XXVIII. ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
In the present chapter those versions of the Old Testament also that were made in connection with versions of the New, and in the interest of Christianity, will be briefly considered.
I. LATIN VERSIONS.
1. A peculiar interest attaches to the early Latin versions. The "Old Latin" translation of the New Testament, in connection with which one of the Old Testament was executed from the Septuagint, is perhaps the earliest that exists in any language. The Old Syriac alone can rival it in antiquity, and if either may claim the precedence, it is probably the Latin. This version, and afterwards the revision of it by Jerome, was the grand medium through which the Holy Scriptures were known to the Western or Latin churches for more than twelve centuries. It has exercised no small influence on the popular modern versions of Christendom, and it is the great storehouse of theological terms for both Catholic and Protestant Christianity.
The English version of Wiclif (1324-1384) is a literal translation of the current text of the Latin Vulgate. The Psalter of the English Prayer Book is taken from Cranmer's Bible called the "Great English Bible:" and the version of the Psalms follows the Gallican Psalter, the second of the revisions made by Jerome from the Old Latin. See below, No. 4.
2. How early the ante-Hieronymian Latin version (that current before the days of Hieronymus, that is, Jerome), was executed is unknown; but the writings of Tertullian furnish satisfactory proof that it was in popular use in North Africa (the place where it was made) in the last quarter of the second century. According to the testimony of the ancient church fathers, its text existed in a great variety of forms, and the same variety has come down to us in the old manuscripts that contain it. Some, indeed, have maintained that several independent versions existed. But the sum of the evidence from both the early fathers and the manuscripts goes to show that there was never more than one that could be called independent. The copies of this were subjected to multiplied emendations or revisions from the Greek original, till the text had fallen in the days of Augustine and Jerome into a state of great confusion.
The language of Augustine is very strong: "The translators of the Scriptures from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek can be numbered, but the Latin interpreters can by no means be numbered. For whenever, in the first ages of Christianity, any one had gained possession of a Greek manuscript, and imagined himself to possess some little skill in the two languages, he ventured to become an interpreter." De Doct. Christ. 2. 16. According to the received opinion the so-called Itala (Italian) was not an independent version, but one of these revisions, apparently made in Italy, and as some think, under ecclesiastical auspices. This, Augustine recommends as more faithful and perspicuous than the rest.
3. The canon of the Old Latin version seems to have wanted, in the New Testament, Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter. In the Old Testament it followed the Septuagint. It contained, therefore, the apocryphal books of that version, to which was also added the second of Esdras. Appendix to Pt. 2, No. 6. The text of this version is known to us from two sources, quotations and manuscripts. For our knowledge of the Old Testament we are dependent mainly on the quotations of the early Latin fathers, since only a few fragments remain in the shape of manuscripts. The same is true of some parts of the New Testament, particularly the Apocalypse. But of the gospels as well as other parts of the New Testament, we have some very ancient manuscripts which are of high value in textual criticism. The agreement of this version in many characteristic readings with the oldest known Greek manuscripts has already been noticed. Chap. 3, No. 3. Such agreement is the strongest possible testimony for the genuineness of the readings in question. Chap. 26, No. 2.
The Codex Vercellensis, belonging to the fourth century, and said to have been written by Eusebius, bishop of Vercellae (now Vercelli) in Northern Italy where the manuscript is preserved, is one of the oldest manuscripts of the sacred text in existence. The Codex Veronensis at Verona, the Graeco-Latin Codex Claromontanus in the Imperial Library at Paris, the Codex Vindobonensis at Vienna, the Codex Bobbiensis at Turin, and others that might be named, are also very ancient. Among the codices that contain what is called the Italic version, is the Brixianus of the sixth century.
4. About A.D. 388, Jerome at the solicitation of Damasus, bishop of Rome, undertook the arduous task of revising the Old Latin version by a comparison with the original Greek text. In this work he proceeded very cautiously, being well aware of the prejudices which he must encounter on the part of multitudes who could not discriminate between the authority of the original Greek text and that of the Latin version made from it. He began with the four gospels. According to his own testimony, he selected ancient Greek manuscripts, but such as did not differ much from the Latin usage; and in the use of these he so restrained his pen that, when he had corrected those things only which seemed to change the sense, he suffered the rest to remain as they were. (Preface to the four gospels addressed to Damasus.) His work of revision was afterwards extended to the remaining books of the New Testament; a revision which Tregelles describes as "less complete and uniform than that of the gospels, and in which many parts seem to have received hardly any alterations from his hand." In Horne, vol. 4, ch. 23. About the same time he turned his attention to the Latin version of the Old Testament, which had been made, not from the original Hebrew, but from the Greek Septuagint. Of this he first revised the Psalter, but not very thoroughly; in his own words, "cursorily for the most part." This first revision is known by the name of the Roman Psalter. A later and more thorough revision, executed by Jerome at Bethlehem between A.D. 384-391, is called the Gallican Psalter. There is good reason to believe that Jerome's revision extended to all the remaining books of the Old Testament, though we have positive evidence in respect to only a part of them--Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Chronicles.
Gregory of Tours is said to have introduced Jerome's second revision of the Psalter into the public service in France; whence its name Gallican. The Roman Psalter was retained in Italy till the time of Pius V., who introduced the Gallican generally. But three churches, one of them that of the Vatican, continued to use the Roman Psalter. Westcott in Smith's Bible Dict.; Art. Vulgate.
5. Jerome was soon convinced of the necessity of undertaking a new translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. To this arduous task he addressed himself with great earnestness, availing himself of the help of Jewish scholars to complete his knowledge of the Hebrew. The whole work occupied his time, with periods of intermission, from A.D. 385 to A.D. 405. See in Horne, vol. 2, p. 89. He did not venture, however, to make a new version from the Hebrew of the book of Psalms, the constant use of which in the church service was a barrier to the substitution of a new translation. He accordingly retained his second revision from the Septuagint, which is called the Gallican Psalter. Of the Apocryphal books he translated only two, Judith and Tobit. The remaining Apocryphal writings were retained in their old form. The Latin bible thus in part revised and in part translated by Jerome (most of the Apocryphal writings being left unrevised) is called the Vulgate, that is common or current version, although this term belonged, before the days of Jerome, to the Old Latin itself. Its diversified character is thus briefly indicated by Westcott.--"(1.) Unrevised Old Latin: Wisdom, Eccl., 1, 2 Macc., Baruch. (2.) Old Latin revised, from the LXX.: Psalter. (3.) Jerome's free translation from the original text: Judith, Tobit. (4.) Jerome's translation from the original: Old Testament except Psalter. (5.) Old Latin revised from Greek MSS.: Gospels. (6.) Old Latin cursorily revised: the remainder of New Testament." In Smith's Bible Dict.; Art. Vulgate.
It is not necessary to follow the history of the text of the Vulgate since Jerome's day. Suffice it to say that the simultaneous use of the Old Latin and Vulgate led to a corruption of both texts, which has not yet been thoroughly removed. The present standard text is that called the Clementine, from Pope Clement VIII., under whose auspices the Vulgate was edited in 1592. This is better than the preceding Sixtine edition, A.D. 1590, but not by any means the pure text of Jerome, as it might be recovered, proximately at least, by a careful collation of ancient manuscripts and quotations.
The oldest and best manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Old and New Testaments, is the Codex Amiatinus in the Laurentian Library at Florence. It belongs to the sixth century, and exhibits the text of Jerome in a very pure form, carrying us back to about 120 years from Jerome's death. The Codex Fuldensis is said to belong to the same century. There are other good manuscripts more or less complete of the eighth and ninth centuries.
Many other Latin versions have appeared in modern times, sometimes in connection with the original text, and sometimes separately, which it is not necessary to notice in detail.
II. SYRIAC VERSIONS.
6. The ancient Syriac version called the Peshito belongs, in the judgment of biblical scholars, to the second century. It comprises the Old Testament as well as the New. The version of the Old Testament was made from the original Hebrew, and thus has the honor of being the oldest translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for Christian use, the Old Latin version having been made from the Septuagint. The version of the New Testament was made in connection with that of the Old, so that both together constitute one work.
Syrian tradition makes extravagant claims in respect to the antiquity of the Peshito, telling us that it was executed by men sent to Palestine by the apostle Thaddeus (whom tradition connects with the founding of the church at Edessa), and by Abgarus, King of Edessa, a contemporary of the Saviour. The Old Testament was sometimes referred to a still earlier age--that of Solomon and Hiram, or that of the captivity of the ten tribes. Without giving credence to such traditions, we may well believe that it belongs to the earliest period of the Syrian churches, and cannot be placed later than the last part of the second century. Of the term Peshito, that is, simple, there are different explanations. The most usual is that it denotes a simple and literal version, free from glosses and allegorical interpretations. Tregelles suggests that it was called simple in contrast with the translation made by Paul of Tela from the Hexaplar text of Origen (see below, No. 8), which was replete with asterisks and obeli to mark Origen's revisions, and had also marginal references. It is agreed that the Old Testament was translated from the original Hebrew and Chaldee, though the translators seem to have had before them the Greek version of the Seventy, and to have consulted it in the progress of their work
7. The Peshito is a free, and at the same time, a faithful version of Scripture, holding the first place among the ancient versions for its general excellence, while it ranks with the Old Latin in antiquity. Its authority in both textual criticism and interpretation is deservedly high. As it regards textual criticism, however, its value is diminished by the fact that its text has not come down to us in a pure state. It has suffered in the same way as the text of the Old Latin, though not to the same extent.
Among the manuscripts brought from the Nitrian monasteries, and deposited in the British Museum, is one of great antiquity, containing large portions of the four gospels in Syriac. Dr. Cureton published in 1858 the text of this manuscript as "Remains of a very ancient Syriac recension of the four gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe," with an English translation and preface. Its appearance was hailed with lively interest and has excited warm discussions. The manuscript itself is assigned to the fifth century, but it presents a text which, in the judgment of competent scholars, is older than the current text of the Peshito. Whether it is an older form of the Peshito version, or another and earlier version of the gospels, is a question that has been differently answered. It is maintained, on the one hand, that the Peshito is a revision of the Curetonian text, "replete with readings unknown in the second century" (Tregelles in Smith's Bible Dict.); on the other, that it is "an older version than the Peshito; which the author or authors of the latter consulted throughout." Davidson in Alexander's Kitto. Its great value for critical purposes must be acknowledged by all.
In many characteristic readings it agrees with the oldest manuscripts and quotations. It has also some erroneous readings known to be of great antiquity. In a word, the high antiquity of its text cannot be reasonably questioned. Drs. Cureton and Tregelles think that the gospel of Matthew may be a translation from the apostle's Hebrew copy. But this is denied by Davidson and others.
8. The Philoxenian Syriac version was executed A.D. 508, under the auspices of Philoxenus, or Xenaias, bishop of Hierapolis or Mabug in Syria. Philoxenus belonged to the sect of the Monophysites, and it is generally thought that the version was made in the interest of that sect. The translator's name was Polycarp, one of Philoxenus' rural bishops. With the exception, perhaps, of certain books (see below), the text of this version has not come down to us in its original form. We have only a revision of it made A.D. 616 by Thomas of Harkel in a monastery of Alexandria, whence this version is also called the Harclean Syriac. The characteristic of this version is its extremely literal character. It is the translator's aim to represent every Greek word, even the article, by a corresponding Syriac word, even where the idiom of the language must thereby be violated. Hence its style is of necessity barbarous. But this very character of literalness gives to the Philoxenian version high authority in respect to textual criticism. So far as it has come down to us in its primitive form, it is, in truth, equal to the Greek text of its own time.
About the time that Thomas of Harkel revised the Philoxenian version of the New Testament, Paul of Tela, another Monophysite, executed what is called the Hexaplar Syriac version of the Old Testament, because it was made from the text of Origen's Hexaplar. Chap. 16, No. 12. It coincides with the Philoxenian version of the New Testament in respect to its character as well as the time of its appearance, being made on the principle of following the Greek text word for word as exactly as possible. Thus the Hexaplar version of the Old, and the Philoxenian version of the New, constitute together a whole of like character throughout.
After the example of Origen, Paul introduced into his version asterisks and obeli; the asterisk (*) to indicate insertions made in the text on the authority of manuscripts and other versions; the obelus (÷), to mark passages of doubtful character. Thus it supplies, as far as a version can, the Hexaplar of Origen, of which only a few fragments remain.
The Philoxenian version of the New Testament, as revised by Thomas of Harkel, contains also the same asterisks and obeli. Critical marks and marginal readings also appear in most of the manuscripts. This critical apparatus is generally thought to have proceeded from Thomas himself, in imitation of the Hexaplar Syriac of the Old Testament; but whether to indicate comparison with the Peshito, or with the Greek manuscripts employed by Thomas is not certain.
There is a version of the Catholic epistles wanting in the Peshito--2 Pet., 2, 3 John, Jude--existing in two forms, one of which is thought to be the unrevised Philoxenian text. There is a codex at Rome containing the four gospels which has also been supposed to contain the same unrevised text.
The Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary, containing simply lessons from the four gospels, is a peculiar version known to us from a single manuscript in the Vatican Library which belongs to the eleventh century. The version itself is referred by some to the sixth century, by others to a later date. Its dialect is barbarous, being a mixture of Chaldee and Syriac, but its readings are said often to coincide with the oldest and best authorities.
III. EGYPTIAN AND ETHIOPIC VERSIONS.
9. Formerly but one version was known to exist in the language of the ancient Egyptians. This, which was made in the dialect of lower Egypt, was naturally called Coptic. When it was discovered that another version existed in the dialect of upper Egypt, the Arabic term Sahidic was applied to it. But since the word Coptic is generic, applying to both dialects alike, it has been proposed to call the former version Copto-Memphitic or simply Memphitic, from Memphis, the ancient capital of lower Egypt; and the latter Copto-Thebaic or Thebaic, from Thebes, the celebrated capital of ancient upper Egypt. When these versions were executed cannot be determined with certainty. But they existed in the fourth century, and probably in the latter part of the third century. Their high antiquity gives to them great value in textual criticism. The latter of them, however, exists only in a fragmentary form. Some fragments of a third version, differing from both the Memphitic and the Thebaic, have been discovered. To this, the epithet Bashmuric has been applied, from the Arabian name Bashmur, a district of lower Egypt in the Delta to the East. But Egyptian scholars doubt whether the term is well applied, as the version is said to have stronger affinity to the Thebaic than to the Memphitic version.
The Memphitic and Thebaic versions are said to have contained the whole Bible, that of the Old Testament being made from the Septuagint. The whole Memphitic New Testament has been several times published, but never in such a manner as to meet the wants of Biblical criticism. Of the Thebaic version only some fragments have been published.
10. An Ethiopic version of the whole Bible exists in the ancient dialect of Axum. That of the Old Testament was made from the Septuagint; that of the New is a close version of the original Greek. The age to which it belongs is not known. Many of the readings of its text are said to show an affinity with the older class of Greek manuscripts, while others are of a later character. This leads to the suspicion that the version has undergone revision by the aid of later Greek manuscripts. An edition of the whole Bible is in process of publication in Germany.
IV. THE GOTHIC AND OTHER VERSIONS.
11. The first information which European scholars had of the existence of a Gothic version of the New Testament was in the sixteenth century, when one Morillon copied from a Gothic manuscript in the library of the Monastery of Werden in Westphalia the Lord's Prayer and some other parts, which were afterwards published. When the Swedes, in 1648, took Prague, among the spoils sent to Stockholm was the celebrated Codex Argenteus, Silver manuscript, containing a copy of the Gothic gospels written on purple vellum in silver letters, except the beginnings of the sections which are in gold. When entire the manuscript is said to have contained 320 leaves, but when found it had but 188 in quarto size. In its present state it wants parts of all the gospels. The letters are deeply furrowed, and beautifully regular. It is thought that this manuscript was executed for the use of some Gothic king. After various changes of place, it was finally deposited in the library of the University of Upsal in Sweden, where it is now preserved enclosed in a silver case. The Gothic version, of which the Codex Argenteus is a transcript, was made in the fourth century by Ulphilas, second bishop of the Goths in Moesia (the so-called Moeso-Goths). The manuscript itself belongs, it is thought, to the sixth century.
12. In 1762 a palimpsest was discovered by Knittel at Wolfenbüttel, a city of the duchy of Brunswick in Germany, containing, as the earlier writing, part of the epistle to the Romans in Gothic and Latin, the versions standing side by side. In 1817 the late Cardinal Mai discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan five palimpsests, from which, in connection with the Wolfenbüttel palimpsest, the Gothic text of the greater part of the Pauline epistles (that to the Hebrews not included) has been recovered, as also some fragments of the gospels, and of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. All that has been recovered of the Gothic version was edited in 1835-6 by Gabelentz and Loebe with a Latin translation, notes, and a Gothic dictionary and grammar. There are several later editions partly of the Codex Argenteus, and partly of all the Gothic remains of the Scriptures. Thus this interesting version, which represents the text of the New Testament in the fourth century as it was known to Ulphilas, is made available for the purposes of Biblical criticism.
13. There is an ancient Armenian version unaccompanied as yet by any Latin translation; and thus available for critical purposes only through the help of those who know the language. By means of such help Dr. Tregelles used it for his critical edition of the New Testament, and he speaks of its value "as a critical witness as to the general reading of certain Greek copies existing in the former half of the fifth century." In Smith's Bible Dict., Art. Armenian Version.
Other ancient versions, as the Arabic and Slavonic, we pass by; as their comparatively late date makes them of little importance for critical studies. The history of modern versions, among which is our own authorized version, presents a wide and interesting field of inquiry, but it does not come within the scope of the present work.
SECOND DIVISION, PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION
XXIX. THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
1. The New Testament, like the Old, is not an abstract system of doctrines and duties, but a record of facts involving doctrines and duties of the highest import. This record does not constitute an independent history, complete in itself, and to be explained in its own light. It is rather the necessary sequel to the record of the Old Testament. It interprets the Old Testament, and is itself interpreted by it. The two constitute together an organic whole, and can be truly understood only in their mutual connection. To discard the Old Testament whether formally or in practice, is to throw away the key which unlocks to us the treasures of the New; for the writers of the New Testament continually reason out of the Scriptures of the Old. If we cannot truly comprehend the Old Testament except when we view it as preparatory to the revelation contained in the New, so neither can we have a full understanding of the New except as the completion of the revelation begun in the Old. In a word, we understand revelation aright only in its unity.
2. The New Testament uses all the teachings of the Old, but it does not repeat them all. The unity, personality, and infinite perfections of God; his universal providence, and his supremacy as well over nations as individuals; the duties that men owe to God and each other, as embodied for substance in the ten commandments and expanded in the teachings of Moses and the prophets; the indissoluble connection, on the one hand, between righteousness and true prosperity, and on the other, between sin and ruin--all these great truths are so fully unfolded in the Old Testament that they need no formal repetition in the New. The person and office of the Messiah--as that great prophet, like unto Moses, whom God should raise up for his people in the latter days; as that mighty king of David's line, who should sit on his throne and in his kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice forever; as that high priest after the order of Melchisedec whom God should establish forever with a solemn oath--had been prefigured in the institutions of Moses, in the Psalms, and in the writings of the prophets.
Some other important truths not so fully revealed in the Old Testament but deducible in a legitimate way either from its general scope or from some brief hints in its teachings, had become firmly established in the faith of the Jewish people during the long interval that elapsed between Malachi and Christ. Such particularly were the doctrines of the resurrection of the dead and of future rewards and punishments. These truths, also, as well as those more directly and fully taught in the Old Testament, were assumed by the Saviour and his apostles as a platform for the peculiar revelations of the gospel, the sum of which is Jesus Christ crucified for the salvation of the world. The four gospels, then, as containing the history of our Lord's appearance and works, lie at the foundation of the revelation contained in the New Testament. To these, then, our attention must first be given; after which the history of the apostolic labors, as given in the Acts of the Apostles, will naturally follow.
I. THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE.
3. The word gospel (Anglo-Saxon, god, good, and spell, history or tidings) answers to the Greek word euangelion, good-tidings, whence comes the Latin evangelium, with the derived words in use among us, as evangelist, evangelical, etc. It properly signifies the good message itself, and it is only by a secondary usage that it is applied to the written histories of the Saviour's life, as being the embodiment of this message. The titles prefixed to these gospels from the beginning; "The Gospel according to Matthew", "The Gospel according to Mark," etc., indicate that the written record is not itself the gospel, but rather an account of the gospel according to these different writers. Christ himself is the author of the gospel. It existed and was received by many thousands before a line of it was put upon record on the written page.
4. The genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, and authenticity of the four canonical gospels have already been shown at some length. Chaps. 2, 3, 4. In connection with the argument for their genuineness, their natural division into two parts--the first three, commonly called the synoptical gospels, and the gospel according to John; the remarkable agreements and differences of the three synoptical gospels among themselves; and the remarkable contrast which the fourth gospel presents to all three of the synoptical gospels, have also been considered simply as existing facts. Chap. 2, Nos. 14 and 15. But when we seek an explanation of these remarkable phenomena, we enter upon a very difficult problem, one on which the ingenuity of Biblical scholars has exhausted itself for several successive generations without reaching thus far a result that can be regarded as perfectly satisfactory. Almost all conceivable theories and combinations of theories have been proposed, some of which, however, are now generally abandoned as untenable, and need not be considered at large.
5. Looking at the three synoptical gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we find a remarkable agreement not only in their general plan, but in many of their details also. With the exception of our Lord's last journey to Jerusalem and the history of his passion there, they are mainly occupied with his ministry in Galilee. The selection of incidents is also to a great extent the same. "The most remarkable differences lie in the presence of a long series of events connected with the Galilean ministry, which are peculiar to St. Matthew and St. Mark (Matt. 14:22-16:12; Mark 6:45-8:26), and a second series of events connected with the journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-18:14), which is peculiar to St. Luke." Westcott, Introduct. to the Study of the Gospels, chap. 3. The coincidences of language, as well as incident, are also remarkable; and here the general law prevails that these coincidences are more common, as has been shown by Norton and others, in the recital of the words of others than in the narrative parts of the gospels, and most common when our Lord's own words are recited.
6. But with these remarkable agreements coexist equally remarkable differences. Each writer has his own peculiarities of style, which appear more distinctly in the original than they can in any version. It has been noticed also by Biblical scholars that these peculiarities are more marked in the narrative than in the recitative parts of the gospels in question. Each writer, moreover, brings in incidents peculiar to himself, not in the form of patchwork, but as parts of a self consistent whole. So far is he from exact outward conformity to either of the other gospels, in respect to arrangement and circumstantial details, that the diversity between him and them in these particulars, sometimes creates serious difficulties when we attempt to arrange the three different narratives in the form of a harmony.
7. No theory of the origin of these three gospels can be true which does not explain both their coincidences and their differences. Hence we may set aside at once the hypothesis of their mutual dependence on each other--that the later evangelists used the writings of the earlier. By the different advocates of this theory, each of the three synoptic gospels has been made in turn the primary record from which the others drew; but no one of them has been able, upon this hypothesis, to account for the omissions or insertions of the supposed later evangelists, much less for the remarkable fact already noticed, that the peculiarities of each writer appear more fully in the narrative than in the recitative part of his gospel. The later evangelists may, indeed, have been acquainted with the writings of the earlier and have consulted them, but this supposition alone does not explain their peculiar coincidences and differences.
Another hypothesis is that of an original document or documents, from which all three are supposed to have drawn. The assumption of a single original written gospel, as the basis of our first three canonical gospels, is manifestly untenable. Had a primitive gospel existed of such compass and authority as to be the common source of our three synoptic gospels, it is inconceivable that the churches, which carefully preserved these three gospels, though two of them proceeded not from apostles themselves but only from their companions, should have allowed the original gospel so speedily and utterly to perish, that no traces of it remained in the days of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. Besides, this hypothesis, as it was soon seen, does not explain the peculiar relation of these gospels to each other in respect to coincidences and differences. Hence various modifications were proposed--an original Aramaic gospel with various Greek translations, this original Aramaic gospel variously increased with new matter, etc. In a word, the form of these assumed original documents was hypothetically explained from the actual form of our three synoptic gospels; the very reverse of the true problem, which was to explain, from some reliable data, the form of the canonical gospels themselves.
The remaining hypothesis is that of oral tradition emanating from the apostles themselves, and maintained in its purity during their lives by their personal presence and teaching. That the gospel existed in this form alone for some years after the beginning of Christianity is admitted by all. The apostles were Christ's chosen witnesses of his life and teachings. From their lips proceeded the tradition which now constitutes our written gospels. The necessity of embodying this tradition in the form of permanent records was not felt at the beginning. But, as the churches were multiplied, oral tradition became liable to corruption in many ways through the multiplicity of the organs employed in its transmission. Then the need of written gospels began to manifest itself, and it was natural that the apostles should look to the supply of this need either by their own direct agency, or by that of men writing with their knowledge and approbation. How many years elapsed before the appearance of the earliest of our canonical gospels, which is commonly supposed to have been that of Matthew, we have no means of ascertaining with accuracy. But we may reasonably suppose that the period was long enough to allow the apostolic tradition of our Lord's life and teachings to assume a somewhat definite shape in respect to both matter and outward form. First, in respect to matter. As their public instructions could not cover the whole of our Saviour's history (John 20:30; 21: 25), they naturally selected, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, those parts of it which embodied the spirit and meaning of the whole. Since, moreover, the apostles remained together at Jerusalem for some time after our Lord's ascension (Acts 8:1; 15:6), it is highly reasonable to suppose that in a matter of such moment they had a mutual understanding--an understanding which, while it interfered with the freedom of no one, secured a general agreement as to the points in our Lord's history and teachings which should be especially insisted on. Secondly in respect to outward form. While the apostles were preserved by the illumination of the Holy Spirit from any superstitious regard to the letter of our Lord's teachings, their reverence for him as a perfect teacher, whose words were truth unmixed with error, must have made them anxious to put the oral tradition of his sayings into as perfect a form as possible; whence the tradition of our Saviour's words would assume from the first a more fixed form than that of his life generally.
It is supposed by many that the writers of the first three gospels drew each from this common body of oral tradition such materials as suited his general plan; no one of them proposing to give the whole of our Lord's history, or even to observe a strict chronological order in the events recorded by him, any farther than such order was rendered necessary by their nature and essential connection. In the case of Matthew, who was one of the twelve apostles, it might be thought that he wrote simply from his own personal knowledge; but his gospel could not cover all the ground of our Lord's history as known to him, and we may well suppose that in the selection of his materials he had regard--not a servile, but a free regard--to the common oral tradition of the apostles, which was, in fact, the embodiment of their united wisdom under the illumination of the Divine Spirit. Each evangelist, as well Mark and Luke who were not apostles, as Matthew who belonged to the number of the twelve, wrote independently of the other two. The later writers may, indeed, have been acquainted with the writings of the earlier, but a bare inspection of the three gospels shows that there was no labored effort on the part of one evangelist to adjust his work to those of the others. Hence arise apparent discrepancies, as in the two genealogies of our Lord, which it is sometimes hard to explain. But these very difficulties witness to the independent truthfulness of the writers. Had they written in concert, or borrowed systematically from each other, such difficulties would not have existed.
Although apostolic oral tradition is thus made the main source whence the writers of these gospels drew their materials, it is not necessary to affirm or deny their use, in a subordinate way, of written documents. That such documents existed in the time of Luke we know from his own words, chap. 1:1. He does not condemn them, but neither does he rely upon them. His gospel is not derived from them, but from his own accurate investigations; "It seemed good to me also, having accurately traced out all things from the beginning" (as the original Greek means), "to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." Chap. 1:3. And if Luke, the companion of Paul, was not dependent for his materials on any previously existing writings, neither was Mark, the companion of both Peter and Paul, nor Matthew, who was himself an apostle. Nor can the incorporation of such writings into the synoptic gospels be shown with any degree of probability. If it cannot be claimed for this hypothesis of a primitive apostolic tradition, as the source whence the writers of the synoptic gospels drew their materials, that it explains all the phenomena of their mutual relation to each other, it is, nevertheless, more satisfactory than any other that has been proposed, and may be regarded as a near approximation to the actual facts in the case.
Between the traditions of which the apostle Paul speaks (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; also, according to the original, 1 Cor. 11:2) received immediately from his mouth or pen, and the pretended traditions of later days, handed down from century to century through a succession of uninspired men, the difference is that between light and darkness, between truth and fiction. We have in the writings of the New Testament the genuine apostolic tradition, at first oral, but put into a written form during the lifetime of the apostles. These traditions are the "gold, silver, precious stones" of divine truth. All other traditions are the "wood, hay, stubble" of human origin. In settling the question respecting the genuineness of the New Testament writings, we proceed as in the case of any other writings. We avail ourselves of all the evidence within our reach, external and internal. We take the testimony of Irenæus and Tertullian, and also of Marcion and Valentinus; though none of them were inspired, and the two latter were heretical. But when we have once determined what books were written by apostles or apostolic men, these contain for us the only authoritative tradition, as defined by the apostle: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." 2 Thess. 2:15.
8. In comparing the synoptic gospels with each other and with the fourth gospel, we must ever bear in mind that no one of them professes to give a complete history of our Lord's life, or to arrange all the incidents which he relates in the exact order of time. Under the guidance of the divine Spirit each one pursues his own course, independently of the others, here inserting what one or more of the rest have omitted, or omitting what one or more of them have inserted; and here, again, bringing in incidents without regard to their exact chronological order, with some general preface like the following: "at that time," Matt. 12:1; "and he began again," Mark 4:1; "and it came to pass as he was alone praying," Luke 9:18; "and it came to pass as they went in the way," Luke 9:57; etc. Thus the wisdom of God has given us, not all the particulars of our Lord's history, but such a selection from both the incidents of his public life and his public and private teachings as best embodies the great facts of the gospel, and the doctrines and duties connected with them. In the four canonical gospels the church has, not all of our Lord's history and teachings, but all that the Holy Ghost judged needful for her establishment and edification to the end of time.
Of our Lord's history before his baptism we have only his genealogy in a twofold form; some notices of his miraculous conception; an account of his birth and circumcision, with the visions and prophecies connected with them; a history of his preservation from Herod's attempt to destroy him; the subsequent residence of his parents in Nazareth, with a single incident of his childhood. Luke 2:40-52. All these particulars have, in one way or another, a bearing on his divine mission and work as the Son of God. The apocryphal gospels on the contrary, as, for example, the Gospel of the Infancy, and the Gospel of Nicodemus, abound in frivolous stories relating to our Lord's infancy and later life, which have no connection with the great work of redemption.
9. The peculiarities of the fourth gospel, as well as its relation to the three preceding gospels, will come up for consideration hereafter. At present we only remark that John wrote many years after the appearance of the synoptic gospels, and that, whatever reference he may have had to them, his gospel constitutes, in the plan of revelation, a true complement to the other three. For (1) if we except the narrative of our Lord's passion, it covers, for the most part, ground not occupied by them. They give mainly the history of the Saviour's ministry in Galilee (Luke also, at some length, that of his last journey to Jerusalem); the scene of much of John's gospel, on the contrary, is Jerusalem and its near vicinity. (2) John unfolds more fully the nature of our Lord's person, and his peculiar relation to the Father and to his church. This he does, more especially, in his prologue (chap. 1:1-18); in the record of the Saviour's discussions with the Jews (chaps. 3, 5-12); and in that of his discourses addressed in private to the circle of the apostles, chaps. 13-17. Thus John's gospel is emphatically that of Christ's person, as illustrated by his works and words; while the three earlier evangelists give rather the gospel of his public ministry, through which his divine person everywhere shines forth. This deeper view of our Lord's person and office which the gospel of John unfolds met the wants of the primitive church in a more advanced stage, when false teachers were already beginning to sow the seeds of those errors which, in the next generation, brought forth such a rank and poisonous harvest. The same great characteristics adapt it to the wants of the church in all ages. Without the fourth gospel she could not be completely furnished to meet the assaults of error, which, from one generation to another, makes, with unerring instinct, its main assault upon the person and office of the Son of God.
But if the evangelical narrative would not be complete without the fourth gospel, neither would it be perfect for the use of the church with this alone. The record of our Lord's life and teachings as given in the first three gospels is preëminently adapted to popular instruction. It is precisely such a record as the preachers of the gospel need in their public ministrations. With it they can use the fourth gospel with effect; but without it they would want the natural preparation for and introduction to those deep and spiritual views of Christ's person and office which the bosom-disciple unfolds. It is not in the three synoptic gospels, nor in the gospel of John taken separately, that we find the complete evangelical armor, but in the perfect whole of the four.
10. Very numerous attempts have been made to construct harmonies of the four gospels. One plan is to form out of the whole, in what is supposed to be the true chronological order, a continuous narrative embracing all the matter of the four, but without repetitions of the same or similar words. Another plan is to exhibit in chronological order, the entire text of the four gospels arranged in parallel columns, so far as two or more of them cover the same ground. The idea is very imposing, but the realization of it is beset with formidable if not insurmountable difficulties. It is certain that the evangelists do not always follow the exact order of time, and it is sometimes impossible to decide between the different arrangements of events in their records. In the four narratives of the events connected with the resurrection all harmonists find themselves baffled. Had we a full account of all the particulars of that exciting scene, we might undoubtedly assign to the different parts of each narrative its true place in the order of time. But with our present means of information this is impossible. Experience shows that the most profitable way of studying the evangelical narrative is to take each gospel as a whole, but with continual reference to the parallel parts of the other gospels, so far as they can be ascertained. In this work a good harmony, like that of Robinson, may render essential service, though its arrangements must in many cases be regarded only as tentative--essays at obtaining the true order, rather than the certain determination of it.
The relative number of chapters in the different gospels does not give their true relation in respect to size. The chapters are respectively 28, 16, 24, 21; which are to each other in the proportion of 7, 4, 6, 5 1/4. But estimating according to the number of pages (in an edition without breaks for the verses), it will be found that the gospel of Luke holds the first place, its size being to that of the other gospels nearly as 60 to 57, 35, 46. The relation of Matthew's gospel to that of Mark, in respect to the quantity of matter is then nearly that of 8 to 5.
In the notices of the separate gospels which follow it is not thought necessary to give an elaborate analysis of their contents. The aim will be rather to exhibit the prominent characteristics of each, and its special office in the economy of divine revelation.
II. MATTHEW.
11. The unanimous testimony of the ancient church is that the first gospel was written by the apostle Matthew, who is also called Levi. With his call to the apostleship he may have assumed the name of Matthew, as Saul took that of Paul. He was of Hebrew origin, the son of Alphaeus, and a tax-gatherer under the Roman government, Matt. 10:3; Mark 2:14; 3:18; Luke 5:27, 29; 6:15; Acts 1:13. He was evidently a man of some means (Luke 5:29), and his office must have required for its proper discharge a knowledge of the Greek as well as of his native Hebrew; that is, Aramaean, as the word Hebrew means in the New Testament, when applied to the vernacular of the Palestine Jews.
12. The question respecting the original language of Matthew's gospel has been, since the time of Erasmus, a matter of controversy, in which eminent biblical scholars have been found on different sides. The problem is to find a solution which shall bring into harmony the following well-established facts: (1) that, according to the united testimony of the early church fathers, Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew; (2) that our present Greek gospel has all the freedom of an original work, that it has remarkable coincidences in language with the second and third gospels, and especially that the citations from the Old Testament which stand in our Lord's discourses follow as a rule the Greek version of the Seventy; (3) that all the early writers, those who testify to the Hebrew original of this gospel included, receive and use our present Greek gospel as the genuine and authoritative gospel of Matthew; (4) that the original Hebrew gospel, to the existence of which there is such abundant testimony, was allowed utterly to perish, while the Greek form of it alone was preserved and placed at the head of the canonical books of the New Testament.
13. The testimony from Papias, in the beginning of the second century, and onward to the fourth century, has often been quoted and discussed. It is not necessary to adduce it here at length. It may be found in Kirchhofer, in the critical commentaries and introductions, and also in the modern Bible dictionaries. The words of Papias, as preserved to us by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., 3. 39) are as follows: "Matthew therefore wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able." If there were any ground for doubting what Papias meant by "the oracles," it would be removed by the testimony of the later writers, as Pantaenus and Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 5. 10; 6. 25), Irenæus (Against Heresies, 3. 1), Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., 3. 24), Epiphanius (Heresies, 29. 9; 30. 3), and others. They who maintain that Matthew wrote originally in Greek suppose that the early fathers confounded an apocryphal gospel, the so-called "gospel according to the Hebrews," with the true gospel of Matthew. Others think, perhaps with more reason, that the gospel according to the Hebrews was a corrupted form, or, what amounts to nearly the same thing, a close imitation of the true Hebrew gospel of Matthew.
The Ebionites and Nazarenes used each apparently a different form of a Hebrew gospel which is sometimes called the gospel according to Matthew, but more properly "the gospel according to the Hebrews" (once by Jerome "the gospel according to the apostles"). According to Epiphanius that in use among the Ebionites was "not entire and full, but corrupted and abridged." Heresies, 30. 13. Jerome says: "Matthew, who is called Levi, having become from a publican an apostle, first composed in Judea, for the sake of those who had believed from among the circumcision, a gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words. Who was the person that afterwards translated it into Greek is not certainly known. Moreover, the Hebrew copy itself is at this day preserved in the library of Cæsarea which Pampilus the Martyr collected with much diligence. The Nazarenes, who live in Beroca, a city of Syria, and use this volume, gave me the opportunity of writing it out." De Vir. Illustr., 3. Here he certainly identifies this gospel, which, as he repeatedly informs us, he translated, with the true Hebrew gospel of Matthew. But he afterwards speaks of it more doubtfully, as "the gospel according to the Hebrews," and more fully as "the gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written indeed in the Chaldee and Syriac language, but in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes use to the present day, [being the gospel] according to the apostles, or, as most think, according to Matthew" (Against the Pelagians, 3); "the gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which we have lately translated from the Hebrew language into the Greek, and which is called by most the authentic gospel of Matthew." Comment. in Matt. 12:13. The most probable supposition is that Jerome, knowing that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew, hastily assumed at first that the copy which he obtained from the Nazarenes was this very gospel. The character of the quotations which he and Epiphanius give from it forbids the supposition that it was the true Hebrew gospel of Matthew. It may have been a corrupted form of it, or an imitation of it.
14. Of those who, in accordance with ancient testimony, believe that the original language of Matthew's gospel was Hebrew, some assume that the apostle himself afterwards gave a Greek version of it. In itself considered this hypothesis is not improbable. Matthew, writing primarily for his countrymen in Palestine, might naturally employ the language which was to them vernacular. But afterwards, when Christianity had begun to spread through the Roman empire, and it became evident that the Greek language was the proper medium for believers at large; and when also, as is not improbable, some of the existing canonical books of the New Testament had appeared in that language, we might well suppose that, in view of these circumstances, the apostle himself put his gospel into the present Greek form. But it is certainly surprising that, in this case, no one of the ancient fathers should have had any knowledge of the matter. In view of their ignorance it seems to be the part of modesty as well as prudence that we also should say with Jerome: "Who was the person that afterwards translated it into Greek is not known with certainty." The universal and unhesitating reception of this gospel by the early Christians in its present Greek form can be explained only upon the supposition that it came to them with apostolic authority; that it received this form at the hand, if not of Matthew himself, yet of an apostle or an apostolic man, that is, a man standing to the apostles in the same relation as Mark and Luke.
This supposition will explain the freedom of Matthew's gospel and its coincidences in language with the gospels of Mark and Luke. An apostle or apostolic man would give a faithful, but not a servile version of the original. The oral tradition of our Lord's life and teachings from which the first three evangelists drew, as from a common fountain (see above, No. 7), must have existed in Palestine in a twofold form, Aramaean and Greek. The translator would naturally avail himself of the Greek phraseology, so far as the oral tradition coincided with that embodied in Matthew's gospel. Those who have carefully examined the subject affirm that the citations from the Old Testament adduced by Matthew himself in proof of our Lord's Messiahship are original renderings, with more or less literalness, from the Hebrew. The citations, on the contrary, embodied in the discourses of our Lord himself follow, as a rule, the Greek version of the Seventy; probably because the translator took these citations as they stood in the oral tradition of these discourses.
Meanwhile the original Hebrew form of the gospel, being superseded by the Greek in all the congregations of believers except those that used exclusively the vernacular language of Palestine, gradually fell into disuse. The "gospel according to the Hebrews," noticed above, may have been a corrupted form of this gospel or an imitation of it. As Marcion chose the Greek gospel of Luke for the basis of his revision, so the Ebionites and Nazarenes would naturally use the Hebrew gospel of Matthew for their purposes.
15. The gospel of Matthew opens with the words: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." In accordance with this announcement, it traces back our Lord's lineage through David to Abraham, giving, after the manner of the Jews, an artificial arrangement of the generations from Abraham to Christ in three sets of fourteen each, chap. 1:17. To effect this, certain kings of David's line are omitted--between Joram and Ozias (the Uzziah of the Hebrews), Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; between Josias and Jechonias, Eliakim--and David is reckoned twice; once as the last of a set of fourteen, then as the first of the following fourteen. The thoroughly Jewish form of this introduction indicates the primary design of Matthew's gospel, which was to exhibit to his countrymen Jesus of Nazareth as their long promised Messiah and king. To this he has constant reference in the facts which he relates, and which he connects with the prophecies of the Old Testament by such forms of quotation as the following: "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet," chaps. 1:22; 2:15, 23; 13:35; 21:4; 27:35; "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet," chaps. 4:11; 8:17; 12:17; "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet," chap. 2:17; etc. His direct references to the Old Testament in proof of our Lord's Messiahship are more numerous than those of either of the other evangelists. Peculiar to him is the expression "the kingdom of heaven," to signify, in accordance with Rabbinic usage, the kingdom which the Messiah was to establish in accordance with the prophecies of the Old Testament; though he takes a spiritual view of its character, and not the earthly and political view of the Jewish doctors. Another designation of the same idea, common to him with the other evangelists, is "the kingdom of God," which also was current among the Rabbins. This "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" is also the kingdom of the Messiah. Chaps. 13:41; 20:21.
16. But precisely because Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, his mission is not to the Jews only, but to all mankind, in accordance with the original promise to Abraham: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Gen. 22:18. While he records the fact that our Lord's personal ministry was restricted to the Jews (chaps. 10:5, 6; 15:24), he also shows from our Lord's own words that the unbelieving "children of the kingdom"--the Jews as the natural heirs to the Messiah's kingdom--shall be cast out, and the believing Gentiles received into it (chaps. 8:11, 12; 21:43); and he brings his gospel to a close with the great commission: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Chap. 28:19, 20.
17. A striking characteristic of this gospel is the fulness and orderly manner with which it records our Lord's discourses. Striking examples of this are the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7), his awful denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees (chap. 23), and the majestic series of parables (chap. 25). Doubtless, Matthew had by nature a peculiar endowment for this work, which the Holy Spirit used to preserve for the church much of our Lord's teachings which would otherwise have been lost. The narrative part of this gospel, on the other hand, has not the circumstantial fulness of the following gospel. As already remarked, the field covered by Matthew's narrative is mainly that of our Lord's Galilean ministry, with the great events connected with his final visit to Jerusalem, though he gives indications of repeated visits to that city. Chap. 23:37-39.
18. It has been assumed by some that Matthew follows, as a general rule, the order of time. But others deny this, thinking that his arrangement is according to subject-matter rather than chronological sequence, especially in the first part (Alexander's Kitto); and this appears to be the correct judgment. He follows the exact order of time only when the nature of the events recorded requires him to do so.
19. It is universally admitted that Matthew wrote his gospel in Palestine. This fact accounts for the absence of explanatory clauses relating to Jewish usages, such as are not unfrequent in the gospel of Mark. As to the interpretation of Hebrew words, as "Immanuel" (chap. 1:23); and the words on the cross (chap. 27:46), that belongs to the Greek form of the gospel. The date of this gospel is doubtful. According to the tradition of the ancient church it was written first of the four gospels. Assuming that it originally appeared in Hebrew, we may reasonably suppose that a period of some years elapsed before it was put into its present Greek form.
20. The integrity of this gospel is unquestionable. In modern times the genuineness of the first two chapters has been called in question by various writers, but the insufficiency of their arguments has been shown by many, among whom may be mentioned Davidson, Introduction to New Testament, vol. 1, pp. 111-127. In the words of this writer the chapters in question are found "in all unmutilated Greek MSS., and in all ancient versions;" "the earliest fathers had them in their copies, and received them as a part of the gospel;" "the ancient heretics and opponents of Christianity were acquainted with this portion of the first gospel;" "the commencement of the first chapter is closely connected with something preceding;" and "the diction of these two chapters bears the same impress and character which belong to the remainder of the gospel, proving that the gospel, as we now have it, proceeded from one author."
III. MARK.
21. There is no valid ground for doubting the correctness of the ancient tradition which identifies the author of the second gospel with "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37), who is called simply John (Acts 13:5, 13), and Marcus or Mark (Acts 15:39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; perhaps also 1 Peter 5:13). He was cousin to Barnabas (Col. 4:10, not sister's son, as in our version), which relationship may explain Barnabas' earnest defence of him (Acts 15:37-39). His mother Mary resided in Jerusalem, and it was to her house that Peter resorted immediately upon his miraculous deliverance from prison (Acts 12:12). The intimacy of Peter with Mary's family must have brought about an early acquaintance between the apostle and Mark. Ancient tradition uniformly affirms a close relation between Peter and Mark, representing the latter to have been the disciple and interpreter of the former. See below.
Papias (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl. 3. 39) says, upon the authority of John the Presbyter, "Mark being Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he remembered; not, indeed, as giving in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ. For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but, as I said, of Peter, who gave his instructions as occasion required, but not as one who was composing an orderly account of our Lord's words. Mark, therefore, committed no error when he thus wrote down certain things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, to omit nothing of the things which he heard and to make no false statements concerning them." These words of Papias are somewhat loose and indefinite. But, when fairly interpreted, they seem to mean that as Peter taught according to the necessities of each occasion, not aiming to give a full history of our Lord in chronological order, so Mark wrote not all things pertaining to our Lord's life and ministry, but certain things, those namely that he had learned from Peter's discourses, without always observing the strict order of time. We need not press the words "in order" and "certain things," as if Papias meant to say that Mark's gospel is only a loose collection of fragments. It is a connected and self-consistent whole; but it does not profess to give in all cases the exact chronological order of events, nor to be an exhaustive account of our Saviour's life and teachings. Eusebius has preserved for us in his Ecclesiastical History the testimony of Irenæus on the same point (Hist. Eccl., 5. 8); also of Clement of Alexandria (Hist. Eccl., 6.14); and of Origen (Hist. Eccl., 6. 25). He also gives his own (Hist. Eccl., 2. 5). We have besides these, the statements of Tertullian (Against Marcion, 6. 25); and Jerome (Epist. ad Hedib. Quaest., 2). All these witnesses, though not consistent among themselves in respect to several minor details, yet agree in respect to the two great facts, (1) that Mark was the companion of Peter and had a special relation to him, (2) that he was the author of the gospel which bears his name. We add from Meyer (Introduction to Commentary on Mark) the following exposition of the word interpreter as applied to Mark in his relation to Peter: "No valid ground of doubt can be alleged against it, provided only we do not understand the idea contained in the word interpreter to mean that Peter, not having sufficient mastery of the Greek, delivered his discourses in Aramaean, and had them interpreted by Mark into Greek; but rather that the office of a secretary is indicated, who wrote down the oral communications of his apostle (whether from dictation, or in the freer exercise of his own activity) and so became in the way of writing his interpreter to others."
Mark's connection with the apostle Paul, though interrupted by the incident recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (15:37-39), was afterwards renewed and he restored to the apostle's confidence, as is manifest from the way in which he notices him. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11. If, as is probable (see below, No. 22), Mark wrote between A.D. 60 and 70, his long intimacy with Peter and Paul qualified him in a special manner for his work.
22. Ancient tradition favors the idea that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome. Had he written in Egypt, as Chrysostom thinks, we can hardly suppose that Clement of Alexandria would have been ignorant of the fact, as his testimony shows that he was. In respect to date, the accounts of the ancients differ so much among themselves that it is difficult to arrive at any definite conclusion. We may probably place it between A.D. 64 and 70. The language in which Mark wrote was Greek. This is attested by the united voice of antiquity. The subscriptions annexed to some manuscripts of the Old Syriac, and that in the Philoxenian Syriac version, to the effect that Mark wrote in Roman, that is, in Latin, are of no authority. They are the conjectures of ignorant men, who inferred from the fact that Mark wrote in Rome that he must have used the Latin tongue.
The story of the pretended Latin autograph of Mark's gospel preserved in the Library of St. Mark at Venice is now exploded. The manuscript to which this high honor was assigned is part of the Codex Forojuliensis, which gives the text of the Latin Vulgate. The text was edited by Blanchini in the appendix to his Evangeliarium Quadruplex, Fourfold Gospel. The gospel of Mark having been cut out and removed to Venice was exalted to be the autograph of Mark. See Tregelles in Horne, vol. 4, chap. 23. The fact that Mark wrote out of Palestine and for Gentile readers at once accounts for the numerous explanatory clauses by which his gospel is distinguished from that of Matthew. Examples are: chaps. 7:3, 4; 12:42; 13:3; 14:12; 15:42; and the frequent interpretations of Aramaean words: 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46; 14:36; 15:34.
23. The opening words of Matthew's gospel are: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," by which, as already remarked, he indicates his purpose to show that Jesus of Nazareth is the long promised Messiah of David's line, and the seed of Abraham, in whom all nations are to be blessed. Mark, on the contrary, passing by our Lord's genealogy, commences thus: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He recognizes him, indeed as the son of David, and the promised Messiah and king of Israel. Chaps. 10:47, 48; 11:10; 15:32. But, writing among Gentiles and for Gentiles, the great fact which he is intent on setting forth is the person and character of Jesus as the Son of God. Matthew gives special attention to the Saviour's discourses. With these considerably more than a third of his gospel is occupied. Mark, on the contrary, devotes himself mainly to the narrative of our Lord's works. With this is interwoven a multitude of his sayings; since it was the Saviour's custom to teach in connection with surrounding incidents. But if we compare the set discourses of our Lord recorded by Mark with those which Matthew gives, they will hardly amount to a fifth part in quantity. Between the narrative parts of Matthew and Mark, on the contrary, there is not a very great disparity in respect to the space occupied by each.
24. Though Mark has but little matter that is absolutely new, he yet handles his materials in an original and independent way, weaving into the narratives which he gives in common with one or more of the other evangelists numerous little incidents in the most natural and artless way. His characteristics as a historian are graphic vividness of description and circumstantiality of detail. If we except some striking passages of John's gospel, he brings us nearer to our Lord's person and the scenes described than either of the other evangelists. He brings before us, as in a picture, not only our Lord's words and works, but his very looks and gestures. It is he that records as has been often noticed, how the Saviour "looked round about" him with anger on the unbelieving multitudes and on Peter (chap. 3:5; 8:33); with complacency on his disciples (chap. 3:34; 10:27); and with the piercing look of inquiry (chap. 5:32); how he looked up to heaven and sighed when he healed one who was deaf and dumb (chap. 7:34); and how he sighed deeply in spirit at the perverseness of the Pharisees (chap. 8:12). He sometimes gives us the very words of the Saviour when he performed his mighty works--Talitha cumi (5:41), Ephphatha (7:34). His narratives are remarkable for bringing in little incidents which can have come from none but an eyewitness, but which add wonderfully to the naturalness as well as the vividness of his descriptions. When the storm arises he is asleep on a pillow (chap. 4:38); Jairus' daughter arises and walks, for she was of the age of twelve years (chap. 5:42); the multitudes that are to be fed sit down in ranks by hundreds and by fifties (chap. 6:40), etc. As examples of vivid description may be named the account of the demoniac (chap. 5:2-20), and the lunatic. Chap. 9:14-27. It is not necessary to assume that Mark was himself a disciple of our Lord. If, as ancient tradition asserts, he was the disciple and interpreter of Peter he could receive from his lips those circumstantial details with which his narrative abounds.
25. The closing passage of this gospel, chap. 16:9-20, is wanting in a number of important manuscripts, among which are the Vatican and Sinaitic. The same was the case also in the days of Eusebius and Jerome. But it was known to Irenæus, and quoted by him and many others after him. The reader must be referred to the critical commentaries and introductions for the discussion of the difficult questions concerning it. Tregelles, who, in his account of the printed text has given a full statement of the case, thus expresses his judgment (in Horne, vol. 4, p. 436): "It is perfectly certain that from the second century and onward, these verses have been known as part of this gospel (whoever was their author)." He thinks that "the book of Mark himself extends no farther than 'for they were afraid,' chap. 16:8; but that the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second gospel, and that the full reception of early testimony on this question does not in the least involve their rejection as not being a part of canonical Scripture."
IV. LUKE.
26. The unanimous voice of antiquity ascribes the third gospel with the Acts of the Apostles to Luke. He first appears as the travelling companion of Paul when he leaves Troas for Macedonia (Acts 16:10); for the use of the first person plural--"we endeavored," "the Lord had called us," "we came," etc.--which occurs from that point of Paul's history and onward, with certain interruptions, through the remainder of the Acts of the Apostles, admits of no other natural and reasonable explanation. There is good reason to believe that he is identical with "Luke, the beloved physician," who was with Paul when a prisoner at Rome. Col. 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:11. From the first of these passages it has been inferred that he was not a Jew by birth, since he is apparently distinguished from those "who are of the circumcision," v. 11.
Tradition represents him to have been by birth a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 3. 4; Jerome, Preface to Matt., and elsewhere), and a Jewish proselyte (Jerome, Quest. on Gen., chap. 46); and it adds various other legends which are not worth repeating.
27. The evangelist himself, in his dedicatory address to Theophilus (chap. 1:1-4), gives us clear and definite information respecting the sources of his gospel. He does not profess to have been himself an eye-witness, but has drawn his information from those "who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." His investigations have been accurate and thorough: "having accurately traced out all things from the beginning" (as the original words mean), he writes to Theophilus "in order;" that is, in an orderly and connected way. He proposes to give not some loose fragments, but a connected narrative; although, as we have seen above (No. 10), his order is not always that of strict chronological sequence. From the long and intimate connection of Luke with Paul it is reasonable to suppose that the latter must have exerted an influence on the composition of this gospel. Luke, however, did not draw the materials of his narrative from Paul (at least not principally), but, as he expressly states, from those "who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." He did not write from Paul's dictation, but in a free and independent way; though there is no reasonable ground for doubting that it was with Paul's knowledge and approbation.
The "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word" are those who (1) were from the beginning eye-witnesses of our Lord's public ministry; (2) were intrusted with the work of preaching the word; that is, the apostles and such of their associates as had companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them. Acts 1:21. The words of Luke must not be strained; for he records some incidents of our Lord's history before his public appearance which could have been learned only from Mary and her circle.
The remarkable agreement between Luke's account of the institution of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:9, 20), and Paul's (1 Cor. 11:28-25) has often been noticed. It is most naturally explained by the supposition that Luke recorded the transaction in the form in which he had often heard it from the lips of Paul. But there is nothing in the character of this gospel which can warrant the supposition that the apostle exercised a formal supervision over its composition. Such a procedure would be contrary to the spirit of the apostolic age. The apostle himself wrote by an amanuensis. But when one of his associates in the ministry wrote, in whom he had full confidence, he left him to the free exercise of his judgment under the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
28. In respect to the date of this gospel, if we assume that the Acts of the Apostles were written at Rome about A.D. 63-65 (Chap. 5, No. 5), it is reasonable to suppose that the gospel, which is dedicated to the same personage, was composed not very long before, perhaps even during the two years of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, in which case Rome would also be the place of its composition. Whether Luke wrote before or after Mark is a question that has been differently answered, and cannot be determined with certainty. The proof that all three of the first evangelists wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem has been already given. Chap. 3, No. 14.
29. Though Luke dedicates his gospel to Theophilus (chap, 1:1-4), it is not to be supposed that it was written for his use alone. He had a more general end in view, and that is indicated by the form of our Lord's genealogy as given by him. While Matthew traces the Saviour's lineage through David to Abraham, in conformity with his design to show that he is the promised seed of Abraham and king of Israel, Luke traces it back through David and Abraham to Adam "the son of God." He identifies Jesus of Nazareth not with the Messiah alone of Abraham's and David's line, but with man as man. He is the second Adam, and as such the Saviour of the race. This universal aspect of the gospel, as a gospel not for one nation but for all mankind, shines forth indeed in all the gospels, but it appears with wonderful sweetness and power in some of the parables which are peculiar to Luke, as those of the good Samaritan (chap. 10:30-37), the lost sheep (chap. 15:3-7), the lost pieces of silver (chap. 15:8-10), the prodigal son (chap. 15:11-32); in all which Jesus is set forth as the Saviour of suffering humanity.
30. As it respects the character and plan of Luke's gospel, the following particulars are to be noticed. In the distribution of matter between the narration of events and the recital of our Lord's discourses it holds a position between the first and the second gospel; being less full in the latter respect than Matthew, but far more full than Mark. In the narrative part there is an easy and graceful style which charms every reader. In the introduction of minute incidents he goes beyond Matthew, though he has not the circumstantial exactness of Mark. The agreement of Luke's gospel with the two preceding in its general plan is recognized at once by every reader. Like them it is mainly occupied with our Lord's Galilean ministry. In regard to the Saviour's infancy he is more full than Matthew, the matter of the first three chapters being in a great measure peculiar to him. He omits a long series of events recorded by the first two evangelists. Matt. 14:22-16:12; Mark 6:45-8:26. On the other hand he introduces (chap. 9:43-18:30) "a remarkable series of acts and discourses which are grouped together in connection with the last journey to Jerusalem. Some of the incidents occur in different connections in the other evangelists; and the whole section proves, by the absence of historical data and the unity of its general import, that a moral and not a temporal sequence is the law of the gospels." Westcott, Introduct. to Gospel, chap. 7. Very much of the matter in this remarkable section is peculiar to Luke, and contains passages of wonderful beauty and sweetness which would have been lost to the church but for the record of this gospel. Among these are the mission of the seventy, several miracles, some striking lessons of instruction from passing incidents, and no less than twelve parables: the good Samaritan, the unfortunate friend, the unclean spirit, the rich fool, the barren fig-tree, the lost sheep, the lost pieces of silver, the prodigal son, the unfaithful steward, the rich man and Lazarus, the unjust judge, the Pharisee and publican. While the attentive reader perceives the very near relationship of the third gospel to the first and second, he notices also the fact that it differs from both of them more than they do from each other.
"If the total contents of the several gospels be represented by 100, the following table is obtained:
Peculiarities. Concordances. St. Mark,.........................7........................93 St. Matthew,.....................42........................58 St. Luke,........................59........................41 St. John,........................92.........................8
"From this it appears that the several gospels bear almost exactly an inverse relation to one another, St. Mark and St. John occupying the extreme positions, the proportion of original passages in one balancing the coincident passages in the other. If again the extent of all the coincidences be represented by 100, their proportionate distribution will be:
St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . 53 St. Matthew, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 St. Matthew, St. Mark, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 St. Mark, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 "
[Westcott, after Stroud and Norton.]
Of absolutely new matter in Mark a striking example is the beautiful parable, chap. 4:26-29. The two miracles peculiar to him (chap. 7:31-37; 8:22-26) are both of a very striking character, and related with circumstantial minuteness of detail. Where his narratives coincide with those of the other evangelists, they are characterized by the addition of details, which, as already remarked, add much to the vivedness and graphic power of his descriptions.
31. The integrity of the third gospel has been recently assailed in Germany in the way of attempting to show that the gospel of Luke, as we now have it, is corrupted by interpolations, and that Marcion had it in its true form. See Chap. 2, No. 12. But the result of a voluminous discussion is that Marcion's gospel is now acknowledged to have been a mutilated form of the canonical gospel, in accordance with the testimony of the ancient fathers.
On the relation to each other of the two genealogies of our Lord given by Matthew and Luke respectively, and the different modes of bringing them into harmony with each other, many volumes have been written. Two different principles of interpretation are proposed. According to the first, the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke are those of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus, and the only one that could be known in this relation in the public registers. The second view is that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary, Joseph being called the son of Heli, in the sense of son-in-law; and being perhaps also legal heir to Heli through Mary in the absence of brothers. The reader will find statements of these two views, the former in Smith's Bible Diet., the latter in Alexander's Kitto, Art. Genealogy of Jesus Christ; also in the commentaries generally. We only add that though we may not be able to determine with certainty what is the true solution of the difficulty, no one can show that such a solution is impossible. The reverent believer will quietly wait for more light, if it shall please God to give it; otherwise he will be content to remain without it.
V. JOHN.
32. Though the writer of the fourth gospel everywhere refrains from mentioning his own name, he clearly indicates himself as the "bosom disciple." When he speaks of two disciples that followed Jesus, afterwards adding that "one of the two" "was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother" (chap. 1:37, 40); of "one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" (chap. 13:23; 21:7, 20); and of "another disciple" in company with Simon Peter (chap. 18:15, 16; 20:2-8), the only natural explanation of these circumlocutions is that he refers to himself. Even if we suppose, with some, that the two closing verses of chapter 21 (the former of which ascribes this gospel directly to John) are a subscription by another hand, their authenticity is unquestionable, sustained as it is by the uniform testimony of antiquity, and by the internal character of the gospel.
33. The Scriptural notices of John are few and simple. He was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida on the Western shore of the sea of Galilee not far from Capernaum. Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19, 20; Luke 5:10, 11. His mother's name was Salome. Matt. 27:56 compared with Mark 15:40. His parents seem to have been possessed of some property, since Zebedee had hired servants (Mark 1:20), and Salome was one of the women who followed Jesus in Galilee, and ministered to him. Mark 15:40, 41. From the order in which he and his brother James are mentioned--James and John, except Luke 9:28--he is thought to have been the younger of the two. Early in our Lord's ministry he was called to be one of his followers; was one of the three who were admitted to special intimacy with him, they alone being permitted to witness the raising of Jairus' daughter, the transfiguration, and the agony of Gethsemane (Matt 17:1; 26:37; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Luke 8:51; 9:28); and of the three was, though not first in place, first in the Lord's love and confidence--"the disciple whom Jesus loved," and to whose tender care he committed his mother as he was about to expire on the cross. By his natural endowments, as well as by his loving and confidential intercourse with the Saviour, he was prepared to receive and afterwards to publish to the world, those deep and spiritual views of Christ's person and office which so remarkably characterize his gospel.
So far as we have any notices of John in the Acts of the Apostles and epistles of Paul, his residence after our Lord's ascension was at Jerusalem. But, according to the unanimous testimony of antiquity, he spent the latter part of his life in Ephesus, where he died at a very advanced age, not far from the close of the first century. The subject of his banishment to the isle of Patmos will come up in connection with the Apocalypse.
There is a mass of traditions respecting the latter years of this apostle, which are, however, of a very uncertain character. Among the more striking of these are: his being taken to Rome during the persecution under Domitian, and there thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, whence he escaped unhurt; his refusal to remain under the same roof with the heretic Cerinthus, lest it should fall upon him and crush him; his successful journey on horseback into the midst of a band of robbers to reclaim a fallen member of the church who had become their leader; and especially, that during the last days of his life, he was customarily carried into the assembly of the church, where he simply repeated the words: "Little children, love one another."
34. The arguments for the late composition of this gospel--after the destruction of Jerusalem--have already been given. Chap. 2, No. 14. If we say between A.D. 70 and 100, it will be as near an approximation to the time as we can make. The place, according to Irenæus (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5. 8) was Ephesus, with which statement all that we know of his later life is in harmony.
35. From the beginning of our Lord's ministry John was, as we have seen, admitted to his intimate companionship and friendship. He was not therefore, dependent on tradition. His gospel is the testimony of what he had himself seen and heard. Yet it covers only a part of the Saviour's ministry; and the question remains why, with the exception of the closing scenes of our Lord's life on earth, that part should be to so remarkable an extent precisely what the earlier evangelists have omitted. In answer to this question it might be said that those actions and discourses of our Lord which John selected most clearly exhibit his person and office as the son of God; and that these were especially, (1) his encounters with the Jewish rulers at Jerusalem, (2) his private confidential intercourse with his disciples. Whatever weight we may allow to this consideration, it cannot be regarded as a full explanation of the difference between John and the other evangelists in the selection of materials. With the exception of the miracle of the loaves and fishes and the incidents connected with it (chap. 6:1-21) his notices of our Lord's ministry in Galilee relate almost entirely to incidents and discourses omitted by the other evangelists. It is altogether probable that, although John did not write his gospel simply as supplementary to the earlier gospels, he yet had reference to them in the selection of his materials. His own statement: "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But 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" (chap. 20:30, 31), is not inconsistent with such a supposition. The "many other signs" he may have omitted, in part at least, because he judged that a sufficient account of them had been given by the earlier evangelists, of whose writings, when we consider the time that in all probability intervened between their composition and that of his gospel, we cannot suppose him to have been ignorant. Such a reference to these writings does not in any way exclude the general design which he had, in common with the earlier evangelists, to show "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," through faith in whose name eternal life is received.
Ancient tradition represents, in a variety of forms, that John intended to complete the evangelical history, as given by the other evangelists, in the way of furnishing additional events and discourses omitted by them. The citations may be seen in Davidson's Introduct. to New Test., vol. 1, pp. 320-22. Though the statements of the fathers on this point cannot be accepted without qualification, there is no valid ground for denying the general reference above assumed.
36. In writing his gospel John had not a polemical, but a general end in view. It was not his immediate aim to refute the errors and heresies of his day; but, as he tells us, to show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, in order that men, through faith in his name, may have eternal life. Yet, like every wise and practical writer, he must have had regard to the state of the churches in his day and the forms of error by which they were assailed. In the latter part of the apostolic age the seeds of those heresies which in the following century yielded such a rank and poisonous harvest, had already begun to be sown. Like all the heresies which have troubled the Christian church to the present day, they consisted essentially in false views respecting our Saviour's person and office. The beloved disciple who followed Jesus through the whole of his ministry and leaned on his bosom at the last supper, has given us an authentic record of the Redeemer's words and works, in which, as in a bright untarnished mirror, we see both the divine dignity of his person and the true nature of his office as the Redeemer of the world. Such a record was especially adapted to refute the errors of his day, as it is those of the present day. It is preëminently the gospel of our Lord's person. It opens with an account of his divine nature and eternal coëxistence with the Father; his general office as the creator of all things, and the source of light and life to all men and his special office as "the word made flesh," whom the Father sent for the salvation of the world, and by whom alone the Father is revealed to men. Equality with the Father in nature, subordination to the Father in office, union with human nature in the work of redeeming and judging men, and in all these perfect union with the Father in counsel and will--such are the great doctrines that run through our Lord's discussions with the unbelieving Jews, as recorded by this evangelist. In the same discussions, but more especially in his private confidential intercourse with his disciples, he adds deep views of his relation to the world, as the only revealer of God's truth, the only source of spiritual life, and the only way of access to the Father; and to believers, as the true vine, through vital union with which they have life, nourishment, and fruitfulness. He unfolds also more fully than the other evangelists the office of the Comforter, whom the Father shall send to make good to the church the loss of his personal presence. Thus the gospel of John becomes at once an inexhaustible storehouse of spiritual food for the nourishment of the believer's own soul, and a divine armory, whence he may draw polished shafts in his warfare against error. This last record of our Lord's life and teachings owes its present form, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, partly to the peculiar character of the writer, and partly to the lateness of the period when it was composed. In both these respects we ought devoutly to recognize the superintending providence of him who sees the end from the beginning.
VI. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
37. The author of the Acts of the Apostles is identical with that of the third gospel, as we learn from the dedication to the same Theophilus. Chap. 1:1. Both are ascribed to Luke by the unanimous testimony of the ancient church. The genuineness of this book, its credibility, and the time of its composition--about A.D. 63-65--have been already shown. Chap. 5, Nos. 2-5. It remains to consider its plan and its office in the system of revelation.
38. In respect to plan this book naturally falls into two main divisions, the former embracing the first twelve chapters, the latter the remainder of the work. The first division contains the history of the apostolic labors after the ascension, in Jerusalem and from Jerusalem as a centre. Here, if we except the events connected with the martyrdom of Stephen (chs. 6, 7), the conversion of Saul (chap. 9:1-31), and the Ethiopian eunuch (chap. 8:26-40), Peter everywhere appears as the chief speaker and actor, being first among the twelve, though possessing no official authority over them. It is he that proposes the choice of one to supply the place of Judas, and that is the foremost speaker on the day of Pentecost, at the gate of the temple, before the Jewish Sanhedrim, and in the assembly of the church. Chaps. 1:15-22; 2:14-40; 3:4-26; 4:8-12; 5:3-11, 29-32. Associated with him we often find the apostle John. Chaps. 3:1; 4:13, 19; 8:14. When the Samaritans are to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter and John are sent to them from Jerusalem. Chap. 8:14-25. When the gospel is to be carried for the first time to the Gentiles, Peter is sent by the Holy Ghost to the house of Cornelius in Cesarea (chap. 10), for which mission he afterwards vindicates himself before the brethren at Jerusalem. Chap. 11:1-18. Further notices of Peter we have in chaps. 9:32-43; 12:3-19. We know that the other apostles must have been actively and successfully employed in prayer and the ministry of the word (chap. 6:4), but it does not come within the plan of this narrative to give a particular account of their labors.
The second division is occupied with the history of Paul's missionary labors among the Gentiles, from Antioch as a centre. He had already been sent from that city with Barnabas to carry alms to the brethren in Jerusalem and Judea (chaps. 11:27-30; 12:25), when "the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them;" and they were sent, with fasting and prayer and the solemn laying on of hands, on their great mission to the Gentiles. Chap. 13:1-3. Thenceforward the narrative is occupied with an account of the labors of Paul among the Gentiles. The fifteenth chapter is no exception; for the convocation of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem was occasioned by the missionary labors of Paul, and had especial reference to them.
Two cities are mentioned in the New Testament which have the name of Antioch--Antioch of Pisidia so-called, though situated in the southern part of Phrygia near the border of Pisidia (Acts 13:14; 14:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:11); and Antioch of Syria, situated on the southern bank of the Orontes about fifteen miles from its mouth. Acts 11:19-27; 13:1; 14:26; 15:22-35; 18:22; Gal. 2:11. The latter city was the centre of Gentile Christianity. It was the metropolis of Syria, the residence of the Syrian kings, and afterwards the capital of the Roman provinces in Asia. Here the first Gentile church was gathered, and the disciples first received the name of Christians. Acts 11:19-26. Hence Barnabas and Saul were sent to Jerusalem to bear alms (Acts 11:29, 30; 12:25); and afterwards to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of imposing the Mosaic law on the Gentile converts. From this city also the apostle started on his three missionary journeys, and to it he returned from his first and second journey. Acts 13:1-3; 14:26; 15:36, 40; 18:22, 23. From the time that Barnabas first brought the apostle to Antioch (Acts 11:26) to that of his seizure at Jerusalem and subsequent imprisonment, most of his time not occupied in missionary journeys was spent at Antioch. Acts 11:26; 12:25; 14:26-28; 15:30, 35; 18:22, 23. As Jerusalem was the centre for the apostles of the circumcision, so was Antioch in Syria for the apostle of the Gentiles.
39. This brief survey of the plan of this book gives us also an insight into its office. First of all it gives us a fresh and vivid portraiture of the apostolic labors and the spirit of the apostolic church, as pervaded and quickened by the presence of the promised Comforter. On the side of the apostles, we see a boldness and ardor that no persecution can check, united with simplicity and godly sincerity. On the side of the brethren, we see a whole-hearted devotion to the Saviour, under the mighty impulse of faith and love, which opens their hearts in liberality and causes them to have all things in common. On the side of both the apostles and the brethren, we see untiring activity and patient endurance in the Master's service, such as make the primitive church a bright illustration of the promise: "Thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. And they that be of thee shall build the old waste places." Isa. 58:11,12. On the side of the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, on the contrary, we behold, as ever since, a series of unsuccessful efforts to hinder the work of God; the very ringleader of the persecutors being called, in the midst of his heat and fury against Christianity, to be the "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Such an authentic record of apostolic times is of immense value to the church in all ages. It gives the true standard of enlightened Christian zeal and activity, and the true exhibition of what constitutes the real strength and prosperity of the Christian church.
The Acts of the Apostles give also a cursory view of the inauguration of the Christian church, by the descent of the Holy Spirit in his plenary influences (chap. 2), by the appointment of deacons (chap. 6), and the ordination of elders, though these last are only mentioned incidentally (chaps. 14:23; 20:17), the office being understood of itself from the usages of the Jewish Synagogue. The scantiness of the information which we have on this matter of church organization is a part of the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, and is full of instruction to the church in all ages.
Once more, the Acts of the Apostles give a most interesting and instructive account of the way in which "the middle wall of partition" between Jews and Gentiles was gradually broken down. The full import of the Saviour's last command: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," seems to have been at first but dimly apprehended by the apostles. For some time their labors were restricted to their own countrymen. But when, upon the dispersion of the disciples in the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen's martyrdom, the gospel had been preached to the Samaritans, the apostles Peter and John were sent to them, and they in common with the Jews received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Chap. 8:5-25. This was an intermediate step. Afterwards Peter was sent among the Gentiles proper, and they also received the Holy Spirit, to the astonishment of the Jewish brethren who had accompanied Peter. Chap. 10. The same thing happened also at Antioch (chap. 11:20), where the true reading is Hellenas, Greeks, that is, Gentiles, not Hellenistas, Hellenists. But the work was not yet finished. It remained that the believing Gentiles should be, by the solemn and formal judgment of the assembled apostles and elders, released from the yoke of the Jewish law. Of this we have an account in the fifteenth chapter. Thus was the demolition of the middle wall of partition completed. Of the greatness of this work and the formidable difficulties by which it was beset--difficulties having their ground in the exclusive spirit of Judaism in connection with the false idea that the Mosaic law was to remain in force under the Messiah's reign--we who live so many centuries after its accomplishment can form but a feeble conception.
40. Brief and imperfect as is the sketch which Luke has given us, it is sufficient for the instruction of the churches in subsequent ages. God deals with them not as with children, to whom the command, "Touch not, taste not, handle not," must continually be repeated; but as with full-grown men, who need general principles rather than specific and minute directions. The facts recorded in the Acts of the Apostles are of a representative character. They embody the spirit of apostolic times, and the great principles upon which the cause of Christ must ever be conducted. Fuller information in respect to details might gratify our curiosity, but it is not necessary for our edification.
XXX. THE EPISTLES OF PAUL
1. The apostolic epistles are a natural sequence of the office and work committed by the Saviour to the apostles. They were the primitive preachers of the gospel, and, under Christ, the founders of the Christian church. From the necessity of the case they had a general supervision of all the local churches, and their authority in them was supreme in matters of both faith and practice. It was to be expected, therefore, that they should teach by writing, as well as by oral instruction. It does not appear, however, that epistolary correspondence entered originally into their plan of labor. Their great Master taught by word of mouth only, and they followed his example. "We," said the twelve, "will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." Acts 6:4. It was only when circumstances made it necessary, that some of them took up the pen to write to the churches. Passing by for the present the disputed question of the time when the epistle of James was written, and assuming that the conversion of Paul took place about A.D. 36, we have an interval of at least sixteen years between this event and the date of his earliest epistles, those to the Thessalonians, written about A.D. 53. The apostles did not regard themselves as letter-writers, but as preachers of the word. They took up the pen only when some special occasion made it necessary. The apostolic epistles are incidental; and for this very reason they are eminently life-like and practical. In respect to themes, and the manner of handling them, they present a rich variety. All the great questions of faith and practice that have agitated the Christian church since the apostolic age come up for discussion in these letters, not indeed, in their ever-varying outward forms, but in their great underlying principles. Thus the providence of God has provided in them a rich storehouse of truths for the instruction and edification of believers to the end of time.
2. Of the twenty-one epistles contained in the New Testament fourteen belong to Paul (if we include the anonymous letter to the Hebrews), all written in the prosecution of his great work as the apostle to the Gentiles. The Saviour's personal ministry was restricted to the Jews, and so was that of the twelve apostles and the seventy disciples whom he sent forth before his crucifixion. Matt. 10:5, 6; 15:24; Luke 10:1. But his last command was: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt. 28:19. In carrying into execution this command, which involved such an immense change in the outward form of God's visible earthly kingdom, it was necessary--
(1) That the apostles should insist very earnestly and fully on the great fundamental doctrine of the gospel, that men have justification and eternal life, not through the law of Moses, or any other possible system of works, but through faith in Jesus Christ; a doctrine which cuts up Pharisaism by the roots.
(2) That, since faith in Christ is the common ground of justification for Jews and Gentiles, both were to be admitted upon equal terms to all the rights and privileges of the Christian church; the ancient prerogative of the Jews above the Gentiles being done away in Christ.
(3) Still further, that since the Gentiles had justification and salvation not through the law of Moses, but through faith alone, the Mosaic law was not to be imposed upon them. This was virtually announcing its abolition, its types and shadows having been fulfilled in Christ.
(4) That this removal of "the middle wall of partition" between the Jews and Gentiles was in accordance with Moses and the prophets--not a change of God's original plan, but only the full accomplishment of it. Acts 15:15-18; Rom. 3:21, 31; 4:6-25; Gal. 3:6-9.
We have seen how this great work was begun by the gift of the Holy Spirit, in connection with the preaching of the gospel, first to the Samaritans (Acts 8:5-17), and afterwards to the Gentiles (Acts 10; 11:20-26, etc.); and how it was completed, so far as concerns the principles involved in it, by the solemn decree of the apostles and the elders (Acts 15:1-29).
3. But for the realization of these principles in the actual preaching of the gospel to the Gentile nations, and the establishment of Christian churches among them which should embrace on equal terms Jews and Gentiles, a man of very peculiar qualifications was raised up in the providence of God. Saul of Tarsus was a Jew, brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel, thoroughly instructed in the law and the prophets, and able therefore to speak with authority concerning the Old Testament to both Jews and Gentiles. His indomitable energy and fiery zeal, united with rare practical wisdom, had made him the foremost man in persecuting the Christians. When the proper time had come Jesus met him on the road to Damascus with converting power, and all his superior education and endowments were thenceforth consecrated to the work of preaching the faith which once he destroyed, especially to the Gentile world. But in this matter he felt and acted as a Jew. He did not separate himself abruptly from his countrymen. Cherishing towards them the tenderest affection, they were everywhere the first objects of his Christian effort. Into whatever city he went, he first sought the Jewish synagogue, and there he "reasoned with them out of the Scriptures," Acts 13:14; 14:1; 17:2, 10; 18:4; 19:8. It was only when they persisted in opposing and blaspheming, that he desisted from further effort among them and turned to the Gentiles. Acts 13:45-47; 18:6; 19:9. Wherever he went he encountered the bitterest persecution on the part of his own countrymen, because of the prominence which he gave to the great evangelical principles above considered--that men have justification not wholly or in part through the Mosaic law, but simply through faith in Christ, and that in him the distinction between Jews and Gentiles is abolished. Even the believing Jews found it hard to apprehend these truths in their fullness. In the narrowness of their Jewish prejudices they were anxious to impose on the Gentile converts the yoke of the Mosaic law. This, Paul steadfastly resisted, and it is to his defence of Gentile liberty that we owe, in great measure, those masterly discussions on the ground of justification, and the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, which are so prominent in his epistles. Yet with his uncompromising firmness of principle he united remarkable flexibility in regard to the means of success. To those who would impose circumcision on the Gentiles he "gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour." Gal. 2:5. But where no great principle was concerned, he was willing to circumcise Timothy, out of regard to the feelings of the Jews; thus becoming, in his own words, "all things to all men." 1 Cor. 9:22.
4. The peculiar character of the apostle's style is obvious to every reader. It is in an eminent degree argumentative. He "reasoned with them," says Luke, "out of the Scriptures." These words describe accurately the character of both his epistles and his addresses to the Jews as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. In addressing a Gentile audience at Athens, he still "reasoned with them;" but it was now from the inscription on one of their altars, from certain of their own poets, and from the manifestations in nature of God's power and Godhead. His reasoning takes occasionally the form of an argument within an argument. He pauses by the way to expand some thought, and does not return again to complete in grammatical form the sentence which he had begun; so that his style sometimes becomes complex and obscure. The versatility of the apostle's mind, which made him equally at home in discussing subjects the most varied, appears in his style also. It naturally takes the complexion of his themes. To understand this one has only to compare the epistle to the Romans with those to the Corinthians; the epistle to the Galatians with that to the Ephesians; and all these with the epistles to the Philippians and Thessalonians. His style may be compared to a clear window, which shows with fidelity the ever varying forms and scenes that pass before it.
5. The commentaries that have been written on the epistles of Paul would themselves constitute a large library. Our own century has been very fruitful in them, and some of them are accessible to every reader. For this reason our notice of the separate epistles may well be brief. Our aim will be to give the occasion of each, its chronological order in the series, its connection with the apostle's missionary labors, its scope, and the office which it accomplishes in the plan of revelation.
In connection with Paul's epistles the reader should carefully study the history of his life and labors, as given in the Acts of the Apostles. From Acts 9:23-26 compared with Gal. 1:16-18, we learn that the first three years after Paul's conversion were spent at Damascus and in Arabia. Then he went up to Jerusalem, but after a short sojourn there was driven away by the persecution of the Jews, and retired to his native city, Tarsus in Cilicia. Acts 9:29, 30. After an interval of some time, which he spent "in the regions of Syria and Cilicia" (Gal. 1:21), "Barnabas departed to Tarsus, for to seek Saul. And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch." Acts 11:25, 26. This is supposed to have been about A.D. 43, seven or eight years after his conversion.
Here begins his recorded public ministry in Antioch and from Antioch as a centre. See above, Chap. 29, No. 38. It embraces three great missionary tours (Acts 13:1, etc.; 15:36, etc.; 18:23, etc.), and four visits to Jerusalem besides that already noticed. Acts 11:27-30 compared with 12:25; 15:2; 18:22; 21:15. The last of these ended in his captivity and imprisonment, first at Cesarea and afterwards at Rome, with an intervening perilous voyage and shipwreck. Acts chap. 21-28. See the incidents of Paul's life chronologically arranged in Davidson's Introduct. to New Test., vol. 2, pp. 110-112, with the annexed table; in Horne's Introduct., vol. 4, pp. 490-495; in Conybeare and Howson, vol. 2, Appendix 2; and in the commentaries of Hackett, Alford, Wordsworth, etc.
6. As the epistles of Paul stand in the New Testament, they are not arranged in chronological order. The principle of arrangement seems to have been, first, those to churches, then, those to individuals; the further order being that of relative size, with this modification; that two epistles addressed to the same church should stand together, and that the last of them, which is always the shorter, should determine their place in the series. Where the epistles are about equal in size, it seems to have been the design to arrange them chronologically. The catholic epistles are arranged upon the same plan. The epistle to the Hebrews, as being anonymous, now stands after those which bear the name of Paul. But in many Greek manuscripts it is placed after 2 Thessalonians, consequently between the epistles addressed to churches and those to individuals.
The student of these epistles should carefully note the chronological order, because, as Wordsworth remarks (Preface to Commentary on the Epistles), the mutual illustration which the Acts of the Apostles and the apostolic epistles receive from each other "is much impaired if the apostolic epistles are not studied in connection with and in the order of the apostolic history." The following is the chronological order of the epistles, as far as it can be ascertained, though (as will hereafter appear) some uncertainty exists in respect to several of them:
1 Thessalonians . . . about A.D. 53 2 Thessalonians . . . about A.D. 53 Galatians . . . . . . about A.D. 56 or 57 1 Corinthians . . . . about A.D. 57 2 Corinthians . . . . about A.D. 57 Romans . . . . . . . about A.D. 58 Ephesians . . . . . . about A.D. 62 Colossians . . . . . about A.D. 62 Philemon . . . . . . about A.D. 62 Philippians . . . . . about A.D. 63 Hebrews . . . . . . . uncertain. 1 Timothy . . . . . . about A.D. 65 Titus . . . . . . . . about A.D. 65 2 Timothy . . . . . . about A.D. 66
Arranged according to the order of time the thirteen epistles which bear the name of Paul naturally fall into four groups: (1) the two epistles to the Thessalonians, written during the apostle's second missionary journey recorded Acts 15:36-18:22; (2) the epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, written during his third missionary journey, Acts 18:23-21:15; (3) the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians, written during Paul's imprisonment in Rome, Acts 28:16-31 (some suppose the first three to have been written during his imprisonment at Cesarea, Acts 23:35-26:32); (4) the pastoral epistles, the first and third probably written after his recorded imprisonment in Rome, and the second during a second imprisonment after the publication of the Acts of the Apostles, and which ended in his martyrdom A.D. 67 or 68.
The epistles of Paul will now be considered in the usual order, except that the three to the Ephesians, Colossians. and Philemon, which are contemporaneous, will be taken together.
I. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
7. The date of the epistle to the Romans, as well as the place where it was written, can be gathered with much certainty from the epistle itself, taken in connection with other notices respecting Paul found in the Acts of the Apostles. He was about to bear alms to his brethren in Judea from Macedonia and Achaia. Chap. 15:25, 26. He had previously exhorted the church of Corinth in Achaia to make this very collection, which he was to receive of them when he came to them through Macedonia. 1 Cor. 16:1-6. That he was also to bring with him a collection from the Macedonian churches is manifest from 2 Cor. 8:1-4; 9:1-4. He wrote, moreover, from Corinth; for among the greetings at the close of the epistle is one from "Gaius mine host" (chap. 16:23), a Corinthian whom he had baptized (1 Cor. 1:14); he commends to them Phebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, the eastern port of Corinth, chap. 16:1; and he speaks of "the city" where he is as well known (chap. 16:23), which can be no other than Corinth. Now by comparing Acts 19:21; 20:1-3; 24:17, we find that he was then on his way to Jerusalem through Macedonia and Greece, for the last time recorded in the New Testament. The epistle to the Romans, then, was written from Corinth during the apostle's third missionary tour and second abode in that city, about A.D. 58. It is the sixth of his epistles in the order of time, and stands in near connection with those to the Galatians and Corinthians, which were apparently written during the previous year.
8. Concerning the founding of the church at Rome we have no information. At the date of this epistle Paul had not visited it. Chaps. 1:10-15; 15:23, 24. Of its composition, however, we have more certain knowledge. Founded in the metropolis of the Roman empire, where, as we know from many notices of ancient writers, many Jews resided, it must have been of a mixed character, embracing both Jews and Gentiles; with this agree the contents of the present epistle. That the Gentile element largely predominated in the church at Rome appears from the general tenor of the epistle. Chaps. 1:13; 11:13-25, 30, 31; 15:16. That it had also a Jewish element is plain from the whole of chap 2, and the precepts in chap. 14.
9. The occasion of writing seems to have been of a general character. The apostle had often purposed to visit Rome, but had been as often hindered. Chap. 1:13. To compensate in part for this failure, he wrote the present epistle, having, as it appears, an opportunity to send it by Phebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. Chap. 16:1. The apostle's design, like the occasion of his writing, was general. It was natural that, in addressing a church which he had long desired to visit, he should lay himself out to unfold the gospel of Christ in its deep foundation principles, as a plan of salvation provided for the whole world, and designed to unite Jews and Gentiles in one harmonious body, on the common platform of faith in Christ. He first shows that the Gentiles are under the dominion of sin (chap. 1:18-32), and the Jews also (chap. 2), so that both alike are shut up to salvation by grace. Chap. 3. He connects the gospel plan of salvation immediately with the Old Testament by showing that Abraham, the father of the Israelitish people, was justified by faith, not by the works of the law or any outward rite; so that he is the father of all who walk in the steps of his faith, whether Jews or Gentiles. Chap. 4. He then sets forth the love of God in Christ, who is the second Adam, sent to restore the race from the ruin into which it was brought by the sin of the first Adam (chap. 5); and shows that to fallen sinful men the law cannot give deliverance from either its condemnatory sentence or the reigning power of sin, so that its only effect is to work wrath, while the righteousness which God gives through faith in Christ sets men free from both the curse of the law and the inward power of sin, thus bringing them into a blessed state of justification, sanctification, and holy communion with God here, with the hope of eternal glory hereafter. Chaps. 6-8. Since the doctrine of the admission of the Gentiles to equal privileges with the Jews, and the rejection of the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation, was exceedingly offensive to his countrymen, the apostle devotes three entire chapters to the discussion of this momentous theme. Chaps. 9-11. He then proceeds to draw from the whole subject, as he has unfolded it, such practical exhortations in respect to daily life and conduct as were adapted to the particular wants of the Roman Christians--entire consecration of soul and body to God in each believer's particular sphere (chap. 12); obedience to magistrates (chap. 13:1-7); love and purity (chap. 13:8-14); mutual respect and forbearance (chaps. 14:1-15:7). He then returns to the great theme with which he began, that Christ is the common Saviour of Jews and Gentiles, in connection with which he refers to his office and labors as "the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles" (chap. 15:8-21), and closes with miscellaneous notices and salutations (chaps. 15:22-16:27).
10. From the above brief survey the special office of the epistle to the Romans is manifest. In no book of the New Testament is the great doctrine of justification by faith so fully unfolded. The apostle sets it in vivid contrast with the Pharisaical idea of justification by the Mosaic law, and, by parity of reason, of justification by every other system of legalism; showing that it is only by grace through Christ that men can be delivered from either the guilt of sin or its reigning power in the soul, while the effect of the law is only to excite and irritate men's corrupt passions without the power to subdue them. The place, therefore, which this epistle holds in the understandings and affections of believers must be a good measure of their progress in the Christian life.
II. EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
11. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS was written from Ephesus, not far from the time of Pentecost (chap. 16:8); not from Philippi, according to the subscription appended to it. It was during Paul's second and last visit to that city, as we learn from his directions concerning a collection for the saints at Jerusalem, and his promise to come to the Corinthians through Macedonia (chap. 16:1-5); for when Paul left Ephesus after his second sojourn there he went by Macedonia and Achaia (of which province Corinth was the capital) to Jerusalem to bear alms. Acts 19:21; 20:1-3; 24:17. Paul's second stay in Ephesus, during which time some think that he made a short visit to Corinth not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, which would be the second in order, that promised in this and the second epistle being the third (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1), extended over the space of about three years. Acts 19:1-10; 20:31. From his words (chap. 16:3-8), we gather that the epistle was written not long before the close of this period. Chronologists generally place it about A.D. 57.
12. The occasion of his writing was more specific than when he penned his epistle to the Romans. Corinth, the renowned capital of the Roman province Achaia, situated on the isthmus that connects the southern peninsula of Greece--the ancient Peleponnesus and the modern Morea, and enjoying the advantage of two ports was alike distinguished for its wealth and progress in the arts, and for its luxury and dissoluteness of morals. Here the apostle had labored a year and six months, and gathered a flourishing church embracing some Jews, but consisting mostly of Gentiles. Acts 18:1-11; 1 Cor. 12:2. These Gentile converts, having just emerged from the darkness and corruption of heathenism (chap. 6:9-11), and living in the midst of a dissolute community (chap. 5:9, 10), did not wholly escape the contamination of heathenish associations and heathenish vices. Chaps. 5, 6, 8, 10. Taking a low and worldly view of the Christian church and the spiritual endowments of its several members, they were led into party strifes and rivalries. Chaps. 1:11-13; 3:3-7. Certain vain-glorious teachers, moreover, had come in among them with a great show of worldly wisdom, who disparaged Paul's apostolical standing, taught the people to despise the simplicity of his teachings, and sought to supplant him in the confidence and affections of the Corinthian church. Chaps. 4, 9; 2 Cor. 10-13. In addition to this, certain disorders and abuses had crept into their public assemblies (chaps. 11, 12, 14), and some among them denied the doctrine of the resurrection. Chap. 15. According to the most probable interpretation of chap. 5:9, the apostle had already written them a letter on some of these points which has not come down to us, and the Corinthians themselves had written to the apostle, asking his advice on some points of a practical character, particularly in respect to the marriage relation in their present state of trial. Chap. 7:1. The occasion, then, of writing this epistle, which gives also its scope and office, was to correct the above named errors and abuses, of which he had received accurate information, and also to answer the inquiries of the Corinthians in their letter. In this work the apostle employs now sharp rebuke, now tender expostulation, and now earnest and impassioned argument. The party strifes among the Corinthians he meets by showing that Christ himself is the only head of the church, that all gifts are from him, and are to be used to his glory in the edification of believers. Chaps. 1:13, 14, 30, 31; 3:5-23. The vain-glorious boasting of their leaders he exposes by showing the emptiness and impotence of their pretended wisdom in comparison with the doctrine of Christ crucified, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God for the salvation of all that believe, without regard to the distinctions of worldly rank. Chaps. 1:18-2:16; 3:18-20. The abuses and disorders that had crept into the church he rebukes with apostolical severity; and in correcting them, as well as in answering the questions of the Corinthians, he makes an application of the general principles of the gospel to the several cases before him which is full of practical wisdom--the incestuous person (chap. 5:8), companionship with the vicious (chap. 5:9-13), litigation among brethren (chap. 6:1-8), fleshly indulgence (chap. 6:9-20), the inquiries of the Christians in respect to marriage (chap. 7), meats offered to idols and sundry questions connected with them (chaps. 8, 10), disorders in the public assemblies (chap. 11), spiritual gifts with a beautiful eulogy on love (chaps. 12-14), the doctrine of the resurrection (chap. 15). He also defends his apostolical character and standing against his opposers, though by no means so earnestly and fully as in the following epistle. Chaps. 4, 9. Thus it comes to pass that the present epistle contains a remarkable variety of topics, and gives us a fuller and clearer insight into the practical working of Christianity in the primitive apostolic churches than that furnished by any other of Paul's epistles, or, indeed, any other book of the New Testament. The great principles, moreover, which he lays down in meeting the particular wants of the Corinthian church remain valid for all time; shedding from age to age a clear and steady light, by which every tempest-tossed church may, God helping it by his grace, steer its way into the haven of peace and prosperity.
13. The reader cannot fail to notice the remarkable contrast between the tone of this epistle and that to the Galatians, which belongs in the order of time to the same group. See above, No. 6. The errors of the Corinthians were not fundamental, like those of the Galatians. They built upon the true foundation, Jesus Christ; but marred the building by the introduction of base materials--the "wood, hay, stubble" of human wisdom, instead of the "gold, silver, precious stones" of the truth as Paul had taught it. The false teachers among the Galatians, on the contrary, sought to subvert the very foundations of Christianity by bringing in a system of legal justification. In writing to the Galatians, therefore, Paul contends, with apostolic severity, for the very substance of the gospel, but in addressing the Corinthians, he seeks only to purify the gospel from the admixture of human additions.
14. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS was written not many months after the first, from Macedonia, where the apostle was occupied in completing a collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, with the purpose of afterwards proceeding to Corinth that he might receive the contribution of the Corinthian church also. Chaps. 8:1-4; 9:1-5. Whether he wrote from Philippi, according to the subscription of the epistle, or from some other place in Macedonia, cannot be determined.
15. The occasion of writing was manifestly the report which he had received from Titus (and as is generally inferred from 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10, from Timothy also). He had sent Titus to Corinth with the expectation that he would bring tidings thence to Troas, where he hoped to find him on his way from Ephesus to Macedonia. But in this he was disappointed. He therefore hastened from Troas to Macedonia, where he met Titus and learned from him the effect of his first epistle. Chaps. 2:12, 13; 7:6; 12:18. So far as the main body of the Corinthian Christians was concerned, this was highly favorable, and for it the apostle devoutly thanks God (chap. 7:6, 7); commends their prompt obedience (chap. 7:11); directs them to restore the excommunicated person (chap. 2:5-10); and discusses very fully the matter of the collection for the poor Christians at Jerusalem (chaps. 8, 9). But the very success of his first epistle with the better part of the church had embittered his enemies, and made them more determined in their opposition to him. They accused him of levity in changing his original plan of visiting the Corinthian church on his way to Macedonia (chap. 1:15-17); of uttering threats which he would not dare to execute when present among them (chap. 10:9-11); of making a gain of them by indirect means (chap. 12:16-18); and sought in various ways to disparage his apostolical character and standing. This led him to dwell with great earnestness on the fullness of his apostolic credentials, the purity of his apostolic life, and the abundance of his labors and sufferings in behalf of Christ's cause, always with reference more or less direct to his enemies. With these personal notices of himself are interwoven exalted views of the dignity of the ministerial office, and the true spirit and manner in which its weighty duties are to be performed. See chaps. 2:14-7:16; chaps. 10-13. The prominence which the apostle is thus forced to give to his own person and labor constitutes the most remarkable feature of the present epistle. To the same cause are due the peculiarities of its diction, and its rapid transitions from one theme and tone to another. "Consolation and rebuke, gentleness and severity, earnestness and irony, succeed one another at very short intervals and without notice." Alford, Introduction to this Epistle. All this came about by the wisdom of God, who placed his servant in such circumstances that fidelity to the cause of truth compelled him unwillingly to set forth in himself the character of a true minister of the gospel in bright contrast with that of those vain-glorious and selfish men, who under a show of great worldly wisdom, seek to create parties in the church of Christ for their own private honor and emolument. The particular occasion which called forth this epistle soon passed away; but the epistle itself remains a rich treasure for all believers, especially for all Christian teachers.
III. EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
16. Galatia is the Greek word answering to the Roman Gallia, that is, Gaul. It was one of the central provinces of Asia Minor, and received its name from the circumstance of its being inhabited by a people of Gallic origin who came by the way of Byzantium and the Hellespont in the third century before Christ. Two visits of the apostle to Galatia are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles; the first, during his second missionary journey (Acts 16:6); and the second, at the beginning of his third journey (Acts 18:23). After which of these visits the present epistle was written is a question that has been much discussed, and answered in different ways. The most natural interpretation, however, of chapter 4:13-16 leads to the conclusion that it was after his second visit. The course of the events seems to have been as follows: He was suffering from an infirmity of the flesh when he preached the gospel to the Galatians "at the first," that is, upon the first visit (verse 13). Then they received him "as an angel of God, even as Jesus Christ," and were filled with holy joy through simple faith in Christ's name (verses 14, 15). Upon his second visit he found it necessary to warn them in very plain terms against the seductions of false teachers, who were seeking to draw them away from the simplicity of the gospel to faith in a system of works. But after his departure these false teachers had great success; and the result was that the affections of the Galatians were alienated from Paul, who was their spiritual father. In view of this fact he asks (as we may render v. 16, after Ellicott, in perfect accordance with the idiom of the Greek): "So then, am I become your enemy, by speaking to you the truth?" that is because in my recent visit I told you the truth. According to this view the epistle belongs to the second group, and was written about A.D. 56 or 57. Farther than this we cannot go in determining the time. The place is uncertain. It may have been Ephesus, or Corinth, which cities Paul visited in his third and last missionary journey, but it cannot have been Rome, as the subscription erroneously gives it.
The subscriptions are of no authority. That to the present epistle probably had its ground mainly in chapter 6:17, where the writer was erroneously supposed to allude to the bodily sufferings that he endured in connection with his last recorded imprisonment.
17. The occasion of this epistle, which gives also its design, was very specific. The Galatian churches had begun well (chap. 5:7); but soon after Paul's departure Judaizing teachers had drawn them away to the very form of error noticed in the Acts of the Apostles (chap. 15:1); "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved." They sought to impose on all the Gentile converts circumcision as essential to salvation. Thus they placed justification on a legal ground, and made faith in Christ a subordinate matter. This error was fundamental. Paul therefore attacks it with unsparing severity, with which, however, he mingles a wonderful tenderness of spirit. His argument is for substance the same as that in the epistle to the Romans, only that it takes from necessity a more controversial form, and is carried out with more warmth and vehemence of expression. It is a divine model of the way in which fundamental error should be dealt with.
18. The epistle naturally falls into three divisions. The first is mainly historic. Chaps. 1, 2. The false teachers had disparaged Paul's apostolical standing, on the ground, apparently, that he was not one of the original twelve, and had not been called immediately by Christ to the apostleship, but had received his gospel from men. It would seem also that they labored to make it appear that Paul's doctrine respecting circumcision and the Mosaic law was contrary to that of Peter and the other apostles of the circumcision. Paul accordingly devotes these two introductory chapters to a vindication of his full apostolic standing. He shows that his apostleship is "not of man neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father" (chap. 1:1); that the gospel which he preaches he neither received of man, nor was taught by man but by the revelation of Jesus Christ (verses 11, 12); that, accordingly, upon his call to the apostleship, he went not up to Jerusalem to receive instruction from those who were apostles before him, but into Arabia, whence he returned to Damascus (verses 15-17); that after three years he made a brief visit of fifteen days to Peter, where he also saw James, but had no personal acquaintance with the churches in Judea (verses 20-24); that fourteen years afterwards he went up to Jerusalem by revelation, not to be instructed by the apostles there, but to confer with them respecting "the gospel of the uncircumcision" which was committed to him, and that he obtained the full recognition of "James, Cephas, and John, who were reckoned as pillars" (chap. 2:1-10); and that afterwards, when Peter was come to Antioch he withstood him to the face on this very question of circumcision, because, through fear of his Jewish brethren, he had dissembled and drawn others into dissimulation, adding also the substance of the rebuke administered by him to Peter, which contains an argument (drawn in part from Peter's own practice) against compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews (verses 11-21).
Having thus vindicated his apostolic authority against the false teachers in Galatia, he proceeds, in the second part of the epistle, to unfold the great argument for justification by faith in Christ. The Galatians have received the Holy Spirit, with the accompanying miraculous gifts, not by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ (chap. 3:1-5); Abraham was justified by faith, as an example for all future ages (verses 6-9,18); the law cannot bring justification to sinners, but only condemnation (verses 10-12); from this condemnation Christ delivers us, and makes us through faith the children of Abraham, and heirs to all the promises which God made to him (verses 13, 14); the Abrahamic covenant, conditioned on faith alone, is older than the Mosaic law and cannot be disannulled by it (verses 15-17); the true office of the law was to prepare men for the coming of Christ, in whom all distinction between Jew and Gentile is abolished (verses 19-29); before Christ the people of God were like a child that has not yet received the inheritance, but is kept under tutors and governors, but through Christ they are like the same child arrived at full age, and put in possession of the inheritance (chap. 4:1-7). The apostle adds (chaps. 4:8-5:12) various arguments and illustrations, with pointed allusions to the false teachers who were subverting the simplicity of their faith in Christ; and he solemnly warns the Galatian Christians that by receiving circumcision they bind themselves to do the whole law--the whole law as the ground of their justification. They have left Christ, and thus fallen away from grace--forsaken a system of grace for one of works, so that "Christ is become of no effect" to them. Chap. 5:3, 4.
The third part (chaps. 5:13-6:18) is of a practical character. The apostle affectionately exhorts the Galatians to use their Christian liberty in a worthy manner, mortifying fleshly lusts, restoring fallen brethren in meekness, bearing one another's burdens, and being diligent in every good work. In bringing the epistle to a close he contrasts the vain-glory and hypocrisy of these Judaizing false teachers with his steadfast purpose to glory only in the cross of Christ, in whom "neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."
IV. EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS, EPHESIANS, AND PHILEMON.
19. These three epistles are contemporaneous, in the sense that they were written on the same general occasion, and forwarded at the same time, though some days may have intervened between the composition of the first and the last of them. They were all written when Paul was a prisoner (Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 6:20; Col. 4:10; Philemon 1, 9, 10, 23), and all sent virtually by Tychicus; for Onesimus, a servant whom Paul sent back to his master, Philemon of Colosse, with a commendatory letter, went in company with Tychicus. Eph. 6:21, 22; Col. 4:7-9. The epistle to the Ephesians contains no salutations; but those of the other two, are, with a single exception, sent from the same persons--Aristarchus, Marcus, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas. If any further argument for their contemporaneousness were needed, it could be found in the remarkable agreement between the contents of the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, extending not only to the thoughts but to the phraseology also.
20. It is agreed that these three epistles were written during the apostle's imprisonment in either Cesarea or Rome; but from which of these two places is a question on which biblical scholars differ, and which cannot be answered with certainty, though the common opinion has been that the apostle wrote from Rome. It is not necessary to review the arguments advanced on the two sides. The reader who wishes to investigate the matter will find them in commentaries and bible dictionaries.
21. Another question is: In what order were the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians written? Here we have only indirect indications, and these not decisive. It is manifest, however, from a comparison of the two epistles, that the apostle had a more specific occasion for writing to the Colossians than to the Ephesians. It is natural, therefore, to suppose that he first penned his letter to the former church, and very soon afterwards, while his heart was yet warm with the great theme of that letter--the personal glory and dignity of Christ, and the union through him of both Jews and Gentiles in one holy family--he wrote to the Ephesians among whom he had so long labored, going over the same general course of thought, but with more fulness and in a less argumentative tone. However this may be, it is certain that the most convenient order of studying these two closely related epistles is to begin with that to the Colossians and thence proceed to the other. We propose to consider them in this order.
22. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. Colosse was a city lying in the southwestern part of Phrygia, in Asia Minor, in the neighborhood of Laodicea and Hierapolis. Chap. 4:13, 16. Respecting the founding of the church there we have no information. According to the most natural interpretation of chap. 2:1, Paul had not visited Colosse in person when he wrote the present epistle. The occasion of his writing seems to have been information received by him that false teachers were troubling the Colossian church. That these men were Jews is plain from chap. 2:16, 20, 21; where the reference is to Jewish ordinances. But their doctrine was not simple Phariseeism, like that of the false teachers among the Galatians. They did not seek directly to substitute circumcision and the Mosaic law for faith in Christ, as the ground of justification. They seem rather to have been Christian Jews of an ascetic turn of mind, and imbued with the semi-oriental philosophy of that day, which contained in itself the seeds of the later Gnostic systems. Having no clear apprehension of the glory of Christ's person and the fulness of the salvation which his gospel offers to men, they sought to supplement the Christian system by their ascetic practices and their speculations concerning the orders of angels, whom they seem to have regarded as mediators between God and men. To all this human philosophy the apostle opposes directly the divine dignity and glory of Christ's person, and the completeness of the redemption which he has provided for men.
The Jewish character of these false teachers appears in their insisting on meats and drinks, holy-days, new moons, and Sabbaths (chap. 2:16, 20, 21); their ascetic character, in their doctrine concerning the mortification of the body (chap. 2:23); their speculations concerning angels, in the fact that they are described as "delighting in humility and the worship of angels" (chap. 2:18, 23). The apostle apparently refers to a false humility which, under the pretence that God is too great to be approached except through the mediation of angels, made them instead of Christ the way of access to him, thus disparaging the Redeemer's person and office.
23. In respect to plan, the epistle naturally falls into two parts of about equal length. The first is argumentative. Chaps. 1, 2. After an introduction, in which the apostle thanks God that the Colossians have been made partakers of the gospel, commends them for the fruitfulness of their faith, and assures them of his incessant prayers in their behalf (chap. 1:1-12), and passes to his great theme, which is to set forth the divine dignity and glory of Christ's person. He is the image of the invisible God, existing before all things, and the creator and upholder of all things, those angelic orders included whom the false teachers regarded as objects of worship (verses 15-17). He is also the head of the church, and as such unites under himself all holy beings in heaven and earth in one happy family (verses 18-22). In him all fulness dwells, and all believers are complete in him; receiving through him a spiritual circumcision which brings to them holiness of heart, forgiveness of sins, and life from the dead (verses 11-13). Christ has abolished by his death on the cross "the handwriting of ordinances"--the Mosaic ordinances under the figure of a bond which was before of binding force, but which he has annulled--so that the former ground of separation between Jews and Gentiles is done away (2:14). By the same death on the cross he has "spoiled principalities and powers"--the powers of darkness, of which Satan is the head--openly triumphing over them (verse 15). The Colossians, then, have all that they need in Christ, and the apostle affectionately warns them against being spoiled through the philosophy of these false teachers, which is a compound of ignorance, self-conceit, and will-worship, void alike of reality and power.
The second part is practical. Chaps. 3, 4. The duties on which the apostle insists come mainly under two general heads. The first is that of a heavenly temper of mind growing out of their resurrection with Christ who sits at the right hand of God, and who shall appear again to receive his disciples to himself, that they also may appear with him in glory. In view of this animating hope he exhorts the Colossians to put away all the sins belonging to their former state of heathenism. Chap. 3:1-8. The second is that of mutual love and harmony arising from their union with each other in Christ, whereby they have been made one holy body, in which outward distinctions are nothing "but Christ is all and in all." On this ground they are urged to cultivate all the graces of the Spirit, the chief of which is love, and faithfully to discharge, each one in his station, the mutual duty which they owe as husbands and wives, as parents and children, as masters and servants. Chaps. 3:9-4:1. They are admonished, moreover, to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly for their mutual edification (chap. 3:16); to be single-hearted in their aim to please Christ (verse 17); to be prayerful and vigilant (chap. 4:2-4); and wise in their intercourse with unbelievers (verses 5, 6). The epistle closes with notices of a personal character intermingled with salutations (verses 7-18).
In chap. 4:16 the apostle directs that this epistle be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that the Colossians likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. What was this epistle from Laodicea? (1) Some think it was a letter written by the church of Laodicea to Paul, and forwarded by him to the Colossians. (2) Others understand it of an epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans (perhaps forwarded along with the three epistles now under consideration) and which the Colossians were to obtain from Laodicea. This is the most probable supposition. On the attempt to identify this epistle with our canonical epistle to the Ephesians see below.
24. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.--Ephesus, the metropolis of Proconsular Asia, which comprehended the western provinces of Asia Minor, lay on the coast of the Ægean sea between Smyrna on the north and Miletus on the south. In the apostolic age it was a flourishing city, and renowned for the temple of the heathen goddess Diana. Two visits of the apostle to Ephesus are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, the latter of which was prolonged through most of three years. Acts 18:19-21; chaps. 19; 20:31. The occasion of writing this epistle seems to have been of a very general nature. The apostle was sending a letter by Tychicus to the Colossians, and embraced the opportunity to write to the Ephesians also. In entire accordance with this supposition is the general character of the epistle. The apostle has no particular error to combat, as he had in the case of the Colossians. He proceeds, therefore, in a placid and contemplative frame of mind to unfold the great work of Christ's redemption; and then makes a practical application of it, as in the epistle to the Colossians, but with more fulness, and with some important additions.
It has seemed surprising to many that the apostle should have written in so general a strain to a church on which he had bestowed so much labor, and where he had so many personal friends; particularly that he should have omitted at the close all salutations. To account for this various hypotheses have been proposed. The words "in Ephesus" are omitted in the Sinai and Vatican manuscripts, and there is reason for believing that they were wanting in some other ancient manuscripts not now extant. See the quotations from Basil the Great, and other fathers in Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, and other critical commentators. On this ground some have supposed that the present epistle was intended to be encyclical--an epistle for general circulation among the churches; others, that it is the Laodicean epistle referred to in Col. 4:16. But in favor of the words "in Ephesus" there is an overwhelming weight of evidence. They are sustained by all the versions and all the manuscripts except the above. Besides, as every Greek scholar knows, if these words are omitted, it compels the omission from the original of the two preceding words which are found in every manuscript and version--unless, indeed, we adopt the far-fetched hypothesis that the apostle furnished Tychicus with two or more copies of the epistle for different churches, leaving a blank space to be filled as occasion should require; and then it becomes impossible to explain how the reading "in Ephesus" should have been so universal in the manuscripts and versions. There is no occasion for any of this ingenuity. The omission of these words from single manuscripts is not wonderful. It finds a parallel, as Alford remarks, in the omission of the words in Rome (Rom. 1:7) from one manuscript, whether from oversight or for the purpose of generalizing the reference of its contents. Nor can any valid objection be drawn from the general character of the epistle. That depended much on the occasion which called it forth, which we have seen to have been general, and the frame of mind in which the apostle wrote. As to the omission of salutations, we shall find upon examination that the measure of Paul's personal acquaintance with the churches was not that of his personal greetings. These abound most of all in the epistle to the Romans whom he had never visited. Rom. 16. They are found also in the epistle to the Colossians to whom Paul was personally a stranger. Col. 4:10-14. On the contrary they are wanting, except in a general form, in the epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians (in 2 Thessalonians wholly wanting as in this epistle), Titus, and the first to Timothy. The other objections are founded on misinterpretation, as when it is inferred from chap, 1:15 that the author had never seen those to whom he wrote; and from chap, 3:2 that they had no personal acquaintance with him. But in the former passage the apostle speaks simply of the good report which had come to him from the Ephesian church since he left it; and, in the latter, the words: "if ye have heard" imply no doubt (compare 1 Peter 2:3), and cannot be fairly adduced to prove that the writer was personally unknown to his readers.
25. This epistle, like that to the Colossians, naturally falls into two divisions of about equal size; the first argumentative, the second practical.
The argumentative part occupies the first two chapters. Full of the great theme with which the epistle to the Colossians is occupied--the personal dignity and glory of Christ, the greatness of his salvation, and especially the union through him of all holy beings in heaven and earth in one family of God--the apostle begins, immediately after the apostolic greeting, by pouring out his heart in thanksgiving to God for his rich mercy, which has made him and his beloved Ephesians partakers of Christ's redemption, the greatness and glory of which he describes in glowing terms, bringing in, as he proceeds, the thought with which his mind is filled, that it is God's purpose to "gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth." Chap. 1:10. He then adds a fervent prayer for the growth of the Ephesians in the knowledge of Christ, whom God has raised above all principality and power and made head over all things to his body the church. Returning in the second chapter to the theme with which he began, he contrasts with the former wretched condition of the Ephesians, when they had no hope and were without God in the world, their present blessed state, as fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of faith; God having through Christ broken down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, and built them all into a holy temple upon one common foundation, of which Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone. In the third chapter he dwells upon the grace of God which had committed to him, in a special sense, the office of preaching among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and adds a rapturous prayer for the strengthening of the Ephesians through the Spirit in the inner man, for their establishment in faith and love, and their illumination in the love of Christ which passes knowledge, that they may "be filled with all the fulness of God." Then follows a doxology in which the apostle labors to find words wherewith to express his conception of the greatness of God's power and grace through Jesus Christ.
With the fourth chapter begins the practical part of the epistle. He begins with an exhortation to unity, the argument for which cannot be abridged: "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Chap. 4:4-6. He next speaks of the diversity of gifts among believers, all of which come from Christ, and have for their end the unity of the church in faith and knowledge, and thus her stability (verses 7-16). Then follow earnest admonitions to shun the vices of their former state of heathenism, and cultivate all the graces of the Spirit. The mutual relations of life are then taken up, as in the epistle to the Colossians. Here occurs that grand digression in which the love of Christ towards his church is compared with that of the husband towards his wife. Chap. 5:23-32. The closing exhortation, in which the Christian is compared to a warrior wrestling not with flesh and blood but with the powers of darkness, and his heavenly panoply is described at length, is (with the exception of the brief figure, 1 Thess. 5:8) peculiar to this epistle and is very striking.
26. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.--This short epistle is essentially of a private character. It was sent to Colosse by Onesimus at the same time with the epistle to the Colossians, of which Tychieus was the bearer. Col. 4:7-9. The epistle itself plainly indicates its object. It is a plea for Onesimus, the servant of Philemon, who had left his master and apparently defrauded him (verse 18), but now returns to him a Christian. As a model of Christian delicacy and courtesy it has been the admiration of all ages.
V. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
27. The ancient name of Philippi was Crenides (Fountains); but Philip of Macedon fortified the place and called it after his own name. It lay along the bank of a river on a plain in the eastern border of Proconsular Macedonia, and was made a colony by Augustus in memory of his victory gained there over Brutus and Cassius. Compare Acts 16:12. Its port was Neapolis on the Ægean sea about twelve Roman miles to the southeast of it. Philippi was the first place in Europe where the gospel was preached by Paul, who had been summoned across the sea to Macedonia by a vision. Acts 16:9. This was during his second missionary journey, about A.D. 53. A record of his labors and sufferings on that occasion is given in Acts 16:12-40. In his third missionary journey he twice visited Macedonia, sailing the second time from Philippi, that is, from its port Neapolis. Acts 20:1, 3-6.
28. The occasion of this epistle seems to have been the contribution made by the Philippians to supply the apostle's necessities while a prisoner in Rome. Chap. 4:10-18. That he was a prisoner is plain from chap. 1:13, 14, 16. That the place of imprisonment was Rome is inferred from the general tone of the epistle, which shows that the apostle was awaiting a decision of his case, in accordance with his appeal to Cæsar, with the confident expectation of a favorable result (chaps. 1:19-25; 2:23, 24), and especially from the mention of Cæsar's household (chap. 4:22). From chap. 2:23, 24 we infer, moreover, that the time for a decision of his case was at hand. The date of this epistle, then, was about A.D. 63.
The apostle speaks very confidently of a speedy release and restoration to the work of his apostolic office. Chaps. 1:19, 25, 26; 2:24. This language is important in connection with the two closely related questions, that of a second imprisonment at Rome and that of the date of the pastoral epistles. See below, No. 35.
29. The character of this epistle answers well to its occasion. It is a free outpouring of the apostle's heart towards his beloved Philippians, who had remembered him in his bonds and sent Epaphroditus to supply his wants. He bestows upon them no censure, unless the suggestion to Euodias and Syntyche be regarded as such, but commends them for their liberality, exhorts them to steadfastness in the endurance of persecution, and admonishes them to maintain a deportment which shall be in all things such as becomes the gospel, the several parts of which he specifies in the course of the epistle, but not in any very exact order. It is in connection with these admonitions that the apostle, while insisting on the duty of humility and self-sacrificing love, brings in that sublime description of the Saviour's original glory and equality with God, which he laid aside for our redemption, taking upon himself the form of a servant and submitting to the death of the cross; for which act of self-abasement he is now exalted to be Lord of heaven and earth. Chap. 2:5-11. Intermingled with the above named commendations, exhortations, and counsels, are frequent notices respecting himself, introduced in the most natural and artless manner, and unfolding for our edification some of the deepest principles of Christian character.
His faith in Christ and love for His cause raise him above the sphere of human jealousies. He rejoices that Christ is preached, whether of good-will or of envy, knowing that this shall turn to his salvation through the prayers of the Philippians and the supply of Christ's Spirit. Chap. 2:15-19.
He knows that for himself personally it is better to depart and be with Christ: but to continue in the flesh is more needful for the Philippians. He cannot, therefore, choose between life and death. Chap. 1:21-25. How different this from the spirit of some, who think of death only in connection with their own personal comfort, and how much higher the type of religion which it reveals!
So far as outward advantages are concerned, no man can have more occasion than he to glory in the flesh. But all these he has renounced and counted loss for Christ. His one ambition is to know Christ, and be united with him in his death and resurrection. His present attainments he forgets in his single purpose of pressing towards the goal for the prize of God's heavenly calling in Christ Jesus. Chap. 3:4-14.
He warmly commends the Philippians for their liberality, but wishes them to understand that he does not speak in respect to personal want; for every where and in all things he has been taught the lesson of contentment with present circumstances. Chap. 4:10-14.
VI. EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.
30. The original name of Thessalonica was Therme, whence the gulf at the head of which it is situated, was called the Thermaic gulf. The modern name of the city is Saloniki, and of the gulf, the gulf of Saloniki. In the apostolic age it was a large and wealthy city, and the metropolis of the second district of Macedonia. At the present day it is second only to Constantinople in European Turkey. Then as now a large number of Jews resided in it. In his second missionary tour the apostle, when driven from Philippi, went through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica. After his usual manner he first resorted to the Jewish synagogue "and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." After this a tumult was raised at the instigation of the unbelieving Jews, and the apostle was sent away by night to Berea. Acts 17:1-10. We cannot affirm that his stay at Thessalonica was limited to three weeks; yet it was very brief, and for this reason he was anxious to return again that he might impart further instruction and consolation to the converts there, who were undergoing a severe ordeal of temptation through persecution. Chaps. 2:17-3:5. His labors at Thessalonica were not confined to the Sabbath-day and the Jewish synagogue. He preached the gospel to the Gentiles also, and his chief success seems to have been among them. 1 Thess. 1:9; 2:14, 16.
31. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS was written during the apostle's second missionary journey, the same journey in which he first visited Thessalonica. This we gather from the fact that Silvanus (Silas) was with him (chap. 1:1), for Silas was Paul's travelling companion only during that journey (Acts 15:40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10, 14, 15; 18:5); also from the notice of his being at Athens (chap. 3:1 compared with Acts 17:15, 16). He did not, however, write from Athens, as the subscription erroneously states, but from Corinth; for it was at this place that Silas and Timotheus rejoined him, bringing good tidings from Macedonia respecting the church in Thessalonica. Chap. 3:1-6 compared with Acts 18:1-5. This is, then, the earliest of Paul's epistles, having been written about A.D. 53.
32. The epistle clearly indicates its occasion. In consideration of the brief time which the apostle had been able to spend at Thessalonica, and of the severe persecution to which the converts in that city were exposed, he was very desirous to make them a second visit. But having been twice frustrated in this purpose, he sent Timothy and Silas to learn the condition of the Thessalonian church and bring him word concerning it, which they did while he was at Corinth. Chaps. 2:17-3:6. The letter is an affectionate outpouring of his heart in view of the good tidings received through these brethren, into which are interwoven encouragements, instructions, and admonitions adapted to the circumstances of the brethren at Thessalonica, with abundant references to the apostle's own labors there. In the first chapter he commends, with devout thanksgiving to God, the faith and love and patience of the Thessalonian Christians. The second and third chapters are mainly occupied with a notice of his own labors and those of his colleagues at Thessalonica, of his strong desire to revisit them which he had thus far been hindered from carrying into execution, and of his joy at the good tidings brought by Timothy, the whole closed with a fervent prayer in their behalf. The two remaining chapters contain miscellaneous instructions suited to the condition of a church that had been recently gathered in great part from the ranks of heathenism. In the course of these he corrects an error into which the Thessalonian believers had fallen from the idea that they who should die before Christ's second coming might fail of their share in its glory and blessedness. Chap. 4:13-18. In both of the epistles he admonishes the Thessalonians against the neglect of their proper worldly business, a fault that was apparently connected with visionary ideas respecting the speedy second coming of our Lord, and which he rebukes in severe terms. 1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:10-12.
33. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, like the first, is written in the name of "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus," and seems to have been sent from Corinth not many months after the first. The apostle's main design was to correct a pernicious error respecting the time of our Lord's second advent, which some at Thessalonica seem to have been strenuously engaged in propagating, and to give them further instruction respecting this great doctrine and their duty in relation to it. After the apostolic salutation he expresses his gratitude to God for the growth of their Christian faith and love, and comforts them under the pressure of the persecution to which they were subjected with the assurance of our Lord's second coming in glory to destroy his and their enemies and give rest to his suffering servants; but proceeds in the second chapter to show that this day is not yet at hand, and cannot come till there has first been a great apostacy, the characteristic features of which he proceeds to give (verses 3-12). The remainder of the epistle is occupied with commendations and encouragements to perseverence, mingled with admonitions. The latter have special reference to certain idle and disorderly members of the church, whom the apostle describes as "some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busy bodies" (chap. 3:11), and who also set themselves in opposition to his apostolic authority (verse 14). These disorderly persons seem to have been the same as those who were engaged in propagating erroneous notions respecting the time of our Lord's second advent. Their visionary views on this subject made them self-conceited, talkative, and self-willed, and led them to neglect the sober duties of daily life.
The apostle beseeches the Thessalonians not to be soon shaken in mind, or troubled, "neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." And he adds: "Let no man deceive you in any way"--in any of the ways specified or any other way. Chap. 2:2, 3. There were then persons at Thessalonica busily occupied in misleading the Thessalonians: (1) "by spirit," that is, by prophesies which they professed to have received from the Holy Spirit; (2) "by word," by oral teaching; (3) "by letter as from us," that is, purporting to come from the apostle. Or, perhaps, we should render: "nor by word nor by letter as from us:" that is, neither by oral teaching nor by written communication alleged to have come from me. We can well understand how the unwritten words of the apostle should have been perverted by these false teachers. The question remains: Did they pervert the meaning of his language in the first epistle, or did they employ an epistle forged in his name? The latter has been from ancient times a common interpretation of this clause, and it is favored by the words: "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." Chap. 3:17. Yet the supposition of such a forged epistle is something so improbable that many are inclined to adopt the former supposition.
The question respecting "the man of sin" belongs to the commentator. In a brief introduction like the present, we cannot enter upon it farther than to say that, though we are not warranted in affirming that it has its exhaustive fulfilment in the Papacy, yet its chief embodiment thus far has been in that corrupt and persecuting power whose character answers so remarkably to the apostle's description.
34. The epistles to the churches of Philippi and Thessalonica, both lying within the bounds of ancient Macedonia, have a remarkable agreement in their general tone and manner. In both cases we have the same affectionate outpouring of the apostle's heart towards the brethren to whom he writes, and the same abundant personal notices respecting himself and his ministry. Yet they differ precisely as we might suppose they would in view of the fact that the two to the Thessalonians are the earliest of Paul's writings, and are separated from that to the Philippians by an interval of ten eventful years. In writing to the Thessalonians he gives peculiar prominence to the doctrine of our Lord's second coming, perhaps because, in the persecutions which they were undergoing, they especially needed its strengthening and consolatory influence; perhaps also because in the continual maltreatment which he had encountered ever since he entered Macedonia--at Philippi (Acts 16:19-40; 1 Thess. 2:2), at Thessalonica (Acts 17:5-10), at Berea (Acts 17:13, 14), at Corinth (Acts 18:6-17)--he was staying his own soul on the same glorious hope. On the contrary, we find in these earlier epistles no mention of Judaizing Christians, nor any contrast between the two opposite systems of justification by faith and by the works of the Mosaic law, such as appears in his later epistles, that to the Philippians included. Phil. 3:4-9. His opponents at Thessalonica are not Judaizing Christians, but unconverted Jews, whose malignant opposition he describes in strong terms. 1 Thess. 2:15, 16. To the Thessalonians the apostle speaks of himself; but it is of his ministry, and the manner in which he has discharged its duties among them. To the Philippians he also speaks of himself; but then it is from a prison, with a trial for life or death before him, and the retrospect of a long ministry behind him. He unfolds, therefore, as is natural, his deep experiences as a Christian and an apostle of Christ. See above, No. 29. In this contrast between the earlier and the later epistles we have an evidence of their genuineness which is all the stronger because of its indirectness. It is such a mark of truth as no falsifier has power to imitate.
VII. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
35. The attempt to find for the pastoral epistles a place in Paul's ministry as far as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles is beset with difficulties which amount to impossibilities.
Among these difficulties are the following:
(1.) Whoever carefully studies these three epistles in their connection with each other, and in contrast with the other Pauline epistles, must be profoundly impressed with the conviction that they all belong, as it respects style and tone of thought, to the same period of the apostle's life; and, as it respects subject-matter, to the same era when the churches were troubled by the same forms of error. But if we assume that they were written during that part of Paul's ministry of which Luke has left us the record, the second to Timothy must be widely separated from the other two. That was certainly written during Paul's last imprisonment near the close of his life. But when he wrote the first to Timothy and that to Titus he was at liberty and prosecuting his missionary labors in Asia Minor and the vicinity. It must have been then, upon this assumption, during his third missionary tour (when Apollos appears for the first time, Acts 18:24 compared with Titus 3:13), and before his last recorded journey to Jerusalem, his arrest there, his two years' imprisonment at Cesarea, his voyage to Rome, and his imprisonment there for the space of at least two more years.
(2.) There is no part of Paul's history "between his first visit to Ephesus and his Roman imprisonment, which satisfies the historical conditions implied in the statements of any one of these epistles." Conybeare and Howson, vol. 2, Appendix 1. The student may see the arguments on one side in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament; and on the other in Alford, and other critical commentators. Reference may also be made to the biblical dictionaries.
(3.) Upon the assumption that the first epistle to Timothy, whom Paul had left in charge of the Ephesian church, was written before his recorded imprisonments at Cesarea and Rome, it must be earlier than his farewell address to the elders of Ephesus, and also his epistle to the Ephesians. But the contents of the epistle manifestly point to a later period, when the errors in doctrine and practice which he had predicted (Acts 20:29, 30), but of which he takes no notice in his epistle to the Ephesians, had already begun to manifest themselves. The more one compares with each other these two epistles, the deeper must his conviction be that the first to Timothy is not the earlier but the later of the two.
(4.) The peculiar tone and diction of the pastoral epistles and the peculiar character of the errors combated in them all indicate a later period in the apostle's life, and a later stage in the history of the churches. To place the first and third of these among those to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, and the second, among those to Philemon, the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians, must appear forced and unnatural. It is much easier to assume the lapse of some years. Even then the contrast between these and the other epistles of Paul in respect to tone and diction is very striking. But it may be explained partly from the peculiar theme of the pastoral epistles, partly from the change which the lapse of time with its manifold experiences had brought to the apostle's style and diction.
We assume, therefore, that the apostle was released from the Roman imprisonment recorded by Luke; and that, not very long before his second imprisonment which was terminated by his martyrdom at Rome, he wrote the three epistles now under consideration. It is well known that this is in accordance with ancient tradition. See the testimonies in Conybeare and Howson, chap. 27; in Alford, and in other commentators.
Against this view is urged the apostle's declaration to the elders of Ephesus that they should see his face no more; whereas, according to the present supposition, he visited Ephesus again after his first imprisonment. As a fair offset to this may be urged on the other side his equally strong declaration to the Philippians that his present imprisonment should have a favorable issue (Phil. 1:25); which was not the case upon the hypothesis of a single imprisonment at Rome. Such declarations, where no doctrine or fact of Christianity is concerned, are not to be taken as revelations of the Spirit. We know, for example, from Paul's own words, that he changed his declared purpose respecting a visit to Corinth, for which his enemies accused him of using lightness. 2 Cor. 1:15-18.
It is urged again that when Paul wrote the pastoral epistles Timothy was a young man. 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22. But according to ancient ideas one might be called a young man at any age under thirty-five or even forty years. Paul found Timothy in his second missionary journey, about A.D. 52. It is not necessary to assume that he was then more than twenty years old. At the time of Paul's martyrdom, then, about A.D. 67 or 68, he may have been, for anything that appears to the contrary, a young man in the ancient sense of the word.
36. The false teachers with whom the apostle deals in these epistles are corrupt in practice as well as in doctrine. 1 Tim. 1:6; 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:16, 17; 3:6, 8; Titus 1:15, 16. They were chiefly Jews (1 Tim. 1:7; Titus 1:10, 14; 3:9); but not Jews who held to simple Phariseeism, like the false teachers among the Galatians. They more nearly resembled those who troubled the Colossians--Jews of a speculative turn of mind, who sought to bring into Judaism the semi-oriental philosophy of that day. They were not Gnostics; for Gnosticism was essentially anti-Judaistic, separating the God of the Jews from the God of Christianity, and placing the two in antagonism to each other. The speculations of these false teachers took a direction which was in some respects akin to the Gnosticism of the second century; but the allegation that they were themselves Gnostics rests upon the misinterpretation of certain passages in these epistles, or unwarrantable inferences from them.
37. The genuineness of these epistles is sustained by the unanimous testimony of the ancient church. Only in modern times has it been called in question by certain writers, who rest their arguments wholly on alleged internal evidence.
So far as their objections are founded on the assumed early date of the pastoral epistles--before the close of Paul's imprisonment at Rome recorded by Luke, on their peculiar tone and diction, or on the supposed references in them to the Gnosticism of the second century, they have already been considered. But it is further alleged:
(1.) That they reveal a hierarchical spirit foreign to the character of the apostle Paul. The answer is that no trace of such a spirit is discernible in them. The churches had from the first their officers--bishops or elders and deacons; and the apostle simply gives the necessary directions for the selection of these, with a few brief hints respecting the line of conduct to be observed towards them. 1 Tim. 5:1, 17, 19, 22.
(2.) That the institution of widows (1 Tim. 5:9-16) belongs to a later age. Respecting the exact position of those who were enrolled in the class of widows there have been different opinions. One is that this class consisted of those who were to receive relief from the funds of the church; another, that they were matrons set apart for special service in the church, performing for their own sex duties analogous to those which the presbyters performed for the church generally. The latter opinion is the more probable of the two, as it explains the conditions insisted on by the apostle. But according to either view there is no difficulty in admitting the existence in apostolic times of such an arrangement.
38. In these pastoral epistles we have the affectionate counsels of the great apostle to the Gentiles, when he was now ripe in years and Christian experience and about to close his earthly ministry, addressed to two young men whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers of the churches. They are a rich storehouse of instruction for all to whom God has committed the ministry of reconciliation. Let them, as they hope at last to render up an account of their stewardship with joy and not with grief, prayerfully study and reduce to daily practice these precepts of heavenly wisdom given by the Holy Spirit through the pen of "Paul the aged."
39. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.--The time of this epistle lies, as we have seen, beyond the recorded history of the apostle, and before his second and final imprisonment at Rome, perhaps about A.D. 65 or 66. It was addressed to Timothy at Ephesus not long after the apostle had left that city to go into Macedonia (chap. 1:3), but whether from Macedonia or some other province of the Roman empire cannot be determined. The occasion we learn from the epistle. Paul had left Timothy in charge of the Ephesian church, and, being apprehensive of a protracted absence, he sends him these written instructions relating partly to his own personal demeanor as a Christian minister, but chiefly to his office as the overseer of the Ephesian church. In the discharge of this office he is (1) to withstand and keep down the growing heresies of the day; (2) to superintend the government of the church in various particulars which the apostle specifies.
The contents of the epistle though not arranged in systematic order, are in harmony with its occasion and design. Into the first chapter, which is of an introductory character, the apostle, in the free intercourse of confiding affection, inserts a personal notice of himself, which breathes the spirit of devout gratitude and deep humility. He then proceeds to give directions pertaining to the public worship of God--prayer, the costume of women, and their place in the public assembly (chap. 2); and to the choice of bishops and deacons (chap. 3). After a digression in the fourth chapter respecting the character of the coming apostacy foretold by the Spirit, which is followed by admonitions to Timothy of a personal character, he proceeds in the fifth chapter to give directions respecting the appointment and treatment of elders, of the elder and younger women, and especially of widows, with personal counsel to Timothy. Then follows an admonition to servants, a notice of the false teachers, a warning to the rich with further counsels to Timothy, and an animating glance at the second coming of our Lord.
Eunice, the mother of Timothy, was a Jewess distinguished for her piety, as was also his grandmother Lois. Acts 16:1; 2 Tim. 1:5. By them he was carefully trained in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15), and had a good reputation among the brethren when Paul found him at Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1, 2). His father being a Greek, he had never been subjected to the rite of circumcision. But in consideration of his mixed descent Paul, to allay the prejudices of his countrymen, "took and circumcised him," while he would not allow this rite to be imposed on Titus, who was of unmixed Gentile origin. Timothy was one of the most trusty and beloved of Paul's fellow-laborers, as we learn from these and his other epistles, and he naturally desired the comfort and help of his presence in his final imprisonment at Rome. 2 Tim. 4:9, 21. His health was feeble (1 Tim. 5:23), and there are in Paul's epistles some indications that he was naturally timid and diffident (1 Cor. 16:10, 11; 2 Tim. 1:7, 8; 2:3). But grace made him faithful to the end.
40. THE EPISTLE TO TITUS which comes next in chronological order, has a remarkable agreement with the first to Timothy in both subject-matter and style. With the exception of what relates to widows and the demeanor of women in the public assemblies, it contains the same general precepts, with additional exhortations that young men be sober-minded, and that the Cretan Christians obey magistrates and be meek and gentle in their deportment. With these counsels the apostle interweaves, as in the first epistle to Timothy, exhortations to Titus of a personal character, and animating notices of God's grace in the gospel and of the second coming of our Lord.
Respecting the founding of the Cretan churches we have no information in the Acts of the Apostles. The only time mentioned by Luke when Paul touched at Crete was on his voyage to Rome as a prisoner (Acts 27:8); and then he had neither time nor liberty for the work of preaching the gospel in that island. Crete contained many Jews, some of whom were present at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:11). The apostle's visit to Crete referred to in this epistle we assume to have taken place between his first and second imprisonment at Rome. Whether the churches of the island were then founded for the first time or had previously existed, it is certain that Paul left them in an imperfect state of organization. For this reason he requested Titus to remain, that he might set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city. Chap. 1:5.
It is remarkable that we have no notice of Titus in the Acts of the Apostles. From the epistles of Paul we learn that he was his companion in travel, and intrusted by him at different times with missions to the churches. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas to the so-called Council of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, where, being a Greek, he was exempted from the necessity of circumcision. Gal. 2:1, 3. For other notices of him see 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18. His stay in Crete was not to be permanent; for the apostle directs that upon the arrival from him of Artemas or Tychicus he should rejoin him at Nicopolis--probably Nicopolis in Epirus. Chap. 3:12.
41. SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.--The first epistle to Timothy and that to Titus are in a certain sense official; that is, they are largely occupied with apostolic counsels and directions to these two men respecting the administration of the churches which Paul had committed to their care. The present epistle is of a more private and personal character. It was written from Rome when Paul was a prisoner there (chaps. 1:8, 16, 17; 2:9), and expecting soon to seal his testimony with his blood (chap. 4:6). In his extremity, when fidelity to him could be shown only at the hazard of life, many of his friends had forsaken him. Chaps. 1:15; 4:10. He needed the presence and help of Timothy, and wrote urging him to come speedily, and to bring certain articles which he had left at Troas. Feeling that his end was near, he improved the occasion to give Timothy his affectionate apostolic counsel and encouragement. Hence the present epistle differs strikingly in its preceptive part from the other two. They contain specific directions for ordaining officers and managing the affairs of the churches; for in them the apostle writes to men in charge of specific fields of labor. In the second epistle to Timothy, on the contrary, the apostle's exhortations are general, for he is summoning him away from his particular field to give attendance upon himself at Rome. But all three of the pastoral epistles agree remarkably, as well in their general style and diction as in their description of existing errors and false teachers. It is generally thought that Timothy was at Ephesus; and with this opinion agrees the salutation to "the household of Onesiphorus," who was at Ephesus. Chap. 4:19 compared with 1:18. The words of chap. 4:12, however, "Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus," do not favor this supposition. Hence some have thought that Timothy was not in that city, but only in its vicinity. The present is undoubtedly the last of Paul's epistles in the order of time. As such we cannot but peruse it with solemnity, as the closing testimony of one who has fought the good fight, finished the appointed course, and kept the faith; and who here instructs all, especially all preachers of the gospel, how they may do the same. "And thus we possess an epistle calculated for all ages of the church; and in which while the maxims cited and encouragements given apply to all Christians, and especially ministers of Christ, in their duties and difficulties--the affecting circumstances in which the writer himself is placed carry home to every heart his earnest and impassioned eloquence." Alford, Introduction to 2 Timothy.
VIII. EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
42. In regard to the authorship of this epistle biblical scholars are not agreed. Each of the thirteen preceding epistles bears the name of Paul. But the present epistle is without either name or address, and it omits also at the beginning the apostolic salutation. Thus it commences in the form of an essay, though it closes in that of an epistle. These circumstances, in connection with its peculiar style and diction and the peculiar range of the topics discussed in it, have produced a diversity of opinion on the question whether Paul was its author, at least its author in the immediate sense in which he was the author of the preceding epistles. For the full discussion of the arguments on both sides the reader must be referred to the commentaries, some of which are accessible to all. Our limits will only permit us to indicate certain facts and principles which have a bearing on the authorship of the epistle and its canonical authority.
The unanimous belief of the Eastern church, where we must suppose that it was first received and whence the knowledge of it was spread abroad, ascribed it to Paul as its author either immediately or virtually; for some, as Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 14) accounted for its peculiar diction by the supposition that Paul furnished the thoughts, while they were reduced to form by the pen of some other person. Another opinion was that Paul wrote in Hebrew, and that our present canonical epistle is a translation into Greek (Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 3. 38; Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 14). In the Western church Clement of Rome did indeed refer to the epistle as authoritative, but without naming the author. Yet its Pauline authorship was not generally admitted, nor was it received as a part of the sacred canon till the fourth century, when here too the opinion of the Eastern church was adopted. The Muratorian canon, which represents the belief of the Western church before the fourth century, omits this epistle. The Syriac Peshito, on the other hand, inserts it in accordance with its uniform reception by the Eastern church. This uniformity of belief in the Eastern church must have had for its starting point the Hebrews to whom the epistle was sent; and it is a strong argument for the supposition that it did originally come to them under the sanction of Paul's name and authority; whether dictated to an amanuensis, as were most of his epistles, or written with his knowledge and approbation by some inspired man among his attendants and fellow-laborers who was thoroughly conversant with his views on the subjects treated of in the epistle. This is as far as we have any occasion to go, since we know that the gift of inspiration was not confined to the circle of the apostles.
As we cannot affirm that all who were associated with the apostles in the work of the ministry had the gifts needful for the composition of writings that should be given to the churches as the authoritative word of God, so neither can we deny to some the possession of these gifts, as is plain from the examples of Mark and Luke. When men who stood in the second grade of relation to Christ--apostolic men, as we may conveniently call them--composed their works, it is not necessary to assume that they wrote under a formal apostolic supervision. The "discerning of spirits" is a gift which we must concede to all of the apostles. If, then, an associate of one of the apostles had such relations to him and wrote in such circumstances that we cannot suppose it to have been done without his knowledge and approbation formal or implied, we have for his work all needful authority. What further connection the apostle may have had with it in the way of suggestion or supervision is a question which we may well leave undetermined. In judging of this matter we consider first of all the testimony of the early churches, since they enjoyed the best means of ascertaining the origin of a writing; and then the character of the writing itself. Proceeding in this way we come to the full conviction of the canonical authority of the epistle to the Hebrews, whether we believe, with many, that Paul was its immediate author, or, with Origen, that "the ancients not without reason have handed it down as Paul's; but on the question who wrote the epistle God only knows the truth."
43. That the apostle wrote for the instruction of Jewish Christians is manifest. The uniform tenor of the epistle indicates, moreover, that they were Jewish Christians without any admixture of a Gentile element. The salutations at the end further imply that the epistle addresses not Hebrew Christians in general, but some particular community of them, which is most naturally to be sought in Palestine, perhaps in Jerusalem. As to the time of the epistle, the manner in which it refers to the temple and its services makes it certain that the author wrote before the overthrow of Jerusalem, that is, before A.D. 70. The arguments adduced to show that Paul was its author, either immediately or virtually, carry it back beyond A.D. 67 or 68, when, according to ancient tradition, the apostle suffered martyrdom. It was probably written not many years before that event; but a more exact determination of the time is impossible. According to the most probable interpretation of chap. 13:24, the epistle was written from Italy. But that Timothy was not the bearer of it, as the subscription states, is plain from the preceding verse, in which he conditionally promises to come with Timothy at a future time.
The references in the epistle to the Levitical priesthood and the temple services connected with it are in the present or perfect tenses--"is ordained," "is encompassed," "he ought," "taketh this honor," "have a commandment to take tithes" "receive tithes" "hath given attendance at the altar" (chap. 7:13), "have become" (chap. 7:21, 23), "maketh men high priests," "who serve," "hath made the first old" (the references in chap. 9:1-5 are to the ancient tabernacle), "enter always into the first tabernacle" (chap. 9:6), "which he offers" (verse 7), "the Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the holiest places has not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle is as yet standing" (verse 8), "gifts and sacrifices are offered" (verse 9), "sanctifieth," "are by the law purged," "can never," "standeth." It is to be regretted that our version has not in all cases observed this distinction of tenses.
44. The central theme of this book is the superiority of the Christian over the Mosaic dispensation considered on the side of its divine Mediator and High-priest. In unfolding this great theme the writer dwells on the glory and dignity of Christ's person in contrast with the ancient prophets, with the angels, and with Moses, all of whom were connected with the first economy. He then proceeds to exhibit the divine efficacy of Christ's priesthood. This is the substance, of which the Levitical priesthood, with its altar, its offerings and all the temple-services connected with it, was only the shadow. In no book of the New Testament is our Lord's priestly office set forth with such fullness and rich variety of illustrations, always with reference to its divinely appointed type, the Levitical priesthood. This was especially needful to fortify the Hebrew Christians, who had been educated and lived under the constant impression of the splendid Mosaic ritual with its magnificent temple, against the danger of being turned from the simplicity of the gospel to reliance on the "carnal ordinances" of Judaism, which would have been virtual apostacy from Christ. This magnificent epistle constitutes in some sense a solemn requiem to the old temple service with its altar and priesthood, where the blood of bulls and goats that can never take away sin had flowed for so many centuries. This service had accomplished its end in prefiguring Christ the true "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," and it was destined soon to pass away forever "with tumult, with shouting, with the sound of the trumpet"--to pass away forever, that men might give their undivided faith to Christ, our great High-priest, who ministers for us in the heavenly tabernacle, presenting there before his Father's throne his own blood shed on Calvary to make propitiation for the sins of the world.
To the argumentative part of this epistle are appended exhortations (partly, indeed, anticipated in the preceding part) to constancy in the Christian profession, drawn from the awful doom that awaits apostates, from the examples of faith furnished by ancient worthies, and especially from the example of Christ himself and the glorious fellowship to which his gospel introduces us. To these are added some admonitions of a more special character. Thus the present epistle performs an office in the general system of revelation which is supplied by no other book of the Old or New Testament. To the book of Leviticus it may be said to hold the relation of substance to shadow, and it is its divinely appointed expositor.
XXXI. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES
1. Seven epistles, that of James and the six that follow, are called Catholic, that is, general or universal, as not being directed to any particular church. They were not all, however, addressed originally to believers generally, but some of them to particular classes of believers, or even to individuals, as the introductory words show.
I. EPISTLE OF JAMES.
2. The question respecting the person of James who wrote this epistle is one of great difficulty. That "James the Lord's brother," whom Paul names as one of the apostles (Gal. 1:19), is identical with the James mentioned by Luke in Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18, and is the author of the present epistle, is admitted by most writers, though not by all. That this James of Gal. 1:19 was the James who is named with Joses, Simon, and Judas, as one of our Lord's brethren (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), must be received as certain. But whether he was identical with "James the son of Alpheus," who was one of the twelve (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), is a question which has been much discussed and on which eminent biblical scholars are found arrayed on opposite sides. The question turns very much on the interpretation of the words "brother," and "brethren" and "sisters," in the passages above referred to. If we take them in their literal sense, as some do, then James the son of Alpheus and James the Lord's brother are different persons. But others understand them in the general sense of kindred or cousins, believing that our Saviour was the only child of Mary. A statement at length of the arguments and objections that are urged on both sides does not come within the compass of the present work. Nor is it necessary. The author of the present epistle is beyond all reasonable doubt the James who gave the final opinion in the assembly of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13-21), whom Paul names with Cephas and John as one of the "pillars" there (Gal. 2:9), and who elsewhere appears as a man of commanding influence in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 21:18; Gal. 2:12). If any one doubts his identity with James the son of Alpheus, who was one of the twelve, this cannot affect the canonical authority of the epistle. The position of this James in the church at Jerusalem and his relation to the apostolic college is such that, even upon the supposition that he did not belong to the number of the twelve, his writings must have to us the full weight of apostolic authority. See above chap. 30, No. 42.
3. The place where this epistle was written was manifestly Jerusalem, where James always resided; and the persons addressed are "the twelve tribes who are in the dispersion" (chap. 1:1); that is, as the nature of the case and the tenor of the epistle make manifest, that part of them who had embraced Christianity. There is no allusion in the epistle to Gentile believers.
The dispersion is a technical term for the Jews living out of Palestine among the Gentiles. We need not hesitate to understand it here literally. The apostle wrote to his Jewish brethren of the dispersion because he could not visit them and superintend their affairs as he could those of the Jewish Christians in and around Jerusalem. Some take the term in a wider sense of the Jewish Christians scattered abroad in and out of Palestine, but this is not necessary.
4. With regard to the date of this epistle also different opinions are held. Some place it early in the history of the church--earlier, in fact, than any other of the apostolic epistles--before the origin of the controversy respecting circumcision and the Mosaic law recorded in Acts, chap. 15; others quite late, not long before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The latter view best agrees with the contents of the epistle. The doctrine of justification by faith, for which Paul had contended, would naturally be abused precisely in the way here indicated, by the substitution of a barren speculative faith, for the true faith that works by love and purifies the heart and life from sin. The age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem was one of abounding wickedness, especially in the form of strife and faction. It had been predicted by our Lord that the effect of this would be to chill the love of many of his visible followers and withdraw them from his service. In truth the descriptions of these unworthy members of the Jewish Christian community which we find in this epistle, in the second of Peter, and in that of Jude, are but the realization, in most particulars, of the state of things foretold in the following remarkable words of the Saviour: "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall arise and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Matt. 24:10-13.
5. For the genuineness and canonical authority of the present epistle we have a very important testimony in the Old Syriac version (Peshito), which represents the judgment of the Eastern churches where the epistle was originally circulated. The remaining testimonies prior to the fourth century are scanty and some of them not very decisive. They may be all seen in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, and in the critical commentaries generally.
It cannot be reasonably doubted that the words of Irenæus, "Abraham himself, without circumcision and without the observance of Sabbaths, believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God" (Against Heresies, 4.30), refer to James 2:23. Origen quotes the epistle as "current under the name of James," and intimates that some did not acknowledge its apostolic authority. But he elsewhere cites it as that of "James the Lord's brother," "the apostle James," "the apostle," and simply "James." See in Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, pp. 263, 264. Eusebius reckons the epistle among the books that were "disputed, but known nevertheless to many." Hist. Eccl., 3, 25. Elsewhere he says: "It is regarded as spurious; at least not many of the ancients have made mention of it." Hist. Eccl., 2. 23. But these words cannot be regarded as expressing Eusebius' own opinion; for he himself quotes him as "the holy apostle," and his words as "Scripture." See in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 3, p. 336; Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, p. 264.
In the course of the fourth century the canonical authority of this epistle was gradually more and more acknowledged, and in the fifth its reception in the churches of both the East and the West became universal.
"This is just what we might expect: a writing little known at first, obtains a more general circulation, and the knowledge of the writing and its reception go almost together. The contents entirely befit the antiquity which the writing claims; no evidence could be given for rejecting it; it differs in its whole nature from the foolish and spurious writings put forth in the name of this James; and thus its gradual reception is to be accounted for from its having, from early times, been known by some to be genuine (as shown by the Syraic version), and this knowledge being afterwards spread more widely." Tregelles in Horne, vol. 4, chap. 25. Davidson suggests that differences of opinion and perplexities respecting the number of the persons called James in the apostolic period, and the relation they bore to one another, and also the fact that the epistle was addressed solely to Jewish Christians, may have made its early circulation comparatively limited. Perhaps we may also add, as he does, its apparent contrariety to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, but this is by no means certain.
6. This epistle is eminently practical. If any part of it can be called argumentative, it is that in which the apostle shows that "faith without works is dead." Chap. 2:14-26. The sins which he rebukes with such graphic vividness and power were all preëminently the sins of his countrymen at that age--hearing God's word without doing it, resting in an empty faith that does not influence the life, inordinate love of worldly possessions and a self-confident spirit in the pursuit of them, wanton revelling in worldly pleasures, partiality towards the rich and contempt of the poor, defrauding the poor of their wages, ambition to assume the office of teaching, censoriousness, a lawless and slanderous tongue, bitter envying and strife, mutual grudging and murmuring, wars and fightings; all these with an unbelieving and complaining spirit towards God. But these are not merely Jewish vices. They are deeply rooted in man's fallen nature, and many a nominal Christian community of our day may see its own image by looking into the mirror of this epistle.
The alleged disagreement between Paul and James is unfounded. Paul's object is to show that the ground of men's justification is faith in Christ, and not the merit of their good works. The object of James is to show that faith without good works, like the body without the spirit, is dead. Paul argues against dead works; James against dead faith. Here we have no contradiction, but only two different views of truth that are in entire harmony with each other, and both of which are essential to true godliness.
II. EPISTLES OF PETER.
7. The First Epistle of Peter was unanimously received by the primitive church as the genuine work of the man whose name it bears. Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, made numerous citations from it. It was also referred to by Papias, according to the testimony of Eusebius. Hist. Eccl. 3. 39. Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, etc. all quote it expressly. It is found in the Syriac Peshito version which contains but three of the catholic epistles. It is wanting in the Muratorian canon, but to this circumstance much weight cannot be attached when we consider how dark and confused is the passage referring to the catholic epistles.
8. The readers addressed in the epistle are "the elect sojourners of the dispersion, of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," all provinces of Asia Minor. The words "sojourners"--or "strangers" as rendered in our English version--and "dispersion" are both the appropriate terms for the Jews living in dispersion. That the apostle, in an introduction of this kind, should have used the word "sojourners" in a simply figurative sense, to describe Christians as "pilgrims and strangers on the earth," is very improbable, especially in immediate connection with the word "dispersion," which must be understood literally. We must rather understand the apostle as recognizing in the Christian churches scattered throughout the world the true "Israel of God," having for its framework the believing portion of the covenant people, into which the Gentile Christians had been introduced through faith, and thus made the children of Abraham. Compare Rom. 4:12-17; Gal. 3:7-9; and especially Rom. 11:17-24. Hence it comes to pass that while Peter addresses them as the ancient people of God, he yet includes Gentile Christians in his exhortations, as is manifest from various passages, especially from chap. 4:3.
9. According to chap. 5:13 the place from which this epistle was written was Babylon. No valid reason exists why we should not understand here the literal Babylon. The old opinion that the apostle used the word enigmatically to signify Rome is nothing more than a conjecture in itself improbable. It has been urged not without reason that Peter names the provinces of Asia Minor in the order which would be natural to one writing from Babylon; naming Pontus first, which lay nearest to Babylon, and Asia and Bithynia, which were the most remote, last. The question of the date of this epistle is connected with that of its occasion. This seems to have been a "fiery trial" of persecution that had already begun to come upon the Christians of the provinces named in the introductory address. Chaps. 1:6, 7; 2:12, 19, 20; 3:14, 16, 17; 4:1, 12-19; 5:9, 10. The exact date and character of this persecution cannot be determined. The majority of commentators assign it to the latter years of Nero's reign, which ended A.D. 68. The second epistle of Peter was written not long before the apostle's death, and after the epistles of Paul had become generally known in Asia Minor. As we cannot reasonably separate the two epistles by a great space of time (see below, No. 11), we infer that the first was written after Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, say somewhere between A.D. 63 and 67.
10. The general tone of the first epistle is in harmony with its occasion. The apostle seeks to animate and strengthen his brethren in view of the "fiery trial" of persecution that had already begun to come upon them. To this end he sets before them in glowing language the greatness and glory of the heavenly inheritance in reserve for them, which was purchased by the precious blood of Christ, and the dignity and blessedness of suffering for Christ's sake, with the assurance of God's faithful presence and protection. With these encouragements he intermingles admonitions suited to their circumstances. He exhorts them as strangers and pilgrims to abstain from fleshly lusts and all the other vices of their former life in ignorance; to commend their religion by a holy deportment which shall put to shame the calumnies of their adversaries; to perform faithfully all the duties of their several stations in life; to be humble, sober, vigilant, and ready always to give a reason of their Christian hope; and above all things to have fervent charity among themselves. The fervent spirit of the great apostle of the circumcision, chastened and mellowed by age, shines forth conspicuously in this epistle. The closing chapter, where he addresses first the elders, then the younger, then the whole body of believers, charms the reader by the holy tranquillity which pervades it throughout--a tranquillity deeply grounded in that faith which is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
11. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. The address of this epistle is general (chap. 1:1); yet the reference which it contains to the first (chap. 3:1) shows that the apostle had in mind primarily the same circle of churches. The character of this reference--"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in which [two epistles] I stir up your pure minds by way of reminding [you]"--indicates that the second was not separated from the first by a very great space of time, certainly not many years. The apostle wrote with the conviction that his decease was near at hand (chap. 1:13-15). There is a tradition, the correctness of which, however, is doubted by many, that he suffered martyrdom at Rome under the persecution raised by Nero against the Christians. This would be about A.D. 67. As to the place from which the epistle was written we have no information.
12. The present epistle is one of the disputed books. Chap. 5, No. 7, and Chap. 6. The question respecting its genuineness may be conveniently considered under the two heads of external and internal evidence.
The external testimony to the present epistle is scanty. Passing by some doubtful references we come first to Origen who says (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6. 25): "But Peter, upon whom is built the church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle; a second also, if you will, for it is doubted of." In those of his works which are extant only in the Latin version of Rufinus, Origen in a number of passages quotes the present epistle as Scripture. It has been suspected that these passages were interpolated by Rufinus, who took many liberties with the text of Origen; but one of them, which occurs at the beginning of his seventh homily on Joshua, is so peculiar that we cannot well doubt that Origen himself was its author. In allusion to the procession of priests blowing with trumpets when the Israelites compassed the walls of Jericho (Josh. chap. 6), he compares the writers of the New Testament to so many sacerdotal trumpeters, assigning to them trumpets for each book, and mentioning every book, as well the disputed as the acknowledged: "First Matthew in his gospel, gave a blast with his sacerdotal trumpet. Mark also, Luke, and John, sounded with their single sacerdotal trumpets. Peter also sounds aloud with the two trumpets of his epistles; James also, and Jude. But John adds yet again to blow with the trumpet through his epistles and Apocalypse; Luke, also, narrating the Acts of the Apostles. But last of all that man came, who said: 'I think that God has set forth us apostles last,' and thundering with the fourteen trumpets of his epistles, overthrew to their foundations the walls of Jericho, and all the engines of idolatry and dogmas of philosophers." The "epistles" through which the apostle John sounds are obviously his three epistles. The "fourteen trumpets" upon which Paul blows include the epistle to the Hebrews. In this remarkable passage, then, we have an exhaustive list of our present canonical books; and there is no ground for imputing any interpolation to the translator. It may be said, indeed, that this enumeration of the books of the New Testament is made in a popular way, and does not imply Origen's deliberate judgment that they were all of apostolic authority. If this be granted, it still remains evident from the form of the passage that all the books of our present canon were in current ecclesiastical use in Origen's day, whatever doubts he may have had respecting some of them, and that they constituted, along with the writings of the Old Testament, that whole of divine revelation which the Christian churches employed in assaulting the kingdom of Satan.
The testimony of Eusebius himself is of the same general import as that of Origen--that the first epistle of Peter has been universally acknowledged; but that the one current as the second has not been received as a part of the New Testament; but yet, appearing useful to many, has been studied with the other Scriptures (Hist. Eccl., 3. 3); that among the writings which are disputed, yet known to many, are the epistles current as those of James and Jude, and the second epistle of Peter (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25).
Jerome says that Peter "wrote two epistles that are called catholic, of which the second is denied by most persons on account of its disagreement in style with the first." Scrip. Eccl., 1. But he himself received the epistle, and explained the difference in style and character and structure of words by the assumption that Peter used different interpreters in the composition of the two epistles (Epist. 120 ad Hedib., chap. 11); and from his time onward the epistle was generally regarded as a part of the New Testament.
The reader who wishes to investigate farther the question of external testimonies will find them all given in Davidson's Introduct. to New Test.; and Alford's Commentary, Introduction to 2 Peter. We simply repeat the remark already made (Chap. 6, No. 3) that although the universal and undisputed reception of a book by all the early churches cannot be explained except on the assumption of its genuineness, its non-reception by some is no conclusive argument against it. It may have remained (as seems to have been peculiarly the case with some of the catholic epistles) for a considerable period in obscurity. When it began to be more extensively known, the general reception and use of it would be a slow process both from the difficulty of communication in ancient as compared with modern times, and especially from the slowness and hesitancy with which the churches of one region received anything new that came from another region. Chap. 2, No. 5. Jerome does indeed mention the objection from the difference of style between this epistle and the first of Peter; but it is doubtful whether in this matter he speaks for the early churches generally. The obscurity in which the epistle had remained, partly at least because it was not addressed to the guardianship of any particular church, seems to have been the chief ground of doubt.
The internal testimony for and against the genuineness of this epistle has been discussed at great length by many writers. The reader will find good summaries of them in the two works above referred to, also in the critical commentaries generally and the modern Bible dictionaries. If one would come to true results in this field of investigation it is important that he begin with true principles. There are what may be called staple peculiarities, which mark the style of one writer as compared with that of another--that of John, for example, in contrast with that of Paul. We cannot conceive of these as being wanting. But then we must allow to one and the same writer a considerable range of variation in style and diction, dependent partly on difference of subject matter, and partly on varying frames of mind of which no definite account can be given. If one would be convinced of this, he has only to read side by side the epistle of Paul to the Romans and his second to the Corinthians. Reserving now the second chapter of the present epistle for separate consideration, we do not find in the two remaining chapters, as compared with the first epistle, any such fundamental differences of style and diction as can constitute a just ground for denying the common authorship of the two epistles. For the particulars, as well as for the examination of other objections of an internal character, the reader must be referred to the sources above named. It is certainly remarkable that Peter should refer to the writings of Paul in such terms as to class them with the "Scriptures" of the Old Testament. Chap. 3:16. But, as Alford remarks, this implies not that the canon of the New Testament had been settled when the present epistle was written, but only that "there were certain writings by Christian teachers, which were reckoned on a level with the Old Testament Scriptures, and called by the same name. And that that was not the case, even in the traditional lifetime of Peter, it would be surely unreasonable to deny." We close this part of the discussion with the following words from the same author: "Our general conclusion from all that has preceded must be in favor of the genuineness and canonicity of this second epistle; acknowledging at the same time, that the subject is not without considerable difficulty. That difficulty however is lightened for us by observing that on the one hand, it is common to this epistle with some others of those called catholic, and several of the later writings of the New Testament; and on the other, that no difference can be imagined more markedly distinctive, than that which separates all those writings from even the earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. Our epistle is one of those latter fruits of the great outpouring of the Spirit on the apostles, which, not being intrusted to the custody of any one church or individual, required some considerable time to become generally known; which when known, were suspected, bearing, as they necessarily did traces of their late origin, and notes of polemical argument; but of which as apostolic and inspired writings, there never was, when once they became known, any general doubt; and which, as the sacred canon became fixed, acquired, and have since maintained, their due and providential place among the books of the New Testament."
13. The object of the present epistle is to warn believers against being led away with the error of the wicked so as to fall from their own steadfastness. Chap. 3:17. It contains accordingly extended notices of the gross errors in doctrine and morals which, as we know from the New Testament, abounded in the Christian church near the close of the apostolic period. The second chapter, which is occupied with a vivid description of the false teachers that had "crept in unawares" (chap. 2:1; Jude 4), is very peculiar in its contents; and its agreement with the epistle of Jude is of such a character as leads to the inference that the two writings are somehow connected with each other. It has been supposed that both writers drew from a common source unknown to us. More probable is the opinion that one of them had in view the words of the other. A comparison of the two writings will perhaps lead to the belief that Jude's was the original, though on this point biblical scholars differ. It matters not to us whether, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Peter employed, in a free and independent way, the words of Jude, or Jude those of Peter. Upon either supposition his writing is as much inspired as if he had written independently. The most prominent idea of Peter's first epistle is patience and steadfastness in the endurance of suffering for Christ's sake; that of this second epistle is caution against the seductions of false teachers. Thus each epistle fills an important place in the entire economy of revelation.
III. EPISTLES OF JOHN.
14. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN bears throughout the impress of its authorship. That it was written by the same man who wrote the fourth gospel is too evident to be reasonably controverted. On this ground alone its genuineness and authenticity may be regarded as established on a firm basis. But the external testimonies to its authorship are also abundant from Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle, and onward. It is unnecessary to enumerate them. In respect to the date of this epistle we have no certain knowledge. The common opinion is that it was written after the gospel, and towards the close of the first century. With this supposition the contents agree. It contains the affectionate counsel of an aged apostle to his younger brethren, whom he addresses as his "little children." He writes, moreover, in "the last time," when, according to the prediction of our Lord and his apostles, many antichrists and false prophets are abroad in the world (chaps. 2:18; 4:1-3), and there are some who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (chap. 4:2, 3). As to the place of the apostle's writing, if we follow ancient tradition, which makes Ephesus his home in his old age, we may well believe that he wrote from that city, and that the epistle was addressed primarily to the circle of churches which had Ephesus for a centre.
Some of the ancients refer to the present epistle as written to the Parthians. But this is a very improbable assumption, and rests apparently on some mistake. The apostle evidently writes to those who are under his spiritual care; and these are not the Parthians, but the Christians of Asia, to whom also the seven letters of the Apocalypse are addressed.
15. The epistle has unity throughout, but not the unity of systematic logical arrangement. Its unity consists rather in the fact that all its thoughts revolve around one great central truth, the incarnation of the Son of God in the person of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world. With this truth he begins, and he affirms it authoritatively, as one of the primitive apostolic witnesses: "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." Chaps. 1:3; 4:6. He guards it also against perversion, when he insists upon the reality of our Lord's incarnation: "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God" (chap. 4:2, 3), words which are with good reason understood as referring to a very ancient form of error, that of the Docet[oe], who maintained that the Son of God had not a real, but only an apparent body. The reception through faith of this great truth, that the Son of God has come in the flesh for man's salvation, brings us into blissful union and communion with the Father and the Son, and thus into the possession of sonship and eternal life. Chaps. 1:3; 3:1, 2; 4:15; 5:1, 13, 20. The rejection of this truth is the rejection of God's own testimony concerning his Son (chaps. 2:22; 5:9, 10), and thus the rejection of eternal life; for out of Christ, the Son of God, there is no life (chap. 5:11, 12). But this reception of Christ is not a matter of mere theoretic belief. It is a practical coming to the Father and the Son, and a holy union with them. The proof of such union with God and Christ is likeness to God and obedience to God's commandments. They who profess to know God and to be in him, while they walk in darkness and allow themselves in sin, are liars and the truth is not in them. Chaps. 1:5-7; 2:4-6; 3:5-10, 24; 5:4, 5, 18. The sum of all God's attributes is love; and the sum of Christian character is love also. Chap. 4:16. But there can be no true love towards God where there is none towards the brethren; and such love must manifest itself "not in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." Chaps. 3:11-18; 4:7-11, 20, 21; 5:1. He that loves his brother abides in the light; but he that hates him abides in darkness and death. Chaps. 2:9-11; 3:14, 15. All believers have an abiding unction of the Spirit, which enables them to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and keeps them from the seductions of the many antichrists that are abroad. Chap. 2:18-27. Such true believers, whose hearts are filled with love, are raised above fear, and have confidence in prayer, and may look forward with joyful confidence to the day of judgment. Chaps. 2:28; 3:18-20; 4:17, 18; 5:14, 15. These fundamental truths the apostle reiterates in various forms and connections, intermingling with them various admonitions and promises of a more particular character. He dwells with especial fulness on the evidences of discipleship as manifested in the daily spirit and life. There is perhaps no part of God's word so directly available to the anxious inquirer who wishes to know what true religion is, and whether he possesses it. He who, in humble reliance on the illumination of the divine Spirit, applies to himself this touchstone of Christian character, will know whether he is of God, or of the world that lies in wickedness.
16. SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. These two short epistles are so closely related to each other in style and manner that they have always been regarded as written by one and the same person. In considering, therefore, the question of their authorship we take them both together. Though reckoned by Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 25) and by Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25; Demonstratio Evangel. 3. 5) among the disputed writings, the external testimony to their apostolic authorship is upon the whole satisfactory, embracing the names of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Jerome, etc. When we take into account the small extent of these epistles it is plain that no unfavorable inference can be drawn from the silence of Tertullian and others. Nor is there any internal evidence against them. That the man who, in his gospel, studiously avoids the mention of his own name, describing himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and, in his first epistle, simply classes himself with the other apostles--"that which we have seen and heard," etc.--should in these epistles, where some designation of himself was necessary, speak of himself as "the elder" is not surprising. Compare 1 Peter 5:1.
17. Concerning the date of these two epistles we know nothing. The object of the first seems to have been to set before the lady to whom it was addressed the importance of a discriminating love, which distinguishes between truth and falsehood, and does not allow itself to aid and abet error by misplaced kindness towards its teachers.
In the second the apostle, writing to Gaius, commends to his hospitality, certain missionary brethren, who were strangers in the place where this disciple lived. It would seem that the design of these brethren was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles without charge; that he had in a former letter, commended them to the church where Gaius resided; but that Diotrephes had hindered their reception, and persecuted those who favored them.
Short as these epistles are, then, each of them contains weighty instruction--the first, in reference to ill-timed kindness and liberality towards the teachers of error; the second, concerning the character and conduct of those who love to have the preeminence, and the abhorrence in which they ought to be held by all who love the purity and peace of the churches.
IV. EPISTLE OF JUDE.
18. The writer of this epistle styles himself "the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Chap. 1:1. This James is undoubtedly the same man who held so conspicuous a place in the church at Jerusalem, and was the author of the epistle which bears his name. Whether Jude was an apostle, or an apostolic man, like Mark and Luke, depends upon the question respecting the relation which his brother James held to Christ, concerning which see the introduction to the epistle of James. In either case the canonical authority of the epistle holds good. The close relation between this epistle and the second chapter of Peter's second epistle has already been noticed. See above, No. 13. It was probably anterior in time to that epistle, but not separated from it by a great number of years. If we may infer anything from the abundant use made by the writer of Jewish history and tradition, the persons addressed are Jewish Christians.
19. Eusebius classes this epistle also among the disputed writings (Hist. Eccl., 2. 23; 3. 25), yet the testimonies to its genuineness are ample--the Muratorian canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, etc.
It was objected to this epistle in ancient times that the writer quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch (verses 14, 15). To this it may be answered--(1) that, if this be the case, Jude does not sanction the book of Enoch as a whole, but only this particular tradition embodied in it; (2) that the writer of the book of Enoch manifestly made use of a current tradition, and that, for anything that appears to the contrary, Jude may have availed himself of the same tradition, independently of the book of Enoch. That an inspired writer should refer to a traditional history not recorded in the Old Testament ought not to give offence. The apostle Paul does the same (2 Tim. 3:8, 9); and Jude himself in another passage (verse 9).
20. The design of the epistle Jude himself gives in explicit terms (verses 3, 4). It is to guard believers against the seductions of false teachers, corrupt in practice as well as doctrine; whose selfishness, sensuality, and avarice; whose vain-glorious, abusive, and schismatic spirit, he describes in vivid language, denouncing upon them at the same time the awful judgment of God. The apostolic portraiture has not yet become antiquated in the history of Christ's church.