LIV. Belief and Baptism
What is the force of the term “believe” (πιστεύω) in the Acts? Does it necessarily imply that all who “believed” were converted and permanently became Christians in the complete and final sense? The answer to this question is of some historical importance, as will appear. First, however, let us take the general question, without prejudice due to the special cases which will come up. The example of Simon Magus seems conclusive. Simon believed (Acts 8:13.) and was baptised. Yet it is hard to suppose that he became in the final sense a Christian, although for the time he was a member of the Church. The language of Luke, on the whole, suggests that he fell away from the Faith, though certainly this is not distinctly stated. Simon, it is true, after his baptism “continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great wonders wrought, he was amazed” (ἐξίστατο). Yet no word is said to mitigate the final condemnation pronounced on him by Peter: “thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right”. He is not described as repenting, but only as asking in fear of the future that Peter should pray for him.
It seems highly probable that Luke knew the reputation which the magician afterwards acquired, (Without accepting as historical the presumptions of the pseudo-Clementine treatises, one must regard them as having a certain foundation in the belief and tradition of the Church about Simon.) and that he regarded the subsequent history of Simon as the natural result of what occurred at the beginning of his connection with the Christians.
Luke seems to regard belief as the first stage in a process. The second stage is “turning to the Lord,” (Acts 11:21,ἐπίστευσεν καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο, 18:8, cp. 8:13.) of which the seal is baptism: it is a subsequent stage consequent on believing. Later ensues the settled Christian life of those who are styled in the perfect tense πεπιστευκόντες, those who are in the state that ensues for those who have believed. (Acts 21:20;Acts 21:25;Acts 19:18, etc.) A process is here presumed which regularly and usually passed through these stages; and in various places, e.g. Acts 18:27, this process is described as a whole by mentioning only the first stage, belief, and assuming that the normal continuation followed. The context is the proof that “belief” implies all this. But is that always the case? Does πιστεύω always imply that the person who believed went on through the later stages, and became a Christian in the fullest sense? If so, why should Luke often add a second verb, indicating one or other of the subsequent stages? I think that the state of mind called πιστεύειν sometimes advanced no farther than intellectual assent and emotional impression; and it would not be safe to assert that belief always was followed even by baptism. The preceding remarks lead up to the consideration of two cases. The first is Acts 13:12, “then the Proconsul (Sergius Paulus), when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord”. Was the Proconsul converted to Christianity, or was he merely impressed deeply by what he saw and heard? The question is roused by an interesting though incomplete inscription which was found at Pisidian Antioch in 1912. It is the beginning of a record of the political career of L, Sergius Paulus the younger, who may be recognised confidently as the son of the Proconsul of Cyprus. Professor Dessau confirms my opinion on this point; and in a letter which he kindly sent, he adds a brief statement of the family career in Roman Imperial history, with the comment, “evidently no member of this family was Christian”. In this I quite agree, but in my turn I ask, “Does Luke say that the Proconsul was Christian?” The text is engraved on a block of stone, which once formed part of the wall of a building, in good letters of about 70 to 100 A.D. It was copied at Salir, one of the outlying quarters of Antioch, by Mr. J. G. C. Anderson and myself in 1912.
L Sergio, L(uci) f(ilio), Paullo filio, quattuorvir(o) v(iarum) c(urandarum), tri[b(uno)] mil(itum) leg(ionis) vi Ferr(atae), quaest(ori),
“ToL(ucius) Sergius Paullus the younger, (In Latin, “son”. In Greek inscriptions the same distinction of son from father of same name is much more frequent, and is usually expressed byνεόςorνεώτερος.) son of Lucius, one of the board of four commissioners of streets, tribune of the soldiers of the sixth legion styled Ferrata, quaestor”. The course of office is that which was regular and customary for men of senatorial rank. The rest of the career was engraved on a separate stone, which has not yet been found. The second filio distinguishes this Sergius Paullus from a well-known father; and the character of the lettering shows that, as Mr. Anderson remarked, the inscription should be assigned to the Flavian period. L. Sergius Paullus must have served as an official in the province Galatia before he attained the consulship; (If he had attained the Consulship, this would in ordinary course be stated after his name and before the earliest office of his career.) and the inscription was then placed in his honour by the Colony Antioch. His office was most probably the governorship of the province. Inscriptions in honour of governors are very common in Antioch; but inscriptions in honour of senatorial officials other than Governors are very rare (unless the official belonged to an Antiochian family). The Proconsul of Cyprus, L. Sergius Paullus (such is the correct Roman spelling), had a son who passed through the regular senatorial career; and the first stages in the career of the latter are recorded in this inscription. He had also a great-grandson of the same name, who was consul about 150 A.D., and again in 168. (The interval seems too long for the consul of about 150 to be regarded as grandson of the Proconsul of Cyprus in 47.) In 1913 I found that Sergia Paulla, daughter of the younger Paullus, was married to the head of the leading Antiochian family; and this influential connection procured his elevation to senatorial rank (probably under Vespasian, 70-79 A.D.). The marriage was prearranged while her father was Governor of the province. The family, therefore, was one of the ordinary Roman official type, and is in the last degree unlikely to have been Christian or to have sprung from a Christian ancestor, A Christian family would disappear from the official lists: their religion did not readily lend itself to the requirements of official life, or lead to Imperial or popular favour, although there certainly were some few Christian officials. Is it, however, the case that Luke regarded the Proconsul of Cyprus as a Christian? That depends on the force of the words: “he believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord”. But is complete conversion always implied by the word πιστεύειν? The word is quite capable, certainly, of this sense; but I doubt if the words of Luke here imply more than intellectual belief accompanied by amazement at the marvel which he had seen, i.e. some very deep impression on the mind, but nothing beyond that of a permanently and really religious character. The use of ἐκπλήττομαι elsewhere by Luke — three times in the Gospel, here alone in Acts— does not suggest that astonishment was a sure prelude to conversion. The use of the almost synonymous ἐξίσταμαι by Luke is equally unfavourable to that view. Mere astonishment is not the state of mind which favours real conversion; it produced the unreal and evanescent conversion of Simon Magus.
Meyer-Wendt and others consider that the Proconsul was converted; and Blass even connects ἐπίστευσεν ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ κυρίου — “he believed in the teaching of the Lord, being astonished (at the miracle)” — regardless of the Greek order and of the analogies which he quotes (Luke 4:32; Mark 1:22); but he has not persuaded Wendt to accept this translation, and is not likely to find others ready to follow him. Mr. Rackham, on the contrary, has a judicious and convincing note, in his edition of the Acts, to which I may refer the reader; and he concludes that a real conversion of the Proconsul would have had more serious consequences, whereas Paullus “had no more dealings with the Apostles, who leave Cyprus”.
Luke lays full emphasis on the highly favourable impression which Paul made on the first Roman official with whom his mission work brought him in contact. This is in accordance with his general plan, and illuminative of his purpose in this history (as is pointed out in St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 304-309). It is unjustifiable to go farther, and to think that the Governor was converted.
Some will be disposed to set no value on Mr. Rackham’s first argument: “it seems incredible that at this date a Roman Proconsul could have been converted: — it would have made a great stir in the Church and in the world, of which some echo must have reached us”. Admitting all this, they would simply add that Luke, being not a trustworthy historian, incorrectly represents Paullus as having been converted. Thus the mistranslation of the statement in the Acts would be made into a charge against the trustworthiness of the writer.
One piece of evidence seems conclusive. Luke 4:32 uses the same words about the people of Capernaum as about the Proconsul, “they were astonished at his teaching”; but they were not converted. The Proconsul was astonished at Paul’s teaching; he admired it as a moral and intellectual display; he was delighted with the boldness and the power of these itinerant lecturers; but this spirit Luke does not regard as favourable to real conversion, and he adds the words, “he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord,” to show the limitations of the case. The other case is Acts 17:34 : “certain men also clave unto him and believed, among whom was Dionysius the Areopagite, and Damaris,” etc. In this case I believe that no Church was formed, and no baptism administered at the time. Doubtless the effect produced on a few persons was genuine and deep, but Paul did not then remain in Athens to follow it up. This we gather from a casual phrase of his in 1 Corinthians 16:15, which opens up a wide question, and cannot be treated in this place.
