UC-NRLF 
 
 $B SI 71E 
 
^^mfm^ .& 
 
 
Iw 
 
 ^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^9H 
 
 |^^^^^^^^2^^9^^^H^^^^^^HpR 
 
 
 
 ^^K^9^^^^^^^^^^^^^^3^^^^l 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^^H 
 
 
oilft Intorattj} nf Qllfirago 
 
 THE CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY 
 IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY 
 
 OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE 
 
 IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 DEPARTMENT OE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE 
 GRADUATE DIVnnXY SCHOOL 
 
 BY 
 ALONZO WILLARD FORTUNE 
 
 Ji 
 
 Private Edition, Distributed By 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES 
 
 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 
 
 1918 
 
xi^'' 
 
 3>s*;^^T^ 
 
 tD%» Co Utg f Kit ipxtmm 
 
 George Banta Pubushino Company 
 Menasha, Wisconsin 
 
 :?:::' 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Pagb 
 
 INTRODUCTION 1 
 
 CHAPTER I. PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP 7 
 
 Claims to be an Apostle 7 
 
 His Rights and Authority as an Apostle .'. 15 
 
 CHAPTER II. DOCTRINAL ELEMENTS IN PAUL'S WRITINGS 21 
 
 God 21 
 
 Man and his World 26 
 
 Christology 32 
 
 The Christ of Faith 32 
 
 The Historical Jesus 35 . 
 
 The death of Christ 40 
 
 The pre-existent Christ 51 
 
 The Christof the Future Age .' 57 
 
 The New Life 60 
 
 Future Things 67 
 
 The progress of the gospel 67 
 
 The new age 74 
 
 CHAPTER III. PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM THE PREACHING 
 
 OF THE GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES 83 ^ 
 
 The Relation of the Law to the Gospel 83 ^ 
 
 The Christian's Relation to Idolatry 94 
 
 CHAPTER IV. SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE CHURCH 102 " 
 
 What the Church is 102 
 
 The Ordinances of the Church 106 
 
 Baptism 106 
 
 The Lord's Supper 112 
 
 The Worship of the Church 117 
 
 Spiritual Gifts 118 
 
 Conduct of Women in the Meetings 123 
 
 Church Discipline 126 
 
 Offerings for the Poor at Jerusalem 129 
 
 CHAPTER V. THE LIFE OF THE CHRISTIAN IN THE WORLD 135 
 
 The Christian in his Relation to Marriage 135 
 
 The Christian's Relation to Slavery 140 
 
 The Christian's Relation to the State 143 
 
 CHAPTER VI. IMPORTANCE OF THE SOURCES FROM WHICH PAUL 
 
 DERIVED TRUTH 146 
 
 Paul's Estimate of Experience 146 
 
 The Relation of Experience to his Jewish Inheritance 162 
 
 The Relation of Experience to the Life and Thought of the Medi- 
 terranean WORLD 171 
 
 The Relation of Experience to the Life and Thought of the Church 
 
 into which he entered 176 
 
 CONCLUSION 180 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 182 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/conceptionofauthOOfortrich 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 Importance of the Study 
 
 There is no more important subject in the field of religious thought 
 than the one which relates to authority. This subject is important 
 because of its bearing on the interpretation of religion. The con- 
 ception which one has of authority determines to a marked degree what 
 religion means to him, and when the basis of his religious authority 
 is shifted his idea of religion must be readjusted. Authority might be 
 defined as **that which is or may be appealed to in support of action 
 or opinion,"^ and according to that definition, rehgious authority is 
 that which is or may be appealed to in support of action or opinion in 
 matters pertaining to religion. 
 
 In determining what shall be the basis of our own rehgious author- 
 ity, it is necessary to study the subject in the light of its historical 
 development, and to do this, we must begin with a careful and critical 
 examination of the position of the New Testament writers, and of Paul 
 in particular. While Jesus was the^founder of Christianity it was Paul 
 who led in the organization of the church, and because of his writings, 
 he has exerted a tremendous influence on the thinking of all the succeed- 
 ing centuries. A study of Paul's conception of authority is interesting, 
 not merely from a historical point of view, but also because it helps us 
 in our effort to find a vital basis for our religion. 
 
 Writings Accepted as Pauline 
 Fortunately for us several of Paul's writings have been preserved, 
 and by means of these we are able to form a fairly accurate opinion 
 of what his thought was. In this discussion the following writings 
 will be used as the ones which express Paul's thought: I Thessalo- 
 nians, Galatians, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Romans, Philippians 
 and Philemon. These will be used because the scholarship of our day is 
 almost universally agreed that they are Pauline. There is a tendency 
 at the present time to take a more conservative position than was 
 commonly held a decade ago on the Pauline authorship of the entire 
 group of letters which bears his name. There are thirteen letters to 
 which the name of Paul is attached, but the genuineness of some of 
 these has been questioned by prominent scholars. Some writers have 
 regarded all these letters as spurious and have insisted that they belong 
 
 ^ See New Standard Dictionary. 
 
2 -'• '^ - ^CdHCEFnON O*! AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 to a later time. There is little ground, however, for such a position 
 and most scholars do not take seriously the contentions of those who 
 hold to it. The weight of scholarship for the genuineness of the group 
 named above is so overwhelming that they can be accepted, without 
 further discussion, as the basis of this treatise. 
 
 The Pastoral Epistles undoubtedly contain much Pauline material, 
 but it is now conceded by the majority of New Testament scholars that 
 in their present form they are not Pauline.^ Many still question the 
 Pauhne authorship of Colossians, although there is a growing tendency 
 in favor of its genuineness.^ A larger number doubt the Pauline author- 
 ship of Ephesians and II Thessalonians, although some who had formerly 
 rejected these books are now writing in their defense.'^ These letters, 
 the Pauline authorship of which has been questioned by many, may well 
 be neglected in this discussion, and no great loss will be sustained as 
 there is little additional material which they would contribute. 
 Significance of Paul's Writings for a Study of his Conception of 
 
 Authority 
 
 The material furnished by PauPs letters is well adapted to a study 
 of his conception of authority, as these letters were written to meet 
 specific needs in the churches, and these needs called for definite and 
 positive statements. There were controversies over matters of faith 
 and conduct, and Paul sought to settle these. He had been asked 
 definite questions pertaining to the Christian life, and he answered 
 these and gave his reasons for answering them as he did. While Paul 
 did not directly discuss the problem of authority in any of his letters, 
 yet his own conception of authority is reflected in each of them. He 
 did not write as a theologian to give the church a systematic state- 
 ment of doctrine; but being first of all a missionary, he wrote for a 
 missionary purpose. His letters were occasioned by real situations, 
 and they were based upon experience, and a brief statement of the cir- 
 
 2 For a brief statement of some of the most prominent writers see James Moffatt, 
 Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 1911, pp. 414 ff. 
 
 3 For a concise statement of the position of scholarship see James Moffatt, Intro- 
 duction to the Literature of the New Testament, 1911, pp. 153 ff. 
 
 * James Moffatt thinks Ephesians was probably "a catholicized version of Colos- 
 sians, written in Paul's name to Gentile Christendom {Introduction to the Literature of 
 the New Testament, 1911, p. 393), but in regard to II Thessalonians he says: "For all 
 the difficulties of the episde, it is fair to say that ahnost every one of the features 
 which seem to portray another physiognomy from that of Paul, can be explained, 
 without straining the evidence, upon the hypothesis that he wrote the epistle him- 
 self" {Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 1911, p. 79). 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 3 
 
 cumstances which produced them will reveal their practical character 
 and will also prepare the way for the further discussion. 
 
 / Thessalonians 
 Paul left Thessalonica under circumstances which made him anxious 
 about the welfare of the Christian community which he had gathered 
 together in that city. This anxiety prompted him to send Timothy from 
 Athens back to Thessalonica while he himself went on to Corinth (I 
 Thess. 3:1 ff.)- Timothy joined Paul at Corinth, and it appears that he 
 reported that although the Thessalonians were being persecuted, they 
 had remained true to the faith and were loyal to Paul. He also reported 
 that some of them were troubled about the fate of those of their num- 
 ber who had died. In the light of this report Paul wrote his letter, 
 and it is a practical discussion of these problems. 
 
 Galatians 
 The question whether Galatians was intended for the small district 
 which was the ancient kingdom of Galatia, or for the larger group of 
 churches in the Roman province of Galatia, is not vital in this discus- 
 sion, as the circumstances which led Paul to write it would be the same 
 in either case. Judaizers had followed Paul and had taught his Gentile 
 converts that it was necessary for them to keep the law in order to be 
 saved. They taught that faith in Christ was not sufficient, for in 
 addition to that, the Jewish rites and ceremonies must be kept. Many 
 of the Galatians were disturbed and even carried away by this teaching, 
 and the church was in confusion. Paul wrote the epistle to win them 
 back and estabhsh them in the true faith, and because of the circum- 
 stances, he was very definite in his statements. 
 
 The Corinthian Letters 
 There has been much discussion over the number of letters which 
 Paul wrote to Corinth, and over the component parts of II Corinthians. 
 It is evident that he wrote a letter to this church before the one which 
 is designated as I Corinthians (see I Cor. 5:9 ff.), and it is quite probable 
 that II Corinthians is a compilation of at least two letters. But inas- 
 much as I Corinthians and II Corinthians are almost universally accepted 
 as letters, or compilation of letters, written by Paul to the church at 
 Coriiith, any further discussion of the relation between these docu- 
 ments would not be germane to this treatise. 
 
4 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Paul was probably in Ephesus when he was informed by "them of 
 Chloe" (I Cor. 1:11) concerning the condition of the church in Corinth. 
 It was reported that there were divisions among the Christians, and 
 that there was fornication in the church. It was stated that Chris- 
 tians carried their difficulties into the courts, and that there was a 
 general tendency to immorahty. Paul had also received a letter from 
 the church (I Cor. 7:1), and it is quite likely that this letter was brought 
 by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (I Cor. 16:17). It is apparent 
 that this letter contained a number of questions which troubled the 
 Christians at Corinth. They asked him about various phases of the 
 marriage relation: whether it was advisable for a Christian to marry, 
 and if he should marry whether he was permitted to select a heathen 
 for his companion; what should be the Christian's attitude towards 
 sexual relations, divorce, the marrying of virgins, and the remarriage 
 of widows. They undoubtedly asked him concerning the eating of 
 meats which had been sacrificed to idols, and the conduct of their wor- 
 ship, especially as it related to spiritual gifts. It is quite probable 
 that they also asked him about the resurrection of the dead, and the 
 collection for the poor at Jerusalem. Perhaps the three messengers 
 confirmed the statement made by "them of Chloe" concerning the 
 evils, and also explained the circumstances which gave rise to the ques- 
 tions contained in the letter. Paul wrote I Corinthians to correct 
 these evils and to answer the practical questions put to him. 
 
 What is contained in our II Corinthians was written to meet the 
 situation which developed after the reception of I Corinthians. These 
 letters are especially valuable for the study of Paul's conception of 
 authority, for they were written to help to solve specific problems and 
 to answer definite questions, and he expressed himself in unmistakable 
 language. 
 
 Romans 
 It is not necessary, in this connection, to discuss the original destina- 
 tion of the last chapter of Romans, as it contains but little that would 
 throw any light on the subject under consideration. Paul was in 
 Corinth, and as he had preached the gospel in all the great centers of 
 the eastern part of the Roman Empire, he was thinking about going 
 to the West in search of new territory. His plan was to go to Spain 
 after making a visit to Jerusalem, and he was anxious to stop in Rome 
 on the way. He was troubled lest the campaign of the Judaizers should 
 extend to Rome, and he was anxious that the right type of Christianity 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 5 
 
 should prevail in the world's capital city, hence to instruct them and to 
 prepare for the visit which he was longing to make, he wrote this letter. 
 Romans is not a complete and systematic statement of Paul's doc- 
 trine, but it contains a very full discussion of some subjects which were 
 vital in his thinking, and consequently it is a valuable source for the 
 study of his notion of authority. 
 
 Philemon and Philippians 
 
 It is not necessary to enter into a lengthy discussion of the place 
 from which Paul wrote these two short letters, or of the question whether 
 Philippians was originally one document or two.^ Inasmuch as these 
 letters are generally accepted as PauHne, and the circumstances which 
 gave rise to them would be the same whether they were written from 
 Caesarea or from Rome, these problems can be passed over. 
 
 While Paul was in prison, Onesimus, who was a runaway-slave, 
 belonging to a Christian in Colossae by the name of Philemon, had come 
 under his influence and had become a Christian. Paul sent him back 
 to his master, and he also wrote a brief letter to Philemon, urging him 
 to receive his slave who had become a servant of Christ. Inasmuch 
 as this letter reflects Paul's convictions in regard to the right relationship 
 between master and servant, it throws some Hght on his idea of authority. 
 
 While Paul was in prison, Epaphroditus brought him gifts from the 
 Christians at Philippi and ministered to him in their behalf. When 
 Epaphroditus returned home he carried with him a letter to the church, 
 and while it is more personal in character than any of the rest of Paul's 
 letters, it contains the discussion of some questions and problems which 
 reflects his conception of authority. 
 
 Development of Paul's Thought 
 As is stated above, Paul wrote as a missionary and not as a theolo- 
 gian, and his letters should be studied with that purpose in mind. His 
 letters were written to correct errors and to give needed instruction, 
 
 ^ Bemhard Weiss (Lehrbmh der Einleitimg in das Neue Testament, 1897, pp. 
 236 ff.) and Carl Clemen (Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe aufs neue Unter- 
 sucht, 1893, pp. 249 ff.) maintain that Philemon was written during the imprison- 
 ment at Caesarea. O. Holtzmann (Theologische Litteratungzeitung, 1890, p. 177) 
 and Friedrich Spitta (Apostelgeschichte ihre Quellen und der Geschichtlicher Wert, 
 1891, p. 281) think it most probable that Philippians was written during the Caesarean 
 imprisonment, while Carl Clemen {Die Chronologie der paidinischen Briefe aufs neue 
 Untersucht, 1893, p. 197) believes it is composed of two original documents, the first 
 having been written at Caesarea, and the second at Rome. 
 
6 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 and in them his own thoughts and feehngs at the time were expressed. 
 His thought undoubtedly developed under the influence of new situa- 
 tions, but it is not likely that there is as much development in his writ- 
 ings as some would have us believe. A marked development in his 
 writings should not be expected, inasmuch as they all fall within a 
 period of fifteen or eighteen years, and the first letter was not written 
 for about that length of time after his conversion, and his Christian 
 thought had already become quite definitely formulated. 
 
 The occasion which led Paul to write a given letter naturally gave 
 it a pecuHar character, and when conditions changed, as they sometimes 
 did very rapidly because of controversies, his thought was undoubtedly 
 changed by the new situation. 
 
 Method of Procedure 
 
 After making a careful study of the writings accepted as Pauline, 
 a selection has been made of the most important subjects which are 
 discussed in these writings. A study is made of each of these subjects 
 to determine the sources from which Paul derived what he regarded as 
 truth. This study is arranged under five different heads: his apostle- 
 ship, the doctrinal elements in his writings, the problems arising out 
 of the establishment of Christianity in the Gentile world, the church, 
 and the life of the Christian in the world. In each of these five chapters 
 there is a brief statement of Paul's teaching on the subject under con- 
 sideration, and then an attempt is made to determine the sources which 
 influenced him in forming his conceptions. The writer's purpose in 
 these chapters is to ascertain the sources from which Paul believed he 
 could derive truth, and to which he felt appeal could be made in support 
 of action or opinion. 
 
 The last chapter is a discussion of the various sources from which 
 Paul either consciously or unconsciously derived what he accepted as 
 truth, and the purpose in this part of the discussion is to determine the 
 relation of these sources to each other and their relative value for Paul. 
 The rest of the treatise furnishes the basis for the quest of this last 
 chapter, which is to find the standard by which Paul estimated truth, 
 for such a standard, whether he realized it or not, was for him ultimate 
 authority. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP 
 
 Claims to be an Apostle 
 
 Statement of his Position 
 
 Paul's defense of his apostleship furnishes a good opportunity to 
 study his conception of the nature and basis of what was for him author- 
 ity in rehgion, and what he beUeved he had a right to insist on as author- 
 ity for others. His apostleship had not been called in question in 
 Thessalonica when he wrote I Thessalonians, hence no defense of it is 
 made in this letter. He did not even designate himself as an apostle, 
 but he began the letter with the simple greeting — "Paul and Silvanus 
 and Timothy unto the church of the Thessalonians." The situation 
 was very different in Galatia. Judaizing teachers, in order that they 
 might more successfully oppose Paul's gospel, had questioned his apos- 
 tolic authority. Paul knew his labors in Galatia would end in failure, 
 if there was any doubt in the minds of those whom he had led to Christ 
 about his being an apostle; hence in his letter to these churches he 
 vigorously defended his apostleship. Even the greeting is significant — 
 "Paul, an apostle, not from men, neither through man, but through 
 Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." 
 
 Paul was confronted by the same situation in Corinth that he had 
 to overcome in Galatia. There were those who sought to undermine 
 his work, and, in their opposition to him, they maintained that he was 
 not an apostle. It seems that there was some one who was a leader 
 in the Corinthian Church that strenuously opposed the apostle Paul 
 (n Cor. 2:5-11; 7:11, 12), and that certain persons, who perhaps con- 
 stituted the Christ-party, denied that he was an apostle. Those who 
 constituted this latter class insisted that they belonged to Christ in 
 a sense in which Paul did not (II Cor. 10:7; 11:23).^ Paul asserted 
 
 ^ Many writers hold that there was not a separate party in Corinth called the 
 Christ-party. Some believe €70? Se xpto^ToO in I Cor. 1:12 is antithetical to the other 
 phrases rather than co-ordinate with them. According to this theory the passage 
 should read: "Now this I mean that each says 'I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos, and 
 I of Cephas' — but I am of Christ." That is the position of Rabiger in Kritische 
 U titer suchungen iiber den Inhalt der beiden Briefen an die Korinthische Gemeinde, 
 second edition, 1886. Klirsopp Lake recognizes that there are objections to this view, 
 but he thinks it is the most reasonable interpretation that has been given (See The 
 Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, 1911, pp. 127 f.). Other writers think e^tb 8k xp'^tov is an 
 interpolation. That is the position of J. Weiss in Der Erste Korinther Brief, 1910. 
 
8 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 his apostleship in the greetings in both I Corinthians and II Corinthians, 
 and he defended this claim throughout the letters. 
 
 Paul had not been in Rome at the time when Romans was written, 
 and it is not probable that any campaign had been waged against him in 
 that community, hence he did not deem it necessary to defend his apos- 
 tleship in that letter. The fact, however, that his apostleship had been 
 questioned in other communities led him to assert it in the greeting. 
 
 The church at Philippi was always loyal to Paul, and there was no 
 occasion for a defense of his apostleship, or even a reference to it, in 
 his letter to that church. He did not feel called upon to make any 
 reference to his apostolic claim in his personal letter to Philemon, 
 but merely referred to himself as *'a prisoner of the Lord Jesus. " 
 
 It is doubtful whether the Twelve recognised Paul as an apostle 
 on an equality with themselves; at least it does not seem that they 
 ever formally gave him this recognition. In defending himself against 
 the attacks of the Judaizers, Paul never claimed the support of the 
 Twelve, and it is quite probable he would have done so had they form- 
 ally recognized his apostolic authority, for this would have been the 
 strongest argument he could have used against his objectors. He did 
 say the leaders at Jerusalem gave to him and Barnabas "the right hand 
 of fellowship," commending them to the work among the Gentiles; but 
 that seems to have been as far as they went in the matter. 
 
 A careful study of the four great epistles must convince one that 
 while there were those who denied Paul's apostleship, he regarded 
 himself as an apostle with the same authority as the others. He de- 
 clared he was not self-appointed, but that he had a divine commission 
 for his work. He had been made an apostle, not by men, but by Jesus 
 Christ and God the Father (Gal. 1 :1 ; I Cor. 1 :1 ; II Cor. 1 :1 ; Rom. 1 :5). 
 
 The Basis of his Claim 
 
 In the discussion of his apostolic appointment, Paul made his own 
 Christian experience fundamental. He was absolutely certain that he 
 was an apostle and that he had been divinely commissioned, and this 
 conviction was the result of his own personal experience. Experience 
 is a comprehensive term because everything which touches life may be 
 included under it, but it has different aspects, and our present problem 
 is to make a study of these to determine the sources from which Paul 
 derived the elements which became a part of his experience. There 
 were two aspects of the experience upon which he based his apostolic 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 9 
 
 claim: one was in connection with his conversion, and the other with 
 
 his missionary activities. 
 
 a. His conversion-experiences. 
 
 Paul believed he had passed through a real and vital experience 
 at the beginning of his Christian life, and it was this which separated 
 him from Judaism and committed him to the new faith. He also 
 believed it was in connection with this experience, which we call con- 
 version, that he received his apostolic commission, 
 (a). His conversion a revelation of Christ in him. 
 
 Paul said God called him through his grace to reveal his Son in 
 him, and the purpose of this revelation was that he might preach him 
 among the Gentiles. It is evident from what follows that Paul was 
 thinking of a very definite experience when he referred to God's re- 
 vealing his Son in him, and this came at the very beginning of his Chris- 
 tian career, for immediately after the statement about the revelation, 
 he said: ''Straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither 
 went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I 
 went into Arabia" (Gal. 1 :16, 17). Paul frequently referred to an expe- 
 rience which was paramount to all others, and it must have been in 
 connection with his conversion. At this time Christ laid hold upon 
 him (Phil. 3:12), and this laying hold was in a forceful and violent 
 manner, for he likened his entrance into the Christian life to that of 
 a child that had been abortively born (I Cor. 15:5-10). Paul felt that 
 inasmuch as God had laid hold upon him and had compelled him to 
 become a follower of Christ, there must have been a divine purpose in 
 what he was doing, and that purpose was to make him Christ's ambassa- 
 dor. Paul preached because necessity had been laid upon him (I Cor. 
 9:16). He was an apostle, not because he had sought the position, nor 
 because he had been appointed by men, but because Christ had com- 
 missioned him. This experience, which Paul interpreted as a revelation 
 of Christ in him, and which he believed was his call to be an apostle, 
 was something that was very definite in his thinking, and it was so vital 
 that it was for him authoritative. Paul believed this was something 
 which came into his life suddenly and that it completely transformed 
 him. Up to this time he had regarded Jesus as an impostor and had 
 persecuted his followers; but from the time of this experience, he con- 
 sidered Jesus his Master and was devoted to his cause. Regardless of 
 what the outward circumstances may have been, it is evident that Paul 
 beUeved he had come into possession of a new power and that his life 
 had been transformed and his religious thinking had been changed. He 
 
10 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 thought of himself as one who had died and had been raised to life 
 again. Old things had passed away, and all things had become new. 
 What he had once counted as great gain, he now counted as dross. Paul 
 beUeved he had frequent visions and revelations and that these were 
 given to guide him in the great crises of Ufe. It was by revelation 
 that he went up to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles about 
 circumcision (Gal. 2:2). But he regarded the revelation which made 
 him an apostle as different from any of these; it turned his life into new 
 channels. After that revelation he began to preach the faith which he 
 had been zealous to destroy. In this conversion-experience God had 
 revealed his Son in him. At this time he had seen the glory of God 
 shining in the face of Christ (II Cor. 4:6). 
 
 We are not concerned in this connection with a psychological expla- 
 nation of Paul's conversion-experience.^ Regardless of the theories 
 which may be advanced to explain the change in Paul's life, or of what 
 the facts actually were, it is evident that he believed he had seen Jesus 
 (I Cor. 9:1), and he also beheved the appearance of Jesus to him was as 
 real as it had been to the other disciples (I Cor. 9:1; 15:5-8). Paul 
 did not regard his vision of Christ as an optical illusion. The word 
 used in I Cor. 15:8 i&cpdrj) is the same which occurs in Lk. 24:34 in con- 
 nection with Christ's appearance to Peter. Paul undoubtedly believed 
 he had seen Jesus, and he was certain that this appearance was for the 
 purpose of making him an apostle, 
 (b). The revelation of Christ, the possession of his gospel. 
 
 Paul said he did not receive his gospel from man '' but it came through 
 revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:12). The reason Paul connected 
 the revelation of Christ in him with his call to be an apostle was the 
 conviction that it furnished him his gospel, and the possession of his 
 gospel was his call to preach it. To his mind his message and his apos- 
 tleship were inseparable. He knew the gospel which he preached 
 was from God (I Thess. 2:2, 8), and the fact that God had entrusted the 
 gospel to him was sufficient proof to his mind that he had divine approval 
 (I Thess. 2:4). 
 
 «W. Wrede {PauLus, 1907, pp. 17 f., EngHsh translation, 1908, p. 22 f.) maintains 
 that Paul was of a morbid temperament, and that he was quite likely subject to epi- 
 leptic fits, and that his conversion is to be explained in the light of these conditions. 
 Other writers hold to this or similar theories. F. C. Conybeare {Myth, Magic and 
 Morals, 1910, p. 4; also appendix, p. 363) asserts that this explains not only Paul's con- 
 version, but his other visions and revelations as well. 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 11 
 
 Paul's statement in the letter to the Galatians that the gospel which 
 he preached was ''not after man," for he did not receive it from man, 
 nor was he taught it, "but it came through revelation of Jesus Christ," 
 is open to different interpretations. Did Paul mean to be understood 
 as saying that in his conversion-experience there had been revealed to 
 him all the historical data which he possessed concerning Jesus, or 
 did he mean to state that these had been made known to him in the 
 visions of later years? Or did he mean something entirely different?' 
 It is not probable that Paul meant to state that he had received through 
 revelation the historical data concerning Jesus, for he had many oppor- 
 tunities to know these from other sources. Paul was not arguing in 
 the Galatian letter that he did not have opportunity to learn from men 
 the story of the life of Jesus, for he said he was with Peter fifteen days, 
 and that would have furnished ample opportunity to go over the story 
 repeatedly. It seems very probable that one of the motives which 
 took him to Jerusalem at that time was to hear from Peter the story 
 about Jesus. What Paul was insisting on was that no apostohc coun- 
 cil was called to take action on his apostleship. He went up to Jerusalem 
 after three years, but his purpose was to have a friendly interview with 
 Peter, and the rest of the apostles were not connected with the visit 
 in any way. He said he saw James, the Lord's brother, but his reference 
 to his meeting with him would indicate that it was incidental and had 
 no significance in connection with his visit at Jerusalem. Paul insisted 
 that the gospel which he preached among the Galatians was divine, for 
 he had received it through revelation of Jesus Christ; and this revelation 
 was not a disclosing of the historical data, and as will be indicated 
 later, these were merely incidental in his message. 
 
 It is not probable that Paul meant to affirm that he had received 
 through revelation the whole system of doctrine he was to preach. The 
 revelation of Christ, which was the basis of Paul's gospel, revolutionized 
 his religious thinking, and it required some time for him to readjust 
 himseK to this new experience. He said that after God had revealed 
 his Son in him, he went straightway into Arabia (Gal. 1 :15-17), and there 
 
 ' F. C. Conybeare {Myth, Magic and Morals, 1910, pp. 251 S.) says Paul meant 
 to state that the historical data concerning the life of Jesus had been made known 
 to him in visions and revelations. He argues at length that Paul insisted that he did 
 not receive the story of the Ufe of Jesus from men, but that it came through "visions 
 and private revelations of his own. " He says Paul's gospel, and by this he means 
 the historical statements concerning the life of Jesus, "had nothing to do with what 
 the companions of Jesus remembered of their Master's life and conversations." 
 
12 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 has been much discussion about the purpose of this visit. Some recent 
 writers hold that Paul meant to affirm that as soon as he had received 
 his revelation he went into Arabia and began his missionary career.* 
 Paul may have done some preaching in Arabia, but he was not ready to 
 preach immediately after his conversion-experience. He was a thinker, 
 and before he could begin his missionary activities it was necessary for 
 him to have a consistent gospel. The basis of this gospel was the revela- 
 tion of Christ in him, and one purpose for his going into Arabia must 
 have been to have an opportunity to study the whole subject of religion 
 in the light of this revelation. When Paul had adjusted his idea of 
 religion to his new experience he had his message, and he was then 
 ready to preach it. 
 
 Through the revelation that was made to him Paul became convinced 
 that Jesus, instead of being an impostor, was in reality the Messiah. 
 He became convinced that the one who had died upon the cross was still 
 living and was his Lord, and that he was the one to whom all men owed 
 allegiance, and that they could be saved through faith in him. This 
 was his gospel, and the revelation of this truth was his call from God 
 to proclaim it, and when he had readjusted his thinking to this revela- 
 tion he was ready for his work. Paul could say he did not receive 
 his gospel from men, for Christ was the center of his gospel, and he 
 beheved it was through revelation that he had come to know Christ. 
 Paul's enemies tried to undermine his work by questioning his apostle- 
 ship. They insisted that inasmuch as he was not one of the group that 
 had been selected by Christ, and he had not even been set apart by this 
 original group, he had no right to claim apostolic authority. Paul met 
 this criticism by insisting that he was not behind the pillar apostles, 
 for Christ had appeared to him and had given him his commission. He 
 said he did not need appointment by the other apostles, and he virtual- 
 
 * Elirsopp Lake thinks it quite probable that Paul went into Arabia to preach, 
 and that this was the field of his first missionary activities. According to Lake, 
 Paul was arguing that he was divinely commissioned to preach and did not need the 
 sanction of the leaders of the church, hence instead of going to Jerusalem to secure 
 their endorsement, he went into Arabia and began his work. He says: "The antithe- 
 sis is not between conferring with flesh and blood in Jerusalem, and conferring with 
 God in the desert, but between obeying immediately the commission of God to preach 
 to the Gentiles, and going to some human source in Jerusalem in order to obtain 
 authority or additional instruction." He thinks Paul's argument requires the sense: 
 "As soon as I received my divine commission I acted upon it at once, without consult- 
 ing anyone, and began to preach in Arabia" (The Earlier Epistles of St. Paid, 1911, 
 pp. 320 ff.). 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 13 
 
 ly declared that he avoided them, for instead of going to Jerusalem, he 
 went into Arabia.^ 
 
 It is very probable that Paul would be anxious to visit some of 
 the leaders of the church before he entered upon any very aggressive 
 campaign. After his visit with Peter for the purpose of talking with 
 him about the gospel and hearing from him all he knew about Jesus, he 
 went to his work in the regions of Syria and Cilicia; but he was still 
 unknown by face to the churches of Judea. He sought to make it 
 emphatic that he was working independently, yet he called attention to 
 the fact that although he had not been sent out by the churches and was 
 not even known by face to them, they kept in touch with him and were 
 in sympathy with his work, for they heard that he that had once perse- 
 cuted the church was preaching the faith of which he had once made 
 havoc, and they glorified God in him. 
 (c). The possession of his gospel of justification by faith, his call to be an 
 
 apostle to the Gentiles. 
 
 Although Paul preached the gospel to his own countrymen and 
 longed for their salvation, yet so much of his time and energy was 
 given to the Gentiles that he was regarded as the apostle to the Gentiles, 
 and he so designated himself (Rom. 11:13). The question is naturally 
 raised whether Paul realized the extent of his mission as soon as he had 
 readjusted his thinking to his conversion-experience, or whether it 
 was his missionary activities which led him to interpret his call as being 
 to the Gentiles. Some writers maintain that the universal character 
 of Paul's gospel was due to his experiences after he began preaching. 
 They hold that the opposition which the Jews manifested to Paul's 
 preaching, and the eagerness of the Gentiles to receive his message, 
 led him to the conviction that his mission was to the Gentile world.* 
 The reception which his gospel received did undoubtedly confirm him in 
 
 ' Carl von Weizsacker believes Paul avoided Jerusalem until he had become ad- 
 justed to his new experiences because he felt that the spirit of the Jerusalem Church 
 was not in harmony with the truth which had been revealed to him; but after he had 
 meditated upon his experience from every point of view, and his gospel had become 
 formulated, he decided to visit the leaders of the church {Das Apostolische Zeitalter 
 Der christlichen Kirche, 1901, pp. 78 ff.). It is very doubtful whether Paul knew the 
 Jerusalem type of Christianity well enough to have come to this conclusion, and if 
 the account in Acts is accepted as trustworthy, the Jerusalem Christianity with which 
 he had come in close touch was the more liberal t)rpe represented by Stephen. 
 
 * That is the position of Bemhard Weiss (Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue 
 Testament, 1897, pp. 119 &., English translation, Vol. I, p. 154), and also of George 
 Barker Stevens (The Pauline Theology, 1906, p. 21). 
 
14 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 the conviction that it was for the Gentiles, but according to his own 
 interpretation, his call to be an apostle to the Gentile world came with 
 the revelation of Christ in him (Gal. 1:15-24). While it necessarily 
 required some time for Paul to fully comprehend the significance of 
 his call, yet he would scarcely have made the solemn declaration that 
 he was not lying, if he had realized that he had been led into the Gentile 
 mission through the experience of after years. ^ 
 b. The experiences connected with his missionary activities. 
 
 Paul insisted that his apostleship was attested by its fruits. The 
 fact that he had been doing the work of an apostle was indisputable 
 evidence that he had divine sanction for his missionary activities. 
 The basis of his appeal to the leaders at Jerusalem for their approval 
 of the work he was doing was the fruits of his labors (Gal. 2:1-9). Paul 
 did not go to Jerusalem to be appointed an apostle, nor to have his 
 apostleship confirmed by the original group; he merely wanted their 
 sanction to what he had been doing, for he had reached a crisis, and 
 without their approval, his work was in danger of failing (Gal. 2:2). 
 It was expediency that prompted Paul to seek the support of the leaders 
 at Jerusalem, for they were held in high esteem by the whole church, 
 and he knew if they commended the work he was doing he would be 
 able to overcome the antagonistic influence of the Judaizers. Person- 
 ally it did not make any difference to him what they were (Gal. 2:6), 
 but it did to others, and he was willing to do anything that was honorable 
 to make the cause of Christ triumphant. Paul sought an interview 
 with the leaders first, and after he had their approval, it was easy to 
 secure the support of the larger group. He placed before them the 
 gospel which he had preached among the Gentiles, and showed them 
 the fruits of his labors, and when they perceived the grace that had 
 been bestowed on him and his companion, they gave them the right 
 hand of fellowship that they should go to the Gentiles. The leaders at 
 Jerusalem saw that as God had wrought for Peter unto the apostleship 
 of the circumcision, so he had wrought for Paul unto the Gentiles, and 
 they gladly commended the work he was doing. In other words, the 
 apostles and leaders at Jerusalem, whom all the churches recognized, 
 gave their sanction to Paul and his gospel, because the success of his 
 work was an indication that it had the approval of God. 
 
 In his appeal to the churches for apostolic sanction, Paul empha- 
 sized the fruits of his labors. He told the Galatians that while the 
 
 ' See A. B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity , 1894, p. 41. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 15 
 
 churches in Judea did not know him by face, yet they had heard of the 
 success of his work, and they glorified God because of what he was 
 doing (Gal. 1:18-24). In his letters to the Corinthians, he insisted 
 that they should regard him as an apostle because he had done among 
 them the work of an apostle. In reply to the criticism of those in 
 Corinth who maintained that he was not an apostle, he referred to his 
 labors in their midst. He told them that regardless of what the atti- 
 tude of others might be, they ought to consider him an apostle, because 
 he had done among them the work of an apostle. He said: "If to 
 others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine 
 apostleship are ye in the Lord" (I Cor. 9:2). It would seem that the 
 Judaizers brought letters of commendation from influential people at 
 Jerusalem, but Paul said he did not need such testimonials, for the 
 Christians at Corinth were his letters of commendation, written by the 
 spirit of the living God. The churches that had been founded by apos- 
 tles had a feeUng of pride in their apostolic origin, and Paul assured 
 the Corinthians that they were not behind the rest of the churches in 
 this regard, for he was not inferior to the chiefest of the apostles. His 
 credentials were presented to them through signs and wonders and 
 mighty works (II Cor. 12:11, 12). When Paul thought of himself in 
 the light of his career as a persecutor, he felt he was not worthy to be 
 called an apostle (I Cor. 15:9); but when he thought of himself in the 
 light of his Christian labors, he believed he was second to none. 
 
 His Rights and Authority as an Apostle 
 To be an apostle was not to possess an empty title, according to 
 Paul's thinking; it carried with it certain rights and responsibihties. 
 He was wilhng to bear the responsibilities, and he also insisted on his 
 rights. 
 
 To Claim Support 
 a. The claim stated. 
 
 Paul believed he was an apostle of equal standing with the others, 
 and he also believed he had equal rights with the others. Among these 
 rights which he could claim, if he desired to do so, was that of support 
 by the church where he was laboring (I Cor. 9:1-14). While he was 
 preaching in Corinth he did not live at the expense of the community, 
 but by means of his own labors, assisted by the help received from 
 Macedonia, he lived without claiming support from the people for 
 whom he was giving his time. It seems that some of his enemies used 
 this as an argument against his apostleship (II Cor. 11:7). In reply 
 
16 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 to their statements, Paul said he had a right to claim support, but he 
 did not do it because he wanted to take away from any in the regions 
 of Achaia the occasion of glorying, and in order that he might do this, 
 he was willing to rob other churches that he might labor in Corinth 
 without being at their expense. 
 
 The principle which Paul announced in his letters to the Corinthians 
 undoubtedly represented his general attitude. He believed he had the 
 right to claim support, but when he thought it was best for the work he 
 was doing he provided for himself, or received aid from other commu- 
 nities, 
 b. Basis of his claim. 
 
 (a) Experience. 
 
 The first argument which Paul used to prove his claim was based 
 on analogy, and this was an appeal to their common experience. The 
 analogies which he employed were of such a character that the Corin- 
 thians would be famiUar with them. These were not given as conclu- 
 sive argument, but they served to lay the foundation for argument 
 which he did regard as conclusive. He said the soldier does not fight at 
 his own charges, but he is supported by the country he serves. The 
 man who plants a vineyard eats of the fruit of the vineyard and the man 
 who feeds a flock eats of the milk of the flock (I Cor. 9:7). Paul did 
 not draw his conclusions from these analogies, but the implied argument 
 is evident: if a soldier is supported by the country he is serving, and 
 the man who plants a vineyard or feeds a flock is provided for by the 
 vineyard or the flock, then the man who preaches the gospel has the 
 right to claim maintenance from those for whom he is laboring. 
 
 (b) His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 Paul felt that analogy would not be sufficient proof for the Corin- 
 thians. That was speaking after the manner of men, and he wanted 
 a statement that would be unanswerable. The Old Testament fur- 
 nished this, for the law teaches the very thing that he had pointed out 
 by analogy: ''For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle 
 the ox when he treadeth out the corn. " According to our method of 
 interpreting Scripture, this passage which Paul quoted from Deut. 25:4 
 might be used as an illustration, but it could not be given any more 
 significance than that. Paul, however, because of his rabbinical train- 
 ing, allegorized the passage and put a meaning into it which was foreign 
 to its original import. He said when God commanded the Israelites 
 not to muzzle the ox when it was treading out the corn but to leave its 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 17 
 
 mouth free so that it might eat some of the grain as a reward for its 
 labor, he was not thinking of the ox but of the apostles who were to 
 come centuries later, and he commanded this for their sakes. 
 
 Having given a direct citation from the Scriptures to prove his 
 contention, Paul further substantiated it by a familiar illustration 
 from the religion of Judaism. He referred to the priests who ate the 
 things in the temple where they ministered, and implied that this was 
 according to the law of Moses, quoted above. 
 (c) The teachings of Jesus. 
 
 As the chmax of his argument, Paul stated the teachings of Jesus: 
 "Even so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the gospel should 
 live of the gospel. " It is evident that 6 Kuptos refers to Christ, and that 
 Paul intended to place the teachings of Jesus concerning the support of 
 apostles alongside the teachings of the Old Testament.^ Just as God 
 had ordained that those who minister in the temple should eat of the 
 things of the temple, so Christ declared that those who preach the 
 gospel should be supported by those for whom they are laboring. Paul 
 undoubtedly knew some statement of Jesus Uke that which is recorded 
 in Matt. 10:10 or Lk. 10:7, 8. 
 
 In establishing his right to claim support, Paul appealed first to 
 the common experience of mankind, and then he sought to show that 
 the Old Testament and Jesus himself commanded that this maintenance 
 should be given. 
 
 To determine the character of the gospel preached among the Gentiles 
 a. Statement of his claim. 
 
 As an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul believed he had authority to 
 determine the character of the gospel that should be preached in the 
 Gentile world. He said nothing about the type of gospel that should 
 be preached in Jewish communities. He was willing that Cephas and 
 James and John should go to the circumcision and preach the gospel as 
 they understood it; but he wanted to be left alone in his own territory 
 to preach the gospel which had been revealed to him, and which had 
 been demonstrated to be efifective in the transformation of the Gentiles. 
 He bitterly denounced the Judaizers who came into his field, and he 
 hurled anathemas against those who should proclaim any other gospel 
 than that which he had preached (Gal. 1:8, 9). Paul rebuked Peter 
 when he came into his territory and assumed an attitude that was not 
 in harmony with the gospel which the Gentiles had received (Gal. 2:11- 
 14). 
 
 • See Int. Crit, Com. on I Cor. 9:14. 
 
18 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 b. The basis of his claim. 
 
 Paul felt absolutely certain about his right to determine the char- 
 acter of the gospel which should be preached in the Gentile world, and 
 his conviction was the result of experience. His plan of labor was 
 determined by the character of his gospel, for this made him the apostle 
 to the Gentiles. According to Rom. 15:20, he would not build upon 
 another man's foundation. His aim was to preach the gospel where 
 Christ had not aheady been named. The question is naturally raised 
 as to what Paul meant by not building on another man's foundation. 
 He said he had preached the gospel from Jerusalem and round about even 
 unto Illyricum, and was planning to go to Spain to find new territory. 
 He said he was intending to stop in Rome on the way and that this 
 would be the fruition of the desire of many years. He declared he was 
 ready to preach the gospel to those who were in Rome, although a church 
 had already been estabhshed there of which he evidently was not the 
 founder. This would seem to indicate that while he had not established 
 the church at Rome, he considered this a part of his field of labor. His 
 field was the Gentile world, or those communities which had received 
 the Gentile type of Christianity (Rom. 1:5, 6, 13; 15:14-16). Paul had 
 seen the Gentiles accept the gospel which he preached, and had witnessed 
 its transforming influence upon their lives, and it was the conviction 
 that this gospel was adapted to the needs of the Gentile world that 
 made him feel that this territory was his and that his authority, as an 
 apostle, to determine the type of gospel which should be preached in 
 this territory was supreme. 
 
 In his BLTgument with Peter, Paul appealed to their common experi- 
 ence to support his contention (Gal. 2:11 ff.). When Peter came to 
 Antioch and saw the power of the gospel over the Gentiles, he was 
 delighted and entered into their fellowship, and even ate with them. 
 But when certain came from James, perhaps for the purpose of spying 
 on Peter as well as on Paul, policy induced him to draw back. Because 
 he was afraid of the influence of these spies, he separated himself from 
 the Gentiles, "fearing them that were of the circumcision." This 
 conduct of Peter threatened to wreck the work at Antioch, as it caused 
 the Jews to dissemble, and even Barnabas was carried away. When Paul 
 saw what Peter had done, he rebuked him, for he knew he "walked not 
 uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." To get Peter to see 
 the error of his course, he appealed to their common experience. He 
 said although they were Jews, they knew that a man was justified by 
 faith in Christ and not by works of the law; and inasmuch as they 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 19 
 
 had forsaken the works of the law because they had not been helped by 
 them, they should not seek to build them up again. 
 
 Not to Exercise Lordship over the Faith of Others 
 
 a. Statement of his position. 
 
 Although Paul claimed that his being an apostle to the Gentiles 
 entitled him to determine the character of the gospel that should be 
 preached in the Gentile world, yet he did not feel that he had the right 
 to exercise lordship over the faith of others. He claimed authority 
 to keep out of his field any who would enslave the Gentile Christians, 
 but he did not believe it was within his province to force the faith of 
 even Gentiles into his mold. He said he did not seek to have lordship 
 over the faith of others, but he was merely their helper (II Cor. 1:24). 
 
 Paul knew he had been divinely called to be an apostle, and he be- 
 lieved this gave him certain authority as a teacher. His message was 
 the one which God gave him. His wisdom was of God rather than of 
 this world. He praised the Corinthians for having received the tradi- 
 tions as he had delivered them (I Cor. 11:2). He told the Thessalo- 
 nians that he and his associates might have claimed authority as apostles 
 of Christ (I Thess. 2:6). In his relation to the Corinthians he some- 
 times seemed to try to force them to do his bidding regardless of their 
 own wishes, but this was in matters pertaining to conduct, and he assured 
 them that his only motive in his insistence was to help them. He be- 
 lieved authority had been given him by the Lord, but that it was for 
 the purpose of building up the churches and not for the purpose of 
 tearing them down (II Cor. 10:8; 13:10); that being true, he could exer- 
 cise this authority only as it would contribute to the building up of 
 Christians. 
 
 b. The basis of his conviction. 
 
 It is not always easy to explain the process by which one*s convic- 
 tions are formed. Sometimes Paul's argument is stated so definitely 
 that it is not difficult to determine what he thought was the basis of 
 his judgment on a certain matter, but quite frequently that is not the 
 case. He did not state what it was that led him to feel that he did not 
 have the right to exercise lordship over the faith of others, but it was 
 undoubtedly his own experience. Faith was for him a personal matter; 
 it was the result of Christ's laying hold upon him. Others might help 
 him in the matter of faith, but they could not compel him. PauPs 
 experience had convinced him that faith was a personal matter for 
 others also; it was the result of Christ's having entered into their lives. 
 Inasmuch as faith concerns the individual and his Master, not even an 
 apostle has the right to exercise lordship over it. 
 
20 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 There are many influences which determine one's relation to life 
 and the interpretation of his various experiences. If Paul were living 
 in our day and had our psychological and philosophical conceptions, he 
 would interpret his experiences very different from what he did. Each 
 man has a mental attitude which determines to a large extent his reac- 
 tion to his environment. Paul's mental attitude was that of a devout 
 Jew who believed God was outside man's world and occasionally broke 
 into it in a miraculous manner for the accomplishment of a particular 
 purpose. He had heard of Jesus through the Christians whom he was 
 persecuting. He had heard their declarations that God had raised him 
 from the dead, and that he was now living as their Messiah, and he had 
 heard them plead with others to accept him as their Messiah. Although 
 he had not found satisfaction in his religion, the Christians were re- 
 joicing in theirs. Without being conscious of it, Paul was passing 
 through a crisis, and the journey for the purpose of persecution com- 
 pelled him to think over the experiences of the Christians in the light 
 of his own, and this helped to prepare him for a radical change. He 
 became convinced that the Christians were right in their claims, and 
 that he was opposing God by his persecutions. He suddenly stopped 
 in his career, and accepted the Christ of the Christians. Paul regarded 
 this change as a revelation of Christ. He believed God had entered 
 into his world in a miraculous manner, and that the purpose of this 
 revelation was to make him an apostle. He was absolutely certain that 
 he was an apostle, because God had miraculously appointed him. He 
 believed his authority had been handed down from heaven. Paul 
 believed his apostleship was attested by supernatural signs (II Cor. 12:11 
 ff.). No one had the right to doubt his claim, because "by signs and 
 wonders and mighty works" he had demonstrated his apostleship. He 
 also believed God had ratified his apostolic appointment by the success 
 which he had given him. The victories which his gospel had won in 
 the Gentile world were convincing proof that God had given his sanc- 
 tion to what he was doing. 
 
 Paul knew that God had bestowed upon him special prerogatives. 
 He knew he had authority to claim support and to determine the type 
 of gospel which should be preached in the Gentile world, and he knew he 
 had authority over others as long as he used it for their upbuilding. 
 He made use of the Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus to verify his 
 claims, but the real proof for Paul himself was his own experience. God 
 had entered into his life in a miraculous manner and had given him 
 special powers, and this meant special authority for him. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 DOCTRINAL ELEMENTS IN PAUL'S WRITINGS 
 
 Paul wrote, not as a theologian, but as a religious teacher, and 
 the one who studied his writings to find a system of theology would 
 fail to understand him. Not even in Romans did he attempt to state 
 his doctrine in systematic form. He was, first of all, a missionary, 
 and all his letters had a missionary purpose. But while Paul did not 
 write as a theologian, he did have his theology, and his doctrine is 
 manifest in all his letters. Our present task is to make a brief study 
 of some of the most important of these doctrinal conceptions to deter- 
 mine the sources from which he derived them. Our purpose is not to 
 make an exhaustive study of Paul's doctrine, but merely to investigate 
 the most important of these as they are related to his conception of 
 authority. This will be done under the following heads: his conception 
 of God, of man and his world, of Christ, of the new life, and of future 
 things. 
 
 God 
 His Conception Stated 
 Paul made many references to God, but his idea is perhaps indi- 
 cated as much by what is impHed as by what is stated. He taught that 
 God is one (Gal. 3:20; I Cor. 8:6). While there are many so-called gods, 
 yet in reality there is only one God. God is living and true (I Thess. 
 1:9). He is not of wood and stone like the gods of the heathen. He 
 was the creator of heaven and earth. All things are from him (I Cor. 
 8:6), and all things belong to him (I Cor. 10:26). He thought of God 
 as existing in heaven from whence he sent forth his Son (Gal. 4:4), and 
 yet he believed he had a vital connection with earth, and especially 
 with the people on earth. He was the God of Israel in a pecuHar sense, 
 for he entered into a special covenant relation with them, and gave 
 them the oracles (Rom. 3:2; 9:4, 5). But while he was the God of the 
 Jews in a peculiar sense, he revealed himself to all (Rom. 1:19). He is 
 the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ (II Cor. 1:3), and he is also the 
 Father of the Christians (Gal. 1:1, 3). He is faithful, and he is the 
 Comforter of his children (II Cor. 1:5). He is loving, even towards 
 sinners (Rom. 5:8), and yet he is wrathful towards those who continue 
 as his enemies (Rom. 1:18; 2:8, 9). Paul regarded God as a Sovereign 
 
22 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Being and he believed he had a right to choose whom he wished to carry 
 out his will (I Thess. 1 :4; I Cor. 1 :26-31 ; Rom. 8 :28-30). Paul believed 
 God is revealed to men in many ways. He is revealed through the 
 natural world and through the conscience of man, hence the Gentiles, 
 who have not had a special revelation, can know him. He is revealed 
 in history, and especially in the Jewish nation, and above all else he is 
 revealed in Christ. 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Conceptions 
 It would be difficult, if not impossible, to point out the sources from 
 which we have derived any particular notion we may have of religion; 
 it is much more difficult to point out the sources from which others 
 have derived their conceptions; and the difficulty is increased when the 
 person we are studying Uved in a past age and in an environment which 
 is different from ours. It is possible, however, to determine the most 
 important forces which have contributed elements to our religious 
 thinking; and, just to the extent that we reconstruct the world in which 
 Paul lived, can we fix upon the most important factors which entered 
 into his thinking. Upon the basis of a reconstruction of Paul's environ- 
 ment we shall attempt to find out the sources from which he derived 
 the elements of his thought, and this will enable us to determine the value 
 which he assigned to these sources, 
 a. His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 Paul had been a Pharisee before he became a Christian, and he 
 brought over into his Christian experience the religious heritage of 
 Judaism. As a Jew, Paul had beUeved in God, and this belief naturally 
 helped to shape his Christian experience. The references which Paul 
 made to God are not of a character that would lead us to believe his 
 conception of God as a Christian differed radically from what it had 
 been as a Jew. He did not seek to correct erroneous impressions con- 
 cerning God, but his references would indicate that he felt he was stating 
 what he had always beheved. 
 
 In tracing the sources from which Paul derived his religious think- 
 ing, it is safe to assume that when the facts can be explained by what 
 Paul must have known before he became a Christian, it is needless 
 to look elsewhere for an explanation. The God whom Paul knew when 
 he was a Pharisee continued to be the God whom he worshipped when he 
 was a Christian, although his conception of him was very much enriched 
 by his Christian experiences. Paul never discussed the divine nature, 
 and when he made any reference to this, he expressed the ideas of Juda- 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 23 
 
 ism. There is jio indication in_any ofjiis writingaJLhat he consciously 
 took exception to the Jewish idea of God. He at no time intimated 
 that his beUef in God as a Jew and a Pharisee was imperfect. On the 
 contrary, he accepted that behef and made it a part of his Christian 
 teaching. 
 
 Paul placedjnuch emphasi sonjdivine election; yet he was not always 
 consistent on that point. )At one time he seemed to say the election 
 or rejection of Israel was dependent absolutely upon God's choice, 
 while at another time he seemed to feel that the rejection of the Jews 
 was due to their own failure. This conception was largely due to his 
 rabbinical training. The doctrine of election is definitely taught in 
 "The Wisdom of Solomon," as the following quotation will indicate: 
 "Verily, as for a man, his position is laid in the balance before Thee. 
 He addeth not thereto, nor increaseth contrary to thy judgment, O 
 God" (5:6). According to "The Assumption of Moses" (12:8-13) the 
 certainty of blessedness for the righteous is not dependent upon their 
 own piety, but upon God having ordained it. The doctrine of divine 
 election had become definitely formulated in the Pharisaic thought of 
 the time. According to Josephus,^ the Pharisees ascribe everything 
 "to fate, or providence, and to God"; and yet they "allow, that to act 
 what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of man." 
 The position of the Pharisees, as it was stated by Josephus, was virtually 
 the position of Paul. 
 b. His Contact with the Mediterranean World. 
 
 Before the time of his conversion, Paul's thought of God's relation 
 to the world was broader than that of the Palestinian Jew of his day. 
 He had spent his early life among the Gentiles, and the conviction had 
 been impressed upon him that many of them knew God and were seek- 
 ing to serve him. This conviction was confirmed by his contact with 
 the Gentiles during his missionary career. The Pharisees who had been 
 raised in Palestine despised the Gentiles because they did not know 
 the law nor the God who gave the law. Paul, however, because of his 
 contact with the peoples of the Mediterranean world, had come to believe 
 that there were Gentiles who did know God, for they had seen him 
 through the things that are made. /Paul's life in the Graeco-Roman 
 world had convinced him that there were Gentiles who, although they 
 did not have the law, were doing by nature the things of the law, and 
 that some of them were doing these things better than were many of the 
 Jews who possessed the law. . 
 
 ^Bdl.Jud., 11,8. 14. 
 
24 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 c. His Christian experience. 
 
 The conception of God which Paul had when he was a Pharisee was 
 enriched by his Christian experience. His conversion magnified his 
 notion of the sovereignty of God until he thought of him as the One 
 who calls man into being and forces him into his service, and as the 
 One who selects whom he wills and hardens whom he wills. Paul was 
 preaching because God had determined it. God had revealed his Son 
 in him and had called him by his grace, and he had no choice in the work; 
 his task was to go where God led him. Paul did not attempt to recon- 
 cile his conception of individual freedom with that of divine election. 
 When he thought of God he forgot all else but his absolute sovereignty, 
 and he felt it was only by divine grace that man could be saved; but 
 when he thought of man he knew he was free to choose, and he urged 
 him to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. Paul went 
 on preaching the gospel, for his own experience had demonstrated that 
 it was the power of God unto salvation; but he felt that those who be- 
 lieved were the ones whom God had called. Paul did not regard his own 
 experience as peculiar. He beUeved God was deaUng with all mankind 
 as he had dealt with him. It was by grace that he had been saved, and 
 others were being saved in the same way. Just a few out of the great 
 mass were accepting the gospel, and the explanation of this situation 
 was to be found in the fact of divine election rather than in the inability 
 of the gospel to reach them. It seems that in Corinth not many learned 
 or influential had accepted the gospel, but those who were Christians 
 were, for the most part, uncultured, and had come from the humbler 
 walks of life. This was not an indication of the weakness of the gospel 
 but it was a demonstration of the power and glory of God (I Cor. 1 :26- 
 31). The fact that there were few learned or influential people in the 
 church proved to Paul that "not many wise after the flesh, not many 
 mighty, not many noble, are called. " It indicated that God was choos- 
 ing the fooUsh and weak things of the world that he might put to shame 
 the things that are wise and strong. It showed that God wanted to 
 remove all opportunity for glorying so that no one would have any occa- 
 sion of boasting except in the Lord. The eagerness of some to receive 
 the gospel was an indication of their divine election. He told the 
 Thessalonians that he knew of their election, for the gospel, when it was 
 preached to them, came not in word only, ''but also in power, and in 
 I the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance" (I Thess. 1:4, 5). 
 
 In his missionary labors Paul had to face the fact that his own coun- 
 trymen were rejecting the gospel. It was the exceptional Jew who 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 25 
 
 heard his message, while the Gentiles received it gladly. The Jews, who 
 were God's chosen people, were hostile to the gospel; while the Gen- 
 tiles, who had been "strangers from the covenants of promise, having 
 no hope and without God in the world, " were receiving it. This might 
 seem to indicate either that the gospel was not from God, or if it was 
 from God, that his promise to Israel was coming to naught (Rom. 9:6); 
 but Paul's explanation of the situation was the fact of divine election. 
 His conception of God and his own experience naturally led him to the 
 conclusion that the attitude of the Jews was to be explained by the 
 fact that God was rejecting them.^ j 
 
 Paul did not feel that this was a new conception of God. God's 
 rejection of the Jews and the choosing of the Gentiles were in perfect 
 accord w'th his method during the past — *'For he saith to Moses, I 
 will have compassion on whom I will have compassion . . .So then he 
 hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth" (Rom. 
 9:15-18). God chose Abraham because he willed it, and Isaac was the 
 one he was pleased to select from among the children of Abraham. 
 Jacob, though he was the younger, was chosen, while Esau was rejected, 
 and this choice was made before the children were born. The choosing 
 and the rejecting were expressions of the divine will — *' Jacob I loved, 
 but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:13). 
 
 Paul's Christian conception of the divine sovereignty of God was 
 not consciously different from what it had been before his conversion. 
 His idea had undoubtedly been modified somewhat by his Christian 
 experiences, and especially by his life as a missionary, but there is no 
 indication that he was conscious of any such modification. His own 
 personal experience convinced him that his conversion was the result 
 of God's grace, and his missionary labors had led him to believe that 
 God was rejecting the Jews and choosing the Gentiles. I Paul had 
 
 'R. Travers Herford puts this very strikingly {Pharisaism, 1912, p. 187). He 
 says Paul's doctrine of the rejection of the Jews was his method of "getting over a 
 formidable difficulty, namely, the obvious fact that the attitude of the Jews towards 
 Christ was not at all what was to be expected, if his theory of the person and work of 
 Christ were true," Continuing, he says: "It must not be forgotten that the start- 
 ing point of his theory was his own personal relation to Christ, as he felt it with an 
 intense certainty which nothing could shake for a moment. This was his foundation 
 of absolute truth; and that could not but be the clue by which he interpreted all that 
 he beheld in the world, and read in the history of man." Herford takes issue with 
 Paul over his premises, but we are not concerned with that in this connection. Grant- 
 ing his premises, and there was no doubt in Paul's mind about the correctness of these, 
 there could be but one conclusion, and that is that God was rejecting the Jews. 
 
26 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 been asked to prove his statement concerning divine election he would 
 perhaps have replied that God had manifested his sovereign power when 
 he had laid hold upon him at the time of his conversion, and that he had 
 seen this same power manifested in every place where he had preached. 
 He would perhaps have added that the Scriptures plainly teach that 
 God is supreme in his dealings with men. He is the potter and men are 
 but clay in his hands (Jer. 18:6). 
 
 Paul's Christian experience undoubtedly gave him a new notion 
 of God's relation to his children.^ He had learned from experience 
 that God makes all things work together for good to them that love 
 him, and are called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). In the light 
 of the sufferings of Christ, Paul had come to a new understanding of 
 God. He had come to appreciate his love, for he commended "his 
 love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" 
 (Rom. 5:8). Paul reaUzed that if God spared not his own Son but 
 delivered him up for us, he would also with him freely give us all things 
 (Rom. 8:32). He was confident that the love of God which is in Christ 
 is so strong that nothing could separate him from it (Rom. 8:35-39). 
 The divine Spirit which Paul had received through Christ enabled him 
 to understand the nearness of God. The Spirit which had taken posses- 
 sion of him was not of bondage unto fear, but it was a Spirit of adoption 
 which enabled him to cry, Abba, Father (Rom. 8:15). 
 
 Man and his World 
 Statement of Paulas Teaching 
 Paul evidently thought of the universe as being like a great build- 
 ing in which there are compartments, one above the other (Phil. 2:10). 
 He beUeved heaven was above the earth, and was the abode of God, and 
 of Christ, and of the angels (I Thess. 1:10; 4:16; Gal. 1:8). Paul seems 
 to have thought of heaven as arranged in a number of stories, one above 
 the other, for he said he had been caught up even to the third heaven 
 (H Cor. 12:2). He regarded the earth, which is seen, as temporal; 
 but heaven, which cannot be seen, as eternal. He represented the 
 world as evil (Gal. 1:4), and in bondage, and groaning for deliverance 
 (Rom. 8:19-23). He did not, however, believe the world is evil in its 
 essence. He thought of it as belonging to God, but he realized that 
 there are forces in it which are in opposition to God, and which seem 
 to be defeating him. 
 
 » Heinrich Wdnel (Patdus, 1904, p. 80, English translation, 1906, p. 102) states 
 this emphatically: "The new man implied a new God. Saul's experience on the 
 road to Damascus had revealed the God of his fathers in a new light. " 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 27 
 
 Paul thought of the abyss under the earth as the abode of Satan and 
 the evil spirits, and he believed Satan had much power in the world. 
 He regarded the present age as evil, and Satan as its ruler (II Cor. 4:4). 
 He believed Satan and the evil spirits seek to injure men and defeat 
 God's plans for his kingdom. Paul had purposed to come to Thes- 
 salonica, but Satan had hindered him (I Thess. 2 :18). He had a thorn in 
 the flesh, and it was regarded as a messenger of Satan to buffet him 
 (II Cor. 12:7-9). This was perhaps a physical malady, and many have 
 believed it was a defective eye-sight. Paul evidently believed Satan 
 tortures men by inflicting upon them physical sufferings (I Cor. 5:5). 
 He believed Satan is watching for his opportunity to lead men into 
 sin (I Cor. 7:5), and that he has many devices to deceive people (II 
 Cor. 2:11). He even fashions himself as an angel of light that he may 
 induce men to follow his deceptions (II Cor. 11:14). Paul regarded 
 the evil spirits as being especially active in the heathen world. He 
 believed they were closely connected with idol-worship (I Cor. 10:20, 
 21), and hence he felt that participation in heathen sacrifices would bring 
 one in fellowship with demons. 
 
 Paul did not have much to say about angels, but it is evident from 
 his few references that they had a place in his thinking. He included 
 angels among those influences which were not able to separate him 
 from the love of God (Rom. S:3S, 39), and in writing to the Corinthians, 
 he said he was made a spectacle both to angels and to men. His use of 
 angels in these passages may be somewhat figurative, but he also referred 
 to the law as having been ordained by angels (Gal. 3:19). 
 
 Paul thought of man in his natural state as being of the earth, and 
 as partaking of earthly qualities (I Cor. 15:47, 48); hence he regarded 
 him as sinful and subject to death. He beheved man inherited this 
 sinful nature from Adam, and inasmuch as all have originated from 
 Adam, sin is universal in its scope. Paul regarded man as composed of 
 flesh and spirit, and he believed there is constant warfare between these 
 two natures (Rom. 7:7-25). 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Conception of Man 
 and his World 
 a. His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 The statement, made above, concerning Paul's relation to Judaism, 
 is especially applicable in this connection. The idea which he had 
 about man and his world before his conversion continued to be a part 
 of his Christian thought, unless it was modified by his new experiences. 
 
28 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 PauFs conception of the compartments in the universe is Jewish, as is 
 also the different heavens. This is brought out very strikingly in 
 the book of Enoch. His notion of Satan and the evil spirits is in har- 
 mony with the Jewish thought of his time. His conviction that Satan 
 and the evil spirits inflict suffering on men is expressed in the Book of 
 Jubilees,'* where they are represented as blinding and killing the grand- 
 children of Noah. The idea that in sacrificing to idols sacrifice is in 
 reality made to demons is expressed in Deut. 32:17, and this conception 
 was common in the Jewish literature of Paul's time.*^ The behef that 
 the law was ordained through angels was a part of the Jewish thought 
 of Paul's day. Stephen, in his defense, spoke of the law as having been 
 ordained by angels (Acts 7:58), and it is thus stated in the Greek trans- 
 lation of the Old Testament.® 
 
 Inasmuch as the thought which Paul expressed of the world, of 
 angels and of demons is found in current Judaism, it is safe to assume 
 that this was a part of his inheritance from his pre-Christian life. When 
 he wrote on these subjects, it was in terms of the thought of his age. 
 
 The conception that man is both sinful and subject to death, and 
 that he inherited these relationships from Adam, was a part of the Jew- 
 ish thought of Paul's day. He accepted the Old Testament story, which 
 had been much elaborated in current Jewish thought, of Adam's fall 
 and the punishment of death which was imposed upon him in consequence 
 of that fall; and he undoubtedly accepted as truth which had been handed 
 down to him that on account of Adam's transgression, sin and death 
 had passed to his posterity (I Cor. 15:45-49; Rom. 5:12-21). 
 b. The thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 There has been much discussion concerning what Paul meant by 
 the conflict between the flesh and the spirit. There was no subject 
 upon which the Hebrew and Greek mind were more widely divergent 
 than that of the flesh. The Greek thought of the flesh as being in- 
 herently evil, while the Hebrew regarded the body with reverence. 
 Was Paul, in his notion of the flesh, in harmony with Greek thought or 
 with Hebrew thought? or was his idea different from either? There 
 are many passages in his writings which emphasize the antagonism 
 between the flesh and the spirit. One of the most striking of these 
 is Gal. 5:16, 17: "Walk by the spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lusts 
 
 *See 10:2. 
 
 » See Int. Crit. Com., I Cor., pp. 216 ff. 
 
 •LXX, Deut. 33:2. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 29 
 
 of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit 
 against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye 
 may not do the things that ye would." Paul urged the Christians to 
 mortify the flesh (Rom. 8:13; I Cor. 5:5; 9:27; II Cor. 4:10, 11). This 
 conflict is described at length in Rom. 7:7-15,, and according to this 
 passage, no good thing dwells in the flesh. Pa ul said the law in his 
 members made war against the law of his mind, and brought him "into 
 captivity under the law of sin which j^s in his members." 
 
 The Greek of TauPs day regarded the body as a prison in which the 
 soul was enslaved, and by which it was contaminated. Did Paul, in his 
 writings, show the influence of this Greek thought, and if so, to what 
 extent was he actuated by it? Many writers have insisted that he was 
 dominated by the Greek conception of the flesh.'' Many writers who 
 hold that Paul was in the main independent of Greek thought feel that 
 he was somewhat influenced by it in his antithesis between the flesh 
 and the spirit.^ Paul was undoubtedly familiar with the thought of 
 the Greek world, as were the Christians to whom he was writing, and 
 it would be almost inevitable that he should be influenced by it, not only 
 in the form in which he expressed himself, but in the content of his 
 message as well. But while that much is granted, it should be borne 
 in mind that there were other influences which contributed more to 
 Paul's conception of the struggle between the flesh and the spirit than 
 did the thought of the Greek world. 
 c. His own experience. 
 
 Many writers hold that there was no connection between PauFs 
 notion of the struggle between the flesh and the spirit and the Greek 
 thought of his day. They hold that his duahsm was purely ethical, and 
 that the Old Testament and his own experience would have furnished 
 him a sufficient basis. ^ adp^ is used quite frequently in the Old Testa- 
 ment to designate man's nature, which is weak and perishable, in con- 
 
 ' Dr. James Adam (The Religious Teachers of Greece, 1908, p. 381) points out the 
 resemblance between Paul's discussion of the flesh and the spirit, and the thought 
 of Plato. Percy Gardner (The Religious Experience of St. Paul, 1911, p. 167) thinks 
 there are traces of Greek influence in Paul's discussion, but that it does not fairly 
 represent him. He says: "We can in places detect insertions of Greek thought which 
 scarcely fit their context." 
 
 8 OreUo Cone (Paul, the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher, 1898, p. 224) holds 
 that the radical metaphysical dualism finds no expression in Paul's writings, yet he 
 thinks his ethical dualism probably reflects Hellenistic influence. 
 
 "Alexander Bruce (St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, 1911, pp. 268 f.) thinks 
 Paul's conception was somewhat like the theory of the Greeks, but that there was no 
 
30 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 trast with God's, which is strong and imperishable. Paul used flesh 
 in that sense many times, but he advanced beyond that idea and put 
 into it an ethical content. 
 
 The teaching of the Old Testament in Paul's Jewish home furnished 
 the basis for his conception of the struggle between the flesh and the 
 spirit; the impression made by this teaching was modified by his con- 
 tact with the thought of the Greek world; but the influence which con- 
 tributed most to the development of his idea was the struggle which 
 he had experienced in his own soul. Paul's notion of the flesh had an 
 ethical content. He knew that one element of the weakness of the flesh 
 was moral in character, and that was so important in his thinking that 
 it became the dominant idea. He knew the flesh was the seat of pas- 
 sions and desires, which, if not conquered, would lead to sin.^° 
 
 There are some passages in Paul's writings, which, taken apart from 
 the others, would seem to indicate that he regarded the body, or the 
 flesh, as essentially evil. He spoke of putting to death the deeds of 
 the body in order that he might live (Rom. 7:24; 8:10). He declared 
 that no good thing dwelt in the flesh (Rom. 7:18), and he even urged 
 Christians to mortify the flesh (Rom. 8:13; I Cor. 5:5). On the other 
 hand, Paul said, "The body is for the Lord" (I Cor. 6:13), and he 
 believed the members can be made instruments of righteousness (Rom. 
 6:13). He said the body is ''a temple of the Holy Spirit" (I Cor. 6:19, 
 
 connection between them. He thinks Paul did not come to his conclusion by theo- 
 rizing, but he "contented himself with stating the facts as they presented them- 
 selves to him in experience. " Bruce does not think it probable that the Greek theory 
 was known to Paul, and he beUeves that if it had been known to him it would not 
 have had any attraction for him, as his interest was wholly ethical and reUgious. 
 George B. Stevens {The Theology of the New Testament, 1910, pp. 340 ff.) says: "In 
 the contrast between flesh and spirit we have to do not with a metaphysical dualism 
 based upon the inherent evil of matter and derived from the Graeco-Alexandrian 
 speculation, but with a view of man which has its basis in the Old Testament. " Ste- 
 vens held that while Paul's doctrine had its basis in The Old Testament, it was worked 
 out in the laboratory of his own experience. He says: "His dualism was not based 
 upon the idea of the inherent evil of matter, but upon the fact of experience that out 
 of man's sensuous nature arise potent enticements to sin and that, in actual sinful 
 hiunanity, the flesh is a powerful ally of evil." 
 
 ^° Alexander Bruce {St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, 1911, pp. 264 ff.) thinks 
 Paul had to fight an unceasing battle with his own fleshly desires, and especially with 
 sexual impulses, and that his discussion must be studied in the light of that fact. 
 He thinks Paul had these fleshly desires in mind when he said, "I buffet my body," 
 and he thinks that statement is a suflSdent guide to Paul's thought. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 31 
 
 20) and he admonished the Romans to present their bodies *'a living 
 sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God" (Rom. 12:1). Paul believed the 
 life of Jesus may be manifested '4n our mortal flesh" (II Cor. 4:11), 
 and that the body itself may be redeemed (Rom. 8 :23). If in his thought 
 of the struggle between the flesh and the spirit, Paul was influenced to any 
 marked degree by the notions of the Greek world, the elements which he 
 took up into his own experience must have been worked over under the 
 influence of his soul struggles. Instead of believing the body is inher- 
 ently evil, he declared it belongs to God and should be consecrated to 
 his service. Instead of identifying the flesh with sin, he thought of it 
 as being the abode of sin. His own experience, which was confirmed 
 by the experience of others, as he had observed it, had convinced him 
 that there are evil desires and impulses which have their seat in the 
 flesh, and that these lead to sin unless they are overcome. 
 
 Paul's failure in the struggle to overcome the flesh, and the sub- 
 sequent victory which he had won through the help of Christ were fun- 
 damental in his thinking. He believed the natural spirit with which the 
 flesh is in conflict belongs to every man, and that this may be defiled 
 (II Cor. 7 1; I Thess. 5-23), and it may even be eternally lost (I Cor. 
 5:5). The battle is constantly being waged between the flesh and the 
 spirit, and Christ helps us to win the victory and enables us to make 
 the flesh our servant. Paul looked into his own soul and described the 
 conflict as he had passed through it, and he considered his interpreta- 
 tion of his experience authoritative, for he felt it was confirmed by 
 the experience of others. 
 
 Paul's experience was also fundamental in his discussion of the 
 relation of sin to humanity. As already indicated, he inherited the 
 Jewish belief that sin was introduced into the world through the trans- 
 gression of Adam; and yet he was confident, as he interpreted his own 
 experience, that the flesh is the means through which sin manifests 
 its power. He also felt, as he reflected on the conflicts in his own soul, 
 that sin is the result of man's will, and hence man is responsible for 
 his wrong-doing. Paul held that sin is universal, and this conclusion 
 was confirmed by his own observations, and it was also taught in the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Paul, as a boy, had the idea of man and his world which was held 
 by the Jews of the Dispersion. This differed somewhat from the view 
 of the Palestinian Jew, and his contact with the thought of the Medi- 
 terranean world, both before and after he became a Christian, led to 
 further modifications. Paul's mature Christian thought of the world 
 
32 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 was not much different from what it had been as a Jew, but his idea of 
 man was very much changed. The struggle which he had had with sin 
 because of its connection with his body, and the observation of these 
 same struggles in the men about him, together with the Greek thought 
 with which he must have been famiUar, gave him a conception of man 
 which was very different from what was held by the Palestinian Jew. 
 His ideas were born out of soul struggles in the environment of the 
 Mediterranean world. 
 
 Christology 
 
 Paul, in his writings, had much to say about the Christ, and his 
 statements on this subject furnish one of the best opportunities we have 
 to investigate his conception of authority. This part of Paul's thought 
 can be considered most effectively by following the order in which 
 it was naturally presented to his mind. He was concerned, first of all, 
 with the heavenly Christ whom he had come to know; and his relation 
 to the Christ of faith naturally made him interested in the historical 
 Jesus, and especially in his death and resurrection; and his interest 
 in the historical Jesus, and the Christ whom he had come to know, 
 made him interested in the pre-existent Christ, as well as in the Christ 
 of the future age. 
 
 The Christ of Faith 
 a. Statement of Paul's position. 
 
 Paul placed much stress on the knowledge of the heavenly Christ. 
 His supreme desire was to know him, and his great purpose in life was 
 to lead others to know him. He designated him as ''Jesus Christ, our 
 Lord, '* and "our Lord Jesus Christ. *' He believed Christ was his Lord, 
 and he frequently referred to himself as '' the bond-servant of Christ. " 
 He preached Christ to others as their Lord (II Cor. 4:5), and he beHeved 
 his lordship extended to all men, and that he is rich unto all that call 
 upon him (Rom. 10:12). Paul was convinced that it is through the 
 heavenly Christ that the new spiritual humanity is created. He is the 
 head of the church, and he is the dispenser of spiritual gifts. Paul 
 believed the Christ whom he worshipped had been highly exalted, and 
 had been given the "name which is above every name," and yet he felt 
 that the Christ of his faith was subordinate to God and was dependent 
 upon him ( I Cor. 3:23; 15:24-28). Although Paul felt that the Christ 
 whom he had come to~]EnOw~i;rCs subordinate to God, yet he believed 
 that he had been so exalted that he is the very image of God (II Cor. 
 4:4). 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 33 
 
 When one studies Paul's writings, he must be convinced that there 
 are striking differences between the Christ whom he worshipped, and 
 to whom he sought to direct men, and the Jesus of the Synoptic Gos- 
 pels. There was development along many lines, and there were many 
 influences which contributed to that development.^^ Not only was the 
 spiritual Christ whom Paul worshipped different from the Jesus of his- 
 tory, but he was more interested in the Christ whom he had come to 
 know than he was in the Jesus who had lived in other days.^^ 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his conception of the Christ of faith. 
 
 (a) His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 Before his conversion, Paul had believed in the Messiah who was 
 to inaugurate the Kingdom of God, and he was looking for his appear- 
 ance. These Messianic ideas formed a part of the background for 
 Paul's conversion-experiences, and hey also helped to determine the 
 Christ in whom he came to beheve. He naturally interpreted the per- 
 son of Christ in the light of ideas which were already famiUar to him.^* 
 These Jewish ideas, however, were not enough to account for the Christ 
 in whom Paul believed and to whose service he consecrated his life. 
 There were other elements which were even more important than 
 Jewish Messianism, for when one compares the Messianic ideas of the 
 Jews with Paul's Christology, he must be convinced that the differences 
 are more striking than the similarities. 
 
 (b) The life and thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 The life and thought of the Mediterranean world cannot be neglected 
 in a genetic study of Paul's Christology. Paul was a Hellenist, and 
 
 " R. J. Campbell ("Jesus or Christ?" The Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909, 
 p. 189) thinks there is little connection between the Christ of Paul and the Jesus who 
 actually lived among men. He says: "So far as we can judge from gospel evidence 
 the Christ of the Apostle Paul bore little or no relation to the actual Jesus of GaUlee. " 
 Continuing, he adds: "All he has to say about Christ could just as well have been 
 said under any other name than that of Jesus. " This is an exaggeration of the real 
 situation, for there is a close connection between the Christ of Paul and the Jesus 
 of history. 
 
 ^^J. R. Cohu (St. Paul and Modern Research, 1911, p. 17) correctly represents 
 Paul in the statement: "The whole tenor of his teaching is that it is infinitely better 
 to see Christ with the eye of the soul than with the eye of the body, " but he undoubt- 
 edly misrepresents him when he says Paul believed the knowledge of Christ after the 
 flesh hindered rather than helped the knowledge of him after the spirit. 
 
 "Principal J. E. Carpenter ("Jesus or Christ? p. 239) says: "Pauline Christol- 
 ogy cannot be wholly explained by way of inference from the experience of his con- 
 version. Steeped in contemporary eschatology, he must have already had his own 
 conceptions of what the Messiah would be. " 
 
34 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 lived in an important Greek center, and he must have been familiar 
 with the savior-deities of the mystery religions. It is very probable 
 that the Greek notion that the deities enter into men and take posses- 
 sion of them influenced Paul in the development of his thought of the 
 Christ who took possession of him. 
 
 Paul's contact with the broader life of the Gentile world must have 
 broadened his idea of the Messiah. Nationalism must have dropped 
 into the background somewhat, and in his thinking he must have empha- 
 sized the ethical and spiritual mission of the Messiah. It is barely 
 probable that the possibiUty that he was to be the Messiah of all those 
 who were living righteous Uves, regardless of whether they were Jews 
 or Gentiles, had been suggested to his mind. 
 
 (c) His pre-Christian thought about Christ. 
 
 Paul had known of Christ before the time of his conversion, but 
 his knowledge had not been sympathetic. He had regarded Jesus as an 
 impostor, and he had thought the Christ whom the Christians worshipped 
 was a delusion. He must have heard the Christians whom he had been 
 persecuting tell the story of Jesus, and he had witnessed their faith 
 in the heavenly Christ. He must have realized that they identified 
 Jesus with the Messiah whom the Jews were expecting, and that they 
 believed he was still living. Paul must have understood that these 
 Christians whom he was persecuting placed the Christ above all other 
 beings, except God. They not only worshipped him, and devoted their 
 lives to get others to worship him, but they were willing to die for their 
 faith in him. 
 
 (d) His own personal experience. 
 
 Paul's s)anpathetic knowledge of Christ began with his conversion. 
 Through some wonderful experience Paul was changed from an enemy of 
 Christ into his most zealous advocate. Many theories have been 
 advanced to explain this experience, but it is evident that Paul inter- 
 preted it as a revelation of Christ. At that time he began to know 
 Christ according to the Spirit, and this was fundamental to the develop- 
 ment of his Christian thought. 
 
 According to Paul's own statement, he had not found pea ce and a s- 
 surance while he was living under law, and he must have felFthat these 
 persecuted L^hristians had what he had been seeking, but had failed to 
 find. These feelings must have raised questionings in his mind: could 
 it be possible that these Christians were right, and he was wrong. These 
 conflicts in his soul prepared him for the experiences which he inter- 
 preted as a revelation of Christ. If his persecuting career, in connection 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 35 
 
 with his Messianic ideas and his knowledge of the Christ which he had 
 gained from the Christians, prepared him for the experiences which he 
 interpreted as a revelation of Christ in him, it was natural that he 
 should identify this Christ whom he had come to know, not only with 
 the Messiah of the Jews, but also with the Jesus whose followers he had 
 been persecuting.^^ This experience of Christ, as Paul interpreted it, 
 and the experiences of the after years were authoritative for him, and 
 the one article of his creed was, Christ is Lord. 
 
 We cannot be absolutely certain about the development of Paul's 
 Christology, but we can make a very probable estimate of it. As a 
 Ph arisee, he h ad^beheved in the Messiah, and he had Igoked-iorward to- 
 his coming. His contact with the thought of the Greek world had 
 broadened his conception of the Messiah, and had prepared him for 
 still more radical changes in the future. His fa ilur e to f ind satisfaction 
 while trying to serve jGo d according t o the law, and his contact with the 
 Christians, who had apparently found peace in the Christ whom they 
 were worshipping, prepared him for an upheaval in his own experience. 
 The statements which he had heard the Christians make about the Christ 
 they were worshipping, and whom they said was Jesus who had been 
 exalted to God's right hand, and whom they identified with the Jewish 
 Messiah, led him to make the same identification when the great up- 
 heaval came in his soul. All these influences furnished the basis for 
 what was the beginning of Paul's experience of the heavenly Christ, and 
 during years of Christian living and service the Christ of faith, as ex- 
 pressed in his epistles, was developed. 
 
 The Historical Jesus 
 a. Statement of Paul's teaching. 
 
 There has been much discussion in recent years concerning Paul's 
 knowledge of the historical Jesus, and of his estimate of the life and 
 teachings of Jesus, as he knew them.^^ One of the passages around 
 which the discussion of the value of the life and teachings of Jesus for 
 
 ^* R. J. Campbell ("Jesus or Christ?" p. 184) says: "It is not to be ignored that 
 in the case of such a man as Paul personal experience and the needs of his own religious 
 life had a dominating shaping influence upon his thought, but the molds of that thought 
 were already supplied to him." According to Campbell, Paul built up the Christ- 
 idea out of Jewish and Hellenistic elements which had entered into his intellectual 
 training, and then imposed this concept on the historic figure of Jesus. 
 
 ^5 Benj. W. Bacon ("Jesus or Christ?" p. 213) says the teachings and doings of 
 Jesus' earthly career were for Paul a subordinate feature of the apostolic message. 
 According to Bacon, Paul thought of Christ's earthly career as a brief interruption 
 of his heavenly existence, and his interest was in "the Lord from heaven." 
 
36 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 )Paul has centered is I I Cor. 5: 16:^ " Wherefore as for us, we know no 
 man henceforth after the flesh: even though we have known Christ 
 after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more. " Some writers think 
 that passage impUes that Paul had no interest in the Christ who Hved 
 here on the earth.^^ This passage is one which is difficult to interpret, 
 and various explanations have been suggested.^^ It is very evident 
 that Paul's contrast was not between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly 
 Christ, but between the fleshly Christ and the spiritual Christ. He says 
 he had once known Christ after the flesh, and he was undoubtedly re- 
 ferring to the time previous to his conversion. At this time he regarded 
 Christ as an impostor, hence he persecuted his followers. Since the 
 time of his conversion he knew a spiritual Christ, whom he worshipped, 
 and to whose service his life was consecrated. Before his conversion 
 he knew this Christ after the flesh, but since his conversion he knew 
 this Christ after the spirit. 
 
 It is a question how much Paul knew about the life and teachings 
 of Jesus. There are times when we would expect him to quote the 
 statements of the Master that he did not do it. In his controversy 
 with the Judaizers, the teachings of Jesus would have been unanswerable 
 argument; and the fact that he did not quote the words of the Master 
 concerning unclean meats or traditions would indicate, so some writers 
 contend, that he did not know about this teaching. There is another 
 explanation for Paul's silence which is more probable. The vital 
 
 ■ issue, raised by the Judaizers, was in regard to circumcigion, andjesus 
 w as_silent on this question ; and the fact that he had been circumcised 
 according to the law, and had said nothing against circumcision would 
 argue against Paul's position rather than in his favor.^^ 
 
 ^* Albert Schweitzer (Geschichte der Paulinischen Forsching, 1911, p. 191; English 
 translation, 1912, pp. 245 f.) holds that Paul was referring to the earthly life of Jesus, 
 and that he was expressing the general principle that he had no interest in the teach- 
 ings of Jesus, or in his earthly life. According to Schweitzer, Paul's only concern was 
 in the primitive eschatological beliefs which he had inherited. He suggests an in- 
 genious, but improbable explanation for what he thinks is Paul's lack of interest in 
 the historical Jesus. He says: "It is as though he held that between the present 
 world-period and that in which Jesus lived and taught there exists no link of connec- 
 tion, and was convinced that since the death and resurrection of the Lord conditions 
 were present which were so wholly new that they made his teaching inappUcable. " 
 
 " For a statement of the different interpretations see Int. Crit. Com., II Cor., 
 pp. 177 ff. 
 
 " H. Weinel ("Jesus or Christ?" pp. 29 ff.) says Paul did not appeal to the teach- 
 ings of Jesus in his struggle for freedom from the law, because Jesus was thoroughly 
 conservative in his own attitude towards the law. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 37 
 
 When we compare Paul's letters with the others which are found in 
 the New Testament, we must feel that Paul was true to his age in the 
 use which he made of the life and teachings of Jesus. He undoubtedly 
 had more to say in his preaching about the historical Jesus than he 
 did in his writings. According to Acts, Paul preached the historical 
 Jesus in about the same manner as did Peter, and Stephen, and Philip; 
 but it is impossible to state just how much of these sermons are the 
 words of Paul, and how much is to be attributed to the author of the 
 book. According to the tradition, related by Irenaeus in the latter 
 part of the second century,^^ Luke secured much of the material for his 
 gospel from the preaching of Paul. He said: ''Matthew also issued a 
 written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter 
 and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundation of the 
 church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of 
 Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by 
 Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel 
 preached by him. " This tradition cannot be accepted at its face value 
 as evidence for the sources of the material in our canonical gospels; 
 but there were undoubtedly some historical facts which were the basis 
 of the tradition. These facts which were connected with Paul were: 
 first, the historical Jesus held a prominent place in Paul's preaching; 
 and second, the author of the third gospel was a companion of Paul, 
 and it was from Paul's preaching that he received the inspiration to 
 write a gospel. 
 
 While Paul in his writings did not stress the life and teachings of 
 Jesus as we would expect, he did give them a more prominent place 
 than many would have us believe. The references which Paul made to 
 the historical Jesus are all significant.^" He stated that Jesus was 
 a man without sin (II Cor. 5 :21) ; that he was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), 
 and according to the flesh, he was of the seed of David (Rom. 1:3). 
 Paul did not say anything about the circumstances of Christ's birth, 
 but it is evident that he thought of him as being the Son of God in a 
 unique sense, for he explained his coming into the world as God sending 
 forth his Son (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 8:3). Paul mentioned the fact that Jesus 
 was betrayed during the night (I Cor. 11:23), and that he instituted 
 the Lord's Supper the same night in which he was betrayed. He stated 
 that Jesus died by crucifixion, and that the Jews were responsible for his 
 
 '8 Against Heresies, 111:1. 
 
 "H. Weinel ("Jesus or Christ?" p. 29) holds that Paul tells us enough about 
 Jesus to be sufficient for our Christianity without the Gospels. 
 
38 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 death ; and that he was buried, and was raised, and after his resurrec- 
 tion made a number of appearances. Paul not only referred to these 
 facts connected with the life of Jesus, but he also made use of his teach- 
 ings. He called attention to Christ's teaching concerning divorce 
 (I Cor. 7:10), and concerning the right of those who preach the gospel 
 to Hve of the gospel (I Cor. 9:14). Although Paul's interest was in 
 the heavenly Christ, yet he evidently believed Jesus had lived a real 
 life, and had brothers in the flesh (I Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19). In addition 
 to these direct statements, there are many passages in Paul's writings 
 which seem to have been based on the teachings of Jesus.^^ Instead of 
 Paul having no interest in the historical Jesus, he was vitally concerned 
 about some of the incidents in his life. Instead of Paul believing the 
 teachings of Jesus were not applicable to his time, he sometimes quoted 
 them as authoritative, 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his knowledge of Jesus. 
 
 Whence did Paul derive his information concerning Jesus? is a 
 question which is being asked by many in our day. In I Corinthians 
 (15:3-8) he mentioned the facts of the death, burial, resurrection, and 
 appearances of Jesus, and in emphasizing these facts, he said: "I 
 delivered unto you first of all that which also I received"; but he did 
 not state the source from which he had received that which he delivered. 
 In his teaching concerning the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11:23), he said: 
 "For I received of the Lord {airo tov Kvplov) that which also I delivered 
 unto you. " d7r6 tov Kvplov does not determine for us the manner in 
 which Paul received his information.^^ Some writers maintain that on 
 a matter of so great importance as the Lord's Supper, it is not unreason- 
 able to suppose that Paul should have received a divine revelation. 
 Some even regard Paul as the originator of the Lord's Supper, and they 
 insist that he made that claim for himself. It is begging the question 
 to hold that Paul's statement in I Corinthians 11:23 impHes that he 
 claimed to have received the historical data concerning the Lord's Sup- 
 per by means of a vision rather than from tradition. If Paul had re- 
 ceived his information through historical tradition, he would have felt 
 that it came from Jesus, and that he was passing it on to others. The 
 historical data concerning the instituting of the Lord's Supper undoubt- 
 
 2^ James Drummond ("Jesus or Christ?" p. 198) says striking passages, like 
 the twelfth chapter of Romans or the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians, contain 
 the substance of the teaching of Jesus, though not adhering so closely to his words as 
 do the Gospels. 
 
 " See Int. Crit. Com. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 39 
 
 edly came to Paul through the medium of the primitive disciples, and 
 their information came directly from Jesus. Paul must have felt that 
 his interpretation of the significance of the Lord's Supper came from 
 Christ, and in the hght of all these facts he could say to the Corin- 
 thians: *'I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." 
 
 In writing to the Galatians (1:12), Paul said he did not receive his 
 gospel from men, but it came through revelation of Jesus Christ. As 
 pointed out in a previous section, that statement does not imply that 
 Paul was declaring that he did not receive the historical data concern- 
 ing the life of Jesus from men. These did not constitute his gospel. 
 His gospel was the conviction that man is justified through faith in 
 Christ, and this came with the revelation of Christ in him, and man 
 had nothing to do with that. 
 
 Paul must have had some knowledge of Jesus, and even of his teach- 
 ings before his conversion. He must have learned something about 
 these from the Christians whom he was persecuting, and a conviction 
 of the possibility of the genuineness of these claims concerning Christ 
 must have been growing upon him, even before his conversion, and this 
 prepared him for the great crisis which came in his life. What Paul 
 had heard about Jesus before this crisis had been no vital part of his 
 thought, or of his life but; the revelation of Christ in him made these 
 facts living and vital, and furnished a sufficient basis for the beginning 
 of his missionary activities. Without the personal experience of the 
 heavenly Christ, the historical Jesus could have meant but little to 
 Paul; but without the historical Jesus as a background, his experience 
 of the heavenly Christ could not have been possible 
 
 Paul had many opportunities to hear about Jesus from the primitive 
 disciples. He must have learned something from the Christians at 
 Damascus, for he visited the Christian community there (Gal. 1:17; II 
 Cor. 11:32, 33), and they would naturally tell him all they knew about 
 their common leader. Early in his Christian career, Paul visited Peter 
 (Gal. 1:18, 19). Peter had been a personal companion of Jesus, and 
 Paul spent fifteen days with him, and it is not possible that they could 
 have visited so long a time without talking over all the events in the 
 life of the Master. Barnabas was for a time Paul's companion in 
 Christian service (Gal. 2:1, 9), and he had been closely associated with 
 the original apostles, and he must have learned about Jesus from them. 
 It is not probable that Barnabas could have been associated with the 
 original apostles without hearing them repeatedly tell about Jesus, 
 
40 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 and it is not likely that he could have been associated with Paul without 
 telling him all he remembered of what they had said. 
 
 Paul in his writings mentioned nothing about the life of Jesus which 
 he could not have obtained from the primitive Christian tradition, 
 and inasmuch as he had many opportunities to know the primitive 
 Christian tradition, it is natural to suppose that he obtained his infor- 
 mation from this source. If the conclusion that Paul received the 
 data concerning the life and teachings of Jesus from the primitive 
 Christian tradition is justified, then inasmuch as he quoted these teach- 
 ings as authoritative and used these data as historical, it is evident 
 that he regarded this tradition as authoritative. 
 
 The Death of Christ 
 a. Its significance for Paul. 
 
 Paul's chief interest in the historical Jesus was in his death and 
 resurrection. He made no use of his miracles to prove his greatness, 
 and he cited his teachings only a few times. The Christ in whom Paul 
 was interested was the Savior, rather than the miracle-worker, or even 
 the teacher. Paul was more anxious to know Christ than he was to 
 know what Christ said and did. He was more anxious to lead others 
 to know Christ than he was to tell them about his wonderful deeds, or 
 his subhme teachings. Paul was supremely anxious to bring men and 
 women into fellowship with "Christ's sufferings," and to help them to 
 know the power of his resurrection. His teaching was the "word of 
 the cross, " and he desired to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him 
 crucified (I Cor. 1:18, 23; 2:2). Paul believed the death and resurrec- 
 tion of Jesus were according to the Scriptures (I Cor. 15:3, 4), and that 
 they were a part of God's great plan. I He said it was the Jews who killed 
 Jesus (I Thess. 2:15), and yet he believed his death was according to 
 the will of God (Gal. 1:4). Paul was convinced that God's purpose in 
 permitting the death of Christ was to bring about the justification 
 of the sinner (Rom. 4:25; I Thess 4:14). He believed Jesus endured the 
 shame of the cross in order that he might bless men, hence the cross 
 is the chief object of the Christian's glory. According to Paul's thought, 
 the death upon the cross was the event of supreme importance in the 
 life of Jesus, and apart from this, his life would have had no significance.^ 
 It is so evident from a casual reading of Paul's writings, that the death 
 
 " George B. Stevens {The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 1905, p. 59, in inter- 
 preting Paul says: "It was for the direct purpose of dying to atone for the sins of 
 mankind that he came into the world." 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 41 
 
 of Christ was of supreme concern to him that this subject needs no 
 further discussion. 
 
 But when it comes to a statement of what the death of Chr'st meant 
 to Paul, the task is not so simple, and there is room for differences of 
 opinion. Paul did not have any theory of the atonement carefully 
 worked out, but there are some things in connection with his idea of 
 the death of Christ which seem eivdent. He believed Christ was the 
 sinless one, but ''him who knew no sin God made to be sin on our behalf" 
 (II Cor. 5:21). When Paul made that statement, he evidently meant 
 to convey the idea that when Christ died upon the cross he was passing 
 through an experience which belonged to sinful men rather than to 
 himself, and that he was doing this in order that he might secure sal- 
 vation for men. Paul regarded the death of Christ as a demonstration 
 of the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:21-26). By setting forth Jesus in 
 his death, God could show himself to be just in having passed over sin, 
 and he could also show himself to be the justifier of him that hath faith 
 in Jesus. Christ's death was thus all important in the plan of God. 
 
 Paul used three different terms in his references to the significance 
 of the death of Christ, and it is necessary to make a study of these 
 terms in order to understand his position. One of these words is iXaaTrjpiov 
 which means either a propitiatory offering, or a means of expiation. 
 The most important passage where this word occurs is Rom. 3:25 : 
 "Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, 
 to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done 
 aforetime, in the forebearance of God. " Some writers hold that iXaaTT]- 
 piov in this passage has the same meaning as in Heb. 9:5, where it denotes 
 the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant.^^ According to this theo- 
 ry, the death of Christ expressed the manifestation of the divine mercy. 
 
 This interpretation, however, does not adequately express PauFs 
 thought in this passage, for God set forth Christ in his blood to be a pro- 
 pitiation to show his lighteousness. The etymological meaning of the 
 word is, ''a means of rendering favorable,"^^ and that is undoubtedly the 
 sense in which it is used in this passage. Paul did not think of God as 
 being satisfied because the blood of Christ appeased him; but his death 
 was propitiatory because it adequately expressed God's wrath against 
 sin, and revealed his grace to the sinner. Paul believed the race had 
 
 2* For a brief discussion of this position see George B . Stevens, The Theology of 
 the New Testament, 1910, pp. 412 ff. 
 
 ^ See George B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 1905, p. 62. 
 
42 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 been resting under the wrath of God because of sin, and God had been 
 forbearing in the expression of his wrath. Before this forbearance could 
 be changed into forgiveness, God had to be propitiated by an expression 
 of his righteousness. Paul believed that men are saved from the wrath 
 of God by the means of the death of Christ, but it is not probable that 
 he regarded the crucifixion as a manifestation of God's wrath against 
 Christ. Because Christ had suffered the penalty of sin, his death was 
 regarded as a vindication of the wrath of God against sin. Christ was 
 made sin on man's account, and because he suffered the consequences of 
 sin, God's righteousness was vindicated. Inasmuch as the divine right- 
 eousness was adequately expressed in the death of Christ, God could, with- 
 out having his integrity questioned, deal with men on the basis of faith. 
 Another term which is used in Paul's discussion of the significance 
 of the death of Christ is ctTroXurpcoo-ts, which means: "A releasing effected 
 by payment of ransom; re demptio g^ deliverance, Uberation procured 
 by the payment of a ransom."^ He spoke of the ''redemption that is 
 in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24), and he referred to Christ as having been 
 made unto us redemption (I Cor. 1:30). P aul thought Christ' spu r- 
 pos ejn coming jato-th^ W<^^ld "g^ ^ p' to " rpHppm- J:hejiTrT_tJTq.tJHtej:e--iindar 
 the law" (^li4;4, 5), and heJelt IhatChrist redeemed men from the 
 
 cufse^oTtheJawLbyJiecoming a curse for them (Gair3:13), and his state- 
 ment makes it evident tHaTiiC' bcU c v ed it was in the crucifixion that 
 Christ became a curse. Paul told the Corinthians they were not their 
 I own, for they were bought with a price (I Cor. 6:20), and he undoubtedly 
 ! thought of Christ as being the purchase price. Paul regarded man as 
 \ having been in bondage to sin and the law, and Christ's death as the 
 1 ransom price to deliver him from this bondage. By becoming a curse 
 for men and saving them from bondage, Christ purchased men for him- 
 self, and hence they owe him eternal allegiance. 
 
 The third term which must be considered, if we are to have a cor- 
 rect impression of what the death of Christ meant to Paul, is KaraWayif, 
 which means, ''adjustment of a difference, reconcihatoin, restoration 
 to favor. "2^ The most important passage where this term occurs is 
 Rom. 5:10, 11: "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to 
 God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall 
 we be saved by his life; and not only so, but we also rejoice in God 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received 
 the reconciliation." Another important passage is II Cor. 5:18-21: 
 
 " See Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 
 "See Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 43 
 
 " But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, 
 and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was 
 in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them 
 their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconcilia- 
 tion. We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though 
 God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye 
 reconciled to God. Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our 
 behaK; that we might become the righteousness of God in him. " These 
 passages are so important that they have been quoted in full. The 
 significant question in this connection is concerning the extent of recon- 
 ciliation. Did Paul mean to imply that God was reconciled by the death 
 of Christ? or did reconcilation include only man? or did it include both 
 God and man? The Corinthian passage seems to place the stress on 
 man's need of reconciliation. In this passage, Paul represents God 
 as being in Christ for the purpose of reconciling the world unto himself. 
 He represents God as entreating men through his ambassadors on 
 behalf of Christ to be reconciled. This, however, expresses God's 
 attitude as a result of the death of Christ, and Paul undoubtedly beUeved 
 Christ's death served the purpose of reconciHng God as well as man. 
 He was convinced that sin was a barrier separating God from man, as 
 well as man from God. The death of Christ removed this barrier, and 
 God could then deal with men on the basis of grace. In the death of 
 Christ, God was reconciled, and he no longer reckoned unto men their 
 trespasses. Since Christ was made sin on man's behalf, it was possible 
 for man to "become the righteousness of God in him." Through his 
 ambassadors, God is entreating men to accept the death of Christ, and 
 live in friendly relationship. The death of Christ was not only an 
 expression of God's wrath against sin, but it was also a commendation 
 of his love for the sinners (Rom. 5:8). 
 
 In addition to this judicial statement of the significance of the 
 death of Christ, Paul also had a mystical notion which found frequent 
 expression in his writings. Christ in his death was closely connected 
 with humanity, in whose behalf he was suffering. Paul beUeved that as 
 Adam represented the natural humanity, so Christ represented the spir- 
 itual humanity (Rom. 5:15-19; I Cor. 15:45). When Adam sinned, all 
 sinned; and when Christ died, all died (II Cor. 5:14). Paul beUeved 
 he shared the experiences of his Lord, and when Christ was crucified, 
 he was crucified with him (Gal. 2:20). 
 
 . Paul regarded the death of Christ as propitiating God, because it 
 [enabled him to express his righteousness; and as a redemption, because 
 
44 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 it delivered man from the bondage of law and of sin; and as a recon- 
 ciliation, because it enabled God to deal with men according to his 
 grace, and it also turned men from an attitude of rebellion to one of 
 love. But while Paul used these judicial terms to describe his view 
 of the death of Christ, he did not think of the crucifixion as being merely 
 a juridical proceeding. It was not merely to cancel guilt, or pay a 
 debt; it was to serve an ethical purpose. Paul thought of the death 
 of Christ as not only saving man from the guilt of sin, but as giving 
 him victory over sin. He believed the individual is so closely united 
 to Christ that he is crucified with him, and that he is also raised with 
 him. Paul did not consider the death of Christ as an isolated event; 
 he thought of it in connection with his life, and he also associated with 
 it his resurrection. He said, "We are saved by his life (Rom. 5:10), 
 and he believed Christ "was raised for our justification" (Rom. 4:25). 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his conception of the death of Christ, 
 (a). His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 In making a study of the development of Paul's conception of the 
 significance of the death of Christ, it is necessary to begin with the 
 idea of the Messiah which he had as a Pharisee. Before he became a 
 Christian, he had been looking for a Messiah who was to be the incar- 
 nation of power and glory. He was to be so great that he would be 
 able to destroy his enemies by the word of his mouth. The re was no 
 place for suffering in his notion of the Messiah, and the crucif ixion 
 of Jesus was suflScie hr proof that he w as ji-n im postor. The Messiah 
 could not suffer, and This Jesus had died in dishonor upon a cross. The 
 contribution made by his Messianic inheritance was negative, but 
 as will be pointed out later, this played an important part in the develop- 
 ment of Paul's idea of the significance of Christ's death. 
 
 Paul inherited from the Jewish religion another important element, 
 which furnished material out of which his concept of the significance 
 of the death of Christ was formed, and this was in connection with the 
 animal sacrifices in the temple worship. It is difficult to state just 
 what these sacrifices meant to the Jews of the New Testament period, 
 but it is quite probable that they emphasized God's displeasure towards 
 sin, and were regarded as a means appointed by God for the purpose of 
 expressing contrition. The sacrifice must have been thought of as 
 being in some sense a substitution. The worshipper who brought his 
 sacrifice felt that God would accept it as a substitute for the obedience 
 which he should have rendered. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 45 
 
 There is still another element, which Paul inherited from Judaism, 
 that must be taken into account in making a genetic study of Paul's 
 doctrine of the death of Christ, and that is the prophetic idea of sal- 
 vation by vicarious suffering on the part of others. The most impor- 
 tant illustration of this idea is the suffering servant of Jehovah — passage 
 in Isa. 52:13-53:12. The prophet felt that the faithful were suffering 
 for the wrongs of the disobedient, and he interpreted this suffering 
 as a divine chastisement. Jehovah was making the innocent to suffer 
 for the guilty, and his purpose in this was the saving of the nation. 
 Thus the persecuted remnant, which represents the ideal nation, be- 
 comes the savior of the disobedient. It would be easy for one who 
 understood this prophetic idea of vicarious suffering for the deliverance 
 of others to grasp the conception of a divine being suffering for the race. 
 
 As a Jew, Paul had believed in a Messiah who was to come in glory 
 to bring in the kingdom of God. According to his thinking, the Messiah 
 was to be so great that suffering would be entirely foreign to him. Paul 
 also believed men could offer sacrifices for sin, and that these sacrifices 
 were pleasing to God. He also felt that it was possible for a nation, 
 and for individuals, to suffer in behalf of others. Any circumstance 
 which would lead him to associate the significance of animal sacrifice 
 and the idea of vicarious suffering with his notion of the Messiah, 
 which he had as a Jew, would lay a good foundation for his doctrine of 
 the death of Christ, 
 (b) The thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 In making a study of the development of the significance of the 
 death of Christ for Paul, we must take into account his Greek environ- 
 ment, as well as his Jewish inheritance. The mystery-cults had extended 
 over the Mediterranean world before the beginning of the Christian 
 era, and the idea of redemption through a deity who had died and was 
 raised was prominent in all these religions. The Phrygian cult of the 
 Mother of the Gods, Cybele, and her consort Attis, was known by the 
 Greeks as early as the sixth century B. C, and it was introduced into 
 Rome by an official act of the senate in 204 B. C, and in a short time 
 a temple was erected for the mother-goddess on the Palatine. According 
 to all the myths, Attis died, and Cybele mourned until he was restored 
 to life. His triumph over death was the basis of this Phrygian religion, 
 and around it developed a ritual, which was supposed to bring the 
 same victory to men which the deity had obtained.^^ 
 
 28 For a brief discussion of Cybele and Attis, and for a select bibliography of 
 original sources, see "Shirley Jackson Case," The Evolution of Early Christianity , 
 1914, pp. 302 ff. 
 
46 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Perhaps the Egyptian mysteries were more widely disseminated 
 throughout the Mediterranean world, and exerted a greater influence 
 upon the people, than any of the other mysteries. Isis and Osiris were 
 the most important of the Egyptian deities, and Serapis was later 
 introduced. This reHgion spread over Egypt at an early time, and 
 international relations with the Ptolemies led to its introduction into 
 other parts of the Mediterranean world. These Egyptian deities were 
 worshipped extensively throughout the Graeco-Roman world for two 
 or three centuries before the Christian era. A temple had been erected 
 to Serapis at the base of the Acropolis in Athens. Merchants and 
 sailors carried these mysteries to various centers around the Mediter- 
 ranean. Serapis was worshipped in Puteoli as early as 105 B. C, as 
 a city ordinance of that year mentions a Serapeum. Isis was worshipped 
 in Pompeii before 63 B. C, for a temple of Isis was destroyed by earth- 
 quake that year. These Egyptian mysteries were introduced into Rome, 
 although they were opposed by the authorities. The altars of Isis 
 were destroyed by the senate in 58 B. C. The records show that the 
 devotees of these Egyptian rehgions were frequently persecuted, but 
 these rehgions became more popular with persecution. The very 
 frequency of these persecutions indicates their futility. The Egyptian 
 religion became so popular that CaHgula built a temple to Isis in the 
 Campus Martinius, and Vespasian and Titus passed the night, before 
 their triumphal procession, in the temple of Isis. 
 
 The cult of Isis and Osiris was originally a nature religion, and 
 the death and resurrection of the deity typified the change of the sea- 
 sons. Plutarch gives the fullest account of the myth of Osiris, and, 
 according to his account, Osiris was the good king of the Egjrptians, 
 and his death was accomphshed by a trick of his brother Set. Isis 
 recovered the parts of his dismembered body, and they were restored 
 to life.'^^ According to the various myths, the story of Osiris is that 
 of a deity who died and was raised from the dead. According to one 
 source, the gods say to him: "Though thou departest, thou comest 
 again; though thou sleepest, thou wakest again; though thou diest, 
 thou livest again. "^^ The death and resurrection of the deity were 
 represented in a play which was enacted openly, and this must have 
 made a deep impression on those who witnessed it. In earUer times 
 the death and resurrection of the deity were related to the coming of 
 
 a> Plutarch, Pomp. 13, 18. 
 
 »« See George Foot Moore, History of Religions, 1913, p. 589. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 47 
 
 winter and the return of summer, but in the later Hellenistic times they 
 were associated with the experiences of the soul of man. By uniting 
 himself with the deity, the individual might conquer death as Osiris 
 had conquered it. 
 
 There were other deities, like Adonis, whose death and resurrection 
 were depicted in the ritual of their worshippers. These rehgions had 
 a large following in the Graeco-Roman world of Paul's day, and they 
 were especially popular in the great centers like Tarsus. Paul must 
 have seen enacted the dramas which represented the death and resurrec- 
 tion of the deities, and perhaps unconscious to himself, he was influ- 
 enced by them. It is not at all likely that during his pre-Christian 
 life, he saw any connection between the death and resurrection of these 
 pagan deities and his own Messiah, but an impression had been made 
 which would lead him to make the connection if he should ever face the 
 proper circumstances. Paul was undoubtedly influenced in his doctrine 
 of the death of Christ by the mystery-religions. While the death of 
 the Messiah was foreign to the thought of the Jew, the death of the 
 deity, who was regarded as redeemer, was fundamental in the thought 
 of the Greek who adhered to the mystery-cults. Jesus was for the 
 PauUne Christians the Redeemer who had passed through death to 
 life, and they beheved that men and women, by entering into fellow- 
 ship with his sufferings, might know the power of his resurrection. The 
 Greeks beheved that men could enter into fellowship with the deity 
 so that they could share his sufferings and thus participate in his glory. 
 Paul had the same conviction, for he not only believed he had died 
 with Christ, but he also believed he had been raised with him. Some 
 recent writers would lead us to feel that Paul's Greek environment 
 was sufficient in itself to explain his conception of the significance of 
 Christ's death.^^ Paul's Greek environment was important, but there 
 are other elements which were equally important, and to neglect these 
 is to fail to understand him. 
 
 •^ Alfred Loisy {Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1911, p. 51) in his summary of what Christ 
 meant to Paul, fairiy represents these writers. He says: "He was a savior-god, 
 after the manner of an Osiris, an Attis, a Mithra. Like them, he belonged by origin 
 to the celestial worid; like them, he had made his appearance on the earth; Uke them, 
 he had accomphshed a work of universal redemption, efficacious and typical; like 
 Adonis, Osiris, and Attis, he had died a violent death, and, like them, he had been 
 restored to life; like them he had prefigured in his lot that of the human beings who 
 should take part in his worship, and commemorate his mystic enterprise; hke them, 
 he had predestined, prepared, and assured the salvation of those who became partners 
 in his passion." 
 
48 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 (c) Primitive Christian tradition. 
 
 Paul must have been influenced in the development of his thought 
 about the death of Christ by the tradition of the teachings of Jesus 
 concerning his own death, as well as by the teachings of the early Chris- 
 tians themselves. He must have heard the Christians whom he was 
 persecuting glorify the Christ who had died upon the cross, and empha- 
 size his death as a part of the divine plan; and while this, at that time, 
 seemed to him like blasphemy, at a later time, when he was passing 
 through a soul struggle, it served to amalgamate his Greek ideas with 
 his Jewish inheritance. 
 
 According to our canonical Gospels, Jesus repeatedly referred to 
 his death, and connected it with the salvation of men. He spoke about 
 giving his life a "ransom for many" (Mk. 10:45), and in instituting 
 the Lord^s Supper, he designated the wine as "my blood of the cove- 
 nant, which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins" (Mt. 
 26:28). In the sermons, recorded in the first part of Acts, the death of 
 Christ is connected with salvation. It is impossible to state to what 
 extent the sayings of Jesus concerning his death, as they are recorded 
 in our canonical Gospels, were influenced by later thought, and to 
 what extent the sermons recorded in the first part of Acts represent 
 the thought of the writer of the book; but from a study of the Gospels 
 and Acts, it seems that one is able to trace a development in the pri- 
 mitive Christian thought of the death of Christ. At first, even the 
 suggestion of the death of Jesus was a stumbling-block to the disciples, 
 and when his crucifixion actually came, their ideals crumbled about them. 
 They had hoped Jesus was "he who should redeem Israel," but when 
 he died upon the cross, they felt they had been deceived. Their convic- 
 tion that Jesus was alive changed the whole situation. While they still 
 believed the crucifixion was a crime committed by the Jews, they felt 
 that God had overruled their crime for good. They now realized that 
 instead of the crucifixion being a defeat of the divine plan, it was accord- 
 ing to God's will, and was for the accomphshment of salvation. In 
 the light of this conviction, they re-read the Scriptures and found that 
 they should have been expecting the very things which had happened, 
 for the crucifixion was according to the "determinate counsel" of God, 
 and the prophets had foretold it. 
 (d) His own personal experience. 
 
 The conception of the Messiah which Paul had when he was perse- 
 cuting the Christians was completely changed by the experience which 
 he interpreted as a revelation of Christ in him. Having identified the 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 49 
 
 Christ, who had been revealed in him, with Jesus, who had died upon 
 the cross, and with the Jewish Messiah, it was then necessary for him to 
 reconstruct his thinking about the crucifixion. The cross was a stum- 
 bUng-block for Saul, the Pharisee; but it became the chief object of 
 glory for Paul, the Christian. PauFs creative personality, by bringing 
 together and reconstructing and unifying the material furnished by a 
 Jewish inheritance, a Greek environment, the primitive Christian 
 tradition about the death of Jesus, and his own wonderful experience, 
 produced a conception of the cross which was different from any that 
 had hitherto been held. It was no longer a stumbling-block, as it was 
 to the Jews, but it was the basis of the world's hope; it was not something 
 which needed to be explained or justified, as it was for the early Christians, 
 but it was the heart of all preaching; it was not merely a suffering deity 
 to give men victory, as it was to the Greeks, but along with that it 
 reconciled God and man. Paul's theory of the death of Christ was 
 not Jewish; neither was it Greek, nor primitive Christian. Elements 
 from all these sources were worked over in the mortar of his own expe- 
 rience by the pestle of his creative personality, and the result was a 
 theory which was peculiarly his own. 
 
 While Paul had the Jewish conception of the Messiah, the Greek 
 ritual, depicting the death and resurrection of the deity to make it 
 possible for men to obtain immortality, would have but Httle conscious 
 influence upon him. He must have frequently compared his Messiah 
 with their savior-god and perhaps almost unconscious to himself, he 
 may have wondered if they could possibly be right, and if the Messiah 
 was really to suffer to give victory to men. This contact with the Greek 
 idea of the savior-god, who died and was raised to make it possible for 
 men to obtain victory, even though the influence was unconscious to 
 himself, prepared him so that when he passed through a great soul-crisis 
 he was ready to accept the crucified Christ, whom the Christians were 
 worshipping. This Greek environment made it easy for Paul to identify 
 the heavenly Christ, whom he beUeved had been revealed to him, with 
 the crucified Jesus. His Greek environment also helped to determine 
 what the death of Christ should mean to him. The Greek idea of 
 sharing in the death and resurrection of the deity, by being initiated 
 into fellowship with him, became fundamental in Paul's thinking. 
 He believed Christ's death on the cross was his death, and Christ's 
 resurrection was his resurrection. 
 
 Paul's conversion to Christianity and his acceptance of the cruci- 
 fied Christ gave many of his Jewish ideas a new significance, but he 
 
50 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Still retained these Jewish ideas, and they were an important factor 
 in the development of his thought of the death of Christ. The signifi- 
 cance of the death of Christ was very different for Paul than it would 
 have been if he had been a Greek, instead of a Jew. After he had 
 accepted the crucified Christ, he still beheved that when he endured 
 the shameful death on the cross he "became a curse," but he felt it 
 was on man's account, and not because of his own weakness or unworthi- 
 ness. He had been thinking in terms of sacrifice, and he beheved Christ 
 had been offered up as a sacrifice for men. His death meant more than 
 the animal sacrifice did to the Jew; God not only accepted it as a sub- 
 stitute for what man should have rendered, but it was at the same time 
 a vindication of the righteousness of God. P aul had thought of_G od 
 i n^ terms ^ of law, and he never got entirely away from that. Law and 
 experience were combined in Paul's thinking, for the death of Christ 
 was not only a propitiation of God by showing his wrath against sin, 
 but it was also an expression of his love for sinners. Paul's legal train- 
 ing led him to think of Christ's death as a ansom price to redeem man 
 from the bondage of sin, law and death; while his experience of the 
 heavenly Christ, in connection with the notion of the suffering servant 
 of Jehovah, led him to think of it as a vicarious sacrifice for men. The 
 feeling towards God, which came as a result of his Christian experience, 
 convinced him that the death of Christ was a means of reconcihation 
 between God and men. ' The God whom he had known under the law 
 was a God of wrath and justice, but the God whom he had come to 
 know through Jesus Christ was a God of love and compassion. 
 
 It is not probable that Paul reached his conclusion about the signifi- 
 cance of the death of Christ suddenly; it was undoubtedly the devel- 
 opment of a lifetime. His conception became richer with the passing 
 of the years, for each new experience modified his theory. Paul took 
 up into his own thinking elements from Judaism, the thought of the 
 Greek world, the teaching of the primitive disciples, his own personal 
 experience, and the experience of others, as he had observed it, and the 
 result was his theory of the death of Christ. It is not probable that 
 Paul had any thought about the sources from which his ideas were 
 derived; he accepted what seemed to him to be the truth, and this 
 became a part of his thinking. Paul was certain that he had the spirit 
 of God, and that he had divine guidance in reaching his conclusions; 
 hence he had no doubt about the correctness of his convictions. He felt 
 as certain about the conclusions to which he had come through a process 
 of reasoning, by taking elements from different sources and working 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 51 
 
 them into a theory, as he did about convictions which he believed were 
 the result of revelation; the divine spirit had guided him in either case. 
 
 The Pre-existent Christ 
 a. Statement of Paul's teaching. 
 
 Paul did not attempt to prove the pre-existence of Christ. His 
 references to it are all incidental, but these are more important as 
 indicating his behef than lengthy arguments would be. Instead of 
 attempting to prove the pre-existence of Christ, Paul presupposed it as a 
 behef which was familiar to his readers. Pre-existence is impHed in 
 the statement, "God sent forth his Son" (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 8:3). This 
 would indicate that Paul believed Christ had existed with the Father 
 before his appearance on the earth, and that God sent him from that 
 pre-existent state into this earthly life. Pre-existence is implied in 
 the statement : " Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor " 
 (II Cor. 8:9). This would indicate that Paul was convinced that Christ 
 had had an existence of wealth and honor before he came to earth, and 
 that his life here was a giving up of his former riches. Pre-existence 
 is implied in the statement that the spiritual rock which followed the 
 IsraeUtes was Christ (I Cor. 10:4). Paul evidently believed the pre- 
 existent Christ was present with the children of Israel, and helped them 
 in their wilderness wanderings. His statement in I Cor. 8:6 would 
 indicate that he beHeved the pre-existent Christ was the agent in creation. 
 
 The classical passage in which Paul emphasized the pre-existent 
 Christ is Phil. 2 :3-l 1, This has been a much discussed passage. Many 
 writers have come to it with preconceived ideas, and hence they have 
 read into it a meaning which Paul did not have in mind. The context 
 shows that he was not discussing the various phases of Christ's exis- 
 tence, but referred to him as an illustration of humility and self-sacrifice. 
 Scholars have differed in their interpretation of h tMp(pfi 0eov (Phil. 2 :6)^^ 
 Paul was not discussing Christ's relation to the Father while he was 
 in the pre-existent state. He was not even discussing the reahty of his 
 pre existence. He assumed this, and made it the basis of an exhorta- 
 tion to the Christians. Paul urged the Philippians to be willing to 
 sacrifice self for others as Christ had sacrificed himself in behaK of hu- 
 manity. He said although Christ was in the form of God, yet he was 
 willing to give up his divine honor and glory, and live upon the earth as 
 a man, and while living as a man, suffer the humiliation upon the cross. 
 
 " For a brief discussion of this passage and its bearing on the doctrine of the pre- 
 existence of Christ, see S. Nowell Rostron, The Christology of St. Paul, 1912, pp. 114 ff. 
 
52 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WMTINGS 
 
 There can be no doubt that Paul believed in the pre-existence of Christ, 
 and that this was not an ideal existence, but was as real as that which 
 he later had on the earth. 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his conception of the pre-existent 
 
 Christ. 
 (a). His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 The Jews had the idea that every person or thing of importance, 
 like the temple or the holy city, had a heavenly prototype before it 
 had its real existence; and some writers have made this the basis for 
 the development of Paul's doctrine of the pre-existent Christ. There 
 seems to have been in the Jewish thought of Paul's day a more striking 
 resemblance to the pre-existent Christ than the one just mentioned. It 
 is almost certain that in later Judaism there was the conception of a 
 Messiah who existed in heaven with God, and was waiting the time of 
 his manifestation on the earth. The most striking expressions of this 
 conception, which have been preserved, are in the book of Enoch. In 
 Sim. 46:1, 2, the Son of Man is represented as one who is with God: 
 "The angel showed me all things concerning the Son of Man, who he 
 was, and whence he was, and why he went in with the Head of Days. " 
 He is represented in Sim. 61 :7 as having been hidden in heaven before 
 his manifestation on the earth: "The Son of Man was hidden before 
 him, and the Most High preserved him in the presence of his might, and 
 revealed him to the elect." The same idea is emphasized in Sim. 48:2: 
 "He had been chosen and hidden before the Lord of Spirits before the 
 creation of the world and forevermore. "^^ It is difl&cult to state just 
 what conception of the Messiah would be indicated by these and other 
 similar passages which might be cited, but it seems that a popular phase 
 of Messianism was that the Messiah would come from a heavenly 
 pre-existence where he was being kept by God until the day of his 
 manifestation.^ 
 
 ''The date of the Sunilitudes of Enoch is uncertain, and some scholars have 
 regarded these statements as Christian interpolations, but Emil Schurer {Geschichte 
 Des Jiidischen Volkes, III, 1907, p. 280, Eng. trans. Divis., II, Vol. Ill, 1891, p. 68) 
 regards these passages as purely Jewish, and he does not think it is necessary to pre- 
 suppose Christian influence. He says: "The view of the Messiah here set forth is 
 fully intelligible on purely Jewish premises, and does not need for its explanation 
 the hypothesis of Christian influence." 
 
 ^ For a further discussion of the Jewish notion of a pre-existent Messiah, see W. 
 Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1903, pp. 253 f. 
 Percy Gardner {The Religious Experience of St. Paul, 1911, pp. 184 f.) says: "It has 
 been shown by recent research that the notion of an exalted spiritual Messiah, who was 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 53 
 
 While it seems almost certain that the Jews believed in a pre-exis- 
 tent Messiah, it is not probable that they thought he would come from 
 his heavenly state to be born as a child; on the contrary, he was to 
 come as the mighty one. If the heavenly pre-existence of the Messiah 
 was a part of Jewish Messianism, then Paul must have held to that 
 before his conversion, and it would furnish him a good starting point 
 for his doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ. Before Paul's conversion 
 to Christianity it must have seemed to him Uke sacrilege to refer to 
 Jesus as the Messiah. The Messiah was the mighty one, who was 
 being kept in heaven until God's appointed time, and then he was to be 
 manifested in power and glory; but Jesus had come as a child, and had 
 lived as a man, and had died in disgrace. But when Paul was converted 
 to Christianity, he transferred to Jesus all the ideals he had of the heav- 
 enly being. It should be said, however, that the Christian Messiah, 
 whom Paul worshipped, was not merely the Jewish Messiah under 
 another name; there were striking differences, and other sources besides 
 the Jewish contributed to Paul's thinking, 
 (b) The thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 There were many similarities between the Greek thought of Paul's 
 day and his idea of the pre-existent Christ. In the Hellenistic thought 
 of Paul's time there was an intermediary between God and his world, 
 which was designated as Wisdom or Logos. The problem for the Greek 
 was to make it possible for a good God to have any dealings with an 
 evil world, and this was accompHshed through the intermediary. It is 
 stated in the Wisdom of Solomon (10:17) that the cloud which accom- 
 panied the Israehtes in the wilderness was the Divine Wisdom. Philo 
 of Alexandria had much to say about the Logos as the intermediary 
 between God and the world. He held that the Logos is "the Image 
 of God" (Prof. 19): "The divine Logos is like nothing perceptible, 
 
 to be no mere earthly king and conqueror but a great angelic being, was by no means 
 unknown among the Jews at the time of the birth of Jesus. Such a supernatural 
 Messiah is shadowed forth in the Psalms of Solomon (17, 18), and in the book of 
 Enoch (47). To such thought the Messiah was pre-existent in heaven, waiting to be 
 revealed to men, the prince of angels." W. Wrede (Patdus, 1907, p. 87; Eng. trans. 
 1908, p. 152) is also convinced that Jewish apocalyptic Uterature makes it certain 
 that the Jews believed in a Messiah, who, before his appearance, lived in heaven and 
 was more exalted than the angels themselves. Gerald Friedlander (Hellenism and 
 Christianity, 1912, pp. 1 ff.) is just as certain that the conception of a Messiah, who was 
 pre-existent in heaven, was utterly foreign to Jewish thought, and that all the references 
 in Jewish apocalyptic Uterature to a pre-existent Messiah are Christian interpolations. 
 
54 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 but is itself an Image of God. " He designated the Logos as the Son 
 of God (Agr. Noe, 12): " God regulates the nature of the heavens, etc., 
 appointing as their immediate superintendent, his own Logos, his first 
 born son. '' Philo thought of the Logos, which he designated as God's 
 Image and First-born Son, as being eternal (Conf. Ling. 28): "For even 
 if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may- 
 deserve to be called the children of his eternal Image, of his most sacred 
 Logos; for the image of God is his most ancient Logos. " It is in the 
 relation of the Logos to the universe and to mankind that the teaching 
 of Philo is the most significant. The Logos is designated as the arche- 
 typal pattern according to which the universe was made (Mundi Op. 
 6): "It is manifest also, that the archetypal seal, which we call that 
 world which is perceptible only to the intellect, must itself be the arche- 
 typal model, the idea of ideas, the Logos of God." Philo regarded 
 the Logos as the instrument of creation (On Cherub. 35): "The cause 
 by whom the world was made is God; the materials are the four elements 
 of which it is composed; the instrument is the Logos of God, by means 
 of which it was made." Philo also believed the Logos is the power 
 by means of which God binds the universe together, and controls what 
 he has made (Prof. 20) : " It is the bond of all things, and holds together 
 and binds all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and 
 separated." Philo did not regard the Logos as an independent force 
 but as a medium between God and his world (Migrat. Abr. 1): "By 
 means of the Logos, the ruler of the universe takes hold of it as a rudder, 
 and governs all things. " According to Philo's thinking, the Logos was 
 the archetype for man as well as for the universe (Mundi Op. 48): 
 "For God does not seem to have availed himself of any other animal 
 existing in creation as his model in the formation of man, but to have 
 been guided by his own Logos alone. On which account Moses affirms 
 that this man was an image and imitation of God." It is by the Logos 
 that men are guided and controlled (Mundi Op. 50): "But since every 
 city in which law; are properly established has a regular constitution, 
 it becomes necessary for the citizens of the world to adopt the same 
 constitution as that which prevailed in the universal world. And this 
 constitution is the right Logos of nature, which in more appropriate 
 language is denominated law, being a divine arrangement in accordance 
 with which everything suitable and appropriate is assigned to every 
 individual." What the sun is to the natural world, the Logos is to 
 men. Just as the sun gives life to nature, so the Logos gives life and 
 salvation to the righteous; but it also brings destruction upon the 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 55 
 
 unrighteous (Somn. I. 15): "When he speaks of the sun, he means 
 the divine Logos, the model of that sun which moves about through the 
 heaven. . . . For the Logos of God, when it reaches to our earthly 
 constitution, assists and protects those who are akin to virtue; so that 
 it provides them a complete refuge and salvation, but upon their enemies 
 it sends irremediable overthrow and destruction." Philo thinks the 
 Logos enables men to understand God (Leg. All. Ill, 73): "But we 
 must be content if we are able to understand even his name, that is 
 to say, his Logos, which is the interpreter of his will." He also thinks 
 the Logos is the mediator between God and men (Quis Rerum Div. 
 Her. 42): "And the Father, who created he universe, has given to his 
 angelic and most ancient Logos a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the 
 confines of both and separate that which had been created from the 
 creator. And this same Logos is continually a suppliant to the immor- 
 tal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and 
 misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the ruler of all to the sub- 
 ject race." 
 
 These numerous citations from Philo's writing; have been made 
 because a survey of the philosophy to which Philo gave expression is 
 indispensable to an understanding of the thought of the world in which 
 Paul lived. A summary of these passages and others which might have 
 been cited will enable us to form a fairly accurate conception of what 
 the Logos meant to Philo. In its relation to God, it is called the Image 
 of God, the Son of God, the Shadow of God, the Reason of God, etc. 
 In its relation to the Powers, it is at the head, and stand next to God. 
 In its relation to the universe, it is designated as the archetype, the 
 instrument of creation, and the universal law regulating and controll- 
 ing all things. In its relation to man, it is des gnated as his arche- 
 type; as a moral law controlling his relations with his fellowmen; as 
 the interpreter of God's will for him; and as his mediator before God. 
 It is difficult to say to what extent Philo ascribed distinct personality 
 to the Logos, but his statements were of such a character that it would 
 be easy for others to ascribe personality, whether he did or not. 
 
 Philo did not create this philosophy; he was merely giving expression 
 to the thought of his age. Paul may never have read any of Philo's 
 writings, but the idea was current in the Greek world that Wisdom, or 
 Logos, was God's means of manifesting himself to men, and that concep- 
 tion was beginning to find entrance into the Jewish world, as is 
 indicated by the " memra ' ' of the Targums. This thought of an interme- 
 diary between God and his world must have been current in Tarsus, and 
 
56 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Paul must have been familiar with it. It must have influenced his 
 thinking as a Jew, and when the great upheaval came in his own soul, 
 and he was compelled to reshape his conception of the Messiah, these 
 Greek ideas were given a large place. 
 
 (c) Primitive Christian tradition. 
 
 It is impossible to state just what the primitive Christian tradition 
 which must have been familiar to Paul, had to say about the pre-existence 
 of Christ. The doctrine of pre-existence is very evident in the Fourth 
 Gospel, but it is a question whether this represents the teaching of 
 Jesus, or whether it is due to a later development in the thought of 
 the church about Christ. The Fourth Gospel is an interpretation of 
 the life and teachings of Jesus, and there is a strong probabihty that 
 the statements about pre-existence which are made in the body of the 
 book are interpretative, and are used to carry out the purpose as it is 
 stated in the Prologue. The doctrine of pre-existence is not definite- 
 ly stated in the Synoptic Gospels, but there are some passages which 
 are more naturally explained by assuming that they imply pre-existence. 
 The Synoptic Gospels, however, were not written until after Paul's let- 
 ters had been penned, and there had been much development in Chris- 
 tology before that time. Although the interpretative element is not 
 so prominent in the Synoptic Gospels, as in the Fourth Gospel, yet it 
 figures in each of these documents, and it may have some bearing on the 
 statements which seem to imply pre-existence. In the sermons that 
 are recorded in the first part of Acts, there is nothing said about pre- 
 existence. It is impossible to absolutely reproduce the thought of the 
 church into which Paul entered. We do not know just what was the 
 Christology of that primitive church, or what it taught about the pre- 
 existence of Christ, as we have no literature which came out of that 
 period. It seems probable, however, that if there was any reference to 
 pre-existence in the early Christian tradition, it was not given much 
 prominence. The tradition which Paul received from the church into 
 which he entered would not be sufficient in itself to explain his concep- 
 tion of the pre-existence of Christ.^ 
 
 (d) His own personal experience. 
 
 It was Paul's personal experience which led him to identify the 
 Jewish conception of a pre-existent Messiah, and the Greek idea of the 
 
 ^ J. W. Bailey (Elements of Paul's Christology, 1905, p. 55) concludes his discus- 
 sion of the sources which contributed to Paul's thought about pre-existence by say- 
 ing: "Paul's doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ was not transmitted to him as a 
 tradition of the church, and accepted on the basis of such authority." 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 57 
 
 intermediary between God and his world, with the Christ whom the 
 Christians were worshipping. He interpreted the experience which led 
 him to make this identification as a revelation of Christ in him. He felt 
 that this Christ whom he had begun to know was too great to have had 
 his beginning with earth; he was the heavenly being, and his earthly 
 career was but a humiliation from his heavenly existence. Paul was 
 led to know Christ in a manner that was just the opposite of that in 
 which the primitive disciples came to know him. They were led gradu- 
 ally to the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of God. 
 Paul came to believe in the heavenly Christ first and although he identi- 
 fied him with the historical Jeuses, it was natural for him to continue 
 to think of him in heavenly terms. 
 
 While Paul's Jewish inheritance and his Greek environment, along 
 with the teaching of the early Christians, helped to determine the 
 Christ in whom he came to believe, yet it was his own personal experience 
 which led him to bring together these hitherto discordant elements. 
 If Paul had not passed through some great experience, he would have 
 continued to regard Jesus as an impostor, and to believe in a Jewish 
 Messiah who was yet to come. That great experience, which turned 
 him from a persecutor into one of the persecuted, led him to accept the 
 Christ of the Christ'ans, and to ascribe to him the highest ideals of the 
 Jewish Messiah. This new adjustment would lead him to adopt ideas 
 of the Greeks which had hitherto unconsciously influenced him. It is 
 not probable that Paul's doctrine of the pre-existent Christ was defi- 
 nitely formed at the time of his conversion; it was the development 
 of a lifetime, and it was his own personal experience which guided him 
 in I he development. As he gave Christ a larger place in his thinking 
 and his life, he placed more stress on his heavenly qualities, and espe- 
 cially on his pre-existence. 
 
 The Christ of the Future Age 
 a. Statement of Paul's teaching. 
 
 The Christ of the future age occupied a prominent place in Paul's 
 Christology. Paul believed the present order was to pass away, and a 
 new age was to be inaugurated. He believed Christ was to have a promi- 
 nent part in the inauguration of this new age. The common Jewish 
 designation for the end of the present order, and the inauguration of the 
 new age, was the "Day of the Lord," but in Paul's thinking, Christ 
 was to have such a prominent part that he designated the event as the 
 ''Day of Christ" (Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; I Cor. 1:8 II Cor. 1:14). Paul 
 
58 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 believed that at the end of this age Christ will come in person (I Thess. 
 2 :19). He will be accompanied by the saints (I Thess. 3:13), and he will 
 come with a shout of victory (I Thess. 4:16). He taught that when 
 Christ comes, the righteous dead will be raised, and along with the 
 righteous who are still living at the time of his coming, they will be 
 caught up to meet him in the air to be with him forever. Paul beheved 
 that Christ would come at an unexpected moment, and there are many 
 statements in his writings which would indicateJiiaJ.Jie_belieyed_Ji^ 
 co mjn^ was to be soon (Rom. 13:11, 12; I Thess. 4:15, 17; I Cor. 1:7, 8). 
 He believed thafafter Christ's coming there was to be a judgment, and 
 that Christ was to have such a pre-eminent part that the place of judg- 
 ment could be designated as the "judgment seat of Christ" (II Cor. 
 5:10). In this judgment none will escape, for all must be made mani- 
 fest. Even the secrets of men will be revealed when the Lord comes, 
 for he will "bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make mani- 
 fest the counsels of the hearts. " 
 
 Although Paul believed Christ was to play an important part in the 
 inauguration of the new age, and in the judgment which was to be a part 
 of this great event, yet he beheved he was to be subordinate to God, 
 and would act as his representative. Paul believed that when Christ 
 shall have put under his feet the last enemy, which is death, then " he 
 shall dehver up the kingdom to God" that he may be all in all (I Cor. 
 15:24-28). 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his thought about the Christ of 
 
 the future age. 
 (a) His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 According to the thought of current Judaism, God was to send his 
 Messiah at the end of the age to inaugurate the Messianic kingdom. He 
 would be so great that he would slay all sinners by "the word of his 
 mouth " (Enoch 62 :2) . The kings and the mighty ones would behold him 
 sitting on the throne of his glory, and they would know that "righteous- 
 ness is judged before him" (Enoch 62:3). The Messiah was to appear, 
 and then he was to be seated on the throne of his glory (Enoch 69 :29) : 
 "For that Son of Man has appeared, 
 And has seated himself on the throne of his glory. 
 And all evil shall pass away before his face. 
 And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth 
 And be strong before the Lord of Spirits. " 
 The Jews believed that the Messiah was being concealed by God until 
 the day of his manifestation, and that then he was to come suddenly 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 59 
 
 from the place of his concealment. The dead were to be raised, and 
 the wicked were to be punished. The righteous dead who had been 
 raised, together with the righteous Jews who were living, were to con- 
 stitute the Messianic kingdom. ^^ 
 
 According to the Synoptic Gospels the conception of the Messiah 
 which John the Baptist had in mind was that of a judge (Matt. 3:12): 
 "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing- 
 jfloor; and he will gather his wheat into his garner, but the chaff he will 
 burn with unquenchable fire. " John expected Jesus to be the mighty 
 judge, and live apart from men, and because he was compassionate and 
 meek and ate with men, doubts sprang up in the mind of the forerunner, 
 and he sent messengers to inquire of the Master whether he was the 
 Messiah, or whether they should look for another. The disciples failed 
 to understand Jesus, because they were expecting a mighty judge who 
 would condemn and destroy the enemies of God. There were many 
 variations in Jewish Messianism, but all were agreed that the Messiah 
 was the mighty one who would judge the nations. Paul inherited these 
 eschatological conceptions of the Jews, and they formed the basis for 
 the development of his Christian eschatology. 
 (b) The thought of the church into which he entered. 
 
 The personal disciples of Jesus expected him to set up a kingdom in 
 which he would take the place of judge. Instead of carrying out their 
 ideals, he died upon a cross, and consequently they were disappointed 
 and heartbroken. Their conviction that Christ was alive changed the 
 whole situation for them. They became convinced that Christ was 
 coming again, and that he would perform at his second coming what 
 they had mistakenly supposed he would do at his first coming. Jesus 
 had undoubtedly made some statements relating to a future coming 
 and to his work as a judge, and these statements had been passed on to 
 Paul, and he accepted them without question. In writing to the Thes- 
 salonians about the condition of the Christians who had died, he said 
 those who are alive at the coming of the Lord will have no advantage 
 over those who are dead, and he said he was making this statement by 
 **the word of the Lord" (I Thess. 4:15). He evidently referred to some 
 statement which he had received as having come from Jesus, and he 
 
 '« For a fuller discussion of the eschatology of later Judaism, see Emil Schurer, 
 The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Divis. II, Vol. II, pp. 154 ff.; R. H. 
 Charles, Ar. "Eschatology," Encyc. Bib. Vol. II, pp. 1335 ff.; S. D. F. Salmon, Art. 
 "Eschatology," H. H. B., Vol. I, pp. 734 ff.; or Shailer Mathews, The Messianic 
 Hope in the New Testament, 1905, pp. 21 ff. 
 
60 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 believed this covered the point raised by the Thessalonians, and he felt 
 that there was no need of further argument, for the statement of Jesus 
 settled the question. Paul undoubtedly received from the primitive 
 Christians some teaching concerning the second coming of Christ, and 
 this influenced him in the development of his thought of the future 
 age. But inasmuch as the thought of the primitive Christians about the 
 second coming of Christ and the part he is to perform in the bringing 
 in of the Messianic era was derived from Judaism, it is impossible to 
 distinguish between what Paul obtained from the primitive Christians 
 and what he derived from Judaism, 
 (c) His own personal experience. 
 
 Judaism alone would not explain Paul's notion of the Christ of the 
 future age. Unless he had passed through some wonderful experience 
 he would not have been convinced that the one, whom he had supposed 
 was an impostor, was in reality the mighty one who is to be the judge of 
 all the earth. In his thinking, he not only went back from the heavenly 
 Christ, whom he had come to know, to the pre-existent Christ, but he 
 also went forward to the Christ, as he is yet to be. The Christ whom 
 he worshipped was too great to have had his beginning with earth, and 
 he was also too great to have his influence end with this present age. 
 When Paul came to know the Christ of God, and had experienced his 
 power in his own Ufe, he realized that there could be none greater than 
 he, and he transferred to him all the glory which the Jewish apocalyp- 
 tists had ascribed to their Messiah. Paul assigned to the Christ of the 
 future age the highest possible place, with but one exception, and his 
 Jewish training made it necessary for him to safeguard the sovereignty 
 of God. Christian experience led Paul to exalt Christ to the highest 
 possible position, but his Jewish inheritance required him to keep God 
 in the supreme place; hence Christ becomes God's representative to 
 carry out his plans, and when he shall have done this, he will deliver the 
 kingdom up to God that he may be all in all. 
 
 The New Life 
 Statement of Fatd's Teaching 
 Paul's Christian teaching reached its consummation in the new life 
 of the believer, as all his preaching and writing were for the purpose 
 of leading men into the new Hfe. In making a study of Paul's concep- 
 tion of the new life in Christ, it is necessary to begin with his doctrine 
 of justification; but inasmuch as the rel ation o f the law 4o4ustifijcation 
 will'^Beliiscussed in another connection, that phase of the subject will 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 61 
 
 be passed over for the present. In Galatians and Romans much space 
 is devoted to a discussion of the doctrine of justification, and in the 
 latter epistle much emphasis is placed upon the new life of those who 
 are justified. Paul held that a man is justified though faith in Christ, 
 and he believed faith is such a vital bond that it unites the believer 
 to him who is the source of the new life. In Pa uPs tho ught, this union 
 is so ^ital that the bohovcr becomes tmerwith Christ. Christ's death 
 becomes the believer's death, and his resurrection becomes the believer's 
 resurrection, and because of this, the power of sin is conquered, and the 
 new life is sustained. When the individual is thus united to Christ, j 
 he dies to sin. B aptism symbolizes this union with Christ, and the ( 
 consequent death to sin and resurrection to the new life. In the act 
 of baptism the individual dies with Christ, and becomes united with him 
 in his resurrection (Rom. 6:4, 5). He also dies to his old self, and is 
 raised a new man. This change is so decisive that the Christian is 
 "dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Jesus Christ" (Rom. 6:11). 
 
 Paul was very emphatic in his statements about the blessings and 
 privileges of the new life. In Rom. 5:1-11 Paul discussed the blessed- 
 ness of the one who is living the new life. He said the one who is jus- 
 tified by faith has peace with God. Through this faith he has access 
 into divine grace, and he rejoices in the ''hope of the glory of God." 
 The one who has entered into the new life rejoices even in his tribula- 
 tions, because of the love of God which has been shed abroad in his 
 heart through the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Paul held that the one who is united to Christ by faith is freed from 
 sin (Rom;^^6jl^23). He argued that the ^eliever IT^ot only united 
 to Christ in his death, but also in his resurrection; that being true, the 
 crucifixion of Christ becomes the crucifixion of the old life of the believer, I 
 and the resurrection of Christ becomes the resurrection to a new life of 
 the one who has become united to Christ by faith. This crucifixion 
 means death to sin, and this resurrection means the new life in Christ. 
 The one who is united to Christ by faith has the impelling force of Christ 
 within, and this gives him victory. Because of ihis union with Christ, 
 Paul urged the Christians to holy living. Inasmuch as the Christian 
 is united to Christ, he murt not let sin reign in his body. While he was 
 the servant of sin, he presented his members to sin to be used as weap- 
 ons to fight the battles of unrighteousness; but now, being the servant 
 of Christ, he mu."t present his members unto God to be used 8s weapons 
 to fight his battles. 
 
 
 
 
 ■ >S 
 
 ,* 
 
 
 
 '■ r- 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 »Kx 
 
 f y, ;■ 
 
 ^ I r 
 
 ■■\ 
 
 o ^ 
 
 ^>r 
 
 
62 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Tr^nm 7:1-?5 Paul discusscd the relation to law of the one who is 
 living the new life, and his conclusion was, that by virtue of his union 
 with Christ, the believer is freed from law; hence he may "serve in 
 newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." The one 
 who is living under law finds it difficult to do right because he is in 
 bondage to sin, and the law is not able to give him victory. The one 
 who is living the life of faith finds victory, because Christ to whom 
 he is united makes him free. 
 
 /In Rom. 8:1 ff. Paul discussed the relation to death of the one who 
 has entered into the new life, and his conclusion was th at he is free 
 f rom the law of de ath. If Christ dwellslrTarman, his spirit is life itself 
 and death cannot touch it. The believer has been made victor over 
 death because of the assurance which he has of the resurrection. Behef 
 in the mere existence of the spirit would not have satisfied Paul, for he 
 felt that the spirit must be clothed with a body. Paul declared, that 
 if a man have the spirit of God, he need have no fear of death: "But 
 if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, 
 he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall give life also to your 
 mortal bodies through his spirit that dwelleth in you." 
 
 Paul believed that the one who is united to Christ by faith has the 
 divine Spirit dwelling within. He did not regard this as a figurative 
 I expression, but it was for him a real entity. Paul declared that if any 
 man does not have this Spirit within, he does not belong to Christ; and 
 he further declared that as many as follow the leading of this Spirit, 
 are sons of God (Rom. 8:9, 14). He made a sharp distinction between 
 the natural man and the spiritual man. The natural man is the one 
 who does not have the Spirit within, and he lives according to the flesh. 
 The spiritual man is the one who has the Spirit within, and this over- 
 comes the flesh and gives life to his own spirit. Paul did not definitely 
 distinguish between the Spirit, and the indwelling Christ, and the Spirit 
 of God (See I Cor. 15:45; II Cor. 3:17), but this power within was some- 
 thing that was very real to him. He felt that this Spirit within not 
 only gives one victory over sin, but it also assures him of sonship, and 
 aids and comforts him in his life, and even enables him to pray as he 
 ought. 
 
 In addition to his argument, based on the believer's union with 
 Christ, Paul made use of rewards and retributions as motives to holy 
 living (Rom. 6:23). He argued that man should seek to be free from 
 sin, because its wages are death; and he should seek to be in the right 
 relation to Christ, because that means eternal life. He warned the 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 63 
 
 Corinthians of the dangers of disobedience by citing the example of the 
 Israelites (I Cor. 10:1-13). Paul sometimes pictured the new life in 
 eschatological terms. The glorious life is in the future, and this present 
 Ufe is a waiting for that. The Christian's citizenship is in heaven, and 
 he is waiting for the Lord Jesus to come from thence, and change this 
 body and make it conform to Christ's glorious body (Phil. 3:20, 21). 
 The future rewards and punishments are certain. The one who sows 
 to the flesh shall reap corruption, and the one who sows to the Spirit 
 shall reap eternal life (Gal. 6:7, 8). Paul's eschatological ideas helped 
 to determine his conception of the new life, and he sometimes spoke of 
 this life as a waiting for Christ, who is to come to receive us. 
 
 As an incentive to the new life, Paul held Christ up before the Chris- 
 tians as an example for their imitation. Christ is the Master, and 
 when one surrenders his life to him he should seek to become like him. 
 In urging the Romans to help the weak instead of seeking to please 
 themselves, he cited the example of Christ, who pleased not himself 
 but was willing to bear the reproaches that belonged to others (Rom. 
 15:1 ff.). In urging the Philippians to humility, he pointed them to 
 the example of Christ. He did not refer to any particular incident 
 connected with his earthly life, but to his earthly life as a whole: though 
 existing in the form of God, he emptied himself and lived a life of humil- 
 ity on the earth (Phil 2:5-11). 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Conception of the New Life 
 
 a. His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 Paul's Jewish training made both a negative and a positive con- 
 tribution to his conception of the new life in Christ. Because of his 
 I Jewish training, it was natural for him to think of the religious life as 
 V ethical in its demands, and because the law did not give him power 
 to live up to its demands, he was prepared to accept something else, 
 and to glorify it if it should give him victory. Paul's Jewish escha- 
 tology led him to interpret the Christian life in terms of the future. 
 The Jews believed their sufferings were the result of their disobedience, 
 and they furth^Jbeliei^dthaT if ^Re^Tiation-woul d keep thej a^ the 
 Messianic era would be ushered in^ Some of tEe^ Pharisees declared 
 that if the nation would keep the law for one day the Messiah would 
 come. It was in accordance with that Jewish conviction, that John 
 j the Baptist preached repentance as a preparation for the coming of 
 the kingdom. Participation in the Messianic kingdom was a great 
 incentive to the Jew to right living. It was natural that Paul's Chris- 
 
64 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 tian thinking should be colored by his Jewish training, and that he should 
 sometimes interpret the Christian life from the eschatological point 
 of view. It was natural that he should think Christians are not citi- 
 zens of earth, but they have their citizenship in heaven, and this life 
 is to be lived in preparation for that. 
 
 Paul evidently believed the Scriptures were written to help Chris- 
 tians to live the new life. He argued that the law could not justify 
 a man, and that one who has entered the new life has been freed from 
 the law, and he included the whole Old Testament system under the term 
 "law." But while Paul did not find in the Old Testament system that 
 which would produce the new life, he did make use of it in urging men 
 to right living. In warning the Corinthians against the dangers of 
 disobedience, he cited the example of the Israelites (I Cor. 10:1-13). 
 After calling attention to the punishment which God had inflicted on 
 the IsraeHtes because of their disobedince, he said: "Now these things 
 happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our 
 admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." This would 
 seem to indicate that Paul beheved everything in the old order was for 
 the sake of those who are living in the new. When God punished the 
 IsraeHtes because they committed fornication and practiced idolatry 
 and murmured against him, he was thinking not merely of their good, but 
 he was providing examples for those who should live at the end of the 
 ages, 
 b. The life and thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 There are many striking similarities between Paul's conception 
 of the new life and the ideas of the mystery-cults. Paul's notion of 
 the Christian's union with Christ, and his having the divine Spirit 
 within, has its counterpart in the mystery-religions. In a prayer to 
 Hermes, which is found in a papyrus which is now in the British Mu- 
 seum, are the words: ^'av yap kyd) Kal kyci) crv." The same formula, 
 which identifies the individual with the deity, is found in a Leyden papy- 
 rus. One of the most striking differences between the national religions 
 and the mystery-cults was in regard to the relation of the individual 
 to the deity. In the religions that were national in character, the indi- 
 vidual attached himself to the national group, in order that he might 
 claim the help and protection of the god; but in the mystery-religions 
 the individual sought to attach himself directly to the deity. It was 
 beheved that this union with the deity could be brought about through 
 certain initiatory rites, which usually pictured the deity's conquest of 
 death. The nature and significance of these rites were expounded by 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 65 
 
 the priest, and everything that was done was intended to impress the 
 initiate with the reahty of his union with the deity into whose service 
 he was entering. The initiate into the mystery-cult beheved he had 
 been born again, and that he was a new man. He beheved the deity 
 dwelt within him and controlled his actions.^' The one thing which 
 supremely concerned the initiate into the mystery-cult was victory 
 over death, and he believed union with the deity, who had conquered 
 death, would assure him this victory. 
 
 Judaism was a national rehgion, and it emphasized the importance 
 of the individual keeping in touch with the national group, by obeying 
 their laws, and keeping their ceremonies, in order to win the approval 
 of Jehovah. The Jew might think that Jehovah helped by his Spirit, 
 but he did not think of being united to Jehovah, or of having Jehovah 
 dwell within him. These mystic ideas were foreign to his thinking. 
 These ideas were, however, prominent in the mystery-cults, and as these 
 religions had permeated the Mediterranean world before the time of 
 Paul, he must have come in touch with them. Inasmuch as Paul's 
 conception of victory over sin and death through union with Christ 
 had its counterpart in the mystery-cults, and was not found in Judaism, 
 it is safe to assume that he was influenced by these religions. His idea 
 of the religious life was perhaps modified somewhat by Greek thought 
 before his conversion, and this may have been one of the influences which 
 helped to make him dissatisfied with Judaism; but he was constantly 
 under the influence of Greek thought during his missionary activities, 
 and his conception of the new life was developed in this environment. 
 Paul's Jewish inheritance and his Greek environment were important 
 factors in the development of his thought about the new life, but these 
 alone are not sufficient to explain his conception, 
 c. His own personal experience. 
 
 While Paul's Jewish training and his contact with the Greek world 
 furnished the basis for his Christian experience, there was something 
 which these would not explain. The experience which resulted from the 
 
 ^^ A quotation from an article by Shirley Jackson Case in the Biblical World, 
 Jan. 1914, on "Christianity and the Mystery-Religions" brings out in a very strik- 
 ing manner the idea of the individual's union with the deity: "The one to be initiated 
 had previously observed stated rites of purification, and after initiation he took part 
 in further ritualistic ceremonies such as eating the sacred meal, passing the night in 
 the temple bedchamber, or other acts which were thought to typify or secure union 
 with the god. Thus the worshipper experienced a new birth. He was a god-man, 
 for the deity dwelt in him and controlled his life." 
 
66 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 surrender of his own personality to Christ was an important factor, and 
 to neglect this is to misinterpret Paul. In his discussion of the blessed- 
 ness of the one who is united to Christ by faith, he was undoubtedly 
 thinking of his own experience. He knew that such a one has peace 
 with God, for he had experienced this peace. He knew that the man 
 who is united to Christ by faith could rejoice even in tribulations, for 
 he had passed through tribulations, and he had counted them all joy. 
 His statement that the beUver is dead to sin was no mere theory with 
 him; it was a conviction that was the result of the new life he had been 
 living. Paul referred to himself as one who had died and had begun 
 to live again, and the explanation of this new life was the fact that 
 Christ had begun to live in him (Gal. 2:20). When Paul looked back 
 over his life, he realized that he had experienced a wonderful change. 
 Old things had passed away, and all things had become new (II Cor. 
 5:17). He was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and in his zeal for the law, 
 he was a Pharisee. He was a persecutor of the church. He had once 
 reckoned these things as gain, but he now counted them as loss, for 
 Christ had changed his attitude towards life. Paul knew from his own 
 experience that Christ is able to dominate and control one's life. 
 
 The indwelling Christ was the inspiration of the new life which 
 Paul was living, and he assumed that the new life which he had expe- 
 rienced was possible for all. He assumed that the power which had 
 transformed him would transform others, and that this transformation 
 could come in no other way. Paul believed it was possible for anyone 
 to become united to Christ by faith, and for this union to be so vital 
 that Christ would dwell within. He knew from experience that Christ 
 had been formed in him, and he was anxious for others that Christ 
 should be formed in them. 
 
 The ethical conception of the religious life as a preparation for 
 the Messianic era, which came to him through his Jewish training, 
 and the mystical conception of union with the deity for the purpose of 
 obtaining victory, which came to him through his contact with the 
 Greek world, helped to determine the character of his Christian experi- 
 ence; but a new element entered in which gave these old forms a new 
 content. Under the influence of a powerful personality which had been 
 surrendered to Christ, elements, derived from Jewish and Greek thought, 
 were blended with other elements, which came out of his own personal 
 experience, and the result was Paul's conception of the new life.^^ 
 
 38Shailer Mathews {The Messianic Hope in the New Testament, 1905, p. 206), 
 who holds that Jewish eschatology influenced Paul very largely in his Christian 
 
conception of authority in the pauline writings 67 
 
 Future Things 
 
 Paul's teaching concerning future things naturally falls into two 
 general divisions; namely, the progress of the gospel, and the ushering 
 in of the new age. 
 
 The Progress of the Gospel 
 a. Statement of Paul's teaching. 
 
 In his thinking about the progress of Christianity, Paul's supreme 
 concern was in regard to the relation of the Gentiles and the Jews to 
 the gospel, and in stating this relationship, he gave his theory of the 
 future of the church. He beheved God was rejecting the Jews and 
 choosing the Gentiles, and he knew he must have had a purpose in what 
 he was doing, and that purpose was the establishment of a universal 
 religion. God did not intend Christianity to be either a Jewish or a 
 Gentile religion; it was to be a religion of all people, and his great pur- 
 pose was to unify these antagonistic elements. God was not rejecting 
 all the Jews, for some of them were becoming Christians; but the Gen- 
 tile converts so far outnumbered the Jewish that it could be said that 
 he was rejecting the Jews as a nation, and was choosing the Gentiles 
 in their stead. God was calling enough of the Jews so that Christianity 
 would not break with the past, but would be tied up very definitely with 
 the old faith; but he was calling so many of the Gentiles that it was 
 evident that Christianity was not intended to be a Jewish religion. 
 The rejection of Christianity by so many Jews would tend to make it 
 acceptable to the Gentiles, while its acceptance by a remnant of the 
 Jews would tend to bridge the chasm between these two widely sepa- 
 rated peoples. Paul believed it was by the fall of the Jews that salvation 
 had come to the Gentiles, but he beheved this fall was only temporary, 
 for the zeal of the Gentiles would provoke the Jews to jealousy, and 
 they would ultimately turn to Christ, and thus both Jews and Gentiles 
 would be won for Christianity. There is a lengthy discussion of this 
 subject in the 9th, 10th and 11th chapters of Romans. 
 
 While Paul taught that God was rejecting the Jews and choosing 
 the Gentiles for the accomplishment of a great historic purpose, yet 
 he believed that the Jews were responsible for their own rejection, 
 and that the Gentiles had made it possible for God to choose them. 
 According to Paul, God's method of justification from the beginning was 
 
 thinking says: "Eschatology is not the material but the form of Paulinism." He 
 beUeves the element which was fundamental in Paul's conception of the new life in 
 Christ was his own Christian experience. 
 
68 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 on the basis of faith. The law was only a stage in the working out of j 
 God's plan which was to reach its culmination in Christ, and because 
 the Jews misunderstood God's plan and sought justification on the basis 
 of law, he was unable to use them. Inasmuch as the Gentiles responded 
 to the gospel of faith, God was able to use them for the accompHshment 
 of his purpose. 
 
 While Paul believed God was rejecting the Jews as a nation, yet he 
 believed the individual Jew could accept Christ if he would, and he 
 was zealous to win as many of them as possible. He said there is no 
 distinction between the Jew and the Greek, and "whosoever shall call 
 upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Paul believed in the 
 ultimate triumph of the gospel. The great mass of the Jews might 
 reject it for a time, but finally both Jews and Gentiles would turn to 
 Christ, 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his conception of the progress of 
 
 the gospel, 
 (a) His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 As has been previously indicated, the idea of God which Paul had 
 when he was a Pharisee would make his doctrine of divine election 
 natural to him, and his argument in Rom. chaps. IX-XI is based on 
 Scripture passages. He showed from the Scriptures that the rejection 
 of the Jews and the choosing of the Gentiles did not indicate that God 
 had changed his plans, but his course then was in perfect harmony with 
 what his attitude had been during the past (Rom, 9 :6-13) . He argued that 
 according to the Scriptures, it is the children of promise that are the 
 children of God, and not the children of the flesh. Not all the children 
 of Abraham were included in the promise made to his seed, ''but in Isaac 
 shall thy seed be called." He showed from the Scriptures that this 
 promise was narrowed still further: Isaac, who was the child of promise, 
 had two sons; but Jacob was chosen for the accompHshment of God's 
 purpose, and Esau was passed over. He showed how this choice was 
 dependent entirely on the will of him that did the choosing, for when 
 it was said, "the elder shall serve the younger," the children were not 
 yet born, and hence they had not done anything either good or bad. To 
 make the divine will in this election stand out more prominently, Paul 
 quoted a passage from Malachi (Mai. 1:2, 3): "Jacob I loved but Esau j 
 I hated." ^ 
 
 Paul realized that his doctrine of the rejection of Israel might seem 
 to make God unrighteous, and he sought to meet this objection with 
 examples from the Old Testament history (Rom. 9:14-21). These illus- 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 69 
 
 trations which he cited show that God was free to do as he pleased. 
 In reply to the question — "Is there unrighteousness with God?" Paul 
 rephed : " God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom 
 I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. " 
 This passage is quoted from Ex. 33:19, and in its historical connection, 
 it has little bearing on divine election. It is a part of the reply to 
 Moses, after he had made the request that Jehovah would show him 
 his glory and the passage states that Jehovah will be gracious to Moses 
 even though the request is not granted in the manner he had desired. 
 Paul used this language because it suited his purpose, and not because 
 of the teaching of the passage, and he based upon it the conclusion 
 that God arbitrarily chooses the one on whom he wishes to show mercy: 
 ''So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of 
 God that hath mercy. " He also cited the example of Pharaoh, whom 
 Jehovah raised up for the accompHshment of his purpose: "For the 
 Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, for this very purpose did I raise thee up, 
 that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be pub- 
 lished abroad in all the earth." This is a quotation from Ex. 9:16, 
 and it is a free rendering of the passage, and it is used in a manner 
 that would best serve his purpose. The Septuagint expresses the 
 thought that Jehovah preserved Pharaoh for the accomplishment of 
 his plan, but Paul said it was to that end that he was raised up. Paul 
 rendered the passage in a manner which would enable him to carry the 
 divine election back to the beginning of Pharaoh's reign, and thus pre- 
 sent a more striking example of arbitrary choice. Paul did not say 
 anything about Pharaoh's opposition to God being the cause of his 
 punishment, but he thought of him as having been raised up for the pur- 
 pose of showing God's power: " So then he hath mercy on whom he will, 
 and whom he will be hardeneth. " 
 
 Paul sought to meet the objection that God has no right to find 
 fault with those whom he rejects, if he chooses whom he desires (Rom. 
 9:19-21); and while he did not quote Scripture to prove this point, 
 his argument was evidently based on the Scriptures (See Rom. 9:21,22 
 andlsa. 45:9; 29:16; 64:8; Jer. 18:6). God's right to deal with his 
 creatures as he pleases is based on his sovereign power: as the potter 
 has the right to make the kind of vessel he chooses from the lump of 
 clay, so God has the right to use his creatures as he desires to carry 
 out his great eternal plan. 
 
 Paul quoted Scripture to prove his contention that it was accord- 
 ing to God's plan that the Gentiles should accept the gospel, and that 
 
70 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 the majority of the Jews should reject it. God's purpose in calling 
 both Jews and Gentiles was "that he might make known the riches of 
 his glory upon the vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory" 
 (Rom. 9:23). He quoted two passages from Hosea to show that God 
 had announced beforehand that the Gentiles would be included in his 
 plan, and he quoted two passages from Isaiah to show that it was only 
 a remnant of Israel that would be called (Rom. 9:27-29). 
 
 Paul quoted Scripture to prove that the Jews were responsible for 
 being rejected, and that the Gentiles had made it possible for God to 
 choose them. He argued that Christ proved to be a stone of stumbling 
 to the Jews, since righteousness is throughf aith^ while thev so ught it 
 bjLWorks. To'suBstantiate thlrte-qtroIeH'a'passage from Isaiah, intro- 
 ducing it with the statement, "even as it is written" (Rom. 9:32, 33). 
 He showed that it is according to the Scriptures that the gospel should 
 be preached to the Jews, and that when it was preached they would be 
 disobedient and rebellious (Rom. 10:18, 21). 
 
 Paul quoted Scripture to prove his argument that God's purpose in 
 rejecting the Jews was to win the Gentiles, and then, through the zeal 
 of the Gentiles, provoke the Jews to jealousy, and thus win all for 
 Christ (Rom. 10:19, 20). He also used the Scriptures to prove his argu- 
 ment that God, in rejecting the unbelieving Jews, had not cast off his 
 people, but he had preserved a remnant for the working out of his plan 
 (Rom. 11 :1-10). His final quotation of Scripture in this connection was 
 to prove his philosophy of the future, that the hardening of Israel was 
 to bring in the fullness of the Gentiles; and that when that time comes, 
 Israel will turn to the Lord and all will be saved (Rom. 11:25-27). 
 This is a composite quotation, and the two passages used were put 
 together so that they would best serve his purpose. 
 
 A study of Paul's argument in Rom. chaps. IX-XI must convince one 
 that he did not not get his doctrine of God's plan for the future from the 
 Old Testament, or from any other part of his Jewish inheritance, for it 
 was contrary to the spirit of Judaism. After Paul had stated his con- 
 viction, which was derived from other sources than Judaism, he then 
 proceeded to quote one or more passages of Scripture to prove it. To 
 accompKsh his purpose he sometimes used the Scriptures in an arbitrary 
 manner. He sometimes took a passage out of its connection, and put a 
 meaning into it which was foreign to its original import; and he some- 
 times brought together remote passages, and used the composite as 
 proof-texts. This use of the Scripture would indicate that Paul con- 
 sidered it authoritative, but it would also indicate that there was for 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 7 1 
 
 him an authority which was more vital than the Scripture. It was not 
 through his reading the Old Testament that Paul reached his conclusion 
 about the future progress of the gospel; it was through other influences 
 that he worked out his philosophy, and then he reread the Old Testa- 
 ment, and found the things for which he was looking. 
 
 (b) The life and thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 The Jews of Palestine regarded the Gentiles as a people in whom 
 God had no interest; they were dogs without a master. Paul's contact 
 with the Gentiles before his conversion must have convinced him that 
 some of them were more worthy of God's approval than were many of 
 the Jews. He must have understood the prevailing religions of the 
 Graeco-Roman world, and when he became a Christian and realized 
 that justification is on the basis of faith, he must have felt that Chris- 
 tianity would be more acceptable to the Gentiles than to the Jews. Paul 
 knew that the people of the Mediterranean world were supremely in- 
 terested in religion, and that they were seeking deliverance through 
 faith in a dying and resurrected deity; and when he had been led to a 
 belief in a Christ who had died and had been raised for man's justifica- 
 tion, he must have realized that this gospel would be popular with the 
 Greeks, and that before the Jews would accept it in any large way, their 
 conception of religion would have to be changed. 
 
 (c) The life and thought of the church into which he entered. 
 
 It is impossible to state just what the attitude of the church into 
 which Paul entered was towards the future spread of the gospel. Did 
 the primitive Christians expect the whole Jewish nation to turn to Christ? 
 or did they think it would be only a faithful remnant that would accept 
 the gospel and be saved? Did they believe the Christian blessings 
 would be enjoyed by the Jews only? or did they feel that the Gentiles 
 would accept Christ and the Jewish law, which would make them a 
 part of God's chosen people? or were there some who had the wider 
 outlook, and believed the gospel was for Gentiles as well as Jews? It 
 is impossible to answer these questions definitely, but if the account 
 in Acts is accepted as giving a fairly accurate picture of conditions 
 in the early church, Stephen was Paul's forerunner and believed in a 
 rehgion which was broader than the nation. It is quite probable that 
 Paul disputed with Stephen in the synagogue of "them of Cilicia" (Acts 
 6:9), and that this disputation convinced him that Stephen blasphemed 
 against Moses and against God. It must have been some such expe- 
 rience as this which made Paul the leading persecutor of the early church. 
 He saw that Christianity and Jusaism were opposed to each other, for 
 
72 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 he believed the success of Christianity meant the destruction of the 
 law. This could have been nothing more than the basis for the working 
 out of his theory, but it did undoubtedly raise questions in his mind 
 concerning God's relation to the Jews. His sympathetic knowledge of 
 the religious life of the Greeks, and his understanding of the religious 
 life of the Jews and of their Scriptures, along with the interpretation 
 of Christianity which was given by the more liberal group of the Chris- 
 tians, prepared him for the later development of his great doctrine, 
 (d) His own personal experience. 
 
 Paul must have been impressed with the fact that from the very 
 first the Jews had been antagonistic to Christianity, while the Gentiles, 
 whenever they had the chance, were favorable to it. He was con- 
 fronted with the fact that the Jews had rejected Christ, and had forced 
 the Romans to put him to death. He was confronted with the further 
 fact that it had been the Jews who had opposed him in his missionary 
 labors, while the Gentiles had received his message. Although the Jews 
 were his own kinsmen according to the flesh, and his love for them was 
 so strong that he could wish he himself were anathema from Christ for 
 their sake, yet they rejected him and the message he brought. Although 
 to the Israehtes belonged "the adoption, and the glory, and the cove- 
 nants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the prom- 
 ises"; although to them belonged the fathers, and even ''Christ accord- 
 ing to the flesh," yet the gospel which he preached only antagonized 
 the great mass of them. 
 
 The fact that the Jews were rejecting Paul and the gospel which 
 he preached would seem to indicate that his gospel was not from God, 
 for inasmuch as the Jews were God's chosen people, they would certainly 
 be the ones to receive the gospel which Paul was preaching, if it were 
 from God. Paul knew from his own experience that the gospel which he 
 was preaching was divine, for God had revealed it to him, and he knew 
 there must be some other explanation of the fact that the Jews were 
 rejecting it, and he found that explanation in the great plan which 
 God was working out. Paul felt that God had been carrying out the 
 divine plan in his own life. He had separated him from his mother's 
 womb, and had called him by his grace to the work of the gospel. The 
 call had been so forceful that it could not be resisted (Gal. 1:15).^^ 
 
 '"J. R. Cohu {St. Paul and Modern Research, 1911, p. 278) says Paul believed 
 God's will was absolute in working out the divine plan in his life. He said Paul 
 believed God moulded him according to his own purpose, and in spite of his opposition. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 73 
 
 Paul did not regard his case as exceptional, but he believed God was 
 dealing with all mankind as he had dealt with him. 
 
 The great divine purpose, as Paul conceived it, was fundamentally 
 the result of his own experience. His Jewish training and his mission- 
 ary activities had convinced him that the relation between Jews and 
 Gentiles was so antagonistic that the Gentiles would reject Christianity, 
 if the Jews as a nation should accept it. In order that Paul could 
 get a start in a new community, it was necessary for him to find a group 
 which had some common religious ideas with himself. He found such 
 a group in the Jewish synagogue. A few of the Jews accepted his 
 message, but most of them opposed him. On the other hand, the pros- 
 elytes were enthusiastic and brought in other Gentiles to hear him. The 
 result was that in a short time Paul and his followers, having been driven 
 out of the synagogue by the Jews, organized a church which was com- 
 posed of both Jews and Gentiles, the Gentiles being in the majority. 
 Paul's experience must have convinced him that if the majority of the 
 Jews in a community should accept the gospel and convert the synagogue 
 into a church, the new movement would then be regarded as Jewish, 
 and the Gentiles would hold themselves aloof. Paul regarded himself 
 as the apostle to the Gentile world, but his special love was for the Jews, 
 and his heart's desire and supplication to God was for them that they 
 might be saved. It was doubtless his ambition to win the Jews of 
 the Dispersion, as well as the Gentiles, for Christ; but the opposition 
 of the Jews and his success with the Gentiles convinced him that God 
 was working out his great plan in a different manner than he had at 
 first anticipated. 
 
 Paul's conviction that both Jews and Gentiles would ultimately be 
 won for Christ must have resulted largely from his own experience. 
 The fact that Jews and Gentiles, in the various communities where he 
 had labored, had been united by faith in Christ, and were working 
 together in harmony, convinced him that it would be possible for the 
 Gentiles and the Jews to become one in Christ. Perhaps the zeal of 
 the Gentile Christians in many communities had caused the Jewish 
 Christians to become more zealous for their own countrymen, and Paul 
 was convinced that this would ultimately be the result for the whole 
 nation. 
 
 Paul's experience must have been one of the most formative factors 
 in producing the conviction that the Jews were responsible for God's 
 rejecting them, and that it was on account of something that the Gen- 
 tiles had done that God had chosen them. Paul knew from his Jewish 
 
74 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 training and his Christian experience that Christianity was fundamen- 
 tally different from Judaism. The Jews were seeking the religious life 
 through law, and they would naturally oppose anything which seemed 
 to minimize the importance of law. God could not use them for the 
 accomplishment of his purpose, because they could not appreciate his 
 method of saving the world. Paul knew from his own Christian experi- 
 ence and from his contact with the Greek world that there was much 
 in common between Christianity and the Greek reHgions. The Greeks 
 were seeking the religious life through faith in the deity, and they would 
 naturally welcome a higher type of faith-rehgion God was able to 
 use the Greeks for the accon^pUshment of his purpose, because they 
 were able to appreciate his method of saving the world. It was because 
 the message of righteousness which is of faith made no appeal to the 
 Jews, that God was not able to use them for the carrying out of his 
 great plan, and it was because this message did appeal to the Greeks that 
 God chose them to take the place of the Jews. 
 
 Paul's Jewish training and his Greek environment, together with 
 his contact with the more hberal type of Christian thinking, prepared 
 him for his acceptance of Christianity, and for the conviction that 
 Christianity was for the Greeks as well as for the Jews. These things 
 also prepared him for a reahzation of the fact that the gospel was more 
 acceptable to the Gentiles than to the Jews. The problems for which 
 this training prepared Paul were raised and solved in the school of 
 experience, and the result was his doctrine of the future of the church. 
 
 The New Age 
 a. Statement of his teaching. 
 
 Paul did not attempt to give a definite statement of his concep- 
 tion of the future age. His teaching on this point was practical, rather 
 than speculative, and it was incidental to the main purpose in his letters. 
 But from his many references to the new age, it is possible to determine 
 quite definitely what his belief was. He lega rded the present age a s 
 evil (Gal. 1:4), but he beheved it would pass away (I Cor. 7:29-31). 
 Paul believed this present age is to a large extent dominated by Satan 
 and his hosts, but he believed their power would finally be broken. 
 After this evil age shall have passed away, a new age will be inaugurated 
 in which the will of God will prevail. This new age will be inaugurated 
 by a crisis which he designated as "the Day of the Lord. " God will 
 usher in the new age by sending his Son from heaven (I Thess. 3:13). 
 He will descend from heaven "with a shout, with the voice of the arch- 
 angel, and with the trump of God" (I Thess. 4:16). At the time of 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 75 
 
 his coming there will be a resurrection of the righteous dead, and the 
 righteous who are living at that time will be changed, and they shall all 
 be ''caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (I Thess. 4:16, 
 17). It is evident from Paul's earlier epistles that he expected thepaxou- 
 sia to be soon. The present age, because of its sin and suffering, is 
 designated as "night," but "the night is far spent and the day is at 
 hand" (Rom. 13:11, 12). Paul made some statements which would 
 seem to indicate that he meant to include himself among those who 
 would be alive at the time of Christ's coming (See I Thess. 4:15 ff.; 
 I Cor. 15:51 ff.). Paul's later writings do not place as much stress 
 on the parousia as do his earlier ones, and some have concluded that 
 he developed in his eschatology, so that he was not expecting the im- 
 mediate return of the Lord. 
 
 The resurrection held a prominent place in Paul's thought, and 
 because of existing conditions, it was discussed at length in I Corin- 
 thians and I Thessalonians. Paul had evidently given the impression 
 to the Christians at Thessalonica that the Lord's coming was to be 
 soon and that it would be a blessed privilege to participate in it; but 
 some of their number had subsequently died, and they beheved they 
 would sustain a great loss in the final advent (I Thess. 4:13-15). Timo- 
 thy doubtless reported their perplexity to Paul, and this furnished one 
 of the occasions for the letter. The situation in the Corinthian Church 
 was somewhat different. There were some in this church who denied 
 the resurrection, and in the fifteenth chapter of I Corinthians, Paul 
 discussed the resurrection at some length. The idea of the resurrection 
 which Paul presents in the two letters is the same. When the last 
 trump sounds the righteous dead will be raised. It will all take place 
 in an instant — "in a moment, in the twinkhng of an eye." They 
 will be raised incorruptible, and they will be changed into the likeness 
 which they are to have in the new age. Paul seems to have beheved 
 in immortahty apart from the resurrection, but it was a vague and 
 indefinite sort of existence. Apart from the resurrection, man's spirit 
 exists in a disembodied or unclothed state, and Paul shrank from the 
 thought of that (II Cor. 5:4). He gave a very interesting discussion 
 of the heavenly body in I Cor. 15:35 ff., and he presented the idea that 
 the heavenly body will not be the same as the earthly body. He held 
 that as God gives to each plant, animal, and star the kind of body 
 which it needs for its existence, so he will give to the soul the kind of 
 body that will be best adapted to its heavenly existence. According 
 to Paul's thinking, there will be a close connection between the natural 
 
76 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 body which is sown, and the spiritual body which shall be raised; but 
 they are difiFerent bodies, for ''flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
 dom of God." 
 
 In connection with the parousia there will be a judgment, and at 
 the time of the judgment, each one will receive according to what he 
 has done (II Cor. 5:10). This is to be a judgment of punishment unto 
 death for the unrighteous (Rom. 5:16, 18), and of acquittal unto life 
 for the godly (Rom. 5:16, 17; 8:1). The judgment will be a time of 
 wrath, but the righteous need have no fear, for Christ will deliver them 
 (I Thess. 1:10). God will be on the judgment seat (Rom. 14:10), and 
 each one will be required to appear before him to give an account of 
 even the secret things (Rom. 2:16). Christ is to be connected with the 
 judgment, and he is sometimes represented as the :'udge (I Cor. 4:4), 
 and the place of judgment is sometimes designated as "the judgment 
 seat of Christ" (II Cor. 5:10). Paul beHeved God would judge all 
 men according to the gospel which he had been preaching, and Christ 
 would be the standard of judgment (Rom. 2:16). 
 
 After judgment shall have been pronounced, and death shall have 
 been conquered, so that there shall be no longer any enemy for the 
 righteous, then Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to God. When 
 Christ shall have put all his enemies under his feet, and shall have sub- 
 jected everything to the will of God, then he will subject himself to 
 God, so that he may be all in all. 
 
 All this would seem to imply an intermediate state extending from 
 the time of death until the day of the Lord, but Paul made many state- 
 ments which would seem to indicate that he also had a different con- 
 ception. He spoke of death as a departure to be with Christ, and he 
 said this departure was far better than a continued earthly existence 
 (Phil. 1:23). Paul felt that when one left the body he went to be with 
 Christ (II Cor. 5:6-8). To be at home in the body is to be absent from 
 the Lord, and to be absent from the body is to be at home with the 
 Lord, and Paul believed it was better to be with the Lord than to be in 
 the body. These passages would indicate that Paul had the feeling, 
 at least sometimes, that instead of passing into an intermediate state 
 to wait until the day of the Lord, the believer goes directly to be with 
 Christ. 
 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his conception of the new age. 
 (a) His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 Almost everything Paul said about future things can be duplicated 
 from Jewish eschatology. Paul was familiar with Jewish eschatology 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 77 
 
 before he became a Christian, and unless these Jewish ideas were modi- 
 fied by other influences, they continued to represent his Christian 
 thought. The Jews beheved this present age is evil, and is to a large 
 extent controlled by Satan and the evil spirits, but they were convinced 
 that it was to be of short duration, and that it would be followed by the 
 new age which was to be perfectly good, and in this new age God's 
 will was to be done. The Jews believed the new age was to be intro- 
 duced by the coming of the Messiah who was to judge the enemies of 
 God. It was easy for Paul, as it was for the other Christians, to trans- 
 fer these Jewish ideas to the second coming of Christ. According to 
 Jewish belief, the righteous Jews who had died would be raised and 
 would be permitted to share with the righteous Jews who were living 
 in the Messianic glory. The Jews beheved that between the time of 
 death and the resurrection the soul would have a cheerless existence in 
 Sheol. During this intermediate period it would exist in a naked state, 
 being without a body. This unclothing of the soul by its separation 
 from the body in which it formerly had its existence was caused by 
 death, and the Hebrew shrank from that. The Hebrew conception of 
 death included something more than that experience which closes this 
 earthly existence, or the separation of the soul from the body; they 
 thought of it as the separation of the soul from God. That notion 
 formed the background for Paul's statement in II Cor. 5:1-4, but the 
 rest of the passage shows that his Jewish thought about death had been 
 materially changed by other influences, 
 (b) The thought of the Greek world. 
 
 Paul's ideas about the future life undoubtedly reflect the influence 
 of the thought of the Greek world.^^ Paul's conception of the spiritual 
 body is more like the thought of the Greeks than of the Hebrews. The 
 Hebrews believed in a bodily resurrection, and they felt that the life 
 in the future age was to be something like the life in this age, with the 
 exception that everything was to be ideahzed. That conception of the 
 future furnished the basis for the question about the resurrection which 
 the Sadducees put to Jesus. This was undoubtedly a stock question 
 which they hurled at their antagonists, and the Pharisees, because of 
 their materialistic conception of the future, were unable to answer them. 
 The mystery-cults emphasized immortality through union with the diety . 
 The deity who had conquered death for himself would give victory to 
 
 "Percy Gardner {The Religious Experience of St. Paul, 1911, p. 127) says: "The 
 eschatological views of Paul mark a transition from purely Jewish to Hellenistic no- 
 tions. " 
 
 b 
 
78 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 mortals who were initiated into fellowship with him. The Greek idea 
 of the flesh would forbid the thought of bodily existence; immortality 
 was the thing the Greek was anxious about. Paul's idea of the future 
 life seems to have been a combination of Greek and Hebrew thought. 
 He no longer beheved in a resurrection of the same body which had been 
 placed in the tomb; neither was he satisfied with mere immortaUty, for 
 that was to leave the soul in an unclothed condition, and his Jewish 
 nature shrank from that. He believed God would provide a spiritual 
 body which would be adapted to spiritual existence. Instead of there 
 being a resurrection of the body which had been placed in the tomb, 
 he beheved God would change the old body as he changes the grain 
 which has been sown into the new plant (I Cor. 15:42-44): "It is sown 
 in corruption; it is raised in incorruption : it is sown in dishonor; it is 
 raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a 
 natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." 
 
 As pointed out above, Paul appears to have had two different con- 
 ceptions of the state of the soul between death and the parousia. In 
 the earlier writings, especially I Thessalonians and I Corinthians, 
 he expressed the conviction that the righteous dead are resurrected at 
 the time of the parousia, and then changed into the likeness of Christ 's 
 glorious body, and then they pass into the presence of God. In some of 
 the later writings, especially Philippians, he expressed the conviction 
 that instead of the soul waiting until the parousia to receive its new 
 body, it passes at once into the presence of Christ. Many writers hold 
 that Paul changed his conception of the resurrection, and inasmuch 
 as one idea is set forth in I Corinthians and a different idea seems to 
 be intimated in II Corinthians, some hold that the change took place 
 in the interval between these two letters.^^ It is impossible to fix as 
 definitely as some have done the time when Paul changed his concep- 
 tion of the future hfe, but is is evident that the Jewish idea of an inter- 
 mediate state, in which the unclothed soul waits for the body which 
 is to be given at the parousia, did not continue to satisfy him. Greek 
 thought played an important part in producing this change in Paul's 
 feeUngs about the future, but the change could not be explained on the 
 basis of Greek thought alone, 
 (c) The thought of the church into which he entered. 
 
 When Paul told the Thessalonians that those who were aUve at the 
 time of the coming of the Lord would not precede those who were fallen 
 
 "Otto Pfleiderer (Urchristentum, 1887, pp. 161, 293, 298) thinks the change 
 was due to the fact that during this time he became acquainted with the literature of 
 Alexandria. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 79 
 
 asleep, he said he was speaking by the word of the Lord (I Thess. 4:15). 
 It is not probable that he meant to be understood as saying that he 
 had received a revelation from the Lord concerning the parousia, and 
 that he was communicating this to the Thessalonians for their com- 
 fort and assurance. He was evidently referring to some oral tradition 
 of the teaching of Jesus bearing on this point.^^ The eschatological 
 discourses of Jesus, as they are given in the Synoptic Gospels, have 
 much in common with the eschatological sections in Paul's writings, but, 
 as has been previously indicated, it is impossible to tell just how much 
 these discourses were modified by the thought of the writers. 
 
 According to the accounts given in the first part of Acts, the early 
 disciples were expecting an immediate setting up of the kingdom, and 
 they were expecting it to be in Jewish fashion. When they saw Jesus 
 after his resurrection, they asked him if he would at this time restore 
 the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1 :6). When these same disciples were look- 
 ing into heaven after their ascended Lord, the two men in white apparel 
 assured them that he should "so come in like manner as they had beheld 
 him going into heaven" (Acts 1:11). According to the account given of 
 Peter's sermons, the motive which he urged for repentance was that they 
 might thus help to prepare the way so that the Lord would come (Acts 
 3:19-21): "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be 
 blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the pres- 
 sence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been 
 appointed for you, even Jesus: whom the heaven must receive until 
 the times of the restoration of all things. " The book of Acts was not 
 written until after Paul's day, and the material was undoubtedly 
 colored by the thought of later times, but it is almost certain that the 
 early disciples expected Christ would soon come to set up his kingdom, 
 and when he should come, the wicked would be destroyed, and those who 
 had accepted him would be saved. Paul received these ideas, and he 
 was influenced by them in the development of his thinking, 
 (d) His own personal experience. 
 
 Paul did not attempt to give a systematic statement of his view 
 of future things, but in his references to the future, he was moved by 
 the practical impulse. The practical significance of Paul's eschatology 
 is manifest, when it is compared with the speculations of the Jewish 
 
 *2 H. A. A. Kennedy {St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things, 1904, p. 97) gives 
 parallel passages from Paul's writings and the Synoptic Gospels to show that Paul 
 was influenced by the tradition of Jesus' teaching concerning the parousia and the 
 judgment. 
 
80 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 apocalyptical writings. The details which are so conspicuous in the 
 Jewish apocalypses are very few in Paul's writings. Paul's Christian 
 experience did not produce as striking a change in the Jewish escha- 
 tology which he inherited as it did in some other phases of his thought, 
 and that is to be expected, as eschatology is to a large extent outside 
 the realm of experience, and is presented to the mind by pictures, and 
 these pictures become fixed.^^ These pictures would naturally remain, 
 unless they were modified by other influences which became a part of 
 experience. 
 
 Paul's statements concerning the future were positive in character, 
 as he did not discuss the speculative questions upon which many were 
 thinking. His interest was eternal life. This had been made certain, 
 and that certainty rested upon the experience of the living Christ, 
 who had become the first fruits of them that are asleep. Paul's union 
 with the Christ, who had conquered death, had made immortaHty cer- 
 tain to him. Death had no more terrors for him, but it would mean his 
 release from the body in order that he might be present with the Lord. 
 The mystery-cults must have influenced Paul, but this conviction was 
 worked out in his own experience, and hence it was different from that of 
 the Greeks. Paul's conversion-experience must have influenced his 
 thought of the resurrection. He was convinced that he had seen the 
 heavenly Christ, and he believed he would one day become like him. 
 Paul had experienced salvation through Christ, and he knew this would 
 be perfected at the parousia (Rom. 13:11). Complete salvation, the 
 foretaste of which he had already experienced, would include the redemp- 
 tion of the body (Rom. 8:23). Paul had experienced, the transformation 
 of his Spirit into the likeness of Christ's Spirit, and he knew that his 
 body would be changed into the likeness of Christ's glorious body (Phil. 
 3:21). 
 
 SUMMARY 
 If we have correctly represented Paul, our study of the doctrinal 
 elements in his epistles shows that he was influenced in the develop- 
 ment of his thought from many different sources. H is Jewish traini ng 
 formed Jhe background for every Christian_doctrine, and although what 
 he inherited from Judaism was modified by^ther influences, much of it 
 remained as a vital part of his thinking.] The fact that he retained 
 these Jewish elements and used them in his Christian teaching indicates 
 that he believed truth could be derived from the Jewish religion; but 
 
 « See H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conception of Last Things, 1904, p. 36. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 81 
 
 the fact that he modified and even rejected some of his Jewish inheri- 
 tance would indicate that there was something outside of Judaism 
 which was for him authoritative, and which determined what he should 
 accept, and what he should reject. Inasmuch as Paul quoted the 
 Scriptures to prove his argument, and quoted them as ultimate proof, / 
 it is evident that he regarded them as authoritative. He believed he 
 could derive truth about God, man and his world, Christ, the new life, 
 and future things from the Scriptures, and that others could derive 
 truth from the same source. His use of the Scriptures, however, would 
 indicate that there was something else which was for him authoritative, i 
 and which determined the use which he made of them. There were other 
 influences, along with the Scriptures, which led him to his conclusions, 
 and he used the Scriptures to prove these because they were regarded 
 as authoritative, but he sometimes took the passages quoted out of 
 their connection and read his own meaning into them. 
 
 Much that came out of Paul's Greek environment became a part of 
 his Christian thinking, and his doctrine was very different from what 
 it would have been, if he had been a Palestinian Jew instead of a citi- 
 zen of the Graeco-Roman world. He evidently believed he could derive 
 truth from the thought of the Greeks, but inasmuch as this Greek 
 thought was changed and transformed by other influences, there was 
 evidently something besides the thought of the world in which he lived 
 which was for him ultimate authority, and which helped to determine 
 the use which he made of the influences which came from the life and 
 thought of his world. 
 
 Paul was influenced by the thought of the church into which he 
 entered, and his Christian doctrine cannot be explained apart from that. 
 He believed he could derive truth from the primitive Christians, and 
 especially from their traditions about Jesus. But inasmuch as the 
 doctrines of the primitive church were much modified in Paul's thinking, 
 there must have been something apart from the primitive church that 
 was really authoritative for him, and this determined the use which 
 he made of the teachings and traditions of the early disciples. 
 
 That which was fundamental for Paul in the development of his 
 Christian doctrine was his own personal experience. His Jewish train- 
 ing furnished the basis for the development of all these doctrines. This 
 Jewish training, and his Greek environment, and the life and thought 
 of the primitive disciples helped to determine his Christian experience, 
 but they do not fully explain it. Paul's conception of Christianity 
 was not Jewish; neither was it Greek, nor primitive Christian; it was 
 
82 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 not merely a combination of all these; it was peculiarly his own. It 
 was worked out in the school of experience under his wonderful crea- 
 tive personality. Jewish training, Greek environment, and contact with 
 the primitive Christian thought furnished him the material, but this 
 was reconstructed so that the result was Paulinism. The experience 
 which he interpreted as a revelation of Christ, and the daily experience 
 which he interpreted as union with Christ, or the indweUing Spirit, 
 and his great purpose of winning the Gentile world for Christ, were 
 important factors in the development of his thought, and he was guided 
 by these in the use which he made of his material. Ideas about God, 
 man and his world, Christ, the new life, and future things, if they con- 
 tributed to his experience, or did not conflict with it, were accepted 
 whether they were Jewish, Greek, or primitive Christian. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM THE PREACHING OF THE 
 GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES 
 
 The preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles inevitably raised some 
 perplexing problems. Christianity began in a Jewish environment, 
 and it had to adapt itself to new conditions when it was planted in 
 the Gentile world. Many of the Jewish rites and ceremonies were 
 repulsive to the Gentiles, and many of the practices of the Gentiles 
 were an abomination to the Jews, and when Christianity included both 
 Jews and Gentiles it had to face the task of unifying these antagonistic 
 elements. 
 
 The Relation of the Law to the Gospel 
 
 It was inevitable that the question of the relation of the law to the 
 gospel should be raised as soon as Christianity passed beyond the bor- 
 ders of Judaism. Primitive Christianity was Jewish. According 
 to Acts, the Jewish Christians observed the national feasts and holy 
 days (See Acts 2:1 ; 18:13; 20:6, 16). They participated in the worship 
 of the temple and the synagogue. They prayed at the customary hours. 
 They observed the fasts and underwent voluntary abstinence, binding 
 themselves by special vows, like all pious Jews. They scrupulously 
 avoided all unlawful foods and all legal defilement. They had their 
 children circumcised. 
 
 All these Jewish rites and ceremonies were foreign to the life of 
 the Gentiles, and they constituted the great barrier between them and 
 the Jews. Paul and his co-laborers realized that to insist on these 
 Jewish regulations would be a hindrance to their work, and they must 
 have realized that if they disregarded these regulations entirely they 
 would be in danger of breaking with the mother church. The situa- 
 tion was made more complicated by the fact that the Christian communi- 
 ties in the Gentile world were composed of both Jews and Gentiles. 
 If Jewish rites and ceremonies were imposed on the Gentiles, but few 
 Gentiles would become Christians; if Jews were denied the privilege 
 of their rites and ceremonies, none of them would become Christians, 
 and they would bitterly oppose the church; and if the Gentiles became 
 Christians without keeping the law, and if the Jews who had become 
 Christians still insisted on all keeping the law, there could be no fellow- 
 ship in these churches. If the Jewish Christians insisted on the privilege 
 of adhering rigidly to all Jewish requirements, it would be difficult 
 
84 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 to maintain fellowship in these mixed churches, for it would be necessary 
 for them to regard the Gentile Christians as unclean; they could not 
 visit in their homes; they could not even sit down with them at the Lord's 
 Table. 
 
 Paul went to the Gentiles and preached the gospel_ of_ justifica - 
 tion_byJaith, and imposed no Jewish ordinances whatever. The Gen- 
 tiles received his gospel with joy, but a Jewish element in the church 
 strenuously opposed the innovations which Paul was making. The 
 point at issue was, not whether the Gentiles should be admitted as 
 Christians, but on what conditions they should be admitted. Paul 
 I held that the Jewish ordinances should not be imposed on the Gentiles, 
 while his antagonists insisted that the Jewish covenant was eternal in 
 its demands, and that no one could be saved who refused to conform 
 to the requirements of this covenant. The Judaizers were wiUing that 
 the Gentiles should be received into the church providing they would 
 keep the Jewish regulations in addition to the Christian. 
 
 It was natural that the Jewish Christians who beheved in the eter- 
 nal vahdity of the law should bitterly oppose the gospel which Paul 
 was preaching, and it was just as natural that he should zealously 
 defend it. 
 
 Statement of PauVs Position 
 
 PauFs chief concern, in his discussion of the relation of the law to 
 the gospel, was for the Gentile Christians. He did not object to the 
 Jews keeping the law, and it is very probable that he continued to 
 jkeep it himself, but he was determined that it should not be forced 
 on the Gentiles. The significance of the law for Paul was determined 
 by its relation to justification. If theJ awLXOuId save a man, it might 
 thenJi^valuable to the^Gentiles; but ifjhfijasi ^ cannot save, a aCth^e 
 1 is something else that can, then its present value is questionable. 
 
 ) In all his writings Paul insisted that justification cannot be on the 
 basis of law. Before one could be justified by law it would be necessary 
 for him to keep every part of it, for to fail in one point is to be guilty 
 of all. Inasmuch as it is impossible to keep the whole law, it is evident 
 that God never intended it to be a means of justification. Paul asserted 
 that his righteousness was not of the law, but through faith in Christ 
 (PhiL 3:9), and he rebuked the Galatians for thinking about turning to 
 the law, since they had received the Spirit by the hearing of faith (Gal. 
 3:^f 4). In the first part of Romans he showed that justification on 
 the basis of law is a failure, and he then said (Rom. 3:21, 22): *'But 
 now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 85 
 
 being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of 
 God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe." Paul 
 argued that justification by faith was not something recent, for Abraham % 
 was justified by faith, and he lived before the law was given (R ^m. 4: 1 / 
 ff.; Gal. 3:6). 
 
 Unless otherwise defined vofws, as it was used by Paul, denoted the 
 Mosaic law, and when he used the article he made it very specific that 
 he meant to designate the Mosaic law. When Paul referred to the 
 law of Moses, he was evidently thinking of the system as a whole and 
 not of any single part. The whole Old Testament system was for him 
 a single code, and he believed it had failed to justify and should not be 
 made binding on the Gentiles. 
 
 The question regarding the purpose of the law was inevitably raised 
 by Paul's doctrine of justification by faith. He urged that the inheri- 
 tance was not of the law, and that the law could not justify, and yet it 
 had to be reckoned with, for it was the greatest heritage of Judaism, 
 and it had been divinely given. What was the purpose of the law if I 
 it was not to justify? This question was before Paul's mind when he 
 wrote to the Galatians, and it holds a still more prominent place in 
 his letter to the Romans. The statement that justification is through 
 faith in Christ would seem to set the law aside, and make God's work . 
 during the past appear to be a failure, but Paul believed the law had * 
 held an important place in the working out of God's great plan. 
 
 Paul developed his doctrine of the law under the influence of his 
 Christological ideas. Inasmuch as God's ultimate method of justi- . 
 fication is through faith in Christ, the law must have been a prepara- I 
 tion for that. It was ** added because of transgressions, till the seed 
 should come to whom the promise hath been made" ( Gal. S}1 9). The 
 law threatened transgressors, but it could not give victory. \ The law 
 failed to secure its own ends, because it was external in character. ^ It 
 could threaten punishment, but it could not justify, and inasmuch as it 
 could not give a man victory, it must have been preparatory for some- 
 thing else which would give victory. If the law could make alive, 
 there would be no need of the gospel of faith; but inasmuch as it could 
 not do that, it must have been preparatory for him who could make alive. ^ 
 
 Instead of the law making alive, it showed the helplessness of man- 
 kind; it demonstrated the fact that all are under sin, and because of 
 this demonstration, *' the promise of faith in Jesus Christ might be given 
 to them that believe." The law was not final; neither was it a failure 
 according to its original purpose; it was to help humanity till ''the 
 
86 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 seed" should come. It was a pedagogue to bring men to Christ (Gal. 
 3:24), and when men had been brought to Christ, the work of the peda- 
 gogue was completed. 
 
 Paul believed the law prepared for Christ by increasing the knowl- 
 edge of sin (R om. 3 :20 ) . The law makes it plain to a man that the things 
 which he is doing are sins (Ro m^ 7 : 7) : "I had not known sin, except 
 through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said. 
 Thou shalt not covet." Paul evidently beheved sin was in the world 
 before the law was given, but men did not know it was sin (Rom. 5:13), 
 and the purpose of the law was to compel men to know what sin is. 
 Because the law taught men what sin is and then failed to give them 
 power to overcome it, it was a preparation for Christ, who could give 
 ^victory. 
 
 Paul seems to have believed that the law not only increased the 
 knowledge of sin, but that it actually multiplied sin (Rom. 5:20): "And 
 the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound.^' He felt that 
 sin, which dwells in the members, and which is naturally antagonistic 
 to the law, became more active when the law was given (Rom^7:7, 8). 
 I The purpose of the law was not to save sinners; but it was to multiply 
 sin, in order that the guilty conscience might be more completely de- 
 livered over to the grace of God. Its purpose was not so much to help 
 man as it was to make him reahze his helplessness and his absolute 
 dependence on God.^ 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that the law could not justify, Paul asserted 
 that it was divine in its origin (Gal. 3:19), and in its nature was "holy, 
 just, and good" (Rom. 7:12). Hemsisted that the law is not sin (Rom. 
 7:7), but is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), and its failure is due to the fleshly, 
 sinful nature of man (Rom. 7:3). He believed the law would have 
 been able to give victory if man had been different, but inasmuch as 
 man's nature was sinful, what was intended to be unto life was found 
 to be unto death (Rom. 7:10). Paul did not believe God had failed in 
 his plan, or had made a mistake. He was convinced that God knew 
 all things from the beginning, hence he must have known before he gave 
 the law that men would be unable to keep it, and his purpose must have 
 been to place men under sin and show them their helplessness, so that 
 he might have mercy on them. 
 
 ^ H. WeiDel {Paulus, p. 7; Eng. trans., p. 9) perhaps exaggerates this conception 
 of Paul when he says: "Paul is the great discoverer of the fact that God and the law 
 are contrary, the one to the other, and that the only way in which the law can lead to 
 God is by becoming our torment and awaking in us a longing for escape." 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 87 
 
 Paul believed the law was done away in Christ (Gal. 3:19, 24, 25), 
 for when the Master came the pedagogue was no longer needed. He 
 believed Christ, by introducing justification by faith, brought the law 
 to an end (Rom. 10:4), and he felt no loss had been sustained, because 
 while that which passed away was glorious, that which remained was 
 much more glorious (II Cor. 3:11). 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Notion of the Relation of the 
 Law to the Gospel 
 a. His Jewish Training. 
 
 As a Jew, Paul had thought much about what God demands of those 
 who are acceptable to him. He regarded the law as a revelation of 
 God's will, and he believed those who kept the law were acceptable to 
 God. He tried to keep it, and "as touching the righteousness which 
 is in the law," he was found blameless (Phil. 3:6). Paul must have 
 felt in those days before his conversion that he had had some success in 
 keeping the law, and that he had been benefitted by it. He must have 
 felt that the law had been a great blessing to the Jews, and that it had 
 been a restraining power in their lives. He must have been familiar 
 with some of the higher motives which the law urges as a basis for 
 obedience (Ex. 19:4), and he must have been famihar with the fact that 
 the law demands purity of heart and morality, as well as outward con- 
 formity to ritual.2 But the legalistic conception of religion prevailed 
 among the Jews of Paul's day, and his soul must have become weary 
 of the unceasing round of ceremony and ritual. He must have realized 
 
 2 R. Travers Herford {Pharisaism, 1912, pp. 175 fif.) criticises Paul very severely 
 for his condemnation of the law. He says if Paul had given his estimate of Judaism 
 while he was still a Pharisee, his criticism would have been valuable, but inasmuch 
 as his statements were made after he had left Judaism, he thinks his estimate is natu- 
 rally prejudiced. He says: "A convert seldom takes the same view of the religion 
 he has left as is taken by those who remain in it, " Herford challenges Paul's state- 
 ment that the law does not give victory. Hv: says: "Paul's universal negative chal- 
 lenges the contradiction of all the saints, martyrs and heroes of Israel."! Herford 
 criticises Paul's position that the law was a burden to the Jew because he regarded it 
 as so many commandments he had to keep, and holds that instead of the Pharisee 
 regarding the precepts of the law as so many commandments he had to keep, he 
 regarded them as so many opportunities to serve God. He says: "If there was ever 
 a Pharisee in such a state of despair that he should cry, *0 miserable man that I am! 
 who shall deliver me from the body of this death? ' he would think of the Torah not 
 as the cause of his anguish, but as the hope of his deliverance. And it was the Torah 
 itself which kept him from ever falling into such despair; for it was God's own word of 
 help and guidance, the record of his endless mercy, the revelation of his love. " 
 
88 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 at times that the law did not satisfy him, and he perhaps longed for 
 something that would bring victory and peace. This Jewish apprecia- 
 tion of the law and of its shortcomings was a decided preparation for 
 his theory of the relation of the law to the gospel. 
 
 b. His Greek environment. 
 
 Paul's life in the Greek world must have convinced him that there 
 were some Gentiles who had done better without the law than had many 
 Jews with the law. He had seen the uncircumcised keep the law while 
 the circumcised failed to keep it (R om. 2 :26, 27). He had doubtless 
 seen many Gentiles who were Uving uprighTTives, and who apparently 
 had a peace and assurance which he had not found. This would be an 
 important contribution to his later conviction that a man is justified 
 by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, and it would be a still 
 more important contribution to the conviction that the Gentiles should 
 not be required to keep the law. 
 
 c. The hfe and thought of the church into which he entered. 
 
 Paul's contact with the Christians whom he was persecuting must 
 have convinced him that they had something which he did not have. 
 They had a peace and confidence in their suffering which he did not have 
 in his triumph. He must have realized that their peace and assurance 
 were not due to the fact that they had kept the law, for he knew he had 
 kept it more faithfully than had they. He must have associated their 
 peace with their new reHgion, and while at first he believed their atti- 
 tude was due to their fanaticism and stubbornness, he later began 
 to wonder if their new religion had not done something for them which 
 law had failed to do for him. This helped to prepare him for his renun- 
 ciation of Judaism, and for his declaration that a man is justified by 
 faith, and not by the works of the law. 
 
 d. His own personal experience. 
 
 Paul's pre-Christian experience had convinced him that it is impos- 
 sible for a man to keep the whole law.^ He had beheved in the law and 
 had done his best to keep it, but he realized that he had failed (R^a, 
 7:7 ff.). The more he studied the law the more conscious he became 
 of his own failure, for instead of the law helping him, it pointed out 
 his shortcomings. He knew the law was good, and his experience con- 
 vinced him that his failure was due to sin which dwelt in his members. 
 
 When Paul became a Christian, his basis of justification was changed. 
 Instead of being law or merit; it was faith in Christ. Through faith in 
 Christ he had found what law could not give him, and he had seen 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 89 
 
 Gentiles who had been guilty of the grossest sins transformed through 
 this faith. Faith in Christ not only gave him victory over sin, but 
 the peace which had come into his soul convinced him that this faith 
 had made him acceptable to God. In the light of this new experience, 
 his conception of the law was completely changed. He reahzed that 
 there was no place for law in his new life, and as he looked back over 
 his past experiences, he felt that law had been a burden rather than a 
 help. Paul was thus led from a position of confidence in the law, and 
 admiration for it, to a position of criticism. 
 
 It is not at all probable that Paul, before his conversion, would 
 have agreed with the criticism which he later passed upon the law. It 
 is not probable that he realized his failure, before his conversion, as 
 he did afterwards. He looked back upon his Pharisaic days in the light 
 of his Christian experience, and things looked different to him from 
 what they once did. His training in Jewish law, and especially in 
 rabbinism; his experience in trying to keep the law, and his observa- 
 tion of the failure of others who tried to keep it; his contact with the 
 Greeks who had found victory apart from the law; and his opposition 
 to the Christians who had found peace and happiness in Jesus Christ, 
 prepared him for the soul struggles which led him to forsake the law 
 and consecrate his life to a proclamation of the gospel of faith in Christ. 
 His new experiences contrasted with the failures of other days led him 
 to deny the vaHdity of the law as a means of making men righteous. 
 But while Paul's new experiences led him to criticise the law, he never 
 got entirely away from the old feeling of reverence for it, and as a result 
 he made statements which would seem to contradict each other. 
 
 Paul believed in justification by faith, as the result of his own per- 
 sonal experience, and he sought to establish others on the basis of their 
 experience. In his attempt to confirm the Galatians in their Christian 
 liberty so that the Judaizers could not unsettle them, he appealed first 
 of all to what faith had meant to them. He reminded them that they 
 did not receive the Spirit by the works of the law but by the message of 
 faith, and he urged them not to be disloyal to their own experience 
 (Gal. 3:1-3). He appealed to their experience of the special manifes- 
 tations of the Spirit's power as an indication that justification by faith 
 had divine approval He asked them how they received the Spirit which 
 enabled them to work miracles. This question would imply that these 
 Galatian Christians had been performing these wonders before the 
 Judaizers came into their midst, and that the Judaizers did not add 
 
90 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 any power which they did not have before, for it was not by the works 
 of the law but by the hearing of faith that they had received the Spirit 
 which enabled them to do these things. 
 
 In defending his doctrine of justification by faith, Paul made fre- 
 quent references to the Old Testament, and his argument which is based 
 i on the Scriptures is very ingeniously wrought out. A careful study of 
 his use of the Scriptures in this connection must convince one that 
 instead of deriving his conception of justification by faith from the 
 Old Testament, it came to him through his experience, and then he used 
 the Old Testament to prove it. One of the most striking passages in 
 which Paul used the Old Testament to confirm his doctrine of justi- 
 cation by faith is the third and fourth chapters of Galatians. He read 
 the doctrine of justification by faith back into the Old Testament, and 
 / maintained that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works of 
 ' law, and that being true, the real sons of Abraham are those who are of 
 I faith (Gal. 3:6, 7). This, he urged, was accordihg to the plan of the 
 ScripturespfoT^en it declares that the gospel was preached to Abra- 
 ham that in him all nations should be blessed, it was foreseeing the 
 fact that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. Paul said this 
 promised blessing could not have referred to those who are under the 
 law, for "as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse." 
 He substantiated this statement by a quotation from Deut. 27:26 
 " Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written 
 in the law to do them" (GaLjjlO). The passage quoted implies that 
 a person ought to keep the law, and that a curse will rest upon him if 
 he does not keep it; but Paul knew from his own experience and from the 
 experience of others, as he had observed it, that no one is able to do all 
 the things that are written in the law, and hence he concluded that it 
 puts a man under a curse. 
 
 Paul insisted that it is evident from the Scriptures that a man is 
 not justified before God by the law (Gal. 3:11, 12). He was quoting 
 from Hab. 2:4 when he said: "The righteous shall live by faith." He 
 used this passage as though the prophet had had his doctrine of jus- 
 tification by faith in mind, while in reality Habakkuk was thinking of 
 something that was entirely different. Paul said the law is not of faith, 
 and the only way a man can live under law is by doing the things which 
 it requires (Gal. 3:12). He was quoting from Lev. 18:5 when he said: 
 "He that doeth them shall live in them," and the discussion which 
 follows shows that Paul believed it is impossible for one to do the things 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 91 
 
 required by the law, hence it brings death instead of life. Lev. 18:5 
 emphasizes the fact that the IsraeUtes should keep the statutes and 
 ordinances of Jehovah, and it is impHed that it is possible for them 
 to keep these requirements, and they are assured that if they do them 
 they shall live in them. Experience had convinced Paul that the 
 keeping of all the statutes was an impossible task, and while the law 
 promised a blessing to those who kept it, it is really a curse, for it is 
 impossible for any one to keep it. Paul held that Christ redeemed us 
 from this curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, and he quoted 
 Deut. 21:23: " Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree, " to prove his 
 argument. He took this passage out of its connection and read a mean- 
 ing into it which was foreign to its original import. Paul's purpose 
 was to prove that the law is a curse instead of a blessing, and that Christ 
 freed men from it; hence the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, can receive 
 the promise of the Spirit through faith. He was influenced largely 
 by his own personal experience in reaching this conclusion, and he used 
 the Scriptures very freely to prove his contention. 
 
 Paul was rabbinical in the use which he made of the Old Testament 
 to show that the promise to Abraham was not a promise to Jews only 
 (Gal. 3:15, 16). He said the promise was not to Abraham and his 
 lineal descendants, but it was to Abraham and one that was to come 
 through him: "He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, 
 and to thy seed which is Christ. " The Old Testament promise which 
 Paul cited undoubtedly referred to the lineal descendants of Abraham 
 and not to a particular person who was to come through him. "Seed" 
 in the Hebrew is a collective term, and is frequently used in the singular 
 to mean descendants. Paul used it in that sense in Rom. 4:18, although 
 in order that he might make the Genesis passage accomplish his pur- 
 pose in Gal. 3:15, 16, he said it could not have that meaning. 
 
 In his use of the Scriptures to prove that inasmuch as the promise 
 was made to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law 
 was given, the gospel is fundamental, Paul did violence to the historical 
 sense of the passage. He argued that the law had nothing to do with 
 the covenant with Abraham, for the promise was made before the law 
 was given; but according to the Old Testament, circumcision, which 
 was the rite that Paul was opposing, was the basis of the covenant with 
 Abraham. 
 
 Paul allegorized an historical incident to prove his contention that 
 those who are seeking justification by faith are the real children of 
 Abraham. He admonished them that desire to be under law, to hear 
 
92 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 what the law has to say, and by means of allegory, he read into the 
 passage a meaning which is the opposite of what it was intended to 
 teach (Gal. 4:21 ff.). After relating the Genesis incident of the two 
 sons of Abraham, and calling attention to the fact that the son of the 
 handmaid was born after the flesh while the son of the free woman was 
 born according to promise, he said these things contain an allegory. 
 By means of this allegory, he attempted to show that the Jews who were 
 seeking to be justified by law were like the son who was born after the 
 flesh; while those who were seeking to be justified by faith were like 
 the child that was born according to promise. The women who were 
 the mothers of these two children represented the two covenants. Hagar 
 was used as a type of the covenant from Mount Sinai, bearing children 
 unto bondage, and Mount Sinai "answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: 
 for she is in bondage with her children." Those who are justified by 
 faith have as their mother the Jerusalem which is above, which is free. 
 Paul argued that those who were seeking to be justified by faith were 
 children of the promise, as was Isaac; and as Isaac was persecuted by 
 him who was born after the flesh, so the children of promise in his day 
 were being persecuted by those who were children of the flesh. Just 
 as the handmaid and her son were cast out, so God was accepting the 
 children of faith and was rejecting the children of the flesh. In his 
 use of the Scriptures in working out this allegory, Paul overlooked the 
 fact that it was the descendants of Isaac to whom the law was given, 
 and that they were the ones who were in bondage to the law. 
 
 The conclusions which Paul sought to estabUsh in the third and 
 fourth chapters of Galatians were not derived from the Old Testament; 
 they were the result of experience, and the Old Testament was used in 
 the most arbitrary manner to prove them. In his discussion in Romans 
 of the relation of the law to justification, Paul used the Scriptures very 
 much as he had done in Galatians. Having shown from experience 
 that justification is not by works of the law, he sought to prove that 
 this conclusion was in harmony with the divine plan, for it was wit- 
 nessed by the law and the prophets. He discussed the justification 
 of Abraham in much the same manner as he had done in Galatians 
 (See Rom. 4:1 ff.). 
 
 In seeking to prove the superiority of justification by faith in Christ 
 to justification by law on the ground that faith is within while the law 
 is external to one, Paul quoted Scripture in the most arbitrary manner 
 possible (Rom. 10:5-8). His statement is undoubtedly based on Deut. 
 30:11-14, and the purpose of this passage is to teach that the law is 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 93 
 
 not too difficult for people to keep; for it is not something that is afar 
 off, but it is in the heart. "It is not in heaven, that thou shouldst 
 say. Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make 
 us to hear it, that we may do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that 
 thou shouldst say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto 
 us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? But the word is very 
 nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. " 
 It is made emphatic in this passage that it is not difficult to keep the 
 law, for it is not afar off; it is not up in heaven, or over the sea, but it 
 is in the heart. Paul's contention was that the law is external, and 
 hence it can not lead one into righteousness, and he used this Scrip- 
 ture to prove it. To make this passage accompHsh his purpose, he 
 substituted faith where the passage intended law: ''But what saith 
 it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is the 
 word of faith which we preach"; and it is evident from the next state- 
 ment that Paul was thinking of faith in Christ in contrast with the 
 letter of the law: "Because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus 
 as Lord and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the 
 dead, thou shalt be saved." 
 
 Paul did not always correctly represent the historical value and 
 purpose of the law, and it would have been impossible for him to have 
 reached his conclusions from a study of the Old Testament itself. It 
 was other influences, the most important of which was his own personal 
 experience, which led him to his convictions, and he then read these 
 back into the Old Testament, and used it to prove his argument. 
 
 Paul was not always consistent in his statements concerning the 
 significance of the law.^ Paul did not write as a theologian, and he 
 did not try to be consistent. He wrote as a religious teacher, and he 
 expressed his feelings in his writings, and in emphasizing one phase of a 
 subject, he sometimes lost sight of other phases. Paul's great purpose 
 was to defend his doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ, and at 
 the same time to justify the existence of the law. His own personal 
 experience, which began as a result of his Jewish training, his knowledge 
 of the life and thought of the Greek world, his contact with the early 
 disciples, and his experiences during his missionary activities among the 
 
 3 Percy Gardner {The Religious Experience of St. Paul, 1911, p. 46) says: "At one 
 time he speaks of it as holy, just, and good, the direct gift of God to Moses. Some- 
 times he speaks of it as marking a passing stage in the development of man, but now 
 outworn and r ady to pass away. Sometimes he even seems to regard it as provoca- 
 tive to sin, and unable to help a man in the trouble into which it leads him. " 
 
94 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Gentiles, furnished the basis for his doctrine. Guided by this expe- 
 rience, he reasoned out his conception of the significance of the law, 
 and its relation to the gospel, and he then read his ideas back into 
 the Old Testament. Paul was always consistent on one point, and 
 that was the basis of justification, for his experience had convinced 
 him that a man is justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the 
 law. He was not always consistent in his discussion of the purpose of 
 the law, for that is not so definitely within the realm of experience, 
 and his conclusions were determined somewhat by the purpose he had in 
 mind in his discussion of the subject. 
 
 The Christian's Relation to Idolatry 
 
 The people of the pagan world were in close contact with idolatry, 
 and their lives were permeated with idolatrous customs. The Chris- 
 tian converts in Gentile communities had formerly participated in all 
 these pagan practices, and in living the Christian life in these communi- 
 ties, they were brought face to face with the problem of idolatry. They 
 were troubled about what their attitude should be towards these old 
 customs. That was especially true of the Christians in Corinth, and in 
 their letter to Paul, they seem to have made inquiry concerning the 
 true attitude of Christians towards life that is touched by idolatry. The 
 problem of idolatry, as it concerned them, related primarily to the meat 
 of animals which had been ofiFered in sacrifices. Was it right for Chris- 
 tians to buy the fliesh of sacrificial animals which was being sold in 
 the markets? Was it right for Christians to go into the homes of 
 their pagan neighbors and eat with them and partake of the meat which 
 was being served, when there was the possibiUty that it might have 
 been offered in sacrifice? The life of the community was built upon 
 idolatry, and the feasts held in the pagan temples were important func- 
 tions. In their pre-Christian days they had participated in these 
 feasts, and they wanted to know if it would be right for them to con- 
 tinue to have a part in them. 
 
 Statement of Paul's Teaching 
 
 Paul in his teaching on the subject of idolatry, was guided by the 
 practical situation, but his statements were very explicit. He said 
 there is no objection to a Christian eating any meat which is sold in 
 the market, and when one goes to the market in a pagan community, 
 he should purchase what he wants and not ask any questions for "con- 
 science' sake" (I Cor. 10:25). Paul beheved it was proper for Chris- 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 95 
 
 tians to eat any sort of meat, inasmuch as it all belongs to the Lord 
 (I Cor. 10:26): "For the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." 
 He felt that there could be no objection to a Christian eating meat, 
 even if it had been offered in sacrifice, as there is no difference between 
 this meat and any other meat, for an idol is nothing, as "there is no 
 God but one" (I Cor. 8:4). If a Christian does not know that the meat 
 was from an animal which had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, it 
 cannot hurt him, since the meat is the same as any other; and that 
 being true, he should not ask any questions about it. Paul said there 
 could be no objection to a Christian attending a feast in an unbeliever's 
 home, if he was disposed to do so; and when he did attend such a feast, 
 unless he knew the meat had been offered in sacrifice, he should eat 
 what was set before him, asking no questions for conscience' sake (I 
 Cor. 10:27-29). He should not ask any question, for if it was stated in 
 reply, that the meat was from a sacrificial animal, he might seem to be 
 sanctioning idolatry if he ate; and at the same time a question would 
 be raised in his own mind, and by eating he would be violating his own 
 conscience. But if some one should state that the meat was from a 
 sacrificial animal, a Christian should not eat it; he should refrain for / 
 the sake~<^lhrone who had made it known (I Cor. 10:28, 29). Paul 
 even went so far as to intimate that a strong Christian might with- 
 out injury to himself eat the meat, even if he knew it was from a sacri- 
 ficial animal, since an idol is nothing; but inasmuch as all men have 
 not this knowledge, the strong Christian must not permit his liberty 
 to become a "stumbling-block to the weak" (I Cor. 8:4-13). Many of 
 the members of the Christian community at Corinth, having but recently 
 come out from paganism, looked upon the meats which had any connec- 
 tion with the pagan sacrifices as being closely connected with the idols 
 which they had formerly worshipped. They would not think of eating 
 this meat, and they would be offended to see a Christian brother eat. 
 Paul advised the strong Christians to refrain for the sake of the weaker 
 ones. His principle was that eating does not make a man either better 
 or worse, and one is to do as he likes unless his eating injures his own 
 conscience, or shocks the feehngs of a weaker brother. When eating 
 injures self or a weaker brother one must refrain, for he cannot afford 
 to do anything which will injure his own soul, or cause his brother to 
 stumble. 
 
 There was another phase of the question of the Christian's relation 
 to idolatry which was even more vital to Paul. He was not concerned 
 about the mere eating of meat which had been offered in sacrifice to 
 
96 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 idols, unless the one who ate did violence to his own conscience, or 
 injured a weaker brother; but he was concerned about the participa- 
 tion in idol worship. He objected to a Christian having anything to 
 do with idolatry (I Cor. 10:7, 14). He objected to his participating 
 in a feast in a heathen temple for two reasons. In the first place, 
 if a Christian who was strong enough to resist the influence of idolatry 
 should participate in a feast in a heathen temple, a weaker brother 
 might through his example be led back into the old life. He objected 
 in the second place, because the one who participates in a feast in an 
 idol temple enters into fellowship with the demons. Paul held that an 
 idol is nothing, hence meat which had been offered to idols is just ordi- 
 nary meat, and a person would not be injured by eating unless he par- 
 ticipated in the sacrifice. But he believed there were demons back of 
 these idols, and the sacrifices in the temples were in reality sacrifices 
 to the demons; hence Christians, by participating in a feast in an idol 
 temple, would have fellowship with the demons (I Cor. 10:20). 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Conception of Idolatry 
 a. His Jewish training. 
 
 j The Jews after the time of the captivity were hostile to idolatry, 
 and for two or three centuries before the time of Paul they were bitterly 
 antagonistic to it. The making of these idols was satirized by the 
 Jewish writers, and idolatry was opposed by the masses of the people. 
 An attempt to force idolatry upon the nation led to the Maccabean 
 revolt. The persecutions and the heroic struggles which followed this 
 uprising created a feeling of antagonism to idolatry which the Pales- 
 tinian Jews could never forget. Their feeling against idolatry was 
 so bitter that they opposed Pilate when he brought the miUtary ensigns 
 from Caesaiea to Jerusalem (See Ant. XVIII :3. 1). 
 
 The Jews beheved an idol was nothing. The manufacture of idols 
 was satirically described by many Old Testament writers, and the 
 satire was even more pronounced in some of the later Jewish writings. 
 The Jews believed their God alone had real existence. The one article 
 of their creed was: ''Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one" 
 (Mk. 12:29). While the Jews believed there was but one God, the 
 tendency to regard the gods of the pagans as demons became pronounced 
 \ during the Greek period. In the Apocalypse of Baruch the heathen 
 gods are called 6ai)u6^ta, and in the Sibylline books and in the book of 
 Enoch the heathen deities are regarded as evil spirits.^ 
 
 *For a brief discussion of this subject see Article "demon," H. D. B., Vol. I, 
 p. 592. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 97 
 
 In warning the Corinthians against idolatry, Paul used the Israel- 
 ites as an illustration (I Cor. 10:7). The passage which he quoted was 
 taken from Ex. 32:6, and it describes the worship of the molten calf / 
 made by Aaron. He warned the Corinthians not to be idolaters as were ' 
 some of the Israelites, who "sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to 
 play." In connection with this warning, Paul mentioned a number of 
 experiences of the Israelites which he connected with their idolatry; 
 he regarded them as punishments which came upon them in consequence 
 of their wrong-doing, and he said these "happened by way of example 
 and were written for our admonition" (I Cor. 10:11). Paul felt that 
 these experiences of the IsraeHtes had a significance that was more 
 far-reaching than mere punishment for their own wrong-doings; they 
 were happening as examples for others. These things were written not 
 merely to give a record of the experiences of the Israelites; they were 
 written for the admonition of the Christians "upon whom the ends 
 of the ages are come." 
 
 Paul's Jewish training and his knowledge of the Scriptures played 
 an important part in the development of his thought about the relation 
 of the Gentile Christians to idol worship. It gave him a feeling of 
 contempt for the idols themselves, but a feeling of fear of the demons 
 who were connected with idol worship. It also convinced him that 
 God punished his children when they forsook him for idolatry. 
 
 b. The thought of the Greek world. 
 
 It was commonly beHeved in the Mediterranean world, that when a 
 feast was held in a pagan temple, the god to whom the temple was dedi- 
 cated was present as the host, and those v/ho participated in the feast 
 entered into fellowship with the deity in whose honor the feast was 
 held. Paul must have been familiar with these ideas, and his contact 
 with the Greeks had perhaps made him feel that there was some reality 
 back of this pagan worship. His Jewish training would convince him 
 that this reality was not deity, and the explanation which found expres- 
 sion in many Jewish writings that these heathen gods were demons, 
 would appeal to him. Inasmuch as Paul beUeved the demons were 
 connected with idol worship, he urged the Gentile Christians not to 
 have any participation in idolatry, for he did not want them to have 
 fellowship with demons. 
 
 c. Christian experience. 
 
 Experience was an important element in the development of Paul's 
 theory of the relation of the Gentile Christians to idolatry. His Jewish 
 
98 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 training and his contact with the life and thought of the Greeks helped 
 to determine what idolatry meant to him; but his own personal experience 
 and the purpose he sought to accompHsh determined his instruction 
 concerning the attitude of the Gentiles towards idolatrous customs. 
 Some have thought Paul expressed two conflicting opinions about 
 eating meat which had been offered to idols, and that these two opinions 
 were expressed in the same letter, and in the same chapter. In the first 
 first part of the chapter, he seems to advise against the eating of things 
 sacrificed to idols on the ground that the Gentiles, in sacrificing to 
 idols, in reality sacrifice to demons, and Christians, by eating these 
 things, would necessarily have fellowship with demons. In the last 
 part of the chapter, he said idols are nothing, and consequently the 
 meat is not injured by having been offered in sacrifice; hence it is proper 
 for a Christian to eat of it, if his conscience is not thus offended, or if 
 he does not by his eating cause a weaker brother to stumble. Paul 
 made a distinction between participating in idol worship and eating 
 things which had been sacrificed to idols, and this distinction which 
 he made, and the purpose which he had in mind in his letter, explain 
 the apparent discrepancy. He had two purposes in mind, and in his 
 effort to accompHsh these, he seemed to contradict himself. He was 
 anxious that the Christians should not needlessly offend their Gentile 
 neighbors by their narrowness. He wanted them to have influence over 
 their friends, and he knew that they would have more influence, if they 
 enjoyed as far as possible their society. He knew the influence of the 
 Christians would be very much hampered, if they broke entirely with 
 the community; hence he told them to buy the meat sold in the sham- 
 bles, and eat the meat served in Gentile homes whither they had gone 
 as guests, providing attention had not been called to the fact that 
 it had been offered to idols, and it was thus made a matter of conscience. 
 Paul knew that it would be difficult for Christians to live in a heathen 
 city, if they were to hold aloof from everything which had any connec- 
 tion with idolatry, and he laid down a broad principle to guide them in 
 their various relationships. On the other hand, Paul was anxious that 
 the Christians should keep their worship pure and have nothing to do 
 with the heathenism from which they had broken away. He realized 
 that if these Christians participated in the pagan worship at all, they 
 would be in danger of drifting back into idolatry. He believed Satan 
 was trying to defeat the work of God, and that the demons were putting 
 forth idol worship as a means of keeping men away from the true God. 
 To have anything to do with idol worship was to enter into fellowship 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 99 
 
 with the demons, and one who would do that could not have fellowship 
 with God. 
 
 Paul had doubtless eaten meat which had been offered in sacrifice 
 to idols, and had not been injured by it. He had seen others eat of 
 this meat, and some of them, because their consciences were weak, were 
 injured, while others who had no questionings in their minds were un- 
 affected. Paul had seen Gentile Christians go to the heathen temples, 
 and as a result, they lost interest in Christianity and drifted back into 
 paganism. His conclusion was the result of experience, and he had no 
 doubt about the wisdom of his advice. 
 
 Not only was Paul guided by experience in advising the Corinthians, 
 but he taught that they were to be guided by experience in carrying 
 out his instructions. A man was to be directed by his conscience in 
 determining his attitude towards eating meat when it concerned himself 
 alone. He should not do anything that would violate his own conscience 
 but as long as he did not know the meat had been offered to idols, and 
 there was no offense to conscience, there could be no harm in eating. 
 Love was the principle which was to guide one in his relation to others. 
 The Christian should follow the dictates of love, and do the things 
 which contribute to the upbuilding of his fellows. He should be more 
 concerned about the spiritual welfare of his brethren than he is about 
 his own rights. This rule applied in both directions. On the one hand, 
 the weak were not to judge the strong uncharitably and think they were 
 sinful because they ate; and on the other hand, the strong were to 
 forbear for the sake of the weak. The community should respect the 
 individual's rights and grant him liberty of conscience, but the law 
 of love should lead him to be ready to give up his liberty for the sake 
 of the weaker brother. 
 
 Paul's advice on the question of eating meats seems on first thought 
 to be contrary to his attitude on circumcision, but his position on both 
 questions is in reahty the same. He refused to have Titus circumcised 
 to satisfy the prejudices of certain Jews, but a principle was involved, 
 for he was insisting on the rights of the Gentiles. No principle, how- 
 ever, was involved in the question of eating meats offered to idols, 
 and Paul's position was the opposite of the one he had taken on cir- 
 cumcision. He insisted that if eating would offend, then it was the 
 duty of the Christian to refrain. He told the Corinthians to so live that 
 they might make their lives as helpful as possible. He told them not 
 to permit themselves to be a stumbHng-block to the Jews by doing things 
 which would give offense to them; nor to put a stumbling-block in the 
 
100 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 way of Greeks by insisting on narrow scruples where no vital principle 
 is involved; nor to put a stumbling-block in the way of the church of 
 God by seeking personal interest; on the contrary they were to seek 
 the profit of the many (I Cor. 10:32, 33). The purpose which Paul 
 had before him, the winning of the world for Christ and the binding 
 together of Jews and Gentiles, was a strong factor in determining his 
 advice on the questions raised by idolatry. He wanted the Gentile 
 Christians to do the things which would help him most in carrying out 
 his purpose. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 Paulas Jewish training played an important part in helping him 
 to his solution of the problems raised by the estabUshment of Chris- 
 tianity in the Gentile world. It influenced him both negatively and 
 positively in reaching his conclusion about the relation of the law to the 
 gospel. His zeal for the law and its failure to bring peace prepared him 
 for the time when he would forsake it as a means of justification, while 
 his admiration for the law made him confident that it must have had a 
 very definite place in the working out of God's plan. Paul's Jewish 
 training was an important factor in determining his answer to the 
 question about the Gentile Christian's relation to idolatry. It made 
 him abhor idol worship and feel that it is impossible for one to have any 
 connection with it and at the same time have fellowship with God; but 
 it made him look upon the idols themselves with contempt, because he 
 knew that there is only one God. 
 
 Paul was influenced in his solution of these problems by his contact 
 with the life and thought of the Greeks. His observation of their 
 religions helped to prepare him so that he would be willing to accept 
 something besides law as the means of justification, and it also convinced 
 him that the rites and ceremonies of the Jews would make no appeal 
 to the Gentiles. His Greek environment helped to determine his atti- 
 tude towards idol worship. His observation of these pagan religions 
 had convinced him that the worshippers did enter into fellowship with 
 supernatural powers, but he knew they were demons and not deities; 
 hence he insisted that Christians should have no connection with heathen 
 worship. 
 
 Paul must have been influenced in reaching his conclusion about 
 the relation of the law to the gospel by the life and thought of the church 
 into which he entered. The realization that these Christians had 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 101 
 
 something that law could not give prepared him for the conviction that 
 law is not essential to salvation. 
 
 The most important factors in determining Paul's solution of the 
 problems raised by the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles were 
 his own personal experience and the purpose which he sought to accom- 
 pHsh. His own personal experience and his observation of others had 
 convinced him that the law cannot justify, and that faith in Christ 
 not only makes one acceptable to God, but it also gives him victory. 
 Paul's contact with the Greeks had convinced him that they would i 
 never accept the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law, and he realized [ 
 that if he was to carry out his purpose of winning the Gentile world 
 for Christ, it would be necessary to free them from the obligation of 
 keeping the law. His desire to accomplish the great purpose to which 
 he had dedicated his life led him to assume a liberal attitude towards 
 pagan customs. He became all things to all men in order that he might 
 win them. 
 

 CHAPTER IV 
 SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE CHURCH 
 
 Paul sought to plant new churches in all the important centers of 
 the Mediterranean world, and by means of these churches, he hoped to 
 evangelize the surrounding territory. When he was with these churches 
 in person, he must have given very definite instructions concerning 
 their regulation and activities; but after he had left them, new sit- 
 uations developed, and he felt the need of giving additional instruction 
 through his letters. A study of Paul's teaching, in his letters, on these 
 various subjects will throw much light on his conception of authority. 
 
 What the Church is 
 Statement of Paul's Teaching 
 
 Paul sometimes used the term ''kingdom of God," but he used the 
 term ''church" more frequently. By the term "church" he designated 
 the behevers in some definite locality, as Thessalonica (I Thess. 1:1), 
 or Corinth (I Cor. 1:1, 2). Very little is said about the organization 
 of these Christian communities. In his greeting to the Philippians, 
 he mentioned especially the bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1). This 
 would seem to indicate that there were in the church at Phihppi two 
 groups of officers which bore the designation "bishops" and "deacons." 
 No mention is made of these officers in other churches, but that does 
 not prove that these other churches did not have them. The fact, how- 
 ever, that Paul wrote directly to the churches, and called upon them 
 to act, would indicate that he regarded these officers, if the churches did 
 have them, as being merely their servants. Paul did not outline any 
 scheme of organization for the local churches. The organization was 
 simple, for the Spirit would see to it that things were done in order. 
 Paul was not building up a great organization for the future, for he 
 believed the parousia was near. 
 
 Paul referred to all the Christian communities in a given province 
 by the term "churches"; as for example, "the churches of Asia" (I 
 Cor. 16:19), the churches of Macedonia" (II Cor. 8:1), "the churches 
 of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2), "the churches of Judea" (Gal. 1:22). He some- 
 times used the term "church" in the singular to designate the whole 
 body of behevers. His persecution of individual Christians was inter- 
 preted as a persecution waged against the church (Gal. 1:13). He re- 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 103 
 
 garded the believers in Christ as constituting a body in which Christ's 
 spirit has its abode. The members of this body are bound together in 
 a single organism; hence the welfare of one is the welfare of all (I Cor. 
 12:12 ff.). He regarded the church as a unit, bound together by Christ, 
 and animated by his spirit. Paul applied the term "church" to any 
 body of behevers that met together in Christ's name for worship, and 
 he thought of all those believers collectively as constituting Christ's 
 church. There is no reference in Paul's writings to an organization 
 which was intended to unify and regulate all these separate communi- 
 ties. He believed they were unified and controlled by the spirit of 
 Christ. Paul thought of the church as the body of Christ, and he be- 
 lieved his spirit dwells within it as a man's spirit dwells in his body. 
 The local church had certain office-bearers who were selected by the 
 church to perform definite duties, but Paul believed that in addition to 
 these, there were in the church certain men whom God had appointed 
 for peculiar service. These men had special gifts which qualified them 
 for definite service. Paul believed these gifts had been divinely be- 
 stowed; hence the men who possessed them were divinely appointed 
 (I Cor. 12:28). 
 
 Paul did not feel that there were two churches, the one Jewish, 
 and the other Gentile; he regarded them all as constituting the one 
 body. The churches of Judea were in Christ just as much as were the 
 churches of the Gentiles (Gal. 1:22; I Thess. 2:14). He called them 
 churches of God (Gal. 1:13; I Cor. 15:9), and spoke of the first Chris- 
 tians as "brethren" (I Cor. 15:6), and "saints" (I Cor. 16:1; Rom. 15: 
 25). He held up the churches of Judea before the Thessalonians as 
 models for them to imitate (I Thess. 2:14, 15). 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Conception of the Church 
 
 a. His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 Paul was familiar with the idea of the church before he came in 
 contact with the Christian movement. The Jews had their religious 
 community, and in the LXX, this was designated as 17 kKKkqcla. These 
 communities meant much to the non-Palestinian Jews, and throughout 
 the Mediterranean world they were much like the Christian churches 
 of the earher period. In fact, they were so much alike that the Romans 
 did not at first distinguish between them. The Jewish communities 
 were composed of those who were called out from the rest of the world 
 by their faith in Jehovah, and they were bound together by this common 
 faith and by their peculiar rites and ceremonies. They had their syn- 
 
104 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 agogues which became the centers of Jewish communities, and while 
 the individual Jew belonged to some particular community, yet, inas- 
 much as they were all alike, he felt at home in any of them. The mem- 
 bers of the community who belonged to the same synagogue were called 
 "sons of the synagogue."^ Inasmuch as the Jew could feel at home 
 in any of these synagogues and could enter into their worship, he must 
 have felt that he and the rest of the Jews belonged to a great body 
 which had been called out from the rest of the world, and that they 
 were one in their faith, their fellowship, and their tasks. Paul inherited 
 these ideas, and he must have been influenced by them in the develop- 
 ment of his idea of the church. 
 
 The local synagogues had their organization, and Paul became 
 familiar with that by the training of his early years. The most impor- 
 tant officials were the elders of the synagogue, and in the non-Palestinian 
 communities, these officers were distinct from the civil officials. In 
 addition to these, each synagogue had a ruler of the synagogue 
 {apxi(Tvvdyo}yos) , the receiver of alms, and the minister (uTrr/perT/s).^ 
 This organization would be so impressed upon Paul that he would 
 necessarily be influenced by it in the organization which he suggested 
 for the churches which he established. The local synagogues were largely 
 independent in their management, but they were united in fellowship; 
 and it is significant that the churches under Paul's leadership developed 
 along these lines. 
 b. The life and thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 Associations and guilds of various kinds were found in all parts of 
 the Mediterranean world of Paul's day. Some of these were for busi- 
 ness and for fellowship, and some of them were for purely religious 
 purposes. Paul must have been acquainted with these, and some 
 writers think they furnished the model for the organization of the Pauline 
 churches.^ The organization of these reUgious associations must have 
 been similar to that adopted by the churches which were established 
 by Paul, for the terms eTrtcr/coTrot and haKovoi are frequently found in 
 inscriptions, and the connection plainly indicates that they had a 
 technical reference to religious officials. These pagan societies were 
 designated as "corpora," and there may have been some connection 
 between that designation and Paul's reference to the church as a body. 
 
 ^ See Article "Synagogue," H. D. B., Vol. IV, p. 638. 
 
 2 For a fuller discussion of the synagogue see Emil Schiirer, A History of the 
 Jewish People, Divis. II, Vol. II, pp. 44 ff, 
 
 2 See C. F. George Hcinrici, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 1880, pp. 5 ff. 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 105 
 
 The one who had not been initiated into the mysteries of the pagan 
 cults was designated as an iStcbrTys, and Paul seems to have used that 
 term in somewhat the same sense in I Cor. 14:16 
 
 Paul must have been acquainted with these reHgious guilds and 
 with their organization, and it is very probable that he was influenced 
 by them. Inasmuch as the churches which he established were largely 
 composed of Gentiles, it would be natural for him to adapt these churches 
 to Gentile ways of thinking. The ideas concerning the church which he 
 inherited from his Jewish training were undoubtedly modified by his 
 Greek environment. 
 
 c. The life and thought of the church into which he entered. 
 
 It is impossible to state just what was the conception of the church 
 when Paul became a Christian, or what its organization was; but from 
 the very first there was a body of people who were bound together 
 by their beUef in Jesus, and very soon the theory of their significance 
 and of their program began to develop. Paul must have been influenced 
 by this body of believers, as it was when he became a part of the Chris- 
 tian movement. There must have been some development in the 
 Palestinian Church before Paul began his aggressive campaigns. As 
 time passed the church became more distinct from Judaism, and the 
 Christians had a more definite appreciation of their identity as a sepa- 
 rate institution. There must have been some development in the orga- 
 nization of these communities, and they would naturally develop along 
 Jewish lines. They must have had a more definite idea of the signi- 
 ficance of the Christian group and of the work they were to do. Paul 
 kept in close touch with the Jewish section of the church after he began 
 his missionary activities, and it must have influenced his idea of the 
 church which he was seeking to estabUsh throughout the Mediterranean 
 world. 
 
 d. His own personal experience. 
 
 Paul's own personal experience and the purpose which he had be- 
 fore him were important factors in the development of his thought of 
 the church. Paul's aim was to keep the church united. He not only 
 desired to have the local communities bound together in close fellow- 
 ship, but he was anxious to have that fellowship unite all communities. 
 There were influences that were dividing local churches, like the one 
 at Corinth, and the whole church was in danger of being rent over the 
 question of circumcision. These conditions influenced Paul and led 
 him to emphasize the unity of the church. His own Christian experience 
 guided him in the development of his idea of the church which was the 
 
106 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 basis of his discussion of its unity. Paul believed he was united to 
 Christ in such a vital manner that Christ was living in him, and he 
 believed all other Christians should be united to Christ in the same 
 way. If all were thus united to Christ, they would be united to each 
 other, and they would then constitute a great body in which Christ 
 should dwell. 
 
 Experience was doubtless a prominent factor in determining the 
 organization of the Pauline churches. It is not probable that the 
 organization was static in all the Pauline churches during all the period 
 of his missionary career, and it is very doubtful whether it was uniform 
 in all the churches at any given tune. It was a development, and 
 the particular need was one of the determining influences in this develop- 
 ment. Paul was influenced by his Jewish training, and by the life and 
 thought of the Mediterranean world, but his experience was the factor 
 which determined his method of procedure. He used that method 
 of procedure which worked best, and the organization of the churches 
 which were under his leadership was a development to meet growing 
 needs. The church was a temple in which the spirit of Christ dwelt, 
 and they trusted the divine spirit to guide them into all truth. 
 
 The Ordinances of the Church 
 The two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper, are discussed 
 in the Pauline writings, and yet one is surprised in reading these letters 
 to find how little teaching there is on these subjects. Undoubtedly 
 much teaching was given when he was with these churches in person, 
 and what we have in his letters was for the purpose of illustration, 
 or to correct abuses. 
 
 Baptism 
 a. What it meant for Paul. 
 
 Paul had Uttle to say about baptism, but his few statements are 
 very significant. Inasmuch as he did not give any direct teaching on 
 the subject of baptism, his position must be inferred from his incidental 
 references. It is evident from the statements which he made that 
 all the members of the Pauline churches had been baptized. In his 
 criticism of those in Corinth who were calling themselves after Cephas, 
 or ApoUos, or himself, he asked if they had been baptized into the 
 name of Paul (I Cor. 1:13), and this would indicate that they had been 
 baptized into some other name. In emphasizing the unity of the 
 church, he likened it to the human body, and the individual Christians 
 were regarded as constituting the members of this body (I Cor. 12:12 ff.). 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 107 
 
 Paul said these different members were all baptized in one spirit into 
 one body (I Cor. 12:13). It is very evident that this refers to the ordi- 
 nance of Christian baptism."* Paul affirmed that the Galatians, when 
 they started in the Christian life, obligated themselves to Christ rather 
 than to the law, and he referred to their baptism as an indication of 
 that fact (Gal. 3:27). His statement would imply that they had all 
 been baptized, and that they had been baptized into the name of Christ: 
 "For as many of youas were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." 
 Paul urged the Roman Christians not to continue in sin, inasmuch as 
 they had died to sin, and he pointed to their baptism as an indication 
 of that death (Rom. 6:3, 4). This passage would seem to infer that all 
 who were regarded as Christians had been baptized, and that the bap- 
 tism which had been administered to them was in the nature of a burial 
 and resurrection. It seems evident that all the members of the Chris- 
 tian groups in Rome, Corinth, and Galatia had been baptized, and it 
 is very probable that the same condition prevailed in all the other Pauline 
 churches. 
 
 It is more difficult to determine the significance of baptism for 
 Paul, than it is to determine its existence in the churches founded by 
 him. There are few subjects in Pauline thought concerning which 
 scholars have differed more widely than the one relating to the signi- 
 ficance of baptism. Paul did not regard baptism as the fundamental 
 thing in his Work. His great task was the preaching of the gospel, 
 and the administering of baptism was a mere incident in his mission. 
 He scarcely remembered the names of the ones whom he had baptized 
 in Corinth, and he apparently was not much concerned whether he or 
 others had baptized the Corinthians, for Christ had sent him to preach 
 the gospel, and not to baptize. It would be misleading, however, to 
 say Paul was not concerned about baptism, for he believed it was of 
 vital importance. He believed it had a significance for the community, 
 for it was the common rite which bound the members into one body 
 (I Cor. 12:13). The Jew and the Greek, the bond and the free, were 
 all baptized into one body. Barriers which had hitherto been insur- 
 mountable were broken down, and through the rite of baptism they were 
 bound together, and were all made to drink of one spirit. 
 
 The phase of baptism that was most important in Paul's thinking 
 was its significance for the individual. He beheved the individual 
 was baptized into Christ Jesus, and through this ordinance he was 
 
 * For a discussion of this point see Int. Grit. Com. 
 
108 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 brought into his death. Many writers have interpreted Paul's concep- 
 tion of baptism as being merely symbolic. They maintain that he 
 regarded baptism as symbolizing the union with Christ which is accom- 
 phshed through faith.^ These writers hold that baptism had a moral 
 import for Paul, because he believed it represented in a figurative 
 manner that the one who was being baptized had died, and he was thus 
 being buried and resurrected with Christ. They hold that baptism 
 symbolised for Paul a moral transformation; the one who was being 
 baptized had already died to sin and had been raised to holiness, and 
 thus it represented in an outward from that which had already taken 
 place in the life.^ The symbolic significance of baptism was prominent 
 in Paul's thinking. It did undoubtedly symbolize the beUever's death 
 to sin and resurrection to the new life. It committed the individual 
 to Christ, as the passage through the Red Sea committed the Israelites 
 to the leadership of Moses (I Cor. 10:2.). 
 
 A disinterested interpretation of Paul's writings, however, must 
 give baptism a more essential place than that of a mere symbolism. 
 While it had symbolic significance, it had intrinsic value within itself. 
 According to Gal. 3:27, it is in the act of baptism that individuals are 
 brought into Christ {els xpto-Tov), and those who are baptized into Christ 
 put on Christ {xpkttov kvedvaaade) . According to Romans (6:3, 4), it 
 is through baptism, that individuals are brought into the death of 
 Christ {els rdv Skvarov avTov e^aTTTLcrdrifxev) , and as a result of having 
 been buried with Christ through baptism into his death, they shall walk 
 in newness of life. In one of the Corinthian letters (I Cor. 12:13), 
 Paul evidently connected the reception of the Spirit with baptism. Bap- 
 tism not only brought together the discordant elements into one body, 
 but in this rite they were all made to drink of one Spirit (Trdi^res ev irveufxa 
 eTOTladrifiev).'' In this same letter (I Cor. 15:29) Paul referred to their 
 
 6 George B. Stevens (The Theology of the New Testament, 1910, pp. 461 f.) holds 
 that baptism was important to Paul because of its spiritual significance. He said: 
 "It is not baptism considered as an outward rite, but baptism considered in its inner 
 import, which portrays this grafting into Christ. " 
 
 « H. A. A. Kennedy (Si. Paul and the Mystery Religions, 1913, p. 251) says it is 
 absurd to think Paul associated the reception of the Spirit with baptism, for if he had 
 done so, he would have placed more stress upon it. He thinks baptism had a double 
 significance for Paul. On the one hand, it was the completion of the process of enter- 
 ing into Christ; and on the other hand, it was "the real recognition and assurance of 
 the new life, which are quickened in the soul by the baptismal experience. " 
 
 ' H. A. A. Kennedy (5^. Paul and the Mystery Religions, 1913, p. 239) who places 
 the emphasis on the symboUc significance of baptism, admits that this passage con- 
 nects the reception of the Spirit with baptism. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 109 
 
 custom of baptizing for the dead. Many interpretations of this pas- 
 sage have been given, but it seems almost certain that it refers to a 
 custom, which must have been practiced at Corinth, and which may 
 have been practiced elsewhere to some extent, of receiving baptism 
 in behalf of departed friends in hope that they would thus share in the 
 resurrection of Christ.^ Paul did not give his sanction to this custom, 
 but inasmuch as he sought to correct the errors of the Corinthian Church, 
 the fact that he referred to it and did not condemn it would seem to 
 indicate that he did not disapprove of it. Taking all these things into 
 consideration, it seems almost certain that Paul regarded baptism, not 
 only as a symbol, but as having real value in itself. He regarded it as 
 a means by which Christ is imparted to men and through which they 
 are made partakers of the divine benefits. 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his conception of baptism. 
 
 (a) His Jewish training. 
 
 The Jews had numerous washings which were associated with the 
 idea of cleansing. The priests were required to wash in the laver 
 before they ministered in the temple. The Pharisees practiced a cere- 
 monial washing before they ate, and this was referred to as a baptism. 
 The Pharisee who had invited Jesus to dine with him "marveled that 
 he had not first bathed himself before dinner" (Lk 11 :38) and the term 
 used is the same as the one which is elsewhere translated *' baptize" 
 {k^aTTLadrj) . The Pharisees had the custom of the ''baptizings of 
 cups, and pots, and brazen vessels" (Mk 7:4) It seems quite probable 
 that the Jews performed a baptismal rite for the purpose of initiating 
 a proselyte into the Jewish community. Paul was familiar with all 
 these ceremonies, and he was influenced b)^ them in the formation of 
 his conception of Christian baptism 
 
 (b) The thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 Paul's notion of ceremonialism in religion must be studied in con- 
 nection with the thought of the world in which he lived and labored. 
 The mystery-cults differed in many particulars, but they agreed in 
 offering present and future happiness to those who were initiated into 
 fellowship with the deity, and a sacred bath constituted a part of this 
 initiation. While there is no indication that the name of the deity 
 was pronounced when this lustration was performed, yet the very char- 
 acter of the rite impHed a confession of the deity on the part of the 
 one initiated.® 
 
 8 See Int. Crit. Com. 
 
 "Paul Schweitzer {Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung, 1911, pp. 162 f.; Eng. 
 trans. 1912, p. 208), who does not believe Greek thought influenced Paul in his idea 
 
no CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 It is impossible to state with absolute certainty the teaching of 
 the mystery-religions about the sacred bath, but most of those who 
 have made a special study of these cults agree on several important 
 points. They agree that many of them had a sacred lustration, either 
 of water or of blood, and that it was a part of the initiation ceremony. 
 They agree that the purpose of this bath was to bring the initiate into 
 fellowship with the god, who had died and had been raised from the 
 dead, in order that he might be made the possessor of immortality. 
 They agree that this initiation brought the individual into such close 
 touch with the deity that the deity entered into him and took posses- 
 sion of him. They are also agreed that these mystery-cults were quite 
 widely disseminated throughout the Mediterranean world before the 
 time of Paul. Undoubtedly many who became Christians under 
 the labors of Paul had passed through these initiatory rites, and they 
 necessarily carried some of their old ideas over into their Christian 
 experience. It is natural that Paul should have used a terminology 
 which would be famiUar to the Gentile Christians, but he was undoubt- 
 edly influenced in his conception of the significance of the rite, as well 
 as in his terminology. When the lustrations of the mystery-religions 
 are compared with Paul's idea of baptism, many striking differences 
 are noted, but the main purpose is the same in either case. Just as 
 the initiate into the mystery-cult was brought into fellowship with 
 the deity through the divine bath, so the individual through Christian 
 baptism is brought into fellowship with Christ. 
 
 There has been much discussion about the relation of Paul's state- 
 ment about baptizing for the dead (I Cor. 15 :29) to the mystery-religions. 
 A papyrus attests a baptism of the dead. The dead man is represented 
 as being between two gods, and they administer to him, rather than to 
 a substitute, the sacred bath.^^ Some writers beheve the mystery- 
 religions furnish examples of the substitution of one person for another 
 in the sacred ablution, and that the condition in Corinth to which Paul 
 referred was derived from these pagan cults." 
 
 of baptism, admits that the mystery-cults had a baptismal rite, and that this rit 
 implied confession of the deity on the part of the one who was being initiated. 
 
 ^° See R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenisHschen Mysterienreligionen, 1910, p. 84. 
 
 "Percy Gardner {The Religious Experience of Si. Paul, 1911, p. 110) says: "I^ 
 appears also that in the TauroboUmn substitution of one person for another 
 allowed, one man receiving the benefit of the bath of another." 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS HI 
 
 It seems almost certain that the Greek world contributed impor- 
 tant elements to Paul's doctrine of Christian baptism, but the prac- 
 tice of these mystery-cults would not be sufficient of themselves to 
 explain his conception. They contributed their part along with other 
 influences. 
 
 (c) The thought of the primitive church. 
 
 We do not know just what notion of baptism Paul received from 
 the primitive church. The rite was undoubtedly administered by the 
 church from the very beginning, and Paul must have been baptized 
 according to the regulation of the church, but it is impossible to state 
 just what it meant to him when he was baptized. The Book of Acts 
 gives but a brief account of the life and thought of the early church, 
 and as it was written many years after the beginning of the church, it 
 is impossible to tell just how much this account was modified by later 
 thought. According to the account in the first part of Acts, baptism 
 was more than a formal act; it had a vital connection with the forgive- 
 ness of sins (Acts 2:38). But the significance of baptism, as it is indi- 
 cated in the first part of Acts, is very different from what it was for 
 Paul. 
 
 (d) His own personal experience. 
 
 Although Paul received the rite of baptism from the primitive 
 church, and his Jewish training had prepared him for its reception, and 
 his Greek environment had given him ideas which would lead him to 
 put a new meaning into it, yet his own personal experience was an impor- 
 tant factor in the development of the significance of this Christian ordi- 
 nance. Paul transformed the primitive conception of baptism into 
 the mystical idea of dying with Christ and arising to a new life with 
 him, and while Greek thought suggested it to him, his doctrine was 
 worked out in his own experience. His argument in Galatians and 
 Romans was to the effect that a man is justified and enters into fellow- 
 ship with God through faith in Christ, and his teaching on baptism 
 must be understood in the light of his discussion of faith. 
 
 It might seem that Paul had two conceptions of salvation, the one 
 being ethical and the result of faith, and the other being mystical and 
 the result of sacraments, and that these two were antagonistic to each 
 other. It is more probable, however, that these two conceptions 
 had been blended in Paul's thinking, and the one phase was the result 
 of his contact with the thought of the Greeks, and the other resulted 
 from his own Christian experience. The one to whom baptism is 
 administered has faith in Christ, and this faith, accompanied by the 
 
112 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 mystic rite, brings him into fellowship with his Lord. Faith in a cruci- 
 fied and risen Christ was presupposed as the condition of receiving 
 the initiatory rite. It was on account of his faith that the individual 
 was permitted to receive the rite of baptism, and these together brought 
 him into Christ, and made him a partaker of the divine Spirit. In the 
 mystery-cults the emphasis was placed on the initiatory rite, but Paul 
 placed the stress on faith, and his own experience would have made it 
 impossible for him to have done otherwise. 
 
 Paul made one reference to baptism in connection with Old Testa- 
 ment history. In his letter to the Corinthians he was arguing that 
 the people who had been baptized and had evidence of God's approval 
 might, because of disobedience and rebellion, be rejected by him; and 
 he referred to the experience of Israel as an illustration of that fact. 
 Although they "were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
 sea" (I Cor. 10:2), yet "they were overthrown in the wilderness" (I Cor. 
 10:5). His use of baptism in this connection would indicate that he 
 received his ideas from other sources, and then read them back into 
 the Old Testament. He drew a comparison between baptism into Christ 
 and into Moses. While it is not expressed in his illustration, yet it 
 is impHed that as the Christians were united to Christ by baptism, 
 and thus obtained salvation, so the Israelites obtained salvation from 
 Egypt by being united to Moses by a baptism in the cloud and in the 
 sea. Paul received the rite of baptism from the primitive church, but 
 its significance for him was derived from the Greek rehgions and from 
 his own personal experience, and he then read these conceptions back 
 into the Old Testament, and used it to make his doctrine effective. 
 
 The Lord's Supper 
 
 a. What it meant for Paul. 
 
 Paul had very Httle to say in his writings about the Lord's Supper, 
 but what he did say is important. There are some incidental references 
 which are significant, but the fullest discussion is in I Cor. 11:17-34. 
 Paul had evidently given the Corinthians definite instructions con- 
 cerning the significance of the Lord's Supper, and the manner in which 
 they should observe it, when he was with them, but they had failed 
 to live up to his instructions. They did not come together in the 
 right spirit, for there were divisions among them. The Lord's Supper 
 was intended to be a fellowship-meal, but the Corinthians, because 
 of the manner in which they were celebrating it, had made it anything 
 but that. They did not wait for one another in their partaking, but 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 113 
 
 some ate and drank to excess before the others had had a chance, and 
 the result was that some were hungry and others were drunken. Paul 
 declared that when they partook in this selfish spirit it was not possi- 
 ble for them to discern the Lord's body, and because they had eaten 
 without discerning the Lord's body, many of them were weak and 
 sickly, and not a few of them had died. We do not know the circum- 
 stances to which Paul referred, but it is very probable that some malady 
 had swept over the church, and he attributed this to their laxity in 
 regard to the sacred meal. He may have believed there was some 
 magical influence in the Lord's Supper, and as a consequence those who 
 partook of it unworthily suffered physical ills, or he may have regarded 
 this sickness and death in the church as a divine punishment, inflicted 
 on them because of their lack of reverence for divine things, as the 
 Israelites were punished because of their disregard for God's laws (See 
 I Cor. 10:10-13). According to I Cor. 11:17-34, the main purpose for 
 their coming together should have been to celebrate the Lord's Supper, 
 and the object of this celebration was not merely to remember Christ; 
 it was to proclaim his death "till he come." This celebration had a 
 significance for the individual which was of more vital concern than 
 either of these, for it was a partaking of the Lord's body. Those who 
 celebrated the Lord's Supper were not to partake of the bread to sat- 
 isfy their hunger, for if they were hungry, they were to eat at home. 
 When they partook of the sacred meal, they were to discriminate be- 
 tween that bread and other bread, for that was the Lord's body. 
 
 In I Cor. 10:14-22, Paul used the Lord's Supper as an illustration, 
 and the use which he made of it would indicate that he regarded it as 
 being more than a mere memorial institution. He was arguing against 
 participation in sacrifice to idols on the ground that this would bring 
 them into communion with demons, and he used the Lord's Supper 
 to prove his argument. He said the cup is a communion of the blood of 
 Christ, and the bread is a communion of the body of Christ. The 
 word translated "communion" is Kotvcovia, and this means fellowship, 
 participation, or intercourse. Paul believed that one has fellowship 
 with the sufferings of Christ when he partakes of the bread and wine. 
 He regarded the Lord's Supper as being something more than a memorial 
 of Christ, or a proclamation of his death; it was a fellowship of the 
 body and blood of the Lord, and to partake without discerning the Lord's 
 body would bring condemnation, 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his conception of the Lord's Supper. 
 
114 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 (a) His Jewish training. 
 
 There were some Jewish customs which helped to prepare Paul for 
 an appreciation of the sacred meal of the Christians. Among the Jews, 
 eating and drinking together was a means of producing fellowship. 
 When one came to the table of his host, he not only had his protection, 
 but he also had his friendship, and because of the common meal, they 
 had fellowship with each other. The Jews had the custom of partaking 
 of their sacrifices, and while this was quite different from the sacred 
 meal of the Christians, it undoubtedly contributed something to Paul's 
 understanding of the Christian institution. The Jew's celebration of 
 the Passover, which commemorated their deliverance from bondage, 
 helped to prepare Paul for the celebration of the Christian feast, which 
 commemorated a more important deliverance. These customs influ- 
 enced Paul only indirectly, and when he used the Old Testament to 
 illustrate the Lord's Supper, it was other incidents to which he referred; 
 but the custom of eating together not only emphasized the idea of 
 fellowship, but as in the case of the feasts, it had a deeper significance. 
 
 (b) The thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 Recent investigations have thrown much light upon the ceremoni- 
 alism of the world in which Paul lived, and this must be taken into 
 account in any serious attempt to understand Paul's thinking. Attis 
 worship, which had penetrated the Roman empire two centuries before 
 the time of Paul, had the *' agape" in which the candidates partook of 
 food and drink. This was a part of the initiation into the mysteries of 
 Attis, and by means of it, the initiates became partakers of the higher 
 life. The password into the Eleusinian mysteries seems to have been: 
 "I fasted, I drank the barley-drink, I took from the sacred chest; having 
 tasted I placed them into the basket and again from the basket into 
 the chest." This ritual seems to imply that the initiate, through 
 eating and drinking, was brought into communion with the deity, and 
 was thus made a partaker in the triumph over death.^^ j^ the Dionysus 
 cult, it was believed that one could participate in the life of the god by 
 eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the victim in which the god 
 was supposed to be incarnate. Many of the mystery-reUgions had a 
 sacred meal. This meal was sometimes held in the temple of the god, 
 and it was believed that the god was present as host, and that those 
 who ate had fellowship with him. An invitation to one of those feasts 
 is contained in Pap. Oxyr., 1, 110: "Chairemon invites you to a dinner 
 
 ^2 For a discussion of this point see "Shirley Jackson Case," The Evolution of 
 Early Christianity, 1914, p. 294. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 115 
 
 at the table of the Lord Serapis in the Serapaeum to-morrow, i.e., the 
 15th." 
 
 Some writers think that Paul was influenced very little, if at all, 
 in his conception of the Lord's Supper by the sacred meals of the pa- 
 gans. Others go to the opposite extreme and insist that Paul instituted 
 the Lord's Supper, and that it was pagan influences that led him to do 
 it. They hold that when Paul gave the Christians the sacred meal, he 
 realized that he was giving them something new; hence he claimed a 
 divine revelation for it. They maintain that the Lord's Supper was 
 the outgrowth of a need. The pagans had their sacred meals, and the 
 Christians, to make headway in this environment, had to have a sub- 
 stitute; hence the table of the Lord was instituted to compete with the 
 table of demons.^^ 
 
 Paul was undoubtedly influenced, by the thought of the Greeks, in 
 his conception of the Lord's Supper, but the theory which he presented 
 was very different from that of the Greek mysteries. A careful com- 
 parison of Paul's doctrine of the Lord's Supper with the sacred meals 
 of the mystery-cults reveals more differences than similarities. The 
 Greek Mysteries contributed important elements to Paul's thought, but 
 these elements were worked over under other influences, and the result 
 was something very different from the pagan feasts.^^ 
 (c) The life and thought of the church into which he entered. 
 
 In thie fullest discussion of the Lord's Supper which Paul gave he 
 made the statement that he received of the Lord that which he delivered 
 unto them. As pointed out above, some writers hold that Paul was 
 making the claim that he did not receive his account of the instituting 
 of the Lord's Supper from historical tradition, but that it came to him 
 through a divine revelation; and they insist that a study of the whole 
 subject plainly demonstrates the truthfulness of his claim. Some 
 writers hold that Paul originated the feast, while others believe he 
 changed the significance of it so that it was virtually a new institution.^^ 
 
 ^3 For a discussion of this position see F. C. Conybeare, Myth, Magic and Morals, 
 1910, pp. 251 ff. 
 
 1* Percy Gardner {The Religious Experiences of St. Paul, 1911, p. 113) holds that 
 the feasts of communion with departed heroes and ancestors furnish the closest parallel 
 to Paul's conception of communion that we have. He says: "The ancestor was 
 invisibly present as was the Master among the Christians." 
 
 ^5 O. Pfleiderer (Das Urchristenthum, I Band., p. 77) holds that Paul meant to 
 affirm that the knowledge which he was imparting came directly from Christ, and he 
 thinks Paul's sense of spiritual communion was so strong that the impulses which were 
 given him by the Spirit were more authoritative for him than human traditions. 
 
116 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Those who believe Paul gave the Lord's Supper to the church find 
 this a very convenient passage, but it is doubtful whether Paul meant to 
 assert anything concerning the source from which he had received his 
 knowledge of the institution. There does not seem to be any reason for 
 assuming that he had received his information by supernatural means. 
 The thing of importance was, not the method of communication, but the 
 source from which the communication came, and in some manner Paul 
 had received this from Christ. 
 
 Regardless of what one's theory concerning the special revelation 
 may be, it can be assumed that the primitive church had a sacred meal 
 of some sort, and that Paul received that as a part of the Ufe of the 
 church into which he entered. It is impossible to state just what the 
 significance of the Lord's Supper was, as it was celebrated in the early 
 church, but it was undoubtedly quite different from what it later became 
 in Paul's thinking. But the institution, as it was celebrated by the 
 church into which he entered, became the basis of his doctrine, and 
 this was developed under other influences, 
 (d) His own personal experience. 
 
 Paul received from his Jewish training the notion that fellowship 
 is associated with eating and drinking, and because of his Jewish inheri- 
 tance, it was natural for him to connect a sacred meal with the com- 
 memoration of a great event. From his contact with the Greek world, 
 he received the idea of the meal being a sacrament. Because of this 
 Greek environment it was natural for him to regard the emblems as 
 sacred, and as containing magical efficacy; and it was also natural 
 for him to regard the meal as a means of bringing the individual into 
 fellowship with Christ, in whose honor it was being celebrated. From 
 the primitive Christians he received the meal as it was being celebrated 
 by the church into which he entered, but he interpreted it in the fight 
 of his Jewish training, and his Greek environment, and his own Christian 
 experience, and this last was fundamental for him. 
 
 Paul's doctrine of the Lord's Supper cannot be explained apart 
 from his own Christian experience. He was not a sacramentarian in his 
 
 Percy Gardner {The Religious Experiences of St. Paul, p. Ill) thinks Paul regarded 
 his own version of the Lord's Supper as a revelation from Christ. He thinks the 
 primitive church before the time of Paul had the custom of breaking bread at a com- 
 mon meal, which was in some way connected with Jesus' last supper with his disciples, 
 but that Paul's conception of the Lord's Supper was so different that he did not regard 
 it as a rite which he had received from the original apostles, but he believed he had 
 received it as a direct revelation from Christ, 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 117 
 
 interpretation of religion. He believed communion with Christ was 
 dependent upon faith, and not upon any sacred rite, and hence these 
 sacred rites would be of no avail apart from this living faith. Christ 
 was living within Paul, because he had become united to his Master by 
 faith, and he had undoubtedly experienced a strengthening of this faith 
 and a quickening of the Spirit within by participating in the Lord's 
 Supper. The feelings which he had inherited from his contact with the 
 Greeks would make it natural for him to believe that Christ was present 
 at the feast, and his own faith would bring him into fellowship with 
 his unseen, but present Lord. This feast could not be for Paul a simple 
 memorial of one who had died; it was a spiritual communion with One 
 who is living and is coming again to be the judge of men. Paul's con- 
 ception of the Lord's Supper was not Jewish, neither was it Greek, 
 nor primitive Christian; it was peculiarly his own. These other in- 
 fluences had been amalgamated and modified under his own creative 
 personality, and the result was a Pauline conception of the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 Having formulated his doctrine of the eucharistic meal, Paul then 
 read his thought back into the Old Testament. In using the Hebrews 
 to illustrate the truth that God may reject those who once had his 
 approval, if they forsake him and became disobedient, he made a com- 
 parison, not only between the baptism of the Christians and the Hebrews, 
 but also between their sacred food and drink. He said the Israelites 
 "did all eat the same spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual 
 drink : for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them : and the 
 rock was Christ" (I Cor. 10:3, 4). Paul made the manna and the rock 
 correspond to the loaf and the cup in the Lord's Supper, and his argu- 
 ment implies that as eating of the manna and drinking of the rock did 
 not save the Israelites, neither would the mere eating of the loaf and 
 drinking of the cup save the Christians. 
 
 No Jew, unless he had approached it from the Christian point of 
 view, would have thought of the manna and the rock as being like the 
 emblems of the Lord's Supper. There is nothing in this experience of 
 the Israelites that could have been a source for the development of Paul's 
 doctrine. His doctrine was developed from other sources, and he then 
 read it back into the Old Testament. 
 
 The Worship of the Church 
 
 Paul did not give any definite instructions about the general order 
 of worship in the church. He perhaps did not regard this as important, 
 
118 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 and he left the churches to develop their own order of worship under 
 the spontaneous promptings of the Spirit. Their worship was under 
 the control of the Spirit, and each one took the part which the Spirit 
 prompted him to take. 
 
 Spiritual Gifts 
 
 Paul's fullest and most complete discussion of the gifts of the Spirit 
 is in I Cor. chaps. XII-XIV, and this discussion seems to have been 
 occasioned by disorders, which were the result of abuses of the gifts. 
 This discussion presents a very interesting picture of the worship of 
 the Christian community in Corinth, and perhaps this picture would 
 fairly represent other Gentile communities as well. The Spirit bestowed 
 on the members of this community dififerent kinds of gifts, and these 
 gifts found expression in their worship. One had the word of wisdom, 
 another the word of knowledge, another faith, and another gifts of heal- 
 ings. Some had the gift of working miracles, others had the gift of 
 prophecy, and others had the gift of discerning spirits. Some had the 
 gift of divers kinds of tongues, and others had the gift of interpretation 
 of tongues. 
 
 It seems that the expression of these gifts had caused disorder in 
 the church. While one was prophesying, another, moved by a sudden 
 impulse, would begin speaking, or another, seized by the Spirit, would 
 utter unintelligible sounds. Perhaps two or three would give way to 
 these ecstatic feelings at the same time. There must have been the 
 wildest disorder in some of their meetings. There was so much con- 
 fusion among the worshippers that a stranger coming in might think 
 they were mad (I Cor. 14:23). It would seem that in some of these 
 meetings there were those who, during these ecstatic spells, pronounced 
 curses upon Jesus (I Cor. 12:3). 
 a. Statement of Paul's teaching. 
 
 Paul believed in the reahty of these charismata. He believed it 
 was the same Spirit that bestowed these diversities of gifts, and that 
 the manifestation of these was an indication of the Spirit's presence 
 and power. He even believed in the gift of speaking with tongues, 
 and he thanked God that he spoke with tongues more than all the 
 rest (I Cor. 14:18). Paul beUeved in these ecstatic experiences, and he 
 gloried in his own visions and revelations. He referred to an experience 
 when he, whether in the body or out of the body he could not say, was 
 caught up into Paradise and heard unspeakable words. 
 
 Paul urged that these spirits should be tested, for there were evil 
 spirits as well as good ones, and the manifestation of evil spirits should 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 119 
 
 not be permitted in the life of the church. The standard by which 
 the spirit was to be tested was the attitude towards Christ of the indi- 
 vidual through whom the spirit was working (I Cor. 12:3). The man 
 who says, ''Jesus is anathema, " is possessed by an evil spirit rather than 
 by the spirit of God, for no one can say "Jesus is anathema," if he is 
 speaking under the influence of the divine Spirit. The one who says, 
 " Jesus is Lord, " has the true spirit, for no one can call Jesus Lord except 
 by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Paul urged that inasmuch as those who possessed these different 
 gifts were parts of one body, they should be used for the building up 
 of that body. He believed these gifts of the Spirit should be valued 
 according to their helpfulness, and judged by this standard, the gift 
 of prophecy was more valuable than the gift of speaking with tongues, 
 because prophecy edified others and the gift of speaking with tongues 
 was an ecstatic experience which helped only the speaker. The gift 
 of speaking with tongues had no value for the community, unless there 
 was some one present who was able to act as interpreter, and if there 
 was no interpreter present, the use of this gift might even be injurious 
 to the community (I Cor. 14:26). Having adopted the principle that 
 everything should be done unto edifying, Paul insisted that not more 
 than two or three at most should speak in a tongue, and that these 
 must be in turn; and even this should not be permitted unless there 
 was some one present who could interpret to the assembly what had been 
 said. If no interpreter was present, the man who felt prompted to 
 speak in a tongue should keep silent in the church and speak to him- 
 seK and to God. Paul held that while speaking in a tongue might help 
 the one who did the speaking, the law of love should control his actions; 
 and hence he should be silent when his speaking would not edify. Only 
 two or three of the prophets were to speak, and the rest were to dis- 
 criminate between their messages. These prophets were to speak as 
 they felt moved by the Spirit, and the people were to determine which 
 one had the true message. He taught that if while one prophet was 
 speaking, another felt that a revelation had been made to him, he could 
 begin speaking and the other must sit down. Two men were not per- 
 mitted to speak at once, and the fact that the Spirit was beginning to 
 use another man was an indication that he was through with the one who 
 had been speaking. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the 
 prophets (I Cor. 14:32). 
 
 Paul believed love was the most excellent gift of the Spirit (I Cor. 
 12:31 ff.), and he said all other gifts must be subjected to that. These 
 
120 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Other gifts would fail, but love would abide. He urged the Corinthians 
 to pursue spiritual gifts, but to use them only as they would serve 
 the law of love. 
 
 b. Sources from which Paul derived his conception of spiritual gifts, 
 (a). His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 The Jewish religion of Paul's day was dominated by Scribism, and 
 hence it was quite formal; but the religion of the prophets was more 
 spiritual. The prophets of the Old Testament period beheved they, 
 were under the control of the divine Spirit. Old Testament prophecy 
 at its best was unlike the New Testament phenomenon of speaking with 
 tongues, as their utterances were intelUgible; but in the earlier stages 
 the ecstatic character was very prominent. One of the most striking 
 examples of this is found in I Sam. 19:20-24. When Saul's messengers 
 came to Samuel and the prophets, the Spirit of God came upon them 
 and they prophesied. Saul sent messengers a second and a third 
 time, and they had the same experiences as did the first. Then he went 
 himself, and the Spirit of God came upon him and he prophesied before 
 Samuel. He stripped off his clothes and prophesied, and he lay down 
 naked all that day and all that night. The Testament of Job (46 ff.) 
 indicates that there was a phenomenon in the Judaism of Paul's day 
 which was not unlike that of speaking with tongues. 
 
 The prophets in the Pauline churches were quite like the Old Tes- 
 tament prophets. The purpose of their message was to comfort and 
 edify the Christians. They were inspired men, and they spoke because 
 they had a revelation from the Lord, 
 (b) The life and thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 Paul's discussion in I Cor. 12:1-3 would seem to indicate that he 
 was warning the Corinthians against spiritual manifestations which 
 were from heathen sources. There was undoubtedly a phenomenon in 
 heathen worship which was very similar to the glossolaUa of the Chris- 
 tians. Celsus (Contra. Cels. VII, 8 f .) and Lucian (Alex. 13) spoke of 
 this phenomenon as existing among the pagans. It is now generally 
 admitted that the initiate mto the mystery-cults believed he received 
 the deity into himself, and as a result, he sometimes lost control of 
 himself and was possessed by the deity. Under the domination of 
 this power he gave expression to his ecstatic feelings, and what he said 
 was unintelligible to his hearers. The experiences of Lucius in the 
 mysteries of Isis, as related by Apulius, are very similar to the experiences 
 of Paul, as related in II Cor. 12:1-4. Lucius says: ''I drew near to the 
 confines of death; I trod the threshold of Porserpine; I was borne through 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 121 
 
 all the elements and returned. At midnight I saw the sun flashing 
 with a bright light; gods of the world above, gods of the world below, 
 into their presence I came."^^ 
 
 These special manifestations which resulted from the possession 
 of divine power seem to have been common to Jews, and Gentiles, and 
 Christians. Many of the Christians at Corinth had perhaps experienced 
 these ecstatic feelings, as initiates into the mystery-cults, and after 
 they had become Christians, they would attribute these former experi- 
 ences to the influence of evil spirits. Paul told them that their attitude 
 towards Christ determined whether the manifestation was the result of 
 an evil, or a good spirit. 
 
 (c) The life and thought of the primitive church. 
 
 We cannot be certain about the special manifestations of the Spirit 
 in the early church. Scholars differ in their interpretation of the 
 Pentecostal phenomenon of speaking with tongues. It is quite probable 
 that the Pentecostal experiences, which are recorded in the second 
 chapter of Acts, and the experiences at the home of Cornelius, which 
 are recorded in the tenth chapter of Acts, were the same in character as 
 those in Corinth which Paul discussed. According to Acts, a special 
 bestowment of the Spirit was made to men. This was sometimes made 
 directly by God, and sometimes it was the result of the laying on of 
 the apostles' hands; but in either case, special gifts were the result. 
 While we do not know just what the beUef in the early church was 
 concerning the gifts of the Spirit, it seems almost certain that there 
 must have been some conception which was the basis of the account 
 which we have in Acts, and Paul inherited that, and it became a part 
 of his Christian thinking. 
 
 (d) His own personal experience. 
 
 Paul's Jewish training, his Greek environment, and the life and 
 thought of the church into which he entered helped to produce his 
 experience of spiritual gifts, and this experience became authoritative 
 for him. He beheved in the reality of these spiritual manifestations, 
 because he had experienced them in his own life. He would not forbid 
 anyone to speak with tongues, because this manifestation was an indi- 
 cation of the Spirit's presence, and to forbid the expression of this 
 manifestation, would be to interfere with the Spirit. Paul beheved 
 men could speak with tongues, for he had possessed that gift himself, 
 and could speak with tongues more than all the rest. He believed in 
 
 18 See Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, p. 205. 
 
122 
 
 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 ecstatic experiences, because he had had visions and revelations and 
 had been caught up into Paradise. 
 
 In his effort to regulate these spiritual manifestations in the church 
 worship, Paul was guided by the purpose which he sought to accom- 
 pUsh. He wanted to build up the individual, and he was anxious that 
 the individual should help him build up the community. Paul insisted 
 that one should take the part in worship which builds himself up spiri- 
 tually, and at the same time edifies others. He held that the mani- 
 festations of the Spirit are granted for some helpful purpose, and that 
 they should be used only as they serve that purpose. Paul beUeved 
 the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks with a 
 tongue, because he is more helpful to others. He thanked God that he 
 spoke with tongues more than all the rest, but he said he would rather 
 speak five words with the understanding, so that he would be helpful 
 to others, than to speak ten thousand words in a tongue. 
 
 Paul declared that the greatest gift is love, and he said the man 
 who possesses that gift will seek, not his own advantage, but that which 
 is for the good of all. While Paul urged the individual to speak to 
 himself and to God, if there was no one present who could interpret 
 his feelings, yet he urged the community not to prevent him from speak- 
 ing (I Cor. 14:39, 40). This illustrates Paul's principle of the law of 
 love. While he urged those who had the gift of tongues to keep silent 
 in the church, on the ground that they did not help others, yet he urged 
 the church to tolerate them, on the ground that they might injure them 
 if they did not. 
 
 Paul was confident that on these matters he was expressing the 
 commandment of the Lord (I Cor. 14:37), and he did not permit others 
 to set their inspiration over against his instruction. He said: ''If any 
 man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowl- 
 edge of the things which I write unto you that they are the command- 
 ment of the Lord." This was one of his most positive declarations of 
 the fact that he believed he was Christ's representative and that Christ 
 was speaking through him. Being the ambassador of Christ, he claimed 
 authority to regulate the worship of the Corinthian Church, and he 
 told those who claimed to be prophets that they could prove their 
 inspiration by recognizing his authority. He severely rebuked any 
 who would presume to question his authority. He said if any should 
 be ignorant of the fact that the things which he was speaking were the 
 commandments of the Lord he would have to be ignorant, but his 
 ignorance would not alter the facts. Paul was confident that the law 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 123 
 
 of love was the law of Christ, and hence he could enforce these regula- 
 tions as being the commandment of Christ himseK. Paul believed 
 Christ was dwelling within him and was speaking through him. 
 
 In his discussion of spiritual gifts, Paul made only one reference to 
 the Old Testament, and that was to prove that tongues are a sign to 
 the unbelieving and not to them that believe (I Cor. 14:21, 22). This 
 quotation is from Isaiah (28:11 ff.), and in its original connection, had 
 no reference to ecstatic experiences, like those of the New Testament, 
 and it was only by a rabbinical method of interpretation that Paul 
 could put that meaning into it. Paul derived his conception of speaking 
 with tongues from other sources, and then read it back into the Old 
 Testament. In the development of his notion of spiritual gifts, Paul 
 received elements from his Jewish training, from his Greek environ- 
 ment, and from the life and thought of the church into which he entered, 
 and in the loom of ,his own experience he wove these into what became 
 truth to him, and he insisted upon his conclusions as being truth to 
 others. 
 
 Conduct of Women in the Meetings 
 
 It is a principle of the gospel that in Christ there is neither male 
 nor female. Paul announced that principle in his letter to. the Gala- 
 tians (3:28), and he may have proclaimed it when he was at Corinth. 
 It is quite probable that some of the Christian women at Corinth in- 
 sisted on having equal privileges with the men in the public assembUes, 
 and perhaps some of them were coming to the meetings unveiled, and 
 were insisting on the right of praying and prophesying. It seems 
 almost certain that the church, in the letter sent to Paul, had asked 
 about the place of women in the public assemblies, and he discussed 
 this at some length in two important passages in I Corinthians. 
 a. Statement of Paul's teaching. 
 
 Paul maintained that religious equality does not annul the divine 
 ordinance that woman is in subjection to man. To disregard this re- 
 lation, which God ordained, would bring a scandal upon the church, and 
 it would also be contrary to nature and to the general customs. 
 
 It seems quite probable that some of the women urged in favor of 
 their attending the meetings unveiled that, if the Spirit should prompt 
 them to pray or prophesy, it would be difficult for them to respond 
 ^if they had their heads covered. Paul insisted that a woman should 
 not pray or prophesy with her head unveiled, for that would place 
 her in a position of dishonor and disrespect. Her womanly nature 
 is expressed in the covering of her head, and Paul declared that if she 
 
124 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 insisted on laying this aside, she should go the full extent in claiming 
 equality with the masculine sex, and have her hair cut short. Paul 
 was not discussing, in I Corinthians 11:2-16, woman's right to pray 
 or prophesy in pubUc, but her right to attend the meetings with her 
 head unveiled, and he was emphatic in his assertion that she did not 
 have this right. He said such a thing would be contrary to decency, 
 and to general custom, as well as to the divine order. He did not 
 say woman had the right to participate in the pubHc worship, but 
 he did say she should not pray or prophesy with her head unveiled. 
 
 In another connection (I Cor. 14:33-36), Paul discussed woman's 
 right to speak in the assembly of the church, and he was emphatic in 
 his statement that she should keep silent "for it is not permitted unto 
 them to speak." He told the women to ask their husbands at home, 
 if they wanted to learn anything, and to keep silent in the meetings, 
 "for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." 
 b. Sources which contributed to the development of Paul's thought, 
 (a) His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 The conception of woman's position in religion which Paul inherited 
 from Judaism was practically the same as the one which he stated in 
 I Corinthians. Woman was granted the privileges of reUgion, but 
 she did not participate in the worship of the temple, or of the synagogue 
 to the extent of assuming leadership. It was man's place to lead in 
 the worship. Paul brought this Jewish conception over into his Chris- 
 tian thinking, and it undoubtedly influenced him when he was called 
 upon to decide what woman's position in the church should be. 
 
 Paul used this Jevsdsh conception, along with the Old Testament, to 
 prove his argument, and his method was in keeping with his rabbinical 
 training. He said a man ought not to have his head covered, because 
 he is the image and glory of God; but a woman ought to have her head 
 covered, because she is the glory of man. Man was not created for the 
 woman, but the woman was created for the man; hence she ought to 
 have the sign of authority on her head. For her to pray with uncovered 
 head would be equivalent to declaring that she was on an equality with 
 man, and Paul's Jewish training would not permit him to yield to 
 that position. He also argued that a woman should have "a. sign of 
 authority on her head, because of the angels." He did not explain 
 what he meant by that statement, and we cannot be absolutely certain 
 of his meaning. There are two possible interpretations. He might 
 have held that if she prayed with uncovered head she would be a cause 
 of temptation to the angels, and the belief that angels looked upon 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 125 
 
 women with lustful eyes is not uncommon in Jewish literature. He 
 might have meant that the sight of a woman praying with unveiled 
 head might be an occasion of offense to the angels. This would be 
 equivalent to saying that women, even if they do not hesitate to shock 
 men, should hesitate to shock the angels, who are present at the meet- 
 ings.^' 
 
 As pointed out above, one reason why Paul did not permit women to 
 speak in the meetings was the Jewish idea that women should be in 
 subjection to their husbands, and he called attention to the fact that 
 this was according to the law (I Cor. 14:34). 
 (b) The life and thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 Paul's instructions to the Christian women of Corinth should be 
 studied in connection with woman's position in the Greek world. The 
 Greek wife was modest, and her life was one of seclusion, but there was 
 a class of women, who were called "hetairai," that put themselves 
 forward. These hetairai were women of culture, and they could talk 
 inteUigently on the topics of the day and sing, and tell jokes; but 
 they were of questionable morals. Greek wives were kept in seclu- 
 sion, but men associated freely and openly with the hetairai.^^ A Greek 
 woman, by speaking in a public meeting, would be casting suspicion on 
 her character, and Paul was anxious to protect the church from reproach. 
 There were added reasons at Corinth why Christian women should be 
 modest. Corinth was a dissolute city, and licentiousness was prac- 
 tised in the name of religion. It is said that there were a thousand 
 women consecrated to immorality at the shrine of Aphrodite. Paul 
 wanted to protect the church as well as the Christian women. The 
 faithful wives of the Mediterranean world veiled themselves, lived 
 modestly, and were content to occupy a position which was inferior 
 to that of their husbands; and Paul was anxious that Christian women 
 should be exemplars of purity and modesty, 
 (c) The life and thought of the primitive Christian community. 
 
 Very little is known about the position of women in the worship 
 of the primitive Christian group, but as the movement was largely 
 Jewish, it can be assumed that her position was about the same as it 
 was in the Jewish worship. Perhaps the thought of the primitive 
 Christian community contributed little or nothing to the development 
 of Paul's notion of woman's place in the worship of the church. 
 
 1' See Int. Grit. Com. 
 
 ^* See S. Angus, The Environment of Early Christianity, 1915, pp. 44 ff. 
 
126 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 (d) Christian experience. 
 
 In his effort to prove that a woman ought not to pray with her 
 head unveiled, Paul appealed to the common experience of mankind. 
 He said it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, and hence it 
 ought to be a shame for her to be unveiled. He made his appeal to 
 their sense of propriety. He asked, ''Is it seemly that a woman pray 
 to God unveiled?" and the experience of the people to whom he was 
 writing would lead them to reply in the negative. He appealed to 
 their feeUngs, to their reason, and to nature itself. He said nature 
 teaches that if a man have long hair it is a dishonor to him, but if a 
 woman have long hair it is a glory to her. 
 
 Paul made his final appeal to the custom of all the churches. He 
 said if there is any man who seemeth to be contentious, and is not 
 disposed to accept his conclusions on these matters, such an one is 
 without any precedent to sustain him, for "we have no such custom, 
 neither the churches of God" (I Cor. 11:16). i7/x€ts may refer either 
 to Paul, or to all the apostles. It may mean that Paul did not permit 
 women to go unveiled in churches where he had authority, or it may 
 mean that he did not know of any apostle who permitted this, and that 
 there was no church anywhere where such a thing was tolerated. 
 
 Paul's chief reason why women should be veiled was based upon 
 feeling: it was unseemly, for he regarded it as being the same thing 
 for a woman to be unveiled as to be shaven. He had been accustomed 
 to seeing modest women veiled, and he could not think of them desiring 
 to be unveiled. He appealed to the sense of propriety in others, and 
 asked them whether it is seemly that a woman should pray to God un- 
 veiled. He further substantiated his position with arguments from the 
 Scriptures which he put forth in rabbinical style, and then he fell back 
 on the custom of the churches. 
 
 Church Discipline 
 
 Statement of Paul's Teaching 
 
 t Paul taught that the Christian should be governed in his relation 
 j to others by Christ's law, which is the law of love (Gal. 6:1, 2). The 
 church should be governed in its treatment of an erring Christian 
 by the well-being of all concerned. Those who are spiritual should 
 seek in all gentleness to win back the erring one. The strong should 
 bear the burden of the weak. But when one persists in Uving a life 
 which is injurious to others, Christ's law of love denmnds harsh treat- 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 127 
 
 ment. Paul's instructions concerning the treatment of the fornicator 
 in the Corinthian Church is an illustration of this fact (I Cor. 5:4 ff.). 
 This man was living in unlawful relationship with his father's wife, 
 and in a lost epistle, Paul had urged the church to withdraw fellowship 
 from this man who was living in fornication (I Cor. 5:9-13). It seems 
 that the Corinthians, instead of following Paul's advice, took the side 
 of the man whom he was denouncing. In the next epistle, which is 
 our I Corinthians, Paul rebuked them for being ''puffed up" when 
 they should have felt outraged, and he urged them to "put away the 
 wicked man." He urged them to deliver him over to Satan. 
 
 In his instructions concerning the treatment of the fornicator, Paul 
 virtually commanded the Corinthians to follow his advice. He told 
 them that, although absent in body, he was present in spirit, and as 
 though present, he had already judged the man, and they were to come 
 together in the name of the Lord Jesus and do as he had instructed them. 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Convictions 
 
 a. His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 If the man in question at Corinth was living in unmarried relation- 
 ship, he was manifestly violating the Jewish law; and if he was living 
 in married relationship he was condemned by the law, and in either 
 case he was guilty of adultery. These moral principles of the law, 
 which had become a part of Paul's thinking, undoubtedly influenced 
 him in his instructions to Christians, for he would demand of them the 
 same high standard which is taught in the law. 
 
 According to Jewish law, a curse was to be pronounced upon a wife 
 who was accused of adultery but denied the charge, and the formula 
 for pronouncing this curse is given in Num. 5 :ll-28. If the woman was 
 innocent, the curse would not injure her, but if she was guilty, Jehovah 
 would make her thigh to fall away and her body to swell. It would be 
 easy for a Jew to extend that curse to include all who were violating 
 God's commandments. The notion that the judgment of God followed 
 prophetic denunciation was common in Jewish thought. A striking 
 illustration of that fact was the cursing of Hananiah by the prophet 
 Jeremiah (Jer. 28:12-17). Another illustration was the cursing of 
 Ananias and Sapphira by Peter (Acts 5:1-11). Paul's admonition to 
 deliver the fornicator in Corinth "unto Satan for the destruction of the 
 flesh" was the Jewish formula of excommunication. He was command- 
 ing them to pronounce the Jewish ban against the one who was bringing 
 reproach upon the church. If the punishment did not follow immedi- 
 
128 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 ately after the pronouncing of the curse, that was an indication that 
 there was room for repentance. If the person repented, the curse 
 could be recalled, for the one who had pronounced it could remove it. 
 
 b. The life and thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 The custom of pronouncing a curse was common among the Greeks. 
 Theseus pronounced a curse on Hippolytus which was intended to pro- 
 duce death, and in case he did not die at once he was to be exiled. I Cor. 
 5:4, 5 should be read in the light of the ancient custom of execration, 
 which consisted in turning a person over to the gods of the lower world." 
 A number of examples have been brought to light from Greek papyri 
 which would indicate that Paul was advising the Corinthians to perform 
 a solemn act of execration, and that they, being Greeks, would under- 
 stand what he wanted them to do. 
 
 A curse pronounced upon one who was offending the deity seems to 
 have been a common conception of the ancient world. The Jews had 
 the notion of turning the evil-doer over to Satan, and Paul inherited 
 this belief. This idea which came from his Jewish training was strength- 
 ened by his contact with the thought of the Greek world. Paul had 
 lived in Corinth, and he knew the Corinthians would understand what 
 he meant by delivering the transgressor over to Satan, so he did not 
 feel it was necessary for him to explain what he wanted them to do. 
 
 c. The life and thought of the primitive church. 
 
 It is not probable that the subject of church discipline was definitely 
 formulated in the primitive church, for the church itself was not well 
 organized. We do not know just what the situation was. We do 
 not know to what extent the church excluded unworthy members, 
 or to what extent the curse was pronounced upon those who, by their 
 . manner of life, were defying God in a conspicuous manner. Acts gives 
 the example of the death of Ananias and Sapphira which was caused by 
 the curse pronounced by Peter, and of the curse which Peter pronounced 
 upon Simon of Samaria. Acts also gives the account of the curse pro- 
 nounced by Paul upon Ely mas, the sorcerer of Cyprus. The early 
 church undoubtedly had about the same attitude towards discipUne 
 that was found in the Jewish communities, for it was largely dominated 
 by Jewish ideals. 
 
 d. His own personal experience. 
 
 Paul's own personal experience and the purpose which he had before 
 him played an important part in the development of his conception 
 
 ^» Adolf Deissmann {Licht mm Osten, 1908, p. 218; Eng. trans., 1910, pp. 303 ff.) 
 says: "A person who wished to injure an enemy or to punish an evil-doer consecrated 
 him by incantation and tablet to the powers of darkness below. " 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 129 
 
 of church discipUne. In his instruction to the churches, he urged 
 them to be governed by the desire to help the individual with whom 
 they were dealing, hence in his letter to the Galatians, he urged them 
 to restore the one who is overtaken in a fault, and to do it in the spirit 
 of gentleness. He urged them to bear each other's burdens and help 
 each other along. He had doubtless seen many who had made mistakes, 
 but had been dealt with gently by the church and had been restored 
 to favor and loyalty, and hence he urged this on the church as a policy. 
 In dealing with the fornicator, who was puffed up and obstinate, he 
 urged excommunication and the pronouncing of the curse, because he 
 knew from experience that this would be best for him and for the church 
 as well. Paul's experience in this case, as in many others, was deter- 
 mined by the beliefs which he derived from Judaism and from the life 
 and thought of the world in which he lived, but these beliefs had been 
 vitalized by their expression in life and action. It is not probable that 
 Paul ever asked himself whence he derived the conviction that the 
 purity of the church should be upheld by pronouncing the curse in 
 extreme cases. He knew from experience that it worked, for he had 
 pronounced the curse himself and he had seen others pronounce it. 
 
 Offerings for the Poor at Jerusalem 
 Statement of PauVs Teaching 
 
 Under the leadership of Paul, the churches of Macedonia and Achaia 
 made a contribution for " the poor among the saints that are at Jerusa- 
 lem." The Gentile Christians were led to make this offering on the 
 ground that they were debtors to the Jewish Christians; for inasmuch 
 as they had been made partakers of the spiritual things of the primi- 
 tive group, they felt that they ought to share with them of their material 
 things. Paul hoped through this offering to accomplish two very 
 definite things. In the first place, he believed it would help to meet 
 a real need in the Jerusalem Church; and in the second place, he believed 
 it would help to bind together the Gentile and Jewish elements in the 
 church (See Rom. 15:31, 32). 
 
 In the Galatian letter (2:10), Paul referred to his agreement with 
 the leaders of the Jerusalem Church that he should remember the 
 poor, and he added that he was zealous to do that very thing. He did 
 not urge the offering in the Galatian letter because he had other more 
 important matters to discuss, but he had given orders concerning it to 
 all the churches of Galatia (I Cor. 16:1), and they had apparently re- 
 
130 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 sponded to his appeal so liberally that they did not need any further 
 word of exhortation on that point. 
 
 Paul urged the Corinthians to have the offering ready so that there 
 would not need to be any collection when he came (I Cor. 16:1-4). 
 He exhorted them to lay by on the first day of the week and to give as 
 they had been prospered. He said he had given orders to all the churches 
 of Galatia, and it seems that they were to follow the same method in 
 their giving which he had outlined for the Corinthians. In his second 
 letter to the Corinthians, he commended the liberality of the churches 
 of Macedonia in ministering to the saints (II Cor. 8:1-5), but it seems 
 that the Corinthian Church did not respond very enthusiastically to 
 his appeal, and Titus was sent to enlist them in greater liberality (II 
 Cor. 8:6). 
 
 In his letter to the Romans, Paul referred to these offerings which 
 he was soon to take to Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26). He emphasized the 
 fact that the churches of Macedonia and Achaia gave because it was 
 their good pleasure. It was a free gift which they made, and they gave 
 because they felt they were debtors. 
 
 Sources from which Paid Derived his Conviction and upon which he Based 
 
 his Appeal 
 
 a. His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 It was customary for the Jews of the Diaspora to send gifts to Jeru- 
 salem. They were required to send the haK-shekel which was used 
 to defray the expenses connected with public worship in the temple. 
 This tax was required of every male IsraeUte who was twenty years 
 of age, or over, regardless of whether he lived in Palestine or in the 
 Gentile world. In addition to this, the Jews of the Dispersion, as well 
 as the Jews of Palestine, made their gifts to the priests.^" In addition 
 to these gifts it was common for the Jews of the Dispersion to make 
 freewill offerings to the temple. Alabarch Alexander of Alexandria 
 sent to Jerusalem gold and silver to cover the gates of the court.^ Even 
 Gentiles sometimes sent gifts to the temple. 
 
 b. The life and thought of the primitive church. 
 
 According to Acts 20:35, Paul, in his address to the Ephesian elders, 
 quoted a. statement of Jesus to the effect that "it is more blessed to 
 give than to receive. " If Paul knew these words of the Master when he 
 wrote I Corinthians, it is strange that he did not make use of them. 
 
 ^° See Emil Schurer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Divis., II, 
 Vol. I, pp. 247 f. 
 
 " See Sch. Div. II, Vol. I, p. 253. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 131 
 
 He was anxious that he should have an offering from all the Gentile 
 churches for the poor at Jerusalem. The Corinthian Church had begun 
 to make a contribution, and a year had passed by and it had not been 
 completed. Paul was urging them to finish what they had begun, and 
 it would seem that a statement from Jesus would be the most effective 
 argument that could be used; but instead of using that, he cited the 
 example of Jesus. The illustration was not taken from anything which 
 Jesus did during his public ministry, but from what he did in leaving 
 heaven to come to earth. In doing that he gave up for the sake of 
 others — ''though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that 
 ye through his poverty might become rich" (II Cor. 8:8-10). 
 
 The primitive church must have been noted for its liberality. The 
 first part of Acts contains many striking traditions which illustrate 
 this spirit of generosity. It tells of those who gave all their possessions 
 to a common fund (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32-37), and of those who, 
 to gain favor, pretended to have given all when they kept back a part 
 (Acts 5:1-11). It tells about the selection of the "seven" who were 
 to look after the poor by supplying their wants from this common fund 
 (Acts 6:1-6). It tells about the young church at Antioch sending an 
 offering by the hand of Barnabas and Saul to the church at Jerusalem 
 to help those who were suffering because of the famine (Acts 11:27- 
 30). All these traditions would indicate that the primitive church must 
 have been noted for its liberality, and that the Christians helped where- 
 ever there was need, and that the need was greatest at Jerusalem. 
 Paul must have inherited that desire to help, and especially the mother 
 church, and it must have influenced him in his determination to get 
 an offering from the Gentile churches. 
 c. Authority of the apostolic leaders. 
 
 According to the statement in Gal. 2 :10, the apostoHc leaders at 
 Jerusalem had urged Paul to remember the poor, and if he regarded this 
 as a command to be enforced on all the churches, we would expect him 
 to refer to it in his exhortations. He was anxious that the Corinthians 
 should have fellowship in this work, and they were slow in responding, 
 and if he had regarded the authority of the apostles at Jerusalem as 
 having special weight, it seems that he would have referred to it as an 
 added incentive; but the only mention he made of it was in the Galatian 
 letter, and then he treated it hghtly. He said the apostolic leaders 
 imparted nothing to him, for when they saw the grace that had been 
 given to him, they gave him the right hand of fellowship, and they 
 wanted him to remember the poor, and he said he was zealous to do that 
 
132 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 before they had said anything about it. Paul virtually declared that 
 he was remembering the poor, not because the apostles required it, for 
 he had been zealous along those lines before they had said anything 
 about it, but because it was what the Christian ought to do. 
 d. The sense of Christian duty. 
 
 In encouraging the Corinthians to give, Paul appealed to their 
 sense of the Christian's obligation. He referred to the grace of giving 
 as it was manifested in the churches of Macedonia, and declared that 
 in their fellowship in ministering to the saints they gave beyond their 
 power, and the explanation of their hberality was that they had first 
 given themselves to the Lord. Paul urged the Corinthians to abound 
 in the grace of giving as they abounded in everything else. He very 
 discreetly said he was not giving a commandment, but was seeking 
 through the earnestness of others to prove the sincerity of their love (II 
 Cor. 8:1-8). He gave it as his judgment that it was expedient for 
 them to complete what they had begun a year before. He commended 
 their readiness to will to give, but he urged them out of their abiUty 
 to do what they had planned. 
 
 Paul demonstrated in the appeal which he made to the Corinthians 
 that he was a master. The whole passage would indicate that he was 
 anxious about the gift, and that he had some misgivings whether it 
 would be made, but he wrote as though it was so evident that they 
 would be ready with the offering that it was needless to even mention it. 
 He said he knew their willingness and he had boasted to the churches 
 of Macedonia that Achaia had been ready for a year (II Cor. 9:1-5). 
 His purpose, he said, in sending Titus and others was not to force them 
 to take the offering, for that had undoubtedly been attended to. They 
 came as a precaution, lest the offering might have been neglected, 
 and his glorying would then be void, and if some from Macedonia should 
 be along with him he would be put to shame. After Paul expressed this 
 confidence in them, he urged them to give bountifully and cheerfully, 
 assuring them that God loves a cheerful giver. 
 e. The Old Testament Scriptures. 
 
 Paul was anxious to equalize giving so that those who had could 
 make up for those who lacked, and to make his exhortation as forceful 
 as possible, he used an illustration from the Old Testament concerning 
 the gathering of the manna (II Cor. 8:15). His illustration is taken 
 from Ex. 16:18 and is introduced by the formula— ''It is written." 
 Paul urged the Corinthians to sow bountifully and to do it cheerfully, 
 and he assured them that if they did God would make his grace abound 
 
CONCEPTION OP AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 133 
 
 Upon them, and to make his statement more convincing he quoted from 
 the 112th Psalm (II Cor. 9:9). His use of the Old Testament in these 
 two instances would not indicate that he got his idea of taking an offer- 
 ing and giving liberally upon the first day of the week from the Old 
 Testament; it would indicate that the idea came from other sources, 
 and that he used the Old Testament to prove his point, because he 
 regarded it as having special authority. 
 
 Paul placed the matter of giving on the basis of Christian duty, 
 and used all possible means to get the Christians to act. He felt that 
 their relation to Christ and to each other should give them a common 
 interest, and the obligation of the Gentile Christians to the Jerusalem 
 group, who had given the gospel, should prompt them to desire to help 
 them in their need. Paul believed Christ's example and the teaching 
 of the law should compel them to give and to give liberally. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 In the development of his idea of the church, its ordinances, its 
 worship, its discipline, and its offerings, Paul received influences from 
 many different sources. His Jewish training and the modification of 
 this by his contact with the life and thought of the Greek world furnished 
 the basis for his later Christian thinking. To this was added what he 
 received from the church into which he entered, and for his conception 
 of the church, this must have been an important contribution. He 
 did not consider the elements derived from the primitive church as 
 final, or he would not have been free to modify them, but he did un- 
 doubtedly consider them of great value. That which he received from 
 his Jewish training, and from the life and thought of the world in which 
 he lived, and from the church into which he entered was modified, as 
 it worked itself out in his own experience and in the experience of others. 
 A thing was true to him when it had been substantiated in life, and 
 he felt free to urge a course of action upon others if he had seen it verified 
 in experience. Paul urged Christians to conform to customs and to 
 perform duties because they appeal to one's sense of right and obliga- 
 tion. He corroborated his teaching concerning the church with illus- 
 tions and quotations from the Old Testament. The manner in which 
 Paul used the Old Testament in these various instances plainly indicates 
 that he regarded it as authoritative, and that he felt it was the strongest 
 argument that could be used, but it would also indicate that in many 
 cases, instead of deriving the truth he was emphasizing from the Old 
 
134 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Testament, he had received it from other sources and had read it back 
 into the Old Testament. In theory Paul evidently regarded the Scrip- 
 tures as being of supreme authority, but in reality there was an authority 
 which was more vital to him than the Scriptures, and that was his own 
 personal experience. In the light of his Christian experience he read 
 the Scriptures and found that for which he was looking. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE LIFE OF THE CHRISTIAN IN THE WORLD 
 
 The Christians who were living in pagan communities, like those 
 to which Paul was writing, had to adjust themselves to many difficult 
 and perplexing situations, because of their relation to the world of 
 which they were a part. It is evident that some of these Christians 
 had asked Paul's advice on some of these relationships. In answerng 
 their questions and instructing them along important lines, Paul dis- 
 cussed many of the most important relationships of life. 
 
 The Christian in his Relation to Marriage 
 
 Many questions arose in the Christian community at Corinth con- 
 cerning the Christian's relation to marriage, and in their letter to Paul, 
 they had undoubtedly asked his advice on some of these questions. 
 It seems that there were those in Corinth who were altogether opposed 
 to marriage on the part of Christians, and there were those who believed 
 marriage should be merely a spiritual relationship. It seems that they 
 asked him whether it is right for a Christian to marry, and if so, whether 
 a Christian should marry a pagan. They were anxious to know whether 
 a man or woman who had been converted to Christianity after mar- 
 riage should seek to be separated from the pagan companion. They 
 wanted to know whether widows should re-marry. Paul's reply to 
 these questions furnishes one of the best opportunities we have to study 
 his conception of authority. The seventh chapter of I Corinthians is 
 taken up with this discussion. 
 
 Statement of Paul's Teaching 
 
 Paul held that celibacy is better than marriage, providing one has 
 the gift of continency. He urged the unmarried and the widows to 
 remain as he was, and thus be free from the cares of the home, so that 
 they could give themselves unreservedly to the service of Christ; but 
 if they did not have the gift of continency, he permitted them to marry, 
 and even encouraged it lest they should fall into temptation. 
 
 Paul's instructions to the married were more definite. Perhaps 
 an ascetical tendency had developed in Corinth which caused some 
 conscientious Christians to regard marriage as an imperfect, if not unholy, 
 relationship. Where this tendency prevailed divorce would be regarded 
 as desirable. When both husband and wife were Christians Paul 
 
136 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 urged them not to separate, and in case they did separate, he declared 
 that neither one should marry again. The separated parties might 
 become reconciled, but as long as the other lived neither could marry 
 again. As indicated above, the Corinthian Church, like those in all 
 pagan communities, had the situation of a believing husband and an 
 unbelieving wife, or a believing wife and an unbelieving husband, and 
 the members were anxious to know what was the duty of Christians thus 
 yoked up to unbelievers. Paul told them it was not necessary to seek 
 separation, and he even encouraged them, providing the pagan com- 
 panion was willing, to remain in the married state. By doing this the 
 believer might save the unbeliever. The Christian member of the mar- 
 riage does not need to fear that their children will be unholy, for the 
 believer sanctifies the unbelieving partner in the union, and the children 
 that are born of such a marriage are holy. The husband and wife are one 
 flesh, and the unbeliever through union with the behever is sancti- 
 fied, and the children that are born of such a union are holy in the same 
 sense they would be if both partners were Christians. If the unbe- 
 lieving partner is unwilling to live with the Christian and departs, 
 the union is severed and the Christian is no longer bound. 
 
 In I Cor. 7:36-38 Paul discussed a man's attitude towards his virgin, 
 and the meaning of the passage is very indefinite. According to the 
 traditional view, he had in mind the father's duty to his unmarried 
 daughter. According to this interpretation, Paul was giving instruc- 
 tions to fathers or guardians of virgins of marriagable age to guide 
 them in their Christian duty. He told them to do what they felt was 
 their duty under the circumstances. If for any reason it should seem 
 best for the virgin to marry, she should be given in marriage, for this 
 would not be sinful; but the father who should think it best for his 
 daughter not to marry, and should keep her as a virgin, would do better 
 than the one who gave his daughter in marriage. Paul felt that there 
 would be no sin in either case, but he gave his preference to those who 
 should remain single. Many modern scholars think Paul had an 
 entirely different situation in mind. They think he referred to the 
 custom, which later became common, of men and women living together 
 in spiritual union. This was to test their strength and to enable them 
 to win a greater victory over Satan.^ If Paul had this custom in mind, 
 
 1 See H. Weinel, Patdus, 1904, p. 207, Eng. trans. 1906, p. 268; Kirsopp Lake, The 
 Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 184 ff.; and F. C. Conybeare, Myth, Magic and Morals, 
 pp. 212 f . Conybeare says this custom ot spiritual marriages was widespread at this time. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 137 
 
 then what he sought to do was to protect those who were Hving in this 
 relationship, not by forbidding them to marry, but by permitting them 
 to marry in case it was impossible for them to conduct themselves pro- 
 perly in the spiritual relationship. If Paul had that custom in mind, it 
 is evident that he beUeved it was better for man and woman to live in 
 spiritual companionship than to marry, and that marriage should be 
 resorted to only as a necessity. 
 
 In his advice to widows Paul said, "A wife is bound for so long a 
 time as her husband liveth. " If she is separated from her husband 
 she has no right to marry as long as he is alive; "but if the husband 
 be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.'* 
 Paul taught that the woman whose husband is dead can marry if she 
 desires, providing she marries a Christian; but he gave it as his judg- 
 ment that she would be happier if she remained as she was. 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Conception 
 
 a. His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 The Jews exalted the marriage relationship, but they evidently 
 regarded it as imperfect, for according to the Levitical law, sexual 
 intercourse made one ceremonially unclean for a day, and the Hebrew 
 mother had to be purified after giving birth to a child. Paul's desire 
 to save virgins from "tribulation in the flesh," which comes to married 
 women, was perhaps the reflection of Jewish apocalyptical thought. 
 In Jewish apocalypses special troubles are predicted for married women 
 in the final tribulation. There are to be monstrous and premature 
 births,^ and mothers will devour their children.^ Paul did not use any 
 of these apocalyptic pictures of horror, but he was perhaps influenced 
 by them in advising women to remain in virginity. 
 
 b. The thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 A strong ascetic tendency was developing throughout the Mediter- 
 ranean world of Paul's day. The Stoic type of philosophy was popular, 
 and it emphasized self-denial for the sake of a higher good. Epictetus^ 
 made a statement that is very similar to the one which is recorded in 
 I Cor. 7 :29 to the effect that those who have wives should be as though 
 they had none. Both expressed the thought that one should be with- 
 out distraction in order that he might do the service of God. Epic- 
 
 » See II Esd. 5:8;6:21. 
 3 See Enoch 99:5. 
 *Diss. 11:22.69. 
 
138 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 tetus quite likely expressed the thought of the earlier Stoics, and while 
 it is not probable that Paul received his idea from reading their Hterature, 
 the Stoic philosophy was talked everywhere and was common property, 
 and Paul was undoubtedly influenced by it. 
 
 Among the Therapeutae, which are described by Philo in De vita 
 contemplativa, men and women lived together in spiritual relationship. 
 It seems that the men lived apart from the women, but all came together 
 for worship.^ It is quite certain that spiritual marriages were common 
 in the church during the second and third centuries, and it is possible 
 that they existed in Paul's day, and that he had them in mind in his 
 discussion in I Cor. 7:36-38. 
 
 c. The life and thought of the church into which he entered. 
 
 In his instructions concerning the separation of husband and wife, 
 Paul made his statement as the charge of the Lord: "But unto the 
 married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord" (I Cor. 7:10). The 
 command was that neither should leave the other, and in case there was 
 separation, they should remain unmarried or be reconciled to each other. 
 Paul undoubtedly referred to some teaching of Jesus concerning divorce, 
 which he had received, and he beUeved the teaching of Jesus settled 
 the question beyond dispute. When Paul knew what Jesus had said 
 upon a subject he had no thought but that this was final, hence he told 
 the Corinthians that if a Christian should leave his wife he should not 
 marry again. 
 
 d. The purpose which he sought to accomphsh. 
 
 In forming his opinion concerning the marriage of virgins, Paul 
 did not have any teaching of the Lord to guide him, but he expressed 
 his conviction of the subject, and he beheved he had obtained mercy 
 of the Lord to be trustworthy (I Cor. 7:25, 26). He was not making a 
 distinction between his own opinions and his inspired utterances, but 
 he was distinguishing between his own utterances and the expressed 
 commands of Christ. He did not mean to state that he was sometimes 
 speaking with apostolic authority and sometimes as a private individual, 
 for he believed all his teachings were given with apostolic authority. Paul 
 knew of definite teachings of the Master which answered some of the 
 questions he was discussing, but he did not know of any teaching of 
 
 •^ The Philonic authorship of De vita contemplativa has long been called in ques- 
 tion, but the weight of present scholarship is in the favor of its genuineness. For 
 a citation of authorities see "Shirley Jackson Case," The Historicity of Jesus, 1912, 
 p. 106, footnote. 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 139 
 
 Jesus which covered other problems which had been raised. He had 
 his own convictions in regard to these, and he believed he had the Spirit 
 of Christ and fairly represented him. He believed that if Christ had 
 spoken on these subjects he would have expressed an opinion very simi- 
 lar to the one he was giving. 
 
 Paul received from different sources the notions which he com- 
 bined to form his conviction concerning marriage. He received asceti- 
 cal ideas from the life and thought of the world in which he lived, and 
 he was influenced by these. He received from his Jewish training 
 the thought that the present order was soon to end in a wonderful 
 cataclysmic manner, and that married women would have special trials 
 at that time, and he was influenced by this notion. Perhaps the great- 
 est influence in the formation of his opinion was the purpose which he 
 had before him. His objections to marriage were to a large extent of 
 a practical character. They were living in times of great distress, 
 and because of these conditions he believed it was better for a person 
 to be single. He believed they were living in the last days, and hence 
 he felt a person should be as free as possible from earthly entangle- 
 ments. Because of the shortness of the time and the urgency of the 
 work before the Christians, he felt they should be as free as possible 
 from cares. They should be content to remain in a position that would 
 enable them to devote all their energies to the things of God (I Cor. 
 7:32-34). 
 
 In I Corinthians Paul seems to have placed marriage on a very 
 low plane. He held that it is better to remain unmarried, but because 
 of fornication, marriage is permitted in case of necessity. The seventh 
 chapter of I Corinthians should be read in the light of the purpose 
 which Paul had before him. He was not writing a treatise on marriage, 
 but was answering some questions which had been put to him in a par- 
 ticular situation. Corinth was noted for licentiousness, and the church 
 was not entirely free from this immoral influence, for a member was 
 living in unlawful relationship with his father's wife and the church 
 did not exclude him. Paul believed it is good to live a celibate life 
 but on account of the temptations with which they were surrounded, he 
 said it was better for some of them to marry. 
 
 In his instructions concerning the separation of the Christian from 
 his pagan companion, Paul was guided by the practical situation. The 
 approaching end was so near that each should be content to remain 
 as he was. It is better for a man who has a wife not to seek to be loosed, 
 and it is better for a man who does not have a wife not to seek one. 
 
14p CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE V^rRITINGS 
 
 It was the practical situation which guided him in his discussion of the 
 remarriage of widows. He said it was his judgment that they would 
 be happier if they remained as they were, and he added that he thought 
 he had the spirit of God in that matter. 
 
 The Christian's Relation to Slavery 
 
 Slavery was a universal institution in the Mediterranean world 
 of Paul's day. Many of the Christians were either slaves or the owners 
 of slaves, and questions would naturally be raised concerning the relation 
 of Christian masters to their slaves and of Christian slaves to their 
 masters, and Paul would inevitably be called upon to discuss these 
 important relationships. 
 
 A Statement of Paul's Teaching 
 
 It is in Paul's letter to Philemon where his position is most definitely 
 stated. Onesimus, a slave of Philemon, had run away from his master, 
 and under the influence of Paul had become a Christian. Paul sent 
 him back to his master and at the same time wrote Philemon a letter 
 \ urging him to receive Onesimus as a brother beloved. In I Corinthians 
 \ Paul urged the Christians to remain in the state in which they were, 
 and if they were bondservants, they were not to seek to be free. Accord- 
 ing to this principle there was but one thing for Onesimus to do after 
 he had become a Christian, and that was to return to his master. Paul 
 did not tell Philemon to free Onesimus, nor did he even intimate that 
 freedom was the proper thing. He said he had sent him back that 
 Philemon might have him forever, "no longer as a servant, but more 
 than a servant, a brother beloved. " Many writers and teachers have 
 held that, although Paul did not openly condemn slavery, he did in- 
 directly oppose it. They have maintained that he knew it was wrong 
 but refrained from condemning it as a matter of expediency.^ It is 
 not at all likely that Paul beheved slavery was wrong but refrained 
 from condemning it as a matter of expediency. There is no ground for 
 
 « George Matheson {Spiritual Development of St. Paul, 1909, pp. 260 £F.) holds 
 that when Paul wrote I Corinthians he was willing to let slavery alone, not because 
 it is "a thing indifferent, but because all the institutions of time are fleeting and 
 transitory"; but he thinks Paul reahzed when he wrote the epistle to Philemon, that 
 Christ was to be king of the secular world, and hence he could not be indifferent to 
 slavery. He thinks Paul knew Onesimus was entitled to freedom, and the only reason 
 he did not insist upon his having it was that such a course would have produced a 
 condition of anarchy in the Empire. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 141 
 
 the inference that Paul beHeved the principles he was laying down, when 
 rightly carried out, would ultimately abolish slavery. It is not prob- 
 able that he had any thought of the destruction of slavery. He did 
 not attempt to justify it; neither did he present any objections to it 
 as an institution. He apparently accepted it without question as one 
 of the institutions of his day, and his only purpose was to breathe the 
 Christian spirit into it. 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Conception 
 
 a. His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 Slavery had been a custom of the Jews during all their history, 
 but the condition of the slave among the Jews was much better than 
 among many other peoples. According to the law the Hebrew master 
 must not treat his servant with rigor (Lev. 25:43). The later literature 
 of the Old Testament reveals the attitude of the Jewish masters towards 
 their slaves as being humane and almost brotherly.^ The master of a 
 Hebrew servant was required to treat him in regard to food and lodging 
 as he treated himself, and he was admonished to deal with him in all 
 things as with a brother.*^ Slaves were admitted to the privileges of 
 worship, and the right of Jewish masters to punish their slaves was 
 limited. The treatment of slaves in Jewish households was kind and 
 in many instances affectionate. Many times master and slave ate of 
 the same food, and the death of a slave was mourned as if he had been a 
 close relative.^ Paul inherited this Jewish attitude and it necessarily 
 influenced him in his Christian attitude. The problem of the relation 
 of master and slave confronted him in every community where he 
 labored, and the ideals which he had as a Jew helped him in his solution 
 of this problem. 
 
 b. The life and thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 The condition of slaves in the Graeco-Roman world was very dif- 
 ferent from what it was in Palestine among the Jews. The number of 
 slaves was very large and the treatment became more inhuman as the 
 numbers increased. They were punished with all sorts of cruelties. 
 Juvenal bears witness to the fact that even ladies treated their slave 
 attendants with cruelty. Aristotle regarded a slave as mere chattel, 
 and Cicero apologized for feeling "more than becoming grief" for the 
 
 ' See Job 31:13-15; Pr. 29:19-21. 
 •See Jewish Ency. XI, 404. 
 » See H. D. B., IV, 468. 
 
142 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 death of his slave Sositheus. It is said that the slaves in the Roman 
 world outnumbered the freemen two to one, and many times they 
 worked and slept in chains. 
 
 The Stoics taught the slaves to endure patiently their bondage 
 and their hardships, for the inner man could be free even though the 
 body were in chains. Paul, who had the Jewish conception of the rela- 
 tion between master and slave, must have been moved by the injustice 
 of the system, as he saw it in the Roman world, and he must have 
 longed to put it on a higher basis by means of the gospel which he 
 preached. He found comfort in the Stoic attitude towards the system, 
 but he was able to put it on a higher plane, for "he that was called in 
 the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's freedman" (I Cor. 7:22). 
 c. The purpose which he had in view. 
 
 Paul's conception of brotherhood, which he inherited from Judaism, 
 and which was intensified by his Christian experiences, made him anxious 
 to bring about a condition of real brotherhood between master and 
 servant, when both were in the church. He told Philemon that he 
 had sent Onesimus back in order that he might have him forever, " no 
 longer as a servant, but more than a servant, a brother beloved. " Paul 
 was anxious that every man, whether bond or free, should conduct him- 
 self in the manner that would bring glory to the cause of Christ. Guided 
 by this purpose he told servants, not to seek liberty, but to obey their 
 masters; and he said liberty is of but Uttle consequence anyway, for 
 the time is short and the Christian slave is Christ's freedman even 
 now. He told masters to treat their servants kindly and regard them 
 as brothers. 
 
 Philemon, verses 8 and 9, would indicate that Paul felt he had the 
 right, as an apostle, to command Philemon to receive Onesimus in the 
 right spirit.^'' Paul virtually declared that although he had boldness 
 in Christ to command Philemon to do the things which he ought yet 
 because of his love for Philemon, he beseeches rather than commands. 
 He might command as an apostle, but he beseeches as Paul the aged, 
 a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and he intimated that he had confidence 
 that Philemon would heed his entreaty. 
 
 ^" M. R. Vincent says: "kirLTaaaeiv, *to enjoin' or 'to command, ' is used rather of 
 commanding which attaches to a definite office and relates tc permanent obligations J 
 imder the office, than for special injunctions for particular occasions" (See Int. Crit. 
 Com. Philem.). 
 
conception of authority in the pauline writings 143 
 
 The Christian's Relation to the State 
 Statement of Paul's Teaching 
 
 Paul did not discuss the character of the Roman Empire, nor of the 
 Roman Emperors, but in stating the Christian's relation to the state 
 he did reveal his thought of organized government. This is brought 
 out most strikingly in Rom. 13:1-7. He admonished every Roman to 
 be in subjection to the higher powers, and that undoubtedly represented 
 the attitude which he desired all people to have towards the state. 
 Paul placed this loyalty on the highest basis. The Christian should 
 be loyal to the state because " the powers that be are ordained of God. " 
 If the state is a divine institution, then the one who resists the state j 
 withstands the ordinance of God. If the state is a divine institution | 
 then the one who is disloyal to the state is disloyal to God, and he shall I' 
 receive judgment for his disloyalty. Notwithstanding the character 
 of many of the Roman officials, Paul regarded them as ministers of 
 God for good. He believed their right to punish was a divine right, for 
 it was to restrain evil doers — *'He is a minister of God, an avenger to 
 him that doeth evil." Paul held that Christians should obey the 
 rulers, not merely to escape the wrath that follows disobedience, but for 
 " conscience' sake. " The Christian's own sense of duty tells him that he 
 ought to do what the law requires, and he should always be true to his 
 own convictions of right. 
 
 Paul taught that the Christian, as a member of the state, should 
 help to support it in every way. One of his fundamental principles 
 was that God's ministers are worthy of their hire, and according to 
 this principle, officials should be supported, for they are God's ministers, 
 giving their time in the interest of the public welfare. Inasmuch as 
 these officials are God ministers for man's good. Christians should pay 
 tribute to help support them. The Christian should be loyal to the 
 state in every way and render to all officials their due. He should 
 render "tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; 
 fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." 
 
 Sources from which Paul Derived his Conception 
 
 a. His Jewish inheritance. 
 
 Paul could scarcely have been influenced by any conception which 
 came to him from purely Jewish sources, for the Jews were opposed to 
 domination by a foreign power, and they came to look upon these nations 
 
144 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 which oppressed them as being either the agencies of Satan, or the 
 means God was using to punish his people for their sins. Much of the 
 imagery of apocalyptic literature had its origin in their hatred of these 
 foreign powers. All the hatred which the Jews had for these foreign 
 oppressors was transferred to Rome when Judea became subject to 
 that nation. The Roman Empire was to the Jewish mind the incarna- 
 tion of cruelty and oppression, and the loyal Jew dreamed of the day 
 when that nation should be destroyed. 
 
 The Jew regarded the Roman state as the embodiment of evil, 
 hence he obeyed the officials as a matter of necessity. He paid tribute 
 and custom because he could not help it, but he looked forward to the 
 time when God would overthrow their greatest enemy. That is the 
 import of the imagery in Revelation. Rome, which is identified with 
 the nation, is "Babylon the great," and the emperor is "the beast." 
 
 b. The Hfe and thought of the Mediterranean world. 
 
 Paul's life in the Empire during his early days at Tarsus, and later 
 in all parts of the East, made him respect and love the state. He was 
 a Roman citizen, and according to Acts, boasted of that fact, and was 
 helped repeatedly by it. At the time Romans was written Christianity 
 bad not been distinguished from Judaism by Roman officials, hence 
 Christians were exempt from Emperor-worship. Paul realized that it 
 was the Roman state which made it possible for him and other mission- 
 aries to go from province to province and preach the gospel, and accord- 
 ing to Acts, he had on several occasions been protected by Roman 
 officials from attacks by Jewish mobs. The life and thought of this larger 
 world in which Paul lived made him feel that this strong power was 
 necessary for the well-being of society and that it was ordained by 
 God. The restraining power of the law on evil-doers, as he had witnessed 
 it, convinced him that these Roman officials, even though they were 
 corrupt, were God's ministers to restrain evil-doers. 
 
 c. The life and thought of the church into which he entered. 
 
 It is very probable that the primitive church, which was largely 
 Jewish, had the Jewish conception of the Roman state; hence Paul could 
 not have received his broader conception from that source. He may 
 have been influenced by the tradition of the broader attitude expressed 
 by Jesus, for there is a striking resemblance between Paul's principle— 
 "Render tribute to whom tribute is due," and the statement of Jesus— 
 "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." 
 
 d. The purpose he sought to accomplish. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that Paul's discussion of the Christian's 
 relation to the state was in his letter to the Romans. Paul must have 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 145 
 
 realized that sooner or later the Roman state would distinguish be- 
 tween Christianity and Judaism, and he was anxious that Christians 
 should have the most possible liberty when that time should come. 
 The attitude of the state towards the church in Rome would determine 
 its attitude throughout the Empire, and in order that the attitude 
 might be as favorable as possible, he was anxious that the Roman 
 Christians should be loyal. 
 
 It is also significant that the Christian's loyalty to the state should 
 have been emphasized in this letter in which Christian liberty is exalted. 
 The spirit of antinomianism was developing in some Pauline com- 
 munities. There were those who distorted their liberty and insisted 
 that Christ had made them free from all law, and hence they could do 
 as they pleased. It may be that Paul was afraid of the development 
 of this antinomian spirit in Rome, and to ward it off he emphasized 
 the fact that they should render obedience to the powers that be. Paul 
 was trying to meet a practical situation. These Christians were mem- 
 bers of the Roman State, and he w^anted to save them from the perils 
 to which they were exposed, and help to make their lives count for the 
 future of the church. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 In discussing the Christian's relation to the world in which he lived, 
 Paul emphasized his relation to marriage, to slavery, and to the State. 
 In the development of his thought about these various relationships, 
 Paul was influenced from many different sources. The convictions 
 which he inherited from his Jewish training formed the basis of his 
 thinking on these subjects, and this was modified by his contact with 
 the life and thought of the Graeco-Roman world. The ideas which 
 prevailed in the church into which he entered had some influence upon 
 him, and the purpose which he had before him was an important factor. 
 One of the most important of all the influences which helped to deter- 
 mine his thought of the various relationships which the Christian has 
 in the world was the Christian life as he had experienced it, and as he 
 had observed it in others. The Christian has the Spirit of Christ 
 within as his guide, and in his relation to marriage, to slavery, and to 
 the state, he should pursue the course which is in accord with the Spirit's 
 leading. The streams of influence which came from all these various 
 sources produced a conviction in Paul's mind which he believed should 
 control the church. He believed he expressed the will of Christ and 
 that he had a right to command obedience. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 IMPORTANCE OF THE SOURCES FROM WHICH PAUL 
 DERIVED TRUTH 
 
 A careful study of Paul's writings must convince one that he was 
 not dependent upon any one source for the material which became a 
 part of his religious thinking. He was not controlled by any one in- 
 fluence in reaching his conclusions concerning right and duty. He 
 was influenced by all the ideas which he inherited from the past, and 
 by the life and thought of the world in which he lived. Some writers 
 have failed to understand Paul, because they have sought to explain 
 everything in his teaching as having been derived from Judaism. They 
 have assumed that because lie grew up in the Jewish rehgion and was 
 a Pharisee of the Pharisees, and consequently inherited aU the Jewish 
 conceptions of religion, that his thought of after years can be explained 
 on the basis of his early training. Other scholars have misunderstood 
 Paul, because they have assumed that the fundamental influence in the 
 development of his thinking was the life and thought of the Graeco- 
 Roman world in which he lived and labored for a long time before 
 he wrote any of his letters. There are others who have failed to under- 
 stand Paul, because they have ignored his inheritance from the past 
 and from the world in which he hved, and have sought to explain every- 
 thing on the basis of his Christian experience. They feel that inasmuch 
 as he became a new man when he became a Christian, he must have 
 completely shook off all the influences of Judaism. They felt that his 
 antipathy to the pagan rehgions and to the thought of the Greek world 
 was so marked that he could not have been influenced by them. 
 
 A careful study of Paul's thought reveals the fact that he received 
 from many different sources the ideas which became a part of his Chris- 
 tian thinking. Some of these ideas were used in substantially the same 
 form in which they were received, some of them were modified, and 
 some of them were entirely changed. 
 
 Paul's Estimate or Experience 
 
 A thorough investigation of Paul's writings must convince one 
 that the standard by which he determined truth was what we call 
 experience. Experience is with us a broad and indefinite term, and 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 147 
 
 Paul undoubtedly interpreted it differently from what we do. It is not 
 probable that Paul attempted to determine the various sources from 
 which he derived truth, or the authoritative value of these sources. 
 It is not probable that our conception of experience is the same as 
 was that of Paul, but it is possible to analyze his thought and state 
 it in terms of our own thinking. We are not able to understand Paul 
 until we do this. 
 
 The Experience due to Supernatural Influnece 
 
 Paul felt that there was a divine power which acted upon him from 
 without, and this was always authoritative for him. He interpreted 
 this experience as the revelation or the manifestation of God, and he 
 believed that no one had the right to question the truth which came 
 through this revelation. 
 a. His conversion-experience. 
 
 Paul's conversion-experience was something that was to him very 
 real, and it stood out above all the other experiences of his life. He 
 had no doubts about the reaUty of it, and he believed truth came to 
 him at that time as a revelation from heaven, and hence this was fun- 
 damental in his Christian thinking. He accepted the convictions which 
 came to him through his conversion-experience on the authority of a 
 revelation from God. 
 
 Paul became convinced that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah of 
 God, and he interpreted the experiences which led him to that convic- 
 tion as a revelation from God, and he accepted the conviction on the 
 authority of a revelation. He had formerly regarded Jesus as an im- 
 postor, and he had believed his disciples were deluded men. He could 
 see no connection between JeSbus and the Messiah for whom the Jews 
 were looking, and he had consecrated his life to the task of crushing 
 out the movement which the impostor had inaugurated. But in the 
 Ught of those experiences which he interpreted as God revealing his Son 
 in him, he identified Jesus, whom the Christians were proclaiming as 
 Lord, with the Messiah. He had no doubt about this identity, and he 
 accepted it on the authority of a revelation. Paul believed the Christ 
 whom he had thus come to know was his Lord and that all men owed him 
 allegiance. He had no doubts about the Messiahship of Jesus or his 
 claim upon his own Ufe, for God had made it known to him through revel- 
 ation. 
 
 Paul had come to believe that Jesus was living. There was no 
 doubt in his mind concerning this, for he beHeved Christ had appeared 
 
148 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 to him, and he accepted it as a fact on the authority of a revelation 
 from God. This appearance was so real that he classed it along with 
 the traditional appearances to the other apostles, and in regard to 
 personal relationship with the risen Lord, he was not a whit behind 
 the chief est of the apostles. 
 
 When Paul came to beheve in the resurrection of Jesus and in his 
 Messiahship, he was led to the conviction that his death was a part 
 of the divine plan, and that it was connected in some way with salva- 
 tion. The death of Jesus was one of the main reasons why Paul was 
 certain that he could not have been the Messiah. There was no place 
 in his Jewish conception of the Messiah for suffering, and the thought 
 of his dying at the hands of enemies was foreign to him. Instead of 
 there being any possibiUty of his being overcome by his enemies and 
 put to death, he was to be so great that he could destroy his enemies 
 by the word of his mouth. Jesus of Nazareth was not only overcome 
 by his enemies, but he was nailed in dishonor upon a cross. The Jews 
 boasted of that fact, and the disciples had to admit it. That fact could 
 have had but one significance for Saul, the Pharisee, and that was that 
 Jesus had been made a curse. But when God revealed his Son in him, 
 and he realized that the one who had died upon the cross was the 
 Messiah, he then understood that his death must have a place in the 
 divine plan. He felt that it was vitally connected with man's salvation. 
 By his death on the cross Christ had been made a curse, but it was for 
 man's sake. This must have dawned upon Paul suddenly, and it be- 
 came fundamental in the development of his conception of the death 
 of Christ, and he accepted it on the authority of a revelation. 
 
 Paul's conversion-experience convinced him that justification is 
 through faith in Christ. He had formerly believed that justification 
 was on the basis of law, and had earnestly tried to find victory on that 
 basis, but he had failed. He was a wretched man, for he did the things 
 that he ought not to have done, and failed to do the things which he 
 should have done. But when God revealed his Son in him, and he 
 realized that the one who had died upon a cross was God's Messiah and 
 that his death was a part of the plan of God and was connected with 
 man's salvation, he felt at once that man is justified through faith in 
 Christ. This conception must have come to Paul like a flash out of 
 heaven, but it was so real that it was authoritative for him. He was 
 a changed man, and he referred to this change as though it had been 
 sudden. Paul felt that a new force had entered into him which had 
 completely transformed him. Old things had passed away and he looked 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 149 
 
 out upon a new world. He was as one who had died and had been raised 
 to life again. Christ had suddenly laid hold upon him and had changed 
 him from a persecutor into one of the persecuted. He had come into 
 the kingdom as one abortively born, and at that time he had laid hold 
 upon Christ by faith. 
 
 Paul believed he had been called to^ be an apostle by a revelation 
 from God. The possession of his gospel was his call to preach it, and 
 he declared that his gospel came through revelation. He said he did 
 not receive it from man, nor was he taught it, "but it came through 
 revelation of Jesus Christ." The conviction that Jesus is the Messiah 
 and that a man is justified through faith in him constituted his gospel, 
 and he believed that was made known to him by a revelation from 
 heaven. Paul declared that he was "an apostle, not from men, neither 
 through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father," and it is 
 evident that he connected his call to be an apostle with those experiences 
 which he interpreted as a revelation from God. Taul felt that his call 
 was definite. Others might question it, but there were no doubts in 
 his mind, for necessity had been laid upon him by his divine call.^ Paul 
 could designate his gospel as the gospel of God, because God had re- 
 vealed it to him. He did not need apostolic sanction, for he had received 
 his call from heaven, and it was so definite that he could not resist it, 
 and persecutions could not stop him in his efforts to fulfill the mission 
 to which the call had committed him. 
 
 Not only did Paul believe his apostolic claim had the authority 
 of a revelation from heaven, but he also believed his apostleship to the 
 Gentiles rested upon the same authority. He could say it was the 
 good pleasure of God "to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach 
 him among the Gentiles " (Gal. 1 :15, 16). When Paul became convinced 
 that a man is justified by faith in Christ he realized that the gospel 
 was for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, and the revelation of that 
 fact was his call to become Christ's ambassador to the Gentile world. 
 The call was as imperative as if he had heard a voice shouting it from 
 the skies. That conviction which came through the revelation of Christ 
 was absolute and final, 
 b. Revelations and visions and ecstatic experiences. 
 
 Paul believed he was guided in important crises in his life by revela- 
 tions, and these revelations, regardless of what we may consider them 
 
 ^ James H. Campbell (Paul, the Mystic, 1908, p. 60) says the proof that Paul 
 possessed the authority to preach "did not consist in a parchment carried in the hand, 
 but in the heart." 
 
150 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 to have been, were interpreted as the voice of God directing him in the 
 course in which he ought to go. When the Judaizers were causing 
 trouble in the PauUne churches, Paul and Barnabas were directed by 
 revelation to go to Jerusalem and secure the sanction of the leaders. 
 Paul did not explain what the revelation was, but he was definite in his 
 statement that it was a revelation which prompted him to go. He and 
 the leaders at Antioch were troubled over the condition which resulted 
 from the activity of the Judaizers. They were anxious about the course 
 which they should pursue when Paul had a revelation in which he was 
 directed to go to Jerusalem and lay the whole matter before the leaders. 
 That experience was something that was very real to Paul, and he 
 interpreted it as the voice of God commanding him to do what he would 
 not otherwise have done. At the time of his conversion he purposely 
 avoided the leaders at Jerusalem, and instead of going where he might 
 have seen them, he went into Arabia. After three years he did go to 
 Jerusalem to see Peter, but with the exception of James, he did not see 
 any of the other leaders, and it is evident that he had not planned to 
 visit James. What Paul meant to emphasize was that he did not seek 
 a conference with the apostolic group. After fourteen years, however, 
 he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and the purpose of his going 
 was to have a conference with the apostolic leaders to secure their sanc- 
 tion to the work he was doing. Paul's statement plainly indicates that 
 his course on this occasion was different from what it would have been 
 if he had followed his own incUnations, and the influence which caused 
 him to act as he did was a revelation from God. That experience was 
 very real to him. He beUeved that God had in some manner spoken 
 to him, and he obeyed without any hesitation. 
 
 Paul not only beUeved God guided him in special crises by revela- 
 tions, but he also believed there were times when the divine Spirit laid 
 hold upon him, and lifted him out of himself, and caused him to do 
 things which were not the result of his own initiative. He seems to 
 have regarded these experiences as sacred, and he scarcely ever alluded 
 to them, and when he did make reference to them he apologized for 
 having done so. In one of his letters to the Corinthians he removed 
 all barriers and boasted of what he had done and had endured for Christ's 
 sake (See II Cor. 11:16-38). After he had boasted of what he had 
 given up for the sake of his Master and of the persecutions through which 
 he had passed, he said by way of apology: "I must needs glory, though 
 it is not expedient" (II Cor. 12:1); then he came to what was to him 
 the most sacred of all these experiences: "But I will come to visions 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 151 
 
 and revelations of the Lord." He mentioned but one of these visions, 
 and he said it was not lawful to utter the unspeakable words which 
 were revealed to him in that wonderful experience. The experience 
 which he had in mind was so vivid that he remembered the exact time; 
 it was fourteen years ago. He could not explain just what had happened 
 to him at that time. God only knows whether he remained in the body 
 or whether he was lifted out of it for the time being; but he knew that 
 "he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words." 
 While he did not state what the revelation was which was made to him 
 at that time, he did intimate that it was exceeding great, and that under 
 ordinary circumstances it would have puffed him up; but in order that 
 he might not be exalted over much by reason of the "exceeding greatness 
 of the revelation, " there was given to him a thorn in the flesh. Regard- 
 less of what that thorn in the flesh may have been, it is evident that Paul 
 connected it with the vision, and he regarded it as a messenger of Satan 
 to buffet him. 
 
 Paul received special comfort and special assurance in times of 
 severe trials. When Satan had buffetted him through the thorn in his 
 flesh, he asked to have the thorn removed. It was not removed, but 
 he heard the voice of God saying, "My grace is sufficient for thee" 
 (II Cor. 12:9). Paul did not say how this voice came to him, but it 
 must have been through some experience which was as real to him as 
 if he had heard the uttered words. 
 
 Paul evidently regarded some of the spiritual gifts as the result 
 of an immediate possession of the individual by the Spirit of God. His 
 conviction was based upon his own experience, for he had seen these 
 manifestations in others and he had experienced them in his own life. 
 He urged the Corinthians not to forbid speaking in tongues, because 
 that was a gift of the Spirit, and they would be resisting the Spirit if 
 they forbade the expression of that which the Spirit prompted. Paul 
 knew from his own experience that speaking with tongues was a gift 
 of the Spirit, for he spake with tongues more than any of them. He 
 felt that he possessed the Spirit of Christ to such a degree that he knew 
 the divine will; hence he considered his instructions concerning speaking 
 with tongues as the commandment of the Lord, and he did not permit 
 others to pit their claims against the things he was writing. 
 
 Paul regarded the gift of prophecy as being a special manifestation 
 of the divine Spirit. The message which the prophet gave when under 
 the influence of the Spirit was regarded as a revelation from God. Paul 
 taught that even prophets should be subject to the Spirit, and, if while 
 
152 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY- IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 one prophet was speaking, a revelation should be made to another sit- 
 ting by, the first must keep silence. The fact that the Spirit had begun 
 to use another prophet was evident proof to Paul that God was through 
 with the first; hence he should keep silence and give the Spirit the right 
 of way. 
 
 Paul believed God had manifested himself to him in conversion 
 and through visions and revelations and ecstatic experiences, and he 
 regarded this expression of the divine will as authoritative. He beUeved 
 God was manifesting himself to others in this immediate way, and he 
 felt that this divine will should not be resisted. 
 
 The Experience of Conscience, or Moral Judgment 
 
 Paul believed God was revealing himself to men through their 
 consciences, and he regarded this expression of the divine will as authori- 
 tative, and he felt that men were without excuse if they violated it. 
 Paul taught that the Gentiles, who do not have the revealed law of 
 the Jews, do by nature the things of the law. He taught that they 
 are "the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law 
 written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, 
 and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them" 
 i(Rom. 2:14, 15). Paul believed the sense of right and wrong which the 
 Gentiles had was the result of a revelation of God to them through 
 their consciences, and that this revelation was authoritative, and that 
 they would be judged by it. According to Paul's thinking, the failure 
 of the Gentiles was not due to the fact that they did not know the right, 
 for God had placed the law of right in their hearts. Some of the Gen- 
 tiles had lived up to this law, and their uncircumcision had become 
 circumcision; but most of them had disregarded the law in their hearts, 
 and as a result, they had lost the light which they had formerly possessed. 
 They were responsible for their failure to Uve up to the law which God 
 had revealed to them, and they would be judged accordingly. 
 
 Paul taught that Christians were to be guided in their conduct 
 by the law of conscience. He told the Corinthians there was no harm 
 in eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols, if there was no violation 
 of conscience in what they did. He said an idol is nothing and the 
 meat that had been offered in sacrifice to it was not different from ordi- 
 nary meat; hence the only harm that could come to one in eating it 
 would be in violating his conscience. That being true, he urged the 
 Corinthians to eat whatever was sold in the shambles, and ask no ques- 
 tions for conscience' sake. He advised them, when in attendance 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 153 
 
 at a feast to which they had been bidden, to eat what was set before 
 them and ask no questions for conscience' sake. He urged them to 
 be true to conscience under all circumstances, and by not asking ques- 
 tions they would be relieved from conscientious scruples. 
 
 Paul taught that moral judgment, or the sense of right, was very 
 important in determining duty. In defending his right to claim support 
 from the churches where he was laboring, he appealed to the Chris- 
 tian's sense of right. He asked if he and Barnabas did not have the 
 same rights in this respect as the other apostles had. To emphasize 
 this sense of right he referred to the soldier who is paid for his service, 
 and to the husbandman who eats the fruit of the vineyard which he 
 plants, and to the shepherd who eats of the milk of the flock which 
 he feeds. He implied that moral judgment should grant him the same 
 rights that the soldier, or the husbandman, or the shepherd enjoys. 
 
 In attempting to prove to the Corinthians that a woman ought 
 not to pray with her head unveiled, Paul appealed to their moral judg- 
 ment, or to their sense of propriety. He asked if it was seemly to them 
 for a woman to pray to God unveiled, and he implied by his question 
 that a woman ought not to violate the moral sense of the community. 
 Paul's own feelings played an important part in his argument. He had 
 been accustomed to seeing modest women veiled, and for a woman to 
 be unveiled seemed to him the same as if she were shaven. Paul appealed 
 to the custom of the churches as an expression of this moral judgment. 
 The fact that there was no custom in the churches of God of a woman 
 praying or prophsying unveiled ought, he believed, to prevent any 
 woman from attempting it; and he argued that if she should attempt it, 
 she would be going contrary to the moral sense, not only of that com- 
 munity, but of the whole church. 
 
 In his effort to get the Corinthians to exclude the fornicator, Paul 
 appealed to their moral judgment. He told them the fornication 
 that was reported in Corinth was of such a character that it would not 
 be found even among the non-Christian Gentiles. The moral judg- 
 ment, not merely of the Corinthian Christians, but of the pagan Gen- 
 tiles as well, would condemn the man. In rebuking the Corinthians for 
 retaining the fornicator in their fellowship and for glorying in what they 
 were doing, Paul appealed to their moral sense. He asked them if they 
 did not know that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. He asked if 
 they were not aware of the fact that this one man would contaminate 
 the whole church, and that being true, they should purge themselves 
 
154 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 from the dangerous leaven. Paul regarded the moral sense as authori- 
 tative, and he urged the Corinthians to act in accordance with it. 
 
 In urging the Corinthians to give for the support of the poor at 
 Jerusalem, Paul appealed to their sense of duty. He referred to the 
 gifts of the Macedonian churches, and called attention to the fact 
 that they had given beyond their ability, and the explanation of their 
 liberality was that they had first given themselves to the Lord. While 
 Paul did not state it in so many words, he evidently meant to imply 
 that the Corinthians would give to the Lord's poor, if they gave them- 
 selves to the Lord, for their sense of right would then demand it. The 
 giving would be proof of the sincerity of their love. Paul commended 
 the Corinthians for having planned to give, and he urged them to com- 
 plete what they had begun. He appealed to their sense of right in 
 urging them to give as they had been prospered. 
 
 Paul regarded conscience, or the moral judgment, as the means by 
 which the divine will was revealed, and the revelation of the divine 
 will was always authoritative for him. He believed God was leading 
 men through these inner impulses, and to refuse to obey these inner 
 promptings was to quench the Spirit. Paul did not seek to dominate 
 the faith of men, but he sought to commend the truth he was teaching 
 to "every man's conscience in the sight of God" (II Cor. 4:2). He told 
 the Corinthians he was speaking to wise men, and he asked them to use 
 their judgment in determining the truthfulness of what he was saying 
 (I Cor. 10:15). 
 
 The Experience of his Normal Convictions 
 
 Paul believed his convictions were expressions of the will of the 
 Spirit, and the will of the Spirit was always authoritative for him. He 
 believed his convictions could be reUed upon because they were the 
 result of the Spirit's activity. This is illustrated by his teaching con- 
 cerning marriage. His advice had been sought concerning the mar- 
 riage of virgins. There was no custom of the churches that could serve 
 as a guide in the advice he should give, and he did not know of any 
 commandment of the Lord that had any bearing on the situation; 
 but he did have a conviction on the subject, and he gave this as his 
 judgment, and he believed he had "obtained mercy of the Lord to be 
 trustworthy." Conscience could not serve as a guide in settling this 
 question, for there would be no harm in marrying. In fact it was 
 Paul's judgment that if a man did not have the gift of continency he 
 had better marry. But he had the conviction that because of the dis- 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 155 
 
 tress of the times, and because of the nearness of the Parousia, it was 
 better for both men and women to remain unmarried. He had the 
 conviction that a woman would be happier if she remained unmarried, 
 and she could then give herself wholly to the service of the Lord, and he 
 believed the Spirit of God led him to that conviction. 
 
 Paul gave it as his conviction that it was better for one who had 
 become a Christian to remain with the pagan companion, providing 
 the pagan companion was willing to continue in marital relationship. 
 He did not give that advice as a command, but he stated it as his judg- 
 ment, and in such an emphatic manner that it is evident that he felt 
 he was expressing the will of God on the subject. Paul felt it was 
 better for a Christian to remain in the state in which he was when he 
 was called into Christ's service, and there could be rvo objection to a 
 Christian remaining with a heathen companion, for the Christian mem- 
 ber would sanctify the union. 
 
 Paul's advice to the slave not to seek liberty was undoubtedly 
 the expression of a general conviction which he had on the subject. 
 It would not be wrong for one to be a slave, and it would not be wrong 
 for one to be a free man, but because of the shortness of the time, Paul 
 had the feeUng that it would be better for a man to remain as he was 
 when he became a Christian. He undoubtedly felt that he was express- 
 ing the will of God when he advised the Christian who is free not to 
 seek bondage, and the Christian who is in bondage not to seek freedom. 
 
 The Experience Resulting from the Practise of Religion 
 a. As illustrated by his own experience. 
 
 A careful study of Paul's writings demonstrates the fact that he 
 regarded the experience resulting from the practical working out of 
 religion as a means by which the divine revelation was made known. He 
 believed God was leading men in the ordinary experiences of life. He 
 was conscious that God was leading him in ways which he could not at 
 the time understand. He was frequently led to do things by circum- 
 stances which at the time bafHed him, but which he afterward inter- 
 preted as the guidance of the divine Spirit. He wanted to tarry for a 
 time in Corinth, if the Lord would permit him to do so, and he prayed 
 that he might be prospered by the will of God to come to Rome. He 
 interpreted the circumstances which made it possible or impossible 
 for him to do certain things as the leading of God. 
 
 While Paul's own personal experience influenced him in the develop- 
 ment of his conception of the relation between the flesh and the spirit, 
 
156 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 he undoubtedly believed his conviction was a revelation from God. 
 He had understood what it meant to struggle against the desires of 
 the flesh. He realized that even for the Christian the flesh is antago- 
 nistic to the spirit and is constantly warring against it. He realized 
 from his own experience that unless the Christian conquered the flesh 
 it would conquer him and prevent him from doing what he would (Gal. 
 5:16, 17). He knew that the struggle of the flesh against the spirit 
 was so keen that he had to buffet his body and bring it into subjection, 
 lest after he had preached to others, he should be a castaway (I Cor. 9 :27). 
 Paul must have been convinced from his own experience that sin dwelt 
 in his members, but his own experience must also have convinced him 
 that sin could be dethroned and the members of his body could be made 
 instruments of righteousness. It was undoubtedly his own experience 
 which convinced him that sin may be banished and Jesus may be mani- 
 fested in our own mortal flesh (II Cor. 4:11). Paul believed the body 
 belongs to God, and his own experience convinced him that it can be 
 made a fit dwelling place for the divine Spirit. He knew from his obser- 
 vation of others that the Spirit of Christ was working out the same 
 things in them, for he could see, as the fruits of the Spirit, "love, joy, 
 peace, longsuffering, gentleness, etc." It is not at all probable that 
 Paul believed his convictions concerning the relation of the flesh to sin 
 were the result of experience. He believed that God had made these 
 truths known to him, and hence they had the authority of a revelation. 
 Although Paul did not realize that it was his own experience which 
 had guided him in the development of his idea of justification, yet that 
 was undoubtedly the most important influence. He knew that justi- 
 fication on the basis of law was a failure, for he had given it a thorough 
 test and he had miserably failed. He dehghted in the law of God 
 after the inward man, but he found that there was a different law in 
 his members warring against the law of his mind. His inner self con- 
 sented to the law that it was good and agreed that he ought to keep it, 
 but his own experience had convinced him that there was nothing in 
 the law to give him strength and inspiration to do the things which he 
 knew he ought to do. He was a wretched man, for he knew what he 
 ought to do, but he was brought into captivity under the law of sin 
 which was in his members so that he did not do it. Paul's attitude 
 towards the law was the result of experience. He did not impose it 
 upon the Gentiles, and he strenuously resisted any attempt of the 
 Judaizers to unnecessarily hamper them, because he felt the law had 
 been a burden to him rather than a help. His Christian experience 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 157 
 
 had completely changed his estimate of the law as a means of justifi- 
 cation. The law had failed to help him directly, but it had convinced 
 him of his need and thus served as a pedagogue to bring him to Christ. 
 Inasmuch as it had failed to help him, he believed it was unnecessary 
 for the Gentiles. Paul knew from his own experience that one is jus- 
 tified through faith in Christ, for he had tried it and had succeeded 
 gloriously. He knew that one who is justified by faith has peace with 
 God, for he had experienced that peace in his own soul. He knew that 
 one who is justified by faith has before him such a strong hope of the 
 glory of God that he rejoices even in his tribulations, and he knew this 
 because he had passed through these tribulations and had rejoiced 
 in them. Paul knew that one who is justified by faith is dead to sin, 
 for he had passed through that death himself. He knew that one who 
 is justified by faith is freed from the law, for he had experienced this 
 liberty; and yet his own experience had taught him that the Christian 
 is under a more exacting law, the law of the Spirit of Christ Jesus. 
 Paul knew that the one who is justified by faith has triumphed over 
 death, for he had once feared death; but since he had come to know Christ 
 it had lost its terrors, and instead of shrinking from it, he now longed 
 to depart and be with Christ. He knew from experience that death 
 cannot touch the spirit of the one in whom Christ abides. While we 
 interpret the development of Paul's thought on the basis of experience, 
 it is not at all probable that he would have explained it in that way. He 
 believed the doctrine of justification by faith had the authority of 
 revelation, as God had made this known to him through his Spirit. 
 Paul's notion of the new life was largely the result of experience. 
 He spoke with conviction about the Christian's relation to Christ, be- 
 cause he was speaking out of his own personal experience He must 
 have realized, when he looked back over his life, that he had passed 
 through a wonderful transformation, and that this was the result of his 
 relation to Christ. He knew that the one who is in Christ is a new 
 creature, for this fact had been demonstrated in his own life. He 
 knew it was possible for one's life to be dominated and controlled by the 
 Spirit of Christ, for he had put it to the test. Christ was such a dominant 
 factor in his life that he could say Christ was living within him. Paul 
 beUeved it is through faith that Christ enters into one's life and takes 
 possession of him, and he believed this because it was through faith 
 that he had come into such close touch with the Master that he was 
 living within him. Paul beUeved it was possible for others to know 
 Christ as he had come to know him, hence his experience was made a 
 
158 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 norm for all. He knew that Christ had been formed in him, and he was 
 anxious that he should be formed in others. Paul knew that he had the 
 leading of the divine Spirit, and he was anxious that others should 
 follow the same leading. The ground of certainty for Paul was his 
 knowledge of the Uving Christ, and he beheved every man should have 
 this assurance. He told the Corinthians to examine themselves whether 
 they were in the faith (II Cor 13:5). Paul knew that the Spirit gave 
 him confidence and assurance and enabled him to cry, "Abba, Father," 
 and he wanted others to have this same confidence. He knew that the 
 Spirit helped him in his infirmity, and made intercession for him, and 
 he was anxious that others should avail themselves of this same help. 
 
 Paul did not definitely distinguish between the indwelling Christ 
 and the indwelling Spirit, and the reason was that from the point of 
 view of experience they were practically the same.^ Paul was more 
 concerned about what the Holy Spirit does than he was about what 
 the Holy Spirit is. For Paul the Spirit was the divine energy that was 
 manifested within him. He thought according to the Spirit, and he 
 walked according to the Spirit, and he believed he and all the others 
 who yielded themselves to the divine energy were spiritual men. 
 
 Paul believed all Christians were guided by the Spirit of God. He 
 did not think he was the only one who had the Spirit of God. He was 
 merely the helper of the faith of others, and he wanted them to follow 
 the leading of the Spirit within. He did consider his inner experiences 
 as being authoritative, and some of these experiences were regarded 
 as being of peculiar value. His experience was the medium through 
 which God was reveaUng his great truths, and these truths were pro- 
 claimed as the gospel of God, and anathemas were hurled against any 
 who should proclaim another gospel. 
 
 In addition to these inner experiences there were those that were 
 connected with his missionary activities, and he regarded these also 
 as indications that the Spirit was sanctioning what he was doing. Paul 
 believed truth was verified by its results. The success of a movement 
 demonstrates that it has divine approval. While Paul based his claim 
 to apostleship on his inner experience, he appealed to the success of his 
 work as a proof of his claim. It was on this ground that he endeavored 
 to get the leaders of the church at Jerusalem to sanction his work, and 
 it was the fact that God was working mightily in Paul toward the Gen- 
 tiles that induced these leaders to give him the right hand of fellowship 
 
 "Auguste Sabatier {Les Religions D' Autorite Et La Religion De V Esprit, pp. 
 473 f.; Eng. trans., 1904, p. 307) says: "To believe in Christ, to be in Christ, the life 
 of Christ in us, and to receive the Spirit are synonymous terms. " 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 159 
 
 (Gal 2:8, 9). In his letter to the Corinthians Paul urged that they 
 should regard him as an apostle, because he had done among them the 
 work of an apostle. He told them they were the seal of his apostleship. 
 He assured the Corinthians that the works of an apostle had been done 
 by him in their midst through signs and wonders and mighty works. 
 He assured them that, when judged by his labors, he was not behind the 
 chiefest of the apostles, 
 b. As illustrated by the experience of others. 
 
 In seeking to establish the Galatians in the doctrine of justification 
 by faith, Paul appealed to their own experience as convincing proof 
 that they had the Spirit and could trust its authority. He asked them 
 whether they received the Spirit by works of law, or by the hearing of 
 faith. His question would imply that it was by the hearing of faith 
 that they had received the Spirit, and that being true, their experience 
 ought to convince them that justification is on the basis of faith. He 
 appealed to their experience again when he asked whether the one who 
 ministered to them the Spirit and worked miracles among them did it 
 by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith. These Galatians 
 knew from experience that it was by faith that they had received the 
 Spirit and were able to perform miracles, and Paul insisted that this 
 experience should convince them that they had the Spirit and that it 
 could be trusted as an authoritative guide 
 
 In his controversy with Peter at Antioch, Paul appealed to their 
 common experience. When Peter separated himself from the Gentile 
 element in the church on account of those who had come from James, 
 he was virtually saying that the Gentiles were not as good as the Jews, 
 because they had not kept the Jewish rites. Peter, by his actions, was 
 virtually saying to the Gentile Christians, we who are Jewish Chris- 
 tians are better than you, and we cannot fellowship you unless you 
 keep the Jewish law. In rebuking Peter, Paul appealed to their common 
 experience. He said, We, who are Jews by nature, know " that a man is 
 not justified by the works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus 
 Christ." Paul evidently meant to imply that they had found that out 
 in their own experience, and his conclusion was that inasmuch as the 
 law had not helped them they should not try to bind it on the Gentiles. 
 Paul regarded their experience as a proof of the Spirit's presence, and 
 inasmuch as the Spirit is authoritative, he beUeved their experience 
 could be trusted as indicating the Spirit's will for the whole Gentile 
 world. He estimated the law as a means of justification by its work- 
 ings. It had failed to help hun and Peter, and he insisted that it should 
 not be fastened upon the Gentiles. 
 
160 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Experience Resulting from Reason 
 
 One of the most vital phases of the experience of a great soul like 
 Paul is the conclusions to which he has come through a process of rea- 
 soning. The elements which enter into this reasoning process are varied, 
 and they help to determine the results which are reached; but the whole 
 process becomes a vital part of experience. The breadth and keenness 
 of Paul's mind made this part of his experience significant for Christian- 
 ity. Paul felt that the Spirit of God guided him in reaching his conclu- 
 sions, and as the Spirit of God is authoritative, these conclusions could 
 be accepted as correct. 
 
 There was nothing in Paul's religious thinking that was more fun- 
 damental than the death of Christ, and his thought about the signi- 
 ficance of Christ's death was to a large extent the result of a process 
 of reasoning. His conclusions were so vital to him that they were 
 accepted as the revelation of the Spirit, and they were presented to 
 the church on the basis of that authority. His reasoning was based 
 on truths which he had experienced, and his conclusions then created 
 new experiences. Christ's death was for man's salvation. His death 
 on the cross was a curse, but he was made a curse for others. On the 
 divine side, Christ's death enabled God to show himself to have been 
 just in passing over sin, and at the same to be the justifier of those who 
 have faith in Christ. On the human side, Christ in his death fulfilled 
 the law and remo\ed it, and thus enabled a man to become united to 
 him. Paul's mysticism made it natural for him to feel that man died 
 with Christ on the cross and was raised with him. Paul undoubtedly 
 reached these conclusions through a process of reasoning which he 
 interpreted as the leading of the divine Spirit. He knew he had the mind 
 of Christ and he believed his statement could be accepted as trustworthy. 
 His conclusions which were the result of a process of reasoning became 
 vital in his experience, and they were presented to the church with 
 as much certainty as any other part of his teachings. 
 
 Paul's conception of the purpose of the law could only result from 
 a process of reasoning, and yet his conclusions were so true to experience 
 that they were as authoritative for him as if they had come through 
 revelation, and he undoubtedly felt that he had been guided by the 
 Spirit in reaching these conclusions. The law was the greatest heritage 
 which Judaism possessed, and yet it could not justify. It was divinely 
 given, and it must have had some purpose in the great divine plan. 
 
 I 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 161 
 
 On the basis of his own experience, Paul concluded the purpose of 
 the law was to show man his own helplessness and his need of divine 
 mercy. He argued that the law, by showing to man his inability to 
 keep it, had shut him up under sin and had thus become a tutor to 
 bring him to Christ. This conviction which Paul reached through a 
 process of reasoning was a complete reversal of his former conception of 
 the purpose of the law, and it was presented in Galatians and Romans 
 as an authoritative interpretation for others. 
 
 One of the most striking illustrations of the certainty of the con- 
 clusions which he reached through reason is in connection with the 
 rejection of Israel. There is no teaching in Paul's writings that is 
 given more emphatically than the rejection of Israel, and the purpose 
 which God was seeking to accompUsh through this rejection; and these 
 conclusions must have been the result of reason, based on certain facts 
 which were a part of his experience. Paul's conversion convinced 
 him that God guides the destiny of man; that he separates him from 
 his mother's womb, and calls him into his service. Paul was convinced 
 that he was a Christian, not because of any initiative on his part, but 
 because God had laid hold upon him. He did not think of his own con- 
 version as being peculiar. He was saved because of the grace of God, 
 and others were saved for the same reason. Just a few of the great 
 mass of the people who heard the gospel had accepted it, and the expla- 
 nation of this was, not that the gospel had not been faithfully preached 
 but that God had been calHng whom he would. Most of the Chris- 
 tian converts in Corinth, and in other cities as well, were from the 
 poor and uncultured classes; but this was for Paul, not an indication of 
 the weakness of the gospel, but of the choice God was making. He 
 was choosing the weak things of the world that he might put to shame 
 the things that are strong. The eagerness of the Thessalonians to 
 accept the gospel was a proof of their election. The gospel came to them 
 in power because God had elected them to salvation. 
 
 One of the most discouraging obstacles which Paul had to over- 
 come in his missionry activities was the rejection of the gospel by 
 the Jews. He was confronted by the fact that in every community the 
 Gentiles accepted his message while the Jews rejected it. It was a 
 great disappointment to Paul that his own countrymen did not accept 
 the gospel, but he knew the fault was not his, for he would have been 
 willing to have been cursed for their sakes. They were not accepting 
 the gospel, because God was rejecting them; and it was because God was 
 choosing the Gentiles that they were accepting the gospel. 
 
162 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Paul argued that God was working out a great plan in what he was 
 doing, and his plan was the winning of both Jews and Gentiles so that 
 all should be saved. The reasoning which led him to this conclusion 
 was based upon his own observations. Although the Jews were reject- 
 ing the gospel, the Gentiles in large numbers were accepting it, and he 
 had seen the zeal of these Gentiles win Jewish converts, and he had 
 also seen the barriers which separated Jews and Gentiles removed. He 
 concluded that what had happened on a small scale under his observa- 
 tion, God was directing, and he believed that what God had accom- 
 plished in a small way, he would ultimately make universal. Paul 
 undoubtedly felt that the Spirit of Gk)d had guided him in reaching 
 his conclusions, and he presented these to the church with absolute 
 certainty. 
 
 Paul's conviction concerning the institutions of his day was the 
 result of reason, based upon conditions as he saw them. His advice 
 to the Christian concerning his relation to slavery was the result of 
 careful thinking on the subject in the Hght of the Christian life as he 
 had understood it and experienced it. He believed his conclusions 
 were final, and he felt he had a right to command even though he simply 
 advised. His conviction was that a Christian master should treat his 
 servant as a brother, for he is that in reality, and the law of love would 
 make it impossible for him to do otherwise. The Christian servant 
 should not seek to be free, for the time is short, and he is Christ's free 
 man even though he be a bond-servant. 
 
 Paul admonished Christians to be obedient to the state and to help 
 to support it by paying tribute and custom. His conclusion was the re- 
 sult of his thinking over the situation with the conditions in the Roman 
 world, as he had seen them, in mind. When he saw how Roman domi- 
 nation had brought peace throughout the Mediterranean world, and how 
 this had made it possible for the missionaries to carry on their work, he 
 concluded that the civil power is ordained of God When he saw how 
 Roman officials punished offenders and restrained evil-doers, he con- 
 cluded that civil rulers are ministers of God for good. Paul did not 
 merely express it as his opinion that the state is of God, and that rulers 
 are God's ministers, and hence Christians ought to obey them; he stated 
 it as a fact and commanded obedience. He was absolutely certain about 
 his conclusions, and he undoubtedly felt that he had the leading of the 
 divine spirit in arriving at at these convictions. 
 
 The Relation of Experience to his Jewish Inheritance 
 Paul had been a devout Jew before he became a Christian. He was 
 a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He had been trained in the rabbinical 
 
CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 163 
 
 schools, and he was famiUar with the Jewish thought of his day. He 
 was well acquainted with the extra-canonical writings of the Jews, 
 and with their oral traditions. His thinking before he became a Chris- 
 tian moved along the hnes of current Judaism, and much that was pecu- 
 liar to current Judaism remained as a part of his Christian thinking. 
 Much of Paul's thought was in no particular sense his own, for his 
 previous training exerted a tremendous influence on his thinking as a 
 Christian. He said the revelation of Christ in him had made him a 
 new creature, but this was only partially true, for much of Judaism was 
 carried over into his Christian experience. There was a sense in which 
 Paul remained a Jew even after he became a Christian. He regarded 
 himself as a '^Hebrew" (H Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5), and an 'Israelite" / 
 (HCor. ll:22;Rom. 11:1), and of the "seed of Abraham." He thought 
 of himself as belonging to "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16), and he 
 referred to the Jews in the wilderness as "our fathers" (I Cor. 10:1). 
 He boasted of the fact that he was of the seed of Abraham and belonged 
 to the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1), and that he was circumcised on 
 the eighth day (Phil. 3:5). 
 
 In discussing the relation of experience to Paul's Jewish inheritance, 
 it will be most convenient to arrange it under two heads — the relation 
 of his experience to current Judaism, and the relation of his experience 
 to the Old Testament. 
 
 Current Judaism 
 
 The term "current Judaism" is meant to include the thought of 
 the Jewish world of which Paul was a part. After he became a Chris- 
 tian he had to readjust all the religious thinking of his past life, and 
 if we have made a correct interpretation of Paul, the standard according 
 to which he judged everything was his new experience, and this he inter- 
 preted as a revelation from God. He believed he was guided by the 
 Spirit in making this readjustment. 
 a. Elements inherited from Judaism which were but slightly changed. 
 
 In making a study of Paul's Christian thought, one must be impresed 
 with the fact that much of it was brought over from current Judaism, and 
 that these Jewish ideas continued, with but few modifications, a part 
 of his Christian thinking. There are many things in the writings of 
 Paul which indicate that he still venerated the religion of his fathers. 
 In proving his right as an apostle to claim support, he cited a couple 
 of well-known incidents from the religion of Judaism. He referred 
 
164 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 to the one who ministers in the temple eating of the things of the tem- 
 ple, and also to those who wait upon the altar having their portion 
 with the altar; and the use which he made of these illustrations indi- 
 cates that because they were taken from the Jewish religion he attached 
 special importance to them. 
 
 Paul's conception of the universe as being like the different stories 
 of a building was Jewish. His idea of Satan and of evil spirits was in 
 harmony with the Jewish thought of his time. When he mentioned 
 any of these subjects he simply expressed the thought which he had 
 inherited from the past. Paul had lived in a world that was supposed 
 to be inhabited by evil spirits, and he had naturally accepted that 
 belief, and this conviction gave these evil spirits a place in his experience. 
 
 Paul's conception of God's relation to the universe was to a large 
 extent that of current Judaism. Paul had been a firm believer in God 
 before he became a Christian, and any modifications in his thought of 
 God which came as a result of his Christian experience seem to have been 
 unconscious to himself, as there is no indication in any of his writings 
 that he was criticising the Jewish conception of God, or that he was 
 caUing in question incorrect ideas which he had before his conversion. 
 It was beheved in later Judaism that God acted upon the world through 
 intermediaries, and angels were included among these. Paul retained 
 angels in his Christian thinking, but they did not occupy a very vital 
 place. According to the Old Testament account,^ Jehovah gave the 
 law to the people, but Paul said: "The law was ordained through angels 
 by the hand of a mediator" (Gal. 3:19). The tradition that the law 
 was given through angels fitted in well with the conception that was 
 current in later Judaism that God acted upon the world through inter- 
 mediaries. That tradition found expression in the Book of Jubilees, 
 and it was a part of Paul's pre-Christian thinking and it continued to 
 represent his thought after his conversion. 
 
 Paul, when he was a Pharisee, must have regarded some of the extra- 
 canonical Jewish writings as belonging with the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 and he must have retained that attitude after he became a Chris- 
 tian. The quotation, "Eye hath not seen, etc." is introduced with the 
 formula, "As it is written," and this quotation is not found in any of 
 the Old Testament books; but according to several of the Church Fathers 
 it did occur in an "Apocalypse of Elijah." 
 b. Elements inherited from Judaism that were vitally changed. 
 
 A careful study of Paul's writings reveals the fact that while many 
 elements that were inherited from Judaism remained unaltered in his 
 
 ' See Ex. chap. 20; Deut. chap. 5. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 165 
 
 Christian thinking, there were others that were modified, or completely 
 changed. The standard by which he determined his beliefs was his 
 Christian experience, and this he interpreted as the mind of Christ. 
 He modified his inherited beliefs when they did not agree with what 
 he was convinced the Spirit had revealed to him. When there was no 
 conflict between his inherited beliefs and his Christian experience, or 
 the revelation of the Spirit, there was no vital change in his thought; 
 but when his Jewish beHefs were contradicted by experience, they were 
 changed, and a Christian content was put into them. 
 
 As indicated above, Paul was perhaps unconscious of the fact that 
 his conception of God had undergone a change under the influence of 
 his Christian experiences, but it had been very much modified. His own 
 conversion and his missionary labors strengthened his belief in the 
 divine sovereignty. In the light of his Christian experience Paul 
 was led to believe that God was not a mere legalist, dealing with men 
 on the basis of law, but that he so loved men that he delivered up his 
 Son on their behalf and was constraining them by the power of his 
 love. Through the influence of the divine Spirit which he had received, 
 he was led to feel that God is near and that he is Father. Because of 
 his contact with the Gentile world, he became convinced that God is 
 interested in the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that he had been 
 seeking to make himself known to them. 
 
 Because of his Christian experience, Paul's conception of the Messiah, 
 which he inherited from Judaism, was entirely changed. Instead of 
 thinking of him as a national deliverer, he had come to regard him as 
 the world's savior. Instead of believing that he could not suffer, the 
 death on the cross had become fundamental in his thinking. Paul's 
 conversion-experience, which was regarded as a revelation of Christ, 
 became the standard according to which old ideas were readjusted; and 
 in the light of that wonderful experience, the very ideas which had 
 formerly made him feel that Jesus was an impostor, and not the Messiah, 
 were now felt to be fundamental in his Messianic work. In the light 
 of this experience he could say, he had once known the Messiah after 
 the flesh, but he had now come to know an entirely different Messiah. 
 
 Paul's eschatology was Jewish, but he transferred to the second 
 coming of Christ the things which the Jews expected their Messiah to 
 do. Paul's experience led him to place more emphasis on the practical 
 phases of eschatology, hence many of the details which are so con- 
 spicuous in Jewish apocalypses are not found in his writings."* 
 
 *H. A. A. Kennedy (St. Paul's Conception of Last Things, 1904, p. 174) says: 
 "The circle of events which St. Paul groups around the Parousia are no mechanical 
 
166 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Paul's Christian experience led him to completely reverse his esti- 
 mate of the law. It had once been the chief object of his glory, and was 
 regarded as the means by which a man is justified and made holy, 
 but in the light of his Christian experience, it was regarded as a curse 
 from which Christ by his death delivered men. Instead of the law 
 being regarded as a help to man, Paul had come to think of it as shutting 
 man up under sin, and thus showing him his helplessness and his need 
 of divine mercy. 
 
 Paul's Christian experience absolutely reversed his notion of God's 
 attitude toward the Jew and the Gentile. He had formerly regarded 
 the Gentiles as accursed of God, because they did not know the law and 
 consequently could not keep it; but experience had convinced him that 
 the Gentiles, who did not have the revealed law, were doing by nature 
 the things of the law. He had formerly believed that the Jews were 
 God's chosen people, and that the only hope for the Gentiles was in 
 beconpiing Jewish proselytes; but his experience had convinced him that 
 God was rejecting the Jews and was choosing the Gentiles for the working 
 out of his plan, and the reason he was doing this was that the Gentiles 
 were more acceptable to God than were the Jews. 
 
 Paul's experience before and after his conversion had given him a 
 different impression of the Roman Empire from what was ordinarily 
 held by the Jews. Instead of regarding it as an instrument used by 
 God for the purpose of punishing his disobedient children, or as an 
 agency, which is evil in itself, but which God uses to carry out his plan, 
 experience had convinced Paul that the Roman Empire was ordained 
 of God, and that the Roman ofl&cials were God's ministers, and even 
 their punishments were divinely ordained to restrain evil-doers. 
 
 The Old Testament 
 
 Paul's Jewish training had familiarized him with the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures, and his thinking was determined by Old Testament 
 doctrines and ideals, and it would be natural for these to hold a promi- 
 nent place in his Christian thinking. It seems evident from a study 
 of his writings, that his Christian experience was the standard by which 
 he estimated even the Old Testament, and he believed he was being 
 guided by the Spirit of God in what he was doing. When experience 
 had convinced him that a certain thing was true, he went back to the 
 
 reproductions of current Judaistic ideas, but take all their color from his own experience 
 of the risen Lord. " 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 167 
 
 Old Testament to find statements to prove it. He sometimes used the 
 Scriptures in a manner which, from our point of view, cannot be justi- 
 fied, but which was perfectly natural to him. His rabbinical method 
 of interpretation enabled him to read back into the Scriptures what 
 he wanted to find. A brief summary of Paul's use of the Old Testament, 
 as it is brought out in the preceding chapters of this treatise, will demon- 
 strate the fact that although he quoted the Scriptures as authorita- 
 tive, there was for him an authority which was more binding than the 
 Scriptures, 
 a. Paul's use of the Old Testament. 
 
 Paul designated the Old Testament as "the oracles of God" (Rom. 
 3:2), and he beheved it was a divine revelation of God's plan and pur- 
 pose (I Cor. 15:4; Gal. 3:8). He received his fundamental ideas of 
 religion from the Old Testament, and he used it as Scripture on all 
 occasions. 
 
 Paul used Old Testament language to emphasize his point, without 
 citing it as from the Old Testament, and regardless of the connection 
 in which this language is found. Sometimes the sense in which he used 
 this language, taken from the Old Testament, corresponds with the origi- 
 nal meaning, and sometimes he gave it a significance which is very dif- 
 ferent from what was intended by the original writer. 
 
 Paul frequently used the Old Testament as illustration material. 
 The sense in which he used it was sometimes true to the original con- 
 text, and he sometimes did violence to the historical meaning of the 
 passage. Historical incidents were used as though they were intended- 
 to be types, and had been written, not for historical purposes, but for 
 admonition to future ages. Historical passages were treated as alle- 
 gories, and a spiritual meaning which a passage did not contain was 
 read into it. The incident of the ox treading out the corn, which in 
 its original connection was a law for the protection of animals, was 
 used by Paul as an argument to prove that apostles should be supported. 
 He said it was not for the oxen that God cared, but he was thinking 
 of those who should preach the gospel, and he was providing for their 
 support. Paul used the Scriptures very freely in the case of the bond 
 woman and the free woman. He read his doctrine back into the histori- 
 cal incident, and he felt free to use it in a manner that would accom- 
 plish his purpose. He did not feel that he was obligated to correctly 
 represent the historical incident in all its details, for it was the children 
 of Sarah, rather than the children of Hagar, that were really in bondage 
 to the law. 
 
/ 
 
 168 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Paul made many quotations from the Old Testament in support of 
 moral principles which he was seeking to enforce, and of spiritual ideals 
 which he was holding up before Christians, and in most of these quota- 
 tions he was true to the original meaning of the passage. In proving 
 his doctrines he usually made one or more quotations from the Scrip- 
 tures, and ordinarily he correctly interpreted the passages used. His 
 rabbinical method of interpretation, however, enabled him to use these 
 passages very freely, and he sometimes changed their meaning absolutely. 
 Passages which were not Messianic were used in a Messianic sense. 
 Passages which did not originally have any connection with the Gen- 
 tiles were used to prove the calling of the Gentiles. He used the Old 
 Testament account of the covenant with Abraham to prove his doc- 
 , trine of justification by faith. He was able to do that, because in 
 t the Genesis account of the first promise to Abraham of descendants, it 
 '^s said: "And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for 
 righteousness " (Gen. 15:6). This passage, however, does not refer to 
 the covenant with Abraham. This is found in Genesis 17:9-14, and 
 circumcision is the requirement for one who would be included under the 
 covenant. By the act of circumcision one entered into covenant rela- 
 tion with God, and the uncircumcised person was to be cut off from his 
 people. Paul, by a rabbinical method of interpretation, sought to prove 
 that faith and not circumcision, was the basis of the covenant with 
 Abraham. Because the promise was made to Abraham before he had 
 been circumcised, Paul argued that he was justified by faith. That 
 being true, it is those who have faith, rather than those who have been 
 circumcised, that are the real children of Abraham. In this interpreta- 
 tion, Paul was not seeking to find out the real meaning of the Old Testa- 
 ment; he was using it to prove his doctrine, and in doing this, he read 
 back into it what he wanted to find. 
 
 In his effort to prove that the promise was not made to the lineal 
 descendants of Abraham, Paul reached the climax of his rabbinical meth- 
 od of interpreting Scripture. The promise was to Abraham and his 
 seed, and Paul argued that, as seed is singular, it is evident that it 
 refers, not to many, but to one, which is Christ. The Genesis passage 
 which Paul had in mind, referred to peoples, and not to the Messiah, 
 and in Rom. 4:18, he made it refer to nations, although he had stated 
 in his letter to the Galatians that it could not have this meaning. 
 
 In his argument in the tenth chapter of Romans, Paul used, for the 
 purpose of condemning the law, statements which in their original con- 
 nection exalt the law. He sought to Hberate the Jews from the law 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 169 
 
 and unite them to Christ by quoting passages which were intended to i 
 bind them to the law, and to accomplish his purpose, he substituted ' 
 faith where law is used in the Old Testament passage. 
 
 It is very evident that Paul used the Old Testament to prove the 
 convictions to which he had been led through experience. Sometimes 
 he found passages that were suited to his purpose, and sometimes by 
 rabbinical methods of interpretation he read into the Old Testament 
 the idea which he wanted to use.^ Paul was probably unconscious 
 of the fact that he was doing violence to the Scriptures, and he must have 
 felt that he was being led by the Spirit in the interpretations which 
 he made 
 b. Paul's estimate of the Old Testament. 
 
 In discussing what the Old Testament meant to Paul, it is impossible 
 to speak with absolute certainty. There are several possibilities, and 
 it is easy to find statements in his writings to substantiate any one of 
 them. 
 
 (a) Of no authoritative value for the Christian. 
 
 There is a possibility that Paul may have regarded the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures as being of no value for the Christian, except as they 
 show how God was preparing the way for Christ. In defending the 
 doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, he did say that Christ had 
 taken the law out of the way. It is true, Paul used the law in different 
 senses. He sometimes used it as the Mosaic code; and he sometimes 
 used it as the whole Old Testament system; and he sometimes used it 
 as the sense of right which is written in the heart. It is not probable 
 that Paul was thinking merely of the Mosaic code when he said Christ 
 had freed men from the law, or that he meant to separate the cere- 
 monial law from the moral law. It seems that he was thinking of 
 the whole Old Testament system. But Paul could not have felt that 
 the law of Moses had no value for Christians, for he frequently quoted 
 it as authoritative to prove his arguments. 
 
 (b) Of absolute authority for Christians. 
 
 There is a possibility that Paul may have regarded the Old Testa- 
 ment Scripture as being of absolute authority for Christians. He 
 
 ^A. Sabatier (V Apotre Paid, 1896, p. 74; Eng. trans., 1906, p. 87) says: 'It 
 was not from the Old Testament, not by way exegesis, that the apostle obtained the 
 ground on which his doctrine rests. If his faith depends on his exegesis, his exegesis 
 depends still more on his faith. His convictions are not the result of his bold method 
 of interpretation; that method can only be explained by the new convictions, which 
 of necessity gave rise to it." 
 
170 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 undoubtedly read the Scriptures privately, and encouraged other Chris- 
 tians to read them. He undoubtedly read them in the churches, and 
 encouraged other churches to read them. He was constantly quoting 
 from the Old Testament in his writings, and he reached the climax in 
 many an argument with a ''thus saith the law," and when he used that 
 expression, he did it in such a manner that it indicated that he meant 
 it to be authoritative. But there are many things in the writings of 
 Paul which make it evident that while he regarded the Old Testament as 
 authoritative for him and for others, there was in reahty another author- 
 ity which was more vital than the Old Testament. 
 
 (c) Two conflicting theories of the Old Testament. 
 
 There is a possibiHty that Paul may have had two conflicting theories 
 in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures, one inherited from the 
 past, and the other the result of Christian experience, and that he did 
 not realize the conflict between them. As a result of the feelings which 
 he inherited from Judaism, he regarded the Scriptures as having been 
 inspired of God, and hence authoritative; but his experience had con- 
 vinced him that the Christian is living under a higher law, the guidance 
 Vof the Spirit. The one who is united to Christ by faith is freed from 
 the law, and the law no longer has dominion over him. He is to follow 
 the leading of faith and love. The love of Christ is to be the con- 
 straining power in his life, and he is to do the things to which love leads 
 him. The law of brotherly love is to guide him in his attitude toward 
 others, and this love will lead him to fulfill the whole law. Under the 
 influence of his experience Paul urged Christians to follow the leading 
 of the Spirit and bring forth the fruits of the Spirit in their lives; and 
 under the influence of his Jewish inheritance, from which he was never 
 entirely free, he quoted the Scriptures as authoritative and urged Chris- 
 tians to heed their admonitions. 
 
 (d) Not the basis of justification, but spiritual, and prophetically 
 authoritative. 
 
 There is a possibiUty that Paul may have felt that the law, or the 
 
 Old Testament system, was not the basis of justification, but that it 
 
 contained a spiritual or prophetical message which was valuable for 
 
 all time, and which was of special value for his own day. This theory 
 
 seems to best solve all the problems and meet all the conditions con- 
 
 { nected with Paul's use of the Old Testament. Paul regarded the law 
 
 1 and the gospel as being parts of the divine plan, and he felt there was a 
 
 \ spiritual content in the law which the Jews had missed; hence the gos- 
 
 l pel was the completion of this spiritual message which was not com- 
 
 / 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS l7l 
 
 prehended by the Jews. God had intended that justification during 
 the Old Testament dispensation should be by faith, but the Jews had 
 sought a righteousness of their own on the basis of law, and God was 
 displeased with them. BeHeving the law had a spiritual content, which 
 the gospel fulfilled, he could use it to substantiate the gospel truths. 
 Paul felt that the things which were happening in his own day were 
 prefigured in the Scriptures, and he believed the things that were writ- 
 ten in the Scriptures were for the Christian's admonition.^ 
 
 In his attempt to make the Old Testament support his Christian 
 experience, Paul may have deliberately changed the meaning of the Old 
 Testament. He may have been conscious of the fact that he was 
 reading his own thought back into it, and that he was changing its origi- 
 nal meaning when he did this. That, however, does not seem probable, 
 as he would have known that there would be objection to his method and 
 that his argument would be weakened rather than strengthened. 
 
 It is very probable that Paul unconsciously changed the meaning 
 of the Old Testament to make it substantiate the truths to which his 
 Christian experience had led him. Although he beUeved Christ had 
 freed men from the law and had placed them under the guidance of the 
 Spirit, yet he spiritualized the law, and by means of rabbinical methods 
 of interpretation, he read back into it what he wanted to find and used 
 it as authoritative. Paul's religion was not based upon the Old Testa- 
 ment. God did not to speak to him out of a book; but he spoke to 
 him through his Spirit. And yet, inasmuch as Christianity was the 
 fulfillment of the Old Testament, the Old Testament itself could be used 
 as proof of the message of the Spirit. 
 
 The Relation of Experience to the Life and Thought of the 
 Mediterranean World 
 It was significant that Paul was born in Tarsus, which was one of 
 the most cosmopolitan cities of the Mediterranean world.' Not only 
 
 • A. Sabatier (The Apostle Paul, 1906, pp. 86 ff.) was not far from Paul's position 
 when he said: "If the Old Covenant ceased to exist as an economy of salvation, it 
 became all the more important as a preparation and a prophecy. ... He may 
 be said to have read the Old Testament books with the eyes of a Christian and the 
 penetration of a rabbi. Everything in this long history of God's people became pro- 
 phecy; its personages and events equally so with its discourses. Its language became 
 transfigured; the spiritual meaning shone forth through the veil of the literal sense." 
 
 ^ Adolf Deissmann (Patdus, eine Kultur und religions geschichtliche Skizze, 1911, 
 pp. 23 f.; Eng. trans., 1912, p. 35) says: "The apostle of the nations comes from a 
 classical seat of international intercourse, and his home itself was to him from child- 
 hood a microcosmos, in which the forces of the great ancient cosmos of the Mediter- 
 ranean world were all represented." 
 
172 CONCEPTION OF AUTHOMTY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 did Paul spend his early life in Tarus, but he probably made that city 
 the center of his missionary activities in Syria and Cilicia. It would 
 have been impossible for him to have lived in contact with this cos- 
 mopolitan world, either as a Jew or as a Christian, and not be influenced 
 by it. Paul's missionary activities kept him in close touch with this 
 world where all sorts of religious and philosophic ideas were mingling. 
 His citizenship and the public life he was living brought him into vital 
 touch with the Empire, and he must have been familiar with the Em- 
 peror-Cult and with these other religions and philosophies which helped 
 to constitute the life and thought of the Mediterranean world, which 
 was his environment. 
 
 Paul derived many important elements of his thinking from his 
 environment. Anything from this environment which became a part 
 of his experience and enriched his conception of Christianity was accepted 
 as truth, and everything which contradicted his experience was rejected 
 and condemned. He used for the purpose of illustration, and in a 
 manner that was natural to him, the Grecian games, and these were an 
 abomination to the Jews. There is so much in common between Paul 
 and some of the Greek philosophers that many scholars think Paul must 
 have been influenced by their writings. There is so much similarity 
 between Paul and Seneca, who were contemporaries, that many writers 
 have felt that one must have been influenced by the other. It is more 
 probable, however, that both were influenced by the spirit of their age, 
 and that they were independent of each other. Paul believed the Gen- 
 tile world had received truth, and he also beUeved this truth had come 
 from God. 
 
 Paul was influenced in his terminology by the life and thought of 
 the world in which he lived. There are many significant expressions 
 in his writings that were the common property of the age. These 
 expressions were used, not only by the philosophers and reUgious teachers, 
 but by the great mass of common people as well. These terms expressed 
 in a general way the reHgious convictions of all, but each one put his 
 own content into them. They did not mean the same for all groups. 
 Paul had lived in this world so long, and had come into such vital touch 
 with it, that this terminology had become his, and as his converts were 
 familiar with it, he could best express himself by using it. His expe- 
 rience guided him in the use which he made of this terminology, and 
 consequently he put a new content into much of it. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 173 
 
 Anathemas, like that which Paul pronounced upon those who love 
 not the Lord (I Cor. 16:22) were common in his day.® The curse which 
 Paul commanded the Corinthians to pronounce upon the fornicator 
 was common in the thought of the Graeco-Roman world, and without 
 any further explanation, the Corinthians would understand what he 
 meant for them to do. Paul's earnest desire to have the thorn removed 
 from his flesh (II Cor. 12:8) is duplicated by Greek inscriptions. There 
 is a similar expression in an inscription by M. Julius Apellas indicating 
 his cure at the shrine of Asculapius at Epidaurus: "And concerning 
 this thing I besought the god."* 
 
 It is quite likely that Paul was influenced by the thought of the 
 Graeco-Roman world in his discussion of the struggle between the 
 flesh and the spirit. The Platonist regarded the body as evil, believed 
 the soul was imprisoned in it, and that it was contaminated by this 
 imprisonment. Paul must have been familiar with their behefs, for 
 the philosophers had proclaimed their doctrines upon the street corners, 
 and the common people heard them frequently. Paul's inheritance 
 from the thought of his day was modified by his own experience, and 
 hence he sometimes put a content into the terms which he used which 
 was foreign to the thought of the Greeks. He argued that while sin 
 dwells in the flesh the flesh can be overcome, and the body can be made 
 the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. He argued that instead of the 
 body being the instrument of sin, it can be consecrated to God, and 
 can be made the instrument of righteousness. 
 
 Paul was influenced by the thought of the Graeco-Roman world in 
 his conception of the Christian mysteries. In the mystery-cults there 
 were certain secrets which were revealed to the initiated, but those 
 who had not passed through the initiation were not permitted to know 
 these secret mysteries. These mysteries played a prominent part in 
 the thought of the Graeco-Roman world. Those to whom these mys- 
 teries had been revealed were greatly influenced by them. The posses- 
 sion of them was the key to a new Hfe, and it was the pledge of immor- 
 tality. Paul must have been familiar with these mysteries before he 
 became a Christian, and his missionary activities had brought him into 
 close touch with them. He spent much time in Ephesus, and Ephesus 
 was one of the centers of the mystery-cults. He spent much time in 
 
 « Adolf Deissman {Licht vom Osten, 1906, p. 219; Eng. trans. 1910, p. 305) quotes 
 the epitaph from Halicarnassus which is very similar: "If any man shall attempt 
 to take away a stone ... let him be accursed." 
 
 » See Licht vom Osten, 1906, p. 223; Eng. trans., 1910, pp. 310 f. 
 
174 CONCEPTION or AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 Corinth, and the Mysteries of Eleusis were celebrated on the road over 
 which he must have passed when he went from Athens to that city. It 
 is significant that Paul designated what he was imparting to those who 
 were able to receive it as the divine mystery. He said he and his co- 
 laborers were "stewards of the mysteries of God" (I Cor.4:l). He said 
 the man, speaking in a tongue, is speaking mysteries in the Spirit (I 
 Cor. 14:2). He referred to the resurrection as a mystery which he was 
 going to make known to them (I Cor. 15:51). He regarded the doc- 
 trine of the partial rejection of Israel, for the purpose of bringing in 
 the fullness of the Gentiles and then the salvation of Israel, as a mystery 
 (Rom. 11:25). Paul evidently regarded these mysteries as being well 
 worth knowing, but he said, if a person should know all mysteries, but 
 not have love, it would profit him nothing (I Cor. 13:2). Paul felt he 
 was speaking "a wisdom not of this world"; it was "God's wisdom in a 
 mystery"; it was "the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God fore- 
 ordained before the worlds. " The rulers of this world did not know this 
 wisdom, for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the 
 Lord of glory. This "wisdom in a mystery" was something which the 
 eye saw not, and the ear heard not; it was something which had not 
 entered into the heart of man, but it had been revealed by God through 
 the Spirit. Paul said he revealed this mystery only to them that were 
 full-grown. The natural man is not able to receive these things, because 
 they must be spiritually judged. These things can be received only 
 by him who is spiritual (I Cor. 2:6-10). 
 
 It is significant that Paul designated these deeper, spiritual 
 truths, which he was reveahng to those who were able to receive them, 
 as divine mysteries; and that he used the same terminology as did the 
 mystery-cults to designate those who were able to receive the mysteries, 
 and those who were not able to receive them. Those who were capable 
 of receiving the divine wisdom were the spiritual, or the perfect, the 
 TcXctos; while those who were not capable of receiving it were the 
 uninitiated, or the tStwrT/s. Although Paul used the terminology that was 
 current in his day, he sometimes put a Christian content into it, and 
 this new content was the result of his own experience. The mystery 
 which he revealed was the result of his own relation to Christ, and he 
 regarded this as the message of the Spirit, and he felt that only those 
 who were Hving the spiritual life were worthy to receive it. 
 
 Paul was influenced, in his conception of the union of the behever 
 with Christ, by the thought of the Graeco-Roman world. The mystery- 
 cults had an initiatory rite which was in the nature of a baptism. This 
 
CONCEPTION OP AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 175 
 
 was supposed to bring the initiated into fellowship with the deity. 
 They also had a sacred meal which enabled the one who participated 
 in it to partake of the deity. It was believed in the Dionysus-cult 
 that, by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the victim in which 
 the god was supposed to be incarnate, the life of the god entered into 
 the individual. It seems almost certain that Paul was influenced 
 in his conception of the ordinances of the church by these Greek ideas. 
 He taught that the individual is baptised into Christ, and thus puts on 
 Christ. The Corinthians were baptising for their dead, and Paul did 
 not condemn the practice. He taught that the cup is a communion 
 of the body of Christ. He told the Corinthians that many of them were 
 sickly, and some of their number had died, because they had partaken 
 without discerning the Lord's body. Paul had that thought of commu- 
 nion with the deity in mind, when he admonished the Corinthians 
 not to participate in idol-worship, for the Gentiles sacrifice to demons, 
 and not to God, and he did not want the Christians to have communion 
 with demons. The Gentiles beUeved they had fellowship with the deity 
 when they partook of the feast held in the temple of the deity. Paul 
 accepted their belief, but he said it was with demons that they in reality 
 had fellowship, because he regarded the pagan deities as demons. 
 
 Under the influence of the Greek mysteries Paul transformed the 
 primitive conception of baptism into a mystical death and burial which 
 unites one to Christ; and he transformed the primitive conception of 
 a fellowship meal into a communion with the body and blood of Christ. 
 His own Christian experience, however, guided him in the new content 
 which he put into these ordinances. He connected faith with these 
 mystic rites in a very vital manner. The one who is baptized has faith 
 in Christ, and it is faith along with baptism which unites one to his 
 Lord. The one who comes to the sacred meal is united to Christ by 
 faith, and when he discerns the Lord's body and blood that faith is 
 strengthened. Paul put a Christian content into these sacred rites, but 
 he still regarded them as mysteries which brought the worshipper into 
 vital relationship with the Master. 
 
 The thought of the Graeco-Roman world influenced Paul in his 
 conception of the possession of the Spirit. The one who was initiated 
 into the mysteries was brought into such close fellowship with the 
 deity that the deity sometimes took possession of him. The one who 
 was possessed by the deity had various ecstatic experiences, such as 
 speaking with tongues, and being carried out of one's self. The Corin- 
 thian Christians, under the influence of the Spirit, spoke with tongues, 
 
176 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 and did various other things which were pecuUar to those who were acting 
 under the Spirit's power. Paul recognized these phenomena as being 
 similar to the ones witnessed among the pagans, the main diflference 
 being that the Christians were possessed by the divine Spirit while 
 the pagans were possessed by demons. The attitude of the individual 
 towards Jesus determined whether he was possessed by a good or an 
 evil spirit. Although Paul was influenced in his conception of the 
 indwelling Spirit by the thought of the Greek world, yet there are 
 vital differences between his thought and that of the Greek mysteries. 
 The ecstatic manifestations were fundamental in the Greek mysteries, 
 but they were only incidental for Paul, and he urged that these should 
 be subordinated to the manifestations that helped others. While the 
 life and thought of the Graeco-Roman world helped to determine Paul's 
 experience of spirit-possession, yet his whole experience as a Christian 
 modified this and made it very different from what it was for a Greek. 
 Paul did not accept everything which was presented to him by his 
 environment; if he had done this he would have been a pagan. Paul 
 opposed much of the life and thought of the Mediterranean world; he 
 regarded it as pagan and believed it was contrary to the will of God. 
 He may have been unconscious of the fact that he had taken over any 
 of the Greek ideas, for they had become a part of his experience, and 
 he accepted them without being concerned as to the source from which 
 he had derived them. Whatever there was in the hfe and thought of the 
 Greeks which became a part of Paul's experience was accepted by him 
 as truth, and anything which was foreign to his experience was rejected 
 by him. It is very evident that experience was the standard according 
 to which Paul evaluated the life and thought of the world in which 
 he Hved, and inasmuch as his Christian experience was interpreted as 
 a following of the leading of the divine Spirit, he believed his con- 
 clusions had the sanction of the Spirit. 
 
 The Relation of Experience to the Life and Thought of 
 THE Church into which he Entered 
 
 When Paul entered upon his Christian career he had the heritage 
 of primitive Christianity, and he undoubtedly took up much of this 
 primitive Christian thought. There is no reason for believing that he 
 did not, either directly or indirectly, derive from the primitive Chris- 
 tian group the facts and doctrines which he held in common with them. 
 The importance which he attached to primitive Christian tradition can 
 best be discussed under two heads, the importance of the life and teach- 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 177 
 
 ings of Jesus, and the importance of the hfe and thought of the primitive 
 Christian community. 
 
 The Life and Teachings of Jesus 
 
 During the time when Paul preached and wrote, the teachings of 
 Jesus and the story of his hfe were being handed down in oral form, 
 but there were perhaps some written documents in addition to the oral 
 traditions, and Paul must have gained his knowledge of the historical 
 data of the hfe of Jesus from these sources. 
 
 Paul sometimes quoted the teachings of Jesus as final authority. 
 In estabhshing his right to claim support from the churches where he 
 was laboring, he stated, as the climax of his argument, the fact that 
 Christ had ordained it. Just as God had ordained that those who min- 
 ister in the temple should live of the temple, so Christ had ordained that 
 those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. Perhaps the 
 order of Paul's argument indicates the importance which he attached 
 to the various elements. That which was fundamental to him was his 
 own sense of right, and to prove this he arranged his argument in the 
 order of importance. He first used illustrations from life, and he then 
 called attention to the fact that support was conmianded by the Old 
 Testament. This sense of right, which was supported by illustrations 
 from life and by the commandment of the Old Testament, was also com- 
 manded by the Lord himself; and it is evident that he regarded this 
 commandment as final authority. 
 
 In comforting the Thessalonians who were troubled about the loss 
 which their Christian dead would sustain at the coming of Christ, Paul 
 wrote with assurance. He said those who were alive at the coming of 
 Christ would not precede them that are asleep, and he said he was 
 making this statement by the word of the Lord. He must have had 
 in mind some traditional statement about the Parousia which he accepted 
 as having come from Jesus, and he regarded it as final authority, and he 
 felt that it should remove all the doubts of the Thessalonians. 
 
 In his discussion of marriage Paul gave definite commandment 
 concerning some phases, and he said he was expressing the command- 
 ment of the Lord on these matters; but concerning other phases he gave 
 his own opinion, and he called attention to the fact that he did not have 
 any commandment of the Lord covering these points. One must have 
 the feeling when he reads the seventh chapter of I Corinthians that 
 Paul spoke more positively, when he knew some teaching of Jesus that 
 covered the point at issue, than when he was merely expressing his own 
 
178 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 conviction. On the question of the remarriage of those who had sepa- 
 rated from their companions Paul spoke with decision, for he was 
 stating the commandment of the Lord. He evidently knew some teach- 
 ing of Jesus that covered that point. But on the question of the mar- 
 riage of virgins he did not have any commandment of the Lord, and so 
 he expressed his own opinion, as one that had obtained mercy of the 
 Lord to be faithful. 
 
 Paul urged the Galatians to fulfill the law of Christ by bearing 
 one another's burdens, and it is very evident that it was Christ's law 
 of love to which he referred. It seems that Christ's law of love was 
 made prominent in the early church. In II John (v. 5) there is a ref- 
 erence to the commandment which they had from the beginning that they 
 should love one another, and in James {3:S) the command to love one 
 another is called "the royal law." Christ's law of love was made 
 fundamental in the writings of Paul. It was the principle which was to 
 guide man in his relation to others. This law was absolute and the 
 Christian was to be controlled by it. He was to be guided by it in 
 his treatment of the erring brother. He was to be guided by it in his 
 use of spiritual gifts. He was to do only those things which would 
 edify others. He was to be guided by this law in his eating. If eat- 
 ing meat would cause a brother to stumble, he should refrain, for a 
 Christian would not be walking according to love, if he should do any- 
 thing to offend a weaker brother. 
 
 In the few passages cited above Paul emphasized the teachings of 
 Jesus, but the ultimate authority for him was not what Jesus said or 
 did. His own experience of the living Christ was of more consequence 
 to him than his knowledge of the Christ of the past. He was following 
 the leading of the glorified Christ whom he had come to know at the 
 time of his conversion, and he had become so vitally united to the 
 Master through faith that he was living within him. Because he had 
 Christ's Spirit he knew his will, and he insisted on obedience to this 
 will. If he knew some teaching of Jesus that would serve his purpose 
 in emphasizing the conviction to which he had come through experience, 
 he used it; but he does not seem to have looked for such teaching, or 
 to have been anxious about it. His chief concern was to know God's 
 will, and the teaching of Jesus was one of the means through which 
 that will was expressed. 
 
 The Primitive Christian Community 
 Many of Paul's doctrines were derived from the primitive Chris- 
 tian community. Before his conversion he had regarded the members of 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS l79 
 
 this primitive Christian group as deluded fanatics. He had believed 
 they were opposed to God, and he had felt he was doing God's will when 
 he was persecuting them. He had learned much about the behefs of 
 the Christians from those whom he was persecuting, but his attitude 
 had been one of opposition. His conversion changed everything, and 
 in the light of this new experience, he realized that the Christians were 
 right and that he was the one who was opposing God. He undoubtedly 
 accepted their traditions and their conception of the Christian life as 
 the basis of his own thinking, but many influences combined with his 
 own experience of the Christian life to vitally change many of these 
 conceptions. 
 
 Before his conversion Paul had heard about Jesus from the primi- 
 tive Christians, but he did not believe their statements. His own 
 experience, however, convinced him that they were right in their claims, 
 and from Peter and others he learned more about the Master whom he 
 had come to love. He accepted their statements about Jesus as true, 
 and they became the basis of his new conception of Christ. But there 
 were other elements which entered into Paul's thinking; hence the 
 Christology of his writings is very different from that which he inherited 
 from the primitive Christians; his Christology is peculiarly his own. 
 This primitive Christian tradition, with his Jewish inheritance and the 
 thought of the world in which he lived, were combined in the mold of 
 his own experience, and the result was his conception of the pre-existent 
 Christ, and of the glorified and exalted Christ, who is the head of the 
 church, and who dwells in them who are united to him by faith. 
 
 Paul received from the primitive Christian group the conception 
 of the church which was current at that time, with its simple organi- 
 zation and its ordinances. Under the influence of his own experience, 
 or under the leading of the divine Spirit as he interpreted it, there 
 was developed such a new conception that many have regarded Paul as 
 the real founder of the church. There was developed such a new con- 
 ception of the ordinances that many claim Paul as the originator of 
 these ordinances. 
 
 The vital question for Paul when he had to face some new situation 
 was not to know what the primitive Christians thought or did; it was 
 not even to find out what Jesus said on the point at issue; it was rather 
 to seek to follow the leading of the divine Spirit, and under the guidance 
 of the Spirit, as he interpreted it, the church developed to meet new 
 conditions. 
 
180 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 Paul lived a real life in a real world. He did not live in a tight 
 compartment so that he could not be touched by the influences of the 
 world about him, and could thus be made the passive instrument of the 
 Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not so dominate him that he was 
 immune to the influences of the life and thought of his age. His mind 
 and heart were receptive to helpful impressions, regardless of the source 
 from which they came. To attempt to understand Paul apart from 
 the world in which he lived is to undertake the impossible. To put 
 Paul in his world and interpret him in connection with the life and 
 thought of his age is to understand him. The former method would 
 make Paulinism static and mechanical; the latter would make it growing 
 and vital. The former would make Pauhnism a system according to 
 which the church of all time is to conform; the latter would exalt the 
 Christian spirit, as it found expression in Paul's life and thought, and it 
 would understand that it was dressed in a Jewish garb which was modi- 
 fied by the Mediterranean world of the first century, and it would not 
 feel obligated to make all ages conform to that particular dress. The 
 former would make Paulinism a static norm; the latter would make it 
 a living guide. 
 
 Religion was for Paul a constant development; it could not have 
 been otherwise if he lived a real life in a real world. He was born 
 in a Jewish home, raised in a Gentile city, and educated in a rabbinical 
 school, and his conception of Judaism must have been constantly chang- 
 ing, even before he had heard of Jesus. He came into contact with 
 Christianity and assumed the rdle of a persecutor, and his experiences 
 with this new religion shook his confidence in the old faith. This 
 prepared him for the great soul struggle, which he interpreted as the 
 revelation of Christ in him. This, however, was only the beginning of 
 his Christian experiences. His contact with the religious thought of 
 the Graeco-Roman world modified his thinking along many lines, and 
 the gigantic task of estabUshing Christianity, which had its origin in 
 Palestine, throughout the Gentile world led him to a new evaluation of 
 his beliefs. All these influences helped to constitute Paul's experience, 
 and what was true to his experience at any particular time was the 
 thing that was vital to him. Anything which he inherited from Judaism, 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY 1N THE PAULINE WRITINGS 181 
 
 or which came to him from the life and thought of the world in which 
 he lived, or from the primitive Christian group into which he entered, 
 that became a part of his experience, was accepted as truth. Anything 
 demanded by the great purpose which he had before him became a part 
 of his experience and was also accepted as truth. Paul realized that 
 his life was constantly united with Christ, and he interpreted his experi- 
 ence as the leading of the divine Spirit. That being true, his real 
 authority was Christ within. ^ 
 
 Inasmuch as Paul's experience was constantly changing, his standard 
 of authority was not something static; it was a developing standard. 
 His Christ within was a growing Christ. In the Ught of his changing 
 experiences, he constantly reread the Old Testament and put a new 
 valuation on his inheritance from Judaism and from the life and thought 
 of his world. His aim was to forget the things which are behind, and to 
 stretch forward to the things which are before, and to *' press on toward 
 the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. " 
 
182 CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Adam, James, The Religious Teachers of Greece, 1908. 
 
 Angus, S., The Environment of Early Christianity, 1915. 
 
 Bacon, Benj. W., Jesus or Christ? The Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909. 
 
 Bailey, J. W., Elements of Paul's Christology, 1905. 
 
 Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1903. 
 
 Bruce, A. B., St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, 1894. 
 
 Burton, E. D., Handbook of the Life of Paul, 1904. 
 
 Campbell, James H., Paul the Mystic, 1908. 
 
 Campbell, R. J., Jesus or Christ? The Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909. 
 
 Carpenter, Principal J. E., Jesus or Christ? The Hibbert JoiUTial Supplement for 1909. 
 
 Case, Shirley Jackson, The Historicity of Jesus, 1912. 
 
 The Evolution of Early Christianity, 1914. 
 The BibUcal World, Jan., 1914. 
 Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, two 
 
 vols., 1913. 
 Clemen, Carl, Die Chronologic der paulinischen Brief e aufs neue Untersucht, 1893. 
 Cohu, J. R., St. Paul and Modem Research, 1911. 
 Cone, Orello, Paul, the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher, 1898. 
 Conybeare, F. C, Myth, Magic, and Morals, 1910. 
 
 Drummond, James, Jesus or Christ? The Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909. 
 Deissmann, Adolf, Licht vom Osten, 1908; Eng. trans., 1910. 
 
 Paulus, eine kultur imd religionsgeschichtliche Skizze, 1911; 
 
 Eng. trans., 1912. 
 Friedlander, Gerald, Hellenism and Christianity, 1912. 
 
 Gardner, Percy, The Religious Experience of St. Paul, 1911. J 
 
 Heinrici, C. F. Georg., Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 1880. Ij 
 
 Herford, R. Travers, Pharisaism, 1912. 
 Holtzmann, O., Theologische Litteratungzeitimg, 1890. 
 Kennedy, H. A. A., St Paul's Conception of the Last Things, 1904. 
 
 St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, 1913. 
 Lake, Kirsopp, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, 1911. 
 
 Loisy, Alfred, Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1911. ; 
 
 Mathews, Shailer, The Messianic Hope in the New Testament, 1SH)5. 
 Matheson, George, Spiritual Development of St. Paul, 1909. 
 Moffatt, James, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 1911. 
 Moore, George Foot, History of Religions, 1913. 
 
 Pfleiderer, Otto, Das Urchristentum, 1887; Eng. trans, two vols. 1906, 1909. 
 Reitzenstein, R., Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910. 
 Rostron, S. Nowell, The Christology of St. Paul, 1912. 
 Sabatier, Auguste, Les Religions D' Autorite Et La Religion De L'Esprit.; Eng. 
 
 trans. 1904. 
 
 L'Apotre Paul, 1896; Eng. trans. 1906. 
 Schiirer, E., Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 4th ed. 1907; 
 Eng. trans, of 2nd ed. 1891. 
 
CONCEPTION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAULINE WRITINGS 183 
 
 Schweitzer, Albert, Geschichte der panlinischen Forschung, 1911; Eng. trans. 1912. 
 Spitta, Friedrich, Apostelgeschichte ihre Quellen und der Geschichtlicher Wert, 1891. 
 Stevens, George Barker, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 1905. 
 
 The PauUne Theology, 1906. 
 
 The Theology of the New Testament, 1910. 
 Weinel, Heinrich, Paulus: der Mensch und sein Werk, 1904; Eng. trans. 1906. 
 Jesus or Christ? The Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909. 
 Weiss, Bemhard, Lehrbuch der Einleitimg in das Neue Testament, 1897. 
 Weiss, J., Der Erste Korinther Brief, 1910. 
 Weizsacker, Carl von.. Das apostoUsche der christlichen Kirche, Dritte Auflage, 
 
 1901; Eng. trans. 1894-1895. 
 Wrede, W. Paulus, Zweite Auflage 1907; Eng. trans. 1908. 
 Encyclopaedia BibUca. 
 Dictionary of the Bible by Hastings. 
 Jewish Encyclopedia. 
 The International Critical Commentary. 
 
'^3)^<c!/ 
 
 m7m^ 
 
 '^^ s- 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 RENEWALS ONLY— TEL NO. 642.^3405 
 
 ^fSlPlBim^i This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 aH^ on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Pk Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 MMl 
 
 i>«i4 1 4 
 
 RCQetvgp 
 
 Qnr2;'6s»j64ft j 
 
 «p?n^ 
 
 
 H StW ^Stli 
 
 fNTER-LlBRAR 
 
 LOAN 
 
 FEB 10 1970 
 
 LD2lA-60m-6,'69 
 (J9096sl0)476-A-32 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
 y^d^c^tu 
 
^^mf^ 
 
 
 ■