The purpose of this thesis is to get a true view of the apostle as a man - to see him as he was. Orello Cone thinks that certain events recorded in the Book of Acts, such as the Decree of the Jerusalem Conference, the. Baur himself accepted 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians and Romans as the undoubted products of the apostle.
It will also help resolve the problem of the apparent conflict between Acts and the Epistles regarding certain events in the apostle's life.
CHAPTER I
Most likely the work he did in Tarsus and Cilicia was within the scope of. Another consideration that points in the direction of preserving the ~w~nd~ is the continued existence of the Judaizin.g controversy. It could even be interpreted as having a certain significance for the salvation of the Gentiles, so that in the light of.
Again, in dealing with the issue of fornication (1 Corinthians 5), Paul never refers to the Jerusalem Conference.
CHAPTER II
A study of the case of Titus will be useful to properly evaluate the circumcision of Timothy. And despite the opinions of these leading men to the contrary, it is extremely doubtful that Titus was circumcised. The most natural meaning of the language in Galatians 2:3 is that Titus did not submit to the rite.
Baur believes that this act “undoubtedly belongs to the simply incredible side of the Acts of the Apostles11 •2 He believes that it did not happen,.
CHAPTER III
The Judaizing controversy was one of the most important events in Paul's life, demanding much of his attention from the time of the Jerusalem Conference until the end of the third missionary journey, and even then it did not stop. In fact, it continued from the time of the conference throughout Paul's life, though not in such violent form in later years. Several issues related to this dispute have some bearing on the subject of this paper and must now be considered.
He was constantly moving in an atmosphere of conflict; he was usually fighting something or someone, and most of the time he was fighting them. In many places where he went, some kind of strife soon followed; there were plots and a counter•. Part of the answer to these questions can be found in the fact that Paul was a recognized leader of the Gentile Freedom Party.
Most of Jesus' work was confined to the borders of the Jewish land and the Jewish population. Jerusalem decree, which set forth certain ceremonial matters as 11necessary11, and actually handed that decree to some of the churches. Charges against Paul £l the Judaizers.--The mistakes and the harsh words were not entirely on the side of the Judaizers.
Accusations that Paul made against the Judaizers.--Paul also kept up his part of the battle. They may have been guilty of the charge, but such an accusation against one's fellow ministers is certainly not very wise.
CHAPTER IV
This change involved several matters: (1) Paul became the leader of the party in place of Barnabas. 34;He [Mark] may have been offended by the change that had quietly taken place in the management •••• Or. Who did not at times seek to go against the wishes of the Holy Spirit.
This is seen in God's words to Ananias: "He LPau!] is a chosen vessel for me, to bear my name before the Heavens. This is one of the main conclusions that Sir William Ramsay reaches in his book. , " str. There is no notice of such a purpose at the beginning of Paul's work, and no definite allusion to it either in the Acts of the Apostles or in the Epistles until the close of the Third Missionary Journey.
Such an intention most clearly implies an idea that already existed in Paul's mind about Christianity as the religion of the. Roman Empire •••• From the center of the Roman world, Paul would continue to the headquarters of Roman civilization in the West, completing a first sur•. This is sufficiently true, but it is not until the end of the Third Voyage that such an idea is clearly stated.
Some of the many changes to the plan mentioned in the preceding pages may seem inconsistent with certain previously announced intentions, but for the most part they are all consistent with Paul's great life purpose. In fact, in most cases they furthered that great life purpose, as each change seems to be more in the direction of going to the Gentiles.
CHAPTER V
The cutting of the hair in Cenchreae and the vow mentioned in Acts 18:18 represent another of those problems in the study of Paul's life that fall within the scope of this paper. According to Numbers 6:13, the Nazirite must break his vow at the door of the tent of meeting.” It may also be that the hair was cut at the beginning of the vow and left to grow.
It is uncertain whether the haircut should refer to Paul or Aquila. Meyer thinks that the order of the names in this verse, Priscilla coming first, indicates that the haircut should be referred to. This event is the subject of many divisions by commentators: 11 The beheading is re~.
In either case (ie at the beginning or end of the period), if a Nazirite vow, a visit to Jerusalem would be necessary. It has been suggested that in Cenchreae Paul took the vow and cut his hair, marking the beginning of the period, the vow being completed in Jerusalem on his last stay there with the four men (Acts 21:26). Hanson,4 and many other dignitaries believe that this is the promise of the Nazarene; Conybeare and Howson, 5 W .
Tnis was also at the time of the Judaic controversy, when his opponents could use this act as an argument. 34. By taking this Nazarite vow, Paul, upon his arrival in the Holy City, desired that he would rededicate himself to the worship and service of the God of his fathers.
CHAPTER VI
He had already made up his mind to go to Jerusalem independently of Pentecost, and since he was going to the holy city anyway, he thought it well to be there on the day of that feast, or at least at the time of some party. important party. Paul's purpose when he went to Jerusalem was to reconcile the Jewish Christians there and to get rid of the canker sores that were behind him. These other things—the collection for the poor saints, the celebration of the feast, and the "offerings," whatever their nature, were involved and contributed to that end.
But this was not the Holy Spirit; this verse simply ex-. prompts an inner feeling of the apostle that he must go. again, however, merely an assertion of Paul's own determination. This may be like saying that it is God's will for Paul to go;. but it seems more like a mere resignation on the part of Christians, or a hope that the will of God, whatever it may be—and it does not seem to be. clearly recognized in this case - can be done. This appears to be a direct command of the Holy Spirit to Paul not to go, at least as interpreted by the disciples.
This is the most definite indication of the Divine will in the matter, and it is clearly on the side of Paul's staying away from Jerusalem. But Paul himself was more fully and correctly aware of. the will of the Spirit. And the words spoken by the prophet made the matter more emphatic: "Thus says the Holy Spirit: Thus the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles" (Acts 21 :11). .
Interpretation of the Divine Voice.--Now what can be made of all these expressions of the divine voice. God's call certainly does not override the duty of personal judgment, and also the duty to consider all the circumstances bearing on the case.
CHAPTER VIII
CHAPTER VII
He must have said something like this when dealing with the case of the circumcision of the Jewish son. Paul's letters; for it directly acknowledges the abrogation of the Jewish law as the instrument of salvation, even to the Jews themselves. People must be eternally grateful to Paul because he is partly to blame for the accusations that were brought against him in Jerusalem.
It was certainly meant that Paul must follow the "suggestion" if he was to keep the grace of the church in Jerusalem. He was not as meticulous an observer of the ceremonial law as the elders wanted to make him out to be. Finally, by this action Paul may have wanted to communicate that he had kept the modified form of the law, that the modified form permits-.
It has been suggested that this "seven days" was the time that must elapse between the priest's announcement of the completion of 2. These "seven days11 may refer to the time required for purification and the presentation of the necessary offerings. Undoubtedly, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, though they would probably have parted company with Paul on "the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15).
The Jewish books are not clear on this point; this was a matter of dispute among the doctors of the law. His initial mistake was his assent to the political proposal of the Presbytery. Robertson himself shows in another of his great works.1 Paul's visit to the Holy City and his action in the temple changed very little the views and attitude of the church at Jerusalem; this church later maintained almost the same policy as before.
Paul's behavior before the Sanhedrin is also a bit surprising, because it is not quite what one would expect from the great apostle to the Gentiles.