Not Paul, But Jesus

1. To Paul was imputed as a misdeed, the having recommended the forsaking of the Mosaic law. Recommended, namely, to such disciples of his as, having been born and bred under it, were found by him settled in some Gentile nation. Proof, Acts 21:21, … "They," 'the Jews which believe,' ver. 20, "are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

2. To a great extent, the imputation was well grounded: for, to a great extent, it had been his practice, to give the recommendation thus described. Of this position the proof will follow presently.

3. By Paul, the truth of this imputation was utterly denied: denied by the opposite denegatory assertion: and, the imputation being as above well grounded, – in so far as any such denegatory assertion had been made by him, he had knowingly uttered a wilful falsehood.

4. In proof of the sincerity of this denial, it was proposed to Paul, on the part of the Apostles and Elders, to give a confirmation of it, by the performance of a certain appropriate ceremony.

5. The ceremony thus proposed, was one that was universally understood, to have the effect of attaching, to any assertion, connected with it for the purpose, the sanction of an oath.

6. Knowing such to be the effect of the ceremony, he gave his assent to the proposition, and determined, by means of it, to attach the sanction of an oath to such his denial, as above: and thereby, the assertion contained in that denial, being, as above, to his knowledge, false, – to commit, in that extraordinary solemn and deliberate form and manner, an act of perjury.

7. In pursuance of such determination, he accordingly repaired for that purpose to the temple and had his abode therein for several days: the completion of the requisite number being no otherwise prevented, than by the irruption of the indignant multitude, assured as they were of his being occupied in the commission of a perjury.

Proof of charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Acts 21:23, 24, 26, 27, 28.

23. "We, the Apostles and the Elders, or at least the Apostle James, ver. 18, have four men, which have a vow on them;

24. "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that … all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

26. "Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

27. "And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews, which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him.

28. "Crying out, Men of Israel, help; This is the man, that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple; and hath polluted this holy place."

Of the perjuriousness of Paul's intent, a short proof, namely of the circumstantial kind, is thus already visible, in the indignation excited, – its intensity, its immorality, and the bitter fruits of it. Will it be said no? for that the indignation had, for its adequate cause, his being thought to have spoken slightingly of the law in question – it being the law of the land, – and that, to this imputation, the ceremony, it being, as above the performance of a vow, had no reference? Assuredly no: no such interpretation will be found tenable. True it is, that, by the persuasion, that he had thus been dealing by the Mosaic law, – by this persuasion, without need of anything else, the indignation may well have been produced: but it could only have been by the knowledge, that, upon his having been called upon to confess the having so done, or to deny it, he had, in this most extraordinary and universally conspicuous mode, given continuance and confirmation to his denial – it could only have been by this knowledge, that the excitement was raised up to so high a pitch. For, What was it that the information had charged him with? It was the forsaking Moses. What was the purpose, for which the recommendation was given to him – the recommendation to perform this ceremony? It was the purifying himself, "that all might know" that the information was groundless. "That those things," say the Apostles with the Elders to him, "whereof they," the thousands of Jews which believe, ver. 20, "were informed against thee were nothing:" – "to purify thyself," says the official translation: more appositely might it have said to clear thyself: for in that case, the idea of an imputation would clearly enough, though but implicitly, have been conveyed: whereas, to some minds, the idea conveyed by the word purify may perhaps be no other than that of some general cleansing of the whole character, by means of some physical process, to which, in so many minds, the psychological effect in question has, by the influence of artifice on weakness, been attached.

Such then, namely, the clearing himself of the imputation by so solemn a confirmation of the denial of it, – such was the purpose, for which, in the most unequivocal terms, his performance of the ceremony was recommended: such, therefore, was the purpose for which it was commenced; such, accordingly, was the purpose for which it would have been consummated, but for the interruption which it experienced: experienced not from his hands, but from hands among which, there seems sufficient reason to believe, were the hands, if not of the very persons by whom it had been recommended, at any rate of those who till that time had been in use to be guided by their influence.

To this interpretation, what objection is there that can be opposed? If any, it can only be that which to some minds may perhaps be suggested by the word vow.

But the fact is – this word vow is a mistranslation: the proper word should have been oath. By an oath everyone understands at first mention an assertory, not a promissory, declaration: by a vow, a promissory, not an assertory one. But an assertory declaration, as every one sees, is the only sort of declaration, that admits of any application to the case in question. By nothing that, in Paul's situation, a man could promise to do, in addition to the performance of the ceremony, could any evidence be given, of a man's having, or not having, done so and so, in any time past.

That by that which was actually done, that which was essential was considered as having been done, – is proved, by what is put into Paul's mouth in relation to this subject, in his defence against the accusation brought afterwards against him, before the Roman governor Felix, by the spokesman of the Jewish constituted authorities, Tertullus. There it is, that, beyond all doubt, what he is speaking of, is his CLEARANCE, as above: for there also, the word in the official translation, as well as in the Greek original, is purified: in the past tense, purified. This being assumed, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that either in the course of that part, which at the time of the irruption, was already elapsed of the seven days' ceremony, in the temple; or, what seems more probable, antecedently to the commencement of it, a denegatory declaration – a declaration denying the fact charged in the accusation, – had been made: for, that the ceremony itself was never accomplished, is what is expressly stated: – of the term of seven days stated as necessary to the accomplishment of it, no more than a part, it is said, had elapsed, when the final interruption of it took place.

To return to the time of Paul's entrance into the temple.

Thus, as hath been seen, stands the matter, even upon the face of the official English translation. But in verse 26, the word employed in the Greek original, removes all doubt. "Then," says the translation, "Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them, entered into the temple." Purifying himself, in the present tense, says the translation: and, even this alone taken into consideration, the purifying process, whatever it was, might be supposed to have been but commenced before the entrance into the temple, and as being thus as yet in pendency, waiting the exit out of the temple for its accomplishment. Thus it is, that, in the translation, the verb is in the present tense, purifying himself: but, in the Greek original, it is in the past tense, having purified himself: so that, in the original, the purification, whatever it may have been, is in express terms stated as having, even before his entrance into the temple, already accomplished.

Note that, if the historian is to be believed, he had on this occasion, the fullest opportunity, of being, in the most particular manner, acquainted with everything that passed. For, when, as above, the recommendation was given to Paul, on his appearance before the Apostle James and the Elders, – he, the historian, was actually present, "And the day following," says he, Acts 21:18, "Paul went in with us unto James; and all the Elders were present."

Supposing that the true interpretation, – of what use and effect then, it may perhaps be asked, was the ceremony, of which the temple was the theatre? The answer has been already given. It cannot have been any other than the attaching, to the declaration that had been made, the sanction, of an oath. Without the ceremony performed in the temple, the declaration was a declaration not upon oath, and as such not regarded as sufficient evidence: – evidence, in the shape which, the historian says, had been actually required for the purpose: when the ceremony, of which the temple was the theatre, had been gone through, and the last of the number of days, required for its accomplishment had been terminated; – then, and not before, it was regarded as having been converted into the appropriate and sufficient evidence. Thus it was, that this seven days' ceremony was no more than an elaborate substitute to the English ceremony of kissing the book, after hearing the dozen or so of words pronounced by the official functionary.

On this occasion, the Greek word rendered by the word vow, is a word which in its ordinary sense was, among Gentiles as well as Jews, exactly correspondent to our word prayer. But, the idea denoted by the word prayer, applies in this case with no less propriety to an assertory oath than to a promissory vow. Directly and completely, it designates neither. In both cases an address is made to some supposed supernatural potentate: in cases such as the present, beseeching him to apply the sanction of punishment to the praying individual, in the event of a want of sincerity on his part: in this case, in the event of his not having done that which, on this occasion, he declares himself to have done, or, what comes to the same thing, his having done that which he declares himself not to have done: in the other case, in the event of his not doing that which he has promised to do, or doing that which he has promised not to do.57

All this while, it is not in a direct way, it may be observed, that this word vow is employed, and application made of it to Paul's case: not in speaking of Paul himself in the first instance, but after speaking of the four other men, whom it is proposed he should take for his comrades, on his entrance into the temple. "We have four men," James and the Elders are made to say, Acts 21:23, 24, "We have four men which have a vow on them: Them take, and purify thyself with them … that … all may know, that those things, whereof they," the multitude, ver. 22, "were informed concerning thee, are nothing": no otherwise, therefore, than by the case these four men were in, is the case designated, in which it is proposed to Paul to put himself.

As to the case these four men were in, – no otherwise than on account of its connection with the case Paul was in, – is it in anywise of importance. As probable a supposition as any seems to be – that of their being in the same case with him: accused, as well as he, of teaching "Jews to forsake Moses: " for, between their case and his, no intimation is given of any difference: and, as the "purifying himself" is what is recommended to him, so is it what they are stated, as standing eventually engaged to do on their part. If then, in his instance, purifying himself means – clearing himself of a charge made against him, – so in their instance must it naturally, not to say necessarily, have meant – clearing themselves of some charge made against them. Moreover, when, as above, he is, in the Greek original, stated as having actually purified himself, before his entrance into the temple, so are they likewise; for it is "with them," that his purification is stated as having been performed.

This being assumed, it might not be impossible to find a use for the word vow, even in its proper sense – its promissory sense: for, what might be supposed is – that before the entrance into the temple, at the same time with the denegatory declaration, a vow was made – a solemn promise– to enter into the temple, and back of the declaration with the sanction of an oath, by going through the ceremony. But, forasmuch, as, in the import of the Greek word, no such idea, as that of a promise, is comprised, – the only use of this interpretation would be – to save the translators from the imputation of an impropriety, with which it seems rather more probable that they stand chargeable.

All this while, of Paul's conduct on this occasion, to what part was it that the blame belonged? – Surely, not to the endeavour, to wean men from their attachment to the Mosaic laws: for thus far he copied Jesus; and in copying did not go against, but only beyond, the great original. True it is, that, in so doing, he served his own personal and worldly purposes: not less so, that, in this subserviency, he found the inducement by which his conduct was determined: for, by how much stronger men's attachment would continue to be to the dead lawgiver, by so much, less strong would it be to the living preacher. But, in so far as a man's conduct is serviceable to mankind at large, it certainly is not rendered the less serviceable, or the less laudable, by his being himself included in the number. The blame lay then – not in teaching men to forsake Moses: for, thus far, instead of being blame-worthy, there was nothing in his conduct, that did not merit positive praise. What there was amiss in his conduct – in what, then, did it consist? Plainly in this, and this alone: namely, that, on being taxed with having so done, – instead of avowing and justifying it, he denied it: and, having denied it, scrupled not to add to the falsehood the aggravation of such extraordinarily deliberate and solemn perjury, as hath been so plainly visible. And, to what purpose commit so flagrant a breach of the law of morality? Plainly, to no other, than the fixing himself in Jerusalem, and persevering in a project of insane and selfish ambition, which, in spite of the most urgent remonstrances that could be made by his most devoted adherents, had brought him thither: for, he had but to depart in peace, and the Apostles of Jesus would have remained unmolested, and the peace of Christendom undisturbed.

An article of evidence, that must not be left unnoticed, – is the part taken, on this occasion, by the historiographer. Nowhere does this eyewitness take upon himself to declare, – nowhere so much as to insinuate – that of the charge, thus made upon his hero, there was anything that was not true: nowhere does he so much as insinuate, that the declaration by which he says Paul had cleared himself of the charge, and, as we have seen, before his entrance into the temple for the purpose of enforcing it by the sanction of an oath, – was anything short of a downright falsehood. After this, he makes a defence for Paul before Felix;58 he makes a defence for Paul before Festus;59

he makes a defence for Paul before Festus and Agrippa;60 and, on no one of all those occasions, is the defence anything to the purpose. He, indeed, makes Paul declare, that he, Paul, had always been a strict observer of the Mosaic ordinances. This may have been either true or false: but, true or false, it was equally foreign to the purpose. Not improbably, it was, in a considerable degree, true: for if, while he gave to other Jews his assurance, that the operations in question, burthensome as they were, were of no use, he himself continued to bear the burthen notwithstanding, – the persuasiveness of his advice would naturally be augmented by the manifestation thus given of disinterestedness. It may accordingly have been true: but, false or true, it was equally foreign to the purpose: the question was – not what he had done himself; but what he had recommended it to others to do.

Thus – from everything that appears, by all such persons as had the best means of information – the charge made upon him was believed, – let it now be seen, whether we should not be warranted in saying, known, – to be true.

As to "The Jews of Asia," – and the mention made of this class of men, as the instigators of the tumult – can any support be derived from it, for the inference, that it was by something else in Paul's conduct, and not by any such perjury as that in question, that the vent, thus given to the indignation, was produced?61 No, assuredly: altogether inconsistent would any such supposition be, with the main part of the narrative. Whoever were the persons with whom the manual violence originated; – whatever were the reproaches cast upon the invader on other grounds; – the purpose – the sole purpose – for which he entered upon the ceremony, is rendered as plain as words can make it. It was the clearing himself of the charge of teaching Jews to forsake Moses: and, supposing the fact admitted, everything, in the way of justification, being, before such a tribunal, manifestly inadmissible, – of no such charge was it possible for him to clear himself, without denying the truth of it. But, according to the historian, to confirm this denial, by the solemnity, whatever it was, – was the purpose, and the sole purpose, of it: of this, the negative assertion, contained in the denial, being untrue, and, by him who made it, known to be so, – confirming such denial, by the solemnity, – call it oath– call it vow– call it anything else, – was committing an act of perjury: and, to believe that such his denial was false, and yet not believing him guilty of perjury – at any rate, on the supposition of the accomplishment of the solemnity – was not possible. How numerous so ever may have been the other causes of provocation, given by him – how numerous so ever, the different descriptions of persons to whom they had been given; – no disproof could, by all of them put together, be given, by this solemnity, to the denial in question, – supposing it false.

To the present purpose, the only question is – whether, by Paul, on the occasion in question, an act of perjury was, or was not, committed? not – what was the cause, whether that, or any other, of any indignation of which he was the object. Even therefore, might it be allowed, that a vow, in the sense of which it is contradistinguished from an oath, was performed by him, or about to be performed, – still it would not be the less undeniable, that it was for the purpose of converting the simple declaration into a declaration upon oath, that he entered upon the solemnity: and that, therefore, if in the simple declaration there was anything to his knowledge false, the consequence is – that by his converting it into a declaration upon oath, he rendered himself guilty of perjury.

The observation, thus applied, to what is said of the "Jews of Asia," will be seen to be applicable, and, with equal propriety, to what is said about his being charged with "bringing Greeks into the temple:" and, in particular, about his being supposed to have brought in "The Ephesian Trophimus:" and moreover, what may, in this last case, be observable, is – that this about the Greeks is expressly stated as being a further charge, distinct from the main one: nor yet is it so much as stated, that, by any such importation, to what degree so ever offensive, any such effect, as that signified by the word pollution was produced.

Not altogether destitute of probability seems the supposition, that these two circumstances – about the Jews of Asia, and about Trophimus – may have been thrown in, by this adherent of Paul's, for the purpose of throwing a cloud of confusion and obscurity over the real charge: and if so, the two circumstances, with the addition of the three different defences, put into the hero's mouth, on the three several occasions of the endeavour, – must be acknowledged to have been employed, not altogether without success.

Here then closes that part of the evidence, which, to the purpose of a judgment, to be passed at this distance of time from the facts, may be considered as so much circumstantial evidence: in the next section may be seen that part, which comes under the denomination of direct evidence.