This lesson treats of a number of steps in the extension of the gospel. The beginning is the purely Jewish Church that is described in the first chapters of The Acts; the goal is the Gentile Christianity of Paul. Gentile Christianity was not produced all at once. The extension of the gospel to Gentiles was a gradual process. The present lesson is concerned only with the early stages. The teacher should present the lesson in such a way as to emphasize the main feature of the narrative. The main feature is the central place assigned to the Holy Spirit. Though the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles was a process, that process was due not to mere natural development, but to the gracious leading of God.
As was observed in Lesson X, Stephen perhaps introduced into the Church a more independent attitude toward the existing Judaism. There is no reason, indeed, to suppose that he thought either of preaching to Gentiles or of forsaking the ceremonial law. But possibly he did venture to exhibit the temporary and provisional character of the temple worship as compared with the promises of God. Indirectly, therefore, though certainly not directly, Stephen opened the way for the Gentile mission.
The persecution was another step in the process. It scattered the Jews abroad into regions where Gentiles were more numerous than in Jerusalem, and served perhaps also to reveal to the Church itself its incompatibility with Pharisaic Judaism.
The evangelization of Samaria was another important step. Though the Samaritans were only half Gentiles, they were particularly detested by the Jews. In preaching to them, the disciples were overcoming Jewish scruples, and thus were moving in the direction of a real Gentile mission. The baptizing of the Ethiopian may have been another step in the process.
The most important event, however, was the conversion of Cornelius and his household. Here the issue was clearly raised. Cornelius did not, like the Ethiopian, depart at once after baptism to adistant home. His reception into the Church was a matter of public knowledge.
Luke was well aware of the importance of the story about Cornelius. That appears from the minuteness with which the story is narrated. After it has been completed once, it is repeated, at very considerable length, as a part of Peter's defense at Jerusalem. The effect is as though this incident were heavily underscored.
The importance of the Cornelius incident appears also in the fact that it gave rise to criticism. Apparently this was the first serious criticism which the gradually widening mission had encountered within the Church. There is no suggestion of such criticism in the case of the preaching in Samaria. But now a much more radical step had been taken. Peter had eaten with uncircumcised men. Acts 11:3. A more serious violation of Jewish particularism could hardly have been imagined.
In defense, Peter appealed simply to the manifest authorization which he had received from God. That authorization had appeared first of all in the visions which Peter and Cornelius had received, with other direct manifestations of the divine will, and also more particularly in the bestowal of the Spirit. If the Spirit was given to uncircumcised Gentiles, then circumcision was no longer necessary to membership in the Church. In the narrative about Cornelius, there is a remarkable heaping up of supernatural guidance. Vision is added to vision, revelation to revelation. The reason is plain. A decisive step was being taken. If taken by human initiative, it was open to criticism. The separateness of Israel from other nations was a divine ordinance. Since it had been instituted by God, it could be abrogated only by him. True, Jesus had said, "Make disciples of all the nations." Matt. 28:19. But the how and the when had been left undecided. Were the Gentiles to become Jews in order to become Christians, and was the Gentile mission to begin at once? Those were grave questions. They could not be decided without divine guidance. That guidance was given in the case of Cornelius.
Peter's defense was readily accepted. "And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life." The active opposition to the Gentile mission did not arise until later. But how could that opposition arise at all? Since God had spoken so clearly, who could deny to the Gentiles a freeentrance into the Church? After the case of Cornelius, how could any possible question arise?
As a matter of fact—though it may seem strange—the acceptance of Cornelius did not at first determine the policy of the Church. That incident remained, indeed, stored up in memory. It was appealed to years afterwards by Peter himself, in order to support the Gentile Christianity of Paul. Acts 15:7-9,14. But so far as the practice of the Jewish Church was concerned, the Cornelius incident seems to have remained for a time without effect. The bestowal of the Spirit upon Cornelius and his friends was regarded, apparently, as a special dispensation which fixed no precedent. Before engaging in further preaching to Gentiles, the Church was waiting, perhaps, for manifestations of the divine will as palpable as those which had been given to Peter and to Cornelius.
This attitude is rather surprising. It must be remembered, however, that for the present the Church was fully engrossed in work for Jews. Undoubtedly, a Gentile work was to come, and the Cornelius incident, as well as what Jesus had said, was regarded as prophetic of it, Acts 11:18; but the time and the manner of its institution were still undetermined. Were the Gentile converts generally—whatever might be the special dispensation for Cornelius—to be required to submit to circumcision and become members of the chosen people? This and other questions had not yet even been faced. Engrossed for the present in the Jewish mission, the Church could leave these questions to the future guidance of God.
In what follows, a number of special points will be briefly discussed.
After the baptism of the Ethiopian, "the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Cæsarea." The meaning of these words is not perfectly plain. Are we to understand that Philip was carried away to Azotus by a miracle, or is nothing more intended than a sudden departure under the impulsion of the Spirit? The latter interpretation is not at all impossible. What has been emphasised in the whole narrative is the strangeness, the unaccountableness of Philip'smovements. This appears particularly in the sudden separation from the eunuch. The eunuch expected further conference with Philip but suddenly Philip rushed off, as though snatched away by a higher power. All through this incident, there is something strangely sudden and unexpected about Philip's movements. Human deliberation evidently had no part in his actions. He was under the immediate impulsion of the Spirit.
The narrative leaves Philip at Cæsarea, and there he appears years afterwards, at the time of Paul's last journey to Jerusalem. Acts 21:8,9. Luke was at that time one of the company, and may have received directly from Philip the materials for the narrative in the eighth chapter of The Acts. Philip appears in Christian tradition, but there is some confusion between Philip the evangelist and Philip the apostle.
Simon the sorcerer, or "Simon Magus," is an interesting figure. He has laid hold of the fancy of Christendom. From his name—with reference to Acts 8:18,19—the word "simony" has been coined to designate the sin of buying or selling any sort of spiritual advantage. Simon is very prominent in Christian tradition, where he is regarded as the fountainhead of all heresy.
Cornelius was a "centurion," or captain of a company in the Roman army consisting of about one hundred men. The "Italian band" to which he belonged was apparently a "cohort," composed of soldiers from Italy. Cornelius was stationed at Cæsarea, the residence of the procurators of Judea. With the favorable description of his attitude to the Jews and to the Jewish religion, Acts 10:2, should be compared what Luke, in his Gospel, records about another centurion. Luke 7:4,5. These are sympathetic pictures of the "God-fearing" adherents of Judaism, who formed so important a class at the time of the first Christian preaching.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 59-67, 91-98. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Samaria," "Samaritan," "Philip" (7), "Simon" (9), "Cæsarea," "Cornelius." Ramsay, "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 66-104. Rackham, pp. 111-124, 141-163. Lumby, pp. 97-108, 122-142. Plumptre, pp. 47-55, 63-73. Cook, pp. 407-413, 419-430.
Christianity a supernatural thing and a gift of God's grace—that is the real theme of the lesson. The theme is brought home by means of an example, the example of the apostle Paul.
The religious experience of Paul is the most striking phenomenon in the history of the human spirit. It really requires no defense. Give it sympathetic attention, and it is irresistible. How was it produced? The answer of Paul himself, at least, is plain. According to Paul, his whole religious life was due, not to any natural development, but to an act of the risen Christ. That is the argument of the first chapter of Galatians. He was advancing in Judaism, he says, beyond his contemporaries. He was laying waste the Church. And then suddenly, when it was least to be expected, without the influence of men, simply by God's good pleasure, Christ was revealed to him, and all was changed. The suddenness, the miraculousness of the change is the very point of the passage. Upon that marvelous act of God Paul bases the whole of his life work.
Shall Paul's explanation of his life be accepted? It can be accepted only by the recognition of Jesus Christ, who was crucified, as a living person. In an age of doubt, that recognition is not always easy. But if it be refused, then the whole of Pauline Christianity is based upon an illusion. That alternative may well seem to be monstrous. The eighth chapter of Romans has a self-evidencing power. It has transformed the world. It has entered into the very fiber of the human spirit. But it crumbles to pieces if the appearance on the road to Damascus was nothing but a delusive vision. Let us not deceive ourselves. The religious experience of Paul and the whole of our evangelical piety are based upon the historical fact of the resurrection. But if so, then the resurrection stands firm. For the full glory of Pauline Christianity becomes a witness to it. The writer of the epistle to the Romans must be believed. But it is that writer who says, "Last of all ... he appeared to me also."
The wonder of the conversion can be felt only through an exerciseof the historical imagination. Imagine the surroundings of Paul's early life in Tarsus, live over again with him the years in Jerusalem, enter with him into his prospects of a conventional Jewish career and into his schemes for the destruction of the Church—and then only can you appreciate with him the catastrophic wonder of Christ's grace. There was no reason for the conversion of Paul. Everything pointed the other way. But Christ chose to make of the persecutor an apostle, and the life of Paul was the result. It was a divine, inexplicable act of grace—grace to Paul and grace to us who are Paul's debtors. God's mercies are often thus. They are not of human devising. They enter into human life when they are least expected, with a sudden blaze of heavenly glory.
In the review of Paul's early life various questions emerge. They must at least be faced, if not answered, if the lesson is to be vividly presented.
In the first place, what was the extent of the Greek influence which was exerted upon Paul at Tarsus? The question cannot be answered with certainty, and widely differing views are held. It is altogether unlikely, however, that the boy attended anything like an ordinary Gentile school. The Jewish strictness of the family precludes that supposition, and it is not required by the character of Paul's preaching and writing. It is true that he occasionally quotes a Greek poet. I Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12; Acts 17:28. It is true again that some passages in Paul's letters are rhetorical—for example, I Cor. 1:18-25; ch. 13—and that rhetoric formed an important part of Greek training in the first century. But Paul's rhetoric is the rhetoric of nature rather than of art. Exalted by his theme he falls unconsciously into a splendid rhythm of utterance. Such rhetoric could not be learned in school. Finally, it is true that Paul's vocabulary is thought to exhibit some striking similarities to that of Stoic writers. But even if that similarity indicates acquaintance on the part of Paul with the Stoic teaching, such acquaintance need not have been attained through a study of books.
However, the importance of Paul's Greek environment, if it must not be exaggerated, must on the other hand not be ignored. In the first place, Paul is a consummate master of the Greek language. He must have acquired it in childhood, and indeed in Tarsus could hardly have failed to do so. In the second place,he was acquainted with the religious beliefs and practices of the Greco-Roman world. The speech at Athens, Acts 17:22-31, shows how he made use of such knowledge for his preaching. In all probability the first impressions were made upon him at Tarsus. Finally, from his home in Tarsus Paul derived that intimate knowledge of the political and social relationships of the men of his day which, coupled with a native delicacy of perception and fineness of feeling, resulted in the exquisite tact which he exhibited in his missionary and pastoral labors. The Tarsian Jew of the dispersion was a gentleman of the Roman Empire.
That Aramaic, as well as Greek, was spoken by the family of Paul is made probable by Phil. 3:5 and II Cor. 11:22. The word "Hebrew" in these passages probably refers especially to the use of the Aramaic ("Hebrew") language, as in Acts 6:1, where the "Hebrews" in the Jerusalem church are contrasted with the "Grecian Jews." "A Hebrew of Hebrews," therefore, probably means "an Aramaic-speaking Jew and descended from Aramaic-speaking Jews." In Acts 21:40; 22:2 it is expressly recorded that Paul made a speech in Aramaic ("Hebrew"), and in Acts 26:14 it is said that Christ spoke to him in the same language. Conceivably, of course, he might have learned that language during his student days in Jerusalem. But the passages just referred to make it probable that it was rather the language of his earliest home. From childhood Paul knew both Aramaic and Greek.
The most interesting question about Paul's life at Jerusalem concerns the condition of his inner life before the conversion. Paul the Pharisee is an interesting study. What were this man's thoughts and feelings and desires before the grace of Christ made him the greatest of Christian missionaries?
The best way to answer this question would be to ask Paul himself. One passage in the Pauline epistles has been regarded as an answer to the question. That passage is Rom. 7:14-25. There Paul describes the struggle of the man who knows the law of God and desires to accomplish it, but finds the flesh too strong for him. If Paul is there referring to his pre-Christian life, then the passage gives a vivid picture of his fruitless struggle as a Pharisee to fulfill the law. Many interpreters, however, refer the passage not to the pre-Christian life but to the Christian life.Even in the Christian life the struggle goes on against sin. And even if Paul is referring to the pre-Christian life, he is perhaps depicting it rather as it really was than as he then thought it was. The passage probably does not mean that before he became a Christian Paul was fully conscious of the fruitlessness of his endeavor to attain righteousness by the law. Afterwards he saw that his endeavor was fruitless, but it is doubtful how clearly he saw it at the time.
It would, indeed, be a mistake to suppose that Paul as a Pharisee was perfectly happy. No man is happy who is trying to earn salvation by his works. In his heart of hearts Paul must have known that his fulfillment of the law was woefully defective. But such discontentment would naturally lead him only farther on in the same old path. If his obedience was defective, let it be mended by increasing zeal! The more earnest Paul was about his law righteousness, the more discontented he became with his attainments, so much the more zealous did he become as a persecutor.
Some have supposed that Paul was gradually getting nearer to Christianity before Christ appeared to him—that the Damascus experience only completed a process that had already begun. There were various things, it is said, which might lead the earnest Pharisee to consider Christianity favorably. In the first place, there was the manifest impossibility of law righteousness. Paul had tried to keep the law and had failed. What if the Christians were right about salvation by faith? In the second place, there were the Old Testament prophecies about a suffering servant of Jehovah. Isa., ch. 53. If they referred to the Messiah, then the cross might be explained, as the Christians explained it, as a sacrifice for others. The stumblingblock of a crucified Messiah would thus be removed. In the third place, there was the noble life and death of the Christian martyrs.
These arguments are not so weighty as they seem. Paul's dissatisfaction with his fulfillment of the law, as has already been observed, might lead to a more zealous effort to fulfill the law as well as to a relinquishment of the law. There seems to be no clear evidence that the pre-Christian Jews ever contemplated a death of the Messiah like the death of Jesus. On the contrary the current expectation of the Messiah was diametrically opposed to any such thing. And admiration of the Christian martyrs is perhaps too modern and too Christian to be attributed to thePharisee. The fundamental trouble with this whole argument is that it proves merely that the Pharisee Paul ought to have been favorably impressed with Christianity. So he ought, but as a matter of fact he was not so impressed, and we have the strongest kind of evidence to prove that he was not. The book of The Acts says so, and Paul says so just as clearly in his letters. The very fact that when he was converted he was on a persecuting expedition, more ambitious than any that had been attempted before, shows that he was certainly not thinking favorably of Christianity. Was he considering the possibility that Christianity might be true? Was he trying to stifle his own inward uncertainty by the very madness of his zeal? Then, in persecuting the Church, he was going against his conscience. But in I Tim. 1:13 he distinctly says that his persecuting was done ignorantly in unbelief, and his attitude is the same in his other epistles. If in persecuting the Church he was acting contrary to better conviction, then that fact would have constituted the chief element in his guilt; yet in the passages where he speaks with the deepest contrition of his persecution, that particularly heinous sin is never mentioned. Evidently, whatever was his guilt, at least he did not have to reproach himself with the black sin of persecuting Christ's followers in the face of even a half conviction.
Accordingly, the words of Christ to Paul at the time of the conversion, "It is hard for thee to kick against the goad," Acts 26:14, do not mean that Paul had been resisting an inward voice of conscience in not accepting Christ before, but rather that Christ's will for Paul was really resistless even though Paul had not known it at all. Christ's loving plan would be carried out in the end. Paul was destined to be the apostle to the Gentiles. For him to try to be anything else was as useless and as painful as it is for the ox to kick against the goad. Christ will have his way.
Thus before his conversion Paul was moving away from Christianity rather than toward it. Of course, in emphasizing the suddenness of the conversion, exaggerations must be avoided. It is absurd, for example, to suppose that Paul knew nothing at all about Jesus before the Damascus event. Of course he knew about him. Even if he had been indifferent, he could hardly have failed to hear the story of the Galilean prophet; and as a matter of fact he was not indifferent but intensely interested, though by way of opposition. These things were not done in a corner. Paulwas in Jerusalem before and after the crucifixion, if not at the very time itself. The main facts in the life of Jesus were known to friend and foe alike. Thus when in the first chapter of Galatians Paul declares that he received his gospel not through any human agency but directly from Christ, he cannot mean that the risen Christ imparted to him the facts in the earthly life of Jesus. It never occurred to Paul to regard the bare facts as a "gospel." He had the facts by ordinary word of mouth from the eyewitnesses. What he received from the risen Christ was a new interpretation of the facts. He had known the facts before. But they had filled him with hatred. He had known about Jesus. But the more he had known about him, the more he had hated him. And then Christ himself appeared to him! It might naturally have been an appearance in wrath, a thunderstroke of the just vengeance of the Messiah. Probably that was Paul's first thought when he heard the words, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." But such was not the Lord's will. The purpose of the Damascus wonder was not destruction but divine fellowship and world-wide service.
In one sense, the experience of Paul is the experience of every Christian. Not, of course, in form. It is a great mistake to demand of every man that he shall be able, like Paul, to give day and hour of his conversion. Many men, it is true, still have such a definite experience. It is not pathological. It may result in glorious Christian lives. But it is not universal, and it should not be induced by tactless methods. The children of Christian homes often seem to grow up into the love of Christ. When they decide to unite themselves definitely with the Church, the decision need not necessarily come with anguish of soul. It may be simply the culmination of a God-encircled childhood, a recognition of what God has already done rather than the acquisition of something new. But after all, these differences are merely in the manner of God's working. In essence, true Christian experience is always the same, and in essence it is always like the experience of Paul. It is no mere means of making better citizens, but an end in itself. It is no product of man's effort, but a divine gift. Whatever be the manner of its coming, it is a heavenly vision. Christ still lives in the midst of glory. And still he appears to sinful men—though not now to the bodily eye—drawing them out of sin andmisery and bondage to a transitory world into communion with the holy and eternal God.
The result of Paul's vision was service. How far his destination as apostle to the Gentiles was made known to him at once is perhaps uncertain. It depends partly upon the interpretation of Acts 26:14-18. Are those words intended to be part of what was spoken at the very time of the conversion? There is no insuperable objection to that view. At any rate, no matter how much or how little was revealed at once, the real purpose of Christ in calling him was clearly that he should be the leader of the Gentile mission. Gal. 1:16. He was saved in order that he might save others. It is so normally with every Christian. Every one of us is given not only salvation, but also labor. In that labor we can use every bit of preparation that is ours, even if it was acquired before we became Christians. Paul, the apostle, used his Greek training as well as his knowledge of the Old Testament. We can use whatever talents we possess. The Christian life is not a life of idleness. It is like the life of the world in being full of labor. But it differs from that life in that its labor is always worth while. Connection with heaven does not mean idle contemplation, but a vantage ground of power. You cannot move the world without a place to stand.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 68-85. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": article on "Damascus." Ramsay, "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 113-120; "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 29-39; "The Cities of St. Paul," pp. 85-244 (on Tarsus). Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. ii and iii. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. i and iv. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 1-42. Rackham, pp. 124-135, 421-424, 462-470. Lumby, pp. 108-116, 302-307, 344-349. Plumptre, pp. 55-61, 150-152, 165-167. Cook, pp. 413-417, 498-500, 516-519.
Christianity originated in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire, in the midst of a very peculiar people. At first, it was entirely out of relation to the larger life of the time. The atmosphere of the Gospels is as un-Greek as could be imagined; the very conception of Messiahship is distinctively Jewish.
Yet this Jewish sect soon entered upon the conquest of the empire, and the Jewish Messiah became the Saviour of the world. Starting from Jerusalem, the new sect spread within a few decades almost to the remotest corners of the civilized world. This remarkable extension was not the work of any one man or group of men. It seemed rather to be due to some mysterious power of growth, operating in many directions and in many ways. In this manifold extension of the gospel, however, the central event of to-day's lesson stands out with special clearness. Christianity began as a Jewish movement, quite incongruous with the larger life of the empire. What would be the result of its first real contact with the culture of the time? This question was answered at Antioch.
At Antioch, the principles of the Gentile mission had to be established once for all—those principles which have governed the entire subsequent history of the Church. The extension of the gospel to the Gentiles was not a mere overcoming of racial prejudice, for the separateness of Israel had been of divine appointment; it involved rather the recognition that a new dispensation had begun. Primitive Christianity was not governed merely by considerations of practical expediency; it sought justification for every new step in the guidance of the Spirit and in the fundamental principles of the gospel. The development of those fundamental principles was necessary in order to show that Christianity was really more than a Jewish sect. Then as always, religion without theology would have been a weak and flabby thing. Christianity is not merely an instrument for the improving of social conditions, but rather an answer to the fundamental questions of the soul. It can never do without thinking, and Christian thinking is theology.
Fortunately the church at Antioch did not long remain withouta theologian. Its theologian was Paul. Paul was not the founder of the church at Antioch; but the theology of Paul was what gave to that church its really fundamental importance in the history of the world.
The lesson for to-day is of extraordinary richness and variety. Much can be learned, for example, from the characters of the story. Barnabas, with his generous recognition of the great man who was soon to overshadow him; those obscure men of Cyprus and Cyrene, not even mentioned by name, whose work at Antioch was one of the great turning points of history; Agabus, the prophet, and the charitable brethren of Antioch; Rhoda, the serving girl, and the prayerful assembly in the house of the mother of Mark—every one of these teaches some special lesson. One lesson, moreover, may be learned from them all—God is the real leader of the Church, and true disciples, though different in character and in attainments, are all sharers in a mighty work.
In what follows, an attempt will be made to throw light upon a few of the historical questions which are suggested by the narrative in The Acts, and to picture as vividly as possible the scene of these stirring events.
The differences between the narrative in The Acts and the account which Paul gives of the same events have caused considerable difficulty. This very difficulty, however, is by no means an unmixed evil; for it shows at least that Luke was entirely independent of the Epistles. If he had employed the Epistles in the composition of his book he would surely have avoided even the appearance of contradicting them. The divergences between The Acts and the Pauline Epistles, therefore, can only mean that Luke did not use the Epistles when he wrote; and since the Epistles came to be generally used at a very early time, The Acts cannot have been written at so late a date as is often supposed. But if the book was written at an early time, then there is every probability that the information which it contains is derived from trustworthy sources.
Thus the very divergences between The Acts and the Pauline Epistles, unless indeed they should amount to positive contradictions, strengthen the argument for the early date and high historical value of the Lucan work. The independence of The Acts is supported also by the complete absence of striking verbal similaritybetween the narrative in The Acts and the corresponding passages in the Epistles. Even where the details of the two accounts are similar, the words are different. The few unimportant coincidences in language are altogether insufficient to overthrow this general impression of independence.
The most natural supposition, therefore, is that in The Acts and in the Epistles we have two independent and trustworthy accounts of the same events. This supposition is really borne out by the details of the two narratives. There are differences, but the differences are only what is to be expected in two narratives which were written from entirely different points of view and in complete independence of one another. Contradictions have been detected only by pressing unduly the language of one source or the other. Thus, in reading The Acts alone, one might suppose that Paul spent the whole time between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem in Damascus, and that this period was less than three years; but these suppositions are only inferences. Apparently Luke was not aware of the journey to Arabia; but an incomplete narrative is not necessarily inaccurate. Again, in the account of that first visit to Jerusalem, the reader of The Acts might naturally suppose that more than one of the Twelve was present, that the main purpose of the journey was rather to engage in preaching than to make the acquaintance of Peter, and that the visit lasted longer than fifteen days; and on the other hand, the reader of Galatians might perhaps suppose that instead of preaching in Jerusalem Paul remained, while there, in strict retirement. Again, however, these suppositions would be inferences; and the falsity of them simply shows how cautious the historian should be in reading between the lines of a narrative. Finally, the differences between Paul and Luke are overbalanced by the striking and undesigned agreements.
In Galatians, Paul does not mention the visit which he and Barnabas made in Jerusalem at the time of the famine. This conclusion has been avoided by those scholars who with Ramsay identify the "famine visit" with the visit mentioned in Gal. 2:1-10. The more usual view, however, is that Gal. 2:1-10 is to be regarded as parallel, not with Acts 11:30; 12:25, but with Acts 15:1-30. The second visit mentioned by Paul is thus identified with the third visit mentioned by Luke. Paul did not mention the famine visit because, as was probably admitted even by his opponents in Galatia, the apostles at the time of that visit were all outof the city, so that there was no chance of a meeting with them. The subject under discussion in Galatians was not Paul's life in general, but the relation between Paul and the original apostles.
In Acts 11:20, the best manuscripts read "spake unto the Hellenists" instead of "spake unto the Greeks." The word "Hellenist" usually means "Grecian Jew." Here, however, if this word is to be read, it must refer not to Jews, but to Gentiles; for the contrast with the preaching to Jews that is mentioned just before, is the very point of the verse. Perhaps at this point the manuscripts which read "Greeks" (that is, "Gentiles") are correct. In either case, the meaning is fixed by the context. These Jews of Cyprus and Cyrene, when they arrived at Antioch certainly began to preach regularly to Gentiles.
In Acts 12:1-24, Luke brings the account of affairs in Jerusalem up to the time which has already been reached in the narrative about Antioch. The journey of Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem, Acts 11:30; 12:25, supplied the connecting link. While the church at Antioch was progressing in the manner described in Acts 11:19-30, a persecution had been carried on in Jerusalem by Herod Agrippa I. The escape of Peter is narrated in an extraordinarily lifelike way. Evidently Luke was in possession of first-hand information. The vividness of the narrative is very significant. It shows that the unmistakable trustworthiness of The Acts extends even to those happenings which were most clearly miraculous. The supernatural cannot be eliminated from apostolic history.
4. ANTIOCH
Antioch on the Orontes was founded by Seleucus Nicator, the first monarch of the Seleucid dynasty, and under his successors it remained the capital of the Syrian kingdom. When that kingdom was conquered by the Romans, the political importance of Antioch did not suffer. Antioch became under the Romans not only the capital of the province Syria but also the residence of the emperors and high officials when they were in the east. It may be regarded as a sort of eastern capital of the empire.
The political importance of Antioch was no greater than itscommercial importance. Situated near the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea, where the Mediterranean coast is nearer to the Euphrates than at any other point, where the Orontes valley provided easy communication with the east and the Syrian gates with the west, with a magnificent artificial harbor at Seleucia, about twenty miles distant, Antioch naturally became the great meeting point for the trade of east and west. It is not surprising that Antioch was the third city of the empire—after Rome and Alexandria.
The city was built on a plain between the Orontes on the north and the precipitous slopes of Mount Silpius on the south. A great wall extended over the rugged heights of the mountain and around the city. A magnificent street led through the city from east to west. The buildings were of extraordinary magnificence. Perhaps as magnificent as the city itself was the famous Daphne, a neighboring shrine and pleasure resort, well-known for its gilded vice.
The dominant language of Antioch, from the beginning, had been Greek. The Seleucids prided themselves on the Greek culture of their court, and Roman rule introduced no essential change. Of course, along with the Greek language and Greek culture went a large admixture of eastern blood and eastern custom. Like the other great cities of the empire, Antioch was a meeting place of various peoples, a typical cosmopolitan center of a world-wide empire. The Jewish population, of course, was numerous.
Such was the seat of the apostolic missionary church. Almost lost at first in the seething life of the great city, that church was destined to outlive all the magnificence that surrounded it. A new seed had been implanted in the ancient world, and God would give the increase.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 85-90, 98-110. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Agabus," "Antioch," "Arabia," "Aretas," "Barnabas," "Herod" (3). Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 40-69; "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 121-128. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. v, vi and vii. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," ch. iv. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 44-63. Lumby, pp. 116-122, 142-155, 307-309. Cook, pp. 416-418, 430-433, 500, 501. Plumptre, pp. 60-62, 73-79, 152. Rackham, pp. 136-141, 163-184.
Christianity Established Amongthe Gentiles
The Principles and Practiceof the Gospel
It was a dramatic moment when Paul and Barnabas, with their helper, set sail from Seleucia, on the waters of the Mediterranean. Behind them lay Syria and Palestine and the history of the chosen people; in front of them was the west. The religion of Israel had emerged from its age-long seclusion; it had entered at last upon the conquest of the world.
The message that crossed the strait to Cyprus was destined to be carried over broader seas. A mighty enterprise was begun. It was an audacious thought! The missionaries might well have been overpowered by what lay before them—by the power of a world empire, by the prestige of a brilliant civilization. How insignificant were their own weapons! Would they ever even gain a hearing? But though the enterprise was begun in weakness it was begun in faith. At their departure from Antioch the missionaries were "committed to the grace of God."
The account of this first missionary journey is one of the most fascinating passages in The Acts. The interest never flags; incident follows incident in wonderful variety. In reading this narrative, we are transplanted into the midst of the ancient world, we come to breathe the very atmosphere of that cosmopolitan age. In the lesson of to-day the teacher has an unusual opportunity. If he uses it well, he may cause the Bible story to live again. Absolutely essential to that end is the judicious use of a map—preferably something larger than the small sketch map of the Text Book. A travel narrative without a map is a hopeless jumble. The map is an aid both to memory and to imagination. Tracing the route of the missionaries on the map, the teacher should endeavor to call up the scenes through which they passed. The student should be made to see the waters of the Mediterranean, with the hills of Cyprus beyond, the interminable stretches of the Roman roads, the lofty mountains of the Taurus, the perils of rivers and the perils of robbers, the teeming population of the countless cities—and through it all the simple missionaries of the cross, almost unnoticed amid the turmoil of the busy world, but rich in thepossession of a world-conquering gospel and resistless through the power of the living God.
Both prophecy and teaching were gifts of the Spirit. I Cor. 12:28-31. Prophecy was immediate revelation of the divine plan or of the divine will; teaching, apparently, was logical development of the truth already given. Which of the men who are mentioned in Acts 13:1 were prophets and which were teachers is not clear. If any division is intended it is probably between the first three and the last two. For this grouping there is perhaps some slight indication in the connectives that are used in the Greek, but the matter is not certain. Perhaps all five of the men were possessed of both gifts.
Lucius was perhaps one of the founders of the church, for he came from Cyrene. Compare Acts 11:20. Manaen is an interesting figure. He is called "foster-brother" of Herod the tetrarch. The word translated "foster-brother" is apparently sometimes used in a derived sense, to designate simply an intimate associate of a prince. If that be the meaning here, then at least one member of the church at Antioch was a man of some social standing. In Antioch, as in Corinth, probably "not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble" were called, I Cor. 1:26; but in Antioch as in Corinth there were exceptions. The Herod who is here meant is Herod Antipas, the "Herod" of the Gospels.
When the Jewish sorcerer is first mentioned he is called Bar-Jesus—that is, "son of Jesus," Jesus being a common Jewish name. Then, a little below, the same man is called "Elymas the sorcerer," and the explanation is added, "for so is his name by interpretation." Apparently the new name Elymas is introduced without explanation, and then the Greek word for "sorcerer" is introduced as a translation of that. The word Elymas is variously derived from an Arabic word meaning "wise," or an Aramaic word meaning "strong." In either case the Greek word, "magos," for which our English Bible has "sorcerer," is a fair equivalent. That Greek word is the word that appears also in Matt. 2:1,7,16, where the English Bible has "Wise-men"; and words derived from the same root are used to describe Simon of Samaria in Acts 8:9,11. The word could designate men of different character. Some "magi" might beregarded as students of natural science; in others, superstition and charlatanism were dominant.
At Acts 13:9 Luke introduces the name "Paul"—"Saul, who is also called Paul." Previously the narrative always uses the Jewish name "Saul"; after this "Paul" appears with equal regularity, except in the accounts of the conversion, where in three verses a special, entirely un-Greek form of "Saul" is used. Acts 22:7,13; 26:14. Since in our passage in the original the name of the proconsul, Paulus, is exactly like the name of the apostle, some have supposed that Paul assumed a new name in honor of his distinguished convert. That is altogether unlikely. More probable is the suggestion that although Paul had both names from the beginning, Luke is led to introduce the name Paul at just this point because of the coincidence with the name of the proconsul. Even this supposition, however, is extremely doubtful. Probably the Roman name, which Paul uses invariably in his letters, is introduced at this point simply because here for the first time Paul comes prominently forward in a distinctly Roman environment.
Connected with this variation in name is the reversal in the relation between Paul and Barnabas. Previously Barnabas has been given the priority; but immediately after the incident at Paphos the missionaries are designated as "Paul and his company," Acts 13:13, and thereafter when the two are mentioned together, Paul, except at Acts 14:12,14; 15:12,25, appears first. In the presence of the Roman proconsul, Paul's Roman citizenship perhaps caused him to take the lead; and then inherent superiority made his leadership permanent.
The reasons for John Mark's return from Perga to Jerusalem can only be surmised. Perhaps he was simply unwilling, for some reason sufficient to him but insufficient to Paul, to undertake the hardships of the journey into the interior. Certainly it was an adventurous journey. Paul was not always an easy man to follow.
The severity of Paul's judgment of Mark was not necessarily so great as has sometimes been supposed. One purpose of the second journey was to revisit the churches of the first journey. Acts15:36. Whether for good or for bad reasons, Mark, as a matter of fact, had not been with the missionaries on a large part of that first journey, and was, therefore, unknown to many of the churches. For this reason, perhaps as much as on account of moral objections, Paul considered Mark an unsuitable helper. In his later epistles Paul speaks of Mark in the most cordial way. Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; II Tim. 4:11. In the last passage, he even says that Mark was useful to him for ministering—exactly what he had not been at the beginning of the second missionary journey.
It is evident from II Cor. 11:23-27 that Luke has recorded only a small fraction of the hardships which Paul endured as a missionary of the cross. The tendency to lay exaggerated stress upon martyrdom and suffering, which runs riot in the later legends of the saints, is in The Acts conspicuous by its absence. Of the trials which are vouched for by the unimpeachable testimony of Paul himself, only a few may be identified in the Lucan narrative. It is natural, however, to suppose that some of the "perils of rivers" and "perils of robbers" were encountered on the journey through the defiles of the Taurus mountains from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, and the one stoning which Paul mentions is clearly to be identified with the adventure at Lystra. In II Tim. 3:11 Paul mentions the persecutions at Antioch, Iconium and Lystra.
The first missionary journey led the missionaries into three Roman provinces: Cyprus, Pamphylia and Galatia. The name "Galatia" had originally designated a district in the north central part of Asia Minor, which had been colonized by certain Celtic tribes several centuries before Christ. By the Romans, however, other districts were added to this original Galatia, and in 25 B. C. the whole complex was organized into an imperial province under the name Galatia. In the first century after Christ, therefore, the name Galatia could be used in two distinct senses. In the first place, in the earlier, popular sense, it could designate Galatia proper. In the second place, in the later, official sense, it could designate the whole Roman province, which included not only Galatia proper, but also parts of a number of other districts, including Phrygia and Lycaonia. Of the cities visited on the first missionary journey, Pisidian Antioch—which was called "Pisidian"because it was near Pisidia—and Iconium were in Phrygia, and Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia; but all four were included in the province of Galatia. Many scholars suppose that the churches in these cities were the churches which Paul addresses in the Epistle to the Galatians. That view is called the "South Galatian theory." Others—adherents of the "North Galatian theory"—suppose that the epistle is addressed to churches in Galatia proper, in the northern part of the Roman province, which were founded on the second missionary journey. This question will be noticed again in connection with the epistle.
Luke gives very little indication of the amount of time which was consumed on this first journey. The hasty reader probably estimates the time too low, since only a few incidents are narrated. The rapidity of the narrative should not be misinterpreted as indicating cursoriness of the labor. The passage through Cyprus, Acts 13:6, was probably accompanied by evangelizing; the extension of the gospel through the whole region of Antioch, v. 49, must have occupied more than a few days; the stay at Iconium is designated as "long time," Acts 14:3; the change of attitude on the part of the Lystran populace, v. 19, was probably not absolutely sudden; not only Lystra and Derbe but also the surrounding country were evangelized, v. 6; and finally the missionaries could hardly have returned to the cities from which they had been driven out, v. 21, unless the heat of persecution had been allowed to cool. Perhaps a full year would not be too high an estimate of the time that was occupied by the journey, and still higher estimates are by no means excluded.
The account of the incident at Lystra is one of those inimitable bits of narrative which imprint upon The Acts the indisputable stamp of historicity. Lystra, though a Roman colony, lay somewhat off the beaten track of culture and of trade; hence the extreme superstition of the populace is what might be expected. It may seem rather strange that Paul and Barnabas should have been identified with great gods of Olympus rather than with lesser divinities or spirits, but who can place a limit upon the superstition of an uncultured people of the ancient world? The identification may have been rendered easier by the legend of Philemon andBaucis, which has been preserved for us by Ovid, the Latin poet. According to that legend, Zeus and Hermes appeared, once upon a time, in human form in Phrygia, the same general region in which Lystra was situated. Zeus and Hermes are the gods with whom Barnabas and Paul were identified; the English Bible simply substitutes for these Greek names the names of the corresponding Roman deities. The temple of Zeus-before-the-city and the preparations for sacrifices are described in a most lifelike way, in full accord with what is known of ancient religion. We find ourselves here in a somewhat different atmosphere from that which prevails in most of the scenes described in The Acts. It is a pagan atmosphere, and an atmosphere of ruder superstition than that which prevailed in the great cities. The "speech of Lycaonia," v. 11, is an especially characteristic touch. Apparently the all-pervading Greek was understood at Lystra even by the populace; but in the excitement of their superstition they fell very naturally into their native language.
As in the case of Peter's release from prison, so in this incident, wonderful lifelikeness of description is coupled with a miracle. The scene at Lystra is unintelligible without the miraculous healing of the lame man, with which it begins. It is impossible, in The Acts as well as in the Gospels, to separate the miraculous from the rest of the narrative. The evident truthfulness of the story applies to the supernatural elements as well as to the rest. The early Christian mission is evidently real; but it is just as evidently supernatural. It moved through the varied scenes of the real world, but it was not limited by the world. It was animated by a mysterious, superhuman power.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 111-122. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Cyprus," "Antioch" (2), "Iconium," "Lystra," "Derbe," "Galatia." Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Muir, article on "Cyprus"; Massie, article on "Bar-Jesus"; Headlam, article on "Paulus, Sergius"; Ramsay, articles on "Antioch in Pisidia," "Iconium," "Lystra," "Derbe," "Galatia." Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 64-129; "The Cities of St. Paul," pp. 247-419; "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 129-153. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chapter viii. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chapters v and vi. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 65-71. Lumby, pp. 155-183. Cook, pp. 437-451. Plumptre, pp. 79-93. Rackham, pp. 194-238.
The lesson for to-day deals with one of the most important events in apostolic history. At the Jerusalem council the principles of the Gentile mission and of the entire life of the Church were brought to clear expression. If the original apostles had agreed with the Judaizers against Paul, the whole history of the Church would have been different. There would even have been room to doubt whether Paul was really a disciple of Jesus; for if he was, how could he come to differ so radically from those whom Jesus had taught? As a matter of fact, however, these dire consequences were avoided. When the issue was made between Paul and the Judaizers, the original apostles decided whole-heartedly for Paul. The unity of the Church was preserved. God was guiding the deliberations of the council.
The treatment of to-day's lesson in the Student's Text Book is based upon the assumption that Gal. 2:1-10 is an account of the same visit of Paul to Jerusalem as the visit which is described in Acts 15:1-29. That assumption is not universally accepted. Some scholars identify the event of Gal. 2:1-10, not with the Apostolic Council of Acts 15:1-29, but with the "famine visit" of Acts 11:30; 12:25. Indeed, some maintain that the Epistle to the Galatians not only contains no account of the Apostolic Council, but was actually written before the council was held—say at Antioch, soon after the first missionary journey. Of course this early dating of Galatians can be adopted only in connection with the "South Galatian theory"; for according to the "North Galatian theory" the churches addressed in the epistle were not founded until after the council, namely at the time of Acts 16:6.
Undoubtedly the identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with Acts 11:30; 12:25, avoids some difficulties. If Gal. 2:1-10 be identified with Acts 15:1-29, then Paul in Galatians has passed over the famine visit without mention. Furthermore there are considerable differences between Gal. 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-29. For example,if Paul is referring to the Apostolic Council, why has he not mentioned the apostolic decree of Acts 15:23-29? These difficulties, however, are not insuperable, and there are counter difficulties against the identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with the famine visit.
One such difficulty is connected with chronology. Paul says that his first visit to Jerusalem took place three years after his conversion, Gal. 1:18, and—according to the most natural interpretation of Gal. 2:1—that the visit of Gal. 2:1-10 took place fourteen years after the first visit. The conversion then occurred seventeen years before the time of Gal. 2:1-10. But if Gal. 2:1-10 describes the famine visit, then the time of Gal. 2:1-10 could not have been after about A. D. 46. Counting back seventeen years from A. D. 46 we should get A. D. 29 as the date of the conversion, which is, of course, too early.
This reasoning, it must be admitted, is not quite conclusive. The ancients had an inclusive method of reckoning time. According to this method three years after 1914 would be 1916. Hence, fourteen plus three might be only what we should call about fifteen years, instead of seventeen. Furthermore, Paul may mean in Gal. 2:1 that his conference with the apostles took place fourteen years after the conversion rather than fourteen years after the first visit.
The identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with the famine visit is not impossible. But on the whole the usual view, which identifies the event of Gal. 2:1-10 with the meeting at the time of the Apostolic Council of Acts 15:1-29, must be regarded as more probable. The Apostolic Council probably took place roughly at about A. D. 49. The conversion of Paul then should probably be put at about A. D. 32-34.
Conceivably the question about the freedom of the Gentiles from the law might have arisen at an earlier time; for Gentiles had already been received into the Church before the first missionary journey. As a matter of fact, indeed, some objection had been raised to the reception of Cornelius. But that objection had easily been silenced by an appeal to the immediate guidance of God. Perhaps the case of Cornelius could be regarded as exceptional; and a similar reflection might possibly have been applied to the Gentile Christians at Antioch. There seemed to be no danger, at any rate, that the predominantly Jewish character of the Church would be lost. Now, however, after a regular Gentile mission hadbeen carried on with signal success, the situation was materially altered. Evidently the influx of Gentile converts, if allowed to go on unhindered, would change the whole character of the Church. Christianity would appear altogether as a new dispensation: the prerogatives of Israel would be gone. The question of Gentile Christianity had existed before, but after the first missionary journey it became acute.
Perhaps, however, there was also another reason why the battle had not been fought out at an earlier time. It looks very much as though this bitter opposition to the Gentile mission had arisen only through the appearance of a new element in the Jerusalem church. Were these extreme legalists, who objected to the work of Paul and Barnabas—were these men present in the Church from the beginning? The question is more than doubtful. It is more probable that these legalists came into the Church during the period of prosperity which followed upon the persecution of Stephen and was only briefly interrupted by the persecution under Herod Agrippa I.
These Jewish Christian opponents of the Gentile mission—these "Judaizers"—must be examined with some care. They are described not only by Luke in The Acts but by Paul himself in Galatians. According to The Acts, some of them at least had belonged to the sect of the Pharisees before they had become Christians. Acts 15:5.
The activity of the Judaizers is described by Luke in complete independence of the account given by Paul. As usual, Luke contents himself with a record of external fact, while Paul uncovers the deeper motives of the Judaizers' actions. Yet the facts as reported by Luke fully justify the harsh words which Paul employs. According to Paul, these Judaizers were "false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Gal. 2:4. By calling them "false brethren" Paul means simply that they had not really grasped the fundamental principle of the gospel—the principle of justification by faith. They were still trying to earn their salvation by their works instead of receiving it as a gift of God. At heart they were still Jews rather than Christians. They came in privily into places where they did not belong—perhaps Paul means especially into the church at Antioch—in order to spy out Christian liberty. Gal. 2:4. Compare Acts 15:1.
The rise of this Judaizing party is easy to understand. In some respects the Judaizers were simply following the line of least resistance. By upholding the Mosaic law they would escape persecution and even obtain honor. We have seen that it was the Jews who instigated the early persecutions of the Church. Such persecutions would be avoided by the Judaizers, for they could say to their non-Christian countrymen: "We are engaged simply in one form of the world-wide Jewish mission. We are requiring our converts to keep the Mosaic law and unite themselves definitely with the people of Israel. Every convert that we gain is a convert to Judaism. The cross of Christ that we proclaim is supplementary to the law, not subversive of it. We deserve therefore from the Jews not persecution but honor." Compare what Paul says about the Judaizers in Galatia. Gal. 6:12,13.
At first sight it seems rather strange that Paul in Galatians does not mention the apostolic decree. Some have supposed that his words even exclude any decree of that sort. In Gal. 2:6 Paul says that the pillars of the Jerusalem church "imparted nothing" to him. Yet according to The Acts they imparted to him this decree. The decree, moreover, seems to have a direct bearing upon the question that Paul was discussing in Galatians; for it involved the imposition of a part of the ceremonial law upon Gentile Christians. How then, if the decree really was passed as Luke says it was, could it have been left unmentioned by Paul?
There are various ways of overcoming the difficulty. In the first place it is not perfectly certain that any of the prohibitions contained in the decree are ceremonial in character. Three of them are probably ceremonial if the text of most manuscripts of The Acts is correct. Most manuscripts read, at Acts 15:29: "That ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you." Here "things offered to idols" apparently describes not idolatrous worship, but food which had been dedicated to idols; and "blood" describes meat used for food without previous removal of the blood. This meaning of "blood" is apparently fixed by the addition of "things strangled." Since "things strangled" evidently refers to food, probably the two preceding expressions refer to food also. According to the great mass of our witnesses to the text, therefore, the apostolic decreecontains a food law. A few witnesses, however, omit all reference to things strangled, not only at Acts 15:29 but also at v. 20 and at ch. 21:25. If this text be original, then it is possible to interpret the prohibitions as simply moral and not at all ceremonial in character. "Things offered to idols" may be interpreted simply of idolatry, and "blood" of murder. But if the prohibitions are prohibitions of immorality, then they cannot be said to have "imparted" anything to Paul; for of course he was as much opposed to immorality as anyone.
However, the more familiar form of the text is probably correct. The witnesses that omit the word "strangled" are those that attest the so-called "Western Text" of The Acts. This Western Text differs rather strikingly from the more familiar text in many places. The question as to how far the Western Text of The Acts is correct is a hotly debated question. On the whole, however, the Western readings are usually at any rate to be discredited.
In the second place, the difficulty about the decree may be overcome by regarding Gal. 2:1-10 as parallel not with Acts 15:1-29 but with Acts 11:30; 12:25. This solution has already been discussed.
In the third place, the difficulty may be overcome by that interpretation of the decree which is proposed in the Student's Text Book. The decree was not an addition to Paul's gospel. It was not imposed upon the Gentile Christians as though a part of the law were necessary to salvation. On the contrary it was simply an attempt to solve the practical problems of certain mixed churches—not the Pauline churches in general, but churches which stood in an especially close relation to Jerusalem. This interpretation of the decree is favored by the difficult verse, Acts 15:21. What James there means is probably that the Gentile Christians should avoid those things which would give the most serious offense to hearers of the law.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 125-166. Lightfoot, "Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians," pp. 123-128 ("The later visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem"), 292-374 ("St. Paul and the Three"). Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 48-60, 152-175. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," ch. ix. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," ch. vii. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 108-118. Lumby, pp. 185-200. Cook, pp. 451-458. Plumptre, pp. 93-101. Rackham, pp. 238-259, 263-270.