《基督教会史》第五章:圣保罗与外邦人的归信

Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第五章圣保罗与外邦人的归信 (ST. PAUL AND THE CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES.)

“我今日成了何等人，是蒙神的恩才成的，并且他所赐我的恩不是徒然的。我比众使徒格外劳苦；这原不是我，乃是神的恩与我同在。”——哥林多前书 15:10 (χάριτι θεοῦ εἰμι ὅ εἰμι, καὶ ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ ἡ εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ κενὴ ἐγενήθη, ἀλλὰ περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα, οὐκ ἐγὼ δέ, ἀλλὰ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σὺν ἐμοί.)

“基督耶稣降世，为要拯救罪人。这话是可信的，是十分可佩服的。在罪人中我个是个罪魁。”——提摩太前书 1:15 (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσai, ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ.)

“保罗 (Paul) 的思想天然且完美地适应于接纳并发展基督教的自由、普世和绝对原则。”——鲍尔 (Baur) 博士，《保罗》 (Paul), II. 281, 英译本

“圣保罗 (St. Paul) 的生命难道随着他自己的生命终结了吗？我们岂不更可以相信，在一个比屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) （当他给予保罗‘世界之心’这个荣耀的名字时）所梦想的更高的意义上，那颗伟大的心脏的脉搏至今仍是世界生命的脉搏，在这些后来的时代里，其跳动的力量甚至比以往任何时候都更加强大吗？”——斯坦利 (Stanley) 教长，《使徒时代的讲道与文章》 (Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age)，第166页

§ 29. 关于圣保罗及其工作的来源与文献

I. 来源

可靠的来源：

保罗 (Paul) 的书信，以及《使徒行传》 (Acts of the Apostles) 9:1–30 和 13 至 28 章。在保罗 (Paul) 的书信中，最重要的四封——《加拉太书》 (Galatians)、《罗马书》 (Romans)、《哥林多前后书》 (two Corinthians)——甚至被最严苛的批评家普遍承认为真品；《腓立比书》 (Philippians)、《腓利门书》 (Philemon)、《歌罗西书》 (Colossians) 和《以弗所书》 (Ephesians) 也被几乎所有批评家所接纳；教牧书信 (Pastoral Epistles)，尤其是《提摩太前书》 (First Timothy) 和《提多书》 (Titus)，或多或少存有争议，但即使是它们也带有保罗 (Paul) 天才的印记。

关于《使徒行传》 (Acts) 与保罗书信 (Epistles) 之间的一致性，请参见关于《使徒行传》 (Acts) 的章节。亦请比较 § 22，第213页及后续。
传说与伪经来源：

《保罗与德克拉行传》 (Acta Pauli et Theclae)，希腊文版本由 E. 格雷布 (E. Grabe) 编辑（源自一份博德利手稿 (Bodleian MS)，收于《教父文集选粹》 (Spicileg. SS. PP.)，牛津 (Oxon.)，1698年，卷一，第95–128页；由琼斯 (Jones) 于1726年再版），以及由 蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 编辑（源自三份巴黎手稿 (Paris MSS)，收于《使徒伪经行传》 (Acta Apost. Apocrypha)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1851年）；叙利亚文版本，附 W. 赖特 (W. Wright) 的英文翻译（收于《使徒伪经行传》 (Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles)，伦敦 (Lond.)，1871年）；亚历克斯·沃克 (Alex. Walker) 的英文翻译（收于克拉克出版社 (Clark) 的“前尼西亚基督教文库” (Ante-Nicene Christian Library)，卷十六，第279页及后续）。比较 C. 施劳 (C. Schlau)：《保罗与德克拉行传及早期德克拉传说》 (Die Acten des Paulus und der Thecla und die ältere Thecla-Legende)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1877年。

《保罗与德克拉行传》 (The Acts of Paul and Thecla) 极力提倡独身。它们很可能起源于诺斯底派 (Gnostic)，并基于某些地方传统。根据德尔图良 (Tertullian) （《论洗礼》 (De Bapt.) 第17章，比较哲罗姆 (Jerome)，《名人录》 (Catal) 第7章）的说法，该书最初由一位亚细亚 (Asia) 的长老“出于对保罗 (Paul) 的爱”而写，旨在支持妇女有权以德克拉 (Thecla) 为榜样讲道和施洗的异端观点；因此该作者被罢免。此书后来清除了其最令人反感的部分，并在大公教会中广泛使用。（参见蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 的《导论》 (Prolegomena)，第xxiv页中的教父引文。）德克拉 (Thecla) 被描绘为以哥念 (Iconium) 的一位贵族童女，她与塔米里斯 (Thamyris) 订婚，在十七岁时被保罗 (Paul) 归化，将自己献身于永久的童贞，遭受迫害，被带到火刑柱前，并被扔给野兽，但奇迹般地获救，并在九十岁时死于塞琉西亚 (Seleucia)。在希腊教会中，她被尊为首位女性殉道者。保罗 (Paul) 在这本书的开头（蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)，第41页）被描述为“身材矮小，秃顶，罗圈腿，体格健壮（或精力充沛），眉毛紧蹙，鼻子稍长，充满恩典，时而显为人形，时而面带天使之容。”勒南 (Renan) 在他关于保罗 (Paul) 个人外貌的想象性描绘中部分借用了这一描述。

《保罗行传》 (Acta Pauli, Πράξεις Παύλου)，被奥利金 (Origen) 使用，并被优西比乌 (Eusebius) 列为次经 (Ἀντιλεγόμενα) 或更确切地说是伪经 (νόθα)。它们与《彼得行传》 (Acta Petri, Πράξεις, 或 Περίοδοι Πέτρου) 一样，是诺斯底派 (Gnostic) 对正典《使徒行传》的重构，并被归于圣利努斯 (St. Linus) 所作。仅存残篇。

《彼得与保罗行传》 (Acta Petri et Pauli)。一部对以便尼派 (Ebionite) 作品的天主教改编本。其希腊文和拉丁文文本首次以完整形式由 蒂洛 (Thilo) 在哈雷 (Halle) 于1837-38年出版，希腊文由 蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf)（他校对了六份手稿）于1851年收录于他的《使徒伪经行传》 (Acta Apost. Apoc.)，第1–39页；沃克 (Walker) 的英文翻译收录于“前尼西亚文库” (“Ante-Nicene Libr.”)，第十六卷，第256页及后续。这本书记录了保罗 (Paul) 抵达罗马 (Rome)，与彼得 (Peter) 和行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 的会面，他们在尼禄 (Nero) 法庭前的审判，以及彼得 (Peter) 被钉十字架和保罗 (Paul) 被斩首的殉道。“主啊，你往哪里去” (Domine quo vadis) 的传说在此被记录在彼得 (Peter) 的事迹中，而佩尔佩图阿 (Perpetua) 的故事则与保罗 (Paul) 的殉道交织在一起。

《伪克莱门讲道集》 (The pseudo-Clementine Homilies)，约公元二世纪中期或更晚，以行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)（至少部分地）为伪装，对保罗 (Paul) 进行了恶意的犹太化讽刺描绘，并将他歪曲为一个反律法的异端魁首；而彼得 (Peter)，这部传奇的真正英雄，则被颂扬为纯正、原始基督教的使徒。

《保罗与塞涅卡通信集》 (The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca)，被哲罗姆 (Jerome) （《名人录》 (De vir. ill.) 第12章）和奥古斯丁 (Augustin) （《致马其顿书》 (Ep. ad Maced.) 153，亦作54）提及，并被多次抄录，尽管有许多变异，由法布里奇乌斯 (Fabricius) 编辑于《新约伪经集》 (Cod. Apocr. N. T)，以及塞涅卡 (Seneca) 的多个版本中。它包含塞涅卡 (Seneca) 的八封信和保罗 (Paul) 的六封信。这些信在思想和风格上都非常贫乏，充满了年代和历史的错误，无疑是伪造的。它们的出现源于塞涅ка (Seneca) 的道德格言与保罗 (Paul) 的格言之间的对应关系，这种关系表面上比实际上更为明显，也源于一种愿望，即希望将斯多葛派 (Stoic) 哲学家推荐给基督徒，或将基督教推荐给塞涅卡 (Seneca) 和斯多葛哲学的学生。保罗 (Paul) 在哥林多 (Corinth) 曾受塞涅卡 (Seneca) 的兄弟迦流 (Gallio) 的保护（《使徒行传》18:12–16），并可能与这位65年在罗马 (Rome) 自杀的哲学家相识，但没有证据表明有这样的相识。比较 阿梅代·弗勒里 (Amédée Fleury)：《圣保罗与塞涅卡》 (Saint-Paul et Sénèque)（巴黎 (Paris)，1853年，2卷）；C. 奥贝尔坦 (C. Aubertin)：《关于塞涅卡与圣保罗假定关系之批判研究》 (Étude critique sur les rapports supposé entre Sénèque et Saint-Paul)（巴黎 (Par.)，1887年）；F. C. 鲍尔 (F. C. Baur)：《塞涅卡与保罗》 (Seneca und Paulus)，1858年和1876年；罗伊斯 (Reuss)：在赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 的著作中的塞涅卡 (Seneca) 条目，卷十四，第273页及后续；莱特福特 (Lightfoot)：在他的《腓立比书注释》 (Com. on Philippians) 中的附论，第268–331页；文章《保罗与塞涅卡》，载于“威斯敏斯特评论” (Westminster Review)，伦敦 (Lond.)，1880年，第309页及后续。

II. 传记与批判研究

皮尔逊 (Pearson) 主教（卒于1686年）：《保罗纪年》 (Annales Paulini)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1688年。收录于其著作的各个版本中，也单独出版：《圣保罗纪年》 (Annals of St. Paul)，附地理与批判注释的翻译版。剑桥 (Cambridge)，1825年。
利特尔顿 (Lyttleton) 勋爵（卒于1773年）：《圣保罗的归信与使徒职分》 (The Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul)。第三版，伦敦 (Lond.)，1747年。作为护教学著作，从作者的个人经历出发，为基督教的真理性辩护。
威廉·佩利 (William Paley) 副主教（卒于1805年）：《保罗时分：或通过比较以他为名的书信与使徒行传及书信彼此之间的关系来证明保罗的圣经历史的真实性》 (Horae Paulinae: or The Truth of the Scripture History of Paul evinced by a comparison of the Epistles which bear his name, with the Acts of the Apostles and with one another)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1790年（及后续版本）。至今仍对护教学有价值。
J. 赫姆森 (J. Hemsen)：《使徒保罗》 (Der Apostel Paulus)。哥廷根 (Gött.)，1830年。
卡尔·施拉德 (Carl Schrader)：《使徒保罗》 (Der Apostel Paulus)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1830–36年，5卷。理性主义。
F. Chr. 鲍尔 (F. Chr. Baur)（卒于1860年）：《保罗，耶稣基督的使徒》 (Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi)。图宾根 (Tüb.)，1845年，第二版由 E. 策勒尔 (E. Zeller) 修订，莱比锡 (Leipzig)，1866–67年，2卷。由 艾伦·孟席斯 (Allan Menzies) 译成英文。伦敦 (Williams & Norgate)，1873年和75年，2卷。这位重构使徒时代的哲学批判学派的伟大领袖（我们可以称他为现代的马吉安 (Marcion)）的这部著作，之前已有几篇专题论文，涉及哥林多 (Corinth) 的基督派（1831年）、教牧书信（1835年）、《罗马书》（1836年），以及一篇关于司提反 (Stephen) 在公会前演讲的拉丁文纲要（1829年）。它标志着保罗 (Paul) 研究文献的一个时代，并开辟了新的研究途径。它是图宾根 (Tübingen) 批判学派的标准著作。
科尼比尔与豪森 (Conybeare and Howson)：《圣保罗的生平与书信》 (The Life and Epistles of St. Paul)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1853年，2卷，及纽约 (N. York)，1854年；第二版，伦敦 (Lond.)，1856年，及后续版本；亦有一卷本的节略版。一部非常有用且受欢迎的著作，尤其是在保罗 (Paul) 旅程的地理方面。亦请比较 豪森 (Howson) 教长：《圣保罗的品格》 (Character of St. Paul)（伦敦 (Lond.)，1862年；第二版，1864年）；《圣保罗生平场景》 (Scenes from the Life of St. Paul)（1867年）；《圣保罗的比喻》 (Metaphors of St. Paul)（1868年）；《圣保罗的同伴》 (The Companions of St. Paul)（1871年）。这些书大部分在美国再版。
阿道夫·莫诺 (Ad. Monod)（卒于1856年）：《圣保罗》 (Saint Paul)。六篇讲道。见其《讲道集》 (Sermons)，巴黎 (Paris)，1860年，卷二，121–296页。有德文和英文译本。
W. F. 贝塞尔 (W. F. Besser)：《保罗》 (Paulus)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1861年。由 F. 布尔特曼 (F. Bultmann) 译成英文，J. S. 豪森 (J. S. Howson) 作序。伦敦 (Lond.) 和纽约 (N. York)，1864年。
F. 布热纳 (F. Bungener)：《圣保罗，其生平、其工作及其书信》 (St. Paul, sa vie, son oeuvre et ses épitres)。巴黎 (Paris)，1865年。
A. 豪斯拉特 (A. Hausrath)：《使徒保罗》 (Der Apostel Paulus)。海德堡 (Heidelb.)，1865年；第二版，1872年。亦请比较其《新约时代史》 (N. T. liche Zeitgeschichte)，第三部分。
M. 克伦克尔 (M. Krenkel)：《保罗，外邦人的使徒》 (Paulus, der Apostel der Heiden)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1869年。
欧内斯特·勒南 (Ernest Renan)：《圣保罗》 (Saint Paul)。巴黎 (Paris)，1869年。由 J. 洛克伍德 (J. Lockwood) 从法文译出，纽约 (N. York)，1869年。非常新颖有趣，但充满了想象和错误。
托马斯·勒温 (Thomas Lewin)（《神圣纪年》 (Fasti Sacri) 的作者）：《圣保罗的生平与书信》 (The Life and Epistles of St. Paul)，新版，伦敦 (Lond.) 和纽约 (N. York)，1875年，2卷。一部耗时多年的宏伟著作，附有370幅插图。
F. W. 法勒 (F. W. Farrar) 法政牧师：《圣保罗的生平与工作》 (The Life and Work of St. Paul)。伦敦 (Lond.) 和纽约 (N. York)，1879年，2卷。博学而雄辩。
W. M. 泰勒 (W. M. Taylor)：《作为宣教士的保罗》 (Paul as a Missionary)。纽约 (N. York)，1881年。

作为传记，科尼比尔与豪森 (Conybeare and Howson)、勒温 (Lewin) 和法勒 (Farrar) 的著作最为完整和富有启发性。

亦请参见尼安德 (Neander)、莱克勒 (Lechler)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、兰格 (Lange)、沙夫 (Schaff)（226–347 和 634–640）、普雷桑塞 (Pressensé) 的使徒时代史中的相应章节。

III. 年代学

托马斯·勒温 (Thomas Lewin)：《神圣纪年，新约年代学之钥》 (Fasti Sacri, a Key to the Chronology of the New Testament)。伦敦 (London)，1865年。年代学表格，从公元前70年至公元70年。
维泽勒 (Wieseler)：《使徒时代的年代学》 (Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters)。哥廷根 (Göttingen)，1848年。

IV. 教义与释经

L. 乌斯特里 (L. Usteri)：《保罗教义概念的发展》 (Entwicklung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs)。苏黎世 (Zürich)，1824年，第六版，1851年。
A. P. 德恩 (A. P. Dähne)：《保罗教义概念的发展》 (Entwicklung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs)。哈雷 (Halle)，1835年。
鲍尔 (Baur)：《保罗》 (Paulus)。见上文。
R. A. 利普修斯 (R. A. Lipsius)：《保罗的称义教义》 (Die Paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre)。莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1853年。
C. 霍尔斯滕 (C. Holsten)：《论保罗与彼得的福音》 (Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus)。罗斯托克 (Rostock)，1868年。此书包含：1. 一篇关于《保罗的基督异象与保罗福音的起源》 (Christusvision des Paulus und die Genesis des paulinischen Evangeliums) 的文章，该文先前已发表于希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 的“期刊” (“Zeitschrift”)，1861年，但此处增补了对贝施拉格 (Beyschlag) 的回应；2. 《彼得的弥赛亚异象》 (Die Messiasvision des Petrus)（新）；3. 对《加拉太书》 (Epistle to the Galatians) 的分析（1859年）；4. 对保罗体系中“肉体” (σάρξ) 含义的讨论（1855年）。同作者：《保罗的福音》 (Das Evangelium des Paulus)。第一部分，柏林 (Berlin)，1880年。
TH. 西马尔 (TH. Simar)（罗马天主教）：《圣保罗神学》 (Die Theologie des heil. Paulus)。弗赖堡 (Freiberg)，1864年。
恩内斯蒂 (Ernesti)：《使徒保罗的伦理学》 (Die Ethik des Ap. Paulus)。不伦瑞克 (Braunschweig)，1868年；第三版，1880年。
R. 施密特 (R. Schmidt)：《使徒保罗的基督论》 (Die Christologie des Ap. Paulus)。哥廷根 (Gött.)，1870年。
马修·阿诺德 (Matthew Arnold)：《圣保罗与新教》 (St. Paul and Protestantism)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1870年；第三版，1875年。
威廉·I. 艾恩斯 (William I. Irons)（主教）：《圣保罗所教导的基督教》 (Christianity as taught by St. Paul)。1870年班普顿讲座八讲。牛津 (Oxf.) 和伦敦 (Lond.)，1871年；第二版，1876年。
A. 萨巴蒂尔 (A. Sabatier)：《使徒保罗：其思想史纲》 (L’apôtre Paul. Esquisse d’une histoire de sa pensée)。斯特拉斯堡 (Strasb.) 和巴黎 (Paris)，1870年。
奥托·普夫莱德雷尔 (Otto Pfleiderer)（柏林 (Berlin) 教授）：《保罗主义》 (Der Paulinismus)。莱比锡 (Leipzig)，1873年。在发展保罗 (Paul) 的教义体系方面，遵循鲍尔 (Baur) 和霍尔斯滕 (Holsten) 从其归信开始的理路。由 E. 彼得斯 (E. Peters) 译成英文。伦敦 (Lond.)，1877年，2卷。《关于使徒保罗对基督教发展影响的讲座》 (Lectures on the Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity)（希伯特讲座 (The Hibbert Lectures)）。由 J. Fr. 史密斯 (J. Fr. Smith) 翻译。伦敦 (Lond.) 和纽约 (N. Y.)，1885年。亦请参见其《原始基督教》 (Urchristenthum)，1887年。
C. 魏茨泽克 (C. Weizsäcker)：《使徒时代》 (D. Apost. Zeitalter)（1886年），第68–355页。
弗里德里希·贝特格 (Fr. Bethge)：《使徒行传中的保罗讲辞》 (Die Paulinischen Reden der Apostelgesch.)。哥廷根 (Göttingen)，1887年。

IV. 注释书

关于保罗书信 (Paul’s Epistles) 的注释家（全部或部分）如此之多，我们只能提及一些最重要的：

关于所有保罗书信：加尔文 (Calvin)、伯撒 (Beza)、埃斯蒂乌斯 (Estius)（罗马天主教）、科尼利厄斯·阿·拉皮德 (Corn. A Lapide)（罗马天主教）、格劳秀 (Grotius)、韦特斯坦 (Wetstein)、本格尔 (Bengel)、奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)、德·韦特 (De Wette)、迈耶 (Meyer)、兰格 (Lange)（美国版增补）、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、冯·霍夫曼 (Von Hofmann)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)（法文）、阿尔福德 (Alford)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、《讲员注释》 (Speaker’s Com.)、埃利科特 (Ellicott)（《大众注释》 (Pop. Com)）、沙夫 (Schaff)（《大众注释》 (Pop. Com.)，卷三，1882年）。亦请比较 P. J. 格洛格 (P. J. Gloag)：《保罗书信导论》 (Introduction to the Pauline Epistles)。爱丁堡 (Edinburgh)，1874年。
关于单卷书信：《罗马书》 (Romans) 作者有托卢克 (Tholuck)（第五版，1856年）、弗里切 (Fritzsche)（3卷拉丁文）、赖歇 (Reiche)、吕克特 (Rückert)、菲利皮 (Philippi)（第三版，1866年，由 班克斯 (Banks) 翻译的英文版，1878–79年，2卷）、摩西·斯图尔特 (Mos. Stuart)、特纳 (Turner)、贺智 (Hodge)、福布斯 (Forbes)、乔伊特 (Jowett)、谢德 (Shedd)（1879年）、戈代 (Godet)（《罗马书注释》 (L’épitre aux Romains)，1879年和1880年，2卷）。—《哥林多书》 (Corinthians) 作者有尼安德 (Neander)、奥西安德 (Osiander)、贺智 (Hodge)、斯坦利 (Stanley)、海因里希 (Heinrici)、爱德华兹 (Edwards)、戈代 (Godet)、埃利科特 (Ellicott)。—《加拉太书》 (Galatians) 作者有路德 (Luther)、维纳 (Winer)、维泽勒 (Wieseler)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、霍尔斯滕 (Holsten)、乔伊特 (Jowett)、伊迪 (Eadie)、埃利科特 (Ellicott)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot)。—《以弗所书》 (Ephesians) 作者有哈勒斯 (Harless)、马蒂斯 (Matthies)、施蒂尔 (Stier)、贺智 (Hodge)、伊迪 (Eadie)、埃利科特 (Ellicott)、J. L. 戴维斯 (J. L. Davies)。—其他较小的书信，由布利克 (Bleek)（《歌罗西书》 (Col.)、《腓利门书》 (Philemon) 和《以弗所书》 (Eph.）、科赫 (Koch)（《帖撒罗尼迦书》 (Thess)）、范·亨厄尔 (van Hengel)（《腓立比书》 (Phil)）、伊迪 (Eadie)（《歌罗西书》 (Col)）、埃利科特 (Ellicott)（《腓立比书》 (Phil.)、《歌罗西书》 (Col.)、《帖撒罗尼迦书》 (Thess.)、《腓利门书》 (Philem)）、莱特福特 (Lightfoot)（《腓立比书》 (Phil)、《歌罗西书》 (Col.)、《腓利门书》 (Philemon)）解释。—《教牧书信》 (Pastoral Epp.) 作者有马蒂斯 (Matthies)、麦克 (Mack)（罗马天主教）、贝克 (Beck)（由林登迈耶 (Lindenmeyer) 编辑，1879年）、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)（1880年）、费尔贝恩 (Fairbairn)、埃利科特 (Ellicott)、魏斯 (Weiss)（1886年）、克诺克 (Knoke)（1887年）、科林 (Kölling)（1887年）。
关于《使徒行传》 (Acts) 第二部分的注释，作者有德·韦特 (De Wette)、迈耶 (Meyer)、鲍姆加滕 (Baumgarten)、亚历山大 (Alexander)、哈克特 (Hackett)、莱克勒 (Lechler)、格洛格 (Gloag)、普朗普特 (Plumptre)、雅各布森 (Jacobson)、拉姆比 (Lumby)、豪森与斯彭斯 (Howson and Spence)。

§ 30. 归信前的保罗

他的天赋

我们现在来探讨这位外邦人的使徒，他决定了基督教作为一种普世宗教的胜利，他在言行上的劳苦比他所有的同工都多，并且他以孤独的伟大形象，成为历史上最卓越、最具影响力的人物。他的青年时代以及他的晚年都笼罩在神秘之中，只知道他起初是逼迫者，最终是殉道者，但他生命的中期却比任何其他使徒都更为人所知，充满了不朽的燃烧思想和高尚行为，这些思想和行为随着福音从一个时代传到另一个时代，从一个国家传到另一个国家而愈发强大。

扫罗 (Saul) 或保罗 (Paul)^[1] 出身于严格的犹太家庭，但在基督^[2] 诞生几年后，出生在基利家 (Cilicia) 省著名的希腊商业和文学城市大数 (Tarsus)，并继承了罗马公民的权利。他在耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 的法利赛派拉比迦玛列 (Gamaliel)——希勒尔 (Hillel) 的孙子——的学校接受了博学的犹太教育，对希腊文学也并非一无所知，这从他的文风、辩证方法、对异教宗教和哲学的引述以及偶尔引用异教诗人的诗句中可以看出。因此，他是一个“希伯来人所生的希伯来人”，^[3] 但同时又是一个土生的希腊化犹太人和罗马公民，可以说，他集古代世界三大民族的特质于一身，并具备了普世使徒职分所需的一切天赋。他可以作为亚伯拉罕 (Abraham) 的后裔、便雅悯 (Benjamin) 支派的人，以及著名拉比迦玛列 (Gamaliel)——被誉为“律法之荣耀”——的门徒，与法利赛人 (Pharisees) 辩论。他可以用他们优美的语言和令人信服的逻辑向希腊人 (Greeks) 演讲。他身披罗马人民的尊严和威严，可以凭着那句骄傲的口号“我是罗马公民” (Civis Romanus sum) 安全地走遍整个帝国。

这种为他未来工作所作的天意准备，使他一度成为基督教最危险的敌人，但在他归信后，又成为其最有用的推动者。毁灭的武器变成了建设的武器。引擎被反转，方向被改变；但它仍然是同一个引擎，并且在新灵感的激励下，其力量得到了增强。

扫罗 (Saul) 的智力和道德天赋是最高等的。最敏锐的思维与最温柔的情感相结合，最深刻的思想与最坚强的意志相融合。他有闪族 (Semitic) 的热情，希腊 (Greek) 的多才多艺，和罗马 (Roman) 的精力。无论他做什么，他都全心投入。他全身心投入 (totus in illis)，是一个专一意念和专一目标的人，首先作为犹太人，然后作为基督徒。他的本性是好战和英雄式的。他无所畏惧——除了对上帝的敬畏，这使他对人无所畏惧。年少时，他已声名显赫；如果他仍然是犹太人，他可能会成为比希勒尔 (Hillel) 或迦玛列 (Gamaliel) 更伟大的拉比，因为他在原创天才和思想的丰富性上都超越了他们。

保罗 (Paul) 是使徒中唯一的学者。他从不炫耀自己的学识，认为与认识基督的卓越相比，这些都算不得什么，他为基督丢弃了万事，^[4] 但他无法掩饰自己的学识，并在归信后将其用于最佳用途。彼得 (Peter) 和约翰 (John) 有天赋，但没有受过经院教育；保罗 (Paul) 两者兼备，因此成为基督教神学和哲学的奠基人。

他的教育

他的训练是彻底的犹太式的，根植于旧约圣经和最终汇集成《塔木德》 (Talmud) 的长老传统。^[5] 他几乎能背诵希伯来文和希腊文的圣经。在他那些论证性强的书信中，当对犹太归信者说话时，他引用摩西五经、先知书、诗篇，时而直译，时而意译，有时巧妙地结合几段经文或言语记忆，或在字里行间进行解读，这显露出他对神话语深邃之处的深刻研究和掌握，并为晦涩的段落投下了一道亮光。^[6] 他非常熟悉预表和寓言的解释方法；他偶尔且顺带地使用圣经论据，或者更确切地说是例证，这些在严谨的学者看来有些牵强附会，尽管对犹太读者来说是完全有说服力的。^[7] 但他从不将一个真理建立在这样一个例证之上而没有独立的论证；他从不沉溺于那些“崇拜字句的拉比们”的解经强加和琐碎，他们以将教义的大山悬挂在经文的细发上为荣。通过基督的启示，旧约对他来说不再迷失于《塔木德》 (Talmud) 的沙漠或《卡巴拉》 (Kabbala) 的迷宫中，而成为一本生命之书，充满了福音救恩的伟大事实和真理的预表和应许。他在亚伯拉罕 (Abraham) 身上看到了信实之父，在哈巴谷 (Habakkuk) 身上看到了因信称义的传道者，在逾越节的羔羊身上看到了为世界罪孽被杀的基督的预表，在以色列人过红海中看到了基督徒洗礼的预示，在旷野的吗哪中看到了主餐中生命之粮的预表。

保罗 (Paul) 的希腊文化修养是一个有争议的问题，一些人否认，另一些人则过度夸大。毫无疑问，他在童年和青年时期的家乡^[8] 掌握了希腊语，因为当时大数 (Tarsus) 是罗马帝国三大大学之一的所在地，在某些方面甚至超过了雅典 (Athens) 和亚历山大 (Alexandria)，并为皇室提供家庭教师。他的老师迦玛列 (Gamaliel) 相对没有拉比们对异教文学的憎恶和鄙视。归信后，他将生命献给了拯救异教徒的事业，并在大数 (Tarsus)、以弗所 (Ephesus)、哥林多 (Corinth) 等希腊城市生活了多年，为了拯救希腊人，他向希腊人就作希腊人。很难想象，像他这样一个具有普世人类同情心，并对思想最深层问题如此警醒的人，在这种情况下会对他所要造福的民族之爱，以及出于扩展其功用的愿望，而对希腊哲学、诗歌和历史的巨大宝库毫无察觉。我们期望每一位去中国或印度的传教士都会这样做。保罗 (Paul) 非常贴切地，尽管只是顺带地，三次引用了希腊诗人的诗句，不仅有米南德 (Menander) 的一句谚语，^[9] 还有埃庇米尼得斯 (Epimenides) 的一句六音步诗，^[10] 这可能已成为常用语，而且还有半句六音步诗和一个连接词，他肯定是在他的同乡阿拉托斯 (Aratus)（约公元前270年）冗长的天文诗中，或在克利安提斯 (Cleanthes) 对朱庇特 (Jupiter) 的崇高赞美诗中读到的，这两处都出现了这段话。^[11] 他的一些最喜欢的比喻借用自希腊的运动会；他与不同学派的希腊哲学家辩论，并在亚略巴古 (Areopagus) 以极为智慧和适应情境的方式向他们演讲；有些人认为，当他谈到“世上的小学” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου)^[12] 时，他甚至暗指了斯多葛哲学的术语。他运用希腊语，虽然不具备古典的纯正和优雅，却带着一种近乎创造性的活力，将其转变为一个顺从于新思想的工具，并运用了矛盾语、双关语、曲言法等修辞手法。^[13] 然而，所有这些并不能证明他系统地学习或广泛了解希腊文学，部分原因是天生的才华。他在写给腓利门 (Philemon) 和腓立比人 (Philippians) 的书信中流露出的超乎雅典式的文雅和绅士风度，必须归因于基督教的影响，而非他与有教养的希腊人的交往。他的希腊学识似乎只是偶然的、附带的，并且完全服从于他的伟大目标。在这方面，他与博学的约瑟夫 (Josephus) 大不相同，后者刻意追求雅典式的文体纯正；也与斐洛 (Philo) 不同，后者让摩西宗教所启示的真理被希腊哲学所控制、模糊和歪曲。斐洛 (Philo) 通过寓言式的强加解释来理想化并曲解旧约，以此代替语法上的阐释；保罗 (Paul) 则将旧约灵意化，并引出其最深的含义。斐洛 (Philo) 的犹太教蒸发在思辨的抽象概念中，而保罗 (Paul) 的犹太教则被提升和转化为基督教的现实。

他对犹太教的热忱

扫罗 (Saul) 是最严谨的法利赛教派的一员，但并非我们救主严厉斥责的那种伪善之徒，而是像尼哥底母 (Nicodemus) 和迦玛列 (Gamaliel) 那样诚实、爱真理、求真理的人。他逼迫基督徒的狂热，正是源于他坚定的信念和对他祖先宗教的热忱。他在无知中逼迫，这减轻了他的罪责，但并未消除。他可能从未见过或听过耶稣，直到耶稣在大马士革 (Damascus) 向他显现。在耶稣被钉十字架和复活时，他可能身在大数 (Tarsus)。^[14] 但凭着他的法利赛教育，他和他的老师们一样，视拿撒勒的耶稣 (Jesus of Nazareth) 为假弥赛亚、叛乱者、亵渎者，理应被判死刑。他按照自己的信念行事。他在逼迫司提反 (Stephen) 的事件中扮演了最主要的角色，并以他的死为乐。不仅如此，他还从公会 (Sanhedrin)——该机构监督所有会堂并对违犯律法的行为施以惩戒——获得了全权，去逼迫和逮捕四散的门徒。他全副武装，前往叙利亚 (Syria) 的首都大马士- 别是拥有许多会堂的大马士革 (Damascus)。他决心为了上帝的荣耀，将这个危险的教派从地上铲除。但他反对的高峰，正是他投身基督教的开始。

他的外部关系与个人形象

关于保罗 (Paul) 的外部状况和关系的次要问题，我们没有确切的信息。作为一名罗马公民，他属于受人尊敬的社会阶层，但一定很贫穷；因为他靠一门根据拉比习俗学来的手艺为生；那就是制造帐篷，这在基利家 (Cilicia) 很常见，但在大城市之外并不赚钱。^[15]

他有一个姐姐住在耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem)，她的儿子曾救过他的性命。^[16]

他可能从未结过婚。有人认为他是鳏夫。犹太和拉比的习俗，他道德品格的完整性，他将婚姻理想化为基督与教会神秘联合的反映，他对应尽的夫妻、父母和子女责任的劝勉，似乎都指向他对家庭生活的亲身体验。但作为一名从一地到另一地，遭受各种艰难和迫害的基督徒传教士，他感到自己有责任独身。^[17] 他为了基督国度的扩展，牺牲了家庭的幸福。^[18]

在哥林多教会那些只看重修辞华饰的肤浅判断中，他“外貌是丑陋的，言语是粗俗的” (ἡ μὲν παρουσία τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενής, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἐξουθενημένος)，但他们也不得不承认他的“信是沉重而有力的”。^[19] 一些最伟大的人物身材矮小，一些最纯洁的灵魂体貌不扬。苏格拉底 (Socrates) 是最丑陋的，却是最智慧的希腊人。尼安德 (Neander) 是一个归信的犹太人，像保罗 (Paul) 一样，身材矮小，体弱多病，整个外表都非常奇特，但在他黝黑浓密的眉毛下，脸上却闪耀着罕见的谦卑、仁慈和对天国的向往。因此，我们完全可以想象保罗 (Paul) 的面容表情是高度智慧和属灵的，他看起来“时而像人，时而像天使”。^[20]

他患有一种神秘、痛苦、反复发作且令人厌恶的身体疾病，他称之为“肉体中的一根刺”，这根刺抑制了他因启示过多而产生的属灵骄傲和自高自大。^[21] 他将天上的财宝装在瓦器里，他的力量在软弱中得以完全。^[22] 但我们更应钦佩他那将软弱本身化为力量的道德英雄气概，尽管身受痛苦、麻烦和迫害，他仍将福音的救恩从大马士革 (Damascus) 胜利地带到了罗马 (Rome)。

§ 31. 保罗的归信

“神……乐意将他儿子启示在我心里，叫我把他传在外邦人中” (Εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός ... ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν)

——加拉太书 1:15, 16

保罗 (Paul) 的归信不仅标志着他个人历史的一个转折点，也是使徒时代教会历史乃至人类历史的一个重要时期。这是自五旬节神迹以来最富成果的事件，确保了基督教的普世胜利。

最危险的逼迫者转变为最成功的基督教推动者，这无异于神恩典的奇迹。它建立在基督复活这一更大的奇迹之上。两者密不可分；没有复活，归信就不可能发生，而反过来，这样一个人的归信及其带来的结果，是复活最有力的证据之一。

司提反 (Stephen)——保罗 (Paul) 的先驱——对那钉死弥赛亚的顽固、刚硬的犹太教的勇敢攻击，激起了公会 (Sanhedrin) 一次坚决而系统的企图，即通过摧毁他的教会来再次钉死耶稣。在这场生死斗争中，法利赛人扫罗 (Saul)，这位新兴拉比中最勇敢、最强大的人，是自愿且被接受的领袖。

司提反 (Stephen) 殉道和耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 会众分散之后，他以公会 (Sanhedrin) 专员的身份前往大马士革 (Damascus) 追捕逃亡的耶稣门徒，他像一位宗教裁判长，拥有全权，决心铲除基督教的叛乱，并将他能找到的所有叛教者，无论男女，都用锁链带到圣城，由大祭司定罪。

大马士革 (Damascus) 是世界上最古老的城市之一，在亚伯拉罕 (Abraham) 时代就已闻名，它在一片燃烧贫瘠的沙漠中，如天堂的景象般呈现在旅人面前；它由永不枯竭的亚罢拿河 (Abana) 和法珥法河 (Pharpar)（古代的乃缦 (Naaman) 曾认为它们胜过以色列 (Israel) 所有的水）灌溉，被茂盛的花园和热带果树林所环绕；因此被东方诗人赞美为“沙漠之眼”。

但是，当扫罗 (Saul) 走近这座城市时，一个远比这地上乐园更高的异象正等待着他。正午时分，一道来自天上的超自然之光，比叙利亚 (Syrian) 的太阳还要明亮，突然环绕着他，而他所逼迫的那些卑微门徒所信奉的拿撒勒人耶稣 (Jesus of Nazareth)，以他作为被高举的弥赛亚的荣耀向他显现，用希伯来语问他：“扫罗 (שָׁאוּל)，扫罗 (שָׁאוּל)，你为什么逼迫我？”^[23] 这是一个既有责备又有爱的问题，它融化了他的心。他俯伏在地。他看见了，听见了，他颤抖并顺服，他相信并欢喜。当他从地上起来时，他看不见任何人。像一个无助的孩子，被耀眼的光芒弄瞎了眼睛，他被领到大马士革 (Damascus)，经过三天失明和禁食后，他被治愈并受了洗——不是由彼得 (Peter)、雅各 (James) 或约翰 (John) 施洗，而是由一个他本要来摧毁的卑微门徒施洗。那个傲慢、自义、偏执、狂怒的法利赛人变成了一个谦卑、悔改、感恩、慈爱的耶稣仆人。他抛弃了自以为义、学识、影响力、权力和前途，冒着生命危险，与一个被鄙视的小教派同甘共苦。如果历史上曾有过一次诚实、无私、彻底而有效的信念和行为的转变，那就是大数的扫罗 (Saul of Tarsus) 的转变。他借着圣灵的创造之工，成了“在基督耶稣里一个新造的人”。^[24]

我们在《使徒行传》中有三次关于此事的完整记载，一次来自路加 (Luke)，两次来自保罗 (Paul) 本人，细节上略有出入，但这恰恰证实了其本质上的一致性。^[25] 保罗 (Paul) 在他的书信中也五六次提到这件事。^[26] 在所有这些段落中，他都将这次转变描述为一个由耶稣直接介入而引发的行为，耶稣从天上以荣耀显现，像午夜的闪电一样，将信念击入他的心中。他将此比作上帝创造的行为，那时他命令光从黑暗中照出来。^[27] 他特别强调，他是直接由基督归信并被召为使徒，没有任何人为的媒介；他的自由和普世恩典的福音是通过启示学来的，而不是从那些比他早的使徒那里学来的，他甚至在被召三年后才见到他们。^[28]

诚然，这次归信并非道德上的强迫，而是包含了同意或不同意的责任。上帝从不以武力或魔法使人归信。他造人时赋予了人自由，并作为有道德的存在来影响他。保罗 (Paul) 本可以“违背那从天上来的异象”。^[29] 他本可以“用脚踢刺” (σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν)，尽管这样做是“难”的（并非不可能）。^[30] 这些话暗示着某种心理上的准备，某种对他所行之事的怀疑和不安，某种肉体与圣灵之间的道德冲突，他在二十年后根据个人经验描述了这种冲突，并最终发出了绝望的呼喊：“我真是苦啊！谁能救我脱离这取死的身体呢？”^[31] 在他从耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 到大马士革 (Damascus) 的旅途中——这段大约140英里的路程，步行或骑马需要整整一周——当他独自沉思，经过撒玛利亚 (Samaria)、加利利 (Galilee)，并越过黑门山 (Mount Hermon) 时，他有充足的时间反思，我们可以想象，殉道者司提反 (Stephen) 那容光焕发的面容，当他像一位圣洁的天使站在公会前，以及在最后一刻为他的凶手祈祷时，是如何像幽灵一样缠绕着他，警告他停止他疯狂的行径。

然而，我们不应过分夸大这种准备，或在他归信与受洗之间的三天，以及在阿拉伯 (Arabia) 安静默想的三年里，预先设想他更为成熟的经历。他无疑渴望真理和公义，但他心眼上蒙着一层厚厚的幔子，只有外来的手才能揭开；通往他内心的路被一扇偏见的铁门所阻挡，必须由耶稣亲自破门而入。在他去大马士革 (Damascus) 的路上，他“仍向主的门徒口吐威吓凶杀的话”，并以为自己是在“事奉神”；用他自己的话来说，他“极力”逼迫神的教会，并残害教会，“为我祖宗的遗传更加热心”，胜过许多同岁的人，而就在那时，“神……乐意将他儿子启示在他心里”。此外，只有在信心的光照下，我们才能看到我们罪的午夜黑暗，也只有在基督的十字架下，我们才能感受到罪的全部压迫重量和神救赎之爱的深不可测。再多的主观思考和反思，也不可能在如此短的时间内带来如此彻底的改变。是耶稣的客观显现成就了这一切。

这次显现意味着复活和升天，这是他作为弥赛亚的不可抗拒的证据，是上帝对他工作亲自盖上的认可印记。而复活又为他在十字架上的死投下了一道新的亮光，揭示其为全世界罪孽的赎罪祭，是获得赦免与和平，同时又符合神公义要求的方式。这是何等的启示！那个他曾憎恨和逼迫为假先知，理应被钉在两个强盗之间的拿撒勒人耶稣 (Jesus of Nazareth)，竟以复活、升天、荣耀的弥赛亚形象站在扫罗 (Saul) 面前！他非但没有像逼迫者应得的那样将他击垮，反而赦免了他，并呼召他作他在犹太人和外邦人面前的见证！这个启示足以让一个等待以色列 (Israel) 盼望的正统犹太人成为基督徒，也足以让一个如此有魄力的犹太人成为一个认真而坚定的基督徒。他的理智逻辑和意志力都要求他，要以他曾憎恨和逼迫新信仰的热情，来爱护和推广它；因为恨只是颠倒的爱，而爱与恨的强度取决于情感的力量和性情的火热。

尽管转变是如此突然和彻底，但在法利赛人扫罗 (Saul) 和基督徒保罗 (Paul) 之间仍然存在着一种统一的纽带。这是同一个人，追求着同一个目标，只是方向相反。我们必须记住，他不是一个世俗、冷漠、冷血的人，而是一个极其虔诚的人。在逼迫教会的时候，就律法上的义说，他是“无可指摘的” (κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος)。^[32] 他就像那个遵守了诫命，却仍缺少一件要紧事的富足青年，马可 (Mark) 说耶稣“爱他”。^[33] 他的归信不是从不信到相信，而是从一种较低的信仰到一种更纯粹的信仰，从摩西 (Moses) 的宗教到基督的宗教，从律法的神学到福音的神学。罪人如何在圣洁上帝的审判台前得称为义？这在他归信前后都是最重要的问题；不仅是一个经院问题，更是一个道德和宗教问题。因为对希伯来人来说，义就是遵从上帝在他所启示的律法中表达的旨意，并意味着永生为其奖赏。诚实而认真地追求义，是保罗 (Paul) 一生两个时期的连接点。起初他凭着律法的行为来努力获取，后来则凭着信心的顺服。他凭着对犹太教传统的狂热热心所徒然寻求的，却因信靠基督的十字架而白白地、立刻地得到了：赦免和与上帝的和平。借着摩西律法作为启蒙教师的管教，他被引向超越其束缚，并预备好进入成年和自由。他借着律法，向律法死了，叫他可以向上帝活着。他的旧我，连同其私欲，都与基督同钉十字架，因此从今以后，不再是他活着，乃是基督在他里面活着。^[34] 他与他的救主神秘地合而为一，与他再无分别。整个基督教，整个生命，对他而言都浓缩在一个词里：基督。他定意不知道别的，只知道耶稣基督并他钉十字架，是为我们的罪，又为我们的称义从死里复活。^[35]

他因信称义、得蒙基督白白赦免和接纳的经历，是他感恩和奉献的最强烈的动力。他逼迫教会的大罪，如同彼得 (Peter) 的不认主，最终却成了他的益处：对这罪的记忆使他谦卑，保守他免于试探，并加深了他的热心和奉献。“我原是使徒中最小的，”他以真诚的谦卑说道，“不配称为使徒，因为我从前逼迫神的教会。然而，我今日成了何等人，是蒙神的恩才成的，并且他所赐我的恩不是徒然的。我比众使徒格外劳苦；这原不是我，乃是神的恩与我同在。”^[36] 这段告白，简明扼要地概括了他一生和工作的全部意义。

因信靠基督里的上帝白白恩典而称义的观念，这种信心使基督和他的功劳成为我们自己的，并引向奉献和圣洁，这是保罗书信 (Paul’s Epistles) 的中心思想。他的整个神学，无论是教义、伦理还是实践，都像一颗种子一样蕴藏在他的归信之中；但它是在与犹太化教师的激烈冲突中才得以发展的，这些教师继续信靠律法来获得公义和救恩，从而实际上废弃了上帝的恩典，使基督的死变得不必要和毫无结果。

虽然保罗 (Paul) 与犹太教彻底决裂，并竭力反对法利赛人关于律法公义的观念，但他远非反对旧约或犹太民族。于此，他展现了他伟大的智慧与节制，以及他远超马吉安 (Marcion) 和其他极端及伪保罗派改革家的无限优越性。他现在将圣经阐释为福音的直接预备，将律法视为引向基督的启蒙教师，将亚伯拉罕 (Abraham) 视为信实之父。至于他肉身的同胞，他比以往任何时候都更爱他们。充满了那赦免了他这个“罪魁”的基督奇妙的爱，他准备好为他们作出任何可能的最大牺牲，只要能拯救他们。他在《罗马书》第九章中那惊人的言辞并非修辞上的夸张，而是那种激励了摩西 (Moses)、并在上帝永恒之子在加略山 (Calvary) 十字架上的牺牲中达到顶峰的英雄式自我牺牲精神的真诚表达。^[37]

保罗 (Paul) 的归信同时也是他被召为使徒的呼召，不是要他列入十二使徒之中（因为犹大的空缺已被填补），而是要他成为独立的外邦人使徒。^[38] 随后是超过四分之一个世纪的不间断的活动，其趣味性、持久性及不断增长的功用，在历史的编年史上无出其右，并为他归信的真诚性和基督教的真理性提供了无可辩驳的证明。^[39]

类似的归信经历

上帝根据每个人的独特品格和状况来对待他们。正如以利亚 (Elijah) 在何烈山 (Mount Horeb) 的异象中，上帝有时显现在拔树的狂风中，有时显现在裂石的地震中，有时显现在吞噬的烈火中，有时显现在微小的声音中。有些人是突然归信的，能够记起地点和时刻；有些人的心灵和行为是逐渐、不知不觉地改变的；还有一些人是从母亲的膝下和洗礼的泉源中不知不觉地在基督信仰里成长的。意志越坚强，克服阻力所需的力量就越大，改变也越彻底和持久。在所有突然而彻底的归信中，扫罗 (Saul) 的归信是最突然、最彻底的。在几个方面，它都是独一无二的，正如他本人和他的工作一样。然而，历史上也有一些微弱的类似例子。那些最同情他的精神和教义体系的神学家，都经历过类似的体验，并从他的榜样和著作中得到了很大帮助。其中，奥古斯丁 (Augustin)、加尔文 (Calvin) 和路德 (Luther) 是最杰出的。

圣奥古斯丁 (St. Augustin)，一位虔诚母亲和异教徒父亲的儿子，曾误入歧途，陷入错误和罪恶，在异端和怀疑主义的迷宫中徘徊多年，但他的心在寻求上帝时不得安宁、充满思乡之情。最后，当他三十三岁时（公元386年9月），在他远离非洲家乡的米兰 (Milan) 附近一个花园里，他灵魂的发酵达到了顶点，那时上帝的灵，通过莫尼卡 (Monica) 不断的祈祷、安波罗修 (Ambrose) 的讲道、圣安东尼 (St. Anthony) 的榜样、对西塞罗 (Cicero) 和柏拉图 (Plato)、以赛亚 (Isaiah) 和保罗 (Paul) 的研读等多种因素的共同作用，带来了一次转变，虽然不像保罗 (Paul) 那样奇妙——因为没有基督的可见显现赐予他——但却像使徒的转变一样真诚和持久。当他躺在悔改的尘土中，为得释放与上帝角力祷告时，他突然听到一个甜美的声音，仿佛来自天上，一再呼唤：“拿起来读，拿起来读！”他打开圣书，读到保罗 (Paul) 的劝勉：“总要披戴主耶稣基督，不要为肉体安排，去放纵私欲。”这是上帝的声音；他顺服了，他彻底改变了自己的生活方式，并成为他那个时代最伟大、最有用的导师。

关于加尔文 (Calvin) 的归信，我们知之甚少，但他自己将其描述为一次从教皇迷信到福音信仰的突然转变 (subita conversio)。在这方面，它更像保罗 (Paul) 而非奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 的归信。他不是怀疑论者，不是异端，也不是不道德的人，据我们所知，他是一个虔诚的罗马天主教徒，直到宗教改革的更明亮的光从圣经中照亮他的心灵，向他展示了一条更卓越的道路。“我们的灵魂只剩下一个救恩的港湾，”他说，“那就是上帝在基督里的怜悯。我们得救是本乎恩——不是靠我们的功德，不是靠我们的行为。”他没有与血肉之人商量，并且烧毁了身后的桥梁。他放弃了所有辉煌事业的前景，使自己面临迫害和死亡的危险。他劝勉并坚固法国那些胆怯的新教徒，通常以保罗 (Paul) 的话结尾：“神若帮助我们，谁能敌挡我们呢？”他在巴黎 (Paris) 准备了一篇关于改革的激昂演说，该演说被下令焚烧；他像保罗 (Paul) 在大马士革 (Damascus) 一样，从一个窗户用篮子逃脱了迫害，并作为一名逃亡的福音传教士在各地流浪了两年，直到他在日内瓦 (Geneva) 找到了他的工作领域。随着他的归信，他的保罗神学也诞生了，它像密涅瓦 (Minerva) 从朱庇特 (Jupiter) 的头中跃出一样，从他的大脑中涌现出来。保罗 (Paul) 从未有过比约翰·加尔文 (John Calvin) 更具逻辑性和神学性的注释家。^[40]

但历史上最像保罗 (Paul) 的人是德国宗教改革的领袖，他几乎同等地融合了思想的深度、意志的力量、心灵的温柔和性情的火爆，并且是福音自由最强大的宣告者；尽管在自律、一致性和品格的均衡方面，他不如奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 和加尔文 (Calvin)（更不用说保罗 (Paul)）。^[41] 路德 (Luther) 对《加拉太书》 (Epistle to the Galatians) 的注释，虽然不是语法或逻辑上的阐释，却是对该书信反对自以为义和教皇制束缚的新鲜再现和再版。路德 (Luther) 的第一次归信发生在他二十一岁那年（1505年），当时他是埃尔福特 (Erfurt) 的一名法律系学生，在探望父母回来的路上，被一场可怕的雷暴和闪电吓坏了，他惊呼：“亲爱的圣安娜 (St. Anna)，救我！我愿意做一名修士！”但那次归信，尽管常被拿来与使徒的归信相比，却与他的保罗主义和新教主义无关；它使他成为一个虔诚的天主教徒，促使他逃离世界，进入修道院的隐居之地，以求灵魂的得救。他成为最谦卑、顺服和克己的修士之一，正如保罗 (Paul) 是最认真和热心的法利赛人之一。“如果曾有修士靠修道生活上了天堂，”路德 (Luther) 说，“我本该上去了。”但他越是靠苦行克己和刑罚操练来寻求公义与平安，就越是痛苦地感受到罪的重压和上帝的愤怒，尽管他无法向他的忏悔神父指出任何具体的过犯。律法的管教将他推向绝望的边缘，那时借着施道比茨 (Staupitz) 的善意干预，他被引导离开自己，转向基督的十字架，作为赦免与平安的唯一源泉，并因着对基督全备功劳的全然信靠，找到了他凭自己力量徒然寻求的公义。^[42] 这可以称之为他的第二次归信，发生在几年后（1508年），是逐渐而非突然的，使他成为基督里福音的自由人，并为他与罗马教廷的伟大冲突做好了准备，这场冲突随着他张贴反对贩卖赎罪券的九十五条论纲（1517年）而正式开始。其间的岁月可以比作保罗 (Paul) 在阿拉伯 (Arabia) 的逗留以及在他第一次伟大宣教旅程之前的次要工作。

错误的解释

古代异教徒和现代理性主义者曾多次尝试以纯粹自然的方式解释保罗 (Paul) 的归信，但都彻底失败了，而他们的失败也间接地证实了使徒本人所给出、并历代被基督教会所持守的正确观点。^[43]

欺诈理论。— 犹太化者的异端和恶意派别倾向于将保罗 (Paul) 的归信归因于自私的动机，或邪灵的影响。

以便尼派 (Ebionites) 散布谎言说，保罗 (Paul) 是外邦人父母所生，爱上了耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 大祭司的女儿，为了得到她而成为一名归信者并接受了割礼，但目的未遂，他便报复性地攻击割礼、安息日和整个摩西律法。^[44]

在代表着犹太化异端思辨形式的《伪克莱门讲道集》 (pseudo-Clementine Homilies) 中，保罗 (Paul) 被伪装成行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)，即那位将反律法主义的异教思想强行引入教会的异端魁首。基督的显现要么是他愤怒的显现，要么就是一个蓄意的谎言。^[45]
雷电的理性主义理论。— 该理论将归信归因于物理原因，即一场猛烈的风暴和一场炽热的叙利亚 (Syrian) 高烧的谵妄，保罗 (Paul) 在其中迷信地将雷声误认为上帝的声音，将闪电误认为天上的异象。^[46] 但记录中并未提及雷暴和高烧，这两者结合也不可能对任何有理智的人产生这样的影响，更不用说对世界历史产生影响了。谁曾听过雷声用希伯来语或任何其他清晰的语言说话？保罗 (Paul) 和路加 (Luke) 不也和我们一样有眼睛、耳朵和常识，能够区分自然的普通现象和超自然的异象吗？
异象假说将归信分解为一个自然的心理过程和一种诚实的自我欺骗。这是现代理性主义者最喜欢的理论，他们鄙视所有其他解释，并声称对保罗 (Paul) 的智力和道德纯洁与伟大怀有最高的敬意。^[47] 它当然比第二种假说更理性、更可信，因为它将这一巨大的转变归因于内在原因，而非转瞬即逝的外在和偶然现象。它假设在保罗 (Paul) 的头脑中，一场智力和道德的发酵已经进行了一段时间，并最终由于逻辑上的必然性，导致了信念和行为的完全改变，而没有任何超自然的影响，这种影响的可能性被否定，因为它与自然发展的连续性不符。在这种情况下，奇迹仅仅是耶稣在使徒思想中那威严形象的神话和象征性反映。

保罗 (Paul) 自己说他看到了一个异象，但他指的当然是基督从天上真实、客观、亲自的显现，这是他的眼睛所能看见，耳朵所能听见的，同时也是通过感官向他心灵的启示。^[48] 内在属灵的显现 (ἐν ἐμοί)^[49] 比外在的更重要，但两者结合才产生了信念。异象理论将基督的显现变成了一种纯粹主观的想象，而使徒却将其误认为是一个客观的事实。^[50]

难以置信，像保罗 (Paul) 这样头脑健全、清晰、敏锐的人，会犯下如此根本性和深远的错误，将主观的反思与他所逼迫的耶稣的客观显现混为一谈，并将他必须知道是自己思想结果的事情，完全归因于神恩典的作为，如果他有思考的话。

这一理论的支持者将复活的主向较早的门徒显现、后来彼得 (Peter)、腓利 (Philip) 和约翰 (John) 在启示录中的异象，都归为在神经高度兴奋和宗教狂热高潮中的主观幻觉。有人颇具说服力地认为，保罗 (Paul) 是一个狂热者，喜欢异象和启示，^[51] 并且他通过将复活基督的所有显现与他自己的显现置于同一水平，为对复活本身的真实性提出怀疑提供了理由，尽管那些在耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 和加利利 (Galilee) 的显现，与在大马士革 (Damascus) 路上的显现之间相隔了数年。

但是，这个异象假说唯一可能的论据，是完全站不住脚的。当保罗 (Paul) 说：“末了也显给我看，如同未到产期而生的人一般” (ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων, ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι, ὤφθη κἀμοί)，他明确区分了基督的亲自显现和他自己后来的异象，并以在他归信时赐予他的那一次来结束前者。^[52] 他声称有一次，且仅有一次，他亲眼看见了主，听见了祂的声音；确实是末了，且不合时宜，但却像那些较早的使徒一样真实。唯一的区别是，他们看见的是仍然在世的复活的救主，而他看见的是从天降下的升天的救主，正如我们期望祂在末日向所有人显现一样。正是那异象的伟大，使他深感自己个人的不配，称自己是“使徒中最小的，不配称为使徒，因为我从前逼迫神的教会”。他以*基督复活的真实性作为他关于信徒未来复活的精彩论述的基础，如果基督没有真正从死里复活，这个论述将失去所有的力量。^[53]

此外，他的归信与他被召为使徒是同时发生的。如果前者是错觉，那么后者也必定是错觉。他强调他是因基督的亲自显现，而无任何人为干预，直接被召为外邦人的使徒，以此来反驳那些试图动摇他权威的犹太化对手。^[54]

关于长期而深刻的内在准备，无论是智力上还是道德上，为改变所做的准备，这一整个假设都没有任何证据，并且无法推翻这样一个事实，即保罗 (Paul) 根据他一再的承认，当时正猛烈地逼迫基督教及其追随者。他的归信，比起任何其他门徒的归信，都更难从先前的因果、周遭的环境和个人的动机来解释。当较早的使徒是耶稣的忠实朋友时，保罗 (Paul) 却是他的敌人，在重大转变的那一刻，正执行着残酷迫害的任务，因此他的心态最不可能产生一个对他当前目标和未来生涯如此致命的异象。一个狂热的基督教迫害者，“向主的门徒口吐威吓凶杀的话”，怎么会用一个旨在建立他正努力摧毁的宗教的想象性构想，来愚弄自己、自相矛盾呢！^[55]

但是，假设（如勒南 (Renan) 所言）他的心智在高烧兴奋的谵妄中暂时错乱，他肯定很快就恢复了健康和理智，并有各种机会来纠正他的错误；他与杀害耶稣的人很熟，如果复活从未发生，他们本可以拿出确凿的证据来反驳；并且经过长时间的安静反思后，他去了耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem)，与彼得 (Peter) 共度了两周，可以从他以及基督的兄弟雅各 (James) 那里了解他们的经历，并与自己的经历进行比较。在这种情况下，一切都与神话和传说理论相悖，后者需要环境的改变和岁月的流逝来形成诗意的幻想和虚构。

最后，保罗 (Paul) 从大马士革 (Damascus) 归信到在罗马 (Rome) 殉道的整个毕生工作，是反对这一假说、并支持他归信真实性的最佳论据，即这是一个神恩典的作为。“凭着他们的果子，就可以认出他们来。”如此有效的改变怎能出自一场空梦？幻觉能改变历史的潮流吗？通过加入基督徒教派，保罗 (Paul) 牺牲了一切，最终牺牲了自己的生命，来事奉基督。他从未动摇过他对向他启示的真理的信念，并因着对这一启示的信心，他成为了万世的祝福。

异象假说否定客观的奇迹，却将奇迹归于主观的想象，并使谎言比真理更有效、更有益。

所有对保罗 (Paul) 归信的理性主义和自然主义解释，最终都证明是非理性和不自然的；而保罗 (Paul) 本人超自然的解释，终究是最理性和最自然的。

值得注意的让步

鲍尔 (Baur) 博士，怀疑主义批判的大师和“图宾根学派” (Tübingen School) 的创始人，在他去世前不久（1860年）被迫放弃了异象假说，并承认“无论是心理学还是辩证法的分析，都无法探究上帝在保罗 (Paul) 心里启示他儿子的那个行为的内在奥秘” (keine, weder psychologische noch dialektische Analyse kann das innere Geheimniss des Actes erforschen, in welchem Gott seinen Sohn in ihm enthülte)。在同一段论述中，他说道，在“保罗 (Paul) 从基督教最猛烈的反对者突然转变为其最坚定的传扬者”中，他看到的“无异于一个奇迹” (Wunder)；并补充说，“当我们记起，在他意识的这次转变中，他冲破了犹太教的壁垒，并从其特殊主义中提升到基督教的普世主义时，这个奇迹显得更加伟大。”^[56] 已故的图宾根 (Tübingen) 批评家这一坦率的承认，对其头脑和心灵都是可嘉的，但对其整个反超自然主义的历史理论却是致命的。若在一事上错，则在诸事上皆错 (Si falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)。如果我们在一例中承认奇迹，那就为所有其他建立在同样有力证据上的奇迹打开了大门。

已故的凯姆 (Keim) 博士，鲍尔 (Baur) 的一位独立学生，至少承认升天的基督从天上有属灵的显现，并力主保罗 (Paul) 在哥林多前书15:3及后所报导的基督显现的客观真实性，理由是“保罗 (Paul) 的整个品格，他那未被热情削弱的敏锐理解力，他陈述的谨慎、小心、有节制、简洁的形式，最重要的是他叙述的有利的总体印象以及它在原始基督教一致、无异议的信仰中的巨大回响。”^[57]

海德堡 (Heidelberg) 的申克尔 (Schenkel) 博士，在他发展的最新阶段说道，保罗 (Paul) 完全有理由将他的基督显现与较早使徒的基督显现相提并论；所有这些基督显现不仅仅是心理过程的结果，而且“在许多方面仍然是心理学上不可思议的”，并指向耶稣其人的历史背景；保罗 (Paul) 不是一个普通的空想家，而是仔细区分了大马士革 (Damascus) 的基督显现和他后来的异象；即使在最高昂的时刻，他也保持着完全的理性思维；他的归信不是神经兴奋的突然效应，而是由神意的影响所带来的，神意悄悄地预备了他的灵魂来接受基督；并且赐给他的基督显现“不是梦，而是现实”。^[58]

斯特拉斯堡 (Strasburg) 的罗伊斯 (Reuss) 教授，同样是自由派学派的一位独立批评家，得出了与鲍尔 (Baur) 相同的结论，即保罗 (Paul) 的归信，如果不是一个绝对的奇迹，那至少是一个未解的心理学问题。他说：“保罗的归信，尽管我们时代已对此有诸多论述，但它始终是一个，如果不是传统意义上的绝对奇迹（即一个猛烈中止或改变事物自然进程的事件，一个除了上帝任意和直接干预外别无他因的效应），那至少是当今一个无法解决的心理学问题。所谓的自然解释，无论是归因于一场风暴，还是局限于幻觉领域……都无法为我们提供这场危机本身的关键，这场危机决定了法利赛人向基督徒的蜕变。” (La conversion de Paul, après tout ce qui en a été dit de notre temps, reste toujours, si ce n’est un miracle absolu, dans le sens traditionnel de ce mot (c’est-à-dire un événement qui arrête ou change violemment le cours naturel des choses, un effet sans autre cause que l’intervention arbitraire et immédiate de Dieu), du moins un problème psychologique aujourd’hui insoluble. L’explication dite naturelle, qu’elle fasse intervenir un orage on qu’elle se retranche dans le domaine des hallucinations ... ne nous donne pas la clef de cette crise elle-même, qui a décidé la métamorphose du pharisien en chrétien.)^[59]

法勒 (Farrar) 法政牧师说（I. 195）：“无论基于何种假设，一个事实仍然存在，那就是圣保罗 (St. Paul) 的归信在最高意义上是一个奇迹，其属灵后果影响了人类历史的每一个后续时代。”

§ 32. 保罗的工作

“他能离别故土与亲族，

鄙视安乐，踏上荆棘之路，

历经劳苦与痛苦，为要赢得天上的冠冕——

他受辱骂，却能以温柔的爱回报，

遭击打，却能为苦毒的敌人祈祷——

他听从元帅的召唤，奋勇而起，

打那美好的仗，当最后那日

火炼的试炼来临时，能高贵地倒下——

这样的人堪称圣徒——或更甚——圣洁的保罗 (Paul) 亦如此！”

——无名氏

保罗 (Paul) 的归信是一场伟大的智力和道德革命，却并未摧毁他的身份认同。他高贵的才能和学识得以保留，但被清除了自私的动机，被一个新的原则所激励，并奉献给一个神圣的目标。那拯救了他的基督之爱，如今成了他全心投入的热情，任何牺牲都不足以表达他对基督的感激之情。毁灭的建筑师变成了上帝殿堂的建筑师。同样是那份活力、深度和敏锐的头脑，但被圣灵所光照；同样是那份坚强的性情和燃烧的热忱，但被智慧和节制所洁净、制伏和控制；同样是那份精力和胆量，但与温柔和谦和相结合；并且，在此之上，作为恩典的加冠之礼，是一种爱与谦卑，一种温柔与细腻的情感，这在如此骄傲、阳刚和英雄般的人物身上是极为罕见的。那封写给腓利门 (Philemon) 的短信，揭示了一位完美的基督徒绅士，一位天生的贵族，因恩典而加倍高贵。《哥林多前书》第十三章，只有那曾借着信心的神秘阶梯，攀升至爱之神那跳动心脏的头脑才能构想出来；然而，若没有默示，即使是保罗 (Paul) 也无法写下那对美德的天使般的描述，那凡事包容、凡事相信、凡事盼望、凡事忍耐、永不止息，并将在天国恩典三联体：信、望、爱中永远为最大的美德。

扫罗 (Saul) 归信后，立刻成了宣教士保罗 (Paul)。他自己得救了，便以拯救他人为毕生事业。“随即” (εὐθέως) 他在会堂里传讲基督，驳倒了大马士革 (Damascus) 的犹太人，证明拿撒勒的耶稣 (Jesus of Nazareth) 就是弥赛亚，上帝的儿子。^[60] 但这只是初爱热情中的预备性见证。基督的显现，以及他在那三天三夜祷告禁食期间灵魂的挣扎——他所经历的无异于属灵的死亡和复活——深深震撼了他的身心，使他感到需要远离世界的喧嚣，进行长时间的休息。此外，一旦他惊人的归信消息传到耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem)，他的生命必然会受到极大的威胁。因此，他去了阿拉伯 (Arabia) 的沙漠，在那里度过了三年，^[61] 主要不是从事宣教工作（如屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) 所想），而是主要在祷告、默想和研究希伯来圣经，并从拿撒勒人耶稣 (Jesus of Nazareth) 的位格和工作成全圣经的角度来研读。这次退隐代替了十二使徒在基督学校里三年的预备。他可能远至西奈山 (Mount Sinai)，在夏甲 (Hagar) 和以实玛利 (Ishmael) 的野蛮子孙中。^[62] 在以色列 (Israel) 伟大立法者的那个讲坛上，面对着周围反映耶和华可怕威严的死亡与荒凉的全景——这是地球上任何其他地方都无法比拟的——他可以和以利亚 (Elijah) 一起聆听雷声、地震和微小的声音，并可以研究那杀人的字句和赐生命的灵之间的对比，即属死的职事和属义的职事之间的对比。^[63] 沙漠，如同海洋，有其宏伟和崇高，让沉思的心灵独自与上帝和永恒同在。

“保罗 (Paul) 是一个独特的人，为了一项独特的任务。”^[64] 他的任务是双重的：实践的和理论的。他从大马士革 (Damascus) 到罗马 (Rome) 传扬白白的、普世的恩典福音，并确保了其在罗马帝国的胜利，这也就意味着那个时代的文明世界。同时，他通过在他的书信中阐释和捍卫福音，从内部建立了教会。他深入到教会行政和纪律的最卑微细节，也攀登到神学思辨的最高峰。在这里，我们只关注他的宣教活动；他的理论工作留待另一章再行探讨。

让我们首先看一下他的宣教精神和策略。

他那激励人心的动机是对基督和对同胞的爱。“原来基督的爱激励我们，”他说，“因我们想，一人既替众人死，众人就都死了；并且他替众人死，是叫那些活着的人不再为自己活，乃为替他们死而复活的主活。”他将自己视为基督的奴仆和使者，恳求世人与上帝和好。在这种精神的激励下，他“向犹太人，我就作犹太人；向外邦人，我就作外邦人；向什么样的人，我就作什么样的人，无论如何，总要救些人。”

他以叙利亚 (Syria) 的首都、外邦基督教的母会安提阿 (Antioch) 为他宣教旅程的出发点和回归点，同时与犹太基督教的母会耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 保持联系。尽管他是基督的一位独立使徒，但他接受了安提阿 (Antioch) 的庄严差派，开始他第一次伟大的宣教旅程。他顺应历史、商业和文明的潮流，从东到西，从亚洲 (Asia) 到欧洲 (Europe)，从叙利亚 (Syria) 到小亚细亚 (Asia Minor)、希腊 (Greece)、意大利 (Italy)，或许远至西班牙 (Spain)。^[65] 在安提阿 (Antioch)、以弗所 (Ephesus)、哥林多 (Corinth)、罗马 (Rome) 等较大且更具影响力的城市，他都居住了相当长的时间。从这些要点出发，他通过他的学生和同工将福音传到周围的城镇和村庄。但他总是避免与其他使徒发生冲突，并寻找基督尚未被传扬的新工场，以免建立在别人的根基上。这是真正的独立和宣教的礼节，而这常常被那些受宗派而非基督徒热忱激励的宣教团体所违背！

他的主要使命是向外邦人传道，但不排斥犹太人，这符合基督通过亚拿尼亚 (Ananias) 传达的信息：“你将在外邦人、君王和以色列人面前宣扬我的名。”考虑到犹太人在时间上对福音有优先权，^[66] 并且异教城市的会堂是基督教宣教的先锋站，他很自然地首先向犹太人和归信者传道，讲解旧约圣经的常规课程，并论证其在拿撒勒人耶稣 (Jesus of Nazareth) 身上的应验。但他几乎无一例外地发现，半犹太人，即“敬畏神的归信者”，比他自己的同胞更愿意接受福音；他们是真诚、认真寻求真宗教的人，并构成了通往纯粹异教徒的天然桥梁，也是他教会的核心，这些教会通常由两种宗教的归信者组成。

他以高尚的克己精神，亲手做帐篷匠糊口，以免成为他那些（大多属于下层阶级的）教会的负担，也为了维护自己的独立性，堵住敌人的口，并见证他对主无限怜悯的感激之情，主曾将他从那鲁莽、狂热的逼迫生涯中召来，担任白白恩典的使徒职分。他从未为自己募捐，而是为巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 贫穷的犹太基督徒募捐。只有一次例外，他接受了他在腓立比 (Philippi) 的归信者的馈赠，那些人对他来说尤其亲爱。然而，他一再吩咐众教会要慷慨地供养那些为他们擘开永生之粮的教师。世界的救主是木匠！最伟大的福音传道者是帐篷匠！

他所遭遇的无数困难、危险和苦难，无论是来自犹太人、外邦人还是假弟兄，我们都难以形成一个恰当的认识；因为《使徒行传》只是一份简要的记录。他顺带地补充道：“被犹太人鞭打五次，每次四十减去一下。被棍打了三次；被石头打了一次；遇着船坏三次，一昼一夜在深海里。又屡次行远路，遭江河的危险，盗贼的危险，同族的危险，外邦人的危险，城里的危险，旷野的危险，海中的危险，假弟兄的危险。受劳碌，受困苦，多次不得睡，又饥又渴，多次不得食，受寒冷，赤身露体。除了这外面的事，还有为众教会挂心的事，天天压在我身上。有谁软弱，我不软弱呢？有谁跌倒，我不焦急呢？”^[67] 这是他在公元57年写给哥林多人的信，为了反驳诽谤者而不得已进行的自辩，那时他尚未经历在凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 和罗马 (Rome) 监狱中最长久、最艰苦的考验，距离他殉道至少还有七年。他“四面受敌，却不被困住；心里作难，却不至失望；遭逼迫，却不被丢弃；打倒了，却不至死亡。”^[68] 他的整个公共生涯是一场持续的战争。他代表了战斗的教会，或“前进与征服的基督教”。他是“一人对抗世界” (unus versus mundum)，这比人们用来形容亚他那修 (Athanasius the Great) 在面对亚流异端 (Arian heresy) 和使徒犹利安 (Julian the Apostate) 的帝国异教主义时所说的意义要深刻得多。

然而，他从未不快乐，反而充满了喜乐与平安。他在罗马的监狱中劝勉腓立比人：“你们要靠主常常喜乐；我再说，你们要喜乐。”在所有与内外敌人的冲突中，保罗 (Paul) 靠着那足够他用的神的恩典，“得胜有余”。他以一首崇高的得胜之歌的笔调写信给罗马人：“因为我深信无论是死，是生，是天使，是掌权的，是有能的，是现在的事，是将来的事，是高处的，是低处的，是别的受造之物，都不能叫我们与神的爱隔绝；这爱是在我们的主基督耶稣里的。”^[69] 他的临终之言是对胜利的确信：“那美好的仗我已经打过了，当跑的路我已经跑尽了，所信的道我已经守住了。从此以后，有公义的冠冕为我存留，就是按着公义审判的主到了那日要赐给我的；不但赐给我，也赐给凡爱慕他显现的人。”^[70]

§ 33. 保罗的宣教工作

保罗 (Paul) 从归信后第三年到殉道的公共生活，大约从公元40年至64年，涵盖了四分之一个世纪，包括三次伟大的宣教征程和一些较小的远行、五次访问耶路撒冷，以及在凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 和罗马 (Rome) 至少四年的囚禁。有些人将其延伸至公元67或68年。这段时期可分为五或六个阶段，如下：

公元40–44年。在叙利亚 (Syria) 和他家乡基利家 (Cilia) 的预备工作时期，部分时间独自一人，部分时间与他在外邦人中的资深同工巴拿巴 (Barnabas) 一同工作。

从阿拉伯 (Arabian) 退修回来后，保罗 (Paul) 在大马士革 (Damascus) 认真开始了他的公共事工，就在他归信和蒙召之地传讲基督。他的见证激怒了犹太人，他们煽动阿拉伯王的代表来对付他，但他为了未来的事工而得救，由弟兄们用一个筐子从城墙的窗户缒下。^[71] 归信三年后，他上耶路撒冷去认识彼得 (Peter)，并与他同住了十五天。此外，他还见到了主的兄弟雅各 (James)。巴拿巴 (Barnabas) 将他介绍给门徒们，门徒们起初怕他，但当他们听说了他奇妙的归信后，就“归荣耀给神”，因为他们的逼迫者现在竟传扬他曾竭力摧毁的信仰。^[72] 他不是去学习福音，因为他已经通过启示领受了；也不是去接受坚振或按立，因为他是“不是由于人，也不是藉着人，乃是藉着耶稣基督”蒙召的。然而，他与彼得 (Peter) 和雅各 (James) 的会面，虽然仅被简略提及，但必定充满了最深刻的意义。彼得 (Peter) 心地善良，慷慨大方，自然会以喜乐和感恩的心接待他。他自己也曾否认过主——不是出于恶意而是出于软弱——正如保罗 (Paul) 曾逼迫门徒——是在无知和不信中。两人都蒙了怜悯得了赦免，都见过了主，都被召至最高的尊荣，都能从心底说：“主啊，你是无所不知的；你知道我爱你。”毫无疑问，他们会交流彼此的经历，并在共同的信仰中互相坚固。

很可能就是在此次访问期间，保罗 (Paul) 在殿里得了异象，领受了主明确的命令，要他快快地往外邦人那里去。^[73] 如果他在公会 (Sanhedrin) 的所在地多待些时日，他无疑会遭遇殉道者司提反 (Stephen) 同样的命运。

他在革老丢 (Claudius) 年间的饥荒时期，即公元44年，第二次访问了耶路撒冷，由巴拿巴 (Barnabas) 陪同，执行一次慈善任务，带着安提阿 (Antioch) 基督徒的捐款，去救济犹太 (Judaea) 的弟兄们。^[74] 在那次访问中，由于雅各 (James) 被斩、彼得 (Peter) 被囚的迫害，他可能没有见到任何一位使徒。

这四年中的大部分时间，他都在大数 (Tarsus) 和安提阿 (Antioch) 从事宣教工作。
公元45–50年。第一次宣教旅程。公元45年，保罗 (Paul) 在巴拿巴 (Barnabas) 和马可 (Mark) 的陪同下，遵从圣灵藉安提阿 (Antioch) 教会众先知的指示，开始了第一次伟大的宣教旅程。他走遍了居比路岛 (island of Cyprus) 和小亚细亚 (Asia Minor) 的几个省份。罗马方伯士求保罗 (Sergius Paulus) 在帕弗 (Paphos) 的归信；对犹太术士以吕马 (Elymas) 的斥责和惩罚；福音在彼西底 (Pisidia) 的显著成功以及不信的犹太人的强烈反对；在路司得 (Lystra) 奇迹般地医好一个瘸腿的人；迷信的异教徒向保罗 (Paul) 和巴拿巴 (Barnabas) 献上偶像崇拜，又突然转而憎恨他们为众神之敌；宣教士被石头打，死里逃生，并成功返回安提阿 (Antioch)，这些是这次旅程的主要事件，《使徒行传》第13和14章对此有详细描述。

这一时期以公元50年在耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 举行的重要使徒会议告终，这将在下一节中单独探讨。
公元51–54年。第二次宣教旅程。在耶路撒冷会议 (council at Jerusalem) 和教会的犹太与外邦分支之间的分歧得到暂时调和之后，保罗 (Paul) 于公元51年开始了第二次伟大的旅程，这次旅程决定了希腊 (Greece) 的基督教化。他带了西拉 (Silas) 作同伴。在首先探访了他从前建立的众教会后，他藉着西拉 (Silas) 和年轻的归信者提摩太 (Timothy) 的帮助，继续在弗吕家 (Phrygia) 和加拉太 (Galatia) 省建立新的教会，在那里，尽管他身体有疾病，却被像神的使者一样张开双臂接待。

从特罗亚 (Troas)——位于荷马史诗中的特洛伊 (Troy) 以南几英里，赫勒斯滂海峡 (Hellespont) 的入口处——他响应马其顿 (Macedonian) 的呼声“请你过到这边来帮助我们！”，渡海到了希腊 (Greece)。他在那里传福音大获成功，首先在腓立比 (Philippi)，使卖紫色布疋的吕底亚 (Lydia) 和禁卒归信，并与西拉 (Silas)一同被囚，但奇迹般地获释并被体面地释放；然后在帖撒罗尼迦 (Thessalonica)，他受到犹太人的逼迫，却留下了一个兴旺的教会；在庇哩亚 (Berea)，那里的归信者在查考圣经方面表现出堪为典范的热心。在古典文学的大都会雅典 (Athens)，他与斯多葛派 (Stoic) 和伊壁鸠鲁派 (Epicurean) 的哲学家辩论，并在马尔斯山（亚略巴古，Areopagus）上，以极为老练和智慧的方式，向他们揭示了雅典人因迷信而急于尊敬所有可能的神明，不知不觉中为其立了一座坛的“未识之神”，以及耶稣基督，上帝将藉着他按公义审判世界。^[75] 在哥林多 (Corinth)，这个连接东西方的商业桥梁，一个繁荣的财富和文化中心，同时也是一个罪恶腐败的渊薮，使徒在那里住了一年半，在几乎不可逾越的困难中建立了一个教会，这个教会展现了希腊性格在福音影响下的所有美德和所有缺点，他以两封最重要的书信来尊荣这个教会。^[76]

公元54年春天，他经由以弗所 (Ephesus)、凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 和耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 返回安提阿 (Antioch)。

在此期间，他写了致帖撒罗尼迦人的两封书信，这是他除了《使徒行传》中保存的宣教讲道之外，最早的文学遗作。
公元54–58年。第三次宣教旅程。公元54年底，保罗 (Paul) 去了以弗所 (Ephesus)，并在这座亚细亚行省 (proconsular Asia) 和亚底米 (Diana) 崇拜的著名首都，将他未来三年的宣教工作中心设于此。之后他重访了他在马其顿 (Macedonia) 和亚该亚 (Achaia) 的众教会，并在哥林多 (Corinth) 及其附近地区又停留了三个月。

在此期间，他写了致加拉太人、哥林多人和罗马人的伟大的教义书信，这标志着他活动和功用的顶峰。
公元58–63年。他两次被囚的时期，其间有从凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 到罗马 (Rome) 的冬季航行。公元58年春天，他第五次也是最后一次前往耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem)，途经腓立比 (Philippi)、特罗亚 (Troas)、米利都 (Miletus)（在那里他向以弗所的长老-监督们作了感人的告别讲演）、推罗 (Tyre) 和凯撒利亚 (Caesarea)，再次为犹太 (Judaea) 贫穷的弟兄们带去希腊 (Greece) 基督徒的捐款，并藉此感恩与爱的表示，更牢固地联合使徒教会的两个分支。

但一些狂热的犹太人，因痛恨他为叛教者和诱惑民众的人，在五旬节时煽动众人反对他；指控他污秽了圣殿，因为他带了一个未受割礼的希腊人特罗非摩 (Trophimus) 进去；将他拖出圣所，免得用血玷污圣殿，若不是住在附近的罗马千夫长革老丢吕西亚 (Claudius Lysias) 及时带兵赶到，他们无疑会杀了他。这位军官出于对保罗罗马公民身份的尊重，将他从暴民的狂怒中救出，第二天将他带到公会 (Sanhedrin) 面前，在议会一场混乱而无果的会议后，并发现了一个谋害他的阴谋，便派一支强大的卫队护送他，并附上一份无罪证明，将他送到该撒利亚 (Caesarea) 的巡抚腓力斯 (Felix) 那里。

在这里，使徒被囚禁了整整两年（58-60年），等待在公会前的审判，未经定罪，偶尔在腓力斯 (Felix) 面前讲话，显然受到了相对温和的对待，有基督徒探望他，并以某种我们不知道的方式，继续推进神的国度。^[77]

在新的、更好的巡抚非斯都 (Festus) 上任后（已知他于60年接替腓力斯 (Felix)），保罗 (Paul) 作为罗马公民，上告于凯撒的审判台，从而为实现他长久以来盼望在世界京城传扬世界救主的愿望开辟了道路。在再次为自己的清白作证，并在非斯都 (Festus)、希律亚基帕二世王 (King Herod Agrippa II)（希律家族的最后一位）、他的妹妹百妮基 (Bernice) 以及凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 最显赫的人物面前，为基督作了一次精彩的辩护后，他于60年秋天被送往皇帝那里。他经历了一次暴风雨的航行并遭遇船难，这使他在马耳他 (Malta) 过冬。这次航行由路加 (Luke) 作为目击者，以异常的详尽和航海的精确性加以描述。公元61年3月，使徒与几位忠实的同伴抵达罗马 (Rome)，成了基督的囚徒，却比宝座上的皇帝更自由、更有能力。这是尼禄 (Nero) 统治的第七年，他已在前一年谋杀了自己的母亲亚基帕娜 (Agrippina) 和其他残忍行为中暴露了他的臭名昭著的性格。

在罗马 (Rome)，保罗 (Paul) 至少度过了两年，直到63年春天，他在自己所租的房子里，处于宽松的监禁中，等待案件的裁决，周围有朋友和同工。他向看守他的御林军士兵传福音；向他在小亚细亚 (Asia Minor) 和希腊 (Greece) 的远方教会寄送书信和信息；照管他们所有的属灵事务，并在捆锁中完成了他对主和教会的使徒忠诚。^[78]

在罗马的监狱中，他写了致歌罗西人、以弗所人、腓立比人和腓利门的信。
公元63和64年。随着保罗 (Paul) 在罗马被囚的第二年结束，路加 (Luke) 的记述戛然而止，虽然有些突然，却又恰当而宏伟。保罗 (Paul) 抵达罗马确保了基督教的胜利。从这个意义上说，“罗马已发言，此事已了结” (Roma locuta est, causa finita est) 是对的。而在罗马发言的那位并没有死；他仍然在（各地）“放胆传讲神国的道，将主耶稣基督的事教导人，并没有人禁止。”^[79]

但在这两年于63年春天结束后，他究竟如何了？那场拖延已久的审判结果如何？他被判处死刑了吗？还是被尼禄 (Nero) 的法庭释放，从而得以再有一段时间工作？这个问题在学者中仍未有定论。一个模糊的传统说，保罗 (Paul) 被判公会的指控无罪，在再次到东方，也许还到了西班牙旅行后，第二次在罗马被囚并被判处死刑。假设有第二次罗马囚禁，可以解决教牧书信中的某些难题；因为它们似乎需要在第一次和第二次罗马囚禁之间有一段短暂的自由时期，以及一次往东方的访问，^[80] 这在《使徒行传》中没有记载，但使徒在若获释的情况下曾计划过。^[81] 他曾打算访问西班牙，这虽有可能，但可能性较小。^[82] 如果他被释放了，那一定是在64年7月那场可怕的迫害之前，那场迫害不会放过这位基督徒派别的伟大领袖。一个值得注意的巧合是，就在保罗被囚的第二年即将结束时，著名的犹太历史学家约瑟夫 (Josephus)，当时27岁，（在一次暴风雨的航行和船难后）来到罗马 (Rome)，并通过波佩娅 (Poppaea)（尼禄 (Nero) 的妻子，一位半犹太教归信者）的影响，使某些被腓力斯 (Felix) 作为囚犯送往罗马的犹太祭司获释。^[83] 保罗很可能也从一次对犹太囚犯的普遍释放中获益。

保罗 (Paul) 在尼禄 (Nero) 手下殉道，为古代一致的见证所证实。作为一名罗马公民，他没有像彼得 (Peter) 那样被钉十字架，而是被刀所杀。^[84] 传统上，他殉道的地点在离罗马约三英里，靠近奥斯蒂亚大道 (Ostian way) 的一片绿地上，原名 Aquae Salviae，后称 Tre Fontane（三泉），据说有三股泉水从这位使徒殉道者的血中奇迹般地涌出。他的遗骸最终被移至由狄奥多西 (Theodosius) 和瓦伦提尼安 (Valentinian) 于388年建造，并于近期重建的城外圣保罗大教堂 (basilica of San Paolo-fuori-le-Mura)。他葬于罗马城外，彼得则在城内。他的纪念日与彼得一同在6月29日和30日庆祝。^[85] 关于他去世的年份，观点从公元64年到69年不等。他殉道的地点和方式的不同表明，他是在一次正规的司法审判中被定罪的，时间可能在那场可怕的梵蒂冈山 (Vatican hill) 基督徒大屠杀之前不久，或者更有可能是在其后一两年，在那场屠杀中，他的罗马公民身份是不会被顾及的。如果他在63年春天获释，那么在尼禄迫害爆发（64年7月之后）前，他还有一年半的时间可以再次访问东方和西班牙；但传统倾向于一个更晚的日期。普鲁登修斯 (Prudentius) 将彼得的殉道与保罗的殉道相隔一年。在那次迫害之后，基督徒在任何地方都面临着危险。^[86]

假设保罗 (Paul) 被释放并再次访问了东方，我们必须将《提摩太前书》和《提多书》定位于第一次和第二次罗马囚禁之间，而《提摩太后书》则在第二次囚禁期间。后者显然是在确知殉道将近时写的；它是年迈的使徒对他心爱的提摩太 (Timothy) 的深情告别，也是他对地上战斗的教会的最后遗嘱，并怀着对天上不朽冠冕的光明盼望。^[87]

就这样，这位伟大的万国教师，这位得胜信心、福音自由、基督徒进步的使徒的尘世历程结束了。这是一位属灵征服者的英雄生涯，为基督征服了不朽的灵魂，使他们从罪恶和撒旦的奴役中归向事奉永生神，从律法的束缚中进入福音的自由，并带领他们到永生的泉源。他的劳苦比所有其他使徒都多；然而，在真诚的谦卑中，他认为自己是“使徒中最小的”，“不配称为使徒”，因为他曾逼迫神的教会；几年后，他承认：“我比众圣徒中最小的还小”，而在他去世前不久：“在罪人中我是个罪魁”。^[88] 随着他经历神的怜悯并为天国成熟，他的谦卑也日益增长。保罗 (Paul) 作为一个客旅和寄居者走过这个世界，几乎没有被他那个时代的权贵和智者所注意。然而，他的生命和工作，比起那些被野心驱使，耗费了亿万财富和无数生命，最终却在巴比伦 (Babylon) 的醉酒中死去，或在圣赫勒拿岛 (St. Helena) 的岩石上心碎而亡的军事征服者们那炫目的征程，是何等地无限高尚、有益和持久！他们的帝国早已化为尘土，但圣保罗 (St. Paul) 仍然是人类最杰出的恩人之一，他那伟大的心脏的脉搏，在整个基督教世界中，比以往任何时候都更有力地跳动着。

关于保罗第二次罗马囚禁的注释

保罗 (Paul) 是否有第二次罗马囚禁是一个纯粹的历史和批判问题，没有教义或伦理上的影响，只是它有助于为教牧书信的真实性辩护。最优秀的学者们在这个问题上仍然存在分歧。尼安德 (Neander)、吉泽勒 (Gieseler)、布利克 (Bleek)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、兰格 (Lange)、萨巴蒂尔 (Sabatier)、戈代 (Godet)，还有勒南 (Renan)（《圣保罗》(Saint Paul)，第560页，及《敌基督》(L’Antechrist)，第106页），以及几乎所有的英国传记作家和注释家，如阿尔福德 (Alford)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、豪森 (Howson)、勒温 (Lewin)、法勒 (Farrar)、普朗普特 (Plumptre)、埃利科特 (Ellicott)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，都主张有第二次囚禁，从而将保罗 (Paul) 的工作延长了几年。另一方面，不仅有激进和怀疑的批评家，如鲍尔 (Baur)、策勒尔 (Zeller)、申克尔 (Schenkel)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann)，以及所有拒绝教牧书信的人（勒南 (Renan) 除外），还有保守的释经家和历史学家，如尼德纳 (Niedner)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、迈耶 (Meyer)、维泽勒 (Wieseler)、埃布拉德 (Ebrard)、奥托 (Otto)、贝克 (Beck)、普雷桑塞 (Pressensé)，都否认有第二次囚禁。我在我的《使徒教会史》(Hist. of the Apost. Church)，§ 87，第328-347页，以及我对兰格 (Lange)《罗马书》的注释，第10-12页中，已对这个问题作了详细讨论。我将在此重述支持第二次囚禁的主要论点，部分是为了修正我之前的观点。

主要的论据是教牧书信，如果它们是真实的，而我坚持认为是，尽管从德·韦特 (De Wette) (1826年) 和鲍尔 (Baur) (1835年) 到勒南 (Renan) (1873年) 和霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) (1880年)，反对者提出了各种反对意见。诚然，将它们归于保罗 (Paul) 被囚之前的任何已知时期并非不可能，例如在他以弗所 (Ephesus) 三年逗留期间（54-57年），或在他哥林多 (Corinth) 十八个月逗留期间（52-53年），但这样做非常困难。这些书信预设了使徒在《使徒行传》中未提及的旅程，并且显然属于他生命中以及使徒教会中真理与谬误历史的一个较晚阶段。
《希伯来书》13:23的作者提到，提摩太 (Timothy) 从意大利（很可能在罗马）的一次囚禁中获释，这可能与保罗 (Paul) 的获释有关，保罗很可能参与了那部杰出作品的灵感，如果不是其写作的话。
最古老的后使徒时代见证人是罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome)，他约在95年写道：“保罗……来到西方的极限 (ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών)，并在官长面前作了见证 (μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων，其他人译为“在统治者手下殉道”)，离开了世界，去了圣地，为坚忍提供了最崇高的榜样” (《致哥林多人书》(Ad Corinth.) 第5章)。考虑到革利免 (Clement) 是在罗马写作，对“极西之地” (τέρμα τῆς δύσεως) 最自然的解释是西班牙 (Spain) 或不列颠 (Britain)；并且因为保罗打算将福音传到西班牙，人们首先会想到那个与罗马有持续商业往来，并产生了像塞涅卡 (Seneca) 和卢坎 (Lucan) 这样杰出政治家和作家的国家。斯特拉波 (Strabo) (II. 1) 称赫拉克勒斯之柱 (pillars of Hercules) 为“世界的尽头” (πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης)；而维勒尤斯·帕特尔库鲁斯 (Velleius Paterc.) 称西班牙为“我们世界的极西边界” (extremus nostri orbis terminus)。见莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，《圣革利免》(St. Clement)，第50页。但这一推论因缺乏任何关于保罗访问西班牙的痕迹或传统而减弱。^[89] 更不可能他在那里殉道，正如该词的逻辑顺序所暗示的那样。而且因为革利免 (Clement) 是写信给哥林多人，他可能从他们的地理角度，称罗马首都为西方的尽头。无论如何，这段话是修辞性的（它说到七次被囚，ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας），并且不能证明他在东方有进一步的工作。^[90]
残缺的穆拉托里残篇 (Muratorian canon)（约公元170年）中一段不完整的文字：“Sed profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis ...”（但保罗从该城出发往西班牙的行程……）似乎暗示保罗曾去过西班牙，而路加 (Luke) 忽略了这一点；但这仅仅是一个推测，因为动词需要被补充。然而，比较韦斯科特 (Westcott)，《新约正典》(The Canon of the N. Test.)，第189页，及附录C，第467页，以及勒南 (Renan)，《敌基督》(L’Antechrist)，第106页及后。
优西比乌 (Eusebius)（卒于310年）首次明确断言：“有传说 (λόγος ἔχει) 说，使徒在他辩护后，再次出发去执行他传道的职事，并且第二次进入同一座城[罗马]，在他[尼禄]面前因殉道而得以完全。”《教会史》(Hist. Eccl.) II. 22（比较第25章）。但这一见证的说服力被以下几点削弱了：首先，它的日期较晚；其次，使用了模糊的表达“据说” (λόγος ἔχει)，并且没有引用任何更早的权威（优西比乌通常会这样做）；第三，他误解了提摩太后书4:16, 17，在同一段落中将其解释为从第一次囚禁中得释放（好像“辩护” (ἀπολογία) 与“被囚” (αἰχμαλωσία) 是同义词）；最后，他在第一次囚禁的时间上犯了年代错误，在他的《编年史》(Chronicle) 中，他错误地将其定为公元58年，即保罗实际抵达罗马前三年。另一方面，他将罗马大火的时间定得晚了两年，为公元66年，而非64年，并将尼禄的迫害以及保罗和彼得的殉道定在70年。
哲罗姆 (Jerome)（卒于419年）：“保罗被尼禄 (Nero) 释放，以便他也可以在西方的地区传讲基督的福音” (in Occidentis quoque partibus)。《名人录》(De Vir. ill.)，保罗条目。这呼应了革利免 (Clement) 的“西方的极限” (τέρμα τῆς δύσεως)。屈梭多模 (Chrysostom)（卒于407年）、狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 和其他教父都断言保罗去了西班牙（罗马书 15:28），但没有举出任何证据。

这些后使徒时代的见证，综合来看，使得保罗在63年春天后获释，并在殉道前享受了一段宣教工作的“印第安之夏”变得非常可能，但并非历史上的确定。唯一留存的纪念，也是这一收尾工作的最佳证明，是教牧书信，如果我们承认它们是真实的。在我看来，教牧书信的历史难题，反而是支持而非反对其保罗来源的论据。因为一个伪造者为什么要制造困难呢，他本可以轻易地将他的虚构故事嵌入从《使徒行传》和其它保罗书信中已知的情境框架中？语言学和其他方面的反对意见也绝非不可逾越，并且被那激励着他笔下这些最后作品的保罗精神的证据所压倒。

§ 34. 耶路撒冷会议及犹太与外邦基督教的妥协

文献

I. 《使徒行传》15章，《加拉太书》2章，及相关注释。

除已提及的一般文献外（见§§ 20和29），请比较以下关于使徒会议的专题讨论。这些讨论旨在纠正鲍尔 (Baur)（《保罗》(Paulus)，第五章）和奥弗贝克 (Overbeck)（在德·韦特 (De Wette) 的《使徒行传注释》第四版中）关于《使徒行传》15章与《加拉太书》2章之间冲突，或彼得主义 (Petrinism) 与保罗主义 (Paulinism) 之间冲突的极端观点，并建立关于它们在多样性中本质统一的正确历史观。

莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教：《圣保罗与三使徒》，载于《加拉太书注释》(Com. on Galat.)，伦敦，1866年（第二版），第283–355页。英文文献中对该问题最出色的批判性讨论。
R. A. 利普修斯 (R. A. Lipsius)：《使徒会议》，载于申克尔 (Schenkel) 的《圣经词典》(Bibel-Lexikon)，卷一（1869年），第194–207页。清晰而尖锐地陈述了《使徒行传》15章与《加拉太书》2章之间八个明显的矛盾。然而，他承认《使徒行传》的记述中包含一些真理元素，他用以补充保罗的记述。申克尔 (Schenkel) 在其《使徒的基督形象》(Christusbild der Apostel)，1879年，第38页中更进一步，反对将《使徒行传》的记述视为倾向性小说 (Tendenz-Roman) 或党派虚构的奥弗贝克 (Overbeck)，他说：“保罗的叙述无疑是可信的，但也是片面的，考虑到他个人的护教目的，这是不可避免的，并且对他目的之外的事情保持沉默。《使徒行传》的叙述遵循了已经被后来看法和偏见影响的口头和书面传统，因此部分不可靠，但绝非有意识的虚构。”
奥托·普夫莱德雷尔 (Otto Pfleiderer)：《保罗主义》(Der Paulinismus)。莱比锡，1873年，第278页及后和500页及后。他将差异淡化为《使徒行传》的无心之误，并拒绝“有意捏造”的观点。
C. 魏茨泽克 (C. Weizsäcker)（鲍尔博士在图宾根的继任者，但部分观点与其不同）：《使徒会议》，载于“德国神学年鉴” (Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie)，1873年，第191–246页。及其论文《保罗与哥林多教会》，同刊，1876年，第603–653页。在后一篇文章中，他得出结论（第652页），保罗在哥林多和加拉太的真正对手，并非原始使徒（如鲍尔 (Baur)、施韦格勒 (Schwegler) 等人所言），而是一群滥用彼得权威和基督之名的狂热分子，他们模仿罗马作家所描述的犹太教劝诱改宗者的鼓动。
K. 施密特 (K. Schmidt)：《使徒会议》，载于赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 与普利特 (Plitt) 的《皇家百科全书》(R. E.) 卷一（1877年），第575–584页。保守派。
西奥多·凯姆 (Theod. Keim)：《源自原始基督教》(Aus dem Urchristenthum)。苏黎世，1879年，《使徒会议》，第64–89页。（比较希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 在“科学神学期刊” (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie)，1879年，第100页及后的评论）。这是《拿撒勒的耶稣生平》(Leben Jesu von Nazara) 作者的最后努力之一。凯姆比魏茨泽克更进一步，坚决维护使徒协议的公开性和私人性，并承认提摩太受割礼为事实。他也完全拒绝鲍尔、魏茨泽克和奥弗贝克认为《使徒行传》作者从《加拉太书》获取信息并为其和解目的而歪曲的观点。
F. W. 法勒 (F. W. Farrar)：《保罗的生平与工作》(The Life and Work of Paul)（伦敦，1879年），第22-23章（卷一，第398–454页）。
威利巴尔德·格林 (Wilibald Grimm)：《使徒会议》，载于“神学研究与评论” (Theol. Studien und Kritiken)（哥达），1880年，第405–432页。一篇方向正确的批判性讨论。韦策尔 (Wetzel) 在同一期刊上关于加拉太书2:14, 21的释经文章（第433页及后）也部分涉及同一主题。
F. 戈代 (F. Godet)：《罗马书注释》(Com. on the Ep. to the Romans)，卷一（1879年），第37-42页，英文翻译。精辟而稳健。
卡尔·维泽勒 (Karl Wieseler)：《新约圣经著作与原始基督教史》(Zur Gesch. der N. T.lichen Schrift und des Urchristenthums)。莱比锡，1880年，第1–53页，关于哥林多党派及其与《加拉太书》中的错谬者和《启示录》中尼哥拉党 (Nicolaitans) 的关系。博学、敏锐、保守。
比较上文 § 22，第213页及后；我的《使徒教会史》(Hist. of the Apost. Church)，§§ 67–70，第245–260页；以及我的《加拉太书注释》2:11–14中关于彼得与保罗争议的附论。

关于割礼的问题，或者说外邦人加入基督教会的条件问题，是使徒时代一个激烈争论的问题。它牵涉到更广泛的摩西律法约束力的问题，乃至基督教与犹太教的整个关系。因为割礼在犹太会堂中的地位，如同洗礼在教会中的地位，是神所设立的人与神立约的记号和印证，包含其所有的特权和责任，并要求受割礼者遵守全部律法，否则将丧失所应许的福分。这个问题的决定，关系到教会内部的和平以及福音在外部的成功。若以割礼为教会成员的必要条件，基督教将永远局限于犹太民族和一小部分敬畏神的门外归信者，或半基督徒；而废除割礼并宣告在基督里的信心至高无上且足矣，则确保了外邦人的归信和基督教的大公性。保罗在外邦人中的宣教进展迫使这个问题得到解决，并最终带来了一次伟大的解放行动，尽管其间不乏巨大的斗争和暂时的倒退。

第一代的所有基督徒都是从犹太教或异教归信的。不能指望他们会突然摆脱两种截然相反的宗教训练的影响，并立刻融为一体。因此，在整个使徒时代，犹太基督教与外邦基督教之间存在着差异，这在教会生活的各个方面——宣教、教义、敬拜和治理——或多或少都是可见的。一个分支的领袖是彼得，受割礼者的使徒；另一个分支的领袖是保罗，未受割礼者的使徒职分被托付给了他。这种差异以另一种形式甚至在今日基督教的不同分支中依然存在。天主教会的特性是犹太-基督教或彼得式的；福音派教会则是外邦或保罗式的。而这些团体中的个体成员也倾向于这两种主要类型中的一种。只要一个宗派或教派中有生命和活动，就至少会存在两种思想和行动的倾向——无论它们被称为旧派和新派，或高派教会和低派教会，或任何其他党派名称。同样，没有政党就没有自由政府。只有死水才永不流动和泛滥，只有尸体才永不移动。

这两种使徒时代基督教基本形式之间的关系，通常是权威与自由、律法与福音、保守与进步、客观与主观的关系。这些对立的元素未必相互排斥。它们是互补的，为了完美的生命，它们必须共存并合作。但实际上，它们常常走向极端，那样当然就会陷入不可调和的矛盾。排外的犹太基督教沦为以便尼主义 (Ebionism)；排外的外邦基督教沦为诺斯底主义 (Gnosticism)。而这些异端绝非仅限于使徒和后使徒时代；伪彼得式和伪保罗式的错误，以不断变化的形式，或多或少贯穿了整个教会历史。

犹太归信者起初很自然地尽可能紧密地持守他们祖先神圣的传统。他们无法相信旧约的宗教，即上帝亲自启示的宗教，会消逝。他们确实视耶稣为外邦人和犹太人的救主；但他们认为犹太教是进入基督教的必要引介，割礼和遵守全部摩西律法是获得弥赛亚救恩的唯一条件。而且，犹太教对外邦人与其说是吸引，不如说是冒犯，这一原则会完全阻碍广大外邦世界的归信。^[91] 使徒们自己起初也受这种犹太主义偏见的束缚，直到在哥尼流 (Cornelius) 归信前，彼得得到特别启示才得以纠正。^[92]

但即使在未受割礼的百夫长受洗，以及彼得在耶路撒冷教会为此辩护之后，旧酵仍在一些曾属于严谨排外的法利赛派的犹太基督徒中作祟。^[93] 他们从犹太来到安提阿，教导保罗和巴拿巴的归信者：“你们若不按摩西的规条受割礼，不能得救。”他们无疑会引用摩西五经、普遍的犹太传统、基督的割礼以及犹太使徒的实践，并造成了严重的骚乱。这些前法利赛人，正是保罗在激烈争论中更严厉地称之为“偷着引进来的假弟兄”的人，他们像奸细和基督徒自由的敌人一样，潜入基督徒的团契。^[94] 他清楚地将他们不仅与使徒们，也与犹太的大多数弟兄区分开来，后者真诚地为他的归信而喜乐，并为此荣耀神。^[95] 他们是一小撮但非常活跃和热心的少数派，并且诡计多端。他们走遍洋海陆地，要勾引一个人入教。他们受了水的洗，却没有受圣灵的洗。他们名义上是基督徒，实际上是心胸狭窄的犹太人。他们是恶意的拘泥细节者、迂腐者、奴性的形式主义者、仪式主义者和传统主义者。对他们来说，肉体的割礼比内心的割礼更重要，或者至少是得救的必要条件。^[96] 这样的人当然不能理解和欣赏保罗，反而憎恨和惧怕他，视他为一个危险的激进分子和叛逆者。嫉妒和猜忌与他们的宗教偏见交织在一起。他们对外邦污秽之人中福音的迅速传播感到震惊，认为这会玷污教会的纯洁。他们无法忽视权力正迅速从耶路撒冷转移到安提阿，从犹太人转移到外邦人的事实，但他们非但没有顺应神意的进程，反而决心以秩序和正统的名义进行抵抗，并要将宣教行动的规制和教会成员资格条件的制定权掌握在自己手中，即掌握在耶路撒冷这个基督教的神圣中心、以及弥赛亚再来时所预期的居所。

凡是研究过《马太福音》第二十三章和教会史书页，并了解人性的人，都会完全理解这类格外虔诚和格外正统的狂热分子，他们的族类至今未绝，也似乎不会灭绝。然而，他们无意中却起到了促进福音自由事业的良好作用。

这些犹太化党徒和狂热分子的鼓动，使基督的教会在建立二十年后，濒临分裂的边缘，这会严重阻碍其发展并危及其最终的成功。

耶路撒冷会议

为了避免这场灾难并解决这场无法压制的冲突，耶路撒冷和安提阿的教会决定在耶路撒冷举行一次私下和一次公开的会议。安提阿派遣保罗和巴拿巴作为代表外邦归信者的专员。保罗完全意识到危机的严重性，同时也顺从了内在更高的催促。^[97] 他还带上了提多 (Titus)，一位本地的希腊人，作为圣灵在没有割礼的情况下能成就何等大事的活生生例子。这次会议于公元50年或51年（保罗归信后十四年）举行。这是基督教历史中举行的第一次，在某些方面也是最重要的一次会议或主教会议，尽管与后来的会议有很大不同。它被置于《使徒行传》的中间，作为使徒教会两个部分及其宣教历史两个时代之间的连接点。

耶路撒冷磋商的目的有二：首先，解决犹太使徒与外邦使徒之间的个人关系，并划分他们的工场；其次，决定割礼问题，并界定犹太基督徒与外邦基督徒之间的关系。关于第一点（我们从保罗那里得知），它达成了一个完全和最终的解决方案；关于第二点（我们从路加那里得知），它达成了一个部分和暂时的解决方案。就事物的性质而言，在全教会参加的公开会议之前和期间，使徒们进行了私下的磋商。^[98]

使徒的承认。犹太教会的柱石——雅各、彼得和约翰^[99]——无论他们之前的观点如何，都被事件的逻辑所完全说服，他们从中认出了神意的作为，即保罗和巴拿巴以其非凡的工作成就证明了自己是被神呼召作外邦人的使徒。他们对他的福音没有提出任何异议，也没有作任何增补。相反，当他们看到那赐恩典和力量给彼得作受割礼者使徒职分的神，也同样赐恩典和力量给保罗去使未受割礼者归信时，他们便向他和巴拿巴伸出右手行相交之礼，双方达成谅解，即他们将尽可能地划分广大的工场，并且保罗应通过帮助支持犹太贫穷、常受迫害和饥荒的弟兄们来显明他的弟兄之爱，并巩固这一联合。这项慈善服务他先前已乐意地做过，之后也同样乐意而忠实地去行，他在他的希腊教会中筹集捐款，并亲自将钱带到耶路撒冷。^[100] 这是保罗亲口所言，见证了使徒间兄弟般的谅解。而会议的信函也通过提及“所亲爱的”巴拿巴^[101] 和保罗是“为我主耶稣基督的名不顾性命的人”来正式承认这一点。这双重见证了使徒教会的合一，足以驳斥现代关于保罗与彼得之间存在不可调和的对立的捏造。^[102]
关于割礼问题和外邦基督徒的地位，在公开辩论中，甚至在受默示的使徒们的荫庇下，也存在着尖锐的意见冲突。^[103] 双方都有坚定的信念和情感，提出了貌似有理的论据，互相指责，作出恶意的推论，并威胁会带来致命的后果。但圣灵也同在，如同他与所有奉基督之名聚集的门徒同在一样，并掌管了人性的软弱，这些软弱在每一次教会集会中都会显露出来。

提多 (Titus) 受割礼，作为一个试验案例，当然被法利赛派的律法主义者强烈要求，但也被保罗强烈抵制，并且没有被执行。^[104] 在这一点上哪怕片刻的退让，都会对基督徒自由的事业造成致命的打击，并且意味着要对外邦归信者进行大规模的割礼，而这是不可能的。

但保罗后来又怎能自相矛盾地给提摩太 (Timothy) 行割礼呢？^[105] 答案是，他给提摩太 (Timothy) 行割礼是把他当作一个犹太人，而不是外邦人，并且这是出于权宜之计的自愿行为，目的是为了让提摩太 (Timothy) 在犹太人中更有用，因为犹太人认为他作为犹太母亲的儿子，理应归属他们，若没有这个成员资格的标记，就不会允许他在会堂里教导；而在提多 (Titus)，一个纯正的希腊人，的案例中，割礼被要求作为一个原则，并作为称义和得救的条件。保罗在抵制假弟兄的要求时毫不动摇，但总是愿意迁就软弱的弟兄，向犹太人作犹太人，向外邦人作外邦人，为要同时拯救他们。^[106] 在真正的基督徒自由中，他对割礼或非割礼作为一种纯粹的仪式或外在条件，与遵守神的诫命和在基督里作新造的人相比，毫不在意。^[107]

在辩论中，彼得 (Peter)，作为犹太使徒中的普世领袖，尽管当时已不再是耶路撒冷的居民，当然扮演了主要角色，并发表了一篇高尚的演说，这完全符合他先前在哥尼流 (Cornelius) 家中的经历和实践，也符合他后来对保罗教义的认可。^[108] 他不是逻辑学家，也不是拉比学者，但他有极好的常识和实践智慧，能迅速察觉到进步和责任的正确方向。他以个人和道德权威的口吻说话，但并非以官方首脑的身份。^[109] 他抗议将礼仪律法的难当的轭加在外邦门徒的颈项上，并像保罗一样清晰地阐明了基本原则，即“犹太人和外邦人一样，得救乃是因主耶稣的恩。”^[110]

在这番大胆的演说之后，会场一片肃静，巴拿巴和保罗便报告了上帝借着他们的手在外邦人中所行的神迹奇事，以此作为最佳的实践论据。

最后一位也是最重要的一位发言者是主的兄弟雅各 (James)，他是犹太基督教会的当地领袖和耶路撒冷的主教，因此他似乎主持了这次会议。他可以说代表了犹太教会的最右翼，紧邻着犹太化派别。无疑，正是通过他的影响，那些制造这次骚乱的法利赛人才得以归信。在一篇极具特色的演讲中，他赞同西门 (Symeon)——他更喜欢用彼得的犹太名字来称呼他——关于外邦人归信的观点，认为这符合古代预言和神的预定；但他提出了一个妥协方案，即虽然外邦门徒不应受割礼的困扰，但仍应劝勉他们禁戒某些对虔诚犹太人特别冒犯的做法，即禁戒吃祭偶像的物，禁戒血或勒死的牲畜的肉，以及禁戒一切形式的肉体不洁。至于犹太基督徒，他们从律法中知道自己的责任，并被期望继续保持他们历史悠久的习惯。

雅各 (James) 的讲话与彼得 (Peter) 的有相当大的不同，既意味着限制也意味着自由，但终究承认了争议的主要点——无需割礼即可得救。这篇讲话在精神和语言上完全符合他自己的书信，该书信将福音描绘为律法，尽管是“使人自由之完全的律法”，也符合他后来对保罗的行事方式，即建议他许拿细耳人 (Nazarites) 的愿，从而反驳成千上万归信的犹太人的偏见，并符合犹太基督教的传统，该传统将他描绘为一个禁欲圣徒的典范，受到虔诚的犹太人和基督徒同等的尊敬，被视为“人民的保障” (Obliam)，以及以色列的代求者，他在圣殿中为以色列的归信和避免那迫在眉睫的厄运而不住地祷告。^[111] 他更具古代先知或施洗约翰 (John the Baptist) 的精神，而非耶稣的精神（他在耶稣复活前并不相信他），但正因如此，他在犹太基督徒中拥有最大的权威，并能使他们中的大多数人与保罗的进步精神和解。

雅各 (James) 的妥协方案被采纳，并体现在以下这封简短而友爱的教牧信函中，致外邦教会。这是使徒时代最古老的文献，并带有雅各 (James) 的文风标记：^[112]

“使徒和作长老的弟兄们，^[113] 问安提阿、叙利亚、基利家外邦的弟兄们安。我们听说有几个人，从我们这里出去，用言语搅扰你们，惑乱你们的心，其实我们并没有吩咐他们。所以我们同心定意，拣选几个人，差他们同我们所亲爱的巴拿巴和保罗往你们那里去。这二人是为我主耶稣基督的名，不顾性命的。我们就差了犹大和西拉，他们也要亲口告诉你们这些事。因为圣灵和我们，定意不将别的重担放在你们身上，惟有几件是不可少的，就是禁戒祭偶像的物，和血，并勒死的牲畜，和奸淫。这几件你们若能自己禁戒不犯，就甚好了。愿你们平安。”^[114]

这法令由四位特使传达，两位代表安提阿教会——巴拿巴和保罗，两位来自耶路撒冷——犹大·巴撒巴 (Judas Barsabbas) 和西拉 (Silas)（或西拉奴 (Silvanus)），并向因争议而骚动的叙利亚和基利家教会宣读。^[115] 这些限制至少在八年内仍然完全有效，因为雅各在公元58年保罗最后一次访问耶路撒冷时提醒过他。^[116] 犹太基督徒无疑遵守了这些限制，除了少数例外，直到偶像崇拜的衰落，^[117] 东方教会甚至至今仍禁戒血和勒死的牲畜；但西方教会从未认为自己受这部分法令的约束，或很快就放弃了其中的一些限制。

就这样，本着和平与弟兄之爱的精神，通过节制与互相让步，一场激烈的争议得以解决，一场分裂得以幸免。

对法令的分析

会议的法令是一项妥协，具有两方面：它是解放性的，也是限制性的。

(1.) 这是一项解放外邦门徒脱离割礼和礼仪律法束缚的法令。这是争议的主要点，因此该法令是自由和进步的。它一劳永逸地解决了原则问题。保罗取得了胜利。此后，认为割礼是得救的必要条件的犹太化教义便是一种异端，一种假的福音，或对真福音的歪曲，并被保罗在《加拉太书》中如此谴责。

(2.) 该法令在权宜之计和对外邦基督徒相对无关紧要的问题上是限制性和保守的。从这个角度看，它是使徒时代一项明智且必要的措施，尤其是在犹太元素占主导地位的东方，但并非意图普遍和永久使用。在西方教会，正如已经提到的，它被逐渐放弃，这一点我们从奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 那里得知。它要求外邦基督徒禁戒祭偶像的肉、血和勒死的牲畜（如陷阱捕获的家禽和其他动物）。后两点其实是同一回事。这三项限制在犹太人对偶像崇拜及其相关一切事物的憎恶中，以及在利未记的禁令中，都有很好的依据。^[118] 没有这些限制，犹太的教会是不会同意这项协议的。但在混合或纯外邦人的教会中，要执行这些规定几乎是不可能的；因为它会迫使外邦基督徒放弃与他们未归信的亲友的社交往来，并像犹太人一样设立独立的屠宰场，犹太人因害怕沾染与偶像崇拜相关的污秽而从不在公共市场买肉。保罗对这件事持有更自由的看法——在这点上他无疑与雅各有所不同——即吃祭偶像的肉本身是无关紧要的，鉴于偶像的虚空；尽管如此，他也同样命令哥林多人禁戒这种肉，是出于对软弱良心的顾虑，并立下了金科玉律：“凡事都可行，但不都有益处。凡事都可行，但不都造就人。无论何人，不要求自己的益处，乃要求别人的益处。”^[119]

对现代读者来说，将这些礼仪上的禁令与严格的道德禁令——禁止奸淫 (fornication)^[120]——联系在一起，似乎很奇怪。但必须记住，外邦人对性交的良心是极其松懈的，视之为无关紧要之事，如同吃喝一样，只有在通奸 (adultery) 侵犯丈夫权利的情况下才算为罪。没有一位异教道德家，即便是苏格拉底 (Socrates)、柏拉图 (Plato) 或西塞罗 (Cicero)，曾绝对地谴责奸淫。它在哥林多和帕福斯 (Paphos) 对阿佛洛狄忒 (Aphrodite) 的崇拜中得到认可，并由一大群妓女祭司为荣耀她而实践！偶像崇拜或属灵的淫乱几乎与身体的污秽密不可分。在所罗门 (Solomon) 的例子中，多神教和多妻制是并行的。因此，《启示录》的作者也紧密地将吃祭偶像的物与奸淫联系起来，并一同谴责它们。^[121] 保罗在哥林多教会中不得不与这种松懈作斗争，并谴责一切肉体的不洁为对上帝殿堂的侵犯和亵渎。^[122] 在这种对性不纯洁的绝对禁止中，我们看到了基督教重生和圣化影响的显著证据。即使是后使徒时代作家的禁欲主义过度行为，他们将再婚谴责为“体面的通奸” (εὐπρεπὴς μοιχεία)，并将独身颂扬为比尊贵的婚姻更高尚、更美好的状态，也值得我们尊敬，因为这是对异教徒放荡的相反极端的有益且必要的反拨。

就外邦基督徒而言，问题就这样解决了。

犹太基督徒的地位不是争议的主题，因此该法令对此保持沉默。他们被期望继续遵守他们祖先的传统和习俗，只要这些与对基督的忠诚完全一致。他们不需要关于其责任的教导，“因为，”雅各在对会议的讲话中说，“从古以来，摩西的书在各城有人传讲，每逢安息日，在会堂里诵读。”^[123] 八年后，他和他的长老们向保罗暗示，即使是他，作为一名犹太人，也被期望遵守礼仪律法，而豁免仅适用于外邦人。^[124]

但正是在这一点上，该法令存在缺陷。它对于暂时的紧急情况来说已经足够了，并且达到了犹太教会愿意接受的程度，但对于基督徒合一和基督徒自由在其合法发展中的事业来说，却还不够。

注释

耶路撒冷使徒会议。— 这一直是现代历史批判的主要战场之一。割礼的争议在德、法、荷、英的著作和论文中被反复争论，其结果是对使徒教会的差异与和谐都有了更清晰的认识。

我们有两个关于这次会议的记载，一个来自保罗在《加拉太书》第二章，另一个来自他忠实的同伴路加在《使徒行传》第15章。因为现在几乎普遍承认，它们指的是同一事件。必须将它们结合起来才能构成完整的历史。《加拉太书》是理解整个局势的关键，是阿基米德的支点 (ποῦ στῶ)。

这两个记载在争论的双方——耶路撒冷和安提阿——双方的领袖、争议的主题、激烈的冲突以及和平的结果上是一致的。

但在其他方面，它们有相当大的差异并互相补充。保罗，在会议几年后（约56年）为了反驳他在加拉太的犹太化对手，在一篇辩护他独立使徒权威的论战中，主要强调了他与其他使徒的个人谅解以及他们对他权威的承认，但他也明确提到了公开会议，这是无法避免的；因为这是教会之间的争议，由双方主要使徒达成的协议具有普遍权威，即使被一个异端派别所忽视。另一方面，路加，在至少十三年后（约63年）写作一部平静而客观的原始教会史，（可能根据耶路撒冷和安提阿的文献，但肯定不是根据保罗的书信）给出了公开集会的官方行动，以及之前辩论的节录，并未排除私下会议；相反，他甚至包含了它们；因为他在《使徒行传》15:5中报道，保罗和巴拿巴“到了耶路撒冷，教会和使徒并长老，都接待他们，他们就述说神同他们所行的一切事”，然后才记述了公开的磋商，第6节。在所有集会中，无论是教会的还是政治的，更重要的事务都是由委员会在私下会议中准备和酝酿，以便进行公开讨论和行动；没有理由认为耶路撒冷的会议会是例外。因此，目的的不同，至少部分地解释了这两份记载的省略和微小差异，我们在本节中已尽力予以调和。

图宾根学派的极端及伪保罗派的过度批判，在几篇讨论中（作者有鲍尔 (Baur)、施韦格勒 (Schwegler)、策勒尔 (Zeller)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、福尔克马尔 (Volkmar)、霍尔斯滕 (Holsten)、奥弗贝克 (Overbeck)、利普修斯 (Lipsius)、豪斯拉特 (Hausrath) 和维蒂兴 (Wittichen)）极大地夸大了这些差异，并利用保罗简练的论战性影射作为推翻《使徒行传》可信度的杠杆。但最近，部分在同一学派内部（如上文文献所示），出现了更为保守的批判性反拨，倾向于调和这两份记载，并维护彼得主义和保罗主义的本质共识。
提多受割礼。— 我们和大多数注释家一样，认为提多没有受割礼。这是对《加拉太书》2:3–5那段困难且备受争议的经文的自然理解，无论我们将2:4中的 δέ 理解为解释性的（即nempe, and that），还是通常的转折性的（即autem, sed, but）。在前一种情况下，句子是规则的，在后一种情况下，句子是不完整的，或是有意不完整的，并且可能暗示了对其他使徒的轻微责备，他们可能起初建议为提多行割礼，作为一种谨慎和调和的措施，以顾及保守派的顾虑，但在保罗的强烈抗议下放弃了。如果我们强调2:3中的“被迫” (ἠναγκάσθη)，这样的推论很容易得出，但在保罗心中，坦率的责任与对年长同工的礼貌责任之间存在冲突。莱特福特博士 (Dr. Lightfoot) 就是这样解释这个句子的语法不完整，“它在受割礼使徒们的商议这块暗礁上触礁了。”

德尔图良 (Tertullian) (Adv. Marc., V. 3) 和近代的勒南 (Renan)（第三章，第89页）及法勒 (Farrar)（I. 415）则持有完全不同的观点，即提多为了和平而自愿接受了割礼，这要么是尽管保罗反对，要么更可能是得到了他勉强的同意。保罗似乎是说提多没有受割礼，但暗示他受了。这一观点基于2:5中省略了 οἷς οὐδέ。那么这段经文就必须这样补充：“但连提多也没有被迫受割礼，而是[他自愿接受了割礼]因为那些偷着引进来的假弟兄，我们为顺服的缘故向他们让步了一时[即暂时]。”勒南这样解释其意：“如果提多受了割礼，不是因为他被迫，而是因为那些假弟兄，我们可以暂时向他们让步，而不在原则上屈服。”他认为“一时” (πρὸς ὥραν) 与接下来的“常存” (διαμείνῃ) 相对。换句话说，保罗屈尊以降。他以一种宽宏或策略，暂时让步，为要救提多免于暴力，或将他的案子适当地提交给会议，以取得原则上的永久胜利。但这种观点完全不符合保罗在一个原则问题上的坦率和坚定，不符合危机的严重性，不符合《加拉太书》不妥协的语气，也不符合彼得和雅各的讲话以及会议的法令。如果提多真的受了割礼，保罗会明说，并解释他与此事的关。此外，爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和德尔图良 (Tertullian) 反对 οἷς οὐδέ 的见证，必须让位于支持这些词的最佳安色尔字体抄本（a B A C 等）和译本的权威。这种省略，比起插入，更容易从粗心或教义偏见来解释。

§ 35. 保守派的反扑与自由派的胜利

彼得与保罗在安提阿

耶路撒冷的妥协，如同任何其他妥协一样，容易产生两种解释，并在其内部埋下了未来麻烦的种子。它更像是一次休战，而非最终的解决方案。原则必须且必将贯彻到底，两者之中必有一方会胜出。

对该法令精神的自由派解释似乎要求犹太基督徒与他们未受割礼的外邦弟兄完全相交，即使是在主的餐桌上，在每周或每日的爱筵 (agapae) 中，也是基于对他们共同的主和救主基督的共同救赎信仰。但对法令字句的严格解释则止步于承认外邦归信者的一般基督徒身份，并以犹太归信者仍有义务遵守礼仪律法为由，防范教会间的融合，这些律法包括遵守割礼、安息日和月朔，以及关于洁净与不洁净食物的各种规定，这些规定实际上禁止了与不洁净的外邦人进行社交往来。^[125]

保守派的观点是正统的，不能与犹太化异端混为一谈，后者要求外邦人和犹太人一样行割礼，并将其作为教会成员资格的条款和得救的条件。这一教义已被耶路撒冷的协议一劳永逸地定罪，此后只被恶意的法利赛派犹太化分子所持守。

耶路撒冷的教会完全由犹太归信者组成，自然会采取保守观点；而安提阿的教会，外邦元素占主导地位，则自然会偏向自由派的解释，后者有最终成功的确定前景。雅各 (James) 或许从未离开过巴勒斯坦，他远非否认外邦归信者的基督徒身份，但仍会与他们保持一定的距离；而彼得 (Peter)，以其冲动、慷慨的天性，并与其更普遍的使命相符，在实践中贯彻了他在耶路撒冷大胆宣称的信念，在耶路撒冷会议后不久（公元51年）访问安提阿时，他公开且习惯性地与外邦弟兄同席吃饭。^[126] 他之前已在凯撒利亚未受割礼的哥尼流 (Cornelius) 家中吃过一次饭，因为他看到“神是不偏待人。原来，各国中那敬畏主、行义的人都为主所悦纳。”^[127]

但当雅各的一些代表^[128]从耶路撒冷来到，并因他的行为与他理论时，他胆怯地退出了与未受割礼的基督追随者的团契，从而实际上不承认他们。他无意中再次因惧怕人而否认了他的主，但这次是在他外邦门徒的身上否认了。这种不一致性是他冲动性情的典型特征，这使他根据瞬间的印象或变得胆怯或变得勇敢。经文没有说明这些代表是仅仅执行雅各的指示还是超越了指示。前者从我们对雅各的了解来看更有可能，也更容易解释彼得的行为，因为他不大可能被偶然的、非官方的访客所影响。他们或许是耶路撒冷教会的职员；无论如何，都是有分量的人，不完全是法利赛人，但极其保守和谨慎，害怕与可能会危及基督教这个可敬的母会的纯洁和正统的杂乱人群来往。他们当然没有要求外邦基督徒行割礼，因为这会直接违背会议的法令，但他们无疑提醒了彼得耶路撒冷协议中关于犹太基督徒责任的谅解，而他比任何人都更应严格遵守。他们向他表示，他的行为至少是非常仓促和不成熟的，并且可能会阻碍犹太民族的归信，这仍然是他们最珍贵的希望和最热切的祷告。压力一定非常大，因为甚至连在耶路撒冷与保罗并肩捍卫外邦基督徒权利的巴拿巴 (Barnabas)，也被这位使徒之首的榜样所吓倒并带偏了。

保罗后来与巴拿巴和马可 (Mark) 的分离，使徒行传的作者坦率地记述了此事，无疑与这次人性的软弱表现部分相关。^[129]

彼得的罪行激起了保罗火爆的性情，并招致了比他从主那里受到的更严厉的斥责。耶稣怜悯的一瞥足以引出悔恨的苦泪。保罗不是耶稣。他斥责的方式可能过于严厉，但我们不及他了解彼得，而且在争论的事情上他是对的，并且终究比一些最伟大和最优秀的人在个人争论中更为克制。被使徒中的领袖和他自己在向外邦人宣教中的忠实盟友所抛弃，他感到只有坚定不移的勇气才能拯救这艘正在下沉的自由之船。一个至关重要的原则岌岌可危，如果世界要得救，基督教不至萎缩为犹太教派的一个狭隘角落，那么外邦归信者的基督徒地位现在必须不惜任何代价予以维护，否则就永远没有机会了。无论在耶路撒冷——那里几乎没有一个外邦归信者——怎么做都可以，但在安提阿，在他自己建立的、满是希腊化犹太人和外邦人的教会里，这种对基督里弟兄的公然侮辱是片刻不能容忍的。一件公开的丑闻必须公开予以纠正。于是保罗当面抵挡彼得，在全会众面前指责他十足的虚伪。他以简洁的推理揭露了他的不当行为，对此彼得无言以对。^[130] 他实质上对他说：“你既是犹太人，若随外邦人行事，不照犹太人的规矩，怎么还勉强外邦人随犹太人呢？我们这生来的犹太人，不是外邦的罪人，既知道人称义不是因行律法，乃是因信耶稣基督。有人可能会反对说，通过寻求白白的称义而非律法的称义，我们是叫基督作了罪的用处了。^[131] 断乎不可！这荒谬而亵渎的结论。恰恰相反，在我们为信基督而放弃律法后，又回头靠律法称义，这才是罪。我若重新建造（如同你现在所做的）那我已经拆毁的（如同你先前所做的），这就证明自己是犯罪的人。因为律法本身教我以基督来取代它，它指向基督为其终点。借着摩西律法这启蒙的师傅，我被引向超越其本身，进入基督里的自由，我向摩西律法死了，为要向神活出新的顺服和感恩的生命。我已经与基督同钉十字架，现在活着的不再是我，乃是基督在我里面活着；并且我如今在肉身活着的这基督的新生命，是因信神的儿子而活；他是爱我，为我舍己。我不废掉神的恩；义若是借着律法得的，基督就是徒然死了。”

彼得的灵魂从这样的结论中惊恐地退缩了。他从未想过要否认基督为赦罪而死的必要性和功效。在那次艰难的场合，他和巴拿巴处于两难境地。作为犹太人，他们似乎受到耶路撒冷妥协中雅各的使者所坚持的限制的约束；但他们试图取悦犹太人，却得罪了外邦人，并且通过回到犹太人的排外主义，他们违背了自己更好的信念，并感到被自己的良心所谴责。^[132] 他们无疑回到了他们更自由的做法。

使徒们的分歧只是暂时的。他们太高尚、太圣洁，不会心怀怨恨。保罗后来以尊重的口吻提到了彼得和巴拿巴，也提到了马可，后者是三人之间的联系纽带。^[133] 彼得在他的书信中认可了“所亲爱的兄弟保罗”的教导，并称赞他书信中的智慧，其中一封信严厉斥责了他自己的行为，但他意味深长地补充说，信中有些“难明白的”地方，“那无学问、不坚固的人强解，如强解别的经书一样，就自取沉沦。”^[134]

安提阿的这一幕属于那些常被偏见和无知在异端和正统两方面利益的驱使下误解和歪曲的事情。这一记忆通过将安提阿教会分为两个教区，由两位主教——以优迪乌 (Evodius) 和伊格那丢 (Ignatius)——管理的传统得以延续，一位由彼得设立，另一位由保罗设立。塞尔苏斯 (Celsus)、波菲利 (Porphyry) 和现代基督教的敌人曾以此作为攻击使徒道德品格和默示的论据。保罗的行为在犹太派别中留下了强烈的怨恨，甚至一百年后仍在伪克莱门《讲道集》和《纪要》(Homilies and Recognitions) 中以行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 为伪装，对保罗进行猛烈攻击。两位使徒的行为在天主教看来是如此不可理解，以至于一些教父用一个不知名的矶法 (Cephas) 来代替彼得；^[135] 而另一些教父则将这一幕解释为使徒们为对无知的会众产生戏剧性效果而上演的一出虚伪的闹剧。^[136]

历史的真相要求我们牺牲使徒教会道德完美的正统虚构。但我们所得的比所失的更多。使徒们自己从未声称，而是明确否认过这种完美。^[137] 他们将天上的宝贝放在瓦器里，从而使之更贴近我们。圣经中坦率地揭示了圣人的软弱，这既是对我们的鼓励，也是对我们的羞辱。保罗的大胆抗议教导了我们，当基督教的真理和原则受到威胁时，即使是针对最高的教会权威，也有抗议的权利和义务；彼得的安静顺服，与他作为柱石使徒之首的高位相比，更让我们因他的谦卑和温柔而敬佩；两人的行为都戳穿了罗马教皇至上和无误的虚构；而整个场景典型地预示了彼得式天主教与保罗式新教之间的宏大历史冲突，我们相信，这最终将以一场伟大的约翰式和解告终。

据我们所知，彼得和保罗此后再未相见，直到他们都在世界之都为耶稣的见证流血。

保罗无所畏惧的劝诫可能对雅各和他的长老们产生了一定的缓和作用，但并未改变他们在耶路撒冷的做法。^[138] 更不用说让极端的犹太化派别沉默了；恰恰相反，这激怒了他们。他们被打败了，但并未被说服，并以比以往任何时候都更激烈的态度再次战斗。他们组织了一个反宣教团，几乎跟随保罗到他工作的每一个领域，特别是哥林多和加拉太。他们是他肉体中的一根刺，如果不是那根刺的话。除了写给帖撒罗尼迦人和腓利门的信，他所有的书信都考虑到了他们。如果不了解这个事实，我们就无法正确地从历史意义上理解他的书信。这些假使徒或许就是那些最初引起麻烦的法利赛人，无论如何，他们是精神相似的人。他们夸耀自己曾在主肉身的日子里与主和原始使徒相识；因此保罗讽刺地称这些“假使徒”为“超等使徒”或“格外卓越的使徒”。^[139] 他们攻击他的使徒职分是不合规和虚假的，攻击他的福音是激进和革命性的。他们大胆地告诉他的外邦归信者，他们必须接受割礼并遵守礼仪律法；换句话说，他们必须既是犹太人又是基督徒，才能确保得救，或者至少能在外院的门外归信者之上占据一个优越的地位。他们毫无根据地援引雅各、彼得和基督本人，并滥用他们的名义和权威来达到他们狭隘的宗派目的，就像圣经本身被用来为各种异端和奇谈怪论负责一样。他们引诱了许多冲动易变的加拉太人，这些人具备凯尔特 (Keltic) 民族的所有特征。他们在哥林多的教会中分裂出几个派别，给使徒带来了最深的焦虑。在歌罗西以及弗吕家和亚细亚的教会中，律法主义采取了艾赛尼派 (Essenic) 神秘主义和禁欲主义的温和形式。在罗马教会中，律法主义者是软弱的弟兄而非假弟兄，也非保罗的个人敌人，保罗对待他们比对待加拉太的错谬者要温和得多。

这种顽固且极其持久的犹太化反动最终被引导向好的方向。它从保罗这位大师的头脑中引出了对罪与恩典教义最完整、最深刻的辩护和阐释。若没有这些律法主义者和仪式主义者的阴谋诡计，我们就不会拥有宝贵的《加拉太书》、《哥林多书》和《罗马书》。罪在哪里显多，恩典就更显多了。

最终，胜利得以赢得。尼禄手下可怕的迫害，以及更为可怕的耶路撒冷被毁，将基督教会中的割礼争议埋葬了。礼仪律法，在基督之前是“活的，但不能赐生命”，从基督到耶路撒冷被毁是“垂死的，但非致命的”，而在那次毁灭之后则变得“死的且是致命的”。^[140] 犹太化异端确实在天主教会之外由以便尼派 (Ebionites) 在二世纪继续存在；而在教会内部，形式主义和偏执的精神通过用基督教的仪式和典礼取代摩西律法的预表性影像而呈现出新的形态。但无论何时何地，当这种倾向显现时，我们都能在保罗的书信中找到最好的解毒剂。

§ 36. 罗马的基督教

I. 关于罗马皇帝统治下的一般社会与道德状况：

路德维希·弗里德兰德 (Ludwig Friedländer)：《罗马风俗史》(Sittengeschichte Roms)。莱比锡，1862年，第五修订增补版，1881年，3卷。
罗道尔弗·兰奇亚尼 (Rod. Lanciani)：《在近代发现之光下的古罗马》(Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries)。波士顿，1889年（附100幅插图）。

II. 关于罗马的犹太人及罗马作家对他们的提及：

勒南 (Renan)：《使徒》(Les Apôtres)，第287–293页；梅里维尔 (Merivale)：《罗马史》(History of the Romans)，卷六，第203页及后；弗里德兰德 (Friedländer)：同上，卷三，第505页及后；豪斯拉特 (Hausrath)：《新约时代史》(Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte)，卷三，第383–392页（第二版）；舒勒 (Schürer)：《新约时代史教科书》(Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte)，第624页及后，及《帝国时代罗马犹太人社群宪章》(Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit)，莱比锡，1879年；赫伊德科珀 (Huidekoper)：《罗马的犹太教》(Judaism at Rome)，1876年。亦见 约翰·吉尔 (John Gill)：《古代经典作家对犹太人及其国家的记述》(Notices of the Jews and their Country by the Classic Writers of Antiquity)，第二版，伦敦，1872年。关于罗马犹太铭文，见加鲁奇 (Garrucci)（自1862年以来的数篇意大利文文章），冯·恩格斯特伦 (von Engeström)（载于一部瑞典文著作，乌普萨拉，1876年），及舒勒 (Schürer)（1879年）。

III. 关于罗马的基督教会：

使徒时代史（见第189页及后）；《罗马书》注释导论（见第281页提及），以及一系列关于罗马教会起源、构成及《罗马书》写作目的的批判性论文，作者有：鲍尔 (Baur)（《论罗马书的目的与起因》(Ueber Zweck und Veranlassung des Römerbriefs)，1836年；再版于其《保罗》(Paul)，卷一，第346页及后，有英译本），贝施拉格 (Beyschlag)（《罗马书的历史问题》，载于“研究与评论” (Studien und Kritiken)，1867年），希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)（《新约导论》(Einleitung in das N. T.)，1875年，第302页及后），C. 魏茨泽克 (C. Weizsäcker)（《论最早的罗马基督教会》，1876年，及其《使徒时代》(Apost. Zeitalter)，1886年，第415–467页）。

W. 曼戈尔德 (W. Mangold)：《罗马书及其历史前提》(Der Römerbrief und seine gesch. Voraussetzungen)，马尔堡，1884年。主张罗马教会的犹太起源和特性（反对魏茨泽克）。
鲁道夫·塞耶伦 (Rud. Seyerlen)：《罗马基督教会的起源与早期命运》(Entstehung und erste Schicksale der Christengemeinde in Rom)。图宾根，1874年。
阿道夫·哈纳克 (Adolf Harnack)：《君士坦丁时代前罗马皇帝宫廷中的基督教与基督徒》，载于“普林斯顿评论” (Princeton Review)，纽约，1878年，第239–280页。
J. 斯宾塞·诺斯科特 (J. Spencer Northcote) 与 W. R. 布朗洛 (W. R. Brownlow)（罗马天主教）：《地下罗马》(Roma Sotterranea)，新版，伦敦，1879年，卷一，第78–91页。基于卡瓦利雷·德·罗西 (Caval. de Rossi) 同名的大型意大利文著作（罗马，1864–1877年，3卷对开本）。两者对研究地下墓穴中早期罗马基督教遗迹均十分重要。
福姆比 (Formby)：《古罗马及其与基督教的关系》(Ancient Rome and its Connect. with the Chr. Rel.)。伦敦，1880年。
凯姆 (Keim)：《罗马与基督教》(Rom. u. das Christenthum)。柏林，1881年。

罗马城

罗马城之于罗马帝国，犹如巴黎之于法国，伦敦之于大不列颠：它是统治的头脑和跳动的心脏。它甚至比这些现代城市更具世界性。它是世界的缩影，“城中之世界” (orbis in urbe)。罗马征服了当时文明世界几乎所有的民族，并从东、西、南、北各方吸引人口。被征服省份的所有语言、宗教和习俗都在那里找到了归宿。半数居民讲希腊语，本地人抱怨这种外来语言的泛滥，自亚历山大征服以来，希腊语已成为东方和文明世界的语言。^[141] 皇帝的宫殿是东方和希腊生活的主要中心。大量外国人是被释放的奴隶，他们通常取其主人的姓氏。他们中的许多人变得非常富有，甚至成为百万富翁。在那个时代，富有的被释放奴隶是粗俗、无礼、吹牛的暴发户的典型。根据塔西佗 (Tacitus) 的说法，“所有卑鄙可耻之物”都必定会从帝国四面八方流入罗马这个共同的下水道。但最好的元素也是如此：最丰富的自然产物、最稀有的艺术珍品都汇集于此；有进取心和抱负的青年、天才、学者和各种有用手艺的人，都在罗马找到了施展才华的最广阔舞台和最丰厚的回报。

从奥古斯都 (Augustus) 开始了大规模建设的时期。在他漫长而和平繁荣的统治下，他将砖石之城变成了大理石之城。它在台伯河 (Tiber) 两岸狭窄而不规则的街道上延伸，覆盖了如今荒凉且疫病丛生的坎帕尼亚 (Campagna) 平原，直至阿尔巴诺山 (Albanian hills) 的山麓，并通过陆路和海路将其臂膀伸向地极。那时的它（即使在其废墟中依然如此）是世界上最富教益和最有趣的城市。诗人、演说家和历史学家对这座“永恒之城” (urbs aeterna) 赞不绝口，

“你再也见不到比它更伟大的事物了。” (qua nihil posis visere majus)^[142]

关于罗马帝国时期人口的估计纯属猜测，从一百万到四百万不等。但很可能在奥古斯都 (Augustus) 治下已超过一百万，并在随后的皇帝统治下迅速增加，直到公元79年那场可怕的瘟疫才有所遏制，那场瘟疫曾连续多日每天夺去一万人的生命。^[143] 之后，该城再次增长，并在哈德良 (Hadrian) 和安东尼王朝 (Antonines) 时期达到了其辉煌的顶峰。^[144]

罗马的犹太人

据估计，使徒时代的罗马犹太人数量在两万到三万之间。^[145] 他们都说带有浓重希伯来口音的希腊化希腊语。据我们所知，他们有七座犹太会堂和三处墓地，墓碑铭文多为希腊文，少数为拉丁文，有时是拉丁字母写的希腊词，或希腊字母写的拉丁词。^[146] 他们居住在第十四区，即台伯河 (Tiber) 对岸（特拉斯提弗列 (Trastevere)），在雅尼库伦山 (Janiculum) 的山麓，可能也居住在台伯岛 (island of the Tiber) 以及左岸靠近大竞技场 (Circus Maximus) 和帕拉蒂尼山 (Palatine hill) 的一部分，即现今的“隔都”或犹太区 (Ghetto or Jewry) 附近。他们大多是庞培 (Pompey)、卡西乌斯 (Cassius) 和安东尼 (Antony) 的奴隶和俘虏的后代。他们当时和现在一样，从事旧衣和破旧器皿的买卖，或者从贫困中崛起，成为银行家、医生、占星家和算命先生，从而致富并声名显赫。不少人进入了宫廷。犹太演员阿里提鲁斯 (Alityrus) 深受尼禄 (Nero) 的青睐。撒玛利亚人、提庇留 (Tiberius) 的被释放奴隶塔卢斯 (Thallus)，能够借给犹太王希律·亚基帕 (Herod Agrippa) 一百万迪纳厄斯。^[147] 希律家族与朱里亚和克劳狄王朝的皇帝关系非常密切。

犹太人奇特的习俗和制度，如割礼、守安息日、禁食猪肉和祭祀他们所憎恶为邪灵之神明的肉，引起了罗马历史学家和讽刺作家的混合惊奇、蔑视和嘲笑。凡是异教徒视为神圣的，对犹太人来说都是亵渎的。^[148] 他们被视为人类的敌人。但这毕竟是肤浅的判断。犹太人也有他们的朋友。他们不屈不挠的勤劳和执着，他们的节制、认真、忠诚和仁慈，他们对律法的严格遵守，他们在战争中对死亡的藐视，他们对上帝坚定不移的信靠，他们对人类光辉未来的希望，他们敬拜的简朴和纯洁，以及那独一、全能、圣洁、慈悲的上帝观念的崇高和威严，都给有思想、严肃的人留下了深刻的印象，尤其是对女性（她们免除了割礼的恶名）。因此，在罗马和其他地方有大量的归信者。贺拉斯 (Horace)、佩尔西乌斯 (Persius) 和尤维纳利斯 (Juvenal) 以及约瑟夫 (Josephus) 都作证说，许多罗马人在安息日不做任何买卖，禁食祷告，点灯，学习摩西律法，并向耶路撒冷的圣殿奉献。甚至皇后波佩娅 (Poppaea) 也以她自己的方式倾向于犹太教，并对约瑟夫 (Josephus) 表现出极大的好感，约瑟夫称她为“虔诚的”或“敬畏上帝的”（尽管她是一个残忍无耻的女人）。^[149] 憎恶犹太人（称他们为 sceleratissima gens，即最邪恶的民族）的塞涅卡 (Seneca) 也不得不说，这个被征服的民族反倒给他们的征服者制定了法律。^[150]

在提庇留 (Tiberius) 和克劳狄 (Claudius) 统治期间，犹太人曾两次被驱逐出罗马，但不久后又回到了他们台伯河对岸的住处，并继续享有“合法宗教” (religio licita) 的特权，这些特权是异教皇帝授予他们的，但后来却被基督教的教皇们剥夺了。^[151]

当保罗抵达罗马时，他邀请了犹太会堂的领袖们举行会议，以示友好并首先向他们传福音，但他们对他的解释报以精明的保留，并声称对基督教一无所知，只知道它是一个“到处被毁谤的教门”。他们最好的策略显然是尽可能地忽略它。然而，在一个约定的日子，仍有大批人前来听使徒讲道，有些人信了，而大多数人像往常一样拒绝了他的见证。^[152]

罗马的基督教

从这个独特的民族中，产生了第一批归信者，他们信奉的宗教最终证明比罗马的势力更强大。犹太人只是一支防御的军队，而基督徒则是一支征服的军队，尽管是在被鄙视的十字架旗帜下。

罗马教会的确切起源笼罩在无法穿透的神秘之中。我们知道耶路撒冷教会和保罗大部分教会的开端，但我们不知道是谁最先在罗马传福音的。基督教带着其归化全世界的宣教热情，必定在很早的时候，在使徒们离开巴勒斯坦之前，就在世界之都找到了归宿。安提阿的会众是在被巴拿巴和保罗巩固和完全组织之前，由来自耶路撒冷的移民和逃亡门徒发展起来的。

虽然无法证实，但福音的最初消息很可能在教会诞生后不久，由耶路撒冷五旬节奇迹的见证者带到罗马，这些人中有“从罗马来的客旅，或是犹太人，或是进犹太教的人”。^[153] 如果是这样，可以说五旬节讲道的彼得，在建立罗马教会方面起到了间接的作用，该教会声称他是建立在其上的磐石，尽管他早期（42年）访问罗马并居住了二十或二十五年之久的传统早已是一个被戳穿的谎言。^[154] 保罗在罗马的弟兄中问候了一些亲属，他们在他之前就已经归信了，即在37年之前。^[155] 在他问候的罗马弟兄名单中，有几个名字在亚壁古道 (Appian Way) 上的犹太墓地中，在皇后利维娅 (Livia) 的被释放奴隶中被发现。来自巴勒斯坦、叙利亚、小亚细亚和希腊的基督徒必定因各种原因来到首都，或是作为访客，或是作为定居者。

克劳狄的谕令

我们在罗马基督教的第一个历史痕迹，见于异教历史学家苏维托尼乌斯 (Suetonius) 的一条记载，并由路加证实，即克劳狄 (Claudius) 约在公元52年，因犹太人在“Chrestus”（“Christus”的误拼）的煽动下持续骚乱和反叛，将他们驱逐出罗马。^[156]

这场骚动很可能指的是当时尚未被明确区分的犹太人与基督徒之间关于弥赛亚的争议。传讲基督这位以色列真正的君王，自然会在犹太人中引起巨大骚动，就像在皮西迪亚的安提阿 (Antioch in Pisidia)、路司得 (Lystra)、帖撒罗尼迦 (Thessalonica) 和庇哩亚 (Beraea) 一样；而无知的异教地方官自然会推断基督是一位政治伪装者和觊觎尘世王位的人。那些拒绝真弥赛亚的犹太人，反而更热切地期盼一个想象中的弥赛亚，能打破罗马的枷锁，在耶路撒冷恢复大卫的神权政体。他们的属世千禧年主义甚至影响了一些基督徒，保罗认为有必要警告他们不要反叛和革命。在被克劳狄的谕令驱逐的人中，有亚居拉 (Aquila) 和百基拉 (Priscilla)，他们是保罗的热情好客的朋友，很可能在哥林多遇见他之前就已经归信了。^[157]

然而，犹太人很快就回来了，犹太基督徒也回来了，但两者都笼罩在怀疑的阴云之下。塔西佗 (Tacitus) 可能指的就是这个事实，他说，一度被（克劳狄的谕令）压制的基督教迷信（在54年登基的尼禄治下）又再次爆发了。

保罗的书信

在尼禄 (Nero) 统治的早期（54–68年），罗马的会众在整个基督教世界中已广为人知，有数个聚会地点和相当数量的教师。^[158] 正是鉴于这一事实，并预言其未来的重要性，保罗于公元58年从哥林多向它写了那封他最重要的教义书信，为他期待已久的亲自访问铺平道路。三年后，在他前往罗马的旅途中，他在部丢利 (Puteoli)（那不勒斯湾 (bay of Naples) 旁的现代普佐利 (Puzzuolo)）找到了基督徒，他们希望他能与他们同住七日。^[159] 离城约三四十英里，在亚庇乌市 (Appii Forum) 和三馆 (Tres Tabernae)，罗马的弟兄们前来迎接他，渴望见到那封奇妙信件的作者，并从这番亲切关怀的表示中得到了极大的安慰。^[160]

保罗在罗马

他于公元61年初抵达罗马，两年后彼得可能也随之而来，这自然极大地推动了会众的成长。他如所应许的，带来了“基督丰盛的祝福”。连他的捆锁也反倒使福音兴旺，他在自己所租的房子里，在兵丁的看守下，可以自由地传讲福音。^[161] 在他第一次被囚于罗马的全部或部分时间里，他忠心的学生和同伴与他同在：路加 (Luke)，“亲爱的医生”和历史学家；提摩太 (Timothy)，他最亲爱的属灵儿子；约翰·马可 (John Mark)，他曾在第一次宣教旅程中离开他，但在罗马又与他会合，并在他与彼得之间作调解；一位名叫耶数的犹太基督徒，他被称为犹士都 (Justus)，一直忠于他；亚里达古 (Aristarchus)，他从帖撒罗尼迦来的同囚；推基古 (Tychicus)，从以弗所来；以巴弗 (Epaphras) 和阿尼西母 (Onesimus)，从歌罗西来；以巴弗提 (Epaphroditus)，从腓立比来；底马 (Demas)、布田 (Pudens)、利奴 (Linus)、友布罗 (Eubulus) 及其他在被囚期间书信中被光荣提及的人。^[162] 他们组成了一支高尚的福音传道者队伍，在罗马及外地协助年迈的使徒工作。另一方面，他的犹太化派别的敌人也受到刺激而进行反击，出于嫉妒纷争而传基督；但保罗以高尚的克己精神，超越了狭隘的宗派主义，从他崇高的立场上，只要基督被传开，他的国度得以拓展，他就真诚地喜乐。虽然他在《加拉太书》中毫无畏惧地为基督徒的自由辩护，反对基督徒的律法主义，但他宁愿选择一个贫乏狭隘的基督教，也不愿选择在罗马盛行的异教。^[163]

通过这些不同渠道归信的人数，虽然在首都的异教徒大众中消失不见，并且无疑比两万犹太人要少得多，但必定是相当可观的，因为塔西佗 (Tacitus) 提到在64年的尼禄迫害中，有“一大群”基督徒丧生；革利免 (Clement) 提到同一场迫害时，也说有“一大群蒙拣选的人”，他们与保罗和彼得是同时代的人，他们“历经许多侮辱和酷刑，在我们（即罗马基督徒）中间成了最高尚的榜样”。^[164]

罗马教会的构成与巩固

罗马教会的构成一直是许多学术争议和推测的主题。它无疑像巴勒斯坦以外的大多数会众一样，具有混合的性质，外邦元素超过了犹太元素，但要估计其数量力量以及这两个元素彼此间的确切关系是不可能的。^[165]

我们没有理由认为它一下子就完全组织并巩固成一个社群。基督徒分散在整个巨大的城市里，在不同的地点举行他们的灵修聚会。犹太归信者和外邦归信者可能组成了不同的社群，或者说是一个基督徒社群的两个部分。

保罗和彼得，如果他们在罗马相遇（63年后），会很自然地按照耶路撒冷的协议，尽可能地划分他们之间的督导工场，同时促进合一与和谐。这可能是早期和普遍流传的他们是罗马教会共同创始人的传统背后的真相。毫无疑问，他们的临在和殉道巩固了犹太和外邦两个部分。但最终巩固成一个有机的团体，很可能要到耶路撒冷被毁之后才完成。

这次巩固主要是革利免 (Clement) 的工作，他作为统一的罗马教会的第一位主持长老出现。他非常有资格在彼得和保罗的门徒之间充当调解人，因为他自己受到了两者的影响，尽管更多的是受保罗的影响。他写给哥林多人的信，结合了保罗、彼得和雅各书信的鲜明特点，并被称为“一份典型的文献，反映了那已印在合一的罗马教会上的包容原则和宽广同情心。”^[166]

到了二世纪，我们再也看不到一个双重社群的痕迹。但在正统教会之外，异端学派，无论是犹太的还是外邦的，同样在这个世界的大都会找到了早期的归宿。行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 在罗马的传说反映了这一事实。瓦伦提尼 (Valentinus)、马吉安 (Marcion)、普拉克西亚 (Praxeas)、狄奥多徒 (Theodotus)、撒伯流 (Sabellius) 和其他异端魁首都在那里教导过。在异教的罗马，基督教的异端和教派享有宽容，而这在后来被基督教的罗马所剥夺，直到1870年，它在教皇的抗议下成为统一的意大利的首都。

语言

当时罗马教会的语言是希腊语，并一直持续到三世纪。保罗用该语言写信给罗马，也从罗马写信；《罗马书》第十六章中提到的归信者的名字，以及早期主教的名字，大多是希腊文；罗马教会所有早期的文献都是希腊文；甚至所谓的《使徒信经》，在其罗马教会持守的形式中，最初也是希腊文。第一个拉丁文圣经译本不是为罗马制作的，而是为各省，特别是为北非制作的。当时罗马中产阶级中最有才智、最富进取心和最有活力的人是希腊人和讲希腊语的东方人。“成功的商人、熟练的工匠、贵族家庭的亲信仆人和扈从——几乎所有平民的活动和事业，无论是好是坏，都是希腊的。”^[167]

社会状况

罗马的基督徒，即使到二世纪末，绝大多数仍属于社会的下层阶级。他们是工匠、被释放的奴隶、奴隶。拥有财富、权力和知识的罗马贵族阶层鄙视福音为一种粗俗的迷信。同时代的作家们忽略了它，或者只在偶然的情况下提及，并带有明显的蔑视。基督精神与古罗马精神是尖锐且不可调和地对立的，迟早会发生致命的冲突。

但是，如同在雅典和哥林多一样，罗马也有少数光荣的例外。

保罗提到了他在御营全军和凯撒家里传道的成功。^[168]

虽然不太可能，但保罗有可能与斯多葛派哲学家安内乌斯·塞涅卡 (Annaeus Seneca)，即尼禄的老师和布鲁斯 (Burrus) 的朋友，有过短暂的相识；因为他肯定认识他的兄弟安内乌斯·迦流 (Annaeus Gallio)，当时在哥林多担任总督，后在罗马，并且作为囚犯，他可能与作为御营长官的布鲁斯 (Burrus) 有过公务关系；但塞涅卡归信的故事，以及他与保罗的通信，无疑是虔诚的虚构，即便属实，对基督教也并无光彩，因为塞涅卡像培根勋爵 (Lord Bacon) 一样，因其贪婪和卑鄙而背弃了他的崇高道德原则。^[169]

庞波尼娅·格蕾基娜 (Pomponia Graecina)，不列颠征服者奥卢斯·普劳提乌斯 (Aulus Plautius) 的妻子，约在公元57或58年因“信奉外来迷信”而受审（尽管被其丈夫宣判无罪），并过着持续悲伤的生活，直到83年去世，她可能是罗马贵族中第一位基督徒女性，是后来哲罗姆 (Jerome) 的同伴——禁欲的保拉 (Paula) 和欧斯多基ум (Eustochium) 的前辈。^[170] 保罗问安的革劳底亚 (Claudia) 和布田 (Pudens)（提摩太后书 4:21），通过一个巧妙的猜想，被认为是马提雅尔 (Martial) 在其警句中尊敬地提到的同名夫妇；但这值得怀疑。^[171] 一代人之后，图密善皇帝 (Domitian)（81–96年）的两位堂兄弟，执政官T. 弗拉维乌斯·克莱门斯 (T. Flavius Clemens)（95年任）和他的妻子弗拉维娅·多米提拉 (Flavia Domitilla)，被指控为“无神论”，即信奉基督教，并被判刑，丈夫死刑，妻子流放（公元96年）。^[172] 最近在多米提拉墓穴（靠近加利斯都 (Callistus) 墓穴）的发掘证实，弗拉维安 (Flavian) 家族的整个一支都已接受了基督教信仰。在基督教进入罗马五六十年内，就发生了这样的改变。^[173]

Original Text

§ 29. Sources and Literature on St. Paul and his Work. § 30. Paul before his Conversion. § 31. The Conversion of Paul. § 32. The Work of Paul. § 33. Paul’s Missionary Labors. § 34. The Synod of Jerusalem, and the Compromise between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. § 35. The Conservative Reaction, and the Liberal Victory— § 36. Christianity in Rome.

χάριτι θεοῦ εἰμι ὅ εἰμι, καὶ ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ ἡ εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ κενὴ ἐγενήθη, ἀλλὰ περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα, οὐκ ἐγὼ δέ, ἀλλὰ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σὺν ἐμοί.—1 Cor. 15:10.

Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι, ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ.—1 Tim. 1:15.

"Paul’s mind was naturally and perfectly adapted to take up into itself and to develop the free, universal, and absolute principle of Christianity."—Dr. Baur (Paul, II. 281, English translation).

"Did St. Paul’s life end with his own life? May we not rather believe that in a sense higher than Chrysostom ever dreamt of [when he gave him the glorious name of ’the Heart of the world’], the pulses of that mighty heart are still the pulses of the world’s life, still beat in these later ages with even greater force than ever?"—Dean Stanley (Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age. p. 166).

§ 29. Sources and Literature on St. Paul and his Work.

I. Sources.

The authentic sources:

The Epistles of Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles 9:1–30 and 13 to 28. Of the Epistles of Paul the four most important Galatians, Romans, two Corinthians—are universally acknowledged as genuine even by the most exacting critics; the Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians are admitted by nearly all critics; the Pastoral Epistles, especially First Timothy, and Titus, are more or less disputed, but even they bear the stamp of Paul’s genius.

On the coincidences between the Acts and the Epistles see the section on the Acts. Comp. also § 22, pp. 213 sqq.
The legendary and apocryphal sources:

Acta Pauli et Theclae, edition in Greek by E. Grabe (from a Bodleian MS. in Spicileg. SS. PP., Oxon. 1698, tom. I. pp. 95–128; republished by Jones, 1726), and by Tischendorf (from three Paris MSS, in Acta Apost. Apocrypha, Lips. 1851); in Syriac, with an English version by W. Wright (in Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Lond. 1871); Engl. transl. by Alex. Walker (in Clark’s "Ante-Nicene Christian Library," vol. XVI. 279 sqq.). Comp. C. Schlau: Die Acten des Paulus und der Thecla und die ältere Thecla-Legende, Leipz. 1877.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla strongly advocate celibacy. They are probably of Gnostic origin and based on some local tradition. They were originally written, according to Tertullian (De Bapt. cap. 17, comp. Jerome, Catal. cap. 7), by a presbyter in Asia "out of love to Paul," and in support of the heretical opinion that women have the right to preach and to baptize after the example of Thecla; hence the author was deposed. The book was afterwards purged of its most obnoxious features and extensively used in the Catholic church. (See the patristic quotations in Tischendorf’s Prolegomena, p. xxiv.) Thecla is represented as a noble virgin of Iconium, in Lycaonia, who was betrothed to Thamyris, converted by Paul in her seventeenth year, consecrated herself to perpetual virginity, was persecuted, carried to the stake, and thrown before wild beasts, but miraculously delivered, and died 90 years old at Seleucia. In the Greek church she is celebrated as the first female martyr. Paul is described at the beginning of this book (Tischend. p. 41) as "little in stature, bald-headed, bow-legged, well-built (or vigorous), with knitted eye-brows, rather long-nosed, full of grace, appearing now as a man, and now having the face of an angel." From this description Renan has borrowed in part his fancy-sketch of Paul’s personal appearance.

Acta Pauli (Πράξεις Παύλου, used by Origen and ranked by Eusebius with the Ἀντιλεγόμενα or rather νόθα). They are, like the Acta Petri (Πράξεις, or Περίοδοι Πέτρου), a Gnostic reconstruction of the canonical Acts and ascribed to the authorship of St. Linus. Preserved only in fragments.

Acta Petri et Pauli. A Catholic adaptation of an Ebionite work. The Greek and Latin text was published first in a complete form by Thilo, Halle, 1837-’38, the Greek by Tischendorf (who collated six MSS.) in his Acta Apost. Apoc. 1851, 1–39; English transl. by Walker in "Ante-Nicene Libr., " XVI. 256 sqq. This book records the arrival of Paul in Rome, his meeting with Peter and Simon Magus, their trial before the tribunal of Nero, and the martyrdom of Peter by crucifixion, and of Paul by decapitation. The legend of Domine quo vadis is here recorded of Peter, and the story of Perpetua is interwoven with the martyrdom of Paul.

The pseudo-Clementine Homilies, of the middle of the second century or later, give a malignant Judaizing caricature of Paul under the disguise of Simon Magus (in part at least), and misrepresent him as an antinomian arch-heretic; while Peter, the proper hero of this romance, is glorified as the apostle of pure, primitive Christianity.

The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, mentioned by Jerome (De vir. ill. c. 12) and Augustin (Ep. ad Maced. 153, al. 54), and often copied, though with many variations, edited by Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., and in several editions of Seneca. It consists of eight letters of Seneca and six of Paul. They are very poor in thought and style, full of errors of chronology and history, and undoubtedly a forgery. They arose from the correspondence of the moral maxims of Seneca with those of Paul, which is more apparent than real, and from the desire to recommend the Stoic philosopher to the esteem of the Christians, or to recommend Christianity to the students of Seneca and the Stoic philosophy. Paul was protected at Corinth by Seneca’s brother, Gallio (Acts 18:12–16), and might have become acquainted with the philosopher who committed suicide at Rome in 65, but there is no trace of such acquaintance. Comp. Amédée Fleury: Saint-Paul et Sénèque (Paris, 1853, 2 vols.); C. Aubertin: Étude critique sur les rapports supposé entre Sénèque et Saint-Paul (Par. 1887); F. C. Baur: Seneca und Paulus, 1858 and 1876; Reuss: art. Seneca in Herzog, vol. XIV. 273 sqq.; Lightfoot: Excursus in Com. on Philippians, pp 268–331; art. Paul and Seneca, in "Westminster Review," Lond. 1880, pp. 309 sqq.

II. Biographical and Critical.

Bishop Pearson (d. 1686): Annales Paulini. Lond. 1688. In the various editions of his works, and also separately: Annals of St. Paul, transl. with geographical and critical notes. Cambridge, 1825.
Lord Lyttleton (d. 1773): The Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul. 3d ed. Lond. 1747. Apologetic as an argument for the truth of Christianity from the personal experience of the author.
Archdeacon William Paley (d. 1805): Horae Paulinae: or The Truth of the Scripture History of Paul evinced by a comparison of the Epistles which bear his name, with the Acts of the Apostles and with one another. Lond. 1790 (and subsequent editions). Still valuable for apologetic purposes.
J. Hemsen: Der Apostel Paulus. Gött. 1830.
Carl Schrader: Der Apostel Paulus. Leipz. 1830-’36. 5 Parts. Rationalistic.
F. Chr. Baur (d. 1860): Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi. Tüb. 1845, second ed. by E. Zeller, Leipzig, 1866-’67, in 2 vols. Transl. into English by Allan Menzies. Lond. (Williams & Norgate) 1873 and ’75, 2 vols. This work of the great leader of the philosophico-critical reconstruction of the Apostolic Age (we may call him the modern Marcion) was preceded by several special treatises on the Christ-Party in Corinth (1831), on the Pastoral Epistles (1835), on the Epistle to the Romans (1836), and a Latin programme on Stephen’s address before the Sanhedrin (1829). It marks an epoch in the literature on Paul and opened new avenues of research. It is the standard work of the Tübingen school of critics.
Conybeare and Howson: The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. Lond. 1853, 2 vols., and N. York, 1854; 2d ed. Lond. 1856, and later editions; also an abridgment in one vol. A very useful and popular work, especially on the geography of Paul’s travels. Comp. also Dean Howson: Character of St. Paul (Lond. 1862; 2d ed. 1864); Scenes from the Life of St. Paul (1867); Metaphors of St. Paul (1868); The Companions of St. Paul (1871). Most of these books were republished in America.
Ad. Monod (d. 1856): Saint Paul. Six sermons. See his Sermons, Paris, 1860, vol. II. 121–296. The same in German and English.
W. F. Besser: Paulus. Leipz. 1861. English transl. by F. Bultmann, with Introduction by J. S. Howson. Lond. and N. York, 1864.
F. Bungener: St. Paul, sa vie, son oeuvre et ses épitres. Paris, 1865.
A. Hausrath: Der Apostel Paulus. Heidelb. 1865; 2d ed. 1872. Comp. also his N. T. liche Zeitgeschichte, Part III.
M. Krenkel: Paulus, der Apostel der Heiden. Leipz. 1869.
Ernest Renan: Saint Paul. Paris, 1869. Transl. from the French by J. Lockwood, N. York, 1869. Very fresh and entertaining, but full ,of fancies and errors.
Thomas Lewin (author of "Fasti Sacri") The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, new ed. Lond. and N. York, 1875, 2 vols. A magnificent work of many years’ labor, with 370 illustrations.
Canon F. W. Farrar: The Life and Work of St. Paul. Lond. and N. York, 1879, 2 vols. Learned and eloquent.
W. M. Taylor: Paul as a Missionary. N. York, 1881.

As biographies, the works of Conybeare and Howson, Lewin, and Farrar are the most complete and instructive.

Also the respective sections in the Histories of the Ap. Age by Neander, Lechler, Thiersch, Lange, Schaff (226–347 and 634–640), Pressensé.

III. Chronological.

Thomas Lewin: Fasti Sacri, a Key to the Chronology of the New Testament. London, 1865. Chronological Tables from b.c. 70 to a.d. 70.
Wieseler: Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters. Göttingen, 1848.

IV. Doctrinal and Exegetical.

L. Usteri: Entwicklung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs. Zürich, 1824, 6th ed. 1851.
A. P. Dähne: Entwicklung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs. Halle, 1835.
Baur: Paulus. See above.
R. A. Lipsius: Die Paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre. Leipz. 1853.
C. Holsten: Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus. Rostock, 1868. This book, contains: 1. An essay on the Christusvision des Paulus und die Genesis des paulinischen Evangeliums, which had previously appeared in Hilgenfeld’s "Zeitschrift," 1861, but is here enlarged by a reply to Beyschlag; 2. Die Messiasvision des Petrus (new); 3. An analysis of the Epistle to the Galatians (1859); 4. A discussion of the meaning of σάρξ in Paul’s system (1855). By the same: Das Evangelium des Paulus. Part I. Berlin, 1880.
TH. Simar (R. C.): Die Theologie des heil. Paulus. Freiberg, 1864.
Ernesti: Die Ethik des Ap. Paulus. Braunschweig, 1868; 3d ed. 1880.
R. Schmidt: Die Christologie des Ap. Paulus. Gött., 1870.
Matthew Arnold: St. Paul and Protestantism. Lond. 1870; 3d ed. 1875.
William Josiah Irons (Episcop.): Christianity as taught by St. Paul. Eight Bampton Lectures for 1870. Oxf. and Lond. 1871; 2d ed. 1876.
A. Sabatier: L’apôtre Paul. Esquisse d’une histoire de sa pensée. Strasb. and Paris, 1870.
Otto Pfleiderer (Prof. in Berlin): Der Paulinismus. Leipzig, 1873. Follows Baur and Holsten in developing the doctrinal system of Paul from his conversion. English translation by E. Peters. Lond. 1877, 2 vols. Lectures on the Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity (The Hibbert Lectures). Trsl. by J. Fr. Smith. Lond. and N. Y. 1885. Also his Urchristenthum, 1887.
C. Weizsäcker: D. Apost. Zeitalter (1886), pp. 68–355.
Fr. Bethge: Die Paulinischen Reden der Apostelgesch. Göttingen, 1887.

IV. Commentaries.

The Commentators on Paul’s Epistles (in whole or in part) are so numerous that we can only mention some of the most important:

On all the Pauline Epp.: Calvin, Beza, Estius (b.c.), Corn. A Lapide (R. C.), Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Lange (Am. ed. enlarged), Ewald, Von Hofmann, Reuss (French), Alford, Wordsworth, Speaker’s Com., Ellicott (Pop. Com.), Schaff (Pop. Com., vol. III. 1882). Compare also P. J. Gloag: Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. Edinburgh, 1874.
On single Epp.: Romans by Tholuck (5th ed. 1856), Fritzsche (3 vols. in Latin), Reiche, Rückert, Philippi (3d ed. 1866, English transl. by Banks, 1878-’79, 2 vols.), Mos. Stuart, Turner, Hodge, Forbes, Jowett, Shedd (1879), Godet (L’épitre aux Romains, 1879 and 1880, 2 vols).—Corinthians by Neander, Osiander, Hodge, Stanley, Heinrici, Edwards, Godet, Ellicott.—Galatians by Luther, Winer, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Jowett, Eadie, Ellicott, Lightfoot.—Ephesians by Harless, Matthies, Stier, Hodge, Eadie, Ellicott, J. L. Davies.—Other minor Epp. explained by Bleek (Col., Philemon, and Eph.), Koch (Thess.), van Hengel (Phil.), Eadie (Col.), Ellicott (Phil., Col., Thess., Philem.), Lightfoot (Phil, Col., Philemon).—Pastoral Epp. by Matthies, Mack (R. C.), Beck (ed. Lindenmeyer, 1879), Holtzmann (1880), Fairbairn, Ellicott, Weiss (1886), Knoke (1887), Kölling (1887).
The Commentaries on the second part of Acts by De Wette, Meyer, Baumgarten, Alexander, Hackett, Lechler, Gloag, Plumptre, Jacobson, Lumby, Howson and Spence.

§ 30. Paul before his Conversion.

His Natural Outfit.

We now approach the apostle of the Gentiles who decided the victory of Christianity as a universal religion, who labored more, both in word and deed, than all his colleagues, and who stands out, in lonely grandeur, the most remarkable and influential character in history. His youth as well as his closing years are involved in obscurity, save that he began a persecutor and ended a martyr, but the midday of his life is better known than that of any other apostle, and is replete with burning thoughts and noble deeds that can never die, and gather strength with the progress of the gospel from age to age and country to country.

Saul or Paul(1) was of strictly Jewish parentage, but was born, a few years after Christ,(2) in the renowned Grecian commercial and literary city of Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia, and inherited the rights of a Roman citizen. He received a learned Jewish education at Jerusalem in the school of the Pharisean Rabbi, Gamaliel, a grandson of Hillel, not remaining an entire stranger to Greek literature, as his style, his dialectic method, his allusions to heathen religion and philosophy, and his occasional quotations from heathen poets show. Thus, a "Hebrew of the Hebrews,"(3) yet at the same time a native Hellenist, and a Roman citizen, be combined in himself, so to speak, the three great nationalities of the ancient world, and was endowed with all the natural qualifications for a universal apostleship. He could argue with the Pharisees as a son of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, and as a disciple of the renowned Gamaliel, surnamed "the Glory of the Law." He could address the Greeks in their own beautiful tongue and with the convincing force of their logic. Clothed with the dignity and majesty of the Roman people, he could travel safely over the whole empire with the proud watchword: Civis Romanus sum.

This providential outfit for his future work made him for a while the most dangerous enemy of Christianity, but after his conversion its most useful promoter. The weapons of destruction were turned into weapons of construction. The engine was reversed, and the direction changed; but it remained the same engine, and its power was increased under the new inspiration.

The intellectual and moral endowment of Saul was of the highest order. The sharpest thinking was blended with the tenderest feeling, the deepest mind with the strongest will. He had Semitic fervor, Greek versatility, and Roman energy. Whatever he was, he was with his whole soul. He was totus in illis, a man of one idea and of one purpose, first as a Jew, then as a Christian. His nature was martial and heroic. Fear was unknown to him—except the fear of God, which made him fearless of man. When yet a youth, he had risen to high eminence; and had he remained a Jew, he might have become a greater Rabbi than even Hillel or Gamaliel, as he surpassed them both in original genius and fertility of thought.

Paul was the only scholar among the apostles. He never displays his learning, considering it of no account as compared with the excellency of the knowledge of Christ, for whom he suffered the loss of all things,(4) but he could not conceal it, and turned it to the best use after his conversion. Peter and John had natural genius, but no scholastic education; Paul had both, and thus became the founder of Christian theology and philosophy.

His Education.

His training was thoroughly Jewish, rooted and grounded in the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, and those traditions of the elders which culminated in the Talmud.(5) He knew the Hebrew and Greek Bible almost by heart. In his argumentative epistles, when addressing Jewish converts, he quotes from the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Psalms, now literally, now freely, sometimes ingeniously combining several passages or verbal reminiscences, or reading between the lines in a manner which betrays the profound student and master of the hidden depths of the word of God, and throws a flood of light on obscure passages.(6) He was quite familiar with the typical and allegorical methods of interpretation; and he occasionally and incidentally uses Scriptural arguments, or illustrations rather, which strike a sober scholar as far-fetched and fanciful, though they were quite conclusive to a Jewish reader.(7) But he never bases a truth on such an illustration without an independent argument; he never indulges in the exegetical impositions and frivolities of those "letter-worshipping Rabbis who prided themselves on suspending dogmatic mountains by textual hairs." Through the revelation of Christ, the Old Testament, instead of losing itself in the desert of the Talmud or the labyrinth of the Kabbala, became to him a book of life, full of types and promises of the great facts and truths of the gospel salvation. In Abraham he saw the father of the faithful, in Habakkuk a preacher of justification by faith, in the paschal lamb a type of Christ slain for the sins of the world, in the passage of Israel through the Red Sea a prefigurement of Christian baptism, and in the manna of the wilderness a type of the bread of life in the Lord’s Supper.

The Hellenic culture of Paul is a matter of dispute, denied by some, unduly exalted by others. He no doubt acquired in the home of his boyhood and early manhood(8) a knowledge of the Greek language, for Tarsus was at that time the seat of one of the three universities of the Roman empire, surpassing in some respects even Athens and Alexandria, and furnished tutors to the imperial family. His teacher, Gamaliel, was comparatively free from the rabbinical abhorrence and contempt of heathen literature. After his conversion he devoted his life to the salvation of the heathen, and lived for years at Tarsus, Ephesus, Corinth, and other cities of Greece, and became a Greek to the Greeks in order to save them. It is scarcely conceivable that a man of universal human sympathies, and so wide awake to the deepest problems of thought, as he, should have under such circumstances taken no notice of the vast treasures of Greek philosophy, poetry, and history. He would certainly do what we expect every missionary to China or India to do from love to the race which he is to benefit, and from a desire to extend his usefulness. Paul very aptly, though only incidentally, quotes three times from Greek poets, not only a proverbial maxim from Menander,(9) and a hexameter from Epimenides,(10) which may have passed into common use, but also a half-hexameter with a connecting particle, which he must have read in the tedious astronomical poem of his countryman, Aratus (about b.c. 270), or in the sublime hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter, in both of which the passage occurs.(11) He borrows some of his favorite metaphors from the Grecian games; he disputed with Greek philosophers of different schools and addressed them from the Areopagus with consummate wisdom and adaptation to the situation; some suppose that he alludes even to the terminology of the Stoic philosophy when he speaks of the "rudiments" or "elements of the world."(12) He handles the Greek language, not indeed with classical purity and elegance, yet with an almost creative vigor, transforming it into an obedient organ of new ideas, and pressing into his service the oxymoron, the paronomasia, the litotes, and other rhetorical figures.(13) Yet all this does by no means prove a regular study or extensive knowledge of Greek literature, but is due in part to native genius. His more than Attic urbanity and gentlemanly refinement which breathe in his Epistles to Philemon and the Philippians, must be traced to the influence of Christianity rather than his intercourse with accomplished Greeks. His Hellenic learning seems to have been only casual, incidental, and altogether subordinate to his great aim. In this respect he differed widely from the learned Josephus, who affected Attic purity of style, and from Philo, who allowed the revealed truth of the Mosaic religion to be controlled, obscured, and perverted by Hellenic philosophy. Philo idealized and explained away the Old Testament by allegorical impositions which he substituted for grammatical expositions; Paul spiritualized the Old Testament and drew out its deepest meaning. Philo’s Judaism evaporated in speculative abstractions, Paul’s Judaism was elevated and transformed into Christian realities.

His Zeal for Judaism.

Saul was a Pharisee of the strictest sect, not indeed of the hypocritical type, so witheringly rebuked by our Saviour, but of the honest, truth-loving and truth-seeking sort, like that of Nicodemus and Gamaliel. His very fanaticism in persecution arose from the intensity of his conviction and his zeal for the religion of his fathers. He persecuted in ignorance, and that diminished, though it did not abolish, his guilt. He probably never saw or heard Jesus until he appeared to him at Damascus. He may have been at Tarsus at the time of the crucifixion and resurrection.(14) But with his Pharisaic education he regarded Jesus of Nazareth, like his teachers, as a false Messiah, a rebel, a blasphemer, who was justly condemned to death. And he acted according to his conviction. He took the most prominent part in the persecution of Stephen and delighted in his death. Not satisfied with this, he procured from the Sanhedrin, which had the oversight of all the synagogues and disciplinary punishments for offences against the law, full power to persecute and arrest the scattered disciples. Thus armed, he set out for Damascus, the capital of Syria, which numbered many synagogues. He was determined to exterminate the dangerous sect from the face of the earth, for the glory of God. But the height of his opposition was the beginning of his devotion to Christianity.

His External Relations and Personal Appearance.

On the subordinate questions of Paul’s external condition and relations we have no certain information. Being a Roman citizen, he belonged to the respectable class of society, but must have been poor; for he depended for support on a trade which he learned in accordance with rabbinical custom; it was the trade of tent-making, very common in Cilicia, and not profitable except in large cities.(15)

He had a sister living at Jerusalem whose son was instrumental in saving his life.(16)

He was probably never married. Some suppose that he was a widower. Jewish and rabbinical custom, the completeness of his moral character, his ideal conception of marriage as reflecting the mystical union of Christ with his church, his exhortations to conjugal, parental, and filial duties, seem to point to experimental knowledge of domestic life. But as a Christian missionary moving from place to place, and exposed to all sorts of hardship and persecution, he felt it his duty to abide alone.(17) He sacrificed the blessings of home and family to the advancement of the kingdom of Christ.(18)

His "bodily presence was weak, and his speech contemptible" (of no value), in the superficial judgment of the Corinthians, who missed the rhetorical ornaments, yet could not help admitting that his "letters were weighty and strong."(19) Some of the greatest men have been small in size, and some of the purest souls forbidding in body. Socrates was the homeliest, and yet the wisest of Greeks. Neander, a converted Jew, like Paul, was short, feeble, and strikingly odd in his whole appearance, but a rare humility, benignity, and heavenly aspiration beamed from his face beneath his dark and bushy eyebrows. So we may well imagine that the expression of Paul’s countenance was highly intellectual and spiritual, and that he looked "sometimes like a man and sometimes like an angel."(20)

He was afflicted with a mysterious, painful, recurrent, and repulsive physical infirmity, which he calls a "thorn in the flesh, " and which acted as a check upon spiritual pride and self-exultation over his abundance of revelations.(21) He bore the heavenly treasure in an earthly vessel and his strength was made perfect in weakness.(22) But all the more must we admire the moral heroism which turned weakness itself into an element of strength, and despite pain and trouble and persecution carried the gospel salvation triumphantly from Damascus to Rome.

§ 31. The Conversion of Paul.

Εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός ... ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν — Gal. 1:15, 16.

The conversion of Paul marks not only a turning-point in his personal history, but also an important epoch in the history of the apostolic church, and consequently in the history of mankind. It was the most fruitful event since the miracle of Pentecost, and secured the universal victory of Christianity.

The transformation of the most dangerous persecutor into the most successful promoter of Christianity is nothing less than a miracle of divine grace. It rests on the greater miracle of the resurrection of Christ. Both are inseparably connected; without the resurrection the conversion would have been impossible, and on the other hand the conversion of such a man and with such results is one of the strongest proofs of the resurrection.

The bold attack of Stephen—the forerunner of Paul—upon the hard, stiff-necked Judaism which had crucified the Messiah, provoked a determined and systematic attempt on the part of the Sanhedrin to crucify Jesus again by destroying his church. In this struggle for life and death Saul the Pharisee, the bravest and strongest of the rising rabbis, was the willing and accepted leader.

After the martyrdom of Stephen and the dispersion of the congregation of Jerusalem, he proceeded to Damascus in suit of the fugitive disciples of Jesus, as a commissioner of the Sanhedrin, a sort of inquisitor-general, with full authority and determination to stamp out the Christian rebellion, and to bring all the apostates he could find, whether they were men or women, in chains to the holy city to be condemned by the chief priests.

Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world, known in the days of Abraham, and bursts upon the traveller like a vision of paradise amidst a burning and barren wilderness of sand; it is watered by the never-failing rivers Abana and Pharpar (which Naaman of old preferred to all the waters of Israel), and embosomed in luxuriant gardens of flowers and groves of tropical fruit trees; hence glorified by Eastern poets as "the Eye of the Desert."

But a far higher vision than this earthly paradise was in store for Saul as he approached the city. A supernatural light from heaven, brighter than the Syrian sun, suddenly flashed around him at midday, and Jesus of Nazareth, whom he persecuted in his humble disciples, appeared to him in his glory as the exalted Messiah, asking him in the Hebrew tongue: "Shaûl, Shaûl, why persecutest thou Me?(23) It was a question both of rebuke and of love, and it melted his heart. He fell prostrate to the ground. He saw and heard, he trembled and obeyed, he believed and rejoiced. As he rose from the earth he saw no man. Like a helpless child, blinded by the dazzling light, he was led to Damascus, and after three days of blindness and fasting he was cured and baptized—not by Peter or James or John, but—by one of the humble disciples whom he had come to destroy. The haughty, self-righteous, intolerant, raging Pharisee was changed into an humble, penitent, grateful, loving servant of Jesus. He threw away self-righteousness, learning, influence, power, prospects, and cast in his lot with a small, despised sect at the risk of his life. If there ever was an honest, unselfish, radical, and effective change of conviction and conduct, it was that of Saul of Tarsus. He became, by a creative act of the Holy Spirit, a "new creature in Christ Jesus."(24)

We have three full accounts of this event in the Acts, one from Luke, two from Paul himself, with slight variations in detail, which only confirm the essential harmony.(25) Paul also alludes to it five or six times in his Epistles.(26) In all these passages he represents the change as an act brought about by a direct intervention of Jesus, who revealed himself in his glory from heaven, and struck conviction into his mind like lightning at midnight. He compares it to the creative act of God when He commanded the light to shine out of darkness.(27) He lays great stress on the fact that he was converted and called to the apostolate directly by Christ, without any human agency; that he learned his gospel of free and universal grace by revelation, and not from the older apostles, whom he did not even see till three years after his call.(28)

The conversion, indeed, was not a moral compulsion, but included the responsibility of assent or dissent. God converts nobody by force or by magic. He made man free, and acts upon him as a moral being. Paul might have "disobeyed the heavenly vision."(29) He might have "kicked against the goads," though it was "hard" (not impossible) to do so.(30) These words imply some psychological preparation, some doubt and misgiving as to his course, some moral conflict between the flesh and the spirit, which he himself described twenty years afterwards from personal experience, and which issues in the cry of despair: "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"(31) On his journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, which takes a full week on foot or horseback—the distance being about 140 miles—as he was passing, in the solitude of his own thoughts, through Samaria, Galilee, and across Mount Hermon, he had ample time for reflection, and we may well imagine how the shining face of the martyr Stephen, as he stood like a holy angel before the Sanhedrin, and as in the last moment he prayed for his murderers, was haunting him like a ghost and warning him to stop his mad career.

Yet we must not overrate this preparation or anticipate his riper experience in the three days that intervened between his conversion and his baptism, and during the three years of quiet meditation in Arabia. He was no doubt longing for truth and for righteousness, but there was a thick veil over his mental eye which could only be taken away by a hand from without; access to his heart was barred by an iron door of prejudice which had to be broken in by Jesus himself. On his way to Damascus he was "yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," and thinking he was doing "God service;" he was, to use his own language, "beyond measure" persecuting the church of God and endeavoring to destroy it, "being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of his fathers" than many of his age, when "it pleased God to reveal his Son in him." Moreover it is only in the light of faith that we see the midnight darkness of our sin, and it is only beneath the cross of Christ that we feel the whole crushing weight of guilt and the unfathomable depth of God’s redeeming love. No amount of subjective thought and reflection could have brought about that radical change in so short a time. It was the objective appearance of Jesus that effected it.

This appearance implied the resurrection and the ascension, and this was the irresistible evidence of His Messiahship, God’s own seal of approval upon the work of Jesus. And the resurrection again shed a new light upon His death on the cross, disclosing it as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, as the means of procuring pardon and peace consistent with the claims of divine justice. What a revelation! That same Jesus of Nazareth whom he hated and persecuted as a false prophet justly crucified between two robbers, stood before Saul as the risen, ascended, and glorified Messiah! And instead of crushing the persecutor as he deserved, He pardoned him and called him to be His witness before Jews and Gentiles! This revelation was enough for an orthodox Jew waiting for the hope of Israel to make him a Christian, and enough for a Jew of such force of character to make him an earnest and determined Christian. The logic of his intellect and the energy of his will required that he should love and promote the new faith with the same enthusiasm with which he had hated and persecuted it; for hatred is but inverted love, and the intensity of love and hatred depends on the strength of affection and the ardor of temper.

With all the suddenness and radicalness of the transformation there is nevertheless a bond of unity between Saul the Pharisee and Paul the Christian. It was the same person with the same end in view, but in opposite directions. We must remember that he was not a worldly, indifferent, cold-blooded man, but an intensely religious man. While persecuting the church, he was "blameless" as touching the righteousness of the law.(32) He resembled the rich youth who had observed the commandments, yet lacked the one things needful, and of whom Mark says that Jesus "loved him."(33) He was not converted from infidelity to faith, but from a lower faith to a purer faith, from the religion of Moses to the religion of Christ, from the theology of the law to the theology of the gospel. How shall a sinner be justified before the tribunal of a holy God? That was with him the question of questions before as well as after his conversion; not a scholastic question merely, but even far more a moral and religious question. For righteousness, to the Hebrew mind, is conformity to the will of God as expressed in his revealed law, and implies life eternal as its reward. The honest and earnest pursuit of righteousness is the connecting link between the two periods of Paul’s life. First he labored to secure it by works of the law, then obedience of faith. What he had sought in vain by his fanatical zeal for the traditions of Judaism, he found gratuitously and at once by trust in the cross of Christ: pardon and peace with God. By the discipline of the Mosaic law as a tutor he was led beyond its restraints and prepared for manhood and freedom. Through the law he died to the law that he might live unto God. His old self, with its lusts, was crucified with Christ, so that henceforth he lived no longer himself, but Christ lived in him.(34) He was mystically identified with his Saviour and had no separate existence from him. The whole of Christianity, the whole of life, was summed up to him in the one word: Christ. He determined to know nothing save Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins, and risen again for our justification.(35)

His experience of justification by faith, his free pardon and acceptance by Christ were to him the strongest stimulus to gratitude and consecration. His great sin of persecution, like Peter’s denial, was overruled for his own good: the remembrance of it kept him humble, guarded him against temptation, and intensified his zeal and devotion. "I am the least of the apostles," he said in unfeigned humility that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am; and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."(36) This confession contains, in epitome, the whole meaning of his life and work.

The idea of justification by the free grace of God in Christ through a living faith which makes Christ and his merits our own and leads to consecration and holiness, is the central idea of Paul’s Epistles. His whole theology, doctrinal, ethical, and practical, lies, like a germ, in his conversion; but it was actually developed by a sharp conflict with Judaizing teachers who continued to trust in the law for righteousness and salvation, and thus virtually frustrated the grace of God and made Christ’s death unnecessary and fruitless.

Although Paul broke radically with Judaism and opposed the Pharisaical notion of legal righteousness at every step and with all his might, he was far from opposing the Old Testament or the Jewish people. Herein he shows his great wisdom and moderation, and his infinite superiority over Marcion and other ultra- and pseudo-Pauline reformers. He now expounded the Scriptures as a direct preparation for the gospel, the law as a schoolmaster leading to Christ, Abraham as the father of the faithful. And as to his countrymen after the flesh, he loved them more than ever before. Filled with the amazing love of Christ who had pardoned him, "the chief of sinners," he was ready for the greatest possible sacrifice if thereby he might save them. His startling language in the ninth chapter of the Romans is not rhetorical exaggeration, but the genuine expression of that heroic self-denial and devotion which animated Moses, and which culminated in the sacrifice of the eternal Son of God on the cross of Calvary.(37)

Paul’s conversion was at the same time his call to the apostleship, not indeed to a place among the Twelve (for the vacancy of Judas was filled), but to the independent apostleship of the Gentiles.(38) Then followed an uninterrupted activity of more than a quarter of a century, which for interest and for permanent and ever-growing usefulness has no parallel in the annals of history, and affords an unanswerable proof of the sincerity of his conversion and the truth of Christianity.(39)

Analogous Conversions.

God deals with men according to their peculiar character and condition. As in Elijah’s vision on Mount Horeb, God appears now in the mighty rushing wind that uproots the trees, now in the earthquake that rends the rocks, now in the consuming fire, now in the still small voice. Some are suddenly converted, and can remember the place and hour; others are gradually and imperceptibly changed in spirit and conduct; still others grow up unconsciously in the Christian faith from the mother’s knee and the baptismal font. The stronger the will the more force it requires to overcome the resistance, and the more thorough and lasting is the change. Of all sudden and radical conversions that of Saul was the most sudden and the most radical. In several respects it stands quite alone, as the man himself and his work. Yet there are faint analogies in history. The divines who most sympathized with his spirit and system of doctrine, passed through a similar experience, and were much aided by his example and writings. Among these Augustin, Calvin, and Luther are the most conspicuous.

St. Augustin, the son of a pious mother and a heathen father, was led astray into error and vice and wandered for years through the labyrinth of heresy and scepticism, but his heart was restless and homesick after God. At last, when he attained to the thirty-third year of his life (Sept., 386), the fermentation of his soul culminated in a garden near Milan, far away from his African home, when the Spirit of God, through the combined agencies of the unceasing prayers of Monica, the sermons of Ambrose, the example of St. Anthony, the study of Cicero and Plato, of Isaiah and Paul, brought about a change not indeed as wonderful—for no visible appearance of Christ was vouchsafed to him—but as sincere and lasting as that of the apostle. As he was lying in the dust of repentance and wrestling with God in prayer for deliverance, be suddenly heard a sweet voice as from heaven, calling out again and again: ’Take and read, take and read!" He opened the holy book and read the exhortation of Paul: "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." It was a voice of God; he obeyed it, he completely changed his course of life, and became the greatest and most useful teacher of his age.

Of Calvin’s conversion we know very little, but he himself characterizes it as a sudden change (subita conversio) from papal superstition to the evangelical faith. In this respect it resembles that of Paul rather than Augustin. He was no sceptic, no heretic, no immoral man, but as far as we know, a pious Romanist until the brighter life of the Reformation burst on his mind from the Holy Scriptures and showed him a more excellent way. "Only one haven of salvation is left for our souls," he says, "and that is the mercy of God in Christ. We are saved by grace—not by our merits, not by our works." He consulted not with flesh and blood, and burned the bridge after him. He renounced all prospects of a brilliant career, and exposed himself to the danger of persecution and death. He exhorted and strengthened the timid Protestants of France, usually closing with the words of Paul If God be for us, who can be against us?" He prepared in Paris a flaming address on reform, which was ordered to be burned; he escaped from persecution in a basket from a window, like Paul at Damascus, and wandered for two years as a fugitive evangelist from place to place until he found his sphere of labor in Geneva. With his conversion was born his Pauline theology, which sprang from his brain like Minerva from the head of Jupiter. Paul never had a more logical and theological commentator than John Calvin.(40)

But the most Paul-like man in history is the leader of the German Reformation, who combined in almost equal proportion depth of mind, strength of will, tenderness of heart, and a fiery vehemence of temper, and was the most powerful herald of evangelical freedom; though inferior to Augustin and Calvin (not to say Paul) in self-discipline, consistency, and symmetry of character.(41) Luther’s commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, though not a grammatical or logical exposition, is a fresh reproduction and republication of the Epistle against the self-righteousness, and bondage of the papacy. Luther’s first conversion took place in his twenty-first year (1505), when, as a student of law at Erfurt, on his return from a visit to his parents, he was so frightened by a fearful thunder-storm and flashes of lightning that he exclaimed: "Help, dear St. Anna, I will become a monk!" But that conversion, although it has often been compared with that of the apostle, had nothing to do with his Paulinism and Protestantism; it made him a pious Catholic, it induced him to flee from the world to the retreat of a convent for the salvation of his soul. And he became one of the most humble, obedient, and self-denying of monks, as Paul was one of the most earnest and zealous of Pharisees. "If ever a monk got to heaven by monkery," says Luther, "I ought to have gotten there." But the more he sought righteousness and peace by ascetic self denial and penal exercises, the more painfully he felt the weight of sin and the wrath of God, although unable to mention to his confessor any particular transgression. The discipline of the law drove him to the brink of despair, when by the kind interposition of Staupitz he was directed away from himself to the cross of Christ, as the only source of pardon and peace, and found, by implicit faith in His all-sufficient merits, that righteousness which he had vainly sought in his own strength.(42) This, his second conversion, as we may call it, which occurred several years later (1508), and gradually rather than suddenly, made him an evangelical freeman in Christ and prepared him for the great conflict with Romanism, which began in earnest with the nailing of the ninety-nine theses against the traffic in indulgences (1517). The intervening years may be compared to Paul’s sojourn in Arabia and the subordinate labors preceding his first great missionary tour.

False Explanations.

Various attempts have been made by ancient heretics and modern rationalists to explain Paul’s conversion in a purely natural way, but they have utterly failed, and by their failure they indirectly confirm the true view as given by the apostle himself and as held in all ages by the Christian church.(43)

The Theory of Fraud.—The heretical and malignant faction of the Judaizers was disposed to attribute Paul’s conversion to selfish motives, or to the influence of evil spirits.

The Ebionites spread the lie that Paul was of heathen parents, fell in love with the daughter of the high priest in Jerusalem, became a proselyte and submitted to circumcision in order to secure her, but failing in his purpose, he took revenge and attacked the circumcision, the sabbath, and the whole Mosaic law.(44)

In the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which represent a speculative form of the Judaizing heresy, Paul is assailed under the disguise of Simon Magus, the arch-heretic, who struggled antinomian heathenism into the church. The manifestation of Christ was either a manifestation of his wrath, or a deliberate lie.(45)
The Rationalistic Theory of Thunder and Lightning.—It attributes the conversion to physical causes, namely, a violent storm and the delirium of a burning Syrian fever, in which Paul superstitiously mistook the thunder for the voice of God and the lightning for a heavenly vision.(46) But the record says nothing about thunderstorm and fever, and both combined could not produce such an effect upon any sensible man, much less upon the history of the world. Who ever heard the thunder speak in Hebrew or in any other articulate language? And had not Paul and Luke eyes and ears and common sense, as well as we, to distinguish an ordinary phenomenon of nature from a supernatural vision?
The Vision-Hypothesis resolves the conversion into a natural psychological process and into an honest self-delusion. It is the favorite theory of modern rationalists, who scorn all other explanations, and profess the highest respect for the intellectual and moral purity and greatness of Paul.(47) It is certainly more rational and creditable than the second hypothesis, because it ascribes the mighty change not to outward and accidental phenomena which pass away, but to internal causes. It assumes that an intellectual and moral fermentation was going on for some time in the mind of Paul, and resulted at last, by logical necessity, in an entire change of conviction and conduct, without any supernatural influence, the very possibility of which is denied as being inconsistent with the continuity of natural development. The miracle in this case was simply the mythical and symbolical reflection of the commanding presence of Jesus in the thoughts of the apostle.

That Paul saw a vision, he says himself, but he meant, of course, a real, objective, personal appearance of Christ from heaven, which was visible to his eyes and audible to his ears, and at the same time a revelation to his mind through the medium of the senses.(48) The inner spiritual manifestation(49) was more important than the external, but both combined produced conviction. The vision-theory turns the appearance of Christ into a purely subjective imagination, which the apostle mistook for an objective fact.(50)

It is incredible that a man of sound, clear, and keen mind as that of Paul undoubtedly was, should have made such a radical and far reaching blunder as to confound subjective reflections with an objective appearance of Jesus whom he persecuted, and to ascribe solely to an act of divine mercy what he must have known to be the result of his own thoughts, if he thought at all.

The advocates of this theory throw the appearances of the risen Lord to the older disciples, the later visions of Peter, Philip, and John in the Apocalypse, into the same category of subjective illusions in the high tide of nervous excitement and religious enthusiasm. It is plausibly maintained that Paul was an enthusiast, fond of visions and revelations,(51) and that he justifies a doubt concerning the realness of the resurrection itself by putting all the appearances of the risen Christ on the same level with his own, although several years elapsed between those of Jerusalem and Galilee, and that on the way to Damascus.

But this, the only possible argument for the vision-hypothesis, is entirely untenable. When Paul says: "Last of all, as unto an untimely offspring, Christ appeared to me also," he draws a clear line of distinction between the personal appearances of Christ and his own later visions, and closes the former with the one vouchsafed to him at his conversion.(52) Once, and once only, he claims to have seen the Lord in visible form and to have heard his voice; last, indeed, and out of due time, yet as truly and really as the older apostles. The only difference is that they saw the risen Saviour still abiding on earth, while he saw the ascended Saviour coming down from heaven, as we may expect him to appear to all men on the last day. It is the greatness of that vision which leads him to dwell on his personal unworthiness as "the least of the apostles and not worthy to be called an apostle, because he persecuted the church of God." He uses the realness of Christ’s resurrection as the basis for his wonderful discussion of the future resurrection of believers, which would lose all its force if Christ had not actually been raised from the dead.(53)

Moreover his conversion coincided with his call to the apostleship. If the former was a delusion, the latter must also have been a delusion. He emphasizes his direct call to the apostleship of the Gentiles by the personal appearance of Christ without any human intervention, in opposition to his Judaizing adversaries who tried to undermine his authority.(54)

The whole assumption of a long and deep inward preparation, both intellectual and moral, for a change, is without any evidence, and cannot set aside the fact that Paul was, according to his repeated confession, at that time violently persecuting Christianity in its followers. His conversion can be far less explained from antecedent causes, surrounding circumstances, and personal motives than that of any other disciple. While the older apostles were devoted friends of Jesus, Paul was his enemy, bent at the very time of the great change on an errand of cruel persecution, and therefore in a state of mind most unlikely to give birth to a vision so fatal to his present object and his future career. How could a fanatical persecutor of Christianity, "breathing threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," stultify and contradict himself by an imaginative conceit which tended to the building up of that very religion which he was laboring to destroy!(55)

But supposing (with Renan) that his mind was temporarily upset in the delirium of feverish excitement, he certainly soon recovered health and reason, and had every opportunity to correct his error; he was intimate with the murderers of Jesus, who could have produced tangible evidence against the resurrection if it had never occurred; and after a long pause of quiet reflection he went to Jerusalem, spent a fortnight with Peter, and could learn from him and from James, the brother of Christ, their experience, and compare it with his own. Everything in this case is against the mythical and legendary theory which requires a change of environment and the lapse of years for the formation of poetic fancies and fictions.

Finally, the whole life-work of Paul, from his conversion at Damascus to his martyrdom in Rome, is the best possible argument against this hypothesis and for the realness of his conversion, as an act of divine grace. "By their fruits ye shall know them." How could such an effective change proceed from an empty dream? Can an illusion change the current of history? By joining the Christian sect Paul sacrificed everything, at last life itself, to the service of Christ. He never wavered in his conviction of the truth as revealed to him, and by his faith in this revelation he has become a benediction to all ages.

The vision-hypothesis denies objective miracles, but ascribes miracles to subjective imaginations, and makes a he more effect ive and beneficial than the truth.

All rationalistic and natural interpretations of the conversion of Paul turn out to be irrational and unnatural; the supernatural interpretation of Paul himself, after all, is the most rational and natural.

Remarkable Concessions.

Dr. Baur, the master-spirit of skeptical criticism and the founder of the "Tübingen School," felt constrained, shortly before his death (1860), to abandon the vision-hypothesis and to admit that "no psychological or dialectical analysis can explore the inner mystery of the act in which God revealed his Son in Paul (keine, weder psychologische noch dialektische Analyse kann das innere Geheimniss des Actes erforschen, in welchem Gott seinen Sohn in ihm enthülte). In the same connection he says that in, "the sudden transformation of Paul from the most violent adversary of Christianity into its most determined herald" he could see "nothing short of a miracle (Wunder);" and adds that "this miracle appears all the greater when we remember that in this revulsion of his consciousness he broke through the barriers of Judaism and rose out of its particularism into the universalism of Christianity."(56) This frank confession is creditable to the head and heart of the late Tübingen critic, but is fatal to his whole anti-supernaturalistic theory of history. Si falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. If we admit the miracle in one case, the door is opened for all other miracles which rest on equally strong evidence.

The late Dr. Keim, an independent pupil of Baur, admits at least spiritual manifestations of the ascended Christ from heaven, and urges in favor of the objective reality of the Christophanies as reported by Paul, 1 Cor. 15:3 sqq., "the whole character of Paul, his sharp understanding which was not weakened by his enthusiasm, the careful, cautious, measured, simple form of his statement, above all the favorable total impression of his narrative and the mighty echo of it in the unanimous, uncontradicted faith of primitive Christendom."(57)

Dr. Schenkel, of Heidelberg, in his latest stage of development, says that Paul, with full justice, put his Christophany on a par with the Christophanies of the older apostles; that all these Christophanies are not simply the result of psychological processes, but "remain in many respects psychologically inconceivable," and point back to the historic background of the person of Jesus; that Paul was not an ordinary visionary, but carefully distinguished the Christophany at Damascus from his later visions; that he retained the full possession of his rational mind even in the moments of the highest exaltation; that his conversion was not the sudden effect of nervous excitement, but brought about by the influence of the divine Providence which quietly prepared his soul for the reception of Christ; and that the appearance of Christ vouchsafed to him was "no dream, but reality."(58)

Professor Reuss, of Strasburg, likewise an independent critic of the liberal school, comes to the same conclusion as Baur, that the conversion of Paul, if not an absolute miracle, is at least an unsolved psychological problem. He says: "La conversion de Paul, après tout ce qui en a été dit de notre temps, reste toujours, si ce n’est un miracle absolu, dans le sens traditionnel de ce mot (c’est-à-dire un événement qui arrête ou change violemment le cours naturel des choses, un effet sans autre cause que l’intervention arbitraire et immédiate de Dieu), du moins un problème psychologique aujourd’hui insoluble. L’explication dite naturelle, qu’elle fasse intervenir un orage on qu’elle se retranche dans le domaine des hallucinations ... ne nous donne pas la clef de cette crise elle-même, qui a décidé la métamorphose du pharisien en chrétien."(59)

Canon Farrar says (I. 195): "One fact remains upon any hypothesis and that is, that the conversion of St. Paul was in the highest sense of the word a miracle, and one of which the spiritual consequences have affected every subsequent age of the history of mankind."

§ 32. The Work of Paul.

"He who can part from country and from kin, And scorn delights, and tread the thorny way,

A heavenly crown, through toil and pain, to win— He who reviled can tender love repay, And buffeted, for bitter foes can pray—

He who, upspringing at his Captain’s call, Fights the good fight, and when at last the day Of fiery trial comes, can nobly fall—

Such were a saint—or more—and such the holy Paul!"

—Anon.

The conversion of Paul was a great intellectual and moral revolution, yet without destroying his identity. His noble gifts and attainments remained, but were purged of Selfish motives, inspired by a new principle, and consecrated to a divine end. The love of Christ who saved him, was now his all-absorbing passion, and no sacrifice was too great to manifest his gratitude to Him. The architect of ruin became an architect of the temple of God. The same vigor, depth and acuteness of mind, but illuminated by the Holy Spirit; the same strong temper and burning zeal, but cleansed, subdued and controlled by wisdom and moderation; the same energy and boldness, but coupled with gentleness and meekness; and, added to all this, as crowning gifts of grace, a love and humility, a tenderness and delicacy of feeling such as are rarely, if ever, found in a character so proud, manly and heroic. The little Epistle to Philemon reveals a perfect Christian gentleman, a nobleman of nature, doubly ennobled by grace. The thirteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians could only be conceived by a mind that had ascended on the mystic ladder of faith to the throbbing heart of the God of love; yet without inspiration even Paul could not have penned that seraphic description of the virtue which beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, which never faileth, but will last for ever the greatest in the triad of celestial graces: faith, hope, love.

Saul converted became at once Paul the missionary. Being saved himself, he made it his life-work to save others. "Straight way" he proclaimed Christ in the synagogues, and confounded the Jews of Damascus, proving that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God.(60) But this was only a preparatory testimony in the fervor of the first love. The appearance of Christ, and the travails of his soul during the three days and nights of prayer and fasting, when he experienced nothing less than a spiritual death and a spiritual resurrection, had so shaken his physical and mental frame that he felt the need of protracted repose away from the noise and turmoil of the world. Besides there must have been great danger threatening his life as soon as the astounding news of his conversion became known at Jerusalem. He therefore went to the desert of Arabia and spent there three years,(61) not in missionary labor (as Chrysostom thought), but chiefly in prayer, meditation and the study of the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of their fulfilment through the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. This retreat took the place of the three years’ preparation of the Twelve in the school of Christ. Possibly he may have gone as far as Mount Sinai, among the wild children of Hagar and Ishmael.(62) On that pulpit of the great lawgiver of Israel, and in view of the surrounding panorama of death and desolation which reflects the terrible majesty of Jehovah, as no other spot on earth, he could listen with Elijah to the thunder and earthquake, and the still small voice, and could study the contrast between the killing letter and the life-giving spirit, between the ministration of death and the ministration of righteousness.(63) The desert, like the ocean, has its grandeur and sublimity, and leaves the meditating mind alone with God and eternity.

"Paul was a unique man for a unique task."(64) His task was twofold: practical and theoretical. He preached the gospel of free and universal grace from Damascus to Rome, and secured its triumph in the Roman empire, which means the civilized world of that age. At the same time he built up the church from within by the exposition and defence of the gospel in his Epistles. He descended to the humblest details of ecclesiastical administration and discipline, and mounted to the sublimest heights of theological speculation. Here we have only to do with his missionary activity; leaving his theoretical work to be considered in another chapter.

Let us first glance at his missionary spirit and policy.

His inspiring motive was love to Christ and to his fellow-men. "The love of Christ," he says, "constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died: and He died for all that they who live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again." He regarded himself as a bondman and ambassador of Christ, entreating men to be reconciled to God. Animated by this spirit, he became "as a Jew to the Jews, as a Gentile to the Gentiles, all things to all men that by all means he might save some."

He made Antioch, the capital of Syria and the mother church of Gentile Christendom, his point of departure for, and return from, his missionary journeys, and at the same time he kept up his connection with Jerusalem, the mother church of Jewish Christendom. Although an independent apostle of Christ, he accepted a solemn commission from Antioch for his first great missionary tour. He followed the current of history, commerce, and civilization, from East to West, from Asia to Europe, from Syria to Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and perhaps as far as Spain.(65) In the larger and more influential cities, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, he resided a considerable time. From these salient points he sent the gospel by his pupils and fellow-laborers into the surrounding towns and villages. But he always avoided collision with other apostles, and sought new fields of labor where Christ was not known before, that he might not build on any other man’s foundation. This is true independence and missionary courtesy, which is so often, alas! violated by missionary societies inspired by sectarian rather than Christian zeal.

His chief mission was to the Gentiles, without excluding the Jews, according to the message of Christ delivered through Ananias: "Thou shalt bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." Considering that the Jews had a prior claim in time to the gospel,(66) and that the synagogues in heathen cities were pioneer stations for Christian missions, he very naturally addressed himself first to the Jews and proselytes, taking up the regular lessons of the Old Testament Scriptures, and demonstrating their fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth. But almost uniformly he found the half-Jews, or "proselytes of the gate," more open to the gospel than his own brethren; they were honest and earnest seekers of the true religion, and formed the natural bridge to the pure heathen, and the nucleus of his congregations, which were generally composed of converts from both religions.

In noble self-denial he earned his subsistence with his own hands, as a tent-maker, that he might not be burthensome to his congregations (mostly belonging to the lower classes), that he might preserve his independence, stop the mouths of his enemies, and testify his gratitude to the infinite mercy of the Lord, who had called him from his headlong, fanatical career of persecution to the office of an apostle of free grace. He never collected money for himself, but for the poor Jewish Christians in Palestine. Only as an exception did he receive gifts from his converts at Philippi, who were peculiarly dear to him. Yet he repeatedly enjoins upon the churches to care for the liberal temporal support of their teachers who break to them the bread of eternal life. The Saviour of the world a carpenter! the greatest preacher of the gospel a tent-maker!

Of the innumerable difficulties, dangers, and sufferings which he encountered with Jews, heathens, and false brethren, we can hardly form an adequate idea; for the book of Acts is only a summary record. He supplements it incidentally. "Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Three times was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, three times I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren: in labor and toil, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Besides those things that are without, there is that which presseth upon me daily, the anxious care for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?"(67) Thus he wrote reluctantly to the Corinthians, in self-vindication against his calumniators, in the year 57, before his longest and hardest trial in the prisons of Caesarea and Rome, and at least seven years before his martyrdom. He was "pressed on every side, yet not straitened; perplexed, yet not in despair; pursued, yet not forsaken; smitten down, yet not destroyed."(68) His whole public career was a continuous warfare. He represents the church militant, or "marching and conquering Christianity." He was "unus versus mundum," in a far higher sense than this has been said of Athanasius the Great when confronted with the Arian heresy and the imperial heathenism of Julian the Apostate.

Yet he was never unhappy, but full of joy and peace. He exhorted the Philippians from his prison in Rome: "Rejoice in the Lord alway; again I will say, Rejoice." In all his conflicts with foes from without and foes from within Paul was "more than conqueror" through the grace of God which was sufficient for him. "For I am persuaded," he writes to the Romans in the strain of a sublime ode of triumph, "that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."(69) And his dying word is an assurance of victory: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not only to me, but also to all them that have loved his appearing."(70)

§ 33. Paul’s Missionary Labors.

The public life of Paul, from the third year after his conversion to his martyrdom, a.d. 40–64, embraces a quarter of a century, three great missionary campaigns with minor expeditions, five visits to Jerusalem, and at least four years of captivity in Caesarea and Rome. Some extend it to a.d. 67 or 68. It may be divided into five or six periods, as follows:

a.d. 40–44. The period of preparatory labors in Syria and his native Cilicia, partly alone, partly in connection with Barnabas, his senior fellow-apostle among the Gentiles.

On his return from the Arabian retreat Paul began his public ministry in earnest at Damascus, preaching Christ on the very spot where he had been converted and called. His testimony enraged the Jews, who stirred up the deputy of the king of Arabia against him, but he was saved for future usefulness and let down by the brethren in a basket through a window in the wall of the city.(71) Three years after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem to make the acquaintance of Peter and spent a fortnight with him. Besides him he saw James the brother of the Lord. Barnabas introduced him to the disciples, who at first were afraid of him, but when they heard of his marvellous conversion they "glorified God" that their persecutor was now preaching the faith he had once been laboring to destroy.(72) He did not come to learn the gospel, having received it already by revelation, nor to be confirmed or ordained, having been called "not from men, or through man, but through Jesus Christ." Yet his interview with Peter and James, though barely mentioned, must have been fraught with the deepest interest. Peter, kind-hearted and generous as he was, would naturally receive him with joy and thanksgiving. He had himself once denied the Lord—not malignantly but from weakness—as Paul had persecuted the disciples—ignorantly in unbelief. Both had been mercifully pardoned, both had seen the Lord, both were called to the highest dignity, both could say from the bottom of the heart: "Lord thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." No doubt they would exchange their experiences and confirm each other in their common faith.

It was probably on this visit that Paul received in a vision in the temple the express command of the Lord to go quickly unto the Gentiles.(73) Had he stayed longer at the seat of the Sanhedrin, he would undoubtedly have met the fate of the martyr Stephen.

He visited Jerusalem a second time during the famine under Claudius, in the year 44, accompanied by Barnabas, on a benevolent mission, bearing a collection of the Christians at Antioch for the relief of the brethren in Judaea.(74) On that occasion he probably saw none of the apostles on account of the persecution in which James was beheaded, and Peter imprisoned.

The greater part of these four years was spent in missionary work at Tarsus and Antioch.
a.d. 45–50. First missionary journey. In the year 45 Paul entered upon the first great missionary journey, in company with Barnabas and Mark, by the direction of the Holy Spirit through the prophets of the congregation at Antioch. He traversed the island of Cyprus and several provinces of Asia Minor. The conversion of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus, at Paphos; the rebuke and punishment of the Jewish sorcerer, Elymas; the marked success of the gospel in Pisidia, and the bitter opposition of the unbelieving Jews; the miraculous healing of a cripple at Lystra; the idolatrous worship there offered to Paul and Barnabas by the superstitious heathen, and its sudden change into hatred against them as enemies of the gods; the stoning of the missionaries, their escape from death, and their successful return to Antioch, are the leading incidents of this tour, which is fully described in Acts 13 and 14.

This period closes with the important apostolic conference at Jerusalem, a.d. 50, which will require separate consideration in the next section.
From a.d. 51–54. Second missionary journey. After the council at Jerusalem and the temporary adjustment of the difference between the Jewish and Gentile branches of the church, Paul undertook, in the year 51, a second great journey, which decided the Christianization of Greece. He took Silas for his companion. Having first visited his old churches, he proceeded, with the help of Silas and the young convert, Timothy, to establish new ones through the provinces of Phrygia and Galatia, where, notwithstanding his bodily infirmity, he was received with open arms like an angel of God.

From Troas, a few miles south of the Homeric Troy and the entrance to the Hellespont, he crossed over to Greece in answer to the Macedonian cry: "Come over and help us!" He preached the gospel with great success, first in Philippi, where he converted the purple dealer, Lydia, and the jailor, and was imprisoned with Silas, but miraculously delivered and honorably released; then in Thessalonica, where he was persecuted by the Jews, but left a flourishing church; in Beraea, where the converts showed exemplary zeal in searching the Scriptures. In Athens, the metropolis of classical literature, he reasoned with Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, and unveiled to them on Mars’ Hill (Areopagus), with consummate tact and wisdom, though without much immediate success, the "unknown God," to whom the Athenians, in their superstitious anxiety to do justice to all possible divinities, had unconsciously erected an altar, and Jesus Christ, through whom God will judge the world in righteousness.(75) In Corinth, the commercial bridge between the East and the West, a flourishing centre of wealth and culture, but also a sink of vice and corruption, the apostle spent eighteen months, and under almost insurmountable difficulties he built up a church, which exhibited all the virtues and all the faults of the Grecian character under the influence of the gospel, and which he honored with two of his most important Epistles.(76)

In the spring of 54 he returned by way of Ephesus, Caesarea, and Jerusalem to Antioch.

During this period he composed the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, which are the earliest of his literary remains excepting his missionary addresses preserved in the Acts.
a.d. 54–58. Third missionary tour. Towards the close of the year 54 Paul went to Ephesus, and in this renowned capital of proconsular Asia and of the worship of Diana, he fixed for three years the centre of his missionary work. He then revisited his churches in Macedonia and Achaia, and remained three months more in Corinth and the vicinity.

During this period he wrote the great doctrinal Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, which mark the height of his activity and usefulness.
a.d. 58–63. The period of his two imprisonments, with the intervening winter voyage from Caesarea to Rome. In the spring of 58 he journeyed, for the fifth and last time, to Jerusalem, by way of Philippi, Troas, Miletus (where he delivered his affecting valedictory to the Ephesian presbyter-bishops), Tyre, and Caesarea, to carry again to the poor brethren in Judaea a contribution from the Christians of Greece, and by this token of gratitude and love to cement the two branches of the apostolic church more firmly together.

But some fanatical Jews, who bitterly bated him as an apostate and a seducer of the people, raised an uproar against him at Pentecost; charged him with profaning the temple, because he had taken into it an uncircumcised Greek, Trophimus; dragged him out of the sanctuary, lest they should defile it with blood, and would undoubtedly have killed him had not Claudius Lysias, the Roman tribune, who lived near by, come promptly with his soldiers to the spot. This officer rescued Paul, out of respect for his Roman citizenship, from the fury of the mob, set him the next day before the Sanhedrin, and after a tumultuous and fruitless session of the council, and the discovery of a plot against his life, sent him, with a strong military guard and a certificate of innocence, to the procurator Felix in Caesarea.

Here the apostle was confined two whole years (58–60), awaiting his trial before the Sanhedrin, uncondemned, occasionally speaking before Felix, apparently treated with comparative mildness, visited by the Christians, and in some way not known to us promoting the kingdom of God.(77)

After the accession of the new and better procurator, Festus, who is known to have succeeded Felix in the year 60, Paul, as a Roman citizen, appealed to the tribunal of Caesar and thus opened the way to the fulfilment of his long-cherished desire to preach the Saviour of the world in the metropolis of the world. Having once more testified his innocence, and spoken for Christ in a masterly defence before Festus, King Herod Agrippa II. (the last of the Herods), his sister Bernice, and the most distinguished men of Caesarea, he was sent in the autumn of the year 60 to the emperor. He had a stormy voyage and suffered shipwreck, which detained him over winter at Malta. The voyage is described with singular minuteness and nautical accuracy by Luke as an eye-witness. In the month of March of the year 61, the apostle, with a few faithful companions, reached Rome, a prisoner of Christ, and yet freer and mightier than the emperor on the throne. It was the seventh year of Nero’s reign, when he had already shown his infamous character by the murder of Agrippina, his mother, in the previous year, and other acts of cruelty.

In Rome Paul spent at least two years till the spring of 63, in easy confinement, awaiting the decision of his case, and surrounded by friends and fellow-laborers "in his own hired dwelling." He preached the gospel to the soldiers of the imperial body-guard, who attended him; sent letters and messages to his distant churches in Asia Minor and Greece; watched over all their spiritual affairs, and completed in bonds his apostolic fidelity to the Lord and his church.(78)

In the Roman prison he wrote the Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon.
a.d. 63 and 64. With the second year of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome the account of Luke breaks off, rather abruptly, yet appropriately and grandly. Paul’s arrival in Rome secured the triumph of Christianity. In this sense it was true, "Roma locuta est, causa finita est." And he who spoke at Rome is not dead; he is still "preaching (everywhere) the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all boldness, none forbidding him."(79)

But what became of him after the termination of those two years in the spring of 63? What was the result of the trial so long delayed? Was he condemned to death? or was he released by Nero’s tribunal, and thus permitted to labor for another season? This question is still unsettled among scholars. A vague tradition says that Paul was acquitted of the charge of the Sanhedrin, and after travelling again in the East, perhaps also into Spain, was a second time imprisoned in Rome and condemned to death. The assumption of a second Roman captivity relieves certain difficulties in the Pastoral Epistles; for they seem to require a short period of freedom between the first and a second Roman captivity, and a visit to the East,(80) which is not recorded in the Acts, but which the apostle contemplated in case of his release.(81) A visit to Spain, which he intended, is possible, though less probable.(82) If he was set at liberty, it must have been before the terrible persecution in July, 64, which would not have spared the great leader of the Christian sect. It is a remarkable coincidence that just about the close of the second year of Paul’s confinement, the celebrated Jewish historian, Josephus, then in his 27th year, came to Rome (after a tempestuous voyage and shipwreck), and effected through the influence of Poppaea (the wife of Nero and a half proselyte of Judaism) the release of certain Jewish priests who had been sent to Rome by Felix as prisoners.(83) It is not impossible that Paul may have reaped the benefit of a general release of Jewish prisoners.

The martyrdom of Paul under Nero is established by the unanimous testimony of antiquity. As a Roman citizen, he was not crucified, like Peter, but put to death by the sword.(84) The scene of his martyrdom is laid by tradition about three miles from Rome, near the Ostian way, on a green spot, formerly called Aquae Salviae, afterwards Tre Fontane, from the three fountains which are said to have miraculously gushed forth from the blood of the apostolic martyr. His relics were ultimately removed to the basilica of San Paolo-fuori-le-Mura, built by Theodosius and Valentinian in 388, and recently reconstructed. He lies outside of Rome, Peter inside. His memory is celebrated, together with that of Peter, on the 29th and 30th of June.(85) As to the year of his death, the views vary from a.d. 64 to 69. The difference of the place and manner of his martyrdom suggests that he was condemned by a regular judicial trial, either shortly before, or more probably a year or two after the horrible wholesale massacre of Christians on the Vatican hill, in which his Roman citizenship would not have been regarded. If he was released in the spring of 63, he had a year and a half for another visit to the East and to Spain before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution (after July, 64); but tradition favors a later date. Prudentius separates the martyrdom of Peter from that of Paul by one year. After that persecution the Christians were everywhere exposed to danger.(86)

Assuming the release of Paul and another visit to the East, we must locate the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus between the first and second Roman captivity, and the Second Epistle to Timothy in the second captivity. The last was evidently written in the certain view of approaching martyrdom; it is the affectionate farewell of the aged apostle to his beloved Timothy, and his last will and testament to the militant church below in the bright prospect of the unfading crown in the church triumphant above.(87)

Thus ended the earthly course of this great teacher of nations, this apostle of victorious faith, of evangelical freedom, of Christian progress. It was the heroic career of a spiritual conqueror of immortal souls for Christ, converting them from the service of sin and Satan to the service of the living God, from the bondage of the law to the freedom of the gospel, and leading them to the fountain of life eternal. He labored more abundantly than all the other apostles; and yet, in sincere humility, he considered himself "the least of the apostles," and "not meet to be called an apostle," because he persecuted the church of God; a few years later he confessed: "I am less than the least of all saints," and shortly before his death: "I am the chief of sinners."(88) His humility grew as he experienced God’s mercy and ripened for heaven. Paul passed a stranger and pilgrim through this world, hardly observed by the mighty and the wise of his age. And yet how infinitely more noble, beneficial, and enduring was his life and work than the dazzling march of military conquerors, who, prompted by ambitions absorbed millions of treasure and myriads of lives, only to die at last in a drunken fit at Babylon, or of a broken heart on the rocks of St. Helena! Their empires have long since crumbled into dust, but St. Paul still remains one of the foremost benefactors of the human race, and the pulses of his mighty heart are beating with stronger force than ever throughout the Christian world.

Note on the Second Roman Captivity of Paul.

The question of a second Roman captivity of Paul is a purely historical and critical problem, and has no doctrinal or ethical bearing, except that it facilitates the defence of the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles. The best scholars are still divided on the subject. Neander, Gieseler, Bleek, Ewald, Lange, Sabatier, Godet, also Renan (Saint Paul, p. 560, and L’Antechrist, p. 106), and nearly all English biographers and commentators, as Alford, Wordsworth, Howson, Lewin, Farrar, Plumptre, Ellicott, Lightfoot, defend the second captivity, and thus prolong the labors of Paul for a few years. On the other hand not only radical and skeptical critics, as Baur, Zeller, Schenkel, Reuss, Holtzmann, and all who reject the Pastoral Epistles (except Renan), but also conservative exegetes and historians, as Niedner, Thiersch, Meyer, Wieseler, Ebrard, Otto, Beck, Pressensé, deny the second captivity. I have discussed the problem at length in my Hist. of the Apost. Church, § 87, pp. 328–347, and spin in my annotations to Lange on Romans, pp. 10–12. I will restate the chief arguments in favor of a second captivity, partly in rectification of my former opinion.

The main argument are the Pastoral Epistles, if genuine, as I hold them to be, notwithstanding all the objections of the opponents from De Wette (1826) and Baur (1835) to Renan (1873) and Holtzmann (1880). It is, indeed, not impossible to assign them to any known period in Paul’s life before his captivity, as during his three years’ sojourn in Ephesus (54–57), or his eighteen months’ sojourn in Corinth (52–53), but it is very difficult to do so. The Epistles presuppose journeys of the apostle not mentioned in Acts, and belong apparently to an advanced period in his life, as well as in the history of truth and error in the apostolic church.
The release of Timothy from a captivity in Italy, probably in Rome, to which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 13:23 alludes, may have some connection with the release of Paul, who had probably a share in the inspiration, if not in the composition, of that remarkable production.
The oldest post-apostolic witness is Clement of Rome, who wrote about 95:, Paul ... having come to the limit of the West (ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών) and borne witness before the magistrates (μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, which others translate, "having suffered martyrdom under the rulers"), departed from the world and went to the holy place, having furnished the sublimest model of endurance" (Ad Corinth. c. 5). Considering that Clement wrote in Rome, the most natural interpretation of τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, "the extreme west," is Spain or Britain; and as Paul intended to carry the gospel to Spain, one would first think of that country, which was in constant commercial intercourse with Rome, and had produced distinguished statesmen and writers like Seneca and Lucan. Strabo (II. 1) calls the pillars of Hercules πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης; and Velleius Paterc. calls Spain "extremus nostri orbis terminus." See Lightfoot, St. Clement, p. 50. But the inference is weakened by the absence of any trace or tradition of Paul’s visit to Spain.(89) Still less can he have suffered martyrdom there, as the logical order of the words would imply. And as Clement wrote to the Corinthians, he may, from their geographical standpoint, have called the Roman capital the end of the West. At all events the passage is rhetorical (it speaks of seven imprisonments, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας), and proves nothing for further labors in the East.(90)
An incomplete passage in the fragmentary Muratorian canon (about a.d. 170): "Sed profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis ..." seems to imply a journey of Paul to Spain, which Luke has omitted; but this is merely a conjecture, as the verb has to be supplied. Comp., however, Westcott, The Canon of the N. Test., p. 189, and Append. C., p. 467, and Renan, L’Antechrist, p. 106 sq.
Eusebius (d. 310) first clearly asserts that "there is a tradition (λόγος ἔχει) that the apostle, after his defence, again set forth to the ministry of his preaching and having entered a second time the same city [Rome], was perfected by his martyrdom before him [Nero]." Hist. Eccl. II. 22 (comp. ch. 25). But the force of this testimony is weakened first by its late date; secondly, by the vague expression λόγος ἔχει, "it is said," and the absence of any reference to older authorities (usually quoted by Eusebius); thirdly, by his misunderstanding of 2 Tim. 4:16, 17, which he explains in the same connection of a deliverance from the first imprisonment (as if ἀπολογία were identical with αἰχμαλωσία); and lastly by his chronological mistake as to the time of the first imprisonment which, in his "Chronicle," he misdates a.d. 58, that is, three years before the actual arrival of Paul in Rome. On the other hand he puts the conflagration of Rome two years too late, a.d. 66, instead of 64, and the Neronian persecution, and the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, in the year 70.
Jerome (d. 419): "Paul was dismissed by Nero that he might preach Christ’s gospel also in the regions of the West (in Occidentis quoque partibus). De Vir. ill. sub Paulus. This echoes the τέρμα τῆς δύσεως of Clement. Chrysostom (d. 407), Theodoret, and other fathers assert that Paul went to Spain (Rom. 15:28), but without adducing any proof.

These post-apostolic testimonies, taken together, make it very probable, but not historically certain, that Paul was released after the spring of 63, and enjoyed an Indian summer of missionary work before his Martyrdom. The only remaining monuments, as well as the best proof, of this concluding work are the Pastoral Epistles, if we admit them to be genuine. To my mind the historical difficulties of the Pastoral Epistles are an argument for rather than against their Pauline origin. For why should a forger invent difficulties when he might so easily have fitted his fictions in the frame of the situation known from the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles? The linguistic and other objections are by no means insurmountable, and are overborne by the evidence of the Pauline spirit which animates these last productions of his pen.

§ 34. The Synod of Jerusalem, and the Compromise between Jewish and Gentile Christianity.

Literature.

I. Acts 15, and Gal. 2, and the Commentaries thereon.

Besides the general literature already noticed (in §§ 20 and 29), compare the following special discussions on the Conference of the Apostles, which tend to rectify the extreme view of Baur (Paulus, ch. V.) and Overbeck (in the fourth edition of De Wette’s Com. on Acts) on the conflict between Acts 15 and Gal. 2, or between Petrinism and Paulinism, and to establish the true historic view of their essential unity in diversity.

Bishop Lightfoot: St. Paul and the Three, in Com. on Galat., London, 1866 (second ed.), pp. 283–355. The ablest critical discussion of the problem in the English language.
R. A. Lipsius: Apostelconvent, in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon, I. (1869), pp. 194–207. A clear and sharp statement of eight apparent contradictions between Acts 15 and Gal. 2. He admits, however, some elements of truth in the account of Acts, which he uses to supplement the account of Paul. Schenkel, in his Christusbild der Apostel, 1879, p. 38, goes further, and says, in opposition to Overbeck, who regards the account of Acts as a Tendenz- Roman, or partisan fiction: "The narrative of Paul is certainly trustworthy, but one-sided, which was unavoidable, considering his personal apologetic aim, and passes by in silence what is foreign to that aim. The narrative of Acts follows oral and written traditions which were already influenced by later views and prejudices, and it is for this reason unreliable in part, yet by no means a conscious fiction."
Otto Pfleiderer: Der Paulinismus. Leipzig, 1873, pp. 278 sqq. and 500 sqq. He tones down the differences to innocent inaccuracies of the Acts, and rejects the idea of "intentional invention."
C. Weizsäcker (successor of Dr. Baur in Tübingen, but partly dissenting from him): Das Apostelconcil in the "Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie" for 1873, pp. 191–246. And his essay on Paulus und die Gemeinde in Korinth, ibid., 1876, pp. 603–653. In the last article he concludes (p. 652) that the real opponents of Paul, in Corinth as well as in Galatia, were not the primitive apostles (as asserted by Baur, Schwegler, etc.), but a set of fanatics who abused the authority of Peter and the name of Christ, and imitated the agitation of Jewish proselytizers, as described by Roman writers.
K. Schmidt: Der Apostel-Konvent, in Herzog and Plitt, R. E. I. (1877), 575–584. Conservative.
Theod. Keim: Aus dem Urchristenthum. Zürich, 1879, Der Apostelkonvent, pp. 64–89. (Comp. Hilgenfeld’s review in the "Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie," 1879, pp. 100f sqq.) One of the last efforts of the author of the Leben Jesu von Nazara. Keim goes a step further than Weizsäcker, strongly maintains the public as well as the private character of the apostolic agreement, and admits the circumcision of Timothy as a fact. He also entirely rejects the view of Baur, Weizsäcker, and Overbeck that the author of Acts derived his information from the Ep. to the Galatians, and perverted it for his irenic purpose.
F. W. Farrar: The Life and Work of Paul (Lond., 1879), chs. XXII.-XXIII. (I. 398–454).
Wilibald Grimm: Der Apostelconvent, in the "Theol. Studien und Kritiken" (Gotha), for 1880, pp. 405–432. A critical discussion in the right direction. The exegetical essay of Wetzel on Gal. 2:14, 21, in the same periodical, pp. 433 sqq., bears in part on the same subject.
F. Godet: Com. on the Ep. to the Romans, vol. I. (1879), pp. 3742, English translation. Able and sound.
Karl Wieseler: Zur Gesch. der N. T.lichen Schrift und des Urchristenthums. Leipzig, 1880, pp. 1–53, on the Corinthian parties and their relation to the errorists in the Galatians and the Nicolaitans in the Apocalypse. Learned, acute, and conservative.
Comp. above § 22, pp. 213 sqq.; my Hist. of the Apost. Church, §§ 67–70, pp. 245–260; and Excursus on the Controversy between Peter and Paul, in my Com. on the Galat. 2:11–14.

The question of circumcision, or of the terms of admission of the Gentiles to the Christian church, was a burning question of the apostolic age. It involved the wider question of the binding authority of the Mosaic law, yea, the whole relation of Christianity to Judaism. For circumcision was in the synagogue what baptism is in the church, a divinely appointed sign and seal of the covenant of man with God, with all its privileges and responsibilities, and bound the circumcised person to obey the whole law on pain of forfeiting the blessing promised. Upon the decision of this question depended the peace of the church within, and the success of the gospel without. With circumcision, as a necessary condition of church membership, Christianity would forever have been confined to the Jewish race with a small minority of proselytes of the gate, or half-Christians while the abrogation of circumcision and the declaration of the supremacy and sufficiency of faith in Christ ensured the conversion of the heathen and the catholicity of Christianity. The progress of Paul’s mission among the Gentiles forced the question to a solution and resulted in a grand act of emancipation, yet not without great struggle and temporary reactions.

All the Christians of the first generation were converts from Judaism or heathenism. It could not be expected that they should suddenly lose the influence of opposite kinds of religious training and blend at once in unity. Hence the difference between Jewish and Gentile Christianity throughout the apostolic age, more or less visible in all departments of ecclesiastical life, in missions, doctrine, worship, and government. At the head of the one division stood Peter, the apostle of the circumcision; at the head of the other, Paul, to whom was intrusted the apostleship of the uncircumcision. In another form the same difference even yet appears between the different branches of Christendom. The Catholic church is Jewish-Christian or Petrine in its character; the Evangelical church is Gentile or Pauline. And the individual members of these bodies lean to one or the other of these leading types. Where-ever there is life and motion in a denomination or sect, there will be at least two tendencies of thought and action—whether they be called old and new school, or high church and low church, or by any other party name. In like manner there is no free government without parties. It is only stagnant waters that never run and overflow, and corpses that never move.

The relation between these two fundamental forms of apostolic Christianity is in general that of authority and freedom, law and gospel, the conservative and the progressive, the objective and the subjective. These antithetic elements are not of necessity mutually exclusive. They are mutually complemental, and for perfect life they must co-exist and co-operate. But in reality they often run to extremes, and then of course fall into irreconcilable contradiction. Exclusive Jewish Christianity sinks into Ebionism; exclusive Gentile Christianity into Gnosticism. And these heresies were by no means confined to the apostolic and post-apostolic ages; pseudo-Petrine and pseudo-Pauline errors, in ever-varying phases, run more or less throughout the whole history of the church.

The Jewish converts at first very naturally adhered as closely as possible to the sacred traditions of their fathers. They could not believe that the religion of the Old Testament, revealed by God himself, should pass away. They indeed regarded Jesus as the Saviour of Gentiles as well as Jews; but they thought Judaism the necessary introduction to Christianity, circumcision and the observance of the whole Mosaic law the sole condition of an interest in the Messianic salvation. And, offensive as Judaism was, rather than attractive, to the heathen, this principle would have utterly precluded the conversion of the mass of the Gentile world.(91) The apostles themselves were at first trammelled by this Judaistic prejudice, till taught better by the special revelation to Peter before the conversion of Cornelius.(92)

But even after the baptism of the uncircumcised centurion, and Peter’s defence of it before the church of Jerusalem, the old leaven still wrought in some Jewish Christians who had formerly belonged to the rigid and exclusive sect of the Pharisees.(93) They came from Judaea to Antioch, and taught the converts of Paul and Barnabas: "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." They no doubt appealed to the Pentateuch, the universal Jewish tradition, the circumcision of Christ, and the practice of the Jewish apostles, and created a serious disturbance. These ex-Pharisees were the same whom Paul, in the heat of controversy, more severely calls "false brethren insidiously or stealthily foisted in," who intruded themselves into the Christian brotherhood as spies and enemies of Christian liberty.(94) He clearly distinguishes them not only from the apostles, but also from the great majority of the brethren in Judaea who sincerely rejoiced in his conversion and glorified God for it.(95) They were a small, but very active and zealous minority, and full of intrigue. They compassed sea and land to make one proselyte. They were baptized with water, but not with the Holy Spirit. They were Christians in name, but narrow-minded and narrow-hearted Jews in fact. They were scrupulous, pedantic, slavish formalists, ritualists, and traditionalists of the malignant type. Circumcision of the flesh was to them of more importance than circumcision of the heart, or at all events an indispensable condition of salvation.(96) Such men could, of course, not understand and appreciate Paul, but hated and feared him as a dangerous radical and rebel. Envy and jealousy mixed with their religious prejudice. They got alarmed at the rapid progress of the gospel among the unclean Gentiles who threatened to soil the purity of the church. They could not close their eyes to the fact that the power was fast passing from Jerusalem to Antioch, and from the Jews to the Gentiles, but instead of yielding to the course of Providence, they determined to resist it in the name of order and orthodoxy, and to keep the regulation of missionary operations and the settlement of the terms of church membership in their own hands at Jerusalem, the holy centre of Christendom and the expected residence of the Messiah on his return.

Whoever has studied the twenty-third chapter of Matthew and the pages of church history, and knows human nature, will understand perfectly this class of extra-pious and extra-orthodox fanatics, whose race is not dead yet and not likely to die out. They serve, however, the good purpose of involuntarily promoting the cause of evangelical liberty.

The agitation of these Judaizing partisans and zealots brought the Christian church, twenty years after its founding, to the brink of a split which would have seriously impeded its progress and endangered its final success.

The Conferences in Jerusalem.

To avert this calamity and to settle this irrepressible conflict, the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch resolved to hold a private and a public conference at Jerusalem. Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas as commissioners to represent the Gentile converts. Paul, fully aware of the gravity of the crisis, obeyed at the same time an inner and higher impulse.(97) He also took with him Titus, a native Greek, as a living specimen of what the Spirit of God could accomplish without circumcision. The conference was held a.d. 50 or 51 (fourteen years after Paul’s conversion). It was the first and in some respects the most important council or synod held in the history of Christendom, though differing widely from the councils of later times. It is placed in the middle of the book of Acts as the connecting link between the two sections of the apostolic church and the two epochs of its missionary history.

The object of the Jerusalem consultation was twofold: first, to settle the personal relation between the Jewish and Gentile apostles, and to divide their field of labor; secondly, to decide the question of circumcision, and to define the relation between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. On the first point (as we learn from Paul) it effected a complete and final, on the second point (as we learn from Luke) a partial and temporary settlement. In the nature of the case the public conference in which the whole church took part, was preceded and accompanied by private consultations of the apostles.(98)

Apostolic Recognition. The pillars of the Jewish Church, James, Peter, and John(99)—whatever their views may have been before—were fully convinced by the logic of events in which they recognized the hand of Providence that Paul as well as Barnabas by the extraordinary success of his labors had proven himself to be divinely called to the apostolate of the Gentiles. They took no exception and made no addition to his gospel. On the contrary, when they saw that God who gave grace and strength to Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision, gave grace and strength to Paul also for the conversion of the uncircumcision, they extended to him and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, with the understanding that they would divide as far as practicable the large field of labor, and that Paul should manifest his brotherly love and cement the union by aiding in the support of the poor, often persecuted and famine-stricken brethren of Judaea. This service of charity he had cheerfully done before, and as cheerfully and faithfully did afterward by raising collections among his Greek congregations and carrying the money in person to Jerusalem.(100) Such is the unequivocal testimony of the fraternal understanding among the apostles from the mouth of Paul himself. And the letter of the council officially recognizes this by mentioning "beloved" Barnabas(101) and Paul, as "men who have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." This double testimony of the unity of the apostolic church is quite conclusive against the modern invention of an irreconcilable antagonism between Paul and Peter.(102)
As regards the question of circumcision and the status of the Gentile Christians, there was a sharp conflict of opinions in open debate, under the very shadow of the inspired apostles.(103) There was strong conviction and feeling on both sides, plausible arguments were urged, charges and countercharges made, invidious inferences drawn, fatal consequences threatened. But the Holy Spirit was also present, as he is with every meeting of disciples who come together in the name of Christ, and overruled the infirmities of human nature which will crop out in every ecclesiastical assembly.

The circumcision of Titus, as a test case, was of course strongly demanded by the Pharisaical legalists, but as strongly resisted by Paul, and not enforced.(104) To yield here even for a moment would have been fatal to the cause of Christian liberty, and would have implied a wholesale circumcision of the Gentile converts, which was impossible.

But how could Paul consistently afterwards circumcise Timothy?(105) The answer is that he circumcised Timothy as a Jew, not as a Gentile, and that he did it as a voluntary act of expediency, for the purpose of making Timothy more useful among the Jews, who had a claim on him as the son of a Jewish mother, and would not have allowed him to teach in a synagogue without this token of membership; while in the case of Titus, a pure Greek, circumcision was demanded as a principle and as a condition of justification and salvation. Paul was inflexible in resisting the demands of false brethren, but always willing to accommodate himself to weak brethren, and to become as a Jew to the Jews and as a Gentile to the Gentiles in order to save them both.(106) In genuine Christian freedom he cared nothing for circumcision or uncircumcision as a mere rite or external condition, and as compared with the keeping of the commandments of God and the new creature in Christ.(107)

In the debate Peter, of course, as the oecumenical chief of the Jewish apostles, although at that time no more a resident of Jerusalem, took a leading part, and made a noble speech which accords entirely with his previous experience and practice in the house of Cornelius, and with his subsequent endorsement of Paul’s doctrine.(108) He was no logician, no rabbinical scholar, but he had admirable good sense and practical tact, and quickly perceived the true line of progress and duty. He spoke in a tone of personal and moral authority, but not of official primacy.(109) He protested against imposing upon the neck of the Gentile disciples the unbearable yoke of the ceremonial law, and laid down, as clearly as Paul, the fundamental principle that "Jews as well as Gentiles are saved only by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ."(110)

After this bold speech, which created a profound silence in the assembly, Barnabas and Paul reported, as the best practical argument, the signal miracles which God had wrought among the Gentiles through their instrumentality.

The last and weightiest speaker was James, the brother of the Lord, the local head of the Jewish Christian church and bishop of Jerusalem, who as such seems to have presided over the council. He represented as it were the extreme right wing of the Jewish church bordering close on the Judaizing faction. It was through his influence chiefly no doubt that the Pharisees were converted who created this disturbance. In a very characteristic speech he endorsed the sentiments of Symeon—he preferred to call Peter by his Jewish name—concerning the conversion of the Gentiles as being in accordance with ancient prophecy and divine fore-ordination; but he proposed a compromise to the effect that while the Gentile disciples should not be troubled with circumcision, they should yet be exhorted to abstain from certain practices which were particularly offensive to pious Jews, namely, from eating meat offered to idols, from tasting blood, or food of strangled animals, and from every form of carnal uncleanness. As to the Jewish Christians, they knew their duty from the law, and would be expected to continue in their time-honored habits.

The address of James differs considerably from that of Peter, and meant restriction as well as freedom, but after all it conceded the main point at issue—salvation without circumcision. The address entirely accords in spirit and language with his own epistle, which represents the gospel as law, though "the perfect law of freedom," with his later conduct toward Paul in advising him to assume the vow of the Nazarites and thus to contradict the prejudices of the myriads of converted Jews, and with the Jewish Christian tradition which represents him as the model of an ascetic saint equally revered by devout Jews and Christians, as the "Rampart of the People" (Obliam), and the intercessor of Israel who prayed in the temple without ceasing for its conversion and for the aversion of the impending doom.(111) He had more the spirit of an ancient prophet or of John the Baptist than the spirit of Jesus (in whom he did not believe till after the resurrection), but for this very reason he had most authority over the Jewish Christians, and could reconcile the majority of them to the progressive spirit of Paul.

The compromise of James was adopted and embodied in the following brief and fraternal pastoral letter to the Gentile churches. It is the oldest literary document of the apostolic age and bears the marks of the style of James:(112)

"The apostles and the elder brethren(113) unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard, that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment, it seemed good unto us, having come to be of one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Farewell."(114)

The decree was delivered by four special messengers, two representing the church at Antioch, Barnabas and Paul, and two from Jerusalem, Judas Barsabbas and Silas (or Silvanus), and read to the Syrian and Cilician churches which were agitated by the controversy.(115) The restrictions remained in full force at least eight years, since James reminded Paul of them on his last visit to Jerusalem in 58.(116) The Jewish Christians observed them no doubt with few exceptions till the downfall of idolatry,(117) and the Oriental church even to this day abstains from blood and things strangled; but the Western church never held itself bound to this part of the decree, or soon abandoned some of its restrictions.

Thus by moderation and mutual concession in the spirit of peace and brotherly love a burning controversy was settled, and a split happily avoided.

Analysis of the Decree.

The decree of the council was a compromise and had two aspects: it was emancipatory, and restrictive.

(1.) It was a decree of emancipation of the Gentile disciples from circumcision and the bondage of the ceremonial law. This was the chief point in dispute, and so far the decree was liberal and progressive. It settled the question of principle once and forever. Paul had triumphed. Hereafter the Judaizing doctrine of the necessity of circumcision for salvation was a heresy, a false gospel, or a perversion of the true gospel, and is denounced as such by Paul in the Galatians.

(2.) The decree was restrictive and conservative on questions of expediency and comparative indifference to the Gentile Christians. Under this aspect it was a wise and necessary measure for the apostolic age, especially in the East, where the Jewish element prevailed, but not intended for universal and permanent use. In Western churches, as already remarked, it was gradually abandoned, as we learn from Augustine. It imposed upon the Gentile Christians abstinence from meat offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled (as fowls and other animals caught in snares). The last two points amounted to the same thing. These three restrictions had a good foundation in the Jewish abhorrence of idolatry, and every thing connected with it, and in the Levitical prohibition.(118) Without them the churches in Judaea would not have agreed to the compact. But it was almost impossible to carry them out in mixed or in purely Gentile congregations; for it would have compelled the Gentile Christians to give up social intercourse with their unconverted kindred and friends, and to keep separate slaughter-houses, like the Jews, who from fear of contamination with idolatrous associations never bought meat at the public markets. Paul takes a more liberal view of this matter—herein no doubt dissenting somewhat from James—namely, that the eating of meat sacrificed to idols was in itself indifferent, in view of the vanity of idols; nevertheless he likewise commands the Corinthians to abstain from such meat out of regard for tender and weak consciences, and lays down the golden rule: "All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but his neighbor’s good."(119)

It seems strange to a modern reader that with these ceremonial prohibitions should be connected the strictly moral prohibition of fornication.(120) But it must be remembered that the heathen conscience as to sexual intercourse was exceedingly lax, and looked upon it as a matter of indifference, like eating and drinking, and as sinful only in case of adultery where the rights of a husband are invaded. No heathen moralist, not even Socrates, or Plato, or Cicero, condemned fornication absolutely. It was sanctioned by the worship of Aphrodite at Corinth and Paphos, and practised to her honor by a host of harlot-priestesses! Idolatry or spiritual whoredom is almost inseparable from bodily pollution. In the case of Solomon polytheism and polygamy went hand in hand. Hence the author of the Apocalypse also closely connects the eating of meat offered to idols with fornication, and denounces them together.(121) Paul had to struggle against this laxity in the Corinthian congregation, and condemns all carnal uncleanness as a violation and profanation of the temple of God.(122) In this absolute prohibition of sexual impurity we have a striking evidence of the regenerating and sanctifying influence of Christianity. Even the ascetic excesses of the post-apostolic writers who denounced the second marriage as "decent adultery" (εὐπρεπὴς μοιχεία), and glorified celibacy as a higher and better state than honorable wedlock, command our respect, as a wholesome and necessary reaction against the opposite excesses of heathen licentiousness.

So far then as the Gentile Christians were concerned the question was settled.

The status of the Jewish Christians was no subject of controversy, and hence the decree is silent about them. They were expected to continue in their ancestral traditions and customs as far as they were at all consistent with loyalty to Christ. They needed no instruction as to their duty, "for," said James, in his address to the Council, "Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."(123) And eight years afterwards he and his elders intimated to Paul that even he, as a Jew, was expected to observe the ceremonial law, and that the exemption was only meant for the Gentiles.(124)

But just here was a point where the decree was deficient. It went far enough for the temporary emergency, and as far as the Jewish church was willing to go, but not far enough for the cause of Christian union and Christian liberty in its legitimate development.

Notes.

The Apostolic Conference at Jerusalem.—This has been one of the chief battle-fields of modern historical criticism. The controversy of circumcision has been fought over again in German, French, Dutch, and English books and essays, and the result is a clearer insight both into the difference and into the harmony of the apostolic church.

We have two accounts of the Conference, one from Paul in the second chapter of the Galatians, and one from his faithful companion, Luke, in Acts 15. For it is now almost universally admitted that they refer to the same event. They must be combined to make up a full history. The Epistle to the Galatians is the true key to the position, the Archimedian ποῦ στῶ.

The accounts agree as to the contending parties—Jerusalem and Antioch—the leaders on both sides, the topic of controversy, the sharp conflict, and the peaceful result.

But in other respects they differ considerably and supplement each other. Paul, in a polemic vindication of his independent apostolic authority against his Judaizing antagonists in Galatia, a few years after the Council (about 56), dwells chiefly on his personal understanding with the other apostles and their recognition of his authority, but he expressly hints also at public conferences, which could not be avoided; for it was a controversy between the churches, and an agreement concluded by the leading apostles on both sides was of general authority, even if it was disregarded by a heretical party. Luke, on the other hand, writing after the lapse of at least thirteen years (about 63) a calm and objective history of the primitive church, gives (probably from Jerusalem and Antioch documents, but certainly not from Paul’s Epistles) the official action of the public assembly, with an abridgment of the preceding debates, without excluding private conferences; on the contrary he rather includes them; for he reports in Acts 15:5, that Paul and Barnabas "were received by the church and the apostles and elders and declared all things that God had done with them," before he gives an account of the public consultation, ver. 6. In all assemblies, ecclesiastical and political, the more important business is prepared and matured by Committees in private conference for public discussion and action; and there is no reason why the council in Jerusalem should have made an exception. The difference of aim then explains, in part at least, the omissions and minor variations of the two accounts, which we have endeavored to adjust in this section.

The ultra- and pseudo-Pauline hypercriticism of the Tübingen school in several discussions (by Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Holsten, Overbeck, Lipsius, Hausrath, and Wittichen) has greatly exaggerated these differences, and used Paul’s terse polemic allusions as a lever for the overthrow of the credibility of the Acts. But a more conservative critical reaction has recently taken place, partly in the same school (as indicated in the literature above), which tends to harmonize the two accounts and to vindicate the essential consensus of Petrinism and Paulinism.
The Circumcision of Titus.—We hold with most commentators that Titus was not circumcised. This is the natural sense of the difficult and much disputed passage, Gal. 2:3–5, no matter whether we take δέ in 2:4 in the explanatory sense (nempe, and that), or in the usual adversative sense (autem, sed, but). In the former case the sentence is regular, in the latter it is broken, or designedly incomplete, and implies perhaps a slight censure of the other apostles, who may have first recommended the circumcision of Titus as a measure of prudence and conciliation out of regard to conservative scruples, but desisted from it on the strong remonstrance of Paul. If we press the ἠναγκάσθη compelled, in 2:3, such an inference might easily be drawn, but there was in Paul’s mind a conflict between the duty of frankness and the duty of courtesy to his older colleagues. So Dr. Lightfoot accounts for the broken grammar of the sentence, "which was wrecked on the hidden rock of the counsels of the apostles of the circumcision."

Quite another view was taken by Tertullian (Adv. Marc., V. 3), and recently by Renan (ch. III. p. 89) and Farrar (I. 415), namely, that Titus voluntarily submitted to circumcision for the sake of peace, either in spite of the remonstrance of Paul, or rather with his reluctant consent. Paul seems to say that Titus was not circumcised, but implies that he was. This view is based on the omission of οἷς οὐδέ in 2:5. The passage then would have to be supplemented in this way: "But not even Titus was compelled to be circumcised, but [he submitted to circumcision voluntarily] on account of the stealthily introduced false brethren, to whom we yielded by way of submission for an hour [i.e., temporarily]." Renan thus explains the meaning: "If Titus was circumcised, it is not because he was forced, but on account of the false brethren, to whom we might yield for a moment without submitting ourselves in principle." He thinks that πρὸς ὥραν is opposed to the following διαμείνῃ. In other words, Paul stooped to conquer. He yielded for a moment by a stretch of charity or a stroke of policy, in order to save Titus from violence, or to bring his case properly before the Council and to achieve a permanent victory of principle. But this view is entirely inconsistent not only with the frankness and firmness of Paul on a question of principle, with the gravity of the crisis, with the uncompromising tone of the Epistle to the Galatians, but also with the addresses of Peter and James, and with the decree of the council. If Titus was really circumcised, Paul would have said so, and explained his relation to the fact. Moreover, the testimony of Irenaeus and Tertullian against οἷς οὐδέ must give way to the authority of the best uncials (a B A C, etc) and versions in favor of these words. The omission can be better explained from carelessness or dogmatic prejudice rather than the insertion.

§ 35. The Conservative Reaction, and the Liberal Victory—

Peter and Paul at Antioch.

The Jerusalem compromise, like every other compromise, was liable to a double construction, and had in it the seed of future troubles. It was an armistice rather than a final settlement. Principles must and will work themselves out, and the one or the other must triumph.

A liberal construction of the spirit of the decree seemed to demand full communion of the Jewish Christians with their uncircumcised Gentile brethren, even at the Lord’s table, in the weekly or daily agapae, on the basis of the common saving faith in Christ, their common Lord and Saviour. But a strict construction of the letter stopped with the recognition of the general Christian character of the Gentile converts, and guarded against ecclesiastical amalgamation on the ground of the continued obligation of the Jewish converts to obey the ceremonial law, including the observance of circumcision, of the Sabbath and new moons, and the various regulations about clean and unclean meats, which virtually forbid social intercourse with unclean Gentiles.(125)

The conservative view was orthodox, and must not be confounded with the Judaizing heresy which demanded circumcision from the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and made it a term of church membership and a condition of salvation. This doctrine had been condemned once for all by the Jerusalem agreement, and was held hereafter only by the malignant pharisaical faction of the Judaizers.

The church of Jerusalem, being composed entirely of Jewish converts, would naturally take the conservative view; while the church of Antioch, where the Gentile element prevailed, would as naturally prefer the liberal interpretation, which had the certain prospect of ultimate success. James, who perhaps never went outside of Palestine, far from denying the Christian character of the Gentile converts, would yet keep them at a respectful distance; while Peter, with his impulsive, generous nature, and in keeping with his more general vocation, carried out in practice the conviction he had so boldly professed in Jerusalem, and on a visit to Antioch, shortly after the Jerusalem Council (a.d. 51), openly and habitually communed at table with the Gentile brethren.(126) He had already once before eaten in the house of the uncircumcised Cornelius at Caesarea, seeing that "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him."(127)

But when some delegates of James(128) arrived from Jerusalem and remonstrated with him for his conduct, he timidly withdrew from fellowship with the uncircumcised followers of Christ, and thus virtually disowned them. He unwittingly again denied his Lord from the fear of man, but this time in the persons of his Gentile disciples. The inconsistency is characteristic of his impulsive temper, which made him timid or bold according to the nature of the momentary impression. It is not stated whether these delegates simply carried out the instructions of James or went beyond them. The former is more probable from what we know of him, and explains more easily the conduct of Peter, who would scarcely have been influenced by casual and unofficial visitors. They were perhaps officers in the congregation of Jerusalem; at all events men of weight, not Pharisees exactly, yet extremely conservative and cautious, and afraid of miscellaneous company, which might endanger the purity and orthodoxy of the venerable mother church of Christendom. They did, of course, not demand the circumcision of the Gentile Christians, for this would have been in direct opposition to the synodical decree, but they no doubt reminded Peter of the understanding of the Jerusalem compact concerning the duty of Jewish Christians, which he above all others should scrupulously keep. They represented to him that his conduct was at least very hasty and premature, and calculated to hinder the conversion of the Jewish nation, which was still the object of their dearest hopes and most fervent prayers. The pressure must have been very strong, for even Barnabas, who had stood side by side with Paul at Jerusalem in the defence of the rights of the Gentile Christians, was intimidated and carried away by the example of the chief of the apostles.

The subsequent separation of Paul from Barnabas and Mark, which the author of Acts frankly relates, was no doubt partly connected with this manifestation of human weakness.(129)

The sin of Peter roused the fiery temper of Paul, and called upon him a sharper rebuke than he had received from his Master. A mere look of pity from Jesus was enough to call forth bitter tears of repentance. Paul was not Jesus. He may have been too severe in the manner of his remonstrance, but he knew Peter better than we, and was right in the matter of dispute, and after all more moderate than some of the greatest and best men have been in personal controversy. Forsaken by the prince of the apostles and by his own faithful ally in the Gentile mission, he felt that nothing but unflinching courage could save the sinking ship of freedom. A vital principle was at stake, and the Christian standing of the Gentile converts must be maintained at all hazards, now or never, if the world was to be saved and Christianity was not to shrink into a narrow corner as a Jewish sect. Whatever might do in Jerusalem, where there was scarcely a heathen convert, this open affront to brethren in Christ could not be tolerated for a moment at Antioch in the church which was of his own planting and full of Hellenists and Gentiles. A public scandal must be publicly corrected. And so Paul confronted Peter and charged him with downright hypocrisy in the face of the whole congregation. He exposed his misconduct by his terse reasoning, to which Peter could make no reply.(130) "If thou," he said to him in substance, "who art a Jew by nationality and training, art eating with the Gentiles in disregard of the ceremonial prohibition, why art thou now, by the moral force of thy example as the chief of the Twelve, constraining the Gentile converts to Judaize or to conform to the ceremonial restraints of the elementary religion? We who are Jews by birth and not gross sinners like the heathen, know that justification comes not from works of the law, but from faith in Christ. It may be objected that by seeking gratuitous justification instead of legal justification, we make Christ a promoter of sin.(131) Away with this monstrous and blasphemous conclusion! On the contrary, there is sin in returning to the law for justification after we have abandoned it for faith in Christ. I myself stand convicted of transgression if I build up again (as thou doest now) the very law which I pulled down (as thou didst before), and thus condemn my former conduct. For the law itself taught me to exchange it for Christ, to whom it points as its end. Through the Mosaic law as a tutor leading me beyond itself to freedom in Christ, I died to the Mosaic law in order that I might live a new life of obedience and gratitude to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer my old self that lives, but it is Christ that lives in me; and the new life of Christ which I now live in this body after my conversion, I live in the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if the observance of the law of Moses or any other human work could justify and save, there was no good cause of Christ’s death his atoning sacrifice on the cross was needless and fruitless."

From such a conclusion Peter’s soul shrank back in horror. He never dreamed of denying the necessity and efficacy of the death of Christ for the remission of sins. He and Barnabas stood between two fires on that trying occasion. As Jews they seemed to be bound by the restrictions of the Jerusalem compromise on which the messengers of James insisted; but by trying to please the Jews they offended the Gentiles, and by going back to Jewish exclusiveness they did violence to their better convictions, and felt condemned by their own conscience.(132) They no doubt returned to their more liberal practice.

The alienation of the apostles was merely temporary. They were too noble and too holy to entertain resentment. Paul makes honorable mention afterwards of Peter and Barnabas, and also of Mark, who was a connecting link between the three.(133) Peter in his Epistles endorses the teaching of the "beloved brother Paul," and commends the wisdom of his Epistles, in one of which his own conduct is so severely rebuked, but significantly adds that there are some "things in them hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."(134)

The scene of Antioch belongs to these things which have been often misunderstood and perverted by prejudice and ignorance in the interest both of heresy and orthodoxy. The memory of it was perpetuated by the tradition which divided the church at Antioch into two parishes with two bishops, Evodius and Ignatius, the one instituted by Peter, the other by Paul. Celsus, Porphyry, and modern enemies of Christianity have used it as an argument against the moral character and inspiration of the apostles. The conduct of Paul left a feeling of intense bitterness and resentment in the Jewish party which manifested itself even a hundred years later in a violent attack of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions upon Paul, under the disguise of Simon Magus. The conduct of both apostles was so unaccountable to Catholic taste that some of the fathers substituted an unknown Cephas for Peter;(135) while others resolved the scene into a hypocritical farce gotten up by the apostles themselves for dramatic effect upon the ignorant congregation.(136)

The truth of history requires us to sacrifice the orthodox fiction of moral perfection in the apostolic church. But we gain more than we lose. The apostles themselves never claimed, but expressly disowned such perfection.(137) They carried the heavenly treasure in earthen vessels, and thus brought it nearer to us. The infirmities of holy men are frankly revealed in the Bible for our encouragement as well as for our humiliation. The bold attack of Paul teaches the right and duty of protest even against the highest ecclesiastical authority, when Christian truth and principle are endangered; the quiet submission of Peter commends him to our esteem for his humility and meekness in proportion to his high standing as the chief among the pillar-apostles; the conduct of both explodes the Romish fiction of papal supremacy and infallibility; and the whole scene typically foreshadows the grand historical conflict between Petrine Catholicism and Pauline Protestantism, which, we trust, will end at last in a grand Johannean reconciliation.

Peter and Paul, as far as we know, never met afterwards till they both shed their blood for the testimony of Jesus in the capital of the world.

The fearless remonstrance of Paul had probably a moderating effect upon James and his elders, but did not alter their practice in Jerusalem.(138) Still less did it silence the extreme Judaizing faction; on the contrary, it enraged them. They were defeated, but not convinced, and fought again with greater bitterness than ever. They organized a countermission, and followed Paul into almost every field of his labor, especially to Corinth and Galatia. They were a thorn, if not the thorn, in his flesh. He has them in view in all his Epistles except those to the Thessalonians and to Philemon. We cannot understand his Epistles in their proper historical sense without this fact. The false apostles were perhaps those very Pharisees who caused the original trouble, at all events men of like spirit. They boasted of their personal acquaintance with the Lord in the days of his flesh, and with the primitive apostles; hence Paul calls these "false apostles" sarcastically "super-eminent" or "over-extra-apostles."(139) They attacked his apostolate as irregular and spurious, and his gospel as radical and revolutionary. They boldly told his Gentile converts that the, must submit to circumcision and keep the ceremonial law; in other words, that they must be Jews as well as Christians in order to insure salvation, or at all events to occupy a position of pre-eminence over and above mere proselytes of the gate in the outer court. They appealed, without foundation, to James and Peter and to Christ himself, and abused their name and authority for their narrow sectarian purposes, just as the Bible itself is made responsible for all sorts of heresies and vagaries. They seduced many of the impulsive and changeable Galatians, who had all the characteristics of the Keltic race. They split the congregation in Corinth into several parties and caused the apostle the deepest anxiety. In Colossae, and the churches of Phrygia and Asia, legalism assumed the milder form of Essenic mysticism and asceticism. In the Roman church the legalists were weak brethren rather than false brethren, and no personal enemies of Paul, who treats them much more mildly than the Galatian errorists.

This bigoted and most persistent Judaizing reaction was overruled for good. It drew out from the master mind of Paul the most complete and most profound vindication and exposition of the doctrines of sin and grace. Without the intrigues and machinations of these legalists and ritualists we should not have the invaluable Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans. Where error abounded, truth has still more abounded.

At last the victory was won. The terrible persecution under Nero, and the still more terrible destruction of Jerusalem, buried the circumcision controversy in the Christian church. The ceremonial law, which before Christ was "alive but not life-giving," and which from Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem was "dying but not deadly," became after that destruction "dead and deadly."(140) The Judaizing heresy was indeed continued outside of the Catholic church by the sect of the Ebionites during the second century; and in the church itself the spirit of formalism and bigotry assumed new shapes by substituting Christian rites and ceremonies for the typical shadows of the Mosaic dispensation. But whenever and wherever this tendency manifests itself we have the best antidote in the Epistles of Paul.

§ 36. Christianity in Rome.

Ludwig Friedländer: Sittengeschichte Roms. Leipzig, 1862, 5th ed. revised and enlarged, 1881, 3 vols.
Rod. Lanciani: Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries. Boston, 1889 (with 100 illustrations).

II. On the Jews in Rome and the allusions of Roman Writers to Them:

Renan: Les Apôtres, 287–293; Merivale: History of the Romans, VI., 203 sqq.; Friedländer: l.c. III., 505 sqq.; Hausrath: Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, III., 383–392 (2d ed.); Schürer: Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte, pp. 624 sq., and Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit, Leipz., 1879; Huidekoper: Judaism at Rome, 1876. Also John Gill: Notices of the Jews and their Country by the Classic Writers of Antiquity. 2d ed. London, 1872. On Jewish Roman inscriptions see Garrucci (several articles in Italian since 1862), von Engeström (in a Swedish work, Upsala, 1876), and Schürer (1879).

III. On the Christian Congregation in Rome:

The Histories of the Apostolic Age (see pp. 189 sqq.); the Introductions to the Commentaries on Romans (mentioned p. 281), and a number of critical essays on the origin and composition of the Church of Rome and the aim of the Epistle to the Romans, by Baur (Ueber Zweck und Veranlassung des Römerbriefs, 1836; reproduced in his Paul, I., 346 sqq., Engl. transl.), Beyschlag (Das geschichtliche Problem des Römerbriefs in the "Studien und Kritiken" for 1867), Hilgenfeld (Einleitung in das N. T., 1875, pp. 302 sqq.), C. Weizsäcker (Ueber die älteste römische Christengemeinde, 1876, and his Apost. Zeitalter, 1886, pp. 415–467).
W. Mangold: Der Römerbrief und seine gesch. Voraussetzungen, Marburg, 1884. Defends the Jewish origin and character of the Roman church (against Weizsäcker).
Rud. Seyerlen: Entstehung und erste Schicksale der Christengemeinde in Rom. Tübingen, 1874.
Adolf Harnack: Christianity and Christians at the Court of the Roman Emperors before the Time of Constantine. In the "Princeton Review," N. York, 1878, pp. 239–280.
J. Spencer Northcote and W. R. Brownlow (R. C.): Roma Sotterranea, new ed., London, 1879, vol. I., pp. 78–91. Based upon Caval. de Rossi’s large Italian work under the same title (Roma, 1864–1877, in three vols. fol.). Both important for the remains of early Roman Christianity in the Catacombs.
Formby: Ancient Rome and its Connect. with the Chr. Rel. Lond., 1880.
Keim: Rom. u. das Christenthum. Berlin, 1881.

The City of Rome.

The city of Rome was to the Roman empire what Paris is to France, what London to Great Britain: the ruling head and the beating heart. It had even a more cosmopolitan character than these modern cities. It was the world in miniature, "orbis in urbe." Rome had conquered nearly all the nationalities of the then civilized world, and drew its population from the East and from the West, from the North and from the South. All languages, religious, and customs of the conquered provinces found a home there. Half the inhabitants spoke Greek, and the natives complained of the preponderance of this foreign tongue, which, since Alexander’s conquest, had become the language of the Orient and of the civilized world.(141) The palace of the emperor was the chief centre of Oriental and Greek life. Large numbers of the foreigners were freedmen, who generally took the family name of their masters. Many of them became very wealthy, even millionnaires. The rich freedman was in that age the type of the vulgar, impudent, bragging upstart. According to Tacitus, "all things vile and shameful" were sure to flow from all quarters of the empire into Rome as a common sewer. But the same is true of the best elements: the richest products of nature, the rarest treasures of art, were collected there; the enterprising and ambitious youths, the men of genius, learning, and every useful craft found in Rome the widest field and the richest reward for their talents.

With Augustus began the period of expensive building. In his long reign of peace and prosperity he changed the city of bricks into a city of marble. It extended in narrow and irregular streets on both banks of the Tiber, covered the now desolate and feverish Campagna to the base of the Albanian hills, and stretched its arms by land and by sea to the ends of the earth. It was then (as in its ruins it is even now) the most instructive and interesting city in the world. Poets, orators, and historians were lavish in the praises of the urbs aeterna,

"qua nihil posis visere majus."(142)

The estimates of the population of imperial Rome are guesswork, and vary from one to four millions. But in all probability it amounted under Augustus to more than a million, and increased rapidly under the following emperors till it received a check by the fearful epidemic of 79, which for many days demanded ten thousand victims a day.(143) Afterwards the city grew again and reached the height of its splendor under Hadrian and the Antonines.(144)

The Jews in Rome.

The number of Jews in Rome during the apostolic age is estimated at twenty or thirty thousand souls.(145) They all spoke Hellenistic Greek with a strong Hebrew accent. They had, as far as we know, seven synagogues and three cemeteries, with Greek and a few Latin inscriptions, sometimes with Greek words in Latin letters, or Latin words with Greek letters.(146) They inhabited the fourteenth region, beyond the Tiber (Trastevere), at the base of the Janiculum, probably also the island of the Tiber, and part of the left bank towards the Circus Maximus and the Palatine hill, in the neighborhood of the present Ghetto or Jewry. They were mostly descendants of slaves and captives of Pompey, Cassius, and Antony. They dealt then, as now, in old clothing and broken ware, or rose from poverty to wealth and prominence as bankers, physicians, astrologers, and fortunetellers. Not a few found their way to the court. Alityrus, a Jewish actor, enjoyed the highest favor of Nero. Thallus, a Samaritan and freedman of Tiberius, was able to lend a million denarii to the Jewish king, Herod Agrippa.(147) The relations between the Herods and the Julian and Claudian emperors were very intimate.

The strange manners and institutions of the Jews, as circumcision, Sabbath observance, abstinence from pork and meat sacrificed to the gods whom they abhorred as evil spirits, excited the mingled amazement, contempt, and ridicule of the Roman historians and satirists. Whatever was sacred to the heathen was profane to the Jews.(148) They were regarded as enemies of the human race. But this, after all, was a superficial judgment. The Jews had also their friends. Their indomitable industry and persistency, their sobriety, earnestness, fidelity and benevolence, their strict obedience to law, their disregard of death in war, their unshaken trust in God, their hope of a glorious future of humanity, the simplicity and purity of their worship, the sublimity and majesty of the idea of one omnipotent, holy, and merciful God, made a deep impression upon thoughtful and serious persons, and especially upon females (who escaped the odium of circumcision). Hence the large number of proselytes in Rome and elsewhere. Horace, Persius, and Juvenal, as well as Josephus, testify that many Romans abstained from all business on the Sabbath, fasted and prayed, burned lamps, studied the Mosaic law, and sent tribute to the temple of Jerusalem. Even the Empress Poppaea was inclined to Judaism after her own fashion, and showed great favor to Josephus, who calls her "devout" or "God-fearing" (though she was a cruel and shameless woman).(149) Seneca, who detested the Jews (calling them sceleratissima gens), was constrained to say that this conquered race gave laws to their conquerors.(150)

The Jews were twice expelled from Rome under Tiberius and Claudius, but soon returned to their transtiberine quarter, and continued to enjoy the privileges of a religio licita, which were granted to them by heathen emperors, but were afterwards denied them by Christian popes.(151)

When Paul arrived in Rome he invited the rulers of the synagogues to a conference, that he might show them his good will and give them the first offer of the gospel, but they replied to his explanations with shrewd reservation, and affected to know nothing of Christianity, except that it was a sect everywhere spoken against. Their best policy was evidently to ignore it as much as possible. Yet a large number came to hear the apostle on an appointed day, and some believed, while the majority, as usual, rejected his testimony.(152)

Christianity in Rome.

From this peculiar people came the first converts to a religion which proved more than a match for the power of Rome. The Jews were only an army of defense, the Christians an army of conquest, though under the despised banner of the cross.

The precise origin of the church of Rome is involved in impenetrable mystery. We are informed of the beginnings of the church of Jerusalem and most of the churches of Paul, but we do not know who first preached the gospel at Rome. Christianity with its missionary enthusiasm for the conversion of the world must have found a home in the capital of the world at a very early day, before the apostles left Palestine. The congregation at Antioch grew up from emigrant and fugitive disciples of Jerusalem before it was consolidated and fully organized by Barnabas and Paul.

It is not impossible, though by no means demonstrable, that the first tidings of the gospel were brought to Rome soon after the birthday of the church by witnesses of the pentecostal miracle in Jerusalem, among whom were "sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes."(153) In this case Peter, the preacher of the pentecostal sermon, may be said to have had an indirect agency in the founding of the church of Rome, which claims him as the rock on which it is built, although the tradition of his early visit (42) and twenty or twenty-five years’ residence there is a long exploded fable.(154) Paul greets among the brethren in Rome some kinsmen who had been converted before him, i.e., before 37.(155) Several names in the list of Roman brethren to whom he sends greetings are found in the Jewish cemetery on the Appian Way among the freedmen of the Empress Livia. Christians from Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece must have come to the capital for various reasons, either as visitors or settlers.

The Edict of Claudius.

The first historic trace of Christianity in Rome we have in a notice of the heathen historian Suetonius, confirmed by Luke, that Claudius, about a.d. 52, banished the Jews from Rome because of their insurrectionary disposition and commotion under the instigation of "Chrestus" (misspelt for "Christus").(156)

This commotion in all probability refers to Messianic controversies between Jews and Christians who were not yet clearly distinguished at that time. The preaching, of Christ, the true King of Israel, would naturally produce a great commotion among the Jews, as it did at Antioch, in Pisidia, in Lystra, Thessalonica, and Beraea; and the ignorant heathen magistrates would as naturally infer that Christ was a political pretender and aspirant to an earthly throne. The Jews who rejected the true Messiah looked all the more eagerly for an imaginary Messiah that would break the yoke of Rome and restore the theocracy of David in Jerusalem. Their carnal millennarianism affected even some Christians, and Paul found it necessary to warn them against rebellion and revolution. Among those expelled by the edict of Claudius were Aquila and Priscilla, the hospitable friends of Paul, who were probably converted before they met him in Corinth.(157)

The Jews, however, soon returned, and the Jewish Christians also, but both under a cloud of suspicion. To this fact Tacitus may refer when he says that the Christian superstition which had been suppressed for a time (by the edict of Claudius) broke out again (under Nero, who ascended the throne in 54).

Paul’s Epistle.

In the early part of Nero’s reign (54–68) the Roman congregation was already well known throughout Christendom, had several meeting places and a considerable number of teachers.(158) It was in view of this fact, and in prophetic anticipation of its future importance, that Paul addressed to it from Corinth his most important doctrinal Epistle (a.d. 58), which was to prepare the way for his long desired personal visit. On his journey to Rome three years later he found Christians at Puteoli (the modern Puzzuolo at the bay of Naples), who desired him to tarry with them seven days.(159) Some thirty or forty miles from the city, at Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae (The Three Taverns), he was met by Roman brethren anxious to see the writer of that marvellous letter, and derived much comfort from this token of affectionate regard.(160)

Paul in Rome.

His arrival in Rome, early in the year 61, which two years later was probably followed by that of Peter, naturally gave a great impulse to the growth of the congregation. He brought with him, as he had promised, "the fulness of the blessing of Christ." His very bonds were overruled for the progress of the gospel, which he was left free to preach under military guard in his own dwelling.(161) He had with him during the whole or a part of the first Roman captivity his faithful pupils and companions: Luke, "the beloved physician" and historian; Timothy, the dearest of his spiritual sons; John Mark, who had deserted him on his first missionary tour, but joined him at Rome and mediated between him and Peter; one Jesus, who is called Justus, a Jewish Christian, who remained faithful to him; Aristarchus, his fellow-prisoner from Thessalonica; Tychicus from Ephesus; Epaphras and Onesimus from Colossae; Epaphroditus from Philippi; Demas, Pudens, Linus, Eubulus, and others who are honorably mentioned in the Epistles of the captivity.(162) They formed a noble band of evangelists and aided the aged apostle in his labors at Rome and abroad. On the other hand his enemies of the Judaizing party were stimulated to counter-activity, and preached Christ from envy and jealousy; but in noble self-denial Paul rose above petty sectarianism, and sincerely rejoiced from his lofty standpoint if only Christ was proclaimed and his kingdom promoted. While he fearlessly vindicated Christian freedom against Christian legalism in the Epistle to the Galatians, he preferred even a poor contracted Christianity to the heathenism which abounded in Rome.(163)

The number which were converted through these various agencies, though disappearing in the heathen masses of the metropolis, and no doubt much smaller than the twenty thousand Jews, must have been considerable, for Tacitus speaks of a "vast multitude" of Christians that perished in the Neronian persecution in 64; and Clement, referring to the same persecution, likewise mentions a "vast multitude of the elect," who were contemporary with Paul and Peter, and who, "through many indignities and tortures, became a most noble example among ourselves" (that is, the Roman Christians).(164)

Composition and Consolidation of the Roman Church.

The composition of the church of Rome has been a matter of much learned controversy and speculation. It no doubt was, like most congregations outside of Palestine, of a mixed character, with a preponderance of the Gentile over the Jewish element, but it is impossible to estimate the numerical strength and the precise relation which the two elements sustained to each other.(165)

We have no reason to suppose that it was at once fully organized and consolidated into one community. The Christians were scattered all over the immense city, and held their devotional meetings in different localities. The Jewish and the Gentile converts may have formed distinct communities, or rather two sections of one Christian community.

Paul and Peter, if they met together in Rome (after 63), would naturally, in accordance with the Jerusalem compact, divide the field of supervision between them as far as practicable, and at the same time promote union and harmony. This may be the truth which underlies the early and general tradition that they were the joint founders of the Roman church. No doubt their presence and martyrdom cemented the Jewish and Gentile sections. But the final consolidation into one organic corporation was probably not effected till after the destruction of Jerusalem.

This consolidation was chiefly the work of Clement, who appears as the first presiding presbyter of the one Roman church. He was admirably qualified to act as mediator between the disciples of Peter and Paul, being himself influenced by both, though more by Paul. His Epistle to the Corinthians combines the distinctive features of the Epistles of Paul, Peter, and James, and has been called "a typical document, reflecting the comprehensive principles and large sympathies which had been impressed upon the united church of Rome."(166)

In the second century we see no more traces of a twofold community. But outside of the orthodox church, the heretical schools, both Jewish and Gentile, found likewise au early home in this rendezvous of the world. The fable of Simon Magus in Rome reflects this fact. Valentinus, Marcion, Praxeas, Theodotus, Sabellius, and other arch-heretics taught there. In heathen Rome, Christian heresies and sects enjoyed a toleration which was afterwards denied them by Christian Rome, until, in 1870, it became the capital of united Italy, against the protest of the pope.

Language.

The language of the Roman church at that time was the Greek, and continued to be down to the third century. In that language Paul wrote to Rome and from Rome; the names of the converts mentioned in the sixteenth chapter of the Romans, and of the early bishops, are mostly Greek; all the early literature of the Roman church was Greek; even the so-called Apostles’ Creed, in the form held by the church of Rome, was originally Greek. The first Latin version of the Bible was not made for Rome, but for the provinces, especially for North Africa. The Greeks and Greek speaking Orientals were at that time the most intelligent, enterprising, and energetic people among the middle classes in Rome. "The successful tradesmen, the skilled artisans, the confidential servants and retainers of noble houses—almost all the activity and enterprise of the common people, whether for good or for evil, were Greek."(167)

The great majority of the Christians in Rome, even down to the close of the second century, belonged to the lower ranks of society. They were artisans, freedmen, slaves. The proud Roman aristocracy of wealth, power, and knowledge despised the gospel as a vulgar superstition. The contemporary writers ignored it, or mentioned it only incidentally and with evident contempt. The Christian spirit and the old Roman spirit were sharply and irreconcilably antagonistic, and sooner or later had to meet in deadly conflict.

But, as in Athens and Corinth, so there were in Rome also a few honorable exceptions.

Paul mentions his success in the praetorian guard and in the imperial household.(168)

It is possible, though not probable, that Paul became passingly acquainted with the Stoic philosopher, Annaeus Seneca, the teacher of Nero and friend of Burrus; for he certainly knew his brother, Annaeus Gallio, proconsul at Corinth, then at Rome, and had probably official relations with Burrus, as prefect of the praetorian guard, to which he was committed as prisoner; but the story of the conversion of Seneca, as well as his correspondence with Paul, are no doubt pious fictions, and, if true, would be no credit to Christianity, since Seneca, like Lord Bacon, denied his high moral principles by his avarice and meanness.(169)

Pomponia Graecina, the wife of Aulus Plautius, the conqueror of Britain, who was arraigned for "foreign superstition" about the year 57 or 58 (though pronounced innocent by her husband), and led a life of continual sorrow till her death in 83, was probably the first Christian lady of the Roman nobility, the predecessor of the ascetic Paula and Eustochium, the companions of Jerome.(170) Claudia and Pudens, from whom Paul sends greetings (2 Tim. 4:21), have, by an ingenious conjecture, been identified with the couple of that name, who are respectfully mentioned by Martial in his epigrams; but this is doubtful.(171) A generation later two cousins of the Emperor Domitian (81–96), T. Flavius Clemens, consul (in 95), and his wife, Flavia Domitilla, were accused of "atheism, " that is, of Christianity, and condemned, the husband to death, the wife to exile (a.d. 96).(172) Recent excavations in the catacomb of Domitilla, near that of Callistus, establish the fact that an entire branch of the Flavian family had embraced the Christian faith. Such a change was wrought within fifty or sixty years after Christianity had entered Rome.(173)

(1): "Paul" (Little) is merely the Hellenized or Latinized form for his Hebrew name "Saul" (Desired), and has nothing whatever to do either with his own conversion, or with the conversion of Sergius Paulus of Cyprus. There are many similar instances of double names among the Jews of that time, as Hillel and Pollio, Cephas and Peter, John and Mark, Barsabbas and Justus, Simeon and Niger, Silas and Silvanus. Paul may have received his Latin name in early youth in Tarsus, as a Roman citizen; Paulus being the cognomen of several distinguished Roman families, as the gens AEmilia, Fabia, Julia, Sergia. He used it in his intercourse with the Gentiles and in all his Epistles. See Hist. Apost. Ch., p. 226, and my annotations to Lange on Romans 1:1, pp. 57 and 58. (2): When Paul wrote to Philemon, a.d. 63, he was an aged man (πρεσβύτης, Phil. 9), that is, about or above sixty. According to Hippocrates a man was called πρεσβύτης from forty-nine to fifty-six, and after that γέρων, senex. In a friendly letter to a younger friend and pupil the expression must not be pressed. Walter Scott speaks of himself as "an old grey man" at fifty-five. Paul was still a "youth" (νεανίας, Acts 7:58) at the stoning of Stephen, which probably took place in 37; and although this term is likewise vaguely used, yet as he was then already clothed with a most important mission by the Sanhedrin, he must have been about or over thirty years of age. Philo extends the limits of νεανίας from twenty-one to twenty-eight, Xenophon to forty. Comp. Lightfoot on Philemon, v. 9 (p. 405), and Farrar, I., 13, 14. (3): Phil. 3:5. A Hebrew by descent and education, though a Hellenist or Jew of the dispersion by birth, Acts 22:3. Probably his parents were Palestinians. This would explain the erroneous tradition preserved by Jerome (De vir. ill. c. 5), that Paul was born at Giscala in Galilee (now El-Jish), and after the capture of the place by the Romans emigrated with his parents to Tarsus. But the capture did not take place till a.d. 67. (4): Comp. the sublime passage, Phil. 3:8-10, and 1 Cor. 2:1, 2. (5): Gal. 1:14: "I made progress in Judaism beyond many of mine own age in my nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers." (6): Scripture references and allusions abound in the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, but are wanting in the Thessalonians, Colossians, and Philemon, and in his address to the heathen hearers at Athens, whom he referred to their own poets rather than to Moses and the prophets. (7): As the reasoning from the singular or rather collective σπέρμα (zera) in Gal. 3:16, the allegorical interpretation of Hagar and Sarah, 4:22 sqq., and the rock in the wilderness, 1 Cor. 10:1-4. See the commentaries. (8): Comp. Gal. 1:21; Acts 9:30; 11:25. (9): 1 Cor. 15:33. φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρηστὰ ὁμιλίαι κακαί. "Evil associations corrupt good manners." (10): Tit. 1:12. Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί. "Cretans are liars alway, bad beasts, and indolent gluttons." As Epimenides was himself a Cretan, this contemptuous depreciation of his countrymen gave rise to the syllogistic puzzle: "Epimenides calls the Cretans liars; Epimenides was a Cretan: therefore Epimenides was a liar: therefore the Cretans were not liars: therefore Epimenides was not a liar," etc. (11): Acts 17:28. Τοῦ [poetic for τούτου] γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. " For we are also His (God’s) offspring." The passage occurs literally in the Phoenomena of Aratus, v. 5, in the following connection: ..." We all greatly need Zeus, For we are his offspring; full of grace, he grants men Tokens of favor .... The Stoic poet, Cleanthes (Hymn. in Jovem, 5) uses the same expression in an address to Jupiter: Ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν, and in the Golden Poem, θεῖον γὰρ γένος ἐστὶ βροτοῖσιν. We may also quote a parallel passage of Pindar, Nem. VI., which has been overlooked by commentators: Ἓν ἀνδρῶν, ἓν θεῶν γένος, ἐκ μιᾶς δὲ πνέομεν ματρὸς ἀμφότεροι. " One race of men and gods, from one mother breathe we all." It is evident, however, that all these passages were understood by their heathen authors in a materialistic and pantheistic sense, which would make nature or the earth the mother of gods and men. Paul in his masterly address to the Athenians, without endorsing the error, recognizes the element of truth in pantheism, viz., the divine origin of man and the immanence of God in the world and in humanity. (12): τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, Gal. 4:3, 9. So Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 223. Thiersch assumes (p. 112) that Paul was familiar with the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, and that his dialectics is classical rather than rabbinical; but this is scarcely correct. In Romans 5:16, 18, he uses the word δικαίωμα in the Aristotelian sense of legal adjustment (Rechtsausgleichung). See Eth. Nicom. v. 10, and Rothe’s monograph on Rom. 5:12-21. Baur compares Paul’s style with that of Thucydides. (13): Farrar, I. 629 sq., counts "upwards of fifty specimens of thirty Greek rhetorical figures in St. Paul," which certainly disprove the assertion of Renan that Paul could never have received even elementary lessons in grammar and rhetoric at Tarsus. (14): 1 Cor. 9:1 refers to the vision of Christ at Damascus. In 2 Cor. 5:16: "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more," the particles εἰ καί (quamquam, even though, wenn auch) seem to chronicle a fact, as distinct from καὶ εἰ (etiam si, even if, selbst wenn), which puts an hypothesis; but the stress lies on the difference between an external, carnal knowledge of Christ in his humility and earthly relations or a superficial acquaintance from hearsay, and a spiritual, experimental knowledge of Christ in his glory. Farrar (I. 73 sqq.), reasons that if Paul had really known and heard Jesus, he would have been converted at once. (15): He is called a tent-maker, σκηνόποιος, Acts 18:3. Tents were mostly made of the coarse hair of the Cilician goat (Κιλίκιος τράγος, which also denotes a coarse man), and needed by shepherds, travellers, sailors, and soldiers. The same material was also used for mantelets, shoes, and beds. The Cilician origin of this article is perpetuated in the Latin cilicium and the French cilice, which means hair-cloth. Gamaliel is the author of the maxim that " learning of any kind unaccompanied by a trade ends in nothing and leads to sin." (16): Acts 23:16. (17): In 1 Cor. 9:5 (written in 57) he claims the right to lead a married life, like Peter and the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord; but in 1 Cor. 7:7, 8 he gives for himself in his peculiar position the preference to single life. Clement of Alexandria, Erasmus, and others supposed that he was married, and understood Σύζυγε, in Phil. 4:3, to be his wife. Ewald regards him as a widower who lost his wife before his conversion (VI. 341). So also Farrar (I. 80) who infers from 1 Cor. 7:8 that Paul classed himself with widowers: "I say, therefore, to the unmarried [to widowers, for whom there is no special Greek word] and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I." He lays stress on the fact that the Jews in all ages attached great importance to marriage as a moral duty (Gen. 1:28), and preferred early marriage; he also maintains (I. 169) that Paul, being a member of the Sanhedrin (as he gave his vote for the condemnation of the Christiana, Acts 26:10), must have had, according to the Gemara, a family of his own. Renan fancies (ch. VI.) that Paul contracted a more than spiritual union with sister Lydia at Philippi, and addressed her in Phil. 4:3 as his σύζυγε γνήσιε, that is, as his true co-worker or partner (conjux), since it is not likely that he would have omitted her when he mentioned, in the preceding verse, two deaconesses otherwise unknown, Euodia and Syntyche. The word σύζυγος, as a noun, may be either masculine or feminine, and may either mean generally an associate, a co-worker ("yoke -fellow" in the E. V.), or be a proper name. Several persons have been suggested, Epaphroditus, Timothy, Silas, Luke. But Paul probably means a man, named Σύζυγος and plays upon the word: "Yokefellow by name and yoke-fellow in deed." Comp. a similar paronomasia in Philem. 10, 11: Ὀνήσιμος, i.e., Helpful,-ἄχρηστος, εὔχρηστος, unprofitable, profitable. See the notes of Meyer and Lange (Braune and Hackett) on these passages. (18): This sublime loneliness of Paul is well expressed in a poem, Saint Paul, by Frederic W. H. Myers (1868), from which we may be permitted to quote a few lines: "Christ! I am Christ’s! and let the name suffice you; Aye, for me, too, He greatly hath sufficed; Lo, with no winning words I would entice you; Paul has no honor and no friend but Christ. " Yes, without cheer of sister or of daughter— Yes, w ithout stay of father or of son, Lone on the land, and homeless on the water, Pass I in patience till the work be done. "Yet not in solitude, if Christ anear me Waketh Him workers for the great employ; Oh, not in solitude, if souls that hear me Catch from my joyance the surprise of joy. Hearts I have won of sister or of brother, Quick on the earth or hidden in the sod Lo, every heart awaiteth me, another Friend in the blameless family of God." (19): 2 Cor. 10:10 ἡ μὲν παρουσία τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενής, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἐξουθενημένος, or, as Cod. B. reads, ἐξουδενημένος, which has the same meaning. Comp. 10:1, where he speaks of his " lowly" personal appearance among the Corinthians (κατὰ πρόσωπον ταπεινός). He was little, compared with Barnabas (Acts 14:12). (20): This is from the tradition preserved in the apocryphal Acts of Thecla. See the description quoted above, p. 282. Other ancient descriptions of Paul in the Philopatris of pseudo-Lucian (of the second, but more probably of the fourth century), Malala of Antioch (sixth century), and Nicephorus (fifteenth century), represent Paul as little in stature, bald, with a prominent aquiline nose, gray hair and thick beard, bright grayish eyes, somewhat bent and stooping, yet pleasant and graceful. See these descriptions in Lewin’s St. Paul, II. 412. The oldest extant portraiture of Paul, probably from the close of the first or beginning of the second century, was found on a large bronze medallion in the cemetery of Domitilla (one of the Flavian family), and is preserved in the Vatican library. It presents Paul on the left and Peter on the right. Both are far from handsome, but full of character; Paul is the homelier of the two, with apparently diseased eyes, open mouth, bald head and short thick beard, but thoughtful, solemn, and dignified. See a cut in Lewin, II. 211. Chrysostom calls Paul the three-cubit man (ὁ τρίπηχυς ἄνθρωπος, Serm. in Pet. et Paul.). Luther imagined: "St. Paulus war ein armes, dürres Männlein, wie Magister Philippus "(Melanchthon). A poetic description by J. H. Newman see in Farrar I. 220, and in Plumptre on Acts, Appendix, with another (of his own). Renan (Les Apôtres, pp. 169 sqq.) gives, partly from Paul’s Epistles, partly from apocryphal sources, the following striking picture of the apostle: His behavior was winning, his manners excellent, his letters reveal a man of genius and lofty aspirations, though the style is incorrect. Never did a correspondence display rarer courtesies, tenderer shades, more amiable modesty and reserve. Once or twice we are wounded by his sarcasm (Gal. 5: 12; Phil. 3:2). But what rapture! What fulness of charming words! What originality! His exterior did not correspond to the greatness of his soul. He was ugly, short, stout, plump, of small head, bald, pale, his face covered with a thick beard, an eagle nose, piercing eyes, dark eyebrows. His speech, embarrassed, faulty, gave a poor idea of his eloquence. With rare tact he turned his external defects to advantage. The Jewish race produces types of the highest beauty and of the most complete homeliness (des types de la plus grande beauté et de la plus complète laideur); but the Jewish homeliness is quite unique. The strange faces which provoke laughter at first sight, assume when intellectually enlivened, a peculiar expression of intense brilliancy and majesty (une sorte d’éclat profond et de majesté). (21): 2 Cor. 12:7-9; Gal. 4:13-15. Comp. also 1 Thess. 2:18; 1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 1:8, 9; 4:10. Of the many conjectures only three: sick headache, acute ophthalmia, epilepsy, seem to answer the allusions of Paul which are dark to us at such a distance of time, while they were clear to his personal friends. Tertullian and Jerome, according to an ancient tradition, favor headache; Lewin, Farrar, and many others, sore eyes, dating the inflammation from the dazzling light which shone around him at Damascus (Acts 9:3, 17, 18; Comp. 22:13; 23:3, 5; Gal. 4:15); Ewald and Lightfoot, epilepsy, with illustration from the life of King Alfred (Mohammed would be even more to the point). Other conjectures of external, or spiritual trials (persecution, carnal temptations, bad temper, doubt, despondency, blasphemous suggestions of the devil, etc.) are ruled out by a strict exegesis of the two chief passages in 2 Cor. 12 and Gal. 4, which point to a physical malady. See an Excursus on Paul’s thorn in the flesh in my Commentary on Gal. 4:13-15 (Pop. Com. vol. III.). (22): 2 Cor. 4:7; 12:9, 10. (23): Acts 9:4, the Hebrew form Σαούλ, Σαούλ, is used instead of the usual Greek Σαῦλος, 9:8, 11, 22, 24, etc. (24): 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15. (25): Acts 9, 22, 26. These accounts are by no means mere repetitions, but modifications and adaptations of the same story to the audience under apologetic conditions, and bring out each some interesting feature called forth by the occasion. This has been well shown by Dean Howson in Excursus C on Acts 26, in his and Canon Spence’s Commentary on Acts. The discrepancies of the accounts are easily reconciled. They refer chiefly to the effect upon the companions of Paul who saw the light, but not the person of Christ, and heard a voice, but could not understand the words. The vision was not for them any more than the appearance of the risen Lord was for the soldiers who watched the grave. They were probably members of the Levitical temple guard, who were to bind and drag the Christian prisoners to Jerusalem. (26): Gal. 1:15, 16; 1 Cor. 15:8, 9; 9:1; 2 Cor. 4:6; Phil. 3:6; 1 Tim 1:12-14. (27): 2 Cor. 4:6. (28): Gal. 1:1, 11, 12, 15-18. (29): This is implied in his words to King Agrippa, Acts 26:19. (30): Acts 26:14. Christ said to him: σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν. This is a proverbial expression used by Greek writers of refractory oxen in the plough when urged by a sharp-pointed instrument of the driver. The ox may and often does resist, but by doing so he only increases his pain. Resistance is possible, but worse than useless. (31): Rom. 7:7-25. This remarkable section describes the psychological progress of the human heart to Christ from the heathen state of carnal security, when sin is dead because unknown, through the Jewish state of legal conflict, when sin, roused by the stimulus of the divine command, springs into life, and the higher and nobler nature of man strives in vain to overcome this fearful monster, until at last the free grace of God in Christ gains the victory. Some of the profoundest divines-Augustin, Luther, Calvin-transfer this conflict into the regenerate state; but this is described in the eighth chapter which ends in an exulting song of triumph. (32): Phil 3:6, κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος. (33): Mark 10:21. (34): In his address to Peter at Antioch, Gal. 2:11-21, he gives an account of his experience and his gospel, as contrasted with the gospel of the Judaizers. Comp. Gal. 3:24; 5:24; 6:14; Rom. 7:6-13; Col. 2:20. (35): 1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 6:14; Rom. 4:24, 25. (36): 1 Cor. 15:9, 10; comp. Eph. 3:8: "Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given;" 1 Tim. 1:15, 16: "to save sinners of whom I am chief," etc. (37): Rom. 9:2, 3; comp. Ex. 32:31, 32. (38): Paul never numbers himself with the Twelve. He distinguishes himself from the apostles of the circumcision, as the apostle of the uncircumcision, but of equal authority with them. Gal. 2:7-9. We have no intimation that the election of Matthias (Acts 1:26) was a mistake of the hasty Peter; it was ratified by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit immediately following. (39): On the testimony of Paul to Christianity see above § 22. I will add some good remarks of Farrar, I. 202: "It is impossible," he says, "to exaggerate the importance of St. Paul’s conversion as one of the evidences of Christianity .... To what does he testify respecting Jesus? To almost every single primary important fact respecting his incarnation, life, sufferings, betrayal, last supper, trial, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and heavenly exaltation .... The events on which the apostle relied in proof of Christ’s divinity, had taken place in the full blaze of contemporary knowledge. He had not to deal with uncertainties of criticism or assaults on authenticity. He could question, not ancient documents, but living men; he could analyze, not fragmentary records, but existing evidence. He had thousands of means close at hand whereby to test the reality or unreality of the Resurrection in which, up to this time, he had so passionately and contemptuously disbelieved. In accepting this half-crushed and wholly execrated faith he had everything in the world to lose-he had nothing conceivable to gain; and yet, in spite of all-overwhelmed by a conviction he felt to be irresistible—Saul, the Pharisee, became a witness of the resurrection, a preacher of the cross." (40): See my History of the Creeds of Christendom, I. 426 sqq. (41): This is fully recognized by Renan, who, however, has little sympathy either with the apostle or the reformer, and fancies that the theology of both is antiquated. "That historical character," he says, "which upon the whole bears most analogy to St. Paul, is Luther. In both there is the same violence in language, the same passion, the same energy, the same noble independence, the same frantic attachment to a thesis embraced as the absolute truth." St. Paul, ch. XXII. at the close. And his last note in this book is this: "The work which resembles most in spirit the Epistle to the Galatians is Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae." (42): For particulars of his inner conflicts during his Erfurt period, see Köstlin’s Martin Luther (1875), I. 40 sqq. and 61 sqq. (43): Comp. the section on the Resurrection of Christ, pp. 172 sqq. (44): Reported by Epiphanius, Haer XXX. 16 (ed. Oehler, tom. I. 268 sq.). (45): In the Clem. Hom., XVII., ch. 19 (p. 351, ed. Dressel), Simon Peter says to Simon Magus: "If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision (δι’ ὁράματος ὀφθείς) made himself known to you, and conversed with you, it is as one who is enraged with an adversary (ὡς ἀντικειμένῳ ὀργιζόμενος). And this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams (δι’ ὁραμάτων καὶ ἐνυπνίων), or through revelations that, were from without (ἢ καὶ δι’ ἀποκαλύψεων ἔξωθεν οὐσῶν) that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? (δι’ ὀπτασίαν) .... And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But if you have seen and were taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For you stand now in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the church (στερεὰν πέτραν, θεμέλιον ἐκκλησίας, comp. Matt. 16:18). If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and had not stood the test [according to the true reading restored by Lagarde, ἀδοκίμου ὄντος instead of εὐδοκιμοῦντος,’in good repute’]. But if you say that I am ’condemned’ (εἰ κατεγνωσμένον με λέγεις, comp. Gal. 2:11), you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation (Matt. 16:17). But if you really wish to be a co-worker, in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with me." The allusions to Paul’s Christ-vision and his collision with Peter at Antioch are unmistakable, and form the chief argument for Baur’s identification of Simon Magus with Paul. But it is perhaps only an incidental sneer. Simon represents all anti-Jewish heresies, as Peter represents all truths. (46): This theory was proposed by the so-called "vulgar" or deistic rationalists (as distinct from the more recent speculative or pantheistic rationalists), and has been revived and rhetorically embellished by Renan in Les Apôtres (ch. X., pp. 175 sqq.). "Every step to Damascus," says the distinguished French Academicien, "excited in Paul bitter repentance; the shameful task of the hangman was intolerable to him; he felt as if he was kicking against the goads; the fatigue of travel added to his depression; a malignant fever suddenly seized him; the blood rushed to the head; the mind was filled with a picture of midnight darkness broken by lightning flashes; it is probable that one of those sudden storms of Mount Hermon broke out which are unequalled for vehemence, and to the Jew the thunder was the voice of God, the lightning the fire of God. Certain it is that by a fearful stroke the persecutor was thrown on the ground and deprived of his senses; in his feverish delirium he mistook the lightning for a heavenly vision, the voice of thunder for a voice from heaven; inflamed eyes, the beginning of ophthalmia, aided the delusion. Vehement natures suddenly pass from one extreme to another; moments decide for the whole life; dogmatism is the only thing which remains. So Paul changed the object of his fanaticism; by his boldness, his energy, his determination he saved Christianity, which otherwise would have died like Essenism, without leaving a trace of its memory. He is the founder of independent Protestantism. He represents le christianisme conquérant et voyageur. Jesus never dreamed of such disciples; yet it is they who will keep his work alive and secure it eternity." In this work, and more fully in his St. Paul, Renan gives a picture of the great apostle which is as strange a mixture of truth and error, and nearly as incoherent and fanciful, as his romance of Jesus in the Vie de Jésus. (47): So Strauss (Leben Jesu, § 138, in connection with the resurrection of Christ), Baur (with much more seriousness and force, in his Paul, P. I., ch. 3) and the whole Tübingen School, Holsten, Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Pfleiderer, Hausrath, and the author of Supernatural Religion (III. 498 sqq.). Baur at last gave up the theory as a failure (1860, see below). But Holsten revived and defended it very elaborately and ingeniously in his essay on the Christusvision des Paulus, in Hilgenfeld’s "Zeitschrift" for 1861. W. Beyschlag (of Halle) very ably refuted it in an article: Die Bekehrung des Paulus mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Erklärungsversuche von Baur und Holsten, in the "Studien und Kritiken" for 1864, pp. 197-264. Then Holsten came out with an enlarged edition of his essay in book form, Zum Evang. des Paulus und des Petrus, 1868, with a long reply to Beyschlag. Pfleiderer repeated the vision-theory in his Hibbert Lectures (1885). Some English writers have also written on Paul’s conversion in opposition to this modern vision-theory, namely, R. Macpherson: The Ressurection of Jesus Christ (against Strauss), Edinb., 1867, Lect. XIII., pp. 316-360; Geo. P. Fisher: Supernatural Origin of Christianity, N. York, new ed. 1877, pp. 459-470, comp. his essay on "St. Paul" inDiscussions in History and Theology, N.Y. 1880, pp. 487-511; A. B. Bruce (of Glasgow): Paul’s Conversion and the Pauline Gospel, in the "Presbyt Review" for Oct. 1880 (against Pfleiderer, whose work on Paulinism Bruce calls "an exegetical justification and a philosophical dissipation of the Reformed interpretation of the Pauline system of doctrine"). (48): He describes it as an οὐράνιος ὀπτασία, Acts 26:19, and says that he saw Christ, that Christ was seen by him, 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8. So the vision of the women at the tomb of the risen Lord is called an ὀπτασία τῶν ἀγγέλων, Luke 24:23. But even Peter, who was less critical than Paul, well knew how to distinguish between an actual occurrence (an ἀληθῶς γενόμενον) and a merely subjective vision (a ὅραμα) Acts 12:9. Objective visions are divine revelations through the senses; subjective visions are hallucinations and deceptions. (49): Gal. 1:16, ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, within me, in my inmost soul and consciousness. (50): Baur was disposed to charge this confusion upon the author of the Acts and to claim for Paul a more correct conception of the Christophany, as being a purely inner event or "a spiritual manifestation of Christ to his deeper self-consciousness" (Gal. 1:16, ἐν ἐμοί); but this is inconsistent with Paul’s own language in 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8. Holsten admits that, without a full conviction of the objective, reality of the Christophany, Paul could never have come to the conclusion that the crucified was raised to new life by the almighty power of God. He states the case from his standpoint clearly in these words (p. 65): "Der glaube des Paulus an Jesus als den Christus war folge dessen, dass auch ihm Christus erschienen war, (1 Cor. 15:8).Diese vision war für das bewusstsein des Paulus das schauen einer objectiv-wirklichen, himmlischen gestalt, die aus ihrer transcendenten unsichtbarkeit sich ihm zur erscheinung gebracht habe. Aus der wirklichkeit dieser gesehauten gestalt, in welcher er den gekreuzigtenJesus erkannte, folgerte auch er, dass der kreuzestote zu neuem leben von der allmacht Gottes auferweckt worden, aus der gewissheit der auferweckung aber, dass dieser von den toten auferweckte der sohn Gottes und der Messias sei. Wie also an der wirklichkeit der auferweckung dem Paulus die ganze wahrheit seines evangelium hängt (vgl. 1 Cor. 15, 12 f.), so ist es die, vision des auferweckten, mit welcher ihm die wahrheit des messias-glaubens aufging, und der umschwung seines bewusstseins sich vollendete. "Diese vision war für Paulus der eingriff einer fremden transcendenten macht in sein geistesleben. Die historische kritik aber unter der herrschaft des gesetzes der immanenten entwicklung des menschlichen geistes aus innerweltlichen causalitäten muss die vision als einen immanenten, psychogischen akt seines eigenen geistes zu begreifen suchen. Ihr liegt damit eine ihrer schwiezigsten aufgaben vor, eine so schwierige, dass ein meister der historischen kritik, der zugleich so tief in das wesen des paulinischen geistes eingedrungen ist, als Baur, noch eben erklärt hat, dass ’keine, weder psychologische, noch dialektische analyse das innere geheimnis des aktes erforschen könne, in welchem Gott seinen sohn dem Paulus enthüllte.’Und doch darf sich die kritik von dem versuch, dies geheimnis zu erforschen, nicht abschrecken, lassen. Denn diese vision ist einer der entscheidendsten punkte für ein geschichtliches begreifen des urchristentums. In ihrer genesis ist der keim des paulinischen evangelium gegeben. So lange der schein nicht aufgehoben ist, dass die empfängnis dieses keims als die wirkung einer transcendenten kraft erfolgt sei, besteht über dem empfangenen fort und fort der schein des transcendenten. Und die kritik am wenigsten darf sich damit beruhigen, dass eine transcendenz, eine objectivität, wie sie von ihren gegnern für diese vision gefordert wird, von der selbstgewissheit des modernen geistes verworfen sei. Denn diese selbstgewissheit kann ihre wahrheit nur behaupten, solange und soweit ihre kategorieen als das gesetz der wirklichkeit nachgewiesen sind." Dr. Pfleiderer moves in the same line with Holsten, and eliminates the supernatural, but it is due to him to say that he admits the purely hypothetical character of this speculative theory, and lays great stress on the moral as well as the logical and dialectical process in Paul’s mind, "Darum war,"he says (Paulinismus, p. 16)."der Prozess der Bekehrung nichts weniger, als eine kalte Denkoperation; es war vielmehr der tiefsittliche Gehorsamsakt eines zarten Gewissens gegen die sich unwiderstehlich aufdrängende höhere Wahrheit (daher ihm auch der Glaube eine ὑπακοή ist), ein Akt grossartiger Selbstverleugnung, der Hingabe des alten Menschen und seiner ganzen religiösen Welt in den Tod, um fortan keinen Ruhm, ja kein Leben mehr zu haben, als in Christo, dem Gekreuzigten. Das ist ja der Grundton, den wir aus allen Briefen des Apostels heraustönen hören, wo immer er sein persönliches Verhältniss zum Kreuz Christi schildert; es ist nie bloss ein Verhältniss objectiver Theorie, sondern immer zugleich und wesentlich das der subjectiven Verbundenheit des innersten Gemüths mit dem Gekreuzigten, eine mystische Gemeinschaft mit dem Kreuzestod und mit dem Auferstehungsleben Christi." (51): Comp. 2 Cor. 12:2; Acts 18:9; 22:17. Some of these modern critics suppose that he was epileptic, like Mohammed and Swedenborg, and therefore all the more open to imaginary visions. (52): 1 Cor. 15:8: ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων, ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι, ὤφθη κἀμοί. Meyer justly remarks in loc.: ἔσχατον schliesst die Reihe leibhaftiger Erscheinungen ab, und scheidet damit diese von späteren visionären oder sonst apokalyptischen."Similarly Godet (Com. sur l’épitre aux Romains, 1879, I. 17) "Paul clôt l’énumeration des apparitions de Jésus ressuscité aux apôtres par celle qui lui a été accordée à lui-méme; il lui attribue donc la méme réalité qu’à celles-là, et il la distingue ainsi d’une manière tranchée de toutes les visions dont il fut plus tard honoré et que mentionnent le livre des Actes, et les épitres." (53): 1 Cor 15:12 sqq. Dean Stanley compares this discussion to the Phaedo of Plato and the Tusculan Disputations of Cicero, but it is far more profound and assuring. Heathen philosophy can at best prove only the possibility and probability, but not the certainty, of a future life. Moreover the idea of immortality has no comfort, but terror rather, except for those who believe in Christ, who is "the Resurrection and the Life." (54): Gal. 1:16; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Acts 22:10, 14. (55): Acts 9:2; comp. Gal. 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:9; Phil. 3:6; 1 Tim. 1:13 (56): See Baur’s Church History of the First Three Centuries, Tübingen, 2d ed. p. 45; English translation by Allan Menzies, London, 1878, vol. I. 47. (57): Geschichte Jesu von Nazara. Zürich, 1872, vol. III. 532. (58): Das Christusbild der Apostel. Leipzig, 1879, pp. 57 sq. (59): Les Épitres pauliniennes. Paris, 1878, vol. I. p. 11. (60): The εὐθέως of Acts 9:20 compels us to put this short testimony during the few days (ἡμέρας τινάς) which he spent with the disciples at Damascus, before his departure to Arabia. About three years afterwards (or after "many days," ἡμέραι ἱκαναί, were fulfilled, Acts 9:23), he returned to Damascus to renew his testimony (Gal. 1:17). (61): Gal. 1:17, 18. In the Acts (9:23) this journey is ignored because it belonged not to the public, but private and inner life of Paul. (62): Comp. Gal. 4:25, where "Arabia" means the Sinaitic Peninsula. (63): 2 Cor. 3:6-9. (64): Thus Godet sums up his life (Romans, Introd. I. 59). He thinks that Paul was neither the substitute of Judas, nor of James the son of Zebedee, but a substitute for a converted Israel, the man who had, single-handed, to execute the task which properly fell to his whole nation; and hence the hour of his call was precisely that when the blood of the two martyrs, Stephen and James, sealed the hardening of Israel and decided its rejection. (65): "Westward the course of empire takes its way." This famous line of Bishop Berkeley, the philosopher, express a general law of history both civil and religious. Clement of Rome says that Paul came on his missionary tour "to the extreme west" (ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως), which means either Rome or Spain, whither the apostle intended to go (Rom. 15:24, 28). Some English historians (Ussher, Stillingfleet, etc.) would extend Paul’s travels to Gaul and Britain, but of this there is no trace either in the New Test., or in the early tradition. See below. (66): Rom. 1:16, "to the Jews first," not on the ground of a superior merit (the Jews, as a people, were most unworthy and ungrateful), but on the ground of God’s promise and the historical order (Rom. 15:8). (67): 2 Cor. 11:24-29. (68): 2 Cor. 4:8, 9. (69): Rom. 8:31-39. (70): 2 Tim. 4:6-8. We may add here the somewhat panegyric passage of Clement of Rome, who apparently exalts Paul above Peter, Ep. ad Corinth. c. 5: "Let as set before our eyes the good Apostles. Peter, who on account of unrighteous jealousy endured not one or two, but many toils, and thus having borne his testimony (μαρτυρήσας, or, suffered martyrdom), went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the price of patient endurance. After having been seven times in bonds, driven into exile, stoned, and after having preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the boundary of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the magistrates, he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having become the greatest example of patient endurance." (71): Acts 9:23-25; comp. 2 Cor. 11:32, 33. The window of escape is still shown in Damascus, as is also the street called Straight, the house of Judas, and the house of Ananias. But these local traditions are uncertain. (72): Gal. 1:18-24; Comp. Acts 9:26, 27. (73): Acts 22:17-21. It is remarkable that in his prayer he confessed his sin against "Stephen the martyr;" thus making public reparation for a public sin in the city where it was committed. (74): Acts 11:28-30; 12:25. (75): "Paul left Athens," says Farrar (I. 550 sq.), "a despised and lonely man. And yet his visit was not in vain .... He founded no church at Athens, but there-it may be under the fostering charge of the converted Areopagite-a church grew up. In the next century it furnished to the cause of Christianity its martyr bishops and its eloquent apologists (Publius, Quadratus, Aristides, Athenagoras). In the third century it flourished in peace and purity. In the fourth century it was represented at Nicaea, and the noble rhetoric of the two great Christian friends, St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, was trained in its Christian schools. Nor were many centuries to elapse ere, unable to confront the pierced hands which held a wooden cross, its myriads of deities had fled into the dimness of outworn creeds, and its tutelary goddess, in spite of the flashing eyes which Homer had commemorated, and the mighty spear which had been moulded out of the trophies of Marathon, resigned her maiden chamber to the honour of that meek Galilaean maiden who had lived under the roof of the carpenter at Nazareth-the virgin mother of the Lord." Yet Athens was one of the last cities in the Roman empire which abandoned idolatry, and it never took a prominent position in church history. Its religion was the worship of ancient Greek genius rather than that of Christ. "Il est been moins disciple de Jésus et de saint Paul que de Plutarque et de Julien," says Renan, St. Paul, p. 208. His chapter on Paul in Athens is very interesting. (76): In Corinth Paul wrote that fearful, yet truthful description of pagan depravity in Rom. 1:18 sqq. The city was proverbially corrupt, so that κορινθιάζομαι means to practise whoredom, and κορινθιαστής, a whoremonger. The great temple of Venus on the acropolis had more than a thousand courtezans devoted to the service of lust. With good reason Bengel calls a church of God in Corinth a "laetum et ingens paradoxon (in 1 Cor. 1:2). See the lively description of Renan, St. Paul, ch. VIII. pp. 211 sqq. (77): Weiss (Bibl. Theol. des N. T., 3d ed. p. 202) is inclined to assign the composition of the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians to the period of the imprisonment at Caesarea. So also Thiersch, Reuss, Schenkel, Meyer, Zöckler, Hausrath. See Meyer Com. on Eph. (5th ed. by Woldemar Schmidt, 1878, p. 18), and on the other side, Neander, Wieseler, and Lightfoot (Philippians, 3d ed. 1873, p. 29), who date all the Epistles of the captivity from Rome. (78): Acts 28:30, 31. Comp. the Epistles of the captivity. (79): Bengel remarks on Acts 28:31 "Paulus Romae, apex evangelii, Actorum finis: quae Lucas alioqui (2 Tim. 4:11)facile potuisset ad exitum Pauli perducere. Hierosolymis cœpit: Romae desinit." The abruptness of the close seems not to be accidental, for, as Lightfoot remarks (Com. on Philippians, p. 3, note), there is a striking parallelism between the Acts and the Gospel of Luke in their beginning and ending, and there could be no fitter termination of the narrative, since it is the realization of that promise of the universal spread of the gospel which is the starting-point of the Acts. (80): Namely, to Ephesus 1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:13, 20; to Crete, Tit. 1:5 and to Nicopolis, Tit. 3:12. (81): Phil. 1:25; 2:24; Philem. 22. These passages, however, are not conclusive, for the Apostle claims no infallibility in personal matters and plans; he was wavering between the expectation and desire of speedy martyrdom and further labors for the brethren, Phil. 1:20-23; 2:17. He may have been foiled in his contemplated visit to Philippi and Colosse. (82): Rom. 15:24, 28. Renan denies a visit to the Orient, but thinks that the last labors of Paul were spent in Spain or Gaul, and that he died in Rome by the sword, a.d. 64 or later (L’Antechrist, 106, 190). Dr. Plumptre (in the Introduction to his Com. on Luke, and in an Appendix to his Com. on Acts) ingeniously conjectures some connection between Luke, Paul’s companion, and the famous poet, M. Annaeus Lucanus (the author of the Pharsalia, and a nephew of Seneca), who was a native of Corduba (Cordova) in Spain, and on this basis he accounts for the favorable conduct of J. Annaeus Gallic (Seneca’s brother) toward Paul at Corinth, the early tradition of a friendship between Paul and Seneca, and Paul’s journey to Spain. Rather fanciful. (83): Jos. Vita, c. 3. Comp. Plumptre, l.c. (84): Tertullian (De praescr. haeret. c. 36): "Romae Petrus passioni Dominica adaequatur, Paulus Joannis [Baptistae]exitu coronatur." (85): Comp. § 26, pp. 250, 257-259. (86): Ewald (VI. 631) conjectures that Paul, on hearing of the Neronian persecution, hastened back to Rome of his own accord, to bear testimony to Christ, and being seized there, was again brought to trial and condemned to death, a.d. 65. Ewald assumes an intervening visit to Spain, but not to the East. (87): 2 Tim. 4:6-8. Bengel calls this Epistle testamentum Pauli et cycnes cantio. (88): 1 Cor. 15:9 (a.d. 57); Eph. 3:8 (a.d. 62); 1 Tim. 1:15 (a.d. 63 or 64?). (89): A Latin inscription in Spain, which records the success of Nero in extirpating the new superstition, Gruter, Inscript., p. 238, is now commonly abandoned as spurious. (90): I must here correct an error into which I have fallen with Dr. Wieseler, in my Hist. of the Ap. Ch., p. 342, by reading ὑπὸ τὸ τέρμα and interpreting it "before the highest tribunal of the West." ἐπί is the reading of the Cod. Alex. (though defectively written), as I have convinced myself by an inspection of the Codex in the British Museum in 1869, in the presence of Mr. Holmes and the late Dr. Tregelles. The preposition stands at the end of line 17, fol. 159b, second col., in the IVth vol. of the Codex, and is written in smaller letters from want of space, but by the original hand. The same reading is confirmed by the newly discovered MS. of Bryennios. (91): "Circumcision," says Renan (St. Paul, ch. III. p. 67)."was, for adults, a painful ceremony, one not without danger, and disagreeable to the last degree. It was one of the reasons which prevented the Jews from moving freely about among other people, and set them apart as a caste by themselves. At the baths and gymnasiums, those important parts of the ancient cities, circumcision exposed the Jew to all sorts of affronts. Every time that the attention of the Greeks and Romans was directed to this subject, outbursts of jestings followed. The Jews were very sensitive in this regard, and avenged themselves by cruel reprisals. Several of them, in order to escape the ridicule, and washing to pass themselves off for Greeks, strove to efface the original mark by a surgical operation of which Celsus has preserved us the details. As to the converts who accepted this initiation ceremony, they had only one course to pursue, and that was to hide themselves in order to escape sarcastic taunts. Never did a man of the world place himself in such a position; and this is doubtless the reason why conversions to Judaism were much more numerous among women than among men, the former not being put, at the very outset, to a test, in every respect repulsive and shocking. We have many examples of Jewesses married to heathens, but not a single one of a Jew married to a heathen woman." (92): Acts 10 and 11. (93): Acts 15:1, 5: τινὲς τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων πεπιστευκότες . (94): Gal. 2:4: παρείσακτοι (comp. παρεισάξουσιν in 2 Pet. 2:1) ψευδάδελφοι οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον (who came in sideways, or crept in, sneaked in; comp. Jude 4, παρεισέδυσαν) κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν. The emissaries of these Pharisaical Judaizers are ironically called "super-extra-apostles," ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι, 2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11. For these are not the real apostles (as Baur and his followers maintained in flat contradiction to the connection of 2 Cor. 10 to 12), but identical with the "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ,"2 Cor. 11:13. Baur’s monstrous misinterpretation has been completely refuted by Weizsäcker (on Paul and the Congregation of Corinth, l.c. p. 640), Keim, Klöpper, Wieseler, and Grimm (l.c. 432). Comp. also Godet, l.c. pp. 49 sq. (95): Gal. 1:22-24. (96): To what ridiculous extent some Jewish rabbis of the rigid school of Shammai carried the overestimate of circumcision, may be seen from the following deliverances quoted by Farrar (I. 401): "So great is circumcision that but for it the Holy One, blessed be He, would not have created the world; for it is said (Jer. 33:25), ’But for my covenant [circumcision] I would not have made day and night, and the ordinance of heaven and earth.’" "Abraham was not called ’perfect’ till he was circumcised." (97): Paul mentions the subjective motive, Luke the objective call. Both usually unite in important trusts. But Baur and Lipsius make this one of the irreconcilable contradictions! (98): Luke reports the former and hints at the latter (comp. Acts 5 and 6) Paul reports the private understanding and hints at the public conference, saying (Gal. 2:2): "I laid (ἀνεθέμην) before them [the brethren of Jerusalem] the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute (or, before those in authority),"i.e., the pillar-apostles of the circumcision, James, Cephas, and John, comp. Acts 2:9. Dr. Baur who denies the public conference, mistranslates κατ’ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν und zwar wandte ich mich speciell (specially) an die vorzugsweise Geltenden,"so that τοῖς δοκοῦσιν would be the same as the preceding αὐτοῖς (Paul, ch. V. p. 117, in the English translation, I. 122). But this would have been more naturally expressed by τοῖς δοκοῦσιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, and κατ’ ἰδίαν, as Grimm, the lexicographer of the N. T., remarks against Baur (l.c., p. 412), does not mean "specially" at all, but privatim, seorsum, "apart," "in private," as in Mark 4:34, and κατ’ ἰδίαν εἰπεῖν, Diod. I. 21. (99): The order in which they are named by Paul is significant: James first, as the bishop of Jerusalem and the most conservative, John last, as the most liberal of the Jewish apostles. There is no irony in the term οἱ δοκοῦντες and οἱ στῦλοι, certainly not at the expense of the apostles who were pillars in fact as well as in name and repute. If there is any irony in Gal 2:6, ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν, οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει, it is directed against the Judaizers who overestimated the Jewish apostles to the disparagement of Paul. Even Keim (l.c., p. 74) takes this view: "Endlich mag man aufhören, von ironischer Bitterkeit des Paulus gegenüber den Geltenden zu reden: denn wer gleich nachher den Bundesschluss mit den ’Säulen’feierlich und befriedigt registrirt, der hat seine Abweisung der menschlichen Autoritäten in v. 6 nicht dem Andenken der Apostel gewidmet, sondern dem notorischen Uebermuth der judenchristlichen Parteigänger in Galatien." (100): Gal. 2:7-10; comp. Acts 11:30; 24:17; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:25-27. (101): Barnabas, as the older disciple, still retained precedence in the Jewish church, and hence is named first. A later forger would have reversed the order. (102): Dr. Plumptre remarks against the Tübingen critics (on Acts 15:7): "Of all doctrines as to the development of the Christian church, that which sees in Peter, James, and John the leaders of a Judaizing anti-Pauline party is, perhaps, the most baseless and fantastic. The fact that their names were unscrupulously used by that party, both in their lifetime and, as the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions show, after their death, cannot outweigh their own deliberate words and acts." (103): This is very evident from the indignant tone of Paul against the Judaizers, and from the remark in Acts 15:6: πολλῆς συζητήσεως γενομένης, comp. Acts 15:2: γενομένης στάσεως (factious party spirit, insurrection, Luke 23:19; Mark 15:7) καὶ ζητήσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης. Such strong terms show that Luke by no means casts the veil of charity over the differences in the apostolic church. (104): Gal. 2:3-5. See the note below. (105): Acts 16:3. The silence of Luke concerning the non-circumcision of Titus has been distorted by the Tübingen critics into a wilful suppression of fact, and the mention of the circumcision of Timothy into a fiction to subserve the catholic unification of Petrinism and Paulinism. What a designing and calculating man this anonymous author of the Acts must have been, and yet not shrewd enough to conceal his literary fraud or to make it more plausible by adapting it to the account in the Galatians, and by mentioning the full understanding between the apostles themselves! The book of Acts is no more a full history of the church or of the apostles than the Gospels are full biographies of Christ. (106): Comp. Rom. 14 and 15; 1 Cor. 9:19-23; Acts 21:23-26. (107): Gal. 5:6; 6:15; 1 Cor. 7:19. Dr. Plumptre’s remarks on the last passage are to the point: "Often those who regard some ceremony as unimportant magnify the very disregard of it into a necessary virtue. The apostle carefully guards against that by expressing the nothingness of both circumcision and uncircumcision (Rom. 2:25; Gal. 5:6; 6:15). The circumicision of Timothy, and the refusal to circumcise Titus by St. Paul himself, are illustrations at once of the application of the truth here enforced, and of the apostle’s scrupulous adherence to the principles of his own teaching. To have refused to circumcise Timothy would have attached some value to noncircumcision. To have circumcised Titus would have attached some value to circumcision." (108): Acts 15:7-11; comp. Acts 10: 28 sqq.; 1 Pet. 1:12; 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:15, 16. The style of Peter is distinctly recognizable, as in the epithet of God, ὁ καρδιογνώστης, Acts 15:8, comp. Acts 1:24. Such minute coincidences go to strengthen the documentary trustworthiness of the Acts. (109): Like the Popes, who do not attend synods at Jerusalem or elsewhere and make speeches, but expect all doctrinal controversies to be referred to them for their final and infallible decision. (110): Acts 15:11: τῆς χάριτος τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ πιστεύομεν σωθῆναι, καθ’ ὃν τρόπον κἀκεῖνοι (the heathen). Comp. Rom. 10:12, 13. (111): Comp. Acts 15:13-21; 21:18-25; James 1:25; 2:12; and the account of Hegesippus quoted in § 27, p. 274. (112): The Gentile form of greeting, χαίρειν, Acts 15:23, occurs again in James 1:1, but nowhere else in the New Testament, except in the letter of the heathen, Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26); the usual form being χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη. This is likewise one of those incidental coincidences and verifications which are beyond the ken of a forger. (113): According to the oldest reading, οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀδελφοί, which may also be rendered: "the apostles, and the presbyters, brethren;" comp. Acts 15:22. The omission of ἀδελφοί in some MSS. may be due to the later practice, which excluded the laity from synodical deliberations. (114): Acts 15:23-29. (115): Acts 16:4. (116): Acts 21:25. Comp. also Rev. 2:14, 20. But why does Paul never refer to this synodical decree? Because he could take a knowledge of it for granted, or more probably because he did not like altogether its restrictions, which were used by the illiberal constructionists against him and against Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:12). Weizsäcker and Grimm (l.c., p. 423) admit the historic character of some such compromise, but transfer it to a later period (Acts 21:25), as a proposition made by James of a modus vivendi with Gentile converts, and arbitrarily charge the Acts with an anachronism. But the consultation must have come to a result, the result embodied in a formal action, and the action communicated to the disturbed churches. (117): Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century, considered the eating of εἰδωλόθυτα as bad as idolatry. Dial. c. Tryph. Jud. 35. (118): Ex. 34:15; Lev. 17:7 sqq.; Deut. 12:23 sqq. The reason assigned for the prohibition of the taste of blood is that "the life of the flesh is in the blood," and the pouring out of blood is the means of "the atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). The prohibition of blood as food was traced back to the time of Noah, Gen. 9:4, and seems to have been included in the seven "Noachian commandments" so-called, which were imposed upon the proselytes of the gate, although the Talmud nowhere specifies them very clearly. The Moslems likewise abhor the tasting of blood. But the Greeks and Romans regarded it as a delicacy. It was a stretch of liberality on the part of the Jews that pork was not included among the forbidden articles of food. Bentley proposed to read in Acts 15:20 πορκεία (from πόρκος, porcus) for πορνεία, but without a shadow of evidence. (119): 1 Cor. 8:7-13; 10:23-33; Rom. 14:2, 21; 1 Tim. 4:4. (120): The word πορνεία, without addition, must be taken in its usual sense, and cannot mean illegitimate marriages alone, which were forbidden to the Jews, Ex. 34; Lev. 18, although it may include them. (121): Apoc. 2:14, 20. (122): 1 Cor. 6:13-20; comp. 1 Cor. 5:9; 1 Thess. 4:4, 5; Eph. 5:3, 5; Col. 3:5. What a contrast between these passages and the sentence of Micio in Terence. "Non es flagitium, mihi crede, adulescentulum Scortari, neque potare."—Adelph. i. 2. 21, 22. (Ed. Fleckeisen p. 290.) To which, however, Demea (his more virtuous married brother) replies: "Pro Juppiter, tu homo adigis me ad insaniam. Non est flagitium facere haec adulescentulum?"—Adelph. i. 2. 31, 32. (123): Acts 15:21; comp. Acts 13:15; 2 Cor. 3:14, 15. (124): Acts 21:20-25. Irenaeus understood the decree in this sense (Adv. Haer III. 12, 15: "Hi qui circa Jacobum apostoli gentibus quidem libere agere permittebant; ipsi vero ... perseverabant in pristinis observationibus ... religiose agebant circadispositionem legis quae est secundum Mosem."Pfleiderer (l.c. 284) takes a similar view on this point, which is often overlooked, and yet most important for the proper understanding of the subsequent reaction. He says: "Die Judenchristen betreffend, wurde dabei stillschweigend als selbstverständliche Voraussetzung angenommen, dass bei diesen Alles beim Alten bleibe, dass also aus der Gesetzesfreiheit der Heidenchristen keierlei Consequenzen für die Abrogation des Gesetzes unter den Judenchristen zu ziehen seien; auf dieser Voraussetzung beruhte die Beschränkung der älteren Apostel auf die Wirksamkeit bei den Juden (da eine Ueberschreitung dieser Schranke ohne Verletzung des Gesetzes nicht möglich war); auf dieser Voraussetzung beruhte die Sendung der Leute von Jakobus aus Jerusalem nach Antiochia und beruhte der Einfluss derselben auf Petrus, dessen vorhergegangenes freieres Verhalten dadurch als eine Ausnahme von der Regel gekennzeichnet wird." (125): Without intending any censure, we may illustrate the position of the strict constructionists of the school of St. James by similar examples of conscientious and scrupulous exclusiveness. Roman Catholics know no church but their own, and refuse all religious fellowship with non Catholics; yet many of them will admit the action of divine grace and the possibility of salvation outside of the limits of the papacy. Some Lutherans maintain the principle: "Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran ministers only; Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants only." Luther himself refused at Marburg the hand of fellowship to Zwingli, who was certainly a Christian, and agreed with him in fourteen out of fifteen articles of doctrine. High church Anglicans recognize no valid ministry without episcopal ordination; close communion Baptists admit no valid baptism but by immersion; and yet the Episcopalians do not deny the Christian character of non-Episcopalians, nor the Baptists the Christian character of Pedo-Baptists, while they would refuse to sit with them at the Lord’s table. There are psalm-singing Presbyterians who would not even worship, and much less commune, with other Presbyterians who sing what they call "uninspired" hymns. In all these cases, whether consistently or not, a distinction is made between Christian fellowship and church fellowship. With reference to all these and other forms of exclusiveness we would say in the spirit of Paul: "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision" (viewed as a mere sign) "availeth anything, nor uncircumcision," neither Catholicism nor Protestantism, neither Lutheranism nor Calvinism, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism, neither episcopacy nor presbytery, neither immersion nor pouring nor sprinkling, nor any other accidental distinction of birth and outward condition, but "a new creature, faith working through love, and the keeping of the commandments of God."Gal. 5:6; 6:15; 1 Cor. 7:19. (126): The imperfect συνήσθιεν μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν, Gal. 2:12, indicates habit he used to eat with the uncircumcised Christians. This is the best proof from the pen of Paul himself that Peter agreed with him in principle and even in his usual practice. The eating refers, in all probability, not only to common meals, but also to the primitive love-feasts (agapae) and the holy communion, where brotherly recognition and fellowship is consummated and scaled. (127): Acts 10:27-29, 34, 35; 11:3: "thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and didst eat with them." (128): τινὲς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου, Gal, 2:12, seems to imply that they were sent by James (comp. Matt. 26:47; Mark 5:25; John 3:2), and not simply disciples of James or members of his congregation, which would be expressed by τινὲς τῶν ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου. See Grimm, l.c., p. 427. (129): There are not a few examples of successful intimidations of strong and bold men. Luther was so frightened at the prospect of a split of the holy Catholic church, in an interview with the papal legate, Carl von Miltitz, at Altenburg in January, 1519, that he promised to write and did write a most humiliating letter of submission to the Pope, and a warning to the German people against secession. But the irrepressible conflict soon broke out again at the Leipzig disputation in June, 1519. (130): Gal 2:14-21. We take this section to be a brief outline of Paul’s address to Peter; but the historical narrative imperceptibly passes into doctrinal reflections suggested by the occasion and adapted to the case of the Galatians. In the third chapter it naturally expands into a direct attack on the Galatians. (131): Paul draws, in the form of a question, a false conclusion of the Judaizing opponents from correct premises of his own, and rejects the conclusion with his usual formula of abhorrence, μὴ γένοιτο, as in Rom. 6:2. (132): Gal. 2:11, Peter stood self-condemned and condemned by the Gentiles, κατεγνωσμένος ἦν, not " blameworthy," or " was to be blamed"(E. V.). (133): Comp. 1 Cor. 9:5, 6; 15:5; Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11. (134): 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:15, 16. (135): So Clement of Alexandria, and other fathers, also the Jesuit Harduin. (136): This monstrous perversion of Scripture was advocated even by such fathers as Origen, Jerome, and Chrysostom. It gave rise to a controversy between Jerome and Augustin, who from a superior moral sense protested against it, and prevailed. (137): Comp. 2 Cor, 4:7; Phil. 3:12; James 3:2; 1 John 1:8; 2:2. (138): Comp. Acts 21:17-20. (139): The E. V. translates ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι, 2 Cor. 11:5, "the very chiefest apostles," Plumptre better, "those apostles-extraordinary." They are identical with the ψευδαπόστολοι, 11:13, and not with the pillar-apostles of the circumcision, Gal. 2:9; see above, p. 334, note 1. (140): Augustin thus distinguishes three periods in the Mosaic law: 1, lex viva, sed non vivifica; 2, l. moribunda, sed non mortifera; 3, l. mortua et mortifera. (141): Friedländer, I. 372 sqq. (142): See some of these eulogistic descriptions in Friedländer, I. 9, who says that the elements which produced this overwhelming impression were "the enormous, ever changing turmoil of a population from all lands, the confusing and intoxicating commotion of a truly cosmopolitan intercourse, the number and magnificence of public parks and buildings, and the immeasurable extent of the city." Of the Campagna he says, p. 10: "Wo sich jetzt eine ruinenerfüllte Einöde gegen das Albanesergebirge hinerstreckt, über der Fieberluft brütet, war damals eine durchaus gesunde, überall angebaute, von Leben wimmelden Strassen durchschnittene Ebene." See Strabo, v. 3, 12 (143): Friedländer, I. 54 sqq., by a combination of certain data, comes to the conclusion that Rome numbered under Augustus (A. U. 749) 668,600 people, exclusive of slaves, and 70 or 80 years later from one and a half to two millions. (144): Friedländer, I. 11: "In dem halben Jahrhundert von Vespasian bis Hadrian erreichte Rom seinen höchsten Glanz, wenn auch unter den Antoninen und später noch vieles zu seiner Verschönerimg geschehen ist." (145): By Renan, L’Antechrist, p. 7; Friedländer, I. 310, 372; and Harnack, l.c., p. 253. But Hausrath, l.c., III. 384, assumes 40,000 Jews in Rome under Augustus, 60,000 under Tiberius. We know from Josephus that 8,000 Roman Jews accompanied a deputation of King Herod to Augustus (Ant. XVII. 11, 1), and that 4,000 Jews were banished by Tiberius to the mines of Sardinia (XVIII. 3, 5; comp. Tacitus, Ann. II. 85). But these data do not justify a very definite calculation. (146): Friedländer, III. 510: "Die Inschrift sind überwiegend griechisch, allerdings zum Theil bis zur Unverständlichkeit jargonartig; daneben finden sich lateinische, aber keine hebräischen." See also Garrucci, Cimiterio in vigna Rondanini, and the inscriptions (mostly Greek, some Latin) copied and published by Schürer, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden, etc., pp. 33 sqq. (147): Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 6,4. Comp. Harnack, l.c., p. 254. (148): Tacitus, Hist. V. 4: "Profana illic omnia quae apud nos sacra; rursum concessa apud illos quae nobis incesta."Comp. his whole description of the Jews, which is a strange compound of truth and falsehood. (149): "Poppaea Sabina, the wife of Otho, was the fairest woman of her time, and with the charms of beauty she combined the address of an accomplished intriguer. Among the dissolute women of imperial Rome she stands preëminent. Originally united to Rufius Crispinus, she allowed herself to be seduced by Otho, and obtained a divorce in order to marry him. Introduced by this new connection to the intimacy of Nero, she soon aimed at a higher elevation. But her husband was jealous and vigilant, and she herself knew how to allure the young emperor by alternate advances and retreats, till, in the violence of his passion, he put his friend out of the way by dismissing him to the government of Lusitania. Poppaea suffered Otho to depart without a sigh. She profited by his absence to make herself more than ever indispensable to her paramour, and aimed, with little disguise, at releasing herself from her union and supplanting Octavia, by divorce or even death." Merivale, Hist. of the Romans, VI. 97. Nero accidentally kicked Poppaea to death when in a state of pregnancy (65), and pronounced her eulogy from the rostrum. The senate decreed divine honors to her. Comp. Tac. Ann. XIII. 45, 46; XVI. 6; Suet., Nero, 35. (150): "Victi victoribus leges dederunt."Quoted by Augustin (De Civit. Dei, VI. 11) from a lost work, De Superstitionibus. This word received a singular illustration a few years after Seneca’s death, when Berenice, the daughter of King Agrippa, who had heard the story of Paul’s conversion at Caesarea (Acts 25:13, 23), became the acknowledged mistress first of Vespasianus and then of his son Titus, and presided in the palace of the Caesars. Titus promised to marry her, but was obliged, by the pressure of public opinion, to dismiss the incestuous adulteress. "Dimisit invitus invitam." Sueton. Tit., c. 7; Tacit. Hist., II. 81. (151): The history of the Roman Ghetto (the word is derived from גדע, caedo, to cut down, comp. Isa. 10:33; 14:12; 15:2; Jer. 48:25, 27, etc., presents a curious and sad chapter in the annals of the papacy. The fanatical Pope Paul IV. (1555-’59) caused it to be walled in and shut out from all intercourse with the Christian world, declaring in the bull Cum nimis: "It is most absurd and unsuitable that the Jews, whose own crime has plunged them into everlasting slavery, under the plea that Christian magnanimity allows them, should presume to dwell and mix with Christians, not bearing any mark of distinction, and should have Christian servants, yea even buy houses." Sixtus V. treated the Jews kindly on the plea that they were "the family from which Christ came;" but his successors, Clement VIII., Clement XI., and Innocent XIII., forbade them all trade except that in old clothes, rags, and iron. Gregory XIII. (1572-’85), who rejoiced over the massacre of St. Bartholomew, forced the Jews to hear a sermon every week, and on every Sabbath police agents were sent to the Ghetto to drive men, women, and children into the church with scourges, and to lash them if they paid no attention! This custom was only abolished by Pius IX., who revoked all the oppressive laws against the Jews. For this and other interesting information about the Ghetto see Augustus J. C. Hare, Walks in Rome, 1873, 165 sqq., and a pamphlet of Dr. Philip, a Protestant missionary among the Jews in Rome, On the Ghetto, Rome, 1874. (152): Acts 28:17-29. (153): Acts 2:10: οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι, Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσήλυτοι . Sojourners are strangers (comp. 17:21, οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες ξένοι), as distinct from inhabitants (κατοικοῦντες, 7:48; 9:22; Luke 13:4). Among the Hellenistic Jews in Jerusalem who disputed with Stephen were Libertini, i.e., emancipated Roman Jews, descendants of those whom Pompey had carried captive to Rome, Acts 6:9. (154): Given up even by Roman Catholic historians in Germany, but still confidently reasserted by Drs. Northcote and Brownlow, l.c. I.,p. 79, who naively state that Peter went to Rome with Cornelius and the Italian band in 42. Comp. on this subject §26, pp. 254 sqq. (155): Rom. 16:7, "Salute Andronicus and Junias (or Junia), my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners who ... have been in Christ before me." If Junias is masculine, it must be a contraction from Junianus, as Lucas from Lucanus. But Chrysostom, Grotius, Reiche, and others take it as a female, either the wife or sister of Andronicus. (156): Sueton., Claud., c. 25: "Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit." The Romans often confounded Christus (the Anointed) andChrestus (from χρηστός, useful, good), and called the Christians χρηστιανοί, Chrestiani. Compare the French form chrétien. Justin Martyr uses this etymological error as an argument against the persecution of the Christians for the sake of their name. Apol. I.,c. 4 (I. p. 10, ed. Otto): Χριστιανοὶ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα, τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον. He knew, however, the true origin of the name of Christ, I.c. 12: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ τὸ Χριστιανοὶ ἐπονομάζεσθαι ἐσχήκαμεν. Tertullian says that the name Christus was almost invariably mispronounced Chrestus bythe heathen. Apol., c. 3; Ad Nat., I.3. This mistake continued to be made down to the fourth century, Lactantius, Instit. Div., IV. 7, and is found also in Latin inscriptions. Renan derives the name Christianus from the Latin (like Herodian, Matt. 22:16, Pompejani, Caesareani), as the derivation from the Greek would require Χρίστειος (Les âpotres, p. 234). Lightfoot denies this, and refers to Σαρδιανός, Τραλλιανός (Philippians, p.16, note 1); but Renan would regard these nouns as Latinisms like Ἀσιανός (Acts 20:4, Strabo, etc.). Antioch, where the name originated (Acts 11:26), had long before been Romanized and was famous for its love of nicknames. Renan thinks that the term originated with the Roman authority as an appellation de police. The other two passages of the N.T. in which it occurs, Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16, seem to imply contempt and dislike, and so it is used by Tacitus and Suetonius. But what was originally meant by the heathen to be a name of derision has become the name of the highest honor. For what can be nobler and better than to be a true Christian, that is, a follower of Christ. It is a remarkable fact that the name " Jesuit,"which was not in use till the sixteenth century, has become, by the misconduct of the order which claimed it, a term of reproach even in Roman Catholic countries; while the term " Christian"embraces proverbially all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like. (157): Acts 18:2; Rom. 16:3. An unconverted Jew would not have taken the apostle under his roof and into partnership. The appellation Ἰουδαῖος often signifies merely the nationality (comp. Gal. 2:13-15). The name Aquila, i.e., Eagle, Adler, is still common among Jews, like other high sounding animal names (Leo, Leopardus, Löwe, Löwenherz, Löwenstein, etc.). The Greek Ἀκύλας was a transliteration of the Latin, and is probably slightly altered in Onkelos, the traditional author of one of the Targums, whom the learned Emmanuel Deutsch identifies with Aquila (Ἀκύλας, in the Talmud), the Greek translator of the Old Testament, a convert to Judaism in the reign of Hadrian, and supposed nephew of the emperor. Liter. Remains (N. York, 1874), pp. 337-340. The name of his wife, Priscilla (the diminutive form of Prisca), " probably indicates a connection with the gens of the Prisci, who appear in the earliest stages of Roman history, and supplied a long series of praetors and consuls." Plumptre on Acts, 18:2. (158): Rom. 1:8; 16:5, 14, 15, 19. (159): Acts 28:13. Puteoli was, next after Ostia, the chief harbor of Western Italy and the customary port for the Alexandrian grain ships; hence the residence of a large number of Jewish and other Oriental merchants and sailors. The whole population turned out when the grain fleet from Alexandria arrived. Sixteen pillars still remain of the mole on which St. Paul landed. See Friedländer, II. 129 sq.; III. 511, and Howson and Spence on Acts 28:13. (160): Acts 28:15. The Forum of Appius (the probable builder of the famous road called after him) is denounced by Horace as a wretched town "filled with sailors and scoundrel tavern-keepers." Tres Tabernae was a town of more importance, mentioned in Cicero’s letters, and probably located on the junction of the road from Antium with the Via Appia, near the modern Cisterna. The distances from Rome southward are given in the Antonine Itinerary as follows: "to Aricia, 16 miles; to Tres Tabernae, 17 miles; to Appii Forum, 10 miles." (161): Phil. 1:12-15; Acts 28:30. (162): Col. 4:7-14; Eph. 6:21; Philem. 24; Phil. 2:25-30; 4:18; comp. also 2 Tim. 4:10-12. (163): Phil. 1:15-18. Comp. Lightfoot in loc. (164): Ad Cor., ch. 6. The πολὺ πλῆθος ἐκλεκτῶν corresponds precisely to the "ingens multitudo"of Tacitus, Ann. XV. 44. (165): Comp. my Hist. Ap. Ch., p. 296 sqq. Dr. Baur attempted to revolutionize the traditional opinion of the preponderance of the Gentile element, and to prove that the Roman church consisted almost exclusively of Jewish converts, and that the Epistle to the Romans is a defense of Pauline universalism against Petrine particularism. He was followed by Schwegler, Reuss, Mangold, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Holsten, Holtzmann., and also to some extent by Thiersch and Sabatier. But he was opposed by Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, De Wette, Meyer, Schott, Hofmann, in favor of the other view. Beyschlag proposed a compromise to the effect that the majority, in conformity with Paul’s express statements, were Gentile Christians, but mostly ex-proselytes, and hence shared Judaizing convictions. This view has been approved by Schürer and Schultz. Among the latest and ablest discussions are those of Weizsäcker and Godet, who oppose the views both of Baur and Beyschlag. The original nucleus was no doubt Jewish, but the Gentile element soon outgrew it, as is evident from the Epistle itself, from the last chapter of Acts, from the Neronian persecution, and other facts. Paul had a right to regard the Roman congregation as belonging to his own field of labor. The Judaizing tendency was not wanting, as we see from the 14th and 15th chapters, and from allusions in the Philippians and Second Timothy, but it had not the character of a bitter personal antagonism to Paul, as in Galatia, although in the second century we find also a malignant type of Ebionism in Rome, where all heretics congregated. (166): Lightfoot, Galat., p. 323. (167): Lightfoot, l.c., p. 20. See especially the investigations of Caspari, in his Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, vol. III. (1875), 267-466. According to Friedländer, I. 142, 481, Greek was the favorite language at the imperial court, and among lovers. (168): Phil. 1:13; 4: 22. The πραιτώριον embraces the officers as well as the soldiers of the imperial regiments; οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας may include high functionaries and courtiers as well as slaves and freedmen, but the latter is more probable. The twenty names of the earlier converts mentioned in Rom. 16 coincide largely with those in the Columbaria of the imperial household on the Appian way. Comp. Lightfoot, Philipp., p. 169 sqq., Plumptre, Excursus to his Com. on Acts, and Harnack, l.c., pp. 258 sq. Harnack makes it appear that the two trusty servants of the Roman church, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, mentioned in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, c. 63, belonged to the household of the emperor Claudius. (169): See above, § 29, p. 279, especially the essay of Lightfoot quoted there. Harnack (l.c., p. 260) and Friedländer regard the acquaintance of Paul with Seneca as very improbable, Plumptre as probable. An epitaph from the third century was found in Ostia which reads: D M. M. Anneo. Paulo. Petro. M. Anneus. Paulus. Filio. Carissimo. See De Rossi in the Bullet. di archeol. christ., 1867, pp. 6 sq., and Renan, L’Antechrist, p. 12. Seneca belonged to the gens Annaea. But all that the inscription can be made to prove is that a Christian member of the gens Annaea in the third century bore the name of "Paul," and called his son "Paulus Petrus," a combination familiar to Christiana, but unknown to the heathen. Comp, Friedländer, III. 535. (170): Here Christianity has been inferred from the vague description of Tacitus, Ann. XIII. 32. See Friedländer III. 534; Lightfoot, p. 21; Northcote and Brownlow, I. 82 sq. Harnack, p. 263. The inference is confirmed by the discovery of the gravestone of a Pomponius Graecinus and other members of the same family, in the very ancient crypt of Lucina, near the catacomb of St. Callistus. De Rossi conjectures that Lucina was the Christian name of Pomponia Graecina. But Renan doubts this, L’Antech., p. 4, note 2. (171): Plumptre, l.c. Martial, a spaniard by birth, came to Rome a.d. 66. (172): Sueton., Domit. 15; Dion Cass., 67, 14; Euseb., H. E. III. 18. (173): De Rossi, Bullett. for 1865, 1874 and 1875; Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, Append., 257 sq., Harnack, 266-269.

脚注

“保罗” (Paul，意为“小”) 只是他希伯来名字“扫罗” (Saul，意为“所求的”) 的希腊化或拉丁化形式，与他本人的归信或居比路 (Cyprus) 的士求保罗 (Sergius Paulus) 的归信毫无关系。当时犹太人中有很多类似双重名字的例子，如希勒尔 (Hillel) 和波利奥 (Pollio)，矶法 (Cephas) 和彼得 (Peter)，约翰 (John) 和马可 (Mark)，巴撒巴 (Barsabbas) 和犹士都 (Justus)，西面 (Simeon) 和尼结 (Niger)，西拉 (Silas) 和西拉奴 (Silvanus)。保罗可能在他年幼时于大数 (Tarsus) 获得了他的拉丁名字，作为一名罗马公民；因为保卢斯 (Paulus) 是几个著名罗马家族的姓，如艾米利亚 (Aemilia)、法比亚 (Fabia)、朱利亚 (Julia)、塞尔吉亚 (Sergia) 家族。他在与外邦人交往以及在他所有的书信中都使用这个名字。见《使徒教会史》 (Hist. Apost. Ch.)，第226页，以及我对兰格 (Lange)《罗马书》1:1的注释，第57和58页。 ↩︎
当保罗在公元63年写信给腓利门 (Philemon) 时，他已是一个老人 (πρεσβύτης, 腓利门书 9)，也就是说，大约或超过六十岁。根据希波克拉底 (Hippocrates) 的说法，一个人从四十九岁到五十六岁被称为 πρεσβύτης，之后被称为 γέρων, senex。在一封写给年轻朋友和学生的友好信件中，这个词不应被过分强调。沃尔特·司各特 (Walter Scott) 在五十五岁时称自己为“一个白发老人”。保罗在司提反 (Stephen) 被石头打死时还是一个“少年人” (νεανίας, 使徒行传 7:58)，那可能是在公元37年；虽然这个词也被模糊地使用，但由于他当时已经被公会赋予了极其重要的使命，他一定大约或超过三十岁。斐洛 (Philo) 将 νεανίας 的年龄范围扩展到二十一岁到二十八岁，色诺芬 (Xenophon) 则扩展到四十岁。比较莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 对《腓利门书》第9节的注释 (第405页)，以及法勒 (Farrar)，I. 13, 14。 ↩︎
腓立比书 3:5。他虽然因出生地而为希腊化犹太人或散居的犹太人，但在血统和教育上都是希伯来人，使徒行传 22:3。他的父母可能来自巴勒斯坦。这可以解释哲罗姆 (Jerome) 所保存的错误传统（《名人录》 (De vir. ill.) 第5章），即保罗出生于加利利 (Galilee) 的吉斯卡拉 (Giscala)（现在的 El-Jish），在罗马人占领该地后与父母移居大数 (Tarsus)。但占领事件直到公元67年才发生。 ↩︎
比较腓立比书 3:8-10 和哥林多前书 2:1, 2 的崇高段落。 ↩︎
加拉太书 1:14 (钦定本译法)：“我为我祖宗的遗传更加热心，比我本国许多同岁的人更有长进。” ↩︎
圣经的引用和典故在《加拉太书》、《罗马书》和《哥林多书》中比比皆是，但在《帖撒罗尼迦书》、《歌罗西书》和《腓利门书》中则没有，在他对雅典的异教听众的演讲中也没有，他向他们引用的是他们自己的诗人，而不是摩西和先知。 ↩︎
如加拉太书 3:16 中根据单数或更确切地说是集合名词 σπέρμα (zera) 的推理，对夏甲和撒拉的寓意解释，4:22及后，以及旷野中的磐石，哥林多前书 10:1-4。见相关注释书。 ↩︎
比较加拉太书 1:21；使徒行传 9:30；11:25。 ↩︎
哥林多前书 15:33。φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρηστὰ ὁμιλίαι κακαί。“滥交是败坏善行。” ↩︎
提多书 1:12。Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί。“革哩底人常说谎话，是恶兽，又馋又懒。”由于埃庇米尼得斯 (Epimenides) 本人是革哩底人，这种对他同胞的轻蔑贬低引出了一个三段论难题：“埃庇米尼得斯说革哩底人是说谎者；埃庇米尼得斯是革哩底人：因此埃庇米尼得斯是说谎者：因此革哩底人不是说谎者：因此埃庇米尼得斯不是说谎者”，等等。 ↩︎
使徒行传 17:28。Τοῦ [诗体，代替 τούτου] γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν。“我们也是他所生的。”这句话字面出现在阿拉托斯 (Aratus) 的《现象》 (Phoenomena) 第5行，上下文如下：“……我们都极需宙斯 (Zeus)，因为我们是他所生的；他充满恩典，赐予人们恩惠的记号……”斯多葛派诗人克利安提斯 (Cleanthes)（《致朱庇特赞美诗》(Hymn. in Jovem), 5）在对朱庇特 (Jupiter) 的祷词中使用了同样的表达：Ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν，以及在《黄金诗篇》 (Golden Poem) 中：θεῖον γὰρ γένος ἐστὶ βροτοῖσιν。我们也可以引用品达 (Pindar)《尼米亚颂》第六首中一个被注释家们忽略的平行段落：Ἓν ἀνδρῶν, ἓν θεῶν γένος, ἐκ μιᾶς δὲ πνέομεν ματρὸς ἀμφότεροι。“人与神同族，我们都呼吸自同一位母亲。”然而，很明显，所有这些段落都被其异教作者在唯物主义和泛神论的意义上理解，这将自然或大地视为神与人之母。保罗在他对雅典人的精彩演讲中，没有认可这个错误，但承认了泛神论中的真理元素，即人的神圣起源以及上帝在世界和人性中的内在性。 ↩︎
加拉太书 4:3, 9。希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 持此观点，《导论》 (Einleitung)，第223页。蒂尔施 (Thiersch) 假设（第112页）保罗熟悉亚里士多德 (Aristotle) 的《尼各马可伦理学》 (Nicomachean Ethics)，并且他的辩证法是古典的而非拉比式的；但这未必正确。在罗马书 5:16, 18 中，他使用了 δικαίωμα 一词，其意义与亚里士多德的法律调整 (Rechtsausgleichung) 相同。见《尼各马可伦理学》V.10，以及罗特 (Rothe) 关于罗马书 5:12-21 的专著。鲍尔 (Baur) 将保罗的风格与修昔底德 (Thucydides) 的风格相比较。 ↩︎
法勒 (Farrar)，I. 629 及后，统计了“圣保罗作品中三十种希腊修辞手法的五十多个例子”，这无疑反驳了勒南 (Renan) 的断言，即保罗在大数 (Tarsus) 不可能接受过哪怕是基础的语法和修辞课程。 ↩︎
哥林多前书 9:1 指的是在大马士革 (Damascus) 见到的基督异象。在哥林多后书 5:16：“我们虽然凭着外貌认过基督，如今却不再这样认他了”，其中的连词 εἰ καί (quamquam, 即使, wenn auch) 似乎记录了一个事实，与 καὶ εἰ (etiam si, 即使, selbst wenn) 不同，后者提出一个假设；但重点在于对基督在他卑微和属世关系中的外在、属肉体的认识或道听途说的肤浅了解，与对基督在他荣耀中的属灵、体验性的认识之间的区别。法勒 (Farrar) (I. 73 及后) 推论说，如果保罗真的认识并听过耶稣，他会立刻归信。 ↩︎
他被称为帐篷匠，σκηνόποιος, 使徒行传 18:3。帐篷大多由基利家 (Cilician) 山羊的粗毛 (Κιλίκιος τράγος，也指粗鲁的人) 制成，为牧羊人、旅行者、水手和士兵所需。同样的材料也用于制作披风、鞋子和床。这种物品的基利家起源在拉丁语 cilicium 和法语 cilice 中得以延续，意为毛布。迦玛列 (Gamaliel) 是这句格言的作者：“任何不伴随手艺的学习都将一事无成，并导致犯罪。” ↩︎
使徒行传 23:16。 ↩︎
在哥林多前书 9:5（写于57年）中，他声称有权像彼得和其他使徒以及主的弟兄们一样娶妻；但在哥林多前书 7:7, 8 中，他认为在自己特殊的情况下，独身为佳。亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria)、伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus) 等人认为他已婚，并理解腓立比书 4:3 中的 σύζυγε 为他的妻子。埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 认为他是鳏夫，在归信前妻子去世（VI. 341）。法勒 (Farrar) (I. 80) 也持此观点，他从哥林多前书 7:8 推断保罗将自己归为鳏夫：“所以我对那未曾嫁娶的 [对鳏夫，希腊语中没有专门的词] 和寡妇说，若他们常像我就好。”他强调犹太人在所有时代都非常重视婚姻作为道德责任（创世记 1:28），并偏爱早婚；他还主张（I. 169）保罗是公会成员（因为他投票定了基督徒的罪，使徒行传 26:10），根据《革马拉》(Gemara) 的规定，他必须有自己的家庭。勒南 (Renan) (第六章) 猜想保罗在腓立比 (Philippi) 与吕底亚 (Lydia) 姐妹建立了超越属灵的结合，并在腓立比书 4:3 中称她为他的 σύζυγε γνήσιε，即他真正的同工或伴侣 (conjux)，因为当他在前一节提到两位其他地方不知名的女执事友阿蝶 (Euodia) 和循都基 (Syntyche) 时，不太可能忽略了她。σύζυγος 这个词，作为名词，可以是阳性或阴性，可以泛指同伴、同工（钦定本译为“同负一轭的”），也可以是一个专有名词。有人提出是主的兄弟、西拉、路加。但保罗可能指的是一个名叫 Σύζυγος 的人，并玩了一个文字游戏：“名叫‘同轭者’，实为‘同轭者’。”比较腓利门书 10, 11 中的类似双关语：Ὀνήσιμος，即有益的，—ἄχρηστος，εὔχρηστος，无益的，有益的。见迈耶 (Meyer) 和兰格 (Lange)（布劳恩 (Braune) 和哈克特 (Hackett)）对这些经文的注释。 ↩︎
弗雷德里克·W·H·迈尔斯 (Frederic W. H. Myers) 的一首诗《圣保罗》(Saint Paul, 1868) 很好地表达了保罗这种崇高的孤独，我们不妨引用几句：“基督！我是属基督的！让这名字满足你；是的，对我来说，他也已足够；看，我不用动听的言语来引诱你；保罗除了基督，别无尊荣，别无朋友。是的，没有姐妹或女儿的安慰——是的，没有父亲或儿子的扶持，独自在陆地，无家在水上，我耐心地前行，直到工作完成。然而，并非孤独，如果基督在我身旁，为这伟大的工作唤醒他的工人；哦，并非孤独，如果听我讲道的灵魂，从我的喜乐中捕捉到惊喜的喜乐。我已赢得姐妹或弟兄的心，或在地上活泼，或藏于土中，看，每一颗心都等待着我，另一位在上帝无瑕家庭中的朋友。” ↩︎
哥林多后书 10:10。比较 10:1，他说他在哥林多人中外貌是“卑微的” (κατὰ πρόσωπον ταπεινός)。与巴拿巴 (Barnabas) 相比，他身材矮小（使徒行传 14:12）。 ↩︎
这来自伪经《德克拉行传》(Acts of Thecla) 中保存的传统。见上文引用的描述，第282页。伪琉善 (pseudo-Lucian) 的《爱国者》(Philopatris)（成书于二世纪，但更可能在四世纪）、安提阿的马拉拉 (Malala of Antioch)（六世纪）和尼基弗鲁斯 (Nicephorus)（十五世纪）等古代对保罗的描述，都将他描绘为身材矮小、秃顶、鹰钩鼻突出、头发灰白、胡须浓密、眼睛灰亮、身体略微佝偻，但神情愉悦而优雅。见勒温 (Lewin) 的《圣保罗》(St. Paul) II. 412 中的这些描述。现存最古老的保罗肖像，可能出自一世纪末或二世纪初，发现于多米提拉 (Domitilla) 墓地（弗拉维安 (Flavian) 家族之一）的一个大型青铜奖章上，现存于梵蒂冈图书馆。它描绘了左边的保罗和右边的彼得。两人都不英俊，但充满个性；保罗是两人中较丑陋的一个，眼睛似乎有病，嘴巴张开，秃顶，胡须短而浓密，但神情深思、庄重而威严。见勒温 (Lewin)，II. 211 中的插图。屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) 称保罗为三肘之人 (ὁ τρίπηχυς ἄνθρωπος, Serm. in Pet. et Paul)。路德 (Luther) 想象：“圣保罗是个可怜、瘦小的人，像菲利普大师 (Magister Philippus)”（梅兰希顿 (Melanchthon)）。J. H. 纽曼 (J. H. Newman) 的一首诗意描述见法勒 (Farrar) I. 220，以及普朗普特 (Plumptre) 对《使徒行传》的附录，另有一篇（他自己的）。勒南 (Renan)（《使徒》(Les Apôtres)，第169页及后）部分根据保罗的书信，部分根据伪经来源，给出了以下这位使徒的生动画像：他举止迷人，风度翩翩，他的信件揭示了一位天才和志向高远的人，尽管文体不甚规范。从未有任何通信展现出如此罕见的礼貌、如此温柔的细微之处、如此可爱的谦虚和矜持。一两次我们会被他的讽刺所伤（加拉太书 5:12；腓立比书 3:2）。但那是何等的狂喜！何等丰富的迷人言辞！何等的独创性！他的外表与他灵魂的伟大不相称。他丑陋、矮小、肥胖、丰满，头小，秃顶，脸色苍白，脸上覆盖着浓密的胡须，鹰钩鼻，眼睛锐利，眉毛黝黑。他的言谈，迟钝、有缺陷，给人一种他口才不佳的印象。他以罕见的机智将自己的外在缺陷化为优势。犹太民族产生了最高尚的美貌和最彻底的丑陋的典型 (des types de la plus grande beauté et de la plus complète laideur)；但犹太式的丑陋是独一无二的。那些初看时引人发笑的奇怪面孔，当在智力上被激活时，会呈现出一种强烈的辉煌和威严的独特表情 (une sorte d’éclat profond et de majesté)。 ↩︎
哥林多后书 12:7-9；加拉太书 4:13-15。亦比较帖撒罗尼迦前书 2:18；哥林多前书 2:3；哥林多后书 1:8, 9；4:10。在众多猜测中，只有三种：偏头痛、急性眼炎、癫痫，似乎与保罗的暗示相符，这些暗示在如此久远的今天对我们来说是晦涩的，而对他的朋友们来说却是清晰的。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 和哲罗姆 (Jerome) 根据一个古老的传统，倾向于偏头痛；勒温 (Lewin)、法勒 (Farrar) 和许多其他人则认为是眼疾，认为炎症源于他在大马士革 (Damascus) 周围看到的耀眼光芒（使徒行传 9:3, 17, 18；比较 22:13；23:3, 5；加拉太书 4:15）；埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 和莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 认为是癫痫，并以阿尔弗雷德国王 (King Alfred) 的生平为例（穆罕默德 (Mohammed) 的例子更贴切）。其他关于外在或属灵试炼的猜测（迫害、肉体诱惑、坏脾气、怀疑、沮丧、魔鬼的亵渎性暗示等）都被对哥林多后书 12章和加拉太书 4章这两处主要经文的严格释经所排除，这两处经文指向一种身体疾病。见我的《加拉太书注释》4:13-15（《大众注释》卷三）中关于保罗肉中刺的附论。 ↩︎
哥林多后书 4:7; 12:9, 10。 ↩︎
《使徒行传》9:4，此处使用了希伯来语形式的 Σαούλ, Σαούλ，而非通常的希腊语形式 Σαῦλος（见9:8, 11, 22, 24 等）。 ↩︎
哥林多后书 5:17；加拉太书 6:15。 ↩︎
《使徒行传》9, 22, 26。这些记述绝非简单的重复，而是根据护教的需要，对同一个故事进行了修改和调整，以适应不同的听众，并且每一次都带出了因应场合而产生的有趣细节。这一点在豪森教长 (Dean Howson) 对《使徒行传》26章的附录C中，以及在他与斯彭斯法政牧师 (Canon Spence) 合著的《使徒行传注释》中得到了很好的展示。这些记述的差异之处很容易调和。它们主要涉及对保罗同伴的影响：他们看见了光，却没有看见基督本人；他们听见了声音，却不明白话语的意思。这个异象不是为他们预备的，正如复活的主向看守坟墓的士兵显现也不是为他们一样。他们可能是利未支派的圣殿守卫，负责捆绑基督徒囚犯并将其押送至耶路撒冷。 ↩︎
加拉太书 1:15, 16；哥林多前书 15:8, 9；9:1；哥林多后书 4:6；腓立比书 3:6；提摩太前书 1:12-14。 ↩︎
哥林多后书 4:6。 ↩︎
加拉太书 1:1, 11, 12, 15-18。 ↩︎
这可从他对亚基帕王 (King Agrippa) 所说的话中看出，使徒行传 26:19。 ↩︎
使徒行传 26:14。基督对他说：“你用脚踢刺是难的” (σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν)。这是一个希腊作家使用的谚语，用来形容犁地时被赶牛人带尖刺的工具驱使的顽固公牛。公牛可以并且常常反抗，但这样做只会增加它的痛苦。反抗是可能的，但却比无用更糟。 ↩︎
罗马书 7:7-25。这段非凡的经文描述了人心归向基督的心理历程：从罪因未知而死的属肉体安稳的异教徒状态，经过律法冲突的犹太状态，此时罪被神的命令刺激而活过来，人更高贵的天性徒然地与这个可怕的怪物斗争，直到最后，神在基督里的白白恩典取得了胜利。一些最深刻的神学家——奥古斯丁 (Augustin)、路德 (Luther)、加尔文 (Calvin)——将这场冲突转移到了重生后的状态；但那种状态是在第八章中描述的，该章以一首得胜的欢歌结束。 ↩︎
腓立比书 3:6，“就律法上的义说，是无可指摘的” (κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος)。 ↩︎
马可福音 10:21。 ↩︎
他在安提阿 (Antioch) 对彼得 (Peter) 的讲话中（加拉太书 2:11-21），讲述了他自己的经历和他的福音，以之与犹太化教师的福音作对比。比较加拉太书 3:24；5:24；6:14；罗马书 7:6-13；歌罗西书 2:20。 ↩︎
哥林多前书 2:2；加拉太书 6:14；罗马书 4:24, 25。 ↩︎
哥林多前书 15:9, 10；比较以弗所书 3:8：“我本来比众圣徒中最小的还小，然而他还赐我这恩典”；提摩太前书 1:15, 16：“为要拯救罪人；在罪人中我是个罪魁”等等。 ↩︎
罗马书 9:2, 3；比较出埃及记 32:31, 32。 ↩︎
保罗 (Paul) 从未将自己列入十二使徒之中。他将自己与受割礼者的使徒区分开来，称自己为未受割礼者的使徒，但与他们有同等的权柄。加拉太书 2:7-9。我们没有任何迹象表明拣选马提亚 (Matthias)（使徒行传 1:26）是彼得 (Peter) 仓促之下的错误；这一拣选立即被随后的圣灵浇灌所确认。 ↩︎
关于保罗 (Paul) 对基督教的见证，见上文 § 22。我将补充一些法勒 (Farrar) 的精彩评论，I. 202：“无论如何夸大圣保罗归信作为基督教证据之一的重要性，都不过分……关于耶稣，他见证了什么？几乎是关于他道成肉身、生平、受难、被卖、最后的晚餐、审判、钉十字架、复活、升天和在天上的高举的每一个主要重要事实……使徒赖以证明基督神性的事件，都发生在同时代知识的光天化日之下。他不必处理批判的不确定性或对真实性的攻击。他可以质问的不是古代文献，而是活生生的人；他可以分析的不是零碎的记录，而是现存的证据。他手头有成千上万种方法来检验他直到那时还如此激烈和轻蔑地不信的复活的真实性。在接受这个半被压垮、完全被咒骂的信仰时，他将失去世界上的一切——他不可能得到任何可以想象的好处；然而，尽管如此——被一种他感到不可抗拒的信念所压倒——法利赛人扫罗 (Saul) 成了复活的见证人，十字架的传道者。” ↩︎
见我的《基督教信条史》 (History of the Creeds of Christendom)，卷一，第426页及后。 ↩︎
这一点被勒南 (Renan) 充分认识到，然而他对使徒和改革家都缺乏同情，并幻想两者的神学都已过时。“那个在整体上与圣保罗最有类比的历史人物，”他说，“是路德 (Luther)。两人在语言上都有同样的激烈，同样的热情，同样的精力，同样高尚的独立性，以及对一个被奉为绝对真理的论题的同样狂热的执着。”《圣保罗》 (St. Paul)，第22章结尾。他在这本书的最后一条注释是：“在精神上与《加拉太书》最相似的作品是路德的《教会的巴比伦之囚》 (De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae)。” ↩︎
关于他在埃尔福特 (Erfurt) 时期内心冲突的详情，见科斯特林 (Köstlin) 的《马丁·路德》 (Martin Luther) (1875)，卷一，第40页及后和第61页及后。 ↩︎
比较关于基督复活的章节，第172页及后。 ↩︎
由爱比法尼乌 (Epiphanius) 报道，《异端志》(Haer) XXX. 16 (奥勒 (Oehler) 编，卷一，第268页及后)。 ↩︎
在《克莱门讲道集》(Clem. Hom.) 第十七章第19章（德雷塞尔 (Dressel) 编，第351页）中，西门·彼得 (Simon Peter) 对行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 说：“那么，如果我们的耶稣在异象中向你显现 (δι’ ὁράματος ὀφθείς)，让你认识他，并与你交谈，那是以一个对敌人发怒者的身份 (ὡς ἀντικειμένῳ ὀργιζόμενος)。这就是为什么他是通过异象和梦 (δι’ ὁραμάτων καὶ ἐνυπνίων)，或是通过来自外部的启示 (ἢ καὶ δι’ ἀποκαλύψεων ἔξωθεν οὐσῶν) 与你说话的原因。但有谁能通过幻象 (δι’ ὀπτασίαν) 而适合接受教导呢？……当你告诉我们他向你显现时，我们又该如何相信你的话呢？当你的观点与他的教导相悖时，他又是如何向你显现的呢？但如果你见过他，并受过他的教导，作了他的使徒哪怕只有一个小时，那么就宣讲他的话语，解释他的言论，爱他的使徒，不要与我这个曾与他为伴的人争辩。因为你现在正直接与我作对，我是一块坚固的磐石，是教会的根基 (στερεὰν πέτραν, θεμέλιον ἐκκλησίας，比较马太福音 16:18)。如果你不与我作对，你就不会指控我，也不会毁谤我所宣讲的真理，以使我在陈述我亲耳从主那里听到的事时，不被相信，好像我显然是一个被定罪且未受考验的人[根据拉加德 (Lagarde) 恢复的正确读法，应为 ἀδοκίμου ὄντος，而非 εὐδοκιμοῦντος，‘声誉良好’]。但如果你说我‘被定了罪’ (εἰ κατεγνωσμένον με λέγεις，比较加拉太书 2:11)，你就是在指控那向我启示基督的上帝，你就是在抨击那位因启示而称我为有福的（马太福音 16:17）。但如果你真的希望在真理的事业上成为同工，就先从我们这里学习我们从他那里所学的，成为真理的门徒，与我一同作工。” 对保罗的基督异象以及他在安提阿与彼得冲突的影射是明确无误的，并构成了鲍尔 (Baur) 将行邪术的西门等同于保罗的主要论据。但这也许只是一种偶然的讥讽。西门代表所有反犹太的异端，正如彼得代表所有真理。 ↩︎
这一理论由所谓的“庸俗”或自然神论的理性主义者（与后来思辨的或泛神论的理性主义者有别）提出，并被勒南 (Renan) 在其《使徒》(Les Apôtres)（第十章，第175页及后）中重新提出并加以修辞润色。“通往大马士革的每一步，”这位杰出的法国院士说道，“都在保罗心中激起痛苦的悔恨；刽子手的可耻任务对他来说难以忍受；他感觉自己好像在用脚踢刺；旅途的疲惫加剧了他的沮丧；一场恶性高烧突然袭来；血液涌向头部；脑海中充满了被闪电划破的午夜黑暗的画面；很可能黑门山 (Mount Hermon) 的一场以猛烈著称的暴风雨爆发了，对犹太人来说，雷声是上帝的声音，闪电是上帝的火。可以肯定的是，一次可怕的打击将这位逼迫者击倒在地，使他失去了知觉；在他高烧的谵妄中，他将闪电误认为天上的异象，将雷声误认为天上的声音；发炎的眼睛，即眼炎的开始，助长了这种错觉。激烈的性格会突然从一个极端走向另一个极端；片刻之间决定了一生；教条主义是唯一不变的东西。于是保罗改变了他狂热的对象；凭着他的大胆、他的精力、他的决心，他拯救了基督教，否则基督教就会像艾赛尼派 (Essenism) 一样消亡，不留下一丝记忆。他是独立新教的创始人。他代表了征服和巡回的基督教 (le christianisme conquérant et voyageur)。耶稣从未梦想过有这样的门徒；然而，正是他们将使他的工作永存，并确保其永恒。”在这部著作中，以及在他更详尽的《圣保罗》(St. Paul) 中，勒南对这位伟大使徒的描绘是一种真理与谬误的奇怪混合，几乎和他《耶稣生平》(Vie de Jésus) 中对耶稣的浪漫描绘一样不连贯和充满幻想。 ↩︎
如施特劳斯 (Strauss)（《耶稣生平》(Leben Jesu)，§ 138，与基督复活相关），鲍尔 (Baur)（在他的《保罗》(Paul)，第一部分，第3章中，更为严肃和有力）以及整个图宾根学派 (Tübingen School)，霍尔斯滕 (Holsten)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、利普修斯 (Lipsius)、普夫莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer)、豪斯拉特 (Hausrath) 和《超自然宗教》(Supernatural Religion) 的作者（III. 498页及后）。鲍尔最终在1860年放弃了这一理论，认为它失败了（见下文）。但霍尔斯滕在1861年希尔根费尔德的“期刊” (“Zeitschrift”) 中，以一篇关于《保罗的基督异象》 (Christusvision des Paulus) 的论文，非常详尽和巧妙地复兴并捍卫了它。哈雷 (Halle) 的W. 贝施拉格 (W. Beyschlag) 在1864年的“研究与评论” (“Studien und Kritiken”) 中，以一篇题为《保罗的归信，特别考虑鲍尔和霍尔斯滕的解释尝试》(Die Bekehrung des Paulus mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Erklärungsversuche von Baur und Holsten) 的文章，非常有力地驳斥了它，第197-264页。然后霍尔斯滕以书的形式出版了他论文的增补版，《论保罗与彼得的福音》(Zum Evang. des Paulus und des Petrus)，1868年，附有对贝施拉格的长篇回应。普夫莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer) 在他的希伯特讲座 (Hibbert Lectures)（1885年）中重复了异象理论。一些英国作家也撰文反对这种现代异象理论，即R. 麦克弗森 (R. Macpherson)：《耶稣基督的复活》(The Ressurection of Jesus Christ)（反驳施特劳斯），爱丁堡，1867年，第十三讲，第316-360页；乔治·P·费舍尔 (Geo. P. Fisher)：《基督教的超自然起源》(Supernatural Origin of Christianity)，纽约，新版，1877年，第459-470页，比较他在《历史与神学讨论》(Discussions in History and Theology) 中的论文“圣保罗”，纽约，1880年，第487-511页；A. B. 布鲁斯 (A. B. Bruce)（格拉斯哥）：《保罗的归信与保罗的福音》，载于“长老会评论” (Presbyt Review)，1880年10月（反驳普夫莱德雷尔，布鲁斯称其关于保罗主义的著作为“对保罗教义体系的改革宗解释的释经学辩护和哲学消解”）。 ↩︎
他将其描述为“天上的异象” (οὐράνιος ὀπτασία)，使徒行传 26:19，并说他看见了基督，基督被他看见，哥林多前书 9:1；15:8。同样，妇女们在复活主的坟墓前的异象被称为“天使的异象” (ὀπτασία τῶν ἀγγέλων)，路加福音 24:23。但即使是不如保罗批判性强的彼得，也清楚地知道如何区分一个实际发生的事件 (ἀληθῶς γενόμενον) 和一个纯粹主观的异象 (ὅραμα)，使徒行传 12:9。客观的异象是通过感官的神圣启示；主观的异象是幻觉和欺骗。 ↩︎
加拉太书 1:16，“将他儿子启示在我心里” (ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί)，在我里面，在我最深的灵魂和意识中。 ↩︎
鲍尔 (Baur) 倾向于将这种混淆归咎于《使徒行传》的作者，并声称保罗对基督显现有更正确的概念，认为它纯粹是一个内在事件或“基督对他更深层次自我意识的属灵显现”（加拉太书 1:16, ἐν ἐμοί）；但这与保罗自己在哥林多前书 9:1；15:8 中的用语不符。霍尔斯滕 (Holsten) 承认，若没有对基督显现的客观真实性的完全确信，保罗绝不可能得出被钉十字架者被上帝大能从死里复活的结论。他从他的立场清楚地陈述了这一点（第65页）：“保罗相信耶稣是基督，是因为基督也向他显现了 (哥林多前书 15:8)。这个异象在保罗的意识中，是看到了一个客观真实的、属天的形象，这个形象从其超验的不可见状态中向他显现。从他所见的这个形象的真实性中——他认出这就是被钉十字架的耶稣——他也推断出，那位死于十字架的人已被上帝的大能复活，获得了新生；而从复活的确据中，他又推断出，这位从死里复活的人是上帝的儿子和弥赛亚。因此，正如保罗整个福音的真理都系于复活的真实性上 (比较哥林多前书 15:12及后)，正是借着复活者的异象，弥赛亚信仰的真理向他显明，他意识的转变也得以完成。”“对保罗来说，这个异象是一个外来的、超验的力量对他精神生活的干预。然而，历史批判在人类精神由世俗因果关系内在发展的法则支配下，必须尝试将这个异象理解为他自身精神的一个内在的、心理的行为。这给它带来了最艰巨的任务之一，艰巨到一位历史批判的大师，同时又如此深入保罗精神本质的鲍尔，刚刚还宣称‘无论是心理学还是辩证法的分析，都无法探究上帝向保罗启示他儿子的那个行为的内在奥秘’。然而，批判学不应因此而退缩，不去尝试探究这个奥秘。因为这个异象是历史性地理解原始基督教最关键的要点之一。在它的起源中，蕴含着保罗福音的胚芽。只要这个胚芽的孕育是超验力量作用的结果这一表象没有被揭示，那么所领受的一切就始终笼罩在超验的表象之下。批判学尤其不能满足于这样的说法：它的对手为这个异象所要求的超验性、客观性，已被现代精神的自信所拒绝。因为这种自信只有在它的范畴被证明是现实法则的情况下，才能主张其真理性。”普夫莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer) 博士与霍尔斯滕 (Holsten) 的观点一致，排除了超自然因素，但他承认这种思辨理论纯属假设，并强调保罗思想中道德以及逻辑和辩证过程的重要性，“因此，”他说（《保罗主义》(Paulinismus)，第16页），“归信的过程绝非冷冰冰的思维运作；它更像是一个敏锐的良心对那不可抗拒地呈现的更高真理的深层道德顺服行为（因此对他来说，信心也是一种顺服 (ὑπακοή)），是一种伟大的自我否定行为，将旧人和他整个宗教世界交于死亡，从此不再有任何荣耀，甚至不再有生命，唯独在被钉十字架的基督里。这正是我们从使徒所有书信中听到的基调，每当他描述他个人与基督十字架的关系时；这从来不只是一种客观理论的关系，而总是同时且本质上是内心深处与被钉十字架者主观联结的关系，一种与基督的十字架死亡和复活生命的神秘相交。” ↩︎
比较哥林多后书 12:2；使徒行传 18:9；22:17。一些现代批评家认为他患有癫痫，像穆罕默德 (Mohammed) 和史威登堡 (Swedenborg) 一样，因此更容易产生想象中的异象。 ↩︎
哥林多前书 15:8: ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων, ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι, ὤφθη κἀμοί。迈耶 (Meyer) 在此处的评论是正确的：“‘末了’ (ἔσχατον) 结束了肉身显现的系列，从而将这些显现与后来的异象或其他启示性事件区分开来。”同样，戈代 (Godet)（《罗马书注释》(Com. sur l’épitre aux Romains)，1879年，卷一，第17页）说：“保罗以那次赐予他本人的显现，结束了对复活耶稣向使徒们显现的列举；因此他认为这次显现与那些显现具有同样的真实性，从而明确地将其与他后来蒙恩的所有异象区分开来，这些异象在《使徒行传》和书信中有所提及。” ↩︎
哥林多前书 15:12及后。斯坦利教长 (Dean Stanley) 将这段论述与柏拉图 (Plato) 的《斐多篇》(Phaedo) 和西塞罗 (Cicero) 的《图斯库路姆争辩》(Tusculan Disputations) 相比较，但它远为深刻和确凿。异教哲学充其量只能证明未来生活的可能性和或然性，而不能证明其确定性。此外，除非相信基督是“复活和生命”，否则永生的观念并无安慰，反而只有恐惧。 ↩︎
加拉太书 1:16；哥林多前书 9:1；15:8；使徒行传 22:10, 14。 ↩︎
使徒行传 9:2；比较加拉太书 1:13；哥林多前书 15:9；腓立比书 3:6；提摩太前书 1:13。 ↩︎
见鲍尔 (Baur) 的《前三世纪教会史》 (Church History of the First Three Centuries)，图宾根，第二版，第45页；艾伦·孟席斯 (Allan Menzies) 英译本，伦敦，1878年，卷一，第47页。 ↩︎
《拿撒勒的耶稣史》 (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara)，苏黎世，1872年，卷三，第532页。 ↩︎
《使徒的基督形象》 (Das Christusbild der Apostel)，莱比锡，1879年，第57页及后。 ↩︎
《保罗书信》 (Les Épitres pauliniennes)，巴黎，1878年，卷一，第11页。 ↩︎
《使徒行传》9:20中的“随即” (εὐθέως) 迫使我们将这段简短的见证放在他与大马士革门徒同住的几日 (ἡμέρας τινάς) 期间，即在他前往阿拉伯之前。大约三年后（或者说“过了好些日子” (ἡμέραι ἱκαναί) ，使徒行传 9:23），他回到大马士革重申他的见证（加拉太书 1:17）。 ↩︎
加拉太书 1:17, 18。在《使徒行传》(9:23) 中，这次旅程被忽略了，因为它不属于保罗的公共生活，而是属于他的私人和内心生活。 ↩︎
比较加拉太书 4:25，其中“阿拉伯” (Arabia) 指的是西奈半岛 (Sinaitic Peninsula)。 ↩︎
哥林多后书 3:6-9。 ↩︎
戈代 (Godet) 如此总结他的一生（《罗马书》(Romans)，导论 I. 59）。他认为保罗既非犹大的替代者，也非西庇太的儿子雅各的替代者，而是一个归信的以色列的替代者，这个人单枪匹马地完成了本应由整个民族承担的任务；因此，他被呼召的时刻，正是司提反和雅各两位殉道者的血印证了以色列的硬心并决定了其被弃绝的时刻。 ↩︎
“帝国之途西行” (Westward the course of empire takes its way)。哲学家贝克莱主教 (Bishop Berkeley) 的这句名言，表达了世俗和宗教历史的一个普遍规律。罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome) 说保罗在他的宣教旅程中“来到了极西之地” (ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως)，这可能指罗马，也可能指西班牙，使徒曾打算前往那里（罗马书 15:24, 28）。一些英国历史学家（厄谢尔 (Ussher)、斯蒂林弗利特 (Stillingfleet) 等）认为保罗的旅程远及高卢 (Gaul) 和不列颠 (Britain)，但无论是在新约还是在早期传统中，都没有这方面的痕迹。见下文。 ↩︎
罗马书 1:16，“先是犹太人”，不是基于他们有更高的功德（犹太人作为一个民族，是最不配和最忘恩负义的），而是基于上帝的应许和历史的顺序（罗马书 15:8）。 ↩︎
哥林多后书 11:24-29。 ↩︎
哥林多后书 4:8, 9。 ↩︎
罗马书 8:31-39。 ↩︎
提摩太后书 4:6-8。我们可以在此补充罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome) 一段略带颂扬的文字，他显然将保罗置于彼得之上，《致哥林多教会书》(Ep. ad Corinth.) 第5章：“让我们将优秀的使徒们置于眼前。彼得，因不义的嫉妒，忍受了不止一两次，而是许多的劳苦，如此作了见证 (μαρτυρήσας，或，殉道) 后，去了他预定的荣耀之地。因嫉妒和纷争，保罗以他的榜样指明了坚忍的代价。在七次被捆绑，被放逐，被石头打，并在东方和西方传道之后，他赢得了他信心的崇高奖赏，曾将公义教导给全世界，并到达了西方的边界；当他在官长面前作了见证后，他离开了世界，去了圣地，成为坚忍最伟大的榜样。” ↩︎
《使徒行传》9:23-25；比较哥林多后书11:32, 33。大马士革至今仍展示着逃生的窗户，以及那条名叫“直”的街道、犹大的房子和亚拿尼亚的房子。但这些地方的传统并不确定。 ↩︎
加拉太书 1:18-24；比较使徒行传 9:26, 27。 ↩︎
《使徒行传》22:17-21。值得注意的是，在他的祷告中，他承认了自己对“殉道者司提反”所犯的罪；从而在他犯罪的城市里，为一件公开的罪行作了公开的补赎。 ↩︎
《使徒行传》11:28-30；12:25。 ↩︎
法勒 (Farrar) 说（I. 550 sq.）：“保罗离开雅典时，是一个被鄙视和孤独的人。然而他的访问并非徒劳……他没有在雅典建立教会，但在那里——可能是在归信的亚略巴古成员的培育下——一个教会成长起来了。在下个世纪，它为基督教事业贡献了殉道的监督和雄辩的护教士（普бли乌斯 (Publius)、夸屈图斯 (Quadratus)、阿里斯提德 (Aristides)、雅典那哥拉 (Athenagoras)）。在三世纪，它在和平与纯洁中繁荣。在四世纪，它派代表参加了尼西亚会议 (Nicaea)，两位伟大的基督徒朋友——圣巴西流 (St. Basil) 和拿先素斯的圣格列高利 (St. Gregory of Nazianzus) 的高尚修辞就是在其基督教学校中培养的。又过了没几个世纪，它那成千上万的神祇已无法面对那双握着木制十字架的被刺穿的手，纷纷逃入过时信仰的朦胧之中，它的守护女神，尽管荷马 (Homer) 曾纪念她那闪亮的眼睛，以及用马拉松 (Marathon) 战利品铸造的巨矛，也将她的闺房让给了那位曾在拿撒勒木匠屋檐下生活的谦卑的加利利少女——主的童贞母亲。”然而，雅典是罗马帝国最后一个放弃偶像崇拜的城市之一，并且在教会史上从未占据过重要地位。它的宗教更多的是对古希腊天才的崇拜，而非对基督的崇拜。“他远非耶稣和圣保罗的门徒，而更像是普鲁塔克 (Plutarch) 和朱利安 (Julian) 的门徒” (Il est been moins disciple de Jésus et de saint Paul que de Plutarque et de Julien)，勒南 (Renan) 说，《圣保罗》，第208页。他关于保罗在雅典的章节非常有趣。 ↩︎
在哥林多，保罗写下了罗马书 1:18 及后那段对异教堕落的可怕而真实的描述。这座城市是众所周知的腐败，以至于“哥林多化” (κορινθιάζομαι) 的意思就是行淫，“哥林多人” (κορινθιαστής) 就是淫乱者。卫城上宏伟的维纳斯神庙 (temple of Venus) 有一千多名妓女专门从事淫乱服务。本格尔 (Bengel) 称哥林多的一个神教会是“一个令人愉快而巨大的悖论” (laetum et ingens paradoxon) (在哥林多前书 1:2)。见勒南 (Renan)《圣保罗》第八章，第211页及后的生动描述。 ↩︎
魏斯 (Weiss)（《新约圣经神学》(Bibl. Theol. des N. T.)，第三版，第202页）倾向于将《歌罗西书》和《以弗所书》的写作定在凯撒利亚监禁期间。蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、申克尔 (Schenkel)、迈耶 (Meyer)、策克勒 (Zöckler)、豪斯拉特 (Hausrath) 也持此观点。见迈耶 (Meyer) 对《以弗所书》的注释（第五版，由沃尔德马·施密特 (Woldemar Schmidt) 修订，1878年，第18页），以及持相反观点的尼安德 (Neander)、维泽勒 (Wieseler) 和莱特福特 (Lightfoot)（《腓立比书》，第三版，1873年，第29页），他们将所有被囚期间的书信都定在罗马。 ↩︎
使徒行传 28:30, 31。比较被囚期间的书信。 ↩︎
本格尔 (Bengel) 对《使徒行传》28:31的评论：“保罗在罗马，福音的顶点，使徒行传的终结：否则路加 (Luke)（提摩太后书 4:11）本可以轻易地将记述延续到保罗的结局。始于耶路撒冷，终于罗马。” (Paulus Romae, apex evangelii, Actorum finis: quae Lucas alioqui (2 Tim. 4:11) facile potuisset ad exitum Pauli perducere. Hierosolymis cœpit: Romae desinit)。结尾的突然似乎并非偶然，因为正如莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 所言（《腓立比书注释》，第3页，注），《使徒行传》和《路加福音》的开头和结尾有惊人的相似之处，而且没有比这更合适的结尾了，因为它实现了福音普传的应许，而这正是《使徒行传》的起点。 ↩︎
即到以弗所（提摩太前书 1:3；提摩太后书 4:13, 20）；到革哩底（提多书 1:5）和到尼哥波立（提多书 3:12）。 ↩︎
腓立比书 1:25；2:24；腓利门书 22。然而，这些经文并非决定性的，因为使徒在个人事务和计划上并不声称无误；他在对迅速殉道和为弟兄们进一步劳苦的期望与渴望之间摇摆不定，腓立比书 1:20-23；2:17。他可能未能实现他计划中对腓立比和歌罗西的访问。 ↩︎
罗马书 15:24, 28。勒南 (Renan) 否认了一次东访，但认为保罗最后的劳苦是在西班牙或高卢度过的，并且他于公元64年或更晚在罗马被剑所杀（《敌基督》(L’Antechrist)，106, 190）。普朗普特 (Plumptre) 博士（在他的《路加福音注释》导论和《使徒行传注释》附录中）巧妙地推测，路加，保罗的同伴，与著名诗人 M. 安内乌斯·卢卡努斯 (M. Annaeus Lucanus)（《法尔萨利亚》(Pharsalia) 的作者，塞涅卡 (Seneca) 的侄子）之间有某种联系，后者是西班牙科尔多瓦 (Corduba) 的本地人，并以此为基础解释了 J. 安内乌斯·迦流 (J. Annaeus Gallio)（塞涅卡的兄弟）在哥林多对保罗的友好行为，早期关于保罗和塞涅卡友谊的传统，以及保罗的西班牙之行。这颇具想象力。 ↩︎
约瑟夫，《自传》(Vita)，第3章。比较普朗普特 (Plumptre)，同上。 ↩︎
德尔图良 (Tertullian)（《论异端的时效》(De praescr. haeret.) 第36章）：“在罗马，彼得的受难与主等同，保罗则以施洗者约翰的结局加冕。” (Romae Petrus passioni Dominica adaequatur, Paulus Joannis [Baptistae] exitu coronatur.) ↩︎
比较 § 26, 第 250, 257-259页。 ↩︎
埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) (VI. 631) 推测，保罗在听到尼禄的迫害后，自愿赶回罗马为基督作见证，并在那里被捕，再次受审并被判处死刑，时为公元65年。埃瓦尔德假设其间有一次西班牙之行，但没有去东方。 ↩︎
提摩太后书 4:6-8。本格尔 (Bengel) 称这封信为“保罗的遗嘱和天鹅之歌” (testamentum Pauli et cycnes cantio)。 ↩︎
哥林多前书 15:9 (公元57年)；以弗所书 3:8 (公元62年)；提摩太前书 1:15 (公元63或64年？)。 ↩︎
在西班牙发现的一块拉丁铭文，记录了尼禄在根除新迷信方面的成功，格鲁特 (Gruter)，《铭文集》(Inscript.)，第238页，现在通常被认为是伪造的。 ↩︎
我必须在此纠正我在《使徒教会史》第342页与维泽勒 (Wieseler) 博士一同犯下的一个错误，即将 ὑπὸ τὸ τέρμα 读作“在西方的最高法庭前”。ἐπί 才是亚历山大抄本 (Cod. Alex.) 的读法（虽然写得有缺陷），这一点我在1869年在不列颠博物馆，在霍姆斯先生 (Mr. Holmes) 和已故的特雷格勒斯博士 (Dr. Tregelles) 的见证下，通过检查该抄本亲自证实了。这个介词位于该抄本第四卷，第159b对开页，第二栏，第17行的末尾，由于空间不足而用较小的字母书写，但出自原抄写员之手。新发现的布林尼乌斯 (Bryennios) 手稿也证实了同样的读法。 ↩︎
勒南 (Renan) 说（《圣保罗》(St. Paul)，第三章，第67页）：“对成年人来说，割礼是一项痛苦的仪式，并非没有危险，而且极其令人不快。这是阻止犹太人自由地在其他民族中活动，并将他们划为一个独立阶层的原因之一。在古代城市的重要场所——浴场和体育馆，割礼使犹太人遭受各种侮辱。每当希腊人和罗马人的注意力转向这个话题时，便会爆发一阵阵的嘲笑。犹太人在这方面非常敏感，并以残酷的报复来回击。他们中的一些人，为了逃避嘲笑，并希望冒充希腊人，便努力通过一种凯尔苏斯 (Celsus) 为我们保留了细节的外科手术来抹去最初的标记。至于那些接受了这一入门仪式的归信者，他们只有一条路可走，那就是躲藏起来以逃避讥讽的嘲弄。一个上流社会的人绝不会让自己处于这样的境地；这无疑是为什么归信犹太教的女性远多于男性的原因，因为前者从一开始就不必经受一个在各方面都令人反感和震惊的考验。我们有许多犹太女子嫁给异教徒的例子，但没有一个犹太男子娶异教徒女子的例子。” ↩︎
使徒行传 10 和 11。 ↩︎
使徒行传 15:1, 5: τινὲς τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων πεπιστευκότες。 ↩︎
加拉太书 2:4: “偷着引进来的” (παρείσακτοι, 比较彼得后书 2:1 中的 παρεισάξουσιν) “假弟兄” (ψευδάδελφοι)，“他们偷着进来” (οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον, 从旁边进来，或潜入；比较犹大书 4, παρεισέδυσαν)，要窥探我们在基督耶稣里的自由，为要叫我们作奴仆。这些法利赛派犹太化分子的使者被讽刺地称为“超等使徒” (ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι)，哥林多后书 11:5; 12:11。因为这些人并非真正的使徒（正如鲍尔 (Baur) 及其追随者与哥林多后书 10 至 12 章的上下文完全矛盾地主张的那样），而是与“假使徒，行事诡诈，装作基督使徒的模样”相同，哥林多后书 11:13。鲍尔的骇人误解已被魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker)（在《保罗与哥林多教会》中，同上，第640页）、凯姆 (Keim)、克勒佩尔 (Klöpper)、维泽勒 (Wieseler) 和格林 (Grimm)（同上，第432页）完全驳斥。亦比较戈代 (Godet)，同上，第49页及后。 ↩︎
加拉太书 1:22-24。 ↩︎
某些严谨的煞买 (Shammai) 学派的犹太拉比将割礼的重要性抬高到何等荒谬的程度，可以从法勒 (Farrar) (I. 401) 引用的以下言论中看出：“割礼是如此之大，若非有它，圣者（愿他受颂赞）就不会创造世界；因为经上记着（耶利米书 33:25），‘我若没有立白日黑夜的约[割礼]，就必不造天地的定例。’” “亚伯拉罕直到受了割礼才被称为‘完全’。” ↩︎
保罗提到了主观动机，路加提到了客观呼召。在重要的托付中，这两者通常会合一。但鲍尔 (Baur) 和利普修斯 (Lipsius) 将此视为不可调和的矛盾之一！ ↩︎
路加报道了前者并暗示了后者（比较使徒行传 5 和 6），保罗报道了私下的谅解并暗示了公开的会议，他说（加拉太书 2:2）：“我把那在外邦人中所传的福音，对他们 [耶路撒冷的弟兄们] 陈说，却是背地里对那些有名望之人 [或，对那些当权者] 说的”，即受割礼者的柱石使徒，雅各、矶法和约翰，比较使徒行传 2:9。否认有公开会议的鲍尔博士 (Dr. Baur) 将 κατ’ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν 误译为“而且我特别 (und zwar wandte ich mich speciell) 转向那些尤其有声望的人”，这样 τοῖς δοκοῦσιν 就会与前面的 αὐτοῖς 相同（《保罗》，第五章，第117页，英译本第一卷，第122页）。但更自然的表达方式应该是 τοῖς δοκοῦσιν ἐν αὐτοῖς，而且正如新约词典编纂者格林 (Grimm) 反驳鲍尔时指出的（同上，第412页），κατ’ ἰδίαν 根本不是“特别”的意思，而是 privatim, seorsum，“私下地”、“分开地”，如同马可福音 4:34 和 κατ’ ἰδίαν εἰπεῖν, Diod. I. 21。 ↩︎
保罗列出他们的顺序意义重大：雅各居首，作为耶路撒冷的主教和最保守的；约翰居末，作为犹太使徒中最自由的。术语“有名望的” (οἱ δοκοῦντες) 和“柱石” (οἱ στῦλοι) 并非讽刺，当然不是针对那些名实相符的使徒。如果加拉太书 2:6, “他们从前是何等样人，与我无干” (ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν, οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει) 中有任何讽刺，那也是针对那些为了贬低保罗而高估犹太使徒的犹太化分子。即使是凯姆 (Keim)（同上，第74页）也持此观点：“最后，人们应该停止谈论保罗对那些有声望之人的讽刺性尖刻：因为一个紧接着庄重而满意地记录了与‘柱石’们结盟的人，他拒绝属人权威的言论（第6节）并非针对使徒们的记忆，而是针对加拉太犹太基督徒党徒众所周知的傲慢。” ↩︎
加拉太书 2:7-10；比较使徒行传 11:30；24:17；哥林多前书 16:1-3；哥林多后书 8 和 9；罗马书 15:25-27。 ↩︎
巴拿巴，作为较年长的门徒，在犹太教会中仍保留优先地位，因此被首先提及。后来的伪造者会颠倒这个顺序。 ↩︎
普朗普特博士 (Dr. Plumptre) 反驳图宾根派批评家时评论道（在使徒行传 15:7）：“在所有关于基督教教会发展的学说中，那种将彼得、雅各和约翰视为一个犹太化反保罗派别的领袖的学说，或许是最没有根据和最荒诞的。那个派别在他们生前，以及如伪克莱门《讲道集》和《纪要》所显示的，在他们死后，都肆无忌惮地使用他们的名字，这一事实不能推翻他们自己深思熟虑的言行。” ↩︎
这从保罗对犹太化分子的愤怒语气，以及使徒行传 15:6 的记载：“辩论已经多了” (πολλῆς συζητήσεως γενομένης)，比较使徒行传 15:2：“起了纷争和辩论，都非同小可” (γενομένης στάσεως καὶ ζητήσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης) 中可以清楚看出。这类强烈的措辞表明路加绝没有用仁爱的面纱掩盖使徒教会中的分歧。 ↩︎
加拉太书 2:3-5。见下文注释。 ↩︎
使徒行传 16:3。路加对提多未受割礼的沉默被图宾根派批评家歪曲为故意隐瞒事实，而提及提摩太受割礼则被说成是为迎合彼得主义和保罗主义大公合一而编造的虚构。这位匿名的《使徒行传》作者该是何等一个工于心计的人，却又不够精明，以至于无法掩盖他的文学欺诈，或通过使其与《加拉太书》的记载相符，并提及使徒们之间的完全谅解，来使其更具说服力！《使徒行传》并非教会或使徒的完整历史，正如福音书并非基督的完整传记一样。 ↩︎
比较罗马书 14 和 15；哥林多前书 9:19-23；使徒行传 21:23-26。 ↩︎
加拉太书 5:6；6:15；哥林多前书 7:19。普朗普特博士 (Dr. Plumptre) 对最后一节经文的评论切中要害：“常常，那些认为某些仪式不重要的人，反而把对该仪式的不重视夸大为一种必要的德行。使徒通过强调割礼和非割礼的无所谓来小心地防范这一点（罗马书 2:25；加拉太书 5:6；6:15）。圣保罗自己为提摩太行割礼，并拒绝为提多行割礼，这既是此处所强调真理应用的例证，也是使徒严格遵守自己教导原则的例证。拒绝为提摩太行割礼，就等于赋予了非割礼某种价值。为提多行割礼，就等于赋予了割礼某种价值。” ↩︎
使徒行传 15:7-11；比较使徒行传 10:28及后；彼得前书 1:12；5:12；彼得后书 3:15, 16。彼得的文风清晰可辨，如对神的称呼，“鉴察人心的主” (ὁ καρδιογνώστης)，使徒行传 15:8，比较使徒行传 1:24。这类细微的巧合加强了《使徒行传》的文献可信度。 ↩︎
不像教皇们，他们不参加在耶路撒冷或其他地方的主教会议并发言，而是期望所有教义争议都提交给他们作最终和无误的裁决。 ↩︎
使徒行传 15:11: “我们得救，乃是因主耶稣的恩，和他们一样，这是我们所信的” (τῆς χάριτος τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ πιστεύομεν σωθῆναι, καθ’ ὃν τρόπον κἀκεῖνοι)。比较罗马书 10:12, 13。 ↩︎
比较使徒行传 15:13-21；21:18-25；雅各书 1:25；2:12；以及在 § 27，第274页引用的赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 的记述。 ↩︎
外邦人的问安形式，“请安” (χαίρειν)，使徒行传 15:23，在雅各书 1:1 中再次出现，但在新约其他地方则没有，除了在异教徒革老丢·吕西亚 (Claudius Lysias) 的信中（使徒行传 23:26）；通常的形式是“恩惠、平安” (χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη)。这也是那些伪造者无法注意到的偶然巧合和验证之一。 ↩︎
根据最古老的读法，“使徒和作长老的弟兄们” (οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀδελφοί)，也可以译为：“使徒们，和长老们，弟兄们”；比较使徒行传 15:22。在一些手稿中省略“弟兄们” (ἀδελφοί) 可能是由于后来的实践，即排除了平信徒参与主教会议的审议。 ↩︎
使徒行传 15:23-29。 ↩︎
使徒行传 16:4。 ↩︎
使徒行传 21:25。比较启示录 2:14, 20。但为什么保罗从不提及这个会议法令？因为他可能认为这是理所当然的，或者更有可能的是，他并不完全喜欢它的限制，这些限制被那些不宽容的解释者用来反对他和在安提阿的彼得（加拉太书 2:12）。魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker) 和格林 (Grimm)（同上，第423页）承认某些此类妥协的历史性，但将其移至更晚的时期（使徒行传 21:25），作为雅各提出的与外邦归信者的权宜之计 (modus vivendi)，并武断地指责《使徒行传》年代错乱。但磋商必须有一个结果，结果体现在一个正式的行动中，而这个行动又被传达给那些受困扰的教会。 ↩︎
殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)，约在二世纪中叶，认为吃祭偶像之物 (εἰδωλόθυτα) 与拜偶像一样坏。《与特里风对话录》(Dial. c. Tryph.) 第35章。 ↩︎
出埃及记 34:15；利未记 17:7及后；申命记 12:23及后。禁止食血的原因是“活物的生命是在血中”，而流血是“为魂赎罪”的方式（利未记 17:11）。禁止食血可追溯到挪亚 (Noah) 时代，创世记 9:4，并且似乎被包含在所谓的七条“挪亚诫命”中，这些诫命是加给门外归信者的，尽管《塔木德》从未明确具体地说明它们。穆斯林同样憎恶食血。但希腊人和罗马人视之为美味。犹太人方面的一大宽容之处在于猪肉未被列入禁食之列。本特利 (Bentley) 曾提议将使徒行传 15:20 中的 πορνεία 改为 πορκεία (来自 πόρκος, porcus)，但毫无证据。 ↩︎
哥林多前书 8:7-13；10:23-33；罗马书 14:2, 21；提摩太前书 4:4。 ↩︎
“奸淫” (πορνεία) 一词，若无附加说明，必须按其通常意义理解，不能仅指非法的婚姻，这些婚姻是禁止犹太人缔结的，出埃及记 34章；利未记 18章，尽管它可能包含这些。 ↩︎
启示录 2:14, 20。 ↩︎
哥林多前书 6:13-20；比较哥林多前书 5:9；帖撒罗尼迦前书 4:4, 5；以弗所书 5:3, 5；歌罗西书 3:5。这些经文与泰伦斯 (Terence) 剧中米基奥 (Micio) 的话形成何等鲜明的对比：“相信我，年轻人嫖妓饮酒，并非丑行。”——《兄弟》(Adelph.) i. 2. 21, 22. (弗莱凯森 (Fleckeisen) 编，第290页。) 然而，他那更具德行的已婚兄弟德米亚 (Demea) 回答说：“朱庇特啊，你这人快把我逼疯了。年轻人做这些事还不算丑行吗？”——《兄弟》(Adelph.) i. 2. 31, 32。 ↩︎
使徒行传 15:21；比较使徒行传 13:15；哥林多后书 3:14, 15。 ↩︎
使徒行传 21:20-25。爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 以此意理解该法令（《驳异端》(Adv. Haer) III. 12, 15：“那些与雅各同在的使徒们，的确允许外邦人自由行事；但他们自己……仍持守先前的规条……虔诚地遵守按着摩西所定的律法。”(Hi qui circa Jacobum apostoli gentibus quidem libere agere permittebant; ipsi vero ... perseverabant in pristinis observationibus ... religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis quae est secundum Mosem.)）普夫莱德雷尔 (Pfleiderer)（同上，284）在这一点上持类似观点，这一点常被忽视，但对正确理解随后的反动至关重要。他说：“至于犹太基督徒，当时是默认了一个不言而喻的前提，即他们的一切都保持原样，因此，从外邦基督徒的律法自由中，不能得出任何废除犹太基督徒中律法的结论；在这一前提下，年长使徒们的工作被限制在犹太人中（因为越过这一界限而不违反律法是不可能的）；在这一前提下，雅各派人从耶路撒冷到安提阿，以及他们对彼得的影响，都表明彼得先前更自由的行为是一种例外。” ↩︎
在不加任何指责的情况下，我们可以用一些类似的、出于良知和审慎的排他性例子来说明雅各学派严格解释者的立场。罗马天主教徒除了自己的教会不承认其他教会，并拒绝与非天主教徒进行任何宗教上的团契；然而，他们中的许多人会承认在教皇制范围之外也存在神恩的作为和得救的可能性。一些路德宗信徒坚持“路德宗的讲台只为路德宗的牧师；路德宗的圣坛只为路德宗的信徒”的原则。路德本人在马尔堡拒绝了与慈运理 (Zwingli) 的团契之手，而后者无疑是一位基督徒，并在十五条教义中的十四条上与他意见一致。高派英国国教徒不承认未经主教按立的有效圣职；严格领餐的浸信会只承认浸礼为有效的洗礼；然而，国教徒并不否认非国教徒的基督徒身份，浸信会也不否认婴儿洗礼者的基督徒身份，但他们会拒绝与他们同领主餐。有些只唱诗篇的长老会信徒甚至不会与唱他们所谓的“非默示”圣诗的其他长老会信徒一同敬拜，更不用说领餐了。在所有这些情况下，无论是否一致，都在基督徒团契和教会团契之间作了区分。关于所有这些及其他形式的排他性，我们会本着保罗的精神说：“在基督耶稣里，受割礼”（仅视为一个记号）“或不受割礼都无功效”，无论是天主教还是新教，路德宗还是加尔文宗，加尔文主义还是阿民念主义，主教制还是长老制，浸礼、倒水礼还是洒水礼，或其他任何因出身和外在条件的偶然区别，都无功效，惟有“成为新造的人，使人生发仁爱的信心，并遵守神的诫命”才算数。加拉太书 5:6；6:15；哥林多前书 7:19。 ↩︎
未完成时态的“一同吃饭” (συνήσθιεν μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν)，加拉太书 2:12，表明这是一种习惯，他过去常常与未受割礼的基督徒一同吃饭。这是保罗亲笔提供的最佳证据，证明彼得在原则上甚至在他通常的实践中都与他一致。这里的“吃饭”很可能不仅指普通的用餐，也指原始的爱筵 (agapae) 和圣餐，在这些场合中，弟兄般的承认和团契得以实现和印证。 ↩︎
使徒行传 10:27-29, 34, 35；11:3：“你进入未受割礼之人的家，和他们一同吃饭了。” ↩︎
“从雅各那里来的人” (τινὲς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου)，加拉太书 2:12，似乎暗示他们是由雅各差派的（比较马太福音 26:47；马可福音 5:25；约翰福音 3:2），而不仅仅是雅各的门徒或他教会的成员，后者会用 τινὲς τῶν ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου 来表达。见格林 (Grimm)，同上，第427页。 ↩︎
强者和勇者被成功恫吓的例子不胜枚举。1519年1月，路德在阿尔滕堡与教皇使节卡尔·冯·米尔蒂茨 (Carl von Miltitz) 会面时，因害怕神圣大公教会分裂的前景而惊恐万分，以至于他承诺并且确实写了一封极为卑躬屈膝的降服信给教皇，并警告德国人民不要分裂。但这场不可压制的冲突很快在1519年6月的莱比锡辩论中再次爆发。 ↩︎
加拉太书 2:14-21。我们认为这一段是保罗对彼得讲话的简要概述；但历史叙述不知不觉地转变为因应场合而引发的、并适用于加拉太人情况的教义反思。在第三章中，它自然地扩展为对加拉太人的直接抨击。 ↩︎
保罗以问题的形式，从他自己正确的前提出发，得出了一个犹太化反对者的错误结论，并用他惯用的憎恶句式“断乎不可” (μὴ γένοιτο) 来拒绝这个结论，如罗马书 6:2。 ↩︎
加拉太书 2:11，彼得是自责的，并被外邦人指责，“是可指责的” (κατεγνωσμένος ἦν)，而非“有过失的”或“该被指责的”（英文钦定本的翻译）。 ↩︎
比较哥林多前书 9:5, 6；15:5；歌罗西书 4:10；腓利门书 24；提摩太后书 4:11。 ↩︎
彼得前书 5:12；彼得后书 3:15, 16。 ↩︎
亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 和其他教父，以及耶稣会士哈杜因 (Harduin) 都是如此认为。 ↩︎
这种对圣经的骇人曲解甚至被像奥利金 (Origen)、哲罗姆 (Jerome) 和屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) 这样的教父所倡导。这引发了哲罗姆和奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 之间的一场争论，后者出于更高的道德感对此提出抗议，并最终占了上风。 ↩︎
比较哥林多后书 4:7；腓立比书 3:12；雅各书 3:2；约翰一书 1:8；2:2。 ↩︎
比较使徒行传 21:17-20。 ↩︎
英文钦定本将“那些超等使徒” (ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι)，哥林多后书 11:5，译为“那些最大的使徒”，普朗普特 (Plumptre) 译得更好，“那些格外的使徒”。他们与“假使徒” (ψευδαπόστολοι)，11:13，是相同的，而不是受割礼者的柱石使徒，加拉太书 2:9；见上文，第334页，注1。 ↩︎
奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 如此区分摩西律法的三个时期：1. 活的律法，但不能赐生命 (lex viva, sed non vivifica)；2. 垂死的律法，但非致命的 (l. moribunda, sed non mortifera)；3. 死的且致命的律法 (l. mortua et mortifera)。 ↩︎
弗里德兰德 (Friedländer)，卷一，第372页及后。 ↩︎
见弗里德兰德 (Friedländer) 卷一，第9页中一些赞美的描述，他说，产生这种压倒性印象的元素是“来自世界各地的人口巨大且不断变化的骚动，真正世界性交往中令人困惑和陶醉的喧嚣，公共公园和建筑的数量与宏伟，以及城市的无垠广阔。”关于坎帕尼亚 (Campagna) 平原，他在第10页写道：“如今一片充满废墟的荒野向阿尔巴诺山脉延伸，热病之气笼罩其上，而当时那里却是一片完全健康、处处耕种、街道纵横、生机勃勃的平原。”见斯特拉波 (Strabo)，v. 3, 12。 ↩︎
弗里德兰德 (Friedländer)，卷一，第54页及后，通过综合某些数据得出结论，罗马在奥古斯都时期（罗马建城后749年）人口为668,600人，不包括奴隶，而在70或80年后则达到一百五十万到二百万。 ↩︎
弗里德兰德 (Friedländer)，卷一，第11页：“从维斯帕先 (Vespasian) 到哈德良 (Hadrian) 的半个世纪里，罗马达到了其最辉煌的顶峰，尽管在安东尼王朝及以后，为美化它还做了很多工作。” ↩︎
勒南 (Renan)，《敌基督》(L’Antechrist)，第7页；弗里德兰德 (Friedländer)，卷一，第310, 372页；及哈纳克 (Harnack)，同上，第253页。但豪斯拉特 (Hausrath)，同上，卷三，第384页，假定奥古斯都时期罗马有40,000犹太人，提庇留时期有60,000人。我们从约瑟夫 (Josephus) 处得知，8,000名罗马犹太人曾陪同希律王的代表团去见奥古斯都（《古史》(Ant) XVII. 11, 1），以及4,000名犹太人被提庇留放逐到撒丁岛的矿山（XVIII. 3, 5；比较塔西佗，《编年史》(Ann) II. 85）。但这些数据不足以进行非常确切的计算。 ↩︎
弗里德兰德 (Friedländer)，卷三，第510页：“铭文绝大多数是希腊文，尽管部分是难以理解的行话；此外还有拉丁文铭文，但没有希伯来文的。”另见加鲁奇 (Garrucci)，《朗达尼尼葡萄园墓地》(Cimiterio in vigna Rondanini)，以及由舒勒 (Schürer) 抄录并出版的铭文（大多为希腊文，一些为拉丁文），《犹太人社群宪章》等，第33页及后。 ↩︎
约瑟夫 (Josephus)，《古史》(Ant) XVIII. 6,4。比较哈纳克 (Harnack)，同上，第254页。 ↩︎
塔西佗 (Tacitus)，《历史》(Hist) V. 4：“在他们那里，我们视为神圣的一切都是亵渎的；反之，我们视为乱伦的，在他们那里却是许可的。”(Profana illic omnia quae apud nos sacra; rursum concessa apud illos quae nobis incesta.) 比较他对犹太人的整个描述，那是一种真假参半的奇怪混合。 ↩︎
“波佩娅·萨宾娜 (Poppaea Sabina)，奥托 (Otho) 的妻子，是她那个时代最美丽的女人，她既有美貌的魅力，又有老练阴谋家的手腕。在罗马帝国的放荡女性中，她尤为突出。她最初与鲁菲乌斯·克里斯皮努斯 (Rufius Crispinus) 结婚，后被奥托 (Otho) 诱惑，并离婚以便嫁给他。通过这段新关系，她得以亲近尼禄 (Nero)，不久便觊觎更高的地位。但她的丈夫嫉妒而警惕，而她自己也知道如何通过时而进逼、时而后退来引诱年轻的皇帝，直到他情欲狂熾，将他的朋友派往卢西塔尼亚 (Lusitania) 做总督，从而除掉他。波佩娅让奥托离开时没有一丝叹息。她利用他不在的机会，使自己对情人来说变得比以往任何时候都不可或缺，并毫不掩饰地意图解除自己的婚约，并通过离婚甚至死亡来取代屋大维娅 (Octavia)。”梅里维尔 (Merivale)，《罗马史》(Hist. of the Romans)，卷六，第97页。尼禄在波佩娅怀孕时意外将她踢死（65年），并在讲坛上为她致悼词。元老院下令赐予她神圣的荣誉。比较塔西佗，《编年史》(Ann) XIII. 45, 46；XVI. 6；苏维托尼乌斯，《尼禄传》(Nero)，35。 ↩︎
“被征服者给征服者制定了法律。”(Victi victoribus leges dederunt.) 引自奥古斯丁（《上帝之城》(De Civit. Dei)，VI. 11）一部已失传的著作《论迷信》(De Superstitionibus)。塞涅卡死后几年，这句话得到了一个奇异的印证，当时希律·亚基帕王的女儿百妮基 (Berenice)，曾在凯撒利亚听过保罗归信的故事（使徒行传 25:13, 23），先后成为维斯帕先 (Vespasianus) 及其子提图斯 (Titus) 公开的情妇，并在凯撒的宫殿中主事。提图斯曾许诺娶她，但迫于公众舆论的压力，不得不遣散这位乱伦的奸妇。“他不情愿地遣散了不情愿的她。”(Dimisit invitus invitam) 苏维托尼乌斯，《提图斯传》(Tit)，第7章；塔西佗，《历史》(Hist.)，II. 81。 ↩︎
罗马隔都 (Ghetto) 的历史（该词源自希伯来语 גדע，“砍倒”，比较以赛亚书 10:33；14:12；15:2；耶利米书 48:25, 27等）在教皇制的编年史中构成了奇特而悲伤的一章。狂热的教皇保罗四世（1555-59）下令将其用墙围起来，并与基督教世界隔绝，在教皇诏书 Cum nimis 中宣称：“犹太人，因其自身的罪行已使他们陷入永恒的奴役，却以基督徒的宽宏允许他们为借口，胆敢与基督徒同住混居，不佩戴任何区别标记，并拥有基督徒仆人，甚至购买房屋，这是极其荒谬和不合适的。”西斯笃五世 (Sixtus V) 以他们是“基督所出的家族”为由善待犹太人；但他的继任者克莱门八世 (Clement VIII)、克莱门十一世 (Clement XI) 和英诺森十三世 (Innocent XIII) 禁止他们从事除旧衣、破布和铁器以外的所有贸易。额我略十三世 (Gregory XIII)（1572-85），曾为圣巴托罗缪大屠杀而欢欣，强迫犹太人每周听一次布道，每逢安息日，警察便被派往隔都，用鞭子将男人、女人和孩子赶进教堂，如果他们不听讲就鞭打他们！这一习俗直到庇护九世 (Pius IX) 才被废除，他废除了所有压迫犹太人的法律。关于隔都的这些及其他有趣信息，见奥古斯都·J·C·黑尔 (Augustus J. C. Hare)《罗马漫步》(Walks in Rome)，1873年，第165页及后，以及菲利普博士 (Dr. Philip)——一位在罗马犹太人中传教的新教传教士——的小册子《论隔都》(On the Ghetto)，罗马，1874年。 ↩︎
使徒行传 28:17-29。 ↩︎
使徒行传 2:10：“从罗马来的客旅，或是犹太人，或是进犹太教的人” (οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι, Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσήλυτοι)。“客旅”是外来人（比较 17:21，“在那里的客” (οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες ξένοι)），与“居民” (κατοικοῦντες, 7:48; 9:22; 路加福音 13:4) 有别。在耶路撒冷与司提反辩论的希腊化犹太人中，有“利百地拿会堂的人” (Libertini)，即被解放的罗马犹太人，是庞培掳到罗马的那些人的后裔，使徒行传 6:9。 ↩︎
甚至德国的罗马天主教历史学家也放弃了这一说法，但诺斯科特博士 (Drs. Northcote) 和布朗洛博士 (Brownlow) 仍自信地重申，同上，卷一，第79页，他们天真地声称彼得在42年与哥尼流和意大利营一同去了罗马。关于此主题，比较 §26, 第254页及后。 ↩︎
罗马书 16:7，“又问我亲属与我一同坐监的安多尼古和犹尼亚的安……他们在基督里比我先。”如果犹尼亚是男性名字 (Junias)，它必定是犹尼亚努斯 (Junianus) 的缩写，如同路加 (Lucas) 是路加努斯 (Lucanus) 的缩写。但屈梭多模 (Chrysostom)、格劳秀 (Grotius)、赖歇 (Reiche) 等人认为这是一个女性名字，是安多尼古的妻子或姐妹。 ↩︎
苏维托尼乌斯，《克劳狄传》(Claud)，第25章：“他将因Chrestus的煽动而持续骚乱的犹太人驱逐出罗马。”(Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit) 罗马人常常混淆 Christus（受膏者）和 Chrestus（来自 χρηστός，“有用的”、“好的”），并称基督徒为 Chrestiani (χρηστιανοί)。比较法语形式 chrétien。殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 用这个词源学上的错误作为论据，反对因基督徒的名字而迫害他们。《第一护教辞》(Apol. I.)，第4章（奥托 (Otto) 编，卷一，第10页）：“我们被控告为基督徒 (Χριστιανοὶ)，但憎恨良善的 (χρηστὸν) 是不公义的。”然而，他知道基督之名的真正来源，同上，第12章：“耶稣基督 (Ἰησοῦς Χριστός)，我们之所以被称为基督徒 (Χριστιανοὶ)，正是源于他。”德尔图良 (Tertullian) 说，Christus 这个名字几乎总是被异教徒误读为 Chrestus。《护教辞》(Apol)，第3章；《致国民》(Ad Nat.)，I.3。这个错误一直持续到四世纪，拉克坦修 (Lactantius)，《神圣法规》(Instit. Div.)，IV. 7，并且在拉丁铭文中也有发现。勒南 (Renan) 认为 Christianus 这个名字源自拉丁语（如同“希律党人” (Herodian)，马太福音 22:16，Pompejani, Caesareani），因为若源自希腊语，则应为 Χρίστειος（《使徒》，第234页）。莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 否认这一点，并引用 Σαρδιανός, Τραλλιανός（《腓立比书》，第16页，注1）；但勒南会认为这些名词是拉丁化的，如同 Ἀσιανός（使徒行传 20:4，斯特拉波等）。这个名字起源于安提阿（使徒行传 11:26），该城早已罗马化，并以其喜爱起绰号而闻名。勒南认为这个词是由罗马当局作为一种警察称谓 (appellation de police) 而产生的。新约中出现这个词的另外两处，使徒行传 26:28；彼得前书 4:16，似乎都带有蔑视和厌恶的意味，塔西佗 (Tacitus) 和苏维托尼乌斯 (Suetonius) 也是如此使用。但异教徒最初意图用作嘲讽的名称，如今已成为最高荣誉的名称。因为还有什么比作一个真正的基督徒，即基督的追随者，更高尚、更美好的呢？一个值得注意的事实是，“耶稣会士” (Jesuit) 这个名字直到十六世纪才开始使用，却因其所属修会的行为不端，甚至在罗马天主教国家也成了一个贬义词；而“基督徒” (Christian) 这个词，按谚语来说，包含了所有高尚、美好和像基督的事物。 ↩︎
使徒行传 18:2；罗马书 16:3。一个未归信的犹太人是不会将使徒接到自己屋檐下并与他合伙的。“犹太人” (Ἰουδαῖος) 这个称呼常常仅指其国籍（比较加拉太书 2:13-15）。亚居拉 (Aquila) 这个名字，即鹰，在犹太人中仍然很常见，就像其他响亮的动物名字一样（Leo, Leopardus, Löwe, Löwenherz, Löwenstein等）。希腊语的 Ἀκύλας 是对拉丁语的音译，并且在翁克罗 (Onkelos) 的名字中可能略有改动，翁克罗是其中一部《塔古姆》的传统作者，博学的伊曼纽尔·多伊奇 (Emmanuel Deutsch) 认为他就是亚居拉（塔木德中的 Ἀκύλας），旧约的希腊文译者，哈德良 (Hadrian) 统治时期归信犹太教，据说是皇帝的侄子。《文学遗存》(Liter. Remains)（纽约，1874年），第337-340页。他的妻子百基拉 (Priscilla) 的名字（是 Prisca 的小称）“可能表明与 Prisci 家族有关，该家族出现在罗马历史的最早阶段，并出过一长串的行政官和执政官。”普朗普特 (Plumptre) 对《使徒行传》18:2的注释。 ↩︎
罗马书 1:8；16:5, 14, 15, 19。 ↩︎
使徒行传 28:13。部丢利是仅次于奥斯提亚 (Ostia) 的西意大利主要港口，也是亚历山大运粮船的惯常停靠港；因此，那里居住着大量的犹太及其他东方商人和水手。当来自亚历山大的运粮船队抵达时，全体居民都会出来迎接。圣保罗登陆的码头至今仍有十六根柱子存留。见弗里德兰德 (Friedländer)，卷二，第129页及后；卷三，第511页，以及豪森 (Howson) 和斯彭斯 (Spence) 对使徒行传 28:13的注释。 ↩︎
使徒行传 28:15。亚庇乌市（可能是以修建了著名的亚庇古道的建造者命名）被贺拉斯 (Horace) 斥为一个“充满了水手和无赖酒馆老板”的破败小镇。三馆是一个更重要的城镇，在西塞罗 (Cicero) 的信件中被提及，可能位于从安提乌姆 (Antium) 来的道路与亚庇古道的交汇处，靠近现代的奇斯泰尔纳 (Cisterna)。安东尼行纪 (Antonine Itinerary) 中给出的从罗马南下的距离如下：“到阿里奇亚 (Aricia)，16英里；到三馆，17英里；到亚庇乌市，10英里。” ↩︎
腓立比书 1:12-15；使徒行传 28:30。 ↩︎
歌罗西书 4:7-14；以弗所书 6:21；腓利门书 24；腓立比书 2:25-30；4:18；亦比较提摩太后书 4:10-12。 ↩︎
腓立比书 1:15-18。比较莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 对该处的注释。 ↩︎
《致哥林多人前书》，第6章。“一大群蒙拣选的人” (πολὺ πλῆθος ἐκλεκτῶν) 与塔西佗《编年史》XV. 44中的“一大群人” (ingens multitudo) 精确对应。 ↩︎
比较我的《使徒教会史》，第296页及后。鲍尔博士 (Dr. Baur) 试图彻底改变关于外邦元素占主导地位的传统观点，并证明罗马教会几乎完全由犹太归信者组成，而《罗马书》是保罗派普世主义对彼得派特殊主义的辩护。施韦格勒 (Schwegler)、罗伊斯 (Reuss)、曼戈尔德 (Mangold)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、福尔克马尔 (Volkmar)、霍尔斯滕 (Holsten)、霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann) 以及在某种程度上蒂尔施 (Thiersch) 和萨巴蒂尔 (Sabatier) 都追随他。但奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)、托卢克 (Tholuck)、菲利皮 (Philippi)、德·韦特 (De Wette)、迈耶 (Meyer)、肖特 (Schott)、霍夫曼 (Hofmann) 则支持另一观点。贝施拉格 (Beyschlag) 提出了一个折中方案，即根据保罗明确的陈述，大多数是外邦基督徒，但主要是前归信者，因此持有犹太化的信念。这一观点得到了舒勒 (Schürer) 和舒尔茨 (Schultz) 的认可。在最新且最出色的讨论中，魏茨泽克 (Weizsäcker) 和戈代 (Godet) 反对鲍尔和贝施拉格的观点。最初的核心无疑是犹太人，但外邦元素很快就超过了它，这从书信本身、从《使徒行传》最后一章、从尼禄的迫害以及其他事实中可以明显看出。保罗有权将罗马会众视为属于他自己的工场。犹太化的倾向并非不存在，正如我们从第14和15章以及《腓立比书》和《提摩太后书》的影射中所看到的，但它不像在加拉太那样具有对保罗的尖锐个人敌意，尽管在二世纪我们也在罗马发现了恶意的以便尼主义，那里是所有异端的聚集地。 ↩︎
莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，《加拉太书》，第323页。 ↩︎
莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，同上，第20页。尤其参见卡斯帕里 (Caspari) 的研究，在他的《洗礼信经史料》卷三（1875年），第267-466页。根据弗里德兰德 (Friedländer)，卷一，第142, 481页，希腊语是皇宫和情人间的偏爱语言。 ↩︎
腓立比书 1:13；4:22。“御营全军” (πραιτώριον) 包括御林军的军官和士兵；“凯撒家里的人” (οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας) 可能包括高级官员和朝臣以及奴隶和被释放的奴隶，但后者更有可能。罗马书16章中提到的二十个早期归信者的名字，与亚壁古道上帝国家庭墓窖 (Columbaria) 中的名字大部分吻合。比较莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，《腓立比书》，第169页及后；普朗普特 (Plumptre)，其《使徒行传注释》附录；以及哈纳克 (Harnack)，同上，第258页及后。哈纳克指出，革利免致哥林多人书信第63章中提到的罗马教会两位可靠的仆人，革老丢·以弗所 (Claudius Ephebus) 和瓦勒里乌斯·比托 (Valerius Bito)，属于克劳狄皇帝的家室。 ↩︎
见上文，§ 29，第279页，特别是那里引用的莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 的论文。哈纳克 (Harnack)（同上，第260页）和弗里德兰德 (Friedländer) 认为保罗与塞涅卡相识的可能性很小，普朗普特 (Plumptre) 认为有可能。在奥斯提亚发现了一块三世纪的墓志铭，上面写着：D M. M. Anneo. Paulo. Petro. M. Anneus. Paulus. Filio. Carissimo. 见德·罗西 (De Rossi) 在《基督教考古学公报》(Bullet. di archeol. christ.)，1867年，第6页及后，以及勒南 (Renan)，《敌基督》，第12页。塞涅卡属于安内乌斯家族 (gens Annaea)。但这块铭文最多只能证明，在三世纪，安内乌斯家族的一位基督徒成员名叫“保罗”，并称他的儿子为“保卢斯·彼得”，这种组合对基督徒来说很熟悉，但对异教徒来说是未知的。比较弗里德兰德 (Friedländer)，卷三，第535页。 ↩︎
此处基督教的推断是基于塔西佗《编年史》XIII. 32的模糊描述。见弗里德兰德 (Friedländer) 卷三，第534页；莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，第21页；诺斯科特 (Northcote) 和布朗洛 (Brownlow)，卷一，第82页及后；哈纳克 (Harnack)，第263页。在圣加利斯都墓穴 (catacomb of St. Callistus) 附近非常古老的卢基娜 (Lucina) 地窟中发现了一块庞波尼乌斯·格蕾基努斯 (Pomponius Graecinus) 和同一家族其他成员的墓碑，这证实了这一推断。德·罗西 (De Rossi) 推测卢基娜是庞波尼娅·格蕾基娜 (Pomponia Graecina) 的教名。但勒南 (Renan) 对此表示怀疑，《敌基督》，第4页，注2。 ↩︎
普朗普特 (Plumptre)，同上。马提雅尔 (Martial)，生于西班牙，公元66年来到罗马。 ↩︎
苏维托尼乌斯，《图密善传》15；狄奥·卡西乌斯，67, 14；优西比乌，《教会史》III. 18。 ↩︎
德·罗西 (De Rossi)，《公报》，1865年，1874年和1875年；莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，《罗马的圣革利免》，附录，第257页及后；哈纳克 (Harnack)，第266-269页。 ↩︎

Essay

#Church History

《基督教会史》第五章:圣保罗与外邦人的归信

http://avcaleb.github.io/2025/09/20/第五章圣保罗与外邦人的归信/

作者

A. V. Caleb

发布于

2025年9月20日

许可协议

死亡恐惧上一篇

《基督教会史》第四章：圣彼得与犹太人的归信下一篇

《基督教会史》第五章:圣保罗与外邦人的归信

第五章 圣保罗与外邦人的归信 (ST. PAUL AND THE CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES.)

目录

§ 29. 关于圣保罗及其工作的来源与文献

I. 来源

II. 传记与批判研究

III. 年代学

IV. 教义与释经

IV. 注释书

§ 30. 归信前的保罗

他的天赋

他的教育

他对犹太教的热忱

他的外部关系与个人形象

§ 31. 保罗的归信

类似的归信经历

错误的解释

值得注意的让步

§ 32. 保罗的工作

§ 33. 保罗的宣教工作

关于保罗第二次罗马囚禁的注释

§ 34. 耶路撒冷会议及犹太与外邦基督教的妥协

文献

耶路撒冷会议

对法令的分析

注释

§ 35. 保守派的反扑与自由派的胜利

彼得与保罗在安提阿

§ 36. 罗马的基督教

I. 关于罗马皇帝统治下的一般社会与道德状况：

II. 关于罗马的犹太人及罗马作家对他们的提及：

III. 关于罗马的基督教会：

罗马城

罗马的犹太人

罗马的基督教

克劳狄的谕令

保罗的书信

保罗在罗马

罗马教会的构成与巩固

语言

社会状况

Original Text

Table of Contents

§ 29. Sources and Literature on St. Paul and his Work.

I. Sources.

II. Biographical and Critical.

III. Chronological.

IV. Doctrinal and Exegetical.

IV. Commentaries.

§ 30. Paul before his Conversion.

His Natural Outfit.

His Education.

His Zeal for Judaism.

His External Relations and Personal Appearance.

§ 31. The Conversion of Paul.

Analogous Conversions.

False Explanations.

Remarkable Concessions.

§ 32. The Work of Paul.

§ 33. Paul’s Missionary Labors.

Note on the Second Roman Captivity of Paul.

§ 34. The Synod of Jerusalem, and the Compromise between Jewish and Gentile Christianity.

Literature.

The Conferences in Jerusalem.

Analysis of the Decree.

Notes.

§ 35. The Conservative Reaction, and the Liberal Victory—

Peter and Paul at Antioch.

§ 36. Christianity in Rome.

I. On the general, social, and moral condition of Rome under the Emperors:

II. On the Jews in Rome and the allusions of Roman Writers to Them:

III. On the Christian Congregation in Rome:

The City of Rome.

The Jews in Rome.

Christianity in Rome.

The Edict of Claudius.

Paul’s Epistle.

Paul in Rome.

Composition and Consolidation of the Roman Church.

Language.

第五章圣保罗与外邦人的归信 (ST. PAUL AND THE CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES.)