St. Paul’s Companions in Rome, III

ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS IN ROME. BY COL. R. M. BRYCE-THOMAS. III. — LUKE. Another of St. Paul's companions was his biographer, St. Luke, the evangelist. The friendship that existed between these two men was perhaps as remarkable as that between the great Apostle and his son in the faith, Timothy. Both Paul and Luke were doubtless men of education, of a high intellectual order, but while one was the cultivated Jew, the other was the cultivated Gentile. It is evident from the names mentioned by St. Paul in Colossians 4: 10, 11, of those who were of the circumcision, that Luke was not one, his name being coupled subsequently in verse 14 with that of Demas. Hence, he must have been a Gentile convert, and Dr. Farrar thinks that there is no reason to reject the unanimous tradition that he was by birth an Antiochene. Dr. John Kitto, in his Cyclopoedia of Biblical Literature, tells us that the name Luke is a contracted form of Lucanus, indicating that St. Luke was descended from heathen ancestors; while Dr. Scott, in his Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, clearly points out that in the Acts of the Apostles the writer (St. Luke) does not say, in "our," but in "their," tongue (Acts 1: 49), showing that he could not have been a Hebrew, but a Greek or Gentile. Origen and Epiphanius say that he was one of the seventy disciples of our Lord, but if so he must have been an eye witness of nearly all the facts recorded in his gospel, and to this he . himself would seem to give the denial in chapter 1 : 12 of the Acts of the Apostles, in which he would appear to suggest that he was merely making a declaration of those things which had been delivered unto him, among others by eye witnesses and ministers of the word. Had he been one of the seventy, he would scarcely have written in this way.

IMPRO VEMENT ERA . The Apostle calls his friend Luke, "the beloved physician," thus indicating the profession to which he had been educated; and Dr. Farrar thinks that he may have been a freed-man. Some ancient writers credit St. Luke with having been a skilful painter, and the picture of the Madonna which the writer saw over the high altar in the church of Santa Maria del Popolo, in Rome, is one of those attributed to him by the Roman hierarchy. The Revd. John Healy, LL. D., the author of St. Luke as the Amanuensis of St. Paul, writes thus of the Evangelist: Assuming that he was a Gentile convert and a physician, we may fairly conclude that the great writers of the ancient world were his study, that he had read the history and witnessed the struggles of different schools of thought, that the artistic refinement of Greece and the broad justice of Rome had both their influence upon him; and we know that, to crown all. he had by his conversion to Christianity learnt all that is most real and true in Judaism itself. The two (Paul and Luke) were as different in their training as men could be, yet, as Christians, they had that in common which united them in the closest bonds of friendship. When and where, or by whom, St. Luke was converted to Christianity is not known, and he himself does not appear to have alluded to the subject either in his own gospel, or in the Acts of the Apostles; the tradition, however, is that he accepted the faith at Antioch. From the fact that St. Paul never refers to him as his son, as he does in the case of his converts Timothy, Titus, and Onessimus, but merely as "the beloved physician," it is presumed that he was not converted by the great Apostle. St. Luke must have been a Christian before A. D. 57, for it is said that he wrote his gospel some twenty-four years after the ascension of our Lord, and that event occurred, according to Bible chronology, in A. D.33. Owing to the nobleness and sweetness of his disposition, St. Paul appears to have had the gift of attracting and drawing to himself many individuals of very diverse temperaments and characters. St. Luke among others was soon brought under his spell, and, notwithstanding the fact that a friendship with the Apostle was at all times fraught with great danger, his faithfulness to Paul was very manifest throughout all that is known of his life. The author of The Saints our Example writes of him thus: Throughout perils and hardships to which we shall never be exposed, St. Luke stood steadfastly by St. Paul even unto death.

ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS IN ROME. 99 Luke would seem to have first met Paul at Troas, for, as Dr. Farrar points out, this accurate writer of the Acts of the Apostles in his biography of St. Paul very modestly uses the pronoun "we" for the first time in recording the Apostle's departure from that place. It will be remembered that it was at Troas where a night vision appeared to Paul, in which a man of Macedonia stood before him and prayed him to go over to that country, and to help them there; and St. Luke, in recording this fact, suddenly uses the word ' 'we." He writes: "After he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia" (Acts 16:10). An interesting note on this subject is given by Dr. Farrar on page 479, Vol., I of his book,27ie Life and Work of St. Paul, which I may with advantage quote here: Tbe 'we" begins in Acts 16: 10, it ends when Paul leaves Philippi 17: 1. It is resumed at Philippi at the close of the third missionary journey, 20; 5; and continues till the arrival at Jerusalem, 21: 15. It again appears in 27: 1, and continues throughout the journey to Rome. Luke was also with the Apostle during his first (Col. 4: 14, Philem. 24; and second impmonment (II Tim. 4: 11). Here, then, we see that Luke was St. Paul's companion from Troas on his second apostolic journey, he was with him at Philippi, accompanied him to Jerusalem, and, so far as we know, never left him again till his martyrdom in Rome. How pathetic are those words, almost the last ones written by the great Apostle shortly before his death, and addressed to his friend Timothy from the gloomy dungeon in which he was incarcerated in the imperial city of Rome: "For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4: 10, 11). This faithful friend and companion was nearly always by his side, and we feel no wonder,theref ore, at the deep attachment which Paul had for his "beloved physician," whose character he had once summed up some six years previously in the words — "the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches" — (II Cor. 8: 18). It is pleasant? too, to think that the medical skill and attention of this devoted friend must have been as great a source of comfort to the aged, feeble and sick Apostle, as we are sure that his companionship

1 1 ii ) IMPRO VEMENT ERA . was a source of consolation to him during all the many trials of his later life. Dr. Plumptre.in his ExcurtUt <»i th<> Lift of St. Luke, tells u», that according to tradition Luke lived to the age of eightyfour years; and was crucified at Elnea in the Peloponnesus, on an olive tree; or, according to another [story, died a natural death in Pithy nia. His bones are said to have been brought to Constantinople from Patras, in Achaia, by order of the Emperor Constantine, and to have been deposited in the "Church of the Apostles*' there. IV. — MARCUS. Mark, we know, was one of Paul's companions during the latter's first Roman captivity, for, in writing from Rome to the Collossians, in A.D. 64, the Apostle sends them salutations'from Aristarchus, and from Marcus' sister's son to Barnabas (Col. 4: 10). It is a somewhat debated point as to whether St. Mark the Evangelist, and the Marcus referred to by St. Paul, are one and the sam* individual. St. Peter mentions the Evangelist at the close of his first general epistle, in which he alludes to him as "Marcus my son" (I Peter 5: 13), and it is therefore supposed that he was one of Peter's converts. Dr. Farrar tells us that according to Papias, Mark accompanied Peter as his interpreter ( epfwevrvc). The authoress of The Saints our Example does not look upon Mark the Evangelist and companion of St. Luke, as being one and the same person as John, surnamed Mark, the companion of St. Paul; and the reason she assigns for this conclusion is in her own words, that "trustworthy records concerning the Evangelist state that he was latterly Bishop of Alexandria, and died there in A. D. 62." If such were the case, then certainly the Mark whose presence St. Paul so greatly desired during his second Roman imprisonment — "take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (II Tim. 4: 11), could not be the same individual as Mark the writer of the gospel that bears his name, because the Apostle's second epistle to Timothy was not penned till A. D. 66, or four years after the alleged death of the Evangelist. By some authorities, however, it is believed that Mark did not go as the first Bishop to Alexandria till a much later period; and so the question is still left in doubt, and such celebrated historians as Grotius and

ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS IN ROME. 101 Lardner are accepted as leaders on each side of this controversy. Dr. Farrar, who has made a careful study of the life of St. Paul, and has had frequently among other matters to deal with the great Apostle's friends and companions, nowhere seems to have touched upon this debated question; but from the fact that, in the index to his bock, Life and Work of St. Paul, he includes under the one single name of Mark, incidents relating both to Mark's companionship with Peter, as well as to his companionship with Paul, it must, I think, be concluded that he viewed the Evangelist and the man called "John surnamed Mark" as one and the same person. The writer of the present article looks upon them as the same individual on the following grounds: Allowing not only the possibility, but also the probability that there was more than one convert to Christianity in those days named Mark, it would be both strange and unlikely that there was more than one who had the name John prefixed to that of Mark. When Peter was miraculously delivered by an angel from prison in Jerusalem, he at once went, we are told, to the house of John surnamed Mark (Acts 12: 12); and we may fairly conclude that this was no other than his convert whom he designated as "Marcus my son" (I Peter 5: 13). Indeed, it seems natural to suppose that he would have gone directly to this friend's house, where we are certain that he would have received a warm welcome, for Peter was himself a Galilean, and had no home of his own at Jerusalem to go to. Then again, when we come to the supposed other Mark who was the companion of Paul and Barnabas, we find that he, too, is mentioned as John whose surname was Mark (Acts 12: 25). Once also he is simply called John (Acts 13: 5 and 13). We also read of this man as being called John, surnamed Mark, at the time when the unfortunate contention arose between the Apostles Paul and Barnabas about taking Mark with them on their second joint missionary journey (Acts 15: 37, 38). Then again, it is equally unlikely that two men, both of whose names were John, and both of whom were also surnamed Mark, should also both have been called Marcus, inasmuch as this is a purely Latin name indicating, as Dr. Plumptre tells us in his commentary on the Acts, some point of contact with- Romans or Roman Jews. We find Peter calling his convert and companion ' 'Marcus my son, ' ' and we also find Paul in writing to the Colos-

loj IMPROVEMENT ERA. sians sending them salutations from his companion "Marcus." In this way the identity of the two men seems to the writer to be as complete and satisfactory as it is possible to make it. We learn from what is recorded in Acts 12: 12, that the name of Mark's mother was Mary, and that she lived in Jerusalem. We may also conclude, from the absence of any mention of his father, that his mother was a widow. She must also have been a Christian, as many Christians appear to have gathered themselves together in her house to pray, and we may also suppose that she was a person of some importance in the Christian community, because a portion of the Church made her home a place of meeting. FYom the fact, too, that her brother Barnabas had land which he sold, and the proceeds of which he laid at the feet of the Apostle Peter, it is not improbable that she, too, was in fairly well-to-do circumstances. In Colossians 4: 10 we read that Mark was sister's son to this same Barnabas, or in other words thelatter's nephew, and as Barnabas, whose real name was Joses (he having, we are told, been surnamed Barnabas by the Apostles), was a Levite, it is evident that Mark must have been connected with the tribe of Levi, and probably belonged to it. The first we hear of Mark's work in the conversion of the Gentiles, was when he left Jerusalem with Paul and Barnabas (his uncle) on their first missionary journey (Acts 12: 25). They went to Cyprus, where, of course, he and Barnabas must have had relations (Acts 4: 36), and thence, passing through various other places, they came to Perga in Pamphylia, and there Mark suddenly deserted his companions. All sorts of conjectures have been advanced to account for the motive of this strange defection on his part. Some think that he may have got tired of the fatigues of the journey in countries in which traveling was associated with so many hardships and dangers. He was we know very young, and in those days may have been of a vacillating and inconstant disposition. Some have suggested that he probably wished to return to his widowed mother in Jerusalem, who may have been suffering persecution there like many other Christians at that time. But whatever may have been his motive, having once put his hand to the plough he ought not to have looked back, and it would seem as if the Apostle Paul not only resented this desertion on Mark's

ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS IN ROME. 103 part, but also considered his action so blameworthy, that on a subsequent occasion when he had arranged with Barnabas to undertake another joint missionary journey in order to re-visit the churches they had already planted, he most strongly opposed the suggestion of the latter, who may very probably have seen some extenuating circumstances in his nephew's former conduct, to take Mark with them. The two old friends who had hitherto worked together in such amity, now grew so heated over this dispute, that they could apparently find no other solution to the difficulty but to sever their connection with one another, and so Paul chose Silas to accompany him, while Barnabas took Mark and returned with him from Perga to Cyprus (Acts 15: 37 to 41) . At this stage Barnabas and Mark disappear from the history of the Acts of the Apostles, but we still find some interesting references to Mark in some of the epistles. After he had labored with his uncle in Cyprus, we discover him back again with his father in the faith, Peter, in Babylon in A. D. 60 (I Peter 5: 13). After this we find that he returned to Paul, for he was with that Apostle during his first imprisonment in Rome in A. D. 64 (Col. 4: 10). From what the Apostle then wrote to the Colossian church, we may infer that he had previously in some conversation, address, or letter given expression to his views about Timothy, perhaps in terms of distrust, owing to the latter having forsaken the work in Asia Minor. But by this time Paul had evidently changed his mind about him, or, as Dr. Farrar says, had seen fit to modify his previous unfavorable opinion regarding him; consequently, when sending Mark's salutation to the Colossians, the Apostle added the following words, — "touching whom ye received commandment, if he come unto you, receive him.'' Doubtless Mark had long repented of his defection at Perga, and had since labored zealously in the cause of the gospel of his Master, making up in every possible way for the coldness and indifference he had formerly exhibited in the work of the Lord; because we find the Apostle, during his second imprisonment in Rome, longing to have Mark back with him as a fellow-laborer; and we also find him writing to Timothy an express request, as Dr. Farrar puts it, that he would bring Mark with him to Rome to solace his last imprisonment, because he had now found him — that which he had once failed to be — "profitable to him for the ministry."

I'M lMI'ROYKMKST ERA. Kusebius, the historian, tellfl us that Mark introduced the gospel into Egypt, and became the founder of the church at Alexandria. According to later accounts he suffered martyrdom at that place by being dragged to death in the streets of the city. Pas de Calais, France. [to be continued. I [Photo by George Albert Smith.] ON THE EDGE OF THE HILL CUMORAH. On September 21, 1823, the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, the prophet, and told him "there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting gospel was contained in it." The book was the Book of Mormon; the place where it was hidden is the bill Cumorah, in New York.