Reading: Persecution (ISBE Article)

The importance of this subject may be indicated by the fact of the frequency of its occurrence, both
in the Old Testament and New Testament. In the King James Version, the words "persecute,"
"persecuted," "persecuting" are found 46 times, "persecution" 10 times, and "persecutor" 1 times. In
the New International Version, the words "persecute," "persecuted," "persecuting" are found 40
times, "persecution" 9 times, and "persecutor" 1 times. In the English Standard Version, the words
"persecute," "persecuted," "persecuting" are found 38 times, "persecution" 7 times, and "persecutor"
2 times.
1. Persecution in Old Testament Times:
Persecution existed not only in New Testament times but also in the days of the Old Testament. In
what Jesus said to the Pharisees, He specially referred to the innocent blood that had been shed in
those times. He told them that they were showing themselves heirs - to use a legal phrase - to their
fathers who had persecuted the righteous, "from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of
Zechariah son of Berekiah" (Matthew 23:35).
2. Between the Testaments:
In the period between the close of the Old Testament and the coming of Christ, there was much and
protracted suffering endured by the Jews. This persecution was because of their refusal to embrace
idolatry, and of their fidelity to the Mosaic Law and the worship of God. During that time, there were
many patriots who were real martyrs. And those heroes of faith, the Maccabees, were among those
who "know their God... and do exploits" (Daniel 11:32). 'We have no need of human help,' said
Jonathan the Jewish high priest, 'having for our comfort the sacred Scriptures which are in our
hands' (1 Macc 12:9).
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, persecution in the days of the Old Testament is summed up in these
words from Hebrews 11:36-38. "Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and
put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They
went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated - the world was not
worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground."
3. Foretold by Christ:
Coming now to New Testament times, persecution was frequently foretold by Christ, as certain to
come to those who were His true disciples and followers. He forewarned them again and again that
it was inevitable. He said that He must suffer it (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22, Matthew
17:23; Mark 8:31).
4. A Test of Discipleship:
It would be a test of true discipleship. In the parable of the Sower, Jesus mentions this as one of the
causes of defection among those who are Christians in outward appearance only. When affliction
or persecution come for the word's sake, immediately the stony-ground hearers are offended (Mark
4:17).
5. A Means of Blessing:
It would be a means of gaining a blessing whenever it came to His loyal followers when they were in
the way of well-doing. Jesus speaks of it in two of the Beatitudes. "Blessed are they that have been
persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". "Blessed are you when
men shall reproach you, and persecute you for my sake" (Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11; see
also Matthew 5:12).
6. Various Forms:
It would take different forms, ranging through every possible variety, from false accusation to the
infliction of death, beyond which, Jesus pointed out (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4), persecutors are
unable to go. The methods of persecution that were employed by the Jews, and also by those
against the followers of Christ, were such as these: (1) Men would revile them and would say all
manner of evil against them falsely, for Christ's sake (Matthew 5:11). (2) Contempt and
disparagement would be shown to them: "Say we not well that you are a Samaritan and have a
demon?" (John 8:48); "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more
them of his household!" (Matthew 10:25). (3) They would be, solely on account of their loyalty to
Christ, forcibly separated from the company and the society of others, and expelled from the
synagogues or other assemblies for the worship of God. "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you,
and when they shall separate you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name
as evil, for the Son of man's sake" (Luke 6:22). "They shall put you out of the synagogues" (John
16:2). (4) They faced illegal arrest, confiscation of goods, and death itself (Hebrews 10:32-34).
All these various methods, used by the persecutor, were foretold, and came to pass. It was the fear
of apprehension and death that led the eleven disciples to forsake Jesus in Gethsemane and to flee
for their lives. Jesus often warned them about the severity of the persecution that they would need
to encounter if they were loyal to Him. "The hour cometh, that whosoever kills you shall think that he
offers service unto God" (John 16:2). "Therefore I am sending you prophets. Some of them you will
kill and crucify; others you will flog in the synagogues, and persecute from city to city" (Matthew
23:34).
7. In the Case of Jesus:
In the case of Christ Himself, persecution took the form of attempts to entrap Him in His speech
(Matthew 22:15). Also through the questioning of His authority (Mark 11:28); illegal arrest; the
heaping of every insult upon Him as a prisoner; false accusation; and a violent and most cruel
death.
8. Instigated by the Jews:
After our Lord's resurrection, the first attacks against His disciples came from the high priest and his
party. The high-priesthood was then in the hands of the Sadducees. One reason that moved them
to take action of this kind was because the apostles "proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the
dead" (Acts 4:2; Acts 5:17). The gospel based upon the resurrection of Christ was evidence of the
untruth of the chief doctrines held by the Sadducees, for they held that there is no resurrection. But,
instead of yielding to the proof of the fact that the resurrection had taken place, they opposed and
denied it, and persecuted His disciples. For a time, the Pharisees were more moderate in their
attitude toward the Christian faith, as is shown in the case of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34). On one
occasion, they were even willing to defend the apostle Paul (Acts 23:9) on the doctrine of the
resurrection. But gradually the whole of the Jewish people became bitter persecutors of the
Christians. Thus, in the earliest of the Pauline Epistles, it is said, "For you, brothers, became
imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus. You suffered from them the same
things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also
drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men" (1 Thessalonians 2:14,15).
9. Stephen:
Serious persecution of the Christian church began with the case of Stephen (Acts 7:1-60); and his
lawless execution was followed by "a great persecution" directed against the Christians in
Jerusalem. This "great persecution" (Acts 8:1) scattered the members of the church, who fled to
avoid chains and imprisonment and death. At this time, Saul signalized himself by his high activity,
persecuting "this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women"
(Acts 22:4).
10. The Apostles, James, and Peter:
Then one of the apostles was put to death. The first to suffer from "the glorious company of the
apostles" was James the brother of John, who died by the sword by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:2).
Peter also was imprisoned and was rescued by an angel (Acts 12:7-11).
11. Gentile Persecution:
During the period covered by the Acts, there was not much Gentile persecution. At that time, the
persecution suffered by the Christian church was chiefly from the Jews. There were, however,
great dangers and risks encountered by the apostles and by all who proclaimed the gospel then.
Thus, at Philippi, Paul and Silas were most cruelly persecuted (Acts 16:19-40). Even before that
time, Paul and Barnabas had suffered much at Iconium and Lystra (Acts 14:5, Acts 14:19). On the
whole, the Roman authorities were not actively hostile during the greater part of Paul's lifetime.
Gallio, for instance, the deputy of Achaia, declined to go into the charge brought by the Jews at
Corinth against Paul (Acts 18:14, Acts 18:15, Acts 18:16). And, when Paul had pleaded in his
defense before King Herod Agrippa and the Roman governor Festus, these two judges were agreed
in their opinion. "This man doeth nothing worthy of death or bonds" (Acts 26:31). Indeed, it is
evident (see Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 308) that the purpose of Paul's
trial being recorded at length in the Acts is to establish the fact that the preaching of the gospel was
not forbidden by the laws of the Roman empire, but that Christianity was a religio licita, a lawful
religion.
Christianity Was at First Not a Forbidden Religion.
This legality of the Christian faith was illustrated and enforced by the fact that when Paul's case was
heard and decided by the supreme court of appeal at Rome, he was set free and resumed his
missionary labors. These facts are recorded or referred to in the Pastoral Epistles. One thing,
however, is evident from a comparison of Philippians with 2 Timothy. There had been in the interval
a complete change in the policy toward Christianity of the Roman government. This change was
due to the great fire of Rome (July, 64 AD). As part of the persecution that then broke out, orders
were given for the imprisonment of the Christian leaders. Poppea, Tigellinus, and their Jewish
friends were not likely to forget the prisoner of two years before. At the time, Paul was away from
Rome, but steps were instantly taken for his arrest. The apostle was brought back to the city in the
autumn or winter of 64. That he had a trial at all, instead of the summary punishment of his
brethren, attests to the importance attached by the government to a show of legality in
the persecution of Paul.
12. The Neronic Persecution:
The legal decisions that were favorable to the Christian faith were overturned on the occasion of the
great fire in Rome, which occurred in July of 64. A public feeling of resentment broke out against the
emperor to a high degree. So, to avoid the stigma, just or unjust, of being himself guilty of setting
the city on fire, he made the Christians the scapegoats that he thought he needed. Tacitus
(Annals xv. 44) relates all that occurred at that time, and what he says is most interesting. His
writings were some of the very earliest notices found by any author, both of the Christian faith, and
of Christ Himself.
(1) Testimony of Tacitus.
What Tacitus says is that nothing that Nero could do, either in the way of gifts to the populace or in
that of sacrifice to the Roman deities, could make the people believe that he was innocent of
causing the great fire that had consumed their dwellings. Hence, to relieve himself of this infamy he
falsely accused the Christians of being guilty of the crime of setting the city on fire. Tacitus uses the
strange expression "the persons commonly called Christians who were hated for their enormities."
This action is an instance of the saying of all manner of evil against them falsely, for Christ's sake.
The Christians, whose lives were pure and virtuous and beneficent, were spoken of as being the
offscouring of the earth.
(2) Reference in 1 Peter.
The First Epistle of Peter is one of the parts of the New Testament which seem to make direct
reference to the Neronic persecution. He uses words (1 Peter 4:12ff) which may be compared with
the narrative of Tacitus: "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as
though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings
of Christ. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory
and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any kind of criminal,
or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that
you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God. So then, those who
suffer according to the will of God should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to
do good."
(3) Tacitus' Narrative.
How altogether apposite and suitable was this comforting exhortation to the case of those who
suffered in the Neronic persecution. The description that Tacitus gives is as follows: "Christus, the
founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator in the reign of
Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again not only through
Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible
and disgraceful flow from all quarters as to a common sink, and where they are encouraged.
Accordingly, first, those were seized who confessed they were Christians; next, on their information,
a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of setting the city on fire, as of hating
the human race. And in their deaths they were made the subject of sport, for they were covered with
the skins of wild beasts and were worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and
when day declined were burned to serve for nocturnal lights. Nero offered his gardens for that
spectacle, and exhibited circus games, indiscriminately mingling with the common people dressed
as a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. Whence a feeling of compassion arose toward the
sufferers, though guilty and deserving to be made examples of by capital punishment, because they
seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but to be victims to the ferocity of one man."
(4) New Testament References.
Three of the books of the New Testament bear the marks of that cruelest persecution under Nero,
the Second Epistle to Timothy, the First Epistle of Peter - already referred to - and the Revelation of
John. In 2 Timothy, Paul speaks of his impending condemnation to death, and the terror inspired by
the persecution causes "all" to forsake him when he is brought to public trial (2 Timothy 4:16).
The "fiery trial" is spoken of in 1 Peter, and Christians are exhorted to maintain their faith with
patience; they are pleaded with to have their "conversation honest" (1 Peter 2:12 the King James
Version), so that all accusations directed against them may be seen to be untrue, and their
sufferings shall then be, not for ill-doing, but only for the name of Christ ( 1 Peter 3:14, 1 Peter
3:16 ). "This important epistle proves a general persecution (1 Peter 1:6; 1 Peter 4:12, 1 Peter
4:16 ) in Asia Minor North of the Taurus (1 Peter 1:1; note especially Bithynia) and elsewhere (1
Peter 5:9). The Christians suffer 'for the name,' but not the name alone (1 Peter 4:14 ). They are the
objects of vile slanders (1 Peter 2:12, 1 Peter 2:15; 1 Peter 3:14-16; 1 Peter 4:4, 1 Peter 4:15 ), as
well as of considerable zeal on the part of officials (1 Peter 5:8 (Greek 3:15)). As regards the
slanders, the Christians should be circumspect ( 1 Peter 2:15, 1 Peter 2:16; 1 Peter 3:16, 1 Peter
3:17; 1 Peter 4:15 ). The persecution will be short, for the end of all things is at hand (1 Peter 4:7, 1
Peter 4:13; 1 Peter 5:4 )" (Workman, Persecution in the Early Church , 354).
13. Persecution in Asia:
In Revelation, the apostle John is in "Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus"
(Revelation 1:9 ).Persecution has broken out among the Christians in the province of Asia. At
Smyrna, there is suffering, imprisonment, and prolonged tribulation; but the sufferers are cheered
when they are told that if they are faithful unto death, Christ will give them the crown of life
(Revelation 2:10 ). At Pergamum, persecution has already resulted in Antipas, Christ's faithful
martyr, being slain (Revelation 2:13 ). At Ephesus and at Thyatira the Christians are
commended for their patience, evidently indicating that there had been persecution (Revelation
2:2, Revelation 2:19 ). At Philadelphia there has been the attempt made to cause the members of
the church to deny Christ's name (Revelation 3:8 ); their patience is also commended, and the hour
of temptation is spoken of, which comes to try all the world, but from which Christ promised to keep
the faithful Christians in Philadelphia. Strangely enough, there is no distinct mention
of persecution having taken place in Sardis or in Laodicea.
14. Rome as Persecutor:
As the book proceeds, evidence of persecution is multiplied. In Revelation 6:9, the apostle sees
under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony which
they held; and those souls are bidden to rest yet for a little season "until their fellow-servants also
and their brethren, who should be killed even as they were, should have fulfilled their course"
(Revelation 6:11). The meaning is that there is not yet to be an end of suffering for Christ's
sake; persecution may continue to be as severe as ever. Compare Revelation 20:4 "I saw the souls
of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as
worshipped not the beast," for the persecution had raged against all classes indiscriminately, and
Roman citizens who were true to Christ had suffered unto death. It is to these that reference is
made in the words "had been beheaded," decapitation being reserved as the most honorable form
of execution, for Roman citizens only. So terrible does the persecution of Christians by the imperial
authorities become, that Rome is "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the
martyrs of Jesus" ( Revelation 17:6; Revelation 16:6; see also Revelation 18:24; Revelation 19:2 ).
Paul's martyrdom is implied in 2 Timothy, throughout the whole epistle, and especially in 2 Timothy
4:6, 2 Timothy 4:7, 2 Timothy 4:8. The martyrdom of Peter is also implied in John 21:18, John
21:19, and in 2 Peter 1:14. The abiding. impression made by these times of persecution upon the
mind of the apostle John is also seen in the defiance of the world found throughout his First Epistle
(1 John 2:17; 1 John 5:19 ), and in the rejoicing over the fall of Babylon, the great persecuting
power, as that fall is described in such passages as Revelation 14:8; Revelation 15:2, Revelation
15:3; Revelation 17:14; Revelation 18:24.
Following immediately upon the close of the New Testament, there is another remarkable witness to
the continuance of the Roman persecution against the Christian church. This is Pliny, proconsul of
Bithynia.
15. Testimony of Pliny, 112 A.D.:
In 111 or 112 AD, he writes to the emperor Trajan a letter in which he describes the growth of the
Christian faith. He goes on to say that "many of all ages and of all ranks and even of both sexes are
being called into danger, and will continue to be so. In fact, the contagion of this superstition is not
confined to the cities only but has spread to the villages and country districts." He proceeds to
narrate how the heathen temples had been deserted and the religious rites had been abandoned
for so long a time: even the sacrificial food - that is, the flesh of the sacrificial victims - could
scarcely find a purchaser.
But Pliny had endeavored to stem the tide of the advancing Christian faith, and he tells the emperor
how he had succeeded in bringing back to the heathen worship many professing Christians. That is
to say, he had used persecuting measures and had succeeded in forcing some of the Christians to
abandon their faith. He tells the methods he had used. "The method I have observed toward those
who have been brought before me as Christians is this. I asked them whether they were Christians.
If they admitted it, I repeated the question a second and a third time and threatened them with
punishment. If they persisted I ordered them to be punished. For I did not doubt, whatever the
nature of that which they confessed might be, that a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy ought to
be punished. There were others also, possessed with the same infatuation, whom, because they
were Roman citizens, I ordered to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading, as is usually the case,
while it was actually under legal prosecution, several cases occurred. An anonymous information
was laid before me, containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were
Christians, or that they had ever been so, repeated after me an invocation of the gods, and offered
prayer, with wine and incense, to your statue, which I had ordered to be brought in for this very
purpose, along with the statues of the gods, and they even reviled the name of Christ; whereas
there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I
thought it proper to discharge them. Others who were accused by a witness at first confessed
themselves Christians, but afterward denied it. Some owned indeed that they had been Christians
formerly but had now, some for several years, and a few above 20 years ago, renounced it. They all
worshiped your statue and the images of the gods.... I forbade the meeting of any assemblies, and
therefore I judged it to be so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth by putting
to the torture two female slaves, who were called deaconesses, yet I found nothing but an absurd
and extravagant superstition."
In Trajan's reply to Pliny he writes, "They (the Christians) ought not to be searched for. If they are
brought before you and convicted, they should be punished, but this should be done in such a way,
that he who denies that he is a Christian, and when his statement is proved by his invoking our
deities, such a person, although suspected for past conduct, must nevertheless be forgiven,
because of his repentance."
These letters of Pliny and Trajan treat state-persecution as the standing procedure - and this not a
generation after the death of the apostle John. The sufferings and tribulation predicted in Revelation
2:10, and in many other passages, had indeed come to pass. Some of the Christians had denied
the name of Christ and had worshipped the images of the emperor and of the idols, but multitudes
of them had been faithful unto death, and had received the martyr's crown of life.
16. 2nd and 3rd Centuries:
Speaking generally, persecution of greater or less severity was the normal method employed by the
Roman empire against the Christian church during the 2nd and the 3rd centuries. It may be said to
have come to an end only about the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century when the
empire became nominally Christian. When the apostolic period is left, persecution becomes almost
the normal state in which the church is found. And persecution, instead of abolishing the name of
Christ, as the persecutors vainly imagined they had succeeded in doing, became the means of the
growth of the Christian church and of its purity. Both of these important ends and others were
secured by the severity of the means employed by the persecuting power of the Roman empire.
Under Trajan's successor, the emperor Hadrian, the lot of the Christians was full of
uncertainty: persecution might break out at any moment. At the best Hadrian's regime was only that
of unauthorized toleration.
17. Best Emperors the Most Cruel Persecutors:
With the exception of such instances as those of Nero and Domitian, there is the surprising fact to
notice, that it was not the worst emperors, but the best, who became the most violent persecutors.
One reason probably was that the ability of those emperors led them to see that the religion of
Christ is really a divisive factor in any kingdom in which civil government and pagan religion are
indissolubly bound up together. The more that such a ruler was intent on preserving the unity of the
empire, the more would they persecute the Christian faith. Hence, among the rulers who were
persecutors, there are the names of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius the philosopher-emperor, and
Septimius Severus (died at York, 211 AD).
18. Causes of Persecution:
Persecution was no accident, which chanced to happen, but which might not have occurred at all. It
was the necessary consequence of the principles embodied in the heathen Roman
government when these came into contact and into conflict with the essential principles of the
Christian faith. The reasons for the persecution of the Christian church by the Roman empire were
(1) political; (2) on account of the claim which the Christian faith makes, and which it cannot help
making, to the exclusive allegiance of the heart and of the life. That loyalty to Christ which the
martyrs displayed was believed by the authorities in the state to be incompatible with the duties of a
Roman citizen. Patriotism demanded that every citizen should united in the worship of the emperor,
but Christians refused to take pat in the worship on any terms, and so they continually lived under
the shadow of a great hatred, which always slumbered, and might break out at any time. The claim
which the Christian faith made to the absolute and exclusive loyalty of all who obeyed Christ was
such that it admitted of no compromise with heathenism. To receive Christ into the pantheon as
another divinity, as one of several - this was not the Christian faith. To every loyal follower of Christ
compromise with other faiths was an impossibility. An accommodated Christianity would itself have
been false to the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He had sent, and would never have
conquered the world. To the heathen there were lords many and gods many, but to the Christians
there was but one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world (1
Corinthians 8:5,1 Corinthians 8:6 ). The essential absoluteness of the Christian faith was its
strength, but this was also the cause of it being hated.
"By a correct instinct paganisms of all sorts discerned in the infant church their only rival. So, while
the new Hercules was yet in the cradle, they sent their snakes to kill him. But Hercules lived to
cleanse out the Augean stables" (Workman, op. cit., 88).
19. 200 Years of Persecution:
"For 200 years, to become a Christian meant the great renunciation, the joining a despised and
persecuted sect, the swimming against the tide of popular prejudice, the coming under the ban of
the Empire, the possibility at any moment of imprisonment and death under its most fearful forms.
For 200 years, he that would follow Christ must count the cost, and be prepared to pay the same
with his liberty and life. For 200 years, the mere profession of Christianity was itself a
crime. Christianus sum was almost the one plea for which there was no forgiveness, in itself all that
was necessary as a 'title' on the back of the condemned. He who made it was allowed neither to
present apology nor call in the aid of a pleader. 'Public hatred,' writes Tertullian, 'asks but one thing,
and that not investigation into the crimes charged, but simply the confession of the Christian name.'
For the name itself in periods of stress, not a few, meant the rack, the blazing shirt of pitch, the lion,
the panther, or in the case of maidens an infamy worse than death" (Workman, 103).
20. Persecution in the Army:
Service in the Roman army involved, for a Christian, increasing danger in the midst of an organized
and aggressive heathenism. Hence, arose the persecution of the Christian soldier who refused
compliance with the idolatrous ceremonies in which the army engaged, whether those ceremonies
were concerned with the worship of the Roman deities or with that of Mithraism. "The invincible
savior," as Mithra was called, had become, at the time when Tertullian and Origen wrote, the
special deity of soldiers. Shrines in honor of Mithra were erected through the entire breadth of the
Roman empire, from Dacia and Pannonia to the Cheviot Hills in Britain. And woe to the soldier who
refused compliance with the religious sacrifices to which the legions gave their adhesion! The
Christians in the Roman legions formed no inconsiderable proportion of "the noble army of martyrs,"
it being easier for the persecuting authorities to detect a Christian in the ranks of the army than
elsewhere.
21. Tertullian's Apology:
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Christians were to be found everywhere, for Tertullian, in an
oftentimes quoted passage in his Apology, writes, "We live beside you in the world, making use of
the same forum, market, bath, shop, inn, and all other places of trade. We sail with you, fight
shoulder to shoulder, till the soil, and traffic with you"; yet the very existence of Christian faith, and
its profession continued to bring the greatest risks. "With the best will in the world, they remained a
peculiar people, who must be prepared at any moment to meet the storm of hatred" (Workman,
189). For them it remained true that in one way or another, hatred on the part of the world inevitably
fell to the lot of those who walked in the footsteps of the Master; "All that would live godly in Christ
Jesus shall suffer persecution" ( 2 Timothy 3:12 ).
22. "The Third Race":
The strange title, "the third race," probably invented by the pagan, but willingly accepted by the
Christians without demur, showed with what a bitter spirit the pagan regarded the faith of Christ.
"The first race" was indifferently called the Roman, Greek, or Gentile. "The second race" was the
Jews; while "the third race" was the Christian. The cry in the circus of Carthage was Usque quo
genus tertium? "How long must we endure this third race?"
23. Hatred Against Christians:
But one of the most powerful causes of the hatred entertained by the heathen against the Christians
was, that though there were no citizens so loyal as they, yet in every case in which the laws and
customs of the empire came into conflict with the will of God, their supreme rule was loyalty to
Christ, they must obey God rather than man. To worship Caesar, to offer even one grain of incense
on the shrine of Diana, no Christian would ever consent, not even. when this minimum of
compliance would save life itself.
The Roman empire claimed to be a kingdom of universal sway, not only over the bodies and the
property of all its subjects but over their consciences and their souls. It demanded absolute
obedience to its supreme lord, that is, to Caesar. This obedience the Christian could not render, for
the unlimited obedience of body, soul and spirit is due to God alone, the only Lord of the
conscience. Hence, it was that there arose the antagonism of the government to Christianity,
with persecution as the inevitable result.
These results, hatred and persecution, were, in such circumstances, inevitable; they were "the
outcome of the fundamental tenet of primitive Christianity, that the Christian ceased to be his own
master, ceased to have his old environment, ceased to hold his old connections with the state; in
everything he became the bond-servant of Jesus Christ, in everything owing supreme allegiance
and fealty to the new empire and the Crucified Head. 'We engage in these conflicts,' said Tertullian,
'as men whose very lives are not our own. We have no master but God'" (Workman, 195).
24. The Decian Persecution:
The persecution inaugurated by the emperor, Decius, in 250 AD was particularly severe. There was
hardly a province in the empire where there were no martyrs; but there were also many who
abandoned their faith and rushed to the magistrates to obtain their libelli, or certificates that they
had offered heathen sacrifice. When the days of persecution were over, these persons usually
came with eagerness to seek readmission to the church. It was in the Decian persecution that the
great theologian Origen, who was then in his 68th year, suffered the cruel torture of the rack; and
from the effects of what he then suffered he died at Tyre in 254.
25. Libelli:
Many libelli have been discovered in recent excavations in Egypt. In The Expository Times for
January 1909, p. 185, Dr. George Milligan gives an example, and prints the Greek text of one of
these recently discovered Egyptian libelli. These libelli are most interesting, illustrating as they do
the account which Cyprian gives of the way in which some faint-hearted Christians during the
Decian persecution obtained certificates - some of these certificates being true to fact, and others
false - to the effect that they had sacrificed in the heathen manner. The one which Dr. Milligan gives
is as follows: "To those chosen to superintend the sacrifices at the village of Alexander Island, from
Aurelius Diogenes, the son of Sarabus, of the village of Alexander Island, being about 72 years old,
a scar on the right eyebrow. Not only have I always continued sacrificing to the gods, but now also
in your presence, in accordance with the decrees, I have sacrificed and poured libations and tasted
the offerings, and I request you to countersign my statement. May good fortune attend you. I,
Aurelius Diogenes, have made this request."
(2nd Hand) "I, Aurelius Syrus, as a participant, have certified Diogenes as sacrificing along with us."
(1st Hand) "The first year of the Emperor Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Trajan Decius Plus Felix
Augustus, Epiph. 2" (= June 25,250 AD).
Under Valerian, the persecution was again very severe, but his successor, Gallienus, issued an
edict of toleration, in which he guaranteed freedom of worship to the Christians. Thus Christianity
definitely became a religio licita , a lawful religion. This freedom from persecution continued until the
reign of Diocletian.
26. The Edict of Milan:
The persecution of the Christian church by the empire of Rome came to an end in March, 313 AD,
when Constantine issued the document known as the "Edict of Milan," which assured to each
individual freedom of religious belief. This document marks an era of the utmost importance in the
history of the world. Official Roman persecution had done its worst, and had failed; it was ended
now; the Galilean had conquered.
27. Results of Persecution:
The results of persecution were: (1) It raised up witnesses, true witnesses, for the Christian faith.
Men and women and even children were among the martyrs whom no cruelties, however, refined
and protracted, could terrify into denial of their Lord. It is to a large extent owing to persecution that
the Christian church possesses the testimony of men like Quadratus and Tertullian and Origen and
Cyprian and many others. While those who had adopted the Christian faith in an external and
formal manner only generally went back from their profession, the true Christian, as even the
Roman proconsul Pliny testifies, could not be made to do this. The same stroke which crushed the
straw - such is a saying of Augustine's - separated the pure grain which the Lord had chosen.
(2) Persecution showed that the Christian faith is immortal even in this world. Of Christ's kingdom,
there shall be no end. "Hammer away, ye hostile bands, your hammers break, God's altar stands."
Pagan Rome, Babylon the Great, as it is called by the apostle John in the Apocalypse tried hard to
destroy the church of Christ; Babylon was drunk with the blood of the saints. God allowed this
tyranny to exist for 300 years, and the blood of His children was shed like water. Why was it
necessary that the church should have so terrible and so prolonged an experience of suffering? It
was in order to convince the world that though the kings of the earth gather themselves against the
Lord and against His Christ, yet all that they can do is vain. God is in the midst of Zion; He shall
help her, and that right early. The Christian church, as if suspended between heaven and earth, had
no need of other help than that of the unseen but divine hand, which at every moment held it up and
kept it from falling. Never was the church more free, never stronger, never more flourishing, never
more extensive in its growth, than in the days of persecution.
And what became of the great persecuting power, the Roman empire? It fell before the barbarians.
Rome has fallen in its ruins, and its idols are utterly abolished, while the barbarians who
overwhelmed the empire have become the nominally Christian nations of modern Europe, and their
descendants have carried the Christian faith to America and Australia and Africa and all over the
world.
(3) Persecution became, to a large extent, an important means of preserving the true doctrines of
the person and of the work of Christ. It was in the ages of persecution that Gnosticism died, though
it died slowly. It was in the ages of persecution that Arianism was overthrown. At the Council of
Nicea in 325 AD, among those who were present and took part in the discussion and in the decision
of the council, there were those who "bore in their bodies the branding marks of Jesus," who had
suffered pain and loss for Christ's sake.
Persecution was followed by these important results, for God in His wisdom had seen fit to permit
these evils to happen, in order to change them into permanent good; and thus the wrath of man was
overruled to praise God, and to effect more ultimate good, than if the persecutions had not taken
place at all. What, in a word, could be more divine than to curb and restrain and overrule evil itself
and change it into good? God lets iniquity do what it pleases, according to its own designs; but in
permitting it to move on one side, rather than on another, He overrules it and makes it enter into the
order of His providence. So He lets this fury against the Christian ith be kindled in the hearts of
persecutors so that they afflict the saints of the Most High. But the church remains safe,
for persecution can work nothing but ultimate good in the hand of God. "The blood of the martyrs is
the seed of the church." So said Tertullian, and what he said is true.
Persecution has permanently enriched the history of the church. It has given us the noble heritage
of the testimony and the suffering of those whose lives would otherwise have been unrecorded.
Their very names, as well as their careers, would have been unknown had
not persecution "dragged them into fame and chased them up to heaven."
Persecution made Christ very near and very precious to those who suffered. Many of the martyrs
bore witness, even when in the midst of the most cruel torments, that they felt no pain, but that
Christ was with them. Instances to this effect could be multiplied. Persecution made them feel how
true Christ's words were, that even as He was not of the world, so they also were not of it. If they
had been of the world, the world would love its own, but because Christ had chosen them out of the
world, therefore the world hated them. They were not greater than their Lord. If men had persecuted
Jesus, they would also persecute His true disciples. But though they were persecuted, they were of
good cheer, Christ had overcome the world; He was with them; He enabled them to be faithful unto
death. He had promised them the crown of life.
Browning's beautiful lines describe what was a common experience of the martyrs, how Christ "in
them" and "with them," "quenched the power of fire," and made them more than conquerors:
"I was some time in being burned,
But at the close a Hand came through
The fire above my head, and drew
My soul to Christ, whom now I see.
Sergius, a brother, writes for me
This testimony on the wall -
For me, I have forgot it all."

Reading: The Cross (ISBE Article)

Cross
(σταυρός, staurós, "a cross," "the crucifixion"; σκόλοψ, skólops, "a stake," "a pole"): The name is
not found in the Old Testament. It is derived from the Latin word crux. In the Greek language, it
is stauros, but sometimes we find the word skolops used as its Greek equivalent. The historical
writers, who transferred the events of Roman history into the Greek language, make use of these
two words. No word in human language has become more universally known than this word, and
that because all of the history of the world since the death of Christ has been measured by the
distance which separates events from it. The symbol and principal content of the Christian religion
and of Christian civilization are found in this one word.
1. Forms of the Cross
The cross occurs in at least four different forms: (1) The form usually seen in pictures, the crux
immissa, in which the upright beam projected above the shorter crosspiece; this is most likely the
type of cross on which the Saviour died, as may be inferred from the inscription which was nailed
above His head; (2) The crux commissa, or Anthony's cross, which has the shape of the letter T; (3)
The Greek cross of later date, in which the pieces are equally long; (4) The crux decussata, or
Andrew's cross, which has the shape of the letter X.
2. Discovery of the True Cross
The early church historians Socrates (1, 17), Sozomen (2, 1), Rufinus (1, 7), and Theodoret (1, 18)
all make mention of this tradition of the discovery of the cross of Christ. The most significant thing is
that Eusebius (Vit. Const ., iii.26-28), who carries more weight than they all together, wholly omits it.
According to it, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, in 325 AD, when she was 79 years
old, discovered the true cross of Jesus by an excavation she caused to be made on the traditional
spot of His grave. With the cross of the Saviour were found the two crosses of the malefactors who
were crucified with Him. A miracle of healing, wrought by touching the true cross, revealed its
identity. When found it was intact, even the holy nails of the crucifixion being discovered. The main
part of the cross was deposited by Helena in a church erected over the spot. Of the remainder, a
portion was inserted into the head of the statue of Constantine, and the balance was placed in a
new church, specially erected for it at Rome and named after it Santa Croce. Small fragments of the
wood of the true cross were sold, encrusted with gold and jewels, and since many among the
wealthy believers were desirous of possessing such priceless relics, the miracle of the
"multiplication of the cross" was devised, so that the relic suffered no diminution "et quasi intacta
maneret" (Paulinus epistle 11 ad Sev ). Fragments of the true cross are thus to be found in many
Roman Catholic churches of many countries, all over Christendom. It is said that the East
celebrated the staurosimos hēmera (Crucifixion Day) on September 14, since the 4th century. The
evidence for this fact is late and untrustworthy. It is certain that the West celebrated the Invention of
the Cross, on May 3, since the time of Gregory the Great in the 6th century. The finding and
publication of the apocryphal "Doctrina Addaei" has made it evident that the entire legend of the
discovery of the cross by Helena is but a version of the old Edessa legend, which tells of an
identical discovery of the cross, under the very same circumstances, by the wife of the emperor
Claudius, who had been converted to Christianity by the preaching of Peter.
3. Symbolical Uses of the Cross
(1) Extra-Scriptural
The sign of the cross was well known in the symbolics of various ancient nations. Among the
Egyptians it is said to have been the symbol of divinity and eternal life, and to have been found in
the temple of Serapis. It is known either in the form of the Greek cross or in the form of the letter
"T". The Spaniards found it to be well known, as a symbol, by the Mexicans and Peruvians, perhaps
signifying the four elements, or the four seasons, or the four points of the compass.
(2) Scriptural
The suffering implied in crucifixion naturally made the cross a symbol of pain, distress and burden-
bearing. Thus, Jesus used it Himself (Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24). In Pauline literature,
the cross stands for the preaching of the doctrine of the Atonement (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians
6:14; Philippians 3:18; Colossians 1:20). It expresses the bond of unity between the Jew and the
Gentile (Ephesians 2:16), and between the believer and Christ, and also symbolizes sanctification
(Galatians 5:24 ). The cross is the center and circumference of the preaching of the apostles and of
the life of the New Testament church.
4. Crucifixion
As an instrument of death the cross was detested by the Jews. "Cursed is everyone that hangeth
on a tree" (Galatians 3:13; compare Deuteronomy 21:23), hence, it became a stumbling-block to
them, for how could one accursed of God be their Messiah? Nor was the cross differently
considered by the Romans. "Let the very name of the cross be far away not only from the body of a
Roman citizen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears" (Cicero Pro Rabirio 5). The earliest
mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, the transfixion of the body lengthwise
and crosswise by sharpened stakes, a mode of death-punishment well known among the Mongol
race. The usual mode of crucifixion was familiar to the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians,
Persians, and Babylonians (Thuc. 1, 110; Herod. iii.125, 159). Alexander the Great executed two
thousand Tyrian captives in this way, after the fall of the city. The Jews received this form of
punishment from the Syrians and Romans (Ant., XII, v, 4; XX, vi, 2; BJ , I, iv, 6). The Roman citizen
was exempt from this form of death, it being considered the death of a slave (Cicero In Verrem i. 5,
66; Quint. viii.4). The punishment was meted out for such crimes as treason, desertion in the face of
the enemy, robbery, piracy, assassination, sedition, etc. It continued in vogue in the Roman empire
till the day of Constantine, when it was abolished as an insult to Christianity. Among the Romans
crucifixion was preceded by scourging, undoubtedly to hasten impending death. The victim then
bore his own cross, or at least the upright beam, to the place of execution. This in itself proves that
the structure was less ponderous than is commonly supposed. When he was tied to
the cross nothing further was done and he was left to die from starvation. If he was nailed to
the cross, at least in Judea, a stupefying drink was given him to deaden the agony. The number of
nails used seems to have been indeterminate. A tablet, on which the feet rested or on which the
body was partly supported, seems to have been a part of the cross to keep the wounds from tearing
through the transfixed members (Iren., Adv. haer ., ii.42). The suffering of death by crucifixion was
intense, especially in hot climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding
of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated the exposure to the heat of
the sun, the strained of the body and insufferable thirst. The swelled about the rough nails and the
torn lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and
stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. The mind was
confused and filled with anxiety and dread foreboding. The victim of crucifixion literally died a
thousand deaths. Tetanus not rarely supervened and the rigors of the attending convulsions would
tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily forces were exhausted and
the victim sank to unconsciousness and death. The sufferings were so frightful that "even among
the raging passions of war pity was sometimes excited" (BJ , V, xi, 1). The length of this agony was
wholly determined by the constitution of the victim, but death rarely ensued before thirty-six hours
had elapsed. Instances are on record of victims of the cross who survived their terrible injuries when
taken down from the cross after many hours of suspension (Josephus, Vita , 75). Death was
sometimes hastened by breaking the legs of the victims and by a hard blow delivered under the
armpit before crucifixion. Crura fracta was a well-known Roman term (Cicero Phil . xiii.12). The
sudden death of Christ evidently was a matter of astonishment (Mark 15:44 ). The peculiar
symptoms mentioned by John (John 19:34 ) would seem to point to a rupture of the heart, of which
the Saviour died, independent of the cross itself, or perhaps hastened by its agony.

Reading: Acts of the Apostles (ISBE Article)

Acts
I. The Author
Assuming the unity of the book, the argument runs as follows: The author was a companion of Paul.
The "we" sections prove that (Acts 16:10-17; Acts 20:6-16; 21; 27; 28). These sections have the
fullness of detail and vivid description natural to an eye-witness. This companion was with Paul in
the second missionary journey at Troas and at Philippi, joined Paul's party again at Philippi on the
return to Jerusalem during the third tour, and probably remained with Paul till he went to Rome.
Some of Paul's companions came to him at Rome: others are so described in the book as to
preclude authorship. Aristarchus, Aquila and Priscilla, Erastus, Gaius, Mark, Silas, Timothy,
Trophimus, Tychicus and others more or less insignificant from the point of view of connection with
Paul (like Crescens, Demas, Justus, Linus, Pudens, Sopater, etc.) are easily eliminated.
Curiously enough Luke and Titus are not mentioned in Acts by name at all. They are distinct
persons as is stated in 2 Timothy 4:10. Titus was with Paul in Jerusalem at the conference
(Galatians 2:1) and was his special envoy to Corinth during the time of trouble there. (2 Corinthians
2:12; 2 Corinthians 12:18) He was later with Paul in Crete (Titus 1:5). But the absence of mention of
Titus in Acts may be due to the fact that he was a brother of Luke (compare 2 Corinthians 8:18; 2
Corinthians 12:18). So A. Souter in DCG, article "Luke." If Luke is the author, it is easy to
understand why his name does not appear. If Titus is his brother, the same explanation occurs.
As between Luke and Titus, the medical language of Acts argues for Luke. The writer was a
physician. This fact Hobart (The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882) has demonstrated. (Compare
Zahn, Einl, 2, 435ff; Harnack's Luke the Physician, 177ff.) The arguments from the use of medical
terms are not all of equal weight. But the style is colored at points by the language of a physician.
The writer uses medical terms in a technical sense. This argument involves a minute comparison
with the writings of physicians of the time. Thus in Acts 28:3 katháptō, according to Hobart (288), is
used in the sense of poisonous matter invading the body, as in Dioscorides, Animal. Ven. Proem.
So Galen, De Typis 4 (VII, 467), uses it "of fever fixing on parts of the body" (Compare
Harnack, Luke the Physician, 177 f). Harnack agrees also that the terms of the diagnosis in Acts
28:8 "are medically exact and can be vouched for from medical literature" (ibid., 176 f). Hobart has
overdone his argument and adduced many examples that are not pertinent, but a real residuum
remains, according to Harnack. Then pı́mprasthai is a technical term for swelling. Let these serve
as examples. The interest of the writer in matters of disease is also another indication,
compare Luke 8:43. Now Luke was a companion of Paul during his later ministry and was a
physician. (Colossians 4:14). Hence, he fulfills all the requirements of the case.
The argument thus far is only probable, it is true, but there is to be added the undoubted fact that
the same writer wrote both the Gospel of Luke and Acts (Acts 1:1). The direct allusion to the Gospel
is reinforced by the identity of style and method in the two books. The external evidence is clear on
the matter. Both Gospel and Acts are credited to Luke the physician. The Muratorian canon
ascribes Acts to Luke. By the end of the 2nd century, the authority of the Acts is as well established
as that of the Gospel (Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 1885, 366). Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria, all call Luke the author of the book. The argument is complete. It is still
further strengthened by the fact that the point of view of the book is Pauline and by the absence of
references to Paul's epistles. If one, not Paul's companion had written Acts, he would certainly have
made some use of them. Incidentally, also, this is an argument for the early date of the Acts. The
proof that has won Harnack, the leader of the left in Germany, to the acknowledgment of the Lukan
authorship of Acts ought to win all to this position.
II. Date
1. Luke's Relations to Josephus
The acceptance of the Lukan authorship settles the question of some of the dates presented by
critics. Schmiedel places the date of Acts between 105 and 130 AD (Encyclopedia Biblica ). He
assumes as proven that Luke made use of the writings of Josephus. It has never been possible to
take with much seriousness the claim that the Acts shows acquaintance with Josephus. See
Keim, Geschichte Jesu , III, 1872, 134, and Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas , 1894, for the arguments
in favor of that position. The words quoted to prove it are in the main untechnical words of common
use. The only serious matter is the mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean in Acts 5:36 and
Josephus (Ant., XX, v, 1 f). In Josephus the names occur some twenty lines apart and the
resemblance is only slight indeed. The use of peı́thō in connection with Theudas
and apōstḗsai concerning Judas is all that requires notice. Surely, then, two common words for
"persuade" and "revolt" are not enough to carry conviction of the writer's use of Josephus. The
matter is more than offset by the differences in the two reports of the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts
12:19-23; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, vi, 7, XIX, viii, 2). The argument about Josephus may be definitely
dismissed from the field. With that goes all the ground for a 2nd-century date. Other arguments
have been adduced (see Holtzmann, Einl, 1892, 405) such as the use of Paul's epistles,
acquaintance with Plutarch, Arrian and Pausanias, because of imitation in method of work (i.e.
parallel lives of Peter and Paul, periods of history, etc.), correction of Galatians in Acts (for
instance, Galatians 1:17-24 and Acts 9:26-30; Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-33). The parallel with
Plutarch is fanciful while the use of Paul's epistles is by no means clear, the absence of such use,
indeed, being one of the characteristics of the book. The variation from Galatians is far better
explained on the assumption that Luke had not seen the epistles.
2. 80 AD Is the Limit if the Book Is to Be Credited to Luke
The majority who accept the Lukan authorship place it between 70 and 80 AD. This opinion rests
mainly on the idea that the Gospel according to Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem
in 70 AD. It is claimed that Luke 21:20 shows that this tragedy had already occurred, as compared
with Mark 13:14 and Matthew 24:15. But the mention of armies is very general, to be sure. Attention
is called also to the absence of the warning in Luke. Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 291 f)
admits that the arguments in favor of the date 70 to 80 are by no means conclusive. He writes "to
warn critics against a too hasty closing of the chronological question." In his new book (Neue
Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, etc., 1911, S. 81) Harnack definitely accepts the date
before the destruction of Jerusalem. Lightfoot would give no date to Acts because of the uncertainty
about the date of the Gospel.
3. Before 70 AD
Harnack and others consider that "very weighty considerations" argue for the early date. Harnack,
as already stated, now takes his stand for the early date. It is obviously the simplest way to
understand Luke's close of the Acts to be due to the fact that Paul was still in prison. Harnack
contends that the efforts to explain away this situation are not "quite satisfactory or very
illuminating." He does not mention Paul's death because he was still alive. The dramatic purpose to
bring Paul to Rome is artificial. The supposition of a third book from the use of protō̄̇n in Acts 1:1 is
quite gratuitous, since in the Koinē, not to say the earlier Greek, "first" was often used when only
two were mentioned (compare "our first story" and "second story," "first wife" and "second wife").
The whole tone of the book is that which one would naturally have before 64 AD. After the burning
of Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem, the attitude maintained in the book toward Romans and
Jews would have been very difficult unless the date was a long time afterward. The book will, I
think, be finally credited to the time 63 AD in Rome. The Gospel of Luke will then naturally belong to
the period of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea.
III. Sources Used by Luke
If we now assume that Luke is the author of the Acts, the question remains as to the character of
the sources used by him. One is at liberty to appeal to Luke 1:1-4 for the general method of the
author. He used both oral and written sources. In the Acts the matter is somewhat simplified by the
fact that Luke was the companion of Paul for a considerable part of the narrative (the "we"
sections, Acts 16:11-17; Acts 20:5; Acts 21:18; Acts 27 and 28). It is more than probable that Luke
was with Paul also during his last stay in Jerusalem and during the imprisonment at Caesarea.
There is no reason to think that Luke suddenly left Paul in Jerusalem and returned to Caesarea only
when he started to Rome (Acts 27:1). The absence of "we" is natural here, since it is not a narrative
of travel, but a sketch of Paul's arrest and series of defenses. The very abundance of material here,
as in Acts 20 and 21, argues for the presence of Luke. But, at any rate, Luke has access to Paul
himself for information concerning this period, as was true of the second, from Acts 13 to the end of
the book. Luke was either present or he could have learned from Paul the facts used.
Luke may have kept a travel diary, which was drawn upon when necessary. Luke could have taken
notes of Paul's addresses in Jerusalem (Acts 22) and Caesarea (Acts 24 through 26). From these,
with Paul's help, he probably composed the account of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-30). If the book
was written during Paul's first Roman imprisonment, Luke had the benefit of appeal to Paul at all
points. But, if so, he was thoroughly independent in style and assimilated his materials like a true
historian. Paul (and also Philip for part of it) was a witness to the events about Stephen in Acts
6:8 through 8:1 and a participant of the work in Antioch (Acts 11:19-30). Philip, the host of Paul's
company (Acts 21:8 ) on the last journey to Jerusalem, was probably in Caesarea still during Paul's
confinement there. He could have told Luke the events in Acts 6:1-7 and 8:4-40. In Caesarea also
the story of Peter's work may have been derived, possibly even from Cornelius himself (9:32
through 11:18).
Whether Luke ever went to Antioch or not we do not know (Codex Bezae has "we" in Acts 11:28),
though he may have had access to the Antiochian traditions. But he did go to Jerusalem. However,
the narrative in Acts 12 probably rests on the authority of John Mark (Acts 12:12, Acts 12:25), in
whose mother's house the disciples were assembled. Luke was apparently thrown with Mark in
Rome (Colossians 4:10), if not before. For Acts 1 through 5 the matter does not at first seem so
clear, but these chapters are not necessarily discredited on that account.
It is remarkable, as ancient historians made so little mention of their sources, that we can connect
Luke in the Acts with so many probable fountains of evidence. Barnabas (Acts 4:36 ) was able to
tell much about the origin of the work in Jerusalem. So could Mnason. Philip also was one of the
seven (Acts 6:5; Acts 21:8). We do not know that Luke met Peter in Rome, though that is possible.
But, during the stay in Jerusalem and Caesarea (two years), Luke had abundant opportunity to
learn the narrative of the great events told in Acts 1 through 5. He perhaps used both oral and
written sources for this section. One cannot, of course, prove by linguistic or historical arguments
the precise nature of Luke's sources in Acts. Only in broad outlines the probable materials may be
sketched.
IV. The Speeches in Acts
This matter is important enough to receive separate treatment. Are the numerous speeches
reported in Acts free compositions of Luke made to order à la Thucydides? Are they verbatim
reports from notes taken at the times and literally copied into the narrative? Are they substantial
reports incorporated with more or less freedom with marks of Luke's own style? In the abstract
either of these methods was possible. The example of Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy and Josephus
shows that ancient historians did not scruple to invent speeches of which no report was available.
There are not wanting those who accuse Luke of this very thing in Acts. The matter can only be
settled by an appeal to the facts so far as they can be determined.
It cannot be denied that to a certain extent the hand of Luke is apparent in the addresses reported
by him in Acts. But this fact must not be pressed too far. It is not true that the addresses are all alike
in style. It is possible to distinguish very clearly the speeches of Peter from those of Paul. Not
merely is this true, but we are able to compare the addresses of both Paul and Peter with their
epistles. It is not probable that Luke had seen these epistles, as will presently be shown. It is
crediting remarkable literary skill to Luke to suppose that he made up "Petrine" speeches and
"Pauline" speeches with such success that they harmonize beautifully with the teachings and
general style of each of these apostles. The address of Stephen differs also sharply from those of
Peter and Paul, though we are not able to compare this report with any original work by Stephen
himself. Another thing is true also, particularly of Paul's sermons. They are wonderfully stated to
time, place and audience. They all have a distract Pauline flavor, and yet a difference in local color
that corresponds, to some extent, with the variations in the style of Paul's epistles. Professor Percy
Gardner (The Speeches of Paul in Acts, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909) recognizes these
differences, but seeks to explain them on the ground of varying accuracy in the sources used by
Luke, counting the speech at Miletus as the most historic of all. But he admits the use of sources by
Luke for these addresses.
The theory of pure invention by Luke is quite discredited by appeal to the facts. On the other hand,
in view of the apparent presence of Luke's style to some extent in the speeches, it can hardly be
claimed that he has made verbatim reports. Besides, the report of the addresses of Jesus in Luke's
Gospel (as in the other gospels) shows the same freedom in giving the substance exact
reproduction of the words that is found in Acts. Again, it seems clear that some, if not all, the reports
in Acts are condensed, mere outlines in the case of some of Peter's addresses. The ancients knew
how to make shorthand reports of such addresses. The oral tradition was probably active in
preserving the early speeches of Peter and even of Stephen, though Paul himself heard Stephen.
The speeches of Paul all show the marks of an eyewitness (Bethge, Die paulinischen Reden, etc.,
174). For the speeches of Peter, Luke may have had documents, or he may have taken down the
current oral tradition while he was in Jerusalem and Caesarea. Peter probably spoke in Greek on
the day of Pentecost. His other addresses may have been in Aramaic or in Greek. But the oral
tradition would certainly carry them in Greek, if also in Aramaic. Luke heard Paul speak at Miletus
(Acts 20) and may have taken notes at the time. So also he almost certainly heard Paul's address
on the steps of the Tower of Antonia (Acts 22) and that before Agrippa (Acts 26). There is no
reason to think that he was absent when Paul made his defenses before Felix and Festus (Acts 24
through 25) He was present on the ship when Paul spoke (Acts 27), and in Rome when he
addressed the Jews (Acts 28). Luke was not on hand when Paul delivered his sermon at Antioch in
Pisidia (Acts 13), or at Lystra (Acts 14), or at Athens (Acts 17). But these discourses differ so
greatly in theme and treatment and are so essentially Pauline that it is natural to think that Paul
himself gave Luke the notes which he used. The sermon at Antioch in Pisidia is probably given as a
sample of Paul's missionary discourses. It contains the heart of Paul's gospel as it appears in his
epistles. He accentuates the death and resurrection of Jesus, remission of sins through Christ,
justification by faith. It is sometimes objected that at Athens the address shows a breadth of view
and sympathy unknown to Paul, and that there is a curious Attic tone to the Greek style. The
sermon does go as far as Paul can (compare 1 Corinthians 9:22 ) toward the standpoint of the
Greeks (but compare Colossians and Ephesians). However, Paul does not sacrifice his principle of
grace in Christ. He called the Athenians to repentance, preached the judgment for sin and
announced the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of
man here taught did not mean that God yanked at sin and could save all men without repentance
and forgiveness of sin. Chase (The Credibility of Acts ) gives a collection of
Paul's missionary addresses. The historical reality and value of the speeches in Acts may be said to
be vindicated by modern scholarship. For a sympathetic and scholarly discussion of all of Paul's
addresses see Jones, St. Paul the Orator (1910). The short speech of Tertullus (Acts 24) was made
in public, as was the public statement of Festus in Acts 26. The letter of Claudias Lysias to Felix in
Acts 23 was a public document. How Luke got hold of the conversation about Paul between Festus
and Agrippa in Acts 26 is more difficult to conjecture.
V. Relation of Acts to the Epistles
There is no real evidence that Luke made use of any of Paul's epistles. He was with Paul in Rome
when Colossians was written (Luke 4:14), and may, indeed, have been Paul's amanuensis for this
epistle (and for Ephesians and Philemon). Some similarities to Luke's style have been pointed out.
But Acts closes without any narrative of the events in Rome during the years there, so that these
epistles exerted no influence on the composition of the book. As to the two preceding groups of
Paul's epistles (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans) there is no
proof that Luke saw any of them. The Epistle to the Romans was probably accessible to him while
in Rome, but he does not seem to have used it. Luke evidently preferred to appeal to Paul directly
for information rather than to his epistles. This is all simple enough if he wrote the book or made his
data while Paul was alive. But if Acts was written very late, it would be strange for the author not to
have made use of some of Paul's epistles. The book has, therefore, the great advantage of
covering some of the same ground as that discussed in the earlier epistles, but from a thoroughly
independent stand-point. The gaps in our knowledge from the one source are often supplied
incidentally, but most satisfactorily, from the other. The coincidences between Acts and Paul's
epistles have been well traced by Paley in his Horae Paulinae, still a book of much value. Knowling,
in his Witness of the Epistles (1892), has made a study of the same problem.
But for the apparent conflict between Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15 the matter might be dropped at
this point. The contention of Lightfoot is that in Galatians 2:1-10 Paul gives the personal side of the
conference, not a full report of the general meeting. What Paul is doing is to show the Galatians
how he is on a par with the Jerusalem apostles, and how his authority and independence were
acknowledged by them. This aspect of the matter came out in the private conference. Paul is not
in Galatians 2:1-10 setting forth his victory over the Judaizers in behalf of Gentile freedom. But in
Acts 15 it is precisely this struggle for Gentile freedom that is under discussion. Paul's relations with
the Jerusalem apostles is not the point at all, though it in plain in Acts that they agree. In Galatians
also Paul's victory for Gentile freedom comes out. Indeed, in Acts 15 it is twice mentioned that the
apostles and elders were gathered together (Acts 15:4, Acts 15:6), and twice we are told that Paul
and Barnabas addressed them (Acts 15:4, Acts 15:12). It is therefore natural to suppose that this
private conference narrated by Paul in Galatians came in between Galatians 2:5 and Galatians 2:6 .
Luke may not, indeed, have seen the Epistle to the Galatians, and may not have heard from Paul
the story of the private conference, though he knew of the two public meetings. If he did know of the
private meeting, he thought it not pertinent to his narration. There is, of course, no contradiction
between Paul's going up by revelation and by the appointment of the church in Antioch. In Galatians
2:1, we have the second ( Galatians 1:18 ) visit to Jerusalem after his conversion mentioned by
Paul, while that in Acts 15 is the third in Acts (Acts 9:28; Acts 11:29; Acts 15:2 ). But there was no
particular reason for Paul to mention the visit in Acts 11:30, which did not concern his relation to the
apostles in Jerusalem. Indeed, only the "elders" are mentioned on this occasion. The same
independence between Acts and Galatians occurs in Galatians 1:17-24, and Acts 9:26-30. In Acts,
there is no allusion to the visit to Arabia, just as there is no mention of the private conference in Acts
15. So also in Acts 15:35-39 there is no mention of the sharp disagreement between Paul and Peter
at Antioch recorded in Galatians 2:11. Paul mentions it merely to prove his own authority and
independence as an apostle. Luke had no occasion to record the incident, if he was acquainted with
the matter. These instances illustrate well how, when the Acts and the epistles vary, they really
supplement each other.
VI. Chronology of Acts
Here we confront one of the most perplexing questions in New Testament criticism. In general,
ancient writers were not so careful as modern writers are to give precise dates for historical events.
Indeed, it was not easy to do so in view of the absence of a uniform method of reckoning times.
Luke does, however, relate his narrative to outward events at various points. In his Gospel he had
linked the birth of Jesus with the names of Augustus as emperor and of Quirinius as governor of
Syria (Luke 2:1), and the entrance of John the Baptist upon his ministry with the names of the chief
Roman and Jewish rulers of the time (Luke 3:1) So also in the Acts he does not leave us without
various notes of times. He does not, indeed, give the date of the Ascension or of the Crucifixion,
though he places the Ascension forty days after the Resurrection (Acts 1:3), and the great Day of
Pentecost would then come ten days later, "not many days hence" (Acts 1:5) But the other events in
the opening chapters of Acts have no clear chronological arrangement. The career of Stephen is
merely located "in these days" (Acts 6:1). The beginning of the general persecution under Saul is
located on the very day of Stephen's death (Acts 8:1), but the year is not even hinted at. The
conversion of Saul comes probably in its chronological order in Acts 9, but the year again is not
given. We have no hint as to the age of Saul at his conversion. So again the relation of Peter's work
in Caesarea (10) to the preaching to the Greeks in Antioch (11) is not made clear, though probably
in this order.
It is only when we come to Acts 12 that we reach an event whose date is reasonably certain. This is
the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD. But even so, Luke does not correlate the life of Paul with that
incident. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 49) places the persecution and death of James in 44, and
the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem in 46. About 44, then, we may consider that Saul came
to Antioch from Tarsus. The "fourteen years" in Galatians 2:1, as already shown, probably point to
the visit in Acts 15 some years later. But Saul had been in Tarsus some years and had spent some
three years in Arabia and Damascus after his conversion (Galatians 1:18). Beyond this it is not
possible to go. We do not know the age of Saul in 44 AD or the year of his conversion. He was
probably born not far from 1 AD. But if we locate Paul at Antioch with Barnabas in 44 AD, we can
make some headway. Here Paul spent a year (Acts 11:26). The visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11, the
first missionary tour in 13 and 14, the conference at Jerusalem in 15, the second missionary tour in
16 through 18, the third missionary tour and return to Jerusalem in 18 through 21, the arrest in
Jerusalem and two years in Caesarea in 21 through 26, all come between 44 AD and the recall of
Felix and the coming of Festus. It used to be taken for granted that Festus came in 60 AD.
(Wieseler figured it out so from Josephus and was followed by Lightfoot). But Eusebius, in his
"Chronicle," placed that event in the second year of Nero. That would be 56 AD unless Eusebius
has a special way of counting those years. Mr. C. H. Turner (art. "Chronology" in HDB ) finds that
Eusebius counts an emperor's regnal year from the September following. If so, the date could be
moved forward to 57 AD. But Ramsay (chapter xiv, "Pauline Chronology," in Pauline and Other
Studies ) cuts the Gordian knot by showing an error in Eusebius due to his disregarding an
interregnum with the reign of Mugs Ramsay here follows Erbes (Todestage Pauli und Petri in this
discovery and is able to fix upon 59 as the date of the coming of Festus. Probably 59 will have to
answer as a compromise date. Between 44 AD and 59 AD, therefore, we place the bulk of Paul's
active missionary work. Luke has divided this period into minor divisions with relative dates. Thus, a
year and six months are mentioned at Corinth (Acts 18:11), besides "yet many days" (Acts 18:18).
In Ephesus we find mention of "three months" (Acts 19:8) and "two years" (Acts 19:10), the whole
story summed up as "three years" (Acts 20:31). Then we have the "two years" of delay in Caesarea
(Acts 24:27). We thus have about seven of these fifteen years itemized. Much of the remaining
eight was spent in the journeys described by Luke. We are told also the times of year when the
voyage to Rome was under way (Acts 27:9), the length of the voyage (Acts 27:27), the duration of
the stay in Malta (Acts 28:11), and the times spent in Rome at the close of the book, "two whole
years" (Acts 28:30). Thus it is possible to fix a relative schedule of dates, though not an absolute
one. It is clear, then, that a rational scheme for events of Paul's career so far as recorded in the
Acts can be found. If 57 AD, for instance, should be taken as the year of Festus coming rather than
59 or 60 AD, the other dates back to 44 AD would, of course, be affected on a sliding scale. Back of
44 AD the dates are largely conjectural.
VII. Historical Worth of Acts
It was once fashionable to discredit Acts as a book of no real value as history. Peter is the leading
figure in the early chapters, as Paul is in the latter half of the book, but the correspondences are not
remarkably striking. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 8) tells his experience in regard to the
trustworthiness of Acts: "I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent
completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me." It was by actual
verification of Acts in points where it could be tested by inscriptions, Paul's epistles, or current non-
Christian writers, that "it was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative
showed marvelous truth." He concludes by "placing this great writer on the high pedestal that
belongs to him" (10). McGiffert (The Apostolic Age) had been compelled by the geographical and
historical evidence to abandon in part the older criticism. He also admitted that the Acts "is more
trustworthy than previous critics allowed" (Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 5). The honesty of Luke, his
fidelity to truth, is clearly shown in both his Gospel and the Acts. This, after all, is the chief trait in
the true historian. Luke writes as a man of serious purpose and is the one New Testament writer
who mentions his careful use of his materials (Luke 1:1-4). His attitude and bent are those of the
historian. He reveals artistic skill, it is true, but not to the discredit of his record. He does not give a
bare chronicle, but he writes a real history, an interpretation of the events recorded. He had
adequate resources in the way of materials and endowment and has made conscientious and
skillful use of his opportunity.
It is not necessary here to give in detail all the points in which Luke has been vindicated. The most
obvious are the following: The use of "proconsul" instead of "propraetor" in Acts 13:7 is a striking
instance. Curiously enough Cyprus was not a senatorial province very long. An inscription has been
found in Cyprus "in the proconsulship of Paulus." The 'first men' of Antioch in Pisidia is like the (Acts
13:50) "First Ten," a title which was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of
the East. The "priest of Zeus" at Lystra (Acts 14:13) is in accord with the known facts of the worship
there. So we have Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13:13), Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14), Lystra and
Derbe in Lycaonia (Acts 14:6), but not Iconium (Acts 14:1). In Philippi, Luke notes that the
magistrates are called strategoı́ or praetors (Acts 16:20) and are accompanied by lictors
or rhabdoū ́ choi (Acts 16:35). In Thessalonica, the rulers are "politarchs" (Acts 17:6), a title found
nowhere else, but now discovered on an inscription of Thessalonica. He rightly speaks of the Court
of the Areopagus at Athens (Acts 17:19) and the proconsul in Achaia (Acts 18:12). Though Athens
was a free city, the Court of the Areopagus at the times were the real rulers. Achaia was sometimes
associated with Macedonia, though at this time it was a separate senatorial province. In Ephesus
Luke knows of the "Asiarchs" (Acts 19:31), the presidents of the "Common Council" of the province
in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the
Emperor. Note also the fact that Ephesus is "temple-keeper of the great Diana" (Acts 19:35). Then
observe the town clerk (Acts 19:35), and the assembly (Acts 19:39). Note also the title of Felix,
"governor" or procurator (Acts 24:1), Agrippa the king (Acts 25:13), Julius the centurion and the
Augustan band (Acts 27:1). Acts 27 is a marvel of interest and accuracy for all who wish to know
details of ancient seafaring. The title "First Man of the Island" (Acts 28:7) is now found on a coin of
Malta.
These are by no means all the matters of interest, but they will suffice. In most of the items given
above Luke's veracity was once challenged, but now he has been triumphantly vindicated. The
force of this vindication is best appreciated when one recalls the incidental nature of the items
mentioned. They come from widely scattered districts and are just the points where in strange
regions it is so easy to make slips. If space allowed, the matter could be set forth in more detail and
with more justice to Luke's worth as a historian. It is true that in the earlier portions of the Acts we
are not able to find so many geographical and historical corroborations. But the nature of the
material did not call for the mention of so many places and persons. In the latter part, Luke does not
hesitate to record miraculous events also. His character as a historian is firmly established by the
passages where outside contact has been found. We cannot refuse him a good name in the rest of
the book though the value of the sources used certainly cuts a figure. Luke's general accuracy calls
for a suspense of judgment, and in the matter of Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Acts 5) Luke as
compared with Josephus outclasses his rival.
VIII. Purpose of the Book
A great deal of discussion has been given to Luke's aim in the Acts. Peter and Paul are the heroes
of the book as they undoubtedly were the two chief personalities in apostolic history. There is some
parallelism between the careers of the two men (compare the worship offered Peter at Caesarea
in Acts 10:25 and that to Paul in Acts 14:11; see also the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira and
that of Elymas). But Knowling (Acts, 16) well replies that curiously no use is made of the death of
both Peter and Paul in Rome, possibly at the same time. There is in truth no real effort on Luke's
part to paint Paul like Peter or Peter like Paul. The few similarities in incident are merely natural
historical parallels. Others have seen in the Acts a strong purpose to conciliate Gentile (pagan)
opinion in the fact that the Roman governors and military officers are so uniformly presented as
favorable to Paul, while the Jews are represented as the real aggressors against Christianity
(compare Josephus' attitude toward Rome). Here again the fact is beyond dispute. But the other
explanation is the more natural, namely, that Luke brings out this aspect of the matter because it
was the truth. Luke does have an eye on the world relations of Christianity and rightly reflects Paul's
ambition to win the Roman Empire to Christ (see Romans 15), but that is not to say that he has
given the book a political bias or colored it so as to deprive it of its historical worth. If Luke wrote
Acts in Rome, while Paul's case was still before Nero, it is easy to understand the somewhat long
and minute account of the arrest and trials of Paul in Jerusalem, Caesarea and Rome. The point
would be that of the legal aspect of Christianity before Roman laws were involved.