Page images

Chap. xv. ver. 19.

“ So that from Jeru“ falem, and round about unto Illyricum, I “ have fully preached the gospel of Christ.”

I do not think that these words neceflarily import that St. Paul had penetrated into Illyricum, or preached the gospel in that province; but rather that he had come to the confines of Illyricum (μεχρι το Ιλλυρικό), and that these confines were the external boundary of his travels. St. Paul considers Jerusalem as the centre, and is here viewing the circumference to which his travels had extended. The form of expression in the original conveys this idea-απο Ιερεσαλημ και κυκλω μεχρι το Ιλλυρικα. Illyricum was the part

of this circle which he mentions in an Epistle to the Romans, because it lay in a direction from Jerusalem towards that city, and pointed out to the Roman readers the nearest place to them, to which his travels from Jerusalem had brought him. The name of Hlyricum no where occurs in the Acts of the Apostles; no suspicion, therefore, can be conceived that the mention of it was borrowed from thence. Yet I think it appears, from these fame Acts, that St. Paul,


before the time when he wrote his Epistle to the Romans, had reached the confines of Illyricum ; or, however, that he inight have done so, in perfect consistency with the account there delivered. Illyricum adjoins upon Macedonia; measuring from Jerusalem towards Rome, it lies close behind it. If, therefore, St. Paul traversed the whole country of Macedonia, the route would necessarily bring him to the confines of Illyricum, and these confines would be described as the extremity of his journey. Now the account of St. Paul's second visit to the peninsula of Greece, is contained in these words : “ He “ departed for to go into Macedonia ; and when he had gone over these parts, and had

given them much exhortation, he came " into Greece.” Acts xx. 2. This account allows, or rather leads us to suppose, that St. Paul, in going over Macedonia (Senowe TO MEPN exesve), had passed so far to the west, as to come into those parts of the country which were contiguous to Illyricum, if he did not enter into Illyricum itself. The history, therefore, and the epistle so far agree, and the agreement is much strengthened by a



coincidence of time. At the time the epistle was written, St. Paul might say, in conformity with the history, that he had “ come into Illyricum:" much before that time, he could not have faid fo; for, upon his former journey to Macedonia, his route is laid down from the tiine of his landing at Philippi to his failing from Corinth. We trace him from Philippi to Amphipolis and Apollonia; from thence to Thessalonica ; from Thessalonica to Berea ; from Berea to Athens; and from Athens to Corinth: which track confines him to the eastern side of the peninsula, and therefore keeps him all the while at a considerable distance from Illyricum. Upon his second visit to Macedonia, the history, we have seen, leaves him at liberty. It must have been, therefore, upon that second visit, if at all, that he approached Illyricum; and this visit, we know, almost immediately preceded the writing of the epistle. It was natural that the apostle should refer to a journey which was fresh in his thoughts.


No. V.
Chap. xv. ver. 30. “ Now I beseech

you, “ brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's fake, " and for the love of the Spirit, that ye “ strive together with me in your prayers

to God for me, that I may be delivered “ from them that do not believe in Judæa.' -With this compare Acts xx. 22, 23:

“And now, behold, I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the

things that shall befal me there, save that “ the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city,

saying that bonds and afflictions abide

66 me.”

Let it be remarked that it is the same journey to Jerusalem which is spoken of in these two paffages; that the epistle was written immediately before St. Paul fet forwards

upon this journey from Achaia; that the words in the Acts were uttered by him when he had proceeded in that journey as far as Miletus, in Leffer Asia. This being remembered, I'observe that the two passages, without any resemblance between them that could induce us to suspect that they



were borrowed from one another, represent the state of St. Paul's mind, with respect to the event of the journey, in terms of substantial agreement. They both express his sense of danger in the approaching visit to Jerusalem; they both express the doubt which dwelt upon his thoughts concerning what might there befal him. When, in his epistle, he entreats the Roman Christians, “ for the Lord Jesus Christ's fake, and for “ the love of the Spirit, to strive together “ with him in their prayers to God for him, " that he might be delivered from them “ which do not believe in Judæa,” he sufficiently confesses his fears. In the Acts of the Apostles we fee in him the same hensions, and the same uncertainty : “ I go 66 bound in the Spirit to Jerusalem, not

knowing the things that shall befal me " there.” The only difference is, that in the history his thoughts are more inclined to despondency than in the epistle. In the epistle, he retains his hope “ that he “ should come unto them with joy by the “ will of God;" in the history, his mind yields to the reflection, - that the Holy

" Ghost


[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »