Paul the apostle

L THE LIFE. 1. ΒΙΗΤΗ anv TRAINING: Autobiographical Notes; Personal Names; Jewish nature, Greek environment, Roman citizenship, influence of Tarsus, of Jerusalem and Gamaliel. 8. ΙΡΙΟΒΥΝΟΒΑΒΥ : Mental gifts, Physical constitution, Emotional tem- perament ; the χαρίσματα ; the σχόλοψ τῇ capxi. 8. CONVERSION : The Root of Paul’s Doctrine; Narratives of the Acta; Allusions of the Epp. ; Internal antecedents; Ac- tual Appearance of Jesus ; Sequel of the Conversion.

4 Missionary Oareer,—dating from Conversion; the Vision in Jerusalem : (a) τε Period, of Apprenticeship: Tarsus and ilicia, (Ὁ) Second Period, of Co-operation with Barnabas and First Missionary Tour: Syrian Antioch, Relief of Famine in Judwa; Oyprus (Sergius Paulus, Elymas), Behaviour John Mark; τς; ΝΣ δ δα οἵ ξ δὲ i ᾿ Β Sea“ aera αν. ἀν, ὺ ; γω ἢ 4 a x Se a . rr m ax ὺϑ 4 ᾿ ι “σε our cot _ev ὁ. ov ὁ ¢ Sa ane PAUL THE APOSTLE 8.

Galatian cities (Speeches at Pisidian Antioch and Lystra); ‘Door of Faith opened to the Gentiles,’ Growing Ascendency of Paul; Coun- cil at Jerusalem.

(2) Third Period, of Established Leadership ; Second Missionary Pesky Boas ano Υ; ἘΠΕ Phrygian and Gala’ untry’; Meeting with Luke and crossing to Macedonia Werk at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berwa; Preaching at Athens; Founding of Corinthian Church; @® Fourth Period, ve udatette Cont Third roversy ; Missionary Tour: Collision with Peter at An- tioch ; Anti-Pauline cam, n of the Legalists ; Journey to and Mission in Ephesus ; Communi- cations with Corinth—the two Epp.

; the Col- lection for Jerusalem ; Severe Illness ; Journey in Macedonia ; to Galatians and Romans; eo at Corinth; Reception at Jerusalem.

ifth Period, ᾿ς isonment in Caesarea and © > τὸ Sori Assault of the Jews in the Temple; Apprehension and Trials of Paul; Ap to Ceasar; Voyage to Rome; Probable Acquittal and Release; Epistles of the First Captivity ; (p) Stath Oe Last Journeyi Renewed > 4, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom Data for this Period ; Revisitation of old Churches ; Novae to n; Movements indicated in 1 and 2 and Titus; ‘ter of Pastoral Epistles; Tra- dition of Paul’s Death. Δ.

OnRONOLOGY: Fixed Datum of Ac 12; Gal 21, and Ac 11. 12 or 15; Year of Paul’s Conversion; Year of Voyage to Jerusalem (Ac 20); Space for the Last Period; Harnack’s Chronological Scheme. THE DOCTRINE. INTRODUCTION : Nature of Paul’s Writings; Modern Analyses—Baur, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, The Dutch School, Reuss and A. Sabatier, Beyschlag, A. B. Bruce, Somer- ville, G. B. Stevens; OT Antecedents and Starting- point. 1.

Doorrixe or Gop: (a) The Fatherhood of God: Basis of Paulinism in the Teaching of Jesus ; Supremacy of Grace. (6) The Righteousness of God : its relations to Father- hood and Grace. ῶ The Anger of God, d) i se! of God: Double sense of the term in 8 Doctrine or Man: (a) The Constitution of Mankind: The Image of ; Solidarity of the Race; Man and Woman. @) Spirit and Flesh: General and Specific Sense ; Flesh and Sin; Heredity of Sin; the First and Second Man. ‘c) Sin and Death.

a of the Race: the Two ; the Heathen World; the Discipline of Israel; the Fulness of the Times. 8. Doorrixe or Curist AND oF SALVATION : (a) The Person of Christ: Recognized in Paul’s Con- version; God’s ‘Own Son’; ‘the Lord’; Pre- existence of Christ; Christ and the Human Race ; Christ and the Ourse of Sin. (Ὁ) The Death of the Cross: central to Paul's teaching ; representative, justifying, propitiatory, recon- ing, sanctifying; Juristic and Ethical The- C) ries.

(c) The New Life of Faith ; Nature and Implications of Faith; the Resurrection of Christ and the Unio Mystica; Filial Adoption. & Docrame or THe Hoty ΒΡΙΕΙΤῚ (a) God Immanent: the Teaching of Jesus and of Paul ; the Spirit in the Heart. (Ὁ) The Spirit Man: Progressive Sanctification ; Holiness and the Ethical Life. τὴ The Communion of the Spirit. ') The Earnest ¥ the Inheritance, & Docraims or Tax Cucrcn: (a) The ae! Ke Seether Expansion of Paul's Idea of the Ecc!

; the Church no temporal Institute. (b) The Brotherhood: Love, and the Works of Faith. (c) The Charismata: Edification, Church-meetings, and Administration. : relative to (α) —- and the Lord's Su icture-signs, and rist, and to the Church; Covenant-signs. @ Church Organization: Development within the Epistles; Charismatic and Clerical, Missionary and Local Ministries; the Apostolate; no * Model’ of Church-government.

@ Docrrins ΟΥ̓ Tum Kixopom or Gop: Based on the Jewish conception, as spiritualized outlook. Election and Fore- Ὁ) The Bi ek ‘of God: Bal Evil Spirits; th nem: ὃ ; 9 Kingdom of Darkness ; the Final Struggle. PAUL THE APOSTLE 697 (c) The Consummation : («) The Moral Perfection of Christians ; (¢) The Resurrection of the Body; y) The Intermediate State; (ὃ Joming of the Lord Jesus—the Human History. _ i THE Lire or St. Paut.—l. Birth and Train- ing.

‘Tam a Jewish man, a Tarsian of Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city (Ac 21")...

brought ἃ at the feet of Gamaliel in this city [Jerusalem], trained in the strict way of the law of our fathers, full from the first (ὑπάρχων) of zeal for God’ (22°); ‘Whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure con- science’ (2 Ti 15); ‘Circumcised on the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew sprung from Hebrews, in respect of the law a Pharisee, in respect of zeal a persecutor of the Church, in respect of legal righteousness showing myself blameless’ (Ph 3°*, 2 Co 11”, Ro 41 9 11 Ac 23°); ‘I made proficiency in Judaism beyon many of my contemporaries, being more extreme than they in zeal for my ancestral traditions’ (Gal 14, Ac 2055); at the same time, a ‘Roman’ and so ‘born’ (Ac 22-8, 105).

Thus much we learn from St. Paul about himself. (On the genuine- ness of the speeches see art. ACTS OF APOSTLES]. Jerome (de Vir. Jllustr. 5; ad Philem. 23), who knew Palestine, has a tradition that St. Paul was born at Gischala in Galilee, ‘quo a Romanis capto cum parentibus suis Tarsum ποῖ commigravit’ ; Krenkel (Beitrage z. Aufhellung d. Geschichte u. d. Briefe d. a P.

§ 1) prefers this story to the statement of Paul’s Tarsian origin in the Acts, insisting that a ‘Hebrew sprung from Hebrews’ signifies one born in Palestine. The above con- dition was fulfilled, however, if St. Paul’s family retained the native traditions; and Jerome’s tale, besides its gross anachronism, is too late and iso- lated to weigh against that of St. Luke.

A modi- cum of truth there may be in it: Gischala may have been the old domicile of the family (tradi- tion is tenacious on this point), which in any case had emigrated not many generations before Paul's birth, for it was still ‘Hebrew’ in home-speech and spirit. Hence Saul is sent in his boyhood for education to Jerusalem; in later years he had a ‘sister’s son’ residing there (Ac 23'*™).

The Cilician Jews kept up a close connexion with the mother city, where they appear to have had a synagogue of their own (Ac 6°); they distinguished themselves by patriotic are in the siege of Jerusalem. The wealth of Paul’s father we may fairly infer from the education given him (see Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, etc., pp. 31, 310, 312); his occupation as a tent-maker is no dis- proof of this, for well-to-do Jews wisely taught their sons some handicraft.

His mother’s piet is implied in Gal 14; comp. the sympathetic allusions of 2 Ti 1° 315, He was named Saul (Σαῦλος in Acts where spoken of, Σαούλ where spoken to), presumably after the hero-king of his tribe (Ac 9 ete., 13! ete.; cf. 13%). But his Hebrew name (Σαῦλος has, moreover, in Greek, the ridiculous sense of ‘ waddling’) is dis- placed in Acts by the Roman cognomen Paul (Παῦλος, Paulus, ‘ little’) from the time the apostle enters on his wider career and meets Roman society. With the Heb.

-Rom. Saul-Paul compare Tae Woek (Ac 15%), Jesus-Justus (Col 4"), also Flavius-Josephus. The change of name occurs in Luke’s narrative on the occasion of the conversion of Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus—a coinci- dence suggesting to many, after Origen (Comment. ad Rom., prafat.), Jerome (ad Philem. 1: ‘a primo ecclesiw spolio, proconsule Sergio Paulo, victorie su trophea retulit erexitque vexillum’), Augustine (Confess. viii. 4), that St.

Paul took his apostolic name from this conquest—a proceeding in bad taste, and on other accounts improbable. If Paulus was a personal name, it might have been ment ot 098 PAUL THE APOSTLE due to the bearer’s littleness; Saulos perhaps suggested it by resemblance of sound (Renan): so Jesus-Jason, Jose A- Hegest pus, etc. (but these combinations are Heb.-Greek, not Latin). Others explain it as an epithet, self-assumed in humil- ity (cf.

1 Co 15°), or conferred by way of con- trast with Elymas (Ac 1359) overcome by the apostle as Goliath by /ittle David (Lange); or as derived from a Hebrew root—sc. ‘»yp=‘ wrought (by God),’ or the like. But these conjectures are needless. With his Roman citizenship Paul in- herited a Latin name; and Paulus was a cognomen not uncommon in Roman families, borne, ¢.g., Ὁ the great A2milian gens. What his Roman genti/e name (or nomen proper) and presnomen were, never appears.

The low stature which, ren, be good tradition (Acta Pauli et Thecle, 3; see msay’s Ch. in the Rom. Emp.® p. 32; cf. 2Co 10'*%), distinguished Paul, may have been a family trait suggesting the sobriquet, as in other instances. The apostle was ‘Paulus’ to Romans, Παῦλος amongst Greeks, while he was ‘Saul’ to his fellow Jews and at Jerusalem. As ‘Saul, Saul,’ in his mother-speech, the voice of Jesus addressed him (Ac 26%). See, further, Ramsay, St. Paul, ete. p. 81 ff.

; and Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 184 ff. In this apostle, Jew, Greek, and Roman met. The Jew in him was the foundation of everything that Paul became. He was ‘Jew’ (Judean in nationality and education), ‘Israelite’ (in descent and creed), ‘Hebrew’ (in language and tradition). The current Hebrew (i.e.

Aramaic) of Palestine was spoken in his father’s house; and his student days gave him the mastery of it which enabled him to address the multitude of Jerusalem in their vernacular (Ac 22*) and to make himself everywhere ‘to the JewsasaJew’(1Co9”). His OT quotations, though based on the LXX, occasionally indicate the knowledge of the ancient Hebrew which the pupil of Gamaliel must have possessed.

No man more highly prized the privileges of Israel, or more fervently believed in its Divine election (Ro 31? 9° 11. 15°, Ph 37); no man more passionatel loved his Jewish kin (Ro 9! 11") ; none had drun more deeply at the springs of OT revelation. As a Christian and a Gentile apostle Paul claimed to be the truer Israelite, for he was carrying out ‘the promise of God to the fathers’ (Ac 1353.

8 244, Gal 3714 616) 2Co 11%, Ro 41°17 96 104 15°12); im- prisoned in pursuance of his calling, he was ‘ wear- ang ths chain for the hope of Israel’ (Ac 26*-7 28), _ Bearing in his Pharisaic youth all the weight of its yoke, Saul had proved the impotence of the law as 8. means of justification before God, and the hopelessness of Israel’s attempts to win through its observance the Messianic salvation (Ac 13%: ®, Ro 4115 75-25 853 951_104, Ga] 215-16 310-25 52.3] Co 15% ete.)

This was the chief gain of Paul’s apprentice- ship to Mosaism: ‘through law I died to law’; the law acted as a relentless spur on Saul’s sensi- tive conscience; it was his παιδαγωγὸς els Χριστόν, driving him from itself to the gospel of Jesus even while, in its fancied interests, he was His perse- eutor (Ac 26"), Thus Paul's legalistic rearing was an essential negative preparation for his conversion and apostleship. But it contributed thereto in a positive sense.

At Rabban Gamaliel’s feet (see art. GAMALIEL) he learnt much that never left him. Paul’s theological method and style, and use of Scripture, are Rabbinical of the purest age. The most fruitful recent expositions of his teach- ing (such as Sanday-Headlam’s Romans, Pfleiderer’s Paulinismus,? and Kabisch’s Eschatologie) draw their best illustrations from Jewish theology. In several of his doctrines, notably that of original sin and of the resurrection (Ac δὲ 2414.

16 968), Paul continued a Pharisee. As against the sceptical, minimizing Sadducees, his sympathies were always PAUL THE APOSTLE with his early comrades (Ro 1055. He had an intimate knowledge, both practical and theoretical, of the ground of the legalistic controversy, on which he was to play a decisive part. He brought with him to the bhestian camp the resources of a trained Jewish jurist, a skilled Rabbinical scholar and disputant.

He was the one man qualified to effect the transition in doctrine and institutions from the old faith to the new, to transplant Christianity, without destroying any of its roots, from the ancient soil of Judaism into the wide and rich field ready for it in the Gentile world. This transition wd been virtually effected in his own conversion to Christ. Hausrath questions the account in Acts of his studentship under Gamaliel at Jerusalem (Der Ap. Paulus, i.

3), on the ground of Gamaliel’s mildness and Paul’s severity of temper; but Paul was a zealot, Gamaliel a moder- ate, by temperament. St. Paul’s education and native bent were strongly Palestinian and Pharisaic. But he could not help acquiring knowledge of the broader Hellenizing theology that had spread from Alexandria amongst the Greek Diaspora, with which Apollos (Ac 18”) and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews were imbued.

He used freely the Book of Wisdom, which emanated from this school. In Col 1” (written, however, after Paul had met with Apollos) he shows his mastery of the theosophie specula- tions of the Alexandrian (and Essenic) Jewish teachers; and his langnaee ap s to indicate some literary contact with his elder contemporary Philo (see Lightfoot and Klépper on Col. ad loc. and Jowett’s Essay on ‘St. Paul and Philo’ in his Epp. of St. Paul).

Paul’s use of types and allegory may have been learnt from his masters at Jerusalem. St. Paul’s Tarsian birth and Roman citizenship secured to him an outfit for the Gentile apostleship such as no mere Palestinian Jew could possess. When Krenkel (as referred to above) contests the former point, and Hausrath (op. cit. p.

19), with Renan and others, the latter, they show undeserved distrust of the Acts; and they deny to Paul the status and equipment indispensable for his mission to the Gus onad world (see Lightf. Bid/. ang iv.) Of his Gentile connexions, along with his Jewish antecedents, the apostle was thinking when he spoke of God as ‘having marked me out [for my life-mission] from my mother’s womb’ (Gal 115).

The |Rabbinical student of Jerusalem was first a Jewish boy in the streets of a heathen city, and his home continued to be there (he was certainly absent from Jerusalem during the visits of Jesus). St. Paul’s insight into the moral working of idol- atry, and his ready appreciation of Gentile senti- ment, speak for this. He is everywhere at home in the synagogues of the Dispersion. In the Greco- Asiatic Tarsus (see art.

TARSUS) the products of East and West met, ships of all countries lay at its wharves—a place to stir in an impressionable child thoughts and dreams of the wide world, and to impart an instinctive aptitude for mixing with allsortsof men. In Saul’s nature Greek versatility was blended with Jewish tenacity. Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, then incor- posted in the province of Syria.

This city issued ortunately from the troubles of the Roman civil wars, receiving the title of metropolis and the immunities of an urbs libera (Dio Chrys., Orat. 23 Pliny, ΗΝ v. 27; cf. Ac 21%); it had therefore its ecclesia, its elective magistrates and local jurisdic- tion; and Paul’s father doubtless held the municipal along with the imperial franchise. This environ- ment made Saul a citizen of the world, while he was a Jewish scholar and devotee.

His mental image is not gathered, like that of Jesus, from the fields and the face of nature; where not borrowed from PAUL THE APOSTLE the OT, we trace it to the Jewish household and synagogue within doors, and out of doors to the streets, the agora, the stadium, the temples, the traffic of a Greek seaport town. Such cities Paul sought by predilection; their society was his native element.

The contact of Jew and Gentile gore the apostle his point of yeni and he ound his main constituency in the large circle of piously disposed men and women of Greek culture attracted to the Hellenistic synagogues. Tarsus was at this period a university town of the highest repute (Strabo, xiv. 10. 13-15; Philos- tratus, Apollonius, i. 7); it sent out distinguished professors of the Stoic philosophy, and afterwards of Roman law.

Strict Jewish families held aloof from the Greek schools, and Paul’s style bears scarcely any trace of classical discipline; his Greek is the κοινὴ of the Levantine shores, enriched with Hebraisms of the LXX and the Synagogue and adapted to the new Christian ideas with creative originality. The citations he makes from Greek authors are of a popular, proverbial stamp (Ac 17%, 1Co 15", Tit 113). Passages like 1 Co 1” and Col 25 indicate St.

Paul’s contempt for the empty sophistic and meretricious show into which philo- sophy had degenerated. Tarsus was a conspicu- ous arena for such display, and must often have witnessed scenes resembling that in which Paul himself took so ready a part in Athens (Ac 17!"*-), At the same time St. Paul could not but receive intellectual stimulus, if only by way of aversion, from such a theatre of mental activity. His master Gamaliel is said to have encouraged Breck studies.

Especially when Saul returned home after his con- version (Ac 9” 11%, Gal 1”), with his mission to the heathen definitely in view, we cannot suppose that he failed to use the facilities afforded by his native city for studying the Gentile thought of the day (see y, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 354). Hisaddress to the ΑΥΘΟΡΒΕῸΒ shows that the apostle, when he chose, could become a philosopher to the perro The parallels in thought between t.

Paul’s ethics and those of Seneca and the Stoics (see the Essay ad rem in Lightfoot’s Philip- pians) are, however, scarcely closer than may accounted for by the Stoical ideas in the air and ee ey unconscious sympathy with the nascent istian faith existing in high-minded Gentile thinkers of the age. In regard to form and expression, it is likely that Paul learnt something from the schools of _his native town. ‘In general, the Epp. of St.

Paul stand much nearer to the forms of the Cynic and Stoic diatribé, as regards their methods and the complexion of their speech, than to the involved Rabbinical dialectic. Recent investigations on the subject (Wendland u. Kern, Beitrdge z. Geschichte εἰ. griech. Philos. u. Relig. pp. 3-75, Philo u. d. kynisch-stoische Diatribe) ai this relationship increasingly into light’: so Heinrici, Vorrede to 1Co in Krit.-exeg. Kommentar® (Meyer); also Canon Hicks’ Paper on ‘St.

Paul and Hellenism’ in Stud. Bibl. iv. From Tarsus Paul carried off, if not a scholarly Greek training, at least his trade of tent-making (Ac 188. Tarsus was a centre for the mannu- facture of cilicium, the coarse goats’ hair fabric of the district, famed for its durability, of which shoes, mats, and coverings of all kinds were made ; and the boy Saul was taught this local handi- craft.

An industry every wire in demand, this craft supplied him in his wandering be aiemeace with a means of livelihood, laborious and irksome enough, but adequate for his scanty needs (1 Th 2°, ἢ ΤῺ 3519. 1 Co 9518 ete.) ‘These hands,’ as Paul held them up, rough and black with stitching at the hard canvas, told their tale of stern in- dependence and self-denial (Ac 20°“).

PAUL THE APOSTLE 699 _ Of Roman law Paul had the knowledge qualify- ing him to exercise his valued rights as a citizen of the Empire. This discipline contributed to his large Christian apprehension of ‘law’ as a universal Divine institute, which has its nearest analogue in the Roman jus gentiwm. His prominent doctrine of Adoption (υἱοθεσία) is based upon Greco-Roman, not Jewish practice.

His conception of the Church borrowed something from the Roman State as well as from the Israelite Theocracy (see Eph 2”, Col 219, Ph 17 3”), Not merely for his own protection (Ac 1057 225) and as a passport to his message did the apostle pronounce the words ‘Civis Romanus sum’ and ‘Cwsarem appello,’ but with genuine loyalty and with a true sense for the grandeur and enduring power of the rule of Rome. ‘We cannot fail to be struck with the hold which Roman ideas had on the mind of St. Paul. .

He had conceived the great idea of Christianity as the religion of the Roman world; and he thought of the various districts and countries in which he preached as parts of the grand unity’ (Ramsay, Ch. in the Rom. Emp.* Pp. 147, 148, St. Paul the Trav. pp. 125-127, 135; also Sanday-Headlam, Romans, p. xiv). He had the Roman genius of the statesman and organizer. He planted his churches, by preference, in Roman colonies (Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Corinth, ete.) To Rome St.

Paul addressed his most studied and a a Β Epistle) toward this metropolis of the world the advance of his mission from Jeru- salem westwards, for many years previously, had been directed (Ro 185 15, Ac 192 234), Only when at last he had made his defence and delivered his message before the Imperial Court could the ‘teacher of the Gentiles in faith an truth’ consider that his ‘ preaching was fulfilled’ and his course finished (1 Ti 2’, 2 Ti 4").

To the Jewish student and the Greek cosmopolitan in Paul there was added the Roman gentleman. His courteous dignity of bearing enabled him worthily to stand before magistrates and kings (Ac 9" 26, etc.) He commanded the respect of governors like Sergius Paulus and Porcius Festus, and the deference and goodwill of Julius the centurion in whose charge he voyaged to Rome.

There, too, an ‘ambassador in chains,’ he gained a wide influence, and his presence eatly stimulated the Christian cause (ph 6”, Ph 1% 4%, Ao 28% 3), Though his prison, Rome was his best vantage- ground and his adoptive home. It was here that the apostle arrived, as appears from the Epistles of the First Captivity, at his loftiest conceptions of the nature and destiny of the Universal Church. 2. St. Paul's Idiosyncrasy.

—The ‘striking origin- ality’ of Paul’s character is ‘due to the fruitful combination in it of two spiritual forces, which are seldom found united in this degree in one personality — dialectical power and religious in- spiration, or (to borrow Paul’s own language) the activity of the νοῦς and that of the πνεῦμα᾽ (A. Sabatier).

Add to these attributes the apostle’s heart of fire, the glow of passion and imagination which fused his mystical intuitions and logical apprehensions into one, his fine sensibility, his resolute will, his manly sincerity and courage and woman-like tenderness, his vivacity, subtlety, and humour, his rich humanity and keen faculty of moral observation, his adroitness and ready tact, his genius for organization and inborn power of com- mand, and the vigorous and creative, though not facile, gift of expression that supplied the fitting dress, as original as the thought behind it, with which his doctrine clothed itself,—all these quali- ties and powers went to the making of Jesus Christ’s apostle to the nations, the master-builder of the universal Church and of Christian theology.

St. Paul’s physical frame appears by no means te PAUL THE APOSTLE 700 have matched the greatness of his soul. Witha frankness that charms while it pains the reader, he quotes the taunt of his Corinthian opponents, ‘ His bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account’; he reproaches those who ‘counted of’ him ‘as though walking according to flesh,’ and ‘had an eye for matters of (bodily) presence,’ judging the lowly apostle by his unimposing exterior (2 Co 10'"*).

The barbarians of Lystra took Barnabas for Zeus, but Paul for Hermes, comparing the dignified port of the one with the lively speech of the other traveller.

The disad- vantages of his bodily presence were aggravated by the effect of his occupation as a Acamey mes tentmaker, and of the severe mishandling he had suffered from time to time on the part of his persecutors (Gal 67, 2 Co 11"), Yet these physical disabilities and humiliations became, through ‘the power of Christ overshadowing’ him, a new source of spiritual strength (2 Co 11 12% 1°), It was a constant feeling of Paul’s, only heightened by recent illness, to which he gave expression in 2Co 47-5°: ‘We have this treasure in frail earthen vessels.

. In this tabernacle we groan, being burdened ’ (cf. Gal 4’2-46)7). The Acta Pauli et Thecle, as Ramsay has shown (Ch. in Rom. Emp.° xvi.), ‘goes back ultimately to a document of the Ist cent.’; and it thus describes (§ 3) Paul’s appearance as he first approaches Iconiuin: ‘ bald- headed, bowlegged, strongly built, a man small in size, with meeting eyebrows, with a rather large nose, full of grace, for at times he looked like a man and at times he had the face of an angel.

’ ‘This plain and unflattering account seems to embody a very early tradition’ (op. cit. pp. 31, 32). The lifelike and unconventional figure of the Roman ivory diptych, ‘supposed to date not later than the 4th cent.’ (Lewin’s Life and Epp. of St. Paul, Frontispiece, and vol. ii. p. 211), partly confirms the above description. St. Paul’s constitution, if somewhat stunted and sickly, must have been nevertheless of a tough and stout fibre.

His arduous travels, attended for many years with the double strain of manual and intellectual labour, above all the catalogue of his hardships in 2 Co 11, bespeak in him a man of exceptional vitality and nervous energy. And, in spite of his uncomeliness, he exerted a rare personal fascination. ‘Rude in speech’ as he was to a fastidious Greek ear, his charm of manner and the incisive force and sympathetic aptness of his address commanded a hearing from all kinds of assemblies.

He could never Ἧς: listened to with indifference. His preaching excited warm assent or contradiction. He set all minds astir and in debate around him; his presence and discourse acted like an electric current that drives to opposite poles the mingled elements through which it passes (Ac 13 144 etc., 2 Co 214-16), The emotional nature of the apostle counted for as much in the effects of his eloquence as did his intellectual powers.

His temperament was choleric and impetuous, his nervous organism finely strung and quivering with sensibility. There was nothing in him of the impassive Stoic. His affections towards his converts were those of a mother or a lover, rather than of a pastor. He ‘travailed a second time in birth over’ the un- toward Galatians, ‘till Christ should be formed in’ them (4; cf. 2 Co 11”, 1 Th 27-8), ‘Now we live,’ he writes to the Thess.

, ‘if you stand fast in the Lord’ (1 Th 3510), The attacks of sickness and the anxieties and disappointments of his calling threw him at times into paroxysms of anguish. But his mental buoyancy and elasticit; were equally marked; his ‘consolation throug Christ’ brought him an exultancy proportioned to the depth of grief in which he shared ‘the suffer- PAUL THE APOSTLE ings of Christ’ (1 Co 2° 1551-83, 2 Co 1511 47-11 74-6 Col 1%, Eph 34, Ph 2)7-15), His letters—esp.

2 Co, Gal, Ph, 2 Ti—reflect the ardour and quick re- sponsiveness of the apostle’s feelings, his sudden ternations of mood, the conflicts of fear and hope, of affection and indignation, by which his soul could be torn and tossed. This lively play of emotion, expressed by look and gesture (e.g. Ac 13° 141214 20% 231-6 26!, Gal 3}, Ph 318, etc.)

but held under the firm control of judgment, gave a peculiar animation to Paul’s discourse, which, how- ever abrupt and unpolished in phrase, was arrest- ing and affecting in the highest degree. He spoke from the heart and to the heart.

The effectiveness of his utterance he ascribed to the energy of the Spirit of Christ possessing his mind; he was con- scious of ‘Christ speaking’ in him; a Divine force ‘energized mightily’ through his ‘wrestling’ of spirit and of speech (2 Co 135, Col 1”, 1 Th 15, ete.) ere was the true secret of St. Paul’s transcendent power. Before everything else he was a πνευμα- 7ixés—a man of the largest spiritual capacity, filled with the living Spirit of Jesus Christ.

If we must admit a fault, his vehemence was apt to break out into a heat and haste of temper, mani- fested occasionally in expressions which he was disposed afterwards to regret (see Ac 1539 235; and perhaps 2 Co 78:9, Gal 51%). St. Paul shared eminently in the supernatural experiences and χαρίσματα special to the apostolic age, as well as in the permanent and normal en- dowments of the Church.

He exercised miraculous powers of healing and of discipline (Ac 13°" 14% 1, 1Co 421 5%, 2Co 131-10), though he did not regard these as the chief ‘signs of the apostle’ (2 Co 118% 1212-14 31-8), He ‘spoke with tongues more than all,’ but thought this an inferior gift (1 Co 148°), In ‘visions and revelations of the Lord’ no one could rival him (2 Co 12!-*); he had been once ‘caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words.

’ To Paul the living God, the Lord Christ, the indwelling Spirit, the unseen world, were immediate and overwhelming realities. His thorn in the flesh (or rather, thorn for the Slesh, σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί) is connected by himself with his unique experiences of trance and vision (2 Co 119.

The former served as a kind of counter- poise to the latter: ‘ Because of the excess of the revelations, that I might not be excessively lifted up, there was given to me a thorn for my flesh, an angel of Satan sent to buffet me,—that I might not be excessively lifted up.

’ We gather that this infliction was bodily in nature, acutely painful and humiliating, prostrating in effect, and repeated in occurrence (ὑπεραίρωμαι and κολαφίζῃ are both Greek presents of recurrent action); that it was also mysterious in origin, and such as to be fitly associated with the working of a malignant unseen power. From the connexion of ν.

with the fore- oing context, it appears probable that the out- reak of this te attended Paul’s supreme vision, ‘fourteen years’ previously to 2Co (i.e. about A.D. 43), when in a state of trance (vv.* 3) he was ‘seized and caught up into paradise and heard muspeakeie words.’ e ‘thorn’ attached itself to this "ὑπερβολή of the revelations’ (cf. Gn 320.

81), in which the apostle ‘exults’ as he writes, and which, he feels, might otherwise have excited him to an unholy pride; this cruel affliction was therefore used by God for a merciful end. Hence the Lord, though thrice besought, did not remove the evil; He allowed ‘Satan’s angel’ ‘to buffet’ His servant; but He promised e sufficient for endurance, and assured the sufferer that ‘ power is perfected in weakness.

’ Thus Paul learnt to glory in this as in other weaknesses and injuries, and had indeed found himself strongest when nature was most beaten down (vv. 19). PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE 701 Further light is thrown on St. Paul’s malady by Gal 4!5, for it is probably the same affliction that we meet with here : ‘ In nought did you (Galatians) wrong me. But you know it was due to an in- firmity of the flesh that I preached to you at that former time.

And your temptation in my flesh (my physical condition) you did not treat with contempt nor loathing [lit. did not spit out), but as an angel of God you received me,—as Christ Jesus ! here, then, is your self-gratulation? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have dug out your eyes and given them me!’ The ‘thorn,’ then, was disabling; it compelled Paul unexpectedly to halt on his way, and so to preach to these ‘Galatians’ (but see Ramsay’s view of the circumstances, stated below).

Its effects were such as to excite the scorn and aversion of beholders, so that it supplied a severe test of the candour and ΤΡ ΕΟ of the Galatians who had witnessed Paul’s abject condition under its inflic- tion. It may also be inferred, though less certainly (see Lightfoot, ad loc.), that the complaint, at least temporarily, affected the patient’s eyesight. The diagnosis excludes—(1) the hypothesis of spiritual temptations (to pride, blasphemy, ete.

, injectiones Satan) made current by Luther; and (2) equally that of carnal incitements, favoured by medieval and Roman Catholic interpreters in accordance with the erroneous Latin rendering, stimulus carnis. (3) Nor could the ‘thorn’ have signified human opposers, such as the ‘ ministers of Satan’ of 2Co 11; nor the hindrances and afilictions related in 2 Co 11% (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others).

(4) The evidence points to gina disease of some distressing and disfiguring ind, recurrent at intervals, having its seat in St. Paul’s nervous constitution and supervening upon the ecstasy of his ‘visions and revelations’ (so Ewald, Holsten, v. Hofmann, Klépper, Lightfoot, Sch niedel, Krenkel). Of known diseases, epilepsy, or some obscure form of hysteria, best answers to ‘hese conditions. Krenkel has elaborately dis- cussed the question in his Barros (Pp.

47-125), showing that epilepsy was regarded by the ancients with peculiar horror as a supernatural visitation, and often associated with lunacy (Mt 4* 17%), with which also Paul was taxed (2 Co 5% 12"), He observes, further, that spectators witnessing epi- leptic attacks used to spit out in BUnere on dread and by way of averting the evil (the morbus qui tatur of Plautus’ Captivi, U1. iv. 18, and the despui suetus of Pliny’s HN x.

23 [33])—a circumstance explaining the οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε of Gal 44, Epileptic seizures taking place in mature life and at distant intervals are not necessarily fatal to activity and mental vigour: witness the cases of Julius Cesar, Peter the Great, Napoleon L; the instance of king Alfred (Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 183-188) is strikingly arallel in some par- ticulars to that of Paul. e hypothesis of oph- thalmia (advanced in Farrar’s St. Paul, vol. i. Excursus x.)

has its starting-point in Gal 4%; it meets some but not all the conditions of the case. This disease, in the severe form supposed, damages the eyes to a degree inconsistent with Paul’s quick observation and powerful gaze. W. M. Ramsay has recently pogrom malarial fever (comp. Conyb. and Hows. Life and Epp. of St. Paul, ch. viii.), which eee ref conjectures) at- tacked Paul in Pamphylia (Ac 13%-*), compelling Barnabas and Binivelt ὃν seek relief in the bracing air of the uplands of Asia Minor.

To this necessity Ramsay supposes Paul to refer in Gal 4%, on the theory that the ‘Galatians’ of the Ep. are the | South Galatians of Antioch, Iconium, ete. (CA. in | all the symptoms of the malady. A long and perilous journey, like that from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, would scarcely be undertaken in such ‘weakness of the flesh.’ Nor is malarial fever likely to have excited the aversion indicated in Gal 4", And Mark’s desertion, under these cir- cumstances, becomes almost incredibly base.

The references of Tertullian, and other early inter preters, to violent Aeadache and similar complaints are in the right direction, but inadequate. They may be an echo of the earliest tradition. If the apostle’s liability to nervous disorders supplies unfriendly critics with a ground on which to dis- credit his visions and his Divine inspiration, these disparagements are but a repetition of those made in his lifetime. The fact that his malady exposed St.

Paul’s apostleship to this reproach, gave a cruel and piercing sharpness to the ‘thorn.’ So much the more perfect was the triumph of Christ’s grace in this deeply wounded man. 3. St. Paul's Conversion.—The interest of St. Paul’s life centres in his conversion to the faith of Jesus Christ. The root of his doctrine is also here. This was the most pregnant event of epee history ; it is more fully related in the T than any other outside of the Gospels.

It was one of those lightning strokes occurring at de- cisive moments in the advance of revelation, which precipitate the issue of a long course of previous spiritual development, and liberate new forces for operation in some new era of the kingdom of God.

1e call of Saul of Tarsus to His service by the risen Jesus, while it put a last seal, from the hand of one hitherto His bitter enemy, to the testimony concerning His resurrection and exaltation (1 Co 15°"), supplied the starting-point for a fresh de- parture in the dispensation of the gospel (Eph 2’, 1 Ti 1%). In the soul of the converted Saul a world-wide revolution lay germinally hidden.

In his mind the Christian principle, the λόγος τοῦ σταυροῦ, first displayed its full significance ; in him Christ appropriated that ‘chosen vessel’ through which His gospel was to work out its largest intel- lectual and social results, the instrument whereby the society of Jesus was to be expanded from a Jewish Messianic sect into the Church of the nations, coextensive with the Roman Empire and set on its way to re-create the civilized world.

Saul’s conversion took place in a fashion be- fitting its historical importance. The passionate young Pharisee had witnessed with approval the stoning of ad eae whose radical and incisive preaching recalled the tones of Jesus and re- awakened the deadly fear and hatred of the Pharisees toward His doctrine. The struggle be- tween the followers of Jesus and the existing Judaism, as Saul truly saw, was one of life and death.

The mild policy of his master Gamaliel had allowed this monstrous imposture, this proclamation of a crucified Messiah and pretended Son of God, to make dangerous head- way. The heresy must be trampled out at any cost. In this conviction Saul was ‘breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord.” He acted ‘ignorantly, in unbelief,’ out of a sincere and uncompromising zeal for God, and doing violence therein to his kindlier feelings.

The Jewish ecclesiastical leaders found in Saul, thus disposed, their fit agent in the attempt they made after the murder of Stephen, and at a moment when political circumstances gave them a free hand, to suppress the sect of the Nazarenes. Saul was eavallinn to Damascus, commissioned by the high priest, to bring as prisoners to Jerus. any that he should there tind ‘of that way’; he Rom. Emp.° iii., St. Paul the Trav. v.

2, and more | was nearing the city about noonday, bent on recently in Hist. Com. on Gal., 1899, p. 42218). | This hypothesis, again, agrees with some but not! harrying its defenceless Christian flock, when he was arrested by a burst of light ‘surpassing the, PAUL THE APOSTLE 702 brightness of the sun,’ that encircled his troop. Out of the blaze there appeared a glorious human Form, who at his challenge declared Himself to be ‘ Jesus, whom thou persecutest!

’ The sequel of the story we need not repeat. It is told three times in the Acts: once by the historian on his own account (9'!), and twice as reported from Paul’s speeches—to the people at Jerus. (22"), and before king Herod Agrippa 0. and Festus at Cesarea (26.5). The variation of the three nar- ratives is interesting as showing how much dif- ference in descriptive detail was deemed consistent with identity of fact by a careful writer like St. Luke. The only real mae eye lies in St.

Paul’s omission in Ac 26 of the part of Ananias, on which he naturally dwelt in addressing the Jews (22). In the later address, speaking more summarily, he ascribes to Jesus directly, and as though com- municated at the outset, the revelations consequent upon ‘the peevery vision.” Vv." of ch. 9 ap- pear to embody Ananias’ account, which Luke would be sure to obtain (comp. Lk 15) if within his reach. The train of events is most vividly reproduced in Paul's unfinished speech at Jerus. (ch.

22), the objectivity of the appearance of Jesus and the baal dene Berns go that it exercised upon Saul’s mind being asserted with strong emphasis (esp. vv." 1, Here alone the two questions addressed by Saul to Jesus are re- rted.

In his speech at Caesarea the apostle ΞῈΞ out the startling and complete reversal effected in his conduct; to this account we owe also the statement that Jesus spoke in ‘the Hebrew language,’ and the significant sentence, ‘It is hard for thee to kick against the goad(s)’ (words which do not belong to the true text of Ac 9). The Epp. furnish many instructive references to Paul’s conversion. In 1 Co 9 his apostolic office (resembling that of the Twelve, v.

°) is grounded on the fact that he ‘has seen Jesus our Lord.’ Indeed, Paul claims to be a witness of Christ’s resurrection in the same sense as were those who saw Him during the forty days, and the dast of such witnesses, his birth into faith and apostleship, notwithstanding its abnormality and his unworthi- ness, being therefore as valid in itself as it was justified by its results (155). In the latter pas- sage we see the humiliatin aspect of St.

Paul’s conversion ; in 2 Co 4*® aa 51°19, its splendour. God’s creative fiat bade ‘the illumination of the knowledge of His glory’ shine through Saul’s blinded eyes into his dark and bitter heart, ‘in the face of Christ’ disclosed amid ‘ the glory of that light’ (Ac 22"), There arose ‘a new creation’ oe that which attended the word, ‘ Let there be light.

’ Paul was at the same instant ‘reconciled to God’ and received a ‘ministry of reconciliation’ for the world (2 Co 5'*%), “Gal 1"-7 shows him intent on proving his independent apostleship: his knowledge of Jesus Christ and his commission to preach Him to the Gentiles were derived, he asserts, at first hand from the Lord Himself, and at a time when his relations with the Church at Jerusalem had been only those of the persecutor.

To no human mediation or indoctrination did he owe his ‘ gospel’ (comp. 1}) ; ‘Jesus Christ’ personally ‘revealed’ it to him (v.22). The sight of the risen Jesus, allowed to Saul by the mercy of God, ‘revealed in’ him ‘ the Son of God,’ his own and the world’s Lord and Redeemer (vv.'

15, This vision gave Saul the purport of his message to the Gentiles, impressin, upon this message a special Divine stamp an authority that raised him above the need and the wish to ‘confer’ in respect to it ‘with flesh and blood.

’ Hence upon his conversion he did not follow the natural course of repairing to Jerusalem PAUL THE APOSTLE in order to seek the recognition and instruction of the heads of the Church there, but ‘ went off into Arabia,’ where he remained for some time in com- parative solitude (vv.!

” 15), In this connexion Paul speaks of the Twelve as ‘ the ΒΡΌΠΟΙΘΕ before me,’ since the manner of his call put him on an equality with them as one commissioned by Jesus Christ in person; for he had ‘seen Jesus our Lord’ in His visible human form, and had ‘ heard’—no mere spiritual call such as every servant of Christ hears —but ‘a word from His mouth’ (Ac 22), In this sense he introduces himself to the Romans (1"5) as ‘a bondman of Jesus Christ, a called apoeile one separated [marked off from others by his call] to proclaim God’s good news about His Son.

’ It is noticeable that in the Address both of Romans and Galatians, where Paul reminds himself of the unique character of his apostleship, he speaks with emphasis of the resurrection of Christ, for it was the risen Saviour the sight of whom had changed everything for him. ‘The glory of that light’ reflects itself in many passages of Ἔξ. Paul's letters, —2 Th 1% 25, 1 Co 154 (‘ the image of the Heavenly One’), Ro 8'&, 1 Ti 6'5-16 2 ‘Tj 1101; and especially Ph 3%-* (‘the body of His glory’).

Often, and more feelingly as time goes on, he dilates on the astonishing grace of God that called him, a violent enemy of the ospel, to be its bearer to all nations,—Gal 1)% 1 , 1Co 15% 1, Eph ota ete While miraculous in the means that effected it, Paul’s conversion was no act of violence.

There was an inward preparation for the revelation of Jesus, which brought to its issue a long struggle in the nature of Saul, and opened the door of escape from a moral situation that had become miserable beyond endurance to the proud and strict young Pharisee. The words of Jesus, ‘ Hard is it for thee to kick against the goad(s),’ touched the secret of the hearer’s heart. The ‘ goad’ of Ac 26 is the pedagogus and prison-keeper of Gal 3, ‘the law’ of 3. 4.

7 that ‘works out wrath,’ ‘the power of sin’ of 1Co 15%,—that, good in itself, supplied to sin the instrument by which it ‘wrought out death’ to Saul, setting his reason and flesh at internecine war. Beech as Saul attacked the name of the Nazarene, he carried a more devouring strife within his breast. That Judaic law which he strove to honour by extir- pating its contemners, through its impracticable et most just demands was meanwhile driving im, though he knew it not, into their ranks.

Such was the irony of the situation revealed by this illuminating word of Jesus. St. Paul’s subsequent doctrine of the impotence of the moral law as a means of salvation is the transcript of this experi- ence. As he rode to Damascus, Saul was labouring under the painfully suppressed conviction of his powerlessness, and the powerlessness of his people, to fulfil the legal righteousness and therefore to attain the Messianic salvation which depended, he believed, upon this one condition.

This inward rage made him a more furious persecutor. He was ‘kicking against’ a ‘ goad’ which wounded his soul; he was fighting down his secret misgivings respecting Judaism. Until this moment, however, Saul had no suspicion that the Nazarenes were in the right. he crucifixion had falsified the * The interpretation here given to the words por πέντρα λακτίζων, more into the figure than is usual; but this fuller meaning appears to be forced upon us by the data of the Epp.

, the main doctrines of which are a product and reflex of the writer’s vital experience. Paul’s teaching on the Law and Faith rehearses the process that turned him from a Pharisee into a Christian. His soul had been pierced and lacerated by his sense of moral impotence in face of the Law.

Like a stupid beast, Saul knew not whither this incessant goad was driving him, nor whose was the hand that plied it; he had struggled in wild and vain resistance, till the appearance and words of Jesus explained everything. PAUL THE APOSTLE 104 apostles’ (the plural is inexact ; Peter and James ΠΟ eae: ie the Twelve), standing sponsor for him. he disciples’ were shy of their old tormentor ; his disappearance from Damascus and the delay of his return had probably Sy area their sus- picions.

It did not take long for Saul’s preaching to rouse the hatred of the murderers of Stephen, who looked on him as a traitor. The urgency of ‘the brethren’ seconded the command of the Lord in the temple vision, and Saul was ‘ brought down to Cesarea, and sent forth (by ship) to Tarsus.’ Saul had little opportunity during the fortnight to make acquaintance amongst the Christian com- munity in and around Jerus.

; ‘and,’ he says, ‘I re- mained unknown by face to the Churches of Judea that are in Christ. Only they heard from time to time that our former persecutor is now preaching the faith of which he once made havoc’ (Gal 1”), (a) With his arrival at Tarsus, in the second or third year after his conversion (‘after three years,’ Gal 1%, reckoning by years current), St. Paul’s missionary activity propany, begins,—when he ‘came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia’ (v.

™: Cilicia was a dependency of Syria ; and Paul here zacludes his whole ministry up to the time of the Jerusalem Council, 3). This jirst period, of more retired and preparatory labour, extended from the year 37 A.D., or thereabouts, to 44, when Barnabas summoned Saul to assist him at Antioch (Ac 11-%), It was a seven years’ apprenticeship for the Gentile apostle.

The language of Gal 1, and the reference of Ac 15% to ‘the brethren from among the Gentiles throughout Cilicia,’ as well as ‘Antioch and Syria,’ imply that numerous Churches were formed during this period in Saul’s native province. St. Paul’s work in his homeland, how- ever, lay outside that main course of the Ckurch’s development which Luke made it his business to sketch ; and we have no letters from him to Cilicia. But these oy τὸΘ years served important ends, in ripening St.

Paul’s convictions, maturing his plans, and giving him mastery of the weapons of spiritual warfare that he was to ply upon a larger field. Independently, under no human master, he learnt his business as a missionary to the heathen. Over his relations to his family at Tarsus a veil is drawn ; but it seems unlikely that Paul would have stayed in this district so long had those relations been altogether hostile (cf. Ac 9315), (4) The second stage of St.

Paul’s ministry begins with his removal to Antioch under the auspices of Barnabas, who had been now for some years superintending the Church of the Syrian capital, to which he was despatched from Jerusalem under the circumstances related in Ac 11!

**4, Shortly before the summons to Antioch, Paul experienced the extraordinary vision referred to in 2 Co 124, By the side of Barnabas, Saul took a commanding position in this metropolitan Church, next in im- portance to that of Jerusalem, planted in the third city of the Empire, the place where ‘the disciples were first ealled Christians.

’ Along with Barnabas he was sent, a year after his arrival, to convey the alms of the Antiochene Christians to their needy brethren in Judwa, who were threatened by famine (Ac 11”-”), When this ‘ ministry was fulfilled,’ which strengthened the ties binding the Gentile to their Jewish brethren, the Holy Spirit singled out ‘Barnabas and Saul’ from amongst the ‘prophets and teachers’ of Antioch to an adventurous ‘ work,’ which was, in fact, the setting on foot of organized Gentile evangelism.

With this step the Church commences the second stage of her history, that of her expansion through the Roman Empire; and at ch. 13% begins the * With these and other dates given in this article the reader May compare art. CHRoNoLoay or NT, in which in some in- stances the figures adopted are slightly different. PAUL THE APOSTLE second half of the Acts of the Apostles, with St. Paul for its hero, as St. Peter was the hero of chs. 1-12.

The pointed repetition of the definite expression ‘the work’ at the beginning and at the end (1455) of the story of this mission, and again in 15" relating to its middle and turning point,— when one considers St. Luke’s careful choice of lan- guage, and the absence in 13'*- of any explanation such as he is accustomed to give of critica. changes in St. Paul’s line of movement (see 935. 89 168-10 } 718.

16 20*),—leads one to think that the plan of campaign, at least in its general outline (through Cyprus, across to Pamphylia, and round by South Galatia home again), was settled under the direction of the Spirit before leaving Antioch. Mark deserted, while his two leaders ‘ fulfilled, the work’ to which they were ‘delivered by the grace of God.

’ On the Frrst MIssIONARY JOURNEY Barnabas and Saul, with John Mark, Barnabas’ cousin (Col 4:0), for their assistant, set sail from Seleucia, landed at Salamis, and traversed the island of Cyprus from east to west, preaching wherever Jewish synagogues gave opportunity. At Paphos the missionaries were invited to speak before Sergius Paulus the proconsul, a Roman governor of unusual intelligence and interest in religious matters.

The conversion of this Roman nobleman was a triumph for the new faith, and a happy augury for the enterprise of the missionaries But it has importance in two further respects: as the first collision of Christianity upon such an arena (comp., however, the case of SIMON MAGus [wh.

see] at Samaria, Ac 8) with the great religious force of Magianism and Oriental theosophy repre- sented by Elymas (or Etoimas),—the type of many such encounters; and secondly, as the occasion when, before all eyes and in the field of the Gentile mission, St. Paul’s ascendency of char- acter and inspiration asserted itself and a signal crisis called into exercise his hidden powers.

The judgment upon Bar-Jesus was one of those em- phatic ‘signs of the apostle’ by which God desig- nated His chosen instrument. It is at this point, ‘when Saul stands forth by himself and becomes the principal actor’ (Lewin), that Luke makes the change in his name (v.*); when the missionary band set sail from Paphos to Perga of Pamphylia, the vevaeer are described as ‘those about Paul’ (‘ Paul and his company,’ v.)

—a phrase suggesting that Paul took the initiative in the measures for departure from Cyprus. This fact, together with the hazard and uncertain duration of the tour now extended to the mainland, may explain the with- drawal of Barnabas’ kinsman and his return to Jerusalem. When the matter was discussed at Perga, it appeared that in South Galatia lay ‘ the work’ on which the apostles had been ‘sent out by the Holy Spirit.

’ It was not Paul’s ‘infirmity of the flesh’ (Gal 418) that forced him and Barnabas out of their way to visit South Galatia; they were prosecuting the main object of their journey ; and Mark was deserting not a sick companion, but ‘the work’ he was pledged to pursue. See, fur- ther, for the reasons that may have prompted this desertion, the art. MARK (JOHN).

Hence the travellers made no stay at Perga, but pushed on rapidly to Pisidian Antioch—‘ the centre of military and civil administration in the southern parts of the vast province called by the Romans Galatia’ (Ramsay). If it was St. Barnabas’ predi- lection that drew the missionaries first to Cyprus (455: §7 158°), in the occupation of Antioch we may trace St.

Paul’s strategic skill; it was his habit to strike at the centres of provincial life, wherever in such cities a Jewish agogue offered a foothold. This city sunitasilerts he great highroad from Syria to Ephesus and the west, and was centra) for southern Asia Minor.

On the journey of a PAUL THE APOSTLE hundred miles from Perga to Antioch, through the wild ranges of the Taurus, Paul may well have met some of those ‘ perils of rivers’ and ‘ of robbers’ which he associates in 2 Co 11%, For the route see Ramsay, Church in Rom. Emp. ii. 2 and map. At Antioch, and onwards, Paul takes the lead in speech and action (14%), ‘Barnabas and Saul’ set out on the expedition ; *Paul and Barnabas’ will return (Ac 13! 15%). St.

Paul’s address in the Antioch synagogue (Ac 13!) holds a place in Ac 13-28 corresponding to that of St. Peter's Pentecost sermon in Ac 1-12; it is a typical specimen of his preaching to Jews of the Dispersion. As on subsequent occasions, he is listened to at first with attention, and ‘many of the Jews and devout proselytes’ are favourably affected, until ‘on the next Sabbath’ the syna- gogue is crowded with Gentile hearers, whose presence excites Jewish rancour.

The courage of the apostles rises with the storm; denied a further hearing, they solemnly exclaim, ‘Lo, we turn to the Gentiles!’ So the inevitable rupture takes place. The Jewish leaders are enraged to hear their Messianic hopes and the privileges of the chosen race extended to heathen ‘dogs,’ and to see the Gentile frequenters of the synagogue sana to the preachers of this scandalous g gospe > and admitted by baptism into their schismatic ‘congregation.

’ They cast about for means, usually not far to seek, of exciting the city magistrates, or the mob, ree the missionaries, who appear in the light of disturbers of the public ace (Ac 17°) and are, in one way or other, be- ore long expelled, to pass on to the next city, repeating this experience and finding themselves not infrequently pursued thither by their previous assailants.

‘ Perils from’ their ‘countrymen, perils from the heathen,’ followed immediately on those ‘perils of rivers’ and ‘perils of robbers’ through which the missionaries had arrived at S. Galatia. They were hunted in turn from Antioch to Iconium, and from Iconium to Lystra and Derbe; and this was a foretaste of what became with St. Paul the familiar order of things. Still he persisted in appealing to ‘the Jew first,’ and made the syna- pogue in each new city his starting-point.

Though e might win only a handful of his compatriots, he always found prepared hearers in the a dig and Gentile synagogue worshippers, amongst whom were many pious Greek women of the educated classes (Ac 174). Driven from Antioch, the missionaries travelled (some 80 miles E. by 8.) to Iconium (mod.

Konieh), a flourishing commercial city, with a synagogue, where, despite persecution, they preached for ‘a considerable time’ (‘the whole winter,’ thinks Ram- say) and with much success, till Jewish intrigues compelled their oe ‘to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe’ (14'”). The four towns enumerated lay within the province of Galatia, and were all places of importance in the Roman administration,—Antioch and Iconium within Phrygian, and Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonian Galatia.

Lystra (20 miles S. of Iconium) was, like pretehe 4 a colonia, a link in the chain of lurtresses planted by Augustus to secure the Pisidian and Isaurian frontier. Derbe (50 miles S.E. of Iconium) was the border town of Galatia in this direction. Here the Jewish persecution, organized from Antioch, appears to have ceased.

At Lystra ‘the multitudes,’ who deified Barnabas and Paul on the healing of the lame man, shouted ‘in the Lycaonian tongue’; but they gave the visitors the names of Greek gods, and understood Paul’s Greek speech (147), in which we have an example of his preaching to the simpler sort of heathen audiences. Throughout the missionaries kept to the track of Greco-Roman civilization and VOL. 11.45 PAUL THE APOSTLE 705 rule, and Jewish settlement.

It was the local trates, not the Roman officials, with whom the came into conflict ; hence it was possible to escape by moving on,—possible also after a lapse of time, probably in the new year under new magistrates (see Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp.* pp. 70-72), to return to the cities previously visited. The two travellers retraced their steps from Derbe to Antioch, ‘confirming the souls of the disciples’ and ‘ appointing elders in every Church’ (vv.

™ 3), At Lystra Paul underwent the single stoning of his experience (2 Co 1135), which left on him probably some of the ‘stigmata of Jesus’ referred to in Gal 617, Although no synagogue is mentioned in Lystra or Derbe, Jews certainly resided in the former place, or the ‘Jews from Antioch and Iconium’ could not have stirred up the murder- ous assault they did. The half-Jewish Timothy sprang from Lystra (Ac 16'-*).

Returning home- wards, Paul and Barnabas ‘spake the word in Perga,’ and then sailed from the neighbouring pe of Attalia (14%) to Syrian Antioch. They ad been absent, as Ramsay calculates, above two years, leaving Antioch in spring and returning in the third summer or autumn following. Navi tion, and travelling in the interior of Asia Minor, were possible only from March to October.

On the topography, and the political and social con- ditions of the regions traversed, Ramsay has superseded all other authorities (Ch. in Rom. Emp. ch. ii., and St. Paul the Trav. chs. iv. v.) wo things were made clear by this experi- mental mission from Antioch. First, that the heathen in the Greco-Roman cities were prepaved in large numbers to receive the gospel—‘ had opened to the Gentiles a door of faith’ (ν.

7), Secondly (and though Luke does not say this, he indicates it strongly), Paul was marked out as chief of the Gentile mission. With the hour had arrived the man. At Paphos, Antioch, Lystra— in speech, action, suffering—Paul had come to the front by the force of events. God has now puta broad public seal, known and read of all men, upon the vocation of which His servant had been conscious long before.

‘The signs of the apostle’ su uently wrought among the Corin- thians (2 Co 124-14), were plainly visible in St. Paul through this journey. As they returned to Antioch, Barnabas surely thought concerning his companion, ‘ He must increase: I must decrease.

’ Accordingly, when after the lapse of ‘no small time’ (a year or so) the Antiochene Church was disturbed by circumcisionists from Jerus, it is “Paul and Barnabas’ (not ‘ Barnabas and Paul’) who debate with them ; and ‘ Paul and Barnabas’ are sent to lay the matter before the mother Church at Jerusalem (15'*). This latter Church, however, gives Barnabas courteous precedence (Ac 15') ; he was the senior man, and its own delegate. The most striking evidence of St.

Paul’s ascena- ency is afforded by his own account of the Con- ference at Jerus. in Gal 2), (We assume, with most scholars, that Gal 2’ corresponds to Ac 15:55; see art. ACTS OF APOSTLES ; also Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 122-127; Lipsius in ‘ Handcomm. z. NT,’ Galat., ad loc.; Harnack, Die Chronol. d. altchristl. Litteratur, Bd. i. p. 237).

° To Paul comes the ‘revelation’ directing the deputation from Antioch, He adopts the bold step of taking with the party Titus, representing the Gentile Christians whose status was disputed. He ‘com- municated to those of repute the gospel’ that, he says, ‘I preach amongst the Gentiles,’ putting it to them as the substantial question for decision, whether he had ‘run in vain.’ If the Gentiles *Add to these authorities MoGiffert’s Christianity im the Apostolic Age, p. 208 δ΄. ; and art.

Curoxovoor or NT. 706 vAUL THE APOSTLE must be circumcised in order to be Christians, St. Paul’s mission is stultified. The ‘Pillars’ now ‘gee’ that to Paul is ‘entrusted the gospel of the uncireumcision, as that of the circumcision to Peter’; they we gt his work as being of God. Barnabas is duly honoured, and was heartily with Paul in his contention; but Paul unmistakably plays the leading part in the negotiations, and the controversy gathers round his person.

He acted throughout as the responsible head of the Gentile mission, and was so acknowledged by the elder chiefs of the Church. All this we can understand, as taking place after the first missionary tour and the events of Ac 13. 14, which brought Paul to the forefront and displayed in him powers fully com- arable to those manifested in Peter’s ministry. Tn A.D. 44-46, when Antioch sent relief to the famine of Jerus.

, there was no such evidence of Paul’s supereminent gifts before the Church; nor is it likely that either iat! or Peter and James, then regarded him in the light in which he appears in Gal 2, The historical situation, the occasion of dispute (viz. the attempt to impose circumcision on Gentile Christians), and the chief persons con- cerned in the discussions of Ac 15'-® and Gal 2-1, are the same. The contrast between the narra- tives is fairly explained by the fact that St.

Luke rives the public and exterior view of the proceed- ings as they concerned the Church at large; St. Paul, their personal aspect and bearing. The Council of Ac 15 naturally had its inner history ; private conferences paved the way for the public settlement. In complicated and deli- cate affairs of this sort very different representa- tions may be equally true. ‘The two accounts ad- mirably complete each other. .

The discrep- ancies can, for the most part, be explained aie from the difference of the acannon of the relaters’ (Pfleiderer, Hibb. Lect. 1885, on «The In- fluence of the Apostle Paul,’ p. 103): see, however, chs, iii. and vii. of Ramsay’s St. Paul the Trav., where the coincidence of the second visit of Paul in Gal with the second in Ac (11. 12) is vigorously but not convincingly maintained.

Luke gives no hint at the earlier juncture of the momentous con- troversy of Gal 2, for which, indeed, the occasion arose only after the joint mission of Barnabas and Paul to S. Galatia, when mere Gentiles were received in large bodies into the Church (see Hort’s Jud. Christianity, pp. 64-67) : the Jerus. Church was occupied in A.D. 44-46 with the famine and the Herodian persecution ; for Paul to have raised the question of his apostolic status then would have been premature and officious.

Paul ignores in Galatians the second visit to Jerus., because it was devoted to the specific business stated by Luke, and nothing arose ont of it affecting his relations with the first apostles or his own apostleship (see Lightf. Gal., note appended to ch. ii.) Returning from Jerus. at that time, Saul resumed his place among the ‘ prophets and teachers’ of the Church of Antioch (Ac 13'). The second stage of Paul’s ministry culminates with the Council at Jerus.

, which gave validity to Gentile Christianity and St. Paul’s plenary apostleship, now attested by God in the suc- cesses of the first missionary journey. (c) The third period of Paul’s ministry is signal- ized by the extension of his mission to Europe, and by the writing of his earliest apostolic letters (1 and 2 Th). The history of the SEcoND MIs- SIONARY JOURNEY is contained in Ac 15%-18”.

It hepins with the rupture between Paul and Barnabas, occasioned by Paul’s refusal of the com- panionship of Mark (to whom in the end he was reconciled: Philem™, Col 4%, 2 Ti 4"), but of which a deeper cause lay in the changed relations must now go his own way. of the twoleaders. Pa’ PAUL THE APOSTLE He proceeds to the mission field in Asia Minor, taking for his associate Silas (or Silvanus), one of the two delegates sent from Jerus.

to ΒΟΘΟΙΒΏΡΕΥ Barnabas and Paul on their return to Antioc (Ac 15% 37- 8), Silas, like Paul, was a Hebrew of Latin name and Roman citizenship (16*7),—a ‘prophet,’ moreover, and a ‘leading man’ in the Jerus. Church. He accompanied Paul only for this journey. Much later, we find him acting as St. Peter’s secretary (1 P 5"). Silas and Mark were important links between the Apostles Paul and Peter, and between the Judean Church and the Gentile mission.

Paul and Silas journeyed by road, through the Cilician Gates, to S. Galatia, arriving first at Derbe, then at Lystra. At Lystra Paul enlisted young Timotheus, possibly to fill the place of Mark as assistant to himself and Silas. He first, however, ‘ circumcised him,’ since he was the son of a Jewess, to avoid scandalizing the Jews (Ac 16-4). At each place Paul and Silas de- livered the resolutions of the Council of Jerus. (15%), which were received everywhere (15% 16°) with lively satisfaction.

They effected their immediate purpose of composing the J udeo-Gentile Churches and putting a stop to the legalistic agitation. The circumcision of Timothy was another conciliatory step on St. Paul’s part (see Hort’s Jud. Christianity, pp. 84-87). The line of Churches between the two Antiochs were now becoming ‘solidly established in the faith, and they were increasing in number daily.

’ Ac 16° brings us to the turning point of the second missionary journey, and toa critical moment in Paul’s career. St. Luke is pressing forward to the Macedonian mission, and sketches intervening movements less distinctly than his wont, in the long and somewhat awkward sentence of vv.*8, We gather that St. Paul’s plan had been, after the visitation of the S.

Galatian Churches now com- leted, to push on westwards along the great ighway to Ephesus, the chief city of Asia Minor and the stepping-stone to Greece and Rome. But the travellers were ‘forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia’ (the Roman rovince of that name, with Ephesus for its capital). When afterwards, ‘having come over against Mysia,’ much farther north, ‘they were trying to enter Bithynia,’ ‘the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.

’ They were thus compelled finally to make for Troas, where the vision appeared which sum- moned Paul to the help of the Macedonians. This was a great and pregnant movement in apostolic history—the step which carried Paul and Silas across the Aigean ; other events of the time were of importance, in Luke’s view, only as leading up to this. Three distinct Divine interpositions oceurred, forcing Paul and his companions upon 8, venture quite unanticipated by themselves.

But how are we to construe the first clause of y.°—according to the critical text its principal and governing sentence, ‘ But they passed through the Phrygian and Galatian country, having been (i.e. since they were) forbidden* by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia’? (διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν, κωλυθέντες κ.τ.λ.) Ramsay (who has reinforced with powerful arguments the theory held by Mynster, Perrot, Renan, Hausrath, Weizsiicker, that Paul never entered N.

Galatia, and that the Galatians of his Ep. are the people of the Phrygian and Lycaonian Churches founded on * Ramsay prefers the reading of the TR, διελθόντες x.7.2., Whick he interprets as resumptive of vv.45, thus detaching χωλυ- θίντες from the foregoing clause. Even with the reading διῆλθον δὲ, it is maintained that xwAviévris .

"Agia conveys a distinct predication, not explaining the διελθεῖν, but supplementing it and stating the next occurrence (see, besides Ramsay a8 below, Askwith's Destination and Date of the Ep. to the Gal., ch. ili.) With the given arrangement of words, this construction at the best is artificial.

PAUL THE APOSTLE the first tour) argues that ‘the Phrygian and Galatian region’ of this passage is simply the Pure -Galatian district extending from [conium to tioch traversed before, and that Paul and Silas journeyed in a direct line, and with no con- siderable delay, from this region to Troas. It seems to be clear, on the other hand, that v.® concludes the account of St. Paul’s visitation of S. Galatia, and that v.° relates his setting out ona new campaign.

Forbidden to preach in Asia, the missionaries moved in another direction ; and ‘the Phrygian and Galatian region’ is Luke’s definition of the fresh field upon which they now enter. Here St. Luke first employs the word Galatian, although the travellers have been within the Roman province of that name since arriving at Derbe, for the cities of Asia Minor evangelized on the first tour all lay (as Ramsay has decisively proved) within its bounds.

We naturally look for this new ‘Galatian region’ in Galatia proper or N. Galatia, the western part of which, with Pessinus for its centre, marched with Phrygia not far to the east of the direct way from Antioch to Troas. The presumption from Greek usage is that τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν signifies two adjoining districts coupled to eiuee rather than one district known by two different names (comp.

Ac 275, Lk 31, 1 Th 18), and that the co-ordinate ‘Phrygian’ and ‘Galatian’ are used in the same sense (the former ethnic, and so therefore the latter). Spek er from N.W. Galatia, the travel- lers would find themselves (ν.7) close to Bithynia on the north, and with Mysia presenting itself on the west. V.° thus fills in the geographical space between νυ." and 7, and defines the tract, first Phrygian in population then Galatian, which separated Bithynia from St. Paul’s old mission field.

* (On the question of N. v. S. Galatia see, in addition to writers mentioned before, Lightf. Galatians, Introd.; Ramsay’s Ch. in Rom. Emp. chs. iii.-vi., St. Paul the Trav. chs. v., Vi., Viii., ix., Studia Biblica, rv. ii., and art. GALATIA in this Dictionary ; Chase in the Expositor, Iv. viii. 401, ix. 314, 331, with Ramsay’s replies; Gifford, ἐδ. Iv. x. 1; Zéckler, SK, 1894, pp. 51-102 ; Schiirer, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1892, p. 471; Crit. Review, mm. [1893] 356 ; Lipsius, ‘ Handcom.,’ Galat.

, Ein- leitung). The verb διῆλθον (16°) connotes a ‘ mis- sionary progress’ (St. Paul the Trav. ᾿ 384); and when Paul revisits this district on his third journey (18%), he ‘travels through the Galatian region and * The writer is now (1900) inclined to Ramsay's construction οἵ τὴν Φρυγ. =. Γαλατ.

χώραν as denoting the Phrygo-Galatian {he would prefer to say, ne ET Laer region ; but unless this phrase had an accepted political limitation, of which there is no evidence, It covered ἜΣΘΩΝ the west of the province of Galatia generally, the whole of which was (in the substratum of its population) Phrygian ethnically and Galatian politically. Even in the N.W., as y intimates, the Galatw were never more than aruling clan.

On this modified view, it would appear that Paul and Silas, when forbidden to preach ‘in Asia,’ moved northwards from the fleld of the earlier mission, confining them- selves still to Phrygia Galatica where they were allowed to ‘ = the word,’ and avoiding Phrygia Asiana which they had n previously on the point of entering (τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ is thus seen to be antithetical to τὸν... Γαλατικὴν χώραν).

Taking this course and marching within the eastern side of the border-line separ- ating the two provinces, which parted Phrygia between them, the apostles arrived at the N.W. corner of Galatia, with Bithynia fronting them, and Mysia flanking them at some distance to the west.

Here, once more, their course was supernaturally diverted—from north to west, as previously from west to north—and ‘ ng over Mysia’ (a of Asia, where they had been ‘forbidden to speak the word’) they reached the sea at Troas. Paul and Silas thus traversed, in west central Galatia, a wild and desolate country ; but this route was forced upon them, and Paul ‘would not be deterred by rough or un- frequented paths’ (Ltft.) There must have been at this time regular coramunication between the S.W.

and N. of the great Galatian province. The view followed in this note gives a good sense 0 Ac 18, δλιφχόμενοε . . τι Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν which means, in thts light, ‘ traversing the (thove-mentioned) Galatian region and Phrygia’ at ὁ,, not the Galatian part of it alone, to which Paul's travels had been specifically limited on the Second Journey.

PAUL THE APOSTLE 70 Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples, —the last clause implying that on the ground soe lightly passed over in 105 considerable time had been spent and many souls won for Christ. To this second journey the origin of the Galatian Churches, ἐξ in Panl’s great Ep. of that name, has been generally referred, its interpreters seeing in the recipients Galatians by race,* in- habitants of the north (preferably the N.W.) of the great Roman province of Galatia.

Paul made acquaintance with his ‘Galatians’ unexpectedly, when compelled by illness to seek their hospitality and so to give them the gospel (Gal 44%™). Twice during this journey he was turned aside from his purpose by the voice of the Holy Spirit; it ap- ears that the hand of God was further laid on im, in the shape of disabling sickness, obligi him to halt in this out-of-the-way district, which he had meant to traverse without lingering.

God was giving to His strong-willed servant a hard schooling in submission. It may have been Bithynia that Paul and Silas were making for when thus checked; or it may have been (accord- ing to Paul’s wont) Ancyra, the capital of the Gal- atian province, already evangelized in its southern part.

In any case, the Galatians, with whom he now tarried, received the infirm apostle with enthusinsm, and he made numerous and attached converts amongst them, the objects of his warm affection but anxious solicitude. If other reasons besides the writer’s eagerness to bring us to Macedonia are required to account for the silence of Acts about the Galatians of the Ep., the fact that the N.

Galatian mission was a paren- thesis in Paul’s work and lay off the main line of missionary progress may account for the slightness of St. Luke's references thereto; and the defection feared may have made the apostle’s work there, to a large extent, a labour lost. It was at Troas that St. Luke met St. Paul and joined his company (Ramsay conjectures Luke him- self to have been the ‘ Macedonian man’ of Ac 16°: St. Paul the Trav. ix.

3); and at Philippi Luke stayed, being found there when Paul revisited that town. (The ‘ we’ of the Acts continues from 16” to 16"7, to be resumed at 20° *). The ‘vision’ may have al St. Paul for St. Luke’s invitation to Mace- onia (Ramsay, as above), as St. Peter was prepared at Joppa for the summons of Cornelius. Philippi was an important Roman colony, witha small Jew settlement worshipping at an open-air pala ci the river-side.

Among ‘the women who assembled’ there Paul and Silas found their first hearers, and in the proselyte Lydia their first Euro convert and their hostess (νν.} 18), Women played a lead- ing part in this Church from the outset (Ph 4**).

The missionaries had preached at the proseuché for some time, when their work was stopped by the accusation brought against them by the masters of a fortune-telling, ventriloquist slave-girl from whom ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ they had exorcized the evil spirit (νν.} 8). This attack was one of Paul’s many ‘ perils from the heathen.

’ The gospel damaged the vested interests of idolatry ; and those who saw ‘the hope of their gain’ endangered attacked its preachers through the passions of the populace—at Ephesus subse- uently as despisers of ‘the great goddess,’ at Phili ypi as ‘Jews’ who brought in ‘customs illegal for Romans’ and affronting their pride (vv. 2), In this colonia Paul suffered one of the three beatings with (Roman) rods that he recounts in 2Co 11%.

The scenes attending his imprison- ὁ This assumption as to the race of Paul's ‘Galatians’ is mod- fied by the later note above. It is still maintained that in locality and origin the Churches {n question are distinct from those of S. Galatia, which were founded upon the First Journey ee allegiance not to Paul alone, but to Paul and Barnabas jointly. PAUL THE APOSTLE with Silas, form one of the most graphic episodes in the ment here alon most stirring an Acts. St.

Paul’s campaign in Macedonia was one of atvere conflict, but signal success. The mission- a.ies entered Thessalonica (now Saloniki), the capital of Macedonia, full of vigour and hope (1 Th 1° 22), Next to Syrian Antioch, this city was the most important which Paul had so far reached, being the chief emporium of the Thracian peninsula and the seat of Roman administration, containing also a large and influential synagogue.

Once planted at Thessalonica, ‘the word of the Lord sounded out’ far and wide; the gospel was adver- tised through the whole of Macedonia and Achaia (1 Th 1*). St. Paul’s experience here resembled that at Pisidian Antioch (Ac 17"). At this loyal imperial capital, however, the attack on Chris- tianity takes a new form, reminding us of the charge against Jesus before Pilate. The preachers are accused of sedition, of ‘setting up another king, Jesus.

’ The emphasis which Paul laid at this time upon the doctrines of ‘the kingdom of God’ and the parousia lent colour to this dangerous impeachment. Paul left Thessalonica for Berea with his work unfinished, and firmly resolved to return soon (1 Th 2!7-38 310). he had a peculiar affection for his converts here (as at Philippi), and a strong sense of the importance of the position won in this city.

But he had to be content with sending Timothy from Athens in his pare and it was only on Timothy’s return (who ound the apostle removed to Corinth, Ac 18°) that his anxiety was relieved. St. Luke’s account throws at this point a further light on St. Paul’s method of argument with Jews: ‘He discoursed to them from the Scriptures, expounding and explaining [1] that the Christ should suffer, and [2] should rise from the dead, and [3] that this is the Christ, this Jesus whom I proclaim to you.

’ Up to the last point (reached on the third Sabbath?) the Jews listened with tolerance—to the general doctrine of a suffering and rising Messiah; the critical moment came when this Christ was identified with the crucified Nazarene. ‘The synagogue of Bercea received the gospel with rare candour ; a Church was quickly formed, including ‘many’ Jews; everything went well, until Jews from Thessalonica arrived to stir up the heathen multitude against the apostles. The danger to St.

Paul’s life must have been great, for he was sent by sea right out of the count: and escorted all the way to Athens (175), This deadly persecution by the Thessalonian Jews justi- fies the anger he expresses in 1 Th 2-18, _ At Athens, the city of philosophers but ‘full of idols,’ things take a different course.

Paul is hailed as a wandering lecturer upon some curious form of religious speculation, and is brought by ‘certain of the Stoics and Epicureans’ before the court (not up on the Aid/) of the Areopagus, which was charged with the oversight of public teaching in the city.

The profound and earnest discourse reported in Ac 17*_which leads up from the general truth, then widely accepted, of God’s spiritual nature and fatherly relation to men, to the proclamation of Christ’s coming in judgment and the resur- rection of the dead—made no decided impression on this audience. A single Areopagite accepted the faith, with a few other persons (17%), but no considerable Church could be gathered; and Paul went on to Corinth (on ‘Paul at Athens,’ see ie seem Ramsay’s St.

Paul the Trav. xi. 1-3). Silas’ movements at this time cannot be traced with certainty: probably he followed Paul to Athens, along with Timothy (Ac 17"), and was separately, and a little later (1 Th 3'?, ‘we sent Timothy’), despatched from that place—se. to PAUL THE APOSTLE Philippi or Bera, journeying with Timothy back from Macedonia to rejoin the apostle (Ac 18°).

Paul reached Corinth alone, ‘in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling’ (1 Co 2*)—a condition due partly to sickness, but partly, one thinks, te his small success at Athens and his distress about the Thessalonians. The elation of his Macedonian mission was followed ey a period of dejection. He gained, however, at the outset a couple of fast friends in Aquila and Priscilla, recently driven from Rome through the emperor Claudius’ decree of expulsion against the Jews.

Their acquaintance turned his thougais more definitely to that city, which at Corinth came into Paul’s nearer view. St.

Paul’s opening addresses in this synagogue were received with favour both by ‘Jews and Greeks’ (Ac 18'*), until after some weeks, on the arrival of Silas and Timothy with cheering news from Mace- donia, he proclaimed in its full scope, and with renewed energy, the Messiahship of Jesus and ‘ the word of the cross’ (Ac 18°8, 1 Co 18-52), At this the Jews were scandalized, and an angry separation ensued.

Paul occupied the house of a converted proselyte, Titius Justus—judging from his name, a Roman citizen of the colonia—close to the syna- gogue ; the ruler of the synagogue followed him When he tells the Corinthian brethren that there were ‘not many wise, mighty, highborn’ amongst them, it is evident that some persons of distinction and culture attached themselves to this Church (cf. Ro 16%). The Corinthian Church shone by its intellectual pits and variety of talent.

Its constituency was awn from the lowest as well as the higher walks of life. On this rank soil, in the metropolis of Greek vice, a Christianity sprang up of abounding vitality, but rife with seeds of strife and corruption (1 Co 15 61, 2 Co 12-21, ete.) In Corinth the Jews had no popular influence, and Paul was able to stay for eighteen months.

He was encouraged by a vision assuring him of personal safety and of a rich harvest of souls (Ac 18°"), Paul ex- perienced at Corinth the full benefit of the es tection of Roman law. The proconsul Gallio, known through his brother Seneca as an amiable and large-minded man, dismissed contemptuously the charge of illegal action brought by the Jews against Paul, and winked at the beating there- upon given to the accuser by the Greek bystanders (vv.

2-17), In no other great city, with the excep- tion of Syrian Antioch, did the aposte‘ic Church experience so little persecution. he date of the FrrsT EPISTLE TO THE THESS. is determined by comparison of 1 Th 3° and Ac 185 as falling within the first period of St. Paul’s so- jou at Corinth, within six months probably of iis leaving Thessalonica.

The SECOND EPISTLE followed speedily after the First ; for it deals with the same situation, aggravated in some particulars, and corrects a misapprehension due in part to mis- understanding or perversion of the First (2 Th 22). These two Epp., with the Address at Athens and the allusions of 1 Co, show the prominence of the doctrine of the Last Things in St. Paul’s teaching at this epoch. Though his specific doctrine of the Cross is only once alluded to in the Thess. letters (1 Th δ5.

10), the Epp. to Corinth and Galatia prove, by their references to his preaching on the second journey (1 Co 2! 3, Gal 3}, ete.), that this was his central theme throughout. The course of the Second Journey, possibly, throws some light upon the obscure figure of ‘ the man of lawlessness’ in 2Th2. Many indications oint to the apostle’s interested study of the Roman impire and its relations to the kingdom of Christ.

The majesty and equity of Roman law, the ability of Roman administration, the unity and peace which Roman rule gave to the civilized world, PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE 709 Paul appreciated; they had created the field for is great work. He saw in the Roman magistrate ‘the restrainer’ of evil forces that might have crushed the Church in its infancy.

But there was one feature in the Roman system that must have stirred his extreme abhorrence—the Cesar-worshi then rapidly spreading in the provinces, whic was becoming, in fact, the religion of the Empire. This development of opera autocracy was, in pricaule, quite distinct from the authority of the tate, and could be regarded by Paul rane as the climax of lawlessness.

The attempt of a er in the year 39, to place his statue in the temple at Tanisalan had horrified the Jewish world; the blasphemous freaks of this Caesar were probably in the apostle’s mind when he wrote 2 Th 24, In their progress through Asia Minor the missionaries were confronted with multiplied signs of the imperial religion ; not improbably ra passed, €.g.

, through Pergamum (marked out in Rev 218 as the place ‘where Satan dwelleth’), where stood the Augusteium, in which the godhead of the Divus Augustus was honoured by a splendid cultus re- nowned through the peninsula. Such observations ere a sharper edge to St. Paul’s conception of ‘the ingdom’ ; and his reflexions upon this antithesis may well have affected his language in such a way as to lend colour to the charge made against him at Thessalonica (Ac 177-8).

On this subject he had 7 Spec more freely than he ventures to write (2 Th ). The OT forecasts of Antichrist, combined with the contemporary deification of the Cesars, mrply the material for the image of the ἀντικείμενος of h. This same Cesar-worship inspired the hatred of Rome which burns through the Apoca- lypse. St. Paul and St.

John, with profound insight, discerned in this cult the true rival of Christianity among the forces of the time; the numen of Cesar, as the great martyrdoms proved, was the crucial alternative to thatof Jesus. Anti- christ was latent in the world-god of the Palatine. In his progress westwards Paul was increasingly ateahed yet repelled, at each step by the gran- deur of Rome. The second missionary tour was the time of the apostle’s boldest enterprises, his largest conquests.

In a single march the gospel was carried over more than half the breadth of the eastern Roman Empire, and Corinth was brought into fellowship with Jerusalem. But these rapid successes in Galatia and Corinth prepared for the apostle his greatest sorrows. The second tour, occupying scarcely less than three years, closed with Paul’s voyage to Cesarea for Jerusalem. On the way he called at Ephesus, where he left Priscilla and Aquila, promising to return.

This fourth visit to Jerusalem was of the briefest. At Antioch he spent ‘some time’—an expression probably covering the ensuing winter. (qd) THE THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY com- menced with the spring, when St. Paul set out for ‘the Galatian region and Phrygia,’ accompanied by Timothy (Ac 18), During the interval between the second and third journeys we place (with Neander, Wieseler, A. Sabatier) St. Peter’s visit to Antioch and collision with St.

Paul, re- lated in Gal 2", The defeat of Ac 15 must have arrested the Judaistic movement for the time; nor is St. Peter, to say nothing of St. Barnabas, likel at once to have stultified his action at the Council. The Epp. to the Thess, give no indication that St. Paul’s mind was disturbed during his first mission in Europe by controversy with the legalists, as it could hardly fail to have been if the settlement made at Jerus.

had been already peopenies by ‘the dissimulation’ of Peter and Barnabas and the renewed activity of the ψευδάδελφοι παρείσακτοι. The proceedings of the ‘ certain from James’ at the time of St. Peter's visit to Antioch amounted to ‘a regular declaration of war,’ a renewal of the struggle between the principle of Jewish privile and Christian universalism. This conflict, break- ing out in Antioch, spread rapidly over the field of St.

Paul’s mission and raged bitterly in the Galatian and Corinthian Churches, where emis- saries from Jerus. appeared on the same errand as those who had ‘carried away’ the Jewish Christians of Antioch. ‘Evidently, the apostle had quitted Jerus. (after the Comma of Ac 15 and the under- standing with the “‘ Pillars”) and proceeded to his second Missionary Journey full of satisfaction at the victory he had el, and free from anxiety for the future.

The decisive moment of the crisis se ops falls between the Thess, and Gal. Epp. What had happened meanwhile? The violent dis- cussion with St. Peter at Antioch, and all that the recital of this incident reveals to us,—the arrival of the emissaries from St. James in the Gentile Christian circle, and the countermission organized to rectify the work of St. Paul.

A new situation suddenly presents itself to the apostle on his return from the second Missionary Journey’ (Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, pp. 10, 11, also 124-136). The Judaizers had recovered from the shock of their former overthrow; and the enormous accessions to the Church from heathenism were threatening to overwhelm them. They determined on a new and more artful attempt to capture the Gentile Churches.

They did not now, as before, bluntly insist that circumcision was necessary to salvation (Ac 15'). But they maintained that the law of God created an indelible distinction between the circumcised Israelite and all others, and that this separation was guarded by the Levitical ordinances respecting meats. While the Messiah was the Saviour of all men, there belonged to His own people, with the apostles whom He chose from amongst them, an inalienable primacy.

Only through circumcision and conformity to the sacred ordinances could Gentile believers become the legiti- mate heirs of faithful Abraham, and enter into al! the blessedness of the kingdom of God. Such was the theory of the new Judaizers, as we gather it from St. Paul’s polemic against them. They no longer denied the Christian status of uncircumcised believers in Christ, but they vindicated a higher status for the circumcised.

Thus Peter and Bar- nabas, in withdrawing from the common Church table at Antioch under the pressure of these men, virtually ‘compelled the Gentiles to Judaize’; for only, it seemed, on this condition woald the latter be in communion with Jewish believers and be re- cognized as Christians in the fullest sense. ‘The decrees’ of the Jerus.

Council, though certainly not designed for this pu , and not correspond- ing (as it has often been alleged) to the ‘Seven Com- mandments of the Sons of Noah’ imposed on the gér téshabh or sebomenos (Hort, Jud. Christianity, pp. 68-76), might with a little ingenuity be con- strued in favour of the distinction now alleged, as though they placed Gentile Christians on a footing resembling that of proselytes to Judaism.

* The law was brought in again to complete the work of the gospel; and those who had ‘ begun in the spirit’ were to be ‘perfected by the flesh (Gal 3°). While the legalists sought in this way to foist Judaism upon the Pauline Churches, they equally strove to destroy the influence of the Apostle Pau! They came forward as the authorized representa- tives of the chiefs at Jerus.

, and showed ‘letters of commendation’ to this effect (Gal 24, 2Co 3'); in their name they assumed to correct the imperfect doctrine of Paul, and to claim the allegiance οἱ * Such abuse of the δόγματα by the Judalzers best explains Bt. Paul's silence respecting them, and their disappearance after Ac 164 (see, however, 21™) 710 PAUL THE APOSTLE all believers for the mother Church.

Paul, they asserted, had no knowledge of Jesus Christ and no authority to preach Him, beyond what he had received from Peter and the Twelve. Amongst other proofs of this, they even argued at Corinth that his declining to receive a stipend betrayed the consciousness of inferior right. With these un- scrupulous opponents Paul was in conflict through- out the third tour, At the outset he had warned his Galatian converts against the seducers who were following on his track (Gal 1" 5°; ef. Ac 18%).

His opponents anticipated his arrival at Corinth ; from Corinth he writes to Rome, expecting that they will carry the agitation there and may pre- possess the Roman Church against him. If these men were really supported, as they alleged, by the responsible heads of the Jewish Church, St. Paul’s position was almost untenable; but the studious respect shown in the Epp.

of this period for the ‘Pillars’ indicates his confidence in their loyalty to the fellowship established between Ἡπακεῖν aul them (Gal 2%). The failure of the attack on St. Paul's apostleship goes far to prove that there was no schism between him and the Twelve. This fourth period, therefore, of St. Paul’s ministry is distinguished as the period of his struggle with the Judaistie reaction in the Church, and of the four great evangelical Epistles which were its outcome.

The evangelist becomes the controversialist ; the church-founder must defend the churches of his foundation. The apologetic and doctrinal interests now predominate in St. Paul’s work; he is employed in consolidating the conquests already won. Even his missionary activity bears at this time somewhat of a supplementary character. After ‘confirming’ on his way ‘all the disciples’ gained en his last tour (Ac 18%, ef. 16°: for the expression τι Γαλατικὴν χώραν x. Φρυγίαν see note* on p.

7074), ‘when he had made a missionary progress through the higher-lying quarters’ (this implies a fairly complete evangelizing of central Asia Minor), Paul ‘came to Ephesus’ (19'). Ephesus, with its rich and populous province of Asia, lay in the centre of the fields already occupied. It was the ob- jective point of St. Paul’s second journey; God’s nand had then diverted his course (16%), but onl for a while.

Here, as at Corinth, Paul’s wor was under the shield of the Roman administration (19°) ; and he won the friendship even of ‘some of the Asiarchs’ (v.*!), who were the ‘high priests of Asia, the heads of the imperial politico-religious organization of the province’ (St. Paul the Trav. Ρ. 281).

‘Many,’ therefore, as his ‘adversaries’ were, and though he had to ‘fight with wild beasts in Ephesus’ (1 Co 1553 16°), Paul held his ground in this a for three years, until ‘all those that dwelt in Asia had heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks’ (Ac 1919. 17:30.

26 9031), This success led to a great destruction of the Ephesian books of magic; it so much diminished the sale of the images of Artemis that the craftsmen took alarm and stirred up a riot of the city multitude, who were enraged at the disparagement of their world-famed goddess. The tumult hastened Paul’s departure ; but he had done an immense work at Ephesus. This city, afterwards the home of the frets John, was the most powerful centre of Christianity in the later apostolic age. The Ep.

to Philemon and that to the Colossians, written to an outlying town of the province which Paul had not himself visited, and the general (provincial) destination of the so-called Ep. to the EPHESIANS (see art.), indicate how widely Paul’s mission per- meated the province of Asia. With the establish- ment of the gospel at Troas, evangelized by Paul on leaving Ephesus (2 Co 228; ef. Ac 20°12), and the excursion into [Illyria (Ro 15%!)

made apparently PAUL THE APOSTLE during his sojourn in Macedonia in the following summer, two more links were added to the chain of Churches, which by the end of the third tour stretched ‘ from Jerusalem round about unto Illy- ricum.’ The apostle felt that things were ripening for his advance to Rome (Ac 19”). Besides the daily pressure of his mission, never verhaps so great as at Ephesus, there lay on St. Paul heavily at this time ‘the care of all the Churches’ (2 Co 11%).

Of this care the Corinthian and Galatian Epistles are evidence. GALATIANS is commonly referred to the Ephesian sojourn ; ‘Light- foot has given good reasons, though not all equally ‘ood’ (Hort’s ἢ ud. Chr. p. 99), for placing it later, ietwoct 2 Co and Ro, as written from Macedonia or Corinth (Comm. on Gal., Introd. iii.) Ramsay, in accordance with his 5, Galatian theory, carries the Epistle back to St. Paul’s stay at Antioch before the third journey ; while Clemen (Chronologie d. Paulin.

Briefe, τ. A. 1) makes it follow Romans because of its extreme controversial position. In 1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS we see Paul closely watching affairs at Corinth, during his residence in Ephesus. But the exact course of his proceed- ings is difficult to determine. Krenkel (in his Beitrage) and Schmiedel (in the ‘ Handeommentar z. NT,’ Einleit. an Kor.)

have lately examined the data minutely, arriving at involved and con- tradictory theories as to Paul’s communications with Corinth during this period. From 2 Co 13'3 it is almost certain that Paul had been at Corinth a second time, ‘in sorrow’ (2') and humiliation (12”-*1). He found a number of his converts re- lapsing into heathen vice; and he rebuked and warned, but forbore to strike.

This forbearance had compromised his authority and given an im- pression of weakness on his part, of which his opponents subsequently took an injurious advan- tage, contrasting his imperious letters with his feeble presence and challenging a ‘proof’ of his apostolic powers (2 Co 10! 131-10.

This inter- vening visit (an excursion by sea from Ephesus, unnoticed by Luke) was made not long before 1 Co (so Schmiedel),—and, since this letter was written in the spring (1 Co 5° 16%), probably in the pre- vious autumn. In 1 Co 4'**! Paul meets the in- sinuation, based on the result of this encounter, that he is afraid to come to Corinth; his seeming vacillation between the Ist and 2nd Ep. gave addi- tional colour to the imputation, afterwards repeated (2Co 1!

5-*4), This episode, not directly mentioned in 1 Co and which both parties ke wish to forget, Paul is compelled to recall in 2 Co by the taunts of his opponents. On his return to Ephesus under the painful impression of what he had just wit- nessed at Corinth, the apostle wrote a sharp dis- ciplinary Epistle, to which 1Co 5518 refers in explanation and reinforcement.

In spite of this eppeal the Church of Corinth had permitted ‘the old leaven’ to remain, until the monstrous case of incest compelled the apostle to give the solemn and peremptory directions of 1 Co δ᾽“, Concurrently with the news of this outrage, Paul hears of the factions dividing the Church, in which the names of Cephas and of Apollos (much against his will) figure in rivalry with his own, —even the name of Christ being dragged into the com- petition.

The Apollos party, affecters of philo- sophical breadth and culture, were conspicuous at the moment; and Paul deals with them in chs. 1-4 of 1 Co, referring to Apollos with brotherly frank- ness (34% 4°), The Church had also addressed to the apostle at Ephesus a public letter, avoiding the grave matters taken up in St.

Paul’s first six chapters, and writing with a self -complacene sadly unbefitting (48 57-6 11°), but asking his guid- ance on a number of important practical questions, with which he deals in chs, 7-14: see the headings PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE 7) 7-3 81 121 161. Three leading Corinthian Chris- tians brought this letter to Ephesus (16%""*); and Paul, in sending them back with his reply, warmly commends them.

In this Epistle we fret hear of ‘the collection for the saints’ at Jerusalem, gathered by Paul on his third missionary tour, to which he attached great importance (16'4, 2 Co 8. 9, Gal 2). He had already given instructions to the Churches of Galatia on the business, prob- i on his way through Asia Minor (Ac 18") ; and Gal 6°", as well as 2”, tacitly refers to it. The phrase introducing the topic in 1 Co 16! (cf. 7) etc.)

suggests that the Corinthians were already interested in this charity (see also 2 Co 8° 9*°), This ministration to the poverty of the persecuted Church in Jerus. (1 Th 2"), in which Paul had been engaged from an aay time (Ac 11%), helped to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians; it was a counteraction to the Judaistie propaganda, since it exhibited to the mother Church the true grace of God in the Sener Churches among the heathen. When Paul despatched our Ist Ep.

to Corinth, he was expecting to travel thither soon, but not immediate y and to make a considerable stay ; meanwhile he has sent Timothy, now in Macedonia upon his way, who ‘will remind’ the Corinthians of Paul’s ‘ways in Christ,’ which they were in danger of forgetting. He had some apprehension that Timothy might not be well received (1 Co #7 161; cf. Ac 19%”).

Although Timothy shares in the greeting of 2 Co, and 2 Co 1-7 (quite otherwise than 1 Co) is written mainly in the first person plural, not a word is said about Timothy’s visit to Corinth. This silence is significant, as was St. Paul’s silence in 1 Co respecting his own, then recent, visit. Had Timothy never arrived at Corinth, some explanation would surely have been given; clearly, he is not forgotten (1').

Now, in the same letter there is notable reference to some one, unnamed, who had been grievously ‘ wronged,’ and wronged in such a way that Paul felt the in- jury as his own. About this wrong he has written shortly before, ‘out of much affliction and anguish of heart, with many tears’ (25: 4 75:12).

In this pain- ful letter, which had made the Corinthians ‘ sorry after a godly sort’ and ‘to repentance,’ Paul must have demanded the exemplary punishment of ‘him that did the wrong’; and a ‘censure’ had been accordingly inflicted upon him ‘by the majority’ of the Church, under which the offender was so humbled that Paul forgives him and desires his restoration (2 Co 2°), Chs. 1-7 of the 2nd Ep. turn upon this incident. Who were the sufferer and inflicter of wrong?

(1) The father and son of 1 Co 5‘; 80 it is often replied (see e.g. Edwards and Beet on 1 Co, and Klépper on 2Co, ad locc.) But the language and feeling of 2 Co 25:1} 76:16 are as unsuitable as those of 1 Co5 are suitable to this infamous offence, and one hardly thinks that even the Church of Corinth could hesitate or be divided about so flagrant a crime when solemnly brought up for judgment ; nor does 1 Co correspond to the description of 2 Co 2‘, (2) St.

Paul himself and some insolent Corinthian Christian, who had defied the apostle either when present on the second visit (thus interjected be- tween 1 and 2 Co), or in his absence ; so Sabatier {The Ap. Paul, pp. 171-175), Schmiedel, and others. This explanation sets us at the right point of view for understanding 2 Co 2 and 7; but St. Paul’s second visit to Corinth probably came about earlier (see p. 710%); and St.

Paul is not the man to have retreated before a personal attack, shooting Par- thian arrows by letters from a distance; such a defeat would have been irreparable. (3) Beyschlag and Pfleiderer, with greater probability, suggest | Timothy as the ἀδικηθείς. Appearing at Corinth on Paul's beha!f about the time of the arrival of the Ist Ep.

(4'7- 16"), and perhaps taking the initiative in the trial of the incestuous man, Timothy received a gross insult from ‘some one’ of note in the Church, the injury thus inflicted striking the ΕΡΘΕΙΙΕ through his representative, and, not improbably, involving an angry reflexion upon him for sending a stripling in his place.

This attack on Timothy accounts for the emphatic and continuous identification by the apostle in 2 Co 1-7 of his young helper with himself, and for the subtle interchanges between the first person plural and singular in the passages relative to the ἀδικήσας and ἀδικηθείς.

On Timothy’s return, soon after 1 Co, with this ievous news, Paul wrote ‘out of anguish of ieart’ the lost epistle between 1 and 2 Co (not to be identified with 2 Co 10-13", as by Hausrath and Pfleiderer ; these chapters have nothing todo with the affair of the ἀδικηθείς), conveyed by Titus (before this time employed at Corinth on thie business of the collection, 2 Co 85 9** 128%) in which Paul called on the Church to condemn the ἀδικήσας and thus ‘ show itself clear in the matter.

’ This the Corinthians did—at least ‘the majority’ of them (2°)—with earnest apologies to Paul and Timothy (7"-*). Paul had sent Titus in confidence that such satisfaction would be given; but Titus’ delay in returning awakened the most distressing apprehensions (213-13. 75-8), He was compelled to leave Ephesus, and, after awaiting his messenger for some time at Troas, on to Macedonia still in painful suspense.

At the moment when he sent Titus from Ephesus, Paul was disposed to come round by way of Corinth to Macedonia,— supposing, of course, that the Corinthians sub- mitted (cf. 18 and 7'),—and Titus had intimated that the apostle, contrary to the intention of 1 Co 165-7, might thus give them ‘a second joy.’ But this was now impossible (Paul would not come without better news from Corinth, 2” ), and the apostle reverted to the earlier plan of travel.

He must have apprised Titus of this Wange, with directions to meet him in Troas or Macedonia; and in this way the news of St. Paul’s illness reached Corinth before Titus left (1% 77). The Corinthians were full of sympathy; at the same time, reflexions were made on the apostle’s seem- ing fickleness, which touched him keenly (1'-), he illness from which Paul sutfered between 1 and 2 Co was severe and all but fatal (2 Co 1° 6°).

This affliction left a deep mark in his experience; it overshadows2Co. Chs. 4'*-5'° record his thoughts as he then lay confronting the last enemy. For the first time he realizes the likelihood that he will die before the Lord’s return; we do not find him subsequently speaking of the παρουσία in the first person plural of 1 Th and1Co.

The terrible closing scenes at Ephesus, the revolt of Galatia and Corinth, and this prostrating attack of sickness, by their concurrent effect brought him into the lowest depths of affliction (1" 47:13 7° ); and God is now to him, above all, ‘the Father of compas- sions.’ It was the darkest hour that the apostle had known. His life and his mission seemed both to be ending in defeat.

The acute personal question raised by the ἀδικήσας at Corinth is terminated; but the larger contro- versy remains, and has been exasperated through the arrival of Judman emissaries (3' 11% * 12"). Of these men and their proceedings Titus, on his return from Corinth, gave a full report.

The Church, while iridactly loyal to Paul, had received the ‘false apostles’ and ‘deceitful workers’; it was being imposed on and was too likely to be seduced by them (117), Their self-commen- dations and disparagements of Paul, at whose ex- pense they exalted the Twelve, were listened to with unworthy tolerance. He is compelled in 712 PAUL THE APOSTLE 2 Co 3-6, aid more polemically in the concluding chapters, to vindicate at length both his character and apostleship.

The contrast, in temper and purport, between 2 Co 1-7 and 10-13, which leads some able scholars (¢.g. Hausrath, Schmiedel) to regard these sections as distinct epistles, is due to the peculiar situation at Corinth, to the fact that, while the majority of the Church had rallied to Paul (2°), there remained a minority all the more embittered, in which the newly, arrived agitators found the means for operating upon the entire community.

The four parties of 1 Co have resolved themselves in a few months into two; and 2Co is at once a message of peace to the well-disposed, and a thunderbolt launched by the apostle against the Judaizing promoters of ‘another gospel’ and his own malignant detractors. This powerful Epistle appears to have subdued the mutiny at Corinth, for Paul carried out his purpose of spending the winter there before his journey to Jerusalem (Ac 20**; cf. 2 Co 2'), and there he wrote the calm and deliberate Zp.

to the Romans, the tone of which reflects his softened mood. This conciliatory temper befitted the apostle addressing a strange Church, where Jewish be- lievers are numerous but, as he supposes, not un- friendly to his gospel. Meanwhile Titus, attended for this purpose by two companions (2 Co 81%), is commissioned in conveying 2 Co to conclude the business of ‘the collection,’ which had doubtless been hindered by strife; chs. 8 and 9 of 2Co are devoted to this matter.

In 1 Co 16% Paul had suggested the election of deputies to convey the charity to Jerus. ; such election the Macedonians had now made (2 Co 8"): Ac 20% furnishes a list of these deputies, as they gathered to accompany St. Paul to Palestine. Prevented by a plot of the Jews against his life from taking ship at Corinth for Syria, Paul went round by way of Phili pi Troas (Ac oor Ne (where he spent Passover) an His voyage thence and arrival at Jerusalem are fully described by St. Luke (Ac 20.

21), now St. Paul’s companion once more. (On this journe see Ramsay’s St, Paul the Trav. xiii.) St. Paul's reception by St. James and the Church of Jeru- salem signalizes his victory over the legalists. THE EP. TO THE ROMANS sums up the develop- ment of St. Paul’s work and thought at this central epoch.

The struggle with the Judaistic reaction which he has just passed through, was in effect a rehearsal of the internal conflict that issued in the conversion of Saul the Pharisee and his call to the apostleship of the Gentiles.

He saw his converts in Galatia and Corinth, and those who ‘had been delivered’ to the same ‘form of teaching’ in Rome (6” 1617-18), in danger of bein reduced to the very bondage from which he ha himself been rescued by the signal intervention of Jesus Christ (Ro 74-84, Gal 2+° 431-54), The Ep. to the Galatians is a vehement apologetic reasser- tion, and the Ep.

to the Romans a luminous and methodical exposition, of ‘the truth of the gospel’ in which Paul’s experience of twenty years, as a converted Christian man and an evangelist to Jews and Gentiles, was comprised.

It is here unfolded In its mature expression, the form into which it was wrought by dint of use and conflict and through profound and intense reflexion, embrac- ing in its oe the whole course of sin and redemption, and the relations of Israel and of man- kind to God viewed in their largest aspects.

Such a treatise and manifesto it was fitting for the apostle to send to Rome—addressing himself ‘ urbi et orbi,’ and with an eye robably to other readers besides those of the lowly Christian Church he expected to visit there. Fronting the imperial city, Paul rises to a higher stature and assumes a loftisar accent. The added stateliness of diction PAUL THE APOSTLE and amplitude of treatment betray an imagina- tion, and a statesmanlike sense, touched by the majesty of Rome.

Standing at Corinth, with the east behind him and a line of churches, now securely established, studding the road to Jeru- salem, and with new fields before his sight stretch- ing westwards to Spain (Ro 15'7-*), the apostle pauses to review his proerees and to give account of his mission and his doctrine that have been subject to so fierce a challenge. At the same time there is present to his mind the contingenc that his voyage to Jerus. may have a fatal end, and that the Ep.

he is now writing may prove to be his legacy rather than his introduction to the Roman Church (15°; see Hort, Prolegomena to Romans and Ephesians, pp. 42-50). The situa- tion, while it explains the critical importance and representative character of the Ep. to the Romans, accounts also for its limitations. This writing is retrospective; it is the consummation of the legalistic controversy, and of Paul's mission- ary course ‘from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum’: it is no more than this.

The apostle’s life was to open into a new period fraught with other conflicts ; changed surroundings and demands will turn his thoughts in directions as yet unfore- seen ; and the later groups of Epp. contain develop- ments and applications of doctrine that are implicit, rather than realized, in the series of writings which concludes with the grand Ep. to the Romans. The apostle to the Gentiles now stands at the summit of his career.

During the third missionary tour he has founded the prosperous Asian Churches; he has written his four great Epp. and repelled the Judaistic invasion of Gentile Christianity, while he has preserved peace with the mother Church in Judea. But these hardly-won successes engendered for the soldier of Christ new perils and conflicts. (e) Fifth Period.—Under many omens and fore- bodings of danger St. Paul travelled to Jerusalem.

Though he was ‘ gladly received’ by ‘the brethren’ there, the language of Ac 21%" shows that the mass of Jewish believers were alienated from him. At St. James’ suggestion he took the occasion of publicly conforming to Mosaic practice, becoming ‘to the Jews as a Jew’ in the same conciliatory spirit in which he wrote the Ep. to the Romans. But this did not propitiate Jewish hostility.

The Asian Jews at the feast, who would have murdered Paul in the temple but for the Roman guard, de- nounced him as the universal enemy of Judaism (Ac 217%), Through all the regions where he had laboured he was now a marked man in the eyes of his compatriots, the apostate, the waster of Israel, the protaner of its holy things. To this furious hatred Paul owed his four years’ imprisonment and the long suspension of his missionary work.

His addresses of defence—(1) before the people from the temple steps, Ac 22; (2) before the Banhedsim 23; (3) before the pro- curator Felix, 24; (4) his appeal to Czesar before the procurator Festus, 25; (5) his apology before Herod Agrippa U. at the court of Festus, 26— enable us to follow the course of the proceedings against him. The Roman judges saw that Paul was innocent of civil crime, but that the Jews, whose fanatical violence they feared to provoke, were bent on his destruction.

Asa Roman citizen, he must not be sacrificed to the Jews; his detention seemed the safest course; and Felix in the first instance had hoped that a bribe would be offered for his release (24°). A vision, on the first night of his imprisonment (234), encouraged Paul’s long- cherished hope of ‘seeing Rome’ (19); and when the change of governors at Czsarea led to a re- newal of the abortive local trials, Paul determined to accomplish that purpose by the words Appella PAUL THE ΑΡΟΒΊΓΕ.

PAUL THE APOSTLE 713 Ee Casarem. This course involved the appellant in heavy expense ; it is unlikely that Paul, taxed the Churches for personal ends; and Ramsay finds here, and in other circumstances of his imprison- ment, reason to think that the apostle at this time was in command of considerable private means, and had entered into his patrimony (St. Paul the Trav. xiii. 8).

The voyage to Rome, with its shipwreck and winter detention in Melita (Malta), related in Ac 27 and 28 with vividness and accuracy, ex- hibits Paul’s practical and manly qualities to great advantage, his singular personal ascendency and strong good sense. He was received cordially by the Church at Rome. The Jewish leaders profess to know nothing of his case: his appeal must have taken the rulers at Jerus.

by surprise, and they had failed during the winter to advertise their brethren at Rome of the matter. Paul preaches to them with the same result as at Pisidian Antioch, Thessalonica, and Corinth (28'7-*), The narra- tive of Acts leaves him at Rome, ‘remaining in his own hired lodging,’ in dibera custodia, allowed to ‘receive all that came to visit him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things con- cerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all freedom, unhindered.

’ The government at Rome took the same view of Paul as Gallio and Festus: he was a man politically harmless, but the cause of trouble- some ferments amongst the Jews, and therefore well out of the way. His trial was allowed to linger. King Agrippa ΞΡ have joined with Festus in making favourable representations of the prisoner’s character; and the report of the centurion Julius oe helped him with the military officer (the Princeps Peregrinorum, St. Paul the Trav. p.

348) in whose charge he was The fact that the account of St. Luke, written a considerable time after the events, concludes with the words above quoted, raises a decided presump- tion against this trial reir Pear in the apostle’s condemnation and deeth. The indications of Ac 21-28 (going to show that no capital charge was forthcoming against Paul), and the expectations of the Epp. οὗ the captivity (Philem , Ph 1-* 2%), int the other way.

If Paul had remained in me till the summer of 64, he would doubtless have fallen a victim to the Neronian persecution ; and this many critics have supposed. Chrono- logical inquiry, however, makes it more and more certain that the ‘two years’ of Ac 28” terminated before this epoch—in 63 A.D. at the latest. The two years (Ac 2455: of Paul’s residence in Cesarea, but for the speeches of defence, are almost a blank for us.

He was granted such alleviations as a strict confinement allowed, and private friends had access to him; but public work was impossible. The apostle, doubtless, communicated by messenger and letter with his Churches; and the extant Epp. to Philemon, the Colossians, and Ephesians are dated by some lead- ing critics—even Philippians (very improbably), by one or two—from the Czsarean captivity. The weight of opinion inclines to the Roman origin of all four (see artt. on these Epp.)

At Rome Paul enjoyed greater freedom, and exercised a not- able public influence. His misfortunes ‘have re- sul in the progress rather rs hindrance] of the gospel’ (Ph 1), His trial has given him the opportunity of representing Christ before ‘the preetorium’ (the emperor’s court of justice, v.¥: cf. 2 Ti 417; and see St. Paul the Trav. p. 357), and Christianity has St.

Paul’s courage under his trials has stimulated the Roman Church generally to greater boldness ; even the ill-disposed (legalist) minority, which existed at Rome (cf. 33:5), has been provoked by ποτ nga the palace (4%). | jealousy to exertions which, since they served to spread the name of Christ, caused to Paul added joy (1°48), From Col 41% 4 jt appears that Paul could name only three Jewish Christians at Rome who were heartily on his side; and two of these were helpers from a distance (cf.

Ph 2%“), Notwith- standing certain notes of depression and the sense of Weariness and age (Ph 13, Philem *—but see ΤΙΝΆ Τα, ad loc.), these Epp. breathe a tranqui and elevated joy. Compared with the letters ot the third journey, those of the Roman captivit are more inward and chastened in spirit. Soli- tude, restraint, and advancing years have told on the heroic missionary.

There is less ion, less vivacity, less exuberant strength of thought; but more uniform tenderness, a richer fragrance of devotion, and a quiet insight that reaches to the depths of the things of life and of God. The letter to Philemon, moreover, shows a genial and playful humour refreshing in a man of St. Paul’s stern intensity. These are well styled the after noon Epp., as the writings of the Judaic contro. versy are the noonday Epistles of Paul.

COLOSSIANS signalizes the rise of a new antago- nism in the Church, of which Paul was to see but the Poeun His address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Ac 20'7-*) reveals his presentiment of the rise of heresy in the province of Asia, and strikes the keynote of his later ministry. The missionary and the controversialist now mes above all the pastor, devoting himself to ‘feed the Church of God, which he purchased through the blood fof] his own [Son]’ (Ac 20%; see critical note of WH).

The greatness of the Church and the Divine glory of Christ fill Paul’s prison meditations. Epaphras reports to him the attempt of some speculative teacher visiting Colosse to amalga- mate the gospel with Alexandrian theosophy, by ranging Christ amongst angelic mediators, and by prescribing Jewish ritual and ascetic regimen as means of salvation. This report elicits the great Christological deliverance of Col 14.

The larger representation of the sich er ae 8 of Christ here made gives completeness to St. Paul’s system of thought, bringing the entire sum of things within its compass. The Lordship of the crucified and risen Saviour is based upon the universal Lord- ship of the Son of God; our redemption springs out of the ground of creation itself, and the new creation is evolved from the hidden root and rationale of the old.

The Head of the Church is the centre of the universe, the depositary of ‘all the fulness of the Godhead,’ who ‘fills sini? above and beneath, with His plenitude and ‘gathers all things into one’ (Eph 19. 383 47-10, Col QP. 18), In Galatians and Romans the thought of salvation by Christ broke through Jewish limits and covered the field of humanity ; in Colossians and Ephesians the idea of life in Christ overleaps time and human existence, and subjects the entire cosmos to its sway.

Ph 2*" puts the top-stone on the apostle’s doctrine of the person of Christ, and therefore upon all his doctrine. The movement of thought which completed Paul’s Christological teaching gave a parallel ex- pansion to his idea of the Church, which attains at this epoch its full dimensions.

The philosophical Judaism of Colossw, like the legal Judaism of Galatia, bred caste-feeling and schism,—evils to be corrected only by a right sense of the greatness of the Christian society and the sacredness of its fellowship, such as the apostle conveys in the Epistles of this period. Rome was the very spot to stimulate thoughts of this nature, and to bring to its final shape St. Paul's conception of Christ’s imperial dominion. The ampler prospect, both .

t time and space, which | now opens out for the Church under his eyes, | | ᾿ PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE trial is past and he has already pleaded once at the bar of the emperor. before the trial ends, and he needs the cloak left at Troas when he last passed through that port, along with some valued books; but he craves above all the company of Timothy.

have been sent off, probably at the time of his arrest, on various missions; Luke is his single companion ; at his public trial he was absolutely Quite otherwise than on his former trial, he counts upon his condemnation and death He had been, as it seems, at Troas earlier in the year, and probably at Miletus and Corinth (4%) upon the same round of visitation (following upon his return from Spain ἢ). 1 Ti dates, apparently, whither Paul has journeyed after meetin Timothy, to whom in this Ep.

he gives instructions for his charge at Ephesus. and Troas lie along the line of travel terminatin at Corinth. Ac 20” records a prediction of Pa that he would not see the and the language of 1 Til loc.), in view, moreover, of the detailed directions of this Ep. respecting Church affairs, indicates that Paul had not himself been present in Ephesus, but had held an interview wit Miletus; ef. Ac 9017) in (see Appendix to Eng.

e accounts also for the attention given in the prison Epistles to family and social relations, and for their fuller and more balanced ethical teaching. These years of martyrdom drew to the apostle the reverence of the whole Church. spends a word on his own defence. We mark in the prison Epistles a calm sense of authority, a stron assurance, blended with the deepest humility, o the perpetuity of his work and its universal import, such as are but partially to be observed in the Ep.

As Nero’s prisoner at Rome and Christ’s bondman for the Gentiles, St. Paul rose to the full unassailable height of his doctrine and ill be some time to the Romans. (f) From the conclusion of the Acts we infer that Paul was released, and his ministry extended to a sixth period. The Pastoral Epp. require this by their altered style and the changed doctrinal and ecclesiastical situation they present, b erson and place, and by the im- of inserting them within the scheme urnished by the Acts.

If genuine (see the Articles on 1 and 2 TrmoTHy and Titus), they are later than Ac 28"; and even if not from Paul’s hand, they indicate the existence of a strong and detailed post-apostolic tradition relating to a missionary activity of Paul outside the scope of the Acts, and recording an imprisonment in from that disclosed in the third grou Most scholars who reject the Pastorals mit a Pauline nucleus in them, including the personal and local references of 2 Ti and Tit; and these enable us to trace, though imperfectly, Paul’s movements in the last years of his ministry.

To these slight but valuable data we may add what may be conjectured from the apostle’s intentions signified in earlier letters. Approaching the end of the first Roman imprison- ment, Paul expected speedily to see his friends in hilippi (Philem # and Ph 1° 2%), His first business would be, especially after so long separation, to revisit his Churches extending from Greece to Syria—a dut siderable time.

from Macedonia (1%), references to hesian Church again ; (see von Hofmann ad Timothy (say at ssing on his way north of Sabatier’s Ap. Paul, Paul appears to have travelled on om Macedonia to Corinth, and to have written to Titus (in Crete) about the time of his arrival there, when he was expecting to spend the next winter in the port of Nicopolis opposite to Italy (Tit 313); shortly after this he was arrested a prisoner to Rome.

ome quite distinct and carried as On this construction, the details of time and place given in the Pastorals fit together and belong to a consistent whole, Previously to the journey from Miletus to Corinth itus had made a tour in Crete, the latter remaining behind to organize the Cretan Churches (Tit 1°).

to join him at Nico just traced, Paul and Paul had wished Titus olis, purposing to send a sub- ad landed at Crete in returning from Spain ; certainly the voyage of Ac 27 gave no opportunity for evangelizing the demanding con- is heart years ago on evangelizing Spain (Ro 15%); in the words of Clement, written a generation later, we have good evidence that this wish was realized: ‘Paul having been a herald both in the east and in the west, received the high glory of his faith.

When he had taught righteousness to the whole world, and had come to the limit of the west, and borne witness before the rulers, he so departed from the world and went to the holy place’ (1 Ep. 5).

limit of the west,’ in a Roman writer, can hardly The Muratorian Fragment, repre- senting the oldest Roman traditions, is explicit to the same effect, and is su Acta Apocrypha; and the Ὑπόμνημα of Symeon Metaphrastes, traced by Lipsius and others to a ves details of the Spanish [On the whole subject see the discussion of Spitta, Urchristenthum, Bd. i., Die zweimal. rom. Gefangenschaft d. Paulus).

of Credner is borne out by subse that ‘there cannot be found durin centuries a trace of the assumption that Paul did not travel westwards beyond Rome, or that his life ended at the point where the Acts of the Apostles ut this controversy is not likely to be closed, unless further and decisive evidence should present itself.

The references of the PASTORAL EPISTLES be- long to Paul’s last journeyings in the East, ante- cedent to his renewed imprisonment and subse- quent to the (assumed) Spanish voyage. The three letters touch at various points and are closely con- secutive. He writes his last Ep. (2 Ti) from prison with winter in prospect, when the first stage of his The letters to Timothy and Titus are writings of Paul’s old age. They bear a conservative stamp.

‘Guard the deposit ; hold fast the form of sound : this is their predominant note. doctrine and practical piety are the interests in St. Paul’s great creative days are over. His battles are fought, his course is run. The completing touches remain to be added, and his final seal set to the work and teaching of his life: such is the purpose these letters serve.

instructions respecting church order given in 1 Ti are much fuller than anything of the kind in revious letters; but this was a time of rapid evelopment, and the Ephesian Church was now of twelve years’ standing. His directions to Titus at Crete are notably simpler. pieces of this nature that we have from Paul—letters of instruction to his assistants on church manage- show the administrative wisdom, the love of order, and the eye for practical detail, of the great church-founder and pastor.

and Ephesians have prepared us for the emphasis which Paul now throws on all that belongs to the life of the Christian community. We pass from the thought of the ‘great house’ to that of its ‘vessels’ of service, their qualities and uses (2 Ti The Pastorals carry on the combat com- menced in those earlier Epp. against incipient Gnosticism, with its false intellectualism and uncertain morality, its jumble of philosophy and Jewish fables, its destructive influence upon church which they centre.

pported by the oldest 2nd cent. source, The judgment quent inquiry, g the first four These are the only PAUL THE APOSTLE life. St. Paul’s last cares are directed to guard the gos 1 he had so amply set forth, and to fence the fold into which he had led such a multitude of souls. If these documents do not come, in their integrity, from Paul’s own hand, they are written by a disciple who has interpreted his mind and caught his spirit and manner and applied his ideas to a new situation (see v.

Soden’s Hinleitung zu Pastt. vii., in ‘Handcommentar z. NT,’ 01), with astonishing verisimilitude ; and the nearer to Paul it is found nec to place the Past. Epp. in personal connexion and derivation of thought, the more improbable—and the more superfluous— does the theory of personation become. The words of 2 Ti 458 are exquisitely fitting as St. Paul’s dying testimony.

ey are the final pronouncement of Christ’s faithful servant on his own career, crowned already in the witness of his conscience with the earnest of the crown awaiting him from the hand of his Lord. Paul died by be- heading—so the credible Roman tradition relates —at a spot 3 miles from Rome along the Ostian Way, anciently called Aque Salvie and now Tre Fontane. Near to the place of execution stands the splendid Basilica Pauli, first founded by the emperor Constantine in his honour.

But the uni- versal Church is his monument. 5. Chronology of St. Paul's sh doce na sup- ie no such point @appui for the chronology of his econd Book as that furnished in ch. 3}: 5 of his Gospel. Only one of the many points of contact with secular history in the Acts gives an indisput- able datum, viz. the death of Herod Agrippa I. at Cesarea (see Ac 12!-* 1933, and Jos. Ant. XIX. viii.), which happened not long after Easter 44 A.D., and followed upon his persecution of the Church at Jerusalem.

The famine that occasioned the visit of relief made by Barnabas and Paul from Antioch, synchronized with Herod’s death (Ac 115-191. 39. 55). but it appears to have lasted several years. If (with Ramsay) we could identify with this mission of charity the visit of Paul to Jerns. relx°ed in Gal 2! (see on this point p. 705°, above), we suould then easily fix the chronology of his earlier Christian course. Taking 45 or 46 (so Ramsay, St. Paul the Trav. ch. iii.)

for the date of the Judean famine, the ‘14 years’ of Gal 91, upon this calculation, bring us back to 33 (or 32) A.D. as the year of Paul’s conversion, 33-35 being the ‘3 years’ subsequent (included in the above- mentioned 14) alluded to in Gal 118, 44 (or 45) the year of his summons to help Barnabas at Antioch, 10 years being thus assigned to Paul's unrecorded labours in Cilicia.

The above scheme is open to the following amongst other objections :—(1) It throws back the stoning of Stephen and the judicial proceedings of the high priest against the Christians (Ac 81: 9 ? 11'*)—events antecedent to St. Paul's conversion— to the year 33 at the latest, when Pilate was still in the vigour of his rule. We may infer from St.

Luke’s silence, since he Satins informs us on such points in other places, that the Judean perse- cution was unhindered by the Roman Government ; this we can understand as happening in the interval after Pilate’s deposition, which took place in the autumn of A.D, 36 (when he was suspended by L. Vitellius the prefect of Syria and sent for trial to Rome), or in the period immediately preceding, when, under fear of accusation, Pilate’s control of the Jewish authorities was probably relaxed.

(2) If St. Paul’s conversion took place in 32 or 33, then Aretas must have been in peaceful ossession of Damascus so early as the year 35 12 Co 11-8, Gal 18, Ac 9%). This is unlikely. Aretas was at war with Herod Antipas (who had divorced his daughter in favour of Herodias) for some years before the deposition of the latter PAUL THE APOSTLE 715 in A.D. 37, and inflicted on him a severe defeat (Jos. Ant. Xvitl. v. 1, 2); but this success could not give him possession of Damascus, in Roman Syria.

The emperor Tiberius took the side of Antipas in the guard, and under his command Vitellius was at Jerus. at the Pentecost of A.D. 37 on his way to attack Aretas in Petra, when the pent ign was arrested by tidings of Tiberius’ death. The new emperor Caius reversed much of the policy of Tiberius in the East. Antipas fell into disgrace and was deposed, his rival Agrippa being released from prison and made king ; and Aretas is found in a of the coveted cit of Damascus after this time.

In all probability, it was ceded by Caius Caligula (see Lewin in Life and Epp. of St. Paul’, i. 67, 68; also Schiirer, HJP i. ii. 354, 357). The years 36-38 supply the political situation at Jerus. and Damascus, under which this train of events—including the execution of Stephen, the overt and systematic attempt of the Jewish rulers to crush the sect of the Nazar- enes, and the circumstances attending the flight of Saul from Damascus—is historically intelligible. For the later period of St.

Paul’s life Panieny finds a datum in the marks of time given in Ac 205. 1; from these it is clear that Paul left Troas on his last rane to Jerus. on a Monday morning, while he had left Philippi for Troas immediately the Passover feast was ended ; and the number of intervening daysis continuously stated. Given these conditions, the problem is to find the year in which the Jewish Passover so fell as to make them ossible. Lewin (Fasti Sacri, Nos. 1856, 1857) and msay (St. Paul the Trav. xiii.

3, Expositor, v. iii. 336, v. 201) have separately worked out this problem, Lewin giving 58 and Ramsay 57 A.D. as the solution. Ramsay’s calculation appears to be sound, granting that St. Luke’s data are precise. Assuming 57 to be the year of St. Paul’s last voyage to Jerus.

and his consequent arrest and imprisonment in Cesarea, we get the date 59 for Felix’ removal and the succession of Festus to the procuratorship, for Paul’s appeal to Cesar and his autumn voyage to Melita, with 60-62 for the term of his first imprisonment in Rome.

Five years then remain—a period none too long—for the last stage of his life, including the revisitation of his eastern Churches, the long-deferred mission to Spain, the mission in Crete, and the subsequent extended tour in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia witnessed to by the Pastoral Epp., and for the months of his second imprisonment and trial. 67 A.D., falling just within the reign of Nero, is the date for St. Paul’s martyrdom which best accords.

with Roman tradition and the Chronikon of Euse- bius: here tradition should be at its strongest. Counting backwards from A.D. 57, we get 53 as the date of St. Paul’s arrival at Ephesus in the early part of the third missionary tour, and 49-52 as the probable term of the tour of Paul and Silas; the first journey (sc. of Barnabas and Paul) lay between 46 and 49 A.D. The Council at Jerus. (Ac 15 and Gal 2) then falls in the year 49, i.e.

13 years—in Luke's inclusive reckoning (by years current), 14 years—after Paul’s conversion (Gal 2"), assuming, as we have done provisionally, 36 as the date of his conversion. If the three years of Gal 118 be not included in the 14 of 2', we must carry back Paul’s conversion to 33 or 34 A.D, ; but the difficulties previously noted seem to forbid this supposition.

Supposing him to have been 30 at the time of Stephen’s stoning,—‘a young man,’ but competent, according to Jewish practice, for public office, —then he was born c. 6 A.D., and was not much beyond 60 at the time of his death. He may have been older, but scarcely younger than this. He calls himself ‘such an one as Paul the aged,’ when writing to Philemon (ν ἢ: according 716 PAUL THE APOSTLE to the more probable interpretation of πρεσβύτητ) about the year 61. A.

Harnack in his great work, Chronologie d. alt- christl. Litteratur bis Eusebius (Band 1, ‘Chrono- logie d. Paulus,’ pp. 234-239), disposes Paul’s Chris- tian career between 30 and 64 A.D. He thus finds | all the Epp. written as the rejected Pastorals) | by the year 59, when Paul was acquitted at Rome. In this way Harnack makes room for St. Paul’s release from the first Roman captivity, and for the mission to Spain, before the Neronian persecution.

He refers the Council of Ac 15 and Gal 2 (in his view identical) to the year 47, so reckoned as 14+3 years (Gal 2'and 1’) after the conversion. The ‘few months’ which Harnack allows at the beginning for the progress of events sketched in Ac 1-9 will not easily be accepted as suflicient; at the other end, Harnack rejects the authority of Euse- bius’ Chronikon for the date of St.

Paul’s death, though he builds upon it confidently for the time of Festus’ accession to the procuratorship (55-56), which supplies the pivot of his scheme.

Schiirer, however, following Anger, Wieseler, and Wurm amongst earlier investigators, shows strong reasons (not shaken by Harnack) for abiding by the con- clusion generally accepted hitherto, that Eusebius was mistaken in this particular, and that Felix re- mained governor for some years after the disgrace of his brother Pallas at Rome in 55. Schiirer prefers 60 A.D.

for the date of Felix’ recall, but admits (after Wurm) that the conditions of the case allow of any year from 58 to 61 (see his HJP τ. ii. 174-187; also Ramsay v. Harnack in Expositor, V. v. 201). On the calculation here mg hea Festus succeeded Felix in the year 59, and St. Paul appeared before the latter in A.D. 57. This allows 7 years for Felix’ procuratorship, and 3 for Festus’—periods adequate to the events assigned to each by Josephus.

The ‘many years’ of rule credited to Felix in Ac 9410 must surely have meant more than the two (before Paul’s trial) allowed in Harnack’s chronology. Felix became procurator in A.D. 52 (Schiirer, as above, p. 174). On the whole subject see art. CHRONOLOGY OF NT, with which the conclusions here reached largely agree. ii. THE DocTRINE.—The Apostle Paul’s writings | (the Ep. to the Romans like the rest) are occasional letters, piéces de circonstance.

He was a mission- | ary preacher, who brought everything to bear on his work in the salvation of souls and the edification | of the Church. But from the make of his mind St. Paul’s thinkings and teachings took a logical mould; they grew spontaneously into a great fabric of eprivue truth.

There is unity, method, rational coherence in the theology of the apostle, notwithstanding its incidental and homiletic form, the unity that belongs, not toa compendium drawn up for abstract study, but to the conceptions of an orderly mind possessed by a single master-principle of truth and striving incessantly to apprehend and realize in life and action ‘that for which? it ‘was pperennced by Christ Jesus.

” We must ascertain the point of departure of Paul’s Christian logic, and take account of the growth and advancement evident in his system of thought as in every living structure. We must allow for his rare versatility and lively susceptibility of temperament, for the love of paradox natural to his bold intellect, as well as tor the variety of topics in his letters, for the discordant and variously blended elements with which they deal and which coloured their composi- tion.

Recognizing the ‘changes of voice’ thus occasioned, we discover harmony and correlation throughout the 13 writings that bear Paul’s name. The same accent is heard ; the stamp of the same powerful idiosyncrasy is set on them all, though not with equal emphasis of distinction.

Em- PAUL THE APOSTLE bedded in these discursive missionary letters, with their abrupt transitions, their glancing allusions, their warps play of emotion and argument, there is a body of solid Bape a theological system, as large and original in conception as it has proved enduring and fruitful in application. The fertility of the apostle’s genius, and the numerous and tempting points of view which the documents afford, render the analysis of his teach- ing difficult.

Theologians differ widely, even within the same school, as to the order and inter- dependence of the Pauline ideas. The old mode of analysis, which iter the ready-made cate- gories of scholastic theology to the various books of Scripture and catalogued their texts under these headings, is discredited. The dogmatic point of view is exchanged for the historical and psycho- logical. We have been taught to interpret St. Paul’s teaching in the light of his times and under the conditions of his life.

The various i of NT doctrine are distinguished, and the lines of connexion, sympathetic or antipathetic, are traced out by which Pauline theology is related to earlier or contemporary thought. But here a new danger arises, he prepossessions of historical theory may be equally warping with those of dogmatic system ; the focus of the pens may be displaced and its colours falsified by philosophical no less than by ecclesiastical spectacles. Modern Analyses.—With F. C.

Baur of Tiibingen, ‘ Paul’ stood for the antithesis to the Judaic legal- ism in which it was ries that the first dis- ciples of Jesus were held fast. The Paulinism so conceived Baur found in the four major Epp., erat as the work of imitators touched by other influences, everything that was not covered by this formula. Baur set out from the true Lutheran standpoint. St.

Paul’s doctrine he con- ceived as asystem of experimental religion, deducing it from the apostle’s conversion, of which, however, he took too narrow and cold a view. Saul of Tarsus underwent a complete reaction from the Pharisaism of his youth, and his subsequent career Baur explained by that revulsion.

Developing this antithesis with subtlety and clearness, and with unrivalled historical learning, Baur gave a power- ful restatement in modern terms of the Pauline err dp of justification by faith and drew out its octrinal consequences. This master of historical criticism has left us in his great book on Paul, his Life and Work, an invaluable testimony to the historical truth and cardinal significance of St. Paul’s ‘ gospel of the grace of God.’ Later writers of Baur’s school, such as H. J.

Holtzmann and QO. Pfleiderer, acknowledge the genuineness of other Epp. besides the major four— of 1 Thess., Phil., and Bidlemon atleast. They feel the inadequacy of Baur’s negative explanation of St. Paul’s line of thought. The Gentile mission and its astonishing success involve other factors than those of which their master took account. Paul was something more than an inverted Jewish Rabbi ; the uncontested Epp. contain ideas looking beyond the anti-Judean polemic.

‘To the Greeks’ he became ‘as a Greek.’ Hellenism had its part in moulding Saul of Tarsus along with Hebraism (see Hicks, ‘St. Paul and Hellenism,’ Stud. Bibl. ty. i.); and certain prevalent Greek ideas, it is sug- ested, had entered his mind and set up a hidden erment, so that the Jewish zealot carried under his Rabbinical cloak and orthodox straitness the germs of the revolution he was destined to accom- plish.

Pfleiderer writes accordingly of ‘a double root’ of Paulinism in ‘ Pharisaic theology and Hellenistic theosophy,’ of two sides presented by the apostle’s teaching—‘a Christianized Pharisaism’ embodied in the doctrine of justification by faith, and ‘a Christianized Hellenism’ in the doctrine of 118 PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE Lord, because He was the Saviour’ (p. 328)—a statement to be reversed with equal or greater truth. Vital as the doctrines of salvation are to St.

Paul, his belief in the Lordship of Jesus was anterior to them. What Christ did for men is accounted for by what He is to God. The Ep. to the Romans, the grand exposition of Paul’s Soteri- ology, is the writing of one who was ‘separated unto the gospel of God concerning his Son.’ D. Somerville (St. Paul's Conception of Christ, or the Doctrine of the Second Adam) pursues, on the other hand, with much skill ak, persuasiveness, the line of Sabatier and Beyschlag, finding St.

Paul’s fundamental idea in Christ considered as ‘the Archetype of Humanity,’ but conserving His Divine pre-existence and ‘Eternal Nature’ as necessary deductions from, because presuppositions of, His sovereign and creative relations to mankind. With him, too, the Pauline system is anthropo- centric; and the fact that it was the product of personal (human) experience, appears to him to make this inevitable. In Paul’s ‘Son of God’ he sees a title that slopes upward from the human to the Divine.

OT Antecedents and Starting, Point. — The apostle’s doctrine is theocentric, not in reality anthropocentric. What is styled his ‘meta- physics’ holds for Paul the immediate and sover- eign fact of the universe; God, as he conceives Him, is all and in all to his reason and heart alike. So far the dogmatic analysis was right, in pextas with the doctrine of God, and dis- posing under that the notions of law, righteous- ness, sin, which form the basis of St. Paul’s Soteriology.

This path of exposition is resumed in the very competent and judicious work of G. B. Stevens of Yale, The Pauline Theology. The vision of the glorified Jesus revealed to Saul the Son of God as his Saviour; but the God whose Son the crucified Jesus is seen to be, was now to be known in a far nearer and happier relation than before. No passage strikes more deeply into St. Paul’s experience than 2 Co 4**: ‘There beamed forth the Ulumination of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

itis God who said, Out of dark- ness light shall shine, that shined in our hearts to pre the light of the sili ες of his glory in the ace of Christ.’ It was the God of Israel whose moral splendour dawned upon Saul’s mind through the dazzling form of the Lord Jesus; ‘God’ was there ‘in Christ, reconciling’ Saul ‘unto himself,’ and the old things became new to him from that hour—‘ all things are of God’ (2 Co 57").

A new conception of God was imparted to Saul, a new re- lationship to God established for him. Henceforth his life is ‘hid with Christin God.’ St. Paul’s Soteri- ology and Christology are rooted in his Theology. A profound unity underlies the Judaic and Christian stages of St. Paul’s life.

The convert carried with him the Scriptures of his youth, which he read now with the veil lifted from his heart (2Co 31%), finding in them everywhere testimonies, preparations, adumbrations of the things of the new covenant, the σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, the παιδαγωγὸς els Χριστόν (Ro 37 154, Gal 3%, Col 216-17, ete.) The Christian apostle blossomed out of the Israelitish believer ai scholar. At times he speaks as though there had been no break in his career (2 Ti 15).

Instead of ceasing to be a Jew by becoming a Christian, Paul regarded himself as now properly belonging to the Israel of God (Ph 3%). Instead of severing himself from the stock of Abraham, he would graft the Gentiles into that ‘good olive tree,’ in whose ‘root and fatness’ is nourishment for all races; by their admission to the covenant, Abraham becomes, according to the romise, ‘father of many nations’ (Ro 46.17.

11), t was tor this reason that Paul laid stress on the Davidic birth of Jesus (Ro 18 9°, 2 Ti 2°),—not as a mere title to the Messianic throne, but as a link between the past and present of revelation and a symbol of the right of those who are ‘in Christ to serve themselves heirs of the spiritual wealth of Israel. 1. St. Paul’s Doctrine of God.—In systemat- izing the Pauline teaching, we therefore ask first, What was St. Paul’s earlier belief in God?

and how was that belief enlarged and recast by his conversion? When he speaks of ‘ the righteousness of God,’ of ‘ holiness’ and ‘sin,’ when he repeats the watchword ‘God is one,’ when he exclaims ‘O the depth of the riches and the wisdom and aoe of God!’ we are sensible how large and powerfully developed a doctrine of the Godhead the apostle brought with him from the Synagogue.

Such terms as ‘the grace of God,’ ‘the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,’ as ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ indicate the immense change that supervened. (a) The Fatherhood of God.—St. Paul’s theology, like that of Jesus, is a doctrine of the Fatherhood of God ; this principle is its tacit presupposition and basis throughout. <A true disciple, Paul has assimi- lated in this fundamental article the essential teach- ing of our Lord.

᾿Αββὰ ὁ Πατήρ is the distinctive ery of the new life, taken from the lips of Jesus (Ro 8, Gal 45:1, Mk 14%), which marks the transition from Judaism to Christianity. St. Paul’s careful discrimination between ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ and ‘God our Father,’ with the ex- pression ‘firstborn amongst many brethren’ (Ro 839) that links the two, reflects the personal atti- tude of Jesus towards God and men respectively.

To the character of Father Bere attributes of love, mercy, compassion, grace, the gifts of peace, consolation, hope, and Joy of which Saul the Judaist had known so little. The forensic term adoption must not be so understood as though Paul by its use implicitly denied man’s original sonship to- wards God: see to the contrary Ac 1738: 9, also ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν, Gal 4° (Lightf. ad loc. ; ‘nec dixit accipiamus sed recipiamus,’ Aug.)

, and the ἀπο of ἀποκαταλλάσσω (Col 17+, Eph 2"), ‘The love of God,’ which precedes and determines our redemption (Ro 57-8, Eph 28"), is love toward those kindred to Himself and destined from their creation to be His sons (Eph 1* 5), Grace is the regnant word of Paul’s theology. In this aspect he habitually sees God’s face. The entire contents of the new revelation are included in the phrase τὰ ὑπὸ τ. θεοῦ χαρισθέντα ἡμῖν (1 Co 213).

‘Grace’ signifies God’s favour to undeserving men shown in Christ, His love at work for their salva- tion. ‘The grace of God’ had made His Son’s ersecutor His apostle (Ro 1°, 1Co 152%); its ight illuminated his whole course of action and of thought ; his life and his theology were devoted to ‘the praise of the glory of God’s grace.

’ The all- controlling Divine power and providence, exercised over men and nations, the apostle saw to be directed to ends determined by God’s fatherly love, even in dispensations the most severe (Ac 17%, Ro 415 1115. 8, Gal 3347, Eph 141 9:7. 18-18 37-12) _in a word, ‘to the end that grace may reign through righteousness unto life eternal’ (Ro 5”). See, further, under art. GRACE. (6) The Righteousness of God is the special theme of the Ep. to the Romans. St.

Paul’s doctrine of God’s righteousness shows the new faith rooting itself in and transforming the old. The δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ of Ro 1&8 should not be resolved into a ‘righteousness from God’ (Paul can write ἡ ἐκ θεου δικαιοσύνη when he chooses, Ph 3°). Righteousness is God’s property (see art. GoD, vol. ii. pp. 209-212), the principle of His moral sovereignty, the ethical ground and norm of His dealings with men, and PAUL THE APOSTLE therefore of the gospel in which those dealings culminate.

The Divine righteousness is now ‘re- vealed’ on a side hitherto veiled, as redeeming, communicative (2 Co 5”),—a righteousness that elicits and appeals to human trust instead of fear ; in this disclosure there resides ‘God’s power (an instrument of sovereign moral efficacy) unto salva- tion for every believer.’ The gospel righteousness is that of ‘God our Father,’ the ‘ one God of Jews and Gentiles’ (Ro 147 331-80 4% and 6* 5°", 2 Co 518-6}, ete.)

; not the abstract impersonal justice ofa Supreme Ruler, but that of the essential Father, into whose relations with men there enter funda- mentally the considerations attaching to father- hood,—who is accordingly ‘just himself’ (cf. 1 Jn 1°) when He ‘ justifies him that is of faith in Jesus’ —a ‘just God and a saviour’ (Is 45%), just because He is a saviour and a saviour use He is just. The gospel is ually ‘the overflow of grace, and of righteousness’ (Ro5'7; omit ‘the gift’).

Love and law, however distinct, are not contradictory in God, any more than in man (Ro 13”), Righteousness takes grace into alliance; it wins from the heart ‘the obedience of faith,’ where before it wrought by mere command and in the ways of constraint. It is seen at length in its fulness and majesty, a ‘stern lawgiver,’ yet wearing ‘the Godhead’s most benignant grace.

’ ‘The law’ that breeds trans- gression and ‘ worketh wrath,’ made righteousness the accuser of a world of hapless criminals ; under the gospel righteousness becomes the arbiter and reconciler of the moral universe, giving its due to the sin of men but also to the love of : The Second Isaiah and the later Psalmists had arrived at the thought that the rectitude of God’s character guarantees Israel’s salvation, and must, in some way, impress and bestow itself upon Israel: thus ‘righteousness’ and ‘salvation’ be- come s one terms (Is 461% 38 5148 56!

5918-22 61". Ὁ Pg 225! 5016 98? 143"), Paul seizes and builds upon this identification, which was amply verified ΟΥ̓ the revelation of God made in Christ and the cross.

This eternal righteousness—God Himself in moral action—swift to condemn its opposite, eager to impart itself to those capable of it but without it, ‘made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become a righteousness of God in him’ (2Co 5%); in this righteousness the Father ‘spared not his own Son, but for us all gave him Spe pel ary ‘that we should be conformed to the image of his Son’—His own ΠΆΛΕ humanly expressed—‘to the end that he should be first- born among many brethren.

’ Manifestly, any righteousness gained by this means is ‘ God’s’ and not ‘one’s own’ (Ro 10%, Ph 3°); it comes only and wholly through ‘believing on him that justifies the ungodly’ (Ro 4°), Cf. Sanday and Headlam on ‘The Righteousness of God," in Intern. Comm., Ro 18-17, See, further, the two articles on RIGHT- EOUSNESS.

(c) The anger of God is called forth wherever righteousness comes into contact with sin, blazing out against those who ‘hold down the trath in un- righteousness’ (Ro 118, 2 Th 2"). Its effects are seen in widespread moral degradation (Ro 1'™), and in the ruin of particular men and nations (Ro 917-23, 1 Th 916), Its final issue is ‘destruction’ for those who will not ‘know God,’ who persist in that ‘carnal mind’ which is ‘enmity’ to Him (Ro 18 25-8 8&7, 1 Th 5 9, 2Th 1610).

God loves the un- rodly as men (Ro δ᾽, Eph 2°); as sinners they are His ‘enemies,’ and lie helplessly under ‘the law’ that ‘works out wrath’ (Ro 73.585. The know- ledge of God’s Ὁ in Christ deepened the apostle’s sense of the imminence and terribleness of His judicial anger (Ro 1&8 2% 11%, Ac 17%, 2Co Siete), See, further, art. ANGER. (d) The Law of God.—Along with his conception PAUL THE APOSTLE of righteousness, St.

Paul’s conception of the law of God was greatly widened, and altered in several respects, by his knowledge of Christ. Here the Jewish and Christian stages of thought are dis- tinctly marked ; but the larger, evangelical view of Law is indicated rather than developed.

Familiar usage, emphasized by the legalistic controversy, dictates the frequent and characteristic expressions in which law and faith, law and grace, law and promise, ‘ righteousness that is of law’ and ‘right- eousness that is of God through faith,’ stand opposed ; and we actually have the paradox that ‘apart from law a righteousness of God is mani- fested !

’ (Ro 37-4), his last sentence, with its context, gives clear evidence that Paul looked beyond the polemical antithesis; a righteousness ‘distinct from law’ must be a righteousness positing some higher, larger law than legalism had con- ceived of. The range of Divine law is extended, as in Ro 214. 15. 26. 27. the moral code is found written on the conscience of mankind.

When Paul writes, in Ro 5 ‘Sin is not imputed where there is no law,’ he asserts law to be universal as sin and death, whose very connexion is a first article thereof (85). At the bottom, ‘there is no distinction—all the world has become guilty (ὑπόδικος) in relation to God’ (Ro 3%); the Jew, if first in privilege, is first in condemnation (Ro 2!-3?)

Jew and Gentile are equally lost if God’s law knows nothing more than ‘the command’ of Mosaism, if His normal relation to men is that expressed in the covenant of Sinai with its maxim, ‘He that doeth these things shall live in them.

’ In itself ‘holy and righteous and good,’ the law in effect ‘was found to issue in death for me,’ by its very prohibitions awakening and sharpening lawless desire (Ro 77-) ; thus it proved to be ‘the power of sin’ (1 Co 15), whereas ‘the gospel’ is the ‘power of God unto salvation.’ Every man that is ‘under the law’ is ‘under a curse’—the curse that was consum- mated on Calvary and is terminated for those who are in Christ (Gal 3!°-™). St.

Paul’s experience and logic combined to work out to this deadly and comprehensive issue the pee conception of law—true, of course, but atally incomplete and bearing fruit in moral im- potence and death ; to it he had died in Christ (Ro 7)-6 10%, Gal 2).

Paul had done with ‘law’ in the old sense, but in a new sense he is more true to law than ever: ‘The law of the Spirit of life has in Christ Jesus freed’ him ‘from the law of sin and death’; he is neither ὑπὸ νόμον nor ἄνομος, but ἔννομος Χριστοῦ (Ro 6% 823,1 Co 9"), Formerly the expression of the normal relation of Israel to God detined by the Mosaic covenant, law is now to be conceived as the normal relation of man to God determined by the new covenant in Christ, whose basis lay deeper than the old, for it was contained in the Abrahamic promise (Gal 83:65).

‘The law of Christ,’ embracing all the essentials of ethics, operates from the heart, as an inward principle not an external and alien ‘command’; love is its fulfilment (Gal δ᾽" 6). It embraces faith and the action of the Holy Spirit as legitimate and decisive factors in God’s dealings with His children ; and the apostle speaks consistently of a ‘law of faith’ and ‘the law of the Spirit of life.’ These are no strained or casual expressions ; the identification is profoundly characteristic.

Nothing was more foreign to St. Paul’s nature than Antinomianism A love at variance with righteousness, a faith resting upon no settled principle of the Divine government, neither his reason nor reverence could have tolerated. ‘Do we make void law through our faith (in Christ)? Anything but that ; nay, we establish law !’ (Ro 3%"). Paul combate Jewish legalism in the interests of a larger legality.

PAUL THE APOSTLE a juster righteousness, which lies deep in the heart of Scripture and in the nature of G The same in its contents, the law takes quite another hold upon the conscience now that the Lawgiver is beheld as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

‘Love’ becomes its ‘ fulfilling ’—‘ faith operative through love’ (Ro 13", Gal 5%): thus ‘the righteous demand of the law is fulfilled in those that walk according to the Spirit,’—those ‘in’ whose ‘hearts’ ‘God's love has been poured out through the Holy Spirit’ (Ro 5° 8*). See, further, art. Law (in NT). The manifestation of God in Christ makes | i the συνείδησις of Ro 2", etc., is the same power repentance imperative, and determines its nature and direction.

Of repentance (μετάνοια) Paul had much to say in his missionary preaching (Ac 13% 17” 20% 26”; comp. Ro 2*); in the Epp. it is implied in such terms as ‘turning to God from idols,’ ‘ coming to know God’ ; on the other hand, in ‘dying to sin,’ ‘crucifying the flesh,’ ‘ putting off the old man’ (1 Th 1°, Gal 4° 5%, Ro 6? #2), ἘῸΝ 43 5°, ete.)

It is tacitly assumed as a condition precedent to justification and sanctification, which are inconceivable without the confession and renunciation of sin; it is indeed a constituent of saving faith. Christian prayer corresponds to the character of the Christian od (Eph 315), in its confidence (παρρησία), intelligence, constancy, universal range, its accompaniment of thanksgiving (Eph 3%, 1 Co 1415. Col 42,1 Th 57-38, etc.)

, in its dependence on the mediation of Christ and on the sympathetic aid of the Holy Spirit (Eph 3%, Ro 855: 5); it is the prayer of sons to a Father. 2. Doctrine of Man.—Over against the apostle’s conception of God lies his conception of Man—the individual and the race. (a) The Constitution of Mankind.—The OT belief is Paul’s, that man—the ἀνήρ more immediately— is the ‘image and glory of God’ (i Co 117). The Gentile consciousness is witness to the fact that ‘we are his offspring’ (Ac 17%-”).

‘The Son of his love’ is God’s perfect image (Col 1°); Chris- tian men are such in so far as they are renewed ‘after the Creator’s image’ and become His chil- dren (Col 319, Eph 4% δ᾽). In all men the reason (νοῦς), unless ‘reprobate,’ discerns God in creation and is ‘bondman to God’s law’ (Ro 119. 30. %8 725), so that they are ‘without excuse’ for sin. With the OT, Paul attirms the race-unity and moral solid- arity of mankind—in Adam on the one hand, in Christ on the other (Ro 5'-*!)

; as against Judaism, he repudiates any real difference between Jew and Gentule, either in sin or salvability (Ro 3). ‘The woman is the glory of the man,’ who is her ‘head.’ She is relatively subordinate, and Paul does not ‘ allow’ her ‘ to teach nor to have dominion’ in church or house,—though intrinsically the man’s equal, since ‘in Christ Jesus there can be no male and female’ any more than ‘Jew and Greek’ (1 Co 11%", 1 Ti 215, Gal 3%). The prohibition of 1Co 1455 5.

to exercise any spiritual gift in public appears to have been due to circumstances ; otherwise it would be in conflict with 115. The “wo sexes are necessary to each other ‘im the Lord’ (1 Co1l"+*); both shared in the guilt of the Fall— the woman, as Paul seems to put it, ‘being de- ceived’ (2Co 115, 1 Ti 2!) hh sinning through weakness, whereas Adam’s sin was a deliberate and responsible ‘ transgression’ and ‘disobedience’ (Ro 5), culpable and decisive in the highest degree.

(4) Spirit and Flesh.—Paul’s doctrine of human nature is that of the OT. Man is constituted of flesh and spirit—allied by the former to the perishable material creation, by the latter to God and the world unseen.

‘The body’ is flesh in the concrete, the man’s individual form ; ‘the soul’ with Paul, as throughout Scripture, is ποῦ a tertium quid PAUL THE APOSTLE between spirit and flesh, but rather their unity, the living self behind the bodily form of each man, (See, however, in favour of Trichotomy, Ellicott, Destiny of the Creature, and on 1 Th δ; Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psu- chology).

‘Soul’ is a word relatively infrequent in Paul ; the ‘heart’ takes its place as the seat of the manifold thoughts and feelings,—which Ψυχὴ concentrates into the self, the conscious Ego. “Πνεῦμα is the principle, Ψυχὴ the subject, and Καρδία the organ of life’ (Cremer). The νοῦς of Ro 139 73-2 ete., is the πνεῦμα operative as a faculty of knowledge directed toward Divine things, while introverted, the ethical self-consciousness.

‘Flesh’ and ‘spirit’ hold in Paulinism a more specific religious sense based upon, but distinguish- auile from, their psychological meaning: the former term regularly denotes the sinful nature of man, the latter its opponent in the influence of God operating in and through His Spirit (see e.g.

Ro 8111 Gal 5°), This raises the question whether Paul referred sin to man’s constitution, groundin; it in his physical system and in the (supposed) evi intrinsic to matter, as Baur, Holsten, and others argue, who make sin to be, in its essence, sensuous- ness or sensuality.

Pfleiderer sees in Paul’s doctrine of σὰρξ proof of his Hellenism ; Sabatier finds two discrepant Pauline theories of Sin—the Rabbinical view of Ro 5, deriving it from the fall of Adam; and the psychological view of Ro 7, where it arises from the inevitable collision be- tween physical desire and ethical law (‘ L’origine du Péché’ in Append. to L’Apétre Paul*).

But the αὐτὸς ἐγώ of Ro7 is a child of his race, one ‘sold under sin’ and compromised beforehand, in whom sin ‘revives’ at the impact of the law, having been therefore already latent. On the other hand, Paul’s prominent doctrines of the sinlessness of Christ, of the resurrection of the body and its sanctity as the temple of the Holy Spirit, forbid the notion, which in fact he combats in Col and the Past. Epp., of an inherent sinfulness attaching to physical nature.

In 2 Co 7' he speaks of ‘defilement of flesh and of spirit’ (and a possible cleansing of both); Gal δ᾽19:31 enumerates non-physical sins among ‘works of the flesh.’ The ne plus ultra of human sin, described in 2 Th 2%, is a self-deifying pride— atheism, or anti-theism, full-blown. The use of ‘flesh’ for ‘sin’ and ‘carnal’ for ‘sinful’ is a synecdoché; the more conspicuous and prevalent kind of sin stands for the whole.

But more than this:—(1) sin has oceupied the body and become a sort of ‘law in the members’ (Ro 7'4-2), so that human flesh is ordinarily, though not essentially, ‘ flesh of sin’ (Ro 8%, cf. 715 ἐγὼ σάρκινοΞ). The same disvetag mene is extended to the body : qua ‘body of sin’ it must be ‘nullified,’ that we may no longer be ‘ bondmen to sin,’—a deliverance effected by the crucifixion of ‘the old man’ with Christ (Ro 65 7%-% 8185. Col 35).

In man’s proper Christian state his spirit, aided by the Spirit of God, rules his body and makes its ‘members instruments of righteousness unto Ged’ (Ro 62°, 1 Co 9-7); in his natural unrenewed state the flesh preponderates. (2) The heredity of sin is ἴῃ. volved in Ro 5” (comp. Jn 3°); its taint is asso- ciated with fleshly descent, while the children of God are ‘begotten κατὰ πνεῦμα᾽ (Gal 4”).

As the term ‘spirit’ rose in the NT vocabulary and came to be appropriated for the Holy Spirit of God, so ‘flesh’ sank to its lowest sieniiftamnce as denoting the antagonistic evil nature in man (Gal 5!* "7, ταῦτα ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται).

When Paul describes ‘ the first man, Adam’ as ‘ earthy’ (xotxés), as a ‘ living soul’ wearing a ‘ natural body’ (σῶμα ψυχικόν), in contrast with ‘the second man,’ the risen Christ who is the ‘life-giving Spirit’ already clothed with the PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE 721 ‘spiritual body’ (σῶμα πνευματικόν), these former terms do not signify a fallen condition but a gross and cunerelenet condition—the ‘natural’ (sensu- ous) as it precedes the ‘spiritual,’ not the ‘carnal’ as the negation of it.

(c) Sin and Death dominate man’s existence (Ro 5-21), They set at war his flesh and spirit, and destroy both in turn. ‘Sin reigned in death,’ is St. Paul’s epitome of human history: ‘Sin came to life, and I died. . Wretched man that I am, who will rescue me out of this body of death ?’— his crisps A of personal experience out of Christ. Sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία) is thus personified, in contrast with ’s grace or righteousness, as the master prin- ciple of unredeemed humanity. Its seat is the flesh.

‘ Ungodliness’ (ἀσέβεια) and ‘ unrighteous- ness’ (ἀδικία, Ro 118) are its chief forms, as it is related to God Himself or to His law for men: sin 1s irreligion, or immorality, or both at once,— : enmity against God’ and insubordination to His law ( 87). Moral corruptions have, in the apostle’s view, a religious root; heathen vice is the product of idolatry ; ἀδικία is the nemesis of ἀσέβεια (Ro 1'8®, Eph 417-9), and wilful ignorance of God the prime cause of moral disorder.

Sin is at the bottom a ‘ disobedience,’ to be rectified only in the way of ‘reconciliation,’ of ‘justification’ rough an adequate ‘obedience’ (Ro 5!*), The act of sin is transgression or trespass (παράβασις, παράπτωμα, e.g. Ro 2%, Gal 6), when it is a conscious beach of law or lapse from rectitude. ‘Ayapria includes whatever is ethically amiss in nature or conduct, tendency or action. Sin is not defect or weakness ; itis Busine and culpable depravation.

It has ‘ passed along’ from the progenitor of the race ‘unto all men.’ aaa ta it has robbed ‘all men’ of ‘the glory of God,’—that splendid image in which man was formed; positively, it makes ‘all the world guilty before God,’—a conse- uence dreadfully r in the universality of eath (Ro 3! 3 512-21, 1] Co 157%), In ‘the ful- ness of time’ sin has reached its climax. ‘The wisdom of the world’ that ‘ knew not God’ is thus proved by its fruits to be utter folly (1 Co 1'**; comp.

Ro 131-33, And ‘the [Mosaic] law’ prohibiting sin, has a: gravated it to the utmost. his was, in truth, its hidden purpose: it ‘came in by the way, in order that the trespass might multiply,’ that ‘sin might become exceeding sinful’ (Ro 5”: 31. 7}%, Gal 3'*-),—that, in short, sin ‘might be shown to be sin,’ the ineffectual restraint stimulating sin’s violence while it deepened the consciousness of guilt, thus ripening the disease for the application of the remedy. Sin and death gohandinhand.

‘ Death entered’ at the door of Adam’s transgression : ‘Sin came to reign in death.’ Bodily death is the fruit and penalty of sin in man, and evidences its universal sway.

Not that Paul supposes the termination of our present bodily existence to be due to sin: ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’; the ‘earthy man’ must in any case have been changed to ‘the image of the heavenly,’ and ‘the natural’ was bound to give place to the ‘spiritual body’ (1 Co 15“), But death, as known in this ‘body of humiliation’ and ‘of death,’ gets its ‘sting’ from sin.

Under this doom ‘the body is’ virtually ‘dead because of sin,’ even when ‘ the spirit is life because of righteousness’ (Ro 8").

Sin brings death upon the entire man: when ‘sin came to life, J died’ (Ro 7°); till the life of the risen Christ was theirs, Gentiles and Jews alike were ‘dead by reason of their trespasses and sins,’ since they lay under God’s ‘anger’ and were ‘alienated from his life’ (Eph 2' 4'), This is no figurative death,—a state of apathy and impotence, —but a real death of the spirit, attended by moral dissolution, since ‘life indeed’ is found only in VOL.

HI, —a6 fellowship with God (Ro 6" 8* 19, Col 3!, 1 Ti 6). As it is through and with the dying Christ that we enter into this ‘newness of life,’ the change itself is called, relatively, a death; ‘our old man was crucified with Christ’ (Ro 6%, Gal 2”). (d) The history of the race is but the story of the ‘wretched man’ of Ro 7 writ large; it is a history of sin and redemption.

There are with Paul, as in Jewish theology, two ages—é αἰὼν ὁ ἐνεστὼς and ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων (1 Co 2° 731, 2 Co 44, Ro 123, Gal 1*), two worlds corresponding to the ‘new’ and ‘old man’ —one corrupt and perishing, the other newborn in Jesus Christ. His cross marks the boundary between them (Gal 6").

From the ascension ot Jesus dates the Messianic age, the reign of grace, the dispensation of the Spirit, the new humanity, the establishment of ‘the kingdom of the Son of God’s love’ on the territory of ‘the dominion of darkness.’ But the earlier times were never God-forsaken.

A fatherly and forbearing Providence directed the nations ; in the bounties of nature God ‘ left him- self without witness’ to none; through His works of creation His ‘eternal power and divinity’ appealed to man’s intelligence (Ac 145} 17>-5!, Ro 1'8-20), The lives of the heathen, with no express ‘law,’ disclose not infrequently the marks of His working in the human conscience (Ro 2!'*+!5-®-#), The Gentile world, as a whole, had notwithstanding sunk into desperate guilt.

The more wanton or monstrous a cult might be, so much the more it was ade and the popular idolatry might be roughly escribed as half lies, half devilry—‘the Gentiles sacrifice to demons and not to God’ (Ro 1-, 1Co 8 101-21 122, Gal 4°). Under the sway of such re- ligions, moral debasement went on apace ; the most horrible vices throve ranklyin the great cities where the apostle taught. Satan was de facto ‘the god of this world.

’ ‘The law of sin and death,’ operating incessantly from Adam downwards, was working out for society its last results. Here was at leasta negative preparation for Christ. The world was lost, and Paul proclaims to Rome a gospel that is the spames of God unto salvation’; to its ‘ obedience of faith’ he proposes to reduce ‘all the nations.’ In Israel a ditferent, but concurrent, preparation had taken place.

The Mosaic law, fastening its bet on the Jewish conscience, compelled it to the hopeless path of salvation by works. The Jew was God’s ‘ bondman’ (Ro 8", Gal 41:7. 4-5"), striving to win ‘a righteousness of his own’ and to secure by merit the Messiah’s coming. The attempt was an acknowledged failure. The law was not kept; it provoked rather than repressed transgression, and ai more hypocrites than saints (Ro 2).

The Jew was no better than the Gentile whom he con- demned,—nay, worse because of his boasted know- ledge. The Bivine anger burnt eed against his nation ; their spiritual privileges had ia in them a stubborn and inhuman pride (Ro 259,1 Th 2 36, Ac 13"), The Messianic salvation, as they con- ceived it, was farther off than ever. Gentile and Jew alike—‘all the world ’—were ‘guilty before God,’ with no defence and no resource ‘shut u unto the faith that was to be revealed’ (Ro 3*, Gal 3-*).

The former age extending, with the Mosaic interlude, from Adam to Christ, had cul- minated in a general moral bankruptcy. At the same time, the apostle viewed the expiring age in another and more favourable light. Both in heathenism and Judaism an education of intellect and conscience had all the while been going on; the elementary truths of religion (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, i.e.

not ‘the’ physical ‘elements,’—starry powers or the like, identified with angels, as many inter- preters suppose,—but ‘the rudiments’ belongin to a childish, pupillary state; see Lgtft. on Gal. 4 and Col 2°; ee Weiss, NJ’ Theol. $70) had been eae oe PAUL THE APOSTLE £22 inculeated and widely understood, however ill ractised, and had disciplined the κληρονόμος νήπιος or his emancipation in Christ.

In and around the Synagogue there was a people prepared for the Lord —‘a remnant according to the election of grace’ ; and ‘the salvation of God,’ sent from unbelieving Judaism to the Gentiles, found these in multitudes ready to hear; so that the present ‘ casting ΒΟΥ ἥ of Israel is proving a ‘reconciliation of the world,’ which in turn was destined to end in Israel's full ‘reception’ (Ro 11, Ac 28%).

On all accounts it was clear that ‘the fulness of the times,’ the turning-point of human destiny, had come,—at once the consummation of the shameful past and the foundation of a glorious future. At the crisis where the apostle stands, ‘God has shut up all together unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all’ (Ro 1153, Gal 353). 3. Doctrine of Christ and of Salvation.—On the basis of St.

Paul’s doctrines of God and of righteousness, of man and of sin, stands his doctrine respecting Christ and salvation, — the birth of ‘ the fulness of time’ (Gal 42). (a) The Person of Christ.—The Pharisee Saul persecuted Jesus of Nazareth after His death for the reason for which He had been put to death,— His claim to be the Son of God. Ina moment he discovered his utter mistake, and reversed his judgment of the Nazarene.

Jesus was, after all, the Messiah ;—and not a mere human ‘Son of David,’ a Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα, but as He was under- stood to assert before the Sanhedrin and as His apostles continually preached, the Lord of glory, the Son of the Highest. These convictions entered, with alightning flash, the mind of the stricken persecutor. ‘Who art thou, Lord?’ was his question to the Celestial One who appeared to him in the way.

The terms of Saul’s faith in the Person of Christ were already present to his thought; he needed but to substitute ‘Jesus Lord’ for ‘Jesus anathema’ (1 Co 12°), and to adore whom he had _ blasphemed. ‘Immediately in the synagogues [of Damascus] he preached that this Jesus is the Son of God’ (Ac 91% ) ; what ‘the Son of God’ meant to Jewish ears, the trial before the Sanhedrin and the record of St. John’s Gospel show. The relationship of Christ to God gave supreme worth in St.

Paul’s eyes to His sacrifice, and turned the shameful cross into the glorious revelation of God’s love to mankind: ‘ sent forth his own Son (éavrov) to redeem those under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons’—‘He spared not his own Son (τοῦ ἰδίου ; comp. Jn 5"*), but delivered him up for us all’; it is thus that God is known to be ‘for us,’ thus He ‘commends his own (ἑαυτοῦ) love toward us’ (Gal 445, Ro 58-10 551.

#2), Son of God is a name shared by the ‘ firstborn’ with ‘many brethren.’ Yet however much they partake with Him, God’s ‘own Son’ stands im- measurably above both men and angels (Eph 12-4, ete.) We receive the same impression from the peuele « phrases that the Jews received from what Jesus saic of Himself (Jn 5”); not least from the solemn distinction and frequency with which God is named ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

’ Paul styles Him habitually ‘the Lord,’ ‘the Lord Jesus,’ ‘the Lord Christ,’ ‘the Lord Jesus Christ.’ To minds familiar with the Greek OT, these names, in the formal manner in which they are imple, carried irresistibly the connotation of Godhead. Words of Scripture relating to ‘the LorD’ (Jehovah, but read as Adonai) are freely, as a matter of course, appropriated for Christ. “The title ‘Lord’ denotes Christ’s sovereignty in the Church (e.g.

2Co 45), and through the universe (Ph 2°); He is designated ‘Head’ in Col and Eph in the same twofold way. This Lordship is so lofty and wide as to be inconceivable in one PAUL THE AVOSTLE less than God (see esp. Col 2* 1, in connexion with 1+”), «The kingdom of the Son of God’s love’ embraces ‘all creation,’ of which He is the ground, means, and relative end (Col 117), while ‘God the Father’ is the fountain and absolute end of ‘all things’ (1 Co 8°).

‘They derived their being from His agency, the Divine power that called them inte existence travelling to its goal through Him... To believe in Him, to accept Him as our ideal and find our life’s end in doing His will, is to be true to a relation that lies in creation itself, and that expresses the eternal law of our being’ (Somerville, St. Paul’s Conca of Christ, pp. 192, 193).

Though Lord in this unlimited sense, Christ is always obedient as a Son, and ‘delivers up the kingdom to the Father’ who sent Him, 25 His task of redemption is complete (1 Co 15%, cf. Ph 2"). Such free subordination of love implies no inequality of nature (ef. 1 Co 11%); it is essential to the Divine unity. Despite his horror of creature-worship, St.

Paul addresses prayers to the Lord Jesus side by side with the Father, and this frequently in the two earliest letters; he de- fines Christians as those ‘who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1Co 17, Ro 10", 2 Ti 933. To St. Paul’s imagination as to that of St. John, the heavenly throne is that ‘of God and of the Lamb.’ There is nothing really surprising if, as seems most probable in both instances, Paul has actually in 9° and Tit 2 given to Christ the predicate ‘God’ (cf.

Jn 118, μονογενὴς θεός). Christ’s Headship over the redeemed Charch rests upon His premundane Lordship (Col 1+). If His present rule is Divine, His prior state must have been Divine; He was not constituted Son of God by His resurrection, but so ‘marked out’ (or ‘instated,’ ὁρισθείς, Ro 1‘).

He who at the end of the ages will be confessed as ‘ Lord’ by every tongue, subsisted originally ‘in the form of God ’—év μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (the μορφὴ signifies that which con- stitutes Godhead, Ph 24"), Not of this ‘form’ did Christ ‘empty himself’ in His humiliation, but of the external conditions described by the words τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ ; the Divine state was surrendered, the Divine essence could not be (Ph 2°: see Gifford, Incarnation; also Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, and Lightfoot, Philippians, ad loc.)

Since He was ἜΣ ΈΡΗΣ God, Christ’s renunciation of the Divine condition in His incarnation and crucifixion showed an infinite regard for ‘others,’ that must win un- bounded adoration. The height of His previous ‘riches’ measures the depth of the ‘poverty’ to which He descended (2 Co 8°). ‘The apostle nowhere establishes or teaches the ieee of Christ, but presupposes it as amiliar to his readers and disputed no one’ (Beyschlag, NT Theology, ii. 78).

Baur, Pfleiderer, Beyschlag, Schmiedel, with other able scholars, see in Paul’s pre-incarnate Christ the ideal, celestial man, the archetype and divinely constituted Head of humanity, who in this capacity was primevally (whether im esse or in posse) Lord of the human creation. This explanation starts from 1 Co 15*-47, interpreted according to the Philonian and later Rabbinical distinction between the two Adams of Gn 1” and 2?

—the first, the ideal man after God’s image, remaining with God as a heavenly pattern (sometimes identified with the Messiah); the second, the earthy, phenomenal man. But St. Paul reverses this order, and writes in v. as though he would contradict Philo (see Edwards, ad loc.) ; the δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος of 1 Co 15 is ὁ μέλλων Of Ro δ). When he distinguishes the two as ‘from earth,’ ‘from heaven,’ he points to their respective source of being, implying nothing as to previous state of being.

‘The second man’ is, in this context, the risen (not the pre-incarnate) Christ, clothed already, to our knowledge, with His ‘spiritual PAUL THE APOSTLE body,’ the ‘house from heaven’ of 2Co 5? and Ph 3” (see Meyer and Heinrici on 1 Co 15%). The coexistence of the Divine and human in the Lord Jesus is St. Paul’s constant wonder. He puts the two natures in signal contrast (Ro 15 4 9°, Gal 4), but nowhere attempts to define their relations in the one person.

‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ in His redeemed kingdom not as mere Son of God, but under the name of Jesus, who was ‘ found in fashion as a man’ and held concealed beneath the μορφὴ δούλου His original μορφὴ θεοῦ (Ph 2°"). Now the enthroned ‘mediator of God and men,’ He remains evermore ‘man’ (1 Ti 25). His connexion with the race is pre-incarnate; Christ was the source of spiritual blessing to the Jewish fathers (1 Co 104).

He is, in truth, the fountain of life to mankind in the spiritual, as Adam in the natural order,—a fact implied in the unfinished parallel of Ro 5%. ‘The head of every man is Christ,’ as ‘the man is head of woman’ (1 Co 115); thus family life and social order rest on His prior authority. Marital love has its model in that of Christ to the Church ( Eph 5%-*, ἀντὶ τούτου.

If God has ‘sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts’ and we are to be ‘essentially conformed (συμμόρφους) to the image of his Son’ (Gal 4%, Ro 8539), this implies an aboriginal kinship. The Son of God is the mould in which our nature was cast, the representative and root of our race in the Godhead: so much truth there isin the Baurian doctrine of the Urmensch (see Edwards’ The God- man).

‘We’ especially are ‘through him" and ‘unto him’—‘through whom are all things’ and ‘in whom all things consist’ (1 Co 85, Col 1165). St. Paul looks into the ground-plan of creation when he says that God ‘chose us in him before the foundation of the world,’ and that we ‘were created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God prepared beforehand’ (Eph 1‘ 2°), The Incar- nation and Atonement spring, therefore, out of the fundamental relations an God and man in Christ.

In virtue of the primitive relationship of man- kind to Him, the Son of God is concerned in the curse that came upon us through transgression, and becomes answerable on this account (see Dale, Atonement, Lect. x.) God ‘made him sin on our behalf.’ Yet His freedom was never compromised, His purity remained unspotted ; ‘in the likeness of βιὰ] flesh’ He was ‘sent forth,’ not in its actual carnality ; in fact, He ‘knew no sin’ (Ro 8°, 2 Co 5*': contrast Ro 77-8).

This statement implies a large acquaintance on St. Paul’s part with the per- sonal life of Jesus, to which his references are few but significant (Ro 15°, 2 Co 10!, Eph 4-4, 1 Ti 6", Ac 20%, 1Co 11%). The miraculous conception, which in a manner explains the unique character of Jesus, the apostle never alludes to. His power- ful manifestation as ‘Son of God,’ from the time of the resurrection, was ‘in accordance with the spirit of holiness’ that marked His earthly course (Ro 1".

The Messiahship of Jesus, ex pressed in His name Christ—the main topic of missionary preachin to Jews (Ac 9 137%: ete.)—is taken for ga" in the Epp.

, like the Fatherhood of God, as accepted to begin with by all Christians, Two ints Paul had to make out in proving Jesus to ‘Christ’: (1) to show from Scripture that the Christ was παθητός, was destined to suffer in order to reign—this general doctrine of a sufferin Messiah being an open question in the Jewis schools; (2) to identify Jesus with the Christ so defined (Ac 1755 18*°), On the abstract point of doctrine he might carry his Jewish hearers with him, but fail when he applied it to the crucified Nazarene.

That Christ was ‘of David’s seed according to flesh,’ that His Jewish birth was the crown of Israelite privilege and glory, that ‘Christ had become minister of the circumcision,’ and that PAUL THE APOSTLE God had ‘thus fulfilled the promise made to the fathers’: these were essential conditions of the case, and sacred matters to the Gentile apostle (Ro 1?

955 1651, Ac 13%), But the Messianic kingship of the OT has expanded into the larger royalty of ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’; and he who had fervently expected a Χριστὸν κατὰ σάρκα, ‘now no longer knows him’ (2 Co 51%), See, further, art. MESSIAH. (6) The Death of the Cross.—The Christ so con- stituted, David’s seed and God’s own Son, sin-curst γεν sinless, died the death of the cross—a victim or human transgression.

THE Cross is the main shaft of the superstructure resting on the basis already described ; it is the trunk into which run up all the roots of Paul’s Christian thought, and that supports its branches and fruitage. ‘Far be it from me to glory,’ he exclaims, ‘ save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ!’ Everything that Pau! knows, exults in, builds upon, is poised there. The apostle uses many terms to express the meaning of the death of Christ, for it is a fact of boundless significance.

It is a vicarious, repre- sentative death, as He who thus suffered is the Leader of the race, the ‘One’ who ‘died for all,’ who alone had the right and power to do so (2 Co 515), It is a legal expiation in the ve largest sense, coming under that awful law which links death to sin as its universal human penalty (Ro 5!

82,1 Co 15%, Gal 45); the pardon based upon it is accordingly a ‘justification,’ an acquittal and release in the court of the Divine justice, since ‘he that died hath been justified from sin,’ and ‘all died in him’ (Ro 4 67, 2 Co δ᾽, Col 2" #4), Christ’s death was an intrinsically ‘justifying act’ (δικαίωμα), right in itself and rectifying in its scope, that turned to ‘justification of life’ the ‘condem- nation’ lying on ‘all men’ in Spr at sana of Adam’s trespass ; it is ‘the obedience of the One,’ through which ‘the disobedience of the one man’ is counter- vailed (Ro 5"), It was a ‘propitiation,’ since He who thus shed ‘ his blood’ in doing so realized with sympathy and entire submission the holy resentment that burns against sin through all the miseries which it entails, and the endurance of this undeserving voluntary Sufferer for His sg brethren was ‘an odour of sweet smell’ ( “ἢ Eph δ).

In every fitting sense the death of Jesus was a ‘sacrifice,’ offered upon man’s part, which God in His righteousness accepts. In His grace God first provided it ; for ‘Christ is God’s’ rather than ours. The Father of Christ and of men ‘ sent his own Son, in likeness of sinful flesh and for sin’ ; He ‘delivered him up for us all’; He ‘set him forth a propitiation,’ and so ‘commends his own love tow: us... sinners’ (Ro δ᾽ 8553).

Thus the sacrifice effects a ‘reconciliation’ (καταλλαγή), roposed by God who through Christ admits into ees those who could otherwise be treated only as enemies, and accepted by men who endorse the satisfaction which Christ renders on their behalf (Ro δι}, 2 Co δ᾽53), On this ground God and man meet in friendship. The Divine family is gathered again round the Elder Brother, who restores to each other those whom He reconciles to God, slaying all enmity by the blood of His cross (Eph 2").

On the basis of this atonement the entire sum of blessings making up our salvation is bestowed— blessings collectively named ‘redemption’ (ἀ πολύ- Tpwois), as they are won for us at the cost of the blood of Christ (1 Co 1” 6%, Eph 14, Ac 20%). But there is another side to the Pauline doctrine of the cross.

When it is said in Ro 8'* that ‘God by sending his own Son in likeness of sinful flesh, and (as a sacrifice) for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,’ the subjective moral effect ὁ Christ’s death comes into view. The mission of | ee 134 PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE Carist has so brought home the guilt of human sin as to bring about a full reaction. While en- during the penalty, Christ has broken the power of sin, and dethroned it (cf.

5"), even in that ‘flesh’ which was its seat ; so sanctification (Ro 6), equally with justification (Ro 3-5), springs from the death of the cross, the saving power of which is certified and made eflicacious by the resurrection of the Sinbearer (Ro 49" 5. 8* 108°, Ph 3°).

As ‘condemnation’ ceases for ‘ those who are in Christ Jesus,’ there begins to operate upon them that ‘law of the Spirit of life in him’ which ‘frees from the law of sin and death,’ substituting ‘the mind of the Spirit’ for ‘the mind of the flesh’ and giving them victory over bodily death, whose ‘sting’ is gone for those who in Christ have ‘died to sin’ (Ro 6?

8', 1 Co 15%), The change of status and the change of character effected in believers are, to Paul’s mind, inseparable; he blends them in Ro 6, where those who ‘died to sin’ are such as have in Christ at once expiated its curse and renounced its dominion, to ‘walk’ with their risen Lord ‘in newness of life’—living in Him, and as He does, ‘to God.’ In the pregnant words of ν.7, they are ‘justified (so as to be free) from sin.

’ The so-called ‘juristic’ and ‘ethical’ theories of the Atonement are complementary to each other ; Paul passes from one to the other with no sense of discrepancy (see Stevens’ Pauline Theol., on ‘ Justi- fication’; Pileiderer’s Paulinismus*, ‘Der Tod Christi’; Sabatier’s Apostle Paul, p. 297 ff.) See, further, arts. ATONEMENT, PROPITIATION. (c) The new Life of Faith.

—From the moment that he dies with Christ, there begins for the be- liever the new life of faith (Gal 2"), The word Faith on the human side is as characteristic of Paulinism as Grace on the Divine. Faith is the hand reached out to receive the gifts of grace ; it is the root by which the soul is planted into Christ and draws its life from Him.

It is ‘ prora et puppis’ to Christian experience (Ro 118: 1"), and conditions all security and progress (Eph 61° 14"), Faith is the characteristic function of the ‘heart’ (Ro 10”, Eph 3'7)—of the entire inward man there centred. It includes the response of the affections to the love of God and of Christ (Ro δ᾽, Gal 2”), self-surrendering submission to the will and call of God (the ‘obedience of faith,’ Ro 15 618-37 103. 18, ] Th 2!"

13), and the grasp of the understanding which apprehends ‘the ate of the gospel’ (2 Th 2-8), Especially in the later ipistles, addressed to instructed Churches now endangered by intellectual forms of error, stress is laid on the mental element in faith; and ‘know- ledge (of God, of truth,’ ete. ; ἐπίγνωσις, advanced, exact knowledge) is represented as the means of growth and the condition of safety (Col 15:1} 93 31 45) Eph 118 ἘΠ Phe 1 Ti 24 Tit 1). St.

Paul’s ἐπίγνωσις is simply an educated faith. This is one of the aspects of Christian perfection. The revelation of the gospel assumes faith and depends at every point on this condition (Ro 333-35 4% 51-2, 1 Co 124, 2 Co 1%, Gal 32, Eph 13-19 1 Th 238, Tit 3°, ete.), just as the legal covenant assumed for its efficacy the performance of ‘works.’ Christian men are briefly described as ‘believers’ (οἱ πιστεύ- ovtes, ol πιστεύσαντες, ol ἐκ πίστεως).

Faith is the one subjective condition of justification,—that Divine acquittal with which our salvation begins and in which its whole process is virtually contained.

The ‘righteousness of faith,’ the ‘ gift of righteous- ness,’ supersedes that ‘righteousness of one’s own’ which the legalist vainly sought by self-directed efforts; failing to be ‘justified of works,’ men are freely ‘justified of faith’ (Ro 37% 515-17 9%_}0)3), The power of faith lies in the fact that it is man’s reliance on God’s ae and grace ; it reco ’s righteousness’; fait izes and ‘submits to ac- cepts His promise—in a word, it ‘gives glory to God’ without any thought of merit or claim upon man’s part (Ro 4}δ' #4108), On this account Abraham’s faith,—the instantia probans for Israel- ites, —notwithstanding the difference of its content, is a pattern to Christians (Ro 4, Gal 3).

Such ‘faith is reckoned for (to amount to) righteousness’ ; this is, in fact, the normal attitude of the soul toward God, the disposition which alone makes a right understanding and right relations possible between man and God. While faith appears to supersede law, it is a principle Pde y just, and supplies the true guarantee for the establish- ment of Divine law in human life (Ro 3% *; ef. ii. 1 (d), above).

Christian faith has for its specific object the revelation of God’s e and righteous- ness in Christ, and for its primary result the re- mission of sins grounded on His expiatory death. While such faith sets the believer right with God, it unites him personally to the risen Christ. ‘Faith in Christ’ (sometimes ‘in Jesus,’ ‘in Jesus Christ’) attaches itself to the resurrec- tion along with the death of the Redeemer (Ro 42+.

25 932-4) (ρ His resurrection, in the first place, as making valid the justification wrought in His death, but further as the ground of an abiding spiritual union (unio mystica) with the living Lord. Christ's ascension completes His resurrection (Eph 119-23)... “having died in regard to sin once for all,’ He ‘lives to God,’—and we in Him (Ro 6); God ‘raised us up and seated us in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ (Ro 6%", Eph 2**), By virtue of this union one comes to be in Christ—St.

Paul’s normal designation for the Christian state. Under the ‘law of faith,’ we thus appropriate and assimilate Christ’s redemption ; what He has done for us is reproduced in us. We ‘coalesce with him (σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν) by the likeness of his death’ and rising, which are rehearsed symbolicaily in baptism, actually in the process of a sympathetic, self-committing faith (Ro 6°). ‘Thus the idea of substitution receives its complement in the mys- ticism of faith . .

and the idea of ‘‘one for all” receives the stricter meaning of “all in and with one”’ (Pfleiderer). St. Paul’s doctrine of life to God in the celestial Christ is the correlative to that of death to sin through the crucified Christ.

‘The change from death to resurrection brought to Him an accession of personal endowment that qualified Him to exert His influence as a principle of new life in man, and it meant also His investi- ture with supreme power as the Lord of human life and destiny’ (Somerville),—mpwréroxos ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων (Col 1%), While through faith in Christ’s death the working of sin is at each Point undone, in the place of what is thus destroyed there is built up, through fellow- ship with His life, the new man and the new world (Ro 5° 6&3, 1 Co 15%-*3), «ΤῸ the Christ within Paul attributed all that he did and experienced as aChristian man.

. It wasas if the very person- ality of Christ had entered into the apostle, and used him as the organ of its expression’ (Somerville) ; such is the δύναμις τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ, making Him a πνεῦμα Sworolow to His race. St. Paul’s theory of morals comes under this head ; it is the ethics of the ‘life hid with Christ in God’ (Col 3).

If the cross is the main pillar of Paul’s theology, the objective fact on and around which its fabric is built, the consciousness of union with the living Christ is its subjective centre and the heart from which its movements proceed. See, further, art. FAITH. St. Paul’s doctrine of adoption (υἱοθεσία) supplies the mies Gn pet of two cardinal principles—the Fatherhood of God, and spiritual union with Christ.

The sonship of believers is matter of God’s eternal counsel, and was provided for ‘in Christ before the world’s foundation’ (Eph 15"). It is a statua PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE 725 —_—o——— SSS derived wholly through Christ, in which we par- take with the Son of God, and are conformed ‘in the spirit of our mind’ to Him who is God’s complete mage (Ro 8% ™, Eph 4%. % 52, Col 3°18 115. Ph 2°, Gal 4, ete.)

This resemblance of the many brethren to the Firstborn is at present spiritual, and therefore ‘hidden’; but we await, ong with ‘the creation’ which has shared our ς bondage of corruption,’ ‘the unveiling of the sons of God,’ ‘the redemption of our body,’ which will be recovered from the grave and in its turn ‘conformed to his body of glory’ (Ro 8'-, 1 Co 15*-7, Ph 3% 21, Eph 115, Col 35: ἢ.

Endowed with this hope, which is vital to their salvation (Ro 8%, 1 Co 15”), Christians are consciously ‘heirs of God and Christ’s fellow-heirs—if children, also heirs’ (Ro 8-17, Gal 45:1, See, further, art. ADOPTION. 4. Doctrine φ the Holy Spirit.—In the develop- ment of St. Paul’s Christology, or Christianit: proper, a further movement of thought is involved, —that embracing the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. (a) God Immanent.

—The thought of the Holy Spirit as the organ of the Divine in man is inwoven into the whole tissue of Paulinism. While the Son of God is the root and und of human relations to God, the Spirit is the living energy forming and sustaining those relations, the moral dynamic (ἐξ ὕψους δύναμις, Lk 24"; cf. 1 Th 1°, 1Co 24, Eph 3%). Christ is God manifest to us; the Holy Spirit is God working in us (e.g. Ro 154-16, 1 Co 12", Gal 5%).

He is the ‘gift’ imparted in God’s grace to each believer by way of witness to his neue (Ro 8! 18 Gal 4°), and supplying the inward substantial counterpart of this endowment—a new power corresponding to the new status (Ro 5° 83, Gal 33, Tit 3*7, etc.) The positive gift of the Spirit, equally with the negative gift of remission of sins, is procured through the death of Christ. Paul’s conception of ‘the Spirit,’ like that of ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son,’ was drawn from the teaching of Jesus.

The OT ‘Spirit (breath) of God’ is the Divine influence touching man’s in- visible spirit, which is kindred to and was created by it. In the doctrine of Jesus the Holy Spirit assumes the distinctness of a personal being, and the Reamansnre of a fixed indwelling in man. The Spirit is associated with the person of Christ in such a way that He ‘rests upon’ Him, is concentrated in Him, given forth by Him, and becomes the element of life-communion with Him. These ideas supply the staple of St.

Paul’s doctrine pen this mabe They are found mainly in the ourth Gospel, whose tradition St. John did not confine within his breast until that work was published (see Knowling’s Witness of the Epp., pp. 329-347, which summarizes the full examina- tion of this question made by P. Ewald in his Hauptproblem der Evangelien; also Matheson’s ‘Historical Christ of St. Paul,’ in Hapositor, τι. i. 193-199, ii. 137-143).

On the one side, the Spirit is the organ of com- munication from God through the exalted Christ, whether in the way of knowledge or aes (Ro δ᾽ 816 15, 1 Co 2116 Gal 46 Ph 1}, 1Th 1°, 1 Ti 4}, 2 Ti 1’); on the other side, He prompts the heart’s movements towards God and its activities for God (Ro 810% 27 19, 1 Co 127-4, Eph 9.8.5 1 Th 5”, Tit 3°). Above all, He gives the witness of sonship, with its privilege of access to the Father (Ro 8'*16, Eph 2!

8); and He is the element which identifies us with Christ and constitutes us ‘mem- bers of his body’ (Ro 8"7, Gal 46 1,1 Co 6”, Eph 3'-9), He is thus the ‘Spirit of Christ,’ as ‘of God.’ The body and spirit of man are His temple —the spirit already redeemed from death by His power, the body ultimately to be so (Ro 8"), All the experiences and virtues of the new life are accordingly His ‘fruit’ (Gal 5%).

The glorified Christ acts on men so entirely through the Spirit and the Holy Spirit so perfectly imparts Christ's influence and makes Him present, that the two are practically identified: ‘The Lord is the Spirit’ (2 Co oe 18); Christ is, at the same time, ‘ Lord of the Spirit’ (this seems the fitter rendering of κυρίον πνεύματος), since He rules in that realm which the Spirit fills. (See Somerville, as above, pp. 116-118, who, however, presses the identification too far).

Amongst the oflices of the Spirit, the following are conspicuous in Pauline teaching :— (6) The Spiritual Man.—The Holy Spirit is the sanctifier—being holy, He makes holy. Sanctifica- tion accompanies justification (1 Co 6" 7: cf. li. 3 (δ), last par.) St. Paul counts all his readers ‘saints,’ however faulty saints (e.g. 1 Co 1"). The children of God, those who possess Christ’s Spirit, are pro tanto holy persons, being claimed by God (κλητοὶ ἅγιοι) and ersonally devoted to God.

But sanctification, unlike justification, is progressive and variable. While complete in principle and tendency (and possible realization) from the first, in practice it admits of degrees, and is advancing in the most obedient (els ἁγιασμόν, Ro 6"). For saints the apostle prays, ‘Sanctify them unto full pence ? (1 Th 5%).

Growth in holiness is the ruit of the Spirit’s inner working ; to live a holy life is to be κατὰ πνεῦμα and to ‘walk πνεύματι" (Ro 8, Gal 5'), The residence of the Holy Spirit in man is a powerful motive to holiness, while it is the means to its attainment (1 Th 45:5, 1 Co 6"), Sanctification is not ethical purity, but connotes and requires this ; and the Spirit of God is the purifier of heart and conduct (1 Co 6", Ro 8%, Gal 5%, ete.) This office of the Spirit comes under St.

Paul’s favourite antithesis of ‘flesh and spirit.’ The Christian ethical life is at once the ascendency of spirit over flesh in the man, and the possession and assimilation of the man by the Spirit.

In many Pauline pores the individual and universal spirit are blended; ‘the spiritual man’ (ὁ πνευματικός, ὁ κατὰ πνεῦμα) is he in whom, through the operation of the Spirit of God upon his nature, spirit (not flesh, nor even mere ‘soul’ —the individual selfhood) holds sway and deter- mines character and bent (Ro 8**, 1 Co 9:5 15. While the Holy Spirit brings the soul into har- mony with God, He establishes order and health, true life, in the constitution of the man (Ro 85).

(c) The Communion of the Spirit.—Peace is the Spirit’s fruit ; the life of love in the Chureh is His creation. The Holy Spirit is the unifier. As the element which binds believers to Christ, He binds them to each other in Christ. ‘There is one body’ because, and so far as, ‘ there is one Spirit’ ; all ‘were baptized in one Spirit into one y, all were made to drink of one Spirit’ (1 Co 12%, Eph 4).

‘Communion’ is His note in the Trinitarian benediction of 2 Co 13"; the grace of Christ, and the love of the Father, are translated into /fel/ow- ship when subjectively realized by the indwelling of the Spirit,—who is God immanent in the in- dividual man, and in the community. (d) The Earnest of the Inheritance.—The in dwelling Holy Spirit is tie guarantor of final salvation. God gave the earnest (ἀρραβών) of the Spirit in our hearts’ (2 Co 153 δ᾽, Eph 1}...

‘the firstfruit’ (ἀπαρχή, Ro 8*), since the life eternal will be of the same nature as the hidden life of the Spirit already experienced by the child of God.

His presence is the pledge of God's pur- wholly to sanctify the abode where He thus walle and of His ulterior purpose to recreate our physical and mortal frame as ‘a spiritual body’ conformed to that of Christ, and so to perfect the redeemed in the integrity of their nature as the image and habitation of God (Ro 8**, Epb PAUL THE APOSTLE 726 49") Till then salvation is incomplete: our redemption is exposed to hazard ; our sonship re- mains half realized (Ro 85).

The Holy Spirit is the ‘seal’ of the future, as He is the witness of the past and the energy of our present life in God—a seal broken by relapse into sin (Eph 4”, 2Co 13). See, further, art. HOLY SPIRIT. 5. Doctrine of the Church.—The Church is the witness and counterpart of the Spirit of God on earth (1 Co 317 129, Eph 2”); it is the specific organ for the continu manifestation of God through Christ to the world (1 Th 15,1 Co 193. 5, 2 Co 8", Eph 851, Ph 2158. 1 Ti 315).

see (a) The Body of Christ.—As the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ amongst men, the Church is, correspondingly, His body. It is constituted by the common presence of the Spirit in many souls, and is animated by His power (Eph 2 4* 4, 1 Co 12%), It is ‘the church’ (OT ‘congregation ’)—or ‘churches’ in 1 Th 2 and 2 Th 1‘—‘ of God,’ and, as consisting of His children, the ‘ house,’ also the ‘habitation, of God,’ tenanted by.

His Spirit, —‘a holy temple in the Lord’ (Ac 20%, Eph 2, 1) Ti 3% 2, 1 Co 3'- 17). Paul’s idea of the ecclesia grew with the growth of his work (see Hort, Hcc?. 107 ff.) In 1 and 2 Th the word denotes the local ‘assem- bly,’ or ‘ assemblies,’ of believers— ‘the Church of Thessalonians in God,’ ete. ; the readers of 1 and 2 Co are ‘the Church of God that is in Corinth’— the one Christian society existing in many places.

In the letters of the third group the conception of the Church Universal, as the spiritual union of all who ‘hold the Head,’ is completely formed. In Col and Eph the fuller doctrine of the Church and of the Person of Christ are unfolded pari passu. The Chureh is the body of which He is Head (Eph 1™ 5%, Col 1 2"), new significance thus accruing to the figure previously employed in 1 Co 12.

The body is the organic complement of the Head, supplying Him with limbs and instru- ments, while the ead gives to it unity, impulse, and direction. The reciprocal duties of the two, and the fundamental nature of their union, are shown in the analogy of Eph 5°“. The Church is the bride of Christ, who ‘loved her and gave himself up for her,’ who labours to ‘present her to himself’ at last in perfect spiritual beauty. The Church is not a temporal institution sub- serving mere present necessities.

The collective fellowship of believers with their Head will subsist eternally ; and in Eph 3* ‘the Church and Christ Jesus’—Bride and Bridegroom—are seen together rendering praise to God, ‘ unto all generations of the age of the ages’ (cf. Mt 1618, Rev 21. 22). (δ) The Brotherhood.—T he first note of the Church is brother-love (φιλαδελφία, 1 Th 4%!2, Ro 129-19, ete.) Brethren is the name by which Paul oftenest speaks to and of his fellow-believers,—or beloved.

The compellation ‘ brothers,’ of Jewish kinship, is = ah ered by the larger household of faith. In the family of , Love is to have its home and hearth, from which its influence radiates to those without (1 Th 5", Gal δ᾽ 6!°, Ro 12!2-2), Since it is God’s love and grace in Christ that call forth our faith, faith in turn ‘ works through love’ ; all its activities pass along this channel and take this colour (Gal 5°). The Church ‘builds up itself in love’ (Eph 415.

No faith, no gift or power or qualification of any kind, avails without love,— which finds in the brethren its chief object, in Christ its pattern, and in the Holy Spirit its sus- taining power. Loveis greater than faith or hope, as the Divine surpasses the human and auxiliary, as the fruit the seed (1 Co 13). In all this Paul shows himself the ne of Jesus. The ‘good works’ of the Pastoral Epp. are definite forins of ‘the work of faith and toil of ove’ commended in 1 Th,—e.g.

the care of the PAUL THE APOSTLE widows and the poor, and hospitality to strangers ; the Church charities regulated in the latest Epp. flow from the brotherly love conspicuous in the earliest. (c) The Charismata.—The Pauline Churches— eminently that of Corinth—were endowed by the Spirit with a rich variety of gifts for edification (χαρίσματα). All social talents, natural or super- natural, from apostleship down to the washing of feet, the apostle regards from this practical stand- point.

Everything must subserve the building u of the Church after the measure of Christ (Eph 47:15, 1 Co 1274 14, 2 Co 137°). Hence ‘prophecy’ is rated amongst ‘the greater charisms,’ while the ift of ‘tongues,’ though more admired, is really inferior.

‘The word of wisdom’ and of ‘know- ledge’ mark the ordinary ‘teachers’ (in Eph 44 associated with the ‘ pastors’), in distinction from the prophets and speakers with tongues, whose utterances come by an incalculable inspiration, and may need restraint where such gifts are widely dis- tributed (1 Co 14”-“), The earliest Church meet- ings, as described in 1 Co, were little bound by any stated order, those present praying, prophesying, singing, teaching in turn as the Spirit prompted utterance.

But this unchartered freedom bred disorder ; it was only possible in the first sim- plicity of Christian fervour: Paul writes expressly to chasten it, intending to take measures to this effect (114); he declares that, along with the other charisms, ‘God appointed in the Church governments’ (1238), In the interests of edification Church proceedings were gradually reduced to rule and precedent ; by the time of the Pastoral Epp.

signs appear of a fixed gradation of office and an established usage in Divine service. It is assumed, by way of fundamental principle, in Ro 12. 8 and ph 4'6, that the Church is, under Christ, self- roverning and self-edifying, that the manifold unctions of administration and instruction exer- cised in it belong to and exist for the body as a whole, however Todgred in this member or that; the body, as such, must press the powers of every limb into its service. (d) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

—The apostle refers to the two sacraments incidentally, and without bringing them into connexion with each other, unless it be by allusion in 1 Co 104. Their established observance is assumed, in accordance with the story of their institution, — expressly related for the Lord’s Supper in 1 Co 11%, where there is no need to suppose that ‘received from (ἀπό) the Lord’ signifies more than tradition from the fountain-head.

These rites mark respectively the believer’s entrance upon, and continuance in, the Christian life. They signalize, each of them, his relation to the Church as well as to Christ Himself, to the body with the Head (1 Co 124 10”). The ‘one baptism’ is a visible token of the ‘one Lord’ and the ‘one faith’ (Eph 4°); the ‘one loaf’ of which ‘we all partake,’ pictures the ‘one body’ to which ‘the many’ belong.

The ‘blessing’ and ‘thanksgiving’ pronounced over the elements at the Lord’s Table (1 Co 1016 11%) impress their character on the whole rite, which is analogous to the post-sacrificial feasts of ancient religion (10!""-), being a symbolic act of grateful and Joyal communion with men in the supreme gifts of God.

These ordinances are no arbitrary signs of Chris- tian faith and fellowship, having a value conferred by the bare fact of their appointment; they are parables of the spiritual acts which they accom. pany.

Baptism, in its most complete and pic turesque form of immersion, is strikingly eanlied in Ro 6‘ to set forth a Christian conversion : as the baptized sinks into the water, remains there for @ moment, and emerges a new man, he re- PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE 727 hearses the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus —he dies to sin, is severed from the past, and rises to live with Christ unto God. St.

Paul’s argument PERE that baptism is the expression on the candidate’s part, and the recognition on the Church’s part, of the faith that alone joins the soul to Christ; its eflicacy lies in the uttered ‘word’ of faith attending the ceremonial act (Eph 5%, ἐν ῥήματι ; cf. Ro 10%"). A like interpretation of the Lord’s Supper is indicated in 1 Co 10 and 11.

The bread and the cup represent ‘the body and the blood of the Lord’ (11%), so that he who desecrates the former outrages the latter; while the sharing of each in the same cup and loaf exhibits the ‘ fellowship’ of Christians in the incarnate and crucified Redeemer (1016: 17), whose ‘death’ is thus evermore ‘proclaimed’ and kept in remembrance (11-*), Such public representations are, in the nature of the case, binding professions of faith, covenant transactions (see 1Co 10!

-*, and the pales there adduced). The expression ‘seal of aith,’ which Paul Spplies to Abraham’s sacra- ment in Ro 4", is equally appropriate to the new ordinances. The person by whom the rite is administered (1 Co 13:17), matters but little ; every- thing depends upon (a) the institution of Christ, and (δ) the intention and spirit of those engaged, the faith and fellowship by which they are actu- ated.

Notas matters of official prerogative, but of stated communion between Christ and His people, did Paul exalt the sacraments. See, fur- ther, arts. BAPTISM, LORD’s SUPPER, SACRAMENT. (e) Church Organization.—In respect to Church order and organization there is a contrast between the first and last Epp., so extreme that it raises grave difficulties in regard to the authenticity of the latter. 1 ΤΊ and Tit are devoted to matters which occupy only a line in 1 Th.

In the fifteen years’ interval a great development had taken lace. On the first missionary tour in S. Galatia, aul and Barnabas ‘appointed elders in every chureh’ (Ac 14%), resembling in their functions, mutatis mutandis, the elders of Jewish communi- ties. A like office probably belonged to ‘those who preside’ in the Thessalonian Church (1 Th 5"; cf. 1 Ti 5”).

In the letters to Corinth we have no traces of local Church office; from the silence of 1 Co 5 on this point, and from the scenes indicated in ch. 14, we may infer that official elders did not as yet preside here: ‘helps, governments’ —corresponding to deacons and bishops—are re- ferred to in the abstract (12%; otherwise in Ro 127-8) ; ch 11“ intimates better regulation to come.

In the salutation of Philippians, four years later, the ‘ bishops and deacons’ are distinctly addressed, and these two orders figure conspicuously in the Pastorals—the former as directing, the latter as assistant officers. The apostle is anxious about the character and true piety of these ministers, wishing to fence out from office unworthy candi- dates. The term ‘bishop’ in Tit 1 is synonymous with ‘elder’ (Lgtft. Christian Ministry; but ef. Hort, Eccl.

212), and is now preferred by Paul as it denotes the work of the office (1 Ti 3'), while ‘elder’ suggests status and dignity. ‘Bishop’ (ἐπίσκοπος, overseer, superintendent) appears first in Ac 9035. ®, where Paul tells the Ephesian ‘elders’ that ‘the Holy Spirit made’ them ‘ bishops, to shepherd the Church’ (cf. Eph 4", ‘shepherds and teachers’ ; also 1 P 2% 5'*), It is not unlikely that Paul then introduced the term and gave it vogue.

Hatch (Organization of the Early Christian Churches) traced the e ssa to a Greek, as the presby- terate to a Tews origin ; he supposed that these were distinct institutions amalgamated in post- apostolic times—a theory, in its extreme form contrary to Ac and 1 P as well as to the Pastora Epistles.

The charities of the Church and the main- tenance of its ministry (1 Co 97-4, Gal 6*) required business management (bishops and deacons are alike to be μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, 1 Ti 35:5); Hatch de- rived the title ἐπίσκοπος from this financial charge (but see Cremer’s Bib.-Theol. Lexicon, s.v., and Kiihl’s Gemeindeordnung, p. 87 11.}, whereas Ac 20 and 1 P make the bishop emphatically a pastor.

The elders are encouraged to take a leading part ‘in word and teaching’ (1 Ti 5'7); some of them, it ehpenty, did not teach, and any competent member of the Church might speak his word of exhortation. By the date of 1 Ti δ᾽, the older ‘widows’ were ‘enrolled’ for Church maintenance and service, being included probably amongst the deaconesses, of whose existence at this early time Ro 16'? affords the only, but sufticient, evidence. See, further, artt.

on Bishop, ELDER, and DEACON ; also, generally, on CHURCH and CHURCH GOVERN- MENT. ‘The data furnished by the Ac and Epp. for the reconstruction of the forms of apostolic Church life and worship are comparatively slight, and open to conflicting interpretations. It is possible that the organization of the first Chris- tian communities was more definite, and borrowed more freely from contemporary social institutions and usages than is shown by the incidental refer- ences of our documents.

Two important distinctions in Church service are to be observed: (1) between the clerical and the charismatic ministry—the ministry of official status and of personal gift, the former in some degree presuming the latter, but the latter not of necessity carrying with it the former ; (2) between the local, congregational ministry and the itinerant, missionary ministry—the bishops and deacons, elected in the single community for its service, belonging to the former ; to the latter, the apostles and evangelists (Eph 4", 2 Ti 4°, Ac 215).

Pro- phets and teachers, such as Agabus and Apollos, might labour in a single community or travel from Church to Church, their gift not of itself carrying with it local rule. Timothy is ‘an evangelist’; to this work he was ordained by the hands of Pa and the local eldership at his setting out (1 Ti 4%, 2Ti 15). St.

Paul’s other companions, presumably, held the like travelling commission ; other powers were conferred on them ad hoc, as in the case of Titus when Paul’s delegate in Corinth or Crete. As ‘a called apostle of Christ Jesus,’ an equal of the original Twelve, Paul claims the highest pre- rogatives under the Lord Himself: he is ‘ father’ of his Churches, ‘ master-builder’ in the fabric of Divine revelation, ‘ teacher of nations in faith and truth’ (1 Co 3!

41ώ1 1 Ti 27, Ro 15 6 15'*, Eph 37-4), The gospel of God he may therefore call ‘my gospel,’ since its dispensation was committed to ΣΙ directly from the Lord.

He does ποῖ expect this claim to be admitted without ike but points to ‘the signs of the apostle’ visible in him, to the multitude of believers who were his living ‘ letters of commendation,’ to the command- ing inspiration of his word, to ‘the grace given’ to him and acknowledged by the Church leaders at Jerusalem (2 Co 12% 13% 3', 1 Co 14”, Eph 3, Gal 2’), Yet he writes in the plural of the ‘ministers of Christ and stewards of God's mys- teries,’ including his fellow evangelists (1 Co # 2 Co 1.

8. 19) with himself.

And ‘the fair deposit of his inspired word he commits, through those who received it at his mouth, to the ‘faithful men’ whom they should choose, to the Church which is the ‘ pillar and stay of the truth,’ above all to the Lord who first gave the trust (1 Ti 1’* 3" 6”, 2 Ti 113-4 22), In questions of doctrine, Paul claims complete and incontestable authority ; in matters of discipline, even the gravest, he requires the free concurrence of the Church concerned (1 Co 5, 2 Co 2, 2 Th 85}.

728 PAUL THE APOSTLE Cf. further, for all the subjects discussed in this (5) section, the art. CHURCH. 6. Doctrine of the Kingdom of God.—The Jewish idea of the kingdom of God (the perfect Divine rule on earth to be established by the Messiah), which was adopted and spiritualized by Jesus, lies at the basis of the Pauline system. St.

Paul’s ‘kingdom of God and of Christ’ (known as Christ’s from His exaltation onwards: Eph 1°, Ph 2°) transcends all national, and even earthly bounds ; its glory fills the horizon of faith, which stretches indefinitely beyond death and the limits of sense. The apostle’s doctrine of the Last Things comes under this conception, which is both his alpha and omega.

As missionary of Christ, Pav] ‘went along heralding the kingdom’ (Ac 20” 19% 28%); his hope in dyi g is that ‘the Lord will bring me safe into his learent kingdom’ (2 Ti 418), When a Pharisee, he had sought legal righteousness not to ensure his personal salvation so much as to bring about for Israel’s sake, and for God’s glory, the Messiah’s promised kingdom (Ac 267 etc.) This goal the Christian apostle still pursues, see- ing it in larger proportions and with a brighter certainty.

The Church never displaced the King- dom in Paulinism (see ὁ g. 1 Th 2"). These are cor- related, and not equivalent or rival terms. One with its Head, the Church is the centre and mistress of the Kingdom; she furnishes it with citizens and dignitaries (1 Co 67). But the Kingdom embraces all orders of being (angels e.g., the mightiest of them, no less than men, Col 2), the entire system of things as subject to our Redeemer’s sway (Eph 1.5.

Col 1, 1 Co 15%, Ph 2°12), As to tne seat of its power, the kingdom of the Lord Christ is inward and spiritual. It is con- cerned essentially with ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (Ro 147-18, Co] 216: 20_ 3. 15, Ph 47), Its ways of rule are wholly opposite to those associated with the Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα of Judaism, to the external methods and perishing glory of the Mosaic covenant.

From this interior world of the spirit, through the sanctified body, all outward activity is to be dominated, and thus con- formed to ‘the Ἔσο and well-pleasing and perfect yl of God’ (Ro 12). See art. on Scrvanon OF OD, (a) The Divine Sovereignty.—The doctrine of the Kingdom rests on the presupposition of the absolute sovereignty of God (see ii.

1, above)—‘ the Creator,’ ‘the blessed and only Potentate, King of those that reign and Lord of those that have lordship,’ ‘ the only God’ (1 Ti 1}7 615. 18, Ro 155), There isno appeal against His judgments fog. in the reprobation of Israel), no arresting of His decrees: ‘whom he will he compassionates, whom he will he hardens’ (Ro gi), Faith adores this Potentate as ‘God our Father’; despite poems ‘there is no unrighteousness with God.’ St.

Paul chiefly con- templates the Divine sovereignty in the aspect of wisdom (Ro 11% 16%). God’s foreknowledge, joined with His love, laid down the πρόθεσις τῶν αἰώνων, the plan unfolded in the successive periods of human history (Eph 3", Ro 8%, 2 Ti 1).

This ad a of the ages, centring in the mission of hrist, is executed by Him ‘who worketh all things after the counsel of his will’ (Eph 1", 1 Co 12%), Asa counsel of e, the purpose is called ‘the ‘ood pleasure (εὐδοκία) of his will’; hidden until Christ’s coming, it was ‘the mystery of his will’ (Eph 159 3%, Ro 16%).

As an orderly disposing of men and things directed towards an all-wise end, the counsel of grace becomes the “ dispensation (οἰκονομία) of God’ (Eph 1"°3%, 1 Ti 1); in pursuance of this counsel, a special ‘ dispen- sation (or stewardship) of the grace of God’ is committed to each of His ministers (1 Co 917, Eph 83, Col 1*)—notably to St.

Paul himself— PAUL THE APOSTLE its conditions, with those of every bestowment of grace, being determined by God’s sovereign good pleasure in the interests of His kingdom (Ro 1’, Eph 247 321), Creation and redemption are parts of one scheme, whose aim grows clearer as the ages pass ; Christ is the point of unity to the mighty movement (Col 15-3, Eph 193), ‘In the Christ all things’ must be ‘summed up.

’ The ‘call’ of God, both gracious and authorita- tive—conveyed generally in the message of the gospel, or particularly in_ some specific appoint- ment—swmmons men to His service: the ‘ called saint’ or ‘called apostle’ (Ro 1} δ, 1 Co 1?) is alike the subject of a Divine vocation. Such calling springs from an antecedent ‘choice’ (election or selection, ἐκλογή), in which God’s wise foreknow- ledge and gracious sovereignty are manifest (Ro 838. 29. 88. 011 115, } Th 14, 2 Th 915.

44), The election of believers Paul refers (Ro 835 39, Eph 1‘) to God’s eternal counsel in Christ, since the future is known to Him as the present, and His will attends His knowledge: ‘whom he foreknew, he did also foreordain.’ ‘Called’ and ‘elect’ are synonymous expressions (1 Co 1%-*7)—not distinguished as in Mt 2015, St. Paul’s doctrine of election is not so conceived as to negative freedom and the pre- rogative of faith.

By these God has sovereignly, and eternally, conditioned His dealings with men. See arts. on ELECTION and PREDESTINATION. (δ) The Enemies of God.—In St. Paul’s view of the kingdom of God its enemies are conspicuous. Chief amongst them is Satan (the Adversary), named in Eph and the Pastoral Epp.

‘the devil’ (calumniator); in 2 Co 616 « Beliar,’ as the patron of heathen impurity and the entagorat of Christ; also ‘the god of this age’ (2 Co 4%), ‘the ruler of the dominion of the air’ (Eph 2”), ‘the tempter’ (1 Th 3°), ‘the evil one’ (2 Th 3°, Eph 6:6). Satanic powers, the Christian’s most formidable enemies, are described in the plural in Eph 6” as ‘the principalities, the dominions, the world-rulers of this darkness, the spiritual (forces) of wickedness.

’ In heathenism these malignant forces have full sway; ‘demons’ are ractically worshipped under the forms of the idols (1 Co 10'*!), The lawlessness, uncleanness, and moral darkness there prevailing constitute Satan’s empire, which assumes the character of an organized dominion —a ‘kingdom of darkness’ opposed to ‘the kingdom of the Son of God’s love’ (Col 1185 comp. Jn 14® ete.

)—with a hierarchy of powers under εἰς direction of its chief, bearing titles parallel to those assigned to the ranks of God’s angels (Eph 1”, Col 146). (It seems likely that Paul borrowed these distinctions in angelic rank from popular speech, and employed them by way of argumentum ad hominem). Paul’s conviction of the existence of evil spirits is unmistakable, as was that of Jesus.

Satan first beguiled our race (2 Co 115—‘ the serpent’ ; 1 Ti 2-34), and is habitually ‘the tempter’ (1 Th 3°, 2 Ti 236), Paul’s ‘ thorn in the flesh’ was ‘a messenger of Satan,’ since it hindered his work and provoked him to discontent (2 Co 127, Gal 444, 1 Th 918). Physical maladies and death are, in some sense, under Satan’s jurisdiction ; he is used as executor in Divine judgments of this nature, which may turn notwithstanding to the salvation of the sufferer (1 Co 5, 1 ΤΊ 139: comp.

He 2,1 P 4). The reign of death (Ro 5'**}) is coextensive with the rule of ‘the god of this world’; only when ‘death, the last enemy, is abolished,’ shall God’s kingdom be consummated (1 Co 15-35. δ), St. Paul anticipates a last deadly struggle in human history between these opposing realms. ‘The mystery of lawlessness,’ working previously under restraint, will be allowed one day a full manifestation (cf.

Ro 7%); and ‘the lawless one,’ Satan’s perfect embodiment (apparently, a PAUL THE APOSTLE PAUL THE APOSTLE 725 elf deltvats autocrat of universal power), ‘shall be revealed, whom the Lord shall destroy’ by His coming (2 ΤῊ 2°"), Nowhere more decidedly than in this field of thought does Paul show himself the child of Judaism. See, further, art. MAN OF SIN. (c) The Consummation. —The Divine kingdom embraces in its scope present mundane affairs; the ‘ powers that be are ordained of God,’ e.g.

those of Rome though heathen and corrupt ; the magistrate is ‘God’s servant to thee for good,’ enforcing His laws in the civil state (Ro 13'7)._ Throughout the perishing ‘fashion of this world’ Paul recognizes the will of Him ‘of whom and for whom are all things,’—the demands of duty, the exercise of conscience ; a realm where, despite ‘the god of this world,’ the true God leaves Himself at no point without witness or without authority.

But the Kingdom belongs in its proper manifes- tation and glory to the future. In ‘this present evil world’ it is hidden and thwarted, realized at best only ‘in part’ and with ‘groanings’; its bestowments are no more than an earnest and firstfruit, the experience of a babe, in comparison of ‘the plory that shall be revealed to us-ward’ (Ro 8, 1 Co 13%, 2 Co 4:6-δὅ). It is ‘through much tribulation’ that we shall reach the goal and ‘enter into the kingdom of God.

’ Hope, there- fore, plays a leading part in St. Paul’s teaching, by the side of faith and love. The certainty of ¢. consummation of the kingdom of God crowns his theology, and determines it throughout as the end determines the way. The aims of Paul’s life, as of the whole NT teaching, courte upon ‘the kingdom and glory’ yet to come.

The following chief points may be noted in the apostle’s doctrine of the Last Things :— (a) The moral perfection of each believer, and the collective paren of the Church, are the ends of the apostle’s ministry as of Christ’s own sacrifice (Col 12-2 27-8, Eph 5°77, Tit 37, 1Th 219. 20 312. 13 523 Ph 2156.

18) his inner glory and true wealth of God’s kingdom, now being acquired (2 Co 318, Ro 8”, 9%), shall shine forth at ‘the un- veiling of the sons of God,’ when state shall corre- spond to character and the ‘spiritual body’ to the worth and needs of the informing spirit. On the other hand, it is well known that ‘the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Co 6" ete.) Their ‘end shall be according to their works’ (Ro 2) 5.00 1115, 2 Ti 412).

(8) The resurrection of the body is ey to the realization of the life of the spirit. St. Paul knows nothing of Hellenic or Oriental dualism. The body is not the detachable envelope, but the roper organ of the spirit. Its existing form of Gee and blood perishes, but only to be reconstituted in fitter fashion. It is true that in 1 Co 15" ete.

Paul thinks only of of τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; but if the wicked exist in the world to come, they too must have an appropriate bodily form ; there is nothing in the Epp. inconsistent with the statement of Ac 24% ‘that there shall be a resurrection both of just and unjust’ (cf. Jn 5%). In the risen Christ Paul sees ‘ the firstfruit of them that have fallen asleep’ ; the certainty and the kind of the harvest are evi- denced by this first ripened sheaf (1 Co 15”).

The fact that ‘Jesus died and rose again’ assures our faith that the Christian dead shall return, with Him (1 Th 4% 4), The saints found alive at the παρουσία shall be transformed, the natural body giving place to the spiritual, and ‘the mortal’ in them being ‘swallowed up of life’ (1 Co 15%, 2 Co δ᾽"). (y) On the intermediate state Paul has no reve- lation. ‘Sleep,’ Jesus’ name for death, oo a comparative quiescence (cf. Rev 14"), yet without unconsciousness or torpor.

The apostle expects ‘to depart and be with Christ, which is very far better,’ —in some communion nearer than the earthly ; hence ‘to die is gain’ (Ph 1“, 2Co5*8; cf. Lk 23%), In his earliest Epp., up to 1 Co, the interval before the Parousia appears inconsiderable (‘the time is short,’ 1 Co 7”); Paul includes himself with those alive at the Lord’s return (1 Th 47).

Afterwards the Advent receded in his view; when writing 2 Co, he anticipated a martyr’s death and was ‘ bearing about the dying of the Lord Jesus’ (47-8). This ex- perience effected ‘a marked change in the Pauline eschatology’ (Sabatier, Ap. Paul, on 2 Co 4. 5); St.

Paul’s earlier, half-Judaistic idea of a visible advent, a universal resurrection of the sleeping dead and a great judgment-scene, gave pluce, it is said, to the more spiritual theory of the soul’s entrance through death into its perfected heavenly state and full communion with Christ. Similarly, Beyschlag (NT Theology, ii. pp. 268-272); and, with limitations, Kabisch (Lschatologie εἰ.

Paulus, 296- 305); Pfleiderer thinks that the apostle held in his mind the two conceptions, Judaic and Hellen- istic, unassimilated (Paulinismus*, pp. 274-289). This interpretation is incorrectly Gained from 2 Co 5 (see ee and Klépper, ad loc.; Weiss, NT Theol. § 96d). The FEN says (5') that ‘if the earthly tabernacle should be dissolved, we have an eternal house in the heavens,’—not that we enter it at once, but it belongs to us (as συνκλη- νόμοι Χριστοῦ) and awaits us.

He sighs for this eavenly house; without stripping off the present body, he longs to ‘put on over it’ (ἐπενδύσασθαι) the other,—were it only possible for him to be found ‘not naked’ (bodiless), but still in the flesh at the Lord’s coming (vv.7*). Though weary of the earthly tabernacle, Paul’s Jewish imagination shuddered at the naked, houseless estate of the dead.

But he has gathered a great comfort which dispels the dread af dissolution ; he is now ‘ well- eet to leave home in departing from the body,’ or he will be ‘at home with the Lord’ (vv.*). ‘The dead in Christ’ are His guests in Paradise (1 Th 4% 18; of, Lk 23%, 2Co 19). Thus the sense of indissoluble union with Christ delivered the apostle from the pangs of Sheol, which came upon him in the interval between 1 and 2 Co (2 Co 1" δ", 1 Th 5”, Col 1% 3'; see p. 711").

The Advent and Judgment were as necessary to the consummation of the kingdom of God, in St. Paul’s belief, after he wrote 2 Co as before (see 5! Ὁ}, also Col 3). The chiliastic doctrine of a twofold resurrection has no support from Paul; when he writes (1 Th 415) ‘thed in Christ shall rise first,’ that means not, before the other dead rise, but before ‘the living’ are ‘caught up’ tojoin them. In 2 Co 5! bad and ood appear side by side at Christ’s tribunal, as in is 17-*!

and in the scene of Mt 25", There is no reason to think that the apostle departed from the doctrine of his Master concerning the general resurrection and universal judgment. (5) The second coming of the Lord Jesus closes the horizon of St. Paul’s Christian thought, and ushers in the end of all things. The Advent shines vividly in the first three and last three of his Epistles.

The παρουσία of 1 and 2 Th and 1 Co becomes the ἐπιφάνεια of the Pastorals (also 2 Th 2*)—a glorious Divine manifestation, such as, indeed, the first coming was in its kind (Tit 2", 2 Ti 1).

This expectation rested on the a ag promise of Jesus, and on the prophecies of the Messianic salvation and ‘the da a the Lord’ as yet unfulfilled (Ac 178, Ro 2515, 1 Th 5, 2Th 2, 1Co 15), but especially upon the sense of the glory due to Christ Himself (Ph 2"), The Parousia is ‘the mani- festation of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus’; therefore it is ‘the blessed hope’ (Tit 24, 2Th 2"), The great day of the Lord, the goal of prophecy, becomes ‘the day of PAUL THE APOSTLE Christ.

’ His resurrection began, the triumphal advent of the Lord Jesus shall complete, His vin- dieation. He will descend from heaven in a visible ‘body of glory’ (1 Th 1”, Ph 3% 7), surrounded by angels, and ‘in fire of flame’ terrible and fatal to His enemies (2 Th 17-* 2°, 1 Th 416,1 Co 15%).

At His word, uttered by the archangel’s trumpet, the dead rise, the living saints are transformed and lifted from the earth; all assemble before Him for judgment, and with body and spirit reunited ‘each shall receive the things done in the body, whether good or bad,’ ‘reaping corruption’ or ‘life eternal’ according as he sowed to flesh or spirit (2 Co 5", Gal 67°). So ‘we shall all be mani- fested’—‘the day shall disclose each man’s work, the fire shall test’ its worth (1 Co 3, Ro 2°").

It might seem—indeed it has been asserted— that Paul thus reverts at the end to the principle of salvation by works which he overthrew at the beginning. But, as we have seen (ii. 3 (c)), the faith that justifies, operating through love, is the spring of all worthy living, while ‘works of law,’ wrought under constraint and fear, are no ‘good works.’ Faith justifies the believer now; the ‘work of faith’ shall commend him then.

God, who sees the fruit in the germ and ‘calls the things that are not as things that are’ (Ro 4"), judges according to truth both first and last. The judgment-seat of Christ is the proximate ὍΔ] of revelation. There the final settlement of uman affairs takes place, the dénotiment of the drama of history,—of the successive dispensations of God’s righteousness and grace to mankind.

When death has been abolished and all Christ’s enemies, human or superhuman, have received sentence from His eimith: ‘then cometh the end’; He ‘yields up the kingdom to God, even to the Father’; and ‘the Son himself shall be subjected to him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all’ (1 Co 15-).

For the mission on which the Father sent forth His Son is then fulfilled: the Lordship of Jesus is acknowledged throughout creation (Ph 2"); Christ lays at the Father's feet the homage of a reconciled universe rendered to Himself, the love of a multitude of obedient sons made perfect in Himself, the praise and service of the Church of the redeemed united with Himself forever.

His own subjection as a Son to the Father displays the absolute one- ness of the Godhead, whose glory streams through all realms of being in unchecked and unbounded plenitude. Thus God the Father is eternally supreme, and ‘grace reigns through righteous- ness unto eternal life.’ See, further, under ESCHATOLOGY OF NT. Lrreraturs.—A. Tre Tres, etc.—O. Schéttgen, Hore Heb- raice et Talmudice in NT (1733); E. Schiirer, Geach. d. jid. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi’ (tr. trom 2nd ed.

: Jewish People in Vine of Jesus Christ, 6 vols.), the most complete introd. to the Times; A. Hausrath, NJ’ Zeitgeschichte2 (Time of the A lea, tr. from 2nd ed. of the above), brilliantly written; ἮΝ. M. Ramsay, The Ch. in the Rom. Empire’, indis- nsable for local and social conditions of Paul’s work; K. J. eumann, Der rém. Staat u. ἃ. allgem. Kirche, Band i; Mommsen, The Provinces of the Rom. Emp. (tr.); H. Ewald, Hist. of the People of Israel (tr.), vol. vi.

; f Weber, Jiidische Theologie auf Grund ἃ. Talmud, etc. ; L. Friedlinder, Darstel- lung aus d. Sittengesch. Roms ; G. Anrich, Das Mysterienwesen ἃ. antiken Welt; G. W. Lechler, Das apost. u. nachapost. Zeit- alter’ (tr.); Neander, Planting and Training of the Chr. Church (tr.); J. J. 1. von Déllinger, Heidenthum αἰ. Juden- thum (tr., Gentile and Jew, etc.), Christenthum u. Kirche in d. Zeiten ἃ. Grundlegung (tr., First Age of Christianity and the Church); W. L. Steinmeyer, Der Ap. Paulus u. d.

Juden- thum; A. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte: Prolegomena und Vor- aussetzungen (tr.), in Band i. B. Istropuctrion.—Of general NT Introductions, G. Salmon’s7 (conservative), 8. Davidson's’ (largely negative, and in some ints superseded, but full of matter ably handled), and B. Yeiss’ Manual of Intr. to NT (tr.), are most serviceable for Paul. H. J. Holtzmann’s$, Th. Zahn’s (rich in learning, power- fully defensive), and A.

Jiilicher’s Kinleitungen (the fi it brief and readable) present the latest findings of German criticism. F. Bleek’s Einleitung is re-edited by W. Mangold 4 (1886: the PAUL THE APOSTLE Eng. tr. from the orig. work). E. Reuss’ Hist. of the Sacred Ser. of the NT® (tr. 1584) is valuable in the relevant sections, also Ὁ. A. Briggs’ Study of Holy Ser.2_ Add to these the artt. on ‘Paul’ in Bneyel. Brit. (Εἰ Hatch), Herzog’s Real-Encykl. (W. Schmidt), Eneycd. d. Sciences Relig. (A.

Sabatier), Riehm’s H WB ΟΥ. Beyschlag). F. Godet ἘΠΕ an Introd. particuliére (Les Epp. de St. P.), tome i. of his Introd. au NT (tr.); also P. J. Gloag, Introd. to the Paul. Epp. ; G. G. Findlay, Epp. of the Ap. Paul: a Sketch of their Origin and Contents, C. Curonovogy.—Eusebius’ Chronicle ; Baus Ordo tem porum ; E. Burton, Chronology of St. Paul’s Epp.; Anger, de temporum in Actilus ratione; Wurm, in Τ δ. Zeitechr., 1 i.; Ὁ. Wieseler, Chronol. d. ap. Zeitalters (tr.); T.

Lewin, Fastt Sacri; Laurent, ΔΤ Studien; W. M. Ramsay in St. Paul the Traveller, etc. ; O. Clemen, Die Chronol, ἃ. paul. Briefe, A. Harnack, Chronol. d. altchr. Litteratur, 1“r Band, p. 233 ff. (Chronol. d. Paulus). D. Tue Text.—Besides the crit. edd. of the Gr. Test.—b: Tischendorf, Tregelles, Baljon, Nestle, and bax Westcott an Hort (ed. major)—B. Weiss’ Textkritik ἃ. paul. Briefe (1896) is noteworthy. ΚΕ. TRANSLATIONS of special value.—Besides the standard versions, the Interpretatio of Th.

Beza, and (recently) B. Weiss’ Die paul. Briefe im berichtigten Text, and the Epp. in O. Weizsicker’s Das neue Test. tibersetzt; also those of O. J. Ellicott, J. A. Beet, and H. C. G. Moule, in their Commentaries, and of the Handcommentar z. NT. F. Paut Hinsgir.—W orks of general scope.—John Chrysostom, Homilie in laudem 5. Pauli, Opera, vol. ii. ed. Montfaucon ; Hieronymus, de Viris illustribus, v. Of modern times, K. Schrader, Der Ap. Paulus; F.O. Baur, Paulus a J.C. (ed.1 1845; ed.

2 1866, tr. Paul, his Life and Works); A. Tholuck, Life and he of St. Paul (tr); A. Hausrath, Der Ap. Paulus; E. Renan, Saint Paul and Les A Krenkel, Paulus d. Ap. d. Heiden; O. E. Lu t, Der Ap. Paulus, ein Lebensbild ; W. J. Conybeare and J. 8. Howson, Life and Epp. of St. Paul (many edd.)—the foundation of historical and psychological study of Paul’s work in England; T. Lewin, Life and Epp. of St. Paul 5—unique in wealth of archwological material; F. W. Farrar, Life and Work of St.

Paul—brilliant and impressive, finely blends the life and teaching ; J. Stalker, Life of St. Pawl—briet and popular, but with a powerful Pp; J. Iverach, St. Paul, his Life and Times; Straatmann, Pardus de Ap. van Jezus Christus; W. O. van Manen, Paulus; S. Baring-Gould, A Study of St. Paul, his Character and Opinions; O. Cone, Paul: the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher; G. H. Gilbert, Student's Life of Paul; see also A. O. McGiffert’s Hist. of Christianity in the Apost. Age. G.

Specta Topics CONNECTED WITH THE LIFE OR CHARACTEE.— Paley, Hora Pauline ; Lyttelton, Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul; G. Menken, Blicke in d. Leben ἃ. Ap. P_; J. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Pauls; Howson, Character of St. P., Companions of St. P., Metaphors of St. P.; J. Weiss, Beitrage z. paul. Rhetorik; C. Holsten, ‘Die Christusvision ἃ. Paulus u. d. Genesis ἃ. paul. Evang.’ (in Zum Ev. ἃ. Paulus «ει, ἃ. Petrus); J. B. Lightfoot, St.

Paul and Seneca (Philippians), and other essays in Commentaries and Biblical Essays; G. Volkmar, Paulus von Damascus bis 2. Galaterbr. ; J. R. Oertel, Paulus in ἃ. Apostelgesch, ; M. Krenkel, Beitrdge z. Aufhellung ἃ. Gesch. u. ἃ. Briefe ἃ. Ap. Paulus? ; 6. Matheson, Spiritual Development of St. Paul; W. M. Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp. and St. Paul the Traveller; E. Ourtius, Paulus in Athen ; F. Spitta, ‘Die zweimal. rom. Gefangensch. d. P.,’in Urchristen- thum. Bd. i. ; R. Steinmetz, Die 2te rém.

Gefangensch. des Ap. P.; ©. Fouard, St. Paul and his Mission (tr.), S. Paul,... ses dern. Années; P. Seebdck, 5. Paulus ἃ. Heidenmissiondr ; W. Lock, Paul, the Master-builder; H. St. J. Thackeray, Rela- tion of St. Paul to Jewish contemporary thought. H. Tue Docrrixg (considered in general).—To the chief works enumerated under (ΕἾ add the following: L. Usteri, Entwickelung ἃ. paulin. rbegrifs8; A. Ἐς Daihne, under same title; A. Ritschl, Entstehung ἃ. altkath. Kirche?; E. Reuss, Hist. d.

la Théol. Chrét. au siecle apost., tome ii. (tr.); ipost. W. J. Irons, Christianity as a He by St. Paul; A. Sabatier, L’apétre Paul, une esquisse de Chist. de sa Pensée8 (tr. from 2nd ed.); O. Pfleiderer, Paulinismug? (tr. from 1st ed., which has independent value: the work is rewritten, not always for the better), Hibbert Lect. (1885), The Inj. of the Ap. Paul on the develop. of Christianity ; H. Opitz, Das System d. Paulus ; M. Arnold, St. Paul and Protestantism; J. F.

Clarke, Tha Ideas of the Ap. Paul translated into modern equivalents ; O. Holsten, Das Evangelium d. Paulus (Theil ii. posthumously added); A. B. Bruce, St. Pauls Conception oj Christianity ; G. B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology; O. Everett, The Gospel of Paul; D. Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ; J. Miiller, Das persiinl. Christenthum ἃ. paul. Gemeinden. Also the standard works of NT Biblical Theology: by O. F. Schmid (tr.), J. J. van Oosterzee (tr.: slight), B. Weiss (tr.), W.

Beyschlag (tr.), G. B. Stevens, and the account in C. Weizsacker’s A post. Zeitalter 2 (tr.) ; T. D. Bernard’s Progress of Doctr.in NT'3 gives an excellent sketch; A. Immer, Theol. des NT’; J. Bovon, Théo- logie du NT (‘L’Enseignement ἃ. Apétres’); H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch ἃ. NT Theologie ; W. F. Adeney, Theol. of the NT— a good outline; A. S. Peake in Guide to Biblical Study. R. J. Knowling, in his Witness of the Epp.

, examines their relation to the teaching of Jesus Christ (defending incidentally the authenticity of the Hauptbriefe). This subject has been investigated earlier by O. Thenius, Das Evangelium ohna Evangelien; H. Paret, Paulus u. Jesus; J. H. Huraut, Paul a-t-il connu le Christ historique? F. Roos, Die Briefe ἃ An PAULUS, SERGIUS PAVEMENT 73) the first time we are told (v.*) that the second name of Saul was Paul.

That name is used henceforth in the narrative, and from this time aol and not Barnabas seems to take the leading place. The Sergii were a Roman patrician gens (cf Verg. Aen. v. 121: ‘ Sergestusque dumus tenet a que Sergia nomen’); and Paulus was a coguomen in use in this and other gentes. There was a L. Sergius Paulus consul in A.D. 168, and another consul suffectus at some date unknown. In the Index of Authors to Pliny’s Natural History (bk.

i), a Sergius Paulus is twice mentioned as an authority for Books i. and xviii.; and in both, as Lightfoot shows, Pliny seems to give special information about Cyprus. The suggestion of identity is in- teresting, but of course very uncertain ; it accords with the fact that the proconsul has a magus, a man of science, in his train. That Sergius Paulus is rightly described as proconsul is undoubted. At the original distribution of the provinces Cyprus was under the emperor (B.C. 27), but in B.C.

22 it was transferred with Gallia Narbonensis to the senate, the emperor receiving Dalmatia in exchange (Dio Cassius, liii. 12, liv. 4). Ata later date under Hadrian it was again governed by a propretor and was imperial, probably owing to the Jewish insur- rection. Inscriptions, two dating from the years 51, 52 (CIS 2631, 2632), and coins of the Ist cent., clearly mention the island as governed by pro- consuls. Of these the most interesting is one dis- covered by Cesnola (Cyprus, p.

425), and accurately ublished by Hogarth (Devia Cypria, pp. 113, 115). t runs as follows: ‘Apollonius to his father... son of .. and his mother Artemidora, daughter of . . consecrated the enclosure and this monu- ment aeons to eke own (his parents) command, . . having filled the offices of clerk of the markets, prefect, town clerk, high priest, and having been in charge of the record office. Erected on the 25th of the month Demarchexusius in the year 13.

He also revised the senate by means of assessors in the time of the proconsul Paulus.’ The date of the inscription is probably A.D. 55, and the re- vision of the senate presumably took place nine years previously. As Hogarth says (op. cit. p. 115), ‘there can be no good reason for doubting our identification, which would unquestionably have been proposed and hardly disputed had Sergius Paulus been known from any other source than the New Testament.

’ The question has been raised: Is there any con- nexion between the Gentile name of the apostle, Paulus, and the name of the proconsult The answer must bein the negative. Paul, as a Roman citizen by birth, would have his Roman nomen, prenomen, and cognomen, and the resemblance of names, therefore, is only a coincidence. The Gentile name is here used in the Acts for the first time, because for the first time the apostle is in contact with Gentiles. See, further, art. PAUL, p. 697 f. Lrrmaatona.

—Lightfoot, Besays on Su tural Religion, pp: 292-297; Ramsay, St. Paul the Trave ἡ pp. 73-88. — A. C, HEADLAM.