Paul the Apostle (continued) – Paul the Apostle (continued)

Paul the Apostle (continued)

9. Third Missionary Journey, Acts 8:23 [53 to 57]. — St. Paul, after ‘some time’ at Antioch, went again, probably by the Cilician Gates, to the ‘Galatic Region’ and the ‘Phrygian Region’ (see art. Galatians [Ep. TO the], § 2), and so came to Ephesus by the upper road, not passing along the valley of the Lycus (Acts 19:1; see Colossians 2:1). [On the N. Galatian theory another long digression to Galatia proper is here necessary.] At Ephesus he found twelve persons who had known only John’s baptism. St. Paul caused them to be ‘baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus,’ and when he ‘had laid his hands upon’ them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied.’ At Ephesus the Apostle spent 21 years and converted many who had practised magic. Hence he proposed to go to Macedonia, Greece, Jerusalem, Rome (Acts 19. Romans 1:10 ff.). and Spain (Romans 15:24, 28) he sent Timothy to Macedonia, with Erastus as a companion so far (Acts 19:22). and then on to Corinth (1 Corinthians 4:17 16:10). while he kept Sosthenes with him (1:1). After Timothy’s departure (4:17) he sent oft 1 Corinthians, which he wrote after he had heard of divisions at Corinth (l’™), of the success of Apollos (1:12 3:4 ff. i6’2), who had gone there from Ephesus (Acts 18:27 f.), of a case of incest and abuses in respect to litigation and to the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 5. 6. 11). This letter was in answer to one from Corinth asking for directions on marriage, etc. The Apostle announces his intention of going to Corinth himself by way of Macedonia after Pentecost (16), and Lightfoot thinks that he did pay this visit to Corinth from Ephesus (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:1 ‘the third time’), but Ramsay puts the visit somewhat later. In 2 Corinthians 1:16, 23 St. Paul says that he had intended to go by way of Corinth to Macedonia, and back to Corinth again, and so to Judsea, but that he had changed his plan. At Ephesus there were many persecutions(2 Co 1:8; cf. 4 6:4 f.), and Onesiphorus was very useful to him there (2 Timothy 1:16 ff.). The stay at Ephesus was suddenly brought to an end by a riot instigated by Demetrius, a maker of silver shrines of Artemis. St. Paul went to Macedonia by Troas, where he had expected to meet Titus coming from Corinth, though he was disappointed in this. At Troas he preached with success; ‘a door was opened’ (2 Corinthians 2:12). From Macedonia he wrote 2 Corinthians urging the forgiveness of the incestuous Corinthian. [Some modification of the above is required if this Epistle, as many think, is an amalgamation of two or more separate ones. Some think that the person referred to in 2 Cor. is not the offender of 1 Corinthians 5 at all.] Titus joined St. Paul in Macedonia, and gave a good account of Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:6 ff.). ) , but troubles arose in Macedonia itself (7:5). Titus was sent back to Corinth with two others (8«- "‘■ 22), taking the letter and announcing St. Paul’s own coming (2 Co 13:1). All this time the Apostle was developing his great scheme of a collection for the poor Christians of Judaea, which was responded to so liberally in Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia (1 Corinthians 16:1 f.; 2 Corinthians 8:1–7 9:2. Romans 15:25). and which prompted that journey to Jerusalem which is the last recorded In Acts (Acts 24:17). He claimed the right to live of the gospel himself (1 Corinthians 9:6 ff.) ); yet he would not usually do so, but instead asked offerings for the’ poor saints.’ From Macedonia he went to ‘Greece’ (Acts 20:2). i.e. to Corinth, for three months, and here wrote Romans [57] , which he sent by Phoebe, a deaconess at Cenchreie, the port of Corinth (Romans 16:1). At Corinth he heard of a plot against his life; he had intended to sail direct to Syria, and the plot seems to have been to murder him on the ship; he therefore took the land journey by way of Macedonia, but sent on several friends to join him at Troas: Sopater of Bercea, Aristarchus and Secundus (both of Thessalonica), Timothy, Tychicus and Trophimus (both probably of Ephesus), and Gains of Derbe, who was perhaps his host at Corinth (Romans 16:23, 1 Corinthians 1:14 ; if so he must have come to Corinth to stay. The Macedonian Gaius of Acts 19:29 was probably a different man). St. Paul spent the Passover at Philippi, and then, with Luke (Acts 20:5 f.). set sail for Troas. Here, at an all-night service which ends with the Eucharist, occurs the incident of the young man Eutychus, who being asleep falls down from the third storey and is taken up dead; but the Apostle restores him alive to his friends. From Troas the party sail along the west coast of Asia Minor, calling at Miletus. Here St. Paul has a visit from the presbyters of Ephesus, for whom he had sent, and bids them farewell, saying that they would see his face no more (see above i. 4 (d)). At Caesarea (in Palestine) they land, and stay with Philip the evangelist: and here Agabus, taking Paul’s girdle and binding his own feet and hands, prophesies that the Jews will do the same to the owner of the girdle, and will deliver him to the Gentiles.

10. Fifth visit to Jerusalem, Acts 21:17 [57].— St. Paul is received at an apparently formal council by James, the Jerusalem presbyters being present; and he tells them of the success of his ministry to the Gentiles. They advise him to conciliate the Christians of Jerusalem, who thought that he persuaded Jews not to keep the Law, and to undertake the Temple charges for four men who were under a vow, and to ‘purify’ himself with them. This he does, showing, as in many other instances, that he is still a Jew (Acts 18:18 20:6, 16 27:9). But his presence in the Temple is the occasion of a riot, the Jews believing that he had brought within the precincts Trophimus, the Gentile of Ephesus, whom they had seen with him in the city. He is saved only by the intervention of the Roman soldiers, who take him to the ‘Castle.’ He is allowed to address the people, on the way, in Aramaic; but when he speaks of his mission to the Gentiles, they are greatly incensed and the chief captain (chiliarch), Claudius Lysias, has him brought into the Castle and orders him to be examined by scourging; but Paul asserts his Roman citizenship. Next day he is brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin, of whom some were Pharisees, some Sadducees, and when he affirms his belief in ‘the hope and resurrection of the dead,’ the former favour him. In the night he is encouraged by a vision of the Lord telling him that he must bear witness in Rome (Acts 23:11). A plot of the Jews against him, revealed by his nephew, is the cause of his being sent down guarded to Csesarea to the governor Felix. The Jews go down there to accuse him, and Felix and his wife Drusilla, a Jewess, hear him often; but he is left a prisoner for two years, and Felix, when he is recalled, does not release him, hoping to please the Jews. He had expected a bribe from Paul (24:26). Festus, his successor, is asked by the Jews to send Paul to Jerusalem, there being a secret plot to kill him on the road ; but Paul appeals to Ceesar. While he is at Caasarea, Agrippa and Bernice come down to visit Festus, and Paul narrates to them his conversion (Acts 25:13).

11 . Roman impiisonment .—From Caesarea the Apostle is sent, with the two companions allowed to accompany him (Luke and Aristarchus), on a voyage to Italy [59J, under the charge of Julius, centurion of the Augustan Band or Cohort. They sail first, after touching at Zidon, under the lee (to the east) of Cyprus, the usual winds in the Levant in summer being westerly, and coast along Asia Minor. St. Paul is treated kindly and as a prisoner of distinction, and his advice is often asked. At Myra they tranship and embark in what is apparently a Government vessel taking corn from Egypt to Italy. Sailing south of Crete they reach Fair Havens, and spend at least some few days there; then, though the season of the year is late, they set sail again, hoping to reach Italy safely. But being caught in a storm, they drift for many days, and finally are shipwrecked on the coast of Malta, where the people receive them kindly. St. Paul heals the father of the ‘first man,’ Publius, of fever and dysentery. Next spring [60] they s&il for Italy by way of Sicily, and land at Puteoli, whence they reach Rome by land. Here Paul is allowed to live in a hired house, guarded by a soldier, and he remains there ‘two whole years,’ doing evangelistic work [60, 61]. From Rome, while a prisoner (Philippians 1:7, 13. Colossians 4:3, 18. Ephesians 3:1 4:1 6:20. Philem’), he wrote Ephesians, probably a circular letter to the Churches of Asia (the ‘Epistle from Laodicea’ of Colossians 4:16). At the same time he seems to have sent Colossians and Philemon by Tychicus and Onesimus. The Colossians had not seen Paul (Colossians 2:1), but, having heard of errors at CoIosseb, he writes to exhort them and Archippus (4:17; cf. Philem^), who seems to have been their chief minister. The short letter to Philemon is a touching appeal from ‘Paul the aged’ (v. 9) to a master to receive back a fugitive slave Onesimus; the master formerly, and now the slave, owed their Christianity to St. Paul. At this time the Apostle has with him Epaphras of CoIosseb (who had come to Rome and was a ‘fellow prisoner’ with Paul, Philem^), Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus, Justus, Luke, and Demas. About the same date Philippians was written, and sent by Epaphroditus of Philippi (Philippians 2:25 ff.). who had been sick nigh to death, but had recovered; he had been sent by the Philippians with alms to Rome (Philippians 4:10, 18). St. Paul exhorts his ‘true yokefellow’ (whom Lightf oot takes to be Epaphroditus, but who is more probably the chief minister of the Philippian Church) to appease a quarrel between two Church workers, Euodia and Syntyohe (4:2 f.) the ‘Clement’ there mentioned seems to have been a Philippian convert. St. Paul hopes soon to send Timothy to Philippi (2:19). and to be free to come soon to them himself (2:24; cf. Philem22).

12. Later life [end of 61 to 67].— This we can in part construct from the Pastoral Epistles; those who reject them will take their own view of the account which follows. We may first ask whether St. Paul went to Spain. As we have seen, he meant to do so (Romans 15:24, 28). and early tradition afiirmed that he did go (above, i. 4 (d)). This tradition, however, may have been based only on his recorded intention; and it is a difficulty that no trace is left of a Spanish visit, and that no Church in Spain claims to have been founded by him. Journeys to the East are better attested; he certainly intended to go from Rome eastwards (Philippians 2:24). We read that he went to Corinth and left Erastus there (2 Timothy 48) that he sailed along the west coast of Asia Minor, leaving Trophimus sick at Miletus (i6.), and Timothy at Ephesus to rule the Church there for a time (1 Timothy 1:3 etc.); that he called at Troas and left some things there (2 Timothy 4:13) ; and that he went to Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3). But these events need not have happened on the same journey. At Ephesus we read of various heretics — of Hymenseus and Alexander whom Paul ‘delivered unto Satan’ (1 Timothy 1:20) — Alexander is perhaps the coppersmith who opposed Paul, probably at Ephesus, not Troas (2 Timothy 4:14). — of Hymenseus (perhaps the same as in 1 Tim. ) and Philetus, who explained the resurrection of the dead in a figurative sense as an event already past (2 Timothy 2:18). and of Phygelus and Hermogenes, who, with ‘all that are in Asia’ (l’^), deserted the Apostle; but it is uncertain whether the references are to a time before or after the first imprisonment at Rome. Another journey was to Crete, where St. Paul left Titus to rule the Church for a time (Titus 1:5) thereafter the Apostle went to Nicopolis, on the west coast of Achaia, opposite Italy, where he intended to winter (Titus 3:12). Before reaching Nicopolis he wrote 1 Timothy (probably) and Titus ; he asked Titus to come to him whenever another could be sent to take his place (3:12).

The last scene of the Apostle’s life is at Rome. He is now a second time a prisoner (2 Timothy 2:9). conscious that his lite is near its end (4:6 f.). He writes 2 Timothy to his faithful disciple, who is apparently at Ephesus [Prisca and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus are mentioned as being with Timothy (1:16 4:19). and he himself is in a position of authority; these considerations point to Ephesus, where he was before]. When St. Paul writes, he is, save for Luke’s attendance, alone; Demas has forsaken him ; Crescens, Titus, and Tychicus have been sent on missions (Titus to Dalmatia, not to Crete); and Timothy is pressed to bring Mark and to come to Rome with the things left behind at Troas. Tychicus seems to have been sent as his substitute to Ephesus (4:9–13). In this letter St. Paul speaks of Onesiphorus having helped him, not only at Ephesus on a former occasion, but when he was a prisoner in Rome, perhaps at the first imprisonment, for he seems to have died before 2 Tim. was written (l’«-i8). It is disputed whether the ‘first defence’ (first, not former) of 2 Timothy 4:16. when ‘all forsook him,’ refers to a preliminary examination in the second imprisonment, or, as seems more likely (Zahn) , to the first imprisonment ; the Apostle speaks of his being delivered out of the mouth of the lion, that through him ‘(he message might be fully proclaimed, and that all the Gentiles might hear." This seems to refer to the further travels of the Apostle after his first imprisonment, whereas when writing 2 Tim. he knew that he was near his end.

13. By universal tradition the martyrdom of St. Paul was at Rome [Harnack 64, Turner 64-65, Ramsay and Lightfoot 67]. Clement of Rome (Cor. 5), c. a.d. 95, says that having borne witness before rulers he departed from this world. At the end of the 2nd cent. Tertullian gives details: ‘Paul is beheaded ... At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship. . . there’ (Scorp. 15, Pair. Lat. ii. 174 f.); ‘Rome . . . where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s’ (tfe Pro^c. Hair. 36, Patr. Lat. ii. 69). In the 3rd cent. Origen (Com. in Om. hi., see Eusebius, HE iii. 1) says that St. Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero [Nero died a.d. 68]. As there is no conSicting tradition, we may with confidence accept this account. More modern traditions maliie the death to have talten place at Tre Fontane, 3 miles from Rome, and the burial at S. Paolo fuori le Mura, nearer the city.

14. Appearance. — The following is the description in the Acts of Paid and Thecla (Armen. vers. § 3, Conybeare’s Monuments, p. 62), which may go back, in this matter, to the 1st cent.: ‘Onesiphorus . . . saw Paul coming along, a man of moderate stature, with curly hair . . . scanty, croolsed legs, with blue eyes and large knit brows, long nose; and he was full of the grace and pity of the Lord, sometimes having the appearance of a man, but sometimes looking like an angel.’ The ‘blue eyes’ are peculiar to the Armenian. The other versions say that he was bow-legged, with meeting eyebrows, and bald-headed. This unflattering description does not agree badly with that of St. Paul’s detractors in 2 Corinthians 10:10 11:6, who said that though his letters were weighty and strong, his bodily presence was weak, and his speech of no account; he was ‘rude In speech.’ The appearance of the Apostle would be made worse by the permanent marks of persecution, the ‘marks of Jesus,’ as most moderns interpret Galatians 6:17, which branded Paul as the slave of Christ.

iii. St. Paul’s Teaching. — It would be a mistake to look on the Pauline Epistles as constituting a Summa Theologica, a compendium of Christian doctrine. The writer always assumes that his readers have in their possession the Christian tradition. We have no record of the method by which Paul preached the gospel, but he takes it for granted that it is knovm by those to whom he writes, and he repeats his teaching only when some special circumstances call for repetition. Doctrines like the Godhead of our Lord and of the Holy Spirit, the Atonement, and the Sacraments, are not stated as in a theological manual, but assumed (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2). Even the Epistle to the Romans, addressed to those who had not heard the Pauline presentation of the gospel, and partaking more of the nature of a treatise than do any of the rest, assumes the substratum of Christian dogma; note, for example, the way in which the Atonement is alluded to in Romans 3:25. It follows that it would be extremely unsafe to build any argument as to St. Paul’s teaching upon his silence. The paragraphs which here follow are an attempt to bring together references in the Epistles to some of the more important points of Christian doctrine. But we may first ask whether St. Paul used a creed in his instructions. In 1 Corinthians 15:3 f. he seems to be quoting something of this nature; and a verse from a creed-like hymn is given in 1 Timothy 3:16. Yet the earliest known creed (the Apostles’) cannot be traced back in any form beyond the second quarter of the 2nd cent., and the existence of anything like a creed in the Apostle’s times is therefore a matter of conjecture only.

1 . The Fatherhood of God . — Christianity inherited this doctrine from the OT. Yet it was fully revealed to us only by our Lord, for the Jews had hardly got beyond the truth that God was the Father of Israel. The Apostle develops this truth. God is the Father of Jesus (2 Corinthians 1:3. Ephesians 1 etc.), who is ‘the Son of God’ (Galatians 2:20. Romans 1:4. 2 Corinthians 1:19. Ephesians 4:13; cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:10) His ‘own Son’ (i.e. partaker of His nature), whom He did not spare (Romans 8:3, 32. passages which recall both Mark 1:11 and John 3:16). — But, further, God is the father of all creatures (Ephesians 4:6). from Him ‘every fatherhood’ (i e. family) in heaven and earth is named (Ephesians 3:14 f.) He is ‘the Father’ (Galatians 1:1 etc.), the ‘Father of glory’ (Ephesians 1:17). — In a special sense He is the Father of all Christians, who’are His sons by adoption (Romans 8:15 f.: Galatians 3 4:5 f.; Ephesians 1:5 etc.). St. Paul never confuses the relation of the Father to the Son with that of the Father to mankind, but keeps the distinction of John 20:17 (‘my Father and your Father’).

2. The Fall of Man. — The universality of sin is the most prominent theme in Rom., among both Gentiles (I’M.) and Jews (2:9 ff.) all are ‘under sin’ (S""). Sin is due to Adam’s fall, and is punished by death; yet each man is responsible (5:12). ‘Sin’ does not mean mere error, as it was understood by the heathen, but moral wrong (cf. Psalms 51:4; so frequently in OT). From Adam came a taint which is called the ‘law of sin’ in the members (Romans 7:23)) ; it is a moral weakness which makes man inclined to sin. It is noticeable that Genesis says nothing of the penalty and taint as inherited from Adam upon which St. Paul insists; we find it first in Wis 2:23 f.; and probably in Sirach 25:24. The Rabbinical teaching varied; some Jewish teachers emphasized the inherited taint and penalty, others the responsibility of each man. For the first cf. 2 Esdras 4:30 f. 7:118 [7:4]; for the second cf. 2 Esdras 9:11 (freedom of choice) and Apocalypse of Baruch 54:15–19; 2 Esdras 3:20 ff. combines both views. These two works are probably of the 1st cent, a.d., and parts of 2 Esdras (but not those quoted) seem to have been added by a Christian hand (see ‘Thackeray, St. Paul and Jemsh Thought, ch. ii. and p. 21f .; a most suggestive book). — St. Paul traces the universality of sin to the instigation of Satan, the personal power of evil (1 Corinthians 7:5 etc.), and of his evil angels (Ephesians 6:12).

3. The Incarnation. — The remedy for universal sin is provided by the love of the Father (Romans 8:32) and of the Son (Galatians 2:20). in the Incarnation. That St. Paul uses the title ‘Son of God’ in no mere ethical sense is seen by the language in which he describes the pre-existence of our Lord. The Manhood and the Godhead are both spoken of in Ro !"• (‘of the seed of David according to the flesh,’ ‘declared to be the Son of God ‘) and 8 (‘God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh ‘) . The Christ is of the fathers as concerning the flesh, but is over all, God blessed for ever (Romans 9; so EV and Sanday-Headlam, who in an exhaustive note uphold this interpretation; those mentioned in RVm as of ‘some modern interpreters’ seem to suit neither NT usage nor the context). With these passages cf. Philippians 2:6 ff.: with Lightfoot’s notes. Christ Jesus, being originally in the form of God, having (that is) the essential attributes of God (Lightfoot), did not think equality with God a thing to be jealously guarded [as a robber guards what is not his], but emptied Himself [of the insignia of majesty] by taking the form of a slave. His position was no uncertain one that it should need to be asserted. It was this fact that made the condescension so great; Christ, being rich, became poor for our sakes (2 Corinthians 8:9). The pre-existence of our Lord is implied by the fact that He was the Father’s instrument in Creation (1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16 f.; cf. John 1:3). He ‘is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation . . . and he is before all things’ (Colossians 1). Lightfoot remarks that thefirst of these phrases expresses Christ’s relation to Deity (cf. Wisdom 7:26, 2 Corinthians 4:4. Hebrews 1:3). — He is the manifestation of the unseen Father; while the second denotes His relation to created things, — it implies priority to all creation (for the Arian gloss that it means that Christ was the first creature is absolutely excluded by v. 16 f.). and implies also sovereignty over creation, for the firstborn is the ruler of God’s family (Psalms 89:27; so in Hebrews 12 the ‘church of the firstborn’ probably means ‘heirs of the Kingdom’; cf. also Romans 8:29). The Pastoral Epistles also teach the pre-existence of our Lord; the words ‘manifested in the flesh’ in 1 Timothy 3:16 (where ‘God’ must be omitted from the text) necessitate this; and in Titus 2:13. according to the most probable interpretation (RV text), Jesus is called ‘our great God and Saviour’ (see Dean Bernard’s note). — It would, however, be misleading to suggest that St. Paul’s belief in the Divinity of his Master depends only on the interpretation of a few controverted texts, however great their combined force. The whole language of the Pauline Epistles, the devoted submission of Paul the ‘slave’ (Romans 1:1 and passim) to Jesus, are inexplicable on any other hypothesis (see also the next paragraph).

4. The Atonement. — ‘As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’ ‘The last Adam became a life-giving spirit’ (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; cf. Romans 5:14–17). Our Lord is the ‘second’ or ‘last’ Adam, thus re-establishing what the first Adam destroyed. It has been thought that ‘the second Adam’ was a common Rabbinic title for the Messiah, but this seems doubtful. The term ‘first Adam’ is found, but is used in contradistinction to other men (‘Adam’ =‘man’), not as opposed to Messiah (Thackeray, op. cit. p. 41). Others have thought that St. Paul got his contrast between Adam and Christ from Philo and the Alexandrian Jewish school. However this may be, St. Paul teaches that our Lord came to be the Second Adam ‘from heaven’ (1 Corinthians 15:47). to restore all things, to be the representative man, and to recapitulate or sum up the human species in Himself (cf. Ephesians 1:10). to show to fallen humanity what God meant man to be.

This restoration was to be by the death of Jesus, by a sacrifice. Christ was set forth by God to be a propitiation, or (as we shotild perhaps translate) to be propitiatory (Romans 3:25; cf. 1 John 2:2 4:10). The word is used in LXX as a substantive meaning ‘the place of propitiation’ or ‘the mercy seat,’ the top of the arlc, so called because it was sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices; but this can hardly be the meaning in Rom., as the metaphor would be confused, Christ being at once the priest, victim, and place of sprinkling; and the second translation is therefore preferable (so Sanday- Headlam, Romans, p. 87 f.). But to understand the meaning we must notice (a) that here as elsewhere (Romans 5:9. Ephesians 1:7 2:13. Colossians 1:14, 20) the blood of our Lord, shed for the forgiveness of sins, is emphasized; and (6) that in Romans 5:10 Jesus’ death is said to be a ‘reconciliation’ or ‘atonement.’ Man is reconciled to, made ‘at one’ with, God; his attitude to God is changed (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:18). God is not here said to be reconciled to man, because it is man, not God, who must change if there is to be reconciliation, as is said in Colossians 1:21 (where see Lightfoot’s note). Yet there is another side of the same truth, alluded to in the Anglican Article ii. (‘to reconcile his Father to us’). The word ‘propitiatory’ of Romans 3:25 can only mean that by Christ’s death, God is propitiated, that is, God’s just anger is taken away from us. [In 2 Maccabees 1:5 7:33 8:29 God is said ‘to be reconciled’ to man.]

This reconciliation is effected by a vicarious sacrifice. In ordinary life vicarious suffering is common, and is usually involuntary. But Christ freely offered Himself(Gal 2:20. 1 Timothy 2:6. Titus 2:14), the sinless for the guilty. He was ‘made sin in our behalf’ (2 Corinthians 5:21) cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7 15:3. Galatians 3:13).

This sacrifice was for all men (2 Corinthians 5:14 f.). And here we notice that St. Paul does not attempt to reconcile the Divine sovereignty with man’s choice, God’s predestination with human freewill. He sometimes states the former (.e.g. Romans 9), sometimes the latter (.e.g. Romans 10), looking sometimes at one side of the truth, sometimes at the other. On the one hand, God is the potter with power over the clay (Romans 9:21), foreordaining and calling before the foundation of the world (Romans 8:29 f. 9:23 f.; Ephesians 1:4 f.). purposing that all men shall be saved (Romans 11:32, 1 Timothy 2:4 4:10), sending His Son to the world not only to save mankind generally, as a body, but to save each individual(cf. Galatians 2:20). On the other hand, man can exercise his free will to thwart God’s purpose, as all Israel except a remnant did (Romans 9:27 11), and the call does not necessitate salvation (1 Corinthians 9:27). The election is therefore to ‘privilege,’ as it is called; God has chosen certain men to receive privileges in this world, as Jews in the Old Covenant, Christians in the New. Yet there Is also an election to life; the ‘glory’ of Romans 9:22 f. is not of this world only. Here St. Paul leaves the question, and we may do well to avoid theorizing on it, whether in the direction of the Arminian view (named from van Harraen, a.d. 1660-1609), which was that God knows who will and who will not respond to His call, and therefore predestinates the former to life; or of the Calvinist or ultra-Augustinian view, which is that predestination is arbitrary, and that Christ died only for those predestined to life (‘particular redemption’). The paradox is insoluble with our present knowledge, and we must patiently wait for its solution in the fuller light of the world to come. It may be remarked that St. Paul, while dwelling on both the goodness and the severity of God (Romans 2:4 11:22). never speaks of predestination to condemnation.

By another metaphor the atoning work of our Lord is called by St. Paul a ‘ransom’ or ‘redemption.’ We are ‘bought with a price’ (1 Corinthians 6:20 7:23; cf. Galatians 3 4:5, Titus 2:14 etc., and 2 Peter 2:1). In his charge to the presbyters of Ephesus, St. Paul speaks of ‘the church of God which he purchased with his own blood’ (Acts 20:28). Without stopping to discuss the other difficulties of this verse (for we cannot be sure that we have St. Paul’s ipsissima verba), we may remark that the metaphor of purchase or ransom must not be pressed too far. There need be no question of the person to whom the price is paid, whether it be God the Father, or Satan, who is supposed by some to have acquired a right to man by the Fall. The force of the metaphor lies, not in the person recompensed, but in the price paid. It is the immensity of the sacrifice that is emphasized, and the figure must not be carried further than this.

6. Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord. — The former event is made by St. Paul the great foundation of his teaching. In 1 Corinthians 15:1–11 he explains the gospel which he preached as he had received it, that Christ died, was buried, and was raised on the third day (the ‘scriptures’ referred to seem to be Isaiah 53:5 ff.; Psalms 16:8 ff.) the historical fact of the resurrection was, he says, witnessed by Cephas, ‘the twelve,’ the 500 brethren [in Galilee?] of whom most still survived, James [not in Gospels or Acts], ‘all the apostles’ [at the Ascension?], and lastly by himself as ‘one born out of due time.’ The appearance of Christ at his conversion he took to be as real and as little a hallucination as the appearances before the Ascension. So far from the fact of the appearance to St. Paul and those to the rest being put on a par showing that in St. Paul’s view the latter were pure hallucinations, it shows that he was convinced of the reality of both alike (cf. esp. 1 Corinthians 9:1). The criterion of Apostleship was that a man had seen Jesus, not merely dreamt that he had seen Him. In a word, if Christ’s resurrection be false, Paul’s preaching is vain, our faith is vain (1 Corinthians 15:14; cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 4:14, 2 Ti 2:8 etc.). The historical fact is treated as fundamental in the sermons at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:30 ff.), at Athens (17), and before Agrippa (26:23)) and the salient point of Paul’s teaching seized on by Festus was that he affirmed Jesus, who was dead [‘had died’], to be alive (25:19). It is this fact that is the great power of the Christian life (Philippians 3:10).

The Ascension and Future Return of our Lord are often alluded to by St. Paul (see also 10 below). It is explicitly stated in Ephesians 4:8 that Jesus ascended to give ‘gifts unto men,’ and Psalms 68:18 is quoted. Jesus is exalted in glory (Philippians 2:9. 1 Timothy 3:16), or, in the symbolic language found also elsewhere in N’T, expressing the same fact, is seated on the right hand of God (Romans 8:34, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 3:1, from Psalms 110:1) so the believer is made to sit in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). Jesus is expected to return ‘from heaven’ (1 Thessalonians 1:10 4:16, Philippians 3:20), to judge the world (2 Corinthians 6:10, 2 Timothy 4:8, Acts 17:31; cf. John 5:22, 27). It is said, however, by Prof. Harnack that the Ascension had no separate place in primitive Christian tradition, and that the Resurrection and Session were thought of as one act. As regards St. Paul, his silence in 1 Co IS’"-, Romans 8:34 as to the Ascension is alleged. In the former place reference to the Ascension would have no point, for the Apostle is proving the truth of the Resurrection. In the latter we have the sequence ‘died’ — ‘was raised’ — ‘is at the right hand of God’ — ‘maketh intercession.’ If we are to take the second and third phrases as denoting one act, why not the first and second? [For a full discussion on this point, see Swete, The Apostles’ Creed, p. 64 £f.]

6. The Holy Ghost.— In Romans 8:1–27 St. Paul gives a great exposition of the work of the Spirit, which closely approximates to the description of the Paraclete (Helper, Comforter, Advocate) in Jn., though the name itself is not used. The ‘Spirit of life’ dwells in us (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16 6:19) to quicken us [at the same time we read of this as ‘Christ’ being ‘in us,’ Romans 8:9–11), to lead us, and to help us to pray. He makes intercession for us [to the Father] — words in which St. Paul indicates what the technical language of Christianity calls the ‘personality’ of the Holy Spirit, distinct from the Father. So in Ephesians 4:30 the Holy Ghost can be grieved. He is the ‘Spirit of Christ" (Romans 8:9). In 1 Corinthians 12 the Apostle describes the varying work of the Spirit in man,’ dividing ... as he will’ (v. 11; note the indication of personality). We live by the Spirit (Galatians 5:25). In 2 Corinthians 3:17 the Spirit is at first sight identified with Christ — ‘the Lord is the Spirit’; the gift of the Spirit is the gift of Christ. Here again we recall our Lord’s words in Jn., where the coming of the Spirit and the coming of Christ are identified (John 14:16–23). So also are reconciled the apparently contradictory sayings, ‘I will be with you alway’ (Matthew 28:20) and ‘I go away ... I will send him unto you’ (John 16:7). It is the work of the Spirit to make Christ’s presence real to us. Hence also the Spirit works within us; we are united to Christ by Him, and from the beginning of our Christian life we are all baptized in one Spirit into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13). The Spirit is also spoken of as being givem. to us (Galatians 3:5, Titus 3:6, Acts 19:2, 6 etc.). Lastly, we notice that the Father, Son, and Spirit are joined together in the Apostolic benediction (2 Corinthians 13:14). but in a striking order, our Lord coming first. Perhaps the Apostle’s thought is that it is only by the grace of the Son that we can come to the love of the Father, and that the outpouring of the gifts of the Spirit applies that grace and love to us.

7. Justification by faith. — The Jewish teachers who bad preceded St. Paul had taught that man is always laying up a treasure of good and bad deeds (cf . Romans 2:5) ; and according as either preponderate at any given time, he is declared righteous or is condemned ; while it the good and evil deeds are equal, God gives man the benefit of the doubt; and moreover, a man’s good deeds may be supplemented by those of the patriarchs. [An echo of this may be seen in Romans 11:28; see Thackeray, op. dt. p. 83t.] It was taught that the whole transaction was a matter of contract, God owing a debt to man for goodness. St. Paul adopts the forensic metaphor of judge and verdict; man is ‘justified,’ or accounted righteous, by God, though he is not righteous. ‘The Christian life,’ it has been said, ‘is made to have its beginning in a fiction’ (Sanday-Headlam, Romans, p. 36). But this is merely another way of saying that God does not exact the debt to the utmost ; He forgives freely (Romans 3:24 8:33). Man is given a fresh start, with a clear record. The great difference between St. Paul and the Jewish teachers lies in the place assigned by him to faith (Romans 1:17 4:3. Galatians 3:6, 11), in his denying the merits of works of the Law (Galatians 2:16 3:21). and in the gift of justification being free. The Jews recognized faith only as one of the works, and with them it was no more than obedience to the Law.

The forgiveness of man is described by St. Paul as a manifestation of the righteousness (or ‘a righteousness’) of God (2 Corinthians 6. Romans 1:17. Philippians 3:9). which is regarded as being diffused among men, as in the second Isaiah (Isaiah 45:23 RVm, 46:13 51 56:1). But the condition of forgiveness is faith, which for the Christian is a real belief in Christ — that conviction which the Apostle himself attained at his conversion, an active and enthusiastic belief infiuencing his whole life. Abraham was justified because he believed the promises; the Christian will be justified if he believes the revelation of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:5 3:22 10:9, 17 etc.); this is ‘the faith’ (2 Ti 4:7 etc.).