← catalogue

The Literature and History of New Testament Times

by J. Gresham Machen · English · Gutenberg #43685 · 679,005 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Literature and History of New Testament Times
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Literature and History of New Testament Times

Author: J. Gresham Machen


        
Release date: September 10, 2013 [eBook #43685]
                Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43685

Credits: E-text prepared by Heather Clark, Julia Neufeld, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LITERATURE AND HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES ***

Transcriber's note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

      Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).





THE LITERATURE AND HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES


PART I:

The Historical Background of
Christianity

The Early History of
Christianity

by

JOHN GRESHAM MACHEN







Philadelphia, Pa.
The Presbyterian Board Of Publication and Sabbath School Work




CONTENTS


                                                          PAGE

  Introduction                                               3

  LESSON

   1. The New Testament                                      5

   2. The Roman Background of Christianity                  10

   3. The Greek Background of Christianity                  15

   4. The Jewish Background of Christianity:
            I. Palestinian Judaism                          21

   5. The Jewish Background of Christianity:
            II. The Judaism of the Dispersion               26

   6. The Messiah                                           31

   7. The Book of The Acts                                  36

   8. The Cross and the Resurrection the Foundation of
            Apostolic Preaching                             41

   9. The Beginnings of the Christian Church                46

  10. The First Persecution                                 51

  11. The First Gentile Converts                            56

  12. The Conversion of Paul                                60

  13. The Church at Antioch                                 67

  14. The Gospel to the Gentiles                            75

  15. The Council at Jerusalem                              81

  16. The Gospel Carried Into Europe                        86

  17. Encouragement for Recent Converts                     92

  18. The Conflict with the Judaizers                       97

  19. Problems of a Gentile Church                         103

  20. The Apostle and His Ministry                         109

  21. The Gospel of Salvation                              115

  22. Paul's Journey to Rome                               120

  23. The Supremacy of Christ                              124

  24. The Church of Christ                                 129

  25. Christ and His Followers                             133

  26. Training New Leaders                                 138

  27. A Presentation of Jesus to Jewish Christians         147

  28. A Graphic Sketch of the Life of Jesus                154

  29. A Greek Historian's Account of Jesus                 158

  30. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple                165

  31. The Jesus of the Gospels                             174

  32. A Document of the Jerusalem Church                   178

  33. Jesus the Fulfillment of the Old Testament           184

  34. Christian Fortitude                                  189

  35. The Christian's Attitude Toward Error and Immorality 194

  36. The Life of the Children of God                      198

  37. The Messages of the Living Christ                    203

  38. A Vision of the Final Triumph                        209

  39. Review                                               213

  40. The Church and the World                             219

  41. The Christian Message                                225

  42. The Word and the Sacraments                          231

  43. Prayer                                               238

  44. The Congregation                                     244

  45. The Relief of the Needy                              249

  46. Organizing for Service                               255

  47. A Mission for the World                              261

  48. The Christian Ideal of Personal Morality             266

  49. Christianity and Human Relationships                 271

  50. The Christian Use of the Intellect                   277

  51. The Christian Hope and the Present Possession        282

  52. Retrospect: the First Christian Century              287


            Copyright, 1915, by John Gresham Machen




INTRODUCTION


The general purpose of this course of lessons has been set forth in
the introduction to the Student's Text Book. There is a tendency
in the modern Church to neglect the study of Bible history. Such
neglect will inevitably result in a loss of power. The gospel is a
record of something that has happened, and uncertainty about the
gospel is fatal weakness. Furthermore the historical study of the
apostolic age--that age when divine revelation established the
great principles of the Church's life--is the best corrective for
a thousand vagaries. Much can be learned from modern pedagogy; but
after all what is absolutely fundamental, both for teacher and for
student, is an orderly acquaintance with the Bible facts.

The Teacher's Manual, therefore, is intended not merely to offer
suggestions as to methods of teaching, but primarily to supplement
the teacher's knowledge. A teacher who knows only what he actually
imparts to the class is inevitably dull. The true teacher brings
forth out of his treasure things new and old.

The sections in the Teacher's Manual, since they are intended to
be supplementary, should not be read until after careful attention
has been paid to the corresponding sections in the Student's Text
Book. Moreover, both sections together are of course in themselves
insufficient. They should be supplemented by other reading.
Suggestions about reading have been put at the end of every lesson.
Here, however, a few general remarks may be made.

Davis' "Dictionary of the Bible" and Purves' "Christianity in the
Apostolic Age," which have been recommended even to the student,
will be to the teacher almost invaluable. The earnest teacher
will also desire to refer to good commentaries on The Acts. The
commentaries which have been mentioned in connection with the
individual lessons are based upon the English Bible; but every
teacher who has any knowledge of Greek, however slight, should use,
instead, the commentary of Knowling, in "The Expositor's Greek
Testament." For the life of Paul, Lewin's "Life and Epistles of St.
Paul" and the similar book of Conybeare and Howson are still very
valuable for their vivid and extended descriptions of the scenes of
the missionary journeys. A similar service is rendered, in more
up-to-date form, by the various works of Ramsay. Stalker's "Life of
St. Paul" is a good handbook. M'Clymont's "New Testament and Its
Writers" contains instructive, though very brief, introductions
to all of the New Testament books. Hastings' "Dictionary of the
Bible" and "Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels" number among
their contributors many writers of many opinions. They are rich in
references to the vast literature of modern Biblical discussion.

The writer of this course has derived information from many
quarters. Definite acknowledgment of indebtedness, since no
originality is claimed, may be regarded as unnecessary. It is a
pleasure, however, to render special thanks to Rev. Professor
William Park Armstrong, D. D., of Princeton Theological Seminary,
whose wise counsel has been of incalculable assistance at many
points.

The actual presentation of the lessons will, of course, vary
according to the needs of the classes and the preferences of the
teachers. The Student's Text Book may often provide a convenient
order of presentation. That book is intended not merely to be read,
but also to be studied. It is to be regarded as a sort of outline of
the course.

The "topics for study" are intended to serve a double purpose. In
the first place, they will test the student's knowledge of the
lesson material; in the second place, they will afford encouragement
to special investigation. Individual topics may often be assigned
for thorough treatment to individual students, while the class as a
whole may use all the topics as guides to a general knowledge.

Personal interest in the individual students is of the utmost
importance. Instruction has a tenfold value when it is backed by
friendship. The relation of the students to the Church should
be a matter of especial concern. If any member of the class has
not confessed his faith in Christ, the study of this year offers
abundant opportunity for a word in season. Our study reveals the
Church as a divine institution. Shall we then stand aloof?

In this course the teacher has the opportunity of introducing
young people of maturing minds to the historical study of the New
Testament. There could be no more inspiring task. Carried about with
every wind of doctrine, the Church is sadly in need of an assured
anchorage. That anchorage should be sought in history. Ignorance is
weak; sound knowledge, sought with prayer, and blessed by the Spirit
of God, will lead to a more stalwart and more intelligent faith.




LESSON I

THE NEW TESTAMENT


This is an introductory lesson. It should be used, first of all, to
answer intelligent general questions about the New Testament. Some
of these questions will be discussed briefly under Sections 1 to 3,
below.

The historical study of the New Testament, based upon a study of
the circumstances under which the individual books were written,
will probably be new to many of the students. The new point of view
should be used to awaken interest. The climax of the lesson should,
however, be a presentation of the unity of the New Testament as the
very Word of God to us. Historical study should be made--and can be
made--subservient to reverent and thankful obedience.


1. THE ORIGIN AND MEANING OF THE NAME

The English word "testament" comes from a Latin word. The equivalent
Greek word is hard to translate. As used in the Greek Bible it may
mean either "covenant" or "testament." Usually it should probably be
translated "covenant."

The phrase "new covenant" occurs about five times in the New
Testament. In none of these passages does the phrase refer to the
"New Testament" in our sense. It designates a new relationship into
which men have been received with God. The old covenant was made,
through the mediatorship of Moses, with the Hebrew nation; the new
covenant, hinted at in prophecy, Jer. 31:31, and instituted by the
Lord Jesus, I Cor. 11:25, was made with all those, of every tribe
and tongue and people and nation, who should through faith accept
the salvation offered by Christ. Those who believe become, like
Israel of old, God's chosen people, and enter into the warmth and
joy of the divine communion. The names "old and new covenants,"
then, were applied first to these two special relationships into
which God entered with men. Afterwards the names were applied to the
books in which the conditions of those relationships were set forth.
Perhaps it would have been better if we had started to say "New
Covenant" where we now say "New Testament." At any rate the idea
alluded to in the name is the inspiring idea, realized in Christ,
of an alliance with God. The New Testament is the divine treaty by
the terms of which God has received us rebels and enemies into peace
with himself.


2. ONE BOOK, OR A COLLECTION OF BOOKS?

In the first place, the New Testament may be treated in every
respect as a single book. That course is adopted by many of the most
devoted lovers of the Bible. By them the Bible is treated simply
as a textbook of religion. Passages are quoted indiscriminately
from all parts of it, without much regard to the context. The wide
differences of form and of spirit among the various books are
ignored. The historical implications of the books are of course
accepted as true, but practically they are left quite unassimilated.

Now let us be quite plain about one thing. The men who use the Bible
in this way are right in the main point. They treat the Bible as the
guide of life for time and for eternity. And if by the use of the
Bible we can come into communion with God, we can afford to miss a
good many other things. Nevertheless, the Bible is as a matter of
fact not a mere textbook of religion, and if we treat it as such we
miss much of its richness. If the Bible were merely a systematic
treatise, it would be far easier to interpret. The interpreter
would be spared a great deal of trouble, but the burden would be
heaped upon the preacher. As it is, the Bible is itself a preacher,
because it is in such close contact with the actual experience of
men of flesh and blood. Its general teachings are given us in large
measure only through the medium of history, through the medium
of example. In order to arrive at the general truths, therefore,
intellectual labor is often necessary. God has made things harder
for the intellect that he may strike home the more surely to the
heart. If Paul had written a systematic theology, the New Testament
way of salvation might in some ways have been plainer than it is.
It would have been plain to the intellect, but it would have needed
interpretation to the heart. Conviction can be wrought only by
the immediate impact of personal life. The theology of Paul, of
itself, might be a dead thing; the religious experience of Paul,
interwoven with his theology, and bared before us in the epistles,
is irresistible.

In the second place, the historical form of the Bible may be
considered at the expense of its spiritual content. The Bible may
be treated simply as a storybook. Such a method of treatment is
exceedingly common to-day. "The Bible as literature" is its slogan.
This treatment has simply missed the main point altogether. It
is incomparably inferior to that treatment which takes the Bible
as a mere textbook of religion. The Bible as an addition to the
world's history or the world's literature has, indeed, considerable
educational value. But it does not give eternal life.

A third method is possible, and that third method is right. The
historical and literary form of the Bible is recognized to the full.
But it is regarded not as an end in itself, but as a means to an
end. Historical study is necessary not only to establish to the
modern man the saving facts of the gospel, but also to do justice
to the dramatic narrative form in which God has revealed to us his
eternal will.

It is nearer the truth, then, to say that the New Testament is
a single book than to say that it is a collection of books. Its
parts differ widely among themselves, in authorship, in date, in
circumstances, in aim. Those differences must be studied carefully,
if the full meaning is to be obtained. But widely as the New
Testament writings differ among themselves, they differ yet far more
widely from all other books. They presented themselves originally to
the Church with a divine authority, which is foreign to the ordinary
writings of men. That authority has been confirmed through the
Christian centuries. Those who have submitted their lives to the New
Testament have never been confounded. The New Testament has been to
them the voice of God.


3. THE FOUR DIVISIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

(1) THE GOSPELS.--Christianity is based upon historical facts.
Attempts, it is true, are often made to separate it from history.
But they are bound to result in failure. Give up history, and
you can retain some things. But you can never retain a gospel.
For "gospel" means "good news," and "good news" means tidings,
information derived from the witness of others. In other words, it
means history. The question whether religion can be independent of
history is really just the old question whether we need a gospel.
The gospel is news that something has happened--something that
puts a different face upon life. What that something is is told
us in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is the life and death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(2) THE BOOK OF THE ACTS.--The Book of The Acts is a history of the
extension of Christianity from Jerusalem out into the Gentile world.
It represents that extension as guided by the Spirit of God, and
thus exhibits the divine warrant for the acceptance of us Gentiles,
and for the development of the Christian Church. It provides the
outline of apostolic history without which we could not understand
the other New Testament books, especially the epistles of Paul. It
illustrates to the full what has been said above about the value of
the historical form in which the Bible teaching is presented. By
reading this vivid narrative we obtain an impression of the power of
the Holy Spirit which no systematic treatise could give.

(3) THE EPISTLES.--The Epistles of the New Testament are not just
literature put in an epistolary form, but real letters. It is true
that the addresses of some of them are very broad, for example,
those of James and of I Peter; and that some of them contain no
specific address at all, for example, Hebrews and I John. But the
great majority of them, at least, were written under very special
circumstances and intended to be read first by very definite people.

The chief letter-writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul.
To a certain extent he used the forms of letter-writing of his time,
just as everyone to-day begins a letter with "Dear Sir." Within the
last twenty years a great number of Greek private letters, dating
from about the time of Paul, have been discovered in Egypt, where
they have been preserved by the dry climate. It is interesting to
compare them with the letters of Paul. There are some striking
similarities in language; for both these letter-writers and Paul
used the natural language of daily life rather than the extremely
artificial language of the literature of that period. To a certain
extent, also, Paul used the same epistolary forms. The differences,
however, are even more instructive than the resemblances. It is
true, the Pauline epistles are not literary treatises, but real
letters. But on the other hand they are not ordinary private letters
intended to be read and thrown away, like the letters that have
been discovered in Egypt. Most of them were intended to be read
originally in churches. It is natural, then, that they should have
been written in a loftier style than is to be found in mere business
communications and the like. And if Paul uses the epistolary forms
of his time he uses them in an entirely new way. Even the mere
openings of the epistles are made the vehicle of Christian truth.
"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ"--there is nothing like that in contemporary letter-writing.
The openings of the Pauline epistles form an interesting study.
They are varied with wonderful skill to suit the varied character
and subject matter of the letters that follow. Paul is never merely
formal.

The letters of Paul differ widely among themselves. The Epistle
to the Romans is almost a systematic exposition of the plan of
salvation. Philemon is concerned with a little personal matter
between Paul and one of his converts. But even where Paul is most
theological he is personal, and even where he is most personal, he
is faithful to his theology. Theology in him is never separate from
experience, and experience never separate from theology. Even petty
problems he settles always in the light of eternal principles. Hence
his letters, though the specific circumstances that gave rise to
them are past and gone, will never be antiquated.

(4) THE APOCALYPSE.--The Christian life is a life of hope. Inwardly
we are free, but our freedom is not yet fully realized. We are in
danger of losing our hope in the trials or in the mere humdrum of
life. To keep it alive, the Apocalypse opens a glorious vision of
the future. The vision is presented in symbolical language. It is
not intended to help in any calculation of the times and seasons.
But it shows us the Lamb upon the throne--and that is enough.

       *       *       *       *       *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on
"Bible," "Canon of the New Testament," "Covenant," "New Testament,"
and "Testament."




LESSON II

THE ROMAN BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY


Christianity is not a human product. It is not to be explained by
what preceded it on the earth. It is a new beginning in history, an
immediate exercise of the divine power.

But though Christianity was not produced by men, it operates upon
men, and upon men subject to all the ordinary conditions of earthly
life. Primitive Christianity, then, which we shall study this year,
cannot be understood fully without an examination of the historical
conditions under which it arose.

In the class, the lesson should probably be approached through
the New Testament examples of the general principles which are
outlined in the lesson helps. Examples will be found in the passages
assigned in the Student's Text Book, and others should be sought for
elsewhere.


1. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EMPIRE

By the middle of the first century before Christ the power of the
Roman republic extended around the Mediterranean Sea. Victories
abroad, however, were accompanied by serious troubles at home. The
increase of wealth and the importation of slave labor had produced
unfortunate social conditions. The realm had become too large
to be administered adequately by the old republican government.
Individuals sometimes obtained practical control of affairs, and
the state was torn by civil wars. Finally, in 49 B. C., Julius
Cæsar entered Rome at the head of an army, and Roman liberty was at
an end. After the assassination of Cæsar in 44 B. C., there was a
succession of civil wars, and then, by the victory of Actium in 31
B. C., Octavius, who later assumed the name of Augustus, became sole
ruler. Augustus died in A. D. 14.

Subsequent emperors during the first century were: Tiberius (A. D.
14-37), Caligula (A. D. 37-41), Claudius (A. D. 41-54), Nero (A.
D. 54-68), Galba, Otho and Vitellius (A. D. 69), Vespasian (A. D.
69-79), Titus (A. D. 79-81), Domitian (A. D. 81-96), Nerva (A. D.
96-98), Trajan (A. D. 98-117).


2. ROMAN ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE EMPIRE

The general advantages of the Roman imperial government have been
considered in the Student's Text Book. It will here be advisable
to consider one or two features a little more in detail. Much of
what follows can be illustrated from the New Testament; for the
acquaintance of New Testament writers, especially of Luke, with
Roman administration is not only accurate but also minute. The
students should be encouraged to seek New Testament illustrations
for themselves.

(1) THE PROVINCES.--The provinces of the empire are to be
distinguished from the territories of subject kings or princes.
The latter were quite subservient to Rome, but were given more
independence of administration. A good example of such a subject
king, theoretically an ally, but in reality a vassal, was Herod the
Great, who ruled over all Palestine till 4 B. C.

The provinces themselves were divided into two great
classes--imperial provinces and senatorial provinces.

The imperial provinces were under the immediate control of the
emperor. They were governed by "legates," who had no regular term of
office, but served at the emperor's pleasure. The imperial provinces
were those in which, on account of unsettled conditions, or for the
defense of the empire, large bodies of troops had to be maintained.
Thus, by keeping the appointment of the legates exclusively in
his own hands, the emperor retained the direct control of the
all-important power of the army. A good example of an imperial
province is the great province of Syria, with capital at Antioch.
Palestine was more or less under the supervision of the Syrian
legate.

Districts different from the great imperial provinces, but, like
them, under the immediate control of the emperor, were governed by
"procurators." Judea, from A. D. 6 to A. D. 41, and from A. D. 44
on, is an example.

The senatorial provinces were governed by "proconsuls," chosen by
lot from among the members of the Senate. The proconsuls served for
only one year. Even over these provinces and their governors the
emperor retained the fullest supervisory authority. The senatorial
provinces composed the central and more settled portions of the
empire, where large standing armies would not be needed. Examples
are Achaia, with capital at Corinth, and Cyprus with capital at
Paphos. Proconsuls of both of these provinces are mentioned in the
New Testament by name.

(2) LOCAL GOVERNMENT.--The Romans did not attempt to introduce
perfect uniformity throughout the empire. The original Greek unit of
political life was the city, and Greek cities were scattered over
the east before the Roman conquest. With regard to local affairs,
many of the cities retained a certain amount of independence. It
is interesting to observe the local peculiarities of the cities
described in The Acts.

In addition to the Greek cities, many of which were more or less
"free" in local affairs, many "Roman colonies" had been established
here and there throughout the empire. The original colonists were
often veterans of the Roman armies. Of course the populations soon
came to be mixed, but Roman traditions were cultivated in the
colonies more than elsewhere. A number of the cities of The Acts
were colonies, and one, Philippi, is expressly declared to be such.
Acts 16:12. In that city the Roman character of the magistrates
appears clearly from the Lucan narrative. There were "prætors" and
"lictors."

(3) ROMAN CITIZENSHIP.--Before New Testament times Roman citizenship
had been extended to all Italy. Italy, therefore, was not a province
or group of provinces, but was regarded as a part of Rome. Outside
of Italy Roman citizenship was a valuable special privilege. It
raised a man above the mass of the provincial population. Some of
the advantages of it appear clearly in the New Testament narrative.
Because Paul was a Roman citizen he was legally exempt from the most
degrading forms of punishment, and had a right to appeal to the
court of the emperor. Roman citizenship was sometimes acquired by
money, but Paul inherited it from his father.


3. ROMAN RELIGION

Under the empire, Rome was possessed of a state religion. The
ancient gods of the republic were retained. There were great
divinities like Jupiter and Mars, and there were numberless private
divinities of individual households. The ancient religion had,
indeed, undergone modifications. New divinities in plenty had been
received. But the reception of the new did not involve abolition
of the old. On the contrary, the gods of other peoples could be
accepted just because they were regarded as nothing but the Roman
gods under different names. Thus, long before the Christian era,
there had been a thoroughgoing identification of the gods of Greece
with the gods of Rome. The Greek Zeus, for example, was identified
with the Roman Jupiter; the Greek Ares with the Roman Mars. The gods
of countries other than Greece were also received, though, as far as
the city of Rome was concerned, with some conservatism.

In the Roman world, religion was a national affair. Worship of the
national gods was not only piety, but also patriotism. Patriotism
and religion were inseparably connected. Support of the gods of
Rome, even where personal faith in them had been undermined, was
considered to be the duty of every loyal citizen.

The political aspect of Roman religion appears most clearly in the
worship of the Roman emperors. This remarkable development appears
from the beginning of the empire. Augustus, indeed, refused to
receive divine honors, at least in the west. But in the east even he
was worshiped, and as time went on the reluctance of the emperors
disappeared. Some of the worst of the emperors were most insistent
upon their own divinity.

Perhaps the first impulse of the modern man is to regard the Cæsar
cult simply as a particularly despicable form of flattery. In
reality it was more than that. It was not established by imperial
edict. It was not dictated primarily by servile fear. The Greek
inhabitants of the empire really regarded Augustus as their saviour.
And so he was, as far as any man could be. He saved them from the
miseries of civil war, and from the rapacity of the degenerate
republic; he gave them peace and happiness. And they responded by
regarding him as a god.

To them it was natural. To them it was nothing new. Alexander the
Great had been regarded as a god long before the Christian era. His
successors in Syria and in Egypt had also received divine honors.
To the genuine Romans, the thing did not come so easy. The Cæsar
cult, at least at first, was not developed in the west. But even the
Romans could worship the emperor's "genius" or spirit, and from that
to the actual worship of the emperor was but a step. Essential to
the whole process of deification, both in Rome and in the east, was
the close connection in ancient thinking between deity and humanity,
and between religion and the state. If patriotism is religion, then
the king is a god.

The Cæsar cult was the most palpable incorporation of the state
religion. Worship of the emperor, therefore, might well be the
test of loyalty to Rome. It could be practiced by skeptics and
philosophers. It could be practiced by the devotees of all
religions--save two. Jews and Christians alone could not bow at the
emperor's shrine, for their God was a God who could brook no rival.
He was not merely the greatest among many. He was the only Lord,
Maker of heaven and earth.


4. THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND SUBSEQUENT HISTORY

Between Christianity and the Roman state, with its official
religion, a life-and-death struggle was inevitable. But in the
providence of God it was delayed. The empire was used not to crush
Christianity but to open the world before it.

But was the empire really identical with the world? It seemed so
to the Romans and to the Greeks. To them the empire was the world.
And they were right. Not, of course, in a literal sense. In the
first century after Christ, vast civilizations--for example the
civilization of China--were already in existence. There were great
peoples of whom the Romans had never heard. But Roman arrogance
has at last been vindicated. For Rome was in reality the key to
subsequent history. Rome was the parent of Europe, and Europe
is moving the world. Even China is at last being opened to the
civilization of Rome. The Romans were right. He who could master
Rome would be master, one day, of the world.

It has been a long process. But God's plans are sure. Christianity
appeared at the one time when the world was open before it. By the
power of the divine Spirit it conquered the empire. The empire
dominated its barbarian conquerors. The barbarians are the parents
of modern civilization. Modern civilization is invading the earth's
remotest bounds. China, at last, is within our ken. Realms long
closed have at last been opened. Another great opportunity! An
opportunity for greed and selfishness! An opportunity for a dismal
skepticism! And an opportunity for the Church of God!

       *       *       *       *       *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Adeney,
article on "Cæsar"; Gwatkin, articles on "Roman Empire," and "Rome."
Hastings, "Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics": Iverach, article
on "Cæsarism." Westcott, "The Two Empires," in "The Epistles of St.
John," pp. 250-282. Ramsay, "The Cities of St. Paul," pp. 48-81.




LESSON III

THE GREEK BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY


The purpose of the present lesson is to make the student feel that
the gospel was from the beginning a real gospel in a real world. If
we isolate the early preaching from its environment, we make it seem
like an unreal thing. Study of New Testament times makes the New
Testament itself become a more living, a more interesting book.

In the Student's Text Book an outline of the Hellenistic age has
been provided. It has been supplemented below by illustrative
material. But in the class the lesson can probably be best
approached from the side of the New Testament itself. In what
languages is the Bible written? How did the New Testament come to
be written in Greek? What other languages are mentioned in the New
Testament? What light do these passages shed upon the linguistic
conditions of the time? What is the attitude of the apostles toward
Greek thought? Is that attitude altogether unfavorable, or did the
early missionaries ever lay hold upon the higher aspirations of
their Gentile hearers (Athens)? Where did the missionaries come into
contact with heathen superstition? (Several fine examples in The
Acts). What was the moral condition of the Greco-Roman world? How
was the Hellenistic age like our own? Why did God send our Lord just
in the first century? What was the social condition of the early
Christians? Do you think that was an advantage or a disadvantage?
What men of higher position are mentioned in the New Testament?
Questions like these will serve to relate the general expositions
in the lesson helps to the New Testament itself. The lesson helps
are intended to provide merely the presuppositions necessary for
intelligent study. God working for real men in a real world--that is
the subject of the lesson.


1. THE HELLENISTIC AGE

The Greek world culture which prevailed after the conquest of
Alexander was widely different from the Greek life of the classical
period. The earlier period is called the "Hellenic" period, the
later period is designated as "Hellenistic." When Greek thought
made itself master of the world, it became mingled with numberless
foreign elements. The mixture appears most clearly, perhaps, in
the sphere of religion. Polytheism was capable of indefinite
expansion. New gods could easily be identified with the old, or else
be received along with them without a conflict. The religion of
the Greco-Roman world is therefore different from that of ancient
Greece. It is a curious mixture of the most diverse beliefs.
Nevertheless, the whole deserves to be called Hellenistic, because
even the most strikingly non-Grecian elements were usually subjected
more or less to the subtle molding of the Greek spirit.

The Hellenistic age used to be despised, but among modern scholars
it is coming into its own. Its literary products are admittedly
inferior to the glories of the earlier age, but even in literature
its achievements are not to be despised, and in other spheres it is
supreme. Notably in mathematics and in natural science it was the
golden age. Euclid, the geometrician, lived three centuries before
Christ.

The learning of the Hellenistic age was centered in Alexandria in
Egypt, a city which had been founded by Alexander the Great. Athens
had, perhaps, ceased to possess the primacy. That fact is typical
of the time. Greek culture had ceased to belong to Greece in the
narrower sense. It had become a possession of the world. The great
library of Alexandria was a sign of the times. The Hellenistic age
was an age of widespread learning.

When Rome became master of the eastern world, conditions were not
fundamentally changed. Rome merely hastened a process that was
already at work. Already the nations had been brought together by
the spread of Greek culture; Roman law merely added the additional
bond of political unity. The Roman legions were missionaries of an
all-pervading Hellenism.

The Greco-Roman world was astonishingly modern. It was modern in its
cosmopolitanism. In our own time the nations have again been brought
together. The external agencies for their welding are far more
perfect to-day than they were under the empire. Even the Roman roads
would be but a poor substitute for the railroad and the telegraph
and the steamship. But on the other hand we lack the bond of a
common language. In some ways the civilized world was even more of a
unit in the first century than it is to-day.

The cosmopolitanism of the Roman Empire was a God-given opportunity
for the Church. In a cosmopolitan age, if a man has something
to say, he will not lack for an audience. His message will be
understood in one place as well as in another. The lesson is obvious
for the Church of to-day. Again God has opened the world before us.
If we have a message, in God's name let us proclaim it while yet
there is time.


2. THE GREEK BIBLE

The Church originated in Palestine. The first missionaries were
native Jews. Yet even they had been affected by the cosmopolitanism
of the time. Even they could use Greek, in addition to their native
language. And Paul, the greatest of the missionaries, though a Jew,
was a citizen of a Greek city. The Church from the beginning was
able to speak to the larger world.

One difficulty might possibly have arisen. The Christian mission
was not carried on merely by the oral word. From the beginning
Christianity was a religion with a Book. And that Book was not
Greek. On the contrary it was intensely un-Grecian. The Old
Testament is intolerant of heathen ideas. It is deeply rooted in the
life of the chosen people. How could a Hebrew book be used in the
Greek world?

The difficulty might have been serious. But in the providence of
God it had been overcome. The Old Testament was a Hebrew book, but
before the Christian era it had been translated into Greek. From the
beginning Christianity was provided with a Greek Bible. It is always
difficult to make a new translation of the Bible. Every missionary
knows that. The introduction of a new translation takes time. It
was fortunate, then, that a Greek-speaking Church had a Greek Bible
ready to hand.

Everything was prepared for the gospel. God's time had come. Roman
rule had brought peace. Greek culture had produced unity of speech.
There was a Greek world, there were Greek-speaking missionaries, and
there was a Greek Bible. In the first century, the salvation that
was of the Jews could become a salvation for the whole world.


3. THE PAPYRI

The world in which the gospel was proclaimed is deserving of careful
study. How shall it be investigated?

The most obvious way is to study the literature of the period.
Until recent years that was almost the only way. But that method
is partial at best. For literature is after all but an imperfect
measure of any age. The society that is found in books is an
idealized society, or at any rate it is the society of the great.
The plain man is unrecorded. His deeds are not deemed worthy of a
place in history.

Within the last thirty years, however, the plain people of the
ancient world have come remarkably into view. They are revealed to
us in the "non-literary papyri."

"Papyri" are pieces of papyrus. Papyrus was the common writing
material of antiquity up to about A. D. 300, when vellum, or
parchment, came into general use. Unfortunately papyrus, which was
made from the pith of the papyrus plant, is not a very durable
substance, so that ancient papyri have been preserved until
modern times only under exceptionally favorable conditions. These
conditions are found in Egypt, where the dry climate has kept the
papyrus from disintegration.

In Egypt, within the last thirty years, have been discovered large
numbers of papyrus sheets with Greek writing. Of these the "literary
papyri" contain simply parts of books. They differ from other copies
of the works in question only in that they are usually older than
the vellum manuscripts. The "non-literary papyri," on the other
hand, are unique. They are private documents of all sorts--receipts,
petitions, wills, contracts, census returns, and most interesting
of all, private letters. It was usually not intended that these
documents should be preserved. They were simply thrown away upon
rubbish heaps or used as wrappings of mummies. They have been
preserved only by chance.

The non-literary papyri are important first of all in the study
of language. They exhibit the language of everyday life, as
distinguished from the language of literature. The language of
literature always differs more or less from the language used on
the street, and the difference was particularly wide in the Greek
of the Hellenistic period. The books of the time were modeled to a
considerable extent upon the ancient classics, but the actual spoken
language had been changing. Hence the literary language had become
exceedingly artificial.

Up to within the last few years, the literary language alone could
be studied. The books of the period were preserved, but the language
of daily life was gone. Now, however, the papyri supply what was
lacking. In them there is no attempt at style. They are composed in
the language which was employed in the ordinary affairs of life and
preserve the actual spoken language of every day.

At this point a remarkable fact must be noticed. The language of
the New Testament is more like the language of the non-literary
papyri than it is like the language of contemporary literature.
The papyri indicate, therefore, that the New Testament is composed
in the natural living language of the time rather than according
to the canons of an artificial rhetoric. The artlessness of the
New Testament has sometimes been regarded as a reproach. Instead,
it is a cause for rejoicing. The simplicity of the gospel would
only be concealed by niceties of style. The greatness of the New
Testament is independent of literary art. It would be a mistake,
however, to suppose that the New Testament, because it is composed
in the language of the people, is characterized by anything like
cheapness or vulgarity. On the contrary its simplicity is the noble
simplicity of truth. In the New Testament the spoken language of the
Greco-Roman world, in all its living freshness, becomes a worthy
vehicle for the sublimest thoughts.

The non-literary papyri, then, reproduce for us the spoken language
of the time as distinguished from the artificial language of
literature. But that does not exhaust their importance. They afford
a knowledge not only of language, but also of life. Through them
ordinary people are revealed in the ordinary relations of every day.
In them, the ancient world has been made to live again.

A few examples (see the book of Professor Milligan mentioned at
the end of the lesson) will serve to indicate the character of the
papyrus letters.

The following boy's letter (of the second or the third century after
Christ) is written in very bad grammar, but is for that reason all
the more lifelike. (The translation is taken from Grenfell and Hunt,
"Oxyrhynchus Papyri," Part i., p. 186.)

"Theon to his father Theon, greeting. It was a fine thing of you
not to take me with you to the city! If you won't take me with you
to Alexandria I won't write you a letter or speak to you or say
good-by to you; and if you go to Alexandria I won't take your hand
nor ever greet you again. That is what will happen if you won't take
me. Mother said to Archalaus, 'It quite upsets him to be left behind
(?).' It was good of you to send me presents ... on the 12th, the
day you sailed. Send me a lyre, I implore you. If you don't, I won't
eat, I won't drink; there now!"

The following invitation to dinner, of the second century after
Christ, throws light upon I Corinthians (the translation taken from
Professor Milligan):

"Antonius, son of Ptolemæus, invites you to dine with him at the
table of the lord Serapis in the house of Claudius Serapion on the
16th at 9 o'clock."

"The lord Serapis" is a god. Even an ordinary dinner party seems
thus to be regarded as the table of Serapis. Under such conditions
the Christian life must have been hard to lead. No wonder the
Corinthian Christians had to ask Paul questions. Even the ordinary
affairs of life were intimately connected with a false religion.
What should the attitude of the Christians be? Where should they
draw the line in associating with their heathen friends?


4. A REAL GOSPEL IN A REAL WORLD

The people that are introduced to us so intimately in the papyri
are probably very fair representatives of the people among whom the
gospel was first proclaimed. In that cosmopolitan age the society
of Egyptian towns was probably not so very different from that of
Corinth. The people of the papyri are not the great men of the time;
they are just plain folk. But the early Christians were also usually
not of exalted social position, though there were exceptions. "Not
many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble" were
called. I Cor. 1:26. Many of the early Christians were slaves, many
were humble tradesmen. The same classes appear in the papyri. In the
papyri we are introduced into the private lives of the men to whom
the gospel was proclaimed. Seeing, but unseen, hidden as by a magic
cap, we watch them in their most intimate affairs. And we come away
with a new feeling of the reality of early Christian history. These
men were not so very different from ourselves. They were real men
and women, living in a real world. And they needed a real gospel.

       *       *       *       *       *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible," extra volume:
Ramsay, article on "Religion of Greece," pp. 109-156, especially
pp. 135-156. Milligan, "Selections from the Greek Papyri," (with
translations). Deissmann, "The Philology of the Greek Bible," pp.
1-63, 144-147. Ramsay, "The Cities of St. Paul," pp. 1-47. Browning,
"Cleon," (vol. iv, pp. 115-122 of the Riverside Edition.)




LESSON IV

THE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY

I. PALESTINIAN JUDAISM


1. SOURCES

The New Testament is one of the chief sources of information about
the Palestinian Judaism of the first century. Other important
sources are the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian,
and the Mishna. The Mishna is a collection of Jewish interpretations
of the Mosaic law. In its written form it is thought to have been
produced at the end of the second century, but it contains a mass of
earlier material which had been preserved by oral tradition.


2. OUTLINE OF JEWISH HISTORY

After the conclusion of the Old Testament period the Jewish nation
had undergone important changes. If, therefore, the Judaism of the
first century is to be understood, the student must have in mind at
least a bare outline of the history between the Testaments.

Old Testament history closes with the rebuilding of the walls of
Jerusalem and the reorganization of the national life which took
place under Ezra and Nehemiah in the fifth century before Christ.
At that time Judah, or "Judea," was the only part of Palestine
which was occupied by the Jews, and they occupied it only as
vassals--though with independence in internal affairs--of the kings
of Persia.

The Persian dominion continued for over a century. Then, in the
latter part of the fourth century before Christ, Judea was conquered
by Alexander the Great. For some hundred years after the death of
Alexander, the country was a bone of contention between the kings of
Egypt and the kings of Syria--that is, between the Ptolemies and the
Seleucids. At the beginning of the second century before Christ the
king of Syria won a permanent victory.

Under the Ptolemies and at first under the Seleucids, as well
as under the Persians, the Jews enjoyed a considerable measure
of independence in the management of their own affairs. Their
religion, in particular, was left quite unmolested. But the
assimilation which was not being accomplished by force was being
accomplished by peaceful influences. The all-pervasive Greek culture
of the period was making itself felt in Palestine as well as
elsewhere. Judea seemed to be in danger of being Hellenized.

Under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria (175-164 B. C.),
however, the policy of toleration was suddenly interrupted.
Antiochus tried to stamp out the Jewish religion by force. The
result was a heroic uprising led by Mattathias and his sons, who
are called the Maccabees. The tyranny of Antiochus had caused a
mighty popular reaction against the Hellenizing party among the
Jews. Devotion to the religion of Israel with exclusion of foreign
influences was ever afterwards the dominant tendency in Jewish
history.

The Maccabees were at first wonderfully successful against
overwhelming odds; and when the opposing forces seemed at last to
have become too powerful, internal conflicts at the Syrian court
gave the Jewish patriots that independence which they could probably
not otherwise have maintained. Rulers belonging to the Maccabean
dynasty governed the Jewish nation for about a hundred years, during
most of which period they were independent. Their territory at first
embraced only Judea, but was gradually enlarged over the other parts
of Palestine. Galilee, which--since the destruction of the northern
Israelitish kingdom centuries before--had become predominantly
Gentile, was Judaized under Aristobulus I in 104-103 B. C. Before
the time of Christ it had become thoroughly Jewish.

Unfortunately the worldly power of the Maccabees had brought
worldliness of spirit. The first revolt had been undertaken from a
lofty religious motive, in order to maintain the worship of Jehovah.
As the years went on, the Maccabean rulers became increasingly
engrossed in the extension of political power. Allying themselves
with the aristocratic party among the Jews, they came to favor the
extension of those Greek influences--though not in the sphere of
religion--which at first they had opposed. Under Queen Alexandra
(76-67 B. C.) it is true, there was a reaction. The strictly Jewish,
anti-Hellenistic party again became dominant. But under Alexandra's
successors there was civil strife, and the all-conquering Romans
found the country an easy prey. Pompey took possession of Jerusalem
in 63 B. C.

The years that followed saw the gradual rise of the family of
Herod the Great, who, as vassal of the Romans, became king of all
Palestine in 37 B. C. and ruled until 4 B. C. Herod was an Idumæan,
not a genuine Jew. Idumæa, however, the country to the south of
Judah, had been Judaized some time before. Herod was at heart a
Hellenist. He built Greek theaters and amphitheaters not only in the
numerous Greek cities in or near Palestine, but also in Jerusalem
itself. Nevertheless he was wise enough to support the Jewish
religion and generally to respect the customs of the people. His
magnificent rebuilding of the temple was probably intended chiefly
to win popular favor.

At Herod's death, his territory was divided among his sons.
Archelaus was given Judea, Antipas--the "Herod" of Jesus' public
ministry--received Galilee and Perea, with the title of "Tetrarch,"
and Philip received certain territories to the east of Galilee.
Archelaus was banished in A. D. 6, Antipas was banished in A. D.
39, and Philip died in A. D. 33. After the banishment of Archelaus,
Judea was administered by Roman procurators till A. D. 41, when all
Palestine was given to Herod Agrippa I. Acts 12:1-4,18-23. After A.
D. 44, procurators were again in control.

The misgovernment of the procurators led to the great revolt in A.
D. 66. After four years of war, Jerusalem was taken by the Roman
army in A. D. 70. The temple was destroyed, and the offering of
sacrifices ceased. The destruction of the temple marks an epoch in
Jewish history. Henceforth the national center was gone.

There was another uprising in A. D. 132-135, but that was the last.
A Gentile city was erected on the ruins of Jerusalem, and for a
considerable time at least the Jews were forbidden even to enter its
precincts.


3. ADMINISTRATION AND PARTIES

After the return from the Exile, the priests occupied a position
of leadership. The high priest, whose office was hereditary, was
practically head of the Jewish state. With him was associated a
council, composed of members of the priestly aristocracy. This state
of affairs prevailed during the Persian and Greek periods. Under the
Maccabees the power of the high priest reached its highest point.
For after a time the Maccabean rulers themselves assumed the title
of high priest, and still later the title of king. The high priest,
then, under the Maccabees, was also king. Under Herod the Great, on
the contrary, the high priesthood sank to its lowest ebb. Herod made
and unmade high priests at pleasure.

The council associated with the high priest was, under Alexandra,
opened to the members of the strict anti-Hellenistic party. At the
time of Christ it included both Pharisees and Sadducees.

These parties became distinct at the time of the Maccabees. The
Sadducees--the origin of the name is not altogether clear--were
the aristocratic party, hospitable to Greek culture. The Pharisees
were the strict Jewish party, devoted to the law, and opposed to
foreign influences. The name "Pharisee" means "separated." The
Pharisees were "separated" from the mass of the people by a stricter
observance of the Mosaic law. At first the Pharisees supported the
Maccabean leaders; for the Maccabean revolt was in the interests
of the Jewish religion. But when the Maccabees became engrossed in
worldly politics and susceptible to Greek influences the Pharisees
opposed them. At the time of Christ the essential characteristics of
the parties remained unchanged.


4. LANGUAGE

Some centuries before Christ, Hebrew had ceased to be the ordinary
language of Palestine. As the language of the Old Testament it
continued to be studied. Old Testament passages in Hebrew were
read in the synagogue. Hebrew was used also to some extent as the
language of learned discussion. But for all ordinary purposes its
place had been taken by Aramaic, a language of the Semitic family
closely related to Hebrew. At the time of Christ Aramaic was the
spoken language of the Palestinian Jews. Even in the synagogues,
the Old Testament passages, after having been read in Hebrew,
were translated orally into the language which the people could
understand.

But, since the time of Alexander the Great, another language had
made its way into Palestine along with Aramaic. This was the Greek.
The kingdoms into which Alexander's empire was divided were Greek
kingdoms. Two of them, Syria and Egypt, bore rule alternately over
Palestine. With the Greek government came Greek culture and the
Greek language. Then, under Antiochus Epiphanes, there was a mighty
reaction. Thereafter religion, at least, was kept altogether free
from Greek influences.

In other spheres, however, under the Maccabean kings and still more
under the Romans, Greek culture effected an entrance. At the time
of Christ there were typical Greek cities not only to the east of
the Jordan in Decapolis, where magnificent ruins even to-day attest
the ancient Greco-Roman civilization, and not only along the coast
of the Mediterranean, but even within the confines of Palestine
proper. With some truth Palestine in the first century may be called
a bilingual country. Greek and Aramaic were both in use.

Aramaic was the language of the mass of the people. Many, no doubt,
could speak no other language. But if a man desired to make his way
in the world in any public capacity or in trade he would be obliged
to learn the cosmopolitan language of the time. No doubt very many
could speak both languages.

Jesus and his apostles belonged to those circles which were least
affected by the encroachments of Greek civilization. The whole
atmosphere of the Gospels is as un-Greek as could be imagined. As is
proved by the presence of Aramaic words even in our Greek Gospels,
Aramaic was undoubtedly the language in which the gospel was
originally proclaimed. Aramaic was the language of Jesus' boyhood
home, and Aramaic was the language of his intercourse with the
disciples and of his public preaching.

It is perfectly possible, however, that even Jesus may have used
Greek upon rare occasions, for example in conversation with Pilate,
the Roman procurator. His disciples, after the resurrection,
found themselves at the head of a Greek-speaking community. The
early Church in Jerusalem was composed not only of "Hebrews," but
also of "Grecians," or Hellenists. Acts 6:1. The Hellenists were
Greek-speaking Jews of the dispersion who were sojourning more or
less permanently in the holy city. The apostles seem to have entered
upon their new functions without difficulty. Some knowledge of
Greek, no doubt, all of them brought with them from their Galilean
homes, and their knowledge would be increased through practice. It
is not surprising then that several of the original apostles and two
of the brothers of Jesus were the authors of Greek books of the New
Testament.

       *       *       *       *       *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Riggs, "A History of the Jewish People," especially
pp. 105-116, 143-153, 215-231. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible":
articles on "Council," "Pharisees," "Sadducees," "Synagogue,"
"School," "Scribe," "Aramaic," and "Hebrew." The outline of Jewish
history and institutions which is provided in the lesson helps for
this lesson and the following is dependent especially upon the large
German work of Schürer.




LESSON V

THE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY

II. THE JUDAISM OF THE DISPERSION


The presentation of the lesson in class may be begun somewhat in
the manner suggested in the Student's Text Book. The student should
be made to appreciate the practical problem of a missionary in a
new city. Various solutions of the problem may be adopted. The
missionary may simply engage in conversation with individuals in the
street, or he may hire a room and advertise his preaching. In any
case the securing of an audience is usually no easy matter. It is
difficult to know how to begin.

The case might naturally have been the same with Paul and his
companions when, for example, after the journey up from Perga they
arrived at Pisidian Antioch. Complete strangers were perhaps not
much better received in those days than they are now. How could
the missionaries get a hearing for their message? In some cases,
they might simply take their stand in the market place and talk
to the passers-by. Paul tried that method in Athens. It might do
when nothing better offered. But fortunately there was usually a
far better opportunity. The synagogue offered an audience. What is
more, it offered just exactly the most promising audience that could
possibly have been secured.

The scene in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch is typical of what
happened again and again. The student should be made to appreciate
the remarkable liberality and informality of the synagogue customs.
There seem to have been no set preachers. Any Jew who really had a
message could be heard. He needed only to go in and sit down. Acts
13:14. Paul and Barnabas had no difficulty in making their fitness
known. "Brethren," said the rulers of the synagogue, "if ye have any
word of exhortation for the people, say on." Acts 13:15. They had a
word of exhortation indeed. "Jesus is the Messiah for whom you are
waiting. He has died for your sins. He has risen from the dead, and
is now alive to save you." It was a powerful word, and it bore fruit.

The native Jews, it is true, soon came out in opposition. The
reasons for their opposition are not far to seek. Jealousy was an
important factor. Christianity was evidently too radical a thing
to be simply a sect of Judaism. If allowed to continue, it would
destroy the prerogatives of Israel. It could not be controlled. Its
success was too great. On that next Sabbath in Pisidian Antioch,
"almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of
God." The Jewish mission had never had a success like that. "When
the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy."
Christianity had taken away the heritage of Israel.

In one way the Jewish opposition displayed genuine insight into the
situation. Christianity was really destined to be a fatal rival to
the older Judaism. What took place on a small scale at Antioch was
repeated on the larger stage of history. When the Christian mission
began, Judaism was a successful missionary religion. Soon afterwards
it had withdrawn hopelessly into its age-long isolation. Various
causes contributed to this result. The destruction of the national
life in Palestine and the increasing influence of the strict
rabbinical schools both had an important part. But at least one
factor in the process was the competition of the Christian Church.
Christianity offered the world everything that Judaism could offer,
and more. It offered the knowledge of the one God, and the lofty
morality, and the authoritative Book. In addition, it offered a way
of redemption--and the men of that time were preëminently seekers
after redemption--through the sacrifice of Christ. It offered all
these things, moreover, without requiring any relinquishment of
purely national characteristics. Christianity did not demand union
with any one race. It had a gospel for the world.

No wonder, then, that those who had been attracted by Judaism now
became adherents of Christianity. The Jews were filled with envy.
It was natural from their point of view, but it was a sad mistake.
Had they themselves accepted the gospel, the gospel would have been
to their glory. How glorious was the mission of Israel! A blessing
to the whole world! Far better than any narrow particularism! But
they were not willing to accept the message. Nevertheless, despite
their opposition, the Church should not forget the debt which she
owes to Israel. The dispersion was like the Judaism of Palestine.
In both cases the men themselves were opposed to the gospel. But in
both cases they had preserved the deposit of divine truth. Judaism,
despite itself, opened the way for the Christian Church.

One service which the dispersion rendered to Christianity has been
illustrated by the scene at Pisidian Antioch. That service was the
providing of an audience. Another service was the assurance of
legal protection. This may be illustrated by another incident in
The Acts--the appeal to Gallio. Acts 18:12-17. There the opposition
of the Jews appears in all its bitterness. No doubt that opposition
was a serious hindrance to the work of the Church. Just because
Christianity was regarded as a Jewish sect, the Christians were
subject to persecution by the Jewish authorities. But persecutions
by the Jews, annoying though they were, were far less serious than
opposition on the part of the Roman authorities. And the latter was,
at first, conspicuously absent. Gallio's decision is a fair example
of the general attitude of the Roman magistrates. Christianity, as
a Jewish sect, was allowed to go its way. Judaism, despite itself,
afforded the Church legal protection.

Beginning with these two striking scenes, the teacher may proceed to
the more general presentation of the lesson. In what follows, the
outline of the Student's Text Book will be supplemented at one or
two points.


1. THE CAUSES AND EXTENT OF THE DISPERSION

Deportations of Jews to foreign countries took place at various
times. The most famous of those deportations was carried out by
Nebuchadnezzar after his conquest of Judah, about 600 B. C. Many
of Nebuchadnezzar's captives did not join in the return under the
Persian monarchy, but remained permanently in the east and formed
the nucleus of the large Jewish population of Mesopotamia. When
Pompey conquered Palestine in the first century before Christ, he
carried many Jews as slaves to Rome. Afterwards they were liberated,
and formed a large Jewish colony at the capital of the empire. These
are merely examples. Part of the dispersion was due to forcible
exile.

Other causes have been mentioned in the Student's Text Book. It
is a question, however, whether all of these causes combined
are sufficient to account for the extraordinary growth of the
dispersion. Schürer believes that the vastness of the Jewish
population presupposes the merging of large bodies of proselytes
into the Jewish people. He also believes, however, that these
thoroughgoing conversions were less numerous in New Testament times
than they had been before.

Harnack calculates that at the time of the death of Augustus there
were from four million to four and a half million Jews in the Roman
Empire, including about seven hundred thousand in Palestine, and
that, if that estimate be correct, then the Jews formed perhaps
some seven per cent of the total population. Of course, Harnack is
himself the first to admit that such calculations are exceedingly
uncertain. But so much at least is clear--the Jews in the first
century were surprisingly numerous.


2. THE SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATION AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The name "Septuagint," derived from the Latin word for "seventy,"
has been applied to the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament
in reference to an ancient story about its origin. According to
this story, the translation was made by seventy-two men summoned
from Jerusalem by Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, in order to
add the Jewish law to the royal library at Alexandria. The story
is certainly not true in details, and is probably not even correct
in representing the translation as destined primarily for the
royal library. More probably the translation was intended for the
Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt.

The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into
the Greek world language of the period, and into the popular,
spoken form of that language, not into the literary form. The
translation differs widely in character in the different books,
for many different translators had a part in it. Some of the books
are translated with such slavish literalness as to be almost
unintelligible to a Greek. Everywhere, indeed, the influence of the
Hebrew original makes itself felt to some degree. Hebrew idioms are
often copied in the translation instead of being remolded according
to the peculiarities of the Greek language.

The Septuagint exerted an important influence upon the language of
the New Testament. The Septuagint was the Greek Bible of the New
Testament writers, and the influence of a Bible upon language is
very strong. A good example is afforded by the influence of the King
James Version upon the whole development of modern English. It is
not surprising, therefore, that as the Septuagint was influenced by
Hebrew, so the language of the New Testament also displays a Semitic
coloring. That coloring was induced partly by the Septuagint, but
it was also induced in other ways. Part of the New Testament, for
example the words of Jesus, goes back ultimately to an Aramaic
original. All the New Testament writers except one were Jews,
and had spoken Aramaic as well as Greek. No wonder, then, that
their Greek was influenced by the Semitic languages. This Semitic
influence upon the language of the New Testament is not so great as
was formerly supposed, but it cannot be ignored. The New Testament
is written in the natural, non-literary form of the Greek world
language. That is the main thing to be said. But upon this base is
superposed an appreciable influence of Hebrew and Aramaic.

The importance of the Septuagint for the early Christian mission was
inestimable. Every pioneer missionary knows how difficult it is to
create the vocabulary necessary to express new religious ideas. In
the case of the earliest Christian mission, that labor had already
been done. It had been done by the Jews of Alexandria. By the
Septuagint, the great ideas of the Old Testament--and upon these
ideas Christianity was based--had already been put into a Greek
form. The Christian Church needed only to develop what had been
begun. The Church made good use of her opportunity. The influence of
the Septuagint upon the religious vocabulary of the New Testament
writers was profound. The Septuagint had provided a vocabulary which
was understood already by great masses of people--by the Jews of the
dispersion and by the hosts of the "God-worshipers" who attended
the synagogues. Naturally the Christian missionaries used the words
which people could understand.


3. CONCLUSION

The Judaism of the dispersion was a wonderful preparation for the
gospel. Israel ought to be regarded with gratitude and sympathy. But
the ultimate object of gratitude is God.

The Church was founded in a time of opportunity. The Roman
Government had brought peace. The Greek language had welded the
nations together. The dispersion of the Jews had prepared the way.
These things did not come by chance. The nations were instruments in
the hand of God. But instruments for what? A mighty, age-long plan!
Centuries of preparation! At last the Saviour came. But did he come
for naught? Or is he Saviour of you and me?

       *       *       *       *       *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Edersheim (revised by White), "History of the
Jewish Nation," pp. 45-79. "The Jewish Encyclopedia": Reinach,
article on "Diaspora." Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Schürer,
article on "Diaspora," extra volume, pp. 91-109.




LESSON VI

THE MESSIAH


The teaching of this lesson may be begun with Acts 2:17-21. Surely
the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was something
new. Yet even that was explained by a reference to prophecy. And the
reference is of remarkable aptness and beauty.

The Pentecostal speech of Peter is full of the appeal to prophecy.
Primarily, indeed, the claims of Jesus are supported by the direct
testimony to his resurrection. Without the facts, of course appeal
to prophecy would have been useless; for it was just the wonderful
correspondence of the facts with the prophecies that could induce
belief. Along with the direct testimony to the facts went the appeal
to prophecy. The promised king of David's line at last has come.
Acts 2:30; II Sam. 7:12,13; Ps. 89:3,4; 132:11. And David's son
is David's Lord--David's Lord and ours. Acts 2:34,35; Ps. 110:1;
compare Matt. 22:41-46.


1. THE NEW TESTAMENT APPEAL TO PROPHECY

This speech of Peter is typical of the preaching of the early
Church. The appeal to prophecy was absolutely central in the
presentation of the gospel. Proof of that fact does not need to be
sought. It is written plain on the pages of the New Testament. Old
Testament prophecy was found to apply not merely to one side of
the work of Christ, but to all sides. Israel had looked not merely
for a king, but also for a prophet and a priest. Peter, after his
first arrest, for example, could appeal to the notable prophecy of
Deuteronomy: "A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from
among your brethren, like unto me." Acts 3:22; Deut. 18:15,19. The
author of Hebrews could appeal to the priest after the order of
Melchizedek, Heb. 5:6; Ps. 110:4, and to the symbolic sacrifices of
the temple which found their fulfillment on Calvary.

The appeal to prophecy extended even to those things which were
most distinctive of the Christian message. "I delivered unto you
first of all," says Paul, "that which also I received: that Christ
died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was
buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to
the scriptures." I Cor. 15:3,4. Here the death and the resurrection
of Christ are both declared to be according to the Scriptures. That
means that they were the subject of prophecy. But the death and the
resurrection of Christ were the fundamental elements of the gospel.
The gospel, then, in the form of prophecy, is to be found in the Old
Testament.

What Old Testament passages has Paul here in mind? With regard
to the death for our sins, the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah
was probably in his mind. That passage was being read by the
Ethiopian when Philip met him, and Philip made the passage a
basis for preaching about Jesus. Acts 8:27-35. With regard to the
resurrection, it is natural to think of Ps. 16:10. Paul himself
quoted that passage in his speech at Pisidian Antioch. Acts 13:34-37.

The appeal to prophecy did not begin with the apostles. It was
initiated by Jesus himself. "To-day," said Jesus at Nazareth after
the reading of Isa. 61:1,2, "hath this scripture been fulfilled
in your ears." A large claim! No wonder they found it difficult
to accept. When John the Baptist asked, "Art thou he that cometh,
or look we for another?" it was to "the works of the Christ" that
Jesus appealed. Matt. 11:2-6; Isa. 35:5,6; 61:1. These are merely
examples. Throughout, Jesus represented himself and his kingdom as
the fulfillment of the ancient promise. "O foolish men," he said to
the disciples on the way to Emmaus, "and slow of heart to believe
in all that the prophets have spoken! Behooved it not the Christ to
suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning from
Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the
scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:25-27.


2. THE MESSIANIC HOPE A PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL

When the gospel was preached to pure Gentiles, a great deal of
preliminary labor had to be done. Under what title should the
claims of the Saviour be presented? "Christ" to the Gentiles was
almost meaningless, till explained. "Son of God" was open to sad
misconception. There were "sons of God" in Greek mythology, but they
were not what the early Christians meant to show that Jesus was.
These difficulties were overcome, and speedily. Gentile Christians
were imbued with a lofty and adequate conception of the Lord. The
labor was great, but it was gloriously accomplished.

In this labor, however, the missionaries were assisted by the
synagogues of the Jews. In the synagogues, "Christ" was no new term,
and no new conception. In the synagogues, one proposition needed
first to be proved, "This Jesus ... is the Christ." Acts 17:3. If
that were proved, then the rest would follow. The Jews knew that
the Messiah was Lord and Master. Identify Jesus with him, and all
the lofty claims of Jesus would be substantiated. How the identity
was established may be observed in the speech of Peter on the day
of Pentecost, or in the speech of Paul at Pisidian Antioch. Acts
13:16-43.

It will be remembered that the synagogues attracted not merely Jews
but also Gentiles. The Gentile "God-fearers," as well as the Jews,
were acquainted with the Messianic hope. Even the Gentile mission,
therefore, was prepared for by the prophets of Israel.


3. THE PERMANENT VALUE OF PROPHECY

The appeal to prophecy, however, was not merely valuable to
the early Church. It is of abiding worth. It represents Jesus
as the culmination of a divine purpose. The hope of Israel was
in itself a proof of revelation, because it was so unlike the
religious conceptions of other nations. The covenant people, the
righteous king, the living God, the world-wide mission--that is
the glory of Israel. The promise is itself a proof. But still
more the fulfillment. The fulfillment was an unfolding. Wonderful
correspondence in detail--and far more wonderful the correspondence
of the whole! The promise was manifold. Sometimes the Messiah is
in the foreground. Sometimes he is out of sight. Sometimes there
is a human king, sometimes Jehovah himself coming to judgment;
sometimes a kingdom, sometimes a new covenant in the heart;
sometimes a fruitful Canaan, sometimes a new heaven and a new
earth. But manifold though the promise, Christ is the fulfillment
of it all. "How many soever be the promises of God," in Christ is
the yea. II Cor. 1:20. There is the wonder. In Christ the apparent
contradictions of the promise become glorious unity, in Christ the
deeper mysteries of the promise are revealed. Christ the keystone
of the arch! Christ the culmination of a divine plan! That is the
witness of the prophets. It is a witness worth having.


4. THE MESSIANIC HOPE OF LATER JUDAISM

After the close of the Old Testament, the promise did not die.
It was preserved in the Scriptures. It continued to be the life
of the Jewish nation. But it was not only preserved. It was also
interpreted. Some of the interpretation was false, but much of it
was true. The Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament promise is
worthy of attention. What did the Jews of the first century mean by
the Messiah, and what did they mean by the Messianic age?

In the first place, they retained the hope of a king of David's
line--a human king who should conquer the enemies of Israel. When
it was held in a one-sided form this was a dangerous hope. It led
logically to materialistic conceptions of the kingdom of God and to
political unrest. It led to the effort of the Jews to take Jesus
by force and make him a king. John 6:15. It led to the quarrel of
the disciples about the chief places in the kingdom. Matt. 18:1-4;
Mark 9:33-35; Luke 9:46,47. This conception of the Messiah had to be
corrected by Jesus. "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36.

Yet even where the Messiah was conceived of as an earthly ruler,
the spiritual hope was by no means always and altogether lost. The
"Psalms of Solomon," for example, Pharisaic psalms of the first
century before Christ, though they look for an earthly ruler,
picture him as one who shall rule in righteousness. "And a righteous
king and taught of God is he that reigneth over them; And there
shall be no iniquity in his days in their midst, for all shall be
holy and their king is the Lord Messiah" (Ps. Sol. xvii, 35, 36. See
Ryle and James, "Psalms of the Pharisees," especially pp. 137-147).
No iniquity in the days of the Messiah! That is true understanding
of the Old Testament, even joined with the political ideal.

In the second place, however, the Messianic age is sometimes in
later Judaism conceived of as purely supernatural. The Messiah is
not an earthly ruler, merely helped by God, but himself a heavenly
being, a preëxistent "Son of Man," judge of all the earth. The
Messianic age is ushered in not by human warfare, but by a mighty
catastrophic act of God. Not a liberated Canaan is here the ideal,
but a new heaven and a new earth.

This transcendental, supernaturalistic form of the Messianic hope
appears in the "Book of Enoch" and other "apocalypses." Its details
are fantastic, but it was by no means altogether wrong. In many
respects it was a correct interpretation of the divine promise.
The new heavens and the new earth are derived from Isa. 65:17. The
doctrine of the two ages was accepted by Jesus and by Paul--for
example Matt. 12:32; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21. The heavenly "Son of Man"
goes back to Dan. 7:13,14. The Book of Enoch was not altogether
wrong. Its use of the title "Son of Man" prepared for the title
which Jesus used.

Finally, the Messianic hope was held in a pure and lofty form by
the "poor of the land"--simple folk like those who appear in the
first two chapters of Luke. In the hymns of Mary and Zacharias and
Simeon, purely political and materialistic conceptions are in the
background, and the speculations of the apocalypses do not appear.
The highest elements of prophecy are made prominent. "For mine eyes
have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of
all peoples; a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory
of thy people Israel." Luke 2:30-32. In those circles, the hope of
Israel burned still and pure.

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.




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

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/43685