The Making of the New Testament Part 2

Galatians aims to counteract the encroachments of certain Judaizing interlopers upon Paul's field, and seems to have been written from Corinth, shortly after his arrival there (_c._ 50) on the Second Missionary Journey (Acts xv. 36--xviii. 22). We take "the churches of Galatia" to be those founded by Paul in company with Barnabas on the First Missionary Journey (Acts xiii.-xiv.), and revisited with Silas after a division of the recently evangelized territory whereby Cyprus had been left to Barnabas and Mark (Acts xv. 36--xvi. 5; _cf._ Gal. iv.

13).

The retrospect is in two parts: (1) a proof of the divine origin of Paul's apostleship and gospel by the independence of his conversion and missionary career; (2) an account of his defence of his "gospel of uncirc.u.mcision" on the two occasions when it had been threatened.

Visiting Jerusalem for the second time some fifteen years[7] after his conversion, he secured from its "pillars," James, Peter, and John, an unqualified, though "private," endors.e.m.e.nt. At Antioch subsequently he overcame renewed opposition by public exposure of the inconsistency of Peter, who had been won over by the reactionaries.

Footnote 7: Or perhaps thirteen. Gal. ii. 1 may reckon from the conversion (31-33). In both periods (Gal. i. 18, and ii. 1) both termini are counted.

Acts reverses Paul's point of view, making his career in the period of un.o.bstructed evangelization one of labour for Jews alone, in complete dependence on the Twelve. It practically excludes the period of opposition by a determination of the Gentile status in an 'Apostolic Council.' Paul is represented as simply acquiescing in this decision.

As described by Paul, the whole earlier period of fifteen years had been occupied by missionary effort for _Gentiles_, first at Damascus, afterwards "in the regions of Syria and Cilicia." It was interrupted only by a journey "to Arabia," and later, three years after his conversion, by a two-weeks' private visit to Peter in Jerusalem. In this period must fall most of the journeys and adventures of 2nd Cor. xi.

23-33. It was practically without contact with Judaea. His "gospel" was what G.o.d alone had taught him through an inward manifestation of the risen Jesus.

As described by Luke[8] the whole period was spent in the evangelization of Greek-speaking _Jews_, princ.i.p.ally at Jerusalem. This was Paul's chosen field, worked under direction of "the apostles." Only against his will[9] was he driven for refuge to Tarsus, whence Barnabas, who had first introduced him to the apostles, brought him to Antioch. There was no Gentile mission until Barnabas and he were by that church made its 'apostles.' This mission was on express direction of "the Spirit" (Acts ix. 19-30; xi. 25 f.; xiii. 1-3; _cf._ xxii. 10-21). Paul's apostleship to the Gentiles begins, then, according to Luke, with the First Missionary Journey, when in company with (and at first in subordination to) Barnabas he evangelizes Cyprus and southern Galatia.

The two are agents of Antioch, with "letters of commendation" from "the apostles and elders in Jerusalem" (Acts xv. 23-26). Paul is not an apostle of Christ in the same sense as the Twelve (_cf._ Acts i. 21 f.). He is a providential "vessel of the Spirit," ordained "by men and through men." His gospel is Peter's unaltered (_cf._ Acts xxvi. 16-23).

Footnote 8: We apply the name to the writer of Luke-Acts without prejudice to the question of authorship.

Footnote 9: Acts xxii. 10-21 is not quite consistent with xxvi.

15-18; but the general sense is clear.

There is even wider disparity regarding the period of opposition. Luke slightly postpones its beginning and very greatly antedates its suppression. Moreover, he makes Paul accept a solution which his letters emphatically repudiate.

According to Acts there was no opposition before the First Missionary Journey, for the excellent reason that there had been no Gentile propaganda.[10] There was no opposition after the Council called to consider it (Acts xv.), for the conclusive reason that "the apostles and elders" left nothing to dispute about. As soon as the objections were raised the church in Antioch laid the question before these authorities, sending Paul and Barnabas to testify. On their witness to the grace of G.o.d among the Gentiles, Peter (explicitly claiming for himself (!) this special apostleship, Acts xv. 7) proposes unconditional acknowledgment of Gentile liberty, referring to the precedent of Cornelius. In this there was general acquiescence. In fact the matter had really been decided before (Acts xi. 1-18). The only wholly new point was that raised by James in behalf of "the Jews among the Gentiles" (Acts xv. 21; _cf._ xxi. 21). For their sake it is held "necessary" to limit Gentile freedom on four points. They must abstain from three prohibited meats, and from fornication, for these convey the "pollution of idols." The "necessity" lies in the fact that _liberty from the Law is not conceded to Jews_. They will be (involuntarily) defiled if they eat with their Gentile brethren unprotected. "Fornication" is added because (in the words of an ancient Jewish Christian) it "differs from all other sins in that it defiles not only the sinner, but those also _who eat or a.s.sociate with him_." Paul and Barnabas, according to Luke, gladly accepted these "decrees," and Paul distributed them "for to keep" among his converts in Galatia (!). _Peter_ is the apostle to the Gentiles.

Antioch and Jerusalem decide the question of their status. The terms of fellowship are those of _James_ and Peter.

Footnote 10: Cornelius' case (Acts x.-xi. 18) is exceptional, and no propaganda follows. The reading "Greeks" in Acts xi. 20, though required by the sense and therefore adopted by the English translators, is not supported by the textual evidence. Luke has here corrected his source to suit his theory, just as in x. 1--xi. 18 he pa.s.ses by the true significance of the story, which really deals with the question of _eating_ with Gentiles (xi. 3, 7 f.).

Paul has no mention of either Council or 'decrees.' His terms of fellowship positively exclude both. He falls back upon the private Conference, and lays bare a story of agonizing struggle to make effective its recognition of the equality and independence of Gentile Christianity. The struggle is a result of his resistance to emissaries "from James" at Antioch, who had brought over all the Jewish element in that mixed church, including Peter and "even Barnabas" to terms of fellowship acceptable to the Pillars. After the collision at Antioch Paul leaves the "regions of Syria and Cilicia," and transfers the scene of his missionary efforts to the Greek world between the Taurus range and the Adriatic. For the next ten years we see him on the one side conducting an independent mission, proclaiming the doctrine of the Cross as inaugurating a new era, wherein law has been done away, and Jew and Gentile have "access in one Spirit unto the Father." On the other he is defending this gospel of 'grace' against unscrupulous Jewish-Christian traducers, and labouring to reconcile differences between his own followers and those of 'the circ.u.mcision' who are not actively hostile, but only have taken 'offence.' Throughout the period, until the arrest in Jerusalem which ends his career as an evangelist, Paul stands alone as champion of unrestricted Gentile liberty and equality. He cannot admit terms of fellowship which imply a continuance of the legal dispensation. Jewish Christians may keep circ.u.mcision and the customs if they wish; but may not hold or recommend them as conferring the slightest advantage in G.o.d's sight. He will not admit the doctrine of salvation by faith _with_ works of law. Jew as well as Gentile must have "died to the Law." There is no "justification" except "by faith _apart_ from works of law."[11]

Footnote 11: The a.s.sertion has recently been made in very high quarters on the basis of 1st Cor. vii. 18 that Paul also took the "apostolic" view that the Christian of Jewish birth remains under obligation to keep the law. One would think Paul had not added verse 19!

Unless we distinctly apprehend the deep difference, almost casually brought out by this question of the (converted) Jew among Gentiles and his obligation to eat with his Gentile brother, a difference between 'apostolic' Christianity as Luke gives it, and the 'gospel' of Paul, we can have no adequate appreciation of the great Epistles produced during this period of conflict. The basis of Luke's pleasing picture of peace and concord is a fundamentally different conception of the relation of Law and Grace. Paul and Luke both hold that the Mosaic commandments are not binding on _Gentiles_. The point of difference--and Paul's own account of his Conference with the Pillars goes to show that Luke's idea is also theirs; else why need there be a division of 'spheres of influence'?--is Paul's doctrine that the believing Jew _as well as the Gentile_ is "dead to the Law." And this doctrine was never accepted south of the Taurus range.

Agreement and union were sure to come, if only by the rapid disappearance from the church after 70 A.D. of the element of the circ.u.mcised, and the progressive realization in 'Syria and Cilicia' of the impracticability of the Jerusalem-Antioch plan of requiring Gentiles to make their tables innocuous to the legalist. If only the partic.i.p.ation of Paul and Barnabas be excluded from the story of Acts xv. (or better, restored to its proper sequence after Acts xi. 30) we have every reason to accept Luke's account of an Apostolic Council held at Jerusalem not long after "Peter came to Antioch" to settle between the churches of northern and southern Syria the knotty question of the Christian Jew's eating or not eating with Gentiles. It is almost certain that Syria did adopt this modus vivendi for "the brethren which are of the Gentiles _in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia_" (Acts xv. 23); for we can trace its gradual obsolescence there. In Revelation (a book of Palestinian origin republished at Ephesus _c._ 95; _cf._ Rev. ii. 14, 20, 24) in the _Teaching of the Twelve_ (125), and in the 'Western' text of Acts xv. (150?) there is a progressive scaling down of the 'burden.'

Gentiles are at last asked to do almost nothing more than Paul had demanded on moral grounds without recognition of the validity of "distinctions of meats." In A.D. 120 the 'burden' is: "Concerning meats, keep what thou art able; however, abstain at all events from things offered to idols, for it is the food of dead G.o.ds."

But to take Luke's account of how peace was restored, with its implication that the Pauline gospel as developed in Greek Christendom between the Taurus range and the Adriatic was nothing more than a branch from the parent stock of the 'apostolic' church in "Syria and Cilicia,"

would be like viewing the history of the United States from the standpoint of a British imperialist of a period of Anglo-Saxon reunion in A.D. 2000, who should omit entirely the American War of Independence, holding that Washington and Franklin after bearing testimony before Parliament accepted for the colonies a plan of settlement prepared by a Liberal Government which reduced to a minimum the obnoxious requirements of the Tories.

The history of this period of the development of the independent 'gospel' of Paul and of his independent churches is so vital, and so confused by generations of well-meaning 'harmonizers,' that we must take time to contrast once more Luke's theory of the process of reunion with Paul's.

_In Acts Paul takes precisely the view of Peter and James._ He is himself 'under the Law.' He does _not_ disregard it even among Gentiles.

On the contrary, he sets an example of scrupulous legality to the Jews among the Gentiles, himself 'walking orderly, keeping the Law.' The statement that he "teaches them to forsake Moses, telling them not to circ.u.mcise their children, nor to obey the customs" is a calumny (!) which he takes public occasion to disprove (Acts xxi. 20-26). Before the Sanhedrin he emphatically declares himself a consistent Pharisee (Acts xxiii. 1, 6); before Felix and Festus, blameless by the standard of Law and Prophets (xxiv. 14-16; xxv. 8); before Agrippa, a strict Pharisee in his conduct hitherto (xxvi. 5, 22 f.). t.i.tus, whose circ.u.mcision Paul strenuously resisted, is never mentioned in Acts. Conversely Timothy (a Jew only on his mother's side) Paul "took and circ.u.mcised" immediately after the Jerusalem Council "because of the Jews that were in those parts" (Galatia!). His visit with Barnabas to Jerusalem is not occasioned by opposition to Gentile missions, though it falls between Barnabas' mission from Jerusalem to investigate the alarming reports of Gentile conversions at Antioch, and the First Missionary Journey on which the two take with them Mark, who had accompanied them from Jerusalem. No; according to Luke Gentile missions did not yet exist[12](!). This visit (that of the Conference, Gal. ii. 1-10) was merely to convey a gift from the Antioch church to that of Jerusalem because of the famine "about that time" (it occurred in 46-47).

Conversely the great 'offering of the Gentiles' made at the risk of Paul's life in company with delegates from each province of his field, as a proffer of peace, the enterprise which occupies so large a place in his effort and his letters of this period (1st Cor. xvi. 1-6; 2nd Cor.

8-9; Rom. xv. 15, 16, 25-32), has in Acts no relation to the controversy--for the demonstration of Paul's exemplary legalism in the temple is merely incidental. The gift Paul brought was "alms to my nation" (!) (Acts xxiv. 17). The reader asks in vain what necessitates this dangerous journey. The only motives a.s.signed are a Nazarite vow a.s.sumed in Cenchreae (xviii. 18; xxi. 24), and regard for the Jewish feasts (xx. 16).

Footnote 12: On the reading "Greeks" in Acts xi. 20 see Footnote 10 above., p. 59.

The background of history against which the modern reader must place the great letters of Paul of the first period, is manifestly something quite different from the mere unsifted story of Acts. Their real origin is in a profound difference in Paul's idea of 'the gospel' and the necessity of defending the independence of it and of the Gentile churches founded on it. The difference originates in Paul's own religious experience. It found its first expression in his ant.i.thesis of Law and Grace, his doctrine that the cross marks the abolition of the economy of Law.

Both in Galatians and everywhere else Paul treats on equal terms with the representatives of the "apostleship of the circ.u.mcision." He denounces Peter and "the rest of the Jews," including "even Barnabas,"

at Antioch, after they have withdrawn from Gentile fellowship in order to preserve their legal 'cleanness,' and the point of the denunciation is that this is inconsistent with _their_ (implied) abandonment of the Law as a means of salvation when they "sought to be justified by faith in Christ." This makes their conduct not only inconsistent but cowardly and "hypocritical."

Here is something far deeper than a mere question of policy. Paul's att.i.tude shows that from the beginning he has really been preaching "a different gospel." A gospel _about_ Christ in which the central fact is the cross as the token of the abolition of a dispensation of Law wherein Jew and Gentile alike were in a servile relation to G.o.d, under angelic (or demonic) "stewards and governors," and the inauguration of a dispensation of Grace, wherein all who have 'faith' and receive in baptism the gift of 'the Spirit,' are thereby adopted to be G.o.d's sons.

Beside this cosmic drama of the cross and resurrection wherein G.o.d reveals his redemptive purpose for the world, the mere inculcation of the easy yoke of Jesus as a new Law, simplifying and supplementing the old by restoring the doctrine of forgiveness for the repentant believer (_cf._ Matt. xxviii. 20; Acts x. 42 f.; xiii. 39; xxvi. 22 f.) seems only half a gospel.

Paul can never surrender the independence of his G.o.d-given message, nor the liberty wherewith Christ has made all believers free in abolishing the economy of law and making them "sons" by the Spirit. And yet he is even more determined to achieve peace and reunion than the apostles 'of the circ.u.mcision'; only he has a different plan. Paul and his churches fall back upon the Jerusalem Conference, not upon the 'Apostolic Council.' The Conference is their Magna Carta. Its recognition of Paul's independent gospel and apostleship as no less divine than Peter's is their guarantee of liberty and equality; its request for brotherly aid is their promise of fraternity.

Approaches were made on both sides. It is true the ill-advised attempt of the Judaizers to secure unity by a renewal of their propaganda of the Law, seducing the Greek churches from their loyalty to Paul and his gospel, provoked from him only such thunderbolts as Galatians, with its defence of "the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free," or 2nd Cor.

x. 1 to xiii. 10, with its denunciation of the "ministers of Satan."

Peace through surrender was not to Paul's mind. But the sincere attempt of the followers of Peter to find a _modus vivendi_, even if they did not venture to claim liberty from the Law for themselves, found Paul prepared to go more than half-way. His epistles are not more remarkable for their strenuous defence of the liberty of Son ship, than for their insistence on the obligation of brotherly love. His churches must be not only morally pure for their own sakes, but must avoid offences to the more scrupulous. Even that which Christian liberty allows must be sacrificed to the scruples of the 'weak,' if only it be not "unto doubtful disputations," or demanded as of right. From 1st Thessalonians (Corinth, A.D. 50), where, in the absence of all Judaizing opposition Paul merely exhibits his simple gospel of the resurrection and judgment to come, unaffected by questions of Law and Grace, on through Galatians with its sublime polemic for the liberty of sons, to the Corinthian correspondence, with its insistence on the duty of consideration and forbearance, its stronger note of love, its revelation of the widespread, strenuous exertions of Paul to promote his great 'offering,'

down to Romans, where the 'offering of the Gentiles' is ready to be made (Rom. xv. 16-33), and Paul is sedulously preparing to enter a great new field already partially occupied, by presenting a full and superlatively conciliatory statement of his entire 'gospel' (i. 15-17), there is steady progress toward the "peace" and "acceptance" which he hopes to find in Jerusalem. The later Epistles, with their different phase of conflict, the very att.i.tude of 'apostolic' Christianity toward Paul, as exhibited in Acts, make it incredible that substantial unity was not in fact secured.[13] We cannot, indeed, accept Luke's representation of Paul as performing the Nazarite ceremonial in the temple in order to prove _that he does not teach that the Law is not binding on Jews_. But it does not follow that Paul may not have done even this to prove that his principle of accommodation to the weak (1st Cor. ix. 19-22) left ample room for fellowship with the Jewish Christian--except when (as with Peter and Barnabas at Antioch) the needless scruples of the legalist were made a pretext for "compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews."

Footnote 13: The actual outcome is seen in the reduction of the 'burden' to the two items of abstinence from "fornication and from things offered to idols." Paul's nicer distinctions under the latter head (1st Cor. viii. 1-13, x. 14-23) as well as his distinction between the ceremonial and the moral grounds for abstinence, were disregarded.

Had unity been attained through the simple process imagined by Luke, obedient acquiescence of Paul and the Gentiles in the divinely inspired verdict of "the apostles and elders in Jerusalem," Christianity would have been an immeasurably poorer thing than it became. Indeed, it is questionable whether a gospel of mere simplification, extension and supplementation of the Law would ever have made permanent conquest of the Gentile world. It is because Paul stood out on this question of 'meats' for the equal right of his independent gospel, refusing submission until his great ten-years' work of evangelization by tongue and pen had made Gentile Christianity a factor of at least equal importance with Jewish, that our religion was enriched by its h.e.l.lenistic strain. The deeper insight into the real significance of Jesus' work and fate born of Paul's peculiar experience and his h.e.l.lenistic apprehension of the gospel found embodiment in the beginnings of a New Testament literature. The writings of this period must accordingly be viewed against the background of a critical history.

Luke's account, written in the interest of "apostolic" authority, must receive such modifications as the contemporary doc.u.ments require.

Taking up the story at the point of divergence we see Paul and Barnabas returning to Antioch after the Conference with the Pillars, glad at heart, and expecting now to resume the work for Gentiles without impediment. Besides t.i.tus, John Mark of Jerusalem, a nephew of Barnabas, accompanied them. The Missionary Journey to Cyprus and (southern) Galatia follows, Mark returning, however, to Jerusalem after leaving Cyprus.

It was probably during the absence of the missionaries that "Peter came to Antioch" and, at first, followed the Pauline practice of disregarding 'distinctions of meats.' Later, on arrival of certain "from James" he "drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circ.u.mcision."

While matters were at this stage Paul and Barnabas reappeared on the scene. Paul thought it necessary to rebuke Peter "openly, before them all." Barnabas, former head of the Antioch church, took sides with Peter and "the rest of the Jews," doubtless determining the att.i.tude of the church; for Paul says nothing of prevailing upon them by his argument, but merely turns it at once upon the Galatians themselves. Moreover, Barnabas now takes Cyprus as his mission field, with Mark as his helper, while Paul with a new companion, Silva.n.u.s (in Acts "Silas," a bearer of the 'decrees' from Jerusalem), takes the northern half of the newly evangelized territory, and through much difficulty and opposition makes his way to the coasts of the aegean.

This second visit to the churches of Galatia (Acts xvi. 1-5) was signalized by warnings against the (possible) preaching of "another gospel" (Gal. i. 9); for Paul had reason to antic.i.p.ate trouble from the "false brethren." If Acts may be believed, it was also marked by an extraordinary evidence of Paul's readiness to "become all things to all men" in the interest of conciliation. He is said to have circ.u.mcised a Galatian half-Jew named Timothy. If so, it was certainly not to prove his respect for the legal requirement, but rather its indifference.

"Circ.u.mcision is nothing and uncirc.u.mcision nothing; only faith working through love." But these generous 'accommodations' of Paul produced more of misrepresentation than of conciliation. He had cause to regret his liberality later (Gal. i. 10; v. 11 f.; _cf._ 1st Cor. vii. 18).

Some unexplained obstacle (Acts xvi. 6) prevented Paul's entrance into the Province of Asia at this time. Ephesus, his probable objective, had perhaps already been occupied (xviii. 24-28). He turned north through Phrygia-Galatia, hoping to find a field in Bithynia, but was again disappointed. At Troas, the very extremity of Asia, came the turning-point in the fortunes of the missionaries. Encouraged by a vision they crossed into Macedonia and found fields white for the harvest.

The Epistles to Thessalonica address one of these Macedonian churches from Corinth, whither the missionaries have been driven. Timothy had been sent back from Athens when Paul's own repeated attempts to return had been frustrated, and has just arrived with good news of the church's perseverance in spite of a persecution stirred up by the Jews. It is against these, apparently, not against Jewish-Christian detractors, that Paul defends his character and message (1st Thess. ii. 1-13). There is also an urgent warning against fornication (iv. 1-8) and exhortation to abound in love (iv. 9-12), with correction of the natural Greek tendency to misapprehend the Jewish eschatology and resurrection-doctrine (iv.

13--v. 1-11; _cf._ 1st Cor. xv.). The closing admonitions relate to the direction of church meetings and discipline.

2nd Thessalonians corrects and supplements the eschatology of 1st Thessalonians by adding a doctrine of Antichrist, which is at all events thoroughly Jewish and earlier than 70, when the temple was destroyed in which it expects the manifestation of "the man of sin." It is the only one of the Epistles of this period whose authenticity is seriously questioned by critical scholarship. How little this affects the question of Paul's 'gospel' may be seen by the fact that the entire contents cover less than 3 per cent. of the earlier Epistles, while the subject is a mere detail.

Far more significant is it to observe the close correspondence between the missionary preaching of Paul as here described by himself (1st Thess. i. 9 f.) and the general apostolic message (_kerygma_) as described by Luke (Acts x. 42 f.; xiv. 15-17; xvii. 24-31). Where there are no Judaizers there is no reference to the dispensations of Law and Grace and the abolition of the former in the Cross. The doctrine is the common gospel of the Resurrection, wherein Jesus has been manifested as the Messiah. Faith in him secures forgiveness to the repentant; all others are doomed to perish in the judgment shown by his 'manifestation'

to be at hand (_cf._ 1st Cor. xv. 11; Rom. i. 3-5).

Galatians was written but slightly before (or after?) the letters to Thessalonica. Its single theme (after the retrospect) is the Adoption to Son ship through the Spirit. Against the Judaizer's plea that to share in the Inheritance one must be adopted (preferably by circ.u.mcision) into the family of Abraham, or at all events pay respect to the Mosaic Law, Paul a.s.serts the single fact of the adoption of the Spirit. "It is because ye are sons that G.o.d sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts crying (in the ecstatic utterances of 'tongues') Abba, that is, Father" (Gal. iv. 6). To go back to legal observances is to revert from redemption to bondage. All Christians are indeed sons of Abraham, but only as sharers of his trust in G.o.d. Abraham was made "heir of the world" (Rom. iv. 13) for his faith. Circ.u.mcision and the Law came afterwards. They were not superimposed stipulations and conditions of the promise. On the contrary they were temporary pedagogic measures intended to produce the consciousness of sin and (moral) death, so that when the Heir should come men should be ready to cast themselves on the mercy of G.o.d displayed in his vicarious death.[14] Thus the messianic Redemption is a redemption from a system issuing in sin and death. On the cross even the sinless Christ incurred the curse in order that believers thus redeemed might have the Blessing of the Abrahamic promise (Gal. iii. 1--iv. 7).

Footnote 14: Romans enlarges the conception of the economy of Law by making it include the Gentile law of 'conscience' (Rom. i. 18--ii.

16). In Galatians this point is covered only by cla.s.sing the "angels" through whom the Mosaic Law was given, with the "Elements"

honoured in Gentile religion. Both are codes of "stewards and governors."

But this transfer from bondage to liberty, from the legal to the filial relation, does not "make Christ a minister of sin." On the contrary, if the delivering Spirit of Son ship has been received at all, it controls the life for purity and love. One cannot be a son and be unfilial or unbrotherly. The unity of the redeemed world in Christ is the unity of loving service, not of subjection to a bygone system of rules (iv.

8--vi. 18). Thus does Galatians meet the insidious plea of the Judaizers, and their charges against Pauline liberty.

The church founded by Paul in Corinth (Acts xviii. 1-17) was grounded from the beginning in this doctrine of the Cross. Paul purposely restricted himself to it (1st Cor. i. 17-25; ii. 1-5). He had indeed a world-view, of which we learn more in the Epistles of the Captivity, a philosophy revealed by the Spirit as a "mystery of G.o.d." Those who afterwards in Corinth came to call themselves followers "of Apollos" had nothing to teach him on this score. But consideration of this Grecizing tendency, too often issuing in a mere "philosophy and vain deceit after the Elements of the world and not after Christ" (Col. ii. 8), must be deferred, in favour of questions which became more immediately pressing.

For after Paul had left Corinth to make a brief visit via Ephesus to Caesarea and Antioch, and had returned through the now pacified Galatian churches to make Ephesus his permanent headquarters (Acts xviii. 18-23), he received disturbing news of conditions in Corinth. Under Apollos (now at Ephesus with Paul) an Alexandrian convert thoroughly indoctrinated with Paul's gospel (Acts xviii. 24-28) the church had flourished, but discussions had subsequently arisen, resulting in a letter to Paul asking his advice on disputed points. Besides this there were moral blemishes. First the factious strife itself, of which Paul has learnt from newcomers from Corinth; secondly a case of unpunished incest. A previous letter from Paul (now lost, or but partially preserved in 2nd Cor. vi. 14--vii. 1) had required the church "to have no company with fornicators." The church, making the application general, had pleaded the impracticability of "going out of the world." Paul now explains: "If any man _that is named a brother_ be a fornicator ... with such a one no, not to eat." After further rebuke for litigiousness, and a lack of moral tone, especially in the matter of "fornication" (ch. vi.), Paul takes up seriatim "the things whereof ye wrote." We are chiefly interested in the long section (viii. 1--xi. 1) on "things offered to idols" wherein Paul instructs those who would be imitators of his freedom, but who forget that he has always refused to a.s.sert his rights when thereby the 'weak' were stumbled. Moreover fornication is never among the permissible things, nor even the eating of meats offered to idols _at the heathen banquet itself_. Such food is un.o.bjectionable only when it has been sold in the market, and can be eaten without 'offence.'