Introduction
The Life of the Apostle Paul
I. The Apostle Paul Before His Conversion
II. The Conversion
III. The Apostolic Ministry of Paul
Supplement
Resources for Studying the Life of the Apostle Paul:
On the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Romans
Time of Writing
Purpose of Writing
Authenticity
Content
Text of the Epistle
Commentators on the Epistle
The Life of the Apostle Paul
In the life of the Apostle Paul one must distinguish:
1) his life as a Jew and Pharisee,
2) his conversion, and
3) his life and activity as a Christian and apostle.
I. The Apostle Paul Before His Conversion
Paul was born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia situated on the border between Syria and Asia Minor (Acts 21:39). He was a Hebrew of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1 and Phil 3:5). His original name was Saul, and it was given to him, in all probability, in memory of the first king of the Hebrews, who came from the tribe of Benjamin. Saul’s parents belonged by conviction to the Pharisaic party, which was distinguished by strict observance of the law of Moses (Acts 23:6; cf. Phil 3:5). For some service or other, Paul’s father or grandfather apparently received Roman citizenship — a circumstance that proved not without benefit to the Apostle Paul during his missionary activity (Acts 16:37 ff.; Acts 22:25-29).
The language spoken in Paul’s family was undoubtedly the Syro-Chaldaic dialect common at that time among Jewish communities in Syria. Yet it is certain that Saul, even as a boy, became fairly well acquainted with Greek, the language spoken by the majority of Tarsus’s inhabitants — who were Greeks. In the time of the Apostle Paul, Tarsus rivaled Athens and Alexandria in the cultivation of its citizens, and thus Paul, with his talent and intellectual curiosity, could scarcely have passed by Greek literature without becoming acquainted with it. At the very least, his epistles and speeches allow us to infer his familiarity with certain Greek poets. The first quotation he makes from Greek poets belongs to the Cilician poet Aratus and is also found in Cleanthes — namely the words: “we are his offspring!” (Acts 17:28). The second is borrowed from Menander (1 Cor 15:33), the third from the Cretan poet Epimenides (Titus 1:12). The likelihood of the hypothesis that he had some familiarity with Greek literature is further supported by the fact that the Apostle was called upon to address educated Athenians, and for this purpose he must have acquainted himself at least to some degree with their religio-philosophical views as expressed in the poetic works of Greek thinkers.
Nevertheless, Paul’s upbringing and education undoubtedly moved in the direction of Judaism and rabbinism: this is attested by his distinctive dialectic, his method of exposition, and also his style. It is very likely that, in view of his exceptional gifts, he was destined from an early age for rabbinical service. Perhaps to this end Paul’s parents took care to have him taught the trade of tentmaker (σκηνοποιός — Acts 18:3): in the Jewish view, a rabbi ought to be financially independent of his students (Pirke Abot., II,2).
If we take note of all these circumstances of Paul’s childhood, we will fully understand the grateful feelings with which he later said: “God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb” (Gal 1:15). If the task appointed for Paul was indeed to free the Gospel from the trappings of Judaism in order to offer it in purely spiritual form to the pagan world, then the Apostle needed to combine in himself two apparently opposite qualifications. First of all, he had to come from within the depths of Judaism, because only in that way could he thoroughly know what life under the law meant, and from personal experience become convinced of the law’s inability to save a person. On the other hand, he had to be free from the national Jewish antipathy toward the pagan world, which permeated especially Palestinian Judaism. Did the fact that he grew up amid Greek culture — with which he shows considerable familiarity — not partly help him also to open the doors of the Kingdom of God before the pagan world? Thus, Jewish legalism, Greek culture, and Roman citizenship — these are the advantages the Apostle possessed alongside his specially received spiritual gifts from Christ, necessary to him as a preacher of the Gospel to the whole world.
When Jewish boys reached the age of twelve, they were customarily taken to Jerusalem for the first time for one of the principal festivals: from that point on they became, in the expression of those days, “sons of the law.” So it probably was with Paul as well. But he remained in Jerusalem afterward to take up residence — seemingly with relatives — so as to enter a rabbinical school there (cf. Acts 23:16). At that time, a pupil of the renowned Hillel — Gamaliel — was famous in Jerusalem for his knowledge of the law, and the future Apostle settled “at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3), becoming his diligent student. Though the teacher himself was a man of moderate views, his student became the most zealous follower of the law of Moses in both theory and practice (Gal 1:14; Phil 3:6). He directed all the force of his will toward realizing the ideal set forth in the law and in the interpretations of the fathers, so as to be worthy thereby of an honorable position in the Kingdom of the Messiah.
Paul possessed three qualities rarely combined in a single person, which had even then attracted the attention of his superiors: strength of intellect, firmness of will, and vivacity of feeling. In outward appearance, however, Paul made no particularly favorable impression. In Lycaonia, Barnabas was declared to be Jupiter, while Paul was declared only Mercury, which shows that the former was far more imposing than the latter (Acts 14:12). Yet one can scarcely attach significance to the testimony of a second-century apocryphal work — the Acta Pauli et Theclae — in which Paul is depicted as a man of short stature, bald, and with a large nose. Whether Paul was of a sickly constitution is difficult to say with certainty. Occasionally he did indeed show signs of illness (Gal 4:13), but this did not prevent him from covering nearly the whole of the then-European south. As for the “angel of Satan” given to him (2 Cor 12:7), this expression does not necessarily indicate a bodily illness, but may also be interpreted as referring to the particular persecutions to which Paul was subject in the course of his missionary activity.
Among Jews, people customarily married early. Was Paul married? Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, and after them Luther and the Reformers, gave an affirmative answer to this question. But the tone in which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians about the gift granted to him (1 Cor 7:7) may more readily serve as grounds for the supposition that Paul was not married.
Did Paul see Jesus Christ during his stay in Jerusalem? This is very probable, given that Paul was in Jerusalem for the great festivals, and the Lord Jesus Christ also came there at those times. But in the epistles of the Apostle Paul there is not a single reference to this (the words 2 Cor 5:16 point only to the fleshly character of the messianic expectations widespread among the Jews).
Having reached the age of thirty, Paul, as the most zealous Pharisee and hater of the new Christian teaching — which seemed to him a deception — received a commission from the Jewish authorities to persecute the adherents of the new sect, the Christians, who at that time were still called by Jews simply “heretical Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). He was present at the killing of St. Stephen and took part in the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, and then set out for Damascus, the chief city of Syria, with letters from the Sanhedrin authorizing him to continue his inquisitorial activity in Syria as well.
II. The Conversion
In his activities Paul found no satisfaction. As is evident from chapter VII of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul was aware that on the path toward realizing the ideal of righteousness set forth in the law there stood a very serious obstacle — namely, concupiscence (v. 7). The painful sense of his powerlessness to do good was, if one may put it so, the negative factor in preparing the transformation that took place in Paul on the road to Damascus. In vain did he try to satisfy his soul’s hunger for righteousness by intensifying his activity in defense of the law: he could not extinguish within himself the thought that gnawed at his heart — that salvation cannot be attained through the law.
But it would be entirely contrary to the whole history of Paul to explain this transformation in him as the natural result of his spiritual development. Some theologians present the event that took place with Paul on the road to Damascus as a purely subjective phenomenon, occurring only within Paul’s consciousness. Holsten (in his work “On the Gospel of Peter and Paul”) adduces some ingenious arguments in favor of such a hypothesis, but even Baur, Holsten’s teacher — who also considered the appearance of Christ at Paul’s conversion an “external reflection of spiritual activity” of the Apostle — could not avoid acknowledging that this event remains in the highest degree mysterious. The Apostle Paul himself regards his conversion as an act by which Christ compelled him, having chosen him as His instrument in the work of saving people (1 Cor 9:16, cf. 5–6). This view of the Apostle accords with the account of the event itself found in the book of Acts. Paul’s conversion is spoken of three times in Acts (Acts 9:1-22), and in all these passages one can find indications that Paul’s companions also truly noticed something mysterious that occurred specifically with Paul, and that this mysterious thing was in some degree sensory and accessible to perception. They did not see the face of the one who was speaking to Paul, says the book of Acts (Acts 9:7), but they did see a radiance brighter than the midday sun (Acts 22:6); they did not hear clearly the words spoken to Paul (Acts 22:9), but they did hear the sound of a voice (Acts 9:7). From all this, at any rate, the conclusion must be drawn that the “Damascus appearance” was objective and external.
Paul himself was so certain of this that in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 9:1), in order to prove the reality of his apostolic calling, he appeals to this very fact of “his having seen the Lord.” In chapter XV of the same epistle he places this appearance alongside the appearances of the risen Christ to the apostles, distinguishing it from his later visions. Indeed, the very purpose of this chapter proves that he was thinking of nothing here but an external, bodily appearance of Christ, since the purpose is to establish the reality of the bodily resurrection of the Lord, in order to draw from this fact a conclusion about the reality of the resurrection of bodies in general. But interior visions could never have served as proof of either Christ’s bodily resurrection or our own. It should also be noted that when the Apostle speaks of visions, he treats them with strict critical reserve. Thus he speaks hesitatingly about his rapture to the third heaven — “I do not know,” “God knows” (2 Cor 12:1 ff.). Here, however, he speaks of the Lord’s appearance to him without any qualification (cf. Gal 1:1).
Renan makes an attempt to explain this appearance by certain chance circumstances (a storm that broke over Lebanon, a lightning flash, or a bout of fever suffered by Paul). But to say that such superficial causes could have so profound an effect on Paul as to transform his entire worldview would be in the highest degree rash. Reuss acknowledges Paul’s conversion as an inexplicable psychological puzzle. Nor can one agree with other theologians of a negative tendency (Holsten, Krenkel, and others) that Paul had long had “two souls” struggling within him — one the soul of a Jewish fanatic, the other already disposed toward Christ. Paul was a man cast, so to speak, from a single mold. If he thought of Jesus on the road to Damascus, he thought of Him with hatred, as most Jews even now tend to think of Christ. That the Messiah could have appeared before him as a heavenly, radiant figure is in the highest degree improbable. Jews conceived of the Messiah as a powerful hero who would be born in Israel, grow up in obscurity, and then appear and lead his people to a victorious struggle against the pagans, after which he would reign over the world. Jesus had not done this, and therefore Paul could not have believed in Him as the Messiah; yet he could have conceived of Him as dwelling in heaven.
With Paul’s conversion, a decisive hour struck in the history of humanity. The time had come when the covenant once made by God with Abraham was to extend over the whole world and encompass all the nations of the earth. But for so extraordinary a work an extraordinary agent was required. The twelve Palestinian apostles were not suited for this task, whereas Paul had been, so to speak, prepared by all the circumstances of his life for its accomplishment. He was a true vessel of Christ (Acts 9:15) and was fully aware of this (Rom 1:1-5).
What took place in Paul’s soul during the three days that followed this great event? Hints about this period are given to us by chapter VI of the Epistle to the Romans. From it we see that the Apostle then experienced within himself the death of the old man and the resurrection of the new. Saul died — the man who had placed all his strength in his own righteousness, or what amounts to the same thing, in the law — and Paul was born, who trusted only in the power of Christ’s grace. Where had his fanatical zeal for the law led him? To opposition against God and to the persecution of the Messiah and His Church! Paul understood the cause of this result clearly: in seeking to ground his salvation in his own righteousness, he had sought thereby to glorify not God but himself. It was now no longer a secret to him that this path of self-justification leads only to inner discord, to spiritual death.
But, having died to the law (Gal 2:19), Paul rose to a new life. He felt himself a new creature in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). He grasped the great significance of Christ’s redemptive death — of the One who had just appeared to him in light. Instead of seeing in it, as before, the just punishment of a man who had dared to call himself the Messiah, he saw in it a reconciling sacrifice offered by God Himself for the sins of the whole world and for his own sins, Paul’s. Now he understood whom the prophet Isaiah had depicted in the figure of the Servant of the Lord who takes upon himself the sins of the world. The veil fell from Paul’s eyes, and he saw the cross as the instrument of the world’s salvation, and he recognized the resurrection of Christ as a monument of universal amnesty for the human race, which had until then lain under God’s condemnation. The new righteousness appeared now in his consciousness as the priceless gift of God’s love for humanity, and he received it wholeheartedly; knowing that he had nothing of his own to add to it, he felt himself reconciled with God. In the baptism administered to him by the hand of Ananias, he died together with Christ, was buried together with Him, and with Him rose to new life (Rom 6).
A bright flame of love for Christ ignited in his soul, kindled by the action of the Holy Spirit communicated to him, and he now felt himself capable of passing through to the end the feat of obedience and self-denial that had seemed so difficult to him while he was under the yoke of the law. He was now no longer a slave, but a child of God.
Paul now also understood what significance the various ordinances of the Mosaic law possessed. He saw how insufficient that law was as a means of justification. The law now appeared in his eyes as an educational institution of a temporary character (Col 2:16-17). Finally, who was the One by whose grace humanity had received all God’s gifts without any assistance from the law? Was He merely a man? Paul now brought to mind that this Jesus, condemned by the Sanhedrin to death, had been condemned as a blasphemer who declared Himself the Son of God. This claim had until recently appeared to Paul as the height of impiety and deceit. Now, however, he placed this claim in connection with the majestic appearance that had come to him on the road to Damascus, and Paul’s knees bowed before the Messiah not only as before a son of David, but as before the Son of God.
Linked to this change in Paul’s understanding of the person of the Messiah was a change in his understanding of the work of the Messiah. As long as the Messiah appeared in Paul’s consciousness only as a son of David, Paul understood his task as the glorification of Israel and the extension of the force and binding authority of the Mosaic law to the whole world. Now, however, God — who had revealed to Paul in this son of David after the flesh His own true Son, a divine Person — at the same time gave Paul’s thoughts a new direction concerning the calling of the Messiah. The son of David belonged to Israel alone, but the Son of God could have come to earth only in order to become the Redeemer and Lord of all humanity.
All these fundamental points of his Gospel Paul clarified for himself precisely in the first three days following his conversion. What the twelve apostles received through their three years of companionship with Christ — concluded by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them on the day of Pentecost — Paul received through intense inner effort during three days after his calling. If he had not accomplished this hard inner labor, the very appearance of the Lord would have remained for Paul and for the whole world a dead capital (cf. Luke 16:31).
III. The Apostolic Ministry of Paul
Paul became an apostle from the very moment he believed in Christ. This is clearly attested by both the history of his conversion as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (ch. 9) and by Paul himself (1 Cor 9:16). He was compelled by the Lord to take upon himself apostolic service — and immediately fulfilled this command.
Paul’s conversion took place probably in his thirtieth year. His apostolic activity also lasted about thirty years. It divides into three periods: a) the period of preparation — about seven years; b) the period of proper apostolic activity, or his three great missionary journeys, spanning about fourteen years; and c) the period of his captivity — two years in Caesarea, two years in Rome, with the addition of the time that elapsed from Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment until his death — in all about five years.
a) Although Paul became a full apostle from the moment of his calling, he did not immediately set about the activity for which he had been chosen. The Gentiles were chiefly to be the object of his care (Acts 9:15), yet Paul in fact begins by preaching to the Jews. He goes to the Jewish synagogue in Damascus and there already encounters Gentile proselytes, who become for him the bridge leading to acquaintance with the purely Gentile population of the city. By proceeding in this way, Paul showed that he fully recognized the special rights of Israel — to be the first to hear the message about Christ (Rom 1:16). In later times too, Paul never missed an opportunity to show special respect for the rights and privileges of his own people.
From the Damascus synagogue (Acts 9:20) Paul went into the neighboring regions of Arabia. There he labored for about three years as a preacher of Christ (Gal 1:17), while at the same time working out for himself in detail the system of the new teaching. However, many points of the Gospel Paul probably clarified only gradually, as the needs of the Church arose. Such was his teaching on the relation of the law to the Gospel, and others.
After his stay in Arabia, Paul returned to Damascus, where his preaching aroused fierce anger among the Jews. (At that time Damascus was under the authority of the Arabian king Aretas.) At this time Paul felt a desire to become personally acquainted with the Apostle Peter — the chief witness to the earthly life of the Savior. From him he could obtain detailed and precise information about the activity of the Lord Jesus Christ — but only that: Paul had no need to be instructed in the Gospel itself (Gal 1:11). Here in Jerusalem, Paul intended to stay for a longer time, so that the Gospel preaching from his lips — those of a former fanatical persecutor of Christians — would make a greater impression on his hearers. But the Lord did not wish to expose His chosen vessel to the fury of the Jerusalem Jews, and by a special revelation Paul left the city (Acts 22 ff.). From there he went first to Caesarea, and then to Tarsus, where within the bosom of his family he awaited further commands from the Lord.
He waited not in vain. As a result of the persecution of believers, the first victim of which was St. Stephen, a considerable number of believing Hellenists — that is, Jews who spoke Greek — fled from Jerusalem to Antioch, the chief city of Syria. These newcomers directed their preaching of the Gospel not to Jews but directly to Gentiles, and in this way Christianity for the first time forged a path directly into the midst of the pagan world. In Antioch a numerous and spirited Christian community took shape, in which the majority of the converted Greeks lived in fellowship with Christians of Jewish origin. The Apostles and the Jerusalem Church were astonished when they received news of this development of extraordinary importance, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch to find out more about this movement and to guide it. In doing so, Barnabas remembered Paul, whom he had earlier introduced to the apostles in Jerusalem, summoned him from Tarsus, and took him to the field of activity worthy of him. From that time onward, an inner fellowship was established between the Antiochian community and Paul, the magnificent outcome of which was the spread of the Gospel throughout the whole pagan world.
After a full period of joint labor in Antioch, Barnabas and Paul were sent to Jerusalem to bring relief to the poor Christians of that city. This journey, which took place in the year of the death of Herod Agrippa (ch. Acts 12), must be assigned to AD 44, because according to Josephus Flavius, Herod Agrippa died in that very year.
b) The second part of the history of the Apostle’s activity as a preacher of the Gospel contains the accounts of his three great apostolic journeys together with the visits to Jerusalem that fall within that period. The appearance of the most important of Paul’s epistles is connected with these journeys. It is noteworthy that the first journey falls in the year of the death of the last Jewish king: with the fall of the national Jewish royal power, the spread of the Gospel among the Gentiles begins. Jewish particularism had already outlived its time, and in its place Christian universalism comes forward.
The three missionary journeys of Paul had their point of departure in Antioch, which was the cradle of the mission among the Gentiles, just as Jerusalem was the cradle of the mission among Israel. After each of these journeys Paul visited Jerusalem, in order to strengthen thereby the bond that existed and needed to exist between the two missions (Gal 2:2).
The first journey he undertook with Barnabas. It was not far-reaching: on that occasion Paul visited only the island of Cyprus and the provinces of Asia Minor lying to the north of it. From this time the Apostle takes the name Paul (Acts 13:9), which is similar in sound to his former name Saul. He probably changed his name following the custom of Jews who, when undertaking journeys through pagan lands, would ordinarily replace their Hebrew names with Greek or Latin ones. (From Jesus they would make John, from Epiakim — Akim.) In turning to the Gentiles during this journey, the Apostle undoubtedly proclaimed to them the only means of justification — faith in Christ — without obligating them to perform the works of the Mosaic law: this is clearly evident both from the very fact of Christ’s calling of a new Apostle beyond the twelve, and from Paul’s own words (Gal 1:16). Moreover, if even the Apostle Peter had found it possible to release Gentiles who were coming to Christianity from the observance of the Mosaic law (and first of all from circumcision — Acts 11:1-2), one can be all the more certain that already in his first journey the Apostle of the Gentiles Paul freed them from observing the Mosaic law. Thus the opinion of Hausrath, Sabatier, Heus, and others — that during his first journey Paul had not yet developed a definite view on the question of the significance of the law for the Gentiles — must be recognized as groundless.
As to how the Apostle Paul viewed, in the early period of his missionary activity, the significance of the Mosaic law for Christians of Jewish origin, that is a more complex question. We see that at the Jerusalem Council, convened in the presence of the Apostle Paul after his first journey, the question of the binding force of the Mosaic law for Christians of Jewish origin was not even raised: all members of the council evidently recognized that this binding force was beyond doubt.
But the view of Paul himself on this matter was different. From the Epistle to the Galatians we see that he placed all the justifying power for a person solely in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that he had already died to the law from the time of his conversion to Christ (Gal 2:18-20). The twelve apostles apparently awaited some external event that would serve as the signal for the abrogation of the Mosaic law — for example, the appearance of Christ in His glory — whereas for the Apostle Paul the necessity of this abrogation had been clear from the very moment of his calling. But the Apostle Paul did not wish to compel the other apostles to adopt his point of view; on the contrary, he himself made concessions to them where they were the heads of Jewish-Christian communities. And in later times as well, he condescended to the views that had taken root among Jewish Christians concerning the Mosaic law, being guided in this by a sense of brotherly love (1 Cor 9:19-22). In order that his disciple Timothy might be better received by the Jews, he had him circumcised — though this was already a considerable time after Timothy’s conversion to Christianity (Acts 16:1). On the other hand, where the very principle of justification was at stake, Paul yielded no ground: he did not allow Titus, a Greek, to be circumcised during his presence at the Jerusalem Council, because Paul’s enemies who demanded this circumcision would have taken the Apostle’s consent as a betrayal of his convictions about the non-binding character of the Mosaic law for Christians from among the Gentiles (Gal 2:3-5).
The Apostolic Council ended on the whole very favorably for Paul. The Jerusalem Church and its leading figures acknowledged that the visitors from Jerusalem — Christians of Jewish origin — who had been troubling the Antiochian Christians had acted improperly in demanding that the Antiochians, in addition to the Gospel, accept circumcision, which supposedly made them full heirs of the promises of salvation. The Jerusalem Apostles clearly showed that they did not consider it necessary for Gentiles converting to Christ to accept circumcision along with all the rites of the Mosaic law. The preaching of the Apostle Paul was recognized here as fully correct and sufficient (Gal 2:2-3), and the Apostle Paul, as is known, proclaimed to the Gentiles that if they accepted circumcision upon turning to Christ, Christ would be of no benefit to them (Gal 5:2-4). The Council required of Gentile Christians the observance only of the most elementary requirements of purity, known under the name of the “commandments of Noah.” The Levitical rites were thus reduced to the level of mere national customs — nothing more (Acts 15:28-29).
On their return to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas took with them Silas, one of the leading men of the Jerusalem Church, who had been commissioned to inform the Syrian and Cilician communities of the decision of the Apostolic Council. Shortly after this, Paul set out with Silas on the second missionary journey. On this occasion Paul visited the churches of Asia Minor that he had founded on his first journey. Paul was probably eager to visit Ephesus — the center of the religious and intellectual life of Asia Minor — but God decided otherwise. Not Asia Minor but Greece required the Apostle’s presence. Detained by illness in Galatia for quite a long time, Paul founded churches there (Gal 4:14) among the descendants of the Celts who had settled there three centuries before Christ. When Paul and Silas set out from there to preach the Gospel further, they met with almost no success anywhere and soon found themselves on the shore of the Aegean Sea, at Troas. There a vision revealed to Paul that Europe — and first of all Macedonia — awaited him. Paul set out for Europe, accompanied by Silas, Timothy (who had joined him in Lycaonia), and the physician Luke (Acts 16:10; cf. Acts 20:5).
In a very short time, churches were established in Macedonia: at Philippi, Amphipolis, Thessalonica, and Berea. In all these places persecutions were raised against Paul by the Roman authorities, because the local Jews represented Christ as a rival to Caesar. Fleeing from persecution, Paul moved further south and at last arrived in Athens, where he expounded his teaching before the Areopagus; then he settled in Corinth. Living there for about two years, he during that time founded a number of churches throughout all Achaia (1 Cor.). After this activity was completed, he set out for Jerusalem and from there for Antioch.
At this time the Apostle Peter began his missionary journeys outside Palestine. After visiting Cyprus with Mark, he arrived in Antioch, where Barnabas also was at that time. Here both Peter and Barnabas freely visited the homes of Gentile Christians and ate with them, although this was not entirely in accord with the decision of the Apostolic Council, which obligated believers of Jewish origin to be guided in matters of food by the ritual prescriptions of the Mosaic law. Peter remembered the symbolic explanation given to him in connection with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10:10 ff.), and besides this, he considered that moral obligations (fellowship with the brethren) ought to take precedence over obedience to the ritual law. Barnabas, for his part, had grown accustomed to this subordination of ritual to the spirit of Christian love during his activity among the Gentiles. But then, unexpectedly, some visitors sent by James arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem. They were in all likelihood expected to investigate how the decision of the Apostolic Council was being observed in Antioch by the Jewish Christians, and they certainly made it understood both to Peter and to Barnabas that the two were acting improperly here by entering into fellowship at table with Gentile Christians. This had a strong effect on both of them, and to avoid causing offense to their fellow countrymen, both ceased to accept the invitations of Gentile Christians to meals.
Peter’s action was very significant in its consequences. The Antiochian Gentile Christians, who had at first joyfully welcomed into their midst such a renowned Apostle as Peter, now saw with sorrow that he was keeping them at a distance, regarding them as if they were unclean. This, of course, in some was bound to produce displeasure at Peter, and in others a desire to maintain fellowship with him at any cost — even at the sacrifice of their freedom from the law. Paul could not fail to stand up for his spiritual children, and, in the consciousness that the law was no longer necessary for Christians in general (Gal 2:19), he addressed Peter with an indication of the impropriety of his conduct, of his inconsistency. Peter himself, of course, was well aware that the law was no longer necessary for Christians, and therefore said nothing in response to this intervention of the Apostle Paul against him, showing thereby that he was in full agreement with Paul.
After this, Paul undertook his third missionary journey. On this occasion he passed through Galatia and strengthened the Galatians in the faith — they had been troubled at that time by Judaizing Christians who pointed to the necessity of circumcision and the ritual law in general even for Gentile Christians (Acts 18:23). He then arrived in Ephesus, where his faithful friends Aquila and his wife Priscilla were already awaiting him, probably having prepared the ground for Paul’s activity there. The two or three years that Paul spent in Ephesus represent the time of the highest development of Paul’s apostolic activity. During this period a whole series of flourishing churches came into being — later represented in the Apocalypse under the symbol of seven golden lampstands in the midst of which the Lord stood. These were specifically the churches in Ephesus, Miletus, Smyrna, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colossae, Thyatira, Philadelphia, Sardis, Pergamum, and elsewhere. The Apostle Paul was so effective here that paganism began to tremble for its existence, as is confirmed by the riot against Paul stirred up by the maker of idol images, Demetrius.
However, the joy of the great Apostle of the Gentiles was clouded at this time by the opposition he encountered from his enemies, the Judaizing Christians. They had no objection to his preaching about the “cross”; they were even pleased that Paul was bringing the pagan world into Christianity, since they saw in this a benefit for Mosaism. What they were really striving for was the elevation of the significance of the law, while they regarded the Gospel merely as a means to that end. Since Paul saw things in precisely the opposite way, the Judaizers began in every way to undermine his authority among the Gentiles he had converted, and above all in Galatia. They told the Galatians that Paul was not a genuine Apostle, that the Mosaic law was of eternal validity, and that without it Christians had no guarantee against the danger of falling into the slavery of sin and vice. The Apostle was therefore obliged to send the Galatians a letter from Ephesus, in which he refuted all these false notions. It seems that this letter had the desired effect, and the authority of Paul and his teaching was once again established in Galatia (1 Cor 16:1).
The Judaizers then turned their efforts to another arena. They appeared in the churches founded by Paul in Macedonia and Achaia. There again they sought to shake Paul’s authority and to cast suspicion on the purity of his moral character. They met with particular success in their slanders against Paul in Corinth, and the Apostle in his second letter to the Corinthians armed himself with full force against these his enemies, calling them ironically “super-apostles” (ὑπερ λίαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι). In all probability these were converted priests (Acts 6:7) and Pharisees (Acts 15:5), who, proud of their learning, were unwilling to submit to the apostles in general and sought to take their place in the churches. They may even be the persons Paul refers to under the name of “those of Christ” (1 Cor 1:12) — that is, those who recognized only the authority of Christ Himself and refused to obey any of the apostles. However, the Apostle’s first letter to the Corinthians had succeeded in restoring his shaken authority in the Corinthian church, and his second letter to the Corinthians already attests that his enemies — in Corinth at any rate — acknowledged their defeat (see ch. 7). For this reason Paul at the end of AD 57 again visited Corinth and stayed there about three months.
From Corinth, through Macedonia, Paul set out for Jerusalem with contributions for the poor Christians of the Jerusalem church, which had been gathered in Greece. There James and the elders informed Paul that rumors were circulating among the Jewish Christians about him, as an enemy of the Mosaic law. To demonstrate the groundlessness of these rumors, Paul, at the elders’ advice, undertook in Jerusalem the rite of the Nazirite vow. By this Paul did nothing contrary to his convictions. His chief concern was to walk in love, and, guided by love for his fellow countrymen and allowing time to bring about the final emancipation of Jewish Christians from the Mosaic law, he accepted the vow as something purely external that in no way touched or altered his essential convictions. This event served as the occasion for his arrest, and from this point a new period of his life begins.
c) After his arrest in Jerusalem, Paul was sent to Caesarea for trial before the Roman procurator Felix. He remained there for two years until the recall of Felix (in AD 60). In AD 61 he appeared before the new procurator Festus, and since his case kept being delayed, he, as a Roman citizen, demanded to be sent for trial to Rome. He made his journey with significant delays and arrived in Rome only in the spring of the following year. From the last two verses of Acts we learn that he spent two years there as a prisoner, though enjoying considerable freedom of contact with the believing co-workers who visited him, and who brought him news of distant churches and conveyed his letters to them (to the Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians).
At this point the book of Acts breaks off. From here the life of the Apostle can be described either on the basis of tradition or with the guidance of certain passages from his letters. Most likely — as the Church Fathers confirm — Paul was released after his two-year stay in Rome and again visited the churches of the East, and then preached in the West, as far as Spain. The monuments of this final activity of the Apostle are his so-called pastoral epistles, which cannot be assigned to any of the earlier periods of his ministry.
Since none of the Spanish churches claims its origin from the Apostle Paul, it seems probable that the Apostle Paul was arrested immediately upon setting foot on Spanish soil and was sent forthwith to Rome. The martyrdom of the Apostle, which he suffered on the road leading to Ostia — as the Roman presbyter Gaius (2nd century) reports — took place in AD 66 or 67, according to the historian Eusebius.
In order to establish the chronology of the life of the Apostle Paul, one must make use of two firm dates — the date of his journey to Jerusalem with Barnabas in AD 44 (ch. Acts 12) and the date of his appearance before Festus in court in AD 61 (ch. Acts 25).
Festus died in the very year he arrived in Palestine. Thus Paul could have been sent by him to Rome — at the latest — in the autumn of AD 61. The Apostle’s imprisonment in Jerusalem, which occurred two years before this, thus took place in AD 59.
Paul’s third missionary journey, which preceded this imprisonment, encompassed an almost three-year stay of the Apostle in Ephesus (Acts 19:8), his journey through Greece with a fairly long stay in Achaia (Acts 20:3), and his journey to Jerusalem. Thus the beginning of this third journey may be placed in the autumn of AD 54.
The second missionary journey through Greece could not have lasted less than two years (Acts 18:11-18) and consequently began in the autumn of AD 52.
The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, which took place shortly before this journey, was held probably at the beginning of AD 52 or the end of AD 51.
Paul’s first missionary journey with Barnabas in Asia Minor, with two stays in Antioch, encompassed the two preceding years and accordingly began in AD 49.
Going further back, we arrive at the moment when Barnabas took Paul with him to Antioch. This was around AD 44. How long Paul had spent in Tarsus within the bosom of his family before this cannot be precisely determined — quite possibly around four years, so that Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion may be assigned to the year AD 40.
This visit was preceded by Paul’s journey to Arabia (Gal 1:18) and two stays in Damascus. He himself assigns three years to this (Gal 1:18). Accordingly, Paul’s conversion took place probably in AD 37.
In the year of his conversion Paul was about thirty years old; consequently, his birth may be assigned to AD 7. If he died in AD 67, then his whole life lasted about sixty years.
The correctness of this chronology is further confirmed by the following considerations:
1) Pilate, as is known, was relieved of his duties as procurator in AD 36. Before the arrival of a new procurator, the Jews were able to allow themselves the usurpatory act of carrying out an execution — the killing of Stephen — which they would not have dared to do in the presence of a procurator, since the Romans had taken from them the right to carry out executions. Thus the death of Stephen may have taken place at the end of AD 36 or the beginning of AD 37, and Paul’s conversion, as is known, followed immediately thereafter.
2) The journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem on account of the famine in AD 44 is confirmed by secular historians, who state that under Emperor Claudius, in AD 45 or 46, a famine struck Palestine.
3) In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul says that he went to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council fourteen years after his conversion. If this council took place in AD 51, then Paul’s conversion occurred in AD 37.
Accordingly, the chronology of the life of the Apostle Paul takes the following form:
Paul’s life as a Jew and Pharisee.
The years of his preparation for apostolic activity and his first attempts in this activity.
The first missionary journey, together with two stays in Antioch, and the Apostolic Council.
The second missionary journey and the founding of churches in Greece (two epistles to the Thessalonians).
The third missionary journey; the stay in Ephesus; the visits to Greece and Jerusalem (epistles: to the Galatians, two to the Corinthians, to the Romans).
AD 59 (summer) – 61 (autumn). Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem; imprisonment in Caesarea.
AD 61 (autumn) – 62 (spring). Journey to Rome, shipwreck, arrival in Rome.
AD 62 (spring) – 64 (spring). Stay in Roman imprisonment (epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians).
AD 64 (spring) – 67. Release from Roman imprisonment, second imprisonment in Rome, and martyrdom there (epistles to the Hebrews and the pastoral epistles).
Supplement
The personality of the Apostle Paul. From the circumstances of the life of the Apostle Paul one can form a conception of what this Apostle’s personality represented. First of all, it must be said that Paul was altogether foreign to any spirit of pedantry. It often happens that great public figures are extraordinarily pedantic in the promotion of their convictions: they are entirely unwilling to take account of the reasonable demands of life. But the Apostle Paul, for all his certainty about the truth of his convictions regarding the significance of the Mosaic law and the grace of Christ in the work of man’s justification, still, as necessity required, would at one time perform circumcision upon his disciples and at another oppose it (the story of Titus and Timothy — see Gal 2:3 and Acts 16:3). Not regarding himself as obligated to observe the Mosaic law, he nonetheless, to avoid giving offense to the Jerusalem Christians, accepted the Nazirite vow (Acts 21:20 ff.). Similarly, the Apostle judges differently on the question of food in the Epistle to the Romans than in the Epistle to the Colossians (cf. Rom 14 and Col 2).
For this condescension the Apostle found strength in the Christian love that wholly possessed his heart. Wherever there remained for people any possibility of salvation, however small, he exerted all the efforts of a loving father — or even of a loving mother — to save his spiritual children from destruction. Thus he labored greatly to bring the Galatians and the Corinthians back to obedience to Christ. But he was equally unafraid to pronounce final condemnation on those who showed no signs of repentance (2 Tim 4:14; 1 Cor 5:5), who went against the very foundations of the Christian faith (Gal 5:12). And again, where the matter concerned offenses personally inflicted upon him, he always knew how to forget and forgive his offenders (Gal 4:19) and even prayed to God on their behalf (2 Cor 13:7).
Aware of himself as in all things a true servant of God and looking upon the churches he had established as his merit before the judgment seat of Christ (1 Thess 2:19 ff., 2 Cor 6:4; Phil 2:16), Paul nevertheless never wished to exert pressure on them through his great authority. He left the churches themselves to arrange their own internal affairs, himself being confident that love of Christ would keep them within proper bounds and that the Holy Spirit would help them in their weaknesses (2 Cor 5:14; Rom 8:26). He was not, however, aloof from what was happening of special importance in the various churches, and in spirit was present at the resolution of the most serious church matters, sometimes sending his decisions on these matters from a distance (1 Cor 5:4). In all this, however, the Apostle Paul always showed sober discernment and the ability to take a practical view of matters. He was supremely skilled in restraining the impulses of those who were under the special sway of the gift of tongues. He knew what to say to those Christians who, in expectation of the imminent coming of Christ, had altogether abandoned all work. He demanded of his spiritual children only what they were capable of doing. Thus, toward the Corinthians in the matter of conjugal life he makes less strict demands than toward the Thessalonians. Paul showed especially great discernment in the matter of his missionary calling. When he went to enlighten Europe, he made use of the convenient roads that the Romans had either repaired or newly constructed, stopping in cities that, whether through their commerce or as Roman colonies, stood in active communication with others. This last circumstance offered a guarantee that from these places the Gospel would spread to new areas. The Apostle also showed his wisdom in sending his finest epistle, setting forth his teaching, to the capital of the Roman Empire — and precisely before he himself was to visit Rome.
The results of the missionary activity of the Apostle Paul. When the Apostle Paul was going to his death, he could say to himself with consolation that the Gospel had spread throughout the then-known world. In Palestine, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome it had established itself even before Paul, but at any rate it was Paul and his companions who first proclaimed the word of Christ throughout almost all of Asia Minor and Greece. Paul and his companions founded churches in Perge, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Corinth, Cenchreae, and in other localities of Achaia. Paul’s disciples, moreover, founded churches in Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, as well as in other localities of Asia Minor.
As for the composition of the churches founded by Paul and his companions and disciples, it consisted predominantly of people from the lower classes of society — slaves, freedmen, and craftsmen (1 Thess 4:11; 1 Cor 1:26). Even opponents of Christianity in the second century point to this (Celsus and Caecilius). Even clergy and bishops sometimes came from the class of slaves. There were, however, cases in which prominent or wealthy women converted to Christianity (Euodia, Syntyche, Chloe, and others). There were also some prominent men among the Christians — for example, the proconsul of Cyprus Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:12), Dionysius, a member of the Athenian Areopagus (Acts 17:34), and others.
Renan in his “Life of the Apostle Paul” expresses the opinion that the size of the Christian church in the time of the Apostle Paul was very small — perhaps those converted by Paul in both Asia Minor and Greece numbered “no more than a thousand people.” This opinion cannot be accepted, if only because Christianity at that time aroused serious alarm among pagans and Hellenistic Jews, which would not have been possible if the Christian churches in various cities consisted, as Renan supposes, of only ten to twenty people each. Furthermore, in Paul’s epistles there is a hint at the comparatively large numbers in the churches (Gal 6 and others). Among secular writers, Pliny the Younger and Lucian speak of “a multitude” of Christians.
From the above-mentioned churches of Asia Minor, Greece, and other regions where Paul had labored, the Gospel gradually spread throughout all parts of the world, and Monod in his book on the Apostle Paul (1893, 3rd ed.) rightly says: “If I were asked: who among all people seems to me the greatest benefactor of our race, I would, without hesitation, name Paul. I know no name in history that seems to me, like the name of Paul, to be the type of the widest and most fruitful activity.”
The results of the missionary activity of the Apostle Paul are all the more remarkable in that he had to overcome various significant obstacles in the course of this activity. Against him there is constant agitation from the Judaizers, who everywhere follow in his footsteps, turning the Christians converted by Paul against him; unbelieving Jews also strive by every means to put an end to the Apostle’s missionary activity; pagans at times rise up against him; finally, given Paul’s physical fragility, traveling was for him extremely difficult — especially since he almost always went on foot. Nevertheless, “the power of the Lord was perfected in Paul’s weakness” (2 Cor 12:9), and he overcame everything that stood as an obstacle in his path.
On the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. The Orthodox Church includes in its canon fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul. Some scholars maintain that the Apostle Paul wrote more epistles and seek to find hints of the existence of now-lost Pauline epistles within Paul’s own letters. But all the arguments of these scholars are in the highest degree arbitrary and groundless. When the Apostle Paul appears to mention the existence of some epistle to the Corinthians in chapter V (v. 9), this reference may apply to the first chapters of the first epistle; and those fragments of a purported epistle of Paul to the Corinthians that became known to scholars at the beginning of the 17th century in an Armenian translation represent an obvious forgery (see the article by Prof. Muretov: “On the Apocryphal Correspondence of the Apostle Paul with the Corinthians,” Theological Messenger, 1896, III). By the “epistle to the Laodiceans” mentioned in chapter IV, verse 16 of the Epistle to the Colossians one can readily understand the Epistle to the Ephesians, which, as a circular letter, was transmitted to Laodicea, from where the Colossians were to receive it under the title “epistle from Laodicea.” If Polycarp of Smyrna appears to mention “epistles” of Paul to the Philippians, here again the Greek word ἐπιστολάς has the general meaning of “epistle” — Latin litterae. As for the apocryphal correspondence of the Apostle Paul with the philosopher Seneca — comprising six letters of Paul and eight of Seneca — its spuriousness has been fully demonstrated by scholarship (see the article by Prof. A. Lebedev: “The Correspondence of the Apostle Paul with Seneca” in the collected works of A. Lebedev).
All the epistles of the Apostle Paul were written in Greek. But it is not classical Greek; it is the living colloquial language of the time, somewhat rough. His speech is strongly marked by the influence of the rabbinical school in which he was educated. He frequently uses, for example, Hebrew or Chaldaic expressions (abba, amen, maranatha, and others), Hebrew turns of phrase, and Hebrew parallelism of sentences. The influence of Jewish dialectics is also reflected in his speech, when he introduces sharp antitheses, brief questions, and answers into his discourse. Nevertheless, the Apostle knew the Greek conversational language well and moved freely within the treasury of Greek vocabulary, constantly resorting to replacing one expression with another synonymous one. Although he calls himself “rude in speech” (2 Cor 11:6), this may point only to his unfamiliarity with literary Greek, which nonetheless did not prevent him from writing the wonderful hymn to Christian love (ch. 1 Cor 13) — for which the renowned orator Longinus ranks the Apostle among the greatest orators. Among the shortcomings of the Apostle Paul’s style one may note the fairly frequent anacoluthons — that is, the absence of a main clause corresponding to a subordinate clause — as well as insertions and the like; but this is explained by the particular fervor with which he wrote his epistles, and also by the fact that he mostly did not write his epistles in his own hand but dictated them to scribes (probably due to weakness of eyesight).
The Epistles of the Apostle Paul customarily begin with greetings to the church and end with various personal communications and greetings intended for individuals. Some of the epistles have a predominantly dogmatic content (e.g., the Epistle to the Romans), others deal mainly with the ordering of church life (the first epistle to the Corinthians and the pastoral epistles), still others pursue polemical aims (to the Galatians, the second to the Corinthians, to the Colossians, to the Philippians, to the Hebrews). The rest may be called epistles of general content, containing various of the above-mentioned elements. In the Bible they are arranged according to the comparative importance of their content and the importance of the churches to which they are addressed.
First place is therefore given to the Epistle to the Romans, last to the Epistle to Philemon. The Epistle to the Hebrews is placed after all the others, as having attained universal recognition with regard to its authenticity only at a comparatively late time.
In his epistles, the Apostle appears before us as a faithful and caring guide of the churches he founded or with which he stood in relation. He often speaks with anger, but he also knows how to speak gently and tenderly. In a word, his epistles stand as a model of this kind of art. At the same time, the tone of his speech and the speech itself take on new shades in different epistles. However, all the enchanting effect of his speech is felt, in the opinion of Johannes Weiss, only by one who reads his epistles aloud, since the Apostle Paul delivered his epistles orally to a scribe and intended them for reading aloud in the churches to which they were sent (Die Schriften d. N. T. 2B. S. 3). One must add to this that the epistles of Paul are exemplary with regard to the arrangement of the thoughts they contain, and this arrangement demanded, of course, whole days and even weeks for the composition of each of the more extensive epistles.
The Apostle Paul as a theologian. The Apostle Paul sets forth his teaching not only in his epistles but also in the speeches contained in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 13:16-41). In unfolding Paul’s teaching one may distinguish two periods — the first, encompassing his speeches and epistles composed before his imprisonment, and the second, extending from Paul’s being put in chains until his death. Although in the first period the Apostle was occupied above all with the conflict with the Judaizers, while in the last his thoughts were drawn by other circumstances of the life of believers, it can nonetheless be established as a fact that in both periods the fundamental type of the Apostle’s teaching remained one and the same.
Already in the first period, the Apostle Paul makes the question of man’s right relationship to God — the question of justification — the chief subject of his Gospel. He teaches that people cannot justify themselves before God by their own powers, and that therefore God Himself points humanity to a new path to justification — faith in Christ, through whose merits justification is granted to all. To prove man’s incapacity to justify himself by his own powers, the Apostle in both his speeches and epistles depicts the condition of man in paganism and in Judaism — which, though it was not in such darkness as paganism, nonetheless felt in itself no power to walk in the path of virtue that the Mosaic law mapped out for it. To explain this incapacity to walk the path of virtue, the Apostle speaks of the power of the ancestral sin that weighs upon humanity. Adam sinned first — and from him the contagion of sin passed to all humanity and expressed itself in a whole series of individual transgressions. As a result, man became inclined to sin, and where reason suggested to him the proper course of action — he, as the Apostle puts it, submitted to the flesh.
But God delivered the Gentiles over to their passions, and gave the Jews over to the guidance of the law, so that they would recognize the need for divine help. And when this pedagogical goal was achieved, the Lord sent people a Savior in the person of His Only-begotten Son, who took on human flesh. Christ died for people and reconciled them with God, and it is this very redemption of people from sin and death and their regeneration into new life that the Apostle Paul considers his duty to proclaim. A person need only believe in this, and he begins a new life in Christ, under the guidance of the Spirit of God. Faith, moreover, is not merely knowledge, but the reception of Christ by the whole inner being of man. It is not his work or his merit, but owes its origin first of all to the mysterious grace of God that draws people’s hearts to Christ. This faith gives a person justification — genuine justification, and not merely the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. A person who has believed in Christ becomes truly regenerate, a new creature, and no condemnation weighs upon him any longer.
The community of the justified believers forms the Church of Christ, or the Church of God, which the Apostle compares now to a temple, now to a body. In fact, however, the Church does not yet represent the realized ideal of itself. It will attain its ideal state — or glorification — only after the second coming of Christ, which, however, will not take place before the coming of the Antichrist and the final defeat of evil.
In the second (and final) period, the teaching of the Apostle Paul takes on a predominantly Christological character, although the Apostle also frequently develops the ideas expressed in his earlier epistles and speeches. The person of the Lord Jesus Christ is here characterized not only as the Redeemer but as the Creator and Providence of the universe. Even in His incarnation He did not lose His divine Sonship, but only entered a new form of existence — the human — which, however, after Christ’s resurrection gave way to a new and glorified form. Together with the glorification of the God-Man, humanity in general is regenerated and enters into that close communion with God which it once possessed. Man’s true homeland is now not earth but heaven, where Christ already sits enthroned. In order particularly to prove the greatness of Christianity to his fellow countrymen — Christians of Jewish origin — Paul depicts Christ (in the Epistle to the Hebrews) as surpassing in His power the angels who participated in the giving of the law of Sinai, and Moses the lawgiver.
As for the moral prescriptions and regulations concerning the order of church life, these are distributed almost evenly throughout all the epistles. For the most part, moral thoughts follow in the epistles after the dogmatic or polemical section, representing as it were a conclusion drawn from the dogmatic teaching.
The Apostle Paul as a theologian exerted an extraordinarily great influence on the development of Christian theology. The Christological teachings first expressed by him were subsequently developed in the epistles of other apostles, in the Gospels, and in the first literary productions of the second century. In the doctrine of redemption, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, the Apologists, Augustine, and other later theologians stood under Paul’s influence. But the question arises: how much in Paul’s own teaching is original and independent? Did he himself stand under the influence of Hellenic philosophy or, at the very least, of rabbinical theology? Many researchers say that while the first supposition cannot be considered probable, the second is quite plausible. Is this actually the case?
First, Paul’s dependence on rabbinical theology would need to be evident in his exegetical method. But on careful comparison of rabbinical interpretations with those of Paul, a substantial difference is found between the two. In the first place, the rabbis, when explaining Holy Scripture, wanted to find in it at all costs a grounding for the religious-ritual opinions of Judaism. The content of the Bible was thus determined in advance. To this end, impermissibly drastic operations were performed on the text, interpreting it chiefly in a typologically-allegorical fashion. The Apostle, on the other hand, although he accepts the traditions of the Jewish church, does not accept them in their rabbinical coloring but as the heritage of the whole Jewish people, preserved in its collective memory. He uses them only for illustration of his own positions, not ascribing independent significance to them. If he permits allegorical interpretation in certain places, his allegories take on the character proper to types: the Apostle regarded the whole history of the people of God as prefigurative in relation to the history of the New Testament, and interpreted it in a messianic sense.
Furthermore, in his teaching about Christ, Paul is also independent of Judaeo-rabbinical opinion. For the Jews the Messiah was not only not an eternal being, but was not even the first expression of God’s will for the salvation of people. Before the world — says the Talmud — there existed seven things, and the first of these things was the Torah. The Messiah-Deliverer was conceived only as the supreme embodiment of the idea of lawfulness and the best fulfiller of the law. If, moreover, the law is well observed by people, then no special Messiah is needed. For the Apostle Paul, however, Christ — existing from eternity as a fully divine Person — is the cornerstone of the entire edifice of redemption.
This alone indicates that Paul’s teaching about Christ and the rabbis’ teaching about the Messiah are diametrically opposed! Moreover, in his understanding of redemption Paul also diverges from the rabbis. In the view of the rabbis, a Jew could himself attain genuine righteousness — for this purpose he need only observe the Mosaic law precisely. The Apostle Paul said the exact opposite, asserting that no one can be saved by his own powers. The Messiah, in the rabbinical view, was to appear to those Jews who had already justified themselves before God, merely to crown their righteousness — granting them, for instance, freedom and dominion over the whole world; whereas according to the Apostle Paul, Christ came in order to grant humanity justification and to establish a spiritual kingdom on earth.
Paul’s teaching differs from rabbinical teaching in other points as well: on the question of the origin of sin and death, on the question of life after death and the second coming of Christ, on the resurrection of the dead, and so on. From this the correct conclusion can be drawn that the Apostle developed his teaching himself on the basis of the revelations given to him, drawing on what had reached him through the witness to Christ from other apostles and preachers — eyewitnesses to the earthly life of the Savior.
Resources for Studying the Life of the Apostle Paul:
a) patristic: John Chrysostom, “Seven Homilies on the Apostle Paul.”
b) Russian: Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson, Life of the Apostle Paul. Archpriest Mikhailovsky, On the Apostle Paul. Archpriest A. V. Gorsky, History of the Apostolic Church. Artabolevsky, On the First Missionary Journey of the Apostle Paul. Holy Glagolev, The Second Great Journey of the Apostle Paul with the Preaching of the Gospel. Hieromonk Gregory, The Third Great Journey of the Apostle Paul.
c) foreign works in Russian translation: Renan, The Apostle Paul. Farrar, The Life of the Apostle Paul (translated by Matveev, Lopukhin, and Father Fivesky). Wrede, The Apostle Paul.
For the theology of the Apostle Paul one may read the extensive and thorough dissertation of Prof. I. N. Glubokovksy, The Gospel of the Apostle Paul According to Its Origin and Essence, vol. 1, St. Petersburg, 1905, and vol. 2, St. Petersburg, 1910. This work also cites all the literature on the Apostle Paul in various languages up to 1905. Also valuable is the book of Prof. Simon, The Psychology of the Apostle Paul (translated by Bishop George, 1907). Interesting and important in an apologetic respect is the article by Nosgen, Der angebliche orientalische Einschlag der Theologie des Apostels Paulus (Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1909, issues 3 and 4).
On the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Romans.
Time of Writing
During his third stay in Corinth (Acts 20:2 ff.), when the Corinthians were relatively peaceful among themselves and not engaging in mutual disputes, the Apostle Paul wrote (around the beginning of AD 59) the Epistle to the Romans — the most important and most carefully worked of his epistles. This epistle was dictated by the Apostle to the scribe Tertius in the house of Gaius, in which the local Christian community gathered (Rom 16:22 ff.), and was sent to Rome through Phoebe, a resident of the port of Cenchreae, who was held in esteem among the Corinthian Christians (Rom 16:1 ff.). Paul writes with the joyful awareness that his great task is accomplished, since he has proclaimed the Gospel from Jerusalem — in the east — to Illyricum — in the west (reaching to the Adriatic Sea) — and has established churches in all the more important cities as strongholds of the Gospel (Rom 15:19). But his ardent spirit does not hunger for rest but for new conquests: he wishes to visit the West — first of all the capital of the empire, Rome, and then Spain (Rom 15:24). Only he must first personally deliver to Jerusalem the contributions gathered in Macedonia and Greece (Rom 15:25 ff.), not concealing meanwhile that on this journey he is placing his life in danger (Rom 15:31). All this corresponds to the position of the Apostle Paul at the end of his third journey (cf. Acts 19:21).
Purpose of Writing
In the view of many ancient and modern researchers of Paul’s writings, the Epistle to the Romans represents a brief exposition of Christian teaching, which the Apostle offered to the Romans as a kind of account of his preaching, which he was now ready to carry to the West. But under this assumption, the fact that the epistle is addressed to Rome becomes accidental; moreover, the notion that this epistle provides an exposition of Christian doctrine is also incorrect. Indeed, it does not contain a complete unfolding of all the main truths of the Gospel: there is no detailed Christology and eschatology, and the sacrament of the Eucharist is not mentioned at all. Finally, it is also conspicuous that the Apostle here has in view showing the inadequacy of the Jewish-Pharisaic standpoint, rather than depicting the pagan view of life. Others, supposing that the Roman Church consisted predominantly of Jews who had converted to Christ (a great many Jews lived in Rome) — citing Rom 4:1, where Paul speaks of Abraham as “our father according to the flesh,” and Rom 7:1 ff., where the readers are depicted as people who had been “under the law” and had now been freed from it — define the purpose of the epistle as follows: Paul wished to give these Roman Christians an explanation concerning the true meaning of his mission, which was unbound from the Mosaic law, and to win them over to his side, so that their distrust would not hinder him from working in the West. But the arguments adduced in support of this view are untenable. The Apostle Paul equally in epistles written to churches made up of converted Gentiles speaks of the ancient Hebrews as “our fathers” (1 Cor 10:1) and presupposes their familiarity with the Mosaic law (Gal 4:21). Evidently, in his view all Christians were a new “people of the covenant” and true descendants of Abraham “according to the Spirit.” Evidently, Gentile Christians too were required to become acquainted with the Old Testament (in the LXX translation, of course) as the historical foundation for understanding the Gospel narrative. Furthermore, a whole series of passages in the Epistle to the Romans clearly points to Gentile Christian readers. Thus: Rom 1:6 includes the Roman Christians among the “called of Jesus Christ” among the Gentiles; in Rom 1:13 the Apostle expresses his hope to have “some fruit” among them, as among other Gentiles; in Rom 15:16 he presents his epistle to them as a part of his priestly ministry among the Gentiles; in Rom 11:13 he speaks directly of them as Gentiles, whereas in Rom 9:3 he calls the Jews his brothers and kinsmen according to the flesh. Finally, in Acts chapter 28 (Acts 28:21 ff.) the Roman Jews tell Paul that they know nothing about him, have received no letters from Judea concerning him (let alone from him!), and know about Christianity only that it arouses controversy everywhere. All this would be difficult to understand if the Roman Church consisted of converted Jews.
Some hold that the Roman Christians were converted Gentiles who had received the Gospel through Judaizing Christians, who had taught them that observance of the law was necessary even for Christians. The Apostle wishes to correct their understanding of Christianity and to instill in them a proper appreciation of the significance of the Mosaic law. In support of this view, it is pointed out that the Apostle in the first part of the epistle refutes the defenders of the law and circumcision, as well as the privileges of the people of Israel. But this view is contradicted by the fact that the Apostle clearly expresses his joy at the general condition of the Roman Church. He gives thanks to God for all the Roman Christians (Rom 1:8); he testifies that he holds the same faith as they, and wishes to be comforted by that faith of theirs (Rom 1:12); he is convinced that they are full of good disposition, filled with all knowledge, so that they are themselves in a position to instruct one another; for this reason he regards his epistle only as a reminder, not as instruction in something new (Rom 15:14 ff.). All this would be a kind of ingratiating flattery, if in reality Judaizing Christianity — against which the Apostle constantly struggled — dominated in Rome. There is yet another opinion, according to which the Roman Church was of mixed composition — that is, consisting of Christians from among Jews and from among Gentiles. The epistle was written with the aim of reconciling the two groups, with the first eight chapters directed to Jewish Christians and the subsequent chapters 9–15 to Gentile Christians. But against such a supposition one must say that it is hardly possible to discern such conciliatory aims throughout the epistle. Only chapters 14 and 15 might perhaps have such a tendency.
Most probable is the supposition that the Epistle to the Romans was written with the aim of refuting the views of Pharisaic Judaism, but addressed to a church consisting in the main of converted Gentiles, among whom there were also Christians of Jewish origin, but in whom there was no Judaizing agitation. Why, then, did Paul write to such a church in an openly anti-Judaic spirit? The Roman Church was founded not by Paul, nor even by Barnabas or Peter, but by unknown Christian newcomers, who in proving the truth of the Gospel appealed of course to the prophecies fulfilled in Christ. But the book that contained these prophecies also contained the Mosaic law as a revelation given by God to the chosen people of Israel. Through this, the notion could easily have formed that the Gospel was merely an improvement of the Old Testament, or a new law with more stringent demands. The Romans in particular could easily have understood the Gospel this way, since they were inclined above all to regard religion as the punctual observance of lawfully established ceremonies. When the Roman Christians heard about Paul, it may have appeared to them that Paul’s teaching permitted moral license, or that it could serve as a justification for the moral dissolution that reigned in Rome at that time. The Jews could always point to this as well. For this reason Paul decided, in advance of his arrival in Rome, to acquaint the Romans with his preaching, which was free from the narrow legalistic understanding of the Gospel. He offered them in the epistle an outline of his anti-Pharisaic polemic and showed that the Gospel is not a new law but a power that gives man justification from sins and brings him into fellowship with God. By this he wished to strengthen the faith of the Romans, to give them a more complete understanding of Christ and His work, and to cut off the approach of any Jewish agitation. The epistle may be called a brilliant protest against the spirit of nomism.
Authenticity
Both ancient commentators and modern researchers unanimously affirm (two or three exceptions do not count) that the author of the Epistle to the Romans was the Apostle Paul. Jülicher in his preface to the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (Weiss edition) says: “The authenticity of the epistle can be disputed only by one who ventures to remove the person of the Apostle Paul from history.” Some difficulty for commentators is posed only by the circumstance that the epistle, strictly speaking, has three conclusions: Rom 15:33; Rom 16:20. But this can be explained by the fact that Paul had first ended the epistle at Rom 15:33, then found it necessary to add greetings, which were again at first concluded at verse 19 of chapter XVI, followed by a conclusion (verse 20), but then continued in verses 21–23, to which Paul could not fail to give a conclusion once more (verse 24). As for the doxology of chapter XIV (Rom 14:24-26), the majority of codices place it at the very end of the epistle.
Content
The Apostle Paul speaks in the epistle chiefly about the justification of man, which must have man’s blessedness as its natural consequence. For this justification, people are indebted solely to the Gospel. In the Gospel, or in Christianity, the righteousness of God is revealed — that is, the will of God reaches us, and His being penetrates into us; through faith we enter into a living communion with God, and divine righteousness becomes at the same time our own, and we form the true Kingdom of God — the kingdom of righteousness.
The Apostle develops this thought as follows. First he establishes the fact that apart from the Gospel there exists only the manifestation of God’s wrath, which must fall upon both those who willfully shield themselves from the truth and those who, though they know the truth, do not put it into practice. To the first category belong almost all Gentiles, whom God — for this departure from the truth — delivered over to the will of their passions and vices; to the second belong chiefly the Jews and partly the Gentiles (ch. I – ch. III, v. 20). Thus, God was previously, before the proclamation of the Gospel, wrathful with people. Now, however, it is different: He imparts His righteousness to people through the sacrificial offering of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, for the sins of people. Everyone who believes in Christ the Redeemer becomes justified in the eyes of God (III:21–26). Intimations of this manner of justification are found in the Old Testament as well, as is evident from the example of Abraham (III:27–IV). The fruit of our justification by faith is reconciliation with God and eternal blessedness, though the latter is for now only the object of our hope (V:1–11). Through justification we recover that state of innocence and glory of which Adam once deprived himself (V:12–21). In Christianity, a sinful life is no longer conceivable — the Christian has with Christ begun a new, holy life, from which he can no longer, ought no longer, return to the former ways of life in sin (VI:1–23). But what then remains of the Mosaic law, which formerly held such great significance? We Christians, says the Apostle, have already died to the law and should not grieve over it, because it only contributed to the manifestation of our sinful inclinations without providing the means to overcome them (VII:1–25). Christians now live under the guidance of the Spirit of Christ and live only for righteousness and in hope of eternal life (VIII:1–11), which will certainly become our possession (VIII:12–18). Our hope for future blessedness is strengthened by the groanings of creation, the groanings of our own heart, and the groanings of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us (VIII:19–27). Moreover, faith in God’s predestination also provides a foundation for our hope of glorification (VIII:28–39).
Thus Paul has exhausted his theme — “the righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel from faith to faith.” But since in the first chapter (v. 16) he had spoken of the Gospel as the power of God for salvation — to the Jew first — while up to this point the Jews had appeared to the Apostle as if they had utterly lost all hope of salvation, he now considers it necessary to explain that he is not in fact denying the possibility of salvation through the Gospel even for the Jews. Although the number of Jews already saved is very small, and the vast majority — indeed, one might say, the entire Jewish nation — has taken up a hostile attitude toward the Gospel and remained outside the threshold of Christ’s Kingdom, nonetheless in the distant future the Jewish people will turn to Christ and will be received into the bosom of Christ’s Church (chs. IX–XI).
In the following, hortatory, part of his epistle, Paul gives the Roman Christians an explanation of the duties they have taken upon themselves by entering the Church of Christ. They must manifest their faith in Christ in their lives — first, as members of the church community (ch. XII), and then as members of the state, consciously submitting to the civil law (XIII:1–12). Finally, Paul gives some guidance on the personal self-improvement of a Christian (XIII:12–14). All this represents an unfolding of the foundational statement in ch. 12, v. 1: “Serve God!” With this same principle of “serving God” Paul also advises the Roman Christians to be guided in the disputes about so-called things indifferent (adiaphora) that were then being conducted in the Roman church: all should think only of how to please God, strive to eliminate partisanship, sacrificing their self-love, following the example of Christ (chs. 14–15:4). In the same way, the Roman Christians should not divide into Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian communities, because the Lord wishes to have both Gentiles and Jews in His Church (XV:5–13). Two remarks — about the tone of the epistle (XV:14–21) and about the Apostle’s future plans (XV:22–33) — form the epilogue of the epistle. To this are added greetings and some concluding exhortations (ch. 16).
Thus the Epistle to the Romans has the following arrangement: a) introduction (I:1–17), b) the didactic part (I:18–XI:36), c) the hortatory part (XII:1–XV:13), and d) the conclusion (XV:14–XVI).
Text of the Epistle
The text of the epistle can be determined from ancient manuscripts, ancient translations, and from quotations cited in the works of the Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. Among the manuscripts — some are written in uncial letters and originated before the 10th century, while others are in ordinary script, as was written from the 10th century onward. The former number eleven, and the most ancient of them are: the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus (B) — both from the 4th century; the Alexandrinus (A) and the Codex Ephraemi (C) — from the 5th century. All manuscripts — both ancient and later — fall under one of three categories. These are either: 1) the Alexandrian text, probably so named because it was used in Egypt and in the capital of Egypt, Alexandria; or 2) the Graeco-Latin, so named because it was adopted in the western churches and was accompanied by a Latin translation; or 3) the Byzantine, contained in almost all the later manuscripts written in ordinary small script, and which was adopted in the Greek Empire. Among these texts there are differences, and it is not easy to determine which of these text forms should be given preference.
Of the translations of the epistle, two go back to the 2nd century: namely, the ancient Latin translation, the Itala (from which the Vulgata was revised and adopted in the Catholic Church), and the Syriac translation, the Peshitta. Both of these translations are not only in accord with each other on essential points, but also correspond to the text of our Greek manuscripts — which is of great importance in attesting the integrity of our Greek text. The Itala is closer to the Graeco-Latin text, while the Peshitta is closer to the Byzantine. A third, somewhat later translation — the Coptic (Egyptian) — follows the Alexandrian text exactly. As for the quotations from the epistle found in the ecclesiastical writers of the 2nd century, these also confirm our confidence in the integrity of the Greek text received by us, at least in the most important passages. Thus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons in AD 185 published a work in which about eighty-four verses from the Epistle to the Romans are cited. Around AD 150, Justin the Philosopher quotes chapter III, verses 11–17 from the Epistle to the Romans. Around AD 140 the heretic Marcion published his edition of Paul’s epistles, and Tertullian in his work against Marcion cites about thirty-eight verses of the epistle from this edition. Moreover, Tertullian himself in his writings quotes about a hundred passages from the Epistle to the Romans (AD 190–210). Finally, Clement of Rome, around AD 96, quotes in his epistle to the Corinthians a passage from chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Romans (vv. 28–32).
In the Bibles published in four languages by the Holy Synod, the Byzantine text of the Epistle to the Romans (the so-called Textus Receptus) is generally printed. From this text the Slavonic translation of the epistle was made; the Russian translation, however, departs from it significantly in many places and provides additions to it (printed in italics).
Commentators on the Epistle
Among the patristic commentaries and explanations of the ancient church theologians on the Epistle to the Romans, the following works are known: 1) Origen (3rd century), preserved in the Latin reworking of Rufinus; 2) Ephrem the Syrian (4th century) — preserved in an Armenian translation, from which a Latin translation was made in 1905 and a Russian translation as well; 3) Ambrosiaster, or as is supposed, the Roman deacon Hilary (4th century); 5) Augustine (end of the 4th century); 6) John Chrysostom, 33 homilies (4th century) — newly translated into Russian by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy; 7) Theodore of Mopsuestia (4th and 5th centuries); 8) the blessed Theodoret (5th century) — translated into Russian; 9) Oecumenius (10th century); and 10) Theophylact the Bulgarian (11th century) — translated into Russian.
Since the time of the Reformation in the West, very many commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans have appeared. The most notable works are: 1) Luther (16th century), 2) Calvin, 3) Melanchthon, 4) Beza — all of that same period, 5) Grotius (17th century). In the 19th century, the most valuable works were published by Tholuck, Meyer, Fritzsche, Philippi, Hengel, Umbreit, Ewald, Hoffmann, Godet, Weiss, Lipsius, Sanday (in English). In the 20th century, notable works include those of Jülicher (in the Weiss edition of Die Schriften d. N. T.), Lietzmann, Richier, and especially the serious and massive work of Th. Zahn, Der Brief an die Römer, 1910.
Among Russian works, the greatest fame belongs to the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans compiled after the Holy Fathers by Bishop Theophan (Govorov). It has been published several times by the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Mount Athos. Apart from this, there are no separate commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans in Russian. There exist only brief explanations of the epistle in textbooks and reference works on the New Testament Scripture, intended for theological seminaries (by Ivanov, Khersakov, Rozanov, Lebedev).
* * *
Notes
In the East, in large cities, one still finds today quite a few people who speak two or three languages. And such people are found among the lower classes of society.
It is supposed that the Apostle had already visited Corinth twice before this (cf. 2 Cor 13:2).
There is now located here a basilica called S. Paolo fuori le Mura.
See on this in the brochure by I. Frey, Die letzten Lebensjahre des Paulus, 1910.
In Greece, in the city of Delphi, there is preserved a letter of Emperor Claudius to the Delphians, carved in stone. In this letter the proconsul of Greece is named as Gallio, the brother of the philosopher Seneca — the very one before whom the Apostle Paul was brought by his enemies, the Jews of Corinth. The noted scholar Deissmann in his article on this monument (appended to Deissmann’s book Paulus, 1911, pp. 159–177) argues that the letter was written in the period from the beginning of AD 52 to August 1, AD 52. From this he concludes that Gallio was proconsul in that year and probably assumed office on April 1, AD 51, or even later, in the summer. Paul had already been in Corinth for 1½ years before Gallio assumed the proconsulship; consequently, he arrived in Greece and specifically in Corinth in the first month of AD 50, and left there in the late summer of AD 51. Thus, according to Deissmann, the Apostle’s second missionary journey lasted from the end of AD 49 to the end of AD 51. But such a supposition at present rests on insufficiently firm foundations.
Why did the Apostle Paul not visit Africa, and in particular such an important city as Alexandria? Deissmann (p. 135) explains this by the fact that in AD 38 — that is, at the beginning of Paul’s missionary activity — persecutions of the Jews broke out in Alexandria, and that later other preachers had already appeared there.
Among works translated into Russian, the following on the life of the Apostle Paul are notable: Weinel, Paulus, der Mensch und sein Werk (1904) and A. Deissmann, Paulus. Eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze, with a fine map “The World of the Apostle Paul” (1911). Lively written is the little book by Prof. Knopf, Paulus (1909).