THE GOSPEL CARRIED INTO EUROPE
From the rich store of to-day's lesson only a few points can be selected for special comment.
1. TITUS AND TIMOTHY
At Lystra, Paul had Timothy circumcised. Acts 16:3. This action has been considered strange in view of the attitude which Paul had previously assumed. At Jerusalem, only a short time before, he had absolutely refused to permit the circumcision of Titus. Evidently, too, he had regarded the matter as of fundamental importance. Had Titus been circumcised, the freedom of the Gentile Christians would have been seriously endangered.
The presence of Titus at the Apostolic Council is mentioned only by Paul in Galatians. It is not mentioned in The Acts. Indeed, Titus does not appear in The Acts at all, though in the epistles he is rather prominent. This fact, however, really requires no further explanation than that the history of Luke is not intended to be exhaustive. The restraint exercised by the author of The Acts has already been observed, for example, in a comparison of the long list of hardships in II Cor. 11:23-27 with what Luke actually narrates. The helpers of Paul whom Luke mentions are usually those who traveled with him. Titus was sent by Paul on at least one important mission, II Cor. 7:13,14, but was apparently not his companion on the missionary journeys. Luke does not concern himself very much with the internal affairs of the churches, and it is in this field that Titus is especially prominent in the epistles. With regard to the presence of Titus in Jerusalem, the different purposes of the narratives in Galatians and in The Acts must be borne in mind. The non-circumcision of Titus, so strongly emphasized by Paul, was merely preliminary to the public action of the church in which Luke was interested. Luke has thought it sufficient to include Titus under the "certain other" of the Antioch Christians who went up with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.
The different policy which Paul adopted in the case of Timothy, as compared with his policy about Titus, is amply explained by the wide differences in the situation.
In the first place, when Titus was at Jerusalem, the matter of Gentile freedom was in dispute, whereas when Timothy was circumcised the question had already been settled by a formal pronouncement of the Jerusalem church. After Paul had won the victory of principle, he could afford to make concessions where no principle was involved. Timothy was recognized as a full member of the Church even before his circumcision. Circumcision was merely intended to make him a more efficient helper in work among the Jews.
In the second place—and this is even more important—Timothy was a half-Jew. It is perhaps doubtful whether Paul under any circumstances would have authorized the circumcision of a pure Gentile like Titus. But Timothy's mother was Jewish. It must always be borne in mind that Paul did not demand the relinquishment of the law on the part of Jews; and Timothy's parentage gave him at least the right of regarding himself as a Jew. If he had chosen to follow his Gentile father, the Jews could have regarded him as a renegade. His usefulness in the synagogues would have been lost. Obviously the circumcision of such a man involved nothing more than the maintenance of ancestral custom on the part of Jews. Where no principle was involved, Paul was the most concessive of men. See especially I Cor. 9:19-23. The final relinquishment of the law on the part of Jews was rightly left to the future guidance of God.
2. THE ROUTE THROUGH ASIA MINOR
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 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.
Apparently, therefore, the disputed phrase refers rather to some region which is not on the way to Asia. This requirement is satisfied if Galatia proper is meant—the country in the northern part of the Roman province Galatia. When they got to Pisidian Antioch, it would have been natural for them to proceed into the western part of Asia Minor, into "Asia." That they were forbidden to do. Hence they turned north, and went through Phrygia into Galatia proper. When they got to the border country between Mysia and Galatia proper, they tried to continue their journey north into Bithynia, but were prevented by the Spirit. Then they turned west, and passing through Mysia without preaching arrived at last at the coast, at Troas.
Nothing is said here about preaching in Galatia proper. But in Acts 18:23, in connection with the third missionary journey, it is said that when Paul passed through "the Galatian country and Phrygia" he established the disciples. There could not have been disciples in the "Galatian country," unless there had been preaching there on the previous journey. On the "North Galatian" theory, therefore, the founding of the Galatian churches to which the epistle is directed is to be placed at Acts 16:6, and the second visit to them, which seems to be presupposed by the epistle, is to be put at Acts 18:23. If it seems strange that Luke does not mention the founding of these churches, the hurried character of this section of the narrative must be borne in mind. Furthermore, the epistle seems to imply that the founding of the churches was rather incidental than an original purpose of the journey; for in Gal. 4:13 Paul says that it was because of an infirmity of the flesh that he preached the gospel in Galatia the former time. Apparently he had been hurrying through the country without stopping, but being detained by illness used his enforced leisure to preach to the inhabitants. It is not impossible to understand how Luke came to omit mention of such incidental preaching. On the second missionary journey attention is concentrated on Macedonia and Greece.
3. THE MOVEMENTS OF SILAS AND TIMOTHY
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.
4. PAUL AT ATHENS
In Athens Paul preached as usual in the synagogue to Jews and "God-fearers"; but he also adopted another and more unusual method—he simply took his stand without introduction in the market place, and spoke to those who chanced by. This method was characteristically Greek; it reminds us of the days of Socrates.
In the market place, Paul encountered certain of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. Both of these schools of philosophy had originated almost three hundred years before Christ, and both were prominent in the New Testament period. In their tenets they were very different. The Stoics were pantheists. They conceived of the world as a sort of great living being of which God is the soul. The world does not exist apart from God and God does not exist apart from the world. Such pantheism is far removed from the Christian belief in the living God, Maker of heaven and earth; but as against polytheism, pantheism and theism have something in common. Paul in his speech was able to start from this common ground. In ethics, the Stoics were perhaps nearer to Christianity than in metaphysics. The highest good they conceived to be a life that is led in accordance with reason—that reason which is the determining principle of the world. The passions must be conquered, pleasure is worthless, the wise man is independent of external conditions. Such an ethic worked itself out in practice in many admirable virtues—in some conception of the universal 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.
The Epicureans were materialists. The world, for them, was a vast mechanism. They believed in the gods, but conceived of them as altogether without influence upon human affairs. Indeed, the deliverance of man from the fear of the gods was one of the purposes of the Epicurean philosophy. The Epicureans were interested chiefly in ethics. Pleasure, according to them, is the highest good. It need not be the pleasure of the senses; indeed Epicurus, at least, the founder of the school, insisted upon a calm life undisturbed by violent passions. Nevertheless it will readily be seen how little such a philosophy had in common with Christianity.
The conditions under which Paul made his speech cannot be determined with certainty. The difficulty arises from the ambiguity of "Areopagus." "Areopagus" means "Mars' hill." But the term was also applied to the court which held at least some of its meetings on the hill. Which meaning is intended here? Did Paul speak before the court, or did he speak on Mars' hill merely to those who were interested? On the whole, it is improbable at any rate that he was subjected to a formal trial.
The speech of Paul at Athens is one of the three important speeches of Paul, exclusive of his speeches in defense of himself at Jerusalem and at Cæsarea, which have been recorded in The Acts. These speeches are well chosen. One of them is a speech to Jews, Acts 13:16-41; one a speech to Gentiles, Acts 17:22-31; and the third a speech to Christians, Acts 20:18-35. Together they afford a very good idea of Paul's method as a missionary and as a pastor. As is to be expected, they differ strikingly from one another. Paul was large enough to comprehend the wonderful richness of Christian truth. His gospel was always the same, but he was able to adapt the presentation of it to the character of his hearers.
At Athens, an altar inscribed To An Unknown God 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 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."
In what follows, Paul appeals to the truth contained in Stoic pantheism. His words are of peculiar interest at the present day, when pantheism is rampant even within the Church. There is a great truth in pantheism. It emphasizes the immanence of God. But the truth of pantheism is contained also in theism. The theist, as well as the pantheist, believes that God is not far from every one of us, and that in him we live and move and have our being. The theist, as well as the pantheist, can say, "Closer is he than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet." The theist accepts all the truth of pantheism, but avoids the error. God is present in the world—not one sparrow "shall fall on the ground without your Father"—but he is not limited to the world. He is not just another name for the totality of things, but an awful, mysterious, holy, free and sovereign Person. He is present in the world, but also Master of the world.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 177-197. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Troas," "Philippi," "Thessalonica," "Athens," "Areopagus," "Stoics," "Epicureans," "Corinth," "Gallio," "Silas." Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 175-261; "Pictures of the Apostolic Church," pp. 197-239. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. x, xi, and xii. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," chs. viii, ix, x, xi, and xii. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 71-81. Lumby, pp. 200-239. Cook, pp. 458-476. Plumptre, pp. 101-124. Rackham, pp. 260-263, 271-331. For information about the recently discovered Gallio inscription, see "The Princeton Theological Review," vol. ix, 1911, pp. 290-298: Armstrong, "Epigraphical Note."