We are very familiar with one division which ran through the Jewish nation in the first century. The Sadducees and Pharisees are frequently mentioned in the New Testament, and we are there informed of the tenets of these two prevailing parties. The belief in a future state may be said to have been an open question among the Jews, when our Lord appeared and "brought life and immortality to light." We find the Sadducees established in the highest office of the priesthood, and possessed of the greatest powers in the Sanhedrin: and yet they did not believe in any future state, nor in any spiritual existence independent of the body. The Sadducees said that there was "no resurrection, neither Angel nor Spirit." ( Act. 23:8. See Mat. 22:23-34.) They do not appear to have held doctrines which are commonly called licentious or immoral. On the contrary, they adhered strictly to the moral tenets of the Law, as opposed to its mere formal technicalities. They did not overload the Sacred Books with traditions, or encumber the duties of life with a multitude of minute observances. They were the disciples of reason without enthusiasm, — they made few proselytes, — their numbers were not great, and they were confined principally to the richer members of the nation. (f85) The Pharisees, on the other hand, were the enthusiasts of the later Judaism. They "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte." Their power and influence with the mass of the people was immense. The loss of the national independence of the Jews, — the gradual extinction of their political life, directly by the Romans, and indirectly by the family of Herod, — caused their feelings to rally round their Law and their Religion, as the only center of unity which now remained to them. Those, therefore, who gave their energies to the interpretation and exposition of the Law, not curtailing any of the doctrines which were virtually contained in it and which had been revealed with more or less clearness, but rather accumulating articles of faith, and multiplying the requirements of devotion; — who themselves practiced a severe and ostentatious religion, being liberal in alms-giving, fasting frequently, making long prayers, and carrying casuistical distinctions into the smallest details of conduct; — who consecrated, moreover, their best zeal and exertions to the spread of the fame of Judaism, and to the increase of the nation’s power in the only way which now was practicable, — could not fail to command the reverence of great numbers of the people. It was no longer possible to fortify Jerusalem against the Heathen: but the Law could be fortified like an impregnable city. The place of the brave is on the walls and in the front of the battle: and the hopes of the nation rested on those who defended the sacred outworks, and made successful inroads on the territories of the Gentiles.
Such were the Pharisees. And now, before proceeding to other features of Judaism and their relation to the Church, we can hardly help glancing at St. Paul. He was "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee," (Act. 23:6.) and he was educated by Gamaliel, (Act. 22:3.) "a Pharisee." (Act. 5:34.) Both his father and his teacher belonged to this sect. And on three distinct occasions he tells us that he himself was a member of it. Once when at his trial, before a mixed assembly of Pharisees and Sadducees, the words just quoted were spoken, and his connection with the Pharisees asserted with such effect, that the feelings of this popular party were immediately enlisted on his side. "And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the multitude was divided… And there arose a great cry; and the Scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, we find no evil in this man." (Acts 23.) The second time was, when, on a calmer occasion, he was pleading before Agrippa, and said to the king in the presence of Festus:"The Jews knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straightest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee." (Acts 26.) And once more, when writing from Rome to the Philippians, he gives force to his argument against the Judaizers, by telling them that if any other man thought he had whereof he might trust in the flesh, he himself had more, — "circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the Law, a Pharisee." (Php. 3:4.) And not only was he himself a Pharisee, but his father also. He was "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee." This short sentence sums up nearly all we know of St. Paul’s parents. If we think of his earliest life, we are to conceive of him as born in a Pharisaic family, and as brought up from his infancy in the "straightest sect of the Jews’ religion." His childhood was nurtured in the strictest belief. The stories of the Old Testament, — the angelic appearances, — the prophetic visions, — to him were literally true. They needed no Sadducean explanation. The world of spirits was a reality to him. The resurrection of the dead was an article of his faith. And to exhort him to the practices of religion, he had before him the example of his father, praying and walking with broad phylacteries, scrupulous and exact in his legal observances. He had, moreover, as it seems, the memory and tradition of ancestral piety; for he tells us in one of his latest letters, (2Ti. 1:3.) that he served God "from his forefathers." All influences combined to make him "more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of his fathers," (Gal. 1:14.) and "touching the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless." (Php. 3:6.) Every thing tended to prepare him to be an eminent member of that theological party, to which so many of the Jews were looking for the preservation of their national life, and the extension of their national creed.
But in this mention of the Pharisees and Sadducees, we are far from exhausting the subject of Jewish divisions, and far from enumerating all those phases of opinion which must have had some connection with the growth of rising Christianity, and all those elements which may have contributed to form the character of the Apostle of the Heathen. There was a sect in Judaea which is not mentioned in the Scriptures, but which must have acquired considerable influence in the time of the Apostles, as may be inferred from the space devoted to it by Josephus (f86) and Philo. These were the Essenes, who retired from the theological and political distractions of Jerusalem and the larger towns, and founded peaceful communities in the desert or in villages, where their life was spent in contemplation, and in the practices of ascetic piety. It has been suggested that John the Baptist was one of them. There is no proof that this was the case: but we need not doubt that they did represent religious cravings which Christianity satisfied. Another party was that of the Zealots, (f87) who were as politically fanatical as the Essenes were religiously contemplative, and whose zeal was kindled with the burning desire to throw off the Roman yoke from the neck of Israel. Very different from them were the Herodians , twice mentioned in the Gospels, (Mar. 3:6; Mat. 22:16:see Mar. 12:13.) who held that the hopes of Judaism rested on the Herods, and who almost looked to that family for the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Messiah. And if we were simply enumerating the divisions and describing the sects of the Jews, it would be necessary to mention the Therapeutoe, (f88) a widely-spread community in Egypt, who lived even in greater seclusion than the Essenes in Judaea. The Samaritans also would require our attention. But we must turn from these sects and parties to a wider division, which arose from that dispersion of the Hebrew people, to which some space has been devoted in the preceding chapter.
We have seen that early colonies of the Jews were settled in Babylonia and Mesopotamia. Their connection with their brethren in Judaea was continually maintained: and they were bound to them by the link of a common language. The Jews of Palestine and Syria, with those who lived on the Tigris and Euphrates, interpreted the Scriptures through the Targums (f89) or Chaldee paraphrases, and spoke kindred dialects of the language of Aram:(f90) and hence they were called Aramoean Jews. We have also had occasion to notice that other dispersion of the nation through those countries where Greek was spoken. Their settlements began with Alexander’s conquests, and were continued under the successors of those who partitioned his empire. Alexandria was their capital. They used the Septuagint translation of the Bible; (f91) and they were commonly called Hellenists, or Jews of the Grecian speech.
The mere difference of language would account in some degree for the mutual dislike with which we know that these two sections of the Jewish race regarded one another. We were all aware how closely the use of an hereditary dialect is bound up with the warmest feelings of the heart. And in this case the Aramaean language was the sacred tongue of Palestine. It is true that the tradition of the language of the Jews had been broken, as the continuity of their political life had been rudely interrupted. The Hebrew of the time of Christ was not the oldest Hebrew of the Israelites; but it was a kindred dialect, and old enough to command a reverent affection. Though not the language of Moses and David, it was that of Ezra and Nehemiah. And it is not unnatural that the Aramaeans should have revolted from the speech of the Greek idolaters and the tyrant Antiochus, (f92) — a speech which they associated moreover with innovating doctrines and dangerous speculations.
For the division went deeper than a mere superficial diversity of speech. It was not only a division, like the modern one of German and Spanish Jews, where those who hold substantially the same doctrines have accidentally been led to speak different languages. But there was a diversity of religious views and opinions. This is not the place for examining that system of mystic interpretation called the Cabala, (f93) and for determining how far its origin might be due to Alexandria or to Babylon. It is enough to say, generally, that in the Aramaean theology, Oriental elements prevailed rather than Greek, and that the subject of Babylonian influences has more connection with the life of St. Peter than that of St. Paul. The Hellenists, on the other hand, or Jews who spoke Greek, who lived in Greek countries, and were influenced by Greek civilization, are associated in the closest manner with the Apostle of the Gentiles. They are more than once mentioned in. the Acts, where our English translation names them "Grecians," to distinguish them from the Heathen or proselyte "Greeks." (f94) Alexandria was the metropolis of their theology. Philo was their great representative. He was an old man when St. Paul was in his maturity: his writings were probably known to the Apostles; and they have descended with the inspired Epistles to our own day. The work of the learned Hellenists may be briefly described as this, — to accommodate Jewish doctrines to the mind of the Greeks, and to make the Greek language express the mind of the Jews. The Hebrew principles were "disengaged as much as possible from local and national conditions, and presented in a form adapted to the Hellenic world." All this was hateful to the zealous Aramaeans. The men of the East rose up against those of the West. The Greek learning was not more repugnant to the Roman Cato, than it was to the strict Hebrews. They had a saying, "Cursed be he who teacheth his son the learning of the Greeks." (f95) We could imagine them using the words of the prophet Joel (Joe. 3:6), "The children of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them from their border:" and we cannot be surprised that, even in the deep peace and charity of the Church’s earliest days, this inveterate division re-appeared, and that, "when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews." (Act. 6:1.)
It would be an interesting subject of inquiry to ascertain in what proportions these two parties were distributed in the different countries where the Jews were dispersed, in what places they came into the strongest collision, and how far they were fused and united together. In the city of Alexandria, the emporium of Greek commerce from the time of its foundation, where, since the earliest Ptolemies, literature, philosophy, and criticism had never ceased to excite the utmost intellectual activity, where the Septuagint translation of the Scripture had been made, (f96) and where a Jewish temple and ceremonial worship had been established in rivalry to that in Jerusalem, (f97) — there is no doubt that the Hellenistic element largely prevailed. But although (strictly speaking) the Alexandrian Jews were nearly all Hellenists, it does not follow that they were all Hellenizers. In other words, although their speech and their Scriptures were Greek, the theological views of many among them undoubtedly remained Hebrew. There must have been many who were attached to the traditions of Palestine, and who looked suspiciously on their more speculative brethren: and we have no difficulty in recognizing the picture presented in a pleasing German fiction, (f98) which describes the debates and struggles of the two tendencies in this city, to be very correct. In Palestine itself, we have every reason to believe that the native population was entirely Aramaean, though there was no lack of Hellenistic synagogues (See Act. 6:9.) in Jerusalem, which at the seasons of the festivals would be crowded with foreign pilgrims, and become the scene of animated discussions. Syria was connected by the link of language with Palestine and Babylonia; but Antioch, its metropolis, commercially and politically, resembled Alexandria: and it is probable that, when Barnabas and Saul were establishing the great Christian community in that city, (Act. 11:25, &c.) the majority of the Jews were "Grecians" rather than "Hebrews." In Asia Minor we should at first sight be tempted to imagine that the Grecian tendency would predominate; but when we find that Antiochus brought Babylonian Jews into Lydia and Phrygia, we must not make too confident a conclusion in this direction; and we have grounds for imagining that many Israelitish families in the remote districts (possibly that of Timothy at Lystra) ( Act. 16:1; 2Ti. 1:5, 3:15.) may have cherished the forms of the traditional faith of the Eastern Jews, and lived uninfluenced by Hellenistic novelties. The residents in maritime and commercial towns would not be strangers to the Western developments of religious doctrines: and when Apollos came from Alexandria to Ephesus, (Act. 18:24.) he would find himself in a theological atmosphere not very different from that of his native city. Tarsus in Cilicia will naturally be included under the same class of cities of the West, by those who remember Strabo’s assertion that, in literature and philosophy, its fame exceeded that of Athens and Alexandria. At the same time, we cannot be sure that the very celebrity of its Heathen schools might not induce the families of Jewish residents to retire all the more strictly into a religious Hebrew seclusion.
That such a seclusion of their family from Gentile influences was maintained by the parents of St. Paul, is highly probable. We have no means of knowing how long they themselves, or their ancestors, had been Jews of the dispersion. A tradition is mentioned by Jerome that they came originally from Giscala, a town in Galilee, when it was stormed by the Romans. The story involves an anachronism, and contradicts the Acts of the Apostles. (Act. 22:3.) Yet it need not be entirely disregarded; especially when we find St. Paul speaking of himself as "a Hebrew of the Hebrews," (f99) and when we remember that the word "Hebrew" is used for an Aramaic Jew, as opposed to a "Grecian" or "Hellenist." (f100) Nor is it unlikely in itself that before they settled in Tarsus, the family had belonged to the Eastern dispersion, or to the Jews of Palestine. But, however this may be, St. Paul himself must be called an Hellenist; because the language of his infancy was that idiom of the Grecian Jews in which all his letters were written. Though, in conformity with the strong feeling of the Jews of all times, he might learn his earliest sentences from the Scripture in Hebrew, yet he was familiar with the Septuagint translation at an early age. For it is observed that, when he quotes from the Old Testament, his quotations are from that version; and that, not only when he cites its very words, but when (as is often the case) he quotes it from memory. (f101) Considering the accurate knowledge of the original Hebrew which he must have acquired under Gamaliel at Jerusalem, it has been inferred that this can only arise from his having been thoroughly imbued at an earlier period with the Hellenistic Scriptures. The readiness, too, with which he expressed himself in Greek, even before such an audience as that upon the Areopagus at Athens, shows a command of the language which a Jew would not, in all probability, have attained, had not Greek been the familiar speech of his childhood. (f102)
But still the vernacular Hebrew of Palestine would not have been a foreign tongue to the infant Saul; on the contrary, he may have heard it spoken almost as often as the Greek. For no doubt his parents, proud of their Jewish origin, and living comparatively near to Palestine, would retain the power of conversing with their friends from thence in the ancient speech. Mercantile connections from the Syrian coast would be frequently arriving, whose discourse would be in Aramaic; and in all probability there were kinsfolk still settled in Judaea, as we afterwards find the nephew of St. Paul in Jerusalem. (Act. 23:16.) We may compare the situation of such a family (so far as concerns their language) to that of the French Huguenots who settled in London after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. These French families, though they soon learned to use the English as the medium of their common intercourse and the language of their household, yet, for several generations, spoke French with equal familiarity and greater affection. (f103)
Moreover, it may be considered as certain that the family of St. Paul, though Hellenistic in speech, were no Hellenizers in theology; they were not at all inclined to adopt Greek habits or Greek opinions. The manner in which St. Paul speaks of himself, his father, and his ancestors, implies the most uncontaminated hereditary Judaism. "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I." (2Co. 11:22.) — "A Pharisee" and "the son of a Pharisee. " (Acts 23:6) — Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews." (Php. 3:5.)
There is therefore little doubt that, though the native of a city filled with a Greek population and incorporated with the Roman Empire, yet Saul was born and spent his earliest days in the shelter of a home which was Hebrew, not in name only but in spirit. The Roman power did not press upon his infancy: the Greek ideas did not haunt his childhood: but he grew up an Israelitish boy, nurtured in those histories of the chosen people which he was destined so often to repeat in the synagogues, ( Act. 13:16-41; see Act. 17:2, 3, 10, 11, 28:23.) with the new and wonderful commentary supplied by the life and resurrection of a crucified Messiah. "From a child he knew the Scriptures," which ultimately made him "wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus," as he says of Timothy in the second Epistle (2Ti. 3:15). And the groups around his childhood were such as that which he beautifully describes in another part of the same letter to that disciple, where he speaks of "his grandmother Lois, and his mother Eunice" (2Ti. 1:5).
We should be glad to know something of the mother of St. Paul. But though he alludes to his father, he does not mention her. He speaks of himself as set apart by God "from his mother’s womb," that the Son of God should in due time be revealed in him, and by him preached to the Heathen. (Gal. 1:15.) But this is all. We find notices of his sister and his sister’s son, (Act. 23:16.) and of some more distant relatives:(Rom. 16:7, 11, 21.) but we know nothing of her who was nearer to him than all of them. He tells us of his instructor Gamaliel; but of her, who, if she lived, was his earliest and best teacher, he tells us nothing. Did she die like Rachel, the mother of Benjamin, the great ancestor of his tribe; leaving his father to mourn and set a monument on her grave, like Jacob, by the way of Bethlehem? (Gen. 35:16- 20, 48:7.) Or did she live to grieve over her son’s apostasy from the faith of the Pharisees, and die herself unreconciled to the obedience of Christ? Or did she believe and obey the Savior of her son? These are questions which we cannot answer. If we wish to realize the earliest infancy of the Apostle, we must be content with a simple picture of a Jewish mother and her child. Such a picture is presented to us in the short history of Elizabeth and John the Baptist, and what is wanting in one of the inspired Books of St. Luke may be supplied, in some degree, by the other.
The same feelings which welcomed the birth and celebrated the naming of a son in the "hill country" of Judaea, (Luk. 1:39.) prevailed also among the Jews of the dispersion. As the "neighbors and cousins" of Elizabeth "heard how the Lord had showed great mercy upon her, and rejoiced with her," — so it would be in the household at Tarsus, when Saul was born. In a nation to which the birth of a Messiah was promised, and at a period when the aspirations after the fulfillment of the promise were continually becoming more conscious and more urgent, the birth of a son was the fulfillment of a mother’s highest happiness: and to the father also (if we may thus invert the words of Jeremiah) "blessed was the man who brought tidings, saying, A man child is born unto thee; making him glad." (Jer. 20:15.) On the eighth day the child was circumcised and named. In the case of John the Baptist, "they sought to call him Zacharias, after the name of his father. But his mother answered, and said, Not so; but he shall be called John." And when the appeal was made to his father, he signified his assent, in obedience to the vision. It was not unusual, on the one hand, to call a Jewish child after the name of his father; and, on the other hand, it was a common practice, in all ages of Jewish history, even without a prophetic intimation, to adopt a name expressive of religious feelings. When the infant at Tarsus received the name of Saul, it might be "after the name of his father;" and it was a name of traditional celebrity in the tribe of Benjamin, for it was that of the first king anointed by Samuel. (f104) Or, when his father said "his name is Saul," it may have been intended to denote (in conformity with the Hebrew derivation of the word) that he was a son who had long been desired, the first born of his parents, the child of prayer, who was thenceforth, like Samuel, to be consecrated to God. (f105) "For this child I prayed," said the wife of Elkanah; "and the Lord hath given me my petition which I asked of Him: therefore also I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he shall be lent unto the Lord." (1Sa. 1:27, 28.)
Admitted into covenant with God by circumcision, the Jewish child had thenceforward a full claim to all the privileges of the chosen people. His was the benediction of the 128th Psalm:— "The Lord shall bless thee out of Zion: thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life." From that time, whoever it might be who watched over Saul’s infancy, whether, like king Lemuel, (f106) he learnt "the prophecy that his mother taught him," or whether he was under the care of others, like those who were with the sons of king David and king Ahab, (f107) — we are at no loss to learn what the first ideas were, with which his early thought was made familiar. The rules respecting the diligent education of children, which were laid down by Moses in the 6th and 11th chapters of Deuteronomy, were doubtless carefully observed: and he was trained in that peculiarly historical instruction, spoken of in the 78th Psalm, which implies the continuance of a chosen people, with glorious recollections of the past, and great anticipations for the future:
"The Lord made a covenant with Jacob, and gave Israel a law, which He commanded our forefathers to teach their children; that their posterity might know it, and the children which were yet unborn; to the intent that when they came up, they might show their children the same: that they might put their trust in God, and not to forget the works of the Lord, but to keep his commandments." (ver. 5-7.)
The histories of Abraham and Isaac, of Jacob and his twelve sons, of Moses among the bulrushes, of Joshua and Samuel, Elijah, Daniel, and the Maccabees, were the stories of his childhood. The destruction of Pharaoh in the Red Sea, the thunders of Mount Sinai, the dreary journeys in the wilderness, the land that flowed with milk and honey, — this was the earliest imagery presented to his opening mind. The triumphant hymns of Zion, the lamentations by the waters of Babylon, the prophetic praises of the Messiah, were the songs around his cradle.
Above all, he would be familiar with the destinies of his own illustrious tribe. (f108) The life of the timid Patriarch, the father of the twelve; the sad death of Rachel near the city where the Messiah was to be born; the loneliness of Jacob, who sought to comfort himself in Benoni "the son of her sorrow," by calling him Benjamin (Gen. 35:18.) "the son of his right hand;" and then the youthful days of this youngest of the twelve brethren, the famine, and the journeys into Egypt, the severity of Joseph, and the wonderful story of the silver cup in the mouth of the sack; — these are the narratives to which he listened with intense and eager interest. How little was it imagined that, as Benjamin was the youngest and most honored of the Patriarchs, so this listening child of Benjamin should be associated with the twelve servants of the Messiah of God, the last and most illustrious of the Apostles! But many years of ignorance were yet to pass away, before that mysterious Providence, which brought Benjamin to Joseph in Egypt, should bring his descendant to the knowledge and love of JESUS, the Son of Mary. Some of the early Christian writers (Gen. 49:27.) see in the dying benediction of Jacob, when he said that "Benjamin should raven as a wolf, in the morning devour the prey, and at night divide the spoil," a prophetic intimation of him who, in the morning of his life, should tear the sheep of God, and in its evening feed them, as the teacher of the nations. (f109) When St. Paul was a child and learnt the words of this saying, no Christian thoughts were associated with it, or with that other more peaceful prophecy of Moses, when he said of Benjamin,
"The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by Him: and the Lord shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between His shoulders." (Deu. 32:12.)
But he was familiar with the prophetical words, and could follow in imagination the fortunes of the sons of Benjamin, and knew how they went through the wilderness with Rachel’s other children, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, forming with them the third of the four companies on the march, and reposing with them at night on the west of the encampment. (Num. 2:18-24; 10:22-24.) He heard how their lands were assigned to them in the promised country along the borders of Judah:(Jos. 18:11.) and how Saul, whose name he bore, was chosen from the tribe which was the smallest, (1Sa. 9:21.) when "little Benjamin" ( Psa. 68:27.) became the "ruler" of Israel. He knew that when the ten tribes revolted, Benjamin was faithful:(2 Chronicles 11.:see 1 Kings 12.) and he learnt to follow its honorable history even into the dismal years of the Babylonian Captivity, when Mordecai, "a Benjamite who had been carried away," (Est. 2:5, 6.) saved the nation: and when, instead of destruction, "the Jews," through him, "had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor: and in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them." (Est. 8:16, 17.)
Such were the influences which cradled the infancy of St. Paul; and such was the early teaching under which his mind gradually rose to the realization of his position as a Hebrew child in a city of Gentiles. Of the exact period of his birth we possess no authentic information. (f110) From a passage in a sermon attributed to St. Chrysostom, it has been inferred (f111) that he was born in the year 2 B.C. of our era. The date is not improbable; but the genuineness of the sermon is suspected; and if it was the undoubted work of the eloquent Father, we have no reason to believe that he possessed any certain means of ascertaining the fact. Nor need we be anxious to possess the information. We have a better chronology than that which reckons by years and months. We know that St. Paul was a young man at the time of St. Stephen’s martyrdom, (f112) and therefore we know what were the features of the period, and what the circumstances of the world, at the beginning of his eventful life. He must have been born in the later years of Herod, or the earlier of his son Archelaus. It was the strongest and most flourishing time of the reign of Augustus. The world was at peace; the pirates of the Levant were dispersed; and Cilicia was lying at rest, or in stupor, with other provinces, under the wide shadow of the Roman power. Many governors had ruled there since the days of Cicero. Athenodorus, the emperor’s tutor, had been one of them. It was about the time when Horace and Maecenas died, with others whose names will never be forgotten; and it was about the time when Caligula was born, with others who were destined to make the world miserable. Thus is the epoch fixed in the manner in which the imagination most easily apprehends it. During this pause in the world’s history St. Paul was born.
It was a pause, too, in the history of the sufferings of the Jews. That lenient treatment which had been begun by Julius Caesar was continued by Augustus; (f113) and the days of severity were not yet come, when Tiberius and Claudius drove them into banishment, and Caligula oppressed them with every mark of contumely and scorn. We have good reason to believe that at the period of the Apostle’s birth the Jews were unmolested at Tarsus, where his father lived and enjoyed the rights of a Roman citizen. It is a mistake to suppose that this citizenship was a privilege which belonged to the members of the family, as being natives of this city. (f114) Tarsus was not a municipium, nor was it a colonia , like Philippi in Macedonia, (Act. 16:12) or Antioch in Pisidia; but it was a "free city" (f115) (urbs libera), like the Syrian Antioch and its neighbor-city, Seleucia on the sea. Such a city had the privilege of being governed by its own magistrates, and was exempted from the occupation of a Roman garrison, but its citizens did not necessarily possess the civitas of Rome. Tarsus had received great benefits both from Julius Caesar and from Augustus, but the father of St. Paul was not on that account a Roman citizen. This privilege had been granted to him, or had descended to him, as an individual right; he might have purchased it for a "large sum" of money; (Act. 22:28.) but it is more probable that it came to him as a reward of services rendered, during the civil wars, to some influential Roman. (f116) We should not be in serious error, if we were to say, in language suggested by the narrative of St. Stephen’s martyrdom (Act. 6:9), that St. Paul’s father was a Cilician Libertinus. (f117) That Jews were not infrequently Roman citizens, we learn from Josephus, who mentions in the "Jewish War" (f118) some even of the equestrian order who were illegally scourged and crucified by Floras at Jerusalem; and (what is more to our present point) enumerates certain of his countrymen who possessed the Roman franchise at Ephesus, in that important series of decrees relating to the Jews, which were issued in the time of Julius Caesar, and are preserved in the second book of the "Antiquities." (f119) The family of St. Paul were in the same position at Tarsus as those who were Jews of Asia Minor and yet citizens of Rome at Ephesus; and thus it came to pass, that, while many of his contemporaries were willing to expend "a large sum" in the purchase of "this freedom," the Apostle himself was "free-born."
The question of the double name of "Saul" and "Paul" will require our attention hereafter, when we come in the course of our narrative to that interview with Sergius Paulus in Cyprus, coincidently with which the appellation in the Acts of the Apostles is suddenly changed. Many opinions have been held on this subject, both by ancient and modern theologians. (f120) At present it will be enough to say, that, though we cannot overlook the coincidence, or believe it accidental, yet it is most probable that both names were borne by him in his childhood, that "Saul" was the name of his Hebrew home, and "Paul" that by which he was known among the Gentiles. It will be observed that "Paulus" the name by which he is always mentioned after his departure from Cyprus, and by which he always designates himself in his Epistles, is a Roman, not a Greek, word. And it will be remembered, that, among those whom he calls his "kinsmen" in the Epistle to the Romans, two of the number, Junia and Lucius, have Roman names, while the others are Greek. (Rom. 16:7, 11, 21.) All this may point to a strong Roman connection. These names may have something to do with that honorable citizenship which was an heirloom in the household; and the appellation "Paulus" may be due to some such feelings as those which induced the historian Josephus to call himself "Flavius," in honor of Vespasian and the Flavian family.
If we turn now to consider the social position of the Apostle’s father and family, we cannot on the one hand confidently argue, from the possession of the citizenship, that they were in the enjoyment of affluence and outward distinction. The civitas of Rome, though at that time it could not be purchased without heavy expense, did not depend upon any conditions of wealth, where it was bestowed by authority. On the other hand, it is certain that the manual trade, which we know that St. Paul exercised, cannot be adduced as an argument to prove that his circumstances were narrow and mean; still less, as some have imagined, that he lived in absolute poverty. It was a custom among the Jews that all boys should learn a trade. "What is commanded of a father towards his son?" asks a Talmudic writer. "To circumcise him, to teach him the law, to teach him a trade." Rabbi Judah saith, "He that teacheth not his son a trade, doth the same as if he taught him to be a thief;" and Rabban Gamaliel saith, "He that hath a trade in his hand, to what is he like? he is like a vineyard that is fenced." And if, in compliance with this good and useful custom of the Jews, the father of the young Cilician sought to make choice of a trade, which might fortify his son against idleness or against adversity, none would occur to him more naturally than the profitable occupation of the making of tents, the material of which was hair-cloth, supplied by the goats of his native province, and sold in the markets of the Levant by the well-known name of cilicium. (f121) The most reasonable conjecture is that his father’s business was concerned with these markets, and that, like many of his scattered countrymen, he was actively occupied in the traffic of the Mediterranean coasts: and the remote dispersion of those relations, whom he mentions in his letter from Corinth to Rome, is favorable to this opinion. But whatever might be the station and employment of his father or his kinsmen, whether they were elevated by wealth above, or depressed by poverty below, the average of the Jews of Asia Minor and Italy, we are disposed to believe that this family were possessed of that highest respectability which is worthy of deliberate esteem. The words of Scripture seem to claim for them the tradition of a good and religious reputation. The strict piety of St. Paul’s ancestors has already been remarked; some of his kinsmen embraced Christianity before the Apostle himself, (f122) and the excellent discretion of his nephew will be the subject of our admiration, when we come to consider the dangerous circumstances which led to the nocturnal journey from Jerusalem to Caesarea. (Acts 23.)
But, though a cloud rests on the actual year of St. Paul’s birth, and the circumstances of his father’s household must be left to imagination, we have the great satisfaction of knowing the exact features of the scenery in the midst of which his childhood was spent. The plain, the mountains, the river, and the sea still remain to us. The rich harvests of corn still grow luxuriantly after rains in spring. The same tents of goat’s hair are still seen covering the plains in the busy harvest. (f123) There is the same solitude and silence in the intolerable heat and dust of the summer. Then, as now, the mothers and children of Tarsus went out in the cool evenings, and looked from the gardens round the city, or from their terraced roofs, upon the heights of Taurus. The same sunset lingered on the pointed summits. The same shadows gathered in the deep ravines. The river Cydnus has suffered some changes in the course of 1800 years. Instead of rushing, as in the time of Xenophon, like the Rhone at Geneva, in a stream of two hundred feet broad through the city, it now flows idly past it on the east. The Channel, which floated the ships of Antony and Cleopatra, is now filled up; and wide unhealthy lagoons occupy the place of the ancient docks. (f124) But its upper waters still flow, as formerly, cold and clear from the snows of Taurus: and its waterfalls still break over the same rocks, when the snows are melting, like the Rhine at Schaffhausen. We find a pleasure in thinking that the footsteps of the young Apostle often wandered by the side of this stream, and that his eyes often looked on these falls. We can hardly believe that he who spoke to the Lystrians of the "rain from heaven," and the "fruitful seasons," and of the "living God who made heaven and earth and the sea," (Act. 4:17, 15.) could have looked with indifference on beautiful and impressive scenery. Gamaliel was celebrated for his love of nature: and the young Jew, who was destined to be his most famous pupil, spent his early days in the close neighborhood of much that was well adapted to foster such a taste. Or if it be thought that in attributing such feelings to him we are writing in the spirit of modern times; and if it be contended that he would be more influenced by the realities of human life than by the impressions of nature, — then let the youthful Saul be imagined on the banks of the Cydnus, where it flowed through the city in a stream less clear and fresh, where the wharves were covered with merchandise, in the midst of groups of men in various costumes, speaking various dialects. St. Basil says, that in his day Tarsus was a point of union for Syrians, Cilicians, Isaurians, and Cappadocians. To these we must add the Greek merchant, and the agent of Roman luxury. And one more must be added, — the Jew, — even then the pilgrim of Commerce, trading with every nation, and blending with none. In this mixed company Saul, at an early age, might become familiar with the activities of life and the diversities of human character, and even in his childhood make some acquaintance with those various races, which in his manhood he was destined to influence.
We have seen what his infancy was; we must now glance at his boyhood. It is usually the case that the features of a strong character display themselves early. His impetuous fiery disposition would sometimes need control. Plashes of indignation would reveal his impatience and his honesty. (See Act. 9:1, 2, 23: 1-5; and compare Act. 13:13, 15:38, with 2Ti. 4:11.) The affectionate tenderness of his nature would not be without an object of attachment, if that sister, who was afterwards married, (Act. 23:16.) was his playmate at Tarsus. The work of tent-making, rather an amusement than a trade, might sometimes occupy those young hands, which were marked with the toil of years when he held them to the view of the Elders at Miletus. (f125) His education was conducted at home rather than at school: for, though Tarsus was celebrated for its learning, the Hebrew boy would not lightly be exposed to the influence of Gentile teaching. Or, if he went, to a school, it was not a Greek school, but rather to some room connected with the synagogue, where a noisy class of Jewish children received the rudiments of instruction, seated on the ground with their teacher, after the manner of Mohammedan children in the East, who may be seen or heard at their lessons near the mosque. (f126) At such a school, it may be, he learnt to read and to write, going and returning under the care of some attendant, according to that custom which he afterwards used as an illustration in the Epistle to the Galatians (f127) (and perhaps he remembered his own early days while he wrote the passage) when he spoke of the Law as the Slave who conducts us to the School of Christ. His religious knowledge, as his years advanced, was obtained from hearing the Law read in the synagogue, from listening to the arguments and discussions of learned doctors, and from that habit of questioning and answering, which was permitted even to the children among the Jews. Familiar with the pathetic history of the Jewish sufferings, he would feel his heart filled with that love to his own people which breaks out in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 9:4, 5) — to that people "whose were the adoption and the glory and the covenants, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ was to come," — a love not then, as it was afterwards, blended with love towards all mankind, "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile," — but rather united with a bitter hatred to the Gentile children whom he saw around him. His idea of the Messiah, so far as it was distinct, would be the carnal notion of a temporal prince — a "Christ known after the flesh," (2Co. 5:16.) — and he looked forward with the hope of a Hebrew to the restoration of "the kingdom to Israel." (Act. 1:6.) He would be known at Tarsus as a child of promise, and as one likely to uphold the honor of the Law against the half-infidel teaching of the day. But the time was drawing near, when his training was to become more exact and systematic. He was destined for the school of Jerusalem. The educational maxim of the Jews, at a later period, was as follows:— "At five years of age, let children begin the Scripture; at ten, the Mishna; at thirteen, let them be subjects of the Law." (f128) There is no reason to suppose that the general practice was very different before the floating maxims of the great doctors were brought together in the Mishna. It may therefore be concluded, with a strong degree of probability, that Saul was sent to the Holy City (f129) between the ages of ten and thirteen. Had it been later than the age of thirteen, he could hardly have said that he had been "brought up" in Jerusalem.
The first time any one leaves the land of his birth to visit a foreign and distant country, is an important epoch in his life. In the case of one who has taken this first journey at an early age, and whose character is enthusiastic and susceptible of lively impressions from without, this epoch is usually remembered with peculiar distinctness. But when the country which is thus visited has furnished the imagery for the dreams of childhood, and is felt to be more truly the young traveler’s home than the land he is leaving, then the journey assumes the sacred character of a pilgrimage. The nearest parallel which can be found to the visits of the scattered Jews to Jerusalem, is in the periodical expedition of the Mohammedan pilgrims to the sanctuary at Mecca. Nor is there any thing which ought to shock the mind in such a comparison; for that localizing spirit was the same thing to the Jews under the highest sanction, which it is to the Mohammedans through the memory of a prophet who was the enemy and not the forerunner of Christ. As the disciples of Islam may be seen, at stated seasons, flocking towards Cairo or Damascus, the meeting-places of the African and Asiatic caravans, — so Saul had often seen the Hebrew pilgrims from the interior of Asia Minor come down through the passes of the mountains, and join others at Tarsus who were bound for Jerusalem. They returned when the festivals were over; and he heard them talk of the Holy City, of Herod and the New Temple, and of the great teachers and doctors of the Law. And at length Saul himself was to go, — to see the land of promise and the City of David, and grow up a learned Rabbi "at the feet of Gamaliel."
With his father, or under the care of some other friend older than himself, he left Tarsus and went to Jerusalem. It is not probable that they traveled by the long and laborious land-journey which leads from the Cilician plain through the defies of Mount Amanus to Antioch, and thence along the rugged Phoenician shore through Tyre and Sidon to Judaea. The Jews, when they went to the festivals, or to carry contributions, like the Mohammedans of modern days, would follow the lines of natural traffic:(f130) and now that the Eastern Sea had been cleared of its pirates, the obvious course would be to travel by water. The Jews, though merchants, were not seamen. We may imagine Saul, therefore, setting sail from the Cydnus on his first voyage, in a Phoenician trader, under the patronage of the gods of Tyre; or in company with Greek mariners in a vessel adorned with some mythological emblem, like that Alexandrian corn-ship which subsequently brought him to Italy, "whose sign was Castor and Pollux." (Act. 28:11.) Gradually they lost sight of Taurus, and the heights of Lebanon came into view. The one had sheltered his early home, but the other had been a familiar form to his Jewish forefathers. How histories would crowd into his mind as the vessel moved on over the waves, and he gazed upon the furrowed flanks of the great Hebrew mountain! Had the voyage been taken fifty years earlier, the vessel would probably have been bound for Ptolemais, which still bore the name of the Greek kings of Egypt; (f131) but in the reign of Augustus or Tiberius, it is more likely that she sailed round the headland of Carmel, and came to anchor in the new harbor of Caesarea, — the handsome city which Herod had rebuilt, and named in honor of the Emperor.
To imagine incidents when none are recorded, and confidently to lay down a route without any authority, would be inexcusable in writing on this subject. But to imagine the feelings of a Hebrew boy on his first visit to the Holy Land, is neither difficult nor blamable. During this journey Saul had around him a different scenery and different cultivation from what he had been accustomed to, — not a river and a wide plain covered with harvests of corn, but a succession of hills and valleys, with terraced vineyards watered by artificial irrigation. If it was the time of a festival, many pilgrims were moving in the same direction, with music and the songs of Zion. The ordinary road would probably be that mentioned in the Acts, which led from Caesarea through the town of Antipatris (f132) (Act. 23:31). But neither of these places would possess much interest for a "Hebrew of the Hebrews." The one was associated with the thoughts of the Romans and of modern times; the other had been built by Herod in memory of Antipater, his Idumaean father. But objects were not wanting of the deepest interest to a child of Benjamin. Those far hill-tops on the left were close upon Mount Gilboa, even if the very place could not be seen where
"the Philistines fought against Israel… and the battle went sore against Saul… and he fell on his sword… and died, and his three sons, and his armor-bearer, and all his men, that same day together." (1Sa. 31:1- 6.).
After passing through the lots of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, the traveler from Caesarea came to the borders of Benjamin. The children of Rachel were together in Canaan as they had been in the desert. The lot of Benjamin was entered near Bethel, memorable for the piety of Jacob, the songs of Deborah, the sin of Jeroboam, and the zeal of Josiah. ( Gen. 28:19; Jud. 4:5; 1Ki. 12:29; 2Ki. 23:15.) Onward a short distance was Gibeah, the home of Saul when he was anointed King, (1Sa. 10:26, 15:34.) and the scene of the crime and desolation of the tribe, which made it the smallest of the tribes of Israel. (Jud. 20:43, &c) Might it not be too truly said concerning the Israelites even of that period:"They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah: therefore the Lord will remember their iniquity, He will visit their sins"? (Hos. 9:9.) At a later stage of his life, such thoughts of the unbelief and iniquity of Israel accompanied St. Paul wherever he went. At the early age of twelve years, all his enthusiasm could find an adequate object in the earthly Jerusalem; the first view of which would be descried about this part of the journey. From the time when the line of the city wall was seen, all else was forgotten. The further border of Benjamin was almost reached. The Rabbis said that the boundary-line of Benjamin and Judah, the two faithful tribes, passed through the Temple. And this City and Temple was the common sanctuary of all Israelites.
"Thither the tribes go up, even the tribes of the Lord: to testify unto Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord. There is little Benjamin their ruler, and the princes of Judah their council, the princes of Zebulon and the princes of Naphtali: for there is the seat of judgment, even the seat of the house of David."
And now the Temple’s glittering roof was seen, with the buildings of Zion crowning the eminence above it, and the ridge of the Mount of Olives rising high over all. And now the city gate was passed, with that thrill of the heart which none but a Jew could know.
"Our feet stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem. Oh, pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and plenteousness within thy palaces. O God, wonderful art thou in thy holy places: even the God of Israel. He will give strength and power unto His people. Blessed be God." (See. Psalm 68. And 122.)
And now that this young enthusiastic Jew is come into the land of his forefathers, and is about to receive his education in the schools of the Holy City, we may pause to give some description of the state of Judaea and Jerusalem. We have seen that it is impossible to fix the exact date of his arrival, but we know the general features of the period; and we can easily form to ourselves some idea of the political and religious condition of Palestine.
Herod was now dead. The tyrant had been called to his last account, and that eventful reign, which had destroyed the nationality of the Jews, while it maintained their apparent independence, was over. It is most likely that Archelaus also had ceased to govern, and was already in exile. His accession to power had been attended with dreadful fighting in the streets, with bloodshed at sacred festivals, and with wholesale crucifixions; his reign of ten years was one continued season of disorder and discontent; and, at last, he was banished to Vienna on the Rhone, that Judaea might be formally constituted into a Roman province. (f133) We suppose Saul to have come from Tarsus to Jerusalem when one of the four governors, who preceded Pontius Pilate, was in power, — either Coponius, or Marcus Ambivius, or Annius Rufus, or Valerius Gratus. The governor resided in the town of Caesarea. Soldiers were quartered there and at Jerusalem, and throughout Judaea, wherever the turbulence of the people made garrisons necessary. Centurions were in the country towns; (Luk. 7:1- 10) soldiers on the banks of the Jordan. (Luk. 3:14) There was no longer even the show of independence. The revolution, of which Herod had sown the seeds, now came to maturity. The only change since his death in the appearance of the country was that every thing became more Roman than before. Roman money was current in the markets. Roman words were incorporated in the popular language. Roman buildings were conspicuous in all the towns. Even those two independent principalities which two sons of Herod governed, between the provinces of Judaea and Syria, exhibited all the general character of the epoch. Philip, the tetrarch of Gaulonitis, called Bethsaida, on the north of the lake of Genesareth, by the name of Julias, in honor of the family who reigned at Rome. Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, built Tiberias on the south of the same lake, in honor of the emperor who about this time (A. D. 14) succeeded his illustrious step-father.
These political changes had been attended with a gradual alteration in the national feelings of the Jews with regard to their religion. That the sentiment of political nationality was not extinguished was proved too well by all the horrors of Vespasian’s and Hadrian’s reigns; but there was a growing tendency to cling rather to their Law and Religion as the center of their unity. The great conquests of the Heathen powers may have been intended by Divine Providence to prepare this change in the Jewish mind. Even under the Maccabees, the idea of the state began to give place, in some degree, to the idea of religious life. Under Herod, the old unity was utterly broken to pieces. The high priests were set up and put down at his caprice; and the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin was invaded by the most arbitrary interference. Under the governors, the power of the Sanhedrin was still more abridged; and high priests were raised and deposed, as the Christian patriarchs of Constantinople have for some ages been raised and deposed by the Sultan: so that it is often a matter of great difficulty to ascertain who was high priest at Jerusalem in any given year at this period. (See Act. 23:5.) Thus the hearts of the Jews turned more and more towards the fulfillment of Prophecy, — to the practice of Religion, — to the interpretation of the Law. All else was now hopeless. The Pharisees, the Scribes, and the Lawyers were growing into a more important body even than the Priests and the Levites; (f134) and that system of "Rabbinism" was beginning, "which, supplanting the original religion of the Jews, became, after the ruin of the Temple and the extinction of the public worship, a new bond of national union, the great distinctive feature in the character of modern Judaism." (f135)
The Apostolic age was remarkable for the growth of learned Rabbinical schools; but of these the most eminent were the rival schools of Hillel and Schammai. These sages of the law were spoken of by the Jews, and their proverbs quoted, as the seven wise men were quoted by the Greeks. Their traditional systems run through all the Talmudical writings, as the doctrines of the Scotists and Thomists run through the Middle Ages. (f136) Both were Pharisaic schools: but the former upheld the honor of tradition as even superior to the law; the latter despised the traditionalists when they clashed with Moses. The antagonism between them was so great, that it was said that even "Elijah the Tishbite would never be able to reconcile the disciples of Hillel and Schammai."
Of these two schools, that of Hillel was by far the most influential in its own day, and its decisions have been held authoritative by the greater number of later Rabbis. The most eminent ornament of this school was Gamaliel, whose fame is celebrated in the Talmud. Hillel was the father of Simeon, and Simeon the father of Gamaliel. It has been imagined by some that Simeon was the same old man who took the infant Savior in his arms, and pronounced the Nunc Dimittis . (Luk. 2:25- 35.) It is difficult to give a conclusive proof of this; but there is no doubt that this Gamaliel was the same who wisely pleaded the cause of St. Peter and the other Apostles, (Act. 5:34-40.) and who had previously educated the future Apostle St. Paul. (Act. 22:3.) His learning was so eminent, and his character so revered, that he is one of the seven who alone among Jewish doctors have been honored with the title of "Rabban." (f137) As Aquinas, among the schoolmen, was called Doctor Angelicus, and Bonaventura Doctor Seraphicus, so Gamaliel was called the "Beauty of the Law;" and it is a saying of the Talmud, that "since Rabban Gamaliel died, the glory of the Law has ceased." He was a Pharisee; but anecdotes (f138) are told of him, which show that he was not trammelled by the narrow bigotry of the sect. He had no antipathy to the Greek learning. He rose above the prejudices of his party. Our impulse is to class him with the best of the Pharisees, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea. Candor and wisdom seem to have been features of his character; and this agrees with what we read of him in the Acts of the Apostles, (f139) that he was "had in reputation of all the people," and with his honest and intelligent argument when Peter was brought before the Council. It has been imagined by some that he became a Christian: and why he did not become so is known only to Him who understands the secrets of the human heart. But he lived and died a Jew; and a well-known prayer against Christian heretics was composed or sanctioned by him. (f140) He died eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, (f141) about the time of St. Paul’s shipwreck at Malta, and was buried with great honor. Another of his pupils, Onkelos, the author of the celebrated Targum, raised to him such a funeral-pile of rich materials as had never before been known, except at the burial of a king.
If we were briefly to specify the three effects which the teaching and example of Gamaliel may be supposed to have produced on the mind of St. Paxil, they would be as follows:— candor and honesty of judgment, — a willingness to study and make use of Greek authors, — and a keen and watchful enthusiasm for the Jewish law. We shall see these traits of character soon exemplified in his life. But it is time that we should inquire into the manner of communicating instruction, and learn something concerning the places where instruction was communicated, in the schools of Jerusalem.
Until the formation of the later Rabbinical colleges, which flourished after the Jews were driven from Jerusalem, the instruction in the divinity schools seems to have been chiefly oral. There was a prejudice against the use of any book except the Sacred Writings. The system was one of Scriptural Exegesis. Josephus remarks, at the close of his "Antiquities," (f142) that the one thing most prized by his countrymen was power in the exposition of Scripture. "They give to that man," he says, "the testimony of being a wise man, who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning." So far as we are able to learn from our sources of information, the method of instruction was something of this kind. (f143) At the meetings of learned men, some passage of the Old Testament was taken as a text, or some topic for discussion propounded in Hebrew, translated into the vernacular tongue by means of a Chaldee paraphrase, and made the subject of commentary: various interpretations were given: aphorisms were propounded: allegories suggested: and the opinions of ancient doctors quoted and discussed. At these discussions the younger students were present, to listen or to inquire, — or, in the sacred words of St. Luke, "both hearing them and asking them questions:" for it was a peculiarity of the Jewish schools, that the pupil was encouraged to catechise the teacher. Contradictory opinions were expressed with the utmost freedom. This is evident from a cursory examination of the Talmud, which gives us the best notions of the scholastio disputes of the Jews. This remarkable body of Rabbinical jurisprudence has been compared to the Roman body of civil law: but in one respect it might suggest a better comparison with our own English common law, in that it is a vast accumulation of various and often inconsistent precedents. The arguments and opinions which it contains, show very plainly that the Jewish doctors must often have been occupied with the most frivolous questions; — that the "mint, anise, and cumin" were eagerly discussed, while the "weightier matters of the law" were neglected:— but we should not be justified in passing a hasty judgment on ancient volumes, which are full of acknowledged difficulties. What we read of the system of the Cabala has often the appearance of an unintelligible jargon: but in all ages it has been true that "the words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies." (Ecc. 12:11) If we could look back upon the assemblies of the Rabbis of Jerusalem, with Gamaliel in the midst, and Saul among the younger speakers, it is possible that the scene would be as strange and as different from a place of modern education, as the schools now seen by travelers in the East differ from contemporary schools in England. But the same might be said of the walks of Plato in the Academy, or the lectures of Aristotle in the Lyceum. It is certain that these free and public discussions of the Jews tended to create a high degree of general intelligence among the people; that the students were trained there in a system of excellent dialectics; that they learnt to express themselves in a rapid and sententious style, often with much poetic feeling; and acquired an admirable acquaintance with the words of the ancient Scriptures. (f144)
These "Assemblies of the Wise" were possibly a continuation of the "Schools of the Prophets," which are mentioned in the historical books of the Old Testament. (1Sa. 10:5, 6, 19:20; 2Ki. 2:3, 5; 4:38) Wherever the earlier meetings were held, whether at the gate of the city, or in some more secluded place, we read of no buildings for purposes of worship or instruction before the Captivity. During that melancholy period, when the Jews mourned over their separation from the Temple, the necessity of assemblies must have been deeply felt, for united prayer and mutual exhortation, for the singing of the "Songs of Zion," and for remembering the "Word of the Lord." When they returned, the public reading of the law became a practice of universal interest: and from this period we must date the erection of Synagogues (f145) in the different towns of Palestine. So that St. James could say, in the council at Jerusalem:"Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day." (Act. 15:21.) To this later period the 74th Psalm may be referred, which laments over "the burning of all the synagogues of God in the land." (Psa. 24:8.) — These buildings are not mentioned by Josephus in any of the earlier passages of his history. But in the time of the Apostles we have the fullest evidence that they existed in all the small towns in Judaea, and in all the principal cities where the Jews were dispersed abroad. It seems that the synagogues often consisted of two apartments, one for prayer, preaching, and the offices of public worship; the other for the meetings of learned men, for discussions concerning questions of religion and discipline, and for purposes of education. (f146) Thus the Synagogues and the Schools cannot be considered as two separate subjects. No doubt a distinction must be drawn between the smaller schools of the country villages, and the great divinity schools of Jerusalem. The synagogue which was built by the Centurion at Capernaum (Luk. 7:5.) was unquestionably a far less important place than those synagogues in the Holy City, where "the Libertines, and Cyrenians, (f147) and Alexandrians, with those of Asia and Cilicia," rose up as one man, and disputed against St. Stephen. (f148) We have here five groups of foreign Jews, — two from Africa, two from Western Asia, and one from Europe; and there is no doubt that the Israelites of Syria, Babylonia, and the East were similarly represented. The Rabbinical writers say that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem; and though this must be an exaggeration, yet no doubt all shades of Hellenistic and Aramaic opinions found a home in the common metropolis. It is easy to see that an eager and enthusiastic student could have had no lack of excitements to stimulate his religious and intellectual activity, if he spent the years of his youth in that city "at the feet of Gamaliel."
It has been contended, that when St. Paul said he was "brought up" in Jerusalem "at the feet of Gamaliel," he meant that he had lived at the Rabban’s house, and eaten at his table. But the words evidently point to the customary posture of Jewish students at a school. There is a curious passage in the Talmud, where it is said, that "from the days of Moses to Rabban Gamaliel, they stood up to learn the law; but when Rabban Gamaliel died, sickness came into the world, and they sat down to learn the Law." "We need not stop to criticize this sentence, and it is not easy to reconcile it with other authorities on the same subject. "To sit at the feet of a teacher" was a proverbial expression; as when Mary is said to have "sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word." (Luk. 10:39; see 8:35.) But the proverbial expression must have arisen from a well-known custom. The teacher was seated on an elevated platform, or on the ground, and the pupils around him on low seats or on the floor. Maimonides says:—
"How do the masters teach? The doctor sits at the head, and the disciples surround him like a crown, that they may all see the doctor and hear his words. Nor is the doctor seated on a seat, and the disciples on the ground; but all are on seats, or all on the floor."
St. Ambrose says, in his Commentary on the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (14.), that "it is the tradition of the synagogue that they sit while they dispute; the elders in dignity on high chairs, those beneath them on low seats, and the last of all on mats upon the pavement." And again Philo says, that the children of the Essenes sat at the feet of the masters, who interpreted the law, and explained its figurative sense. And the same thing is expressed in that maxim of the Jews — "Place thyself in the dust at the feet of the wise."
In this posture the Apostle of the Gentiles spent his schoolboy days, an eager and
indefatigable student. "He that giveth his mind to the law of the Most High, and is occupied in the meditation thereof, will seek out the wisdom of all the ancient, and be occupied in prophecies. He will keep the sayings of the renowned men; and where subtle parables are, he will be there also. He will seek out the secrets of grave sentences, and be conversant in dark parables. He shall serve among great men, and appear among princes: he will travel through strange countries; for he hath tried the good and the evil among men." (Ecclus. 39:1-4.) Such was the pattern proposed to himself by an ardent follower of the Rabbis; and we cannot wonder that Saul, with such a standard before him, and with so ardent a temperament, "outran in Judaism many of his own age and nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of his Fathers." (Gal. 1:14.) Intellectually, his mind was trained to logical acuteness, his memory became well stored with "hard sentences of old," and he acquired the facility of quick and apt quotation of Scripture. Morally, he was a strict observer of the requirements of the Law; and, while he led a careful conscientious life, after the example of his ancestors, (2Ti. 1:3.) he gradually imbibed the spirit of a fervent persecuting zeal. Among his fellow-students, who flocked to Jerusalem from Egypt and Babylonia, from the coasts of Greece and his native Cilicia, he was known and held in high estimation as a rising light in Israel. And if we may draw a natural inference from another sentence of the letter which has just been quoted, he was far from indifferent to the praise of men. (f149) Students of the Law were called "the holy people;" and we know one occasion when it was said, "This people who knoweth not the Law are cursed." (Joh. 7:49.) And we can imagine him saying to himself, with all the rising pride of a successful Pharisee, in the language of the Book of Wisdom:
"I shall have estimation among the multitude, and honor with the elders, though I be young. I shall be found of a quick conceit in judgment, and shall be admired in the sight of great men. When I hold my tongue, they shall bide my leisure; and when I speak, they shall give good ear unto me." (f150)
While thus he was passing through the busy years of his student-life, nursing his religious enthusiasm and growing in self-righteousness, others were advancing towards their manhood, not far from Jerusalem, of whom then he knew nothing, but for whose cause he was destined to count that loss which now was his highest gain. (See Php. 3:5-7.) There was one at Hebron, the son of a priest "of the course of Abia," who was soon to make his voice heard throughout Israel as the preacher of repentance; there were boys by the Lake of Galilee, mending their fathers’ nets, who were hereafter to be the teachers of the World; and there was ONE, at Nazareth, for the sake of whose love, they, and Saul himself, and thousands of faithful hearts throughout all future ages, should unite in saying:— "He must increase, but I must decrease." It is possible that Gamaliel may have been one of those doctors with whom JESUS was found conversing in the Temple. It is probable that Saul may have been within the precincts of the Temple at some festival, when Mary and Joseph came up from Galilee. It is certain that the eyes of the Savior and of His future disciple must often have rested on the same objects, — the same crowd of pilgrims and worshippers, — the same walls of the Holy City, — the same olives on the other side of the valley of Jehoshaphat. But at present they were strangers. The mysterious human life of JESUS was silently advancing towards its great consummation. Saul was growing more and more familiar with the outward observances of the Law, and gaining that experience of the "spirit of bondage" which should enable him to understand himself, and to teach to others, the blessings of the "spirit of adoption." He was feeling the pressure of that yoke, which, in the words of St. Peter, "neither his fathers nor he were able to bear." He was learning (in proportion as his conscientiousness increased) to tremble at the slightest deviation from the Law as jeopardizing salvation:"whence arose that tormenting scrupulosity which invented a number of limitations, in order (by such self-imposed restraint) to guard against every possible transgression of the Law." (f151) The struggles of this period of his life he has himself described in the seventh chapter of Romans. Meanwhile, year after year passed away. John the Baptist appeared by the waters of the Jordan. The greatest event of the world’s history was finished on Calvary. The sacrifice for sin was offered at a time when sin appeared to be the most triumphant. At the period of the Crucifixion, three of the principal persons who demand the historian’s attention are — the Emperor Tiberius, spending his life of shameless lust on the island of Capreae, — his vile minister, Sejanus, reveling in cruelty at Rome, — and Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem, mingling with the sacrifices the blood of the Galileans. (Luk. 13:1.) How refreshing is it to turn from these characters to such scenes as that where St. John receives his Lord’s dying words from the cross, or where St. Thomas meets Him after the resurrection, to have his doubts turned into faith, or where St. Stephen sheds the first blood of martyrdom, praying for his murderers! This first martyrdom has the deepest interest for us; since it is the first occasion when Saul comes before us in his early manhood. Where had he been during these years which we have rapidly passed over in a few lines, — the years in which the foundations of Christianity were laid? We cannot assume that he had remained continuously in Jerusalem. Many years had elapsed since he came, a boy, from his home at Tarsus. He must have attained the age of twenty-five or thirty years when our Lord’s public ministry began. His education was completed; and we may conjecture, with much probability, that he returned to Tarsus. When he says, in the first letter to the Corinthians (1Co. 9:1), — "Have I not seen the Lord?" and when he speaks in the second (v. 16) of having "known Christ after the flesh," he seems only to allude, in the first case, to his vision on the road to Damascus; and, in the second, to his carnal opinions concerning the Messiah. It is hardly conceivable, that if he had been at Jerusalem during our Lord’s public ministration there, he should never allude to the fact. (f152) In this case, he would surely have been among the persecutors of Jesus, and have referred to this as the ground of his remorse, instead of expressing his repentance for his opposition merely to the Savior’s followers. (1Co. 15:9; Act. 22:20.)
If he returned to the banks of the Cydnus, he would find that many changes had taken place among his friends in the interval which had brought him from boyhood to manhood. But the only change in himself was that he brought back with him, to gratify the pride of his parents, if they still were living, a mature knowledge of the Law, a stricter life, a more fervent zeal. And here, in the schools of Tarsus, he had abundant opportunity for becoming acquainted with that Greek literature, the taste for which he had caught from Gamaliel, and for studying the writings of Philo and the Hellenistic Jews. Supposing him to be thus employed, we will describe in a few words the first beginnings of the Apostolic Church, and the appearance presented by it to that Judaism in the midst of which it rose, and follow its short history to the point where the "young man, whose name was Saul," re-appears at Jerusalem, in connection with his friends of the Cilician Synagogue, "disputing with Stephen."
Before our Savior ascended into heaven, He said to His disciples:"Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." (Act. 1:8.) And when Matthias had been chosen, and the promised blessing had been received on the day of Pentecost, this order was strictly followed. First the Gospel was proclaimed in the City of Jerusalem, and the numbers of those who believed gradually rose from 120 to 5,000. (Act. 1:15; 2:41; 4:4.) Until the disciples were "scattered," (Act. 8:1.) "upon the persecution that arose about Stephen," (Act. 11:19.) Jerusalem was the scene of all that took place in the Church of Christ. We read as yet of no communication of the truth to the Gentiles, nor to the Samaritans; no hint even of any Apostolic preaching in the country parts of Judaea. It providentially happened, indeed, that the first outburst of the new doctrine, with all its miraculous evidence, was witnessed by "Jews and proselytes" from all parts of the world. (Act. 2:9-11.) They had come up to the Festival of Pentecost from the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, of the Nile and of the Tiber, from the provinces of Asia Minor, from the desert of Arabia, and from the islands of the Greek Sea; and when they returned to their homes, they carried with them news which prepared the way for the Glad Tidings about to issue from Mount Zion to "the uttermost parts of the earth." But as yet the Gospel lingered on the Holy Hill. The first acts of the Apostles were "prayer and supplication" in the "upper room;" breaking of bread "from house to house;" (f153) miracles in the Temple; gatherings of the people in Solomon’s cloister; and the bearing of testimony in the council chamber of the Sanhedrin.
One of the chief characteristics of the Apostolic Church was the bountiful charity of its members one towards another. Many of the Jews of Palestine, and therefore many of the earliest Christian converts, were extremely poor. The odium incurred by adopting the new doctrine might undermine the livelihood of some who depended on their trade for support, and this would make almsgiving necessary. But the Jews of Palestine were relatively poor, compared with those of the dispersion. "We see this exemplified on later occasions, in the contributions which St. Paul more than once anxiously promoted. (Act. 11:29, 30; and again Rom. 15:25, 26, compared with Act. 24:17; 1Co. 16:1-4; 2Co. 8:1-4.) And in the very first days of the Church, we find its wealthier members placing their entire possessions at the disposal of the Apostles. Not that there was any abolition of the rights of property, as the words of St. Peter to Ananias very well show. (Act. 5:4.) But those who were rich gave up what God had given them, in the spirit of generous self-sacrifice, and according to the true principles of Christian communism, which regards property as entrusted to the possessor, not for himself, but for the good of the whole community, — to be distributed according to such methods as his charitable feeling and conscientious judgment may approve. The Apostolic Church was, in this respect, in a healthier condition than the Church of modern days. But even then we find ungenerous and suspicious sentiments growing up in the midst of the general benevolence. That old jealousy between the Aramaic and Hellenistic Jews reappeared. Their party feeling was excited by some real or apparent unfairness in the distribution of the fund set apart for the poor. "A murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews," (Act. 6:1.) or of the Hebrews against the Grecians, had been a common occurrence for at least two centuries; and, notwithstanding the power of the Divine Spirit, none will wonder that it broke out again even among those who had become obedient to the doctrine of Christ. That the widows’ fund might be carefully distributed, seven almoners or deacons (f154) were appointed, of whom the most eminent was St. Stephen, described as a man "full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost," and as one who, "full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people." It will be observed that these seven men have Greek names, and that one was a proselyte from the Greco-Syrian city of Antioch. It was natural, from the peculiar character of the quarrel, that Hellenistic Jews should have been appointed to this office. And this circumstance must be looked on as divinely arranged. For the introduction of that party, which was most free from local and national prejudices, into the very ministry of the Church, must have had an important influence in preparing the way for the admission of the Gentiles.
Looking back, from our point of view, upon the community at Jerusalem, we see in it the beginning of that great society, the Church, which has continued to our own time, distinct both from Jews and Heathens, and which will continue till it absorbs both the Heathen and the Jews. But to the contemporary Jews themselves it wore a very different appearance. Prom the Hebrew point of view, the disciples of Christ would be regarded as a Jewish sect or synagogue. The synagogues, as we have seen, were very numerous at Jerusalem. (f155) There were already the Cilician Synagogue, the Alexandrian Synagogue, the Synagogue of the Libertines, (f156) — and to these was now added (if we may use so bold an expression) the Nazarene Synagogue, or the Synagogue of the Galileans. Not that any separate building was erected for the devotions of the Christians; for they met from house to house for prayer and the breaking of bread. But they were by no means separated from the nation:(f157) they attended the festivals; they worshipped in the Temple. They were a new and singular party in the nation, holding peculiar opinions, and interpreting the Scriptures in a peculiar way. This is the aspect under which the Church would first present itself to the Jews, and among others to Saul himself. Many different opinions were expressed in the synagogues concerning the nature and office of the Messiah. These Galileans would be distinguished as holding the strange opinion that the true Messiah was that notorious "malefactor," who had been crucified at the last Passover. All parties in the nation united to oppose, and if possible to crush, the monstrous heresy.
The first attempts to put down the new faith came from the Sadducees. The high priest and his immediate adherents (Act. 4:1, 5:17.) belonged to this party. They hated the doctrine of the resurrection; and the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the corner-stone of all St. Peter’s teaching. He and the other Apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin, who in the first instance were content to enjoin silence on them. The order was disobeyed, and they were summoned again. The consequences might have been fatal: but that the jealousy between the Sadducees and Pharisees was overruled, and the instrumentality of one man’s wisdom was used, by Almighty God, for the protection of His servants. Gamaliel, the eminent Pharisee, argued, that if this cause were not of God, it would come to nothing, like the work of other impostors; but, if it were of God, they could not safely resist what must certainly prevail; and the Apostles of Jesus Christ were scourged, and allowed to "depart from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name." (Act. 5:41.) But it was impossible that those Pharisees, whom Christ had always rebuked, should long continue to be protectors of the Christians. On this occasion we find the teacher, Gamaliel, taking St. Peter’s part: at the next persecution, Saul, the pupil, is actively concerned in the murder of St. Stephen. It was the same alternation of the two prevailing parties, first opposing each other, and then uniting to oppose the Gospel, of which Saul himself had such intimate experience when he became St. Paul. (See Act. 23:6, 9, 14, 20.)
In many particulars St. Stephen was the forerunner of St. Paul. Up to this time the conflict had been chiefly maintained with the Aramaic Jews; but Stephen carried the war of the Gospel into the territory of the Hellenists. The learned members of the foreign synagogues endeavored to refute him by argument or by clamor. The Cilician Synagogue is particularly mentioned (Act. 6:9, 10) as having furnished some conspicuous opponents to Stephen, who "were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spake." We cannot doubt, from what follows, that Saul of Tarsus, already distinguished by his zeal and talents among the younger champions of Pharisaism, bore a leading part in the discussions which here took place. He was now, though still "a young man" (Act. 7:58), yet no longer in the first opening of youth. This is evident from the fact that he was appointed to an important ecclesiastical and political office immediately afterwards. Such an appointment he could hardly have received from the Sanhedrin before the age of thirty, and probably not so early; for we must remember that a peculiar respect for seniority distinguished the Rabbinical authorities. We can imagine Saul, then, the foremost in the Cilician Synagogue, "disputing" against the new doctrines of the Hellenistic Deacon, in all the energy of vigorous manhood, and with all the vehement logic of the Rabbis. How often must these scenes have been recalled to his mind, when he himself took the place of Stephen in many a Synagogue, and bore the brunt of the like furious assault; surrounded by
"Jews filled with envy, who spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming." (Act. 13:45.)
But this clamor and these arguments were not sufficient to convince or intimidate St. Stephen. False witnesses were then suborned to accuse him of blasphemy against Moses and against God, — who asserted, when he was dragged before the Sanhedrin, that they had heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth should destroy the Temple, and change the Mosaic customs. It is evident, from the nature of this accusation, how remarkably his doctrine was an anticipation of St. Paul’s. As a Hellenistic Jew, he was less entangled in the prejudices of Hebrew nationality than his Aramaic brethren; and he seems to have had a fuller understanding of the final intention of the Gospel than St. Peter and the Apostles had yet attained to. Not doubting the divinity of the Mosaic economy, and not faithless to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he yet saw that the time was coming, yea, then was, when the "true worshippers" should worship Him, not in the Temple only or in any one sacred spot, but everywhere throughout the earth, "in spirit and in truth:" and for this doctrine he was doomed to die.
When we speak of the Sanhedrin, we are brought into contact with an important controversy. It is much disputed whether it had at this period the power of inflicting death. (f158) On the one hand, we apparently find the existence of this power denied by the Jews themselves at the trial of our Lord; (Joh. 18:31, 19:6.) and, on the other, we apparently find it assumed and acted on in the case of St. Stephen. The Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, like the Areopagus at Athens, was the highest and most awful court of judicature, especially in matters that pertained to religion; but, like that Athenian tribunal, its real power gradually shrunk, though the reverence attached to its decisions remained. It probably assumed its systematic form under the second Hyrcanus; (f159) and it became a fixed institution in the Commonwealth under his sons, who would be glad to have their authority nominally limited, but really supported, by such a council. (f160) Under the Herods, and under the Romans, its jurisdiction was curtailed; (f161) and we are informed, on Talmudical authority, that, forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, it was formally deprived of the power of inflicting death. If this is true, we must consider the proceedings at the death of St. Stephen as tumultuous and irregular. And nothing is more probable than that Pontius Pilate (if indeed he was not absent at that time) would willingly connive, in the spirit of Gallio at Corinth, at an act of unauthorized cruelty in "a question of words and names and of the Jewish law," (Act. 18:15.) and that the Jews would willingly assume as much power as they dared, when the honor of Moses and the Temple was in jeopardy.
The council assembled in solemn and formal state to try the blasphemer. There was great and general excitement in Jerusalem. "The people, the scribes, and the elders" had been "stirred up" by the members of the Hellenistic Synagogues. (Act. 6:12) It is evident, from that vivid expression which is quoted from the accusers’ mouths, — "this place" — this holy place" — that the meeting of the Sanhedrin took place in the close neighborhood of the Temple. Their ancient and solemn room of assembly was the hall Gazith, (f162) or the "Stone-Chamber," partly within the Temple Court and partly without it. The president sat in the less sacred portion, and around him, in a semicircle, were the rest of the seventy judges. (f163)
Before these judges Stephen was made to stand, confronted by his accusers. The eyes of all were fixed upon his countenance, which grew bright, as they gazed on it, with a supernatural radiance and serenity. In the beautiful Jewish expression of the Scripture, "They saw his face as it had been that of an angel." The judges, when they saw his glorified countenance, might have remembered the shining on the face of Moses, (f164) and trembled lest Stephen’s voice should be about to speak the will of Jehovah, like that of the great lawgiver. Instead of being occupied with the faded glories of the Second Temple, they might have recognized in the spectacle before them the Shechinah of the Christian soul, which is the living Sanctuary of God. But the trial proceeded. The judicial question, to which the accused was required to plead, was put by the president:"Are these things so?" And then Stephen answered; and his clear voice was heard in the silent council-hall, as he went through the history of the chosen people, proving his own deep faith in the sacredness of the Jewish economy, but suggesting, here and there, that spiritual interpretation of it which had always been the true one, and the truth of which was now to be made manifest to all. He began, with a wise discretion, from the call of Abraham, and traveled historically in his argument through all the great stages of their national existence, — from Abraham to Joseph, — from Joseph to Moses, — from Moses to David and Solomon. And as he went on he selected and glanced at those points which made for his own cause. He showed that God’s blessing rested on the faith of Abraham, though he had "not so much as to set his foot on" in the land of promise (v. 5), on the piety of Joseph, though he was an exile in Egypt (v. 9), and on the holiness of the Burning Bush, though in the desert of Sinai (v. 30). He dwelt in detail on the Lawgiver, in such a way as to show his own unquestionable orthodoxy; but he quoted the promise concerning "the prophet like unto Moses" (v. 37), and reminded his hearers that the Law, in which they trusted, had not kept their forefathers from idolatry (v. 39, &c). And so he passed on to the Temple, which had so prominent a reference to the charge against him: and while he spoke of it, he alluded to the words of Solomon himself, ( 1Ki. 8:27; 2Ch. 3:6, 6:18.) and of the prophet Isaiah, (Isa. 66:1, 2.) who denied that any temple "made with hands" could be the place of God’s highest worship. And thus far they listened to him. It was the story of the chosen people, to which every Jew listened with interest and pride.
It is remarkable, as we have said before, how completely St. Stephen is the forerunner of St. Paul, both in the form and the matter of this defense. His securing the attention of the Jews by adopting the historical method, is exactly what the Apostle did in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia. (Act. 13:16-22.) His assertion of his attachment to the true principles of the Mosaic religion is exactly what was said to Agrippa:"I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come." (Act. 26:22.) It is deeply interesting to think of Saul as listening to the martyr’s voice, as he anticipated those very arguments which he himself was destined to reiterate in synagogues and before kings. There is no reason to doubt that he was present, (f165) although he may not have been qualified to vote (f166) in the Sanhedrin. And it is evident, from the thoughts which occurred to him in his subsequent vision within the precincts of the Temple, (f167) how deep an impression St. Stephen’s death had left on his memory. And there are even verbal coincidences which may be traced between this address and St. Paul’s speeches or writings. The words used by Stephen of the Temple call to mind those which were used at Athens. (Act. 17:24.) When he speaks of the Law as received "by the disposition of angels," he anticipates a phrase in the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. 3:19). His exclamation at the end, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart… who have received the law… and have not kept it," is only an indignant condensation of the argument in the Epistle to the Romans:
"Behold, thou callest thyself a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast in God, and knowest His will… Thou, therefore, that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God?… He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of man, but of God." (Rom. 2:17-29.)
The rebuke which Stephen, full of the Divine Spirit, suddenly broke away from the course of his narrative to pronounce, was the signal for a general outburst of furious rage on the part of his judges. (f168) They "gnashed on him with their teeth" in the same spirit in which they had said, not long before, to the blind man who was healed — "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?" (Joh. 9:34.) But, in contrast with the malignant hatred which had blinded their eyes, Stephen’s serene faith was supernaturally exalted into a direct vision of the blessedness of the Redeemed. He, whose face had been like that of an angel on earth, was made like one of those angels themselves, "who do always behold the face of our Father which is in Heaven." (Mat. 18:10.) "He being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into Heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." The scene before his eyes was no longer the council-hall at Jerusalem and the circle of his infuriated judges; but he gazed up into the endless courts of the celestial Jerusalem, with its "innumerable company of angels," and saw Jesus, in whose righteous cause he was about to die. In other places, where our Savior is spoken of in His glorified state, He is said to be, not standing, but seated, at the right hand of the Father. (As in Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12: 2; compare Rom. 8:34, and 1Pe. 3:22.) Here alone He is said to be standing. It is as if (according to Chrysostom’s beautiful thought) He had risen from His throne, to succor His persecuted servant, and to receive him to Himself. And when Stephen saw his Lord — perhaps with the memories of what he had seen on earth crowding into his mind, — he suddenly exclaimed, in the ecstasy of his vision:"Behold! I see the Heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God!"
This was too much for the Jews to bear. The blasphemy of Jesus had been repeated. The follower of Jesus was hurried to destruction. "They cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord." It is evident that it was a savage and disorderly condemnation. (f169) They dragged him out of the council-hall, and, making a sudden rush and tumult through the streets, hurried him to one of the gates of the city, — and somewhere about the rocky edges of the ravine of Jehoshaphat, where the Mount of Olives looks down upon Gethsemane and Siloam, or on the open ground to the north, which travelers cross when they go towards Samaria or Damascus, — with stones that lay without the walls of the Holy City, this heavenly-minded martyr was murdered. The exact place of his death is not known. There are two traditions, (f170) — an ancient one, which places it on the north, beyond the Damascus gate; and a modern one, which leads travelers through what is now called the gate of St. Stephen, to a spot near the brook Kedron, over against the garden of Gethsemane. But those who look upon Jerusalem from an elevated point on the north-east, have both these positions in view; and any one who stood there on that day might have seen the crowd rush forth from the gate, and the witnesses (who according to the law were required to throw the first stones (f171)) cast off their outer garments, and lay them down at the feet of Saul.
The contrast is striking between the indignant zeal which the martyr (f172) had just expressed against the sin of his judges, and the forgiving love which he showed to themselves, when they became his murderers. He first uttered a prayer for himself in the words of Jesus Christ, which he knew were spoken from the cross, and which he may himself have heard from those holy lips. And then, deliberately kneeling down, in that posture of humility in which the body most naturally expresses the supplication of the mind, and which has been consecrated as the attitude of Christian devotion by Stephen and by Paul himself, (f173) — he gave the last few moments of his consciousness to a prayer for the forgiveness of his enemies; and the words were scarcely spoken when death seized upon him, or rather, in the words of Scripture, "he fell asleep."
"And Saul was consenting (f174) to his death." A Spanish painter, (f175) in a picture of Stephen conducted to the place of execution, has represented Saul as walking by the martyr’s side with melancholy calmness. He consents to his death from a sincere, though mistaken, conviction of duty; and the expression of his countenance is strongly contrasted with the rage of the baffled Jewish doctors and the ferocity of the crowd who flock to the scene of bloodshed. Literally considered, such a representation is scarcely consistent either with Saul’s conduct immediately afterwards, or with his own expressions concerning himself at the later periods of his life. (See Act. 22:4, 26:10; Php. 3:6; 1Ti. 1:13.) But the picture, though historically incorrect, is poetically true. The painter has worked according to the true idea of his art in throwing upon the persecutor’s countenance the shadow of his coming repentance. We cannot dissociate the martyrdom of Stephen from the conversion of Paul. The spectacle of so much constancy, so much faith, so much love, could not be lost. It is hardly too much to say with Augustine, that "the Church owes Paul to the prayer of Stephen."
SI STEPHANUS NON ORASSET ECCLESIA PAULUM NON HABERET.
Footnotes
(f84) This notion, that the doctrine of Christ will be reabsorbed in that of Moses, is a curious phase of the recent Jewish philosophy. "We are sure," it has been well said, "that Christianity can never disown its source in Judaism: but a more powerful spell than this philosophy is needed to charm back the stately river into the narrow, rugged, picturesque ravine, out of which centuries ago it found its way."
(f85) See what Josephus says of the Sadducees: Ant. 13:10, 6; 18:1, 4, comparing the question asked, Joh. 7:48.
(f86) War, 2:8.
(f87) We have the word in the "Simon Zelotes" of the Gospel (Luk. 6:15), though the party was hardly then matured.
(f88) Described in great detail by Philo.
(f89) It is uncertain when the written Targums came into use, but the practice of paraphrasing orally in Chaldee must have begun soon after the Captivity.
(f90) Aram — the "Highlands" of the Semitic tribes — comprehended the tract of country which extended from Taurus and Lebanon to Mesopotamia and Arabia. There were two main dialects of the Aramaean stock, the eastern or Babylonian, commonly called Chaldee (the "Syrian tongue" of 2Ki. 18:26; Isa. 36:11, Ezr. 4:7; Dan. 2:4); and the western, which is the parent of the Syriac, now, like the former, almost a dead language. The first of these dialects began to supplant the older Hebrew of Judaea from the time of the Captivity, and was the "Hebrew" of the New Testament, Luk. 23:38; Joh. 19:20; Act. 21:40, 22:2, 26:14. Arabic, the most perfect of the Semitic languages, has now generally overspread those regions.
(f91) See p. 35, n. 2.
(f92) See pp. 24, 25, and notes.
(f93) See Ch. 12.
(f94) See Chap. 1. p. 10, note.
(f95) This repugnance is illustrated by many passages in the Talmudic writings. Rabbi Levi Ben Chajathah, going down to Caesarea, heard them reciting their phylacteries in Greet, and would have forbidden them; which when Rabbi Jose heard, he was very angry, and said, "If a man doth not know how to recite in the holy tongue, must he not recite them at all? Let him perform his duty in what language he can." The following saying is attributed to Rabban Simeon, the son of Gamaliel:"There were a thousand boys in my father’s school, of whom five hundred learned the law, and five hundred the wisdom of the Greeks; and there is not one of the latter now alive, excepting myself here, and my uncle’s son in Asia." We learn also from Josephus that a knowledge of Greek was lightly regarded by the Jews of Palestine.
(f96) It is useless here to enter into any of the legends connected with the number "seventy." This translation came into existence from 300 to 150 B.C. Its theological importance cannot be exaggerated. The quotations in the N.T. from the O.T. are generally made from it. See p. 37.
(f97) This temple was not in the city of Alexandria, but at Leontopolis. It was built (or rather it was an old Heathen temple repaired) by Onias, from whose family the high priesthood had been transferred to the family of the Maccabees, and who had fled into Egypt in the time of Ptolemy Philopator. It remained in existence till destroyed by Vespasian. See Josephus, War, 1:1, 1, 7:10, 3; Ant. 13:3.
(f98) Helon’s Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, published in German in 1820, translated into English in 1824.
(f99) Php. 3:5. Cave sees nothing more in this phrase than that "his parents were Jews, and that of the ancient stock, not entering in by the gate of proselytism, but originally descended from the nation." — Life of St. Paul, 1:2. Benson, on the other hand, argues, from this passage and from 2Co. 11:22, that there was a difference between a "Hebrew" and an "Israelite." — "A person might be descended from Israel, and yet not be a Hebrew, but an Hellenist… St. Paul appeareth to me to have plainly intimated, that a man might be of the stock of Israel and of the tribe of Benjamin, and yet not be a Hebrew of the Hebrews; but that, as to himself, he was, both by father and mother, a Hebrew, or of the race of that sort of Jews which were generally most esteemed by their nation." — History of the First Planting of the Christian Religion, vol 1, p. 117.
(f100) Act. 6:1. For the absurd Ebionite story that St. Paul was by birth not a Jew at all, but a Greek, see the next chapter.
(f101) See Tholuck’s Essay on the early life of St. Paul, Eng. Trans. p. 9. Out of eighty-eight quotations from the Old Testament, Koppe gives grounds for thinking that forty-nine were cited from memory. And Bleek thinks that every one of his citations without exception is from memory. He adds, however, that the Apostle’s memory reverts occasionally to the Hebrew text, as well as to that of the Septuagint. See an article in the Christian Remembrancer for April, 1848, on Grinfield’s Hellenistic Ed. of the N. T.
(f102) We must not, however, press these considerations too far, especially when we take Php. 3:5 into consideration. Dr. Schaff presents the subject under a different view, as follows:"Certain it is that the groundwork of Paul’s intellectual and moral training was Jewish: yet he had at least some knowledge of Greek literature, whether he acquired it in Tarsus, or in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, who himself was not altogether averse to the Hellenistic philosophy, or afterwards in his missionary journeying and his continual intercourse with Hellenists." — Hist. of the Christian Church.
(f103) St. Paul’s ready use of the spoken Aramaic appears in his speech upon the stairs of the Castle of Antonia at Jerusalem, "in the Hebrew tongue." This familiarity, however, he would necessarily have acquired during his student-life at Jerusalem, if he had not possessed it before. The difficult question of the "Gift of Tongues" will be discussed in Chap. 13.
(f104) "A name frequent and common in the tribe of Benjamin ever since the first King of Israel, who was of that name, was chosen out of that tribe; in memory whereof they were wont to give their children this name at their circumcision." — Cave, 1:3; but he gives no proof.
(f105) This is suggested by Neander.
(f106) Pro. 31:1. Cf. Susanna, 3; 2Ti. 3:15, with 1Ti. 1:5.
(f107) 1Ch. 27:32; 2Ki. 10:1, 5. Cf. Joseph. Life, 76; Ant. 16:8, 3.
(f108) It may be thought that here, and below, p. 50, too much prominence has been given to the attachment of a Jew in the Apostolic age to his own particular tribe. It is difficult to ascertain how far the tribe-feeling of early times lingered on in combination with the national feeling, which grew up after the Captivity. But when we consider the care with which the genealogies were kept, and when we find the tribe of Barnabas specified (Act. 4:36), and also of Anna the prophetess ( Luk. 2:36), and when we find St. Paul alluding in a pointed manner to his tribe (see Rom. 11:1, Php. 3:5, and compare Act. 13:21, and also 36:7), it does not seem unnatural to believe that pious families of so famous a stock as that of Benjamin should retain the hereditary enthusiasm of their sacred clanship. See, moreover, Mat. 19:28; Rev. 5:5, 7:4-8.
(f109) e. g. Tertullian.
(f110) As regards the chronology of St. Paul’s life, it is enough to refer to Ch. 4. and especially to Appendix III.
(f111) This is on the supposition that he died A. D. 66, at the age of 68.
(f112) Act. 7:58. It must be remembered, however, that the term neani>av was applied to all men under 40.
(f113) Caesar, like Alexander, treated the Jews with much consideration. Suetonius speaks in strong terms of their grief at his death. Augustus permitted the largess, when it fell on a Sabbath, to be put off till the next day.
(f114) Some of the older biographers of St. Paul assume this without any hesitation: and the mistake is very frequent still. It is enough to notice that the Tribune (Act. 21:39, 22:24) knew that St. Paul was a Tarsian, without being aware that he was a citizen.
(f115) It appears that Antony gave Tarsus the privileges of an Urbs libera, though it had previously taken the side of Augustus, and been named Juliopolis.
(f116) Great numbers of Jews were made slaves in the Civil "Wars, and then manumitted. A slave manumitted with due formalities became a Roman citizen. Thus it is natural to suppose that the Apostle, with other Cilician Jews, may have been, like Horace, libertino patre natus. (Sat. I. 6:45.)
(f117) This suggestion is due to Wieseler, who translates the verse which describes Stephen’s great opponents, so as to mean "Libertines" from "Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia." We think, as is observed below (p. 56, note), that another view is more natural: but at least we should observe that we find Saul, a Roman citizen, actively co-operating in persecution with those who are called Libertini.
(f118) War, 2:14, 6.
(f119) Ant. 14:10, 13.
(f120) Origen says that he had both names from the first; that he used one among the Jews, and the other afterwards. Augustine, that he took the name when he began to preach. Chrysostom, that he received a new title, like Peter, at his ordination in Antioch. Bede, that he did not receive it till the Proconsul was converted; and Jerome, that it was meant to commemorate that victory.
(f121) Hair-cloth of this kind is manufactured at the present day in Asia Minor, and the word is still retained in French, Spanish, and Italian.
(f122) "Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles, who also were in Christ before me." — Rom. 16:7.
(f123) "The plain presented the appearance of an immense sheet of corn-stubble, dotted with small camps of tents: these tents are made of hair-cloth, and the peasantry reside in them at this season, while the harvest is reaping and the corn treading out." — Beaufort’s Karamania, p. 273.
(f124) In Strabo’s day there was an inconvenient "bar" at the month of the Cydnus. Here (as in the case of the Pyramus and other rivers on that coast) the land has since that time encroached on the sea. The unhealthiness of the sea-coast near the Gulf of Scanderoon is notorious, as can be testified by more than one of those who contributed drawings to the quarto edition of this book, which contains views of Tarsus and of the falls of the Cydnus.
(f125) Act. 20:34. "Ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that were with me." Compare 18:3; 1Co. 4:12; 1Th. 2:9; 2Th. 3:8.
(f126) This is written from the recollection of a Mohammedan school at Bildah in Algeria, where the mosques can now be entered with impunity. The children, with the teacher, were on a kind of upper story like a shelf, within the mosque. All were seated on this floor, in the way described by Maimonides below (p. 57). The children wrote on boards, and recited what they wrote; the master addressed them in rapid succession; and the confused sound of voices was unceasing. For pictures of an Egyptian and a Turkish school, see the Bible Cyclopoedia, 1841; and the Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, 1847.
(f127) Gal. 3:24, where the word inaccurately rendered "Schoolmaster" denotes the attendant slave who accompanied the child to the school. A Jewish illustration of a custom well known among the Greeks and Romans is given by Buxtorf. He describes the child as taken to the preceptor under the skirt of a Rabbi’s cloak, and as provided with honey and honey-cakes, symbolizing such passages as Deu. 32:13, Son. 4:11, Psa |
