사도행전, 使徒行傳, Acts of the Apostles
예수 승천 후 사도들 행적을 기록한 책이다. 초대 교회 예수 운동과 성령의 역사를 이해할 수 있는 성경이다. 초기 선교사역에 관한 역사적 개설서로 현대와 같은 형태의 교회 전례력이 형성되는데 이바지했다.
사도행전과 루가의 복음서는 본래 한 편의 책이었다. 이름을 밝히지 않은 한 명의 저자가 쓴 것으로 추정하는데, 전통적으로 루가가 쓴 것으로 이해한다. 기원후 80년대에 작성했다고 보는 시각이 대부분이나 기원후 90~110년경에 작성했다고 보는 시각도 있다. 사도행전 앞부분인 루가복음은 야훼가 나사렛 예수의 탄생과 공생애와 죽음과 부활을 통해 자신의 구속사를 어떻게 완성하였는지에 관해 서술한다. 사도행전은 그 뒤를 이어 예수의 승천을 시작으로 초대 교회가 형성되는 과정을 증언한다. 사도행전 첫 부분은 예루살렘을 배경으로 성령 강림인 오순절 사건을 비롯해 예루살렘 교회의 성장을 기록한다. 유대인들은 처음에는 복음을 수용하지만 곧 배척한다. 사도 바울로의 개종 후 복음은 이방인들에게 전달된다. 책 후반부는 바울로의 개종, 소아시아와 에게해 선교, 그리고 로마에서 투옥에 관한 이야기를 담는다.
루가 복음서와 사도행전은 '어떻게 유대인의 구세주인 메시아가 비유대인 중심의 교회를 갖게되었는가'라는 질문에 관한 답변이다. 이 질문에 관해 저자가 제시하는 답변은 유대인이 예수를 거부했다는 것이다. 또한 루가 복음서와 사도행전은 유대인들에게 보내는 '예수 운동'에 관한 변호문이기도 하다. 율법 강론과 설교 대부분은 유대인 청중을 대상으로 한다. 또한 저자는 예수의 추종자들을 유대인의 한 종파로 묘사하는데, 이는 기독교인들이 공인된 종교의 신자로서 법적 보호를 받을 자격이 있음을 변호하기 위한 것이다.
제목
사도행전이라는 명칭은 2세기 후반에 이레네오가 처음 사용한 것이다. 사도행전이라는 이름을 이레네오가 붙인 것인지는 확실하지 않지만, 적어도 저자가 처음부터 사도행전이라는 이름을 붙인 것은 아니라는 것이 정설이다. 이레네오가 사용한 '행(行)'에 대응되는 단어 '프락세이스(πράξεις)'는 본문 19장 18절에서 단 한 번만 사용되는데, 이 행동의 주체는 사도가 아니라 기독교인들이기 때문에 사도행전이라는 이름이 처음부터 붙여진 것은 아님을 알 수 있다.
저자
루가의 복음서와 사도행전은 본래 한 편의 책이다. 이 둘을 합치면 신약성경의 약 27.5%로, 이 두 책의 저자는 단일 저자로서 신약성경의 가장 많은 부분을 작성한 것이다. 반면 저자의 이름은 어디에서도 나타나지 않는다. 다만 2세기 교회 전승에서 비롯된 전통적인 해석으로 말미암아 사도 바울로의 동역자인 루가를 이 두 책의 저자로 유추할 뿐이다. 즉, 루가는 데오빌로에게 보낸 복음서인 루가의 복음서에서는 예수의 복음과 행적을 기록하고, 사도행전에서는 예수 운동이 어떻게 진행되었는가를 기록하고 있다. 사도행전 1장 1절에서 "데오빌로여 내가 먼저 쓴 글에는 무릇 예수께서 행하시며 가르치시기를 시작하심부터"에서 당시 로마의 기사 계급이며 루가와는 절친한 사이였던 데오빌로의 등장은 루가복음 1장 3절에서도 나타난다. 또한 사도행전 16:8-10,20:5-15,21:1-18,27:1-28:16에서 보이는 '우리(고대 그리스어: ἐγώ 헤민)'라는 의미는 당시 상황을 함께 바라본 목격자로 의미를 가지고 있으며, 바울이 자신의 동역자중 직접 언급하지 않은 인물은 루가와 디도뿐이라는 점도 이를 뒷받침하고 있다고 본다. 또한 사도행전 3:7, 4:22, 9:18, 12:23, 13:11, 28:8에 사용되는 의학용어는 상당히 구체적이고 전문적이라는 점에서도 의사인 루가가 저자였다는 주장에 힘을 싣는다.
그러나 사도행전에서 기록하는 바울로의 기록과, 바울로 서신에서 바울로 본인이 증언한 자신의 이야기에 일치하지 않는 부분이 종종 나타난다는 점에서 저자가 루가가 아니라는 의견도 제기된다. 이들은 대표적으로 사도행전 9장, 22장, 26장에 기록된 바울로의 회심 사건 및 그 직후의 일과 갈라디아인들에게 보낸 편지 1장에서 바울로의 직접 증언에 차이가 있음을 지적한다. 또한 바울이 예루살렘 교회를 방문한 횟수를 다르다는 점도 지적된다. 그러나 이 부분은 당시 교통 또는 연락 상황에 비추어 볼때 누락되었을 가능성을 제기하고 있고 갈라디아인들에게 보낸 편지 1장과 2장에서 바울은 모든 행적을 낱낱이 보고하고 있지는 않고 중요사건과 방문만을(갈1:18,2:1) 기록한 것으로 보기도 한다. 두번째로는 사도 바울로의 신학사상에 대한 이견에 대한 지적이다. 바울은 로마인들에게 보낸 편지에서 이신칭의에 대한 신학을 정립했고 이는 바울의 핵심 신학 사상이라고 인데, 이와 관련된 내용이 사도행전에 나타나지 않는다는 점이다. 그러나 이는 바울의 신학사상을 너무 편협하게 보는 시각이라는 지적과 루가는 이미 루가복음의 저자로서 실재 예수님의 기적과 표적을 경험했기 때문에 그의 신학적 표현 내용은 다소 바울의 신학과 다를 수 있다는 가능성도 반론의 하나의 커다란 주제로 인식된다. 실재로 백석대학교 김경진 교수는 다음과 같이 말한다.
루가가 바울을 사도로 인정하지 않는 근거는 바울이 예수의 사역에 친히 참여하고 목격한 증인으로서의 사도의 자격에 부합하지 않기 때문으로 풀이된다. 루가의 이런 행동은 루가 자신의 소신에 따른 결과라고 생각된다. 그 증거를 사도행전 1장에서 찾을 수 있다. 이 때 베드로가 제시한 사도의 자격은 한 마디로 예수가 세례 요한에게 받으신 후 부활하실 때까지 그 모든 과정을 친히 목격한 증인이어야 한다는 것이다. 특별히 루가는 사도행전에서 사도의 자격으로서의 증인을 무척이나 강조하고 있다. 그런데 바로 이 자격 조건에 따르면 바울은 결코 그에 해당하는 사람이 아니었다. 그는 부활 후에야 예수를 만났기 때문이다.
이들은 루가의 복음서와 사도행전의 저자가 바울로의 추종자이기는 하지만, 사도 바울로의 견해들을 직접 공유하지는 않았다고 본다. 그럼에도 저자가 식자층이었으며, 노동자는 아니지만 육체 노동을 존중하는 사람이었고, 아마도 도시에서 태어나고 자란 인물일 것이라는 데에는 동의한다. 식자층임에도 육체 노동자들 및 소상공인들을 존중하는 태도는 당시 흔한 것이 아니었다.
작성 시기
작성 시기에 대해서는 바울로가 로마에 투옥된 기원후 62년로 보는 시각도 있지만, 주류 학계가 인정하는 사도행전의 추정연대는 서기 80년대이다. 이들은 루가의 복음서와 사도행전이 마르코의 복음서를 참고한 흔적이 나타나며 예루살렘 파괴를 암시하지만, 1세기 후반에 기독교 공동체들 사이에서 공유되기 시작한 바울로 서신을 참고한 흔적은 나타나지 않는다는 점에 주목한다. 그러나 바울로 서신과 요세푸스의 저작을 참고했다고 보는 학자들도 있는데, 이들은 서기 2세기 초에 루가의 복음서와 사도행전이 작성되었을 수도 있다고 본다.[15] 그러나 대부분의 학자는 요세푸스의 저작을 참고하지 않았다고 보는데, 만일 요세푸스의 저작을 참고한 것 처럼 보여지는 부분이 있다면 그것은 더 오래된 공동의 사료를 참고했기 때문이라고 설명한다.
사본
현존하는 사본은 크게 서방형(Western text-type)과 알렉산드리아형(Alexandrian)이 있다. 사도행전을 완전히 보존하고 있는 사본 중 가장 오래된 것은 알렉산드리아형의 경우 서기 4세기로 거슬러 올라가는 반면, 서방형의 경우 서기 6세기로 거슬러 올라간다. 다만 파편화되어 남아있는 본문은 서방형의 경우 서기 3세기의 것도 전해진다. 서방형 사본의 경우 알렉산드리아형 사본보다 대략 6.2~8.4% 더 긴데, 알렉산드리아형 사본에 없는 내용은 대부분 성령의 사역을 강조하고 유대인들이 메시아를 거부하는 내용이다. 대다수의 학자들은 서방형보다 짧은 알렉산드리아형을 더 선호하고 더 큰 권위와 신뢰를 주지만, 루가의 복음서의 경우 더 짧은 서방형 사본에 권위를 둔다.
내용
사도행전은 바울로를 비롯한 사도들이 그들의 이성과 열정으로 예수가 그리스도라는 케리그마를 선언한 예수 운동을 벌여간 이야기이다.
성령 강림을 통한 교회의 설립(성령강림주일)과 초기 신자들의 생활(1-6장)
베드로와 요한의 초기 활동과 고난. 루가는 유대인인 베드로가 로마 사람인 고르넬리오 백인대장의 집에서 설교한 사건을 기록함으로써 예루살렘 교회가 이방인 전도를 실천했음을 설명한다.(3-13장)
과부를 돌본 예루살렘 교회의 사회선교. 사회선교에서 갈등이 생김에 따라 사도들이 임명한 봉사자(부제, 집사)가 등장함(6-7장)
스데파노의 설교와 희생(6~7장)
필립보가 에티오피아 내시에게 세례를 줌(8장)
사도 바울로의 회심과 이후 바울로의 선교 활동(9장~28장)
1차 예루살렘 공의회 이방인 신도들의 할례문제 논의(15장)
Acts of the Apostles
New Testament
Acts of the Apostles, fifth book of the New Testament, a valuable history of the early Christian church. Acts was written in Greek, presumably by St. Luke the Evangelist. The Gospel According to Luke concludes where Acts begins, namely, with Christ’s Ascension into heaven. Acts was apparently written in Rome, perhaps between 70 and 90 ce, though some think a slightly earlier date is also possible.
After an introductory account of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles at Pentecost (interpreted as the birth of the church), Luke pursues as a central theme the spread of Christianity to the Gentile world under the guiding inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He also describes the church’s gradual drawing away from Jewish traditions. The conversion of St. Paul and his subsequent missionary journeys are given a prominent place because this close associate of Luke was the preeminent Apostle to the Gentiles. Without Acts, a picture of the primitive church would be impossible to reconstruct; with it, the New Testament letters of St. Paul are far more intelligible. Acts concludes rather abruptly after Paul has successfully preached the gospel in Rome, then the acknowledged centre of the Gentile world.
history of early Christianity,
the development of the early Christian church from its roots in the Jewish community of Roman Palestine to the conversion of Constantine I and the convocation of the First Council of Nicaea. For a more extensive treatment of the history and beliefs of the Christian church, see Christianity.
Origin and growth
Key People: St. Paul the Apostle St. Augustine Constantine I Diocletian Theodosius I
Related Topics: Christianity pentarchy Celtic Church
Christianity begins with Jesus Christ. The effects of his life, the response to his teachings, the experience of his death, and the belief in his resurrection were the origins of the Christian community. When the Apostle Peter is represented in the New Testament as confessing that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he speaks for the Christianity of all ages. And it is in response to this confession that Jesus is described as announcing the foundation of the Christian church: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
apostle; Christianity
Jesus was a Jew, as were all the apostles. Thus the earliest Christianity is in fact a movement within Judaism; the very acknowledgment of Jesus as “the Christ” professes that he is the fulfillment of the promises originally made to the Hebrew patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Christian gospel encountered opposition within Judaism, just as Jesus had, and soon it turned toward the gentile world. Ideologically, this required Christian thought to define the gospel as both the correction and the fulfillment of the prevailing Greek and Roman philosophy of the day.
The symbolic birth of the Christian church is marked on Pentecost, a festival that celebrates the gift of the Holy Spirit to the disciples and the beginning of the church’s mission. According to Acts 2, this event occurred 50 days after the Ascension of Jesus. The members of the early Christian church believed their mission to be nearer its end than its beginning, however. In daily expectation of the imminent Second Coming of Christ, the faithful prepared themselves for his kingdom and, by urgently preaching his gospel, sought to bring others into the redeemed community. In the event, longer perspectives of a “time of the church” opened up. Christians faced the problems of living among a pagan majority, the missionary challenge proved to be far greater than could have been foreseen, and with it came the task of building a Christian social life. It became necessary to determine a new canon of authoritative scriptures (the writings of the apostles and their circle), on this basis to draw out the theological implications of the gospel, and to adopt such institutional forms as would preserve and propagate the inner life in Christ.
The church spread with astonishing rapidity. Already in the Acts of the Apostles its movement from one headquarters to another can be traced: Jerusalem, Damascus, and Antioch; the missions of St. Paul to Asia Minor (Tarsus, Iconium, Ephesus, and Cyprus); the crossing to Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica) and Achaea (Athens and Corinth); and the beginnings in Rome. Other early evidence tells of more churches in Asia Minor and of Christians in Alexandria. Though Christianity found a springboard in Jewish synagogues, it owed even more to the crucial decision to open the church to gentiles without either circumcision or complete adherence to the Torah. Roman roads and the comparative security they offered also facilitated missionary work.
spread of Christianity
By the end of the 2nd century there were well-established churches in Gaul (Lyon, Vienne, and perhaps Marseille) and Latin Africa (Carthage), with perhaps a start in Britain, Spain and Roman Germany, though little is known of these areas for another century. To the east, Edessa soon became the centre of Syriac Christianity, which spread to Mesopotamia, the borders of Persia, and possibly India. Armenia adopted Christianity at the beginning of the 4th century, by which time there may have been a Christian majority, or near it, in some cities of Asia Minor and Roman Africa, while progress had been substantial in Gaul and Egypt. The faith had demonstrated its appeal to people of different cultures and environments; the church could be catholic, universal.
This was not done without opposition. First, their stern moral standard (though attractive to some) and their fear of contamination by the idolatry woven into the texture of social life around them compelled many Christians to stand aloof from their neighbours. Second, the Roman state doubted their loyalty and became increasingly convinced that the growth of the Christian church was incompatible with the unity, safety, and prosperity of the empire. Serious action against the church corporately was not taken until Septimius Severus forbade conversion under pain of death (202), but long before him a tradition of administrative action against individual Christians and a presumption that they were wicked and dangerous people had been established. Nero had made Christians scapegoats for the fire of Rome in 64; prior to this, the Roman government had made little distinction between Christians and Jews. Although Trajan forbade magistrates to take the initiative against them, Christians denounced by others could be punished simply for persistence in their faith, the proof of which lay often in refusal to participate in the cult of the emperor. Persecution at Lyon in 177, when Marcus Aurelius abandoned Trajan’s principle “that they are not to be sought out,” pointed to what might come. Meanwhile, Apologists such as Justin, Tertullian, and Origen protested in vain that Christians were moral, useful, and loyal citizens.
In 250, eager to revitalize the empire on conservative lines, Decius ordered all citizens to worship the gods; persecution was extensive and many apostatized, but the church was not destroyed. Valerian tried new methods against the clergy and other leaders, martyring St. Cyprian and St. Sixtus II in 258, but the church held firm. His successor Gallienus granted toleration in practice and perhaps legal recognition. A period of comparative security was ended by the series of persecutions launched in 303 by Diocletian and Galerius. Harsh though they were, they entirely missed their objective. Public opinion, now better aware of the nature of Christianity, was revolted by the bloodshed; first Diocletian and later Galerius (311) acknowledged the failure of this policy. In 313 Constantine and Licinius agreed upon a policy of toleration of Christianity with the proclamation of the Edict of Milan; Constantine soon turned to active patronage of the church. Through nearly three centuries the martyrs had been the seed of the church, and now the accession of a Christian emperor changed the whole situation.
Organization
By this time the church had developed considerably in its organization, partly against these external pressures and partly in order to express its own nature as a historically continuous society with a corporate unity, a ministry, and distinct worship practices and sacraments. Not later than the first decades of the 2nd century there is evidence in Antioch and several Asian cities of congregations being governed by a single bishop assisted by a group of presbyters and a number of deacons. The bishop was the chief minister in worship, teaching, and pastoral care as well as the supervisor of all administration. The presbyters were collectively his council; individually the bishop might call upon them for help in any of his ministerial duties. The deacons came to be specially associated with the bishop in his liturgical office and in the administration of property, including assistance to the needy.
How far back this threefold ministry can be traced has long been a matter of controversy. It is certain that typical Christian groups, at least in cities, possessed a recognized ministry from their very beginnings, and it is almost as certain that the pattern of ministry was not derived from Greek models. The presbyters (elders) were clearly taken over from the Jewish synagogue; the bishop (where this title is not simply an alternative for presbyter) may be related to the supervisor of the communities known from the Dead Sea Scrolls. How and when the bishop came to be regarded as having authority over his presbyters and how such a “monarchical” bishop was related to the original apostles—whether by direct succession of appointment, by localization of missionary-founders, or by elevation from the presbyterate—remains uncertain. While apostles and other first-generation leaders were alive, there was understandably some fluidity in organization, with apostles, prophets, and teachers at work side by side with bishops, presbyters, and deacons; moreover, some New Testament terms may indicate at one time an office, at another a function.
First Council of Nicaea
Though the first local unit of organization must have been the congregation, the church was soon making use of the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire. Normally each bishop became responsible for the church in a recognized civitas; that is, an urban centre with its surrounding territorium. This was the diocese, the fundamental unit of ecclesiastical geography. The subdivision of a diocese into parishes was a much later development. By the late 2nd century, when heresy and other problems compelled the bishops to meet together in councils, they tended to group themselves according to the civil provinces. In the 3rd century there emerges clear evidence of the ecclesiastical province, usually coinciding in area with the civil province and accepting the bishop of the civil capital (metropolis) as its primate (metropolitan), a system which received canonical status and further precision at the Council of Nicaea (325). Besides such metropolitans, the bishops of a few outstanding sees acquired a special authority through a combination of the secular importance of the city and its place in missionary history as a mother church. In Egypt, for example, the bishop of Alexandria ruled six provinces, and in Latin Africa the bishop of Carthage was the accepted leader, though without juridical or canonical rights, of the whole area. The Council of Nicaea, while defining the canonical status of the provincial synods and metropolitans, reaffirmed the ancient customary privileges of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and certain other unnamed sees. Out of this the patriarchates of later times were developed.
Until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 the mother church there may have held a certain primacy. With the shift in emphasis to gentile Christianity, Rome quickly became the preeminent see—the church of Peter and Paul, the only apostolic see in the Latin West, the capital of the empire. No one in the West doubted that the bishop of Rome possessed a primacy of some sort. The exact nature of this primacy in the early centuries was undefined, however, and attempts to interpret it (whether or not on the basis of Matthew 16:18—“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”) as containing anything like jurisdictional sovereignty were resisted even in the West (for instance by Cyprian of Carthage). In the East, the see of Ephesus maintained its own apostolic tradition against Victor of Rome in the Quartodeciman controversy (c. 190), and Firmilian of Cappadocian Caesarea supported Cyprian in his dispute with Pope Stephen (c. 256).
Here again the accession of Constantine was a turning point. With the expansion of the church and its recognition by the state, questions of jurisdiction became more acute (they were exacerbated by the Donatist and Arian controversies). The foundation of Constantinople as the eastern capital, with no ecclesiastical but strong secular claim to preeminence, caused Rome to develop and assert the exclusively religious grounds of its own primacy against a possible rival.
Doctrine and heresies
Early Christian doctrine, much helped to articulation by Greek thought, had to maintain its biblical character against other elements in its Hellenistic environment. One wing of the church clung so tenaciously to its Jewish heritage that it failed to grasp what was novel in Christianity. This branch had no future, especially after the fall of Jerusalem. The mainstream of Christianity worked out a standard of orthodoxy in the course of its struggle with various forms of gnosticism. This philosophy threatened to split the early church by denying the incarnation of God in Christ—thus rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity—partly on the ground that physical matter is evil.
Apologists of the 2nd century like Justin Martyr, Theophilus, and Athenagoras went as far as they could to conciliate Greek thought. Irenaeus, in his book Adversus haereses (Against Heresies, c. 180), came to grips with the gnostic challenge. He not only emphasized the “threefold cord” (a reference to Ecclesiastes 4:12) of apostolic scripture, apostolic rule of faith, and apostolic succession by which the continuity of the church is preserved, but also grasped the Pauline gospel of redemption (the true understanding of which the half-gnostic Marcion had arrogated to himself) and stated it afresh with particular attention paid to the person of Christ. The almost contemporary conflict with Montanism and the development of certain aspects of Irenaeus in the early writings of Tertullian confirmed the church’s awareness of its nature as a continuous society originating in and tied to a divine revelation, identical with the church of the apostles. This perception, however, brought with it some danger of traditionalism and institutionalism.
Apart from Origen’s De principiis (On First Principles, c. 225), Christian theology in this period was not systematic, and doctrines were examined rather as circumstances demanded. Gnostic dualism compelled consideration of the Creation, the Fall of humanity, and free will, as well as the authority and exegesis of the Old Testament. On the other hand, some matters, precisely because they were not then subjects of serious controversy, were not searchingly studied. Thus an aspect of baptism (whether it could be administered outside the church) could receive more attention in the dispute between Cyprian and Stephen than the essential character of the sacrament itself, and eucharistic theology was not yet elaborated. Even the doctrine of redemption was less fully pondered than might have been expected, though the concepts of ransom (Origen proposed that Jesus paid a “ransom for many” to free humanity from sin according to Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45) and deification were brought forward for future development.
A Christian society was bound to reflect upon the personhood of Christ. The material reality of his human body had to be affirmed against those who thought it derogatory to a divine Saviour. It took longer to perceive that his complete humanity must be as firmly proclaimed. Although Tertullian taught expressly that Christ combined perfect divinity and perfect humanity in one person, the theoretical problems of this dogma awaited exploration and clarification in the 4th and 5th centuries. In the intellectual formulation of their belief in the deity of Christ simultaneously with the unity of God, many were helped by the concept of the logos (“word” or “reason”) of God, which had roots both in the Bible and in Greek philosophy. This proved almost as dangerous as it was fruitful, since it was difficult to understand what kind of subordination is involved in the fact that the logos is generated by the Father. Some points in Origen’s thinking led toward the Nicene orthodoxy of the future, others toward Arianism.
Trinity
Some theologians held that Jesus was a man raised to divine honours through his moral and spiritual perfection (Adoptionism). Others allowed no permanent reality to Son and Spirit, treating them as aspects of the one God, modes of his dealings with mankind (Modalistic Monarchianism and Sabellianism). Such problems were argued principally in terms of the relation between Father and Son, with comparatively little attention to the Person of the Holy Spirit. Again, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly stated, almost in the later terminology, by Tertullian, followed by Novatian—three co-equal and co-eternal personae in one substantia—but new problems emerged, and deeper thought was required in the following century.
During this gradual clarification of the essentials of Christian orthodoxy there was also scope for free discussion and speculation within the limits of the rule of faith and the baptismal creeds, a freedom of which the adventurous mind of Origen took full advantage. Heresy meant denial of the basic tenets of faith rather than departure from a complete and formally accepted scheme of doctrine. Whether these tenets suffered from the slackening of eschatological expectation and the introduction of Greek forms of thought is open to debate. It was not only, or even primarily, the theologian who was responsible for the preservation of authentic Christianity; it was maintained in the worship and discipline and common life of the churches. Once more, the conversion of Constantine exposed this continuity of tradition to fresh dangers while opening up fresh opportunities for the intellectual conquest of the empire.
The life of the church
Candidates for admission to the church were instructed during a lengthy catechumenate, after which they were baptized, generally at Easter, by their bishop. As the sacrament of baptism included what was later separated off in the West as confirmation, the newly baptized faithful (fideles) were at once admitted to the full privileges and obligations of the Christian life. Though adult baptism was perhaps the norm, infant baptism was also practiced from an early date.
Leonardo da Vinci: Last Supper
The Holy Communion (Eucharist) was the principal Sunday service, the regular gathering (synaxis) of the faithful for worship, the preaching of the Word, instruction, discipline, and fellowship. While it was never shapeless and always included certain actions taken over from the Last Supper, it was only gradually, and perhaps not within this period, that the liturgies of the leading churches took a fixed verbal form. Easter, Pentecost and, in the East, Epiphany were annually commemorated, before long anniversaries of martyrs were being observed, a system of feasts, fasts, and vigils was worked out, and so a Christian year was established.
Church of the Holy Sepulchre
At first worship must have taken place in private houses. Sometimes houses were handed over to the community and transformed into churches (known locations include Dura-Europus on the Euphrates, c. 232, and several in Rome), but numerous churches were constructed as such in the peaceful intervals of the 3rd century, and they were plentiful by the time of Constantine, who added some notable ones (the Anastasis or Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, St. Peter’s at Rome). Where catacombs existed, as at Rome and Naples, they were burial sites, and not, by intention, places of refuge or ordinary worship. Catacombs and open-air cemeteries contained chapels commemorating martyrs, however, and these sometimes grew into great churches or monasteries.
St. Gregory the Illuminator
The early Christians thought of themselves as a redeemed community, promised eternal life in Christ and pledged to live a holy life in expectation of the end of this world, which might come at any moment with the return of Christ as judge. They were simultaneously charged to preach the gospel to the world, and this created a tension not easy to resolve. On the one hand it seemed necessary to separate themselves from a society that was not only, by Christian standards, immoral but also riddled with pagan practices. This conviction is fully displayed in Tertullian’s De idololatria, in a rigorist sect like Montanism, and eventually in monasticism. Public life and much social intercourse were precluded. On the other hand, Jesus had mixed with publicans and sinners, and evangelization was a plain duty. Before Constantine, however, this meant bringing individuals out of the world into the church rather than making society Christian. A high moral standard, refusal to compromise, and steadfastness before persecution proved to be powerful missionary weapons. Evidence of direct missionary campaigns such as Gregory the Illuminator’s in Armenia (3rd century) is scanty.
Since Christians were not automatically made perfect by baptism, and periods of peace removed the selective test of persecution, the moral life of the church was protected by a disciplinary system. Grave offenders publicly acknowledged their sin before the bishop and the congregation and were excommunicated for a greater or lesser period. During this time they performed works of penance, and finally (in parts of the church penitents passed first through several grades) were granted absolution and publicly restored to communion by the bishop. Private penance was a later development. Public penance for grave sin was only available once, and, although practice was not everywhere uniform, it was widely held that apostasy, adultery, and murder involved final excommunication. Relaxation of this early severity caused much unrest among the rigorists and sometimes led to schism. Montanism, Novatianism, and Donatism were all, in part, movements of protest against what was felt to be an abandonment of the standard of individual behaviour required if the church was itself to remain holy.
This disciplinary system carried with it a threat to the central doctrine of justification by faith, since the conditions of forgiveness tended to be assessed quantitatively. In addition, works similar to those performed by penitents, such as almsgiving, were believed to merit heavenly rewards. Ascetic practices were also encouraged, partly as a means toward the purification of the soul for the contemplation of God, but in part as works to be rewarded. Thus a double standard of morality was countenanced: one level of life sufficient to ensure salvation, another aspiring after perfection and proportionately higher rewards. A distinction was made between the precepts (commandments) of the Lord and the counsels.
Bernardino Passari: Saint Anthony Finds the Hermit Saint Paul Dead in the Arms of Angels
Bernardino Passari: Saint Anthony Finds the Hermit Saint Paul Dead in the Arms of AngelsSaint Anthony Finds the Hermit Saint Paul Dead in the Arms of Angels, etching and engraving by Bernardino Passari (also spelled Passeri), 1582; in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. 43.18 × 28.89 cm.
Nevertheless, the penitential system and the ascetic movement, together with the eremitical monasticism which was firmly established in Egypt under the leadership of Anthony in the opening years of the 4th century, played an important part in maintaining the high, sacrificial demands of the Christian faith. This strengthened the church to face the final persecution under Diocletian and his colleagues. From these trials, it emerged victorious to meet the new difficulties and opportunities afforded by the conversion of Constantine.
St. Paul the Apostle (born 4 bce?, Tarsus in Cilicia [now in Turkey]—died c. 62–64 ce, Rome [Italy]) was one of the leaders of the first generation of Christians, often considered to be the most important person after Jesus in the history of Christianity. In his own day, although he was a major figure within the very small Christian movement, he also had many enemies and detractors, and his contemporaries probably did not accord him as much respect as they gave Peter and James. Paul was compelled to struggle, therefore, to establish his own worth and authority. His surviving letters, however, have had enormous influence on subsequent Christianity and secure his place as one of the greatest religious leaders of all time.
Sources
St. Paul in prison
St. Paul the Apostle in prison, where tradition holds he wrote the epistle to the Ephesians.
Of the 27 books in the New Testament, 13 are attributed to Paul, and approximately half of another, Acts of the Apostles, deals with Paul’s life and works. Thus, about half of the New Testament stems from Paul and the people whom he influenced. Only 7 of the 13 letters, however, can be accepted as being entirely authentic (dictated by Paul himself). The others come from followers writing in his name, who often used material from his surviving letters and who may have had access to letters written by Paul that no longer survive. Although frequently useful, the information in Acts is secondhand, and it is sometimes in direct conflict with the letters. The seven undoubted letters constitute the best source of information on Paul’s life and especially his thought; in the order in which they appear in the New Testament, they are Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. The probable chronological order (leaving aside Philemon, which cannot be dated) is 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. Letters considered “Deutero-Pauline” (probably written by Paul’s followers after his death) are Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are “Trito-Pauline” (probably written by members of the Pauline school a generation after his death).
Life
Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew from Asia Minor. His birthplace, Tarsus, was a major city in eastern Cilicia, a region that had been made part of the Roman province of Syria by the time of Paul’s adulthood. Two of the main cities of Syria, Damascus and Antioch, played a prominent part in his life and letters. Although the exact date of his birth is unknown, he was active as a missionary in the 40s and 50s of the 1st century ce. From this it may be inferred that he was born about the same time as Jesus (c. 4 bce) or a little later. He was converted to faith in Jesus Christ about 33 ce, and he died, probably in Rome, circa 62–64 ce.
In his childhood and youth, Paul learned how to “work with [his] own hands” (1 Corinthians 4:12). His trade, tent making, which he continued to practice after his conversion to Christianity, helps to explain important aspects of his apostleship. He could travel with a few leather-working tools and set up shop anywhere. It is doubtful that his family was wealthy or aristocratic, but, since he found it noteworthy that he sometimes worked with his own hands, it may be assumed that he was not a common labourer. His letters are written in Koine, or “common” Greek, rather than in the elegant literary Greek of his wealthy contemporary the Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, and this too argues against the view that Paul was an aristocrat. Moreover, he knew how to dictate, and he could write with his own hand in large letters (Galatians 6:11), though not in the small, neat letters of the professional scribe.
Until about the midpoint of his life, Paul was a member of the Pharisees, a religious party that emerged during the later Second Temple period. What little is known about Paul the Pharisee reflects the character of the Pharisaic movement. Pharisees believed in life after death, which was one of Paul’s deepest convictions. They accepted nonbiblical “traditions” as being about as important as the written Bible; Paul refers to his expertise in “traditions” (Galatians 1:14). Pharisees were very careful students of the Hebrew Bible, and Paul was able to quote extensively from the Greek translation. (It was fairly easy for a bright, ambitious young boy to memorize the Bible, and it would have been very difficult and expensive for Paul as an adult to carry around dozens of bulky scrolls.) By his own account, Paul was the best Jew and the best Pharisee of his generation (Philippians 3:4–6; Galatians 1:13–14), though he claimed to be the least apostle of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:22–3; 1 Corinthians 15:9–10) and attributed his successes to the grace of God.
Paul spent much of the first half of his life persecuting the nascent Christian movement, an activity to which he refers several times. Paul’s motivations are unknown, but they seem not to have been connected to his Pharisaism. The chief persecutors of the Christian movement in Jerusalem were the high priest and his associates, who were Sadducees (if they belonged to one of the parties), and Acts depicts the leading Pharisee, Gamaliel, as defending the Christians (Acts 5:34). It is possible that Paul believed that Jewish converts to the new movement were not sufficiently observant of the Jewish law, that Jewish converts mingled too freely with Gentile (non-Jewish) converts, thus associating themselves with idolatrous practices, or that the notion of a crucified messiah was objectionable. The young Paul certainly would have rejected the view that Jesus had been raised after his death—not because he doubted resurrection as such but because he would not have believed that God chose to favour Jesus by raising him before the time of the Judgment of the world.
Whatever his reasons, Paul’s persecutions probably involved traveling from synagogue to synagogue and urging the punishment of Jews who accepted Jesus as the messiah. Disobedient members of synagogues were punished by some form of ostracism or by light flogging, which Paul himself later suffered at least five times (2 Corinthians 11:24), though he does not say when or where. According to Acts, Paul began his persecutions in Jerusalem, a view at odds with his assertion that he did not know any of the Jerusalem followers of Christ until well after his own conversion (Galatians 1:4–17).
St. Paul the Apostle
Paul was on his way to Damascus when he had a vision that changed his life: according to Galatians 1:16, God revealed his Son to him. More specifically, Paul states that he saw the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1), though Acts claims that near Damascus he saw a blinding bright light. Following this revelation, which convinced Paul that God had indeed chosen Jesus to be the promised messiah, he went into Arabia—probably Coele-Syria, west of Damascus (Galatians 1:17). He then returned to Damascus, and three years later he went to Jerusalem to become acquainted with the leading apostles there. After this meeting he began his famous missions to the west, preaching first in his native Syria and Cilicia (Galatians 1:17–24). During the next 20 years or so (c. mid-30s to mid-50s), he established several churches in Asia Minor and at least three in Europe, including the church at Corinth.
During the course of his missions, Paul realized that his preaching to Gentiles was creating difficulties for the Christians in Jerusalem, who thought that Gentiles must become Jewish in order to join the Christian movement. To settle the issue, Paul returned to Jerusalem and struck a deal. It was agreed that Peter would be the principal apostle to Jews and Paul the principal apostle to Gentiles. Paul would not have to change his message, but he would take up a collection for the Jerusalem church, which was in need of financial support (Galatians 2:1–10; 2 Corinthians 8–9; Romans 15:16–17, 25–26), though Paul’s Gentile churches were hardly well off. In Romans 15:16–17 Paul seems to interpret the “offering of the Gentiles” symbolically, suggesting that it is the prophesied Gentile pilgrimage to the Temple of Jerusalem, with their wealth in their hands (e.g., Isaiah 60:1–6). It is also obvious that Paul and the Jerusalem apostles made a political bargain not to interfere in each other’s spheres. The “circumcision faction” of the Jerusalem apostles (Galatians 2:12–13), which argued that converts should undergo circumcision as a sign of accepting the covenant between God and Abraham, later broke this agreement by preaching to the Gentile converts both in Antioch (Galatians 2:12) and Galatia and insisting that they be circumcised, leading to some of Paul’s strongest invective (Galatians 1:7–9; 3:1; 5:2–12; 6:12–13).
In the late 50s Paul returned to Jerusalem with the money he had raised and a few of his Gentile converts. There he was arrested for taking a Gentile too far into the Temple precincts, and, after a series of trials, he was sent to Rome. Later Christian tradition favours the view that he was executed there (1 Clement 5:1–7), perhaps as part of the executions of Christians ordered by the Roman emperor Nero following the great fire in the city in 64 ce.
Mission of St. Paul the Apostle
Paul believed that his vision proved that Jesus lived in heaven, that Jesus was the Messiah and God’s Son, and that he would soon return. Moreover, Paul thought that the purpose of this revelation was his own appointment to preach among the Gentiles (Galatians 1:16). By the time of his last extant letter, Romans, he could clearly describe his own place in God’s plan. The Hebrew prophets, he wrote, had predicted that in “days to come” God would restore the tribes of Israel and that the Gentiles would then turn to worship the one true God. Paul maintained that his place in this scheme was to win the Gentiles, both Greeks and “barbarians”—the common term for non-Greeks at the time (Romans 1:14). “Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them” (Romans 11:13–14). In two other places in Romans 11—verses 25–26 (“the full number of the Gentiles [will] come in” and thus “all Israel will be saved”) and 30–31 (“by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy”)—Paul asserts that he would save some of Israel indirectly, through jealousy, and that Jews would be brought to Christ because of the successful Gentile mission. Thus, Paul’s view reversed the traditional understanding of God’s plan, according to which Israel would be restored before the Gentiles were converted. Whereas Peter, James, and John, the chief apostles to the circumcised (Galatians 2:6–10), had been relatively unsuccessful, God had led Paul through Asia Minor and Greece “in triumph” and had used him to spread “the fragrance that comes from knowing him [God]” (2 Corinthians 2:14). Since in Paul’s view God’s plan could not be frustrated, he concluded that it would work in reverse sequence—first the Gentiles, then the Jews.
Paul’s technique for winning Gentiles is uncertain, but one possibility is that he delivered lectures in public gathering places (Acts 17:17 ff.). There is, however, another possibility. Paul conceded that he was not an eloquent speaker (2 Corinthians 10:10; 11:6). Moreover, he had to spend much, possibly most, of his time working to support himself. As a tent maker, he worked with leather, and leatherwork is not noisy. While he worked, therefore, he could have talked, and once he was found to have something interesting to say, people would have dropped by from time to time to listen. It is very probable that Paul spread the gospel in this way.
Travels and letters
Missionary travels of St. Paul in the eastern Mediterranean
During the first two centuries of the Roman Empire, travel was safer than it would be again until the suppression of pirates in the 19th century. Paul and his companions sometimes traveled by ship, but much of the time they walked, probably beside a donkey carrying tools, clothes, and perhaps some scrolls. Occasionally they had plenty, but often they were hungry, ill-clad, and cold (Philippians 4:11–12; 2 Corinthians 11:27), and at times they had to rely on the charity of their converts.
Paul wanted to keep pressing west and therefore only occasionally had the opportunity to revisit his churches. He tried to keep up his converts’ spirits, answer their questions, and resolve their problems by letter and by sending one or more of his assistants (especially Timothy and Titus). Paul’s letters reveal a remarkable human being: dedicated, compassionate, emotional, sometimes harsh and angry, clever and quick-witted, supple in argumentation, and above all possessing a soaring, passionate commitment to God, Jesus Christ, and his own mission. Fortunately, after his death one of his followers collected some of the letters, edited them very slightly, and published them. They constitute one of history’s most remarkable personal contributions to religious thought and practice.
Despite Paul’s intemperate outburst in 1 Corinthians—“women should be silent in the churches” (14:34–36)—women played a large part in his missionary endeavour. Chloe was an important member of the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:11), and Phoebe was a “deacon” and a “benefactor” of Paul and others (Romans 16:1–2). Romans 16 names eight other women active in the Christian movement, including Junia (“prominent among the apostles”), Mary (“who has worked very hard among you”), and Julia. Women were frequently among the major supporters of new religious movements, and Christianity was no exception.
Although in his own view Paul was the true and authoritative apostle to the Gentiles, chosen for the task from his mother’s womb (Galatians 1:15–16; 2:7–8; Romans 11:13–14), he was only one of several missionaries spawned by the early Christian movement. Some of the other Christian workers must have been quite important; indeed, an unknown minister of Christ established the church at Rome before Paul arrived in the city. Paul treated some of these possible competitors—such as Prisca, Aquila, Junia, and Andronicus—in a very friendly manner (Romans 16: 3, 7), while he looked on others with suspicion or hostility. He was especially wary of Apollos, a Christian missionary known to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 3:1–22), and he vilified competitors in Corinth as false apostles and ministers of Satan (2 Corinthians 11). He called down God’s curse on competing preachers in Galatia (Galatians 1:6–9) and asserted that some of the Christians in Jerusalem were “false brothers” (Galatians 2:4; compare 2 Corinthians 11:26). Only in the latter two cases, however, is the nature of the disagreement known: Paul’s competitors opposed his admitting Gentiles to the Christian movement without requiring them to become Jewish. The polemical sections of Paul’s letters have been used in Christian controversies ever since.
Basic message
In the surviving letters, Paul often recalls what he said during his founding visits. He preached the death, resurrection, and lordship of Jesus Christ, and he proclaimed that faith in Jesus guarantees a share in his life. Writing to the Galatians, he reminded them “it was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified” (Galatians 3:1), and writing to the Corinthians he recalled that he had known nothing among them “except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). According to Paul, Jesus’ death was not a defeat but was for the believers’ benefit. In accord with ancient sacrificial theology, Jesus’ death substituted for that of others and thereby freed believers from sin and guilt (Romans 3:23–25). A second interpretation of Christ’s death appears in Galatians and Romans: those who are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death, and thus they escape the power of sin (e.g., Romans 6). In the first case, Jesus died so that the believers’ sins will be purged. In the second, he died so that the believers may die with him and consequently live with him. These two ideas obviously coincide (see below Christology).
The resurrection of Christ was also of primary importance, as Paul revealed in his Letter to the Thessalonians, the earliest surviving account of conversion to the Christian movement. Written to Thessalonica in Macedonia possibly as early as 41 ce and no later than 51—thus no more than 20 years after Jesus’ death—the letter states (1 Thessalonians 1:9–10),
For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming.
Since Jesus was raised and still lives, he could return to rescue believers at the time of the Final Judgment. The resurrection is connected to the third major emphasis, the promise of salvation to believers. Paul taught that those who died in Christ would be raised when he returned, while those still alive would be “caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:14–18).
These and many other passages reveal the essence of the Christian message: (1) God sent his Son; (2) the Son was crucified and resurrected for the benefit of humanity; (3) the Son would soon return; and (4) those who belonged to the Son would live with him forever. Paul’s gospel, like those of others, also included (5) the admonition to live by the highest moral standard: “May your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). See below Moral teachings.
Churches of St. Paul the Apostle
Although Paul may have converted some Jews, his mission was directed toward the Gentiles, who therefore constituted the vast majority of his converts. The letters sometimes explicitly state that Paul’s converts had been polytheists or idolaters: the Thessalonians had “turned to God from idols” (1 Thessalonians 1:9), and at least some of the Corinthians wished to be allowed to continue to participate in idolatrous worship (1 Corinthians 8, 10). (Scholars have referred to Gentile religions in the ancient Mediterranean world as “paganism,” “polytheism,” and “idolatry”; these terms are frequently used interchangeably.) Pagan religion was very tolerant: the gods of foreign traditions were accepted as long as they were added to the gods worshipped locally. Civic loyalty, however, included participation in public worship of the local gods. Jews had the privilege of worshipping only the God of Israel, but everyone else was expected to conform to local customs.
Paul and other missionaries to Gentiles were subject to criticism, abuse, and punishment for drawing people away from pagan cults. Although he showed some flexibility on eating food that had been offered to an idol (1 Corinthians 10:23–30), Paul, a monotheistic Jew, was completely opposed to worship of the idol by eating and drinking in the confines of a pagan temple (1 Corinthians 10:21–22). Thus, his converts had to give up public worship of the local gods. Moreover, since Paul’s converts did not become Jewish, they were, in general opinion, nothing: neither Jew nor pagan. Religiously, they could identify only with one another, and frequently they must have wavered because of their isolation from well-established and popular activities. It was especially difficult for them to refrain from public festivities, since parades, feasts (including free red meat), theatrical performances, and athletic competitions were all connected to pagan religious traditions.
This social isolation of the early converts intensified their need to have rewarding spiritual experiences within the Christian communities, and Paul attempted to respond to this need. Although they had to wait with patience and endure suffering (1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2:14; 3:4), and although salvation from the pains of this life lay in the future (5:6–11), in the present, Paul said, his followers could rejoice in spiritual gifts, such as healing, prophesying, and speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 12–14). In fact, Paul saw Christians as beginning to be transformed even before the coming resurrection: the new person was beginning to replace the old (2 Corinthians 3:8; 4:16).
Although he placed his converts in a situation that was often uncomfortable, Paul did not ask them to believe many things that would be conceptually difficult. The belief that there was only one true God had a place within pagan philosophy, if not pagan religion, and was intellectually satisfying. By the 1st century, many pagans found Greek mythology lacking in intellectual and moral content, and replacing it with the Hebrew Bible was therefore not especially difficult. The belief that God sent his Son agreed with the widespread view that gods could produce human offspring. The activities of the Holy Spirit in their lives corresponded to the common view that spiritual forces control nature and events.
The teaching of the resurrection of the body, however, was difficult for pagans to embrace, despite the fact that life after death was generally accepted. Pagans who believed in the immortality of the soul maintained that the soul escaped at death; the body, they knew, decayed. To meet this problem, Paul proclaimed that the resurrection body would be a “spiritual body,” not “flesh and blood” (1 Corinthians 15:42–55); see below The return of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead.
s.
Although Paul recognized the possibility that after death he would be punished for minor faults (1 Corinthians 4:4), he regarded himself as living an almost perfect life (Philippians 3:6), and he demanded the same perfection of his converts. Paul wanted them to be “blameless,” “innocent,” and “without blemish” when the Lord returned (1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:3–7; 5:23; Philippians 1:10; 2:15; Romans 16:19). Paul regarded suffering and premature death as punishment for those who sinned (1 Corinthians 5:5; 11:29–32) but did not believe that punishment of the sinning Christian meant damnation or eternal destruction. He thought that those who believed in Christ became one person with him and that this union was not broken by ordinary transgression. Paul did regard it as possible, however, for people to lose or completely betray their faith in Christ and thus lose membership in his body, which presumably would lead to destruction at the Judgment (Romans 11:22; 1 Corinthians 3:16–17; 2 Corinthians 11:13–15).
Paul’s moral standards coincided with the strictest view of Jewish communities in the Greek-speaking Diaspora (the dispersal of the Jews from their traditional homeland). Paul, like his Jewish contemporaries the scholar and historian Flavius Josephus and the philosopher Philo Judaeus, completely opposed a long list of sexual practices: prostitution and the use of prostitutes (1 Corinthians 6:15–20), homosexual activities (1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:26–27), sexual relations before marriage (1 Corinthians 7:8–9), and marriage merely for the sake of gratifying physical desire (1 Thessalonians 4:4–5). However, he urged married partners to continue to have sexual relations except during times set aside for prayer (1 Corinthians 7:3–7). These ascetic views were not unknown in Greek philosophy, but they were standard in Greek-speaking Jewish communities, and it is probable that Paul acquired them in his youth. Some pagan philosophers, meanwhile, were more inclined than Paul to limit sexual desire and pleasure. For example, the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus (flourished 1st century ce) wished to restrict marital sexual relations to the production of offspring.
Some aspects of Jewish sexual ethics were not generally accepted among the Gentiles to whom Paul preached. Sexual behaviour, therefore, became a substantial issue between him and his converts, and for that reason his letters frequently refer to sexual ethics. His other moral views were as simple and straightforward to ancient readers as to modern: no murder, no theft, and so on. To all of these issues he brought his own expectation of perfection, which his converts often found difficult to satisfy.
Paul’s opposition to homosexual activity (1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:26–27) and divorce were generally in keeping with Jewish sexual ethics. Male homosexual activity is condemned in the Hebrew Bible in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—teachings that Christianity followed, thanks in part to Paul, even as it disregarded most of the laws of Leviticus. Jesus’ prohibition of divorce, along with his view that remarriage after divorce, if the first spouse is still living, is adultery (Mark 10:2–12; Matthew 19:3–9), set him apart from most other Jews and Gentiles. Paul accepted the prohibition but made an exception in the case of Christians who were married to non-Christians (1 Corinthians 7:10–16). The consequence has been that, in some forms of Christianity, the only ground for divorce is adultery by the other partner. Until the 20th century the laws of many state and national governments reflected this view.
Two distinctive aspects of Paul’s moral teachings have been very influential in the history of Christianity and thus in the history of the Western world. The first is his preference for total celibacy: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1). This view may have been a personal matter for Paul (7:6–7), and it was an opinion that he did not attempt to enforce on his churches. He was motivated in part by the belief that time was short: it would be good if people devoted themselves entirely to God during the brief interval before the Lord returned (7:29–35). Paul’s preference for celibacy, in combination with Jesus’ praise of those who do not marry (Matthew 19:10–12), helped to establish in Western Christianity a two-tiered system of morality that persisted unchallenged until the Protestant Reformation. The top tier consisted of those who were entirely celibate (such as, at different times in the history of the church, monks, nuns, and priests). Married Christians could aspire only to the bottom, inferior tier. Although celibacy was practiced by a small Gentile ascetic movement and by a few small Jewish groups—mainstream Judaism did not promote celibacy, because of the biblical mandate, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28)—it was the passages from Paul and Matthew that made celibacy a major issue in Western and especially Christian history.
Paul’s second distinctive and long-lasting admonition concerns obedience to secular rulers. In his letter to the Romans 13:2–7, he asserted that “whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (13:2). In later centuries this passage was used to support the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which maintained that royal power came from God, and gave biblical authority to the church’s teaching of submission to rulers, no matter how unjust they were. Few Christians were willing to stray from Romans 13 until the 18th century, when the Founding Fathers of the United States decided to follow the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke rather than Paul on the question of revolt against unjust rulers.
Theological views of St. Paul the Apostle
Monotheism
Paul, like other Jews, was a monotheist who believed that the God of Israel was the only true God. But he also believed that the universe had multiple levels and was filled with spiritual beings. Paul’s universe included regions below the earth (Philippians 2:10); “the third heaven” or “Paradise” (2 Corinthians 12:1–4); and beings he called angels, principalities, rulers, powers, and demons (Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24). He also recognized the leader of the forces of evil, whom he called both “Satan” (1 Corinthians 5:5; 7:5) and “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4). He declared in 1 Corinthians 8:5 that “there are many gods and many lords” (though he meant “so-called gods”), and in Romans 6–7 he treated sin as a personified or semipersonified power. Despite all this, Paul believed, at the right time the God of Israel will send his Son to defeat the powers of darkness (1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Philippians 2:9–11).
Christology
Originally, Jesus had only one name, “Jesus”; he was referred to as “Jesus from Nazareth” (Matthew 21:11), “Joseph’s son” (Luke 4:22), or “Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth” (John 1:45) when greater precision was necessary. During his lifetime his disciples may have begun to think of him as the Messiah (“Christ” in Greek translation), the anointed one who would restore the fortunes of Israel. After his death and resurrection, his followers regularly referred to him as the Messiah (Acts 2:36: “God made him both Lord and Messiah”). At some point, his adherents also began to refer to him as “Son of God.” Paul employed both “Christ” and “Son of God” freely, and he is also responsible for the widespread use of “Christ” as if it were Jesus’ name rather than his title. Paul sometimes shows knowledge that “the Christ” was a title, not a name, but more commonly he referred to Jesus as “Jesus Christ,” “Christ Jesus,” or even “Christ,” as in Romans 6:4: “Christ was raised from the dead.” In all these cases, “Christ” is used as if it were part of Jesus’ name.
Various Jewish groups, however, expected different kings or messiahs or even none at all, and these titles therefore did not have precise meanings when the Christians started using them. “Son of God” in the Hebrew Bible is used metaphorically (God is the father, human beings are his children), and this usage continued in postbiblical Jewish literature. The Jewish people in general could be called “sons of God,” and the singular “son of God” could be applied to individuals who were especially close to God. Since neither “messiah” nor “son of God” automatically conveys a specific meaning, the significance of these terms must be determined by studying how each author uses them.
What Paul meant by “Christ” and “Son of God” cannot be known with certainty. He seems not to have defined the person of Jesus metaphysically (for example, that he was half human and half divine). In Philippians 2:6–11 Paul states that Christ Jesus was preexistent and came to earth: he “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.” This sounds as if Jesus was a heavenly being who only appeared to be human. In Romans 1:1–6, however, Paul writes that God declared Jesus to be “Son of God” by raising him from the dead. This sounds as if Jesus was a human being who was “adopted.” Although both views—that Jesus was not really human and that he was not really divine—would have a long life in Christianity, the church decided by the middle of the 5th century that Jesus was both entirely divine and entirely human. This solution, however, seems not to have been in Paul’s mind, and it took centuries of debate to evolve.
Paul’s thought concerning Jesus’ work—as opposed to Jesus’ person—is much clearer. God, according to Paul, sent Jesus to save the entire world. As noted above, Paul paid special attention to Jesus’ death and resurrection. His death, in the first place, was a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of everyone. Early Christians, influenced by the ancient theory that one death could serve as a substitute for others, believed that Jesus died on the cross so that believers would escape eternal destruction. For Paul, however, Jesus’ death allowed believers to escape not only the consequences of transgression but also the power of sin that leads to transgression. The believer was baptized “into Christ,” becoming “one” with him (Galatians 3:27–28). This meant that through Christ’s death, the baptized believer has mystically or metaphorically died and thus died to the power of sin that reigned in the world (Romans 6:3–4). Death with Christ gave “newness of life” in the present and guaranteed being raised with him in the future (6:4–5). Christ’s death, then, defeated sin in both senses: his blood brought atonement for transgression, and his death allowed those who were “united with him” to escape the power of sin.
Gutenberg Bible
biblical literature: The chronology of Paul
The physical universe also needed to be freed from “bondage to decay.” The fact that individual believers could escape from sin did not free the entire world. When the time was right, God would send Christ back to save the cosmos by defeating all the remaining forces of sin and to liberate all of creation. Once Christ defeated all of his enemies, including death, he would turn creation over to God, so that God would be “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:20–28; Romans 8:18–25). In this grand vision of the redemption of the created order, Paul shows how deeply he believed in one God, maker of heaven and earth, and in the cosmic importance of his Son, Jesus Christ.
Faith in Christ
According to Paul, all humans, no matter how hard they try, are enslaved by sin (Romans 7:14–21). The strength of sin’s power explains why the traditional Jewish view, that transgression should be followed by repentance and that repentance results in forgiveness, plays a very small role in Paul’s letters. In the seven undisputed letters, the word “forgiveness” does not appear, “forgive” appears six times (Romans 4:7; 2 Corinthians 2:5–10), and “repent” and “repentance” appear only three times (Romans 2:4; 2 Corinthians 7:9–10). Mere repentance is not enough to permit escape from the overwhelming power of sin. The escape, rather, requires being “buried with” Christ through baptism.
While “buried with” and being “baptized into” are the most graphic terms describing the individual’s escape from sin, the most common word for this conversion is “faith”—that is, faith in Christ. The language of faith is ubiquitous in Paul’s letters and has a great range of meaning. The verb “to put one’s faith in” or “to believe” (the same Greek word, pisteuein, may be translated both ways) appears 49 times in the undisputed letters, while the noun “faith” (or “belief”) appears 93 times. Occasionally the verb means “to believe that” something is true (Romans 10:9: “believe in your heart that God raised [Christ]”), but in 1 Thessalonians it means “steadfastness.” Paul feared that the Thessalonians were wavering under persecution, and so he sent Timothy to strengthen their faith. Timothy reported back that their faith was strong (1 Thessalonians 3:1–13). Most frequently, however, the verb means “to put one’s entire confidence and trust in Christ,” as in Galatians 2:20: “the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.”
In Galatians and Romans the phrase “be justified by faith in Christ, not by doing the works of the law” is used to oppose the view of some Christian missionaries that Paul’s Gentile converts should become Jewish by accepting circumcision and Jewish law. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham, the first of the Hebrew patriarchs, and it was traditionally required of all Gentiles who wished to worship the God of Israel. Thus, Paul’s rivals held that his converts were not yet among the people of God. Paul’s view, however, was that his Gentile converts could join the people of God in the last days without becoming Jewish, and he argued vociferously that faith in Christ was the only requirement for Gentiles. This is the meaning of “justification” or “righteousness” by faith, not by law, in Galatians and Romans. (“Righteousness” and “justification” translate the same Greek word, dikaiosynē.)
In later Christianity it was sometimes supposed that “works of the law” are “good deeds” and that Paul thus set faith in opposition to good works. This is not the meaning of the debate about “works of the law” in Paul’s letters, however. He was entirely in favour of good deeds, as the emphasis on perfect behaviour shows, and he did not regard good works as being opposed to “faith.” On the contrary, faith produced good deeds as “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22). The question was whether his Gentile converts would have to accept those parts of the Jewish law that separated Jew from Gentile. Paul opposed making these aspects of the law mandatory for his Gentile converts.
In Galatians and Romans the language of “righteousness by faith” yields to the language of being in Christ. Thus, Galatians 3:24–28: “Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith”; “in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith”; those baptized into Christ have “clothed yourselves with Christ”; and the conclusion, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one [person] in Christ Jesus.” “Righteousness by faith” is not actually something different from being baptized into Christ and becoming one person with him. Paul employed the language of righteousness and faith when he was using the story of Abraham to argue that circumcision was no longer necessary. The language that was more natural to him when he wished to describe the believer’s transfer from the power of sin to the power of Christ, however, was dying with Christ, being baptized into him, and becoming one person with him.
The body of Christ
Paul regarded his converts not only as individuals who had been freed from sin but also as organic members of the collective body of Christ. The idea of the body of Christ probably also explains why, in his view, it is difficult to sin so badly as to lose one’s place in the people of God. Only the worst forms of denial of Christ can remove an organic member from the body of Christ.
The body of Christ is also important in Paul’s discussions of behaviour. A part of the body of Christ, for example, should not be joined to a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6:15). Since those who partake of the Lord’s Supper participate in the body and blood of Christ, they cannot also participate in the meat and drink at an idol’s table (1 Corinthians 10:14–22). Besides avoiding the deeds of the flesh, members of the body of Christ receive love as their greatest spiritual gift (1 Corinthians 13).
Those who are in Christ will be transformed into a spiritual body like Christ’s when he returns, but they are already being “transformed” and “renewed” (2 Corinthians 3:18; 4:16); the “life of Jesus” is already being made visible in their mortal flesh (4:11). Paul thought that membership in the body of Christ really changed people, so that they would live accordingly. He thought that his converts were dead to sin and alive to God and that conduct flowed naturally from people, varying according to who they really were. Those who are under sin naturally commit sins—“those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8)—but those who are in Christ produce “the fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22; compare Philippians 1:11; Romans 8:2–11).
This absolutist ethical view—those in Christ are to be morally perfect; those not in Christ are extremely sinful—was not always true in practice, and Paul was often alarmed and offended when he discovered that the behaviour of his converts was not what he expected. It was in this context that he predicted suffering and even death or postmortem punishment for transgressions (1 Corinthians 11:30–32; 3:15; 5:4–5). Paul’s passionate extremism, however, was doubtless often attractive and persuasive. He made people believe that they could really change for the better, and this must often have happened.
Jewish law of St. Paul the Apostle
Paul’s central convictions made it difficult for him to explain the proper role of Jewish law in the life of his converts. Paul believed that the God of Israel was the one true God, who had redeemed the Israelites from bondage in Egypt, given the Israelites the law, and sent his Son to save the entire world. Although Paul accepted Jewish behaviour as correct, he thought that Gentiles did not have to become Jewish in order to participate in salvation. These views are not easily reconciled. If the one true God is the God of Israel, should not one obey all the commandments in the Bible, such as those regarding the Sabbath, circumcision, and diet? If “love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, quoted in Galatians 5:14 and Romans 13:9) is valid, why not the rest of the commandments in Leviticus 19? Paul reconciles Jewish law with Christian faith by using Jesus’ words “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another” (John 13:34). He states that this single commandment is a fulfillment of the entire Jewish law (Galatians 5:14). He was sure that his Gentile converts were not obliged to accept circumcision and many other parts of the law. In his surviving letters, however, he does not work out a principle that would require his converts to observe some but not all of the Jewish law. It is noteworthy that he did not regard Sabbath observance—which is one of the Ten Commandments—as obligatory (Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:10–11).
One point is especially difficult. Paul maintained that the law is part of the world of sin and the flesh, to which the Christian dies. But how could the law, which was given by the good God, be allied with sin and the flesh? Paul, having nearly reached the point of equating the law with the powers of evil (Romans 7:1–6), promptly retracts the equation (Romans 7:7–25). What led him to make it in the first place was probably his absolutism. For Paul, everything not immediately useful for salvation is worthless; what is worthless is not on the side of the good; therefore, it is allied with the bad. However, he does maintain that the Jewish law is sacred and that the commandments are righteous and good (Romans 7:12). He continues to say that his mind desires to obey God’s law, while his flesh makes him “a slave to the law of sin” (Romans 7:21–25).
The return of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead
In the Gospels, Jesus prophesies the coming of “the Son of Man,” who will come on the clouds and whose angels will separate the good from the bad (e.g., Mark 13; Matthew 24). Paul accepted this view, but he believed, probably along with other followers of Jesus, that the enigmatic figure, the Son of Man, was Jesus himself: Jesus, who had been raised to heaven, would return. This view appears in 1 Thessalonians 4, which proclaims that when the Lord (Jesus) returns, the dead in Christ will be raised, and they, with the surviving members of the body of Christ, will greet the Lord in the air.
In the Endtime vision of 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul indicates that he thinks that some people will die before the Lord returns but that many (“we who are alive, who are left”) will not have died. In this passage he does not specify what will be raised, but the implication is corpses. As noted above, this belief was difficult for Paul’s pagan converts to accept, and Paul attempted to overcome their reluctance by emphasizing that the resurrection body would be changed into a “spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:42–54). A second problem was the delay: Christ did not immediately return, and the idea that believers would have to remain in the ground until he came was troubling. Paul responded to this by stating that the transformation to a Christ-like spiritual body was already beginning (2 Corinthians 3:18). He also, however, seems sometimes to have accepted the Greek view that the soul would be detached from the body at death and go immediately to be with the Lord; at death believers will be “away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:8). He restated this view when imprisonment forced him to think that he himself might die before the Lord returned (Philippians 1:21–24). Eventually Christianity would systemize these passages: the soul escapes at death and joins the Lord; when the Lord returns, bodies will be raised and reunited with souls.
As is usually the case with people who predict the future, Paul’s expectations have not yet been fulfilled. His letters, however, continue to reassure Christian believers that eventually the Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the forces of evil will be defeated.
Achievement and influence
Eustache Le Sueur: The Sermon of Saint Paul at Ephesus
Eustache Le Sueur: The Sermon of Saint Paul at EphesusThe Sermon of Saint Paul at Ephesus, oil on canvas by Eustache Le Sueur, 1649; in the Louvre Museum, Paris. 3.94 × 3.28 metres.
Although other early Christian missionaries converted Gentiles, and the Christian movement even without Paul probably would have broken away from its Jewish parent, Paul played a crucial role in those developments and accordingly is regarded as the second founder of the Christian movement. His mission to convert Gentiles helped to achieve the separation of the Christian movement from Judaism, but that was not his intention, and the causes of the breach went well beyond his apostleship. It should be emphasized that he sought to create a new humanity in Christ, including all Jews and all Gentiles. Most Jews, however, did not join the movement, which became largely a Gentile religion.
Paul’s greatest impact on Christian history comes from his letters, which are the most influential books of the New Testament after the Gospels. The Christological statements in his letters have been particularly important in the development of Christian theology. Although they do not form a complete system, they show a powerful mind grappling with the question of how to express the relationship between Jesus the Christ and God the Father. Paul’s letters inspired Christian thinkers for the next several centuries to attempt to find a satisfactory explanation of that relationship. In the letters, Paul also developed powerful expressions of the human relationship to the divine in his ideas of faith as total commitment to Christ, of Christians as constituting the mystical (or metaphorical) body of Christ, and of baptism as becoming one person with Christ and sharing his death so as to share his life. On this crucial question of religion, Paul and the author of the Gospel of John are the two great geniuses of the early Christian period.
Paul’s view that the law of the Hebrew Bible is not entirely binding on Gentile converts gives biblical sanction to the selectivity practiced by subsequent Christianity. As discussed above, Paul rejected some Jewish law but accepted Jewish teachings on monotheism and homosexual activity, and he regarded the Sabbath law as optional. The latter view has generally been taken to mean that Christians are free from strict observance of the Sabbath law, even though it is included among the Ten Commandments. Most Christian churches have transferred aspects of biblical Sabbath laws to Sunday, and some, such as the Puritans, kept their Sunday “Sabbath” fairly strictly. The Christian world in general, however, has observed a weekly day of rest without regarding it as absolutely essential and without requiring all the restrictions of the Jewish law.
Paul’s letters have been especially important at times of controversy among Christians. Paul was a master debater and polemicist, though the ancient Jewish modes of argumentation he used make him difficult for modern readers to understand. It has proved to be fairly simple for Christian leaders to identify their opponents with Paul’s and to use his invective and argumentation against them. Martin Luther, who used Paul’s arguments against the circumcision party to oppose Roman Catholicism, is the most famous of many examples.
Paul’s letters are vital and persuasive partly because they reveal powerful aspects of his personality, especially his passion and dedication. After noting that he had suffered for Christ’s sake in order to gain Christ, Paul declared (Philippians 3:10–11),
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
In his last extant letter he summarized both his total commitment and his complete confidence in God and Christ (Romans 8:31–39):
If God is for us, who is against us?…Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?…No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life,…nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The reader of his letters will be convinced that such passages are true to the man himself, who endured suffering and privation and finally died for his cause. The example of commitment, as well as the willingness to suffer and die if need be, were widely imitated in early Christianity and helped it to survive and flourish despite periods of persecution. Profound passion and total dedication constitute part of the enduring legacy of Paul’s life and letters.
Also called: Paraclete or Holy Ghost
Holy Spirit, in Christian belief, the third person of the Trinity. Numerous outpourings of the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, in which healing, prophecy, the expelling of demons (exorcism), and speaking in tongues (glossolalia) are particularly associated with the activity of the Spirit. In art, the Holy Spirit is commonly represented as a dove (Gospel According to Matthew 3:16).
Christian writers have seen in various references to the Spirit of Yahweh in the Hebrew Scriptures an anticipation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word ruaḥ (usually translated “spirit”) is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, either in creating or in revitalizing creation, especially in connection with the prophetic word or messianic expectation. There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in biblical Judaism. In fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard. One suggestion of such belief is the promise of another helper, or intercessor (paraclete), that is found in the Gospel According to John. Pentecost, during which the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles and other disciples (Acts 2), is seen as the fulfillment of that promise.
The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in ce 381, following challenges to its divinity. The Eastern and Western churches have since viewed the Holy Spirit as the bond, the fellowship, or the mutual charity between Father and Son; they are absolutely united in the Spirit. The relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other persons of the Trinity has been described in the West as proceeding from both the Father and the Son, whereas in the East it has been held that the procession is from the Father through the Son.
Most Catholic and Orthodox Christians have experienced the Holy Spirit more in the sacramental life of the church than in the context of such speculation. From apostolic times, the formula for baptism has been Trinitarian (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”). Confirmation (or chrismation in the Eastern Orthodox Church), although not accepted by Protestants as a sacrament, has been closely allied with the role of the Holy Spirit in the church. The Eastern Orthodox Church has stressed the role of the descent of the Spirit upon the worshipping congregation and upon the eucharistic bread and wine in the prayer known as the epiclesis.
From the earliest centuries of the Christian church, various groups, discontented with the lack of freedom, active charity, or vitality in the institutional church, have called for a greater sensitivity to the ongoing outpourings of the Holy Spirit; among such movements were the Holiness and Pentecostal movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. Being “filled” with the Holy Spirit is seen as the corollary of one’s salvation. See also Trinity.
Nature and significance
A miracle is generally defined, according to the etymology of the word—it comes from the Greek thaumasion and the Latin miraculum—as that which causes wonder and astonishment, being extraordinary in itself and amazing or inexplicable by normal standards. Because that which is normal and usual is also considered as natural, miracles have occasionally been defined as supernatural events, but this definition presupposes a very specific conception of nature and natural laws and cannot, therefore, be generally applied. The significance of a miraculous event is frequently held to reside not in the event as such but in the reality to which it points (e.g., the presence or activity of a divine power); thus, a miracle is also called a sign—from the Greek sēmeion (biblical Hebrew ot)—signifying and indicating something beyond itself. Extraordinary and astonishing occurrences become specifically religious phenomena when they express, reveal, or signify a religious reality, however defined.
Belief in miraculous happenings is a feature of practically all religions, and the incidence of miracles (i.e., of belief in and reports regarding miracles) is universal, though their functions, nature, purpose, and explanations vary with the social and cultural—including theological and philosophical—context in which they appear. However inexplicable, all miracles have an explanation in the sense that they are accounted for in terms of the religious and cultural system that supports them and that, in turn, they are meant to support. Without such an accompanying—explicit or implicit—theory (e.g., the presence, activity, and intervention of such realities as gods, spirits, or magical powers), there would be no miracles in the aforementioned sense but only unexplained phenomena.
Types and functions of miracles
There is no general rule determining the types of occurrences that can be classified as miracles; they vary according to the cultural matrix of beliefs and assumptions. The mythological accounts of the origins of the gods and their activities in the primeval past, as well as accounts of the activities of other primeval beings, such as first ancestors and culture heroes, should, perhaps, not be classed as miracles, and the term is better reserved for outer, objective events—as distinct from such phenomena as inner experiences and visions—that can be regarded as divine interventions or as manifestations of divine or supernatural powers. In many cultures, nonliterate ones as well as some that were more highly developed, such as the ancient classical civilizations, the operation of extraordinary forces was taken for granted and was integrated into the total world picture and into the procedures and the modes of action—e.g., magic, oracles, divination, and shamanism—of ordinary life. There were certain kinds of divine or spirit action and of cosmic operation that were considered to be a part of the normal order of things, even though it was generally admitted that priests and shamans would frequently resort to deception in their diverse activities, which included such manifestations as prophecy, oracles, healing, magic, and judgment by ordeal.
Revelation and signification
The purpose of a miracle may be in the direct and immediate result of the event—e.g., deliverance from imminent danger (thus, the passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea in the Hebrew Bible [Old Testament] book of Exodus), cure of illness, or provision of plenty to the needy. Nevertheless, the ultimate purpose frequently is the demonstration of the power of the god or of the saint, the “man of God” through whom the god works, to whom the miracle is attributed. Thus, the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites is described not solely in terms of salvation from great danger but as a revelation of the saving presence of God and of the consequent obligation to serve and obey him; according to the account in Exodus, “and Israel saw the great work which the Lord did against the Egyptians, and the people feared the Lord; and they believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses.” The purpose of a miraculous occurrence is thus often to reveal a divine reality or numinous dimension. The occurrence may be an event concerned with natural needs or situations, such as illness, hunger, or distress, or a specifically religious event that effects some form of salvation or revelation, such as the theophany on Mount Sinai in which God gave to Moses the Ten Commandments, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the revelation of the Qurʾān to the Prophet Muhammad. Even in these specifically religious events, the miraculous element is not necessarily of the essence but occurs as merely an accompanying circumstance designed to arrest the attention and to impress on everyone the unique character and significance of the occasion. Thus, theoretically at least, the theophany at Mount Sinai could have taken place without thunder and lightning; Jesus need not have been born of a virgin; Muhammad need not have made his miraculous journey to heaven. In actual fact, however, the very nature and quality of a religious event attracts miraculous elements, elaborations, and embellishments, and, thus, for example, the founders of almost all religions are at the centre of great miracle cycles, and miracles occur as a rule in connection with persons and objects of religious significance, such as saints, sacraments, relics, holy images, and the like.
Authentication
In practice, it is difficult to distinguish the revelatory or signifying miracles from miracles of authentication—i.e., miraculous happenings that serve (1) as credentials for claimants to religious authority in the form of leadership (e.g., in Exodus 4, in which Moses convinces the Israelites of the authenticity of his mission by miraculous performances) or prophecy (e.g., in Deuteronomy 18, where it is written that a prophet is disqualified if the sign that he has predicted does not come to pass), (2) as the demonstration of the superior power of a particular god (e.g., in Exodus 7, which recounts Aaron’s staff swallowing up the staffs of the Egyptian magicians, thus demonstrating the superiority of the God of the Israelites), (3) as proof of the sanctity of a holy person, a holy site, or a holy object, or (4) more generally as evidence of the truth of a particular religion.