tour after the break with Barnabas (Acts 15:40). He was a prophet (15:32) and one of the bearers of the Jerusalem Epistle to Ephesus to the Gentile Christians concerning their freedom from Jewish ceremonialism (15:27). He was loyal to Paul through this tour, shared Paul's imprisonment in Philippi and was in Thessalonica and Beroa with him and came with Timothy to Paul in Corinth. And then he drops out from Paul's company so far as we know. The reason is all conjecture. Silas was probably older than Timothy and Titus and nearer Paul's own age. It is probable that he reappears with Peter as the amanuensis of Peter in writing the First Epistle (1 Pet. 5:12). If so, he is in company with Peter and Mark. It may be suggested that Paul and Silas had a difference as was true of Barnabas and Paul. That, of course, is possible, but hardly likely. It is more probable that Paul in the third tour simply preferred younger men who more readily did the subordinate work and did not really need Silas who had other work of his own to do.

We may group together a bunch of Paul's helpers and co-workers of whom we catch only glimpses as they pass, snapshots taken in action. One of these is Trophimus of Asia (Acts 20:4), one of the messengers sent along with Paul to Jerusalem to bear the collection for the poor saints there. He was the innocent occasion of bringing great misfortune on Paul. Like Titus, he was a Greek. Some of the Jews of Asia saw Paul walking with Trophimus in Jerusalem (Acts 21:29) and "supposed" that he had also taken Trophimus with him into the temple beyond the court

of the Gentiles, for they saw Paul there. They raised a hue and cry and accused Paul of all sorts of crimes that kept him a prisoner in Cæsarea and Rome for five years before freedom came. Hate and a heated imagination do not require facts, but only an occasion. But Trophimus was in no way responsible for it all. Much later Paul left him at Miletus sick (2 Tim. 4:20) and Paul was concerned about him at the end.

Tychicus was another messenger from Asia with Trophimus (Acts 21:4), but it is not certain that he went on to Jerusalem. However, he was in Rome and was one of the bearers of the Epistle to the Colossians (4:7) and that to the Ephesians (6:21). He was with Paul again in the second Roman imprisonment and was sent by Paul to Ephesus on some errand of importance (2 Tim. 4:12).

Aristarchus had been seized along with Gaius by the mob in Ephesus as a companion of Paul (Acts 19:29). He was one of the Thessalonian messengers with Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). Later he was Paul's companion with Luke on the voyage to Rome (Acts 27:2), possibly, as Ramsay suggests, enrolling as Paul's slave so as to get on the ship. He was with Paul in Rome when he wrote to Philemon (23) and Paul calls him his "fellow-prisoner" (Col. 4:10).

There are others, like Erastus (Acts 19:22; 2 Tim. 4:20) who are more like silhouettes on the horizon. We cannot say that these counted for little or for nothing in Paul's life because of the bare mention of their names in the long and honorable list in Romans 16. And even in that list there are many whose

names are not given. They figure only as "the brethren." History is whimsical in its preservation of names and even of facts. It is certainly likely that Paul had many fellow workers who wrought as nobly as some of those whose names and deeds are preserved to us. They won Paul's love and that of Paul's Lord and they have received their due reward. But it is hard to think of one who ever gathered round him a nobler group of fellow-workers, both men and women, like Priscilla and Aquila with whom Paul dwelt in Corinth (Acts 18:2) and who risked their very lives for Paul (Rom. 16:4) as did Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:30). Paul had the keenest interest in people and had no lack of friends who were ready to share with him suffering and even death like Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1:16-18).

But there were false friends who left Paul in a pinch like Demas who "loved this present world" (2 Tim. 4:10) and Alexander the coppersmith who did him much evil (4:14). And there were some like Phygelus and Hermogenes who turned away from Paul now a prisoner in Rome (2 Tim. 1:15). Paul knew the bitterness of "false brethren" (2 Cor. 11:26) as well as the joy of devotion to the death.

CHAPTER X

PAUL'S PREACHING IN THESSALONICA

It is not always proper for a preacher to speak frankly about his own preaching. He is almost certain to be accused of egotism. Even a teacher of young preachers has to be chary of personal allusions, rich as his experiences are and helpful to them. When a preacher is under fire he may sometimes explain his methods and motives to those who have been influenced by the attacks. But even then the minister feels a natural embarrassment and is open to counter-attack. As a rule, silence and right living is the best answer to traducers, "that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Pet. 2:15).

Paul broke his silence under the attacks in Corinth in order to show that he and Apollos were both free from blame in the schism and strife that had come to that church (1 Cor. 1-4). In doing this needed service Paul takes occasion to set forth the character of his own preaching of Christ crucified. But Paul did hold the Judaizers responsible for the trouble in Corinth and they made serious and specific charges against Paul's ministerial integrity that he disproves in detail (2 Cor. 10-13). But in defending himself thus pointedly Paul felt like a fool and can only do it at all by a touch of irony to relieve the tension (2 Cor.

11:14-20). But one can almost thank the Judaizers for indirectly being responsible for Paul's wonderful panegyric on preaching in 2 Cor. 2:12-6:10 (expounded in my "Glory of the Ministry”).

Another bit of autobiography occurs in 1 Thess. I and 2 which can be compared with Acts 17:1-9. The account in Acts mentions only three Sabbath days on which Paul preached in Thessalonica, but it seems clear from I Thess. I and 2 and 2 Thess. 2 and Phil. 4:16 that Paul labored in Thessalonica some months, probably no longer in the synagogue (cf. Corinth), Luke probably did not mean to be exhaustive in his report. But it is extremely interesting to be able to compare the historical narrative in Acts 17 with Paul's discussion in I Thess. I and 2. We have a similar parallel in Luke's account of the work in Corinth (Acts 18) and Paul's own interpretation of his work there in I Cor. 1-4. In Thessalonica, as in Corinth, Paul was misunderstood by some. The misunderstanding related to Paul's remarks on the Second Coming of Christ. After Paul's departure the misunderstanding grew until Paul was quoted as saying that Jesus was going to come right away. This Paul specifically denies. Some one had even tried to palm off an "epistle" as from Paul supporting this view (2 Thess. 2:1-4). So he gives the token for a genuine Epistle of his (2 Thess. 3:17). There was really no excuse for misunderstanding Paul's preaching on this point. "Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" (2 Thess. 2:5). The struggle with the Man of Sin was first to come. And when Jesus does come, he will come as a thief in the