The Literature and History of New Testament Times

by J. Gresham Machen

Yet this Jewish sect soon entered upon the conquest of the empire, and the Jewish Messiah became the Saviour of the world. Starting from Jerusalem, the new sect spread within a few decades almost to the remotest corners of the civilized world. This remarkable extension was not the work of any one man or group of men. It seemed rather to be due to some mysterious power of growth, operating in many directions and in many ways. In this manifold extension of the gospel, however, the central event of to-day's lesson stands out with special clearness. Christianity began as a Jewish movement, quite incongruous with the larger life of the empire. What would be the result of its first real contact with the culture of the time? This question was answered at Antioch.

At Antioch, the principles of the Gentile mission had to be established once for all—those principles which have governed the entire subsequent history of the Church. The extension of the gospel to the Gentiles was not a mere overcoming of racial prejudice, for the separateness of Israel had been of divine appointment; it involved rather the recognition that a new dispensation had begun. Primitive Christianity was not governed merely by considerations of practical expediency; it sought justification for every new step in the guidance of the Spirit and in the fundamental principles of the gospel. The development of those fundamental principles was necessary in order to show that Christianity was really more than a Jewish sect. Then as always, religion without theology would have been a weak and flabby thing. Christianity is not merely an instrument for the improving of social conditions, but rather an answer to the fundamental questions of the soul. It can never do without thinking, and Christian thinking is theology.

Fortunately the church at Antioch did not long remain without a theologian. Its theologian was Paul. Paul was not the founder of the church at Antioch; but the theology of Paul was what gave to that church its really fundamental importance in the history of the world.

The lesson for to-day is of extraordinary richness and variety. Much can be learned, for example, from the characters of the story. Barnabas, with his generous recognition of the great man who was soon to overshadow him; those obscure men of Cyprus and Cyrene, not even mentioned by name, whose work at Antioch was one of the great turning points of history; Agabus, the prophet, and the charitable brethren of Antioch; Rhoda, the serving girl, and the prayerful assembly in the house of the mother of Mark—every one of these teaches some special lesson. One lesson, moreover, may be learned from them all—God is the real leader of the Church, and true disciples, though different in character and in attainments, are all sharers in a mighty work.

In what follows, an attempt will be made to throw light upon a few of the historical questions which are suggested by the narrative in The Acts, and to picture as vividly as possible the scene of these stirring events.

1. THE ACTS AND THE PAULINE EPISTLES

The differences between the narrative in The Acts and the account which Paul gives of the same events have caused considerable difficulty. This very difficulty, however, is by no means an unmixed evil; for it shows at least that Luke was entirely independent of the Epistles. If he had employed the Epistles in the composition of his book he would surely have avoided even the appearance of contradicting them. The divergences between The Acts and the Pauline Epistles, therefore, can only mean that Luke did not use the Epistles when he wrote; and since the Epistles came to be generally used at a very early time, The Acts cannot have been written at so late a date as is often supposed. But if the book was written at an early time, then there is every probability that the information which it contains is derived from trustworthy sources.

Thus the very divergences between The Acts and the Pauline Epistles, unless indeed they should amount to positive contradictions, strengthen the argument for the early date and high historical value of the Lucan work. The independence of The Acts is supported also by the complete absence of striking verbal similarity between the narrative in The Acts and the corresponding passages in the Epistles. Even where the details of the two accounts are similar, the words are different. The few unimportant coincidences in language are altogether insufficient to overthrow this general impression of independence.

The most natural supposition, therefore, is that in The Acts and in the Epistles we have two independent and trustworthy accounts of the same events. This supposition is really borne out by the details of the two narratives. There are differences, but the differences are only what is to be expected in two narratives which were written from entirely different points of view and in complete independence of one another. Contradictions have been detected only by pressing unduly the language of one source or the other. Thus, in reading The Acts alone, one might suppose that Paul spent the whole time between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem in Damascus, and that this period was less than three years; but these suppositions are only inferences. Apparently Luke was not aware of the journey to Arabia; but an incomplete narrative is not necessarily inaccurate. Again, in the account of that first visit to Jerusalem, the reader of The Acts might naturally suppose that more than one of the Twelve was present, that the main purpose of the journey was rather to engage in preaching than to make the acquaintance of Peter, and that the visit lasted longer than fifteen days; and on the other hand, the reader of Galatians might perhaps suppose that instead of preaching in Jerusalem Paul remained, while there, in strict retirement. Again, however, these suppositions would be inferences; and the falsity of them simply shows how cautious the historian should be in reading between the lines of a narrative. Finally, the differences between Paul and Luke are overbalanced by the striking and undesigned agreements.

In Galatians, Paul does not mention the visit which he and Barnabas made in Jerusalem at the time of the famine. This conclusion has been avoided by those scholars who with Ramsay identify the "famine visit" with the visit mentioned in Gal. 2:1-10. The more usual view, however, is that Gal. 2:1-10 is to be regarded as parallel, not with Acts 11:30; 12:25, but with Acts 15:1-30. The second visit mentioned by Paul is thus identified with the third visit mentioned by Luke. Paul did not mention the famine visit because, as was probably admitted even by his opponents in Galatia, the apostles at the time of that visit were all out of the city, so that there was no chance of a meeting with them. The subject under discussion in Galatians was not Paul's life in general, but the relation between Paul and the original apostles.