(c) The third period of Paul’s ministry is signal- ized by the extension of his mission to Europe, and by the writing of his earliest apostolic letters (1 and 2 Th). The history of the SEcoND MIs- SIONARY JOURNEY is contained in Ac 15%-18”. It hepins with the rupture between Paul and Barnabas, occasioned by Paul’s refusal of the com- panionship of Mark (to whom in the end he was reconciled: Philem™, Col 4%, 2 Ti 4"), but of
which a deeper cause lay in the changed relations must now go his own way.
of the twoleaders. Pa’
PAUL THE APOSTLE
He proceeds to the mission field in Asia Minor, taking for his associate Silas (or Silvanus), one of the two delegates sent from Jerus. to ΒΟΘΟΙΒΏΡΕΥ Barnabas and Paul on their return to Antioc (Ac 15% 37- 8), Silas, like Paul, was a Hebrew of Latin name and Roman citizenship (16*7),—a ‘prophet,’ moreover, and a ‘leading man’ in the Jerus. Church. He accompanied Paul only for this journey. Much later, we find him acting as St. Peter’s secretary (1 P 5"). Silas and Mark were important links between the Apostles Paul and Peter, and between the Judean Church and the Gentile mission. Paul and Silas journeyed by road, through the Cilician Gates, to S. Galatia, arriving first at Derbe, then at Lystra. At Lystra Paul enlisted young Timotheus, possibly to fill the place of Mark as assistant to himself and Silas. He first, however, ‘ circumcised him,’ since he was the son of a Jewess, to avoid scandalizing the Jews (Ac 16-4). At each place Paul and Silas de- livered the resolutions of the Council of Jerus. (15%), which were received everywhere (15% 16°) with lively satisfaction. They effected their immediate purpose of composing the J udeo-Gentile Churches and putting a stop to the legalistic agitation. The circumcision of Timothy was another conciliatory step on St. Paul’s part (see Hort’s Jud. Christianity, pp. 84-87). The line of Churches between the two Antiochs were now becoming ‘solidly established in the faith, and they were increasing in number daily.’
Ac 16° brings us to the turning point of the second missionary journey, and toa critical moment in Paul’s career. St. Luke is pressing forward to the Macedonian mission, and sketches intervening movements less distinctly than his wont, in the long and somewhat awkward sentence of vv.*8, We gather that St. Paul’s plan had been, after the visitation of the S. Galatian Churches now com-
leted, to push on westwards along the great
ighway to Ephesus, the chief city of Asia Minor and the stepping-stone to Greece and Rome. But the travellers were ‘forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia’ (the Roman rovince of that name, with Ephesus for its capital). When afterwards, ‘having come over against Mysia,’ much farther north, ‘they were trying to enter Bithynia,’ ‘the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.’ They were thus compelled finally to make for Troas, where the vision appeared which sum- moned Paul to the help of the Macedonians. This was a great and pregnant movement in apostolic history—the step which carried Paul and Silas across the Aigean ; other events of the time were of importance, in Luke’s view, only as leading up to this. Three distinct Divine interpositions oceurred, forcing Paul and his companions upon 8, venture quite unanticipated by themselves.
But how are we to construe the first clause of y.°—according to the critical text its principal and governing sentence, ‘ But they passed through the Phrygian and Galatian country, having been (i.e. since they were) forbidden* by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia’? (διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν, κωλυθέντες κ.τ.λ.). Ramsay (who has reinforced with powerful arguments the theory held by Mynster, Perrot, Renan, Hausrath, Weizsiicker, that Paul never entered N. Galatia, and that the Galatians of his Ep. are the people of the Phrygian and Lycaonian Churches founded on
* Ramsay prefers the reading of the TR, διελθόντες x.7.2., Whick he interprets as resumptive of vv.45, thus detaching χωλυ- θίντες from the foregoing clause. Even with the reading διῆλθον δὲ, it is maintained that xwAviévris . . "Agia conveys a distinct predication, not explaining the διελθεῖν, but supplementing it and stating the next occurrence (see, besides Ramsay a8 below, Askwith's Destination and Date of the Ep. to the Gal., ch. ili.). With the given arrangement of words, this construction at the best is artificial.
PAUL THE APOSTLE
the first tour) argues that ‘the Phrygian and Galatian region’ of this passage is simply the Pure -Galatian district extending from [conium to tioch traversed before, and that Paul and Silas journeyed in a direct line, and with no con- siderable delay, from this region to Troas. It seems to be clear, on the other hand, that v.® concludes the account of St. Paul’s visitation of S. Galatia, and that v.° relates his setting out ona new campaign. Forbidden to preach in Asia, the missionaries moved in another direction ; and ‘the Phrygian and Galatian region’ is Luke’s definition of the fresh field upon which they now enter. Here St. Luke first employs the word Galatian, although the travellers have been within the Roman province of that name since arriving at Derbe, for the cities of Asia Minor evangelized on the first tour all lay (as Ramsay has decisively proved) within its bounds. We naturally look for this new ‘Galatian region’ in Galatia proper or N. Galatia, the western part of which, with Pessinus for its centre, marched with Phrygia not far to the east of the direct way from Antioch to Troas. The presumption from Greek usage is that τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν signifies two adjoining districts coupled to eiuee rather than one district known by two different names (comp. Ac 275, Lk 31, 1 Th 18), and that the co-ordinate ‘Phrygian’ and ‘Galatian’ are used in the same sense (the former ethnic, and so therefore the latter). Spek er from N.W. Galatia, the travel- lers would find themselves (ν.7) close to Bithynia on the north, and with Mysia presenting itself on the west. V.° thus fills in the geographical space between νυ." and 7, and defines the tract, first Phrygian in population then Galatian, which separated Bithynia from St. Paul’s old mission field.* (On the question of N. v. S. Galatia see, in addition to writers mentioned before, Lightf. Galatians, Introd.; Ramsay’s Ch. in Rom. Emp. chs. iii.-vi., St. Paul the Trav. chs. v., Vi., Viii., ix., Studia Biblica, rv. ii., and art. GALATIA in this Dictionary ; Chase in the Expositor, Iv. viii. 401, ix. 314, 331, with Ramsay’s replies; Gifford, ἐδ. Iv. x. 1; Zéckler, SK, 1894, pp. 51-102 ; Schiirer, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1892, p. 471; Crit. Review, mm. [1893] 356 ; Lipsius, ‘ Handcom.,’ Galat., Ein- leitung). The verb διῆλθον (16°) connotes a ‘ mis- sionary progress’ (St. Paul the Trav. ᾿ 384); and when Paul revisits this district on his third journey (18%), he ‘travels through the Galatian region and