Apocryphal Acts of St. Paul
Professor Schmidt has published a
photographic copy, a transcription, a German
translation, and a commentary of a Coptic
papyrus composed of about 2000 fragments, which he has classified, juxtaposed,
and deciphered at a cost of infinite labour ("Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger
koptischen Papyrushandschrift Nr. 1", Leipzig, 1904, and "Zusatze" etc.,
Leipzig, 1905). Most critics, whether Catholic
(Duchesne, Bardenhewer, Ehrhard etc.), or Protestant
(Zahn, Harnack, Corssen etc.), believe
that these are real "Acta Pauli", although the text edited by Schmidt, with its
very numerous gaps, represents but a small portion of the original work. This
discovery modified the generally accepted ideas
concerning the origin, contents, and value of these apocryphal
Acts, and warrants the conclusion that three ancient compositions which have
reached us formed an integral part of the "Acta Pauli" viz. the
"Acta Pauli et Theclae", of which the best edition is that of
Lipsius, ("Acta Apostolorum apocrypha", Leipzig, 1891, 235-72), a
"Martyrium Pauli" preserved in Greek and a fragment of which also exists in Latin (op. cit., 104-17), and a letter from the Corinthians to Paul with the latter's reply, the
Armenian text of which was preserved (cf. Zahn, "Gesch. des neutest.
Kanons", II, 592-611), and the Latin discovered
by Berger in 1891 (d. Harnack, "Die apokryphen Briefe des Paulus an die
Laodicener und Korinther", Bonn, 1905). With great sagacity Zahn anticipated
this result with regard to the last two documents, and the manner in which
St. Jerome speaks of the periodoi Pauli et
Theclae (Illustrious Men 7) might have permitted the same surmise with
regard to the first. Another consequence of
Schmidt's discovery is no less interesting. Lipsius
maintained -- and this was hitherto the common opinion -- that besides the
Catholic "Acts" there formerly existed Gnostic
"Acts of Paul", but now everything tends to prove that
the latter never existed. In fact Origen
quotes the "Acta Pauli" twice as an estimable writing (Commentary on John XX.12; De Principiis II.1.3); Eusebius
(Church History
III.3.5 and
III.25.4) places them among the books in dispute, such as the
"Shepherd" of Hermas, the "Apocalypse of Peter", the "Epistle of Barnabas", and the "Teaching of the Apostles". The stichometry of the "Codex Claromontanus" (photograph in
Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible", II, 147) places them after the canonical books. Tertullian
and St. Jerome, while pointing out the legendary character of this writing, do
not attack its orthodoxy.
The precise purpose of St. Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians which formed part of the "Acts", was
to oppose the Gnostics,
Simon and Cleobius. But there is no reason to admit the existence of
heretical "Acts" which have since been hopelessly
lost, for all the details given by ancient authors are verified in the "Acts"
which have been recovered or tally well with them. The following is the explanation of the confusion: The
Manicheans
and Priscillianists had circulated a collection of five
apocryphal "Acts", four of which were tainted with heresy,
and the fifth were the "Acts of Paul". The "Acta Pauli", owing to this
unfortunate association, are suspected of heterodoxy
by the more recent authors such as Philastrius (De haeres., 88) and Photius
(Cod., 114). Tertullian
(On Baptism
17) and
St. Jerome (Illustrious Men 7) denounce the fabulous character of the
apocryphal "Acts" of Paul, and this severe judgment is amply confirmed by
the examination of the fragments published by Schmidt. It is a purely
imaginative work in which improbability vies with absurdity. The author, who
was acquainted with the canonical
Acts of the Apostles, locates the scene in the places really visited by
St. Paul (Antioch,
Iconium, Myra,
Perge, Sidon,
Tyre, Ephesus, Corinth,
Philippi, Rome), but
for the rest he gives his fancy free rein. His chronology
is absolutely impossible. Of the sixty-five persons he
names, very few are known and the part played by
these is irreconcilable with the statements of the
canonical "Acts". Briefly, if the canonical "Acts" are true the
apocryphal "Acts" are false.
This, however, does not imply that none of the details have historical
foundation, but they must be confirmed by an independent authority.
Chronology
If we admit according to the almost
unanimous opinion of exegetes
that Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1-10, relate to the same fact it will be seen that an interval of
seventeen years — or at least sixteen, counting incomplete years as accomplished
— elapsed between the conversion
of Paul and the Apostolic council, for Paul visited Jerusalem
three years after his conversion
(Galatians 1:18) and returned after fourteen years for the meeting held with
regard to legal observances (Galatians 2:1: "Epeita dia dekatessaron eton"). It is
true that some authors include the three years prior to the first
visit in the total of fourteen, but this explanation seems forced. On the other
hand, twelve or thirteen years elapsed between the Apostolic council and the end of the captivity, for the
captivity lasted nearly five years (more than two years at Caesarea,
Acts 24:27, six months travelling, including the sojourn at
Malta, and two years at Rome,
Acts 28:30); the third mission lasted not less than four years and a half
(three of which were spent at Ephesus,
Acts 20:31, and one between the departure from Ephesus and the arrival at Jerusalem,
1 Corinthians 16:8; Acts 20:16, and six months at the very least for the journey to Galatia,
Acts 18:23); while the second mission lasted not less than three years
(eighteen months for Corinth,
Acts 18:11, and the remainder for the evangelization of Galatia,
Macedonia, and Athens,
Acts 15:36-17:34).
Thus from the conversion to the end of the first captivity we have a total of about
twenty-nine years. Now if we could find a
fixed point that is a synchronism between a fact in the life of Paul and a certainly dated
event in profane history, it would be easy to reconstruct the Pauline
chronology. Unfortunately this much wished-for mark has not yet been
indicated with certainty,
despite the numerous attempts made by scholars, especially in recent times. It
is of interest to note even the abortive
attempts, because the discovery of an inscription
or of a coin may
any day transform an approximate date
into an absolutely fixed point. These are the meeting of Paul with Sergius Paulus, Proconsul of
Cyprus,
about the year 46 (Acts 13:7) the meeting at
Corinth
with Aquila and Priscilla, who had been expelled from Rome,
about 51 (Acts 18:2) the meeting with Gallio,
Proconsul of Achaia,
about 53 (Acts 18:12) the address of Paul before
the Governor Felix and his wife Drusilla
about 58 (Acts 24:24).All these events, as far
as they may be assigned approximate dates,
agree with the Apostle's
general chronology but give no precise results. Three synchronisms, however, appear
to afford a firmer basis: (1) The
occupation of Damascus by the ethnarch
of King Aretas and the escape of the Apostle three years
after his conversion
(2
Corinthians 11:32-33;
Acts 9:23-26). --
Damascene
coins bearing the effigy of Tiberius
to the year 34 are extant, proving
that at that time the
city belonged to the Romans. It is impossible to assume that Aretas had received
it as a gift from Tiberius,
for the latter, especially in his last years, was hostile to the King of the
Nabataeans whom Vitellius,
Governor of Syria, was
ordered to attack (Joseph., "Ant.", XVIII, v, 13); neither could Aretas have
possessed himself of it by force for, besides the unlikelihood of a direct
aggression against the Romans, the expedition of Vitellius
was at first directed not against Damascus
but against Petra. It
has therefore been somewhat plausibly conjectured that Caligula, subject as he
was to such whims, had ceded it to him at the time of his accession (10 March,
37). As a matter of fact nothing is known of imperial coins of
Damascus dating from either Caligula or Claudius. According to this
hypothesis St. Paul's conversion
was not prior to 34, nor his escape from Damascus
and his first visit to Jerusalem, to 37. (2) Death of
Agrippa, famine in Judea, mission of Paul
and Barnabas to
Jerusalem to bring
thither the alms from the
Church of Antioch
(Acts 11:27-12:25). --
Agrippa
died shortly after the Pasch
(Acts 12:3,
12:19),
when he was celebrating in Caesarea
solemn festivals in honour of
Claudius's recent return from Britain,
in the third year of his reign, which had begun in 41
(Josephus, "Ant.", XIX, vii, 2). These combined
facts bring us to the year 44, and it is precisely in this year that Orosius (Hist., vii, 6) places the great famine
which desolated Judea.
Josephus mentions it somewhat later, under the procurator
Tiberius Alexander (about 46), but it is well known that the whole of Claudius's
reign was characterized by poor harvests (Suet., "Claudius", 18) and a general
famine was usually preceded by a more or less prolonged period of scarcity. It
is also possible that the relief sent in anticipation of the famine
foretold by Agabus
(Acts 11:28-29) preceded the appearance of the scourge or coincided with the
first symptoms of want. On the other hand, the synchronism between the death of
Herod and the mission of Paul can only be approximate, for although
the two facts are closely connected in the Acts, the
account of the death of Agrippa
may be a mere episode intended to shed light on the situation of the
Church of Jerusalem
about the time of
the arrival of the delegates from Antioch.
In any case, 45 seems to be the most satisfactory date. (3) Replacing of Felix
by Festus two years after the arrest to Paul (Acts 24:27). --
Until recently chronologists commonly
fixed this important event, in the year 60-61. Harnack, O. Holtzmann, and
McGiffert suggest advancing it four or five years for the following reasons:
(1) In his "Chronicon", Eusebius
places the arrival of Festus in the second year of Nero
(October, 55-October, 56, or if, as is asserted, Eusebius
makes the reigns of the emperors begin with the September after their accession,
September, 56-September, 57). But it must be borne in mind that the chroniclers
being always obliged to
give definite dates,
were likely to guess at them, and it may be that Eusebius for lack of definite information divided into two equal parts
the entire duration of the government of Felix and Festus. (2) Josephus
states (Ant., XX, viii, 9) that Felix having been recalled to Rome and
accused by the Jews to
Nero, owed his safety only to his brother Pallas who was then high in
favour. But according to Tacitus (Annal., XIII, xiv-xv), Pallas was dismissed
shortly before Britannicus celebrated his fourteenth anniversary, that is, in
January, 55. These two statements are irreconcilable; for if Pallas was
dismissed three months after Nero's
accession (13 October, 54) he could not have been at the summit of his power
when his brother Felix, recalled from Palestine at the command of
Nero about the time of
Pentecost, arrived at Rome.
Possibly Pallas, who after his dismissal retained his wealth and
a portion of his influence, since he stipulated that his administration should
not be subjected to an investigation, was able to be of assistance to his
brother until 62 when Nero, to
obtain possession of his goods,
Nero had him poisoned. The
advocates of a later date
bring forward the following reasons: (1)
Two years before the recall of Felix, Paul reminded him that he had been for
many years judge over the Jewish nation (Acts 24:10-27). This can scarcely mean less than six or seven years, and as,
according to Josephus
who agrees with Tacitus, Felix was named procurator
of Judea in 52, the beginning of the captivity would fall in 58 or 59. It
is true that the argument loses its strength if it be admitted with
several critics that Felix before being procurator had held a subordinate position in Palestine.
(2) Josephus
(Ant., XX, viii, 5-8) places under Nero
everything that pertains to the government of Felix, and although this long
series of events does not necessarily require many years it is evident that
Josephus regarded the government of Felix as coinciding for the most part
with the reign of Nero, which began on 13 October, 54. In fixing as follows the chief dates in
the life of Paul all certain or
probable data seem to be satisfactorily taken into account: Conversion, 35; first visit to Jerusalem,
37; sojourn at Tarsus,
37-43; apostolate at Antioch,
43-44; second visit to Jerusalem,
44 or 45; first mission, 45-49; third visit to Jerusalem,
49 or 50; second mission, 50-53; (1 and
2 Thessalonians), 52; fourth visit to Jerusalem,
53; third mission, 53-57; (1 and
2 Corinthians; Galatians), 56; (Romans),
57; fifth visit to Jerusalem,
arrest, 57; arrival of Festus, departure for Rome, 59;
captivity at Rome,
60-62; (Philemon;
Colossians; Ephesians;
Philippians), 61; second period of activity, 62-66; (1 Timothy;
Titus), second arrest, 66; (2 Timothy), martyrdom,
67. (See Turner, "Chronology of the New Testament" in Hastings, "Dict. of the
Bible" Hönicke, "Die Chronologie des Lebens des Ap. Paulus", Leipzig, 1903.
Life and work of Paul
Birth and education
From St. Paul himself we
know that he was born at Tarsus in
Cilicia (Acts 21:39), of a father who was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:26-28; cf. 16:37), of
a family in which piety was
hereditary (2 Timothy 1:3) and which was much attached to Pharisaic
traditions and observances (Philippians 3:5-6). St. Jerome
relates, on what ground is not known, that his
parents were natives of Gischala, a small town of Galilee
and that they brought him to Tarsus
when Gischala was captured by the Romans (Illustrious Men 5; "In epist. ad Phil.", 23). This last detail is
certainly an anachronism, but the Galilean
origin of the family is not at all improbable. As he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin he was given at the time of his circumcision the name of Saul, which must have
been common in that tribe in
memory of the first king of the Jews (Philippians 3:5). As a Roman citizen he also bore the Latin name of Paul. It was quite usual for the
Jews of that time to
have two names, one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek, between which there was often a
certain assonance and which were joined together exactly in the manner made use
of by St. Luke (Acts 13:9:
Saulos ho kai Paulos). See on this point Deissmann, "Bible Studies"
(Edinburgh, 1903, 313-17.) It was natural that in inaugurating his apostolate
among the Gentiles Paul should have adopted his Roman name, especially as the name
Saul had a ludicrous meaning in Greek. As
every respectable Jew had to
teach his son a trade, young Saul learned how to make tents (Acts 18:3)
or rather to make the mohair of which tents were made (cf. Lewin, "Life of St.
Paul", I, London, 1874, 8-9). He was still very young when sent to
Jerusalem to receive his education
at the school of
Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Possibly some of his family
resided in the holy city;
later there is mention of the presence of one of his sisters whose son saved his
life (Acts 23:16). From that
time it is
absolutely impossible to follow him until he takes an active part in the
martyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts 7:58-60; 22:20). He
was then qualified as a young man (neanias), but this was very elastic
appellation and might be applied to a man between twenty and forty.
Conversion and early labours
We read in the Acts of the Apostles three accounts of the conversion
of St. Paul (9:1-19;
22:3-21; 26:9-23) presenting some slight differences, which it is not difficult
to harmonize and which do not affect the basis of the narrative, which is
perfectly identical in substance. See J. Massie, "The Conversion of St. Paul" in
"The Expositor", 3rd series, X, 1889, 241-62. Sabatier, agreeing with most
independent critics, has well said (L'Apotre Paul, 1896, 42):
These differences cannot in any way alter
the reality of the fact; their bearing on the narrative is extremely remote;
they do not deal even with the circumstances accompanying the
miracle
but with the subjective impressions which the companions of St. Paul
received of these circumstances. . . . To base a denial of the historical
character of the account upon these differences would seem therefore a
violent and arbitrary
proceeding.All efforts hitherto made to
explain without a miracle
the apparition of Jesus to
Paul have failed. Naturalistic explanations are reduced to two: either Paul believed
that he really saw Christ,
but was the victim of an hallucination, or he believed
that he saw Him only through a spiritual vision,
which tradition, recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles, later erroneously materialized. Renan explained everything by hallucination due to
disease brought on by a combination of moral causes such as doubt,
remorse, fear, and
of physical causes such as ophthalmia, fatigue,
fever, the sudden transition from the torrid desert to
the fresh gardens of Damascus,
perhaps a sudden storm accompanied by lightning and thunder. All this combined,
according to Renan's theory, to produce a cerebral commotion, a passing delirium
which Paul took in good faith
for an apparition
of the risen
Christ. The other partisans of a
natural explanation while avoiding the word hallucination, eventually
fall back on the system of Renan which they merely endeavour to render a little
less complicated. Thus Holsten,
for whom the vision of Christ is
only the conclusion of a series of syllogisms by which Paul persuaded himself
that Christ was truly risen. So
also Pfleiderer, who however, causes the
imagination to play a more influential part:
An excitable, nervous temperament; a
soul that
had been violently
agitated and torn by the most terrible doubts; a
most vivid phantasy, occupied with the awful scenes of persecution on the one hand and on the other by the ideal image of the
celestial Christ; in
addition the nearness of Damascus
with the urgency of a decision, the lonely stillness, the scorching and blinding
heat of the desert --
in fact everything combined to produce one of those ecstatic
states in which the soul
believes that it sees those images and conceptions which
violently agitate it as if they were phenomena
proceeding from the outward world (Lectures on the influence of the Apostle
Paul on the development of Christianity, 1897, 43).We have quoted Pfleiderer's words at length because his
"psychological" explanation is considered the best ever devised. It will readily
be seen that it is insufficient and as much opposed to the account in the
Acts as to the express testimony of St. Paul himself.
Paul is certain of
having "seen" Christ as
did the other Apostles
(1 Corinthians 9:1); he declares that Christ
"appeared" to him (1 Corinthians 15:8) as He appeared to Peter, to James, to the Twelve,
after His Resurrection. He
knows that his conversion
is not the fruit of his reasoning or thoughts, but an unforeseen, sudden,
startling change, due to all-powerful grace
(Galatians 1:12-15; 1 Corinthians 15:10). He is wrongly credited
with doubts,
perplexities, fears,
remorse, before his conversion. He was halted by Christ
when his fury was at its height (Acts 9:1-2); it was "through zeal" that
he persecuted the Church
(Philippians 3:6), and he obtained mercy because he had acted "ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Timothy 1:13).All explanations,
psychological or otherwise, are worthless in face of these definite
assertions, for all suppose that it was Paul's faith in
Christ which engendered the vision,
whereas according to the concordant testimony of the Acts and
the Epistles it was the actual vision of Christ
which engendered faith. After his
conversion, his baptism,
and his miraculous
cure Paul set about preaching to the Jews
(Acts 9:19-20). He afterwards withdrew to Arabia --
probably to the region south of Damascus
(Galatians 1:17), doubtless less to preach than to meditate
on the Scriptures. On his return to Damascus
the intrigues of the Jews
forced him to flee by night (2 Corinthians 11:32-33; Acts 9:23-25). He went to Jerusalem
to see Peter
(Galatians 1:18), but remained only fifteen days, for the snares of the Greeks threatened his life. He then left for
Tarsus and is lost to sight for five or six years (Acts 9:29-30; Galatians 1:21). Barnabas
went in search of him and brought him to Antioch
where for a year they worked together and their apostolate was most fruitful
(Acts 11:25-26). Together also they were sent to Jerusalem
to carry alms to
the brethren on the occasion of the famine predicted by Agabus
(Acts 11:27-30). They do not seem to have found the Apostles
there; these had been scattered by the persecution of Herod.
Apostolic career of Paul
This period of twelve years (45-57) was
the most active and fruitful of his life. It comprises three great
Apostolic expeditions of which Antioch
was in each instance the starting-point and which invariably ended in a visit to
Jerusalem.
First mission (Acts 13:1-14:27)
Set apart by command of the
Holy Ghost for the special evangelization of the Gentiles,
Barnabas and Saul embark for Cyprus,
preach in the synagogue
of Salamina, cross the island from east to west doubtless following the southern
coast, and reach Paphos,
the residence of the proconsul Sergius Paulus, where a sudden change takes
place. After the conversion
of the Roman proconsul, Saul, suddenly become Paul, is invariably mentioned
before Barnabas
by St. Luke and manifestly assumes the leadership
of the mission which Barnabas has hitherto directed. The
results of this change are soon evident. Paul, doubtless concluding that
Cyprus,
the natural dependency of Syria and
Cilicia, would embrace the faith of
Christ when these two countries should be Christian,
chose Asia Minor as the field of his apostolate and sailed for Perge in
Pamphylia, eighty miles above the mouth of the Cestrus. It was then that John Mark, cousin of Barnabas,
dismayed perhaps by the daring projects of the Apostle,
abandoned the expedition and returned to Jerusalem,
while Paul and Barnabas
laboured alone among the rough mountains of Pisidia,
which were infested by brigands and crossed by frightful precipices. Their
destination was the Roman colony of Antioch,
situated a seven day's journey from Perge.
Here Paul spoke on the vocation of Israel and
the providential sending of the Messias, a
discourse which St. Luke reproduces in substance
as an example of his preaching in the synagogues
(Acts 13:16-41). The sojourn of the two missionaries in Antioch
was long enough for the word of the Lord to be
published throughout the whole country (Acts 13:49). When by their intrigues
the Jews had
obtained against them a decree of banishment, they went to Iconium,
three or four days distant, where they met with the same persecution from the Jews and
the same eager welcome from the Gentiles.
The hostility of the Jews
forced them to take refuge in the Roman colony of Lystra,
eighteen miles distant. Here the Jews from
Antioch and Iconium
laid snares for Paul and having stoned him
left him for dead, but again he succeeded in escaping and this time sought
refuge in Derbe,
situated about forty miles away on the frontier of the Province of Galatia.
Their circuit completed, the missionaries retraced their steps in order to visit
their neophytes, ordained
priests in each Church
founded by them at such great cost, and thus reached Perge
where they halted to preach the Gospel, perhaps
while awaiting an opportunity to embark for Attalia, a
port twelve miles distant. On their return to Antioch in Syria after an absence of at least three years, they were received
with transports of joy and
thanksgiving, for God had
opened the door of faith to
the Gentiles. The
problem of the status of the Gentiles
in the Church now
made itself felt with all its acuteness. Some Judeo-Christians coming down from Jerusalem
claimed that the Gentiles
must be submitted to circumcision and treated as the Jews
treated proselytes. Against this Paul and Barnabas
protested and it was decided that a meeting should be held at Jerusalem
in order to solve the question. At this assembly Paul and Barnabas
represented the community of Antioch.
Peter pleaded the freedom of the Gentiles; James upheld him, at the same time demanding that
the Gentiles should abstain from certain things which especially shocked the
Jews. It was decided, first,
that the Gentiles
were exempt from the Mosaic law. Secondly, that those of Syria and
Cilicia must abstain from things sacrificed
to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and
from fornication. Thirdly, that this injunction was laid upon them, not in
virtue of the Mosaic law, but in the name of the Holy Ghost. This meant the complete triumph of Paul's ideas. The restriction imposed on
the Gentile
converts of Syria and
Cilicia did not concern his Churches,
and Titus, his companion, was not compelled to be
circumcised, despite the loud protests of the Judaizers
(Galatians 2:3-4). Here it is to be assumed that Galatians 2 and Acts 15
relate to the same fact, for the actors are the same, Paul and
Barnabas on the one hand, Peter and James on the other; the discussion is the same,
the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles;
the scenes are the same, Antioch
and Jerusalem; the date is
the same, about A.D. 50; and the result is the same, Paul's victory over the
Judaizers. However, the decision of Jerusalem
did not do away with all difficulties. The question did not concern only the
Gentiles, and while exempting them from the Mosaic law, it was not declared that it would not have been counted
meritorious and more perfect
for them to observe it, as the decree
seemed to liken them to Jewish
proselytes of the second class. Furthermore the Judeo-Christians, not having been included in the verdict, were still free to
consider themselves bound to the observance of the law. This
was the origin of the dispute which shortly afterwards arose at
Antioch between Peter and Paul. The latter taught openly that the
law was abolished for the Jews
themselves. Peter did
not think otherwise, but he considered it wise to avoid giving offence to the
Judaizers and to refrain from eating with the Gentiles
who did not observe all the prescriptions of the law. As he
thus morally influenced the Gentiles
to live as the Jews did,
Paul demonstrated to him that this dissimulation or opportuneness prepared the
way for future misunderstandings and conflicts and even then had regrettable
consequences. His manner of relating this incident leaves no room for
doubt that Peter was
persuaded by his arguments (Galatians 2:11-20).
Second mission (Acts 15:36-18:22)
The beginning of the second mission was
marked by a rather sharp discussion concerning Mark, whom
St. Paul this time refused to accept as travelling companion.
Consequently Barnabas
set out with Mark for
Cyprus and Paul chose Silas or Silvanus, a Roman citizen like himself,
and an influential member of the Church of
Jerusalem, and sent by it to Antioch to
deliver the decrees of
the Apostolic council. The two missionaries
first went from Antioch to
Tarsus, stopping on the way in order to promulgate the decisions of the
Council of Jerusalem; then they went from Tarsus to
Derbe, through the Cilician Gates, the defiles of Tarsus,
and the plains of Lycaonia. The visitation of the Churches
founded during his first mission passed without notable incidents except the
choice of Timothy,
whom the Apostle
while in Lystra
persuaded to accompany him, and whom he caused to
be circumcised in order to facilitate his access to the Jews
who were numerous in those places. It was
probably at Antioch of Pisidia, although the Acts do
not mention that city, that the itinerary of the mission was altered by the
intervention of the Holy Ghost. Paul thought to enter the Province of Asia by the valley of
Meander which separated it by only three day's journey, but they passed through
Phrygia and the country of Galatia, having been forbidden by the
Holy Ghost to preach the word of God in
Asia (Acts 16:6). These words (ten phrygian kai Galatiken choran) are
variously interpreted, according as we take them to mean the Galatians of the north or of the south (see GALATIANS). Whatever the hypothesis, the
missionaries had to travel northwards in that portion of Galatia properly so
called of which Pessinonte was the capital, and the only question is as to
whether or not they preached there. They did not intend to do so, but as is known the evangelization of the Galatians was due to an accident, namely the
illness of Paul (Galatians 4:13); this fits very well for Galatians in the north. In any case the
missionaries having reached the upper part of Mysia (kata Mysian),
attempted to enter the rich Province of Bithynia, which lay before them, but the
Holy Ghost prevented them (Acts 16:7). Therefore, passing through Mysia without stopping to preach
(parelthontes) they reached Alexandria
of Troas, where God's will was again made known to them in the vision of a Macedonian who called them to come
and help his country (Acts 16:9-10). Paul continued to follow
on European
soil the method of preaching he had employed from the beginning. As far as
possible he concentrated his efforts in a metropolis from which the
Faith would spread to cities of second rank and to the country
districts. Wherever there was a synagogue
he first took his stand there and preached to the Jews and
proselytes who would consent to
listen to him. When the rupture with the Jews was
irreparable, which always happened sooner or later, he founded a new
Church with his neophytes
as a nucleus. He remained in the same city until persecution, generally aroused by the intrigues of the Jews,
forced him to retire. There were, however, variations of this plan. At
Philippi, where there was no synagogue,
the first preaching took place in the uncovered oratory called the
proseuche, which the Gentiles
made a reason for stirring up the persecution. Paul and Silas, charged with disturbing public order, were
beaten with rods, imprisoned, and finally exiled. But at Thessalonica and Berea, whither they successively repaired after leaving
Philippi, things turned out almost as they had
planned. The apostolate of
Athens was
quite exceptional. Here there was no question of Jews or
synagogue, Paul, contrary to his custom, was alone (1 Thessalonians 3:1), and he delivered before the areopagus a specially framed
discourse, a synopsis of which has been preserved by Acts 17:23-31 as a specimen of its kind. He seems to have left the city of his
own accord, without being forced to do so by persecution. The mission to Corinth on
the other hand may be considered typical. Paul preached in the
synagogue every Sabbath day, and when the violent
opposition of the Jews
denied him entrance there he withdrew to an adjoining house which was the
property of a proselyte
named Titus Justus. He carried on his apostolate in this manner for eighteen
months, while the Jews
vainly stormed against him; he was able to withstand them owing to the
impartial, if not actually favourable, attitude of the proconsul, Gallio.
Finally he decided to go to Jerusalem
in fulfillment of a vow made
perhaps in a moment of danger. From Jerusalem,
according to his custom, he returned to Antioch.
The two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written during the early months of his
sojourn at Corinth.
For occasion, circumstances, and analysis
of these letters see THESSALONIANS.
Third mission (Acts 18:23-21:26)
Paul's destination in his third journey
was obviously Ephesus. There Aquila and Priscilla were awaiting him, he had promised the
Ephesians to return and evangelize them if it
were the will of God
(Acts 18:19-21), and the Holy Ghost
no longer opposed his entry into Asia.
Therefore, after a brief rest at Antioch he
went through the countries of Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23) and passing through "the upper regions" of Central Asia he
reached Ephesus (19:1). His
method remained the same. In order to earn his living and not be a burden to the
faithful he toiled every day for many hours at
making tents, but this did not prevent him from preaching the Gospel. As usual he began with the
synagogue where he succeeded in remaining for three months. At the end of
this time he taught every day in a classroom placed at his disposal by a
certain Tyrannus "from the fifth hour to the tenth" (from eleven in the morning
till four in the afternoon), according to the interesting addition of the
"Codex Bezae" (Acts 19:9). This lasted two years, so that all the inhabitants of
Asia, Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord
(Acts 19:20). Naturally there were trials to be endured and
obstacles to be overcome. Some of these obstacles arose from the
jealousy
of the Jews, who
vainly endeavoured to imitate Paul's exorcisms,
others from the superstition of the pagans,
which was especially rife at Ephesus. So
effectually did he triumph over it, however, that books of superstition were burned to the value of 50,000 pieces of silver (each piece
about a day's wage). This time the persecution was due to the Gentiles
and inspired by a motive of self-interest. The progress of Christianity having ruined the sale of the little facsimiles of the temple of Diana and statuettes of the goddess,
which devout pilgrims
had been wont to purchase, a certain Demetrius,
at the head of the guild of
silversmiths, stirred up the crowd against Paul. The scene which then transpired
in the theatre is
described by St. Luke with memorable vividness
and pathos (Acts 19:23-40). The Apostle
had to yield to the storm. After a stay at Ephesus of two years and a half, perhaps more
(Acts 20:31: trietian), he departed for Macedonia
and thence for Corinth,
where he spent the winter. It was his intention
in the following spring to go by sea to Jerusalem,
doubtless for the Pasch; but
learning that the Jews had
planned his destruction, he did not wish, by going to sea, to afford them an
opportunity to attempt his life. Therefore he returned by way of
Macedonia. Numerous disciples
divided into two groups, accompanied him or awaited him at Troas.
These were Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, Gaius of Derbe,
Timothy, Tychicus
and Trophimus of Asia, and
finally Luke, the historian of the
Acts, who gives us minutely all the stages of the voyage:
Philippi, Troas,
Assos, Mitylene,
Chios, Samos,
Miletus, Cos, Rhodes,
Patara, Tyre,
Ptolemais, Caesarea,
Jerusalem. Three more remarkable facts
should be noted in passing. At Troas Paul
resuscitated the young Eutychus, who had fallen from a third-story window while
Paul was preaching late into the night. At Miletus he
pronounced before the ancients of Ephesus the
touching farewell discourse which drew many tears (Acts 20:18-38). At Caesarea
the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Agabus,
predicted his coming arrest, but did not dissuade him from going to
Jerusalem. St. Paul's four great Epistles were written during this third mission:
the first to the Corinthians from Ephesus, about the time of
the Pasch prior to his departure from that city; the second to the Corinthians from Macedonia,
during the summer or autumn of the same year; that to the Romans
from Corinth, in the following spring; the date of
the Epistle to the Galatians is disputed. On the many questions occasioned by
the despatch and the language of these letters, or the situation assumed either
on the side of the Apostle or
his correspondents, see EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS; EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS; EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
Captivity (Acts 21:27-28:31)
Falsely
accused by the Jews of
having brought Gentiles
into the Temple,
Paul was ill-treated by the populace and led in chains to the fortress Antonia
by the tribune Lysias. The latter having learned that the Jews had
conspired treacherously to slay the prisoner
sent him under strong escort to Caesarea,
which was the residence of the procurator
Felix. Paul had little difficulty in confounding his accusers, but as he refused
to purchase his liberty. Felix kept him in chains for two years and even left
him in prison in
order to please the Jews,
until the arrival of his successor, Festus. The new governor wished to send the
prisoner to Jerusalem
there to be tried in the presence of his accusers; but Paul, who was acquainted
with the snares of his enemies, appealed to Caesar. Thenceforth his cause could
be tried only at Rome. This
first period of captivity is characterized by five discourses of the
Apostle: The first was delivered in Hebrew on
the steps of the Antonia before the threatening crowd; herein Paul relates his
conversion and vocation
to the Apostolate, but he was interrupted by the hostile shouts of the multitude
(Acts 22:1-22). In the second, delivered the next day, before the
Sanhedrin assembled at the command of Lysias, the Apostle
skillfully embroiled the Pharisees
with the Sadducees
and no accusation could be brought. In the third, Paul, answering his accuser
Tertullus in the presence of the Governor Felix, makes
known the facts which had been distorted and
proves his innocence (Acts 24:10-21). The fourth discourse is merely an explanatory summary of the
Christian Faith delivered before Felix and his wife
Drusilla (Acts 24:24-25). The fifth, pronounced before the Governor Festus,
King Agrippa, and his wife Berenice, again relates the history of Paul's
conversion, and is left unfinished owing to the sarcastic interruptions of
the governor and the embarrassed attitude of the king (Acts 26). The journey of the
captive Paul from Caesarea
to Rome is described by St. Luke with an
exactness and vividness of colours which leave nothing to be desired. For
commentaries see Smith, "Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul" (1866); Ramsay, "St.
Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen" (London, 1908). The centurion
Julius had shipped Paul and his fellow-prisoners on a merchant vessel on board
which Luke and Aristarchus were able to take
passage. As the season was advanced the voyage was slow and difficult. They
skirted the coasts of Syria,
Cilicia, and Pamphylia. At Myra in Lycia the prisoners
were transferred to an Alexandrian vessel bound
for Italy, but the winds being persistently contrary a place in Crete
called Goodhavens was reached with great difficulty and Paul advised that they
should spend the winter there, but his advice was not followed, and the vessel
driven by the tempest drifted aimlessly for fourteen whole days, being finally
wrecked on the coast of Malta. The
three months during which navigation was considered most dangerous were spent
there, but with the first days of spring all haste was made to resume the
voyage. Paul must have reached Rome some
time in March. "He remained two whole years in his own hired lodging . . .
preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, without prohibition" (Acts 28:30-31). With these words the Acts of the Apostles conclude. There is no
doubt that Paul's trial terminated in a sentence of acquittal, for
the report of the Governor Festus was certainly favourable
as well as that of the centurion. The Jews seem
to have abandoned their charge since their co-religionists in Rome were
not informed of it (Acts 28:21). The course of the proceedings led Paul to hope for
a release, of which he sometimes speaks as of a certainty
(Philippians 1:25; 2:24;
Philemon 22). The pastorals, if they are
authentic,
assume a period of activity for Paul subsequent to his captivity. The same
conclusion is drawn from the hypothesis that they are not authentic,
for all agree that the author was well acquainted with the life of the
Apostle. It is the almost unanimous opinion that the so-called Epistles of the captivity were sent from
Rome. Some authors have attempted to prove that
St. Paul wrote them during his detention at Caesarea,
but they have found few to agree with them. The Epistles to the Colossians, the Ephesians,
and Philemon were despatched together and by the same messenger,
Tychicus. It is a matter of controversy whether the Epistle to the Philippians was prior or subsequent to these, and the question has not been
answered by decisive arguments (see EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS; EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS; EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS; EPISTLE TO PHILEMON).
Last years
This period is wrapped in deep obscurity
for, lacking the account of the Acts, we
have no guide save an often uncertain tradition and the brief references of the Pastoral epistles. Paul had long cherished the
desire to go to Spain
(Romans 15:24, 28) and there is no evidence that he was led to change his plan.
When towards the end of his captivity he announces his coming to
Philemon (22) and to
the Philippians (2:23-24),
he does not seem to regard this visit as immediate since he promises the Philippians to send them a messenger as soon as
he learns the issue of his trial; he therefore plans another journey before his
return to the East. Finally, not to mention the
later testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret,
the well-known text of St. Clement of Rome, the witness of
the "Muratorian Canon", and of the "Acta Pauli"
render probable Paul's journey to Spain. In
any case he can not have remained there long, for he was in haste to revisit his
Churches in the East. He may have returned
from Spain through southern Gaul if it was
thither, as some Fathers
have thought, and not to Galatia, that Crescens
was sent later (2 Timothy 4:10). We may readily believe
that he afterwards kept the promise made to his friend Philemon
and that on this occasion he visited the churches
of the valley of Lycus, Laodicea, Colossus, and Hierapolis.
The itinerary now becomes very uncertain,
but the following facts seem indicated by the Pastorals: Paul remained in Crete exactly long
enough to found there new churches, the care and
organization of which he confided to his fellow-worker
Titus (Titus 1:5). He then went to Ephesus, and
besought Timothy,
who was already there, to remain until his return while he proceeded to
Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3). On this occasion he paid his promised visit to the Philippians (Philippians 2:24), and naturally also saw the Thessalonians. The letter to Titus and the First Epistle to Timothy must date from
this period; they seem to have been written about the same time and
shortly after the departure from Ephesus. The
question is whether they were sent from Macedonia
or, which seems more probable, from Corinth.
The Apostle instructs Titus to join him at
Nicopolis of Epirus where he intends to spend the winter
(Titus 3:12). In the following spring he must have carried out his plan to
return to Asia
(1 Timothy 3:14-15). Here occurred the obscure episode of his arrest, which
probably took place at Troas;
this would explain his having left with Carpus a cloak and books which he needed
(2 Timothy 4:13). He was taken from there to Ephesus, capital of the Province of Asia, where
he was deserted by all those on whom he thought he could rely
(2 Timothy 1:15). Being sent to Rome for
trial he left Trophimus sick at Miletus,
and Erastus, another of his companions, remained at Corinth,
for what reason is not clear (2 Timothy 4:20). When Paul wrote his Second Epistle to Timothy from Rome he
felt that all human hope was lost (4:6); he
begs his disciple
to rejoin him as quickly as possible, for he is alone with Luke. We do not
know if Timothy
was able to reach Rome
before the death of the Apostle. Ancient tradition
makes it possible to establish the following points: Paul
suffered martyrdom
near Rome at a place called Aquae Salviae (now Tre Fontane), somewhat east
of the Ostian Way, about two miles from the splendid Basilica of San Paolo fuori le mura which marks his burial place. The martyrdom
took place towards the end of the reign of Nero, in
the twelfth year (St. Epiphanius), the thirteenth (Euthalius), or the fourteenth (St. Jerome). According to the most common opinion, Paul
suffered in the same year and on the same day as Peter;
several Latin
Fathers contend that it was on the same day but not in the same year;
the oldest witness,
St. Dionysius the
Corinthian, says only
kata ton auton kairon, which may be translated "at the same
time" or "about the same time". From
time
immemorial the solemnity
of the Apostles Peter and Paul has
been celebrated on 29 June, which is the anniversary either of their death or of
the translation of their relics.Formerly the pope,
after having pontificated in the Basilica of St. Peter, went with his attendants to that of St. Paul, but the
distance between the two basilicas
(about five miles) rendered the double ceremony
too exhausting, especially at that season of the year. Thus arose the prevailing
custom of transferring to the next day (30 June) the Commemoration of
St. Paul. The feast of
the Conversion of St. Paul (25 January) is of comparatively recent
origin. There is reason for believing
that the day was first observed to mark the translation of the
relics of St. Paul at Rome, for
so it appears in the Hieronymian Martyrology. It is unknown to the Greek Church (Dowden, "The Church Year and Kalendar", Cambridge, 1910,
69; cf. Duchesne, "Origines du culte chrétien", Paris, 1898, 265-72; McClure,
"Christian Worship", London, 1903, 277-81).
Physical and moral portrait of St.
Paul
We know from
Eusebius (Church History VII.18) that even in his time there
existed paintings
representing Christ and
the Apostles Peter and Paul. Paul's features have
been preserved in three ancient monuments: A diptych which dates from not later than the fourth century (Lewin, "The
Life and Epistles of St. Paul", 1874, frontispiece of Vol. I and Vol. II, 210).
A large medallion found in the
cemetery
of Domitilla, representing the Apostles
Peter and Paul (Op. cit., II, 411). A glass dish in the British Museum, depicting the same
Apostles (Farrara, "Life and Work of St. Paul", 1891,
896).We have also the concordant
descriptions of the "Acta Pauli et Theclae", of Pseudo-Lucian in Philopatris, of Malalas (Chronogr., x), and of Nicephorus
(Hist. eccl., III, 37). Paul was short of
stature; the Pseudo-Chrysostom calls him "the man of three cubits"
(anthropos tripechys); he was broad-shouldered, somewhat bald, with
slightly aquiline nose, closely-knit eyebrows, thick, greyish
beard,
fair complexion, and a pleasing and affable manner. He was afflicted with a
malady which is difficult to diagnose (cf. Menzies, "St. Paul's Infirmity" in
the "Expository Times", July and Sept., 1904), but despite this painful and
humiliating infirmity (2 Corinthians 12:7-9; Galatians 4:13-14) and although his bearing was not impressive (2 Corinthians 10:10), Paul must undoubtedly have been possessed of great physical
strength to have sustained so long such superhuman labours (2 Corinthians 11:23-29). Pseudo-Chrysostom, "In princip. apostol. Petrum et Paulum" (in
P.G., LIX, 494-95), considers that he died at the age of sixty-eight after
having served the Lord
for thirty-five years. The moral portrait is more difficult to draw because
it is full of contrasts. Its elements will be found: in Lewin, op. cit., II, xi,
410-35 (Paul's Person and Character); in Farrar, op. cit., Appendix, Excursus I;
and especially in Newman, "Sermons preached on Various Occasions", vii,
viii.
Theology of St. Paul
Paul and Christ
This question has passed through two
distinct phases. According to the principal followers of the Tübingen School,
the Apostle had but a vague knowledge
of the life and teaching of the historical Christ and
even disdained such knowledge
as inferior and useless. Their only support is the misinterpreted text: "Et si
cognovimus secundum carnem Christum, sed nunc jam novimus" (2 Corinthians 5:16). The opposition noted in this text is not between the
historical and the glorified Christ,
but between the Messias
such as the unbelieving Jews
represented Him, such perhaps as he was preached by certain Judaizers,
and the Messias as
He manifested Himself in His death and Resurrection, as He had been confessed by the converted
Paul. It is neither admissible nor probable that Paul would be uninterested in
the life and preaching of Him, Whom he loved
passionately, Whom he constantly held up for the imitation of his
neophytes, and Whose spirit he
boasted of having. It is incredible that he would not question on this subject
eyewitnesses, such as Barnabas,
Silas, or the future historians of Christ, Sts. Mark and Luke, with whom he was so long associated.
Careful examination of this subject has brought out the three following
conclusions concerning which there is now general agreement: There are in St. Paul more allusions to the life and teachings
of Christ
than would be suspected at first sight, and the casual way in which they are
made shows that the Apostle
knew more on the subject than he had the occasion, or the
wish to tell. These allusions are more frequent in St. Paul than the Gospels. From Apostolic
times there existed a catechesis, treating
among other things the life and teachings of Christ,
and as all neophytes
were supposed to possess a copy it was not necessary to refer thereto save occasionally and in
passing.
The second phase of the question is
closely connected with the first. The same theologians, who maintain that Paul was indifferent to the earthly life and
teaching of Christ,
deliberately exaggerate his originality and influence. According to them Paul
was the creator of theology,
the founder of the Church,
the preacher of asceticism, the defender of the sacraments
and of the ecclesiastical system, the opponent of the religion of love and
liberty which Christ
came to announce to the world. If, to do him honour, he
is called the second founder of Christianity, this must be a degenerate and altered Christianity since it was at least partially opposed to the primitive
Christianity. Paul is thus made responsible for every antipathy to modern
thought in traditional Christianity.
This is to a great extent the origin of
the "Back to Christ" movement, the strange wanderings of which we are now
witnessing. The chief reason for returning to Christ is
to escape Paul, the originator of dogma, the
theologian of the faith. The
cry "Zuruck zu Jesu" which has resounded in Germany
for thirty years, is inspired by the ulterior motive, "Los von Paulus". The
problem is: Was Paul's relation to Christ
that of a disciple
to his master? or was he absolutely autodidactic, independent alike of the Gospel of Christ and
the preaching of the Twelve? It
must be admitted that most of the papers published shed little light on the
subject. However, the discussions have not been useless, for they have shown
that the most characteristic Pauline doctrines, such as justifying
faith, the redeeming death of
Christ, the universality of salvation,
are in accord with the writings of the first Apostles,
from which they were derived. Julicher in particular has pointed out that Paul's
Christology, which is more exalted than that of his companions in the
apostolate, was never the object of controversy, and that Paul was not
conscious of being singular in this respect from the other heralds of the Gospel. Cf. Morgan, "Back to Christ" in "Dict. of
Christ and the Gospels", I, 61-67; Sanday, "Paul", loc. cit., II, 886-92; Feine,
"Jesus Christus und Paulus" (1902); Goguel, "L'apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ"
(Paris, 1904); Julicher, "Paulus und Jesus" (1907).
The root idea of St. Paul's
theology
Several modern authors consider that
theodicy is at the base, centre, and summit of Pauline theology.
"The apostle's doctrine
is theocentric, not in reality anthropocentric. What is styled his
'metaphysics' holds for Paul the immediate and sovereign fact of
the universe; God, as he
conceives Him, is all in all to his reason and
heart alike" (Findlay in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible", III, 718). Stevens
begins the exposition of his "Pauline Theology" with a chapter entitled "The
doctrine of God".
Sabatier (L'apotre Paul, 1896, 297) also considers that "the last word of
Pauline theology
is: "God all in all", and he makes the idea of
God the crown of Paul's theological edifice. But these authors have not reflected that though the
idea of God
occupies so large a place in the teaching of the Apostle,
whose thought is deeply religious like that of
all his compatriots, it is not characteristic of him, nor does it distinguish
him from his companions in the apostolate nor even from contemporary
Jews.
Many modern Protestant
theologians, especially among the more or less faithful followers of the
Tübingen School, maintain that Paul's doctrine
is "anthropocentric", that it starts from his conception of man's
inability to fulfill the law of God
without the help of grace to such an extent that
he is a slave of
sin and must wage war
against the flesh. But if this be the genesis of Paul's idea it is
astonishing that he enunciates it only in one chapter (Romans 7),
the sense of which is controverted, so that if this chapter had not been
written, or it had been lost, we would have no means of recovering the key to
his teaching. However, most modern theologians now agree that St. Paul's doctrine
is Christocentric, that it is at base a soteriology, not from a subjective
standpoint, according to the ancient prejudice of the founders of
Protestantism who made justification by faith the
quintessence of Paulinism, but from the objective standpoint, embracing in a
wide synthesis the person and
work of the Redeemer.
This may be proved
empirically by the statement that everything in St. Paul converges
towards Jesus Christ, so much so, that abstracting from Jesus Christ it becomes, whether taken collectively or in detail, absolutely
incomprehensible. This is proved
also by demonstrating that what Paul calls his Gospel is the salvation
of all men through Christ and
in Christ. This is the standpoint of the following rapid
analysis:
Humanity without Christ
The first three chapters of the
Epistle to the Romans shows us human
nature wholly under the dominion of sin.
Neither Gentiles
nor Jews had withstood the torrent of evil. The
Mosaic Law was a futile barrier because it prescribed good
without importing the strength to do it. The Apostle
arrives at this mournful conclusion: "There is no distinction [between
Jew and Gentile];
for all have sinned,
and do need the glory of
God" (Romans 3:22-23). He subsequently leads us back to the historical cause of this disorder: "By one
man sin
entered into this world, and by sin death;
and so death passed upon all men, in
whom all have sinned"
(Romans 5:12). This man is
obviously Adam, the
sin which he brought into the world is not only his personal
sin, but a predominating sin which
entered into all men and left in them the seed of
death: "All sinned
when Adam sinned;
all sinned in and with his sin"
(Stevens, "Pauline Theology", 129).
It remains to be seen how
original sin, which is our lot by natural generation, manifests itself
outwardly and becomes the source of actual sins. This
Paul teaches us in chapter 7,
where describing the contest between the Law
assisted by reason and
human nature
weakened by the flesh and the tendency to evil, he
represents nature as
inevitably vanquished: "For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: But I see another
law in my members fighting against the law of my
mind, and captivating me in the law of
sin" (Romans 7:22-23). This does not mean that the organism, the material substratus,
is evil in itself, as some theologians of the Tübingen School have claimed, for the flesh of
Christ, which was like unto ours, was exempt from sin, and
the Apostle wishes that our bodies, which are destined to rise again, be preserved free from stain. The
relation between sin and
the flesh is neither inherent nor necessary;
it is accidental, determined by an historical fact, and capable of disappearing
through the intervention of the Holy Ghost, but it is none the less true that
it is not in our power to overcome it unaided and that fallen man had
need of a Saviour.
Yet God did
not abandon sinful
man. He continued to manifest Himself through this visible world
(Romans 1:19-20), through the light of a conscience
(Romans 2:14-15), and finally through His ever active and paternally benevolent Providence (Acts 14:16; 17:26).
Furthermore, in His untiring mercy, He "will have all men to be saved,
and to come to the knowledge
of the truth"
(1 Timothy 2:4). This will is necessarily
subsequent to original sin since it concerns man as he
is at present. According to His merciful designs God leads
man step by step to salvation.
To the Patriarchs, and especially to
Abraham, He gave his free and generous promise, confirmed by
oath (Romans 4:13-20; Galatians 3:15-18), which anticipated the Gospel.
To Moses He gave His Law, the observation
of which should be a means of salvation
(Romans 7:10; 10:5), and
which, even when violated, as it was in reality, was no less a guide leading to
Christ (Galatians 3:24) and an instrument of mercy in the hands of God. The Law was a mere interlude until such
time as humanity
should be ripe for a complete revelation
(Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20), and thus provoked the Divine wrath (Romans 4:15). But good will
arise from the excess of evil and
"the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that
the promise, by the faith of
Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe"
(Galatians 3:22). This would be fulfilled in the "fullness of the
time" (Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10), that is, at the time set
by God for the execution of His merciful designs, when
man's helplessness should have been well manifested. Then
"God sent his Son, made of a
woman, made under the law: that
he might redeem
them who were under the law: that
we might receive the adoption of sons"
(Galatians 4:4).
The person of the Redeemer
Nearly all statements relating to the person of Jesus Christ bear either directly or indirectly on His role as a Saviour. With St. Paul Christology is a function of soteriology. However broad these outlines, they
show us the faithful image of Christ in
His pre-existence, in His historical existence and in His glorified life (see F.
Prat, "Théologie de Saint Paul").
(1) Christ in His
pre-existence
(a) Christ is
of an order superior to all created
beings (Ephesians 1:21); He is the Creator and Preserver of the World
(Colossians 1:16-17); all is by Him, in Him, and for Him (Colossians 1:16).
(b) Christ is
the image of the invisible Father (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15); He is the Son of God, but unlike other sons is so in an incommunicable manner; He is
the Son, the own Son, the well-Beloved, and this He has always been
(2 Corinthians 1:19; Romans 8:3, 8:32;
Colossians 1:13; Ephesians 1:6; etc.).
(c) Christ is
the object of the doxologies
reserved for God
(2 Timothy 4:18; Romans 16:27); He is prayed to
as the equal of the Father (2 Corinthians 12:8-9; Romans 10:12; 1 Corinthians 1:2); gifts are asked of Him which it
is in the power of God alone
to grant, namely grace, mercy, salvation
(Romans 1:7; 16:20;
1 Corinthians 1:3; 16:23;
etc. before Him every knee shall bow in heaven, on
earth, and under the earth (Philippians 2:10), as every head inclines in adoration
of the majesty of the Most High.
(d) Christ
possesses all the Divine attributes; He is eternal,
since He is the "first born of every creature"
and exists before all ages (Colossians 1:15-17); He is immutable, since He exists "in the
form of God"
(Philippians 2:6); He is omnipotent, since He has the power to bring forth being from nothingness
(Colossians 1:16); He is immense, since He fills all things with His plenitude
(Ephesians 4:10; Colossians 2:10); He is infinite
since "the fullness of the Godhead
dwells in Him" (Colossians 2:9). All that is the special property of the God
belongs of right to
Him; the judgment seat of God is the
judgment seat of Christ
(Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10); the Gospel of
God is the Gospel of
Christ (Romans 1:1, 1:9,
15:16,
15:19,
etc.); the Church of
God is the Church of
Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2 and Romans 16:16 sqq.); the Kingdom of
God is the Kingdom of
Christ (Ephesians 5:5), the Spirit of
God is the Spirit of
Christ (Romans 8:9 sqq.).
(e) Christ is
the one Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6); He is identified with Jehovah of
the Old Covenant (1 Corinthians 10:4, 10:9;
Romans 10:13; cf. 1 Corinthians 2:16; 9:21); He
is the God who
has purchased the Church
with his own blood" (Acts 20:28); He is our "great God and
Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13); He is the "God over
all things" (Romans 9:5), effacing by His infinite
transcendency the sum and substance of created
things.
(2) Jesus Christ as Man
The other aspect of the figure of
Christ is drawn with no less firm a hand. Jesus Christ is the second Adam
(Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49); "the mediator of
God and men" (1 Timothy 2:5), and as such He must necessarily be man
(anthropos Christos Iesous). So He is the descendant of the Patriarchs (Romans 9:5; Galatians 3:16), He is "of the seed of David,
according to the flesh)" (Romans 1:3), "born of a woman"
(Galatians 4:4), like all men; finally, He is
known as a man by His appearance, which is exactly similar to that of men (Philippians 2:7), save for sin, which
He did not and could not know
(2 Corinthians 5:21). When St. Paul says that "God sent
His Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh" (Romans 8:3), he does not mean to deny the reality of Christ's
flesh, but excludes only sinful
flesh.
Nowhere does the Apostle
explain how the union of the Divine and the
human natures is accomplished in
Christ, being content to affirm that He who was "in the form of
God" took "the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:6-7), or he states the Incarnation in this laconic formula: "For in him dwelleth all the fullness
of the Godhead
corporeally" (Colossians 2:9). What we see clearly is that there is in Christ a
single Person to
whom are attributed, often in the same sentence, qualities proper to the Divine and the human
nature, to the pre-existence, the historical existence,
and the glorified life (Colossians 1:15-19; Philippians 2:5-11; etc.). The theological explanation of the mystery
has given rise to numerous errors.
Denial was made of one of the natures, either the
human (Docetism),
or the Divine (Arianism),
or the two natures were considered to be united
in a purely accidental manner so as to produce
two persons (Nestorianism), or the two natures were merged
into one (Monophysitism), or on pretext of uniting them in one person the
heretics mutilated either the human
nature (Apollinarianism), or the Divine, according to the
strange modern heresy
known as Kenosis.
The last-mentioned requires a brief
treatment, as it is based on a saying of St. Paul "Being in the form
of God . . . emptied himself (ekenosen eauton, hence kenosis) taking the
form of a servant" (Philippians 2:6-7). Contrary to the common opinion, Luther
applied these words not to the Word, but to
Christ, the Incarnate Word. Moreover he understood the communicatio idiomatus as a real
possession by each of the two natures of the attributes of the other. According to this the
human nature of
Christ would possess the Divine attributes of ubiquity, omniscience, and omnipotence. There are two systems among Lutheran
theologians, one asserting that the human
nature of Christ was
voluntarily stripped of these attributes (kenosis), the other
that they were hidden during His mortal existence
(krypsis).
In modern times the doctrine
of Kenosis, while still restricted to Lutheran
theology, has completely changed its opinions. Starting with the
philosophical idea that
"personality" is identified with "consciousness", it is maintained that where
there is only one person
there can be only one consciousness; but since the consciousness of Christ was truly human
consciousness, the Divine
consciousness must of necessity
have ceased to exist or act in Him. According to Thomasius, the theorist of the
system, the Son of God
was stripped, not after the Incarnation, as Luther
asserted, but by the very fact of the Incarnation, and what rendered possible the union of the Logos with
the humanity was the faculty possessed by the Divinity to limit itself both
as to being and activity. The other partisans of the system express themselves
in a similar manner. Gess, for instance, says that in Jesus Christ the Divine ego is
changed into the human
ego. When it is objected that God is
immutable, that He can neither cease to be, nor limit Himself, nor transform
Himself, they reply that this reasoning is on metaphysical hypotheses and concepts without reality. (For the various forms
of Kenosis see Bruce, "The Humiliation of Christ", p. 136.)
All these systems are merely variations of
Monophysitism. Unconsciously they assume that there is in
Christ but a single nature as
there is but a single person.
According to the Catholic doctrine, on the contrary, the union of the two
natures in a single person
involves no change in the Divine
nature and need involve no physical change of the human
nature of Christ.
Without doubt
Christ is the Son and is morally
entitled even as man to the
goods of His Father, viz. the immediate vision of God, eternal beatitude, the state of
glory. He is temporarily deprived of a portion of these goods in order
that he may fulfill His mission as Redeemer. This is the abasement, the
annihilation, of which St. Paul speaks, but it is a totally different
thing from the Kenosis as
described above.
The objective redemption as the work of
Christ
We have seen that fallen
man being unable to arise again unaided, God in His
mercy sent His Son to save him. It is an elementary and often repeated
doctrine of St. Paul that Jesus Christ saves us through the Cross, that we are "justified
by His blood", that "we were reconciled to God by the
death of his Son" (Romans 5:9-10). What endowed the blood of
Christ, His death, His Cross, with this redeeming virtue?
Paul never answers this question directly, but he shows us the drama of
Calvary under three aspects, which there is danger in separating and
which are better understood when compared:
(a) at one time the death of
Christ is a sacrifice intended, like the
sacrifice of the Old Law,
to expiate sin and
propitiate God. Cf.
Sanday and Headlam, "Romans", 91-94, "The death of Christ
considered as a sacrifice". "It is impossible
from this passage (Romans 3:25) to get rid of the double idea: (1)
of a sacrifice; (2) of a
sacrifice which is propitiatory . . . Quite apart
from this passage it is not difficult to prove that
these two ideas of sacrifice and propitiation lie at the root of the
teaching not only of St. Paul but of the New
Testament generally." The double danger of this idea is,
first to wish to apply to the sacrifice of
Christ all the mode of action, real or supposed, of the imperfect
sacrifices of the Old Law;
and second, to believe
that God is appeased by a sort of magical effect, in virtue of this sacrifice, whereas on the contrary it was He Who
took the initiative of mercy, instituted the sacrifice of Calvary,
and endowed it with its expiatory value.
(b) At another time the death of
Christ is represented as a redemption, the payment of a ransom, as the result of which
man was delivered from all his past servitude (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23
[times egorasthete]; Galatians 3:13; 4:5
[ina tous hypo nomon exagorase]; Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 1:7, 14; Colossians 1:14 [apolytrosis]; 1 Timothy 2:6 [antilytron]; etc.) This idea,
correct as it is, may have inconveniences if isolated or exaggerated. By
carrying it beyond what was written, some of the Fathers
put forth the strange suggestion of a ransom paid by Christ to
the demon who held us in bondage. Another mistake is to regard the death
of Christ as having a value in itself, independent of Christ Who
offered it and God Who
accepted it for the remission of our sins.
(c) Often, too, Christ
seems to substitute Himself for us in order to undergo in our stead the
chastisement for sin. He
suffers physical death to save us from the moral
death of sin and
preserve us from eternal
death. This idea of
substitution appealed
so strongly to Lutheran
theologians that they admitted quantitative equality between the sufferings
really endured by Christ and
the penalties deserved by our sins. They
even maintained that Jesus
underwent the penalty of loss (of the vision of God) and the malediction of the Father. These are the extravagances which
have cast so much discredit on the theory of subsitution. It has been rightly
said that the transfer of a chastisement from one person to
another is an injustice
and a contradiction, for the chastisement is inseparable from the fault and an
undeserved chastisement is no longer a chastisement. Besides, St. Paul
never said that Christ
died in our stead (anti), but only that he died for us (hyper)
because of our sins. In reality the three standpoints considered above
are but three aspects of the Redemption
which, far from excluding one another, should harmonize and combine, modifying
if necessary all the other aspects of the problem. In the following text St. Paul assembles these various aspects with several others. We are
"justified freely by his grace, through the
Redemption, that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath
proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in
his blood, to the shewing of his [hidden] justice,
for the remission of former sins,
through the forbearance of God, for
the shewing of his justice in
this time; that of himself may be [known as] just, and the justifier of
him, who is in the faith of
Jesus Christ" (Romans 3:24-26). Herein are designated the part of God, of
Christ, and of man:
God takes the initiative; it is He who offers His Son; He intends to manifest His
justice, but is moved thereto by mercy. It is therefore incorrect or
more or less inadequate to say that God was
angry with the human race
and that He was only appeased by the death of His Son. Christ is
our Redemption (apolytrosis), He is the instrument of expiation or
propitiation (ilasterion), and is such by His Sacrifice
(en to autou aimati), which does not resemble those of irrational
animals; it derives its value from Christ,
who offers it for us to His Father through obedience and love
(Philippians 2:8; Galatians 2:20). Man is not
merely passive in the drama of
his salvation; he must understand the lesson which God
teaches, and appropriate by faith the
fruit of the Redemption.
The subjective redemption
Christ
having once died and risen, the
Redemption is completed in law and in
principle for the whole human race. Each man makes it his own in fact and in act by
faith and baptism
which, by uniting him with Christ, causes him to participate in His Divine life.
Faith, according to St. Paul, is composed of several
elements; it is the submission of the intellect
to the word of God, the trusting abandonment of the believer to the Saviour
Who promises him assistance; it is also an act of obedience by which man
accepts the Divine will. Such an act has a moral
value, for it "gives glory to
God" (Romans 4:20) in the measure in which it recognizes its own helplessness.
That is why "Abraham believed
God, and it was reputed to him unto justice"
(Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6). The spiritual children of Abraham
are likewise "justified
by faith, without the works of the law"
(Romans 3:28; cf. Galatians 2:16). Hence it follows: That
justice is
granted by God in
consideration of faith. That, nevertheless, faith is
not equivalent to justice,
since man is justified
"by grace" (Romans 4:6). That the justice
freely granted to man
becomes his property
and is inherent in him.
Protestants formerly asserted that the justice of
Christ is imputed to us, but now they are generally agreed that this
argument is unscriptural and lacks the guaranty of Paul; but some, loth to base justification on a good work
(ergon), deny a moral
value to faith and
claim that justification is but a forensic judgment of God which
alters absolutely nothing in the justified
sinner. But this theory is untenable, for: even admitting that "to justify"
signifies "to pronounce just", it is absurd to suppose that God really
pronounces just anyone who is not already so or who is not rendered so by the
declaration itself. Justification is inseparable from sanctification, for the latter is "a
justification of life" (Romans 5:18) and every "just man liveth
by faith" (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11). By faith and
baptism we die to the "old man", our former selves; now this is
impossible without beginning to live as the new man, who "according to
God, is created in
justice and holiness"
(Romans 6:3-5; Ephesians 4:24; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11). We
may, therefore, establish a distinction in definition and concept between
justification and sanctification, but we can neither
separate them nor regard them as separate.
Moral doctrine
A remarkable characteristic of Paulinism
is that it connects morality with the subjective
redemption or justification. This is especially striking in chapter 6 of the Epistle to the Romans. In baptism
"our old man is crucified with [Christ]
that, the body of sin may be
destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no
longer" (Romans 6:6). Our incorporation with the mystical
Christ is not only a transformation and a metamorphosis, but a real
reaction, the production of a new being, subject to new laws and
consequently to new duties. To
understand the extent of our obligations it is enough for us to know
ourselves as Christians
and to reflect on the various relations which result from our supernatural birth: that of sonship to
God the Father, of consecration to the Holy Ghost, of mystical
identity with our Saviour Jesus Christ, of brotherly union with the other members of Christ.
But this is not all. Paul says to the neophytes:
"Thanks be to God, that
you were the servants of sin, but
have obeyed from the heart unto that form of doctrine,
into which you have been delivered. . . . But now being made free from
sin, and become servants to God, you
have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life
everlasting (Romans 6:17, 22).
By the act of faith and
by baptism, its seal, the Christian
freely makes himself the servant of God and
the soldier of Christ.
God's will, which he accepts in advance
in the measure in which it shall be manifested, becomes thenceforth his rule of
conduct. Thus Paul's moral code
rests on the one hand on the positive will of
God made known by Christ,
promulgated by the Apostles,
and virtually accepted by the neophyte
in his first act of faith, and
on the other, in baptismal regeneration and the new relations which it produces. All Paul's commands and
recommendations are merely applications of these principles.
Eschatology
(1) The graphic description of the Pauline
parousia (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) has nearly all its main points in Christ's
great eschatological discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13,
Luke 21). A common characteristic of all these passages is the apparent
nearness of the parousia. Paul does not assert
that the coming of the Saviour is
at hand. In each of the five epistles,
wherein he expresses the desire and the hope to
witness in person the return of Christ, he at the same time considers the probability of the contrary
hypothesis, proving
that he had neither revelation
nor certainty on the point. He knows only that
the day of the lord will come unexpectedly, like a thief
(1 Thessalonians 5:2-3), and he counsels the neophytes
to make themselves ready without neglecting the duties of
their state of life (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12). Although the coming of Christ
will be sudden, it will be heralded by three signs:
A particular circumstance of St. Paul's
preaching is that the just who shall be living at Christ's second advent will pass to glorious
immortality without dying [1 Thessalonians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 15:51 (Greek text); 2 Corinthians 5:2-5].
(2) Owing to the doubts of
the Corinthians Paul treats the
resurrection of the just at some length. He does not ignore the
resurrection of the sinners,
which he affirmed before the Governor Felix (Acts 24:15), but he does not concern himself with it in his Epistles. When he says that "the dead who are in
Christ shall rise first"
(proton, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Greek) this "first" offsets, not another resurrection of the dead, but the glorious
transformation of the living. In like manner "the evil" of
which he speaks (tou telos, 1 Corinthians 15:24) is not the end of the resurrection, but of the present world and the beginning of a new order of
things. All the arguments which he advances in behalf of the resurrection may be reduced to three: the mystical
union of the Christian
with Christ, the presence within us of the Spirit of
Holiness, the interior and supernatural conviction of the faithful and
the Apostles. It is evident that these arguments deal only with the
glorious resurrection of the just. In short, the resurrection of the wicked does not come within his theological horizon. What is the condition of the souls of
the just between death and resurrection? These souls
enjoy the presence of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:8); their lot is enviable (Philippians 1:23); hence it is impossible that they should be without life,
activity, or consciousness.
(3) The judgment according to St. Paul as
according to the Synoptics,
is closely connected with the parousia and the resurrection. They are the three acts of the same drama which constitute the
Day of the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6, 10; 2:16).
"For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ,
that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath
done, whether it be good or
evil" (2 Corinthians 5:10).
Two conclusions are derived from this
text:
(1) The judgment shall be universal,
neither the good nor the
wicked shall escape (Romans 14:10-12), nor even the angels
(1 Corinthians 6:3); all who are brought to trial must account for the use of their
liberty.
(2) The judgment shall be according to works: this is a truth
frequently reiterated by St. Paul, concerning sinners
(2 Corinthians 11:15), the just (2 Timothy 4:14), and men in general
(Romans 2:6-9). Many Protestants marvel at this and claim that in St. Paul this
doctrine is a survival of his rabbinical
education (Pfleiderer), or that he could not make it harmonize with his
doctrine of gratuitous justification (Reuss), or that the reward will be in proportion to the act, as the harvest is in proportion to the
sowing, but that it will not be because of or with a view to the act (Weiss). These authors lose sight of the fact
that St. Paul distinguishes between two justifications, the first necessarily gratuitous since man was
then incapable of meriting
it (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16), the second in conformity to his works (Romans 2:6: kata ta erga), since man, when
adorned with sanctifying grace, is capable of merit as
the sinner is of demerit. Hence the celestial recompense is "a crown of
justice which the Lord the
just judge will render" (2 Timothy 4:8) to whomsoever has legitimately gained it.
Briefly, St. Paul's eschatology is not so distinctive as it has been made to appear. Perhaps its
most original characteristic is the continuity between the present and the
future of the just,
between grace and glory,
between salvation
begun and salvation
consummated. A large number of terms, redemption, justification, salvation,
kingdom, glory and
especially life, are
common to the two states, or rather to the two phases of the same
existence linked by charity which "never
falleth away".
About this
page:APA citation. Prat, F. (1911). St. Paul. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York:
Robert Appleton Company.
Retrieved September 2, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm; MLA citation. Prat, Ferdinand. "St. Paul." The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
2 Sept. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm>.Transcription. This article was transcribed for New
Advent by Donald J. Boon. Ecclesiastical approbation.
Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley,
Archbishop of New York.Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My
email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam,
this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every
letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about
typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
예수님이 십자가에서 돌아가신지 불과 몇 년 뒤에 유대교에서 가톨릭으로 개종한 바오로 사도는 새로운 종교운동, 즉 그리스도교를
선교하는 사도(선교사)가 되었으며, 그 선교운동이 유대교의 한계를 넘어 세계 종교가 되도록 하는 데 결정적인 역할을 했다. 바오로 사도가 남긴 서한들은 현존하는 그리스도교 문헌 가운데
가장 오래된 것이다. 바오로 사도의 서신들은 신학적인 정교함과 목회적인 이해를 생생히 드러내고 있으며, 그리스도교의 생활과 사상에 대해 여전히
중요한 의미를 갖고있다. 바오로 사도의 생애에 대해서는 〈신약성서〉 외에는 믿을 만한 자료가 없으며, 그 1차적인 자료는 바오로 사도가 쓴
서한들이다. 그 가운데 〈로마인들에게 보낸 편지〉·〈고린토인들에게 보낸 편지〉(Ⅰ·Ⅱ)·〈갈라디아인들에게 보낸 편지〉는 바오로 사도 자신이
직접 쓴 서신들이라는 데는 논란의 여지가 없다. 또 많은 학자는 〈필립비인들에게 보낸 편지〉·〈데살로니카인들에게 보낸 편지〉·〈필레몬에게 보낸
편지〉 등도 바오로 사도의 서한으로 간주한다. 〈에페소인들에게 보낸 편지〉·〈골로사이인들에게 보낸 편지〉 등에 대해서는 의견이 일치하지
않는다. 또한 성서 학자들은 목회서신인 〈디모테오에게 보낸 편지〉(Ⅰ·Ⅱ)와 〈디도에게 보낸 편지〉는 바오로 사도 시대보다 훨씬 후대에
씌어졌다고 한다. 바오로 사도의 개종과 선교 활동은 〈사도행전〉에 기록되어 있는데, 이것은 바오로 사도 사후 몇 년 뒤에 씌어진 것 같다. 2번의 해상여행을 취급한
〈사도행전〉의 해당부분은 바오로 사도의 동료가 쓴 일기에서 따온 것으로 추정된다. 전통적으로 이 동료는 복음서 저자요 〈사도행전〉의 저자인
루가라고 생각하고 있으며, 이 견해는 오늘날에도 많은 학자들이 지지하고 있다.
기독교 성인 사도 바오로(서기 10~67년)는 다마스커스로 여행하다가 예수님을 만난 후 사흘간 실명 상태를 겪은 끝에 선교의 소명을 받고
제자가 되었습니다. 기독교 역사상 최고의 전도자이자 신학자였던 사도 바오로는 기독교인들에게 편지로 자신의 종교적 사상을 전해 그 가운데 14통이
신약성서에 포함되었습니다. 이중 사도 바오로가 `로마인들에게 보낸 편지`는 그리스도를 박해했던 이방인이 그리스도와 만남을 통해 이방인의 사도로
떠오른 사도 바오로 사상의 진수를 가장 분명하고도 명쾌하게 담고 있습니다. `신앙과 의화(義化)`와의 관계를 소개하는 이 편지는 `성경 속의
다이아몬드`라고 불리듯 다른 편지에서는 볼 수 없는 그리스도교 구원론의 진수가 들어 있습니다. 이탈리아의 철학자-미학자 이자 베네치아건축대학
교수인 조르지오 아감벤(63. Giorgio Agamben)은 바오로 사도의 `로마인에게 보낸 편지` 앞부분에 나오는 10개 단어를 텍스트로
하여 매우 획기적인 시각으로 서양사상의 사유적 이분법을 철저히 분석해 냈다. 그의 저서 <남은 시간 : 로마인에게 보낸
편지>(스탠포드대출판부. 2005)는 그 결실이다. 영어 원제는 Time That Remains:
A Commentary on the
Letter to the Romans. 아감벤은 그동안 죽은 자와 산 자, 동물과 인간, 육체와 정신, 자연과 문화 등 서구 사상의 근간을
이루는 이원적 대립의 사유구조 속에서 중간지대를 설정, 그 `무언가`의 상태가 현대사회를 지배한다는 점에 관심을 기울여 왔다. 그 `무언가`와의
관계 속에서 아감벤은 `경계`와 `나머지`라는 말을 적시하는 조건은 이원적 대립 관계에 수용되지 않고 계속 `남는 것`이라는 데 주목한다. 그 전형이 로마시대 `성스러운 인간`이란 이름 아래 `인간 외
인간`으로 차별화된 `호모 사켈`이며 혹은 아우슈비츠에서 `회교도`로 불리며 유대인을 돌보고 그들의 최후를 목격한 사람, 죄수도 간수도 아닌
`나머지의 사람`이다. 책은 이런 발상의 사유를 하게 된 저자 특유의 메시아에 대한 이해를 바울로의 편지 속에서 그 흔적을 찾아낸다.
`메시아`란 히브리어로 세계 종말에 영원한 평화를 가져다주는 구세주를 나타내며 그리스어 역시 예수 그리스도는 `구세주 예수`를 의미한다. 하지만
유태교에서는 아직도 도래하지 않는 메시아를 `지금` 항상 기다리는 반면 기독교에서는 `이미` 도래한 메시아(예수)의 재림을 기다린다는 차이가
있다. 아감벤은 `지금`과 `이미`의 중간에 놓인 시간에 초점을 맞춘다. 과거 사건이 결코 `지금` 완료된 것이 아니라 본래 부정적일 미래를
구속하는 응축된 형태로서 점차 다가오는 특이한 `지금의 때`를 밝혀낸다. 이것이 `나머지 시간`이다. 그때 구원에 대한 갈구를 통해 `자유인`
바울로가 기독교의 사도가 된 시점이 바로 `나머지 시간`이다. 이런 사상적 관념은 기독교인 바울로에게 인종, 종교, 성별이라는 차이는 의미가
없고 현대인에게 `약함` 관심을 둘 때야 비로소 힘을 발휘하는 존재로서 `바울로`를 나타내게 된
것이다.
베네딕토
16세 교황님께서는 교황의 직권적 은사로서 2008년 6월 28일 ‘사도 베드로와 바울로의 대축일’전야인 저녁기도 후부터 2009년 6월
29일까지 사도 바울로탄생 2000주년을 기념하는 전대사의 성년을 선포하셨다.교회
역사상, 성모님을 제외하고, 성인성녀의 이름으로 전대사의 은총을 선포한 것은 아직까지 전무한 일이다. 이는 사도들 중에서 바울로와 베드로의
역할이 교회 안에서 얼마나 중요한 것인가를 우리들이 인지하고, 또한 그런 역할을 당부하는 교황님의 배려라는 생각이 든다. 아무쪼록
전대사의 기간에 많은 교우들이 하느님의 은총을 체험하기를 바라며 이 글을 싣는다.
교황청 내사원 교령
성 바오로 사도 탄생 2000주년 기념 특별 전대사 수여
사도들의
으뜸이신 성 베드로와 성 바오로 사도 대축일을 앞두고, 교황 성하께서는 목자의 마음으로 신자들의 성화를 위하여 시의 적절하게 영신의 보고를
열어젖히고자 하신다. 그리하여
신자들이 언제나 받아들여야 할 구원 계획을 이 거룩하고 기쁜 기회에 새롭고 힘차게 받아들여, 특별히 탄생 2000주년을 맞이하는 이방인의 사도를
공경하는 대축일 제1 저녁기도부터 열렬히 실천하기를 바라시는 것이다. 실제로
교황님께서 보편 교회에 수여하시는 전대사의 은총은 최상의 내적 정화를 이루도록 도와, 신자들이 복되신 바오로 사도에게 영예를 드리면서 마음속에
초자연적 삶을 북돋우고 선행의 열매를 거두도록 이끈다. 따라서
교황 성하께서는 바오로의 해 동안 베풀고 받는 전대사에 관한 교령을 준비하고 작성할 임무를 이 내사원에 맡기셨다. 내사원은 교황님의 뜻에 따라
이 교령을 발표하고 다음과 같은 은사를 아낌없이 베푼다.
1.
모든 신자는 각자 진심으로 뉘우치고 고해성사를 통하여 정화되고 영성체를 하고, 교황 대성전인 오스티엔세 거리의 성 바오로 대성전을
경건하게 순례하고, 교황님의 뜻에 따라 기도하면, 이미 그 죄과에 대하여는 성사를 통해 사면 받고 용서 받았지만 그 죄 때문에 받아야 할 잠시적
벌에 대하여 주님 안에서 자비로이 베푸는 전대사를 받는다. 신자들은
자기 자신만이 아니라 죽은
이들을 위해서도 지정된 조건을 채울 때마다 전대사를 얻을 수 있다. 그러나 현행 규범에 따라 전대사는 하루에 한
번만
받을 수 있다.이러한
거룩한 순례 때에 바치는 기도가 신자들에게 성 바오로 사도를 기억하고 공경하는 마음을 더 강렬히 북돋우고자 다음과 같이 제시하고
규정한다. 신자들은
각자 개별 신심에 따라 성체
제대 앞에서 하느님께 개인 기도를 바친 다음, 고백의 제대에 가서 ‘주님의 기도’와 ‘사도 신경’을 하고, 복되신 동정 마리아와 성 바오로에게
바치는 경건한 간구를 덧붙인다. 또한 그러한 신심 행위는 언제나 사도들의 으뜸인 성 베드로에 대한 기억과 이어져야
한다.
2.
여러 지역 교회 신자들이 전대사의 일반 조건(고해성사, 영성체, 교황님의 뜻에 따른 기도)을 올바로 이행하고, 죄로 기우는 온갖 성향을
끊어버리고, 공적으로 이방인의 사도를 공경하는 거룩한 예식이나 신심 행사에 경건하게 참여하면 전대사를 얻을 수 있다. 곧, 바오로의 해를
장엄하게 시작하고 마치는 날에는 모든 성당에서, 또 지역 직권자가 정한 다른 날들에는 성 바오로의 이름을 지닌 성당에서, 또 지역 직권자가
신자들의 편의를 위하여 지정한 다른 장소에서 그리 할 수 있다. (주
: 서울교구에서는 바울로 사도를 주보성인으로 모신 성당은 대림동, 목동, 연희동, 청파동성당이다)3.
마지막으로, 질병이나 다른 정당하고 중요한 이유로 장애가 있는 신자들도 언제나 어떠한 죄도 짓지 않겠다는 마음가짐과 되도록 빨리 전대사의 일반
조건들을 이행하겠다는 의향을 가지고 성 바오로 사도를 공경하는 경축 행사에 영적으로 함께하면서 그리스도인의 일치를 위하여 자비로우신 하느님께
자신의 기도와 고통을 바치면 전대사를 얻을 수 있다.관할
교회 권위가 임명한 고해 사제들은 언제나 기꺼이 너그러운 마음으로 신자들을 맞이하여 신자들이 이 천상 은혜를 더 쉽게 나누어 받을 수 있도록
도와야 한다.이 교령은 바오로의 해에만 유효하다. 이와 반대되는 규정은 모두
무효이다.
■
바오로 사도의 고향:타르수소,
1.
위치 :아다나에서 동쪽으로 42Km, 안티오키아에서 버스로 3시간
2. 역사적 요소
일찍이 그리스인의 자치시로서 헬레니즘 시대를 맞아 번영하였다. BC 66년
로마의 장군 폼페이우스에게 점령된 후 안토니우스에 의해 자유와 자치가
주어졌다. BC 38년 안토니우스와 클레오파트라가 처음으로 만난 곳도
이곳이었다.AD 72년경부터 로마의 속주 킬리키아 왕국의 수도로서
번영
하였는데, 문화와 학문의 발달은 당시의 알렉산드리아를 능가했다고
한다.
로마 황제 아우구스투스의 스승인 아테노도로스와 바오로 사도(使徒)의
출생지이다. 15세기부터 오스만 투르크의 영토가 되면서 쇠퇴하였다.
현재는 주변지역에서 생산되는 밀·보리·콩을 집산하고 면방직 공업이
활발하다. 다르소는
일찍이 주교좌가 있었는데, 그중 안티오키아 출신 디오도루스 주교(327년 다르소주교, 394년 사망)가 가장 돋보인다. 그는 그리스도의 신성을
부인한 아리아니즘, 배교자 율리우스 황제(361-363년 재위), 예수의 인성을 소홀히 한 아롤리나리우스(시리아의 라오디게이아 주교,
310-390년경 생존) 등을 상대로 싸워 정통교리를 수호했다. 그는 안티오키아 신학파의 신학자로서 자의적, 역사적 성서주석을 주창하였으며,
콘스탄티노플 주교 요한 크리소스토무스(347년경-407년 생존), 몹수에스티아(아다나에서 안티오키아쪽으로 28Km떨어진 아카피나르 마을)주교
테오도루스(350년경-428년 생존)를 길러냈다.다르소는
중요한 기독교센터가 되었고, 세 번의 큰 종교회의가 431년,435년, 그리고 1177년에 각각 개최되었다. 비잔틴 시대까지도 융성한
도시였으나, 아랍족의 약탈과 통치자들이 수없이 바뀌면서 점점 쇠퇴해져갔고, 1515년에는 오스만트루크 제국의 수중에 들어가 오늘에
이르렀다.지금
시민의 수는 10여만명 정도이다. 그러나 불행히도 이곳에서 바오로 사도의 흔적은 찾을길 없다. 도심에 바오로 사도의 성문(일명 클레오파트라
성문)’이라는 게 있으나, 이는 바오로 사도 시대 이후에 세운 로마식 성문이다. 성문에서
가까운 곳에 바오로 사도 생가 우물이라는 것도 있으나, 전혀 신빙성이 없다. 다르소 시청에서 순례자들을 끌어들이려고 어느 부잣집 우물에다 그런
딱지를 붙였을 뿐이다.
▲
타르수스 바오로 집터에 조성돼 있는 '바오로의 우물'. 역사적 신빙성은 없지만 바오로의 체취를 느끼기에는
충분하다.
교회사적
요소 : 바오로 사도는 태어난지 여드레 만에 할례를 받았고(필립 3,5), 개심후 삼년이 지난 36년경에 예루살렘에 가서
베드로와 예수님의 아우 야고보를 만난본 다음(갈라 1,17-19), 고향 다르소에 돌아가 약 8년동안 지냈다.(사도 9,30) 44년경, 그는
시리아와 안티오키아 교회의 일을 돌보던 바르나바의 초빙을 받아 안티오키아로 가, 만 일년동안 그곳 교회의 신도들과 함께 살면서 많은 사람들을
가르쳤다.(사도 11,25-26)
제2차
전도여행때(50-52년경)도 바오로 사도는 고향 다르소를 거쳐갔다. 이 여행경로는 시리아의 안티오키아에서 출발, 육로로
타우루스(Taurus)산맥을 넘어 제1차 전도지역(비시디아의 안티오키아,이고니온,리스트라,데르베)을 다시 찾아본 다음, 휠씬 북쪽에 자리 잡은
갈라디아 지방으로갔다. 그런데 그 험준한 타우루스 산맥을 넘자면 별수 없이 다르소를 관통하는 치드누스(Cydnus,지금의 다르소 수유)강을 따라
협곡(길리기아 관문)을 지나거나 다르소를 지나 실리프케(Silifke)항구에서 칼리카드누스(Calycadnus,지금의 괵수)강을 따라가야만
했다. 그러니 어느 경우에도 그의 고향 땅 다르소를 거치게 마련이다. 제3차 전도여행(53-58년경)도 사정은
마찬가지였다.
▲
타우루스 산맥에 남아있는 로마 제국의 도로 잔해들. 사도 바오로는 이 길을 따라 아시아와 유럽의 이방인들에게 복음을 선포했다. 바오로
사도는
세차례전도 여행을 마치고 예루살렘 성전에서 로마군인들에게 체포되었다. 그때 바오로 사도는 “나는 길리기아의 다르소 출신 유대인으로 그 유명한
도시의 시민입니다.”라고 했다.(사도
21,39)
■
관련 성서구절:사도
11,25-26
25
그 뒤에 바르나바는 사울을 찾으려고 타르수스로
가서,
26
그를 만나 안티오키아로 데려왔다. 그들은 만 일 년 동안 그곳 교회 신자들을 만나며 수많은 사람을 가르쳤다. 이 안티오키아에서 제자들이 처음으로
‘그리스도인’이라고 불리게
되었다.
■
주요방문지
1.
바오로 사도의 성문(클레오파트라 성문):바오로 사도 시대 이후에 세운
로마식 성문
2. 바오로
사도의 생가 우물 : 사기성이
짙음
3.
치두느스 강물
바오로 사도 이해의 첫걸음
1. 편지는 상대방의
안부를 묻거나 어떤 용무가 있을 때 쓰는 것인데, 바오로 사도의 편지는 어떻게 성서가 될 수 있나요? 먼저 편지와 서간의 구분을 하는 게 좋겠군요. 편지는 실제로 만나 대화할 수 없을 때 사용하는 통신수단이고, 서간은
일정한 수신인이 없고 광범위한 독자층을 대상으로 씌어진 편지형식을 딴 저서들을 말합니다. 바오로 사도의 글에는 이 두 가지가 모두 포함되어
있지요. 여기에서는 편의상 이 둘을 엄격하게 구분하지 않고 단순히 바오로 사도의 편지'로 통용하겠습니다. 신약성서
27권 중에서 20권이 편지로 되어 있답니다. 그런데 신약성서의 편지들은 엄밀히 말해서 개인적 용무만을 위한 사신(私信)은 하나도 없고 모두
상당히 큰 공동체들을 위해 기록되었지요. 심지어 필레몬서와 같이 한 개인에게 보낸 편지도 그 수신자의 이름이 '당신의 집안에 있는 교회'로 되어
있어 그 공동체적 성격을 분명히 드러내고 있답니다. 바오로 사도의 편지들은 대개 다음과 같은 뼈대를 지니고
있습니다. 우선 머리말에서 편지를 주고받는 사람들의 이름과 서로의 안부를 전합니다. 다음엔 일반적으로 중재기도와 종말론적 희망을 포함하는 감사나
축복의 말씀이 나오지요. 그리고는 종말론적인 결론으로 끝나는 편지의 본 내용이 이어진답니다. 그 다음엔 사목적 권고가 나오고, 마지막으로 편지의
끝맺음은 고별인사와 축복으로 되어 있어요. 이상의 편지 내용으로 보아 우리는 바울로의 편지들이 모두 편지의 형태를
빌려 이제 막 복음을 받아들인 교회 공동체에게 복음의 내용을 좀 더 깊이 해설해주고 그 공동체를 사목적으로 격려하고 지도하기 위해서 씌어졌음을
알 수 있습니다. 이런 까닭에 초대 교회는 바오로 사도의 편지를 성서로 채택하여 교회 안에서 공적으로 읽게 한 거랍니다.
2. 그의 편지를 통해 그는 무얼 강조했습니까?
바오로 사도가 강조한 내용은 다른 신약성서 저자들이 전하는 내용과 같습니다.
하느님은 나자렛 예수의 삶과 죽음과 부활을 통하여 구약의 약속을 실현시키셨고 이 예수를 영광의
주님으로 선포하셨다는 겁니다. 아울러 만물은 그분 안에서 그분을 통하여 영원한 생명을 누릴 것이라고 선포하지요.
. 바오로 사도의 편지들을 읽는 데 시간이 오래 걸릴까요?
독서 시간의 길이는 책의 분량보다 책에 대한 독서자의 관심과 흥미에 달려 있는
게 아닐까요? 신약성서의 독서에 있어서 많은 사람들이 복음보다 바오로 사도의
편지를 대할 때 당혹감과 어려움을 느낍니다. 바오로 사도의 성품이나, 편지가 나오게 된 배경을 어느 정도 알고서 그의 편지들을 읽게 되면 각별한
감동과 새로운 영감을 얻게 될 것 같군요. 그리되면 편지들의 길이도 자연 짧게 느껴지지 않겠어요?
실제로 바오로 사도의 편지들 전체의 분량은 복음서와 사도행전을 합한 분량의
절반 가량밖에 안된답니다.
4. 신체적으로 바오로 사도는 어떤 모습이었습니까?
우리는 바오로 사도의 외모에 대한 신빙성 있는 기록을 갖고 있지 못합니다.
다만 한 곳에서 바울로가 자신에 대한 반대자들의 비평을 다음과 같이 인용하고 있는데 이 인용문 안에서 그의 외모에 대한 약간의 암시를 엿볼 수는
있지요. "바울로의 편지는 무게도 있고 단호하기도 하지만 막상 대해보면 그는 약하기 짝이 없고 말하는 것도 별 것이 아니다"(2 고린
10,10) 바울로의 편지와는 별도로 2세기 말경 <바울로
행전>이라는 전설 모음집이 발간되었는데 역사적인 신빙성은 없지만, 꽤나 자세하게 바울로의 외모를 전해주고 있답니다. 이 책에 의하면
바울로는 땅딸막한 대머리 총각이고 다리가 양가발이로 뒤틀려 있다고 되어 있습니다. 또한 약간의 매부리코에 양미간에 짙은 눈썹이 교차하는 안면과
더불어 강인한 인상을 주었다는 겁니다. 이런 용모라면 그 누구도 바울로를 미남이라고 일컬을 수는 없겠지요. 그런데 <바울로 행전>은
이런 기형적인 용모에도 불구하고 바울로가 은총으로 가득 차 있었다고 증언하고 있습니다. 결국 바울로에게 있어서 하느님의 은총 덕분에 얻어진
내면의 아름다움이 그의 육체적인 부족함을 채울 수 있다는 말이겠지요.
5. 성서공부를 많이 못한 사람도 바오로 사도의 편지들을 읽으면 잘 이해할 수
있습니까?물론 상당한 대목들은 성서에 대한 사전지식이 전혀 없어도 쉽게 이해할
수 있겠지요. 예를 들어 고린토 전서 13장에 나오는 저 유명한 '사랑의 찬가'는 동서 고금을 막론하고 만인의 가슴을 울려주는 대목이지요.
디모테오 전. 후서도 내용이 알아듣기 쉬우면서도 깊답니다. 그런데 많은 경우
바울로의 편지들은 체계적이고 논리적인 신학을 전개하기 위해서 책상에 앉아 쓴 것이 아니었지요. 때로는 공동체의 파벌을 잠재우고 갈등을 해소시키기
위하여, 때로는 자신을 비판하는 사람들 앞에서 자신을 변호하고 상대를 반격하기 위하여, 때로는 자신의 선교 동업자들을 격려하고 지도하기 위하여
바울로는 이곳저곳 선교 여행길에서 필요를 느낄 때마다 원시 교회 공동체들에게 서신을 보냈던 것입니다.
따라서 그 편지들이 씌어지게 된 동기와 배경, 그리고 편지를 받아볼 공동체의
성격을 간단하게라도 파악한다면 편지의 내용을 보다 쉽고 깊게 이해할 수 있지 않겠습니까?
6. 그 편지들은 모두 바오로 사도가 직접 쓴 것입니까?
이에 대한 답은 그리 간단하지 않습니다. 바오로
사도의 이름으로 씌어진 편지들은 도합 13권입니다. 히브리서는 바울로의
이름으로 씌어지지 않았고 실제의 내용과 문체에 있어서도 바울로의 편지라고 하기에는 거리가 멀답니다.
다른 13권의 편지들 중 의심할 여지가 없이 바울로의 것으로 보이는 책은
로마서, 고린토 전. 후서, 갈라디아서, 필립비서, 필레몬서, 데살로니카 전서로 총 7권이지요. 여기에 덧붙여 골로사이서, 데살로니카 후서가
약간의 의심은 있지만 대체로 바울로의 친저로 인정됩니다. 에페소서는 언어와 사상에 있어서 바울로의 다른 편지들, 그 중에서도 특히 골로사이서를
많이 닮고 있습니다. 그런 까닭에 많은 사람들이 이 편지의 저자가 바울로가 아니라 바울로를 잘 알고 그를 존경하는 사람으로 믿고 있습니다.
마지막으로 사목서간으로 알려져 있는 디모테오 전. 후서와 디도서는 바울로가
죽은 후 그의 제자들에 의해서 편집된 것으로 보입니다.
7. 현대인의 사고방식으로는 남의 이름을 도용한 것으로 볼 그런 일들을 왜, 어떤 사정이 있어 그렇게
했을까요? 그렇습니다. 유명한 사람의 이름을 빌어 책을 낸다는 것은 현대인들의
사고방식으로는 그 유명인사의 이름을 도용한 명예훼손죄에 해당될 수 있겠지요. 그러나 성서시대에 살던 사람들은 자기가 쓴 책을 평소 존경하거나 숭배하던 사람에게 바치는 것이 하나의 예우였답니다. 특히 유명인사의
제자들이 스승의 언행에 부합하도록 글을 써서 스승의 이름으로 출간시키는 경우가 많았지요. 바울로의 사목서간(디모테오 전. 후서, 디도서)은 단어사용, 문제의 접근방법, 전체적인 분위기 등이 바울로의 다른 서간들과 매우
다를 뿐만 아니라 관심 내용도 다릅니다. 거기에서는 참교리를 보전하고 이제 겨우 꼴을 갖추기 시작한 그리스도교 공동체 안에서 어떻게 직분과
규율을 확립시켜나갈 것인가 고심하고 있습니다. 이 편지들의 저자들은 1세기 말엽의 그리스도교 공동체에 당면한 문제들을 바울로 같으면 어떻게
풀어나갔을 것인가 상상하면서 그의 정신에 따라 이 편지들을 기록한 것입니다. 개중에는 간혹 바울로의 진짜 편지들의 일부가 포함되었을 거예요. 어떻든 사목서간은 바울로의 사상을 깊이 이해한 사람들의 작품임에는
틀림없습니다.
8. 복음서와 바울로의 편지들은 어느 것이 더 먼저 씌어졌습니까?
적지 않은 신자들이 신약성서의 집필 순서에 대하여 잘못 생각하는 것 같아요.
책을 구성하는 순서로 보면 마태오 복음이 가장 먼저 나오지만 씌어진 연도는 사도 바오로의 편지들이 더 먼저랍니다. 4복음서의 집필 연대가
70년에서 100년 사이로 비교적 1세기 말엽인데 비해서, 바울로의 친저 편지들은 49년에서 바울로의 순교(대략 64년) 직전까지 1세기 중엽에
기록되었습니다. 사도 바오로의 추종자들이 기록한 것으로 보이는 사목서간은
신약성서 중 가장 후대에 기록된 작품으로서 그 작성 연대를 2세기초로 추정들 합니다.
9. 그러면 사도 바오로와 복음사가들은 서로 잘 아는 사이였나요?
사도행전과 사도 바오로의 편지들을 토대로 사도 바오로가 복음사가들 중 적어도
마르코와 루카와는 서로 친분을 갖고 있었을 것이라고 봅니다. 우선 마르코는 요한이라는 다른 이름을 가지고 있으면서(사도 12,12) 어머니
마리아(성모님이 아닌 다른 마리아)와 함께 예루살렘에서 거주하다가 사도 바오로와 자신의 삼촌 바르나바를 만나 한때는 그들과 전도여행을 같이
하기도 했지요(사도 13,5;골로 4,10). 그러나 마르코는 바울로가 자신의 동행 문제로 바르나바와 의견 충돌을 일으키자 바울로가 필레몬서를
쓰고 있었을 당시에는 그와 함께 지냈습니다(필레 24절). 그 외에 마르코가 감옥생활을 하는 바울로를 도와주었다는 기록도 있습니다(골로
4,10;2디모4,11). 다음으로 루가에 대해서는 신약성서에 3번의 언급이
있지요. 필레몬서 24절에서 루가는 바울로의 동업자로 소개되고 골로사이서 4장 14절에선 '사랑하는 의사'로 묘사되지요. 그리고 디모테오 후서
4장 11절엔 루가만이 바울로를 끝까지 수행했다고 기록되어 있습니다. 그런데
이런 기록들이 얼마나 역사적인 신빙성을 갖느냐도 문제이지만, 그 복음사가들이 직접 그 복음을 썼느냐에 대해서 대개는 회의적이고 또
동명이인(同名異人)의 가능성을 배제할 수 없기 때문에 바울로가 위의 두 복음서 저자들과 친분을 맺었노라고 확신을 가지고 말하기
어렵습니다.
10. 사도 바오로의 출생에 대해서 알고 싶은데요. 그는 언제 어디서 그리고 누구에게서
태어났나요? 사도 바오로의 출생에 관해서는 사도행전이 전해주고 있는 몇 가지
정보 이외에 다른 자료가 없답니다. 사도행전에 따르면 사도 바오로는 다르소
시에서 출생했습니다(22,3;21,39 참조). 다르소 시는 사도 바오로의 초기 선교활동의 주무대였던 길리기아 지방에 있는 한 도시로서
희랍문화가 상당히 발전되었던 도시로 평가되었지요. 사도 바오로가 이곳에서 교육을 받은 것이 사실이라면 그리이스적 사고방식과 대화술에 대한 그의
일반적인 지식은 이 도시에서 길러졌다고 사료됩니다. 불행히도 사도 바오로가
언제 탄생했는지, 또 그의 부모의 이름이 무었이었는지에 대해서 말해주는 자료는 전혀 없지만 전승에 의하면 사도 바오로가 예수님보다 10여 년
늦게 출생했다고 합니다. 그렇다면 예수님께서 기원전 4년경 탄생하셨으니 사도 바오로는 서기 8년경에 출생했을 겁니다. 그리고 그의 가문이 베냐민
지파에 속했다는 증언은 사도 바오로의 자신의 편지에 나와 있습니다(로마 11,1;필립 3,5).
11. 사도 바오로는 사울이라고 불렸다는데 사울은 개종 전의
이름인가요?사울이라는 이름은 유다식 이름이고 사도 바오로는 로마식 이름으로
처음부터 그는 이 두 가지 이름을 다 가지고 있었다고 보여집니다. 그런데 사도 바오로는 자신의 편지에서 스스로를 한 번도 사울이라고 부르지 않고
언제나 사도 바오로로 소개하고 있는 반면 사도행전의 저자는 그의 이름을 처음에는 사울이라고 했다가 개종 이후 그가 복음 전파를 위해서 이방인의
영역에로 넘어갈 때부터 사도 바오로로 바꾸어 부릅니다(사도 13,9). 성서적
전통에 따르면 어떤 사람의 이름을 바꿔 부를 때에는 그에게 새로운 사명을 주어지는 것을 의미하지요. 하느님께서 아브람을 인류의 조상으로 삼으시며
가나안 복지로 가도록 명하실 때에 그의 이름을 아브라함으로 고쳐 부르신 것이라든가 예수님께서 시몬 바르요나를 제자로 삼으시면서
계파(베드로)라는 이름을 주신 것이 바로 그 좋은 예입니다. 유다교에만 집착해
있었던 사울이 그리스도인이 되어 새로운 소명인 이방인 선교에 첫발을 내딛는 과정을 명백히 하기 위하여 사도행전의 저자는 개종전후의 이름을
구분하여 부른 것이라고 봅니다.
12. 그는 언제 예수님을 알게 되었습니까? 사도
바오로가 예수를 알게 된 때에는 34년경이라고 보면 무방합니다. 사도행전에서는
그의 회심을 다마스커스와 관계 있는 것으로 묘사하고 있지요. 이에 반해 사도
바오로의 편지들은 자신의 회심을 '계시' (갈라 1,16), '새 창조'(2고린 5,17), 부활하신 그리스도의 '발현'(1고린 15,8)이라고
말하고 있답니다. 실제로 사도 바오로의 회심은 악인에서 선인으로 돌아서는
윤리적인 '회개'도 아니었고 유다교에서 그리스도교로의 '개종'도 아니었습니다. 사도 바오로는 회심 이전이나 이후에나 윤리적인 수계생활을 게을리
하지 않았고, 회심 이후에도 유다교를 의식적으로 포기한 적이 없기 때문입니다. 그렇다면 사도 바오로의 회심은 무엇을 말하는 것일까요? 그것은
한마디로 부활하신 그리스도를 체험하는 것, 곧 '그리스도의 성령을 모심'(로마 8,9)으로써 그리스도께 소속되는 것을 말합니다. 한편 사도
바오로가 예수의 생애와 가르침, 그리고 원시 교회의 가르침에 대한 지식을 어떤 경로를 밟아 얻게 되었는지는 사도행전에서도 그 자신의 편지들에서도
밝혀지지 않고 있습니다.
13. 그는 여행을 많이 했다던데 여행수단은 무엇이었습니까?
사도행전에 의하면 바울로는 세 차례에 걸쳐 전도여행을 단행했습니다. 그런데 이
세 차례의 전도여행 모두 출발점은 시리아의 안티오키아였어요. 그리고 제3차 전도여행의 종착역은 예루살렘이었지만, 제1차와 2차 여행은 종착역도
안티오키아였답니다. 마지막으로 바울로는 예루살렘에서 붙잡혀 로마로 압송되었고 전승에 의하면 로마에서 순교한 것으로 되어 있답니다.
지중해 동쪽과 북쪽의 거의 전 지역을 포함하는 이 모든 여정들은 육로와 해상을
통과했는데 당연히 육로여행 때는 도보와 말, 당나귀, 수레 등을 타고 다녔을 것이고 해상 여행은 돛과 노를 가진 목선을 이용했을
것입니다.
14. 그렇게 많은 여행을 했다니 사도 바오로는 무척 건강했나 보지요?
앞에서 이야기한 <바울로 행전>의 기록엔 그가 매우 강인한 체력을
지닌 것으로 묘사되어 있지만 바울로 자신이 편지들에서 끊임없이 불평하는 것처럼 그에게는 불치의 병이 있었던 것 같습니다. 그의 지병이 무엇인지에
대해서 여러 가지 추측들을 해봅니다. 간질, 말라리아, 만성적 안질 등. 그러나 병의 징후에 대한 충분한 자료가 없기 때문에 확실한 진단을 내릴
수 없군요. 바울로가 고린토인들에게 보낸 편지에서 나열한 장황한 육체적 고통들은 그의 병약한 체질에 대한 게 아니라 그가 당한 고생을 묘사하기
위한 것으로 보입니다. 어떻든 그는 세번씩이나 이 만성 질병에서 구해주시도록 하느님께 청했다고 고백합니다.
하지만 자신이 그와 같은 치유의 은혜를 입을 자격이 없음을 시인하고 이 육체의
연약함을 자신의 영적 발전을 위한 채찍질로 받아들입니다. 그런데 이런 만성
질병이 바울로의 전도여행을 불가능하게 할만큼 심각한 것은 아니었나 봅니다. 교통기관이 오늘날처럼 발달되지 못한 그 시대에 그토록 장거리 여행을
끊임없이 할 수 있었다면 강한 정신력과 더불어 어느 정도의 기초 체력은 유지하고 있어야 하지 않았겠어요?
15. 결혼은 했습니까? 결혼한 몸이었다면 여행도 가족과 함께 했나요?
사도행전에 의하면 바울로가 당시 예루살렘의 저명한 랍비(유다교의 지도급
선생님) 가믈리엘의 제자로서 바리사이와 랍비가 될 수업을 받아온 것으로 되어 있습니다. 이 수업은 통상 꽤 이른 나이 때부터 시작되지요. 5살
때 율법의 주요내용을 익히고, 6살엔 시나고가(유다교 회당)에 딸린 유치원에 입학하여 10살 때까지 성서를 공부하면서 구전 법전과 수많은
규정들을 배워나갑니다. 15살 땐 가므리엘 선생이 가르치는 예루살렘 성전 대학에 입학하여 고된 랍비수련과정을 밟는 한편, 율법의 해석과
유다인들의 고전문학을 익힌답니다. 이런 과정을 거쳐 랍비로서의 자격을 모두 얻게 되면 원로 랍비들의 추천을 받아 랍비로 서품 되지요.
바울로가 랍비로 서품 되었는지 아닌지는 문헌상 밝힐 수 없지만 사도행전과 그의
편지들에서 드러난 것처럼 그는 율법에 정통한 바리사이로서 분명히 이런 과정을 모두 거친 것 같습니다. 그런데 바리사이와 서품된 랍비들에겐 결혼이
의무규정으로 되어 있었지요. 그래서 어떤 사람들은 바울로가 바리사이의 규정대로 결혼했을 것으로 추정하는 동시에 그의 부정적인 결혼관으로
미루어보아 결혼 초기에 아내와 갈라섰던 게 아닐까 상상해봅니다. 그러나 당시에
랍비들이라고 해서 다 결혼했던 것은 아니었지요. 한 랍비는 이렇게 말하고 있습니다. "별수없잖은가? 내 영혼이 이미 율법에 결합되어 있으니,
세상이야 다른 사람들이 계속 유지시키면 되는 게 아닌가?"라고요. 그리스도인으로서 바울로가 독신생활을 그리스도와 교회에 대한 신비적 약혼을 간주했던(1 고린 7,7) 점으로 보아 그가 보다 크고
자유로운 자기 봉헌을 위해 독신으로 지냈을 가능성이 높다고 하겠습니다.
16. 그의 생계는 어떻게 꾸려나갔나요? 혹시 부업이라도 있었나요?
랍비들은 율법에 대하여 다른 사람들을 가르칠 때 돈을 받을 수 없도록 되어
있었지요. 그래서 그들은 일정한 생업을 가져야 했답니다. 바울로는 원래 비교적 부유한 상류층 집안에서 태어났지만, 그도 복음을 전파하면서
돈받기를 거부했고 천막 짜는 일로 자신의 생활비를 벌었습니다(사도 18,3).
17. 바울로를 사도로 부르는데 그렇다면 그도 열 두 제자 중 한 사람이었나요?
예수님의 열 두 제자들만 사도라고 부른 건 아니지요. 그리스도교에서 사도라고
했을 때는 두 가지 조건을 채운 사람들을 가리켰답니다. 첫째 그들은 교회사 안에서 첫 번째 세대에 속해야 하고, 둘째 무엇보다 복음전파의 사명을
부여받은 사람들이어야 합니다. 열 두 제자들은 부활하신 예수님으로부터 직접 "땅끝까지 복음을 전하라"는 사명을 받았지요.
바울로는 역사적 예수와 함께 생활했던 열 두 제자들 틈에 했던 탓으로 처음에
초대교회 안에서 사도로서의 그의 권위가 간혹 의심과 도전을 받을 수밖에 없었을 겁니다. 이에 거세게 반발하면서 바울로는 이방인들에게 복음을
전해야 하는 자신의 사명이 부활하신 주님으로부터 직접 주어진 것임을 거듭거듭 강조하면서(로마 1,1;1 고린 9,1-2;15,9;2 고린
11,4-5) 자신의 가르침도 다른 사도들이나 예루살렘 지도자들에게서가 아니라 주님에게서 직접 전해들은 것이라고 주장하고 있습니다. 그는
갈라디아서 첫머리에 자신의 사도직이 "사람에게서나 사람을 통해서가 아니라 예수 그리스도와...... 하느님 아버지께로부터 받았다"고 선언합니다.
바울로는 자신과 열 두 사도들 이외에도 '주님의 형제'(유다인 사회에서는 어느 정도 먼 친척도 형제 자매로 불렀습니다) 야고보와 바르나바도
사도로 생각하였지요(갈라 1,19;1 고린 9,6;15,7). 교회의 직책 중 사도직을 최상의 은사로 소개하고 이 직책은 놀라운 표정과 기적들을
동반함으로써 거기에 신적인 권위가 부여된다고 믿고 있습니다(2고린 12,12).
18. 초대 교황이라 할 수 있는 베드로 사도와 바울로는 심하게 다툰 적이 있다고 하던데 그 이유는
무엇이고 어떻게 결말이 났나요? 두 사도가 심하게 다투었다기보다는 바울로의
일방적인 공격으로 끝난 이 사건은 이방계 그리스도인들이 점차로 불어나고 있었던 안티오키아 교회에서 일어났지요. 베드로와 바르나바를 위시해서
상당수의 유다계 그리스도인들은 이방계 그리스도인들과 성체성사를 포함해서 아무런 거리낌없이 식탁을 같이 했었습니다. 그런데 야고보가 보낸
예루살렘의 수구파 유다계 그리스도인들이 안티오키아에 도착하자 베드로는 그들의 비난이 두려워 이방계 그리스도인들과 음식을 나누지 않은 것처럼
행동했습니다. 원래 유다교에서는 부정한 음식과 정한 음식을 구별하고 식사
전에는 그릇과 손을 깨끗이 닦는 등 음식에 대한 규정이 까다로웠답니다. 그런데 초기 그리스도인들은 대부분 유다인들로 구성되었고 엄격한
율법준수에서 아직 자유롭지 못했습니다. 바울로는 복음 앞에서 그리고 주님의 식탁 앞에서 모든 이가 평등하다는 사실을 거듭 강조해왔고 베드로와
바르나바도 그 사실을 받아들였는데 예루살렘의 수구파 유다계 그리스도인들이 도착하자 비겁하게 이방인들과 음식을 나누지 않은 체하며 꽁무니를 뺀
겁니다. 지도급 인사들인 이들의 표양을 보고 다른 유다계 그리스도인들과 이방계 그리스도인들과 성찬과 식사 나누는 일을 피하게 되지 않았겠어요?
이방인들의 사도로 자타가 인정하는 바울로의 눈에 이것은 분명 복음에 위배되는
일로서 이제 막 태어난 그리스도교 공동체를 위협하는 일로 판단되었지요. 왜냐하면 이로써 만인을 위해 제정된 주님의 성찬이 그 의미를 상실하게
되고 할례를 비롯한 유다교의 온갖 율법규정들을 이방계 그리스도인들에게도 강요하게 되는 불행한 사태가 초래될 수 있었기 때문입니다.
바울로는 여러 사람들 앞에서 베드로에게 직접 대고 "당신이 이미 그리스도의
법을 받아들여 유다인으로서의 모든 규정에서 벗어나 자유롭게 되었는데 왜 그리스도의 법을 따르려는 이방인들을 유다교의 규정에
묶어놓으려는거요?"하고 면박을 주었습니다(갈라 2,14). 베드로가 워낙 잘못했기 때문에 변명의 여지도 없이 바울로의 일방적인 승리로 끝난
사건이었지요.
19. 다른 사도들과 바울로 사도와의 관계는 어떠했나요?
사도행전에서 예루살렘의 사도단이 바울로를 지지하고 이방인 선교에 대한 그의
독보적 권한과 위치를 인정한 것으로 묘사된 것과는 달리, 바울로는 이방인 선교 벽두에 야고보를 중심으로 하는 예루살렘 수구파들로부터 상당한
방해를 받았던 것 같습니다. 그들이 가장 크게 문제를 삼고 있었던 것은 그의
가르침의 정통성 여부였습니다. 바울로는 분명 열 두 제자의 무리에는 속하지 못했지만 그는 여러 번 자신있게 자신의 가르침이 부활하신 주님으로부터
직접 얻어진 것이고 자신의 이방인 사도직도 주님으로부터 직접 주어진 것임을 강조합니다. 복음에 대한 그의 열정과 그가 이룩한 이방인 선교의
놀라운 결실을 보고 종내는 사도들뿐만 아니라 예루살렘 수구파 유다계그리스도인들도 그의 사도직을 인정하며 그를 동업자로 받아들였으리라
확신합니다.
20. 바울로 사도와 함께 일한 사람들은 누구였습니까?
사도행전에 의하면 바울로는 첫 전도 여행 때 바르나바와 요한 마르코를 동반자로
삼았다가 서로 의견이 맞지 않아 헤어집니다. 두 번째 전도 여행 때에는 실라와 디모테오를 동반자로 맞아들입니다. 세 번째 전도 여행은
브리스킬라와 아퀼라와 함께 시작합니다. 그리고 사도행전에는 등장하지 않지만 바울로의 중요한 협력자로서 그리스인 디도를 빼놓을 수 없겠지요.
이외에 바울로를 물심양면으로 도와준 사람들은 남녀노소를 막론하게 헤아릴 수
없이 많았습니다. 바울로는 자신의 편지에서 이들에 대한 안부를 소상히 묻거나 문안해달라는 부탁을 하곤 하지요. 로마서 16장에서 바울로는
27명이나 되는 사람들의 이름을 나열하면서 문안을 부탁하고 있습니다. 그리스도 안에서 우정을 맺는데 각별히 신경을 쓴 거지요.
21. 바울로가 사용한 언어는 무엇이었습니까? 바울로가 길리기아 지방의 다르소에서 태어난 디아스포라(유다인들이 팔레스티나를 떠나 여러 이방지역에 흩어져 사는 현상)의 유다인
출신이면서 예루살렘에서 랍비 교육을 받은 것이 사실이라면, 그는 아라메아어와 그리스어 둘 다 능통했음에 틀림없습니다. 그런데 그의 주요
선교대상이 그리스어를 구사하는 이방인들이었기 때문에 그들에게 향한 그의 연설이나 편지들은 당연히 그리스어로 되어 있었을
것입니다.
22. 바울로의 말솜씨와 글솜씨 중 어느 것이 더 뛰어납니까?
사도행전의 기록들을 보면 바울로가 자신에게 적의를 품고 있는 유다인들을
거리에서 재판정에서 굴복시키고, 궤변에 젖어 있는 그리스인들을 탁월한 논리로 설득시킨 유명한 설교가인 것처럼 묘사되어 있습니다. 그러나 이것은
바울로는 숭배하다시피 떠받들었던 루가의 문학적인 기록이라고 봐야 할겁니다. 루가는 여기서 바울로라는 한 영웅을 통하여 복음이 유다교의 테두리에서
벗어나 이방인들에게 전달되었음을 강조하고 있습니다. 그러면 바울로의 말솜씨는
실제로 어떠했을까요? 끊임없는 반대자들의 공격과 그를 해치려는 사람들의 모함 앞에서 그가 취할 수 있는 유일한 길은 그리스도의 권위를 힘입어
적대자들의 숨은 의도를 밝혀내고 자신의 언행을 변호하는 것이었겠지요. 이런 상황에 처해 있었으리만큼 바울로는 실제로 체계적이고 냉정한 논리로
상대방을 설득시킬 여유도 방법도 없었을 겁니다. 그러니 자연 그의 말이나 글이 상식 밖으로 장황하게 길어지거나 논리의 비약을 가져오지 않을 수
없었을 거예요. 사도행전에서조차도 많은 청중들, 특히 바울로의 반대자들이 그의 설교를 듣고는 무슨 소리를 하는지 모르겠다고 비웃는 경우가
많습니다. 이런 사정은 약간 낫기는 하지만 그의 편지에서도 그대로 표출되고
있지요. 바울로가 당시의 수사학에서 유행하던 디아트리베(대화체로 자신의 사상을 전개시킴)의 방법을 사용하여 독자들의 관심을 집중시키려 하지만,
한 주체를 너무 지나치게 파고 든다든가 문법적인 논리를 무시하고 자신의 주장을 무리하게 강변하는 경우가 허다하여 그의 글을 읽기가 그리 쉽지
않답니다. 이런 약점에도 불구하고 그의 말과 글은 사람들을 사로잡는 매력과
호소력이 있었습니다. 복음선포에 대한 불타는 정열, 그리스도와 교회에 대한 사랑과 헌신적 봉사는 그의 말과 글에 생명력을 제공함으로써 그 누구도
흉내낼 수 없는 독특한 분위기를 자아내어 청중과 독자를 감동시켰으리라고 봅니다.
23. 바울로의 성격은 어떤 편인가요? 방금 말씀드린 대로 복음에 대한 열정과, 그리스도와 교회에 대한 헌신적 봉사와 사랑은 바울로를 단단히 무장시켰습니다. 그는 무슨
일에든지 적극적이었고 자신이 한번 진리라고 생각한 일에 진지하고 철저하게 몰두해 들어갔지요.
설상가상으로 바울로는 그의 권위와 가르침의 정통성을 의심하는 반대자들의 공격에
끊임없이 반박성명을 내야 할 형편이었지요. 이 모든 요인들이 한데 어우러져 바울로로 하여금 자신의 편지들 안에서 많은 사람들에게 그의 복음과
권위가 직접 하느님으로부터 왔고 성공적인 그의 선교활동이 자신의 약점을 통하여 일하시는 하느님의 능력을 증명하는 것이라는 사실을 지나칠 만큼
강조하게 만들었던 겁니다. 그래서 그를 독선과 아집에 사로잡혀 균형을
잃어버린, 그리하여 영원히 자기 나팔만을 부는 사나이로까지 오해하는 사람들이 생겨난 것 같습니다. 그러나 바울로는 한 번도 자기 자신의 업적이나
능력을 자랑한 적이 없고 다만 자신 안에서 자신을 통하여 하느님께서 이루신 업적을 자랑하고 있을 뿐입니다.
그리고 이 자랑도 반대자들이 자기가 전하는 복음의 진리를 부정하기 때문에 그
진리와 자신을 변호하기 위하여 내놓은 것이지 자기 선전을 위한 것이 아님을 분명히 밝히고 있답니다. 오히려 바울로의 편지 곳곳에서 우리는 그의
신생교회들에 대한 어버이다운 애정과 관심을 엿볼 수 있고 많은 친구들과 협조자들에게 보내는 자상한 충고와 문안을 발견할 수 있지요. 이는
바울로가 결코 언제나 도발적이고 자신의 감정을 제어하지 못하는 이상성격의 소유자가 아니라 따뜻한 면모도 갖춘 균형 잡힌 인물임을 증언하는
대목들입니다.
24. 바울로가 가장 오래 머물렀던 곳은 어디이며 그 이유는 무엇입니까?
사도행전에 의하면 바울로가 항구도시 에페소에서 3년 동안 머무른 것으로 되어
있습니다(20,31). 이것이 사실이라면 에페소는 바울로가 한 장소에 가장 오래 머무른 곳이 될 겁니다. 그런데 이 기간 동안에 바울로는
그리스도교를 박해하는 광신적인 유다인들로부터 끊임없는 반대와 모함을 받았습니다. 바울로를 쫓아내기 위해 유다인들이 폭동을 일으킬 정도였으니까요.
우리는 에페소에서 바울로가 무슨 일을 했는지에 대해 사도행전과 그의
편지들로부터 별 특별한 정보를 얻어내지 못합니다. 어떤 사람들은 필레몬이 살던 골로사이가 에페소 근처에 있는 점으로 미루어 바울로가 에페소에서
감옥생활을 하면서 필레몬에게 옥중서간을 보낸 것이 아닌가 추측합니다. 상당히 근거 있는 추측 같군요.
25. 그는 감옥에 많이 갇혔는데 무슨 죄
때문이었습니까?바울로는 대부분 유다인들의 모함 때문에 감옥에 갇혔지요. 그들은
바울로가 자신들이 처형한 나자렛 예수를 '부활하신 주님'이라고 선포하며 그분의 가르침을 계속 전하는 걸보고 위협을 느꼈던 것 같습니다. 더구나
이방인 선교를 위하여 율법과 유다인들의 전통적 관습을 상대화시키고 직선적으로 비판하는 바울로는 몹시 못마땅하게 생각했던
거지요.그래서 바울로를 제거하기 위하여 갖가지 구실을 찾으며 일반 시민들을
선동하였습니다. 바울로에 대한 직접적인 테러 이외에도 치안대장이나 총독에게 고발하여 감옥에 갇히도록 별별 수단을 다 동원하였답니다.
유다인들로부터 그가 당한 박해가 고린토 후서 11장 23절에서부터 26절에 나열되어 있지요.
26. 그가 로마에 간 것은 전교 때문이었습니까?
바울로의 로마 여행에 대해서는 사도행전의 기록이 유일한 자료입니다. 이 자료에
의하면 바울로는 로마에 전교하러 간 게 아니었지요. 예루살렘과 가이사리아에 살고 있는 유다인들의 모함에 빠져 예루살렘에서 체포된 바울로는
가이사리아로 이송되어 아그리빠 왕에게 심문을 받습니다. 심문 도중에 바울로는 출생지 다르소에서 얻은 로마 시민권을 이용하여 로마황제에게
상소합니다. 이 상소가 윤허되어 바울로는 로마로 압송되지요. 말하자면 바울로가 로마에 간 것은 순전히 재판문제 때문이었던
겁니다.
27. 바오로 사도는 몇 살까지 살다가 어디에서 돌아가셨읍니까?
사도행전을 보면 바오로 사도는 셋집을 얻어 로마에서 만 2년 동안 지내면서
자기를 찾아오는 사람을 모두 맞아들이고 아무런 방해도 받지 않고 하느님 나라를 아주 대담하게 선포하며 주 예수 그리스도에 관하여
가르쳤다"(28,30-31)라는 말로 끝을 맺고 있습니다. 이것은 로마에 도착한 바오로 사도가 가택연금 상태에서 전도를 계속했다는 내용입니다.
그러나 그가 로마에서 언제 완전히 자유롭게 되었는지, 그리고 그곳에서 순교를
했는지에 대해서는 사도행전도 그의 편지들도 아무런 정보를 제공해주지 않고 있습니다. 로마의 클레멘스는 바오로 사도가 로마에서 완전한 자유를 얻은 후 서부의 끝인 스페인에까지 전도여행을 했다고 전합니다.
<무라토리오 경전>과 <베드로 행전 위경>을 보면 동일한 전승을 반복하고 있습니다.
초대교회의 역사학자 에우세비오에 의하면 스페인 여행을 마친 바오로는 로마에서
다시 붙잡혀 더 엄격한 수인생활을 하다가 네로 황제의 박해 때(67년; 로마의 클레멘스와 떼르뚤리아노는 64년으로 주장) 참수 치명을 당했다고
합니다. 그 때 바오로 사도의 나이가 얼마인지는 정확한 출생연도를 모르니 알 수 없지만 대략 60세 정도가 아니었나 추측해봅니다.
|