But how could Paul write at length to a community he had
never visited? Not to dwell on what he might have gathered
from " Prisca and Aquila, " the wonderful list of salutations by
name, often with brief characterizations, proves how constant
was the flow of Christian life between the capital and provincial
centres Uke Ephesus and Corinth. But, beyond all this, there
is the nature of the epistle itself as a great " tract for the times, "
applicable to the general situation at Rome, but typical also of
the hour as reflected in Paul's consciousness. It has therefore
a profound biographical significance for Paul himself, summing
up all his thought so far, on the basis of his conversion as unfolded
by his experiences as an apostle. It is his philosophy
of rehgion and of history, the first worthy of the name, because
the first deep-based upon the conception of the unity of humanity,
as related to God, its source and the determining factor in its
destiny. As such it also includes in broadest outhne (viii. i8
sqq.) a philosophy of nature, as related to humanity, its crown
and key. Thus it is in effect a universal philosophy in terms
of the moral order, which Paul, like every Hebrew, regarded
as the most real and significant element in the universe. At the
centre of this grand survey stands the Jewish race, the chosen
vessel for bearing God's treasure for mankind during the provisional
period of human history; and at its spiritual heart,
in turn, Jesus, Messiah of Israel, Saviour of mankind, in whom
the distinction between the special and general spheres of
revelation is transcended, while the law, " the middle wall of
partition " between them, is broken down by the Cross.
Into the sweep of this high argument, as it is unfolded step by step, with an organic completeness or exposition peculiar to Romans among his writings (cf. Ephesians), there is wrought not only the problem of the Jew and Gentile (still the burning question of the time), but also the stubborn paradox of the actual rejection of Israel's Messiah by the nation as a whole. This forms a great appendi.x (i.x.-xi.) to the more theoretic part of the epistle, and lays bare Paul's inmost heart, showing how truly a Jewish patriot he was. Even the categories in which he grapples, without formal success, with the problem of divine election and human responsibihty, betray the Jew, to whom the final axioms are God's sovereignty and God's righteousness. Further into the contents of this most characteristic writing it is not ours to go (see Romans). Suffice it to say, he who apprehends it, as the issue of a real religious e.xperience, already knows Paul as he knew himself and cared to be known. He who masters its thought knows the PauHne theology. Some indeed assume that Paul ceased really to progress beyond the point represented by Romans, and that certain of his later writings, if they be his at all, show a certain enfeeblement of grasp upon principle. But that is to confuse once more Paul's personal theology with the forms of instruction which experience showed him were expedient for the strengthening and development of feeble or undeveloped moral types.
Yet while the horizon of the Roman epistle was so universal in one sense, it was restricted in another. Owing to the foreshortening influence of the parousia hope, even Paul's programme of a world-mission meant simply seizing certain centres of influence, to serve as earnest of Messiah's possession of all mankind on His return to take His great power and reign. Evangelization on the farther side of the parousia was the greater part of the whole. So we gather from this very epistle, as well as from 1 Cor. xv. 23-25 (and yet more clearly from Col. i. 23). In other ways, too, the Christianity of Paul and his age was relative to the parousia, both in theory and in practice {e.g. in its " ascetic " or " other worldly " attitude to life). This difference of perspective, and the ancient view of the world of spirits operating upon human life, are the chief things to be allowed for in reading his epistles.
Thus viewing things, how eagerly Paul must have looked westwards at this time. Yet his heart turned also to Judaea, „ « „ where he felt his line of march still threatened by tor Unity. '^^ danger of disunion in the very Body of Christ. At all cost this must be averted. The best hope lay in a practical exhibition of Gentile sympathy with the Mother
Church in Jerusalem, such as would be to it a token of the Holy Spirit as indwelling Paul's churches. The means for such a thank offering for benefits received ultimately from Jerusalem (Rom. XV. 27) had been collected with much patient labour, and the delegates to accompany Paul with it had already assembled at Corinth (xx. 4). Paul had intended to cross the Aegean from Corinth with his party, by the direct route to Syria. But a Jewish plot, probably to take effect on the voyage, caused him to start earlier by the j^rlsIVm" longer land-route, as far as Philippi, whence, after waiting to observe the Days of the Unleavened Bread, he sailed to join his fellow-almoners at Troas. There is no need to follow all the stages of what follows (see Ramsay, .S7 Paul the Traveller). But every personal touch is meant to tell, even Paul's walk from Troas to Assos, perhaps for solitary meditation, away from the crowded ship; and all serves to heighten the feehng that it was the path to death that Paul was already treading (xx. 23). This lies too at the heart of his impressive farewell to the Ephesian elders, a discourse which gives a vivid picture of his past ministry in Ephesus. Its burden, as Luke is at pains to emphasize by his comment upon the actual parting, is that " they should behold his face no more." The scene was repeated at Tyre; while at Caesarea, the last stage of all, the climax was reached, in Agabus's prophetic action and the ensuing dissuasion of all those about him. But Paul, though moved in his feelings, was not to be moved from his purpose. The party went forward, taking the precaution to secure Paul a trusty host on the road to Jerusalem in the person of Mnason, a Hellenist of Cyprus. He entered the holy city in good time to show his loyalty to the Jewish Feast of Pentecost. He was well received by James and the elders of the church. So far scholars are agreed, since the " we " form of narrative which began again at Philippi (xx. 5), reaches to Jerusalem this point. But as to the historical value of what follows, before " we " reappears with the start for Rome from Caesarea there is large diversity of opinion. The present writer, holding that " we " is no exclusive mark of the eyewitness, sees no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the narrative in Acts xxi. 19-xxvi.^ touching the Jewish outbreak against Paul and its sequel. Its significance for Paul's life is fairly clear, though we are not told what acceptance the Gentile offering of loyal love met with in the Jerusalem church as a whole. But that its general effect upon the comity of the two branches of the Messianic Ecclesia was good seems implied by the serene tone of Paul's later references to the unity of the Body (Eph. ii. 19-22; iii. 5 seq.). What does stand out clearly in Acts is all that bears on Paul's position as between the Jewish and the Roman authorities. Here we observe a gradual shifting of the charge against him, corresponding in part to the changes of venue. The more local elements recede, and those of interest to a Roman court emerge.
To the Jewish mob he is " the man that teacheth all men everj'where against the People, and the Law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the Temple " (xxi. 28). Before Felix, TertuUus describes him as " a pestilent fellow, and a mover of tumults among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, who also tried to profane the Temple" (xxiv. 5 seq.). Similarly among " the many and grievous " offences alleged before Festus (xxv. 7 seq.) we gather that one or more were
This is a valuable datum not only for Paul's own loyalty to the usages of Jewish piety, but also for the chronology of his life, as showing in the light of what follows the day of the week on which Passover fell that year, and so tending to fix the year as 56 or 57 (see above, Chronology).
^ These chapters contain passages as vivid and circumstantial as any in the " we " sections. As to the speeches, their fidelity naturally varies with the circumstances of delivery'; but in all there is that which could not be Luke's free composition. The verisimilitude of the demonstration of Paul's personal loyalty to forms of Jewish piety in connexion with the four men under vows (xxi. 23-27) IS complete, especially in view of Paul's own vow at Cenchreae and his regard for Jewish feasts; and even Paul's non-recognition of the high priest in what was not a regular session of the Sanhedrin (xxiii. 2-5), is quite probable. Other points hardly merit notice here; see Knowhng's Testimony of St Paxil, lect. xx.
