« 前へ次へ »
commenced his active labours’. ‘Immediately,’ he says, “instead of con-
* It must in this case be placed before the notice of his active preaching, ix. 20 kal etőéws, K.T.A. Some have put it later and seen anindirect allusion to it in the expression uá\\ov čveówwagoûro, ver. 22 ; but there is no trace of a chronological notice in these words, and such an allusion is scarcely natural.
* Similarly also Victorinus, Hilary, Theodore Mops., Theodoret, Primasius, and the GEcumenian commentator. Some of the Latin fathers might have been helped to this view by a curious blunder arising out of the Latin translation ‘non acquievi carni et sanguini,' “I did not rest in flesh and blood,” which Victorinus explains, ‘Omnino laboravi carnaliter,’ adding ‘Caro enim et sanguishomoexterior totusest.’ Tertullian however, de Resurr. Carn. o. 50, quotes the passage, “Statim nonretuleritadcar
nemetsanguinem,' explaining it, “idest
St Paul's first visit to Jerusalem.
The visit to Jerusalem mentioned at the close of the first chapter of The same this epistle is doubtless the same with that recorded in the ninth chapter event nat: of the Acts”. Whatever difficulties seem to stand in the way of our iden- o by St - - - - - - - aul and tifying them, the fact that in each narrative this is stated to have been St Luke St Paul's first appearance in Jerusalem since his conversion and to have followed after a sojourn in Damascus, must be considered conclusive. Nor indeed is there any inconsistency in the two narratives. Though they contain but few incidents in common, they for the most part run parallel with each other; and even in particulars in which there is no coincidence, there is at least no direct contradiction. On the other hand the aspect of events but under presented in the two accounts is confessedly different. And this will different almost always be the case in two independent narratives. In the case of *** St Paul and St Luke this divergence is due to two causes: owing to First. The different position of the two writers, the one deriving his (1) Their information at second-hand, the other an eyewitness and an actor in the respective scenes which he describes. In such cases the one narrator will present P* rather the external view of events, while the other dwells on their inner history, on those relations especially which have influenced his own character and subsequent actions: the former will frequently give broad and general statements of facts, where the latter is precise and definite. Secondly. The different objects of the two writers. The one sets (2) Their himself to give a continuous historical account; the other introduces inci- difference dents by way of allusion rather than of narrative, singling out those espe-" cially which bear on the subject in hand. In the particular instance before us, it is important to observe this divergence of purpose. St Luke dwells on the change which had come over Saul, transforming the persecutor of the Gospel into the champion of the Gospel. St Paul asserts his own independence, maintaining that his intercourse with the leaders and the Church of the Circumcision had been slight. The standing-point of the historian is determined by the progress of events, that of the Apostle by the features of the controversy. Thus occupying different positions, they naturally lay stress each on a different class of facts, for the most part opposite to, though not inconsistent with, each other. The narratives may best be compared by considering the incidents under two heads; 1. St Paul's intercourse with the Apostles. The narrative of the Acts St Paul's relates that when St Paul visited Jerusalem he was regarded with suspicion elution: by the disciples; that Barnabas introduced him to ‘the Apostles,' relating solo the circumstances of his conversion and his zeal for the Gospel when con- y verted; and that after this he moved about freely in their company. These are just the incidents which would strike the external observer as important. On the other hand St Paul says nothing of Barnabas. His relations with Barnabas had no bearing on the subject in hand, his obligations to
* ix. 26–30. Compare St Paul's later salem, Acts xxii. 17–11. reference to this residence at Jeru
(2) with the Jewish Christians.
Meaning of the term in classical writers.
the Apostles of the Circumcision. In all that relates to that subject he is precise and definite, where the author of the Acts is vague and general. He states the exact time of his sojourn, fifteen days. He mentions by name the members of the apostolate whom alone he saw—Peter in whose house he resided, and James to whom as head of the Church of Jerusalem he would naturally pay a visit. This is sufficient to explain the account of his ‘going in and out' with the Apostles in the Acts, though the language of the historian is not what would have been used by one so accurately informed as the Apostle himself. It is probable that the other Apostles were absent on some mission, similar to that of Peter to Lydda and Joppa which is recorded just after (ix. 32–43); for there were at this time numberless churches scattered throughout “Judaea and Galilee and Samaria’ (ix. 31), which needed supervision.
2. St Paul's intercourse with the Jewish Church at large. At first sight there appears to be a wide difference between the two accounts. St Luke tells of his attempting to “join himself to the disciples,’ of his ‘going in and out,’ of his ‘speaking boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputing,’ while St Paul himself states that “he was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea.” Yet on examining the narratives more closely this discrepancy is reduced to very narrow limits. St Luke confines his sojourn especially to Jerusalem, and his preaching to a small section of unbelievers, not the genuine Jews but the Hellenists". He relates moreover that St Paul's visit terminated abruptly”, owing to a plot against his life, and that he was hurried off to Caesarea, whence he forthwith embarked. To a majority therefore of the Christians at Jerusalem he might, and to the Churches of Judaea at large he must, have been personally unknown. But though the two accounts are not contradictory, the impression left by St Luke's narrative needs correcting by the more precise and authentic statement of St Paul.
The name and office of an Apostle.
The word dirão toxos in the first instance is an adjective signifying ‘despatched’ or “sent forth.' Applied to a person, it denotes more than ăyyeXos. The “Apostle' is not only the messenger, but the delegate of the person who sends him. He is entrusted with a mission, has powers conferred upon him”. Beyond this, the classical usage of the term gives no
* ix. 28. The restrictions év [or els] 'Ispovaa\hu and mp3s roos "EAAmvia rās are the more noticeable, in that they interfere with the leading feature of St Luke's narrative, the publicity of Saul's conversion.
* ix. 29. Compare Acts xxii. 18, ‘Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem.”
* It occurs of a person in Herod. i. 21, v. 38. With this exception, no instances are given in the Lexicons of its use by classical authors even of a late date with any other but the Attic meaning; nor have I succeeded in finding any myself, though Hesychius explains dróaroMos’ arparmyös karū tr}\otiv reputröRevos. This is probably an instance where aid towards understanding the meaning of the Christian apostolate. Its special sense denoting ‘a naval expedition, a fleet despatched on foreign service, seems to have entirely superseded every other meaning in the Attic dialect; and in the classical Greek of a later period also, except in this sense, the word appears to be of very rare occurrence. A little more light, and yet not much more, is thrown on the subject by Its use the use of the term among the Jews. It occurs but once in the Lxx, in *mong the I Kings xiv. 6, as a translation of now, where it has the general sense of Jews. a messenger, though with reference to a commission from God”. With the later Jews however, and it would appear also with the Jews of the Christian era, the word was in common use. It was the title borne by those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission”, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service”. After the destruction of Jerusalem the ‘Apostles' formed a sort of council about the Jewish patriarch, assisting him in
Its use in the Gospels does not favour this.
designating His immediate and most favoured disciples ‘Apostles, our Lord was not introducing a new term" but adopting one which from its current usage would suggest to His hearers the idea of a highly responsible mission”.
At the first institution of the office the Apostles were twelve in number. According to the prevailing view this limit was strictly observed, an exception however being made in the case of St Paul. Nay so far has the idea of this restriction of number been carried by some, that they hold the election of Matthias to have been a hasty and ill-advised act, and to have been subsequently reversed by an interposition of God, St Paul being substituted in his place”. It is needless to say that the narrative of St Luke does not betray the faintest trace of such a reversal. And with regard to the general question, it will I think appear, that neither the Canonical Scriptures nor the early Christian writings afford sufficient ground for any such limitation of the apostolate.
In the Gospels the word ‘Apostle' is of comparatively rare occurrence. Those, whom it is customary with us to designate especially “the Apostles,' are most often entitled either generally “the disciples’ or more definitely ‘the Twelve.’ Where the word does occur, it is not so used as to lend any countenance to the idea that it is in any way restricted to the Twelve. In St Matthew it is found once only, and there it is carefully defined, “the twelve Apostles' (x. 2). In St Mark again it occurs in one passage alone, where it has a special reference to the act of sending them forth (vi. 30, of dróa roMot, compare droorréNAew, ver. 7). In St John likewise it appears once only, and there in its general sense of a messenger, a delegate, without any direct reference to the Twelve (xiii. 16). St Luke uses the word more frequently, and indeed states explicitly that our Lord gave this name to the Twelve", and in his Gospel it is a common designation for them. But, if we are disposed to infer from this that the title was in any way restricted to them, we are checked by remembering that the same evangelist elsewhere extends it to others—not to Paul only, but to Barnabas also".