PAUL THE APOSTLE
PAUL THE APOSTLE 701
Further light is thrown on St. Paul’s malady by Gal 4!*5, for it is probably the same affliction that we meet with here : ‘ In nought did you (Galatians) wrong me. But you know it was due to an in- firmity of the flesh that I preached to you at that former time. And your temptation in my flesh (my physical condition) you did not treat with contempt nor loathing [lit. did not spit out), but as an angel of God you received me,—as Christ Jesus ! here, then, is your self-gratulation? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have dug out your eyes and given them me!’ The ‘thorn,’ then, was disabling; it compelled Paul unexpectedly to halt on his way, and so to preach to these ‘Galatians’ (but see Ramsay’s view of the circumstances, stated below). Its effects were such as to excite the scorn and aversion of beholders, so that it supplied a severe test of the candour and ΤΡ ΕΟ of the Galatians who had witnessed Paul’s abject condition under its inflic- tion. It may also be inferred, though less certainly (see Lightfoot, ad loc.), that the complaint, at least temporarily, affected the patient’s eyesight. The diagnosis excludes—(1) the hypothesis of spiritual temptations (to pride, blasphemy, ete., injectiones Satan) made current by Luther; and (2) equally that of carnal incitements, favoured by medieval and Roman Catholic interpreters in accordance with the erroneous Latin rendering, stimulus carnis. (3) Nor could the ‘thorn’ have signified human opposers, such as the ‘ ministers of Satan’ of 2Co 11; nor the hindrances and afilictions related in 2 Co 11% (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others). (4) The evidence points to gina disease of some distressing and disfiguring ind, recurrent at intervals, having its seat in St. Paul’s nervous constitution and supervening upon the ecstasy of his ‘visions and revelations’ (so Ewald, Holsten, v. Hofmann, Klépper, Lightfoot, Sch niedel, Krenkel). Of known diseases, epilepsy, or some obscure form of hysteria, best answers to ‘hese conditions. Krenkel has elaborately dis- cussed the question in his Barros (Pp. 47-125), showing that epilepsy was regarded by the ancients with peculiar horror as a supernatural visitation, and often associated with lunacy (Mt 4* 17%), with which also Paul was taxed (2 Co 5% 12"), He observes, further, that spectators witnessing epi- leptic attacks used to spit out in BUnere on dread and by way of averting the evil (the morbus qui tatur of Plautus’ Captivi, U1. iv. 18, and the despui suetus of Pliny’s HN x. 23 [33])—a circumstance explaining the οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε of Gal 44, Epileptic seizures taking place in mature life and at distant intervals are not necessarily fatal to activity and mental vigour: witness the cases of Julius Cesar, Peter the Great, Napoleon L; the instance of king Alfred (Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 183-188) is strikingly arallel in some par- ticulars to that of Paul. e hypothesis of oph- thalmia (advanced in Farrar’s St. Paul, vol. i. Excursus x.) has its starting-point in Gal 4%; it meets some but not all the conditions of the case. This disease, in the severe form supposed, damages the eyes to a degree inconsistent with Paul’s quick observation and powerful gaze. W. M. Ramsay has recently pogrom malarial fever (comp. Conyb. and Hows. Life and Epp. of St. Paul, ch. viii.), which eee ref conjectures) at- tacked Paul in Pamphylia (Ac 13%-*), compelling Barnabas and Binivelt ὃν seek relief in the bracing air of the uplands of Asia Minor. To this necessity Ramsay supposes Paul to refer in Gal 4%, on the
theory that the ‘Galatians’ of the Ep. are the | South Galatians of Antioch, Iconium, ete. (CA. in |
all the symptoms of the malady. A long and perilous journey, like that from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, would scarcely be undertaken in such ‘weakness of the flesh.’ Nor is malarial fever likely to have excited the aversion indicated in Gal 4", And Mark’s desertion, under these cir- cumstances, becomes almost incredibly base. The references of Tertullian, and other early inter preters, to violent Aeadache and similar complaints are in the right direction, but inadequate. They may be an echo of the earliest tradition. If the apostle’s liability to nervous disorders supplies unfriendly critics with a ground on which to dis- credit his visions and his Divine inspiration, these disparagements are but a repetition of those made in his lifetime. The fact that his malady exposed St. Paul’s apostleship to this reproach, gave a cruel and piercing sharpness to the ‘thorn.’ So much the more perfect was the triumph of Christ’s grace in this deeply wounded man.
3. St. Paul's Conversion.—The interest of St. Paul’s life centres in his conversion to the faith of Jesus Christ. The root of his doctrine is also here. This was the most pregnant event of epee history ; it is more fully related in the
T than any other outside of the Gospels. It was one of those lightning strokes occurring at de- cisive moments in the advance of revelation, which precipitate the issue of a long course of previous spiritual development, and liberate new forces for operation in some new era of the kingdom of God.
1e call of Saul of Tarsus to His service by the risen Jesus, while it put a last seal, from the hand of one hitherto His bitter enemy, to the testimony concerning His resurrection and exaltation (1 Co 15°"), supplied the starting-point for a fresh de- parture in the dispensation of the gospel (Eph 2’, 1 Ti 1%). In the soul of the converted Saul a world-wide revolution lay germinally hidden. In his mind the Christian principle, the λόγος τοῦ σταυροῦ, first displayed its full significance ; in him Christ appropriated that ‘chosen vessel’ through which His gospel was to work out its largest intel- lectual and social results, the instrument whereby the society of Jesus was to be expanded from a Jewish Messianic sect into the Church of the nations, coextensive with the Roman Empire and set on its way to re-create the civilized world.