Paul

PAUL

The distinguished “apostle of the Gentiles;” also called SAUL, a Hebrew name. He is first called Paul in Mal 13:12 ; and as some think, assumed this Roman name according to a common custom of Jews in foreign lands, or in honor of Sergius Paulus, Mal 13:7, his friend and an early convert. Both names however may have belonged to him in childhood. He was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and inherited from his father the privileges of a Roman citizen. His parents belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, and brought up their son as “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” Phi 3:5 . Tarsus was highly distinguished for learning and culture, and the opportunities for improvement it afforded were no doubt diligently improved by Paul. At a suitable age he was sent to Jerusalem to complete his education in the school of Gamaliel, the most distinguished and right-minded of the Rabbis of that age. It does not appear that he was in Jerusalem during the ministry of Christ; and it was perhaps after his return to Tarsus that he learned the art of tent-making, in accordance with a general practice among the Jews, and their maxim, “He that does not teach his son a useful handicraft, teaches him to steal,” Mal 18:3 20:34 2Th 3:8.We next find him at Jerusalem, apparently about thirty years of age, high in the confidence of the leading men of the nation. He had profited by the instructions of Gamaliel, and became learned in the law; yielding himself to the strictest discipline of the sect of the Pharisees, he had become a fierce defender of Judaism and a bitter enemy of Christianity, Mal 8:3 26:9-11. After his miraculous conversion, of which we have three accounts, Mal 9:22,26, Christ was all in all to him. It was Christ who revealed himself to his soul at Damascus, Mal 26:15 1Co 15:8 ; to Christ he gave his whole heart, and soul, mind, might, and strength; and thenceforth, living or dying, he was “the servant of Jesus Christ.” He devoted all the powers of his ardent and energetic mind to the defense and propagation of the gospel of Christ, more particularly among the Gentiles. His views of the pure and lofty spirit of Christianity, in its worship and in its practical influence, appear to have been peculiarly clear and strong; and the opposition which he was thus led to make to the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish worship, exposed him everywhere to the hatred and malice of his countrymen. On their accusation, he was at length put in confinement by the Roman officers and after being detained for two years or more at Caesarea, he was sent to Rome for trial, having himself appealed to the emperor.There is less certainty in respect to the accounts, which are given of Paul afterwards by the early ecclesiastical writers. Still it was a very generally received opinion in the earlier centuries, that the apostle was acquitted and discharged from his imprisonment at the end of two years; and that he afterwards returned to Rome, where he was again imprisoned and put to death by Nero.Paul appears to have possessed all the learning which was then current among the Jews, and also to have been acquainted with Greek literature; as appears from his mastery of the Greek language, his frequent discussions with their philosophers, and his quotations from their poets-Aratus, Mal 17:28 ; Meander, 1Co 15:33 ; and Epimenides, Tit 1:12 . Probably, however a learned Greek education cannot with propriety be ascribed to him. But the most striking trait in his character is his enlarged view of the universal design and the spiritual nature of the religion of Christ, and of its purifying and ennobling influence upon the heart and character of those who sincerely profess it. From the Savior himself he had caught the flame of universal love, and the idea of salvation for all mankind, Gal 1:12 .Most of the other apostles and teachers appear to have clung to Judaism, to the rites, ceremonies, and dogmas of the religion in which they had been educated, and to have regarded Christianity as intended to be engrafted upon the ancient stock, which was yet to remain as the trunk to support the new branches. Paul seems to have been among the first to rise above this narrow view, and to regard Christianity in its light, as a universal religion. While others were for Judaizing all those who embraced the new religion by imposing on them the yoke of Mosaic observances, it was Paul’s endeavor to break down the middle wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles, and show them that they were all “one in Christ.” To this end all his labors tended; and, ardent in the pursuit of this great object, he did not hesitate to censure the time-serving Peter, and to expose his own life in resisting the prejudices of is countrymen. Indeed, his five years’ imprisonment as Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome arose chiefly from this cause.These various journeys of St. Paul, many of them made on foot, should be studied through on a map; in connection with the inspired narrative, in Acts, and with his own pathetic description of his labors, 2Co 11:23-29, wherein nevertheless the half is not told. When we review the many regions he traversed and evangelized, the converts he gathered, and the churches he founded, the toils, perils, and trials he endured, the miracles he wrought, and the revelations he received, the discourses, orations, and letters in which he so ably defends and unfolds Christianity, the immeasurable good which God by him accomplished, his heroic life, and his martyr death, he appears to us the most extraordinary of men.The character of Paul is most fully portrayed in his epistles, by which, as Chrysostom says he, “still lives in the mouths of men throughout the whole world. By them, not only is own converts, but all the faithful even unto this day, yea, and all the saints who are yet to be born until Christ’s coming again, both have been and shall be blessed.” In them we observe the transforming and elevating power of grace in one originally turbulent and passionate-making him a model of many and Christian excellence; fearless and firm, yet considerate, courteous, and gentle; magnanimous, patriotic, and selfsacrificing; rich in all noble sentiments and affections.EPISTLES OF PAUL. -There are fourteen epistles in the New Testament usually ascribed to Paul, beginning with that to the Romans, and ending with that to the Hebrews. Of these the first thirteen have never been contested; as to the latter, many good men have doubted whether Paul was the author, although the current of criticism is in favor of this opinion. These epistles, in which the principles of Christianity are developed for all periods, characters, and circumstances, are among the most important of the primitive documents of the Christian religion, even apart from their inspired character; and although they seem to have been written without special premeditation, and have reference mostly to transient circumstances and temporary relations, yet they everywhere bear the stamp of the great and original mind of the apostle, as purified, elevated, and sustained by the influences of the Holy Spirit.It is worthy of mention here, that an expression of Peter respecting “our beloved brother Paul” is often a little misunderstood. The words “in which” in 2Pe 3:16, are erroneously applied to the “epistles” of Paul; and not to “these things” immediately preceding, that is, the subjects of which Peter was writing, as the Greek shows they should be. Peter finds no fault, either with Paul, or with the doctrines of revelation.The arrangement of Hug is somewhat different; and some critics who find evidence that Paul was released from his first imprisonment and lived until the spring of A. D. 68, assign the epistles Hebrews, 1Timothy, Titus, and 2Timothy to the last year of his life. See TIMOTHY.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Paul

1. Sources.-The documents of the life of St. Paul are the Book of Acts, of which his biography occupies nearly two-thirds, and his own Epistles. To these, however, the student has to add all he can of the history of the Jews and their sacred books, as well as of the state of the world in the time of St. Paul. New sources of information are constantly being opened up, as, e.g., by travel and exploration in the countries and cities in which St. Paul laboured, or by fresh knowledge of Roman law, either in general or in special application to the Jews.

i. The Book of Acts.-A first glance into the Book of Acts reveals that it is a continuation of a previous treatise, which is without difficulty identified as the Gospel according to St. Luke. From several passages in the book where the author writes in the first person plural (Act 16:10-17; Act 20:5-15; Act 21:1-18; Act 27:1 to Act 28:15 -frequently referred to as the we passages), it is manifest that he must, at certain stages, have been a companion of St. Paul on his missionary journeys; and a comparison of these with the references to St. Luke as a companion in the Epistles points to the conclusion that he was the man. This is also the testimony of tradition, and it is generally, though not universally, accepted.

(a) Purpose.-The Tbingen School conceived Acts to be a work written for a purpose-that of reconciling the rivalry between the Petrine and the Pauline elements in the primitive Church, and criticism has discovered in it, as in nearly every other biblical book, various separable documents, which were reduced by various editors and revisers to the form we now possess. But of late the current has been flowing strongly in an opposite direction. W. M. Ramsay, who began himself with the Tbingen views, found that the book answered better to the realities he was bringing to light with the spade in Asia Minor when it was assumed to be the work of one author, who was doing his best to tell the truth; and he has vindicated the claim of St. Luke to be one of the great historians of the world, possessed of the true historical insight, grasp, and accuracy; and Harnack, starting from prejudices equally pronounced, has arrived at practically the same conclusions. The latter, indeed, in summing up his investigations into the writings of St. Luke (Die Apostelgeschichte [= Beitrge zur Einleitung in das NT, iii.], 1908, p. 224 f.), charges conservative scholars, who have reached the same conclusions before him, with causing the truth to be suspected through their prejudices; and there is no doubt that interest attaches to the fact that he has reached the goal from so distant a starting-point. There are not wanting, indeed, scholars to support less conservative opinions. Even English-writing ones are found in J. Moffatt (LNT_, 1911) and B. W. Bacon (The Story of St. Paul, 1905), though the former at least has humour enough to laugh at certain critical views not very unlike his own. C. Clemen, the author of the latest important German book on the subject (Paulus. Sein Leben und Wirken, 1904), has no humour at all, but ploughs his way stolidly through the Book of Acts, accepting as fact whatever is natural and rejecting whatever is supernatural. Anyone may realize for himself what such a procedure will make of the book by reading on this principle the account of what happened on St. Pauls first visit to Philippi, though, one would suppose, St. Luke must have had his eyes and ears specially on the alert there, as it was the first time he had seen his new master at work.

It is not so much a religious or a theological as a literary instinct that makes the present writer distrust the critical method of handling this book. He does not believe that books worth preserving were ever made in this way. Nor does he believe that they were so easily altered. There is a reverence which a completed book inspires; and the idea that there was no conscience about this in ancient times or in the land of Judaea is one with nothing to justify it; on the contrary, as regards the Jews, cf. Josephus, c. Apion. i. 8. Besides, the Acts must very soon have begun to be read in the assemblies of the Christians, and this would be a protection. It may, indeed, be said that this book is an unfortunate one about which to make such a stand, seeing that it has undoubtedly experienced considerable alteration in the Bezan text. But the explanation of this phenomenon may be the simple one that the author had made two copies of his own book, and permitted himself a natural liberty in writing the second of them.

(b) Plan.-The plan of Acts is indicated in Act 1:8 : But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth; and the book divides itself as follows:-Act 1:1 to Act 6:6, in Jerusalem; ACTS Act 6:8 to Act 9:30, in Palestine (including Samaria); ACTS Act 9:32 to Act 12:23, from Judaea to Antioch; ACTS Act 12:25 to Act 16:4, in Asia Minor; ACTS Act 16:6 to Act 19:19, in Europe; ACTS Act 19:21 to Act 28:30, from Achaia to Rome. The author is fond of summarizing a period, before setting out on a new stage, and such resting-places will be found at the end of the above divisions, viz. in Act 6:7, Act 9:31, Act 12:24, Act 16:5, Act 19:20, Act 28:31. St. Paul first makes his appearance in Act 7:58, but it is not till Act 13:1 that he becomes the hero of the book, the story thenceforward being merely an account of his missionary travels and other fortunes. The author narrates with extraordinary conciseness, a striking instance being where the name Saul is exchanged for Paul without a word of explanation (Act 13:13); and, when the traveller duplicates a journey, the second notice is of the briefest possible description. Yet the style is marked by ease and freedom, scene following scene with the variety and lifelikeness of painting. Indeed, there is a tradition that the author was a painter as well as a physician, this being at least a tribute to the picturesqueness of his narrative. The speeches attributed to St. Paul are often said to be free compositions of St. Luke; because ancient historians, especially Thucydides, took this liberty. But why should St. Luke have done so, when he had the speaker himself to consult, not to mention his own recollection or the conversations of those about St. Paul, which most often have turned on the great sermons of their hero? Ramsay is of opinion that the first verse of the book implies that the writer intended to pen a third volume, similar in bulk to the Gospel and the Acts; and this would account for the narrative breaking off where it does, with a brief notice of the two years of imprisonment which followed the arrival at Rome. This would, however, be still more naturally accounted for if the book was written about the date to which it brings the history down; and the present writer knows nothing which renders this impossible. The chief objection to this early date for Acts is that it must have been written before the Gospel of St. Luke, which, it is assumed, was not written till after the destruction of Jerusalem. The reasons, however, for assuming this date for the Gospel are less cogent than those for believing the Acts to have been penned before the trial at Rome; so that the alternative is between allowing a highly argumentative dating of the Gospel to fix a late date for the Acts and making a clearly indicated date of the Acts determine for the Gospel an earlier date than it has been usual to assign to it. Cf. A. Harnack, The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, Eng. tr._, 1911, Luke the Physician, Eng. tr._, 1911, and The Acts of the Apostles, Eng. tr._, 1909.

Moffatts explanation of the sudden breaking off of the narrative in the Acts is that the purpose of the book was to relate the progress of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome; J. Weiss, in Das Urchristenthum, 1914, makes the suggestion that Acts was written for Roman Christians, who did not require to be informed of what had become of the hero; and Clemen actually brings in as an explanation Horaces rule, in Ars Poetica, 185 f., about not slaughtering the characters of a tragedy in the sight of the audience, forgetting that, in the beginning of this book, an immortal scene is constructed out of the martyrdom of St. Stephen. If, as many now assume, St. Pauls trial ended in condemnation and execution, it is easy to understand with what effect St. Luke could have used this as the winding-up of his story; and it is incredible that, knowing so pathetic and significant an event to have immediately followed the point to which he had brought his narrative down, he could have omitted to mention it. (On a supposed dependence on Josephus, throwing the composition of Acts late, see the remarks of J. Vernon Bartlet in Century Bible, Acts, 1901, pp. 19, 181, 251, 340; also R. J. Knowling, EGT_, Acts, 1900, p. 30 f.

The narrative, from the point of St. Pauls arrest onwards, abandons its conciseness and gives an extraordinary amount of space to the incidents of his appearance before different tribunals. Bacon notes this in a tone of disapproval; but he falls too easily a victim to the temptation besetting critics who ascribe the form of biblical books to more or less incompetent editors, of attributing difficulties to these lay-figures, instead of exerting himself to find out the true explanation. Ramsay ascribes this amplitude to a deliberate plan, kept in view all through the book, by which St. Paul, the representative of Christianity, is made to appear a personage of consideration to Roman officials, who are nearly always favourable to him, not infrequently defending him not only from the violence of the mob but from officials who are not Roman; and from this he infers that the book was written at a date when persecution had been going on for a considerable time. It would be, however, a simpler explanation if the composition of the book had had in some way to do with St. Pauls trial; for, in that case, it would have been important to dwell on the events since the date when he fell into the custody of Roman officials; J. Weiss (op. cit. p. 106 f.) leaves room for this possibility, assuming that the principal source stopped here, though insisting on later editorial operations.

(c) Chronology.-The chronology is an extremely difficult question, because the fixed points that seem to be obtained by the sacred history touching on profane history (Aretas, 2Co 11:32; Herod, Act 12:20-23; Claudius, Act 11:27-30, Act 12:25; Felix and Festus, Act 24:27) fail, when closely scrutinized, to remain fixed. The nearest to an absolutely certain date seems at present to be the consulship of Gallio (Act 18:12), which is fixed by an inscription found at Delphi, of which A. Deissmann has given a detailed account in St. Paul, 1912, App_. I., p. 244 ff. From this it would seem that St. Paul must have been at Corinth, during his second missionary journey, in a.d. 50; and from this point the chronology can be traced both backwards and forwards. St. Paul cannot have been born very long after Jesus; and it is wonderful to think of any race having the fecundity to produce, within a few years or perhaps months, three such figures as John the Baptist, Jesus, and St. Paul. It is generally supposed that Jesus was three-and-thirty years of age at the time of His death; and we cannot be far wrong in thinking of St. Paul as about five-and-thirty at the time of his conversion. Few perhaps realize that between his conversion and the commencement of his missionary journeys there was an interval of not less than fourteen or fifteen years. To the three great missionary journeys may be assigned some ten years; whence it follows that, when he reached Rome, he must have been about sixty. In the last Epistle which proceeded from his pen he called himself Paul the aged; and, although this is a phrase elastic enough to have different meanings in the mouths of different men, the probability is that he was not far from the threescore years and ten at which the Psalmist placed the term of human life.

The dates of three recent chronologists (Lightfoot, Ramsay, Harnack, quoted in A. E. Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul, 1910, p. 181) do not vary much-for the conversion, 34, 33, 30; for the first missionary journey, 48, 47, 45; for the second missionary journey, 51, 50, 47; for the third missionary journey, 54, 53, 50; for the arrival at Rome, 61, 60, 57.

ii. The Epistles.-Whereas an ordinary letter among us begins with a title of courtesy, addressed to the receiver, and ends with the signature of the writer, preceded by some phrase of courtesy or affection, while place and date stand either above or beneath the whole, an ancient letter commenced with the name of the sender, followed by the name of the recipient, together with a word of greeting, and it ended with the date and the place of writing. St. Paul developed the greeting into an elaborate form of his own, in which he described both himself and his correspondents in their relations to God and Christ, and wished them, instead of the goodwill of an ordinary letter, the primary blessings of the gospel. Sometimes he went on to express his thankfulness to God for their steadfastness in the faith and their progress in grape, and to pray for their further development. In one or two cases all this was not completed within fewer than a score of verses. If, at the end, he added date and place, these have been lost, with the exception perhaps of fragments; and the loss is to us a serious one, as it implies much research to fill up the blanks, and the results are more or less conjectural. As a rule the writer dictated to an amanuensis, who might be named in the superscription, as well as other comrades present when the Epistle was sent away. In one case (Rom 16:22) the amanuensis sent a greeting on his own account. The greetings at the close form a striking feature of the Apostles epistolary style, betraying as they do the width of his sympathies and the warmth of his heart. Sometimes he would take the pen from the amanuensis at the close and add a few weighty words in autograph, to which, we need not doubt, extraordinary interest would be attached by the first readers. From the close of Galatians we gather that his own penmanship was large and sprawling: read, in Rom 6:11, See with how large letters I have written unto you with mine own hand.

It is frequently repeated that the Epistles of St. Paul were just ordinary letters, Deissmann going furthest of late in this direction. But this is not the case. Ordinary letters are addressed to individuals, and much of their charm consists in the intimacies which they disclose. But the majority of St. Pauls Epistles were composed for churches. Inevitably, therefore, they had edification in view; and some of them are little different from sermons. Indeed, some of them obviously reproduce the essence of his preaching, while the rhythmic and periodic flow of the more eloquent passages may be ascribed with confidence to the frequent repetitions of the wandering evangelist. As at all periods of his life their author was not only the propagandist of a definite faith but an opponent of contrary doctrines, a doctrinal or dogmatic character could not help appearing in what he wrote. The one bearing most resemblance to an ordinary letter is the brief Epistle to Philemon; but Philemon was not a very intimate friend, and this letter, though confidential, keeps a certain distance, as of one addressing a social superior. With Timothy and Titus St. Paul was on terms of much closer intimacy; but, in writing to them as youthful pastors, he could not help thinking of the churches over which they presided, and much of what he wrote was obviously intended for the general benefit. Still it remains true that St. Pauls Epistles are neither sermons nor theological treatises, but are written with the freedom and realism of actual correspondence. They afford occasion for displaying the height and the variety of their authors personality; for in them he is always himself-affectionate, irascible, passionate, radiant, and optimistic as long as his converts are faithful and his churches expanding, but ready to perish with vexation and foreboding should they be the reverse. His style adapts itself without constraint to the mood he is in and the situation to which he is addressing himself. It can be abrupt, headlong, abounding with interrogations and anacolutha, or it can follow closely the windings of an intricate argument and break out into a rapture of doxology at the close. It is always copious, filling the channel from bank to bank, yet only at rare intervals strikingly sublime or beautiful. Evidently the author is not straining after effect or aiming at excellency; yet here and there, through the sheer quality of the matter, his speech becomes a cascade, breaking in foam over the rocks, or it widens into a lake where plants of every hue dip into the water and birds of every note sing among the branches.

Much attention has of late been devoted to the language of St. Paul. It had long been known that it differed materially from the Greek of the classical age, and that it had been modified largely by the ideas of the Hebrew Scriptures and the language of the LXX_. But through the unearthing of the remains of the literature and correspondence of the time, in the rubbish-heaps of ancient cities or in the recesses of Egyptian tombs, it has been demonstrated that there prevailed over all the Greek-speaking world a development of Greek speech, common to all peoples and therefore now known as Koine, and that to this the language of the NT in general, and of St. Paul in particular, is so closely related that a knowledge of the one is the key to the other; and St. Paul takes his place as a master of this language. He thinks in Greek, and it is the vernacular of a brilliant and well-educated man in touch with the Greek culture of his time, though remaining thoroughly Jewish in his mental fibre (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of NT Greek in the Light of Historical Research, 1914, p. 2). See, in addition, Weiss, op. cit. ch. 13; also T. Ngeli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, 1905.

(a) Galatians.-The Epistle to the Galatians, both in subject and treatment, bears so strong a resemblance to the Epistle to the Romans that it used to be assumed that the composition of both must be assigned to about the same time; and, as the latter indubitably belongs to the residence in Corinth at the close of the third missionary journey, it was taken for granted that Galatians must be placed there too. But, if its recipients were the churches of Antioch-in-Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, evangelized during the first missionary journey, and if the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 2 be identified with a visit to Jerusalem preceding the Council held there-these two being the conclusions of what is called the South Galatian theory (see below)-it seems a natural inference that the Epistle was written before the commencement of the second missionary journey and before the Council of Jerusalem. This inference was not, indeed, drawn by Ramsay himself, when he was developing the South Galatian theory; he still held to the old view that Galatians must be placed side by side with Romans. But it was perceived to be inevitable by others who had accepted the South Galatian theory (J. V. Bartlet, The Apostolic Age, 1900, p. 84 f., and Garvie, Studies of Paul and his Gospel, p. 23); and Ramsay, in his latest publications, has come round to it (e.g. The Teaching of Paul, 1913, p. 372 ff.), holding Galatians to be the earliest of all the Epistles. The brevity of the introduction and the absence therein of the courtesies which abound in the later Epistles used to be attributed to the excitement in which the Epistle was written; but, if this was the earliest of the Epistles, it may be that the complimentary style of address had not yet been developed. Certainly the author was writing in haste and in indignation; and there is more of what may be called the natural man, as well as of the Rabbi, in this than in any other of his writings. This was the commencement of the most heated and painful of all his controversies, and he enters the fray without the gloves. The Judaists had captured his churches, denied his apostolic authority, and overturned his gospel; and it is with the passion of a mother bereaved of her young that he throws himself at the feet of his converts, entreating them not to render his labour vain or allow themselves to be robbed of salvation; while he turns on the enemy to defy and to blast. The theme is the contrast between law and gospel. In the strongest language he can find, he repeats, in every variety of expression, that the former is abortive and abolished, but that the latter is the glorious revelation which is the end of all the ways of God with men. It is not difficult to find in Gal 1:5 to Gal 2:21; Gal 3:1 to Gal 4:11; Gal 4:12 to Gal 6:10 three successive arguments upon (a) the divine origin of Pauls gospel, (b) the complete right of Gentile Christians to the messianic inheritance, and (c) the vital connection between the Christian Spirit and the moral life (Moffatt, LNT_, p. 88, quoting Holsten, etc.).

(b) 1 and 2 Thessalonians.-At the time when Galatians was, on account of similarity in temper and ideas, kept beside Romans , 1 and 2 Thess. used to be treated as the first-fruits of the Apostles epistolary activity; and these two Epistles seemed to fit this position very well, being marked by extraordinary freshness and simplicity. They were written soon after the missionary left Thessalonica after his first visit. Their style is more like that of a lover to the object of his affection, from whom he has been unavoidably separated but to whom he longs to return. Indeed, he compares his own affection for his converts to that of a mother for her children; he declares that the newly made Christians are his glory and joy; and he tells them that he lives if they stand fast in the faith. He recalls his first meeting with them and their subsequent intercourse together; again and again has he tried to return to see them, and he still cherishes the same ardent desire. There are not a few indications of the amplitude of the gospel preached by him amongst them-as, for instance, in the very first lines of the Epistle, a reference to the trinity of Christian graces, faith, love, and hope. But he does not enlarge on doctrinal matters. Taking it for granted that the substance of his recent preaching amongst them must still be well remembered, he contents himself with the plainest exhortations to a life in harmony with the gospel of Christ-as, for instance, to abstain from the peculiarly pagan sin of fornication and to love one another. Special stress is laid on the duty of those who called themselves by the name of Christ to perform their ordinary daily work in such a way as to commend the gospel to those that are without; and this duty was not to be set aside by the fact that the time was short, and that Christ would soon return to judgment. He drew a vivid picture of the Second Advent, as he conceived it; but this appears to have acted on the minds of his correspondents in a way different from his intention. And this became the occasion for the Second Epistle, which succeeded the First after a brief interval and is occupied with the same themes, except that it gives a forecast of the history of the world, intended to calm the minds of those who had allowed themselves to become so excited about the Lords coming that they were neglecting their business and bringing scandal thereby on the new religion. This passage is among the most difficult in the whole compass of St. Pauls writings, and has tested the competency of exegetes; but the drift of it is plain: the return of the Lord was not to take place as soon as had been expected; and, therefore, Christians, while always ready to meet Him, whenscever He might appear, must be prepared also for the other alternative-to perform the duties of their earthly callings with fidelity, if the coming was postponed. The Christians at Thessalonica were exposed to severe persecution, and the accounts in the Acts of St. Pauls own experience in that city and at BerCEa make it easy to surmise from what quarter this came. Not only, therefore, does their spiritual father make use of every consideration fitted to comfort them, but he breaks out against the race to which he himself belonged in a style which reminds us of the manner in which even the loving St. John in his Gospel speaks of the Jews.

(c) 1 and 2 Corinthians.-1 Cor. was written from Ephesus during the authors prolonged sojourn in that city in the third missionary journey. It would, however, appear that it was not the first letter sent by the Apostle to the same church. He had sent one which has not come down to us (see 1Co 5:9); and this raises the question whether he may not have written other Epistles which have shared the same fate. The sacredness now attaching to his writings might a priori be thought to render it impossible that anything as precious as a letter written by him to a church should perish; but it may be no more astonishing that writings of his should have been lost than that words of Jesus should have been carried irrecoverably down the wind. After receiving the Epistle now lost, the Corinthians had written to the founder of their church, describing their own condition and asking his opinion and advice about a number of problems and difficulties that had arisen among them. And this was not the only case in which a Pauline Epistle was evoked by a communication from those to whom it was addressed. Besides, St. Paul had heard of the condition of the Corinthians from them of the household of Chlce (1Co 1:11), and he was far from being satisfied that all was well with his spiritual children. There is a tone of strain and anxiety in the Epistle from first to last; at the same time, the impression is conveyed that the author feels himself to be dealing with a church holding a great place in the world and destined for a great future. The intimate nature of the questions propounded in the letter received from the Corinthians leads him to enter into minute details; accordingly, this Epistle exhibits by far the fullest picture in existence of the interior of an apostolic church. We learn the different ranks and conditions of which the membership is composed; we see the gifts of the Spirit in full operation; we are made aware of the flaws and inconsistencies which, had we not been informed on such good authority, could hardly be believed to have disfigured the period of the Churchs first love; the rival parties and their wrangles, the backsliders and the sowers of tares among the wheat, all pass before our eyes. Yet it is this church and its affairs that draw forth from the Apostle the panegyric on love in ch. 13, the praise of unity in ch. 14, and the demonstration of the resurrection of the body in ch. 15. Such was the letter-writers power of illustrating great principles in small duties. Several passages (e.g. 1Co 6:12-13; 1Co 8:1-4; 1Co 10:33; 1Co 15:12; 1Co 15:35) become more intelligible if it be assumed that St. Paul is quoting the sentiments of the Corinthians, before replying to their queries.

Between 1 and 2 Cor., it is thought by some scholars, St. Paul paid a visit to Corinth not mentioned in Acts, and, returning to Ephesus after a stormy interview, wrote a tempestuous letter, part of which is preserved in 2Co 10:1 to 2Co 13:10. The bearer of this missive was Titus, who, on his way back to Ephesus, was met by St. Paul in Macedonia, and was able to give so cheering an account of the effect produced at Corinth that at once he was sent back with another letter, conceived in a totally different tone, which has come down to us under the title of 2 Corinthians. This new Epistle has all the appearance of having been written in a recoil from painful excitement and in the exultation caused by the receipt of good news. In it the author lays bare his innermost feelings more fully than in any other production of his pen. If anyone wishes to know the real St. Paul, this is the opportunity. It has been called the Ich-epistel, also St. Pauls Apologia pro Vita Sua. A portion of it (2Co 2:12 to 2Co 6:10) has been taken by A. T. Robertson as a text for a treatise entitled. The Glory of the Ministry: Pauls Exultation in Preaching, n.d.; and certainly it can hardly be fully understood except by those who have devoted their life to the salvation of others, and have felt what St. Paul calls the pangs of labour in bringing souls to the birth through the gospel. The mood throughout is one of triumph, but at the beginning of ch. 10 there is a sudden change to a tone of intense sharpness and even bitterness. By some this is accounted for by the supposition mentioned above; but others are satisfied with supposing an alteration in the mood of the writer, accompanied perhaps by some delay between the composition of the earlier and the latter halves of the Epistle. Happily, though the tone is changed, the autobiographical revelations still continue, and St. Paul completes the portrait of himself.

(d) Romans.-The Epistle to the Romans is, in not a few respects, the greatest of all the productions of St. Pauls pen. It lacks, indeed, the personal and affectionate note so characteristic of his writings; for it is the only Epistle of his sent to a church not founded or as yet visited by himself. To this fact, however, is due in some degree its greatness; because, while in writing to churches already visited he could take it for granted that his correspondents knew his gospel so well that he did not require to repeat it, he was compelled, when writing to those who had never seen his face in the flesh, to state his gospel at full length. Of this opportunity advantage is taken to the full in the present case; and there is no question that in Rom. we have the essence of what he preached in every city which he evangelized. As at Miletus he declared to the elders from Ephesus that for three years he had preached in the capital of Asia repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Act 20:21), so in Romans the need which all men, whether Gentiles or Jews, have of repentance is first fully unfolded, and this is followed by an equally ample and convincing exhibition of the happy effects due to faith in the Saviour. Here we have illustrations from Hebrew history, and especially from the Father of the Faithful, such as would be welcome in every synagogue, as well as a philosophy of the history of mankind such as would be more likely to captivate Gentile hearers. Although, as has been mentioned, the personal note is absent, yet, after his demonstration is complete, at the close of ch. 8, he turns to discuss the tragic fact that the Jewish race had missed its destiny and allowed the gospel intended for them to pass over to the Gentiles. How was this to be reconciled with the election of God, in which St. Paul was a firm believer? The answer occupies no less than three chapters, and it permits us to see into the very heart of the writer, who, though with the indignation of a Christian he could speak as he had done in Thess. of the chosen people, yet was a Jew to the marrow of his bones, and was ready, he declares, to be himself accursed from Christ, if by so being he could save his brethren according to the flesh. The same noble unselfishness pervades the discussion of meats in the chapters that follow, though his ethical genius would be considered by many to rise to its culminating point in ch. 12. In the book as it now stands there is, at the close, an unusually long list of greetings to friends; and the question arises how he could have known so many in a city which he had never visited. It may be replied that Rome was, in that age, such a centre that visitors might be present in it from many of the cities and towns visited by him in other lands. But this will hardly suffice, and a different explanation seems to be at least possible. An Epistle like this, so impersonal and didactic, was well fitted to be sent to various churches, and several copies might be executed and dispatched to different communities. The greetings, then, which now stand in Rom. may have been intended for one of these. It may have been Ephesus, and a close scrutiny of the names is said to point to Ephesus rather than to Rome.

(e) Epistles of the Imprisonment.-The Epistles written up to this point belong to the years during which the Apostle was engaged in his missionary travels. There follow four to which has been given the common title of the Epistles of the Imprisonment, because they were written during the years, subsequent to his arrest at Jerusalem, when he was in the custody of the Roman authorities. In those years he was moved from prison to prison, but at two places-Caesarea and Rome-he experienced periods of imprisonment, lasting in each case about two years. Some of these letters may have been composed at the one place, some at the other; but the usual opinion has been that they were all written at Rome.

In one of his prisons St. Paul was visited by Epaphras, a minister from Colossae, a town in the Lycus Valley not far from Ephesus, who had come to consult him about the condition of the church over which he presided and to solicit from him a letter to the members, in order that these might be persuaded by the authority of an apostle to abandon errors into which they were falling and return to the simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus. The new heresy was not that already so thoroughly confuted by St. Paul in Gal. and Rom., but a kind of speculation such as he had already encountered in some degree among the Corinthians, and which was destined to spread through the churches till it came to be known in history, after the Apostolic Age, under the sinister name of Gnosticism. It had its principal hold in the Gentile, as the earlier heresy had had in the Jewish, section of the Church. As yet, indeed, it was only incipient; but Epaphras was afraid of it, and he had little difficulty in communicating his fears to the Apostle; so that he secured and carried back to his flock what is now known as the Epistle to the Colossians.

The anxieties awakened in the mind of the prisoner by what he had heard from Colossae may easily have extended to other churches in the same quarter, and impelled him to write in the same strain to them also. Indeed, in the Epistle to the Colossians itself reference is made (Col 4:16) to a letter he had written to the Laodiceans, the significant request being added that the Colossian Epistle be read also at Laodicea, and the Laodicean one at Colossae. This may have suggested the idea of a circular letter to all the churches in that portion of Asia Minor; and the opinion has been held by not a few that what is now known as the Epistle to the Ephesians was originally a document of this description. This would account for the absence from it of the usual greetings at the end, which might have been expected to be more than usually profuse when he was writing to a church in the founding of which he had spent three years of his life. It might account also for an abstract and impersonal tone which undoubtedly clings to this Epistle. It is written at a great height above the common earth, and it may easily embody the ruminations of one who had long been in the solitude of a prison. It comes down, indeed, before it ends, to practical things, giving a more complete sketch of what may be called the ethics of Christianity than any other of the Epistles; but even in this portion of it there is something of the same abstract and distant tone, the author being less concerned with the duties themselves than with the motives out of which the discharge of these is to spring. To him the whole cosmical history of Christ is a source of motives, which he is constantly seeking to evoke in those whose spiritual welfare is his care. There is not much to commend the procedure of Moffatt (LNT_, p. 375) when he accepts Colossians as from St. Paul but rejects Ephesians; Bacon, though also prone to negative criticism, is here led by a truer instinct, feeling the spiritual power of the text with which he is dealing (op. cit. p. 298 ff.). It is obvious that both the thought and the phraseology of Colossians and Ephesians are largely alike; but every writer of letters is aware that he sometimes puts the same facts, thoughts, and even words into letters written about the same time; and this was specially liable to happen when one of the letters had the general character belonging to Ephesians. The estimate of this Epistle by S. T. Coleridge as one of the divinest compositions of man (Table Talk, 25th May 1830) has commended itself to multitudes not unworthy to hold an opinion on such matters; and this raises the question, by whom the Epistle could have been written, if it be not to St. Paul we owe it. Coleridge considered the Epistle to the Colossians to be the overflowing of St. Pauls mind upon the subjects already treated in Ephesians; but the present writer inclines to conceive the relation between them as the reverse. It is impossible, however, to do more than guess.

In Colossians there is a reference to one Onesimus (Col 4:9), who is described as a faithful and beloved brother and a member of the Colossian Church: and the same is the name of an escaped slave who is the subject of the Epistle to Philemon. It would appear that he had defrauded his master and run away to the capital of the world, where, through some providence to us unknown, he was thrown into the company of St. Paul, through whom he was converted. St. Paul would willingly have retained him, since he appeared to be a handy man such as the prisoner was at the time in need of; but he considered it his duty to send him back to his owner; and the Epistle to Philemon is the letter of introduction and excuse sent with him. In spite of its brevity, it is a perfect gem of tact and courtesy; and it is fitted to awaken many reflexions on the relations of employers and employed.

The last Epistle of this group is that to the Philippians; and, if in Colossians and Ephesians there be a lack of the personal element, this is amply made up for in this new Epistle, which assures us that imprisonment had in no way soured or damped the spirit of the writer, who was still as emotional and as optimistic as he had always been. In tone it bears a close resemblance to 1 Thess., and it is worthy of note that it was directed to the same quarter of the world, Philippi and Thessalonica being neighbouring cities. Though penned in a prison, it has joy for its keynote; and, though addressed to a persecuted church, it expects its recipients to be glorying in the Cross. It is of special value as a document of St. Pauls prison-life. We can see with the minds eye the Roman soldier to whom he is chained, with the various articles of the panoply mentioned in the last chapter of Ephesians. As his guard would be changed every few hours, numbers of soldiers would be brought in contact with him; and among these there had broken out a work of grace, which had become a theme amongst the praetorian guards and had spread from them to the household of the Emperor, from the members of which the author is able to send greetings to his correspondents. (Cf. separate notes on praetorium and Caesars household in Lightfoot, Ph 4, 1878, pp. 99 ff., 171 ff.) Besides, his trial, certain stages of which were already past, was turning out favourably, and he was able to believe that he would soon be at large again, when he would use his freedom to revisit his beloved Macedonians. Because the Epistle seems about to end at the close of ch. 2, Bacon fancies there may be two letters united into one (op. cit. p. 368).

(f) Pastoral Epistles.-There remains another group, known by the name of the Pastoral Epistles and consisting of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. They owe this title to the fact that they are addressed to youthful pastors by the aged pastor St. Paul, who, out of his own rich and prolonged experience, instructs then how it is necessary to comport themselves in the house of God. From their internal structure and contents it can be easily seen that all the members of this group are of one piece and originated at the same time; but it is so difficult to find a place for them in the portion of St. Pauls life covered by Acts that they have been assigned to a portion of it subsequent to this, when, it is supposed, being released from prison, he resumed his apostolic wanderings, till he was rearrested. In 2 Tim. he is seen in prison at Rome, not, as when he wrote Philippians, expecting release, but looking forward to immediate martyrdom. But in 1 Tim. and Tit. he is at large and in motion, having, when he wrote the one, just left Timothy in Ephesus, and, when he wrote the other, left Titus in Crete, an island which he visited on his way to Rome but could not have evangelized whilst he was a prisoner. About no other portion of St. Pauls writings, however, has there been so much doubt as to whether he was really the author. In certain quarters it is at present taken for granted that these Epistles did not come from his pen. Thus, the latest book published in Germany on the subject (H. H. Mayer, Ueber die Pastoralbriefe, 1913) assumes this without discussion. But on such a subject votes require to be weighed as well as counted; and the completest and ablest discussion, by Zahn, the Nestor of NT criticism, takes the opposite view (Introduction to the NT, 3 vols., 1909, ii. 1-133), which is the prevalent one in England and America, though some recent scholars, like Moffatt (LNT_, p. 395 ff.), Bacon (op. cit., p. 375), and Garvie (Studies of Paul and his Gospel, p. 30 n._), have gone over to the other side. It cannot be denied that anyone passing from Col. and Eph. into these Epistles would feel himself in a different intellectual atmosphere, though he would feel this much less if he made the transition from 1 and 2 Cor., the subjects handled in which are more akin to those taken up here. The question is, whether the change can be sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the author is writing to individuals instead of churches, his correspondents being disciples intimately acquainted with his doctrine, so that he does not require to repeat what they already know. Much is made by opponents of the Pauline authorship of the number of words in these Epistles used by St. Paul only once, the number of these being stated by Moffatt at 180. This sounds fatal; but on reflexion the discerning reader will perceive that such a figure has no value unless we know what is the writers habit in this respect. Whatever may be the reason for it, St. Paul employs more of these , as they are called, the longer he writes, the proportion to the chapter being, roughly speaking, 5 in Thess., 7 in Romans , 8 in Eph. and Col., 10 in Phil., and 13 in the Pastoral Epistles; so that actually a convincing argument against the Pauline authorship could have been fashioned out of the number had it been small. There are frequent coincidences of thought such as would not easily have occurred to an imitator; note, e.g., the lists of sins in 1Ti 1:9-10 and 2Ti 3:1-5, and cf. Rom 1:24, 1Co 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-20; and there are passages which may be said to contain the very essence of Paulinism, such as 1Ti 2:4-6, 2Ti 1:9-10, Tit 2:12-14; Tit 3:4-7. Against the Pauline authorship it is contended that ecclesiastical development is more advanced than in the Epistles which are certainly St. Pauls. But, with the exception of what is said about female officials-and what is said about them is the reverse of distinct-the office-bearers are the same as are found in Acts and Phil., and it is highly significant of an early date that not the slightest hint is given of any distinction between bishops and elders, Tit 1:5-7 clearly proving these to be identical; whereas in the Ignatian Epistles, at no great distance in time, the distinction has become very marked, if indeed the passages are genuine, as they are held to be by both Lightfoot (The Apostolic Fathers, pt. ii., Ignatius, i.2 [1889]) and Zahn (Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873). The principal consideration is, however, the moral one. Let anyone read the references to St. Paul himself in these Epistles (1Ti 1:11-20; 1Ti 2:7; 1Ti 3:14-15, 2Ti 1:3-18; 2Ti 2:9-10; 2Ti 3:10-11; 2Ti 4:6-21, Tit 1:1-5; Tit 3:12-15), and say whether anyone but St. Paul could have written these words without knowing himself to be guilty of misrepresentation and falsehood. It is obvious that the author is a good man, and that he writes for a holy purpose. Could such a person be guilty of such deceit? It is said that the ideas of literary property which we now recognize did not then prevail. But what proof of this is there? The nearest approach that Moffatt can think of to this pseudonymous authorship is the composition of the romance entitled Paul and Thecla; but the author of that foolish and lying production was deposed for his pains. Gnostics, it is true, composed abundance of pseudonymous literature, and weak adherents of orthodoxy sometimes imitated them; but in the Pastoral Epistles we have to do with a personage and an enterprise of a totally different character. As Ramsay has remarked, there are not a few traits of St. Pauls genius which we should miss were it not for these unique writings.

The Epistle to the Hebrews has sometimes been attributed to St. Paul. But there is no superscription making this claim, and the language and ideas are so different from St. Pauls that scholarship has long since, with practical unanimity, decided against the Pauline authorship.

2. Life

(a) Early influences.-St. Paul was a Jew; he was born at Tarsus, in Cilicia; and he inherited the Roman citizenship. In these three clauses is indicated his connexion with the three great influences of the ancient world-the religion of Palestine, the language and culture of Greece, and the government of Rome.

In his case the first of these was the oldest and the deepest influence. We hear little or nothing of his parents; a sisters son intervened at one point with good effect in his earthly fortunes; but all the indications suggest that he was reared in a religious home. He speaks of himself as circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee (Php 3:5); and these terms betoken an intensely Jewish atmosphere. Still, he was born not in the land of the Jews, but in the territory of the heathen. Cilicia was not very far from Palestine; but any heathen country was far off in a sense other than local. This distance St. Paul was sure to feel; yet he could boast of his birthplace as being no mean city (Act 21:39). It was beautifully situated at the foot of the Cilician hills and at the mouth of the Catarrhactes; it was a place of cosmopolitan trade; and it was a university city-the very place in which the man should be born whose destiny it was to be to break down the middle wall of partition (Eph 2:14) and become the Apostle of the Gentiles. A freer air blew round his head from the first than if he had been born at Jerusalem. There were several ways in which the Roman citizenship could be acquired, and it is not known through which of these it came into St. Pauls family; but he was freeborn (Act 22:28). Even to a Jewish boy of sensitive nature this would impart a certain self-consciousness; but it was to become of enormous consequence in his subsequent career, probably even saving his life.

In youth St. Paul learned the trade of tent-making, this being, it would appear, the characteristic industry of Cilicia, where a coarse haircloth was manufactured on a large scale, to be used for tents and other purposes. This circumstance might be supposed to indicate that he belonged to the lower class of the population. But it is said that among the Jews it was the custom at that time for even the sons of the wealthy to acquire skill in some manual art, as a resource against the possible caprices of fortune; and, in the sequel, the possession of this handicraft proved of eminent service to St. Paul, enabling him to earn his bread by the labour of his hands, when it was not expedient to accept support from those to whom he preached the gospel. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, p. 311 ff.) has accumulated evidence to prove that St. Pauls relatives were persons of substance and social standing, and he considers himself able to show that, in later life, he came into possession of an inheritance, by which he was enabled to defray the heavy expenses of his trials before the Roman courts. Evidence more convincing of social standing is supplied by the fact that St. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, if this can be inferred with certainty from the statement in Act 26:10 that, when the followers of Jesus were put to death, he gave his vote against them. It is frequently stated that members of the Sanhedrin had to be married men, and from this the inference has been drawn that he was married in youth. If so, his wife must have died early, as there is no hint of a wife in the records of his life, the fancy that he married Lydia and addressed her in the Epistle to the Philippians as true yokefellow being ridiculous, though it goes back as far as Eusebius (HE_ iii. 30) and has been revived in recent times by E. Renan (Saint Paul, 1869, p. 115).

So comparatively near to Jerusalem was Tarsus that, as a boy, St. Paul may have been taken by his parents to one of the annual feasts, as Jesus was at the age of twelve; and from the experience of the boy from Nazareth we may infer what were the feelings of this other Jewish boy at the first sight of the Holy City. It cannot have been very long afterwards that he was sent thither, to reside in the place, learning to be a Rabbi. Along with other aspirants to the same office he sat at the feet of Gamaliel (Act 22:3), whose intervention in the Book of Acts on the side of clemency and common sense is probably intended to be looked upon as a characteristic act. But, whatever else the disciple may have learned from this master in Israel, he did not copy this trait of his character; for the first thing we hear of him after the termination of his education is his persecution of the Christians.

There seems little doubt that Jesus and St. Paul were treading the soil of Palestine at the same time; and it is an old question whether they ever crossed each others path. Though Weiss (Paulus und Jesus, 1910) and Ramsay (The Teaching of Paul, p. 21 ff.) have recently attempted to make it probable that they did, there is little to be said for this view of the case. It is argued, indeed, that on the way to Damascus St. Paul could not have recognized Jesus, if he had not been already familiar with His appearance. But he did not recognize Him by sight: he had to ask, Who art thou, Lord?, and it was only through the hearing of the ear that he ascertained who was speaking. It is true that, in one place, St. Paul demands, Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? (1Co 9:1), but the sight referred to was that on the way to Damascus.

(b) Persecution.-The whole situation creates the impression that St. Pauls first collision was not with Christ in the flesh, but with Christianity in the hands of its first representatives and apostles, and it is not difficult to understand the violence with which he opposed it. As a man of logic, he considered the case against Christianity complete. Jesus had died the cursed death of the Cross. This the Messiah could not have done. It was the destiny of the Messiah to live and to reign. A Messiah who dies and is buried must have been a pretender; and an exposed pretender is no very respectable figure. As a Pharisee and a patriot, Saul cherished Messianic hopes; indeed, these formed the most sacred part of his religion; but they had been turned to shame by One who died upon a tree. No doubt it was this resentment at the despite done to that which to him was so sacred that led to his taking up the rle of grand inquisitor; and he fulfilled in his own person the prediction, made by Jesus to His disciples, that a day was coming when whosoever killed them would think he was doing God service (Joh 16:2). His zeal was winning for him golden opinions in the minds of the authorities of the nation, and he was confident that it was, at the same time, accumulating merit in the hands of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

It may be presumed that, in the course of the persecution, he became well acquainted with the state of mind of those whom he was subjecting to every kind of examination. Did it ever occur to him to think what would be the result if he ever came to have as clear proof as they believed they had that He for whose sake they were suffering was not dead but alive? St. Stephen was a singularly clear and forcible reasoner, who went far on the very pathway of revolution which St. Paul was afterwards to travel himself. Did Saul perceive the cogency of the logic, if it were not for one great assumption? But to him this assumption was not only an impossibility but a blasphemy; and so he emerges for the first time into history as the keeper of the clothes of the men who stoned Stephen.

(c) Conversion.-For a time, which was not very brief, the persecutor raged like a wolf in the fold of the followers of the Nazarene; and it was because there were no more victims left, as he supposed, in Jerusalem and Judaea that he begged for instructions from the authorities to go in quest of fresh victims as far as Damascus. Of what took place on the way thither the author of the Acts has given a most graphic account, and, as St. Paul turned out subsequently to be one of those religious persons who are not indisposed to narrate their most intimate experiences, there are in Acts no fewer than three accounts of the conversion, the other two being from the mouth of the subject himself (Act 9:1-19; Act 22:1-21; Act 26:1-23). These accounts are not painfully alike. On the contrary, they might almost be said to be so constructed as to give the caviller a chance. Indeed, the event itself is exposed to obvious objections, for the persecutor was posting forward in the heat of midday, when he ought to have been taking a siesta, and what he saw might all have been the effect on an overstrained brain of the unnatural experiences through which he had been passing. Full advantage has, of course, been taken of these circumstances; but both St. Luke and St. Paul go forward with the utmost freedom, and there can be no question what they believed the event to be. St. Paul classes the vision vouchsafed to himself with the appearances of the Risen Saviour to the disciples after His resurrection, and those who regard the latter experiences as only subjective infer that his was only subjective also. But it is certain that he himself reasoned the opposite way: he believed the appearances to the Twelve and to the other disciples to be not visionary but actual, and he was convinced, at the time and ever afterwards, that he had himself seen the living Lord. This was the datum on which his entire subsequent life was based.

Accordingly, he appeared immediately after his conversion in the synagogue at Damascus, bearing the testimony of the Apostolic Church, that Jesus is the Messiah (Act 9:20). Happily for us, however, he was not content with this simple statement, but, under the overpowering impression of what had happened to him, went away to Arabia, in order to think out all that it implied, and he did not consider the theme exhausted till he had pondered on it for three years (Gal 1:17). Where was this retreat? No exact information is supplied, but the probability is that he betook himself to the scenes of the earlier revelations made to his forefathers. As Elijah the prophet, in a period of mental crisis, wandered southwards to Mount Sinai, feeling it congenial to be where the thunders and lightnings had girdled the mountain and, in the centre, Moses had stood before the Lord, so St. Paul courted the same associations, and, aided by the memories of Moses and Elias, attempted to understand Him in whom Law and prophecy were fulfilled. This incident is passed over in Acts; but it is probable that in Act 9:23 we are informed how his testimony recommenced at Damascus with such power that the Jews took counsel to kill him, and he had to flee from the city.

Naturally, Jerusalem was the place to which he now directed his steps. But his long absence, after his conversion, had one serious result: it barred the way for his cordial reception by the Christians, who could not believe that he was really one of themselves, but supposed his pretended conversion to be a ruse of the persecutor. Then it was that Barnabas showed himself a friend in need, by introducing him to the company of the disciples and persuading them to accept him as a brother. He seemed on the point of linking his forces with those of the original witnesses for the resurrection of Christ; but so much opposition did his opening testimony arouse among the Jews that he had, for safety, to be sent away to his native Tarsus.

(d) Evangelistic activity.-Here, for a long time, he was almost entirely lost to sight; but there can be little doubt that, during these years, he evangelized his native province of Cilicia; and it is an interesting question whether the church in this province founded by him was Jewish or Gentile. It has been almost universally taken for granted that it was Jewish, even St. Paul not being able to anticipate the development of Providence. But both he himself and St. Luke render it indubitable that he was already acquainted with the purpose of God to make him the missionary of the Gentiles; and it is generally recognized that in Arabia he had thought out the substance of his subsequent teaching. There is one word in the narrative of the Acts which seems sufficient to prove that he was already, both in theory and in practice, the evangelist of Gentiles as well as of Jews: this is the mention of Cilicia (Act 15:41) among the churches to which, after the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles message was sent, to relieve them from the obligation of being circumcised. If this was required in Cilicia, and if it gave satisfaction there, as it did elsewhere, then the church founded during the unrecorded years of St. Pauls sojourn in his native province must have contained Gentiles.

Meantime the great truth, already learnt by St. Paul, was being revealed to others. Its official revelation to the Church was made through St. Peter, in the affair of Cornelius; and it is easy to perceive how appropriate it was that St. Peter, and not St, Paul, should have been the organ of revelation in this case. Other incidents involving the principle took place here and there, but it was at Antioch that the conversion of Gentiles on a large scale first occurred (in Act 11:20 Greeks, meaning heathens, is correctly substituted in the RV_ for Grecians in the AV_, who are Greek-speaking Jews). From the headquarters in Jerusalem Barnabas was sent down to Antioch, to take cognizance of this new development; and he not only approved of it but, in co-operation with others, extended the movement with such success that the work increased beyond their powers. Then it was that the happy inspiration occurred to him that St. Paul was the man required for the emergency. Away, therefore, he went to Tarsus in search of him-not a long journey-and, when he had found him and brought him to Antioch, the work at once responded to the energy of the newcomer to such a degree that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Act 11:26). Thus for the second time did Barnabas intervene, with the happiest effect, in the course of St. Pauls fortunes, and all that the great Apostle subsequently contributed to the spread of Christianity may, in a sense, be attributed to this good man.

(e) First missionary journey.-In Act 13:2 the inception of St. Pauls missionary journeys is ascribed to a communication from the Holy Spirit, made through certain men of prophetic gifts in the Church at Antioch; but it is not inconsistent with this to believe that it was also due to the genius of St. Paul, or that it sprang out of the work which Barnabas and he had been doing in that city; and, if the course of the first missionary journey be glanced at on the map, it will be seen that it passed, nearly in a circle, round the region of which he had already taken possession as the evangelist of Cilicia. Its primary direction, towards Cyprus, was doubtless due to his companion, Barnabas, who was a native of this island. At the outset this gracious figure was the head of the enterprise, the combination being indicated by the phrase, Barnabas and Saul. But, when they quit the island, the phrase is Paul and Barnabas, this change indicating that the inferior had become the superior. The change of name, which took place at the same point, must have been connected somehow with this alteration in the leadership; and it is difficult to believe that it was not also connected in some way with the name of the governor, Sergius Paulus, with whom they had been brought into remarkable contact on the island.

There is no reason to think that Barnabas, the generous, in any way resented his own displacement, but the same magnanimity may not have been vouchsafed to his nephew, John Mark; and this may have been one of the reasons why the latter, who had been useful for ministering (2Ti 4:11), broke away when they reached the mainland, and returned to Jerusalem. Another of his reasons may have been fear of the perils attending a journey into the interior; for it was a wild and inhospitable region through which the travellers had to pass in order to reach the next halting-place, Antioch-in-Pisidia. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 94 ff.) is of opinion that St. Paul was driven into the interior, which was highland, by a severe attack of malaria fever experienced on the coast; but, if the course of this journey was intended to go in a circle round Cilicia, the upper regions must have been included in the original design. Besides, in the interior there were Roman roads and cities of importance, such as always exercised an attraction on the mind of St. Paul.

On this virgin journey we observe the characteristics of all St, Pauls missionary tours-e.g., at Paphos the conflict with magic, in the person of Simon Magus, as well as the favourable relations with the Roman governor; at Antioch-in-Pisidia, the commencement of the work in the synagogue of the Jews with an address exactly suited to Jewish predilections, but the subsequent turning to the Gentiles, when it had been made manifest that the Jews had not known the day of their visitation; at Lystra, a thoroughly pagan spectacle, when the cure of an impotent man caused the two evangelists to be taken for a couple of Greek deities, and to be offered divine honours-though the temper of the fickle populace quickly changed when the missionaries did not fall in with their fancies, so that St. Paul was stoned and left for dead.

From Derbe, the last point in their itinerary, it would have been easy, by descending through the Cilician Gates, to reach Tarsus and thence sail to Antioch, from which they had set out; but the pastors passion for his converts had been aroused by the successful labours in the various cities, and, in spite of all they had suffered and the danger of facing again the excited mobs, the evangelists went back the way they had come, in order to encourage those who had embraced the new faith; and it is specially worthy of note that, as they went, they appointed for them elders in every church (Act 14:23). To scholars who have had no personal acquaintance with the practical working of Christianity this may seem an unimportant trait or even a throwing back into a too early period of an arrangement which prevailed at a later time; but those who have had experience in such matters will see it in a different light. St. Paul was not only a preacher and a thinker, but an organizer. It is true of him, as it is of Jesus Himself, that his efforts would soon have been swallowed up by the sands of the desert had there not been provided for them, through the organization of the Church, channels for conveying their results to subsequent ages. Though it is not stated in every case, it is to be understood that he thus organized the Christian community in every place which he visited and in which he found any footing. From the interior the evangelists descended to the coast, whence they speedily made their way to Antioch; and the news they brought back of the conversion of the Gentiles filled with great joy those who had sent them forth.

This sentiment was not, however, universal. The influx of so many Gentiles into the Church threatened to swamp the Jews; and many of these, at this juncture, began to demand that all Gentile converts should be circumcised and compelled to live as Jews; and they cherished anything but kindly feelings towards the man through whose labours their own exclusive position in the Church was imperilled. They made light of his authority and proceeded by degrees to deny it altogether. At Antioch they were able to establish such a reign of terror on behalf of Jewish strictness that St. Peter, who had been the first to admit Gentiles to the Church, happening to visit the city, refrained from sitting at food with Gentiles; and even the companion of the recent missionary journey, Barnabas, was carried away by these fanatics. At length they went so far as to send agents to visit the churches which St. Paul had just founded, in order to undermine his authority and to represent his gospel as being not genuine Christianity but a novelty of his own invention. It is easy to understand how such opposition would act on the Apostles fiery temperament. He publicly challenged St. Peter and Barnabas, and exposed their inconsistency; and he dispatched to his converts the letter of indignant reproof which we know as the Epistle to the Galatians.

At length it was decided to refer the whole question to the authorities at Jerusalem, where, accordingly, a Council was held-the first of the kind in the history of Christianity. Here both St. Peter and St. James, to whom the Judaizers had appealed, decided the question of principle, through their speeches and votes, in favour of the full and free admission of the Gentiles; and St. Paul, on the other hand, for the sake of peace, consented to certain restrictions on the walk and conversation of the Gentile converts. So at least is the issue represented in Acts. But there are those in our day who deny that it can have been so; by consenting to any compromise, St. Paul would, in their opinion, have betrayed the Christian liberty of which he was the champion; and, in short, the representation is a fiction invented for a purpose. This, however, is too cheap a way of dealing with the problems of history. St. Paul was the champion but not the fanatic of liberty, and this was not the only time when he listened to suggestions of compromise from the same quarter. As long as he secured the freedom implied in the non-circumcising of his Gentile converts, he was not the man to offend against the prejudices of those whose experience had not been exactly the same as his own. The prohibition of fornication occasions no difficulty, except that it is wonderful to see it associated with things which to us seem so trivial. Blood and things strangled awoke in a Jew a horror naturalis, and Gentiles had to be reminded that by the use of such things they were excluding Jews from the very communion to which they were seeking admission themselves; and it was never the teaching of St. Paul that born Jews should live as did the Gentiles. Meats involved two questions-the frequenting of sacrificial feasts in idol temples (1Co 8:10), and the purchase in the shambles, for domestic use, of meat which was cheap because it had been offered in sacrifice (1Co 10:25); and it was possible utterly to condemn the one whilst making the other an open question. These remarks may help to clear up the difficulties found in the decision of the Council (Act 15:20; Act 15:29). There may, however, be a simpler solution. If, in accordance with certain textual authorities, things strangled be deleted from the decree, and if meats offered to idols, blood and fornication be understood as idolatry, violence, and sensuality-the sins to which converts from paganism were peculiarly exposed (cf. Rev 22:16)-then there was no compromise, and the biggest stone of stumbling in the criticism of Acts is removed. (So Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, 1909, pp. 248-263.)

St. Paul may have seen that the compromise-if there was compromise-could be only temporary, and this may account for the silence about it in his writings. But the decree, when delivered to the Gentile communities, created great joy, and there is no reason to doubt that it was satisfactory to St. Paul also. Yet the insinuations and machinations of his enemies were not brought to an end. On the contrary, these continued for years, making St. Pauls life a burden to him. This, indeed, was the greatest controversy of his life, from which comes much of the fire still smouldering beneath the surface in such Epistles as Galatians , 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans.

(f) Second missionary journey.-The immediate impulse to the second missionary journey is represented as having come from St. Paul, who said to his companion, Barnabas, Let us return now and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare (Act 15:36). But he lost his comrade through a dispute about Mark, who, as has been mentioned, had deserted the mission on the preceding journey; and one wishes one could be certain that at this juncture St. Paul was sufficiently conscious of how much he owed to this friend. In his place he obtained Silas, who had come to Antioch as one of the bearers of the decree of the Council at Jerusalem; and, before going far, he found at Lystra, in the youthful Timothy, one to take the place of Mark.

They are said to have gone first through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches; and it is to be observed that these churches were the fruit not of the first missionary journey, but of earlier labour. It was at Derbe that they first came upon the fruits of the foregoing journey, and it is probable that they followed them up further by visiting Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch-in-Pisidia. Then, it used to be supposed, they struck away to the north-east and evangelized Galatia. But it was against this supposition that St. Luke gives no account of this new conquest, though it is his habit to give ample information whenever new ground is opened up, whilst observing great brevity in mentioning visits to parts that had been visited already. Accordingly, Ramsay has championed the view that by the phrase the region of Phrygia and Galatia is meant no more than the scenes of the first missionary journey, this contention, which is most fully explained by Ramsay, artt._ Galatia, Galatia, Region of, Galatians, in HDB_ ii., being what is known as the South Galatian theory. The basis of this theory is that Galatia, while designating the country occupied by the Galatians, was also the name of a political province, which was of varying extent at different times, and at the time of St. Pauls visit included Phrygia, or at least the part of it in which the towns in question lay. This theory has been widely accepted by English-speaking scholars, but has encountered strong opposition in Germany.

The course of the missionaries movements was under some constraint, the nature of which is not clearly indicated, but which prevented them, apparently against their will, from evangelizing the province of Asia, in the west of Asia Minor, as well as Mysia and Bithynia, in the north-west of the peninsula, and brought them down to the coast at Troas, the ancient Troy, near the southern entrance to the Hellespont. It may have been illness which was thus forcing St. Paul forward against his will, for at Troas he is seen in the company of a physician, St. Luke, who, if he rendered medical assistance to the Apostle, was rewarded by the gift of the gospel, of which he ultimately became a servant. The reason, however, for the haste and the direction of this journey hinted at in the narrative itself is that it was in order to see and to obey the vision of the night which, at Troas, called him to proceed to Macedonia, thereby determining the direction taken by the gospel to be westwards to Athens and Rome, the centres of the ancient civilization. It is difficult, however, to get rid of the impression that at this point, so critical not only for his own fortunes but for the future of Christianity and the history of the world, there were, besides the providential causes hinted at, reasons in St. Pauls own mind and genius similar to the passionate desire, to which he gave expression at a later stage, to preach the gospel also in Rome (Rom 1:15). He was the Apostle of the Gentiles, and this was a call to the great seats of Gentile influence.

Landed in Macedonia, he proceeded from city to city along the Roman highway-Philippi, Thessalonica, BerCEa-in each of which there took place some peculiar development of Providence, the adhesion of honourable women to the new religion being a conspicuous feature of Macedonian Christianity. But it is as we approach Athens, the eye of Greece, that the excitement of the reader is aroused; and St. Luke rises to the occasion, too, dipping his brush liberally in the colours of classical association. Indeed, the scenes are so lifelike and dramatic that he has been accused of exaggeration, E. Norden, in a work entitled Agnostos Theos, 1913, accusing him of putting into the mouth of St. Paul a speech which was delivered later at Athens by another religious figure of the age, Apollonius of Tyana, and which exhibits the qualities of the artificial prose practised in the circles to which Apollonius belonged. But Harnack has come to the vindication of St. Luke, demonstrating in his pamphlet Ist die Rede des Paulus in Athen ein ursprnglicher Bestandteil der Apostelgeschichte? in TU_, 3rd ser., ix. 1 [1913], by a close examination of the facts, that it is extremely doubtful whether Apollonius ever delivered at Athens any such speech, and showing that the speech attributed to St. Paul enters into the very structure of the Book of Acts as a whole, while the rhetorical form is due to the lofty style of the thoughts demanding expression.

While, however, the visit to Athens enchained the interest of St. Luke, and enchains ours still, it was far from giving unqualified satisfaction to St. Paul himself. His apostolate was never so nearly a failure as in this city of wisdom and renown; and, when he quitted it and went on to the next stage, Corinth, he was, we know from his own words, in a state of weakness and fear and much trembling (1Co 2:3). In Corinth, however, he was encouraged by one of those dreams or visions in which the Lord visited him at critical moments; and he was further restored to himself by finding, at this stage, in Aquila and Priscilla, tent-makers like himself, with whom he lodged and laboured, the nearest approach to an earthly home it was ever his fortune to enjoy. He remained longer in Corinth than he had done in any other city up to this point, and founded a large church, which, though it tried him not a little, laid a strong hold upon his heart.

This journey had been the most remarkable adventure ever attempted by any missionary; it had been powerfully under Divine direction; it had abounded with thrilling incidents; it had carried Christianity from the continent of its birth to the continent in which at that time resided the power of the world; and it was rich in beginnings full of possibility and promise. It was as one who returns rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him, that he appeared again in Syria and Palestine at the headquarters of the mission.

(g) Third missionary journey.-The narrative in Acts hardly takes time enough, however, to report the termination of this journey before it starts him out on the third missionary journey, on which he repeated his previous visits to the churches lying between Antioch-in-Syria and Antioch-in-Pisidia at the one extremity and to those lying between Troas and Corinth at the other. But the great object of this third journey was to evangelize the province of Asia, which he had had to pass by on the preceding journey, and especially to capture for the gospel the city of Ephesus, one of the great centres of population, as well as of worship, art, and commerce, in the ancient world. Here he made the longest stay with which any city evangelized by him was favoured-a space of three years. During this interval he may have visited some of the cities in the neighbourhood, which were afterwards under the pastoral charge of the apostle John, who addresses letters to them in Revelation 2, 3. Some think that he paid a visit to Corinth, not mentioned in Acts, and room has been sought here for a visit to the island of Crete, mentioned in the Epistle to Titus. In such suggestions there is no impossibility, for in the account given by himself (2 Corinthians 11) of his journeyings, labours, and sufferings, mention is made of not a few remarkable adventures of which there is no account in Acts, and it is certain that his life was far fuller of vicissitude than even the comprehensive narrative of the Acts suggests. On the whole, however, Ephesus was large enough to account for all his time, especially when, as he says (1Co 16:9), a great door and effectual was opened to him there. There were, however, as he adds, many adversaries, and the narrative of the Acts exhibits him in conflict with several of these. His travail culminated in a conflict with the worship of the great goddess Diana, whose annual festival brought hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from far and near to her temple, enriching the inhabitants with the money they squandered. So adversely affected had the attendance become through the spread of the gospel that the silversmiths, who vended shrines of the goddess to the visitors, felt their vested interests to be in peril. A riot was the result, St. Lukes account of which is, for vividness and humour, the best record of such an incident in literature. But the determination of the disturbers of the peace was invincible, and St. Paul had to flee, not, however, without leaving a church which flourished for centuries to such an extent as to make Ephesus one of the foremost names in early Christianity.

On the third missionary journey St. Paul did not really advance farther to the west-the direction of progress-than in the second, and his ambition for the extension of Christianity was far from satisfied, as may be ascertained from what he says at the close of the Epistle to the Romans, written while he was at Corinth, about his desire to see Rome. But the days of his free and unimpeded activity were nearing an end. As he was about to sail for headquarters, perhaps in a pilgrim-ship carrying many Jews to an approaching feast at Jerusalem, he became aware of a plot to take his life during the voyage. So he had to resort to a land-journey instead, being accompanied by a number of deputies from his various churches, who were the bearers of a collection he had for sometime been amassing for the poor at Jerusalem. But in the various places at which he touched the prophets in the churches began to forbode some calamity about to befall him at Jerusalem. This imparted to the speeches he delivered on the way, especially the one to the elders of Ephesus, who came down to the port at Miletus to greet him as he passed, a peculiar pathos. Yet he did not feel himself debarred from going forward by these providential intimations. He appears, in fact, to have made up his mind that his hour had come; and he was ready to die at Jerusalem.

(h) Imprisonment.-At the feast there were multitudes of his fellow-countrymen who had come into collision with him in the cities of the Dispersion, where they dwelt, but had been prevented by the Roman authority under which they lived from proceeding to extremes. When these became aware of his presence in the Holy City, they felt that they could now indulge the feelings of revenge which they had had to restrain elsewhere. An opportunity was afforded through St. Paul yielding to the advice of St. James and the other apostles, who advised him to perform in the Temple a rite which would prove that he still lived as a Jew. In the sacred edifice he was laid hold upon and would have been torn in pieces had he not been rescued by the Roman guard in the castle of Antonia, which overlooked the Temple area. For days the Jews made the wildest efforts to get him into their clutches, not scrupling to enter into a plot for his assassination. But the Roman authorities kept firm hold of their prisoner, and it was not long before he was in safety within the fortress of Caesarea. His safety, indeed, was only that of a prison; nor was he perfectly safe, because the governor, Felix, was a man who might have yielded to a bribe to deliver him up. Indeed, when, after two years, a new governor, Festus, came to take the place of Felix, the prisoner was so afraid of some such treachery befalling him that, making use of his right as a Roman citizen, he appealed unto Caesar. It was the law that, when a prisoner had done so, he must be sent to Rome at once; and so, in a manner very different from any of which he had dreamed in his evangelistic projects, he found himself on the way to the Eternal City. His biographer, St. Luke, was in the company, which consisted of no fewer than 276 souls; and the narrative of the voyage which he has put together from the experiences of the weeks they were on their way is said to be the most remarkable record of travel which has come down from ancient times. Many perils were encountered; and, before all was done, St. Paul had become virtually both captain of the ship and general of the troops, all on board owing their lives to him. After being shipwrecked on the island of Malta, they obtained another ship, which carried them to Puteoli, on the south-west coast of Italy, and from this place they marched along the famous Appian Way to their destination. News of his approach having reached the Church at Rome, some of the brethren came out to meet him on the way, at which he thanked God, and took courage (Act 28:15). In the AV_ it is stated that on their arrival at Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard (Act 28:16); but in the RV_ the statement has been transferred to the margin, and now reads, The centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the praetorian guard; and it so happens that the officer who held this position at the time is known from profane history to have been one Burrus by name, a person of justice and humanity. But scholarship inclines at present to the opinion that the officer into whose charge he passed was the princeps peregrinorum, the head of the Roman frumentarii, who acted as agents between the Emperor and the armies in the provinces.

The trial ought to have come on at once. But the delays of the law are proverbial, and they were not likely to be less prolonged than usual when the reigning Emperor was a man who would postpone any call of duty for a call of pleasure. Imprisonment was, however, for Roman citizens confinement of a very mild description; and St. Paul was permitted to live in his own hired dwelling (Act 28:30), guarded only by a soldier, to whom he was chained. Here he was allowed to receive visitors; and he made ample use of the privilege. The local Jewish community came to interview him; so, no doubt, did the members of the Christian community. Visitors and delegates from his churches, far and near, came to relieve his bodily wants or to consult him on the state of their own affairs; young men, who had laboured with him elsewhere, flocked round him and carried his messages wherever he desired. In short, though humble to the bodily eye, his prison-room became a pharos, shedding the beams of the gospel and the light of this missionarys genius towards all quarters of the known world.

(i) Last years.-From what has been said above about the Pastoral Epistles, it will have been gathered that the present writer accepts the evidence for a second imprisonment and for an interval between the first and the second imprisonments, during which St. Paul resumed his missionary wanderings. For this the evidence is strong. Eusebius writes: After he had made his defence, it is said, the Apostle was sent again upon the ministry of preaching, and, upon coming to the same city a second time, he suffered martyrdom (HE_ ii. 22); and, much earlier, Clement said of him that having taught the whole world righteousness, and for that end travelled even to the utmost bounds of the West, he at last suffered martyrdom, by the command of the governors, and departed out of the world, and went unto his holy place, being become a most eminent pattern of patience unto all ages (ad Cor. i. 5, 7). As this was written at Rome, it is hardly likely that by the utmost bounds of the West Rome itself can be intended. What further is meant is to be learnt from St. Pauls own words in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom 15:22-28): I was hindered these many times from coming to you: but now, having no more any place in these regions, and having these many years a longing to come unto you, whenscever I go unto Spain (for I hope to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first in some measure I shall have been satisfied with your company)-but now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints. When therefore I have accomplished this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will go on by you unto Spain. There is a persistent tradition, though it is late, that he visited Spain. But the strongest evidence is in the Pastoral Epistles themselves, in which we see him evangelizing Crete, which he cannot have done when he touched at that island on his way to Rome as a prisoner, though he may have been so interested in it at that time as to desire to return, if ever he should have the opportunity. We find him, also, back at Ephesus, though he had said to the Ephesian elders that they should see his face no more, this being his conviction at the time. It is often said that St. Luke would not have admitted this statement into Acts 20 had he known that the anticipation was to be belied by the goodness of Providence; but if he wrote his book at the time the present writer supposes, he did not know himself that St. Paul was to be released. From Ephesus it would be easy to get to Spain, if St. Paul actually went there, there being constant communication by sea between Ephesus and Marseilles.

Under what circumstances he was arrested the second time we have no information; but, when Nero was persecuting the Christians, the most conspicuous Christian in the world was not likely to escape. It is very interesting to approach Rome, as St. Paul did the first time, along the Appian Way, and see not only the features of nature on which his eyes must have rested, but even some of the works of man, such as the tombs of the Roman nobility on the sides of the road and the remains of the aqueducts, which supplied the city with water, still standing in the fields, After passing through the city-gate, it is uncertain whether he turned to the left towards the Palatine Hill or towards a camp lying in the neighbourhood where now stands the British Consulate. Two sites are exhibited as his hired house, one of them being on the borders of the Jewish Quarter. The second imprisonment would be one without mercy, and no more suitable place for it could have been found than the Mamertine Prison, just outside the bounds of the Forum, at the Capitol end, in which, tradition strongly asserts, both St. Peter and St. Paul were confined before martyrdom. It is an unholy place, a symbol of Roman ferocity and cruelty, with numbers of cells and a hole to let down prisoners into a dungeon, out of which they did not pass till their corpses were thrust into a sewer passing by. But it was not thus that St. Paul ended his life. It is said that he was beheaded a mile or two out of the city, beside the Via Ostiensis, and a monastery, enclosed in a wood of fragrant balsam trees, now marks the spot. A Christian lady, taking possession of the precious dust, buried it on her own property near by; and over the remains has been erected one of the noblest architectural structures in the world, the Church of St.-Pauls-outside-the-Walls.

3. Beliefs.-B. Weiss, in Biblical Theology of the NT, divides the teaching of St. Paul into four sections: (1) his gospel before his great controversies began, this being found in 1 and 2 Thessalonians; (2) his gospel during the principal controversy of his life, this being embodied in the four great Epistles, Galatians, Romans , 1 and 2 Corinthians; (3) his gospel during his later conflict with incipient Gnosticism, as found in what are called the Epistles of the Imprisonment, viz. Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, and Philippians; (4) his gospel in the period following his first imprisonment, this being found in the Pastoral Epistles. It has sometimes been hinted that, while Weiss has collected the materials with diligence and grouped them with neatness round these four centres, he has, in so doing, crushed the life out of them. But this is an ungenerous judgment. Weisss exegesis is so searching and his exposition so comprehensive, adapting itself unconstrainedly to the varying phases of the experience and the fortunes of the Apostle, that it may still perhaps be pronounced the most instructive study of the whole subject, in spite of the recent multiplication of books on NT Theology (Feine, Schlatter, Weinel). The attraction of Weisss partition lies in the process of development which it exhibits in St. Pauls ideas. Garvie, in Studies of Paul and his Gospel, goes to the opposite extreme, denying altogether that there was a development in St. Pauls mind. He is of opinion that the Apostle had only one gospel, and that it was revealed to him suddenly and catastrophically. He does not deny that the events of his life may have determined the order in which different portions of his doctrine came to full expression, but the whole of his gospel was implicit in his conversion. In this there is a great deal of truth; yet to sacrifice the idea of development is to lose an element of interest, which not only falls in with the intellectual habits of the present day but is inherent in the subject. St. Paul was a living and growing thinker all his days; and, on the face of the documents, there is a marked contrast in the point of view and in the topics absorbing his attention at different stages of his career. If Galatians was the first of all the Epistles, as scholarship at present inclines to suppose, the four-fold division of Weiss falls to the ground; and, at the opposite end of Weisss scheme, the investigations of W. Ltgert (Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe, 1909) tend to identify the false teachers of the Pastoral Epistles with those of Colossians and Ephesians so closely that the teaching in which they are confuted must be conceived as a unit. But, at all events, a two-fold division, into the gospel of his earlier and that of his later writings, is generally acknowledged-the earlier comprising Galatians , 1 and 2 Thessalonians , 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and the later Colossians and Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians , 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Though the later Epistles number seven and the earlier only six, the former are nearly twice as bulky as the latter. Of these two divisions of St. Pauls thinking many designations have been attempted, of which that of Wernle, viz. Apologetic and Gnosis, has attracted a good deal of attention. The most obvious and perhaps most useful designation would be from the controversialists he was opposing at the different periods, or perhaps from his own leading doctrine in each period. We shall, however, content ourselves with speaking of the earlier and the later Paulinism.

(a) Earlier Paulinism.-Among the influences from the pre-Christian stage of St. Pauls life which bore upon the shaping of his theology by far the most important was his experience as a Jew, and to this it would, in the present writers opinion, be hardly possible to ascribe too much. He was profoundly conscious of belonging to that race to which pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises (Rom 9:4), and to which were entrusted the oracles of God. With these oracles he was so familiar that, as he spoke or wrote, quotations from every part of them flowed unbidden to his tongue or pen. He often goes on arguing at great length in the very words of the OT. All his thinking is steeped in the spirit of the prophets, and all his own experiences appear to him the continuation and fulfilment of those of the fathers of his race.

He studied the OT not only with the devoutness of a Jew but with the learning of a Rabbi; and, unless we are to suppose that inspiration obliterated altogether his own personality, it must be recognized that he made use of Rabbinical modes of thinking and arguing when he came to expound Christian ideas. Of this consideration use has been made, in recent times, to relieve Christianity of responsibility for certain of the Pauline notions these being set down to his pre-Christian habits of thought and, consequently, deducted from the revelation through St. Paul attributed to the Spirit of God. This is a convenient way of getting rid of a number of difficulties which have long puzzled orthodox interpreters, especially in the Apostles use of quotations from the OT. But the idea requires delicate handling. There are those who would apply it even to the teaching of our Lord Himself; and, when it is applied to St. Paul to the extent of treating as a fragment of negligible Rabbinism such a saying of his as Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2Co 5:21), the proceeding is on a level with that of a Roman Catholic who places so much confidence in the modern theory of the development of doctrine that he is able to regard a practice of his Church, which is the very reverse of that found in the NT, as a legitimate outcome from apostolic teaching.

Whether St. Pauls language and ideas were due, in any considerable degree, to the classical culture which he may have picked up in his youth at Tarsus or in his subsequent wanderings through the world, is a question about which scholars have differed widely; but recent opinion tends rather towards an affirmative reply. In his imagery a prominent place is held by references to the stadium and the training of athletes. Does this imply that he frequented the games, and expected his converts to do so? or may these references be due to some stolen pleasures of his boyhood? It is certain that his most recurrent conception of heathenism was as a concrete embodiment of sin; and when, as he frequently does, he breaks out into lengthy enumerations of sins, this is to be traced to the pressure on his spirit of the pagan atmosphere by which he felt himself oppressed wherever he moved.

The bearing of the teaching of Jesus on the teaching of St. Paul is one of the most important questions of modern theology. Can Christs doctrine of the Kingdom of God in the Synoptists and of eternal life in St. John be identified with St. Pauls doctrines of the righteousness of God and union with Christ? It is quite certain that St. Paul must have claimed this, had the question been submitted to him in this form. But the form in which he was challenged was rather that of the conformity of his doctrine with the views of the original apostles, it being assumed that these could prove the identity of their own teaching with that of their Master. Feine (NT Theologie, 1910, p. 200 ff.) has dwelt with emphasis on the influence exerted on St. Paul by the testimony of the Church, as it existed before he came on the scene. Especially on the two cardinal points of the Deity of Christ and His atoning death does this scholar hold St. Pauls convictions to have been identical with those held unanimously by believers in general before him. But, however true and however important it may be that the beliefs of the primitive Church on these two great truths coincided with those of St. Paul, yet the manner in which he arrived at these convictions was too original and personal to allow us to speak of them as derived from any mundane source.

The supreme influence was undoubtedly the conversion itself; and not a few of the best interpreters of St. Pauls thinking have treated his entire system as a deduction from this single event. The opportunity for leisure and reflexion, during the three years in Arabia, to think out the implications of this experience, must, however, be taken into account in estimating the result; and then the provocation of the controversy with the Judaizers came in, to give point and sharpness to all his ideas.

However revolutionary the conversion of anyone may be, it has always antecedents; and the basal element in St. Pauls religious experience was the awakened conscience he inherited from his Jewish ancestry. He grew up with the conviction so ingrained in his mind as to be a portion of his very being that the only real blessedness which a human being can enjoy, in time or eternity, lies in the approval of God, pronouncing him righteous. This belief is wrought into the minds of children in pious homes, and the absence of it in many of those who occupy the pews at the present day is that which makes preaching difficult; because the offer of the gospel to those who have never hungered after righteousness is like offering water to those who are not athirst. In heathen lands missionaries have to create a conscience, they tell us, before they appeal to it; and it is this which makes their work so laborious. But from his fathers St. Paul had inherited this invaluable sensibility; and so it comes to pass that he sometimes speaks of his Christian life as continuous with his Jewish experience, though at other times he speaks of the two as separated by a great gulf.

The way of satisfying this passion for the Divine favour taught to him by his ancestors and teachers was the fulfilment of the Law, to which he devoted himself with the concentration of a nature which did nothing by halves. It was probably his failure to satisfy himself with these efforts that drove him to the persecution of the Christians; because he was in need of some extra service, to make up for the lack by which his performances were beset. From the time when the Tenth Commandment taught him the spiritual and interior nature of the Law (Rom 7:7), he never could appease his conscience, and there went on in his breast continually a struggle between the law in the Book and the law in the members, described in Romans 7. This was the goad against which he was kicking in his unconverted state, and it is not unlikely that the pain may have been aggravated by observing the heroism and spiritual exaltation of the martyrs, whom he could not but suspect to be better men than himself.

In the early chapters of Rom. St. Paul gives universality to these experiences of his own, concluding that Gentile and Jew are under sin, and proving that all alike have come short of the glory of God. It might have been thought that, according to his own principles, the Gentiles could not be guilty of sin, because they had no Law. But they had a law, written not on stones but on the tables of the heart; for in every human being, as he comes into the world, there is a conscience, informing him of the existence of God and of the elementary demands of the Divine will, so that he is without excuse if he sins against this natural light. In this sense the Gentiles had without exception been sinners, and even great sinners, descending from one degree of wickedness to another; because, when they forsook God, He gave them over to themselves ever more and more, punishing sin with sin. From such depths of heathen corruption the Jews might expect to have been saved by the restraining force of their Law; but he charges his fellow-countrymen with practising the very same sins as were committed by the Gentiles, and that to such a degree that by the scandal of their wickedness the name of Jahweh had been made a by-word among the heathen. The greater the light the more aggravated is the sin; and so the Law, which in itself is holy and just and good, had become an instrument not of justification but of condemnation. Not infrequently has St. Paul been accused of exaggeration in thus making all men out to be sinners, with no difference among them; but he has the saints as well as the sinners on his side in making the accusation universal. It cannot, however, be denied that St. Paul is entering into a region of speculation where it may not be so easy in our time to follow him, when he traces this universal liability to sin and punishment to the fall of Adam and the imputation of the guilt of Adams first sin to his posterity. It is, indeed, debatable whether the latter is really one of his beliefs, or whether his idea was not rather that all human beings, having fallen into sin on account of their connexion with the first man, are held guilty not of Adams sin but of their own. In either case we recognize the energy with which a logical mind pursues back to their ultimate source the facts of which it is conscious in its own experience or which it has observed in the conduct of others. St. Pauls theology sprang directly out of experience, and the religious experiences of his boyhood and youth culminated in an overpowering sense of guilt and sinfulness.

Corresponding with this anterior exercise of conscience there was, at the heart of the conversion itself, an element of terror, which is apt to be overlooked. When St. Paul heard himself accused of persecution by the Interlocutor addressing him from above, and was told, in answer to his question, that He whom he was persecuting was Jesus, and when thereupon there flashed into his soul an overwhelming sense of guilt, because the transactions of the foregoing months of his life were suddenly revealed as odious crimes, he anticipated that the next step must be the pouring out on his devoted head of the Divine wrath in some indescribable form. But, when, instead of being so treated, he found himself caught up, as it were, in the Divine arms and pressed to the Divine heart, he knew in an instant that God was a Being totally different from his conceptions of Him hitherto, and that all for which he had been in vain striving with so much labour and sorrow was given to him in a moment without money and without price. This is what he calls the grace of God, and he is never tired of celebrating it.

The grace of God came to him in the vision of Christ; and God and Christ are always associated in his writings as the joint source of salvation, as when in 1Th 1:1 he says: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. The vision of Christ did for St. Paul what had been done for the older apostles by the Resurrection and the Ascension: it convinced him that, in the controversy with the rulers and the teachers of the nation in which Jesus had been engaged, He had from first to last been in the right and they in the wrong; that, therefore, all His claims were justified; that, though He had missed the throne of the Jews, He had thereby been exalted to the throne of the universe; and that now He belonged to a supernal world of light, the rays of which, seen by himself, had smitten him to the ground and blinded him for days. Formerly the death of Jesus on the Cross had been to St. Paul conclusive evidence that He had been an impostor, whose pretensions were put to shame; but now it was manifest to him that the Cross must enclose a Divine mystery, compatible with all the life of Christ both before and after; and this mystery was explained by the belief that He had died not for any sins of His own, but for the sin of the world, and that His sacrifice of Himself had been accepted as a propitiation for the guilt of mankind. This was certainly a bold speculation; but it was in harmony with all that he knew about Jesus, as it was in harmony with the conceptions of sin and sacrifice of which the OT is full. St. Paul had always been a man of conscience; he believed in a God of righteousness as well as of love; and the wonder and glory of the gospel for him consisted in this, that God could be at once a just God and a Saviour.

This is the righteousness of God which, in the verse (Rom 1:17) which forms the keynote of the Epistle to the Romans, is revealed by faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith. So grand and perfect is the work achieved by the grace of God and the sacrifice of Christ that, on the part of man, there is room for nothing more than faith; and faith is no more than receptivity: it is man ceasing from his own works, in order that God may work in and for him. Anything additional to this attempted on mans part is a return to the error, from which St. Paul had been so marvellously redeemed, of seeking salvation through works. Such a simple means of salvation is, however, purely human, there being nothing in it for which any human being is not competent. It has nothing to do with such distinctions as Jew and Gentile, male and female, bond and free. It is universal; and the mere knowledge of it, when it came to his understanding, contained within itself the call to be the missionary of the Gentiles; for he could not know a gospel so glorifying to God and so charged with blessing for mankind without feeling an irresistible impulse to make it known to the ends of the earth.

The above is the sum and substance of his apologetic or missionary testimony; though it must be confessed that in any such condensed statement injury is done to St. Pauls thought, the natural tendency of which is to break out on every hand into additions and excursuses; so that the student is like a traveller in a mountainous country who, while keeping to the central road, so as to take in the outline of the whole, is continually being tempted by sunny valleys stretching away into the distance, and perceives that what he took for the mountain-tops have mountains behind them still.

It has recently been contended by A. Schweitzer (Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung, 1911) and H. Windisch (Die neuesten Bearbeitungen der NT Theologie und die zwei Leitmotive des Urchristenthums, in ZWT_ xix. [1912]) that all the Pauline message must be framed in eschatology, and that, indeed, this is the most essential feature of the whole. When the same rule is applied to Jesus, as it has often been of late, it goes perilously near to converting Him into the apocalyptic dreamer that the Jews believed Him to be, and to justifying them for taking His life. The eschatology of the Gospels was, in reality, the body of humiliation which His position in history caused to cling to the teaching of Jesus. But this was a body destined to vanish away; and in St. Paul we see it in the very process of disappearing. While the eschatological point of view clings to certain of his least important utterances, such as those on the relation of the sexes, it has little to do with his thought in general, which would have been very nearly what it is if his eschatology had been quite different.

A similar attempt has been made to give to the sacraments a preponderant place in his thinking and to connect these with similar rites practised in pagan days by those who subsequently came over to Christianity. But such a notion has still less to justify it. St. Paul said (1Co 1:17): Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; and, had occasion arisen, he would have added, with the same downrightness: Jesus sent me not to administer the other sacrament, but to preach the gospel. He was not a dispenser of sacraments, but a preacher of the gospel. His own conversion was complete, and the gospel involved in it had been revealed to his understanding, before he was himself baptized. He was, indeed, baptized thereupon; but the rite was only a means of emphasizing that which had already taken place. He did not believe in sacraments as effecting anything apart from faith in the mind of the recipient. His careful account of the Lords Supper proves how highly he honoured that sacrament and how firmly he believed in its efficacy. But to him there was nothing magical in the administration. No kind of virtue was communicated through it which is incommunicable through other means. It was only the seal or signature affixed to the testimony of the preached Word. Not the faintest glimpse of the genius of the man has been vouchsafed to any who can believe him an apostle of salvation through forms and ceremonies; and little credit is done to his thinking capacity by those who believe him capable of preaching sometimes a salvation of this sort and at other times a salvation through grace and faith.

(b) Later Paulinism.-The title proposed by Wernle for the later Paulinism is Gnosis; but the present writer would prefer Wisdom; because, in English at least, Gnosis has a derogatory sound. To account for the rise of this phase in St. Pauls thinking there cannot be cited any crisis equal in distinction to the conversion in the earlier part of his life. In fact, the peculiarity of his later experience to which his later teaching is traceable is rather the absence of crisis. The crisis was long past, with its exciting experiences and startling effects; and there had supervened the monotony of middle life. What was there now to make up for the glow and energy of the earlier period? Perhaps, indeed, this hardly required to be asked in regard to St. Paul himself, whose enthusiasm never cooled; but it was certainly a critical question for the generality of his converts. Of these St. Paul had probably at one time thought as being all like himself-not less prompt in decision or less enduring in conviction. They had, as well as he, gone through a crisis of conversion; and he expected this to supply them with motives potent enough to last the rest of their lives. But in ordinary souls first love is apt to cool, and human nature to recur to its normal proclivities; and, in course of time, he became well aware that in none of his churches were there wanting gross abuses or glaring sins. What was there in Christianity to provide for a chronic necessity such as this? This is the Christian problem of middle life.

In the first period there had been vouchsafed to him, immediately after his conversion, the residence in Arabia, during which, it is believed, he worked out in his own mind the fundamental principles of his gospel. And something of the same kind may be recognized, also, at the commencement of the later stage of his life; because he spent, in imprisonment at Caesarea, a period hardly less prolonged than that passed in Arabia. This enforced leisure was a providential opportunity for revising his beliefs and combining with them any new experiences afforded by the external course of his history. Nor was this spur to meditation lacking; because, from more quarters than one, he heard of the rise among his converts of what is now known as incipient Gnosticism; and this furnished him with food for thought.

As interpreted by Lightfoot, in his well-known dissertation on the Colossian Heresy (Colossians and Philemon, new ed., 1879, p. 73 ff.), this incipient Gnosticism had for its root-idea an aversion to matter, which it looked upon as a principle opposed to God and as the cause of sin in human beings. It was, therefore, to be avoided and overcome; but, in the endeavour to do so, different Gnostics chose different paths. On the one hand, some practised asceticism in regard to food, marriage, and other bodily enjoyments, thinking that the best way to overcome matter was to have as little to do with it as possible. Others, on the contrary, adopted a bolder course. Sensual desires, it seemed to them, were natural and inevitable, and the only way to overcome them was by glutting them with that for which they craved. Desire would be extinguished by exhaustion; and then they would be able to cease thinking about the objects with which fancy had been obsessed.

These opposite tendencies occupy a prominent place in St. Pauls later writings; and it is easy to imagine with how much pain and annoyance it was that he became aware of their prevalence among his churches. He may, however, have been conscious that both parties were able to appeal to doctrines of his own, which occupy a prominent place in his earlier writings. In discussing the question of meats offered in sacrifice to idols, he had counselled the strong to adopt the magnanimous attitude of abstinence for the sake of the weak, though not conceding that the scruples of the weak had any justification. The weak, however, have a strength of their own, and they sometimes turn concessions thus made to them into tyrannical rules binding upon all. At all events, the exhortations to defer to the weak do not recur in the later Epistles; but asceticism is strongly repudiated, and the principle enforced that every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer (1Ti 4:4-5).

There is good reason for believing that St. Paul became sensible in later life that even his own doctrine of the righteousness of God was capable of being construed in a sense totally different from that intended by him, and with pernicious results. In the Epistle to the Galatians he had attacked the Law with ferocity, and he had drawn no distinction between ceremonial and moral law. But experience was to teach him that freedom from law can be adopted as a watchword by unsteady spirits, who convert it into licence. In Germany, a generation after the death of Luther, justification by faith alone had been converted into such an idol that in many quarters there was no longer any dread of certain forms of moral corruption; and the wiser of Luthers followers had to recognize that there is a use of the Law even for the regenerate, to instruct them as to what the will of God is, when once they have, through grace, been made willing to do it. St. Paul had never been unaware of this; but he states it with more clearness and urgency in his later Epistles, where the standard set up for all who call themselves by the name of Christ is that they be furnished completely unto every good work (2Ti 3:17).

If the Lutheran Church had to learn by experience that its favourite doctrine could be turned into lasciviousness, the Reformed or Calvinistic Church had no less to learn, in the century after the Reformation, that its favourite doctrine was capable of misuse. Now, election is one of St. Pauls doctrines also; and he sometimes gives to it very strong expression indeed, as, e.g., in the paragraph about Jacob and Esau in the latter half of the Epistle to the Romans. Nor does he abandon it in his later writings; but he states it more cautiously, laying emphasis on the choice of God on the part of man which is necessary to salvation as well as the choice of man on the part of God. In the Pastoral Epistles there is a universalism of the Divine love and of the death of Christ (1Ti 2:4-6; 1Ti 4:10, 2Ti 1:9, Tit 2:2); but it is carefully balanced by the ethical requirements addressed to those who hear the gospel.

It may be that the prominent place given in the later Pauline letters to the doctrine of the Church is traceable to the same considerations and anxieties. This new development is in two directions: on the one hand, there is a very exalted conception of the Church, culminating in the image, in Ephesians, of the bride of Christ, who is to be presented to the Bridegroom without spot or wrinkle or any such thing; and, on the other hand, there is the organization of offices, elaborated in the Pastoral Epistles. Why was St. Paul so anxious that such a lofty view of its own constitution should possess the mind of the Church? And why did he provide that it should be so thoroughly organized? Is not the explanation to be sought in his growing sense of the perils to which his converts were exposed through contact with surrounding paganism, and especially the orgies connected with the idol-festivals? Refuge from these temptations of a corrupt society could be found only in a pure society; and he desired the Church to be a place so attractive that those who had left the world for it might feel that they had made a good exchange.

There was another aspect of incipient Gnosticism which gave a direction to the Apostles thinking of which note must be taken. In its dread of matter it instinctively separated the Deity from it as much as possible. Hence fully developed Gnosticism attributed the creation of the material universe to an inferior deity, whom it termed the Demiurge; and even incipient Gnosticism interposed between the Deity and matter a multitude of fantastic creations of the fancy, sometimes conceived of as abstractions but at other times impersonated as angels of different ranks. This causes St. Paul, in his later writings, to speak of Jesus Christ as both the author and the end of the universe-Of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things (Rom 11:36)-and it is probably this also which leads him to celebrate the Son of God as the Lord of angels and of all the denizens of the spiritual world. Out of such references to supernatural beings there was constructed by Dionysius Areopagiticus an elaborate system of angelology, which was adopted by the theologians of the Middle Ages and deeply affected the cosmical conceptions of both Dante and Milton. But it is open to question whether St. Paul intended these references to be taken so seriously. All he intended may have been to say that, whatever principalities and powers there may exist anywhere, they are all under the dominion of the Son of God. It is, however, in one of the least polemical of his writings that we come upon the ripest expression of such meditations on the transcendence of Christ, viz. Php 2:6 ff., where we read of one who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father-a passage which, though it presents to scholarship not a few difficulties, has done, and ever will do, much to steady the faith of the Church, in the glory of her Lord.

Not only, however, is Christ thus transcendent in the universe: He is also immanent in believers and in the Church. This is the teaching of all the Epistles from first to last, but it is most prominent in the later ones; and this emphasis and reiteration fall in with the thought which has been shown to be characteristic of the later Epistles. Even in the earliest Epistles, in which freedom from the law is vindicated as the negative pole of Christian experience, possession by the Spirit appears as the positive pole, and in Galatians all the features of Christian experience are described as the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). That the Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead is proved by the Apostolic Benediction, which forms the closing verse of 2 Corinthians. Now it seems to be a rule of Scripture, that whatever is done by one Person of the Godhead may be spoken of as done by the others; and, accordingly, not only is the Spirit said to dwell in believers, but the Father is also said to be in them, and they are said to be in the Father. It is, however, about the Son of God that such statements are most frequently made; and the phrase in Christ or Christ in you is the most common expression for this Divine indwelling, which is the guarantee of Christian progress and perfection. In Ephesians 1, 2 the phrase in Christ occurs more than a score of times; and it is significant of the warmth generated by this idea in the mind of St. Paul that he has invented a whole series of metaphors to set it forth, the union between Christ and believers being compared to that between a temple and the stones of which it is composed, to that between trunk and branches in a tree, to that of head and members in the human body, and to that of husband and wife. The whole of Deissmanns St. Paul is illuminated by the thorough exposition of this idea and by the proof of how it ruled the Apostles consciousness in every direction.

Union with Christ is usually represented as connecting us with the living Christ in the same way as faith does with the Christ who died; the one is related to sanctification in the same way as the other is to justification; and with this agrees the saying of St. Paul himself (Rom 5:10): If, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. But the conception for which in Christ is the symbol is much more comprehensive than this would suggest. The connexion with Christ was formed in a past eternity in the mind of God, and it will continue to all eternity; because neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:38 f.). It is not only vital, bringing into the soul the virtue resident in Him who is now seated at the right hand of power, but legal also, making our debt His and His merit ours. In short, Christ to St. Pauls mind fills the entire universe, from horizon to horizon; and faith saves because it is the receptivity of the soul which appropriates all the virtue of every kind derivable from this transcendent Being.

4. Personality.-St. Paul was, in the fullest sense of the word, a personality. There is about him the same modernness as about St. Augustine in his Confessions. While many figures of the past are unintelligible and incomprehensible, he is as human as if he had walked in upon us out of the street. This may be partly due to the details of his life being so well known and his words read so frequently in our hearing; but it is traceable still more directly to the largeness of his humanity and the realism of his thinking. There are, no doubt, however, things about him, due to his circumstances and training, which affect us less favourably; and, on the other hand, the expansion of our own experience may train us gradually to a completer comprehension of him. Scholars like Ramsay and Deissmann have written with enthusiasm of the new power of appreciation derived from witnessing with their own eyes the scenes of his labours; and anyone privileged to live through a revival of religion would ever afterwards have a new comprehension of every page in the Book of Acts, while the experience of an evangelist or a pastor, in hungering and thirsting for the salvation of those under his charge, or in watching over the development of young converts, with a sensitive consciousness of the perils to which these are exposed, would supply the best of all qualifications for feeling the innermost throb of the Epistles.

(a) The man.-Without question Nature had expended on the making of St. Paul a fine bit of the material with which she works in her secret laboratory, and had cast his personality in one of her largest moulds. He was specially strong in intellectual endowment. This can be appreciated by reading any exposition of his thinking such as is supplied in works on NT theology, for there the topics are not only numerous but full of weight and substance; and, besides, they are so closely articulated as to form an orderly and connected system of ideas. The question whether St. Paul was the author of a dogmatic system has, indeed, been disputed, some holding that it is in the sphere of religion rather than dogma that he lives and moves; but, at all events, he was one of those who need to know the why and the wherefore of whatever they are experiencing or doing, and whose views and convictions all piece themselves together into a connected view of the world. He has been one of the most influential teachers of mankind, multitudes in every century adopting from him their way of conceiving all the greatest objects of human concern.

While, however, it is this side of his greatness which first attracts the eye, closer intimacy reveals him as not less distinctively a man of heart. He could love, and he had the power of compelling love. So numerous were his companions and fellow-labourers, that the study of these is a subject which has more than once been treated by itself (J. S. Howson, The Companions of St. Paul, 1871; E. B. Redlich, St. Paul and his Companions, 1913). It is astonishing how often he is seen in tears; and it is certain that the Ephesians at Miletus were not the only converts of his who, at parting, fell on his neck and kissed him, sorrowing because they were to see his face no more. By no author has this side of his character been so perfectly seized as by Adolphe Monod, whose little book, entitled St. Paul (1851), far outweighs in value many ponderous tomes. Yet this writer does not fail to point out that the feminine traits in St. Paul acquired their significance from the strength of the masculine ones. When a woman weeps, it occasions no surprise; but there is something profoundly moving in the tears of a strong man.

Still, St. Paul had not all the gifts. His bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible. Whether his thorn in the flesh was connected with this natural defect, it is impossible to say; but the way in which it is introduced, as if it were something sent to keep him humble, after he had received extraordinary visions and revelations, would rather suggest that it was additional to his congenital weakness; and that it was sufficiently painful and annoying is obvious without the exaggeration of Farrar, who characteristically speaks of it as his stake in the flesh (The Life and Work of St. Paul, 2 vols., 1879, i. 214). It has been supposed to have been epilepsy, because the sufferer says that the Galatians did not spit (Gal 4:14 ) at him, and in the ancient world it was common to spit at the sight or mention of epilepsy, as among ourselves some people touch wood in certain circumstances by way of deprecation. Similarly, the theory that it was a disease of the eyes can be supported by his statement that the Galatians would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him (Gal 4:15). Ramsays notion, that it was malarial fever, has the recommendation that he himself suffered from this in the same region of the world, and is of opinion that the symptoms correspond (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 94). What it really was will probably never be ascertained. It is enough to know that the astonishing work done by this man was accomplished not in the robustness of a healthy body or in the self-consciousness of one able at all times to have absolute confidence in himself, but amid weariness and painfulness, shyness and self-distrust. To a sensitive mind any bodily weakness or deformity must be a kind of torture, especially in the presence of strangers; and St. Paul loved the gospel so entirely that he would have liked to give it the advantage of all the graces of voice and bodily presence which he lacked. Yet, in more ways than one, his very defects turned out to the furtherance of the gospel; and with genial intuition Adolphe Monod, himself somewhat of an invalid, has divined how this could happen. A weak servant of Christ sometimes appeals to the sympathies of an audience more by his weakness than anyone could by strength; the women, especially, in a congregation will do far more for an invalid pastor than for one in health; and so it comes to pass that such a one can say, When I am weak, then am I strong (2Co 12:10).

The idea, not infrequently encountered in recent works on St. Paul, that his liability to see visions and dream dreams was connected with his bodily weakness or some psychical derangement, seems a strange perversion of the facts. His own estimate of it at least was very different. To him it appeared a mark of superiority so distinguished that he had to beware of being puffed up through possessing it; and there can be no question that it rendered to him extraordinary assistance and encouragement at critical moments of his experience. It was akin to the official endowment of the OT prophets, and, if it is to be traced to any natural peculiarity, this must be sought in the psychology of prophecy.

(b) The Hebrew and the Hellenist.-To St. Paul, the Jew, very ample justice has been done, as the OT, from every portion of which he drew ideas and impulses, has always been known to his interpreters. But the same justice has not been done to the Gentile in him. He may almost without impropriety be called a Gentile; to the Greeks, he says himself, he became a Greek; and it is possible that he may have done so more than he was himself aware.

This at least is being asserted by scholarship at the present time; and the very latest speculations on Paulinism are in this direction. By the school which takes its name from the History of Religion, and whose leading aim it is to trace out every kind of connexion that can be discovered between Christianity and other contemporary religions, it is contended that, in the world of St. Pauls time and in the countries where his missionary labours were carried on, there was taking place an extraordinary religious ferment, the West acting on the East, and the East still more powerfully on the West. The atmosphere was full of notions and aspirations, these being connected not with the hereditary classical religion, with which scholarship has long been familiar, but with imported and illegitimate cults, with which scholarship is only now becoming acquainted. As a person of religious sensitiveness and as a Semite, St. Paul could not escape; and not a few ideas of the later Paulinism are derived from this source. Indeed, if the form in which Christianity first presented itself to his mind was due to Judaism, the last was due to Hellenism.

There may be more in these suggestions than conservative scholars are yet disposed to allow. The scene of St. Pauls activity was the synagogue; and in the synagogues, wherever he went, he encountered two elements-a Jewish and a Gentile. To us the former is easily intelligible: we are aware both of the difficulty felt by Jews in accepting the Christian message and of the arguments by which they could be led to believe that Jesus was the Christ. But it was among the Gentiles that the missionary obtained his most numerous successes, and not infrequently he turned away from the Jews altogether and devoted himself exclusively to the Gentiles. It has not been sufficiently considered how there happened to be so many of such proselytes or how they were so open to the influences brought by St. Paul. Some of them had accepted the Jewish religion in its entirety, but probably the majority had only contracted a habit of attendance at the synagogue. Even this, however, betokens that they were persons in whom the religious instinct was strong, and the religious cravings of many may have sought satisfaction elsewhere before coming to the synagogue. If the story could be fully told, it is not unlikely that to many of them some other religion had rendered the same service as the Law did to Jews, being a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ.

Now, what is alleged is that in these Oriental cults there were elements bearing a striking resemblance to certain features of Paulinism. The worshippers sought escape from the world through absorption in the deity in a manner bearing some likeness to union with Christ in the Pauline theology; and mystical rites were practised having a certain analogy with the Christian sacraments.

All this may amount to no more than the fact that in all religions, the Christian included, there are certain common aspirations as well as certain forms of ritual. There is no clear statement anywhere in St. Pauls writings implying that he looked upon heathens as having been led to Christ through their own religions in the same way as Jews had been led to Him through theirs. His tone is, on the contrary, one of disparagement and condemnation, and he speaks of their previous religious condition as something from which they needed to be delivered. The nearest approach to a more sympathetic view of heathenism is in the speech on Mars Hill, in which there is an indication of an education of the human race, as well as of the Jews, for Christianity. It is contended, indeed, that, in the Epistles of the Imprisonment, he has paid to the cults in question the compliment of adopting their phraseology on a large scale (fullness, mystery, perfect, gnosis, revelation, new man, God-saviour, etc.) without referring to them by name. But Kennedy, in St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions, has proved (especially in chs. iv. and v.) that both the words and ideas to which a heathen origin is attributed go back to the OT and the LXX_; and, when they can be found there, it is useless to go further afield. The evidence that the notions attributed to the worshippers of Mithra, Osiris, and Dionysus were actually held by them is frequently very slender; and there is great need for the publication of a corpus of the texts relied on as a whole, in order that it may be seen how far we are dealing with serious facts. Too often the writers of this school create, though unintentionally, the impression, not that these cults were providential preparations for Christ, but that Christianity is no better than one of them, as fantastic and as futile.

It is certain, at all events, that both the sacraments were practised in the Church before St. Paul became a Christian; and both can vindicate their institution by the Founder of Christianity Himself, who, besides, imitated them from parallel rites in the older dispensation; and St. Pauls doctrine of union with Christ can claim the same authoritative derivation. The mysticism of St. Paul is almost identical with that of St. John; and in St. John it is put into the mouth of Jesus Himself. Everyone remembers the parable of the Vine and the Branches. Because St. John wrote later than St. Paul, the Johannine theology is usually treated as a development from the Pauline. But the dependence was the opposite way. Whatever may have been the origin of the Gospel of St. John, the tradition contained in it is much older than the composition of the book; and, if it has in any considerable degree preserved the deeds and the words of our Lord, the knowledge of these must have been in possession of the Church at the period when St. Paul was first ascertaining the contents of the Evangel. He may have obtained the report from the lips of St. John himself, with whom he was at that time in contact; but what St. John knew was the common property of the Church long before it was committed to writing. This is the true origin of the most distinctive part of St. Pauls theology, which never in him reaches the same elevation as in the writings of St. John. Though, for instance, as has been mentioned above, St. Paul invented a whole series of images to set forth the intimacy and vitality of the connexion with Christ, he never rose to the height of sublimity reached by Jesus, when, in the intercessory prayer of John 17, He compared the union between Himself and His disciples to that of Father and Son in the Holy Trinity.

The weakness of the school which is attempting at present to interpret Christianity as if it had consisted originally of scraps picked up here, there, and everywhere, is that it conceives Christianity as an amalgam of ideas and fancies, fortuitously collected and ingeniously pieced together, instead of perceiving it to be a series of experiences derived from a single centre and capable of repetition throughout all the generations of mankind. This centre was Christ. Whatever fullness of personality there may have been in St. Paul in his natural state, he became completely himself only when Christ took possession of his being. If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new (2Co 5:17). From the moment of his conversion it was his continual aspiration to be able to say: I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me (Gal 2:20). Christ had for him a supreme objective value, because He had redeemed him from the curse and bondage of sin. At the moment when Christ first revealed Himself to him, his ethical life had come to an impasse, and he was convicted on the spot of being in absolute antagonism to God. But Christ reconciled him; and, although he was never afterwards without the consciousness of being a sinful man, lost if left to himself, he knew that his ransom had been paid on the Cross. But Christ had for him an equally important subjective value. He was in him the hope of glory. He was the atmosphere which he breathed; He was to him what the sunshine is to the bird. The world might be unkind and fortune fickle, but in Christ he had an unfailing source of exhilaration and a resource in all emergencies. This relationship to Christ determined his relationship to God, as well as to his fellow-Christians and his fellow-men. These experiences have been reproduced in countless instances from century to century; and, the deeper anyones experience of them is, the more facile and joyous will be the appreciation of the thinker in whose mind they first took their full and natural shape. Should they ever cease to be known as the actual experiences of men, the question about their origin will hardly be worth discussing.

There has of late been much writing on the relation between St. Paul and Jesus. Was the gospel of Jesus faithfully and fruitfully continued in the teaching of the Apostle? or did St. Paul distort the original gospel, replacing it with a system of his own? It has even been contended that St. Paul was the true founder of Christianity; only this was something quite different from that intended by Jesus. Now, if Jesus and St. Paul were simply Jews of genius, whose specialty lay in religion, speculations of this kind would not be out of place. Indeed, the wonder would be that St. Paul, with his assertive and towering personality, did not consciously enter into competition with his rival. But nothing can be more certain than that to St. Paul himself the question whether he or Jesus was the originator of the new religion would have appeared both blasphemous and ludicrous. His favourite designation for himself was the slave of Jesus Christ. He was only a vessel, to carry the name of Christ from nation to nation; and the vessel was an earthen one, in order that the excellency of the power might be Anothers and not his own. It cannot be denied that there was a vast difference between Jesus mode of both conceiving and stating the truth and St. Pauls; but the latters modes of expression can generally be translated back, without difficulty, into those of Jesus, and the two views of the world do not exhibit serious discrepancies, when it is taken into account that the one speaker is conscious of being the Saviour and the other of having been saved.

(c) The apostle.-The sense of having received from on high a vocation or mission was strong in the leading men of the race to which St. Paul belonged. Thus, Jeremiah records his own call in these words, spoken to him by Jahweh: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations (Jer 1:5). Anyone thus addressed naturally felt all his powers consecrated to a task, and this so steeled his whole nature that Jahweh could add, as we read in the same chapter: I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brasen walls, against the whole land, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land. And they shall fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee: for I am with thee, saith the Lord, to deliver thee (v. 18f.). In Jesus this sense was particularly strong: He knew Himself to be the Messiah; hence the name Son of man, by which He called Himself, as well as the other Messianic titles He accepted from others. In St. Paul there was the same sense of being chosen by God; and from this was derived not a little of his strength. He even reverts to that old conception of Jeremiah, intimating that God had separated him from his mothers womb, to be a preacher of the gospel of His Son (Gal 1:15). To himself it seemed that he had been born at a juncture in the worlds history at which there was a special work to be done for God and man, and that he had been endowed with the gifts required for the purpose; consequently, all his faculties and opportunities must be devoted to this object. This made him feel himself to be a debtor to all unacquainted with the gospel (Rom 1:14). His peculiar responsibility was, however, to the Gentiles, to whose evangelization he had been specially appointed. To this consciousness he gives very frequent expression (e.g. Act 9:15; Act 13:47; Act 15:7; Act 22:21, Rom 11:13; Rom 15:16, Eph 3:8, 1Ti 2:7, 2Ti 1:11). Even with the older apostles he appears to have made an arrangement by which it was agreed that he should go to the uncircumcision, while they went to the circumcision (Gal 2:7-9); and this acknowledgment by the Church doubtless deepened his sense of obligation, though it was only the recognition of an anterior conviction of his own and of a call from a higher quarter, in the same way as ordination by an ecclesiastical authority to a particular charge may rekindle the sense of duty, though the call to lay the whole life on the altar has come from a higher source.

In this consciousness of a mission to his age, and of a special mission to the Gentile world, we must recognize one of the driving forces of St. Pauls life. He frequently speaks of the task as a stewardship: and it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful (1Co 4:2). This was what kept alive in him the spirit of missionary enterprise, it being his constant ambition to penetrate into new provinces and not to build on another mans foundation (Rom 15:20); this was what made him able to face novel audiences, to stand before courts or kings, and to encounter raging mobs; this was what made all afflictions light, though among these were perils of rivers, perils of robbers, perils in the city, perils in the wilderness, perils in the sea, besides labour and travail, hunger and thirst, cold and nakedness (2Co 11:26-27); this was what made him equal to the most difficult achievement of all in a man of his temperament-to rejoice that the gospel was preached by his enemies, for strife and contention, to those who might not otherwise have heard it at all (Php 1:18).

This loyalty to his calling evoked, however, tenderer things from the deep recesses of his nature. There is a passage in the beginning of 2 Cor. where he blesses the Father of all mercies and God of all comforts for the comfort he has himself received, because this will enable him to comfort those who are in any sorrow; and he goes on to express his willingness to endure any afflictions as long as these give him a deeper sympathy with the suffering children of men. All experiences were to him subordinate to the over-mastering purpose of his life, and he could welcome anything whatever out of which new efficiency could be extracted. In short, he loved his work, doing it not only from a sense of duty, but because he loved his Saviour and loved his fellow-men; and so he could speak of himself not only as a steward but as a nurse and a father (1Th 2:7, 1Co 4:15).

(d) The Christian.-All this must have had an influence on character. Every power was exercised to the full, and his own development went on amidst manifold relations with his fellow-creatures. Holiness has been sought behind the walls of the cloister through macerations and prayer; but it comes unsought to those who go out of themselves, to seek and to save the lost children of Adam. This is a secret which has been recaptured in our own time, when many of the holiest men and women are those who are going about continually doing good, finding the romance of existence in the reclamation and the welfare of others. Though such efforts involve sacrifice and self-denial, there is a rich reward in the gratitude of those benefited; and selfishness, the worst of all evils, is eradicated from the soul.

Such universal benevolence is, it must be confessed, not infrequently accompanied by shallowness, the spirit of Martha being so much indulged that there is no time for cultivating the attitude of Mary. From this danger, however, St. Paul was secured by his intense preoccupation with the truth of the gospel, of which he was not only the custodian and propagandist, but the apologist, defending it against all comers. One part of his vocation, to which he gives frequent expression, was to be a revealer of truth which had been hidden in the Divine mind from eternity, and not made known to even the greatest prophets of the OT, because it was reserved for the epoch of the Son of God. This is what St. Paul calls the mystery-the word being used not in the sense of something hidden or obscured, but something once hidden but now revealed-and, as he contemplates it in its novelty and greatness, he bursts out into the exclamation, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past tracing out! (Rom 11:33). Thus with the restless activity of the evangelist he combined the habits of the seer and sage.

The sages labour has its dangers too, the thinker being apt to be lost in the clouds of his own speculation. But from this peril St. Paul was saved by his intense desire to see moral results in those for whom he was labouring. Nearly every Epistle of his is composed half of theological and half of ethical matter. And the one is closely connected with the other. However mystical he becomes, when showing how the Christian has died with Christ, risen with Him, and sat down with Him in the heavenly places, each of these has its moral equivalent in the daily life of the Christian, and the smallest of duties is enforced by the sublimest of principles. This union of ideal and actual is the heart of St. Pauls thinking-If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk (Gal 5:25).

We know too well that it is possible for a religious teacher to give utterance to the noblest of sentiments and yet not rise in practice above the levels of selfishness; but it is difficult to read the innumerable passages in which St. Paul entreats and encourages his converts to follow after holiness without believing that he was for ever following after it himself; and, although he did not claim to have already attained or to be already perfect, he could, when occasion required, challenge his converts to bear witness to his walk and conversation in their midst-Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and righteously and unblameably we behaved ourselves toward you (1Th 2:10)-and he could call upon them to be imitators of him, as he also was of Christ (1Co 11:1). As the years increased, and the effects of abuse and imprisonment began to tell on his bodily frame, his heart began to solicit the peace and perfection of a better world-Our citizenship is in heaven, from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ (Php 3:20)-or at least to be divided between such yearnings and the attraction of his work-I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better: yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sake (Php 1:23). At last, in a passage of his final Epistle, which even the most negative of critics have been fain to vindicate in some way for him, we see the spirit poised in the very attitude of flight: I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day: and not only to me, but also to all them that have loved his appearing (2Ti 4:6-8).

Literature.-In English theology no department has been cultivated more creditably than the Life of St. Paul. The great work of Conybeare-Howson, which appeared in 1853, was epoch-making, and is still far from superseded. T. Lewins, which appeared about the same time, is built on similar lines and is rich in illustrations from antiquities. F. W. Farrars (1879) embodied the results of these predecessors with a fuller exposition of the thinking. From the pen of W. M. Ramsay has come a whole library of works on St. Paul-The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, 1890, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1895, Historical Commentary on St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, 1899, Pauline and other Studies in Early Christian History, 1906, The Cities of St. Paul, 1907, Luke the Physician, 1908, The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day, 1913, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the NT, 1915, by which a deep impression has been made, in favour of positive views, not only in the English-speaking countries but on the continent of Europe. Of smaller books may be mentioned J. Iverachs in the Men of the Bible series, and A. E. Garvies in the Century Bible Handbooks (1910); several valuable American works may also be named, such as those by G. H. Gilbert (1899), O. Cone (1898), A. T. Robertson (1909), and B. W. Bacon (1905). Of the German works a history has been written by A. Schweitzer (Geschichte der paulin. Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart, 1911; books in English are omitted, because the author does not know the language); but it cannot be claimed that these are of the same calibre as those in English, except on the side of criticism. F. C. Baurs great work, Paulus der Apostel, 1845, raised profound critical questions, which have been agitating the scholarship of Germany ever since, but it was no gift to the German people, bringing a great religious character home to their intelligence and affection, as Conybeare and Howsons Life was to the English-speaking world. That of A. Hausrath (1865) exhibited fine qualities of style. The two volumes of C. Clemen (Paulus. Sein Leben und Wirken, 1904) have been sufficiently characterized above. Smaller books of note have recently appeared by H. Weinel (Eng. tr._, 1906), W. Wrede (Eng. tr._, 1906), E. Vischer (1910), but that of A. Deissmann (Eng. tr._, 1912) stands out by itself on account of the breath of the open air felt everywhere in its pages and the authors enthusiasm for the subject. The Germans themselves seem to find most satisfaction in the life of St. Paul contained in The Apostolic Age of C. v. Weizscker (Eng. tr._, 1894-95) (see the remarks in P. Wernles Einfhrung in das theologische Studium, 1908), who was a fine spirit but too subject to the critical tendencies of the time in which he lived. Of the works in French, that of Adolphe Monod has already been characterized; that of E. Renan (Eng. tr._, 1869) has qualities of its own which cannot be neglected; and that of C. Fouard (Eng. tr._, 1894) is highly spoken of.

A few more notes may be added under each of the divisions of the whole subject adopted above.

(1) Sources.-Here commentaries on the Acts and on the Epistles, severally or collectively, might be mentioned, but these will be found elsewhere in this Dictionary. A few works, however, on special points may be mentioned:-F. H. Chase, The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, 1902; G. Hnnicke, Die Chronologie des Lebens des Apostels Paulus, 1903; D. Round, The Date of St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, 1906; J. D. James, The Genuineness and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, 1906 (on the same subject as an Essay by G. G. Findlay in Appendix to A. Sabatiers The Apostle Paul, Eng. tr._, 1891); Dykes Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, 1903. It will be found useful to read over both Acts and Epistles in unconventional translations-The Twentieth Century New Testament (21904), J. Moffatt, The New Testament: A New Translation (31914), and especially R. F. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech, 1903 (31912).

(2) Life.-On the world into which St. Paul was born the works on NT Times are important, such as those of A. Hausrath (Eng. tr._, 1895), E. Schrer (HJP_, 1885-90), and O. Holtzmann (Eng. tr._, 1904), as well as the handbooks by R. Waddy Moss (1903), L. A. Muirhead (21905), and W. Fairweather (1895). See also The Background of the Gospels, 1908, of the last mentioned. On St. Pauls conversion: G. L. Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion, etc. of Paul, 1763, new ed., 1879; E. Moske, Die Bekehrung des heiligen Paulus, 1907. On St. Paul in Athens: works by W. Lindsay Alexander (1865), C. Shakespeare (1878), E. Curtius, Paulus in Athen, in SBAW_, 1893. See also J. Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul 4, 1880; R. Steinmetz, Die zweite rmische Gefangenschaft des Apostels Paulus, 1897.

(3) Beliefs.-O. Pfleiderers Paulinism (Eng. tr._, 1877) long did good service, but it may be said now to have been superseded by such works as A. B. Bruce, St. Pauls Conception of Christianity, 1894; G. B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology, 1892; G. H. Gilbert, The First Interpreters of Jesus, 1901; and W. P. DuBose, The Gospel according to St. Paul, 1907. It has, however, been hinted above that the best expositions of Paulinism are to be found in the works on NT Theology, which are numerous and excellent, such as those of B. Weiss (Eng. tr._, 1882-83), W. Beyschlag (Eng. tr._, 1895), H. J. Holtzmann (21911), P. Feine (21911), A. Schlatter (1909-10), H. Weinel (21913), E. W. E. Reuss (Eng. tr._, 1872-74), J. Bovon (21902-05), G. B. Stevens (1899), to which add A. Titius, Die neutest. Lehre von der Seligkeit, 1895-1900. There are many monographs on special points such as the following:-On St. Pauls views of Sin, works by E. Mngoz (1882) and P. Wernle (1897); on his Psychology, works by W. P. Dickson (St. Pauls Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, 1883) and T. Simon (1897); on his Christology, works by M. Brckner (1903), H. Schmidt (1867), D. Somerville (St. Pauls Conception of Christ, 1897); on his Ethics, works by H. L. Ernesti (1875), A. Juncker (1904), A. B. D. Alexander (1910); on his Pastoral Teaching, works by W. E. Chadwick (1907) (who has also a volume on his Social Teaching, 1906) and G. Pahncke (1906); on his Eschatology, works by R. Kabisch (1893), E. Teichmann (1896), H. A. A. Kennedy (1904). W. M. Macgregors Christian Freedom, 1914, is a treatise on the theology of the Epistle to the Galatians. On the Style of St. Paul see, besides the works referred to in the text, J. S. Howson, The Metaphors of St. Paul, new ed., 1883; R. R. Resker, St. Pauls Illustrations, 1908; J. Weiss, Beitrge zur paulinischen Rhetorik, 1897.

(4) Personality.-There is a good chapter on the personality of St. Paul in A. E. Garvies Studies of Paul and his Gospel, 1911. The question of the relation of St. Paul to contemporary religions and religious movements was brought into prominence by E. Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches (BL_), 1881 (Germ. tr._ A. Harnack, 1883), and later by F. Cumont, Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, 1906, but especially by R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910. A very sympathetic statement of the results will be found in B. W. Bacon, The Story of St. Paul, 1905, and a criticism, not sympathetic but searching, in H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions, 1913. See also S. J. Case, The Evolution of Early Christianity, 1914. On the question formulated by W. H. Johnston, art._ Was Paul the Founder of Christianity? in PriNoeton Theological Review, v. [1907] 398 ff., see A. Meyer, Wer hat das Christentum begrndet, Jesus oder Paulus?, 1907; P. Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus. 1902; M. Goguel, LAptre Paul et Jsus Christ, 1904; J. Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus, 1906; A. Jlicher, Paulus und Jesus, 1907; W. Walther, Pauli Christentum Jesu Evangelium, 1908; J. Weiss, Paulus und Jesus, 1909. On the relation of the teaching of St. Paul to that of Jesus there is an important work by A. Resch, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu in TU_, new ser. xii. [1904]; see also R. J. Drummond, The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching to the Teaching of Christ, 1901.

James Stalker.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Paul

(, the Greek form of the common Latin name Paulus), originally (see below) Saul (q.v.), the specially appointed Apostle to the Gentiles. (In the following treatment of this important character, we endeavor to weave in the Scripture narrative whatever illustration may be gathered from modern researches and speculations.

I. Preliminary Inquiries.

1. Original Authorities. Nearly all the authentic materials for the life of the apostle Paul are contained in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pauline Epistles. Out of a comparison of these authorities the biographer has to construct his account of the really important period of the apostle’s life. The early traditions of the Church appear to have left almost untouched the space of time for which we possess those sacred and abundant sources of knowledge; and they aim only at supplying a few particulars in the biography beyond the points at which the narrative of the Acts begins and terminates.

The inspired history and the Epistles lie side by side, and are to all appearance quite independent of one another. It was not the purpose of the historian to write a life of Paul, even as much as the received name of his book would seem to imply. The book called the Acts of the Apostles is an account of the beginnings of the kingdom of Christ on the earth. The large space which the apostle occupies in it is due to the important part which he bore in spreading that kingdom. As to the Epistles, nothing can be plainer than that they were written without reference to the history; and there is no attempt in the canon to combine them with it so as to form what we should call in modern phrase the apostle’s Life and Letters. What amount of agreement and what amount of discrepancy may be observed between these independent authorities is a question of the greatest interest and importance, and one upon which various opinions are entertained. The most adverse and extreme criticism is ably represented by Dr. Baur of Tubingen (Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi [Stuttg. 1845]), who finds so much opposition between what he holds to be the few authentic Pauline Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles that he pronounces the history to be an interested fiction. But his criticism is the very caricature of captiousness. We have but to imagine it applied to any history and letters of acknowledged authenticity, and we feel irresistibly how arbitrary and unhistorical it is. Putting aside this extreme view, it is not to be denied that difficulties are to be met with in reconciling completely the Acts and the received Epistles of Paul. What the solutions of such difficulties may be, whether there are any direct contradictions, how far the apparent differences may be due to the purpose of the respective writers, by what arrangement all the facts presented to us may best be dovetailed together these are the various questions which have given’ so much occupation to the critics and expositors of Paul, and upon some of which it seems to be yet impossible to arrive at a decisive conclusion. We shall assume the Acts of the Apostles to be a genuine and authentic work of Luke. the companion of Paul, and shall speak of the Epistles at the places which we believe them to occupy in the history.

2. Name. There can be no doubt that the apostle’s name, as a Jew, was Saul; but when or how he received the Roman name Paul, which he bears in the Acts of the Apostles from Act 13:9, which he uses in his Epistles, and by which he is called by Peter (2Pe 3:15), is unknown. It is quite probable that he had borne the name of Paul as a Roman citizen; and it is no objection to this view that then this name would have appeared first, and that of Saul later (Witsius, Meletem. Leid. p. 47). If it is not merely accidental that Luke first calls him Paul in the passage mentioned, the reason may be that the apostle then first commenced his public and separate ministry; and Paul, a Gentile name, was that which the apostle of the Gentiles always on in Church history (Baur, Paul. p. 93). Even if the Jews still used the old Jewish name, there was afterwards no occasion for Luke to mention it. The account of Jerome that Paul assumed this name upon the conversion by him of Sergius Paulus (Act 13:7; comp. August. Confess. 8:4; Bengel and Olshausen, on Act 13:9) is perhaps not a tradition, but a mere suggestion of that father himself, on the ground that the name Paul first appears in the passage following that account. Indeed, Baur (p. 93) would have us believe that this was the view of Luke himself, and that the whole account of the conversion of Sergius Paulus was built up to illustrate this change of name! But if there had been any connection between the two events, it would have been natural for the writer to indicate it (see Neander, p. 108). It is easy to suppose simply that, in becoming a Christian. according to the Eastern custom, SEE NAME, he assumed the name Paul, as one common among Greeks and Romans, and quite similar in sound to Saul (comp. Chrysost. and Theophyl. in Suicer, Thesaur. 2:648), perhaps with some reference to the etymological signification of the name (comp. 1Co 15:9; Paulus, Lat. small, little; comp. Gr. ). Yet we should then expect that Luke would employ the name Paul from Act 9:19 onward. (For another view, see Kuinol, Comment. ad loc.) SEE SERGIUS PAULUS.

II. Personal History. We purpose under this head to gather together all the information given either directly or incidentally in the Acts and Epistles concerning the apostle’s life, relegating to a subsequent head the various disputes that have been raised on some of them.

1. Youth and Early Career. Paul was a native of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia (Act 22:3, etc.), and was of Jewish descent, of the tribe of Benjamin (Php 3:5). From his father he inherited the rights of Roman citizenship, which had probably been earned by some of his ancestry through services rendered to the Roman state (Lardner, Works, 1:228, ed. 1788, 8vo; Grotius, ad Acta 22:28). The supposition that he enjoyed them in virtue of being a native of Tarsus is not well founded; for though that city had been created by Augustus an urbs libera (Dion. Chrysost. 2:36, ed. Reiske; Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 27), it does not follow from this that all its natives enjoyed the privilege of Roman citizenship; and besides, from Act 21:39 compared with Act 22:24; Act 22:27, it may be inferred that, as the chief captain knew Paul to be a native of Tarsus, and yet was not aware of his Roman citizenship, the latter of these was not necessarily associated with the former. From his receiving the name Saul it has been supposed that he was the first-born son of his parents, and that they had long desired and often asked for such a favor from God; that he was not their only child, however, appears from the mention made (Act 23:16) of his sister’s son. Whether Andronicus, Junia, and Herodion, whom he terms, in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom 16:7; Rom 16:11), , were of the number of his blood relations, or only belonged to the same tribe with him, is a question on which learned men have taken different sides (comp. Lardner, Works, 6:235; Estius, Commn. ad loc.). (See below.)

At that time Tarsus was the rival of Athens and Alexandria as a place of learning and philosophical research (Strabo, 14:5); but to what extent the future Apostle of the Gentiles enjoyed the advantage of its schools we have no means of accurately determining. Attempts have been made to show from his writings that he was familiar with Greek literature. and Dr. Bentley has not hesitated to affirm that as Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, so it is manifest from this chapter alone (Acts xxvii), if nothing else had been now extant, that Paul was a great master in all the learning of the Greeks (Boyle Lectures, serm. 3, sub init.). An authority like that of Bentley in a question of Greek literature is not to be lightly set aside; yet on referring to the evidence in support of this opinion it will not be found to justify it. It must be allowed, however, that the mere circumstance of his having spent his early years in such a city as Tarsus could not but exert a very powerful influence on the mind of such a man as Paul, in the way of sharpening his faculties, refining his tastes, and enlarging the circle of his sympathies and affections. If even to the meanest citizen, as Eichhorn remarks, such a circumstance affords unless he be by nature utterly unobservant much information which otherwise he could not have obtained, and in consequence of this a certain activity of mind, how much greater may not its effect be supposed to have been on a great mind like that of Paul? To his birth and early residence in Tarsus may be traced the urbanity which the apostle at no time laid aside, and of which he was frequently a perfect model, many insinuating turns which he gives to his epistles, and a more skillful use of the Greek tongue than a Jew born and educated in Palestine could well have attained (Einleit. ins N.T. 3:5). (See below.)

But whatever uncertainty may hang over the early studies of the apostle in the department of Greek learning, there can be no doubt that, being the son of a Pharisee, and destined, in all probability, from his infancy to the pursuits of a doctor of Jewish law, he would be carefully instructed from his earliest years in the elements of Rabbinical lore. It is probable also that at this time he acquired his skill in that handicraft trade by which in later years he frequently supported himself (Act 17:3; 1Co 4:12, etc.). This trade is described by Luke as that of a , a word regarding the meaning of which there has been no small difference of opinion. (See below.) It does not follow that the family were in the necessitous condition which such manual labor commonly implies; for it was a wholesome custom among the Jews to teach every child some trade, though there might be little prospect of his depending upon it for his living. SEE HANDICRAFT.

When Paul made his defense before his countrymen at Jerusalem (Acts 22), he told them that, though born in Tarsus, he had been brought up () in Jerusalem. He must, therefore, have been yet a boy when he was removed, in all probability for the sake of his education, to the Holy City of his fathers. We may imagine him arriving there perhaps at some age between ten and fifteen, already a Hellenist, speaking Greek and familiar with the Greek version of the Scriptures, possessing, besides the knowledge of his trade, the elements of Gentile learning to be taught at Jerusalem according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers. He learned, he says, at the feet of Gamaliel. He who was to resist so stoutly the usurpations of the law had for his teacher one of the most eminent of all the doctors of the law. Gamaliel is supposed to be the person of that name who is celebrated in the writings of the Talmudists as one of the seven teachers to whom the title Rabban was given (Lightfoot, Horace Hebr. in Act. v. 34; Neander, Apostol. Zeitalter, p. 62; Otho, Lex. Rabbinico-Philippians s.v. Rabbi). Besides acquaintance with the Jewish law, and a sincere conviction of the supreme excellence of Judaism, Gamaliel appears to have possessed a singularly calm and judicious mind, and to have exercised a freedom of thought as well as pursued a range of study very unlike what was common among the party to which he belonged (Act 5:34-39; comp. Neander, l.c.). How much the instructions and the example of such a teacher may have influenced the mind of Paul favorably we may imagine, but cannot affirm. SEE GAMALIEL.

It is singular that on the occasion of his well-known intervention in the apostolical history the master’s counsels of toleration are in marked contrast to the persecuting zeal so soon displayed by the pupil. The temper of Gamaliel himself was moderate and candid, and he was personally free from bigotry; but his teaching was that of the strictest of the Pharisees, and bore its natural fruit when lodged in the ardent and thoroughgoing nature of Saul. Other fruits, besides that of a zeal which persecuted the Church, may no doubt be referred to the time when Saul sat at the feet of Gamaliel. A thorough training in the Scriptures and in the traditions of the elders under an acute and accomplished master must have done much to exercise the mind of Saul, and to make him feel at home in the subjects in which he was afterwards to be so intensely interested. Nor are we at all bound to suppose that, because his zeal for the law was strong enough to set him upon persecuting the believers in Jesus, he had therefore experienced none of the doubts and struggles which, according to his subsequent testimony, it was the nature of the law to produce (see Romans 7). On the contrary, we can scarcely imagine these as absent from the spiritual life of Saul as he passed from boyhood to manhood. Earnest persecutors are, oftener than not, men who have been tormented by inward struggles and perplexities. The pupil of Gamaliel may have been crushing a multitude of conflicts in his own mind when he threw himself into the holy work of extirpating the new heresy. SEE MORAL SENSE.

Paul is introduced to our notice by the sacred historian for the first time in connection with the martyrdom of Stephen, in which transaction he was, if not an assistant, something more than a mere spectator. A.D. 29. He is described at this time (Act 7:58) as a young man (); but this term was employed with so much latitude by the Greeks that it is impossible from the mere use of it to determine whether the party to whom it was applied was under thirty, or between that and forty. The probability is that Paul must have reached the age of thirty at least; for otherwise it is not likely that he would have shared the counsels of the chief priests, or been intrusted by them with the entire responsibility of executing their designs against the followers of Jesus, as we know was the case (Act 26:10; Act 26:12). For such a task he showed a painful aptitude, and discharged it with a zeal which spared neither age nor sex (Act 26:10-11). At that time the Church experienced the sudden expansion which was connected with the ordaining of the Seven appointed to serve tables, and with the special power and inspiration of Stephen. Among those who disputed with Stephen were some of them of Cilicia. We naturally think of Saul as having been one of these, when we find him afterwards keeping the clothes of those suborned witnesses who, according to the law (Deu 17:7), were the first to cast stones at Stephenm Saul, says the sacred writer, significantly, was consenting unto his death. The angelic glory that shone from Stephen’s face, and the divine truth of his words, failing to subdue the spirit of religious hatred now burning in Saul’s breast, must have embittered and aggravated its rage. Saul was passing through a terrible crisis for a man of his nature. But he was not one to be moved from his stern purpose by the native refinement and tenderness which he must have been stifling within him. He was the most unwearied and unrelenting of persecutors. As for Saul, he made havoc of the Church, entering into every house ( , house by house), and haling men and women, committed them to prison (Act 8:3).

2. Conversion. But while thus, in his ignorance and unbelief, he was seeking to be injurious to the cause of Christ, the great Author of Christianity was about to make him a distinguished trophy of its power, and one of the most devoted and successful of its advocates. The persecutor was to be converted. A.D. 30. What the nature of that conversion was we are now to observe. Having undertaken to follow up the believers unto strange cities, Saul naturally turned his thoughts to Damascus, expecting to find among the numerous Jewish residents of that populous city some adherents of the way ( ), and trusting, we must presume, to be allowed by the connivance of the governor to apprehend them. What befell him as he journeyed thither is related in detail three times in the Acts, first by the historian in his own person, then in the two addresses made by Paul at Jerusalem and before Agrippa. These three narratives are not repetitions of one another: there are differences between them which some critics choose to regard as irreconcilable. Considering that the same author is responsible for all the accounts, we gain nothing, of course, for the authenticity of their statements by bringing them into agreement; but it seems quite clear that the author himself could not have been conscious of any contradictions in the narratives. He can scarcely have had any motive for placing side by side inconsistent reports of Paul’s conversion; and that he should have admitted inconsistencies on such a matter through mere carelessness is hardly credible. Of the three narratives, that of the historian himself must claim to be the most purely historical: Paul’s subsequent accounts were likely to be affected by the purpose for which he introduced them. Luke’s statement is to be read in Act 9:3-19, where, however, the words, It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks, included in the Vulgate and English version, ought to be omitted. The sudden light from heaven; the voice of Jesus speaking with authority to his persecutor; Saul struck to the ground, blinded, overcome; the three days’ suspense; the coming of Ananias as a messenger of the Lord; and Saul’s baptism these were the leading features, in the eyes of the historian, of the great event, and in these we must look for the chief significance of the conversion.

Let us now compare the historical relation with those which we have in Paul’s speeches (Acts 22, 26). The reader will do well to consider each in its place. But we have here to deal with the bare fact of agreement or difference. With regard to the light, the speeches add to what Luke tells us that the phenomenon occurred at mid-day, and that the light shone round, and was visible to Saul’s companions as well as to himself. The second speech says that at the shining of this light the whole company (we all) fell to the ground. This is not contradicted by what is said (Act 9:7), The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, for there is no emphasis on stood, nor is the standing antithetical to Saul’s falling down. We have but to suppose the others rising before Saul, or standing still afterwards in greater perplexity, through not seeing or hearing what Saul saw and heard, to reconcile the narratives without forcing either. After the question, Why persecutest thou me? the second speech adds, It is hard for thee to kick against the goads. Then both the speeches supply a question and answer I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus (of Nazareth), whom thou persecutest. In the direction to go into Damascus and await orders there, the first speech agrees with Acts 9. But whereas according to that chapter the men with Saul heard the voice, in the first speech it is said they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. It seems reasonable to conclude from the two passages that the men actually heard sounds, but not, like Saul, an articulate voice.

With regard to the visit of Ananias, there is no collision between the ninth chapter and the first speech, the latter only attributing additional words to Ananias. The second speech ceases to give details of the conversion after the words, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand on thy feet. Paul adds, from the mouth of Jesus, an exposition of the purpose for which he had appeared to him. It is easy to say that in ascribing these words to Jesus, Paul or his professed reporter is violating the order and sequence of the earlier accounts. But, if we bear in mind the nature and purpose of Paul’s address before Agrippa, we shall surely not suppose that he is violating the strict truth, when he adds to the words which Jesus spoke to him at the moment of the light and the sound, without interposing any reference to a later occasion, that fuller exposition of the meaning of the crisis through which he was passing, which he was not to receive till afterwards. What Saul actually heard from Jesus on the way as he journeyed was afterwards interpreted, to the mind of Saul, into those definite expressions. For we must not forget that, whatever we hold as to the external nature of the phenomena we are considering, the whole transaction was essentially, in any case, a spiritual communication. That the Lord Jesus manifested himself as a living person to the man Saul, and spoke to him so that his very words could be understood, is the substantial fact declared to us.

The purport of the three narratives is that an actual conversation took place between Saul and the Lord Jesus. It is remarkable that in none of them is Saul said to have seen Jesus. The grounds for believing that he did so are the two expressions of Ananias (Act 9:17), The Lord Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way, and (Act 22:14) That thou shouldest see the Just One, and the statement of Paul (1Co 15:8), Last of all he was seen of me also. Comparing these passages with the narratives, we conclude either that Saul had an instantaneous vision of Jesus as the flash of light blinded him, or that the seeing was that apprehension of his presence which would go with a real conversation. How it was that Saul saw and heard, we are quite unable to determine. That the light, and the sound or voice, were both different from any ordinary phenomena with which Saul and his companions were familiar, is unquestionably implied in the narrative. It is also implied that they were specially significant to Saul, and not to those with him. We gather therefore that there were real outward phenomena, through which Saul was made inwardly sensible of a presence revealed to him alone. (See below.) Externally, there was a flash of light. Spiritually, the light of the Gospel of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God, shone upon Saul, and convicted the darkness of the heart which had shut out love and knew not the glory of the cross. Externally, Saul fell to the ground. Spiritually, he was prostrated by shame, when he knew whom he had been persecuting. Externally, sounds issued out of heaven. Spiritually, the Crucified said to Saul, with tender remonstrance, I am Jesus. why persecutest thou me? Whether audibly to his companions, or audibly to the Lord Jesus only, Saul confessed himself in the spirit the servant of him whose name he had hated. He gave himself up, without being able to see his way, to the disposal of him whom he now knew to have vindicated his claim over him by the very sacrifice which formerly he had despised. The Pharisee was converted, once for all, into a disciple of Jesus the Crucified.

The only mention in the Epistles of Paul of the outward phenomena attending his conversion is that in 1Co 15:8, Last of all he was seen of me also. But there is one important passage in which he speaks distinctly of his conversion itself. Dr. Baur (Paul. p. 64), with his readiness to find out discrepancies, insists that this passage represents quite a different process from that recorded in the Acts. It is manifestly not a repetition of what we have been reading and considering, but it in the most perfect harmony with it. In the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal 1:15-16) Paul has these words, When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen … ( ). What words could express more exactly than these the spiritual experience which occurred to Saul on the way to Damascus? The manifestation of Jesus as the Son of God is clearly the main point in the narrative. This manifestation was brought about through a removal of the veils of prejudice and ignorance which blinded the eyes of Saul to a crucified Deliverer conquering through sacrifice. Whatever part the senses may have played in the transaction, the essence of it in any case must have been Saul’s inward vision of a spiritual Lord close to his spirit, from whom he could not escape, whose every command he was henceforth to obey in the spirit.

It would be groundless to assume that the new convictions of that mid-day immediately cleared and settled themselves in Saul’s mind. It is sufficient to say that he was then converted, or turned round. For a while. no doubt, his inward state was one of awe and expectation. He was led by the hand spiritually by his Master, as well as bodily by his companions. Thus entering Damascus as a servant of the Lord Jesus, he sought the house of one whom he had, perhaps, intended to persecute. Judas may have been known to his guest as a disciple of the Lord. Certainly the fame of Saul’s coming had preceded him; and Ananias, a devout man according to the law, but a believer in Jesus, when directed by the Lord to visit him, wonders at what he is told concerning the notorious persecutor. He obeys, however; and going to Saul in the name of the Lord Jesus, who had appeared to him in the way, he puts his hands on him that he may receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Thereupon Saul’s eyes are immediately purged, and his sight is restored. The same hour, says Paul (Act 22:13), I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see the Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. Every word in this address strikes some chord which we hear sounded again and again in Paul’s Epistles. The new convert is not, as it is so common to say, converted from Judaism to Christianity of the God of the Jewish fathers chooses him. He is chosen to know God’s will. That will is manifested in the Righteous One. Him Saul sees and hears, in order that he may be a witness of him to all men. The eternal will of the God of Abraham; that will revealed in a righteous Son of God; the testimony concerning him, a Gospel to mankind-these are the essentially Pauline principles which are declared in all the teaching of the apostle, and illustrated in all his actions.

3. Sojourn in Damascus and Arabia. After the recovery of his sight, Saul received the external symbol of the washing away of his sins in baptism. He then broke his three days’ fast, and was strengthened an image, again, of the strengthening of his faint and hungering spirit through a participation in the divine life of the Church at Damascus. He was at once received into the fellowship of the disciples, and began without delay the work to which Ananias had designated him; and to the astonishment of all his hearers he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, declaring him to be the Son of God. This was the natural sequel to his conversion: he was to proclaim Jesus the Crucified, first to the Jews as their own Christ, afterwards to the world as the Son of the living God.

The narrative in the Acts tells us simply that he was occupied in this work, with increasing vigor, for many days, up to the time when imminent danger drove him from Damascus. From the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal 1:17-18) we learn that the many days were at least a good part of three years, and that Saul, not thinking it necessary to procure authority to preach from the apostles that were before him, went after his conversion into Arabia, and returned from thence to Damascus. We know nothing whatever of this visit to Arabia to what district Saul went, how long he stayed, or for what purpose he went there. (Stanley suggests, Sin. and Pal. p. 50, that he may even have visited Mount Sinai.) From the antithetical way in which it is opposed to a visit to the apostles at Jerusalem, we infer that it took place before he deliberately committed himself to the task of proclaiming Jesus as the Christ; and also, with some probability, that he was seeking seclusion, in order that, by conferring not with flesh and blood, but with the Lord in the Spirit, he might receive more deeply into his mind the commission given him at his conversion. That Saul did not spend the greater portion of the three years at Damascus seems probable, for these two reasons:

(1) that the anger of the Jews was not likely to have borne with two or three years of such a life as Saul’s now was without coming to a crisis; and

(2) that the disciples at Jerusalem would not have been likely to mistrust Saul as they did if they had heard of him as preaching Jesus at Damascus for the same considerable period. We can hardly resist the conviction that the time was spent in private preparation, perhaps in receiving those remarkable disclosures which he afterwards called my gospel (2Ti 2:8), analogous to the corresponding period of the other apostles personal intercourse with the Lord. Thus we may venture to suppose he received that Gospel which afterwards he preached by revelation from Christ (Gal 1:12). Neander (l.c. sec. 121) and Anger (De Tempp. in Actis App. Ratione. p. 123) have endeavored to show that Paul went into Arabia to preach the Gospel; but the reasons they adduce have little weight (comp. Olshausen, on Act 9:20-25).

Now that we have arrived at Saul’s departure from Damascus, we are again upon historical ground (A.D. 33), and have the double evidence of Luke in the Acts (Act 9:21 sq.) and of the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2Co 11:32). According to the former, the Jews lay in wait for Saul, intending to kill him, and watched the gates of the city that he might not escape from them. Knowing this, the disciples took him by night and let him down in a basket from the wall. According to Paul (2Co 11:32), it was the ethnarch under Aretas the king who watched for him, desiring to apprehend him. There is no difficulty in reconciling the two statements. We might similarly say that our Lord was put to death either by the Jews or by the Roman governor. There is more difficulty in ascertaining how an officer of king Aretas should be governing in Damascus, and why he should lend himself to the designs of the Jews. But we learn from secular history that the affairs of Damascus were, at the time, in such an unsettled state as to make the narrative not improbable. SEE ARETAS.

Having escaped from Damascus, Saul betook himself to Jerusalem, and there assayed to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. In this natural but trying difficulty Saul was befriended by one whose name was henceforth closely associated with his. Barnabas became his sponsor to the apostles and Church at Jerusalem. assuring them-from some personal knowledge, we must presume-of the facts of Saul’s conversion and subsequent behavior at Damascus. It is noticeable that the seeing and hearing are still the leading features in the conversion, and the name of Jesus in the preaching. Barnabas declared how Saul had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how that he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. Barnabas’s introduction removed the fears of the apostles, and Paul was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. His Hellenistical education made him. like Stephen, a successful disputant against the Grecians; and it is not strange that the former persecutor was singled out from the other believers as the object of a murderous hostility. He was therefore again urged to flee; and by way of Caesarea took himself to his native city, Tarsus (Act 9:26-30. In Gal 1:20, the order of the localities is not strictly observed).

In the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal 1:17-23) Paul adds certain particulars, in which only a perverse and captious criticism could see anything contradictory to the facts just related. He tells us that his motive for going up to Jerusalem rather than anywhere else was that he might see Peter; that he abode with him fifteen days; that the only apostles he saw were Peter and James the Lord’s brother; and that afterwards he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, remaining unknown by face, though well known for his conversion, to the churches in Judaea which were in Christ. Paul’s object in referring to this connection of his with those who were apostles before him was to show that he had never accepted his apostleship as a commission from them. On this point the narrative in the Acts entirely agrees with Paul’s own earnest asseverations in his Epistles. He received his commission from the Lord Jesus, and also mediately through Ananias. This commission included a special designation to preach Christ to the Gentiles. Upon the latter designation he did not act until circumstances opened the way for it. But he at once began to proclaim Jesus as the Christ to his own countrymen. Barnabas introduced him to the apostles, not as seeking their sanction, but as having seen and heard the Lord Jesus, and as having boldly spoken already in his name.

4. Ministry at Antioch. During this stay of Paul at Tarsus, which lasted several years, occupied doubtless with those elsewhere unrecorded labors to some of which he occasionally alludes (2Co 11:24-25), a movement was going on at Antioch which raised that city to an importance second only to that of Jerusalem itself in the early history of the Church. In the life of the apostle of the Gentiles Antioch claims a most conspicuous place. It was there that the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles first took root, and from thence that it was afterwards propagated. Its geographical position, its political and commercial importance, and the presence of a large and powerful Jewish element in its population, were the more obvious characteristics which adapted it for such a use. There came to Antioch, when the persecution which arose about Stephen scattered upon their different routes the disciples who had been assembled at Jerusalem, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, eager to tell all who would hear them the good news concerning the Lord Jesus. Until Antioch was reached, the word was spoken to none but unto Jews only (Act 11:19). But here the Gentiles also ( ) not, as in the A.V., the Grecians were among the hearers of the word.

A great number believed; and when this was reported at Jerusalem, Barnabas was sent on a special mission to Antioch. As the work grew under his hands, and much people was added unto the Lord, Barnabas felt the need of help, and went himself to Tarsus to seek Saul. Possibly at Damascus, certainly at Jerusalem, he had been a witness of Saul’s energy and devotedness, and skill in disputation. He had been drawn to him by the bond of a most brotherly affection. He therefore longed for him as a helper, and succeeded in bringing him to Antioch. There they labored together unremittingly for a whole year, mixing with the constant assemblies of the believers, and teaching much people. All this time, as Luke would give us to understand, Saul was subordinate to Barnabas. Until Saul became Paul, we read of Barnabas and Saul (Act 11:30; Act 12:25; Act 13:2; Act 13:7). Afterwards the order changes to Paul and Barnabas. It seems reasonable to conclude that there was no marked peculiarity in the teaching of Saul during the Antioch period. He held and taught, in common with the other Jewish believers, the simple faith in Jesus the Christ, crucified and raised from the dead. Nor did he ever afterwards depart from the simplicity of this faith. But new circumstances stirred up new questions; and then it was to Saul of Tarsus that it was given to see, more clearly than any others saw, those new applications of the old truth, those deep and world-wide relations of it, with which his work was to be permanently associated. In the mean time, according to the usual method of the divine government, facts were silently growing, which were to suggest and occasion the future developments of faith and practice, and of these facts the most conspicuous was the unprecedented accession of Gentile proselytes at Antioch.

An opportunity soon occurred, of which Barnabas and Saul joyfully availed themselves, for proving the affection of these new disciples towards their brethren at Jerusalem, and for knitting the two communities together in the bonds of practical fellowship. A manifest impulse from the Holy Spirit began this work. There came prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch: and there stood up one of them, named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world. The prophets who now arrived may have been the Simeon and Lucius and Manaen mentioned in 13:1, besides Agabus and others. The prediction of the dearth need not have been purposeless; it would naturally have a direct reference to the needs of the poorer brethren and the duty of the richer. It is obvious that the fulfillment followed closely upon the intimation of the coming famine. For the disciples at Antioch determined to send contributions immediately to Jerusalem; and the gift was conveyed to the elders of that Church by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. The time of this dearth is vaguely designated in the Acts as the reign of Claudius. It is ascertained from Josephus’s history that a severe famine did actually prevail in Judaea, and especially at Jerusalem, at the very time fixed by the event recorded in Acts 12, the death of Herod Agrippa. This was in A.D. 44. SEE AGABUS.

It could not have been necessary for the mere safe conduct of the contribution that Barnabas and Saul should go in person to Jerusalem. We are bound to see in the relations between the Mother-Church and that of Antioch, of which this visit is illustrative, examples of the deep feeling of the necessity of union which dwelt in the heart of the early Church. The apostles did not go forth to teach a system, but to enlarge a body. The spirit which directed and furthered their labors was essentially the spirit of fellowship. By this spirit Saul of Tarsus was practically trained in strict cooperation with his elders in the Church. The habits which he learned now were to aid in guarding him at a later time from supposing that the independence which he was bound to claim should involve the slightest breach or loosening of the bonds of the universal brotherhood.

Having discharged their errand, Barnabas and Saul returned to Antioch, bringing with them another helper, John surnamed Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas. The work of prophesying and teaching was resumed. Several of the oldest and most honored of the believers in Jesus were expounding the way of God and organizing the Church in that busy metropolis. Travelers were incessantly passing to and fro. Antioch was in constant communication with Cilicia, with Cyprus, with all the neighboring countries. The question must have forced itself upon hundreds of the Christians at Antioch, What is the meaning of this faith of ours, of this baptism, of this incorporation, of this kingdom of the Son of God, for the world? The Gospel is not for Judaea alone: here are we called by it at Antioch. Is it meant to stop here? The Church was pregnant with a great movement, and the time of her delivery was at hand. We forget the whole method of the divine work in the nurture of the Church if we ascribe to the impulses of the Holy Ghost any theatrical suddenness, and disconnect them from the thoughts which were brooding in the minds of the disciples. At every point we find both circumstances and inward reasonings preparing the crisis. Something of direct expectation seems to be implied in what is said of the leaders of the Church at Antioch, that they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, when the Holy Ghost spoke to them. Without doubt they knew it for a seal set upon previous surmises, when the voice came clearly to the general mind, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. That work was partially known already to the Christians of Antioch: who could be so fit for it as the two brothers in the faith and in mutual affection, the son of exhortation, and the highly accomplished and undaunted convert who had from the first been called a chosen vessel, to bear the name of the Lord before the Gentiles, and kings, and the people of Israel?

When we look back, from the higher ground of Paul’s apostolic activity, to the years that passed between his conversion and the first missionary journey, we cannot observe without reverence the patient humility with which Saul waited for his Master’s time. He did not say for once only, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? Obedience to Christ was thenceforth his ruling principle. Submitting, as he believed, to his Lord’s direction, he was content to work for a long time as the subordinate colleague of his seniors in the faith. He was thus the better prepared, when the call came, to act with the authority which that call conferred upon him. He left Antioch, however, still the second to Barnabas. Everything was done with orderly gravity in the sending forth of the two missionaries. Their brethren, after fasting and prayer, laid their hands on them, and so they departed. A.D. 44.

5. First Missionary Journey. Much must have been hidden from Barnabas and Saul as to the issues of the journey on which they embarked. But one thing was clear to them, that they were sent forth to speak the Word of God. They did not go in their own name or for their own purposes; they were instruments for uttering what the Eternal God himself was saying to men. We shall find in the history a perfectly definite representation of what Paul announced and taught as he journeyed from city to city. But the first characteristic feature of his teaching was the absolute conviction that he was only the bearer of a heavenly message. It is idle to discuss Paul’s character or views without recognising this fact. We are compelled to think of him as of a man who was capable of cherishing such a conviction with perfect assurance. We are bound to bear in mind the unspeakable influence which that conviction must have exerted upon his nature. The writer of the Acts proceeds upon the same assumption. He tells us that as soon as Barnabas and Saul reached Cyprus, they began to announce the Word of God.

The second fact to be observed is, that for the present they delivered their message in the synagogues of the Jews only. They trod the old path till they should be drawn out of it. But when they had gone through the island, from Salamis to Paphos, they were called upon to explain their doctrine to an eminent Gentile. Sergius Paulus, the proconsul. This Roman officer, like so many of his countrymen, had already come under the influence of Jewish teaching; but it was in the corrupt form of magical pretensions, which throve so luxuriantly upon the godless credulity of that age. A Jew, named Barjesus, or Elymas, a magus and false prophet, had attached himself to the governor, and had no doubt interested his mind, for he was an intelligent man, with what he had told him of the history and hopes of the Jews. SEE ELYMAS.

Accordingly, when Sergius Paulus heard of the strange teachers who were announcing to the Jews the advent of their true Messiah, he wished to see them, and sent for them. The impostor, instinctively hating the apostles, and seeing his influence over the proconsul in danger of perishing, did what he could to withstand them. Then Saul, who is also called Paul, denouncing Elymas in remarkable terms, declared against him God’s sentence of temporary blindness. The blindness immediately fell upon him; and the proconsul, moved by the scene and persuaded by the teaching of the apostle, became a believer.

There is a singular parallelism in several points between the history of Paul and that of Peter in the Acts. Baur presents it in a highly effective form (Paul. p. 91 etc.), to support his theory of the composition of this book; and this is one of the services which he has incidentally rendered to the full understanding of the early history of the Church. Thus Paul’s discomfiture of Elymas reminds us of Peter’s denunciation of Simon Magus. The two incidents bring strongly before us one of the great adverse elements with which the Gospel had to contend in that age. Everywhere there were counterfeits of the spiritual powers which the apostles claimed and put forth. It was necessary for the preachers of Christ, not so much to prove themselves stronger than the magicians and soothsayers, as to guard against being confounded with them. One distinguishing mark of the true servants of the Spirit would be that of not trading upon their spiritual powers (Act 8:20). Another would be that of shunning every sort of concealment and artifice, and courting the daylight of open truth. Paul’s language to Elymas is studiously directed to the reproof of the tricks of the religious impostor. The apostle, full of the Holy Ghost, looked steadily on the deceiver, spoke in the name of a God of light and righteousness and straightforward ways, and put forth the power of that God for the vindication of truth against delusion. The punishment of Elymas was itself symbolical, and conveyed teaching of the Lord. He had chosen to create a spiritual darkness around him; and now there fell upon him a mist and a darkness, and he went about seeking some one to lead him by the hand. If on reading this account we refer to Peter’s reproof of Simon Magus, we shall be struck by the differences as well as the resemblance which we shall observe. But we shall undoubtedly gain a stronger impression of this part of the apostolic work, viz. the conflict to be waged between the Spirit of Christ and of the Church and the evil spirits of a dark superstition to which men were surrendering themselves as slaves. We shall feel the worth and power of that candid and open temper in which alone Paul would commend his cause; and in the conversion of Sergius Paulus we shall see an exemplary type of many victories to be won by truth over falsehood.

This point is made a special crisis in the history of the apostle by the writer of the Acts. Saul now becomes Paul, and begins to take precedence of Barnabas. Nothing is said to explain the change of name. No reader could resist the temptation of supposing that there must be some connection between Saul’s new name and that of his distinguished Roman convert. But on reflection it does not seem probable that Paul would either have wished, or have consented, to change his own name for that of a distinguished convert. If we. put Sergius Paulus aside, we know that it was exceedingly common for Jews to bear, besides their own Jewish name, another borrowed from the country with which they had become connected (see Conybeare and Howson, 1:163, for full illustrations). Thus we have Simeon also named Niger, Barnabas also named Justus, John also named Marcus. There is no reason therefore why Saul should not have borne from infancy the other name of Paul. In that case he would be Saul among his own countrymen, Paulus among the Gentiles. We must understand Luke as wishing to mark strongly the transition point between Saul’s activity among his own countrymen and his new labors as the apostle of the Gentiles, by calling him Saul only during the first, and Paul only afterwards. (See above.)

The conversion of Sergius Paulus may be said, perhaps, to mark the beginning of the work among the Gentiles; otherwise, it was not in Cyprus that any change took place in the method hitherto followed by Barnabas and Saul in preaching the Gospel. Their public addresses were as yet confined to the synagogues; but it was soon to be otherwise. From Paphos Paul and his company set sail for the mainland, and arrived at Perga in Pamphylia. Here the heart of their companion John failed him, and he returned to Jerusalem, From Perga they traveled on to a place, obscure in secular history, but most memorable in the history of the kingdom of Christ Antioch in Pisidia (q.v.). Here they went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and sat down. Small as the place was, it contained its colony of Jews, and with them proselytes who worshipped the God of the Jews. The degree to which the Jews had spread and settled themselves over the world, and the influence they had gained over the more respectable of their Gentile neighbors, and especially over the women of the better class, are facts difficult to appreciate justly, but are proved by undoubted evidence, and are very important for us to bear in mind. This Pisidian Antioch may have been more Jewish than most similar towns, but it was not more so than many of much greater size and importance. What took place here in the synagogue and in the city is interesting to us not only on account of its bearing on the history, but also because it represents more or less exactly what afterwards occurred in many other places. It cannot be without design that we have single but detailed examples given us in the Acts of the various kinds of addresses which Paul used to deliver in appealing to his different audiences. He had to address himself, in the course of his missionary labors, to Jews, knowing and receiving the Scriptures; to ignorant barbarians; to cultivated Greeks; to mobs enraged against him personally; to magistrates and kings. It is an inestimable help in studying the apostle and his work that we have specimens of the tone and the arguments he was accustomed to use in all these situations. These will be noticed in their places. In what he said at the synagogue in Antioch we recognize the type of the addresses in which he would introduce his message to his Jewish fellow-countrymen.

The apostles sat silent with the rest of the assembly, while the Law and the Prophets were read. They and their audience were united in reverence for the sacred books. Then the rulers of the synagogue sent to invite them, as strangers but brethren, to speak any word of exhortation which might be in them to the people. Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand, he spoke. (The speech is given in Act 13:16-41.) The characteristics we observe in it are these: The speaker begins by acknowledging the God of this people Israel. He ascribes to him the calling out of the nation and the conduct of its subsequent history. He touches on the chief points of that history up to the reign of David, whom he brings out into prominence. He then names JESUS as the promised Son of David. To convey some knowledge of Jesus to the minds of his hearers, he recounts the chief facts of the Gospel history; the preparatory preaching and baptism of John (of which the rumor had spread perhaps to Antioch); the condemnation of Jesus by the rulers who knew neither him nor the prophets, and his resurrection. That Resurrection is declared to be the fulfillment of all God’s promises of life, given to the fathers. Through Jesus, therefore, is now proclaimed by God himself the forgiveness of sins and full justification. The apostle concludes by drawing from the prophets a warning against unbelief. If this is an authentic example of Paul’s preaching, it was impossible for Peter or John to start more exclusively from the Jewish covenant and promises than did the apostle of the Gentiles.

How entirely this discourse resembles those of Peter and of Stephen in the earlier chapters of the Acts! There is only one specially Pauline touch in the whole-the words in Act 13:39, By Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Evidently foisted in, says Baur (p. 103), who thinks we are dealing with a mere fiction, to prevent the speech from appearing too Petrine, and to give it a slightly Pauline air. Certainly, it sounds like an echo of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. But is there therefore the slightest incongruity between this and the other parts of the address? Does not that forgiveness of sins which Peter and Paul proclaimed with the most perfect agreement connect itself naturally, in the thoughts of one exercised by the law as Saul of Tarsus had been, with justification not by the law but by grace? If we suppose that Saul had accepted just the faith which the older apostles held in Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah of the Jews, crucified and raised from the dead according to the teaching of the prophets, and in the remission of sins through him confirmed by the gift of the Holy (host; and that he had also had those experiences, not known to the older apostles, of which we see the working in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, this speech, in all its parts, is precisely what we might expect: this is the very teaching which the apostle of the Gentiles must have everywhere and always set forth, when he was speaking God’s Word for the first time to an assembly of his fellow- countrymen.

The discourse thus epitomized produced a strong impression; and the hearers (not the Gentiles, which the best MSS. omit) requested the apostles to repeat their message on the next Sabbath. During the week so much interest was excited by the teaching of the apostles that on the Sabbath-day almost the whole city came together to hear the Word of God. It was this concern of the Gentiles which appears to have first alienated the minds of the Jews from what they had heard. They were filled with envy. They probably felt that there was a difference between those efforts to gain Gentile proselytes in which they had themselves been so successful and this new preaching of a Messiah in whom a justification which the law could not give was offered to men. The eagerness of the Gentiles to hear may have confirmed their instinctive apprehensions. The Jewish envy once roused became a power of deadly hostility to the Gospel; and these Jews at Antioch set themselves to oppose bitterly the words which Paul spoke. We have here, therefore, a new phase in the history of the Gospel. In these foreign countries it is not the cross or Nazareth which is most immediately repulsive to the Jews in the proclaiming of Jesus. It is the wound given to Jewish importance in the association of Gentiles with Jews as the receivers of the good tidings. If the Gentiles had been asked to become Jews, no offense would have been taken. But the proclamation of the Christ could not be thus governed and restrained. It overleaped, by its own force, these narrowing methods. It was felt to be addressed not to one nation only, but to mankind.

The new opposition brought out new action on the part of the apostles. Rejected by the Jews, they became bold and outspoken, and turned from them to the Gentiles. They remembered and declared what the prophets had foretold of the enlightening and deliverance of the whole world. In speaking to the Gentiles, therefore, they were simply fulfilling the promise of the Covenant. The gift, we observe, of which the Jews were depriving themselves, and which the Gentiles who believed were accepting, is described as eternal life ( ). It was the life of which the risen Jesus was the fountain, which Peter and John had declared at Jerusalem, and of which all acts of healing were set forth as signs. This was now poured out largely upon the Gentiles. The Word of the Lord was published widely, and had much fruit. Henceforth Paul and Barnabas knew it to be their commission, not the less to present their message to Jews first, but in the absence of an adequate Jewish medium to deal directly with the Gentiles. But this expansion of the Gospel work brought with it new difficulties and dangers. At Antioch now, as in every city afterwards, the unbelieving Jews used their influence with their own adherents among the Gentiles, and especially the women of the higher class, to persuade the authorities or the populace to persecute the apostles, and to drive them from the place.

With their own spirits raised, and amid much enthusiasm of their disciples, Paul and Barnabas now traveled on to Iconium, where the occurrences at Antioch were repeated, and from thence to the Lycaonian country, which contained the cities Lystra and Derbe. Here they had to deal with uncivilized heathens. At Lystra the healing of a cripple took place, the narrative of which runs very parallel to the account of the similar act done by Peter and John at the gate of the Temple. The agreement becomes closer, if we insert here, with Lachmann, before Stand upright on thy feet, the words, I say unto thee in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The parallel leads us to observe more distinctly that every messenger of Jesus Christ was a herald of life. The spiritual life-the which was of faith, is illustrated and expounded by the invigoration of impotent limbs. The same truth was to be conveyed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the heathens of Lycaonia. The act was received naturally by these pagans. They took the apostles for gods, calling Barnabas, who was of the more imposing presence, Zeus (Jupiter), and Paul, who was the chief speaker, Hermes (Mercurius). This mistake, followed up by the attempt to offer sacrifices to them, gives occasion to the recording of an address in which we see a type of what the apostles would say to an ignorant pagan audience. Appeals to the Scriptures, references to the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, would have been out of place.

The apostles name the living God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all things therein: the God of the whole world, and all the nations in it. They declare themselves to be his messengers. They expatiate upon the tokens of himself which the Father of men had not withheld, in that he did them good, sending rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, the supporters of life and joy. They protest that in restoring the cripple they had only acted as instruments of the living God. They themselves’ were not gods, but human beings of like passions with the Lycacinians. The living God was now manifesting himself more clearly to men, desiring that henceforth the nations should not walk in their own ways, but his. They therefore call upon the people to give up the vanities of idol worship, and to turn to the living God (comp. 1Th 1:9-10). In this address the name of Jesus does not occur. It is easy to understand that the apostles preached him as the Son of that living God to whom they bore witness, telling the people of his death and resurrection, and announcing his coming again. Although the people of Lystra had been so ready to worship Paul and Barnabas, the repulse of their idolatrous instincts appears to have provoked them, and they allowed themselves to be persuaded into hostility by Jews who came from Antioch and Iconium, so that they attacked Paul with stones, and thought they had killed him. He recovered, however, as the disciples were standing round him, and went again into the city. The next day he left it with Barnabas, and went to Derbe, and thence they returned once more to Lystra, and so to Iconium and Antioch, renewing their exhortations to the disciples, bidding them not to think their trials strange, but to recognize them as the appointed door through which the kingdom of heaven, into which they were called, was to be entered. In order to establish the churches after their departure, they solemnly appointed elders in every city. Then they came down to the coast, and from Attalia they sailed home to Antioch in Syria, where they related the successes which had been granted to them, and especially the opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles. Thus the First Missionary Journey ended.

6. Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15; Galatians 2). Upon that missionary journey follows most naturally the next important scene which the historian sets before us-the council held at Jerusalem to determine the relations of Gentile believers to the law of Moses. A.D. 47. In following this portion of the history, we encounter. two of the greater questions which the biographer of Paul has to consider. One of these is historical. What were the relations between the apostle Paul and the twelve? The other is critical. How is Galatians 2 to be connected with the narrative of the Acts?

The relations of Paul and the twelve will best be set forth in the narrative. But we must explain here why we accept Paul’s statements in the Galatian epistle as additional to the history in Acts 15. The first impression of any reader would be a supposition that the two writers might be referring to the same event. The one would at least bring the other to his mind. In both he reads of Paul and Barnabas going up to Jerusalem, reporting the Gospel preached to the uncircumcised, and discussing with the older apostles the terms to be imposed upon Gentile believers. In both the conclusion is announced that these believers should be entirely free from the necessity of circumcision. These are main points which the narratives have in common. On looking more closely into both, the second impression upon the reader’s mind may possibly be that of a certain incompatibility between the two. Many joints and members of the transaction as given by Luke do not appear in the account of Paul. Others in one or two cases are substituted. Further, the visit to Jerusalem is the third mentioned in the Acts, after Saul’s conversion; in Galatians, it is apparently mentioned as the second. Supposing this sense of incompatibility to remain, the reader will go on to inquire whether the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians coincides better with any other mentioned in the Acts as the second (11:30) or the fourth (18:22). He will, in all probability, conclude without hesitation that it does not. Another view will remain, that Paul refers to a visit not recorded in the Acts at all. This is a possible hypothesis; and it is recommended by the vigorous sense of Paley. But where are we to place the visit? The only possible place for it is some short time before the visit of ch. 15. But it can scarcely be denied that the language of ch. 15 decidedly implies that the visit there recorded was the first paid by Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem after their great success in preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles. We suppose the reader, therefore, to recur to his first impression. He will then have to ask himself, Granting the considerable differences, are there after all any plain contradictions between the two narratives, taken to refer to the same occurrences? The answer must be, There are no plain contradictions. This, he will perceive, is a very weighty fact. When it is recognized, the resemblance first observed will return with renewed force to the mind. (The chronological question will be considered below.)

We proceed then to combine the two narratives. While Paul and Barnabas were staying at Antioch, certain men from Judaea came there and taught the brethren that it was necessary for the Gentile converts to be circumcised. This doctrine was vigorously opposed by the two apostles, and it was determined that the question should be referred to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas themselves, and certain others, were selected for this mission. In Gal 2:2 Paul says that he went up by revelation ( ), so that we are to understand him as receiving a private intimation from the Divine Spirit, as well as a public commission from the Church at Antioch. On their way to Jerusalem, they announced to the brethren in Phoenicia and Samaria the conversion of the Gentiles; and the news was received with great joy. When they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the Church, and by the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them (Act 15:4). Paul adds that he communicated his views privately to them which were of reputation, through anxiety as to the success of his work (Gal 2:2). The apostles and the Church in general, it appears, would have raised no difficulties; but certain believers who had been Pharisees thought fit to maintain the same doctrine which had caused the disturbance at Antioch. In either place, Paul would not give way to such teaching for a single hour (Gal 2:5). It became necessary, therefore, that a formal decision should be reached upon the question. The apostles and elders came together, and there was much disputing. Arguments would be used on both sides; but when the persons of highest authority spoke, they appealed to what was stronger than arguments the course of facts, through which the will of God had been manifestly shown. Peter, reminding his hearers that he himself had been first employed to open the door of faith to Gentiles, points out that God had himself bestowed on the uncircumcised that which was the seal of the highest calling and fellowship in Christ, the gift of the Holy Ghost. Why do you not acquiesce in this token of God’s will? Why impose upon Gentile believers ordinances which we ourselves have found a heavy burden? Have not we Jews left off trusting in our law, to depend only on the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ?-Then, carrying out the same appeal to the will of God as shown in facts, Barnabas and Paul relate to the silent multitude the wonders with which God had accompanied their preaching among the Gentiles. After they had done, James, with incomparable simplicity and wisdom, binds up the testimony of recent facts with the testimony of ancient prophecy, and gives a practical judgment upon the question.

The judgment was a decisive one. The injunction that the Gentiles should abstain from pollutions of idols and from fornication explained itself. The abstinence from things strangled and from blood is desired as a concession to the customs of the Jews who were to be found in every city, and for whom it was still right, when they had believed in Jesus Christ, to observe the law. Paul had completely gained his point. The older apostles, James, Ce’phas, and John, perceiving the grace which had been given him (his effectual apostleship), gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. At this point it is very important to observe precisely what was the matter at stake between the contending parties (comp. Prof. Jowett on St. Paul and the Twelve, in St. Paul’s Epistles, 1:417). Peter speaks of a heavy yoke; James of troubling the Gentile converts. But we are not to suppose that they mean merely the outward trouble of conforming to the law of Moses. That was not what Paul was protesting against. The case stood thus: Circumcision and the ordinances of the law were witnesses of a separation of the chosen race from other nations. The Jews were proud of that separation. But the Gospel of the Son of Man proclaimed that the time had come in which the separation was to be done away, and God’s good- will manifested to all nations alike. It spoke of a union with God, through trust, which gave hope of a righteousness that the law had been powerless to produce. Therefore to insist upon Gentiles being circumcised would have been to deny the Gospel of Christ. If there was to be simply an enlarging of the separated nation by the receiving of individuals into it, then the other nations of the world remained as much on the outside of God’s covenant as ever. Then there was no Gospel to mankind; no justification given to men. The loss, in such a case, would have been as much to the Jew as to the Gentile. Paul felt this the most strongly; but Peter also saw that if the Jewish believers were thrown back on the Jewish law, and gave up the free and absolute grace of God, the law became a mere burden, just as heavy to the Jew as it would be to the Gentile. The only hope for the Jew was in a Savior who must be the Savior of mankind. It implied therefore no difference of belief when it was agreed that Paul and Barnabas should go to the heathen, while James and Cephas and John undertook to be the apostles of the circumcision. Paul, wherever he went, was to preach to the Jew first; Peter was to preach to the Jews as free a Gospel, was to teach the admission of the Gentiles without circumcision as distinctly as Paul himself. The unity of the Church was to be preserved unbroken; and in order to nourish this unity the Gentiles were requested to remember their poorer brethren in Palestine (Gal 2:10). How zealously Paul cherished this beautiful testimony of the common brotherhood we have seen in part already (Act 11:29-30), but it is yet to appear more strikingly.

The judgment of the Church was immediately recorded in a letter addressed to the Gentile brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. That this letter might carry greater authority, it was entrusted to chosen men of the Jerusalem Church, Judas surnamed Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. The letter speaks affectionately of Barnabas and Paul (with the elder Church Barnabas still retained the precedence, Act 15:12; Act 15:25) as men who have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Judas and Silas came down with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, and comforted the Church there with their message, and when Judas returned it pleased Silas to abide there still. It is usual to connect with this period of the history that rebuke of Peter which Paul records in Gal 2:11-14. The connection of subject makes it convenient to record the incident in this place, although it is possible that it took place before the meeting at Jerusalem, and perhaps most probable that it did not occur till later, when Paul returned from his long tour in Greece to Antioch (Act 18:22-23). (The presence of Peter, and the growth of Jewish prejudice, are more easily accounted for, if we suppose Paul in the meanwhile to have left Antioch for a long time; and there was but a very short interval between the council at Jerusalem and his second missionary tour.) Peter was at Antioch, and had shown no scruple about eating with the Gentiles, until certain came from James. These Jerusalem Christians brought their Jewish exclusiveness with them, and Peter’s weaker and more timid mood came upon him, and through fear of his stricter friends he too began to withdraw himself from his former free association with the Gentiles. Such an example had a dangerous weight, and Barnabas and the other Jews at Antioch were partly seduced by it. It was an occasion for the intrepid faithfulness of Paul. He did not conceal his anger at such weak dissembling, and he publicly remonstrated with his elder fellow-apostle. If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal 2:14). Peter had abandoned the Jewish exclusiveness, and deliberately claimed common ground with the Gentile: why should he, by separating himself from the uncircumcised, require the Gentiles to qualify themselves for full communion by accepting circumcision? This withstanding of Peter was no opposition of Pauline to Petrine views; it was a faithful rebuke of blamable moral weakness.

7. Second Missionary Journey. The most resolute courage, indeed, was required for the work to which Paul was now publicly pledged. He would not associate with himself in that work one who had already shown a want of constancy. This was the occasion of what must have been a most painful difference between him and his comrade in the faith and in past perils, Barnabas. After remaining a while at Antioch, Paul proposed to Barnabas to revisit the brethren in the countries of their former journey. Hereupon Barnabas desired that his nephew John Mark should go with them. But John had deserted them in Pamphylia, and Paul would not try him again. And the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder one from the other; and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed. A.D. 47. Silas. or Silvanus, now becomes a chief companion of the apostle. The two went together through Syria and Cilicia, visiting the churches, aid so came to Derbe and Lystra. Here they found Timotheus, who had become a disciple on the former visit of the apostle, and who so attracted the esteem and love of Paul that he would have him go forth with him. Him Paul took and circumcised. If this fact had been omitted here and stated in another narrative, how utterly irreconcilable it would have been, in the eyes of some critics, with the history in the Acts! Paul and Silas were actually delivering the Jerusalem decree to all the churches they visited. They were no doubt triumphing in the freedom secured to the Gentiles. Yet at this very time our apostle had the wisdom and largeness of heart to consult the feelings of the Jews by circumcising Timothy. There were many Jews in those parts, who knew that Timothy’s father was a Greek, his mother a Jewess. That Paul should have had, as a chief companion, one who was uncircumcised, would of itself have been a hinderance to him in preaching to Jews; but it would have been a still greater stumbling-block if that companion were half a Jew by birth, and had professed the Jewish faith. Therefore in this case Paul became unto the Jews as a Jew that he might gain the Jews.

Luke now steps rapidly over a considerable space of the apostle’s life and labors. They went throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia (Act 16:6). At this time Paul was founding the churches of Galatia (Gal 1:2). He himself gives us hints of the circumstances of his preaching in that region, of the reception he met with, and of the ardent though unstable character of the people, in the following words: Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh ( ) I preached the Gospel unto you at the first ( ), and my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of ( , q. d. your beautfication of me)? for I bear you record that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me (4:13). It is not easy to decide as to the meaning of the words . Undoubtedly their grammatical sense implies that weakness of the flesh an illness was the occasion of Paul’s preaching in Galatia; and De Wette and Alford adhere to this interpretation, understanding Paul to have been detained by illness, when otherwise he would have gone rapidly through the country. On the other hand, the form and order of the words are not what we should have expected if the apostle meant to say this; and professor Jowett prefers to assume an inaccuracy of grammar, and to understand Paul as saying that it was in weakness of the flesh that he preached to the Galatians. In either case Paul must be referring to a more than ordinary pressure of that bodily infirmity of which he speaks elsewhere as detracting from the influence of his personal address. It is hopeless to attempt to determine positively what this infirmity was. But we may observe here (1) that Paul’s sensitiveness may have led him to exaggerate this personal disadvantage; and (2) that, whatever it was, it allowed him to go through sufferings and hardships such as few ordinary men could bear. It certainly did not repel the Galatians; it appears rather to have excited their sympathy and warmed their affection towards the apostle. (See below.)

Paul at this time had not indulged the ambition of preaching his Gospel in Europe. His views were limited to the peninsula of Asia Minor. Having gone through Phrygia and Galatia, he intended to visit the western coast, SEE ASIA; but they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the Word there. Then, being on the borders of Mysia, they thought of going back to the north-east into Bithvnia; but again the Spirit of Jesus (so the best MSS. read in Act 16:6) suffered them not. So they passed by Mysia, and came down to Troas. A.D. 48. Here the Spirit of Jesus, having checked them on other sides, revealed to them in what direction they were to go. Paul saw in a vision a man of Macedonia, who besought him, saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us. The vision was at once accepted as a heavenly intimation; the help wanted by the Macedonians was believed to be the preaching of the Gospel. It is at this point that the historian, speaking of Paul’s company, substitutes we for they. He says nothing of himself; we can only infer that Luke, to whatever country he belonged, became a companion of Paul at Troas. It is perhaps not too arbitrary a conjecture that the apostle, having recently suffered in health, derived benefit from the medical skill and attendance of the beloved physician. The party, thus reinforced, immediately set sail from Troas, touched at Samothrace, then landed on the continent at Neapolis, and from thence journeyed to Philippi. They hastened to carry the help that had been asked to the first considerable city in Macedonia. Philippi was no inapt representative of the Western world.

A Greek city, it had received a body of Roman settlers, and was politically a Colonia. We must not assume that to Saul of Tarsus, the Roman citizen, there was anything very novel or strange in the world to which he had now come. But the name of Greece must have represented very imposing ideas to the Oriental and the Jew; and we may silently imagine what it must have been to Paul to know that he was called to be the herald of his Master, the crucified Jesus, in the center of tie world’s highest culture, and that he was now to begin his task. He began, however, with no flourish of trumpets, but as quietly as ever, and in the old way. There were a few Jews, if not many, at Philippi; and when the Sabbath came round, the apostolic company joined their countrymen at the place by the river-side where prayer was wont to be made ( ) el’vat, where was the usual proseucha or chapel which supplied the purpose of a synagogue). The narrative in this part is very graphic: We sat down, says the writer (Act 16:13), and spoke to the women who had come together. Among these women was a proselyte from Thyatira ( ), named Lydia, a dealer in purple. As she listened the Lord opened her heart to attend to what Paul was saying. The first convert in Macedonia was but an Asiatic woman who already worshipped the God of the Jews; but she was a very earnest believer, and besought the apostle and his friends to honor her by staying in her house. They could not resist her urgency, and during their stay at Philippi they were the guests of Lydia (Act 16:40).

But a proof was given before long that the preachers of Christ had come to grapple with the powers in the spiritual world to which heathenism was then doing homage. A female slave, who brought gain to her masters by her powers of prediction when she was in the possessed state, beset Paul and his company, following them as they went to the place of prayer, and crying out, These men are servants of the Most High God, who publish to you (or to us) the way of salvation. Paul was vexed by her cries, and addressing the spirit in the girl, he said, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. Comparing the confession of this spirit of divination with the analogous confessions made by evil spirits to our Lord, we see the same singular character of a true acknowledgment extorted as if by force, and rendered with a certain insolence which implied that the spirits, though subject, were not willingly subject. The cries of the slave-girl may have sounded like sneers, mimicking what she had heard from the apostles themselves, until Paul’s exorcism, in the name of Jesus Christ, was seen to be effectual. Then he might be recognisea as in truth a servant of the Most High God, giving an example of the salvation which he brought, in the deliverance of this poor girl herself from the spirit which degraded her. SEE PYTHONESS.

But the girl’s masters saw that now the hope of their gains was gone. Here at Philippi, as afterwards at Ephesus, the local trade in religion began to suffer from the manifestation of the Spirit of Christ, and an interested appeal was made to local and national feelings against the dangerous innovations of the Jewish strangers. Paul and Silas were dragged before the magistrates, the multitude clamoring loudly against them, upon the vague charge of troubling the city, and introducing observances which were unlawful for Romans. If the magistrates had desired to act justly they might have doubted how they ought to deal with the charge. On the one hand Paul and Silas had abstained carefully, as the preachers of Christ always did, from disturbing public order, and had as yet violated no express law of the state. But on the other hand, the preaching of Jesus as King and Lord was unquestionably revolutionary, and aggressive upon the public religion in its effects; and the Roman law was decided, in general terms, against such innovations (see in Conybeare and Howson, 1:324). But the praetors or duumviri of Philippi were very unworthy representatives of the Roman magistracy. They yielded without inquiry to the clamor of the inhabitants, caused the clothes of Paul and Silas to be torn from them, and themselves to be beaten, and then committed them to prison. The jailer, having received their commands, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. This cruel wrong was to be the occasion of a signal appearance of the God of righteousness and deliverance. It was to be seen which were the true servants of such a God, the magistrates or these strangers. In the night Paul and Silas, sore and sleepless, but putting their trust in God, prayed and sang praises so loudly that the other prisoners could hear them. Then suddenly the ground beneath them was shaken, the doors were opened, and every prisoner’s bands were struck off (compare the similar openings of prison-doors in Act 12:6-10; Act 5:19). The jailer awoke and sprang up, saw with consternation that the prison-doors were open, and, concluding that the prisoners had all fled, drew his sword to kill himself. But Paul called to him loudly, Do thyself no harm; we are all here. The jailer’s fears were then changed to an overwhelming awe. What could this be? He called for lights, sprang in and fell trembling before the feet of Paul and Silas. Bringing them out from the inner dungeon, he exclaimed, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? ( ). They answered, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they went on to speak to him and to all in his house the Word of the Lord. The kindness he now showed them reminds us of their miseries. He washed their wounds, took them into his own house, and spread a table before them. The same night he received baptism, he and all his, and rejoiced in his new-found faith in God.

In the morning the magistrates, either having heard of what had happened, or having repented of their injustice, or having done all they meant to do by way of pacifying the multitude, sent word to the prison that the men might be let go. But legal justice was to be more clearly vindicated in the persons of these men, who had been charged with subverting public order. Paul denounced plainly the unlawful acts of the magistrates, informing them moreover that those whom they had beaten and imprisoned without trial were Roman citizens. And now do they thrust us out privily? Nay, verily, but let them come themselves and fetch us out. The magistrates, in great alarm, saw the necessity of humbling themselves ( Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum, scelus verberari, Cicero, in Verrem, v. 66). SEE CITIZENSHIP. They came and begged them to leave the city. Paul and Silas consented to do so, and, after paying a visit to the brethren in the house of Lydia, they departed.

The Church thus founded at Philippi, as the firstfruits of the Gospel in Europe (save the nucleus already formed at Rome, Act 2:10), was called, as we have seen, in the name of a spiritual deliverer, of a God of justice, and of an equal Lord of freemen and slaves. That a warm and generous feeling distinguished it from the first we learn from a testimony of Paul in the Epistle written long after to this Church. In the beginning of the Gospel, as soon as he left them, they began to send him gifts, some of which reached him at Thessalonica, others afterwards (Php 4:15-16). Their partnership in the Gospel ( ) had gladdened the apostle from the first day (Php 1:5).

Leaving Luke, and perhaps Timothy for a short time, at Philippi, Paul and Silas traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, and stopped again at Thessalonica. At this important city there was a synagogue of the Jews. True to his custom, Paul went in to them, and for three Sabbath-days proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ, as he would have done in a city of Judaea. As usual, the proselytes were those who heard him most gladly, and among them were many women of station, Again, as in Pisidian Antioch, the envy of the Jews was excited. They contrived to stir up the lower class of the city to tumultuous violence by representing the preachers of Christ as revolutionary disturbers, who had come to proclaim one Jesus as king instead of Caesar. The mob assaulted the house of Jason, with whom Paul and Silas were staying as guests, and, not finding them, dragged Jason himself and some other brethren before the magistrates. In this case the magistrates, we are told, and the people generally, were troubled by the rumors and accusations which they heard. But they seem to have acted wisely and justly, in taking security of Jason and the rest, and letting them go. After these signs of danger the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night.

The Epistles to the Thessalonians, written soon after the apostle’s visit, contain more particulars of his work in founding that Church than we find in any other Epistle. The whole of these letters ought to be read for the information they thus supply. Paul speaks to the Thessalonian Christians as being mostly Gentiles. He reminds them that they had turned from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the (lead, Jesus who delivers us from the coming wrath (1Th 1:9-10). The apostle had evidently spoker much of the coming and presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of that wrath which was already descending upon the Jews (1Th 2:16; 1Th 2:19, etc.). His message had had a wonderful power among them, because they had known it to be really the word of a God who also wrought in them, having had helps towards this conviction. in the zeal and disinterestedness and affection with which Paul (notwithstanding his recent shameful treatment at Philippi) proclaimed his Gospel among them (1Th 2:2; 1Th 2:8-13). He had purposely wrought with his own hands, even night and day, that his disinterestedness might be more apparent (1Th 2:9; 2Th 3:8). He exhorted them not to be drawn away from patient industry by the hopes of the kingdom into which they were called, but to work quietly, and to cultivate purity and brotherly love (1Th 4:3; 1Th 4:9; 1Th 4:11). , Connecting these allusions with the preaching in the synagogue (Act 17:3), we see clearly how the teaching of Paul turned upon the person of Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, prophesied of in the Scriptures, suffering and dying, raised up and exalted to a kingdom, and about to appear as the Giver of light and life, to the destruction of his enemies and the saving of those who trusted in him. (See below.)

When Paul and Silas left Thessalonica they came to Beroea. Here they found the Jews more noble () more disposed to receive the news of a rejected and crucified Messiah, and to examine the Scriptures with candor, than those at Thessalonica had been. Accordingly they gained many converts, both Jews and Greeks; but the Jews of Thessalonica, hearing of it, sent emissaries to stir up the people, and it was thought best that Paul should himself leave the city, while Silas and Timothy remained behind. Some of the brethren went with Paul (probably by sea) as far as Athens, where they left him, carrying back a request to Silas and Timothy that they would speedily join him. He apparently did not like to preach alone, and intended to rest from his apostolic labor until they should rejoin him; but how could he refrain, with all that was going on at Athens round him? There he witnessed the most profuse idolatry side by side with the most pretentious philosophy. Either of these would have been enough to stimulate his spirit. To idolaters and philosophers he felt equally urged to proclaim his Master and the living God. So he went to his own countrymen and the proselytes in the synagogue and declared to them that the Messiah had come; but he also spoke, like another Socrates, with people in the market, and with the followers of the two great schools of philosophy, Epicureans and Stoics, naring to all Jesus and the Resurrection. The philosophers encountered him with a mixture of curiosity and contempt. The Epicurean, teaching himself to seek for tranquil enjoyment as the chief object of life, heard of One claiming to be the Lord of men, who had shown them the glory of dying to self, and had promised to those who fought the good fight bravely a nobler bliss than the comforts of life could yield. The Stoic, cultivating a stern and isolated moral independence, heard of One whose own righteousness was proved by submission to the Father in heaven, and who had promised to give his righteousness to those who trusted not in themselves, but in him. To all, the announcement of a Person was much stranger than the publishing of any theories would have been. So far as they thought the preacher anything but a silly trifler, he seemed to them, not a philosopher, but a setter forth of strange gods ( ). But any one with a novelty was welcome to those who spent their time in nothing else but either to hear or to tell some new thing. They brought him therefore to the Areopagus, that he might make a formal exposition of his doctrine to an assembled audience. SEE AREOPAGUS.

We are not to think here of the council or court, renowned in the oldest Athenian history, which took its name from Mars’ Hill, but only of the elevated spot where the council met, not covered in, but arranged with benches and steps of stone, so as to form a convenient place for a public address. Here the apostle delivered that wonderful discourse reported in Act 17:22-31, which seems as fresh and instructive for the intellect of the 19th century as it was for the intellect of the 1st. In this we have the Pauline Gospel as it addressed itself to the speculative mind of the cultivated Greeks. How the report was obtained by the writer of the history we have no means of knowing. Possibly we have it in notes written down before or after the delivery of this address by Paul himself. Short as it is, the form is as perfect as the matter is rich. The loftiness and breadth of the theology, the dignity and delicacy of the argument, the absence of self, the straightforward and reverent nature of the testimony delivered all the characteristics so strikingly displayed in this speech help us to understand what kind of a teacher had now appeared in the Grecian world. Paul, it is well understood, did not begin with calling the Athenians too superstitious. I perceive you, he said, to be eminently religious (, see Conybeare and Howson, ad loc.). He had observed an altar inscribed , To an unknown God. It meant, no doubt, To some unknown God. I come, he said, as the messenger of that unknown God. He then proceeded to speak of God in terms which were not altogether new to Grecian ears. They had heard of a God who had made the world and all things therein, and even of One who gave to all life, and breath, and all things. But they had never learned the next lesson which was now taught them. It was a special truth of the new dispensation that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him. SEE UNKNOWN GOD.

Comparing this with the teaching given to other audiences, we perceive that it laid hold of the deepest convictions which had ever been given to Greeks, while at the same time it encountered the strongest prejudices of Greeks. We see, as at Lystra, that an apostle of Christ had no need to refer to the Jewish Scriptures when he spoke to those who had not received them. He could speak to men as God’s children, and subjects of God’s educating discipline, and was only bringing them further tidings of him whom they had been always feeling after. He presented to them the Son of Man as acting in the power of him who had made all nations, and who was not far from any single man. He began to speak of him as risen from the dead, and of the power of a new life which was in him for men; but his audience would not hear of him who thus claimed their personal allegiance. Some mocked, others, more courteously, talked of hearing him again another time. The apostle gained but few converts at Athens, and he soon took his departure and came to Corinth. A.D. 49. SEE ATHENS.

Athens still retained its old intellectual predominance; but Corinth was the political and commercial capital of Greece. It was in places of living activity that Paul labored longest and most successfully, as formerly at Antioch, now at Corinth, and afterwards at Ephesus. The rapid spread of the Gospel was obviously promoted by the preaching of it in cities where men were continually coming and going; but, besides this consideration, we may be sure that the apostle escaped gladly from dull ignorance on the one side, and from philosophical dilettanteism on the other, to places in which the real business of the world was done. The Gospel, though unworldly, was yet a message to practical and inquiring men, and it had more affinity to work of any kind than to torpor or to intellectual frivolity. One proof of the wholesome agreement between the following of Christ and ordinary labor was given by Paul himself during his stay at Corinth. Here, as at Thessalonica, he chose to earn his own subsistence by working at his trade of tent-making. This trade brought him into close connection with two persons who became distinguished as believers in Christ, Aquila and Priscilla. They were Jews, and had lately left Rome in consequence of an edict of Claudius, SEE CLAUDIUS; and as they also were tent-makers, Paul abode with them and wrought. Laboring thus on the six days, the apostle went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and there by expounding the Scriptures sought to win both Jews and proselytes to the belief that Jesus was the Christ.

He was testifying with unusual effort and anxiety ( ), when Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia and joined him. We are left in some uncertainty as to what the movements of Silas and Timothy had been since they were with Paul at Bercea. From the statements in the Acts (Act 17:15-16) that Paul, when he reached Athens, desired Silas and Timotheus to come to him with all speed, and waited for them there, compared with those in 1 Thessalonians (1Th 3:1-2), When we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone, and sent Timotheus, our brother and minister of God, and our fellow-laborer in the Gospel of Christ, to establish you and to comfort you concerning your faith, Paley (Horoe Paulinae, 1 Thessalonians No. iv) reasonably argues that Silas and Timothy had come to Athens, but had soon been despatched thence, Timothy to Thessalonica, and Silas to Philippi, or elsewhere. From Macedonia they came together, or about the same time, to Corinth, and their arrival was the occasion of the writing of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.

This is the first extant example of that work by which the apostle Paul has served the Church of all ages in as eminent a degree as he labored at the founding of it in his lifetime. All commentators upon the New Testament have been accustomed to notice the points of coincidence between the history in the Acts and these Letters. Paley’s Horoe Paulinae is famous as a special work upon this subject. But more recently important attempts have been made to estimate the Epistles of Paul more broadly, by considering them in their mutual order and relations, and in their bearing upon the question of the development of the writer’s teaching. Such attempts must lead to a better understanding of the Epistles themselves, and to a finer appreciation of the apostle’s nature and work. It is notorious that the order of the Epistles in the book of the N.T. is not their real, or chronological order. The mere placing of them in their true sequence throws considerable light upon the history; and happily the time of composition of the more important Epistles can be stated with sufficient certainty. The two Epistles to the Thessalonians belong and these alone to the present missionary journey. The Epistles to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians were written during the next journey. Those to Philemon, the Colossians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, and the Hebrews belong to the captivity at Rome. With regard to the Pastoral Epistles, there are considerable difficulties, which require to be discussed separately.

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was probably written soon after Paul’s arrival at Corinth, and before he turned from the Jews to the Gentiles. It was drawn from Paul by the arrival of Silas and Timothy. The largest portion of it consists of an impassioned recalling of the facts and feelings of the time when the apostle was personally with them. But we perceive gradually that those expectations which he had taught them to entertain of the appearing and presence of the Lord Jesus Christ had undergone some corruption. There were symptoms in the Thessalonian Church of a restlessness which speculated on the times and seasons of the future, and found present duties flat and unimportant. This evil tendency Paul seeks to correct, by reviving the first spirit of faith and hope and mutual fellowship, and by setting forth the appearing of Jesus Christ-not indeed as distant, but as the full shining of a day of which all believers in Christ were already children. The ethical characteristics apparent in this Letter, the degree in which Paul identified himself with his friends, the entire surrender of his existence to his calling as a preacher of Christ, his anxiety for the good fame and well-being of his converts, are the same which will reappear continually. SEE THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE.

What interval of time separated the Second Letter to the Thessalonians from the First we have no means of judging, except that the later one was certainly written before Paul’s departure from Corinth. The Thessalonians had been disturbed by announcements that those convulsions of the world which all Christians were taught to associate with the coming of Christ were immediately impending. To meet these assertions, Paul delivers express predictions in a manner not usual with him elsewhere; and while reaffirming all he had ever taught the Thessalonians to believe respecting the early coming of the Savior and the blessedness of waiting patiently for it, he informs them that certain events, of which he had spoken to them, must run their course before the full manifestation of Jesus Christ could come to pass. At the end of this epistle Paul guards the Thessalonians against pretended letters from him, by telling them that every genuine letter, even if not written by his hand throughout, would have at least an autograph salutation at the close of it. SEE THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO.

We now return to the apostle’s preaching at Corinth. When Silas and Timotheus came, he was testifying to the Jews with great earnestness, but with little success. So when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook out his raiment, and said to them, in words of warning taken from their own prophets (Eze 33:4), Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean, and henceforth will go to the Gentiles. The experience of Pisidian Antioch was repeating itself. The apostle went, as he threatened, to the Gentiles, and began to preach in the house of a proselyte named Justus. Already one distinguished Jew had become a believer, Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, mentioned (1Co 1:14) as baptized by the apostle himself: and many of the Gentile inhabitants were accepting the Gospel and receiving baptism. The envy and rage of the Jews were consequently excited in an unusual degree, and seem to have pressed upon the spirit of Paul. He was therefore encouraged by a vision of the Lord, who appeared to him by night, and said, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee, to hurt thee; for I have much people in this city. Corinth was to be an important seat of the Church of Christ, distinguished, not only by the number of believers, but also by the variety and the fruitfulness of the teaching to be given there. At this time Paul himself stayed there for a year and six months, teaching the Word of God among them.

Corinth was the chief city of the province of Achaia, and the residence of the proconsul. During Paul’s stay, we find the proconsular office held by Gallio, a brother of the philosopher Seneca. SEE GALLIO. Before him the apostle was summoned by his Jewish enemies, who hoped to bring the Roman authority to bear upon him as an innovator in religion. But Gallio perceived at once, before Paul could open his mouth to defend himself, that the movement was due to Jewish prejudice, and refused to go into the question. If it be a question of words and names and of your law, he said to the Jews, speaking with the tolerance of a Roman magistrate, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters. Then a singular scene occurred. The Corinthian spectators, either favoring Paul, or actuated only by anger against the Jews, seized on the principal person of those who had brought the charge, and beat him before the judgment-seat. (See on the other hand Ewald, Geschichte, 6:463-466.) Gallio left these religious quarrels to settle themselves. The apostle therefore was not allowed to be hurt, and remained some time longer at Corinth unmolested. SEE CORINTH.

We do not gather from the subsequent Epistles to the Corinthians many details of the founding of the Church at Corinth. The main body of the believers consisted of Gentiles (Ye know that ye were Gentiles, 1Co 12:2). But, partly from the number who had been proselytes, partly from the mixture of Jews, it had so far a Jewish character that Paul could speak of our fathers as having been under the cloud (1Co 10:1). The tendency to intellectual display, and the traffic of Sophists in philosophical theories, which prevailed at Corinth, made the apostle more than usually anxious to be independent in his life and simple in bearing his testimony. He wrought for his living, that he might not appear to be taking fees of his pupils (1Co 9:18); and he put the person of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, in the place of all doctrines (1Co 2:1-5; 1Co 15:3-4). What gave infinite significance to his simple statements was the nature of the Christ who had been crucified, and his relation to men. Concerning these mysteries Paul had uttered a wisdom, not of the world, but of God, which had commended itself chiefly to the humble and simple. Of these God had chosen and called not a few into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ the Lord of men (1Co 2:6-7; 1Co 1:2; 1Co 1:7; 1Co 1:9).

Having been the instrument of accomplishing this work, Paul took his departure for Jerusalem, wishing to attend a festival there. A.D. 51. Before leaving Greece, he cut off his hair at Cenchrea, in fulfillment of a vow (Act 18:18. The act may be that of Aquila, but the historian certainly seems to be speaking not of him, but of Paul). We are not told where or why he had made the vow; and there is considerable difficulty in reconciling this act with the received customs of the Jews. SEE VOW.

A passage in Josephus, if rightly understood (War, 2:15, 1), mentions a vow which included, besides a sacrifice, the cutting of the hair and the beginning of an abstinence from wine thirty days before the sacrifice. If Paul’s was such a vow, he was going to offer up a sacrifice in the Temple at Jerusalem, and the shearing of his head was a preliminary to the sacrifice. The principle of the vow, whatever it was, must have been the same as that of the Nazaritish vow, which Paul afterwards countenanced at Jerusalem. There is therefore no difficulty in supposing him to have followed in this instance, for some reason not explained to us, a custom of his countrymen. When he sailed from the Isthmus, Aquila and Priscilla went with him as far as Ephesus. Paul paid a visit to the synagogue at Ephesus, but would not stay. He was anxious to be at Jerusalem for the approaching feast, but he promised, God willing, to return to them again. Leaving Ephesus, he sailed to Casarea, and from thence went up to Jerusalem, and saluted the Church. It is argued (Wieseler, p. 48-50), from considerations founded on the suspension of navigation during the winter months, that the festival was probably the Pentecost. From Jerusalem, almost immediately, the apostle went down to Antioch, thus returning to the same place from which he had started with Silas.

8. Third Missionary Journey, including the Stay at Ephesus (Act 18:23 to Act 21:17). Without inventing facts or discussions for which we have no authority, we may connect with this short visit of Paul to Jerusalem a very serious raising of the whole question, What was to be the relation of the new kingdom of Christ to the law and covenant of the Jews? Such a Church as that at Corinth, with its affiliated communities, composed chiefly of Gentile members, appeared likely to overshadow by its importance the Mother-Church in Judaea. The jealousy of the more Judaical believers, not extinguished by the decision of the council at Jerusalem, began now to show itself everywhere in the form of an active and intriguing party-spirit. This disastrous movement could not indeed alienate the heart of Paul from the law or the calling or the people of his fathers his antagonism is never directed against these; but it drew him into the great conflict of the next period of his life, and must have been a sore trial to the intense loyalty of his nature. To vindicate the freedom, as regarded the Jewish law, of believers in Christ but to do this for the very sake of maintaining the unity of the Church was to be the earnest labor of the apostle for some years. In thus laboring he was carrying out completely the principles laid down by the elder apostles at Jerusalem; and may we not believe that, in deep sorrow at appearing, even, to disparage the law and the covenant, he was the more anxious to prove his fellowship in spirit with the Church in Judaea, by remembering the poor, as James, Cephas, and John had desired that he would? (Gal 2:10). The prominence given, during the journeys upon which we are now entering, to the collection to be made among his churches for the benefit of the poor at Jerusalem, seems to indicate such an anxiety. The great Epistles which belong to this period those to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans-show how the Judaizing question exercised at this time the apostle’s mind.

Paul spent some time at Antioch, and during this stay, as we are inclined to believe, his collision with Peter (Gal 2:11-14), of which we have spoken above, took place. When he left Antioch, he went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples, and giving directions concerning the collection for the saints (1Co 16:1). A.D. 51. It is probable that the Epistle to the Galatians was written soon after this visit. SEE GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO.

When he was with them he had found the Christian communities infested by Judaizing teachers. He had told them the truth (Gal 4:16), he had warned them against the deadly tendencies of Jewish exclusiveness, and had reaffirmed the simple Gospel, concerning Jesus Christ the Son of God, which he had preached to them on his first visit ( , Gal 4:13). But after he left them the Judaizing doctrine raised its head again. The only course left to its advocates was to assail openly the authority of Paul; and this they did. They represented him as having derived his commission from the older apostles, and as therefore acting disloyally if he opposed the views ascribed to Peter and James. The fickle minds of the Galatian Christians were influenced by these hardy assertions; and the apostle heard, when he had come down to Ephesus, that his work in Galatia was nearly undone, and his converts were partially seduced from the true faith in Christ. He therefore wrote the Epistle to remonstrate with them-an Epistle full of indignation, of warning, of direct and impassioned teaching. He recalls to their minds the Gospel which he had preached among them, and asserts in solemn and even awful language its absolute truth (Gal 1:8-9). He declares that he had received it directly from Jesus Christ the Lord, and that his position towards the other apostles had always been that, not of a pupil, but of an independent fellow- laborer. He sets before them Jesus the Crucified, the Son of God, as the fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, and as the pledge and giver of freedom to men. He declares that in him, and by the power of the Spirit of sonship sent down through him, men have inherited the rights of adult sons of God; that the condition represented by the law was the inferior and preparatory stage of boyhood. He then, most earnestly and tenderly, impresses upon the Galatians the responsibilities of their fellowship with Christ the Crucified, urging them to fruitfulness in all the graces of their spiritual calling, and especially to brotherly consideration and unity.

This Letter was, in all probability, sent from Ephesus. This was the goal of the apostle’s journeyings through Asia Minor. He came down upon Ephesus from the upper districts ( ) of Phrygia. What Antioch was for the region of Syria and Cilicia, what Corinth was for Greece, what Rome was, we may add, for Italy and the West that Ephesus was for the important province called Asia. Indeed, with reference to the spread of the Church Catholic, Ephesus occupied the central position of all. This was the meeting-place of Jew, of Greek, of Roman, and of Oriental. Accordingly the apostle of the Gentiles was to stay a long time here, that he might found a strong Church, which should be a kind of Mother Church to Christian communities in the neighboring cities of Asia. SEE EPHESUS.

A new element in the preparation of the world for the kingdom of Christ presents itself at the beginning of the apostle’s work at Ephesus. He finds there certain disciples ( ) about twelve in number of whom he is led to inquire, Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed? They answered, No, we did not even hear of there being a Holy Ghost. Unto what then, asked Paul, were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him who was coming after him, that is, on Jesus. Hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they began to speak with tongues and to prophesy (Act 19:1-7). It is obvious to compare this incident with the apostolic act of Peter and John in Samaria, and to see in it an assertion of the full apostolic dignity of Paul. But besides this bearing of it, we see in it indications which suggest more than they distinctly express, as to the spiritual movements of that age. These twelve disciples are mentioned immediately after Apollos, who also had been at Ephesus just before Paul’s arrival, and who had taught diligently concerning Jesus ( ), knowing only the baptism of John. But Apollos was of Alexandria, trained in the intelligent and inquiring study of the Hebrew Scriptures, which had been fostered by the Greek culture of that capital. We are led to suppose therefore that a knowledge of the baptism of John and of the ministry of Jesus had spread widely, and had been received with favor by some of those who knew the Scriptures most thoroughly, before the message concerning the exaltation of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Ghost had been received. What the exact belief of Apollos and these twelve disciples was concerning the character and work of Jesus, we have no means of knowing; but we gather that it was wanting in a recognition of the full lordship of Jesus and of the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Pentecostal faith was communicated to Apollos by Aquila and Priscilla, to the other disciples of the Baptist by Paul.

The apostle now entered upon his usual work. He went into the synagogue, and for three months he spoke openly, disputing and persuading concerning the kingdom of God. At the end of that time the obstinacy and opposition of some of the Jews led him to give up frequenting the synagogue, and he established the believers as a separate society, meeting in the school of Tyrannus. This continued (so closely as not to allow any considerable absence of Paul) for two years. During this time occurred the triumph over magical arts, and the great disturbance raised by the silversmiths who made shrines for Artemis; also the writing of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

God wrought special miracles ( ), we are told, by the hands of Paul. It is evident that the arts of sorcery and magic all those arts which betoken the belief in the presence of a spirit, but not of a Holy Spirit were flourishing here in great luxuriance. Everything in the history of the Old or New Testament would suggest the thought that the exhibitions of Divine power took a more startling form where superstitions grounded mainly on the reverence for diabolical power were prevalent; that they were the proclamations of a beneficent and orderly government, which had been manifested to counteract and overcome one that was irregular and malevolent (Maurice, Unity of the New Testament, p. 515). The powers of the new kingdom took a form more nearly resembling the wonders of the kingdom of darkness than was usually adopted, when handkerchiefs and aprons from the body of Paul (like the shadow of Peter, Act 5:15), were allowed to be used for the healing of the sick and the casting out of daemons. But it was to be clearly seen that all was done by the healing power of the Lord Jesus himself. Certain Jews, and among them the seven sons of one Sceva (not unlike Simon Magus in Samaria), fancied that the effect was due to a magic formula, an . They therefore attempted to exorcise, by saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. But the evil spirit, having a voice given to it, cried out, Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye? And the man who was possessed fell furiously upon the exorcists and drove them forth. The result of this testimony was that fear fell upon all the inhabitants of Ephesus, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. The impression produced bore striking practical fruits. The city was well known for its , forms of incantation, which were sold at a high price. Many of those who had these books brought them together and burned them before all men, and when the cost of them was computed it was found to be 50,000 drachme =$8850. So mightily grew the word of the Lord, and prevailed.

While Paul was at Ephesus his communications with the Church in Achaia were not altogether suspended. There is no good reason, however, to believe that a personal visit to Corinth was made by him, nor any lost letter sent, of which there is no mention in the Acts. (See below.) The first of the extant epistles to that place, however, dates at this time. Whether the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written before or after the tumult excited by Demetrius cannot be positively asserted. He makes an allusion in that Epistle to a battle with wild beasts fought at Ephesus ( , 1Co 15:32), which it is usual to understand figuratively, and which is by many connected with that tumult. But such a connection is arbitrary, and without much reason. As it would seem from Act 20:1, that Paul departed immediately after the tumult, it is probable that the Epistle was written before, though not long before, the raising of this disturbance. Here then, while the apostle is so earnestly occupied with the teaching of believers and inquirers at Ephesus and from the neighboring parts of Asia, we find him throwing all his heart and soul into the concerns of the Church at Corinth.

There were two external inducements for writing this Epistle.

(1.) Paul had received information from members of Chloe’s household ( , 1Co 1:11) concerning the state of the Church at Corinth.

(2.) That Church had written him a letter, of which the bearers were Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, to ask his judgment upon various points which were submitted to him (1Co 7:1; 1Co 16:17). He had learned that there were divisions in the Church; that parties had been formed which took the names of Paul, of Apollos, of Cephas, and of Christ (1Co 1:11-12); and also that moral and social irregularities had begun to prevail, of which the most conspicuous and scandalous example was that a believer had taken his father’s wife, without being publicly condemned by the Church (1Co 5:1; 1Co 6:7; 1Co 11:17-22; 1Co 14:33-40). To these evils we must add one doctrinal error, of those who said that there was no resurrection of the dead (1Co 15:12). It is probable that the teaching of Apollos the Alexandrian, which had been characteristic and highly successful (Act 18:27-28), had been the first occasion of the divisions in the Church. We may take it for granted that his adherents did not form themselves into a party until he had left Corinth, and therefore that he had been some time with Paul at Ephesus. But after he was gone, the special Alexandrian features of his teaching were remembered by those who had delighted to hear him. Their Grecian intellect was captivated by his broader and more spiritual interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures. The connection which he taught them to perceive between the revelation made to Hebrew rulers and prophets and the wisdom by which other nations, and especially their own, had been enlightened, dwelt in their minds. That which especially occupied the Apollos school must have been a philosophy of the Scriptures. It was the tendency of this party which seemed to the apostle particularly dangerous among the Greeks. He hardly seems to refer specially in his letter to the other parties, but we can scarcely doubt that in what he says about the wisdom which the Greeks sought (1:22), he is referring not only to the general tendency of the Greek mind, but to that tendency as it had been caught and influenced by the teaching of Apollos. It gives him an occasion of delivering his most characteristic testimony. He recognises wisdom, but it is the wisdom of God; and that wisdom was not only a or a through which God had always spoken to all men; it had been perfectly manifested in Jesus the Crucified. Christ crucified was both the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. To receive him required a spiritual discernment unlike the wisdom of the great men of the world; a discernment given by the Holy Spirit of God, and manifesting itself in sympathy with humiliation and in love.

For a detailed description of the Epistles the reader is referred to the special articles upon each. But it belongs to the history of Paul to notice the personal characteristics which appear in them. We must not omit to observe therefore, in this Epistle, how loyally the apostle represents Jesus Christ the Crucified as the Lord of men, the Head of the body with many members, the Centre of Unity, the Bond of men to the Father. We should mark at the same time how invariably he connects the Power of the Spirit with the name of the Lord Jesus. He meets all the evils of the Corinthian Church-the intellectual pride, the party spirit, the loose morality, the disregard of decency and order, the false belief about the resurrection-by recalling their thoughts to the person of Christ and to the Spirit of God as the Breath of a common life to the whole body.

We observe also here, more than elsewhere, the tact, universally recognised and admired, with which the apostle discusses the practical problems brought before him. The various questions relating to marriage (ch. 7), the difficulty about meats offered to idols (ch. 8, 10), the behavior proper for women (ch. 11, 14), the use of the gifts of prophesying and speaking with tongues (ch. 14), are made examples of a treatment which may be applied to all such questions. We see them all discussed with reference to first principles; the object, in every practical conclusion, being to guard and assert some permanent principle. We see Paul no less a lover of order and subordination than of freedom. We see him claiming for himself, and prescribing to others, great variety of conduct in varying circumstances, but under the strict obligation of being always true to Christ, and always seeking the highest good of men. Such a character, so steadfast in motive and aim, so versatile in action, it would be difficult indeed to find elsewhere in history. What Paul here tells us of his own doings and movements refers chiefly to the nature of his preaching at Corinth (ch. 1, 2); to the hardships and dangers of the apostolic life (1Co 4:9-13); to his cherished custom of working for his own living (ch. 9); to the direct revelations he had received (1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:8); and to his present plans (ch. 16). He bids the Corinthians raise a collection for the Church at Jerusalem by laying by something on the first day of the week, as he had directed the churches in Galatia to do. He says that he shall tarry at Ephesus till Pentecost, and then set out on a journey towards Corinth through Macedonia, so as perhaps to spend the winter with them. He expresses his joy at the coming of Stephanas and his companions, and commends them to the respect of the Church. SEE CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO.

Having despatched this Epistle, he stayed on at Ephesus, where a great door and effectual was opened to him, and there were many adversaries. The affairs of the Church at Corinth continued to be an object of the gravest anxiety to him, and to give him occupation at Ephesus: but it may be most convenient to put off the further notice of these till we come to the time when the Second Epistle was written. We have now no information as to the work of Paul at Ephesus until that tumult occurred which is described in Act 19:24-41. The whole narrative may be read there. We learn that this Paul had been so successful, not only in Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, in turning people from the worship of gods made with hands, that the craft of silversmiths, who made little shrines for Artemis, were alarmed for their manufacture. They raised a great tumult. and not being able, apparently, to find Paul, laid hands on two of his companions and dragged them into the theater. Paul himself, not willing that his friends should suffer in his place, wished to go in among the people; but the disciples, supported by the urgent request of certain magistrates called Asiarchs, dissuaded him from his purpose. The account of the proceedings of the mob is highly graphic, and the address with which the town-clerk finally quiets the people is worthy of a discreet and experienced magistrate. His statement that these men are neither robbers of churches nor yet blasphemers of your goddess is an incidental testimony to the temperance of the apostle and his friends in their attacks on the popular idolatry. But Paul is only personally concerned in this tumult in so far as it proves the deep impression which his teaching had made at Ephesus, and the daily danger in which he lived. Paul had been anxious to depart from Ephesus, and this interruption of the work which had kept him there determined himn to stay no longer. He set out therefore for Macedonia, and proceeded first to Troas (2Co 2:12), where he might have preached the Gospel with good hope of success. But a restless anxiety to obtain tidings concerning the Church at Corinth urged him on, and he advanced into Macedonia, where he met Titus, who brought him the news for which he was thirsting. The receipt of this intelligence drew from him a letter, the Second to the Corinthians, which reveals to us what manner of man Paul was when the fountains of his heart were stirred to their inmost depths. How the agitation which expresses itself in every sentence of this letter was excited is one of the most interesting questions we have to consider. Every reader may perceive that, on passing from the First Epistle to the Second, the scene is almost entirely changed. In the First, the faults and difficulties of the Corinthian Church are before us. The apostle writes of these, with spirit indeed and emotion, as he always does, but without passion or disturbance. He calmly asserts his own authority over the Church, and threatens to deal severely with offenders. In the Second, he writes as one whose personal relations with those whom he addresses have undergone a most painful shock. The acute pain given by former tidings, the comfort yielded by the account which Titus brought, the vexation of a sensitive mind at the necessity of self-assertion, contend together for utterance. What had occasioned this excitement?

We have seen that Timothy had been sent from Ephesus to Macedonia and Corinth. He had rejoined Paul when he wrote this Second Epistle; for he is associated with him in the salutation (2Co 1:1). We have no account, either in the Acts or in the Epistles, of this journey of Timothy, and some have thought it probable that he never reached Corinth. Let us suppose, however, that he arrived there soon after the First Epistle, conveyed by Stephanlas and others, had been received by the Corinthian Church. He found that a movement had arisen in the heart of that Church which threw (let us suppose) the case of the incestuous person (1Co 5:1-5) into the shade. This was a deliberate and sustained attack upon the apostolic authority and personal integrity of the apostle of the Gentiles. The party-spirit which, before the writing of the First Epistle, had been content with underrating the powers of Paul compared with those of Apollos, and with protesting against the laxity of his doctrine of freedom, had been fanned into a flame by the arrival of some person or persons who came from the Judaean Church, armed with letters of commendation, and who openly questioned the commission of him whom they proclaimed to be a self-constituted apostle (2Co 3:1; 2Co 11:4; 2Co 11:12-15). As the spirit of opposition and detraction grew strong, the tongue of some member of the Church (more probably a Corinthian than the stranger himself) seems to have been loosed. He scoffed at Paul’s courage and constancy, pointing to his delay in coming to Corinth, and making light of his threats (2Co 1:17; 2Co 1:23). He demanded proofs of his apostleship (2Co 12:11-12). He derided the weakness of his personal presence and the simplicity of his speech (2Co 10:10). He even threw out insinuations touching the personal honesty and self devotion of Paul (2Co 1:12; 2Co 12:17-18). When some such attack was made openly upon the apostle, the Church had not immediately called the offender to account; the better spirit of the believers being cowed, apparently, by the confidence and assumed authority of the assailants of Paul. A report of this melancholy state of things was brought to the apostle by Timothy or by others; and we can imagine how it must have wounded his sensitive and most affectionate nature, and also how critical the juncture must have seemed to him for the whole Western Church.

He immediately sent off Titus to Corinth, with a verbal message reenforcing his former letter with the sharpest rebukes (see 1Co 4:18-21), using the authority which had been denied, and threatening to enforce it speedily by his personal presence (2Co 2:2-3; 2Co 7:8). As soon as the messenger was gone how natural a trait!-he began to repent of having sent him. He must have hated the appearance of claiming homage to himself; his heart must have been sore at the requital of his love; he must have felt the deepest anxiety as to the issue of the struggle. We can well believe him therefore when he speaks of what he had suffered: Out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears (2Co 2:4); I had no rest in my spirit (2Co 2:13); Our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears (2Co 7:5). It appears that he could not bring himself to hasten to Corinth so rapidly as he had intended (2Co 1:15-16); he would wait till he heard news which might make his visit a happy instead of a painful one (2Co 2:1). When he had reached Macedonia, Titus, as we have seen, met him with such reassuring tidings. The offender had been rebuked by the Church, and had made submission (2Co 2:6-7); the old spirit of love and reverence towards Paul had been awakened, and had poured itself forth in warm expressions of shame and grief and penitence. The cloud was now dispelled; fear and pain gave place to hope and tenderness and thankfulness. But even now the apostle would not start at once for Corinth. He may have had important work to do in Macedonia. But another letter would smooth the way still more effectually for his personal visit; and he accordingly wrote the Second Epistle, and sent it by the hands of Titus and two other brethren to Corinth.

When the Epistle is read in the light of the circumstances we have supposed, the symptoms it displays of a highly wrought personal sensitiveness, and of a kind of ebb and flow of emotion, are as intelligible as they are noble and beautiful. Nothing but a temporary interruption of mutual regard could have made the joy of sympathy so deep and fresh. If he had been the object of a personal attack, how natural for the apostle to write as he does in 2Co 2:5-10. In 2Co 7:12, he that suffered wrong is Paul himself. All his protestations relating to his apostolic work, and his solemn appeals to God and Christ, are in place; and we enter into his feelings as he asserts his own sincerity and the openness of the truth which he taught in the Gospel (ch. 3, 4). We see what sustained him in his self-assertion; he knew that he did not preach himself, but Christ Jesus the Lord. His own weakness became an argument to him, which he could use to others also, of the power of God working in him. Knowing his own fellowship with Christ, and that this fellowship was the right of other men too, he would be persuasive or severe, as the cause of Christ and the good of men might require (ch. 4, 5). If he was appearing to set himself up against the churches in Judaea, he was the more anxious that the collection which he was making for the benefit of those churches should prove his sympathy with them by its largeness. Again he would recur to the maintenance of his own authority as an apostle of Christ against those who impeached it. He would make it understood that spiritual views, spiritual powers, were real; that if he knew no man after the flesh, and did not war after the flesh, he was not the less able for the building up of the Church (ch. 10). He would ask them to excuse his anxious jealousy, his folly and excitement, while he gloried in the practical proofs of his apostolic commission, and in the infirmities which made the power of God more manifest; and he would plead with them earnestly that they would give him no occasion to find fault or to correct them (ch. 11, 12, 13). The hypothesis upon which we have interpreted this Epistle is not precisely that which is most commonly received. According to the more common view, the offender is the incestuous person of 1 Corinthians 5, and the message which proved so sharp but wholesome a medicine was simply the First Epistle. But this view does not account so satisfactorily for the whole tone of the Epistle, and for the particular expressions relating to the offender; nor does it find places so consistently for the missions of Timothy and Titus. It does not seem likely that Paul would have treated the sin of the man who took his father’s wife as an offense against himself, nor that he would have spoken of it by preference as a wrong () done to another (supposed to be the father). The view we have adopted is said, in DeWette’s Exegetisches Handbuch, to have been held, in whole oi in part, by Bleek, Credner, Olshausen, and Neander. More recently it has been advocated with great force by Ewald, in his Sendschreiben des A. P. p. 223-232. The ordinary account is retained by Stanley, Alford, and Davidson, and with some hesitation by Conybeare and Howson. SEE CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO.

The particular nature of this Epistle, as an appeal to facts in favor of his own apostolic authority, leads to the mention of many interesting features of Paul’s life. His summary, in 11:23-28, of the hardships and dangers through which he had gone, may probably be referred, as above suggested, to the period of his first labors at Tarsus. Of the particular facts stated in the following words, Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one; thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep we know only of one, the beating by the magistrates at Philippi, from the Acts. The daily burden of the care of all the churches seems to imply a wide and constant range of communication, by visits, messengers, and letters, of which we have found it reasonable to assume examples in his intercourse with the Church of Corinth. The mention of visions and revelations of the Lord, and of the thorn (or rather stake) in the flesh, side by side, is peculiarly characteristic both of the mind and of the experiences of Paul. As an instance of the visions, he alludes to a trance which had befallen him fourteen years before, in which he had been caught up into paradise, and had heard unspeakable words. Whether this vision may be identified with any that is recorded in the Acts must depend on chronological considerations; but the very expressions of Paul in this place would rather lead us not to think of an occasion in which words that could be reported were spoken. We observe that he speaks with the deepest reverence of the privilege thus granted to him; but he distinctly declines to ground anything upon it as regards other men. Let them judge him, he says, not by any such pretensions, but by facts which were cognizable to them (12:1-6). He would not, even inwardly with himself, glory in visions and revelations without remembering how the Lord had guarded him from being puffed up by them. A stake in the flesh ( ) was given him, a messenger of Satan to buffet him, lest he should be exalted above measure. The different interpretations which have prevailed of this have a certain historical significance.

(1) Roman Catholic divines have inclined to understand by it strong sensual temptation.

(2) Luther and his followers take it to mean temptation to unbelief. But neither of these would be infirmities in which Paul could glory.

(3) It is almost the unanimous opinion of modern divines and the authority of the ancient fathers on the whole is in favor of it-that the represents some vexatious bodily. infirmity (see especially Stanley, ad loc.). It is plainly what Paul refers to in Gal 4:14 : My temptation in my flesh ye despised not nor rejected. This infirmity distressed him so much that he besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from him. But the Lord answered, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. We are to understand therefore the affliction as remaining; but Paul is more than resigned under it, he even glories in it as a means of displaying more purely the power of Christ in him. That we are to understand the apostle,, in accordance with this passage, as laboring under some degree of ill-health, is clear enough. But we must remember that his constitution was at least strong enough, as a matter of fact. to carry him through the hardships and anxieties and toils which he himself describes to us, and to sustain the pressure of the imprisonment at Caesarea and in Rome. SEE THORN IN THE FLESH.

After writing this Epistle, Paul traveled through Macedonia (A.D. 54), perhaps to the borders of Illyricum (Rom 15:19), and then carried out the intention of which he had spoken so often, and arrived himself at Corinth. The narrative in the Acts tells us that when he had gone over those parts (Macedonia), and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there abode three months (Act 20:2-3). A.D. 55. There is only one incident which we can connect with this visit to Greece, but that is a very important one the writing of another great Epistle, addressed to the Church at Rome. That this was written at this time from Corinth appears from passages in the Epistle itself, and has never been doubted.

It would be unreasonable to suppose that Paul was insensible to the mighty associations which connected themselves with the name of Rome. The seat of the imperial government to which Jerusalem itself, with the rest of the world, was then subject, must have been a grand object to the thoughts of the apostle from his infancy upward. He was himself a citizen of Rome; he had come repeatedly under the jurisdiction of Roman magistrates; he had enjoyed the benefits of the equity of the Roman law, and the justice of Roman administration. And, besides its universal supremacy, Rome was the natural head of the Gentile world, as Jerusalem was the head of the Jewish world. In this august city Paul had many friends and brethren. Romans who had traveled into Greece and Asia, strangers from Greece and Asia who had gone to settle at Rome, had heard of Jesus Christ and the kingdom of heaven from Paul himself or from other preachers of Christ, and had formed themselves into a community, of which a good report had gone forth throughout the Christian world. We are not surprised therefore to hear that the apostle was very anxious to visit Rome. It was his fixed intention to go to Rome, and from Rome to extend his journeys as far as Spain (Rom 15:24; Rom 15:28). He would thus bear his testimony both in the capital and to the extremities of the Western or Gentile world. For the present he could not go on from Corinth to Rome, because he was drawn by a special errand to Jerusalem where indeed he was likely enough to meet with dangers and delays (Rom 15:25-32). But from Jerusalem he proposed to turn towards Rome. In the meanwhile he would write them a letter from Corinth.

The letter is a substitute for the personal visit which he had longed for many years to pay; and, as he would have made the visit, so now he writes the letter, because he is the apostle of the Gentiles. Of this office, to speak in common language, Paul was proud. All the labors and dangers of it he would willingly encounter; and he would also jealously maintain its dignity and its powers. He held it of Christ, and Christ’s commission should not be dishonored. He represents himself grandly as a priest, appointed to offer up the faith of the Gentile world as a sacrifice to God (Rom 15:16). He then proceeds to speak with pride of the extent and independence of his apostolic labors. It is in harmony with this language that he should address the Roman Church as consisting mainly of Gentiles: but we find that he speaks to them as to persons deeply interested in Jewish questions. To the Church thus composed, the apostle of the Gentiles writes to declare and commend the Gospel which he everywhere preaches. That Gospel was invariably the announcement of Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Lord of men, who was made man, died, and was raised again, and whom his heralds present to the faith and obedience of mankind. Such a might be variously commended to different hearers. In speaking to the Roman Church, Paul represents the chief value of it as consisting in the fact that, through it, the righteousness of God, as a righteousness not for God only, but also for men, was revealed. It is natural to ask what led him to choose and dwell upon this aspect of his proclamation of Jesus Christ. The following answers suggest themselves:

(1.) As he looked upon the condition of the Gentile world, with that coup d’ail which the writing of a letter to the Roman Church was likely to suggest, he was struck by the awful wickedness, the utter dissolution of moral ties, which has made that age infamous. His own terrible summary (Rom 1:21-32) is well known to be confirmed by other contemporary evidence. The profligacy which we shudder to read of was constantly under Paul’s eye, especially at Corinth. Along with the evil he saw also the beginnings of God’s judgment upon it. He saw the miseries and disasters, begun and impending, which proved that God in heaven would not tolerate the unrighteousness of men.

(2.) As he looked upon the condition of the Jewish people, he saw them claiming an exclusive righteousness, which, however, had manifestly no power to preserve them from being really unrighteous.

(3.) Might not the thought also occur to him, as a Roman citizen, that the empire which was now falling to pieces through unrighteousness had been built up by righteousness, by that love of order and that acknowledgment of rights which were the great endowment of the Roman people? Whether we lay any stress upon this or not, it seems clear that to one contemplating the world from Paul’s point of view, no thought would be so naturally suggested as that of the need of the true Righteousness for the two divisions of mankind. How he expounds that God’s own righteousness was shown, in Jesus Christ, to be a righteousness which men might trust in sinners though they were and by trusting in it submit to it, and so receive it as to show forth the fruits of it in their own lives; how he declares the union of men with Christ as subsisting in the divine idea and as realized by the power of the Spirit may be seen in the Epistle itself. The remarkable exposition contained in ch. 9, 10, 11 illustrates the personal character of Paul, by showing the intense love for his nation which he retained through all his struggles with unbelieving Jews and Judaizing Christians, and by what hopes he reconciled himself to the thought of their unbelief and their punishment. Having spoken of this subject, he goes on to exhibit in practical counsels the same love of Christian unity, moderation, and gentleness, the same respect for social order, the same tenderness for weak consciences, and the same expectation of the Lord’s coming and confidence in the future which appear more or less strongly in all his letters. SEE ROMANS, EPISTLE TO.

Before his departure from Corinth, Paul was joined again by Luke, as we infer from the change in the narrative from the third to the first person. We have already seen that he was bent on making a journey to Jerusalem, for a special purpose and within a limited time. With this view he was intending to go by sea to Syria. But he was made aware of some plot of the Jews for his destruction, to be carried out through this voyage; and he determined to evade their malice by changing his route. Several brethren were associated with him in this expedition, the bearers, no doubt, of the collections made in all the churches for the poor at Jerusalem. These were sent on by sea, and probably the money with them, to Troas, where they were to await Paul. He, accompanied by Luke, went northwards through Macedonia. The style of an eyewitness again becomes manifest. From Philippi, says the writer, we sailed away after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days, where we abode seven days. The marks of dime throughout this journey have given occasion to much chronological and geographical discussion, which brings before the reader’s mind the difficulties and uncertainties of travel in that age, and leaves the precise determination of the dates of this history a matter for reasonable conjecture rather than for positive statement. But no question is raised as to the times mentioned which need detain us in the course of the narrative. During the stay at Troas there was a meeting on the first day of the week to break bread, and Paul was discoursing earnestly and at length with the brethren. He was to depart the next morning, and midnight found them listening to his earnest speech, with many lights burning in the upper chamber in which they had met, and making the atmosphere oppressive. A youth named Eutychus was sitting in the window, and was gradually overpowered by sleep, so that at last he fell into the street or court from the third story, and was taken up dead. The meeting was interrupted by this accident, and Paul went down and fell upon him and embraced him, saying, Be not disturbed, his life is in him. His friends then appear to have taken charge of him, while Paul went up again, first presided at the breaking of bread, afterwards took a meal, and continued conversing until daybreak, and so departed.

While the vessel which conveyed the rest of the party sailed from Troas to Assos, Paul gained some time by making the journey by land. At Assos he went on board again. Coasting along by Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Trogyllium, they arrived at Miletus. The apostle was thus passing by the chief Church in Asia; but if he had gone to Ephesus he might have arrived at Jerusalem too late for the Pentecost, at which festival he had set his heart upon being present. At Miletus, however, there was time to send to Ephesus; and the elders of the Church were invited to come down to him there. This meeting is made the occasion for recording another characteristic and representative address of Paul (Act 20:18-35). This spoken address to the elders of the Ephesian Church may be ranked with the Epistles, and throws the same kind of light upon Paul’s apostolical relations to the churches. Like several of the Epistles, it is in great part an appeal to their memories of him and of his work. He refers to his labors in serving the Lord among them, and to the dangers he incurred from the plots of the Jews, and asserts emphatically the unreserve with which he had taught them. He then nlentions a fact which will come before us again presently, that he was receiving inspired warnings, as he advanced from city to city, of the bonds and afflictions awaiting him at Jerusalem. It is interesting to observe that the apostle felt it to be his duty to press on in spite of these warnings. Having formed his plan on good grounds and in the sight of God, he did not see, in dangers which might even touch his life, however clearly set before him, reasons for changing it. Other arguments might move him from a fixed purpose not dangers. His one guiding principle was to discharge the ministry which he had received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God. Speaking to his present audience as to those whom he was seeing for the last time, he proceeds to exhort them with unusual earnestness and tenderness, and expresses in conclusion that anxiety as to practical industry and liberality which has been increasingly occupying his mind. In terms strongly resembling the language of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and Corinthians, he pleads his own example, and entreats them to follow it, in laboring for the support of the weak. And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down and prayed with them all: and they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck, and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him to the ship. This is the kind of narrative in which some learned men think they can detect the signs of a moderately clever fiction.

The course of the voyage from Miletus was by Cos and Rhodes to Patara, and from Patara in another vessel past Cyprus to Tyre. Here Paul and his company spent seven days; and there were disciples who said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem. Again there was a sorrowful parting: They all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city; and we kneeled down on the shore and prayed. From Tyre they sailed to Ptolemais, where they spent one day, and from Ptolemais proceeded, apparently by land, to Caesarea. In this place was settled Philip the Evangelist, one of the seven, and he became the host of Paul and his friends. Philip had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied, and who repeated, no doubt, the warnings already heard. Caesarea was within an easy journey of Jerusalem, and Paul may have thought it prudent not to be too long in Jerusalem before the festival; otherwise it might seem strange that, after the former haste, they now tarried many days at Caesarea. During this interval the prophet Agabus (Act 11:28) came down from Jerusalem, and crowned the previous intimations of danger with a prediction expressively delivered. It would seem as if the approaching imprisonment were intended to be conspicuous in the eyes of the Church, as an agency for the accomplishment of God’s designs. At this stage a final effort was made to dissuade Paul from going up to Jerusalem, by the Christians of Caesarea, and by his travelling companions. But Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. So, after a while, they went up to Jerusalem, and were gladly received by the brethren. This is Paul’s fifth and last visit to Jerusalem.

9. First Imprisonment.

(1.) Arrest at Jerusalem (A.D. 55). He who was thus conducted into Jerusalem by a company of anxious friends had become by this time a man of considerable fame among his countrymen. He was widely known as one who had taught with pre-eminent boldness that a way into God’s favor was opened to the Gentiles, and that this wan did not lie through the door of the Jewish law. He had moreover actually founded numerous and important communities, composed of Jews and Gentiles together, which stood simply on the name of Jesus Christ, apart from circumcision and the observance of the law. He had thus roused against himself the bitter enmity of that unfathomable Jewish pride which was almost as strong in some of those who had professed the faith of Jesus as in their unconverted brethren. This enmity had for years been vexing both the body and the spirit of the apostle. He had no rest from its persecutions; and his joy in proclaiming the free grace of God to the world was mixed with a constant sorrow that in so doing he was held to be disloyal to the calling of his fathers. He was now approaching a crisis in the long struggle, and the shadow of it had been made to rest upon his mind throughout his journey to Jerusalem. He came ready to die for the name of the Lord Jesus, but he came expressly to prove himself a faithful Jew, and this purpose emerges at every point of the history.

Luke does not mention (except incidentally. Act 24:17) the contributions brought by Paul and his companions for the poor at Jerusalem. But it is to be assumed that their first act was to deliver these funds into the proper hands. This might be done at the interview which took place on the following day with James and all the elders. As on former occasions, the believers at Jerusalem could not but glorify God for what they heard; but they had been alarmed by the prevalent feeling concerning Paul. They said to him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law; and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. This report, as James and the elders assume, was not a true one; it was a perversion of Paul’s real teaching, which did not, in fact, differ from theirs. In order to dispel such rumors, they ask him to do publicly an act of homage to the law and its observances. They had four men who were under the Nazaritish vow. The completion of this vow involved (Num 6:13-21) a considerable expense for the offerings to be presented in the Temple; and it was a meritorious act to provide these offerings for the poorer Nazarites. Paul was requested to put himself under the yow with those other four, and to supply the cost of their offerings. He at once accepted the proposal, and on the next day, having performed some ceremony which implied the adoption of the vow, he went into the Temple. announcing that the due offerings for each Nazarite were about to be presented and the period of the vow terminated. It appears that the whole process undertaken by Paul required seven days to complete it. Towards the end of this time certain Jews from Asia, who had come up for the Pentecostal feast, and who had a personal knowledge both of Paul himself and of his companion Trophimus, a Gentile from Ephesus, saw Paul in the Temple. They immediately set upon him, and stirred up the people against him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: this is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place; and further brought Greeks also into the Temple, and hath polluted this holy place. The latter charge had no more truth in it than the first: it was only suggested by their having seen Trophimus with him, not in the Temple, but in the city. They raised, however, a great commotion: Paul was dragged out of the Temple, of which the doors were immediately shut, and the people, having him in their hands, were proposing to kill him. But tidings were soon carried to the commander of the force which was serving as a garrison in Jerusalem, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar; and he, taking with him soldiers and centurions, hastened to the scene of the tumult. Paul was rescued from the violence of the multitude by the Roman officer, who made him his own prisoner, causing him to be chained to two soldiers, and then proceeded to inquire who he was and what he had done. The inquiry only elicited confused outcries, and the chief captain seems to have imagined that the apostle might perhaps be a certain Egyptian pretender who had recently stirred up a considerable rising of the people, apparently the same impostor mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 20:7, 6; War, 2:13, 5). The account in the Acts (Act 21:34-40) tells us with graphic touches how Paul obtained leave and opportunity to address the people in a discourse which is related at length.

This discourse was spoken in Hebrew that is, in the native dialect of the country and was on that account listened to with the more attention. It is described by Paul himself, in his opening words, as his defense, addressed to his brethren and fathers. It is in this light that it ought to be regarded. As we have seen, the desire which occupied the apostle’s mind at this time was that of vindicating his message and work as those of a faithful Jew. The discourse spoken to the angry people at Jerusalem is his own justification of himself. He adopts the historical method, after which all the recorded appeals to Jewish audiences are framed. He is a servant of facts. He had been from the first a zealous Israelite like his hearers. He had changed his course because the God of his fathers had turned him from one path into another. It is thus that he is led into a narrative of his conversion. We have already noticed the differences, in the statement of bare facts, between this narrative and that of the 9th chapter. The business of the student, in this place, is to see how far the purpose of the apostle will account for whatever is special to this address. That purpose explains the detailed reference to his rigorously Jewish education, and to his history before his conversion. It gives point to the announcement that it was by a direct operation from without upon his spirit, and not by the gradual influence of other minds upon his, that his course was changed. Incidentally we may see a reason for the admission that his companions heard not the voice of him that spake to me in the fact that some of them, not believing in Jesus with their former leader, may have been living at Jerusalem, and possibly present among the audience. In this speech the apostle is glad to mention, what we were not told before, that the Ananias who interpreted the will of the Lord to him more fully at Damascus was a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, and that he made his communication in the name of Jehovah, the God of Israel, saying The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see the Righteous One, and hear a voice out of his mouth; for thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. Having thus claimed, according to his wont, the character of a simple instrument and witness, Paul goes on to describe another revelation of which we read nothing elsewhere. He had been accused of being an enemy to the Temple. He relates that after the visit to Damascus he went up again to Jerusalem, and was praying once in the Temple itself, till he fell into a trance. Then he saw the Lord, and was bidden to leave Jerusalem quickly, because the people there would not receive his testimony concerning Jesus. His own impulse was to stay at Jerusalem, and he pleaded with the Lord that there it was well known how he had persecuted those of whom he was now one-implying, it would appear, that at Jerusalem his testimony was likely to be more impressive and irresistible than elsewhere; but the Lord answered with a simple command, Depart; for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

Until this hated word, of a mission to the Gentiles, had been spoken, the Jews had listened to the speaker. They could bear the name of the Nazarene, though they despised it; but the thought of that free declaration of God’s grace to the Gentiles, of which Paul was known to be the herald, stung them to fury. Jewish pride was in that generation becoming hardened and embittered to the utmost; and this was the enemy which Paul had come to encounter in its stronghold. Away with such a fellow from the earth. the multitude now shouted; it is not fit that he should live. The Roman commander, seeing the tumult that arose, but not understanding the language of the speech, might well conclude that Paul had committed some heinous offense; and, carrying him off, he gave orders that he should be forced by scourging to confess his crime. Again the apostle took advantage of his Roman citizenship to protect himself from such an outrage. To the rights of that citizenship he, a free-born Roman, had a better title than the chief captain himself; and if he had chosen to assert it before, he might have saved himself from the indignity of being manacled.

The Roman officer was bound to protect a citizens and to suppress tumult; but it was also a part of his policy to treat with deference the religion and the customs of the country. Paul’s present history is the resultant of these two principles. The chief captain set him free from bonds, but on the next day called together the chief priests and the Sanhedrim, and brought Paul as a prisoner before them. We need not suppose that this was a regular legal proceeding: it was probably an experiment of policy and courtesy. If, on the one hand, the commandant of the garrison had no power to convoke the Sanhedrim, on the other hand he would not give up a Roman citizen to their judgment. As it was, the affair ended in confusion, and with no semblance of a judicial termination. The incidents selected by Luke from the history of this meeting form striking points in the biography of, Paul, but they are not easy to understand. The difficulties arising here, not out of a comparison of two independent narratives, but out of a single narrative which must at least have appeared consistent and intelligible to the writer himself, are a warning to the student not to draw unfavorable inferences from all apparent discrepancies. Paul appears to have been put upon his defense, and with the peculiar habit, mentioned elsewhere also (Act 13:9), of looking steadily when about to speak (), he began to say, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience (or, to give the force of , I have lived a conscientiously loyal life) unto God, until this day.

Here the high-priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. With a fearless indignation, Paul exclaimed, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? The bystanders said, Revilest thou God’s high-priest? Paul answered, I knew not, brethren, that he was the high-priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. The evidence furnished by this admission of Paul’s respect both for the law and for the high-priesthood was probably the reason for relating the outburst which it followed. Whether the writer thought that outburst culpable or not does not appear. St. Jerome (contra Pelag. iii, quoted by Baur) draws an unfavorable contrast between the vehemence of the apostle and the meekness of his Master; and he is followed by many critics, as, among others, De Wette and Alford. But it is to be remembered that He who was led as a lamb to the slaughter was the same who spoke of whited sepulchres, and exclaimed, Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how shall ye escape the damnation of hell? It is by no means certain, therefore, that Paul would have been a truer follower of Jesus if he had held his tongue under Ananias’s lawless outrage. But what does his answer mean? How was it possible for him not to know that he who spoke was the high- priest? Why should he have been less willing to rebuke an iniquitous high- priest than any other member of the Sanhedrim, sitting to judge him after the law? These are difficult questions to answer. It is possible that Ananias was personally unknown to Paul; or that the high-priest was not distinguished by dress or place from the other members of the Sanhedrim. The least objectionable solution seems to be that for some reason or other- either because of some defect in his eyesight, or if some obstruction or confusion, or temporary inadvertance he did not at the moment recognize the rank of the person who ordered him to be smitten; and that he wished to correct the impression which he saw was made upon some of the audience by his threatening protest, and therefore took advantage of the fact that he really did not know the speaker to be the high-priest, to explain the deference he felt to be due to the person holding that office. That Paul’s language cannot have been a mere apology for a sudden outburst of passion is clear from his own direct assertion that he did not at the time know whom he was addressing, and is confirmed by the apparently prophetic impulse under which he spoke. SEE ANANIAS, 13.

The next incident which Luke records seems to some, who cannot think of the apostle as remaining still a Jew, to cast a shadow upon his rectitude. He perceived, we are told, that the council was divided into two parties, the Sadducees and Pharisees, and therefore he cried out, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. This declaration, whether so intended or not, had the effect of stirring up the party spirit of the assembly to such a degree that a fierce dissension arose, and some of the Pharisees actually took Paul’s side, saying, We find no evil in this man: suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him? Those who impugn the authenticity of the Acts point triumphantly to this scene as an utterly impossible one; others consider that the apostle is to be blamed for using a disingenuous artifice. But it is not so clear that Paul was using an artifice at all, at least for his own interest in identifying himself as he did with the professions of the Pharisees. He had not come to Jerusalem to escape out of the way of danger, nor was the course he took on this occasion the safest he could have chosen. Two objects, we must remember, were dearer to him than his life: (1) to testify of Him whom God had raised from the dead, and (2) to prove that in so doing he was a faithful Israelite. He may well have thought that both these objects might be promoted by an appeal to the nobler professions of the Pharisees. The creed of the Pharisee, as distinguished from that of the Sadducee, was unquestionably the creed of Paul. His belief in Jesus seemed to him to supply the ground and fulfillment of that creed. He wished to lead his brother Pharisees into a deeper and more living apprehension of their own faith.

Whether such a result was in any degree attained we do not know: the immediate consequence of the dissension which occurred in the assembly was that Paul was like to be torn in pieces, and was carried off by the Roman soldiers. In the night he had a vision, as at Corinth (Act 18:9-10) and on the voyage to Rome (Act 27:23-24), of the Lord standing by him, and encouraging him. Be of good cheer, Paul, said his Master; for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. It was not safety that the apostle longed for, but opportunity to bear witness of Christ.

Probably the factious support which Paul had gained by his manner of bearing witness in the council died away as soon as the meeting was dissolved. On the next day a conspiracy was formed, which the historian relates with a singular fullness of details. More than forty of the Jews bound themselves under a vow neither to eat nor to drink until they had killed Paul. Their plan was to persuade the Roman commandant to send down Paul once more to the council, and then to set upon him by the way and kill him. This conspiracy became known in some way to a nephew of Paul. his sister’s son, who was allowed to see his uncle and inform him of it, and by his desire was taken to the captain, who was thus put on his guard against the plot. This discovery baffled the conspirators, and it is to be presumed that they obtained some dispensation from their vow. The consequence to Paul was that he was hurried away from Jerusalem. The chief captain, Claudius Lysias, determined to send him to Caesarea, to Felix, the governor or procurator of Judaea. He therefore put him in charge of a strong guard of soldiers, who took him by night as far as Antipatris. Thence a smaller detachment conveyed him to Caesarea, where they delivered up their prisoner into the hands of the governor, together with a letter, in which Claudius Lysias explained to Felix his reason for sending Paul, and announced that his accusers would follow. Felix, Luke tells us, with that particularity which marks this portion of his narrative, asked of what province the prisoner, was; and being told that he was of Cilicia, he promised to give him a hearing when his accusers should come. In the mean time he ordered him to be guarded chained, probably, to a soldier in the government-house, which had been the palace of Herod the Great.

(2.) Detention at Caesarea. Paul was henceforth, to the end of the period embraced in the Acts, if not to the end of his life, in Roman custody. This custody was in fact a protection to him, without which he would have fallen a victim to the animosity of the Jews. He seems to have been treated throughout with humanity and consideration. His own attitude towards Roman magistrates was invariably that of a respectful but independent citizen; and while his franchise secured him from open injustice, his character and conduct could not fail to win him the good-will of those into whose hands he came. The governor before whom he was now to be tried, according to Tacitus and Josephus, was a mean and dissolute tyrant. SEE FELIX. Per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit (Tacitus, Hist. v. 9). But these characteristics, except perhaps the servile ingenium, do not appear in our history. The orator or counsel retained by the Jews, and brought down by Ananias and the elders, when they arrived in the course of five days at Caesarea, begins the proceedings of the trial professionally by complimenting the governor. The charge he goes on to set forth against Paul shows precisely the light in which he was regarded by the fanatical Jews. He is a pestilent fellow (); he stirs up divisions among the Jews throughout the world; he is a ringleader of the sect () of the Nazarenes. His last offense had been an attempt to profane the Temple. Paul met the charge in his usual manner. He was glad that his judge had been for some years governor of a Jewish province; because it is in thy power to ascertain that, not more than twelve days since, I came up to Jerusalem to worship. The emphasis is upon his coming up to worship. He denied positively the charges of stirring up strife and of profaning the Temple.

But he admitted that after the way ( ) which they call a sect, or a heresy so he worshipped the God of his fathers, believing all things written in the law and in the prophets. Again he gave prominence to the hope of a resurrection, which he held, as he said, in common with his accusers. His loyalty to the faith of his fathers he had shown by coming up to Jerusalem expressly to bring alms for his nation and offerings, and by undertaking the ceremonies of purification in the Temple. What fault, then, could any Jew possibly find in him? The apostle’s answer was straightforward and complete. He had not violated the law of his fathers; he was still a true and loyal Israelite. Felix, it appears, knew a good deal about the way ( ), as well as about the customs of the Jews, and was probably satisfied that Paul’s account was a true one. He made an excuse for putting off the matter, and gave orders that the prisoner should be treated with indulgence, and that his friends should be allowed free access to him. After a while Felix heard him again. His wife, Drusilla, was a Jewess, and they were both curious to hear the eminent preacher of the new faith in Christ. But Paul was not a man to entertain an idle curiosity. He began to reason concerning righteousness, temperance, and the coming judgment, in a manner which alarmed Felix, and caused him to put an end to the conference. He frequently saw him afterwards, however, and allowed him to understand that a bribe would procure his release. But Paul would not resort to this method of escape, and he remained in custody until Felix left the province. The unprincipled governor had good reason to seek to ingratiate himself with the Jews; and to please them he handed over Paul, as an untried prisoner, to his successor Festus.

At this point, as we shall hereafter see, the history of Paul comes into its closest contact with external chronology. Festus, like Felix, has a place in secular history, and he bears a much better character. Upon his arrival in the province he went up without delay from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and the leading Jews seized the opportunity of asking that Paul might be brought up there for trial, intending to assassinate him by the way. But Festus would not comply with their request. He invited them to follow him on is speedy return to Caesarea, and a trial took place there, closely resembling that before Felix. Festus saw clearly enough that Paul had committed no offense against the law, but he was anxious at the tame time, if he could, to please the Jews, They had certain questions against him, Festus says to Agrippa, of their own superstition (or religion), and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And being puzzled for my part as to such inquiries, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem to be tried there. This proposal, not a very likely one to be accepted, was the occasion of Paul’s appeal to Caesar. In dignified and independent language he claimed his rights as a Roman citizen. We can scarcely doubt that the prospect of being forwarded by this means to Rome, the goal of all his desires, presented itself to him and drew him onwards, as he virtually protested against the indecision and impotence of the provincial governor, and exclaimed, I appeal unto Caesar. Having heard this appeal, Festus consulted with his assessors, found that there was no impediment in the way of its prosecution, and then replied, Hast thou appealed to Caesar? To Caesar thou shalt go. Properly speaking, an appeal was made from the sentence of an inferior court to the jurisdiction of a higher. But in Paul’s case no sentence had been pronounced. We must understand, therefore, by his appeal, a demand to be tried by the imperial court, and we must suppose that a Roman citizen had the right of electing whether he would be tried in the province or at Rome. SEE APPEAL.

The appeal having been allowed, Festus reflected that he must send with the prisoner a report of the crimes laid against him. But he found that it was no easy matter to put the complaints of the Jews in a form which would be intelligible at Rome. He therefore took advantage of an opportunity which offered itself in a few days to seek some help in the matter. The Jewish prince Agrippa arrived with his sister Berenice on a visit to the new governor. To him Festus communicated his perplexity, together with an account of what had occurred before him in the case. Agrippa, who must have known something of the sect of the Nazarenes, and had probably heard of Paul himself, expressed a desire to hear him speak. The apostle therefore was now called upon to bear the name of his Master before Gentiles and kings. The audience which assembled to hear him was the most dignified which he had yet addressed, and the state and ceremony of the scene proved that he was regarded as no vulgar criminal. Festus, when Paul had been brought into the council-chamber, explained to Agrippa and the rest of the company the difficulty in which he found himself, and then expressly referred the matter to the better knowledge of the Jewish king. Paul, therefore, was to give an account of himself to Agrippa; and when he had received from him a courteous permission to begin, he stretched forth his hand and made his defense.

In this discourse (Acts 26) we have the second explanation from Paul himself of the manner in which he had been led, through his conversion, to serve the Lord Jesus instead of persecuting his disciples; and the third narrative of the conversion itself. Speaking to Agrippa as to one thoroughly versed in the customs and questions prevailing among the Jews, Paul appeals to the well-known Jewish and even Pharisaical strictness of his youth and early manhood. He reminds the king of the great hope which sustained continually the worship of the Jewish nation the hope of a deliverer, promised by God himself, who should be a conqueror of death. He had been led to see that this promise was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth; he proclaimed his resurrection to be the pledge of a new and immortal life. What was there in this of disloyalty to the traditions of his fathers? Did his countrymen disbelieve in this Jesus as the Messiah? So had he once disbelieved in him; and had thought it his duty to be earnest in hostility against his name. But his eyes had been opened: he would tell how and when.

The story of the conversion is modified in this address, as we might fairly expect it to be. We have seen that there is no absolute contradiction between the statements of this and the other narratives. The main points the light, the prostration, the voice from heaven, the instructions from Jesus are found in all three. But in this account, the words I am Jesus whom thou persecutest are followed by a fuller explanation, as if then spoken by the Lord, of what the work of the apostle was to be. The other accounts defer this explanation to a subsequent occasion. But when we consider how fully the mysterious communication made at the moment of the conversion included what was afterwards conveyed, through Ananias and in other ways, to the mind of Paul; and how needless it was for Paul, in his present address before Agrippa, to mark the stages by which the whole lesson was taught, it seems merely captious to base upon the method of this account a charge of disagreement between the different parts of this history. They bear, on the contrary, a striking mark of genuineness in the degree in which they approach contradiction without reaching it. It is most natural that a story told on different occasions should be told differently; and if in such a case we find no contradiction as to the facts, we gain all the firmer impression of the substantial truth of the story. The particulars added to the former accounts by the present narrative are, that the words of Jesus were spoken in Hebrew, and that the first question to Saul was followed by the saying, It is hard for thee to kick against the goads. (This saying is omitted by the best authorities in the 9th chapter.) The language of the commission which Paul says he received from Jesus deserves close study, and will be found to bear a striking resemblance to a passage in Colossians (Col 1:12-14). The ideas of light, redemption, forgiveness, inheritance, and faith in Christ, belong characteristically to the Gospel which Paul preached among the Gentiles, Not less striking is it to observe the older terms in which he describes to Agrippa his obedience to the heavenly vision. He had made it his business, he says, to proclaim to all men that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance words such as John the Baptist uttered, but not less truly Pauline. He finally reiterates that the testimony on account of which the Jews sought to kill him was in exact agreement with Moses and the prophets. They had taught men to expect that the Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people and to the Gentiles. Of such a Messiah Saul was the servant and preacher.

At this point Festus began to apprehend what seemed to him a manifest absurdity. He interrupted the apostle discourteously, but with a compliment contained iii his loud remonstrance: Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. The phrase may possibly have been suggested by the allusion to Moses and the prophets; but it probably refers to the books with which Paul had been supplied, and which he was known to study during his imprisonment. As a biographical hint, this phrase is not to be overlooked. I am not’ mad, most noble Festus, replied Paul; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. Then, with an appeal of mingled dignity and solicitude, he turns to the king. He was sure the king understood him. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. The answer of Agrippa can hardly have been the serious and encouraging remark of our English version. Literally rendered, it appears to be, You are briefly persuading me to become a Christian; and it is generally supposed to have been spoken ironically. It rather signifies, You are slightly ( ) successful. I would to God, is Paul’s earnest answer, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether ( ) such as I am, except these bonds. He was wearing a chain upon the hand he held up in addressing them. With this prayer, it appears, the conference ended. Festus and the king, and their companions, consulted together, and came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of nothing that deserved death or imprisonment. Agrippa’s final answer to the inquiry of Festus was, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

(3.) Voyage to Rome. No formal trial of Paul had yet taken place. It appears from Act 28:18 that he knew how favorable the judgment of the provincial government was likely to be. But the vehement opposition of the Jews, together with his desire to be conveyed to Rome, might well induce him to claim a trial before the imperial court. After a while arrangements were made to carry Paul and certain other prisoners, in the custody of a centurion named Julius, into Italy; and among the company, whether by favor or from any other reason, we find the historian of the Acts. The narrative of this voyage is accordingly minute and circumstantial in a degree which has excited much attention. The nautical and geographical details of Luke’s account have been submitted to an apparently thorough investigation by several competent critics, especially by Mr. Smith, of Jordanhill, in an important treatise devoted to the subject, and by Mr. Howson. The result of this investigation has been that several errors in the received version have been corrected, that the course of the voyage has been laid down to a very minute degree with great certainty, and that the account in the Acts is shown to be written by an accurate eye- witness, not himself a professional seaman, but well acquainted with nautical matters. We shall hasten lightly over this voyage, referring the reader to the works above mentioned, and to the articles on the names of places and the nautical terms which occur in the narrative. SEE SHIPWRECK.

The centurion and his prisoners, among whom Aristarchus (Col 4:10) is named, embarked at Caesarea on board a ship of Adramyttium, and set sail for the coast of Asia. On the next day they touched at Sidon, and Julius began a course of kindly and respectful treatment by allowing Paul to go on shore to visit his friends. The westerly winds, still usual at the time of year (late in the summer), compelled the vessel to run northwards under the lee of Cyprus. Off the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia they would find northerly winds, which enabled them to reach Myra in Lycia. Here the voyagers were put on board another ship, which had come from Alexandria and was bound for Italy. In this vessel they worked slowly to windward, keeping near the coast of Asia Minor, till they came over against Cnidus. The wind being still contrary, the only course now was to run southwards, under the lee of Crete, passing the headland of Salmone. They then gained the advantage of a weather shore, and worked along the coast of Crete as far as Cape Matala, near which they took refuge in a harbor called Fair Havens, identified with one bearing the same name to this day.

It now became a serious question what course should be taken. It was late in the year for the navigation of those days. The fast of the day of expiation (Lev 23:27-29), answering to the autumnal equinox, was past, and Paul gave it as his advice that they should winter where they were. But the master and the owner of the ship were willing to run the risk of seeking a more commodious harbor, and the centurion followed their judgment. It was resolved, with the concurrence of the majority, to make for a harbor called Phoenix, sheltered from the south-west winds, as well as from the northwest. (The phrase is rendered either looking down the south-vest [Smith and Alford], or looking towards the south- west, when observed from the sea and towards the land enclosing it [Howson].) SEE PHOENICE.

A change of wind occurred which favored the plan, and by the aid of a light breeze from the south they were sailing towards Phoenix (now Lutro), when a violent north-east wind, SEE EUROCLYDON came down from the land ( , scil. ), caught the vessel, and compelled them to let her drive before the wind. In this course they arrived under the lee of a small island called Clauda, about twenty miles from Crete, where they took advantage of comparatively smooth water to get the boat on board, and to undergird, or frap, the ship. There was a fear lest they should be driven upon the Syrtis on the coast of Africa, and they therefore lowered the gear, or sent down upon deck the gear connected with the fair-weather sails, and stood out to sea with storm-sails set and on the starboard tack (Smith). The bad weather continued, and the ship was lightened on the next day of her way-freight, on the third of her loose furniture and tackling. For many days neither sun nor stars were visible to steer by, the storm was violent, and all began to despair of safety. The general discouragement was aggravated by the abstinence caused by the difficulty of preparing food, and the spoiling of it; and in order to raise the spirits of the whole company, Paul stood forth one morning to relate a vision which had occurred to him in the night. An angel of the God whose he was and whom he served had appeared to him and said, Fear not, Paul: thou must be brought before Caesar; and lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee. At the same time he predicted that the vessel would be cast upon an island and be lost.

This shipwreck was to happen speedily. On the fourteenth night, as they were drifting through the sea, SEE ADRIA, about midnight, the sailors perceived indications, probably the roar of breakers, that land was near. Their suspicion was confirmed by soundings. They therefore cast four anchors out of the stern, and waited anxiously for daylight. After a while the sailors lowered the boat with the professed purpose of laying out anchors from the bow, but intending to desert the ship, which was in imminent danger of being dashed to pieces. Paul, aware of their intention, informed the centurion and the soldiers of it, who took care, by cutting the ropes of the boat, to prevent its being carried out. He then addressed himself to the task of encouraging the whole company, assuring them that their lives would be preserved, and exhorting them to refresh themselves quietly after their long abstinence with a good meal. He set the example himself, taking bread, giving thanks to God, and beginning to eat in presence of them all. After a general meal, in which there were two hundred and seventy-six persons to partake, they further lightened the ship by casting overboard the cargo ( , the wheat with which the vessel was laden). When the light of the dawn revealed the land, they did not recognize it, but they discovered a creek with a smooth beach, and determined to run the ship aground in it. So they cut away the anchors, unloosed the rudder-paddles, raised the foresail to the wind, and made for the beach. When they came close to it they found a narrow channel between the land on one side, which proved to be an islet, and the shore; and at this point, where the two seas met, they succeeded in driving the fore part of the vessel fast into the clayey beach. The stern began at once to go to pieces under the action of the breakers; but escape was now within reach. The soldiers suggested to their commander that the prisoners should be effectually prevented from gaining their liberty by being killed; but the centurion, desiring to save Paul, stopped this proposition, and gave orders that those who could swim should cast themselves first into the sea and get to land, and that the rest should follow with the aid of such spars as might be available. By this creditable combination of humanity and discipline the deliverance was made as complete as Paul’s assurances had predicted it would be.

The land on which they had been cast was found to belong to Malta. SEE MALTA. The very point of the stranding is made out with great probability by Mr. Smith. The inhabitants of the island received the wet and exhausted voyagers with no ordinary kindness, and immediately lighted a fire to warm them. This particular kindness is recorded on account of a curious incident connected with it. The apostle was helping to make the fire, and had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, when a viper came out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand they believed him to be poisoned by the bite, and said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped from the sea, yet Vengeance suffers not to live. But when they saw no harm come of it, they changed their minds and said he was a god. This circumstance, as well as the honor in which he was held by Julius, would account for Paul being invited with some others to stay at the house of the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius. By him they were courteously entertained for three days. The father of Publius happened to be ill of fever and dysentery, and was cured by Paul; and when this was known many other sick persons were brought to him and were cured. So there was a pleasant interchange of kindness and benefits. The people of the island showed the apostle and his company much honor, and when they were about to leave loaded them with such things as they would want. The Roman soldiers would carry with them to Rome a deepened impression of the character and the powers of the kingdom of which Paul was the herald.

After a three months’ stay in Malta the soldiers and their prisoners left in an Alexandrian ship for Italy. A.D. 56. They touched at Syracuse, where they stayed three days, and at Rhegium, from which place they were carried with a fair wind to Puteoli, where they left their ship and the sea. At Puteoli they found brethren, for it was an important place, and especially a chief port for the traffic between Alexandria and Rome; and by these brethren they were exhorted to stay awhile with them. Permission seems to have been granted by the centurion; and while they were spending seven days at Puteoli news of the apostle’s arrival was sent on to Rome. The Christians at Rome, on their part, sent forth some of their number, who met Paul at Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae; and on this first introduction to the Church at Rome the apostle felt that his long desire was fulfilled at last. He thanked God and took courage.

(4.) Confinement at Rome. On their arrival at Rome the centurion doubtless delivered up his prisoners into the proper custody, that of the praetorian prefect. Paul was at once treated with special consideration, and was allowed to dwell by himself with the soldier who guarded him. He was not released from this galling annoyance of being constantly chained to a keeper; but every indulgence compatible with this necessary restraint was readily allowed him. He was now therefore free to preach the Gospel to them that were at Rome also; and proceeded without delay to act upon his rule to the Jew first. He invited the chief persons among the Jews to come to him, and explained to them that though he was brought to Rome to answer charges made against him by the Jews in Palestine, he had really done nothing disloyal to his nation or the law, nor desired to be considered as hostile to his fellow-countrymen. On the contrary, he was in custody for maintaining that the hope of Israel had been fulfilled. The Roman Jews replied that they had received no tidings to his prejudice. The sect of which he had implied he was a member they knew to be everywhere spoken against; but they were willing to hear what he had to say. It has been thought strange that such an attitude should be taken towards the faith of Christ by the Jews at Rome, where a flourishing branch of the Church had existed for some years; and an argument has been drawn from this representation against the authenticity of the Acts. But it may be accounted for without violence from what we know and may probably conjecture.

(1.) The Church at Rome consisted mainly of Gentiles, although it must be supposed that they had previously been for the most part Jewish proselytes.

(2.) The real Jews at Rome had been persecuted and sometimes entirely banished, and their unsettled state may have checked the contact and collision which would have been otherwise likely.

(3.) Paul was possibly known by name to the Roman Jews, and curiosity may have persuaded them to listen to him.

Even if he were not known to them, yet here, as in other places, his courteous bearing and strong expressions of adhesion to the faith of his fathers would win a hearing from them. A day was therefore appointed, on which a large number came expressly to hear him expound his belief; and from morning till evening he bore witness to the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets. So the apostle of the Gentiles had not yet unlearned the original apostolic method. The hope of Israel was still his subject. But, as of old, the reception of his message by the Jews was not favorable. They were slow of heart to believe at Rome as at Pisidian Antioch. The judgment pronounced by Isaiah had come, Paul testified, upon the people. They had made themselves blind and deaf and gross of heart. The Gospel must be proclaimed to the Gentiles, among whom it would find a better welcome. He turned therefore again to the Gentiles, and for two years he dwelt in his own hired house, and received all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God, and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

These are the last words of the Acts. This history of the planting of the kingdom of Christ in the world brings us down to the time when the Gospel was openly proclaimed by the great apostle in the Gentile capital, and stops short of the mighty convulsion which was shortly to pronounce that kingdom established as the divine commonwealth for all men. The work of Paul belonged to the preparatory period. He was not to live through the time when the Son of Man calme in the destruction of the Holy City and Temple, and in the throes of the New Age. The most significant part of his work was accomplished when in the Imperial City he had declared his Gospel, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. But his career is not abruptly closed. Before he himself fades out of our sight in the twilight of ecclesiastical tradition, we have letters written by himself, which contribute some particulars to his external biography, and give us a far more precious insight into his convictions and sympathies.

10. Subsequent History.

(1.) Later Epistles. We might naturally expect that Paul, tied down to one spot at Rome, and yet free to speak and write to whom he pleased, would pour out in letters his love and anxiety for distant churches. It has hence been supposed by some that the author of the extant Epistles wrote very many which are not extant. But of this there is not a particle of evidence; nor were the circumstances of Paul after all very favorable for extended epistolary correspondence. It is difficult enough to connect in our minds the writing of the known Epistles with the external conditions of a human life; to think of Paul, with his incessant chain and soldier, sitting down to write or dictate, and producing for the world an inspired epistle. But it is almost more difficult to imagine the Christian communities of these days, samples of the population of Macedonia or Asia Minor, receiving and reading such letters. Yet the letters were actually written; and they must of necessity be accepted as representing the kind of communications which marked the intercourse of the apostle and his fellow-Christians. When he wrote, he wrote out of the fullness of his heart; and the ideas on which he dwelt were those of his daily and hourly thoughts. To that imprisonment to which Luke has introduced us the imprisonment which lasted for such a tedious time, although tempered by much indulgence belongs certainly the noble group of Letters to Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, and probably also that peculiar one, the Letter to the Hebrew Christians. The first three of these were written at one time and sent by the same messengers. Whether that to the Philippians was written before or after these we cannot determine; but the tone of it seems to imply that a crisis was approaching, and therefore it is commonly regarded as the latest of the four.

Paul had not himself founded the Church at Colossae. But during his imprisonment at Rome he had for an associate he calls him a fellow- prisoner (Phm 1:23) a chief teacher of the Colossian Church named Epaphras. He had thus become deeply interested in the condition of that Church. It happened that at the same time a slave named Onesimus came within the reach of Paul’s teaching, and was converted into a zealous and useful Christian. This Onesimus had run away from his master; and his master was a Christian of Colossae. Paul determined to send back Onesimus to his master; and with him he determined also to send his old companion Tychicus (Act 20:4), as a messenger to the Church at Colossee and to neighboring churches. This was the occasion of the letter to Philemon, which commended Onesimus, in language of singular tenderness and delicacy, as a faithful and beloved brother, to his injured master; and also of the two letters to the Colossians and Ephesians. That to the Colossians, being drawn forth by the most special circumstances, may be reasonably supposed to have been written first. It was intended to guard the Church at Colossse from false teaching, which the apostle knew to be infesting it. For the characteristics of this Epistle we must refer to the special article. The end of it (Col 4:7-18) names several friends who were with Paul at Rome, as Aristarchus, Marcus (Mark), Epaphras, Luke, and Demas. SEE COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.

For the writing of the Epistle to the Ephesians there seems to have been no more special occasion than that Tychicus was passing through Ephesus. The highest characteristic which these two Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians have in common is that of a presentation of the Lord Jesus Christ, fuller and clearer than we find in previous writings, as the Head of creation and of mankind. All things created through Christ, all things coherent in him, all things reconciled to the Father by him, the eternal purpose to restore and complete all things in him such are the ideas which grew richer and more distinct in the mind of the apostle as he meditated on the Gospel which he had been preaching, and the truths implied in it. In the Epistle to the Colossians this divine Headship of Christ is maintained as the safeguard against the fancies which filled the heavens with secondary divinities, and which laid down rules for an artificial sanctity of men upon the earth. In the Epistle to the Ephesians the eternity and universality of God’s redeeming purpose in Christ, and the gathering of men unto him as his members, are set forth as gloriously revealed in the Gospel. In both, the application of the truth concerning Christ as the Image of God and the Head of men to the common relations of human life is dwelt upon in detail. SEE EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.

The Epistle to the Philippians resembles the Second to the Corinthians in the effusion of personal feeling, but differs from it in the absence of all soreness. The Christians at Philippi had regarded the apostle with love and reverence from the beginning, and had given him many proofs of their affection. They had now sent him a contribution towards his maintenance at Rome, such as we must suppose him to have received from time to time for the expenses of his own hired house. The bearer of this contribution was Epaphroditus, an ardent friend and fellow-laborer of Paul, who had fallen sick on the journey or at Rome (Php 2:27). The Epistle was written to be conveyed by Epaphroditus on his return, and to express the joy with which Paul had received the kindness of the Philippians. He dwells therefore upon their fellowship in the work of spreading the Gospel, a work in which he was even now laboring, and scarcely with less effect on account of his bonds. His imprisonment had made him known, and had given him fruitful opportunities of declaring his Gospel among the imperial guard (Php 1:13), and even in the household of the Caesar (Php 4:22). He professes his undiminished sense of the glory of following Christ, and his expectation of an approaching time in which the Lord Jesus should be revealed from heaven as a deliverer. There is a gracious tone running through this Epistle, expressive of humility, devotion, kindness, delight in all things fair and good, to which the favorable circumstances under which it was written gave a natural occasion, and which helps us to understand the kind of ripening which had taken place in the spirit of the writer. SEE PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.

To the close of this imprisonment apparently also belongs the Epistle to the Hebrews (q.v.).

(2.) Last Labors and Martyrdom. In both these last Epistles Paul expresses a confident hope that before long he may be able to visit the persons addressed in person (Php 1:25, , . .; Php 2:24, , . . .; Heb 13:19, , . . .; Heb 13:23, ). Whether this hope were fulfilled or not belongs to a question which now presents itself to us, and which has been the occasion of much controversy. According to the general opinion, the apostle was liberated from his imprisonment and left Rome soon after the writing of the letter to the Philippians, spent some time in visits to Greece, Asia Minor, and Spain, returned again as a prisoner to Rome, and was put to death there. In opposition to this view it is maintained by some that he was never liberated, but was put to death at Rome at an earlier period than is commonly supposed. The arguments adduced in favor of the common view are: (1) the hopes expressed by Paul of visiting Philippi (already named) and Colossae (Phm 1:22); (2) a number of allusions in the Pastoral Epistles, and their general character; and (3) the testimony of ecclesiastical tradition. The arguments in favor of the single imprisonment appear to be wholly negative, and to aim simply at showing that there is no proof of a liberation or departure from Rome. It is contended that Paul’s expectations were not always realized, and that the passages from Philemon and Philippians are effectually neutralized by Act 20:25, I know that ye all (at Ephesus) shall see my face no more; inasmuch as the supporters of the ordinary view hold that Paul went again to Ephesus. This is a fair answer, but inconsistent, inasmuch as it assumes the certainty of Paul’s expectations, which this theory had just denied. The argument from the Pastoral Epistles is met most simply by a denial of their genuineness. The tradition of ecclesiastical antiquity is affirmed to have no real weight. The decision must turn mainly upon the view taken of the Pastoral Epistles. It is true that there are many critics, including Wieseler and Dr. Davidson, who admit the genuineness of these Epistles, and yet, by referring 1 Timothy and Titus to an earlier period, and by strained explanations of the allusions in 2 Timothy, get rid of the evidence they are generally understood to give in favor of a second imprisonment. The voyages required by the two former Epistles, and the writing of them, are placed within the three years spent chiefly at Ephesus (Act 20:31). But the hypothesis of voyages during that period not recorded by Luke is just as arbitrary as that of a release from Rome, which is objected to expressly because it is arbitrary; and such a distribution of the Pastoral Epistles is shown by overwhelming evidence to be untenable. The whole question is discussed in a masterly and decisive manner by Alford in his Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles. If, however, these Epistles are not accepted as genuine, the main ground for the belief in a second imprisonment is cut away. For a special consideration of the Epistles, let the reader refer to the aticles on SEE TIMOTHY and SEE TITUS.

The difficulties which have induced such critics as De Wette and Ewald to reject these Epistles are not inconsiderable, and will force themselves upon the attention of the careful student of Paul. But they are overpowered by the much greater difficulties attending any hypothesis which assumes these Epistles to be spurious. We are obliged therefore to recognize the modifications of Paul’s style, the developments in the history of the Church, and the movements of various persons, which have appeared suspicious in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, as nevertheless historically true. And then, without encroaching on the domain of conjecture, we draw the following conclusions:

(1) Paul must have left Rome, and visited Asia Minor and Greece; for he says to Timothy (1Ti 1:3), I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I was setting out for Macedonia. After being once at Ephesus, he was purposing to go there again (1Ti 4:13), and he spent a considerable time at Ephesus (2Ti 1:18).

(2) He paid a visit to Crete, and left Titus to organize churches there (Tit 1:5). He was intending to spend a winter at one of the places named Nicopolis (Tit 3:12).

(3) He traveled by Miletus (2Ti 4:20), Troas (2Ti 4:13), where he left a cloak or case, and some books, and Corinth (2Ti 4:20).

(4) He is a prisoner at Rome, suffering unto bonds as an evil-doer (2Ti 2:9), and expecting to be soon condemned to death (2Ti 4:6). At this time he felt deserted and solitary, having only Luke of his old associates to keep him company; and he was very anxious that Timothy should come to him without delay from Ephesus, and bring Mark with him (2Ti 1:15; 2Ti 4:9-12; 2Ti 4:16).

These facts may be amplified by probable additions from conjecture and tradition. There are strong reasons for placing the three Epistles at as advanced a date as possible, and not far from one another. The peculiarities of style and diction by which these are distinguished from all his former epistles, the affectionate anxieties of an old man, and the glances frequently thrown back on earlier times and scenes, the disposition to be hortatory rather than speculative, the references to a more complete and settled organization of the Church, the signs of a condition tending to moral corruption, and resembling that described in the apocalyptic letters to the Seven Churches would incline us to adopt the latest date which has been suggested for the death of Paul, so as to interpose as much time as possible between the Pastoral Epistles and the former group. Now the earliest authorities for the date of Paul’s death are Eusebius and Jerome, who place it, the one (Chronic. Ann. 2083) in the thirteenth, the other (Cat. Script. Eccl. Paulus) in the fourteenth year of Nero. These dates would allow some seven or eight years between the first imprisonment and the second. During these years, according to the general belief of the early Church, Paul accomplished his old design (Rom 15:28) and visited Spain. Ewald, who denies the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles, and with it the journeyings in Greece and Asia Minor, believes that Paul was liberated and paid this visit to Spain (Geschichte, 6:621, 631,632); yielding upon this point to the testimony of tradition.

The first writer quoted in support of the journey to Spain is one whose evidence would indeed be irresistible if the language in which it is expressed were less obscure. Clement of Rome, in a hortatory and rather rhetorical passage (Ephesians 1 ad Cor. c. 5), refers to Paul as an example of patience, and mentions that he preached , and that before his martyrdom he went . It is probable, but can hardly be said to be certain, that by this expression, the goal of the west, Clement was describing Spain, or some country yet more to the west. The next testimony labors under a somewhat similar difficulty from the imperfection of the text, but it at least names unambiguously a profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. This is from Muratori’s Fragment on the Canon (Routh, Rel. Sac. 4:1-12). (See the passage quoted and discussed in Wieseler, Chron. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 536, etc., or Alford, 3:93.) Afterwards Chrysostom says simply, , (on 2Ti 4:20); and Jerome speaks of Paul as set free by Nero, that he might preach the Gospel of Christ in Occidentis quoque partibus (Cat. Script. Eccl. Paulus). Against these assertions nothing is produced, except the absence of allusions to a journey to Spain in passages from some of the fathers where such allusions might more or less be expected. Dr. Davidson (Introd. to the New Test. 3:15, 84) gives a long list of critics who believe in Paul’s release from the first imprisonment. Wieseler (p. 521) mentions some of these, with references, and adds some of the more eminent German critics who believe with him in but one imprisonment. These include Schrader, Hemsen, Winer, and Baur. The only English name of any weight to be added to this list is that of Dr. Davidson. (See further below.)

We conclude, then, that after a wearing imprisonment of two years or more at Rome, Paul was set free, and spent some years in various journeyings eastwards and westwards. Towards the close of this time he pours out the warnings of his less vigorous but still brave and faithful spirit in the letters to Timothy and Titus. The first to Timothy and that to Titus were evidently written at very nearly the same time. After these were written, he was apprehended again and sent to Rome. As an eminent Christian teacher Paul was now in a far more dangerous position than when he was first brought to Rome. The Christians had been exposed to popular odium by the false charge of being concerned in the great Neronian conflagration of the city, and had been subjected to a most cruel persecution. The apostle appears now to have been treated, not as an honorable state-prisoner, but as a felon (2Ti 2:9). But he was at least allowed to write this second letter to his dearly beloved son Timothy; and though he expresses a confident expectation of his speedy death, he yet thought it sufficiently probable that it might be delayed for some time, to warrant him in urging Timothy to come to him from Ephesus. Meanwhile, though he felt his isolation, he was not in the least daunted by his danger. He was more than ready to die (4:6), and had a sustaining experience of not being deserted by his Lord. Once already, in this second imprisonment, he had appeared before the authorities; and the Lord then stood by him and strengthened him, and gave him a favorable opportunity for the one thing always nearest to his heart, the public declaration of his Gospel.

This epistle, surely no unworthy utterance at such an age and in such an hour even of a Paul, brings us, it may well be presumed, close to the end of his life. For what remains, we have the concurrent testimony of ecclesiastical antiquity that he was beheaded at Rome, about the same time that Peter was crucified there. The earliest allusion to the death of Paul is in that sentence from Clemens Romanus, already quoted: Having gone to the boundary of the West, and testified before rulers, so he departed out of the world ( , ), which just fails of giving us any particulars upon which we can conclusively rely. The next authorities are those quoted by Eusebius in his Hist. Ecc 2:25. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (A.D. 170), says that Peter and Paul went to Italy and taught there together, and suffered martyrdom about the same time. This, like most of the statements relating to the death of Paul, is mixed up with the tradition, with which we are not here immediately concerned, of the work of Peter at Rome. Caius of Rome, supposed to be writing within the 2d century, names the grave of Peter on the Vatican, and that of Paul on the Ostian Way. Eusebius himself entirely adopts the tradition that Paul was beheaded under Nero at Rome. Among other early testimonies, we have that of Tertullian, who says (De Praescr. Haeret. 36) that at Rome Petrus passioni Dominicas adequatur, Paulus Johannis [the Baptist] exitu coronatur; and that of Jerome (Cat. Scr. Paulus), Hic ergo 14to Neronis anno (eodem die quo Petrus) Romae pro Christo capite truncatus sepultusque est, in via Ostiensi. It would be useless to enumerate further testimonies of what is undisputed.

It would also be beyond the scope of this article to attempt to exhibit the traces of Paul’s apostolic work in the history of the Church. But there is one indication, so exceptional as to deserve special mention, which shows that the difficulty of understanding the Gospel of Paul and of reconciling it with a true Judaism was very early felt. This is in the apocryphal work called the Clementines ( ), supposed to be written before the end of the 2d century. These curious compositions contain direct assaults (for though the name is not given, the references are plain and undisguised) upon the authority and the character of Paul. Peter is represented as the true apostle, of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews, and Paul as , who opposes Peter and James. The portions of the Clementines which illustrate the writer’s view of Paul will be found in Stanley’s Corinthians (Introd. to 2 Cor.); and an account of the whole work, with references to the treatises of Schliemann and Baur, in Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. i, 58.

III. Special Investigations. We propose here briefly to take up the various disputed points above referred to, the discussion of which, in their respective connections, would have interrupted the narrative.

1. On the chronology of Paul’s life, see the following works: Pearson, Annales Paulini, in his Posthum. Op. (Lond. 1688, and separately at Halle, 1719); Hottinger, Pentas dissertat. Bibl. Chromn p. 305 sq.; Vogel, in Gabler’s Journal f: auserl. theol. Lit. 1:229 sq.; Haselaar, De nonnullis Act. Apost. et Epp. Paul. ad hist. P. pertinent. locis (L. B. 1806); Hug, Einleit. 2:263; SUskind, in Bengel’s A rchiv, 1:156 sq., 297 sq.; Schmidt, in Keil’s Analekt. III, 1:128 sq.; Schrader, Paculus, vol. i; Schott, Erorterung wichtiger chronol. Puncte in d. Lebensgesch. d. P. (Jena, 1832);- Anger, De tempor. in Actis. (Leips. 1833); Wurm, in the Tiibing. Zeitschr. fur Theol. 1833; Wieseler, Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters (Getting. 1848); Conybeare and Howson, Life and Letters of St. Paul (Lond. 1850); Davidson, Introd. to the New Test. (ibid.) vol. ii; Lewin, Elements of Early Christ. Chron.; Browne, Ordo Sceclorum. The fundamental points on which this chronology depends are his joining the Christian Church (Kuchler, De Anno quo P. ad Sac. Christ. Conver. est, Leips. 1828), and his journey to Jerusalem. It is of course utterly impossible to determine the year of Paul’s birth. According to an old tradition (Orat. de Petro et Paulo in Chrysost. Opp. ed. Bened. 8:10), it falls in the second year after Christ. Schrader places it in the fourteenth year after Christ. It is easier to determine the time of his joining the Church than of his visit to Jerusalem (comp. Act 9:22 sq. with 2Co 11:32). But two difficulties arise: first, we are not certain whether this open act of allegiance to Christianity took place during the first or second stay of Paul, after his conversion, at Damascus (Gal 1:17; the latter seems probable, according to Act 9:26); and, second, the year in which an ethnarch of the Arabian king Aretas ruled in Damascus affords no satisfactory ground for chronology. (Yet see Neander, Pfanz. 1:127 sq.). It is even urged that the Arabian ethnarch was present only as a private man (Anger, p. 181); but this is improbable in view of the expressions used by Paul (2Co 11:32). We must, however, be content to give up the hope of using this as a safe starting- point for Paul’s chronology. SEE ARETAS.

We have, however, the death of king Agrippa (Acts 12), and the arrival of the procurator Porcius Festus in his province of Judaea (Act 24:27), as the two extreme points between which the active missionary life of Paul lies. Now we know certainly that king Agrippa died in the year 44, and the arrival of Festus may be fixed with high probability in the summer of the year 55. SEE FESTUS. But with regard to the details of the events which occurred between these periods the widest diversity of opinion exists, even among the ablest investigators, on grounds which we cannot here set forth. SEE CHRONOLOGY. The chronological arrangement which seems, on the whole, the most probable, is given under the head ACTS SEE ACTS (q.v.).

2. On the family of Paul, Jerome remarks that Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, and the town of Gischala, in Judaea (comp. , a small city in Galilee: Joseph. War, 2:20, 6; 4:1, 1; Life, 10:38; and Reland, Palaest. p. 813), and, when this town was taken by the Romans, he emigrated with his parents to Tarsus, in Cilicia. But this is plainly contradicted by Act 22:3, where Paul speaks of himself as a native of Tarsus; nor is it easy to see how Gischala could have been taken by the Romans during Paul’s childhood, so that residents judged it prudent to emigrate. A story of the Ebionites (Epiphan. Haer. 30, 16:25) tells us that Paul was by birth a heathen, but became a Jew in Jerusalem, in order to obtain the high-priest’s daughter in marriage! It is not certainly known how Paul’s father obtained the right of Roman citizenship (see Becker, Romans Alterthumsk. II, 1:89 sq.; Cellar. Dissertat. 2:710 sq.; Deyling, Observat. 3:388 sq.; Arntzen, Diss. de civitate Pauli, Traj. ad Rhen. 1725). Either some ancestor, perhaps the father of Paul himself, had obtained it by great service to the state (Grotius, ad loc.; Cellarius, ut sup. p. 726 sq.), or he had purchased it (Gronov. Ad Joseph. Decr.pro Jud. p. 42; Deyling, ut sup. p. 393 sq.). The supposition that the whole city of Tarsus received the right from Augustus is without ground (comp. Bengel, on Act 16:27). SEE TARSUS.

If the reading , son of a Pharisee,’ in Act 23:6, were correct, we might infer that only Paul’s father had belonged to this sect; but if, with the best manuscripts, we read, , son of Pharisees, it would imply that his ancestors had been Pharisees for several or many generations; and perhaps that they had been reckoned among the most aristocratic of the Jews. We know nothing further of Paul’s family, save that he had a sister and a nephew, the latter living in Jerusalem (Act 23:16), and that he was not himself married (1Co 7:7; comp. 9:5; and see Schmid, De Apostolis Uxoratis, p. 80 sq., where also the account of Clemens Alexand. in Euseb. 3:30, is examined; esp. see Usher, Prolegom. in Ignat. c. 17; Append. to 2d vol. Patres Apost. ed. Coteler. Cleric. p. 226 sq.). The tradition affirms that Paul led with him for some time as a companion the young woman Thecla, of Iconium, whom he had converted (Menolog. Graec. 1:66).

3. As to Paul’s trade, on the word tent-maker () we may refer to the Lexicons, to Bertholdt (v. 2698 sq.), and Schurtzfleisch (De Paullo , Leips. 1699). Luther makes it carpet-maker; Morus (in Act 18:3) and others, maker of mats or mattresses; Michaelis (Einl. ins N.T. 216) and Hanlemn (inl. ins NV. T. 3:301), tool-maker; Chrysostom and others, worker in leather (= ); Hug (Introd. p. 505, Fosdick’s transl.) and Eichhorn (Einl. ins N.T. 3:8), maker of tent- cloth; but most critics agree with our translators in rendering it tent- maker (comp. Kuinol, Dindorf, Rosenmller, Olshausen, Schleusner). Shepherds. travelers, and others used small tents of cloth or leather as a protection against the weather, especially at night. The manufacture of them was a flourishing and profitable employment. SEE TENT. Paul accordingly preferred, when opportunity offered, to support himself by laboring at this trade, rather than to live upon the gifts of the Church (Act 18:3; 1Co 4:12; 1Th 2:9; 2Th 3:8). There was a goat’s-hair cloth called Cilicium, manufactured in Cilicia, and largely used for tents. Paul’s trade was probably that of making tents of this haircloth.

4. As to Paul’s education, there was a flourishing Greek academy in Tarsus, and the residents were respected in other countries fortheir cultivation. Whether and how far this circumstance influenced Paul while young cannot be determined; probably he was yet very young when he went to Jerusalem, and obtained his facility in the use of the Greek language and his Hellenistic education rather by his travels among the Greeks than in his native city. It is not in itself probable that he attended a Greek school in Tarsus, nor can it be proved from his writings. He shows in them rather the learning of a Jewish rabbi, for which position he had been educated (Gal 1:14), and the logical training of a Pharisee (Ammon, Opuscula, p. 63 sq.), supported by a remarkable natural endowment; and the few quotations from Greek poets which are found in his epistles and speeches (see Jerome, on Isaiah 1), as in 1Co 15:33; Act 17:28 (see Progr. by Benner [Giess. 1753], on Tit 1:12; Schickendanz, De trib. a Paullo profanor. scriptis allegatis [Servest. 1764]; Von Seclen, Meditt. Exeg. 2:312 sq.; Hoffmann, De Paullo Apost. Scriptor. prof. allegante [Tub. 1770]), might have been picked up in the course of his travels, as they are merely general, and perhaps proverbial, sentences. So as regards the few words quoted from Aratus, we need not suppose, with Tholuck, that the apostle had read him, although this is not very improbable (Neander, 1:111); nor must we forget that Paul seems to indicate (Gal 6:11) that it was not easy for him to write in Greek letters (see Thalemann, De EFIuditione Panlli Judaica non Griceca [Leips. 1769]; Michaelis, Einl. 1:162 sq.; Henke, on Paley, lorae Paulinoe, p. 469 sq. On the contrary side, Strom bach, De Eruditione Paulli [Leips. 1708]; Schramm, De stupenda Eruditione Paulli [Herborn, 1710]; Miller, in the Biblioth. Lubec. v. 104 sq.). The active mind of the apostle did not remain ignorant even of the philosophical speculations of the day. But by the philosophy of Paul (see Zobel, De Paullo philosopho [Altdorf, 1701]; Feller, De Patho philosopho plane divino [Viteb. 1740]; Bieck, De Pauli philosophia, in Heumann’s Act. Philos. 13:124 sq.) is not meant a formal system or scientific view, but simply that his mind had a philosophical turn. In the same manner the acquaintance he betrays occasionally with the Roman law does not at all pass beyond the miost common legal relations, and cannot be called jurisprudence (Kirchmaier, Dejurisprudentia Paullina [Viteb. 1730]; Westenburg, Opusc. Academ. ed. Piittmann [Leips. 1794]; Stryck, De jurisprud. Paul. [Halle, 1705]; Freiesleben, De jurisprud. Paul. [Leips. 1840]). The style of Paul’s Epistles shows that he had acquired a real facility in expressing himself in Greek; and the Greek coloring which appears through all the Hebraisms of his style excludes the supposition that he conceived his letters in Hebrew (Arameean). Translations from the Hebrew by a foreign hand, and that, as it is urged in excess of learned trifling, an unskilled one would read quite otherwise. The Greek style of Paul rises even at times to eloquence (Hug, Einleit. 2:285), although he may have seemed to the Greeks rude in speech (2Co 11:6), and a better Pauline system of rhetoric could easily be derived from his works than Baur suggests (Halle, 1782, 2:8; see Kirchmaier, De P. Eloquentia [Viteb. 1695]; Baden, De Eloquent. Pauli [Havn. 1786]; Tzschirner, Observat. Pauli epistol. scriptoris ingenium concernentes [Viteb. 1800], 3:4; Hoffmann, De stilo Pauli [Tubing. 1757]). Paul not only talked Greek in the ordinary intercourse of life, but was able to make extemporaneous speeches in Greek (Act 21:37; Act 17:22 sq.).

Nor can there be any doubt of the acquaintance of the apostle with Latin, and his ability to speak it (see Ehrhardt, De Latinitate Pauli [Silus. 1755]. 2:4). But perhaps his idiomatic facility in the Greek had failed him, and led to his employment of an amanuensis. Extravagant claims have often been made on the apostle’s behalf as to his classical education, based upon slender evidence. This evidence consists (1) of a few supposed references, in the discourse alluded to by Dr. Bentley, to certain dogmas of the Greek philosophers; but even supposing the apostle to have had these in his eye, it will not follow that he must have studied the writings in which these dogmas were unfolded and defended, because he might have learned enough of them to guide him to such referenced, as by the supposition he makes in that discourse, from those controversial encounters with the philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics which we are told he had in the market-place of Athens, previous to the delivery of his oration on the Areopagus; (2) of three quotations made by him from Greek poets: one from the Phoenomena (Act 17:5), of his countryman Aratus (Act 17:28), one from a lost play of Menander (1Co 15:33), and one from Epimenides (Tit 1:12), all of which, however, bear the general character of gnomes or proverbs, and might consequently find their way to the apostle merely as a part of the current coin of popular conversation, without his having once visited the treasury whence they were originally drawn; and (3) of certain similarities of idea and expression between some passages of the apostle and some that are found in classic authors (Horne, Introd. 4:343); but none of which are of such a nature as to necessitate the conclusion that the coincidence is more than purely accidental. SEE EDUCATION.

5. On the conversion of Paul there are various views (see Lyttleton, Observ. on the Convers. of Paul [Lond. 1747], and Kuinol, Comment. 4:329 sq.). The older view, and the prevailing one still in England and America, which interprets the accounts literally, and supposes a visible manifestation of Jesus, is brought forward by Miller (De Je u a Paullo Viso [Gott. 1778]). But the prevailing current of German opinion, under rationalistic influence, has for a long time been to explain away the supernatural elements in this narrative, either by referring them to the imagination of Paul and his followers, working on natural events (see Ammon, De repentina Sauli ad doctr. Christi conversione [Erl. 1792], also in his Opusc. Theol. 1 sq.; Eichhorn, Biblioth. der bibl. Lit. vi sq.; Greiling, in Henke’s Mus. 3:226 sq.; Schulz, in Heinrich’s Beitr. z. Beford. d. theol. Wiss. 1:47 sq.; Bengel, Observ. de Pauli ad rem Christ. conver. [Tubing. 1819], 2:4 [this work takes, however, a middle course, and shows more than usual regard for the narrative]; Planck, Gesch. der ersten Periode d. Christen, 2:90 sq. But Neander [i. 116] and Olshausen [on Act 9:1] return partially to the old view), or reject the narrative entirely as a relation of actual facts (so Bretschneider, Land. der Dogmatik, 1:325 sq., who considers all as a vision; Baur, p. 63 sq., who makes the account a fable, framed out of Paul’s internal experience, by his defenders, as an offset to Peter’s vision, Act 10:11).

The apologetic bearing of Saul’s conversion, according to the obvious meaning of the Scripture narrative, upon the question of the supernatural origin of Christianity is too obvious not to have rendered the subject a field of fierce debate among the contending parties. The Christian Church, as a whole, has ever appealed to this remarkable event as furnishing irresistible evidence of the truth of the crowning miracle of the Gospel, the resurrection of our Lord. Upon this one fact, the conversion and apostleship of Paul, a well-known author (Lyttleton) has consented to lay the whole stress of the argument. Was Paul an impostor, or an enthusiast, or deceived by others? Let us weigh the probabilities. This is not the case of a rude Galilasan peasant, whose untutored perceptions might be supposed incapable of distinguishing between natural and miraculous phenomena; but of a man of acute and discriminating intellect, well versed in Jewish learning, and not unacquainted with classic lore; and so far from being predisposed towards the Christian cause, or even, like his master Gamaliel, content to remain neutral, or to leave the event to a higher power, animated by sentiments of the bitterest hostility to Christ and to Christ’s followers. His most cherished associations, his temporal prospects, alike pointed to his continuance in the Jewish faith. His subsequent course furnishes no evidence of any change of mind. His convictions and his zeal know no abatement, and at length he seals his ministry with a martyr’s death. If we examine his extant letters, we find in them not a trace of the credulous or the enthusiastic or the fanatical temperament, which might explain the phenomenon. According to the ordinary motives of human action, Paul’s conversion is, if the facts were not as stated, unaccountable.

Feeling the force of this, the modern opponents of the supernatural have retreated from the position of the elder deists, and, admitting that Paul believed that he saw and heard the risen Savior, have attempted to explain the matter either on a combination of natural and psychological grounds, or on the latter purely. The very excess of Paul’s antichristian zeal paved the way to his conversion. It brought him into contact with the Christians, and thus made him acquainted with the arguments for and against the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah. Was the scandal of the cross decisive against this claim? An impartial examination of the prophets would prove that the idea of a suffering Messiah was familiar to them. To himself as a Pharisee the idea of a resurrection from the dead would present no difficulties. The patience and joy with which the Christians encountered suffering must have produced a deep impression upon him. Thus a state of doubt and hesitation would naturally succeed to that of unreasoning prejudice. Might not the death of Christ, shameful as it appeared, be really, as the Christians considered it, God’s ordinance for the salvation of the world? If his resurrection were but a fact, it would turn the scale. The more this thought fixed itself in Paul’s mind, the more, in the agony of suspense to which it would give rise, would he long for some convincing proof of what he had come to hope might be true. On that memorable journey the crisis took place. As he was vainly endeavoring, by redoubled efforts against the Christian faith, to stifle the remonstrances of conscience and the growth of conviction, either a sudden thunder-storm which overtook him (Ammon), or his own excited imagination without any external cause aiding (Baur, Holsten), so affected the nerves of vision and hearing that an appearance or phantasm of the risen Savior, uttering words of reproach and admonition, figured itself on his retina, and produced the effects recorded.

Such is the latest form of the rationalistic theory on this subject. To us it appears wholly inadequate to support the conclusion intended, viz. that no external manifestation of Christ took place. We can but briefly touch upon its inherent improbabilities. That Paul fully believed that the transaction had an existence external to himself is plain, not merely from his own references to it (Act 22:6-10), but from his unhesitating claim to be an apostle of Christ, in no wise inferior to those who had seen the Savior in his humiliation (1Co 9:1). Now it was the special qualification for the apostolic office that the holder of it should have beheld the Lord in his glorified body, so as to be able to testify to the fact of his resurrection. (See especially Act 1:22, and the addresses of Peter in ch. ii and iii of that book.) As certainly, therefore, as Paul claimed to be an apostle, so certainly was it his conviction that, like his colleagues, he had had ocular demonstration of our Lord’s resurrection: on no other ground could he have asserted a coordinate rank and authority. Still, it is no doubt possible that he might have mistaken vision for reality; or at least that Luke, the historian, might have confounded the two. But, in fact, both writers exhibit a perfect consciousness of the difference between them. Peter’s vision (Acts 10) is expressly described as such (Act 10:3); and that the distinction was familiar to the historian is proved by his observation in the account of the same apostle’s miraculous deliverance, that he wist not that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he saw a vision. We are told that it was in a vision that Christ appeared to Ananias (Act 9:10), and to Paul himself on subsequent occasions (Act 18:9; Act 22:17). The apostle speaks in various passages of his Epistles of a state of ecstatic trance, as not unfrequent with him; and in such cases whether he was in the body or out of the body he could not tell; a description which presents a strong contrast to the positive matter-of-fact style which the apostle uses in describing what took place on the journey to Damascus.

It is clear then that both Luke and Paul, far from placing all supernatural communications in the same category, drew a distinction, well-known and acknowledged, between a mere vision, or rapture, and an external manifestation; and, therefore, if they had regarded that appearance of Christ which issued in the conversion of the latter as an instance of vision merely, they would have described it as such. The hypothesis, therefore, that they were unable to distinguish the one from the other falls to the ground. Not less ungrounded, as far as the evidence is concerned, is the psychological explanation. There is no trace in the history of any intercourse between Paul and Christians of a friendly nature previous to his conversion. Neither is there any evidence of a growing struggle in his own mind between prejudice and conviction as to the truth of Christianity. His mental and moral conflicts were wholly of a legal character (Romans 7). Is it credible that if, as the theory supposes, such a struggle had been going on he would have continued, as he did, in his career of persecution to the last moment? Moreover, is it agreeable to experience that a change, not merely of view but of heart, so vast as to be called by Paul himself a new creation, should have been wrought by the unaided exercise of the natural powers? The theory sinks under an accumulation of inherent improbabilities. There remains only the other alternative, that Paul really beheld the risen Savior piercing the clouds of heaven as he will do at the last day, and visible in his glorified body. Nor can we fail to perceive the divine wisdom in this extraordinary conversion. Natures like Paul’s can only be transformed, if at all, suddenly and with a mighty shock: a lightning stroke of conviction must fuse the hard metal; or, to vary the image, the veil that was upon his heart must be split from without, if the light of heaven was to visit the darkened chamber.

6. Evangelistic Labor. Paul’s personal efforts for the spread of the Gospel consisted chiefly in oral preaching, enforced with eloquence of the heart. He did not usually occupy himself with baptism (1Co 1:14 sq.), but left this ceremony to his companions and attendants ( , Act 19:22; , Rom 16:21; Php 2:25; Phm 1:24), of whom he gradually collected a considerable number (Act 20:4; Phm 1:24), and used them as emissaries (Act 19:22; Act 17:14; 1Co 4:17; Php 2:25; 1Th 3:2). After he parted with Barnabas and Mark (Act 15:37 sq.) he numbered among them especially Silas (comp. Act 15:40), Timothy (Act 16:1 sq.), Luke the physician, Titus, Demas, Erastus, and Epaphroditus. He first came in contact with the original apostles of Jesus and the Mother-Church in Jerusalem through Barnabas (Act 9:27), but he renewed his acquaintance with them by frequent tarrying in that city (Act 15:4; Galatians 2; Act 21:18). In his fundamental view of the invalidity of the Mosaic law for Christians, Paul disagreed with some of the apostles, and on this ground had at one time a dispute with Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:11 sq.; see Bockel, De controversia inter Paul. et Petr. Leips. 1817, and Winer, Comment. ad loc.), and continued always to be an object of suspicion to the Jerusalem Christians (Act 21:21). But this did not prevent him from making collections wherever he could in behalf of the poor Christians in Jerusalem and Judaea (Rom 15:25 sq.; 1 Corinthians 16; 2 Corinthians 8 sq.; Gal 2:10; Act 24:17). He extended his apostolic labors from Syria to the north and north-west (Rom 15:19), where he could not fear to disturb the sphere of work of others (2Co 10:16; Rom 15:20); but even there he was not, it seems, altogether unaffected by the authorities of the Church in Palestine (1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22). His whole life was a struggle against adversaries as wily as they were unwearying (Scharling, De Paullo ejusq. adversariis, Havn. 1836). Not only did the Jews in Palestine and elsewhere persecute their former companion with the whole weight of their national and religious hatred (Act 9:23; Act 13:50; Act 14:5 sq.; Act 17:5; Act 18:12; Act 21:27 sq.; Act 23:12), but even within the Christian Church itself, openly and secretly, Judaizing Christians and philosophizing Christians opposed him; and while Paul was defending Christian freedom against the stiff legality of the former, he was compelled to rescue the historical basis of Christianity from the errors of the latter. Like other great teachers, too, he was forced sometimes to meet misunderstanding of his own instructions (1Co 15:10; 1Co 8:9). Although Paul saw the necessary end of the Jewish ritual, yet, in dealing with the weak, he was no bigoted opponent of it (1Co 9:19-20); he not only had Timothy circumcised (Act 16:3), but himself fulfilled a Jewish vow (Act 21:24 sq.; SEE NAZARITE, and Lakemacher, Observ. 6:364 sq.). Only where Jewish prejudices pressed in with bold demands, and threatened serious trouble, did he manifest severity (Gal 2:4 sq.). On the other hand, his opponents left nothing untried to diminish his apostolical authority, descending even to slander (2 Corinthians 1; comp. 10). They had even forged letters under Paul’s name (2Th 2:2; see Neander, 1:281). Thus his life was really a series of continuous strife and danger (2Co 11:23 sq.).

7. Visits to Corinth. From several passages of 2 Corinthians (2Co 2:1; 2Co 12:14; 2Co 12:21; 2Co 13:1-2) it has appeared to many that before the writing of that epistle Paul had twice visited Corinth, and that one of these visits had been after the Church there had fallen into an evil state. The words (2Co 12:14) are usually explained as meaning only, I am a third time prepared to come, and in accordance with this it is thought that (2Co 13:1) may be rendered This third time I am purposing to come to you; so that it is not of a third visit, but simply of a third purpose to visit that Paul speaks. Against this the following arguments are urged:

(1) That though may signify I am coming in the sense of purposing to come, the whole phrase cannot be rendered this is the third time I have purposed to come to you; as De Wette remarks (Erklhirung, ad loc.), it is only when the purpose is close on its accomplishment, not of an earlier purpose, that can be so used. But in this case the does not refer to any previous purpose; that is implied only in the : so that the instance fairly comes under the usage of the pres. for the determined fut. (Kruiger, Griech. Sprachl. v. 148, 149; Winer, Gr. Gr. p. 281). Moreover, we have the apostle’s own epexegesis of his usus loquendi in the parallel passage, showing that denoted the intention or readiness () only.

(2) The contrast of in 2Co 13:1 with in 2Co 13:2 leads to the conclusion that it is of a third visit, and not of a third purpose to visit, that Paul is writing; he had told them formerly when he was present with them the second time, and now when absent, in announcing a third visit, he tells them again, etc. Some render, as in the A.V., by as if present, so as to make the apostle intimate that he had not been oftener than once before at Corinth; but it is very doubtful if is ever used to express the supposition of a case which does not exist (1Co 5:3 is not a case in point, for there the case supposed actually did exist), and, moreover, as it is connected here as well with as with , if we translate it as if, the whole clause will read thus, I tell you beforehand, as if I were present the second time, and were now absent, etc., which is of course as inadmissible on the ground of sense as the rendering in the A.V. is on critical grounds. If, however, as is far more natural, we construe with immediately preceding, rather than with either of the verbs in the beginning of the verse, and render as one present the second time, we have a direct argument (in harmony with all the other passages which speak of his determination as if already a fact) that there had been but one previous visit to Corinth, namely, that during which the Church was planted.

(3) In 12:14 the apostle intimates his being ready to go to Corinth in connection with his resolution not to be burdensome to the Christians there. Now, inasmuch as it was not Paul’s purpose to visit them that could impose any burden on them, but his actual presence with them, it is said that there seems no fitness in such a connection in his telling them of his mere repeated purpose to visit them; in order to make congruity out of this, we must regard him as saying, I was not burdensome to you when with you before, and now I have a third time formed a purpose to visit you; but when I make out this visit, I will not be burdensome to you any more than at first, though it be a thrice purposed visit. Accordingly it is claimed that to find all this in the few words he utters is to attribute to the apostle a somewhat improbable breviloquence. Nevertheless, nothing could be more natural than the phraseology here, on the supposition that the second intended visit had not taken place. The purpose still remained, and the visit was looked upon as certain; when it did occur, Paul hoped not to be a burden to his hosts. And if we construe (as we may properly do, despite Alford’s subjective emendation) the here also with its nearer verb , we have again a positive statement of a third preparation only to make the visits. The reason why the apostle is so emphatic on this point is that his enemies had charged him with fickleness respecting it (1:17), and had even questioned it altogether (1Co 4:18). See in favor of this intermediate visit, Bleek (Stud. u. Krit. 1830; Einleit. p. 393) and others; against it, Davidson (Introd. 2:213 sq.) and Lange (Apost. Zeitalter, 1:199 sq.).

On the other hand we have the following arguments:

(1) In 2Co 1:15-16, the apostle speaks of a second benefit as to be anticipated by the Corinthians from his visiting them; from which it is argued that he could only have been there once before, else would he have used consistent language, and spoken of a third benefit, and not a second only. To escape from this difficulty various expedients have been devised, such as taking here for a double benefit ( , Bleek and Neander, after Chrysostom and Theodoret), and supposing the term of the apostle’s residence at Corinth (Act 18:1-11) divided into two parts, in the interval between which he had made a short excursion fron Corinth and back again, so that in one sense he had twice before visited that city, and, in another sense, had only once before visited it. But these are violent expedients, manifestly devised for maintaining a previous hypothesis. The only tenable solution that will save the supposed visit seems to be that proposed by Meyer, who takes the expression ( ) in connection with the return from Macedonia ( ); the apostle determines to visit them first before going to Macedonia, and thereby secure to them a double benefit by going thence to Macedonia, and returning to them from Macedonia in place of going to the latter place first (so also Alford, ad loc.). But it is very harsh thus to refer the , before (whether construed with the actual coming, , or with the simple purpose, ), to the journey into Macedonia, which had not yet been spoken of; it clearly designates something prior to the time of writing, namely, the design of an earlier and second visit that should bring an additional conferment of spiritual gifts. It may therefore be fairly set off against whatever force there may be thought to remain in the first of the above arguments on the other side. There was a third intention of a second visit.

(2) Those who suppose this second visit already made are greatly perplexed where to locate it: they generally fix upon some presumed interval in the apostle’s three years’ stay at Ephesus. Now it should be noted that this is not only a pure hypothesis, without a word to sustain it in the direct history covering this very period, but Paul’s time is stated to have been exclusively employed in the labors at Ephesus, both by his own explicit statement respecting the whole three years (Act 20:31, by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day), and also by Luke’s nearly as strong language concerning the first two years (disputing daily in the school of Tyrannus; and this continued by the space of two years, Act 19:9-10), during which, if at all, the supposed trip to Corinth occurred. There is certainly no room for it in the narrative there.

(3) If such a visit were made, how comes it that neither in the Acts nor in Paul’s letters are there any positive and definite notices of it or of its results? It is altogether unsafe to found so palpable a historical conclusion upon these few, slight, and ambiguous expressions. A treatise has been written by Muller, De Tribus Pauli Itin. (Basle, 1831). SEE CORINTHIANS.

8. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome is represented as a lax one (Act 28:16; Act 28:23; Act 28:30), but still imprisonment; for by the words in his own hired house (Act 28:30), Luke cannot mean a life at freedom, or he must have mentioned Paul’s liberation before. Bottger (Beitrage, etc., pt. 2) would prove, by reference to the judicial customs of the Romans, and on the supposition that the letters to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon were written in Caesarea, that Paul was confined but a few days in Rome. But the artificial argument which he uses will not satisfy any one who desires a firm historical ground for his belief. (See remarks in reply by Olshausen and Neander, Gesch. d. Pflanz. 1:428.) But it is puzzling that Luke, giving so particularly the period of two years, says nothing of what Paul did after the two years. Did he end this work at their close? This seems probable, although the Acts was certainly written after the Gospel, according to Act 1:1 (see Hug, Einleit. 2:262 sq.). The apostolic history is completed by the tradition in Abdias (Hist. Apost. 2:6 sq.), which makes Paul’s imprisonment end with his execution. But since the 4th century the prevailing tradition has been that Paul was at that time released, and made several apostolic journeys afterwards (Niceph. 2:34), especially one to Spain (Cyril. of Jerus. Catech. c. 17; Jerome, in Jes. 11:14; see Weller, De verosim. P. in Hisp. martyrio [Argent. 1787]; comp. against this view Spier, Diss. qua testimonia patrum de Pauli itinere Hisp. labefactantur [Viteb. 1740]; Hist. Crit. de Hisp. P. itinere [1742]; Harenburg, Otia Gandershem. p. 161 sq.), or even farther (Theodoret, in Psalm cxvi), as into Britain (Minter, Stud. u. Krit. 1833, 1:55); and at last was again implisoned in Rome, and put to death at the same time with Peter (Eusebius, Hist. Ecc 2:22; Ecc 2:25; comp. Acta Petri et Pauli, Gr. ed. Thilo [Hal. 1838]). The oldest tradition of Paul’s release, and the only one worthy of any attention, is that in Eusebius (Hist. Ecc 2:22; comp. Danz, Pr. de loco Euseb. H. E. 2:21 [Jena, 1816]). But he simply mentions it as a report ( ), and the confirmation which he draws from the Second Epistle to Timothy would lead us to suppose that those who originated this report had derived, as the moderns have, the idea of a second imprisonment of Paul from that epistle. But no such stress should be laid upon the First Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, as has been given it, for example, by Neander (1:653 sq.) and Bohl (p. 95 sq.; comp. Baur, ut sup. p. 150; Schenkel, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 56 sq.; yet see Neander, 1:454). It is mainly the peculiar difficulty of referring this Second Epistle to Timothy to any point in the known life of the apostle which has led to the supposition of a second imprisonment. This argument has been urged with great acuteness by Neander (1:453 sq.). The following authors have opposed the idea of a second imprisonment of Paul: Oldendorp, in D. Brem. u. Verdenzsch. Biblioth. 3:1027 sq.; Schmidt, Einleit. ins N.T. p. 198 sq.; Eichhorn, Einzleit. 3:364 sq.; Wolf, De altera P. ap. captivitacte (Leips. 1819), 2:8; Schrader, Paulus, 1:227 sq.; Goschen, in Hemsen, p. 736 sq.; Schenkel, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, 1:53 sq.; Baur, Paul. p. 229 sq.; Niedner, Kirchengesch. p. 104 sq.; De Wette. Einleit. 2:220 sq. On the other hand, in favor of the journey, see Heyrdenreich, Bearbeit. d. Pastoralbr. 2:6 sq.; Mynster, Kleine theol. Schrift. p. 291 sq.; Neander, ut sup.; Bohl, Abfass. der Briefe an Tim. u. Titus p. 81 sq.; Schott, Erorterung, p. 116 sq.; Wurm, in the Tubing, Zeitschr. 1853, 1:82 sq.; Guericke, Einleit. ins N.T. p. 338 sq.; Walch, Biblioth. Theol. 3:455. Others are cited above.

9. Personal Appearance and Character. All testimony; his own included (2Co 10:10), leads to the conclusion that in outward appearance the apostle had nothing to command admiration or respect. His figure was diminutive, his eyesight defective (comp. Act 23:5; Gal 4:15), and his speech such as produced little effect. An ancient writer adds that he was bald, and had a hooked nose like an eagle’s beak. The combination of these features presents such a figure as one may often see among the Jews of our own day, especially in the humbler class of them. Such pictorial representations of the apostle as have come down to us in paintings and mosaics agree in the main with this, though they give more of power and dignity to the apostle’s countenance than this would lead us to expect. They are the early pictures and mosaics described by Mrs. Jameson, and passages from Malalas, Nicephorus, and the apocryphal Acta Pauli et Theclae (concerning which see also Conybeare and Howson, 1:197). They all agree in ascribing to the apostle a short stature, a long face with high forehead, an aquiline nose, close and prominent eyebrows. Other characteristics mentioned are baldness, gray eyes, a clear complexion, and a winning expression. According to Hug, the apostle’s temperament was sanguine; but as Tholuck, with better reason, says (Stud. u. Krit. loc. cit.), sanguine-bilious. On his person, we have only an untrustworthy tradition (in the Dialog. Philophatris, c. 12, and Malalas, Chron. x, p. 257, Bonn). Too much stress must not be laid upon the allusions in the Epistles (1Co 15:9; 2Co 10:10; see Bengel, on Act 13:9; Tholuck, op. cit. p. 381). It is probable, however, that the general appearance of Paul did not correspond well with his greatness of mind and heart. But a strong, healthy body he must have had, to endure such journeys and hardships (2Co 11:23 sq.), and he seems to have had great mental energy and endurance (comp. Act 20:7; 2Co 11:28), but could not undergo much bodily toil (1Th 2:9; 2Th 3:8).

Of his mental temperament and character Paul is himself the best painter. His speeches and letters convey to us, as we read them, the truest impressions of those qualities which helped to make him the great apostle. We perceive the warmth and ardor of his nature, his deeply affectionate disposition, the tenderness of his sense of honor, the courtesy and personal dignity of his bearing, his perfect fearlessness, his heroic endurance; we perceive the rare combination of subtlety, tenacity, and versatility in his intellect; we perceive also a practical wisdom which we should have associated with a cooler temperament, and a tolerance which is seldom united with such impetuous convictions. When he first comes before our view in the history, we see a man of intense energy, firm decision, iron resolution, and uncompromising zeal; and these qualities, tempered by purer religious feeling, guided by higher knowledge, and modified by experience, continue to characterize him so long as he appears upon the stage of life. His natural mental endowments were of the highest order. He had great breadth of view, great clearness of apprehension, a capacity of firmly grasping principles, the power of arranging his thoughts in their proper logical order, and the ability to utter them in forcible and fitting words. The dialectician predominates in his writings; but he could also play the orator after no mean fashion; and there are passages in his epistles which could have come only from the pen of one who had in him the faculties of the poet. In his moral development everything is great and noble. To honesty of purpose and sincerity of speech, he added humility and self-distrust, generous regard for the welfare of others, a tender sympathy with those he loved, and a philanthropy that embraced the race; while the absence of everything mean, mercenary, or selfish, and a noble devotedness, at whatever cost, to the interests of a great cause, combine to shed around a character, in other respects so beautiful, traits of sublimity and grandeur. We feel that here is a man at once to be admired and loved-a teacher at whose feet one might sit with unhesitating docility-a friend on whose bosom one might lean with confidence and affection. The vigorous intellect and the large heart which belonged to him by nature would have brought him distinction under any circumstances; but his highest claim to honor is derived from his having, under the constraining power of the love of Christ, consecrated himself, body, soul, and spirit, to the service of God in promoting the best interests of men. In this respect he stands foremost among the Church’s heroes and the benefactors of the race. The principle which harmonized all these endowments and directed them to a practical end was, beyond dispute, a knowledge of Jesus Christ in the Divine Spirit. Personal allegiance to Christ as to a living Master, with a growing insight into the relation of Christ to each man and to the world, carried the apostle forward on a straight course through every vicissitude of personal fortunes and amid the various habits of thought which he had to encounter. The conviction that he had been entrusted with a Gospel concerning a Lord and Deliverer of men was what sustained and purified his love for his own people, while it created in him such a love for mankind that he only knew himself as the servant of others for Christ’s sake.

A remarkable attempt has recently been made by Prof. Jowett, in his Commentary on some of the Epistles, to qualify what he considers to be the blind and undiscriminating admiration of Paul, by representing him as having been, with all his excellences, a man whose appearance and discourse made an impression of feebleness, out of harmony with life and nature, a confused thinker, uttering himself in broken words and hesitating forms of speech, with no beauty or comeliness of style, and so undecided in his Christian belief that he was preaching, in the fourteenth year after his conversion, a Gospel concerning Christ which he himself, in four years more, confessed to have been carnal. In these paradoxical views, however, Prof. Jowett stands almost alone; the result of the freest, as of the most reverent, of the numerous recent studies of St. Paul and his works (among which Prof. Jowett’s own Commentary is one of the most interesting) having been only to add an independent tribute to the ancient admiration of Christendom. Those who judge Paul as they would judge any other remarkable man confess him unanimously to have been one of the greatest spirits of all time; while those who believe him to have been appointed by the Lord of mankind, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, to do a work in the world of almost unequalled importance, are lost in wonder as they study the gifts with which he was endowed for that work, and the sustained devotion with which he gave himself to it. On the intellectual and moral character of Paul, see Niemeyer, Charakter, 1:206 sq. , Hug, Einleit. 2:283 sq.; Hartmann. in Scherer’s Schriftforsch. 1:1 sq.; Journ.f. Pred. 28:298 sq.; Palmer, Paulus u. Gamaliel, ein Beitrag zur altesten Christengesch. (Giess. 1806); Olshausen, Bibl. Comment. III, 1:11 sq.

10. Apocryphal Writings. In addition to the letters usually given as Paul’s, a farged correspondence between him and the philosopher Seneca (six letters of the apostle and eight of Seneca, comp. Jerome, Viri Illustr. 11; August. Ep. 153) is printed in Fabricius (Apocryph. 2:880 sq.). That it is not genuine, see his Biblioth. Lat. 2:9; Apocryph. N.T. 3:710 sq. The whole tradition of intimacy between Paul and Seneca has perhaps grown by conjecture out of Act 18:12 (see Schmidt, Einleit. ins N.T. p. 268 sq.). Yet it has found a defender in Gelpe (Defamiliaritate quae Paulo c. Seneca intercessione traditur verisimillima [Leips. 1812]), who is answered by Eckhard (in Miscell. Leips. 9:90 sq.), in an attempt to show that Seneca was a firm heathen and opponent of Christianity. On other writings attributed to Paul, see Fabricius, Apocryph. 2:918, 943 sq.; 3:667 sq.; and B. Elsing, De Pseudepigraphis P. Apost. (Leips. 1707). Zeltner (Fragment.

Pauli quond. perversi [Altdorf, 1713]) thinks he has discovered in the Talmud a Hebrew form of prayer composed by Paul before his conversion. Tischendorf has published the editio princeps of the apocryphal Apocalypsis Pauli in his Apocalypses Apocryphm (Lips. 1866). Several other ancient apocryphal productions are ascribed to Paul, most of which are now lost. Among them were the Acts of Paul, or the Preaching of Paul; this appears to have formed the conclusion of the so- called Preaching of Peter, and dates probably from about the middle of the 2d century. The Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Epistles of Paul to Seneca, with those of Seneca to Paul, and the Epistle to the Laodiceans, were translated by Mr. Jer. Jones, in his work On the Canon. A good translation of the apocryphal epistles to the Corinthians will be found in Whiston’s Authentic Records. See Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Romans Biog. 3:147. SEE APOCRYPHA.

III. Literature. This is very copious, as the subject is more or less handled in nearly all the Introductions and Commentaries on the New Test., as well as in many treatises on Scripture history and theology in general, and in numerous articles in religious periodicals. The most important special treatises have been mentioned in the preceding discussion; we name below only such recent works of considerable extent as relate exclusively to the apostle. For others see Danz, Worterbuch, s.v.; Darling, Cyclopcedia, col. 1870 sq.; Malcom, Theological Index, s.v.; Reuss, Gesch. d. hil. Sclhrift, 58 sq.; Volbeding, Index Programmatum, p. 77 sq.

1. On Paul’s Life in general: Menken, Blicke in d. Leb n, etc. (Brem. 1828, 8vo); Schafer, Paulus der Apostel (Leips. 1874, 8vo); Hemsen, Der Ap. Paulus (G6tt. 1830, 8vo); Schrader, Der Ap. Paulus (Leips. 1830-36, 5 vols. 8vo); Scharling, De Paulo Apost. (Hafn. 1836, 8vo); Hessel, Leben Paul. (Leips. 1837, 8vo); Tate, Continuous Hist. (in new ed. of Paley’s lorce l’aulince, Lond. 1840, 8vo); Blunt, Hist. of St. Paul (new ed. ibid. 1858, 2 vols. 12mo); Tholuck, Life and Writings of Paul (transl. in the Biblical Cabinet, Edinb. 1859, 12mo); Hausrath, Der Ap. Paulus (Heidelb. 1865, 8vo); Vidal, St. Paul, sa Vie et ses (Euvres (Paris, 1865, 2 vols. 8vo); Baur, Paulus der Apostel (2d ed. Leips. 1866, 8vo); Binney, Paul’s Life and Ministry (Lond. 1866, 12mo); Howson, Scenes in the Life of St. Paul (ibid. 1866, 8vo); Bungener, Vie, OEuvres, et Epitres de St. Paul (Paris, 1867, 8vo); Krenkel, Paulus der Apostel (Leips. 1869, 8vo); Renan, Vie de Saint Paul (Paris, 1869, 8vo); Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of Mst. Paul (3d ed. Lond. 1870, 8vo); Neveux, Vie de St. Pal (Palis, 1870, 8vo); Rivington, Paul the Apostle (Lond. 1874, 8vo); Lewin, Life and Letters of St. Paul (new ed. ibid. 1874, 2 vols. 4to).

2. On Paul’s doctrines as a whole: Meyer, Entwickelung d. Paul. Lehrbegs isf (Altona, 1801, 8vo); Dahne, idem (Halle, 1835, 8vo); Usteri, idem (6th ed. Zur. 1851, 8vo); Rabiger (against Baur), De Christologia Paulina (Vratisl. 1852, 8vo); Lipsius, Die Pauliaische Rechtfertigungslehre (Leips. 1853, 8vo); Whately, Essays on St. Paul’s Writings (8th ed. Lond. and Andover, 1865, 8vo); Irons, Christianity as tanght by St. Paul (Bampton Lecture for 1870, 2d ed. Lond. 1876, 8vo); Pfleiderer, Der Panlinismus (Leips. 1873, 8vo).

3. On special points relating to Paul: Saville, Introduction of Christianity (by Paul) into Britain (Lond. 1861, 8vo); Howson, Character of St. Paul (Hulsean Lectures for 1862, ibid. 1864, 8vo; N.Y. 1873, 12mo, new ed.); Lasonder, De linguce Paulinoe idiomate (Tr. ad Rb. 1866. 8vo); Marcken, Paulus und Petrus in Antiochien (Leips. 1866, 8vo); Smith, Voyage of St. Paul (3d ed. Lond. 1866, 12mo); Howson, Metaphors of St. Paul (ibid. 1868, 8vo); the same, Companions of St. Paul (ibid. 1871, 8vo).

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Paul

=Saul (q.v.) was born about the same time as our Lord. His circumcision-name was Saul, and probably the name Paul was also given to him in infancy “for use in the Gentile world,” as “Saul” would be his Hebrew home-name. He was a native of Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, a Roman province in the south-east of Asia Minor. That city stood on the banks of the river Cydnus, which was navigable thus far; hence it became a centre of extensive commercial traffic with many countries along the shores of the Mediterranean, as well as with the countries of central Asia Minor. It thus became a city distinguished for the wealth of its inhabitants.

Tarsus was also the seat of a famous university, higher in reputation even than the universities of Athens and Alexandria, the only others that then existed. Here Saul was born, and here he spent his youth, doubtless enjoying the best education his native city could afford. His father was of the straitest sect of the Jews, a Pharisee, of the tribe of Benjamin, of pure and unmixed Jewish blood (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5). We learn nothing regarding his mother; but there is reason to conclude that she was a pious woman, and that, like-minded with her husband, she exercised all a mother influence in moulding the character of her son, so that he could afterwards speak of himself as being, from his youth up, “touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” (Phil. 3:6).

We read of his sister and his sister’s son (Acts 23:16), and of other relatives (Rom. 16:7, 11, 12). Though a Jew, his father was a Roman citizen. How he obtained this privilege we are not informed. “It might be bought, or won by distinguished service to the state, or acquired in several other ways; at all events, his son was freeborn. It was a valuable privilege, and one that was to prove of great use to Paul, although not in the way in which his father might have been expected to desire him to make use of it.” Perhaps the most natural career for the youth to follow was that of a merchant. “But it was decided that…he should go to college and become a rabbi, that is, a minister, a teacher, and a lawyer all in one.”

According to Jewish custom, however, he learned a trade before entering on the more direct preparation for the sacred profession. The trade he acquired was the making of tents from goats’ hair cloth, a trade which was one of the commonest in Tarsus.

His preliminary education having been completed, Saul was sent, when about thirteen years of age probably, to the great Jewish school of sacred learning at Jerusalem as a student of the law. Here he became a pupil of the celebrated rabbi Gamaliel, and here he spent many years in an elaborate study of the Scriptures and of the many questions concerning them with which the rabbis exercised themselves. During these years of diligent study he lived “in all good conscience,” unstained by the vices of that great city.

After the period of his student-life expired, he probably left Jerusalem for Tarsus, where he may have been engaged in connection with some synagogue for some years. But we find him back again at Jerusalem very soon after the death of our Lord. Here he now learned the particulars regarding the crucifixion, and the rise of the new sect of the “Nazarenes.”

For some two years after Pentecost, Christianity was quietly spreading its influence in Jerusalem. At length Stephen, one of the seven deacons, gave forth more public and aggressive testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, and this led to much excitement among the Jews and much disputation in their synagogues. Persecution arose against Stephen and the followers of Christ generally, in which Saul of Tarsus took a prominent part. He was at this time probably a member of the great Sanhedrin, and became the active leader in the furious persecution by which the rulers then sought to exterminate Christianity.

But the object of this persecution also failed. “They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word.” The anger of the persecutor was thereby kindled into a fiercer flame. Hearing that fugitives had taken refuge in Damascus, he obtained from the chief priest letters authorizing him to proceed thither on his persecuting career. This was a long journey of about 130 miles, which would occupy perhaps six days, during which, with his few attendants, he steadily went onward, “breathing out threatenings and slaughter.” But the crisis of his life was at hand. He had reached the last stage of his journey, and was within sight of Damascus. As he and his companions rode on, suddenly at mid-day a brilliant light shone round them, and Saul was laid prostrate in terror on the ground, a voice sounding in his ears, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” The risen Saviour was there, clothed in the vesture of his glorified humanity. In answer to the anxious inquiry of the stricken persecutor, “Who art thou, Lord?” he said, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest” (Acts 9:5; 22:8; 26:15).

This was the moment of his conversion, the most solemn in all his life. Blinded by the dazzling light (Acts 9:8), his companions led him into the city, where, absorbed in deep thought for three days, he neither ate nor drank (9:11). Ananias, a disciple living in Damascus, was informed by a vision of the change that had happened to Saul, and was sent to him to open his eyes and admit him by baptism into the Christian church (9:11-16). The whole purpose of his life was now permanently changed.

Immediately after his conversion he retired into the solitudes of Arabia (Gal. 1:17), perhaps of “Sinai in Arabia,” for the purpose, probably, of devout study and meditation on the marvellous revelation that had been made to him. “A veil of thick darkness hangs over this visit to Arabia. Of the scenes among which he moved, of the thoughts and occupations which engaged him while there, of all the circumstances of a crisis which must have shaped the whole tenor of his after-life, absolutely nothing is known. ‘Immediately,’ says St. Paul, ‘I went away into Arabia.’ The historian passes over the incident [comp. Acts 9:23 and 1 Kings 11:38, 39]. It is a mysterious pause, a moment of suspense, in the apostle’s history, a breathless calm, which ushers in the tumultuous storm of his active missionary life.” Coming back, after three years, to Damascus, he began to preach the gospel “boldly in the name of Jesus” (Acts 9:27), but was soon obliged to flee (9:25; 2 Cor. 11:33) from the Jews and betake himself to Jerusalem. Here he tarried for three weeks, but was again forced to flee (Acts 9:28, 29) from persecution. He now returned to his native Tarsus (Gal. 1:21), where, for probably about three years, we lose sight of him. The time had not yet come for his entering on his great life-work of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.

At length the city of Antioch, the capital of Syria, became the scene of great Christian activity. There the gospel gained a firm footing, and the cause of Christ prospered. Barnabas (q.v.), who had been sent from Jerusalem to superintend the work at Antioch, found it too much for him, and remembering Saul, he set out to Tarsus to See k for him. He readily responded to the call thus addressed to him, and came down to Antioch, which for “a whole year” became the scene of his labours, which were crowned with great success. The disciples now, for the first time, were called “Christians” (Acts 11:26).

The church at Antioch now proposed to send out missionaries to the Gentiles, and Saul and Barnabas, with John Mark as their attendant, were chosen for this work. This was a great epoch in the history of the church. Now the disciples began to give effect to the Master’s command: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

The three missionaries went forth on the first missionary tour. They sailed from Seleucia, the seaport of Antioch, across to Cyprus, some 80 miles to the south-west. Here at Paphos, Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul, was converted, and now Saul took the lead, and was ever afterwards called Paul. The missionaries now crossed to the mainland, and then proceeded 6 or 7 miles up the river Cestrus to Perga (Acts 13:13), where John Mark deserted the work and returned to Jerusalem. The two then proceeded about 100 miles inland, passing through Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia. The towns mentioned in this tour are the Pisidian Antioch, where Paul delivered his first address of which we have any record (13:16-51; comp. 10:30-43), Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. They returned by the same route to See and encourage the converts they had made, and ordain elders in every city to watch over the churches which had been gathered. From Perga they sailed direct for Antioch, from which they had set out.

After remaining “a long time”, probably till A.D. 50 or 51, in Antioch, a great controversy broke out in the church there regarding the relation of the Gentiles to the Mosaic law. For the purpose of obtaining a settlement of this question, Paul and Barnabas were sent as deputies to consult the church at Jerusalem. The council or synod which was there held (Acts 15) decided against the Judaizing party; and the deputies, accompanied by Judas and Silas, returned to Antioch, bringing with them the decree of the council.

After a short rest at Antioch, Paul said to Barnabas: “Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and See how they do.” Mark proposed again to accompany them; but Paul refused to allow him to go. Barnabas was resolved to take Mark, and thus he and Paul had a sharp contention. They separated, and never again met. Paul, however, afterwards speaks with honour of Barnabas, and sends for Mark to come to him at Rome (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11).

Paul took with him Silas, instead of Barnabas, and began his second missionary journey about A.D. 51. This time he went by land, revisiting the churches he had already founded in Asia. But he longed to enter into “regions beyond,” and still went forward through Phrygia and Galatia (16:6). Contrary to his intention, he was constrained to linger in Galatia (q.v.), on account of some bodily affliction (Gal. 4:13, 14). Bithynia, a populous province on the shore of the Black Sea, lay now before him, and he wished to enter it; but the way was shut, the Spirit in some manner guiding him in another direction, till he came down to the shores of the AEgean and arrived at Troas, on the north-western coast of Asia Minor (Acts 16:8). Of this long journey from Antioch to Troas we have no account except some references to it in his Epistle to the Galatians (4:13).

As he waited at Troas for indications of the will of God as to his future movements, he saw, in the vision of the night, a man from the opposite shores of Macedonia standing before him, and heard him cry, “Come over, and help us” (Acts 16:9). Paul recognized in this vision a message from the Lord, and the very next day set sail across the Hellespont, which separated him from Europe, and carried the tidings of the gospel into the Western world. In Macedonia, churches were planted in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea. Leaving this province, Paul passed into Achaia, “the paradise of genius and renown.” He reached Athens, but quitted it after, probably, a brief sojourn (17:17-31). The Athenians had received him with cold disdain, and he never visited that city again. He passed over to Corinth, the seat of the Roman government of Achaia, and remained there a year and a half, labouring with much success. While at Corinth, he wrote his two epistles to the church of Thessalonica, his earliest apostolic letters, and then sailed for Syria, that he might be in time to keep the feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem. He was accompanied by Aquila and Priscilla, whom he left at Ephesus, at which he touched, after a voyage of thirteen or fifteen days. He landed at Caesarea, and went up to Jerusalem, and having “saluted the church” there, and kept the feast, he left for Antioch, where he abode “some time” (Acts 18:20-23).

He then began his third missionary tour. He journeyed by land in the “upper coasts” (the more eastern parts) of Asia Minor, and at length made his way to Ephesus, where he tarried for no less than three years, engaged in ceaseless Christian labour. “This city was at the time the Liverpool of the Mediterranean. It possessed a splendid harbour, in which was concentrated the traffic of the sea which was then the highway of the nations; and as Liverpool has behind her the great towns of Lancashire, so had Ephesus behind and around her such cities as those mentioned along with her in the epistles to the churches in the book of Revelation, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. It was a city of vast wealth, and it was given over to every kind of pleasure, the fame of its theatres and race-course being world-wide” (Stalker’s Life of St. Paul). Here a “great door and effectual” was opened to the apostle. His fellow-labourers aided him in his work, carrying the gospel to Colosse and Laodicea and other places which they could reach.

Very shortly before his departure from Ephesus, the apostle wrote his First Epistle to the Corinthians (q.v.). The silversmiths, whose traffic in the little images which they made was in danger (See DEMETRIUS), organized a riot against Paul, and he left the city, and proceeded to Troas (2 Cor. 2:12), whence after some time he went to meet Titus in Macedonia. Here, in consequence of the report Titus brought from Corinth, he wrote his second epistle to that church. Having spent probably most of the summer and autumn in Macedonia, visiting the churches there, specially the churches of Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea, probably penetrating into the interior, to the shores of the Adriatic (Rom. 15:19), he then came into Greece, where he abode three month, spending probably the greater part of this time in Corinth (Acts 20:2). During his stay in this city he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians, and also the great Epistle to the Romans. At the end of the three months he left Achaia for Macedonia, thence crossed into Asia Minor, and touching at Miletus, there addressed the Ephesian presbyters, whom he had sent for to meet him (Acts 20:17), and then sailed for Tyre, finally reaching Jerusalem, probably in the spring of A.D. 58.

While at Jerusalem, at the feast of Pentecost, he was almost murdered by a Jewish mob in the temple. (See TEMPLE, HEROD’S

At the end of these two years Felix (q.v.) was succeeded in the governorship of Palestine by Porcius Festus, before whom the apostle was again heard. But judging it right at this crisis to claim the privilege of a Roman citizen, he appealed to the emperor (Acts 25:11). Such an appeal could not be disregarded, and Paul was at once sent on to Rome under the charge of one Julius, a centurion of the “Augustan cohort.” After a long and perilous voyage, he at length reached the imperial city in the early spring, probably, of A.D. 61. Here he was permitted to occupy his own hired house, under constant military custody. This privilege was accorded to him, no doubt, because he was a Roman citizen, and as such could not be put into prison without a trial. The soldiers who kept guard over Paul were of course changed at frequent intervals, and thus he had the opportunity of preaching the gospel to many of them during these “two whole years,” and with the blessed result of spreading among the imperial guards, and even in Caesar’s household, an interest in the truth (Phil. 1:13). His rooms were resorted to by many anxious inquirers, both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 28:23, 30, 31), and thus his imprisonment “turned rather to the furtherance of the gospel,” and his “hired house” became the centre of a gracious influence which spread over the whole city. According to a Jewish tradition, it was situated on the borders of the modern Ghetto, which has been the Jewish quarters in Rome from the time of Pompey to the present day. During this period the apostle wrote his epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and to Philemon, and probably also to the Hebrews.

This first imprisonment came at length to a close, Paul having been acquitted, probably because no witnesses appeared against him. Once more he set out on his missionary labours, probably visiting western and eastern Europe and Asia Minor. During this period of freedom he wrote his First Epistle to Timothy and his Epistle to Titus. The year of his release was signalized by the burning of Rome, which Nero saw fit to attribute to the Christians. A fierce persecution now broke out against the Christians. Paul was siezed, and once more conveyed to Rome a prisoner. During this imprisonment he probably wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, the last he ever wrote. “There can be little doubt that he appered again at Nero’s bar, and this time the charge did not break down. In all history there is not a more startling illustration of the irony of human life than this scene of Paul at the bar of Nero. On the judgment-seat, clad in the imperial purple, sat a man who, in a bad world, had attained the eminence of being the very worst and meanest being in it, a man stained with every crime, a man whose whole being was so steeped in every nameable and unnameable vice, that body and soul of him were, as some one said at the time, nothing but a compound of mud and blood; and in the prisoner’s dock stood the best man the world possessed, his hair whitened with labours for the good of men and the glory of God. The trial ended: Paul was condemned, and delivered over to the executioner. He was led out of the city, with a crowd of the lowest rabble at his heels. The fatal spot was reached; he knelt beside the block; the headsman’s axe gleamed in the sun and fell; and the head of the apostle of the world rolled down in the dust” (probably A.D. 66), four years before the fall of Jerusalem.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Paul

(See ACTS.) The leading facts of his life which appear in that history, subsidiary to its design of sketching the great epochs in the commencement and development of Christ’s kingdom, are: his conversion (Acts 9), his labours at Antioch (Acts 11), his first missionary journey (Acts 13; 14), the visit to Jerusalem at the council on circumcision (Acts 15), introduction of the gospel to Europe at Philippi (Acts 16),: visit to Athens (Acts 17), to Corinth (Acts 18), stay at Ephesus (Acts 19), parting address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts 20), apprehension at Jerusalem, imprisonment at Casesarea, and voyage to Rome (Acts 21-27). Though of purest Hebrew blood (Phi 3:5), “circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, (bearing the name of the eminent man of that tribe, king Saul), an Hebrew of the Hebrew,” yet his birthplace was the Gentile Tarsus. (Act 21:39, “I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city.”) His father, as himself, was a Pharisee (Act 23:6). Tarsus was celebrated as a school of Greek literature (Strabo, Geogr. 1:14).

Here he acquired that knowledge of Greek authors and philosophy which qualified him for dealing with learned Gentiles and appealing to their own writers (Act 17:18-28. Aratus; 1Co 15:33, Menander; Tit 1:12, Epimenides). Here too he learned the Cilician trade of making tents of the goats’ hair cloth called “cilicium” (Act 18:3); not that his father was in straitened circumstances, but Jewish custom required each child, however wealthy the parents might be, to learn a trade. He possessed the Roman citizenship from birth (Act 22:28), and hence, when he commenced ministering among Gentiles, he preferred to be known by his Roman name Paul rather than by his Hebrew name Saul. His main education (probably after passing his first 12 years at Tarsus, Act 26:4-5, “among his own nation.” Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus manuscripts read “and” before “at Jerusalem”) was at Jerusalem “at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers” (Act 22:3). (See GAMALIEL.)

Thus the three elements of the world’s culture met in him: Roman citizenship, Grecian culture, Hebrew religion. Gamaliel had counseled toleration (Act 5:34-39); but his teaching of strict pharisaic legalism produced in Saul’s ardent spirit persecuting zeal against opponents, “concerning zeal persecuting the church” (Phi 3:6). Among the synagogue disputants with Stephen were men “of Cilcia” (Act 6:9), probably including Saul; at all events it was at his feet, while be was yet “a young man,” that the witnesses, stoning the martyr, laid down their clothes (Act 6:9; Act 7:58; Deu 17:7). “Saul was consenting unto his death” (Acts 6; 7); but we can hardly doubt that his better feelings must have had some misgiving in witnessing Stephen’s countenance beaming as an angel’s, and in hearing his loving prayer for his murderers. But stern bigotry stifled all such doubts by increased zeal; “he made havock of (elumaineto, ‘ravaged as a wild beast’) the church, entering into the houses (severally, or worship rooms), and haling men and women committed them to prison” (Act 8:3).

But God’s grace arrested Paul in his career of blind fanaticism; “I obtained mercy upon, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” (1Ti 1:12-16). His ignorance was culpable, for he might have known if he had sought aright; but it was less guilty than sinning against light and knowledge. There is a wide difference between mistaken zeal for the law and willful striving against God’s Spirit. His ignorance gave him no claim on, but put him within the range of, God’s mercy (Luk 23:34; Act 3:17; Rom 10:2). The positive ground of mercy is solely God’s compassion (Tit 3:5). We have three accounts of his conversion, one by Luke (Acts 9), the others by himself (Acts 22; 26), mutually supplementing one another. Following the adherents of “the (Christian) way … unto strange cities,” and “breathing out threatenings and slaughter,” he was on his journey to Damascus with authoritative letters from the high priest empowering him to arrest and bring to Jerusalem all such, trusting doubtless that the pagan governor would not interpose in their behalf.

At midday a light shone upon him and his company, exceeding the brightness of the sun; he and all with him fell to the earth (Act 26:14; in Act 9:7 “stood speechless,” namely, they soon rose, and when he at length rose they were standing speechless with wonder), “hearing” the sound of a “voice,” but not understanding (compare 1Co 14:2 margin) the articulate speech which Paul heard (Act 22:9, “they heard not the voice of Him that spoke”) in Hebrew (Act 26:14), cf6 “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” (in the person of My brethren, Mat 25:40). “It is hard for thee to kick against the goads” (not in Act 9:5 the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus manuscripts, but only in Act 26:14), which, as in the case of oxen being driven, only makes the goad pierce the deeper (Mat 21:44; Pro 8:36). Saul trembling (as the jailer afterward before him, Act 16:30-31) said, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” the usual question at first awakening (Luk 3:10), but here with the additional sense of unreserved surrender of himself to the Lord’s guidance (Isa 6:1-8).

The Lord might act directly, but He chooses to employ ministerial instruments; such was Ananias whom He sent to Saul, after he had been three days without sight and neither eating nor drinking, in the house of Judas (probably a Christian to whose house he had himself led, rather than to his former co-religionists). Ananias, whom he would have seized for prison and death, is the instrument of giving him light and life. God had prepared Ananias for his visitor by announcing the one sure mark of his conversion, “behold he prayeth” (Rom 8:15). Ananias had heard of him as a notorious persecutor, but obeyed the Lord’s direction. In Act 26:16-18 Paul condenses in one account, and connects with Christ’s first appearing, subsequent revelations of Jesus to him as to the purpose of his call;” to make thee a minister and witness of these things … delivering thee from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee.” Like Jonah, the outcast runaway, when penitent, was made the messenger of repentance to guilty Nineveh.

The time of his call was just when the gospel was being opened to the Gentiles by Peter (Acts 10). An apostle, severed from legalism, and determined unbelief by an extraordinary revulsion, was better fitted for carrying forward the work among unbelieving Gentiles, which had been begun by the apostle of the circumcision. He who was the most learned and at the same time humblest (Eph 3:8; 1Co 15:9) of the apostles was the one whose pen was most used in the New Testament Scriptures. He”saw” the Lord in actual person (Act 9:17; Act 22:14; Act 23:11; Act 26:16; 1Co 15:8; 1Co 9:1), which was a necessary qualification for apostleship, so as to be witness of the resurrection. The light that flashed on his eyes was the sign of the spiritual light that broke in upon his soul; and Jesus’ words to him (Act 26:18), “to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light” (which commission was symbolized in the opening of his own eyes through Ananias, Act 9:17-18), are by undesigned coincidence reproduced naturally in his epistles (Col 1:12-14; 2Co 4:4; Eph 1:18, contrast Eph 4:18; Eph 6:12).

He calls himself “the one untimely born” in the family of the apostles (1Co 15:8). Such a child, though born alive, is yet not of proper size and scarcely worthy of the name of man; so Paul calls himself” least of the apostles, not meet to be called an apostle” (compare 1Pe 1:3). He says, God’s “choice” (Act 9:15; Act 22:14), “separating me (in contrast to his having been once a “Pharisee”, from pharash, i.e. a separatist, but now ‘separated’ unto something infinitely higher) from my mother’s womb (therefore without any merit of mine), and calling me by His grace (which carried into effect His ‘good pleasure,’ eudokia), revealed His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the pagan,” independent of Mosaic ceremonialism (Gal 1:11-20). Ananias, being “a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews there,” was the suitable instrument of giving him bodily and spiritual sight in his transition stage. His language accords, “the God of our fathers (compare Paul’s own, 2Ti 1:3; Gal 1:14) hath chosen thee … that thou shouldest see that Just (righteous, a legal term) One.”

Saul directly, on his conversion “preached Christ in the synagogues that He is the Son of God,” to the astonishment of his hearers (Act 9:20-21); then followed his retirement to Arabia for a considerable part of the whole “three years” between his conversion and his visit to Jerusalem. From Arabia he returned to Damascus, where with his increased spiritual “strength” he confounded the Jews. Then on their watching to kill him lie was “let down by the wall in a basket,” under Aretas (2Co 11:32; Gal 1:15-18). (See ARETAS.) His three years of direction by the Lord alone answer to the about three years’ intercourse of Jesus with His twelve apostles. This first visit to Jerusalem is that mentioned Act 9:26, at which occurred the vision (Act 22:17-18). His “increase in strength” (Act 9:22) was obtained in communion with the Lord in Arabia near the scene of giving the law, a fit scene for the revelation of gospel grace which supersedes it (Gal 4:25). Ananias his first instructor, esteemed for his legal piety, was not likely to have taught him the gospel’s independence of the Mosaic law. Paul received it by special revelation (1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3; 1Th 4:15).

The “many days” (Act 9:23) answer to “three years” (Gal 1:18), as in 1Ki 2:38-39. In Arabia he had that retirement after the first fervor of conversion which great characters need, preparatory to their life work for God, as Moses in Midian (Act 7:20; Act 7:22). His familiarity with Mount Sinai in Arabia, the scene of the giving of the law, appears in Gal 4:24-25; Heb 12:18; here he was completely severed from his former legalism. Thence He returned to Damascus; then he went to Jerusalem to see Peter. He saw only Peter and James, being introduced by Barnabas not to seek their sanction but to inform them of Jesus’ independent revelation to him (Act 9:26-29; Gal 1:18-19). His Grecian education adapted him for successfully, like Stephen, disputing against the Grecians. He had a vision later than that of Act 22:17-18, namely, in 2Co 12:1, etc., six years after his conversion, A.D. 43. Thus Paul was an independent witness of the gospel.

When he compared his gospel with that of the apostles there was found perfect harmony (Gal 2:2-9). After staying only 15 days at Jerusalem, wherein there was not time for his deriving his gospel commission from Peter with whom he abode, having had a vision that he should depart to the Gentiles (Act 22:18-19), and being plotted against by Hellenistic Jews (Act 9:29), he withdrew to the seaport Caesarea (Act 9:30), thence by sea to Tarsus in Cilicia (Gal 1:21), and thence to Syria. His journey by sea, not land, accounts for his being “unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea” (Gal 1:22), so that he could not have derived his gospel from them. lie puts “Syria” before “Cilicia,” as it was a geographical phrase, the more important being put first. Meantime at Antioch the gospel was preached to Gentile “Greeks” (Hellenas in the Alexandrinus manuscript, not “Grecians,” Act 11:20) by men of Cyprus and Cyrene scattered abroad at the persecution of Stephen; Barnabas went down then from Jerusalem, and glad in seeing this special grace of God, “exhorted them that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.” (See CHRISTIANS.)

Desiring a helper he fetched Saul from Tarsus to Antioch, and for a whole year they laboured together, and in leaving for Jerusalem (Paul’s second visit there, not mentioned in Galatians, being for a special object and for but “few days,” Act 11:30; Act 12:25) brought with them a token of brotherly love, a contribution for the brethren in Judaea during the famine which was foretold by Agabus and came on under Claudius Caesar (Act 11:22-30; A.D. 44). Returning from Jerusalem to Antioch, after having fulfilled their ministry, they took with them John Mark as subordinate helper (Act 12:25). Here (Acts 13) while their minds were dwelling on the extraordinary accession of Gentile converts, “as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them,” namely, to labors among the Gentiles, such as was the specimen already given at Antioch, in which these two had taken such an efficient part. Very striking is the patient humility with which Paul waited for the Lord’s time, as he had already received his call to be “a chosen vessel to bear His name before the Gentiles.”

In going forth on his first missionary journey he was subordinate to Barnabas; but after preaching the word in Cyprus, where in the Lord’s name he had smitten with blindness Elymas the sorcerer (even as he had tried to blind spiritually the governor), and when Sergius Paulus who had sent for Barnabas and Saul believed, he thenceforth under the name Paul takes the lead. Peter’s smiting Simon Magus (Acts 8), who sought spiritual powers for gain, corresponds. The unity of God’s dealings with His people is the true explanation of the parallelism between the histories of Paul and Peter, just as profound resemblances of form and typical structure exist between species and genera of both plants and animals which in many respects are widely divergent. Peter heals the man lame from birth at the temple gate, Paul the man impotent in feet from birth at Lystra; both fixed their eyes upon the men. As Peter at midnight was miraculously delivered from Herod’s prison, so Paul at Philippi was loosed from his chains with an earthquake. As Peter raised Dorcas, so Paul Eutychus.

Peter’s striking Ananias and Sapphira dead answers to Paul’s striking Elymas blind. As Peter’s shadow healed the sick, so Paul’s handkerchiefs. As Peter confirmed with the laying on of hands the Samaritans, and the Holy Spirit came on them, so Paul the Ephesian disciples of John Baptist (Acts 19). Luke marks the transition point between Saul’s past ministrations to Jews and his new ministry among Gentiles, which was henceforth to be his special work, by his Gentile designation, borne from infancy but now first regularly applied to him, Paul. At Perga in Pamphylia Mark forsook him and Barnabas. (See MARK.) In Antioch in Pisidia, as in Cyprus, they began their preaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath. In Paul’s remarkable address we have a specimen of his mode of dealing with “the Jews … men of Israel … and religious proselytes … ye that fear God.”

He bases all on the covenant God made with “our fathers,” brings out God’s “raising up of David to be king, a man after His own heart,” shows that it was “of his seed” that” God according to promise raised unto Israel a Savior Jesus,” applies the message of salvation to them, proves that the rulers in condemning Him in spite of themselves fulfilled the prophecies read every Sabbath concerning Him; for instance the promise of the second psalm, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” God fulfilled in raising Jesus. These are “the sure mercies” (the holy or gracious promises, osia Greek, chacid Hebrew) of the covenant made with David; hence (Psa 16:10) he anticipates “Thou wilt not suffer Thy Holy (“Gracious”: chacid, “in God’s favour”: Joh 1:14; Joh 1:16, osion) One to see corruption,” which cannot apply to David (for he saw corruption) and can only apply to Christ. He winds up with the characteristically Pauline doctrine of the epistles to Romans and Galatians: “by Him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” On the other hand a work of wonder and destruction is foretold by the prophets against all “despisers.”

After the congregation was broken up many Jews and proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, and heard more of “the grace of God.” But when almost the whole city came together the next Sabbath to hear the word of God, envy of the admission of Gentiles to gospel privileges without being first proselytized to Judaism incited the Jews to blaspheme and to contradict Paul. This caused Paul to wax bolder and say, It was necessary to speak the word first to you, but seeing ye judge yourselves unworthy (it is not God who counted them” unworthy”: Mat 20:19; Mat 22:8) of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. This too accords with the prophets (Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6). The Gentiles rejoiced, and many believed; but the Jews influenced their proselyte women of the higher class, and chief men, to drive Paul and Barnabas away. The apostles proceeded to Iconium cheered by the joy with which the Holy Spirit filled the disciples. There “long time abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of His grace and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands” (Act 14:3). But persecution drove them thence, and they fled to Lystra and Derbe of Lycaonia. (See LYSTRA.)

Again as at Cyprus Paul’s ministry resembles Peter’s, the cure of’ the impotent man in Lystra corresponding to Peter’s cure of the same disease at the Beautiful gate of the temple (3); indeed the parallelism probably led three very old manuscripts, C, D, E, to insert from Act 3:8, in Act 14:10, “I say unto thee in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. His mode of address is happily suited to the heathen of Lystra in turning them from their purpose of sacrificing to him and Barnabas as Mercury (for Paul was the chief speaker) and Jupiter respectively. (See MERCURY.) Instead of appealing to the Scriptures, he appeals to what they knew, the witness of God in His gifts of “rain and fruitful seasons “; he urges them to “turn from these vanities (“dead idols”) to serve the living God who made all things,” in undesigned coincidence with Pauline language (1Th 1:9-10).

His address to the pagan Athenians corresponds (Act 17:24-29); there he says “God winked at the times of ignorance, but now commandeth all to repent,” as here, “who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways,” and Rom 3:25, “on account of the praetermission (passing by without judicial cognizance) of the past sins in the forbearance of God.” With characteristic fickleness the mob stoned him whom just before they idolized. But he arose and went into the city, and next day to Derbe and to Lystra again, and to Iconium and Antioch, ordaining elders in every church, and confirming the disciples by telling them “that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.” From Pisidia they came to Perga and Attalia; thence to Antioch, where they reported at what may be called the first missionary meeting or covention “all that God had done with them, opening the door of faith unto the Gentiles”; and so ended Paul’s first missionary tour. Next (Act 14:28; Acts 15), during Paul’s stay at Antioch, men from Judaea came teaching that the Gentile converts must be circumcised. He and Barnabas strenuously opposed them, and were selected to go to Jerusalem and lay the question before the apostles and elders.

Paul had also a divine” revelation” (Gal 2:2) that he should go, besides his public commission. On their way they announced in Phenice and Samaria the conversion of the Gentiles, “causing great joy unto all the brethren.” At Jerusalem “they declared all things that God had done with them,” the facts and miracles of their mission among the Gentiles in general to the Christian multitude there; “but privately” to the apostles the details of his doctrine, in order to compare it with their teaching, to let them see that he was not “running in vain,” in not requiring circumcision of Gentile converts. Certain Pharisees however rose up, insisting on it, but Paul would not yield “for an hour” (Galatians 2); the council followed, in which Peter silenced arguments by the logic of facts, God having given the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, who believed through him, even as He did to the believing Jews. Why then should the burdensome legal yoke be imposed on them, which God had not made a necessary preliminary to their salvation?

Barnabas and Paul confirmed by their experience the fact: of God’s work among the Gentiles. James wound up by showing that Amos’ prophecy (Amo 9:11-12) of the call of the Gentiles, consequent on the building again of David’s tabernacle, accords with the facts just stated. The decree followed, binding the Gentiles only to abstinence from idol pollutions, fornication, and, in deference to the Jews’ feelings, from things strangled and blood. So Judas Barsabas and Silas, chosen men of their own company, were sent with Paul and Barnabas to carry the decree to Antioch, the apostles having previously “given Paul the right hand of fellowship” as a colleague in the apostleship, and having recognized that the apostleship of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul as that of the circumcision to Peter. The realization of the brotherly bond uniting the whole church (circumcision no longer separating the Jew from the Gentile) was further to be kept up by alms for the poor brethren (Galatians 2). The nonreference in Galatians to the decree is

(1) because Paul’s design in that epistle was to show Paul’s own independent apostolic authority, which did not rest upon their decision;

(2) he argues on principle not authority;

(3) the decree did not go the length of his position, it merely did not impose Mosaic ordinances, but, he here maintains the Mosaic institution itself is at an end;

(4) the Galatians Judaized, not because they thought it necessary to Christianity, but necessary to higher perfection (Gal 3:3; Gal 4:21).

The decree would not disprove their view. Paul confutes them more directly, “Christ is become of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law” (Gal 5:4; Gal 5:11). If Paul had proselytized Gentiles as the Jews always received proselytes, namely, with circumcision, persecution would have ceased. But the truth was at stake, and he must not yield (Gal 6:13). The Judaizers soon followed Paul to Antioch, where Peter had already come. Unable to deny that Gentiles are admissible to the Christian covenant without circumcision, they denied that they were so to social intercourse with Jews; pleading the authority of James, they induced Peter, in spite of his own avowed principles (Act 15:7-11) and his practice (Act 11:2-17), through fear of man (Pro 29:25), to separate himself from those Gentiles with whom he had heretofore eaten; this too at Antioch, the stronghold of universality and starting point of Paul’s missions to Gentiles. He betrayed his old character, ever the first to recognize and the first to draw back from great truths (Mat 14:30).

The rest of the Jews there “dissembled” with Peter, and “Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation”; then Paul “before them all withstood to the face” (compare 1Ti 5:20) and charged Peter, “seeing that thou a Jew habitually from conviction livest as a Gentile, eating of every food and with every one, how is it that now thou by example virtually compellest the Gentiles to Judaize?” In 2Pe 3:15 we see how thoroughly their misunderstanding was cleared up, Peter praising the epistles of Paul which condemned him. At his second missionary tour BARNABAS, desiring to take Mark against Paul’s judgment, parted company with him. (See MARK.) Their “sharp contention” shows they were not always infallible or impeccable. Silas or Silvanus became Paul’s companion through Syria and Cilicia where he confirmed the churches, his circumcising Timothy at Derbe (Act 16:1-3, “whom he would have to go forth with him”), on the ground of his mother being a Jewess, was that by becoming, when principle was not at stake, “to the Jews a Jew, he might gain the Jews.”

Titus on the contrary, being a Greek, he would not circumcise “because of false brethren” (Gal 2:3-4) who, had he yielded, would have perverted the case into a proof that he deemed circumcision necessary. To insist on Jewish usages for Gentile converts would have been to make them essential to Christianity; to violate them abruptly, before that the destruction of the temple and Jewish polity made them to cease, would have been against Christian charity (1Co 9:22; Rom 14:1-7; Rom 14:13-33). Paul Silas, and Timothy went through Phrygia and Galatia. Bodily infirmity detained him in Galatia (Gal 4:13 translated “on account of an infirmity,” the “thorn in the flesh” 2Co 12:7-10), and was overruled to his preaching the gospel there. The impulsive Galatians “received him as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus,” at first, but with Celtic fickleness heeded other teachers who with Judaizing doctrine supplanted the apostle in their affections (2Co 12:12-29). “Where is your former felicitation of yourselves on having the blessing of my ministry?”

Ye once “would have plucked out your eyes and have given them to me” (Mat 5:29). Sensitiveness may have led him to overrate his bodily defect; at all events it did not prevent his enduring hardships which few could bear (2Co 10:10; 2Co 11:23-33). His “eyes” may have been permanently weakened by the blinding vision (Act 22:11), hence the “large letters” (Greek) he wrote (Gal 6:11). Paul intended to visit western Asia, but was “forbidden by the Holy Spirit.” From the border of Mysia he essayed to go N.E. into Bithynia, “but the Spirit of Jesus (the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts) suffered them not” (Act 16:6-7; Act 16:10). Passing by Mysia they came to Troas, and here the “man of Macedonia appeared, saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us.” At this point Luke the historian intimates his presence by the “we”; “the beloved physician” probably ministered to Paul’s “infirmity” in Galatia. The party from Troas sailed by Samothrace to Neapolis, then proceeded to Philippi.

The conversion of Lydia was the first in Europe, though she was an Asiatic. (See LYDIA.) Then followed Paul’s casting out the spirit of divination from the damsel, and her master’s violence to Paul because of their loss of gains, under the old plea against saints that they “trouble” the commonwealth (1Ki 18:17); his imprisonment after scourging (referred to 1Th 2:2); his feet fastened in the stocks; the midnight cheerful hymns (Eph 5:20; Job 35:10; Psa 42:8); the earthquake loosing their bonds (so Act 12:6-10; Act 5:19); the intended suicide; the jailer’s trembling question, the answer, and his joy in believing, and his fruits of faith, love, washing Paul’s stripes (Joh 13:14; Mat 25:36), and entertaining him. The apostle’s self-respect appears in declining to allow the magistrates to thrust him out privily, after having beaten and imprisoned a Roman citizen uncondemned, for Cicero (in Verrem, 66) informs us it was counted “a daring misdemeanor to bind, a wicked crime to scourge, a Roman citizen.”

Upon their beseeching re. quest he went out, and after a visit to the brethren in Lydia’s house he left Philippi (Luke and perhaps Timothy staying behind for a time) for Thessalonica by way of Amphipolis and Apollonia. The fervent attachment of the Philippian church was evinced by their sending supplies for his temporal wants twice shortly after he left them, “in the beginning of the gospel,” to Thessalonica (Phi 4:15-16), and a third time by Epaphroditus shortly before writing the epistle (Phi 4:10; Phi 4:18; 2Co 11:9). Few Jews were at Philippi to excite distrust of Paul. There was no synagogue, but a mere oratory or “prayer place” (proseuchee) by the river side. Only there no opposition was offered by the Jews. His sufferings there strengthened the union between him and them, as they too suffered for the gospel’s sake (1Th 2:2). At Thessalonica (Acts 17) for three Sabbaths Paul, “as his manner was,” reasoned in the synagogue out of the Scriptures, showing that the Messiah to fulfill them must suffer and rise again, and that Jesus is that Messiah.

A multitude of Gentile proselytes and chief women, with some Jews, joined him. In consequence the unbelieving Jews incited the rabble (“fellows of the baser sort,” literally, loungers in the market place, ‘agoraious’: Act 17:5, in harmony with 1Th 2:14) to assault the house of Jason, Paul’s host. Failing to find Paul they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the rulers, crying “these that have turned the world upside down are come here also” (South quaintly remarks, “Considering how the world then stood, with idolatry at the head and truth under foot, turning it upside down was the only way perhaps to restore it to its right position”); “these do contrary to Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another King, one Jesus.” It is an undesigned coincidence that Jesus’ coming kingdom is the prominent thought in the epistles to the Thessalonians (1Th 2:12; 2Th 1:10). They perverted the doctrine of Christ’s coming to reign with His saints into treason against Caesar; so in Jesus’ case (Joh 18:33-37; Joh 19:12).

He writes to them as mostly Gentiles (1Th 1:9-10); he had worked night and day, not to be chargeable unto them (1Th 2:9-10; 2Th 3:8), and had guarded against the abuse of the doctrine of Christ’s coming (1Th 4:11-12; 2Th 2:1-3; 2Th 3:5-13). The magistrates contented themselves with taking security of Jason, and the brethren sent away Paul and Silas to Berea by night. Here too they entered the Jews’ synagogue. The Bereans are praised as “more noble” than the Thessalonians generally, for (1) their ready reception of the preached word, and (2) their searching the Scriptures daily whether it accorded with them. (See BEREANS.) Accordingly many believed, Jews as well as Greeks, men and honourable women. But the Thessalonian Jews followed him, and the brethren sent away Paul by sea, Silas and Timothy staying behind. Some brethren escorted Paul to Athens, then returned with a message from him to Silas and Timothy to join him “with all speed.”

He had intended to defer preaching until he had them by his side, but “his spirit was stirred within him when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry,” so he began at once disputing in the synagogue with the Jews and proselytes, and in the market daily with them that met him. Among the latter were Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. To the Epicureans, the ancient materialists, who denied a future life and made the supreme good consist in a calm enjoyment of the present, Paul offered “the peace which passeth understanding,” through Him who through self denying agony and death secures life eternal to us. To the Stoics, the ancient pantheists and fatalists, who made man independent on any being but self, he preached self renunciation and reliance on the personal Jesus, and the resurrection through Him. Some said, “what will this babbler (Greek spermologos, ‘seed picker,’ as a bird; so market loungers, ready to pick up droppings from loads of ware; so one babbling what he has picked up from others) say?”

Others said, as was the charge against Socrates who similarly used to reason in the market with those he met, “he seemeth a setter forth of strange gods” (namely, God and Jesus, Act 17:24; Act 17:31) “because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection.” Curiosity and love of novelty were noted characteristics of Athenians. So they took him to Mars’ hill, arranged with benches and steps of stone in the open air. They had charged him with setting forth strange gods: he begins by gently retorting, “I perceive in every point of view you are religious to a fault” (deisidaimonestorous, not such censure as “too superstitious” would convey). Taking their “altar to an unknown god” (for such altars were erected in times of plague, when the known gods failed to help) as his text, “what (the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus manuscripts for whom) ye worship confessing your ignorance of, that (the divinity) I declare unto you.” “Whom, … Him,” would contradict 1Co 10:20; Joh 4:22. God may be known.

He is the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, has made all men of one blood, assigning them their times and habitations, that they should feel after Him (pseelfeeseian; as thoughtful pagan will do, but it is only groping in the dark until revelation comes; contrast 1Jo 1:1), though He is really near every one of us (Rom 10:8-9), having our being in Him, as your own poet sings, “we are His offspring.” God has overlooked the times of ignorance (huperidon; looking on to Christ’s sacrifice which vindicates God’s righteousness in passing by the intermediate transgressions: Rom 3:25), but now commands all everywhere to repent, since He will judge all by that Man whom He hath ordained as the Savior and Judge, raising Him from the dead as the pledge of assurance. At the mention of the resurrection some mocked, others deferred (compare Act 24:25) the further hearing of the subject. A few believed, including the Areopagite Dionysius and Damaris, a woman.

Next, he came to Corinth, the commercial and stirring capital of Greece, and so more alive to his serious message than the dilettanti philosophers and quidnuncs of Athens. His tentmaking here brought him into close connection with Jews just expelled by Claudius from Rome, Aquila and Priscilla. When Silas and Timothy came from Macedon, Paul was earnestly occupied with the word (See the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus manuscripts Act 18:5 for “the spirit”), the crisis of their acceptance or else rejection of his message having come. Timothy he bad sent from Athens to Thessalonica (1Th 3:1-2), Silas elsewhere. Their arrival at Corinth suggested his writing the first epistle to Thessalonians. It and 2 Thessalonians were the only epistles he wrote on this missionary journey, both from Corinth. The epistles to Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians belong to his next journey. The epistles to Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians belong to his first captivity at Rome.

His versatility appears in his being able to write 1 Thessalonians when earnestly occupied with the Corinthians; and in his writing 1 and 2 Corinthians between the kindred epistles to the Galatians and Romans; if Galatians was written at Ephesus on his first arrival, and not subsequently at Corinth. (See GALATIANS.) He attested all his genuine letters with his autograph at the close, to enable the churches to distinguish them from spurious ones (2Th 2:2; 2Th 3:17). When the Jews opposed and blasphemed Paul shook his raiment (Neh 5:13; Act 13:51), and said, “your blood be upon your own heads (Eze 33:4), henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” So he withdrew to the house of a Gentile next the synagogue, Justus. Crispus the ruler of the synagogue believed, and was baptized by Paul himself (1Co 1:14); many Corinthians too were baptized. Paul’s fear of the Jews’ consequent wrath was dispelled by the Lord in a vision: “be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace, for I am with thee and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee, for I have much people in this city.” He therefore continued at Corinth a year and a half, teaching.

The Jews with one accord set on and brought him before Gallio’s judgment seat, saying, this fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. (See GALLIO.) But Paul experienced God’s faithfulness to His promise that none should beat him, for Gallio without waiting for Paul to plead drave his enemies from the judgment seat and winked at the beating the Greeks gave Sosthenes, the Jews’ ringleader and ruler of the synagogue. Paul’s compassion to his enemy in distress probably won Sosthenes, for we find him associated with Paul in 1Co 1:1. Paul left Corinth to keep the feast (probably Pentecost) at Jerusalem (Act 20:16). At Cenchreae he cut off his hair in fulfillment of a vow, made probably in some sickness (Gal 4:13) like the Nazarite vow, and ending with a sacrifice at Jerusalem to which he therefore hastened. Staying at Ephesus a very brief time, and going forward by Caesarea, he saluted the church at Jerusalem. Thence he went to Antioch, the place of his starting originally with Silas (Act 15:35; Act 15:40).

Third missionary tour. Act 18:23-21;Act 18:17. His aim at this period was to vindicate Christians’ freedom from the law, yet unity through the higher bond of love. Hence he gives prominence to the collections of the Gentile churches for the relief of the poor brethren at Jerusalem (Gal 2:10). The epistles of this time, Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, mainly discuss the relations of the believer to the Jewish law. From Antioch Paul went over all Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples (Act 18:23) and ordering the collection (1Co 16:1). Then on reaching Ephesus he wrote epistle to Galatians, else later at Corinth. (See GALATIANS.) Ephesus Paul reached from the upper regions (Phrygia: Act 19:1). Being the metropolis of Asia and the meeting ground of oriental, Jew, Greek, and Roman, Paul stayed at Ephesus two or three years (Act 19:10; Act 20:31), so that he founded in it a mother church for the whole Asian region.

Here he met the 12 disciples who had been, like Apollos (Act 18:25-26), baptized only unto John’s baptism. On his asking “did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye became believers?” they answered, “we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit is (given).” Paul taught them the further truths, baptism into the Lord Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; and in laying hands on them after baptism the Holy Spirit came on them, just as upon the Samaritans when Peter and John laid hands on them (Act 8:15; Act 8:17). The first three months Paul spoke boldly in the synagogue at Ephesus; then, on many hardening themselves in unbelief, he separated the disciples from the synagogue and disputed daily in the school of Tyrannus (whether a “private synagogue,” bet midrash, where he might assemble the believing Jews privately and receive inquiring Gentiles, or more probably the school of a Gentile sophist). This continued for two years, so that all both Jews and Greeks had the opportunity of hearing the word of the Lord Jesus.

God wrought special miracles by Paul, so that handkerchiefs and aprons from his body were used to heal the sick and cast out demons. So “the shadow of Peter” (Act 5:15), the hem of Christ’s garment (Mat 9:20-21). So far from confirming the virtue of “relics,” his case disproves them; they were “special” and extraordinary instances; all miracles having generally ceased, a fortiori, what even then were rarest must have now ceased also. Sorcery abounded at Ephesus; seven sons of Sceva, a Jew, exorcists, having presumed to call over the demon-possessed the name of the Lord Jesus preached by Paul, as a magic formula, two of them (Act 19:16, “prevailed against both” in the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus manuscripts) were wounded and driven out of the house by the man, the demon saying, “Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are ye?” (Mat 12:27.)

Such fear fell on those who, along with Christianity, secretly practiced magic arts that they confessed openly their sin and brought their costly books of incantations (the notorious Ephesia grammata) and burnt them publicly, at the sacrifice of their estimated value, 50,000 drachmas, 1,770 British pounds. “So mightily grew the word of God. During the first half of his stay at Ephesus he paid. a second short visit to Corinth, alluded to in 2Co 1:15-16; 2Co 2:1; 2Co 12:14; 2Co 12:21; 2Co 13:1-2. (See CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPlSTLE.) After this visit he wrote a letter alluded to in 1Co 5:9; 1Co 4:18. He purposed in spirit going through Macedon and Achaia (Corinth) to Jerusalem, then to Rome; meanwhile he sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedon, but stayed himself in Ephesus for a season.

His first epistle to the Corinthians was written while still at Ephesus (1Co 16:8), about the Passover time (1Co 16:7-8), shortly before the outbreak that drove him away at Pentecost time (Act 19:23-41), when he had already encountered beast-like “adversaries” (1Co 15:32), a premonitory symptom of the final tumult (1Co 16:9; 2Co 1:8; Rom 16:4); not after it, for immediately after it he left Ephesus for Macedon. How large his heart was, to be able to enter so warmly into the minute interests of the Corinthian churches in the midst of his engrossing ministry amidst threatening storms at Ephesus. In 1Co 4:9-13 he sketches the hardships of his apostolic life. His tact in dealing with the questions submitted to him by the Corinthians and those also omitted by them, but known otherwise, as well as his singleness of aim for Christ, shine conspicuously in this epistle. (See DEMETRIUS on the outbreak; also see EPHESUS; ASIARCHS; ALEXANDER; DIANA.)

Demetrius’ hypocritical zeal for Diana while his “wealth” (euporia only here “easy means”; equivalent to the ominous 666 (See ANTICHRIST)); 1Ki 10:14; 2Ch 9:13; Rev 13:18) was his real concern, the wild and blind excitement of the mob, “the more part not knowing wherefore they were come together,” the unreasoning religious party cry “great is Diana of the Ephesians,” the tact and good sense of the secretary of state (“the town clerk”) in calming the mob while incidentally testifying to Paul’s temperance in assailing the idol of the town, vividly appear in the narrative. It can have been no light impression that Paul’s preaching made, and no small danger he daily incurred. From Macedonia (probably Philippi) he wrote 2 Corinthians. (See 2 CORINTHIANS.) He had a door of preaching opened to him in Troas (2Co 2:12); but his anxiety to meet Titus, who had disappointed him in not coming to Troas, urged him forward to Macedon.

Having there met, and heard from him the tidings which he so eagerly longed for, namely, the good effect of his first epistle on the Corinthians, he wrote his second epistle, in which he glances at those Judaizing emissaries (especially one) who had tried to disparage his apostolic authority (2Co 12:11-12; 2Co 3:1; 2Co 11:4; 2Co 11:12-15) and malign his personal motives (2Co 1:12; 2Co 12:17-18); scoffing at his want of courage as evinced by his delay in coming, and at his threats as impotent (2Co 1:17; 2Co 1:23), and at his weak personal appearance and simple speech (2Co 10:10). His sensitive, affectionate tenderness appears in the anguish with which he wrote the first epistle, using the authority which some had denied, and threatening soon to enforce it in person (2Co 2:2-4; 2Co 2:13; 2Co 7:5; 2Co 7:8); also in his shrinking from going as soon as he had intended (rather he would wait to see the effect of his letter 2Co 1:15-16; 2Co 2:1), that his visit might be a happy instead of a sorrowful one; and in his triumphant joy at the news of their better state of mind (2Co 2:18; 2Co 2:14).

His list of hardships in 2Co 11:23-28 shows how much more he endured than the book of Acts records: “of the Jews five times I received 40 stripes save one; thrice was I beaten with rods(whereas elsewhere only one scourging is recorded, that at Philippi); once was I stoned (Act 14:19); thrice I suffered shipwreck; a night and a day I have been in the deep.” Not one of these sea perils is recorded in Acts; that of Acts 27, was subsequent. The” perils of rivers” (Greek for” waters”) would be in fording them in floods, bridges in mountain roads traversed by torrents being rare. The perils of robbers: the Pisidians (Act 13:14), Pamphylians, and Cilicians of the mountains separating the tableland of Asia from the coast were notorious for robbery (Strabo, xii. 6-7). The “thorn in the flesh (2Co 12:7), a messenger of Satan (compare Job 2:7; Luk 13:16) to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations,” was probably some painful, tedious, bodily malady, which shamed him before those to whom he ministered (Gal 4:13-15); it followed the revelation wherein he was caught up to the third heaven (perhaps at his second visit to Jerusalem: Act 22:17). (See PARADISE.)

“Thorn” implies bodily pain; “buffet,” shame (1Pe 2:20); after hearing and seeing the joys of holy angels, he is buffeted by an emissary of the evil one. But he was enabled to glory in infirmities, when his thrice offered prayer for the thorn’s removal was answered by Christ’s promise of His all sufficient grace and strength having its perfect manifestation in man’s weakness. God needs our weakness as the arena for displaying His power, not our strength, which is His rival. Notwithstanding the continued infirmity, Paul was enabled to sustain manifold wearing hardships. Traveling through Macedon, probably as far as to Illyricum (Rom 15:19), he at least visited Greece and stayed three months (Act 20:2-3). From Corinth he wrote the epistle to the Romans. (See ROMANS.)

He had longed to see the church which already existed at Rome, and whose faith was celebrated throughout the world, also to impart some spiritual gift to them (Rom 1:8; Rom 1:11-13). Hereto he had been hindered coming to them; he intends to come, and go on from Rome to Spain (Rom 15:16; Rom 15:24; Rom 15:28), and so to preach to the Gentiles of the remote West to whom, as to Rome itself, he feels himself a debtor as to the gospel, being the apostle of the uncircumcision, a spiritual priest, offering up the Gentile converts as a sacrifice acceptable unto God (Rom 1:14-15-16). He must now first go to Jerusalem, to take the offerings of the Macedonian and Achaian Christians for the relief of the poor saints there. Meantime he writes, begging their prayers that he may be delivered from the unbelieving in Judaea (Rom 15:25-32). The awful unrighteousness of the world, whose capital was Rome, suggested his subject, the righteousness of God, condemning Jew and Gentile alike (Romans 1; 2), but capable of being appropriated by faith in Jesus whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood.

Before leaving Corinth Luke joined him, as the “us” implies (Act 20:1-5). He had intended to sail direct to Syria (Act 20:3; Act 19:2; 1Co 16:3-7), but to avoid a Jewish plot against him he went through Macedon. Several were appointed with him as the joint bearers of the churches’ contributions for the poor brethren at Jerusalem. These went before by sea to Troas while he and Luke went through Macedonia. From Philippi, after the Passover, in five days Paul and Luke reached Troas, and stayed seven days. At the meeting there “to break bread” (i.e. to keep the lovefeast with which the eucharist was joined) on the first day of the week Paul preached earnestly until midnight, and the youth Eutychus in deep sleep fell from the third left, and was taken up dead, but was restored by Paul. (See EUTYCHUS.) Preachers ought to be considerate of their hearers, avoiding undue length and lateness! Hearers should avoid Carelessness, inattention, and drowsiness! Paul on returning proceeded to “break bread and eat” the love-feast meal (geusamenos, “having made a meal”), which closed the meeting.

Paul made the journey from Troas to Assos by land on foot alone, while the rest went before in ship. At Assos he went on board with them, and by Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Trogyllium, came to Miletus. Instead of calling to see the chief church of Asia, at Ephesus, which might have made him too late for the Pentecost at Jerusalem, he invited their elders to him at Miletus and gave the striking address recorded in Act 20:18-35. He reminds them of his manner of ministry among them with many tears, and amidst temptations owing to the Jews’ plots, his keeping back nothing profitable, but without reserve teaching both publicly and from house to house the gospel testimony, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus. “Now,” says he, “I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Spirit witnesseth in every city that bonds and afflictions abide me; but none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”

This accords with his epistles (2Co 4:1; 2Co 4:16; 2Ti 4:7; Phi 2:17). His inspired knowledge (for the words “I know” can hardly be a mere surmise, as Alford thinks from the use of the word in Act 26:27; Rom 15:29; Phi 1:19-20) that they all should not see his face again was what most affected them. He visited Miletus and no doubt Ephesus again (1Ti 1:3; 2Ti 1:18; 2Ti 4:20). His being “pure from the blood of all” he rests on his “not having shunned to declare all the counsel of God”; a warning to ministers against having an esoteric teaching for the few, not imparted to the multitude, and against one-sidedness in teaching. The safeguard lies in taking heed (1) to themselves, (2) to all the flock; none is to be neglected, for the Holy Spirit makes overseers for the purpose of feeding the church of God (the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus manuscripts, but Alexandrinus manuscript “of the Lord”) bought with His own blood.

(1) The best manuscript evidence favors the reading “God”;

(2) being the more difficult it is less likely to be an interpolation than the easier reading, “Lord”;

(3) “the church of God” is a common expression in Paul’s epistles, “church of the Lord” never.

His prophecy of “grievous wolves not sparing the flock,” and of “men arising of their own selves speaking perverse things, drawing away disciples,” is the germ expanded further in 1 Timothy 4; 2Ti 2:17-19; 2Ti 2:3; 2Ti 2:2 Thessalonians 2; the antichrist in 1Jo 2:22-23; 1Jo 4:1-3; Revelation 11-19. His warning for three years every one, night and day, with tears, accords with his character in the epistles (Phi 3:18; 2Ti 1:3). So his appeal to their consciousness of his having coveted nothing of theirs, and of his setting them the example of manual labour to support others as well as himself, remembering “it is more blessed to give than to receive” (1Co 4:12; 1Co 9:12; 2Co 7:2; 2Co 11:9; 2Co 12:14; 2Co 12:17; 1Th 2:9; 2Th 3:8). It was an affecting parting, when after prayer together on bended knee they wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck and kissed him, and accompanied him to the ship. By Cos, Rhodes, Patara, and past Cyprus, Paul sailed to Tyre, where the ship unladed her cargo.

Finding disciples there, by a kind of freemasonry of Christianity, he stayed seven days, and was warned by them through the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem. The parting scene would form an exquisite picture. All with wives and children escorted them until they were out of the city; then he and they kneeled down on the shore and prayed. By Ptolemais Paul reached Caesarea, and there abode with Philip the evangelist, whose four prophesying daughters probably repeated the warning. Lastly Agabus from Judaea (compare Act 11:28), symbolically binding his hands and feet with Paul’s girdle, foretold so should the Jews bind Paul and deliver him to the Gentiles. All then, both his fellow travelers and the Christians of the place, besought him not to go forward. His resolution was unshaken; “what mean ye to weep and break my heart? I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the Lord Jesus” (Phi 1:21-23). So Jesus Himself (Luk 9:51; Luk 9:57; Luk 9:61-62; Isa 50:7).

At last all recognized it as of God’s ordering, “the will of the Lord be done”; the way of realizing his desire to visit the church at Rome, not what man would have chosen but what proved ultimately best, being God’s appointment (Phi 1:12-13). After tarrying “many days” in Caesarea, not to be too long at Jerusalem before the feast, as a prudent precaution, Paul went to Jerusalem (his fifth and probably last visit), where Mnason lodged him. (See MNASON.) In compliance with the counsel of James and the elders, in order to silence the false charges against him of teaching the JEWS to forsake the law and not to circumcise their children, he next day put himself under the vow with four Nazarites, signifying to the temple priests their intention to fulfill the days of purification, he defraying the charge of their offerings, which was accounted a meritorious act. The process required seven days for completion; toward their close Jews of Asia stirred up the people against him in the temple, saying he had brought Greeks into it, meaning Trophimus, whom they had seen with Paul but not in the temple.

They dragged Paul out of the temple, and would have killed him with blows, but “the chief captain” commanding the garrison rescued him, and chained him to two soldiers. His speaking Greek undeceived Lysias, who had guessed him to be the notorious Egyptian insurrection leader of that time (Josephus, Ant. 20:8, section 6; B. J. 2:13, section 5). Being permitted to speak from the stair, Paul delivered his “defence” to the people with admirable tact in Hebrew, the language of their fathers, and selecting such points as vindicated his faithfulness to the God of their fathers: e.g. his rearing under Gamaliel; his Christian instructor Ananias’ devoutness according to the law, and good report of all the Jews; his vision in the temple at Jerusalem, where his own desire was to stay, witnessing for Christ where he had most bitterly persecuted His followers, but the Lord said, “I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles” (Eph 3:7-8). The name was enough; the mob was infuriated at the wall of Jewish exclusive privileges being broken down. “Away with such a fellow from the earth,” etc. (1Th 2:16.)

Lysias supposing Paul must have perpetrated some heinous crime would have scourged him, but Paul’s Roman citizenship saved him. Lysias would not give up a Roman citizen to a Jewish court, yet in courtesy he convened their council the following day (Act 22:30; Act 22:23), to give them the opportunity of hearing and answering his defense, as he had given the same opportunity to the mob. Paul, fixing his eyes intently as was his wont (probably from having never recovered the blinding at his conversion: Act 13:9; Gal 4:13; Gal 4:15; Gal 2:11; 2Co 12:7; 2Co 12:9; which may account for his not recognizing the high priest), proceeded to say that he had lived a conscientious loyal life before God (pepoliteumai) as a Jew up to that day (2Ti 1:3). Ananias commanded the bystanders to smite him on the mouth. (See ANANIAS.)

Paul said, “God shall smite thee, thou whited sepulchre,” etc. So Jesus, Mat 23:27; Luk 11:44; but His calm majesty when smitten contrasts with Paul’s natural indignation at hypocrisy and injustice in the seat of judgment (Joh 18:22-23). Paul apologized for his strong language on the ground of his not knowing, from imperfect sight or otherwise, that it was the high priest who gave the order. Adroitly Paul enlisted on the side of the truth, against Sadduceanism, a large portion of his audience by saying, “I am a Pharisee … of the hope of the resurrection I am called in question.” Contrast Jesus’ dealing with the Sadducees, “ye do err greatly, not knowing the Scriptures.” The Lord in vision cheered him that night, as at Corinth (Act 18:9), promising he should testify for Him as at Jerusalem so at Rome. More than 40 Jews next day plotted not to eat or drink until they killed Paul, when the chief priests should induce Lysias to bring him again before the council. By his sister’s son Paul heard and communicated the plot to Lysias.

The chief captain sent Paul under escort of 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 bodyguard to Antipatris by night, thence with the 70 horsemen alone to Caesarea, with an explanatory letter to Felix the governor, in which, in fear of consequences, he suppresses his command to scourge Paul, and on the contrary represents his reason for rescuing him “having understood that he was a Roman,” though he did not know that until afterward. Felix kept Paul in Herod’s judgment hall until his accusers came; thus Providence overruled his Roman imprisonment to be his safeguard against Jewish plots. (See FELIX.)

After five days (Acts 24) Ananias the high priest came from Jerusalem, and through a hired orator accused Paul of being a mover of sedition and ringleader of the Nazarenes, who sought to profane the temple. Tertullus begun his address (which is Latin in its characteristics, according to the usage before Roman magistrates) with a studied exordium of gross flattery: “seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence” (as if Felix were a god, “the providence of Caesar” is found on coins), the reverse being notoriously the case, Felix often receiving plunder from the bands of robbers that pillaged and plundered in Samaria, “exercising the authority of a king with the disposition of a slave in all cruelty and lust” (Tacitus, Annals xii. 54, Hist. 5:9). The only color for Tertullus’ compliment was, Felix had put down some rebels and assassins (Josephus, Ant. 20:8, section 4), himself being worse than they. Paul replied with courtesy to Felix without sacrifice of truth: “forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years (seven) a judge unto this nation (so, well acquainted with Jewish usages), I do the more cheerfully answer for myself.”

An alleged offense so recent as “twelve days” ago one so versed in Jewish affairs would easily adjudicate upon. Paul admitted he came to the temple, but it was “for to worship”; the Jews may call it “heresy,” but it is “the God of his fathers he worships, believing the law and the prophets, and that there shall be a resurrection of just and unjust,” and “exercising himself to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and men.” So in his epistles: 1Co 4:4; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 4:2; Heb 13:18. His coming to Jerusalem to bring alms to his nation, and his purification in the temple, proved his loyalty to the faith of Israel. Felix, though “knowing accurately about the (Christian) way,” put them off until Lysias should come; his real motive being hope of a bribe, which Paul’s mention of his bringing “alms and offerings” suggested. Hence he gave Paul’s acquaintances free access to him, as they might provide him with money for a bribe. Felix gave Paul another hearing before Drusilla his wife, a Jewess. (See DRUSILLA.)

But as Paul reasoned of “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” before one unrighteous, lustful, and who durst not face his own conscience (contrast Act 24:16) much less the judgment to come, Felix “trembled” and sent Paul away for the present. Tacitus (Annals xii. 54) says Felix thought he might do all crimes with impunity; so it was a sharp thrust that reached the conscience of such a reprobate. A “convenient season” Felix never sought for his soul; interviews with Paul to get a bribe he did seek, but Paul was proof against his temptations. So Felix left Paul a prisoner for two years at Caesarea. Porcius Festus, succeeding (A.D. 60), was solicited to bring him to Jerusalem, the Jews plotting to kill him in the way, but refused. (See FESTUS.)

At the hearing that followed in Caesarea, on Festus’ proposing (in compliment to the Jews) that he should be tried at Jerusalem, Paul appealed to Caesar, a Roman citizen by the Valerian law having the right to appeal from a magistrate to the people or tribunes, and subsequently to the emperor. In order that Festus might have some definite report of the charges against Paul to send with him to Rome, he gave Paul a hearing before Herod Agrippa and Berenice, who came with characteristic pomp (Acts 25, translated Act 25:19 “questions of their own religious system,” for Festus would not to Agrippa a Jew call his creed a “superstition,” deisidaimonia; Acts 26). (See HEROD AGRIPPA; BERENICE.)

Paul a third time narrates his conversion, dwelling before Herod Agrippa, as one well versed in Jewish questions, on “the hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers” (Act 26:6-7), namely, Messiah, and on His resurrection, which Paul attested as an eye witness, not only not prejudiced in His favor but once bitterly hating Him. To the Herodian family, tinged with Sadduceeism, the resurrection seemed “incredible”; but why should it be so, seeing that God has actually raised Jesus? The doctrines in the epistles appear here in germ: “the inheritance to the sanctified” (Eph 1:11; Col 1:12); Christ “the first” who rose, a pledge of the saints’ resurrection (1Co 15:20; Col 1:18); the “Light to the people (Israel) and to the Gentiles” (Luk 2:32, whose Gospel Paul in part suggested). With the charge of being “beside himself” with zeal compare 2Co 5:13; 2Co 11:16-17; 1Co 1:23; 1Co 2:14.

Festus attributed to Paul “much learning,” judging from his acquaintance with Old Testament, and probably from his having had many parchments in prison; croup (?), subsequently 2Ti 4:13. How graceful a turn he gives to his wish that his hearers were “altogether such as he was, except these bonds,” which bound him to the soldier in charge of him, and which he looked at, on his outstretched arms (Act 26:1-29). (On his voyage to Rome, see EUROCLYDON.) Julius a centurion was his kind and courteous escort. Luke accompanied him. The description of the voyage is proved by experienced Mediterranean seamen to be minutely accurate and true. Aristarchus also was with him. At Sidon Paul, with Julius’ leave, visited his friends and refreshed himself. (See ARISTARCHUS.) At Myra in Lycia, where N. winds off Cilicia and Pamphylia would carry them, they went on board an Alexandrian ship bound for Italy, and slowly coasted against the wind until over against CNIDUS they ran S. under the lee of Crete, passing Salmone headland and so to FAIN HEAVENS. (See CRETE.) (See MELITA for the rest.)

After a three months’ stay in Malta, Paul sailed in the Castor and Pollux, an Alexandrian ship, to Syracuse, where he stayed three days. Thence in a circuitous course to Rhegium, next day to Puteoli, where brethren entertained him seven days; and so to Rome, the brethren meeting him at Appii Forum (43 miles from Rome) and the Three Taverns (ten miles) on the way; so that Paul thanked God and took courage, cheered by the communion of saints. (See APPII FORUM.) Julius gave Paul up to the captain of the guard (proefectus praetorio, the Praetorian camp outside the Viminal gate), who allowed him to dwell by himself, chained to a soldier. His first care was to invite the Jews to a conference, where from morning until evening he expounded and testified the kingdom of God embodied in Jesus, out of the law and the prophets, declaring “for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”

Some believed, some disbelieved; whereupon Paul (at the close of New Testament history) quoted Isa 2:9-10 as the Holy Spirit’s testimony against them, which Jesus at the beginning also quoted (Mat 13:14-15), and John (Joh 12:39-41) concerning Jesus (Isa 6:1; Isa 6:9). So that Father, Son, and Spirit spoke the words. The Jews not hearing of Paul before was because, before his appeal, the Judaean Jews did not anticipate his going to Rome, and after it there was no time to communicate concerning him before he arrived. Now he turns to the Gentiles who would more readily hear. For two whole years he received all inquirers and taught concerning the Lord Jesus without impediment. His epistles to Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon; and (toward the close of the two years) Philippians, were written at this time. (See EPHESIANS; COLOSSIANS; PHILEMON; PHILIPPIANS .) (See TIMOTHY; TITUS, (epistles) on his subsequent release and second imprisonment at Rome.)

Their style is that of an old man; the church organization appears more settled, the symptoms of apostasy more marked. These pastoral epistles evidently were long after the others. Eusebius (Chronicles 2083) places his death in the 18th of Nero; Jerome (Script. Ecclesiastes) in the 14th, i.e. four or five years after the first imprisonment. In the interval he realized his purpose of visiting Spain (Rom 15:28). Clemens Romans (Ep. 1 Corinthians 5) says “before his martyrdom Paul went to the extreme W.” Muratori Fragment says “Spain” (Routh, Reliq. Sacr.). He visited Ephesus, and was some time there again (1Ti 1:3; 1Ti 4:13; 2Ti 1:18). Also Crete, where he left Titus to organize churches (Tit 1:5); he intended (Tit 3:12) to winter at Nicopolis. Also Miletus and Corinth (2Ti 4:20); Troas 2Ti 4:13), where he left his cloak and books (some think his mantle, which be desired to wear as a Roman citizen at Rome; the mantle superseded the toga as the badge of a Roman. But it is a simpler and more touching view that his worn out frame needed the warm cloak against the winter in his dungeon).

In 2Ti 2:19; 2Ti 4:6, he appears as in bonds, expecting daily execution, ready, and triumphantly looking for the crown of righteousness, for he is no longer, as at the first imprisonment, treated with respect, but as a felon; the Christians having incurred odium on this false charge of the Neronian conflagration. Luke alone is with him. so he wishes Timothy to come with. out delay and bring Mark (2Ti 1:15; 2Ti 4:16; 2Ti 4:9-12). He has already been once before the authorities, forsaken by all, but strengthened by the Lord’s presence so as to preach fully to all the Gentiles present. Clemens Romans says, “Paul was martyred under the rulers (hegoumenon) after going to the extreme West.”

Alford traces Paul’s last journey thus: to Crete (Tit 1:5), Miletus (2Ti 4:20), Colosse (fulfilling his intention, Phm 1:22), Ephesus (Eph 1:3; 2Ti 1:18), from which neighborhood he wrote his epistle to Titus; to Troas, Macedon, Corinth (2Ti 4:20), Nicopolis (Tit 3:12) in Epirus, where he intended to winter; in this city, being a Roman colony, Paul would be free from tumultuary violence, yet be open to direct attack from adversaries in the metropolis. Known at Rome as leader of the Christians, he was probably arrested as implicated in causing the fire which Nero attributed to them; the duumvirs of Nicopolis sent him to Rome. Imprisoned as a common malefactor (2Ti 2:9), he was deserted by his Asiatic friends except Onesiphorus (2Ti 1:16). Demas, Cresceus, and Titus left him; Tychicus he had sent to Ephesus; Luke alone stayed with him (2Ti 4:10-12).

Then he wrote second epistle to Timothy, while Timothy was at Ephesus (2Ti 1:18; 2Ti 2:17; compare Eph 1:20), begging him to come before winter, and expecting death as at hand (2Ti 4:6; 2Ti 4:13; 2Ti 4:21). Tychicus was not, as some suppose, the bearer of the second epistle (2Ti 4:12; 2Ti 4:16-17), the absence of “to thee” is against it; explain “I need one profitable (for the ministry). I had one in Tychicus (Eph 6:21), but (Greek for ‘and,’ Eph 6:12) he is gone.” His defense was not before the emperor Nero himself, for the latter was in Greece, but before his representative, Hellas Caesareanus, Claudius’ freedman, prefect of Rome and Italy (Dion Cassius, 63:12, said the only difference between him and Caesar was, Caesar aped the minstrels, and the freedman aped the Caesar). If Timothy was not at Ephesus at the time of Paul’s writing second epistle to Timothy, Tychicus may have been its bearer, for then the “to thee” would not be needed. (See TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE.)

Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 170, in Eusebius H.E. 2:25) is the first who says Peter and Paul were martyred about the same time. But Peter labored among the Jews (Gal 2:9); Rome was a Gentile church (Rom 1:13). Peter was at Babylon (1Pe 1:1; 1Pe 5:13). Paul’s silence negatives Peter’s founding, or long laboring in, the Roman church. Caius the Roman presbyter (A.D. 200) says Paul was martyred on the Ostian way.

To avoid the sympathy which his influence had excited (so that he had partisans even in the palace: Phi 1:13; Phi 4:22) was probably the reason of his execution outside the city by a military escort, with the sword (Oresins, Hist. vii. 7, Tacitus, Annals iv. 11), probably in A.D. 67 or 68, Nero’s last year. His Roman citizenship exempted him from torture and crucifixion, Peter’s mode of death. The Basilica of Paul built by Constantine stands on the road to Ostia. The apocryphal “Clementines” at the end of the second century contain a curious attack on his authority (“the inimical man”) and exaltation of Peter and James. It is a rising of the old judaical leaven, impatient of the gospel anti-legalism of Paul.

DATES. Paul left Caesarea in the autumn of A.D. 60, for that is the date of Festus’ accession. In the spring of 61 he reached Rome, stayed two whole years to the spring of 63; his death was in 67 (Eusebius), or 68 (Jerome). He was two years at Caesarea, which dating back gives A.D. 58 as the date of his last visit to Jerusalem at Pentecost. Previously he wintered at Corinth (Act 20:2-3). He left Ephesus for Corinth therefore at the end of 57, and his three years’ stay brings us back to 54 for its commencement. Previously he was some time at Antioch (Act 18:23); a hasty visit to Jerusalem; his second missionary tour, including one year and a half at Corinth; a stay at Antioch; third visit to Jerusalem, generally fixed at a.D. 50 or 51; the “long” stay at Antioch (Act 14:28); first missionary tour; stay at Antioch (Act 12:25; Act 13:1).

The second visit to Jerusalem synchronizes with Herod Agrippa’s death, A.D. 44. Dating “14 years” (Gal 2:1) back from 50 or 51 (his third visit to Jerusalem) brings to 37 or 38 for his conversion, after which he spent three years in Arabia and Damascus down to his first visit to Jerusalem, A.D. 40 or 41. Between this and the second visit (44 or 45) probably he spent two or three years at Tarsus (Act 9:30) and one year at Antioch (Act 11:26). At Stephen’s martyrdom Paul was “a young man,” perhaps A.D. 33. If he was 30 at conversion he would be at death upward of 60, and through hardships older in constitution than years. Allowing the interval between the first and second imprisonments to be four years, he was now four years older than when he called himself “Paul the aged” (Phm 1:9). Ardent, tenderly sensitive, courteous, fearless, enduring, full of tact and versatility, intellectual and refined, above all, single in aim, exercising himself always to have a conscience void of offense toward God and man, at the same time becoming all things to all men that by all means he might win some, he not only preached but lived Christ as the source and end of his whole being. In short, his spirit is fully expressed in Gal 2:20; Phi 1:21-23; Phi 2:17; Phi 3:7-14.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

PAUL

Through his evangelistic activity, church leadership, theological insights and extensive writings, Paul had an immeasurable influence on the development of Christianity. He spread the gospel and planted churches regardless of national or racial barriers, and in so doing he changed the traditional views of God-fearing people. He interpreted Christs life and developed Christs teachings in a way that provided a firm theological framework for Christian faith and practice.

Background and conversion

Pauls original name was Saul. He was a full-blooded Jew, born in Tarsus in south-east Asia Minor (Act 9:11; Act 22:3; Php 3:5). He inherited from birth the privilege of Roman citizenship (Act 16:37; Act 22:26-28; see ROME), and he grew up to speak, read and write Greek and Hebrew fluently (Act 21:37; Act 21:40). The Greek influence in his education gave him the ability to think clearly and systematically, and the Hebrew influence helped to create in him a character of moral uprightness (Php 3:6).

As a religiously zealous young man, Paul moved to Jerusalem, where he received instruction in the Jewish law according to the strict traditions of the Pharisees. His teacher was the prominent rabbi, Gamaliel (Act 22:3; Act 23:6; Act 26:5). Like all Jewish young men he learnt a trade, in his case, tent-making (Act 18:3).

Zeal for the Jewish law stirred up Paul against the Christians. He considered that Stephen was a rebel against the law and that therefore he deserved execution (Act 6:13; Act 7:58; Act 8:1; Php 3:6). With the support of the Jewish Council (the Sanhedrin), Paul then led the persecution against the Christians, imprisoning men and women alike (Act 8:3; Act 9:1-2; Act 26:10-11; Gal 1:13; 1Ti 1:13).

Paul considered the Christians to be guilty of blasphemy in believing in a Messiah who died on a cross; for a person who died on a cross was under Gods curse (Act 26:11; Gal 3:13). But while on the way to Damascus to capture Christians, Paul had a dramatic experience that changed him completely. Jesus personal revelation to Paul convinced him that Jesus was alive (Act 9:3-5; Act 22:14; Act 26:8; Act 26:15; 1Co 9:1). This meant that Jesus was no longer under Gods curse. He had died, not because he was a lawbreaker, but because he willingly bore the curse on behalf of those who were. Jesus resurrection was now the unmistakable evidence of Gods approval of him (Rom 1:4; Gal 3:13; Gal 6:14).

Linked with Pauls conversion was the Lords revelation that he intended to use Paul as his messenger to the Gentiles (Act 9:15; Act 26:15-18; Gal 1:11-16). From that time on, Paul never ceased to wonder at the work of God in saving the opponent of Christianity and turning him into an ambassador for Christianity. It gave Paul an appreciation of the grace of God that affected every aspect of his life (1Co 15:8-10; Eph 3:8; 1Ti 1:12-17). (The date of Pauls conversion was about AD 32.)

Preparation for future ministry

After his conversion, Paul remained for a while in Damascus, trying to convince the Jews that Jesus was Lord and Messiah. Part of the next three years Paul spent in Arabia, after which he returned to Damascus. When violent opposition from the Jews threatened his life, he escaped to Jerusalem (Act 9:22-26; Gal 1:17-18). Most of the Christians in Jerusalem doubted whether Pauls conversion was genuine. Not so Barnabas. After he introduced Paul to Peter and James the Lords brother, the tension eased (Act 9:26-28; Gal 1:19-20). But attempts by the Jews on his life again forced him to flee. He sailed from Caesarea to northern Syria, from where he went overland through Cilicia to Tarsus (Act 9:29-30; Act 22:17-21; Gal 1:21).

Pauls next visit to Jerusalem was eleven years later (cf. Gal 1:18; Gal 2:1). Little is known of those eleven years, though they must have been important years of preparation for Pauls future work. Paul spent the final year of this preparation period at Antioch in Syria. In response to an invitation from Barnabas, he had come from Tarsus to help the newly formed Antioch church (Act 11:25-26). At the end of the year, Paul and Barnabas took a gift of money from Antioch to Jerusalem to help the poor Christians there (Act 11:29-30; Gal 2:1).

Peter, John and James the Lords brother, as representatives of the Jerusalem church, received the gift from the Antioch church and expressed their complete fellowship with the mission of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9-10). Paul and Barnabas then returned to Antioch, taking with them the young man John Mark (Act 12:25).

Breaking into new territory

Having a desire to spread the gospel into the unevangelized areas to the west, the Antioch church sent off Paul and Barnabas as its missionaries (Act 13:1-2; about AD 46). Accompanied by John Mark (who had gone with them as their assistant), Paul and Barnabas went first to Cyprus, where they proclaimed the message from one end of the island to the other (Act 13:4-6).

From there the group went to Perga in Asia Minor. At this point John Mark left the other two and returned to Jerusalem (Act 13:13). Paul and Barnabas then moved inland, planting churches in the Galatian towns of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe (Act 13:14; Act 14:1; Act 14:8; Act 14:20). To strengthen the new churches, they returned to Perga by the same route as they had come, and then sailed back to their home church in Syria (Act 14:21-28).

This trip, commonly referred to as Pauls first missionary journey, showed how Paul thought carefully about his missionary work. He established some basic patterns, which he followed on later trips as his field of missionary activity expanded.

For example, Paul set himself certain guidelines concerning how and where he preached. He felt an obligation to preach to the Jews first, since their entire national history had prepared them to receive the Christian gospel (Act 13:14; Act 13:46; Rom 1:16).

On entering a town, Paul usually preached first in the synagogue, where God-fearing Gentiles, as well as Jews, provided him with a well prepared audience (Act 13:14; Act 13:43-44; Act 13:48; Act 14:1; Act 17:1-4; Act 17:10). His preaching in the synagogue was usually based on the Old Testament (Act 13:15-41). His preaching in other places, where people knew nothing of the Old Testament, was usually based on the more general revelation of God in the natural creation and the human conscience (Act 14:12-18; Act 17:17-31; Rom 1:19-20; Rom 2:14-16).

Pauls aim was not merely to preach the gospel or make converts, but to bring people into a relationship with Jesus Christ that would change their lives. The life of Christ was to be reproduced in the lives of Christs people (2Co 5:17; Eph 4:17-24; Col 2:6-7; Col 3:1-4). However, Paul did not leave these people to live in isolation. In each locality he built them into a church, or body, where the lives of all would be enriched as they contributed to, and shared in, the life of the body (1Co 12:12-14; see CHURCH). From the Christians within each church, Paul appointed suitable people as elders, in order to give leadership to the church (Act 14:23; Act 20:28; see ELDER).

As independent units, each of them answerable to Christ as head (Eph 1:22-23; Eph 4:15-16), churches then had the responsibility to evangelize the areas round about. For this reason Paul usually chose important towns along the main highways and trade routes as centres in which to plant churches. Once strong churches were established in these centres, the gospel would spread quickly to the surrounding regions (Act 13:49; Act 16:11-12; Act 19:10; Rom 15:19-20; 1Th 1:8).

Trouble from Judaisers

There had always been some Jews in the Jerusalem church who believed that Christians had to follow the regulations of the Jewish law. Some of these people, known as Judaisers, came to Antioch in Syria and taught so persuasively that even Peter and Barnabas were influenced by them (Act 15:1; Gal 2:11-14). Paul quickly dealt with the problem in Antioch, but soon he heard news that the Judaisers had spread their teaching to the new churches of Galatia. Without delay he wrote and sent off the letter that we know as Galatians (Gal 1:6-8; Gal 3:1-3; see GALATIANS, LETTER TO THE).

For the rest of his life Paul opposed unceasingly any attempt to place Christians under the law of Moses. A prominent theme of his teaching was that Christs death and resurrection has freed Christians from all forms of bondage, and given them a power to produce a quality of character that no law-code could ever produce (Rom 6:15-18; Rom 7:4; Rom 8:1-4; Gal 5:1; Gal 5:14; Col 2:13-14; 1Ti 4:1-4). He was uncompromising in insisting that, through the grace of God, people are justified and sanctified by faith, regardless of lawkeeping (Rom 3:28; Rom 6:19).

Pauls careful exposition of the meaning of Christs death and resurrection (namely, that it is the basis of the salvation God has provided) was one of his most influential contributions to the development of Christian doctrine (Rom 3:24-25; Rom 5:1-2; Rom 5:6-11; Rom 6:3-11; 1Co 1:21-24; 2Co 5:19-21; Gal 2:20-21; Eph 1:7; Php 3:8-9; Col 1:20; 1Ti 2:5-6; see JUSTIFICATION; SANCTIFICATION).

With these truths clear in mind Paul went to Jerusalem, along with others from Antioch, to deal with the problem that the Judaisers had created (Act 15:1-5). The Jerusalem leaders supported Paul and expressed their disapproval of the Judaisers (Act 15:11; Act 15:19; Act 15:24). They also sent a letter to the troubled churches to reassure them in what they had believed (Act 15:23-33; Act 16:4).

Into Europe

In view of the recent troubles, Paul decided to revisit the churches of Galatia. When he and Barnabas split because of a quarrel concerning whether to take Mark with them, Paul chose Silas as his partner. Soon he added Timothy as a young assistant (Act 15:36-41; Act 16:1-3; about AD 49). This marked the beginning of what is commonly referred to as Pauls second missionary journey.

Although Paul planned his movements, he was also responsive when God redirected him. As a result he moved from the churches of Galatia up to Troas, from where he sailed to Macedonia in northern Greece (Act 16:6-11). He established churches in Philippi (Act 16:12-40), Thessalonica (Act 17:1-9) and Berea (Act 17:10-14), after which he moved to the southern part of Greece known as Achaia. He preached with only moderate success in Athens (Act 17:15-34), and then moved across to Corinth, where he stayed eighteen months (Act 18:1-11).

During this time in Corinth, Paul wrote the two letters that we know as 1 and 2 Thessalonians (cf. Act 18:5; 1Th 3:1-6; 1Th 5:1; 2Th 1:1; 2Th 2:14; see THESSALONIANS, LETTERS TO THE). Some of the matters Paul dealt with in these letters concerned the return of Jesus Christ. Throughout his writings Paul showed Christs return to be the great hope, the assured expectation, the joyous climax towards which Christians move (Rom 8:18; Rom 8:23-24; 1Co 15:20; 1Co 15:51-57; Php 3:20-21; 1Th 1:10; 1Th 3:12-13; 1Th 4:13-18; see HOPE). It is also a sober reminder to Christians that, in view of their future meeting with Christ, they should be careful how they live now (1Co 4:5; 2Co 5:10; 1Th 5:1-11; see SECOND COMING).

From Corinth Paul sailed for Ephesus. After a short stay there, he sailed for Palestine, where he visited the church in Jerusalem before returning to Antioch in Syria (Act 18:18-22).

Developing churches

After a time with the church in Antioch, Paul set out on what is known as his third missionary journey (about AD 53). Once more he visited the churches of Galatia, after which he moved to Ephesus on the west coast of Asia Minor (Act 18:23; Act 19:1). He stayed there three years (Act 20:31), during which time his disciples evangelized much of Asia Minor (Act 19:9-10). His work in Ephesus brought extraordinary results among a wide variety of people (Act 19:9; Act 19:18-20; Act 19:24-26).

The entire record of Paul in Acts is only an outline of his travels and experiences. He suffered many beatings, imprisonments and other hardships not mentioned in Acts (2Co 11:23-28), and met particularly violent opposition in Ephesus (1Co 15:32). During his three years in Ephesus he also had to deal with many problems that had arisen in the Corinthian church. He wrote the church a number of letters, and on one occasion made an urgent trip to Corinth to deal with the more serious matters. (For details of these travels and writings, not mentioned in Acts, see CORINTHIANS, LETTERS TO THE.)

Although Paul based his missionary plan on the establishment of churches in the key cities of a region, the plan would work only if those churches were strong and healthy. For this reason Paul gave repeated instruction to congregations and leaders on the quality of life required within the church. He emphasized the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in peoples lives (2Co 3:17-18; Gal 5:18-24; Eph 5:15-20), the loving consideration that Christians should have for each other (Rom 14:13; Rom 14:19; 1Co 10:24; Gal 6:1-2; Php 2:4), the importance of right teaching in the church (2Co 4:1-2; 1Ti 1:3-5; 1Ti 3:15; 2Ti 2:15; 2Ti 2:24), and the need for the public life of the church to be orderly, God-honouring, and spiritually helpful to all (1Co 11:17-22; 1Co 14:12; 1Co 14:26; 1Co 14:40; 1Ti 5:16-17; Tit 1:5; see CHURCH; GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT; HOLY SPIRIT).

Ephesus and Corinth were the two churches that gave Paul the most concern on these matters. They were also the two places where he stayed longest. After his three years in Ephesus he moved north to Macedonia (Act 20:1), from where he travelled further through the region, possibly as far as Illyricum (Act 20:2; Rom 15:19). He then travelled south to Corinth, where he spent a further three months (Act 20:3).

For some time Paul had been collecting money from Gentile churches to help the poor Christians in the Jerusalem church. He hoped that when he and representatives from the Gentile churches took this money to Jerusalem, it would help towards healing the ill-feeling that many Jerusalemites had towards their Gentile brothers (Rom 15:25-27; 1Co 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8; 2 Corinthians 9). Upon completing this mission in Jerusalem, Paul hoped to visit Rome (Act 19:21; Rom 15:28-29).

In preparation for this visit to Rome, Paul wrote (from Corinth) a lengthy letter to the Roman church, setting out in systematic fashion the basics of the Christian faith. If Rome, the centre of the Empire, was to be a centre from which the gospel could spread, the church there had to have a clear understanding of the gospel (Rom 1:10-13; Rom 15:14-16; see ROMANS, LETTER TO THE). Just as Paul had wanted to make sure that the church in Corinth was strong before he moved west to Rome (2Co 10:15-16), so he wanted to be sure that the church in Rome was strong before he moved farther west to Spain (Rom 15:23-24).

With these plans in mind, Paul and his party moved from Corinth back to Macedonia, across to Troas and down to Miletus (Act 20:4-6; Act 20:15). There he met the leaders of the Ephesian church, warning them of troubles that lay ahead for their church (Act 20:17; Act 20:28-30). After visiting Christians in a number of other ports, Paul reached Jerusalem (Act 21:15; about AD 57).

Final break with Jerusalem

The Jerusalem Jews, some Christians among them, had always been suspicious of Paul, mainly because of his refusal to acknowledge the Jewish law as either a way of salvation or a rule of life. Yet Paul was always prepared to adjust to Jewish practices voluntarily, if he thought such action would gain him acceptance with the Jews and give him the opportunity to win them to Christ (1Co 9:19-23). He tried such an approach when he arrived in Jerusalem, but the Jews misunderstood. A riot resulted and Paul ended up in prison (Act 21:17-40; Acts 22). The Roman commander then sent Paul to stand trial before the Jewish Council, but that also finished in a riot (Act 23:1-10). He therefore sent Paul to the provincial governor, Felix, in Caesarea (Act 22:31-33).

Pauls accusers were unable to convince Felix that Paul was guilty, but Felix left Paul in prison to prevent any further trouble with the Jews (Act 24:22-27). When, after two years, Festus replaced Felix as governor, he continued the injustice. As a result Paul claimed his right as a Roman citizen and appealed to the Emperor for justice (Act 25:10-12). Before Paul left for Rome, a visiting expert on Jewish affairs, Herod Agrippa II, confirmed that Paul was innocent (Act 26:32).

Through one crisis after another, Paul had shown himself to be a person of great physical courage and mental alertness. Earlier, when saved at the last moment from being beaten to death by the rioting Jews in Jerusalem, he had insisted on speaking to those who wanted to murder him, and he even brought them to silence (Act 21:35-40). More than once he surprised the Roman military commander by his quick thinking (Act 21:37-40; Act 22:25-29). Before the Jewish Council his speedy assessment of the situation enabled him to change proceedings to suit himself (Act 23:6). With calm reasoning he convinced Felix of his innocence (Act 24:10-23), and his alertness before Festus enabled him to seize the opportunity to get to Rome at last (Act 25:9-12). He was now sent off to Rome by sea, under a Roman guard (Act 27:1-2).

Although a prisoner, Paul did not hesitate to give advice to the ships officers, warning them against sailing further in dangerous weather. They ignored his advice and the ship was soon in trouble (Act 27:10-11; Act 27:14; Act 27:20). When, after two weeks of terror, the ship was about to sink, Pauls leadership prevented panic and ensured that all on board got to land safely (Act 27:29-38; Act 27:42-44).

The place they landed was the island Malta (Act 28:1). Some months later they arrived in Rome, where Paul was kept under guard while awaiting the hearing of his case (Act 28:11; Act 28:16; about AD 60). He was allowed visitors and could speak openly in making known the Christian gospel (Act 28:17; Act 28:30-31).

Two years in Rome

Among those who came to Rome to see Paul was a Christian from Colossae named Epaphras (Col 1:7-8; Col 4:12). There had been false teaching in the Colossian church, and Epaphras sought advice from Paul concerning how to deal with it (Col 2:16-23). Although Paul had not personally founded the church in Colossae (Col 2:1), he gladly sent off a letter to help the church through its difficulties (see COLOSSIANS, LETTER TO THE).

Another arrival from Colossae was a runaway slave named Onesimus, whose master Philemon owned the house in which the Colossian church met (Philem 1-2). Onesimus had heard the gospel from Paul, become a Christian, and now thought he should return to his master. Paul therefore wrote to Philemon, urging him to welcome Onesimus back (Philem 10-13,16; cf. Col 4:9; see PHILEMON).

Since Pauls friend Tychicus was to take these letters to Colossae (Col 4:7-9), Paul decided to send additional letters with Tychicus to other churches in the area, such as those at Ephesus and Laodicea (Eph 6:21-22; Col 4:16). False teaching similar to that in Colossae had created difficulties in churches of neighbouring towns. (For details see EPHESIANS, LETTER TO THE.)

Paul possibly wrote his letter to the church in Philippi during this imprisonment in Rome (though he may have written the letter elsewhere, during a previous imprisonment). Paul still had freedom to welcome visitors and speak openly of the kingdom of God (Php 1:12-13; Php 2:19; Php 2:25). He had just received a gift that the Philippian church had sent to him with Epaphroditus, and he wrote to thank them for it (Php 4:18; see PHILIPPIANS, LETTER TO THE).

In these letters from prison, Paul gave some of his richest teaching concerning the person of Jesus Christ. False ideas about Christ had forced Paul to set out clearly some of the important truths that people were forgetting or distorting (Eph 1:17-23; Eph 3:4; Eph 3:14-19; Php 2:5-11; Php 3:8-10; Col 1:15-20; Col 2:8; Col 3:1-4; see JESUS CHRIST).

False ideas had also grown up concerning Christian behaviour and the nature of the church. Paul therefore wrote of the eternal purposes that God was bringing to fulfilment through the church collectively (Eph 1:11-14; Eph 2:11-22; Eph 3:3-12; Eph 4:1-16; Eph 5:27; Php 2:12-16; Col 1:24-28) and through the lives of his people individually (Eph 1:3-10; Eph 5:1-2; Eph 5:21; Eph 6:10-18; Php 1:9-11; Php 2:5; Php 2:12-13; Php 3:12-16; Php 4:8-9; Col 1:9-14; Col 3:12-17).

The final triumph

Throughout his imprisonment Paul had remained hopeful that he would be released and so be able to visit various churches again (Php 1:25; Php 1:27; Php 2:24; Philem 22). It seems certain that he was released and that with Timothy, Titus and others he visited a number of places. One of those places was Crete, where Titus remained for a while to help correct difficulties in the churches (Tit 1:5). Paul also visited Ephesus, where he left Timothy, again to help strengthen the churches after a period of instability (1Ti 1:3; 1Ti 1:19-20; 1Ti 3:12-16; 1Ti 5:20-22; cf. Act 20:29-30).

Paul then moved north to Macedonia (1Ti 1:3; cf. Php 2:24). It was possibly about this time that he received news of affairs in Crete and Ephesus that prompted him to write letters to his two fellow workers (see TITUS, LETTER TO; TIMOTHY, LETTERS TO). Among other places he visited were Corinth, Miletus and Troas (2Ti 4:13; 2Ti 4:20). About this time Paul must have been arrested again, for the next mention of him is as a prisoner in Rome once more. This time he expected not release, but execution (2Ti 2:9; 2Ti 4:6-8).

From prison Paul wrote his last letter, known to us as Second Timothy (see TIMOTHY, LETTERS TO). It seems that Timothy was still in Ephesus and that Mark was in nearby Colossae (cf. Col 4:10). These two men, who had started out with Paul many years earlier as his young assistants, were the two he most wanted with him in his final days (2Ti 4:9; 2Ti 4:11).

With Christianity facing increasing dangers, many of the Christians had deserted Paul, leaving only Luke to support him in his imprisonment (2Ti 1:15; 2Ti 4:10-11; 2Ti 4:16). Paul wanted Timothy and Mark to come as quickly as possible and to bring with them Pauls books, parchments and warm clothing; for winter was approaching (2Ti 4:13; 2Ti 4:21). It is not known whether they reached Rome in time. According to tradition Paul was executed in Rome about AD 65.

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Paul

PAUL.It is fortunate that our subject is limited for us at the outset. We are not called upon to consider the life and theology of St. Paul per se and in all their bearings, but only in that particular relation which belongs to a Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. That aspect alone is momentous enough. The figure of St. Paul looms so large and fills so much of the NT that he may well seem to stand between Jesus Christ and the history of the Christian Church. The Apostle was the name given in the early Church to the corpus of thirteen (or fourteen) Epistles called after him. And in the NT at least he does throw the other Apostlesor all but oneinto the shade. The Epistle to the Hebrews, if not actually his, is allied to him in spirit. Even 1 Peter is impregnated with his teaching, however this has come about. If we are to believe many modern critics, we should have to number among his disciples the author of the Fourth Gospel and the three Johannine Epistles. The only two really independent books are James and the Apocalypse.

It is indeed well to remind ourselves that this state of things is in part appearance. We are always at the mercy of our evidence, i.e. of such evidence as survives. And while St. Paul has ample justice done to him, the Judaean Apostles and the Judaean Church have not. Still even this is a testimony to the energy and widespread influence of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

The fact remains that the dilated figure of St. Paul seems to bar the way between the subsequent history of Christianity and its Founder. And we are compelled to ask ourselves whether that history may not have undergone a certain amount of deflexion. In other words, Christianity in its first stage appears to have passed through a powerful medium; and the question is, whether that medium left it substantially unchanged, whether it still is what its Founder intended it to be. Two things strike us at once. One is, that the teaching of St. Paul, as compared with that of his Master, is highly theological. The apparent simplicity of the Gospels has given place to elaborate arguments and statements of doctrine. We shall consider the significance of this fact shortly; but in the meantime it rather forces itself upon our attention. And the second point is, that this Apostle whose influence has been so great was not one of the original Twelve, and was not himself f a personal companion of Christ.

These considerations are enough to make the question before us one of some urgency. We shall need to examine with all the closeness in our power the nature of the relation between St. Paul and Christ, orwhat almost amounts to the same thingbetween the Epistles (as represented by their central group) and the Gospels, as the two main divisions of the Christian half of the Bible. To do this methodically, we will break up our inquiry into the following heads:

I.General character of St. Pauls teaching.

II.Data of St. Pauls theology.

III.Genesis of St. Pauls theology.

IV.St. Pauls knowledge of Christ.

V.Outlines of the Pauline theology.

VI.Comparison with the teaching of Jesus.

VII.Legitimacy of the Pauline construction.

I. General character of St. Pauls teaching

1. St. Paul the first Christian theologian on a larger scale.It is true broadly to say that St. Paul is the first Christian theologian in the more technical sense of the word. He is the first to formulate doctrine on any considerable scale. The first Christians had their simple formulations: such as that Jesus is Lord (1Co 12:3), Jesus is the Christ (Act 5:42; Act 17:3), Jesus is the Son of God (Act 9:20), He died for our sins according to the scriptures (1Co 15:3), Christ rose from the dead the third day (1Co 15:4), The Lord is at hand (Jam 5:8, 1Pe 4:7). Many of these occur in Pauline contexts, but in such a way as to show that St. Paul took them over from the common stock of Christian teaching. He no doubt added to and expanded these simple formulae. In his hands they became a theologynot exactly a system, in the sense in which (e.g.) Aristotles Ethics or Calvins Institutes are systems; for such coherent logical construction is alien to the Semitic mind, and St. Paul was thoroughly Semiticbut yet, at least, a body of reasoned and elaborated doctrines. In other words, the teaching of St. Paul is a great constructive effort of thought.

2. Place of theology in religion.Now it is also true that at the present day, in certain wide circles, theology in this technical sense has a bad name. It is regarded as something hard, cold, and formal, possessing, perhaps, a certain relative truth for the age to which it belongs, but hardly beyond this, and in our own age only a stumbling-block and hindrance to religion.

But this is just one of those idola tribs that exaggerate a certain element of truth so far as to make it untrue. Theology is a necessity of lifefor the few, consciously; for the many, unconsciously. It is like philosophy. Every man really has his philosophy, expressed or implied. It is inevitable that thought should play upon subjects of such supreme interest; inevitable that it should try to formulate its beliefs, and to brings them into relation with one another. And if it does not do this upon right lines, it will do it upon wrong ones.

It is therefore a mistake to place theology, as religious thought, in contrast with religious feeling, and to call the one warm and living and the other cold and dead. It is the nature of feeling to be warm, and the nature of an intellectual process to be by comparison cold. But the two things should not be opposed to each other; they rather supplement and complete each other. They appeal to different faculties; the one supplies material for the other. Each without the other is wanting; and it is together that they become an activity of the whole man.

3. In the teaching of St. Paul there is no divorce between theology and religion.In the teaching of St. Paul there is certainly no lack of religious emotion. And it is not fair to concentrate attention upon one side of his teaching and to ignore the other. What can be more intense or more elevated than the feeling of Rom 8:31-39, or more exquisitely delicate than that of 1 Corinthians 13? And passages like the first of these and Rom 11:33-36 are striking examples of the way in which theological thought supplies the ground for, and passes into, religious emotion. The controversial argument of Gal. is not the most attractive part of the Apostles writings; but how lovely are the pictures of Gal 5:22-23; Gal 6:1-2! And yet these pictures are in closest contact with his theology. Indeed, the sustained enthusiasm which is so characteristic of the Apostle is kindled directly by his convictions (2Co 5:14, Rom 5:1-11).

II. Data of St. Pauls theology.St. Pauls theology, then, was an effort of intellectual construction. And the first question that meets us is, What had he to build with?

1. Old Testament.Like his Master, St. Paul had behind him the OT as an authoritative volume, a sacred book. He was himself to bear a part in laying the foundation of another sacred book; but this, after all, was but a second volume in continuation of the first, and which in course of time came to be placed upon the same level with it. The OT was the religious authority from which all Christians alike started. And yet new conditions had to be met in new ways. The Master boldly laid down a new law: Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time but I say unto you (Mat 5:21 f. etc.). The disciple could not do this; but when, at a critical stage in his career, he found himself in collision with the letter of the older Scriptures, he showed great skill in turning the edge of the arguments directed against him, by the use of current methods of interpretation.

2. Contemporary Judaism, Rabbinical and Apocalyptic.Generally speaking, the Apostle was in regard to the interpretation of the OT at the common level of his time. But he rose above this through his superior insight and strong grasp of religious principle. The OT really was a revelation from God and the work of inspired men; and by virtue of his essential kinship with these St. Paul was able to elicit from it deeper truth than his contemporaries. His methods are not exactly those which the Christian exegete of to-day cannot help adopting; but, as he had the heart of the matter, and the OT writers also had in their measure the heart of the matter, his interpretations are really in harmony with all that was best in them. We might take as an example his treatment of Abraham s faith. There are in the OT the two elements of Law and Faith; and their ultimate relation to each other in the counsels of God is not really different from that which St. Paul made it to be.

It was not, however, purely a question of interpretation. On the common basis of the OT, the contemporaries of St. Paul had developed a number of inferences and ideas which the Apostle began by sharing with them. We may distinguishnot sharply, and as though they were mutually exclusive, but rather as at one time in alliance and at another in oppositiontwo main streams, the Rabbinical and the Apocalyptic. From the second century of our era onwards the former became more and more dominant, while the latter dropped into the background. And, even in the time of St. Paul, the official classes inclined strongly to Rabbinism; it was chiefly the freer speculation of the time that took the shape which is found in the Apocalypses. On both sides, along with much that was arid or fantastic, there was also not a little that was penetrating and beautiful: witness the Pirke Aboth on the one hand, and 4 Ezra and Apocalypse, Apocalyptic Baruch on the other. St. Paul had at his command all this accumulated material, and he used it as it suited him. But he was not in bondage to it, and he applied it in connexion with root ideas that were peculiarly his own.

3. The teaching and life of Christ.The touchstone that St. Paul applied to the current ideas of his day and generation was their bearing upon his own intense faith in Christ. Those which proved capable of assimilation to this he retained and worked into his own teaching; those which were not capable of assimilation he simply let drop.

We have spoken of faith in Christ; it is a. further question how far this faith is related to detailed knowledge of Christs life and teaching. We shall have to estimate the extent of this presently. For the moment we need only note that, whether in greater or less degree, St. Paul must have had some such knowledge, and that knowledge must have played some part in the construction of his theology.

4. Palestinian traditions.Nearly all his knowledge of Christ must have come to St. Paul mediately, and not immediately. It seems a natural inference from 2Co 5:16 that the Apostle had at least had sight of Jesus during His lifetime; but it can hardly have been more than this, or his self-accusations would have been even more bitter than they were. We are coming very soon to the question of the information about Christ which St. Paul derived from others. But, besides this, there must have been in any case those simple formulae to which we have already referred, in which the first disciples summed up their fundamental beliefs. We shall see later how St. Paul dealt with these; but they must at least have formed the starting-point of his own more adventurous and developed thinking.

III. Genesis of St. Pauls theology.We have seen what were the materials that St. Paul had to work upon. The other leading factor that gave shape to his thoughts was the subjective habit and attitude that he brought to bear upon these materials. On this head, too, there are some remarks to be made.

1. St. Paul not an immediate disciple of Christ.No doubt it is an important fact, and from one point of view a defect and loss, that St. Paul had not been a personal companion of Christ. And yet, when we look a little further, we can see a certain appropriateness that he should have come upon the stage as he did, and at the point where he did. Christianity consists not only in a particular body of teaching, but also in the working of great spiritual forces that flow from the incarnation of Jesus Christ. That is to say, it includes not only the teaching of Christ, but an estimate, or apprehension, of His Person and work.

From this side it was not altogether a disqualification that the Apostles outlook should be directed forwards rather than backwards. The principle of Tennysons well-known lines holds good, that the past does not present itself in a complete and rounded form to those who are actually moving in it. So we may well believe that the first disciples were for a time immersed in the details of their own recollections, and that their grasp on the whole as a whole was weaker in consequence. In proportion as St. Paul was less involved in such concrete details, his grasp on the central idea of his faith seems to have been all the stronger. This may seem at first sight paradoxical; but there are paradoxes in the use which God makes of His instruments. There was a sense in which the knowledge of Christ after the flesh hindered rather than helped the apprehension of Him according to the spirit.

2. His temperament and training.St. Paul was not one of those who need for their mental sustenance a great wealth of concrete details. He had the gift of religious imagination, to fill out an idea or an impression and convert it into a powerful motive. So the vision on the road to Damascus held his fascinated gaze throughout his career. It worked ceaselessly within, and dominated all his thinking.

And then we have to remember that according to the standards of his time St. Paul was highly educated. His bent was intellectual, and it was encouraged by his training. When he sat at the feet of Gamaliel, he must have heard problems discussed like the faith of Abraham, to which we have already referred, or the origin of evil desire in connexion with the Fall of man. These active discussions took with him the place that books do with us. St. Paul was learned as his age counted learning, and he could not help treating the questions that arose after the manner of the learned.

3. Spiritual experience.But a deeper influence than learning was his own spiritual experience. Continually we see this living experience reflected in what comes to us as doctrine. St. Paul taught what he had first felt, and he verified his teaching by experience. We shall naturally illustrate this when we come to speak of his theology more in detail.

4. The teaching of history.At the same time St. Paul was not a mere student, but an active missionary, who soon came to be burdened with the care of all the churches. He had something else to do besides following the logic of his own thought. The controversy with the Judaizers was one important episode in his life: and this had a great influence upon the form which his teaching took while it was going on.

Later on, when the victory was won, when the free admission of the Gentiles was secured and Jewish churches and Gentile churches stood over against each other on an equal footing, the Apostle is able to see the Divine purpose running through the alternate acceptance and rejection, and to map out the periods of history as the balance swayed now to one side and now to the other. The letters of St. Paul all bear traces, more or less distinct, of the occasions which called them forth. If, as we believe, the Pastoral Epistles are his, their different tone and style can only be accounted for by the special object with which they were written.

For the sake of clearness we have tried to distinguish the particular causes that contributed to make the theology of St. Paul what it is. But because we have singled out these causes, we of course do not suppose that only one was at work at a time. Very often two or more were at work together, subtly blended and passing into each other. The abstract distinctions that the mind creates always have about them something artificial; and yet history becomes clearer when the process of analysis precedes that of synthesis.

IV. St. Pauls knowledge of Christ.We now come to the direct question, What means had St. Paul of knowing about Jesus, and what did he know? We will take the latter half of this question first, as being the less speculative, and as helping us to answer the first.

1. Extent of his knowledge.We are speaking now of the historical Jesus, and not of the glorified Christ. And here we are met at the outset by exaggerated statements, that St. Paul had little or no interest in the historical Jesus, and knew little or nothing about Him. It is coming to be seen that these statements are exaggerated, and in recent years allowance is being made for knowledge on a considerably larger scale than used to be the case (see, for instance, the opinions mentioned by Knowling, The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, pp. 201204, 503518). There are, however, certain points that we are obliged to leave undecided.

(i.) The most important of these has reference to the two well-known passages in which St. Paul appears to show detailed knowledge1Co 11:23-25 (the institution of the Lords Supper) and 1Co 15:3-8 (the appearances after the Resurrection). Are these passages to be treated as just samples of St. Pauls ordinary knowledgeso that he might, if he had pleased, have described other incidents in the Lords life with equal fulness and precision? Or are we to take these two specimens of detailed information as something altogether exceptional and abnormal? For ourselves, we believe that the first alternative is far nearer the truth than the second. The very precision with which the Apostle writes looks as if he were drawing from a well furnished store. On the other hand, the paucity of the references proves hardly anything. There is frequently something that will seem to be capricious in our experience of such mattersthe proportion in which a writer quotes what he might have quoted. We have to remember that, if this one Epistle had chanced not to survive, we should have had no evidence that St. Paul possessed detailed knowledge of this kind at all. This, then, is our own belief; but at the same time, if it is questioned, we cannot profess to make it good to demonstration.

(ii.) We note further that there are express appeals to words of the Lord in 1Co 7:10; 1Co 9:14. Besides these, there are coincidences of expression so striking as almost to amount to quotation in Rom 12:14, 1Co 4:12-13; 1Co 6:5; 1Co 12:2-3.

(iii.) Again, St. Paul shows a marked insight into the character of Jesus as it is described in the Gospels. He singles out exactly those traits (the meekness and gentleness of Christ, 2Co 10:1) which the Jesus of the Gospels took as characteristic of Himself (Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, Mat 11:29). Other allusions point in the same direction (e.g. Php 2:5-8).

(iv.) Really this insight into the character of Christ is part of a phenomenon that strikes us on a larger scale. The hortatory passages of St. Pauls Epistles show that he understood to a nicety the new religious ideal introduced by Christ. The ideal was really a new one. The nearest approach to it was that of the poor in the Psalter, the poor in spirit of the Gospel (Mat 5:3). But even these were not free from vindictiveness; they were not prepared to say, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you, or If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink (Mat 5:44, Rom 12:20). It is not merely a question of verbal parallelism; the whole conception is really the same. It could not be more perfectly delineated than it is in 1 Corinthians 13. When it is contended (as it is, e.g., by Wrede, Paulus, p. 91) that St. Paul is thinking mainly of those who are brethren in the faith, that is really not the case; his exhortations are in no way confined to the relations of the brethren to one another.

2. Sources of this knowledge.That there is a real connexion, and a close connexion, between the ideal laid down by Christ and that inculcated by St. Paul cannot be denied; it is really one and the same. How did St. Paul acquire the knowledge of it? He must have done so in no merely. transient manner; he must have had the ideal so completely set before him that it sank deep into his soul.

(i.) In spite of the independence which he claims for himself, we know that St. Paul had long and familiar intercourse with disciples, like Barnabas and Mark, and with others in the church at Antioch (Act 13:1), who could not fail to instruct him as to what was new and distinctive in the teaching of Christ. In Gal 1:18 he speaks of himself as paying a visit to Peter at Jerusalem and spending a fortnight in his company. Both there and in Gal 2:2 a considerable comparing of notes seems to be implied. There are sufficient indications of oral intercourse between St. Paul and the older disciples to explain the knowledge which he evidently possessed.

(ii.) Had he, in addition to this, anything in writing that he could refer to? He cannot have had access to our present Gospels; but is it not possible that he may have had in his hands one or other of the documents out of which our present Gospels are composed? The Mark-Gospel is excluded by its date; but not so the second main document, often called Logia, and now generally known by the symbol Q. There is nothing, so far as we can see, in this document to make it impossible for St. Paul to have had the opportunity of consulting it. If we are right in forming our conception of it from the passages common to St. Matthew and St. Luke that are not found in St. Mark, it would be a work of precisely such a character as would bring out clearly the new moral ideal taught by Christ. We may well believe that this was really the object with which it was composedthat it was a manual for Christian missionaries to put into the hands of their converts as supplying them with a rule of life. The principal argument against this view is that, if it was early enough to be used by St. Paul, it is difficult to see why it should not have been used by St. Mark. Some scholars think that it was used by him, but we should not like to commit ourselves to that alternative. The question must be left open.

On the other hand, the markedly individual character of the two chief specimens of the Pauline tradition, as compared with the Gospels, would go to show that the sources from which he drew were distinct from those used by our present Evangelists.

V. Outlines of the Pauline theology.As we have already implied, the great and central event in St. Pauls career was his conversion. It is this that really gives the key to his theology. It determined for him at once his conception of Christ, and the nature of his own response to the appeal which Christ made to him.

1. The glorified Christ.The vision that he saw was of Christ glorified. In other words, Christ appeared to him as Spirit; and it is this spiritual Christ that henceforth controlled his experience. And yet, not that alone. The glorified Christ was none the less identical with the crucified Jesus of Nazareth. It is in this double aspect that the exalted Form that he saw made such an intense impression upon the Apostle.

2. Christ within.The vision was for him; it appealed personally and directly to him; and he responded with all the ardour of his being. It was as if he clasped to his heart the image of Christ that he saw, and it entered into him and possessed him. Or, conversely, it might be said that the extended arms of the Christ whom he saw embraced and enfolded himself. These two ways of speaking St. Paul always treats as equivalentto say that he clasped Christ or that Christ clasped him, that he was in Christ or that Christ was in him, meant the same thing. The same act had a Divine side and a human; and the one corresponded to the other. The process of which the Apostle was conscious in himself had to be repeated in his converts (Gal 4:19). It is all a way of expressing the closest appropriation, assimilation, and union.

3. Faith.In another connexion St. Paul calls the act by which he entered into this relation faith. This act of faith could be expressed intellectually as assent to the proposition that Jesus is the Christ, or that Jesus is Lord. But any such process of the intellect was swallowed up at once in the warmer emotion of loyalty, gratitude, and adoring love. We must think of it always as love for One who is in heaven and not on earth, and therefore as at one and the same time love and adoration. It is this which gives its peculiar quality and value to faith, as St. Paul conceived it. The impression that the Apostle received was so overpowering, that it seemed to make his whole life a different thing; a new creation, he called it himself (Gal 6:15); the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me (Gal 2:20).

4. The death of Christ.We go back to the Damascus vision. It was proof that Jesus of Nazareth, whose followers the Apostle in his blindness had persecuted, was no mere ambitious pretender, but all that His disciples believed Him to beboth Lord and Christ. But if that was so, the apparently shameful death that He died could not be really shameful: whatever appearance it wore in the eyes of men, there must really be in it a Divine virtuea virtue infinite, because Divine.

Already in the infant Church, following, as we believe, hints of the Lord Himself, there was a tendency to explain the death of the Crucified by means of principles inherent in the OT, by the idea of sacrifice and by the idea of vicarious suffering; on the one hand, by the analogy of the Levitical sacrifices, and, on the other hand, by the description of the Servant of Jahweh in Deutero-Isaiah. St. Paul took up these ideas, and worked them out in his own manner: the sacrificial idea, especially in Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9, 1Co 5:7 (cf. Heb 9:22); the vicarious idea, esp. in 2Co 5:21. St. Paul also added a new explanation of his own in Gal 3:13. This last might be described as somewhat Rabbinical; but the same cannot be said of the other two. The principles of sacrifice and of vicariousness are deeply impressed upon Gods world; and that they should culminate in a supreme act of self-devotion has in it nothing incredible.

5. Justification and reconciliation.The death of Christ established a new relation between God and man. It established it, as it were, objectively and ideally. For it to take full effect, man had to do his part; he had to realize the new relation in a reformed and regenerate life. But the Christian was allowed to anticipate this. He had not to wait for the Divine forgiveness, which was vouchsafed to him at once as soon as he became a Christian and was launched upon that career of amendment and advance to which as a Christian he was pledged. St. Paul uses a judicial term, and describes the convert from the first as justified, i.e. declared righteous or acquitted. This is the Divine answer to the faith by which he makes his profession and has it sealed by baptism. By this decisive act the Christian enters at once into the circle of the Divine favour; he is received as a son reconciled to his Heavenly Father, as a prodigal returned. Henceforth his course is not one of weary effort and failure, but the way is smoothed for him and brightened by the Fathers love.

This was one way of describing the process. Another way turned round St. Pauls characteristic manner of conceiving the relation of the Christian to Christ of which we have spoken. We have said that in St. Pauls own experience the vision of the exalted Christ was, as it were, clasped to his heart. The act was so intense and so absorbing that it amounted to a kind of identification: No longer I, but Christ liveth in me. And yet this ideal Christ still wears the features of the historical Christ. It is the Christ who died and rose again. The Christian who is identified with such a Christ must himself also die and rise againin such sense as he can, i.e. in a moral and religious sense; he must die to sin, and rise again to newness of life (Rom 6:1-11); he must emerge from the imprisonment in which he is held by sin into the free and spacious life of the Spirit (see below).

6. Law and grace.In his earlier experience, religion for St. Paul, as for the rest of his countrymen, meant primarily obedience to law; to be righteous was to keep the Law. But that was really an impossible task. The Law might command, but it could not secure performance. Human nature was too weak to keep up obedience to its rigorous behests. In the multitude of rules and precepts there were always some that were neglected. And to break the Law in any degree was to break it, and to forfeit the reward of welldoing.

It was otherwise with the service of Christ. Here the motive was personal loyalty and devotion, carried out under the conditions which have just been described, with the assurance of forgiveness, of Divine favour and Divine aid. Thus, whatever might be its outward conditions, the life of the Christian was one of inward joy and peace.

An incidental consequence of this new experience was that in his controversy with the Judaizers St. Paul was able to take his stand upon a broad ground of principle. He was able to contrast Christianity with Judaism as a higher type of religion, as a reign of Grace over against a reign of Law.

7. Developed Christology.At this point we may turn to consider St. Pauls contribution to the Christian doctrine of God. So far as Christianity brought a change in this doctrine, it all arose from the recognition of the Divine nature and mission of Christ, and from the further consequences which that recognition brought with it. Jesus Himself had certainly come as the promised Messiah, though during His life on earth the full supernatural attributes of the Messiah were veiled and restrained. The Resurrection was the decisive proof that they were really there; and from that time onwards the little band of believers proclaimed openly the central article of its faith. It did so especially under the double title of Messiah and Son of God. St. Paul took over these titles in the full depth of their meaning. We have seen that for him the Messiah was especially the glorified Messiah. That was, indeed, since the Resurrection, essentially the case with all Christians, but St. Paul grasped his belief with peculiar intensity and concentration. Whereas, too, the title Son of God, though literally and strictly meant, was used by the first disciples in a way that was nave and unreflective, St. Paul evidently dwelt upon it, and pressed its full metaphysical meaning. He had clearly satisfied himself that the manifestations of Christs Divine Sonship required nothing short of this. And then, as we might expect, he went on to make use of other terms that his speculative training naturally suggested, to illustrate and carry home the same fundamental idea.

8. God the Father.There are three ways in which St. Paul adds to the doctrine of God the Father: (i.) By discriminating and correlating the spheres of Him whom we call God the Father and of Him whom we call God the Son. The designations were already current, and the tendency to discriminate or define all grew out of the Incarnation. There is not much set teaching, but there are many side allusions which testify to considerable activity of thought on the subject.(ii.) By calling attention to the work of the Son as revealing the character of the Father. The whole scheme (so to speak) of the Incarnation proceeds from the Father, and therefore itself bears witness, more direct and more unmistakable than any other, to the love which underlies the dealings of God with manto the love not only of the Son who becomes incarnate and who suffers for human sin, but also to that of the Father who sent Him (Rom 5:8, 2Co 5:13-14; 2Co 5:17-18, Col 1:19-20).(iii.) By marking out in a sort of broad chronology the periods of the worlds history (Romans 9-11, 1Co 15:20-28). It is, no doubt, possible to press particular expressions (such as Rom 9:17-18) in such a way as to make them conflict both with the free will of man and with the justice of God. That was not at all the Apostles intention, but only to enforce that strong sense of a providential ordering of successive events which must be felt by every religious mind.

9. The Holy Spirit.The belief in the Holy Spirit was just shared by St. Paul with his fellow-Christians. The remarkable phenomena which they saw around themprophecy, speaking with tongues, exorcisms, and the likewere all in the language of the time naturally referred to His activity. St. Paul did but adopt this language, and then perhaps extend it, more than his neighbours were in the habit of doing, to phenomena that were less extraordinary but more deeply related to the moral and religious life (we remember that 1 Corinthians 13 comes in the midst of a long passage dealing with gifts of the Spirit). It is noticeable that henot alone, but in company (e.g.) with Lk. in Act 16:7 (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 )expressly associates the Spirit, not only with God, but with Christ (Rom 8:9).

10. The Church and the Sacraments.It was obvious and natural that the blessings brought by Christ must hold good in the first instance for those who rallied to the cause of Christ, and ratified their adhesion to Him by confession and baptism. The society so formed could not but start with a position of privilege analogous to that of the Jewish Church under the old dispensation. But neither under the one dispensation nor under the other was that position of privilege given only to be selfishly enjoyed. For the OT see Isa 2:2-4; Isa 11:10; Isa 19:18-25; Isa 42:1-7; Isa 49:6, Mic 4:1-3 etc. It was just an instance of the purpose of God according to selection. The recipients of it were to be missionaries who were to carry the gospel to the end of the world.

This was always the ulterior object with which Christians were to use and enjoy their privileges (Rom 11:28; Rom 10:12-15). They might enjoy them, but they were bound to do what in them lay to spread them. Therefore, when St. Paul enlarges upon the felicity of being a Christian (e.g. in Rom 5:1-11), it is in no spirit of narrowness or exclusiveness, but rather the contrary (as appears from ch. 11). The exhortations to the Church to organize itself as efficiently as possible, and to prosecute the Christian life to the uttermost, must all be taken with this tacit condition.

The two Sacraments belong to the internal organization of the Church. They are neither of them due to the initiation of St. Paul. He found them in existence, and he fully accepted them, and from time to time he dwells upon them in such a way as to show that he was well aware of their significance and value. St. Paul distinctly recognizes them as means of grace essential to the life of Christians. We cannot at all accept the view that he was the first to introduce repeated acts of communion; 1Co 11:25-26 implies that he found it a regular practice.

11. The Last Things.The Epp. supply an important part of the evidence that the element of eschatology in the teaching of Christ, and in His own conception of Himself, was as large as we find it in the Gospels. In proportion as we go back in time to the earliest Epp., this element is seen at its greatest. In 1 and 2 Thess. it is the main topic, and in 1 Cor. it is very prominent. It became less so as time went on, but even in the latest period it does not wholly disappear (Php 4:5).

The Pauline Epp. are even more important still from the part that they play in covering the transition from a form of Christianity in which eschatology is prominent, to one in which it has fallen into the background. In the later Epp. the basis of Christianity has been silently shitted; its foundations have been underpinned by doctrines of more permanent applicabilityesp. by the stress that is laid upon the working of the glorified Christ or the Spirit of Christ.

VI. Comparison with the teaching of Christ.We are now in a better position to take a coup dil of the relation of St. Pauls mission and teaching as a whole to that of his Master. It has been rightly observed by more than one of those who have treated of the subject (see Knowling, Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, p. 514), that the Gospel of St. Paul begins where the earthly life of Jesus ends. The dictum needs some qualification (as we have seen); but it is in the main true. It means that the elaborate Pauline theology is of the nature of a development, so that what we have to consider is how and in what sense it is a development.

1. The teaching of Jesus presupposed.That this was the case, we may see (i.) from the easy and natural allusions to the character of Christ and of the Christian ideal ( iv. 1. (iii.) (iv.) above); (ii.) from the general position in the earlier Epp. on the subject of eschatology, which directly continues the attitude described in the Gospels; (iii.) and, in particular, from the conception of the Kingdom of God. This last point is so important that we must give it a section to itself.

2. The Kingdom of God in St. Paul.There is no exposition of the idea of the Kingdom; it is taken for granted as well known. There are several examples in Epp. of all dates in which the phrase is used in its ordinary future sense: e.g. Gal 5:21, 1Co 6:9 f., Eph 5:5. Similar to these is the use in 1Th 2:12. But by the side of these are other passages in which the Kingdom is evidently present. Such would be: 1Co 4:20 the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power; in Col 1:13-14 it is the sphere of present forgiveness into which the Christian is translated; in Col 4:11 it has reference to the work of missions. But most significant of all is Rom 14:17 the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Here the Kingdom is entirely a present idea, and it seems to cover the whole range of the gospel. Nothing could better mark the transition spoken of above.

3. Pauline developments.So far, the teaching of St. Paul has been just a continuation of the teaching of Christ. But in the outlines of his theology which have been sketched above it will have been seen that there is much which goes beyond this. This developed teaching has reference primarily and especially to the conception of the Person of Christ. Another new element is the elaborate psychological analysis of the process of belief, and generally of the Christian habit of mind. And lastly, as we have seen, there is certain special teaching that has grown out of the circumstances of the time.

4. Origin of the developments.It would be an utter mistake to suppose that St. Pauls teaching as to the Person of Christ was a new invention of his own. We have seen that it was really nothing more than a further analysis of the meaning contained in the simple doctrinal formulae; of the primitive Church: such as that Jesus is Lord, Jesus is the Christ, Jesus is the Son of God. It would be equally an utter mistake to imagine that the primitive Church was going against the will of Jesus Himself. There are indications enough that it was in no sense doing this. The only thing that has given any colour to such an idea is the great reticence and reserve that our Lord showed in putting forward His claims. There is something of a problem in this. But that Jesus knew Himself to be both Messiah and Son, we may regard as quite certain.

It is true that St. Paul reflected upon these titles, and true that in all his teaching his own experience entered as a shaping force; but it is just that fact which gives to his teaching such depth of reality.

VII. Legitimacy of the Pauline construction.It may be said, not without truth, by way of discounting these Pauline developments: (i.) that the methods of argument by which they are supported, especially the exegetical methods, are not always what we should consider valid; (ii.) that the personal experience on which they rest is exceptional and peculiar; and (iii.) that, in like manner, the conditions of early Christian history by which they were shaped necessarily had about them something relative and transient.

But, on the other hand: (i.) few propositions are more true than the proverbial one, that conclusions are often more right than the explicit reasoning that leads up to them. Methods of proof are often of the nature of a scaffolding the real purpose of which is to set up a construction in presentable shape, when it verifies itself after the fact by its own inherent properties in the experimental field of life.

(ii.) It is not to be denied that the personal experience of St. Paul has in it much that is exceptional and peculiar. But that is far more because of its penetrating intensity along lines that are common to lesser men, than because there is in it anything eccentric that disqualifies his experience from representing theirs. In other words, St. Paul was a religious genius of the highest order that human nature has ever producedin the same category with the writer whom we call Second Isaiah, with Jeremiah, with many of the Psalmists, with St. John, and at a later date with that astonishing genius, St. Augustine. We believe that men like these were specially raised up by God, and endowed by His Spirit with many marvellous gifts, for the express purpose of pointing out the way in which the crowd of religious people may follow, of setting before them an ideal after the heights and depths of which they may strive. We have only to think of the consummate beauty of the chapter on Charity, which, after all, is but the culmination of other passages that are strewn thick over the hortatory portions of the Epistles; and to remember, along with this, that such passages do but translate the theoretic side of theology into the activities of daily life.

(iii.) It might be said of each of the foregoing heads, and it may be said specially of that which turns upon the relativity of the teaching that emerges from history, that at most the objection does but amount to this, that the theology of St. Paul, so far as it rests on the grounds enumerated, is subject to the conditions of all things human. All things human are relative, and relative, in particular, to the age to which they belong. But in this class at least of things human, while there is the perishable envelope which is inevitably stripped off by time, there is no less something permanent as well, a permanent residuum or depositnot always definable in words, but very real and very preciouswhich passes on into all the ages that follow. This we believe to be true pre-eminently of the first age of Christianity, and true, in particular, in a very high degree of the teaching of St. Paul. The world since his dayand not the Christian world alonehas drawn sustenance from it to an extent of which it is probable that, with all its eulogies of the Apostle, it has never been fully aware. There is a large ingredient of Pauline teaching in the very life-blood that courses in a Christians veins.

Literature.The subject of St. Paul in his relation to Christ has been much discussed in recent years, and that on critical and modern lines. The larger works are: Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus (1902); Goguel, LAptre Paul et Jsus-Christ (1904): and in English, Knowling, Witness of the Epistles (1892), and The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ (1905). Dr. Knowlings two books are written with exhaustive knowledge, and with his invariable lucidity and accuracy of statement and admirable temper; they cover a wide extent of surface, and all that can be said on the other side is that, perhaps owing to some defect of construction, they may seem to be more upon the surface than they really are. There is a crowd of smaller tracts and articles, for the most part dating from the last two or three years. Among these may be mentioned: H. J. Holtzmann, Jesus und Paulus in Prof. Monatschrift (1900); Klbing, Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesus auf Paulus (1906); Wrede, Paulus2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] (1907); Jlicher, Paulus und Jesus (1907) [both in the series of Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbcher]; Julius Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus (1906); and Arnold Meyer, Wer hat das Christenthum begrndet; Jesus oder Paulus? (1907). Of these, the writer thinks that he has derived most from the two tracts of Wrede and Jlicherfrom Wrede in a negative sense, and from Jlicher in a positive. Wrede has constituted himself a sort of advocatus diaboli in the case of St. Paul: his writings are all marked by very great sincerity; and his sincerity takes the form of bringing all the objections that the natural man of the twentieth century might be moved to bring. Wredes striking career was cut short somewhat abruptly on 23rd Nov. 1906. Jlichers pamphlet the writer believes to be one of the very best productions of its author; when allowance is made for the point of view, it is full of sympathy and insight. Kaftan is also very good, but not quite so good in the second part of his little treatise as in the first. The anon, work, The Fifth Gospel: being the Pauline Interpretation of the Christ (1907), and Du Bose, The Gosp. acc. to St. Paul (1907), may also be recommended.

W. Sanday.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Paul

The apostle. His name at the first was Saul; but, as is generally supposed, after his being made an instrument in the hand of God for the conversion of Sergius Paulus, the deputy of Paphos, (see Act 13:7) he was called Paul. Some have indeed supposed that the change of name was made at his own conversion; but this doth not seem likely, as so long a space had taken place between that period and the time of Sergius Paulus’s conversion, during all which the Holy Ghost still called him Saul. His own conversion was about the year of our Lord God 35; whereas the conversion of the deputy of Paphos did not happen until the year 45. See particularly Act 13:2; where God the Holy Ghost called our apostle by name, Saul; and the manner of expression in which the name of Paul is first spoken of in the Scriptures, seems to imply that it was then only given to him, for afterwards we hear no more of the name of Saul. (See Act 13:9) And some have gone so far as to say, that the Deputy himself called Paul by this name, as giving him one of his own names in token of his love for him, as Vespasian the emperor, it is well known, called Josephus Flavius, his own name, out of regard.

Concerning this great apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, it would form a place more suited for the separate volume of an history, than as an article of a mere explanatory memorandum in a Concordance, to enter into a detail of Paul’s life and ministry. Pleasing as the subject in itself would be, I must suppress the gratification. Indeed a reference to the sacred word of God is much more suited for the obtaining information of Paul’s history, because while attending to the memoirs of the apostle we may also gather instruction from his doctrine. It will answer all the purpose to be wished for, by way of information, concerning Paul, in a work of this kind, just to observe that from his conversion to his martyrdom we find in the apostle’s history one uniform invariable course of faith and practice in the path of the gospel. And those fourteen blessed Epistles which God the Holy Ghost hath given to the church by him, will render his memory blessed to the latest ages. It should seem, from calculating the periods of Paul’s life and ministry, that he was born about two years before Christ’s incarnation, and suffered martyrdom under, the emperor Nero in the year 66.

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Paul

Paul, originally Saul, was a native of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia (Act 22:3, etc.), and was of Jewish descent, of the tribe of Benjamin (Php 3:5). From his father he inherited the rights of Roman citizenship, which had probably been earned by some of his ancestry through services rendered to the Roman state. The supposition that he enjoyed them in virtue of being a native of Tarsus is not well founded.

At that time Tarsus was the rival of Athens and Alexandria as a place of learning and philosophical research; but to what extent the future ‘Apostle of the Gentiles’ enjoyed the advantage of its schools we have no means of accurately determining. It must be allowed, however, that the mere circumstance of having spent his early years in such a city as Tarsus could not but exert a very powerful influence on the mind of such a man as Paul, in the way of sharpening his faculties, refining his tastes, and enlarging the circle of his sympathies and affections.

But whatever uncertainty may hang over the early studies of the Apostle in the department of Greek learning, there can be no doubt that, being the son of a Pharisee, and destined, in all probability, from his infancy to the pursuits of a doctor of Jewish law, he would be carefully instructed from his earliest years in the elements of Rabbinical lore. It is probable also that at this time he acquired his skill in that handicraft trade by which in later years he frequently supported himself (Act 18:3; 1Co 4:12, etc.); for it was a maxim among the Jews, that ‘he who does not teach his son a trade, teaches him to steal.’

At the proper age (supposed to be after he was fourteen years old), the Apostle proceeded to Jerusalem, to prosecute his studies in the learning of the Jews. Here he became a student under Gamaliel, a distinguished teacher of the law, and who is supposed to be the person of that name who is celebrated in the writings of the Talmudists as one of the seven teachers to whom the title ‘Rabban’ was given. Besides acquaintance with the Jewish law, and a sincere conviction of the supreme excellence of Judaism, Gamaliel appears to have possessed a singularly calm and judicious mind, and to have exercised a freedom of thought as well as pursued a range of study very unlike what was common among the party to which he belonged (Act 5:34-39). It cannot be doubted that the instructions and example of such a teacher must have exercised a powerful influence on the mind of the future Apostle.

We now approach the period in Paul’s history when he becomes a prominent figure on the page of the sacred historian, and when, consequently, the facts of his life can be more confidently narrated. He is introduced to our notice by the sacred historian for the first time in connection with the martyrdom of Stephen, in which transaction he was, if not an assistant, something more than a mere spectator. Immediately after this event he is represented as sharing the counsels of the chief priests, and as entrusted by them with the entire responsibility of executing their designs against the followers of Jesus (Act 26:10; Act 26:12). For such a task he showed a painful aptitude, and discharged it with a zeal which spared neither age nor sex (Act 8:1-3; Act 26:10-11). But while thus, in his ignorance and unbelief, he was seeking to be ‘injurious’ to the cause of Christ, the great Author of Christianity was about to make him a distinguished trophy of its power, and one of the most devoted and successful of its advocates. While journeying to Damascus, with a commission from the high priest, to arrest and bring back as prisoners to Jerusalem the Christians who had escaped thither from the fury of their persecutors, and when he had almost completed his journey, he was suddenly arrested by a miraculous vision of Christ, who addressing him from heaven, demanded the reason of his furious zeal, in the remarkable words, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?’ Struck to the ground by the suddenness and overwhelming splendor of the vision, and only able to ask by whom it was he was thus addressed, he received for answer, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest; but arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what to do.’ This command the confounded and now humble zealot immediately rose to obey, but as the brilliancy of the light which had shone around him had dazzled him to blindness, he had to be led into the city by his attendants. Here he remained for three days and nights in a state of deep mental conflict and dejection, tasting neither meat nor drink, until a person of the name of Ananias appeared at the command of Christ to relieve his distress, and to admit him into the Christian fraternity by baptizing him into the name of the Lord (Act 9:1-18).

Immediately on his conversion to Christianity Saul seems to have gone into Arabia, where he remained three years (Gal 1:11-17); and where he, in all probability, was chiefly occupied by meditation and study, in preparing himself for the great work to which he had been called. Here also we may venture to suppose he received that Gospel which afterwards he preached ‘by revelation’ from Christ (Gal 1:12).

Returning from Arabia to Damascus the Apostle commenced his public efforts in the service of Christ, by boldly advocating in the synagogues of the Jews the claims of Jesus to be venerated as the Son of God. At first astonished, the Jews were afterwards furiously incensed at this change in the opinions and conduct of Saul, and in consequence of their attempts upon his liberty and life, he was obliged to make his escape from Damascus. This he effected with difficulty by the aid of the Christians, some of whom let him down in a basket from the window of a dwelling erected upon the outer wall of the city (Act 9:21, etc.; 2Co 11:32). After this he went up to Jerusalem (for the first time after his conversion), where, on the testimony of Barnabas, he was acknowledged as a Christian brother, and admitted by the Apostles to that place in their fraternity which had been assigned to him by Christ. From Jerusalem he was soon driven by the hostility of the Jews; when, after visiting Csarea, he went to his native town Tarsus, where he abode several years (Act 9:26-30). From this retreat he was summoned by Barnabas, who, having been appointed by the Apostles at Jerusalem to visit the church at Antioch, where accessions had been made to the number of the followers of Jesus from among the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and finding the need of counsel and cooperation in his work, went to Tarsus to procure the assistance of Saul (Act 11:22-25). After residing and laboring for a year in Antioch, these two distinguished servants of Christ were sent up to Jerusalem with certain contributions which had been made among the Christians at Antioch, on behalf of their brethren in Judea, who were suffering from the effects of a dearth (Act 11:27-30). This, as commonly received, was the Apostle’s second visit to Jerusalem after his conversion.

Having discharged this commission, they returned to Antioch, accompanied by John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, and were shortly afterwards dispatched by that church, in obedience to an injunction from heaven, on a general missionary tour. In the course of this tour, during the earlier part only of which they were accompanied by Mark, in consequence of his shrinking from the toils and dangers of the journey and returning to Jerusalem, they visited Seleucia, Cyprus, Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia (in the former of which the fickle populace, though at first they had with difficulty been prevented from offering them Divine honors, were almost immediately afterwards, at the instigation of the Jews, led to stone the Apostle until he was left for dead); and then they returned by way of Attalia, a city of Pamphylia, by sea to Antioch, where they rehearsed to the church all that God had done by them (Acts 13-14). This formed the Apostle’s first great missionary tour.

In the narrative of this journey, given by Luke, the historian, without assigning any reason for so doing, drops the name Saul, and adopts that of Paul, in designating the Apostle. It is probable from this, that it was during this journey that the Apostle’s change of name actually took place. What led to that change we can only conjecture; and of conjectures on this point there has been no lack. The most probable opinion is, that as the Romans and Greeks were in the habit of softening the Hebrew names in pronunciation, and accommodating their form to that of the Latin or Greek, they substituted Paul for Saul, and the Apostle henceforward adopted the substituted name as his usual designation.

Not long after Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch, they were deputed by the church there again to visit Jerusalem, to consult the Apostles and elders upon the question, which certain members of the church at Jerusalem had raised in that at Antioch, whether converts from heathenism required to be circumcised, and so become Jews before they could be saved? The Apostle on this occasion visited Jerusalem for the third time after his conversion; and after the question had been settled by the parties in that city with whom the power to do so lay, he and his companion returned to Antioch. After restoring peace to the church there, Paul proposed to Barnabas to undertake another missionary tour, to which the latter cordially assented; but, unhappily, on the very eve of their departure a contention arose between them, in consequence of Barnabas being determined to take with them his nephew John Mark; and Paul being equally determined that one, who had on a former occasion ingloriously deserted them, should not again be employed in the work. Unable to come to an agreement on this point, they separated; and Paul, accompanied by Silas, commenced his second missionary journey, in the course of which, after passing through Syria and Cilicia, he revisited Lystra and Derbe. At the former of these places he found Timothy, whom he associated with Silas, as the companion of his further travels, after he had been ordained by the Apostle and the presbytery of the church of which he was a member (1Ti 4:14). Paul then passed through the regions of Phrygia and Galatia, and avoiding Asia, strictly so called, and Bithynia, he came with his companions by way of Mysia to Troas, on the borders of the Hellespont. Hence they crossed to Samothracia, and thence to Neapolis, and so to Philippi, whither he had been summoned in a vision by a man of Macedonia saying, ‘Come over and help us.’ After some time spent in this city, they passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, cities of Macedonia, and came to Thessalonica, where, though they abode only a short time, they preached the Gospel with no small success. Driven from that city by the malice of the Jews, they came by night to Berea, another city of Macedonia, where at first they were favorably received by the Jews, until a party from Thessalonica, which had followed them incited the Bereans against them. Paul, as especially obnoxious to the Jews, deemed it prudent to leave the place, and accordingly retired to Athens, where he determined to await the arrival of Silas and Timothy. While residing in this city, and observing the manners and religious customs of its inhabitants, his spirit was stirred within him, when he saw how entirely they were immersed in idolatry; and, unable to refrain, he commenced in the synagogues of the Jews and in the market-place to hold discussions with all whom he encountered. This led to his being taken to the Areopagus, where, surrounded by perhaps the shrewdest, most polished, most acute, most witty, and most scornful assemblage that ever surrounded a preacher of Christianity, he, with exquisite tact and ability, exposed the folly of their superstitions, and unfolded the character and claims of the living and true God. For the purpose of more effectually arresting the attention of his audience, he commenced by referring to an altar in their city, on which he had read the inscription, to an unknown God; and, applying this to Jehovah, he proposed to declare to them that Deity whom thus, without knowing him, they were worshipping.

On being rejoined by Timothy (1Th 3:1), and perhaps also by Silas, the Apostle sent them both back to Macedonia, and went alone to visit Corinth, whither they soon after followed him (Act 18:5). Here he abode for a year and a half preaching the Gospel, and supporting himself by his trade as a tent-maker, in which he was joined by a converted Jew of the name of Aquila, who, with his wife Priscilla, had been expelled from Rome by an edict of the emperor, forbidding Jews to remain in that city. Driven from Corinth by the enmity of the Jews, he, along with Aquila and Priscilla, betook himself to Ephesus, whence, after a residence of only a few days, he went up to Jerusalem, being commanded by God to visit that city, at the time of the approaching Passover. His visit on this occasionthe fourth since his conversionwas very brief; and at the close of it he went down to Antioch, thereby completing his second great apostolic tour.

At Antioch he abode for some time, and then, accompanied, as is supposed, by Titus, he commenced another extensive tour, in the course of which, after passing through Phrygia and Galatia, he visited Ephesus. The importance of this city, in relation to the region of Hither Asia, determined him to remain in it for a considerable time; and he accordingly continued preaching the Gospel there for three years, with occasional brief periods of absence, for the purpose of visiting places in the vicinity. With such success were his efforts crowned, that the gains of those who were interested in supporting the worship of Diana, the tutelar goddess of the city, began to be seriously affected; and at the instigation of one of these, by name Demetrius, a silversmith, who had enjoyed a lucrative traffic by the manufacture of what appear to have been miniature representations of the famous temple of Diana, a popular tumult was excited against the Apostle, from the fury of which he was with difficulty rescued by the sagacity and tact of the town-clerk, aided by others of the chief men of the place, who appear to have been friendly towards Paul. By this occurrence the Apostle’s removal from Ephesus, on which, however, he had already determined (Act 19:21), was in all probability expedited; and, accordingly, he very soon after the tumult went by way of Troas to Philippi, where he appears to have resided some time, and from which, as his head-quarters, he made extensive excursions into the surrounding districts, penetrating even to Illyricum, on the eastern shore of the Adriatic (Rom 15:19). From Philippi he went to Corinth, where he resided three months, and then returned to Philippi, having been frustrated in his design of proceeding through Syria to Jerusalem by the malice of the Jews. Sailing from Philippi, he came to Troas, where he abode seven days; thence he journeyed on foot to Assos; thence he proceeded by sea to Miletus, where he had an affecting interview with the elders of the church at Ephesus (Act 20:17, sq.); thence he sailed for Syria, and, after visiting several intermediate ports, landed at Tyre; and thence, after a residence of seven days, he traveled by way of Ptolemais and Cesarea to Jerusalem. This constituted his fifth visit to that city after his conversion.

On his arrival at Jerusalem he had the mortification to find that, while the malice of his enemies the Jews was unabated, the minds of many of his brother Christians were alienated from him on account of what they deemed his too lax and liberal notions of the obligations of the Mosaic ritual. To obviate these feelings on their part, he, at the suggestion of the Apostle James, joined himself to four persons who had taken on them the vows of a Nazarite, and engaged to pay the cost of the sacrifices by which the Mosaic ritual required that such should be absolved from their vows. But this somewhat questionable act of the Apostle had no effect whatever in securing for him any mitigation of the hatred with which he was regarded by the unconverted Jews; on the contrary, his appearance in the temple so much exasperated them, that, before his vow was accomplished, they seized him, and would have put him to death had not Lysias, the commander of the Roman cohort in the adjoining citadel, brought soldiers to his rescue. Under the protection of Lysias, the Apostle addressed the angry mob, setting forth the main circumstances of his life, and especially his conversion to Christianity, and his appointment to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Up to this point they heard him patiently; but no sooner had he insinuated that the Gentiles were viewed by him as placed on a par with the Jews, than all their feelings of national bigotry burst forth in a tempest of execration and fury against the Apostle. Lysias, ignorant of what Paul had been saying, from his having addressed the people in Hebrew, and suspecting from these vehement demonstrations of the detestation in which he was held by the Jews that something flagrantly vicious must have been committed by him, gave orders that he should be examined, and forced by scourging to confess his crime. From this indignity Paul delivered himself by asserting his privileges as a Roman citizen, whom it was not lawful to bind or scourge. Next day, in the presence of the Sanhedrim, he entered into a defense of his conduct, in the course of which, having avowed himself a believer in the doctrine of a bodily resurrection, he awakened so fierce a controversy on this point between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the council, that Lysias, fearing he might be torn to pieces among them, gave orders to remove him into the fort. From a conspiracy into which above forty of the Jews had entered to assassinate him he was delivered by the timely interposition of his nephew, who, having acquired intelligence of the plot, intimated it first to Paul, and then to Lysias. Alarmed at the serious appearance which the matter was assuming, Lysias determined to send Paul to Cesarea, where Felix the procurator was residing, and to leave the affair to his decision. At Cesarea Paul and his accusers were heard by Felix; but though the Apostle’s defense was unanswerable, the procurator, fearful of giving the Jews offence, declined pronouncing any decision, and still retained Paul in bonds. Sometime after he was again summoned to appear before Felix, who, along with his wife Drusilla, expressed a desire to hear him ‘concerning the faith in Christ;’ and on this occasion the faithful and fearless Apostle discoursed so pointedly on certain branches of good morals, in which the parties he was addressing were notoriously deficient, that Felix trembled, and hastily sent him from his presence. Shortly after this Felix was succeeded in his government by Porcius Festus, before whom the Jews again brought their charges against Paul; and who, when the cause came to be heard, showed so much of a disposition to favor the Jews, that the Apostle felt himself constrained to appeal to Caesar. To gratify King Agrippa and his wife Bernice, who had come to Cesarea to visit Festus, and whose curiosity was excited by what they had heard of Paul, he was again called before the governor, and ‘permitted to speak for himself.’ On this occasion he recapitulated the leading points of his history, and gave such an account of his views and designs, that a deep impression was made on the mind of Agrippa favorable to Christianity and to the Apostle; so much so that, but for his having appealed to Caesar, it is probable he would have been set at liberty. His cause, however, having by that appeal been placed in the hands of the emperor, it was necessary that he should go to Rome, and thither accordingly Festus sent him. His voyage was long and disastrous. Leaving Cesarea when the season was already considerably advanced, they coasted along Syria as far as Sidon, and then crossed to Myra, a port of Lycia; thence they sailed slowly to Cnidus; and thence, in consequence of unfavorable winds, they struck across to Crete, and with difficulty reached a port on the southern part of that island called ‘The Fair Haven,’ near the town of Lasea. There Paul urged the centurion, under whose charge he and his fellow-prisoners had been placed, to winter; but the place not being very suitable for this purpose, and the weather promising favorably, this advice was not followed, and they again set sail, intending to reach Phnice, a port in the same island, and there to winter. Scarcely had they set sail, however, when a tempest arose, at the mercy of which they were driven for fourteen days in a westerly direction, until they were cast upon the coast of Malta, where they suffered shipwreck, but without any loss of life. Hospitably received by the natives, they abode there three months, during which time Paul had a favorable opportunity of preaching the Gospel, and of showing the power with which he was endued for the authentication of his message by performing many miracles for the advantage of the people. On the approach of spring they availed themselves of a ship of Alexandria which had wintered in the island, and set sail for Syracuse, where they remained three days; thence they crossed to Rhegium, in Italy; and thence to Puteoli, from which place Paul and his companions journeyed to Rome. Here he was delivered by the centurion to the captain of the guard, who permitted him to dwell in his own hired house under the surveillance of a soldier. And thus he continued for two years, ‘receiving all that came to him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him’ (Act 21:17; Act 28:31).

At this point the evangelist abruptly closes his narrative, leaving us to glean our information regarding the subsequent history of the Apostle from less certain sources. Tradition stedfastly affirms that he suffered martyrdom at Rome, and that the manner of his death was by beheading; but whether this took place at the close of the imprisonment mentioned by Luke, or after a second imprisonment incurred subsequent to an intervening period of freedom and active exertion in the cause of Christianity, has been much discussed by modern writers.

If, on the evidence furnished by the allusions in the Second Epistle to Timothy, we adopt the latter hypothesis, it will follow that Paul, during the interval between his first and second imprisonments, undertook an extensive apostolic tour, in the course of which he visited his former scenes of labor in Asia and Greece, and perhaps also fulfilled his purpose of going into Spain (Rom 15:24-28). He probably also visited Crete and Dalmatia.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Paul

This apostle was of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of pure descent, born at Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, a fact which gave to him the privilege of Roman citizenship. He was a disciple of Gamaliel and a strict Pharisee. He is first introduced to us as a young man, by name SAUL, at whose feet the witnesses who stoned Stephen laid their clothes. He became afterwards a violent persecutor of the saints, both of men and women, acting with great zeal, thinking he was doing God’s service. His conversion as the effect of the Lord appearing to him was unique, and he was so completely changed that he became at once as bold for Christ as before he had been a persecutor of Christ in the persons of His saints. He immediately preached in the synagogues that Jesus was the Son of God. This was the distinctive point of his testimony. As the Jews sought his life at Damascus, he departed into Arabia, where doubtless he had deep exercise of heart and learnt more of the Lord.

After three years he went up to see Peter at Jerusalem, where he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus. The Jews again seeking his life, he was conducted to Caesarea, and sent to Tarsus, his native place. From thence he was fetched by Barnabas to go to Antioch, where the gospel had been effectual, and there they both laboured. After having, in company with Barnabas, taken supplies to Jerusalem (his second visit), on occasion of a dearth, he commenced his first missionary journey to Cyprus and Asia Minor. He and Barnabas returned to Antioch, where he remained ‘a long time.’ On a dispute arising as to Gentile converts being circumcised, he went with Barnabas to Jerusalem concerning that question, and returned to Antioch. This city had become a sort of centre of the activity of the Spirit. Being far from Jerusalem it was less influenced by Judaising tendencies, though communion with the saints there was maintained.

Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece were the sphere of Paul’s second missionary journey. Having differed from Barnabas, because the latter wished to take John with them (who had left them on the first journey), Paul selected Silas for his companion, and departed with the full fellowship of the brethren. During part of this journey Timothy was one of the company. He abode a year and a half at Corinth, where he wrote the two EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. He now visited Jerusalem at the feast, and returned to Antioch. He took his third missionary journey through Galatia and Phrygia. When he visited Ephesus he separated the disciples from the synagogue, and they met in the school of Tyrannus. At Ephesus he wrote the FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, and probably the EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. After the tumult raised by Demetrius he went to Macedonia, and there wrote the SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. He again visited Corinth and wrote the EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

The Jews seeking his life, Paul went through Macedonia, sailed from Philippi, and preached at Troas. At Miletus he gave a solemn parting address to the elders of Ephesus, and took his leave of the disciples at Tyre, where he was cautioned not to go to Jerusalem. At Caesarea also he was warned of what awaited him at Jerusalem, but he avowed that he was ready not only to be bound, but also to die for the name of the Lord Jesus.

Paul arrived at Jerusalem just before Pentecost. In order to prove himself a good Jew he was advised by the brethren to associate himself with four men who had a vow on them, and to be at charges with them. But while carrying this out he was seized by some Asiatic Jews, and beaten, but was rescued by Lysias, the Roman chief captain. After appearing before the council, and again being rescued by him, he was for safety sent off by night to Caesarea. There his cause was heard by Felix, who kept him prisoner, hoping to be bribed to release him. Two years later, when superseded by Festus, Felix, to please the Jews, left Paul in bonds. On appearing before Festus, to save himself from being sent to Jerusalem, there being a plot to waylay and murder him, Paul appealed to the emperor. His case having been heard by Agrippa and Festus, he was finally remitted to Rome. The ship, however, was wrecked at Malta, where they wintered, all on board having been saved.

On his arrival at Rome, Paul sent for the chief men of the Jews and preached to them: some of them believed, though the majority rejected God’s grace (thus fulfilling Isa 6:9-10), which should henceforth go to the Gentiles. He, though still a prisoner, abode two years in his own hired house. There he wrote the EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS, the EPHESIANS, the PHILIPPIANS, and also to PHILEMON.

The history of Paul is thus far given in the Acts of the Apostles, but there are intimations in the later epistles that after the two years at Rome he was liberated. His movements from that time are not definitely recorded; apparently he visited Ephesus and Macedonia, 1Ti 1:3; wrote the FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY; visited Crete, Tit 1:5; and Nicopolis, Tit 3:12; wrote the EPISTLE TO TITUS (the early writers say that he went to Spain, which we know he desired to do, Rom 15:24; Rom 15:28); visited Troas and Miletus, 2Ti 4:13; 2Ti 4:20; wrote the EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS; and when a prisoner at Rome the second time, wrote the SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, when expecting his death. Early writers say that he was beheaded with the sword, which is probable, as he was a Roman citizen.

Paul received his commission directly from Christ who appeared to him in glory, and this source of his apostleship he carefully insists on in the Epistle to the Galatians. New light as to the church in its heavenly character came out by Paul, who was God’s special apostle for that purpose. To him was revealed the truth that the assembly was the body of Christ, and the doctrine of new creation in Christ Jesus, in which evidently there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. This caused great persecution from the Jews and from Judaising teachers, who could not readily give up the law, nor endure the thought of Gentiles having an equal place with themselves. This Paul insisted on: it was his mission as apostle to the Gentiles. To Paul also was committed what he calls “my gospel:” this was ‘the gospel of the glory’ (Christ in glory who put away the Christian’s sins being presented in it as the last Adam, the Son of God). 2Co 4:4. It not only brings salvation, great as that is, but it separates the believer from earth, and conforms him to Christ as He is in glory.

Paul was an eminent and faithful servant of Christ. As such he was content to be nothing, that Christ might be glorified. To the Thessalonians he was gentle ‘as a nurse cherisheth her children.’ 1Th 2:7. He was severe however to the Corinthians when they were allowing sin in their midst, and to them he had to assert his apostolic authority when traducers were seeking to nullify his influence among them. To the Galatians he was still more severe: they were in danger of being shipwrecked as to faith by false Judaising teachers, who were undermining the truth of the gospel.

In the epistles we get a few glimpses of the inner life of Paul. After having been caught up into the third heavens, he prayed for the removal of the thorn in the flesh which had been given him lest he should be puffed up, and was told that Christ’s grace was sufficient for him, he could say, “most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.” 2Co 12:9-10. He also could say, “To me to live is Christ;” and “This one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus.” Php 3:13-14. As a martyr he reached that goal. The catalogue he gives of his privations and sufferings in 2Co 11:23-28 discloses the fact that but a small part of his gigantic labours is recounted in the Acts of the Apostles.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Paul

Called Saul

Act 8:1; Act 9:1; Act 13:9

Of the tribe of Benjamin

Rom 11:1; Phi 3:5

Personal appearance of

2Co 10:1; 2Co 10:10; 2Co 11:6

Born in Tarsus

Act 9:11; Act 21:39; Act 22:3

Educated at Jerusalem in the school of Gamaliel

Act 22:3; Act 26:4

A zealous Pharisee

Act 22:3; Act 23:6; Act 26:5; 2Co 11:22; Gal 1:14; Phi 3:5

A Roman

Act 16:37; Act 22:25-28

Persecutes the Christians; present at, and gives consent to, the stoning of Stephen

Act 7:58; Act 8:1; Act 8:3; Act 9:1; Act 22:4

Sent to Damascus with letters for the arrest and return to Jerusalem of Christians

Act 9:1-2

His vision and conversion

Act 9:3-22; Act 22:4-19; Act 26:9-15; 1Co 9:1; 1Co 15:8; Gal 1:13; 1Ti 1:12-13

Is baptized

Act 9:18; Act 22:16

Called to be an apostle

Act 22:14-21; Act 26:16-18; Rom 1:1; 1Co 1:1; 1Co 9:1-2; 1Co 15:9; Gal 1:1; Gal 1:15-16; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:11; Tit 1:1; Tit 1:3

Preaches in Damascus

Act 9:20; Act 9:22

Is persecuted by the Jews

Act 9:23-24

Escapes by being let down from the wall in a basket; goes to Jerusalem

Act 9:25-26; Gal 1:18-19

Received by the disciples in Jerusalem

Act 9:26-29

Goes to Caesarea

Act 9:30; Act 18:22

Sent unto the Gentiles

Act 13:2-3; Act 13:47-48; Act 22:17-21; Rom 11:13; Rom 15:16; Gal 1:15-24

Has Barnabas as his companion

Act 11:25-26

Teaches at Antioch one year

Act 11:26

Conveys the contributions of the Christians in Antioch to the Christians in Jerusalem

Act 11:27-30

Returns with John to Antioch

Act 12:25

Visits Seleucia

Act 13:4

Visits Cyprus

Act 13:4

Preaches at Salamis

Act 13:5

Preaches at Paphos

Act 13:6

Sergius Paulus, deputy of the country, is a convert of

Act 13:7-12

Contends with Elymas the sorcerer

Act 13:6-12

Visits Perga in Pamphylia

Act 13:13

John, a companion of, departs for Jerusalem

Act 13:13

Visits Antioch in Pisidia, and preaches in the synagogue

Act 13:14-41

His message received gladly by the Gentiles

Act 13:42; Act 13:49

Persecuted and expelled

Act 13:50-51

Visits Iconium, and preaches to the Jews and Greeks; is persecuted; escapes to Lystra; goes to Derbe

Act 14:1-6

Heals an impotent man

Act 14:8-10

The people attempt to worship him

Act 14:11-18

Is persecuted by certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, and is stoned

Act 14:19; 2Co 11:25; 2Ti 3:11

Escapes to Derbe, where he preaches the gospel, and returns to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch, confirms the souls of the disciples, exhorts them to continue in the faith, and ordains elders

Act 14:19-23

Revisits Pisidia, Pamphylia, Perga, Attalia, and Antioch, in Syria, where he abode

Act 14:24-28

Contends with the Judaizing Christians against circumcision

Act 15:1-2

Refers the question as to circumcision to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem

Act 15:2; Act 15:4

He declares to the apostles at Jerusalem the miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them

Act 15:12

Returns to Antioch, accompanied by Barnabas, Judas, and Silas, with letters to the Gentiles

Act 15:22; Act 15:25

Makes his second tour of the churches

Act 15:36

Chooses Silas as his companion, and passes through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches

Act 15:36-41

Visits Lystra; circumcises Timothy

Act 16:1-5

Goes through Phrygia and Galatia; is forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach in Asia; visits Mysia; essays to go to Bithynia, but is restrained by the Spirit; goes to Troas, where he has a vision of a man saying, »Come over into Macedonia, and help us;« immediately proceeds to Macedonia

Act 16:6-10

Visits Samothracia and Neopolis; comes to Philippi, the chief city of Macedonia; visits a place of prayer at the river side; preaches the word; the merchant, Lydia, of Thyatira, is converted and baptized

Act 16:11-15

Reproves the soothsayer; causes the evil spirit to come out of the damsel who practices divination

Act 16:16-18

Persecuted, beaten, and cast into prison with Silas; sings songs of praise in the prison; an earthquake shakes the prison; he preaches to the alarmed jailer, who believes, and is baptized with his household

Act 16:19-34

Is released by the civil authorities on the ground of his being a Roman citizen

Act 16:35-39; 2Co 6:5; 2Co 11:25; 1Th 2:2

Is received at the house of Lydia

Act 16:40

Visits Amphipolis, and Apollonia, and Thessalonica, preaches in the synagogue

Act 17:1-4

Is persecuted

Act 17:5-9; 2Th 1:1-4

Escapes to Berea by night; preaches in the synagogue; many honorable women, and men, not a few, believe

Act 17:10-12

Persecuted by the Jews who come from Thessalonica; is conducted by the brethren to Athens

Act 17:13-15

Disputes on Mars’ Hill with Grecians

Act 17:16-34

Visits Corinth; dwells with Aquila and his wife, Priscilla, who were tentmakers; joins in their handicraft; reasons in the synagogue every Sabbath; is rejected of the Jews; turns to the Gentiles; makes his abode with Justus; continues there one year and six months, teaching the word of God

Act 18:1-11

Persecuted by Jews, drawn before the deputy, charged with wicked lewdness; accusation dismissed; takes his leave after many days, and sails unto Syria, accompanied by Aquila and Priscilla

Act 18:12-18

Visits Ephesus, where he leaves Aquila and Priscilla; enters into a synagogue, where he reasons with the Jews; starts on his return journey to Jerusalem; visits Caesarea; goes over the country of Galatia and Phrygia, in order, strengthening the disciples

Act 18:18-23

Returns to Ephesus; baptizes in the name of the Lord Jesus, and lays his hands upon the disciples, who are baptized with the Holy Ghost; preaches in the synagogue; remains in Ephesus for the space of two years; heals the sick

Act 19:1-12

Reproves the exorcists; casts an evil spirit out of a man, and many believe, bringing their books of sorcery to be burned

Act 19:13-20; 1Co 16:8-9

Sends Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, but remains himself in Asia for a season

Act 19:21-22

The spread of the gospel through his preaching interferes with the makers of idols; he is persecuted, and a great uproar of the city is created; the town clerk appeases the people; dismisses the accusation against Paul, and disperses the people

Act 19:23-41; 2Co 1:8; 2Ti 4:14

Proceeds to Macedonia after confirming the churches in those parts; comes into Greece and abides three months; returns through Macedonia, accompanied by Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophimus

Act 20:1-6

Visits Troas; preaches until break of day; restores to life the young man who fell from the window

Act 20:6-12

Visits Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, Trogyllium, and Miletus, hastening to Jerusalem, to be there at Pentecost

Act 20:13-16

Sends for the elders of the church of Ephesus; rehearses to them how he had preached in Asia, and his temptations and afflictions testifying repentance toward God; declares he was going bound in spirit to Jerusalem; exhorts them to take heed to themselves and the flock over whom the Holy Ghost had made them overseers; kneels down and prays and takes his departure

Act 20:17-38

Visits Coos, Rhodes, Patara; takes ship for Tyre; tarries at Tyre seven days; is brought on his way by the disciples to the outskirts of the city; kneels down and prays; takes ship; comes to Ptolemais; salutes the brethren, and abides one day

Act 21:1-7

Departs for Caesarea; enters the house of Philip, the Evangelist; is admonished by Agabus not to go to Jerusalem; proceeds nevertheless to Jerusalem

Act 21:8-15

Is received by the brethren gladly; talks of the things that had been wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry; enters the temple; the people are stirred against him by Jews from Asia; an uproar is created; he is thrust out of the temple; the chief captain of the garrison interposes and arrests him

Act 21:17-33

His defense

Act 21:33-40; Act 22:1-21

Is confined in the castle

Act 22:24-30

Is brought before the council; his defense

Act 22:30; Act 23:1-5

Is returned to the castle

Act 23:10

Is cheered by a vision, promising him that he shall bear witness in Rome

Act 23:11

Jews conspire against his life

Act 23:12-15

Thwarted by his nephew

Act 23:16-22

Is escorted to Caesarea by a military guard

Act 23:23-33

Is confined in Herod’s Judgment Hall in Caesarea

Act 23:35

His trial before Felix

Act 24

Remains in custody for two years

Act 24:27

His trial before Festus

Act 25:1-12

Appeals to Caesar

Act 25:10-12

His examination before Agrippa

Act 25:13-27; Act 26

Is taken to Rome in custody of Julius, a centurion, and guard of soldiers; takes shipping, accompanied by other prisoners, and sails by way of the coasts of Asia; stops at Sidon, and at Myra

Act 27:1-5

Transferred to a ship of Alexandria; sails by way of Cnidus, Crete, Salamis, and the Fair Havens

Act 27:6-8

Predicts misfortune to the ship; his counsel not heeded, and the voyage resumed

Act 27:9-13

The ship encounters a tempest; Paul encourages and comforts the officers and crew; the soldiers advise putting the prisoners to death; the centurion interferes, and all on board, consisting of two hundred and seventy-six souls, are saved

Act 27:14-44

The ship is wrecked, and all on board take refuge on the island of Melita

Act 27:14-44

Kind treatment by the inhabitants of the island

Act 28:1-2

Is bitten by a viper and miraculously preserved

Act 28:3-6

Heals the ruler’s father and others

Act 28:7-10

Is delayed in Melita three months; proceeds on the voyage; delays at Syracuse; sails by Rhegium and Puteoli; meets brethren who accompany him to Rome from Appii forum; arrives at Rome; is delivered to the captain of the guard; is permitted to dwell by himself in custody of a soldier

Act 28:11-16

Calls the chief Jews together; states his situation; is kindly received; expounds the gospel; testifies to the kingdom of heaven

Act 28:17-29

Dwells two years in his own hired house, preaching and teaching

Act 28:30-31

Supports himself

Act 18:3; Act 20:33-35

Sickness of, in Asia

2Co 1:8-11

His resolute determination to go to Jerusalem against the repeated admonition of the Holy Ghost

Act 20:22-23; Act 21:4; Act 21:10-14

Caught up to the third heavens

2Co 12:1-4

Has »a thorn in the flesh«

2Co 12:7-9; Gal 4:13-14

His independence of character

1Th 2:9; 2Th 3:8

Persecutions of

1Th 2:2; Heb 10:34 Zeal, Exemplified by Paul

Persecutions endured by

Act 9:16; Act 9:23-25; Act 9:29; Act 16:19-25; Act 2:24; Act 20:22-24; Act 21:13; Act 21:27-33; Act 22:22-24; Act 23:10; Act 23:12-15; Rom 8:35-37; 1Co 4:9; 1Co 4:11-13; 2Co 1:8-10; 2Co 4:8-12; 2Co 6:4-5; 2Co 6:8-10; 2Co 11:23-27; 2Co 11:32-33; 2Co 12:10; Gal 5:11; Gal 6:17; 1Th 3:4; Phi 1:30; Phi 2:17-18; Col 1:24; 1Th 2:2; 1Th 2:14-15; 2Ti 1:12; 2Ti 2:9-10; 2Ti 3:11-12; 2Ti 4:16-17

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Paul

Paul (pawl), small. Originally named Saul; first called Paul in Act 13:9. He was a Jew of pure Hebrew descent, of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised according to the law when eight days old, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and by birth a free Roman citizen. Act 22:28. He was taught, according to Jewish custom, a trade, that of tentmakeri.e., the manufacturing of goats’ hair cloth, commonly used for tents. But he was early sent to Jerusalem, where he was trained under the famous Gamaliel. Act 21:39; Act 22:3; Act 22:27-28; Php 3:5. Of his family we know nothing, save that he had a nephew, who detected a conspiracy against his life. Act 23:16-22. He was a fierce defender of Judaism and a bitter enemy of Christianity. Act 8:3; Act 26:9-11. Of his miraculous conversion, we have three accountsActs, chaps. 9, 22, 26. Christ revealed himself to him near and at Damascus. Act 26:15; 1Co 15:8. His advocacy of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah exposed him everywhere to the hatred and malice of his countrymen. He made three missionary tours, preaching Christ and planting churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, and making several visits to Jerusalem, narrated in the Acts. He was accused by the rulers of the Jews, arrested at Jerusalem by the Roman officers, and after being detained for two years or more at Csarea, he was sent to Rome for trial, baying himself appealed to Csar. It is quite probable, as Christians believed in the earlier centuries, that the apostle was acquitted and discharged from his first imprisonment in Rome at the end of two years, and that he afterwards returned to Rome, where be was again imprisoned and put to death by Nero. The following is a summary of the chief events in the life of Paul, taken from Schaff’s Dictionary of the Bible:

a.d.

Paul’s convention37

Sojourn in Arabia37-40

First journey to Jerusalem after his conversion, Gal 1:18; sojourn at Tarsus, ana afterward at Antioch, Act 11:2640

Second journey to Jerusalem, in company with Barnabas, to relieve the famine44

Paul’s first great missionary journey, with Barnabas and Mark; Cyprus, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe; return to Antioch in Syria.45-49

Apostolic Council at Jerusalem; conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christianity; Paul’s third journey to Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Titus; settlement of the difficulty: agreement between the Jewish and Gentile apostles; Paul’s return to Antioch; his difference with Peter and Barnabas at Antioch, and temporary separation from the latter60

Paul’s second missionary journey from Antioch to Asia Minor, Cilicia, Lycaonia, Galatia, Troas, and Greece (Philippi, Thessalonica, Bera, Athens, and Corinth). From this tour dates the Christianization of Europe51

Paul at Corinth (a year and a half). First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians52-53

Paul’s fourth journey to Jerusalem (spring); short stay at Antioch. His third missionary tour (autumn)54

Paul at Ephesus (three years); Epistle to the Galatians (56 or 57). Excursion to Macedonia, Corinth, and Crete (not mentioned in the Acts); First Epistle to Timothy (?). Return to Ephesus. First Epistle to the54-57

Paul’s departure from Ephesus (summer) to Macedonia. Second Epistle to the Corinthians57

Paul’s third sojourn at Corinth (three months). Epistle to the Romans57,58

Paul’s fifth and last journey to Jerusalem (spring), where he is arrested and sent to Csarea58

Paul’s captivity at Csarea. Testimony before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa (the Gospel of Luke and the Acts commenced at Csarea, and concluded at Rome)58-60

Paul’s voyage to Rome (autumn); shipwreck at Malta; arrival at60,61

Paul’s first captivity at Rome, Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon61-63

Conflagration at Rome (July); Neronian persecution of the Christians; martyrdom of Paul (?)64

Hypothesis of a second Roman captivity and preceding missionary journeys to the East, and possibly to Spain. First Epistle to Timothy; Titus (Heb 7:1-28), Second Timothy.63-67

The epistles of Paul are 13, or, if we count the Hebrews 14 in number. They are inspired tracts for the times, and for all times. They may be arranged:

1. Chronologically:

1 and 2 Thessalonians, written a.d. 52, 53, from Corinth.

Galatians, written a.d. 56-57, from Ephesus.

1 Corinthians, written a.d. 57, from Ephesus.

2 Corinthians, written a.d. 57, from Macedonia.

Romans, written a.d. 58, from Corinth.

Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon, written a.d. 61-63, from Rome.

Hebrews, written a.d. 64 (?), from Italy.

1 Timothy and Titus, written a.d. 65 or 57 (?) from Macedonia.

2 Timothy, written a.d. 67 or 64 (?) from Rome.

2. Topically:

Romans and Galatians: doctrines of sin and grace.

1 and 2 Corinthians: moral and practical questions.

Colossians and Philippians: person of Christ.

Ephesians: the Church of Christ.

1 and 2 Thessalonians: the second advent.

1 and 2 Timothy and Titus: church government and pastoral care.

Philemon: slavery.

Hebrews: the eternal priesthood and sacrifice of Christ.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Paul

Paul. (small, little). Nearly all the original materials for the life St. Paul are contained, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Pauline Epistles. Paul was born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia. (It is not improbable tha, t he was born between A.D. 0 and A.D. 5). Up to the time of his going forth as an avowed preacher of Christ to the Gentiles, the apostle was known by the name of Saul. This was the Jewish name, which he received from his Jewish parents. But, though a Hebrew of the Hebrews, he was born in a Gentile city. Of his parents, we know nothing, except that his father was of the tribe of Benjamin, Phi 3:5, and a Pharisee, Act 23:6, that Paul had acquired, by some means, the Roman franchise, (“I was free born,”), Act 22:23, and that he was settled in Tarsus.

At Tarsus, he must have learned to use the Greek language, with freedom and mastery, in both speaking and writing. At Tarsus, also, he learned that trade of “tent-maker,” Act 18:3, at which he, afterward, occasionally wrought with his own hands. There was a goat’s-hair cloth called cilicium manufactured in Cilicia, and largely used for tents: Saul’s trade was probably that of making tents of this hair cloth.

When St. Paul makes his defence before his countrymen at Jerusalem, Act 22:1, he tells them that, though born in Tarsus, he had been “brought up” in Jerusalem. He must therefore, have been yet a boy when was removed, in all probability, for the sake of his education, to the Holy City of his fathers. He learned, he says, “at the feet of Gamaliel.” He who was to resist so stoutly the usurpations of the law had, for his teacher, one of the most eminent of all the doctors of the law.

Saul was yet “a young man,” Act 7:58, when the Church experienced that sudden expansion, which was connected with the ordaining of the seven, appointed to serve tables, and with the special power and inspiration of Stephen. Among those who disputed with Stephen were some “of them of Cilicia.” We naturally think of Saul as having been one of these, when we find him, afterward, keeping the clothes of those suborned witnesses who, according to the law, Deu 17:7, were the first to cast stones at Stephen. “Saul,” says the sacred writer significantly, “was consenting unto his death.”

Saul’s conversion. A.D. 37. — The persecutor was to be converted. Having undertaken to follow up the believers, “unto strange cities,” Saul naturally turned his thoughts to Damascus. What befell him as he journeyed thither, is related in detail three times in the Acts, first by the historian in his own person, then in the two addresses made by St. Paul at Jerusalem, and before Agrippa.

St. Luke’s statement is to be read in Act 9:3-19, where, however, the words, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,” included in the English version, ought to be omitted, (as is done in the Revised Version). The sudden light from heaven; the voice of Jesus speaking with authority to his persecutor; Saul struck to the ground, blinded, overcome; the three-days suspense; the coming of Ananias as a messenger of the Lord and Saul’s baptism, — these were the leading features at the great event, and in these, we must look for the chief significance of the conversion.

It was in Damascus that he was received into the church by Ananias, and here, to the astonishment of all his hearers, he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, declaring him to be the Son of God. The narrative in the Acts tells us simply that he was occupied in this work, with increasing vigor, for “many days,” up to the time when imminent danger drove him from Damascus.

From the Epistle to the Galatians, Gal 1:17-18, we learn that the many days were at least a good part of “three years,” A.D. 37-40, and that Saul, not thinking it necessary to procure authority to teach from the apostles that were before him, went, after his conversion, to Arabia, and returned from thence to us. We know nothing whatever of this visit to Arabia; but, upon his departure from Damascus, we are again on a historical ground, and have the double evidence of St. Luke in the Acts of the apostle, and in his Second Epistle the Corinthians.

According to the former, the Jews lay in wait for Saul, intending to kill him, and watched the gates of the city, that he might not escape from them. Knowing this, the disciples took him by night and let him down in a basket from the wall. Having escaped from Damascus, Saul betook himself to Jerusalem, (A.D. 40), and there “assayed to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and believed not he was a disciple.”

Barnabas’ introduction, removed the fears of the apostles, and Saul “was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.” But it is not strange that the former persecutor was soon singled out from the other believers, as the object of a murderous hostility. He was, therefore, again urged to flee; and by way of Caesarea betook himself to his native city, Tarsus. Barnabas was sent on a special mission to Antioch.

As the work grew under his hands, he felt the need of help, went himself to Tarsus to seek Saul, and succeeded in bringing him to Antioch. There, they labored together unremittingly for a whole year.” All this time, Saul was subordinate to Barnabas. Antioch was in constant communication with Cilicia, with Cyprus, with all the neighboring countries. The Church was pregnant with a great movement, and time of her delivery was at hand.

Something of direct expectation seems to be implied, in what is said of the leaders of the Church at Antioch, that they were “ministering to the Lord and fasting,” when the Holy Ghost spoke to them: “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” Everything was done with orderly gravity, in the sending forth of the two missionaries. Their brethren, after fasting and prayer, laid their hands on them, and so they departed.

The first missionary journey. A.D. 45-49. — As soon as Barnabas and Saul reached Cyprus, they began to “announce the word of God,” but at first, they delivered their message in the synagogues of the Jews only. When they had gone through the island, from Salamis to Paphos, they were called upon to explain their doctrine to an eminent Gentile, Sergius Paulus, the proconsul, who was converted.

Saul’s name was now changed to Paul, and he began to take precedence of Barnabas. From Paphos “Paul and his company” set sail for the mainland, and arrived at Perga in Pamphylia. Here the heart of their companion, John, failed him, and he returned to Jerusalem. From Perga, they travelled on to a place obscure in secular history, but most memorable in the history of the Kingdom of Christ — Antioch in Pisidia.

Rejected by the Jews, they became bold and outspoken, and turned from them to the Gentiles. At Antioch now, as in every city afterward, the unbelieving Jews used their influence, with their own adherents among the Gentiles, to persuade the authorities, or the populace to persecute the apostles, and to drive them from the place. Paul and Barnabas now travelled on to Iconium, where the occurrences at Antioch were repeated, and from thence, to the Lycaonian country, which contained the cities Lystra and Derbe. Here they had to deal with uncivilized heathen.

At Lystra, the healing of a cripple took place. Thereupon, these pagans took the apostles for gods, calling Barnabas, who was of the more imposing presence, Jupiter, and Paul, who was the chief speaker, Mercurius. Although the people of Lystra had been so ready to worship Paul and Barnabas, the repulse of their idolatrous instincts appears to have provoked them, and they allowed themselves to be persuaded into hostility by Jews, who came from Antioch and Iconium, so that they attacked Paul with stones, and thought they had killed him. He recovered, however, as the disciples were standing around him, and went again into the city.

The next day, he left it with Barnabas, and went to Derbe, and thence, they returned once more to Lystra, and so to Iconium and Antioch. In order to establish the churches after their departure, they solemnly appointed “elders” in every city. Then, they came down to the coast, and from Attalia, they sailed home to Antioch in Syria, where they related the successes which had been granted to them, and especially the opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles.” And so the first missionary journey ended.

The council at Jerusalem. — Upon that missionary journey follows, most naturally, the next important scene which the historian sets before us — the council held at Jerusalem, to determine the relations of Gentile believers to the law of Moses. Act 15:1-29; Galatians 2.

Second missionary journey. A.D. 50-54. — The most resolute courage, indeed, was required for the work to which St. Paul was now publicly pledged. He would not associate with himself in that work, one who had already shown a want of constancy. This was the occasion of what must have been a most painful difference, between him and his comrade in the faith and in past perils, Barnabas. Act 15:35-40.

Silas, or Silvanus, becomes, now, a chief companion of the apostle. The two went together through Syria and Cilicia, visiting the churches, and so came to Derbe and Lystra. Here, they find Timotheus, who had become a disciple on the former visit of the apostle. Him, St. Paul took and cCircumcised. St. Luke now steps rapidly over a considerable space of the apostle’s life and labors. “They went throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia.” Luk 16:6.

At this time, St. Paul was founding “the churches of Galatia.” Gal 1:2. He himself gives some hints of the circumstances of his preaching in that region, of the reception he met with, and of the ardent, though unstable, character of the people. Gal 4:13-15. Having gone through Phrygia and Galatia, he intended to visit, the western coast; but “they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word” there.

Then, being on the borders of Mysia, they thought of going back to the northeast into Bithynia; but again the Spirit of Jesus, “suffered them not,” so they passed by Mysia and came down to Troas. St. Paul saw in a vision a man of Macedonia, who besought him, saying, “Come over into Macedonia and help us.” The vision was at once accepted as a heavenly intimation; the help wanted by the Macedonians, was believed to be the preaching of the gospel.

It is at this point that the historian, speaking of St. Paul’s company, substitutes “we” for “they.” He says nothing of himself: we can only infer that St. Luke, to whatever country he belonged, became a companion of St. Paul at Troas. The party thus reinforced, immediately set sail from Troas, touched at Samothrace, then landed on the continent at Neapolis, and thence, journeyed to Philippi. The first convert in Macedonia was Lydia, an Asiatic woman, at Philippi. Act 18:13-14.

At Philippi, Paul and Silas were arrested, beaten and put in prison, having cast out the spirit of divination from a female slave, who had brought her masters much gain by her power. This cruel wrong was to be the occasion of a single appearance of the God of righteousness and deliverance.

The narrative tells of the earthquake, the jailer’s terror, his conversion and baptism. Act 16:26-34. In the morning, the magistrates sent word to the prison that the men might be let go; but Paul denounced plainly their unlawful acts, informing them, moreover that those whom they had beaten, and imprisoned without trial were Roman citizens. The magistrates, in great alarm, saw the necessity of humbling themselves. They came and begged them to leave the city. Paul and Silas consented to do so, and, after paying a visit to “the brethren” in the house of Lydia, they departed.

Leaving St. Luke, and perhaps Timothy, for a short time at Philippi, Paul and Silas travelled through Amphipolis and Apollonia and stopped again at Thessalonica. Here again, as in Pisidian Antioch, the envy of the Jews was excited, and the mob assaulted the house of Jason, with whom Paul and Silas were staying as guests, and, not finding them, dragged Jason himself and some other brethren before the magistrates.

After these signs of danger, the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night. They next came to Berea. Here they found the Jews more noble than those at Thessalonica had been. Accordingly, they gained many converts, both Jews and Greeks; but the Jews of Thessalonica, hearing of it, sent emissaries to stir up the people, and it was thought best that Paul should himself leave the city, whilst Silas and Timothy remained behind.

Some of the brethren went with St. Paul as far as Athens, where they left him carrying back a request to Silas and Timothy that they would speedily join him. Here the apostle delivered that wonderful discourse reported in Act 17:22-31. He gained, but few converts at Athens, and soon took his departure and went to Corinth. He was testifying with unusual effort and anxiety, when Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia and joined him. Their arrival was the occasion of the writing of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. The two Epistles to the Thessalonians — and these alone — belong to the present missionary journey. They were written from Corinth A.D. 52, 53.

When Silas and Timotheus came to Corinth, St. Paul was testifying to the Jews with great earnestness, but with little success. Corinth was the chief city of the province of Achaia, and the residence of the proconsul. During St. Paul’s stay, the proconsular office was held by Gallio, a brother of the philosopher Seneca. Before him, the apostle was summoned by his Jewish enemies, who hoped to bring the Roman authority to bear upon him as an innovator in religion. But Gallio perceived at once, before Paul could “open his mouth” to defend himself, that the movement was due to Jewish prejudice, and refused to go into the question.

Then a singular scene occurred. The Corinthian spectators, either favoring Paul, or actuated only by anger against the Jews, seized on the principal person of those, who had brought the charge, and beat him before the judgment-seat. Gallio left these religious quarrels to settle themselves. The apostle, therefore, was not allowed to be “hurt,” and remained some time longer at Corinth unmolested.

Having been the instrument of accomplishing this work, Paul departed for Jerusalem, wishing to attend a festival there. Before leaving Greece, he cut off his hair at Cenchreae, in fulfillment of a vow. Act 18:18. Paul paid a visit to the synagogue at Ephesus, but would not stay. Leaving Ephesus, he sailed to Caesarea, and from thence, went up to Jerusalem, spring, A.D. 54, and “saluted the church.”

It is argued, from considerations founded on the suspension of navigation, during the winter months, that the festival was probably the Pentecost. From Jerusalem, the apostle went almost immediately down to Antioch, thus, returning to the same place from which he had started with Silas.

Third missionary journey, including the stay at Ephesus. A.D. 54-58. Act 18:23; Act 21:17. — The great Epistles which belong to this period, those to the Galatians, Corinthians and Romans, show how the “Judaizing” question exercised, at this time, the apostle’s mind. St. Paul “spent some time” at Antioch, and during this stay as we are inclined to believe, his collision with St. Peter, Gal 2:11-14, took place.

When he left Antioch, he “went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples,” and giving orders concerning the collection for the saints. 1Co 18:1 . It is probable that the Epistle to the Galatians was written soon after this visit — A.D. 56-57. This letter was in all probability sent from Ephesus. This was the goal of the apostle’s journeyings through Asia Minor.

He came down to Ephesus, from the upper districts of Phrygia. Here, he entered upon his usual work. He went into the synagogue, and, for three months, he spoke openly, disputing and persuading concerning “the kingdom of God.” At the end of this time, the obstinacy and opposition of some of the Jews led him to give up frequenting the synagogue, and he established the believers as a separate society meeting, “in the school of Tyrannus.” This continued for two years.

During this time, many things occurred of which the historian of the Acts chooses two examples, the triumph over magical arts, and the great disturbance raised by the silversmiths who made shrines Diana — among which we are to note further, the writing of the First Epistle to the Corinth — A.D. 57.

Before leaving Ephesus, Paul went into Macedonia, where he met Titus, who brought him news of the state of the Corinthian church. Thereupon, he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, A.D. 57, and sent it, by the hands of Titus and two other brethren, to Corinth. After writing this Epistle, St. Paul travelled throughout Macedonia, perhaps to the borders of Illyricum, Rom 15:19, and then went to Corinth. The narrative in the Acts tells us that “when he had gone over those parts (Macedonia), and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there abode three months.” Act 20:2-3.

There is only one incident which we can connect, with this visit to Greece, but that is a very important one — the writing of his Epistle to the Romans, A.D. 58. That this was written, at this time from Corinth, appears from passages in the Epistle itself, and has never been doubted. The letter is a substitute for the personal visit which he had longed, “for many years,” to pay. Before his departure from Corinth, St. Paul was joined again by St. Luke, as we infer from the change in the narrative, from the third to the first person. He was bent on making a journey to Jerusalem, for a special purpose, and within a limited time. With this view, he was intending to go by sea to Syria. But he was made aware of some plot of the Jews for his destruction, to be carried out through this voyage; and he determined to evade their malice, by changing his route.

Several brethren were associated with him in this expedition, the bearers no doubt, of the collections made in all the churches, for the poor at Jerusalem. These were sent on by sea, and probably, the money with them, to Troas, where they were to await Paul. He, accompanied by Luke, went northward through Macedonia. Whilst the vessel which conveyed the rest of the party sailed from Troas to Assos, Paul gained some time by making the journey by land.

At Assos, he went on board again. Coasting along by Mitylene, Chios, Samos and Trogyllium, they arrived at Miletus. At Miletus, however, there was time to send to Ephesus, and the elders of the church were invited to come down to him there. This meeting is made the occasion for recording another characteristic and representative address of St. Paul. Act 20:18-35. The course of the voyage from Miletas was by Coos and Rhodes to Patara, and from Patara, in another vessel, past Cyprus to Tyre.

Here Paul and his company spent seven days. From Tyre, they sailed to Ptolemais, where they spent one day, and from Ptolemais proceeded, apparently by land, to Caesarea. They now “tarried many days” at Caesarea. During this interval, the prophet Agabus, Act 11:28, came down from Jerusalem, and crowned the previous intimations of danger with a prediction expressively delivered. At this stage, a final effort was made to dissuade Paul from going up to Jerusalem, by the Christians of Caesarea , and by his travelling companions. After a while, they went up to Jerusalem, and were gladly received by the brethren. This is St. Paul’s fifth an last visit to Jerusalem.

St. Paul’s imprisonment: Jerusalem. Spring, A.D. 58. — He who was thus conducted into Jerusalem by a company of anxious friends had become, by this time, a man of considerable fame among his countrymen. He was widely known as one who had taught with pre-eminent boldness, that a way into God’s favor was opened to the Gentiles, and that this way did not lie through the door of the Jewish law. He had, thus, roused against himself the bitter enmity of that unfathomable Jewish pride, which was almost as strong in some of those, who had professed the faith of Jesus, as in their unconverted brethren.

He was now approaching a crisis in the long struggle, and the shadow of it has been made to rest upon his mind , throughout his journey to Jerusalem. He came “ready to die for the name of the Lord Jesus,” but he came expressly to prove himself a faithful Jew, and this purpose is shown at every point of the history.

Certain Jews from “Asia,” who had come up for the Pentecostal Feast, and who had a personal knowledge of Paul, saw him in the Temple. They set upon him at once, and stirred up the people against him. There was instantly a great commotion; Paul was dragged out of the Temple, the doors of which were immediately shut, and the people having him in their hands, were going to kill him.

Paul was rescued from the violence of the multitude by the Roman officer, who made him his own prisoner, causing him to be chained to two soldiers, and then proceeded to inquire who he was and what he had done. The inquiry only elicited confused outcries, and the “chief captain” seems to have imagined that the apostle might perhaps be a certain Egyptian pretender who recently stirred up a considerable rising of the people.

The account in Act 21:34-40 tells us, with graphic touches, how St. Paul obtained leave and opportunity to address the people in a discourse which is related at length. Until the hated word of a mission to the Gentiles had been spoken, the Jews had listened to the speaker. “Away with such a fellow from the earth,” the multitude now shouted; “it is not fit that he should live.”

The Roman commander seeing the tumult that arose might well conclude that St. Paul had committed some heinous offence; and carrying him off, he gave orders that he should be forced by scourging to confess his crime. Again the apostle took advantage of his Roman citizenship to protect himself from such an outrage. The chief captain set him free from bonds, but, on the next day, called together the chief priests and the Sanhedrin, and brought Paul as a prisoner before them.

On the next day , a conspiracy was formed, which the historian relates, with a singular fullness of detail. More than forty of the Jews bound themselves under a curse, neither to eat nor drink, until they had killed Paul. The plot was discovered, and St. Paul was hurried away from Jerusalem. The chief captain, Claudius Lysias, determined to send him to Caesarea to Felix, the governor or procurator of Judea. He, therefore, put him in charge of a strong guard of soldiers, who took him by night as far as Antipatris. From thence, a smaller detachment conveyed him to Caesarea, where they delivered up their prisoner , into the hands of the governor.

Imprisonment at Caesarea. A.D. 58-60. — St. Paul was, henceforth, to the end of the period embraced in the Acts, if not to the end of his life, in Roman custody. This custody was, in fact, a protection to him, without which, he would have fallen a victim to the animosity of the Jews. He seems to have been treated throughout, with humanity and consideration. The governor before whom he was now to be tried, according to Tacitus and Josephus, was a mean and dissolute tyrant.

After hearing St, Paul’s accusers and the apostle’s defence, Felix made an excuse for putting off the matter, and gave orders that the prisoner should be treated with indulgence, and that his friends should be allowed free access to him. After a while, he heard him again. St. Paul remained in custody, until Felix left the province. The unprincipled governor had good reason to seek to ingratiate himself with the Jews; and to please them, he handed over Paul, as an untried prisoner, to his successor, Festus.

Upon his arrival in the province, Festus went up without delay from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and the leading Jews seized the opportunity of asking that Paul might be brought up there for trial, intending to assassinate him by the way. But Festus would not comply with their request, He invited them to follow him on his speedy return to Caesarea, and a trial took place there, closely resembling that before Felix.

“They had certain questions against him,” Festus says to Agrippa, “of their own superstition, (or religion), and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And, being puzzled for my part, as to such inquiries, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem to be tried there.”

This proposal, not a very likely one to be accepted, was the occasion of St. Paul’s appeal to Caesar. The appeal having been allowed, Festus reflected that he must send with the prisoner, a report of “the crimes laid against him.” He, therefore, took advantage of an opportunity, which offered itself in a few days to seek some help in the matter. The Jewish prince, Agrippa, arrived with his sister, Bernice, on a visit to the new governor. To him, Festus communicated his perplexity. Agrippa expressed a desire to hear Paul himself.

Accordingly, Paul conducted his defence before the king; and when it was concluded, Festus and Agrippa, and their companions, consulted together, and came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of nothing that deserved death or imprisonment. Agrippa’s final answer to the inquiry of Festus was, “This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.”

The voyage to Rome and shipwreck. Autumn, A.D. 60. — No formal trial of St. Paul had yet taken place. After a while, arrangements were made to carry “Paul and certain other prisoners,” in the custody of a centurion named Julius, into Italy; and amongst the company, whether by favor or for any other reason, we find the historian of the Acts, who in chapters 27 and 28 gives a graphic description of the voyage to Rome and the shipwreck on the Island of Melita or Malta. After a three-months stay in Malta, the soldiers and their prisoners left in an Alexandria ship for Italy.

They touched at Syracuse, where they stayed three days, and at Rhegium, from which place, they were carried with a fair wind to Puteoli, where they left their ship and the sea. At Puteoli, they found “brethren,” for it was an important place, and especially a chief port for the traffic, between Alexandria and Rome; and by these brethren, they were exhorted to stay a while with them. Permission seems to have been granted by the centurion; and whilst they were spending seven days at Puteoli, news of the apostle’s arrival was sent to Rome. (Spring, A.D. 61).

First imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome. A.D. 61-63. — On their arrival at Rome, the centurion delivered up his prisoners into the proper custody: that of the praetorian prefect. Paul was at once treated with special consideration, and was allowed to dwell by himself, with the soldier who guarded him. He was now , therefore, free “to preach the gospel to them that were at Rome also;” and proceeded, without delay, to act upon his rule — “to the Jews first,”

But as of old, the reception of his message by the Jews was not favorable. He turned, therefore, again to the Gentiles, and for two years, he dwelt in his own hired house. These are the last words of the Acts. But St. Paul’s career is not abruptly closed. Before he himself fades out of our sight, in the twilight of ecclesiastical tradition, we have letters written by himself which contribute some particulars to his biography.

Period of the later Epistles. — To that imprisonment to which St. Luke has introduced us — the imprisonment which lasted for such a tedious time, though tempered by much indulgence — belongs the noble group of letters to Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians. The three former of these were written at one time, and sent by the same messengers. Whether that to the Philippians was written before or after these, we cannot determine; but the tone of it seems to imply that a crisis was approaching, and therefore, it is commonly regarded us the latest of the four.

In this Epistle, St. Paul twice expresses a confident hope that, before long, he may be able to visit the Philippians in person. Phi 1:25; Phi 2:24. Whether this hope was fulfilled or not, has been the occasion of much controversy. According to the general opinion, the apostle was liberated from imprisonment, at the end of two years, having been acquitted by Nero, A.D. 63, and left Rome soon after writing the letter to the Philippians. He spent some time in visits to Greece, Asia Minor and Spain, and during the latter part of this time, wrote the letters (first Epistles) to Timothy and Titus from Macedonia, A.D. 65. After these were written, he was apprehended again and sent to Rome.

Second imprisonment at Rome. A.D. 65-67. — The apostle appears now, to have been treated, not as an honorable state prisoner, but as a felon, 2Ti 2:9, but he was allowed to write the second letter to Timothy, A.D. 67. For what remains, we have the concurrent testimony of ecclesiastical antiquity, that he was beheaded at Rome, by Nero, in the great persecutions of the Christians, by that emperor, A.D. 67 or 68.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

PAUL

the apostle

(1) General References to

Act 7:58; Act 8:1; Act 8:3; Act 9:1; Act 9:22; Act 11:25; Act 12:25; Act 13:2; Act 13:50; Act 14:19; Act 15:12; Act 15:40

Act 16:9; Act 16:28; Act 17:22; Act 18:1; Act 19:1; Act 20:1; Act 21:13; Act 21:40; Act 22:30; Act 23:33

Act 24:10; Act 25:10; Act 26:1; Act 27:1; Act 28:3; Act 28:30; Rom 15:16; 2Co 10:10

Gal 1:13; Gal 2:1; Gal 4:13; Phi 3:4; 1Ti 1:13

— “The Man of Vision”

The vision of Christ

Act 9:3-6; Act 26:13-15

The Missionary Vision

Act 16:9

The vision of Testimony

Act 18:9

The vision of Warning

Act 22:18

The vision of Work in the capital of the world

Act 23:11

The vision of Encouragement in the storm

Act 27:23

The vision of Paradise

2Co 12:1-4

— Obedience to these visions the explanation of his
wonderful career

Act 26:19

— Characteristics of.
Joy

Act 16:25; 2Co 6:10; 2Co 7:4; Phi 4:4

Courage

Act 16:36; Act 16:37; Act 22:25; Act 24:25

Steadfastness

Act 20:24

Earnestness

Act 20:31; Rom 9:3; Phi 3:18

Industry

Act 20:34; 1Th 2:9

Entire consecration

Act 21:13; Phi 3:7-14

Tact

1Co 9:19-22

Self-sacrifice

2Co 11:24-33

Faithfulness

2Ti 4:7; 2Ti 4:8

Endurance

2Ti 2:10

Patience

2Co 12:12

Love

1Co 16:24; 2Co 2:4

— Apostleship of. See APOSTLESHIP OF PAUL
— Miracles of. See MIRACLES
— Preaching of. See LEADERS

Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible

Paul

was born at Tarsus, the principal city of Cilicia, and was by birth both a Jew and a citizen of Rome, Act 21:39; Act 22:25. He was of the tribe of Benjamin, and of the sect of the Pharisees, Php 3:5. In his youth he appears to have been taught the art of tent making, Act 18:3; but we must remember that among the Jews of those days a liberal education was often, accompanied by instruction in some mechanical trade. It is probable that St. Paul laid the foundation of those literary attainments, for which he was so eminent in the future part of his life, at his native city of Tarsus; and he afterward studied the law of Moses, and the traditions of the elders, at Jerusalem, under Gamaliel, a celebrated rabbi, Act 22:4. St. Paul is not mentioned in the Gospels; nor is it known whether he ever heard our Saviour preach, or saw him perform any miracle. His name first occurs in the account given in the Acts of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, A.D. 34, to which he is said to have consented, Act 8:1 : he is upon that occasion called a young man; but we are no where informed what was then his precise age. The death of St. Stephen was followed by a severe persecution of the church at Jerusalem, and St. Paul became distinguished among its enemies by his activity and violence, Act 8:3. Not contented with displaying his hatred to the Gospel in Judea, he obtained authority from the high priest to go to Damascus, and to bring back with him bound any Christians whom he might find in that city. As he was upon his journey thither, A.D. 35, his miraculous conversion took place, the circumstances of which are recorded in Acts ix, and are frequently alluded to in his epistles, 1Co 15:9; Gal 1:13; 1Ti 1:12-13.

Soon after St. Paul was baptized at Damascus, he went into Arabia; but we are not informed how long he remained there. He returned to Damascus; and being supernaturally qualified to be a preacher of the Gospel, he immediately entered upon his ministry in that city. The boldness and success with which he enforced the truths of Christianity so irritated the unbelieving Jews, that they resolved to put him to death, Act 9:23; but, this design being known, the disciples conveyed him privately out of Damascus, and he went to Jerusalem, A.D. 38. The Christians of Jerusalem, remembering St. Paul’s former hostility to the Gospel, and having no authentic account of any change in his sentiments or conduct, at first refused to receive him; but being assured by Barnabas of St. Paul’s real conversion, and of his exertions at Damascus, they acknowledged him as a disciple, Act 9:27. He remained only fifteen days among them, Gal 1:18; and he saw none of the Apostles except St. Peter and St. James. It is probable that the other Apostles were at this time absent from Jerusalem, exercising their ministry at different places. The zeal with which St. Paul preached at Jerusalem had the same effect as at Damascus: he became so obnoxious to the Hellenistic Jews, that they began to consider how they might kill him, Act 9:29; which when the brethren knew, they thought it right that he should leave the city. They accompanied him to Caesarea, and thence he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, where he preached the faith which once he destroyed, Gal 1:21; Gal 1:23.

Hitherto the preaching of St. Paul, as well as of the other Apostles and teachers, had been confined to the Jews; but the conversion of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, A.D. 40, having convinced all the Apostles that to the Gentiles, also, God had granted repentance unto life, St. Paul was soon after conducted by Barnabas from Tarsus, which had probably been the principal place of his residence since he left Jerusalem, and they both began to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles at Antioch, A.D. 42, Act 11:25. Their preaching was attended with great success. The first Gentile church was now established at Antioch; and in that city, and at this time, the disciples were first called Christians, Act 11:26. When these two Apostles had been thus employed about a year, a prophet called Agabus predicted an approaching famine, which would affect the whole land of Judea. Upon the prospect of this calamity, the Christians of Antioch made a contribution for their brethren in Judea, and sent the money to the elders at Jerusalem by St. Paul and Barnabas, A.D. 44, Act 11:28, &c. This famine happened soon after in the fourth or fifth year of the Emperor Claudius. It is supposed that St. Paul had the vision, mentioned in Act 22:17, while he was now at Jerusalem this second time after his conversion.

St. Paul and Barnabas, having executed their commission, returned to Antioch; and soon after their arrival in that city they were separated, by the express direction of the Holy Ghost, from the other Christian teachers and prophets, for the purpose of carrying the glad tidings of the Gospel to the Gentiles of various countries, Act 13:1. Thus divinely appointed to this important office, they set out from Antioch, A.D. 45, and preached the Gospel successively at Salamis and Paphos, two cities of the isle of Cyprus, at Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in Pisidia, and at Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, three cities of Lycaonia. They returned to Antioch in Syria, A.D. 47, nearly by the same route. This first apostolical journey of St. Paul, in which he was accompanied and assisted by Barnabas, is supposed to have occupied about two years; and in the course of it many, both Jews and Gentiles, were converted to the Gospel.

Paul and Barnabas continued at Antioch a considerable time; and while they were there, a dispute arose between them and some Jewish Christians of Judea. These men asserted, that the Gentile converts could not obtain salvation through the Gospel, unless they were circumcised; Paul and Barnabas maintained the contrary opinion, Act 15:1-2. This dispute was carried on for some time with great earnestness; and it being a question in which not only the present but all future Gentile converts were concerned, it was thought right that St. Paul and Barnabas, with some others, should go up to Jerusalem to consult the Apostles and elders concerning it. They passed through Phenicia and Samaria, and upon their arrival at Jerusalem, A.D. 49, a council was assembled for the purpose of discussing this important point, Gal 2:1. St. Peter and St. James the less were present, and delivered their sentiments, which coincided with those of St. Paul and Barnabas; and after much deliberation it was agreed, that neither circumcision, nor conformity to any part of the ritual law of Moses, was necessary in Gentile converts; but that it should be recommended to them to abstain from certain specified things prohibited by that law, lest their indulgence in them should give offence to their brethren of the circumcision, who were still very zealous for the observance of the ceremonial part of their ancient religion. This decision, which was declared to have the sanction of the Holy Ghost, was communicated to the Gentile Christians of Syria and Cilicia, by a letter written in the name of the Apostles, elders, and whole church at Jerusalem, and conveyed by Judas and Silas, who accompanied St. Paul and Barnabas to Antioch for that purpose.

St. Paul, having preached a short time at Antioch, proposed to Barnabas that they should visit the churches which they had founded in different cities, Act 15:36. Barnabas readily consented; but while they were preparing for the journey, there arose a disagreement between them, which ended in their separation. In consequence of this dispute with Barnabas, St. Paul chose Silas for his companion, and they set out together from Antioch, A.D. 50. They travelled through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches, and then came to Derbe and Lystra, Acts 16. Thence they went through Phrygia and Galatia; and, being desirous of going into Asia Propria, or the Proconsular Asia, they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost. They therefore went into Mysia; and, not being permitted by the Holy Ghost to go into Bithynia as they had intended, they went to Troas. While St. Paul was there, a vision appeared to him in the night: There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help up. St. Paul knew this vision to be a command from Heaven, and in obedience to it immediately sailed from Troas to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis, a city of Thrace; and thence he went to Philippi, the principal city of that part of Macedonia. St. Paul remained some time at Philippi, preaching the Gospel; and several occurrences which took place in that city, are recorded in Acts 17. Thence he went through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica, Acts xvii, where he preached in the synagogues of the Jews on three successive Sabbath days. Some of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles of both sexes, embraced the Gospel; but the unbelieving Jews, moved with envy and indignation at the success of St. Paul’s preaching, excited a great disturbance in the city, and irritated the populace so much against him, that the brethren, anxious for his safety, thought it prudent to send him to Berea, where he met with a better reception than he had experienced at Thessalonica. The Bereans heard his instructions with attention and candour, and having compared his doctrines with the ancient Scriptures, and being satisfied that Jesus, whom he preached, was the promised Messiah, they embraced the Gospel; but his enemies at Thessalonica, being informed of his success at Berea, came thither, and, by their endeavours to stir up the people against him, compelled him to leave that city also. He went thence to Athens, where he delivered that discourse recorded in Acts 17. From Athens, Paul went to Corinth, Acts 18, A.D. 51, and lived in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, two Jews, who, being compelled to leave Rome in consequence of Claudius’s edict against the Jews, had lately settled at Corinth. St. Paul was induced to take up his residence with them, because, like himself, they were tent makers. At first he preached to the Jews in their synagogue; but upon their violently opposing his doctrine, he declared that from that time he would preach to the Gentiles only; and, accordingly, he afterward delivered his instructions in the house of one Justus, who lived near the synagogue. Among the few Jews who embraced the Gospel, were Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and his family; and many of the Gentile Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. St. Paul was encouraged in a vision, to persevere in his exertions to convert the inhabitants of Corinth; and although he met with great opposition and disturbance from the unbelieving Jews, and was accused by them before Gallio, the Roman governor of Achaia, he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God. During this time he supported himself by working at his trade of tent making, that he might not be burdensome to the disciples. From Corinth St. Paul sailed into Syria, and thence he went to Ephesus: thence to Caesarea; and is supposed to have arrived at Jerusalem just before the feast of pentecost. After the feast he went to Antioch, A.D. 53; and this was the conclusion of his second apostolical journey, in which he was accompanied by Silas; and in part of it, Luke and Timothy were also with him.

Having made a short stay at Antioch, St. Paul set out upon his third apostolical journey. He passed through Galatia, and Phrygia, A.D. 54, confirming the Christians of those countries; and thence, according to his promise, he went to Ephesus, Acts 19. He found there some disciples, who had only been baptized with John’s baptism: he directed that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus, and then he communicated to them the Holy Ghost. He preached for the space of three months in the synagogue; but the Jews being hardened beyond conviction, and speaking reproachfully of the Christian religion before the multitude, he left them; and from that time he delivered his instructions in the school of a person called Tyrannus, who was probably a Gentile. St. Paul continued to preach in this place about two years, so that all the inhabitants of that part of Asia Minor heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. He also performed many miracles at Ephesus; and not only great numbers of people were converted to Christianity, but many also of those who in this superstitious city used incantations and magical arts, professed their belief in the Gospel, and renounced their former practices by publicly burning their books. Previous to the disturbance raised by Demetrius, Paul had intended to continue at Ephesus till Titus should return, whom he had sent to inquire into the state of the church at Corinth, 2Co 12:18. He now thought it prudent to go from Ephesus immediately, Acts 20, A.D. 56; and having taken an affectionate leave of the disciples, he set out for Troas, 2Co 2:12-13, where he expected to meet Titus. Titus, however, from some cause which is not known, did not come to Troas; and Paul was encouraged to pass over into Macedonia, with the hope of making converts. St. Paul, after preaching in Macedonia, receiving from the Christians of that country liberal contributions for their poor brethren in Judea, 2Co 8:1, went to Corinth, A.D. 57, and remained there about three months. The Christians also of Corinth, and of the rest of Achaia, contributed to the relief of their brethren in Judea. St. Paul’s intention was to have sailed from Corinth into Syria; but being informed that some unbelieving Jews, who had discovered his intention, lay in wait for him, he changed his plan, passed through Macedonia, and sailed from Philippi to Troas in five days, A.D. 58. He stayed at Troas seven days, and preached to the Christians on the first day of the week, the day on which they were accustomed to meet for the purpose of religious worship. From Troas he went by land to Assos; and thence he sailed to Mitylene; and from Mitylene to Miletus. Being desirous of reaching Jerusalem before the feast of pentecost, he would not allow time to go to Ephesus, and therefore he sent for the elders of the Ephesian church to Miletus, and gave them instructions, and prayed with them. He told them that he should see them no more, which impressed them with the deepest sorrow. From Miletus he sailed by Cos, Rhodes, and Patara in Lycia, to Tyre, Acts 21. Finding some disciples at Tyre, he stayed with them several days, and then went to Ptolemais, and thence to Caesarea. While St. Paul was at Caesarea, the Prophet Agabus foretold by the Holy Ghost, that St. Paul, if he went to Jerusalem, would suffer much from the Jews. This prediction caused great uneasiness to St. Paul’s friends, and they endeavoured to dissuade him from his intention of going thither. St. Paul, however, would not listen to their entreaties, but declared that he was ready to die at Jerusalem, if it were necessary, for the name of the Lord Jesus. Seeing him thus resolute, they desisted from their importunities, and accompanied him to Jerusalem, where he is supposed to have arrived just before the feast of pentecost, A.D. 58. This may be considered as the end of St. Paul’s third apostolical journey.

St. Paul was received by the Apostles and other Christians at Jerusalem with great joy and affection; and his account of the success of his ministry, and of the collections which he had made among the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia, for the relief of their brethren in Judea, afforded them much satisfaction; but not long after his arrival at Jerusalem, some Jews of Asia, who had probably in their own country witnessed St. Paul’s zeal in spreading Christianity among the Gentiles, seeing him one day in the temple, endeavoured to excite a tumult, by crying out that he was the man who was aiming to destroy all distinction between Jew and Gentile; who taught things contrary to the law of Moses; and who had polluted the holy temple, by bringing into it uncircumcised Heathens. This representation did not fail to enrage the multitude against St. Paul; they seized him, dragged him out of the temple, beat him, and were upon the point of putting him to death, when he was rescued out of their hands by Lysias, a Roman tribune, and the principal military officer then at Jerusalem. What followed,his defence before Felix and Agrippa,his long detention at Caesarea, and his appeal to the emperor, which occasioned his voyage to Rome, are all circumstantially stated in the latter chapters of the Acts. Upon his arrival at Rome, St. Paul was committed to the care of the captain of the guard, A.D. 61. The Scriptures do not inform us whether he was ever tried before Nero, who was at this time emperor of Rome; and the learned are much divided in their opinion upon that point. St. Luke only says, Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. During his confinement he converted some Jews resident at Rome, and many Gentiles, and, among the rest, several persons belonging to the emperor’s household, Php 4:22.

The Scripture history ends with the release of St. Paul from his two years’ imprisonment at Rome, A.D. 63; and no ancient author has left us any particulars of the remaining part of this Apostle’s life. It seems probable, that, immediately after he recovered his liberty, he went to Jerusalem; and that afterward he travelled through Asia Minor, Crete, Macedonia, and Greece, confirming his converts, and regulating the affairs of the different churches which he had planted in those countries. Whether at this time he also preached the Gospel in Spain, as some have imagined, is very uncertain. It was the unanimous tradition of the church, that St. Paul returned to Rome, that he underwent a second imprisonment there, and at last was put to death by the Emperor Nero. Tacitus and Suetonius have mentioned a dreadful fire which happened at Rome in the time of Nero. It was believed, though probably without any reason, that the emperor himself was the author of that fire; but to remove the odium from himself, he chose to attribute it to the Christians; and, to give some colour to that unjust imputation, he persecuted them with the utmost cruelty. In this persecution St. Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom, probably, A.D. 65; and if we may credit Sulpitius Severus, a writer of the fifth century, the former was crucified, and the latter beheaded.

St. Paul was a person of great natural abilities, of quick apprehension, strong feelings, firm resolution, and irreproachable life. He was conversant with Grecian and Jewish literature; and gave early proofs of an active and zealous disposition. If we may be allowed to consider his character independent of his supernatural endowments, we may pronounce that he was well qualified to have risen to distinction and eminence, and that he was by nature peculiarly adapted to the high office to which it pleased God to call him. As a minister of the Gospel, he displayed the most unwearied perseverance and undaunted courage. He was deterred by no difficulty or danger, and endured a great variety of persecutions with patience and cheerfulness. He gloried in being thought worthy of suffering for the name of Jesus, and continued with unabated zeal to maintain the truth of Christianity against its bitterest and most powerful enemies. He was the principal instrument under Providence of spreading the Gospel among the Gentiles; and we have seen that his labours lasted through many years, and reached over a considerable extent of country. Though emphatically styled the great Apostle of the Gentiles, he began his ministry, in almost every city, by preaching in the synagogue of the Jews, and though he owed by far the greater part of his persecutions to the opposition and malice of that proud and obstinate people, whose resentment he particularly incurred by maintaining that the Gentiles were to be admitted to an indiscriminate participation of the benefits of the new dispensation, yet it rarely happened in any place, that some of the Jews did not yield to his arguments, and embrace the Gospel. He watched with paternal care over the churches which he had founded; and was always ready to strengthen the faith, and regulate the conduct of his converts, by such directions and advice as their circumstances might require.

The exertions of St. Paul in the cause of Christianity were not confined to personal instruction: he also wrote fourteen epistles to individuals or churches which are now extant, and form a part of our canon. These letters furnish evidence of the soundness and sobriety of his judgment. His caution in distinguishing between the occasional suggestions of inspiration, and the ordinary exertions of his natural understanding, is without example in the history of enthusiasm. His morality is every where calm, pure, and rational; adapted to the condition, the activity, and the business of social life, and of its various relations; free from the overscrupulousness and austerities of superstition, and from, what was more perhaps to be apprehended, the abstractions of quietism, and the soarings or extravagancies of fanaticism. His judgment concerning a hesitating conscience, his opinion of the moral indifferency of many actions, yet of the prudence and even the duty of compliance, where non-compliance would produce evil effects upon the minds of the persons who observed it, are all in proof of the calm and discriminating character of his mind; and the universal applicability of his precepts affords strong presumption of his inspiration. What Lord Lyttleton has remarked of the preference ascribed by St. Paul to rectitude of principle above every other religious accomplishment, is weighty: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal, &c, 1Co 13:1-3. Did ever enthusiast prefer that universal benevolence, meant by charity here, (which, we may add, is attainable by every man,) to faith, and to miracles, to those religious opinions which he had embraced, and to those supernatural graces and gifts which he imagined he had acquired, nay, even to the merit of martyrdom? Is it not the genius of enthusiasm to set moral virtues infinitely below the merit of faith; and of all moral virtues to value that least which is most particularly enforced by St. Paul, a spirit of candour, moderation, and peace? Certainly, neither the temper nor the opinions of a man subject to fanatic delusions are to be found in this passage. His letters, indeed, every where discover great zeal and earnestness in the cause in which he was engaged; that is to say, he was convinced of the truth of what he taught; he was deeply impressed, but not more so than the occasion merited, with a sense of its importance. This produces a corresponding animation and solicitude in the exercise of his ministry. But would not these considerations, supposing them to have been well founded, have holden the same place, and produced the same effect, in a mind the strongest and the most sedate? Here, then, we have a man of liberal attainments, and in other respects of sound judgment, who had addicted his life to the service of the Gospel. We see him in the prosecution of his purpose, travelling from country to country, enduring every species of hardship, encountering every extremity of danger, assaulted by the populace, punished by the magistrates, scourged, beaten, stoned, left for dead; expecting, wherever he came, a renewal of the same treatment, and the same dangers; yet, when driven from one city, preaching in the next; spending his whole time in the employment; sacrificing to it his pleasures, his ease, his safety; persisting in this course to old age, unaltered by the experience of perverseness, ingratitude, prejudice, desertion; unsubdued by anxiety, want, labour, persecutions; unwearied by long confinement; undismayed by the prospect of death. Such was St. Paul; and such were the proofs of Apostleship found in him.

The following remarks of Hug on the character of this Apostle are equally just and eloquent: This most violent man, having such terrible propensities, whose turbulent impulses rendered him of a most enterprising character, would have become nothing better than a John of Gishala, a blood- intoxicated zealot, , breathing out threatenings and slaughter, Act 9:1, had not his whole soul been changed. The harsh tone of his mind inclined him to the principles of Pharisaism, which had all the appearance of severity, and was the predominant party among the Jews. Nature had not withholden from him the external endowments of eloquence, although he afterward spoke very modestly of them. At Lystra he was deemed the tutelar god of eloquence. This character, qualified for great things, but, not master of himself from excess of internal power, was an extreme of human dispositions, and, according to the natural course, was prone to absolute extremities. His religion was a destructive zeal, his anger was fierceness, his fury required victims. A ferocity so boisterous did not psychologically qualify him for a Christian nor a philanthropist; but, least of all, for a quietly enduring man. He, nevertheless, became all this on his conversion to Christianity and each bursting emotion of his mind subsided directly into a well regulated and noble character. Formerly hasty and irritable, now only spirited and resolved; formerly violent, now full of energy and enterprising: once ungovernably refractory against every thing which obstructed him, now only persevering; once fanatical and morose, now only serious; once cruel, now only firm; once a harsh zealot, now fearing God; formerly unrelenting, deaf to sympathy and commiseration, now himself acquainted with tears, which he had seen without effect in others. Formerly the friend of none, now the brother of mankind, benevolent, compassionate, sympathizing; yet never weak, always great; in the midst of sadness and sorrow manly and noble; so he showed himself at his deeply moving departure from Miletus, Acts 20 : it is like the departure of Moses, like the resignation of Samuel, sincere and heart-felt, full of self-recollection, and in the midst of pain full of dignity. His writings are a true expression of this character, with regard to the tone predominant in them. Severity, manly seriousness, and sentiments which ennoble the heart, are interchanged with mildness, affability, and sympathy: and their transitions are such as nature begets in the heart of a man penetrated by his subject, noble and discerning. He exhorts, reproaches, and consoles again; he attacks with energy, urges with impetuosity, then again he speaks kindly to the soul; he displays his finer feelings for the welfare of others, his forbearance and his fear of afflicting any body: all as the subject, time, opposite dispositions, and circumstances require. There prevails throughout in them an importuning language, an earnest and lively communication. Rom 1:26-32, is a comprehensive and vigorous description of morals. His antitheses, Rom 2:21-24; 2Co 4:8-12; 2Co 6:9-11; 2 Corinthians 9:29-30; his enumerations, 1Co 13:4-10; 2Co 6:4-7; 2Ti 3:1-5; Eph 4:4-7; Eph 5:3-6; his gradations, Rom 8:29-30; Tit 3:3-4; the interrogations, exclamations, and comparisons, sometimes animate his language even so as to give a visible existence to it. That, however, which we principally perceive in Paul, and from which his whole actions and operations become intelligible, is the peculiar impression which the idea of a universal religion has wrought upon his mind. This idea of establishing a religion for the world had not so profoundly engrossed any soul, no where kindled so much vigour, and projected it into such a constant energy. In this he was no man’s scholar; this he had immediately received from the Spirit of his Master; it was a spark of the divine light which enkindled him. It was this which never allowed him to remain in Palestine and in Syria, which so powerfully impelled him to foreign parts.

The portion of some others was Judea and its environs: but his mission was directed to the nations, and his allotment was the whole of the Heathen world. Thus he began his career among the different nations of Asia Minor, and when this limit became also too confined for him, he went with equal confidence to Europe, among other nations, ordinances, sciences, and customs; and here likewise he finally with the same indefatigable spirit circulated his plans, even to the pillars of Hercules. In this manner Paul prepared the overthrow of two religions, that of his ancestors, and that of the Heathens.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary