<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</SPAN></span></p>
<h2>LESSON XVI</h2>
<h3>THE GOSPEL CARRIED INTO EUROPE</h3>
<p>From the rich store of to-day's lesson only a few points can be
selected for special comment.</p>
<h4>1. TITUS AND TIMOTHY</h4>
<p>At Lystra, Paul had Timothy circumcised. Acts 16:3. This
action has been considered strange in view of the attitude which
Paul had previously assumed. At Jerusalem, only a short time
before, he had absolutely refused to permit the circumcision of
Titus. Evidently, too, he had regarded the matter as of fundamental
importance. Had Titus been circumcised, the freedom of the Gentile
Christians would have been seriously endangered.</p>
<p>The presence of Titus at the Apostolic Council is mentioned only
by Paul in Galatians. It is not mentioned in The Acts. Indeed,
Titus does not appear in The Acts at all, though in the epistles
he is rather prominent. This fact, however, really requires no
further explanation than that the history of Luke is not intended
to be exhaustive. The restraint exercised by the author of The
Acts has already been observed, for example, in a comparison of the
long list of hardships in II Cor. 11:23-27 with what Luke actually
narrates. The helpers of Paul whom Luke mentions are usually
those who traveled with him. Titus was sent by Paul on at
least one important mission, II Cor. 7:13,14, but was apparently
not his companion on the missionary journeys. Luke does not
concern himself very much with the internal affairs of the churches,
and it is in this field that Titus is especially prominent in the
epistles. With regard to the presence of Titus in Jerusalem, the
different purposes of the narratives in Galatians and in The Acts
must be borne in mind. The non-circumcision of Titus, so strongly
emphasized by Paul, was merely preliminary to the public action
of the church in which Luke was interested. Luke has thought
it sufficient to include Titus under the "certain other" of the
Antioch Christians who went up with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.</p>
<p>The different policy which Paul adopted in the case of Timothy,<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</SPAN></span>
as compared with his policy about Titus, is amply explained by
the wide differences in the situation.</p>
<p>In the first place, when Titus was at Jerusalem, the matter of
Gentile freedom was in dispute, whereas when Timothy was
circumcised the question had already been settled by a formal
pronouncement of the Jerusalem church. After Paul had won the
victory of principle, he could afford to make concessions where no
principle was involved. Timothy was recognized as a full member
of the Church even before his circumcision. Circumcision was
merely intended to make him a more efficient helper in work among
the Jews.</p>
<p>In the second place—and this is even more important—Timothy
was a half-Jew. It is perhaps doubtful whether Paul under any
circumstances would have authorized the circumcision of a pure
Gentile like Titus. But Timothy's mother was Jewish. It must
always be borne in mind that Paul did not demand the relinquishment
of the law on the part of Jews; and Timothy's parentage gave
him at least the right of regarding himself as a Jew. If he had
chosen to follow his Gentile father, the Jews could have regarded
him as a renegade. His usefulness in the synagogues would have
been lost. Obviously the circumcision of such a man involved
nothing more than the maintenance of ancestral custom on the
part of Jews. Where no principle was involved, Paul was the most
concessive of men. See especially I Cor. 9:19-23. The final
relinquishment of the law on the part of Jews was rightly left to
the future guidance of God.</p>
<h4>2. THE ROUTE THROUGH ASIA MINOR</h4>
<p>The difficulty of tracing the route of the missionaries beyond
Lystra is due largely to the difficulty of Acts 16:6. A literal
translation of the decisive words in that verse would be either "the
Phrygian and Galatian country" or "Phrygia and the Galatian
country." According to the advocates of the "South Galatian
theory," "the Galatian country" here refers not to Galatia proper
but to the southern part of the Roman province Galatia. "The
Phrygian and Galatian country" then perhaps means "The Phrygo-Galatic
country," or "that part of Phrygia which is in the Roman
province Galatia." The reference then is to Iconium, Pisidian
Antioch and the surrounding country—after the missionaries had
passed through the Lycaonian part of the province Galatia (Derbe
and Lystra) they traversed the Phrygian part of the province. The<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</SPAN></span>
chief objection to all such interpretations is found in the latter part
of the verse: "having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak
the word in Asia." It looks as though the reason why they passed
through "the Phrygian and Galatian country" was that they
were forbidden to preach in Asia. But South Galatia was directly
on the way to Asia. The impossibility of preaching in Asia could
therefore hardly have been the reason for passing through south
Galatia.</p>
<p>Apparently, therefore, the disputed phrase refers rather to some
region which is not on the way to Asia. This requirement is
satisfied if Galatia proper is meant—the country in the northern
part of the Roman province Galatia. When they got to Pisidian
Antioch, it would have been natural for them to proceed into the
western part of Asia Minor, into "Asia." That they were forbidden
to do. Hence they turned north, and went through Phrygia into
Galatia proper. When they got to the border country between
Mysia and Galatia proper, they tried to continue their journey
north into Bithynia, but were prevented by the Spirit. Then
they turned west, and passing through Mysia without preaching
arrived at last at the coast, at Troas.</p>
<p>Nothing is said here about preaching in Galatia proper. But in
Acts 18:23, in connection with the third missionary journey, it is
said that when Paul passed through "the Galatian country and
Phrygia" he established the disciples. There could not have been
disciples in the "Galatian country," unless there had been preaching
there on the previous journey. On the "North Galatian" theory,
therefore, the founding of the Galatian churches to which the
epistle is directed is to be placed at Acts 16:6, and the second
visit to them, which seems to be presupposed by the epistle, is
to be put at Acts 18:23. If it seems strange that Luke does not
mention the founding of these churches, the hurried character of
this section of the narrative must be borne in mind. Furthermore,
the epistle seems to imply that the founding of the churches was
rather incidental than an original purpose of the journey; for in
Gal. 4:13 Paul says that it was because of an infirmity of the flesh
that he preached the gospel in Galatia the former time. Apparently
he had been hurrying through the country without stopping, but
being detained by illness used his enforced leisure to preach to the
inhabitants. It is not impossible to understand how Luke came to
omit mention of such incidental preaching. On the second missionary
journey attention is concentrated on Macedonia and Greece.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</SPAN></span></p>
<h4>3. THE MOVEMENTS OF SILAS AND TIMOTHY</h4>
<p>When Paul went to Athens, Silas and Timothy remained behind
in Macedonia. Acts 17:14. They were directed to join Paul
again as soon as possible. V. 15. In Acts 18:1,5 they are said
to have joined him at Corinth. The narrative in The Acts must
here be supplemented by the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.
What Luke says is perfectly true, but his narrative is not complete.
According to the most natural interpretation of I Thess. 3:1-5,
Timothy was with Paul in Athens, and from there was sent to
Thessalonica. The entire course of events was perhaps as follows:
Silas and Timothy both joined Paul quickly at Athens according
to directions. They were then sent away again—Timothy to
Thessalonica, and Silas to some other place in Macedonia. Then,
after the execution of their commissions, they finally joined Paul
again at Corinth. Acts 18:5; I Thess. 3:6. Soon afterwards,
all three missionaries were associated in the address of First Thessalonians.</p>
<h4>4. PAUL AT ATHENS</h4>
<p>In Athens Paul preached as usual in the synagogue to Jews and
"God-fearers"; but he also adopted another and more unusual
method—he simply took his stand without introduction in the
market place, and spoke to those who chanced by. This method
was characteristically Greek; it reminds us of the days of Socrates.</p>
<p>In the market place, Paul encountered certain of the Epicurean
and Stoic philosophers. Both of these schools of philosophy had
originated almost three hundred years before Christ, and both
were prominent in the New Testament period. In their tenets they
were very different. The Stoics were pantheists. They conceived
of the world as a sort of great living being of which God is the soul.
The world does not exist apart from God and God does not exist
apart from the world. Such pantheism is far removed from the
Christian belief in the living God, Maker of heaven and earth;
but as against polytheism, pantheism and theism have something
in common. Paul in his speech was able to start from this common
ground. In ethics, the Stoics were perhaps nearer to Christianity
than in metaphysics. The highest good they conceived to be a
life that is led in accordance with reason—that reason which is
the determining principle of the world. The passions must be
conquered, pleasure is worthless, the wise man is independent of
external conditions. Such an ethic worked itself out in practice
in many admirable virtues—in some conception of the universal<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</SPAN></span>
brotherhood of mankind, in charity, in heroic self-denial. But
it lacked the warmth and glow of Christian love, and it lacked the
living God.</p>
<p>The Epicureans were materialists. The world, for them, was
a vast mechanism. They believed in the gods, but conceived of
them as altogether without influence upon human affairs. Indeed,
the deliverance of man from the fear of the gods was one of the
purposes of the Epicurean philosophy. The Epicureans were
interested chiefly in ethics. Pleasure, according to them, is the
highest good. It need not be the pleasure of the senses; indeed
Epicurus, at least, the founder of the school, insisted upon a calm
life undisturbed by violent passions. Nevertheless it will readily
be seen how little such a philosophy had in common with Christianity.</p>
<p>The conditions under which Paul made his speech cannot be
determined with certainty. The difficulty arises from the ambiguity
of "Areopagus." "Areopagus" means "Mars' hill." But the
term was also applied to the court which held at least some of its
meetings on the hill. Which meaning is intended here? Did
Paul speak before the court, or did he speak on Mars' hill merely
to those who were interested? On the whole, it is improbable at
any rate that he was subjected to a formal trial.</p>
<p>The speech of Paul at Athens is one of the three important
speeches of Paul, exclusive of his speeches in defense of himself at
Jerusalem and at Cæsarea, which have been recorded in The Acts.
These speeches are well chosen. One of them is a speech to Jews,
Acts 13:16-41; one a speech to Gentiles, Acts 17:22-31; and the
third a speech to Christians, Acts 20:18-35. Together they
afford a very good idea of Paul's method as a missionary and as a
pastor. As is to be expected, they differ strikingly from one
another. Paul was large enough to comprehend the wonderful
richness of Christian truth. His gospel was always the same, but
he was able to adapt the presentation of it to the character of his
hearers.</p>
<p>At Athens, an altar inscribed <span class="smcap">To An Unknown God</span> provided a
starting point. The existence of such an altar is not at all surprising,
although only altars to "unknown gods" (plural instead
of singular) are attested elsewhere. Perhaps the inscription on
this altar indicated simply that the builder of the altar did not
know to which of the numberless gods he should offer thanks for
a benefit that he had received, or to which he should address a<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</SPAN></span>
prayer to ward off calamity. Under a polytheistic religion, where
every department of life had its own god, it was sometimes difficult
to pick out the right god to pray to for any particular purpose.
Such an altar was at any rate an expression of ignorance, and that
ignorance served as a starting point for Paul. "You are afraid
that you have neglected the proper god in this case," says Paul
in effect. "Yes, indeed, you have. You have neglected a very
important god indeed, you have neglected the one true God, who
made the world and all things therein."</p>
<p>In what follows, Paul appeals to the truth contained in Stoic
pantheism. His words are of peculiar interest at the present day,
when pantheism is rampant even within the Church. There is a
great truth in pantheism. It emphasizes the immanence of God.
But the truth of pantheism is contained also in theism. The theist,
as well as the pantheist, believes that God is not far from every one
of us, and that in him we live and move and have our being. The
theist, as well as the pantheist, can say, "Closer is he than breathing,
and nearer than hands and feet." The theist accepts all the truth
of pantheism, but avoids the error. God is present in the world—not
one sparrow "shall fall on the ground without your Father"—but
he is not limited to the world. He is not just another
name for the totality of things, but an awful, mysterious, holy,
free and sovereign Person. He is present in the world, but also
Master of the world.</p>
<hr class="tb" />
<p><span class="smcap">In the Library.</span>—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"
pp. 177-197. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Troas,"
"Philippi," "Thessalonica," "Athens," "Areopagus," "Stoics," "Epicureans,"
"Corinth," "Gallio," "Silas." Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller
and the Roman Citizen," pp. 175-261; "Pictures of the Apostolic
Church," pp. 197-239. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,"
chs. x, xi, and xii. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of
St. Paul," chs. viii, ix, x, xi, and xii. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul,"
pp. 71-81. Lumby, pp. 200-239. Cook, pp. 458-476. Plumptre,
pp. 101-124. Rackham, pp. 260-263, 271-331. For information about
the recently discovered Gallio inscription, see "The Princeton Theological
Review," vol. ix, 1911, pp. 290-298: Armstrong, "Epigraphical
Note."</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.