Chapter IV: Introduction (3)

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.

* * * * *