{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_22459/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_22459","id":"gutenberg_22459","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22459","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- Introductions","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"E-text prepared by Al Haines\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\n   Page numbers in this book are indicated by numbers enclosed\n   in curly braces, e.g. {99}.  They have been located where page\n   breaks occurred in the original book.  For its Index, a page\n   number has been placed only at the start of that section.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\n\nby the\n\nREV. LEIGHTON PULLAN\n\nFellow and Tutor of St. John Baptist's College, Oxford.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \"If you choose to obey your Bibles, you will\n  never care who attacks them.\"--RUSKIN.\n\n\n\nFourth Edition Revised\n\nRivingtons\n34 King Street, Covent Garden\nLondon\n1912\n\n\n\n{v}\n\nPREFACE\n\nThis book is intended to meet the widely prevalent need of an\nintroduction to the New Testament which is neither a mere hand-book nor\nan elaborate treatise for specialists.  It is written in a conservative\nspirit, and at the same time an ample use has been made of recent\ncritical investigation.\n\nIt has been impossible to give an exhaustive proof of the position\nmaintained, but no matter of great importance has been overlooked. The\narguments will be intelligible to educated persons who are unacquainted\nwith the Greek language.\n\nThe author has sometimes derived much help from the articles in Dr.\nHastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_.  The dates which have been adopted\nare in most cases those adopted in {vi} that Dictionary by Dr. Sanday\nand Mr. C. H. Turner.\n\nHis best thanks are due to the Rev. E. W. Pullan, Mr. J. F. Briscoe,\nand Mr. E. W. Corbett, for the kind help which they have given him in\nthe preparation of the book.\n\n\n\n\n{vii}\n\nCONTENTS\n\nCHAPTER                                    PAGE\n\n        TABLE OF APPROXIMATE DATES . . . . . . . . . . . . .   x\n     I. THE NEW TESTAMENT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1\n    II. THE GOSPELS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9\n   III. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW  . . . . . . . .  33\n    IV. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK . . . . . . . . . .  49\n     V. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE . . . . . . . . . .  64\n    VI. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN . . . . . . . . . .  80\n   VII. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102\n  VIII. THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116\n    IX. 1 AND 2 THESSALONIANS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125\n     X. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE\n          CORINTHIANS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133\n    XI. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE\n          CORINTHIANS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143\n   XII. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS . . 150\n  XIII. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS  . . . 158\n   XIV. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE\n          COLOSSIANS--THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON  . . . 170\n    XV. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE EPHESIANS . . 180\n   XVI. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS   188\n  XVII. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195\n XVIII. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208\n   XIX. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219\n    XX. THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES . . . . . . . . . . . .  223\n   XXI. THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER . . . . . . . . .  235\n  XXII. THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER  . . . . . . . .  246\n XXIII. THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  255\n  XXIV. THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE  . . . . . . . . . . . .  265\n   XXV. THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE  . . . . . . .  270\n\n  APPENDIX A.--RATIONALIST CRITICISM ON ST. JOHN'S WRITINGS   284\n  APPENDIX B.--PAPIAS AND JOHN THE PRESBYTER . . . . . . . .  285\n  APPENDIX C.--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT . . . . . . . . . . .  288\n  APPENDIX D.--SOME EARLY WITNESSES TO NEW TESTAMENT\n                 WRITINGS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  291\n  APPENDIX E.--BOOKS RECOMMENDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  293\n\n  INDEX  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  297\n\n\n\n\n{x}\n\nTABLE OF APPROXIMATE DATES\n\n  THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW  . . . . . A.D. 69\n        \"        \"        ST. MARK . . . . . . . A.D. 62\n        \"        \"        ST. LUKE . . . . . . . A.D. 70-75\n        \"        \"        ST. JOHN . . . . . . . A.D. 80-90\n  ACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 75-80\n  ROMANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 56\n  1 CORINTHIANS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 55\n  2 CORINTHIANS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 55\n  GALATIANS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 56\n  EPHESIANS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 60\n  PHILIPPIANS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 61\n  COLOSSIANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 60\n  1 THESSALONIANS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 51\n  2 THESSALONIANS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 51\n  1 TIMOTHY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 63\n  2 TIMOTHY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 64\n  TITUS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 63\n  PHILEMON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 60\n  HEBREWS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 66\n  JAMES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 50\n  1 PETER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 64\n  2 PETER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 65\n  1, 2, 3 JOHN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 80-90\n  JUDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 63\n  REVELATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 96\n\n\n\n\n{1}\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT\n\n[Sidenote: Its Name.]\n\nAfter the gift of the Holy Spirit Himself, we may justly reckon the New\nTestament as the most precious gift which our Lord Jesus Christ has\ngiven since His Ascension to those who believe on His Name.  The word\n\"testament,\" which is in Latin _testamentum_, corresponds with our word\n\"covenant,\" and the phrase \"New Testament\" signifies the record of that\nnew covenant in which God bound man to Himself by the death of His Son.\nThe truth that this was a new covenant, distinct from the covenant\nwhich God made with Abraham, was taught by our Lord when He instituted\nthe memorial of His death and said, \"This cup is the new covenant in My\nBlood.\"   We do not know precisely at what date the Christians began to\ncall this record \"the New Testament,\" but we do know that they used\nthis name before A.D. 200.\n\n[Sidenote: Its Language.]\n\nIn the time of our Lord the popular language of Palestine was Aramaic,\na language which was akin to Hebrew and borrowed some words from\nHebrew.  Hebrew was known by learned people, but the language which the\nSon of God learned from His blessed mother and His foster father was\nAramaic, and He spoke the Galilean dialect of that language.  From a\nfew words preserved in the Gospels, it is plain that the gospel was\nfirst preached in that tongue.  In the 7th century after Christ, the\nMohammedan conquerors, who spoke Arabic, began to supplant {2} Aramaic\nby Arabic, and this is now the ordinary language of Palestine.  As many\npeople who spoke Aramaic were at one time heathen, both the Jews and\nthe Christians adopted the habit of calling their language _Syriac_\nrather than Aramaic.  The great centre of Christian Syriac literature\nwas Edessa, and in the eastern part of the Roman Empire Syriac was the\nmost important and most elegant language next to Greek.  It is still\nused in the Church services of many Oriental Christians, and it is\nspoken in ordinary conversation in parts of North Mesopotamia and\nKurdistan.  Further west it is only spoken in a few villages of\nAnti-Libanus.  In the course of this book it will be necessary to refer\noccasionally to the Aramaic language.\n\nIt is highly probable that some of the earliest Christian writings were\nin Aramaic, but all the books of the New Testament which we now possess\nare in Greek.  The Greek language was known by many people in\nPalestine, and it was splendidly fitted to be the medium of God's\nrevelation.  It was widely known among the civilized nations of the\ntime, and it is so rich and expressive that religious ideas are better\nconveyed in Greek than in almost any other tongue.  Whereas it was\nessential that the gospel should be preached first in Aramaic, it was\nequally essential that it should be written in Greek, for the benefit\nof people who did not live in Palestine or who lived there as strangers.\n\n[Sidenote: The Canon.]\n\nThe New Testament Scriptures consist of twenty-seven different books,\nwritten by nine different authors.  Each book has some special\ncharacteristics corresponding with the mind of the writer and the\ncircumstances under which it was written.  Yet these books exhibit a\nmanifest unity of purpose and doctrine.  Under many differences of\ndialect and expression there is an internal unity such as we do not\nfind in any secular literature, and this unity is due to inspiration.\nThe whole collection of books is called the CANON of the New Testament.\nThis Greek word \"canon\" originally meant a straight rod, such as could\nbe used for {3} ruling or measuring, then it was employed to signify a\nrule or law, and finally it meant a list or catalogue.  As applied to\nthe New Testament, the word \"canon\" means the books which fit the\nChurch's rule of faith, and which themselves become a rule that\nmeasures forgeries and finds them wanting.  The Church set these\ngenuine books apart as having their origin in inspiration which came\nfrom God.  They were all either written by the apostles or by men who\nwere trained by the apostles, and thus they contain a unique account of\nthe sayings of the Lord Jesus and the teaching of those who received\ntheir commission from Him.  They are therefore documents to which the\nChurch can refer, as a final court of appeal, in all questions of faith\nand conduct.\n\nIt was only by degrees that the Church realized the importance of\nplacing all these twenty-seven books in the canon.  This was finally\ndone in the western Churches of Christendom in A.D. 382, by a Council\nheld at Rome.[1]\n\nThe disciples first endeavoured to collect the sayings of our Lord and\nthe record of His life.  Thus the four Gospels constitute the first\nlayer of the New Testament canon.  The canon of our four Gospels\nexisted by A.D. 150, as is shown by Hermas and Justin Martyr.\n\nThe next layer of the canon consists of the thirteen Epistles of St.\nPaul and the Acts.  To these the Epistle to the Hebrews was generally\nattached in the east, though not in the west.  This layer of the canon\nwas universally recognized towards the close of the 2nd century, and\nperhaps some years earlier, for the books composing it were used and\nquoted throughout the 2nd century.\n\nThe third layer of the canon gained its place more slowly.  It consists\nof what are called the \"Catholic Epistles,\" viz. those of St. James,\nSt. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, together with the Revelation or\nApocalypse of St. John.\n\nA crowd of works circulated among the Christians of the {4} and\ncentury, including some forged Gospels and Apocalypses, the Epistle of\nSt. Clement, Bishop of Rome, written about A.D. 95, and the allegory\nknown as the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, written about A.D. 140.  Several of\nthese works appear to have enjoyed a popularity in excess of that which\nattached to some of the books now included in the canon.  Nevertheless\nthey were rejected when they were examined.  It was not merely a\nwonderful intellectual feat on the part of the Church to have sifted\nout this mass of literature; it was an action in which the Christian\ncannot fail to see the hand of God.\n\nOne question remains to be asked after drawing this small sketch of the\nhistory of the canon.  Why is it that for several generations the canon\nof the New Testament varied in different countries, containing fewer\nbooks in one place than in another?  Two reasons may be given: (i.)\nCertain books at first enjoyed only a local popularity; thus \"Hebrews\nwas saved by the value set upon it by the scholars of Alexandria, and\nthe Epistle of St. James by the attachment of certain Churches in the\nEast.\"  (ii.) The books of the New Testament, when translated into\nother languages, were not all translated together.  The Gospels were\nnaturally translated first, as containing the words of our Lord.  The\nother books followed gradually.  Interesting information is given us\nwith regard to the latter fact by the _Doctrine of Addai_, a Syriac\nbook of which the present form dates from about A.D. 400, but which\nappears to describe the condition of the Syrian Church in the 3rd\ncentury.  The writings of _Aphraates_, a Syrian writer, A.D. 338,\nsupplement this information.  We find from these books that about A.D.\n160 the Syrian Christians possessed a translation of the Gospels.\nEarly in the 3rd century they used a harmony of the Gospels with Acts\nand the Epistles of St. Paul.  In the 4th century they used also the\nEpistle to the Hebrews.  It is fairly evident, from the _Doctrine of\nAddai_, that only the Old Testament and the Gospels were at first used\nby the Syrian Christians, and that St. Paul's Epistles and Acts arrived\nlater.  And as late as {5} A.D. 338 they knew nothing of the Catholic\nEpistles and Revelation, though these books were well known by the\nChristians who spoke Greek and Latin.\n\n[Sidenote: Ancient Versions.]\n\nThe most ancient versions or translations of the New Testament were in\nthose three great languages spoken by people who touched the borders of\nthe districts where Greek was spoken.  These were Latin, Syriac, and\nthe Coptic language spoken by the Egyptians.  It seems probable that a\nlarge part of the New Testament was translated into these languages\nwithin about a hundred years after the time of the apostles.  The\noldest version in any language closely akin to English was that made by\nUlphilas, the celebrated bishop of the Goths, who translated the Bible\nfrom Greek into Gothic about A.D. 350.  There is a most beautiful\nmanuscript of this version preserved at Upsala, in Sweden.  The Goths\nwere then settled in the country between the Danube and the Dnieper.\nAs late as the 17th century their language was still spoken in part of\nthe south of Russia.  A carefully revised translation of the Latin\nBible was made by St. Jerome between A.D. 382 and 404, and this version\ncame to be used by the Church throughout the west of Europe.\n\n[Sidenote: English Versions.]\n\nThe Gospel of St. John and perhaps the other Gospels were translated by\nthe patient historian and monk, the Venerable Bede, who was buried at\nDurham in A.D. 731.  Parts of the Bible, especially the Psalms, were\nsoon fairly well known through translations.  King Alfred was\ntranslating the Psalms when he died, in A.D. 901; and soon after A.D.\n1000, Archbishop Aelfric translated large portions of the Bible.  As\nthe language of England gradually changed, new versions of the Psalms\nwere made, and most of the Bible was known in a version made before\n1360.  But perhaps there was no complete version of the Bible in\nEnglish until the time of John Wyclif (1380).  Wyclif translated most\nof the New Testament of this version, and a priest named Hereford\ntranslated the Old Testament.  Wyclif held various {6} opinions which\nthe Church of England at that time condemned, and some of which she\nstill rightly condemns.  The result was that in 1412 Archbishop Arundel\ndenounced Wyclif's version, but it seems to have been revised and to\nhave come into common use.  All these versions or partial versions in\nthe English language were made from the Latin.  But after the Turks\ncaptured Constantinople from the Greeks in 1453, a number of learned\nGreeks fled for refuge to the west of Europe.  The result was that\nGreek books began to be studied again, and the New Testament began to\nbe read once more in the original language.  Three important editions\nwere printed in 1514, 1516, and 1550 respectively.  The first was\nprinted under the direction of the Spanish Cardinal Ximenes, but owing\nto various causes was not published until 1522.  The edition of 1516\nwas printed under the direction of the great Dutch scholar Erasmus.\nThat of 1550 is important as being substantially the \"received text\"\nwhich has appeared in the ordinary Greek Testaments printed in England\nuntil the present day, and as being the foundation of our English\nAuthorised Version.  This \"received text\" was printed by Robert\nEstienne (or Stephanus), a great printer of Paris.  About the same time\na desire for a reformation of abuses in the Church caused a deeper\ninterest to be taken in the Word of God.  The first English translation\nof the New Testament shows a desire for a reformation of a somewhat\nextreme kind.  It was the version of _William Tyndale_, which was\nprinted at Worms in Germany, in 1525.  In 1534 the Convocation or\nChurch Parliament of England made a petition to King Henry VIII. to\nallow a better version to be made.  The work of translation was\ninterrupted by an order to have an English Bible in every church.  As\nthe Church version was not completed, a version made in 1535 by _Miles\nCoverdale_ had to be used instead.  Two other versions, also somewhat\ninferior, appeared in 1537 and 1539, and then a slightly improved\nversion called the _Great Bible_ appeared in April, 1539.  It is {7}\nalso called Cranmer's Bible, because Archbishop Cranmer wrote a preface\nto the second edition.  Three other important versions were published\nbefore the end of the 16th century.  The Calvinists, who were the\npredecessors of the modern Presbyterians, published a New Testament at\nGeneva in 1557, followed by the whole Bible in 1560.  The English\nbishops published what is called the _Bishops' Bible_ in 1568, and the\nRoman Catholics published an English New Testament at Rheims in France,\nin 1582.  We cannot fail to be impressed by the eager desire felt at\nthat time by the people of Great Britain, of all religious parties, to\nstudy the Holy Scriptures, a desire to which these various translations\nbear witness.\n\nAll previous English versions were thrown into the shade by the\nbrilliant _Authorised Version_, which was commenced in 1604 and\npublished in 1611.  Its beauty and accuracy are so great that even the\nPresbyterians, both in England and Scotland, gradually gave up the use\nof their Genevan Bible in favour of this translation.  But since 1611\nhundreds of manuscripts have been discovered and examined.  \"Textual\ncriticism,\" by which an endeavour is made to discover the precise words\nwritten by the writers of the New Testament, where discrepancies exist\nin the manuscripts, has become a science.  Many results of this\ncriticism have been embodied in the _Revised Version_, published in\n1881.  The English of the _Revised Version_ is not so musical as that\nof the _Authorised Version_, and it seems probable that a deeper\nknowledge of the ancient versions will before long enable us to advance\neven beyond the verbal accuracy attained in 1881.  But at the same time\nwe know that both our modern English versions give us a noble and\ntrustworthy interpretation of the Greek.  And criticism has made it\ncertain that the earliest Greek manuscripts are essentially the same as\nthe original books written by the apostles and their companions.  The\nmanuscripts are almost utterly free from wilful corruptions.  And\nconcerning the small variations which they contain, we {8} can fitly\nquote the words of a fine old English scholar, Bentley: \"Even put them\ninto the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous\nand absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one\nchapter, nor so disguise Christianity but that every feature of it will\nstill be the same.\"\n\nFor the sake of space the works of the evangelists are often referred\nto in an abbreviated form; _e.g._ \"Matt.\" has been written for \"the\nGospel according to St. Matthew,\" and \"Mark\" for \"the Gospel according\nto St. Mark.\"  But when the writers themselves are mentioned, their\nnames are usually given in full, with the title which Christian\nreverence has bestowed upon these \"holy men of old.\"\n\n\n\n[1] See Mr. C. H. Turner, _Journal of Theological Studies_, July, 1900.\n\n\n\n\n{9}\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE GOSPELS\n\n[Sidenote: Their Name.]\n\nThe modern English word \"Gospel\" is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word\n_Godspell_, which means \"God story,\" the story about the life of God in\nhuman flesh.  It does not, therefore, exactly correspond with the Greek\nname _euaggelion_, which means \"good tidings.\"  In the earliest times\nthe Greek name meant the good tidings proclaimed by our Lord about the\nKingdom of God which He had come to establish.  And, as our Lord\nHimself rules over this kingdom, the tidings about the kingdom included\ntidings about Himself.  So Christ Himself says, \"for My sake and the\ngospel's\" (Mark viii. 35).  After the Ascension of our Lord and the\ndisappearance of His visible presence, the _euaggelion_ came to mean\nthe good tidings about Christ, rather than the good tidings brought by\nChrist (see 1 Cor. ix. 14 and 2 Cor. iv. 4).  So St. Paul generally\nmeans by _euaggelion_ the good news, coming from God, of salvation\nfreely given to man through Christ.  When he speaks of \"My gospel\"\n(Rom. ii. 16), he means \"my explanation of the gospel;\" and when he\nsays, \"I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision\"\n(Gal. ii. 7), he means that he had been appointed by God to preach the\ngood tidings to the Gentiles, with special emphasis on the points most\nnecessary for their instruction.\n\nThe word _euaggellon_, in the sense of a written gospel, is first found\nin the ancient Christian manual called the _Didach\u00e9_, or _Teaching of\nthe Twelve Apostles_, in ch. xv.: \"Reprove one {10} another, not in\nanger but in peace, as ye have it in the gospel.\"  This book was\nprobably composed about A.D. 100.  The word seems to have been still\nmore definitely applied to a written account of the life of Christ in\nthe time of the great heretic Marcion, A.D. 140.  The plural word\n_euaggelia_, signifying the Four Gospels, is first found in a writing\nof Justin Martyr,[1] about A.D. 152.  It is important to notice that he\nalso calls them \"Memoirs of the Apostles,\" and that he refers to them\ncollectively as \"the Gospel,\" inasmuch as they were, in reference to\ntheir distinctive value as records of Christ, one book.\n\n[Sidenote: Their Genuineness.]\n\nThe first three Gospels do not contain the name of the writers in any\nconnection which can be used to prove conclusively that they were\nwritten by the men whose names they bear.  On the other hand, the\nfourth Gospel in a concluding passage (John xxi. 24) contains an\nobvious claim to have been written by that intimate friend of Jesus to\nwhom the Church has always attributed it.  But the titles, \"according\nto Matthew,\" \"according to Mark,\" \"according to Luke,\" rest on\nexcellent authority.  And they imply that each book contains the good\nnews brought by Christ and recorded in the teaching of the evangelist\nspecified.  These titles must, _at the very least_, signify that the\nChristians who first gave these titles to these books, meant that each\nGospel was connected with one particular person who lived in the\napostolic age, and that it contained nothing contrary to what that\nperson taught.  The titles, taken by themselves, are therefore\ncompatible with the theory that the first three Gospels were perhaps\nwritten by friends or disciples of the men whose names they bear.  But\nwe shall afterwards see that there is overwhelming evidence to show\nthat the connection between each book and the specified person is much\ncloser than that theory would suggest.\n\nSpeaking of the four Gospels generally, we may first observe that it is\nimpossible to place any one of them as late as A.D. 100, {11} and that\nthe first three Gospels must have been written long before that date.\nThis is shown by the internal evidence, of which proof will be given in\ndetail in the chapters dealing with the separate Gospels.  The external\nevidence of the use of all the four Gospels by Christians, and to some\nextent by non-Christians, supports the internal evidence.  Let us begin\nby noting facts which are part of undoubted history, and then work back\nto facts of earlier date.  It is now undisputed that between the years\n170 and 200 after Christ our four Gospels were known and regarded as\ngenuine products of the apostolic age.  St. Irenaeus, who became Bishop\nof Lyons in France in A.D. 177, and was the pupil of Polycarp, who had\nactually been a disciple of St. John, uses and quotes the four Gospels.\nHe shows that various semi-Christian sects appeal severally to one of\nthe four Gospels as supporting their peculiar views, but that the\nChristian Church accepts all four.  He lays great stress on the fact\nthat the teaching of the Church has always been the same, and he was\npersonally acquainted with the state of Christianity in Asia Minor,\nRome, and France.  His evidence must therefore be considered as\ncarrying great weight.  Equally important is the evidence of Tatian.\nThis remarkable Syrian wrote a harmony of the Gospels near A.D. 160.\nAllusions to this harmony, called the _Diatessaron_, were known to\nexist in several ancient writers, but until recently it was strenuously\nmaintained by sceptical writers that there was not sufficient evidence\nto prove that the Diatessaron was composed of our present Gospels.  It\nwas suggested that it might have been drawn from other Gospels more or\nless resembling those which we now possess.  This idea has now been\ndispelled.  A great Syrian father, Ephraim, who died in 373, wrote a\ncommentary on the Diatessaron.  This was preserved in an Armenian\ntranslation which was made known to the world in 1876.  The discovery\nproved that the Diatessaron had been drawn from our four Gospels.  In\n1886 an Arabic version of the Diatessaron itself was found, and it {12}\nproved conclusively that Tatian's Diatessaron was simply a combination\nof our four canonical Gospels.  About the same date as Tatian, a famous\nGnostic writer named Heracleon wrote commentaries on Luke and John, and\nit can also be shown that he was acquainted with Matt.  There can\ntherefore be no doubt that all our four Gospels were well known by A.D.\n170.\n\nBetween A.D. 130 and 170 our Gospels were also in use.  The most\nimportant evidence is furnished by Justin Martyr, who was born near\nSamaria, and lectured in Rome about A.D. 152.  He says \"the apostles\nhanded down in the Memoirs made by them, which are called Gospels;\" he\nshows that these Memoirs were used in Christian worship, and he says\nthat \"they were compiled by Christ's apostles and those who companied\nwith them.\"  This exactly agrees with the fact that the first and the\nfourth of our Gospels are attributed by the tradition of the Church to\napostles, while the second and the third are attributed to companions\nof the apostles.  The quotations which Justin makes show that these\nMemoirs were our four Gospels.  It has been thought that Justin perhaps\nused some apocryphal Gospel in addition to our Gospels, but there is no\nsufficient proof of this.  We may explain that he uses the term\n\"Memoirs\" in order to make himself intelligible to non-Christian\nreaders who would not understand the word \"Gospel.\"\n\nThe _Shepherd_ of Hermas, which was written at Rome, probably about\nA.D. 140, but perhaps earlier, uses expressions which imply an\nacquaintance with all our Gospels, though none of them are directly\nquoted.  Moreover, the _Shepherd_, in depicting the Christian Church as\nseated on a bench with four feet, probably refers to the four Gospels.\nThis would be in agreement with the allegorical style of the book, and\nit gains support from the language of Origen and Irenaeus.\n\nThe testimony rendered to the authenticity of the Gospels by the\nheretics who flourished between A.D. 130 and 170 is of importance.  At\nthe beginning of this period, Basilides, the {13} great Gnostic of\nAlexandria, who tried to replace Christianity by a semi-Christian\nPantheism, appears to have used Matt., Luke, and John.  The fact that\nthey contain nothing which really supports his peculiar tenets, forms\nan argument which shows that the genuineness of these documents was\nthen too well established for it to be worth his while to dispute it.\nMarcion, whose teaching was half Gnostic and half Catholic, endeavoured\nto revive what he imagined to be the Christianity of St. Paul, whom he\nregarded as the only true apostle.  He believed that Judaism was the\nwork of an inferior god, and he therefore rejected the whole of the Old\nTestament, and retained only the Gospel written by St. Luke, the friend\nof St. Paul, and ten of St. Paul's Epistles.  Modern writers have\nsometimes urged that Marcion's list of New Testament books proves that\nall other parts of the New Testament were regarded as doubtful about\nA.D. 140.  But it is quite evident that Marcion, unlike those Gnostics\nwho adapted uncongenial books to their own systems by means of\nallegorical explanations, cut out the books and verses which would not\ncorrespond with his own dogma.  In spite of his pretended fidelity to\nSt. Paul, he mutilated not only St. Luke's Gospel, but even the Epistle\nto the Galatians.  So whereas it is certain that he used our Luke,\nthere is no indication to show that he did not admit that the other\nGospels were really the work of the writers whose names they bear.\n\nIn the period between A.D. 98, when the death of St. John probably took\nplace, and A.D. 130, we find several signs of acquaintance with the\nGospels.  About A.D. 130, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, wrote a book\ncalled _Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord_.  It may be regarded as\nalmost certain that the word \"Oracles\" signifies written Gospels, just\nas in the New Testament the word signifies the written documents of the\nOld Testament.  He mentions Gospels written by St. Matthew and St.\nMark, and we know from Eusebius that he made use of 1 John.  It is\ndeeply to be regretted that we only have {14} a few remaining fragments\nof the writings of this early bishop, who was acquainted with men who\nknew our Lord's disciples.  In the letters of St. Ignatius, the\nmartyred Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 110, we find signs of acquaintance\nwith Matt. and John.  The Epistle written by St. Polycarp to the\nPhilippians soon after the death of St. Ignatius contains quotations\nfrom Matt. and Luke, and the quotations in it from 1 John almost\ncertainly imply the authenticity of St. John's Gospel, as it is\nimpossible to attribute the Epistles to any writer except the writer of\nthe Gospel.  The _Didach\u00e9_, about A.D. 100, shows acquaintance with\nMatt. and Luke, and contains early Eucharistic prayers of which the\nlanguage closely resembles the language of St. John.  The Epistle of\nBarnabas, probably about A.D. 98, contains what is probably the oldest\nremaining quotation from a book of the New Testament.  It says, \"It is\nwritten, Many called, but few chosen,\" which appears to be a quotation\nfrom Matt. xxii. 14.  The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome, written to\nthe Christians of Corinth about A.D. 95, is full of the phraseology of\nSt. Paul's Epistles, but contains nothing that can be called a direct\nquotation from our Gospels.  But it does contain what are possibly\ntraces of the first three Gospels, though these passages are perhaps\nquoted from an oral Gospel employed in the instruction of catechumens.\n\nWe must conclude that, considering what a large amount of early\nChristian literature has perished, the external evidence for the\nauthenticity of our Gospels is remarkably strong.  They are genuine\nwritings of the apostolic age, and were received by men whose lifetime\noverlapped the lifetime of some of the apostles.  In the early\nChristian literature which remains, there is much which lends support\nto the authenticity of the Gospels, and nothing which injures a belief\nin that authenticity.  And there are strong reasons for thinking that\nin the early Christian literature which has perished, there was much\nwhich would have made a belief in their authenticity quite inevitable.\n\nIt would be an aid to modern study if we could be certain {15} when and\nwhere the four Gospels were put together in one canon.  In the 4th and\n5th centuries it was believed by some Christians that the collection\nhad been made at Ephesus by St. John himself, and that he had prefixed\nthe names of the writers to the Gospels when he published his own\nGospel.  It is at present impossible to discover how far this supposed\nfact is legendary or not, but modern criticism has done something to\ncorroborate the idea that the Gospels were really collected first in\nAsia Minor, and if St. John did not make the collection himself, it was\nprobably made by his disciples soon after his death.\n\n[Sidenote: Their Diversity.]\n\nIf we compare the four Gospels together, it is as plain as daylight\nthat there is a marked difference between the first three Gospels on\nthe one hand and the fourth Gospel on the other hand.  The first three\nGospels are usually called the _Synoptic Gospels_, because they give us\none _synopsis_ or common view of our Lord's work.  To a great extent\nthey record the same events and the same discourses, and in many\npassages they express themselves in almost identical words.  The\naccount which they give of our Lord's work is mostly confined to His\nministry in Galilee, the birthplace of our religion, and it includes\nonly one visit to Jerusalem.  But St. John's Gospel differs widely in\nlanguage from the other Gospels, and also gives an account of no less\nthan five visits to Jerusalem, and chiefly describes the scenes\nconnected with our Lord's ministry in Judaea.  Whereas our first three\nGospels can be appropriately printed in three parallel columns, the\ngreater part of St. John's Gospel cannot be appropriately placed by the\nside of the other three.  Another most important difference is that St.\nJohn's Gospel is marked by a tone and teaching which are seldom to be\nfound in the Synoptic Gospels.  The difference was well expressed by\nClement of Alexandria, who calls the Synoptic Gospels _bodily_ and St.\nJohn's Gospel _spiritual_; and by Theodore of Mopsuestia, who says that\nSt. John declared that \"doubtless it was not right to omit {16} the\nfacts told with regard to the sojourn of Christ in the flesh, but\nneither was it right to omit the words relating to His Divinity.\"  For\nthe Synoptic Gospels relate the outward events connected with our\nLord's ministry, while St. John records the discourses and works which\nreveal our Lord's heavenly origin and divine authority.  Again, the\nSynoptic Gospels report Christ's addresses to simple Galilean people,\naddresses consisting largely of _parables_; while St. John reports\ndiscourses, frequently expressed in the language of _allegory_, and\nuttered to the Jews of Jerusalem or to His own intimate disciples.\n\n[Sidenote: The Synoptic problem.]\n\nThe Synoptic problem consists in the difficulties raised by the fact\nthat the Synoptic Gospels show both a remarkable similarity and a\nremarkable dissimilarity.  It is just because the similarity is often\nso astonishing that we find it all the more difficult to explain the\ndissimilarity when it exists.  A study of the Synoptic problem is\nvaluable for the Christian student, inasmuch as it directs our\nattention to the sources employed by the evangelists, and thus leads us\nnearer to the actual events connected with the rise of Christianity.\n\nThe RESEMBLANCES between the Synoptic Gospels may be observed in the\nfollowing points:--\n\n(a) _A common plan._--The general view of the course of events is\nalmost identical.  St. Matthew and St. Luke give separate accounts of\nthe infancy of our Lord, but they then join with St. Mark in their\naccount of St. John the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Christ,\nand the beginning of His ministry.  Later all three direct their\nattention mainly to Christ's work in Galilee, while St. John describes\nmuch that took place in Judaea and Samaria.  They pass rapidly over\nsome considerable space of time until they come to the last week of His\nlife, where all three give a detailed account.\n\n(b) _A common selection of facts._--By far the larger number of both\nevents and discourses are found in all three Gospels.  If anything is\nrecorded in Mark it is generally to be found in {17} Matt. and Luke,\nand almost always in either Matt. or Luke.  If the whole number of\nincidents in the Synoptic Gospels be reckoned as eighty-eight, the\ndistribution of the incidents shared by at least two Gospels is as\nfollows:--\n\n  In all three Gospels . . . . . . .  42\n  In Mark and Matt.  . . . . . . . .  12\n  In Mark and Luke . . . . . . . . .   5\n  In Matt. and Luke  . . . . . . . .  12\n\nIf we add the above together, we realize that seventy-one incidents out\nof a total of eighty-eight are to be found in more than one Gospel.  Of\nthe remaining seventeen incidents, three are peculiar to Mark, five to\nMatt., and nine to Luke.\n\n(c) _Similar groups of incidents._--Not only is there a common\nselection of facts, but detached events which happened at different\ntimes are sometimes grouped together in the same way in all of the\nSynoptic Gospels or in two of the three.  Thus in all three we find\ntogether the cure of the paralytic, the call of Levi, and the question\nof fasting (Matt. ix. 1-17; Mark ii. 1-22; Luke v. 17-39); so also the\nplucking of the ears of corn and the cure of the withered hand--events\nseparated by at least a week (Matt. xii. 1-21; Mark ii. 23-iii. 6; Luke\nvi. 1-11).  Thus also the death of John the Baptist is introduced both\nin Matt. xiv. 3 and in Mark vi. 17 to explain the fear felt by Herod\nAntipas that he had risen from the dead.  In fact, when a parallel\npassage is found in all three Synoptic Gospels, it is never immediately\nfollowed in _both_ Matt. and Luke by a whole separate incident which is\nnot in Mark.[2] There is a general tendency in Matt. and Luke to\nnarrate the same facts as Mark in the order of Mark.  And therefore it\nis difficult to think that the original basis of the Synoptic Gospels,\nwhether written or unwritten, did not coincide closely with Mark in the\norder of events.\n\n{18}\n\n(d) _Similarity of language._--The Synoptic Gospels often agree\nverbally.  And this agreement is not merely found in the reports of the\nsayings of our Lord, but even in the narrative of events.  It extends\neven to rare Greek words and phrases.  The clauses are often remarkably\nsimilar.  Sometimes quotations from the Old Testament are found in two\nor three Gospels with the same variations from the original.  Matt.\niii. 3, Mark i. 3, and Luke iii. 4 have the same quotation from Isa.\nxl. 3, in which they agree in every word, although at the end they\ndepart in the same way from both the Hebrew and the Greek version of\nthe Old Testament, for they put \"His paths\" instead of \"the paths of\nour God.\"  Another interesting instance is to be found in Matt. xxvi.\n47, Mark xiv. 43, and Luke xxii. 47, where all three evangelists,\napparently without any necessity, explain that Judas was one of the\ntwelve.  Again in Matt. xxiv. 15, 16, and Mark xiii. 14, we have the\nnote or parenthesis \"let him that readeth understand,\" which one\nevangelist seems to have copied from the other.\n\nThe DIFFERENCES between the Synoptic Gospels may be observed in the\nfollowing facts:--\n\n(a) _Facts peculiar to one or two Gospels._--There is a wide difference\nbetween the account of the birth and infancy of our Lord given in Matt.\nand that given in Luke.  In Matt. we have recorded an angelic\ncommunication to St. Joseph concerning the future birth of Jesus.  In\nLuke, an earlier and fuller annunciation to St. Mary is recorded.  In\nMatt. the story of the infancy is centred at Bethlehem, in Luke at\nNazareth.  The accounts given of the appearances of our Lord after the\nResurrection record different events.  In Matt. and Mark Galilee is the\nscene of His appearances, in Luke the scene is laid in Jerusalem and\nits neighbourhood.  There is not the least reason for regarding these\naccounts as contradictory, but there is reason for inquiring why the\ndifferent writers selected different appearances.\n\n{19}\n\n(b) _Different accounts of the same facts._--The three distinct\nincidents of the temptation of our Lord are recorded in a different\norder in Matt. and Luke, and the temptation is recorded without these\nincidents in Mark.  St. Luke's version of the Beatitudes is reduced in\nnumber, and is followed by corresponding denunciations.  In Mark x. 46\nand Matt. x. 29 we have the cure of Bartimaeus on the departure from\nJericho, in Luke xviii. 35, xix. 1 at the entrance of the city.  In\nMatt. viii. 28 there are two demoniacs, while in Mark v. 2 and Luke\nviii. 27, which seem to narrate the same event, only one demoniac is\nmentioned.  All the Synoptic Gospels give slightly different accounts\nof the inscription on the cross, and the words spoken by the centurion\nat the death of Jesus vary in Luke from the words in Matt. and Mark.\n\n(c) Differences in the order of words and sentences.--Although Matt.\nand Luke do not combine against Mark in narrating a whole incident in\nan order different from Mark, it is important to notice that there are\nsome cases in which Matt. and Mark agree against Luke, or Mark and Luke\nagree against Matt.  And we must not omit a significant instance where\nMatt. and Luke agree against Mark in the order of _part_ of an\nincident.  In Matt. iii. 11, 12 and Luke iii. 16, \"I indeed baptize you\nwith water,\" etc., comes _before_, in Mark i. 7, 8 it comes _after_,\nthe description of Jesus as \"He that is mightier than I.\"  No doubt one\nauthor who copies another may often omit something stated by the first\nauthor.  But, surely, he is not very likely to invert the order of the\nmaterials before him, especially when no obvious purpose can be served\nby such an inversion.  Another instance of inversion is this: in Mark\nix. 12, 13 the rejection of the Son of Man is mentioned by our Lord\n_between_ two statements of His about Ehas, in Matt. xvii. 12 it is\nmentioned _after_ both statements.  Such inversions would naturally\ntake place in the case of oral transmission of the sacred story, but\nthey would be less likely in the case of one writer copying another.\n\n{20}\n\n(d) _Verbal differences._--Striking verbal differences occur even when\nthe general resemblance is most close.  In Matt. ix. 1-17, Mark ii.\n1-22, Luke v. 17-39, there are verbal changes even where the sentences\nclosely coincide.  Other instances might be quoted.  All three\nevangelists have a style of their own, and show a marked preference for\nparticular idioms and words.  In narrating the sayings of our Lord,\nthey narrate them with some verbal differences, and in the case of the\nhistory of His ministry, they narrate it with numerous verbal\ndifferences.  It is therefore evident that St. Matthew and St. Luke, if\nthey used St. Mark's work, felt themselves at liberty to deal with it\nvery freely.\n\nThe above brief account of the chief resemblances and differences\nbetween the first three Gospels is an attempt to give a fair though\ncondensed statement of certain facts which appeal with different force\nto different minds.  \"How came these Gospels to be so alike and yet so\ndifferent?\"  This is the \"Synoptic problem,\" and great divergence of\nopinion exists as to the solution.\n\n[Sidenote: Possible solutions.]\n\nThe most important views propounded to solve the problem are--\n\n(1) Both St. Matthew and St. Luke copied the Gospel of St. Mark, while\nnot omitting to make use of other documents.  In the case of St. Luke,\nhis acquaintance with earlier written stories about our Lord is\nrendered indisputable by his own statement.  Sometimes it has been\nthought that St. Luke made use of the Gospel according to St. Matthew\nas well as the Gospel according to St. Mark.  This theory is most\nappropriately called the _theory of the mutual dependence of the\ndocuments_.\n\n(2) The three Synoptic Gospels put down in writing different, but\nclosely similar forms of an oral tradition concerning the teaching of\nour Lord.  It is thought that the statements made by the apostles about\nChrist were repeated by them and occasionally added to, and treasured\nup in faithful memories.  {21} The idea of a _literary_ connection\nbetween the Gospels is dismissed, and it is held that the methods of\nteaching employed among the Jews, and the probable existence of a\nschool of trained catechists, will account sufficiently for the fixed\nform of the tradition.  According to this hypothesis the differences\nbetween the Synoptic Gospels are to be explained by the necessity of\nteaching different aspects of the truth among different classes of\ninquirers, and by the fluctuating memories of the teachers.  This\ntheory is known as the _oral theory_.[3]\n\n(3) The three Synoptic Gospels are based upon one original Gospel\nwritten in the Aramaic language.  A large number of verbal variations\ncan thus be accounted for.  They might have sprung from different\nrenderings of the same Aramaic original, and various passages derived\nfrom oral tradition might have been added to the original Gospel when\nit was translated.  It has been held by some that there was at least an\nAramaic document behind Mark, if there was not an Aramaic original\nemployed by all the Synoptics.  The different forms of this hypothesis\ncan be described as the _theory of an Aramaic original_.\n\nIt is now generally believed that the three evangelists did not employ\none original Aramaic Gospel.  The agreement between the Greek words of\nthe Synoptic Gospels is too close to be explained by the use of an\nAramaic original.  The real controversy, therefore, lies between the\nscholars who support theory (1) or theory (2).\n\n[Sidenote: Probable conclusions.]\n\nOn the whole, it appears that a general agreement is being arrived at.\nIt is becoming evident that the theory of the mutual dependence of the\ndocuments and the oral theory are _both_ partly true, and that neither\nof them can be held in an extreme form.  In the first place, the\nresemblances between the first three Gospels make it extremely probable\nthat St. Matthew and St. Luke {22} employed the work of St. Mark.  In\nEngland, Germany, and France the opinion of scholars seems steadily\ntending towards this conclusion.  The chief reasons for it are\nundoubtedly that (i.) the order of facts in Mark is the _normal order_\nof the whole narrative of the Synoptists, and (ii.) in the main, the\nlanguage of Mark explains the verbal agreements between Matt. and Luke.\nTherefore among the probable conclusions with regard to the Synoptic\nproblem we must reckon the fact that _Mark is earlier than Matt. and\nLuke, and was employed in the composition of them both_.  This is the\nfirst important conclusion.\n\nBut we must also allow room for the influence of oral tradition.\n\nWe have already noticed many differences between the Synoptists, all of\nwhich more or less suggest that the Gospels are largely based on oral\ntradition.  We may now mention a few other facts which point in the\nsame direction.  There are cases in which Matt. or Luke has a more\ndecided appearance of originality than Mark.  These cases include\nwords, phrases, and even sections.  For instance, Matt. employs several\ntimes the phrase \"the Father who is in heaven,\" a phrase which our Lord\nmust certainly have used, but which in Mark only occurs once (xi. 25).\nMark i. 40-45, ii. 1-12, iii. 1-6, x. 35, appear less original than the\nparallel passages in the other Synoptic Gospels.  Moreover, there are\nstatements in Matt. of a striking kind, which are not at all likely to\nhave been invented, but which are entirely absent from Mark.  We may\nnotice the texts, \"Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not\ninto any city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the\nhouse of Israel\" (Matt. x. 5, 6); and again, \"I was not sent but unto\nthe lost sheep of the house of Israel\" (Matt. xv. 24).  In both cases\nthe context has a parallel in Mark, but the verses in question do not\noccur in those parallels.\n\nAlso there are certain passages to be found in Mark which are in\nneither Luke nor Matt.  If we believe that the Gospels {23} are largely\nbased on oral tradition, it is easy to account for the absence of a\npassage in one or two of the three Synoptic Gospels.  An incident which\nwas remembered in one place might be forgotten in another.  But if we\nexclude the influence of oral tradition, there are only two solutions\nof the problem raised by these passages.  Either (a) St. Matthew and\nSt. Luke were ignorant of them, because they were added to Mark later\nthan the date when they used Mark; or (b) they knew them and omitted\nthem.  In other words, we have to ask, Did they use an original form of\nthe second Gospel, a form to which German scholars apply the name\n_Ur-Marcus_ and French scholars apply the name _Proto-Marc_, or did\nthey omit passages in Mark which suggested difficulties or appeared\nunnecessary?  The main argument against the existence of a Proto-Mark\nis that neither Papias nor any known Father of the Church preserves the\nleast recollection of it.  It has simply been invented to account for\nthe difficulties of the Synoptic problem.  If, on the other hand, St.\nMatthew and St. Luke deliberately abbreviated or altered the narrative\nof St. Mark, we must naturally inquire why they did so.  The authors\nwho maintain that they did alter the material which lay before them,\naccount for some of the changes as having been made from a mere desire\nto abbreviate, or to remove a few verses which might prove \"hard\nsayings\" to Jewish or Gentile Christians respectively.  Some think that\nother passages in Mark were emitted because St. Matthew and St. Luke\nconsidered them to be derogatory to our Lord's power or the character\nof His apostles.  For instance, St. Matthew omits the rebuke\nadministered to the apostles in Mark viii. 17, 18, and he does not\nmention our Lord's use of spittle as a means of healing.  He also in\nch. xiii. 55 represents the Jews as calling our Lord \"the carpenter's\nson,\" whereas in Mark vi. 3 they call Him \"the carpenter.\"\n\nThis latter line of argument is often hazardous and occasionally\nprofane.  And in special reference to the points just {24} described,\nwe may remark that St. Matthew in ch. xiv. 28-33 does not hesitate to\nrecord the weakness of even St. Peter's faith; and that St. John,\nalthough he gives the greatest prominence to the majesty of our Lord,\ndoes in ch. ix. 6 record His use of spittle in healing.  And if St.\nMatthew thought it irreverent to record the fact that the Jews called\nJesus \"the carpenter,\" he might have naturally shrunk far more from\nsaying, as he does, that they named Him \"the carpenter's son,\" a title\nwhich might seem to imply an ignoring of His miraculous birth.\n\nIt seems, therefore, that we must be content to acknowledge that we\ncannot always determine the reasons which influenced St. Matthew and\nSt. Luke, but we can say that in some cases they were probably\ninfluenced by the mere desire to abbreviate, and that they were also\ninfluenced by the forms which the oral teaching of the Gospel had\nassumed.  We may also regard it as almost certain that St. Luke\nsometimes altered words in St. Mark's narrative simply because he\npreferred a more elegant and less homely form of Greek.  The textual\ncriticism of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament also points to\nthe fact that for a few generations, when reminiscences of our Lord and\nHis apostles were still handed down, writers occasionally tried to make\nroom for these reminiscences when they copied the books of the New\nTestament.  A famous instance of this is John vii. 53-viii. 11, which\nwas almost certainly not written by St. John, and is almost certainly a\ngenuine story which the apostle knew, and which Christians afterwards\ninserted in his Gospel.  We believe, then, that _all the Synoptic\nGospels are influenced by oral tradition_.  This is the second\nimportant conclusion.\n\nThirdly, it seems that _Matt. and Luke, and perhaps Mark, made use of\nwritten collections of Logia, or sayings of our Lord_.  Evidence of one\nsuch collection comes to us on the high authority of Papias.  He says--\n\n\nMatthew then composed the Logia in the Hebrew tongue, and every one\ninterpreted them as he was able.\n\n{25}\n\nAn equally important statement which Papias makes with regard to the\ncomposition of Mark, is made on the authority of John the Presbyter who\nhad been a personal follower of the Lord and was an elder contemporary\nof Papias.  It is at least possible that Papias derived his information\nabout Matt. from the same authority.  It is almost inconceivable that\nbetween the time of Papias and that of Irenaeus, whose life probably\noverlapped that of Papias, the name of Matthew became wrongly affixed\nto our first Gospel.  We may therefore regard it as certain that in our\nfirst Gospel is contained the book of sayings, which St. Matthew\nhimself wrote.  In our third Gospel we find that St. Luke has inserted\nmuch information with regard to our Lord's teaching which is apparently\nderived from a version of the Logia.  The order of the sayings is more\noriginal in Luke than in Matt.  The reason for this assertion is the\nfollowing:--\n\nThe two evangelists arrange the sayings of our Lord differently.  In\nmore than two-thirds of the instances in which they seem to employ some\ncollection of _Logia_, they place their materials in a different\nsetting.  It has often been remarked that St. Matthew places the\ndiscourses of our Lord together in large blocks, while St. Luke records\nthem separately, and in many cases records the circumstances which led\nup to them.  Instances of this are--The Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 9-13\nand Luke xi. 1-4); the treasure and the heart (Matt. vi. 19-21 and Luke\nxii. 33, 34); God and Mammon (Matt. vi. 24 and Luke xvi. 13).  It would\ntherefore seem plain that either one evangelist or the other altered\nthe places of these discourses.  Examination makes it equally plain\nthat the alteration was made in Matt.  Much of Matt. is arranged in\nnumerical forms, and this is especially true of those passages which\nare not derived from Mark.  The numbers 5, 10, and 7 are used as helps\nto memory.  Thus in Matt. we find _five_ chapters (called by the Jews\n\"Pereqs\") of the sayings of our Lord, ending respectively at vii. 28;\nxi. 1; xiii. 53, xix. 1; xxvi. 1.  The {26} number five was a favourite\nnumber with the Jews in such cases; thus we have five books of the\nPentateuch, five books of the Psalms, the five _Megilloth_ or festival\nvolumes, and the five parts of the _Pirqe Aboth_.  In chs. viii. and\nix. we have a collection of _ten_ miracles, in spite of the fact that\nthree of these miracles are placed elsewhere by St. Mark and St. Luke.\nThe petitions of the Lord's Prayer are arranged as seven, there are\n_seven_ parables in ch. xiii., _seven_ woes in ch. xxiii., and the\ngenealogy of our Lord is arranged in three _fourteens_.  As these\nnumerical arrangements are specially characteristic of Matt., and\ncertainly appear to be caused by a desire to aid oral repetition, we\nare led to the conclusion that the Logia are to be found in a less\nartificial and therefore earlier form in Luke.  We are also led once\nmore to the conclusion that though we cannot say that the whole of\nMatt. owes its form to oral teaching, yet many sections of it are\nmoulded by oral teaching.\n\nIt must lastly be noted that although the collection of Logia employed\nin Luke contained much material which is also found in Matt., the\nparallel passages vary considerably in style and language.  Examination\nof these passages seldom enables us to prove what expressions were\nspecially characteristic of the Logia.  But we can assert with a fair\namount of confidence that the version, or versions, of the Logia so\nemployed, had a simple and Hebraic style; and that whereas Luke has\nkept the order of the Logia better than Matt., the latter preserves the\nstyle more faithfully.\n\nIn addition to Mark and collections of the Logia, St. Matthew and St.\nLuke employed other sources now unknown to us.  The narratives of the\ninfancy and the Resurrection are independent, and are so different that\nthey point both to the fact that the two evangelists were here\nemploying different sources, and that each was unacquainted with the\nGospel written by the other.  Also, St. Luke's account of our Lord's\nministry in Peraea and elsewhere, contained in ix. 51-xix. 28, is\npeculiar to his Gospel.\n\n[Sidenote: The relation of St. John's Gospel to the Synoptic Gospels.]\n\nThe difference between the theological tone of St. John's Gospel and\nthat which we find in the Synoptists is mentioned {27} in our account\nof the separate Gospels.  Besides this difference of tone, there is a\ndecided difference in the march of the events which are recorded and\nsome difference in the narrative of passages which are parallel.  The\nfirst rough impression which we gather from the Synoptists is that our\nLord did not visit Jerusalem until shortly before the Crucifixion.\nMatthew and Mark refer to one Passover only for which Jesus comes to\nJerusalem.  The scene of His ministry is Galilee.  On the other hand,\nthe centre of interest in John is not Galilee, but Jerusalem and\nJudaea.  But a minute examination proves that the narrative of St. John\nfits that of the Synoptists in a remarkable manner.  In the first\nplace, the Synoptists give us hints of our Lord's earlier visits to\nJudaea and Jerusalem.  In Luke iv. 44 (see margin R.V.) we find Him\npreaching in the synagogues of Judaea (cf. Acts x. 37).  In Luke v. 17\nthe presence in Galilee of Pharisees from _Jerusalem_ is a testimony to\nthe impression which Christ had produced in the holy city.  Both Matt.\n(xxiii. 37) and Luke (xiii. 34) record the lament of our Lord, \"O\n_Jerusalem_, . . . how _often_ would I,\" etc.  So from John iv. 3, 43\nwe learn of our Lord returning to _Galilee_ after His first visit to\nJerusalem.  This second journey into Galilee recorded by St. John\nbrings us to a point corresponding with the early days of the ministry\nin Galilee described by the Synoptists.  In John vi.-vii. 9 we have\nnarratives connected with _Galilee_, and this section belongs to an\ninterval of time between the approach of Passover in March A.D. 28 and\nthe feast of Tabernacles in September A.D. 28.  Of this period the\nSynoptists give a much fuller account.\n\nThe question of the length of our Lord's ministry is thus intimately\nconnected with that of the scene of His ministry.  St. John marks the\nlength of our Lord's ministry, not by ordinary chronology, but by the\nmention of various Jewish feasts.  The dates of these feasts show that\nHis ministry lasted two years and a half.  The absence of dates in the\nSynoptists {28} has led to the opinion that they represent our Lord's\nministry as only extending over one year.  This opinion may be\nsummarily dismissed.  The mention of ripe corn in Mark ii. 23, and\ngreen grass in vi. 39, implies two spring-times before the last\nPassover.  It is impossible to compress the teaching which the Synoptic\nGospels relate into the period of one year, and they show a hostility\ntowards Christ on the part of the ruling classes in Jerusalem which\ncould not have sufficiently fermented in the space of a few months.  We\nmay also notice that there is a close agreement between the Synoptists\nand St. John with regard to the points on which the conflict between\nChrist and the Jews turned (cf. Matt. xvi. 1-4, Mark viii. 11-13, Luke\nxi. 16, 29-32, with John ii. 18).  The Jews specially charged Him with\nbeing possessed by a devil (cf. Matt. xii. 24, Mark iii. 22, Luke xi.\n15, with John viii. 48 and x. 19), and also with breaking the sabbath\n(cf. Matt. xii. 9, Mark iii. 1, Luke vi. 6, xiii. 10, with John v. 10,\nvii. 22, ix. 14).\n\nThe dates of two important incidents have been the subjects of much\ndiscussion.  A cleansing of the temple by our Lord is related by the\nSynoptists at the close of our Lord's ministry (Mark xi. 15).  John ii.\n14 places a cleansing of the temple at the very beginning of our Lord's\nministry.  If we have to choose between one record and the other, we\nshould perhaps be inclined to say that the narrative in John is the\nmore probable.  But there is no good reason for making such a choice.\nNo one who is at all familiar with the history of the abuses which took\nplace in some mediaeval churches would find a difficulty in believing\nthat the temple needed a second cleansing by our Lord.  The first\ncleansing is the natural outcome of His righteous indignation in\nbeholding for the first time the holiest place in the world given up to\ncommon traffic, the second cleansing is appropriate in Him who had then\nopenly proclaimed His divine authority and Messiahship.\n\nThe day of our Lord's death is a date about which there is an apparent\ndiscrepancy between the Synoptists and St. John.  {29} The discrepancy\nhas been elevated into momentous importance by the sceptics of the last\nsixty years, and has been employed as one of the most formidable\narguments against the authenticity of St. John's Gospel.  The argument\nemployed by these critics is as follows:--(1) The Synoptic Gospels\ncontain the original apostolic tradition, and they agree in stating\nthat Jesus celebrated the ordinary Jewish passover on the evening\nbetween the 14th and 15th of the month Nisan; they therefore represent\nthe crucifixion as taking place on the 15th, after the passover had\nbeen eaten.  (2) The fourth Gospel places the Last Supper on the\nevening between the 13th and the 14th of Nisan.  It therefore\nrepresents the crucifixion as taking place on the 14th, and tacitly\ndenies that Christ ate the usual Jewish passover.  (3) The Churches of\nthe province of Asia, which were founded by St. John, were accustomed\nin the 2nd century to keep their passover on the 14th of Nisan, and\ndeclared that they derived their custom from St. John.  They\nconsequently believed that Christ died on the 15th, and that He ate the\nusual Jewish Passover.  (4) Therefore the fourth Gospel was not written\nby St. John, but by a forger who wished to emphasize the break between\nJudaism and Christianity.\n\nThis argument can be turned with fatal force against the critics who\nmade it.  It is no doubt true that St. John by numerous indications\n(xiii. 1; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31) implies that the Last Supper was\neaten the day before the usual passover, and that Christ died on Nisan\n14.  But the usage of the Christians of the Asiatic Churches in the 2nd\ncentury absolutely corroborates these indications.  These Churches when\nthey celebrated the passover were not celebrating the anniversary of\nthe Last Supper, but the anniversary of the death of Christ, the true\nPaschal Lamb.  By doing this on Nisan 14, they showed that they\nbelieved that Christ died on that day, and there is particularly strong\nevidence of a belief among the early Christians that our Lord did die\non Nisan 14.  Moreover, although the account of the Synoptists is not\nfree from {30} ambiguity, it bears many testimonies to St. John's\nchronology.  They record as happening on the day of Christ's death\nseveral actions which the Jewish law did not permit on a feast day such\nas Nisan 15, and which must presumably have taken place on Nisan 14.\nThe Synoptists make the Sanhedrim say that they will not arrest Jesus\n\"on the feast day,\" the guards and St. Peter carry arms, the trial is\nheld, Simon the Cyrenian comes from work, Joseph of Arimathaea buys a\nlinen cloth, the holy women prepare spices, all of which works would\nhave been forbidden on Nisan 15.  Finally, the day is itself called the\n\"preparation,\" a name which would not be given to Nisan 15.  The\nconclusion is irresistible.  It is that our Lord died on Nisan 14, that\nSt. John is correct, and that the Synoptists in most of the passages\nconcerned corroborate St. John.  The only real difficulty is raised by\nMark xiv. 12 (cf. Matt. xxvi. 17; Luke xxii. 7), which seems to imply\nthat the Paschal lamb was sacrificed on the day before Christ died.  If\nso, this verse implies that Christ died on Nisan 15.  But we must\nobserve that not one of the Synoptists says that the disciples ate a\nlamb at the Last Supper, and also that, for all ceremonial purposes,\nthe day for killing the lamb began on the evening of Nisan 13.  It is\ntherefore doubtful whether there is even as much as one verbal\ncontradiction on this point between the Synoptists and St. John.\n\nThe omission of events which are of importance in the Synoptic Gospels\nis a striking feature in St. John's Gospel.  But these instances of\nomission can be more reasonably explained by the hypothesis that the\nauthor was content to omit facts with which the Christians around him\nwere well acquainted, than by the hypothesis that he was a\nspiritualistic writer of the 2nd century who wished to make his Gospel\nfit some fanciful theory of his own.  In fact, the latter hypothesis\nhas proved a signal failure.  The critics who say that the writer\nomitted the story of our Lord's painful temptation as incompatible with\nthe majesty of the Divine Word, may be asked {31} why the writer gives\nno fuller account of the glorious transfiguration than the hint in i.\n14.  Those who say that sentimental superstition induced the writer to\nomit the agony the garden, may be asked why the writer records the\nweariness of Christ at Samaria and His tears at the grave, of Lazarus.\nThere are gaps in the evangelist's narrative, but we cannot argue that\nthe Gospel is therefore a forgery.  The evangelist is acquainted with\nthe Ascension (vi. 62), though he does not record it; and he knows that\nNazareth was the early home of Christ (i. 46), though he does not\nnarrate the story of the sacred infancy.  The Gospel of St. John is\nnone the less genuine for being of the nature of a treatise, intended\nto bring certain aspects of the life of our Lord to bear upon the\nintellectual life of Ephesus.  Much has been made of the fact that he\nsays nothing of the institution of the Eucharist.  Nor does he record\nthe command of Jesus to baptize.  Are we to suppose that a writer who\nhas told us how \"the Word was made flesh\" so shrank from believing\nmaterial things to be connected with a spiritual efficacy that he\nrejected the sacraments?  Is it not more probable that among people who\nwere perfectly familiar with both Baptism and the Eucharist he\npreferred to tell what Christ had said about being born again (iii.),\nand about the assimilation of His life by the believer (vi.)?  This\nseems to us more reasonable.  The fourth Gospel, though it has a\ncharacter and purpose of its own, and might even have been written if\nthere had been no other Gospel, yet was intended to supplement either\nthe Synoptic Gospels or else a body of teaching corresponding with that\ncontained in those Gospels.\n\nThe facts which St. John records in common with the Synoptists before\nthe Last Supper, the Passion, and the Resurrection are--the Baptism of\nJohn (i. 26), the Feeding of the 5000 (vi. 10), the Walking on the Sea\n(vi. 19), the Anointing at Bethany, with the action of Judas (xii. 1),\nthe Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (xii. 12).  Even in connection with\nthese incidents St. John gives his additional details, and {32}\ntherefore the character of his work is here, as elsewhere, both\nindependent and supplemental.\n\nIt remains to ask whether any words used by St. John seem to show that\nhe borrowed expressions from the Synoptic Gospels.\n\nThe following passages may be noticed: John v. 8 f. (Mark ii. 11 f.),\nvi. 7, 10, 19 f. (Mark vi. 37, 40, 49 f.), xii. 3, 5, 7 f.  (Mark xiv.\n3-6), xiii. 21 (Mark xiv. 18), xviii. 18, 17 (Mark xiv. 54, 69), xviii.\n22 (Mark xiv. 65).  For the quotation from Zechariah in xii. 15, cf.\nMatt. xxi. 5.  The words of our Lord in John xv. 18-xvi. 2 have been\ncompared with those in Matt. x. 17-22.  Sometimes John has more points\nof contact with Luke than with the other Synoptists; _e.g._ there is\nthe journey of Christ to Galilee before the death of John the Baptist,\nthe fact that the scourging of Christ by Pilate was intended to\nrestrain the Jews from demanding His death, and the visit of St. Peter\nto the sepulchre.  It has been thought that John xii. 3 is based upon\nLuke vii. 38.  The anointing of our Lord's _feet_ in both is certainly\nremarkable.  Sometimes John agrees with Matt. and Mark and not Luke, as\nin recording the binding of Jesus, the crown of thorns, the purple\nrobe, and the custom of releasing a malefactor at the feast.  Such\ncoincidences between John and the Synoptic Gospels are so slight and\ndisconnected that it seems doubtful whether the former uses any\nmaterial drawn from the latter.  Nevertheless, the story contained in\nthe Synoptic Gospels, though not quoted, is presupposed.  A good\ninstance is in John vi. 5, where St. John does not stop to explain that\nthe hour was late and the people therefore hungry.\n\n\n\n[1] _Apol._ i. 66.\n\n[2] The longest instance of a passage in Matt. and Luke being parallel\nin these Gospels and without a parallel in Mark is the short passage,\nMatt. iii. 7-10, Luke iii. 7-9.\n\n[3] This theory was first clearly expounded in 1818 by Gieseler, a\ncelebrated German Protestant Church historian.  It has been more\npopular in England than in Germany.\n\n\n\n\n{33}\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nSt. Matthew is one of the least known of the Apostles.  He was first\ncalled Levi the son of Alphaeus, and was a \"publican\" or collector of\ncustoms at Capernaum.  At the call of Jesus, \"he forsook all, and rose\nup and followed Him.\"  He then made a great feast, to which he invited\nhis old companions, no doubt that they too might come under the\ninfluence of the Lord.  After the appointment of the twelve Apostles,\nhe was put in the second of the three groups of Apostles.  The New\nTestament gives us no further information concerning him.  An early\ntradition narrates that the Apostles remained at Jerusalem until twelve\nyears after the Ascension, and certainly St. Paul does not seem to have\nfound any of the Apostles at Jerusalem when he was there in A.D. 56\n(Acts xxi. 17).  According to Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 190, St.\nMatthew led a rigorously ascetic life, such as is also recorded of St.\nJames.  Nothing certain is known of his missionary labours.  Parthia,\nEthiopia, and India were believed in the 4th and 5th centuries to have\nbeen visited by St. Matthew.  We learn from Clement of Alexandria that\nhe did not suffer martyrdom.[1] The fact that he disappears almost\ncompletely from the realm of history is an additional reason for\nbelieving the tradition which connects our first Gospel with his name.\nA false tradition would have probably connected it with one of the more\nfavourite figures of early Christian story.\n\n{34}\n\nIt is repeatedly asserted by the Fathers that St. Matthew wrote his\nGospel in _Hebrew_, which may either mean the sacred language of the\nsynagogues, or the popular language of Palestine which we now call\nAramaic.  It should, however, be remembered that Papias, our earliest\nauthority, describes St. Matthew's composition by the word _Logia_,\nwhich seems to point to a list of sacred sayings or \"oracles\" of our\nLord, rather than to a historical narrative.  About A.D. 125, Papias\nwrites: \"Matthew then composed the Logia in the Hebrew tongue, and\nevery one interpreted them as he was able.\" [2]  About A.D. 185, St.\nIrenaeus writes: \"Matthew published a Gospel among the Hebrews in their\nown dialect.\" [3]  Origen and Eusebius make similar statements.  St.\nJerome, in A.D. 392, writes: \"Matthew, also called Levi, who from being\na publican became an apostle, first wrote a Gospel of Christ in Judaea,\nand in Hebrew letters and words for the benefit of those of the\ncircumcision who believed.  Who afterwards translated it into Greek is\nnot quite certain.\" [4]  We naturally inquire what became of this\nHebrew Gospel?\n\nSt. Jerome, in A.D. 392, believed that he had found it.  He says that\nit was still preserved at Caesarea, and that the Nazarenes, a Jewish\nChristian sect of Palestine, allowed him to transcribe a copy of it at\nBeroea (now Aleppo).  In A.D. 398, he says that he had translated this\nGospel into Greek and Latin.  It is known that it was used by the\nNazarenes and by the Ebionites, a Jewish sect which admitted that Jesus\nwas the Messiah, but denied that He was divine.  Lastly, we find St.\nEpiphanius, about the same time as St. Jerome, describing the Hebrew\n\"Gospel according to the Hebrews\" as the Gospel written by St. Matthew.\n\nSo at the end of the 4th century it was generally believed that the\nGospel used by the Nazarenes, and ordinarily known as \"the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews,\" was the original {35} Hebrew version of\nMatt.  The opinion arose from the two simple facts that it was known\nthat (1) St. Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, and that (2) the\nNazarenes possessed _a_ Gospel in Hebrew.  The conclusion was natural,\nbut it was false.  Clement of Alexandria and Origen, who quote the\nGospel according to the Hebrews, do not represent it as the work of St.\nMatthew.  St. Jerome himself felt doubts.  When he first discovered the\nHebrew Gospel, he felt the enthusiasm of a critic who has made an\nimportant find.  He believed that he had discovered the original\nGospel.  He afterwards became more cautious.  His later allusions to\nthe Gospel say that \"it is called by most the original Matthew,\" [5]\nand that it is \"the Gospel according to the Apostles or, _as most\nsuppose_, according to Matthew.\" [6]  In fact, this Hebrew Gospel,\nwhich bore sometimes the title of \"the Hebrews,\" sometimes \"the\nApostles,\" sometimes \"St. Matthew,\" was not the Hebrew original of our\npresent Matthew, nor could it have been written by an Apostle.  The\nfragments of it which now remain come from two versions.  Both versions\nshow traces of a mixed Jewish and Gnostic heresy, and are plainly\napocryphal.  The Holy Spirit is called the \"mother\" of Jesus, and\nrepresented as transporting Him by a hair of His head to Mount Tabor,\nand our Lord is represented as handing His grave-clothes to the servant\nof the high-priest as soon as He was risen from the dead.  The Gospel\ncertainly seems not only to be a forgery, but to betray a knowledge\nboth of our Greek Gospel according to St.  Matthew and that according\nto St. John.[7]  We are obliged to conclude that it throws no light on\nthe origin of our Matt., and that the original Hebrew Matt. was lost at\nan early date.\n\nOn the other hand, it is certain that our Greek Matt. was {36} regarded\nas authentic in the 2nd century, and it is plain that it records the\nsayings of Christ with peculiar fulness.\n\nWe must now return to what was stated in our previous chapter when\ndealing with the Synoptic problem.  We there saw that there is a great\nmass of common material in all three Synoptic Gospels, and saw that\nMark was probably used as a groundwork for Matt. and Luke.  We\ntherefore are led to the conclusion that the Gospel according to St.\nMatthew is a combination of a Greek version of St. Matthew's original\nHebrew Logia--St. Matthew possibly wrote a Greek version of it as well\nas the Hebrew--with the  Gospel written by St. Mark.  The combination\nwas apparently made either by the apostle himself, or by a disciple of\nthe apostle as the result of his directions.  The Catholic Jewish\nChristians, knowing that the Gospel contained St. Matthew's own Logia,\nand that the rest of the Gospel was in accordance with his teaching as\ndelivered to them, called it \"the Gospel according to Matthew.\"  The\nless orthodox Jewish Christians, as we have seen, invented a Gospel of\ntheir own.\n\nA little help is given us by the internal evidence afforded by Matt.\nThe author appears to be writing for Greek-speaking converts from\nJudaism, who need to have Hebrew words interpreted to them.  Thus he\ninterprets \"Immanuel\" (i. 23), \"Golgotha\" (xxvii. 33), and the words of\nour Lord on the cross (xxvii. 46).  The numerous quotations from the\nOld Testament have for a long time exercised the ingenuity of scholars,\nwho have believed that they enable us to determine how the Gospel was\nwritten.  On the whole these quotations suggest two conclusions: (1)\nThat the evangelist knew both Greek and Aramaic, (2) that the Gospel is\nnot a mere translation from the Aramaic or Hebrew.  Roughly speaking,\nthe quotations which St. Matthew has in common with the other\nSynoptists are from the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Old\nTestament, while those which are peculiar to his {37} Gospel show that\nthe Hebrew has been consulted.  Altogether the quotations number 45.\nOf these there are 11 which are texts quoted by the evangelist himself\nto illustrate the Messianic work of our Lord, and 9 of the 11 seem to\nimply a knowledge of Hebrew.  They are i. 23; ii. 15, iv. 15-16, viii.\n17, xii. 18-21; xiii. 14-15; xiii. 35b; xxi. 5; xxvii. 9, 10.  The\nother 34 texts comprise the quotations which are made in the discourses\nof our Lord, and they are sometimes called context-quotations or cyclic\nquotations, as coming in the cycle of discourses.  Perhaps 6 or 7 of\nthese 34 texts imply a knowledge of the Hebrew.  But it is certain that\nthis class of quotations is far nearer to the Septuagint than the other\nclass.  This conclusion remains good in spite of the fact that even the\nMessianic quotations show the influence of the Septuagint, _e.g._ in i.\n23 the writer uses the Septuagint, inasmuch as the Greek word\ntranslated \"virgin\" _necessarily_ implies the unique condition of the\nmother of our Lord, whereas the corresponding Hebrew word does not\n_necessarily_ imply the same condition.  Now, it is plain that if the\nGospel had been translated from the Hebrew, the context-quotations\nwould probably have been as near to the Hebrew as the quotations made\nby the evangelist himself.  This is not the case.  The quotations in\nMatt. show that the writer knew Hebrew but wrote in Greek, and based\npart of his work on a Greek document.\n\nThe fact that the Gospel was written in Greek does not prove that it\nwas not written in Palestine.  It has been urged that it cannot have\nbeen written in Palestine, because in ix. 26, 31 we find Palestine\ncalled \"_that_ land,\" but the phrase may refer only to a part of\nPalestine, and therefore can hardly be urged as proving anything.  It\nis well known that educated persons in Palestine were acquainted with\nGreek, although the majority spoke Aramaic.  The two languages existed\nside by side, very much as Welsh and English exist side by side in\nNorth Wales.  If the Gospel was not written in Palestine, it was\nprobably written in South Syria.\n\n{38}\n\n[Sidenote: Date.]\n\nThe date must be shortly before A.D. 70.  A favourite argument of\nmodern sceptics is that it contains a reference (xxii. 7) to the\nburning of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, and therefore must have\nbeen written after that event.  The argument rests upon the assumption\nthat our Lord could not have foreseen the event predicted--an\nassumption which no Christian can accept.  Even the favoured servants\nof God in later ages have sometimes possessed the gift of prophecy.\nSavonarola certainly foretold the fall of Rome, which took place in\nA.D. 1527, and the prophecy was printed long before the event seemed\ncredible.  Much more might the Son of God have foretold the fall of\nthat city which had so signally neglected His summons.  Such\nexpressions as \"the holy city,\" \"the holy place,\" \"the city of the\ngreat King,\" suggest that when the Gospel was written it had not yet\nbecome the home of \"the abomination of desolation.\"  And a far stronger\nproof is afforded by the caution of the writer in xxiv. 15, \"let him\nthat readeth understand.\"  This is an editorial note inserted by the\nevangelist, as by St. Mark, before our Lord's warning to flee from\nJudaea.  We learn from the early historians of the Church that the\nJewish Christians took warning from this statement to flee from Judaea\nto Peraea before the Romans invested the holy city in A.D. 70.  Now, it\nwould have been absurd for the evangelist to insert this note after the\nRoman forces had begun the siege, as absurd as it would have been to\nwarn the Parisians to flee to England after Paris had been surrounded\nby the Prussians in 1870, or to warn the English to leave Ladysmith in\n1900 after it was surrounded by the Boers.  Another and final proof\nthat the Gospel was written before A.D. 70 is given by the form in\nwhich the evangelist has recorded our Lord's prophecy of the end of the\nworld (the so-called \"eschatological discourse\" in chs. xxiv.-xxv.).\nThe prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and that of the last\ncoming of the Lord are placed side by side with no perceptible break.\nCh. xxiv. 29-31 refers to the {39} last coming of Christ, whereas the\nverses which immediately precede it refer to the destruction of\nJerusalem, and so do vers. 32-34.  It is impossible to resist the\nconclusion that the evangelist believed that the judgment upon\nJerusalem would be immediately followed by the last judgment of the\nworld.  He knows that our Lord foretold both, and both events loom\nlarge in his mind.  As a traveller in a valley sees before him two\ngreat mountains which appear close to one another, though really\nseparated by many miles, so the evangelist sees these two events\ntogether.  After the fall of Jerusalem he would almost certainly have\nmade a definite break between the two subjects.\n\n[Sidenote: Literary Style.]\n\nWe have already noticed in ch. ii. the fondness for numerical\narrangement, which is a marked characteristic of the style of this\nGospel.  There are other proofs of the fact that this Gospel is more\nHebrew in tone than the others.  In the other Gospels we find the\nexpression \"the kingdom of God,\" but here we find it called \"the\nkingdom of heaven,\" an instance of the peculiarly Jewish reverence\nwhich shrank from uttering the name of God.  There are a few Aramaic\nwords found in this Gospel--_raca_ (v. 22), _gehenna_ (v. 22), _mammon_\n(vi. 24); and we should add the peculiar use of \"righteousness\" in vi.\n1, where the word is used in the sense of \"alms\" in accordance with a\nJewish idiom.  But the Greek phrases are often neat and clear-cut.\nThey sometimes seem to imply a play upon words, _e.g._ in vi. 16 and\nxxiv. 30.  This is another indication that the Gospel, as it stands,\nwas first written in Greek.  The Greek is smoother than that of St.\nMark, though not so vivid.  The evangelist writes with a joyous\ninterest in his work.  The historical parts of it are full of beauty,\nbut he uses them mainly as a framework for the discourses of Jesus,\nwhich he preserves with loving fidelity.\n\nIn St. Matthew's Gospel the Old Testament is frequently quoted, that\nthe reader may see that Jesus is the realization of {40} the hopes of\nthe Jewish prophets.  With set purpose the fair picture of the Servant\nof Jehovah drawn by Isaiah is placed in the middle of the Gospel (xii.\n18-21), that we may recognize it as the true portrait of Christ.  Close\nto it on either side the blasphemies of the Pharisees are skilfully\ndepicted as a foil to His divine beauty.  We have already noticed the\nbearing of these quotations on the origin of the Gospel, but we must\nspeak further of their bearing on the evangelist's view of the Old\nTestament.  His Messianic quotations are introduced by such phrases as\n\"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,\" or, \"then\nwas fulfilled,\" etc.  The tendency of modern scepticism to ridicule the\nsupernatural element in prophecy has caused some writers to depreciate\nthis method of quotation.  And we find even a thoughtful Roman Catholic\nwriter speaking of it as \"giving the impression that the supple and\nliving story of the life of Jesus is only a chain of debts which fall\ndue, and fulfilments which cannot be avoided.\" [8]  In particular, it\nhas been alleged that the Greek word translated \"that,\" or \"in order\nthat,\" and prefixed to these quotations, implies this fatalistic\nnecessity.  But this particular argument is mistaken.  In later Greek\nthe use of the word was vaguer than it had been formerly.[9]  It cannot\nbe narrowed down so as to prove that the evangelist thought that events\nin the Old Testament only took place in order to be types which the Son\nof God constrained Himself to fulfil.  And, speaking more generally, we\nmay say that the evangelist shows an exquisite taste in his selection\nof Messianic quotations.  Convinced that Jesus sums up the history of\nIsrael, he does not hesitate to quote passages in the Old Testament,\nwhether they directly refer to the Messianic King, or only call up some\npicture which has a counterpart in the life of Christ.\n\n{41}\n\nThus the quotations in i. 23 and ii. 6 directly refer to one who is the\nexpected King, that in viii. 17 to one who is the ideal martyred\nServant, that in ii. 15 to Israel conceived of as the peculiar child of\nGod and so a type of Christ.  In ii. 23 the evangelist finds in the\nname of _Nazareth_ an echo of the ancient Messianic title _Netzer_ (a\nbranch).  In ii. 18 we see that the tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem\nreminds him of the mothers of Israel weeping over the death of their\nchildren at the hands of the Babylonians; and as Jeremiah poetically\nconceived of Rachel weeping with the mothers of his own day, so St.\nMatthew conceives of her as finding her crowning sorrow in the massacre\nof the Holy Innocents.\n\nThree other quotations deserve special notice: (1) That in xxvii. 9,\nwhich the evangelist quotes from \"Jeremiah.\"  It is often said that\nthis is a mere mistake for Zechariah.  But it is a quotation combined,\naccording to the Jewish method known as the Charaz, or \"string of\npearls,\" from Zech. xi. 12 and Jer. xix. 1, 2, 6, the valley of the son\nof Hinnom being regarded as typical of \"the field of blood.\"  (2) That\nin xxvii. 34, from Ps. lxix. 21.  It is said that the evangelist, in\norder to make our Lord's action correspond with the words of the\nPsalmist, makes Him drink \"gall\" instead of \"myrrh\" (Mark xv. 23), and\nthus represents the soldiers as cruelly giving Him a nauseating draught\ninstead of a draught to dull His pain.  The argument will hardly hold\ngood, for the Greek word translated \"gall\" can also signify a\nstupefying drug, and thus Matt. and Mark agree.  (3) That in xxi. 2-7,\nwhere our Lord is represented as making use of both an ass and a colt\nfor His triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  The other Synoptists mention a\ncolt only, and it is supposed that the evangelist altered his narrative\nof the fact in order to make it agree with a too literal interpretation\nof Zech. ix. 9.  It must be admitted that the account in Mark and Luke\nhas an air of greater probability, and it has the support of the brief\naccount in John.  But there is not a decisive contradiction between\nMatt. and the other Gospels, and it is therefore unreasonable to pass\nan unfavourable verdict on any of them.  The story in Matt. cannot be\ndiscredited as containing an apocryphal miracle, and the mere fact that\nit is so independent of the other Gospels suggests that it is really\nprimitive.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe chief characteristic of this Gospel is the representation of Jesus\nas _the Messiah_ in whom was fulfilled the {42} Law and the prophets.\nIt was probably placed first in the New Testament because this\nMessianic doctrine is the point of union between the old covenant and\nthe new.  St. Matthew's representation of the Messiah is the result of\nvery careful reflection, and it shows that the evangelist wrote in a\nspirit which was philosophical and in one sense controversial.  He is\nphilosophic because he is not a mere annalist.  He groups incidents and\ndiscourses together in a manner which brings out their significance as\nillustrating the Messiahship of Jesus and the majestic forward movement\nof the kingdom of God.  He is in one sense controversial because he\nwishes his picture of Christ to correct that false idea of the Messiah\nand His reign which was ruining the Jewish people.  The best kind of\ncontroversy is that which is intent upon explaining the truth rather\nthan eager to expose and ridicule what is false.  So the evangelist\npresents to his readers Jesus as the Lord's Anointed with inspired\npowers of persuasion.  The manner in which he records our Lord's urgent\nwarnings against going after false Jewish Messiahs at the time when the\ndestruction of Jerusalem should draw near, is a witness to the depth of\nhis convictions.  Like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who\nwrote shortly before him, he cannot endure the thought of any waverers\nor deserters.  The Jewish Christian must be loyal to Jesus, even\nalthough the invasion of the holy land by Gentiles may sorely tempt him\nto throw in his lot with his patriotic but unbelieving kinsmen.\n\nThe very first verse suggests the nature of the Gospel--\"The book of\nthe generation\" (_i.e._ the genealogical tree) \"of Jesus Christ, the\nson of David, the son of Abraham.\"  This \"book\" includes the first 17\nverses of the Gospel.  While St. Luke traces the genealogy of our Lord\nback to Adam, the head of the human race, St. Matthew desires to show\nthat our Lord, _as the son of Abraham_, is the child of promise in whom\nall the families of the earth shall be blessed, and, _as the son of\nDavid_, {43} is heir to the kingdom of spiritual Israel.  The genealogy\nis partly based on that of the Greek version of 1 Chron. i.-iii., and\nis intended to teach certain special truths.  It is arranged so as to\nbe a kind of summary of the history of the people of God, each group of\n14 names ending with a crisis.  Jesus is the flower and fulfilment of\nthat history.  It furnishes a reply to Jewish critics.  They would say\nthat Jesus could not be Messiah unless Joseph, his supposed father, was\ndescended from David.  St. Matthew shows that St. Joseph was of Davidic\ndescent.  Again, the Jews would say that in any case the Messiah would\nnot be likely to be connected with a humble carpenter and his folk.\nThe evangelist's reply is that David himself was descended from\ncomparatively undistinguished men and from women who were despised.\nThus St. Matthew meets both points raised by the Jews.\n\nOf recent years another criticism has been passed on this pedigree of\nour Lord.  A copy of the Old Syriac version of the Gospels, discovered\nat Sinai and published in 1894, says that Joseph begat Jesus, and in\nthis way denies that Jesus was born of a pure virgin.  Some writers who\nwish to believe that our Lord was brought into the world in the same\nmanner as ourselves, have said that this Syriac version represents what\nwas actually the fact.  There is, however, no reason for believing\nanything of the kind.  There is no ground for the notion that the\nSyriac genealogy was taken from a primitive Jewish register.  It is\nmerely a translation of the Greek, probably from some Western Greek\nmanuscript which had \"Joseph begat Jesus.\"  When the evangelist wrote\nthe genealogy, he can only have meant that Joseph was by Jewish law\nregarded as the father of Jesus; for his whole narrative of our Lord's\ninfancy assumes that He was born of a virgin mother.  The truth that\nour Lord was born miraculously is asserted by St. Luke as well as by\nSt. Matthew.  It is assumed by St. Paul, when he argues that the second\nAdam was free from the taint of sin which affected the rest of the\nfirst Adam's descendants.  It {44} was also cherished from the earliest\ntimes in every part of the Christian world where the teaching of the\napostles was retained, and was only denied by a few heretics who had\nopenly rejected the teaching of the New Testament on other subjects.\n\nConnected with the representation of Jesus as the Messiah is the record\nof His continual teaching about the \"kingdom of heaven.\"  The \"kingdom\nof heaven\" or \"kingdom of God\" signifies the reign and influence of\nGod.  The meaning of it is best expressed by the words in the Lord's\nPrayer: \"Thy kingdom come.  Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on\nearth\" (Matt. vi. 10).  The second petition explains the first.  The\nkingdom comes in proportion as the righteous will of our loving Father\nis done among men.  The kingdom therefore includes the influence of God\nin the heart of the believer, or in great movements in the world, or in\nthe organization and growth of His _Church_ (xvi. 18; xviii. 17).  The\nkingdom has both a present and a future aspect.  In xii. 28 our Lord\nsays to His hearers that it \"is come upon you,\" and in xxi. 31 He\nspeaks of people who were entering into it at the time.  But the night\nbefore He died He spoke of it as still future (xxvi. 29).  It is plain\nthat He taught that it was already present, though its consummation is\nyet to come.  The kingdom is spiritual, \"not of this world,\" it is\nuniversal, for though the Jews were \"the sons of the kingdom\" (viii.\n12) by privilege, it is free to others.  The worst sinner might come in\n(xxi. 31), if he came with repentance, humility, and purity of heart.\nThe teaching of Christ with regard to the kingdom was based upon an\nidea of God's personal rule, which runs through nearly all the Old\nTestament, beginning with the Books of Samuel and revealing itself in\nIsaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel.  But our Lord's teaching is original and\ndistinctive.  And it is more distant from the popular Jewish idea of a\nHebrew counterpart to the Roman empire than the east is distant from\nthe west.\n\nNowhere else is our Lord shown to have given such an unmistakable\nsanction to the Law.  It is here only that we {45} read, \"Think not\nthat I came to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I came not to destroy,\nbut to fulfil\" (v. 17).[10]  Here, too, we find an allusion to the\nobservance of the sabbath _after_ the Ascension (xxiv. 20), a temporary\nprohibition of preaching to the Gentiles and Samaritans (x. 5), and the\nstatement of our Lord, \"I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the\nhouse of Israel\" (xv. 24).  Most remarkable of all is the direction to\nobey the scribes and Pharisees (xxiii. 3).  On the other hand, there is\na rigorous denunciation of the rabbinical additions to the Jewish Law.\nMercy is preferable to sacrifice (xii. 7), the Son of man is Lord of\nthe sabbath (xii. 8), moral defilement does not come from a failure to\nobserve ceremonial (xv. 11), the kingdom will be transferred to a more\nfaithful nation (xxi. 43), even the strangers from the east and the\nwest (viii. 11), the Gospel will be for all people (xxiv. 14), and the\nscribes and Pharisees are specially denounced (xxiii. 13).\n\nIt has been said that there is an absolute opposition between these two\nclasses of sayings; that either Jesus contradicted Himself, or the\nevangelist drew from one source which was of a Judaizing character, and\nfrom another source which taught St. Paul's principle of justification\nby faith _versus_ justification by the Law.  But the same divine\nparadox of truth which we find in Matt. runs through most of the New\nTestament, and is found plainly in St. Paul.  In the Epistle where he\nexposes the failure of contemporary Judaism most remorselessly, he\nasserts that \"we establish the Law.\"  The true inner meaning of the\ndivine revelation granted in the Old Testament _is_ fulfilled in\nChrist.  Not only so, but Christ Himself was \"the servant of the\ncircumcision,\" living \"under the Law.\"  The limits which He imposed\nupon His own ministry (xv. 24) and that of His apostles (x. 5) were\nentirely fitting until Christ at His resurrection laid aside all that\nwas peculiarly Jewish with its limits and humiliations.\n\n{46}\n\nANALYSIS[11]\n\nThe infancy of our Lord: i. 1-ii. 23.--Genealogy from Abraham,\nannouncement to Joseph, birth, visit of Magi, flight into Egypt,\nmassacre of innocents, settlement at Nazareth.\n\n\nA.\n\nWinter A.D. 26 till after Pentecost 27.\n\nThe preparation for the ministry: iii. 1-iv. 11.--\n\nThe ministry of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, the\nthreefold temptation.\n\n\nB.\n\nPentecost A.D. 27 till before Passover 28.\n\nThe preaching of the kingdom of God by Jesus in Galilee: iv. 12-xiii.\n58.--The call of the four fishermen, Jesus preaches and heals (iv.).\nThe Sermon on the Mount--Jesus fulfils the law, the deeper teaching\nconcerning the commandments (v.).  False and true almsgiving, prayer\nand fasting, worldliness, trust in God (vi.).  Censoriousness,\ndiscrimination in teaching, encouragements to prayer, false prophets,\nthe two houses (vii.).  The ministry at Capernaum and by the lake is\nillustrated by the record of many works of _Messianic healing power_\n(viii.-ix.), the apostles are chosen and receive a charge (x.), and the\nministry is illustrated by words and parables of _Messianic wisdom_\n(xi.-xiii.).  We find a growing hostility on the part of the scribes\nand Pharisees (ix. 11; ix. 34; xii. 2, xii. 14; xii. 24).  Jesus\nreturns to Nazareth (xiii. 53-58).\n\n[Perplexity of Herod and death of John the Baptist, xiv. 1-12.]\n\n{47}\n\nC.\n\nPassover A.D. 28 till before Tabernacles 28.\n\nClimax of missionary work in Galilee: xiv. 13-xviii. 35.--Christ feeds\nthe 5000, walks on the sea, heals the sick in Gennesaret (xiv.).\nChrist now labours chiefly in the dominions of Herod Philip, the\njourneys are more plainly marked in Mark.  Teaching about defilement,\nthe Canaanite woman, Christ feeds the 4000 (xv.).\n\nLeaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Peter's confession of Christ,\nChrist's first prediction of His death (xvi.).  Transfiguration,\nlunatic boy cured, second prediction of death, the shekel in the fish's\nmouth (xvii.).  Treatment of children, Christ saving lost sheep,\nforgiveness (xviii.).\n\n\nD.\n\nTabernacles, September A.D. 28 until early 29.\n\nThe ministry in Peraea; xix. i-xx. 34.--Christ forbids divorce, He\nblesses children, the rich young man, the difficulties of the rich\n(xix.).  Parable of the labourers, Christ's third prediction of His\ndeath, the request of the mother of Zebedee's children, the two blind\nmen of Jericho (xx.).\n\n\nE.\n\nPassover A.D. 29.\n\nLast days at Jerusalem, and afterwards: xxi. 1-xxviii. 20.--Entry into\nJerusalem, the cleansing of the temple, the withered fig tree, Christ\nchallenged, parable of the vineyard (xxi.).  The marriage feast, three\nquestions to entrap Christ, His question (xxii.).  On not seeking chief\nplaces, denunciation of scribes and Pharisees, lament over Jerusalem\n(xxiii.).\n\nPredictions of destruction of temple, siege of Jerusalem, the second\ncoming (xxiv.), three discourses on the judgment (xxv.).\n\n{48}\n\nThe Council discuss how they may arrest Jesus, the woman with the\nointment, Judas' bargain, the Passover, Gethsemane, the betrayal, the\ntrial before Caiaphas, Peter's denial (xxvi.).  Jesus delivered to\nPilate, Judas' suicide, Jesus tried by Pilate, Jesus and Barabbas, the\nmockery, crucifixion, burial by Joseph of Arimathaea, guard granted by\nPilate (xxvii.).\n\nThe women at the sepulchre, the angel, Jesus meets them, the guard\nbribed, Jesus meets the eleven in Galilee, His commission to baptize\nand teach (xxviii.).\n\n\n_Note on the Date of Matthew._--Irenaeus, apparently following Papias,\nsays, \"Matthew published a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their\nown dialect, Peter and Paul preaching the Gospel at Rome\" (_Adv. Haer._\niii. 1).  This would fix the date of the Hebrew Matt. about A.D. 63, if\nit was the intention of Irenaeus to give chronological information in\nthis sentence.  But the context makes it more probable that this is not\nthe case, and that he simply wished to make it clear that the teaching\nof the four chief apostles, Peter and Paul, Matthew and John, has come\ndown to us in writing.  That of Matthew and John survives in their\nGospels, that of Peter and Paul, though they wrote no Gospels, survives\nin Mark and Luke.  Eusebius, in his _Chronicle_ dates the composition\nin A.D. 41.  This he probably does in order to make it fit with the\nsupposed departure of the apostles from Jerusalem after twelve years\nfrom the Crucifixion.  His statement is very improbable.  At any rate\nour Greek Matt. must have been written after Mark.  The frequent\nquotations from it in primitive literature from the Epistle of Barnabas\nand the _Didach\u00e9_ onwards, bear witness both to its early date and its\nhigh authority.  Internal evidence points to the same conclusion.  In\naddition to what is said above (p. 38), we may note some passages\nlikely to perplex the reader.  Such are ii. 23, \"the ass _and the\ncolt_\" in xxi. 7, the \"three days and _three nights_ in the belly of\nthe whale\" mentioned as typical of Christ's rest in the tomb (xii. 40),\nthe absence of all reference to the _burning_ of the temple in xxiv. 2,\nthe reference to Zachariah the son of Barachiah (xxiii. 35; contrast 2\nChron. xxiv. 20).  Such verses would probably have been altered if the\nGospel had not gained an authoritative position at a very early date.\n\n\n\n[1] Strom. iv. 9.\n\n[2] Eusebius, _H. E._ iii. 39.\n\n[3] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1.\n\n[4] _De Vir, Ill._ 3.\n\n[5] _In Matt._ xii. 13.\n\n[6] _Con. Pelag._ iii. 1.\n\n[7] So Prof. Armitage Robinson, _Expositor_, March, 1897.\n\n[8] Batiffol, _Six Le\u00e7ons sur les Evangiles_, p. 48.\n\n[9] Burton, _Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of New Testament Greek_,\npp. 92-95.\n\n[10] In this Gospel only is sin called \"lawlessness.\"\n\n[11] These analyses of the Gospels are not complete, but are arranged\nwith the hope that the readers, by studying all the four, may gain a\nclearer conception of the life of our Lord.\n\n\n\n\n{49}\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nJohn Mark was the son of a Mary who was an influential member of the\nChurch at Jerusalem, as the Church met in her house (Acts xii. 12).  He\nwas a cousin of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10), who had been a man of some\nproperty.  It has been thought that Mark was the \"young man\" referred\nto in the account given by this Gospel of the arrest of Jesus in the\ngarden.  To others the incident would probably have appeared\ninsignificant.  He lived at Jerusalem during the famine in A.D. 45, and\nBarnabas took him to Antioch on returning thither from Jerusalem at\nthat time.  He accompanied St. Paul and St. Barnabas on St. Paul's\nfirst missionary journey, and laboured with them at Salamis in Cyprus.\nIt is possible that Acts xiii. 5 means that John Mark had been a\n\"minister\" of the synagogue at Salamis.  At any rate, the Greek can be\nso interpreted.  After crossing from Paphos to the mainland of Asia\nMinor, the missionaries arrived at Perga.  Here St. Paul made the great\nresolve to extend the gospel beyond the Taurus mountains.  St. Mark\ndetermined to leave him.  Perhaps he was not prepared for so\nmagnificent an undertaking as a \"work\" which included the conversion of\nthe Gentiles (Acts xiv. 27), or for the substitution of the leadership\nof St. Paul for that of St. Barnabas.\n\nSt. Mark returned to Jerusalem, and was again at Antioch about the time\nof St. Paul's rebuke of St. Peter.  Possibly St. Mark followed the\nexample of most of the Jewish Christians at Antioch in inducing St.\nPeter and St. Barnabas to withdraw from {50} fellowship with the\nGentile converts.  Whether he did so or not, it is certain that St.\nPaul refused to take St. Mark with him on his second missionary\njourney, A.D. 49.  St. Barnabas then went home to Cyprus with St. Mark.\nWe hear no more of the future evangelist until A.D. 60, when we find\nthat he is with St. Paul in Rome, and completely reconciled to him.  He\nis the apostle's \"fellow-worker\" and his \"comfort\" (Col. iv. 11;\nPhilem. 24).  About four years later, St. Paul, in writing shortly\nbefore his martyrdom to Timothy, requests him to come to Rome by the\nshortest route, and to take up Mark on the way, \"for he is useful to me\nfor ministering\" (2 Tim. iv. 11).  The last notice that we have of St.\nMark in the New Testament illustrates how complete a harmony had been\neffected between the expansive theology of St. Paul and the once\ncramped policy of St. Peter and St. Mark.  In his First Epistle St.\nPeter refers to \"Mark, my son,\" and his words make it certain that the\ntwo friends were then together at Babylon, _i.e._ Rome.\n\nIn the 4th century it was widely believed that St. Mark was the founder\nof Christianity in Alexandria, and the first bishop of the see which\nwas afterwards ruled by St. Athanasius and St. Cyril.  It is important\nto notice that this tradition appears first in Eusebius, and is not\nmentioned in the extant works of Clement and Origen, the great\nluminaries of the early Alexandrian Church.  But it seems to be too\nwell supported by the great writers of the 4th century for us to regard\nit as a fabrication.  If the tale is true, St. Mark must have brought\nChristianity to Alexandria either after the death of St. Peter about\nA.D. 65, or about A.D. 55, in the interval between his separation from\nSt. Paul and his stay with him at Rome.\n\nThe early Fathers, so far as their testimony remains, are unanimous in\nascribing this Gospel to St. Mark, and they are equally unanimous in\ntracing the work of St. Mark to the influence of St. Peter.  Justin\nMartyr speaks of the \"Memoirs of Peter\" when referring to a statement\nwhich we find in {51} Mark iii. 17.  Papias closely associates the two\nsaints in his account of the Gospel, and gives us his information on\nthe authority of John the Presbyter, who was a disciple of the Lord.\nIrenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen say practically\nthe same thing.  This evidence is overwhelming, and it is\nuncontradicted by any early authority.  The statement of Papias is as\nfollows: \"And the elder said this also: Mark, having become the\ninterpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he\nremembered of the things that were either said or done by Christ; but,\nhowever, not in order.  For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he\nfollow Him; but afterwards, as I said, he attended Peter, who adapted\nhis instructions to the needs of his hearers, but had no design of\ngiving a connected account of the Lord's words.  So then Mark committed\nno error in thus writing down certain things as he remembered them; for\nhe made it his special care not to omit anything that he heard, or to\nset down any false statement therein.\" [1]  By calling St. Mark an\n_interpreter_, Papias perhaps means that he translated statements made\nin Aramaic into Greek, which was the language most used by the\nChristians of Rome until the 3rd century after Christ.  By saying that\nSt. Mark wrote _not in order_, Papias probably means that the Gospel is\nnot a systematic history of all our Lord's ministry, or an orderly\narrangement of subjects placed together with a view to instruction like\nthose in Matthew.  So far as we are able to test them, the facts are\nrelated chronologically in the great majority of cases.\n\nPapias does not tell us when St. Mark wrote his Gospel.  Irenaeus\nwrites: \"Matthew also published a written Gospel among the Hebrews in\ntheir own dialect, Peter and Paul preaching the Gospel at Rome, and\nlaying the foundations of the Church.  After their departure, Mark, the\ndisciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the\nthings that had been preached by Peter.\" [2] {52} St. Peter and St.\nPaul probably died not later than A.D. 65.  Eusebius quotes from\nClement of Alexandria \"that Peter having publicly preached the word at\nRome, and having spoken the Gospel by the Spirit, many present exhorted\nMark to write the things which had been spoken, since he had long\naccompanied Peter, and remembered what he had said; and that when he\nhad composed the Gospel, he delivered it to them who had asked it of\nhim, which when Peter knew, he neither forbad nor encouraged it.\" [3]\nClement is here relying upon \"the presbyters of old,\" and the antiquity\nof the tradition is proved by the fact that it does not claim St.\nPeter's direct sanction for the Gospel.  Both Irenaeus and Clement were\nprobably born about A.D. 130, or earlier.  Irenaeus was acquainted with\nRome, where St. Peter taught, while Clement lived at Alexandria, where\nSt. Mark was probably bishop.  Moreover, Clement's office of\nhead-catechist at Alexandria had been previously held by at least three\npredecessors, who must have handed down traditions of first-rate value.\nThe testimony of Clement with regard to St. Mark is not inconsistent\nwith that of Irenaeus.  The Gospel was probably written while St. Peter\nwas alive, and when he was dead, was given to the Church.  Possibly it\nunderwent some revision before publication.  Now, as St. Peter\nevidently had not taught in Rome when St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the\nRomans in A.D. 56, and as St. Mark was in Rome when he wrote the\nEpistle to the Colossians in A.D. 60, we may reasonably date this\nGospel about A.D. 62.  It seems to be later than Colossians, as there\nis no indication of St. Peter's being in Rome when that Epistle was\nwritten.\n\n[Sidenote: Literary Style.]\n\nThe internal evidence afforded by the Gospel strongly corroborates the\nbelief that it was based upon the discourses of one who had been with\nour Lord during His ministry.  It is marked by a vivid and dramatic\nrealism.  There is a fondness for rapid transitions from one scene to\nanother, as may be illustrated by the {53} fact that the Greek word for\n\"immediately\" occurs no less than forty-one times.  In i. 27 the actual\nform of an original dialogue is shown in the abrupt and broken\nsentences employed.  St. Mark uses different tenses of the Greek\nverb--present, perfect, imperfect, and aorist--with singular freedom,\nnot because he did not know Greek well enough to write with more\nregularity, but because he is carried away by his interest in the facts\nwhich he relates.  The student will find good instances of this\ninterchange of tenses in v. 15 ff.; vi. 14 ff.; viii. 35; ix. 34 ff.\nSt. Mark's language shows that he was well acquainted with the Greek\nversion of the Old Testament, which has exercised considerable\ninfluence on his style.\n\nThere are many picturesque phrases, such as \"the heavens rent\" (i. 10)\nand \"devour houses\" (xii. 40).  There are little redundancies in which\nthe author repeats his thoughts with a fresh shade of meaning, as \"at\neven, when the sun did set\" (i. 32); \"he looked steadfastly, and was\nrestored, and saw all things clearly\" (viii. 25); \"all that she had,\neven all her living\" (xii. 44).  There is a frequent use of popular\ndiminutives, such as words for \"little boat,\" \"little daughter,\"\n\"little dog.\"  This is probably due to provincial Custom, and may be\ncompared with the fondness shown in some parts of Scotland for words\nsuch as \"boatie,\" \"lassie\" or \"lassock,\" etc.  There are several\nHebraisms.  Some of the Greek words are frankly plebeian, such as a\nforeigner would pick up without realizing that they were inelegant.\nThere are also some Aramaic words and phrases which the writer inserts\nwith a true artistic sense and then interprets--_Boanerges_ (iii. 17),\n_Talitha cumi_ (v. 41), _Corban_ (vii. 11), _Ephphatha_ (vii. 34),\n_Abba_ (xiv. 36), and _Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani_[4] (xv. 34).  The\nGreek also contains numerous grammatical irregularities which betray\nthe hand of a foreigner, {54} as in ii. 26; iv. 22; vi. 52; vii. 4, 19;\nix. 18, xi.32; xiii. 34.  The use of participles is clumsy, especially\nin the account of the woman with the issue of blood (v. 25 ff.).\nFinally, there are more Latin words and idioms than in any of the other\nGospels.  Latin idioms may be seen in v. 23 and xv. 15, and instances\nof Latin words are _speculator_ (vi. 27), _centurion_ (xv. 39),\n_sextarius_ (vii. 4), _denarius_ (vi. 37), _quadrans_ (xii. 42).  In\nxii. 42, xv. 16, Greek words are explained in Latin.\n\nThese facts corroborate the tradition that the writer was a Palestinian\nwho stayed in Rome, and knew personally some one who had exceptional\nknowledge of our Lord's actual words.\n\nThe narrative is particularly fresh, and abounds in vivid details such\nas would have been likely to linger in St. Peter's memory.  The green\ngrass whereon the crowds sat, and the appearance of flower-beds which\nthey presented in their gay costume (vi. 39, 40); the stern of the\nboat, and the pillow whereon our Lord slept (iv. 38); the Gerasene\ndemoniac cutting himself with stones (v. 5); the woman who was a\nSyro-Phoenician but spoke Greek (vii. 26); Jesus taking children in His\narms (ix. 36; x. 16); the street where the colt was tied (xi. 4); the\ntwo occasions on which the cock crew (xiv. 68, 72); and St. Peter\nwarming himself in the light of the fire (xiv. 54);--such are some of\nthe instances of the writer's fidelity in recording the impressions of\nhis teacher.  This Gospel also abounds in proper names, both of places\nand persons.  Among the latter may be mentioned the name of Bartimaeus,\nthe blind beggar (x. 46); the names of Alexander and Rufus, the sons of\nSimon of Cyrene (xv. 21); Salome, the mother of Zebedee's children (xv.\n40); and Boanerges, their surname (iii. 17).  Equally remarkable is the\nmanner in which the emotions of our Lord and others are recorded.  We\nnotice the indignation and grief which He felt in the synagogue (iii.\n5); His compassion for the unshepherded people (vi. 34); His deep sigh\nat the sceptical demand for a sign from heaven (viii. 12), {55} His\ndispleasure at the disciples for keeping the children from Him (x. 14);\nHis undisguised love for the rich young man who yet lacked one thing\n(x. 21); His tragic walk in front of the apostles (x. 32); the\nintensity of feeling with which He was driven into the wilderness (i.\n12), and overturned the tables and seats in the temple (xi. 15).  St.\nMark always seems to be painting our Lord from the life.\n\nIn spite of the fact that St. Mark shows that he knew well how to\ncompress the material which was at his disposal, there is hardly a\nstory which he narrates in common with the other synoptists without\nsome special feature.  We may notice the imploring words of the father\nof the lunatic boy (ix. 2), the spoken blessing on little children (x.\n16), the view of the temple (xiii. 3), and Pilate's question of the\ncenturion (xv. 44).  None of these things are narrated in the other\nGospels.  In ix. 2-13 we have the story of the Transfiguration, with\nthe statement that the garments of our Lord \"became glistering,\nexceeding white; _so as no fuller on earth can whiten them_.\"  We are\nalso told that St. Peter then addressed our Lord as \"Rabbi,\" and that\n\"he wist not what to answer.\"  The same significant phrase, \"they wist\nnot what to answer Him,\" occurs in St. Mark's account of the agony in\nthe garden (xiv. 40).  These are only a few instances out of many which\nshow St. Mark's originality, and they are just such personal\nreminiscences as we might expect St. Peter to retain.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nJust as the style is realistic and the narrative circumstantial, so the\ncontents are practical.  \"He went about doing good\" is the impression\nwhich this Gospel gives us of our Lord.  The teaching which He\nannounced to the people is made less prominent than in Matt.  If we\ncount even the shortest similitudes as parables, we find only nine\nparables in Mark.  Equally remarkable is the absence of quotations made\nby the writer.  He records numerous references made by our Lord to the\nOld Testament, though fewer than Matt. or Luke, but the only quotations\nmade by St. Mark {56} himself are in i. 2, 3 (Mal. iii. 1; Isa. xl. 3)\nand xv. 28 (Isa. liii. 12).  On the other hand, we find eighteen\nmiracles, only two less than in the much longer Gospel of St. Matthew.\nThe theological tone of Mark may be described as neutral.  There is no\ntrace of the innocent preferences which Matt. and Luke show toward this\nor that aspect of the teaching of Jesus.  In Mark we do not find so\nstrong an approval of the more permanent parts of the Jewish Law, or so\nstrong a denunciation of the Pharisees who exalted the external\nadjuncts of the Law, as we find in Matt.  Nor do we find such parables\nas the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, by which Luke lays emphasis\nupon the truth that the Jews have no monopoly of holiness, and that the\noutcast is welcome to the gospel.  Mark is less Jewish than Matt., less\nGentile and Pauline than Luke.  It used to be said that this was the\nresult of \"trimming,\" and intended to bridge over the differences\nbetween two different schools of theology.  But the charge has broken\ndown.  St. Mark, though not anti-Jewish, regards Christ as above the\nlaw of the sabbath (ii. 28), and teaches the necessity of new external\nreligious forms (ii. 22).  Though he is not Jewish, and though he omits\nthe statement made in Matt. xv. 24, a statement indicating that the\nJews had the first right to be taught by the Messiah, he does record,\nlike Matt., the still harder statement of the same fact made to the\nSyro-Phoenician woman (vii. 27).  The truth is that St. Mark is neutral\nsimply in the sense that he faithfully records a story which was\nmoulded before doctrinal conflicts had taken place between Christian\nbelievers.  The doctrine of St. Mark is archaic.\n\nOne of the most distinctive features of this Gospel is the decisive\nclearness with which it shows how Jesus trained and educated His\ndisciples.  The simplicity with which St. Mark describes the faults of\nthe friends of our Lord is as remarkable as the vigour with which the\ngestures and feelings of our Lord are portrayed.  St. Mark relates how\nthat early in the ministry of Jesus, His friends (iii. 21) said that He\nwas mad, and that \"His {57} mother and His brethren\" (iii. 31) sought\nto bring Him back.  The discipline and education of the disciples are\nrecorded with a plain revelation of their mistakes and their spiritual\ndulness.  When they had settled in Capernaum Christ shows them that He\nmust find a wider sphere of work (i. 38); He meets with a significant\nsilence their obtrusive remonstrance when the woman with the issue of\nblood caused Him to ask, \"Who touched My clothes?\" (v. 30, 31); He\ntells them with affectionate care \"to rest a while,\" when they had been\ntoo busy even to eat (vi. 31); He rebukes them gravely when they put a\nchildish interpretation upon His command to beware of the leaven of the\nPharisees and of Herod, the formalists and the Erastian (viii. 17);\nthey are unintelligent and uninquiring when He prophesies His death and\nresurrection (ix. 32), and after this prophecy they actually dispute\nabout their own precedence (ix. 34); when Christ goes boldly forward to\nJerusalem, they follow with fear and hesitation (x. 32); He rebukes the\nniggardly criticism of those who were indignant with the \"waste\" of the\nperfume poured upon His head (xiv. 6); and in Gethsemane \"they all left\nHim and fled\" (xiv. 50).\n\nAmong these disciples, St. Peter is prominent, and though his\nconfession of the Messiahship of Jesus is recorded, a confession which\nis necessarily central in the Gospel (viii. 29), St. Mark neither\nrecords that our Lord designed him as the rock, nor his commission to\nfeed the Lord's lambs and sheep.  On the other hand, St. Mark inserts\nthings which were often of a nature to humble St. Peter.  He records\nthe crushing reprimand which he received when he criticized the Lord's\nmission (viii. 33); it was Peter's fanciful plan to erect three\ntabernacles on the scene of the Transfiguration (ix. 5), it was Peter\nwho informed the Lord that the fig tree had withered after His curse\n(xi. 21), it was Peter whom Christ awoke in Gethsemane by uttering his\nname \"Simon\" (xiv. 37); and Peter's denial appears doubly guilty in\nthis Gospel, inasmuch as he did not repent until the cock crew _twice_\n(xiv. 68, 72).  At the {58} beginning (iii. 16) and at the end (xvi. 7)\nPeter occupies a special position.  But the conduct of Peter is\nnarrated in a fashion which renders the notion of fiction quite\nimpossible.  The Gospel cannot have been written by a hero-worshipper\nwishing to glorify a saint of old, but must surely have been written by\n\"the interpreter of Peter.\"\n\nIn comparing the contents of Mark with those of Matt. and Luke, we are\nstruck by the absence of many of our Lord's discourses.  Yet we find an\neschatological discourse about the second coming in xiii., though much\nshorter than those in Matt. xxiv. and xxv. The genuineness of Mark\nxiii. has been assailed, and it has been described as an apocalyptic\n\"fly-sheet,\" which was somehow inserted in the Gospel.  There is no\nreason for believing this theory to be true.  The chapter was in Mark\nwhen it was incorporated into Matthew, and its teaching agrees with\nthat attributed to our Lord in the collections of Logia.  We have also\nthe beginning of the charge given to the apostles (vi. 7-11; cf. Matt.\nx.).  There are a few echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and only a\nspecimen of the final denunciation of the Pharisees, which occupies a\nwhole chapter in Matt.  (Mark xii. 38-40, cf. Matt. xxiii.).  We find a\nfew statements made by our Lord which are peculiar to this Gospel:\n_e.g._--\"the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath\"\n(ii. 27), \"foolishness\" coming from the heart (vii. 22); \"every\nsacrifice shall be salted with salt\" (ix. 49); \"Father, all things are\npossible unto Thee,\" in the touching filial appeal during the agony\n(xiv. 36).  Here alone have we the tiny parable about the growth of the\nblade of corn (iv. 26), and that of the porter commanded to watch until\nthe master's return (xiii. 34).  There are two miracles peculiar to\nMark, the cure of the deaf-mute (vii. 32) and of the blind man at\nBethsaida (viii. 22).  Among the miracles recorded in Mark, the cures\nof demoniacs are prominent.  This is in peculiar contrast with John,\nwhere we find no cure of demoniacs recorded.\n\nIn marked contrast to St. Luke, St. Mark appears indifferent {59} to\nthe political conditions of the countries where our Lord worked.  Thus\nHerod Antipas is simply called \"the king\" (vi. 14), whereas both in\nMatt. and Luke he is correctly called by the title of \"tetrarch,\" which\nonly implies governorship of a portion of a country.  Yet the narrative\nof St. Mark shows that he was quite aware of facts which can only be\nexplained by the political conditions which he does not describe.  He\nknows that Tyre and Sidon, Caesarea Philippi and Bethsaida, which were\nnot under Herod Antipas, were more safe for our Lord than Capernaum.\nAnd he knows that in travelling to Jerusalem He was in greater danger\nthan while He remained in Galilee, and was meeting His doom at the\nsentence of Gentile officials.  Although St. Mark is silent as to the\nnames of many of the places which our Lord visited, he gives us\nnumerous indications of the various scenes of our Lord's labours.  We\nare thus able to fix the geographical surroundings of nearly all the\nmore important events, and construct an intelligible plan of our Lord's\nministry.  We can see how He made the shores of the lake of Gennesaret\nthe focus of His mission, and went on evangelistic journeys from\nCapernaum into Galilee.  The time of these journeys was largely\ndetermined by circumstances, such as the unregulated enthusiasm of the\nmob, the spite of the scribes at Capernaum, or the anger of Herod's\ncourt at Tiberias.  Towards the end of the ministry in Galilee our Lord\ndevoted Himself to the deeper instruction of His Apostles and their\ninitiation into the mystery of His death (vii. 24 ff.; viii. 27 ff.).\nFor such teaching the mountain slopes of Lebanon and Hermon afforded\nscenes of perfect calm and beauty.\n\n\n{60}\n\nANALYSIS\n\nA.\n\nWinter A.D. 26 till after Pentecost 27.\n\nThe preparation for the ministry; i. 1-13.--The mission of John the\nBaptist and the baptism of Jesus, the temptation.\n\n\nB.\n\nPentecost A.D. 27 till before Passover 28.\n\nThe ministry of Jesus in Galilee, journeys from Capernaum; i. 14-vi.\n13.--The call of the four fishermen, Jesus preaches and heals at\nCapernaum (i. 14-34).\n\n_First missionary journey, in towns of Galilee_: leper cleansed, return\nto Capernaum (i. 38-ii. 1).  Work in Capernaum, five grounds of offence\nagainst Jesus, Jesus followed by crowds of hearers on the sea-shore\n(ii. 2-iii. 12).  Appointment of the twelve, Christ accused of alliance\nwith Satan, the unpardonable sin, Christ's relation to His mother and\nbrethren.  He begins to teach in parables about the kingdom (iii.\n13-iv. 34).\n\n_Second missionary journey, on the eastern shore of the lake of\nGennesaret_: the storm calmed, Gerasene demoniac and swine (iv. 35-v.\n20).  Return to the western shore, the cure of the woman who touched\nHis garment, Jairus' daughter raised (v. 21-43).\n\n_Third missionary journey, in the western highlands_, including\nNazareth, where He is rejected, and adjacent villages, the mission of\nthe twelve (vi. 1-13).\n\n[Perplexity of Herod and death of John the Baptist, vi. 14-29.]\n\n{61}\n\nC.\n\nPassover A.D. 28 till before Tabernacles 28.\n\nClimax of missionary work in Galilee, journeys from Capernaum; vi.\n30-ix. 50.--Christ in a desert place feeds the 5000, visits Bethsaida,\nwalks on the sea, returns to Gennesaret, heals many (vi. 30-56).\nTeaching about defilement (vii. 1-23).\n\n_Fourth missionary journey, to the north-west into Phoenicia_: the\nSyro-Phoenician woman, departure from Tyre and Sidon, approach to the\nsea of Galilee through Decapolis, cure of the deaf-mute (vii. 24-37).\nChrist feeds the 4000 (viii. 1-9) Christ takes ship to Dalmanutha,\nPharisees seek a sign, Jesus takes ship to the other side, the leaven\nof the Pharisees and of Herod, cure of a blind man at Bethsaida (viii.\n10-26).\n\n_Fifth journey, to towns of Caesarea Philippi, special teaching of the\nselect few_: Peter's confession of Christ, Christ's first prediction of\nHis death (viii. 27-ix. 1).  Transfiguration, lunatic boy cured,\njourney through Galilee, second prediction of death, arrival at\nCapernaum, the value of a child's example, the danger of causing one to\nstumble (ix. 2-50).\n\n\nD.\n\nTabernacles, September A.D. 28 until early 29.\n\nJourney to Jerusalem through Peraea: x.--Christ forbids divorce,\nblesses children, the rich young man, the difficulties of the rich,\nChrist's third prediction of His death, the request of Zebedee's sons,\nChrist's announcement of His mission to serve, blind Bartimaeus cured\nat Jericho.\n\n\n{62}\n\nE.\n\nPassover A.D. 29.\n\nLast days at Jerusalem, and afterwards; xi. 1-xvi. 20.--Entry into\nJerusalem, the withered fig-tree, cleansing of the temple, the duty of\nforgiveness, Christ challenged (xi.).  The parable of the vineyard,\nthree questions to entrap Christ, His question, denunciation of\nscribes, the widow's mites (xii.).\n\nPredictions of destruction of temple, of woes and of the second coming\n(xiii.).\n\nThe Council discuss how they may arrest Jesus, the woman with the\nointment, Judas' bargain, the Passover, Gethsemane, the betrayal, the\ntrial before the Council, Peter's denial (xiv.).  Jesus delivered to\nPilate, trial, Jesus and Barabbas, the mockery, crucifixion, burial by\nJoseph of Arimathaea (xv.).\n\nThe women at the sepulchre, the angel (xvi. 1-8).\n\nAppendix with summary of appearances of the Lord (xvi. 9-20).\n\n\n_Note on the Concluding Section._--The origin of xvi. 9-20 is one of\nthe most difficult of questions, (a) The section is not found in the\ntwo famous Greek MSS., the Vatican and the Sinaitic, nor is it found in\nthe very ancient Sinaitic Syriac MS.  It is also lacking in one Latin\nMS. (k), which represents the Latin version used before St. Jerome made\nthe Vulgate translation, about A.D. 384.  The great scholar Eusebius,\nA.D. 320, omitted it from his \"canons,\" which contain parallel passages\nfrom the three Gospels.  (b) The language does not resemble the Greek\nemployed in other parts of the Gospels, differing from it in some small\nparticulars which most strongly suggest diversity of authorship.  (c)\nMuch of the section might have been constructed out of the other\nGospels and Acts; _e.g._ ver. 9 is thought to be derived from John xx.\n14, and ver. 14 from John xx. 26-29.  (d) Mary Magdalene is introduced\nas though she had not been mentioned previously; but she has already\nappeared thrice in Mark (xv. 40, 47; xvi. 1).  On the other hand, it is\nobvious that the Gospel could never have ended with the words \"for they\n{63} were afraid,\" in ver. 8.  All the old Latin MSS. contain the\npresent section except k, and perhaps originally A.  The evidence of\nthe Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS. is not so strong as it appears to be\nat first sight.  The end of Mark in the Sinaitic was actually written\nby the same scribe as the man who wrote the New Testament in the\nVatican MS.  And the way in which he has arranged the conclusion of the\nGospel in both MSS. suggests that the MSS. from which the Sinaitic and\nthe Vatican were copied, both contained this or a similar section.\nMoreover, there is considerable reason for thinking that he acted under\nthe personal influence of Eusebius.  The verses are attested by\nIrenaeus, and apparently by Justin and Hermas, and were therefore\nregarded as authentic, or at least as truthful, by educated men at\nLyons and Rome, in the 2nd century.  A possible solution is offered by\nan Armenian MS. (A.D. 986), which assigns the section to the \"presbyter\nAriston.\"  This is probably the presbyter Aristion whom Papias\ndescribes as a disciple of the Lord (Eusebius, _H. E._ iii. 39).  The\nconclusion of St. Mark's MS. probably became accidentally detached, and\nvanished soon after his death, and the Church may well have requested\none who knew the Lord to supply the deficiency.\n\n\n\n[1] Eusebius, _H. E._ iii. 39.\n\n[2] _Op. cit._ iii. 39.\n\n[3] Eusebius, _H. E._ vi. 14.\n\n[4] Also in Matt. xxvii. 46.  Observe also the explanation of Beelzebub\n(iii. 22), Gehenna (ix. 43), Bartimaeus (x. 46), Golgotha (xv. 22).\nAlso the explanation of Jewish customs in vii. 3, 4; xiv. 12.\n\n\n\n\n{64}\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe evidence for believing that the third Gospel was written by St.\nLuke, the friend of St. Paul, is very strong.  In the 2nd century both\nthis Gospel and Acts were attributed to him.  St. Irenaeus, about A.D.\n185, writes: \"Luke, also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the\ngospel preached by him.\" [1]  A few years earlier the author of the\n_Muratorian Fragment_ wrote the words, \"The third book of the Gospel,\nthat according to Luke.\"\n\nAccording to Eusebius and Jerome and an unknown writer of the 3rd\ncentury, St. Luke was a native of Antioch in Syria.  Of this we seem to\nhave confirmation in the full account given in Acts of the Church at\nAntioch.  It is shown by Col. iv. 14 that he was a Gentile, as there is\na distinction drawn between him and those \"of the circumcision.\"  From\nthe same passage we learn that he was a physician.  Traces of his\nprofession have been discovered in the frequency with which he\ndescribes the _healing_ wrought by Christ and His apostles (iv. 18, 23;\nix. 1, 2, 6; x. 9; xxii. 51), and the occasional use of terms which a\nphysician was more likely to employ than other people (iv. 38; v. 12;\nvi. 19; xxii. 44).  It is very possible that it is St. Luke who is\ndescribed (2 Cor. viii. 18) as \"the brother whose praise in the gospel\nis spread through all the Churches.\"  This tradition can be traced as\nfar back as Origen.  The fact that he was a dear friend of St. Paul is\n{65} shown by the epithet \"beloved\" in Col. iv. 14; by the fact that he\nis one of the \"fellow-workers\" who send greetings from Rome when St.\nPaul, who was imprisoned there, wrote to Philemon; and by the touching\nstatement in 2 Tim. iv. 11, where St. Paul, as he awaits his death,\nwrites, \"Only Luke is with me.\"\n\nSt. Luke's relations with St. Paul are further illustrated from Acts.\nThe literary resemblances between this Gospel and Acts are so numerous\nand so subtle that the tradition which ascribes both books to one\nauthor cannot reasonably be controverted.  The passages in Acts which\ncontain the word \"we\" show that the writer of Acts accompanied St. Paul\nfrom Troas to Philippi in A.D. 50, when the apostle made his first\nmissionary journey in Europe (Acts xvi. 10-17).  The apostle left him\nat Philippi.  About six years afterwards St. Paul was again at\nPhilippi, and there met St. Luke, who travelled with him to Jerusalem\n(Acts xx. 5-xxi. 18); he also was with the apostle when he made the\nvoyage to Rome, and was shipwrecked with him at Malta.  A writer of the\n3rd century (quoted in Wordsworth's _Vulgate_, p. 269) tells us that\nSt. Luke had neither wife nor children, and died in Bithynia at the age\nof seventy-four.  A writer of the 6th century asserts that St. Luke was\na painter, and attributes to him a certain picture of the Blessed\nVirgin.  Another such picture is preserved in the great church of S.\nMaria Maggiore at Rome.  The legend finds no support in early Christian\nwriters.  At the same time, it bears witness to the fact that this\nGospel contains the elements of beauty in especial richness.  It is the\nwork of St. Luke that inspired Fra Angelico's pictures of the\nAnnunciation, and the English hymn \"Abide with me.\"\n\nAlthough St. Irenaeus is the first writer who names St. Luke as the\nauthor of the third Gospel, the Gospel is quoted by earlier writers.\nSpecial mention must be made of (1) _Justin Martyr_.  He records\nseveral facts only found in this Gospel, _e.g._ Elisabeth as the mother\nof John the Baptist, the census {66} under Quirinius, and the cry,\n\"Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit.\"  (2) _Celsus_, the pagan\nphilosopher, who opposed Christianity.  He refers to the genealogy\nwhich narrates that Jesus was descended from the first man.  (3) The\n_Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne_, written in A.D. 177.  (4)\n_Marcion_.  He endeavoured to found a system of theology which he\npretended to be in accordance with the teaching of St. Paul.  He\nrejected the Old Testament as the work of an evil god, and asserted\nthat St. Paul was the only apostle who was free from the taint of\nJudaism.  The only Gospel which he kept was that according to St. Luke,\nwhich he retained as agreeing with the teaching of St. Paul.  The\ncontents of Marcion's Gospel can be largely discovered in Tertullian.\nThe differences which existed between Marcion's Gospel and our Luke can\nbe easily accounted for.  Here, as in St. Paul's Epistles, he simply\naltered the passages which did not agree with his own interpretation of\nSt. Paul's doctrine.  For instance, in Luke xiii. 28, instead of\n\"Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,\" he put \"the righteous.\"  The account\nof our Lord's birth and infancy he omitted, because he did not believe\nthat our Lord's human body was thoroughly human and real.  An\ninteresting modern parallel to Marcion's New Testament can be found in\nEngland.  At the beginning of the 19th century the English Unitarians\ncirculated large numbers of an English version of the New Testament in\nwhich were altered all the passages in the English Authorised Version\nwhich imply that Jesus is God.  The translators of this Unitarian\nversion accepted the Gospels of the New Testament as genuine, although\nthey used unscrupulous methods to support their assertion that the New\nTestament is Unitarian.  In the same way Marcion, although he made\nunscrupulous alterations in Luke in order to prove that it was really\nMarcionite, obviously accepted it as a genuine work of the apostolic\nage.\n\nThe Preface of the Gospel begins with a ceremonious dedication to a\nperson of high rank, named Theophilus.  He is {67} called by the title\n\"most excellent,\" which ordinarily implies that the person so\ndesignated is a member of the \"equestrian order.\"  The evangelist tells\nTheophilus that many had taken in hand to draw up a narrative of those\nthings which are \"most surely believed among us.\"  The preface shows us\nthat many attempts to give an account in order of what our Lord did and\nsaid had already been made.  The literary activity of the earliest\nChristians is thus demonstrated to us.  The preface suggests to us that\nsubstantial accuracy marked these early efforts, and, in a still higher\ndegree, St. Luke's own Gospel.  He does not speak of the earlier works\nas inaccurate, and he does distinctly give his reader to understand\nthat he possesses peculiar qualifications for his task.  He asserts\nthat his information is derived from \"eye-witnesses and ministers of\nthe Word,\" and that he has himself \"traced the course of all things\naccurately from the first.\"  This preface certainly shows us that the\nwriter took real pains in writing, and that he had personally known men\nwho accompanied our Lord.\n\nThe date can hardly be later than A.D. 80, unless the evangelist wrote\nin extreme old age.  And the date must be earlier than Acts, as the\nGospel is referred to in that work (Acts i. 1, 2).  Can we fix the date\nmore accurately than this?  Many critics think that we can.  They say\nthat it must be later than the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70.  It is said\nthat the Gospel presupposes that Jerusalem was already destroyed.  The\narguments for this are: (1) In Luke xxi. 20-24 the utter destruction of\nJerusalem is foretold with peculiar clearness.  We have already seen\nthat a similar argument is employed by many in speaking of Matt., an\nargument which seems to imply that our Lord did not foretell that\ndestruction because He could not.  This argument must be dismissed.\n(2) In Luke xxi. 20 there is no editorial note like that in Matt. xxiv.\n15, to emphasize the necessity of paying peculiar attention to our\nLord's warning about the coming destruction, and in Luke xxi. 25 the\nfinal judgment is not so {68} clearly connected with the fall of\nJerusalem as in Matt. xxiv. 29, where it is foretold as coming\n\"immediately, after the tribulation of those days.\"  Moreover, xxi. 24\nsuggests that the writer was well aware that an interval must elapse\nbetween the two great events.  This is the only good argument for\nplacing Luke later than Matt., and it certainly deserves careful\nattention.  At the same time, we must observe the following facts: (a)\nSt. Luke probably did not know St. Matthew's Gospel, otherwise he would\nnot have given such very different, though not contradictory, accounts\nof the infancy and the resurrection of our Lord; (b) St. Luke may\nperhaps owe the superior accuracy of his report of the eschatological\ndiscourse of Christ to persons whom he knew at Jerusalem in A.D. 56;\n(c) St. Luke himself possibly thought that the end of the world would\nfollow soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, for in xxi. 32 he seems\nto connect the final judgment with his own generation.  But the\nstatement is not so strong as in Matt. and Mark.  For St. Luke says,\n\"This generation shall not pass away till all be accomplished,\" while\nMatt. and Mark say, \"until all _these_ things be accomplished,\"\nevidently including the final judgment.\n\nOn the whole, it seems reasonable to date the Gospel according to St.\nLuke soon after A.D. 70, but it contains so many primitive touches that\nit may be rather earlier.  It has been urged that both the Gospel and\nActs betray a knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus, and must\ntherefore be later than A.D. 94.  This theory remains wholly unproved,\nand the small evidence which can be brought to support it is far\noutweighed by the early features which mark St. Luke's books.\n\n[Sidenote: Literary Style.]\n\nThe style is marked by great delicacy and power.  It is in better Greek\nthan the other Synoptic Gospels, and the evangelist seems to\ndeliberately avoid some of the racy, popular words which are employed\nby St. Mark.  But the beginner should be warned that this Gospel is not\nvery easy to translate, for it contains a good {69} many words with\nwhich he is not likely to be familiar.  The language of St. Luke\ncontains many proofs that he is writing as a Gentile for Gentiles.\nThus he calls the Apostle Simon, who belonged to the fanatically devout\nparty known as the \"Cananaeans,\" by the corresponding Greek name\n\"Zealot\" (vi. 15); he seldom uses the Hebrew word \"Amen,\" and he never\nuses the word \"Rabbi\" as a form of address.  He adds the word \"unclean\"\nbefore the word \"devil\" (iv. 33), as the Greeks believed that some\ndevils were good and kind, while the Jews believed all devils to be\nevil.  He also substitutes the word \"lawyer\" for \"scribe.\"  But while\nthe preface is written in what is perhaps the best Greek in the New\nTestament, the evangelist allows his language to be penetrated by his\nvisions of Jewish scenes.  Partly from his study of the Old Testament,\npartly from his knowledge of the books and the lives in which he found\na testimony to Jesus, he acquired the art of breathing into his Greek\nthe simple manner and the sweet tone of a Hebrew story.  There is\nnothing in all literature more perfectly told than the story of the\nwalk to Emmaus.  Nothing can be better than the delineation of\ncharacter which is suggested to us in the story of Zacharias, or of\nAnna, or of Zacchaeus.  There is always a freshness to remind us that\nthe Gospel is \"good tidings of great joy\" (ii. 10), and the Magnificat\n(i. 46-55), the Benedictus (i. 68-79), the Gloria in Excelsis (ii. 14),\nand the Nunc Dimittis (ii. 29-32), have become for ever part of the\npraises of the Christian Church.  More often than in any other Gospel\nwe find such expressions as \"glorifying God,\" \"praising God,\" \"blessing\nGod.\"  Again, St. Luke, in choosing incidents from the life of home,\nand more especially in choosing incidents in which women are prominent,\ngives a new solemnity to a life which men had hitherto despised.  We\nalways think of the Blessed Virgin as \"highly favoured,\" of Martha\n\"cumbered about much serving\" (x. 40), of the widow with the two mites,\nof the daughters of Jerusalem weeping on the way of the cross (xxiii.\n28), of the double joy of Elisabeth {70} to bear a son in her old age\nand to be visited by the mother of her Lord (i. 43); and we think all\nthis because St. Luke has told us their story.  These passages with\ntheir smiles and tears, their simplicity and their depth, are a divine\ncontrast to the grotesque passage in the Jewish liturgy, where the men\nthank God that they are not women.\n\nThe last point in St. Luke's literary style is his use of phrases which\nresemble phrases in St. Paul's Epistles.  He writes as a man who has\nlived in familiar intercourse with St. Paul.  There is a striking\nsimilarity between the words attributed to our Lord in _the institution\nof the Eucharist_ (xxii. 19, 20) and those in 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, a\nsimilarity which is probably to be accounted for by the fact that St.\nLuke must often have heard the apostle use these words in celebrating\nthis Sacrament.  Besides this, there are phrases which are parallel\nwith phrases in every Epistle of St. Paul.  A few instances are--Luke\nvi. 36 (2 Cor. i. 3); Luke vi. 39 (Rom. ii. 19); Luke viii. 13 (1\nThess. i. 6); Luke x. 20 (Phil. iv. 3); Luke xii. 35 (Eph. vi. 14);\nLuke xxi. 24 (Rom. xi. 25); Luke xxii. 53 (Col. i. 13).\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nIt has been well said that St. Matthew's Gospel is in a peculiar sense\n_Messianic_, St. Mark's is in a peculiar sense _realistic_, and St.\nLuke's is in a peculiar sense _Catholic_.  And while St. Matthew takes\npains to connect Christianity with the religion of the past, and St.\nMark allows his interest in the past and the future to be overshadowed\nby his resolve to speak of Jesus as actually working marvels, St. Luke\nseems, like St. Paul, to be essentially progressive and to have a wider\nhorizon than his predecessors.  He does not manifest the least\nantipathy towards Judaism.  He has none of that intolerance which so\noften marks the men who advertise their own breadth of view.  He\nrepresents our Lord as fulfilling the Law, as quoting the Old\nTestament, and declaring that \"it is easier for heaven and earth to\npass away than for one tittle of the Law to fail\" (xvi. 17).  But he\nwrites as a representative Gentile {71} convert.  He takes pleasure in\nrecording all that can attract to Christ that Gentile world which was\nbeginning to learn of the new religion.  We may note the following\npoints which illustrate this fact: (1) Luke traces the genealogy of our\nLord, not like Matt. by the legal line to Abraham, the father of the\nJews, but by the natural line to _Adam_, the father of humanity (iii.\n38), thus showing Jesus to be the elder Brother and the Redeemer of\nevery human being.  (2) While the true Godhead of our Lord is taught\nthroughout, His true _manhood_ is brought into prominence with peculiar\npathos.  We note His condescension in passing through the various\nstages of a child's life (ii. 4-7, 21, 22, 40, 42, 51, 52), the\ncontinuance of His temptations during His ministry (xxii. 28), His\nconstant recourse to prayer in the great crises of His life, His deep\n_sobbing_ over Jerusalem (xix. 41), His sweat like drops of blood\nduring His agony in Gethsemane (xxii. 44), a fact recorded by none of\nthe other evangelists.  St. Luke seems to be filled with a sense of the\ndivine compassion of Jesus, and thus he relates the facts which prove\nthe reality of the grace, the undeserved lovingkindness, of God to man.\nRightly did the poet Dante call him \"the scribe of the gentleness of\nChrist.\"  (3) Corresponding with this human character of the incarnate\nSon of God, we find the offer of _universal salvation_.  St. Luke\nalone--for the words are wrongly inserted in Matt.--records the tender\nwords of Jesus, \"The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was\nlost\" (xix. 10).  St. Paul knew no distinction between Jew and Greek,\nrich and poor, but taught that to be justified by God is a privilege\nwhich can be claimed not by birth but by faith; and what St. Paul\nenforces by stern arguments which convince our minds, St. Luke instils\nby the sweet parables and stories which convince our hearts.  It is\nhere that we find kindness shown to the _Gentile_ (iv. 25-27; xiii. 28,\n29), and the _Samaritan_ (ix. 51-56; xvii. 11-19); here we are told of\nthe publican who was \"justified\" rather than the Pharisee (xviii. 9),\nthe story of the penitent {72} thief who had no time to produce the\ngood works which his faith would have prompted (xxiii. 43), of the good\nSamaritan who, schismatic though he was, showed the spirit of a child\nof God (x. 30).  Last, and best, there is the parable of the Prodigal\nSon (xv. 11), and the story of the woman who was a sinner (vii. 37).\nTo her Christ says, \"Thy faith hath saved thee,\" and to His host He\nsays, \"Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved\nmuch\"--words which no one but the Son of God could dare to say of any\n\"woman who was in the city, a sinner.\"  In recording these words, St.\nLuke proves that Jesus Christ Himself taught the Pauline doctrine that\nman is saved by faith; and yet not by an empty faith, but by \"faith\nworking through love\" (Gal. v. 6).  In this Gospel Jesus is especially\nthe Refuge of sinners, and the teaching of our Lord may be best\ndescribed by the happy phrase which records His address in the\nsynagogue of Nazareth: \"words of grace.\"\n\nIt is important to notice that in no Gospel do we find such an especial\nsympathy shown for the poor.  The poverty of the holy family (ii. 7, 8,\n24); the beatitude on the poor[2] (vi. 20), with the corresponding woes\npronounced upon the rich (vi. 24 ff.); the parable of Dives and Lazarus\n(xvi. 19), the invitation of the poor to the supper of the King (xiv.\n21), show this sympathy.  In consequence of this, St. Luke's Gospel has\nbeen said to show an _Ebionite_ tendency.  But the word is misleading.\nIt is possible that some early Christians may have called themselves by\nthe name _Ebionim_, a Hebrew word which designated the poor and\noppressed servants of God.  And it is known that in the 2nd century and\nafterwards there was a heretical semi-Christian Jewish sect of that\nname.  But St. Luke's Gospel is utterly opposed to the main tenets of\nthese heretics, which were a repudiation of Christ's real Divinity and\nan insistence upon the necessity of circumcision for all Christians.\n\n{73}\n\nPerhaps it is the gentleness of the evangelist, and his preference for\nall that is tender and gracious, which causes his account of the twelve\napostles to differ considerably from that in Mark.  Their slowness,\ntheir weakness of faith, their rivalries, are set in a subdued light.\nHe does not tell us that Christ once called St. Peter \"Satan,\" or that\nPeter cursed and swore when he denied Christ.  He omits the rebuke\nadministered to the disciples in the conversation concerning the leaven\n(Mark viii. 17), the ambitious request of the two sons of Zebedee, and\nthe indignation of the disciples at Mary's costly gift of ointment\n(Matt xxvi. 8).  When St. Mark speaks of the failure of the disciples\nto keep awake while their Master was in Gethsemane, he says that they\nwere asleep, \"for their eyes were heavy\" (xiv. 40).  When St. Luke\nspeaks of it, he says that they were \"sleeping for _sorrow_\" (xxii.\n45).  Doubtless both accounts are true, and we can reverently wonder\nboth at the rugged honesty with which St. Peter must have told St. Mark\nabout the faults of himself and his friends, and at the consideration\nshown by St. Luke towards the twelve in spite of the fact that he was\nmore closely connected with St. Paul than with them.\n\nAbout one-third of this Gospel is peculiar to itself, consisting mainly\nof the large section, ix. 51-xviii. 14.  St. Luke here seems to have\nused an Aramaic document; the beginning of the section is full of\nAramaic idioms.  In places where St. Luke records the same facts as the\nother Synoptists, he sometimes adds slight but significant touches.\nThe withered hand restored on the sabbath is the _right_ hand (vi. 6);\nthe centurion's servant is one _dear_ to him (vii. 2); and the daughter\nof Jairus an _only_ daughter (viii. 42; cf. the son of the widow at\nNain, an _only_ son, vii. 12).  Among the remarkable omissions in this\nGospel we may notice two sayings which are found in Matt. and Mark, and\nwhich seem to us to have been peculiarly appropriate for St. Luke's\ngeneral purpose.  The first is the saying of Christ that He had come\n\"not to be ministered unto, {74} but to minister, and to give His life\na ransom for many\" (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45).  The second is the\nstatement that the Gospel \"shall be preached in the whole world\" (Matt.\nxxvi. 13; Mark xiv. 9).  With the omission of these sayings we may\ncompare the omission of any record of the visit of the Gentile wise men\nto the cradle of the infant Saviour of the world--an incident which\nwould probably have appealed most strongly to the heart of St. Luke, if\nhe had known it.  Its absence from this Gospel is one of the many\nproofs that St. Luke was not familiar with the Gospel according to St.\nMatthew.\n\nWe have already noticed that much of the freshness of this Gospel is\ndue to its being in a peculiar sense the Gospel of praise and\nthanksgiving.  It is also peculiarly the Gospel of _prayer_.  All the\nthree Synoptists record that Christ prayed in Gethsemane.  But on seven\noccasions St. Luke is alone in recording prayers which Jesus offered at\nthe crises of His life: at His baptism (iii. 21); before His first\nconflict with the Pharisees and scribes (v. 16); before choosing the\nTwelve (vi. 12); before the first prediction of His Passion (ix. 18);\nat the Transfiguration (ix. 29); before teaching the Lord's Prayer (xi.\n1); and on the Cross (xxiii. 34, 46).  St. Luke mentions His insistence\non the duty of prayer in two parables which no other evangelist has\nrecorded (xi. 5-13; xviii. 1-8).  He alone relates the declaration of\nJesus that He had made supplication for Peter, and His charge to the\nTwelve, \"Pray that ye enter not into temptation\" (xxii. 32, 40).\n\nAs the Gospel according to St. Luke is more rich in parables than any\nother Gospel, we may conclude by giving a few words of explanation\nconcerning our Lord's parables.  The word \"parable\" means a\n\"comparison,\" or, more strictly, \"a placing of one thing beside another\nwith a view to comparing them.\"  In the Gospels the word is generally\napplied to a particular form of teaching.  That is to say, it means a\nstory about earthly things told in such a manner as to teach a {75}\nspiritual truth.  The Jews were familiar with parables.  There are some\nin the Old Testament, the Book of Isaiah containing two (v. 1-6;\nxxviii. 24-28).  The rabbinical writings of the Jews are full of them.\nBut the Jewish parable was only an illustration of a truth which had\nalready been made known.  The parables of our Lord are often means of\nconveying truths which were not known.  They must be distinguished from\n(a) fables, (b) allegories, (c) myths.  A fable teaches worldly wisdom\nand prudence, not spiritual wisdom, and it is put into somewhat\nchildish forms in which foxes and birds converse together.  An allegory\nputs the story and its interpretation side by side, and each part of\nthe story usually has some special significance.  A myth takes the form\nof history, but it relates things which happened before the dawn of\nhistory, as they appear to the child-mind of primitive men.\n\nThe parables of our Lord were intended to teach the secrets of the\nkingdom of God (see p. 44).  They unfold these secrets and at the same\ntime veil them in the illustrations which are employed.  These\nillustrations attract the attention and inquiry of those who are\nspiritually receptive.  On the other hand, those who are unworthy or\nhardened do not recognize the truth.  Nevertheless, the parables were\nsuch miracles of simplicity and power, were so easy to remember, and so\nclosely connected with everyday objects, that even the dullest man\nwould awake to the truth if he retained a spark of life.  It is\ndifficult to divide the parables into separate groups.  But they may\nperhaps be divided into two groups.  The first group is drawn from\nman's relations with the world of nature and from his simpler\nexperiences, and the second is drawn from man's relations with his\nfellow-men, relations which involve more complicated experiences.  The\nparables of the second group were sometimes spoken in answer to\nquestions addressed to our Lord in private; such is the parable of the\ngood Samaritan, and that of the rich fool.  If we desire to study the\nparables in special relation to the kingdom of God, {76} we can divide\nthem into three groups.  The first consists of those collected in Matt.\nxiii., delivered in and near Capernaum, and referring to the kingdom of\nGod as a whole.  The second consists of those collected in Luke\nx.-xviii., delivered on Christ's journeys from Galilee to Jerusalem,\nand referring to the character of the individual members of the\nkingdom.  The third consists of parables spoken during our Lord's last\ndays at Jerusalem, and referring to the judgment of members of the\nkingdom.\n\nIt is difficult to decide whether some of the shorter parables ought to\nbe regarded as parables or not, but the number is usually estimated at\nabout thirty, of which eighteen are peculiar to Luke.  In John there\nare no parables, strictly so called, and St. John never uses the word\n\"parable.\"  But he uses the word _paroimia_, or \"proverb,\" and records\nseveral proverbial sayings of our Lord which are rather like parables\n(John iv. 34; x. i-3; xii. 24; xv. 1-6; xvi. 21).\n\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nThe infancy of our Lord: i. 1-ii. 52.--Similarity and contrast between\nthe predictions of the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus, and also\nbetween their birth.  The circumcision, the visit of Jesus to the\ntemple in boyhood.\n\n\nA.\n\nWinter A.D. 26 till after Pentecost 27.\n\nThe preparation for the ministry: iii. 1-iv. 13.--The ministry of John\nthe Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, the genealogy from Adam, the\nthreefold temptation.\n\n\nB.\n\nPentecost A.D. 27 till before Passover 28.\n\nMissionary work of Jesus in Galilee: iv. 14-ix. 6.--Jesus preaches, is\nrejected at Nazareth, goes to Capernaum, various miracles (iv.).  Call\nof Simon, leper cleansed, five {77} grounds of offence against Jesus\n(v.-vi. 11).  Appointment of the twelve, the sermon (vi.).  The\ncenturion's servant, the widow's son, Christ's description of John and\nof the age, the penitent (vii.).  Parables, Christ's relation to His\nmother and brethren, various miracles (viii.).  The mission of the\ntwelve (ix. 1-6).\n\n[Perplexity of Herod, ix. 7-9.]\n\n\nC.\n\nPassover A.D. 28 till before Tabernacles 28.\n\nClimax of missionary work in Galilee: ix. 10-50.--Christ feeds the\nmultitude, Peter's confession, Christ's first prediction of His death,\ntransfiguration, lunatic boy cured, second prediction of death, two\nrebukes to apostles.\n\n\nD.\n\nTabernacles, September A.D. 28 until early 29.\n\nLater ministry, chiefly in Peraea: ix. 51-xix. 28.--Jesus rejected by\nSamaritans, discouragements (ix.).  Mission of the seventy, lament over\ncities of Galilee, the good Samaritan, Mary and Martha (x.).  Prayer\nand the Lord's Prayer, Jesus accused of alliance with Beelzebub, His\nsaying about His mother, denunciation of a generation which will not\nbelieve without signs, and of the Pharisees and lawyers (xi.).  The\nleaven of the Pharisees, confidence in God, warnings against\ncovetousness, anxiety and lack of watchfulness, Christ's coming\n\"baptism,\" signs of the times (xii.).  The meaning of calamities,\nparable of the fig tree, cure on the sabbath, the mustard seed and the\nleaven, Gentiles to replace Jews, the Pharisees try to persuade Jesus\nto leave the dominions of Herod, Christ's first lament over Jerusalem\n(xiii.).\n\nLawfulness of healing on the sabbath, humility, inviting the poor, the\nKing's supper, counting the cost (xiv.).  Parables to {78} illustrate\nChrist's care for the lost (xv.).  The use and abuse of money (xvi.).\nOccasions of stumbling, the increase of faith, the truth that we cannot\npurchase God's favour by doing more than He commands, the ten lepers,\nthe coming of the Son of man (xvii.).  Answer to prayer, the Pharisee\nand publican, little children, the rich young man, Christ's third\nprediction of His death, the blind beggar at Jericho (xviii.).\nZacchaeus, the parable of the pounds (xix. 1-28).\n\n\nE.\n\nPassover A.D. 29.\n\nLast days at Jerusalem, and afterwards: xix. 29-xxiv. 53.--Entry into\nJerusalem, Christ's second lament over Jerusalem, cleansing of the\ntemple (xix. 29-xx.).  Christ challenged, parable of the vineyard, two\nquestions to entrap Christ, His question (xx.).  The widow's mites,\npredictions of the destruction of the temple, siege of Jerusalem, the\nsecond coming (xxi.).  Judas' bargain, the Passover, agony on the mount\nof Olives, the betrayal, Peter's denial, Jesus tried before the elders\n(xxii.).  Jesus before Pilate, Herod, Pilate again, Simon of Cyrene,\nthe daughters of Jerusalem, the crucifixion, burial by Joseph of\nArimathaea (xxiii.).\n\nThe women at the sepulchre, and Peter, the walk to Emmaus, Jesus\nappears to the disciples and eats, His commission, the Ascension\n(xxiv.).\n\nThe Date of our Lord's Birth.--It is fairly well known that the dates\nof our Lord's Birth and of His Death are both, in all probability,\nmisrepresented in popular chronology.  The best ancient chronology\nfixes the date of the Crucifixion in A.D. 29.  The Birth was probably\nabout six years before the commencement of our present era.  Various\nreasons make this date probable, including the fact that there was at\nthat time a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars, which must have\npresented a most brilliant appearance in the sky, and would {79}\ncertainly have attracted the star-loving sages of the East.  The great\nastronomer Kepler was of opinion that this conjunction was followed by\nthe brief appearance of a new star, which is the star mentioned in\nMatt. ii. 2.  This is of importance in considering the statements of\nSt. Luke.  Several objections have been made to his account of the\ncensus held under Quirinius.  (1) It is said that Quirinius was not\ngovernor of Syria when Jesus was born; his administration was from A.D.\n6 to A.D. 9, and Quinctilius Varus was governor in A.D. 1.  But St.\nLuke cannot be proved to say that Quirinius was governor; he describes\nhis office by a participle which may mean \"acting as leader,\" and there\nis proof that Quirinius was engaged in a military command in the time\nof Herod, and also proof that some high official twice governed Syria\nin the time of Augustus.  St. Luke's expression might fit either of\nthese two facts.  (2) It is said that Herod was reigning as king in\nPalestine, and that his subjects would not be included in a Roman\ncensus.  But in the year 8-7 B.C. Augustus wrote to Herod, saying that\nhe would henceforth treat him as a subject.  His dominions must\nhenceforth have been treated like the rest of the dominions of\nAugustus.  (3) It is said that no census took place at that time, and\nthat if there had been a census, it would have been carried out by\nhouseholds, according to Roman custom, and not by families.  But there\nseems to have been a census in Egypt and Syria in B.C. 8, and after\nAugustus determined to put Herod under his authority, the census would\nnaturally be extended to Judaea.  Herod would probably be allowed to\ncarry out the census on his own lines, so long as it was really carried\nout.  And he would plainly prefer to do it in the Jewish fashion, so as\nto irritate the Jews as little as might be.\n\nThe question is still involved in some obscurity, but St. Luke's\naccuracy has not been in the least disproved by the controversy.  He is\nthe only evangelist who connects his narrative with the history of\nSyria and of the Roman empire, and we have every reason to believe that\nhe did his work with care as well as sympathy.\n\n\n\n[1] _Adv. Har._ iii. 1.\n\n[2] Matt. v. 3 has \"poor in spirit.\"  The same Aramaic word might be\nused for both \"poor\" and \"poor in spirit.\"\n\n\n\n\n{80}\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nWe learn from the Gospels that St. John was the son of Zebedee, a\nGalilean fisherman, and was a follower of the Baptist before he joined\nour Lord.  The Synoptists show that he was one of the most prominent\nand intimate of our Lord's followers.  With St. Peter and St. James he\nwas permitted to witness the raising of Jairus' daughter, and to be\npresent at the Transfiguration, and with them was nearest to Christ at\nthe agony in Gethsemane.  With St. Peter he was sent to prepare the\nlast Passover.  Like his brother St. James, he shared in the fervour of\nhis mother, Salome, who begged for them a special place of dignity in\nthe kingdom of Christ.  They both wished to call down fire on a\nSamaritan village, and St. John asked Jesus what was to be done with\nthe man whom they found casting out devils in His name.  Their fiery\ntemperament caused our Lord to give them the surname of Boanerges\n(\"sons of thunder\").  In the fourth Gospel the name of John the son of\nZebedee is never mentioned, but there are several references to an\napostle whose name is not recorded, but can be intended for no other\nthan St. John.  At the crucifixion this apostle was bidden by our Lord\nto regard Mary as henceforth his mother, and the writer claims to have\nbeen an eye-witness of the crucifixion.  In the last chapter very\nsimilar words are used to assert that the writer is he whom Jesus loved.\n\nIn Acts St. John appears with St. Peter as healing the lame {81} man at\nthe Beautiful Gate of the temple, and with St. Peter he goes to Samaria\nto bestow the Holy Ghost on those whom Philip had baptized.  He was\nrevered as one of the pillars of the Church when St. Paul visited\nJerusalem in A.D. 49 (Gal. ii. 9).  It is remarkable that the Synoptic\nGospels, the fourth Gospel, Acts, and Galatians, all show St. John in\nclose connection with St. Peter.  St. John's name occurs in the\nRevelation, which has been attributed to him since the beginning of the\n2nd century.\n\nNumerous fragments of tradition concerning St. John are preserved by\nearly Christian writers.  Tertullian, about A.D. 200, says that St.\nJohn came to Rome, and was miraculously preserved from death when an\nattempt was made to kill him in a cauldron of boiling oil.  Tertullian\nand Eusebius both say that he was banished to an island, and Eusebius\ntells us that the island was Patmos, and that the banishment took place\nin the time of Domitian.  On the accession of Nerva, St. John removed\nfrom Patmos to Ephesus, where he survived until the time of Trajan, who\nbecame emperor in A.D. 98.  Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, writing\nabout A.D. 190, speaks of St. John's tomb in that city, and says that\nhe wore the _petalon_, the high priest's mitre used in the Jewish\nChurch.  We are told by other writers how he reclaimed a robber, how he\nplayed with a tame partridge, how when too old to preach he was carried\ninto church and would repeat again and again, \"Little children, love\none another.\"  On one occasion a spark of his youthful fire was seen.\nIt was when the old man indignantly refused to stay under the roof of\nthe same public baths as Cerinthus, the heretic who denied that Mary\nwas a virgin when she bore our Lord, and asserted that the Divinity of\nJesus was only a power which came upon Him and went from Him.\n\nThe residence of St. John at Ephesus is attested by the Revelation.\nEven if that book were a forgery, no forger at the close of the 1st\ncentury would have ventured to place the hero of his book in a\nneighbourhood where he had not lived.  {82} Many threads of evidence\nlead us back to the statement made by Polycrates about the apostle's\ntomb.  It was not until long after that date that the Christians began\nto carry the relics of saints from place to place, and churches\nrivalled one another in producing shrines for the severed members of\none body.  There is therefore no reason whatever to doubt that the tomb\nat Ephesus marked the resting-place of the apostle.  It was known two\nhundred years later in the time of Jerome, and visited in 431 by the\nmembers of the great Church Council which met at Ephesus.  The Emperor\nJustinian built a sumptuous church on the site, and near a modern\nTurkish mosque may still be seen the remnants of the church of St. John.\n\nUntil the end of the 18th century the authorship of this Gospel was not\nseriously challenged.  The only party which ever denied that it was\nwritten by the Apostle St. John was an ignorant and insignificant body\nof people mentioned by Irenaeus and Epiphanius.  They were known as the\n_Alogi_, or \"unbelievers in the Word.\"  Their views in no wise\nundermine the tradition of the Catholic Church.  For the Alogi asserted\nthat this Gospel was written by Cerinthus, who lived at Ephesus where\nSt. John lived, and was himself a contemporary of St. John.  We have\nsufficient knowledge of the teaching of Cerinthus to be perfectly\ncertain that he could not have written a Gospel which so completely\ncontradicts his own theories.  Therefore the opinion of the Alogi is\nabsolutely worthless where it negatives the tradition of the Church,\nand on the other hand it agrees with that tradition in asserting that\nthe book was written in the apostolic age.\n\nDuring the last hundred years the men who deny that Jesus Christ was\ntruly \"God of God, Light of Light,\" have strained every nerve to prove\nthat the fourth Gospel was not written by St. John.  It is, of course,\nalmost impossible that they should admit that the writer was an apostle\nand an honest man and continue to deny that the Christ whom he depicts\nclaimed to be the Lord and Maker of all things.  During the controversy\n{83} which has been waged during the last three generations with regard\nto St. John's Gospel, it has been evident throughout that the Gospel\nhas been rejected for this very reason.  The book has driven a wedge\ninto the whole band of New Testament students.  The critics who deny\nthat Jesus was God, but are willing to grant that He was the most holy\nand the most divine of men, have been forced to side with those who are\nopenly Atheists or Agnostics.  The clue to their theories was\nunguardedly exposed by Weizs\u00e4cker, who said, with regard to St. John's\nGospel, \"It is impossible to imagine any power of faith and philosophy\nso great as thus to obliterate the recollection of the real life, and\nto substitute for it this marvellous picture of a Divine Being.\" [1]\nThis remark shows us that the critic approached the Gospel with a\nprejudice against the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity, and rejected the\nGospel mainly because it would not agree with his own prejudice.  But\nthe determination to fight to the uttermost against the converging\nlines of Christian evidence has now driven such critics into a corner.\nMany have already abandoned the position that the book is a\nsemi-Gnostic forgery written in the middle of the 2nd century, and they\nare now endeavouring to maintain that it was written about A.D. 100 by\na certain John the Presbyter, whom they assert to have been afterwards\nconfounded with the Apostle John.\n\nOf John the Presbyter very little indeed is known.  Papias, about A.D.\n130, says that he was, like Aristion, \"a disciple\" of the Lord, and\nthat he had himself made oral inquiries as to his teaching.  He seems\nto have been an elder contemporary of Papias.  Dionysius of Alexandria,\nabout A.D. 250, mentions that there were two monuments in Ephesus\nbearing the name of John, and we may reasonably suppose that one of\nthese was in memory of the presbyter mentioned by Papias.  But a little\nreflection will soon convince us that nothing has been gained by the\nconjecture that this John wrote the Gospel.  If John {84} the Presbyter\nwas personally acquainted with our Lord, as some writers understand\nPapias to mean, then the sceptics are forced to admit that one who\npersonally knew Jesus, describes Jesus as a more than human Being--as,\nin fact, the Divine Creator.  This is the precise fact which keeps\nthese writers from admitting that an apostle wrote the Gospel.  If, on\nthe other hand, they suppose, as some do, that John the Presbyter was\nvery much younger than the apostles, the sceptics are confronted with\nthe following difficulties:--\n\n(a) There is the important external evidence which shows how widely the\nGospel was regarded in the early Church as the work of St. John.\n\n(b) There is the minute knowledge displayed of the topography, customs,\nand opinions of Jerusalem and the Holy Land as they existed in the time\nof Christ.\n\n(c) There is the impossibility of supposing that Irenaeus, who was\nprobably not born a year later than A.D. 130, would not have known that\nthe Gospel was written by John the Presbyter.\n\n(d) There is the fact that the evidence for St. John having lived in\nEphesus is better than the evidence for a renowned presbyter of the\nsame name having lived in Ephesus.  This has been wisely pointed out by\nJ\u00fclicher, even though he himself denies that the apostle wrote St.\nJohn's Gospel.  And the justice of this argument proves that it is\nsheer paradox to maintain, as some now maintain, that the _only_ John\nwho lived in Ephesus was the Presbyter.\n\nIt is constantly urged by the opponents of the authenticity of this\nGospel that, as it was published at Ephesus at a late period, it cannot\nbe the work of the apostle, because he never went to Ephesus, and \"died\nearly as a martyr.\" [2]  This is a most unscrupulous use of an inexact\nquotation made by some later Greek writers from a lost book of Papias.\nIt can be {85} traced to Philip of Side (5th century), and it is to the\neffect that \"John the Divine and James his brother were killed by the\nJews.\"  Papias does not say that they died together, and his statement\nis compatible with the belief that St. John survived his brother very\nmany years.  We know from Gal. ii. 9 that he was alive some time after\nhis brother's death, which was about A.D. 44.  And George Hamartolus,\none of the Greek writers who quote the above passage in Papias,\nexpressly says that the Emperor Nerva (A.D. 96) recalled John from\nPatmos, and \"dismissed him to live in Ephesus.\"\n\n[Sidenote: The External Evidence.]\n\nThe external evidence for the authenticity of this Gospel is in some\nrespects stronger than that which is to be found in the case of the\nother Gospels.  Thus the Christian may recognize with gratitude that\nhis Divine Master has especially added the witness of the Church to the\nwork of His beloved disciple.  All through the 2nd century we have the\nlinks of a chain of evidence, and after A.D. 200 the canon of the\nGospels is known to have been so fixed that no defender of the faith is\ncalled upon to show what that canon was.  The earliest traces of the\nphraseology of St. John are to be discovered in the _Didach\u00e9_, which\nwas probably written in Eastern Palestine or Syria about A.D. 100.  The\nprayers which are provided in this book for use at the Eucharist are\nplainly of a Johannine type, and are probably derived from oral\nteaching given by the apostle himself before he lived at Ephesus.  In\nany case, the _Didach\u00e9_ seems sufficient to disprove the sceptical\nassertion that theological language of a Johannine character was\nunknown in the Christian Church about A.D. 100.  The letters attributed\nto St. Ignatius, the martyr bishop of Antioch, are now universally\nadmitted to be genuine by competent scholars.  They may most reasonably\nbe dated about A.D. 110, and they are deeply imbued with thought of a\nJohannine type.  It has been lately suggested that this tendency of\nthought does not prove an actual acquaintance with the Gospel of St.\nJohn.  But when we find Christ {86} called \"the Word,\" and the devil\ncalled \"the prince of this world,\" and read such a phrase as \"the bread\nof God which is the flesh of Christ,\" it is almost impossible to deny\nthat the letters of Ignatius contain actual reminiscences of St. John's\nlanguage.  Nor is there the least reason why Ignatius should not have\nbeen acquainted with this Gospel.  His younger contemporary St.\nPolycarp, whose letter to the Philippians was also written about A.D.\n110, quotes from the First Epistle of St. John.  And Papias, who\nprobably wrote about A.D. 130, and collected his materials many years\nearlier, also quoted that Epistle, as we learn from Eusebius.  Now, the\nconnection between the Gospel and the Epistle is, as has been cleverly\nremarked, like the connection between a star and its satellite.  They\nare obviously the work of the same author.  If Polycarp, who had\nhimself seen St. John, knew that the Epistle was genuine, he must have\nknown that the Gospel was genuine.\n\nThe evidence which can definitely be dated between A.D. 120 and A.D.\n170 is of extreme interest.  It proves conclusively that a belief in\nthe authenticity of this Gospel was so firmly engrained in the\nChristian mind that men holding the most opposite opinions appealed to\nits authority.  It is true that the \"irrational\" Alogi rejected it, and\nthat Marcion repudiated it, not because it was not by an apostle, but\nbecause St. Paul was the only apostle whom he admired.  But it was used\nby the Catholics, the Gnostics, and the Montanists.  St. Justin Martyr\nwas acquainted with it, and before he wrote, Basilides, the great\nGnostic of Alexandria, borrowed from it some materials for his\ndoctrine.  The equally celebrated Gnostic Valentinus used it, and his\nfollowers also revered it.  About A.D. 170 Heracleon, an eminent\nValentinian, wrote a commentary upon this Gospel, of which commentary\nsome fragments still remain.  The Montanists arose in Phrygia about\nA.D. 157.  Montanus, their founder, endeavoured to revive the power of\nprophecy, and his followers maintained that \"the Paraclete said more\nthings in Montanus than Christ {87} uttered in the Gospel.\"  It can\neasily be proved that their teaching was an attempt to realize some of\nthe promises of our Lord contained in St. John's Gospel.  And the fact\nthat the Montanists were strongly opposed to the Gnostics makes it all\nthe more remarkable that both sects regarded this Gospel as so\nimportant.  Somewhat before A.D. 170 St. John's Gospel was inserted by\nthe great Syrian apologist, Tatian, in his _Diatessaron_, or harmony of\nthe Gospels, and the apocryphal Acts of John composed near the same\ndate contain unmistakable allusions to this Gospel.\n\nThe evidence of Irenaeus is the culminating proof of the genuineness of\nthe Gospel according to St. John.  He became Bishop of Lyons in A.D.\n177, and remembered Polycarp, who suffered martyrdom at Smyrna in A.D.\n156, at the age of eighty-six.  Irenaeus, in writing to his friend\nFlorinus, says, \"I can describe the very place in which the blessed\nPolycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings-out and his\ncomings-in, and his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and\nthe discourses which he held before the people, and how he would\ndescribe his intercourse with John and the rest who had seen the Lord,\nand how he would relate their words.  And whatsoever things he had\nheard from them about the Lord and about His miracles, Polycarp, as\nhaving received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would\nrelate, altogether in accordance with the Scriptures.\" [3]\n\nNow, it is perfectly certain that Irenaeus, like his contemporaries\nHeracleon and Tatian, accepted the fourth Gospel as the work of the\nApostle John.  And can we believe that he would have thus accepted it,\nif it had not been acknowledged by his teacher Polycarp, who knew St.\nJohn, and was nearly thirty years old at the time of St. John's death?\n\n{88}\n\n[Sidenote: The Internal Evidence.]\n\nThe Gospel itself contains manifest tokens that it was written by a Jew\nof Palestine, by one who held no Gnostic heresy, and by a contemporary\nof our Lord.\n\nI. _The author was a Jew and not a Gentile._\n\nHe makes frequent quotations from the Old Testament, and some of these\nquotations imply an acquaintance with the Hebrew.  This is especially\nthe case in the verse from the 41st Psalm (xiii. 18), and in that (xix.\n37) from Zech. xii. 10, \"They shall look on Him whom they pierced.\"\nThe Septuagint of Zech. xii. 10, translating from a different form of\nthe Hebrew, has, instead of the words \"whom they pierced,\" \"because\nthey mocked.\"  It is, therefore, plain that John xiii. 18 is not\nderived from the Septuagint.  The Gospel is also Hebraic in style.  The\nsentences are broken up in a manner which is at variance with Greek\nidiom.  Whereas in St. Luke's two writings the style becomes more Greek\nor more Hebraic in proportion to his writing independently or employing\nthe writings of Jewish Christians, the style of this Gospel is the same\nthroughout.  We may particularly notice the Hebraic use of the word\n\"and\" to signify both \"and\" and \"but\" (_e.g._ in v. 39, 40, where \"and\nye will not come\" means \"but ye will not come\").  We may also notice\nthe correct use of certain Hebrew proper names: _e.g._ Judas is called\n\"the son of Iscariot,\" showing that the writer did not regard the word\nIscariot as the fixed name of Judas only, but knew that it might be\napplied to any man of Kerioth.  In fact, the Greek of St. John is\nexactly like the English of a Scottish Highlander who has only spoken\nGaelic in his earlier days, and, when he has acquired English, shows\nhis origin by the continued use of a few Gaelic idioms and his\nknowledge of Highland proper names.\n\nHe shows a minute acquaintance with Jewish social and ceremonial\ncustoms.  We may notice iii. 25; iv. 9, 27; vii. 2, 23, 37; x. 22; xi.\n44; xix. 7, 31; and especially the waterpots (ii. 6), the purification\nprevious to the Passover (xi. 55), the fear {89} of our Lord's accusers\nto defile themselves by entering the praetorium (xviii. 28), and the\nJewish method of embalming (xix. 40).  Jewish opinions are faithfully\nreflected, _e.g._ as to the importance attached to the religious\nschools (vii. 15); the disparagement of the Jews of the \"dispersion\"\n(vii. 35); the scorn felt by many Jews for the provincials of Galilee\n(i. 46; vii. 41, 52), and the idea of the soul's pre-existence (ix. 2).\n\n\nII. _The author was a Jew of Palestine._\n\nHe shows a minute acquaintance with the geography of the Holy Land.  At\nthe present day elaborate guide-books and histories make it possible\nfor a very clever writer to disguise the fact that he has not visited\nthe land in which he lays the scene of his story.  But even at the\npresent day such procedure is dangerous, and likely to be detected.  In\nancient times it was almost impossible.  Yet no one has ever detected\nan error in the geography of this Gospel.  The writer mentions Cana of\nGalilee (ii. 1, 11), a place not noticed by any earlier writer, and\nBethany beyond Jordan (i. 28); he knows the exact distance from\nJerusalem to the better-known Bethany (xi. 18); the \"deep\" well of\nJacob at Sychar (iv. 11); the city of Ephraim near the wilderness (xi.\n54); Aenon near to Salim, where John baptized (iii. 23).  This word\nAenon is an Aramaic word signifying \"springs,\" and even Renan ridicules\nthe notion of such a name having been invented by Greek-speaking\nsectaries at Ephesus.  The place was too obscure to be known to\nordinary travellers, and, on the other hand, such a name cannot have\nbeen invented by a Gentile.\n\nThe topography of Jerusalem is described with equal nicety.  We may\nnotice viii. 20; ix. 7; x. 23; xviii. 1, 15; xix. 17, 41; and\nparticularly the pool near the sheep-gate, having five porches (v. 2),\nand the place which is called the Pavement, \"but in the Hebrew\nGabbatha\" (xix. 13).  Even a person who had heard of Solomon's porch\nand of Golgotha might well have been ignorant of the sheep-gate and the\nPavement, unless he had been in Jerusalem.\n\nLastly, the writer shows an acquaintance not only with the {90} Jewish\nfeasts, but also with facts connected with them which imply special\nknowledge on his part.  He could not have gathered from the Old\nTestament the fact that the later Jews were in the habit of keeping a\nfeast in honour of the dedication of the temple after its profanation\nby Antiochus Epiphanes (x. 22), nor would he have learned how to\nintroduce an allusion to the rite of pouring forth water from the pool\nat Siloam at the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 37).\n\nThe only important argument which can be urged against the author\nhaving been a Jew is that founded on the use of the phrase \"the Jews,\"\nwhich is said to imply that the writer was not a Jew.  Now, in some\npassages (as vii. 1), \"the Jews\" may mean the inhabitants of Judaea, as\ndistinct from those of Galilee, and such passages are therefore\nindecisive.  But in other passages the phrase \"the Jews\" does not admit\nthis interpretation, and is used with a decided suggestion of dislike.\nBut when we remember the bitter hostility which the Jews soon\nmanifested towards the Christians, and remember that in Asia Minor this\nhostility was active, the phrase presents no real difficulty.  St. Paul\nwas proud to reckon himself a Jew, but long before the Jews had shown\ntheir full antagonism to Christianity, St. Paul spoke of \"the Jews\" (1\nThess. ii. 14-16) with the same condemnation as the writer of the\nfourth Gospel.\n\n\nThe only important arguments in favour of the author having absorbed\nGnostic views are drawn: (1) _From the alleged Dualism of the Gospel_.\nIn theology the word Dualism signifies the doctrine that the world is\nnot only the battle-ground of two opposing forces, one good and the\nother evil, but also that the material world is itself essentially\nevil.  Such was the doctrine of the great Gnostic sects of the 2nd\ncentury.  But this Gospel, in spite of the strong contrast which it\ndraws between God and the world, light and darkness, is not Dualist.\nIt teaches that there is one God, that the world was made by the Word\nwho is God, that this Word was made flesh and came to save the world.\nIn thus teaching that the material world was made by the good God, and\nthat God took a material human body, this Gospel opposes the\nfundamental tenet of Gnostic Dualism.  (2) _From the alleged\ncondemnation of the Jewish prophets by Christ in x. 8_.  Other passages\nmake it perfectly plain that this is not a condemnation of the Jewish\nprophets, but of any religious pretenders who claimed divine authority.\nIn this Gospel an appeal is made to Moses (v. 46), to Abraham (viii.\n56), to Isaiah {91} (xii. 41), and, what is most remarkable of all, our\nLord says, \"Salvation is of the Jews,\" _i.e._ the knowledge and the\norigin of religious truth came from the Jews.  The Jewish Scriptures\nare ratified (v. 39; x. 35).  It is impossible to find a shred of the\nanti-Jewish theories which the Gnostics taught.  And though it is true\nthat some Gnostics were fond of using such words as \"life\" and \"light\"\nin their religious phraseology, it is much more probable that they were\ninfluenced by the fourth Gospel than that this Gospel was tinged with\nGnosticism.\n\n\nWe conclude, therefore, that the author was a Jew of Palestine, and\nthat he was not a Gentile or in any sense a Gnostic.\n\nIII. _The author was a contemporary and an eye-witness of the events\ndescribed._\n\nHis knowledge of Jerusalem and of the temple, which we have already\nnoticed, strongly suggests that he knew the city before its destruction\nin A.D. 70.  So far as can be tested, his treatment of the Messianic\nideas of the people is exactly accurate, and of a kind which it would\nhave been difficult for a later writer to exhibit.  This Gospel\nrepresents the people as pervaded by a nationalist notion of the\nMessiah as of a king who would deliver them from foreign powers (vi.\n15, xi. 48; xix. 12), a notion which was dispelled in A.D. 70, and\napparently did not revive until the rising of Bar Kocheba in A.D. 135,\na date which is now almost universally recognized as too late for this\nGospel to have been written.  We also find the two contradictory ideas\nas to the place of the Messiah's origin then current (vii. 27, 42), and\nthe writer distinguishes \"the prophet\" (i. 21, 25; vi. 14; vii. 40),\nwho was expected to precede Christ, from Christ Himself.  At a very\nearly date the Christians identified \"the prophet\" with Christ, and it\nis in the highest degree improbable that any but a contemporary of our\nLord would have been aware of this change of belief.\n\nIt is claimed that the author is an eye-witness in i. 14; xix. 35; and\nxxi. 24.  We may add 1 John i. 1, for the author of the Epistle was\nobviously the author of the Gospel.  Numerous details, especially the\nfrequent notes of time, suggest the hand {92} of an eye-witness.  And\nthe delicate descriptions of the inner life of the disciples and of\nChrist Himself point to the same conclusion.  The description of the\nLast Supper and the words spoken at it suggest with overwhelming force\nthat the writer knew the peculiar manner of seating employed at this\nceremony.  Another Jew would have known where the celebrant sat, but he\nwould scarcely have been able to make the actions of our Lord and\nJudas, St. John and St. Peter, fit their places at the table with such\nperfection.[4]\n\nThe Gospel claims that the disciple who \"wrote these things\" is the\ndisciple \"whom Jesus loved,\" and who reclined \"in Jesus' bosom\" at the\nSupper.  It was not Peter, for Peter did not recline \"in Jesus' bosom.\"\nThe presumption therefore is that it was either James or John, these\ntwo being with Peter the closest friends of Jesus.  It could hardly\nhave been James, who was martyred in A.D. 44, as the whole weight of\ntradition and external evidence is against this.  It must, then, have\nbeen John, or a forger who wished to pass for that apostle.  And to\nsuppose that an unknown forger, born two generations, or even one\ngeneration, later than the apostles, could invent such sublime\ndoctrine, and insert it in so realistic a story, and completely deceive\nthe whole Christian world, including the district where St. John lived\nand died, is to show a credulity which is without parallel in the\nhistory of civilization.[5]\n\nNow that we have reviewed the internal evidence for the authenticity,\nwe are able to return with renewed vigour to deal with the popular\nrationalistic hypothesis that the author was a Christian who had\nlearned some genuine stories about Jesus current in the Church at\nEphesus, and then wove them into a narrative of his own composing.  We\nhave observed that the marks of an eye-witness and contemporary of\nJesus are {93} scattered over the whole surface of the Gospel.  If the\nGospel is not by St. John, only one other explanation is possible.  It\nmust be composed of three distinct elements: (a) some genuine\ntraditions, (b) numerous fictions, (c) a conscious manipulation of the\nnarrative contained in the Synoptists.  But the internal evidence is\nabsolutely opposed to any such theory.  We can trace no manipulation of\nthe Synoptic narrative.  The writer seems to be aware of St. Mark's\nGospel, and possibly the other two, but he evidently did not write with\nthem actually before him.  He plainly had a wholly independent plan and\nan independent source of information.  And if we turn to the passages\nwhich tell us facts not recorded by the Synoptists, it is quite\nimpossible to separate the supposed fictions from the supposed genuine\ntraditions.  Both style and matter proceed from one and the same\nindividuality.  One passage alone can be separated from the rest\nwithout interrupting the flow of the story, and that passage is absent\nin the best manuscripts.  It is the story of the woman taken in\nadultery (vii. 53-viii. 11).  It seems to have been originally placed\nafter Luke xxi. 36, and was inserted into St. John's Gospel after it\nwas completed.  We cannot apply the same process to any other passage\nin the Gospel.  It is an organic whole, as much as any play of\nShakespeare or poem of Tennyson.  And over the whole book we find the\nsame morsels of history and geography.  They are of a kind which\ntradition never hands down unimpaired, and which no Ephesian disciple\nof an apostle would be likely to commit to memory.  In spite of all\nattempts to divide the Gospel into parts derived straight from an\napostle and parts invented by later minds, the Gospel remains like the\nseamless coat which once clothed the form of the Son of man.\n\n[Sidenote: Date.]\n\nIt is important to observe that even the most hostile criticism has\ntended to recede in its attempt to find a probable date for this\nGospel.  Baur fixed it about A.D. 160-170, Pfleiderer at 140,\nHilgenfeld 130-140; J\u00fclicher and Harnack will not date it later than\n110, {94} and the latter grants that it may be as early as 80.  The\nyear 80 is as early a date as the most orthodox Christian need desire,\nand we can reasonably believe that it was written by the apostle at\nEphesus between A.D. 80 and A.D. 90.  We learn from Irenaeus that St.\nJohn survived until A.D. 98.\n\n[Sidenote: Literary Style.]\n\nSeveral points in the literary style of the apostle have been noticed\nin dealing with the internal evidence which they afford to the\nauthenticity of his Gospel.  But it is necessary to add something more,\nfor there is no writer to whom we can more fitly apply the profound\nsaying that \"the style is the man.\"  The language of St. John is the\nresult of a long and impassioned contemplation.  Whether he writes down\nhis own words, or records the words and deeds of our Lord, his language\nshows the result of careful reflection.\n\nThe teaching of Jesus exhibits a development different from that in the\nSynoptists.  We find in chs. ii., iii., and iv. that our Lord\ndefinitely taught that He was the Son of God and Messiah quite early in\nHis ministry, while in the earlier part of Mark our Lord's teaching\nabout His Messiahship is far less definite.  And the method of teaching\nis also different.  In the Synoptists we find picturesque parables and\npointed proverbs, while in John we find long discourses and arguments.\nIn the Synoptists the teaching is generally practical, in John it is\nmuch more openly theological.  This difference between the Synoptists\nand St. John can be partly accounted for by the fact that St. John's\nGospel contains much more of the instruction given by our Lord to His\nintimate friends, and that this instruction was naturally more profound\nthan that which was given to the multitude.  But there is another\nreason for the difference.  If we attend to such passages as xiv.\n15-21, 25-26; xv. 26-27, we see that our Lord teaches that there are\ntwo manifestations of His Person, one during the time between His birth\nand His death, and the other after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.\nThe Spirit is not a substitute {95} for an absent Christ; His coming\nbrings with it an inward presence of Christ within the Christian soul\n(xiv. 18).  By the aid of the Spirit, St. John condenses and interprets\nthe language of our Lord in a manner which can be understood by the\nsimplest of simple souls who live the inner life.  In St. John we find\na writer who is writing when Jesus spoke no longer in parables and\nproverbs, but \"plainly\" (xvi. 25, 29).  He records the teaching of\nJesus, as it had shaped itself _in_ his own mind, but not so much _by_\nhis own mind as by perpetual communion with the ascended Christ.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nWe have noted on p. 31 the fact that St. John's Gospel shows that he\nwas acquainted with facts in the Synoptic Gospels which he does not\nhimself narrate.  Yet the broad difference between the character of the\nSynoptic writers and that of St. John is that the Synoptists are\nhistorical, he is mystical.  We do not mean that St. John does not\ntrouble about historical accuracy.  His history is often more minute\nthan that of the Synoptists.  But his purpose is to bring his readers\ninto deeper life through union with the God who is in Christ and is\nChrist.  The true mystic ever desires to maintain the knowledge of this\ninward union in life with God.  It is a knowledge which is made\npossible by obedience, made perfect by love, and causes not new\necstasies, but a new character.  St. John adjusts all his material to\nthis one purpose.  \"These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is\nthe Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in His\nname\" (xx. 31).\n\nThe Introduction or Prologue (i. 1-18) teaches that Jesus Christ is\nthat personal manifestation of God to whom the Jews had given the name\nof the Word.  The Palestinian Jews were accustomed to describe God\nacting upon the world by the name _Memra_, or \"Word\" of the Lord.  The\nAlexandrian Jews also were in the habit of giving the title _Logos_,\nwhich means both \"Word\" and \"Reason,\" to an idea of God which perfectly\nexpressed all that God is.  The Greek Stoics had {96} used the name in\na similar sense, and thus St. John, having realized that Jesus is truly\nGod made manifest, called Him by a name which every educated Jew and\nGreek would understand.  Unlike Philo, the great Alexandrian Jew who\ntried to combine Greek philosophy with Jewish religion, St. John\nteaches that this divine Word is a Person, and took human flesh and\nrevealed Himself as the Messiah.  The whole Gospel shows how this\nrevelation met with increasing faith on the part of some, and\nincreasing unbelief and hatred on the part of others.  The crises of\nthis unbelief are represented chiefly in connection with our Lord's\nvisits to Jerusalem, when He made His claims before the religious\nleaders of Judaism.  His revelation is attended by various forms of\n_witness_.  There is that of the apostle himself (i. 14); that of the\nother apostles who also witnessed His \"glory,\" as displayed by His\nmiracles (ii. 11).  There is that of John the Baptist (i. 34); and when\nwe remember that there had existed at Ephesus an incomplete\nChristianity which had only known the baptism given by John the Baptist\n(Acts xix. 3), we see how fit it was that the apostle should record the\nBaptist's testimony to Christ's superiority.  There is the witness of\nHis works, and that which the Father Himself bore (v. 34-36).  We\nshould notice that the miracles are called \"signs,\" and are carefully\nselected so as to give evidence to the reader concerning particular\naspects of our Lord's glory.[6]  Even the Passion is described as\ncontaining an element of glory (xii. 28, 32), it contains a secret\ndivine triumph (cf. Col. ii. 15), and is a stage towards the glory of\nthe Ascension.  The \"darkness\" contends with the {97} divine \"light,\"\nbut cannot \"suppress\" it.  After the \"world\" has done its worst, the\nfinal victory of faith is seen in the confession of St. Thomas, \"My\nLord and my God\" (xx. 28).\n\nWe find other points of doctrine corresponding with the mystical\nteaching that \"eternal life\" does not begin after the last judgment,\nbut may be enjoyed here and now by knowing \"God and Jesus Christ whom\nHe hath sent\" (xvii. 3).  Thus the judgment is shown to be executed in\none sense by the mere division which takes place among men when they\ncome in contact with Christ, according as they are good or bad (v. 30;\nviii. 16; ix. 39).  The principle of this moral testing is made plain\nin iii. 19.  Those who stand the test, and believe in Christ, undergo a\nresurrection here (xi. 26).  On the other hand, there is also a future\njudgment (v. 22, 29) and a future consummation (v. 28, 29; vi. 39 f.,\nxiv. 3).\n\nSimilar beautiful paradoxes are found in the teaching that the \"work\"\nwhich God requires of us is to believe in His Son (vi. 28, 29); and\nthat to fulfil God's will is the mark not of servants but of friends\n(xv. 14).  And those who hope that they are numbered among the friends\nof Jesus will find in this Gospel all the deepest experiences of the\nsoul--the new birth, the finding of the living water and the true\nlight, and that abiding in Christ which is made complete by the eating\nof His flesh and the drinking of His blood.\n\nTo realize the meaning of Jesus it is necessary to follow the guidance\nof the Holy Spirit.  The Synoptists tell us comparatively little of His\nwork, though they show us the Spirit descending on Christ at His\nbaptism, driving Him into the wilderness to be tempted, speaking in His\ndisciples, pervading His work (Luke iv. 18), and possessed of a\npersonality into which the Christian is baptized (Matt. xxviii. 19),\nand against which blasphemy is unpardonable (Luke xii. 10).  In John we\nfind a much fuller doctrine of the Holy Spirit.  The fact that He is\nnot a mere impersonal influence of God is very clearly shown.  And it\nis impossible to accept the modern rationalistic {98} hypothesis that\nthe Holy Spirit is only a phrase for describing the idea which the\napostles had about the invisible presence of Christ.  He is called\n\"another Advocate\" (xiv. 16).  Christ was an Advocate or Helper; the\nSpirit will be another.  Again, it is the work of the Spirit to refresh\nthe memory and strengthen the apprehension of the disciples concerning\nChrist (xiv. 26); and our Lord definitely says, \"If I go, I will send\nHim unto you\" (xvi. 7).  With regard to the unbelieving world, the\nSpirit will prove the sinfulness of opposition to Christ, will convince\nthe world of His righteousness as testified by the Father's approval\nmanifested in the Ascension, and will procure the verdict of history\nthat by the crucifixion the evil spirit who inspires worldliness was\ncondemned (xvi. 8-11).  The Spirit's work is the same in kind as the\nwork of Christ, but the two Persons are distinct.  That Christ\ncontinues His advent and His work in the world through the Spirit\nimplies neither that the Spirit is an impersonal influence nor that He\nis personally identical with Christ.\n\nThis Gospel gives us invaluable help in determining the chronology of\nour Lord's ministry.  His ministry is connected with six Jewish feasts\n(ii. 13; v. 1; vi. 4; vii. 2; x. 22; xii. 1).  All are named except\nthat in v. 1, which is probably Pentecost, A.D. 27.  The forty-six\nyears in ii. 20 are correct.  Herod began to rebuild the temple in\n20-19 B.C.  Therefore the Passover in ii. 13 cannot be before A.D. 27.\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nIntroduction: i. 1--i. 18.--The Word ever with God and Himself God,\nmanifested in creation, in conscience, in the incarnation.\n\n\nA.\n\nWinter A.D. 26 till after Passover 27.\n\nThe preparation and beginning of the ministry: i. 19-iv. 54.--The\ntestimony of John the Baptist to Jesus {99} and his baptism of Jesus,\nhis disciples come to Jesus, the gathering of other disciples, the\npromise of seeing heaven opened (i.).  Jesus and Mary at the marriage\nat Cana, the disciples believe.  Jesus at Capernaum.  At the Passover\nJesus goes to Jerusalem and cleanses the temple (ii).  At Jerusalem\nJesus teaches Nicodemus of the new birth, He labours in Judaea while\nJohn is at Aenon (iii.).  The woman of Samaria converted; Jesus returns\nand is welcomed in Galilee, is again at Cana, cures the Capernaum\nnobleman's son (iv.).\n\n\nB.\n\nPentecost A.D. 27 till before Passover 28.\n\nThe increased self-revelation of Jesus at Jerusalem: v.--Jesus cures\nthe infirm man at the pool of Bethesda, is accused of sabbath-breaking.\nHe co-ordinates His work and His honour with the work and honour of the\nFather, claims to give life now and execute judgment, claims the\ntestimony of John, of His own miracles, of the Scriptures.\n\n\nC.\n\nPassover A.D. 28 till before Tabernacles 28.\n\nFull self-revelation of Jesus in Galilee: vi.--Christ sustains physical\nlife by feeding the 5000, the people wish to make Him King.  He again\nshows power over nature by walking on the sea.  He reveals Himself as\nthe Bread sustaining all spiritual life, commands the eating of His\nflesh and drinking of His blood.  The effect of this teaching is\nincreased enmity, the desertion by nominal disciples, and intensified\nfaith as shown by Peter's confession.\n\n\nD.\n\nTabernacles, September A.D. 28 till early 29.\n\nFurther self-revelation at Jerusalem: conflict: journey to Peraea; vii.\n1-xi. 57.--Jesus at the feast, {100} is accused of having a devil,\ndefends His former action on the sabbath, attempt to seize Him, His\ninvitation to all who thirst, the people divided, the officers refuse\nto arrest Him (vii.).  [Interpolated story of the woman taken in\nadultery, vii. 53-viii. 11.]\n\nJesus reveals Himself as the Light of the world, the Jews no longer\nAbraham's children, the Jews reject His claim to pre-existence, and\nattempt to stone Him (viii.).  Jesus gives sight to the blind man at\nSiloam, discussion about healing on the sabbath (ix.).  Jesus the good\nShepherd, at the feast of the Dedication in December the Jews try to\nstone Him and He goes east of Jordan (x.).\n\nJesus as Conqueror of death goes to Bethany, raises Lazarus and\nproclaims Himself as the Resurrection and the Life.  On the advice of\nCaiaphas, the Council propose to put Jesus to death.  After raising\nLazarus Jesus retires to Ephraim, a city on the edge of the wilderness\nto the north-east of Jerusalem (xi.).\n\n\nE.\n\nPassover A.D. 29.\n\nLast public ministry at Jerusalem: xii.--Mary anoints Jesus for burial,\nthe entry into Jerusalem, the Greeks who desire to see Jesus, a voice\nfrom heaven promises to glorify Him.  Rejecting or receiving Christ.\n\nFull self-revelation of Jesus to His apostles: xiii.-xvii.--At the\nPassover He washes the disciples' feet.  Judas pointed out and departs.\nThe question of Peter (xiii. 37), of Thomas (xiv. 5), of Philip (xiv.\n8), of Judas (xiv. 22).  The work of the Advocate who is to come (xiv.\n26).  Abiding in Christ, the new commandment to love one another, the\nhatred of the world, future testimony of the Spirit of truth (xv.).\nThe Spirit will convict the world, guide the disciples.  Sorrow only\nfor a little while, final assurances, warm expression of faith on the\npart of the apostles, Christ's warning (xvi.).\n\nChrist's intercession (xvii.).\n\n{101}\n\nThe death of Jesus, the apparent triumph of unbelief:\nxviii.-xix.--Betrayal in the garden, trial before Annas and Caiaphas,\nPeter's denial, trial before Pilate, Jesus or Barabbas (xviii.).\n\nThe scourging, Pilate's futile endeavour to release Jesus, his\npolitical fears, the crucifixion, \"behold thy mother,\" the\nspear-thrust, the writer's personal testimony, the burial by Joseph of\nArimathaea (xix.).\n\nThe resurrection, the victory over unbelief: xx.--Mary Magdalene, Peter\nand the writer at the sepulchre, the writer records his own conviction.\nJesus manifests Himself to the Magdalene, to the ten disciples, most of\nwhom had deserted Him, and to Thomas who doubted.  Thomas is convinced\nof the Divinity of Jesus, the writer states that this Gospel was\nwritten \"that ye might believe.\"\n\nEpilogue: xxi.--The manifestation of Jesus by the sea of Galilee, the\nsolemn charge to Peter.  The editors of the Gospel assert that the\nauthor was the beloved disciple.\n\n\n(John xxi. 24 was probably written by the Ephesian presbyters who knew\nSt. John.  The rest of the chapter is evidently by the apostle himself,\nalthough, it may have been added at a time later than the rest of the\nGospel, which seems to come to an end with the impressive words in xx.\n31.  The most contradictory hypotheses have been broached by writers\nwho have denied the authenticity of ch. xxi.  Some have held that it\nwas added in order to exalt St. John, the apostle of Asia Minor, over\nSt. Peter, the patron of Rome.  Others have held that it was added to\nexalt St. Peter.  Those who deny the authenticity of the whole Gospel\nare compelled to regard ch. xxi. 24 as deliberate false witness.)\n\n\n_St. John's Oral Teaching._--It seems that before St. John wrote his\nGospel, he had adapted it to oral teaching.  This is shown by the\narrangement of facts in combinations of 3, possibly suggested by the 3\nmanifestations of the Word recorded in the Introduction.  There are 3\nPassovers recorded, 3 feasts besides the Passovers, 3 journeys to\nJudaea, 3 discourses on the last day of Tabernacles before the address\nto believing Jews (viii. 31), 3 sayings from the Cross.  If we regard\nch. xxi. as added later by St. John, we find in the rest of the Gospel\n3 miracles in Judaea, 3 in Galilee, and 3 appearances of the risen Lord.\n\n\n\n[1] _Apostolic Age of the Church_, vol. ii. p. 211.  (English\ntranslation.)\n\n[2] Dr. James Moffat, _Introduction to the Literature of the New\nTestament_, p. 601.\n\n[3] Eusebius, _H. E._ v. 20.  It is worth noting that Dr. Moffat, _op.\ncit._ p. 609, admits that \"if Irenaeus is correct, his testimony to\nJohn the Apostle is of first-rate importance.\"  So he adds, \"he must be\nheld to have mistaken what Polykarp said, and to have confused John the\nPresbyter with John the Apostle.\"\n\n[4] See Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, vol. ii. p.\n494.\n\n[5] The difficulties which arise from the difference between the\nhistory of our Lord's ministry as given by St. John, and by the\nSynoptists, have been discussed on p. 27, ff.\n\n[6] He changes the good into better (ii. 9); saves the dying (iv. 50);\ngives power (v. 8); gives food (vi. 11); gives sight (ix. 7); is Lord\nover death (xi. 44); blesses the work done in faith (xxi. 11).  It\nshould be noticed that St. John never mentions that our Lord cured any\none possessed with a devil, which according to the Synoptists was a\ncommon kind of miracle.  But St. John does not therefore contradict the\nother evangelists.  He recognizes that there are visible works of the\ndevil (viii. 41; cf. 1 John iii. 8), and mentions \"the prince of this\nworld\" as causing the trials of our Lord.\n\n\n\n\n{102}\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe Christian Church has never attributed the Book of Acts to any other\nwriter than St. Luke.  The external proofs of the primitive date of the\nbook are important, and point to the apostolic age as the date of its\ncomposition.  St. Clement of Rome, about A.D. 95, in referring to Ps.\nlxxxviii. 20, quotes it in words which are almost certainly based on\nActs xiii. 22.  There are two apparent quotations from Acts in the\nletters of St. Ignatius and one in the letter of St. Polycarp.  It is\nalso quoted in the works of Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Athenagoras, and\nin the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons written in A.D. 177.\nIt was evidently read throughout the 2nd century, and it is definitely\nassigned to St. Luke by Irenaeus, the _Muratorian Fragment_,\nTertullian, and Clement of Alexandria.\n\nIn opposition to this tradition, a persistent effort has been made to\nprove that the book belongs to the early part of the and century.\nThere are certain passages in which the writer uses the _first person\nplural_, implying that he was personally present on the occasions\ndescribed.  The sections of the book in which that peculiarity is found\nare ordinarily called the \"we sections,\" and it has been asserted that\nthough the \"we sections\" are primitive they have been worked into the\nnarrative of a later writer.[1]  Furthermore it is asserted that {103}\nthe book was deliberately intended to be a fictitious account of the\nprimitive Church, and that its special purpose was to balance the story\nof St. Peter with that of St. Paul in such a manner as to completely\ndisguise the fundamental antagonism of the two apostles.\n\nThe force of this argument has been weakened by the general admission\nof non-Christian writers that the differences of opinion between the\ntwo apostles were grossly exaggerated by the critics of fifty years\nago.  It is therefore granted that there was less necessity for the\nforgery than there was said to be by the critics in question.  It is\nalso very obvious that we cannot fairly charge a historian with\ndishonesty because he wishes to balance one great character with\nanother.  No one would assert that a modern writer was a partisan or a\nliar because he devoted in the same book twenty appreciative pages to\nthe Evangelical Revival and twenty appreciative pages to the Oxford\nMovement.  In spite of this fact, the trustworthy character of the book\nis still vigorously assailed.  It is said that no statement in the book\ndeserves ready belief except the \"we sections,\" that those sections\nwere written by an unknown companion of St. Paul, and impudently\n\"appropriated\" by a Christian who wrote between A.D. 105 and A.D. 130.\n\nThis argument about the \"we sections\" can be completely overthrown by a\nconsideration of the _linguistic evidence_ of Acts.  If language\nimplies anything, the peculiarities of Acts imply that the author of\nthe \"we sections,\" who was a companion of St. Paul, was the author of\nthe whole book.  And they also show that the author of the whole book\nwas the person who wrote the third Gospel.  There are many words and\nphrases found only in the \"we sections\" and in the rest of Acts.  There\nis, too, a large number of words and phrases in the \"we sections\" which\nare rarely used in those books of the New Testament which are _not_\nattributed to St. Luke, and occur frequently in the rest of Acts and in\nSt. Luke's Gospel.  If {104} we compare Acts with St. Luke's Gospel, we\nfind that Acts contains 108 out of 140 which are characteristic of this\nGospel, whereas it contains only about a half of those which are\ncharacteristic of Matt. and Mark.  There are 58 Greek words which are\nfound in both Acts and Luke and nowhere else in the New Testament.[2]\nAmong the terms which serve as connecting links between St. Luke's\nGospel and Acts, including the \"we sections,\" occur various medical\nphrases.  It is becoming more and more widely recognized that these\nphrases imply that the writer was a physician, such as we know St. Luke\nto have been (Col. iv. 14).  It is all the more remarkable that many of\nthe words peculiar to Acts are found in St. Luke's contemporary, the\nphysician Dioscorides.\n\nIt is true that the sections taken from Mark show numerous \"Lucan\"\ncharacteristics as they appear in our third Gospel, but these\ncharacteristics are due to the third evangelist, and not to St. Mark.\nSo, it can be urged, the \"Lucan\" characteristics in the \"we sections\"\nare due not to the author, but to an expert editor of a later time.  In\nreply, we can answer that the cases are not strictly parallel.  For if\nthe \"we sections\" are not by the writer of Acts, he must have almost\nentirely rewritten them, and, at the same time, have been guilty of a\ngross fraud, which he stupidly dropped in passages where it could have\nbeen effectively used.\n\nTo this linguistic evidence of authenticity we can add _archaeological\nevidence_.  The discoveries of the last thirty years have greatly\nconfirmed the accuracy of the writer in points where a writer of the\n2nd century would have betrayed his ignorance.  In fact, we are able to\ncompare his accuracy with the inaccuracy of the writing known as the\n_Acts of Paul and Thecla_, a 2nd century blend of sensationalism and\npiety based on a document of the 1st century.  Now, in almost every\npoint where we are able to test the knowledge possessed by the author\nof Acts with regard to the topography of Asia {105} Minor and the\ndetails of Roman government, it can be pronounced correct.  This has\nbeen admirably shown by Prof. Ramsay's works on _The Church in the\nRoman Empire and St. Paul_.  St. Luke knows that Cyprus was governed by\na pro-consul, which had ceased to be the case early in the 2nd century;\nthat the magistrates at Philippi were called _strategoi_, and were\nattended by lictors, while those at Thessalonica were called\n_politarchai_ (xvii. 6), a title which has been verified by\ninscriptions.  He is aware that the governor of Malta was only called\nthe head-man (xxviii. 7).  He knows that Derbe and Lystra, but not\nIconium, were cities of Lycaonia, and that \"great Artemis\" was the cry\nused at Ephesus in invoking the patronal goddess of the city (xix. 28).\nWe must not assert that these and similar details absolutely prove that\nthe writer was a companion of St. Paul; but we can say that he was\npeculiarly well acquainted with the life of that period.  The account\nof St. Paul's voyage and shipwreck is equally accurate.\n\nA very favourite argument against the genuineness of Acts is that Acts\nxv., in its account of St. Paul's third visit to Jerusalem, A.D. 49, is\ninconsistent with Gal. ii.  It is asserted that the author deliberately\nfalsified the story in order to represent the older apostles as\npromoting the union of Gentile and Jewish Christians, some modern\ncritics assuming that the apostles would never have done anything so\nCatholic.  But there is no real discrepancy between the two accounts,\nif we are ready to believe that St. Luke gives the public and exterior\nview of the proceedings, while St. Paul, as is natural, describes the\npersonal aspect of those proceedings.  According to Acts xv. 2, St.\nPaul and St. Barnabas were _deputed_ to go to Jerusalem by the Church\nat Antioch; according to Gal. ii. 2, St. Paul went there \"by\nrevelation.\"  The internal motive is surely compatible with the\nexternal.  Again, both Acts xv. and Gal. ii. show that the momentous\nCouncil at Jerusalem included private and public meetings.  The two\naccounts fit one another all the better in consequence of the fact that\nActs {106} lays stress upon the public settlement (xv. 7 f.) and\nGalatians upon a private conference (ii. 2).  Acts shows that there was\nmuch dispute, and Galatians shows that the dispute included opposition\nto St. Paul's methods.  Acts shows that St. Paul greatly desired to be\non good terms with the older apostles, Galatians shows that they gave\nhim the right hand of fellowship.  The historical situation, the\noccasion of dispute (viz. the attempt to impose circumcision on the\nGentiles), the chief persons concerned and the feelings which they\nentertained, are the same in both books.[3]\n\nAs to the fact that St. Paul in Galatians makes no mention of a second\nvisit to Jerusalem about A.D. 46, he ignores it because it was devoted\nto the specific business mentioned in Acts xi. 30; xii. 25.  Nothing\narose out of it affecting his relations with the first apostles or his\nown apostleship.  A description of this visit was therefore quite\nbeside the argument of Galatians.  We cannot therefore say that its\nomission in Galatians proves that it was an invention of the author of\nActs.\n\nThe fact that Acts does not depend upon St. Paul's writings and\nnevertheless shows many undesigned points of contact with them, leads\nus to a very important conclusion.  This conclusion is that the writer\nof Acts was a companion of St. Paul.  It is incredible that a later\nwriter, who took an eager interest in St. Paul's adventures, should\nhave made no use of St. Paul's letters.  Those letters made a deep\nimpression upon St. Paul's contemporaries (cf. 2 Cor. x. 10), and they\nwere carefully treasured by all succeeding generations.  We can only\nexplain the relation between Acts and the Pauline Epistles by the\ntheory that the author of Acts was sufficiently intimate with the\napostle to be able to write his book without feeling the necessity of\nenriching it by references to those Epistles.  The theory, then, fits\nwith the theory which is suggested to us by the \"we sections.\"  The\nonly remaining question is whether this companion was, or was not, St.\nLuke.  {107} He was evidently with St. Paul at Rome, and this makes it\nimpossible to attribute the authorship of Acts to Titus, as there is no\nhint in the New Testament of Titus being there.  Nor was the author\nSilas, for Silas was not with St. Paul on the third missionary journey,\nwhile the author of Acts was.  Acts xx. 5, 6 seems to prove that the\nbook was not written by Timothy.  No one seems so likely to have been\nthe author as St. Luke.  For the writer of Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16\nevidently accompanied St. Paul to Rome, and we learn from Col. iv. 14\nand Philem. 24 that St. Luke was with the apostle during his first\nimprisonment in that city.  We may therefore say that every line of\nevidence points to the truth of the ancient tradition that St. Luke\nwrote Acts.\n\nThe sources of information employed by St. Luke can sometimes be\ndetermined with a high degree of probability.  Where he did not draw\nupon his own recollections he could often rely upon those of St. Paul.\nThe apostle was, as we should expect, in the habit of narrating his own\nexperiences (cf. 2 Cor. i. 8-10; xii. 9; Gal. i. 11-ii. 14; Phil. iii.\n3-7; Rom. xv. 16-32).  Acts xxi. 19; xiv. 27; xv. 3, 12, 26, show how\nSt. Paul related his travels.  Acts i.-v. probably incorporates an\nearly Jewish Christian document, and contains features which\nunmistakably point to the truthfulness of the record.  A good deal of\ninformation was probably obtained from John Mark: it was to the house\nof Mark's mother that St. Peter made his way after his escape from\nprison recorded in ch. xii.  As St. Mark was with St. Luke and St. Paul\nat Rome, and acted as St. Peter's interpreter, St. Luke had the\nopportunity of learning from him many facts concerning St. Peter.  St.\nBarnabas also perhaps furnished some details concerning the history of\nthe early Church at Jerusalem.  Some of the converts who fled from\nJudaea to Antioch (xi. 19) were probably men who witnessed the wonders\nof the Day of Pentecost.  And if St. Luke was a Christian of Antioch,\nas tradition says, he may have made inquiries of these converts.\n\n{108}\n\nFrom Philip the evangelist, St. Luke may have learnt the history of\nevents with which Philip was concerned, as he stayed with him at\nCaesarea (xxi. 8-12), and he also knew Mnason, who was one of the\n\"original\" disciples of Pentecost (xxi. 16).  Finally, we notice that\nSt. Luke had intercourse with St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem,\nhimself (xxi. 18).\n\n[Sidenote: Date.]\n\nWe have seen above (p. 68) that St. Luke's Gospel was probably written\nsoon after A.D. 70.  As Acts i. 1 shows that Acts was written later\nthan the Gospel, and as there is just enough difference in style\nbetween the two books to encourage the idea that Acts was not written\nimmediately after the Gospel, we may reasonably place Acts between A.D.\n75 and 80.\n\nOne obvious objection to placing the date of Acts so late is the fact\nthat the writer does not record the death of St. Paul.  This is\ncertainly startling, for the martyrdom of the great apostle would have\nformed an impressive conclusion to the book.  But there are several\nreasons which may be appropriately suggested to account for the\nomission.  Possibly the author intended to write a third \"treatise,\" in\nwhich the story of the martyrdom of his two great heroes, St. Peter and\nSt. Paul, would be recounted; possibly Acts, which ends very abruptly,\nwas never completed by the author.  It is also possible that, after\nshowing that the Roman civil power had generally been tolerant towards\nChristianity, he did not wish to endanger the circulation of his book\nby giving an account of Nero's brutal persecution of the Christians.\nIf the book had contained any such history, the possession of it would\nhave been regarded as no small offence by the civil authorities.\nSeveral years later, when the Church was probably much stronger, St.\nJohn, in writing the Revelation, disguised his description of Nero in\nsymbolical language.  In any case, St. Luke may have wished both to\nshow Theophilus that Christianity was compatible with loyalty to the\ngovernment, {109} and that the government had for a long time been\ntolerant towards Christianity.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe general plan of the book may easily be seen by a glance at the\nAnalysis printed below.  We may describe it by saying that the ruling\nideas are the progress and the continuity of the Church.  That is to\nsay, St. Luke shows how the Church, the divinely organized society\nwhich promotes the kingdom of God, lives and develops through various\nstages and crises.  It spreads from one upper room in Jerusalem to\nRome, the world's mightiest city.  From the election of Matthias, the\nnew apostle, until the decision reached by the Council at Jerusalem\ntwenty years afterwards, and recorded in ch. xv., we behold a slow but\nsure progress.  The secret of this progress is dependence upon the\nrisen Christ.  We cannot conceive how the apostles could ever have come\nout of the perplexity and dismay caused by the death of their Lord, and\nlaboured with such enthusiasm, unless they were certain that the Lord\nwas indeed risen.  Without the resurrection, the Church would have\ncollapsed at once.  Knowing that it could not be possibly disproved,\nthe apostles appeal to it as their reason for advancing out of Judaism.\nTwo points with regard to the doctrine implied in chs. i.-xv. deserve\nspecial attention.\n\n(1) _The doctrine of Christ's Person_.  The doctrine is of the simplest\nkind, but the facts asserted by the apostles imply that He is divine.\nHe is the Messiah, anointed by God, and the Holy One, and He is in a\nspecial sense the Holy Servant or Child of God (iii. 14; iv. 27).  He\nis seated at the right hand of God (v. 31), He is Prince and Saviour.\nHe fulfils divine functions.  It is He who has poured out the Holy\nSpirit (ii. 33).  He is the object of man's faith, and His name or\nrevealed personality is declared to have just restored a lame man to\nsoundness (iii. 16); signs and wonders are expected to be done through\nHim (iv. 30).  There is \"salvation\" in none other (iv. 12), and He is\nto be \"the Judge of quick and dead\" {110} (x. 42).  St. Stephen in\ndying prays to Him.  He is perpetually called Lord, and the fact that\nthe same name is applied to Jehovah in the Septuagint makes it\nimpossible to suppose that Christ is not regarded as possessed of\ndivine attributes.\n\n(2) _The doctrine of the salvation of the world_.  Rationalist critics\nhave asserted that the first apostles had no idea that the gospel was\nmeant for the world, and that they limited its light to the children of\nAbraham.  The unfairness of this assertion is shown by the consistent\nmanner in which the same doctrine of the salvation of all men is\ninterwoven in different parts of Acts, including the early chapters,\nwhich are generally acknowledged to be derived from an early Jewish\nChristian source.  The doctrine is that salvation is offered to the\nJews first (iii. 26), but \"all that are afar off\" may share in it (ii.\n39; iii. 25).  This is exactly the doctrine expressed by St. Paul in\nRom. i. 16.  And the conversion of Gentiles of different classes, as\nrecorded in Acts, testifies that the apostles acted up to the doctrine.\nThey did not doubt that the Gentiles had a right to the gospel.  The\npoint which did agitate them was, how much of the Jewish ceremonial\nought the Gentiles to be required to observe.  When the Gentile\nconverts became numerous the question became acute, being sharpened by\nthe demand of certain Jewish Christians that all converts should be\ncircumcised.\n\nSt. Peter and St. James set their faces against this demand, and it was\ndetermined on their advice that the Gentiles should only be required to\nabstain from \"meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things\nstrangled, and from fornication\" (xv. 29).  The rule was primarily\nmeant for Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.  It prohibits complicity in\nidolatry, and in the immorality with which Syrian idolatry had been\nhistorically associated.  And it prohibits the eating of blood and\nthings strangled, a practice which might cause friction in the presence\nof Jewish communities.  Nothing is said about circumcision or the\nsabbath.  It is impossible to reconcile Acts xv. with the {111} theory\nthat the original apostles were merely Jewish Unitarians who detested\nSt. Paul.  And the Rationalists who have propagated this theory gain no\nhelp either from Galatians or from Acts xxi.  For St. Paul, in writing\nto the Galatians, asserts the two central facts which we find in Acts\nxv., viz. (i.) that his policy of an open gospel was opposed by a party\nwhich appealed to the original apostles, (ii.) that the original\napostles gave him the hand of fellowship and repudiated the Judaizers.\nIn Acts xxi. 24 we find St. Paul himself performing a Jewish ceremonial\nact at the request of St. James.  The request was made in order to\ncounteract the falsehood that he had been trying to make the Hebrew\nconverts desert the old Jewish customs.  It cannot be interpreted as a\nproof of the supposed blind Judaism of St. James.  For St. Paul\n_voluntarily_ performed a similar act at Cenchreae, and we have no\nground for believing that he always claimed for himself that entire\nfreedom from Jewish usages which he always claimed for his Gentile\nconverts.  His own words contradict such a notion emphatically (1 Cor.\nix. 20).\n\nThe truth is that it is only by doing violence to all the evidence\nwhich we possess, that anything can be done to support either the\ntheory of Baur and his school that the apostles of the Church were\ndivided with regard to the _Law_, or the more recent theory of Harnack\nand others that they were divided with regard to the _Person of\nChrist_.  All the apostles believed that the gospel was for all men on\nequal terms, and that Christ was the divine Lord of all.\n\nIn addition to these points, it is necessary to say a few words about\n_the ministry of the Church_ which is described in Acts.  It is\nasserted by such writers as Martineau, Sabatier, and Schmiedel, that\nthe state of the Church and the ministry in Acts betrays the fact that\nthe author did not write in the apostolic age.  It is said that\n\"hierarchical ideas\" or \"hierarchical pretensions\" can be detected in\nsuch passages as i. 17, 20; viii. 14-17; xv. 28; xx. 28, and that such\nideas {112} could not have been entertained by the apostles.  It is not\npossible to give a full discussion of such a theory in this book.[4]\nWe must be content with noting that, in order to give it any appearance\nof validity, it is necessary to reject every part of the New Testament\nwhich does not happen to agree with it.  Schmiedel, who places Acts\nbetween A.D. 110 and 130, says that \"Acts xx. 18-35 has many ideas in\ncommon with those of the Pastoral Epistles,\" but that \"the author has\nnot yet reached the stage in the development of Church government which\ncharacterizes the First Epistle to Timothy.\" [5]  He says this simply\nbecause that Epistle, which he regards as a late forgery, shows a form\nof Church government practically identical with Episcopacy, while he\nthinks that Acts xx. shows a form of government intermediate between\nthe genuine apostolic form and Episcopacy.  To this we may make two\nanswers; (a) that the Church government in Acts and 1 Timothy is\npractically the same, the work of the apostle being in r Timothy partly\ndelegated to an apostolic vicar; (b) as there is excellent evidence for\nregarding 1 Timothy as a genuine writing of St. Paul, it gives us an\nadditional cause for believing that the description of Church\ngovernment in Acts is not fictitious.\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nThe outline of the book is laid down in the words of our Lord quoted in\ni. 8, \"Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon\nyou: and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea,\nand Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.\"\n\n{113}\n\nA.\n\nFrom A.D. 29 to ? 34,\n\nThe Church at Jerusalem: i.-viii. 1.--Introduction; the commission to\nthe apostles, the Ascension, choice of Matthias in place of Judas (i.).\nOutpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Peter's speech, the unity\nof the Church (ii.).  Cure of a lame man, Peter's speech on the\noccasion (iii.).  Peter and John imprisoned and before the Council,\ntheir dismissal and return to the Church, community of goods in the\nChurch (iv.).  Ananias and Sapphira, miracles of healing, especially by\nPeter, second imprisonment of Peter and John, Peter's speech,\nGamaliel's advice to refrain from persecution (v.).  Appointment of the\nseven deacons, Stephen's ministry and arrest (vi.).  Stephen's defence,\nin which he shows that the Jews have always opposed the chief servants\nof God and that _true worship is independent of the Jewish temple_,\nStephen's martyrdom (vii.-viii. 1).\n\n\nB.\n\nFrom A.D. ? 34 to 46.\n\nChristianity spreads through Judaea and Samaria and to the Gentiles,\nSt. Paul's conversion: viii.-xii.--Church scattered by persecution,\nPhilip in Samaria, Simon Magus, Peter and John at Samaria, Philip\nbaptizes an Ethiopian proselyte to Judaism (viii.).  Conversion of\nPaul, his baptism, he is introduced to the apostles, Peter at Joppa and\nLydda, raising of Tabitha by Peter (ix.).  Peter and Cornelius, Peter's\ntrance, he eats with and has baptized _Gentiles_ who had previously\nbelieved in God but were _uncircumcised_ (x.).  He explains his conduct\nand the Church approves (xi. 1-18).\n\nChristianity spreads to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, where it is\npreached to _pagan Greeks_ (xi. 19-30).  Herod's {114} persecution,\nmurder of James, Peter's third imprisonment and escape, death of Herod\nin A.D. 44, Paul returns from his second visit to Jerusalem (xii.).\n\n\nC.\n\nFrom A.D. 47 to 49.\n\nSt. Paul's First Missionary Journey: xiii. 1-xv. 35.--Barnabas and Paul\nreceive the laying on of hands at Antioch, journey through Cyprus,\nElymas the sorcerer blinded, visit to Antioch in Pisidia, Paul's speech\nin the synagogue, he turns to the Gentiles (xiii.).  Paul preaches at\nIconium, cures lame man at Lystra, is stoned, returns to Antioch\n(xiv.).  _Persecution of the Christians by Jews_.\n\nThe Jerusalem Church Council decides that _Gentiles need not be\ncircumcised_ (xv. 1-35).\n\n\nD.\n\nFrom A.D. 49 to 52.\n\nSt. Paul's Second Missionary Journey: xv. 36-xviii. 22.--Paul with\nSilas visits the Churches founded during the first journey, Timothy\ncircumcised (xv. 36-xvi. 5).  Paul crosses to Europe, imprisoned at\nPhilippi, conversion of the jailor (xvi.).  At Thessalonica and Beroea,\nat Athens, Paul's speech at the Areopagus (xvii.).  At Corinth, brought\nbefore Gallic the Roman proconsul, travels by Ephesus and Caesarea to\nJerusalem and Antioch (xviii. 1-22).  _Persecution by Jews, or by\nGentiles whose pockets are affected_ (xvi. 19).\n\n\nE.\n\nFrom A.D. 52 to 56.\n\nSt. Paul's Third Missionary Journey: xviii. 23-xxi. 16.--Paul revisits\nGalatia and Phrygia; Apollos, a converted {115} Jew, defends\nChristianity at Corinth (xviii. 23-28).  Paul stays at Ephesus, great\nriot (xix.).  _Roman officials tolerant to Christianity, craftsmen\nwhose pockets are affected show violence_.  Journey to Macedonia and\nGreece, Paul at Troas, Eutychus' fall and cure, journey to Miletus\nwhere Paul meets the presbyters of Ephesus (xx.).  Voyage to Tyre and\nCaesarea (xxi. 1-16).\n\nF.\n\nFrom A.D. 56 to 61.\n\nSt. Paul arrested at Jerusalem, imprisoned at Caesarea, voyage to Rome:\nxxi. 17-xxviii. 31.--Paul visits James and the presbyters, the Jews try\nto kill him, he is rescued and taken to the castle (xxi. 17-40).  His\nspeech to the Jews, is removed by the chief captain (xxii.).  His\nspeech before the Jewish Council, is taken to Caesarea (xxiii.).\nAppears before the procurator Felix (xxiv.).  Appears before the\nprocurator Festus, appeals to the emperor, speaks before Agrippa (xxv.,\nxxvi.).  _Roman officials still tolerant, but obliged to interfere_.\nThe voyage and shipwreck (xxvii.).  Paul at Melita (xxviii. 1-10).  He\njourneys to Rome and expounds the gospel at Rome, where the Jews had\nnot previously heard anything against him.  He preaches the kingdom of\nGod for two years (xxviii. 11-31).\n\n\nSimilar Characteristics of St. Luke's Gospel and Acts.--Among such are\nthe continued interest in Samaritans (Acts i. 8; viii. 5-25) John the\nBaptist (Acts i. 22; x. 37; xiii. 24; xviii. 25; xix. 3), women (Acts\ni. 14; ix. 36; xii. 12; xvii. 4), the poor (Acts ii. 45; iii. 3; iv.\n32; ix. 39, etc.).  In both books Christ is specially called \"Lord,\"\nand is the great Prophet (Luke vii. 16, 39; xxiv. 19-27; cf. Acts iii.\n22; vii. 37), also the suffering \"Servant\" (Luke xxiv. 36, 45; cf. Acts\niii. 13, 18; iv. 27; viii. 32).  Notice, too, in both books the long\nreports of prayers and speeches.\n\n\n\n[1] The \"we sections\" contain 97 verses.  They are xvi. 10-17, xx.\n5-15; xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16.\n\n[2] See Rev. Sir John C. Hawkins, Bart., M.A., _Horae Synopticae_.\n\n[3] See Lightfoot, _Commentary on Galatians_.\n\n[4] The reader is referred to Dr. Gore, _The Church and the Ministry_,\np. 234 f. (fourth edition).\n\n[5] _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, vol. i. p. 49.\n\n\n\n\n{116}\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL\n\nAlthough the Christian cannot regard the Epistles contained in the New\nTestament as having quite the same importance as the Gospels which\nrecord the life and sayings of his Divine Master, he must regard them\nas having a profound significance.  They deal with the creed and the\nconduct of the Church with an inspired insight which gives them an\nundying value, and they are marked by a personal affection which gives\nthem an undying charm.  They lend, too, a most powerful support to the\nhistorical evidence of the truth of Christianity.  We have already\nnoticed that the earliest Gospel was probably not written before A.D.\n62, while St. John's Gospel is probably as late as A.D. 85.  But\nseveral of the twenty-one Epistles in the New Testament are certainly\nearlier than A.D. 62, and out of the whole number only the three by St.\nJohn can be confidently placed at a later date than St. John's Gospel.\nNow, these twenty-one Epistles assume the truth of the story contained\nin the Gospels.  They do more than this.  For they prove that during\nthe lifetime of men who had personally known Jesus Christ, there were\nlarge numbers of earnest men and women who were at home with the same\nideas as those which Christians have cherished until modern times.\nSome of these ideas explain what we find in the Gospels.  For instance,\nthe doctrine of the Atonement is more plainly expounded in the Epistles\nthan in the Gospels.  This doctrine, together with those which concern\nthe Person of Jesus Christ, the Holy {117} Trinity, the sacraments, the\nChurch, and the ministry, could be shown to have existed about A.D. 60,\neven if the Gospels had perished or were proved to be forgeries.  The\nindirect evidence which the Epistles give to the life and teaching of\nour Lord is therefore of immense importance.  If the infidel says that\nthese doctrines are mere theories, we can ask him how these theories\narose, and challenge him to produce a cause which so adequately\naccounts for them as the incarnation of the Son of God.\n\nThe origin of \"spiritual letters\" or \"epistles\" was perhaps due to the\nwisdom and originality of St. Paul.  At any rate, there is nothing\nimprobable in this conjecture, nor need it draw us into any sympathy\nwith the recent attempts to use it as a means for discrediting those\nEpistles in the New Testament which bear the names of other authors.\nIt is possible that the earliest Epistle is that of St. James, and we\nhave no means of telling whether St. Paul did or did not anticipate him\nin writing Epistles.  In any case, if St. Paul is not the pioneer, he\nis the captain of epistle-writers.  St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St.\nBernard, and in modern times Archbishop Fenelon and Dr. Pusey, have\nillustrated the power of making a letter the vehicle of momentous\ntruths.  But on the greatest of them there has fallen only a portion of\nthe mantle of St. Paul.\n\nWe possess thirteen Epistles written by St. Paul.  There is no real\nreason for doubting the genuineness of any of them, and a remarkable\nchange has lately taken place in the manner in which the opponents of\northodox Christianity have treated them.  When the ingenious attempt\nwas made, sixty years ago, to prove that St. Paul invented a type of\nChristianity which was not taught by Christ, it was held that only\nGalatians, Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians were genuine.  The other\nEpistles attributed to St. Paul were said to be forgeries written after\nSt. Paul's death, and intended to act as certificates for the Catholic\nfaith of the 2nd century.  Since then criticism has grown wiser.  The\ngenuineness of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians was first conceded.\nThen it became necessary to {118} admit the genuineness of Colossians\nand Philemon; and 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians are now being placed in\nthe same list even by some extreme critics.  In fact, the use made of\nSt. Paul's Epistles in the 2nd century, and the impossibility of\nfinding any one who had the genius to personate the great apostle, are\ntwo things which have disabled fancy-criticism.  The Epistles to\nTimothy and Titus are still confidently rejected by some authors, but\nthis confidence is being undermined.  Some special attention is given\nto the question of their genuineness in this book.\n\nThe writings of St. Paul fall into four groups, each group being shaped\nby something which is unmistakably novel and by something which it has\nin common with the other groups.\n\nI. A.D. 51.  1 and 2 Thessalonians.\n\nII. A.D. 55-56.  1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans.\n\nIII. A.D. 59-61.  Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, Philippians.\n\nIV. A.D. 61-64.  1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy.\n\nSt. Paul was in the habit of dictating his letters.  In Rom. xvi. 22\noccurs the name of Tertius, who was then acting as his secretary.  But\nSt. Paul wrote the little letter to Philemon himself, and in Gal. vi.\n11-18 we find a postscript which the apostle wrote in his own large\nhandwriting.  Similar instances are found in 1 Cor. xvi. 21-24 and Col.\niv. 18, while in 2 Thess. iii. 17 he shows us that he sometimes made\nthese additions in order to protect his converts from being deceived by\nforged letters written in his name.\n\nIn order to enter into the spirit of St. Paul's letters it is necessary\nto understand his history, a brief outline of which will now be given.\n\nSaul, who changed his name to Paul, was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, a\ncity which prided itself upon its good education.  The language of the\ncity was Greek; Saul's father was a Jew and a Roman citizen.  He was\ntrained at Jerusalem by {119} Gamaliel, a renowned Pharisee.  The\nfuture apostle was therefore born a member of the most religious race\nin the world, spoke the language of the most cultivated race in the\nworld, and lived under the most masterly and fully organized\ngovernment.  All these three influences left their mark on a soul which\nwas always impressible towards everything great and noble.  But his\nnature was not only impressible; it was endowed as well by God with a\nstrong pure heat which could fuse truths together into an orderly and\nwell-proportioned form, and purge away the falsehoods which clung to\ntruths.  It is plain that he was not a Pharisee of the baser sort, even\nwhen he believed that the Messiah was a pretender.  Righteousness was\nhis ideal, and because he hated sin, a struggle raged between his\nconscience and his lower instincts (Rom. vii. 7-25).  He fiercely\npersecuted the Christians, whom he regarded as traitors to their race\nand their religion.  On his way from Jerusalem to Damascus with a\nwarrant from the high priest to arrest the Christians, he was converted\n(about A.D. 35) by a direct interposition of the risen Lord.  Every\neffort has been made by modern rationalists to explain this revelation\nas either an imaginary vision or an inward light in his conscience.\nThe fact remains that St. Paul never speaks of it as a merely inward\nreality, that he does not number his conversion among the ecstatic\nstates to which he was subject (2 Cor. xii. 1), and that he reckons the\nappearance of Christ to himself as an outward appearance like the\nappearances to the older apostles (1 Cor. xv. 5-8).  We cannot get\nbehind the statements made by St. Paul and those made in Acts by his\nfriend, St. Luke.  They show that he was met and conquered by Christ.\nThe appearance of Christ changed his whole career, transformed his\ncharacter, convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah, and that salvation\ncan only be obtained by faith in Him--that is, by a devoted adherence\nto His Person and His teaching.  After preaching Christ in Damascus, he\nretired into the keen air and inspiring solitude of the Arabian desert.\n{120} During this period the outline of his creed seems to have grown\nclear and definite.  It afterwards expanded and developed, as truly as\nyouth passes into manhood, but there is no evidence for any material\nalteration having taken place after his return from Arabia.  Many\nChristians doubted the sincerity of his conversion, but St. Barnabas, a\nconciliatory and kind evangelist, introduced him to St. Peter and St.\nJames at Jerusalem, A.D. 38.  His life being threatened by the\nGreek-speaking Jews, he departed for Tarsus.  In due time he was\nbrought by St. Barnabas to aid the new mission to the Gentiles at\nAntioch, a large and splendid city, admirably adapted for the first\npropagation of the gospel among the heathen.  In A.D. 46 he paid with\nBarnabas a second visit to Jerusalem, taking thither a contribution\nfrom Antioch to relieve the famine which raged there.  In A.D. 47 he\nwent from Antioch in company with Barnabas on his first missionary\ntour, visiting Cyprus and part of Asia Minor.  On his return, A.D. 49,\nhe attended the Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv.; Gal. ii.), at which he\ninsisted that converts from paganism should not be required to submit\nto circumcision and the other ceremonial rules of the Jewish Church.\nOnly once again has any Council of the Church had to discuss such a\nburning and weighty question, and that once was at the Council of\nNicaea in 325, when it was determined to describe the fact that Jesus\nis God in language which would admit of no possible mistake or\njugglery.  At Jerusalem, in A.D. 49, the Church had to determine\nwhether it was sufficient for a man to be a Christian, or necessary for\nhim to become a Jew and a Christian simultaneously.  Some Judaizing\nChristians maintained the latter.  Faithful to the teaching of our\nLord, who laid on no Gentile the necessity of adopting Judaism, the\nChurch decided that Gentile converts need not be circumcised.\n\nIn A.D. 49, soon after the Council at Jerusalem, St. Paul began a\nsecond missionary journey, and crossed over into Europe, where he\nfounded several Churches, including those of Philippi and Thessalonica.\nAt Athens he seems to have made {121} but little impression, but at\nCorinth, the busy and profligate centre of Greek commerce, he was more\nsuccessful.  He stayed there for eighteen months, and during this stay\nhe wrote the Epistles to the Thessalonians.  They are marked by the\nattention given to _eschatology_, or doctrine of \"the last things\"--the\nsecond coming of Christ, the resurrection of mankind, and the judgment.\n\nThis second journey closed with a visit to Jerusalem, and was followed\nby an incident which shows that the apostle's long warfare with Judaism\nwas not over.  The Judaizers had been defeated at the Council of\nJerusalem, and they were aware that the Gentiles were pouring into the\nChurch.  So they attempted a new and artful plan for securing their own\npredominance.  They no longer denied that uncircumcised Christians were\nChristians, but they tried to gain a higher status for the circumcised.\nThey asserted that special prerogatives belonged to the Messiah's own\npeople, and to the apostles whom He had chosen while He was on earth.\nWhen St. Paul went from Jerusalem to Antioch in A.D. 52, St. Peter,\nfearing to offend these Judaizers, was guilty of pretending to believe\nthat he agreed with them.[1]  He refused to eat with Gentile\n(uncircumcised) Christians.  He thereby tried to compel the Gentiles to\n\"Judaize\" (Gal. ii. 14), treating them as if they were an inferior\ncaste.  St. Barnabas was carried away by St. Peter's example.  St. Paul\nthen openly rebuked the leader of the apostles.  It is on this incident\nthat F. C. Baur and the T\u00fcbingen school founded their fictitious\nhistory of a doctrinal struggle between St. Paul and the original\napostles.  The fundamental falsehood of this history lies in the fact\nthat there was no real difference of opinion between St. Peter and St.\nPaul.  The latter rebuked the former for \"dissembling,\" _i.e._ for\nacting on a special occasion in a {122} manner contrary to his\nconvictions and openly professed principles.\n\nThe Judaizing party not only tried to inoculate the Church with\nJudaism, but strained every nerve to undermine the authority of St.\nPaul.  They said that he had no authority to preach Christ unless it\nwas derived through the Twelve, and they showed \"letters of\ncommendation\" (Gal. ii. 12; 2 Cor. iii. 1), to the effect that they\nrepresented the first apostles and came to supply the defects of St.\nPaul's teaching.  With these opponents he was in conflict during his\nthird missionary journey, which began about August, A.D. 52.  On this\njourney he revisited Galatia and Phrygia, made a long stay at Ephesus,\nand went to Macedonia and Greece.  During this third missionary journey\nhe wrote 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans.  It is hard to\ndetermine the exact order in which they were written, as Galatians may\nhave been written before 1 Corinthians.  These Epistles are the noblest\nwork of St. Paul.  The persistent efforts of his opponents compel him\nto defend both his principles and his character.  Amid the perplexity\nof the time, his clear and clarifying mind formulated Christian\ndoctrine so perfectly that he compels his readers to see what he sees.\nThis group of Epistles is mainly devoted to _soteriology_, or the\nmethod by which God saves man.  It contains abundant teaching about\nGod's purpose of saving us, the use of the Jewish law, the struggle\nbetween our flesh and our spirit, the work of Jesus Christ in dying and\nrising for us, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the morals and worship\nof the Church.  St. Paul's arguments are mainly addressed to believing\nChristians, whom he wishes to preserve from Jewish or heathen error.\nThey are marked by the strongest light and shade.  Nowhere does sin\nappear more awful, and the love of God to undeserving man appear more\ngenerous.  At one moment the apostle writes as a logician, at another\nas a mystic.  Now he is stern, and now he is pathetic.  In compass, in\nvariety, in depth, these four Epistles are great works of art, and all\nthe greater {123} because the writer esteems his intellectual powers as\nnothing in comparison with the story of the Cross.\n\nIn May, A.D. 56, St. Paul was arrested at Jerusalem, after which he was\ndetained by the Roman procurator Felix for two years at Caesarea, and\nthen sent to Rome because he appealed to have his case tried by the\nemperor.  He arrived at Rome early in A.D. 59, and was imprisoned for\ntwo years in his own hired house before his trial.  During this\nimprisonment he wrote the Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and\nPhilippians, and the exquisite private letter to Philemon.  In\nPhilippians there is a strong reprimand of the infatuation of trusting\nin Jewish privileges, but it is plain from Colossians and Ephesians\nthat Gentile Christianity was already firmly established, and that in\nAsia Minor the Judaizing heresies were becoming fainter and more\nfanciful.  St. Paul criticizes a Judaic Gnosticism, a morbid mixture of\nJewish ritual with that Oriental spiritualism which fascinated many\ndevotees in the Roman empire at this period.  The Philippians do not\nseem to have been infected with the same religious malaria as the\nChristians who dwelt in the valley of the Lycus.  But St. Paul in\nwriting to them, as to the Colossians and Ephesians, takes great pains\nto show who Christ is and what our relation towards Him ought to be.\nThis group is therefore distinguished by its _Christology_.\n\nSt. Paul was released from his first imprisonment at Rome, though we\nknow no details of his release.  He again resumed his missionary life,\nand wrote the First Epistle to Timothy and that to Titus.  According to\na tradition of very great antiquity, he visited Spain.  But the changed\nattitude of the Roman government towards the Christians soon cut short\nhis work.  Earlier in his career the Roman officials had regarded the\nnew religion with easy though somewhat supercilious toleration.  In 2\nThessalonians we find St. Paul apparently describing the Roman\nauthorities as the restraining power which hindered the malice of\nantichristian Judaism from working revenge upon {124} the Church.  At\nEphesus he had been personally protected from the mob by the men who\nwere responsible for the public worship of the Roman emperor.  But\nunder Nero an active persecution of the Christians was set on foot, and\nSt. Paul was again imprisoned at Rome.  During this last imprisonment\nhe wrote his Second Epistle to Timothy.  This letter, like the First\nEpistle to Timothy and that to Titus, deals specially with the\norganization and ministry of the Church, and was intended to\nconsolidate the Church before the apostle's death.  The martyrdom of\nthe apostle probably took place in A.D. 64.  His tomb, marked by an\ninscription of the 4th century, still remains at Rome in the church of\n\"St. Paul outside the walls,\" which stands near the scene of his\nmartyrdom.  Unless the relics were destroyed by the Saracens who sacked\nRome in 846, they probably remain in this tomb.  The festival of June\n29, which in mediaeval times was kept in honour of St. Peter and St.\nPaul, and which in our present English Prayer-book is wrongly dedicated\nto St. Peter only, is probably not the day on which either of the\napostles suffered.  It is the day on which their relics were removed\nfor safety to the catacombs in the time of the persecution of the\nChristians by the Emperor Decius, A.D. 258.\n\n\n\n[1] The above account places the dispute at Antioch before the third\nmissionary journey.  Some writers of deserved repute place it in the\nwinter of A.D. 48, before the Council of Jerusalem.\n\n\n\n\n{125}\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\n1 AND 2 THESSALONIANS\n\nTHE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nAmong all schools of thought there has been an increasing conviction\nthat this Epistle is genuine.  It was included in Marcion's\n_Apostolicon_, or list of Pauline writings, it is contained in the\n_Muratorian Fragment_, it is quoted by the great Fathers of the close\nof the 2nd century, and is found in the Old Latin and Peshitta Syriac\nversions of the New Testament.  The earnest and affectionate tone of\nthe Epistle is thoroughly Pauline, and the argument that it is not\ngenuine because it does not contain the same pronounced anti-Jewish\nteaching as we find in Romans is precarious, though it has seemed to\nsome sceptics to be convenient.  The argument might be turned in the\nopposite direction.  For it would be just as reasonable to say that the\nabsence of anti-Jewish doctrine proves that the Epistle was written\nbefore the great conflict with the semi-Christian Jews began, as to say\nthat it proves that it was written by a forger after the conflict was\nover.  One paragraph in the Epistle points decisively to an early date.\nIn iv. 13-18 we find that some Thessalonians were under the delusion\nthat it would be an exceptional thing for a Christian to die before the\nsecond coming of our Lord, and that those who did so die would miss\nsome of the felicity appointed for the rest.  Such a delusion must have\nbeen dispelled at a very early date.  Moreover, the {126} comfort which\nSt. Paul administers to those who are agitated by this notion gives us\nthe idea that he expected Christ to return in his own lifetime.  In\nthis respect he writes to the Thessalonians something very different\nfrom what he writes in his later Epistles (Phil. i. 21-24; 2 Tim. iv.\n6), or even in 2 Cor. v. 1.  We need not be surprised that God left the\ngreat apostle in ignorance of an event which it is not given even to\nthe angels to understand (Matt. xxiv. 36).  But a forger, living after\nthe apostle's death, would not be at all likely to represent his hero\nas falling into such a mistake.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nThessalonica, the modern Saloniki, was the capital of part of\nMacedonia, situated in the middle of the bend of the Thermaic Gulf, and\nnot far from Mount Olympus, the snow-clad home of the gods of Greece.\nIt was a busy mercantile town, and in ready communication with Italy,\nas the great road called _Via Egnatia_ passed through its walls.  It\ncontained then, as now, a considerable number of Jews among its\ninhabitants.  In Christian times it became a great ecclesiastical\ncentre, and was influential in the conversion of the Slavs and\nBulgarians.  It is still famous for its splendid Byzantine churches,\nthough the finest have long since been converted into mosques by the\nTurks.\n\nThe Church was planted there by St. Paul on his second missionary\njourney, in A.D. 50 (Acts xvii.).  He preached first to the Jews, and\nafter his third visit to the synagogue he was rejected by the Jews, and\nhe turned to the Gentiles.  Some of these Thracian Gentiles were\nconverts to Judaism, but they were people whose character could be\ntrusted.  In the mean time his Philippian converts twice sent aid to\nhim (Phil. iv. 16).  Previous to this the apostle had been earning his\nown bread, no doubt by tent-making.  St. Paul was forced to leave\nThessalonica in consequence of a riot stirred up by the Jews.  He\nvisited it again before his last journey to Jerusalem in A.D. 56.\n\n1 Thess. i. 9 shows that the majority of the Christians had {127} been\nGentile idolaters, though there were a few of Jewish blood.  It was\namong the sturdy people of Macedonia that St. Paul won his steadiest\nrecruits for Christ.  Here, as in the letter to Philippi, we find that\nhe uses words of more than ordinary affection.  These converts are to\nSt. Paul his \"joy and crown\" (1 Thess. ii. 19; Phil. iv. 1).  He\ncompares his relation with them to that of a nurse with her own\nchildren (1 Thess. ii. 7).  When he wrote to the Corinthians he\ndisplayed his Macedonians as brilliant examples of Christian liberality\nand Christian loyalty (2 Cor. viii. 1-5).  In this passage he alludes\nto their poverty, and these Epistles show that they had to work for\ntheir bread.  They were exposed to bitter and continuous persecution\nfrom Jews, who were capable of inciting the roughs of the town to set\non St. Paul (Acts xvii. 5).\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nThe Epistle was written from Corinth on the occasion of St. Paul's\nfirst visit there.  When St. Paul had to leave Beroea in A.D. 50, Silas\nand Timothy remained (Acts xvii. 14, 15; xviii. 5).  He sent for them\nto meet him at Athens, and when they had come, he despatched Timothy to\nThessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 2).  In October A.D. 50, St. Paul arrived\nat Corinth from Athens: Timothy and Silas rejoined him at Corinth, and\nthe letter was written soon afterwards, probably early in A.D. 51.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe immediate cause of the Epistle was the arrival of Timothy with news\nfrom Thessalonica.  The apostle's reasons for writing were: (a) to calm\nand encourage the converts whom he had so abruptly left; (b) to urge\nthem to perform their ordinary duties.  They had fallen into a state\nbordering on religious hysteria.  Quite determined to be true to\nChrist, they had been demoralized by the strain of facing constant\nhostility.  They had begun to take excessive interest in unfulfilled\nprophecy and eschatological speculation.  The result was that\nindividuals had become careless as to the performance of simple duties.\n\nThe apostle comforts the Thessalonians by reminding them {128} of the\nhappiness and reality of their own spiritual experience.  He wishes\nthem to see plainly the working of God both in his own preaching of the\ngospel and their acceptance of it.  On the one hand, he gladly\nrecognizes the _faith, charity, hope,_ and constancy under persecution:\nthe story of their conversion, as it had been known everywhere, has won\nmany friends for the Faith (i.).  On the other hand, St. Paul is aware\nthat his own conduct has not been unworthy of an apostle.  Probably to\nvindicate himself against Jewish calumnies, he declares that his\nministry at Thessalonica was bold, pure, honest, and gentle.  Moreover,\nhe did not quarter himself upon his converts; he worked with his hands,\nand was just and fatherly (ii. 1-12).\n\nAfter a thanksgiving for the manner in which they received the word of\nGod, he speaks of his eager wish to see his friends again.  He had sent\nTimothy that he might comfort them, and Timothy has returned with glad\ntidings.  He prays for their establishment in holiness (ii. 13-iii. 13).\n\nHe goes on to exhort them to avoid impurity and work quietly, and then\nhe speaks of the eschatological difficulties.  The Thessalonians\nwondered whether the Christians already dead would miss a share in the\njoy of Christ's second coming.  St. Paul replies that those who are\nalive at Christ's appearing will have no advantage over the dead (iv.\n15).  On the contrary, the dead will rise first, and then the living\nChristians will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord.  The\nday will come with surprise, and will terrify the unprepared (iv. 1-v.\n3).\n\nHe then calls them to watchfulness and sobriety.  There follows an\nexhortation to obey the clergy, and the early date of the Epistle is\nagain suggested by the fact that the titles which are used in his later\nepistles are not given to the clergy of Thessalonica.  The existence of\nan order of prophets seems implied (v. 20).  The Epistle has a special\nblessing for these troubled Christians who look so wistfully for \"the\ncoming of our Lord Jesus Christ.\"\n\n{129}\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation, thanksgiving, and congratulation.  The good fruit borne by\nChristianity at Thessalonica is known of through all Macedonia and\nAchaia (i.).\n\nThe character of the apostle's ministry there, a fresh thanksgiving,\nthe apostle desires to see his friends, but is hindered by Satan\nworking through adverse circumstances (ii.).\n\nTimothy's expedition, a prayer (iii.).\n\nEncouragement to obedience, exhortation against impurity and to work;\nthe blessed dead and Christ's second coming.  The sudden coming of the\nLord (iv. 1-v. 3).\n\nPractical conclusion based on the above doctrine (v. 4-28).\n\n\n\nTHE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe external evidence for the genuineness of the Second Epistle is even\nstronger than that of the First.  It is mentioned by Polycarp,[1] and\napparently by Justin Martyr.[2]  It is also supported by the same\nversions of the New Testament and by the same Fathers as the First\nEpistle.  In modern times it has been rejected even by some who accept\n1 Thessalonians.  Some of the objections which have been raised are\nalmost too trivial to deserve attention.  But the prophetic and\napocalyptic passage in ii. 1-12 has been regarded by many critics as a\nserious stumbling-block.  It has been urged (a) that 1 Thessalonians\nimplies that St. Paul believed Christ would return immediately, whereas\n2 Thessalonians implies that certain important occurrences must first\nintervene.  But there is no real contradiction.  For 1 Thessalonians\nrepresents the return of Christ as certainly sudden {130} and _possibly\nsoon_; it does not represent it as certainly immediate.  A thief may\ncome suddenly in the night, and yet the man who gives warning that the\nthief will come, does not necessarily mean that the thief is coming\nwithout delay.  It has been urged (b) that the doctrine of Antichrist\nin 2 Thessalonians is un-Pauline, and depends on the Book of\nRevelation.  But there is not the least improbability in supposing that\nSt. Paul was in touch with these ideas about the end of the world.  We\nknow that such ideas were common among the Jews at this period.  Nor is\nthere any proof that the teaching of 2 Thessalonians on this subject is\nderived from the Revelation of St. John.  Moreover, on the least\nChristian view with regard to Christ and the Gospels, it is irrational\nto deny that our Lord made various predictions about His second coming.\nWe find a list of such predictions in Matt. xxiv. and in the parallel\npassages of the other Gospels.  It is therefore natural to find St.\nPaul speaking about the end of the world in language which resembles\nthat used by our Lord, or that found in Daniel, Ezekiel, and the later\nJewish Apocalypses.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nSt. Paul sent this Epistle from Corinth, probably towards the end of\nthe year 51.\n\nSeveral modern writers have dated 2 Thessalonians earlier than 1\nThessalonians.  The grounds for this view are the references in this\nEpistle to the teaching lately given by St. Paul while at Thessalonica.\nBut although these references would be natural in any Epistle written\nfirst after his departure from that place, they do not necessarily\nimply that 2 Thessalonians was the first.  Moreover, ii. 2 probably\ncontains a reference to the First Epistle, and this letter was\napparently written to clear up a difficulty which the First Epistle did\nnot solve.  Persecution had continued at Thessalonica, and higher\nexcitement and wider confusion prevailed.  The Thessalonians were more\nsure than ever that Christ's advent was coming immediately, on the\nstrength, perhaps, of some words in St. Paul's earlier letter to them,\n{131} supported by a forged letter which pretended to be his and by\nfeigned revelations.  The result was entire neglect of daily duties.\n\"There is no reason,\" men said, \"why I should work for my living or try\nto be provident, because the Lord is sure to come to-day or to-morrow.\"\n\nAs the circumstances are so similar to those in the First Epistle, and\nas Silvanus (otherwise Silas) and Timothy are still with the apostle,\nwe may be sure that 2 Thessalonians was written during St. Paul's first\nstay at Corinth.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe Epistle consists of instruction and exhortation.  The most\ncharacteristic passage is ii. 1-12.  The apostle declares that he never\ntaught that the day of the Lord is about to dawn immediately (ii. 2).\nIt must be preceded by several events.  There will be an apostasy, the\nrevelation of \"the man of sin, the son of perdition,\" who will assume\nequality with God and sit in the temple of God.  Over against this \"man\nof sin\" we find placed \"one that restraineth now.\"  Many strange\ninterpretations of these two phrases have been devised, and the fancy\nof commentators has ranged over various historical monsters from\nMohammed to Napoleon Bonaparte.  One favourite idea is that the\ndescription of the man of sin \"setting himself forth as God\" refers to\nthe worship offered to the Roman emperors, and to the attempt made by\nCaligula in A.D. 39 to place his statue in the temple at Jerusalem.\nBut it seems far better to regard the man of sin as hostile Judaism,\npersonified in an Antichrist who pretends to be the representative of\nGod foretold in Mal. iii. 1. The other force which St. Paul personifies\nis the curbing power of a strong government as then seen in the\nadministrative system of the Roman empire.  The power of Rome protected\nhim against Jewish fanaticism at this period (Acts xix. 35-41; xxii.\n22-29), but in this truly irreligious fanaticism he discerned a latent\nmysterious evil (ii. 7) which would afterwards reveal itself in hideous\nexcesses.  While \"the man of sin,\" or {132} \"wicked one,\" thus wreaks\nhis will, Christ will come and consume him with the breath of His mouth.\n\nSt. Paul understood the real genius of the antichristian Jews.  Early\nin the 2nd century they began a series of rebellions against the power\nof Rome, committing horrible atrocities.  These rebellions culminated\nbetween A.D. 132 and 135.  The Jews then rallied round a pretended\nMessiah, Simon Bar Kocheba, whom they named \"Prince of Israel\"; they\nkilled the Christians who refused to blaspheme Jesus, and they captured\nJerusalem from the Romans.  After a fierce struggle the Romans took\nJerusalem again, and crowds of Jews were either massacred, or sold as\nslaves by the oak of Abraham at Hebron and in the markets of Egypt.\n\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation, thanksgiving for faith, charity, steadfastness, the\ncertainty of Christ's coming to \"render vengeance\" and \"to be glorified\nin His saints\" (i.).\n\nApocalyptic passage, renewed thanksgiving, exhortation to hold the\ntraditions already received, invocation of Christ and our Father to\ncomfort and stablish the converts (ii.).\n\nSt. Paul requests their prayers for himself, anticipates their\nChristian progress, excommunication of disorderly brethren commanded.\nThe apostle had worked for his living, they must do likewise.  He\ncommends them to the Lord, and appends a salutation in his own hand as\na seal of authenticity (iii.).\n\n\n\n[1] _Ad Phil._ ii.\n\n[2] _Trypho_, 110.\n\n\n\n\n{133}\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe genuineness of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans is\nadmitted by almost every modern critic, Christian or not Christian.  It\nwas always acknowledged by F. C. Baur, who rejected all the Epistles\nbearing the name of St. Paul except these four.  This Epistle is\nreferred to in several writings of the 2nd century, and is unmistakably\nmentioned in the letter written to the Corinthians by St. Clement of\nRome about A.D. 95.  He says, \"Take up the Epistle of the blessed Paul\nthe apostle.  What did he first write to you in the beginning of the\nGospel?  Of a truth he sent a letter to you by the Spirit concerning\nhimself, and also Cephas and Apollos, because you had even then formed\nparties\" (cf. 1 Cor. i. 12).  The style of the Epistle is spontaneous,\nvivid, and coherent.  The authenticity is only disputed by a tiny group\nof infidel writers who, in reaction against Baur, have endeavoured to\nmake good their unbelief by asserting the genuineness of the Scriptures\nwhich Baur rejected, and rejecting what Baur defended.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth\" (i. 2).  In former times\nCorinth had been the most important city in Greece after Athens itself.\nIt was one of the earliest homes of Greek art, and its position made it\nso favourable for commerce that it attracted a colony of Phoenician\ntraders at a very remote period.  When its art declined, it remained\ncelebrated for its wealth and its {134} extreme licentiousness.  The\npatron deity of the Corinthians was Aphrodite, who was no other than\nthe foul Phoenician Astarte.  Her temple on the rock of the\nAcrocorinthus dominated the city below, and from it there came a stream\nof impure, influences \"to turn men into swine.\"\n\nIn B.C. 146 the city was captured by the Roman general Mummius.  It was\nleft desolate until B.C. 46, when Julius Caesar refounded it as a Roman\ncolony.  The Romans called the whole of Greece the province of Achaia,\nand constituted Corinth the capital of it.  While Athens was still the\nseat of the greatest university in the world, where lived most\nvigorously the glorious memories of bygone Greece, the government of\nthe province was directed from Corinth.  When St. Paul visited it, it\nwas under a proconsul, Junius Gallio, the brother of the philosopher\nSeneca.  The possession of two good harbours, and its position on the\nquickest route from Rome to the East, caused a rapid revival of\nCorinthian wealth and Corinthian manners.  There was also a good deal\nof literary and philosophic culture.  In the time of St. Paul the\ndescendants of the original Roman colonists probably formed a small\naristocracy among the mass of Greek dwellers at Corinth, and some\nsettlements of various nationalities, including one of Jews, were\nliving there.  A few miles away, at the shrine of Poseidon, were held\nthe athletic Isthmian games, and still by the sea-shore there grow the\npine trees, such as furnished the quickly withering wreaths which were\ngiven to the victors in the race.\n\nThe Church of Corinth was founded by St. Paul on his second missionary\njourney, during his first visit to Europe.  His stay at Corinth lasted\nfor eighteen months.  There is an account of it in Acts xviii.  He\nlaboured at tent-making, and found a home with a devout Jewish couple,\nAquila and Priscilla.  At first he preached in the synagogue, where he\nconverted the ruler of the synagogue, Crispus.  Being rejected by the\nJews, he turned to the Gentiles, and held his meetings {135} in the\nhouse of Justus, a converted proselyte.  The Jews prosecuted St. Paul\nbefore Gallio, who, however, dismissed the case with contemptuous\nindifference.  The converts to Christianity were numerous.  They were\nmostly Gentiles (1 Cor. xii. 2), but there were a few influential\nJewish Christians and some Gentiles who had been proselytes of Judaism.\nIt is clear that the Church contained a few men of good birth and\neducation (1 Cor. i. 26), but the majority were from the poorer\nclasses.  The Corinthians as Christians were by no means entirely free\nfrom the characteristics which had marked them as citizens.  They were\nready to form cliques and quarrel in the name of Christ, and they still\nshowed the same quarrelsome mood in the time of St. Clement.  They\nfound it hard to hate the sensuality which in their earlier days they\nhad regarded as divine.  They were puffed up with eloquence and\nphilosophic speculation, and forgot that there is no \"sweetness and\nlight\" comparable to the Gospel.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nThis Epistle was written from Ephesus in the spring of A.D. 55.  The\nnote at the end of the Epistle to the effect that it was written \"from\nPhilippi,\" though ancient, is incorrect, and is due to a\nmisunderstanding of xvi. 5.\n\nWhen St. Paul left Corinth in April, A.D. 52, to go to Jerusalem,\nApollos came to take his place, and preached with much success (Acts\nxviii. 27).  St. Paul returned to Ephesus at the end of the summer of\n52, and Apollos left Corinth and joined St. Paul.  Soon some Judaizing\nteachers appeared at Corinth, and the apostle was obliged to go\nthither, though \"in sorrow\" (2 Cor. ii. 1; cf. 2 Cor. xii. 14; xiii.\n1).  After this disciplinary visit he returned to Ephesus, and sent the\nCorinthians a sharp letter, now lost, about the relations which they\nshould have with open and notorious evil-livers (1 Cor. v. 9).\n\nSt. Paul's next news from Corinth caused him to write this letter.\nSome members of Chloe's household told him of the development of\nfactions there; and a letter was sent, perhaps {136} by the hands of\nStephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (xvi. 15-18), asking for advice\nabout matters of grave importance, including litigation between\nChristians and an unseemly freedom in public worship.  Realizing the\nserious state of affairs, St. Paul determined to visit Corinth a third\ntime, and sent Timothy as his representative to prepare for his coming\n(1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10).  After Timothy's departure he wrote this\nEpistle.\n\nThe above account assumes that St. Paul's _second visit_ to Corinth was\npaid before 1 Corinthians was written, but it is thought by some\nwriters of repute that it was paid after 1 Corinthians was written and\nbefore 2 Corinthians.\n\n[Sidenote Character and Contents.]\n\nThis Epistle, like each of the three other Epistles belonging to the\nsame group, has a perfectly distinct character of its own.  It expounds\nthe doctrine of a crucified Christ as applied to social difficulties.\nWhat Romans does as a theological treatise, and Galatians as a\ncontroversial admonition, and 2 Corinthians as a record of personal\nexperience and vocation, this 1 Corinthians does as an instruction for\ninfluencing a corrupt urban life with the leaven of the gospel.  It is\nvery practical in tone, and the doctrine which it contains is not\nstated separately, but is throughout woven into the cords of the\napostle's argument.  There is nothing in the New Testament equal to\nthis Epistle in its power of bringing us close to the difficulties of\nthe Church in an ancient city.  We seem to see the men and women who\ncomposed it--their eagerness for religious novelties, their debased\nsurroundings, their anarchic divisions, their frail sense of moral\nresponsibility.  And a modern reader will probably lay the letter down\nwith a conviction that our great modern cities have much to learn from\nthe words written by St. Paul to Corinth, \"the light of Greece.\"\n\nThe Epistle is very olderly in arrangement.  It deals first with the\nreport which St. Paul had received about the Corinthian Church\n(i.-vi.); then it answers various questions {137} which the Corinthians\nhad submitted to him (vii.-xi. 1).  Then follow directions based on the\nreport and the questions.\n\nThe letter opens with a significant salutation and thanksgiving (i.\n1-9).  St. Paul then proceeds to rebuke the Corinthian _tendency to\nparty spirit_.  There were apparently four parties in the Church.  The\nfirst asserted that they were followers of _Paul_; the second preferred\nthe rhetorical preaching of _Apollos_ to Paul's simplicity; the\nthird--probably Judaizers--ranged themselves under the name of _Cephas_\nas the leader of the original apostles; the fourth repudiated human\nleaders, and arrogantly named their clique that of _Christ_, thereby\ninsinuating that the other parties were less Christian than themselves.\nIt is evident that all these four names were really used as party\nwatchwords.  St. Paul says that he has _transferred by a fiction_ (iv.\n6) the action of the wranglers to himself and Apollos.  He means by\nthis, not that the Corinthians did not employ these names in their\nstrife, but that he and Apollos were in no sense responsible for the\nstrife.  Some perplexity has been caused by the name of the\nChrist-party.  It is thought by some that they were rigid Jewish\nChristians from Jerusalem (2 Cor. iii. 1; xi. 22).  But it is more\nprobable that they were only a body of Christians who protested against\nthe parties named after human leaders, and saying, \"We are the people,\"\nmade a new party of their own.\n\nSt. Paul shows that this sectarian spirit is entirely alien to the\nwhole principle and history of the Christian faith.  That faith, though\nit is a wisdom which comes from God, does not lend itself to pride of\nintellect.  It is deliberately content to be counted foolish by the\nworld; its sign is the cross, its converts are the poor and\ninsignificant Corinthians, its eloquence the unpolished speaking of the\napostle himself.  And as to their personal preferences for receiving\nspiritual benefits from one Christian teacher rather than another, this\nshows a complete misconception as to the source of the benefit and the\nposition of the teacher.  This is explained in iii. 1-iv. 5.  All\nspiritual {138} increase comes from God.  Christ is the Foundation.\nHuman teachers are not figure-heads of different schools, but the\ninstruments and the stewards through whom God dispenses His gifts.  It\nis not the duty of Christian teachers to put forward original ideas on\nreligion.\n\nThen the apostle, after referring to their ostentatious\nself-righteousness, pathetically shows the unfitness of pitting against\none another teachers who share in an equality of forlorn destitution\nand contempt (iv. 6-13).  He concludes this section with an\naffectionate but authoritative speech: he says that he has sent Timothy\nto Corinth, and hopes shortly to come himself (iv. 14-21).\n\nThe apostle proceeds with sharp decision to deal with _a case of\nincest_.  The Corinthians had treated this gross offence almost with\nlevity, but St. Paul declares that the offender shall be excommunicated\nand shall be punished by disease (v. 1-8).  After explaining some\nadvice of his earlier letter (v. 9-13), he goes on to rebuke a third\nabuse--_litigation_ between Christians in pagan law-courts.  The love\nof law-suits was mischievous in itself, as involving a breach of\nChristian brotherhood.  It was also scandalous in its effects, as\nexposing the bickerings of the disciples of Christ to the ridicule of\nunbelievers.  A stern rebuke of vice follows (vi. 1-11).  Then comes an\nindignant and lofty argument against fornication, which is a defilement\nof the temple of the Holy Ghost (vi. 12-20).\n\nSt. Paul now turns to the various questions that the Corinthians have\nasked him.  He first gives some advice about _matrimony_, carefully\ndistinguishing between statements which he makes on his own authority,\nand rules laid down by Christ, and also between counsels of perfection\nand the obligations of ordinary Christians.  It is excellent to lead a\nsingle life, but in view of prevailing sensuality, he recommends\nmarriage as generally more prudent.  He advises that when people do\nmarry, there should be a fulfilment of conjugal duties except for {139}\noccasional devotion \"unto prayer.\"  One permanently important assertion\nin the apostle's teaching is that both marriage and celibacy imply a\n\"gift from God.\"  St. Paul would have had no sympathy with either any\nmediaeval depreciation of married life, or the modern English notion\nthat a man has not \"settled down\" until he has married (vii. 1-40).\n\nThe next question is whether converts may eat _meat that has been\noffered to idols_.  With strong common-sense, the apostle points out\nthat there is here no alternative between essential right and wrong.\nYou may eat it, because an idol is nothing, but you must take care not\nto hurt the consciences of other Christians (viii.).  You may eat\nanything that you buy in the market-place, but you must not attend an\nidolatrous feast in a temple, and if you are at a private house you\nmust not eat food offered to idols if your attention has been directly\ncalled to its character (x. 23-32).  St. Paul illustrates his meaning\nby reference to his own self-denial--the policy he had at Corinth of\nexacting no payment for his ministry, his tactful caution, his severe\nself-control (ix.).  The need of such self-control is proved by the\nfact that the ancient Jews, in spite of their high privileges, fell\ninto carelessness and sin (x. 1-13).  The Corinthians must not be like\nthe Jews.  The nature of the Eucharist warns them to be scrupulously\ncareful about temple feasts.  There cannot be a drinking of the chalice\nof Christ and of the cup of devils (x. 14-22).\n\nChapter xi. deals with _public worship_.  St. Paul gives directions for\nwomen to cover the head in church, and then comes a reference to the\nHoly Eucharist which is of extreme interest and importance.  It was the\ncustom for Christians to meet together before the Eucharist for a\ncommon meal called the Agap\u00e9, which was intended to commemorate the\nLord's Last Supper.  St. Paul complains that this meal has been made an\noccasion of sin among the Corinthians: the richer people had overeaten\nthemselves, while the poor were left hungry and ashamed.  The apostle\nsets off the unfitness of {140} this conduct by a brief exposition of\nthe Eucharist; the preliminary meal, so much misused by these\nungracious and ungenerous Christians, was intended to be a preparation\nfor the ineffable Feast, at which the Fare was the very Body and Blood\nof Jesus Christ, and at which His death was solemnly represented (xi.\n2-34).\n\nSt. Paul deals next with _spiritual gifts_, saying that they come from\nGod, and so give no ground for boasting, and that the exercise of them\nis only pleasing to God if it be joined with charity.  After a sublime\nchapter on charity, he lays down some regulations for those who\npossessed these abnormal gifts, which, it is evident, were already the\ncause of disorders in the Church.  The Corinthians, with their craving\nfor the miraculous, tended to set a high value on speaking with\ntongues, but St. Paul upholds the superiority of the more intelligible\nand useful gift of prophecy (xii.-xiv.).\n\nThe Epistle concludes with a splendid argument for the reality of the\n_Resurrection_.  It is directed against some false philosophy.  St.\nPaul claims for the fact of the resurrection of Christ the witness of\nScripture, of many honest and intelligent Christians, and of himself.\nThen he goes on to show to the Corinthian objectors what a denial of\nthe resurrection of the dead involves.  It means that Christ did not\nrise, that I am preaching deceit, that you are believing a lie, that\nthe dead in Christ have no existence except as memories, that we who\nhave foregone the pleasures of this life have done so in pursuit of a\ndelusive phantom.  But it cannot be so.  Christ is really risen.  And\nSt. Paul passes on to demonstrate the happy consequences which follow\nfrom this.  The Resurrection is the earnest of all that Christ will do\nfor man; and in the light of it Christian baptism for the sake of the\ndead[1] and Christian heroism have their meaning (xv. 1-34).\n\n{141}\n\nIn order to remove difficulties from the mind of an objector, St. Paul\ndiscusses the kind of body which we shall have at the Resurrection.  He\nshows by analogies from nature (a) that God is able to effect the\ntransformation of a seed-grain into a new product, and can therefore\ntransform us while retaining a connection between our present and\nfuture body; (b) that God is able to create a variety of embodiments,\nand can therefore give us a higher embodiment than we now possess.\nThere will be a spiritual body adapted to the spiritual world, as truly\nas our natural body is adapted to life in this world.  Thus the gospel\nis truly a gospel for the body as well as for the spirit.  Our whole\npersonality will be saved, and nothing will be discarded (xv. 35-58).\n\nSt. Paul concludes with an order for the collection of alms on behalf\nof the faithful in Jerusalem, and says that he hopes to come soon to\nCorinth.  After some personal matters, he characteristically appends\nwith his own hand a curse on those who do not love the Lord, and a\nprayer and loving message for the faithful.\n\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation, thanksgiving (i. 1-9).\n\n(1) Evils in the Church: i. 10-vi. 20.--Sectarianism.  This is rebuked\non the ground that all the apostles, etc., are working for one end, and\nall their power is God's.  Christ is supreme over all (i. 10-iv. 21).\n\nIncest.  The Church is to deliver the sinner to Satan (the severest\nform of excommunication).  St. Paul mentions a previous warning not to\nassociate with immoral Christians (v.).\n\n{142}\n\nGoing to law with a Christian in the pagan courts is rebuked.  Warning\nagainst profligacy (vi.).\n\n(2) Answers to a letter from the Corinthians: vii. 1-xi. 1.--Marriage\nand celibacy.  It is well to avoid marriage.  But the married must not\nseparate.  Under present circumstances, the apostle would prefer others\nto be unencumbered as he is (vii.).\n\nFood offered to idols.  Christian liberty (viii.).  St. Paul's example\nin not claiming one's own rights (ix.).  Danger of thinking that we\nstand.  We are \"one bread,\" and must seek each other's good (x.-xi. 1).\n\n(3) Other evils in the Church: xi. 2-34.--Women to be covered.  Conduct\nat the Eucharist and the Agap\u00e9.  An account of the institution of the\nEucharist.\n\n(4) Answer to a question concerning spiritual gifts: xii.-xiv.--Unity\nin diversity (xii.).  Charity the greatest gift (xiii.).  Prophesying\nand tongues compared (xiv.).\n\n(5) Vindication of the Resurrection: xv.--The evidence for Christ's\nresurrection.[2]  The nature of our resurrection.\n\n(6) Some directions and personal details: xvi.\n\n\n\n[1] 1 Cor. xv. 29.  This verse is very obscure.  It has been\ninterpreted as meaning that when a convert died before it was possible\nfor him to be baptized, it was a custom of the Corinthians to allow a\nfriend to undergo baptism in his stead.  But perhaps it simply means\nbeing baptized for the sake of some dear one who was a sincere\nChristian, and begged that his or her surviving relatives would be\nbaptized and meet him or her hereafter.\n\n[2] It is important to notice that St. Paul, in writing of the death\nand resurrection of our Lord, gives powerful evidence in support of St.\nJohn's assertion that our Lord died on Nisan 14 (see above, p. 29).  In\n1 Cor. v. 7, 8 he says, \"Our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even\nChrist: wherefore let us keep the feast\"; and in 1 Cor. xv. 20 he calls\nChrist \"the first-fruits of them that are asleep.\"  Now, if Christ died\non Nisan 14, when the Passover lamb was sacrificed for a feast, and if\nHe rose on Nisan 16, when the Passover firstfruits were offered in the\ntemple, this double comparison is exquisitely appropriate.  But if the\nstatement in John is false, St. Paul's comparison is forced and\nunnatural.\n\n\n\n{143}\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe genuineness of this Epistle is almost universally admitted,\nalthough it is not quoted quite as early as the First Epistle.  The two\nEpistles are interwoven with each other by several threads of thought,\nsuch as St. Paul's intention to visit Macedonia, his decision with\nregard to the incestuous man, and his direction to collect alms for the\nChristians of Jerusalem.  Moreover, this Epistle agrees with the Book\nof Acts, and at the same time is plainly independent of it.  Acts does\nnot mention _Titus_, whose name is prominent in 2 Corinthians, and at\nthe same time Acts xx. 5, 6 corroborates the account of the visit to\n_Troas_ in 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13.  The whole style of the Epistle is so\nnatural and impassioned, so wonderful in its light and gloom, that\nthere is only one author to whom we can possibly attribute it.\n\nThere is, however, a difficulty with regard to the last four chapters.\nIt is thought by some critics that they are a separate Epistle written\nby St. Paul to the Corinthians, and afterwards joined to chs. i.-ix.\nThese writers are usually of the opinion that the last four chapters\nwere written before i.-ix., and that their theory will account for the\nfact that they are more severe and depressed in tone.  Now, it is true\nthat i.-ix. seem more hopeful than x.-xiii., and also that i.-ix.\ncontain two references to a previous letter (ii. 4; vii. 8, 9).  We\nfind, too, in 2 {144} Cor. i. 23; ii. 1, 4, that the apostle shows a\nshrinking from the thought of another visit to Corinth, while in 1\nCorinthians no such feeling is manifested.  If, however, 2 Cor.\nx.-xiii. had been written in the interval, the feeling is not\nunreasonable.  But the facts of the case seem to be most easily\nexplained by the belief that there was a letter written between 1 and 2\nCorinthians, but that this letter has been lost.  In spite of the\ndifference in tone between the two parts of 2 Corinthians, there is\nsufficient continuity of theme to make us hesitate to detach them.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which\nare in the whole of Achaia.\"  The latter part of the address shows us\nthat St. Paul felt it necessary to vindicate himself to all the\nChristians in Greece (Hellas).  His opponents had evidently been\nextremely active.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nThe Epistle was written in A.D. 55, a few months after 1 Corinthians,\nfrom some town in Macedonia, probably Philippi.  It was sent by the\nhands of Titus and perhaps St. Luke (2 Cor. viii. 18-23).\n\nThe First Epistle was received submissively by the Corinthians, the\nstrife of parties subsided, and the case of incest was dealt with as\nthe apostle required.  In consequence of this happy result, it seems\nthat St. Paul decided to visit the Corinthians on his way to Macedonia,\nsailing straight to Corinth from Ephesus (2 Cor. i. 15), as well as to\npay them the visit which he had promised before (1 Cor. xvi. 5).\n\nTimothy, who had arrived at Corinth in accordance with St. Paul's\nprevious wish (1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10), soon returned to Ephesus with\nnews of a second and more serious crisis.  We do not know what caused\nit, or what was precisely its character, but it is certain that St.\nPaul's motives and authority were harshly and openly challenged.\nPerhaps Timothy himself was insulted, and therefore, indirectly, the\napostle who gave him his commission and authority.  St. Paul wrote at\nonce a {145} very sharp letter, which is the _second lost letter_ to\nthe Corinthians, and he resolved to return to his earlier plan of\nvisiting them only as he came south from Macedonia.  He made this\nresolution to spare them for the present the pain of meeting him.  This\nlost letter was probably sent by Titus (2 Cor. xii. 18), who also\ncarried instructions with regard to the collection for the poor at\nJerusalem.  Apparently St. Paul thought that it would be wiser not to\nentrust Timothy with the delicate task of again calming the Corinthian\nwranglers.  As soon as Titus left, St. Paul was full of nervous\napprehension as to the effect which this letter would produce.  He set\nout from Ephesus (2 Cor. i. 8-10) in great anxiety, his departure being\nperhaps precipitated by the riot so graphically described in Acts.  He\ntells us himself that when he came to Troas he had still no relief for\nhis spirit--no news from Corinth.  Though he found an opening for the\ngospel at Troas, he hurried on into Macedonia, and at last Titus came\nwith joyful news of the penitence and submission of the Corinthians.\nSt. Paul then wrote this Epistle.  Towards the end of December, A.D.\n55, he reached Corinth, where he stayed for three months.\n\nThe Book of Acts fits perfectly with the Epistles.  From Acts xx. 1-3\nwe see that St. Paul did visit Macedonia and Greece at the close of his\nstay at Ephesus, and from Acts xix. 22 we see that he sent Timothy\nbefore him.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe Epistle has the nature of a letter sent by a spiritual father to\nhis children rather than of a doctrinal treatise with an argument\ncarefully built up.  Its value for us lies chiefly in the vivid reality\nwith which it reflects the personality of the writer, his love for his\nconverts, his intense conviction that his apostolic commission and\npower are entirely genuine--a conviction which is set off by his wish\nalways to associate himself with the weakness and fragility of ordinary\nhuman nature.  Throughout the Epistle there are scattered allusions to\nChristian doctrine which are of the very highest importance.  Before\ngiving an outline of the {146} Epistle, we may notice one or two\ndoctrinal passages of special importance.\n\nFirst, with regard to the Resurrection.  The teaching of 1 Corinthians\nis further explained.  St. Paul shows how entirely he has thrown off\nthe feeling of terror which environed the ordinary Jewish idea of\ndeath.  The sense of union with God by which a few Jews in some rare\nflashes of inspiration knew that they would live after death, is here\ntriumphant.  St. Paul regards death as a portal to that happy existence\nwhich can only be described as being \"at home with the Lord\" (2 Cor. v.\n1-8; cf. Phil. i. 23).  Union with Christ _now_ absolutely guarantees\nunion with Him hereafter.  The resurrection-body which in 1 Corinthians\nhe described as \"a spiritual body,\" he poetically calls the \"house from\nheaven\" which God will provide for the redeemed spirit.  Then he thinks\nof this new body as a _robe_.  And as he hopes that Christ will come\nagain before we have put off our present body in death, he says that he\ndesires to be clothed with the new body over his present body, \"if so\nbe that being clothed we shall not be found naked.\"  The last phrase is\nobscure, but it probably is a fresh rebuke of those Corinthians who\ndenied the resurrection of the body.  If so, it means \"assuming, as is\nindeed the case, that we shall really be found clothed with a body at\nChrist's coming, and not naked (_i.e._ bodiless spirits).\"\n\nSecondly, with regard to the work of Christ.  In 2 Cor. iv. 4 He is\ncalled the \"image of God.\"  Now, St. Paul teaches that we men may\nreflect the likeness of Christ to God:\n\n        \"The truth in God's breast\n  Lies trace for trace upon ours impressed:\n  Though He is so bright and we so dim,\n  We are made in His image to witness Him.\"\n\nBut St. Paul also teaches that the relation between the Son and the\nFather is unique.  He means that Christ reveals the Father completely\nin virtue of this eternal relation between them.  We are made to become\nlike God, but the Son is not {147} made; He does not belong to the\nclass of created things (1 Cor. viii. 6).  And St. Paul never speaks of\nChrist _becoming_ the Son of God.  He regards Christ as having always\nbeen the Son, exercising divine functions, and therefore as \"God\nblessed for ever\" (Rom. ix. 5).  In 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18 he asserts that\nthe Lord is the divine Spirit who animates the new dispensation.  The\nold Jewish dispensation is described as \"letter,\" because it was a\nsystem of outward commandments; the Gospel dispensation is described as\n\"spirit,\" because it is a system of spiritual principles which are\nsummed up in Christ.  We by reflecting His glory are transformed into\nthe same image by successive stages of glory.  This glory comes from\nthe Lord Jesus, who is the Spirit of Christianity (2 Cor. iii. 18).  It\nis important to notice that St. Paul does not confuse the Second Person\nof the Trinity with the Third Person, and that for many years the\nChristians used occasionally to describe the divine nature of the Son\nby the word \"Spirit.\"  They gradually gave up this manner of speaking,\nas it was ambiguous.\n\nIn 2 Cor. v. 18-21 there is an important statement on the Atonement.\nThe close connection between the Atonement and the Incarnation is shown\nin the assertion that \"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto\nHimself,\" and the love of both the Father and the Son is shown in the\nwords that \"He made Him to be sin on our behalf.\"  The first statement\nsaves us from the idea that God selected a holy man to reveal His will,\nand then gave up this best of men to unimaginable suffering.  No! it\nwas God Himself who came in the Person of the Sufferer.  The second\nstatement implies that Christ, though sinless, was treated as a sinner.\nHe thus by dying accomplished the end which our punishment would\naccomplish, namely, the expression of God's hatred of sin and love of\nrighteousness.\n\nThe Epistle opens with an introduction and thanksgiving, in which there\nseems to be a note of sadness, marking the effect which the crisis in\nCorinth has left on the mind of St. Paul.  He proceeds to give a\npersonal explanation.  The visit to the {148} Corinthians on the way to\nMacedonia was abandoned only because of the pain which it would have\ngiven them; the sharp letter was not written in wrath, but in sorrowful\nlove (i. 23-ii. 1-4).  St. Paul goes on to ask pardon for the man who\ncaused the recent disturbance (ii. 5-11).\n\nThen, whilst he is describing his journey to Macedonia (ii. 12-17), he\nbreaks off suddenly into a digression, in which he describes the\ndignity of the apostolic ministry, its superiority over the Mosaic\nministry, the nature of its commission, and the seal of it in a life\nwhich is always martyrdom (iii. 1-vi. 13).  St. Paul concludes this\nsection with a short appeal to the Corinthians to avoid contamination\nfrom heathenism (vi. 14-vii. 1).\n\nHe then returns to the situation of ii. 13.  He tells us with how much\njoy he received the news that Titus brought him--joy for the\nCorinthians, for Titus, and for himself.  The next two chapters (viii.,\nix.) contain instructions and exhortations respecting the fund\nmentioned in 1 Cor. xvi. 1. The last four chapters follow quite\nnaturally.  The apostle speaks with plain severity to rebuke those who\ncreated the recent disturbance, and to warn any there may be whose\nsubmission perhaps has not been quite entire.  The prevailing tone is\nthat of pathetic and sorrowful expostulation.  St. Paul repeats the\nunkind things that have been said of him--how unimposing his presence,\nthat he depends on alms, that he is only eloquent with his pen.  But he\ndefends his apostleship with absolute though very humble confidence,\ncounting up the things that he can say for himself--his share in Jewish\nprivileges, his sufferings for Christ, the revelations that God has\nsent him, the signs of his success, the continual weakness that Christ\ngives and blesses.  Truly, the apostle is even greater than his grief.\n\nThe Epistle concludes with a benediction, in which St. Paul\nco-ordinates the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.  From primitive\ntimes these words have been used as the introduction to the most solemn\npart of the Greek liturgy, from which they were taken into the services\nof the Church of England.\n\n{149}\n\nANALYSIS\n\n(1) St. Paul's thankfulness and exhortation: i. 1-ii. 17.--Salutation,\nthanksgiving, the promised visit postponed, the previous letter, the\npenitent offender.  St. Paul's journey to Macedonia, triumph in Christ.\n\n(2) The Apostle's ministry: iii. 1-vii. 1.--His converts are his\nletters of commendation, the superiority of this ministry of the gospel\nabove that of the Mosaic dispensation (iii.).\n\nChrist the subject of his preaching, present light affliction resulting\nin eternal glory (iv.).\n\nInspiring hopes of the resurrection, constraining love of Christ, the\nministry of reconciliation based on the atonement (v.).\n\nHe persuades and suffers (vi. 1-13).\n\nWarning against being yoked with unbelievers (vi. 14-vii. 1).\n\n(3) The Corinthian Church and Titus: vii. 2-ix. 15.--The visit of Titus\nto Corinth, the godly sorrow that followed (vii. 2-16).\n\nThe collection for the poor at Jerusalem, Macedonian generosity, praise\nof Titus (viii.).\n\nExhortation to a generosity like that of the Macedonians (ix.).\n\n(4) A sorrowful expostulation: x.-xiii.--A warning to those who despise\nhis authority (x.).\n\nHis rights and his sufferings for Christ (xi.).\n\nRevelations given, but also a thorn in the flesh, the signs of an\napostle, how he and Titus had dealt with the Corinthians (xii.).\n\nHe repeats that he will come to Corinth a third time, exhortation,\nbenediction (xiii.).\n\n\n\n\n{150}\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThis Epistle, being one of the four Epistles which are almost\nuniversally unquestioned, requires little or no defence.  The Pauline\nauthorship \"has never been called in question by a critic of first-rate\nimportance, and until recently has never been called in question at\nall.\"  The writings of those Fathers of the Church who lived nearest to\nthe apostolic age contain several possible allusions to it, and it is\nexpressly named by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.\nThe internal evidence shows that it must belong to the time of the\napostles, for the errors which are criticized in it are different from\nthe Ebionite ideas which existed at the beginning of the 2nd century,\nand from the Gnosticism which existed even before the apostles were all\ndead.  They are evidently earlier than these heresies.  Still more\nconvincing is the vehement and pathetic energy which marks this\nEpistle.  There is a ring of reality in its broken sentences and\nearnest appeals.  It displays none of the careful patchwork which we\nshould expect from a forger; it consists only of the quick hot words of\na man who is very deeply moved.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"Unto the Churches of Galatia.\"  What is the meaning of the name\n\"Galatia\"?  Students are still divided on the question.  If the word\n\"Galatia\" is used in a popular sense to describe the country inhabited\nby the Galatai, then it means North Galatia, a district in {151} the\nextreme north of Asia Minor.  It was mainly inhabited by Celts, who\ncame thither from Europe in the 3rd century B.C., and spoke a Celtic\nlanguage as late as the 2nd and even 4th century after Christ.  This\nlanguage is mentioned by Pausanias, and St. Jerome says that it was a\ndialect only slightly varying from that used in Gaul by the Treveri.\nBut if the word \"Galatia\" is used in a political sense, signifying a\nparticular province of the Roman empire, then it means a large area\nmuch further south, including Pisidia, Lycaonia, and part of Phrygia.\nIn this province were Pisidian Antioch, Derbe, Iconium, and Lystra,\nwhere St. Paul founded Churches in A.D. 47, on his first missionary\njourney.  The latter explanation is almost certainly correct.\n\nNo good argument can be brought forward in favour of North Galatia\nwhich cannot be balanced by a better argument in favour of South\nGalatia.  For instance, though St. Luke in Acts uses the popular and\nnot the political names for districts, this cannot be urged in favour\nof St. Paul's adopting the same usage.  On the contrary, he uses Asia,\nMacedonia, and Achaia in their political sense, and so we may suppose\nthat he would do the same in the case of Galatia.  Again, though there\nwere in North Galatia Jews who would tempt the converts to Jewish\nobservances, there were Jews in plenty in South Galatia also.  And\nwhile many writers have said that the Celtic blood of these\nrecalcitrant Christians is proved by the enthusiasm, fickleness,\nsuperstition, love of strife, and vanity which St. Paul rebukes, we may\nreasonably urge that these defects are not confined to the Celts.  The\nPhrygians doted on a sombre and mysterious religion.  In heathen times\nthey loved the worship of Cybele, with its exciting ceremonial and\ncruel mutilations.  And when they adopted Christianity, though their\nmorality was generally austere, their credulity was intense.  In the\n2nd century many of them embraced the new revelations of Montanus, and\nin the 4th they largely affected the hard Puritanism of Novatian.  In\nreligious matters the Celts are very little {152} inclined to\nfickleness, and their superstitions are more closely connected with\ndreaminess than with vehemence.\n\nThe following facts also deserve attention; (1) It would be strange if\nActs gave us no account of Churches in which St. Paul took so much\ninterest.  If Galatia be North Galatia, there is no such account in\nActs.  If it be South Galatia there is, and the polite and natural\nmanner of addressing the inhabitants of the cities of Antioch, Derbe,\netc., would be \"Galatians.\"  Their bond of union was association in one\nRoman province.  (2) It is improbable that St. Paul would take the very\ndifficult journey necessary for visiting the Celtic Galatians.  His\nusual plan was to travel on Roman high-roads to the big centres of\npopulation.  North Galatia was both isolated and half-civilized.  Also,\nhe says that he visited the Galatians on account of an illness (iv.\n13).  It is incredible that he would have chosen the long unhealthy\njourney to North Galatia when he was ill.  But it is extremely probable\nthat he left the damp lowlands of Pamphylia for the bracing air of\nPisidian Antioch.  The malady was probably the malarial neuralgia and\nfever which are contracted in those lowlands.  (3) The Epistle contains\ntechnical legal terms for adoption, covenant, and tutor, which seem to\nbe used not in the Roman but in the Greek sense.[1]  They would hardly\nbe intelligible except in cities like those of South Galatia where the\ninstitutions were mainly Greek.\n\nAssuming that the \"Galatians\" are those of South Galatia, we note that\nin Gal. iv. 13 St. Paul speaks of preaching to them \"the first time.\"\nThis first time must be the occasion mentioned in Acts xiii., xiv.  The\nsecond time is that in Acts xvi. 1-6.  The Christians were mainly\nconverts from heathenism (iv. 8; v. 2; vi. 12), but some were no doubt\nJews or proselytes.  {153} After the second visit of St. Paul, his\nconverts were tampered with.  Some Judaizers had put a perverse\nconstruction upon his action in promulgating the decrees of the Council\nof Jerusalem of A.D. 49, and in circumcising Timothy.  They urged that\nSt. Paul had thereby acknowledged his inferiority to the other\napostles, and practically advocated a return to Jewish ceremonial.\nInstigated by other Judaizers from Jerusalem, the Galatians had changed\ntheir Christianity into a semi-Judaism, and this all the more readily\nbecause of their previous familiarity with the Jewish religion.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nThe place and date are both uncertain.  The words, \"I marvel that ye\nare so _quickly_ removing from Him that called you\" (i. 6), suggest\nthat it was written not long after the conversion of the Galatians.\nBut we cannot place it, as some writers have done, before 1 and 2\nThessalonians.  Its style is allied with that of 1 and 2 Corinthians\nand Romans.  It must be earlier than Romans, as it is like a rough\nmodel of that Epistle.  If written soon before Romans, it was probably\ncomposed at Corinth early in A.D. 56.  It may, however, have been\nwritten as early as A.D. 52, before St. Paul's third missionary journey.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe Epistle is intended to recall the Galatians to St. Paul's true\ngospel.  In order to do this, he vindicates his own apostolic authority\nto preach it, and expounds its great principle--justification by faith,\nand not by observance of the Jewish law.\n\nAfter a salutation, without the congratulations which the apostle\nordinarily offers, St. Paul expresses his astonishment at their\nperversion, and vehemently asserts that if any one dares to preach a\ngospel other than that which the Galatians first received, let him be\nanathema (i. 1-10).  The history of St. Paul's reception of the gospel\nis then set out.  It came to him by revelation of Jesus Christ: this is\nat once the demonstration of its unique authority, and the decisive\nfact which settles the relation of St. Paul to the other apostles.  He\ndid {154} not receive from them the gospel he preached, and, to\nemphasize this, St. Paul counts up the various opportunities he had of\nintercourse with them, and says what use he made of each (i. 11-ii.\n10).  The best illustration of the independence of his position is the\nattitude which he adopted towards St. Peter, the prince of the\napostles, when at Antioch he deceitfully took the same sort of line\nwith respect to Jewish ceremonial that the Galatians are taking now\n(ii. 11-13).[2]  St. Paul describes the speech he made in opposition to\nSt. Peter, but while he is dictating it, he is carried away by an\norator's enthusiasm: he forgets that he is telling the story only of an\nold debate, and at some points we cannot confidently distinguish the\nrebuke to St. Peter from the exhortation to the Galatians (ii. 14-21).\n\nThen, still as if he were making a speech, the apostle proceeds to\nargue as he does later in the Epistle to the Romans.  He recalls to the\n\"bewitched\" Galatians the happy memories of the days when they first\nheard of Christ--the out-pouring of the Spirit, the first sharp\npersecution endured so well.  Did not all this happen when they were\nunder the gospel of Faith (iii. 2-5)?  The true sons of Abraham are\nthose who accept the gospel (iii. 6-9).  On the other hand, the people\nwho still desire to be under the Law can only avoid being under a curse\nby keeping the whole Law--and this is impossible (iii. 10).  God's will\nis plain: He has said, \"The righteous shall live by faith\" (iii. 11,\n12).  Moreover, whatever claim the Law had on us is now discharged by\nthe satisfaction made by Christ (iii. 13, 14).  Now St. Paul goes on to\nshow that the promise made by God to Abraham binds Him still.  Just as\nno subsequent transaction can nullify a Greek \"covenant,\" _i.e._ will,\nso the Law cannot nullify the earlier promise of God (iii. 15-18).[3]\nThen he compares the promise made to {155} Abraham with the Law.  The\nlatter was a contract, a mutual agreement between two parties involving\nmutual obligations; if the Jews did not keep the Law, God was not bound\nto bless them.  But in the case of the promise, there is no suggestion\nof contract.  Then, lest his readers should suppose that there was an\ninconsistency in the fact that God was the Author of both the Law and\nthe promise, St. Paul adds an explanation (iii. 19-22).  The Law would\nhave been contrary to the promise if it had been intended to produce\nthe same result as the promise by another method.  But, on the\ncontrary, the Law was added as a parenthesis in order to make known\ntransgressions, and with the result that it increased them (iii. 19).\nScripture shut up all mankind in the fold of sin, that they might look\nforward to the reign of faith as the only means of escape.  To\nemphasize further the contrast between the Law and the promise, St.\nPaul asserts that the Law did not come direct from God to man.  It\ncame, as Jewish traditions said, from God and the angels to Moses, the\nmediator, and from him to the Hebrews.  The Law had a mediator,\ntherefore it involved two parties--God and the Hebrew people.  But\nthere was no such mediator in the case of the promise.  God spoke\ndirectly to Abraham.  And God in the Person of Christ spoke directly to\nmankind.  Thus the promises are greater and more gracious than the Law.\nIt is important to observe that the argument implies the Divinity of\nChrist.\n\nBefore Faith came, the Law played the part of a Greek \"tutor,\" _i.e._ a\ntrusted servant who attended a child.  He took the child to the house\nwhere he was taught, and kept him from harm and mischief.  And we, if\nwe wish to be still under the Law, shall be as foolish as a grown-up\nson who wishes to be under a steward and a guardian.  We must leave the\nmere rudiments of religion now that we have reached a stage at which we\nhave been taught that God is indeed our Father (iii. 23-iv. 11).\n\nSt. Paul supports this conclusion from his arguments by a {156}\ntouching appeal, in which he gratefully recalls the kindness he\nreceived from the Galatians when he came to them in all the weakness\nand distress of fever (iv. 12-20).  Then he interprets for them the\nstory of Hagar, probably in answer to a reference in a letter which\nthey had sent him (iv. 21-v. 1).  The Jew is in bondage like Hagar's\nchild, the Christian is free like Sarah's child.\n\nAfter this we have another appeal, a medley of exhortation, warning,\ndenunciation, and pathetic entreaty: the apostle, himself so\nappreciative of great ideas, tries to make the unaspiring Galatians\nunderstand that they are called to the perfect freedom which is the\nservice of God (v. 2-26).  The Epistle closes with some plain words\nwhich the apostle wrote with his own hand in large characters so as to\nemphasize them for his readers.  The motive of the Judaizers is boldly\nlabelled.  Then, as if there had been a question of his own humility,\nhe associates himself with the crucified Christ, for whose sake he\nbears in his flesh the eloquent marks of the Roman rods and the stones\nof the Jews.  It was the cruel custom in Asia Minor, a custom not yet\nextinct, for masters to wound their slaves with marks which made it\nimpossible for them to escape recognition.  And so St. Paul glories in\nthe pitiful scars on his body, because they prove Whose he is and Whom\nhe serves.\n\n{157}\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation, rebuke (i. 1-10).\n\n(1) St. Paul defends his apostleship: i. 11-ii. 21.--He was called by\nGod in spite of his fanatical Judaism, God's Son was revealed in him,\nhe conferred with no man, but retired to Arabia, then three years after\nhis conversion he stayed fifteen days with Cephas, and afterwards\npreached in Syria and Cilicia (i.).\n\nFourteen years after his conversion[4] he again went to Jerusalem \"by\nrevelation.\"  False brethren attempted to get Titus circumcised, but in\nvain.  James, Cephas, and John were most friendly to Paul and Barnabas,\nagreeing that they should go to the Gentiles while remembering the poor\nin Jerusalem.  Cephas rebuked at Antioch by St. Paul (ii.).\n\n(2) St. Paul defends justification by faith: iii. 1-v. 1.--Galatian\nfickleness, even Abraham was justified by faith, and in the Old\nTestament the righteous live by faith, the Jewish Law merely a\nparenthesis between God's promise and its fulfilment, the Law a tutor\nto bring us to Christ (iii.).\n\nJudaism is the state of a son who is a minor, Christianity is the state\nof a son who has attained his majority.  Why return to the beggarly\nrudiments of knowledge?  The Jew is like the child of Hagar, the\nChristian is like the child of Sarah (iv.-v. 1).\n\n(3) Practical exhortation: v. 2-vi. 18.--Circumcision useless, freedom\nand love are the allies of the true Law, the works of the flesh and the\nfruits of the Spirit (v.).  Bearing one another's burdens, supporting\nour teachers.  A conclusion in St. Paul's handwriting (vi.).\n\n\n\n[1] The law implied in Gal. iv. 2 is in accordance with Syrian law.  If\na father died, he left his son under the authority of a steward until\nhe was fourteen, and left his property in the hands of a guardian until\nhe was twenty-five.  It is probable that in South Galatia as in Syria\nthis law was made under the reign of the Seleucids.\n\n[2] For the explanation of this quarrel, see p. 121.\n\n[3] The argument about \"seeds\" and \"seed,\" in iii. 16, looks like a\nmere verbal quibble in English.  But it becomes quite intelligible when\nwe remember that in rabbinical Hebrew the word \"seed_s_\" was used in\nthe sense of descendant_s_.\n\n[4] See Gal. ii. 1, \"at an interval of fourteen years.\"  This third\nvisit to Jerusalem (the second mentioned here) was in A.D. 49.  The\nverse probably means fourteen years after his _conversion_, and eleven\nyears after his first visit.  If we reckon the fourteen years from his\n_first visit_ to Jerusalem, the first visit would be in A.D. 33.  This\nwill not agree with Acts ix. 25, 26; 2 Cor. xi. 32, which show us that\nthe first visit was made while Aretas ruled at Damascus.  Aretas became\nmaster of Damascus in A.D. 37.\n\n\n\n\n{158}\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe genuineness of this Epistle, like that of Galatians and 1 and 2\nCorinthians, is practically undisputed.  No one ever seems to have\nquestioned it between the time that Marcion drew up his _Apostolicon_,\nabout A.D. 140, and A.D. 1792.  Before the time of Marcion it is quoted\nby St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Polycarp.  And there seem\nto be some reminiscences of it in 1 Peter.  It is first definitely\nmentioned by name in the writings of St. Irenaeus, who quotes it\nseveral times.  This early and frequent use postulates for the Epistle\na very authoritative source.  There is no one that we know of among the\nfirst Christians who could have written it except St. Paul.  What he\ntells the Romans about his personal wishes and intentions is exactly\nconsonant with what he says elsewhere.  The notices that he gives them\nof his movements perfectly accord with the notices in Acts.  The\nprimary conceptions of the Epistle are more or less common to all St.\nPaul's works.  They are concerned with the guilt and the power of sin,\nthe eternal purpose which God has for man, the meaning of Christ's\ndeath and the effect of His resurrection, the nature of our acquittal\nby God and our new spiritual life.\n\nThe only serious question with regard to the criticism of the outward\nletter of the Epistle, is connected with the last two chapters (xv.,\nxvi.).  Baur rejected both as spurious compilations, {159} intended to\nreconcile \"Paulinism\" with the more Jewish school of early Christian\nthought.  But Baur's habit of pronouncing spurious every book or part\nof a book which did not agree with his peculiar estimate of St. Paul,\nis now discredited.  In spite of this, many critics think that xv. and\nxvi. do not belong to this Epistle.  They are generally admitted to be\nby St. Paul, but it is thought that they are simply pages which have\nbecome detached from some other writings of the apostle.  Chapter xvi.\nin particular is supposed to be a fragment of an Epistle to Ephesus.\nIt abounds in personal greetings to intimate friends; and yet it is\ndifficult to believe that St. Paul had many friends in Rome before he\nvisited it.  And among these friends are Prisca and Aquila (xvi. 3),\nwho certainly stayed at Ephesus, where St. Paul had laboured for two\nyears and must have had many friends.  The tone of xvi. 17-20 is\nthought to imply sectarian divisions which the rest of the Epistle\nignores.  And the final doxology appears in different places in\ndifferent MSS., a fact which suggests that the early Church doubted\nwhere the Epistle ended.  No real importance need be attached to\nanother argument used by some critics, viz. that Marcion omitted xv.\nand xvi.  He would have rejected them, whether genuine or not, on\naccount of the sanction given to the Old Testament in xv. 4.\n\nOn the other hand, the integrity of the Epistle is maintained by some\nof the best recent critics, including Sanday, Zahn, and Godet.  The\nbest MSS. place the final doxology in its present position.  The fact\nthat the majority of cursive MSS. and some valuable versions, such as\nthe later Syriac and the Armenian, place it at the end of xiv. seems to\nbe accounted for by the fact that the last two chapters were often\nomitted in the lessons read in church, being considered unimportant for\nthe purposes of general edification.  The fact that the Epistle seems\nto come to an end at xv. 33, and also at xvi. 20, before the final\ndoxology in xvi. 27, suggests the best solution.  It is that the\napostle, after concluding the argument of the Epistle, made various\n{160} additions of a personal nature with reference to himself and his\nfriends as they occurred to his mind.  He then summed up the whole\nargument in xvi. 25-27, where the obedience of _faith_ is stated to be\nthe purpose of God's final revelation.  The number of friends mentioned\nin xvi. is not incredibly large when we remember the easy and frequent\nintercourse which existed between Rome and the east.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"To all that are in Rome, beloved by God, called to be saints.\"  It has\nbeen well said that the universality of the gospel made St. Paul desire\nto preach it in the universal city.  He longed to \"see Rome;\" he was\nconscious that Christ had called him to \"bear witness at Rome.\"  He\nhimself had the freedom of the city of Rome, and he was inspired with\nthe hope, which was fulfilled three hundred years afterwards, that the\nreligion of Christ would be the religion of the Roman empire.  The\nterritory then ruled by Rome more nearly embraced the whole of the\ncivilized world than any empire that has since been seen.  It included\nLondon and Toledo, Constantinople and Jerusalem.  Roman soldiers kept\ntheir watch on the blue Danube, and were planting outposts on the\nfar-off grey Euphrates.  The city of Rome itself contained about a\nmillion and a half of inhabitants.  It was well governed and\nsumptuously adorned.  A real belief in the homely vulgar gods of their\nforefathers had declined among educated people, and the humane\nprinciples of Stoic philosophy were instilling a new regard for the\nless fortunate classes of mankind.  Strange foreign devotions were\nsatisfying some of the yearnings which found no nourishment in the hard\nold Roman paganism.  Men who took no interest in Jupiter were attracted\nby Mithras, the Eastern god of the light.  Women who could obtain no\nentrance into the exclusive sisterhood of the Vestal Virgins, could\nfind occupation in the worship of the Egyptian Isis.  Some vague belief\nin a Divine One was rising in minds who thought that Jupiter Mithras\nand Isis were only symbols of a power behind the mists of human wisdom.\nJews {161} of all classes were numerous, though the majority were as\npoor as those of East London.  They made some converts, and Poppaea,\nthe mistress of Nero in A.D. 58, dallied with Judaism as with a new\nsensation.  Men and women of every race were included among the slaves\nof Rome, and the arts and elegance of Greek and Syrian slaves often\nproved a staircase by which new religions found a way into the chambers\nof the great and wealthy.  In spite of some signs of moral vigour,\nsociety was cankered with pride of class and with self-indulgence.  It\npossessed no regenerating force capable of checking the repulsive vice\nwhich was encouraged by the obscenity of actors and the frivolity of\nsceptics.\n\nWe are told that \"sojourners from Rome,\" both Jews and proselytes, were\nin the crowd which listened to St. Peter's address on the Day of\nPentecost (Acts ii. 10).  It is possible that these men brought news of\nthe gospel to the large body in Rome of Jews, and of Gentiles\ninfluenced by Jewish ideas.  In any case, communication between the\nchief cities of the empire was at this time so frequent that we may be\nsure that the principles and attractions of Christianity were soon\nheard of at Rome.  Gradually a small band formed there of people who\nwere interested and pleased by what they had learnt of Christ; it is\nprobable that St. Paul sent Aquila and Prisca from Ephesus to give them\ndefinite instruction.  It does not seem that they had been visited by\nan apostle (xv. 20).  The Epistle is addressed to a community\nconsisting of Jews and Gentiles, but the Gentiles are by far the more\nnumerous.\n\nThe apostle's claim in ch. i. to address this Church as within the\njurisdiction of \"the apostle of the Gentiles,\" his direct appeal to the\nGentiles in xi. 13, and the statement of his priestly office exercised\nover the Gentiles in xv. 16, show that the Church of Rome was Gentile\nin character.  The proper names in the Epistle afford us little\nindication of the proportion of Jews and Gentiles.  The majority of the\nnames are Greek, and four names are Latin; but the Jews of that time,\nlike the {162} Jews of the present day, often passed under Gentile\nnames.  We know how the English Jews now disguise Moses as \"Moss\" Judah\nas \"Leo,\" and Levi as \"Lewis.\"\n\nThe majority of the converts were probably in a humble social position.\nWhen St. Paul wrote to the Philippians, there were Christians in the\nimperial household itself, and it is possible that the Narcissus\nmentioned in Romans may be the freedman of the Emperor Claudius, put to\ndeath in A.D. 54.  Ordinary slaves and freedmen seem to have been the\nprincipal element among those who were first \"called to be saints\" at\nRome, but before long there were people of good birth and cultured\nintelligence who turned gladly from the lifeless old Roman religion and\nthe fantastic new-fashioned Eastern cults to this original faith in the\nincarnate God.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nSt. Paul wrote this letter towards the end of his stay at Corinth, at\nthe close of A.D. 55 or the beginning of A.D. 56 (see xvi. 1; xv.\n23-26, and Acts xix. 21).\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nSt. Paul writes as the apostle of the Gentiles to the Christians of the\ngreatest of all Gentile cities.  He does so with a solemn sense of\nspecial responsibility.  Profoundly impressed with the grandeur of the\nRoman name, the position of this promiscuous little body of converts is\nto him enormously significant.  They are the representatives of the\nfaith of Jesus in the capital of the world; they are the first members\nof a Church to which God seems to give the most magnificent of all\nopportunities.  And the thought is scarcely absent from his mind that\nthis may be the last Epistle he will ever send.  He is going to\nJerusalem, and has a sad foreboding of what may await him there (xv.\n31).\n\nThe manner and style which give the Epistle a unique place among the\nworks of St. Paul are caused by these considerations.  He wishes to\ntell the Roman Christians his very best ideas in the very best way:\nthis may be his last chance of doing so.  He puts aside, then, all\nclamour of personal debate, and sets {163} himself to produce an\nordered theological treatise.  Never elsewhere does the apostle write\nwith so careful method, so powerful concentration, so effective\nmarshalling of arguments, so stirring yet measured eloquence.\n\nThe Epistle opens with a brief introduction.  Paul, the apostle of\nChrist, wishes to preach the gospel to those in Rome whom Christ has\ncalled.  Then he begins at once to describe the set of circumstances\nwhich the gospel is intended to meet.  The Gentiles have not been true\nto such knowledge as they had of God, and by an inevitable process they\nhave passed on to unnatural and vicious excess (i. 18-32).  And when\nSt. Paul turns to the Jews, he finds they are in no better case.  With\nfuller knowledge they have sinned scarcely less.  Strict justice will\nbe meted out by God to all, the Jew coming first and then the Gentile.\nThe Gentile will not escape, for the Gentiles, whom we conceive of as\nhaving no law, have a law in that moral sense which makes them\ninstinctively put in practice the precepts of the Law, and their inward\nthoughts accuse or defend them (ii. 1-16).  The Jew may boast of his\nLaw and his knowledge of revelation, but he is no better in practice\nthan a Gentile.  And as for his circumcision, it is worthless unless he\nis also spiritually circumcised in the heart (ii. 17-29).\n\nAfter a parenthetical discussion of difficulties suggested by a\npossible Jewish opponent (iii. 1-8), St. Paul shows that the Jews are\nnot in a worse case than the Gentiles.  Both are under the dominion of\nsin, and Scripture says so.  The whole system of Law is a failure.  Law\ndoes nothing but give a clear knowledge of sin (iii. 9-20).\n\nSt. Paul then brings forward his great remedy--the answer of God to the\nneed which is represented by universal human sinfulness.  Man has\nfailed to correspond to the suggestions of conscience, he has failed to\nfulfil the requirements of the written Law, but now he may come into a\nright relation with God by identifying himself with Jesus Christ.  He\nmay be justified (_i.e._ accepted as righteous) by an act of God's\ngrace (_i.e._ by an {164} undeserved act of God's love) on account of\nthe redemption wrought by Christ, whom God has set forth as a\npropitiation to show His own righteousness.  God could no longer allow\nman to mistake His patience with our sins for slack indifference.  Man\nmust no longer seek to be justified before God on the strength of what\nhe himself has done, but on the strength of his faith in Christ, _i.e._\nhis devoted personal adhesion to Christ (iii. 21-26).  St. Paul tells\nthe Romans that this justifying faith excludes glorying, can be\nrealized by Gentile as well as Jew; that by it we establish the Law\n(iii. 27-31), as the Jewish dispensation, rightly understood, testifies\nto its necessity.  In fact, Abraham himself was justified by faith\n(iv.)  Then St. Paul sets forth in glowing and stately words what are\nthe consequences for us which follow from being so justified.  We are\nat peace with God, and share in His love, and this is the secure ground\nof Christian hope for life and after death (v. 1-11).  The effects of\nChrist's death are computed by an _argumentum a fortiori_ from the\nresults of Adam's fall (v. 12-21).\n\nThe apostle now carefully refutes the notion that the doctrine of\njustification by faith encourages Antinomianism.  Liberty does not mean\nlicence.  St. Paul was quite alive to the fact that skilful opponents\nand brainless admirers would misrepresent his doctrine, which was also\nChrist's.  He therefore takes great pains to show that the connection\nbetween the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of a\nChristian is not arbitrary or fictitious.  His argument throughout\nimplies that man actually receives \"the righteousness of God,\" that is,\nthe righteousness which is inherent in God, and is bestowed by God upon\nman when he unites himself with Christ (vi.-viii.).\n\nShall I go on sinning that God's mercy may be all the greater in\nforgiving me?  God forbid: for when I went down into the waters of\nbaptism, I shared in the death of Christ; and when I rose from them, I\nrose as a sharer in His risen life.  Because I am united thus to the\nlife of Christ, sin is foreign to my nature (vi. 1-14).  I am no longer\nunder law, but under grace: but {165} to be the slave of sin and be\noccupied with uncleanness, and to gain the wages of death, is\ninconsistent with being the slave of righteousness, occupied in a\ncourse of purification and rewarded with the gift of life (vi. 15-23).\n\nNext, St. Paul asks why it is that we are no longer under the Law?\nBecause we have no connection with that state of sin to which the Law\nwas applicable.  Our soul is like a wife whose lawful husband is dead.\nOr, to put the truth into another form, our old state was killed by our\nidentification with Christ crucified, and we are espoused to Christ\nrisen (vii. 1-6).  What, then, shall we think of the Law?  Is it sin?\nNo.  It reveals the sinfulness of sin, and it irritates dormant sin\ninto activity.  A thing cannot be identical with another thing which it\nexposes and irritates.  But why did God permit the Law, which is holy,\nto prove fatal to my soul (vii. 13)?  He did not.  The Law was not\nfatal, though sin was all but fatal.  Sin was permitted to do its worst\nthat its real hideousness might be apparent.  This is what took place.\nThe Law gave me an ideal, but my better self, which corresponds to the\nLaw, could not keep me from ding wrong or make me do right.  I became\ninvolved in a terrible conflict.  This was the opportunity of Christ.\nHe has delivered me from that state of the body which involved me in\nsin and death.  Without Him, I should still be serving the Law of God\nwith my conscience, and the law of sin with my body (vii. 25).\n\nWhere the Law of Moses failed, Christ splendidly succeeds.  He not only\nsets before men an ideal, but also helps them to attain it, and fulfil\nthe righteous claims of the moral Law, by uniting Himself with them by\nthe Spirit (viii. 1-10).  Men are now in a new relation to God: they\ncall Him Father, He sees in them His sons.  Though with all creation we\nwait still in fruitful pain for the fulness of redemption, we wait with\nconfident hope.  The Spirit is with us to help and to pray, we remember\nGod's high purpose for us, we have known His love in the past, Jesus in\ninfinite exaltation is interceding for us; {166} who, then, shall ever\nbe able to separate us from the love of God (viii. 11-39)?\n\nSt. Paul turns now to a parenthetical discussion which necessarily\nsuggests itself here.  It has practically happened that God's own\npeople, the children of Abraham, in spite of their privileges, are\nexcluded from this new salvation which comes from acceptance of Christ.\nThis does not mean that God has been unfaithful.  St. Paul vindicates\nHis action toward them, and he shows that it has been consistent with\nHis previous action towards the Israelites (ix. 6-13), righteous (ix.\n14-21), and merciful (ix. 22-29).  God has always shown that He is free\nto select whom he likes to carry out His purpose in the world.[1]  The\nJews are rejected because they seek to be justified, on the strength of\ntheir own works (ix. 30-33; x. 1-3): now, the method of the Law has\nbeen superseded by Christ's, which is an easier method (x. 4-10) and\nuniversal (x. 11-13).  And the Jews have had every opportunity for\nhearing of it (x. 14-21).  But God has not rejected them entirely or\nfinally (xi. 1-10); and if their fall has led to the preaching of the\ngospel to the Gentiles, how much more happily fruitful will be their\nreception into the Church (xi. 11-15)!  We may hope for this ultimate\nacceptance of the gospel by both Jew and Gentile because of the\noriginal holiness of the Jewish stock.  The Gentiles are grafted into\nthat: just as we may be cut off from it if we sin, so the Jews more\neasily may be grafted in again if they will (xi. 16-24).  St. Paul now\nshows how the hardening of the Jews and the disobedience of the\nGentiles alike have served the purposes of God.  Israel as a nation\nshall be saved by the Messiah.  The chapter closes {167} with words of\nreverent admiration for the wonderful workings of the Divine Providence\n(xi. 25-36).\n\nAfter this long doctrinal argument, St. Paul insists upon certain\npractical duties (xii.-xv. 13).  We may notice in xiii. 2 ff. the\nemphasis which is laid upon the dignity of the civil government, a\ndignity which was immeasurably degraded ten years later by the wanton\npersecution of the Roman Christians.  And xiii. 13 is a verse ever to\nbe remembered by the Church as the verse by which God brought Augustine\nfrom free thinking and licentious living to be numbered among the\nsaints.  In xiv. begins some considerate advice about certain\nChristians \"weak in faith.\"  They seem to have formed a party, but not\na party which can be identified with any other religious clique\nmentioned by the apostle.  Their vegetarianism and their observance of\nparticular holy days have suggested the theory that they were\nChristians who followed the ascetic practices of the Jewish sect of\nEssenes.  The theory that they were Gentiles who affected the customs\nof the Pythagoreans has commended itself to other writers.  On the\nwhole, the number of Jews in Rome supports the theory that these were\nJewish Christians.  St. Paul deals very tenderly with these total\nabstainers from meat and wine.  He evidently does not put them on the\nsame level as the sectaries of Galatia or Colossae.\n\nThe Epistle closes with various references to personal matters,\nincluding the expression of a desire to visit Spain and Rome (xv. 34).\n\n{168}\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation and introduction (i. 1-15).\n\n(1) DOCTRINAL.--The subject of the Epistle.  How is righteousness to be\nattained?  Not by man's work, but by God's gift, through faith, _i.e._\npersonal attachment to Christ (i. 16, 17).\n\nA. Righteousness as a state of man in the sight of God (Justification):\ni. 18-v. 21.\n\na. Righteousness was never attained before Christ came.  The Gentiles\nneglected their conscience until they sank into abominable sins; future\njudgment will certainly come on all men without respect of persons; the\nJews, too, have no right to criticize the Gentiles--they had the Law of\nMoses, while the Gentiles only had the unwritten law of conscience, yet\nthey failed.  The Jewish quibble that there was no good in being a Jew\nif God condemned him, is refuted.  The witness of the Old Testament to\nthe universality of sin is quoted (i. 18-iii. 20).\n\nb. Exposition of the new method of attaining righteousness.  It is\nindependent of the Law, is universal, is obtainable through Christ's\ndeath which manifests God's righteousness.  This method excludes human\nboasting, and can be experienced by Jew and Gentile alike (iii. 21-31).\n\nc. The relation of this new method to the Old Testament.  Abraham, the\ntypical saint of the Old Testament, was not justified because of works,\nor circumcision, or law.  His faith shows that the Old Testament\nsupports the Christian method of salvation (iv.).\n\nd. The blessed state of the justified Christian.  He is filled with\nhope, and this hope is guaranteed by the proved love of God.  What a\ncontrast between this blessedness and the effects of Adam's fall!  The\nwork of Christ resembles that of Adam, because it passes from one man\nto all men: it differs greatly, because Adam's fall brought sin, our\ncondemnation, our death.  Christ's gift brings grace, our acquittal,\nour life.  The Fall brought sin, Law increased sin; Grace is greater\nthan sin (v.).\n\n{169}\n\nB. Righteousness as necessarily involving moral progress\n(Sanctification); vi.-viii.\n\na. Refutation of the theory that we may continue to sin in order to\ngive God fresh opportunities of displaying His lovingkindness.  Our\nbaptism implies union with the sinless Christ.  Refutation of the\ntheory that we may as well sin as not sin because we are no longer\nunder the Law.  Our marriage to Christ must be fruitful (vi. 1-vii. 6).\nThe Law is not to be disparaged, though it is impotent to rescue me in\nthe terrible moral conflict under which I should suffer, if it were not\nfor Christ (vii. 6-25).\n\nB. Where the Law of Moses failed, the incarnation of Christ succeeds.\nThe life of Christian righteousness is ruled by the Holy Spirit.  It\nimplies filial confidence in God, a glorious inheritance, divine\nassistance, inviolable security (viii.).\n\nC. The problem raised by the fate of the Jews: ix.-xi.\n\na. Their rejection from their privileged position a sad contrast to\ntheir high destiny; the entire justice of God in forming a new Israel\nof Jews and Gentiles alike (ix.).\n\nb. The cause of their rejection was that they sought to be justified in\ntheir own way and not in God's way, and this in spite of Christian\nopportunities and prophetic warnings (x.).\n\nc. Consolations which qualify the severity of their fate.  Their\nunbelief is only partial and temporary, and God's purpose is to restore\nall.  Doxology (xi.).\n\n(2) PRACTICAL.--The Christian sacrifice, and the duties of a Christian\n(xii.).  Church and State, the law of love, the approaching judgment\n(xiii.).\n\nToleration for weak and eccentric Christians; vegetarians, observers of\nprivate holy days and total abstainers, not to be disturbed; we must do\nnothing that makes a brother stumble.  Christ pleased not Himself; He\nwas both a minister of the circumcision and the hope of the Gentiles\n(xiv. 1-xv. 13).\n\nPersonal conclusion (xv. 14-xvi. 27).\n\n\n\n[1] The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, as taught in the\nwritings of Calvin and in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession, is a\ncomplete perversion of St. Paul's teaching.  Calvin teaches a\npredestination to heaven or hell; St. Paul here speaks of an\nappointment to certain duties on earth.  The Calvinists asserted that\nsome men \"cannot be saved;\" St. Paul teaches that God so acted \"in\norder that He might have mercy upon all\" (xi. 32).\n\n\n\n\n{170}\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS--THE\n  EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON\n\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThere is no good reason for doubting that this beautiful Epistle is the\nwork of St. Paul.  It is full of Pauline thought, and is well attested\nby external evidence.  It is apparently quoted in the very ancient work\nknown as the Epistle of Barnabas, and Justin Martyr quotes the title of\nChrist \"the firstborn of all creation\" (Col. i. 15).  It is included in\nMarcion's canon and in the _Muratorian Fragment_, as well as in the Old\nLatin and Peshitta Syriac versions.  The notion that it is only a weak\nreflection of Ephesians seems incredible, for neither of the two\nEpistles is appreciably inferior to the other, and in each one there\nare several unique passages which represent as high a level of\nintellectual and spiritual attainment as the passages which are in some\ndegree common to the two.  Moreover, we cannot trace any definite\nmethod according to which the one writing has been used for the other,\nand destructive critics have only destroyed one another's arguments in\ntheir attempts to show which of the two Epistles is genuine, or why\nthey both are forged.  It is also important to consider the association\nof this Epistle with that to Philemon: the transparent genuineness of\nthe latter makes it practically certain that Colossians is genuine as\nwell.\n\nObjections to the authenticity of Colossians have been {171} steadily\ngrowing fainter.  It was denied by Mayerhoff in 1838, and by the whole\nT\u00fcbingen school, in spite of very strong external evidence.  (1) The\nheresy opposed by St. Paul was said to be a form of 2nd-century\nGnosticism; but the affinities which it shows with Judaism point rather\nto the 1st century.  (2) There are a large number of words which St.\nPaul uses nowhere else, thirty-four being found in no other part of the\nNew Testament; but several of these words are called forth by the\nspecial error which St. Paul rebukes, and the Epistle does contain\neleven Pauline words used by no other New Testament writer.  (3) The\ndoctrine has been declared to be not Pauline, but a further development\nof St. Paul's doctrine of the dignity of Christ.  This objection rests\nentirely on the hypothesis that Jesus Christ was not God, but was\ngradually deified by successive generations of His followers.  The\ncritics who declared that no apostle believed Christ to be more than an\nideal or half-divine man, and said that St. John's writings are\nforgeries of the 2nd century, described the doctrine of Colossians as a\ntransition from the true Pauline doctrine to the doctrine of the Logos\ncontained in the fourth Gospel.  But St. Paul states nothing about\nChrist in this Epistle which is not implied in earlier Epistles.  He\nonly makes fresh statements of truth in view of fresh errors.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nColossae was the least important town to which any Epistle of St. Paul\nwhich now remains was addressed.  The place was on the river Lycus in\nPhrygia, about ten miles from Laodicea and thirteen from Hierapolis,\nand thus the three towns were the sphere of the missionary work of the\nColossian Epaphras (Col. iv. 12, 13).  Colossae had been flourishing\nenough in the time of Herodotus, but now, overshadowed by greater\nneighbours--Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Chonae--and perhaps shaken by\nrecurring earthquakes, it was sinking fast into decay.  Still it\nderived importance from its situation on the great main road which\nconnected Rome with the eastern provinces, the road by {172} which\nXerxes had led his great armament against Greece.  And as the people\nhad a special way of their own for producing a rich dye named\n_Colossinus_, it retained a fair amount of trade.  We may account for\nthe presence of Jews at Colossae which is suggested in the Epistle, by\nremembering its convenient position and its trade speciality.  The\npeople were mainly the descendants of Greek settlers and Phrygian\nnatives, and the intellectual atmosphere was the same as that of which\nwe have evidence in other parts of Asia Minor: every one was infected\nwith the Greek keenness for subtle speculation, and the usual Phrygian\ntendency to superstition and fanaticism.  Thirteen miles away, at\nHierapolis, was growing into manhood the slave Epictetus, who later on\nwill set out some of the most noble and lofty of pagan thoughts.  The\npersistent love of the people of this neighbourhood for the\nangel-worship which St. Paul rebukes, is illustrated by the facts that\nin the 4th century a Church Council at Laodicea condemned the worship\nof angels, and that, in spite of this, in the 9th and 10th centuries\nthe district was the centre of the worship of St. Michael, who was\nbelieved to have opened the chasm of the Lycus, and so saved the people\nof Chonae from an inundation.\n\nColossae, being exposed to the raids of the Moslem Saracens,\ndisappeared from history in the 8th century.\n\nThe Church at Colossae was not founded by St. Paul, and he was not\npersonally acquainted with it (Col. ii. 1).  But we can hardly go so\nfar as to say that he had never seen the town at all.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nSt. Paul sent this letter, together with that to Philemon and the\ncircular which we call \"Ephesians,\" by Tychicus from Rome, probably in\nA.D. 60.  He alludes to his imprisonment twice incidentally, and again\nwith pathetic simplicity in the postscript added by his own hand,\n\"Remember my bonds.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nSome difficulties are connected with the heresy taught by the religious\nagitators at Colossae.  It is plain that their {173} teaching affected\nboth doctrine and practice.  They appealed to visions and a knowledge\nof the celestial world (ii. 18), and therefore set up a worship of\nangels which tended to thrust Christ from His true position in the\ncreed of the Church.  They treated the body with unsparing severity\n(ii. 23), they abstained from meat and drink, and paid a punctilious\nattention to festivals, new moons, and sabbaths (ii. 16).  St. Paul\ncalls these practices \"material rudiments\" (ii. 8), elementary methods\nnow superseded by faith in Christ.  Moreover, it is almost certain that\nliteral circumcision was practised (ii. 11).  These things point to\nJudaism.  And yet St. Paul does not seem to be rebuking a return to the\nJudaism of the Old Testament.  He could hardly have described a\ncompliance with Old Testament injunctions as an \"arbitrary religion\"\nand \"doctrines of men\" (ii. 1, 22, 23).  It might be Pharisaism, but if\nwe look in the direction of Judaism, it is most natural that we should\nthink of a Judaism resembling that of the Essenes.  The Essenes were\nvegetarians, they avoided wine, they kept the sabbath with special\nscrupulousness, and had some secret teaching about the angels.  These\nresemblances have tempted some commentators to identify the false\nteachers with the Essenes.  But there is nothing to prove that the\nEssenes worshipped the angels, and St. Paul makes no mention of the\nEssene veneration for the sun, or their monastic life, or their\nelaborate process of initiation.  Besides this, the principal community\nof Essenes dwelt by the Dead Sea, and it is very doubtful if any\nexisted in Asia Minor.\n\nIt is best to confess our ignorance.  All that we can say is that the\nscruple-mongers at Colossae taught doctrines which had points of\ncontact with Essenism.  They employed some affected interpretation of\nthe Old Testament.  They also were influenced by heathenism in their\nconception of half-divine beings intermediate between God and the\nworld.  How far they held any definitely dualistic view of matter we\ncannot tell.  {174} But their system was a mischievous theosophy, which\nthey endeavoured to popularize under catchwords like \"wisdom\" and\n\"philosophy.\"  The fact that there was at this time such a widespread\ntendency to adopt an exaggerated asceticism and theories about\nmediatorial spirits, makes it unnecessary to suppose that the Colossian\nheresy need be affiliated to any particular school of speculation.\n\nThe Epistle consists mainly of a more or less indirect argument against\nthe insidious \"philosophy\" of the heretics, with an exhortation and\npersonal notes.\n\nPerhaps we account most naturally for the broken order and lax\ncoherence of this letter, by the suggestion that, as St. Paul dictated\nit, there was present with him a sense of almost nervous hesitation.\nHe has exactly a gentleman's reluctance to do an ungracious action:\nwhile he knows that it is his duty to warn the Colossians of a serious\ndanger, he knows that unless he does so with much tactful delicacy,\nthey will resent his interference.  So he begins by saying what polite\nthings he can about them, and instead of going on at once to talk of\nthe heresy, he first says with plain significance that he perpetually\nprays for their perfection in knowledge, activity, and constancy.  An\nincidental allusion to God's method for human salvation gives St. Paul\nan opportunity for making a digression--one of the most important\nstatements in the New Testament--concerning the nature and work of\nChrist (i. 14-20).  He shows the Colossians what views they ought to\nhold concerning Him.  This would keep them from giving to the angels\nwhat is due to Christ alone.  Christ is the Redeemer.  He was born\nprior to all creation, even the angels, and all creation coheres\nthrough union with Him (i. 15-17).  He is the Head of the Church in\nvirtue of His resurrection, and as embodying the full number of divine\nattributes (i. 18, 19).  He is the Saviour of angels and men by His\ndeath, and in this salvation the Colossians ought to share (i. 20-23).\n\nIt seems that now he will deal with the heresy, but again he {175}\npostpones it.  He breaks in with a digression of a pastoral character.\nHe speaks of his commission to preach (i. 24-29), his anxiety even for\nChurches that he has never visited (ii. 1-5), and he exhorts the\nColossians to continue in their original faith (ii. 6, 7).\n\nAt last he enters upon the main business of the Epistle and begins\ndogmatic controversy.  After a warning against spurious philosophy, he\nasserts that Christ is the sole incarnation of Deity, to whom all\nspirits are subject (ii. 9, 10).  This is the true doctrine: God has\nnot divided His attributes among a group of angels; all are to be found\nin Christ.  And the true method of salvation is simply that union with\nChrist which begins with baptism, the Christian's circumcision.  In it\nwe receive that forgiveness which was won for us when Christ died, and\nboth blotted out the Law and triumphed over evil angels (ii. 13-15).\nThe apostle then directly condemns the practices of the false\nteachers--their anxious and mechanical conduct with regard to food and\nseasons, their intrusion into celestial secrets and their doctrine of\nangel-worship, their loose hold on Christ the Head, symptoms of an\naffected humility which is no real check against the indulgence of the\nflesh (ii. 16-23).\n\nHe then turns to practical exhortation.  In the bracing words made\nfamiliar to us by the Epistle for Easter Day, St. Paul bids the\nColossians leave the gently stimulating exercise of intellectual\ntheorizing and listen to the stern demands made by Christ on life and\ncharacter.  They have risen to a life hid with Christ in God; they must\nmake dead the faculties of sensual action, angry thinking, and evil\nspeaking: this is implied in forsaking heathenism for the universal\nChrist (iii. 1-11).  Live quietly in peace and love, show a gracious\nlife in a gracious worship, consecrate your words and deeds by doing\nall in the name of the Lord Jesus (iii. 12-17).\n\nThen the special duties of wives and husbands, children and fathers,\nslaves and masters, are dealt with.  Prayer and thanksgiving are\nenjoined on all alike, and the Christians are bidden {176} to \"buy up\nthe opportunity\" of furthering the cause of God in their dealings with\nthe outer world, having their speech seasoned with the salt of\nwholesome wisdom (iii. 18-iv. 6).  A few words are said about Tychicus,\nOnesimus, and other friends, including \"Luke, the beloved physician,\"\nand the Epistle ends with a farewell which St. Paul wrote with his own\nhand.  Before writing it, the apostle directs that this letter should\nbe read at Laodicea, and that the Colossians should procure another\nletter which had been left in that city.  This was probably the\nso-called Epistle to the Ephesians.\n\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation, thanksgiving, the apostle's prayer for the readers (i.\n1-13).\n\nChrist, who redeemed us, is pre-eminent in Person, being the Head of\nthe natural creation, and of the spiritual creation, because the sum of\ndivine attributes dwells in Him (i. 14-19).  He is pre-eminent in work,\nhaving reconciled us to God (i. 20-23).\n\nSt. Paul's own commission and his anxiety (i. 24-ii. 7).  Warning\nagainst the delusion of a false philosophy.  The \"fulness\" is in\nChrist, therefore the Colossians must avoid semi-Jewish practices and\nalso avoid the worship of angels (ii. 8-19).  The converts have died\nwith Christ to their old life and earthly ordinances (ii. 20-25).\n\nThe converts have risen with Christ to a new life and heavenly\nprinciples, vices must be made dead, virtues must be put on (iii. 1-17).\n\nObligations of wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and\nmasters (iii. 18-iv. 1).\n\nThe duty of prayer and thanksgiving, and right behaviour towards the\nunconverted (iv. 2-6).\n\nPersonal conclusion, and a message relating to an Epistle from Laodicea\n(iv. 7-18).\n\n{177}\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe genuineness of this winning little letter could never be doubted\nexcept by the most dryasdust of pedants.  It is no proof of acuteness\nto detect the artifice of a forger in its earnest simplicity, its\nthoughtful tact, and affectionate anxiety.  There is about it a\nvivacity and directness which at once and decisively stamp it as\ngenuine.  And external evidence shows that it was included in the\nearliest lists of St. Paul's Epistles.  It was accepted by Marcion,\nincluded in the _Muratorian Fragment_, and expressly attributed to St.\nPaul by Origen.  It shows a number of coincidences with Colossians,\nEphesians, and Philippians, and it is especially connected with\nColossians by the proper names which it contains, such as Archippus,\nAristarchus, Mark, and Luke.  No evidence exists to show that any early\nChristians denied this Epistle to be by St. Paul.  But it does appear\nthat some of them half disliked its inclusion in the Canon, thinking it\ntoo trivial to be numbered with the Scriptures.  To modern readers it\nmanifests a great treatment of little things, which is one of the\nsurest proofs of inspiration.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nThe Epistle is addressed to Philemon, a substantial citizen of\nColossae.  He has been converted by St. Paul, who writes with deep\nappreciation of his faith in Christ, and of the kindness that he has\nshown to the saints.  He gives him the honourable title of\n\"fellow-worker.\"  Religious services and the social gatherings of\nChristians are held in Philemon's house.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nThis Epistle was written during St. Paul's first imprisonment in Rome,\nA.D. 59-61.  In ver. 10 St. Paul alludes to his \"bonds.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nPhilemon had a Phrygian slave named Onesimus, who first {178} robbed\nhim and then ran away.  Onesimus was able without much difficulty to\nget to Rome, and here he met the apostle, who received him into the\nChurch.  The young convert served him with such eager willingness that\nSt. Paul would have been glad to keep him with him, but he decides to\nsend him back to Philemon with this letter to ensure his forgiveness.\n\nWe have, therefore, in this letter a picture of St. Paul in a new\nrelation.  There is no other letter in the New Testament of such a\nprivate nature except 3 John.  The great apostle of the Gentiles is\ntaking his pen to provide a dishonest runaway slave with a note that\nshall shield him from the just anger of his master.  He writes both\nwith a strong sense of justice and with his own perfect diplomatic\ninstinct.  The letter is at once authoritative, confident, and most\ngentle.  He does not command or insist, yet it is quite clear that\nPhilemon must do just what he asks.  There is no violent attack upon\nslavery as an institution.  Any such attack would have been both\nfoolish and criminal.  For it would have encouraged slaves to make\nChristianity a cloak for revolt, and precipitated horrors far worse\nthan those which it could have professed to remove.  But St. Paul\nasserts a principle which will eventually prove fatal to slavery.  When\nhe tells Philemon to receive Onesimus \"as a brother beloved,\" he is\nreally saying that our estimate of men must not be based on their\nsocial class, but rather on their relation to God.\n\nThis letter has been compared with a letter written under similar\ncircumstances by the younger Pliny, one of the best of the pagan\ngentlemen of Rome.  But while the letter of Pliny is more elegant in\nlanguage, the letter of St. Paul is a finer masterpiece of feeling.  A\nRoman slave was still allowed no rights and no family relationship, and\nfor the smallest offence he might be tortured and killed.  In the next\ncentury the Emperor Hadrian first took away from masters the power of\nlife and death over their slaves, and it was not until the time {179}\nof the Emperor Constantine, who established Christianity, that the laws\naffecting slavery pointed to the future triumph of emancipation.  But\nthe ancient conception of slavery was doomed as soon as \"slave-girls\nlike Blandina in Gaul, or Felicitas in Africa, having won for\nthemselves the crown of martyrdom, were celebrated in the festivals of\nthe Church with honours denied to the most powerful and noblest born of\nmankind.\" [1]\n\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation from Paul and Timothy to Philemon and Apphia (? wife), to\nArchippus and the Church in Philemon's house; thanksgiving for\nPhilemon's faith; a plea for the pardon of Onesimus, St. Paul promises\nto be responsible for what was stolen; a lodging to be prepared for St.\nPaul; concluding salutations, benediction.\n\n\n\n[1] Lightfoot, _Colossians and Philemon_, p. 325.\n\n\n\n\n{180}\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE EPHESIANS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe Pauline authorship of this Epistle is well attested by external\nevidence.  Before 150 we have proof of its wide use among both heretics\nand Catholics; it is quoted probably by St. Clement and St. Polycarp,\nand some of its characteristic ideas are to be found in a more\ndeveloped form in the _Shepherd_ of Hermas.  There is one clear\nreference to it in St. Ignatius, and two other possible references.  We\ntrace an interesting connection between the thought of this Epistle and\nthat of the Revelation and the Gospel of St. John (_e.g._ ch. xvii.)\nand the First Epistle of St. Peter.  Perhaps we may account for it by\naccepting Renan's suggestion that St. Peter, St. John, and St. Paul\nwere in Rome together.  The strongest argument for the Pauline\nauthorship lies in the undesigned coincidences between Ephesians and\nRomans.  In both we notice the same courtesy of manner and sensitive\nfrankness, the same setting forth of God's method of salvation, the\nsame valuation of the relative position of Jews and Gentiles, and of\ntheir union in Jesus Christ; the same thought of God's eternal and\nunchanging purpose very gradually revealed, and extending in its\nultimate operation to all creation.  It has been well said that the\nEpistle to the Ephesians is required to give completeness to the\nargument of Rom. xv.  Though we do not find here the controversial\nreasoning of the earlier Epistle, we have some of those characteristic\npassages in which the {181} writer, carried away by emotion, leaves\nstatement for prayer or praise (cf. Rom. xi. 33 and Eph. iii. 20).  We\nhave, indeed, in this Epistle evidence which points to a date later\nthan that of some of his Epistles.  We miss the expectation of Christ's\nimmediate coming; the Gentiles are now quite secure in the Church;\nthere is proof of the growth of Christian hymns (v. 14, 19).  But the\nnames of the ministers of the Church seem very primitive, the words\n\"presbyter\" and _episkopos_ not being mentioned.  And words such as\n\"worlds,\" \"fulness,\" \"generations,\" which were used in a special sense\nby the Gnostics of the 2nd century, are here used in an earlier and\nless technical meaning.\n\nIt has been argued that Ephesians is a forged imitation of Colossians,\nbecause about half of its verses have parallels in Colossians.  This\nargument has broken down, since it has been shown that it is equally\neasy to prove that Colossians is based upon Ephesians.  And there is\nnothing strange in the idea that St. Paul wrote two similar letters at\nthe same time to Churches in similar difficulties.  The two Epistles\nresemble one another just as two letters written by one man to two\ndifferent friends during the same week.  The phrase \"holy apostles\"\n(iii. 5) is also said to be a formula which St. Paul would not have\nemployed.  But the word \"holy\" is used in his writings almost in the\nsense of \"Christian;\" it signifies consecration rather than personal\nperfection.  There would, therefore, be no vanity in the apostle\napplying such a title to himself.  The attempt to make the style\nfurnish an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle has also\nfailed.  There are thirty-two words used only in this Epistle, but\nthere are also eighteen which are found in Pauline Epistles and not\nelsewhere in the New Testament.  The assumption of some sceptical\nwriters that an apostle must have been too unintelligent to enrich his\nvocabulary, scarcely deserves serious examination.  No one would think\nof applying the same rule to a Greek classical writer, and if he\nattempted to do so, he would find that Xenophon varies his language as\nmuch as St. Paul.\n\n{182}\n\nThe real reason why the authenticity of this Epistle has been attacked\nis this.  Ephesians teaches that the Church is a universal society,\nvisibly united by baptism and the ministry, embracing Jew and Gentile\non equal terms.  But, according to Baur, this conception of the Church\nis a product of the 2nd century.  He assumed that St. Paul could not\ninclude the twelve under the name of the \"holy apostles,\" or teach a\nCatholic doctrine of the Church.[1]  The present school of rationalists\nis inclining to admit that Ephesians is genuine.  But it is hard to see\nhow they will be able to do this without also admitting that the\nEpistle implies that the other \"holy apostles\" held, like St. Paul,\nthat Christ is divine.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nIt is almost certainly not primarily a letter to Ephesus, but a\ncircular letter to several Churches in Asia Minor.\n\nIn i. 1 we read the words \"to the saints which are in Ephesus.\"  But\nthe words \"in Ephesus\" are omitted in the two great MSS. K and B.\nOrigen also implies that these words were absent in some MSS., and St.\nBasil definitely says so.  And as the Epistle contains no salutation to\nany individual, it is difficult to imagine that it was specially\naddressed to Ephesus, where St. Paul's friends were numerous and dear\n(see Acts xx. 17-38).  In some passages St. Paul speaks as if he and\nthose to whom he writes knew each other only through third persons (i.\n15; iii. 2).  This suggests that the Epistle was written primarily to a\nChurch like that of Colossae which he had never visited.\n\nThe probable solution is that it was written to the Christians of\nLaodicea in the first instance.  Tertullian says that Marcion had\ncopies with \"Ad Laodicenos\" as the title.  Now, in this case Marcion\nhad nothing to gain by fraud, and we may therefore suppose that he had\nhonest grounds for using this title.  The same title gains some support\nfrom Col. ii. 1; iv. 13, 16.  The last verse suggests that it was to be\npassed on from Laodicea.  Perhaps several copies of the letter were\nwritten at {183} Laodicea, and a blank space left in them for the\ninsertion of the various addresses.  No doubt the letter would be\nforwarded to Ephesus in time.\n\nLaodicea, at present called Eski-Hissar (the \"old fortress\"), is now\nutterly deserted.  It was probably founded about B.C. 250 by Antiochus\nII. Theos, and named after his wife Laodike.  It was distant eleven\nmiles from Colossae.  The population included some Syrians and Jews.\nIt rose to great wealth under the Roman power, and was so rich that\nwhen it was destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60 it scorned to seek\npecuniary aid from the emperor.  It was in a central position on the\ngreat trade route from the east, and was famous for its banking\nbusiness, its manufacture of fine garments of black wool, and its\n\"Phrygian powder\" for weak eyes.  In Rev. iii. 18 there appears to be a\nveiled allusion to each of these three sources of prosperity.  Timothy,\nMark, and Epaphras (Col. i. 7) were instrumental in spreading\nChristianity in this region.  Laodicea was the leading bishopric of\nPhrygia throughout the Christian period.\n\nEphesus was the capital of the Roman province of Asia.  With Antioch in\nSyria and Alexandria in Egypt, it ranked as one of the greatest cities\nof the East Mediterranean lands.  Planted amid the hills near the mouth\nof the river Cayster, it was excellently fitted to become a great mart,\nand was the commercial centre for the whole country on the Roman side\nof Mount Taurus.  The substratum of the population was Asiatic, but the\nprogress and enterprise of the city belonged to the Greeks.  There, as\nin the Florence of the Medici, we find commercial astuteness joined\nwith intense delight in graceful culture.  Some of the best work of the\ngreatest Greek sculptors and painters was treasured at Ephesus.  A\nsplendid but sensuous worship centred round the gross figure of the\ngoddess Artemis, whose temple was one of the greatest triumphs of\nancient art.  In the British Museum are preserved some fragments of the\nold temple built by Croesus, King of Lydia, in B.C. 550.  The vast\n{184} temple which replaced this older structure was built about B.C.\n350, with the help of contributions from the whole of Asia.  The wealth\nof the city was increased by the crowds which attended the festivals,\nand many trades were mainly dependent upon the pilgrims, who required\nfood, victims, images, and shrines.  In St. Paul's time the city\ncontained one temple devoted to the worship of a Roman emperor.\nEphesus was also a home of magical arts, and was famous for the\nproduction of magical formulae known as \"Ephesian letters.\"  The actual\nfoundation of the Christian Church in Ephesus may be ascribed to\nPriscilla and Aquila, whom St. Paul left there on his first visit (Acts\nxviii. 19), On his return to Ephesus he stayed there for two years\n(Acts xix. 1, 10), and the opposition of the tradesmen to a creed which\naffected the vested interests of idolatry was the cause of the riot so\nvigorously described by St. Luke.  Even after the riot the\nsuperstitions of the mob were a serious danger to St. Paul (1 Cor. xv.\n32; xvi. 9; 2 Cor. i. 8-10).  At a later period Ephesus became the\nresidence of St. John.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nSt. Paul wrote this Epistle during his imprisonment at Rome, which\nbegan in A.D. 59 (see iii. 1, 13; iv. 1, vi. 22).  Rome is not\nmentioned in the Epistle, but the connection between Ephesians,\nColossians, Philemon, and Philippians points to the high probability\nthat they were all written from the same place.  This place is much\nmore likely to have been Rome than Caesarea, the only other possible\nlocality.  Ephesians was apparently written later than Colossians, for\nit shows an emphasis on new points of doctrine--the continuity of the\nChurch, the work of the Holy Spirit, the analogy between family life\nand the Church, and the simile of the spiritual armour.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe Epistle is of the nature of a sermon, full of closely interlaced\ndoctrinal arguments on the greatness of that _one_ Gospel and that\n_one_ Church by which all distinctions in mankind are bridged over and\nsalvation is made sure.  The writer {185} fears that there will be some\nlack of unity in the Church, and that the moral tone of his converts\nwill sink.  He wishes for a Christianity both Catholic and deep.  So he\npresents his readers with the portrait of a Church predestined before\nall ages, appointed to last through all ages, in which all men will be\nunited in holiness and love.  If Galatians and Corinthians are more\nvivid, Romans more rich, and Philippians more affectionate, Ephesians\ngives us St. Paul's most mature and complete picture of Christianity.\n\nSt. Paul explains how his Gentile readers came to their present\nposition in the Church.  They are not to regard it as a matter of\nchance.  They were called to Christ as the result of an eternal counsel\nof God.  God intended from eternity to adopt them in union with His\nSon.  This intention was now made known, to sum up all things again in\nChrist (i. 10).  The apostle prays for his readers that they may\nreceive enlightenment, and grow in knowledge, particularly concerning\nthe power of God shown in the resurrection and ascension of Christ and\nhis consequent relation _to the Church_.[2]\n\nThe unity of all things in the Son of God is explained in Colossians as\nhaving been involved in His creation of them.  In Ephesians St. Paul\nassumes this relation, and shows that it is largely in abeyance through\n_sin_.  Estrangement has come between man and his God, involving man in\ndeath and in the wrath of God (ii. 3-5).  A wall of division has also\nbeen made between Jew and Gentile (ii. 14).  This division was visibly\nembodied in the Jewish ordinances.  But Jew and {186} Gentile alike\nhave now been reconciled to God, and in being reunited with God are\nreunited with each other.  This momentous change was effected by the\nshedding of Christ's blood on the cross.  The readers are to remember\nthat they are being built into God's own habitation, of which Christ is\nthe Corner-Stone (ii. 20).\n\nTo the end that they may be filled in their degree with God's\nattributes, the writer bows his knees (iii. 14) unto the Father.  He\nprays for their strengthening because he has a special charge over the\nGentiles.  This charge involves the stewardship of a secret (iii. 3),\nviz. the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promise of God.  He, the\nleast of all saints, has been allowed to proclaim this secret, a work\nwhich shows to the heavenly powers the wisdom of God corresponding with\nHis eternal purpose (iii. 10, 11).  This bounty of God will ever be\npraised in the Church, which is the monument of that bounty (iii. 21).\n\nChapters iv.-vi. are largely practical.  They set out rules of conduct.\nBut even here doctrine is brought in to enforce practical advice.  The\nreaders are to \"walk worthily\" of their calling.  To do this, they must\nrealize unity.  The principles of unity are magnificently summed up\n(iv. 4-6).  Then the apostle mentions some means which God has\nappointed for the maintenance of unity.  Christians have various gifts\nfrom the ascended Christ (iv. 7-8), and some are specially gifted for\necclesiastical offices (iv. 9-13).  These gifts make for the\ncompleteness of the Church, of which Christ is the Head and the Life.\nTo \"walk worthily\" also means that everything connected with heathen\nhabits must be sedulously renounced.  The old self must be changed for\nthe new.  A basis for social life must be found in truthfulness,\nuprightness, and kindliness (iv. 25-32).  Purity must specially be\npreserved, impurity being contrasted with love.  Light and darkness are\nthen contrasted, and the sober gaiety of the Christian with heathen\nfolly and excess (v. 1-21).\n\nSt. Paul passes on to speak of the Christian household--the {187}\nduties of husband, wife, children, slaves.  He seems to pronounce a\ngreat benediction over family life as he compares the union of marriage\nto the association of Christ with His Church.  Just as in calling\nChrist the Head of which the Church is the body, he suggests the entire\ndependence of the Church upon Christ, so now in describing the Church\nas the spouse of Christ, he suggests that this dependence must imply a\nvoluntary and conscious submission.  The final exhortation vividly\ndescribes the Christian's conflict with evil: to fight victoriously he\nwill need to be well armoured with the whole panoply of God (vi.\n10-20).  There is a short personal conclusion in which St. Paul\ndescribes himself as Christ's \"ambassador in chains.\"\n\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation (i. 1, 2).\n\nExposition of God's purpose in adopting the Gentiles as His sons,\nchosen by the Father, redeemed by the Son, sealed by the Spirit.  A\nprayer for the readers (i.).\n\nTheir new state as saved by grace through faith; reconciliation of Jews\nand Gentiles in Christ (ii.).  Paul was made a minister to dispense the\ngrace of God to the Gentiles.  He prays for their spiritual progress\n(iii.).\n\nThe unity of Christians in the Church combined with diversity of gifts\nand offices, a warning against heathen vices, and advice as to duty\ntowards one's neighbour (iv.).  Christian love, heathen uncleanness,\nlight and darkness, walking circumspectly, sobriety and song (v. 1-21).\n\nThe union of husbands and wives like that of Christ and His Church (v.\n22, 23).  Duties of children and parents, servants and masters (vi.\n1-9).\n\nWrestling against evil powers with the whole armour of God (vi. 10-18).\n\nPersonal conclusion and benediction (vi. 19-24).\n\n\n\n[1] See Baur's _Paul_, vol. ii. p. 177 (English translation).\n\n[2] Eph. i. 23.  The Church is said to be \"the fulness of Him that\nfilleth all in all.\"  The word \"fulness\" is derived from philosophy,\nand means that the Church is, or rather is the realization of, the sum\nof the sacred attributes of Christ, who fills the whole universe with\nall kinds of gifts.  Some commentators translate \"fulness\" as if it\nmeant the receptacle of Christ's attributes, and others as if it meant\nthe completion of Christ.  But the word is used in a philosophical and\nnot in a literal sense.  See Lightfoot, _Colossians_, p. 259.\n\n\n\n\n{188}\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe genuineness of this Epistle is now admitted by critics of very\ndifferent schools of thought, including some extreme rationalists.\nAbout A.D. 110 St. Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, speaks\nof the letters which they had received from \"the blessed and glorious\nPaul.\"  Although he seems to refer to a number of letters, we may be\nsure that this letter was among that number.  Otherwise it would not\nhave been so universally regarded as genuine during the 2nd century.\nIt is in Marcion's canon, in the _Muratorian Fragment_, the Peshitta\nSyriac and Old Latin versions.  It is also quoted in the letter of the\nChurches of Lyons and Vienne, in the Epistle of Diognetus, and by\nIrenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.  It was rejected by Baur and others\non various grounds.  It was urged (1) that the doctrine of Christ's\nself-surrender or \"self-emptying\" in Phil. ii. 7 is derived from the\nValentinian Gnostics of the 2nd century, who taught that the Spirit\n\"Sophia\" fell from the \"fulness\" of divine spirits in heaven to the\n\"emptiness\" of the lower world.  This objection is too fantastic to\ndeserve serious refutation.  It is, in fact, little more than a play\nupon words.  It was urged (2) that in Phil. ii. 7 the manhood of Christ\nis said to have come into existence at the incarnation, whereas in 1\nCor. xv. 47-49 it is said to have existed in heaven before the\nincarnation.  This idea rests on a false interpretation; in 1 Cor. xv.\nChrist is called \"of heaven\" {189} because His manhood became heavenly\nat His ascension.  It was urged (3) that in Phil. iii. 6 the writer\nsays that he had been, \"as touching the righteousness which is in the\nLaw, found blameless,\" whereas St. Paul in Rom. vii. speaks of his\nrevolt against the Law.  But it seems that in Phil. iii. St. Paul is\nlaying stress rather on his external privileges and external\nconformity, while in Rom. vii. he speaks of what is inward and secret.\nIt was urged (4) that the mention of \"bishops\" (or rather _episkopoi_)\nand \"deacons\" in Phil. i. 1 shows that the Epistle was not written in\nthe apostolic age.  But there is nothing to make it impossible that\nsuch offices did exist at that period, and there is much evidence in\nfavour of them.  Christians who are attached to the historical form of\nChurch government will now note with interest that, since the\ngenuineness of this Epistle has been practically demonstrated, some\nwriters have suggested that these words do not refer to special\necclesiastical offices![1]\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nPhilippi was named after Philip, King of Macedon, in the 4th century\nB.C.  It was in Eastern Macedonia, on a steep hill at the edge of a\nplain; its seaport, Neapolis, was about eight miles distant.  It was on\nthe Egnatian road, the great high-road which connected the Aegean and\nthe Adriatic seas, and therefore connected Asia with Europe.  It was\nmade into a Roman colony, with the title _Colonia Augusta Julia\nPhilippensium_, after the victory of Antony and Octavian over Brutus\nand Cassius.  Its new name was, therefore, a memorial of the murdered\nbut avenged Julius Caesar.  St. Paul brought Christianity to Philippi\nearly in A.D. 50, during his second missionary journey.  St. Paul's\nfirst visit here is described in Acts xvi. 12-40, and it has a special\ninterest as the story of the apostle's first preaching in a European\ntown.  The Jews had no synagogue, only a spot by the river-side in the\nsuburbs, where a few met together on the sabbath.  His first convert\nwas Lydia of Thyatira, who was a seller of purple-dyed {190} goods; her\nhouse became the centre of the Philippian Church.  The imprisonment of\nSt. Paul and St. Silas in consequence of St. Paul's exorcising a\nheathen slave-girl who professed to be inspired, is one of the most\ndramatic incidents in Acts.  When St. Paul was released he left the\ntown, but returned there, in all probability, in A.D. 55, on his third\njourney while travelling to Corinth.  In A.D. 56 he was there once\nmore, and the last Easter before his imprisonment was spent with these\nbeloved converts (Acts xx. 6).\n\nThe Christians of Philippi were pre-eminent in the affections of St.\nPaul.  He calls them, like the Thessalonians, his \"joy and crown\" (iv.\n1), and they alone of his children had the privilege of ministering to\nhis personal necessities.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nIt may be regarded as almost certain that St. Paul wrote this Epistle\nin Rome.  He was a prisoner, as we see in Phil. i. 7, 13, 14, 17.  He\nsends greeting from those of Caesar's household (iv. 22).  The first\nand last chapters imply that he is in the midst of an active Church,\nand that he is the centre to which messengers come and from which they\ngo.  This accords with the apostle's treatment at Rome.  One phrase,\nhowever, has been thought to suggest Caesarea rather than Rome.  It is\n\"the whole praetorium\" (i. 13).  This might mean the praetorium or\npalace of Herod Agrippa II. at Caesarea, but it is possible that it has\nquite a different meaning.  It may either be the imperial guard or the\nsupreme imperial court before which St. Paul had to be judged.  The\nlatter interpretation is that suggested by the great historian Mommsen,\nand seems to be the most satisfactory explanation.\n\nThe meaning of the phrase has an important bearing upon the date of the\nEpistle.  If it was not written at Caesarea, it must have been written\nat Rome between A.D. 59 and A.D. 61.  But the critics who are agreed\nthat it was composed at Rome, are divided as to the place which it\noccupies among the Epistles which St. Paul wrote during his\nimprisonment.  Some {191} place it first, because the vigorous style,\nand many of the phrases, suggest that it was written not very long\nafter Romans.  Others, with greater probability, place it last among\nthe Epistles of the captivity.  For even if it was written first among\nthose Epistles, it was written more than three years after Romans.  And\nthe Epistle contains several indications of being written late in the\ncaptivity.  If \"praetorium\" means the imperial guard, some time would\nhave to elapse before such a large body of men could know much about\nSt. Paul; and if it means the imperial court, the verse implies that he\nhad already appeared before his judges.  Phil. ii. 24 shows that he was\nexpecting a speedy decision on his case.  Epaphroditus, probably not\nthe Colossian Epaphras who was with St. Paul at Rome (Col. iv. 12), had\ncome as a delegate from the Philippians, bringing their alms to the\napostle (ii. 25; iv. 18).  After his arrival in Rome he was ill and\nhomesick, and now he is returning to Philippi bearing this letter of\nthanks.  This all seems to imply that Philippians was written a\nconsiderable time after the apostle's imprisonment began, and we can\ntherefore reasonably place it after Colossians and Ephesians, and date\nit early in A.D. 61.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nWith the exception of 2 Corinthians, this is the most personal and\nintimate of St. Paul's writings.  In both he lays bare his heart.  But\nthe tone of the two Epistles is absolutely different.  In 2 Corinthians\nhe writes as a man who has been bitterly injured; he asserts his claims\nto fickle believers whose ears have been charmed by his unscrupulous\nopponents.  In Philippians we chiefly observe a note of frank and\nloving confidence; buffeted by the world, the apostle finds refreshment\nin the affection of his friends at Philippi.\n\nAfter a salutation to all the \"saints\" at Philippi, including\nespecially the _episkopoi_ and deacons, the apostle speaks of the joy\nwhich he feels in praying for them, and begs of God that their love may\nabound, and that they may approve the things {192} that are excellent,\nbeing filled with the fruits of righteousness (i. 1-11).\n\nThen St. Paul tells how his captivity has been a means of spreading the\ngospel in the praetorium and elsewhere.  Even the malicious activity of\nhis opponents has been a means of proclaiming Christ, and with true\ngrandeur of soul the apostle rejoices in the fact.  So far as he is\nconcerned, death would be a more attractive prospect than life, for\ndeath would mean admission into the presence of Christ, but for the\nsake of the Philippians he is glad to live.  With wonderful\ncheerfulness he says that he is glad if his blood is to be offered like\na libation poured over the living sacrifice of the souls and bodies\nwhich the Philippians offer to God (ii. 17).  Before he speaks of this\nlibation of his blood he makes a tender appeal to his converts to\nimitate the lowliness of Jesus Christ.  He puts into the language of\ntheology the story of the incarnation which his friend St. Luke draws\nwith an artist's pen in the first two chapters of his Gospel.  He\nspeaks to them of \"the mind\" of Christ Jesus, whose life on earth was\nself-sacrifice in detail.  Christ had before the incarnation the \"form\"\nor essential attributes of God, but He did not set any store on His\nequality with God, as though it were a prize,[2] but stripped Himself\nin self-surrender, and took the \"form\" or nature of a bond-servant.  He\nlooked like men as they actually are, and if men recognized His outward\n\"fashion,\" they would only have taken Him for a man.  And then He made\nHimself obedient to God up to His very death, and that the death of the\ncross.  This was followed by His exaltation, and worship is now paid to\nHim in His glorified humanity (ii. 1-11).\n\nIn ii. 19 St. Paul returns to personal matters concerning Timothy and\nEpaphroditus; then he seems on the point of concluding the Epistle\n(iii. 1).  But he suddenly breaks into {193} an abrupt and passionate\nwarning against the Judaizers.  The passage almost looks as if it were\na page from the Epistle to the Galatians.  The Judaizers are called\n\"dogs,\" and as their circumcision was no longer the sign of a covenant\nwith God, the apostle calls it a mere outward mutilation of the flesh\n(iii. 2).  It is unlikely that Jewish influences were potent at\nPhilippi.  The explanation of this passage appears to be that the\napostle, before completing his letter, learnt of some new and\nsuccessful plot of the Judaizers at Rome or elsewhere.  Nervously\ndreading lest they should invade his beloved Philippian Church, he\nspeaks with great severity of these conspirators.  The conclusion of\nthe chapter is apparently directed against the licence of certain\nGentile converts.  These seem to have been \"enemies of the cross of\nChrist\" in the looseness of their lives rather than in the corruptness\nof their creed.  It is difficult in this case, as in that of the\nJudaizers, to know whether these errors already existed at Philippi or\nnot.  The passage concludes with an exhortation to steadfastness (iii.\n2-iv. 1).\n\nTwo women, Euodia and Syntyche, are exhorted to be \"of the same mind.\"\nA true yokefellow of the apostle, possibly Epaphroditus, and a certain\nClement, possibly the Clement who was afterwards Bishop of Rome, are\nexhorted to try to bring about their reconciliation.  All are exhorted\nto rejoice in the Lord, and are told that the peace of God, which\npasseth understanding, shall stand sentinel over their hearts and\nthoughts.  Before returning again to personal matters and thanking the\nPhilippians for their gifts, St. Paul urges them to follow whatsoever\nis true and lovely.  His language here seems to consecrate all that was\npermanently valuable in the sayings of the Greek philosophers.  It\nrecalls to us the words of the ancient Church historian, Socrates: \"The\nbeautiful, wherever it may be, is the property of truth.\"\n\n{194}\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation, thanksgiving, prayer (i. 1-11).\n\nThe position of affairs at Rome.  His imprisonment has stimulated the\npreaching of the gospel; his own feelings are divided between the\ndesire for death and a willingness to live for their sakes; an\nexhortation to boldness (i. 12-30).\n\nAn exhortation to imitate the humility of Christ, who took the form of\nman and was willing to die, and was after this abasement exalted above\nevery created being (ii. 1-11).\n\nAn exhortation to obedience, quietness, purity, mission and\ncommendation of Timothy and Epaphroditus; farewell (ii. 12-iii. 1).\n\nStrong warning against Judaism, enforced by his own example; against\nclaim to perfection, also enforced by his own example; against\nAntinomian licence as unworthy of \"citizens of heaven\", exhortation to\nsteadfastness (iii. 2-iv. 1).\n\nAdvice to Euodia, Syntyche, and others; exhortation to think of all\nthings true and lovely (iv. 2-9).\n\nThe apostle expresses his joy at the spirit shown by the offerings sent\nto him from Philippi.  Doxology.  Salutation (iv. 10-23).\n\n\n\n[1] So E. Haupt, _Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe_, p. 3.\n\n[2] The Greek is ordinarily translated as \"a prize to be grasped,\" but\nit seems quite possible to translate the passage, \"He considered not\nequality with God to involve a process of grasping.\"\n\n\n\n\n{195}\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nTHE PASTORAL EPISTLES\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\n1 and 2 Timothy and Titus form the fourth and last group of St. Paul's\nEpistles, and are known as the Pastoral Epistles,[1] because they deal\nso largely with the duties and qualifications of the men entrusted with\nthe pastoral care of the Church.  St. Paul here teaches the teachers.\n\nTheir genuineness is more frequently denied than that of any other of\nSt. Paul's Epistles, and this attack upon their genuineness has been\nmostly based upon the character of their teaching about the\noffice-bearers of the Church.  Attempts have sometimes been made to\nseparate some fragments supposed to be genuine from the remaining\nportions.  All such attempts have failed.  These Epistles must either\nbe rejected entirely or accepted entirely.  Otherwise we become\ninvolved in a hopeless tangle of conjectures.\n\nThe _external evidence_ is excellent.  They are found in the Syriac and\nOld Latin versions, and in the _Muratorian Fragment_.  They are all\nquoted by Irenaeus, and also by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.\nTheir authenticity was therefore regarded as a certain fact in the\nlatter part of the 2nd century, and early in the 4th century Eusebius\nwas unaware that any doubts concerning them existed in the Church.\nMoreover, St. Polycarp, A.D. 110, quotes both 1 and 2 Timothy.  The\n{196} combined evidence of these writers forms a very substantial\nargument.  Against it we sometimes find urged the fact that the heretic\nMarcion rejected them.  Such an objection borders on frivolity.\nMarcion held a definite doctrinal heresy, and rejected everything which\nhe could not make to coincide with his own belief.  The value which is\nset on the Old Testament (_e.g._ 2 Tim. iii. 16), the assertion of a\nreal incarnation (_e.g._ 1 Tim. ii. 5), and the sustained opposition to\na false spiritualism, which these Epistles exhibit, must have been\nintensely distasteful to Marcion.  We have therefore no reason for\nbelieving that he would hesitate to reject them, while knowing them to\nbe genuine, any more than he hesitated to reject all the Gospels except\nLuke.\n\nThe _internal evidence_ is called in question for the following reasons.\n\n1. _Historical difficulties._--We cannot place the journey referred to\nin 1 Tim. i. 3 during the three years' stay at Ephesus mentioned in\nActs.  The visit to Miletus in 2 Tim. iv. 20 cannot have taken place on\nthe journey to Jerusalem in Acts xx., because Trophimus was with the\napostle when he reached that city (Acts xxi. 29).  Again, in 2 Tim. iv.\n20 Erastus \"abode at Corinth.\"  But he had not been to Corinth for a\nlong time before the journey to Rome recorded in Acts.  In Tit. i. 5 we\nsee Titus left by St. Paul at Crete; he is to join the apostle in\nNicopolis (iii. 12).  But Acts allows no room for this, and the\nreference to Apollos (iii. 13) implies a later period than St. Paul's\nstay at Corinth (Acts xviii.).\n\n_Answer._--All three Epistles may quite well be later than the history\nrelated in Acts.  There is no reason for denying that St. Paul was set\nfree after his trial at Rome, and arrested again at a later date.\nAssuming that this liberation did take place, all historical\ndifficulties vanish.  There are several points in favour of this\nliberation.  First, the attitude of the Roman government towards\nChristianity was fairly tolerant until Nero began his persecution in\nA.D. 64, and the state of the law would {197} have allowed St. Paul's\nacquittal.  Secondly, it was believed in the early Church that St. Paul\nwas set free.  The Muratorian Fragment says that he went to Spain, and\nSt. Clement of Rome, writing from Rome about A.D. 95, says that he went\n\"to the boundary of the west,\" which seems to point to Spain.  Thirdly,\nthe chronology implied in the ancient list of the bishops of Rome will\nnot allow us to put St. Paul's martyrdom earlier than A.D. 64.\nFourthly, the apostle himself expected to be set free (Phil. ii. 24;\nPhilem. 22).  There is therefore no historical reason for denying that\nSt. Paul was set free from the imprisonment in which Acts leaves him.\n\n2. _References to heresies._--It has been said that these Epistles\ncontain references to heresies later than the apostolic age, such as\nthe Gnosticism of the 2nd century.  More especially, it is said that 1\nTim. vi. 20, which speaks of \"oppositions of gnosis falsely so called,\"\nrefers to a work by Marcion called the \"Oppositions\" (Antitheses), in\nwhich he tried to demonstrate that the Old Testament was antagonistic\nto the New.\n\n_Answer._--The heresies here rebuked are not so definitely described\nthat we can determine their precise character.  This fact is in favour\nof the idea that the heresies belong to the 1st century rather than to\nthe 2nd.  Stress has been laid upon statements which seem to imply\nGnostic heresy, and heresy of a \"Docetic\" character, _i.e._ teaching a\ndenial of the reality of our Lord's human nature.  But there is\ncertainly nothing which suggests that the error here rebuked was as\ndeveloped as the heresy rebuked by St. Ignatius, or even that denounced\nby St. John.  It is most unlikely that the word \"oppositions\" can refer\nto a book bearing that title.  The passage 1 Tim. vi. 20 does not\nsuggest this.  And if Marcion is really quoted in 1 Tim., how could\nPolycarp have quoted 1 Tim., as he does, before Marcion's book was\nwritten?  Something of a Gnostic tendency is betokened by the scorn of\nmaterial life and the human body shown in 1 Tim. iv. 3, 8 and 2 Tim.\nii. 18.  But the error is mainly Jewish.  The false {198} teachers\nprofessed to be \"teachers of the Law\" (1 Tim. i. 7), which was exactly\nthe title claimed by the Jewish rabbis (see Luke v. 17).  The general\ncharacter of their teaching was \"vain talking\" (1 Tim. i. 6; cf. Tit.\ni. 10; iii. 9).  It consists of \"profane babblings\" (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2\nTim. ii. 16).  It is further characterized as \"foolish questionings,\nand genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about the law . . .\nunprofitable and vain\" (Tit. iii. 9).  It is summed up in the phrases\n\"old wives' fables\" (1 Tim. iv. 7), \"Jewish fables\" (Tit. i. 14).  All\nthis shows that the error was not a definite Gnostic heresy with a\nfundamentally false view of God.  It was something intrinsically\nridiculous.  Therefore the \"endless genealogies\" (1 Tim. i. 4) can\nhardly be Gnostic genealogies of the semi-divine beings who took part\nin the creation.  They are Jewish tales about the heroes of the Old\nTestament.  The error is, in fact, primitive, and does not belong to\nthe 2nd century.\n\n3. _Church organization._--It is said that these Epistles lay down the\nrules for an organization of the Church which is later than the\napostolic age, and resembles the Episcopal system, such as we find it\nin the 2nd century.  Titus and Timothy act as delegates of the apostle,\nand as the highest officials of the ministry, and they appoint\npresbyters and deacons.  We thus find a threefold ministry which\nderives its sacred authority through the apostolate.  The apostle lays\nhis hands upon his delegate (2 Tim. i. 6), and this delegate lays his\nhands upon others (1 Tim. v. 22).\n\n_Answer._--It is perfectly true that there is a threefold ministry\nmentioned in these Epistles.  But there is no sufficient reason for\ndenying that such a ministry is of apostolic origin.  It seems quite\ncertain that at Jerusalem the presbyters and deacons were under the\nauthority of St. James, and after his death under that of Symeon.  The\nsame form of government can also be traced back in other places to\napostolic times.  Moreover, the organization which is mentioned in Acts\nis fundamentally the same as that in these Epistles.  In Acts we {199}\nfind the apostles first appointing deacons and then presbyters.  All\nthe additional evidence which has lately been discovered to support the\ngenuineness of Acts therefore favours the genuineness of these\nEpistles.  Finally, we must notice that the titles of the ministry in\nthese Epistles do not correspond with the titles used in the 2nd\ncentury.  The government is substantially \"Episcopal,\" but the title\n\"episkopos\" was in the 2nd century only applied to the chief dignitary\nwho ruled over the \"presbyters.\"  But here the title \"episkopos\" is\napplied to the presbyters themselves as the overseers of the\ncongregation.  We find the same thing in the letter of St. Clement,\nA.D. 95.  St. Clement, although Bishop of Rome, still gives the title\nof \"episkopos\" to the presbyters.  This inconvenient practice was given\nup soon after that date, for we find that St. Ignatius, about A.D. 110,\napplies the title \"episkopos\" only to the highest ministers of the\nChurch.  We conclude, therefore, that while the organization of the\nChurch described in the Pastoral Epistles supports the belief that the\nthreefold ministry, which we now call Episcopal organization, is of\napostolic origin, it does not prove that these Epistles are forgeries.\nAnd it is natural that St. Paul, knowing that his death must before\nlong come to pass, should devote a large measure of attention to\nquestions of Church government and discipline.  The history of the\nChurch in the 2nd and 3rd centuries proves to us that the organization\nof the Church was almost as important as the inspiration of the Church.\n\n4. _Language._--This is an important difficulty.  There are in these\nEpistles many words and phrases which do not occur in the other\nEpistles of St. Paul.  We find different Greek words used for \"Lord\"\nand for the second \"advent,\" and a fondness for the words \"wholesome,\"\n\"godliness,\" and \"faithful saying.\"  The new element is most prominent\nin 1 Tim. and Titus.\n\n_Answer._--Private letters to individuals and friends in reference to\none particular subject are not likely to resemble public letters which\nwere written in reference to other subjects.  It {200} would therefore\nbe unreasonable to expect that the style of the Pastoral Epistles\nshould be cast in the same mould as that of the other Epistles of St.\nPaul.  Nevertheless, the objection would have considerable weight, if\nSt. Paul's aptitude for varying his vocabulary could not be shown.  But\nit can be shown; for his other Epistles are marked by an astonishing\nvariation in the Greek.  Beneath this diversity there exists a unity.\nThe Pastoral Epistles have many Pauline phrases,[2] many graphic\ntouches, many forcible and original statements, and glow with that\npersonal devotion to Christ combined with a practical capacity for\nguiding Christians which St. Paul possessed in so singular a degree.\nIf the Pastoral Epistles are spurious, or if they are composite\nproductions written by a forger who inserted some notes of St. Paul in\nhis own effusions, it becomes almost impossible to account for the fact\nthat 2 Tim. differs delicately both in language and subject from 1 Tim.\nand Titus.  In view of this fact we can admire the sagacity of a recent\nopponent of their authenticity who deprecates \"the possibility of\nextricating the Pauline from the traditional and editorial material\"!\n[3]\n\n\nTHE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nReasons have already been given for rejecting the arguments which have\nbeen alleged against the Pauline authorship of this Epistle.  We may\nadd that it is unlikely that a forger would have inserted the word\n\"mercy\" (i. 2) in the usual Pauline greeting \"grace and peace.\"  The\nreference to Timothy's \"youth\" (iv. 12; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 22) has seemed\nstrange to many.  But although {201} St. Paul had been acquainted with\nTimothy for about twelve years, Timothy must have been greatly the\njunior of St. Paul.  Even if Timothy was as old as thirty-five, the\nword \"youth\" would be quite natural from the pen of an old man writing\nto a pupil, whom he had known as a very young man, and whom he was now\nputting in authority over men old enough to be his own father.  We can\nattribute this Epistle to St. Paul without hesitation.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nTimothy was one of the apostle's own converts, his \"child in faith.\"\nWe learn from Acts xvi. 1 that he was the son of a Greek-speaking\nGentile father and a Jewish mother.  He had received a strictly\nreligious Jewish training from his mother Eunice and his grandmother\nLois (2 Tim. i. 1-5; iii. 14, 15).  He was converted by St. Paul on his\nfirst missionary journey, at Lystra or Derbe.  On St. Paul's second\nvisit to that district, Timothy was so well reported of that he was\nthought worthy of being associated with the apostle in his work.\nBefore employing him as a colleague, St. Paul had him circumcised, that\nhe might be able to work among Jews as well as Gentiles (Acts xvi. 3).\nSome Christian prophets pointed him out as destined for his sacred\noffice (1 Tim. i. 18).  He was ordained by the laying on of the hands\nof St. Paul himself and the presbyters of the Church (1 Tim. iv. 14; 2\nTim. i. 6).  He was frequently associated with the apostle in\ntravelling and in the writing of Epistles.  His name occurs as sending\na salutation in Rom. xvi. 21, and as the fellow-sender of six of the\napostle's letters.  He was with the apostle during his first\nimprisonment at Rome (see Phil., Col., and Philemon).  From this\nEpistle we learn that after the apostle's release he was left in charge\nof the important Church at Ephesus.  While he was in this position, the\ntwo Epistles which bear his name were written to him.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nIt is impossible to ascertain the precise direction of St. Paul's\njourneys after his release, and it is wisest to refrain from mere\nconjecture.  Before writing this letter he had been recently {202} at\nEphesus and had been called away to Macedonia (i. 3).  He intended to\nreturn before long, but had been unexpectedly delayed (iii. 14, 15).\nThis delay rendered it necessary for him to send directions to Timothy.\nThe precise date cannot be exactly fixed.  If St. Paul's martyrdom was\nas early as A.D. 64, and his release as early as A.D. 61, we may\nreasonably put this letter in A.D. 63.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe letter is personal, but it is also official.  It is intended to\nguide Timothy in his work of apostolic delegate.  In speaking to the\npresbyters of Ephesus at Miletus (Acts xx. 29, 30), St. Paul had\nalready expressed fears about the future of the Church, and these fears\nnow seem to have been partly realized.  Ephesus was a meeting-place of\neast and west, a place where religious speculations and religious\ndivisions were likely to increase, and where wise supervision of the\nChristian Church was essential.  The contents of the Epistle therefore\nmainly consist of warnings against Judaism and false knowledge, and\ndirections as to the duties of various classes of Christians, and\nespecially the clergy.\n\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nThe danger of Jewish and Gnostic heresy (i.).\n\nThe order of common prayer (ii.).\n\nThe qualifications of _episkopoi_ (translated \"bishops\" in the English\nversions) and deacons (iii.).\n\nCondemnation of Gnostic asceticism and the duty of Timothy towards\nheresy (iv.).\n\nCounsels as to the treatment of presbyters (translated \"elders\" in the\nEnglish versions) and widows (v.).\n\nWarnings against disobedience towards masters, vain disputations,\ncovetousness, and a wrong use of wealth--concluding with a direct\nappeal to Timothy (vi.).\n\n{203}\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TITUS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThis is exactly the kind of letter which we should expect to be written\nby a writer of strong individuality addressing a disciple entrusted\nwith the duty of ruling a Church threatened by the same troubles as the\nChurch which was under the supervision of Timothy.  It is attributed to\nSt. Paul by Irenaeus, and is amply supported by other early writers.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"To Titus, my true child after a common faith\" (i. 4).  Titus was\nconverted by St. Paul (i. 4), and was an uncircumcised Gentile (Gal.\nii. 3).  He must have been converted at an early period in the\napostle's career, for he was with Paul and Barnabas on their visit from\nAntioch to Jerusalem in A.D. 49.  He was therefore present during the\ngreat crisis when the freedom of the Gentiles from the ceremonial part\nof the Jewish law was vindicated.  It is suggested by Gal. ii. that\nTitus was personally known to the Galatians, and possibly he was\nhimself a Galatian.  Titus was prominent at another important crisis.\nWhen the Church at Corinth was involved in strife, Titus was sent\nthither.  His efforts were attended with success, and he was able to\nreport good news on returning to St. Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6,\n7, 13-15).  He carried the Second Epistle to the Corinthians to\nCorinth.  We hear no more of him until the period when this Epistle was\nwritten.  After St. Paul's release from his first imprisonment, Titus\nwas with him in Crete, and was left by the apostle to direct the\naffairs of the Church in that island (Tit. i. 5).  It is plain that the\ntact and wisdom which he had shown at Corinth had not failed him in the\ninterval, and that St. Paul still regarded him as a worthy delegate and\na true evangelist of the gospel of peace.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nThe similarity to 1 Timothy makes it almost certain that Titus was\nwritten about the same time, and before 2 Timothy.  {204} The apostle\nis expecting to winter at Nicopolis, probably the Nicopolis in Epirus.\nThe letter was therefore possibly written from Greece.  It seems from\niii. 13 that Zenas, a former teacher of the Jewish law, and Apollos,\nhad occasion to travel by Crete, and St. Paul takes the opportunity to\nsend a letter with them to Titus.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe greeting at the beginning of the Epistle and the character of its\ngeneral contents show that this letter is official as well as private.\nPossibly the gospel was first brought to Crete by those Jews or\nproselytes from Crete who saw the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at\nJerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 11.) Fully thirty years had\npassed since then, but the Church had not hitherto been sufficiently\norganized to be independent of the apostle.  Now, however, the\napostolic delegate will be able to ordain the presbyters required in\nevery city.  The manner in which the \"episkopoi\" are mentioned\nimmediately afterwards (i. 5, 7) strongly favours the idea that the\nname \"episkopos\" is here used as a title of the presbyters, as in Acts\nxx.  They form the order under the apostle's delegate.  Useless\nspeculations of a Jewish character had invaded the Church (i. 10-14;\niii. 9).  The teachers of these \"fables\" were influenced by love of\n\"filthy lucre.\"  St. Paul quotes the saying that the Cretans are\n\"liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons,\" and attributes it to \"one of\nthemselves, a prophet of their own.\"  The saying is by the poet\nEpimenides, c. B.C. 600.  He was a native of Cnossus in Crete, who was\nregarded as a seer, and his reputation for second-sight is testified by\nPlato giving him the epithet \"divine.\"  St. Paul seems convinced that\nthe Cretan character was as prone to sensuality as in the days of\nEpimenides, and it is immediately after alluding to their dangers that\nhe utters the memorable words, \"unto the pure all things are pure.\"\nThe apostle's exhortation to \"maintain good works\" (iii. 8) is one of\nthe verses which have been absurdly alleged to be out of harmony with\n{205} St. Paul's insistence upon the importance of justification by\nfaith.  There is a definite allusion to baptismal regeneration in iii.\n5.\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nTitus to ordain elders; the requisite character of \"episkopoi\",\nJudaizing talkers to be checked (i.).\n\nDuties of aged men and women; young women and men; servants; the grace\nof God and the hope inspired by it (ii.).\n\nDuty towards rulers and all men; the kindness of God; foolish\ndiscussions to be avoided; how to deal with a heretic; personal notes\n(iii.).\n\n\n\nTHE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nIt is generally considered that the authenticity of this Epistle stands\nor falls with that of the First Epistle.  But it bears its own peculiar\nmarks of genuineness.  One thoroughly Pauline feature is _thanksgiving_\nat the beginning, a feature which is found in eight of his other\nEpistles, but not in the two other Pastoral Epistles.  A forger might\nhave had the critical insight which would lead him to compose this\nthanksgiving.  But it is highly improbable that a forger would have put\ntwenty-three proper names into the Epistle without tamely copying names\nwhich occur elsewhere, or without betraying any wish to glorify some\nsaint who became popular after the death of the apostle.  Neither of\nthese two suspicious tokens can be detected here.  For instance, Demas,\nconcerning whom nothing that is discreditable is narrated elsewhere, is\nhere rebuked with a pathetic regret (iv. 10; cf. Col. iv. 14); while\nLinus, afterwards a famous bishop and martyr of Rome, is mentioned\nwithout any honourable distinction at all.  Even if the Linus of this\nEpistle is not the bishop of that name {206} the argument still holds\ngood.  For a forger, if he inserted the name of any Linus, would have\nbeen almost certain to mention _the_ Linus and no other.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"To Timothy, my beloved child\" (i. 2).\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nIt was written from Rome, where St. Paul is again a prisoner, the\nreason of his imprisonment being the witness that he has borne to\nChrist (i. 8, 12, 17).  His imprisonment had already lasted some time,\nfor it was known at Ephesus.  The apostle had apparently requested two\nof his friends, Phygellus and Hermogenes, to come to him at Rome, but\nthey had declined.  The Ephesian Onesiphorus had acted otherwise, and\nwhen in Rome had sought him out.  St. Paul anticipates death.  His case\nhas already had a first hearing, when no witness appeared in his\ndefence (iv. 16).  He is now ready to be offered up.  But he does not\nanticipate an immediate martyrdom, as he urges Timothy to come to Rome\nbefore winter.  The date is therefore probably some weeks or months\nbefore St. Paul's martyrdom.  The year is either A.D. 64 or very soon\nafterwards.\n\n[Sidenote Character and Contents.]\n\nThis Epistle is the apostle's farewell pastoral charge.  He looks\nforward to his fate with courage and confidence.  He has fought a good\nfight, and is sure of the crown of righteousness which the Lord will\ngive him.  But he sees that a dark future is in store for the Church.\nSome professing Christians have already deserted him, others have\nperverted the faith.  Among the latter are Hymenseus and Philetus, who\nassert that the resurrection is past already.  It is probable that they\nwere influenced by some Gnostic dislike of the human body, and taught\nthat the only resurrection possible for a Christian was the spiritual\nresurrection of becoming acquainted with their own Gnostic doctrine.\nSuch a heresy is described by Irenaeus.  St. Paul warns Timothy that\nthere are \"grievous times\" to come (iii. 1).  Scripture will be a means\nof security against the mischief-makers.  {207} The various\nexhortations given to Timothy are of great force and beauty; he is to\nendure hardship like a good soldier, and is charged before God to\npreach and rebuke with long-suffering.  The solemnity of these words is\nequalled by the pungent sarcasm with which the writer alludes to the\nschismatics who \"lead captive silly women\" or will \"heap to themselves\nteachers, having itching ears.\"\n\nWe may notice that ii. 11-13 seems to contain part of a Christian hymn,\nthat iii. 8 contains a reference to a Jewish story not found in the Old\nTestament, and that i. 18 is perhaps a prayer for the dead.  The Second\nBook of Maccabees xii. 44 shows that in the century before the\nChristian era the Jews were wont to pray for the departed.\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nExhortation to energy, the failure of friends, the fidelity of\nOnesiphorus (i.).\n\nExhortation to endurance as Christ's soldier, profane discussions to be\nshunned; the error of Hymenseus and Philetus; varieties of character\nlike varieties of vessels; the way to become a vessel of honour (ii.).\n\nComing corruption, the creeping mischief-makers; Timothy is reminded of\nSt. Paul's manner of life and of the value of Scripture (iii.).\n\nExhortation to fidelity in ministerial work; the apostle's course\ndrawing to an end, Timothy urged to come; personal notes (iv.).\n\n\n\n[1] This title seems to have been first applied to them in 1810 by\nWegscheider.\n\n[2] Cf. \"according to my gospel\" (2 Tim. ii. 8; Rom. ii. 16); \"the\ngospel of the glory\" (1 Tim. i. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 4).  The Greek phrase\nfor \"give occasion to\" (1 Tim. v. 14) is found in 2 Cor. v. 12, and\nnowhere in the New Testament except in St. Paul.\n\n[3] B. W. Bacon, _Introduction to the New Testament_, p. 140.\n\n\n\n\n{208}\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nTHE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe question of the authorship of this Epistle is one of the most\nfascinating problems raised by the criticism of the New Testament.  It\ndoes not in the least involve any charge of forgery, such as is\ninvolved in a consideration of St. John's Gospel or of St. Paul's\nEpistle to the Ephesians.  Nor does it involve the fact of an author\nabsorbing the work of a previous writer, such as we find in the case of\nSt. Luke.  The work is one complete and original composition of great\nfinish and perfection, and yet this perfect work contains hardly a hint\nas to its author.  The title which is placed above it in our Bibles\ndeserves serious consideration, as it represents an opinion which was\nheld in many parts of Christendom in the 4th century, and in some parts\nof Christendom even in the 2nd century.  But it by no means represents\nthe universal judgment of the Church, and is contradicted by good\nevidence, both external and internal.  A remarkable divergence of\nopinion on the subject existed between the Churches of the east and\nthose of the west.\n\nAlexandria appears to have been the first centre of the belief that\nthis Epistle was written by St. Paul.  We find that about A.D. 170,\nPantaenus, the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria,\nattributed it to St. Paul.  His successor Clement agrees with this, but\nstates that it was written in Hebrew and translated by St. Luke into\nGreek--a statement which implies that scholars were conscious that the\nstyle of Hebrews is not {209} the style ordinarily used by St. Paul.\nIn A.D. 240, Origen, the successor of Clement, defends the Pauline\nauthorship--a defence which shows that the authorship was disputed.  In\nA.D. 245 Origen had learnt to doubt the validity of his former defence,\nand states that the writer was a disciple of Paul, but \"who wrote the\nEpistle God only knows.\"  In A.D. 269 the famous heretic Paul of\nSamosata quoted Hebrews as the work of St. Paul in a letter read at the\nSynod of Antioch which deposed him from his bishopric.  Early in the\nnext century Eusebius quotes the Epistle as by St. Paul, but he shows\nthe same perplexity as Clement of Alexandria, for he thinks that it was\ntranslated from the Hebrew, possibly by Clement of Rome.  After the\ntime of Eusebius the Greek Fathers all ascribe it to St. Paul.  We can\ntherefore sum up the evidence of the Greek Churches by saying that\nthough it mostly favours one theory, it is not so cogent as to remove\nall our suspicions.\n\nMoreover, the complete absence of references to this Epistle in the\nextant writings of Irenaeus[1] almost compels us to ask if the Greek\nChurches of Southern Gaul and Asia Minor regarded this Epistle as\nPauline.  Irenaeus might naturally omit to quote a short and\ncomparatively unimportant Epistle, but his omission of a long Epistle,\nwell adapted to his arguments, inclines us to place him in a rank\nopposite to his contemporary, Clement of Alexandria.  A Greek writer of\nthe 6th century actually says that Irenaeus, in a passage now lost,\ndenied that St. Paul wrote the Epistle.[2]\n\nThe Latin Churches of the west seem to have been for three centuries\nunder the conviction that this Epistle was not by St. Paul.  It is\nquoted by Clement of Rome, A.D. 95, a fact which {210} alone is\nsufficient to prove its early date and its sacred character.  But\nClement makes no statement as to its authorship.  Caius of Rome, A.D.\n200, excludes it from the list of St. Paul's Epistles, and the same\nhesitation with regard to it existed in the great Latin-speaking Church\nof Carthage.  St. Cyprian, A.D. 250, does not include Hebrews among St.\nPaul's Epistles.  No Latin Father attributes it to St. Paul before\nHilary of Poictiers in A.D. 368, and Hilary was in close contact with\nthe East.  At the end of the 4th century St. Jerome shows distinct\nhesitation in attributing it to St. Paul, and it was not commonly\nattributed to him in the west until the time of St. Augustine, who died\nin 432.\n\nInternal evidence agrees with the external evidence in making it very\ndifficult for us to believe that St. Paul wrote Hebrews.\n\n(1) The Greek is more elegant than that of St. Paul's Epistles.  The\nstyles are widely different.  That of St. Paul is abrupt and vehement\nlike a mountain-torrent, that of Hebrews is calm and smooth like a\nriver running through a meadow.\n\n(2) The quotations are very unlike St. Paul's.  They are all from the\nGreek version of the Old Testament, with the exception of that in x.\n30, which occurs in the same form in Rom. xii. 19.  It had probably\ntaken this shape in popular use.  The quotations are introduced by\nphrases such as \"God saith,\" or \"the Holy Spirit saith.\"  But St. Paul\noften shows a knowledge of the Hebrew when he makes quotations, and he\nuses such phrases as \"it is written,\" or \"the Scripture saith,\" or\n\"Moses saith.\"\n\n(3) There is no salutation such as is usual in St. Paul's Epistles.\n\n(4) In Hebrews the incarnate Son is called \"Jesus,\" or \"Christ,\" or\n\"the Lord.\"  In St. Paul's Epistles we find fuller titles employed,\nsuch as \"our Lord Jesus Christ.\"\n\n(5) The theological differences are important.  The teaching of the\nauthor harmonizes with that of St. Paul, but throughout the Epistle we\nfeel that the truths of Christianity are being expounded to us by one\nwhose personal history is different {211} from that of St. Paul.  The\nauthor starts from the fact of the perfection of Christ's sacrifice,\nand in his doctrine about the Law he looks at it from that fact.  St.\nPaul, on the other hand, starts from the doctrine of justification by\nfaith, and looks at the Law from the point of that doctrine.  Again,\nthe author takes a general view of faith as heroic belief in unseen\nfacts; while St. Paul, though he sometimes does the same, prefers to\nuse the word \"faith\" in the sense of devoted, personal, adhesion to\nChrist.\n\n(6) In ii. 3, 4 the author seems to imply that he had not personally\nseen the Lord.\n\nMany conjectures have been made as to the real author.  Few of these\nconjectures deserve serious consideration.  Luther suggested Apollos,\nand the suggestion has been accepted by many writers.  In favour of it\nare: (1) he was a friend of St. Paul; (2) he was \"mighty in the\nScriptures,\" and Hebrews deals with the Old Testament in a masterly\nway; (3) he was an Alexandrian Jew, and Hebrews was plainly written by\na Jew, and apparently by one acquainted with Philo and other\nAlexandrian authors.[3]  Against this theory is the complete absence of\ntraditional support, and the fact that Apollos was taught by Aquila and\nPriscilla, whereas the author of Hebrews implies that he was taught by\na personal disciple of Christ.  On the whole, _St. Barnabas_ seems to\nhave the best claim.  Tertullian not only speaks of it as the work of\nBarnabas, but also shows by his words that the Church of North Africa\nregarded it as his work.[4]  He is not, therefore, making a conjecture,\nbut assuming a tradition.  His evidence is the more valuable, because\nthe Church of North Africa was important and was in close contact with\nRome, where the Epistle was venerated at least as early as A.D. 95.  In\nfavour {212} of the tradition we can note: (1) St. Barnabas was an\ninfluential companion of St. Paul; (2) he was a Levite, and would be\ninterested in Levitical worship; (3) he was a native of Cyprus, which\nwas in close communication with Alexandria; (4) he had been in the\nregions to which the Epistle was probably addressed.\n\nAgainst the theory that St. Barnabas was the author, it is said that\nthe author makes surprising errors with regard to the Temple ritual,\nwhich St. Barnabas was not likely to do.  The so-called \"errors\" are:\n(a) the high priest sacrificing _daily_ (vii. 27; x. 11)--but the high\npriest was free to do this; (b) the pot of manna and Aaron's rod placed\n_in the ark_ (ix. 4), though not so described in 1 Kings viii. 9--but\nin the tabernacle they were at least close to the ark (Exod. xvi. 34;\nNumb. xvii. 10); (c) the altar of incense is said to belong to the\n_holiest place_ (ix. 4)--but it did belong to it in the sense of\nsanctifying the approach to it, though it was placed outside it: see 1\nKings vi. 22.  No one can reasonably say that these statements are of\nsuch a nature as to prove that the Epistle was not written by a Levite.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nThe title says \"To the Hebrews.\"  The character of the Epistle suggests\nthis.  It was plainly written for Jewish Christians, and apparently for\nsome particular community of them (v. 11, 12; vi. 9, 10; x. 32-34;\nxiii. 1, 7, 19, 23).  Which community, it is difficult to say.  The\nJewish Christians of Rome have been suggested, and in support of this\nthe reference to Italian Christians (xiii. 24) has been quoted.  It is\na strange fact that this theory about the destination of the Epistle is\nfavoured by some critics who assign it to a late date.  For if it was\nreally written to Rome, the date must be early.  It is almost\ninconceivable that the author should have said, \"Ye have not yet\nresisted unto blood,\" to the Christians of _Rome_ after the persecution\nof A.D. 64-65.  Some town in Syria or Palestine is more likely than\nRome, and Antioch seems a probable destination for the Epistle.  The\ncommunity must have been {213} familiar with Greek, and at the same\ntime must have been under strong temptations to relapse into Judaism.\nThey had for the sake of Christ left the warm social life of Judaism.\nThey felt isolated and depressed.  The splendour of the temple worship\nand the zeal of Jewish patriotism were luring them back to their old\nreligion.  They felt that they had perhaps deserted a magnificent\nreality for a shadowy hope.  Such circumstances fit with the theory\nthat the community dwelt in Palestine or Syria, and the same theory is\nsupported by the fact that these Christians had been converted long ago\n(v. 12), and had heard the apostles (ii. 3).\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nProbably from Italy, as shown by xiii. 24.  The date may be put about\nA.D. 66.  A generation of Christians had passed away (xiii. 2).  The\ndoom of Jerusalem was approaching (x. 25; viii. 13; xiii. 13).  The\nfrequent reference to the Levitical worship, as exerting an attractive\nforce, must imply that the temple was still standing.  The Epistle must\ntherefore be earlier than 70.\n\nIt is true that the references to the Levitical worship are sometimes\nmore appropriate to the ancient tabernacle than to the temple, and this\nfact is urged by those who maintain that the temple was already\ndestroyed when the Epistle was written.  But this is no answer to the\nfact that the Jewish worship is throughout assumed to be in existence.\nThe author is not opposing the propaganda of Jewish rabbis or the\nattractions of synagogues which were connected with the temple by\ntradition only.  He is opposing a great living system with its\npriesthood and its ritual.  And in order to criticize Judaism he deals\nwith the _tabernacle_, concerning which the Old Testament gave definite\ndirections.  This was a more effective method than discussing the\ntemple which superseded the tabernacle.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and contents.]\n\nHebrews is marked by a complete unity of argument.  Though the thread\nof the argument is sometimes dropped for the sake of practical\nexhortation, it is soon resumed and logically carried on.\n\n{214}\n\nChrist as the Son of God is a manifestation of God superior to all\nother manifestations.  He is far above the prophets, and above the\nangels, who neither created the material world nor have the \"world to\ncome\" subject unto them.  He towers above Moses, who was only a servant\nand a stone in the house of God, for He is the Son, and built the\nhouse.  He is above Joshua; for He has won a rest for the people of\nGod, of which the rest of Canaan was a mere type.  Neither under Joshua\nnor under David did the people of God reach the ideal sabbath rest\nwhich God has promised (i.-iv. 13).\n\nChrist as High Priest is above the Aaronic priesthood, for He is \"after\nthe order of Melchizedek\" (Ps. ex. 4) (iv. 14-v. 10).  Then the writer,\nbefore giving the full interpretation of Christ's high priesthood,\nmakes a digression to urge the need of greater spiritual insight on the\npart of his readers (v. 11-vi. 12).  They can be sure of God's blessing\nif they have faith and patience (vi. 13-20).  The unique position of\nMelchizedek is then expounded.  In Gen. xiv. nothing is said of\nMelchizedek's descent or of his death.  Thus he stands forth in\ncontrast to the Levitical priests whose descent is described, and who\ndie and are succeeded by others.  He was also superior to those\npriests, because Levi, in the person of his father Abraham, paid tithes\nto Melchizedek.  Since Melchizedek's priesthood is superior to that of\nthe Levitical priests, much more is that of Christ, of whom\nMelchizedek, great as he was, is only a type.  Then the author shows\nthat the rise of a new priesthood must imply the birth of a new\nreligious system.  Christ \"hath His priesthood unchangeable,\" but needs\nnot to repeat His sacrifice (vii.).\n\nThen the author shows that the new liturgy and the new sanctuary of the\nChristian Church are superior to the liturgy and the sanctuary of\nJudaism.  Though Christ's blood was shed only once, He retains the\ncharacter of Priest (viii. 3); He hath \"somewhat to offer,\" viz.\nHimself in His sacred manhood in heaven.  He thus acts as a Mediator of\nthe new covenant {215} promised in the Old Testament (viii. 6-13).  The\ntabernacle was only a temporary parable; Christ acts as High Priest in\nthe holy of holies, the actual presence of God typified by the\ntabernacle; He has consecrated the new covenant between man and God by\nHis own blood (ix.).  The repetition of the Levitical sacrifices proves\ntheir impotence.  But that of Christ is adequate.  It is an offering of\ninherent value, being the offering of the will of Christ, instead of\nthe offering of unconscious beasts.  And we need no other atonement,\nfor His unique offering has a perpetual value (x. 1-18).\n\nThe writer then proceeds to insist upon the appropriation and\napplication of the truths which he has expounded.  It is our privilege\nto have full confidence, and our duty to assemble for worship: apostasy\nis most serious (x. 19-39).  The writer next describes the nature of\nfaith, which is a faculty which makes the future as if it were present,\nand the unseen as if it were visible.  It is illustrated by a\nmagnificent roll-call of heroes from Abel to the Incarnation.  These\nheroes, who saw both worlds, and realized how petty the material world\nis compared with the spiritual, had real insight (xi.).  Emulate their\nexample, enduring persecution, knowing that our Mount Zion is superior\nto Sinai, and our coming to church a reunion with angels and saints\n(xii.).\n\nThe Epistle closes with a practical exhortation concerning brotherly\nlove, hospitality, prisoners, marriage, and contentment.  The ministers\nwho had formerly had rule over the readers are to be remembered.  We\nare not to be unsettled by strange teachings.  \"We have an altar\" of\nwhich the Jewish priests may not partake.  Our sin offering, Jesus, is\ngiven to us as food.  We must go to Him outside the camp of Judaism.\nAfter an injunction to obey the clergy and a request for prayers, the\nEpistle concludes.  Just before the end it is stated that \"our brother\nTimothy hath been set at liberty\" (xiii.).\n\nThe whole Epistle is peculiarly dignified, eloquent, and {216}\npersuasive, and its elegant Greek and delicate Alexandrian philosophy\nmake it a literary treasure.\n\nWe may conclude with some further remarks on the writer's doctrine of\nChrist's Person and of the Jewish Law.\n\nKnowing that these Christians were in danger of drifting away from\nChrist, the writer calls their special attention to His Person, in\norder that they may carefully consider who He is before deciding to\npart from Him.  The doctrine corresponds most exactly with that which\nwe find in Colossians and in John.  It is declared in the most positive\nmanner that Christ is essentially divine.  He reflects His Father's\nglory, is the expression of His essence, and the Sustainer of the\nuniverse (i. 3).  He is the God whose throne is eternal, and the Lord\nwho made the earth (i. 8, 10).  Yet He became \"a little lower than the\nangels\" (ii. 9), and, though entirely sinless, He was so truly human as\nto become the pattern of obedience (x. 7), humility (v. 5), reverent\npiety (v. 7), and fidelity (iii. 2).  By the discipline of suffering He\nwas made perfect for His redeeming work (v. 8, 9).  It is made evident\nthat this process of perfection did not consist in the diminution of\nsin, but in the development of goodness.  Nowhere do we find a more\nprofound view of suffering and virtue, or a more pathetic delineation\nof the character of Jesus.\n\nIt has already been hinted that the author regards the Jewish Law\ndifferently from St. Paul.  The latter had lived under the goad of a\nPharisaic interpretation of the Law of Moses, which laid down so many\nregulations as to what ought to be done, and gave so little assistance\ntowards doing it, that escape from such a system was like an escape\nfrom penal servitude.  When he speaks of the Law, he regards it\nprimarily as a system of stern moral requirements.  But the author of\nHebrews regards the Law as primarily a system of worship.  He implies\nthat it was in some sense a \"good tidings\" (iv. 2).  He teaches that\nthe Law was a \"shadow\" of those real \"good things\" which constitute the\nworld of truth in heaven, while the Gospel is the {217} \"image\" or\nadequate representation of those holy realities.  The Law is therefore\na rough unsubstantial outline of truth, while the Gospel is exact and\nsolid.  Both writers regard the Law as divine in origin, and both\nregard it as insufficient and rudimentary (vii. 16; cf. Gal. iv. 3, 9).\nBut St. Paul thinks of the Law as weak \"through the flesh,\" _unable to\novercome_ the resistance which it encounters from man's lower\ninstincts, while the author of Hebrews thinks of it as _unable to\ncleanse and make perfect_ the human conscience.\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nThe subject of the Epistle: CHRISTIANITY AS THE FINAL RELIGION.  The\ncontrast of the Old Revelation and the New in method, time, and\nmessengers; the divine personality and incarnation of the Son (i. 1-4).\n\nA. The superiority of the Son, the Mediator of the New Revelation, to\nthe angels, and to the human founders of the Jewish polity: i. 5-iv. 13.\n\na. Scripture shows the Son to be above the angels (i. 5-14).\n\nb. The danger of rejecting the Son's revelation (ii. 1-4).\n\nc. The Son of Man through suffering fulfils the high destiny of mankind\n(ii. 5-18).\n\nd. The dignity of Jesus is far above that of Moses, He is the Maker and\nSon, Moses represents the house in which he is a servant (iii. 1-6).\n\ne. Faith is necessary if we would enter the promised land of rest (iii.\n7-19).\n\nf. Encouragement as well as warning can be based on the failure of the\nIsraelites.  Under Joshua they did not reach their rest.  The promise\nof it remains for us (iv. 1-13).\n\n{218}\n\nB. The high-priesthood of Christ, superior to that of Aaron's line,\nuniversal and royal: iv. 14-vii. 28.\n\na. Transition to the doctrine of Christ's high priesthood (iv. 14-16).\n\nb. The characteristics of a high priest, human sympathy and divine\nappointment, fulfilled in Christ (v. 1-10).\n\nc. A digression to urge the readers to advance; the writer's hope for\nthe Hebrews, God's blessing is assured (v. 11-vi. 20).\n\nd. The characteristics of Christ, as perfect and universal High Priest,\nshadowed forth by Melchizedek (vii.).\n\nC. The liturgy and sanctuary of Christ superior to those of Judaism:\nviii. i-x. 18.\n\na. Christ offers sacrifice in heaven (viii. 1-6).\n\nb. Thus He maintains the New Covenant between God and man promised in\nthe Old Testament (viii. 7-13).\n\nc. The sanctuary and priests of the Old Covenant (ix. 1-10).\n\nd. Fuller explanation of the atoning work of Christ under the New\nCovenant (ix. 11-28).\n\ne. The inadequacy of the old sacrifices, the abiding efficacy of\nChrist's one sacrifice (x. 1-18).\n\nD. The appropriation and application of the above truths: x. 19-xiii.\n25.\n\na. The privilege of entering the holy place with confidence, the duty\nof public worship (x. 19-39).\n\nb. The past triumphs of heroes of the faith (xi.).\n\nc. Exhortation to energy, endurance, fidelity to our Mount Zion and its\ndivine utterances (xii.).\n\nd. Detailed instructions (xiii.).\n\n\n\n[1] Eusebius, _H. E._ v. 26, says that Irenaeus \"mentions the Epistle\nto the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, comparing certain\nexpressions from them.\"  Eusebius does not say that Irenaeus attributed\nit to St. Paul.  We can compare words in Heb. i. 1 with Wisd. vii. 22;\nHeb. i. 3 with Wisd. xvi. 21; Heb. xii. 17 with Wisd. xii. 10; Heb.\nxiii. 7 with Wisd. ii. 17.\n\n[2] Stephen Gobar, in a passage preserved by Photius, Cod. 232.\n\n[3] The word \"effulgence\" (Heb. i. 3) is a favourite word with Philo.\nThe interpretation of \"King of Salem\" as \"King of peace\" (Heb. vii. 2)\noccurs in Philo, and Heb. xiii. 5 has a quotation from Josh. i. 5\nexactly resembling in form a quotation in Philo, _De conf. ling._, 33.\n\n[4] _De Pudic_, 20.\n\n\n\n\n{129}\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nTHE CATHOLIC EPISTLES\n\nThe New Testament contains seven letters known as \"Catholic,\" viz. that\nof James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and that of Jude.  These\nletters were added to the Canon of the New Testament later than the\nrest of its contents.  In ancient manuscripts, versions, and catalogues\ntheir position in the New Testament varies, and for a long time they\nwere often placed between Acts and St. Paul's Epistles.  1 Peter and 1\nJohn were the first to be universally received.  About A.D. 300 all\nseven were known and received in the Greek Churches, but nearly as late\nas A.D. 350 the Syrian Church was unacquainted with any of them except\nJames.  After this the Syrian Church adopted 1 Peter and 1 John, and\nfinally the whole seven.  This fact with regard to the Syrian Church is\nof peculiar importance.  It shows us that we must take care not to\nargue that an Epistle is probably a forgery because an important\nChristian community was unacquainted with it at a comparatively late\ndate.  For the evidence for the genuineness of 1 Peter and 1 John is\neven stronger than the evidence for the genuineness of James.  Yet at a\ntime when the best Greek critics were entirely satisfied as to the\ngenuineness of 1 Peter and 1 John, the Syrians did not recognize them.\nThe only reasonable explanation of this is the simplest explanation,\nnamely, that some Epistles were translated at a later date than others.\nAmong Syrian writers we find two distinct tendencies.  Writers who were\nentirely at home with Greek literature, and in communion with the\northodox Greek Church, like St. Ephraim or St. John of Damascus, used\nthe same Catholic {220} Epistles as the Christians of Alexandria or\nJerusalem.  On the other hand, Christians who were cut off by schism\nfrom the main body of Christendom continued for centuries to use\nexactly the same Canon of Scripture as that which had been employed by\ntheir ancestors before the schism.  Thus Ebed Jesu, Metropolitan of\nNisibis, and the last prelate of the Nestorian sect who wrote important\nworks in Syriac, died in A.D. 1318.  But we find that he only uses the\nthree Catholic Epistles contained in the Peshitta Syriac version of the\nNew Testament, probably completed soon after A.D. 400.\n\nIf we pass from the extreme east to the extreme west of ancient\nChristendom, we find ourselves confronted with similar but not\nidentical facts.  We find that a superior degree of authority was\nallowed to belong to 1 Peter and 1 John.  There can be no doubt that in\nall the great centres of Christian life outside Syria these two\nEpistles were in the Canon by the year 200.  The _Muratorian Fragment_,\nwritten in Italy about A.D. 180, mentions two Epistles of St. John and\nthat of St. Jude.  It contains no mention of 1 Peter, but there are\ngrounds for believing that there was a reference to it in the lost\nportion which was devoted to Mark.  It contains no mention of James,\nthough that Epistle seems to be quoted in the _Shepherd_ of Hermas,\nwritten at Rome about A.D. 140.  It was long before James was\nuniversally regarded as part of the Canon.  It is quoted as Scripture\nby Origen of Alexandria early in the 3rd century, but a hundred years\nlater Eusebius says that it was disputed by a minority.  It is accepted\nby Eusebius himself.  The very private character of 2 and 3 John\naccounts for the slowness with which they won acceptance as part of the\nword of God, yet 2 John is backed by the high authority of Irenaeus,\nand both Epistles are obviously the work of the same author.  The\nSecond Epistle which bears the name of St. Peter is connected with\npeculiar difficulties, and possesses less evidence in its favour than\nany of the other Catholic Epistles.\n\nWe cannot do better than quote the admirable words in {221} which Dr.\nSanday has sketched the adventures of such books.  \"An Epistle lodged\nin the archives of a great and cultured Church like the Church of Rome\nwould be one thing, and an Epistle straying about among the smaller\ncommunities of Bithynia or Pontus would be another; while an Epistle\nwritten to an individual like the Gaius of 3 St. John would have worse\nchances still.  There were busy, careless, neglectful, and unmethodical\npeople in those days as well as now; and we can easily imagine one of\nthese precious rolls found with glad surprise, covered with dust in\nsome forgotten hiding-place, and brought out to the view of a\ngeneration which had learnt to be more careful of its treasures.  But\neven then, once off the main roads, circulation was not rapid; an\nobscure provincial Church might take some time in making its voice\nheard, and the authorities at headquarters might receive the reported\ndiscovery with suspicion.  They might, or they might not, as it\nhappened.\" [1]\n\nBut by degrees the customs of the different Churches were levelled.\nBefore the end of the 4th century all the Catholic Epistles were\naccepted as canonical in Europe, and in a large part of the Christian\nworld which lay beyond Europe.  This leads us to inquire why these\nEpistles bear the name of Catholic.  The answer seems to be that the\nname Catholic or General was given to the more important of the seven,\nbecause they were addressed to the Church Universal, or to groups of\nChurches, and not to individuals or to single Churches.  The words\nCatholic Epistles therefore signify Circular or Encyclical Letters.\nOrigen gives the name of Catholic to 1 Peter, 1 John, and Jude.  By the\n4th century the name was applied to all the seven.  There can be little\ndoubt that 2 and 3 John are not Catholic in the sense of being Circular\nor Encyclical.  But they were numbered with the others for the sake of\nconvenience, being naturally associated with the first and more\nimportant letter by St. John.\n\n{222}\n\nThe following table gives an idea of the gradual incorporation of the\nCatholic Epistles into the Canon.  An * denotes a direct quotation or\nthe expression of almost no doubt; a ?  notes that the writer is aware\nof decided doubts, a () marks an uncertain reference.\n\n                                            1   2\n                                        J   P   P   1   2   3\n                                        a   e   e   J   J   J   J\n                                        m   t   t   o   o   o   u\n                                        e   e   e   h   h   h   d\n                                        s   r   r   n   n   n   e\n\n   I. COUNCILS--\n      Laodicea, A.D. 363 . . . . . . .  *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n      Rome, A.D. 382 . . . . . . . . .  *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n      Carthage, A.D. 397 . . . . . . .  *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n\n  II. EASTERN LISTS--\n      (a) _Syria._\n          Ephraim, A.D. 370  . . . . .  *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n          Chrysostom, A.D. 400 . . . .  *   *       *\n          Peshitta version, ? A.D. 410  *   *       *\n          Junilius, A.D. 550 . . . . .  ?   *   ?   *   ?   ?   ?\n          John of Damascus, A.D. 750    *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n          Ebed Jesu, A.D. 1300 . . . .  *   *       *\n      (b) _Palestine._\n          Eusebius, A.D. 330 . . . . .  ?   *   ?   *   ?   ?   ?\n          Cyril, A.D. 348  . . . . . .  *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n      (c) _Alexandria._\n          Clement, A.D. 190  . . . . .      *       *   *       *\n          Origen, A.D. 220 . . . . . .  *   *   ?   *   ?   ?   *\n          Athanasius, A.D. 367 . . . .  *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n      (d) _Asia Minor._\n          Polycarp, A.D. 110 . . . . .      *       *\n          Amphilochius, A.D. 380 . . .  *   *   ?   *   ?   ?   ?\n          Gregory Nazianzen, A.D. 380   *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n\n III. WESTERN LISTS--\n      (a) _Italy._\n          Muratorian, A.D. 180 . . . .              *   *       *\n          Hippolytus, A.D. 220 . . . .      *  ( )  *\n      (b) _Gaul._\n          Irenaeus, A.D. 180 . . . . .      *       *   *\n      (c) _Roman Africa._\n          Tertullian, A.D. 200 . . . .      *       *           *\n\n\n\n[1] _Inspiration_, p. 368.\n\n\n\n\n{223}\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nTHE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES\n\n[Sidenote: The Author]\n\nIn the 4th century this Epistle was reckoned among the authentic\ndocuments of the apostolic period.  It does not seem to have been\nuniversally known in the Church at an earlier period.  It is not in the\n_Muratorian Fragment_.  But it is plainly quoted by Irenaeus, though he\ndoes not mention the author's name.  The same is true with regard to\nthe _Shepherd_ of Hermas, which was written at Rome about A.D. 140.\nJustin Martyr quotes the words \"the devils shudder\" (James ii. 19,\n_Trypho_, 49).  Polycarp seems to quote James i. 27, and 1 Peter seems\nto show traces of its influence.  The first writer who both quotes it\nand mentions the author is Origen.\n\nIt opens with the name of \"James, a servant of God and of the Lord\nJesus Christ.\"  There can be no reasonable doubt that this is James\n\"the Lord's brother.\"  James the son of Zebedee was killed as early as\nA.D. 44, before which date it is unlikely that the Epistle was written.\nWe have no reason to attribute the Epistle to the Apostle James \"the\nLittle.\"  He does not seem to have been of sufficient prominence to\nwrite an authoritative letter \"to the twelve tribes which are of the\nDispersion.\"  But such an action would have been exceedingly natural on\nthe part of a saint who was bishop of \"the mother of Churches,\"\nJerusalem itself.  It will be convenient to postpone the consideration\nof such evidence as we possess for the foregoing conclusion until we\nhave discussed the exact relation of St. James to our Lord.\n\n{224}\n\nThree important theories must be mentioned as offering a solution of\nthe difficult problem as to this relationship--\n\n(a) That James, Joses, Simon, and Jude, mentioned in the Gospels as the\n\"brethren\" of our Lord, were His first cousins on His mother's side.\n\n(b) That they were the children of Joseph and Mary.\n\n(c) That they were the children of Joseph by a former wife.\n\nThe theory of St. Jerome (a) may be perhaps discarded without any\nfurther comment than that St. Jerome apparently invented it, that he\nclaimed no traditional sanction for it, he did not hold it consistently\nhimself in his later writings, and it is very difficult to reconcile it\nwith Scripture.  The theory of Helvidius (b), which called forth St.\nJerome's attempted refutation, answers some verbal requirements of the\nGospel narrative, and has found some skilful modern advocates.  But\nwith the possible exception of Tertullian, no Christian seems to have\nheld it before Helvidius, and the theory that Mary had other children\nbesides Jesus gave a profound shock to Christian sentiment.  No\nargument can be brought against (c), the theory defended, though not\noriginated, by St. Epiphanius, that the brethren of our Lord were\nchildren of St. Joseph by a former wife.  It is in keeping with the\nstrong tradition which maintained the perpetual virginity of the\nBlessed Virgin; it helps to explain the attitude of unbelief recorded\nin the Gospels of Christ's brethren, and at the same time requires no\ndistortion of the literalness of the passages in which they are\nmentioned.  There is hardly sufficient evidence to show that first\ncousins were ever called \"brethren.\"  But it would have been quite\nnatural for those who called St. Joseph \"the father of Jesus\" to call\nSt. Joseph's sons \"the brothers of Jesus.\"  And again, the supposition\nthat the Blessed Virgin had no other son, seems strongly supported by\nthe fact that at the crucifixion our Lord commended her to His beloved\ndisciple, and not to one of St. Joseph's family.\n\n{225}\n\nThis theory of St. Epiphanius is much older than the 4th century.  It\nis sometimes urged against it that Origen derived it from the\nApocryphal Gospels of the 2nd century, and that its popularity in the\nChurch was owing to Origen's influence.  But though the Apocryphal\nGospels often contained fictions, we cannot argue that everything in\nthem is fictitious.  The tradition agrees with the words of Scripture,\nand gains support from some fragments of Hegesippus, a cultured\nPalestinian Christian, born about A.D. 100.  He states directly that\nSymeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem, was the _cousin_ of our Lord,\nbecause son of Clopas who was the brother of Joseph.  He also calls\nJames \"the brother of the Lord,\" and in another passage speaks of Jude\nas \"called brother\" of the Lord.  He therefore plainly distinguishes\nthe cousins from the so-called \"brethren.\"  We then get the following\ngenealogy:--\n\n                             Jacob\n                               |\n          +--------------------+--------------------+\n          |                                         |\n        Joseph       ==      Mary          Clopas (or Alphaeus)\n          |                    |                    |\n          |                    |             +------+------+\n          +-- James          JESUS           |      |      |\n          +-- Joses                        James  Joses Symeon\n          +-- Jude                     (the Little)\n          +-- Simon\n          +-- Sisters\n\n\nWe conclude, therefore, that St. James was the son of St. Joseph.\n\nThe writer of the Epistle frequently colours his sentences with words\nfrom the Old Testament, and assumes a knowledge of it among his\nreaders.  He makes no allusion to the Gentiles.  He writes in a tone of\nauthority and without any self-advertisement.  He briefly uses for\nillustration certain natural phenomena which would be familiar to the\npeople of Palestine, such as allusions to \"the early and latter rain\"\n(v. 7), the effect on vegetation of the burning wind (i. 11), the\nexistence of salt or bitter springs (iii. 11), the cultivation {226} of\nfigs and olives (iii. 12), and the neighbourhood of the sea (i. 6; iii.\n4).  From such a cursory view of the character of this Epistle, it\nwould seem reasonable to admit that it was written by a Palestinian\nJewish Christian for the edification of Christians of the same race and\nlocality.\n\nWe get the same impression when we study what is said by the writer\nabout the readers.  He speaks as though they had been under a law of\nbondage, but are now under a law of liberty (i. 25; ii. 12).  They are\nin touch with men who are unbelievers, who blaspheme Christ and\npersecute Christians (ii. 6, 7).  The believers are mostly poor (ii.\n5); the few rich who are Christians are in danger of falling away\nthrough covetousness and pride (iv. 3-6, 13-16).  The rich appear as\noppressors, who luxuriously \"nourish their hearts in a day of\nslaughter,\" and had even \"killed the righteous\" (v. 5, 6).  The Church\nis ruled by \"elders\" (v. 14) like the Jewish synagogues, and the\nChristian \"synagogue\" is occasionally frequented by rich strangers (ii.\n2).  All this is well suited to the conditions of Christian life in\nPalestine.  And it is difficult to find any locality equally\nappropriate.  Even as late as the first part of the 2nd century rich\nGentiles were reluctant to persecute Christians, and to describe them\nas blaspheming the name of Christ at any time within or near the\napostolic age would be almost impossible.  They regarded Christianity\nwith good-natured contempt, not with blasphemous hostility.  We have\nonly to read Acts to see that among the Gentiles it was the poor and\nignorant rather than the rich who began the persecution of the\nChristians.  On the other hand, if we turn to the Jews, we find that\nthe rich were the leaders of persecution.  It was the wealthy Sadducee\nparty in union with the influential Pharisees which harried the Church.\nThe Gospels and Acts give repeated evidence on this point, and the\nevidence of the Jewish historian Josephus supplies the keystone of that\nevidence.\n\nAgainst the Palestinian origin of the Epistle it is urged that {227}\nthe Greek is too correct and rhetorical.  The style is vivacious and\nforcible.  It contains many rather unusual Greek words, including six\nwhich are neither in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament nor in\nthe rest of the New Testament, a long list of words which are found in\nthe Septuagint and not in the New Testament, and seven rare classical\nor late Greek words.  The whole question of the style of the Epistle\nrequires the most delicate handling.  But the style is distinctly\nunfavourable to the theory that the Epistle was written at a late date\nin a centre of Gentile Christianity.  The Greek is neither the flowing\nGreek of a Greek, nor the rough provincial Greek which St. Paul spoke\nand wrote.  It is slow and careful, with short sentences linked by\nrepetitions.  One epithet is piled effectively on another (_e.g._ iii.\n15, 17), and abstract statements are avoided.  Galilee was studded with\nGreek towns, and in Jerusalem Greek was well known.  The Epistle might\nwell have been written by a Jew of Palestine who had made a good use of\nhis opportunities.  And the introduction of some rare words in the\nmidst of a simple moral exhortation is by no means a proof of complete\nmastery over Greek.  It points, not to a mastery over the language, but\nto a painstaking familiarity with it.\n\nThese facts seem compatible with the few details which we know about\nSt. James.  Their full significance can only be appreciated when we\nknow the difficulties which have beset the commentators who assign to\nthe Epistle a date outside his lifetime.\n\nBefore considering the question of the date more minutely, we may\ncollect together some points of interest connected with St. James.\n\nSt. James, like the other \"brethren\" of our Lord, watched the\ndevelopment of our Lord's career, but was unconvinced of the truth of\nHis mission.  After the Resurrection, our Lord, St. Paul tells us, \"was\nseen of James.\"  Perhaps this was the turning-point of his life, he,\nlike St. Thomas, \"saw and {228} believed.\"  The Gospel according to the\nHebrews, one of the oldest of the Apocryphal Gospels, says that our\nLord, after His Resurrection, \"went to James and appeared to him--for\nJames had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he\ndrank the cup of the Lord, until he saw Him rising from the dead;--and\nagain after a little while.  'Bring hither, saith the Lord, a table and\nbread.'\" . . . \"He brought bread, and blessed and brake it, and gave it\nto James the Just, and said unto him, 'My brother, eat thy bread, for\nthe Son of man hath risen from the dead.'\"  There are other versions of\nthe story which make the vow to be taken after the death of Christ.  In\nspite of some absurdities in this Apocryphal Gospel, it is possible\nthat the legend is true, and that the sublime death of the Redeemer\nbegan to effect the repentance of His brother.  However this may be,\nbefore Pentecost, A.D. 29, we find him joined to the Christian\ncommunity at Jerusalem, where he afterwards attained a foremost\nposition.  In Gal. i. we find that St. Paul visited St. James and St.\nPeter at Jerusalem.  In Acts xii. 17 St. Peter, on escaping from prison\nin A.D. 44, desires that news of his escape should be taken to St.\nJames.  In Gal. ii. St. Paul speaks of \"James and Cephas and John\" as\npillars of the Church at Jerusalem.  From Acts xv. we find that at this\ntime, A.D. 49, St. James acted as president of the Council which\ndetermined how far the Gentile Christians need conform to the customs\nof the Jews.  It is remarkable that the speech of St. James in Acts xv.\nand the circular despatched from the Council show several coincidences\nof style with the Epistle.  If these coincidences are due to forgery,\nthe forger has certainly used consummate self-restraint and skill.\n\nAgain, when St. Paul paid his last visit to Jerusalem, in A.D. 56, and\nthe Jews accused him of advocating the abandonment of the Law of Moses\nand \"the customs,\" it is St. James and his presbyters who advise him to\ngo up to the Temple and purify himself with four Nazirites, and so\nreassure the \"myriads\" of Christian Jews who were zealous for the Law.\n{229} Once more we cannot help observing how well this anxiety of St.\nJames agrees with the very cautious tone of the Epistle with regard to\ndistinctively Christian doctrine.\n\nThe end of St. James is recorded by Hegesippus and by Josephus.\nHegesippus represents him living as a strict Nazirite, always\nfrequenting the Temple, with knees as hard as a camel's because of his\nperpetual prayers.[1]  He tells us that St. James was thrown from a\npinnacle of the Temple, stoned, and clubbed to death at the order of\nthe scribes and Pharisees for asserting that Jesus was on the right\nhand of God.  From Josephus we learn that his martyrdom took place when\na vacancy in the procuratorship caused by the death of Festus (in A.D.\n62) gave the Sadducees the opportunity which they desired.  He was\ndragged before the Sanhedrim, condemned and stoned.  Josephus also\ngives us to understand that the more moderate Jews were not in sympathy\nwith such a thoroughly unconstitutional proceeding, and that Agrippa\ndeprived Ananus, the high priest, of his office for invading the rights\nof the civil power.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"The twelve tribes of the Dispersion.\"  We might suppose that the\nwriter had in his mind all the Jews who were dispersed throughout the\nworld, but came to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice when they were able,\nand who were all bound by the religious obligation to pay the yearly\ntribute to the temple.  There had been several dispersions in the\nhistory of the chosen people, to Assyria under Shalmaneser, to Babylon\nand Egypt in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and to Rome under Pompeius.\nBut ch. ii. 1 shows that the Epistle was written to men who\nacknowledged Jesus as Lord.  It is therefore natural to think that it\nwas written only to men who were both Christians and of Jewish origin.\nBut there is another interpretation of the phrase \"the twelve tribes.\"\nSome think that it is merely a symbolical name for the Christian Church\ncomposed both of Jews and Gentiles, and {230} forming the new and\nspiritual Israel.  Strong arguments have been brought forward in favour\nof each of these views, but the former seems to be the sounder.  The\nargument that the Jews at this period could not have been called\n\"twelve\" tribes when only two had returned from the captivity, is\ndisproved by the fact that the phrase is unquestionably used in this\nmeaning in Acts xxvi. 7.  We must frankly admit that St. Paul speaks of\nthe Gentile Christians as forming part of the new Israel of God, but he\nnever alludes to them as part of twelve tribes.  In Rev. vii. the\ntwelve tribes still mean Christian Jews in contrast with the \"great\nmultitude\" of redeemed Gentiles.  Justin Martyr speaks of \"your twelve\ntribes\" in addressing Trypho[2] the Jew, and several instances are to\nbe found in early Christian literature where the words are used in this\nliteral sense.\n\nWe may therefore rest content with this literal meaning.  But we must\nmaintain it with reserve in view of the fact that St. Peter applies the\nword \"dispersion\" to the new and ideal Israel.  And we must beware of\narguing that the word \"synagogue\" (ii. 2) proves that the readers were\nnecessarily Jews.  The word \"synagogue\" was for a long time\noccasionally applied to the Gentile Christian congregations, as we find\nin the _Shepherd_ of Hermas[3] (A.D. 140) and Theophilus[4] (A.D. 180).\n\n[Sidenote: When and where written.]\n\nWe have already seen that Palestine is the most likely place, and as\nSt. James lived at Jerusalem, the Epistle was probably written there.\nThe date has always been a hopeless problem to those who reject the\nauthenticity of the Epistle.  That it was written by a heretic in\nPalestine about A.D. 70, or by a Catholic at Rome about A.D. 90, or\nthat it represents a \"Catholicized Paulinism\" of A.D. 140, or that it\nis a patchwork of homilies written soon after A.D. 120, are guesses\nwhich have been made but not substantiated.  The fact that it was\nwritten before A.D. 62 is {231} self-evident if we admit that it was\nwritten by St. James.  But it is also corroborated by the fact that 1\nPeter, written about A.D. 64, seems to show a knowledge of this\nEpistle.  Far more complicated is the question as to whether St. James\nshows any knowledge of St. Paul's Epistles.  He insists so pointedly on\nthe need of being justified _by works_ that some writers have thought\nthat he is attacking St. Paul's doctrine of justification _by faith_.\nThe idea must be dismissed.  Such a masterly writer would not have\nattacked what an apostle did not really hold.  St. James, in attacking\na theory of justification by faith, is condemning a faith which means\nonly orthodox intellectual assent.  St. Paul, in defending his doctrine\nof justification by faith, is upholding a faith which implies energetic\nand loving service.  The two doctrines simply supplement one another.\nWhen Luther called the Epistle to the Galatians his \"wife\" and called\nthe Epistle of St. James an \"Epistle of straw,\" he simply showed that\nhe understood neither.  St. James is not only not criticizing St. Paul;\nhe is perhaps not even criticizing a popular perversion of St. Paul's\ndoctrine.  The question of the justification of Abraham was a favourite\nsubject of discussion among the Jews, and the teaching of our Lord had\nshown the superiority of a living faith over dead works.  There is no\ndifficulty in supposing that some Jewish believers were confused with\nregard to these great matters before they had read a word of St. Paul's\nletters.  And to such men the Epistle of St. James might be of the\nhighest value.\n\nIn spite of this, there often seems to be a verbal connection between\nthis Epistle and those of St. Paul.  The connection is admitted by\ncritics of the most different schools.  Moreover, some are of opinion\nthat there is a connection between James and the Epistle to the\nHebrews, ch. xi.  These connections have been exaggerated, but they are\nhard to deny.  Now, if St. James had borrowed from any of these\nEpistles, it would be very difficult for us to account for the extreme\nsimplicity of his {232} doctrine.  On the other hand, there is no\ndifficulty in the fact that they put his words in a more elaborate\nsetting.  And as St. Paul's opponents declared that they were backed by\nSt. James, we may be sure that St. Paul would eagerly read anything\nwritten by St. James.  We may therefore place this Epistle earlier than\nSt. Paul's Epistles to Corinth and Rome, and perhaps earlier than any\nof his extant Epistles.\n\nIt is sometimes objected to this that it is \"grotesque\" to suppose that\nSt. James would have originated the practice of writing religious\nEpistles.  It is said that the practice must have been begun by an\napostle of supreme originality, and one who travelled widely, therefore\nby St. Paul.  But we have no means of deciding the question.  And as\nSt. Paul may have written Epistles before he wrote those now extant, we\nmay still hold that St. Paul began the practice, and that this Epistle\nis nevertheless older than the works of St. Paul which we now possess.\nWe can, therefore, see no good reason for denying that this Epistle is\nas early as A.D. 50.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe Epistle is intensely practical, and though it is in no sense\nanti-doctrinal, it does not discuss doctrine.  The evils against which\nit contends all concern conduct.  The good which it recommends is\npersistent well-doing in accordance with the new moral law of\nChristianity.  The sole validity of the law of love (ii. 8), the gift\nof a new birth by the word of truth, making us heirs of God (i. 18; ii.\n5), the mention of the author's servitude to Christ (i. 1), and the\nascription of divine power to His name (v. 14), show conclusively that\nthe writing is not, as some say, of Jewish origin.  The tone is\naustere, and the Epistle contains no word of praise for the readers.\n\nA strong argument in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle is\nfurnished by the numerous parallels which it presents to the Synoptic\nGospels.  These parallels are not quotations from the Gospels, but they\nshow that the writer was saturated with the kind of teaching which the\nGospels record.  The {233} connection with the Sermon on the Mount as\nrecorded by St. Matthew is particularly plain.  Among the numerous\nproofs of this connection we must content ourselves with noticing the\nagreement as to the spiritual view of the Law (Jas. i. 25; ii. 8, 12,\n13; Matt. v. 17-44), the blessings of adversity (Jas. i. 2, 13; ii. 5;\nv. 7, 8; Matt. v. 3-12), the dangers of wealth (Jas. i. 10, 11; ii. 6,\n7; iv. 13-16; v. 1-6; Matt. vi. 19-21, 24-34), the true nature of\nprayer (Jas. i. 5-8; iv. 3; v. 13-18; Matt. vi. 6-13), the necessity of\nforgiving others (Jas. ii. 13; Matt. vi. 14, 15), the tree known by its\nfruits (Jas. iii. 11, 12; Matt. vii. 16-20), the prohibition of oaths\n(Jas. v. 12; Matt. v. 34-37), the Judge before the door (Jas. v. 9;\nMatt. xxiv. 33).  Many other coincidences can be found.  The \"perfect\nlaw\" upheld by St. James, a law both \"free\" and \"royal,\" irresistibly\nreminds us of the legislation of the Messianic King in our first Gospel.\n\nIn v. 14-16 we have a direction given with regard to the anointing of\nthe sick by the presbyters of the Church.  This rite, perverted by the\nGnostics in the 2nd century, survived that perversion.  The first full\ndirections for it in a Catholic document are in the prayers of Bishop\nSarapion of Thmuis in Egypt, about A.D. 350.  In the Eastern Church the\noil used for this purpose may be consecrated by presbyters, contrary to\nthe usual practice of the West, which requires it to be consecrated by\na bishop.\n\n{234}\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation (i. 1).\n\nHuman trial and the wisdom which enables us to profit by it, a warning\nagainst double-mindedness, Christianity exalts the lowly, riches are\ntransitory, trial brings blessing, trial due to lust is not a trial\nfrom God but from self, God is the Source of all our good (i. 2-18).\n\nWe must receive the divine word with humility and act upon it, kindness\nand purity are the best ceremonial (i. 19-27).\n\nChristian behaviour towards rich and poor to be based on the royal law\nof love; violation of that law is a breach of God's command, which\nembraces motive as well as action (ii. 1-13).\n\nIntellectual faith is no substitute for godly works, Abraham and Rahab\nwere justified by works (ii. 13-26).\n\nThe responsibility of teaching, the difficulty and importance of\ncontrolling the tongue (iii. 1-12).\n\nChristian wisdom contrasted with the animal wisdom of faction (iii.\n13-18).\n\nThe cause of quarrelling is selfish desire, which infects even your\nprayers, the adultery of a soul which indulges in worldliness and\npride, cease from finding fault, worldliness is shown in business plans\nmade without reference to God (iv.).\n\nLuxurious wealth denounced, it is the rich who have persecuted the\nrighteous, patience is commended (v. 1-11).\n\nSwear not, prayer and praise, the anointing of the sick with prayer,\nmutual confession of sins and prayer, the blessing on those who convert\na sinner (v. 12-20).\n\n\n\n[1] Quoted by Eusebius, _H. E._ ii. 23.\n\n[2] _Trypho._ 126.\n\n[3] _Mand._ xi. 9.\n\n[4] _Ad Autol._ i. 14.\n\n\n\n\n{235}\n\nCHAPTER XXI\n\nTHE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe author describes himself as \"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ\" (i.\n1).  Few books of the New Testament are so well attested as this\nEpistle.\n\nThe external evidence for its authenticity is strong, and stronger than\nthat for any other Catholic Epistle except 1 John.  It seems to be\nquoted in _Didach\u00e9_, i. 4.  The letter of Polycarp written about A.D.\n110 shows a complete familiarity with 1 Peter.  He evidently regarded\nit as a letter of the highest authority.  His contemporary Papias was\nacquainted with it, and so far as we can determine from Eusebius, he\nreferred to it directly as the work of St. Peter.  The Epistle of\nBarnabas, the date of which is uncertain, but which is probably as old\nas A.D. 98 or even older, quotes 1 Pet. ii. 5.  Again, it seems certain\nthat the Epistle is quoted, though not by name, in the Epistle of\nClement of Rome, A.D. 95.  It is quite unnecessary for us to point to\nimportant references in writers of the latter part of the 2nd century\nand onwards.  An Epistle which has the triple support of Clement,\nPolycarp, and Papias is, so far as external evidence is concerned,\nbeyond the reach of any sober criticism.\n\nThe apostle was first called \"Simon, the son of John\" (according to the\ncorrect reading in John xxi. 15, 16, 17), and was a fisherman of\nBethsaida.  He was brought to Jesus by his brother Andrew, and, like\nhim, had been a disciple of John the Baptist.  Our Lord at once\ndiscerned his capacity, and gave {236} him the surname of Cephas\n(Aramaic) or Peter (Greek), signifying a rock or stone.  Peter was the\nfirst disciple to confess the Messiahship of our Lord, and was rewarded\nby the promise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi. 13-19).\nWith John and James he was admitted to a peculiarly close relationship\nwith Jesus (Mark v. 37; Matt. xvii. 1; xxvi. 37; cf. Mark iii. 16, 17).\nHe thrice denied that he was a disciple of Jesus on the night when\nJesus was tried and condemned.  He bitterly repented, and on the third\nday after the Crucifixion he, again in the company of John, hastened to\nthe sepulchre and found it empty.  He was permitted several times to\nsee the risen Lord, who cancelled his threefold denial by graciously\ndrawing from him a threefold confession of his love, and commanded him\nto feed His lambs and His sheep.  Our Lord also predicted his martyrdom\n(John xx. and xxi.; Luke xxiv. 33, 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5).\n\nIn Acts St. Peter appears as the leader of the Church.  At the election\nof Matthias in place of Judas, at the descent of the Holy Ghost at\nPentecost, at the admission of the Gentiles in the person of Cornelius\nand his family to the privileges of the new covenant, at the\nemancipation of the Gentile Christians from the Jewish ceremonial law\nat the Council of Jerusalem, St. Peter is foremost (Acts i. 15-26; ii.\n1-42; x.; xv. 6-11).  Soon after the Council St. Peter was at Antioch,\nand weakly \"dissembled\" by disguising his belief in the truth that the\nGentile Christians were on the same spiritual level as the Jewish\nChristians.  He was rebuked by St. Paul (Gal. ii. 11-14).\n\nHe does not seem to have laboured in Rome until near the end of his\nlife.  The Roman tradition that he was bishop of that city for\ntwenty-five years is almost certainly a legend, based on the fact that\ntwenty-five years elapsed between the year when the apostles were\nbelieved to have temporarily left Jerusalem (twelve years after the\nCrucifixion) and the date of his martyrdom.  There is, however, no\nground for disputing the fact that {237} he died at Rome during the\nNeronian persecution.  There are several reasons for thinking that he\nsurvived St. Paul for a short period, though St. Augustine asserts that\nhe was martyred before St. Paul.  He was crucified near the middle of\nthe circus of Nero, on a spot afterwards marked by a \"chapel of the\ncrucifixion.\"  He was buried nigh at hand.  His tomb, probably in the\nform of a _cella_ or open apse, is mentioned by Caius of Rome about\nA.D. 200.  A huge basilica was built over it by the Emperor\nConstantine, and remained until it was replaced in the 16th century by\nthe present St. Peter's.  In spite of his unique position, St. Peter in\n1 Pet. v. 1 speaks of himself as a \"presbyter,\" as St. John does in 2\nJohn 1 and 3 John 1 (compare also 1 Tim. iv. 14, where St. Paul reckons\nhimself as a member of the \"presbytery\").  At this period, and for many\nyears later, the word \"presbyter\" was vague enough to be applied to the\nhighest officers of the Church.\n\nThe internal evidence afforded by the Epistle is in harmony with St.\nPeter's experience.  (1) The writer claims to have been \"a witness of\nthe sufferings of Christ\" (v. 1), and contrasts himself and his readers\nin saying (i. 8), \"Whom not having seen ye love.\"  (2) He lays stress\nupon the pastoral aspect of our Lord's work (ii. 25; v. 2-4), as though\nwriting under a sense of the special pastoral charge given to him by\nour Lord.  (3) His injunction, \"all of you gird yourselves with\nhumility\"--literally, \"put on humility like a slave's apron\"--seems to\nbe a reminiscence of the action of our Lord that astonished St. Peter\nwhen \"He took a towel and girded Himself\" at the Last Supper.  (4)\nThere are points of resemblance between the Epistle and the speeches\ndelivered by St. Peter in Acts.  (5) The appeal to Old Testament\npredictions of Christ's sufferings (1 Pet. i. 11; Acts iii. 18), the\nreference to the stone that was rejected by the builders (1 Pet. ii. 7,\n8; Acts iv. 11), the description of the cross as the \"tree\" (1 Pet. ii.\n24; Acts v. 30), are coincidences which suggest a common authorship\nwhile they seem too small to be designed.  (6) The graphic and {238}\npictorial style of the Epistle bears resemblance to the style of Mark,\nwhich is based on St. Peter's preaching.  We may mention the word \"put\nto silence\" (ii. 15)--literally, \"muzzle\"--which St. Mark (i. 25; iv.\n39) applies to the subduing of an unclean spirit and the stilling of a\nrough sea.\n\nAgainst the authenticity of the Epistle it is sometimes said that it is\nimprobable that St. Peter, whose mission was to the Jews, would address\nChurches in which St. Paul had laboured, and which were largely\ncomposed of Gentiles.  But in no case could such action on the part of\nSt. Peter be thought incredible.  And if St. Peter survived St. Paul,\nas he very probably did, it would be particularly fitting for him to\nwrite to them after St. Paul's martyrdom.  Many critics have been\ninclined to pronounce the Epistle spurious on the ground that it seems\nto be so strongly influenced by St. Paul's teaching as to represent St.\nPaul's own school of thought.  We find, as in St. Paul's writings, the\nphrase \"in Christ\" (iii. 16; v. 10, 14), and the second advent of\nChrist called by the name \"revelation\" (i. 7, 13; iv. 13).  Moreover,\nthere are numerous verses which can be compared with verses in St.\nPaul's Epistles, particularly in Romans and Ephesians.[1]  We must not\nfail to notice in passing, that if this Epistle, which manifestly\nbelongs to the 1st century, does actually quote Ephesians, as some\naffirm, the authenticity of Ephesians is thereby very strongly\ncorroborated.  But in any case the similarity between the Epistle and\nSt. Paul's writings cannot be reasonably urged against its genuineness.\nThe once popular theory that St. Paul held a fundamentally different\nconception of Christianity from that held by St. Peter has completely\nbroken down.  There is not a shred of evidence for believing that the\nsemi-Christian Jews who lived in Palestine in the 2nd century\nrepresented St. Peter's {239} type of Christianity, or that the\nteaching of St. Peter excluded the deep teaching of St. Paul.  He was\nsusceptible to external influences, and he may have caught the tone of\nSt. Paul while living in a community which St. Paul had so profoundly\ninfluenced.  This tone seems to mark 1 Peter.\n\nBut a further point must be mentioned in this connection.  Modern\nwriters have too readily adopted the habit of labelling certain\nexpressions and doctrines as Pauline and assuming that St. Paul\n_originated_ them.  No doubt the apostle of the Gentiles possessed a\nmind as original as it was fertile.  But it is at least reasonable to\nsuppose that a common creed and a common training produced similar\nhabits of thought in many cultivated and eager minds.  St. Paul himself\nfrequently writes as if his readers, even those who had not seen his\nface, were quite familiar with a treasury of words and ideas which he\nemploys.  We cannot legitimately argue that he was the first and only\ncoiner of such words and ideas.  For instance, the phrase \"in Christ,\"\nwhich we have quoted above, is often said to have been directly\nborrowed from St. Paul.  But the idea of abiding in Christ is implied\nin Matt. and Mark, and expounded in John.  It reaches back to the Old\nTestament idea of abiding \"in God\" (Ps. lvi. 4; lxii. 7; Isa. xlv. 25).\nIt would be quite natural in any Christian who had adequately realized\nthe truth of the Incarnation.  We can therefore repudiate without\nhesitation the assertion that the writer is more affected \"by the\nteaching of Paul than of Jesus.\"  The imagery employed by the writer is\nof a distinctive character.  It is almost entirely derived from the Old\nTestament, and is narrower in its range than that of St. Paul.  The\nfigures are drawn from birth and family life (i. 3, 14, 17, 22; ii. 2),\nnomadic life (i. 1, 17; ii. 11), temple and worship (ii. 3; iii. 15),\nbuilding (ii. 4), fields and pastoral life (i. 4; v. 2, 8), military\nlife (i. 5; ii. 11, iv. 1), painting (ii. 21), working in metals (i. 7;\niv. 12).  Some of these figures suggest that the author was a Jew by\nbirth, and also that he was not a mere copyist of St. Paul.\n\n{240}\n\nAgain, we must notice that 1 Peter shows a dependence upon James.[2]\nWhile we therefore grant that the author of this Epistle seems to have\nmade use of St. Paul's writings, we must be prepared to grant that he\nalso made use of a document written by one who has been frequently\ndeclared by modern critics to have been antagonistic to St. Paul.  A\ntradition found as early as Origen, and in itself extremely probable,\nrepresents St. Peter as having organized the Church at Antioch, and St.\nPeter probably became acquainted with the Epistle of St. James while at\nAntioch and before his arrival at Rome.  In any case, the author shows\nhimself by no means exclusively indebted to St. Paul, and the candid\nstudent must therefore admit that it is unreasonable to discredit this\nEpistle on the ground that it represents St. Peter as preaching\n\"Paulinism.\"\n\nIt is also asserted that the Greek is too flowing to have been written\nby St. Peter, especially if Papias is right in saying that St. Peter\nrequired the services of St. Mark as \"interpreter.\"  The style of the\nGreek is, indeed, good.  It contains a considerable number of classical\nGreek words, though it is also saturated with the language of the\nSeptuagint.  It is simple, correct, and impressive.  But the large\nextent to which Greek was spoken in Palestine, and the fact that it was\nthe language of Antioch, make it quite possible that St. Peter obtained\na considerable mastery over Greek.  We cannot attach a quite definite\nmeaning to the word \"interpreter.\"  It need not imply that St. Peter\nalways, or even at any time in his later life, required his Aramaic to\nbe translated into Greek.  It is not unusual for a clever modern\nmissionary to lecture and write in correct Chinese after a very few\nyears of practice, and there would be nothing strange if St. Peter soon\nacquired a comparatively easy language such as Hellenistic Greek.  It\nis therefore quite unnecessary for {241} some half-hearted apologists\nto suggest that the Epistle was mainly or entirely written for St.\nPeter by his secretary, Silvanus (1 Pet. v. 12).  The expression and\nconnection of the ideas contained in it are far too natural and easy\nfor us to think that two hands were concerned in its composition, and\nthe tone of authority used in v. 1 can only be explained on the theory\nthat St. Peter or a forger wrote the Epistle.  The language of ch. v.\nis most easily explained by the theory that Silvanus, a trusted friend\nand delegate of St. Peter, carried the letter.  The letter was\npurposely made short (v. 12) because its lessons were to be enforced by\nSilvanus.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"To the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,\nCappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.\"  Considerable difficulty is attached\nto this address.  At first sight it seems to mean those Christians of\nAsia Minor north of the Taurus mountains who had been converted from\nJudaism.  But there are some verses in the Epistle which seem to imply\nthat the readers had been pagans.  These verses are i. 14; ii. 9, 10;\niii. 6; iv. 3.  They suggest that the readers had led a licentious\nheathen life, and had been only recently admitted to any covenant with\nGod.  The bearing of some of them is a little uncertain.  For instance,\nii. 10 says that the converts in time past \"were no people, but now are\nthe people of God\"--the same verse that St. Paul in Rom. ix. 25 applies\nto the calling of the Gentiles.  This verse is thought to furnish a\nstrong argument for those scholars who hold that the Epistle is\naddressed to Gentiles, and that \"sojourners of the Dispersion\" must be\ntaken in a figurative sense, meaning Christians who are exiled from the\nheavenly Canaan.  But as the verse is from Hos. i. 10, and is applied\nby Hosea himself to the Jews, it is certainly _possible_ to hold that\nSt. Peter also applies it to Jews.  In this case the word \"Dispersion\"\nwould retain its literal meaning, and the Epistle would be written to\nconverts from Judaism.  But the reference to \"idolatries\" in iv. 3\ncannot be applied to Jews.  And it {242} would be quite unnatural for\nSt. Peter to speak about the heathen thinking it \"strange\" that\nconverted _Jews_ refused to join in their idolatrous excesses.  The\nword \"you\" in i. 12 suggests that the readers belonged to a different\nrace from the Hebrew prophets.  Finally, the phrase \"elect of the\nDispersion\" must be compared with \"in Babylon, elect\" (v. 13).  Like\nthe name \"Babylon\" for Rome, the word \"Dispersion\" is a Jewish phrase\ntaken over by the Christian Church.  We agree, then, with St. Jerome\nand St. Augustine in holding that this Epistle was written to Gentiles.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nThe Epistle says, \"She that is in Babylon, elect together with you,\nsaluteth you\" (v. 13).  This means the Church in Rome.  The name\n\"Babylon\" is applied to Rome in the Revelation, and from an early\nperiod the Christians would naturally be inclined to give this name to\na city which had become, like Babylon of old, the centre of worldliness\nand oppression.  It is practically certain that St. Peter spent his\nlast days in Rome.  Moreover, St. Mark was with St. Peter when this\nEpistle was written (v. 13), and from 2 Tim. iv. 11 we know that St.\nMark was invited to Rome about A.D. 64.  It is most improbable that\n\"Babylon\" signifies either the Babylon near Cairo, or the great city on\nthe Euphrates.  Three facts enable us to determine the date: (1) The\npresence of Mark in Rome.  (2) The fact that St. Peter appears never to\nhave been in Rome when Colossians was written in A.D. 60--so that the\nEpistle cannot be earlier than A.D. 60.  (3) The allusion in iv. 13-15\nto the fact that Christians are already punished for being named\nChristians.  In the period described in Acts they are not yet punished\nmerely for being Christians, but for specific crimes alleged against\nthem by their opponents.  It is often asserted that this Epistle must\nbe later than the time of Nero, on the ground that it was after Nero's\ntime that the name _Christian_ ensured the legal condemnation of any\none who bore it.  But this assertion is not supported by the Roman\nhistorians Tacitus and Suetonius.  Their words support the contention\n{243} that the kind of persecution mentioned in this Epistle began\nunder Nero in A.D. 64.  When the Epistle was written this persecution\nhad probably begun, but it had not yet assumed its most savage form.[3]\n(4) St. Peter himself suffered under Nero, not later than A.D. 67.  We\nmay therefore confidently date the Epistle about A.D. 64.\n\nIt appears from v. 12 that in writing this Epistle St. Peter was\nassisted by \"Silvanus, our faithful brother,\" as an amanuensis.  He is\nprobably the \"Silas\" (another form of the same name) mentioned in Acts\nxv. 22, 32, 40, and the Silvanus in 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1, 2\nCor. i. 19.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThis Epistle is highly practical, and though it is rich in doctrinal\nelements, it endeavours to instruct the readers in conduct rather than\ndoctrine.  The two key-words of the Epistle are _suffering_ and _hope_,\nand the sufferings of Christ and the glories which crowned them furnish\nSt. Peter with encouragement.  Though he writes in plain sympathy with\nthe liberal Christianity of St. Paul, his language throughout bears the\nimpress of the Old Testament.  Christ is the \"lamb\" (i. 19) and the\n\"corner-stone\" (ii. 6); Christians are the \"elect race\" (ii. 9) and the\n\"royal priesthood\" (ii. 9).  Without discussing the problems raised by\nGod's predestination of the Jews, he says that they were \"appointed\"\nunto stumbling, and their stumbling seems to be regarded as the\npunishment which God attached to their disobedience.\n\nThe fact that in i. 2 the names of the Three Persons of the Trinity are\ngiven in an order which does not correspond with the order of their\nrevelation in the history of religion, indicates that they are regarded\nas coequal.  We may note that in iv. 19 the Father is called \"faithful\nCreator,\" a unique expression.  The teaching about the work of Christ\nis full.  He is often {244} simply called \"Christ\" without the name\n\"Jesus.\"  He is called \"Lord,\" and His special divine Sonship is\nimplied (i. 3).  The real existence of our Lord before His birth on\nearth is also implied.  It has been said that i. 20 signifies that He\nwas only known to the Father as destined to exist in the future.  This\ninterpretation is excluded by i. 11, which shows that His Spirit\ninspired the prophets before His birth.  It is still more definitely\nexcluded by iii. 18, 19.  Here it is shown that His personality resided\nneither in His flesh, nor in His human spirit clothed \"in which\" He\npreached to the dead.  This spirit was therefore taken by a personality\nwhich existed previous to the creation of the spirit.  The Atonement is\nprominent.  Christ's death is both an example and a redemption which\nprocured God's grace.  He died \"for the unrighteous.\"  He carried our\nsins in His body to the cross (ii. 24).  The Resurrection is one of the\n\"glories\" which followed His sufferings (i. 11).  It is a unique motive\nto our faith (i. 21), and the cause of the efficacy of our baptism\n(iii. 21).  The Ascension is the fact which guarantees to us the\npresent rule of Christ (iii. 22).  In iv. 6 we have an important\nstatement with regard to the dead, which must be studied in relation to\niii. 18-20.  The purpose of Christ's preaching to those who died before\nthe gospel came was that though judged they yet might live.  Blessings\nwhich they had not known on earth were offered to them by the dead but\nliving Christ.\n\nThe practical side of the Epistle is simple but solemn.  It deals with\nthe privileges (i. 3-ii. 10), duties (ii. 11-iv. 11), and trials (iv.\n12-v. 11) of the brethren.  It seems to be written with the hope that\nthe Christians may perhaps disarm persecution if they abstain from\nvainly attempting to set every one to rights and are scrupulously loyal\nto the Government (ii. 14-17).\n\n{245}\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation (i. 1, 2).\n\nThe joy of salvation, a joy which springs from faith; this salvation\nwas foretold by the prophets: the fruits of salvation, seriousness,\nlove towards others, growth, the privilege of being built upon Christ:\nChristians are the true Israel (i. 3-ii. 10).\n\nThe Christian brotherhood and its duties, submission to civil\nmagistrates, slaves must obey even unreasonable masters, wives if good\nand gentle may win their husbands, husbands must reverence their wives:\nkindness must be the Christian's rule, there must be no return of evil\nfor evil; suffering, if wrongfully endured, has its reward.  Christ's\nsufferings issued in blessing, in His ministerial journey to Hades and\nHis triumphant journey into heaven: Christ our Example, our rule is the\nwill of God: Christian life must be guided in view of the approaching\nend of all things, each of our gifts is to be used for the good of the\nwhole Church (ii. 11-iv. 11).\n\nThe trials of the brethren, trust in God in the midst of suffering,\nrejoice in your participation in Christ's suffering, bear the reproach\nthat fell on Him, to suffer as a Christian is cause for thanksgiving,\nsuffering to be expected, judgment is beginning: the relation of\npastors and people, the presbyters not to act as slaves, hirelings, or\ntyrants: final counsels to humility and firmness (iv. 12-v. 11).\n\nCommendation of the bearer, and salutations (v. 12-14).\n\n\n\n[1] Compare 1 Pet. i. 14 with Rom. xii. 2; 1 Pet. i. 21 with Rom. iv.\n24; 1 Pet. ii. 5 with Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 6, 7 with Rom. ix. 33; 1\nPet. ii. 10 with Rom. ix. 25, 26; 1 Pet. ii. 18 with Eph. vi. 5; 1 Pet.\niii. 1 with Eph. v. 22; 1 Pet. v. 5 with Eph. v. 21.\n\n[2] Compare 1 Pet. i. 1 with Jas. i. 1; 1 Pet. i. 6 f. with Jas. i. 2\nf., 12; 1 Pet. i. 23 with Jas. i. 18; 1 Pet. ii. 1 with Jas. i. 21; 1\nPet. ii. 11 with Jas. iv. 1; 1 Pet. v. 6 with Jas. iv. 7, 10; 1 Pet. v.\n9 with Jas. iv. 7; and the quotation in 1 Pet. v. 5 with Jas. iv. 6.\n\n[3] For the persecution and its bearing on the date of this Epistle,\nsee Leighton Pullan, _History of Early Christianity_, p. 105 ff.\n(Service and Paton, 1898).\n\n\n\n\n{246}\n\nCHAPTER XXII\n\nTHE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe difficulties which are connected with the authorship of this\nEpistle are greater than those connected with the authorship of any\nother book of the New Testament.  A multitude of objections have been\nraised against its genuineness, and it has been pronounced spurious by\na considerable number even of Christian writers.  But while fully\nadmitting that the problem is complicated, we can lawfully simplify it\nby at once dismissing some of the weaker objections.  For instance, the\nstatement that 2 Peter quotes from Josephus, the celebrated Jewish\nhistorian, who died c. A.D. 103, is utterly unproved.  Again, the\noften-repeated statement that the doctrine of man being made a partaker\nof the divine nature (2 Pet. i. 4) is a doctrine which was not taught\nuntil after the apostolic age, is unwarrantable, unless we repudiate\nwholesale many books of the New Testament which we have every reason to\nregard as apostolic.  For the indwelling of the Father in Christ and in\nthe believer through Christ is implied by St. Paul, St. John, St.\nJames, and St. Peter.  The writer, in laying stress upon the importance\nof spiritual knowledge, is once more in agreement with St. Paul and St.\nJohn.  He plainly does not mean mere intellectual _knowledge_, and the\ndoctrine which he teaches is of a very simple kind.  The slight\nreference made to the Redemption (ii. 1) and the silence manifested as\nto the Resurrection cannot be considered so crucial as some scholars\nbelieve them to be.  Readers of the First Epistle could hardly fail to\nhave these {247} facts printed in their very souls.  They would not\nrequire to have them repeated in a second letter.\n\nThe language of the Epistle, especially in the verses which do not\ndepend upon Jude, shows several small coincidences with 1 Peter and\nwith the speeches of St. Peter in Acts.  We may compare the phrases in\n2 Pet. ii. 15 with Acts i. 18, and 2 Pet. iii. 10 with Acts ii. 19, and\n\n  Compare 2 Pet. i. 7      with 1 Pet. i. 22, iii. 8.\n     \"       \"   i. 19, 20   \"     \"   i. 10-12.\n     \"       \"   ii. 1       \"     \"   i. 18\n     \"       \"   iii. 6      \"     \"   iii. 20.\n     \"       \"   iii. 14     \"     \"   i. 19.\n\n\nThe writer abstains from copying the designation of the apostle\ncontained in 1 Peter, and does not record the words spoken from heaven\nat the Transfiguration exactly as they are reported in the Gospels.  In\nboth these points a forger would very probably have acted otherwise.\n\nOn the whole, the words employed in 2 Peter seem indecisive with regard\nto the authorship.  There is sufficient variation to allow us to\nbelieve that it was written or not written by the apostle.  One of the\nmost remarkable words in 2 Peter is that employed in i. 16 for an\n\"eye-witness.\"  It is a word used in the Greek heathen mysteries, and\nsome critics think that such a word would not have been used by an\northodox writer until an age when the Church had learnt to borrow Greek\nreligious terms from the Gnostic heretics.  It is a sufficient proof of\nthe weakness of this argument that the Greek verb derived from this\nnoun is found in 1 Pet. ii. 12.  It is, however, fair to say that the\nstyle of 2 Peter is less simple and less closely connected with the Old\nTestament than that of 1 Peter.\n\nMore serious objections are (1) the lack of external evidence in the\nwriters of the 2nd and 3rd centuries; (2) the internal evidence that\nthe Epistle is based upon Jude, and perhaps on the Apocalypse of Peter.\n\n{248}\n\nEusebius is evidently in doubt about it.  He says, \"We have not indeed\nreceived it by tradition to be in the Canon, yet as it appeared useful\nto many, it was studiously read with the other Scriptures.\" [1]  It is\nnot mentioned by Irenaeus, nor is it in the list given in the\n_Muratorian Fragment_.  But it seems to have been commented on by\nClement of Alexandria, though it is not quoted in his extant works.\nOrigen does mention it in his original Greek works, but in a manner\nwhich shows that it was disputed in his time.  In Rufinus' Latin\ntranslation of Origen there are several quotations from 2 Peter, but\nagainst this fact it is sometimes urged that Rufinus emended Origen,\nand that we cannot be absolutely certain that these quotations are\ngenuine.  The Epistle seems to have been known to Origen's great\ncontemporary Hippolytus (_Refut._ ix. 7; x. 20 and elsewhere).  There\nare, moreover, passages in still earlier writers which are perhaps\nbased on 2 Peter.  These are in Clement of Rome, A.D. 95, Justin\nMartyr, A.D. 152, and the document which is wrongly called the Second\nEpistle of Clement, and is really a Roman homily of about A.D. 140.\nThe evidence of these passages is not positive, but if even one of them\nis quoted from 2 Peter, it becomes quite impossible to assign 2 Peter\nto A.D. 150-170, which is the date most favoured by those who deny its\nauthenticity.  Nor is the omission of any mention of it in Irenaeus and\nthe _Muratorian Fragment_ a very destructive fact.  The _Muratorian\nFragment_ is only a fragment, and does not mention 1 Peter, and there\nis no passage in Irenaeus quoted from James.  Yet it is certain that\nthose two Epistles belong to the apostolic age.  The fact is that such\na very large amount of the literature of the 2nd century has been\ndestroyed, that it is always precarious to argue from omissions in the\nbooks which are still extant.  Therefore, although the evidence of\nwriters of the 2nd and 3rd centuries is certainly meagre in the case of\n2 Peter, we cannot argue that comparative lack of evidence means\npositively hostile evidence.  A {249} notable step towards the\ndetermination of the problem will be made if scholars eventually agree\nto assign a very early date to the two great Egyptian versions of the\nNew Testament.  Both these versions contain 2 Peter.\n\nAs to the connection between 2 Peter and Jude, it may be regarded as\ncertain that either they both depend on some previous document, or that\none of them depends on the other.\n\n  Compare Jude  6     with 2 Pet. ii. 4.\n     \"      \"   7       \"     \"   ii. 6.\n     \"      \"   8       \"     \"   ii. 10.\n     \"      \"  10       \"     \"   ii. 12.\n     \"      \"  11       \"     \"   ii. 15.\n     \"      \"  12, 13   \"     \"   ii. 13, 17.\n     \"      \"  16       \"     \"   ii. 18.\n     \"      \"  17, 18   \"     \"   iii. 1-3.\n\nAn examination of these passages seems to prove that 1 Peter borrows\nfrom Jude and not Jude from 2 Peter.[2]  In Jude the connection of\nideas seems more simple and direct.  Various verses in 2 Peter become\nmore intelligible in the light thrown upon them by the corresponding\nverses in Jude.  Thus Jude 10 alludes to the immorality which explains\nwhy the heretics are called \"animals to be destroyed\" in 2 Pet. ii. 12.\nJude 13, by calling the heretics \"wandering stars,\" explains why\n\"darkness\" is said to be \"reserved\" for them in 2 Pet. ii. 17.  Between\n2 Pet. ii. 17 and 18 there is no direct allusion to Enoch as in Jude\n14, but some of the material taken from the Book of Enoch still remains.\n\nIt will be observed that this connection with Jude is confined to 2\nPet. ii. 1-iii. 7.  Now, this passage must have been either inserted in\nsome ancient manuscript of this Epistle, or it was originally part of\nthe Epistle.  If it has been inserted, the question of the authenticity\nof the rest of the Epistle obviously remains {250} untouched.  But if\nit originally formed part of the Epistle, as appears to be the case,\ncan we regard this as a conclusive proof that St. Peter did not write\nit?  Surely not.[3]  The fact that St. Luke inserts most of the Gospel\nof St. Mark is not considered to be any argument against the\nauthenticity of St. Luke's work.  Both in the Old Testament and the New\nwe are occasionally confronted by the same phenomenon.  Writers repeat\nwhat has been said by other writers when their words appear to them to\nbe the best possible words for enforcing a particular lesson.\n\nThe question of the authenticity of 2 Peter has lately become still\nfurther complicated.  There has recently been discovered part of the\nApocalypse of Peter mentioned in the _Muratorian Fragment_.  This\nApocalypse is usually thought to have been forged in Egypt in the first\nhalf of the 2nd century.  It presents certain points of resemblance\nwith 2 Peter.  These points of resemblance affect the first chapter of\n2 Peter as well as the second chapter.  They therefore furnish an\nargument against the theory that ch. ii. is a late interpolation into a\ngenuine Epistle, and they suggest that the Epistle is either wholly\ngenuine or wholly forged.  But the solution of the problem is not so\neasy as it seems to many scholars.  If we could positively say that the\nApocalypse was written in the 2nd century, and positively say that 2\nPeter borrows from it, the question would be settled once for all.  But\nthis is the very thing which we cannot do with confidence.  Some\ncritics of great ability hold it certain that 2 Peter was forged by\nsome one who borrowed from the Apocalypse.  Some think that the same\nwriter forged them both.  Others think that the Apocalypse is partly\nderived from 2 Peter.  They can strongly support their view by the fact\nthat when Christians were familiar with both writings, it was decided\nto reject the Apocalypse and {251} keep the Epistle.  Lastly, it might\nbe reasonably held that the coincidences in both writings are due to\nthe use of one earlier document or a common stock of ideas and phrases.\nThe popularity of Apocalyptic literature at the beginning of the\nChristian era makes this theory credible.\n\nWe may sum up the evidence for and against 2 Peter as follows:--\n\n1.  The external evidence is meagre.\n\n2.  The internal evidence is perplexing, and may reasonably be\nconsidered adverse.\n\nOn the other hand:--\n\n1.  The external evidence is not definitely adverse.\n\n2.  No convincing reason can be assigned for forging such an Epistle.\nThe critics who believe it to be forged, hold that it was written in\nEgypt in order to oppose the Gnosticism of c. A.D. 150 or 160.  But the\nGnosticism rebuked in 2 Peter cannot definitely be assigned to the 2nd\ncentury.  And it is very difficult to say that the heresy rebuked in 2\nPeter belongs to the 2nd century without also maintaining that the\nheresy rebuked in Jude belongs to the 2nd century.[4]  Yet several\nfacts in Jude point so decidedly to the 1st century that some of the\nablest writers who deny the authenticity of 2 Peter strongly assert the\ngenuineness of Jude.\n\nWe can only conclude by doubting whether we know more about the problem\nof 2 Peter than the Church of the 3rd and 4th centuries knew.  Perhaps\nwe do not know nearly as much.  And under these circumstances we cannot\neffectively criticize the judgment of the Church which decided to admit\n2 Peter into the Canon.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nTo the same readers as the First Epistle (iii. 1).\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nIt was probably written in Rome, and some of the earliest references to\nit are by writers who lived in Rome.  {252} Justin Martyr lived in\nRome, and if the references in Justin Martyr and other writers before\nHippolytus be considered doubtful, Hippolytus is a Roman witness of the\nfirst importance.\n\nThe date is perhaps between A.D. 63 and 67.  If it were later than 70,\nwe might reasonably expect to find a reference to the destruction of\nJerusalem after the allusion to God's retribution on the people of\nSodom and other malefactors of old times.  The errors which are\ndenounced are akin to those which are denounced in 1 and 2 Timothy.\nThe allusion to St. Paul's Epistles in iii. 16 suggests that some\ncollection of these Epistles already existed, and that St. Paul was\nalready dead.  It has been urged against the genuineness of the Epistle\nthat it includes the Pauline Epistles in _Scripture_ (iii. 16), and\nthat this would have been impossible in the apostolic age.  But the\nstatement need not necessarily mean more than that the Epistles were on\nthe margin of a Canon which was in process of formation.  There is good\nreason for believing that the Pauline Epistles occupied this position\nat a time when men who had known some of the apostles were still\nliving, and perhaps earlier.  The manner in which St. Peter has made\nuse of St. Paul's work in his First Epistle, makes it quite possible\nfor us to think that he believed in the peculiar inspiration of his\ngreat comrade.  And it is an interesting fact that the Syriac _Doctrine\nof Addai_ in speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul, adds, \"which Simon\nPeter sent us from the city of Rome.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe key-word to the Epistle is not _hope_, as in 1 Peter, but\n_knowledge_ (i. 3, 8; ii. 20).  We find, as in 1 Peter, a fondness or\nthe word \"glory.\"  But in 1 Peter glory seems to be represented as\ngiven to Christ after His sufferings, and promised to Christians in the\nfuture after their sufferings (1 Pet. i. 11; iv. 13; v. 1).  Here glory\nis rather spoken of as manifested in all the new dispensation, and\nespecially at the Transfiguration (i. 3, 17).  The apostle {253}\nappeals to the fact that he witnessed the Transfiguration as a\nguarantee of his prophecy of the second \"coming\" of Christ.  He finds\nanother warrant in the prophecies of the Old Testament, and asserts\nthat prophecy is not a matter for a man's own private unaided\ninterpretation, inasmuch as it was an utterance prompted by the Holy\nSpirit (i. 19-21).\n\nThis description of true religious knowledge is followed by an\narraignment of false prophets and speculative heresy.  It is possible\nthat the teaching of definitely false doctrine was already combined\nwith previously existing immoral practice.  The verse (ii. 1) in which\nthe writer speaks of false _teachers_, refers to the rise of these\nheretics as future.  But in other verses of the chapter the\n\"self-willed\" teachers are spoken of as already active.  We gather from\niii. 16 that the licence which is so sternly rebuked was a system in\nwhich St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith was represented as\na justification of vile indulgence.  Although this part of the Epistle\nis a paraphrase of Jude, it is not a mere reproduction.  A new feature\nin 2 Peter is that the heretics were sceptical concerning the second\ncoming of Christ (iii. 4).  They argued that since the death of \"the\nfathers,\" _i.e._ the first followers of Christ, the world continued as\nbefore.  St. Peter urges that the deluge came, though its coming was\ndoubted, and also that it must be remembered that the Lord does not\nreckon time as men do.  A period which is long to us is not long to\nHim.  The day of the Lord will come suddenly \"as a thief in the night,\"\nand in view of judgment the readers are exhorted to holiness and\npatience.\n\n{254}\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation, a list of Christian graces which are to be successively\nblended with faith, a reminder of the truth of Christianity as\ntestified by the words of God at the Transfiguration, and by the light\nof prophecy (i.).\n\nDenunciation of the false teachers who are guilty of gross sin and\nblindly follow their lower instincts (ii.).\n\nAllusion to the former letter, rebuke of those who disbelieve in the\nlast judgment, the coming of the day of the Lord and the destruction of\nthe world, exhortations to holiness, diligence needed, the\nlong-suffering of Christ witnessed to by Paul, growth in grace (iii.).\n\n\n\n[1] _H. E._ iii. 3.\n\n[2] The priority of 2 Peter is strongly defended by Spitta, in his _Der\nZweite Brief d. Petrus_, 1885.\n\n[3] This is very clearly stated by Dr. G. B. Stevens in his valuable\n_Theology of the New Testament_, although he decides against the\ngenuineness of 2 Peter.\n\n[4] This is done by Harnack, who places Jude between A.D. 100 and 130.\n\n\n\n\n{255}\n\nCHAPTER XXIII\n\nTHE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN\n\n\nTHE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe authenticity of this Epistle is bound up with the authenticity of\nSt. John's Gospel.  Like the Gospel, it does not contain any statement\nas to the name of the author.  Like the Gospel, it is attributed by a\nvery ancient tradition to the nearest friend of Jesus Christ.  The\nexternal evidence is particularly good.  We learn from the\nunimpeachable testimony of Eusebius[1] that it was used by Papias, who\nwas a disciple of St. John.  Polycarp, another disciple of St. John,\ndirectly quotes 1 John iv. 3 in his still extant letter.  It is quoted\nby Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, and was recognized as genuine in\nwidely distant Churches at the close of the 2nd century.\n\nThe internal evidence shows that the writer claims to be an eye-witness\nand intimate personal friend of Jesus Christ (i. 1-3).[2]  And this\neye-witness must be St. John, if the fourth Gospel was written by St.\nJohn.  The style is similar, and the ideas are the same.  It is true\nthat Christ is not called our \"propitiation\" in the Gospel as in this\nEpistle (ii. 2; iv. 10), that in the Gospel there is no mention of\n\"antichrists\" (as in {256} ii. 8), and that the word \"Paraclete\" is in\nthe Gospel applied to the Holy Ghost, while it is here applied to our\nLord (ii. 1).  But the idea of propitiation is expressed in the\ndescription of our Lord as \"the Lamb of God\" (John i. 29), the mention\nof antichrists is uncalled for in the Gospel, and by naming the Holy\nGhost \"another Paraclete\" our Lord gave St. John the best possible\nreason for calling Christ Himself by the same title.  The description\nof our Lord as \"the only begotten Son\" (iv. 9) is an important point of\ncontact with John i. 14, 18.  The language about \"light\" and\n\"darkness,\" \"God\" and \"the world,\" the \"new commandment,\" the \"love\" of\nGod, being \"born of God,\" \"eternal life,\" \"abiding in Christ,\" recalls\nthe Gospel at every turn.\n\nThe Epistle, however, does contain some phrases and ideas which are not\nto be found in the Gospel.  Such are \"love perfected,\" \"a sin unto\ndeath,\" \"the lust of the eyes,\" \"to come in the flesh,\" \"to walk in the\nlight,\" \"to do lawlessness,\" \"to be from above.\"  Yet they fit quite\nnaturally with the language and theology of the Gospel.  Therefore\nthere does not seem to be any sufficient reason for holding that it was\nthe work of another writer.  F. C. Baur and Hilgenfeld thought it to be\nthe work of a second forger of that mysterious band to which they\nattributed such versatility and success.  And several more recent\ncritics who have denied the authenticity of the Gospel, have maintained\nwith Baur that the Epistle is the work of a second forger.  But these\nnegations have led to no assured result.  They are seen to be fruitless\nas soon as we realize that these critics have been quite unable to\nagree whether the Epistle was composed before the Gospel or after it.\nSome consider that it was a theological balloon sent to try the\ncredulity of Christian readers before the Gospel was despatched.\nOthers consider that there are \"overwhelming indications\" to prove that\nthe Epistle is only a poor imitation of the Gospel.  Renan and Davidson\nfavoured the former view, F. C. Baur and C. Weizs\u00e4cker the latter.  At\nthe present time the majority {257} of critics, both Christian and\nnon-Christian, believe that it was written by the writer of the fourth\nGospel.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nIt seems to be a pastoral letter addressed to all the members of the\napostle's flock, intended therefore for the Christians of Asia in and\naround Ephesus.  It is a strange fact that St. Augustine, in quoting\niii. 2, describes the passage as \"said by John in his Epistle to the\n_Parthians_.\"  This statement is a riddle which no commentator has been\nable to answer satisfactorily.  As the Eastern Churches had little or\nno knowledge of this title, we are compelled to regard it as a mistake.\nIt may have arisen from some scribe failing to read a partially\nillegible manuscript in which St. John may have been given the title of\n_parthenos_ or virgin.  But it is most likely that it arose from a\nconfusion with the Second Epistle, which was thought in the time of\nClement of Alexandria to be addressed to _parthenoi_ or virgins.  The\nabsence of quotations from the Old Testament, and the command \"guard\nyourselves from idols\" (v. 21), solemnly given at the very end of the\nEpistle, suggest that the recipients of the letter were converts from\nheathenism.  The Christians of Ephesus, the mother-city of Asiatic\nidolatry, were peculiarly in need of such an exhortation.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nWe can hardly doubt that it was written at Ephesus, where the apostle\nspent his last years.  The assertion that St. John did not live at\nEphesus is in direct contradiction with the best and earliest\ntraditions.  But it has been repeated at intervals during the last\nsixty years by several critics, who found that they would be compelled\nto admit the genuineness of the Revelation if they granted that St.\nJohn lived at Ephesus, where the Revelation was evidently published.[3]\nAgainst such criticism we can confidently marshal the express and\nindependent statements of Apollonius of Ephesus (A.D. 196), Polycrates\nof Ephesus (A.D. 190), {258} Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 185), Clement of\nAlexandria (A.D. 190), Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 200), not to\nmention some valuable indirect evidence of earlier date.  If we are to\nreject such evidence as this, the science of history must be laid in\nthe tomb.\n\nThe question as to the exact date is very important for those who\nbelieve that the Epistle was not written by the author of the Gospel.\nThey are involved in the most intricate questions about the\nreproduction of the Gospel in the Epistle or of the Epistle in the\nGospel.  For those who do not believe in a diversity of authorship the\nproblem is far less vital.  The apostle was evidently advanced in\nyears.  He includes all his people under the affectionate name \"my\nlittle children\" (ii. 1).  On the whole, it seems probable that it was\nwritten rather later than the Gospel.  This is suggested by the\nteaching about the second coming of Christ.  Both in the Gospel and in\nthe Epistle we find mentioned or implied a present and a future passing\nfrom death to life, and a spiritual presence of Christ now and another\nhereafter.  But in the Epistle it is the future coming of Christ which\nis more prominent (ii. 28; iii. 2; iv. 17).  In the Revelation, A.D.\n96, it is still more prominent.  The Epistle suggests that St. John's\nreaders were already acquainted with the discourses in his Gospel.  The\nheresy described, and the fact that the heretics are already _outside_\nthe Church, point to a comparatively late date.  We can hardly place it\nbefore A.D. 85.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThis Epistle contains no reference to any outward dangers.  Domitian's\npersecution had not yet affected the Church, and the controversy with\nJudaism had closed.  There is no trace of any conflict between Jew and\nGentile, and St. John, in asserting the truth of the incarnation of the\nSon of God, is not opposing any heresy resembling that of those\nsemi-Christian Jews of the 2nd century who declared Christ to be\n_merely_ the best of men.  He is combating a form of error taught by\nCerinthus, who said that {259} Jesus was a man born of Joseph and Mary,\nand that on this man there descended a divine element named Christ, who\nleft him before the crucifixion.  Thus _Christ_ never suffered, though\nthe _Jesus_ who seemed to be Christ did suffer.  In face of these false\nviews St. John asserts the truth.  He asserts that One who is both\nJesus and Christ came in the flesh (iv. 2), and that He came, that is,\nwas manifested as Christ, both in the water of His baptism and the\nblood of His cross (v. 6).  By this blood He cleanses man from sin (i.\n7).  We may be sure of His help, for He lives as our Advocate with the\nFather.  To deny that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Father, to\ndeny God altogether (ii. 22; iv. 3).  St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp\ninveigh in similar language against the Docetists, who flourished\nbetween A.D. 110 and 120.  It is important to notice that St. John's\nopponents do not appear to have been Antinomian in conduct.  He says,\n\"Every one that doeth sin, doeth also lawlessness; and sin is\nlawlessness\" (iii. 4).  If he had been blaming Antinomianism it would\nhave been more natural to say, \"Every one that doeth lawlessness, doeth\nalso sin.\"\n\nThe main theme of the Epistle is not controversial.  It is to show that\nin faith and love is the guarantee of our fellowship with God and of\nour salvation.  Since this fellowship implies that He abides in us, it\nmay be recognized by His Spirit being in us (iii. 24).  This Spirit is\ndistinguished from the spirit of error by the confession of Christ; so\nto hear the apostle's teaching about Christ is a sign of the presence\nof God within us.  The moral and the religious life are summed up in\nthe words \"God\" and \"Love,\" and those who love one another are born of\nGod.  Love in action corresponds with a confession of the incarnation\nin the intellect (iv. 7-12).  It is wholly incompatible with sin (iii.\n6), and is therefore righteous towards God and man.  Every one who, as\na child of God, hopes to grow like God, purifies himself as Christ is\npure.  He cannot love the world, which is a system of selfishness.  St.\nJohn speaks of the possibility of committing a \"sin unto death.\"  This\n{260} is an old Jewish expression for a sin deserving natural death.\nBut the apostle lifts the phrase to a higher level and slightly alters\nit.  His words literally mean \"a sin tending unto death.\"  It is any\nsin which by its very nature excludes a man from fellowship with\nChristians.  It is a sin which requires chastisement before\nforgiveness, and St. John does not enjoin, though he does not forbid,\nprayer for those whose sin makes them unable to share in the privileges\nof the common life of the Church.\n\nBehind the practical teaching of the Epistle lies that great conception\nof the Father which the writer had gained from intercourse with the\nonly-begotten Son.  God is _Love_ (iv. 8, 16), and has given us the\ngreatest of all gifts (iv. 9); God is _Light_ (i. 5), and dispels all\nmoral darkness (i. 6); God is _Life_ (v. 20), imparting His own\nexistence to man (iii. 9); God is _Father_ (ii. 1; iii. 1)--though our\nrelationship with Him is forfeited by sin, perfect and fearless\nintimacy may be gained through Christ (iv. 15, 18).\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nA promise to impart knowledge of the incarnate Word; God is Light,\nfellowship with God and forgiveness of sin (i.).\n\nChrist our propitiation, love of our brother a necessary condition of\nwalking in the light, messages to children, fathers, young men, the\nlove of the world, Antichrist and the denial of Christ, abiding in the\nSon and in the Father (ii.).\n\nThe love of God in calling us His children, the manifestation of Christ\nto take away sin, love of our brother the sign that we are spiritually\nchanged, to believe in Christ and love one another the commandment of\nGod (iii.).\n\nAcknowledgment of the incarnation is the test of spirits, to love one\nanother is to be like God, perfect love loses fear (iv.).\n\nFaith in the incarnation overcomes the world, the three {261} witnesses\nto the incarnation, eternal life possessed if we have the Son, prayer,\nfreedom from sin, knowledge through Jesus, who is the true God and\neternal life (v.).\n\n\n\nTHE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nThe writer does not insert his name in the Epistle, but simply\ndescribes himself as \"the elder.\"  Some writers have therefore supposed\nthat it was written by the presbyter named John, who lived at Ephesus\nabout the close of the apostolic age.  But Irenaeus, who was not likely\nto be mistaken in such a matter, certainly regarded it as the work of\nthe apostle, and the _Muratorian Fragment_ apparently so regards it.\nClement of Alexandria was certainly acquainted with more than one\nEpistle by St. John, and a Latin translation of his _Hypotyposes_\ndefinitely says, \"the Second Epistle of John, written to virgins, is\nvery simple.\"  Moreover, the title \"elder\" or \"presbyter\" is by no\nmeans incompatible with apostolic authorship.  St. Peter in 1 Pet. v. 1\nexpressly describes himself by this title, nor does the title appear to\nhave become confined to the presbyters or priests of the Church until\nabout A.D. 200.  The similarity to the First Epistle is strong, seven\nof the thirteen verses having parallels in the First Epistle.  If the\nEpistle were a forgery, it is probable that the writer would have\nclaimed to be an apostle in unmistakable language.  And if the author\nwere not a forger, but the presbyter who was for some years a\ncontemporary of the apostle, it is hardly likely that he would have\nbeen content to write this diminutive letter, which does little more\nthan sum up part of the First Epistle.  The language of the Second\nEpistle bears almost the same relation to that of the first as the\nfirst bears to that of the Gospel.  There is a fundamental likeness\ncombined with a few fresh expressions, such as \"walk _according to_,\"\n\"_coming_ in the flesh\" instead of \"come in the flesh,\" \"to have God.\"\n\n{262}\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"Unto the elect lady and her children.\"  The interpretation of these\nwords is a notorious difficulty.  At first sight the \"lady\" would be\nsupposed to be a private individual.  But if so, why is not the\nindividual's name mentioned, like the name of the recipient of the\nThird Epistle?  Perhaps it is mentioned, for the words translated \"the\nelect lady\" may mean \"the elect Kyria.\"  The \"house\" of the lady (ver.\n10) also suggests that the lady is an individual.  On the other hand,\nit has been supposed that the lady is a symbolical name for a local\n_Church_.  In favour of this interpretation is the fact that the writer\nspeaks, not only of the children of the lady who are with her, but also\nof others whom he has met (ver. 4), and in a manner which suggests a\nlarge number of persons.  The same interpretation can be put upon the\n\"elect sister\" mentioned in the last verse of the Epistle.  Writers of\ndeserved repute accept this symbolical interpretation.  But when a\nliteral meaning and a symbolical meaning are supported by equally good\narguments, it seems prudent to accept the simpler, _i.e._ the literal\ninterpretation.  It is hard to believe that St. Jerome and Hilgenfeld\nare right in thinking that it is addressed to the whole Catholic\nChurch.  This is surely excluded by the mention of an \"elect sister.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nProbably from Ephesus, and the contents suggest that it was written\nlater than the first Epistle.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe letter contains an affectionate expression of happiness due to the\nsteadfast Christianity of the children of the \"elect lady.\"  But its\nmain object is to utter a warning against the deceivers who deny that\nChrist is \"come in the flesh.\"  These deceivers were evidently\nDocetists.  In order to appreciate the necessity for such a warning we\nmust remember the extraordinary attraction which many persons who liked\na _dilettante_ Christianity found in the theory that Christ was a\ndivine Spirit who clothed Himself with flesh in which He did not\nsuffer.  At the close of the apostolic age, and {263} for many\ngenerations afterwards, orthodox Christianity was often regarded as too\nmaterialistic for advanced thinkers.  They endeavoured to make\nChristianity keep pace with the times by infusing into it the decadent\nGreek or Oriental mysticism which depreciated our human body.\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation, thanksgiving for certain of the elect lady's children,\nreminder of the commandments to love and obey, the deceivers who deny\nthe incarnation not to be welcomed; the writer, expecting to visit his\ncorrespondents, closes his letter.\n\n\nTHE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nIt is generally admitted, both by those who deny and those who accept\nthe authenticity of the works of St. John, that this Epistle was\nwritten by the author of 2 John.  It presents several close parallels\nboth with 2 John and with the Gospel.  Its obviously private character\naccounts for the fact that it is seldom quoted in early literature.  It\nis found in the Old Latin version of the New Testament, though not in\nthe _Muratorian Fragment_.  It was known to Origen and Dionysius of\nAlexandria.  Eusebius places it among the _Antilegomena_ (_H. E._ iii.\n25), but it was generally accepted in the 4th century.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\n\"Unto Gaius the beloved.\"  The name was a common one, being a form of\nthe Latin \"Caius.\"  There is no reason for identifying this Gaius with\none of the persons of the same name who are mentioned as living in\nCorinth, Macedonia, and Derbe respectively, all of whom may have been\ndead at the late period when this letter was written.  The Gaius of\nthis Epistle was evidently a faithful and hospitable Christian.  Baur\ndisplayed more than even his {264} usual powers of invention by\nsuggesting that Gaius was a Montanist of the latter part of the 2nd\ncentury, and \"Diotrephes\" a symbolical name for one of the Catholic\nbishops of Rome opposed to Montanism.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nProbably at Ephesus; subsequently to the First Epistle, and probably\nvery soon after the Second.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThis little letter gives us a few brief glimpses of the life of the\nChurch near the end of the 1st century.  The purpose of the letter is\nto commend a Christian of good character, named Demetrius, to the\nhospitable care of Gaius.  It appears, therefore, to be one of those\n\"letters of commendation\" which are mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Cor.\niii. 1, and were common in later times.  By the side of this\npleasantness there is distress.  Connected with the Church to which\nGaius belongs there is an ambitious schismatic named Diotrephes, who\nrefuses to admit the authority of the apostle.  The fact that he was\nguilty of casting the friends of the apostle out of the Church (ver.\n10), suggests that Diotrephes was at least a presbyter, and perhaps a\nbishop appointed by the apostle.  We are told by Clement of Alexandria\nthat St. John appointed bishops in Asia, and there is no reason for\ndoubting that episcopacy dates back to this period.  The apostle\nevidently intends to punish Diotrephes for his malice when he visits\nthe district again.  It is just possible that the letter to the Church\n(ver. 9) which Diotrephes repudiated is our \"Second Epistle\" of St.\nJohn.  This theory will win acceptance with some of those who think\nthat the Second Epistle was not written to an individual, but to a\nChurch.\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutations to Gaius, congratulations that he is walking in the truth,\nhis hospitality to travelling Christians, the tyranny of Diotrephes,\nrecommendation of Demetrius, personal matters.\n\n\n\n[1] _H. E._ iii. 39.\n\n[2] It is impossible to accept the recent Rationalist hypothesis that\nthese words were written by a pious Christian who had not seen Jesus,\nbut wished to emphasize the truth that the historical Church was\nintimately connected with the historical Jesus.\n\n[3] Among these critics must be numbered L\u00fctzelberger (1840), Keim\n(1867), Bousset (1899).\n\n\n\n\n{265}\n\nCHAPTER XXIV\n\nTHE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\n\"Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.\"  We can be\nsure that the James here mentioned is the James who acted as the first\nbishop of the Church at Jerusalem.  The author's designation of himself\nwould not be intelligible unless he meant that he was related to a very\nprominent man of that name.  The writer cannot be the Apostle Jude.  He\ndoes not claim to be an apostle, and he seems indirectly to repudiate\nthe authority of an apostle by describing himself only in relation to\nhis brother and by referring to \"the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ\"\nin a manner which seems to distinguish them for himself.  If the\nApostle Jude was the _son_ of James (as many scholars think), this Jude\nwas clearly another man.  If the Apostle was the _brother_ of James (as\nthe English Authorised Version holds), then his identification with\nthis Jude is still doubtful.\n\nJude was a son of St. Joseph.  At first he did not believe in our Lord\n(John vii. 5), but was convinced by the Resurrection (Acts i. 14).  He\nwas married (1 Cor. ix. 5).  Hegesippus, a writer of the 2nd century,\ntells us that two of his grandsons were taken before the Emperor\nDomitian as being of the royal house of David, and therefore dangerous\nto the empire.[1]  He found them to be poor rough-handed men, and\ndismissed them with good-humoured contempt when they described the\nkingdom of Christ as heavenly.  Philip of Side, about 425, says {266}\nthat Hegesippus gave the names of these two men as Zocer and James.\n\nThe Epistle was known to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, and is\nin the _Muratorian Fragment_.\n\nThe chief objections to the authenticity of this Epistle fall under\nthree heads.  It is said that (a) a late date is indicated by the\nallusion to the teaching of the apostles in ver. 17.  But the allusion\nseems to correspond exactly with a late date in the apostolic age, for\nvers. 17 and 18 assume that the readers remember what the apostles had\nsaid.  It is said that (b) the phrase in ver. 3, \"the faith which was\nonce for all delivered unto the saints,\" indicates that a definite body\nof doctrine was recognized by the Christians of the period, and that\nthe Christians of the apostolic age did not use the word \"faith\" in\nthis sense.  But it is not difficult to suppose that the word would be\nsoon extended from the act of believing to the facts believed.  And in\nsuch early passages as Gal. i. 23 and Rom. x. 8 we find the word\nclosely approximating to the latter sense.  It is said that (c) the\nheresy which is described is a heresy of the 2nd century, and implies a\ndefinite Gnostic system.  But the fact that the Epistle does not\ndescribe such a definite system is convincingly shown by the inability\nof certain critics to determine who the heretics are.  The Balaamites\nof Asia Minor, the Carpocratians of Egypt, and some obscure sects of\nSyria, are all suggested.  There is no evidence to show that the errors\nhere described could not have grown up in apostolic times, and the\nEpistles of St. Paul contain several passages which point to similar\nperversions of Christianity.  The word \"sensual\" in ver. 19 was an\ninsulting term applied to ordinary Christians by the Gnostics of the\n2nd century, but St. Jude's use of it betrays no consciousness of this\nlater application.\n\nThe style of the letter makes it practically certain that it was\nwritten by some one who had been a Jew.  The Greek is forcible.  It\nshows a considerable knowledge of Greek words, {267} including various\npoetical and archaic expressions.  But the manner is stiff, and the\nsentences are linked together with difficulty.  Several phrases come\nfrom the Septuagint, some of them being taken from the Book of Wisdom.\nIt is probable that the author was acquainted with the Hebrew Old\nTestament, as ver. 12 (from Ezek. xxxiv. 2) and ver. 22 f. (from Zech.\niii. 2 f.) suggest this.\n\n[Sidenote: To whom written.]\n\nThe Epistle is simply addressed \"to them that are called, beloved in\nGod the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.\"  It seems that these\nChristians must have been natives of Palestine or Syria.  They had been\npersonally instructed by the apostles (ver. 17), which makes this\nregion probable.  No place seems more likely than Antioch and its\nneighbourhood.  The libertinism which was endangering the Church would\nnot be likely to arise except in a district where the Christians were\nin close contact with heathenism.  Extreme critics now usually maintain\nthat it was written either in Asia or in Egypt.  If written in Asia, it\ncan hardly have been written by the Lord's brother, as we know that his\ndescendants lived in Palestine.  If written in Egypt, it can hardly\nbelong to the age of the apostles.  These two sceptical theories as to\nthe place where the Epistle was written contradict one another\neffectively.\n\n[Sidenote: Where and when written.]\n\nThe style and contents of the letter show that it was probably written\nin Palestine and at Jerusalem.  The date is probably soon after the\nmartyrdom of St. James in A.D. 62.  St. Jude was dead before his\ngrandsons had their interview with Domitian.  The Epistle must\ntherefore be before A.D. 81.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThe Epistle is remarkable as containing references to two Jewish books\nof an apocalyptic character which are not mentioned in the Old\nTestament.  This caused some writers in early days to hesitate to\nascribe the Epistle to a brother of St. James, and in recent times the\nsame argument has been revived in a new {268} form.  But these\nquotations seem quite compatible with a belief in the genuineness of\nthe Epistle.  The books quoted were in existence in the apostolic age,\nand would be likely to be valued by a devout Jew.  In ver. 9 there is\nreference to Michael, which Origen says was derived from the\n_Assumption of Moses_, a Jewish work written at the beginning of the\nChristian era.  In 2 Pet. ii. 11 the allusion to Michael is so\nmodified, that the origin of the reference is no longer obvious.  In\nvers. 4, 6, and 14, there are quotations from the _Book of Enoch_, a\nJewish book composed of sections written at various dates, the latest\nbeing written in the century before Christ.\n\nThe purpose of the Epistle is to warn the Church against certain\ndepravers of God's grace who denied \"our only Master and Lord, Jesus\nChrist\" (ver. 4).  The author sees fit to remind his readers of ancient\nexamples of unfaithfulness and impurity, and shows that they must be\ncompassionate towards the wavering, and try to save the worst by a\ndesperate effort.  It is plain that the false teachers were guilty of\ngross and unnatural vice, that they were greedy, and destitute of godly\nfear.  They also, like the evil Christians at Corinth, brought\ndiscredit upon the Agap\u00e9 (ver. 12), a social meal which the Christians\nwere first wont to partake of before the Eucharist, and at a later date\nafter the Eucharist.  The licence which is rebuked by St. Jude probably\narose from a perversion of the doctrine of justification by faith which\nhad been taught by our Lord.  Christians who had been taught that they\ncould be saved without observing the Jewish ceremonial law, imagined\nthat they could be saved without any self-discipline or self-restraint.\nMany parallels to such errors have been found in modern times, the\nworst example being that afforded by the Anabaptists, who arose in\nGermany at the time of the Reformation.  It is worth noticing that, in\nspite of the untheological character of this Epistle, the writer shows\nhis belief in the Holy Trinity by the manner in which he refers to the\nFather {269} and Jesus Christ (ver. 1) and the Holy Ghost (ver. 20).\nThe Epistle gives no encouragement to the theory that the first Jewish\nChristians were Unitarians.\n\n\nANALYSIS\n\nSalutation and charge to maintain \"the faith\" (1-4).  Warnings from the\npunishment of the Israelites, of the angels, of Sodom and Gomorrha\n(5-7).\n\nRailing at dignities rebuked (8-10).\n\nDenunciation of those who imitate Cain (murder), Balaam (encouragement\nof impurity), Korah (schism), and spoil the _Agap\u00e9_ (11-13).\n\nThese sectaries foretold by Enoch (14-16).\n\nAnd by the apostles (17-19).\n\nDuty of edifying believers, and saving sinners (20-23).\n\nDoxology (24, 25).\n\n\n\n[1] Eusebius, _H. E._ iii. 20.\n\n\n\n\n{270}\n\nCHAPTER XXV\n\nTHE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE\n\n[Sidenote: The Author.]\n\nLike the First Epistle of St. John, the Revelation has particularly\nstrong external evidence in its favour.  About A.D. 150 Justin Martyr\nspeaks of it as the work of \"John, one of the apostles of Christ,\" in\nhis dialogue held with Trypho, a Jew, at Ephesus, where St. John had\nlived.  Still earlier, Papias looked upon the book as \"inspired,\" and\n\"bore testimony to its genuineness.\"  Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp,\nthe disciple of St. John, quotes it as written by \"John, the disciple\nof the Lord.\"  About A.D. 170 Melito of Sardis, one of the places to\nwhich part of the book was specially addressed, wrote a commentary upon\nit.  It was accepted by the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul in\nA.D. 177, for they wrote of it as \"Scripture\" in their letter to the\nChristians of Asia Minor.  Near the same date the _Muratorian Fragment_\nmentions it twice.  It will be observed that this evidence is not only\ngood, but it is also mostly drawn from sources which were most closely\nconnected with St. John.  The evidence of the Churches of Vienne and\nLyons would be important, even if it stood alone.  For these\nGreek-speaking Churches were allied with the Church of Ephesus, and\nwere not likely to be mistaken about this question.  And the evidence\nof Irenaeus and Melito is still more weighty.\n\nStrange to say, the belief in the authenticity of the Revelation began\nto waver as time went on.  We need pay little heed to the sect known as\nthe Alogi, who attributed both St. John's {271} Gospel and the\nRevelation to Cerinthus, because they disliked the doctrine of the\nLogos contained in these two books.  They were too ignorant to have\nbeen influenced by any real critical knowledge.  But it is an important\nfact that about A.D. 248 Dionysius of Alexandria stated that it was\nprobably written by John the Presbyter, and that the great Eusebius\nseems at one time to have been inclined to accept the opinion of\nDionysius.[1]  So far as we can discover, Dionysius founded his opinion\nsolely on the difference of style which can be observed as separating\nthe Revelation from the Gospel.  He does not seem to have been in\npossession of any facts which gave historical support to his theory.\nNevertheless, we can legitimately think that there was another reason\nwhich induced orthodox Christians to regard the Revelation with less\nconfidence.  The Montanist sect, which arose in the latter half of the\n2nd century and became powerful in Asia Minor and North Africa, taught\nan extravagant doctrine about the millennium when Christ would return\nto reign on earth.  This doctrine was partly founded on Rev. xx., and\nwas supported by pretended prophecies.  It caused orthodox Christians\nto be more suspicious about the statements of Christian prophets, and\nprobably made them less anxious to translate and circulate the\nRevelation.  This hesitation was soon overruled, and Eusebius, in spite\nof his own slight doubts, reckons it as received among the undisputed\nbooks of the Canon.  This was c. A.D. 320.\n\nIn modern times the controversy about the authorship has been revived.\nAbout one hundred years ago a school of critics took up the argument of\nDionysius.  They urged that the Gospel and the Revelation must have\nbeen written by two different authors, the Revelation being much more\nHebrew in style than the Gospel.  The argument was elaborated by F. C.\nBaur and the T\u00fcbingen School.  As they were determined to deny the\ngenuineness of the Gospel which so clearly teaches {272} that Jesus is\nGod, they tried to discredit the Gospel by insisting upon the\nauthenticity of the Revelation.  The successors of these critics soon\nfound themselves on the horns of a dilemma.  A closer examination of\nthe Revelation made it clearer that on many important points the\ntheology of the Revelation is the same as that of the Gospel.  If they\nadmit that St. John wrote both the books or one of them, they will be\nforced to admit that the apostle taught definite orthodox Christian\ntheology.[2]  If, on the other hand, they affirm that both the books\nwere written by John the Presbyter, they will shatter the old argument\nthat diversity of style proves diversity of authorship.  It will\ntherefore surprise no one to learn that they are now engaged in\ncontinuous disputes with regard to the identity of the author, and the\nmaterials, Jewish or otherwise, which he is supposed to have used in\ncompiling his book.  At the present time the writers who hold the\nRevelation to have been written by various authors, are divided into no\nless than four camps, while the rationalists who hold that it was\nwritten by one author cannot agree who that author was.  It is\nextremely significant that, in spite of his conviction that the book\nwas not all written at the same date, the critic who is now by far the\nablest opponent of orthodox Christianity, holds that the Revelation was\n(i.) published in the time of Domitian, as the tradition of the Church\naffirms; (ii.) published by the author of the fourth Gospel, though not\nby the real St. John.[3]\n\nIt must be admitted that the style of the book is more Hebrew and less\nGreek than that of the Gospel.  But some arguments may be reasonably\nalleged against the theory that {273} this proves the Revelation to be\nby a different author.  The difference in the scope and origin of the\ntwo books account in a large measure for the differences of vocabulary\nand style.  No book in the New Testament is so steeped as the\nRevelation in the imagery of the Old Testament; Daniel, Isaiah,\nEzekiel, and Zechariah are constantly used.  The thoroughness with\nwhich their spirit has been assimilated, and their ideas combined by\nthe writer, would create a Hebrew tendency in his language.  Whether\nSt. John made use of the material furnished by non-canonical\napocalypses is uncertain.  If he did, their style would also influence\nhim in the same way.  We must also beware of exaggerating the contrast\nin style which does exist between the Gospel and the Revelation.  The\nGospel is not always in correct Greek, and never shows a thorough\nmastery of that language.  But the Revelation is certainly in much\nrougher Greek.  The writer uses the nominative case for the accusative\n(vii. 9; xiv. 6); similar instances are in iii. 12; xiv. 12.  This\nrugged usage is introduced with magnificent, and perhaps intentional,\neffect in i. 4, where the author emphasizes the eternity of God by\nusing an entirely ungrammatical construction.[4]  Apart from the\nquestion of grammar, the language of the Apocalypse shows a remarkable\naffinity with St. John's Gospel.  We may observe the use of such words\nas \"witness,\" \"true,\" \"tabernacle,\" \"have part,\" \"keep the word,\" and\n\"overcome.\"\n\nThe theology of the two books is in close agreement.  This can easily\nbe shown in the case of the doctrine of Christ's Person.  He is called\nthe \"Lamb\" [5] in the Gospel (i. 29, 36) and in the Revelation (v. 6,\n8, 12, etc.).  He is called the \"Word\" in the Gospel (i. 1, etc.) and\nin the Revelation (xix. 13).  He is taught to be eternal and divine.\nHe is \"the Alpha and {274} the Omega, the first and the last\" (xxii.\n13; cf. Isa. xliv. 6).  He shares the throne of God (xxii. 1, 3); He\ndetermines who shall be released from the realm of death (i. 18); He\njoins in the judgment (vi. 16); He is worshipped by the elders and the\nangels (v. 8, 11).  He is the Bridegroom of the Church (xix. 7; xxi. 2,\ncf. John iii. 29).  The attitude towards Judaism is the same as that in\nthe Gospel.  The Jews who oppose Jesus are strongly denounced (iii. 9),\nand though the Church is a new _Jerusalem_, it is composed of people\ngathered out of every nation (vii. 9).  The necessity of good works is\nstrenuously upheld (ii. 5, 19); but they are not works of rabbinical\nrighteousness, but works of Jesus (ii. 26), and the \"righteous acts of\nthe saints\" (xix. 8) are based on \"the faith of Jesus\" (xiv. 12).\nSalvation is the free gift of Christ (xxi. 6; xxii. 17).  The saints\nwho overcome, conquer not by relying upon their own righteousness, but\n\"because of the blood of the Lamb\" (xii. 11).\n\nIn the Revelation (ii. 17) Jesus promises to believers \"the hidden\nmanna;\" in the Gospel, referring also to the manna, He promises \"the\ntrue bread from heaven\" (John vi. 32).  In the Revelation (xxii. 17)\nJesus says, \"Let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will, let him\ntake of the water of life freely;\" in the Gospel He says, \"If any man\nthirst, let him come unto Me and drink\" (John vii. 37).  If, then, the\nRevelation is full of Hebrew expressions, it is essentially and\nprofoundly Christian, and linked with the other Johannine books by the\nclosest kinship.  The theology and the style of the Revelation are the\nsame throughout.[6]  We can therefore reject without hesitation the\nrecent hypothesis that it is one large Jewish work with numerous\nChristian interpolations.  The difficulty of supposing that the book\nwas ever a purely Jewish Apocalypse {275} can quickly be realized by\nany one who undertakes to strike out all the Christian allusions in the\nbook.\n\nThe author states that he is John, in the strongest fashion both in the\nbeginning and end (i. 4, 9; xxii. 8), and his attitude towards the\nseven Churches is inexplicable unless the writer held a position of the\nhighest ecclesiastical importance.\n\n[Sidenote: For whom written.]\n\nPlainly for the whole Church, as represented by \"the seven Churches\nwhich are in Asia\" (i. 4).\n\n[Sidenote: Date.]\n\nFrom i. 9 we learn that the revelation was made to John when he \"was in\nthe isle that is called Patmos\" (in the Aegean Sea) \"for the word of\nGod and the testimony of Jesus.\"  Irenaeus expressly says that the date\nof this banishment was at the end of the reign of Domitian (Emperor\n81-96 A.D.), and therefore he says it was almost within his own\ngeneration.  On the other hand, some modern writers have assigned part\nor the whole of the book to the time of Nero (54-68), or a little\nlater.  But though some parts of it seem earlier than Domitian, the\nfinal form of the book is unquestionably late.  A late date is\nindicated by the corruptions existing in some of the Churches\naddressed, by the expression \"the Lord's day\" (i. 10) instead of the\nolder expression \"first day of the week,\" by the strong opposition to\nJudaism which is called the \"synagogue of Satan\" (ii. 9; iii. 9), and\nabove all by the attitude of the writer towards Rome.  The imperial\nrule is no longer regarded with the tolerance which we find in Acts and\nin St. Paul's Epistles.  It is no longer the \"restraining\" and\nprotecting power.  It is denounced as cruel and aggressive, and not\nonly is the worship offered to the Roman emperor mentioned as\nwidespread, but also the worship offered to Rome.  The city is called\nthe Great Harlot, because in prophetical language idolatry is described\nas an act of fornication, being a violation of the pure love which\nshould be felt by man towards his Creator.  The worship of Rome does\nnot seem to have become common in {276} Asia until late in the 1st\ncentury, and it is not even mentioned once in Acts.\n\nThe destruction of Jerusalem is definitely mentioned in xi. 2, where\nthe earthly Jerusalem is symbolized as the \"court which is without the\ntemple,\" the temple which the prophet measures being the heavenly\ntemple only (xi. 19).  This chapter seems to imply that Jerusalem is\nalready destroyed, and is founded on Ezek. xl., when the prophet\nmeasures the ideal city, not the city which had been destroyed\npreviously.  We are therefore pointed to a date later than A.D. 70.\nThe same seems to be suggested by xiii. 1 and xvii. 10.  For the beast\nin xiii. 1 is the pagan Roman State as typified by Nero, and so is the\nnumber 666 in xiii. 18; for if the words Nero Caesar are written in\nHebrew letters, and the numerical values of the letters are added\ntogether, the result is 666.  In xvii. 8 Nero is described as dead, and\nin xvii. 10 Vespasian is the sixth emperor, Titus the seventh, and the\neighth, in xvii. 11, is Domitian, who plays the Satanic part of Nero.\nThe sixth emperor is described as still living, and we therefore seem\ncompelled to assign part of this passage to Vespasian's reign.\nNevertheless, there is abundant internal evidence for thinking that the\nbook was not completed until the time of Domitian.  It is worth noting\nthat Domitian exacted a more extravagant worship of his own person than\nany previous emperor, and that his policy therefore made the\npublication of the book doubly appropriate.\n\n[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]\n\nThere were a number of Jewish books called by the name of Revelation or\nApocalypse (_i.e._ revelation or unveiling).  In the Old Testament an\nApocalypse is to be found in the second part of Daniel, and there is a\nfine short Apocalypse in Isa. xxiv.-xxvii., where we find striking\npassages relating to the resurrection and eternal life.  The _Book of\nEnoch_ and the _Apocalypse of Baruch_ are later examples of this class\nof literature.  These books were generally written with the special\npurpose of giving encouragement to the {277} servants of God in times\nof distress and persecution.  The Revelation of St. John was written\nunder similar circumstances, but is by far the most sublime of these\nwritings.  The interpretation of the Revelation appears to have always\nbeen a standing difficulty, in spite of the fact that there has been no\nage of the Christian Church which has not been able to draw consolation\nand vigour from its beautiful pages, all illuminated as they are with\nglowing pictures.  The question as to whether different portions of the\nbook were written at different dates, and afterwards edited in one\nvolume by the writer, does not necessarily interfere with the\ninterpretation.  For the book is one work, the materials have been\nfitted into one structure.\n\nThe connection between the different parts is organic and internal.\nNot only is the doctrinal standpoint the same throughout, but the whole\nbook has an immense number of connecting thoughts and words.  The\nletters to the seven Churches contain statements which are taken up in\nthe visions which follow.  Among such we may compare ii. 7 with xxii.\n2; ii. 11 with xx. 6; ii. 26 with xii. 5, ii. 28 with xxii. 16; iii. 5\nwith xix. 8; iii. 12 with xxi. 2.  The description of the glorified\nRedeemer in i. 10-18 is reflected in numerous passages, and the strong\nassertion of the author's personality in i. 9 is again presented in\nxxii. 8.  And the meaning of the book rapidly becomes clearer to the\nreader if he sees (a) that the notices of contemporary history in each\nof the seven parts of the book are arranged chronologically in\nreference to what is contained in that part; (b) that these seven parts\nare not related to one another in the order of temporal succession:\neach part is complete in itself, and is a full presentation of one\naspect of the whole subject.  This is exactly what we find in Isaiah,\nAmos, and Zechariah.\n\nThis leads us to another fact.  Some writers have held that the\nRevelation is to be interpreted simply on _historical_ lines, as though\nit contained a list of events occurring through the whole of history\nsince the time of St. John.  Other writers {278} have held that little\nor no historical meaning can be found in the book, and that it is to be\ninterpreted on _ideal_ lines, as teaching certain principles of\nreligion.  The truth seems to be that these two methods of\ninterpretation are both partly true.  Certain historical facts, such as\nthe Ascension of our Lord, the destruction of Jerusalem, the\npersecution of the Church, the struggle between the Church and the\nRoman empire, are taken as a basis.  Certain great principles of God's\ndealings with the world, and of the continued conflict between good and\nevil, are then illustrated in connection with these facts, and the\nwhole is knit together by the fixed expectation that Christ will come\nagain to vanquish the wicked and rescue the good.  While each division\nof the book thus possesses a real meaning, it seems hardly possible to\nattach a significance to each detail in the imagery which is employed.\nMany items and even numbers appear to be introduced in order to make\nthe scenes clear to the mind's eye rather than impart a knowledge of\nindependent events.  In after-ages Dante, like St. John, showed this\ncare for minute imagery in the midst of verses of mystic vision.  The\nbook is the highest example of Christian imagination led and inspired\nby the Holy Spirit, and although at is written in prose it is of the\nnature of a poem.\n\nThe book contains seven revelations, which are preceded by a prologue\nconcerning the divine Son of Man and the seven Churches of Asia.  Of\nthese seven revelations, the fourth is central both in place and\nmeaning.  It represents the kingdom of the world becoming the kingdom\nof Christ as the result of the coming of the Messiah, born of that\nglorious mother, the woman whose seed wars against the serpent (Gen.\niii. 15), and the maiden who bears Immanuel (Isa. vii. 14), and who\nalso represents the Church banished to the wilderness.\n\nOn each side are three revelations, which correspond with one another\nlike the petals of a mystical rose.  The _third_, which deals with the\ndivine judgment upon Jerusalem, corresponds with the _fifth_, which\ncontains God's judgment upon {279} Rome.  Here we see the triumph of\nGod over corrupt religion and corrupt imperialism.  The _second_, which\ndescribes the powers of divine judgment kept in check, and the seal of\nGod imprinted on the saints of the new Israel, corresponds with the\n_sixth_, which describes the war of the Word of God with the Beast, and\nevents which end with the universal judgment.  The _first_, which\ndescribes the Lamb that was slain and the book of destiny which He\nalone could open, corresponds with the _seventh_, which describes the\nBride of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem in heaven.  Thus the final glory\nof the Church corresponds with the glory which the ascended Jesus\nalready receives in heaven.\n\nThe whole closes with a short epilogue.\n\nIt will be observed that the book contains seven choric songs.  The\nfirst revelation contains two such songs, one after each division.  The\nsecond, third, and fifth revelation, each close with a song.  The\nfourth and central revelation contains two songs; one is sung by the\nbodyguard of the Lamb before they go to war, the other is sung after\nthe victory is gained.  The seventh and last chorus celebrates the fall\nof Babylon (Rome), and ushers in the marriage of the Lamb.  It comes at\nthe end of the fifth revelation.  Its form is double, and it sums up\nthe remaining action of the book.  Two more facts must be mentioned in\nthis connection.  The first is that the words of the song of the\nbodyguard of the Lamb (xiv. 3) are not told; it can only be learned by\nthe redeemed.  It begins with the voice of Christ, the voice \"of many\nwaters,\" and it is taken up by the \"thunder\" of the cherubim and the\nharps of the elders.  The second is that there is no song between the\nsixth and seventh revelation.  It is simply the voice out of the throne\nitself, the voice of the cherubim who uphold the throne of God (see iv.\n6), which proclaims that the tabernacle of God is now with men, and\nthat He shall wipe away every tear (xxi. 4).  The exquisite art of this\narrangement of the songs is manifest.\n\n{280}\n\nANALYSIS\n\nTitle and description (i. 1-3).\n\nPrologue (i. 4-iii. 22).\n\nThe vision of the Son of Man (i. 4-20).\n\nThe message to each of the seven Churches of Asia (ii., iii.).\n\nA general idea of conflict is present in this introduction.  The\nChurches of Asia have special temptations against which they must\nfight, _e.g._ coldness at Ephesus, false prophecy at Thyatira, emperor\nworship at Pergamum.\n\nI. Revelation of the Book of Destiny: iv.-v.--The throne of God is\nmanifested, surrounded by the elders and by the four living creatures\nwho represent the created universe, _chorus of creation_ (iv.).  The\nsealed book which none can open but the Lamb, _chorus of redemption_\n(v.).\n\nII. Revelation of the Seals: vi.-viii. 1.--The first four seals of the\nbook are opened.  Christ appears riding on a white horse, and is\nfollowed by four symbolic powers of evil: (a) Apollyon, who rides on a\nred horse; (b) the Steward, who rides on a black horse, and dispenses\ncorn at a dear price, representing a perverted ministry of the Word,\nwhich nevertheless cannot hurt the unction given to the Christian nor\nthe wine of Christ's Passion; (c) Death on a pale horse; and (d) his\ncompanion Hell.  When the fifth scene is opened, the martyrs who are\nunder the altar which is before the throne cry in expectancy.  With the\nsixth seal there is a warning of prophetic horrors.  The day of God's\nwrath all but comes.  But judgment is restrained for a season (vi.).\nChastisement is suspended until 144,000 of Israelites are sealed, then\na multitude of all nations, _chorus of salvation_ (vii.).  The seventh\nseal, which discloses a war against God, can now be opened; silence\n(viii. 1).\n\n{281}\n\nIII.  Revelation of the Trumpets: viii. 2-xi. 18.--Seven angels receive\ntrumpets, incense offered.  With the sounding of each of the first four\ntrumpets a chastisement is sent from above to rouse repentance (viii.).\nWith the fifth, chastisement ascends from the pit; with the sixth,\nangels and terrific horsemen come from the Euphrates; but men repent\nnot (ix.).  Before the seventh trumpet sounds, an angel tells the seer\nthat when it has sounded the mystery of God as declared to the prophets\nwill be finished (x.).  Two prophets resembling Elijah and Moses appear\nas the symbols of Christian prophecy; they are slain in Jerusalem where\nour Lord was crucified, they ascend like Christ amid the wreck of a\ntenth of the city.  The city confesses God.  Then the seventh trumpet\nproclaims the subject of the next revelation: the kingdoms of the world\nbecoming the kingdoms of Christ, _chorus of God reigning_ (xi. 1-18).\n\nIV.  Revelation of the Lamb's Redemption: xi. 19-xv. 4.--The ark itself\nis revealed to show that the coming revelation manifests what is most\nsacred and most profound.  The conflict between Christ and evil is\nshown first as the conflict of the Child of the Woman against the\ndragon, then as the conflict of Michael and his angels against the\ndragon, then as the conflict of the dragon against the woman's seed\n(xii.).  Next come the allies of the dragon, the beast out of the sea,\nwhich is imperial pagan Rome; and the beast out of the earth, which is\nthe priesthood of Asia appointed to promote the worship of the emperor\n(xiii.).  Then there is seen on Mount Zion the Lamb with His bodyguard\nof 144,000, singing _the incommunicable chorus_.  An angel proclaims\nthe eternal gospel; another tells that Babylon, _i.e._ pagan Rome, has\nfallen; another proclaims the eternal punishment of those who worship\nthe beast.  Then a voice from heaven announces the blessedness of the\ndead in Christ.  The Son of Man is seen with a sickle; then comes the\nharvest of the good, and the vintage of those who {282} are to suffer\nin the winepress of God's wrath (xiv.).  Seven angels appear, and the\nvictors over the beast sing _the chorus Of Moses and the Lamb_ (xv.\n1-4).\n\nV.  Revelation of the Bowls: xv. 5-xix. 10.--The heavenly temple opens,\nand the seven angels come to pour out the seven last punishments from\nthe golden bowls (xv. 6-8).  There is a plague, and the turning of the\nsea, and then of the rivers, into blood, then the sun's heat is\nintensified, then darkness is poured over Rome.  Then, in conformity\nwith Revelation III., we are shown the Euphrates.  It is dried up that\nthe kings of the East, probably conceived of as Parthians, may march to\ndestroy Babylon.  Other kings come to aid the beast.  They muster at\nHar-Magedon.  The seventh bowl is poured on the air.  Babylon breaks\ninto three parts.  Storms (xvi.).  Then an angel shows John Babylon\nriding triumphantly upon a beast as the mother of harlots, drunken with\nthe blood of the martyrs, and he explains how she shall be destroyed by\nher subject kings (xvii.).  There follows a solemn dirge on Babylon\n(xviii.).  Then comes a _triumphant chorus_ for the judgment of the\ncity (xix. 1-8).  John is forbidden to worship his angel-guide (xix.\n10).\n\nVI.  Revelation of the Word of God and the universal Judgment: xix.\n11-xx. 15.--It is now shown that judgment is the work of the Word of\nGod Himself.  As in Revelation II., He appears upon a white horse.\nBrief sections display the complete overthrow of the great enemies of\nChrist, the beast, the false prophet, and the dragon.  Then comes the\nmillennium, when the martyrs of Jesus reign with Christ while Satan is\nbound.  Satan is then loosed, and with Gog and Magog, who are leaders\nof nations hostile to God's people, he is finally vanquished.  The\nfinal judgment takes place, and Death and Hell are cast into fire.\n\n{283}\n\nVII. Revelation of the New Jerusalem: xxi. i-xxii. 5.--From a\nmountain-top is seen the Church, the holy city, New Jerusalem, the\nBride prepared for Jesus.  Its luminary and structure are described.\nIt rises on a vast rock of jewels.  The throne of God is no longer\nremote from man, but in the midst of the city.  From the throne pours\nthe river of life through the very heart of the city.  The river is\nshaded on both sides by the \"tree\" or wood of life, with its perpetual\nvariety of fruit.  This is in contrast with the one tree and its\nforbidden fruit which was the means of the Fall.\n\n_Epilogue_ (xxii. 6-21).\n\nThe attestation of the angel, the watchword of Jesus, John again\nforbidden to worship the angel.  The book to remain unclosed.  The\nwatchword repeated.  The attestation of Jesus to Himself and the angel,\nto His Bride, to the book, to His advent.\n\nThe response of John to the Lord Jesus.\n\nSalutation.\n\n\n\n[1] _H. E._ iii. 25, 39; vii. 25.\n\n[2] The determination to deny that St. John could have believed in the\nDivinity of Christ made Zeller maintain that in the Revelation Christ\nis called the _Word of God_ as a mere honorary title.  Davidson\ninterpreted it as meaning \"the highest creature.\"  Renan tried to\nextricate himself from the difficulty by saying that St. John did not\nwrite the Revelation, but, \"having approved of it, saw it circulate\nunder his name without displeasure\" (_L'Antichrist_, p. xli.).\n\n[3] Harnack, _Chronologie_, vol. i. pp. 245, 246, 679.\n\n[4] Many of the supposed wrong constructions in the Revelation are\ncapable of justification (Dr. Benson, _The Apocalypse_, p. 131 ff.).\n\n[5] It is true that a different Greek word for Lamb is used in the\nRevelation from that in the Gospel, but the variation can be accounted\nfor by the author's desire to use a word similar in form to the word\nused for the Beast, who is contrasted with the Lamb.\n\n[6] The attempt to divide a supposed Judaizing element in the book from\na more Catholic element has led to the assertion that vii. 1-8 is\ninconsistent with vii. 9-17.  There is no more incongruity between\nthese two passages than in the statement of St. Paul in Rom. i. 16,\nthat the gospel is a power unto salvation \"to the Jew _first_, and also\nto the Greek.\"\n\n\n\n\n{284}\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\nRATIONALIST CRITICISM ON ST. JOHN'S WRITINGS\n\nThe following table will illustrate the points of agreement arrived at\nby the more prominent Rationalist critics of the last sixty years:--\n\n              THE GOSPEL.    1 JOHN.     2 AND 3 JOHN.    REVELATION.\n\n  F. C. Baur, By a forger,   By a        By a             By St.\n  1847.       170 A.D.       second      third            John.\n                             forger.     forger.\n\n  Th. Keim,   By the same forger,        ----             Not by\n  1867.       100-117 A.D.                                St. John.\n\n  A. Hilgen-  By a forger,   All by a second forger,      By St. John.\n  feld, 1875. 120-140 A.D.   130 A.D.\n\n  E. Renan,   By the Presbyter John and others, who       Not by St.\n  1879.       pretended that they were by St. John,       John, but\n              120 A.D.                                    circulated\n                                                          by him.\n\n  C. Weizs\u00e4c- By a disciple  Not by St. John nor by the   Not by\n  ker, 1886.  of St. John.   author of the Gospel.        St. John.\n\n  A. Harnack, The Gospel and Epistles all probably by     By the\n  1897.       the Presbyter John, who did not pretend     Presbyter\n              that they were by St. John,                 John,\n              80-110 A.D.                                 96 A.D.\n\n  A. C.       Uncertain.     By the      Uncertain.       Possibly\n  McGiffert,                 author                       by the\n  1897.                      of the                       Presbyter\n                             Gospel.                      John.\n\n\n  B. W.       By an          All by another unknown       By St.\n  Bacon,      unknown        writer, A.D. 95-100 A.D.     John.\n  1900.       writer,\n              100-110 A.D.\n\n  P. W.       Not by St.     By a        By a third       Possibly\n  Schmiedel,  John, nor      second      forger.          by the\n  1901.       by the         forger.                      Presbyter\n              Presbyter.                                  John.\n\n\n\n\n{285}\n\nAPPENDIX B\n\nPAPIAS AND JOHN THE PRESBYTER\n\nPapias, a Phrygian by birth, and Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, wrote\nin the first half of the 2nd century a book called _Expositions of\nOracles of the Lord_.  Among the \"Elders\" whom Irenaeus quotes, Papias\nand Polycarp alone are called \"ancient\" (_archaios_--_Adv. Haer._ v.\n33).  This helps us to fix the date of Papias.  For Polycarp died\neither in A.D. 155 or 156.  He had been a Christian for eighty-six\nyears, and was therefore born in A.D. 70 at the very latest.  Papias\nwas therefore probably born about A.D. 70.  We know from Irenaeus that\nPolycarp was a disciple of St. John, and several ancient writers,\nincluding Irenaeus, expressly assert that Papias also was a hearer of\nSt. John.  Eusebius (_H. E._ iii. 39) says that \"in his preface\" Papias\ndoes not declare that he was an \"eye-witness of the holy _apostles_.\"\nBut Eusebius in his Chronicle (_Syncell._ 655, 14) plainly says that\nPapias, like Polycarp, was a \"hearer\" of John the Divine and Apostle.\nThe preface of Papias, which Eusebius transcribes, mentions John the\nPresbyter.  The following is a literal translation of it:--\n\n\"But for your advantage I will not hesitate to put side by side with my\ninterpretations everything that in time past I learnt well from the\nElders, and remembered well, guaranteeing its truth.  For, unlike the\nmany, I did not take pleasure in those who say much, but in those who\nteach the truth; nor in those who relate alien commandments, but in\nthose who relate such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are\nderived from 'the Truth' itself.  And again, on any occasion when a\nperson came who had been a follower of the Elders, I would inquire\nabout the discourses of the Elders--what Andrew or what Peter said, or\nwhat Philip or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any\nother of the disciples of the Lord, and the things which Aristion and\nJohn the Presbyter (Elder), the disciples of the Lord, say.  For I did\n{286} not suppose that the contents of books would profit me so much as\nthe utterances of a living and abiding voice.\"\n\nThe exact meaning of this passage is disputed, but much of it is\nperfectly clear.  It is plain that Papias is referring to his action at\na time long past (_pote_), probably about A.D. 100.  It is also plain\nthat he had no direct access at that date to the apostles about whose\nsayings he inquired.  They were already dead, their speech was a thing\nof the past (_eipen_).  On the other hand, Aristion and John the\nPresbyter were then living, their speech was a thing of the present\n(_legousin_).  They survived at the time of his inquiries, and we\ncannot accept the hypothesis that Papias only meant that he inquired\nwhat Aristion and John the Presbyter said in their books.  He recorded\nwhat they said to his friends, and he quoted them both so freely that\nEusebius believed that Papias also wrote down words which Aristion and\nJohn the Presbyter said in his own hearing.  But whether he heard them\nor only heard about them, it is evident that he had reached manhood\nbefore they were dead.  It is also certain that he calls them\n\"disciples of the Lord.\"  He must mean by this that they had been\npersonally in contact with Christ, like the apostles whom he has just\nmentioned.  We therefore can only draw the conclusion that Papias\nbelieved that these two men had known the Lord in their boyhood, and\nthe fact that he mentions only two such men favours this interpretation.\n\nWith regard to the other Elders, the question at once arises, Did\nPapias include among those Elders the apostles whom he mentions?  If he\ndid _not_ include them, he means that he inquired of travellers what\nthey had heard from Elders who had known the apostles.  This seems\nincredible; the information gained would be far inferior to that\ncontained in books, whereas Papias speaks of it as superior.  Moreover,\nit would imply that the knowledge possessed by Papias about those who\nhad known the Lord was less direct than that possessed by Irenaeus!\nFor Irenaeus (1) knew Polycarp (2) and others, who knew St. John and\nothers who had seen the Lord.  Whereas, according to this theory,\nPapias (1) was instructed by travellers (2), who had heard the Elders\n(3) speak about the apostles.  If Papias had no better knowledge than\nthis, Irenaeus would not have referred to Papias with such marked\ndeference.  We conclude, therefore, that Papias used the word \"Elders\"\nto denote Christians who had actually seen the Lord, including the\napostles whom he mentions.  This interpretation is {287} supported by\nthe fact that in the New Testament both St. Peter and St. John give\nthemselves this very title.\n\nIf the above views are correct, they have an important bearing on the\nauthenticity of St. John's Gospel.  The lifetime of Papias, like that\nof Polycarp, covers the whole period of dates to which modern\nRationalists now assign that Gospel.  If it was not written by the\napostle, it is hard indeed to suppose that Papias did not know the\ntruth, and record it.  And it is equally hard to believe that his\nstatements about it would not have been copied by such men as Irenaeus,\nDionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius.\n\n\n\n\n{288}\n\nAPPENDIX C\n\nTHE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT\n\nThe _Muratorian Fragment_ is part of a Latin list of the books of the\nNew Testament, named after Muratori, the librarian at Milan, who\npublished it in A.D. 1740.  The Canon of which the Fragment is a part\nwas probably written about A.D. 180.  It begins in the midst of a\nsentence relating to St. Mark--\n\n[Sidenote: The Gospels.]\n\n\". . . at some things, however, he was present, and has thus recorded\nthem.\"\n\n\"The third book of the Gospel according to Luke, Luke compiled in his\nown name from report, the physician whom Paul took with him after the\nascension of Christ, for a companion as devoted to the law: however he\ndid not himself see the Lord in the flesh, and hence begins his account\nwith the birth of John as he was able to trace (matters) up.\"\n\n[Sidenote: The Epistles of St. John.]\n\n\"Of the fourth of the Gospels (the author is) John, one of the\ndisciples.  At the instance of his fellow-disciples and bishops he\nsaid, 'Fast with me to-day for three days, and whatever shall be\nrevealed to each, let us relate it to one another.'  The same night it\nwas revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write all\nin his own name, the rest revising. . . .  And therefore, although\nvarying ideas may be taught in the several books of the Evangelists,\nthere is no difference in that which pertains to the faith of\nbelievers, since by one Sovereign Spirit in all are declared all things\nthat relate to the nativity (of the Lord), His passion, resurrection,\nintercourse with His disciples, and concerning His double advent, the\nfirst in humble guise, which has taken place, the second splendid with\nroyal power, which is yet to be. . . .  What wonder, then, if John in\nhis Epistles also, speaking of his own authorship, so boldly advances\neach {289} detail, saying, 'What we have seen with our eyes, and have\nheard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things we have\nwritten unto you.'  For thus he professes himself not only an\neye-witness, but a hearer, yea, and a writer as well, of all the\nwonders done by the Lord in their order.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Acts.]\n\n\"But the Acts of all the Apostles are written in a single book, Luke\nrelates them excellently to Theophilus, confining himself to such as\nfell under his own notice, as he plainly shows by the omission of all\nreference either to the martyrdom of Peter or the journey of Paul from\nRome to Spain. . . .\"\n\n[Sidenote: The Epistles of St. Paul.]\n\n\"But the letters of Paul themselves make known to those who would know\nboth what they are, and from what place, or what occasion they were\nsent.  At considerable length he wrote to the Corinthians first,\nforbidding schismatic divisions, then to the Galatians (forbidding)\ncircumcision, and to the Romans (expounding) the general tenor of the\nScriptures, showing, however, that Christ is the essence of their\nteaching; to these (Epistles) we must devote separate discussion; for\nthe blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his\npredecessor John, wrote by name to seven Churches only in this order:\nFirst to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, third to the\nPhilippians, fourth to the Colossians, fifth to the Galatians, sixth to\nthe Thessalonians, seventh to the Romans.  True, he wrote twice to the\nCorinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, but he shows\nthereby[1] the unity of the universal Church; for John also in the\nApocalypse, though he writes to seven Churches only, yet speaks to all.\nHe also writes one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy, out\nof personal regard and affection, but these too are hallowed in the\nrespect of the Catholic Church for the arrangement of ecclesiastical\ndiscipline.  Moreover, there is in circulation an Epistle to the\nLaodiceans, another to the Alexandrians forged under the name of Paul,\nlooking towards the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot\nbe received into the Catholic Church; for gall should not be mixed with\nhoney.  However, the Epistle of Jude, and two of John the above named,\nare received among Catholics.  Also the Book of Wisdom written by the\nfriends of Solomon in his honour.\"\n\n{290}\n\n[Sidenote: Apocalypses.]\n\n\"We receive, moreover, the Apocalypse of John and Peter only, though\nsome of our body will not have the latter read in the Church.  The\n_Shepherd_ indeed was written quite recently in our own times in the\ncity of Rome by Hermas, while his brother Pius occupied the seat of\nBishop of the Church of Rome; wherefore the private reading of it is\nindeed commendable, but it can never be publicly read to the people in\nthe Church whether among the Prophets . . . or among the Apostles.\"\n\n\"We receive nothing whatever of the Arsinoite, or Valentinus, or of\nMitias (?) . . . who also were the compilers of the new Book of Psalms\n(?) for Marcion, together with Basilides. . . .\"\n\n\n\n[1] As symbolized by the number seven.\n\n\n\n\n{291}\n\nAPPENDIX D\n\nSOME EARLY WITNESSES TO NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS[1]\n\n\nCLEMENT OF ROME.  Bishop of Rome.\n  _Epistle to Corinthians_ . . . . . . . . . . . . .   c. A.D. 95\n\nBARNABAS.  _Epistle of_, not by the Barnabas who\n  was St. Paul's companion . . . . . . . . . . . . .   c. A.D. 98\n\nDIDACH\u00c9.  \"The Teaching of the Twelve\n  Apostles,\" a manual of Church regulations  . . . .   c. A.D. 100\n\nIGNATIUS.  Bishop of Antioch and Martyr.\n  7 _Epistles_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   c. A.D. 110\n\nPOLYCARP.  Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr.\n  _Epistle to Philippians_ . . . . . . . . . . . . .   c. A.D. 110\n\nPAPIAS.  Bishop of Hierapolis.  _Expositions of\n  the Oracles of the Lord_ (fragments are\n  preserved by Eusebius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   c. A.D. 130\n\nHERMAS.  _The Shepherd_, an allegory . . . . . . . .   c. A.D. 140\n\nMARCION.  Heretic from Pontus at Rome  . . . . . . .   c. A.D. 144\n\nJUSTIN MARTYR.  Apologist.  _1 and 2 Apologies_\n  and _Dialogue with Trypho_ . . . . . . . . . . . .      A.D. 152-157\n\nEPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.  Anonymous defence\n  of Christianity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   c. A.D. 160\n\nTATIAN.  Syrian Apologist, disciple of Justin\n  Martyr.  _Diatessaron_, a harmony of the Gospels        A.D. 160-170\n\nTHEOPHILUS.  Apologist of Antioch.  _Ad Autolycum_     c. A.D. 180\n\nIRENAEUS.  Bishop of Lyons.  _Against Heresies_        c. A.D. 185\n\n\n\n\n[1] In the case of most of these witnesses the date here given is that\nof their chief literary activity.\n\n\n\n{292}\n\nCLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.  Head of the Catechetical\n  School.  _Paedagogus, Hypotyposes_, etc.   . . . .   c. A.D. 190\n\nTERTULLIAN.  Of Carthage.  Apologist . . . . . . . .      A.D. 200\n\nHIPPOLYTUS.  Presbyter at Rome.  _Refutation of\n  All Heresies_ and numerous commentaries  . . . . .   c. A.D. 220\n\nORIGEN.  Of Alexandria.  Successor of Clement,\n  great philosopher and writer . . . . . . . . . . .   c. A.D. 230\n\nDIONYSIUS.  Bishop of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . .      A.D. 248\n\nEUSEBIUS.  Bishop of Caesarea.  _Ecclesiastical\n  History_, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      A.D. 320\n\nAPHRAATES.  Syrian writer  . . . . . . . . . . . . .      A.D. 338\n\nATHANASIUS.  Bishop of Alexandria  . . . . . . . . .      A.D. 328-373\n\nEPIPHANIUS.  Bishop of Salamis . . . . . . . . . . .      A.D. 380\n\nJEROME.  Author of the revised or \"Vulgate\"\n  Latin version of the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . .      A.D. 390\n\n\n\n\n{293}\n\nAPPENDIX E\n\nBOOKS RECOMMENDED\n\nIn this list are included the most useful books written in English or\ntranslated into English.  An * is placed before those commentaries\nwhich contain the whole Greek text of the books indicated, or which\ncomment much on the Greek text.\n\n1. CANON--\n   Charteris (Prof. A. H.), Canonicity, 18s.\n   Sanday (Dr. W.), Inspiration, 6s. 6d. (Longmans.)\n   Westcott (Bishop), History of the Canon, 10s. 6d. (Macmillan.)\n\n2. TEXT--\n   The Greek Text of the Revised Version, various prices.\n      (Oxford University Press.)\n   Concordance to the Greek Testament, by Moulton (W. F.)\n      and Geden (A. S.), 26s.  (T. and T. Clark.)\n\n3. TEXTUAL CRITICISM--\n   Lake (Prof. K.), The Text of the New Testament, 1s. net.\n     Oxford Church Text Books.  (Rivingtons.)\n   Nestle (E.), Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament,\n     10s. 6d.  (Williams and Norgate.)\n\n4. INTRODUCTION--\n   Zahn (Prof. Th.), Introduction to the New Testament, 3 vols.,\n     English Translation, 36s.  (T. and T. Clark.)\n   Salmon (Prof. G.), Historical Introduction to the Books of\n     the New Testament, 9s.  (Murray.)\n   Godet (F.), Introduction to the New Testament.  Part I.\n    The Epistles of St. Paul, 12s. 6d.  (T. and T. Clark.)\n\n5. THE GOSPELS AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM--\n   Burkitt (Prof. F. C.), The Earliest Sources for the Life of\n     Jesus, 1s. net.  (Constable.)\n   Sanday (Dr. W.), Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 12s. 6d.\n     (Oxford Clarendon Press.)\n   Wright (Dr. A.), *A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 10s.\n     (Macmillan.)\n   Campbell (Dr.  Colin), *The First Three Gospels in Greek,\n     5s.  (Williams and Norgate.)\n\n{294}\n\n   Hawkins (Sir J. C.), *Horae Synopticae, 7s. 6d.\n     (Oxford Clarendon Press.)\n   Rushbrooke (W. G.), *Synopticon, 35s.  (Macmillan.)\n   Westcott (Bishop), Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,\n     10s. 6d.  (Macmillan.)\n   Stanton (Dr. V. H.), The Gospels as Historical Documents,\n     Part I. 7s. 6d., Part II. 10s.  (Cambridge University Press.)\n\n6. COMMENTARIES--\n   _St. Matthew._--Godet (F.), The Collection of the Four\n     Gospels and the Gospel of St. Matthew, 6s.  (T. and T. Clark.)\n     Allen (Ven. W. C.), *Commentary, 12s.  (T. and T. Clark.)\n     Plummer (Dr. A.), *Exegetical Commentary on the\n       Gospel according to St. Matthew, 12s.  (Elliot Stock.)\n     Carr (A.), \"The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 4s. 6d.\n       (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges.)\n\n   _St. Mark._--Swete (Prof. H. B.), *Greek Text with Notes,\n       15s.  (Macmillan.)\n     Maclear (G. F.), *The Gospel according to St. Mark,\n       4s. 6d.  (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and\n       Colleges.)\n\n   _St. Luke._--Plummer (Dr. A.), *Commentary, 12s.\n       (T. and T. Clark.)\n\n   _St. John._--Godet (F.), Commentary, 3 vols., 31s. 6d.\n       (T. and T. Clark.)\n     Westcott (Bishop), Commentary, 10s. 6d.  (Murray.)\n     Lightfoot (Bishop), Biblical Essays, 12s.  (Macmillan.\n     Sanday (Dr. W.), The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel,\n       7s. 6d.  (Longmans.)\n\n   _Acts._--Knowling (Dr. R. J.), in *Expositor's Greek Testament,\n       vol. ii., 28s.  (Hodder and Stoughton.)\n     Rackham (R. B.), 12s. 6d.  (Methuen.)\n     Ramsay (Prof. W. M.), The Church in the Roman\n       Empire, 12s.  (Hodder and Stoughton.)\n     Ramsay (Prof. W. M.), St. Paul the Traveller and the\n       Roman Citizen, 10s. 6d.  (Hodder and Stoughton.)\n\n   _Romans._--Sanday (Dr. W.) and Headlam (A. C.),\n     *Commentary, 12s.  (T. and T. Clark.)\n       Liddon (Dr. H. P.), *Analysis, 14s.  (Longmans.)\n       Gore (Bishop), Exposition, 2 vols., 3s. 6d. each.  (Murray.)\n\n{295}\n\n   _1 Corinthians._--Goudge (H. L.), in Westminster\n       Commentaries, 6s.  (Methuen.)\n     Findlay (G. G.), in *Expositor's Greek Testament, vol.  ii.\n\n   _2 Corinthians._--Meyer's *Critical Commentary on the New\n       Testament, 1 and 2 Cor., in 2 vols., 10s. 6d. each.\n       (T. and T. Clark.)\n\n   _Galatians._--Lightfoot (Bishop), *Text with Introduction,\n       12s.  (Macmillan.)\n     Ramsay (Prof. W. M.), Historical Commentary, 12s.\n       (Hodder and Stoughton.)\n\n   _Ephesians._--Abbott (T. K.), *Commentary on Ephesians\n       and Colossians, 10s. 6d.  (T. and T. Clark.)\n     Robinson (Dr. J. Armitage), *St. Paul's Epistle to the\n       Ephesians, 12s.  (Macmillan.)\n     Westcott (Bishop), *St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,\n       10s. 6d.  (Macmillan.)\n     Gore (Bishop), Exposition, 3s. 6d.  (Murray.)\n\n   _Philippians._--Lightfoot (Bishop), Text with Introduction,\n       12s.  (Macmillan.)\n\n   _Colossians and Philemon._--Lightfoot (Bishop), *Text with\n       Introduction, 12s.  (Macmillan.)\n\n   _1 and 2 Thessalonians._--Milligan (Dr. G.), *Commentary, 12s.\n       (Macmillan.)\n     Ellicott (Bishop), *Commentary, 7s. 6d.  (Longmans.)\n\n   _1 and 2 Timothy, Titus._--Bernard (Dr. J. H.), *Cambridge\n       Greek Testament, 3s. 6d.  (Cambridge University Press.)\n\n   _Hebrews._--Westcott (Bishop), *Greek Text with Notes.\n       14s.  (Macmillan.)\n     Davidson (Prof. A. B.), Handbook, 2s. 6d.\n       (T. and T. Clark.)\n\n   _St. James._--Mayor (Dr. J. B.), *Greek Text with Notes., 12s.\n       (Macmillan.)\n     Carr (A.), *The General Epistle of St. James, 2s. 6d.\n       (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges.)\n\n   _1 and 2 St. Peter, St. Jude._--Bigg (Dr. C.), *Commentary,\n       10s. 6d.  (T. and T. Clark.)\n     Mayor (Dr. J. B.), *The Epistle of St. Jude and the\n       Second Epistle of St. Peter, 14s.  (Macmillan.)\n\n   _1, 2, 3 St. John._--Westcott (Bishop), *Greek Text with\n       Notes, 12s. 6d.  (Macmillan.)\n\n{296}\n\n   _Revelation._--Ramsay (Prof. W. M.), Letters to the Seven\n       Churches, 12s.  (Hodder and Stoughton.)\n     Simcox (W. H.), *The Revelation of St. John the\n       Divine, 5s.  (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools\n       and Colleges.)\n     Milligan (Prof. W.), Lectures on the Apocalypse, 5s.\n       (Macmillan.)\n     Swete (Prof. H. B.), *The Apocalypse of St. John, 15s.\n       (Macmillan.)\n\n\n\n\n{297}\n\nINDEX\n\n  Acts, Book of, 102\n  Agap\u00e9, or Love-feast, 139, 269\n  Alexandria, St. Mark at, 50; philosophy of, 95\n  Alogi, rejected St. John's writings, 82\n  Antichrist, in 2 Thess., 131; in 1 John, 255\n  Antilegomena, or disputed books, 222, 271\n  Antioch, in Syria, collision between SS. Peter and Paul at, 121, 157\n  Antioch, Pisidian, 152\n  Apocalypse.  _See_ Revelation\n  Apocalyptic teaching, in St. Matt., 38; in 2 Thess., 131;\n    general nature of, 276\n  Apollos, his partisans at Corinth, 135, 137; supposed author of\n    Hebrews, 211\n  Aramaic language, 1; original of St. Matt., 34\n  Aristion (author of St. Mark xvi. 9-20), 63, 285\n\n  \"Babylon\" in N. T., 242, 279\n  Balaamites, 266\n  Baptism, St. Paul's doctrine of, 164, 175, 205; for the dead, 140\n  Barnabas, St., author (?) of Hebrews, 211\n  Barnabas, so-called Epistle of, 14\n  Baur, F. C., his misrepresentation of the apostles, 111, 121;\n    what Epistles accepted by, 133; repudiation of Rom. xv., xvi.,\n    158; of Colossians, 171; of Ephesians, 182; of Philippians, 188\n  Beast in Revelation, 276, 281\n  Bousset, W., denies St. John's residence at Ephesus, 257\n  Brethren of our Lord, 224\n\n  Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, not Pauline, 166\n  Canon, formation of, 2, 220\n  Catholic Epp., 219; gradual insertion in Canon, 3, 221\n  Census in St. Luke, 79\n  Christology, or doctrine about Christ's Person, in St. Matt., 40;\n    in St. Mark, 54, 56; in St. Luke, 71; in St. John, human side of,\n    31, divine side of, 82, 95; in Acts, 109; of St. Paul, 123, 146,\n    174, 185, 192\n  Church, doctrine of, in St. Matt., 44; in St. Paul, 185\n  Clement, St., of Rome, quotes Synoptic narrative, 14; quotes\n    the Epistles, 133, 235\n  Clement of Alexandria, on date of St. Mark, 52; on 2 Peter, 248\n  Colossians, Ep. to, 170; heresy of, 173\n  Corinthians, Epp. to, 133, 143; first lost Ep. to, 135; second\n    lost Ep. to, 145; factions among, 137; doctrine of resurrection\n    in Epp., 140, 146\n\n  Date of N. T. books, p. x.; of Christ's nativity, 78\n  Date of Christ's death, 28; St. John supported by St. Luke as to,\n    30; and by St. Paul, 142\n  Davidson, S., on I John, 256; on Christology of Revelation, 272\n  \"Diaspora,\" or Dispersion, 229, 241\n  Diatessaron of Tatian, 11\n  Dionysius of Alexandria on Revelation, 271\n  Diotrephes, 264\n  Disputed books, 222, 271\n  Docetic heresy, 197, 259, 262\n  Domitian, his treatment of Christians, 265, 276\n\n  Ebionites, their Gospel, 34; St. Luke not influenced by, 72\n  Enoch, Book of, 249, 268, 276\n  Epaphroditus or Epaphras, 171, 191\n  Ephesians, Ep. to, 180\n  Ephesus, St. John at, 81, 257\n  Epiphanius on Gospel of the Hebrews, 34\n  Eschatology, in St. Matt., 38; in St. Mark, 58; in St. Luke, 67;\n    in St. John, 97; in St. Paul, 121, 131, 146\n  Essenes, sect of, possible influence at Rome, 167; at Colossae, 173\n  Eucharist, in St. Luke, 70; in 1 Cor., 139\n  Eusebius, on Hebrews, 209; on Catholic Epp., 222; on 2 Peter, 248;\n    on Revelation, 271\n\n  Faith, St. Paul's doctrine of, 154, 164; in Hebrews, 211; in\n    St. James, 231; in St. Jude, 266\n  Feasts, Jewish, in St. John, 98\n  Felix, Antonius, procurator of Judaea, 115\n  Festus, Porcius, procurator of Judaea, 115\n  Florinus, letter of Irenaeus to, 87\n\n  Galatia, North or South (?), 151\n  Galatians, Ep. to, 150\n  Gallic, 134\n  Gieseler, J. K. L., on the Synoptic problem, 21\n  Gnosticism, supposed influence on Ep. to Philippians, 188; rebuked\n    in Pastoral Epp., 197; in 2 Peter and Jude, 251, 266\n  Godet, F., writings of, 293, 294\n  Gospels, the four, 9, St. Matt., 33; St. Mark, 49; St. Luke, 64;\n    St. John, 80\n\n  Harnack, A., on St. John, 93, Appendix A; on the apostles'\n    doctrine, 111; on Revelation, 272\n  Hebrews, Apocryphal Gospel of, 35\n  Hebrews, Ep. to, 208; its connection with Philo, 211\n  Hegesippus, on St. James, 225, 229; on St. Jude's grandsons, 265\n  Heresies in N. T. times, 120, 137, 153, 172, 197, 251, 258, 266\n  Herod the Great, 79\n  Herod Agrippa I., 114\n  Herod Agrippa II., 115, 190\n  Hilgenfeld, A., on St. John's writings, Appendix A\n\n  Idols, eating meat offered to, 139\n  Ignatius, St., relation to St. Matt., 14; to St. John, 14, 85;\n    heresy rebuked by, 197, 259\n  Irenaeus, St., on Canon of the Gospels, 11; on St. Luke, 64;\n    on St. John, 84, 87; on Catholic Epp., 222\n\n  James, St., Ep. of, 223\n  Jerome, St., author of the Vulgate, 5; on the Hebrew of St. Matt.,\n    34; on 2 John, 262\n  Jewish Christianity, 34, 120, 137, 153, 172\n  John the Presbyter, not the author of the fourth Gospel, 83;\n    Papias on, Appendix B\n  John, St., Gospel of, 15, 27, 80; relation to Synoptists, 27; does\n    not quote them, 32; Epistles of, 255; Revelation of, 270;\n    rationalist criticism of his writings, 83, Appendix A\n  John, St., the Baptist, his infancy and ministry, 76; interest\n    shown in, 115\n  Josephus, on St. James, 229; not quoted in 2 Peter, 246\n  Jude, St., Ep. of, 249, 265\n  Judgment, the, in St. Matt., 38; in St. John, 97, 258, 282\n  J\u00fclicher, A., on St. John, 83\n  Justification, in St. Luke, 71; in St. Paul, 157, 163;\n    in St. James, 231\n  Justin Martyr, used our four Gospels, 12; ascribes Revelation\n    to St. John, 270\n\n  Keim, Th., on St. John's writings, Appendix A\n  Kingdom of God in St. Matt., 44\n\n  Laodiceans, Ep. to, identical with \"Ephesians,\" 176, 182\n  Latinisms in St. Mark, 54\n  Law, teaching of Christ on, 44, of St. Paul on, 154, 163, of\n    Hebrews on, 216\n  Linus, ? Bishop of Rome, 205\n  _Logia_, meaning of the word, 13; early books of, 24, 34\n  Logos, doctrine of, in St. John, 95\n  Luke, St., Gospel of, 64; its dependence on St. Mark, 16;\n    Acts written by, 65, 102\n  Lycus valley, Churches of, 123, 171, 182\n\n  Magi and the star, 78\n  Marcion, Canon of, 13; Gospel of, 66; why he repudiated 1 and 2\n    Tim. and Titus, 196\n  Mark, St., Gospel of, 49; its dependence on St. Peter, 51, 54\n  Marriage and celibacy, St. Paul's teaching on, 138, 187\n  Matthew, St., Gospel of, 33; its dependence on St. Mark, 16,\n    36; some primitive features in, 22; numerical arrangement in, 25\n  Ministers of the Church, in Acts, 111; in Ephesians, 186; in\n    Pastoral Epistles, 198; in 3 John, 264\n  _Muratorian Fragment_, Appendix C\n\n  Nazarenes, Gospel of, 34\n  Nero, persecution by, 108, 124, in Revelation, 276\n  Nicopolis, 204\n\n  Onesimus of Colossae, 177\n  Onesiphorus of Ephesus, 206\n  Oral teaching, influence on St. Matt., 26; on St. John, 101\n  Oral tradition theory of Gospels, 21, 22\n  Origen, on Hebrews, 209; on Catholic Epp., 222; on 2 Peter, 248\n\n  Papias, on the \"Oracles,\" 13; on the Logia of St. Matt., 24, 34;\n    on St. Mark, 51; on John the Presbyter, Appendix B\n  Parables, the different classes of, 74\n  Pastoral Epp., 195\n  Paul, St., Epp. and life of, 116; Epp. questioned, 117, 125, 133,\n    171, 181, 188, 195\n  Peter, St., source of St. Mark's Gospel, 51, 57; \"Memoirs\"\n    of, 50; Epistles of, 235, 246; \"Apocalypse\" of, 250, 290\n  Philemon, Ep. to, 177\n  Philippians, Ep. to, 188\n  Philo, his difference from St. John, 96; his similarity to\n    Hebrews, 211\n  Polycarp, St., connection with St. John, 11, 86, 87, 222\n  Polycrates on St. John, 81\n  Prayer in St. Luke, 74\n\n  Quirinius, P. Sulpicius, governor of Syria, 79\n\n  Ramsay, W. M., on authenticity of Acts, 105\n  Renan, E., on St. John's writings, 272, Appendix A\n  Revelation, Book of the, 270\n  Romans, Ep. to, 158\n  Rome, attitude of, towards the Church, 108, 131, 275; religion\n    at, 160; worship of, 275\n\n  Sabatier, A., on ministry in Acts, 111\n  Sanday, W., on Catholic Epp., 221; writings of, 293, 294\n  Schmiedel, P. W., on Acts, 111; on St. John's writings, Appendix A\n  Silvanus or Silas, not the author of Acts, 107; bearer of\n    1 Peter, 243\n  Sinaitic Syriac version of Gospels, 43\n  Slavery, St. Paul on, 175, 178, 187\n  Spirit, the Holy, doctrine of, in St. John, 97; in St. Paul, 147\n  Synoptic problem, 16\n  Synoptists, relation of, to St. John, 15, 27, 95\n\n  Tatian, Diatessaron of, 11\n  Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or Didach\u00e9, 14; Johannine\n    language in, 85\n  Tertullian ascribes Hebrews to St. Barnabas, 211\n  Theophilus of Antioch, 291\n  Thessalonians, Epp. to, 125\n  Timothy, Epp. to, 195\n  Titus, Ep. to, 203\n  Titus, Roman emperor, 276\n  T\u00fcbingen School, on St. Paul's Epistles, 117; on relation of\n    St. Peter to St. Paul, 121\n  Tychicus of Asia, 172, 176\n\n  Versions of the Bible, 5\n  Vespasian in Revelation, 276\n  Virgin birth of our Lord, 43\n\n  \"We sections\" in Acts, 65, 102\n  Weizs\u00e4cker, C., on St. John's writings, 83, Appendix A\n  Westcott (Bishop), writings of, 294, 295\n  Works, doctrine of, in St. Paul, 155, 204; in St. James, 231;\n    in Revelation, 274\n\n  Zechariah, quoted by St. Matt., 41; by St. John, 88\n  Zeller, E., on Revelation, 272\n  Zenas, 204","title":"The Books of the New Testament","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":101101}