THE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.
UNDER this title a series of Manuals is being
published, giving a solid and trustworthy ground-
ing in all branches of Theological study. It
is remarkable that, while such works on Lite-
rature and Science abound, the field in Theology
is still unoccupied.
The books are wholly unsectarian, and are
written by men recognised as authorities on
their subjects. They are specially adapted to
the needs of those preparing for examinations
in Theology.
While the Manuals are specially useful to
Theological Students, the clearness and simplicity
of their style will, it is hoped, attract the many
laymen interested in these subjects; while their
freshness and scholarship make them interesting
even to proficients in Theology.
(f. r. o
2 THE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.
A Manual of Christian Evidences. By the
Rev. C. A. Row, M.A., Prebendary of St. Paul's. Third
Edition.
An Introduction to the Textual Criticism
of the New Testament. By the Rev. Prof. B. B.
WARFIELD, D.D.
A Hebrew Grammar. By the REV. W. H. LOWE,
M.A., Joint- Author of " A Commentary on the Psalms,"
etc. ; Hebrew Lecturer, Christ's College, Cambridge.
The Prayer-Book. By the REV. CHARLES HOLE,
B.A., King's College, London.
A Manual of Church History. In Two Parts.
By the Rev. A. C. JENNINGS, M.A., Author of " Ecclesia
Anglicana," Joint- Author of "A Commentary on the
Psalms," etc. Vol. I. From the First to the Tenth Century.
Vol. II. From the Eleventh to the Nineteenth Century.
An Introduction to the New Testament.
By the Rev. MARCUS DODS, D.D.
An Exposition of the Apostles' Creed. By
the Rev. J. E. YONGE, M.A., late Fellow of King s College,
Cambridge ; and Assistant Master in Eton College.
The Language of the New Testament. By
the Rev. WILLIAM HENRY SIMCOX, M.A., late Fellow of
Queen's College, Oxford.
Outlines of Christian Doctrine. By the
Rev. H. C. G. MOULE, M.A., Principal of Ridley Hall,
Cambridge.
LONDON :
HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.
THE
THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR
Edited by the
REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.,
Editor of " The Expositor.
DR. MARCUS DODS'
INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW.
Israel's Iron Age: Sketches from the Period
of the Judges. Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 35. 6d.
The Prayer that Teaches to Pray. Sixth
Edition. Crown 8vo, vs. 6d.
Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ : Four Lec-
tures on Natural and Revealed Religion. Fifth
Thousand. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3$. 6d.
Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Fifth Thousand.
3 s. 6d.
The Parables of our Lord. (Matthew.) Fifth
Thousand. 3*. 6d.
The Parables of our Lord. Second Series.
(Luke.) Fourth Thousand. 35. 6d.
The Book of Genesis. Fourth Edition. Crown
8vo, cloth, 7$. 6d.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Second
Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 7$. 6d.
LONDON : HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER Row
AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE
NEW TESTAMENT
BY
MARCUS DODS, D.D.,
Author of " The Book of Genesis," " The Parables of our Lore/,'
" Israel's Iron Age," etc.
SIXTH THOUSAND.
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW.
Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Vine}-, Ld., London and Aylesbur}'.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
THE GOSPELS 1
ST. MATTHEW . . 15
ST. MARK ....... . 24
ST. LUKE . 33
ST. JOHN . . . . . . . . .43
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES . . . . . .63
THE EPISTLES . ..."-.. . .76
THE PAULINE EPISTLES . . . ... .78
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS . ... . .84
EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 96
EPISTLE TO THE QALATIANS 109
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 121
vi CONTEXTS.
THE PAULINE EPISTLES (continued).
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS . . . .127
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS . . . .137
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 117
FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS . . 151
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS . 162
PASTORAL EPISTLES 167
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS . . . .177
EPISTLE OP JAMES 189
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. .... 198
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER .... 206
FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN 213
SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN . .218
EPISTInS OF JUDE 225
REVELATION . 235
THE GOSPELS.
THE word " gospel " * represents the Greek
cvayye'Aiov, which originally signified " the
reward of good tidings," given to the messenger
(Od. xiv. 152 ; 2 Sam. iv. 10, LXX.), and subsequently
" good tidings." In the New Testament it has the
specific meaning of " the good news of the kingdom "
(Matt. iv. 23; Mark i. 15). "Jesus came into
Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom
of God is at hand : repent ye and believe the gospel"
This speedily became a technical usage, and " the
gospel" without further designation meant the gospel
of the kingdom (Mark viii. 35 ; x. 29 ; xiii. 10, etc.).
But it continued to be described according to its
contents, its author, its medium. In respect of its
contents it was spoken of as "the gospel of Christ"
(Rom. i. 16, rec. ; 2 Cor. ii. 12); "the gospel of our
Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. i. 8); "of our salva-
tion" (Eph. i. 13); and its contents are described in
1 Cor. xv. 1 7. In relation to its Author it was
spoken of as "the gospel of God" (Rom. xv. 16,
saya Gospel God, spell = narrative of God = life
of Christ. And for the form he refers to gossip god, sib.
Others think it is the exact equivalent of evayylXtov, and is
compounded of " good " and " spell."
1
2 THE GOSPELS.
etc.) ; and it was also designated according to the
special messenger or mode of its delivery, and thus
we find Paul speaking of "my gospel" (Rom. ii. 16).
Nowhere in the New Testament is the word
"gospel" used to denote a book, but in the time of
Justin Martyr* this use had come into vogue. He
speaks, as we do, of "the gospels." But when the
titles were given to our gospels, this usage had not
yet come into vogue; for the word "gospel," as
employed in these titles, has not the signification of
a written book, but still denotes the one message
of salvation. The unity of the theme is marked by
the several gospels being named not " Matthew's
Gospel," "Mark's Gospel," etc., but "The Gospel
according to Matthew," "according to Mark." The
form of the titles has led some critics to maintain
that they are not intended to indicate authorship,
but the authority guaranteeing what is related. But
/caret (" according to v ) in this connection does denote
authorship, as the lexicons prove. The "history of
Herodotus " is y Ka0' 'HpoSorov toTopta. t It is true,
the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" and " accord-
ing to the Egyptians" does not mean the gospel
written by the Hebrews, or by the Egyptians. But
even though these titles may not mean (as Holtzmann
suggests) that these gospels received their final form
at the hands of those whose names are given, yet
the reception of the gospel in a particular form
which apparently is all that the titles indicate is a
* In his Apol., i. 66, he speaks of the Apostles' "memoirs
which are called gospels."
f Other instances are given by Holtzmann, p. 329 ; Bleek,etc.
AUTHENTICITY. 3
meaning cognate to and certainly not exclusive of
the meaning that those whose names appear in the
title wrote down the particular form of the gospel
given in the work. But apart from the lexical usage,
it is obvious that if " according to" had been intended
to indicate the ultimate authority or guarantor and
not the writer, the second gospel would, in accord-
ance with the belief of primitive times, have been
styled "the Gospel according to Peter"; and the
third, " the Gospei according to Paul." *
It is impossible to fix the date of those first
attempts at gospels, of which Luke speaks in his
prologue. But in any case they must have been
early, and must with more or less directness and
accuracy have rested on the authority of the Apostles.
The first authentic account of what our Lord was,
and said, and did, was given by those who had
companied with Him from the first. Luke (i. 1) and
probably all who wrote down any part of what they
heard, understood the importance of having their
information at first-hand and from eye-witnesses.
The substantial accuracy of the Apostolic narration,
and of its transcription in our gospels, may be tested
by the manner in which the discourses, sayings, and
conversations of our Lord are recorded. Even Renan
cordially affirms that Matthew merits absolute con-
fidence as a reporter of our Lord's words. In his
opinion there is no mistaking the authenticity of
this part of the gospel: "A divine force, if I may
make bold to say so, underlines these words, detaches
them from the context and enables the critic to
* Salmon's Introduction, p. 132.
4 THE GOSPELS.
recognise them without difficulty . . . The true words
of Jesus, so to speak, discover themselves ; when they
are touched in this chaos of traditions of unequal
authenticity, we feel them vibrate."* The justice of
this deliverance can scarcely be disputed. In all
literature there is nothing that rivals the Parables,
the Sermon on the Mount, the brief sayings which
the gospels record. They are stamped with an abso-
lutely inimitable character of their own. But this
self-evidencing accuracy of the gospels in recording
the words of our Lord is a strong argument in favour
of their accuracy in recording His actions and manner
of life. For not only is it easier to recall with accu-
racy what we have seen than to repeat with exactness
what we have heard; but there was, no doubt, a
great demand for information regarding the life and
ways of Christ. The Apostles would be required to
give instances of His working miracles, to relate the
closing scenes, to tell again and again how they knew
He rose again. Proof that He was the Messiah
could only be drawn from what He had actually
been and done; and those parts of His life which
seemed most conspicuously to reveal His kingly
qualities were necessarily brought forward as often
as the Apostles claimed for Him supremacy. But
this fragmentary narration evoked by the require-
ments of casual audiences would on no occasion
furnish a complete and detailed biography; although,
when Churches were formed, the demand for more
complete and systematic instruction would necessarily
increase. And this demand would very naturally be
* Vie de Jesus, xxxvii.-viii.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 5
satisfied by written attempts at a full and consecutive
account of the life of Christ. This agrees with what
we learn from the prologue to Luke's Gospel, in
which we are informed that " many" say twelve or
twenty such attempts had been made, and that
they were all founded upon the Apostolic preaching,
or, to use Luke's own words, were written " even as
they delivered them unto us which from the beginning
were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." Ap-
parently the eye-witnesses themselves had not written
down what they proclaimed ; they felt their memory
to be a sufficient guarantee of accuracy.* The date
of these first attempts at gospel-writing must have
been early; and it is a strong argument in favour
of the early date and authenticity of the canonical
gospels, that none of those which preceded them had
so rooted themselves in popular esteem as to ensure
their survival. Their disappearance and the exclusive
acceptance of our four gospels can be accounted for
only on the ground that they were understood to be
by writers who had direct access to authoritative
information.
SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.
The relation of the three Synoptic f Gospels to one
another is one of the standing problems of criticism.
* It will be observed that the testing time for the memory
of the Apostles was the period between the beginning and the
close of Christ's ministry, before they began to relate to others
what they had seen and heard.
f ' Synoptic '= giving a general view of the same series of
events in the life of Christ, is not the happiest term to- describe
the first three gospels as distinguished from the fourth, but
usage is paramount.
6 THE GOSPELS.
On examination these gospels are found to present
minute and frequent correspondences, and also very
striking differences. The problem is to discover a
theory of their origin which will at once account for
their likeness and unlikeness. Their likeness consists
(1) in their giving the same
life of Jesus, and in filling up this outline with a
series o incidents which are largely identical. This
is all the more striking, because, while each Evangelist
records nearly the sarne^ miracle^ as the__otkers, they
all speak of numberless unrecorded miracles. The
extent of this coincidence in material has been pre-
sented in a tabular form.* The entire contents of
the several gospels being represented by 100, the
following proportions are obtained :
Peculiarities. Coincidences.
Mark 7 93
Matthew 42 58
Luke 59 41
John 92 8
But coincidence is largely found not only in the
material or substance, but (2) in the form in which
the several incidents are presented, and even in the
language used. As a classical instance of resemblance
in form Holtzmann cites the interpolation of a paren-
thesis (" then saith He to the sick of the palsy ") in
the narrative of the healing of the paralytic, Matt.
ix. 6; Mark ii. 10; Luke v. 24. The form of the
narrative cannot, in this instance, be accidentally
similar, but is such as prompts us to seek a cause of
so striking a uniformity. In language the correspon-
* See Westcott's Introd., p. lyi.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 7
dence is also remarkable, though rather on account
of its character and significance than on account of
its extent. For it never extends through passages
of any length; and, unless in reported discourses of
our Lord, rarely beyond a few words at a time. In
narrating the same event the verbal coincidences of
the gospels are continually interrupted by thoughts
and words peculiar to each. And by far the larger
portion of their verbal agreement occurs in passages
in which the words of others, and especially of Jesus,
are reported. The verbal coincidences of Matthew
with Mark or Luke is less than a sixth part of the
entire contents of Matthew ; and of this sixth seven-
eighths occur in the reporting of the words of others,
and only one-eighth in the Evangelist's own narrative.
In Mark the proportion is also about a sixth, and
in Luke not more than a tenth ; and of these
coincidences four-fifths in Mark's case, and nineteen-
twentieths in Luke's, occur in the recital of the words
of others.* It has further been observed that in the
recital of our Lord's words verbal coincidences between
Matthew and Luke are frequent, but in the narrative
coincidences " cannot be rated at more than one-
hundredth part of the whole." f
HISTORY OF SOLUTION OF PROBLEM.
Attention has been called to these peculiarities of
the gospels, and attempts have been made to account
for them from the days when Augustine wrote his
De Consensu Evangelistarum, and named Mark the
* See Norton, Cfenuinenexs of Gospels, i. 1^40.
t Westcott, 194.
8 THE GOSPELS.
pediseqiius [footman, one who treads in the steps of
another] Matthcei.* Little was done to throw light
on the origin of the gospels, until in 1782 Koppe
published his refutation of Augustine's idea (Marcus
non epitomator Matthcei). Various derivations of one
gospel from the others were suggested by Busching,
Evaiison, etc., till a new departure was taken by
Lessing in 1785, who broached the theory that instead
of being derived from one another, the three gospels
wereajj_derived from some previously existing docu-
ment, and this document might likely enough be the
Gospel of the Hebrews. This idea was developed by
the genius of Eichhorn, who perceived that the docu-
ment to which the similarities of the Synoptics were
due, must have been not an Aramaic (though that
was his first notion), but a Greek gospel. This
" Ur-evangelium" or Original_Gospel, was a fruitful
idea ; and in fertile minds it was multiplied into
several sources now lost, or transformed into pre-exist-
ing "Memorabilia" (Paulus), "Narratives" (Schleier-
macher), or " Corpuscles " (Lachmann). In 1818
another germinant suggestion_was made by Gieseler
(in his Historisch-kritischer Versucfi), who endeavoured
to show thatthj^siniilarities of the Synoptics are fully
accountedTor by their common dependence on the
oral gospel ; that is, on the form which the preaching
)f Christ by the Apostles naturally took. This^oral
bradition^_at_ jfirst satisfied all requirements \ and,
eing continually repeaticc^ it gradually became
tereotyped, and was finally fixed in writing in forms
* Augustine's words are " Marcus eum subsecutus, tanquam
pedisequus et bre viator ejus videtur " (I. ii. 4.).
DOCUMENTARY THEORY. 9
modified by the knowledge and purpose of each
synoptist.*
Investigation has recently been conductfid with
greater approach to scientific exactness, but it has
always run on these three lines, indicated respectively
by Koppe, Lessing or Eichhorn, and Gieseler. The
gospels are either dependent on one another, or on
a previously existing document (or documents), or on
the oral gospel. The first alternative may evidently
be adjusted in various ways.t It may be held
1. That Matthew wrote first, that Mark used his
gospel, and Luke used both. This was held
by Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, Bengel, Bolton,
Townson, and most ingeniously by Hug. In
later times and with characteristic modifications
by Hilgenfeld.
2. Matthew, Luke, Mark. So Griesbach, Ammon,
Saunier, Theile, Fritzsche, Gfroier, De Wette,
Bleek, Delitzsch ; and substantially Baur,
Schwegler, Kb'stlin, Keim.
3. Mark, Luke, Matthew. So Wilke, Weiss,
Hitzig, Volkmar.
4. Mark, Matthew, Luke. So Storr, RitschI,
Lachrnanii, Ewald, Reuss, Holtzmann.
5. Luke, Mark, Matthew. Vogel, Ileubner, Rodi-
ger, Schneckenburger.
6. Luke, Matthew, Mark. Biisching, Evanson.
* For a fuller account see Holtzmann's Einlcitung, 333339 ;
or his standard work Die Synoptisclicn Ecangelien.
f In this list the title of a gospel is sometimes set down
where, to be strictly accurate, some form of the gospel which
preceded the canonical edition is meant
10 THE GOSPELS.
But the view of Eichhorn has more and more as-
serted itself, and gradually won all critics to the belief
that the similarities and dissimilarities of our gospels
are best accounted for by the hypothesis that their
authors had access to some common source either
written or oral. A great crop of fancied original gospels
has naturally sprung from the acceptance of this idea.
The Tubingen school arrange the growth of our gospels
thus: First there was the Gospel of the Hebrews,
an Ebionite account of Jesus. Out of this by the
addition of more liberal sentiments arose the Gospel
of Matthew in a more or less complete form ; also
a first draft of Luke, which was anti-Ebionitic and
strongly Pauline, and a second edition of a more
conciliatory character. Lastly came Mark, which
was a colourless compilation from Matthew and
Luke.
The idea that the antecedent oral gospel is sufficient
to account for all the facts, and explain the rela-
tionship of our gospels, has been largely accepted in
this country, chiefly through the influence of Canon
Westcott, in whose Introduction the hypothesis is ably
and elaborately expounded and urged. It is of course
admitted by all critics that oral tradition preceded
all our gospels, that the story was told before it was
written.* Mediately our synoptical gospels are un-
doubtedly derived from oral teaching, preaching, and
* Thus Holtzmann (Eirileitung, 340) : " At bottom all
gospels rest on the oral tradition, etc.," and in his Syn. Evang.,
p. 52, "It is nowadays an accepted position that the oral
tradition must be considered the ultimate basis of the entire
gospel-literature."
ORIGINAL ORAL GOSPEL. 11
relation. Some of the narratives in Luke and in
Mark may have been directly transferred to their
pages from the lip of the narrator. Matthew's Gospel
may contain what never elsewhere existed in writing.
But this is one thing, and it is another to say that
the peculiarities of the gospels, their agreement in
general outline and their verbal coincidences, are
explained by their derivation from a common oral
tradition.
The valid objections urged against the hypothesis
of a stereotyped oral gospel are these
1. It has not been made out that the preaching
of the Apostles was of such a kind as to furnish
material for such biographical details as our gospels
contain. They proclaimed, as Paul explicitly affirms
(1 Cor. xv. 1), the great facts of Christ's coming, of
His death and resurrection, but did not, so far as
can be gathered, relate in detail His journeys in
Galilee, His conversations with scribes and Pharisees,
and so forth. Certainly our gospels contain both
more and less than the preaching of the Apostles
contained.
2. It is difficult to suppose that the Apostles when
called upon to narrate particular incidents would
restrict themselves to one stereotyped form, and would
adhere even to such insignificant details as are cited
in the story of the cure of the paralytic.
3. Even if it were credible that individual incidents
were thus orally handed down in a fixed form of
words, it is not to be believed that the order of the
narrative would similarly be preserved. Dr. Salmon
puts this in a quite convincing way : "A careful
12 THE GOSPELS.
examination brings out the fact that the likeness
between the synoptic gospels is not confined to agree-
ment in the way of telling separate stories, but
extends also to the order of arranging them. Take,
for instance, the agreement between Matthew and
Mark as to the place in which they tell the death
of John the Baptist (Matt. xiv. 1 ; Mark vi. 14).
They relate that when Herod heard of the fame of
Jesus he was perplexed who He must be, and said to
his servants, " This is John whom I beheaded." And
then, in order to explain this speech, the two evan-
gelists go back in their narrative to relate the beheading
of John. Their agreement in this deviation from the
natural chronological order can scarcely be explained
except by supposing either that one Evangelist copied
from the other, or both from a common source." *
But supposing that our gospels depend on some
precedent written gospel, can we form any idea of
the character of this pristine document ? Strenuous
attempts to do so have been made by many scholars.
Most strenuous of all is perhaps the attempt recently
made by Dr. Abbott,t who passes his pen through
all that is not common to the three synoptists, and
offers us the residuum as the closest approximation
we possess to the original narrative from which each
of the three was derived. The "triple tradition"
thus eliminated, and showing the matter common to
the synoptics, has the appearance of notes or catch-
words, abrupt, broken, elliptical. It forms neither
* Introduction, 164. Of. also Meyer, Introd. to Matthew,
and Holtzmann, Syn. Ev,, 60.
f Encyo. Brit., Art, " Gospels."
THE TRIPLE TRADITION. 13
a grammatically coherent narrative nor a complete
gospel. But, Dr. Abbott asks, " Is it not possible
that the condensed narrative which we can pick out
of the three synoptic records represents the ' elliptical
style' of the earliest gospel notes or memoirs, which
needed to be ' expanded' before they could be used
for the purposes of teaching, and which might natu-
rally be expanded with various and somewhat diver-
gent amplifications?" * Dr. Abbott seems to overstep
the bounds of probability when he supposes that a
gospel in this elliptical style ever existed; but,
mechanical as his method is, he has done great service
in contributing to the establishment of the critical
conclusion that the original written gospel from which
ours were largely drawn was a gospel closely resembling
that of Mark, and containing the "triple tradition."
The approximation of Mark to the original written
gospel is one of the most generally accepted findings
of modern criticism. It has been shown almost to
demonstration by Holtzmann, and scholars like Sanday
and Salmon agree in this particular with him. Salmon
concludes his very instructive discussion with affirming
his belief that "all drew from a common source, which
however is represented with most verbal exactness in
St. Mark's version. 1 'f
The two theories which may at present be said to
hold the field are those of Holtzmann and Weiss.
Holtzmann's opinion is that our gospels were preceded
by two documents which are. now lost as separate
* The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, p. xi.
f Dr. Bruce also (Presb. Rev., Oct., 1884) holds that the
original gospel was a book somewhat like Mark.
14 THE GOSPELS.
documents, (1) the original Mark (Ur-Marcus, which
he denominates Quelle A), which fixed in writing a
general outline and some scenes of our Lord's life;
and (2) the Logia (Ur-Matthaus, Quelle A), or collec-
tion of our Lord's discourses compiled by Matthew.
Our canonical Mark is an edition of (1) without any
infusion of (2). Matthew and Luke availed themselves
of both (1) and (2), and also of other written and oral
sources. Weiss on the other hand fights hard for the
priority of Matthew. In his view the original gospel
was a Matthew which combined the Logia with a con-
siderable number of incidents. Then came Mark, who
combined with his recollections of Peter's preaching
as much of Matthew's discourses as would harmonise
with his plan. Next came our canonical Matthew
dependent on the two preceding gospels ; and finally
Luke.
It will therefore be apparent that the multifarious
and perplexed synoptical problem has gradually been
concentrating itself on two points the comparative
priority of Matthew and Mark, and the existence and
character of the Logia document.* In connection
with the Logia, it is yet in dispute whether Mark as
well as Matthew is indebted to it ; whether it is to
be found in its purest form in Matthew or in Luke ;
whether it was coloured by party feeling ; whether
it is itself a work of Matthew ; what exactly is the
significance el Papias' reference to the Logia compiled
* Holtzmann gives utterance to the general opinion of critics
when he says : "All things considered, the Double-source
Hypothesis offers the most probable solution of the Synoptic
Problem."
MATTHEW. 15
by Matthew.* In comparing the priority of Mark
with that of Matthew, it must be kept in view that
even although it be demonstrated that Mark is a
closer approximation to the original common source
than Matthew, this does not prove that Mark's gospel
is actually of an earlier date. And the critical ques-
tion at present concerns not so much the date as the
natural order of the gospels, their closeness to or
remoteness from the primitive source. When these
points are determined there will be hope of a per-
manent and satisfactory solution of the synoptical
problem.
ST. MATTHEW.
Although not expressly ascribed to Matthew until
towards the close of the second century, our first
gospel was quoted and used in the sub-apostolic agef
(A.D. 90 120), and was never ascribed to any one
else than the Apostle whose name it bears. The name
of Matthew (probably a contraction of Mat^athias,
Gift of God, Theodore), occurs in the four lists of the
Apostles : Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts
i. 13. He is usually identified with Levi, for what
is in the first gospel (ix. 9) related of Matthew is
in Mark (ii. 14) and Luke (v. 27) told of Levi. To
change the name on some life-changing occasion was
not uncommon, and Levi may have taken the name
of Matthew at his call ; or, as is rather implied in the
* Adherents of various opinions on these points are regis-
tered in Holtzmann, Einl. t 355.
f Used by the Gnostics Carpocrates and Cerinthus ; quoted
by Barrabas.
16 THE GOSPELS.
first gospel, he may have had it earlier, to distinguish
him from the many others called Levi. Neither Mark
nor Luke, however, intimates that he whose name
appears in their Apostolic lists as Matthew is the same
person as the Levi whose call they have related. It
has been accepted as evidence of Matthew's humility
that he adds to his name the opprobrious designation,
" the publican," which is omitted by the other Evan-
gelists. He also puts his own name after that of
his companion, Thomas, though the others name him
first. According to Mark (ii. 14) Levi was the son
of Alphseus, and hence some have concluded that he
was a brother of James the Little and a relative of
Jesus.* When called to follow Christ, Matthew was
a collector of customs in Capernaum, and although
the same odium may not have attached to the
publicans serving under Herod as to those who
directly served and symbolized the Roman empire,
the occupation was certainly in any case odious. His
presence in the Apostolic circle was the permanent
sign of the all-embracing openness of Christ's kingdom
(Matt. ix. 11 13), while the requirements of his
occupation may have trained his powers of observa-
tion, his use of the pen and of the Greek language,
and have given him other qualifications of an
Evangelist.t Of the Apostolic labours of Matthew
nothing is certainly known. Tradition has sent him
to all known and some unknown countries. He
* So Luther, " He was a relative of Jesus."
f Luther says he deserves Vespasian's epitaph, "The best
Tax-gatherer," as he brought in to God and the Saviour human
toll.
MATTHEW. 17
appears to have lived an ascetic life (ix. 15 is illus-
trated by this fact), sustaining himself on nuts,
berries, and vegetables, and to have died a natural
death.
But the unhesitating use of the first gospel by the
early Church as the work of Matthew is somewhat
complicated by the equally constant tradition that
Matthew wrote in Hebrew.* Eusebiusf quotes Papias,
a Phrygian bishop, who died in A.D. 164, as giving
a circumstantial account of the work of Matthew :
" Matthew," says Papias, " compiled the oracles (Aoyta)
in the Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them as
he was able." In this account he is followed by
Irenseus, who adds that the gospel was composed while
Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. But an
examination of our gospel discloses that our Greek
gospel is not a translation. This is proved, not by
the plays of words (xxi. 41; vi. 16; xxiv. 30), nor by
the interpretation of Hebrew words and sayings
(i. 23 ; xxvii. 33, 46), for these a translator, anxious
to retain significant words of the original, might have
interpolated ; but explanations of customs peculiar to
Palestine (xxvii. 15; xxviii. 15; Tnrii- 23), and which
seem to be a substantive part of the narrative, indicate
that the gospel was intended to be read where Jewish
customs were not known ; and, above all, a comparison
of the passages in which this gospel coincides with
Mark and Luke discloses that its author was using
a Greek source. That our gospel is not a translation
* That is, Aramaic ; see Studio, Biblica.
f Hist. Eccl. t iii. 39.
2
18 THE GOSPELS.
but an original may be accepted as one of the ascer-
tained conclusions of criticism.*
Is it possible to reconcile this conclusion with the
constant tradition regarding the Aramaic original ?
A very common opinion is that Papias was mistaken.
He may have seen or heard of a translation of this
gospel into Aramaic, which he took for the original
(so Luther and Tischendorf). Or there may have
been neither original nor translation of this gospel
in Aramaic, and the only Gospel of Matthew is the
Greek gospel we now have. Professor Salmon puts
the alternative rigorously :f " We must choose be-
tween the two hypotheses, a Greek original of St.
Matthew, or a lost Hebrew original with a translation
by an unknown author. Or rather, since our Greek
gospel bears marks of not being a mere translation,
we must choose between the hypotheses that we have
in the Greek the gospel as written by Matthew him-
self, or the gospel as written by an unknown writer
who used as his principal materials an Aramaic
writing by St. Matthew which has now perished."
Dr. Salmon himself adopts the former alternative ;
but Dr. Westcott J accepts the latter. He believes in
a Hebrew original from the hand of Matthew, and
a subsequent Greek edition, a representative rather
than a translation of the original, by an unknown
hand. Godet is more definite, and affirms that Papias
* " The Greek original of the first gospel is now absolutely
assured," Holtzmann, 367. "Hardly any one now believes
that this gospel was written in Hebrew " (Keim, i. 77).
f Introd. to New Testament, 202.
j Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 224.
Godet, New Testament Studies, p. 20.
MATTHEW. 19
meant that Matthew compiled in Aramaic the Dis-
courses of the Lord, and that a little later some
coadjutor of Matthew, who had helped him in evan-
gelizing, translated these discourses into Greek and
added material from the current tradition so as to
complete an evangelical narrative. Nicholson,* whose
researches have not received the attention they deserve,
maintains that our gospel, though evidently not a
translation of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews,"
is from the same hand, and that the hand of Matthew.
Others, though they do not identify Matthew's Aramaic
with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, accept
Papias* statement that Matthew did write an Aramaic
Scripture of some kind; and that as it attained an
increasing circulation among those who were more
familiar with Greek than with Aramaic, Matthew
himself met this demand for a Greek gospel by com-
posing what is now in our hands, and what from the
second century has been cited under his name.
It is, however, satisfactory to find that even the
critics who deny the Apostolic authorship of the first
gospel admit that it attained its present form during
the Apostolic age.f Of convincing evidence against
the Apostolic authorship there is none. Some critics
find it difficult to believe that Matthew could have
spoken of himself in the terms used in this gospel
(ix. 9). They think the expressions of time are too
indefinite for an eye-witness to use, and that some
remarkable events are omitted and some imperfectly
* Gospel according to the Hebrews (London : 1879).
f Thus Keim (i. 73) says : " The book and not only its
source was written about the year A.D. 66."
20 THE GOSPELS.
described. Inaccuracies (xxvi. 17 19) and exaggera-
tions of the miraculous (xxvii. 52, 53) are also
charged against the Evangelist. The selection and
grouping of material, and in general the artistic
character of the gospel is thought to belong more to
the second generation, the age of reflection, than to
the first, the age of mere recipiency of fact. But this
is precarious and unsubstantial criticism.* That the
gospel was not written for some years after the events
it describes is apparent from express allusion to the
lapse of a considerable interval of time (xxvii. 8 ;
xxviii. 15). On the other hand there are clear
indications that it was written before the destruction
of Jerusalem, and even before the war broke out in
the year 66. After this date Jerusalem would scarcely
have been spoken of as " the holy city " (iv. 5 ; cf .
v. 35, etc.). The predictions of Jesus in chap. xxiv.
which were not fulfilled in the sense that lies on the
surface, would scarcely have been set down without
a word of explanation after that unexpected fulfilment.
And the warning, " whoso readeth, let him under-
stand," interjected by the Evangelist into the Lord's
discourse (xxiv. 15), is proof that the outbreak of the
war, though imminent, was not yet present.t
Written primarily for Jewish readers, the first
gospel was evidently meant to exhibit Jesus as the
* Eenan (Les Evangiles, 197) and others find evidence of a
later date in the use of the word " Church " (xvi. 18 ; xviii. 17)
and in the developed Trinitarian formula of baptism (xxviii.
19).
t Mark also has this expression, so that it probably came
from the first recorder of the discourse. But these Evangelists
would not have inserted it after the catastrophe.
MATTHEW. 21
Messiah, the Anointed of God to fulfil all God's pur-
pose among men, the King for whom the Israelitish
heart had been trained to long, and by whom the true
theocracy, the "kingdom of heaven," is actually in-
augurated. It is fittingly placed next to the Old
Testament, not because it was the earliest contribution
to the New for it was not that but because it
resumes and completes each strand of the former
revelation. The long and chequered history related
in the Old Testament finds its consummation and
significance in the life of Jesus. All the hints, fore-
shadowings, and predictions of the true King are
realised in Him of whom the Father at last says, " This
is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." The
promises made to the father of all believers are ful-
filled in this seed of Abraham through whom blessing
comes to all nations. The law which had seemed too
high for human weakness is re-issued in a more pene-
trating form and is also fulfilled. The motto of the
life of Jesus as read and rendered by Matthew is " I
am come to fulfil " (v. 17). The stages in the history
are marked with this design : " that it might be ful-
filled which was spoken by the prophet."
The plan of the book subserves this purpose. It
opens with the register which proves Jesus to be the
heir of David and of Abraham, appearing in the ful-
ness of time after thrice fourteen generations. Reir
of Abraham, through whom all nations are to be
blessed, this Babe, born King of the Jews, is hailed
by the Wise Men from the East. But as this King is
to reign not by bare hereditary right nor by force, but
by sympathy and the supremacy which absolute self-
22 THE GOSPELS.
sacrifice gives, His path is one not of regal splendour but
of hazard and obscurity (chap. ii.). His proclamation
too at baptism carries with it the necessity of tempta-
tion in the wilderness, for the true King can rule only
by rejecting all false ideas of glory and by personally
overcoming the temptations which enthrall His weaker
fellows (iii. iv. 11). The proclamation of the kingdom
heralded by John is then taken up by Jesus, who pro-
ceeds to its actual establishment (iv. 12 17), and for
this purpose selects suitable followers (18 22), and
begins His teaching and healing (23 25). The body of
the book falls into two parts, iv. 1 7 xvi. 20 and xvi.
21 end, each part opening with the words, " From
that time Jesus began." These two main divisions
correspond on the whole to the two chief aspects of the
Messiah as the righteous beneficent King, " God with
us," and as the Man of sorrows. Though not mutually
exclusive, the first part exhibits Jesus as bringing
fulness of life and righteousness, while the second
part exhibits Him preparing His disciples for His
death, warning the people against rejecting Him,
entering Jerusalem as king, and therefore led to His
throne on the cross. The gospel culminates in the
transfiguration, when the representatives of the Old
Testament resign to Him their mediatorial functions.
Or the turning point may be found in the preceding
chapter (xvi.) when through unbelief , doubt, rejection,
spiteful usage at the hands of rulers and people,
Peter's confession rises clear and decided.
Some detect the aitistic finish of this gospel in its
three temptations (iv. 1 11), three paroxysms in
Gethsemane (xxvi. 39, 42, 44) ; seven parables (xiii.) ;
MATTHEW. 23
ten miracles (viii. 2 ix. 34), and so forth ; but the
careful reader will rather detect it in the relevancy
of each paragraph to the main theme. Kenan, though
he pronounces Mark to be the only authentic docu-
ment for the facts of the life of Jesus finds in the
discourses preserved by Matthew a value so great as
to make it " the most important book of Christendom,
the most important book which has ever been
written."*
The unity of the gospel has been denied (1) on the
ground that Papias referred to Matthew only the
collection and publication of the discourses of Jesus.t
This is a misunderstanding of the word Aoyia used by
Papias,t which does not exclude the narration of deeds,
and probably was used as equivalent to " scriptures."
(2) It is aifirmed that both strict and liberal Jewish
Christianity are represented in the gospel, the one in
such passages as v. 17 19 ; xxiii. 3; xix. 28, and in
the assertion of the exclusive mission of the Messiah
to the Jews x. 5, 6 ; xv. 24 ; the other in passages
where the exclusion of the Jews and the ingathering
of the Gentiles are foretold (xxi. 43), in the visit of
the Magi, the words to the centurion (viii. 10 12),
and the commission to preach to all nations. But as
Farrar || says : "The answer is simple. The asserted
* Leg Evangiles, p. 212.
f Schleiermacher, Holtzmann.
\ Lightfoot, in Contemporary Review, August, 1875.
Keim (i. 81) refutes this assault on the unity of Matthew,
and concludes "we decidedly reject a theory which, in its
mechanical platitude, gives a mortal wound to the organic life
of this gospel."
<>f flic 7?w7'- p , HI
24 TEE GOSPELS.
discrepancy lay in facts which found their synthesis
in wider truths. Jesus was both the Messiah of the
Jews and the Saviour of the world. He came to
the Jew first, and afterwards to the Gentile. The
Evangelist was a Jewish Christian, but he could not
suppress, nor did he desire to suppress, facts and words
which belonged to an order of thoughts infinitely
wider than that in which he had been trained." (3)
It has been pointed out that quotations of the Old
Testament in this gospel are sometimes taken from
the Hebrew, sometimes from the LXX. But of these
quotations, even after Massebieau's IZxamen, no satis-
factory account can be given, and certainly they do not
form a safe test for separating part from part of this
gospel.
ST. MARK.
Tradition uniformly ascribed the second gospel to
Mark. The first extant account of its composition is
preserved by Eusebius (iii. 39) who quotes from
Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis in the first half of the
second century) the following words : " This too the
presbyter [John, contemporary of Apostles] used to
say : Mark having become the interpreter * of Peter
* 'EpnTjvtvrfa, sometimes supposed to imply that Mark trans-
lated Peter's addresses into Latin for the sake of the Romans ;
sometimes that he acted as secretary (to Peter) aiding him
in the composition of letters and so forth. From the passage
quoted above, it can only be gathered that Mark in this parti-
cular instance became the interpreter of Peter by putting in
writing words of his which otherwise would have been lost.
MARK. 25
wrote with accuracy, though not in order, whatever
he remembered of the things which had been either
said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the
Lord nor accompanied Him but afterwards, as I said,
[accompanied] Peter, who used to suit his teaching to
[his hearers'] needs, but not as if giving an orderly
account of the Lord's words ; so that Mark in writing
down in this fashion the individual things which he
remembered, made no mistake; for of one thing he
made sure, that he neither omitted nor falsified any-
thing." The connection of Mark with Peter, implied
in this passage, is taken for granted by Justin Martyr
who quotes the second gospel under the title of the
" Reminiscences of Peter." [Dial. c. T., 106].* Irenaeus
(iii. 1, 1) adds a little to the tradition, saying,
"After the decease [of Peter and Paul] Mark, the
disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also wrote
and handed on to us what Peter had preached." And
Clement of Alexandria goes still a little further and
says that there was a tradition to the effect that Mark
wrote at the instigation of those who were in Rome
and had presumably heard Peter.
Now this tradition in many particulars suits both
what we know of Mark and what we know of the
second gospel. In the New Testament only one
person of the name is mentioned, the John Mark
of the Acts, whose Jewish name John is gradually
discarded so that he appears simply as " Mark " in
the epistles. That this Mark was from his early
years an ally of Peter's is apparent from the circum-
* That the avrov of Justin refers to Peter is admitted. See
Otto in loo.
26 THE GOSPELS.
stance that it was to his molher's house in Jerusalem
Peter most naturally betook himself when rescued
from prison (Acts xii. 12). Whether, as Farrar
suggests, this house may have been the scene of the
Last Supper and the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost,
we do not know, but certainly and this is more to our
present purpose, it was the home of Mark and the
natural resort of Peter.* We are not surprised then
to find Peter (1 Peter v. 13) speaking of his young
friend as "Marcus, my son," whether this be the
affectionate epithet of an older man, or implying that
Mark had been brought to Christ by Peter. It is
true that it is in connection with Paul, to whom he
was introduced by his cousin f Barnabas, Mark seems
to have been introduced to the life of an evangelist.
And notwithstanding his desertion of Paul and the
unfortunate rupture which this occasioned between
men who owed so much to one another as Paul and
Barnabas, it is still with Paul, commended and trusted
by him, that we find Mark in after years (Col. iv. 10 1
Philem. 24). But between his departure from Pan;
on his first tour and his presence with him in Rome,
there was ample time for his being in Babylon with
Peter (1 Peter v. 13) and for his accompanying him
as well as Barnabas in many journeys.
There is much also in the gospel itself which gives
verisimilitude to the tradition. Not only are there
* Weiss (Mnleitvng, p. 516), thinks the tradition of Mark's
authorship receives confirmation and an obscure passage of
the gospel becomes intelligible, if the young man of xiv. 51
was Mark, who had followed Jesus and the disciples out of his
house when they had eaten the supper.
f Col iv. 10 with Lightfoot's note.
MARK. 27
throughout it unquestionable evidences that the story
had been told by an eye-witness (see Characteristics,
I elow), but there is also evidence that this eye- witness
was Peter, * The Gospel really begins with his call ;
it culminates in his confession ; it closes with the
message of the risen Lord to " his disciples and to
Peter." At Capernaum it is Peter's house which is
the centre of operations, and those who accompany
Jesus are "Simon and those that were with him."
Various allusions and incidents are found in this
gospel alone f and some of these can most reasonably
be accounted for by the supposition that Peter was
the source of information (i. 35 38; xiii. 3). On
the other hand there is a significant suppression of
particulars connected with Peter which are related in
the other gospels (cf. vii. 17 with Matt. xv. 15;
vi. 47 51 with Matt. xiv. 2831 ; ix. 33 with Matt,
xvii. 2427; viii. 29, 30 with Matt. xvi. 1619).
These omissions are credited to the modesty of Peter ;
but this does not satisfactorily account for all of them,
and still less for the omission of incidents of which
Peter could have given a circumstantial account.
But this irregularity in the narrative is precisely
what Papias' account [John Presbyter's] of the origin
of the gospel would lead us to expect. For Mark
was not writing to Peter's dictation nor with Peter
sitting within questioning distance; he was writinj
from memory and himself striving to recall what he
* Note the oXiyov of i. 19 ; also the /t0t/3a\\otrae of the one
boat's crew, the KarapriZovTac of the other.
f For a full list of these see Dr. Lindsay's Comments : p.
6063.
28 THE GOSPELS.
had heard Peter preach to this and that audience or
relate to this or that inquirer as occasion demanded.
That the gospel was written for Gentile readers is
apparent from the explanation given of Hebrew or
Aramaic names and expressions, as of Boanerges, iii. 17;
Talitha cumi, v. 41 ; Corban, vii. 11 ; see also x. 46 ;
xiv. 36 ; xv. 22. Jewish customs are also explained
as in vii. 2, 3, 4, where " denied " (common in the
Greek) is explained by " unwashed," and the clause
is added " For the Pharisees and all the Jews except
they wash their hands oft eat not." (See also xiii. 3 ;
xiv. 12; xv. 42.) The genealogy of Jesus is also
omitted as having no interest for Gentile readers.
The Old Testament is only once quoted by the Evan-
gelist in his own narrative, and the law is not men-
tioned. From his reducing money to Roman currency
(xii. 42, " two mites, which make a quadrans "), speak-
ing of Pilate as if his readers would know who was
meant (xv. 1), and from his frequent Latinisms*it
has been, with much plausibility, concluded that it
was written in Rome.
A definite date can scarcely be assigned to this
gospel. But though Keim would bring it down to the
year 100 A.D. the general tendency of modern criti-
cism is to place it very early. Those who consider
Matthew and Luke to be expansions of Mark are of
course compelled to find an early date for this gospel.
But this early date is also argued from " the rudeness
* Some of these he uses in common with the other evangelists,
KJ/vffog, \iyitjiv, KpafBftaTOQ, KodpdvrqG, 7rpairw/>ioj>, typayeXXovv:
peculiar to him are Ktvrup'uav, aTriKovXarup, JjEffrijj;, TO itcavov
MARK. 29
and even vulgarity of his Greek," and especially from
his blunt insertion of many expressions which are
liable to misconstruction or which might give offence
to weak believers, and which are consequently omitted
from the later gospels (as in vi. 5, " He was not able
to do there any mighty work ").* At the same time,
as Mark only wrote what he " remembered " of Peter's
narrations, we must place the gospel after the date of
Peter's death, or say about the year 67 or 68 A.D.
This, however, is uncertain.f
The most striking literary characteristic of the
second gospel is its picturesqueness. The narrative is
full of realistic and graphic details which have the
effect of a picture.:}: The expression of face, the
bearing, the gestures of Jesus are described as if by
one who had them imprinted on his own memory.
Thus we are told how Jesus " looked round about on "
His hearers (iii. 5 and 34; cf. also v. 32; vi. 41; x. 23;
xi. 11); how He "turned round " on Peter, viii. 33;
how He " took a little child in His arms," ix. 36, took
up other children and put His hands on them, x. 16.
This fulness of concrete detail extends to the descrip-
tions given of His cures ; he put His fingers in the
ears of the deaf mute, spat, and touched his tongue,
vii. 33. So clearly does the narrator see what he
describes that he frequently drops into the present
tense, i. 40 ; ii. 10, etc., and gives the Lord's words in
* Article " Gospels," Encyc. Brit.
f The tradition recorded by Clement of Alexandria implies
that Peter was yet alive when the gospel was written.
J " It seeks to present not a chronological or pragmatical
history, but a picture of the public life of Jesus." Weiss,
p. 500.
30 THE GOSPELS.
direct rather than in indirect narration, " Peace, be
still," iv. 39 ; cf. also v. 8 ; v. 12 ; vi. 31 ; ix. 25. The
time and place are exactly specified ; Jesus betakes
Himself to a desert place " a great while before day "
(i. 35) ; He embarked to cross the sea of Galilee
" when even was come " (iv. 35) ; He went forth " by
the sea side " ii. 13 ; iv. 1 ; the centurion " stood over
against him," xv. 39 ;" they saw a young man sitting
on the right side" xvi. 5. Perhaps it is the same
pictorial gift rather than any design which leads the
writer so often to vivify his story by noting the feel-
ings with which the Lord was affected by what was
passing; how He " grieved " (iii. 5), " sighed " (vii. 34;
viii. 12), "wondered" (vi. 6), was "angry" (iii. 5;
x. 14), "hungered" (xi. 12), felt fatigue (vi. 31),
slept (iv. 38).
An important element in this life-like picture is
the description of the effects produced on the people
by what they saw and heard. The superficial popu-
larity is constantly kept in view. The people " pressed
upon Him," " thronged Him " so that He had to enter
a boat ; so that there was " no room even about the
doors" of Simon's house; so that He had once and
again to seek leisure by retreating to a desert place.
There were so many coming and going that Jesus and
His disciples had not leisure " so much as to eat
bread " (the touch surely of one who was present,
cf. ii, 2 ; iii. 10, 20 ; v. 21 ; vi. 31, 33, etc.). But
deeper effects are also recorded. The greatness of
Jesus is reflected in the "awe and wonder" of tha
people (i. 22, 27; ii. 12; vi. 2), in the "fear" and
" amazement " of the disciples (iv. 41 ; vi. 51), in tho
MARK. 31
wonder excited by His teaching as well as by His
deeds (x. 24, 26, 32).*
This pictorial power admirably serves the purpose
of the Evangelist, who writes in no special dogmatic,
interest but aims at presenting to the Roman mind
the actual personality and power of Christ, the verit-
able things He did and said, the effects produced on
the various classes of society. f The plan of the
gospel is the simplest possible. It proceeds on the
idea of showing the gradual expansion of the field
of Christ's activity, and the consequently increasing-
enthusiasm and faith of the masses over against the
steadily deepening hostility of the scribes, Pharisees,
and Herodians (iii. 6 ; xii. 13). Incidents which dis-
close the beginnings of this hostility are grouped in
ii. 1 iii. 6 ; and with ever-widening rings it at last
reaches the point of overflow as described in xi. 27
xii. 40. The retirement of Jesus from the presence
of these conflicting tides of feeling form a feature of
this gospel. Eleven of these retirements are men-
tioned. And they are mentioned to show the intensity
of the feeling on both sides and also the command of
the situation which Jesus throughout kept, not suffer-
ing the enthusiasm of the people to override His
purpose and precipitate Him into a merely earthly
kingdom, nor on the other hand yielding Himself to
* The concatenated rapidity of the sketch is illustrated by
the use of ev9ioj, straightway, forty-one times.
f It is a mistake to suppose Mark disregards the teaching
of Christ, and exhibits only His might in action. He intro-
duces Him as a teacher (i. 21), and more than once he gathers
specimens of His pregnant sayings (iv. 21 25; vii. 34; ix. 33
60). But cf. Westcott's Introd^l and Farrar's Messages, p. 57.
32 THE GOSPELS.
the hatred of the authorities before He had effectively
uttered His teaching and fixed Himself in the endur-
ing affection of some. Therefore alongside of the
popular enthusiasm runs a more silent but deeper
current of profound conviction. Out of the mass of
the people some receptive souls are drawn by a sense
of His teaching and a sense of His worth (iii. 34;
iv. 10) ; an inner circle of disciples who constantly ac-
company Him is chosen, and among these an inmost
trio, of which Peter is the most prominent member,
is trained.
The concluding verses of the gospel (xvi. 9 20)
are generally regarded as an appendix by an unknown
hand. The best textual critics * reject them. They
are not found in the Sinaitic MS., nor in the Vatican. t
The internal evidence is strongly against their recep-
tion. The repetition of " early" (ver. 9, cf. ver. 2) is
needless ; the word for " week " is never elsewhere
used by Mark ; the addition " out of whom He cast
seven devils," to Mary Magdalene's name is quite
unaccountable, as she has been already named in this
chapter as well as previously in the gospel ; '* the
Lord " occurs twice in these few verses, never else-
where in Mark ; other words and constructions occur-
ring in this passage are unknown to Mark. The
promises made to believers and the general character
of the paragraph are suspicious. There is, however,
* Tregelles, Meyer, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and
others.
f But some doubt hangs over the testimony of these MSS.
in this passage. See the critical editions and Salmon's argu-
ment in favour of the present ending of Mark (Introd., 190-3).
LUKE. 33
a difficulty in removing these verses, for, if removed,
they leave the gospel terminating with the words
tyofiovvTo yap ; and as Dr. Abbott says, " from a
literary point of view the yap, and from a moral point
of view the ill-omened tyofiovvro, make it almost
incredible that these words represent a deliberate
termination assigned by an author to a composition
of his own." He accordingly supposes that as the
common (triple) tradition ended here Mark shrank
from adding anything to it. Certainly the conjecture
that a leaf has been torn off must be discarded. Torn
off when? Before any copy of the autograph had
been made ? Then Mark could readily supply it in
the original MS. Torn off after copies were made?
Then the original paragraphs were already multiplied,
and the loss of the one actual autograph was of no
importance. We can only say the termination has
somehow been tampered with,* and that the difficul-
ties connected with it have not yet been satisfactorily
solved.
ST. LUKE.
The earliest traces of the third gospel are analogous
to those of the second. It was quoted and used in
the first half of the second century t; expressly
ascribed to Luke, the companion of Paul, in the
* All that can be said in favour of the present ending may
be seen in Dean Burgon's Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark.
f Marcion, who taught at Rome 140 170, and Cerdo before
him, used Luke, and traces of its use are fotond in Basilides
(c. A.D. 120). It is also probable that Clement (80100 A.D.)
had seen it. For full discussion, see Godet on Lulte.
3
34 THE GOSPELS.
second half of the century. In the Muratorian Canon
it is described as the work of "Luke, a physician,
whom Paul received among his followers." Irenseus *
says that " Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a
book the gospel preached by him (Paul)." Tertullian
(adv. Marc., iv. 5) says that " Luke's digest is usually
ascribed to Paul"; and in the same passage he re-
minds Marcion that Luke's gospel from its first
publication (ab initio editionis sure) has had the con-
fidence of the Church. Origen f speaks of the Gospel
according to Luke as praised by Paul. And Eusebius,
without himself approving, refers to the common
belief that when Paul speaks of " my gospel " he
means the gospel of Luke.
There can be no doubt then that in the mind of the
early Church the person designated in the title of
this gospel as its author was the "beloved physician"
of Col. iv. 14, the "fellow-labourer" and faithful
friend of Paul (Philem. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11), who accom-
panied him to Rome and stood by him to the end.
From the manner in which Paul distinguishes him
from those of the circumcision (Col. iv. 11, 14) it
is generally concluded that he was of Gentile origin,
and there is nothing improbable in the assertion of
Eusebius that he was born in Antioch. He seems
* iii. 1, 1, and m xiv. 1 he calls Luke " inseparabilis a Paulo
et cooperarius ejus in Evangelic."
f Quoted in Eusebius, H. E., vi. 25.
j H. E., iii. 4.
Attempts to identify him with Lucius of Gyrene (Acts
xiii. 1), or with Silas (Silvanus, silva = lucus) proceed on
mistakes. Also the prologue of the gospel shows that its
authi r cannot have been one of the Seventy.
LUKE. 35
to have joined Paul at Troas (Acts xvi. 11, at which
point the " they " of the preceding narrative becomes
" we "), to have remained at Philippi when Paul had
to leave it, and to have been resumed into the
Apostle's company when, six or seven years after,
Paul returned to Philippi (Acts xx. 5) on his way
to Jerusalem for the last time. From this point
onward he seems to have continued in Paul's
company, and may, as Holtzmann suggests,* have
suffered with him in Rome.
That the contents of the gospel to some extent
corroborate this tradition is not denied. t But to
what extent this gospel can be said to be Pauline has
been very largely debated. A few modern critics
(Godet, New Testament Studies, p.. 44) adhere to the
traditional view that Luke's gospel is virtually Paul's.
Others (Reuss, History of New Testament, 209213)
minimise its Paulinism. Baur and Volkmar find it
to be a purely party book intended to exalt Paul and
combat Jewish Christianity. The more recent mem-
bers of the Tubingen school lean more to the idea
that it is meant to accomplish a reconcilement between
the Pauline and Jewish Christian parties in the
Church. (So Hilgenfeld and Holsten.) That the
gospel is not anti-Jewish is sufficiently evinced by
the scenes in the temple (i. and ii.) ; the reverence
of Jesus as " Son of David " (xviii. 38, etc), and as
* Die Synoptischen Evangelien, 376.
f Weiss (p. 654) thinks it mere " Spielerei " to find in iv. 38
and elsewhere indications of Luke's professional knowledge as
a physician j but see Hobart on the Medical La-nguage of St.
lake.
36 THE GOSPELS.
Theocratic king (xix. 38) ; the recognition of the prior
claims of the Jews (xiii. 16; xix. 9), and the refer-
ences to the fulfilment of Scripture (iv. 21 ; xxiv. 44).*
But to find in these passages and in the commendation
of poverty (vi. 20; xvi. 19), and of other ascetic
characteristics (vi. 35), evidence of a Judaizing bias,
is to run to an extreme. There is, however, on the
other hand much in the gospel which seems to indi-
cate that it was written by one who had been accus-
tomed to preach it to the Gentiles. There is the
significant announcement made by our Lord at the
commencement of His ministry (iv. 26, 27). There
is prominence given to the call to the Gentiles (xiii.
28, 30 ; cf. xxiv. 47.) ; and not only is importance
attached to Christ's ministry in Samaria (ix. 52 ;
xvii. 1 1 ), but the somewhat adulterated Jewish resent-
ment against the Samaritans is vehemently rebuked
(ix. 55, 56), and instances are cited in which Sama-
ritans showed themselves more appreciative of Christ's
kindness than Jews (xvii. 11 19), and more ready
to fulfil the law of love than even priest or Levite
(x. 30 33). In harmony with this deletion of the
distinction which sundered Jew from Gentile is the
grand universality of Christ's announcement of His
purpose in the world, "to seek and to save that which
is lost" inclusive of all men; and the memorable
* After citing these and other passages Reuss says, " After
this it is evident what is to be thought of the old idea of a
direct, even controlling, influence of the Apostle Paul upon
the editing of the third gospel, an idea for which the modern
Tubingen school has after all only invented a different
formula."
LUKE, 37
parables in which the Fatherly love and sense of loss
on God's part are set forth (xv. ; cf. Matt, xviii.
12 14), as well as the instances in which this love
is shown in actual operation, lifting up the humble
penitent and welcoming the almost hopeless, the
woman who was a sinner (vii. 36 50), Zacchseus,
the outcast publican who looked for nothing less than
that he should be invited (xix. 1 10), the publican
praying "afar off" (xviii. 10). The man who saw
the significance of these parables and incidents, and
out of the mass of material before him chose these for
their significance, certainly understood and sympa-
thized with the gospel of Paul.
Here again, however, we must beware of running
to an extreme, and finding Paulinism where there
is none;* as in the mission of the Seventy (x. 1),
which has been again and again used by critics t'
as proof of the strong Pauline bias of the writer.
Even Bleek says : " According to the later Jews
the number of the Gentile nations was seventy (or
seventy- two), according to the list of nations in
Gen. x. It is therefore very probable that, as the
twelve apostles represented the twelve tribes of
Israel, so the seventy disciples were intended to
represent other nations collectively; and Luke, in
mentioning them, intended to show that the Gentiles,
as well as the Jews, were to be sharers of the salvation
* For a comparison of Luke's account of the appearances
of the risen Lord with Paul's account (1 Cor. xv.) we must
refer to Holtzmann's great work, 2>ie Synoptischcn Evangelien,
p. 396.
t Strauss, Baur, etc.
38 THE GOSPELS.
which the Kingdom of God secured." Not a hint
of this is given in the narrative, and the Apostles
themselves are commissioned to preach to all nations
(xxiv. 47). The seventy were not sent to the
Gentiles, and were no more intended to represent
them than the seventy men who were appointed to
aid Moses in his work (Num. xi. 16).* Precarious
also is it to argue from Luke's recording the
ignorance and slowness of the twelve, that he
undervalued them (cf. ix. 45, 51 56 ; xviii. 34 ;
xxiv. 25, 3643; xxii. 32). But the result to
which an examination of the gospel leads is that
its writer was well acquainted with the views of
Paul and thoroughly sympathised with him, and
that this has not only coloured his phraseology, but
has occasionally determined his choice of material. f
The third gospel, then, is especially the gospel of
a " gratuitous and universal " salvation. J Paul's
tender and all-embracing heart finds here its stimulus
and justification. His extension of the gospel to
all and his doctrine of salvation by faith versus
works finds its basis and anticipation in the life and
* Eenan's idea is that Luke, by showing that others besides
the twelve had apostolic powers, meant to save the legitimacy
of Paul's apostolate (Evangiles, p. 171).
f For a full list of verbal analogies between Luke and
Paul see Davidson's Introd., 437. Holtzmann says: "The
Pauline standpoint of Luke regulates his choice and arrange-
ment of his material ; here and there also the verbal ex-
pression of the discourses, yet not as if a subjective tendency-
character took the place of an objective view of the history."
J Renan says : " Luke's boldest stroke in this respect is
the conversion of the thief on the cross."
LUKE. 39
work of Christ Himself. The gospel opens with
hymns to celebrate the salvation of the humble and
waiting souls, and it throughout exhibits Christ's
compassion for the poor, for women, for children, for
sinners. The Saviour is Himself born among the
houseless (ii. 7), and shepherds celebrate His birth
(ii. 8). His parents offer for Him the sacrifice of
the poor (ii. 24), and when He grew up He had
not where to lay His head (ix. 58). The poor
are " blessed " (vi. 20) ; the rich not by any means
necessarily happy (xvi. 25). Equally conspicuous is
the Evangelist's desire to show the relation of women
to the kingdom (v.iii. 3), and although it is difficult
to trace any plan in the gospel, the aim and idea of it
are everywhere apparent.* In the words of Arch-
deacon Farrar, it is " the gospel of the Greek and of the
future ; of catholicity of mind ; the gospel of hymns
and of prayers ; the gospel of the Saviour ; the
* " The keynote is struck in the song of Zacharias, and
repeated in the first sermon of Jesus in Nazareth. The
object of the message of Jesus is (i. 77) ' to give us knowledge
of salvation ' by ' the remission of sins,' by reason of ' the*
tender mercy of our God ; whereby the day spring from on
high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness,'
and the object of Jesus Himself (iv. 18) is 'to preach the
gospel to the poor,' to 'heal the broken-hearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the
blind.' All through the gospel (or at least the parts peculiar
to Luke) there appears to a greater degree than in the first
or second gospel the contrast between light and darkness,
God and Satan, sin and remission of sins, culminating in the
triumph of forgiveness and mercy ; so that in the very last
words of Jesus to His disciples (xxiv. 47) the proclamation
of ' repentance and remission of sins,' is made the prospect of
the future gospel to all nations."- -Encyc. Brit., 808.
40 THE GOSPELS.
gospel of the universality and gratuitousness of
salvation; the gospel of holy toleration; the gospel
of those whom the religious world regards as
heretics ; the gospel of the publican, and the outcast,
and the weeping Magdalene, and the crucified male-
factor, and of the Good Samaritan, and of the
Prodigal Son." Renan, though he considers that
this gospel is entangled with legend, and that its
historical value is less than that of Matthew and
Mark, declares it to be the most beautiful book ever
written, and exhausts his copious vocabulary in praise
of its largeheartedness and sweetness.
From the general character of Luke's gospel it
would naturally be inferred that it was written for
Gentiles. The brief preface written by the evangelist
himself confirms this inference so far as to show
us that the writer addressed it to " Theophilus " *
primarily for his own use, but, as the issue proves,
not exclusively so. Accordingly, topographical and
other references not likely to be understood except in
Palestine, are explained (see i. 26; iv. 31 ; xxi. 37;
xxii. 1, etc). Dates are fixed by the year of the
reigning emperor (iii. 1) ; the taxing under Quirinius
is mentioned (ii. 2) ; and Luke omits the scourging
and ill-usage which Jesus received at the hands of
the Roman soldiers. The same liking for the Roman
character and regard for the Roman government
* The only suggestion regarding Theophilus which seems
worth regarding is that of the Clementine Recognitions
(x. 71), which records that he was a man in great authority
at Antioch. This coincides with Eusebius' statement that
Luke was a man of Antioch.
LUKE. 41
appears in the Book of Acts. Where and when the
gospel was written are matters of conjecture. Its
date is partly determined by the date of its continua-
tion the Book of Acts. If this history of the early
Church was written prior to the year 70 A.D., then
the gospel must have been written still earlier. My
own opinion is that the Book of Acts was written
about the year 64, and that the gospel was written
not long before, possibly while Paul was detained in
Csesarea. Kenan, with little exaggeration, says that
every one admits that the gospsl was written after
A.D. 70.* But the grounds of this common belief
are not altogether safe to build on. They are stated
most fully by Dr. Abbott f as follows : " (1) thepre-
existence and implied failure of many * attempts ' to
set forth continuous narratives of the things ' surely
believed;' (2) the mention of the 'tradition of the
eye-witnesses and ministers of the word ' as past, not
as present (Trape'Soo-av) (i. 2) ; (3) the dedication of
the gospel to a man of rank (fictitious or otherwise),
who is supposed to have been ' catechised ' in
Christian truth ; (4) the attempt at literary style
and at improvement of the 'usus ecclesiasticus '
of the common tradition; (5) the composition of
something like the commencement of a Christian
hymnology ; (6) the development of the genealogy
and the higher tone of the narrative of the incarna-
* Hilgenfeld dates it 100110 ; Keim about 90 ; Meyer,
Bleek, Reuss, after 70. Weiss puts it between 70 and 80,
inferring this date chiefly from the wording of the prediction
xix. 43, which he thinks plainly Ex evcntu.
\ Encyc. Brit., Art. " Gospels," p. 813.
42 THE GOSPELS.
tion ; (7) the insertion of many passages mentioning
our Lord as 6 /cvpios, not in address but in narrative ;
(8) the distinction, more clearly drawn, between the
fall of Jerusalem and the final coming; (9) the
detailed prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, implying
reminiscences of its fulfilment ; (10) the very great
development of the manifestations of Jesus after the
resurrection. The inference from all this evidence
would be that Luke was not written till about 80 A.D.
at earliest." Of these arguments (5), (6) and (10)
imply a theory of the growth of legend which we
cannot accept; and besides, (6) and (10) might, with
equal plausibility, be used to prove the late date of
Romans and 1 Corinthians. Arguments (1), (2), (3),
(4) and (7) do not require a date later than the year
60. The only arguments of real weight are those
drawn from the wording of our Lord's predictions.
There is no question that Luke speaks more definitely
of a siege and of some of its results than Matthew
and Mark. But on the other hand, had the pre-
diction been modified by Luke's knowledge of the
event, could he have inserted such a verse as xxi. 27 ;
and could he, had he been writing after the de-
struction of Jerusalem, have so tranquilly closed his
gospel, leaving the disciples in the Temple ? But,
after all, the main thing is that whether written
before or after 70, it was written, as Renan, Weiss,
and Holtzmann cordially allow, by Paul's companion,
Luke.
43
ST. JOHN.
The authorship of the fourth gospel has been hotly
contested. In ancient times its genuineness was
denied by some persons whom Epiphanius* calls
" Alogi," a nickname which has the double meaning
of " deniers of the doctrine of the Logos " and " men
without reason." It is, however, generally admitted
that their rejection of the gospel is of no significance,
and so far from suggesting that the Church in general
rejected it, is rather an indication of the general recep-
tion of the gospel as Apostolic. " The fact that their
difficulty with the gospel was a doctrinal one, and that
they appealed to no tradition in favour of their view \
that they denied the Johannean authorship of the
Apocalypse likewise, and absurdly ascribed both books
to Cerinthus . . . shows that they were persons of
no critical judgment. "t In recent times, after the
frivolous assaults on the gospel by Evanson (1792)
and others, appeared Bretschneider's Probdbilia
(1820), in which all subsequent objections have been
anticipated either explicitly or in germ.
In considering the authorship of this gospel, the
external witnesses may first be called. It is not
questioned that the fourth gospel was accepted as
John's by the Church catholic in the last quarter of
the second century. The importance of this fact may
easily be under-estimated, and its significance missed.
* Hcer., 51.
f The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, by Ezra Abbot, D.D.,
LL.D., p. 18. See also Luthardt's St. John the Author of the
Fourth Gospel, E. T., c. ii.
44 THE GOSPELS.
But, as Mr. Norton, in his richly suggestive work on
the Genuineness of the Gospels, has pointed out, the
reception of the four canonical gospels at this date
can be accounted for only on the supposition that
they are genuine. The question of their genuineness
was not a merely literary question in which few were
interested; it was a question in which every Christian
had the deepest interest, as that on which his faith
rested ; and it is difficult to see how the whole Church
could have been persuaded to accept them, and espe-
cially a gospel such as the fourth, which so widely
differs from the others, unless there was a general
recognition that from the beginning these writings
had been known to be genuine. Mr. Norton's words
are worth quoting: "About the end of the second
century the gospels were reverenced as sacred books
by a community dispersed over the world, composed
of men of different nations and languages. There
were, to say the least, 60,000 copies of them in
existence; they were read in the churches of Chris-
tians ; they were continually quoted and appealed
to, as of the highest authority; their reputation
was as well established among believers from one
end of the Christian community to the other as
it is at the present day among Christians in any
country. But it is asserted that before that period
we find no trace of their existence ; and it is, there-
fore, inferred that they were not in common use, and
but little known, even if extant in their present
form. This reasoning is of the same kind as if one
were to say that the first mention of Egyptian Thebes
is in the time of Homer. He, indeed, describes it as
JOHN. 45
a city which poured a hundred armies from its hundred
gates ; but his is the first mention of it, and therefore
we have no reason to suppose, that, before his time,
it was a place of any considerable note." *
The first writer who cites the Gospel of John by
name is Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 A.D.). In his
Ad Autolycum (ii. 22) he has occasion to explain what
is meant by the Word of God, and appeals to " inspired
men, one of whom, John, says, ' In the beginning
was the Word,' " etc. A little earlier, in the Mura-
torian fragment, the first extant account of the com-
position of the gospel is found : " The fourth of the
gospels is by the disciple John. He was urged by
his fellow-disciples and bishops, and he said, ' Fast
with me this day, and for three days, and whatever
shall be revealed to any of us, lefc us relate it.' The
same night it was revealed to the Apostle Andrew
that John should write the whole in his own name
and that all the rest should revise it." A similar
tradition is preserved by Clement t of Alexandria and
by Epiphanius.j:
But although the fourth gospel is not cited as the
Gospel of John earlier than the year 180 A.D., there is
no doubt that it was in existence during the first half
of the second century. Justin Martyr, in his first
Apology, which was written not later than 147 A.D.
and probably earlier, so echoes the teaching of the
fourth gospel, and makes such use of its contents, and
cites words so closely resembling the words of the
* Vol. i. 123.
t See Eusebius, H.E., vi. H.
j Pa?iarium, llcer., li. 12.
46 THE GOSPELS.
gospel, that it is difficult to believe that he was not
acquainted with a document virtually the same as, if
not identical with, our fourth gospel. Dr. Ezra Abbot's
very elaborate and exact examination * of the allusions
and quotations in Justin amply justifies his conclusion
that " we are authorised to regard it as in the highest
degree probable, if not morally certain, that in the
time of Justin Martyr the fourth gospel was generally
received as the work of the Apostle John."
We can, however, trace the gospel further back
than Justin. Hippolyj-ap (Philosophumena or Refut,
Hcer., vii. 22), in giving an account of the opinions
of Basileides, who flourished at Alexandria about the
year 125 A.D., says, "'This,' says he (i.e. Basileides),
' is that whicfr Is^saia^nTthe Gospels, " That was the
true light which lighteth every man that cometh into
the world." ' The words are cited precisely as they
stand in the fourth gospel, and as they are not words
of Jesus, which might have been handed down through
some other channel, but words of the Evangelist him-
self, they prove that the gospel existed before the year
125. This conclusion some critics seek to evade by
maintaining that though Hippolytus seems to be
quoting Basileides with the formula " he says," he is,
in point of fact, rather quoting the followers of
Basileides, never being careful to distinguish between
the opinions of the head of a school and his disciples.
Any one who carefully examines the method of Hip-
polytus and the passages in question will agree with
Matthew Arnold in his reply to this objection : " It
* The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. External Evidences.
By Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D.
JOHN. 47
is true that the author of the Philosophumena (or
Refut. Hcer.) sometimes mixes up the opinions of the
master of a school with those of his followers, so that
it is difficult to distinguish between them. But if we
take all doubtful cases of the kind and compare them
with our present case, we shall find that it is not one
of them. It is not true that here, where the name
of Basileides has come just before, and where no
mention of his son or of his disciples has intervened
since, there is any such ambiguity as is found in other
cases. It is not true that the author of the Philo-
sophumena habitually wields the subjectless he says in
the random manner alleged with no other formula for
quotation both from the master and from his followers.
In general, he uses the formula according to them when
he quotes from the school, and the formula he says
when he gives the dicta of the master. And in this
particular case he manifestly quotes the dicta of
Basileides, and no one who had not a theory to serve
would ever dream of doubting it. Basileides, there-
fore, about the year 125 of our era, had before him
the fourth gospel." *
But this same writer Hippolytus gives an account
of heretical sects which preceded Basileides in point of
time, and which must therefore have well-nigh touched
the first century. These sects, the Naasseni and
Peratse, make large use of the fourth gospel, and
whoever will read the fifth book of the Philoso-
phumena will find it hard to believe that this gospel
did not exist, in one form or other, in the earliest
* God and the Bible, 268-9.
48 THE GOSPELS.
years of the second century. The question of the
authorship of the gospel is not settled by these
quotations, but the question of its existence is settled.
A document virtually identical with our fourth gospel
was freely used in the very beginning of the second
century. Add to this the testimony of Polycarp and
the chain of external evidence both to the existence and
to the authorship seems complete. For Polycarp,
who suffered martyrdom at the age of eighty-six (as
Mart. Polyc., ix., seems to mean),* in the year 155-6
A.D., must have been alive during the greater part
of John's residence in Asia, and used to speak to his
scholars of "the intercourse he had with John and
the rest of those who had seen the Lord " (Irenseus,
ad Florin., 2.) But Jrcn^eiug who assigns our fourth
gospel to John, was the pupil of Polycarp, and
" cannot, with any reason, be supposed to have
assigned to the fourth gospel the place which he
gives to it, unless he had received it with the sanction
of Polycarp. The person of Polycarp, the living sign
of the unity of the faith of the first and second
centuries, is in itself a sure proof of the apostolicity
of the gospel." f The evidence is not copious but it
is good in quality.
Dr. Sanday, who thinks that the external evidence
is not in itself sufficient to prove the Johannean
authorship, is perhaps the more inclined to make this
admission because he attaches quite decisive weight to
the internal evidence. This evidence may be exhibited
under the heads of proof that the writer of the gospel
* See Lightfoot in loc.
f Westcott, Gospel of St. John, Tntrod., xxx.
JOHN. 49
was : (1) ajew, (2) a Palestinian, (3) an eve-witnes^.
(4) John, the son of Zebedee.
l.That the writer was a Jew is apparent from
the Hebraistic style. Keim justly speaks of the
language as " a remarkable tissue of genuine Greek
lightness and skill, and of Hebrew forms of expression,
in all their directness, childishness, figurativeness, and
awkwardness." The style of thought is also Jewish :
a process of reasoning or argumentative discourse is
carried on by the juxtaposition of consecutive ideas
rather than by their rigid logical concatenation effected
by means of particles. There appears also not only
a familiarity with the Hebrew of the Old Testament
(xiii. 18; xix. 37), but also with specially Jewish
conceptions, such as that of the Messiah (i. 19 28 ;
iv. 25; vi. 14, 15; vii. passim, etc.), the relation of
Jews to Samaritans (iv. 9), the Rabbinical idea that
a teacher should not converse with a woman (iv. 27),
the connection of sin with affliction (ix. 2, 3). Surely
it is plain that no one but a Jew could have written
the seventh chapter.
Matthew Arnold * indeed maintains that the writer
speaks of the Jews and their usages as if they belonged
to another race from himself, to another world. " The
water- pots at Cana are set l after the manner of the
purifying of the Jews ; ' ' there arose a question
between some of John's disciples and a Jew about
purifying ; ' * now the Jews' passover was nigh at
hand ; ' ' they wound the body of Jesus in linen
clothes with spices, as the manner of the Jews is to
* God atul the Bible, p. 261.
60 THE GOSPELS.
bury ; ' ' there they laid Jesus because of the pre-
paration of the Jews.' No other evangelist speaks
in this manner. It seems almost impossible to think
that a Jew born and bred a man like the Apostle
John could ever have come to speak so. ... A Jew
talking of the Jews' passover, and of a dispute of some
of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying. It
is like an Englishman writing of the Derby as the
English peoples Derby, or talking of a dispute between
some of Mr. Cobden's disciples and an Englishman
about free trade. An Englishman would never speak
so." But, put as this is with characteristic deftness,
it is faulty criticism. An Englishman who had been
thirty years resident abroad, and who was writing for
foreigners, would use precisely such forms of expres-
sion. And, in point of fact, the evangelist Mark, who
wrote for Gentile readers, does adopt a similar style,
explaining to persons unfamiliar with Jewish ways,
customs familiar to himself.
2. That the author was a Palestinian appears from
his intimate acquaintance with the topography of
the country and of Jerusalem. The towns are men-
tioned " with some exact specification " added ; as,
Bethany, beyond Jordan; Bethsaida, the city of
Andrew and Peter (i. 44); ^Enon, near to 'Salim
(iii. 23) ; and so on.* He knows that the pool by the
sheep-gate in Jerusalem has five porches (v. 2) ; he is
familiar with the various arrangements and cloisters
* The supposed mistakes in topography, which Matthew
Arnold and the author of Supernatural Religion ridicule,
have turned out to be no mistakes at all, but only evidence of
minute knowledge of the country.
JOHN. 51
of the temple (viii. 20 ; x. 23), although, when he
wrote, the temple had been swept away ; he recalls the
Hebrew word " Gabbatha," which was used to denote
the tesselated pavement of the Roman magistrate.
In the sixth chapter he relates the movements of
Christ and the people as one who is familiar with
the locality.
. 3. The a"t%r wpsj a gyg-w'tne^ The description
given by an eye-witness is recognised by its circum-
stantiality and graphic detail. But as the author of
Supernatural Religion quite truly says,* "in the
works of imagination of which the world is full, and
the singular realism of many of which is recognised
by all, we have the most minute and natural details
of scenes which never occurred, and of conversations
which never took place, the actors in which never
actually existed." That is true and relevant, but
the critic should also have observed that no amount
of imagination can avail to depict correctly a real
person or place which has not been seen. Imagina-
tion cannot take the place of eyesight. Raphael
himself could not have painted the likeness of a man
he had not seen, nor would the imagination of a
Shakespeare serve him to describe accurately a scene
which had actually occurred, but which he had not
witnessed. He might describe a scene quite as true
to nature and as consistent with the characters of
the actors, but it would not be as true to fact. Now
John speaks of real places, of persons who actually
existed, and of events which actually happened.
* ii. 244.
52 THE GOSPELS.
And if in those instances in which we have the means
of checking his statements we find them true, it is a
reasonable conclusion that the graphic details with
which the narrative is filled out are due to the natural
reminiscences of an eye-witness, and are not the
picturesque adornment of a skilful writer of fiction
a branch of literature, it may be observed, which in
the first century was not in a high stage of develop-
ment. The immense stretch of corn land round
Sychar, the relative positions of the fishing villages
on the Sea of Galilee, the tesselated pavement on
which Pilate gave judgment, the temple arrangements,
and other details freely interwoven with his narra-
tive, could not be described from imagination, but
only from special knowledge. And finding that this
is so, we conclude that those other details which
cannot now be checked such as the mention of the
very time at which this and that occurred (i. 39 ;
iv. 6, etc.), or the naming of the individuals who
were present on such and such an occasion (i. 35 51 ;
vi. 5, etc.) are also due to the fact that the writer
was a witness of what he describes. And when to
this is added the express assertion of xix. 35 (cf. i. 14
and xxi. 24), we are confronted with the alternative,
either an eye-witness wrote this gospel, or a forger
whose genius for truth and for lying are alike in-
explicable.*
* One of the most convincing proofs that the gospel is the
work of an eye-witness is that given by Dr. Sanday : " Was
he a contemporary of our Lord and a member of the original
Christian circle ? There is one point especially which seems
to decide this that is, the way in which the conflict is
JOHN. 53
4. The author is the Apostle John. This is declared
in the close of the gospel, xxi. 24, where the author
indicates with sufficient clearness who he is, and
declares that he is not only the source of information,
but the actual writer of the gospel. The writer ex-
pressly claims to be "the disciple whom Jesus loved"
(xxi. 24, cf. 20), and our identification of this disciple
is limited by the list given in xxi. 2, But as it
appears from the synoptics that the disciples to whom
such a title could be given were Peter, James, and
John; and as the circumstances narrated in the
twenty -first chapter exclude Peter, James and John
remain as the only disciples who could be so desig-
nated. In the Book of Acts it is John who is found
in the same companionship with Peter as the beloved
disciple enjoyed in the fourth gospel; and besides,
James was so early removed that it is impossible that
he should be the author of this gospel. The reason-
able conclusion is that it was written by John the
Apostle.
To this conclusion there are objections, and some
of these are serious. 1. Attention is called to the
difference in thought and in language which is recog-
nisable between the fourth gospel and the Book of
Revelation. In the gospel the Greek is not of a high
literary quality, but it is correct, easy, and perspicu-
iescribed between the Jewish and Christian conception of
the Messiah. Only the first generation of Christians could
represent this accurately. The breach between the two con-
ceptions was soon so wide that it became impossible for a
writer to pass from the one to the other as easily and readily
as the fourth eyangelist has done." The whole passage should
be read, in Authorship of FowrtU Gospel, pp. 290-2.
54 THE GOSPELS.
ous. Its characteristic is its simplicity. " It is free
from solecisms because it avoids all idiomatic expres-
sions." In Revelation there are violations of the
commonest grammatical rules. But these cannot be
explained by the supposition that the writer was
ignorant of these rules, for in other passages he
observes them. " In the language of the Apocalypse
there is nothing of the bungling and happy-go-lucky
style of a beginner indeed, it bears the stamp of
consistency and purpose." That he should retain the
nominative case after a preposition in i. 4 while in
the same connection he gives the preposition its proper
governing power, shows that he wished to preserve
Christ's title in its exact form as an indeclinable proper
name.* Some difference in the style of the same author
is to be expected when the subjects he is handling are
different; and in the vocabulary used considerable
difference is necessitated. In the Revelation such
descriptions as occur in xxi. 19 21 require an ex-
pansion of the Evangelist's vocabulary ; but there are
passages in the book notably i. iii., and xxii. in
which both vocabulary and style remind us of the
fourth gospel. That ideas and words abound in the
one book in common with the other has been put
beyond question. In both Jesus is the Word and
the Lamb, though with a difference. In both He is
the First and the Last, the Light, the Giver of the
* Harnack (Imcyc. Brit., " Revelation ") says his purpose
was " to give to the words of his greeting a certain elevation
and solemnity. Of course only to a foreigner could it have
occurred to employ those means for this end." This is
doubtful.
JOHN. 55
water of life. " The remarkable word dA.r/0ivos occurs
nine times in the gospel, four times in the epistle,
ten times in the Revelation, and only five times in
all the rest of the New Testament. Similar evidence
may be drawn from the words ju,a/orupea> and /iaprupta
in all the Johannine books."*
It has, however, become a recognised axiom of the
newer criticism that not only the language but the
substance and mode of thought of the gospel and the
Apocalypse are so different as quite to preclude the
idea of their proceeding from one hand. This dis-
crepancy is no new discovery; indeed, it was never
more forcibly stated than by a writer of the third
century.t An English critic states the difference
thus : + " The Apocalypse is pervaded with the glow and
breathes the vehement and fierce spirit of the old
Hebrew prophecy, painting vividly to the mental eye,
but never appealing directly to the spiritual percep-
tion of the soul. When we turn to the fourth gospel
we find ourselves at once in another atmosphere of
thought, full of deep yearnings of the unseen and
eternal, ever soaring into a region which the imagery
of things visible cannot reach ; even in its descriptions
marked by a contemplative quietness, as if it looked
at things without from the retired depths of the soul
* Salmon, Introd., p. 279. Mr. Evans has published very
serviceable tables of similarities, one of them showing two
hundred verbal agreements between the two books. See his
St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel (1888).
f Dionysius, quoted by Eusebius, If. E., vii. 25. His con-
elusion was the reverse of that of modern criticism. He
rejected Revelation.
J Tayler's Fourth Gosvd, p. 10.
56 THE GOSPELS.
within. We at once recognise in the authors of the
Apocalypse and the gospel a genius essentially dis-
tinct." This difference weighs so heavily with many
critics that they declare it to be a psychological
impossibility that the same writer should have pro-
duced both books ; and as the Apocalypse is accepted
by modern criticism as the work of John, the gospel
is rejected.
But were we only to consider the versatility
possessed by some authors, we should shrink from
dogmatically affirming that the production by one
mind of two books so different as the Apocalypse
and the fourth gospel is a psychological impossibility.
And certainly the difference between these books has
been exaggerated. It will scarcely be denied nowadays
that they are identical in their theological ideas * in
the exaltation of Christ's person, in His redeeming
work and His sacrificial death, in the ingathering of
all nations. The imagery in the two books is also very
similar ; and as Canon Westcott has noticed, even the
plan or guiding conception of both is the same : " Both
present a view of a supreme conflict between the
powers of good and evil. ... In both books Christ
is the central figure. His victory is the end to which
history and vision lead as their consummation."
2. Again, attention is directed to the difference
between this gospel and the synoptists. The scene of
our Lord's ministry is in the synoptical gospels laid in
Galilee, while the fourth gospel places it in Judaea;
and many events and persons are introduced in this
* See Gebhardt's Doctrine of the Apocalypse.
JOHN. 57
gospel which are unknown to the others. This diffi-
culty, however, is insignificant in comparison to that
which is presented in the different personality that
appears in the fourth gospel. As Renan summarily
puts it, " If Jesus spoke as Matthew represents, He
could not have spoken as John represents." In the
synoptists we find a humble, genial Son of man ; in
John a self-asserting, controversial person, always
arguing out His own dignity, and making claims
which find no parallel in the synoptists. It is enough
in answer to this objection to point to Matt. xxv. 31,
where Jesus claims the highest prerogative, the supreme
judicial function; to Matt. xi. 27, where He claims
the same relation to the Father and the same know-
ledge of Him as the fourth gospel exhibits Him as
claiming. Other passages carry the same significance.
But, undoubtedly, there is a distinction between the
utterances of Jesus as reported by the synoptists, and
as reported by the author of the fourth gospel. In
the first three gospels the utterances of Jesus are
terse and epigrammatic ; in the fourth they are dis-
cursive and argumentative. No doubt there are
parables in the fourth gospel and epigrammatic say-
ings which would seem in place in any of the synop-
tics, as there are in the synoptics passages which
would amalgamate with the fourth gospel ; and this
must not be left out of sight. Nevertheless, the char-
acteristic difference undoubtedly remains. This con-
tinual preaching of Himself, the long argumentations
that follow every miracle, are, in M. Kenan's opinion,
insufferable alongside of the delicious sentences of the
synoptists. But does not Dean Chad wick's presenta-
58 THE GOSPELS.
tion of the case exhibit the reality when he says that
" without any gospel of John, we should divine that
He was interrupted, contradicted, brought to bay,
driven to the self-assertion which is pronounced so
strange " ? It is not unnatural, after all, that if Jesus
found Himself among bitter controversialists. He
should adopt for awhile that "intention of proving
a theme, and of convincing adversaries/' which is so
painful to M. Renan. "The time must have come
when the bearing of our Lord in set controversy
would be a subject of profound interest and importance,
and when a record such as John's ought to complete
the Apostolic memoirs." *
4. The most serious difficulty which attaches to the
fourth gospel as a faithful record of the words of
Jesus arises from the manner in which the writer
seems to mingle his own thoughts and words with
those of our Lord. The reported sayings of Jesus
have been so moulded by the writer that we are
not always sure whether we are reading the words of
the Lord or the words of his biographer (cf. iii. 18 21).
The words which purport to be spoken by the Baptist
are quite in the style common to the author of the
gospel and to Jesus (iii. 27 36). Impressed by this,
even so conservative a critic as Dr. Sanday says : "It
cannot, I think, be denied that the discourses are to
* " A Messiah should be many-sided. A teacher whose only
gift was that of ' admirable flashes ' ' the fine raillery of a man
of the world,' and even that ' peerless charm ' which St. John
is declared to want, would scarcely have survived the first
shock of solid opposition, to march in the van of nineteen
centuries with unwearied feet." Chad wick, Christ Searing
Witness to Himself, p. 64.
JOHN. 59
a certain extent unauthentic, but this is rather in
form and disposition than in matter and substance."
We may trust John in no case to have misrepresented
his master, and it need not trouble us if we cannot
in every case demonstrate that such and such
are the ipsissima verba of the Lord.* It was inevit-
able that in reporting in Greek what had been spoken
in Aramaic the style of the translator should be
visible. But there is no ground whatever for affirming
that the discourses are ideal compositions of the
Evangelist without basis in any utterances of Jesus.
4. Lastly, it is affirmed that John writes with an
object in view, to prove a certain proposition, and that
history written from such a standpoint cannot be
accepted as true history. Thus Keim says : " Who-
ever sees a historian begin with his philosophy, may
with good reason feel convinced that he has before
him a writer whose starting-point and deepest sym-
pathies consist in philosophic studies, whose study of
history is a philosophy of history, and who in impart-
ing it may adapt that which actually happened, not
always faithfully, to suit the point of view of his
exalted contemplation of the universe." As a repri-
mand administered to Keim's own school nothing could
be more relevant ; as applied to a writing such as the
fourth gospel it has no relevancy. John plainly
* The tables exhibiting differences in the vocabulary fouiid
in the Evangelist's narrative and in the reported words of our
Lord, which are published in Dr. Reynolds' Introduction to
the Gospel of St. John (Pulpit Com.) are valuable but mani-
festly do not prove that the discourses had not passed through
John's mind, Difference in style as well as in vocabulary must
be shown.
60 THE GOSPELS.
announces his aim, and undoubtedly selects the
material most suitable to his purpose, and may in
consequence give us an incomplete view of Christ ;
but it must be proved, instance by instance, that he
has misrepresented. As Godet points out : " Sallust
begins his history of Catiline with a philosophical dis-
sertation, but no one imagines on that account that
the narrative of the conspiracy is merely a romance
composed on that theme. It is not the fact which
has come out of the idea : on the contrary it is the
idea which has proceeded from the contemplation of
the fact." *
The purpose of the author in writing the fourth
gospel is declared by himself (xx. 31), "These are
written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God ; and that believing, ye might have
life through His name." This object he keeps in
view throughout, selecting from the life and words
of Christ that material which best forwards his design.
No composition in the whole compass of literature is
a more perfect unity. Each word has its own place
and helps out the plan. There is not a wasted clause,
nor one without significance from the first word to
the last. In the Prologue (L 1 14) the idea of the
whole is set before the reader. The history of the
Incarnate Word, and of the results of the Incarnation,
* Other difficulties cannot here be entered into. A clear
statement of the bearing of the Passover controversy on the
authorship of the fourth gospel will be found in Luthardt's
St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel ; Luthardt follows
Schiirer, De Controversiis Paschalibus (Leipzig : 1869) ; or in
Kahnis' Zeitschrift for 1870.
JOHN. 61
which he means to relate, is here given in essence and
in germ. The Word, the Being in whom is Life and
Light, who is God, and through whom God expresses
Himself, was made flesh and dwelt among men. John
was sent beforehand to prepare men for His coming,
and yet when He came to His own His own received
Him not. But some believed, and to them He gave
power to become the sons of God. The whole gospel
is but an extension of this idea, an exhibition of the
actual history of the manifestation of the Son of God,
and of the belief and unbelief with which this mani-
festation was met.
John writes to convince men that Jesus was the
Christ, the Son of God. He does not expect that
men will believe this stupendous truth on his mere
word. He sets himself to reproduce the life of Jesus
and to reproduce those salient features which gave
it its character. He believes that what convinced
him will convince others. One by one he cites his
witnesses. In the simplest language he tells us what
Christ said and what He did, and lets us hear what
this man and that man said of Him. He tells us how
the Baptist himself pure to asceticism, so pure and
holy and true as to command the veneration of all
classes in the community, assured the people that he
himself was not of the same world as Jesus that he
was of earth, Jesus from above. He tells us how
the incredulous but guileless Nathanael was convinced
of the supremacy of Jesus, and how the hesitating
Nicodemus was constrained to risk everything and
acknowledge Him. He cites witness after witness,
never garbling their testimony, but showing with
62 THE GOSPELS.
as exact truthfulness how unbelief grew and hardened
into opposition, as he tells us how faith grew till it
culminated in the explicit confession of Thomas, " My
Lord and my God." The miracles are related as the
works through which Christ manifested Himself, for
John looks upon the miracles as "signs," each of
them intended to exhibit in visible form some charac-
teristic of Christ's spiritual work. The turning point
of the gospel is in the twelfth chapter. In this
chapter it becomes evident that the manifestation of
Christ has wrought in some a deep belief in and
attachment to His person which makes it certain that
He will be remembered and adhered to ; His personal
friends, (1 8), the Jewish people (9 18), even the
Greeks (2023), recognise Him as of God. But at
the same time unbelief also comes to a head (10, 19,
37 42), and no more can be done to convince gain-
sayers. From this point it is the results of this
unbelief and faith that are shown.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
rpHAT the book named The Acts of the Apostles* is
-1- from the same hand as the third gospel is in-
ferred from the reference in the preface of the Acts to
a former treatise addressed to Theophilus by the same
writer, and from the characterisation of that former
treatise in terms descriptive of a gospel. This in-
ference is confirmed by the similarity of style which
the two works exhibit, and is universally accepted
as a legitimate conclusion, f All evidence therefore
which goes to prove that Luke was the author of the
third gospel is evidence also for his authorship of the
Acts; and in this latter book itself there is nothing
inconsistent with this conclusion, but rather some
peculiarities which confirm it. Chief among these are
what are known as the " we " sections, those passages
in the latter half of the book in which the writer
speaks in the first person. The first occurrence of
this peculiarity is in xvi. 10 "we endeavoured to
* Unfortunately so named, as only the acts of Peter and Paul
are recounted, while mention is also made of the acts of others
who were not Apostles.
f Renan, Les Apotres, p. 10, speaks of it as a conclusion
* iaquelle n'a jamais 6td serieusement contcstee."
64 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
go into Macedonia" (comp. v. 8); from which it is
inferred that the writer had joined Paul at Troas, and
continued with him till he left Philippi. The " we "
is not resumed until Paul returns to Philippi six or
or seven years after, chap. xx. 5, from which point it
is maintained till Paul's arrival in Jerusalem xxi. 18.
It again appears in the account of Paul's voyage,
chap, xxvii., and continues till his arrival in Rome
xxviii. 16. But as at Troas where the " we " first
appears, both Silas and Timothy were with Paul,
some have ascribed to the one and some to the other
the authorship of these sections. The claim of Silas
however is disposed of by the fact that in the incident
at Philippi he is spoken of in the third person
(xvi. 19 40); while the claim of Timothy* is incon-
sistent with the definite differentiation of the " we "
writer from Timothy in chap. xx. 4, 5. Against the
claim of Luke there is no such objection.
But admitting that the " we " sections were written
by Luke, or at any rate, by some companion of Paul,
does it necessarily follow that the whole book was
written by this same hand ? By no means, say the
Tubingen critics. Some unknown writer of the
second century used these memoranda of Paul's
journeys to eke out his other sources of information
and to serve his own purposes. That the account of
Paul's voyage was written by an eye-witness is too
obvious to be denied, and in general the circumstan-
tiality and vividness of the " we " sections guarantee
their authenticity; but this, it is said, only proves tho
* Asserted by Schleiermacher, De Wette, Bleek, and
especially Mayerhoff.
INTEGRITY. 65
early authorship of these sections, not of the entire
book. But this idea, that the author of the Acts
merely incorporated these sections into his book
without alteration, is given up, because further
investigation has put it beyond doubt that the same
peculiarities of style and diction are found in these
sections as in the remainder of the book. And those
who still maintain that the book was written in the
second century are placed in the awkward predica-
ment of being obliged to hold that the skilful literary
hand which is discernible throughout, incorporated
and re-wrote these sections so clumsily as not even to
alter the " we " of his sources into " they." This is
too much for literary critics like Renan, who frankly
declares that such an explanation is inadmissible,
and that although a ruder compiler would have left
the " we" unaltered, it is not possible to ascribe such
clumsiness to the writer of Acts. " We are therefore
irresistibly led to the conclusion that he who wrote
the latter part of the work wrote also the former 1 ,
and that the writer of the whole is he who says,
'we' in the sections alluded to."* But if the
integrity of the Acts is proved, then its authorship
may confidently be ascribed to Luke, for it is un-
questionably from the same hand as the third gospel,
and the earliest MSS. as well as tradition ascribe
this gospel to Luke, the companion of Paul, f
Other material, besides his own reminiscences, Luke
must have had, and of this material some small
* Renan, Les Apotres, xi., xii.
f Cross references proving the integrity of the Acts will be
found in Salmon's Introduction, p. 375.
5
66 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
proportion may have been documentary. It is
reasonable to suppose that missionaries and deputa-
tions would sometimes make written reports of their
work to the Church from which they held their
commission. Letters would necessarily pass between
the Churches, and the decisions of the several com-
munities would probably be preserved in writing.
"It cannot be supposed that when complaints had
risen in the Church of Jerusalem of unfairness in
the distribution of the common funds, and deacons
had been appointed for the purpose of removing this
ground of dissatisfaction, they would not be required
to furnish accounts of the moneys they had received
and the modes of distribution, which might be sub-
mitted to the Apostles and the Church at stated
periods. And if Matthew had been a tax-collector
we may be certain that these accounts would be
carefully prepared and scrutinised. The presentation
of these accounts would imply formal proceedings,
minutes of which would be kept ; for it would often
be requisite to refer to what had occurred at previous
meetings as a guide for future conduct." *
Weiss goes much further, and holds that the dis-
courses which appear in the early part of the book
were handed down in a written form. " Of course,"
he says (Bibl. TheoL, Eng. Transl., i 161), "these dis-
courses which the author did certainly not hear, and
which, from the nature of the case, could not well be
transmitted orally, could be only free compositions if,
in his first part, he had really used no kind of literary
* Sir Richard D. Hanson's Apostle Paul.
MATERIAL. 67
sources, but had simply related them according to
oral tradition, however trustworthy. When, however,
we consider the analogy of the gospel, which goes
back almost entirely upon written sources, this is
exceedingly unlikely." But Luke's preface to his
gospel would rather suggest that he had gathered
his information from a number of persons to whom
he had access, and who had themselves been eye-
witnesses of the events to be narrated, and accordingly
many critics believe that for the information conveyed
in the Acts, Luke was indebted to Peter himself,
James, John, Mark, Philip, and others.
The difficulty indeed is not in conceiving what
material lay to the hand of an author in composing
such a history, as in discovering what determined
his selection from the abundant material. It was
in 1798 that attention was called by Dr. Paulus * to
certain features of the book which seemed to him to
indicate that the writer aimed at clearing Paul from
the aspersions of the Judaists. Forty-three years
* In his programme entitled De consilio, quo scriptor in
Actis Ap. concinnandis ductus fut'rit, Sir Pdehard Hanson
advocates the view that the book is a Pauliad. " It will of
course be said that the work is obviously natural and spon-
taneous, that the author has no other object than to describe
the salient incidents in the history of the early Church, and
that he has simply selected those which commended them-
selves to his judgment for the purpose ; and it must be ad-
mitted that he does possess in an eminent degree that higher
art which knows how to assume the aspect of nature, keeping
itself out of sight. But if there were no such motive as we
have suggested [an advocacy of Paul], how does it happen
that the work contains no reference, even by implication, to
the dispute with Peter, or with any parties in the Church
68 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
afterwards Sckneckenburger * elaborated this idea,
and pointed out that in the first half of the book
Peter is represented as the forerunner of Paul, and as
foreshadowing his views, while in the latter half Paul
is represented as in many respects approximating to
Peter. Baur pushed the idea a little further and
endeavoured to prove that the object of this represen-
tation was conciliatory, that it was intended to draw
the Jewish and Gentile sections of the Church more
closely together.
Zeller accepts the theory of Baur that there was an
irreducible difference between the teaching of Paul
and that of Peter and the other original Apostles;
that this difference grew to such dimensions that
there were to all intents and purposes two Churches,
presenting antagonistic types of Christianity; that
subsequent to the Apostolic age sundry attempts were
made to heal this breach, and that the Acts of the
Apostles, written about the year 120, was one of the
most successful of these conciliatory efforts. It is
written by a Gentile Christian, and is intended to
make such concessions to Judaism as might be ex-
pected to purchase the good-will of Judaistic Christians.
The writer, therefore, represents Paul as being on
friendly terms with the Jerusalem Apostles, and as
appealing to them on the question of Gentile Christi-
itself, while Peter is made by his conduct to vindicate the
pretensions and practices of Paul in those very particulars in
which, they were most vehemently assailed. And how does it
happen that all the incidents worthy of description should be
associated exclusively with those individuals in the Church
who are afterwards brought into contact with Paul ? "
* Ueber Zden week dcr Ajjost.
AIM OF THE BOOK. 69
anity. Paul is also represented as on various occasions
observing the Jewish law, circumcising Timothy,
shaving his head, and observing the Jewish feasts.
The writer also enlarges upon Peter's reception of a
Gentile within the Church. And in general a parallel
is run between Peter and Paul. If Peter's first act
of healing is that of a lame man at the Temple gate ;
so also is Paul's first act of healing upon a cripple at
Lystra. Peter is delivered from prison miraculously
in Jerusalem ; in Philippi Paul has a similar experi-
ence. If Peter strikes dead Ananias and Sapphira,
a like power is exhibited in Paul's blinding of Elymas
the sorcerer. Peter raises Tabitha; Paul raises
Eutychus. This parallelism, it is said, cannot be
authentic history. The facts are manipulated in order
to bring out a parallelism between Peter and Paul and
thus to promote the reconciliation of the two antagon-
istic parties in the Church.
But the theory of Baur is not only in itself
groundless, but its application to the Book of Acts
is impossible. Had it been written for the sake
of conciliating Jewish and Gentile Christians, is it
credible that the unbelief of the Jews should be so
thrust upon the reader as it is from first to last in
this book ? Is it credible that if the writer's purpose
were to hide from view everything which could accen-
tuate the distinction between the Jewish and Gentile
Christians, he should call attention at the critical
point in the history to the jealousy of Paul's action
which many Jews felt, and put into the mouth of
the elders at Jerusalem these words : " Thou seest,
brother, how many myriads of Jews there are which
70 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
believe, and they are all zealous of the law"? In
explanation of this, Baur can only helplessly say that
here the writer " forgets his role " forgets his rdle
forsooth at the very crisis of the history, at the one
point at which it is simply impossible he should forget
his role ! Is it likely that the writer of an historical
romance in the second century who desired to con-
ciliate Judaizing Christians would give us so slender
an account of the growth of Jewish Christianity, and
direct attention almost exclusively to the growth of
the Gentile Church 1
It is satisfactory to note in the modern critical
school a disposition largely to modify the theory of
Baur and accordingly to reject some of his chief
critical conclusions. Thus Schenkel, one of the boldest
of critics says : * Having never been able to con-
vince myself of the sheer opposition between Petrinism
and Paulinism, it has also never been possible for
me to get a credible conception of a reconciliation
effected by means of a literature sailing between the
contending parties under false colours. In respect
to the Acts of the Apostles in particular I have been
led in part to different results from those represented
by the modern critical school. I have been forced
to the conviction that it is a far more trustworthy
source of information than is commonly allowed on
the part of modern criticism."
Overbeck, while refuting the theory of Zeller, ad-
vances his own opinion, that the book is the attempt
of a Gentile Christian to clear up the position of his
* Das ChristusUld der Apostcl, etc. (preface).
AIM OF THE BOOK. 71
own section of the Church, and to show that Gentile
Christianity was the legitimate fruit of the Christianity
of the older Apostles, and was not originally founded
by Paul.* This view approximates to the truth. The
Book of Acts does in point of fact exhibit Paulinism
and Gentile Christianity as the legitimate fruit of
the Christianity of the older Apostles, but that it
was the special and exclusive object of the writer to
explain and justify the position of Gentile Christianity
is doubtful. Perhaps after imagining various designs
cherished by the author, critics might do worse than
accept his own very simple statement, implied in the
first paragraph of the book (i. 1 8), that he meant to
relate how the work which the Lord had initiated, as
he had already told in his gospel, gradually took hold
of the world. He aims at relating how Christ was
preached and was accepted in ever-widening circles,
first in Jerusalem, then in Juda3a, then in Samaria,
and at last in the whole world (i. 8). Necessarily he
justifies the work of Paul, and as a true historian
shows that each widening circle of the gospel's in-
fluence resulted from what went before ; that the
increase of the Church was not by catastrophe, but by
growth. Himself a companion of Paul and writing
for the information of a Gentile, it was inevitable
that he should enlarge on those features and incidents
* See Overbeck's introduction to Zeller's Commentary on
Acts. Overbeck thinks also that the writer had a subordinate
political aim, and that he introduces incidents which illustrate
the good terms on which Paul stood with the Roman state and
its officials, in order to ward off political suspicion from the
Church.
72 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
of the Church's growth with which he himself had been
chiefly concerned ; but he does not confine himself to
one aspect of Christianity. He does not follow every
line on which Christian influence travelled, but he
follows the track of Paul, which was unquestionably
by far the most important. By giving the true
history of the extension of the Church, he necessarily
justifies Gentile Christianity.
The date of the book has been much canvassed, and
even some critics who accept -it as the work of Luke,
are of opinion that it cannot have been written till
about the year 80 A.D.* The key to its date, how-
ever, is most likely to be found in its abrupt ending.
Great difficulty has been experienced in accounting
for this ending ; and although the writer may have
felt that having brought his story down to the arrival
of Paul in Rome his task w r as accomplished, it must
be admitted that if the book did not leave its author's
hands till after the death of Paul, it is unaccountable
that he makes no mention of that event. And cer-
tainly the simplest reason we can give for his stopping
where he does is that he wrote the book in Rome at
the close of Paul's two years' residence, and that he
tells no more because as yet there was no more to tell.
The unfortunate attempt of Holtzmann, to show that
Luke was indebted to Josephus, and therefore wrote
not before the close of the first century, is treated by
Salmon with suitable raillery.f
* Lekebusch, Ewaltf, Lechler, Bleek.
f A further and convincing argument for the early date of
Acts is found in the fact that no use of the epistles of Paul is
traceable in the book.
ACCURACY OF THE WRITER. 73
The promise of accuracy which Luke gave in the
preface to his gospel is fulfilled in the Book of Acts.
In the first century the various Roman magistrates
and governors of provinces were distinguished by titles
which were apt to be confounded by an ill-informed or
careless writer. These titles are applied with accu-
racy by Luke. Thus Sergius Paulus is spoken of
(xiii. 7) as avflwraros, that is Proconsul or governor of
a senatorial province. Gallic at Corinth (xviii. 12) is
described by the same title. The magistrates of Thessa-
lonica are spoken of as politarchs (xvii. 6), while those
at Philippi are called praetors (crrpaTq-yoL, xvi. 20), and
the governor of Melita, merely " head-man " (Trpurros,
xxviii. 7), all which designations are confirmed by
extant inscriptions or by ancient historians.* Luke's
accuracy has also been tested by comparing his reports
of the speeches of Peter and Paul with the extant
remains of their writings. It is admitted by all
critics that the speeches ascribed to Paul contain
expressions which are peculiarly Pauline. And it has
further been remarked that in Luke's report of the
speech at Athens, which he did not himself hear, there
occur none of the phrases characteristic of Luke's
style ; whereas the speech of Paul (xxii.), which was
delivered in Hebrew, contains no Pauline, but many
Lucan peculiarities. Certainly these facts point to a
companion of Paul's as the author. Traces of Luke's
style in his reports of speeches indicates that he \\vs
not mechanically incorporating in his narrative written
* Many instances will be found in Biscoe, History of tit*
Acts Confirmed, etc.
74 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
records of these speeches, but was writing them as
they lived in his own memory.
But Luke's trustworthiness has been challenged on
the ground of the distribution and substance of these
speeches rather than on the score of their diction. It
is affirmed that they " give prominence to the charac-
teristic culminating points of the narrative, and in
this respect they are spread over the narrative in the
most artistic manner " (Overbeck). It is thus insinu-
ated that these discourses of Peter, Stephen, and the
rest, have no historical reality, but are invented by
Luke to bear out his view of the development of the
early Church. Now it is undoubtedly true that we
are always dependent on the historian for his selection
of facts, and for the perspective in which he sets them,
and unquestionably Luke has told us just those facts
which seemed to him most clearly to elucidate the
state and growth of the primitive Church. And in
recording speeches he has, of course, followed the
same rule. He has not recorded all that was said,
but only salient and significant points in important
speeches. So far he may be said to have used his
material to express his own views. But that he
has invented anything or dist cited facts or utterances,
or given us false and misleading impressions is not
proved. On the contrary, so far as we can test his
accuracy in reporting these speeches, his trustworthi-
ness stands the test. The substance of Peter's first
preaching, the resurrection of Christ for our salvation,
corresponds with the account Paul gives of the general
substance of Apostolic preaching in 1 Cor. xv. Ideas
which occur in 1 Peter are found also in the speeches
ACCURACY OF THE WRITER. 75
ascribed to Peter; thus the idea so prominent in
Peter's mind as revealed by the speeches, and so
emphatically asserted by him, that the death of Jesus
was according to " the determinate counsel " of God
(ii. 23 ; iv. 28 ; cf. x. 42) is also found more than
once in the Epistle (i. 20 ; ii. 4) ; the co-ordinate idea
of Christ as the stone rejected by the builders but
chosen of God, appears in Peter's speech (Acts iv. 11)
and also in his Epistle (ii. 6).
THE EPISTLES.
F the twenty-seven books which compose the New
Testament, twenty-one are in epistolary form.
This species of literature, though it had not been com-
mon among the Greeks,* was familiar to the Romans
of the Empire, with its numberless foreign connections
and ramified s} 7 stem of communication. To the early
Christian Church it became a necessity. Novel diffi-
culties arose in the young communities, and these
could best be removed by a direct appeal to the
Apostles. Information which Paul received regarding
any of the Churches in which he took so intense an
interest naturally elicited from him some expression
of joy or gratitude or disappointment. He seems
never to have thought of writing a book ; and cease-
lessly moving as he was from place to place, and
burdened with a multiplicity of cares, any extended
literary labour was out of the question. He did not
even take any steps for the wider publication of his
letters, except on those rare occasions when he in-
* A recent writer says : " The Greeks . . . did not write
letters. They, the great originators of the world, had the
magnanimity to leave this little corner a blank for their
victors and imitators." Spectator, 4th Sept., 1886.
THE EPISTLES. 77
structed two Churches to interchange the letters he
had sent to them (Col. iv. 16). Some of his letters,
indeed, by their elaborate and argumentative treat-
ment of a theme, present rather the appearance of
essays; but their epistolary character is maintained
by their being addressed to a definite class of con-
temporaries resident in a particular locality. Other
letters in the New Testament are little more than
private notes. Six are addressed to individuals, ten
to local Churches, and five to Christians in general,
though in the group commonly entitled " Catholic
Epistles " seven are included.*
From this feature of the New Testament writings
both advantages and disadvantages result. A- letter
admits of a freer handling of a subject than a treatise.
The personality of the writer finds a fuller expression,
and ampler use can be made of the actual circum-
stances of the reader. Hence we gain vividness,
warmth, personal interest. On the other hand, wo
miss the completeness of information which is gained
by systematic treatment. The points touched upon
in the Apostolic letters are sometimes of merely pass-
ing interest, while points that intensely exercise the
modern mind find no place in them. No doubt, in
dealing with matters which no longer interest Chris-
tians, the Apostles illustrate principles which are of
permanent importance, and in general exhibit tho
* L r Epitre fut ainsi la forme de la literature chre"tienne
primitive, forme admirable, parfaitement appropriee a l'e"tat
du temps aux aptitudes naturelles." Renan, St. Paul, 230.
The same form was continued by Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp
and B.irnabas. See Westcott, On thf Canon, p. 18.
78 THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
bearing which the facts of Christianity have upon life
and doctrine. But it is often difficult to apply these
principles to the matters which now concern us a
difficulty which however need not be greatly regretted,
as the average Christian mind is not wont unduly
to exercise itself or gain independence of thought
without urgent provocation. The Church in its in-
fancy had these direct instructions regarding its actual
difficulties ; the Church in its maturity should be ab'e
to deduce from the general argument and unapplied
principles of these letters all the guidance she now
requires.
THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
The epistles of Paul are the earliest literary relics
of Christianity. Their value was speedily recognised
by the Church, and they were gathered into one
volume. Marcion, who taught in the reign of
Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138 161), appealed to a rule
of faith, composed of two parts, the Gospel, and
the "Apostolicon" or "Apostolos." This Apostolicon
consisted of ten epistles of Paul, who was the only
Apostle recognised by Marcion as authoritative. The
Epistles to Timothy and Titus were omitted. This
is the earliest collection of which any record is extant,
and even this was not made until some, probably
many, of Paul's letters had been lost. For letter-
writing must have been to this Apostle a familiar
occupation. The care of all the Churches scattered
throughout the Roman world came upon him, not on
COMPLETENESS OF THE COLLECTION. 79
set occasions, but daily (2 Cor. xi. 28), a care which
could be practically exercised only by correspondence.
That he received many business letters from his
Churches is not only likely from the nature of the
case, but certain from his own statement (1 Cor. xvi.
3; cf. 2 Cor. iii. 1 and 1 Cor. vii. 1). His letters
are spoken of by the Corinthians (2 Cor. x. 10) in
terms which imply that several had been read, although
only one addressed to them is extant of a date prior
to the use of that language (cf. also 1 Cor. v. 9,
which Salmon (Introd., p. 462) understands of a
previous letter to 1 Cor., though Jowett thinks
the words refer to the epistle then being written;
St. Paul's Epistles, i. 195). Other expressions inci-
dentally used by the Apostle carry the same inference,
that the writing of letters was a frequent employment
with him (2 Thess. iii. 17; Phil iii. 18). The same
conclusion is forced upon the mind from a considera-
tion of the dates of the thirteen epistles we have.
Of these none can be referred to an earlier date than
the year 53, or fifteen years after his conversion. In
that year, or about it, the two Epistles to the Thessa-
lonians were written, and again there is silence for
about five years. But in the year following this
interval the four largest epistles, forming the greater
part of all his extant writings, were composed. It
is very difficult to believe that the warm affections
and intense interest betrayed in the Thessa.lonian
Epistles, and which he felt for many of his Churches,
lay dormant or unuttered for five years ; or that the
exuberant literary activity manifest in the longer
epistles was a novel exercise to Paul, or found expres-
80 THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
sion no more frequently than at the long intervals
marked by the extant epistles.*
As Paul wrote little with his own hand, whether
from some defect of eyesight or from an inability to
write the Greek character with ease, he was compelled
to be careful to authenticate his letters. Accordingly,
as the letter drew to a close he took the pen from
the scribe and added with his own hand the
salutation to his friends and the authenticating sig-
nature t (see 2 Thess. iii. 17; Philem. 19; Gal. vi. 11,
" Ye see in how large characters I write unto you
with mine own hand "). It is seldom that the amanu-
ensis throws off his anonymity and appears in his own
person, as in Rom. xvi. 22 : "I Tertius, who write
this epistle, salute you in the Lord." Generally the
reader is left to gather who the amanuensis was from
the association of some other name with that of Paul
* An important inference is drawn by Prof. Jowett (St.
Paul's Epistles, p. 200) : " It is obvious that the supposition,
or rather the simple fact, that epistles have been lost which
were written by St. Paul, is inconsistent with the theory of a
plan which is sometimes attributed to the extant ones, which
are regarded as a temple having many parts, even as there
are many members in one body, and all members have not
the same office. A mistaken idea of design is one of the
most attractive errors in the interpretation of Scripture, no
less than of nature. No such plan or unity can be really
conceived as existing in the Apostle's own mind, for he could
never have distinguished between the epistles destined to be
lost and those which have been allowed to survive."
f Similar authentication was in use among the Romans.
Thus Cicero writes : " In ea Pompeii epistola erat in extreme
in ij)sius maim, Tu, censeo,"etc. Vide Benan's St. Paul, 233,
note.
THEIR ARRANGEMENT. 81
in the opening of the epistle (1 Cor. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 1).
And it is tolerably certain that a scribe employed in
the arduous task of keeping pace in writing with the
torrent of Paul's dictation would have little leisure to
insert any thoughts of his own. It is possible he may
have here and there obscured a phrase, and the very
fact that these letters were spoken may account for
the broken grammar and for the abrupt introduction
of new thoughts, and for that overwhelming rapidity
which the pen would have bridled.
The order in which the epistles of St. Paul now
stand in the New Testament is meaningless, and has
to all appearance been determined by the relative
bulk of the letters, or by the comparative rank and
importance of the cities and Churches to which they
were addressed. By critics they have been variously
classified according to their contents, their dates, their
authenticity. Kenan divides them into five groups
according to their authenticity. His classification
may be given as a sample.
1st. There are the incontestable and uncontested
epistles, namely, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Romans.
2nd. The epistles certainly authentic but to which
objections have been raised, viz., 1 and 2 Thessa-
lonians, and Philippians.
3rd. The epistles certainly authentic, though gravely
suspected, viz., Colossians and its pendant to Philemon.
4th. A doubtful epistle, that to the Ephesians.
5th. Spurious epistles, the two to Timothy arid one
to Titus.
This classification conveniently summarises the con-
6
82 THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
elusions of that great school of criticism to which
Kenan may be said to belong.
But for the student who wishes to read the epistles
with intelligence the chronological order is, without
doubt, the most significant and helpful. The epistles
may be classified according to their date in three
groups.
1st. Those written during the period of Paul's
missionary activity, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Romans.
2nd. Those written during his imprisonment, Philip-
pians, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians.
3rd. Those written after his release in the closing
years of his life, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy.
The date of the various epistles cannot be absolutely
determined, but we may accept as highly probable the
following dates : 1 and 2 Thessalonians in the year 53 ;
1 Corinthians in the spring and 2 Corinthians in
the summer of 58 ; the Epistle to the Galatians was
probably written late in the same year 58, and that
to the Romans in the following spring. The epistles
of the imprisonment must be placed in the years 62
and 63, the Epistle to the Philippians being assigned
to the former year, those to the Colossians, Philemon,
and Ephesians, to the latter. The first pastoral epistle
to Timothy, and that to Titus, must be assigned to the
year 64 or 65, and the second to Timothy to the year
66 or 67.
It is of course only by ascertaining the date and
ccasion of an epistle that we can thoroughly under-
stand it. If we do not know the circumstances which
have evoked it and the object the writer has in view,
THEIR ARRANGEMENT. 83
the force of the epistle as a whole is lost upon us,
although we may appreciate individual utterances and
be edified by the sentiments and flashes which are struck
out in the collision of hostile opinions. Allusions which
the writer introduces lose their point and significance,
unless we know something of the conditions of himself
and his correspondents.
Another advantage accrues from the study of the
epistles of St. Paul in chronological order. It is only
thus we can observe the growth of his ideas and so
harmonise them. In illustration of this the difference
in Paul's eschatology in his earlier and later epistles
may be adduced. In writing to the Thessalonians he
holds out the hope of Christ's personal coming. By
the breath of His mouth, that is to say, by His very
presence, He should destroy the enemies of the Chris-
tian faith who persecuted and tempted them. But in
writing to the Corinthians it is another prospect he
holds out to those who, like himself, were suffering
for the faith. That prospect no longer is that their
enemies shall be destroyed, but that they themselves
shall be delivered by death. In writing to the Corinth-
ians he has much to say of the dissolution of the
body, of the striking of frail tents, and of the entering
into everlasting habitations. It is no longer the
coming of the Lord but the departure of the believer
that is to effect the happy meeting. What has wrought
this change 1 ? No one can read Paul's intervening
experience without recognising the cause and the natu-
ralness of the growth of his new eschatology. These
distressing sicknesses and scourgings, the stonings, and
shipwrecks, and outrages, and risks, and privations,
84 THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
had impressed on his mind the nearness of death, but
they had also taught him that through his very suffer-
ings the strength which upheld him was seen to be
divine. He thus learned that what had been the law
for the Master that He should draw men by being
lifted up on the cross, was the law for the disciple
also, and that the world was to be converted to Christ
not by a glorious and sensible exhibition of His power,
but by the slow conviction produced by the spiritual
majesty of loving toil and suffering patience. The
treasure was in earthen vessels that the glory might
be merely spiritual. He himself was full of infirmities,
but he gloried in them as the medium through which
Christ's power to sustain was exhibited. He bore
about in his body the dying of the Lord Jesus, and
so the life, the present upholding living power of
Jesus was manifest in hi in.
EPISTLE TO THE KOMANS.
That the Apostle of the Gentiles should long to
preach the gospel in Rome was a matter of course.
It was the true metropolis to which every road led,
which received from all the provinces whatever they
possessed of interest or value, and which distributed
to the world law, order, civilisation. During his three
years' residence at Ephesus the desirableness of visit-
ing the greater city pressed upon Paul with the force
of a necessity, " I must also see Rome " (Acts xix. 21).
And this was not the only nor the first time he had
conceived the purpose of visiting the imperial city
EPISTLE* TO THE ROMANS. 85
(Rom. i. 13). Hitherto, however, the East had
claimed him. But now that he has once and again
" fully preached the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem
and round about unto Illyricum " his work in these
parts seems to be finished for the time (Rom. xv. 23),
and he looks to the extreme West, and resolves to find
his way to Spain. The one duty that remains to be
discharged before he turns his back on the East is to
carry to Jerusalem the fund for the poor Christians
there, which had been collected by the Churches of
Macedonia and Achaia. This was a duty he would
not delegate, for not only was it an ordinary expres-
sion of Christian charity, but he hoped it might prove
a bond which should more firmly unite the Jewish
and Gentile sections of the Church. After handing
over this fund he would start for Rome. This inten-
tion of his was fulfilled in unthought-of ways, but for
the sake of preparing the Christians in Rome for his
visit he sends this letter. Preparatory to his visit to
Corinth he had sent a letter which had smoothed his
way and made his visit more welcome and more pro-
fitable, and to a Church like that of Rome, on which
he had no personal claims, he no doubt felt it would
only be courteous to intimate his intended visit.
Besides, in view of a missionary journey to Spain,
and it might be to Gaul and the remotest parts of
the empire, it was of the utmost importance that the
Church of the imperial city should countenance and
aid him, and should do so especially by distinctly
recognising the claims of the Gentiles, of the world,
to the benefits of the gospel.
The time and place of writing are fixed by the
86 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
account of his movements, which the writer gives in
the fifteenth chapter. He is on the eve of starting
to Jerusalem (xv. 25) with the money for the poor
saints. But from Acts xx. 1 3 we know that this
journey was made after Paul had spent at Corinth
the winter immediately succeeding his long residence
at Ephesus, presumably the winter of 58 A. D. From
the same passage in Acts we learn that he had in-
tended to sail direct from Greece to Syria, but was
compelled at the last moment to change his route in
order to baulk a plot of the Jews. In the Epistle to
the Romans there is no mention of this plot, though
occasion for its mention was present in Rom. xv. 31;
and this seems to involve that the letter was written
previous to the discovery of the plot, that is to say,
previous to his leaving Corinth. The time of year at
which he left Corinth is approximately fixed by the
mention (Acts xx. 6) that he spent " the days of
unleavened bread " at Philippi. A few weeks would
suffice for his visiting the Churches which lay between
Corinth and Philippi, and we may therefore conclude
that he left the former city in early spring.
That the letter was written from Corinth is indi-
cated also by the circumstance that Phoebe, a "deacon"
of the Church at Cenchrese is commended to the
Church at Rome, and may possibly have carried the
letter. Gaius, in whose house Paul was living (xvi.
23), was a Corinthian (1 Cor. i. 14), though several
of that name are mentioned in the New Testament.
That Erastus (xvi. 23) was chamberlain of Corinth
would seem at least in some degree probable from
2 Tim. iv. 20.
JEWS IN ROME. 87
Though the letter was occasioned by Paul's intended
visit and his desire to pave the way for his personal
presence, the contents of it were necessarily deter-
mined by the character of the Christian Church in
Rome. Unfortunately nothing is certainly known of
this Church, save what may be learnt from the epistle
itself. It is known that as early as Cicero's time
(speech in defence of Flaccus, B.C. 59) the Jews were
a numerous, wealthy, and influential part of the
population of Rome. Their number was further
increased by the Jews whom Pompey brought to
Rome as captives.* Under the empire they were for
the most part protected and even favoured. No party
in the state bewailed the death of Julius Caesar with
greater ostentation or with more reason.t Under
Augustus their strength and prosperity still increased.
Tiberius, possibly through fear of their growing in-
fluence, instituted against them severely repressive
measures.:}: In spite, however, of these measures and
the subsequent edict of banishment issued by Claudius,
they continued to prosper in Rome and to make many
proselytes. Indeed it would seem, from the passage
of Tacitus cited below, that a very large number of
Roman freemen had adopted the Jewish faith, not-
withstanding the ridicule they thereby incurred.
With so large a Jewish population in Rome there
* Philo, De Legal, 23.
f Suetonius, Julius, 84.
j Tacitus, Annals, ii. 85 ; Suetonius, Tiberius, 36.
The authorities are named in Schiirer and Hausrath, and
a great number of instructive passages from ancient authors
are quoted in full by J. E. B. Mayor in his Juvenal, xiv. 96.
88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
was bound to be a constant communication with
Jerusalem. Accordingly we find (Acts ii. 10) that
" strangers from Rome " were present when Peter for
the first time proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah. It is
certain that when these Jews returned to Rome they
would not be silent regarding what they had heard.
But Rome was in communication not only with Jeru-
salem, but with every other town in which Christ
was preached, and intimations of the progress of the
new faith must from time to time have reached the
city.* Whether Aqtiila was already a Christian when
Paul took up his abode with him at Corinth is uncer-
tain; but that there were Christians in the Rome
from which Aquila had recently been expelled may
be gathered from the reason which Suetonius assigns
for the edict of expulsion. Claudius, he says, "banished
the Jews from Rome because they were ceaselessly
making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.
This is generally and justly supposed to indicate that
the name of Christ had something to do with the
Jewish riots, and that it may be concluded there were
Christians in Rome at that time.
But the account given in the Acts (xxviii. 17) of
Paul's reception by the Jews in Rome is such as to
make it difficult to suppose that there existed before
his arrival any large number of Christians there or
any organised Church. The leading Jews had indeed
* Dr. Gifford (Speaker's Commentary} quotes a passage from
Tacitus (Annals, xv. 44) to show that Christians were found
in Rome " very soon " after the crucifixion. But in Tacitus
there is nothing that represents the words which Dr. Gifford
translates " very soon," and underlines.
COMPOSITION OF CHURCH IN ROME. 89
heard of Paul, but they had received no instructions
from the authorities in Jerusalem regarding him.
They knew also of the Christian " sect," but from the
language they use regarding it, one might suppose
they had as yet had no opportunity of observing its
character and customs. Apparently they had not
become acquainted with his letter to the Roman
Christians, and had not been alarmed by any con-
siderable secession from Judaism. And yet their
language is quite consistent with their knowledge that
some Jews in Eome had accepted Jesus as the Messiah,
and probably it would give them very little concern
to know that among the multifarious religions of
Rome and the daily changes of belief which charac-
terised that period, some of the Gentile population
had become Christians. But certainly the language
of the leading Jews of Rome to Paul would incline
us to believe that the Christians in Rome had been
chiefly drawn, not from among the Jews, but from
the Gentile population.
The salutations appended to the epistle point to
the same conclusion. For while kinsmen of Paul's
are mentioned, who must have been pure-blooded
Jews, and while others, such as Mary, Aquila and
Priscilla, and Apelles, with undoubtedly Jewish
names (Hor., Sat., I. v. 100), are greeted, the majority
of the names are Gentile and for the most part Greek.
At the date of this epistle the active, pushing, and
pliable Greek was possessing himself of every re-
munerative business, of all promising commercial and
social activity in the metropolis; so much so that
shortly after this time the Roman satirist upbraids
90 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
Rome with having become a Greek city (Juv., Sat.,
iii. 60). It is not surprising then to find that the
names in this letter are Greek rather than Latin,
that the language used both in this letter and in
the earliest literature of the Church of Rome is Greek,
and that in the catacombs the Greek characters so
often appear in the inscriptions.* The same mingling
of Jew and Gentile in the Christian community at
Rome is apparent in the substance of the Epistle.
Sometimes Paul addresses Jews, as in ii. 17, 27 ;
iv. 1 ; while at other times Gentiles are explicitly
addressed as in xi. 13 ; xv. 16; i. 13.
It matters little, however, whether we conclude that
the Gentiles were in a numerical majority, or (with
Sabatier) that the Jews greatly outnumbered them in
the Church of Rome. The matter of importance to
determine is, the type of Christianity to which they
were attached. Did the Pauline or the Jewish-
Christian view of the gospel prevail ? Lipsius (Protes-
tantenbibel) finds that everything in the epistle was
meant for Jewish-Christian readers. The writer, he
says, " assumes throughout that he is addressing
readers of Jewish education, who are also accustomed
to the Jewish methods. The hypotheses from which
he sets out, the conceptions with which he w r orks, the
arguments from the maxims and examples of the
Old Testament Scripture, the express appeal to the
readers' knowledge of the Law all this is only intelli-
gible if the Apostle wishes to influence the Jewish-
Christian niiiid. . . . The Pauline gospel can have had
* See Lightfoot's Philijtpians, p. 20.
TYPE OF CHRISTIANITY IN ROME. 91
few if any adherents at that time in Rome, and no
doubt even those believers who had been gathered
from among the Gentiles were altogether under the
influence of the Jewish spirit." Pfleiderer (Hibbert
Lectures, 139) thinks that the epistle suggests that
the relations between the Jewish and Gentile sections
of the Church were strained, that the healthy develop-
ment of the Church was thus daily placed in increas-
ing peril, and the more so as through the rapid
growth of the Gentile section, the Jewish, which had
undoubtedly formed the principal element originally,
had sunk into the position of a powerless minority.
Even this more moderate statement seems to lay
more stress on the strained relations between the two
sections of the Church than the epistle warrants.
That the majority in the Church was free from
Jewish-Christian scrupulosity is apparent from the
circumstance that Paul feels called upon to exhort
the majority to admit to fellowship the weakly, scru-
pulous believer who observed days and refused to eat
what was offered to idols. And it is obvious that had
the Church been to any large extent tainted with
distinctively Jewish-Christian views, Paul could not
have spoken of its members as " full of all goodness,
tilled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one
another " (Rom. xv. 14). There is no evidence in the
epistle that there was any anti-Pauline party in the
Church. No doubt, such a party might at any time
arise. For Jewish-Christianity was merely a one-
sided exaggeration of a view of the relation of the
Jews to Christ, which must inevitably have suggested
itself to every Jewish mind. And certainly this letttr
92 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
cuts the ground from the Jewish-Christian position
by proving that Jews and Gentiles alike are under
sin, and alike must be saved by grace. But this is
done without any polemical pushing of principles
to their issues, or explicit assault upon the Jewish -
Christian position such as is found in the Epistle to
the Galatians. As Sabatier says : " This epistle marks
the precise moment at which polemic naturally resolves
itself into dogmatic."
What then is the precise object Paul has in view :
what is the aim which determines all the contents of
the letter ? In substance the letter is a justification
of the Apostle's mission to the Gentiles, a justification
first to his own mind, and secondly to the Christian
community at Rome. He habitually considered him-
self "the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles"
(xv. 16), and among the Gentiles he made no distinc-
tions but recognised that he was bound to carry the
gospel to the most highly civilised as well as to the
uneducated and rude, or, as he himself puts it, he
felt himself to be " debtor both to the Greeks and to
the barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise."
Accordingly he longed to bring the gospel into contact
with the world's social and political centre at Rome,
for he was " not ashamed of the gospel of Christ "
(i. 15, 16). But in thus committing himself to a
mission in the West he felt he was taking a new step
and was more distinctly than ever giving himself to
the Gentiles. It was natural therefore that he should
now review the situation and should especially make
clear to the Church of the imperial city, the centre
cf the Gentile world, what his gospel was and how
OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 93
it was applicable to Gentiles as well as Jews. That
this was his object, he himself explicitly affirms
(xv. 15, 16), and the letter is accordingly an exposi-
tion of the applicability of the gospel to the Gentiles.
This will more clearly appear if we briefly analyse
the epistle. He means, he says, to preach the gospel
at Rome because he believes it is "the power of God
unto salvation," not to one race only, but " to every
one that believeth ; to the Jew first," in accordance
with the providential plan, "but also to the Greek"
(i. 16). Christ, that is, is the medium througli which
God's power to lift men out of moral evil and bring
them into perfect correspondence with His own
righteousness, is exercised. That this is God's grand
purpose with man is apparent from the results of
unrighteousness, "the wrath of God is revealed
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men "
(i 18). These results the inhabitants of Rome had
only too ample opportunity to observe (i. 21 32).
But the frightful wickedness of the Gentiles and its
punishment were no sufficient reasons for the scorn
with which the Jew looked upon them, nor for
abandoning them to a hopeless doom. Rather did the
scorn with which the Jew looked on the immoral and
ignorant Gentiles who knew not the law, reflect upon
his own sin against the light of the law. If the
Gentile who knew not the law was by his immorality
beyond God's mercy, equally or more so was the Jew
who knew the law and yet did not observe it. Not
the having the law, but the keeping of it, was
righteousness ; not the circumcision of the flesh, but of
the spirit, saves (ii. passim). If so, is the Jew righteous
94 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
and the Gentile condemned ? Alas ! the law itself
says : " There is none righteous, no, not one ; " and
what it says it of course says to those who are under
the law, to Jews, not to Gentiles. It means, there is
no Jew righteous, no, not one (iii. 19). If then, men
are to be justified, it cannot be by the Jewish law.
Jew and Gentile alike must put away boasting, and
on an equal footing of absolute demerit accept God's
grace.* Thus was even Abraham justified (c. iv.),
righteousness was imputed to him without his merit-
ing God's favour by his works. As he believed God's
promise and did not think of earning what He pro-
mised, so must we accept the peace offered us in
Christ, and not think we can earn it. For it is in
Christ God's love and righteousness are now revealed
(chap. v.). Neither will our abandonment of the idea
we can earn God's blessing make us indifferent to His
will or to the attainment of holiness. On the contrary
the acceptance of Christ and the Spirit of life that is
in Him at last enables us to fulfil the righteousness of
the law and to become truly the sons of God, destined
to holiness and glory everlasting (chap. vi. viii.)
But the very triumph Paul feels in depicting a
salvation so perfect and so applicable to Gentiles,
suggests to him the misery of his own countrymen
who reject this salvation, and in chap. ix. xi. he
discusses the reason and the results of this rejection.
It was a perplexing circumstance that the Jews who
had been specially prepared to receive Christ should
* " Unite et egalite dans le peche, unit6 et e"galite dans la
redemption ; en ces mots sont resumes et la pensee ge'ne'rale et
le plan entier de ce grand ouvrage." Sabatier, 178.
INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE. 95
be precisely those who most unanimously rejected
Him. What did this mean? Have the Jews no
advantage? To a mind like Paul's, craving con-
sistency of thought, this problem came as a demand
to form a theory of providence, or, as we should now
say, a philosophy of history to solve it. Many of
Paul's enemies must have expected him to solve it
by saying that the Jew had no advantage over the
Gentile, and that his long preparation meant nothing.
Many of the Gentiles might suppose that he who
had been insulted, beaten, outraged by the Jews,
would be careless of their fate. On the contrary, his
heart bleeds for them. He would accept any fate for
himself, if thereby he could alter the fate they had
brought on themselves by their unbelief. He will
not suffer the Gentiles to think that the Jews are
for ever rejected. Their unbelief has been the
occasion of his turning to the Gentiles, if then " the
casting away of them be the reconciling of the
world, what shall the receiving of them be but life
from the dead?" (xi. 15). A full and beautiful
exhibition of the conduct appropriate to the Christian
follows this, and the epistle closes with the usual
salutations.
These salutations have given rise to some suspicions
regarding the integrity of the epistle. Is it likely
that in a Church he had never visited Paul should
have had so many friends? And how is it that so
many of the names which occur are associated rather
with Ephesus than with Rome? It is obvious,
however, that these two questions neutralize one
another. If some of Paul's Ephesian friends had
96 EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIAN'S.
been carried by business requirements to Rome, it
is not strange that he should name so many. But
there are other reasons for doubting the integrity of
the epistle. The reader observes that again and
again the epistle seems to close, but is re-opened.
At xv. 33 ; xvi. 20, 24, 27 there occur expressions
which might stand as terminal. Additional difficulty
is raised by the fact that in most cursive MSS. and
in one uncial, the doxology (xv. 25 27) is found at
the end of chap. xiv. It is found in both places in
some important MSS. ; and in neither in other MSS.
To account for these discrepancies some critics adopt
the theory that several editions of the epistle were
sent by Paul to different Churches ; while other
critics suppose that at a later period of his life Paul
adapted the epistle to general circulation by omitting
the words " in Rome " and by cutting off the last
two chapters. For a fuller discussion of these
suggestions we must refer to Dr. Gifford's elaborate
treatment of them in his Introduction to the Epistle
to the Romans in the Speaker's Bible.
EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
When Paul visited Corinth it was the capital of
the Roman province of Achaia and the headquarters
of the Proconsul. From the earliest times its
situation on the isthmus, " the bridge of the untiring
sea," * with its eastern port of Cenchrese and its
western port Lechseum, had given it importance.
* Pindar, Nem. Odes, vi.
CORINTH. 97
The ancient ships were small and not very well
managed, and sailors bringing goods from Asia to
Italy preferred to carry their bales across the
narrow neck of land rather than to face the stormy
passage round Cape Malea, "of bad fame." So
commonly was this done that arrangements were
made for conveying the ships themselves across on
rollers; and shortly after Paul's visit Nero cut the
first turf of an intended, but never finished, canal
to connect the two seas.* Towards the southern
extremity of the isthmus stood one of the most
remarkable natural fortifications in the world, the
abrupt, massive rock, nearly 2,000 feet high, known
as the Acrocorinthus. It was on a slightly elevated
platform at the northern base of this commanding
hill that the city was built.
Completely destroyed by the Eoman general
Mummius in 146 B.C., it was repeopled and rebuilt
by Julius Caesar, who, exactly a century after its
demolition, colonised it (coloiiia Julia Corinthus) with
Roman veterans and freedmen.f Under these
auspices it speedily regained something of its former
beauty, all its former wealth, and apparently more
than its former size.+ But the old profligacy was
also revived. In Paul's day, " to live as they do at
Corinth " was the equivalent for living in luxury and
* Suetonius, Nero ; Pausanias says, " Where they began to
dig is plainly visible, but they did not make much progress
because of the rock."
f Hence many of the names of Corinthians in the New
Testament are such as indicate a Roman or servile origin
Quartus, Achaicus, Fortunatus, Crispus, Gaius, Justus.
I 200,000 freemen and 460,000 slaves.
7
98 EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
licentiousness.* Sailors from all parts with a little
money to spend, merchants eager to compensate for
the privations and hardships of a voyage, refugees,
adventurers of all kinds were continually passing
through the city, introducing foreign customs and
confounding moral distinctions. Too plainly are the
engrained vices of the Corinthians* reflected in the
epistles (1 Cor. v. 1; vi. 911; xi. 21). In the
letters are also visible reminiscences of what Paul
had seen in the Isthmian and gladiatorial contests
(1 Cor. ix. 24; iv. 9). He had noted, too, as he
walked through Corinth how the fire of the Roman
army had consumed all the meaner houses of " wood,
hay, stubble," but had been comparatively harmless
on the precious marbles (1 Cor. iii. 12).
To the vices of a cosmopolitan sea-port and of a
wealthy commercial city Corinth added the restless
factiousness of degenerate Greece, and the windy and
vain logomachy of an imitative philosophy. Rhetori-
cal displays in which the " wisdom of words " was
accepted as final knowledge (ii. 4; viii 1) ; subtle but
foolish intellectual perplexities (xv. 13, 35); readiness
to listen to arguments that tended to sensual and
worldly living (xv. 32, 33) were the snares of this
mixed and monied population. It is because the
Epistles to the Corinthians throw so clear a light on
the life of a Christian Church formed out of so un-
promising a society that they become, as Weizsacker
has called them, " a fragment which has no parallel in
ecclesiastical history." " We are here and (as far as
* See Wetstein on 1 Cor. i. 2. " Ecclesia Dei in Corintko,
laetum et ingens paradoxon." Bengel.
CHRISTIANITY IN CORINTH. 99
the epistles are concerned) here only, allowed to wit-
ness the earliest conflict of Christianity with the cul-
ture and the vices of the ancient classical world ; here
we have an insight, it may be only by glimpses, into the
principles which regulated the Apostle's choice or re-
jection of the customs of that vast fabric of heathen
society which was then emphatically called ' the world ' ;
here we trace the mode in which he combated the
false pride, the false knowledge, the false liberality, the
false freedom, the false display, the false philosophy*
to which an intellectual age, especially in a declining
nation, is constantly liable ; here more than anywhere
else in his writings his allusions and illustrations are
borrowed not merely from Jewish customs and feelings,
but from the literature, the amusements, the educa-
tion, the worship of Greece and Rome. It is the
Apostle of the Gentiles, as it were, in his own peculiar
sphere in the midst of questions evoked by his own
peculiar mission watching over Churches of his own
creation, . . . feeling that on the success of his work
then, the whole success and value of his past and
future work depended."!
How Paul founded the Church at Corinth is re-
corded in Acts xviii. 1 18. The edict of Claudius
expelling the Jews from Rome would seem to
have been enacted shortly before Paul's visit (Acts
xviii. 2), and Gallic seems to have entered on his
proconsulship when Paul had already been eighteen
* See i. 17 ; iii. 4, 1823 ; iv. 713 ; vi. 1220 ; viii. 17 ;
xii, xiv., xv. 3541.
t Stanley's Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p. 4.
The whole introduction should be read.
100 EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
months in Corinth (Acts xviii. 11, 12), but unfor-
tunately, though it is probable that the edict of
Claudius belongs to the year 52 A.D., neither date can
be exactly determined. The probability is that Paul
remained in Corinth part of the year 52, the whole of
53, and part of 54. During the first eighteen months
of his stay a large number (ver. 10) of the Corinthians
accepted his gospel, and many of them, being of quick
intellect, must have made marked attainment under
this continuous and weighty teaching. But the
jealous Jews, thinking that the new proconsul, the
" dulcis Gallio," would wish to make favour with all
parties in his new province, bring Paul before him.
They are met with a decided rebuff. A question or
two shows that this is a matter over which he has no
jurisdiction, and he orders his lictors to clear the
court. After this victory Paul remains some time
longer (ver. 18, " yet a good while "), and then goes
to Jerusalem, vi& Ephesus and Csesarea, probably to
be present at Pentecost, 54 A.D. After celebrating
the feast he goes to Antioch, where he spends " some
time" (ver. 23), and then, having visited Galatia,
Phrygia and "the upper coasts," strengthening the
Churches, he at length reaches Ephesus where he
remains for nearly three years. Apparently, there-
fore, it was late in 54, or early in 55, when he reached
Ephesus. At this time Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew
with exceptional knowledge of the Old Testament and
power of expression, who had reasoned powerfully
with the Ephesian Jews, was labouring in Corinth and
the whole of Achaia, and exercising a most powerful
influence there, especially among the Jews. Every-
SCANDALS IN CORISTH1AN CHURCH. 101
thing, therefore, seemed to promise well for the Church
at Corinth. But before very long old habits and the
customs of heathen society proved too strong for some
of the recent converts, who fell back into Greek vice.
This scandalised the purer portion of the Church, who
communicated with Paul and asked his advice. He
wrote to them that they must not associate with for-
nicators, covetous persons, extortioners, or idolaters.
To this epistle reference is made in 1 Cor. v. 9, 10.*
They replied that Corinthian society was wholly
formed of such persons, not apprehending that by
" not keeping company " he meant not acknowledging
as Christians and associating in worship, and with this
reply they laid before him a number of other difficul-
ties (1 Cor. vii. 1 ; viii. 1 ; xii. 1, etc.). This, together
with the oral information f he had received from
* Two epistles, professing to be the lost first of Paul to the
Corinthians, and that of the Corinthians to Paul, and received
as canonical by the Armenian Church, have been published and
translated several times. The most complete translation is
that of Lord Byron and Father Aucher. The epistles are given
in Stanley's Corinthians, ii. (Appendix). They are undoubtedly
spurious.
f Much has been written on the parties in the Church of
Corinth. The opinions of Baur, Holsten, Renan, and others
are cited in the commentaries. A well-arranged digest will be
found in Godet, 1 Corinthians, in loc: It is apparent from the
epistle that the adhesion of certain members to 1'aul, others to
Apollos, and so on, was in the meanwhile productive rather of
bitter feeling than of fixed doctrinal differences. Paul was
certainly not afraid that the teaching of Apollos would do the
Corinthians harm, for he was extremely anxious that he should
return to Corinth. And to all appearance the other parties
were, at the date of the first epistle, insignificant, for it is to
the Apollos party alone that he addresses himself in its early
102 EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
members of Chloe's household who had come to Ephe-
ous (1 Cor. i. 11), calls forth the first extant epistle.
In this epistle, then, we see the kind of work which
was required of one on whom lay the care of all the
Churches. A host of difficult questions poured in upon
him, questions regarding conduct, questions of casuis-
try, questions about the ordering of public worship
and about social intercourse. Are we to dine with
our heathen relatives ? May we intermarry with
them ; may we marry at all 1 Can slaves continue
in the service of heathen masters ? Can we restrain
chapters. The second epistle, however, indicates both that the
Christ party had grown more formidable, and that its tenets
were dangerous. From 2 Cor. x. 7 xii. 18 it would appear
that the Christ party was formed and led by men who prided
themselves on their Hebrew descent (xi. 22), and on having
learned their Christianity not from Paul, Apollos, or Cephas,
but from Christ Himself (1 Cor. i. 12 with 2 Cor. x. 7),
These men came to Corinth with letters of commendation (2
Cor. iii. 1) probably from Palestine, as they had known Jesus ;
but not from the Apostles in Jerusalem, for they separated
themselves from the Petrine party in Corinth. They claimed
to be apostles of Christ (2 Cor. xi. 13), and " ministers of
righteousness " (xi. 15), but as they taught " another Jesus,"
"another spirit," and "another gospel" (xi. 4), Paul does
not hesitate to denounce them as "false apostles" (xi. 13)
and ironically to hold them up as " out-and-out apostles "
(virtpXiav airoarbXai). Probably therefore they were Judaisers.
Godet is not to be followed in his idea that they were " gnos-
tics before gnosticism." Weiss is throughout satisfactory
(Einleitung ', 197 sqq.). It is especially important to notice what
Beyschlag was the first to bring clearly out, that " the very
existence in Corinth of a Cephas party, expressly distinguished
from the Jewish- Christian opponents of the Apostle, and
evidently regarded by Paul (iii. 22) as being in no material
opposition to himself, shows most clearly that the primitive
apostles themselves did not stand in hostile relation to Paul,"
OCCASION OF THE EPISTLES. 103
those who speak with tongues, or must we allow all
who are inclined to speak at once ? But it was not
the delicacy of answering these questions which caused
the tears to fill Paul's eyes as he wrote this letter
(2 Cor. ii. 4). It was the self-satisfied vanity that
shone through even their request for advice (viii. 1),
the evidence which some of their difficulties bore to
the working of a restless Greek intellectualism (xv.
35), and litigiousness (vi. 1 11), and of a potent
residuum of Corinthian sensuality (vi. 16 ; x. 8 ; xi. 21),
and above all, the news that had reached him of their
factious spirit, and of their retaining in their com-
munion, to the scandal even of their heathen neighbours,
a man who had married his father's wife, and of their
glorying in this spurious liberality (v. 2, 6) it was
this which excited in Paul's mind the deepest mis-
givings regarding the future of the Church. But
repressing his feelings of indignation and sorrow he
writes the most lucid and complete of his epistles,
taking up point by point the questions they had
raised, and replying with a decided and broad exposi-
tion of Christian principles invaluable to all time.
The brevity and yet completeness with which intricate
practical problems are discussed, the unerring firmness
with which through all plausible sophistry and falla-
cious scruples the radical principle is laid hold of, and
the sharp finality with which it is expressed, reveal
not merely the bright-eyed sagacity and thorough
Christian feeling of Paul, but also his measureless
intellectual vigour; while such a passage as the
thirteenth chapter betrays that strong an^. sane
imagination which can hold in view a wide field of
104 EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
human life, and the fifteenth rises from a basis af
keen cut and solidly laid reasoning to the most
dignified and stirring eloquence. It was a happy
circumstance for the future of Christianity that in
these early days, when there were almost as many
wild suggestions and foolish opinions as there were
converts, there should have been this one clear prac-
tical judgment, the embodiment of Christian wisdom.
There can be no doubt that 1 Corinthians was
written shortly before Paul left Ephesus. His own
words (xvi. 8) are conclusive on that point. He had
sent Timothy to Corinth that he might more fully
answer the questions asked, and expound Paul's
teaching (1 Cor. iv. 17). But Timothy was not to
go direct to Corinth, but through Macedonia (Acts
xix. 22), so that the letter might reach Corinth before
Timothy (1 Cor. xvi. 10). But Paul himself must
have left Ephesus a very short time after Timothy,
for (Acts xix. 22, 23) at that juncture the riot which
compelled him to flee broke out. Sometime in the
spring of 58* this first epistle was written; and it
may have been carried by the three Corinthians who
had come to visit Paul (xvi. 17), certainly not by
Timothy.
Bleek, followed by several scholars, supposes a
second visit of Paul to Corinth between the first visit
and our first epistle. Godet supposes a second visit,
but places it in an apparently impossible position,
after the first epistle and prior to his wintering in
Corinth after passing through Macedonia. That this
* Godet says 57. Holtzmann (p. 244) 58. Seethe chronology
fully examined in Beet's Corinthians, Diss. III.
DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 105
supposed visit could not have occurred between the
writing of the first and second Epistles is evident
from his still defending himself in the second epistle
(i. 15 17) against the charge of lightly changing his
mind, which had been brought against him because
he had intended to visit Corinth before going to
Macedonia and had not done so. Already in the
first epistle he had given up this intention, plainly
telling the Corinthians (xvi. 7) that he would not
now see them on his way to Macedonia, and justifying
his doing so (ver. 9) by the urgency of the work in
E L jhesus, and by his sending an efficient substitute,
Timothy (ver. 10, " even as I "), in his place. It appears
from 2 Cor. i. 23 that he had also another reason for
not visiting Corinth ; he could not bear to go " with
a rod," to find fault and to punish. Now as there are
in the first epistle allusions to his founding the
Church, but none to any second visit, and as there
is plainly no room for a visit between the first and the
second letters, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to
find any place for a visit between the first epistle
and his arrival in Corinth to winter there. Besides,
in 2 Cor. L 15, he himself speaks of the visit he had
not yet been able to pay as his " second " visit.
But what then is to be made of the passages in
the second epistle which seem to imply that a second
visit had been made before it was written (ii. 1 ;
xii. 14; xii. 21 ; xiii. 1, 2) ? To interpret these passages
fairly we must remember the important place which
Paul's intended visit occupied both in his own mind
and in the mind of the Corinthian Church. It had
exposed him to the accusation of fickleness and vacil-
106 EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
lation, of lightly promising and lightly breaking
Ids promise, of making his "yea" and "nay"
equivalents (2 Cor. i. 17). This accusation seemed to
him so serious, and to reflect so injuriously on his
truthfulness as a preacher, that he calls " God to
witness on his soul" (i. 23) that his apology was true.
Now considering the important place this unfulfilled
intention occupied in his mind and in his corre-
spondents' mind, it is not surprising that when he
speaks of his present intention to visit Corinth he should
say, " This third time I am coming to you " (xiii. 1).
His meaning is, " This third time I am intending to
visit you." And that his words must be so understood
becomes apparent when we pass to the next verse, in
which he says, " I tell you before I come, and as if
I were already present with you a second time, though
indeed I am still absent," etc. Had he already visited
Corinth twice he must of necessity have said, " as if
I were already present a third time."*
The date of 2 Corinthians is also easily ascertainable,
abounding as it does in allusions to the writer's move-
ments and relations to his correspondents. Driven
from Ephesus, where he had barely escaped with his
life (L 810), Paul went to Troas (ii. 12), expecting
to find Titus there with news from Corinth. Dis-
appointed in this, and fearing that delay on the part
of Titus might mean a condition of things in Corinth
even more disastrous than he had supposed, he has
no heart to proceed with his work in Troas, but
presses on to Macedonia (ii 13), where he was always
* Stanley thinks this second epistle is counted as the second
visit.
OBJECT OF THE SECOND EPISTLE. 107
among friends. Here ai length Titus met him (vii. 6)
and communicated reassuring news. It seems that
Paul had "boasted" to Titus (vii. 14) of the results
of the gospel in Corinth, and this boasting was veri-
fied by what Titus saw of their true affection for Paul
(vii. 7), their distress that they had provoked such a
letter as 1st Corinthians (vii. 8, 9), and their kindness
and obedience to him as Paul's representative (vii. 15).
Paul's anxiety was therefore in the main relieved by
hearing from Titus that the great body of the
Corinthian Church was faithful to his gospel, and
he at once writes to express his thankfulness for this,
and so to pave the way for his approaching visit.
There was, however, the more urgency for writing
because Titus had evidently given him a fuller account
of the "Christ party," and the mischief they were
working. The second epistle is therefore separated
from the first only by two or three months, possibly
not so much, and was written from Macedonia while
Paul was on his way to Corinth.
The first part of the second epistle is accordingly
occupied with an endeavour to remove any soreness
which might linger in the minds of the Corinthian
Christians on account of his visiting Macedonia before
visiting Corinth. He gives some account of his own
movements and lets them see how glad he is that
they should have taken his letter in good part, and
been profited both by it and by the visit of Titus.
Parenthetically (ii. 14 vi. 10) he indulges in an
eloquent panegyric of the gospel, pointing out how
in every place it approved itself a savour of life, how
by its very nature as a ministration of righteousness
108 EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
it excelled the law in glory, and how even when he
proclaimed it in dangers and distresses, bearing about
in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, the life and
present power of Jesus were made manifest in him.
He then (vi. 11) recurs to the condition of the
Corinthian Church, and urges the necessity of dealing
vigorously with scandalous sins, even though this
should cause them sorrow. For, as he is forward to
acknowledge (vii. 8 11), their sorrow at being blamed
by him in his first epistle for holding fellowship
with scandalous sinners had incited them to clear
themselves of all cause of blame. He then praises
them for their liberality in collecting for the Jeru-
salem poor (viii. and ix.). In chapter x. he passes
to the painful part of his letter, the exposure of the
leaders of the Christ-party and the vindication of his
own authority. But he writes this straightforward
and powerful passage (x. xiii.) in order that when
he comes he may not require to mar the pleasure of
their meeting by such denunciatory language (xiii. 10).
As the authenticity of these epistles is universally
admitted the early witnesses need not be cited. It is
interesting, however, to find that Clement of Rome,
in writing to the Church of Corinth, probably about
the year 96, uses the following language: "Take up
the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What at
first did he write to you in the beginning of the gospel ?
In fact, he wrote spiritually to you both about himself
and Cephas and Apollos," etc. (Clem., Ep. xlvii.).
The internal evidence is also very strong. There are
so many allusions to Paul's movements, so many
expressions of personal feeling that forgery is out of
THEIR AUTHENTICITY. 109
the question. Besides, as Mr. Beet very justly re-
marks, the exposure which the epistles make of the
condition of the Corinthian Church is strongly in
favour of their genuineness, for "no Church would
accept without careful scrutiny so public a monument
of its degradation."
NOTE. The arguments which Hilgenfeld {Einleitung, 281
seqq.) adduces to prove that Paul had written a letter between
our 1 and 2 Corinthians are plausible. Timothy had returned
to Paul before 2 Corinthians was written (i. 1), and yet in this
letter no allusion is made to the effects of his visit to Corinth
or to the news he brought. Again Paul speaks (ii. 4) of
having written in tears and anguish to the Corinthians, but
in our first epistle there is no trace of such disturbance of
mind. And especially the terms in which Paul speaks
(ii. 5 11) of the offender in the Church of Corinth are not
so applicable to the incestuous person as to some one who
had personally attacked Paul. The reasons on the other side
seem, however, insurmountable. Paul is still excusing himself
for not visiting them on his way to Macedonia. This brings
the second epistle into very close connection with the first.
Further, there is no allusion to the Petrine party or to the
Christ party in the first part of the epistle, in which alone the
Corinthian offender is present to Paul's mind. On the con-
trary, the whole passage (vi. 11 to vii. 12) shows beyond
dispute that the offence was a moral one. And when the
strength of denunciation employed by Paul in 1 Cor. v. is
taken into account his strong expressions in the second epistle
are quite intelligible.
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Of all the epistles of Paul this alone is addressed,
not to an individual or to a single Church, but to a
group of churches ("unto the Churches of Galatia,"
i. 2). It is not possible to determine with precision
in what towns these Churches were situated. But
110 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the three principal tribes of Galatians, the Trocmi,
the Tolistobogii, and the Tectosages had each a chief
town, named respectively Tavium, Pessinus, and
Ancyra, and it is not unlikely that in each of these
there was a Christian community. Some writers
(Hausrath, Kenan, and others) have sought the
Churches addressed by Paul in the Roman province
called Galatia (formed 26 B.C.), which embraced
Lycaonia, Isauria, and parts of Phrygia and Pisidia.
But it is much more likely that when Galatia is
spoken of in the Acts and here the old geographical
division is intended. Certainly in the Acts (xiii. 14 ;
*iv. 6, 24; xvi. 6) Lycaonia, Pisidia and Phrygia
ire spoken of as if they were distinct from Galatia.
The region in which we are to seek for these Churches
is therefore the rich country crossed by the river
Halys (Kizil-Irmak), and separated from the Black
Sea by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, while to the east
of it lie Pontus and Cappadocia, and south and west
Phrygia. The population of this country was mixed.
The Galatians, from whom it was named, had been
called in during the third century B.C. to aid Nico-
medes, king of Bithynia, and received as pay a part
of his territory. They belonged to that great and
migratory stock which had overrun western Europe,
and was known indifferently by three names, Celtse,
Galatse, Galli. (The Romans confined the name Galatre
to the Celts of Asia Minor). Whether they were of
Germanic origin (as Wieseler, Holsten, Davidson, etc.,
think)* or of Celtic origin is uncertain. The theory
* S. Hilgenfeld, 251 ; Holsten, Prot. Bibel; Holtzmann,
235 ; Davidson, i. 71.
COMPOSITION OF GALATIAN CHURCH. Ill
which advocates their Germanic origin places consider-
able dependence upon a statement made by Jerome
in the preface to his Commentary on the epistle :
" Besides the Greek, which is spoken throughout the
East, the Galatians use as their native tongue a
language almost identical with that of the Treveri."
The Treveri, it is affirmed, spoke a German dialect.
Lightfoot (Galatians, p. 235) discusses the question
fully, and concludes that the Galatian settlers were
genuine Celts belonging to the Cymric subdivision of
that great race. But besides these invading Celts
many Greeks were scattered through Galatia, and
since the Roman occupation many of the governing
race were to be found at the various centres of busi-
ness. Jews also had been attracted to the country
by its commercial advantages, and in the Monumentum
Ancyranum, or pillar which Augustus caused to be
fixed in his temple at Ancyra, the rights and privileges
extended to the Jews are recorded.*
By far the strongest element in this mixed popu-
lation was the Celtic. Modern travellers assert that
even now the Celtic type of face is recognisable in
Galatia. And in the Galatians of Paul's letter this
type of character is distinctly recognisable. The cha-
racteristics of the Celtic race were frequently remarked
upon by ancient writers,t their drunkenness, their
niggardliness, their vanity and quarrelsomeness, their
impressibility and quickness of apprehension, their
inquisitive, eager and fickle disposition. All these
features are readily traced in the Galatians of Paul's
* Josephus, Antiq. , xvi. 6, 2.
f See the passages in Lightfoot's Galatians, pp. 13 16.
112 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
epistle (v. 21 ; vi. 6, 7 ; v. 15, 2G : i. 6, etc.). What
Michelet says * of the French might equally be said
of them: "The foundation of the French people is
the youthful, soft, and mobile race of the Gaels,
bruyante, sensual, and legere, prompt to learn, prompt
to despise, and greedy of new things." And in read-
ing the epistle it is especially necessary to remember
the remark of Caesar, that the whole race is excessively
devoted to religious observances. " Settled among
the Phrygians, they with their wonted facility adopted
the religion of the subject people. The worship of
Cybele, with its wild ceremonial and hideous mutila-
tions, would naturally be attractive to the Gaulish
mind." It was this craving for a sensuous ritual
which made Paul's converts among them an easy prey
to the Judaizing teachers, who pressed upon them
circumcision and the observance of Sabbaths and new
moons.
The first preaching of Christianity to the Galatians
is not narrated in the Book of Acts. That Paul, with
Silas and Timothy, passed through Galatia while
prosecuting his second missionary journey we learn
from Acts xvi. 6. And it would appear as if even
then he had sot contemplated any prolonged effort
to found a Christian Church ; but being delayed by
illness (Gal. iv. 13*), his fervid spirit seized the oppor-
tunity to preach the gospel. The effect seems to
have been immediate and memorable. Far from
despising the "contemptible" bodily presence, ren-
dered more contemptible by disease (Gal. iv. 14), they
* Mill's Dissertations, ii. 146.
OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 113
were deeply moved, and showed the Apostle the most
touching attentions (iv. 15). And when he left them
they were " running well" (v. 7), promising to be
foremost in the Christian race.* But with charac-
teristic fickleness f their ardour was soon cooled, so
that when after more than two years' absence Paul
returned, he found symptoms of alienated affection
and weariness in well-doing. This second visit was
made while he was on his way from Jerusalem to
Ephesus in the year 54 (Acts xviii. 23). Echoes of
the emphatic warnings which he had found occasion
to give on this second visit are found in the epistle
(i. 9, and iv. 16)4 But though no doubt his presence
" stablished " (Acts xviii. 23) the waverers, more
serious dangers threatened the Galatian Churches after
his departure. And the letter he addressed to them
for the purpose of guarding them against these dangers
leaves no doubt as to their nature. The Galatians
were being persuaded that if they would be Chris-
* " The Galatians we may suppose to have been a Gentile
Church which was first converted to Christianity by St. Paul,
but previous to its conversion had gone through a phase of
Judaism." Jowett, i. 234. But Hilgenfeld (252-3) proves
that the converts were from heathenism.
f For some suggestive remarks on Celtic theologians and
Celtic Churches, see Macgregor's Galatians, 19, 20 ; and Stokes,
Celtic Church in Ireland, 63.
% It should however be mentioned that many careful critics,
such as Davidson, De Wette, Bleek, and Warfield, are of opinion
that the inroads of the Judaizers began only after the second
visit. This opinion is founded chiefly on the evidence the
epistle affords of the surprise awakened in Paul's mind on
receiving the information regarding the altered views of the
Galatians.
8
114 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
tians they must be circumcised and keep the Jewish
law.
How this serious danger had so rapidly emerged
does not distinctly appear from the letter. There is
no evidence that emissaries from the Judaizing party
in Palestine were at work in Galatia. That Paul at
least did not know of any such individuals is apparent
from his exclamation (iii. 1), "Who hath bewitched
you?" The question of the relation of Gentile Chris-
tians to the Mosaic law was one which was sure to
emerge in every Church in which there were Jewish
Christians. The easy solution of the question, or its
elevation into a matter of discussion and party strife,
depended on the amount of sagacity and charity, and
also on the proportion of the Jewish element in each
community. In the arguments of the Judaizers, who
maintained that the Gentiles must be circumcised
and observe the law, there was much that was most
plausible. The law was a divine institution, and
could not be neglected; the promises were given solely
to the Jews, to Abraham, and to his seed; the Messiah
was the Messiah of the Jews, and those who desired
to enter His kingdom must become Jews ; Jesus was
Himself circumcised, and kept the whole law ; the
original Apostles did the same; and if the Gentile
converts were not to be required to keep the law
how could they be emancipated from the immoralities
in which they were enslaved ? These arguments told
everywhere, and had they entirely prevailed, Chris-
tianity must have dwindled into a shortlived Jewish
sect. This was Paul's fear. He heard that the
Galatians were being moved by these arguments, and
ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE. 115
the Judaizing emissaries in Galatia had also insinuated
that though Paul preached another gospel, he was
not one of the original Apostles, but was an unauthor-
ised interloper, whose gospel had been picked up no
one knew where.* Besides, Paul himself was not
consistent. He had caused Timothy to be circum-
cised ; and if he exempted the Galatians, it was that
he might curry favour with them. Paul saw that
this attempt to uphold the obligation of the Mosaic
law endangered the very soul of Christianity, the
sufficiency of Christ alone. If the law as well as
Christ was necessary, if the Gentiles must receive
something more than Christ, then Christ was not
sufficient.
Never was there a more compact and effective
elucidation of an important question than is furnished
in the epistle which Paul wrote at this crisis to the
Galatians. The three elements in the assault the
disparagement of his apostleship, the elevation of
Judaism to the same rank as Christianity, the insinua-
tion that liberty meant licence are met in order, the
first occupying Paul in the first and second chapters,
the second in iii. and iv., and the third in v. and vi.
To the disparagement of his apostleship he has a
threefold reply. First, he asserts himself as "an
Apostle, not of men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ"
(i. 1), and by a simple narrative of his movements he
shows that he was not taught his gospel by man, " but
* Hilgenfeld says they represented Paul "as a kind of
ecclesiastical Demagogue." His evidence that the Judaizers
were from beyond Galatia (p. 254) is not sufficient, though it
is quite probable that was the case.
116 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (i. 12). Second,
when it became apparent that his gospel was one
which exempted the Gentiles from the burdens to
which the Jews clung, and when his right to preach
such a gospel was called in question, he went up to
Jerusalem and, with the meekness of a man who felt
his responsibility and was seeking not his own repu-
tation but solely the good of men and the recognition
of the truth, he consulted those "which were of
reputation " (ii. 2). The result was that these highly
esteemed Apostles at Jerusalem "added nothing" (ii. 6)
to his gospel, but " gave him the right hand of fellow-
ship " (ii. 9), and encouraged him to go to the Gentiles.
Third, and most convincing of all, when Peter came
to Antioch he, with his native frankness and remem-
bering the vision at Joppa, eat with the Gentiles,
which no Jew who stood upon his Judaism w r ould
have done. This, to Paul's mind, seemed to yield the
whole question, for, as he afterwards told Peter, if he
himself being a Jew neglected the strictest Jewish
regulations he could not possibly require one who was
not a Jew to observe them. Peter stood convicted by
his own act, and was rebuked by Paul accordingly
proof that both his gospel and his apostleship were
valid.
In dealing with the dogmatic significance of the
Judaizing demand that the Gentiles should be cir-
cumcised, and should observe the Jewish law, Paul
first of all (iii. 2) appeals to their own experience.
They had received the Spirit ; that is, they had the
earnest and germ of all salvation and blessedness :
how then had they received this ? There could only
ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE. 117
be one answer : " by the hearing of faith/' and not
by the works of the law. Again, look at the typical
justified man, Abraham, the friend of God and father
of the Jewish race. It was not by works but by faith
he was justified, and similarly all his seed. In fact the
law has only power to curse, for no man can fancy
that he is not condemned when the law says, " Cursed
is every one that continueth not in all things that are
written in the book of the law to do them " (iii. 10).
And most forcible argument of all, the promise was
given to Abraham and could not be made of none effect
by the law " which was four hundred and thirty years
after." If men inherited God's blessing and fellowship
by the keeping of the law, then the promise was useless.
And if any one suggested that if this is so then the
law is profitless, Paul replies that it serves a great
purpose. Through all these years it had shown men
the holiness of God and the righteousness He requires.
It taught them at once to aspire and made them feel
their sin. It disclosed to them as somehow to be
attained by them, as that which they were commanded
fco attain and responsible for not attaining, a beauty of
holiness they could not have conceived without it, and
would not have thought possible, and thus it prepared
them for salvation from sin in Christ. The work of
the law was thus a preparatory work which became
needless when Christ came ; as needless as the training
of the child is when the training has done its work
and made a man of him. For Christians to observe
the Mosaic ordinances and live in Judaism is as absurd
as for a grown man to be led about by a psedagogue.
After clinching his dogmatic exposition by an appeal
118 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
to their instinctive sense of the rectitude of his conduct
in throwing aside all Jewish scruples for their sake
and by quoting against them, out of the very law they
were trusting to, an allegory which showed how the
slave must always be extruded from the father's house
by the freeborn child, he passes in the fifth chapter to
vindicate the liberty which the Spirit gives against all
aspersions. Faith, he says, works by love, and where
you have love the law will be fulfilled. The Spirit
upholds and guides those who believe, and the proof
that they are believers is that they do not walk after
the flesh.
It is only by a blundering interpretation that the
Tiibingen critics can find in this epistle a foothold for
their favourite idea of an opposition between Paul and
the older Apostles. Paul's narrative of his own appeal
to them, and of his receiving the right hand of fellow-
ship from Peter, James and John shows that there
was no irreconcileable difference between them. The
older Apostles occupied a middle position between
the Judaizers and Paul. The Judaizers insisted that
only by passing through Judaism could any, Jew or
Gentile, become a Christian. All must be circumcised
and must keep the whole law. Paul occupied the
position at the other extreme, maintaining that
neither for Jew nor Gentile was the Mosaic law
any longer needful. The older Apostles occupied
the middle ground, continuing to observe the law
themselves but deeming it unnecessary to exact from
the Gentiles any such observance. They felt it to be
becoming in themselves as Jews to maintain their old
customs, but thev did not reckon circumcision or any
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 119
of the observances to which circumcision pledged Jew
and proselyte as necessary to salvation. They did not
feel justified in interposing even the law of Moses
between the human soul and Christ. In this middle
party there were, however, minor differences, Peter
apparently supposing that although himself a Jew he
need not punctiliously observe the Mosaic regulations,
while James (Gal. ii. 12) thought it expedient that as
Jews they should observe all their old law, or at any
rate, the authority of James was quoted in favour of
this view.
The date of this important epistle is uncertain. It
is either placed, as Lightfoot (p. 40) places it, " in the
winter or spring of the years 57, 58 A.D.," in which
case it must have been written from Macedonia or
Achaia ; or it is placed before the first epistle to the
Corinthians, in which case it was dated from Ephesus.
But, as Professor Warfield (Journal of Exegetical
Society, paper read December, 1884), says, " The
plain fact is that this epistle is unique among Paul's
letters in its entire lack of any allusion, capable of
easy interpretation, to the Apostle's circumstances and
surroundings at the time when he wrote it." The
absence of such allusions, especially the absence of
salutations from members of the Ephesian Church,
might be thought rather to indicate that he was not
writing from that great centre. His uniting witli
himself (i. 2) "All the brethren which are with me,"
would very well suit the idea that he was on a journey
while writing. Those who advocate the earlier date
have generally laid stress upon the suddenness of the
Galatian declension : " I marvel that you are so soon
120 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
removed from Him that called you " (i. 6). Warfield
does not press this, but finds some support for the
view in one or two apparent allusions to the state of
matters in Galatia which are to be found by a careful
reader of 1 Corinthians. It would appear from
1 Cor. xvi. 1 that Paul's authority was acknowledged,
and that he was again on good terms with the Churches
in Galatia. Also when Paul in 1 Cor. ix. 2, says,
" If to others I am not an apostle, yet to you at least
I am," there is some plausibility in the assertion that
the Galatians were in his thoughts, and that already
their disparagement of his apostleship was known to
him. On the other hand, if the Epistle to the Gala-
tians had been written very shortly before the first
Epistle to the Corinthians it is extremely unlikely
that Paul should not have spoken more strongly of
the parties at Corinth than he does in his first epistle,
and that he should not have more fully unfolded the
error of the Christ party than he did in the second
epistle. We find that the Galatian Judaizers had
thoroughly aroused his apprehensions, and brought
into the strongest relief in his mind the doctrines of
grace, and these are in the subsequent Epistle to the
Romans still more fully unfolded. Had Galatians
preceded Corinthians we should have found in the
latter Epistle more evident traces of the explicit and
full doctrine of freedom from the law which the
Galatian disturbance had compelled him to formulate.
NOTE. For comparison of the language of these epistles,
eee Jowett. Lightfoot, and Speaker's Com. on Gal.
121
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
As we read this epistle, which bears to be from
Paul "to the saints which are at Ephesus," two
difficulties emerge. From Acts (xviii. 19 ; xix. 8,
13 16) we know that in the Church of Ephesus there
were Jews. But this epistle is manifestly addressed
to Gentiles (ii. 11 19; iii. 1 and passim). We also
know, from the same source, that Paul spent more
than two years at Ephesus, and must have had many
personal friends among the Ephesian Christians. So
must Timothy and Aristarchus, who had been with
him in that city (Acts xix. 29 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17), and
were now with him in Rome. But not only does
Paul depart from his usual practice and abstain from
sending any personal salutations to the Ephesians ; but
in the letter he speaks of them as if they were strangers
who still required proof of his apostleship (iii. 2 4).
But we find that in the earliest times there was
some doubt as to the destination of this epistle. Ter-
tullian tells us that Marcion called it " the Epistle to
the Laodiceans;" and there was apparently in
Tertullian'sown mind a suspicion that Marcion might
be right.* Basil tells us that the words cv '
* Tcrtullian's words are worth quoting : " We have it on
the true tradition of the Church that this Epistle was sent to
the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. Marcion, however, was
very desirous to interpolate the title, as if he were extremely
accurate in investigating the point [diligentissimus explorator'J.
But of what consequence are the titles, since in writing to a
certain Church the Apostle did in fact write to all?" Adv.
Marcion., v. 17.
122 EPISTLE TO TEE EPHESIANS.
were omitted in the most ancient MSS. And this is
true of the two oldest MSS. in our hands, the Sinaitic
and the Vatican.* The suggestion of Beza and Ussher
that it might be intended as a circular letter to the
Churches of the proconsular province of Asia has
accordingly found favour with many critics. This
supposition indeed satisfies all the facts of the case.
" An epistle addressed to a plurality of Churches might
either be written so as to dispense with any local
address, or it might have a blank space, to be filled up
in each case with a different local address." f In the
former case the epistle would be addressed " to the
saints who are also believing," which is clumsy and
inappropriate.^ In the latter case a copy of the letter
could be made for each Church it was brought to and
the name of that Church inserted. This may also
account for the absence of the usual signature by
Paul himself. That signature could not be repeated
in the copies.
Another fact which throws light on the destination
of this epistle is Paul's instructions to the Colossians
(iv. 16) to send to Laodicea the letter he had addressed
to them, and also to " read the epistle from Laodicea."
This " epistle from Laodicea " was plainly an epistle
written by Paul. But it cannot have been addressed
particularly and exclusively to Laodicea, else Paul
could not have requested the Colossians to greet the
Laodicean Church and particular members of it.
* Inserted by later hand in Vatican.
f Wcstcott and Hort, Greek Test., Ap. 124.
j Credner ; see also Weiss (Einleit., 2GO-2), who is not so
satisfactory on this point as he generally is.
ITS OBJECT AND ARGUMENT. 123
Such greetings would have been sent direct had Paul
been writing to them exclusively. It must in fact
have been a letter of a general character, such as that
to the Ephesians. May it not then have been that
letter itself ? Paul knew that in passing from Ephe-
sus to Colossse Tychicus must go through Laodicea,
and he did not wish to ignore the Church there. He
writes a letter, therefore, which will equally benefit
Ephesians, Laodiceans, and Colossians, and bids Ty-
chicus carry it to the three Churches, while he instructs
the Colossians to receive it " from Laodicea."
For a circular letter no subject could be more
appropriate than the unity of the Church. Unity
is the key to this epistle : the unity of the Church
with God, the unity of the two great sections of the
Christian Church, the unity of the members of the
Church Catholic. " In Christ all things, both which
are in heaven and which are in earth are gathered
together in one " (i. 10). This is God's eternal pur-
pose, hid from former ages (iii. 5), but now made
known (iii. 5, 9). To reconcile all things to God
that is the purpose which has in all ages been running
on to fulfilment. In this purpose men are included,
" chosen in Christ to be holy " (i. 4), " predestinated
unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Him-
self," received into the closest and truest fellowship
with God. Through Christ this purpose of God is
fulfilled, for as in the Epistle to Colossians he had
said that " in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily," so now he says that as Christ is as
it were the body and fulness of God, the Church is
" Christ's body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all "
124 EPISTLE TO THE EPEESIANS.
(i. 23). In reconciling Jew and Gentile alike to God,
he has reconciled them to one another, " making of
twain one new man " (ii. 15) and giving "both access
through one spirit unto the Father." In order to
come into this true reconciliation with God and be
"filled with all the fulness of God" (iii. 19), Christ
must dwell in the heart by faith till the sovereignty
and dominion of His love over all things be in some
measure understood (iii. 17 20). As soon as Churches
and members of Churches recognise that " there is one
body and one spirit, even as they are called in one
hope of their calling, one Lord, one faith," etc. (iv. 4
6), they are ashamed of bitterness, wrangling, fraud,
and feel themselves dignified and enlarged, as belong-
ing, not to a small sect, but to the Church catholic.
The practical injunctions which follow are ruled by
two ideas. The idea of unity excludes lying, " speak
every man truth with his neighbour; for we are
members one of another" (iv. 25). Anger, stealing,
foul conversation, are also excluded by the law that
binds us to do and to say what may minister to those
about us (iv. 29). The idea that the radical relation-
ships of life are pure also plays its part. In opposition
to the Gnostic asceticism, which taught that these
relationships must be abjured if men would be holy,
Paul shows that in these relationships the highest
Christian grace, the very love which Christ bore to
men, is to be cultivated.
But this explicit exhibition of the unity of the
Church has been turned into an argument against
the authenticity of the epistle. Thus Baur asserts
that we are carried in this epistle "to that period
RELATION TO COLOSSIANS. 125
when the Christian Church was coming to realise
herself and achieve her unity."* "We have thus
before us a state of affairs which lies beyond the
standpoint of the Apostle Paul." It is impossible
that Baur should admit the genuineness of this
epistle, for in point of fact it upsets his whole theory
of the growth of the Christian Church. The reader
who comes to the epistle with'out a theory which
compels him to pronounce it un- Pauline, will see in
it evidence that Paul's strife with the Judaizers, so
far as Asia was concerned, was over.
Baur also considers that the epistle contains Gnos-
tic and Montanistic ideas and expressions.t But the
chief argument against the genuineness of this letter
is that which is founded on the similarity existing
between it and Colossians. De Wette J affirms that
it " stands in such dependence on the Epistle to the
Colossians as to be scarcely more than a verbose
amplification of the same. . . . Such a transcription
of himself is unworthy of an Apostle and must there-
fore be the work of an imitator. The style ... is
un-Pauline, being diffuse, loaded with parenthetic and
secondary clauses, somewhat disconnected, verbose,
and wanting in new thoughts." But this apparent
dependence has been by some critics reversed. Mayer-
hoff gives reason for his belief that Colossians is
dependent on Ephesians ; while Holtzmann has shown
that the balance of dependence is equal, and that the
* Paul, ii. 38 ; cf. Davidson, ii. 213.
f Refuted by Reuss, History, 117 ; who gives also the best
account of the connection of these epistles.
J Introd.,277.
126 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
two epistles are mutually indebted. De Wette's
comparison of the two is somewhat mechanical. He
sets side by side the verses and phrases in which they
agree. So far as this method goes, it is perfectly
wrought out by De Wette, whose tables are most
useful. But in examining the coincidence of the
epistles the first thing that strikes a reader is that
the subject of the one is quite different from that of
the other. It is incipient Gnosticism which is present
to the Apostle's mind in the one; the unity of the
Church Catholic and its place in God's eternal purpose
which he treats in the other. But writing these
epistles on the same day or in the same week, that
they might be sent by the same messenger, as a
matter of course the same ideas and the same
expressions find place in the two. The forger who
proposed to fill his mind with the ideas of the Colos-
sians and by the help of these ideas to treat a wholly
different subject, would find he had set for himself an
uncommonly difficult task. Whereas, supposing that
one man wrote these two epistles at the same time,
it was impossible he should not have used the same
great ideas and the same expressions. The ideas
which the epistles have in common are those which
were suggested to Paul by the Colossian heresy, the
supremacy of Christ, His central position as the
Reconciler of all things, His possession of the fulness
of the Godhead for the Church, the reality and import
of His death.
The close connection in point of time between the
two epistles is irresistibly brought home to the mind
by a coincidence which a forger could neither have
ITS AUTHENTICITY. 127
de \dsed nor been bold enough to use. In Col. iv. 7
we read, " All my state shall Tychicus declare unto
you," etc. ; and in Eph. vi. 21 we read, " But that
ye also may know my state, and how I do, Tychicus,"
etc. a phrase which would not be very intelligible
to the readers of the epistle, but which Paul naturally
used when writing it immediately after informing the
Colossians that Tychicus was to give them all news
from Rome.
Of external attestation this epistle has the usual
amount. Clement of Rome (i. 46) seems to have it
in his mind when he says, " Have we not one God,
and one Christ, and one Spirit of Grace poured out
upon us, and one calling in Christ ? " Ignatius, in his
Epistle to the Ephesians (circa 110), mentions Paul's
epistle to them and imitates the introduction of the
Apostolic letter in his own. In chaps, ix. and xv.
he also makes such use of the idea of a Temple built
of living stones as naturally suggests the similar
language of Paul. Polycarp also (c. 12) quotes as
Scripture, " Be ye angry and sin not," and " Let not
the sun go down on your wrath," and by connecting
the two texts he seems to have in his mind, not the
Old Testament Scriptures in which they originally
occur, but Paul's quotation of them in Eph. iv. 26.
In the first chapter of his letter he also quotes Eph.
ii. 8, 9. The epistle is also included as Pauline in
the Canons of the second century.
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Four of Paul's epistles Philippians, Colossians,
Ephesians, and Philemon bear on their face that
128 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
they were written while their author was a prisoner.*
They are therefore usually classed together and
styled the Epistles of the Imprisonment, or the
Prison-epistles. The three last-named letters are
assigned by many good critics f to the imprisonment
in Csesarea. But from Col. iv. 3, 11 and Eph. vi.
19, 20, it would appear that when Paul wrote these
letters he had liberty to preach the gospel. This
liberty we know he had at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16);
it is not likely that he had it at Csesarea. It has
also been pointed out that when these letters were
written he was chained to a soldier (Eph. vi. 20;
Col. iv. 3), but that while in Caesarea he was not
chained until Felix was superseded by Festus (Acts
xxiv. 27). This argument is, however, uncertain.
But even those who maintain the Csesarean origin
of these epistles, assign Philippians to the Roman
imprisonment. For although the prsetorium, or
" palace," mentioned in i. 13, might possibly be the
palace of Herod at Caesarea where he was confined
(Acts xxiii. 35), the mention of Caesar's household
(iv., 22), and the circumstances described in the first
chapter are decisive in favour of Rome.
Of course if it could be put beyond doubt that
* Phil. i. 7, 13, 14, 17 ; Col. iv. 18 ; Eph. iii. 1 ; iv. 1 ;
vi. 20 ; Philem. 1.
fSo Keuss, History, p. 106; Meyer, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld,
Weiss (pp. 249-50). Weiss lays too much stress on the
diversity of intention expressed in PhiL ii. 24 and Philemon
22. He should have noticed that Paul meant to send
Timothy to Macedonia before lie went himself (ii. 23), and
yet after his trial, which proves that he himself intended to
go elsewhere, presumably to Colossae, first.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 129
Philippians is the earliest of the four, this would
imply that the three other prison-epistles must also
date from Rome. But this is by no means certain.
The general opinion, indeed, is that Philippians is the
latest of the four.* Paul's debating the comparative
advantage of life and death (i. 20 26) seems to
imply that the crisis of his fate was impending.
Time also must be allowed for the progress of the
gospel in Rome (i. 13) ; as well as for the arrival
of Epaphroditus from Philippi, his work in Rome,
dangerous illness, the report of his illness reaching
Philippi, and a message being carried back to Rome.
But although these requirements certainly forbid our
dating the epistle at an early period of the Roman
imprisonment they do not require us to place it at
the very close. The anxiety he felt regarding his
fate must have been chronic during the two years'
imprisonment, and may have varied in intensity with
rumours of the uourt or with changes in the imperial
temper. The request made to Philemon (ver. 22)
that he would prepare him a lodging, indicates a
more certain and immediate prospect of release than
anything in Philippians. A strong argument in
favour of the earlier date of this epistle ih also
found in its similarity of expression to the Epistle
to the Romans, t and in its general unlikeness to
Colossians and Ephesians, which, had they been
written shortly before, would almost certainly have
* Holtzmann (p. 282), " It is the last Will and Testament of
the Apostle that we have here." Hilgenfeld (p. 347), " In
this letter we have the Swan-song of Paul."
f For parallels see Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 42 43
9
130 EPISTLE TO THE P1IILIPPIANS.
found some echo in this letter. These arguments
are by no means final, but the scale seems slightly
to preponderate in favour of the earlier date. We
conclude, then, that the Epistle to the Philippians
was written in the second year of the Roman
imprisonment, either in the end of 63 or early in
64 A.D.*
The occasion of the letter is obvious. Philippif
was naturally J the first city in Europe where Paul
preached Christ. His maltreatment in their city
drew out more powerfully the affection of the
Philippians, so that " once and again " after he
* Bleek shows his usual sound judgment in the following :
" We may regard it as certain (a) that all four epistles were
written during the Ecman imprisonment ; (b) that none of
them were written in the early months of that imprisonment ;
and (c) that Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon were
despatched at one and the same time, but Philippians at a
different time. We cannot, however, decide whether Philip-
pians was sent before or after the other three : one supposition
is as probable as the other."
f Called after Philip, who strengthened the site of the
ancient Crenides, or Fountains, which commanded the great
road from east to west. In Paul's time it had become a
Roman colony (Phil. iii. 20 ; our citizenship is in heaven).
" In the course of Roman history we find colonies used for
three different purposes : as fortified outposts in a conquered
country, as a means of providing for the poor of Rome, and
as settlements for veterans who had served their time. The
colonies established in Italy before the latter part of the
second century were of the first class, those designed by
Gracchus were to be of the second, and those founded by
Augustus were of the third." Arnold's Roman Provincial
Administration, 218. See also Merivale's History, vi. 238.
J Trpwrij in Acts xvi. 20 is probably geographical, but see
Hilgenfeld, 332, note.
OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 131
left them, they sent him pecuniary aid (Phil. iv. 14).
For some time before the Roman imprisonment their
friendly assistance had ceased (iv. 10), which Paul
with his usual delicacy attributes to no decay of
their affection, but solely to lack of opportunity.
But this blank interval marked with all the greater
emphasis their resumption of their old expressions
of affection. While in Rome Paul received from
his first European converts a gift made all the more
acceptable by its conveyance in the hand of Epaphro-
ditus, whose energetic co-operation with himself in
Rome Paul cannot sufficiently eulogize. Indeed this
stranger from Philippi so threw himself into the
work of Christ in the metropolis, that he became
seriously ill (ii. 30) ; and on recovering and hearing
how anxious his friends in Philippi had been on hi?
account, he desired to return to them. Paul could
scarcely send him back without putting in his hands
a written acknowledgment of their kindness.
This letter, then, was meant to be a simple letter
of friendship ; " the most epistolary of the epistles,"
the easiest and most friendly of letters, it has been
called. Paul pours into sympathetic ears a frank
account of his circumstances, his expectations, his
state of mind; and with a passing hint that their
besetting infirmities were vanity and strife (ii. 2, 3),
he sets before them the great example of lowliness,
and goes on to promise them a visit from Timothy
and himself, and to commend Epaphroditus. Ap-
parently he meant to conclude at this point; but
after writing " Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the
Lord " (iii. 1), he resumes in a somewhat different
132 EPISTLE TO THE PEILIPPIANS.
tone, and adds nearly as much as he had already
written. This introduction of a new and important
subject at the point where the letter was apparently
intended to close, has given rise to the supposition
that as Paul was closing he was interrupted by the
entrance of some friend who reported to him some
further mischievous machinations of the Judaizing
party in Rome." * This moves him, when he returns
to the letter, to break out " Beware of dogs," etc.
This is ingenious, but scarcely necessary. The fresh
beginning and continuance of the letter, even in a
different tone, needs no further explanation than
it finds in the ardour and rapidity of Paul's mind.
Having finished all he meant to say, he adds an
exhortation similar to the conclusion of the Galatian
epistle, and this exhortation gathers as it goes.f
At iv. 2 he resumes where he had broken off and,
again warning them against a spirit of discord,
names two female members of the Church, J Euodia
and Syntyche, whom he begs to be reconciled. Who
the " true yoke-fellow " is, who is to help them to a
reconciliation, is not known, unless, as Bishop Light-
foot suggests, it be Epaphroditus.
* Ewald, Sendschreiben, 448, and Lightfoot.
fThe verses 12 21 are addressed to the reactionary or
antinomian party, whose resistance to Judaizers led them to
make too little not only of the law but of morality.
J Which proves that the differences were not doctrinal, but
social and individual.
Hilgenfeld (345) suggests that the president of the
Philippian Church is intended. Eenan translates yvrjffit
ovvys "ma chere epouse" (Saint Paul, 148), and suggests
that it is quite possible that Paul may have married Lydia.
Salmon's note (Introduction^. 465) is a little too hard on Renan.
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 133
Erom the expression " To write the same things to
you" (iii. 1), Bleek and others infer that Paul had
written a letter to the Philippians previous to the one
extant.* It is very possible, and indeed probable,
that Paul wrote other letters to this Church, with
which he was on terms so intimate, but the words
cited do not prove this. What " the same things "
refer to is doubtful. The words may refer to the
immediately preceding injunction, " Rejoice in the
Lord," to which he afterwards returns, and returns
with a similar consciousness that he is harping on one
string (iv. 4) tj and already in the epistle (i. 18, 25 j
ii. 2, 17, 28) his allusions to joy have been frequent.
To Paul's happy mind the reiteration of this precept
was not irksome, and it was safe for the Philippians,
for joy in the Lord is certainly the great safeguard
against murmuring and discord. But the words may
possibly refer to what follows,:}: and Paul may have
wished to say that to repeat to them the warnings
against Judaizers which he had given to others, or to
themselves by word of mouth, was not irksome to him,
and was certainly safe for them.
The epistle is valuable as illustrating the heroism
and tenderness of Paul's character. Nothing daunts
him, nothing even damps his joy. This equanimity is
the result of his real consecration to Christ's service.
* Meyer and others think that a testimony to the plurality
of letters to this Church is to be found in Polycarp's use of
the plural (&ri<7rcAa's) when speaking of Paul's communication
with them (Polyc., ad Phil, iii), but Lightfoot has shown this
to be an unwarrantable inference.
f Summa Epistolae gaudeo, gaudete. Bengel.
J So Holtzmann (285).
134 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
It is because " to live is Christ " that he feels assured
" to die is gain" for him. The enthusiasm with which
he speaks of the furtherance of the gospel, and directs
his friend's attention to this result of his hardships,
and not to those hardships themselves ; the sympathy
and cordial acknowledgment of the service and illness
of Epaphroditus ; the remarkable delicacy with which
he alludes to the gift of the Philippians and his need
of it, are all thoroughly Pauline.
But the epistle is also valuable for its compressed
statement of his gospel as opposed to the teaching of
the Judaizers (iii. 1 12). If circumcision, Hebrew
descent, legal blamelessness, formed a just claim to
salvation, Paul had more to rely upon than the most
convinced and zealous Judaizer. He was circumcised,
of pure blood, and a rigid observer of the law. But
though he once built his hope of God's favour on
these things, and counted them over in his own mind
as his spiritual gains, he now esteemed them not at
all. He found them to be an actual hindrance, a
loss, a minus quantity. He had to cast them away,
to renounce all these claims, in order that he might
win Christ. For a man who hopes to earn God's
favour by his own righteousness has no need of
Christ, and will not accept Him. But, says Paul,
" I have suffered the loss of all things all, i.e., that
he had founded his hope of God's favour upon and
do count them but dung, that I may win Christ
and be found in Him," etc. (iii, 8, 9). He saw how
much purer, deeper, more efficient was the righteous-
ness offered to him in Christ, and therefore in order
to win it he rejected the other. To depend on both
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 135
was impossible : they mutually exclude each other.
Paul made his choice, threw away his former gains,
and so gained Christ. That is, when Christ was
revealed to him, he saw that the favour of God he
had been labouring for by strict observance of the
minutest injunction of the law, was already his by
God's free^gift. And at the same time he saw in the
character of Christ how infinite a righteousness is
the righteousness of God, and how impossible to win
God's favour by a life which should perfectly meet
the necessary requirement of a perfect God.
But while he abandoned his own righteousness as a
ground on which he might hope to earn God's favour,
he was far from abandoning the hope of holiness or
efforts to attain it. On the contrary, his aim is not
only to win Christ and to be found in Him, but " to
know Christ and the power of His resurrection," etc.
(ver. 10). His final object being " to attain to the re-
surrection of the dead," to be conformed to Christ in
spirit and in body (ver. 21), he finds in Christ new
forces for the accomplishment of this object. He, in
the first place, sees it attained in Christ, and that
gives a definiteness and hopefulness to his aim which
it had not before. And, further, the intimate fellow-
ship into which Christ has called him sustains, purifies,
strengthens him. Subdued and melted to humility and
tenderness by the love Christ had shown him in meeting
him in the full career of his sin, and giving him a
place next to Himself : enlightened in the knowledge
of the deepest roots of human character by what
he learned of Christ's own career; convinced of the
mission and power of Christ by his vision of Him, he
136 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
gives himself hopefully to the work appointed to him,
and " presses towards the mark for the prize of the
high calling of God in Christ Jesus " (ver. 14).
The authenticity of the Epistle to the Philippians
has not been seriously questioned. It receives early
support,* and was universally accepted as Pauline in
the second century. The objections of Baur are thus
summarised by himself : " What appears suspicious to
me in the Philippian epistle may be reduced to the
following three heads : 1. The appearance of Gnostic
ideas in the passage ii. 6 9.f 2. The want of any-
thing distinctively Pauline. 3. The questionableness
of some of the historical data." Such objections only
tend to lessen our esteem for the critical insight of
the writer who raises them. Bleek very justly says
that Baur's arguments " are partly derived from a
perverted interpretation of certain passages in the
epistle; they partly rest upon arbitrary historical
presuppositions ; some of them are really so weak that
we can hardly believe that he could have attached
any importance to them himself." The onesidedness
of much of Baur's criticism is illustrated by the fact
that he spends many pages on an attempt to show
that "Clement is named in Phil. iv. 3 in order to
glorify Clement of Rome as a fellow-labourer of the
Apostle." He omits to notice that the Clement named
* For passages see Davidson and Kirchhofer.
f Hilgenfeld says : " In no case admissible is the interpre-
tation of Baur, who discovers here opposition to the gnostic-
valentinian doctrine that the last Aeon of the Pleroma wished
to connect itself immediately with the Original Being but
sank back into the
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 137
in the epistle belongs to the Philippian, and not to
the Roman Church.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Colossae,* situated on the river Lycus, in south-
western Phrygia, but within the Roman proconsular
province of Asia, had in earlier times been a large
and populous city, but was considerably reduced at
the date of this letter, possibly owing to the rivalry
of its prosperous neighbours Laodiceaf and Hierapolis,
which lay a few miles farther down the river. The
only feature of the population which throws light on
the epistle is its very considerable Jewish ingredient.
Two thousand Jewish families had been transplanted
by Antiochus the Great, and had been settled in
Lydia and Phrygia; and it is important to observe
that these families had been brought from Babylonia
and Mesopotamia, t Other influences increased the
Jewish population until in Paul's time they formed
* The form Colassae seems to have prevailed only in a later
age. Bishop Lightfoot therefore, while he admits /coXao-craets
into the heading or title of the epistle, rejects it from the text.
See the evidence in his Commentary, pp. 16, 17, note.
f Tacitus (AnnaL, xiv. 27) is evidently astonished that
Laodicea should have been able to recover from an earth-
quake by its own resources ; " nullo a nobis remedio, propriis
opibus revaluit." For the demand on the imperial exchequer
made by Sardis in similar circumstances, see Annal., iL 47,
and cf. Kev. iii. 17.
I Josephus, Antif[., xii. 3.
" The vines and the baths of Phrygia have separated the
ten tribes from Israel." Quoted by Lightfoot from the Talmud.
See also Cicero, pro Flacco.
138 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
a distinctly influential element in the towns of
Phrygia.
Although the missionary journeys of Paul had more
than once lain through Phrygia, it is clear that his
route had always heen east and north of the cities
lying in the valley of the Lycus. He therefore, in
writing to the Colossians, classes them (ii. 1) with
those "who have not seen [his] face in the flesh."*
Apparently they had received the gospel through
Epaphras (i. 7),t who was himself a Colossian (iv. 12),
and probably was one of those who heard Paul preach
at Ephesus in the school of Tyrannus, and who spread
the knowledge of the Lord Jesus among "all them
which dwelt in Asia" (Acts xix. 10). Epaphras had
joined Paul in Rome, and had given him a vivid idea
of the progress and of the dangers of the Christian
Churches in the valley of the Lycus (i. 8 ; iv. 12, 13).
Teachers had appeared in Colossse who were confusing
the minds of the converts not yet " stablished in the
faith."
The precise doctrines and affinities of these teachers
can be gathered from the epistle itself, in which Paul
w r arns the Christians against them. That they were
Jews is evident from their enjoining circumcision
(ii. 11 ; iii. 11) and the observance of the Mosaic
ordinances, sacred days and seasons, and so forth
(ii. 14 22). So far they resembled the Judaizers
* For the right interpretation of these words, see Lightfoot,
and Bleek, ii. 23.
f Lardner argues strongly for the position, that Paul
founded the Colossian Church. His arguments are answered
by Davidson, ii. 171-6.
THE GOLOSSIAN HERESY. 139
who had marred Paul's work in Galatia and else-
where. But with this Judaism the Colossian teachers
mingled a "philosophy" (ii. 8), a "worshipping of
angels" (ii. 18), and an ascetic "neglect of the body"
(ii. 23), which were not characteristic of Judaizing
teachers. It would also appear that their philosophy
or theosophy endangered the supremacy of Christ,
probably by ascribing to angels the work of creation
(i. 16), of giving and enforcing the law (ii. 15), and
of mediating in redemption between God and man
(ii. 18). And it is plain that all this was taught as
a mystery or as esoteric doctrine imparted to the
initiated alone, and under seal of secrecy (cf . ii. 3 ;
i. 27 ; and the emphasis laid on the non-exclusiveness
of the gospel i. 28, in the three times repeated
"every").
But no sooner are these characteristics of the
Colossian heresy stated than it is obvious that point
by point they coincide with Gnosticism. The very
terms used by Paul are Gnostic terms.* Gnosticism,
as the name itself implies, asserted the supremacy of
knowledge (Gnosis). Faith may suffice for the multi-
tude, but the initiated, the select few, are saved by
knowledge. The esoteric doctrine they imparted was
a doctrine of creation devised to save God from the
responsibility of being the author of evil. God, who
is absolutely good, cannot by His immediate act have
produced the world ; for had He done so it also must,
like its Author, be only good. Besides this moral
difficulty there was ever clamouring for solution the
metaphysical difficulty of connecting the Absolute
* Pleroma (ii. 9), principalities and powers, etc. (i. 16).
140 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSTANS.
God with the material world. Both these difficulties
the Gnostics claimed to solve by their theory of
emanations. God expressed Himself by giving birth
to a Being worthy of Him; and this Being again
reproduced a third, and so on through successive
emanations, each naturally in proportion to its dis-
tance from the Source, having a feebler divine
ingredient, until contact with matter and the work
of creation became possible. Between the Supreme,
Perfect God, and the world, there are thus interposed
a graduated series of beings, which appear sometimes
as personal, sometimes as impersonal in the various
Gnostic systems, and which are variously known as
emanations, aeons, or angels. Underlying this whole
theory is the oriental dualism which ascribes the
origin of evil, not to the will of man but to matter.
And as a necessary result of this tenet the Gnostics
taught that redemption is to be achieved by asceticism.
The form which Gnosticism took when combined
with Jewish Christianity is distinctly seen in the
teaching of Cerinthus, who flourished in the time
of Trajan. He was a Jewish Christian, who adopted
Gnostic views, and taught that the world was not
made by the Supreme God but by a power distinct
from Him and ignorant of Him. Jesus, who was a
mere man, received at His baptism the Christ, by
whose inspiration He announced the unknown Father,
the Supreme God. Towards the end of His ministry
the Christ departed from Him, so that the mere man
Jesus suffered, died, and rose again.* This teaching
* See Hansel's Gnostics, 113 ; and Nitzsch's note in Bleek,
ii. 2527.
BEGINNINGS OF GNOSTICISM. 141
brings out clearly the Ebionite tendency which natur-
ally resulted from the Gnostic horror of matter ; and
that some similar tendency was exhibited by the
Colossian errorists is evident from the emphatic
manner in which Paul (i. 14, 19, 20, 22, etc.) links
together the supremacy of Christ and His death,
insisting that the same person who made all things
suffered on the cross.
But the emergence of Gnostic ideas and terminology
in a letter purporting to be written in the year
A.D. 64, is declared to be sufficient proof that it is
not what it claims to be. Thus Baur affirms* that
" we are here transported to a circle of ideas which
belongs to a wholly different historical period, viz.,
to the period of Gnosticism" that is, to the second
century. It is true that before the time of Cerinthus
we have no trustworthy record of any sect or teacher
who combined fully developed Gnostic ideas with
Christ's doctrine. But to argue that Gnosticism was
not known in the Church until the beginning of the
second century, and that this epistle must therefore
be referred to that period, is either to throw dust in
the eyes or to betray ignorance of history. For the
roots from which Gnosticism sprang can be traced
not merely into the first century, but through the
writings of Philo, the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesi-
asticus, back to the Persian speculations with which
* Paul, ii. 8 ; " And in this I follow him," says Hilgenfeld,
863. Holtzmann thinks the peculiarities of the epistle are
best accounted for by the supposition that it is a genuine
Pauline letter which has been interpolated to the extent of
half its contents by the unknown author of the Epistle to the
Ephesians.
142 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the Jews became familiar during the Captivity. And
there is as much reason to refer Philo to the second
century as to refer this epistle to the period of fully
developed and explicitly enounced Gnosticism. The
fact is that, long before the Christian Church was
founded, the thinkers of Asia were familiar with the
ideas and speculations which were afterwards identified
with Gnosticism ; * and if this great system was not
earlier recognised as a Christian heresy, the proba-
bility is that the delay was caused not by any lack
of endeavour to combine Christianity and Gnosticism,
but by the strenuous opposition which the Apostles
offered to the incipient tendencies towards this com-
bination.t It would be strange indeed if, in an age
when East and West were mingling, when amalgama-
tions and combinations of every kind were attempted,
when men seem to have come to distrust each separate
philosophy and to imagine that truth might be found
by combining all, no attempt had been made to
combine Christianity and Gnostic speculations. This
epistle is the most trustworthy evidence we have of
any actual attempt of this kind, and in these Colos-
sian teachers we see the spiritual progenitors of
Cerinthus and the rest.
Bishop Lightfoot has materially aided the endeavour
to posit this Colossian heresy in its proper historical
place, by showing that it has its natural precursor in
* " It is a matter of little moment at what precise timo the
name 'Gnostic' was adopted, whether before or after contact
with Christianity." Lightfoot, p. 81.
f See a singularly lucid statement in Davies' St. Paul's
Epistles, p. 80. Hilgenfeld's discussion of the rise of Christian
Gnosticism is superficial. Eirileitung, pp. 652-8.
ESSENE GNOSTICISM. 143
a well-known form of Judaism, which existed in the
time of our Lord and His Apostles. He has shown
that Essenism was Gnostic Judaism, and that this
type of Jewish thought had established itself in
Phrygia and Asia in the Apostolic age. The Essenes
represented among the Jews legalism, mysticism, and
asceticism. They were scrupulous in their observance
of the Mosaic law, though they looked with horror on
bloody sacrifices, abstained, as it would seem, from
eating flesh and drinking wine, and discountenanced
marriage. It is easy to recognise the principle which
lay at the root of this asceticism, the principle that
matter is evil, and that to be delivered from sin man
must, as far as possible, be emancipated from all
dependence on matter. They betrayed their genea-
logical connection with Persian speculation by their
worship of the sun and their doctrine of angels.
What that doctrine precisely was it is impossible to
say, for the initiated was sworn "to conceal nothing
from the members of the sect, and to report nothing
concerning them to others . . . not to communicate
any of their doctrines to any one, otherwise than as
he himself had received them . . . and to guard
carefully the names of the angels." The Essenes
would thus seem to have possessed three of the
characteristic notes of Gnosticism : " This Jewish sect
exhibits the same exclusiveness in the communication
of its doctrines. Its theological speculations take the
same direction, dwelling on the mysteries of creation,
regarding matter as the abode of evil, and postulating
certain intermediate spiritual agencies as necessary
links of communication between heaven and earth.
144 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
And lastly, its speculative opinions involve the same
ethical conclusions, and lead in like manner to a rigid
asceticism." If then Essenism came in contact with
Christianity and sought to form an alliance with it,
there would result a conglomerate distinguishable by
the very features of this Colossian heresy.
By these explanations not only is the genuineness
of the epistle established, but the point and power
of its statements are brought clearly out. Paul does
not aim at exploding the incipient heresy by argu-
ment. He contents himself \vith showing that all
that was advantageous or attractive in the new doc-
trine existed already in Christ, and existed in Him
not in appearance but in truth. To the attractiveness
of being initiated into mysteries and esoteric doctrines
to which none but the select few were admitted, he
opposes his ministry of a gospel free from all intel-
lectual exclusiveness, which he preaches to " every
creature" (i. 23), "warning every man, and teaching
every man in all wisdom, that we may present every
man perfect in Christ Jesus " (i. 28). The mere state-
ment of this true perfecting of every man by the
revelation of the mystery of Christ should be enough
to make every sound-hearted man ashamed of being
led away by a promised " perfection," accomplished
in a few by initiation into mysterious speculative
theories. Similarly, over against the theory of inter-
mediate beings saving God from direct contact with
matter, Paul enunciates the true Deity of Christ, and
affirms that "by Him were all things created, that
are in heaven and that are in earth," and that so far
from matter being evil, " all things were created . . .
ANTAGONISM TO GNOSTIC HERESY. 145
for Him" (i. 16). No language could more firmly
and explicitly affirm the proper Divinity of Christ, or
dispel the growing tendency to an Ebionitism which
might seem to save the Divine from coming into
ignominious contact with matter and even with death.
The Christ whom Paul preached was not one emana-
tion to be found at some point of the graduated
descent from God to the last developed seon, but was
Himself Divine; "it pleased the Father that in
Him should all the pleroma dwell," the totality or
fulness of the Godhead, so that in Him all Divine
attributes were to be found (i. 19 ; ii. 9). There was
therefore no need of any wisdom or help which could
not be found in Christ (ii. 3, 10). To worship angels
and seek their help (ii. 18) may seem humility, but
it is gratuitous and futile; for "ye are complete
in Christ, Who is the head of all principality and
power" (ii. 10). Hold the Head and. you are saved;
and refrain from all speculations which merely puff
you up with a sense of fancied superiority (ii. 18).
The practical results of this incipient Gnosticism
are exposed in the same manner, by exhibiting in
contrast the greater efficacy of the purely Christian
teaching. The rules of an ascetic avoidance of
material things, " Touch not, taste not, handle not,"
have a show of humility, but " are of no value against
the indulgence of the flesh " (ii. 23). The true de-
liverance from carnality and earthliness is to be found
in fellowship with Christ, in so truly believing in and
loving Him that our affections are carried with Him
to things above (iii. 1 5).
The authenticity of the Epistle is externally
10
146 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
attested by echoes in Barnabas, Clement, and
Ignatius; by quotations in Justin Martyr, and by
its reception into the Canons of the first century.
Mayerhoff was the first to throw suspicion upon it,
by exhibiting its resemblances to the Epistle to the
Ephesians. Renan argues strongly for its genuine-
ness,* and among other grounds urges that if Ephe-
sians was an imitation of it, this implies that the
imitator accepted Colossians as Pauline. Hilgenfeld
holds with Baur, that " the Colossian letter has to do
with an already fully developed Gnosticism, and this
carries it not merely beyond Paul's life-time, but be-
yond the first century. t It is, however, impossible to
imagine a letter such as this to have been written in
presence of the fully developed systems. Opposition
to these systems would have been more detailed and
pronounced.
The difficulties which have been found in the style
of the latter are explained by Paul's want of famili-
arity with this novel teaching. He was on ground
he had not traversed before, using the suggestions
of heresy to elucidate new aspects of Christ and His
gospel. The easy and natural manner in which this
letter links itself to the Epistle to Philemon (cf. iv
914 with Phil. 23, 24 ; iv. 17 with Phil. 2) is, as
Renan shows, strong proof of authenticity. It may
be added that the descriptions given of those who
send salutations correspond with the fact that Paul
and his constant companions had not been at Colossse.
Baur's idea that Luke and Mark are brought together
with " reconciling " intention is too ridiculous.
* St. Paul, x. xii. f Einleitvng, 667.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 147
The mention of " the Epistle from Laodicea "
(iv. 16) has given rise to a number of theories which
are classified and examined by Lightfoot. His own
opinion is that the epistle here referred to was that
to the Ephesians, which was intended as a circular
letter to be read first by the Ephesians, then by the
Laodiceans, and then by the Colossians. The spurious
Laodicean Epistle is given by Lightfoot. It is a
mere cento of phrases and clauses from the Pauline
letters and is entirely worthless.
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
The Epistle to Philemon stands alone among the
Pauline epistles as a letter addressed to an individual
on a private matter. The letters to Timothy and
Titus are addressed to them as officials in the Church,
and they deal with matters which concerned the
Church. But this letter is written to intercede for
a runaway slave with his master. "It is only one
sample of numberless letters which must have been
written to his many friends and disciples by one of
St. Paul's eager temperament and warm affections
in the course of a long and chequered life." * Of
Philemon we only know what is implied in this letter
and in that to the Colossians. He was resident in
Colos^se, as we gather from Col. iv. 9, where it is
stated that Onesimus belongs to Colossae. He had
been brought to the faith by Paul (Philemon 19) ;
and as Paul does not appear to have hitherto visited
Colossae (Col. ii. 1), it is probable that Philemon had
* Lightfoot, Coloxsians and Philemon, p. 369.
148 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
heard him in Ephesus, or in some Phrygian town.
If he himself had not founded the Christian Church
in Colossse,* at all events his house is the Christian
meeting place (Philemon 2), and Paul calls him his
" fellow-labourer." He has also distinguished himself
by his kindness and helpfulness, but whether this
involves that he was a man of considerable pecuniary
means does not appear. His wife, also a Christian,
had the common Phrygian name, Apphia; and
Archippus, who was a minister or deacon of some sort
in the church (Col. iv. 17),t is generally supposed to
have been their son, and from the position his name
occupies in the address of the letter this seems not
unlikely.
But the letter to Philemon was occasioned not by
Paul's interest in him, but in his slave Onesimus. A
Phrygian slave was one of the lowest known types to
be found in the Roman world, displaying all the
worst features of character which the servile condition
developed. Onesimus proved no exception. He ran
away from his master, and, as Paul thought probable
(ver. 18, 19), not without helping himself to a share of
his master's possessions.^ By the help of what he
had stolen, and by the cleverness which afterwards
made him so helpful to Paul, he made his way to
Rome, naturally drawn to the great centre, and
prompted both by a desire to hide himself and by a
youthful yearning to see the utmost the world could
* See on Colossians.
f Probably in Colossae, but Lightfoot supposes in Laodicea.
j Dr. Abbott, in his instructive romance Onegimits, repre-
sents the theft as unpremeditated.
OCCASION OF THE LETTER. 149
show of glory and of vice. But whether feeling his
loneliness, or wearied with a life of vice, or impoverished
and reduced to want, or seized with the fear of detec-
tion, he made his way to Paul, or unbosomed himself
to some Asiatic he saw on the street. And as he
stepped out of the coarse debauchery and profanity of
the crowded resorts of the metropolis into the room
hallowed by the presence of Paul, he saw the foulness
of the one life and the beauty of the other, and was
persuaded to accept the gospel he had often heard in
his master's house. How long he remained with Paul
does not appear, but long enough to impress on the
Apostle's mind that this slave was no common man.
Paul had devoted and active friends by him, but this
slave, trained to watch his master's wants and to
execute promptly all that was entrusted to him, be-
came almost indispensable to Paul. But to retain
him, Paul feels, would be to steal him, or at any rate
to deprive Philemon of the pleasure of voluntarily
sending him to minister to him (ver. 14). He therefore
sends him back with this letter so exquisitely worded *
that it cannot but have secured the forgiveness and
cordial reception of Onesimus.
Mediation is always a difficult task, and it is cer-
tainly not lightened when the parties to be reconciled
are a slave and his master. Nothing could surpass the
delicacy and fine feeling with which Paul manages this
matter. Every verse contains some turn of phrase
that reveals his tact and courtesy. Philemon's past
favours and habitual kindness are appealed to, and
* For a variety of testimonies to the beauty of the letter,
see Lightfoot, p. 384, where Pliny's similar letter is also given.
150 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON-.
Paul does not hesitate to beg for the slave's forgive-
ness as a favour to himself. The play upon the name
Onesimus * is similar to many instances in the Old
Testament "Onesimus [Profitable], who in time past
was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and
to me" (ver. ll),t and still more obviously in ver. 20,
"Yea, brother, may I be profited by thee in the Lord."
The authenticity of this private note is undoubted.
Marcion accepted it as Pauline, and it was not ques-
tioned until the fourth century. Baur's position
regarding Colossians compelled him to attack .the
Pauline authorship of Philemon, but he feels how
awkward a task this is, and apologizes for undertaking
it. " In the case of this epistle more than any other,
if criticism should inquire for evidence in favour of
its Apostolic name, it seems liable to the reproach of
hyper-criticism, of exaggerated suspicion, of restless
doubt, from the attacks of which nothing is safe.
What has criticism to do with this short, attractive,
graceful and friendly letter, inspired as it is by the
noblest Christian feeling, and which has never yet
been touched by the breath of suspicion ? " % This
* Farrar compares Whitefield's appeal to Skuter, the
comedian, who was best known in the character of Ramble.
"And thou, poor Ramble, who hast so often rambled from
Him, oh, end thy ramblings and come to Jesus."
f "As a converted slave he has been changed out of an
axprjaroc, one from whom his master derived no profit, but
rather the reverse, into an tvxprjoTOQ for both, for his master
and the Apostle. Here there is a play, not only on the slave's
name Onesimus (serviceable), but on the Christian name itself,
for the heathens often said Xpjjoroc instead of
Baur's Paul, ii. 82.
J Paulm, ii. 80.
ITS A UTHENTIGITJ. 151
critic regards it as a romance intended to convey the
Christian idea that what one loses in the world one
recovers in Christianity, and that for ever \ that the
world and Christianity are related to one another as
separation and reunion, as time and eternity (cf . ver.
15). But there is no trace of such use of the epistle in
early times. On the contrary it was considered as a
purely private and common-place letter, and the first
objections to its authenticity arose from the absence
of any profound teaching in it. It would be much
more to the point to say that it was intended to
supply an actual instance of Paul's treatment of the
slave which might justify the admission of slaves to
the Christian brotherhood and to office in the Church.
But for such a purpose this epistle is at once too
much and too little : too much, for there was no
disposition to exclude slaves, and too little because
any one who troubled himself to build this little
romance, and who could so successfully imitate Paul's
style, would certainly have gone much further and have
used the suggestions which occur in the other epistles. *
For the bearing of this epistle and of Christianity on
slavery, reference must be made to the Commentaries. f
FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Thessalonica, now known under the abbreviated
name Salonika or Salonica, was in ancient times known
* See Holtzmann, 262.
f And to such works as Brace's Ge&ta Christi, and Boissier's
Rditjion liomaine.
152 FIRST EPISTLE TO THESSALONIANS.
as Emathia, Halia,* and finally Therm, a name, like
our Bath, Wells, and Spa, common to a number of
towns which possessed hot medicinal springs. It is
situated at the head of the Thermaic gulf,f which
deeply indents the Macedonian shore, and it covers
the irregular slope which runs, not very steeply, up
from the water's edge to the crest of the hill which
" forms a semi-circular barrier round the upper ex-
tremity" of the gulf. With a rich district behind
and the open sea in front, Thessalonica rapidly became
one of the most important Mediterranean ports. Its
position, being at once suitable for commerce and
capable of defence, attracted the eye of Cassander,
who in the year 315 B.C. rebuilt and enlarged the
town, and gave it the name of his wife Thessalonica,
a sister of Alexander the Great. The subsequent
prosperity of the city justified the wisdom of its
founder. When the Romans divided Macedonia into
a tetrarchy, Thessalonica was made the chief city of
the second province (Macedonia secunda), and ulti-
mately it became the metropolis of the whole. At
the time of Paul's visit it enjoyed the rights of a free
city,J being governed by seven politarchs (cf. Acts
xvii. 6, 8), who, though responsible to the Roman pro-
consul (Acts xvii. 7, 8), were elected by the citizens
themselves.
Into this politically and commercially important
city the feet of Paul were guided as he came from
Philippi by the great Roman road (Via Egnatia)
* So called from its situation on the sea.
f Herodotus, vii. 21.
| " Liberae conditionis.'' Plin., NIL. v. 17.
THE CHURCH IN THESSALONICA. 153
which connected the region to the north of the
sea with Rome. His letter affords evidence (ii. 9)
that he quickly found employment, and felt himself
at home among the working men and tradespeople of
Thessalonica. This coincides with the fact that one
of the staple manufactures of the city was and is goafs-
hair cloth.* The sound that follows the ear as one
walks through the streets of Salonika to-day is the
wheezing and straining vibration of the loom and
the pendulum-like click of the regular and ceaseless
shuttle. Another allusion in the epistle (i. 8) re-
minds us that not only must such a city have had
especial attraction for Paul, as likely to give a favour-
able hearing to his message, but that its commercial
and seafaring population would rapidly diffuse what-
ever they themselves might receive. Every ship that
left the harbour, and every wagon that returned in-
land, carried some account of the riot at Thessalonica
and of the extraordinary man who had been the
unwitting occasion of it. No doubt his determination
to visit this city was also influenced by his knowledge
that it contained a large resident Jewish population.t
But among his fellow-countrymen his words found
little acceptance. " Some," indeed, believed (Acts
xvii. 4) ; but after three Sabbaths he was no longer
admitted to the synagogue ; and it is obvious, from
various expressions in the epistle, that the young
* See Davies' St. Paul in Greece.
f The modern population approaches 90,000, and is composed
in almost equal proportions, of Jews, Greeks, and Turks. The
Jews, who own upwards of twenty synagogues, use the Spanish
language. The Greeks are chiefly sailors and fishermen. The
Bulgarians rear horses and cultivate the soil.
154 FIRST EPISTLE TO THESSALONIANS.
Christian community was mainly, if not almost exclu-
sively, composed of Gentiles (1 Thess. i. 9; ii. 14;
and the absence of allusions to Jewish tenets, or to
the facts of Jewish history, or to the O.T.).
Being soon and suddenly separated from his
converts in Thessalonica, and knowing that he
left them in a hazardous position in which great
pressure would be used to induce them to recant,
Paul was naturally anxious to revisit them (1 Thess.
ii. 17, 18). When he found that this was impos-
sible he sent Timothy (iii. 2) to encourage them ;
and when this daring and faithful messenger returned
and reported their steadfastness, Paul, filled with
joy and gratitude, could not forbear writing (iii. 6
10). The report of Timothy is partly expressed, partly
implied. It had not been entirely favourable. Greek
vices had been carried into the Christian Church (iv.
3 8), and Paul's character and motives had already
been attacked. Timothy must, indeed, have smiled
when he reported to Paul, " Some of the unbelieving
Jews are trying to persuade the converts that you are
covetous, and find it an easy kind of life to stroll round
and see foreign parts, and get kept by harder working
men, and receive the adulation of foolish women."
Against such insinuations the Thessalonian converts
must be supposed to have been sufficiently armed, for
they had seen the Apostle walking lame from the
treatment he had received at Philippi while prose-
cuting this easy, remunerative, sauntering life of his.
They had looked with shame at the unhealed cuts on
his face and head, at his torn, soiled, much-mended
clothes. Yet Paul felt it needful, after hearing
OBJECT OF THE LETTER. 155
Timothy's report, to defend himself against insinua-
tions which might injure the Christian cause (ii. 3 9).
He sees that if they begin to doubt the sincerity of
the messenger they will go on to doubt the truth of
the message.
The object of this letter is, therefore, to remove
from the minds of the Thessalonians suspicions which
may weaken their faith and retard, or quite prevent,
their progress. The writer, therefore, begins by
assuring them that their faith and the fruits which
have evinced its truth, have been matter of constant
gratitude to God on his part (i. 1 3) ; and that they
might be stimulated to still greater efforts, he reminds
them that their election of God, and not merely Apo-
stolic approval, had been proved by their faith and its
consistent fruit. They had, indeed, been made exem-
plary to others (i. 4 10), so that among them it had
been manifest that his preaching was not a mere
human device, but was the instrument of God's power.
In the second chapter he repels the calumnies which
were being circulated about his motives, and appeals
to what they themselves have seen of his conduct and
character (ii. 1 12); and then cites their own stead-
fastness under persecution as proof that the Gospel
they had received from him was the word of God, and
*hat, therefore, by implication, he was God's com-
missioned servant (ii. 1316). In ii. 17 Hi. 13 he
defends himself against the accusation of cowardice
and fickleness, which were supposed to be exhibited
in his sudden abandonment of Thessalonica, leaving
his young converts to fight their own battle. To this
he replies that he had striven to return, and that, al-
156 FIRST EPISTLE TO THESSALONIANS.
though absent, his happiness depended on his receiving
good tidings of them ; and he further reminds them
that he had been content to remain alone in an un-
friendly city, that he might send his companion to aid
them and bring news of them.
This defence of himself and of the gospel, as sent
by God, forms the true body of the letter, and the
rest is supplementary, as is shown by the connecting
words, " Finally, then " (iv. 1). In this supplement
Paul admonishes them to hold fast the command-
ments of Jesus and especially to guard against
unchastity, little as it might be blamed by their
heathen friends (iv. 1 8). Of brotherly love he
would not have spoken had there not been among
them some manifestations which might endanger their
love: he exhorts them therefore to increase in love
and to study to be quiet and earn their own bread
(iv. 9 12). And as it was the expectation of the
Lord's coming which had led some to give up their
ordinary employments, so the same expectation had
led them to unwise questionings regarding the fate
of those who died before that event, and regarding
the time at which it might be looked for. These
questionings Paul deprecates and replies to (iv. 13
v. 11). A series of admonitions bearing upon the
actual condition of the Church is added, and the
letter concludes with the. injunction that it be
publicly read.
There is in this epistle little affirmation of specially
Pauline doctrine. " Of the inability of the natural
man to work out his own salvation, of the seat of
sin in the flesh, of justification by grace or of com-
ITS CONTENTS. 157
munity of life with Christ mediated by His Spirit,
of the position of the Christian as regards the law,
or of the Apostle's profound reflections on the
relation of Christianity to Judaism and heathenism,
we have not a word " (Weiss). From this fact it
is commonly inferred that at the date of this epistle
Paul had not as yet fully developed his theology.
That may be so : but the proof of it can scarcely
be found in this epistle, in which he was addressing
a Church whose difficulties were practical and
personal rather than doctrinal. The constantly
recurring theme in the epistle is the coming of the
Lord. It is not too much to say that " a constant
allusion to it is woven like a golden thread through-
out its whole texture, and each section, whatever its
subject, is sure to reach its climax in a reference
to it (i. 10; ii. 19; iii. 13; v. 23)."* The reason
of this is that Paul is writing to a young Gentile
Church. In preaching to Gentiles the Apostle could
not readily prove Jesus to be the Messiah or appeal
to the Old Testament Scriptures. His appeal must
be to conscience, to the undying sense of responsi-
bility in man, and to his natural recognition of the
righteousness of judgment. He summoned men to
repentance because a day was appointed in which
the world would be judged by Christ. Emphasis
was given to this appeal, and a sense of near reality
imparted to the apprehension of judgment, by the
fact that Christ was raised from the dead to be
Judge (Acts xvii. 30, 31). The coming of the Lord
was therefore primarily a coming to judgment, when
* Professor Warfield, Expositor, July, 1886.
158 FIRST EPISTLE TO THESSALONIANS.
" destruction from the face of the Lord " would light
upon His enemies (1 Thess. v. 3 ; ii. 1 9), while His
followers would for ever dwell with Him (1 Thess.
iv. 17) being "established in holiness" (iii. 13).
But some of the large terms which cover so much
in Paul's system of truth are here familiarly used
by him. "His gospel" (i. 5; the "gospel" or
"word of God," ii. 8, 9, 13) with which to his
perpetual joy and wonder he had been entrusted (ii. 4)
was God's gracious summons of men to holiness (iv. 7)
and to deliverance from the wrath to come (i. 10).
" To serve the living and true God and to wait for
His Son from heaven " (i. 9, 10) this is the conduct
and attitude of those who "receive the word."
Jesus is God's Son, the Lord raised from the dead,
Who is suddenly (v. 3) to appear from heaven with
His saints (iv. 16 ; iii. 13).
And in no epistle is the character of Paul more
frankly disclosed. His affectionate and ardent dis-
position, his devotedness to the welfare of his fellow-
men, his generous recognition of the beginnings of
good in his converts, his solicitude for their progress,
his purity of motive and untiring energy are clearly
reflected in this letter. He felt for his converts all
the love and responsibility of a parent. It was
with pain he absented himself from thgm, with
difficulty he was prevented from revisiting them,
with delight that he looked forward to the time when
this should be possible. A great nature absorbed
in great aims shines through every page of the
letter.
It will therefore be apparent that this epistle carries
AUTHENTICITY. 159
in itself the proof of its genuineness. Baur indeed had
boldness enough to deny its authenticity, but in this
denial he has not been followed by his usual adherents
but only by Noack, Van der Yies, Yolkmar, and Hol-
sten. His chief ground for rejecting it, he thus states :
" The insignificance of its contents, the want of any
special aim and of any intelligible occasion or purpose
is itself a criterion adverse to a Pauline origin." * We
have, however, seen that adequate occasion, aim, and
purpose do appear; while the demand that every
apostolic letter should contain matters of primary
importance reveals a wholly artificial conception of
apostolic life. An Apostle might surely write a letter
of friendship as well as an ordinary man. Besides,
as Jowett observes, " if it were admitted that the
absence of doctrinal ideas makes the epistle un-
worthy of St. Paul, it makes it also a forgery
without an object."
Another of Baur's difficulties is that " the chief part
of the epistle is nothing but a lengthy version of the
history of the conversion of the Thessalonians as we
know it from the Acts." But as Baur himself grounds
another objection on the difficulty of harmonizing these
two documents, and as the full and feeling narrative
of Paul is quite different in character from the brief
sketch in the Acts, this objection may be cancelled.
Again, he thinks it too much a mere echo of the
Corinthian epistles. If an epistle is unlike the
Pauline epistles Baur rejects it ; if it is too like them
he also rejects it. Jowett gives us a principle of
criticism : " There is one kind of resemblance between
* Paul iis, ii. 85 (Eng. Trans.).
160 FIRST EPISTLE TO THESSALONIANS.
two passages which indicates that one of them is
an imitation or transcript of the other; while
another kind only proves them to have been the
production of the same mind.* There is nothing
to excite suspicion in the recurrence of similar
expressions, where similar thoughts and feelings
demand expression ; and there is nothing to excite
suspicion in the recurrence of similar thoughts and
feelings, when the same circumstances are reproduced."
It is important also to note the remark of Jowett
that the ancient forgers stole not words but
passages.
Over and above the unmistakable marks which
have been left on this epistle by Paul's character,
some of his favourite expressions may be cited in
evidence of authenticity. Thus we have " joy or
crown" (ii. 19, cf. Phil. iv. 1); the playing upon words
(ii. 4) ; involved sentences growing as they go (iii. 6).
The " even I Paul " (ii. 18) with which the writer
modifies the previous expression, " we would have
come unto you," when he remembers that one of
those named with him in the inscription of the epistle
had actually revisited Thessalonica, is an inimitable
mark of truth. Again, it seems flagrantly un-
critical to refer to a forger of later date an epistle
in which Paul is represented as speaking as if he
might possibly survive till the coming of Christ.t
* Jowett's Ep. of Paul, i. 24.
t Jowett's establishment of the authenticity of this epistle
is a masterpiece, and the study of it an education in criticism.
Sabatier (ISApfare Paul, 94, note) should be consulted, He
draws attention to one of those inconsistencies which betray
DATE. 161
Externally the epistle is amply authenticated. It
is contained in Marcion's list, in the Muratorian
Canon, in the Syriac and Old Latin versions, while
reminiscences of it, if not quotations, are found in
Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
The date of the epistle is readily ascertained from
the narrative given in Acts xvii. and xviii. From
this narrative we learn that after leaving Thessalonica
with Silas and Timothy, Paul proceeded to Berea
and went thence to Athens. Whether Timothy
was sent back to Thessalonica from Berea or
from some other point, does not appear, but that he
was sent back to encourage the disciples is stated in
1 Thess. ii. 17, 18. Meanwhile the Apostle went on
to Corinth, and there he was overtaken by Silas and
Timothy coming from Macedonia (Acts xviii. 5). It
was this arrival of Timothy and the tidings he brought
which prompted Paul to write to the Thessalonian
Church (1 Thess. iii. 6). The epistle must therefore
have been written two or three months after the
Apostle's visit, and most probably in the early part of
53 A.D. Between his visit and his letter time must
be allowed for the occurrence of the events which are
alluded to in the letter the death of some at least of
the hollowness and crudeness of much of Baur's criticism.
In the body of his Paul, Baur argues that the author of
these epistles drew slavishly upon the Acts, which, according
to Baur, was not written before 120 A.D. ; but in his disserta-
tion on these epistles (printed at the end of the second
volume of the English translation) he adopts Kern's idea that
the Antichrist of 2 Thess. ii. is Nero, and that therefore the
one epistle was written slightly before, the other slightly
after the fall of Jerusalem.
11
162 SECOND EPISTLE TO THESSALONIANS
the Thessalonian Christians (iv. 13), and the fame
which their faith had attained, not only in their own
neighbourhood, but in more remote localities (i. 8).
But for these events two or three months are sufficient.
This is therefore the earliest extant epistle of Paul.
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE
THESSALONIANS.
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was evoked
by a misapplication, if not a misunderstanding, of
some expressions used in the first ; and it was probably
written a few months after it, and certainly while
Paul, Silas, and Timothy were still together at Corinth.
These brethren are included with Paul in the
inscription of the letter. It has also been remarked
that the allusion in iii. 1, 2 to opposition experienced
by the Apostle agrees well with the state of matters
in Corinth which led to the appeal to Gallio. Grotius
indeed maintained that this so-called Second Epistle
was really the First, and in this idea he has been
followed by Baur, Renan,* Ewald, and Davidson.
But there is less plausibility in the supposition than
these names might incline us to believe. The second
* Kenan's words may be cited as a specimen of reckless
criticism : " La IP 3 paralt avoir t6 6crite la premiere. La
regie suivie dans la classification des lettres de Paul portant
la meme adresse a toujours 6te de donner la premiere place a
la plus longue." The " toujours " being founded on the one
instance of the Epistle to Corinthians (as Eenan rejects those
to Timothy), which certainly stand in their proper chrono-
logical order, is a fine touch.
ITS OBJECT. 163
epistle not only presupposes, but expressly refers to
the first (ii. 15). In the first the allusions to the
recent visit of the Apostle are, as was natural, abun-
dant and vivid : in the second such allusions are rare.
In the first the Parousia is spoken of as imminent :
in the second it is guardedly and more definitely
explained. The hostility of the Jews, which at the
date of the earlier epistle had begun to make itself
felt, has at the date of the second become formidable.
In the face of these traces of date it is impossible to
invert the order of the epistles.
The object of this epistle then was to remove some
misunderstandings of what Paul had said in the first
epistle regarding the coming of the Lord. The
Thessalonians had conceived the idea that the day of
Christ was at hand (ii. 2), and in consequence they
had been in some cases led into idle waiting and dis-
orderly conduct, while as the months went by without
fulfilling their expectations, they became perplexed.
Paul therefore assures them that their continued
exposure to persecution is only a more certain evidence
that Christ will one day come for the discomfiture of
their enemies and their own deliverance (i. 4 12).
Moreover, they are not to be disturbed by the non-
intervention of the Lord's judgment, as if this- had
been definitely announced as immediately to take
place. Much, Paul tells them, must first take place.
Lawlessness must come to a head before Christ appears
to destroy it (ii. 1 12). They themselves, chosen as
they are to salvation, must hold fast what he had
taught them (ii. 13 17). They must also pray for
him and for the success of the gospel, and deal ranr-
164 SECOND EPISTLE TO THESSALONIANS.
gently with all who walked disorderly, being excited
and earned away by foolish expectations of the imme-
diacy of the Parousia.
The authenticity of this epistle has been seriously
questioned. Weiss says that " in the modern critical
school the rejection of the second epistle has become
almost as universal as the recognition of the first."
Externally it has the same attestation as the first.
But J. E. 0. Schmidt first (in 1801) questioned the
genuineness of ii. 1 12 ; and subsequently of the
whole epistle. In this he has been followed by Baur,
Pfleiderer, Hilgenfeld, and others. P. W. Schmidt
(Protest. Bibel) thinks it possible that " our epistle
is only the later form of a Pauline epistle which, in
its original form, is lost to us." Davidson * thinks
that "the purely Pauline basis has been wrought
over, changed, and extended."
This uncertainty has a twofold source. It is thought
that the view taken of the Parousia in the one epistle
differs from that which is taken in the other. The
first epistle speaks of it as imminent ; the second as
not immediate. But on more careful examination of
the first epistle it is found to be rather the suddenness
than the immediacy of the Parousia that is urged,
and in fact the writer declines to say anything of
"times and seasons." The other ground on which
this epistle is rejected is the apocalyptic language of
the second chapter. It is affirmed that the eschato-
logy of this chapter is not the eschatology of Paul,
but is borrowed from the Book of Revelation (cf.
Rev. xiii. 2, 14; xix. 20). The man of sin is sup-
* Introduction, i. 347.
ITS AUTHENTICITY. 165
posed to be Nero* who was popularly supposed to
be not dead but in hiding in the East, from which
he was one day to return. The " withholder " is
consequently Vespasian. And according to this in-
terpretation the epistle must have been written by a
disciple of Paul's in the year 68 or 70. Hilgenfeld f
calls the passage "a little apocalypse of the closing
years of Trajan ; " the mystery of iniquity being the
advancing Gnosticism of that age.
But the actual circumstances in which Paul was
placed, as described in the Book of Acts, give us the
key to the true interpretation of the passage. The
Jews were the chief danger of the infant Church. It
was by the Jews the Apostle himself had everywhere
been opposed and maltreated ; and it was by them
also the Thessalonians were now being persecuted.
But again and again in Paul's experience the Jewish
hostility was thwarted by the Roman magistracy, and
wherever he went it became more evident that but for
the protection accorded to him and his converts by the
imperial justice and authority, the Christian Church
would be crushed. This Jewish anti-Christian fanati-
cism Paul saw to be increasing. His own early life
taught him its unscrupulous bitterness and cruelty,
and he seems to have anticipated that it would cul-
minate in a personal Antichrist or false Messiah, who
should be defeated by the re-appearance of Christ
Himself. These expectations and the phraseology in
which they were clothed by Paul find their source in
the eschatological discourses of Christ Himself and in
* So Kern followed by Baur.
f Einleitung, p. 264.
166 SECOND EPISTLE TO THESSALONIANS.
the Book of Daniel. Such ideas do seem incongruous
in the writings of Paul, and yet compelled as he was in
this instance to allude to the future of Christianity
and Judaism, there is nothing either in his expectations
or in his wording of them to create surprise. As to
the fulfilment of the prediction he utters, it is safest
to say with Weiss : " Only in case the definitive
apostasy of unbelieving Judaism culminated in the
pseudo-rnessiah who, equipped with Satanic powers,
should overthrow the bulwark of the Roman admini-
stration in the last Jewish revolution was the way
opened up for anti-Christianity, to the complete
destruction of Christianity ; if the return of the true
Messiah did not at this juncture at once put an end
to His caricature." *
Wai-field's exposition f of the passage is ingenious
and plausible, but scarcely in keeping with Paul's
experience. He precisely reverses the interpretation
given above, and finds in the imperial line of Rome
all the characteristics of the man of sin. The " with-
holder " is therefore the Jewish state which, so long
as it existed, formed a protecting sheath in which the
Church was sheltered till it acquired strength.
All criticisms of this epistle should be studied in the
light of Dr. Salmon's wise and cautious words : " It is
undeniable that long before the year 70, eschatological
speculation was a subject of Christian thought. We
have not the materials to write its history, and I
marvel at the assurance of the man who pretends that
he so knows all about the progress of Christian ideas
on the subject in the fifteen years between 54 and 69,
* Eialeitutoj, 178. f Expositor, July, 1886.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 167
that while he feels it to be quite credible that such a
forecast of the end of the dispensation as is contained
in 2 Thess. ii. might have been written at the latter
of these two dates, he is quite sure it could not have
been written at the former." *
PASTOKAL EPISTLES.
The Epistles to Timothy and Titus are entitled
" The Pastoral Epistles " because they were addressed
to these friends of Paul in their capacity of pastors,
and for the purpose of \guiding them in the discharge
of their pastoral functions. But while this title suffi-
ciently indicates their common and general charac-
teristic, it should not be allowed to obscure the fact
that there is, in all the three letters, and especially
in 2 Timothy, much that is personal and private.
They have as abundant external attestation as
could be expected. In Clement's Epistle (vii. 3 ;
xxix. 1) there are echoes of 1 Tim. v. 41 and ii. 8.
In Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, besides echoes,
there is a distinct reference to 1 Tim. vi. 10, 7 in
c. 4, " The love of money is the beginning of all evil.
Knowing therefore that we brought nothing into the
world, and are unable to carry anything out . . . . "
After the middle of the second century the epistles
are recognised as Paul's and quoted freely. Marcion,
indeed, rejected them, and Tatian is supposed to have
rejected those to Timothy. But, as Jerome states in
the preface to his Commentary on Titus, these heretics
rejected the epistles, not on critical grounds, but
* Introduction, p. 459.
168 PASTORAL EPISTLES.
merely because they disliked their teaching. He says
they used no argument, but merely asserted, This is
Paul's, This is not Paul's. It is obvious that men
holding such opinions as Marcion and Tatian held
would not willingly ascribe authority to epistles which
condemned asceticism.
So far, then, as the early Church can guarantee to
us the authenticity of writings ascribed to Paul, the
Pastoral Epistles are guaranteed. But since the
beginning of this century, when J. E. 0. Schmidt
(Einleitung, 1804) cast doubts on the first epistle, they
have all been seriously called in question. Schleier-
macher, in his letter to Gass (1807), argued that
1 Timothy is an imitation of 2 Timothy and Titus,
and decidedly rejected it. Eichhorn proceeded to
show that the difficulties attaching to the first Pastoral
equally attached to all the three, and that they must
stand or fall together a conclusion which has gene-
rally been accepted by all schools of criticism.* Fol-
lowing such pioneers, it was to be expected that Baur
should decidedly reject all the Pastoral Epistles. He
concluded that they were written about the year 150
for the purpose of combating Gnosticism and of
defending the Church against its assaults by a more
definite ecclesiastical organisation.f And although
some of his statements and positions have been modi-
fied by his followers, they have, as a school, accepted
it as a final decision of criticism that these epistles
* Holtzmann (Die Pastoral-Brief c, p. 7) calls the three
letters " unzertrennlichere Drillinge," as Ephesians and
Colossians are inseparable twins. Holtzmann's book is the
fullest on the subject.
\ Baur. Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe, 1835.
THEIR AUTHENTICITY. 169
are not from the hand or time of Paul. But in face
of the proofs adduced to show that the errors and
ecclesiastical organisation implied in the epistles can-
not be matched by anything in the middle of the
second century, few critics of repute, save Hilgenfeld,
are courageous enough to place the epistles so late as
Baur did. Hausrath would find a place for them in
the time of Hadrian, and Pfleiderer is much of the
same mind. These two critics also admit that in
2 Timothy there are undoubted Pauline fragments.*
Some of the difficulties which have prevented the
acceptance of these epistles have been exaggerated,
and may at once be removed. It has, for example,
been pointed out that Paul's name appears alone in
the address of these letters, whereas in the genuine
Pauline letters he unites with himself Timothy (six
times), or Silvanus (twice), or Sosthenes (once). But
both in Romans and Ephesians the name of Paul
stands alone, and in the Pastoral Epistles there is a
personal element which quite accounts for Paul's
departure from the usual custom, as well as for the
absence of greetings to friends in Ephesus. At the
same time the letters were in their ultimate destination
public. The strong affirmation of his apostleship ( 1
Tim. ii. 7) would seem out of place in a letter written
by Paul to Timothy as friend to friend ; but the writer
* Pfleiderer (Protest. JBibel) accepts as genuine Pauline
fragments 2 Tim. i. 15 18 and iv. 921. See also Hausrath.
Renan says : " Some passages of these three epistles are so
beautiful that we naturally ask whether the forger had not in
his hand some authentic notes (billets) of Paul, which he has
incorporated in his apocryphal composition." ISEgliise Chretl-
enne. p. 95.
170 PASTORAL EPISTLES.
could not keep out of view the persons in whose society
Timothy was living. It is also surprising that Paul
should write instructions to one whom he had recently
parted from, and should advise him regarding circum-
stances which had arisen before the parting took place
(1 Tim. i. 3). This difficulty has appeared to some to be
increased by the fact that Paul expected soon to return
to Ephesus (1 Tim, iii. 14). But after Paul's depar-
ture Timothy may have more urgently felt his need
of written instructions, and may have wished advice
in writing that he might refer to it from time to
time, and, if need were, even refer others to it. Or,
without any application from Timothy for such in-
structions, Paul may have had reason to know that
he would be none the worse of receiving them. And
that Paul could not count on speedily rejoining
Timothy is apparent from 1 Tim. iii. 15.
The important difficulties are these three : 1st, the
difficulty of finding any place for these letters in the
known life of Paul; 2nd, the fact that they seem
to imply an ecclesiastical organisation and a doctrinal
development, both orthodox and heretical, considerably
in advance of the Pauline age; and 3rd, that the
language of the epistles is in a great measure different
from that of the accepted epistles.
1. Where can we find a place for these letters in
the life of Paul ? The data for positing 1 Timothy
are that Paul had gone from Ephesus into Macedonia,
leaving Timothy in Ephesus (i. 3).* These conditions
are not satisfied : (a) on Paul's first visit to Ephesus
* Otto's attempt to make out that it was not Paul but
Timothy who had gone into Macedonia, is futile.
CHRONOLOGICAL DATE. 171
(Acts xviii. 1921), for then he went, not to Mace-
donia, but to Syria. (/3) The second visit was prolonged,
and there is evidence that, during his stay in Ephesus,
Paul made excursions into other parts ; but the epistle
implies a longer previous existence of the Ephesian
Church than this early date would admit of. (y) On
the occasion of the riot which terminated Paul's long
stay in Ephesus, he did leave that city to go into
Macedonia; but he did not leave Timothy behind
him, for already he had " sent into Macedonia Timo-
theus and Erastus " (Acts xix. 22), and, as we find
Timothy again in Paul's company on his return from
Greece (Acts xx. 4), there is no room, in the intervening
months for any such stay of Timothy at Ephesus as
is implied in the epistle. Besides, when Paul was in
Macedonia after being compelled to flee from Ephesus,
Timothy was with him (2 Cor. i. 1), and therefore
could not have been " left " in Ephesus by Paul. It
is also apparent, from the predictive language of Acts
xx. 29, 30, that heretical teachers had not yet plainly
appeared in the Church of Ephesus. We must, there-
fore, place the Pastoral Epistles, which imply the
presence and influence of such teachers, after Paul's
arrest at Jerusalem and subsequent imprisonment.
The data of the historical position of 2 Timothy are :
(1) that Paul had recently been at Troas, Corinth,
and Miletus (iv. 13, 20); (2) that he was now in
Rome (i. 17); (3) that he had been tried (iv. 16);
(4) that he was still a prisoner (i. 8, 16; ii. 9); (5)
that he believed himself near the end of his life
(iv. 6) ; and (6) that he hoped shortly to see
Timothy (iv. 9, 21). Some of these data agree very
172 PASTORAL EPISTLES.
well with the first imprisonment; but others seem
irreconcilable with the idea that the letter dates from
that period. Before coming to Rome the first time
Paul had been two years in Csesarea, and could not
have spoken of having recently been at Troas.
The data given us in the letter to Titus are: (1)
that Paul had been with Titus in Crete, and had left
him there (i. 5) ; and (2) that he meant to winter in
Nicopolis (iii. 12). All attempts to find a place for
these data in the recorded life of Paul have been in
vain.
It appears then that in the life of Paul, so far as
recorded in the Book of Acts, there is no room for the
Pastoral Epistles. But in the Prison Epistles we
have found anticipations of acquittal and departure
from Rome, which, to say the least, make it doubtful
whether Paul's life ended in the year 64. And it is
remarkable that in anticipating deliverance he ex
presses also intentions regarding his future move-
ments which perfectly correspond with the actual
route implied in 1 Tim. i. 3. In writing to Philemon
he requested that a lodging might be prepared for
him, intimating thereby that he meant to make
Colossae his first destination. But in writing to the
Philippians at nearly the same time he had expressed
the further intention of visiting Macedonia (Phil,
ii. 24), which he would naturally fulfil by passing
through Ephesus on his way from Colossse. As there
is, then, no historical evidence that Paul did not
survive the year 64, and as these Pastoral Epistles
were recognised as Pauline in the immediately suc-
ceeding age, we may legitimately accept them as
PAUL'S SECOND IMPRISONMENT. 173
evidence* that Paul did survive the year 64 that
he was acquitted, resumed his missionary labours,
was again arrested and brought to Rome, and from
this second imprisonment in the city wrote the Second
Epistle to Timothy his last extant writing.
These epistles do not stand alone as evidence of
the acquittal and second imprisonment of Paul. In
the Muratorian fragment (circa 170 A.D.) the journey
of Paul to Spain is spoken of as if it were a well-
known fact.f Clement of Rome had long before
used language (Ep. c. v.) which is indeed variously
understood, but which it is not unreasonable to
suppose alludes to the same journey. "Paul . . .
having become a herald both in the east and in the
west, received the noble renown of his faith, having
taught righteousness to the whole world, and having
come to the boundary of the west,+ and having
witnessed before the rulers, he thus departed from
the world." Critics who deny Paul's acquittal under-
stand the " boundary of the west " to mean Rome.
Considering that Clement was himself in Rome, with
half the Roman empire lying to the west of him, it
seems extremely improbable that he should have
spoken of that city as " the boundary of the west,"
especially as he must have known that Paul had
intended to go much farther west than Rome. The
* See this ably argued by Salmon, Introd., p. 497 500.
f The words are " Lucas optime Theophilo comprendit, quia
sub praesentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote
passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli
ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis." On the meaning of the
whole sentence, see Westcott, Canon, 479.
174 PASTORAL EPISTLES.
best modern editors of Clement's Epistle (Lightfoot
and Gebhardt and Harnack) are agreed that the
expression means Spain.* Moved by these evidences
Renan, though he rejects the Pastoral Epistles,
believes in the acquittal of Paul, and in his resumption
of missionary labours. And while the language of
Clement is not without ambiguity, the balance of
probability does seem to incline that way. We con-
clude, therefore, that there is room for these epistles
in the life of Paul, though not in that portion of his
life which is recorded in the Book of Acts.
2. The second difficulty in the way of accepting
these epistles is found in the traces which they
betray of an ecclesiastical organization and theological
development which belong to an age later than the
Pauline. Baur finds in the m/Tt0eWs of 1 Tim. vi. 20
an allusion to Marcion's work of that name, and in
the fia^cu vofUKai of Titus iii. 9 further allusions to
Marcion's tenets. Others have found allusions to
Valentinian or Ophite ideas ; but Holtzmann has
shown that no definite sect of Gnostics is aimed
at, but rather that an incipient Gnosticism not yet
formulated is in view.
The condition described in the Pastoral Epistles is
rather that of a soil prepared for Gnosticism, than
that of an already developed heresy. As Weiss says,
" It was not a question of actual error that denied or
* " Bishop Pearson (Minor Thcol. Works, i. 362) quotes in
illustration a passage from Philostratus (v. 4) in which Gades
is said to lie KCLTOL TO TIJG EvpwTrtjQ rlp^a." Wace, in Speaker's
Commentary ; his introduction to the Pastoral Epistles is an
admirable summary.
INCIPIENT GNOSTICISM IMPLIED. 175
combated the truth of salvation, a fact that has
constantly been ignored or directly contradicted ; but
of teaching strange things that had nothing to do
with saving truth (1 Tim. i. 3 ; vi. 3), of foolish and
presumptuous enquiry (2 Tim. ii. 23; Tit. iii. 9)
respecting things of which nothing is or can actually
be known (1 Tim. i. 7 ; vi. 4); which, moreover, are
altogether unprofitable and empty of truth (Tit. iii. 9),
so that they lead only to vain talk (//.aratoAoyui,
1 Tim. i. 6, cf. Tit. i. 10), to profane babbling, desti-
tute of all true religious value (j3c(3r)\cu KciHxjxaviai, 1 Tim.
vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 16). Those who occupy themselves
with such things think by this means to attain to
and participate in knowledge of an exceptionally high
character (1 Tim. vi. 20, i^euSaWfios yvoms)."
So also Godet says:* -'The danger here is of substi-
tuting intellectualism in religion for piety of heart and
life. Had the writer been a Christian of the second
century trying, under the name of Paul, to stigmatise
the Gnostic systems, he would certainly have used much
stronger expressions to describe their character and
influence." Of that there can be no doubt. The
writer enters into no direct polemic with the heretical
teachers, but merely in a passing and incidental
manner warns Timothy against them. The ^evSww/ios
yvwo-ts and the "endless genealogies" do, however,
identify these teachers with incipient Gnosticism,!
while the use they made of " the Law " and " Jewish
fables," as well as their comparison to Jannes and
Jambres, identify them as Jews. In fact, the class of
* Expositor, Jan. 1888.
f See Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, p. 56.
176 PASTORAL EPISTLES.
persons alluded to in these epistles is not essentially
different from the teachers referred to in Oolossians.
That the epistles imply an ecclesiastical organization
in advance of that which their supposed date warrants
can scarcely be maintained. The letters themselves
were written because as yet there was no definite,
well-understood organization. They were meant to
guide Timothy and Titus in matters so fundamental
as the character requisite in those who were ordained
as elders and deacons. Besides, we find in these
epistles precisely what was characteristic of apostolic
times, and not of the second century, the plurality
and equality of presbyters in each Church. There is
no trace of the monarchical episcopate elevating itself
above the presbyterial administration. For the tradi-
tion mentioned by Eusebius, that Timothy was " bishop "
of Ephesus and Titus " bishop " of Crete, is refuted by
the letters themselves, which amply prove that the
office, if such it may be called, held by these friends
of Paul was merely temporary.
3. The third difficulty arises from the un-Pauline
character of the phraseology. (1) There occurs an
unusual number of Hapax legomena. In 1 Timothy
there are seventy-four words which do not occur else-
where in the New Testament. In 2 Timothy there
are forty-six such words, and in Titus twenty-eight.
The impression made by these numbers is, however,
considerably modified when we read the lists of these
words,* and find them largely composed of very
common Greek words, such as oXAtos, p^rois, tnor^ptos,
u>, (rax^/Dovtos, TCKvoyovelv, and so on. No one
* Holzmann's Pastoralbriefe, 86, 87.
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 177
can read these lists without perceiving that, if Paul
has not elsewhere used the word, it is because he had
no occasion to mention the thing e.g., 70175, xoAKcv's,
ypaw&fs, 7rp<r/:?vris, /xr/rpaXwr/?, etc. Still, with all
deductions, there remains a sufficient number of words
to excite remark, especially when we recognise that
these new words are to some extent unusual compound
words such as avroKaraKptTOS, eTepoSiSaovcaAetv, KaAo-
SiSao-KaAos. (2) Perhaps it is even more staggering
to find that the use of particles in these epistles differs
from that which is found in the Pauline epistles.
Thus apa, Sto, eTretra, tSe, tSov, /Z^TTCDS, owceu, wcrTrep,
do not occur. This, however, may be satisfactorily
accounted for by the character of the epistles. They
are not argumentative, and do not require to employ
such particles as apa and Sio.
EPISTLE TO THE HEBKEWS.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is in the singular posi-
tion of being a book of unquestioned canonicity, but
of unknown authorship. Modern critics are agreed
in disregarding its occasional rejection in ancient
times, and in allowing its adequate treatment of an
important subject, its final adjustment of the Jewish
and Christian dispensations, its skilful composition
and flexible style, to win for it a secure place in the
New Testament canon. And yet of its authorship
we can only say with Origen, "Who wrote this
epistle God alone certainly knows."
1. In the Latin or Western Church the tradition
is against the Pauline authorship. Clement of Rome
12
178 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
(circa 93) freely quotes the epistle, but on no occasion
does he name its author. The Muratorian Canon
reckons only thirteen epistles of Paul, and omits that
to the Hebrews. So too Caius, a presbyter of Rome
(c. 200) (cited by Eusebius, H. E., vi. 20), ascribes to
Paul only thirteen epistles, and leaves out Hebrews.
Irenseus and Hippolytus are said (Photius quoting
Stephan Gobar) to have denied the Pauline author-
ship, and certainly Irenseus, in his work against
Heresies, cites every epistle of Paul's except the short
Epistle to Philemon and that to the Hebrews. This
negative tradition of the Western Church passes into
positive repudiation of the Pauline authorship in
the African branch of that church. Tertullian (De
Pudititia, 20) says, " I am unwilling to superadd the
testimony of a companion of the apostles. For there
is extant an epistle addressed to the Hebrews by
Barnabas, a man of such authority that Paul ranked
him with himself in 1 Cor. ix. 6." He then identifies
the epistle as our Epistle to the Hebrews by citing
Heb. vi. 4 8. From the manner in which Tertullian
refers to the epistle we should gather that it was not
merely his private opinion that Barnabas was the
author, but an opinion uncontradicted in his country.
2. Passing to the Eastern Church we find a very
different tradition. Here the uniform popular belief
was that the epistle belonged to Paul. And " what
we observe in Alexandria is the very interesting
spectacle of a struggle between the inherited tradition
and theological scholarship, in which the latter is seen
putting forth a variety of efforts to reconcile the
results of its own observation of the epistle with the
ITS AUTHORSHIP. 179
external tradition." * Thus, as early as the middle of
the second century, Pantsenus is found striving to
explain the absence of Paul's name from the epistle,
which he accounts for by Paul's modest reluctance to
call himself the apostle to the Hebrews, as the Lord
Himself had been sent to the Hebrews.f In the end
of the second century Clement of Alexandria accounts
for the absence of Paul's name, on the ground that,
as the Hebrews had imbibed prejudices against him,
his name might deter them from reading the epistle.
He also affirms that Paul wrote it in Hebrew, and
Luke carefully translated it for the use of the Greeks.
Origen's opinion may be gathered from his words : J
" I should say that the thoughts are the Apostle's, but
the language and composition belong to some one who
recorded what the Apostle said, and, as it were, noted
down what his master had spoken. If, then, any
Church receives this epistle as Paul's, let it be com-
mended for this, for not without reason have the
ancient men handed it down as the work of Paul.
But who it was that really wrote the epistle God only
knows. Tke account, however, that has been current
before us is, according to some, that Clement, who
was bishop of Rome, wrote it ; according to others,
that it was written by Luke, who wrote the Gospel
and the Acts." It is obvious that these writers are
aware of a tradition which refers the epistle to Paul,
but that from the first difficulties had been felt in
reconciling with this tradition the actual peculiarities
of the epistle.
Epistle to the Hebrews, by Prof. A. B. Davidson, p. 29.
f Eusebius, H. E., vi. 14. J Eusebius, H. E., vi. 26.
180 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
3. From the fifth century to the reformation the
epistle was accepted with rare exceptions as Pauline.
This was due to the influence of Jerome and Augustine,
especially the latter. Jerome's mode of citing the
epistle reveals his dubiety : "The epistle which, under
the name of Paul, is written to the Hebrews ; " " He
who writes to the Hebrews ; " " The Apostle Paul, or
whoever else wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews."
Augustine vacillates, sometimes counting this epistle
among Paul's, sometimes citing it anonymously, some-
times declaring that he is moved by the authority of
the Oriental Churches. The progress of opinion during
the lifetime of Augustine is distinctly marked by the
decisions of councils. In the Council of Hippo in 393,
while Augustine was still a presbyter, and in the third
Council of Carthage, held in 398, the prevalent
dubiety was indicated in the enumeration, " Of the
Apostle Paul thirteen epistles : of the same to the
Hebrews one." But in the fifth Council of Carthage
in 419, where Augustine was also present, the some-
what meaningless distinction is abandoned and the
enumeration boldly runs : "Of the epistles of Paul in
number fourteen."
4. In later times the authorship of the epistle has
been much debated. Erasmus advocated the claims
of Clement, while Luther suggested that Apollos was
the author. In this idea he has been followed by
several recent critics (Tholuck, Bleek, Farrar, Hilgen-
feld), while with others (Renan, Salmon*) Tertullian's
* "The place of the epistle in our Bible testifies to the
lateness of the recognition of the epistle as Paul's in the
West, . . . this order, after Paul's acknowledged letters, is
ITS AUTHORSHIP. 181
ascription of the letter to Barnabas is supposed to be
correct. Many, however, still hold the Pauline
authorship.
From this brief recital of opinion it will be evident
that we must depend mainly on internal evidence for
the ascertainment of the authorship of this epistle.
An examination of the epistle proves : (1) that it is not
a translation. Not only are the citations of the Old
Testament taken from the LXX., but its language is
woven into the argument. There are also plays upon
words and alliterations (v. 8; ix. 15 18; x. 38, 39;
xi. 37; xiii. 14) * impossible in a translation. The free-
dom of the style is also evidence in the same direction.
(2) The author was a Jew. He addresses Jewish
readers as one of themselves. (3) He was, however,
a Hellenist, a Jew in contact with Greek thought and
using the LXX.f (4) He was acquainted with the
writings of Paul.* (5) He was not an apostle, but
that which prevails in later, and especially in Western, MSS.
But the earliest order of all concerning which we have infor-
mation is that of the archetype from which the Vatican MS.
was copied. In the Vatican MS. itself, and in other Eastern
MSS. this epistle comes after that to the Thessalonians, and
before the letters to individuals ; but the numbering of the
sections shows that the Vatican MS. was copied from one in
which the Hebrews stood still higher in the rank of Pauline
epistles and came next after that to the Galatians. The
Thebaic version placed it even a step higher, viz., immediately
before the Epistle to the Galatians." /foZwww, 619.
* See Holtzmann, 314 ; and Alford.
f For coincidence of his language with Philo's see Carpzov's
Sacra Exercitationes.
J This is put beyond a doubt by the parallels in Bleek,
Holtzmann, and Salmon.
182 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
one who had received his knowledge of the truth at
second-hand (see ii. 3). Some of these characteristics
oppose the Pauline authorship. Paul uses the Hebrew
and not the Greek Bible ; and his formulae of citation
are also different from those employed by this author.
Paul never speaks of himself as receiving the gospel
through the ministry of others. His epistles are never
impersonal but always overflowing with personal
feeling and abounding in personal references. But
convincing as these features of the epistle are, it is the
language and the thought which prove it un-Pauline.
The language of Paul is rugged and disjointed and
impetuous; while this epistle is distinguished by
rhetorical skill, studied antithesis, even flow of
faultless grammar, and measured march of rhyth-
mical periods."*
Considerable difference of opinion exists as to the
relation which the doctrine of the epistle holds to
Paulinism. By some critics it is believed to represent
* " Diversity of style is more easily felt by the reader than
expressed by the critic, without at least a tedious analysis of
language ; one simple and tangible test presents itself, how-
ever, in the use of connecting particles, inasmuch as these
determine the structure of sentences. A minute comparison
of these possesses therefore real importance in the differentia-
tion of language. Now in the epistles of St. Paul tl TIQ occurs
50 times, tire 63, iron (in affirmative clauses) 19, tlra (in
enumerations) 6, 8k Kai 4, t'nrep 5, IKTOQ ei \ir\ 3, tlyt 4,
fiijTrioQ 12, p.r)K(.Ti 10, fjitvovvyt 3. idv 88 times, while none of
them are found in the epistle except lav and that only once
(or twice) except in quotations. On tho other hand, Wiv
which occurs 6 times, and idvirep which occurs 3 times in the
epistle are never used by St. Paul." Kendall, p. 27 ; Theology
of Hebrew Christians.
ITS AUTHORSHIP. 183
the early apostolic Jewish Christianity as distinct
from Paulinism (Schutz, Planck, Riehm, Weiss) ; to
others it seems to have been written by one of the
Pauline school (Neander, Delitzsch) ; some find in it
Paulinism modified by Alexandrianism (Pfleiderer,
Hilgenfeld, Hausrath). The point of view is certainly
not that of the Apostle to the Gentiles. To this writer
there are 110 Gentiles and no question of circumcision
and uncircumcision. The writer occupies a position
regarding the law which is slightly in advance of
Paul's, though it does not disagree with it. He
considers the law to be the Divinely appointed pre-
paration for the gospel, as Paul also did. The house
ruled by Moses and by Christ is one house. But
the law " made nothing perfect ; " it was a thing of
shadow and symbol; the reality is of Christ. The
coming of Christ therefore involves the obsolescence of
the law. The Jew is as free from it as the Gentile.
All this, however, was involved in Paul's teaching
(although the law is spoken of more disparagingly,
vii. 16 18, than in Paul's writings). The death of
Christ is also viewed in this epistle as a priestly act ;
in addition to what we learn from Paul this writer
developes the significance of Christ's priesthood, as
well as of His sonship. On the other hand, we miss
the subjective and uo-called mystical treatment of the
believer's connection with Christ's death a theme
never absent from Paul's thoughts.
But if not Paul, who wrote this remarkable letter ?
One who spoke of Timothy as brother (xiii. 23), as
Paul spoke of him as son. One, therefore, of the
younger companions of Paul. Luke, Clement, Titus,
184 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Silas, Barnabas, Apollos, Mark, have all been thought
of. But in behalf of most of these names there is
nothing positive to urge. The description of Apollos
in Acts xviii. 24, is decidedly in his favour ; but the
circumstance that so far as we know his labours
were confined to the Greek cities on the JEgean sea
presents a considerable difficulty.* In favour of
Barnabas' claim is the positive affirmation of Ter-
tullian, and much that we know about him.t But
probably the only safe conclusion is that of Mr.
Kendall : "I see little hope of our recovering now a
name which was mere matter of conjecture in the
second century." And in these circumstances Dr.
Bruce's reflection may appear suitable,* " It seems
fitting that the author of an epistle which begins by
virtually proclaiming God as the only speaker in
Scripture, and Jesus Christ as the one speaker in the
New Testament, should himself retire out of sight
into the background."
Neither is it quite easy to determine for what
readers the epistle was intended. That the title " To
the Hebrews" is correct may be inferred from the
contents of the epistle. But was it addressed to the
Jewish Christian Churches as a whole (Keuss), or to
some particular Church or Churches ? That the latter
is the correct view appears not only from the salu-
tation and personal references at the close (xiii. 23, 24),
* " The silence of primitive tradition appears to me con-
clusive against the theory." Rendall, p. 18.
f His claims and their inadmissibility are well stated by
Godet in the Expositor, April, 1888.
J Expositor, March, 1888.
FOR WHAT READERS INTENDED. 185
but also from allusions here and there in the body
of the letter to circumstances which must have been
peculiar to particular Churches (v. 11, 12; x. 34).
Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Palestine, have all been
advocated as the probable destination of the letter.
On the whole, the opinion that the writer addressed
some Church in or near Palestine is the most defensible.
His appeals are directed to persons who were in danger
of falling back into Judaism, owing to the hold which
their hereditary forms of worship and the fascination
of the visible temple had over them. "Jerusalem
was the home of Jewish conservatism, and all the
influences there tended to develop and strengthen
even in Christian circles a reactionary spirit." But
a letter addressed to the Church of Jerusalem could
scarcely have used language which implies that it
had furnished no martyrs (xii. 4), nor could it have
spoken of that Church as deriving its knowledge of
Christ indirectly and not from Himself (ii. 3). And
even though the writer, being a Hellenist, might
naturally use Greek to whomsoever he was writing,
there is some weight in the objection that any one
writing to the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem would
naturally use Aramaic. We must, therefore, find
the original recipients of the letter in some Church
outside Jerusalem, and possibly beyond Palestine
itself, but composed largely of Jewish Christians.
Probably those who read Mr. Kendall's careful dis-
cussion of the subject will agree with his conclusion :
"To one of these great Syrian cities, perhaps to
Antioch itself, I conceive the epistle to have been
addressed; for there alone existed nourishing Chris-
186 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
tian Churches, founded by the earliest missionaries
of the Gospel, animated with Jewish sympathies, full
of interest in the Mosaic worship, and glorying in
the name of Hebrews; who nevertheless spoke the
Greek language, used the Greek version of the Scrip-
tures, and numbered amongst their members converts
who had, like the author, combined the highest ad-
vantages of Greek culture with careful study of the
Old Testament, and especially of the sacrificial law."
But if we cannot certainly name the particular
Church to which this epistle was addressed, we may
at least hope to ascertain the condition in which its
members were. It is apparent that the letter was
prompted by the writer's desire to check the begin-
nings of apostasy or tendencies towards it which were
making themselves visible among those to whom he
writes. The practical purpose of the letter appears at
once, and as early in the letter as chap. ii. 1 the writer
betrays his fear lest his readers might already have
been drifting away from their moorings. This purpose
to encourage, to stimulate, to prevent relapse and
apostasy, to check faint-heartedness and unbelief,
appears throughout the epistle (iii. 6, 14; iv. 1, 11;
vi. 18, 11, 12; x. 23, 3639; xii. 1, etc.). The
writer has observed a disposition to " turn back " ; he
fears that some may not hold fast their profession.
This wavering has been occasioned by their exposure
to persecution (xii. 1 8), but this persecution was
not of a severe kind (xii. 4), such as they had at an
earlier period been subjected to (x. 32 34), and had
"joyfully" endured. They seem rather to be now
exposed to the privations which result from social
ITS OBJECT. 187
excommunication, and to the inroad of doubts which
were insinuated into their minds by the arguments
of their former co-religionists, the Jews. These doubts
had not as yet availed to cause them to apostatize,
but they had dimmed their vision and numbed their
energies. They had been twitted with adopting a
religion which had neither temple, priest, nor altar ;
with choosing as their king and leader one who had
suffered death ; with abandoning a religion which had
been ordained by God, mediated by angels, adminis-
tered by Moses. And although they still adhered to
Christianity, they were so moved by this "contradic-
tion of sinners," that they had admitted questionings
whether they were not perhaps making sacrifices and
exposing themselves to privations for a mistake.
The writer knows that if only they can once see
the real glory of Christ and His religion, all these
doubts will vanish, and accordingly he proceeds to
send them such an exposition of that glory as is in
point of fact a magnificent apologetic for Christianity
from the Jewish point of view. Comparing Christ
with the angels, with Moses, and with the Aaronic
priesthood, he demonstrates the superiority, the reality
and perfectness, of the religion of Christ. This com-
parison occupies the first seven chapters. The writer
then, after a brief summing up of what he has already
said, proceeds to exhibit the superiority of the second
to the first covenant (viii. 6 13), and of the true, God-
pitched tabernacle and the salvation therein accom-
plished to the first, man-made tabernacle with its
furniture and sacrifices (ix.l x. 18). On this
demonstration of the perfect and eternal character
188 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
of the religion of Christ and of its superiority as the
medium through which men are brought nigh to
God, the author founds a forcible appeal and exhorts
his readers to draw near to God and to hold fast
their profession (x. 19 25). This exhortation he
enforces by warnings (x. 26 31), by awakening
remembrances of better times (32 39), and by the
rapid, suggestive, and eloquent survey of their pre-
decessors in faith (xi.), and of Him whose example
of faith and endurance is perfect (xii. 1 4). This
strain of exhortation is continued through the twelfth
chapter, and the epistle closes with miscellaneous
admonitions.
From the manner in which the Levitical services
are spoken of it is generally* gathered that the epistle
cannot have been written after the destruction of
Jerusalem. It is impossible to suppose that a writer
wishing to demonstrate the evanescent nature of the
Levitical dispensation, and writing after the Temple
services had been discontinued, should not have
pointed to that event as strengthening his argument.
How could he possibly have used such language as
that of x. 2, regarding such services, if already they
had ceased to be offered It Mr. Kendall very strongly
argues for a date immediately preceding the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem. "I conceive that the fatal year
A.D. 70 had arrived, and the Roman armies had
gathered round Jerusalem. . . . The approaching
end of the sanctuary is the thought which underlies
the whole epistle, and furnishes the only satisfactory
* Though Holtzmann and some others give it a later date.
f See this forcibly put in Hilgenf eld's Einleitung, p. 381.
DATE. 189
key to its contents." But it is difficult to suppose
that had this been the date, there would have been
no more direct reference to the impending event or
the present distress, a distress in which the Jews
were more likely to suffer than the Jewish Christians.
The epistle may, therefore, be assigned to the year
66 or 67. It was possibly written from Italy, but
the words "they of Italy (OLTTO -njs 'IroXtas) salute
you" certainly are more naturally understood to
imply that some Christians had come from Italy to
the place where the writer was at the date of the
epistle. These same travellers may have brought the
news recorded in the preceding verse, that Timothy
had been set at liberty. For in all probability
Timothy had gone to Rome in answer to Paul's
urgent request (2 Tim. iv. 9, 21), and had there
shared his friend's imprisonment, though not his
condemnation and fate. Timothy, we gather from
the same closing verses of our epistle, was shortly to
leave Rome and to arrive at the place where the
writer was.
EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Among the Catholic epistles, that of James stands
first.* It is addressed "to the twelve tribes which
are scattered abroad ; " f in other words, to the
Jewish Christians dwelling beyond Palestine. The
merely national meaning of "the twelve tribes" is
* " Quia ipse Hierosolymorum regendam suscepit Ecclesiam."'
Seda, Prologue to Cath. Ep.
t iv ry Siaoiropy, in the Dispersion ; cf. Deut, xxviii. 26.
190 EPISTLE OF JAMES.
excluded by the fact that the writer as "a servant
of the Lord Jesus Christ " addresses them as holding
the faith of the same Lord (ii. 1). Neither can " the
twelve tribes " denote the spiritual Israel, the Church
of Christ, whether Jewish or Gentile, for the epistle
is Jewish in every line. The Hebrew Christians
throughout the world are addressed. And the chief
difficulty is not, to see how this small document should
find its way from town to town and Church to Church,
for the constant intercommunication might accom-
plish that ; but it is, to reconcile this large, universal
address with descriptions of Church life which cannot
readily be accepted as universal ; see v. 6 ; iii. 1 ;
v. 4; ii. 2.
The state of matters among the Jewish Christians
which this letter discloses is not a happy one. Not
only had the members of the Church suffered, from
unexplained causes, strange reversals of fortune
(i. 9, 10) ; but no such attainment in character as
might be expected of Christians, had been made. Of
heathen grossness there is indeed no word; but
worldly greed and the pride of life and selfish cruelty
that come of greed abounded (iv. 1 ; v. 9). The
distinction between rich and poor had been
accentuated in unseemly angling for rich proselytes
(ii. 2), and in heartless contempt of the poor (ii. 3).
And at the root of all lay a contentment with super-
ficial knowledge and bare profession of faith (ii. 14),
an otiose creed, and a practical denial of the truth
that life is a training ground for the making of
"perfected" (i. 4) men, and that only by trials or
temptations can men be trained. Very forcibly and
ITS CHARACTER. 191
explicitly does the writer denounce these vices. The
epistle is throughout ethical. It is, as it has been
called, the Sermon on the Mount among the epistles.
It presents Christianity as the ethical fulfilment of
the law. By looking into the perfect law of liberty
and continuing therein, by manfully enduring
temptation, the people of God are to be perfected,
and so to win the crown of life. The faith of Christ
must show itself not in wrangling and pretentious
word-splitting, but in exemplary and meek conduct
(iii. 13; i. 26, 27). The Christian is to be the
perfect man (i. 4 j iii. 2).
That doctrine is eschewed in the epistle is there-
fore intelligible. Not so easily is it understood why
specially Christian motives are not urged. There are
indeed explicit Christian allusions (i 1 ; ii. 1 ; ii. 7 ;
v. 7, 8). The faith spoken of in chap. ii. is Christian
faith (ii. 1, and notwithstanding ii. 19). And the
law which James has in view throughout is the law
as exemplified in the life of Christ and which His
friends delight to keep, "the law of liberty," "the
perfect law " (i. 25).* The word also by which God
has begotten the Jewish Christians (i. 18), the word
of truth, the engrafted word, can be nothing else
than the Gospel of Christ. t While too there is no
teaching about Christ, there is throughout the
clearest echo of Christ's teaching.:}: Everywhere
the language of the epistle recalls the language of our
* Cf. Barnabas ii. 6 : 6 Kaivbf vop,of TOV Kvpiov rm&v avtv vyoQ.
f See Lechler, i. 293 ff.
i As Beyschlag says : " Essentially it is the teaching of
Christ, and thus there is little teaching about Christ."
102 EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Lord.* The style also is similar ; the brief, com-
pressed sayings and the frequent use of figure.t
This would seem to argue that the James who wrote
the letter was a contemporary and friend of Jesus.
Other marks of date there are, but all contested.
There is no allusion to the great controversy about
circumcision and the Mosaic law, which occupies so
much space in the writings of Paul. Does this imply
that our epistle was written before that controversy
arose (as Neander, Lechler, Hofmann, Salmon,
suppose) or after it had died out (as is held by
Hausrath) ? The epistle was written at a time when
few of the richer Jews were Christians ; the member-
ship of the Church was mainly filled from the poorer
classes (ii. 5), and the rich are characterized by greed
and oppression. If the rich men apostrophized in
v. 1 are not Christians but Jews, and if those visitors
to the Christian meeting came as guests or spectators
and not as fellow-worshippers, then this relation of
the Jewish Christian to the Jewish population belongs
to a date at which as yet the Christians were a sect
within the Jewish community. The reference in
v. 6 is so uncertain that to base an argument upon
it cannot be considered safe. But the Christian
place of meeting is still the " synagogue " (ii. 2),
either the Jewish synagogue or at all events a place
so distinctively Jewish as to be naturally called the
* Of. v. 12, Matt. v. 37 ; i. 22, Matt. vii. 26 ; i. 25, John
xiii. 17 ; ii. 5, Luke vi. 20 ; iv. 10, Matt, xxiii. 12 ; iv. 12,
Matt. vii. 1 ; i. 5, Matt. vii. 7 j i. 4, Matt. v. 48 ; iv. 9, Luke
vi. 25. See Salmon, pp. 669-70.
t See i 6, 11, 17, 23 ; iii. 3, 4, 512.
ITS DATE. 193
synagogue. The officials of the Church are also
presbyters (v. 14), and there is no word of any
bishop.
But these signs of an early date must be otherwise
interpreted, if it is found that the writer of this
epistle made use of the epistles of Paul, the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 1 Peter, and the gospels. Certainly
the discussion of the relation of faith and works, in
the second chapter, does not prove the writer's
acquaintance with Paul's position. Rather it must
be accepted as evidence against such acquaintance,
for it is incredible that with a knowledge of the
Pauline letters he could have said just so much and
no more. He is in perfect agreement with Paul's
teaching, and had he known the Epistle to the Romans,
he could hardly have failed to affirm his agreement,
or at any rate to accommodate his language to that
of Paul. The passages commonly cited to prove the
writer's acquaintance with the Epistle to Romans
are chiefly i. 3 (cf. Rom. v. 3, 4), i. 22 (Rom. ii. 13),
iv. 1 (Rom. vii 23), iv. 4 (Rom. viii. 7).* Consider-
ing that both the thoughts and the vocabulary of
Paul and James must have been to a considerable
extent identical, these passages can hardly be
accepted as proof that James had seen the Epistle
to the Romans. " Doers of the law," " hearers of the
law," "enmity against God" how constantly must
such terms have been heard on Jewish lips. The idea
that the trial of faith works patience is common to
* Parallels to other epistles of Paul consist solely of the
recurrence of single words which happen to have been used
by Paul.
13
194 EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Paul and to James ; but was there ever any Christian
who had not this idea 1 Besides, the mould in which
the idea is cast is quite different in the two letters.
The analogies to the Epistle to the Hebrews are
superficially striking. In Heb. xii. 11, we find "the
peaceable fruit of righteousness " (KapTros ei/n?i'ucos
SiKaioo-unjs) while in James iii. 18 we have " the
fruit of righteousness in peace " (KOPTTOS SIKCUOCTWT^
ev fipyvy). But the idea in the one passage is
quite different from the thought of the other. ID
James the idea is that those who make peace sow
righteousness ; in other words, that out of unity and
kindliness springs righteousness. The thought in
Hebrews is that out of chastisement with all its pain,
perplexity, and trouble, there springs serene and un-
troubled righteousness. So far then as appears from
the writer's supposed use of other epistles, this Epistle
of James may be of an earlier date than the rest ;
and so far as signs of date are concerned, it may
have been written by a contemporary of the Lord.*
With none of the three contemporaries of the Lord
mentioned in the New Testament under the name of
James does the writer of our epistle explicitly identify
himself not with James " the brother of John," nor
with James "the less," literally "the little" (Mark
xv. 40), nor with James the " Lord's brother " (Gal.
* Davidson (i. 313) is of opinion that " the production is
a post-Pauline one, proceeding from a Jewish Christian or
Bbionite. " He does not think it as late as the second century ;
but most probably of date A.D. 69 or 70. Hilgenfeld puts it
later, in the reign of Domitian. Baur, Zeller, Hausrath, and
others put it in the second century.
BY WHAT JAMES WRITTEN. 195
i. 19). The authority with which the writer speaks,
combined with the circumstance that he does not call
himself an apostle, is generally supposed to point to
James the Lord's brother ; * who, though he withheld
his adhesion to the faith while Jesus lived, seems to
have been convinced by the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 7),
and to have early occupied the place of greatest in-
fluence among the disciples at Jerusalem. To him
Peter sent the news of his release (Acts xii. 17);
in the council at Jerusalem he presided (Acts xv.);
and it is still James to whom Paul reports himself
on a subsequent occasion (Acts xxi.-18). Among the
unbelieving Jews, as well as among the Christians,
he won universal respect by his unblemished character
and the severe sanctity of his life. This respect seems
not to have been diminished by his attachment to the
new faith, for that attachment did not make him less,
but more a patriot and an upholder of the law. His
holiness seemed to the people to stand between them
and the calamities that were felt to be impending,
so that they called him Obliam, the bulwark of the
people.f His martyrdom must have taken place be-
tween A.D. 62 and 63.
* The claims of James, the son of Zebedee, are strongly
urged by Mr. Bassett in his Introduction to the Epistle.
f Eusebius (H.E., ii. 23) preserves from Hegesippus, a Jewish
Christian of the second century, the following account of
James : " James was holy from his mother's womb. He drank
neither wine nor any intoxicating drink, and ate no flesh
meat. His head was not touched with a razor, he did not
anoint himself with oil or make use of the bath. He alone
was permitted to enter into the sanctuary, for his garment
was not of wool but of linen. He alone entered into the
196 EPISTLE OF JAMES.
The right of this epistle to a place in the canon
was early canvassed. Eusebius * tells us that it was
classed among the antilegomena, that it was not
mentioned by many of the older writers, but that
it was read in the churches. Jerome f gives a similar
account of it : " James wrote only one epistle. . . .
It is asserted that this was published by some other
person under his name, though as time went on, it by
degrees obtained authority." Origen is the first to
quote it by name, and his manner of doing so shows
that he was aware that doubts as to its authorship
might be entertained (ev Ty c^epofjifvy Ia,Ku>/3ou
eVioroXirj). Clement of Alexandria does not appear
to have known it ; nor is it mentioned in the Mura-
torian Fragment. But the Peshito has it, and if the
allusions in Clement of Rome are uncertain, there
can be no doubt that Hermas made very large use
of it.J Its canonicity was settled by the Council of
Carthage, A.D. 397, but was denied at the Reformation
by Erasmus, Cajetan, and others.
The language of the epistle has given rise to much
discussion. The style is Jewish in its abruptness;
temple, and he was found prostrate on his knees praying for
forgiveness for the nation, so that his knees became hard like
those of the camel . . . On account of his extraordinary
righteousness, he was called the ' just.' " A careful examination
of the tradition regarding James will be found in Lechler,
i. 59 66. The entire passage in Eusebius should be read ;
and reference should be made to Stanley's Apostolical Age,
p. 319.
* H. E., ii. 23.
t De Vir. lllustr., 3.
t See Salmon, 562 ; or Kirchhofer.
LANGUAGE OF THE EPISTLE. 197
but the Greek is pure, * and the vocabulary seems
to indicate that the author was well read in Greek
classical literature. Hence Bishop Wordsworth argues
for an Aramaic original, a hypothesis which he sup-
ports by a minute examination of the Old Latin
Version. This hypothesis cannot be said to be estab-
lished, but it is well worth the attention of scholars.
That James should have adopted the same method as
his countryman Josephus, and have originally com-
posed his letter in Aramaic, and then have had it
translated into Greek with the aid of some one who
was master of both languages is in itself probable and
accounts for the facts. The Gospel and the Epistles
of John are as well written as this epistle, but the
vocabulary employed by John is the colloquial vo-
cabulary and not the literary,f whereas in the Epistle
of James words occur which would hardly be used
save by a writer acquainted with Greek literature.
There are thirteen words in this short letter which are
not found in the Septuagint; and though a certain
proportion of these are common words, three or four
of them are not so. Besides these there are seven very
rare words, dWAeos, dve/Aio/x,evos, aTmpaoros, aTrocnaaoyAa,
Sai/x,oi>tw8?75, OpfjcrKoSj xpvcroSaKTvXios. And among the
twenty-seven words which James uses in common with
both Septuagint and classics, some are words which
would scarcely be picked up by hearing colloquial Greek.
* An exact analysis of its language is given in Stiidia
Biblwa, p. 149.
f Cf. Bunyan's style ; perfectly lucid and harmonious but
constructed with merely the colloquial material available to
an uneducated man.
198 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
While therefore it might perhaps be rash to say that
this letter could not have been written by a Pales-
tinian Jew who habitually used the Septuagint, the
probability seems on the whole to be that if written
either by James, the son of Zebedee, or by James the
Lord's brother, it would first be composed in Aramaic
and then be rendered into Greek.
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
This epistle claims to be from the hand of the
Apostle Peter, and it was universally accepted as
genuine by the early Church. Eusebius mentions it
among the undisputed books of the New Testament.
It is found in the Syriac and Old Latin versions. It
is referred to in 2 Peter iii. 1, which, whether written
by Peter or not, is certainly a very ancient document.
It is freely used by Poly carp, and echoes of it are
heard in the Epistle to Diognetus. Papias also used
it, and by Irenaeus and Tertullian it was undoubtingly
accepted ; * so that Kenan's language t is not too
strong when he says, "The First of Peter is one of
the writings of the New Testament which are the
most anciently and the most unanimously cited as
authentic."
Neither is internal evidence altogether awanting.
We have indeed not much material for forming an
idea of Peter's style; but knowing that he was a
* Polycarp, ad Phil, 1 ; 2 ; 8 ; Papias in Eus., H.E., iii. 39 ;
Iren., ad Hcer., IV. ix. 2 ; Tertullian, Scorpiace, 12.
f Renan, L'Anteckrist, p. vii.
ITS AUTHENTICITY. 199
companion of the Lord's, we should expect this to
colour to some extent anything he might write.
Neither are we disappointed. He claims to be a
witness of the sufferings of Christ (v. 1), and seems
to differentiate himself from those who had not seen
Christ (i. 8). His exhortation to the presbyters (v.
2), " feed the flock," recalls Christ's parting command
to himself (John xxi. 16). In v. 5 he uses the
expression " gird on, like a slave's apron, humility,"
which naturally takes us back to the scene in the
upper chamber, when Peter had seen the Lord gird
Himself and do the slave's office. And the passage
(ii. 20 25) in which the writer sets before his readers
the great example of unmerited and submissive suffer-
ing, is certainly very agreeable to the idea that he
had seen Christ buffeted and heard Him reviled. The
rich practical teaching of the epistle, and its stronglv
hopeful tone, may also be accepted in evidence of its
apostolic authorship.
Against this evidence it is pleaded that the allusions
bo persecution found in the epistle do not accord with
the historical conditions during the lifetime of Peter.
[f we are to find circumstances which agree with
those implied in the epistle, we must come down at
any rate as far as Trajan. It is only then that the
very name of Christian (iv. 16) was enough to con-
demn a man. Baur and, with certain modifications,
his followers call attention to the decidedly Pauline
tone of the letter, and argue that it must have been
written by a Paulinist with the purpose of conciliating
the Jewish Christians by adducing the name and
teaching of Peter in confirmation of Pauline doctrine.
200 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Both these objections touch points of interest and
importance in the epistle.
It is apparent (i. 6; iv. 12, etc.) that the letter
was written to Christians who were suffering for their
religion. But the persecution to which they were
being subjected does not appear to have been insti-
tuted by the magistrate or governor of the district
in which they lived, but to have been of a social kind.
The Christians addressed in the letter had refused to
join their old associates in " excess of riot " (iv. 4),
and were therefore calumniated. They were spoken
against as evil-doers (iii. 16 ; ii. 12), and they were
invoked by Peter to prove by their conduct that these
accusations were false (iii. 16; ii. 12). These accu-
sations therefore were social calumnies, and not legal
indictments. Indeed Peter hints (iii. 13) that to be
free from persecution they have only to continue in
well-doing, each in his own position, whether as ser-
vant (ii. 18 25), as wife (iii. 1 6), or as husband
(iii. 7). There is no allusion to trials before the
authorities, nor to imprisonment, nor to death ; so
that it is needless to suppose either with Mayerhoff
and others that the IsTeronian persecution is referred
to, or with Baur, Hilgenfeld, and others that the
persecution under Trajan had commenced. Even the
strongest passage adduced in favour of these views
(iv. 16) will not bear such an interpretation. It is
"reproach" (iv. 14) they suffered as Christians, and
the fear was that they would be " ashamed " of this
reproach, and their deliverance from it was still to
be by unmurmuring patience and continuance in well-
doing (iv. 19^1.
ITS PAULINISM. 201
Baur's idea that the epistle was penned by a Paulin-
ist personating Peter for conciliatory purposes is
based on the fact that the epistle presents numerous
resemblances in thought and expression to the epistles
of Paul. Identity of thought is found in Rom. viii.
17, 18 and 1 Pet. i. 4, 5; Rom. viii. 28 30 and
1 Pet. i. 2; Rom. v. 6 and 1 Pet. iii. 18. The
practical exhortations found in 1 Peter can all be
paralleled, and seem in many instances to be verbally
derived from Rom. xii. 1 xiii. 14.* The verbal
coincidences in these passages are too numerous to
admit of any other explanation than that the author
of the one letter had access to the other.
Between this epistle and that to the Ephesians
there are also resemblances, but these are fainter and
rather in thought than in language.t But unfortu-
nately for the theory of Baur, this epistle shows also
decided traces of familiarity with the letter of James,
the pillar of Judaistic Christianity.:}: Not only may
the address of Peter's epistle seem to have been
suggested by that of James, but three quotations
* See Holtzmann, p. 488.
f They will be found stated in Salmon, pp. 553-5 ; and
Pluraptre on this epistle.
| Hatch (JEncyc. Brit., Art. Ep. of Peter) gives the following
coincidences "(1) between 1 Peter and James i. 6, 7 and i. 2,
3 ; i. 12 and i. 25 ; i. 22 and iv. 8 ; ii, 1 and i. 21 ; iv. 8 and
r. 20 ; v. 5, 9 and iv. 6, 7 ; v. 6 and iv. 10 ; (2) between
I Peter and Romans i. 14 and xii. 2 ; ii. 5 and xii. 1 ; ii. 6
10 and ix. 32 ; ii. 13 and xiii. 1 ; iii. 9 and xii. 17 ; iii. 22 and
viii. 34 ; iv. 3, 7 and xiii. 11, 12 ; iv. 9 and xiii. 13 ; iv. 10 and
xii. 6 ; (3) between 1 Peter and Ephesians i. 1 sq. and i. 3sq.;
i, 14 and ii. 3 ; ii. 18 and vi. 5 ; iii. 1 and v. 22 ; iii. 22 and i.
20; v. 5 and v. 21."
202 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER,
from the Old Testament are common to the two
epistles (1 Pet. i. 24; iv. 8; v. 5). Such expressions
as "manifold temptations," which are common to both
epistles, must have been frequent in the lips of
Christians, and cannot be founded on; but perhaps
the words "the trying of your faith" (1 Pet. i. 7)
may be evidence that Peter had read the remarkable
passage in James i. All that we can conclude there-
fore from the familiarity with Paul's Epistle to the
Romans, which this letter betrays, is that the writer
had probably been in Rome after that epistle had
reached its destination, or at any rate had seen it,
and that the irreconcileable difference which Baur
supposes to have existed between the Apostle of the
Gentiles and the older apostles is the creation of his
own imagination.
We have still to ascertain for whom the epistle
was intended. The geographical area within which
it was to find its first readers is accurately defined
" Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia."
But who the elect strangers scattered, e/cAe/cTois ira.pf.Tn-
STJ/MOIS Siao-Tropas, throughout these places are, is doubt-
ful. Weiss and many other critics hold that Diaspora
is here used in its usual and unchristianized sense of
the Jews who lived outside the Holy Land, and that
Peter addresses the Jewish Christians living in the
countries named. In favour of this it may not only
be pleaded that this is the usual meaning of the word,
but that in the letter itself appeal is made to Old
Testament Scripture (i. 16; ii. 6, etc.); the prophets
of the Jews are familiarly introduced (i. 10); the
example of holy women, and especially of Sarah, is
TO WHOM ADDRESSED. 203
presented (iii. 5, 6) ; the history of Noah is supposed
to be known (iii. 20) ; and the letter closes with the
Jewish salutation, "Peace be with you." On the
other hand, it is argued that some knowledge of the
Old Testament was always acquired by Gentile con-
verts, even though they had not been formerly prose-
lytes ; that the wives spoken of in chap. iii. are said
to have become Sarah's children, which shows they
cannot have been Jewesses by birth ; that the state
of the Jews prior to their reception of Christ could
scarcely be spoken of as "your ignorance" (i. 14);
that the text cited from Hosea (ii. 10) was applied
by Paul to Gentiles, and that in iv. 3 the readers
seem to be explicitly declared to be Gentiles, and to
have been idolaters. It is further argued that as
Christians were the spiritual Israel, so the desig-
nation "diaspora" might be applied to Christians
scattered abroad. The natural objection to this appli-
cation of the word is that Christians were not " scat-
tered abroad" in these countries; but, if Gentiles,
were dwelling in their own homes there. This objec-
tion is obviated by the supposition of Dr. Salmon,
who feels " much inclined to take the word literally,
and to believe that Peter's letter was written to
members of the Roman Church whom Nero's perse-
cution had dispersed to seek safety in the provinces,
Asia Minor -being by no means an unlikely place for
them to flee to." This is an inviting interpretation ;
but the contents of the epistle indicate rather a settled
society and an organized Church. It may indeed be
accepted as certain that the letter is addressed to all
Christians dwelling in the regions named. And that
204 FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the Christian Churches of these districts were com-
posed of Gentiles and Jews may also be accepted as
certain. The differences which elicited Paul's Epistle
to the Galatians had apparently been removed, and
now there existed a consolidated Church, in which
evidently the Gentile element prevailed. And Peter
addresses these composite Christian communities under
the designation " elect strangers of the dispersion,"
from his old Jewish habit of calling all his co-reli-
gionists in those foreign parts " the dispersion."
The place where the letter was written is not so
undoubted as the explicit naming of it would at first
sight lead us to suppose. For though Babylon had,
since the captivity, always contained a large Jewish
population, it is known that there occurred, in the
reign of Caligula, a very considerable exodus from that
city. Tradition, too, points rather to the West than
to the East as the scene of Peter's apostolic labours.
The early ecclesiastical writers,* therefore, believe
that under the name " Babylon " Peter means Rome;
and this idea has been fostered by Roman Catholic
writers, who think they make a point if they establish
that Peter was first bishop of the imperial city. But
it is naturally asked, If Peter meant Rome why did
he not say " Rome " ? He is not writing an Apoca-
lypse but a friendly letter, and unless good reason can
be shown for his using this figurative style we must
adhere to the literal meaning. Besides, it is doubtful
if Rome was thought of as Babylon before the Nero-
nian persecution, or before the Apocalypse of John.
The date is also uncertain. It seems likely that
* Eusebius, H.E., ii. 15.
ITS OBJECT. 205
Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome about the year
67 A.D., which accordingly limits the date on the one
side. On the other side the date is limited by the
Epistle of Paul to the Romans, of which, as we have
seen, Peter made use. If he also had seen the Epistle
to the Ephesians, this would bring his epistle down
to some year subsequent to Paul's imprisonment ; so
that we should be compelled to place it in the year
65 or 66. Weiss, who holds that this epistle preceded
those of Paul, places it in the year 54, before the dis-
turbances alluded to in the Epistle to the Galatians.
Bleek and Wieseler find a place for it during the
Roman imprisonment of Paul. Among critics who
do not accept it as Petrine, some place it in the reign
of Domitian, but the great majority, following Baur,
find a date for it under Trajan, who in the year 112
authorised the prosecution of Christians.
The object of the letter is practical. It is intended
to encourage the Christians who were suffering on
account of their faith, and who apparently feared even
greater sufferings. The Apostle writes cheerily and
hopefully, reminding them that they have an inherit-
ance " incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not
away," and that, although they may be called to many
trials, these will pass away and leave them in possession
of a perfect salvation, which will be revealed at the
appearing of Christ. This salvation is so great, that it
occupied the minds of the prophets, and you are to keep
this salvation in view, and strive to be holy, as He who
calls you to it is holy. Think, too, of the price that has
been paid for your redemption, Jesus Christ, a lamb
without blemish. It is to glorify Him you are called,
206 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
and to partake with Him. Therefore, be exemplary
among the Gentiles in all social relations, as members
of society, servants, wives, husbands. To suffer, doing
well, is a grace, and by continuing in well-doing though
you suffer, you will convince the Gentiles. Imitate
Christ in this, who when He was reviled, reviled not
again, when He suffered, threatened not, but committed
Himself to Him that judgeth righteously. As Christ
suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same
mind. It will not be for long : the end of all things
is at hand.
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
This epistle claims to have been written by " Simon
Peter ... an apostle of Jesus Christ " (i. 1), and to
be the " second " from that hand (iii. 1). The writer
accordingly alludes to his having been a companion of
the Lord (i. 14), an eye-witness of His majesty (i. 16).
one of the apostles (iii. 2), and a friend of Paul's
(iii. 15). It is very doubtful whether any of the
Apostolic Fathers were acquainted with the epistle.
Clement of Home* does indeed speak of Noah as a
preacher of repentance, and of the exemption of Lot
from the punishment that fell on Sodom and Gomor-
rah ; but in Josephus, the Mishna, and the Sibylline
books, f Noah is also spoken of in similar terms, and
the language used by Clement regarding the cities of
the plain does not resemble that which we find in this
epistle. Dr. Abbott and others lay great stress on
* Ep. ad Cor. vii. ; ii. f Holtzmann, p. 500.
ITS AUTHENTICITY. 207
Clement's use of the expression /xeyoXoTrpcTnjs 8oo (ix. ;
cf. 2 Pet. i. 17), but it must be owned that the force
of this coincidence is somewhat deadened by the occur-
rence of pfyaXoTrpenrel /JouXrjo-ei previously in the same
paragraph, and by the fact that the expression is used in
quite a different connection. Echoes of the epistle may
be heard in Theophilus (ad AutoL, ii. 9; ii. 13), but these
also must be admitted to be somewhat doubtful.
Clement of Alexandria, towards the close of the
second century, is said* to have commented on all
the canonical Scriptures, not excepting the disputed
books. But the context makes it doubtful whether
by the " disputed books " he did not mean the Epistle
of Barnabas and the Apocalpyse of Peter. So that it
is not until we reach the time of Origen that we find
the epistle certainly mentioned and freely used, while
even yet, and to the time of Eusebius, it was only
admitted among the disputed books.
To determine the authenticity of this epistle we are
therefore thrown almost entirely on the internal
evidence. The difficulties in fairly estimating this
evidence are unquestionably considerable. Against
the authenticity of the epistle it may be urged that
the writer is over-anxious to identify himself with
the Apostle Peter ; that the identification bears marks
of intention, and thus excites suspicion. The naming
of the Mount of Transfiguration " the holy mount "
(i. 18), and the mention of Paul's epistles as a whole,
and as forming a part of Scripture, are evidences of
later date than the life of Peter includes. The style
of the second epistle differs considerably from that of
* Eusebius, H. E., vi. 14.
208 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
the first ; and the thought also is different, the key-
note of the former being hope, that of the latter being
knowledge. In the first epistle our Lord is generally
spoken of as " Christ " or " Jesus Christ " ; in the
second He is spoken of with some added title, " the
Lord" or "the Saviour." If the first epistle was
written shortly before the Apostle's death, the second
must have been written very nearly at the same time,
and yet, although it is addressed to the same readers,
their circumstances seem to have entirely changed ;
the first epistle being addressed to persons whose
danger lay in persecution, the second to those who
were exposed to the wiles of heretical teachers. And
if they were so closely related by their date, and by
the fact of their being sent to the same Churches, it is
difficult to understand why the one should have been
at once accepted by the Church, while the other was
for so long looked upon with suspicion.
Some of these difficulties disappear on the slightest
examination. The Mount of Transfiguration is cer-
tainly called " the holy hill," but this not as a name,
but only as an epithet. And to Peter, who had wit-
nessed the transfiguration, it was more natural than
it might have been to another writer to use this
epithet, especially as the word " holy " is a favourite
of Peter's.
The allusion to scenes in Peter's intercourse with
his Lord has nothing suspicious in it. The character
of Peter was simple and outspoken, and it was likely
that such a man should frankly refer to what he had
himself seen and heard. Add to this, that the allu-
sions to our Lord's predictions of his death and to the
MARKS OF LATE DATE. 209
Transfiguration are not foisted in, but are naturally
suggested by the course of thought in the letter.
The first of these allusions especially is much too
delicately introduced to allow the idea of forgery.
Peter knew that he was to die a violent death, and as
now he was an old man this could not be long delayed
else nature would claim her due. But his readers
did not know this. The Gospel of John was not
yet written. And therefore the explanatory clause
" as our Lord Jesus Christ has shewed me " is in-
serted. This was not a likely idea to occur to a
forger, nor is the simplicity of its expression at all
like forgery.
The objection taken from the manner in which the
epistles of Paul are spoken of is thus stated by Bleek :
" The manner in which St. Paul's epistles are spoken
of is somewhat strange. They are mentioned col-
lectively, not one only, but all, as writings KO.T eox^v,
not merely known and widely spread in the Church,
but as already the topic of various interpretations, on
account of the obscurity and difficulty of their con-
tents, so that " the unlearned and unstable ... as
they do also the other Scriptures (ras XoiTras ypa<as).
This last expression may either mean the Old Testa-
ment Scriptures or other Christian Scriptures, but
the term al ypafai of itself also denotes writings
which were considered specially holy, which were
esteemed ecclesiastically canonical, and side by side
with these (by the word Aonrds) the Pauline epistles
are ranked." There is no doubt that the expression
does classify the epistles of Paul with the sacred
writings, that is, with the Old Testament Scriptures.
14
210 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Neither is there any doubt that it was only at a later
date than that of Peter's martyrdom that the writings
which now form the New Testament were classified,
explicitly and as a whole, with the Old Testament.
But the Apostles are always named as co-ordinate
with the Old Testament Prophets, a like authority is
ascribed to them, and it cannot surprise us if Peter
should so early have recognised that their writings
belonged to the same order as those of the Prophets.
Paul did not hesitate to claim authority for his letters
(1 Cor. xiv. 37).
Too much has been made of the difference in style
between the first and second epistles. The resem-
blances are much more striking. There is the same
Petrine fondness for pictorial words, such as pot^8ov,
/Aiia>7raa)v, crKrjvwfjia, apyel, av\fjif]po<s. There is the
same duplication of phrase, "exceeding great and
precious," "neither barren nor unfruitful," "blind
and cannot see afar of," " day dawn and day star
arise," "judgment lingereth not and damnation
slumbereth not," " spots and blemishes." Charac-
teristic of Peter are also the words 8eAeaco (ii. 14, 18),
the fisherman's word, "to take with bait," and a-Trjpi^ov
(cf. Luke xxii. 33) carried out by Peter in i. 12 ;
iii. 16, 17. Many phrases are found to be common to
the two epistles, as dpe-nj used of God (I. ii. 9 ; II. i. 3) ;
d/xco/xov Kal doTTiXov of I. i. 19, and acrmXoL KOL
of II. iii. 14; eVoTmys of II. i. 16, and
of I. ii. 12, and iii. 2 ; tStos in both epistles is
commonly used as a possessive pronoun, I. iii. 1 ;
II. ii. 16, 22; iii. 16. In this epistle there are also
peculiar words used, which occur in the speeches of
RESEMBLANCES TO FIRST EPISTLE. 211
Peter reported in the Book of Acts, and also in the
Gospel of Mark.*
Other similarities, especially to the first epistle,
abound in 2 Peter. There is the same constant
allusion to " fleshly lusts ; " the same strenuous
exhortation to holiness (2 Pet. i. 10, iii. 11 and 14,
cTTTovSao-are, cf. 1 Pet. i. 13); the same considerations
urged, as, that Christians are purchased with the
precious blood of Christ (1 Pet. i. 18, 19, and 2 Pet.
ii. 1), that they are " called" to holiness (I. i. 15 ;
II. i. 3), that the end is not distant (I. passim,
II. i. 11, iii. 11, 12); the same individual graces
emphasised as <i\aSeA<ia, only thrice in the New
Testament outside these epistles, but found in both
of them (I. i. 22; iii. 8; II. i. 7). The word
ayios (holy) is, of course, common in all parts of
the New Testament, but nowhere so constantly and
variously applied as in these two epistles (I. i.
passim, and in the second chapter, we have the " holy
priesthood," " holy nation," and in the third chapter
" holy women ; " so in 2 Peter we have " the holy
mount," " holy men," " holy commandment," " holy
prophets," " holy conversation "). In both epistles
we meet with a mind that has been exercised about
prophecy and the attitude of' the prophet to his mes-
sage (I. i. 1012; II. i. 1921). The use of
Xoprjyew and its compound, and also the use of IXOVTCS
in describing character, may also be noticed as com-
* These will be found in Dr. Lumby's articles in the
Expositor for 1876, which contain the fullest and best dig-
cussion of the subject.
212 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
mon to the invo epistles, although not peculiar t3
them.*
The objection that the one epistle has Hope for irs
keynote, the other Knowledge, is absolutely without
weight. The one epistle was addressed to men who
were suffering for the faith, and the presentation of
hope was fitting. The other was addressed to Chris-
tians exposed to false teaching, and it was fit that
knowledge should be more emphasized. But the key-
note of both epistles is Holiness. It is the same
earnest, practical spirit that breathes through both;
not neglecting in the first epistle the importance of
knowledge (i. 22; ii. 2 ; iii. 15; v. 2), nor in the
second omitting to urge hope as a motive (L 11 ; iii.
1113).
The object of the epistle is declared in chap. iii.
1 2. It was " stir up the pure minds " of those who
received it, that they might remember the command-
ment of Christ. The same object is also declared in
chap. i. 12. The writer desired that the knowledge
of the Lord might not prove unfruitful, but might
urge the faithful to zeal in adding to their faith all
grace which might fit them for entrance into the
everlasting kingdom of Christ (i. 1 11). This he is
the rather prompted to do because he is sure that
false teachers will shortly appear among the Churches
to which he writes (ii. 1 3). These teachers would be
recognisable by their wicked life, their selfish greed,
and especially by their abuse of the doctrine of grace,
* For a complete refutation of Dr. Abbott's criticism of this
book the student ' must be referred to Professor Salmon's
brilliant pages, Introd. to N. T., 626653.
OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 213
turning liberty into licence (ii., and especially ii. 19).
Most solemnly does the writer affirm that if his readers
yield to the representations of these teachers, it would
be better that they had never known the way of right-
eousness at all. Against another error, whether taught
by the same persons or not, he warns them. Scoffers
would come among them, deriding the idea that the
day of the Lord was at hand; and pointing to the
stability of nature in proof that no change was at hand.
This scoff Peter rebuts by referring to the destruction
of the world by water, and affirming that the same
power which effected that destruction now holds the
world "in reserve unto fire." The delay must be
measured by the fact that with God a thousand
years are as one day, and must be ascribed to God's
long-suffering, seeking to give men ampler oppor-
tunities of salvation (iii. 8 15).
FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
This epistle was received as apostolic by the early
Church. It is referred to by Polycarp, by Papias,
and in the Muratorian canon.* Even Davidson, who
thinks the internal evidence unfavourable, admits that
" the letter is well attested by the voice of antiquity.
As far as external evidence reaches, the authenticity
seems to be secure." t The internal evidence might
seem, to the unsophisticated reader, to be of the very
strongest kind. The epistle at once connects itself in
* For references, see Charteris' KiroTiJiofer 9
f Introd.. ii. 232.
214 FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the mind with the fourth gospel. .Not only are indi-
vidual words and phrases the same* in both writings,
but the point of view of the writer, the spirit in which
he writes, the ideas that occupy his mind, are identical.
Notwithstanding the similarities which link the gospel
and the epistle together, it is believed by some critics
that there are differences so great as to outweigh these
resemblances. Davidson finds as many as ten differ-
ences between the gospel and the epistle. Of these
the chief are : (1) the eschatological. In the epistle
the coming of Christ is spoken of as in the Pauline
epistles. " Of such eschatology the evangelist knows
nothing ; for instead of a visible coming, he speaks of
a spiritual reappearance. Christ's second advent is
resolved into the Spirit's mission to the disciples."
The evangelist knows and speaks, not only of a spirit-
ual reappearance but of a personal and visible " com-
ing " in xiv. 3 and xxi. 22. (2) " The doctrine of a
paraclete distinct from Christ is wanting in the epistle.
Indeed, the Spirit is never called the paraclete in it.
Christ Himself is so termed (ii. 1)." But this objection
is superficial, resting on the mere word " paraclete,"
and not on the idea conveyed by it. In the epistle it
is not used in the same sense as in the gospel, and is
applied to Christ in a sense which does not interfere
with or contradict its application to the Spirit.
The only objection which stirs the mind to any
* For lists see Davidson or Westcott. " To be of the truth,"
"of the world," "of God," "to walk in darkness," "to over-
come the world," are some of the characteristic expressions.
Also compare 1 Ep. ii. 11, with Gospel xii. 35 ; iii. 13 with
xv 18 ; iij. 14 with v. 24 ; iv. 6 with viii. 47, etc.
HERESIES IMPLIED. 215
serious enquiry is that which proceeds upon the
finding that the epistle deals with post-apostolic
heresy. It was maintained by Bretschneider, and
has been maintained by many since, that the form
of Gnosticism which the writer is confronted with
and combats did not make its appearance till after
the close of the first century. Gnosticism, as its
name implies, preached a salvation by knowledge,
and thus proved itself to be an immoral system.
That one form or other of Gnosticism was aimed at
by the writer of this epistle is apparent from the
warnings which occur throughout it against being
satisfied with knowledge or profession or anything
short of actual righteousness (cf. ii. 4; i. 6; i. 8; iii. 7).
The epistle is an earnest remonstrance against pro-
fession without practice, knowledge without character.
It is a powerful appeal to Christians to strive after
the full moral results of fellowship with Christ and
with God.
But evidently those to whom the epistle was ad-
dressed were in danger not only of being seduced to
carelessness qf life, but also of being misled regarding
the person of Christ, "Who is a liar but he that
denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" "Every spirit
that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
is of God." " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the
Christ is born of God." Now Cerinthus, who lived in
Ephesus while John was also there, and whose name
is associated with John's in tradition, taught that
the Christ, the Divine element in the Person, was
imparted to Jesus at His baptism and retired from
Him before His passion. And it would appear that
216 FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
it was tliis form of heretical teaching which the writei
of the epistle had especially in view. He wished to
reprobate the view that the Christ and Jesus were
two separate persons. It is very likely also that in
v. 6, when he states that Jesus Christ came " not by
water only but by water and blood," he alludes to
the opinion that the Christ came upon Jesus in the
water of baptism, but was not present in the blood
of the crucifixion ; and accordingly Mansel paraphrases
the words, " Christ was not merely joined to Jesus at
His baptism, to leave Him before His crucifixion. It
is one and the same Jesus Christ, who manifested
Himself by water in baptism and by blood on the
cross."*
The object of the epistle is explicitly enounced by
the writer himself in i. 4, "These things write we
unto you that your joy may be full"; and in v. 13,
"These things have I written . . . that ye may know
that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on
the name of the Son of God." With similar explicit-
ness the object of John's gospel is enounced (xx. 31),
"These are written that ye may believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye
may have life in His name." The gospel was written
to present to men a worthy object of faith, to present
the expected Saviour, the Revealer of the unseen
God; the epistle is written to explain more fully
what belief in Jesus implies and to confirm that belief.
The course of thought in the epistle is not easily traced.
It would seem as if the thought of one verse sug-
gested the next, rather than as if there were a plan
* Mansel . Gnostic Heresies 77.
ITS OBJECT. 217
previously conceived for the epistle as a whole. Still
it is apparent that in the first part of the epistle
John dwells on the idea that God is Light and on the
consequences of this in those who have fellowship
with God, while in the latter part of the epistle it
is the idea of God as Love.that forms the centre of his
thought. The course of thought from i. 5 to ii. 11
obviously carries the idea that God is Light into some
of its applications to professed believers, and though
not so obviously, yet certainly, this same idea of Gcd
being Light and Truth is pursued as far as ii. 27.
From this point to iii. 10 it is God's righteousness
and our conformity to it that is the guiding
thought ; after iii. 10 God as Love is brought more
prominently into view. But all three ideas run
into one another, and the ideas proper to one section
re-appear in the other sections, because God's light or
truth, His righteousness and His love are so closely
related as to be inseparable.
The epistle was probably addressed to the Church
of Ephesus and the neighbouring Churches. Augustine
or his pupil and biographer Possidius calls it "the
Epistle of John to the Parthians " (ad Pai thos), and
the same title is found in other Latin writers and
MSS. Gieseler conjectured that this arose from some
Latin writer finding the letter designated as "the
Epistle of John the Virgin " (row irapOevov), which
he misunderstood as " the Epistle of John to the
Parthians" (-n-pos Traptfovs).* Certainly John was
commonly known as the Virgin in the early Church.
* See Plummer's full and instructive Introduction in his
Epistles of St. John in the Cambridge Greek Testament.
218
SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
Eusebius * classes these two epistles with the anti-
legomena or disputed books; and indicates that
though they were well known there was a question
whether they were written by the evangelist or some
other person of the same name. He himself, however,
uses them as if he believed them to be from the
hand of the Apostle.t Origen also mentions that
there was not universal agreement regarding their
authorship. They were not included in the Peshito
version and the testimony of the Muratoriari Canon
is doubtful, though it appears to be in favour of their
acceptance. Irenseus quotes the second epistle as John's.
Clement of Alexandria quotes from the first epistle
under the designation " the greater epistle," showing
that it was not the only one he received as Johannine.
The brevity and unimportant nature of the epistles
would naturally retard their acceptance into the
Canon. If the third epistle was to be received, why
might not every "letter of commendation" or certificate
of Church membership which happened to bear an
apostle's signature, be received ? Ajid this same
brevity and absence of special teaching puts the
idea of forgery out of the question. Besides, a
forger would have named John the Apostle if he
wished to gain acceptance for his productions. Indeed
the only ground on which the acceptance of letters so
* H. E. iii. 25. f Dem. Ev., iii. 5.
J Strom., ii. 16.
A UTHENTIGIT7. 219
private and void of public significance can be accounted
for is that they are genuine.*
Neither are positive indications of authorship
wholly awanting in these two brief letters. That
they are from the same hand is admitted even by
Baur.f The writer designates himself by the same
title, " the elder," in both ; and the formula with
which he opens the letter is the same in both, " The
elder unto . . . whom I love in the truth." In both
letters the same formula for expressing gratification
is used, and the same ground for joy is mentioned
(2 Ep. 4 ; 3 Ep. 3, 4). And in both letters the brevity
is excused on the ground of a promised visit in almost
identical terms (2 Ep. 12; 3 Ep. 13). If therefore
the second epistle belongs to the Apostle John, the
third also must be ascribed to him. But the second
epistle is as strictly connected with the first as with
the third. For of its thirteen verses no fewer than
eight can be matched with verses of the first epistle,
* Dr. Gloag sums up the argument in favour of the third
epistle thus : "It is impossible to assign any adequate motive
for forgery. It contains no statement of doctrine ; it does
not, like the second epistle, refer to any heresy ; it does not
even insist on any definite line of conduct ; it purports to be a
private letter of the Apostle John to a certain Gaius otherwise
unknown, called forth by a mere transitory circumstance.
Besides ... had this third epistle been the work of a forger
who personated the Apostle, the writer would not have
designated himself by the simple and ambiguous title "the
elder," but would have called himself John the Apostle, to
give weight and authority to the epistle. But the strongest
argument in favour of this epistle arises from the resemblance
between it and the second epistle, a resemblance so close that
both must stand or fall together.
f Holtzmann (Einleitwig, 467) calls them " Twin-sisters."
220 SMALLER EPISTLES OF JOHN.
and so far as there is teaching in it, that teaching
resembles the first epistle. The differences* in ex-
pression cannot be said to countervail these resem-
blances.
But while critics like Bleek think the internal
evidence overwhelmingly in favour of the Johannine
authorship, others maintain that they belong to the
second century. Baur ascribes them to a Montanist,
and believes that they are addressed to Rome, the
bishop of which Church is alluded to under the name
of Diotrephes. This opinion is too baseless to find
any support. Hilgenfeld supposes the second epistle
to be an official document uttering the apostolic
judgment of excommunication against the Gnostics;
while the third is a letter of recommendation in
which the metropolitan Church of Asia seeks to
vindicate its right to utter such documents, and to
have them attended to.
Why these letters, which would seem to be from
the hand of the Apostle John, do not bear his name,
it is hard to say. Some have laid such stress on the
title " the elder," under which the writer appears, as
to maintain that they cannot proceed from one who
might have used the greater title of Apostle. This
was felt as early as Jerome, who says : " John wrote
one epistle, which is accepted by all ecclesiastics
and scholars ; but the other two, beginning with ' the
elder/ are said to have been written by John the
* These differences are tl TIQ instead of lav rig ; tig
for tig ret ISia ; Koiviovttv for icoivwviav t\nv\ and one or two
peculiarities as iriarbv irou'iv, ^Xwapar, Qibv *x ilv - See Holtz-
mann, 468.
AUTHENTICITY 221
Presbyter, whose sepulchre is at this day shown in
Ephesus." This opinion has been held by Erasmus,
Grotius, Bretschneider, Reuss, and others; and is
strengthened by the fact that the writer speaks of his
authority having been disowned by Diotrephes, which,
it is supposed, could not have occurred had the writer
been the Apostle John But the existence of this
presbyter John is problematical An expression used
by Papias is the only ground for supposing that such
a person existed, and when that expression is looked
into, it becomes doubtful whether he was not referring
to the Apostle.* It is also to be considered that
towards the close of the first century "Apostle" had
become a very common designation, and was applied
to such persons as are mentioned in the third epistle,
and who were sent out on various missions by the
Churches. If John occupied in Ephesus the office of
a presbyter, as doubtless he did, the difficulty con-
sists in understanding not why he should have
preferred the title " Presbyter " to that of " Apostle,"
but why without naming himself or describing the
Church to which he belonged, he should have de-
signated himself in this absolute way as "the
presbyter." Perhaps it is wisest to say with Dr.
Westcott, that " far too little is known of the condi-
tion of the Churches of Asia Minor at the close of the
apostolic age to allow any certain conclusion to be
formed as to the sense in which he may have so
* So good a patristic scholar as Dr. Salmon says : " We
frankly own that, if it were not for deference to better judges,
we should unite with Keim in relegating, though in a different
way, this Doppelganger of the Apostle to the region of ghost-
land."
222 SMALLER EPISTLES OF JOHN.
styled himself." * At the same time it is to be
observed that Papias applied the distinctive title,
" the presbyters," to those who had been disciples of
the Lord, using the title not as a designation of office,
but as descriptive of those who belonged to a past
generation.t If this usage had become popular in
the Churches of Asia Minor, then it is intelligible
that John as the sole survivor among them of the
original eye-witnesses of Christ, should be named by
pre-eminence " the presbyter."
The second epistle is addressed to " the elect lady
and her children," e/cAeAcri} KV/OI'O, KCU rots Te/ci/ois avr^s ;
but who is meant, whether an individual matron
or a Church, is much debated. J Some have supposed
that a lady of the name of Electa is intended, but
this is untenable in the face of the salutation (ver. 13)
sent from a sister of the same name. Others || have
thought that the letter is sent " to the elect Kyria,"
but this is grammatically untenable.^ Besides, the
tenor of the letter agrees better with the idea that it
was addressed to a Church than to an individual. A
private household would scarcely have received the
* Epistles of St. John, p. Iv.
f The words of Papias referred to are to be found in
Eusebius, H.E., iii. 39, and are, " If I met with any one who
had been a follower of the presbyters, I used to ask what the
presbyter said, what Andrew, Peter, or Philip said," etc.
% Westcott thinks the key is lost, and that no proposed
interpretation is satisfactory.
Grotius, etc.
|| Pseudo-Athanasius, Bengel, Liicke, Bleek, De Wette.
^[ Liicke thinks it not unlikely John may have written un-
grammatically here.
TO WHOM ADDRESSED. 223
instructions of ver. 10; and had these instructions
been given to the mistress of a household, she would
have been advised not to receive the heretic into her
house (cts rrjv oi/aW). The use of the plural in
these passages, and the easy transition from singular
to plural in ver. 5, seem decisive against supposing
that an individual is meant. The " elect lady " then
must be a Christian Church (comp. 1 Pet. v. 13:
17 Iv Ba/JvXwvi owe/cXe/crr/), and probably is called
" lady " (KV P LO) as the bride of Christ (Eph. v. 32).*
And if so, then the " children " are the members of
the Church ; f and this makes it intelligible that the
writer should speak (ver. 4) of some of these children
as walking in truth. The particular Church intended
it is impossible to ascertain, although conjectures
have been freely ventured.
Apparently John had visited this Church some time
previously (vers. 4, 8), although Weiss denies this
inference. At any rate, either by personal observa-
tion or by trustworthy report, he had ascertained that
a proportion of its members were adhering to the
truth and living in its light. These he wishes to
confirm, and to warn against departure from the
original and fundamental teaching of Christ (vers.
5, 6). This he does, because false teachers were
going about, who did not confess " Christ coming in
flesh," that is to say, who denied the proper humanity
* The opinion of Clement of Alex, is worth giving \ n Ms
own words : " Secunda Johannis Epistola . . . scripta est ad
quandam Babyloniam Electam nomine, significat autem
electionem ecclesias sanctae" (Op., Migne's ed. ii. 1470).
f This opinion is maintained by Hammond, Ewald, Hilgen-
feld, and many others.
224 SMALLER EPISTLES OF JOHN.
of Christ, teaching some form of docetism. With
such teachers there was to be no intercourse (ver. 10).
The doctrine they taught might seem innocent, and
an advance to higher knowledge, but it was not so.
" Every one who advances (TTCIS 6 irpoayw, Westcott
and Hort) and does not abide in the doctrine of
Christ hath not God."
The third epistle is addressed to Gaius. This was
a very common name. In the New Testament persons
so called appear in Rom xvi. 23 ; 1 Cor. i. 14 (possibly
the same) ; Acts xix. 29 ; xx. 4 Another is men-
tioned in early Church history (Const Ap., vii. 46) as
having been made bishop of Pergamum by the Apostle
John. But it is uncertain whether this is the person
here addressed. From the letter itself it appears that
some Christians who had recently arrived in Ephesus
from some neighbouring town, had spoken in terms
of high commendation of the hospitality of Gaius,
evidently a person of influence and means in the
Church they had been visiting John writes this
letter to express his satisfaction at this tidings, and
to beg that the kind offices of Gaius may be continued,
as these Christian brethren were again setting out to
evangelise, and habitually acted on the principle of
receiving no pecuniary remuneration or assistance from
those to whom they carried the gospel. He would
naturally have sent this letter to the Church, but a
former application of the same kind which he had made
to the Church (ver. 9) had been intercepted by Dio-
trephes, and its appeal not only refused with contempt,
but threats of excommunication uttered against those
how proposed to listen to it. Ewald, Weiss, and
EPISTLE OF JUDE. 225
others, think that the letter referred to is the second
epistle, but that letter is a warning against showing
hospitality to the wrong men, not an invitation to
entertain courteously the right men. The letter gives
a glimpse of the Christian Church in the closing years
of the first century. The Church was a new field for
influence both through teaching and through means.
Ambitious men pushed to the front ; speculative men
inculcated error ; good Christians went from place to
place evangelising with no certain livelihood. The
state of things disclosed in these epistles may pro-
fitably be compared with the instructions in The
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
EPISTLE OF JUDE.
In comparing the Epistle of Jude with that of
James, and in accounting for the limited circulation
of these two Palestinian letters, Professor Salmon
remarks that " what is really surprising is, that of
these two, it is the letter of the less celebrated man
which seems to have been the better known, and to
have obtained the wider circulation. The external
testimony to the Epistle of James is comparatively
weak, and it is only the excellence of the internal
evidence which removes all hesitation. Now the case
is just the reverse with regard to Jude's epistle.
There is very little in the letter itself to enable us to
pronounce a confident opinion as to the date of com-
position ; but it is recognised by writers who are silent
with respect to the epistle of James." * It is appa-
* Introd., p. 593.
15
226 EPISTLE OF JUDE.
rently included in the Muratorian canon.* Clement
of Alexandria, in both of his great works, f quotes the
epistle under the name of Jude. Tertullian and Origen
also use it freely. It is, however, absent from the
Peshito version. + Eusebius, in giving some account
of James, concludes with this statement regarding his
epistle and Jude's: " Not many, indeed, of the ancients
have mentioned it, nor even that called the Epistle of
Jude, which is also one of the seven called Catholic
Epistles. Nevertheless, we know that these, with the
rest, are publicly used in most of the Churches."
Turning to the epistle itself we find that it purports
to be by " Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother
of James." This is generally and justly considered to
be an indication that not the Apostle Jude, but Jude
the Lord's brother (Matt. xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3) was
the author. As Davidson (ii. 264) remarks : " Why
should he call himself brother of another person, if he
possessed independent authority and apostleship 1 "
That he should designate himself " brother of James,"
and not " brother of the Lord " is also natural; because
the saying of Jesus in which the spiritual relationship
was shown to take precedence of the physical (Mark
* The words are "Epistola sane Judae et superscript!
Johannis duas in Catholica habentur," which may best be
rendered, "The Epistle of Jude and the two inscribed with
the name of John are accepted in the Catholic (Church) [or,
among the Catholic Epistles]."
f Peed., iii. 8 ; Strom., iii. 2.
J A fact which Canon Venables (Smith's Diet., Art. Ep. of
Jude) cites as decisive that it was not written by the Apostle
Jude, who was the traditional evangelist of Edessa.
H. E., ii. 23.
A UTHENTICITY. 227
iii. 31 35), was now understood, and also because
James was so well known in the Christian Church that
to be his brother was a sufficient identification.*
The chief difficulty which has prevented the epistle
from being universally accepted as authentic is that
the immoral perversions of Christian truth against
which it is aimed are supposed to belong to a later
date than that which is covered by the life of Jude.
There is reason to believe that Jude was dead before
Domitian acceded to the imperial throne in A.D. 81.
And it is supposed that it was not till some time after
this date any such teaching as is alluded to in the
epistle was known. Thus Davidson (ii. 269) says :
" The description of the men who had crept in among
the readers suits antinomian Gnostics only. Now
Gnosticism proper did not exist in the first century."
Similarly Hilgenfeld f says : " The heretical teachers
here attacked are manifestly Gnostics of the second
century with their contemptuous repudiation of God
and the angels of the Old Testament (ver. 8 10), of
Jesus as the merely human organ of the higher Christ
(ver. 4), and of the inferior psychical people (ver. 19),
and with their Gnostic libertine tendencies (vets. 8,
10, 16). . . . Its composition by Jude, whether the
Lord's brother or one of the twelve, is out of the
question." To this it may be added that Clement of
Alexandria believed that Jude spoke prophetically of
the errors of Carpocrates.
The question is whether the language of the epistle
implies a fully developed Gnostic antinomianism or is
more easily understood of an undeveloped, embryonic
* Eusebius, H.K, iii. 19, 20. f Wnleitung, p. 744.
228 EPISTLE OF JUDE.
heresy. And undoubtedly the epistle does speak of a
manifestation that was new and had as yet gained no
great currency. The teachers, if they were teachers
and not merely ordinary members, had " crept in,"
and they might yet be saved from the immoral position
they held (vers. 22, 23). Their teaching too was simi-
lar to that perversion of the doctrines of grace against
which Paul had constantly to warn his readers (Rom.
vi. ; Gal. v. 13). It is very doubtful whether Gnos-
ticism is intended at all. The teachers are charac-
terised as denying our only Master (Seo-Tro-njv) and our
Lord Jesus Christ ; they " despise dominion " and
" speak evil of dignities " (Soas). That is to say, they
threw off all rule, and did so in order that they
might unrestrainedly follow their lusts. In the
words of Peter they " walk after the flesh in the lust
of uncleanness, and despise government" (KV/DIOTT/TOS
Kara^povowras, 2 Pet. ii. 10). The only lordship or
government recognised by the Christian, these god-
less men repudiated, becoming a law to themselves.
But there is no hint of the doctrinal basis of this
immoral revolt, further than what is suggested by
the words tl turning the grace of our God into las-
civiousness." In fact it is impossible to suppose that
an epistle which contains so little explicit allusion to
the false doctrines of Gnosticism should have been
written after the apostolic age and at a time when
these doctrines were well known and prevalent.
It is further affirmed that the 17th verse, which
alludes to the "words which were spoken before of
the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ," betrays that
the writer belongs to a post-apostolic age. The words
HIS USE OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 229
prove the very opposite. The writer addresses persons
who had been themselves addressed by word or by
letter by the apostles, and are now requested to remem-
ber what they had thus learned.
Jerome apparently considered that the main obstacle
to the reception of this epistle was its quotation of
apocryphal literature. " Jude," he says,* " the bro-
ther of James, has left us a short epistle, which is
one of the seven so-called Catholic Epistles. But
because of a quotation from the Book of Enoch, which
is apocryphal, it is rejected by many." The quota-
tion alluded to is introduced (ver. 14) with a formula
which does not necessitate its derivation from a book ;
but as there did exist a " Book of Enoch " previous to
the date of this epistle, it is reasonable to suppose that
it was used by Jude.t This apocryphal book lay
buried for many centuries, and was supposed to be
irrecoverably lost, but in 1773, Bruce, the traveller,
brought from Abyssinia three copies of the book in
Ethiopia In 1821 Laurence published an English
translation, and in 1853 Dillmann re-edited the book
and translated it into German. The passage in Jude is
found in it, with such variations as might be expected
after a double translation. It runs thus : " Behold,
He cometh with myriads of His holy ones, to pass
judgment on them, and will destroy the ungodly, and
reckon with all flesh for everything which the sinners
and ungodly have done and committed against Him."
That Jude should thus have made use of an apocryphal
book no more requires explanation than Paul's similar
allusions in 2 Tim. iii. 8, to Jannes and Jambres, or
* Catalog., S.E., iv. f Few critics deny this.
230 EPISTLE OF JUDE.
his citation of the heathen poets Epimenides, Aratus,
and Menander.*
It would appear that Jude's employment of apocry-
phal literature was not confined to the Book of Enoch.
Origent tells us that the reference to the contest
between Michael and the devil about the body of
Moses is derived from the Assumption of Moses. Un-
fortunately only a small portion of this book is extant,
so that we have not the means of judging for our-
selves. In these circumstances we may accept the
testimony of Origen, who was likely to be well informed
on such a point.
The indebtedness of Jude to already existing writings
does not end here. No one can read his epistle with-
out being at once reminded of the second Epistle of
Peter. It is, in fact, in almost its entire contents,
identical with, or closely analogous to, that epistle.
For convenience of comparison the parallel passages
may be thus presented :
" But there arose false pro- " For there are certain men
phets also among the people, crept in privily, even they
as among you also there shall who were of old set forth
be false teachers, who shall unto this condemnation, un-
privily bring in destructive godly men, denying our only
heresies, denying even the Master and Lord, Jesus
Master that bought them" Christ " (Jude 4).
(2 Pet. ii. 1).
"For if God spared not "And angels which kept
angels when they sinned, but not their own principality, but
cast them down to hell, and left their proper habitation,
committed them to pits [or he hath kept in everlasting
* See Gloat's Catholic Epistles, 406.
f De Princip., iii. 2.
COMPARED WITH SECOND PETER. 231
chains] of darkness to be
reserved unto judgment" (2
Pet. ii. 4).
" And turning the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah into
ashes, condemned them with
ah overthrow, having made
them an example unto those
that should live ungodly " (2
Pet. ii. 6).
"But chiefly them that
walk after the flesh in the
lust of defilement, and de-
spise dominion. Daring, self-
willed, they tremble not to
rail at dignities " (2 Peter ii.
10).
" Whereas angels, though
greater in might and power,
bring not a railing judgment
against them before the Lord "
(2 Pet. ii. 11).
"But these, as creatures
without reason, born mere
animals, railing in matters
whereof they are ignorant,
shall in their destroying surely
be destroyed " (2 Pet. ii. 12).
" Spots and blemishes, re-
velling in their love-feasts
while they feast with you"
(2 Pet. ii. 13).
" Forsaking the right way,
they went astray, having fol-
lowed the way of Balaam the
son of Beor, who loved the
hire of wrong-doing " (2 Pet.
ii. 15).
bonds under darkness unto
the judgment of the great
day " (Jude 6).
" Even as Sodom and Go-
morrah, and the cities about
them .... are set forth as
an example, suffering the
punishment of eternal fire"
(Jude 7).
" Yet in like manner these
also in their dreamings defile
the flesh, and set at nought
dominion, and rail at digni-
ties " (Jude 8).
" But Michael thearchangel,
when contending with the
devil, he disputed about the
body of Moses, durst not bring
against him a railing judg-
ment" (Jude 9).
"But these rail at what-
soever things they know not :
and what they understand
naturally, like the creatures
without reason, in these things
are they destroyed" (Jude
10).
" These are they who are
spots in your love-feasts when
they feast with you " (Jude
12).
" They went in the way of
Cain, and ran riotously in the
error of Balaam for hire, and
perished in the gainsaying of
Korah" (Jude 11).
232
EPISTLE OF JUDE.
" These are springs without
water, and mists driven by a
storm ; for whom the black-
ness of darkness hath been
reserved " (2 Pet. ii. 17).
" Uttering great swelling
words of vanity " (2 Pet. ii.
18).
" That ye should remember
the words which were spoken
before by the holy prophets
and the commandment of the
Lord and Saviour through
your [yn&v] apostles " (2 Pet.
iii. 2).
"Knowing this first, that
in the last days mockers shall
come with mockery, walking
after their own lusts " (2 Pet.
iii. 3).
" Clouds without water, car-
ried about by winds ....
wandering stars, for whom
the blackness of darkness
hath been reserved for ever"
(Jude 12, 13).
" Their mouth speaking
great swelling words" (Jude
16).
" But ye, beloved, remember
the words which have been
spoken before by the apostles
of our Lord Jesus Christ"
(Jude 17).
" How that they said unto
you, In the last time there
shall be mockers, walking
after their own ungodly lusts "
(Jude 18).*
How are these marked resemblances to be accounted
for? Apparently the two writers must either have
had access to a common document; or the one must
have copied the other. The hypothesis of a common
document does not explain the references to the
Apostles of the Lord (2 Peter iii. 2; Jude 17), and
is generally abandoned. Great difference of opinion
exists as to the relative priority of Peter or Jude ; but
certainly the balance of criticism is in favour of the
originality of the latter. To this conclusion, however,
there are one or two serious objections. In the first
place the seventeenth and eighteenth verses of Jude
* I have taken these parallels from Gloag's Cath. Ep., p.
238-9.
COMPARED WITH SECOND PETER. 233
do certainly look like a direct reference to 2 Peter iii.
1 3. In 2 Peter the words, " there shall come in the
last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts," are
not introduced as a quotation, but as the writer's own
statement. In Jude the same words are introduced
as a statement of what the Apostles had told the
people now addressed. In Peter the appearance of
these scoffers is regarded as future ; in Jude they have
appeared. It would seem therefore as if the Epistle
of Jude were later than 2 Peter, and also alluded to
it. But a still stronger objection to the priority of
Jude may be found in the superiority of his style.
It is difficult to believe that if Peter had before him
the clear and vivid phrases of Jude he could have
so obscured them in the copying, as he certainly has
done if he did copy them. As an example of this,
is it possible to suppose that with Jude's " wandering
stars, to whom is reserved the mist of darkness for
ever," Peter should have omitted the significant words,
" wandering stars," and given us only the clause, " to
whom is reserved the mist of darkness for ever?"
This applies to the entire parallel. In each statement
the language of Jude is lucid and apt, while Peter's,
though made up of the same words, is harsh and
difficult. It is more reasonable to suppose that Jude
re- wrote and improved what he found in Peter, than
that Peter, having clear and powerful expressions
before him in the Epistle of Jude, should retain just
so much of his language as would show that 'he was
borrowing and yet have left uncopied the most signi-
ficant words. If Peter borrowed he blundered in
borrowing; if Jude borrowed he did it skilfully.
234 EPISTLE OF JUDE.
Besides, the section in 2 Peter, which resembles Jude,
is embedded in the epistle as an integral part of it.
It is not connected with what goes before, and with
what follows, by artificial and discernible dovetailing,
but grows out of the previous section and runs
naturally on into what follows.
Probably the epistle was written about the year
67, and for Palestinian readers, though this is very
uncertain.
EEVELATION.
THE Greek title of this book, dTroKaAv^is, connects
it with the branch of Jewish and early
Christian literature known as Apocalyptic. Both in
time and in character this literature was differentiated
from the Prophetic. It arose after the cessation of
Old Testament prophecy, and under the stress of
foreign oppression. At each critical period of their
country's history, and when the people were becoming
hopeless, the Apocalyptists sought to revive their
courage by assuring them of the speedy approach
of the Messiah, and His overthrow of all their
oppressions. The end was at hand ; its signs were
already visible. Apocalyptic literature was essentially
eschatological. It also bore direct reference to the
existing circumstances of God's people ; and as these
circumstances, the oppressors and deliverance of Israel,
could not be alluded to explicitly and by name, they
were compelled to use a system of symbols which
renders their writings obscure and sometimes repulsive
to a modern reader. The prophets speaking of hostile
nations, or of remote times, or of the sins of the
people, had no occasion to veil their meaning. The
more explicit and direct they could be the better.
They might also address the people and use the
236 REVELATION.
influence they had acquired as well-known servants
and commissioners of God. The Apocalyptists, on the
other hand, were obliged to write and to represent
their views under a series of visions. They were in
fact literary artists, while the prophets were orators
and statesmen. And having no authority of their
own, the Apocalyptists frequently borrowed the
authority of a great name, and issued their writings
under the name of Enoch, Noah, Moses, Isaiah, or
Ezra. The earliest extant Apocalypse appears under
the name of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of John,
though belonging to this branch of literature and
betraying its characteristics, is so unique in form,
contents and spirit, as to justify its separation as
canonical from the non-canonical apocalypses.*
The key-note of the book, then, is sounded at once.
It is of things " which must shortly come to pass," the
writer is to speak (i. 1), and these things centre in the
second coming of Christ. He is best named as that
One " which is, and which was, and which is to come "
(i. 4).
It is the same determining and welcome event which
is in view throughout, so that the last word of the
Book is, " He that testifieth these things saith, Surely
I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus "
(xxii. 20). But as the coming of the Lord is not an
event arbitrarily fixed, but prepared for and necessi-
tated by the condition of the world, the first care of
the Apocalyptist is to exhibit the condition of the
Church, and to stir it to the requisite efforts and
* See Encyc. J3rit., art. Apocalyptic Literature ; and Holtz-
mann, p. 398
CONTENTS. 237
expectation. This he does in the letters to the seven
Churches of Asia Minor, which represent the Church
Catholic (ii. 1 iii. 22),* the number seven, here as
elsewhere, indicating totality. Then follows the first
vision, in which a sealed book,f the unknown destiny
of men, is seen the hand of Him that sitteth on
the throne. That book could be opened by none but
the Lamb of God, to whom therefore it is given (iv. 5).
As the first six seals are opened in order, there go
forth, a conqueror on a white horse (the gospel), war,
famine, pestilence, earthquake; an order determined
by the words of the Lord in Matt. xxiv. 7 : " Nation
shall rise against nation, and kingdom against king-
dom, and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and
earthquakes in divers places." But interpolated into
this order is the fifth seal, which announces the great
persecution of Christ's people (chap, vi.), and appended
to it is an elaborate description of the sealing of those
who are carried victorious through all these calamities
(vii. 1 17). The opening of the seventh seal intro-
duces the seven trumpets, and as these are blown
various woes appear destroying earth, sea, and sky,
and causing men to long for death ; but no repentance
followed these plagues (viii. 2 ix. 20). But just as,
* On the order of these letters, see Godet, N. T. Studies, 303.
f "The seal is the emblem of an event still hidden, but
divinely decreed. The trumpet is something more than the
mere revelation of an event that is to happen in the future ;
it is a manifestation of will which calls for a speedy realisation.
Lastly, a vial poured out is the image of a decree as identified
with its execution." Godet, p. 305. " The seals answer to the
first miracles of Moses before Pharaoh, the trumpets to the
ten plagues, and the vials to the catastrophe of the Red Fea."
238 REVELATION.
prior to the opening of the seventh seal, a pause had
been made and matters of a consolatory kind mingled
with the judgments, so prior to the blast of the seventh
trumpet an angel appears with a little book in his
hand, which John is required to eat, that he may
fully assimilate its contents (x. 1 11). Then appears
an angel measuring the temple court, and the two
witnesses prophesy, are killed by the beast, and rise
to life again, and ascend to heaven. This is supposed
to describe the conversion of the Jews. The seventh
trumpet then sounds, announcing that all nations have
become Christian. But this does not terminate the
visions. Wonders are now seen in heaven ; opposition
is still made to God and His purposes, the dragon
seeks to devour the woman, and the wild beasts from
land and sea tyrannise over men (xii. xiii.). At
length the plagues are poured forth from the seven
vials of the seven angels (xv. 1 xvi. 21), and special
attention is called to the judgment of Babylon (xvii.
xviii.), after which the Word of God, the King of kings
and Lord of lords, appears seated on a white horse,
and the enemies of Christ, the beast and the false
prophet, are cast into the lake of fire (xix.). Satan is
then bound for a thousand years, and when loosed
gathers Gog and Magog to do battle with the saints,
but is cast finally into the lake of fire. Then arrives
the final judgment (xx. 11 15), and the new heavens
and earth and their glories are described (xxi. xxii.)
The contents of the book are thus conveniently
summarised by Farrar. " After the prologue, which
occupies the first eight verses, there follow seven
sections :
DESIGN OF THE BOOK. 239
1 . The letters to the Seven Churches of Asia (i. 9
iii. 22).
2. The Seven Seals (iv. vii.).
3. The Seven Trumpets (viii. xi.).
4. The Seven Mystic Figures the Sun-clothed
Woman ; the Red Dragon ; the Man-child ;
the Wild Beast from the Sea ; the Wild Beast
from the Land ; the Lamb on Mount Zion ;
the Son of Man on the Cloud (xii. xiv.).
5. The Seven Vials (xv. xvi.).
6. The Doom of the Foes of Christ (xvii. xx.).
7. The Blessed Consummation (xxi. xxii. 7). The
Epilogue (xxii. 8 21)."
The design and interpretation of the book have
given rise to endless conjectures. The tendency of
modern criticism may be gathered from the following
statement of Harnack * : " That the beast (xiii. 1 sq. ;
xvii. 3, sq.) is the Roman Empire ; that the seven
heads are seven emperors ; that the woman (xvii. 3
9) is the city of Rome, that the ten horns (xiii. 1
xvii. 3 12, sq.) are imperial governors; all this is now
beyond dispute. Also it is settled that a Roman gover-
nor will be the Antichrist." But difference of opinion
exists as to the particular emperor pointed to by the
writer. The idea that the book is intended to depict
the circumstances of the age which called it forth is
certainly in accordance with the character of Apoca-
lyptic literature in general. Those systems of inter-
pretation which find in it a sketch of the history of
* Encycl. Brit , art. " Revelation,"
240 PEVELATION.
Christ's people and cause from the first to the present
century, and beyond it, are discountenanced by the
many expressions pointing to immediate fulfilment
which occur in the book (cf. i. 1, 19 ; iv. 1 ; xxii. 7,
10), and find it more difficult to assign a definite aim
to the writer. A very general opinion, therefore, is
that the book was written between the death of Nero
(June, 68) and the destruction of Jerusalem (Septem-
ber, 70). It is maintained that if we accept this date
the visions can be accounted for by what was actually
happening. War (Parthian), earthquake (Phrygian),
and pestilence (see Tacitus, Ann., xvi. 13), had actually
alarmed the nations in recent years. The slaughter
of Christians by Nero in 64 had impressed the Church.
The occupation of Jerusalem by the heathen was
pretty well assured at the date supposed. Besides,
it is argued, that the writer definitely dates his book
when he says (xvii. 10), "There are seven kings, five
are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come."
This, it is alleged, can only mean that Augustus,
Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, had fallen, and
that the sixth Roman emperor Galba was now reign-
ing. It is also pointed out that in chap. xiii. 3 one of
the heads of the beast is represented as having received
a deadly wound, but as recovering from it to the as-
tonishment of the world, which it is supposed can only
refer to Nero, who had killed himself, but was popu-
larly believed to be hiding in the East, whence he was
to return. And the further description of this head
in chap. xvii. 8, 11, where it is identified with the
whole beast, seems to confirm the idea that Nero is
meant, for here it is said that " the beast was, and is
DESIGN OF THE BOOK. 241
not, and will come again."* This opinion further
claims, as indubitable evidence of its accuracy, what is
said in chap. xiii. 18, regarding the " number " of the
beast. This number is said to be 666, that is to say,
the letters which compose his name, when added
together according to their numerical value,t gives
this total. In 1835 it was simultaneously discovered
by Fritzsche, Benary, Reuss, and Hitzig, that the
numerical values of the letters forming the words
J1TJ "Op, Neron Caesar, equal 666.
To these arguments it is objected that it is not
legitimate to calculate the value in Hebrew letters,
the book itself being written in Greek ; that even to
reach the value claimed, the ordinary spelling of Nero's
name is departed from ; and that many other names
satisfy the cryptogram quite as readily.
But a much more formidable objection arises
when we seek to interpret the book in the light of
the idea that Nero, about to return, is indicated
as Antichrist. Who, for example, is the false
prophet, who works miracles and persuades the world
to worship the beast ? How can the beast be said
to hate Eome and to destroy her (xvii. 16)?J In
* The passages which speak of this belief about Nero are
Suetonius, Nero, 57 ; Tacitus, Hist., i. 2, ii. 8 (Simcox' note
should be read in his edition of the Histories). Suetonius
says, " There were some who for a long time decked his tomb
with spring and summer flowers, and sometimes set robed
images of him on the rostra, sometimes issued edicts as if from
him, yet living, and shortly to return to the destruction of his
enemies."
f The Hebrews and Greeks used the letters of the alphabet,
and not special signs, to express numbers.
J On the other side see Holtzmann, p. 403.
16
242 REVELATION.
fact this key does not unlock the book. Moreover, it
involves the enormous assumption that a book which
had predicted the return of Nero as eighth Emperor,
his destruction of Rome, the taking of Jerusalem but
preservation of the temple, and which in all these
particulars was falsified almost as soon as published,
was yet accepted by the Church as inspired and
apostolic. It is on all hands granted that if its pre-
dictions are to be thus interpreted they certainly were
falsified; but it is maintained that while the particulars
were incorrect the general drift of the prophecy was
true, and carried the Church through a time of trial
by its cheering prospects of ultimate victory. To
which Dr. Salmon, with his usual sobriety of judg-
ment, replies : " I feel myself safe in saying that the
view is quite modern which regards prophecy as a
kind of sacred song, of which the melody only need
be attended to, the words to which the air is set being
quite unimportant."
Godet and others find in the very name Antichrist
a clue to its meaning, and hold that Antichrist or
a competing and opposing Messiah must of necessity
be a Jew. Anti-Christian Judaism may well be de-
scribed as the beast " that was, and is not, and which
shall be " the head wounded to death which was to
be healed to the astonishment of the nations. Godet
thinks there is no mistaking that the destruction
of Jerusalem is meant by the fatal sword-thrust
of xiii. 14. According to this interpretation Israel
takes its place as the fifth head of the beast, the first
being Egypt, the second Assyria and Babylonia, the
third Persia, the fourth Greece, the sixth Rome, and
VARIOUS SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 243
the seventh the Antichrist who is to make a clean sweep
of the Roman power from the earth ; and he believes
that in our own day the trained ear may catch the
sound of the approaching steps of this revived Jewish
power.* Godet's scheme is one of the most favourable
specimens of those systems of interpretation known as
the " continuously historical." It escapes the ignominy
which attaches to all schemes which seek detailed f ulfil-
ments of particular predictions in the history of the last
eighteen centuries, and of the years that are yet to be.
It must be confessed, however, that grave difficulties
attach to his scheme also.
A still more effectual evasion of the difficulties
attaching to any historical interpretation whether
Praeterist, Futurist, or Continuously Historical, is
suggested by Dr. Milligan, who proposes that we
should read the book as a representation of ideas
rather than events. It embraces, he thinks, the whole
period of the Christian dispensation, but within this
period it sets before the reader the action of great prin-
ciples and not special incidents. It is meant to impress
the reader with the idea that many waves of judgment,
of trial, of victory must pass over the Church before
the end comes. The end, indeed, is spoken of as near ;
but this results from the impression which could not
but be received by the early Church, that now that
Christ had actually come, the end was virtually present-
" The book thus becomes to us not a history of either
* Godet thinks the number 666, or xf, is composed of the
usual abbreviation of the name of Christ, xc with a symbol
of the serpent (in form and sound) inserted to convey tha idea
of Antichrist." Biblical Studiet, p. 388.
244 REVELATION.
early, or mediaeval, or last events written of before
they happened, but a spring of elevating encourage-
ment and holy joy to Christians in every age." It
exhibits the Church of Christ in its conflict, preserva-
tion, and victory ; and it sees these through the forms,
and in the colours presented to the writer's imagina-
tion by what he himself had seen and experienced,
and by his knowledge of the Old Testament, and of
our Lord's discourses. It is not a political pamphlet
disguised, but a vision of the Church's necessary
fortunes as the Body of her Lord, and as His repre-
sentative on earth. Babylon, therefore, is not pagan
Home, but the apostate Church of all ages, described
in a highly elaborated picture, of which the outlines
had already been drawn by the prophets. This system
of interpretation has its attractions, but is certainly
out of keeping with the general purpose of Apocalyptic
literature, and fails to present a sufficiently pressing
motive for the composition and a sufficiently definite
guide through its intricacies.
Whether John, who appears in the book as its
author (i. 1, 4, 9 ; xxii. 8),* was the Apostle of that
name or some less known disciple is much debated.
The Church Fathers of the second century ascribed it
to the Apostle ; and the testimony of Irenseus, who
represents the opinion of those who had known the
Apostle, is especially weighty. In modern times con-
servative critics have accepted the traditional view, in
which they are confirmed by the very striking re-
semblance between this book and the fourth gospel,
* The occurrence in xxi. 2 is rejected by the best critics.
ITS AUTHORSHIP. 245
both in ideas and in terminology.* The Tubingen
school, for reasons of its own, accepts it as the work
of the Apostle. Thus both Baur himself and his
ablest living representative (Hilgenfeld), while reject-
ing the fourth gospel, accept the Revelation as
Apostolic. Many other critics, however, agreeing
with the Tubingen school in their judgment that both
books cannot be the work of one author, accept the
fourth gospel and reject the Revelation. This they
believe to be the work of some one of the same name,
possibly the Presbyter John. (So especially Liicke
and Bleek). The arguments against the Apostolic
authorship are thus given by Harnack : " (1) The so-
called Alogi (Epiph., Hcer., li.) denied that the work
was by the Apostle, and declared that it came from
Corinth, and thence was a forgery; but the Alogi were
in Asia Minor about 160, and their negative, if not
their positive, evidence has therefore great weight ;
(2) the author of the Apocalypse does not style him-
self an Apostle, and nowhere does he designate himself
as a personal disciple of Jesus, or as an eye-witness ;
(3) the author speaks (xxi. 14) in such ail objective
way of the twelve apostles of the Lamb that it is
scarcely credible that he himself belonged to them
(4) the descriptions of Christ in the Apocalypse are
psychologically scarcely intelligible on the assumption
that they were written by a personal disciple of the
Lord." But as Harnack does not think the work
can possibly be a forgery in the ordinary sense, and
* A complete list of these resemblances is given by Evans,
St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 118 132.
246 REVELATION.
as he is not disposed to believe in the existence of
any John, not the Apostle, who had such considera-
tion among the Churches of Asia Minor as was
manifestly enjoyed by the author of Revelation, he
is reduced to the unsatisfactory makeshift of sup-
posing that originally no author's name existed in
the book, but was afterwards inserted to give it
currency
The integrity of the book has been gravely ques-
tioned in recent years. It is difficult to consider with
patience theories which propose to allot to different
authors various portions of a book than which there
is in all literature, none more obviously a carefully
designed and artistic whole. Literary criticism musb
count for nothing if such a book is composed of
fragments casually accumulating through successive
generations. The most resolute assault upon the in-
tegrity of the book is that which has been published
by Professor Volter of Amsterdam.* This writer
concludes that several strata are discernible : (1)
The original Apocalypse of the time of Nero, containing
the body of the book. (2) A first revision of the time
of Trajan, when were added xii. 1 17, xix. 11, xxi. 8.
(3) A second revision, about 130, which added v. 11 14,
vii. 917, xiii. 1 18, xiv. 912, xv. 1 8, xvi. 1 21,
xxi. 9 xxii. 5, and much of xxii. (4) A third
revision, about 140, when i. iii. (except i. 4 6) was
added, and verses here and there, f But as Professor
Davidson shows, the author of this superfine criticism
* Die Entsteliwng der Apocalypse (1882, 2nd Edition, 1885).
See Professor Davidson in Theological Review, Feb., 1887.
ITS INTEGRITY. 247
sets a fool's cap on it by admitting that his various
authors exhibit the same characteristics.*
Herr Eberhard Vischer, a pupil of Harnack's, has
published a theory that the original Apocalypse was
a Jewish book, and that it has been worked over
by a Paulinist for use in the Gentile Church. The
original he supposes to have been written in Hebrew,
and to have been translated by the Christian redactor.
The difficulty of chap. xii. is removed by this theory, as
the prediction of the birth of the man-child can satis-
factorily be referred to the birth of the Messiah,
'which was still future, if the book was Jewish. On
the other hand, it is impossible on this theory to
account for the prominence given throughout the book
to the figure of the Lamb. Impugners of the integrity
of the book must do something more than merely
show that it is cast in the ordinary form, and follows
the common order of the Jewish Apocalypses.
* Further criticism of this theory will be found in the
Expositor, June, 1887, and in Dr. Milligan's The Book of Reve-
lation.
Printed by Hazel 1, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury.
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pat. " Ref. Index File."
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU
