockery. The

Galatians were on the point of giving up the gospel. There was just

a chance of saving them. The letter was written in a desperate

crisis. Pray God it might not be too late! No time here for words of

thanks!

In vs. 6-10, Paul simply states the purpose of the letter in a few

uncompromising words: "You are falling away from the gospel and I am

writing to stop you."

5. PAUL'S DEFENSE OF HIS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. GAL. 1:11 to 2:21

After stating, Gal. 1:11,12, the thesis that is to be proved in this

section, Paul defends his independent apostolic authority by three

main arguments.

In the first place, vs. 13-24, he was already launched upon his

work as apostle to the Gentiles before he had even come into any

effective contact with the original apostles. Before his conversion,

he had been an active persecutor. His conversion was wrought,

not, like an ordinary conversion, through human agency, but by an

immediate act of Christ. After his conversion it was three years

before he saw any of the apostles. Then he saw only Peter (and

James) and that not long enough to become, as his opponents said, a

disciple of these leaders.

In the second place, Gal. 2:1-10, when he finally did hold a

conference with the original apostles, they themselves, the very

authorities to whom the Judaizers appealed, recognized that his

authority was quite independent of theirs, and, like theirs, of

directly divine origin.

In the third place, Gal. 2:11-21, so independent was his authority

that on one occasion he could even rebuke the chief of the original

apostles himself. What Paul said at that time to Peter happened to

be exactly what he wanted to say, in the epistle, to the Galatians.

This section, therefore, forms a transition to the second main

division of the epistle. It has sometimes been thought surprising

that Paul does not say how Peter took his rebuke. The conclusion has

even been drawn that if Peter had acknowledged his error Paul would

have been sure to say so. Such reasoning ignores the character of

this section. In reporting the substance of what he said to Peter,

Paul has laid bare the very depths of his own life. To return, after

such a passage, to the incident at Antioch would have been pedantic

and unnecessary. Long before the end of the second chapter Paul

has forgotten all about Peter, all about Antioch, and all about

the whole of his past history. He is thinking only of the grace of

Christ, and how some men are trampling it under foot. O foolish

Galatians, to desert so great a salvation!

6. PAUL'S DEFENSE OF HIS GOSPEL. GAL. 3:1 to 5:12

Salvation cannot be earned by human effort, but must be received

simply as a free gift: Christ has died to save us from the curse of

the law: to submit again to the yoke of bondage is disloyalty to

him--that is the great thesis that Paul sets out to prove.

He proves it first by an argument from experience. Gal. 3:1-5. You

received the Holy Spirit, in palpable manifestation, before you ever

saw the Judaizers, before you ever thought of keeping the Mosaic

law. You received the Spirit by faith alone. How then can you now

think that the law is necessary? Surely there can be nothing higher

than the Spirit.

In the second place, there is an argument from Scripture. Not those

who depend upon the works of the law, but those who believe, have

the benefit of the covenant made with Abraham. Vs. 6-22.

In the third place, by the use of various figures, Paul contrasts

the former bondage with the present freedom. Gal. 3:23 to 4:7. The

life under the law was a period of restraint like that of childhood,

preliminary to faith in Christ. The law was intended to produce the

consciousness of sin, in order that the resultant hopelessness might

lead men to accept the Saviour. Vs. 23-25. But now all Christians

alike, both Jews and Gentiles, are sons of God in Christ, and

therefore heirs of the promise made to Abraham. Vs. 26-29. Being

sons of God, with all the glorious freedom of sonship, with the

Spirit crying, "Abba, Father," in the heart, how can we think of

returning to the miserable bondage of an external and legalistic

religion? Gal. 4:1-11.

In the fourth place, Paul turns away from argument to make a

personal appeal. Vs. 12-20. What has become of your devotion to me?

Surely I have not become your enemy just because I tell you the

truth. The Judaizers are estranging you from me. Listen to me, my

spiritual children, even though I can speak to you only through the

cold medium of a letter!

In the fifth place, Paul, in his perplexity, bethinks himself of

one more argument. It is an argument that would appeal especially

to those who were impressed by the Judaizers' method of using the

Old Testament, but it also has permanent validity. The fundamental

principle, says Paul, for which I am arguing, the principle of

grace, can be illustrated from the story of Ishmael and Isaac.

Ishmael had every prospect of being the heir of Abraham. It seemed

impossible for the aged Abraham to have another son. Nature was on

Ishmael's side. But nature was overruled. So it is to-day. As far as

nature is concerned, the Jews are the heirs of Abraham--they have

all the outward marks of sonship. But God has willed otherwise.

He has chosen to give the inheritance to the heirs according to

promise. The principle of the divine choice, operative on a small

scale in the acceptance of Isaac, is operative now on a large scale

in the acceptance of the Gentile church.

Finally, Paul concludes the central section of the epistle by

emphasizing the gravity of the crisis. Gal. 5:1-12. Do not be

deceived. Circumcision as the Judaizers advocate it is no innocent

thing; it means the acceptance of a law religion. You must choose

either the law or grace; you cannot have both.

7. THE RESULTS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. GAL. 5:13 to 6:10

In this third main division of the epistle Paul exhibits the

practical working of faith. Paul's gospel is more powerful than the

teaching of the Judaizers. Try to keep the law in your own strength

and you will fail, for the flesh is too strong. But the Spirit is

stronger than the flesh, and the Spirit is received by faith.

8. CONCLUSION. GAL. 6:11-18

This concluding section, if not the whole epistle, was written

with Paul's own hand. V. 11. In his other letters Paul dictated

everything but a brief closing salutation.

In the closing section, Paul lays the alternative once more before

his readers. The Judaizers have worldly aims, they boast of worldly

advantages; but the true Christian boasts of nothing but the cross.

Christianity, as here portrayed, is not the gentle, easy-going

doctrine that is being mistaken for it to-day. It is no light thing

to say, "The world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the

world." But the result is a new creature!

* * * * *

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

203-213. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": article on "Ephesus";

Purves, articles on "Galatia" and "Galatians, Epistle to the"

(supplemented). Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Ramsay, article

on "Ephesus"; Dods, article on "Galatians, Epistle to the." Ramsay,

"St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 262-282;

"Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 247-269, 293-300. Lewin,

"The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. xii, xiii. Conybeare and

Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. xii, xiii, xiv, xv

and xvi. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 82-84, 108-118. Lumby,

pp. 239-266. Cook, pp. 476-485. Plumptre, pp. 124-136. Rackham, pp.

331-370. M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 70-76.

Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol.

ii, pp. 419-468: Sanday, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the

Galatians." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges": Perowne,

"The Epistle to the Galatians." Zahn, "Introduction to the New

Testament," vol. i, pp. 164-202. Lightfoot, "Saint Paul's Epistle

to the Galatians." The two last-named works are intended primarily

for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by

others.

LESSON XIX

PROBLEMS OF A GENTILE CHURCH

Christianity, according to Paul, is an escape from the world. Gal.

1:4. All human distinctions are comparatively unimportant. "There

can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free,

there can be no male and female." Gal. 3:28. Such a doctrine might

seem logically to lead to fanaticism. If the Christian is already a

citizen of heaven, may he not be indifferent to the conditions of

life upon this earth? Such a conclusion was altogether avoided by

Paul. In First Corinthians Paul is revealed as the most practical of

men. All human distinctions are subordinate and secondary--and yet

these distinctions are carefully observed. Paul was a man of heroic

faith, but he was also possessed of admirable tact.

It is not that the one side of Paul's nature limited the other;

it is not that common sense acted as a check to transcendental

religion. On the contrary, the two things seemed to be in perfect

harmony. Just because Paul was inwardly so entirely free from the

world, he was also so wise in dealing with worldly affairs. The

secret of this harmony was consecration. Human relationships, when

consecrated to God, are not destroyed, but ennobled. They cease,

indeed, to be an end in themselves, but they become a means to

Christian service. The Christian man has no right to be indifferent

to the world. If he is, he is no true son of the God who made the

world, and sent the Lord to save it. The Christian, like the man of

the world, is profoundly interested in the conditions of life on

this earth. Only, unlike the man of the world, he is not helpless

and perplexed in the presence of those conditions; but from his

vantage ground of heavenly power, he shapes them to the divine will.

He is interested in the world, but he is interested in it, not as

its servant, but as its master.

So in First Corinthians Paul lays hold of certain perplexing

practical problems with the sure grasp of one who is called to rule

and not to serve. Everything that he touches he lifts to a higher

plane. In his hands even the simplest things of life receive a

heavenly significance.

The problems that are discussed in First Corinthians stood in a

special relation to the environment of the Corinthian church. Most

of them were due to the threatened intrusions of Greek paganism.

They are closely analogous, however, to the problems which we have

to solve to-day. Paganism and worldliness are not dead. The Church

still stands in the midst of a hostile environment. We can still use

the teaching of Paul. That teaching will now be examined in a few of

its important details.

1. THE PARTIES

Paul mentions four parties that had been formed in the Corinthian

church--a Paul-party, an Apollos-party, a Cephas-party and a

Christ-party. These parties do not seem to have been separated

from one another by any serious doctrinal differences, and it

is impossible to determine their characteristics in detail. In

the section where the party spirit is discussed, Paul blames the

Corinthians for intellectual pride. This fault has often been

connected with the Apollos-party. Apollos was an Alexandrian, and

probably had an Alexandrian Greek training. He might therefore have

unconsciously evoked among some members of the Corinthian church an

excessive admiration for his more pretentious style of preaching,

which might have caused them to despise the simpler manner of Paul.

Even this much, however, is little more than surmise. At any rate,

Apollos should not be blamed for the faults of those who misused his

name. He is praised unstintedly by Paul, who was even desirous that

he should return at once to Corinth. I Cor. 16:12. Paul blames the

Paul-party just as much as any of the other three.

The Peter-party was composed of admirers of Peter, who had either

come to Corinth from the scene of Peter's labors elsewhere, or

simply had known of Peter by hearsay. It is unlikely that Peter

himself had been in Corinth, for if he had Paul would probably have

let the fact appear in First or Second Corinthians. The Christ-party

is rather puzzling. A comparison with the false teachers who are

combated in Second Corinthians has led some scholars to suppose that

it was a Judaizing party, which emphasized a personal acquaintance

with the earthly Jesus as a necessary qualification of apostleship.

In that case, however, Paul would probably have singled out the

Christ-party for special attack. More probably these were simply men

who, in proud opposition to the adherents of Paul, of Apollos and

of Cephas, emphasized their own independence of any leader other

than Christ. Of course, the watchword, "I am of Christ," if used in

a better spirit, would have been altogether praiseworthy, and indeed

Paul desires all the parties to unite in it. I Cor. 3:21-23.

Perhaps it is a mistake to attribute to these parties anything like

stability. On the whole, the passage gives the impression that it is

not the individual parties that Paul is condemning, but the party

spirit. That party spirit was manifested by watchwords like those

which are enumerated in I Cor. 1:12, but that that enumeration was

meant to be complete, does not appear. The whole effort to determine

the characteristics of the individual parties--an effort which has

absorbed the attention of many scholars--should perhaps be abandoned.

Paul's treatment of the party spirit exhibits his greatness not

only as an administrator, but also as a writer. The subject was

certainly not inspiring; yet under Paul's touch it becomes luminous

with heavenly glory. The contrast of human wisdom with the message

of the cross, I Cor. 1:18-31, where a splendid rhythm of language

matches the sublimity of the thought, the wonderful description of

the freedom and power of the man who possesses the Spirit of God,

the grand climax of the third chapter, "For all things are yours;

whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or

death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye

are Christ's; and Christ is God's"--these are among the passages

that can never be forgotten.

2. THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS

The question of meats offered to idols, which Paul discusses in I

Cor. 8:1 to 11:1, was exceedingly intricate. To it Paul applies

several great principles. In the first place, there is the principle

of Christian freedom. The Christian has been delivered from

enslaving superstitions. Idols have no power; they cannot impart

any harmful character to the good things which God has provided

for the sustenance of man. In the second place, however, there is

the principle of loyalty. The fact that idols are nothing does not

render idol-worship morally indifferent. On the contrary, idolatry

is always sinful. If the eating of certain kinds of food under

certain conditions involves participation in idolatry then it is

disloyalty to the one true God. The joint operation of the two

principles of freedom and of loyalty seems to lead in Paul's mind

to the following practical conclusion:--The Christian may eat the

meat that has been offered to idols if it is simply put on sale in

the market place or set before him at an ordinary meal; but he must

not take part with the heathen in specifically religious feasts. The

whole question, however, is further viewed in the light of a third

principle--the principle of Christian love. Even things that are in

themselves innocent must be given up if a brother by them is led

into conduct which for him is sin. Christ has died for that weaker

brother; surely the Christian, then, may not destroy him. Thus

love, even more than loyalty, limits freedom--but it is a blessed

limitation. The principles here applied by Paul to the question of

the Corinthian Christians will solve many a problem of the modern

Church.

3. SPIRITUAL GIFTS

The principle of Christian love, with the related principle of

toleration, is applied also to another set of problems, the problems

with regard to the exercise of spiritual gifts. The passage in which

Paul discusses these problems, aside from its spiritual and moral

teaching, is of singular historical interest. It affords a unique

picture of the devotional meetings of an apostolic church. The

characteristic of these meetings was the enthusiasm which prevailed

in them. Paul is not at all desirous of dampening that enthusiasm.

On the contrary the gifts in question were in his judgment really

bestowed by the Holy Spirit. Even the gift of tongues, which Paul

limits in its operation, is in his judgment of genuine value.

Indeed, he himself had exercised it even more than the other

Christians. I Cor. 14:18. This last fact should correct any unworthy

impression which we might have formed with regard to the gift. If

speaking with tongues was practiced by Paul, then it was no mere

unhealthy emotionalism. We are to-day unable to understand it fully,

but in the apostolic Church it was a real expression of Christian

experience.

Paul desires, not to dampen the enthusiasm of the Corinthian church,

but merely to eliminate certain harmful by-products of that which

was in itself altogether excellent. The first principle which he

applies is the principle of toleration. There is room in the Church

for many different kinds of workers. "There are diversities of

gifts, but the same Spirit." The principle is often neglected in the

modern Church. Toleration, indeed, is on everyone's lips; but it

is not the kind of toleration that Paul means. It is often nothing

more than indifference to the great verities of the faith. Such

toleration would have met with nothing but an anathema from Paul.

The toleration that Paul is commending is a toleration, not with

regard to matters of doctrine, but with regard to methods of work.

Such toleration is often sadly lacking. Some advocates of missions

think that almost every Christian who stays at home is a coward;

some good, conservative elders, on the other hand, have little

interest in what passes the bounds of their own congregation. Some

Christians of reserved habits are shocked at the popular methods

of the evangelists; some evangelists are loud in their ignorant

denunciation of the Christian scholar. In other words, many very

devout Christians of the present day act as though they had never

read the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians.

The principle of toleration, however, culminates in the principle of

love. If there must be a choice between the exercise of different

gifts, then the choice should be in favor of those gifts which are

most profitable to other men. Finally, even the highest spiritual

gifts are not independent of reason. I Cor. 14:32,33. That is a

far-reaching principle. Some modern Christians seem to think that an

appeal to the inward voice of the Spirit excuses them from listening

to reasonable counsel. Such is not the teaching of Paul.

4. THE RESURRECTION

The error which is combated in the fifteenth chapter of the epistle

could hardly have been a denial, in general, of continued existence

after death, but was rather a denial of the resurrection of the body

as over against the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

In reply, Paul appeals to the resurrection of Jesus. The appeal

would seem to be futile unless Paul means that the resurrection of

Jesus was a bodily resurrection. If the appearances of Jesus were no

more than incorporeal manifestations of his spirit, then obviously

the believer in a mere immortality of the soul remained unrefuted.

In this chapter there is an advance over the simple teaching of

First Thessalonians. Here the character of the resurrection body

comes into view. The resurrection body will have a real connection

with the old body--otherwise there would be no resurrection--but the

weakness of the old body will be done away. There is continuity, but

also transformation.

5. INCIDENTAL INFORMATION ABOUT JESUS

Certain passages in First Corinthians, which are introduced only in

an incidental way, as illustrations of the principles which are

being applied, are of inestimable historical value. These passages

include not only the great autobiographical passage in the ninth

chapter, where Paul illustrates from his own life the limitation

of the principle of freedom by the principle of love, but also two

all-important passages which refer to the life of Christ.

It is generally admitted that First Corinthians was written at about

A. D. 55. The eleventh chapter of the epistle gives an account of

the institution of the Lord's Supper, in which Jesus teaches the

sacrificial significance of his death; and the fifteenth chapter

gives a list of the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection. The

information contained in these passages was not invented by Paul;

indeed he distinctly says that it was "received." In A. D. 55, then,

not only Paul, but also the Church generally believed that Jesus'

death, according to his own teaching, was sacrificial, and appealed

in support of his resurrection to a wealth of competent testimony.

But from whom had Paul "received" these things? Hardly from

anyone except those who had been Christians before him--in other

words, from the Palestinian church. We have here an irremovable

confirmation of the Gospel view of Jesus. First Corinthians is a

historical document of absolutely priceless value.

The incidental character of these historical passages is especially

noteworthy. It shows that Paul knew far more about Jesus than he

found occasion in the epistles to tell. If he had told more, no

doubt the Gospel picture of Jesus would have received confirmation

throughout.

* * * * *

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

213-221. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": article on "Apollos";

Purves and Davis, article on "Corinthians, Epistles to the."

Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Robertson, article on

"Corinthians, First Epistle to the." M'Clymont, "The New Testament

and Its Writers," pp. 58-64. Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary

for English Readers," vol. ii, pp. 281-356: Shore, "The First

Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians." "The Cambridge

Bible for Schools": Lias, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians."

Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. i, pp. 256-306.

"The International Critical Commentary": Robertson and Plummer, "A

Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul

to the Corinthians." The two last-named works presuppose a knowledge

of Greek.

LESSON XX

THE APOSTLE AND HIS MINISTRY

1. ADDRESS AND THANKSGIVING. II Cor. 1:1-11

In First Corinthians the obscure Sosthenes is found to be associated

with Paul in the address of the epistle; in Second Corinthians it

is Timothy, one of the best-known of the helpers of Paul. Even if

that mission of Timothy to Corinth which is mentioned in First

Corinthians had resulted in failure, Timothy's usefulness in the

church was not permanently affected.

After the address, comes, as is usual in the Pauline Epistles,

an expression of thanksgiving to God. This time, however, it is

not thanksgiving for the Christian state of the readers, but

thanksgiving for Paul's own escape from danger. The absence of

thanksgiving for the readers does not mean here, as in the case of

Galatians, that there was nothing to be thankful for in the church

that is being addressed, for the whole first section of the letter

is suffused with a spirit of thankfulness for the Corinthians'

return to their true allegiance; it means rather simply that the

thought of the deadly personal danger, and of the remarkable escape,

were for the moment in the forefront of Paul's thought. Even that

personal matter, however, was used by Paul to fortify his readers

against similar trials, and especially to strengthen still further

the bonds of sympathy which had at last been restored between him

and them.