From the rich store of to-day's lesson only a few points can be selected for special comment.
At Lystra, Paul had Timothy circumcised. Acts 16:3. This action has been considered strange in view of the attitude which Paul had previously assumed. At Jerusalem, only a short time before, he had absolutely refused to permit the circumcision of Titus. Evidently, too, he had regarded the matter as of fundamental importance. Had Titus been circumcised, the freedom of the Gentile Christians would have been seriously endangered.
The presence of Titus at the Apostolic Council is mentioned only by Paul in Galatians. It is not mentioned in The Acts. Indeed, Titus does not appear in The Acts at all, though in the epistles he is rather prominent. This fact, however, really requires no further explanation than that the history of Luke is not intended to be exhaustive. The restraint exercised by the author of The Acts has already been observed, for example, in a comparison of the long list of hardships in II Cor. 11:23-27 with what Luke actually narrates. The helpers of Paul whom Luke mentions are usually those who traveled with him. Titus was sent by Paul on at least one important mission, II Cor. 7:13,14, but was apparently not his companion on the missionary journeys. Luke does not concern himself very much with the internal affairs of the churches, and it is in this field that Titus is especially prominent in the epistles. With regard to the presence of Titus in Jerusalem, the different purposes of the narratives in Galatians and in The Acts must be borne in mind. The non-circumcision of Titus, so strongly emphasized by Paul, was merely preliminary to the public action of the church in which Luke was interested. Luke has thought it sufficient to include Titus under the "certain other" of the Antioch Christians who went up with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.
The different policy which Paul adopted in the case of Timothy,as compared with his policy about Titus, is amply explained by the wide differences in the situation.
In the first place, when Titus was at Jerusalem, the matter of Gentile freedom was in dispute, whereas when Timothy was circumcised the question had already been settled by a formal pronouncement of the Jerusalem church. After Paul had won the victory of principle, he could afford to make concessions where no principle was involved. Timothy was recognized as a full member of the Church even before his circumcision. Circumcision was merely intended to make him a more efficient helper in work among the Jews.
In the second place—and this is even more important—Timothy was a half-Jew. It is perhaps doubtful whether Paul under any circumstances would have authorized the circumcision of a pure Gentile like Titus. But Timothy's mother was Jewish. It must always be borne in mind that Paul did not demand the relinquishment of the law on the part of Jews; and Timothy's parentage gave him at least the right of regarding himself as a Jew. If he had chosen to follow his Gentile father, the Jews could have regarded him as a renegade. His usefulness in the synagogues would have been lost. Obviously the circumcision of such a man involved nothing more than the maintenance of ancestral custom on the part of Jews. Where no principle was involved, Paul was the most concessive of men. See especially I Cor. 9:19-23. The final relinquishment of the law on the part of Jews was rightly left to the future guidance of God.
The difficulty of tracing the route of the missionaries beyond Lystra is due largely to the difficulty of Acts 16:6. A literal translation of the decisive words in that verse would be either "the Phrygian and Galatian country" or "Phrygia and the Galatian country." According to the advocates of the "South Galatian theory," "the Galatian country" here refers not to Galatia proper but to the southern part of the Roman province Galatia. "The Phrygian and Galatian country" then perhaps means "The Phrygo-Galatic country," or "that part of Phrygia which is in the Roman province Galatia." The reference then is to Iconium, Pisidian Antioch and the surrounding country—after the missionaries had passed through the Lycaonian part of the province Galatia (Derbe and Lystra) they traversed the Phrygian part of the province. Thechief objection to all such interpretations is found in the latter part of the verse: "having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia." It looks as though the reason why they passed through "the Phrygian and Galatian country" was that they were forbidden to preach in Asia. But South Galatia was directly on the way to Asia. The impossibility of preaching in Asia could therefore hardly have been the reason for passing through south Galatia.
Apparently, therefore, the disputed phrase refers rather to some region which is not on the way to Asia. This requirement is satisfied if Galatia proper is meant—the country in the northern part of the Roman province Galatia. When they got to Pisidian Antioch, it would have been natural for them to proceed into the western part of Asia Minor, into "Asia." That they were forbidden to do. Hence they turned north, and went through Phrygia into Galatia proper. When they got to the border country between Mysia and Galatia proper, they tried to continue their journey north into Bithynia, but were prevented by the Spirit. Then they turned west, and passing through Mysia without preaching arrived at last at the coast, at Troas.
Nothing is said here about preaching in Galatia proper. But in Acts 18:23, in connection with the third missionary journey, it is said that when Paul passed through "the Galatian country and Phrygia" he established the disciples. There could not have been disciples in the "Galatian country," unless there had been preaching there on the previous journey. On the "North Galatian" theory, therefore, the founding of the Galatian churches to which the epistle is directed is to be placed at Acts 16:6, and the second visit to them, which seems to be presupposed by the epistle, is to be put at Acts 18:23. If it seems strange that Luke does not mention the founding of these churches, the hurried character of this section of the narrative must be borne in mind. Furthermore, the epistle seems to imply that the founding of the churches was rather incidental than an original purpose of the journey; for in Gal. 4:13 Paul says that it was because of an infirmity of the flesh that he preached the gospel in Galatia the former time. Apparently he had been hurrying through the country without stopping, but being detained by illness used his enforced leisure to preach to the inhabitants. It is not impossible to understand how Luke came to omit mention of such incidental preaching. On the second missionary journey attention is concentrated on Macedonia and Greece.
When Paul went to Athens, Silas and Timothy remained behind in Macedonia. Acts 17:14. They were directed to join Paul again as soon as possible. V. 15. In Acts 18:1,5 they are said to have joined him at Corinth. The narrative in The Acts must here be supplemented by the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. What Luke says is perfectly true, but his narrative is not complete. According to the most natural interpretation of I Thess. 3:1-5, Timothy was with Paul in Athens, and from there was sent to Thessalonica. The entire course of events was perhaps as follows: Silas and Timothy both joined Paul quickly at Athens according to directions. They were then sent away again—Timothy to Thessalonica, and Silas to some other place in Macedonia. Then, after the execution of their commissions, they finally joined Paul again at Corinth. Acts 18:5; I Thess. 3:6. Soon afterwards, all three missionaries were associated in the address of First Thessalonians.
In Athens Paul preached as usual in the synagogue to Jews and "God-fearers"; but he also adopted another and more unusual method—he simply took his stand without introduction in the market place, and spoke to those who chanced by. This method was characteristically Greek; it reminds us of the days of Socrates.
In the market place, Paul encountered certain of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. Both of these schools of philosophy had originated almost three hundred years before Christ, and both were prominent in the New Testament period. In their tenets they were very different. The Stoics were pantheists. They conceived of the world as a sort of great living being of which God is the soul. The world does not exist apart from God and God does not exist apart from the world. Such pantheism is far removed from the Christian belief in the living God, Maker of heaven and earth; but as against polytheism, pantheism and theism have something in common. Paul in his speech was able to start from this common ground. In ethics, the Stoics were perhaps nearer to Christianity than in metaphysics. The highest good they conceived to be a life that is led in accordance with reason—that reason which is the determining principle of the world. The passions must be conquered, pleasure is worthless, the wise man is independent of external conditions. Such an ethic worked itself out in practice in many admirable virtues—in some conception of the universalbrotherhood of mankind, in charity, in heroic self-denial. But it lacked the warmth and glow of Christian love, and it lacked the living God.
The Epicureans were materialists. The world, for them, was a vast mechanism. They believed in the gods, but conceived of them as altogether without influence upon human affairs. Indeed, the deliverance of man from the fear of the gods was one of the purposes of the Epicurean philosophy. The Epicureans were interested chiefly in ethics. Pleasure, according to them, is the highest good. It need not be the pleasure of the senses; indeed Epicurus, at least, the founder of the school, insisted upon a calm life undisturbed by violent passions. Nevertheless it will readily be seen how little such a philosophy had in common with Christianity.
The conditions under which Paul made his speech cannot be determined with certainty. The difficulty arises from the ambiguity of "Areopagus." "Areopagus" means "Mars' hill." But the term was also applied to the court which held at least some of its meetings on the hill. Which meaning is intended here? Did Paul speak before the court, or did he speak on Mars' hill merely to those who were interested? On the whole, it is improbable at any rate that he was subjected to a formal trial.
The speech of Paul at Athens is one of the three important speeches of Paul, exclusive of his speeches in defense of himself at Jerusalem and at Cæsarea, which have been recorded in The Acts. These speeches are well chosen. One of them is a speech to Jews, Acts 13:16-41; one a speech to Gentiles, Acts 17:22-31; and the third a speech to Christians, Acts 20:18-35. Together they afford a very good idea of Paul's method as a missionary and as a pastor. As is to be expected, they differ strikingly from one another. Paul was large enough to comprehend the wonderful richness of Christian truth. His gospel was always the same, but he was able to adapt the presentation of it to the character of his hearers.
At Athens, an altar inscribedTo An Unknown Godprovided a starting point. The existence of such an altar is not at all surprising, although only altars to "unknown gods" (plural instead of singular) are attested elsewhere. Perhaps the inscription on this altar indicated simply that the builder of the altar did not know to which of the numberless gods he should offer thanks for a benefit that he had received, or to which he should address aprayer to ward off calamity. Under a polytheistic religion, where every department of life had its own god, it was sometimes difficult to pick out the right god to pray to for any particular purpose. Such an altar was at any rate an expression of ignorance, and that ignorance served as a starting point for Paul. "You are afraid that you have neglected the proper god in this case," says Paul in effect. "Yes, indeed, you have. You have neglected a very important god indeed, you have neglected the one true God, who made the world and all things therein."
In what follows, Paul appeals to the truth contained in Stoic pantheism. His words are of peculiar interest at the present day, when pantheism is rampant even within the Church. There is a great truth in pantheism. It emphasizes the immanence of God. But the truth of pantheism is contained also in theism. The theist, as well as the pantheist, believes that God is not far from every one of us, and that in him we live and move and have our being. The theist, as well as the pantheist, can say, "Closer is he than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet." The theist accepts all the truth of pantheism, but avoids the error. God is present in the world—not one sparrow "shall fall on the ground without your Father"—but he is not limited to the world. He is not just another name for the totality of things, but an awful, mysterious, holy, free and sovereign Person. He is present in the world, but also Master of the world.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 177-197. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Troas," "Philippi," "Thessalonica," "Athens," "Areopagus," "Stoics," "Epicureans," "Corinth," "Gallio," "Silas." Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 175-261; "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 197-239. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. x, xi, and xii. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. viii, ix, x, xi, and xii. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 71-81. Lumby, pp. 200-239. Cook, pp. 458-476. Plumptre, pp. 101-124. Rackham, pp. 260-263, 271-331. For information about the recently discovered Gallio inscription, see "The Princeton Theological Review," vol. ix, 1911, pp. 290-298: Armstrong, "Epigraphical Note."
The Pauline Epistles fall naturally into four groups: (1) the epistles of the second missionary journey (First and Second Thessalonians); (2) the epistles of the third missionary journey (Galatians, First and Second Corinthians and Romans); (3) the epistles of the first imprisonment (Colossians and Philemon, Ephesians and Philippians); (4) the epistles written after the period covered by The Acts (First Timothy, Titus and Second Timothy).
Each of these groups has its own characteristics. The first group is characterized by simplicity of subject matter, and by a special interest in the second coming of Christ. The second group is concerned especially with the doctrines of sin and grace. The third group displays a special interest in the person of Christ and in the Church. The fourth group deals with organization, and with the maintenance of sound instruction.
The reason for the peculiarities of First and Second Thessalonians has often been sought in the early date of these epistles. On the second missionary journey, it is said, Paul had not yet developed the great doctrines which appear at later periods of his life. This explanation may perhaps contain an element of truth. Undoubtedly there was some progress in Paul's thinking. Not everything was revealed to him at once. The chief cause, however, for the simplicity of the Thessalonian epistles is not the early date but the peculiar occasion of these epistles. Paul is here imparting his first written instruction to an infant church. Naturally he must feed these recent converts with milk. The simplicity of the letters is due not to immaturity in Paul but to immaturity in the Thessalonian church. After all, at the time when the Thessalonian epistles were written, the major part of Paul's Christian life—including the decisive conflict with the Judaizers at Antioch and Jerusalem—lay already in the past.
At any rate the simplicity of the Thessalonian epistles must not be exaggerated. In these letters the great Pauline doctrines,though not discussed at length, are everywhere presupposed. There is the same lofty conception of Christ as in the other epistles, the same emphasis upon his resurrection, the same doctrine of salvation through his death. I Thess. 1:10; 5:9,10.
Undoubtedly the second advent, with the events which are immediately to precede it, occupies a central position in the Thessalonian epistles. A few words of explanation, therefore, may here be in order.
Evidently the expectation of Christ's coming was a fundamental part of Paul's belief, and had a fundamental place in his preaching. "Ye turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven"—these words show clearly how the hope of Christ's appearing was instilled in the converts from the very beginning. I Thess. 1:9,10. To serve the living God and to wait for his Son—that is the sum and substance of the Christian life. All through the epistles the thought of the Parousia—the "presence" or "coming"—of Christ appears as a master motive. I Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:13 to 5:11,23,24; II Thess. 1:5 to 2:12.
This emphasis upon the second coming of Christ is explained if Paul expected Christ to come in the near future. The imminence of the Parousia for Paul appears to be indicated by I Thess. 4:15: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep." This verse is often thought to indicate that Paul confidently expected before his death to witness the coming of the Lord. Apparently he classes himself with those who "are left unto the coming of the Lord" as over against those who will suffer death. In the later epistles, it is further said, Paul held a very different view. From Second Corinthians on, he faced ever more definitely the thought of death. II Cor. 5:1,8; Phil. 1:20-26. A comparison of I Cor. 15:51 with II Cor. 5:1,8 is thought to indicate that the deadly peril which Paul incurred between the writing of the two Corinthian epistles, II Cor. 1:8,9, had weakened his expectation of living until Christ should come. After he had once despaired of life, he could hardly expect with such perfect confidence to escape the experience of death. The possibility of death was too strong to be left completely out of sight.
Plausible as such a view is, it can be held only with certain reservations.
In the first place, we must not exaggerate the nearness of the Parousia according to Paul, even in the earliest period; for in II Thess. 2:1-12 the Thessalonians are reminded of certain events that must occur before Christ would come. The expression of the former epistle, I Thess. 5:2, that the day of the Lord would come as a thief in the night, was to be taken as a warning to unbelievers to repent while there was yet time, not as a ground for neglecting ordinary provision for the future. In Second Thessalonians Paul finds it necessary to calm the overstrained expectations of the Thessalonian Christians.
Furthermore, it is not only in the earlier epistles that expressions occur which seem to suggest that the Parousia is near. Rom. 13:11; Phil. 4:5. And then it is evident from II Cor. 11:23-29 and from I Cor. 15:30-32 that Paul had undergone dangers before the one mentioned in II Cor. 1:8,9, so that there is no reason to suppose that that one event caused any sudden change in his expectations.
Lastly, in I Cor. 6:14 Paul says that "God both raised the Lord, and will raise up us through his power." If that refers to the literal resurrection, then here Paul classes himself among those who are to die; for if he lived to the Parousia, then there would be no need for him to be raised up.
It is therefore very doubtful whether we can put any very definite change in the apostle's expectations as to his living or dying between First Corinthians and Second Corinthians. A gradual development in his feeling about the matter there no doubt was. During the early part of his life his mind dwelt less upon the prospect of death than it did after perils of all kinds had made that prospect more and more imminent. But at no time did the apostle regard the privilege of living until the Parousia as a certainty to be put at all in the same category with the Christian hope itself. Especially the passage in First Thessalonians can be rightly interpreted only in the light of the historical occasion for it. Until certain members of the church had died, the Thessalonian Christians had never faced the possibility of dying before the second coming of Christ. Hence they were troubled. Would the brethren who had fallen asleep miss the benefits of Christ's kingdom? Paul writes to reassure them. He does not contradict their hope of living till the coming of Christ, for God had not revealed to him thatthat hope would not be realized. But he tells them that, supposing that hope to be justified, even then they will have no advantage over their dead brethren. He classes himself with those who were still alive and might therefore live till Christ should come, as over against those who were already dead and could not therefore live till Christ should come.
Certain passages in the epistles of Paul, which are not confined to any one period of his life, seem to show that at any rate he did not exclude the very real possibility that Christ might come in the near future. At any rate, however, such an expectation of the early coming of Christ was just as far removed as possible from the expectations of fanatical chiliasts. It did not lead Paul to forget that the times and the seasons are entirely in the hand of God. It had no appreciable effect upon his ethics, except to make it more intense, more fully governed by the thought of the judgment seat of Christ. It did not prevent him from laying far-reaching plans, it did not prevent his developing a great philosophy of future history in Rom., chs. 9 to 11. How far he was from falling into the error he combated in Second Thessalonians! Despite his view of the temporary character of the things that are seen, how sane and healthy was his way of dealing with practical problems! He did his duty, and left the details of the future to God. Hence it is hard to discover what Paul thought as to how soon Christ would come—naturally so, for Paul did not try to discover it himself.
Almost always other persons are associated with Paul in the addresses of the epistles. With regard to the meaning of this custom, extreme views should be avoided. On the one hand, these persons—usually, at any rate—had no share in the actual composition of the epistles. The epistles bear the imprint of one striking personality. On the other hand, association in the address means something more than that the persons so named sent greetings; for mere greetings are placed at the end. The truth lies between the two extremes. Probably the persons associated with Paul in the address were made acquainted at least in general with the contents of the epistles, and desired to express their agreement with what was said. In the Thessalonian epistles Silas and Timothy, who had had a part in the founding of the Thessalonian church, appear very appropriately in the address.
A question related to that of the persons associated in theaddresses is the question of the so-called "epistolary plural." The epistolary plural was analogous to our "editorial we" it was a usage by which the writer of a letter could substitute "we" for "I" in referring to himself alone. In many passages in the letters of Paul it is exceedingly difficult to tell whether a plural is merely epistolary, or whether it has some special significance. For example, whom, if anyone, is Paul including with himself in the "we" of I Thess. 3:1? In particular, the question often is whether, when Paul says "we," he is thinking of the persons who were associated with him in the address of the epistle. On the whole it seems impossible to deny that Paul sometimes uses the epistolary plural, though his use of it is probably not so extensive as has often been supposed.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 197-203. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves (supplemented), article on "Thessalonians, Epistles to the." Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Lock, articles on "Thessalonians, First Epistle to the" and "Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 47-57. Ramsay, "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 240-246. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 85-107. Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. iii, pp. 125-170: Mason, "The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges": Findlay, "The Epistles to the Thessalonians." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. i, pp. 152-164, 203-255. Milligan, "St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians." The two last-named works are intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.
Before the arrival of Paul at Ephesus an important event had taken place in that city—the meeting of Aquila and Priscilla with Apollos. Apollos was a Jew of Alexandrian descent. He had already received instruction about Jesus—perhaps in his native city. Of all the great cities of the Roman Empire Alexandria alone was approximately as near to Jerusalem as was Syrian Antioch. The founding of the church at Alexandria is obscure, but undoubtedly it took place at a very early time. At a later period Alexandria was of the utmost importance as the center of Christian learning, as it had been already the center of the learning of the pagan world. Until instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos had known only the baptism of John the Baptist. Apparently one important thing that he had lacked was an acquaintance with the peculiar Christian manifestation of the Holy Spirit. He seems to have been trained in Greek rhetoric, whether the word translated "eloquent" in Acts 18:24 means "eloquent" or "learned." Apollos did not remain long in Ephesus, but went to Corinth, where, as can be learned from First Corinthians as well as from The Acts, his work was of great importance.
After studying first the Thessalonian epistles and then Galatians in succession the student should be able to form some conception of the variety among the epistles of Paul. Certainly there could be no sharper contrast. First and Second Thessalonians are simple, affectionate letters written to a youthful church; Galatians is one of the most passionate bits of polemic in the whole Bible. We ought to honor Paul for his anger. A lesser man might have taken a calmer view of the situation. After all, it might have been said, the observance of Jewish fasts and feasts was not a serious matter; even circumcision, though useless, could do no great harm. But Paul penetrated below the surface. He detected the great principles that were at stake. The Judaizers were disannulling the grace of God.
The addresses of the Pauline epistles are never merely formal. Paul does not wait for the beginning of the letter proper in order to say what he has in mind. Even the epistolary forms are suffused with the deepest religious feeling.
The opening of the present letter is anticipatory of what is to follow. Dividing the opening into three parts—the nominative (name and title of the writer), the dative (name of those to whom the letter is addressed), and the greeting—it will be observed that every one of these parts has its peculiarity as compared with the other Pauline epistles.
The peculiarity of the nominative is the remarkable addition beginning with "not from men," which is a summary of the first great division of the epistle, Paul's defense against the personal attack of his opponents. Since the Epistle to the Galatians is polemic from beginning to end, it is not surprising that the very first word after the bare name and title of the author is "not." Paul cannot mention his title "apostle"—in the addresses of First and Second Thessalonians he had not thought it necessary to mention it at all—without thinking of the way in which in Galatia it was misrepresented. "My apostleship," he says, "came not only from Christ, but directly from Christ."
The peculiarity of the dative is its brevity—not "beloved of God, called to be saints," or the like, but just the bare and formal "to the churches of Galatia." The situation was not one which called for pleasant words!
The greeting is the least varied part in the addresses of the Pauline epistles. The long addition to the greeting in Galatians is absolutely unique. It is a summary of the second and central main division of the epistle, Paul's defense of his gospel. "Christ has died to free you. The Judaizers in bringing you into bondage are making of none effect the grace of Christ, manifested on the cross." That is the very core of the letter. In all of the Pauline epistles there is scarcely a passage more characteristic of the man than the first five verses of Galatians. An ordinary writer would have been merely formal in the address. Not so Paul!
The exultant supernaturalism of the address should be noticed. This supernaturalism appears, in the first place, in the sphere of external history—"God the Father, who raised him from the dead." Pauline Christianity is based upon the miracle of the resurrection. Supernaturalism appears also, however, in the sphere of Christianexperience—"who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world." Christianity is no mere easy development of the old life, no mere improvement of the life, but a new life in a new world. In both spheres, supernaturalism is being denied in the modern Church. Pauline Christianity is very different from much that is called Christianity to-day.
Finally, this passage will serve to exhibit Paul's lofty view of the person of Christ. "Neither through man," says Paul, "but through Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ is here distinguished sharply from men and placed clearly on the side of God. What is more, even the Judaizers evidently accepted fundamentally the same view. Paul said, "Not by man, but by Jesus Christ"; the Judaizers said, "Not by Jesus Christ, but by man." But if so, then the Judaizers, no less than Paul, distinguished Jesus sharply from ordinary humanity. About other things there was debate, but about the person of Christ Paul appears in harmony even with his opponents. Evidently the original apostles had given the Judaizers on this point no slightest excuse for differing from Paul. The heavenly Christ of Paul was also the Christ of those who had walked and talked with Jesus of Nazareth. They had seen Jesus subject to all the petty limitations of human life. Yet they thought him divine! Could they have been deceived?
The thanksgiving for the Christian state of the readers, which appears in practically every other of the Pauline epistles, is here conspicuous by its absence. Here it would have been a mockery. The Galatians were on the point of giving up the gospel. There was just a chance of saving them. The letter was written in a desperate crisis. Pray God it might not be too late! No time here for words of thanks!
In vs. 6-10, Paul simply states the purpose of the letter in a few uncompromising words: "You are falling away from the gospel and I am writing to stop you."
After stating, Gal. 1:11,12, the thesis that is to be proved in this section, Paul defends his independent apostolic authority by three main arguments.
In the first place, vs. 13-24, he was already launched upon hiswork as apostle to the Gentiles before he had even come into any effective contact with the original apostles. Before his conversion, he had been an active persecutor. His conversion was wrought, not, like an ordinary conversion, through human agency, but by an immediate act of Christ. After his conversion it was three years before he saw any of the apostles. Then he saw only Peter (and James) and that not long enough to become, as his opponents said, a disciple of these leaders.
In the second place, Gal. 2:1-10, when he finally did hold a conference with the original apostles, they themselves, the very authorities to whom the Judaizers appealed, recognized that his authority was quite independent of theirs, and, like theirs, of directly divine origin.
In the third place, Gal. 2:11-21, so independent was his authority that on one occasion he could even rebuke the chief of the original apostles himself. What Paul said at that time to Peter happened to be exactly what he wanted to say, in the epistle, to the Galatians. This section, therefore, forms a transition to the second main division of the epistle. It has sometimes been thought surprising that Paul does not say how Peter took his rebuke. The conclusion has even been drawn that if Peter had acknowledged his error Paul would have been sure to say so. Such reasoning ignores the character of this section. In reporting the substance of what he said to Peter, Paul has laid bare the very depths of his own life. To return, after such a passage, to the incident at Antioch would have been pedantic and unnecessary. Long before the end of the second chapter Paul has forgotten all about Peter, all about Antioch, and all about the whole of his past history. He is thinking only of the grace of Christ, and how some men are trampling it under foot. O foolish Galatians, to desert so great a salvation!
Salvation cannot be earned by human effort, but must be received simply as a free gift: Christ has died to save us from the curse of the law: to submit again to the yoke of bondage is disloyalty to him—that is the great thesis that Paul sets out to prove.
He proves it first by an argument from experience. Gal. 3:1-5. You received the Holy Spirit, in palpable manifestation, before you ever saw the Judaizers, before you ever thought of keeping theMosaic law. You received the Spirit by faith alone. How then can you now think that the law is necessary? Surely there can be nothing higher than the Spirit.
In the second place, there is an argument from Scripture. Not those who depend upon the works of the law, but those who believe, have the benefit of the covenant made with Abraham. Vs. 6-22.
In the third place, by the use of various figures, Paul contrasts the former bondage with the present freedom. Gal. 3:23 to 4:7. The life under the law was a period of restraint like that of childhood, preliminary to faith in Christ. The law was intended to produce the consciousness of sin, in order that the resultant hopelessness might lead men to accept the Saviour. Vs. 23-25. But now all Christians alike, both Jews and Gentiles, are sons of God in Christ, and therefore heirs of the promise made to Abraham. Vs. 26-29. Being sons of God, with all the glorious freedom of sonship, with the Spirit crying, "Abba, Father," in the heart, how can we think of returning to the miserable bondage of an external and legalistic religion? Gal. 4:1-11.
In the fourth place, Paul turns away from argument to make a personal appeal. Vs. 12-20. What has become of your devotion to me? Surely I have not become your enemy just because I tell you the truth. The Judaizers are estranging you from me. Listen to me, my spiritual children, even though I can speak to you only through the cold medium of a letter!
In the fifth place, Paul, in his perplexity, bethinks himself of one more argument. It is an argument that would appeal especially to those who were impressed by the Judaizers' method of using the Old Testament, but it also has permanent validity. The fundamental principle, says Paul, for which I am arguing, the principle of grace, can be illustrated from the story of Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael had every prospect of being the heir of Abraham. It seemed impossible for the aged Abraham to have another son. Nature was on Ishmael's side. But nature was overruled. So it is to-day. As far as nature is concerned, the Jews are the heirs of Abraham—they have all the outward marks of sonship. But God has willed otherwise. He has chosen to give the inheritance to the heirs according to promise. The principle of the divine choice, operative on a small scale in the acceptance of Isaac, is operative now on a large scale in the acceptance of the Gentile church.
Finally, Paul concludes the central section of the epistle by emphasizing the gravity of the crisis. Gal. 5:1-12. Do not bedeceived. Circumcision as the Judaizers advocate it is no innocent thing; it means the acceptance of a law religion. You must choose either the law or grace; you cannot have both.
In this third main division of the epistle Paul exhibits the practical working of faith. Paul's gospel is more powerful than the teaching of the Judaizers. Try to keep the law in your own strength and you will fail, for the flesh is too strong. But the Spirit is stronger than the flesh, and the Spirit is received by faith.
This concluding section, if not the whole epistle, was written with Paul's own hand. V. 11. In his other letters Paul dictated everything but a brief closing salutation.
In the closing section, Paul lays the alternative once more before his readers. The Judaizers have worldly aims, they boast of worldly advantages; but the true Christian boasts of nothing but the cross. Christianity, as here portrayed, is not the gentle, easy-going doctrine that is being mistaken for it to-day. It is no light thing to say, "The world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world." But the result is a new creature!
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 203-213. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": article on "Ephesus"; Purves, articles on "Galatia" and "Galatians, Epistle to the" (supplemented). Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Ramsay, article on "Ephesus"; Dods, article on "Galatians, Epistle to the." Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 262-282; "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 247-269, 293-300. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. xii, xiii. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. xii, xiii, xiv, xv and xvi. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 82-84, 108-118. Lumby, pp. 239-266. Cook, pp. 476-485. Plumptre, pp. 124-136. Rackham, pp. 331-370. M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 70-76. Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. ii, pp. 419-468: Sanday, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges": Perowne, "The Epistle to the Galatians." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. i, pp. 164-202. Lightfoot, "Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians." The two last-named works are intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.
Christianity, according to Paul, is an escape from the world. Gal. 1:4. All human distinctions are comparatively unimportant. "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female." Gal. 3:28. Such a doctrine might seem logically to lead to fanaticism. If the Christian is already a citizen of heaven, may he not be indifferent to the conditions of life upon this earth? Such a conclusion was altogether avoided by Paul. In First Corinthians Paul is revealed as the most practical of men. All human distinctions are subordinate and secondary—and yet these distinctions are carefully observed. Paul was a man of heroic faith, but he was also possessed of admirable tact.
It is not that the one side of Paul's nature limited the other; it is not that common sense acted as a check to transcendental religion. On the contrary, the two things seemed to be in perfect harmony. Just because Paul was inwardly so entirely free from the world, he was also so wise in dealing with worldly affairs. The secret of this harmony was consecration. Human relationships, when consecrated to God, are not destroyed, but ennobled. They cease, indeed, to be an end in themselves, but they become a means to Christian service. The Christian man has no right to be indifferent to the world. If he is, he is no true son of the God who made the world, and sent the Lord to save it. The Christian, like the man of the world, is profoundly interested in the conditions of life on this earth. Only, unlike the man of the world, he is not helpless and perplexed in the presence of those conditions; but from his vantage ground of heavenly power, he shapes them to the divine will. He is interested in the world, but he is interested in it, not as its servant, but as its master.
So in First Corinthians Paul lays hold of certain perplexing practical problems with the sure grasp of one who is called to rule and not to serve. Everything that he touches he lifts to a higher plane. In his hands even the simplest things of life receive a heavenly significance.
The problems that are discussed in First Corinthians stood in a special relation to the environment of the Corinthian church. Most of them were due to the threatened intrusions of Greek paganism. They are closely analogous, however, to the problems which we have to solve to-day. Paganism and worldliness are not dead. The Church still stands in the midst of a hostile environment. We can still use the teaching of Paul. That teaching will now be examined in a few of its important details.
Paul mentions four parties that had been formed in the Corinthian church—a Paul-party, an Apollos-party, a Cephas-party and a Christ-party. These parties do not seem to have been separated from one another by any serious doctrinal differences, and it is impossible to determine their characteristics in detail. In the section where the party spirit is discussed, Paul blames the Corinthians for intellectual pride. This fault has often been connected with the Apollos-party. Apollos was an Alexandrian, and probably had an Alexandrian Greek training. He might therefore have unconsciously evoked among some members of the Corinthian church an excessive admiration for his more pretentious style of preaching, which might have caused them to despise the simpler manner of Paul. Even this much, however, is little more than surmise. At any rate, Apollos should not be blamed for the faults of those who misused his name. He is praised unstintedly by Paul, who was even desirous that he should return at once to Corinth. I Cor. 16:12. Paul blames the Paul-party just as much as any of the other three.
The Peter-party was composed of admirers of Peter, who had either come to Corinth from the scene of Peter's labors elsewhere, or simply had known of Peter by hearsay. It is unlikely that Peter himself had been in Corinth, for if he had Paul would probably have let the fact appear in First or Second Corinthians. The Christ-party is rather puzzling. A comparison with the false teachers who are combated in Second Corinthians has led some scholars to suppose that it was a Judaizing party, which emphasized a personal acquaintance with the earthly Jesus as a necessary qualification of apostleship. In that case, however, Paul would probably have singled out the Christ-party for special attack. More probably these were simply men who, in proud opposition to the adherents of Paul, of Apollos and of Cephas, emphasized their own independenceof any leader other than Christ. Of course, the watchword, "I am of Christ," if used in a better spirit, would have been altogether praiseworthy, and indeed Paul desires all the parties to unite in it. I Cor. 3:21-23.
Perhaps it is a mistake to attribute to these parties anything like stability. On the whole, the passage gives the impression that it is not the individual parties that Paul is condemning, but the party spirit. That party spirit was manifested by watchwords like those which are enumerated in I Cor. 1:12, but that that enumeration was meant to be complete, does not appear. The whole effort to determine the characteristics of the individual parties—an effort which has absorbed the attention of many scholars—should perhaps be abandoned.
Paul's treatment of the party spirit exhibits his greatness not only as an administrator, but also as a writer. The subject was certainly not inspiring; yet under Paul's touch it becomes luminous with heavenly glory. The contrast of human wisdom with the message of the cross, I Cor. 1:18-31, where a splendid rhythm of language matches the sublimity of the thought, the wonderful description of the freedom and power of the man who possesses the Spirit of God, the grand climax of the third chapter, "For all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's"—these are among the passages that can never be forgotten.
The question of meats offered to idols, which Paul discusses in I Cor. 8:1 to 11:1, was exceedingly intricate. To it Paul applies several great principles. In the first place, there is the principle of Christian freedom. The Christian has been delivered from enslaving superstitions. Idols have no power; they cannot impart any harmful character to the good things which God has provided for the sustenance of man. In the second place, however, there is the principle of loyalty. The fact that idols are nothing does not render idol-worship morally indifferent. On the contrary, idolatry is always sinful. If the eating of certain kinds of food under certain conditions involves participation in idolatry then it is disloyalty to the one true God. The joint operation of the two principles of freedom and of loyalty seems to lead in Paul's mind to the following practical conclusion:—The Christian may eat the meat that hasbeen offered to idols if it is simply put on sale in the market place or set before him at an ordinary meal; but he must not take part with the heathen in specifically religious feasts. The whole question, however, is further viewed in the light of a third principle—the principle of Christian love. Even things that are in themselves innocent must be given up if a brother by them is led into conduct which for him is sin. Christ has died for that weaker brother; surely the Christian, then, may not destroy him. Thus love, even more than loyalty, limits freedom—but it is a blessed limitation. The principles here applied by Paul to the question of the Corinthian Christians will solve many a problem of the modern Church.
The principle of Christian love, with the related principle of toleration, is applied also to another set of problems, the problems with regard to the exercise of spiritual gifts. The passage in which Paul discusses these problems, aside from its spiritual and moral teaching, is of singular historical interest. It affords a unique picture of the devotional meetings of an apostolic church. The characteristic of these meetings was the enthusiasm which prevailed in them. Paul is not at all desirous of dampening that enthusiasm. On the contrary the gifts in question were in his judgment really bestowed by the Holy Spirit. Even the gift of tongues, which Paul limits in its operation, is in his judgment of genuine value. Indeed, he himself had exercised it even more than the other Christians. I Cor. 14:18. This last fact should correct any unworthy impression which we might have formed with regard to the gift. If speaking with tongues was practiced by Paul, then it was no mere unhealthy emotionalism. We are to-day unable to understand it fully, but in the apostolic Church it was a real expression of Christian experience.
Paul desires, not to dampen the enthusiasm of the Corinthian church, but merely to eliminate certain harmful by-products of that which was in itself altogether excellent. The first principle which he applies is the principle of toleration. There is room in the Church for many different kinds of workers. "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." The principle is often neglected in the modern Church. Toleration, indeed, is on everyone's lips; but it is not the kind of toleration that Paul means. It is often nothing more than indifference to the great verities of the faith. Such toleration would have met with nothing but an anathema fromPaul. The toleration that Paul is commending is a toleration, not with regard to matters of doctrine, but with regard to methods of work. Such toleration is often sadly lacking. Some advocates of missions think that almost every Christian who stays at home is a coward; some good, conservative elders, on the other hand, have little interest in what passes the bounds of their own congregation. Some Christians of reserved habits are shocked at the popular methods of the evangelists; some evangelists are loud in their ignorant denunciation of the Christian scholar. In other words, many very devout Christians of the present day act as though they had never read the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians.
The principle of toleration, however, culminates in the principle of love. If there must be a choice between the exercise of different gifts, then the choice should be in favor of those gifts which are most profitable to other men. Finally, even the highest spiritual gifts are not independent of reason. I Cor. 14:32,33. That is a far-reaching principle. Some modern Christians seem to think that an appeal to the inward voice of the Spirit excuses them from listening to reasonable counsel. Such is not the teaching of Paul.
The error which is combated in the fifteenth chapter of the epistle could hardly have been a denial, in general, of continued existence after death, but was rather a denial of the resurrection of the body as over against the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul. In reply, Paul appeals to the resurrection of Jesus. The appeal would seem to be futile unless Paul means that the resurrection of Jesus was a bodily resurrection. If the appearances of Jesus were no more than incorporeal manifestations of his spirit, then obviously the believer in a mere immortality of the soul remained unrefuted. In this chapter there is an advance over the simple teaching of First Thessalonians. Here the character of the resurrection body comes into view. The resurrection body will have a real connection with the old body—otherwise there would be no resurrection—but the weakness of the old body will be done away. There is continuity, but also transformation.
Certain passages in First Corinthians, which are introduced only in an incidental way, as illustrations of the principles which arebeing applied, are of inestimable historical value. These passages include not only the great autobiographical passage in the ninth chapter, where Paul illustrates from his own life the limitation of the principle of freedom by the principle of love, but also two all-important passages which refer to the life of Christ.
It is generally admitted that First Corinthians was written at about A. D. 55. The eleventh chapter of the epistle gives an account of the institution of the Lord's Supper, in which Jesus teaches the sacrificial significance of his death; and the fifteenth chapter gives a list of the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection. The information contained in these passages was not invented by Paul; indeed he distinctly says that it was "received." In A. D. 55, then, not only Paul, but also the Church generally believed that Jesus' death, according to his own teaching, was sacrificial, and appealed in support of his resurrection to a wealth of competent testimony. But from whom had Paul "received" these things? Hardly from anyone except those who had been Christians before him—in other words, from the Palestinian church. We have here an irremovable confirmation of the Gospel view of Jesus. First Corinthians is a historical document of absolutely priceless value.
The incidental character of these historical passages is especially noteworthy. It shows that Paul knew far more about Jesus than he found occasion in the epistles to tell. If he had told more, no doubt the Gospel picture of Jesus would have received confirmation throughout.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 213-221. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": article on "Apollos"; Purves and Davis, article on "Corinthians, Epistles to the." Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Robertson, article on "Corinthians, First Epistle to the." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 58-64. Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. ii, pp. 281-356: Shore, "The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Lias, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. i, pp. 256-306. "The International Critical Commentary": Robertson and Plummer, "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians." The two last-named works presuppose a knowledge of Greek.
In First Corinthians the obscure Sosthenes is found to be associated with Paul in the address of the epistle; in Second Corinthians it is Timothy, one of the best-known of the helpers of Paul. Even if that mission of Timothy to Corinth which is mentioned in First Corinthians had resulted in failure, Timothy's usefulness in the church was not permanently affected.
After the address, comes, as is usual in the Pauline Epistles, an expression of thanksgiving to God. This time, however, it is not thanksgiving for the Christian state of the readers, but thanksgiving for Paul's own escape from danger. The absence of thanksgiving for the readers does not mean here, as in the case of Galatians, that there was nothing to be thankful for in the church that is being addressed, for the whole first section of the letter is suffused with a spirit of thankfulness for the Corinthians' return to their true allegiance; it means rather simply that the thought of the deadly personal danger, and of the remarkable escape, were for the moment in the forefront of Paul's thought. Even that personal matter, however, was used by Paul to fortify his readers against similar trials, and especially to strengthen still further the bonds of sympathy which had at last been restored between him and them.
What this danger was from which Paul had just escaped cannot be determined. It is as much a puzzle as the fighting with beasts at Ephesus, which Paul mentions in I Cor. 15:32. Neither one nor the other can very well be identified with the trouble caused by Demetrius the silversmith, Acts 19:23-41, for there Paul does not seem to have been in deadly danger. Some suppose that the fighting with beasts is literally meant; that Paul was actually exposed to the wild beasts in the arena and escaped only in some remarkable way. It should be observed that Paul does not say, with regard to the danger mentioned in Second Corinthians, that it occurred in Ephesus, but only that it occurred in Asia. The expression, "weighed down," in II Cor. 1:8 perhaps points to some form of illness rather than to persecution.
Immediately after the thanksgiving for his escape from death, Paul begins the defense of his ministry. After the suspense of the previous days, he feels the need of reviewing the methods and motives of his labor among the Corinthians, in order that the last vestige of suspicion may be removed. This he does in an unrestrained, cordial sort of way, which reveals the deepest secrets of his heart, and culminates here and there in grand expositions of the very essence of the gospel.
First, in just a passing word, ch. 1:13,14, he defends his letters against that charge of obscurity or concealment which is hinted at elsewhere in the epistle. Compare ch. 4:1-4; 11:6.
Next, he defends himself against the charge of fickleness in his journey plans. At some time, probably during or after the unsuccessful visit alluded to in ch. 2:1, Paul had formed the plan of returning to Corinth by the direct route. This plan he had not carried out, and his abandonment of it apparently confirmed the impression of weakness which had been left by the unsuccessful visit. "He is very bold in letters," said his opponents, "but when he is here he is weak, and now he is afraid to return." It was a petty criticism, and a lesser man might have answered it in a petty way. But Paul was able to lift the whole discussion to a loftier plane. His answer to the criticism was very simple—the reason why he had not returned to Corinth at once was that he did not want to return again in grief and in severity; for the sake of the Corinthians themselves he wanted to give them time to repent, before the final and fatal issue should be raised. Characteristically, however, Paul does not content himself with this simple answer; indeed he does not even begin with it. A specific explanation of the change in his plans would have refuted the criticism immediately under consideration, but Paul felt the need of doing far more than that. What he desired to do was to make not only this criticism, but all similar criticisms, impossible. This he does by the fine reference to the positive character of his gospel. "You say that I am uncertain in my plans, that I say yes and no in one breath. Well, the gospel that I preached, at any rate, was no such uncertain thing as that. My gospel was a great 'Yes' to all the promises of God." Such a method of refutation lifts the reader far above all petty criticisms to the great things of Paul's gospel.
Yet this reference to great principles is no mere excuse to avoidthe simple question at issue. On the contrary, Paul is perfectly frank about the reason why he had not gone to Corinth as he had intended. It was out of love to the Corinthian church, and this had also prompted the writing of a severe letter. Here, ch. 2:5-11, Paul refers to the offender whose case had been made a test at the time of the recent painful visit. This offender was probably different from the incestuous person who is so sternly dealt with in I Cor. 5:1-5. His offense is thought by many to have been some personal insult to Paul, II Cor. 2:5, but this is not quite certain. At any rate, whatever his original offence, Paul's demand for his punishment had become a test of the loyalty of the church. At first the demand had been refused, but now the majority of the congregation has agreed and the man himself is deeply repentant, so that Paul is only afraid lest severity may go too far. It is hardly worth while saying that the character of Paul was entirely free from vindictiveness. When the discipline of the Church would permit it, Paul was the first to propose counsels of mercy.
The reference to the epistles of commendation which had been used by Paul's opponents in Corinth, ch. 3:1, has been made the basis of far-reaching conclusions about the whole history of the apostolic age. From whom could the opponents have received their letters of introduction? Only, it is said, from Palestine, and probably from the original apostles. This conclusion is hasty, to say the least. It should be noticed that not only letters to the Corinthian church but also letters from the church are apparently in mind. V. 1. If, then, the Corinthian church had been asked to supply these false teachers with letters of commendation, perhaps the other churches that had supplied them with letters were no nearer to Jerusalem than Corinth was.
The mention of these letters of commendation introduces one of the grandest passages in the New Testament. "I," says Paul, by way of transition, "do not need any letters of commendation. My work is sufficient commendation. What I have accomplished in the hearts of men is an epistle written by the Spirit of God." Then follows the magnificent exposition of the ministry of the new covenant. That ministry is first contrasted with the old dispensation, perhaps with reference to an excessive valuation, by the opponents, of a continued Judaism in the Church. The old covenant was glorious, but how much more glorious is the new! The old was a ministry of condemnation, but the new is a ministry of justification. The old was a ministry of an external law, the newis a ministry of the life-giving power of the Spirit of God. There is no reason any longer for concealment. The Spirit brings freedom and openness and light.
This treasure is held indeed in earthen vessels. The recent danger that Paul has passed through, as well as the overpowering hardships of his life, make him painfully conscious of human weakness. But that weakness is blessed which in all the fuller glory reveals the all-conquering power of God. The Christian need never despair, for by the eye of faith he can detect those unseen things which are eternal. The present body may be dissolved, but the resurrection body will be ready. Indeed, even if the Christian by death is separated for a time altogether from the body, he need not fear. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
The climax of the whole glorious passage is the brief exposition of the ministry of reconciliation which begins with ch. 5:11. Here we are introduced to the secret of the remarkable life which is revealed in Second Corinthians and in the other epistles of Paul. Reconciliation with God through the death of Christ in our behalf and in our stead, consequent freedom from sin and from the world, a new and glorious life under the favor of God—these are the things that Paul experienced in his own life, these are the things that he preached to others, regardless of all hardship and criticism, and these are the things, now and always, which contain the real springs of the Church's power.
After an uncompromising warning against impurity and worldliness, delivered from the lofty vantage ground that has just been reached, the apostle gives expression once more to the joy that he has received from the good news which Titus brought him; and then proceeds to an entirely different matter.
Two whole chapters of the epistle are devoted to the collection for the Jerusalem church. The history of this matter, so far as it can be traced, is briefly as follows: At the time of the Jerusalem council, the pillars of the Jerusalem church had requested Paul to remember the Jerusalem poor. At the time when First Corinthians was written, Paul had already started a collection for this purpose in the churches of Galatia, and in First Corinthians he asks the Corinthians to take part. I Cor. 16:1-4. In Second Corinthians he announces that the churches of Macedonia have contributedbountifully, II Cor. 8:1-5, and urges the continuance of the collection in Corinth. Finally, in the Epistle to the Romans, which was written from Corinth only a short time after Second Corinthians, he mentions the collection in Macedonia and Achaia, announces his intention of journeying to Jerusalem with the gifts, and asks the Roman Christians to pray that the ministration may be acceptable to the Jerusalem church. Rom. 15:25-27,31,32.
With his customary foresight, Paul made careful provision for the administration of the gifts, in order to avoid all possible misunderstanding or suspicion. For example, the churches are to choose delegates to carry their bounty to Jerusalem. I Cor. 16:3. Possibly the delegates are to be identified with the persons who are named in Acts 20:4. Luke does not mention the collection, but it is alluded to in Acts 24:17.
Paul's treatment of the collection in II Cor., chs. 8, 9, was not only adapted to accomplish its immediate purpose, but also has been of high value to the Christian Church. These chapters have assured to the right use of wealth a place of real dignity among the forms of Christian service.
The striking change of tone at ch. 10:1 is amply explained by the change of subject. In the first part of the epistle, Paul has been thinking of the return of the majority of the congregation to their allegiance; now he turns to deal with the false teachers who have been causing all the trouble. It is still necessary to meet their attacks and remove every vestige of influence which they may still have retained over the church. Their attack upon Paul was of a peculiarly mean and unworthy character; the indignation which Paul displays in these chapters was fully justified.
The opponents were certainly Jews, and prided themselves on the fact. Ch. 11:22. But it does not appear with certainty that they were Judaizers. If they were intending to come forward with any demand of circumcision or of observance of the Mosaic law, such demand was still kept in the background. Indeed, there is no indication that the doctrine that they preached was different in important respects from that of Paul. In particular, there is no indication that they advocated a different view about Jesus. One verse, ch. 11:4, has, indeed, been regarded as such an indication, but only by an exceedingly doubtful interpretation. Probably the other Jesus whom the opponents preached existed only in their ownclaim. They said merely, "Paul has kept something back," v. 6, margin; ch. 4:3; "we alone can give you adequate information; we alone can proclaim the true Jesus, the true Spirit and the true gospel." In reality, however, they had nothing new to offer. Paul had made the whole gospel known.
It is further not even quite clear that the opponents laid stress upon a personal acquaintance with the earthly Jesus, and so played the original apostles off against Paul. The expression "chiefest apostles," ch. 11:5, is clearly nothing more than an ironical designation of the false teachers themselves. It is true, the false teachers claimed to belong in a special sense to Christ, ch 10:7, and to be in a special sense "ministers of Christ." Ch. 11:23. But it is not at all clear—despite ch. 5:16—that the connection which they claimed to have with Christ was that of personal acquaintance, either directly or through their authorities, with the earthly Jesus. Finally, these false teachers cannot with any certainty be connected with the Christ-party of First Corinthians.
The chief value of the last four chapters of the epistle is the wealth of autobiographical material which they contain. Against the insidious personal attacks of the opponents, Paul was obliged to speak of certain personal matters about which he might otherwise have been silent. Had he been silent, the Church would have been the loser. To know the inner life of the apostle Paul is to know Christ; for Paul was in Christ and Christ was in Paul. What could compensate us for the loss of II Cor. 12:7-10? Through these words the bodily weakness of Paul has forever been made profitable for the strength of the Church.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 221-225. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves and Davis, article on "Corinthians, Epistles to the." Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Robertson, article on "Corinthians, Second Epistle to the." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 65-69. Beet, "A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians," seventh edition, pp. 1-20, 317-542. Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. ii, pp. 357-417: Plumptre, "The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Lias, "The Second Epistle to the Corinthians." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. i, pp. 307-351. The last-named work presupposes a knowledge of Greek.