The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Literature and History of New Testament Times, by J. Gresham (John Gresham) Machen

E-text prepared by Heather Clark, Julia Neufeld,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)

THE LITERATURE AND
HISTORY OF
NEW TESTAMENT TIMES

PART I:

The Historical Background of
Christianity

The Early History of
Christianity

By John Gresham Machen

PHILADELPHIA, PA.
THE PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION
AND SABBATH SCHOOL WORK

CONTENTS

Copyright, 1915, by John Gresham Machen

INTRODUCTION

The general purpose of this course of lessons has been set forth in the introduction to the Student's Text Book. There is a tendency in the modern Church to neglect the study of Bible history. Such neglect will inevitably result in a loss of power. The gospel is a record of something that has happened, and uncertainty about the gospel is fatal weakness. Furthermore the historical study of the apostolic age—that age when divine revelation established the great principles of the Church's life—is the best corrective for a thousand vagaries. Much can be learned from modern pedagogy; but after all what is absolutely fundamental, both for teacher and for student, is an orderly acquaintance with the Bible facts.

The Teacher's Manual, therefore, is intended not merely to offer suggestions as to methods of teaching, but primarily to supplement the teacher's knowledge. A teacher who knows only what he actually imparts to the class is inevitably dull. The true teacher brings forth out of his treasure things new and old.

The sections in the Teacher's Manual, since they are intended to be supplementary, should not be read until after careful attention has been paid to the corresponding sections in the Student's Text Book. Moreover, both sections together are of course in themselves insufficient. They should be supplemented by other reading. Suggestions about reading have been put at the end of every lesson. Here, however, a few general remarks may be made.

Davis' "Dictionary of the Bible" and Purves' "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," which have been recommended even to the student, will be to the teacher almost invaluable. The earnest teacher will also desire to refer to good commentaries on The Acts. The commentaries which have been mentioned in connection with the individual lessons are based upon the English Bible; but every teacher who has any knowledge of Greek, however slight, should use, instead, the commentary of Knowling, in "The Expositor's Greek Testament." For the life of Paul, Lewin's "Life and Epistles of St. Paul" and the similar book of Conybeare and Howson are still very valuable for their vivid and extended descriptions of the scenes of the missionary journeys. A similar service is rendered, in more up-to-date form, by the various works of Ramsay. Stalker's "Life of St. Paul" is a good handbook. M'Clymont's "New Testament and Its Writers" contains instructive, though very brief, introductions to all of the New Testament books. Hastings' "Dictionary of the Bible" and "Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels" number among their contributors many writers of many opinions. They are rich in references to the vast literature of modern Biblical discussion.

The writer of this course has derived information from many quarters. Definite acknowledgment of indebtedness, since no originality is claimed, may be regarded as unnecessary. It is a pleasure, however, to render special thanks to Rev. Professor William Park Armstrong, D. D., of Princeton Theological Seminary, whose wise counsel has been of incalculable assistance at many points.

The actual presentation of the lessons will, of course, vary according to the needs of the classes and the preferences of the teachers. The Student's Text Book may often provide a convenient order of presentation. That book is intended not merely to be read, but also to be studied. It is to be regarded as a sort of outline of the course.

The "topics for study" are intended to serve a double purpose. In the first place, they will test the student's knowledge of the lesson material; in the second place, they will afford encouragement to special investigation. Individual topics may often be assigned for thorough treatment to individual students, while the class as a whole may use all the topics as guides to a general knowledge.

Personal interest in the individual students is of the utmost importance. Instruction has a tenfold value when it is backed by friendship. The relation of the students to the Church should be a matter of especial concern. If any member of the class has not confessed his faith in Christ, the study of this year offers abundant opportunity for a word in season. Our study reveals the Church as a divine institution. Shall we then stand aloof?

In this course the teacher has the opportunity of introducing young people of maturing minds to the historical study of the New Testament. There could be no more inspiring task. Carried about with every wind of doctrine, the Church is sadly in need of an assured anchorage. That anchorage should be sought in history. Ignorance is weak; sound knowledge, sought with prayer, and blessed by the Spirit of God, will lead to a more stalwart and more intelligent faith.

LESSON I

THE NEW TESTAMENT

This is an introductory lesson. It should be used, first of all, to answer intelligent general questions about the New Testament. Some of these questions will be discussed briefly under Sections 1 to 3, below.

The historical study of the New Testament, based upon a study of the circumstances under which the individual books were written, will probably be new to many of the students. The new point of view should be used to awaken interest. The climax of the lesson should, however, be a presentation of the unity of the New Testament as the very Word of God to us. Historical study should be made—and can be made—subservient to reverent and thankful obedience.

1. THE ORIGIN AND MEANING OF THE NAME

The English word "testament" comes from a Latin word. The equivalent Greek word is hard to translate. As used in the Greek Bible it may mean either "covenant" or "testament." Usually it should probably be translated "covenant."

The phrase "new covenant" occurs about five times in the New Testament. In none of these passages does the phrase refer to the "New Testament" in our sense. It designates a new relationship into which men have been received with God. The old covenant was made, through the mediatorship of Moses, with the Hebrew nation; the new covenant, hinted at in prophecy, Jer. 31:31, and instituted by the Lord Jesus, I Cor. 11:25, was made with all those, of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, who should through faith accept the salvation offered by Christ. Those who believe become, like Israel of old, God's chosen people, and enter into the warmth and joy of the divine communion. The names "old and new covenants," then, were applied first to these two special relationships into which God entered with men. Afterwards the names were applied to the books in which the conditions of those relationships were set forth. Perhaps it would have been better if we had started to say "New Covenant" where we now say "New Testament." At any rate the idea alluded to in the name is the inspiring idea, realized in Christ, of an alliance with God. The New Testament is the divine treaty by the terms of which God has received us rebels and enemies into peace with himself.

2. ONE BOOK, OR A COLLECTION OF BOOKS?

In the first place, the New Testament may be treated in every respect as a single book. That course is adopted by many of the most devoted lovers of the Bible. By them the Bible is treated simply as a textbook of religion. Passages are quoted indiscriminately from all parts of it, without much regard to the context. The wide differences of form and of spirit among the various books are ignored. The historical implications of the books are of course accepted as true, but practically they are left quite unassimilated.

Now let us be quite plain about one thing. The men who use the Bible in this way are right in the main point. They treat the Bible as the guide of life for time and for eternity. And if by the use of the Bible we can come into communion with God, we can afford to miss a good many other things. Nevertheless, the Bible is as a matter of fact not a mere textbook of religion, and if we treat it as such we miss much of its richness. If the Bible were merely a systematic treatise, it would be far easier to interpret. The interpreter would be spared a great deal of trouble, but the burden would be heaped upon the preacher. As it is, the Bible is itself a preacher, because it is in such close contact with the actual experience of men of flesh and blood. Its general teachings are given us in large measure only through the medium of history, through the medium of example. In order to arrive at the general truths, therefore, intellectual labor is often necessary. God has made things harder for the intellect that he may strike home the more surely to the heart. If Paul had written a systematic theology, the New Testament way of salvation might in some ways have been plainer than it is. It would have been plain to the intellect, but it would have needed interpretation to the heart. Conviction can be wrought only by the immediate impact of personal life. The theology of Paul, of itself, might be a dead thing; the religious experience of Paul, interwoven with his theology, and bared before us in the epistles, is irresistible.

In the second place, the historical form of the Bible may be considered at the expense of its spiritual content. The Bible may be treated simply as a storybook. Such a method of treatment is exceedingly common to-day. "The Bible as literature" is its slogan. This treatment has simply missed the main point altogether. It is incomparably inferior to that treatment which takes the Bible as a mere textbook of religion. The Bible as an addition to the world's history or the world's literature has, indeed, considerable educational value. But it does not give eternal life.

A third method is possible, and that third method is right. The historical and literary form of the Bible is recognized to the full. But it is regarded not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. Historical study is necessary not only to establish to the modern man the saving facts of the gospel, but also to do justice to the dramatic narrative form in which God has revealed to us his eternal will.

It is nearer the truth, then, to say that the New Testament is a single book than to say that it is a collection of books. Its parts differ widely among themselves, in authorship, in date, in circumstances, in aim. Those differences must be studied carefully, if the full meaning is to be obtained. But widely as the New Testament writings differ among themselves, they differ yet far more widely from all other books. They presented themselves originally to the Church with a divine authority, which is foreign to the ordinary writings of men. That authority has been confirmed through the Christian centuries. Those who have submitted their lives to the New Testament have never been confounded. The New Testament has been to them the voice of God.

3. THE FOUR DIVISIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

(1) The Gospels.—Christianity is based upon historical facts. Attempts, it is true, are often made to separate it from history. But they are bound to result in failure. Give up history, and you can retain some things. But you can never retain a gospel. For "gospel" means "good news," and "good news" means tidings, information derived from the witness of others. In other words, it means history. The question whether religion can be independent of history is really just the old question whether we need a gospel. The gospel is news that something has happened—something that puts a different face upon life. What that something is is told us in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(2) The Book of The Acts.—The Book of The Acts is a history of the extension of Christianity from Jerusalem out into the Gentile world. It represents that extension as guided by the Spirit of God, and thus exhibits the divine warrant for the acceptance of us Gentiles, and for the development of the Christian Church. It provides the outline of apostolic history without which we could not understand the other New Testament books, especially the epistles of Paul. It illustrates to the full what has been said above about the value of the historical form in which the Bible teaching is presented. By reading this vivid narrative we obtain an impression of the power of the Holy Spirit which no systematic treatise could give.

(3) The Epistles.—The Epistles of the New Testament are not just literature put in an epistolary form, but real letters. It is true that the addresses of some of them are very broad, for example, those of James and of I Peter; and that some of them contain no specific address at all, for example, Hebrews and I John. But the great majority of them, at least, were written under very special circumstances and intended to be read first by very definite people.

The chief letter-writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. To a certain extent he used the forms of letter-writing of his time, just as everyone to-day begins a letter with "Dear Sir." Within the last twenty years a great number of Greek private letters, dating from about the time of Paul, have been discovered in Egypt, where they have been preserved by the dry climate. It is interesting to compare them with the letters of Paul. There are some striking similarities in language; for both these letter-writers and Paul used the natural language of daily life rather than the extremely artificial language of the literature of that period. To a certain extent, also, Paul used the same epistolary forms. The differences, however, are even more instructive than the resemblances. It is true, the Pauline epistles are not literary treatises, but real letters. But on the other hand they are not ordinary private letters intended to be read and thrown away, like the letters that have been discovered in Egypt. Most of them were intended to be read originally in churches. It is natural, then, that they should have been written in a loftier style than is to be found in mere business communications and the like. And if Paul uses the epistolary forms of his time he uses them in an entirely new way. Even the mere openings of the epistles are made the vehicle of Christian truth. "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"—there is nothing like that in contemporary letter-writing. The openings of the Pauline epistles form an interesting study. They are varied with wonderful skill to suit the varied character and subject matter of the letters that follow. Paul is never merely formal.

The letters of Paul differ widely among themselves. The Epistle to the Romans is almost a systematic exposition of the plan of salvation. Philemon is concerned with a little personal matter between Paul and one of his converts. But even where Paul is most theological he is personal, and even where he is most personal, he is faithful to his theology. Theology in him is never separate from experience, and experience never separate from theology. Even petty problems he settles always in the light of eternal principles. Hence his letters, though the specific circumstances that gave rise to them are past and gone, will never be antiquated.

(4) The Apocalypse.—The Christian life is a life of hope. Inwardly we are free, but our freedom is not yet fully realized. We are in danger of losing our hope in the trials or in the mere humdrum of life. To keep it alive, the Apocalypse opens a glorious vision of the future. The vision is presented in symbolical language. It is not intended to help in any calculation of the times and seasons. But it shows us the Lamb upon the throne—and that is enough.

In the Library.—Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Bible," "Canon of the New Testament," "Covenant," "New Testament," and "Testament."

LESSON II

THE ROMAN BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY

Christianity is not a human product. It is not to be explained by what preceded it on the earth. It is a new beginning in history, an immediate exercise of the divine power.

But though Christianity was not produced by men, it operates upon men, and upon men subject to all the ordinary conditions of earthly life. Primitive Christianity, then, which we shall study this year, cannot be understood fully without an examination of the historical conditions under which it arose.

In the class, the lesson should probably be approached through the New Testament examples of the general principles which are outlined in the lesson helps. Examples will be found in the passages assigned in the Student's Text Book, and others should be sought for elsewhere.

1. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EMPIRE

By the middle of the first century before Christ the power of the Roman republic extended around the Mediterranean Sea. Victories abroad, however, were accompanied by serious troubles at home. The increase of wealth and the importation of slave labor had produced unfortunate social conditions. The realm had become too large to be administered adequately by the old republican government. Individuals sometimes obtained practical control of affairs, and the state was torn by civil wars. Finally, in 49 B. C., Julius Cæsar entered Rome at the head of an army, and Roman liberty was at an end. After the assassination of Cæsar in 44 B. C., there was a succession of civil wars, and then, by the victory of Actium in 31 B. C., Octavius, who later assumed the name of Augustus, became sole ruler. Augustus died in A. D. 14.

Subsequent emperors during the first century were: Tiberius (A. D. 14-37), Caligula (A. D. 37-41), Claudius (A. D. 41-54), Nero (A. D. 54-68), Galba, Otho and Vitellius (A. D. 69), Vespasian (A. D. 69-79), Titus (A. D. 79-81), Domitian (A. D. 81-96), Nerva (A. D. 96-98), Trajan (A. D. 98-117).

2. ROMAN ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE EMPIRE

The general advantages of the Roman imperial government have been considered in the Student's Text Book. It will here be advisable to consider one or two features a little more in detail. Much of what follows can be illustrated from the New Testament; for the acquaintance of New Testament writers, especially of Luke, with Roman administration is not only accurate but also minute. The students should be encouraged to seek New Testament illustrations for themselves.

(1) The Provinces.—The provinces of the empire are to be distinguished from the territories of subject kings or princes. The latter were quite subservient to Rome, but were given more independence of administration. A good example of such a subject king, theoretically an ally, but in reality a vassal, was Herod the Great, who ruled over all Palestine till 4 B. C.

The provinces themselves were divided into two great classes—imperial provinces and senatorial provinces.

The imperial provinces were under the immediate control of the emperor. They were governed by "legates," who had no regular term of office, but served at the emperor's pleasure. The imperial provinces were those in which, on account of unsettled conditions, or for the defense of the empire, large bodies of troops had to be maintained. Thus, by keeping the appointment of the legates exclusively in his own hands, the emperor retained the direct control of the all-important power of the army. A good example of an imperial province is the great province of Syria, with capital at Antioch. Palestine was more or less under the supervision of the Syrian legate.

Districts different from the great imperial provinces, but, like them, under the immediate control of the emperor, were governed by "procurators." Judea, from A. D. 6 to A. D. 41, and from A. D. 44 on, is an example.

The senatorial provinces were governed by "proconsuls," chosen by lot from among the members of the Senate. The proconsuls served for only one year. Even over these provinces and their governors the emperor retained the fullest supervisory authority. The senatorial provinces composed the central and more settled portions of the empire, where large standing armies would not be needed. Examples are Achaia, with capital at Corinth, and Cyprus with capital at Paphos. Proconsuls of both of these provinces are mentioned in the New Testament by name.

(2) Local Government.—The Romans did not attempt to introduce perfect uniformity throughout the empire. The original Greek unit of political life was the city, and Greek cities were scattered over the east before the Roman conquest. With regard to local affairs, many of the cities retained a certain amount of independence. It is interesting to observe the local peculiarities of the cities described in The Acts.

In addition to the Greek cities, many of which were more or less "free" in local affairs, many "Roman colonies" had been established here and there throughout the empire. The original colonists were often veterans of the Roman armies. Of course the populations soon came to be mixed, but Roman traditions were cultivated in the colonies more than elsewhere. A number of the cities of The Acts were colonies, and one, Philippi, is expressly declared to be such. Acts 16:12. In that city the Roman character of the magistrates appears clearly from the Lucan narrative. There were "prætors" and "lictors."

(3) Roman Citizenship.—Before New Testament times Roman citizenship had been extended to all Italy. Italy, therefore, was not a province or group of provinces, but was regarded as a part of Rome. Outside of Italy Roman citizenship was a valuable special privilege. It raised a man above the mass of the provincial population. Some of the advantages of it appear clearly in the New Testament narrative. Because Paul was a Roman citizen he was legally exempt from the most degrading forms of punishment, and had a right to appeal to the court of the emperor. Roman citizenship was sometimes acquired by money, but Paul inherited it from his father.

3. ROMAN RELIGION

Under the empire, Rome was possessed of a state religion. The ancient gods of the republic were retained. There were great divinities like Jupiter and Mars, and there were numberless private divinities of individual households. The ancient religion had, indeed, undergone modifications. New divinities in plenty had been received. But the reception of the new did not involve abolition of the old. On the contrary, the gods of other peoples could be accepted just because they were regarded as nothing but the Roman gods under different names. Thus, long before the Christian era, there had been a thoroughgoing identification of the gods of Greece with the gods of Rome. The Greek Zeus, for example, was identified with the Roman Jupiter; the Greek Ares with the Roman Mars. The gods of countries other than Greece were also received, though, as far as the city of Rome was concerned, with some conservatism.

In the Roman world, religion was a national affair. Worship of the national gods was not only piety, but also patriotism. Patriotism and religion were inseparably connected. Support of the gods of Rome, even where personal faith in them had been undermined, was considered to be the duty of every loyal citizen.

The political aspect of Roman religion appears most clearly in the worship of the Roman emperors. This remarkable development appears from the beginning of the empire. Augustus, indeed, refused to receive divine honors, at least in the west. But in the east even he was worshiped, and as time went on the reluctance of the emperors disappeared. Some of the worst of the emperors were most insistent upon their own divinity.

Perhaps the first impulse of the modern man is to regard the Cæsar cult simply as a particularly despicable form of flattery. In reality it was more than that. It was not established by imperial edict. It was not dictated primarily by servile fear. The Greek inhabitants of the empire really regarded Augustus as their saviour. And so he was, as far as any man could be. He saved them from the miseries of civil war, and from the rapacity of the degenerate republic; he gave them peace and happiness. And they responded by regarding him as a god.

To them it was natural. To them it was nothing new. Alexander the Great had been regarded as a god long before the Christian era. His successors in Syria and in Egypt had also received divine honors. To the genuine Romans, the thing did not come so easy. The Cæsar cult, at least at first, was not developed in the west. But even the Romans could worship the emperor's "genius" or spirit, and from that to the actual worship of the emperor was but a step. Essential to the whole process of deification, both in Rome and in the east, was the close connection in ancient thinking between deity and humanity, and between religion and the state. If patriotism is religion, then the king is a god.

The Cæsar cult was the most palpable incorporation of the state religion. Worship of the emperor, therefore, might well be the test of loyalty to Rome. It could be practiced by skeptics and philosophers. It could be practiced by the devotees of all religions—save two. Jews and Christians alone could not bow at the emperor's shrine, for their God was a God who could brook no rival. He was not merely the greatest among many. He was the only Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.

4. THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND SUBSEQUENT HISTORY

Between Christianity and the Roman state, with its official religion, a life-and-death struggle was inevitable. But in the providence of God it was delayed. The empire was used not to crush Christianity but to open the world before it.

But was the empire really identical with the world? It seemed so to the Romans and to the Greeks. To them the empire was the world. And they were right. Not, of course, in a literal sense. In the first century after Christ, vast civilizations—for example the civilization of China—were already in existence. There were great peoples of whom the Romans had never heard. But Roman arrogance has at last been vindicated. For Rome was in reality the key to subsequent history. Rome was the parent of Europe, and Europe is moving the world. Even China is at last being opened to the civilization of Rome. The Romans were right. He who could master Rome would be master, one day, of the world.

It has been a long process. But God's plans are sure. Christianity appeared at the one time when the world was open before it. By the power of the divine Spirit it conquered the empire. The empire dominated its barbarian conquerors. The barbarians are the parents of modern civilization. Modern civilization is invading the earth's remotest bounds. China, at last, is within our ken. Realms long closed have at last been opened. Another great opportunity! An opportunity for greed and selfishness! An opportunity for a dismal skepticism! And an opportunity for the Church of God!

In the Library.—Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Adeney, article on "Cæsar"; Gwatkin, articles on "Roman Empire," and "Rome." Hastings, "Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics": Iverach, article on "Cæsarism." Westcott, "The Two Empires," in "The Epistles of St. John," pp. 250-282. Ramsay, "The Cities of St. Paul," pp. 48-81.

LESSON III

THE GREEK BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY

The purpose of the present lesson is to make the student feel that the gospel was from the beginning a real gospel in a real world. If we isolate the early preaching from its environment, we make it seem like an unreal thing. Study of New Testament times makes the New Testament itself become a more living, a more interesting book.

In the Student's Text Book an outline of the Hellenistic age has been provided. It has been supplemented below by illustrative material. But in the class the lesson can probably be best approached from the side of the New Testament itself. In what languages is the Bible written? How did the New Testament come to be written in Greek? What other languages are mentioned in the New Testament? What light do these passages shed upon the linguistic conditions of the time? What is the attitude of the apostles toward Greek thought? Is that attitude altogether unfavorable, or did the early missionaries ever lay hold upon the higher aspirations of their Gentile hearers (Athens)? Where did the missionaries come into contact with heathen superstition? (Several fine examples in The Acts). What was the moral condition of the Greco-Roman world? How was the Hellenistic age like our own? Why did God send our Lord just in the first century? What was the social condition of the early Christians? Do you think that was an advantage or a disadvantage? What men of higher position are mentioned in the New Testament? Questions like these will serve to relate the general expositions in the lesson helps to the New Testament itself. The lesson helps are intended to provide merely the presuppositions necessary for intelligent study. God working for real men in a real world—that is the subject of the lesson.

1. THE HELLENISTIC AGE

The Greek world culture which prevailed after the conquest of Alexander was widely different from the Greek life of the classical period. The earlier period is called the "Hellenic" period, the later period is designated as "Hellenistic." When Greek thought made itself master of the world, it became mingled with numberless foreign elements. The mixture appears most clearly, perhaps, in the sphere of religion. Polytheism was capable of indefinite expansion. New gods could easily be identified with the old, or else be received along with them without a conflict. The religion of the Greco-Roman world is therefore different from that of ancient Greece. It is a curious mixture of the most diverse beliefs. Nevertheless, the whole deserves to be called Hellenistic, because even the most strikingly non-Grecian elements were usually subjected more or less to the subtle molding of the Greek spirit.

The Hellenistic age used to be despised, but among modern scholars it is coming into its own. Its literary products are admittedly inferior to the glories of the earlier age, but even in literature its achievements are not to be despised, and in other spheres it is supreme. Notably in mathematics and in natural science it was the golden age. Euclid, the geometrician, lived three centuries before Christ.

The learning of the Hellenistic age was centered in Alexandria in Egypt, a city which had been founded by Alexander the Great. Athens had, perhaps, ceased to possess the primacy. That fact is typical of the time. Greek culture had ceased to belong to Greece in the narrower sense. It had become a possession of the world. The great library of Alexandria was a sign of the times. The Hellenistic age was an age of widespread learning.

When Rome became master of the eastern world, conditions were not fundamentally changed. Rome merely hastened a process that was already at work. Already the nations had been brought together by the spread of Greek culture; Roman law merely added the additional bond of political unity. The Roman legions were missionaries of an all-pervading Hellenism.

The Greco-Roman world was astonishingly modern. It was modern in its cosmopolitanism. In our own time the nations have again been brought together. The external agencies for their welding are far more perfect to-day than they were under the empire. Even the Roman roads would be but a poor substitute for the railroad and the telegraph and the steamship. But on the other hand we lack the bond of a common language. In some ways the civilized world was even more of a unit in the first century than it is to-day.

The cosmopolitanism of the Roman Empire was a God-given opportunity for the Church. In a cosmopolitan age, if a man has something to say, he will not lack for an audience. His message will be understood in one place as well as in another. The lesson is obvious for the Church of to-day. Again God has opened the world before us. If we have a message, in God's name let us proclaim it while yet there is time.

2. THE GREEK BIBLE

The Church originated in Palestine. The first missionaries were native Jews. Yet even they had been affected by the cosmopolitanism of the time. Even they could use Greek, in addition to their native language. And Paul, the greatest of the missionaries, though a Jew, was a citizen of a Greek city. The Church from the beginning was able to speak to the larger world.

One difficulty might possibly have arisen. The Christian mission was not carried on merely by the oral word. From the beginning Christianity was a religion with a Book. And that Book was not Greek. On the contrary it was intensely un-Grecian. The Old Testament is intolerant of heathen ideas. It is deeply rooted in the life of the chosen people. How could a Hebrew book be used in the Greek world?

The difficulty might have been serious. But in the providence of God it had been overcome. The Old Testament was a Hebrew book, but before the Christian era it had been translated into Greek. From the beginning Christianity was provided with a Greek Bible. It is always difficult to make a new translation of the Bible. Every missionary knows that. The introduction of a new translation takes time. It was fortunate, then, that a Greek-speaking Church had a Greek Bible ready to hand.

Everything was prepared for the gospel. God's time had come. Roman rule had brought peace. Greek culture had produced unity of speech. There was a Greek world, there were Greek-speaking missionaries, and there was a Greek Bible. In the first century, the salvation that was of the Jews could become a salvation for the whole world.

3. THE PAPYRI

The world in which the gospel was proclaimed is deserving of careful study. How shall it be investigated?

The most obvious way is to study the literature of the period. Until recent years that was almost the only way. But that method is partial at best. For literature is after all but an imperfect measure of any age. The society that is found in books is an idealized society, or at any rate it is the society of the great. The plain man is unrecorded. His deeds are not deemed worthy of a place in history.

Within the last thirty years, however, the plain people of the ancient world have come remarkably into view. They are revealed to us in the "non-literary papyri."

"Papyri" are pieces of papyrus. Papyrus was the common writing material of antiquity up to about A. D. 300, when vellum, or parchment, came into general use. Unfortunately papyrus, which was made from the pith of the papyrus plant, is not a very durable substance, so that ancient papyri have been preserved until modern times only under exceptionally favorable conditions. These conditions are found in Egypt, where the dry climate has kept the papyrus from disintegration.

In Egypt, within the last thirty years, have been discovered large numbers of papyrus sheets with Greek writing. Of these the "literary papyri" contain simply parts of books. They differ from other copies of the works in question only in that they are usually older than the vellum manuscripts. The "non-literary papyri," on the other hand, are unique. They are private documents of all sorts—receipts, petitions, wills, contracts, census returns, and most interesting of all, private letters. It was usually not intended that these documents should be preserved. They were simply thrown away upon rubbish heaps or used as wrappings of mummies. They have been preserved only by chance.

The non-literary papyri are important first of all in the study of language. They exhibit the language of everyday life, as distinguished from the language of literature. The language of literature always differs more or less from the language used on the street, and the difference was particularly wide in the Greek of the Hellenistic period. The books of the time were modeled to a considerable extent upon the ancient classics, but the actual spoken language had been changing. Hence the literary language had become exceedingly artificial.

Up to within the last few years, the literary language alone could be studied. The books of the period were preserved, but the language of daily life was gone. Now, however, the papyri supply what was lacking. In them there is no attempt at style. They are composed in the language which was employed in the ordinary affairs of life and preserve the actual spoken language of every day.

At this point a remarkable fact must be noticed. The language of the New Testament is more like the language of the non-literary papyri than it is like the language of contemporary literature. The papyri indicate, therefore, that the New Testament is composed in the natural living language of the time rather than according to the canons of an artificial rhetoric. The artlessness of the New Testament has sometimes been regarded as a reproach. Instead, it is a cause for rejoicing. The simplicity of the gospel would only be concealed by niceties of style. The greatness of the New Testament is independent of literary art. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the New Testament, because it is composed in the language of the people, is characterized by anything like cheapness or vulgarity. On the contrary its simplicity is the noble simplicity of truth. In the New Testament the spoken language of the Greco-Roman world, in all its living freshness, becomes a worthy vehicle for the sublimest thoughts.

The non-literary papyri, then, reproduce for us the spoken language of the time as distinguished from the artificial language of literature. But that does not exhaust their importance. They afford a knowledge not only of language, but also of life. Through them ordinary people are revealed in the ordinary relations of every day. In them, the ancient world has been made to live again.

A few examples (see the book of Professor Milligan mentioned at the end of the lesson) will serve to indicate the character of the papyrus letters.

The following boy's letter (of the second or the third century after Christ) is written in very bad grammar, but is for that reason all the more lifelike. (The translation is taken from Grenfell and Hunt, "Oxyrhynchus Papyri," Part i., p. 186.)

"Theon to his father Theon, greeting. It was a fine thing of you not to take me with you to the city! If you won't take me with you to Alexandria I won't write you a letter or speak to you or say good-by to you; and if you go to Alexandria I won't take your hand nor ever greet you again. That is what will happen if you won't take me. Mother said to Archalaus, 'It quite upsets him to be left behind (?).' It was good of you to send me presents ... on the 12th, the day you sailed. Send me a lyre, I implore you. If you don't, I won't eat, I won't drink; there now!"

The following invitation to dinner, of the second century after Christ, throws light upon I Corinthians (the translation taken from Professor Milligan):

"Antonius, son of Ptolemæus, invites you to dine with him at the table of the lord Serapis in the house of Claudius Serapion on the 16th at 9 o'clock."

"The lord Serapis" is a god. Even an ordinary dinner party seems thus to be regarded as the table of Serapis. Under such conditions the Christian life must have been hard to lead. No wonder the Corinthian Christians had to ask Paul questions. Even the ordinary affairs of life were intimately connected with a false religion. What should the attitude of the Christians be? Where should they draw the line in associating with their heathen friends?

4. A REAL GOSPEL IN A REAL WORLD

The people that are introduced to us so intimately in the papyri are probably very fair representatives of the people among whom the gospel was first proclaimed. In that cosmopolitan age the society of Egyptian towns was probably not so very different from that of Corinth. The people of the papyri are not the great men of the time; they are just plain folk. But the early Christians were also usually not of exalted social position, though there were exceptions. "Not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble" were called. I Cor. 1:26. Many of the early Christians were slaves, many were humble tradesmen. The same classes appear in the papyri. In the papyri we are introduced into the private lives of the men to whom the gospel was proclaimed. Seeing, but unseen, hidden as by a magic cap, we watch them in their most intimate affairs. And we come away with a new feeling of the reality of early Christian history. These men were not so very different from ourselves. They were real men and women, living in a real world. And they needed a real gospel.

In the Library.—Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible," extra volume: Ramsay, article on "Religion of Greece," pp. 109-156, especially pp. 135-156. Milligan, "Selections from the Greek Papyri," (with translations). Deissmann, "The Philology of the Greek Bible," pp. 1-63, 144-147. Ramsay, "The Cities of St. Paul," pp. 1-47. Browning, "Cleon," (vol. iv, pp. 115-122 of the Riverside Edition.)

LESSON IV

THE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY

I. PALESTINIAN JUDAISM

1. SOURCES

The New Testament is one of the chief sources of information about the Palestinian Judaism of the first century. Other important sources are the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, and the Mishna. The Mishna is a collection of Jewish interpretations of the Mosaic law. In its written form it is thought to have been produced at the end of the second century, but it contains a mass of earlier material which had been preserved by oral tradition.

2. OUTLINE OF JEWISH HISTORY

After the conclusion of the Old Testament period the Jewish nation had undergone important changes. If, therefore, the Judaism of the first century is to be understood, the student must have in mind at least a bare outline of the history between the Testaments.

Old Testament history closes with the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and the reorganization of the national life which took place under Ezra and Nehemiah in the fifth century before Christ. At that time Judah, or "Judea," was the only part of Palestine which was occupied by the Jews, and they occupied it only as vassals—though with independence in internal affairs—of the kings of Persia.

The Persian dominion continued for over a century. Then, in the latter part of the fourth century before Christ, Judea was conquered by Alexander the Great. For some hundred years after the death of Alexander, the country was a bone of contention between the kings of Egypt and the kings of Syria—that is, between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. At the beginning of the second century before Christ the king of Syria won a permanent victory.

Under the Ptolemies and at first under the Seleucids, as well as under the Persians, the Jews enjoyed a considerable measure of independence in the management of their own affairs. Their religion, in particular, was left quite unmolested. But the assimilation which was not being accomplished by force was being accomplished by peaceful influences. The all-pervasive Greek culture of the period was making itself felt in Palestine as well as elsewhere. Judea seemed to be in danger of being Hellenized.

Under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria (175-164 B. C.), however, the policy of toleration was suddenly interrupted. Antiochus tried to stamp out the Jewish religion by force. The result was a heroic uprising led by Mattathias and his sons, who are called the Maccabees. The tyranny of Antiochus had caused a mighty popular reaction against the Hellenizing party among the Jews. Devotion to the religion of Israel with exclusion of foreign influences was ever afterwards the dominant tendency in Jewish history.

The Maccabees were at first wonderfully successful against overwhelming odds; and when the opposing forces seemed at last to have become too powerful, internal conflicts at the Syrian court gave the Jewish patriots that independence which they could probably not otherwise have maintained. Rulers belonging to the Maccabean dynasty governed the Jewish nation for about a hundred years, during most of which period they were independent. Their territory at first embraced only Judea, but was gradually enlarged over the other parts of Palestine. Galilee, which—since the destruction of the northern Israelitish kingdom centuries before—had become predominantly Gentile, was Judaized under Aristobulus I in 104-103 B. C. Before the time of Christ it had become thoroughly Jewish.

Unfortunately the worldly power of the Maccabees had brought worldliness of spirit. The first revolt had been undertaken from a lofty religious motive, in order to maintain the worship of Jehovah. As the years went on, the Maccabean rulers became increasingly engrossed in the extension of political power. Allying themselves with the aristocratic party among the Jews, they came to favor the extension of those Greek influences—though not in the sphere of religion—which at first they had opposed. Under Queen Alexandra (76-67 B. C.) it is true, there was a reaction. The strictly Jewish, anti-Hellenistic party again became dominant. But under Alexandra's successors there was civil strife, and the all-conquering Romans found the country an easy prey. Pompey took possession of Jerusalem in 63 B. C.

The years that followed saw the gradual rise of the family of Herod the Great, who, as vassal of the Romans, became king of all Palestine in 37 B. C. and ruled until 4 B. C. Herod was an Idumæan, not a genuine Jew. Idumæa, however, the country to the south of Judah, had been Judaized some time before. Herod was at heart a Hellenist. He built Greek theaters and amphitheaters not only in the numerous Greek cities in or near Palestine, but also in Jerusalem itself. Nevertheless he was wise enough to support the Jewish religion and generally to respect the customs of the people. His magnificent rebuilding of the temple was probably intended chiefly to win popular favor.

At Herod's death, his territory was divided among his sons. Archelaus was given Judea, Antipas—the "Herod" of Jesus' public ministry—received Galilee and Perea, with the title of "Tetrarch," and Philip received certain territories to the east of Galilee. Archelaus was banished in A. D. 6, Antipas was banished in A. D. 39, and Philip died in A. D. 33. After the banishment of Archelaus, Judea was administered by Roman procurators till A. D. 41, when all Palestine was given to Herod Agrippa I. Acts 12:1-4,18-23. After A. D. 44, procurators were again in control.

The misgovernment of the procurators led to the great revolt in A. D. 66. After four years of war, Jerusalem was taken by the Roman army in A. D. 70. The temple was destroyed, and the offering of sacrifices ceased. The destruction of the temple marks an epoch in Jewish history. Henceforth the national center was gone.

There was another uprising in A. D. 132-135, but that was the last. A Gentile city was erected on the ruins of Jerusalem, and for a considerable time at least the Jews were forbidden even to enter its precincts.

3. ADMINISTRATION AND PARTIES

After the return from the Exile, the priests occupied a position of leadership. The high priest, whose office was hereditary, was practically head of the Jewish state. With him was associated a council, composed of members of the priestly aristocracy. This state of affairs prevailed during the Persian and Greek periods. Under the Maccabees the power of the high priest reached its highest point. For after a time the Maccabean rulers themselves assumed the title of high priest, and still later the title of king. The high priest, then, under the Maccabees, was also king. Under Herod the Great, on the contrary, the high priesthood sank to its lowest ebb. Herod made and unmade high priests at pleasure.

The council associated with the high priest was, under Alexandra, opened to the members of the strict anti-Hellenistic party. At the time of Christ it included both Pharisees and Sadducees.

These parties became distinct at the time of the Maccabees. The Sadducees—the origin of the name is not altogether clear—were the aristocratic party, hospitable to Greek culture. The Pharisees were the strict Jewish party, devoted to the law, and opposed to foreign influences. The name "Pharisee" means "separated." The Pharisees were "separated" from the mass of the people by a stricter observance of the Mosaic law. At first the Pharisees supported the Maccabean leaders; for the Maccabean revolt was in the interests of the Jewish religion. But when the Maccabees became engrossed in worldly politics and susceptible to Greek influences the Pharisees opposed them. At the time of Christ the essential characteristics of the parties remained unchanged.

4. LANGUAGE

Some centuries before Christ, Hebrew had ceased to be the ordinary language of Palestine. As the language of the Old Testament it continued to be studied. Old Testament passages in Hebrew were read in the synagogue. Hebrew was used also to some extent as the language of learned discussion. But for all ordinary purposes its place had been taken by Aramaic, a language of the Semitic family closely related to Hebrew. At the time of Christ Aramaic was the spoken language of the Palestinian Jews. Even in the synagogues, the Old Testament passages, after having been read in Hebrew, were translated orally into the language which the people could understand.

But, since the time of Alexander the Great, another language had made its way into Palestine along with Aramaic. This was the Greek. The kingdoms into which Alexander's empire was divided were Greek kingdoms. Two of them, Syria and Egypt, bore rule alternately over Palestine. With the Greek government came Greek culture and the Greek language. Then, under Antiochus Epiphanes, there was a mighty reaction. Thereafter religion, at least, was kept altogether free from Greek influences.

In other spheres, however, under the Maccabean kings and still more under the Romans, Greek culture effected an entrance. At the time of Christ there were typical Greek cities not only to the east of the Jordan in Decapolis, where magnificent ruins even to-day attest the ancient Greco-Roman civilization, and not only along the coast of the Mediterranean, but even within the confines of Palestine proper. With some truth Palestine in the first century may be called a bilingual country. Greek and Aramaic were both in use.

Aramaic was the language of the mass of the people. Many, no doubt, could speak no other language. But if a man desired to make his way in the world in any public capacity or in trade he would be obliged to learn the cosmopolitan language of the time. No doubt very many could speak both languages.

Jesus and his apostles belonged to those circles which were least affected by the encroachments of Greek civilization. The whole atmosphere of the Gospels is as un-Greek as could be imagined. As is proved by the presence of Aramaic words even in our Greek Gospels, Aramaic was undoubtedly the language in which the gospel was originally proclaimed. Aramaic was the language of Jesus' boyhood home, and Aramaic was the language of his intercourse with the disciples and of his public preaching.

It is perfectly possible, however, that even Jesus may have used Greek upon rare occasions, for example in conversation with Pilate, the Roman procurator. His disciples, after the resurrection, found themselves at the head of a Greek-speaking community. The early Church in Jerusalem was composed not only of "Hebrews," but also of "Grecians," or Hellenists. Acts 6:1. The Hellenists were Greek-speaking Jews of the dispersion who were sojourning more or less permanently in the holy city. The apostles seem to have entered upon their new functions without difficulty. Some knowledge of Greek, no doubt, all of them brought with them from their Galilean homes, and their knowledge would be increased through practice. It is not surprising then that several of the original apostles and two of the brothers of Jesus were the authors of Greek books of the New Testament.

In the Library.—Riggs, "A History of the Jewish People," especially pp. 105-116, 143-153, 215-231. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": articles on "Council," "Pharisees," "Sadducees," "Synagogue," "School," "Scribe," "Aramaic," and "Hebrew." The outline of Jewish history and institutions which is provided in the lesson helps for this lesson and the following is dependent especially upon the large German work of Schürer.

LESSON V

THE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY

II. THE JUDAISM OF THE DISPERSION

The presentation of the lesson in class may be begun somewhat in the manner suggested in the Student's Text Book. The student should be made to appreciate the practical problem of a missionary in a new city. Various solutions of the problem may be adopted. The missionary may simply engage in conversation with individuals in the street, or he may hire a room and advertise his preaching. In any case the securing of an audience is usually no easy matter. It is difficult to know how to begin.

The case might naturally have been the same with Paul and his companions when, for example, after the journey up from Perga they arrived at Pisidian Antioch. Complete strangers were perhaps not much better received in those days than they are now. How could the missionaries get a hearing for their message? In some cases, they might simply take their stand in the market place and talk to the passers-by. Paul tried that method in Athens. It might do when nothing better offered. But fortunately there was usually a far better opportunity. The synagogue offered an audience. What is more, it offered just exactly the most promising audience that could possibly have been secured.

The scene in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch is typical of what happened again and again. The student should be made to appreciate the remarkable liberality and informality of the synagogue customs. There seem to have been no set preachers. Any Jew who really had a message could be heard. He needed only to go in and sit down. Acts 13:14. Paul and Barnabas had no difficulty in making their fitness known. "Brethren," said the rulers of the synagogue, "if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." Acts 13:15. They had a word of exhortation indeed. "Jesus is the Messiah for whom you are waiting. He has died for your sins. He has risen from the dead, and is now alive to save you." It was a powerful word, and it bore fruit.

The native Jews, it is true, soon came out in opposition. The reasons for their opposition are not far to seek. Jealousy was an important factor. Christianity was evidently too radical a thing to be simply a sect of Judaism. If allowed to continue, it would destroy the prerogatives of Israel. It could not be controlled. Its success was too great. On that next Sabbath in Pisidian Antioch, "almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God." The Jewish mission had never had a success like that. "When the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy." Christianity had taken away the heritage of Israel.

In one way the Jewish opposition displayed genuine insight into the situation. Christianity was really destined to be a fatal rival to the older Judaism. What took place on a small scale at Antioch was repeated on the larger stage of history. When the Christian mission began, Judaism was a successful missionary religion. Soon afterwards it had withdrawn hopelessly into its age-long isolation. Various causes contributed to this result. The destruction of the national life in Palestine and the increasing influence of the strict rabbinical schools both had an important part. But at least one factor in the process was the competition of the Christian Church. Christianity offered the world everything that Judaism could offer, and more. It offered the knowledge of the one God, and the lofty morality, and the authoritative Book. In addition, it offered a way of redemption—and the men of that time were preëminently seekers after redemption—through the sacrifice of Christ. It offered all these things, moreover, without requiring any relinquishment of purely national characteristics. Christianity did not demand union with any one race. It had a gospel for the world.

No wonder, then, that those who had been attracted by Judaism now became adherents of Christianity. The Jews were filled with envy. It was natural from their point of view, but it was a sad mistake. Had they themselves accepted the gospel, the gospel would have been to their glory. How glorious was the mission of Israel! A blessing to the whole world! Far better than any narrow particularism! But they were not willing to accept the message. Nevertheless, despite their opposition, the Church should not forget the debt which she owes to Israel. The dispersion was like the Judaism of Palestine. In both cases the men themselves were opposed to the gospel. But in both cases they had preserved the deposit of divine truth. Judaism, despite itself, opened the way for the Christian Church.

One service which the dispersion rendered to Christianity has been illustrated by the scene at Pisidian Antioch. That service was the providing of an audience. Another service was the assurance of legal protection. This may be illustrated by another incident in The Acts—the appeal to Gallio. Acts 18:12-17. There the opposition of the Jews appears in all its bitterness. No doubt that opposition was a serious hindrance to the work of the Church. Just because Christianity was regarded as a Jewish sect, the Christians were subject to persecution by the Jewish authorities. But persecutions by the Jews, annoying though they were, were far less serious than opposition on the part of the Roman authorities. And the latter was, at first, conspicuously absent. Gallio's decision is a fair example of the general attitude of the Roman magistrates. Christianity, as a Jewish sect, was allowed to go its way. Judaism, despite itself, afforded the Church legal protection.

Beginning with these two striking scenes, the teacher may proceed to the more general presentation of the lesson. In what follows, the outline of the Student's Text Book will be supplemented at one or two points.

1. THE CAUSES AND EXTENT OF THE DISPERSION

Deportations of Jews to foreign countries took place at various times. The most famous of those deportations was carried out by Nebuchadnezzar after his conquest of Judah, about 600 B. C. Many of Nebuchadnezzar's captives did not join in the return under the Persian monarchy, but remained permanently in the east and formed the nucleus of the large Jewish population of Mesopotamia. When Pompey conquered Palestine in the first century before Christ, he carried many Jews as slaves to Rome. Afterwards they were liberated, and formed a large Jewish colony at the capital of the empire. These are merely examples. Part of the dispersion was due to forcible exile.

Other causes have been mentioned in the Student's Text Book. It is a question, however, whether all of these causes combined are sufficient to account for the extraordinary growth of the dispersion. Schürer believes that the vastness of the Jewish population presupposes the merging of large bodies of proselytes into the Jewish people. He also believes, however, that these thoroughgoing conversions were less numerous in New Testament times than they had been before.

Harnack calculates that at the time of the death of Augustus there were from four million to four and a half million Jews in the Roman Empire, including about seven hundred thousand in Palestine, and that, if that estimate be correct, then the Jews formed perhaps some seven per cent of the total population. Of course, Harnack is himself the first to admit that such calculations are exceedingly uncertain. But so much at least is clear—the Jews in the first century were surprisingly numerous.

2. THE SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATION AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The name "Septuagint," derived from the Latin word for "seventy," has been applied to the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament in reference to an ancient story about its origin. According to this story, the translation was made by seventy-two men summoned from Jerusalem by Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, in order to add the Jewish law to the royal library at Alexandria. The story is certainly not true in details, and is probably not even correct in representing the translation as destined primarily for the royal library. More probably the translation was intended for the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt.

The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek world language of the period, and into the popular, spoken form of that language, not into the literary form. The translation differs widely in character in the different books, for many different translators had a part in it. Some of the books are translated with such slavish literalness as to be almost unintelligible to a Greek. Everywhere, indeed, the influence of the Hebrew original makes itself felt to some degree. Hebrew idioms are often copied in the translation instead of being remolded according to the peculiarities of the Greek language.

The Septuagint exerted an important influence upon the language of the New Testament. The Septuagint was the Greek Bible of the New Testament writers, and the influence of a Bible upon language is very strong. A good example is afforded by the influence of the King James Version upon the whole development of modern English. It is not surprising, therefore, that as the Septuagint was influenced by Hebrew, so the language of the New Testament also displays a Semitic coloring. That coloring was induced partly by the Septuagint, but it was also induced in other ways. Part of the New Testament, for example the words of Jesus, goes back ultimately to an Aramaic original. All the New Testament writers except one were Jews, and had spoken Aramaic as well as Greek. No wonder, then, that their Greek was influenced by the Semitic languages. This Semitic influence upon the language of the New Testament is not so great as was formerly supposed, but it cannot be ignored. The New Testament is written in the natural, non-literary form of the Greek world language. That is the main thing to be said. But upon this base is superposed an appreciable influence of Hebrew and Aramaic.

The importance of the Septuagint for the early Christian mission was inestimable. Every pioneer missionary knows how difficult it is to create the vocabulary necessary to express new religious ideas. In the case of the earliest Christian mission, that labor had already been done. It had been done by the Jews of Alexandria. By the Septuagint, the great ideas of the Old Testament—and upon these ideas Christianity was based—had already been put into a Greek form. The Christian Church needed only to develop what had been begun. The Church made good use of her opportunity. The influence of the Septuagint upon the religious vocabulary of the New Testament writers was profound. The Septuagint had provided a vocabulary which was understood already by great masses of people—by the Jews of the dispersion and by the hosts of the "God-worshipers" who attended the synagogues. Naturally the Christian missionaries used the words which people could understand.

3. CONCLUSION

The Judaism of the dispersion was a wonderful preparation for the gospel. Israel ought to be regarded with gratitude and sympathy. But the ultimate object of gratitude is God.

The Church was founded in a time of opportunity. The Roman Government had brought peace. The Greek language had welded the nations together. The dispersion of the Jews had prepared the way. These things did not come by chance. The nations were instruments in the hand of God. But instruments for what? A mighty, age-long plan! Centuries of preparation! At last the Saviour came. But did he come for naught? Or is he Saviour of you and me?

In the Library.—Edersheim (revised by White), "History of the Jewish Nation," pp. 45-79. "The Jewish Encyclopedia": Reinach, article on "Diaspora." Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Schürer, article on "Diaspora," extra volume, pp. 91-109.

LESSON VI

THE MESSIAH

The teaching of this lesson may be begun with Acts 2:17-21. Surely the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was something new. Yet even that was explained by a reference to prophecy. And the reference is of remarkable aptness and beauty.

The Pentecostal speech of Peter is full of the appeal to prophecy. Primarily, indeed, the claims of Jesus are supported by the direct testimony to his resurrection. Without the facts, of course appeal to prophecy would have been useless; for it was just the wonderful correspondence of the facts with the prophecies that could induce belief. Along with the direct testimony to the facts went the appeal to prophecy. The promised king of David's line at last has come. Acts 2:30; II Sam. 7:12,13; Ps. 89:3,4; 132:11. And David's son is David's Lord—David's Lord and ours. Acts 2:34,35; Ps. 110:1; compare Matt. 22:41-46.

1. THE NEW TESTAMENT APPEAL TO PROPHECY

This speech of Peter is typical of the preaching of the early Church. The appeal to prophecy was absolutely central in the presentation of the gospel. Proof of that fact does not need to be sought. It is written plain on the pages of the New Testament. Old Testament prophecy was found to apply not merely to one side of the work of Christ, but to all sides. Israel had looked not merely for a king, but also for a prophet and a priest. Peter, after his first arrest, for example, could appeal to the notable prophecy of Deuteronomy: "A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me." Acts 3:22; Deut. 18:15,19. The author of Hebrews could appeal to the priest after the order of Melchizedek, Heb. 5:6; Ps. 110:4, and to the symbolic sacrifices of the temple which found their fulfillment on Calvary.

The appeal to prophecy extended even to those things which were most distinctive of the Christian message. "I delivered unto you first of all," says Paul, "that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures." I Cor. 15:3,4. Here the death and the resurrection of Christ are both declared to be according to the Scriptures. That means that they were the subject of prophecy. But the death and the resurrection of Christ were the fundamental elements of the gospel. The gospel, then, in the form of prophecy, is to be found in the Old Testament.

What Old Testament passages has Paul here in mind? With regard to the death for our sins, the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah was probably in his mind. That passage was being read by the Ethiopian when Philip met him, and Philip made the passage a basis for preaching about Jesus. Acts 8:27-35. With regard to the resurrection, it is natural to think of Ps. 16:10. Paul himself quoted that passage in his speech at Pisidian Antioch. Acts 13:34-37.

The appeal to prophecy did not begin with the apostles. It was initiated by Jesus himself. "To-day," said Jesus at Nazareth after the reading of Isa. 61:1,2, "hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears." A large claim! No wonder they found it difficult to accept. When John the Baptist asked, "Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?" it was to "the works of the Christ" that Jesus appealed. Matt. 11:2-6; Isa. 35:5,6; 61:1. These are merely examples. Throughout, Jesus represented himself and his kingdom as the fulfillment of the ancient promise. "O foolish men," he said to the disciples on the way to Emmaus, "and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:25-27.

2. THE MESSIANIC HOPE A PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL

When the gospel was preached to pure Gentiles, a great deal of preliminary labor had to be done. Under what title should the claims of the Saviour be presented? "Christ" to the Gentiles was almost meaningless, till explained. "Son of God" was open to sad misconception. There were "sons of God" in Greek mythology, but they were not what the early Christians meant to show that Jesus was. These difficulties were overcome, and speedily. Gentile Christians were imbued with a lofty and adequate conception of the Lord. The labor was great, but it was gloriously accomplished.

In this labor, however, the missionaries were assisted by the synagogues of the Jews. In the synagogues, "Christ" was no new term, and no new conception. In the synagogues, one proposition needed first to be proved, "This Jesus ... is the Christ." Acts 17:3. If that were proved, then the rest would follow. The Jews knew that the Messiah was Lord and Master. Identify Jesus with him, and all the lofty claims of Jesus would be substantiated. How the identity was established may be observed in the speech of Peter on the day of Pentecost, or in the speech of Paul at Pisidian Antioch. Acts 13:16-43.

It will be remembered that the synagogues attracted not merely Jews but also Gentiles. The Gentile "God-fearers," as well as the Jews, were acquainted with the Messianic hope. Even the Gentile mission, therefore, was prepared for by the prophets of Israel.

3. THE PERMANENT VALUE OF PROPHECY

The appeal to prophecy, however, was not merely valuable to the early Church. It is of abiding worth. It represents Jesus as the culmination of a divine purpose. The hope of Israel was in itself a proof of revelation, because it was so unlike the religious conceptions of other nations. The covenant people, the righteous king, the living God, the world-wide mission—that is the glory of Israel. The promise is itself a proof. But still more the fulfillment. The fulfillment was an unfolding. Wonderful correspondence in detail—and far more wonderful the correspondence of the whole! The promise was manifold. Sometimes the Messiah is in the foreground. Sometimes he is out of sight. Sometimes there is a human king, sometimes Jehovah himself coming to judgment; sometimes a kingdom, sometimes a new covenant in the heart; sometimes a fruitful Canaan, sometimes a new heaven and a new earth. But manifold though the promise, Christ is the fulfillment of it all. "How many soever be the promises of God," in Christ is the yea. II Cor. 1:20. There is the wonder. In Christ the apparent contradictions of the promise become glorious unity, in Christ the deeper mysteries of the promise are revealed. Christ the keystone of the arch! Christ the culmination of a divine plan! That is the witness of the prophets. It is a witness worth having.

4. THE MESSIANIC HOPE OF LATER JUDAISM

After the close of the Old Testament, the promise did not die. It was preserved in the Scriptures. It continued to be the life of the Jewish nation. But it was not only preserved. It was also interpreted. Some of the interpretation was false, but much of it was true. The Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament promise is worthy of attention. What did the Jews of the first century mean by the Messiah, and what did they mean by the Messianic age?

In the first place, they retained the hope of a king of David's line—a human king who should conquer the enemies of Israel. When it was held in a one-sided form this was a dangerous hope. It led logically to materialistic conceptions of the kingdom of God and to political unrest. It led to the effort of the Jews to take Jesus by force and make him a king. John 6:15. It led to the quarrel of the disciples about the chief places in the kingdom. Matt. 18:1-4; Mark 9:33-35; Luke 9:46,47. This conception of the Messiah had to be corrected by Jesus. "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36.

Yet even where the Messiah was conceived of as an earthly ruler, the spiritual hope was by no means always and altogether lost. The "Psalms of Solomon," for example, Pharisaic psalms of the first century before Christ, though they look for an earthly ruler, picture him as one who shall rule in righteousness. "And a righteous king and taught of God is he that reigneth over them; And there shall be no iniquity in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy and their king is the Lord Messiah" (Ps. Sol. xvii, 35, 36. See Ryle and James, "Psalms of the Pharisees," especially pp. 137-147). No iniquity in the days of the Messiah! That is true understanding of the Old Testament, even joined with the political ideal.

In the second place, however, the Messianic age is sometimes in later Judaism conceived of as purely supernatural. The Messiah is not an earthly ruler, merely helped by God, but himself a heavenly being, a preëxistent "Son of Man," judge of all the earth. The Messianic age is ushered in not by human warfare, but by a mighty catastrophic act of God. Not a liberated Canaan is here the ideal, but a new heaven and a new earth.

This transcendental, supernaturalistic form of the Messianic hope appears in the "Book of Enoch" and other "apocalypses." Its details are fantastic, but it was by no means altogether wrong. In many respects it was a correct interpretation of the divine promise. The new heavens and the new earth are derived from Isa. 65:17. The doctrine of the two ages was accepted by Jesus and by Paul—for example Matt. 12:32; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21. The heavenly "Son of Man" goes back to Dan. 7:13,14. The Book of Enoch was not altogether wrong. Its use of the title "Son of Man" prepared for the title which Jesus used.

Finally, the Messianic hope was held in a pure and lofty form by the "poor of the land"—simple folk like those who appear in the first two chapters of Luke. In the hymns of Mary and Zacharias and Simeon, purely political and materialistic conceptions are in the background, and the speculations of the apocalypses do not appear. The highest elements of prophecy are made prominent. "For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples; a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." Luke 2:30-32. In those circles, the hope of Israel burned still and pure.

Later Judaism thus preserved the manifoldness of prophecy. There was exaggeration and there was one-sidedness; but in Judaism as a whole the promise was preserved. One element at most was forgotten—the suffering servant and his sacrificial death. The death of the Messiah was no easy conception. The disciples had difficulty with it. When Peter heard of it, he took Jesus, and began to rebuke him. Matt. 16:22. The lesson was not easy, but it had to be learned. And it was worth learning. The cross is the heart of the gospel.

Thus in Jesus nothing was left out, except what was false. The whole promise was preserved. The revealer of God, the ruler of the kingdom, the great high priest, the human deliverer, the divine Lord—these are the elements of the promise. They find their union in Christ. Leave one out, and the promise is mutilated. Such mutilation is popular to-day. The whole Christ seems too wonderful. But the Church can be satisfied with nothing less.

In the Library.—Beecher, "The Prophets and the Promise," pp. 173-420.

LESSON VII

THE BOOK OF THE ACTS

The teaching of the lesson may be begun with some very simple questions. If rightly put, they will open up a fresh way of looking at a New Testament book. The way will thus be prepared for considering the deeper elements of the lesson. If interest can be aroused in the book itself, the contents of the book, in the lessons which follow, will be studied with much livelier attention.

1. AUTHORSHIP

Who wrote the book of The Acts? How do you know? The former question will probably be answered without difficulty, but the latter may reveal difference of opinion. Many of the students will know that The Acts was written by the same man as the Gospel of Luke. But that does not settle the question. How do you know that Luke was written by Luke? The name does not occur in the Gospel itself. The title, "According to Luke," was probably added later. So, in order to determine the authorship both of Luke and of The Acts, recourse must be had to Christian tradition.

Fortunately, however, tradition in this case is quite unimpeachable.

In the first place, although the author of The Acts is not named in the book, yet the book is not an anonymous work. Undoubtedly the name of the author was known from the beginning. For the book is dedicated to an individual, Theophilus. Evidently Theophilus knew who the author was. Information about the author could thus be had from the start. If, therefore, Luke did not really write The Acts, some one has removed the name of the true author and substituted "Luke" in place of it. That is an exceedingly unlikely supposition.

In the second place, it is evident quite independently of any tradition that the book was written by an eyewitness of part of Paul's missionary journeys. This fact appears from the so-called "we-sections" of the book. In certain portions of the narrative the author uses the first person instead of the third. Of this peculiarity there is only one satisfactory explanation. The author uses the first person when he is describing the experiences in which he himself had a part. When, for example, the author says, not, "They made a straight course to Samothrace," but "We made a straight course," Acts 16:11, he means that he was present on that voyage. This natural supposition is confirmed by the character of the "we-sections." These sections are full of such a wealth of artless detail that no one but an eyewitness could possibly have written them.

The only possible way of avoiding the conclusion that a companion of Paul wrote the book of The Acts is to maintain that although such a man wrote the "we-sections" some one else wrote the rest of the book. But that is unlikely in the extreme. If a later author had been simply using as a source a diary of a companion of Paul, he would surely either have told us he was quoting, or else have changed the first person to the third. By leaving the third person in he would simply have been producing nonsense. Everyone knew who the author of the book was. The book is dedicated to a definite man. The author evidently could not have palmed himself off as a companion of Paul even if he would. And if he desired to do it, he would not have chosen this remarkable way of doing it. Of course if he had been a mere thoughtless compiler he might have copied his source with such slavish exactness as to leave the "we" in without noticing that in the completed work it would produce nonsense. But he was most assuredly not a mere compiler. If he used sources, he did not use them that way. The book shows a remarkable unity of style. Modern research has demonstrated that fact beyond peradventure. There is a remarkable similarity of style between the "we-sections" and the rest of the book. Only one hypothesis, then, does justice to the facts. The author of the "we-sections" was also the author of the whole book. When he comes to those parts of the narrative in which he himself had a part, he says very naturally "we," instead of "they."

The book of The Acts, then, was written by a companion of Paul. That fact stands firm, even apart from any tradition. And that is the really important fact. If the book was written by an eyewitness, the particular name of the eyewitness is comparatively unimportant. But the tradition as to the name is without doubt correct. There is not the slightest reason for calling it in question. What the book of The Acts itself says about its author fits exactly what Paul says about Luke.

2. DATE

The authorship of The Acts is certain. The date, however, is not so clear. The book was written by Luke. But when was it written? The latter question cannot be answered with perfect precision. At least, however, since the book was written by Luke, it must have been written during the lifetime of a companion of Paul. A. D. 100, for example, would be too late, and A. D. 90 would be unlikely. A good deal can be said for putting the date at about A. D. 63. This early date would explain the abrupt ending of the book.

One of the most curious things about The Acts is that the narrative is suddenly broken off just at the most interesting point. The trial of Paul is narrated at very great length, but we are not told how it came out. The final decision, the climax of the whole long narrative, is just at hand; but with regard to it we are left altogether in suspense. Was Paul released? Was he condemned and executed? The author does not say. His silence requires an explanation.

The simplest explanation would be that Luke wrote his book at the very point of time where the narrative is broken off. Of course he could not tell us any more if nothing more had happened. He brought his narrative right up to date. Nothing more was possible.

It is true, other explanations may be proposed.

(a) It has been suggested, for example, that The Acts closes so abruptly because the author was saving something for another work. As The Acts is the continuation of the Gospel of Luke, so a third work, it is said, was planned as the continuation of The Acts. But even so, it seems rather strange that the author should not have given at least a hint of the outcome of that trial in order to take the edge off our curiosity. He has done something like that at the conclusion of his Gospel; why not also at the conclusion of The Acts?

(b) But perhaps the ending is not so abrupt as it looks. The author's purpose, it is said, was not to write a biography of Paul, but to show how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome. When Rome was reached, then the narrative was broken off. Biographical details—even the most interesting details about the most interesting character—were ruthlessly excluded. The plan of the book had been accomplished. For this explanation there is much to be said. But the trouble with it is that especially in the latter part of the book the author as a matter of fact does show considerable interest in biographical details. The trial and shipwreck of Paul are narrated with a fullness which is quite out of proportion to the rest of the history. After such a full account of the trial, it remains rather strange that the author has said not a word about the outcome.

Either of these last two explanations is perfectly possible. Possibly The Acts was written as late as A. D. 80. But the early date at least explains the peculiar ending best of all.

3. SOURCES

Where did Luke get the materials for his work? Did he use written sources as well as oral information? The question has been discussed at very great length, but without much uniformity in the results. If he used written sources, at least he used them skillfully, placing upon them the imprint of his own style. The book possesses genuine unity.

The really important fact about the sources of the book of The Acts is a negative fact. Whatever the sources were, the Pauline epistles were not among them. Compare the passages where Paul and Luke narrate the same events—for example Gal., chs. 1, 2, with the corresponding passages in The Acts—and it becomes evident that the two narratives are entirely independent. Luke did not use the Pauline epistles in writing his book. That is an exceedingly significant fact. It shows that The Acts is an independent witness. What is more, it strengthens materially the argument for the early date of The Acts. The Pauline epistles at a very early time began to be collected and used generally in the Church. In A. D. 100, for example, they would certainly have been used by anyone who was writing an account of Paul's life. Since, therefore, the book of The Acts does not use them, that book must have been written earlier, and probably very much earlier. Even in A. D. 80, it would perhaps have been strange that the epistles should not have been used.

4. PURPOSE

The proper purpose of a historian is to tell the truth. And Luke was a genuine historian. His own account of his method, Luke 1:1-4, shows that he knew the meaning of historical research, and the character of his books bears this out. Luke did not permit any desire of putting Christianity in a good light, or of defending one kind of Christianity against another, to interfere with the primary duty of truthfulness.

That does not mean, however, that the book of The Acts is like some modern university dissertations—written simply and solely in order to say some new thing, whether interesting or no. No great historian goes to work that way. Of course Luke had an interest in his subject matter. Of course he was convinced that Christianity was a great thing, and was full of enthusiasm in narrating its history. In that he was perfectly right. Christianity really was a great thing. The best celebration of its greatness was a narration of the facts. Christian faith is based on fact. Luke wrote, not only in the Gospel but also in The Acts, in order that his readers might know the certainty concerning the things wherein they were instructed. Luke 1:4.

5. LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS

The author of The Acts was well acquainted with the Old Testament. He was able to catch the spirit of the primitive Palestinian church. His books exhibit the influence of the Semitic languages. But he was also capable of a Greek style which would have passed muster in the schools of rhetoric. Luke 1:1-4, for example, is a typical Greek sentence. Evidently Luke could move with ease in the larger Greek world of his time. His references to political and social conditions are extraordinarily exact. His narrative is never lacking in local color. He knows the proper titles of the local officials, and the peculiar quality of the local superstitions. His account of the shipwreck is a mine of information about the seafaring of antiquity. Evidently he was a keen observer, and a true traveler of a cosmopolitan age. His narrative is characterized by a certain delightful urbanity—an urbanity, however, which is deepened and ennobled by profound convictions.

In the Library.—Warfield, "Acts, Timothy, Titus and Philemon," in "The Temple Bible," pp. i-xxvii. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves, article on "Acts of the Apostles." Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 1-8. M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," in "The Guild Text Books," pp. 41-46. Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible": Headlam, article on "Acts of the Apostles."

LESSON VIII

THE CROSS AND THE RESURRECTION THE FOUNDATION OF APOSTOLIC PREACHING

1. THE RESURRECTION A FACT OF HISTORY

Which of the books of the New Testament contain the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? That question will serve to begin the teaching of the lesson. In answer to it, the students will probably mention the four Gospels. To the Gospels, however, should be added especially the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

The passage in First Corinthians is deserving of very careful attention. For, unlike the Gospels, that epistle can be dated to within a year or so. It was written only about twenty-five years after the crucifixion. Even though possibly some of the Gospels were written still earlier, the precision with which the epistle can be dated makes its witness particularly valuable. Furthermore, the author of the epistle is well known. No one doubts that First Corinthians was written by Paul, and Paul is the best-known man of apostolic times. Evidently his witness to the facts is of the utmost value.

Paul himself was a direct witness of the resurrection. He saw the risen Lord. I Cor. 9:1; 15:8. In I Cor. 15:1-8, however, he does not content himself with his own witness, but reproduces the testimony of others in an extended list. That testimony had come to Paul by ordinary word of mouth. "I delivered unto you first of all," says Paul, "that which also I received." In what follows there is a list of the appearances of the risen Christ. "He appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also." Evidently these appearances are not conceived of merely as "visions," but as events in the external world. The mention of the burial, v. 4, is a plain hint that what Peter and the rest saw was the body of Jesus raised from the tomb.

That view of the matter is amply confirmed in the Gospels and in the book of The Acts. In the Gospels, we are told that the tomb was found empty on the morning of the third day after the crucifixion. It was found empty by some women and by Peter and John. Since the tomb was empty, the body which appeared to the disciples had some connection with the body which had been taken down from the cross. Furthermore, the Gospels and The Acts make the bodily character of the appearances abundantly plain. Jesus did not merely appear to the disciples at a distance. He walked with them on the road to Emmaus. He broke bread with them. He came into the very midst of them when they were assembled in a room. Thomas could even touch his hands and his side. These are merely examples. Clearly the testimony of the disciples is testimony not to mere spiritual experiences, but to the bodily presence of the Lord. It may be admitted that the body was a glorified body. After his resurrection Jesus was freed from the limitations of his earthly life. Nevertheless, he was not merely a "spirit." Luke 24:39. There was some real, though mysterious, connection between the glorified body and the body that had been laid in the tomb. The New Testament attests not merely the immortality of Jesus, but his resurrection.

The resurrection, in these days, is hard to accept. For it is a miracle. Against any miracle there is a tremendous presumption. In this case, however, the presumption has been overcome. It has been overcome by the character of Jesus. It is in the highest degree unlikely that an ordinary man should rise from the dead; but it is not unlikely that Jesus should have risen. The resurrection is unique. But so is the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The two wonders support one another. Explain away the testimony to the resurrection, and your task is not done. You must also explain away that sinless life. If Jesus rose from the dead he had a unique experience. But that is to be expected. For Jesus himself was unlike any other of the children of men. There are mysteries in his life that have never been explained.

The resurrection of Jesus is a well-attested fact of history. The proof of it is cumulative. Any one of the proofs might be regarded as insufficient when taken alone, but when taken together they are overpowering. The sinless, unearthly character of Jesus separates him from the rest of men, so that probabilities which apply to others do not apply to him. His mysterious self-consciousness involves so lofty a claim, that if he was not divine he was a megalomaniac—he whose calmness and strength have left an impression which the centuries have done nothing to efface! The specific testimonies to the empty tomb and to the plain bodily appearances of the risen Lord are independent and varied. Finally, unless the resurrection be a fact, the very origin of the Christian Church becomes an insoluble mystery. The resurrection alone can explain the sudden transformation of a company of weak, discouraged men into the conquerors of the world.

The resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history. It is not an aspiration of the heart. It comes ultimately through the testimony of the senses. The apostles came forward with a piece of plain information. They were witnesses to a fact in the external world. That fact has put a new face upon life. It is good news of salvation.

2. THE RESURRECTION CONFIRMED BY EXPERIENCE

The resurrection is a fact of history. Accept it as true, and you can have hope for time and for eternity. At this point, however, some men experience a difficulty. How can the acceptance of a historical fact satisfy the longing of our souls? Must we stake our salvation upon the intricacies of historical research? Surely some more immediate certitude is required.

The objection would be valid if history stood alone. But history does not stand alone. It has suffered from a false isolation. A Christian certitude that is founded solely upon history is insufficient. History is necessary, but not sufficient. We need history, but we need something else as well.

A historical conviction of the resurrection of Jesus is not the end of faith, but only the beginning. If faith stops there, it will never stand the fires of criticism. We are told that Jesus lives. So much is a matter of testimony, a matter of history. If we believe the witness, then we can have hope. But the religious problem of our lives has not yet been solved. Jesus lives. But what good is it to us? If he lives, we need to find him. We need to find him, and we can find him. We accept the message of the resurrection enough to make trial of it. And making trial of it, we find that it is true. Jesus is found to be alive, for he makes answer to our prayer, and heals us. We never could have come to him unless we had accepted the historical evidence for the resurrection. But starting with that historical belief we went on to the blessed experience of salvation. Christian experience cannot do without history. But it adds to history that directness, that immediateness, that simplicity of conviction, which delivers us from fear. We began with history. But we went on to experience. "Now we believe, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world."

3. THE DEATH

Jesus is alive. If we find him, he will heal us. But how shall we find him? In the New Testament we receive instruction.

In the New Testament a strange fact stares us in the face. The New Testament seems far more concerned with the death of Jesus than with the details of his life. Learned men have tried in vain to explain that curious fact. In elaborate treatises they have sought the explanation. But it is really very simple. The New Testament emphasizes the death of Jesus because that is what Jesus did for us—or rather, coming after his perfect obedience to the law, it is the culmination of what he did for us. In the account of Jesus' life we are told what Jesus did for others. That account is absolutely necessary. Without it we should never have been interested in Jesus at all. But it is to us a means to an end, not an end in itself. We read in the Gospel what Jesus did for others. For one he placed his fingers in the ears and said, "Be opened"; to another he said, "Arise, take up thy bed, and walk"; to another, "Thy sins are forgiven." These things are what Jesus did for others. But what has he done for us? The answer of the New Testament is plain. For us he does not say, "Arise and walk." For us—he died. That mysterious thing which was wrought on Calvary—that was his work for us. The cross of Christ is a mystery. In the presence of it theology walks after all with but trembling, halting footsteps. Learning will never unlock its meaning. But to the penitent sinner, though mysterious, though full of baffling riddles, it is plain enough. On the cross Jesus dealt with our sin. Our dreadful guilt, the condemnation of God's law—it is wiped out by an act of grace. It seemed inseparable from us. It was a burden no earthly friend could bear. But Christ is Master of the innermost secrets of the moral world. He has accomplished the impossible, he has borne our sins.

By the cross he has healed us. But through whom does he apply the healing touch? Through no one, save his Spirit. For he is here himself. If we are seekers for him, then this day our search is over.

The death of Christ, in the modern Church, is often subordinated. Exclusive emphasis is laid upon the holy example and teaching of the Galilean prophet. The modern theologians would be right if there were no such thing as sin. If there were no such thing as guilt, and if there were no such thing as a dreadful enslaving power of evil, then a noble ideal might be sufficient. But to talk about an ideal to a man under the thralldom of sin is a cruel mockery.

Sin may indeed be glossed over. Let us make the best of our condition, we are told, let us do the best we can, let us simply trust in the all-conquering love of God. Dangerous advice! By it a certain superficial joy of life may be induced. But the joy rests upon an insecure foundation. It is dangerous to be happy on the brink of the abyss. Permanent joy can come only when sin has been faced honestly, and destroyed. It has been destroyed by the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is true that God is loving. He has manifested his love, however, better than by complacency toward sin. He has manifested it by the gracious gift of a Saviour.

In the Library.—Denney, "The Death of Christ." Orr, "The Resurrection of Jesus." Crawford, "The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement."

LESSON IX

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The author of The Acts has given a wonderful picture of the early days of the Christian Church. The teacher should endeavor to present the picture before the mental vision of the class. History should not be studied merely as a dry record of events. The events should be seen as well as understood. They can be seen by what is called the historical imagination. The term "imagination" often contains a suggestion of unreality. But that is a secondary use of the word. "Imagination" means "picturing." You can make a picture of what really happened as well as of what happened only in fiction. The historical imagination is a very important faculty in the student of the New Testament. In many persons it is almost wholly lacking. But fortunately it may be acquired.

In the lessons that follow, great stress should be laid upon the simple memorizing of the course of events. Advanced study, or topical study, is useless unless it is based upon an orderly acquaintance with the contents of The Acts. History comes first—then the interpretation of the history.

The dominant note in the early chapters of The Acts is the note of joy. After the three dark days of discouragement, after the quiet period of waiting, the life of the Church suddenly bursts forth with power. Everything is fresh and new. Difficulties and dangers have not yet emerged. Even persecution is lacking. The Church enjoys favor with the people. Thousands are converted in a day.

1. THE GIFT OF TONGUES

The gift of tongues, as it was exercised on the day of Pentecost, is not altogether an isolated phenomenon. It appears also elsewhere in The Acts, Acts 10:46; 19:6, though it may be doubted whether in all three cases it assumed exactly the same form. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul discusses the gift at considerable length. I Cor., ch. 14. It is interesting to compare that passage with the passage in the second chapter of The Acts.

There are a number of resemblances between the two. Both Paul and Luke represent the gift of tongues as a supernatural thing, a special endowment from the Spirit of God. Both Paul and Luke, furthermore, represent the gift as an ecstatic, temporary expression of spiritual exultation rather than as a faculty intended to be practically useful in the work of the Church. On the other hand, there are such marked differences between the two accounts as to make it evident that the gift as it was manifested at Pentecost was very considerably different from that which was exercised in the church at Corinth.

The speaking with tongues as Paul describes it was a kind of ejaculation, expressive of the religious life of the speaker, but incomprehensible to others. In order, therefore, to make the gift edifying to the congregation at large there had to be some one else present who was in possession of another gift, the gift of interpretation. The speaking with tongues at Pentecost, however, was a miraculous use of various languages. Some have supposed that Luke is describing rather a new language, which possessed the supernatural quality of being understood by men of various nationalities. The most natural interpretation of the passage, however, is that which has just been suggested. The disciples, filled with the Spirit, spoke some in one language and some in another, or perhaps the same individuals used different languages at successive moments. The outsiders received various impressions of the strange phenomenon. Some, mocking, declared that the disciples were drunk. These, we may suppose, were men who came into contact with those disciples who were speaking some language known only to another group among the hearers. The general impression seems to have been wonder at the miraculous gift. The gift of tongues provided an opportunity for the first Christian preaching. In just this form it was perhaps never repeated. It was a unique gift provided for an absolutely unique occasion.

2. THE SPEECHES

Ancient historians often put imaginary speeches into the mouths of their characters. The speeches were intended to represent not what was actually said but what might have been said under the circumstances. This procedure of the historians was not intended to deceive the readers. It was merely a literary form, a method of vivid description.

Luke, however, seems not to have allowed himself even the license which was regarded as allowable by the best historians of antiquity. The speeches in The Acts are apparently either verbatim reports of what was actually said, or else summaries based upon trustworthy tradition. If they had been composed freely by the historian himself their characteristic differences and their perfect adaptation to different occasions would be difficult to explain.

The speeches of Peter and of the earliest disciples, in particular, are very different from those of Paul. They contain a number of features which occur either not at all or only rarely in the rest of the New Testament. The designation of Jesus as "the Servant," for example, a designation taken from the latter part of Isaiah, is characteristic of these speeches. Another characteristic designation of Jesus is "Prince" or "Prince of life." Acts 3:15; 5:31. In general, the representation of Jesus in the early chapters of The Acts is just what might have been expected under the circumstances. At the beginning of the Church's life, everything is simple and easy of comprehension even by outsiders. The apostles represented Jesus first as a man approved of God by the miracles which he had wrought. To have delivered up such a man to death was itself a grievous sin. But that was not all. This Jesus who was crucified had been raised from the dead; and both in his death and in his resurrection he had fulfilled the Messianic predictions of the ancient prophets. He was then nothing less than the Christ. Now, too, his period of humiliation was over. He had been given the full powers of Lordship. From him had come the wonder-working Spirit. It will be observed that these speeches, though they begin with what is simplest and easiest of acceptance by an outsider, really contain, at least in germ, the full doctrine of the divine Christ.

3. THE CONVERTS

The body of disciples who were assembled before the day of Pentecost consisted of only about one hundred and twenty persons. Acts 1:15. After the notable sermon of Peter, which was spoken in explanation of the gift of tongues, three thousand were converted. A little later the Church possessed five thousand men. Acts 4:4.

The outward sign of conversion was baptism. "Repent ye," said Peter, "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Baptism was not altogether new. It had been practiced not only among converts to Judaism, but especially by John the Baptist. Christian baptism, however, is sharply distinguished from the baptism of John. Mark 1:7,8; Acts 18:25; 19:1-6. Both were expressive of repentance. But Christian baptism was connected specifically with Jesus, and also with the bestowal of the Spirit.

Baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ," or "into the name of the Lord Jesus." It was the sacrament by which the convert signified his cleansing from sin and his entrance into that peculiarly close relation to Christ which is of the essence of Christian experience. In itself, of course, the rite of baptism is useless. But when accompanied by faith it is a means of real blessing. Baptism, like the other Christian sacrament, the Lord's Supper, was instituted by Christ himself. Matt. 28:19. In The Acts the full trinitarian formula of baptism is not given. "In the name of Jesus Christ" is sufficient to designate the sacrament.

4. JOY AND FEAR

The mysterious power that was working among the disciples was beneficent. It accomplished miracles of healing. As in the case of Jesus himself so now among his disciples the Spirit of God was manifested in the expulsion of demons. Matt. 12:28; Acts 5:16. The Spirit was manifested also in the healing of disease.

One cure, in particular, is narrated with a wealth of vivid detail. The healing of the lame man led to the opposition of the Sanhedrin. It led also to favor among the people. All the people ran together in Solomon's porch greatly wondering. Acts 3:11. Peter and John took no credit for what they had done. They attributed the miracle solely to the power of Jesus. It was the same Jesus against whom the crowd had shouted, "Crucify him, crucify him," only a few weeks before. Surely a reason for remorse rather than joy! But God is gracious. Through Jesus, the crucified One, salvation was offered even to the murderers. Repentance was followed by rejoicing. The envy of the Sanhedrin was held in check. A notable miracle had been wrought.

That miracle was not isolated. Many signs and wonders were wrought by the hands of the apostles. The people even "carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least his shadow might overshadow some one of them." Acts 5:12-15. Perhaps we are to understand that that method of seeking cure was actually successful. Certainly it was an unusual method. But God adopts unusual methods at unusual times. He adapts his mercy to the needs of men.

The general impression left by the early chapters of The Acts is an impression of light and gladness. There is opposition, but it is powerless against triumphant joy. One incident, however, introduces a discordant note. It is the incident of Ananias and Sapphira.

The early Church was animated by a spirit of self-sacrifice. Many of the disciples sold their possessions and devoted the price to the common good. One of those who did so was Joseph Barnabas, who was to be prominent in the subsequent history.

A certain man, Ananias, however, and Sapphira his wife, after they had sold their possession kept back part of the price. In itself that was not necessarily wrong. Their sin was the sin of deception. They pretended to have given all, though they had really given only a part. A more destructive sin could scarcely have been imagined. They had lied unto the Holy Spirit. Such conduct would bring contempt upon the Church. Ananias and Sapphira discovered that God cannot be trifled with. And the judgment wrought upon them inspired fear in all who heard.

It is well that this incident has been recorded. It prevents a one-sided impression of the Church's life. The power that animated the Church was beneficent. But it was also terrible and mysterious and holy. In the presence of it there was joy. But that joy was akin to fear. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." The lesson is of permanent value. The Spirit of God must be received with joy. But not with a common joy. Not with the joy of familiarity. But rather with the wondering, trembling joy of adoration.