 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Professor Schmidt has published a photographic copy, a transcription, aGerman translation, and a commentary of aCoptic papyrus composed of about 2000 fragments, which he has classified, juxtaposed, and deciphered at a cost of infinite labour ("Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift Nr. 1", Leipzig, 1904, and "Zusatze" etc., Leipzig, 1905). Most critics, whetherCatholic (Duchesne, Bardenhewer, Ehrhard etc.), orProtestant (Zahn, Harnack, Corssen etc.),believe that these are real "Acta Pauli", although the text edited by Schmidt, with its very numerous gaps, represents but a small portion of the original work. This discovery modified the generally acceptedideas concerning the origin, contents, and value of theseapocryphal Acts, and warrants the conclusion that three ancient compositions which have reached us formed an integral part of the "Acta Pauli" viz. the"Acta Pauli et Theclae", of which the best edition is that ofLipsius, ("Acta Apostolorum apocrypha", Leipzig, 1891, 235-72), a "Martyrium Pauli" preserved in Greek and a fragment of which also exists in Latin (op. cit., 104-17), and a letter from the Corinthians to Paul with the latter's reply, theArmenian text of which was preserved (cf. Zahn, "Gesch. des neutest. Kanons", II, 592-611), and the Latin discovered by Berger in 1891 (d. Harnack, "Die apokryphen Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicener und Korinther", Bonn, 1905). With great sagacity Zahn anticipated this result with regard to the last two documents, and the manner in whichSt. Jerome speaks of theperiodoi Pauli et Theclae (Illustrious Men 7) might have permitted the same surmise with regard to the first.
Another consequence of Schmidt's discovery is no less interesting.Lipsius maintained — and this was hitherto the common opinion — that besides theCatholic "Acts" there formerly existedGnostic "Acts of Paul", but now everything tends toprove that the latter never existed. In factOrigen quotes the "Acta Pauli" twice as an estimable writing (Commentary on John XX.12;De Principiis II.1.3);Eusebius (Church History III.3.5 andIII.25.4) places them among the books in dispute, such as the"Shepherd" of Hermas, the"Apocalypse of Peter", the"Epistle of Barnabas", and the"Teaching of the Apostles". The stichometry of the "Codex Claromontanus" (photograph in Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible", II, 147) places them after the canonical books.Tertullian andSt. Jerome, while pointing out the legendary character of this writing, do not attack itsorthodoxy. The precise purpose of St. Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians which formed part of the "Acts", was to oppose theGnostics, Simon and Cleobius. But there is no reason to admit the existence ofheretical "Acts" which have since been hopelessly lost, for all the details given by ancient authors are verified in the "Acts" which have been recovered or tally well with them.
The following is the explanation of the confusion: TheManicheans andPriscillianists had circulated a collection of fiveapocryphal "Acts", four of which were tainted withheresy, and the fifth were the "Acts of Paul". The "Acta Pauli", owing to this unfortunate association, are suspected ofheterodoxy by the more recent authors such asPhilastrius (De haeres., 88) andPhotius (Cod., 114).Tertullian (On Baptism 17) andSt. Jerome (Illustrious Men 7) denounce the fabulous character of theapocryphal "Acts" of Paul, and this severe judgment is amply confirmed by the examination of the fragments published by Schmidt. It is a purelyimaginative work in which improbability vies with absurdity. The author, who was acquainted with the canonicalActs of the Apostles, locates the scene in the places really visited by St. Paul (Antioch,Iconium,Myra,Perge,Sidon,Tyre, Ephesus,Corinth,Philippi,Rome), but for the rest he gives his fancy free rein. Hischronology is absolutely impossible. Of the sixty-fivepersons he names, very few are known and the part played by these is irreconcilable with the statements of the canonical "Acts". Briefly, if the canonical "Acts" aretrue theapocryphal "Acts" arefalse. This, however, does not imply that none of the details have historical foundation, but they must be confirmed by an independent authority.
If we admit according to the almost unanimous opinion ofexegetes thatActs 15 andGalatians 2:1-10, relate to the same fact it will be seen that an interval of seventeen years — or at least sixteen, counting incomplete years as accomplished — elapsed between theconversion of Paul and theApostolic council, for Paul visitedJerusalem three years after hisconversion (Galatians 1:18) and returned after fourteen years for the meeting held with regard to legal observances (Galatians 2:1: "Epeita dia dekatessaron eton"). It istrue that some authors include the three years prior to the first visit in the total of fourteen, but this explanation seems forced. On the other hand, twelve or thirteen years elapsed between theApostolic council and the end of the captivity, for the captivity lasted nearly five years (more than two years atCaesarea,Acts 24:27, six months travelling, including the sojourn atMalta, and two years atRome,Acts 28:30); the third mission lasted not less than four years and a half (three of which were spent at Ephesus,Acts 20:31, and one between the departure from Ephesus and the arrival atJerusalem,1 Corinthians 16:8;Acts 20:16, and six months at the very least for the journey to Galatia,Acts 18:23); while the second mission lasted not less than three years (eighteen months forCorinth,Acts 18:11, and the remainder for the evangelization of Galatia,Macedonia, andAthens,Acts 15:36-17:34). Thus from theconversion to the end of the first captivity we have a total of about twenty-nine years.
Now if we could find a fixed point that is a synchronism between a fact in the life of Paul and a certainlydated event in profane history, it would be easy to reconstruct the Paulinechronology. Unfortunately this much wished-for mark has not yet been indicated withcertainty, despite the numerous attempts made by scholars, especially in recent times. It is of interest to note even the abortive attempts, because the discovery of aninscription or of acoin may any day transform an approximatedate into an absolutely fixed point. These are
All these events, as far as they may be assigned approximatedates, agree with theApostle's generalchronology but give no precise results. Three synchronisms, however, appear to afford a firmer basis:
(1) The occupation ofDamascus by the ethnarch of King Aretas and the escape of theApostle three years after hisconversion (2 Corinthians 11:32-33;Acts 9:23-26). —Damascenecoins bearing the effigy ofTiberius to the year 34 are extant,proving that at thattime the city belonged to the Romans. It is impossible to assume that Aretas had received it as a gift fromTiberius, for the latter, especially in his last years, was hostile to the King of the Nabataeans whomVitellius, Governor ofSyria, was ordered to attack (Joseph., "Ant.", XVIII, v, 13); neither could Aretas have possessed himself of it by force for, besides the unlikelihood of a direct aggression against the Romans, the expedition ofVitellius was at first directed not againstDamascus but againstPetra. It has therefore been somewhat plausibly conjectured that Caligula, subject as he was to such whims, had ceded it to him at the time of his accession (10 March, 37). As a matter of fact nothing is known of imperialcoins ofDamascus dating from either Caligula or Claudius. According to this hypothesis St. Paul'sconversion was not prior to 34, nor his escape fromDamascus and his first visit toJerusalem, to 37.
(2) Death of Agrippa, famine inJudea, mission of Paul andBarnabas toJerusalem to bring thither thealms from theChurch of Antioch (Acts 11:27-12:25). —Agrippa died shortly after thePasch (Acts 12:3,12:19), when he was celebrating inCaesarea solemn festivals inhonour of Claudius's recent return fromBritain, in the third year of his reign, which had begun in 41 (Josephus, "Ant.", XIX, vii, 2). These combined facts bring us to the year 44, and it is precisely in this year thatOrosius (Hist., vii, 6) places the great famine which desolatedJudea.Josephus mentions it somewhat later, under theprocurator Tiberius Alexander (about 46), but it is well known that the whole of Claudius's reign was characterized by poor harvests (Suet., "Claudius", 18) and a general famine was usually preceded by a more or less prolonged period of scarcity. It is also possible that the relief sent in anticipation of the famineforetold byAgabus (Acts 11:28-29) preceded the appearance of the scourge or coincided with the first symptoms of want. On the other hand, the synchronism between the death ofHerod and the mission of Paul can only be approximate, for although the two facts are closely connected in theActs, the account of the death ofAgrippa may be a mere episode intended to shed light on the situation of theChurch ofJerusalem about thetime of the arrival of the delegates fromAntioch. In any case, 45 seems to be the most satisfactorydate.
(3) Replacing of Felix by Festus two years after the arrest to Paul (Acts 24:27). — Until recently chronologists commonly fixed this important event, in the year 60-61. Harnack, O. Holtzmann, and McGiffert suggest advancing it four or five years for the following reasons:
(1) In his"Chronicon",Eusebius places the arrival of Festus in the second year ofNero (October, 55-October, 56, or if, as is asserted,Eusebius makes the reigns of the emperors begin with the September after their accession, September, 56-September, 57). But it must be borne in mind that the chroniclers being alwaysobliged to give definitedates, were likely to guess at them, and it may be thatEusebius for lack of definite information divided into two equal parts the entire duration of the government of Felix and Festus.
(2)Josephus states (Ant., XX, viii, 9) that Felix having been recalled toRome and accused by theJews toNero, owed his safety only to his brother Pallas who was then high in favour. But according to Tacitus (Annal., XIII, xiv-xv), Pallas was dismissed shortly before Britannicus celebrated his fourteenth anniversary, that is, in January, 55. These two statements are irreconcilable; for if Pallas was dismissed three months afterNero's accession (13 October, 54) he could not have been at the summit of his power when his brother Felix, recalled from Palestine at the command ofNero about thetime ofPentecost, arrived atRome. Possibly Pallas, who after his dismissal retained hiswealth and a portion of his influence, since he stipulated that his administration should not be subjected to an investigation, was able to be of assistance to his brother until 62 whenNero, to obtain possession of hisgoods,Nero had him poisoned.
The advocates of a laterdate bring forward the following reasons:
(1) Two years before the recall of Felix, Paul reminded him that he had been for many years judge over theJewish nation (Acts 24:10-27). This can scarcely mean less than six or seven years, and as, according toJosephus who agrees with Tacitus, Felix was namedprocurator ofJudea in 52, the beginning of the captivity would fall in 58 or 59. It istrue that the argument loses its strength if it be admitted with several critics that Felix before beingprocurator had held a subordinate position in Palestine.
(2)Josephus (Ant., XX, viii, 5-8) places underNero everything that pertains to the government of Felix, and although this long series of events does not necessarily require many years it is evident thatJosephus regarded the government of Felix as coinciding for the most part with the reign ofNero, which began on 13 October, 54.
In fixing as follows the chiefdates in the life of Paul allcertain or probable data seem to be satisfactorily taken into account:Conversion, 35; first visit toJerusalem, 37; sojourn atTarsus, 37-43; apostolate atAntioch, 43-44; second visit toJerusalem, 44 or 45; first mission, 45-49; third visit toJerusalem, 49 or 50; second mission, 50-53; (1 and2 Thessalonians), 52; fourth visit toJerusalem, 53; third mission, 53-57; (1 and2 Corinthians;Galatians), 56; (Romans), 57; fifth visit toJerusalem, arrest, 57; arrival of Festus, departure forRome, 59; captivity atRome, 60-62; (Philemon;Colossians;Ephesians;Philippians), 61; second period of activity, 62-66; (1 Timothy;Titus), second arrest, 66; (2 Timothy),martyrdom, 67. (See Turner, "Chronology of the New Testament" in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible" Hönicke, "Die Chronologie des Lebens des Ap. Paulus", Leipzig, 1903.
From St. Paul himself weknow that he was born atTarsus in Cilicia (Acts 21:39), of a father who was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:26-28; cf.16:37), of afamily in whichpiety was hereditary (2 Timothy 1:3) and which was much attached toPharisaic traditions and observances (Philippians 3:5-6).
St. Jerome relates, on what ground is notknown, that hisparents were natives of Gischala, a small town ofGalilee and that they brought him toTarsus when Gischala was captured by the Romans (Illustrious Men 5; "In epist. ad Phil.", 23). This last detail is certainly an anachronism, but theGalilean origin of thefamily is not at all improbable.
As he belonged to thetribe of Benjamin he was given at the time of hiscircumcision the name of Saul, which must have been common in thattribe in memory of thefirst king of the Jews (Philippians 3:5). As a Roman citizen he also bore the Latin name of Paul. It was quite usual for theJews of thattime to have two names, one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek, between which there was often a certain assonance and which were joined together exactly in the manner made use of bySt. Luke (Acts 13:9:Saulos ho kai Paulos). See on this point Deissmann, "Bible Studies" (Edinburgh, 1903, 313-17.) It was natural that in inaugurating his apostolate among theGentiles Paul should have adopted his Roman name, especially as the name Saul had a ludicrous meaning in Greek.
As every respectableJew had to teach his son a trade, young Saul learned how to make tents (Acts 18:3) or rather to make the mohair of which tents were made (cf. Lewin, "Life of St. Paul", I, London, 1874, 8-9). He was still very young when sent toJerusalem to receive hiseducation at theschool ofGamaliel (Acts 22:3). Possibly some of hisfamily resided in theholy city; later there is mention of the presence of one of his sisters whose son saved his life (Acts 23:16).
From thattime it is absolutely impossible to follow him until he takes an active part in themartyrdom ofSt. Stephen (Acts 7:58-60;22:20). He was then qualified as a young man (neanias), but this was very elastic appellation and might be applied to a man between twenty and forty.
We read in theActs of the Apostles three accounts of theconversion of St. Paul (9:1-19;22:3-21;26:9-23) presenting some slight differences, which it is not difficult to harmonize and which do not affect the basis of the narrative, which is perfectly identical in substance. See J. Massie, "The Conversion of St. Paul" in "The Expositor", 3rd series, X, 1889, 241-62. Sabatier, agreeing with most independent critics, has well said (L'Apotre Paul, 1896, 42):
These differences cannot in any way alter the reality of the fact; their bearing on the narrative is extremely remote; they do not deal even with the circumstances accompanying themiracle but with the subjective impressions which the companions of St. Paul received of these circumstances. . . . To base a denial of the historical character of the account upon these differences would seem therefore aviolent and arbitrary proceeding.
All efforts hitherto made to explain without amiracle theapparition ofJesus to Paul have failed.Naturalistic explanations are reduced to two: either Paulbelieved that he really sawChrist, but was the victim of an hallucination, or hebelieved that he saw Him only through a spiritual vision, whichtradition, recorded in theActs of the Apostles, latererroneously materialized. Renan explained everything by hallucination due to disease brought on by a combination ofmoral causes such asdoubt, remorse,fear, and of physical causes such as ophthalmia, fatigue, fever, the sudden transition from the torriddesert to the fresh gardens ofDamascus, perhaps a sudden storm accompanied by lightning and thunder. All this combined, according to Renan's theory, to produce a cerebral commotion, a passing delirium which Paul took ingood faith for anapparition of therisenChrist.
The other partisans of a natural explanation while avoiding the wordhallucination, eventually fall back on the system of Renan which they merely endeavour to render a little less complicated. ThusHolsten, for whom the vision ofChrist is only the conclusion of a series of syllogisms by which Paul persuaded himself thatChrist was trulyrisen. So also Pfleiderer, who however, causes theimagination to play a more influential part:
An excitable, nervous temperament; asoul that had beenviolently agitated and torn by the most terribledoubts; a most vivid phantasy, occupied with the awful scenes ofpersecution on the one hand and on the other by the ideal image of the celestialChrist; in addition the nearness ofDamascus with the urgency of a decision, the lonely stillness, the scorching and blinding heat of thedesert — in fact everything combined to produce one of thoseecstatic states in which thesoulbelieves that it sees those images and conceptions whichviolently agitate it as if they were phenomena proceeding from the outward world (Lectures on the influence of the Apostle Paul on the development of Christianity, 1897, 43).
We have quoted Pfleiderer's words at length because his "psychological" explanation is considered the best ever devised. It will readily be seen that it is insufficient and as much opposed to the account in theActs as to the express testimony of St. Paul himself.
All explanations,psychological or otherwise, are worthless in face of these definite assertions, for all suppose that it was Paul'sfaith inChrist which engendered the vision, whereas according to the concordant testimony of theActs and theEpistles it was the actual vision ofChrist which engenderedfaith.
After hisconversion, hisbaptism, and hismiraculous cure Paul set about preaching to theJews (Acts 9:19-20). He afterwards withdrew toArabia — probably to the region south ofDamascus (Galatians 1:17), doubtless less to preach than tomeditate on theScriptures. On his return toDamascus the intrigues of theJews forced him to flee by night (2 Corinthians 11:32-33;Acts 9:23-25). He went toJerusalem to seePeter (Galatians 1:18), but remained only fifteen days, for the snares of the Greeks threatened his life. He then left forTarsus and is lost to sight for five or six years (Acts 9:29-30;Galatians 1:21).Barnabas went in search of him and brought him toAntioch where for a year they worked together and their apostolate was most fruitful (Acts 11:25-26). Together also they were sent toJerusalem to carryalms to the brethren on the occasion of the famine predicted byAgabus (Acts 11:27-30). They do not seem to have found theApostles there; these had been scattered by thepersecution ofHerod.
This period of twelve years (45-57) was the most active and fruitful of his life. It comprises three greatApostolic expeditions of whichAntioch was in each instance the starting-point and which invariably ended in a visit toJerusalem.
Set apart by command of theHoly Ghost for the special evangelization of theGentiles,Barnabas and Saul embark forCyprus, preach in thesynagogue of Salamina, cross the island from east to west doubtless following the southern coast, and reachPaphos, the residence of the proconsul Sergius Paulus, where a sudden change takes place. After theconversion of the Roman proconsul, Saul, suddenly become Paul, is invariably mentioned beforeBarnabas bySt. Luke and manifestly assumes the leadership of the mission whichBarnabas has hitherto directed.
The results of this change are soon evident. Paul, doubtless concluding thatCyprus, the natural dependency ofSyria and Cilicia, would embrace thefaith ofChrist when these two countries should beChristian, choseAsia Minor as the field of his apostolate and sailed forPerge in Pamphylia, eighty miles above the mouth of the Cestrus. It was then thatJohn Mark, cousin ofBarnabas, dismayed perhaps by the daring projects of theApostle, abandoned the expedition and returned toJerusalem, while Paul andBarnabas laboured alone among the rough mountains ofPisidia, which were infested by brigands and crossed by frightful precipices. Their destination was the Roman colony ofAntioch, situated a seven day's journey fromPerge. Here Paul spoke on the vocation ofIsrael and theprovidential sending of theMessias, a discourse whichSt. Luke reproduces in substance as an example of his preaching in thesynagogues (Acts 13:16-41). The sojourn of the two missionaries inAntioch was long enough for the word of theLord to be published throughout the whole country (Acts 13:49).
When by their intrigues theJews had obtained against them a decree of banishment, they went toIconium, three or four days distant, where they met with the samepersecution from theJews and the same eager welcome from theGentiles. The hostility of theJews forced them to take refuge in the Roman colony ofLystra, eighteen miles distant. Here theJews fromAntioch andIconium laid snares for Paul and havingstoned him left him for dead, but again he succeeded in escaping and this time sought refuge inDerbe, situated about forty miles away on the frontier of the Province of Galatia. Their circuit completed, the missionaries retraced their steps in order to visit theirneophytes,ordainedpriests in eachChurch founded by them at such great cost, and thus reachedPerge where they halted to preach the Gospel, perhaps while awaiting an opportunity to embark forAttalia, a port twelve miles distant. On their return toAntioch in Syria after an absence of at least three years, they were received with transports ofjoy and thanksgiving, forGod had opened the door offaith to theGentiles.
The problem of the status of theGentiles in theChurch now made itself felt with all its acuteness. SomeJudeo-Christians coming down fromJerusalem claimed that theGentiles must be submitted tocircumcision and treated as theJews treatedproselytes. Against this Paul andBarnabas protested and it was decided that a meeting should be held atJerusalem in order to solve the question. At this assembly Paul andBarnabas represented the community ofAntioch.Peter pleaded the freedom of theGentiles; James upheld him, at the same time demanding that theGentiles should abstain from certain things which especially shocked theJews.
It was decided, first, that theGentiles were exempt from theMosaic law. Secondly, that those ofSyria and Cilicia must abstain from thingssacrificed toidols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Thirdly, that this injunction was laid upon them, not in virtue of theMosaic law, but in the name of theHoly Ghost. This meant the complete triumph of Paul'sideas.
The restriction imposed on theGentileconverts ofSyria and Cilicia did not concern hisChurches, and Titus, his companion, was not compelled to becircumcised, despite the loud protests of theJudaizers (Galatians 2:3-4). Here it is to be assumed thatGalatians 2 andActs 15 relate to the same fact, for the actors are the same, Paul andBarnabas on the one hand,Peter and James on the other; the discussion is the same, the question of thecircumcision of theGentiles; the scenes are the same,Antioch andJerusalem; thedate is the same, about A.D. 50; and the result is the same, Paul's victory over theJudaizers.
However, the decision ofJerusalem did not do away with all difficulties. The question did not concern only theGentiles, and while exempting them from theMosaic law, it was not declared that it would not have been countedmeritorious and moreperfect for them to observe it, as thedecree seemed to liken them toJewishproselytes of the second class. Furthermore theJudeo-Christians, not having been included in the verdict, were still free to consider themselves bound to the observance of thelaw. This was the origin of the dispute which shortly afterwards arose atAntioch betweenPeter and Paul. The latter taught openly that thelaw was abolished for theJews themselves.Peter did not think otherwise, but he considered it wise to avoid giving offence to theJudaizers and to refrain from eating with theGentiles who did not observe all the prescriptions of thelaw. As he thus morally influenced theGentiles to live as theJews did, Paul demonstrated to him that this dissimulation or opportuneness prepared the way for future misunderstandings and conflicts and even then had regrettable consequences. His manner of relating this incident leaves no room fordoubt thatPeter was persuaded by his arguments (Galatians 2:11-20).
The beginning of the second mission was marked by a rather sharp discussion concerningMark, whom St. Paul this time refused to accept as travelling companion. ConsequentlyBarnabas set out withMark forCyprus and Paul chose Silas or Silvanus, a Roman citizen like himself, and an influential member of theChurch ofJerusalem, and sent by it toAntioch to deliver thedecrees of theApostolic council. The two missionaries first went fromAntioch toTarsus, stopping on the way in order to promulgate the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem; then they went fromTarsus toDerbe, through the Cilician Gates, the defiles ofTarsus, and the plains of Lycaonia. The visitation of theChurches founded during his first mission passed without notable incidents except the choice ofTimothy, whom theApostle while inLystra persuaded to accompany him, and whom hecaused to becircumcised in order to facilitate his access to theJews who were numerous in those places.
It was probably atAntioch of Pisidia, although theActs do not mention that city, that the itinerary of the mission was altered by the intervention of theHoly Ghost. Paul thought to enter the Province of Asia by the valley of Meander which separated it by only three day's journey, but they passed through Phrygia and the country of Galatia, having been forbidden by theHoly Ghost to preach the word ofGod inAsia (Acts 16:6). These words (ten phrygian kai Galatiken choran) are variously interpreted, according as we take them to mean the Galatians of the north or of the south (see GALATIANS). Whatever the hypothesis, the missionaries had to travel northwards in that portion of Galatia properly so called of which Pessinonte was the capital, and the only question is as to whether or not they preached there. They did not intend to do so, but as isknown the evangelization of the Galatians was due to an accident, namely the illness of Paul (Galatians 4:13); this fits very well for Galatians in the north. In any case the missionaries having reached the upper part of Mysia (kata Mysian), attempted to enter the rich Province of Bithynia, which lay before them, but theHoly Ghost prevented them (Acts 16:7). Therefore, passing through Mysia without stopping to preach (parelthontes) they reached Alexandria ofTroas, whereGod's will was again madeknown to them in the vision of a Macedonian who called them to come and help his country (Acts 16:9-10).
Paul continued to follow onEuropean soil the method of preaching he had employed from the beginning. As far as possible he concentrated his efforts in a metropolis from which theFaith would spread to cities of second rank and to the country districts. Wherever there was asynagogue he first took his stand there and preached to theJews andproselytes who wouldconsent to listen to him. When the rupture with theJews was irreparable, which always happened sooner or later, he founded a newChurch with hisneophytes as a nucleus. He remained in the same city untilpersecution, generally aroused by the intrigues of theJews, forced him to retire. There were, however, variations of this plan. AtPhilippi, where there was nosynagogue, the first preaching took place in the uncovered oratory called theproseuche, which theGentiles made a reason for stirring up thepersecution. Paul and Silas, charged with disturbing public order, were beaten with rods,imprisoned, and finally exiled. But atThessalonica and Berea, whither they successively repaired after leavingPhilippi, things turned out almost as they had planned.
The apostolate ofAthens was quite exceptional. Here there was no question ofJews orsynagogue, Paul, contrary to his custom, was alone (1 Thessalonians 3:1), and he delivered before the areopagus a specially framed discourse, a synopsis of which has been preserved byActs 17:23-31 as a specimen of its kind. He seems to have left the city of his own accord, without being forced to do so bypersecution. The mission toCorinth on the other hand may be considered typical. Paul preached in thesynagogue everySabbath day, and when theviolent opposition of theJews denied him entrance there he withdrew to an adjoining house which was theproperty of aproselyte named Titus Justus. He carried on his apostolate in this manner for eighteen months, while theJews vainly stormed against him; he was able to withstand them owing to the impartial, if not actually favourable, attitude of the proconsul, Gallio. Finally he decided to go toJerusalem in fulfillment of avow made perhaps in a moment of danger. FromJerusalem, according to his custom, he returned toAntioch. The twoEpistles to the Thessalonians were written during the early months of his sojourn atCorinth. For occasion, circumstances, andanalysis of these letters seeTHESSALONIANS.
Paul's destination in his third journey was obviously Ephesus. ThereAquila and Priscilla were awaiting him, he had promised the Ephesians to return and evangelize them if it were the will ofGod (Acts 18:19-21), and theHoly Ghost no longer opposed his entry intoAsia. Therefore, after a brief rest atAntioch he went through the countries of Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23) and passing through "the upper regions" of Central Asia he reached Ephesus (19:1). His method remained the same. In order to earn his living and not be a burden to thefaithful he toiled every day for many hours at making tents, but this did not prevent him from preaching the Gospel. As usual he began with thesynagogue where he succeeded in remaining for three months. At the end of thistime he taught every day in a classroom placed at his disposal by a certain Tyrannus "from the fifth hour to the tenth" (from eleven in the morning till four in the afternoon), according to the interesting addition of the"Codex Bezae" (Acts 19:9). This lasted two years, so that all the inhabitants ofAsia,Jews and Greeks, heard the word of theLord (Acts 19:20).
Naturally there were trials to be endured and obstacles to be overcome. Some of these obstacles arose from thejealousy of theJews, who vainly endeavoured to imitate Paul'sexorcisms, others from thesuperstition of thepagans, which was especially rife at Ephesus. So effectually did he triumph over it, however, that books ofsuperstition were burned to the value of 50,000 pieces of silver (each piece about a day's wage). This time thepersecution was due to theGentiles and inspired by a motive of self-interest. The progress ofChristianity having ruined the sale of the little facsimiles of the temple of Diana and statuettes of the goddess, which devoutpilgrims had been wont to purchase, a certainDemetrius, at the head of theguild of silversmiths, stirred up the crowd against Paul. The scene which then transpired in thetheatre is described bySt. Luke with memorable vividness and pathos (Acts 19:23-40). TheApostle had to yield to the storm. After a stay at Ephesus of two years and a half, perhaps more (Acts 20:31:trietian), he departed forMacedonia and thence forCorinth, where he spent the winter. It was hisintention in the following spring to go by sea toJerusalem, doubtless for thePasch; but learning that theJews had planned his destruction, he did not wish, by going to sea, to afford them an opportunity to attempt his life. Therefore he returned by way ofMacedonia. Numerousdisciples divided into two groups, accompanied him or awaited him atTroas. These were Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus ofThessalonica, Gaius ofDerbe,Timothy,Tychicus and Trophimus ofAsia, and finallyLuke, the historian of theActs, who gives us minutely all the stages of the voyage:Philippi,Troas, Assos,Mitylene,Chios,Samos,Miletus, Cos,Rhodes,Patara,Tyre,Ptolemais,Caesarea,Jerusalem.
Three more remarkable facts should be noted in passing. AtTroas Paul resuscitated the young Eutychus, who had fallen from a third-story window while Paul was preaching late into the night. AtMiletus he pronounced before the ancients of Ephesus the touching farewell discourse which drew many tears (Acts 20:18-38). AtCaesarea theHoly Ghost by the mouth ofAgabus, predicted his coming arrest, but did not dissuade him from going toJerusalem.
St. Paul's four greatEpistles were written during this third mission: thefirst to the Corinthians from Ephesus, about the time of thePasch prior to his departure from that city; thesecond to the Corinthians fromMacedonia, during the summer or autumn of the same year; that to theRomans fromCorinth, in the following spring; thedate of theEpistle to the Galatians is disputed. On the many questions occasioned by the despatch and the language of these letters, or the situation assumed either on the side of theApostle or his correspondents, seeEPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS;EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS;EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
Falsely accused by theJews of having broughtGentiles into theTemple, Paul was ill-treated by the populace and led in chains to the fortress Antonia by the tribune Lysias. The latter having learned that theJews had conspired treacherously to slay theprisoner sent him under strong escort toCaesarea, which was the residence of theprocurator Felix. Paul had little difficulty in confounding his accusers, but as he refused to purchase his liberty. Felix kept him in chains for two years and even left him inprison in order to please theJews, until the arrival of his successor, Festus. The new governor wished to send theprisoner toJerusalem there to be tried in the presence of his accusers; but Paul, who was acquainted with the snares of his enemies, appealed to Caesar. Thenceforth his cause could be tried only atRome. This first period of captivity is characterized by five discourses of theApostle: The first was delivered inHebrew on the steps of the Antonia before the threatening crowd; herein Paul relates hisconversion andvocation to the Apostolate, but he was interrupted by the hostile shouts of the multitude (Acts 22:1-22). In the second, delivered the next day, before theSanhedrin assembled at the command of Lysias, theApostle skillfully embroiled thePharisees with theSadducees and no accusation could be brought. In the third, Paul, answering his accuser Tertullus in the presence of the Governor Felix, makesknown the facts which had been distorted andproves his innocence (Acts 24:10-21). The fourth discourse is merely an explanatory summary of theChristian Faith delivered before Felix and his wifeDrusilla (Acts 24:24-25). The fifth, pronounced before the Governor Festus,King Agrippa, and his wife Berenice, again relates the history of Paul'sconversion, and is left unfinished owing to the sarcastic interruptions of the governor and the embarrassed attitude of the king (Acts 26).
The journey of the captive Paul fromCaesarea toRome is described bySt. Luke with an exactness and vividness of colours which leave nothing to be desired. For commentaries see Smith, "Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul" (1866); Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen" (London, 1908). Thecenturion Julius had shipped Paul and his fellow-prisoners on a merchant vessel on board whichLuke and Aristarchus were able to take passage. As the season was advanced the voyage was slow and difficult. They skirted the coasts ofSyria, Cilicia, and Pamphylia. AtMyra in Lycia theprisoners were transferred to an Alexandrian vessel bound forItaly, but the winds being persistently contrary a place in Crete called Goodhavens was reached with great difficulty and Paul advised that they should spend the winter there, but his advice was not followed, and the vessel driven by the tempest drifted aimlessly for fourteen whole days, being finally wrecked on the coast ofMalta. The three months during which navigation was considered most dangerous were spent there, but with the first days of spring all haste was made to resume the voyage. Paul must have reachedRome some time in March. "He remained two whole years in his own hired lodging . . . preaching thekingdom of God and teaching the things which concern theLord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, without prohibition" (Acts 28:30-31). With these words theActs of the Apostles conclude.
There is nodoubt that Paul's trial terminated in a sentence of acquittal, for
This period is wrapped in deep obscurity for, lacking the account of theActs, we have no guide save an often uncertain tradition and the brief references of the Pastoral epistles. Paul had long cherished the desire to go toSpain (Romans 15:24, 28) and there is no evidence that he was led to change his plan. When towards the end of his captivity he announces his coming toPhilemon (22) and to thePhilippians (2:23-24), he does not seem to regard this visit as immediate since he promises thePhilippians to send them a messenger as soon as he learns the issue of his trial; he therefore plans another journey before his return to the East. Finally, not to mention the later testimony ofSt. Cyril of Jerusalem,St. Epiphanius,St. Jerome,St. Chrysostom, andTheodoret, the well-known text ofSt. Clement of Rome, thewitness of the "Muratorian Canon", and of the "Acta Pauli" render probable Paul's journey toSpain. In any case he can not have remained there long, for he was in haste to revisit hisChurches in the East. He may have returned fromSpain through southern Gaul if it was thither, as someFathers have thought, and not to Galatia, thatCrescens was sent later (2 Timothy 4:10). We may readilybelieve that he afterwards kept the promise made to his friendPhilemon and that on this occasion he visited the churches of the valley of Lycus,Laodicea, Colossus, and Hierapolis.
The itinerary now becomes very uncertain, but the following facts seem indicated by the Pastorals: Paul remained in Crete exactly long enough to found there newchurches, the care and organization of which he confided to his fellow-worker Titus (Titus 1:5). He then went to Ephesus, and besoughtTimothy, who was already there, to remain until his return while he proceeded toMacedonia (1 Timothy 1:3). On this occasion he paid his promised visit to thePhilippians (Philippians 2:24), and naturally also saw theThessalonians. Theletter to Titus and theFirst Epistle to Timothy mustdate from this period; they seem to have been written about the sametime and shortly after the departure from Ephesus. The question is whether they were sent fromMacedonia or, which seems more probable, fromCorinth. TheApostle instructs Titus to join him atNicopolis of Epirus where he intends to spend the winter (Titus 3:12). In the following spring he must have carried out his plan to return toAsia (1 Timothy 3:14-15). Here occurred the obscure episode of his arrest, which probably took place atTroas; this would explain his having left with Carpus a cloak and books which he needed (2 Timothy 4:13). He was taken from there to Ephesus, capital of the Province of Asia, where he was deserted by all those on whom he thought he could rely (2 Timothy 1:15). Being sent toRome for trial he left Trophimus sick atMiletus, andErastus, another of his companions, remained atCorinth, for what reason is not clear (2 Timothy 4:20). When Paul wrote hisSecond Epistle to Timothy fromRome he felt that all human hope was lost (4:6); he begs hisdisciple to rejoin him as quickly as possible, for he is alone with Luke. We do notknow ifTimothy was able to reachRome before the death of theApostle.
Ancienttradition makes it possible to establish the following points:
Formerly thepope, after having pontificated in theBasilica of St. Peter, went with his attendants to that of St. Paul, but the distance between the twobasilicas (about five miles) rendered the doubleceremony too exhausting, especially at that season of the year. Thus arose the prevailingcustom of transferring to the next day (30 June) the Commemoration of St. Paul. Thefeast of the Conversion of St. Paul (25 January) is of comparatively recent origin. There is reason forbelieving that the day was first observed to mark the translation of therelics of St. Paul atRome, for so it appears in the HieronymianMartyrology. It is unknown to theGreek Church (Dowden, "The Church Year and Kalendar", Cambridge, 1910, 69; cf. Duchesne, "Origines du culte chrétien", Paris, 1898, 265-72; McClure, "Christian Worship", London, 1903, 277-81).
Weknow fromEusebius (Church History VII.18) that even in histime there existedpaintings representingChrist and theApostlesPeter and Paul. Paul's features have been preserved in three ancient monuments:
We have also the concordant descriptions of the"Acta Pauli et Theclae", of Pseudo-Lucian in Philopatris, ofMalalas (Chronogr., x), and ofNicephorus (Hist. eccl., III, 37).
Paul was short of stature; the Pseudo-Chrysostom calls him "the man of three cubits" (anthropos tripechys); he was broad-shouldered, somewhat bald, with slightly aquiline nose, closely-knit eyebrows, thick, greyishbeard, fair complexion, and a pleasing and affable manner. He was afflicted with a malady which is difficult to diagnose (cf. Menzies, "St. Paul's Infirmity" in the "Expository Times", July and Sept., 1904), but despite this painful and humiliating infirmity (2 Corinthians 12:7-9;Galatians 4:13-14) and although his bearing was not impressive (2 Corinthians 10:10), Paul must undoubtedly have been possessed of great physical strength to have sustained so long such superhuman labours (2 Corinthians 11:23-29). Pseudo-Chrysostom, "In princip. apostol. Petrum et Paulum" (in P.G., LIX, 494-95), considers that he died at the age of sixty-eight after having served theLord for thirty-five years.
The moral portrait is more difficult to draw because it is full of contrasts. Its elements will be found: in Lewin, op. cit., II, xi, 410-35 (Paul's Person and Character); in Farrar, op. cit., Appendix, Excursus I; and especially inNewman, "Sermons preached on Various Occasions", vii, viii.
This question has passed through two distinct phases. According to the principal followers of the Tübingen School, theApostle had but a vagueknowledge of the life and teaching of the historicalChrist and even disdained suchknowledge as inferior and useless. Their only support is the misinterpreted text: "Et si cognovimus secundum carnem Christum, sed nunc jam novimus" (2 Corinthians 5:16). The opposition noted in this text is not between the historical and the glorifiedChrist, but between theMessias such as the unbelievingJews represented Him, such perhaps as he was preached by certainJudaizers, and theMessias as He manifested Himself in His death andResurrection, as He had been confessed by theconverted Paul. It is neither admissible nor probable that Paul would be uninterested in the life and preaching of Him, Whom heloved passionately, Whom he constantly held up for the imitation of hisneophytes, and Whosespirit he boasted of having. It is incredible that he would not question on this subject eyewitnesses, such asBarnabas, Silas, or the future historians ofChrist, Sts. Mark andLuke, with whom he was so long associated. Careful examination of this subject has brought out the three following conclusions concerning which there is now general agreement:
The second phase of the question is closely connected with the first. The sametheologians, who maintain that Paul was indifferent to the earthly life and teaching ofChrist, deliberately exaggerate his originality and influence. According to them Paul was the creator oftheology, the founder of theChurch, the preacher ofasceticism, the defender of thesacraments and of theecclesiastical system, the opponent of the religion oflove and liberty whichChrist came to announce to the world. If, to do himhonour, he is called the second founder ofChristianity, this must be a degenerate and alteredChristianity since it was at least partially opposed to the primitiveChristianity. Paul is thus made responsible for every antipathy to modern thought in traditionalChristianity.
This is to a great extent the origin of the "Back to Christ" movement, the strange wanderings of which we are now witnessing. The chief reason for returning toChrist is to escape Paul, the originator ofdogma, thetheologian of thefaith. The cry "Zuruck zu Jesu" which has resounded inGermany for thirty years, is inspired by the ulterior motive, "Los von Paulus". The problem is: Was Paul's relation toChrist that of adisciple to his master? or was he absolutely autodidactic, independent alike of the Gospel ofChrist and the preaching of theTwelve? It must be admitted that most of the papers published shed little light on the subject. However, the discussions have not been useless, for they have shown that the most characteristic Pauline doctrines, such asjustifyingfaith, the redeeming death ofChrist, the universality ofsalvation, are in accord with the writings of the firstApostles, from which they were derived. Julicher in particular has pointed out that Paul'sChristology, which is more exalted than that of his companions in the apostolate, was never the object of controversy, and that Paul was notconscious of being singular in this respect from the other heralds of the Gospel. Cf. Morgan, "Back to Christ" in "Dict. of Christ and the Gospels", I, 61-67; Sanday, "Paul", loc. cit., II, 886-92; Feine, "Jesus Christus und Paulus" (1902); Goguel, "L'apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ" (Paris, 1904); Julicher, "Paulus und Jesus" (1907).
Several modern authors consider thattheodicy is at the base, centre, and summit of Paulinetheology. "Theapostle'sdoctrine istheocentric, not in reality anthropocentric. What is styled his'metaphysics' holds for Paul the immediate and sovereign fact of theuniverse;God, as he conceives Him, is all in all to hisreason and heart alike" (Findlay in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible", III, 718). Stevens begins the exposition of his "Pauline Theology" with a chapter entitled "Thedoctrine ofGod". Sabatier (L'apotre Paul, 1896, 297) also considers that "the last word of Paulinetheology is: "God all in all", and he makes theidea ofGod the crown of Paul'stheological edifice. But these authors have not reflected that though theidea ofGod occupies so large a place in the teaching of theApostle, whose thought is deeply religious like that of all his compatriots, it is not characteristic of him, nor does it distinguish him from his companions in the apostolate nor even from contemporaryJews.
Many modernProtestanttheologians, especially among the more or less faithful followers of the Tübingen School, maintain that Paul'sdoctrine is "anthropocentric", that it starts from his conception ofman's inability to fulfill thelaw of God without the help of grace to such an extent that he is aslave ofsin and must wagewar against the flesh. But if this be the genesis of Paul'sidea it is astonishing that he enunciates it only in one chapter (Romans 7), the sense of which is controverted, so that if this chapter had not been written, or it had been lost, we would have no means of recovering the key to his teaching. However, most moderntheologians now agree that St. Paul'sdoctrine is Christocentric, that it is at base a soteriology, not from a subjective standpoint, according to the ancient prejudice of the founders ofProtestantism who madejustification byfaith the quintessence of Paulinism, but from the objective standpoint, embracing in a wide synthesis theperson and work of theRedeemer. This may beproved empirically by the statement that everything in St. Paul converges towardsJesus Christ, so much so, that abstracting fromJesus Christ it becomes, whether taken collectively or in detail, absolutely incomprehensible. This isproved also by demonstrating that what Paul calls his Gospel is thesalvation of allmen throughChrist and inChrist. This is the standpoint of the following rapidanalysis:
The first three chapters of theEpistle to the Romans shows ushumannature wholly under the dominion ofsin. NeitherGentiles norJews had withstood the torrent ofevil. TheMosaic Law was a futile barrier because it prescribedgood without importing the strength to do it. TheApostle arrives at this mournful conclusion: "There is no distinction [betweenJew andGentile]; for all havesinned, and do need theglory ofGod" (Romans 3:22-23). He subsequently leads us back to the historicalcause of this disorder: "By onemansin entered into this world, and bysin death; and so death passed upon allmen, in whom all havesinned" (Romans 5:12). Thisman is obviouslyAdam, thesin which he brought into the world is not only his personalsin, but a predominatingsin which entered into allmen and left in them the seed of death: "Allsinned whenAdamsinned; allsinned in and with hissin" (Stevens, "Pauline Theology", 129).
It remains to be seen howoriginal sin, which is our lot by natural generation, manifests itself outwardly and becomes the source of actualsins. This Paul teaches us inchapter 7, where describing the contest between the Law assisted byreason andhumannature weakened by the flesh and the tendency toevil, he representsnature as inevitably vanquished: "For I am delighted with thelaw of God, according to the inward man: But I see anotherlaw in my members fighting against thelaw of mymind, and captivating me in thelaw ofsin" (Romans 7:22-23). This does not mean that the organism, the material substratus, isevil in itself, as sometheologians of the Tübingen School have claimed, for the flesh ofChrist, which was like unto ours, was exempt fromsin, and theApostle wishes that our bodies, which are destined torise again, be preserved free from stain. The relation betweensin and the flesh is neither inherent nornecessary; it is accidental, determined by an historical fact, and capable of disappearing through the intervention of theHoly Ghost, but it is none the lesstrue that it is not in our power to overcome it unaided and that fallenman had need of aSaviour.
YetGod did not abandonsinfulman. He continued to manifest Himself through this visible world (Romans 1:19-20), through the light of aconscience (Romans 2:14-15), and finally through His ever active and paternally benevolent Providence (Acts 14:16;17:26). Furthermore, in His untiring mercy, He "will have allmen to besaved, and to come to theknowledge of thetruth" (1 Timothy 2:4). This will is necessarily subsequent tooriginal sin since it concernsman as he is at present. According to His merciful designsGod leadsman step by step tosalvation. To thePatriarchs, and especially toAbraham, He gave his free and generous promise, confirmed byoath (Romans 4:13-20;Galatians 3:15-18), which anticipated the Gospel. ToMoses He gave His Law, the observation of which should be a means ofsalvation (Romans 7:10;10:5), and which, even when violated, as it was in reality, was no less a guide leading toChrist (Galatians 3:24) and an instrument of mercy in the hands ofGod. The Law was a mere interlude until suchtime ashumanity should be ripe for a completerevelation (Galatians 3:19;Romans 5:20), and thus provoked the Divine wrath (Romans 4:15). Butgood will arise from the excess ofevil and "theScripture hath concluded all undersin, that the promise, by thefaith ofJesus Christ, might be given to them thatbelieve" (Galatians 3:22). This would be fulfilled in the "fullness of thetime" (Galatians 4:4;Ephesians 1:10), that is, at thetime set byGod for the execution of His merciful designs, whenman's helplessness should have been well manifested. Then "God sent his Son, made of awoman, made under thelaw: that he mightredeem them who were under thelaw: that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4).
Nearly all statements relating to theperson ofJesus Christ bear either directly or indirectly on His role as aSaviour. With St. PaulChristology is a function of soteriology. However broad these outlines, they show us the faithful image ofChrist in His pre-existence, in His historical existence and in His glorified life (see F. Prat, "Théologie de Saint Paul").
(1) Christ in His pre-existence
(a)Christ is of an order superior to allcreated beings (Ephesians 1:21); He is the Creator and Preserver of the World (Colossians 1:16-17); all is by Him, in Him, and for Him (Colossians 1:16).
(b)Christ is the image of the invisible Father (2 Corinthians 4:4;Colossians 1:15); He is theSon of God, but unlike other sons is so in an incommunicable manner; He is the Son, the own Son, the well-Beloved, and this He has always been (2 Corinthians 1:19;Romans 8:3,8:32;Colossians 1:13;Ephesians 1:6; etc.).
(c)Christ is the object of thedoxologies reserved forGod (2 Timothy 4:18;Romans 16:27); He isprayed to as the equal of the Father (2 Corinthians 12:8-9;Romans 10:12;1 Corinthians 1:2);gifts are asked of Him which it is in the power ofGod alone to grant, namely grace, mercy,salvation (Romans 1:7;16:20;1 Corinthians 1:3;16:23; etc. before Him every knee shall bow inheaven, on earth, and under the earth (Philippians 2:10), as every head inclines inadoration of the majesty of theMost High.
(d)Christ possesses all theDivine attributes; He iseternal, since He is the "first born of every creature" and exists before all ages (Colossians 1:15-17); He is immutable, since He exists "in the form ofGod" (Philippians 2:6); He isomnipotent, since He has the power to bring forth being from nothingness (Colossians 1:16); He is immense, since He fills all things with His plenitude (Ephesians 4:10;Colossians 2:10); He isinfinite since "the fullness of theGodhead dwells in Him" (Colossians 2:9). All that is the special property of theGod belongs ofright to Him; the judgment seat ofGod is the judgment seat ofChrist (Romans 14:10;2 Corinthians 5:10); the Gospel ofGod is the Gospel ofChrist (Romans 1:1,1:9,15:16,15:19, etc.); theChurch ofGod is theChurch ofChrist (1 Corinthians 1:2 andRomans 16:16 sqq.); theKingdom ofGod is theKingdom ofChrist (Ephesians 5:5), theSpirit ofGod is theSpirit ofChrist (Romans 8:9 sqq.).
(e)Christ is the one Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6); He is identified withJehovah of the Old Covenant (1 Corinthians 10:4,10:9;Romans 10:13; cf.1 Corinthians 2:16;9:21); He is theGod who has purchased theChurch with his own blood" (Acts 20:28); He is our "greatGod and SaviourJesus Christ" (Titus 2:13); He is the "God over all things" (Romans 9:5), effacing by Hisinfinite transcendency the sum and substance ofcreated things.
(2) Jesus Christ as Man
The other aspect of the figure ofChrist is drawn with no less firm a hand.Jesus Christ is the secondAdam (Romans 5:14;1 Corinthians 15:45-49); "the mediator ofGod andmen" (1 Timothy 2:5), and as such He must necessarily beman (anthropos Christos Iesous). So He is the descendant of thePatriarchs (Romans 9:5;Galatians 3:16), He is "of the seed ofDavid, according to the flesh)" (Romans 1:3), "born of awoman" (Galatians 4:4), like allmen; finally, He is known as a man by His appearance, which is exactly similar to that ofmen (Philippians 2:7), save forsin, which He did not and could notknow (2 Corinthians 5:21). When St. Paul says that "God sent His Son in the likeness ofsinful flesh" (Romans 8:3), he does not mean to deny the reality ofChrist's flesh, but excludes onlysinful flesh.
Nowhere does theApostle explain how the union of the Divine and thehumannatures is accomplished inChrist, being content to affirm that He who was "in the form ofGod" took "the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:6-7), or he states theIncarnation in this laconic formula: "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of theGodhead corporeally" (Colossians 2:9). What we see clearly is that there is inChrist a singlePerson to whom are attributed, often in the same sentence, qualities proper to the Divine and thehumannature, to the pre-existence, the historicalexistence, and the glorified life (Colossians 1:15-19;Philippians 2:5-11; etc.). Thetheological explanation of themystery has given rise to numerouserrors. Denial was made of one of thenatures, either thehuman (Docetism), or the Divine (Arianism), or the twonatures were considered to be united in a purelyaccidental manner so as to produce twopersons (Nestorianism), or the twonatures were merged into one (Monophysitism), or on pretext of uniting them in oneperson theheretics mutilated either thehumannature (Apollinarianism), or the Divine, according to the strange modernheresy known asKenosis.
The last-mentioned requires a brief treatment, as it is based on a saying of St. Paul "Being in the form ofGod . . . emptied himself (ekenosen eauton, hencekenosis) taking the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:6-7). Contrary to the common opinion,Luther applied these words not to theWord, but toChrist, theIncarnateWord. Moreover he understood thecommunicatio idiomatus as a real possession by each of the twonatures of the attributes of the other. According to this thehumannature ofChrist would possess theDivine attributes of ubiquity, omniscience, andomnipotence. There are two systems amongLutherantheologians, one asserting that thehumannature ofChrist wasvoluntarily stripped of these attributes (kenosis), the other that they were hidden during His mortalexistence (krypsis).
In modern times thedoctrine ofKenosis, while still restricted toLutherantheology, has completely changed its opinions. Starting with thephilosophicalidea that "personality" is identified with "consciousness", it is maintained that where there is only oneperson there can be only oneconsciousness; but since theconsciousness of Christ was trulyhumanconsciousness, the Divineconsciousness must ofnecessity have ceased to exist or act in Him. According to Thomasius, the theorist of the system, theSon of God was stripped, not after theIncarnation, asLuther asserted, but by the very fact of theIncarnation, and what rendered possible the union of theLogos with thehumanity was the faculty possessed by the Divinity to limit itself both as to being and activity. The other partisans of the system express themselves in a similar manner. Gess, for instance, says that inJesus Christ the Divineego is changed into thehumanego. When it is objected thatGod is immutable, that He can neither cease to be, nor limit Himself, nor transform Himself, they reply that this reasoning is onmetaphysical hypotheses and concepts without reality. (For the various forms ofKenosis see Bruce, "The Humiliation of Christ", p. 136.)
All these systems are merely variations ofMonophysitism. Unconsciously they assume that there is inChrist but a singlenature as there is but a singleperson. According to theCatholic doctrine, on the contrary, the union of the twonatures in a singleperson involves no change in the Divinenature and need involve no physical change of thehumannature ofChrist. WithoutdoubtChrist is the Son and is morally entitled even asman to the goods of His Father, viz. theimmediate vision of God, eternal beatitude, the state ofglory. He is temporarily deprived of a portion of these goods in order that he may fulfill His mission as Redeemer. This is the abasement, the annihilation, of which St. Paul speaks, but it is a totally different thing from theKenosis as described above.
We have seen that fallenman being unable to arise again unaided,God in His mercy sent His Son tosave him. It is an elementary and often repeateddoctrine of St. Paul thatJesus Christsaves us through the Cross, that we are "justified by His blood", that "we were reconciled toGod by the death of his Son" (Romans 5:9-10). What endowed the blood ofChrist, His death, His Cross, with this redeemingvirtue? Paul never answers this question directly, but he shows us the drama ofCalvary under three aspects, which there is danger in separating and which are better understood when compared:
(a) at one time the death ofChrist is a sacrifice intended, like the sacrifice of theOld Law, to expiatesin and propitiateGod. Cf. Sanday and Headlam, "Romans", 91-94, "The death ofChrist considered as a sacrifice". "It is impossible from this passage (Romans 3:25) to get rid of the doubleidea: (1) of a sacrifice; (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory . . . Quite apart from this passage it is not difficult toprove that these twoideas of sacrifice and propitiation lie at the root of the teaching not only of St. Paul but of the New Testament generally." The double danger of thisidea is, first to wish to apply to the sacrifice ofChrist all the mode of action, real or supposed, of the imperfectsacrifices of theOld Law; and second, tobelieve thatGod is appeased by a sort of magical effect, in virtue of this sacrifice, whereas on the contrary it was He Who took the initiative of mercy, instituted the sacrifice ofCalvary, and endowed it with its expiatory value.
(b) At another time the death ofChrist is represented as aredemption, the payment of a ransom, as the result of whichman was delivered from all his past servitude (1 Corinthians 6:20;7:23 [times egorasthete];Galatians 3:13;4:5 [ina tous hypo nomon exagorase];Romans 3:24;1 Corinthians 1:30;Ephesians 1:7, 14;Colossians 1:14 [apolytrosis];1 Timothy 2:6 [antilytron]; etc.) Thisidea, correct as it is, may have inconveniences if isolated or exaggerated. By carrying it beyond what was written, some of theFathers put forth the strange suggestion of a ransom paid byChrist to thedemon who held us in bondage. Another mistake is to regard the death ofChrist as having a value in itself, independent ofChrist Who offered it andGod Who accepted it for the remission of oursins.
(c) Often, too,Christ seems to substitute Himself for us in order to undergo in our stead the chastisement forsin. He suffers physical death to save us from themoral death ofsin and preserve us frometernal death. Thisidea of substitutionappealed so strongly toLutherantheologians that they admitted quantitative equality between the sufferings really endured byChrist and the penalties deserved by oursins. They even maintained thatJesus underwent the penalty of loss (of thevision of God) and themalediction of the Father.
These are the extravagances which have cast so much discredit on the theory of subsitution. It has been rightly said that the transfer of a chastisement from oneperson to another is aninjustice and a contradiction, for the chastisement is inseparable from the fault and an undeserved chastisement is no longer a chastisement. Besides, St. Paul never said thatChrist died in our stead (anti), but only that he died for us (hyper) because of oursins.
In reality the three standpoints considered above are but three aspects of theRedemption which, far from excluding one another, should harmonize and combine, modifying ifnecessary all the other aspects of the problem. In the following text St. Paul assembles these various aspects with several others. We are "justified freely by his grace, through theRedemption, that is inChrist Jesus, whomGod hath proposed to be a propitiation, throughfaith in his blood, to the shewing of his [hidden]justice, for the remission of formersins, through the forbearance ofGod, for the shewing of hisjustice in thistime; that of himself may be [known as] just, and the justifier of him, who is in thefaith ofJesus Christ" (Romans 3:24-26). Herein are designated the part ofGod, ofChrist, and ofman:
Christ having once died andrisen, theRedemption is completed inlaw and in principle for the wholehuman race. Each man makes it his own in fact and in act byfaith andbaptism which, by uniting him withChrist, causes him to participate in His Divine life.Faith, according to St. Paul, is composed of several elements; it is the submission of theintellect to theword of God, the trustingabandonment of the believer to theSaviour Who promises him assistance; it is also an act of obedience by whichman accepts the Divine will. Such anact has amoral value, for it "givesglory toGod" (Romans 4:20) in the measure in which it recognizes its own helplessness. That is why "AbrahambelievedGod, and it was reputed to him untojustice" (Romans 4:3;Galatians 3:6). The spiritual children ofAbraham are likewise "justified byfaith, without the works of thelaw" (Romans 3:28; cf.Galatians 2:16). Hence it follows:
Protestants formerly asserted that thejustice ofChrist is imputed to us, but now they are generally agreed that this argument is unscriptural and lacks the guaranty of Paul; but some, loth to basejustification on agood work (ergon), deny amoral value tofaith and claim thatjustification is but a forensic judgment ofGod which alters absolutely nothing in thejustifiedsinner. But this theory is untenable, for:
A remarkable characteristic of Paulinism is that it connectsmorality with the subjectiveredemption orjustification. This is especially striking inchapter 6 of the Epistle to the Romans. Inbaptism "our old man is crucified with [Christ] that, the body ofsin may be destroyed, to the end that we may servesin no longer" (Romans 6:6). Our incorporation with themystical Christ is not only a transformation and a metamorphosis, but a real reaction, the production of a new being, subject to newlaws and consequently to newduties. To understand the extent of ourobligations it is enough for us toknow ourselves asChristians and to reflect on the various relations which result from oursupernatural birth: that ofsonship toGod the Father, ofconsecration to theHoly Ghost, ofmystical identity with our SaviourJesus Christ, of brotherly union with the other members ofChrist. But this is not all. Paul says to theneophytes:
"Thanks be toGod, that you were the servants ofsin, but haveobeyed from the heart unto that form ofdoctrine, into which you have been delivered. . . . But now being made free fromsin, and become servants toGod, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting (Romans 6:17, 22).
By the act offaith and bybaptism, its seal, theChristian freely makes himself the servant ofGod and the soldier ofChrist.God's will, which he accepts in advance in the measure in which it shall be manifested, becomes thenceforth his rule of conduct. Thus Paul'smoral code rests on the one hand on the positive will ofGod madeknown byChrist, promulgated by theApostles, and virtually accepted by theneophyte in his firstact offaith, and on the other, inbaptismalregeneration and the new relations which it produces. All Paul's commands and recommendations are merely applications of these principles.
(1) The graphic description of the Pauline parousia (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17;2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) has nearly all its main points inChrist's greateschatological discourse (Matthew 24,Mark 13,Luke 21). A common characteristic of all these passages is the apparent nearness of the parousia. Paul does not assert that the coming of theSaviour is at hand. In each of the fiveepistles, wherein he expresses the desire and thehope towitness in person thereturn of Christ, he at the same time considers the probability of the contrary hypothesis,proving that he had neitherrevelation norcertainty on the point. He knows only that theday of the lord will come unexpectedly, like athief (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3), and he counsels theneophytes to make themselves ready without neglecting theduties of their state of life (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12). Although the coming ofChrist will be sudden, it will be heralded by three signs:
A particular circumstance of St. Paul's preaching is that the just who shall be living atChrist's second advent will pass togloriousimmortality without dying [1 Thessalonians 4:17;1 Corinthians 15:51 (Greek text);2 Corinthians 5:2-5].
(2) Owing to thedoubts of the Corinthians Paul treats theresurrection of the just at some length. He does not ignore theresurrection of thesinners, which he affirmed before the Governor Felix (Acts 24:15), but he does not concern himself with it in hisEpistles. When he says that "the dead who are inChrist shall rise first" (proton,1 Thessalonians 4:16, Greek) this "first" offsets, not anotherresurrection of the dead, but theglorious transformation of the living. In like manner "theevil" of which he speaks (tou telos,1 Corinthians 15:24) is not the end of theresurrection, but of the present world and the beginning of a new order of things. All the arguments which he advances in behalf of theresurrection may be reduced to three: themystical union of theChristian withChrist, the presence within us of the Spirit of Holiness, the interior andsupernatural conviction of thefaithful and theApostles. It is evident that these arguments deal only with thegloriousresurrection of the just. In short, theresurrection of the wicked does not come within histheological horizon. What is the condition of thesouls of the just between death andresurrection? Thesesouls enjoy the presence ofChrist (2 Corinthians 5:8); their lot is enviable (Philippians 1:23); hence it is impossible that they should be without life, activity, orconsciousness.
(3) The judgment according to St. Paul as according to theSynoptics, is closely connected with theparousia and theresurrection. They are the three acts of the same drama which constitute the Day of the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:8;2 Corinthians 1:14;Philippians 1:6, 10;2:16). "For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat ofChrist, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it begood orevil" (2 Corinthians 5:10).
Two conclusions are derived from this text:
(1) The judgment shall be universal, neither the good nor the wicked shall escape (Romans 14:10-12), nor even theangels (1 Corinthians 6:3); all who are brought to trial must account for the use of their liberty.
(2) The judgment shall be according toworks: this is atruth frequently reiterated by St. Paul, concerningsinners (2 Corinthians 11:15), the just (2 Timothy 4:14), andmen in general (Romans 2:6-9). ManyProtestants marvel at this and claim that in St. Paul thisdoctrine is a survival of hisrabbinicaleducation (Pfleiderer), or that he could not make it harmonize with hisdoctrine of gratuitousjustification (Reuss), or that the reward will be in proportion to theact, as the harvest is in proportion to the sowing, but that it will not be because of or with a view to theact (Weiss). These authors lose sight of the fact that St. Paul distinguishes between twojustifications, the first necessarily gratuitous sinceman was then incapable ofmeriting it (Romans 3:28;Galatians 2:16), the second in conformity to hisworks (Romans 2:6:kata ta erga), sinceman, when adorned withsanctifying grace, is capable ofmerit as the sinner is of demerit. Hence the celestial recompense is "a crown ofjustice which theLord the just judge will render" (2 Timothy 4:8) to whomsoever has legitimately gained it.
Briefly, St. Paul'seschatology is not so distinctive as it has been made to appear. Perhaps its most original characteristic is the continuity between the present and the future of thejust, between grace andglory, betweensalvation begun andsalvation consummated. A large number of terms,redemption,justification,salvation,kingdom,glory and especiallylife, are common to the two states, or rather to the two phases of the sameexistence linked by charity which "never falleth away".
APA citation.Prat, F.(1911).St. Paul. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm
MLA citation.Prat, Ferdinand."St. Paul."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 11.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1911.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Donald J. Boon.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.