{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43685/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43685","id":"gutenberg_43685","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43685","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- History of Biblical events","Bible. New Testament -- Introductions","Bible. New Testament -- Theology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\n\n Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\n Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE LITERATURE AND HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES\n\n\nPART I:\n\nThe Historical Background of\nChristianity\n\nThe Early History of\nChristianity\n\nby\n\nJOHN GRESHAM MACHEN\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPhiladelphia, Pa.\nThe Presbyterian Board Of Publication and Sabbath School Work\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n Introduction 3\n\n LESSON\n\n 1. The New Testament 5\n\n 2. The Roman Background of Christianity 10\n\n 3. The Greek Background of Christianity 15\n\n 4. The Jewish Background of Christianity:\n I. Palestinian Judaism 21\n\n 5. The Jewish Background of Christianity:\n II. The Judaism of the Dispersion 26\n\n 6. The Messiah 31\n\n 7. The Book of The Acts 36\n\n 8. The Cross and the Resurrection the Foundation of\n Apostolic Preaching 41\n\n 9. The Beginnings of the Christian Church 46\n\n 10. The First Persecution 51\n\n 11. The First Gentile Converts 56\n\n 12. The Conversion of Paul 60\n\n 13. The Church at Antioch 67\n\n 14. The Gospel to the Gentiles 75\n\n 15. The Council at Jerusalem 81\n\n 16. The Gospel Carried Into Europe 86\n\n 17. Encouragement for Recent Converts 92\n\n 18. The Conflict with the Judaizers 97\n\n 19. Problems of a Gentile Church 103\n\n 20. The Apostle and His Ministry 109\n\n 21. The Gospel of Salvation 115\n\n 22. Paul's Journey to Rome 120\n\n 23. The Supremacy of Christ 124\n\n 24. The Church of Christ 129\n\n 25. Christ and His Followers 133\n\n 26. Training New Leaders 138\n\n 27. A Presentation of Jesus to Jewish Christians 147\n\n 28. A Graphic Sketch of the Life of Jesus 154\n\n 29. A Greek Historian's Account of Jesus 158\n\n 30. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple 165\n\n 31. The Jesus of the Gospels 174\n\n 32. A Document of the Jerusalem Church 178\n\n 33. Jesus the Fulfillment of the Old Testament 184\n\n 34. Christian Fortitude 189\n\n 35. The Christian's Attitude Toward Error and Immorality 194\n\n 36. The Life of the Children of God 198\n\n 37. The Messages of the Living Christ 203\n\n 38. A Vision of the Final Triumph 209\n\n 39. Review 213\n\n 40. The Church and the World 219\n\n 41. The Christian Message 225\n\n 42. The Word and the Sacraments 231\n\n 43. Prayer 238\n\n 44. The Congregation 244\n\n 45. The Relief of the Needy 249\n\n 46. Organizing for Service 255\n\n 47. A Mission for the World 261\n\n 48. The Christian Ideal of Personal Morality 266\n\n 49. Christianity and Human Relationships 271\n\n 50. The Christian Use of the Intellect 277\n\n 51. The Christian Hope and the Present Possession 282\n\n 52. Retrospect: the First Christian Century 287\n\n\n Copyright, 1915, by John Gresham Machen\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe general purpose of this course of lessons has been set forth in\nthe introduction to the Student's Text Book. There is a tendency\nin the modern Church to neglect the study of Bible history. Such\nneglect will inevitably result in a loss of power. The gospel is a\nrecord of something that has happened, and uncertainty about the\ngospel is fatal weakness. Furthermore the historical study of the\napostolic age--that age when divine revelation established the\ngreat principles of the Church's life--is the best corrective for\na thousand vagaries. Much can be learned from modern pedagogy; but\nafter all what is absolutely fundamental, both for teacher and for\nstudent, is an orderly acquaintance with the Bible facts.\n\nThe Teacher's Manual, therefore, is intended not merely to offer\nsuggestions as to methods of teaching, but primarily to supplement\nthe teacher's knowledge. A teacher who knows only what he actually\nimparts to the class is inevitably dull. The true teacher brings\nforth out of his treasure things new and old.\n\nThe sections in the Teacher's Manual, since they are intended to\nbe supplementary, should not be read until after careful attention\nhas been paid to the corresponding sections in the Student's Text\nBook. Moreover, both sections together are of course in themselves\ninsufficient. They should be supplemented by other reading.\nSuggestions about reading have been put at the end of every lesson.\nHere, however, a few general remarks may be made.\n\nDavis' \"Dictionary of the Bible\" and Purves' \"Christianity in the\nApostolic Age,\" which have been recommended even to the student,\nwill be to the teacher almost invaluable. The earnest teacher\nwill also desire to refer to good commentaries on The Acts. The\ncommentaries which have been mentioned in connection with the\nindividual lessons are based upon the English Bible; but every\nteacher who has any knowledge of Greek, however slight, should use,\ninstead, the commentary of Knowling, in \"The Expositor's Greek\nTestament.\" For the life of Paul, Lewin's \"Life and Epistles of St.\nPaul\" and the similar book of Conybeare and Howson are still very\nvaluable for their vivid and extended descriptions of the scenes of\nthe missionary journeys. A similar service is rendered, in more\nup-to-date form, by the various works of Ramsay. Stalker's \"Life of\nSt. Paul\" is a good handbook. M'Clymont's \"New Testament and Its\nWriters\" contains instructive, though very brief, introductions\nto all of the New Testament books. Hastings' \"Dictionary of the\nBible\" and \"Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels\" number among\ntheir contributors many writers of many opinions. They are rich in\nreferences to the vast literature of modern Biblical discussion.\n\nThe writer of this course has derived information from many\nquarters. Definite acknowledgment of indebtedness, since no\noriginality is claimed, may be regarded as unnecessary. It is a\npleasure, however, to render special thanks to Rev. Professor\nWilliam Park Armstrong, D. D., of Princeton Theological Seminary,\nwhose wise counsel has been of incalculable assistance at many\npoints.\n\nThe actual presentation of the lessons will, of course, vary\naccording to the needs of the classes and the preferences of the\nteachers. The Student's Text Book may often provide a convenient\norder of presentation. That book is intended not merely to be read,\nbut also to be studied. It is to be regarded as a sort of outline of\nthe course.\n\nThe \"topics for study\" are intended to serve a double purpose. In\nthe first place, they will test the student's knowledge of the\nlesson material; in the second place, they will afford encouragement\nto special investigation. Individual topics may often be assigned\nfor thorough treatment to individual students, while the class as a\nwhole may use all the topics as guides to a general knowledge.\n\nPersonal interest in the individual students is of the utmost\nimportance. Instruction has a tenfold value when it is backed by\nfriendship. The relation of the students to the Church should\nbe a matter of especial concern. If any member of the class has\nnot confessed his faith in Christ, the study of this year offers\nabundant opportunity for a word in season. Our study reveals the\nChurch as a divine institution. Shall we then stand aloof?\n\nIn this course the teacher has the opportunity of introducing\nyoung people of maturing minds to the historical study of the New\nTestament. There could be no more inspiring task. Carried about with\nevery wind of doctrine, the Church is sadly in need of an assured\nanchorage. That anchorage should be sought in history. Ignorance is\nweak; sound knowledge, sought with prayer, and blessed by the Spirit\nof God, will lead to a more stalwart and more intelligent faith.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON I\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT\n\n\nThis is an introductory lesson. It should be used, first of all, to\nanswer intelligent general questions about the New Testament. Some\nof these questions will be discussed briefly under Sections 1 to 3,\nbelow.\n\nThe historical study of the New Testament, based upon a study of\nthe circumstances under which the individual books were written,\nwill probably be new to many of the students. The new point of view\nshould be used to awaken interest. The climax of the lesson should,\nhowever, be a presentation of the unity of the New Testament as the\nvery Word of God to us. Historical study should be made--and can be\nmade--subservient to reverent and thankful obedience.\n\n\n1. THE ORIGIN AND MEANING OF THE NAME\n\nThe English word \"testament\" comes from a Latin word. The equivalent\nGreek word is hard to translate. As used in the Greek Bible it may\nmean either \"covenant\" or \"testament.\" Usually it should probably be\ntranslated \"covenant.\"\n\nThe phrase \"new covenant\" occurs about five times in the New\nTestament. In none of these passages does the phrase refer to the\n\"New Testament\" in our sense. It designates a new relationship into\nwhich men have been received with God. The old covenant was made,\nthrough the mediatorship of Moses, with the Hebrew nation; the new\ncovenant, hinted at in prophecy, Jer. 31:31, and instituted by the\nLord Jesus, I Cor. 11:25, was made with all those, of every tribe\nand tongue and people and nation, who should through faith accept\nthe salvation offered by Christ. Those who believe become, like\nIsrael of old, God's chosen people, and enter into the warmth and\njoy of the divine communion. The names \"old and new covenants,\"\nthen, were applied first to these two special relationships into\nwhich God entered with men. Afterwards the names were applied to the\nbooks in which the conditions of those relationships were set forth.\nPerhaps it would have been better if we had started to say \"New\nCovenant\" where we now say \"New Testament.\" At any rate the idea\nalluded to in the name is the inspiring idea, realized in Christ,\nof an alliance with God. The New Testament is the divine treaty by\nthe terms of which God has received us rebels and enemies into peace\nwith himself.\n\n\n2. ONE BOOK, OR A COLLECTION OF BOOKS?\n\nIn the first place, the New Testament may be treated in every\nrespect as a single book. That course is adopted by many of the most\ndevoted lovers of the Bible. By them the Bible is treated simply\nas a textbook of religion. Passages are quoted indiscriminately\nfrom all parts of it, without much regard to the context. The wide\ndifferences of form and of spirit among the various books are\nignored. The historical implications of the books are of course\naccepted as true, but practically they are left quite unassimilated.\n\nNow let us be quite plain about one thing. The men who use the Bible\nin this way are right in the main point. They treat the Bible as the\nguide of life for time and for eternity. And if by the use of the\nBible we can come into communion with God, we can afford to miss a\ngood many other things. Nevertheless, the Bible is as a matter of\nfact not a mere textbook of religion, and if we treat it as such we\nmiss much of its richness. If the Bible were merely a systematic\ntreatise, it would be far easier to interpret. The interpreter\nwould be spared a great deal of trouble, but the burden would be\nheaped upon the preacher. As it is, the Bible is itself a preacher,\nbecause it is in such close contact with the actual experience of\nmen of flesh and blood. Its general teachings are given us in large\nmeasure only through the medium of history, through the medium\nof example. In order to arrive at the general truths, therefore,\nintellectual labor is often necessary. God has made things harder\nfor the intellect that he may strike home the more surely to the\nheart. If Paul had written a systematic theology, the New Testament\nway of salvation might in some ways have been plainer than it is.\nIt would have been plain to the intellect, but it would have needed\ninterpretation to the heart. Conviction can be wrought only by\nthe immediate impact of personal life. The theology of Paul, of\nitself, might be a dead thing; the religious experience of Paul,\ninterwoven with his theology, and bared before us in the epistles,\nis irresistible.\n\nIn the second place, the historical form of the Bible may be\nconsidered at the expense of its spiritual content. The Bible may\nbe treated simply as a storybook. Such a method of treatment is\nexceedingly common to-day. \"The Bible as literature\" is its slogan.\nThis treatment has simply missed the main point altogether. It\nis incomparably inferior to that treatment which takes the Bible\nas a mere textbook of religion. The Bible as an addition to the\nworld's history or the world's literature has, indeed, considerable\neducational value. But it does not give eternal life.\n\nA third method is possible, and that third method is right. The\nhistorical and literary form of the Bible is recognized to the full.\nBut it is regarded not as an end in itself, but as a means to an\nend. Historical study is necessary not only to establish to the\nmodern man the saving facts of the gospel, but also to do justice\nto the dramatic narrative form in which God has revealed to us his\neternal will.\n\nIt is nearer the truth, then, to say that the New Testament is\na single book than to say that it is a collection of books. Its\nparts differ widely among themselves, in authorship, in date, in\ncircumstances, in aim. Those differences must be studied carefully,\nif the full meaning is to be obtained. But widely as the New\nTestament writings differ among themselves, they differ yet far more\nwidely from all other books. They presented themselves originally to\nthe Church with a divine authority, which is foreign to the ordinary\nwritings of men. That authority has been confirmed through the\nChristian centuries. Those who have submitted their lives to the New\nTestament have never been confounded. The New Testament has been to\nthem the voice of God.\n\n\n3. THE FOUR DIVISIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\n\n(1) THE GOSPELS.--Christianity is based upon historical facts.\nAttempts, it is true, are often made to separate it from history.\nBut they are bound to result in failure. Give up history, and\nyou can retain some things. But you can never retain a gospel.\nFor \"gospel\" means \"good news,\" and \"good news\" means tidings,\ninformation derived from the witness of others. In other words, it\nmeans history. The question whether religion can be independent of\nhistory is really just the old question whether we need a gospel.\nThe gospel is news that something has happened--something that\nputs a different face upon life. What that something is is told\nus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is the life and death and\nresurrection of Jesus Christ.\n\n(2) THE BOOK OF THE ACTS.--The Book of The Acts is a history of the\nextension of Christianity from Jerusalem out into the Gentile world.\nIt represents that extension as guided by the Spirit of God, and\nthus exhibits the divine warrant for the acceptance of us Gentiles,\nand for the development of the Christian Church. It provides the\noutline of apostolic history without which we could not understand\nthe other New Testament books, especially the epistles of Paul. It\nillustrates to the full what has been said above about the value of\nthe historical form in which the Bible teaching is presented. By\nreading this vivid narrative we obtain an impression of the power of\nthe Holy Spirit which no systematic treatise could give.\n\n(3) THE EPISTLES.--The Epistles of the New Testament are not just\nliterature put in an epistolary form, but real letters. It is true\nthat the addresses of some of them are very broad, for example,\nthose of James and of I Peter; and that some of them contain no\nspecific address at all, for example, Hebrews and I John. But the\ngreat majority of them, at least, were written under very special\ncircumstances and intended to be read first by very definite people.\n\nThe chief letter-writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul.\nTo a certain extent he used the forms of letter-writing of his time,\njust as everyone to-day begins a letter with \"Dear Sir.\" Within the\nlast twenty years a great number of Greek private letters, dating\nfrom about the time of Paul, have been discovered in Egypt, where\nthey have been preserved by the dry climate. It is interesting to\ncompare them with the letters of Paul. There are some striking\nsimilarities in language; for both these letter-writers and Paul\nused the natural language of daily life rather than the extremely\nartificial language of the literature of that period. To a certain\nextent, also, Paul used the same epistolary forms. The differences,\nhowever, are even more instructive than the resemblances. It is\ntrue, the Pauline epistles are not literary treatises, but real\nletters. But on the other hand they are not ordinary private letters\nintended to be read and thrown away, like the letters that have\nbeen discovered in Egypt. Most of them were intended to be read\noriginally in churches. It is natural, then, that they should have\nbeen written in a loftier style than is to be found in mere business\ncommunications and the like. And if Paul uses the epistolary forms\nof his time he uses them in an entirely new way. Even the mere\nopenings of the epistles are made the vehicle of Christian truth.\n\"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus\nChrist\"--there is nothing like that in contemporary letter-writing.\nThe openings of the Pauline epistles form an interesting study.\nThey are varied with wonderful skill to suit the varied character\nand subject matter of the letters that follow. Paul is never merely\nformal.\n\nThe letters of Paul differ widely among themselves. The Epistle\nto the Romans is almost a systematic exposition of the plan of\nsalvation. Philemon is concerned with a little personal matter\nbetween Paul and one of his converts. But even where Paul is most\ntheological he is personal, and even where he is most personal, he\nis faithful to his theology. Theology in him is never separate from\nexperience, and experience never separate from theology. Even petty\nproblems he settles always in the light of eternal principles. Hence\nhis letters, though the specific circumstances that gave rise to\nthem are past and gone, will never be antiquated.\n\n(4) THE APOCALYPSE.--The Christian life is a life of hope. Inwardly\nwe are free, but our freedom is not yet fully realized. We are in\ndanger of losing our hope in the trials or in the mere humdrum of\nlife. To keep it alive, the Apocalypse opens a glorious vision of\nthe future. The vision is presented in symbolical language. It is\nnot intended to help in any calculation of the times and seasons.\nBut it shows us the Lamb upon the throne--and that is enough.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on\n\"Bible,\" \"Canon of the New Testament,\" \"Covenant,\" \"New Testament,\"\nand \"Testament.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON II\n\nTHE ROMAN BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n\nChristianity is not a human product. It is not to be explained by\nwhat preceded it on the earth. It is a new beginning in history, an\nimmediate exercise of the divine power.\n\nBut though Christianity was not produced by men, it operates upon\nmen, and upon men subject to all the ordinary conditions of earthly\nlife. Primitive Christianity, then, which we shall study this year,\ncannot be understood fully without an examination of the historical\nconditions under which it arose.\n\nIn the class, the lesson should probably be approached through\nthe New Testament examples of the general principles which are\noutlined in the lesson helps. Examples will be found in the passages\nassigned in the Student's Text Book, and others should be sought for\nelsewhere.\n\n\n1. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EMPIRE\n\nBy the middle of the first century before Christ the power of the\nRoman republic extended around the Mediterranean Sea. Victories\nabroad, however, were accompanied by serious troubles at home. The\nincrease of wealth and the importation of slave labor had produced\nunfortunate social conditions. The realm had become too large\nto be administered adequately by the old republican government.\nIndividuals sometimes obtained practical control of affairs, and\nthe state was torn by civil wars. Finally, in 49 B. C., Julius\nC\u00e6sar entered Rome at the head of an army, and Roman liberty was at\nan end. After the assassination of C\u00e6sar in 44 B. C., there was a\nsuccession of civil wars, and then, by the victory of Actium in 31\nB. C., Octavius, who later assumed the name of Augustus, became sole\nruler. Augustus died in A. D. 14.\n\nSubsequent emperors during the first century were: Tiberius (A. D.\n14-37), Caligula (A. D. 37-41), Claudius (A. D. 41-54), Nero (A.\nD. 54-68), Galba, Otho and Vitellius (A. D. 69), Vespasian (A. D.\n69-79), Titus (A. D. 79-81), Domitian (A. D. 81-96), Nerva (A. D.\n96-98), Trajan (A. D. 98-117).\n\n\n2. ROMAN ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE EMPIRE\n\nThe general advantages of the Roman imperial government have been\nconsidered in the Student's Text Book. It will here be advisable\nto consider one or two features a little more in detail. Much of\nwhat follows can be illustrated from the New Testament; for the\nacquaintance of New Testament writers, especially of Luke, with\nRoman administration is not only accurate but also minute. The\nstudents should be encouraged to seek New Testament illustrations\nfor themselves.\n\n(1) THE PROVINCES.--The provinces of the empire are to be\ndistinguished from the territories of subject kings or princes.\nThe latter were quite subservient to Rome, but were given more\nindependence of administration. A good example of such a subject\nking, theoretically an ally, but in reality a vassal, was Herod the\nGreat, who ruled over all Palestine till 4 B. C.\n\nThe provinces themselves were divided into two great\nclasses--imperial provinces and senatorial provinces.\n\nThe imperial provinces were under the immediate control of the\nemperor. They were governed by \"legates,\" who had no regular term of\noffice, but served at the emperor's pleasure. The imperial provinces\nwere those in which, on account of unsettled conditions, or for the\ndefense of the empire, large bodies of troops had to be maintained.\nThus, by keeping the appointment of the legates exclusively in\nhis own hands, the emperor retained the direct control of the\nall-important power of the army. A good example of an imperial\nprovince is the great province of Syria, with capital at Antioch.\nPalestine was more or less under the supervision of the Syrian\nlegate.\n\nDistricts different from the great imperial provinces, but, like\nthem, under the immediate control of the emperor, were governed by\n\"procurators.\" Judea, from A. D. 6 to A. D. 41, and from A. D. 44\non, is an example.\n\nThe senatorial provinces were governed by \"proconsuls,\" chosen by\nlot from among the members of the Senate. The proconsuls served for\nonly one year. Even over these provinces and their governors the\nemperor retained the fullest supervisory authority. The senatorial\nprovinces composed the central and more settled portions of the\nempire, where large standing armies would not be needed. Examples\nare Achaia, with capital at Corinth, and Cyprus with capital at\nPaphos. Proconsuls of both of these provinces are mentioned in the\nNew Testament by name.\n\n(2) LOCAL GOVERNMENT.--The Romans did not attempt to introduce\nperfect uniformity throughout the empire. The original Greek unit of\npolitical life was the city, and Greek cities were scattered over\nthe east before the Roman conquest. With regard to local affairs,\nmany of the cities retained a certain amount of independence. It\nis interesting to observe the local peculiarities of the cities\ndescribed in The Acts.\n\nIn addition to the Greek cities, many of which were more or less\n\"free\" in local affairs, many \"Roman colonies\" had been established\nhere and there throughout the empire. The original colonists were\noften veterans of the Roman armies. Of course the populations soon\ncame to be mixed, but Roman traditions were cultivated in the\ncolonies more than elsewhere. A number of the cities of The Acts\nwere colonies, and one, Philippi, is expressly declared to be such.\nActs 16:12. In that city the Roman character of the magistrates\nappears clearly from the Lucan narrative. There were \"pr\u00e6tors\" and\n\"lictors.\"\n\n(3) ROMAN CITIZENSHIP.--Before New Testament times Roman citizenship\nhad been extended to all Italy. Italy, therefore, was not a province\nor group of provinces, but was regarded as a part of Rome. Outside\nof Italy Roman citizenship was a valuable special privilege. It\nraised a man above the mass of the provincial population. Some of\nthe advantages of it appear clearly in the New Testament narrative.\nBecause Paul was a Roman citizen he was legally exempt from the most\ndegrading forms of punishment, and had a right to appeal to the\ncourt of the emperor. Roman citizenship was sometimes acquired by\nmoney, but Paul inherited it from his father.\n\n\n3. ROMAN RELIGION\n\nUnder the empire, Rome was possessed of a state religion. The\nancient gods of the republic were retained. There were great\ndivinities like Jupiter and Mars, and there were numberless private\ndivinities of individual households. The ancient religion had,\nindeed, undergone modifications. New divinities in plenty had been\nreceived. But the reception of the new did not involve abolition\nof the old. On the contrary, the gods of other peoples could be\naccepted just because they were regarded as nothing but the Roman\ngods under different names. Thus, long before the Christian era,\nthere had been a thoroughgoing identification of the gods of Greece\nwith the gods of Rome. The Greek Zeus, for example, was identified\nwith the Roman Jupiter; the Greek Ares with the Roman Mars. The gods\nof countries other than Greece were also received, though, as far as\nthe city of Rome was concerned, with some conservatism.\n\nIn the Roman world, religion was a national affair. Worship of the\nnational gods was not only piety, but also patriotism. Patriotism\nand religion were inseparably connected. Support of the gods of\nRome, even where personal faith in them had been undermined, was\nconsidered to be the duty of every loyal citizen.\n\nThe political aspect of Roman religion appears most clearly in the\nworship of the Roman emperors. This remarkable development appears\nfrom the beginning of the empire. Augustus, indeed, refused to\nreceive divine honors, at least in the west. But in the east even he\nwas worshiped, and as time went on the reluctance of the emperors\ndisappeared. Some of the worst of the emperors were most insistent\nupon their own divinity.\n\nPerhaps the first impulse of the modern man is to regard the C\u00e6sar\ncult simply as a particularly despicable form of flattery. In\nreality it was more than that. It was not established by imperial\nedict. It was not dictated primarily by servile fear. The Greek\ninhabitants of the empire really regarded Augustus as their saviour.\nAnd so he was, as far as any man could be. He saved them from the\nmiseries of civil war, and from the rapacity of the degenerate\nrepublic; he gave them peace and happiness. And they responded by\nregarding him as a god.\n\nTo them it was natural. To them it was nothing new. Alexander the\nGreat had been regarded as a god long before the Christian era. His\nsuccessors in Syria and in Egypt had also received divine honors.\nTo the genuine Romans, the thing did not come so easy. The C\u00e6sar\ncult, at least at first, was not developed in the west. But even the\nRomans could worship the emperor's \"genius\" or spirit, and from that\nto the actual worship of the emperor was but a step. Essential to\nthe whole process of deification, both in Rome and in the east, was\nthe close connection in ancient thinking between deity and humanity,\nand between religion and the state. If patriotism is religion, then\nthe king is a god.\n\nThe C\u00e6sar cult was the most palpable incorporation of the state\nreligion. Worship of the emperor, therefore, might well be the\ntest of loyalty to Rome. It could be practiced by skeptics and\nphilosophers. It could be practiced by the devotees of all\nreligions--save two. Jews and Christians alone could not bow at the\nemperor's shrine, for their God was a God who could brook no rival.\nHe was not merely the greatest among many. He was the only Lord,\nMaker of heaven and earth.\n\n\n4. THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND SUBSEQUENT HISTORY\n\nBetween Christianity and the Roman state, with its official\nreligion, a life-and-death struggle was inevitable. But in the\nprovidence of God it was delayed. The empire was used not to crush\nChristianity but to open the world before it.\n\nBut was the empire really identical with the world? It seemed so\nto the Romans and to the Greeks. To them the empire was the world.\nAnd they were right. Not, of course, in a literal sense. In the\nfirst century after Christ, vast civilizations--for example the\ncivilization of China--were already in existence. There were great\npeoples of whom the Romans had never heard. But Roman arrogance\nhas at last been vindicated. For Rome was in reality the key to\nsubsequent history. Rome was the parent of Europe, and Europe\nis moving the world. Even China is at last being opened to the\ncivilization of Rome. The Romans were right. He who could master\nRome would be master, one day, of the world.\n\nIt has been a long process. But God's plans are sure. Christianity\nappeared at the one time when the world was open before it. By the\npower of the divine Spirit it conquered the empire. The empire\ndominated its barbarian conquerors. The barbarians are the parents\nof modern civilization. Modern civilization is invading the earth's\nremotest bounds. China, at last, is within our ken. Realms long\nclosed have at last been opened. Another great opportunity! An\nopportunity for greed and selfishness! An opportunity for a dismal\nskepticism! And an opportunity for the Church of God!\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Hastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Adeney,\narticle on \"C\u00e6sar\"; Gwatkin, articles on \"Roman Empire,\" and \"Rome.\"\nHastings, \"Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics\": Iverach, article\non \"C\u00e6sarism.\" Westcott, \"The Two Empires,\" in \"The Epistles of St.\nJohn,\" pp. 250-282. Ramsay, \"The Cities of St. Paul,\" pp. 48-81.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON III\n\nTHE GREEK BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n\nThe purpose of the present lesson is to make the student feel that\nthe gospel was from the beginning a real gospel in a real world. If\nwe isolate the early preaching from its environment, we make it seem\nlike an unreal thing. Study of New Testament times makes the New\nTestament itself become a more living, a more interesting book.\n\nIn the Student's Text Book an outline of the Hellenistic age has\nbeen provided. It has been supplemented below by illustrative\nmaterial. But in the class the lesson can probably be best\napproached from the side of the New Testament itself. In what\nlanguages is the Bible written? How did the New Testament come to\nbe written in Greek? What other languages are mentioned in the New\nTestament? What light do these passages shed upon the linguistic\nconditions of the time? What is the attitude of the apostles toward\nGreek thought? Is that attitude altogether unfavorable, or did the\nearly missionaries ever lay hold upon the higher aspirations of\ntheir Gentile hearers (Athens)? Where did the missionaries come into\ncontact with heathen superstition? (Several fine examples in The\nActs). What was the moral condition of the Greco-Roman world? How\nwas the Hellenistic age like our own? Why did God send our Lord just\nin the first century? What was the social condition of the early\nChristians? Do you think that was an advantage or a disadvantage?\nWhat men of higher position are mentioned in the New Testament?\nQuestions like these will serve to relate the general expositions\nin the lesson helps to the New Testament itself. The lesson helps\nare intended to provide merely the presuppositions necessary for\nintelligent study. God working for real men in a real world--that is\nthe subject of the lesson.\n\n\n1. THE HELLENISTIC AGE\n\nThe Greek world culture which prevailed after the conquest of\nAlexander was widely different from the Greek life of the classical\nperiod. The earlier period is called the \"Hellenic\" period, the\nlater period is designated as \"Hellenistic.\" When Greek thought\nmade itself master of the world, it became mingled with numberless\nforeign elements. The mixture appears most clearly, perhaps, in\nthe sphere of religion. Polytheism was capable of indefinite\nexpansion. New gods could easily be identified with the old, or else\nbe received along with them without a conflict. The religion of\nthe Greco-Roman world is therefore different from that of ancient\nGreece. It is a curious mixture of the most diverse beliefs.\nNevertheless, the whole deserves to be called Hellenistic, because\neven the most strikingly non-Grecian elements were usually subjected\nmore or less to the subtle molding of the Greek spirit.\n\nThe Hellenistic age used to be despised, but among modern scholars\nit is coming into its own. Its literary products are admittedly\ninferior to the glories of the earlier age, but even in literature\nits achievements are not to be despised, and in other spheres it is\nsupreme. Notably in mathematics and in natural science it was the\ngolden age. Euclid, the geometrician, lived three centuries before\nChrist.\n\nThe learning of the Hellenistic age was centered in Alexandria in\nEgypt, a city which had been founded by Alexander the Great. Athens\nhad, perhaps, ceased to possess the primacy. That fact is typical\nof the time. Greek culture had ceased to belong to Greece in the\nnarrower sense. It had become a possession of the world. The great\nlibrary of Alexandria was a sign of the times. The Hellenistic age\nwas an age of widespread learning.\n\nWhen Rome became master of the eastern world, conditions were not\nfundamentally changed. Rome merely hastened a process that was\nalready at work. Already the nations had been brought together by\nthe spread of Greek culture; Roman law merely added the additional\nbond of political unity. The Roman legions were missionaries of an\nall-pervading Hellenism.\n\nThe Greco-Roman world was astonishingly modern. It was modern in its\ncosmopolitanism. In our own time the nations have again been brought\ntogether. The external agencies for their welding are far more\nperfect to-day than they were under the empire. Even the Roman roads\nwould be but a poor substitute for the railroad and the telegraph\nand the steamship. But on the other hand we lack the bond of a\ncommon language. In some ways the civilized world was even more of a\nunit in the first century than it is to-day.\n\nThe cosmopolitanism of the Roman Empire was a God-given opportunity\nfor the Church. In a cosmopolitan age, if a man has something\nto say, he will not lack for an audience. His message will be\nunderstood in one place as well as in another. The lesson is obvious\nfor the Church of to-day. Again God has opened the world before us.\nIf we have a message, in God's name let us proclaim it while yet\nthere is time.\n\n\n2. THE GREEK BIBLE\n\nThe Church originated in Palestine. The first missionaries were\nnative Jews. Yet even they had been affected by the cosmopolitanism\nof the time. Even they could use Greek, in addition to their native\nlanguage. And Paul, the greatest of the missionaries, though a Jew,\nwas a citizen of a Greek city. The Church from the beginning was\nable to speak to the larger world.\n\nOne difficulty might possibly have arisen. The Christian mission\nwas not carried on merely by the oral word. From the beginning\nChristianity was a religion with a Book. And that Book was not\nGreek. On the contrary it was intensely un-Grecian. The Old\nTestament is intolerant of heathen ideas. It is deeply rooted in the\nlife of the chosen people. How could a Hebrew book be used in the\nGreek world?\n\nThe difficulty might have been serious. But in the providence of\nGod it had been overcome. The Old Testament was a Hebrew book, but\nbefore the Christian era it had been translated into Greek. From the\nbeginning Christianity was provided with a Greek Bible. It is always\ndifficult to make a new translation of the Bible. Every missionary\nknows that. The introduction of a new translation takes time. It\nwas fortunate, then, that a Greek-speaking Church had a Greek Bible\nready to hand.\n\nEverything was prepared for the gospel. God's time had come. Roman\nrule had brought peace. Greek culture had produced unity of speech.\nThere was a Greek world, there were Greek-speaking missionaries, and\nthere was a Greek Bible. In the first century, the salvation that\nwas of the Jews could become a salvation for the whole world.\n\n\n3. THE PAPYRI\n\nThe world in which the gospel was proclaimed is deserving of careful\nstudy. How shall it be investigated?\n\nThe most obvious way is to study the literature of the period.\nUntil recent years that was almost the only way. But that method\nis partial at best. For literature is after all but an imperfect\nmeasure of any age. The society that is found in books is an\nidealized society, or at any rate it is the society of the great.\nThe plain man is unrecorded. His deeds are not deemed worthy of a\nplace in history.\n\nWithin the last thirty years, however, the plain people of the\nancient world have come remarkably into view. They are revealed to\nus in the \"non-literary papyri.\"\n\n\"Papyri\" are pieces of papyrus. Papyrus was the common writing\nmaterial of antiquity up to about A. D. 300, when vellum, or\nparchment, came into general use. Unfortunately papyrus, which was\nmade from the pith of the papyrus plant, is not a very durable\nsubstance, so that ancient papyri have been preserved until\nmodern times only under exceptionally favorable conditions. These\nconditions are found in Egypt, where the dry climate has kept the\npapyrus from disintegration.\n\nIn Egypt, within the last thirty years, have been discovered large\nnumbers of papyrus sheets with Greek writing. Of these the \"literary\npapyri\" contain simply parts of books. They differ from other copies\nof the works in question only in that they are usually older than\nthe vellum manuscripts. The \"non-literary papyri,\" on the other\nhand, are unique. They are private documents of all sorts--receipts,\npetitions, wills, contracts, census returns, and most interesting\nof all, private letters. It was usually not intended that these\ndocuments should be preserved. They were simply thrown away upon\nrubbish heaps or used as wrappings of mummies. They have been\npreserved only by chance.\n\nThe non-literary papyri are important first of all in the study\nof language. They exhibit the language of everyday life, as\ndistinguished from the language of literature. The language of\nliterature always differs more or less from the language used on\nthe street, and the difference was particularly wide in the Greek\nof the Hellenistic period. The books of the time were modeled to a\nconsiderable extent upon the ancient classics, but the actual spoken\nlanguage had been changing. Hence the literary language had become\nexceedingly artificial.\n\nUp to within the last few years, the literary language alone could\nbe studied. The books of the period were preserved, but the language\nof daily life was gone. Now, however, the papyri supply what was\nlacking. In them there is no attempt at style. They are composed in\nthe language which was employed in the ordinary affairs of life and\npreserve the actual spoken language of every day.\n\nAt this point a remarkable fact must be noticed. The language of\nthe New Testament is more like the language of the non-literary\npapyri than it is like the language of contemporary literature.\nThe papyri indicate, therefore, that the New Testament is composed\nin the natural living language of the time rather than according\nto the canons of an artificial rhetoric. The artlessness of the\nNew Testament has sometimes been regarded as a reproach. Instead,\nit is a cause for rejoicing. The simplicity of the gospel would\nonly be concealed by niceties of style. The greatness of the New\nTestament is independent of literary art. It would be a mistake,\nhowever, to suppose that the New Testament, because it is composed\nin the language of the people, is characterized by anything like\ncheapness or vulgarity. On the contrary its simplicity is the noble\nsimplicity of truth. In the New Testament the spoken language of the\nGreco-Roman world, in all its living freshness, becomes a worthy\nvehicle for the sublimest thoughts.\n\nThe non-literary papyri, then, reproduce for us the spoken language\nof the time as distinguished from the artificial language of\nliterature. But that does not exhaust their importance. They afford\na knowledge not only of language, but also of life. Through them\nordinary people are revealed in the ordinary relations of every day.\nIn them, the ancient world has been made to live again.\n\nA few examples (see the book of Professor Milligan mentioned at\nthe end of the lesson) will serve to indicate the character of the\npapyrus letters.\n\nThe following boy's letter (of the second or the third century after\nChrist) is written in very bad grammar, but is for that reason all\nthe more lifelike. (The translation is taken from Grenfell and Hunt,\n\"Oxyrhynchus Papyri,\" Part i., p. 186.)\n\n\"Theon to his father Theon, greeting. It was a fine thing of you\nnot to take me with you to the city! If you won't take me with you\nto Alexandria I won't write you a letter or speak to you or say\ngood-by to you; and if you go to Alexandria I won't take your hand\nnor ever greet you again. That is what will happen if you won't take\nme. Mother said to Archalaus, 'It quite upsets him to be left behind\n(?).' It was good of you to send me presents ... on the 12th, the\nday you sailed. Send me a lyre, I implore you. If you don't, I won't\neat, I won't drink; there now!\"\n\nThe following invitation to dinner, of the second century after\nChrist, throws light upon I Corinthians (the translation taken from\nProfessor Milligan):\n\n\"Antonius, son of Ptolem\u00e6us, invites you to dine with him at the\ntable of the lord Serapis in the house of Claudius Serapion on the\n16th at 9 o'clock.\"\n\n\"The lord Serapis\" is a god. Even an ordinary dinner party seems\nthus to be regarded as the table of Serapis. Under such conditions\nthe Christian life must have been hard to lead. No wonder the\nCorinthian Christians had to ask Paul questions. Even the ordinary\naffairs of life were intimately connected with a false religion.\nWhat should the attitude of the Christians be? Where should they\ndraw the line in associating with their heathen friends?\n\n\n4. A REAL GOSPEL IN A REAL WORLD\n\nThe people that are introduced to us so intimately in the papyri\nare probably very fair representatives of the people among whom the\ngospel was first proclaimed. In that cosmopolitan age the society\nof Egyptian towns was probably not so very different from that of\nCorinth. The people of the papyri are not the great men of the time;\nthey are just plain folk. But the early Christians were also usually\nnot of exalted social position, though there were exceptions. \"Not\nmany wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble\" were\ncalled. I Cor. 1:26. Many of the early Christians were slaves, many\nwere humble tradesmen. The same classes appear in the papyri. In the\npapyri we are introduced into the private lives of the men to whom\nthe gospel was proclaimed. Seeing, but unseen, hidden as by a magic\ncap, we watch them in their most intimate affairs. And we come away\nwith a new feeling of the reality of early Christian history. These\nmen were not so very different from ourselves. They were real men\nand women, living in a real world. And they needed a real gospel.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Hastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible,\" extra volume:\nRamsay, article on \"Religion of Greece,\" pp. 109-156, especially\npp. 135-156. Milligan, \"Selections from the Greek Papyri,\" (with\ntranslations). Deissmann, \"The Philology of the Greek Bible,\" pp.\n1-63, 144-147. Ramsay, \"The Cities of St. Paul,\" pp. 1-47. Browning,\n\"Cleon,\" (vol. iv, pp. 115-122 of the Riverside Edition.)\n\n\n\n\nLESSON IV\n\nTHE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY\n\nI. PALESTINIAN JUDAISM\n\n\n1. SOURCES\n\nThe New Testament is one of the chief sources of information about\nthe Palestinian Judaism of the first century. Other important\nsources are the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian,\nand the Mishna. The Mishna is a collection of Jewish interpretations\nof the Mosaic law. In its written form it is thought to have been\nproduced at the end of the second century, but it contains a mass of\nearlier material which had been preserved by oral tradition.\n\n\n2. OUTLINE OF JEWISH HISTORY\n\nAfter the conclusion of the Old Testament period the Jewish nation\nhad undergone important changes. If, therefore, the Judaism of the\nfirst century is to be understood, the student must have in mind at\nleast a bare outline of the history between the Testaments.\n\nOld Testament history closes with the rebuilding of the walls of\nJerusalem and the reorganization of the national life which took\nplace under Ezra and Nehemiah in the fifth century before Christ.\nAt that time Judah, or \"Judea,\" was the only part of Palestine\nwhich was occupied by the Jews, and they occupied it only as\nvassals--though with independence in internal affairs--of the kings\nof Persia.\n\nThe Persian dominion continued for over a century. Then, in the\nlatter part of the fourth century before Christ, Judea was conquered\nby Alexander the Great. For some hundred years after the death of\nAlexander, the country was a bone of contention between the kings of\nEgypt and the kings of Syria--that is, between the Ptolemies and the\nSeleucids. At the beginning of the second century before Christ the\nking of Syria won a permanent victory.\n\nUnder the Ptolemies and at first under the Seleucids, as well\nas under the Persians, the Jews enjoyed a considerable measure\nof independence in the management of their own affairs. Their\nreligion, in particular, was left quite unmolested. But the\nassimilation which was not being accomplished by force was being\naccomplished by peaceful influences. The all-pervasive Greek culture\nof the period was making itself felt in Palestine as well as\nelsewhere. Judea seemed to be in danger of being Hellenized.\n\nUnder the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria (175-164 B. C.),\nhowever, the policy of toleration was suddenly interrupted.\nAntiochus tried to stamp out the Jewish religion by force. The\nresult was a heroic uprising led by Mattathias and his sons, who\nare called the Maccabees. The tyranny of Antiochus had caused a\nmighty popular reaction against the Hellenizing party among the\nJews. Devotion to the religion of Israel with exclusion of foreign\ninfluences was ever afterwards the dominant tendency in Jewish\nhistory.\n\nThe Maccabees were at first wonderfully successful against\noverwhelming odds; and when the opposing forces seemed at last to\nhave become too powerful, internal conflicts at the Syrian court\ngave the Jewish patriots that independence which they could probably\nnot otherwise have maintained. Rulers belonging to the Maccabean\ndynasty governed the Jewish nation for about a hundred years, during\nmost of which period they were independent. Their territory at first\nembraced only Judea, but was gradually enlarged over the other parts\nof Palestine. Galilee, which--since the destruction of the northern\nIsraelitish kingdom centuries before--had become predominantly\nGentile, was Judaized under Aristobulus I in 104-103 B. C. Before\nthe time of Christ it had become thoroughly Jewish.\n\nUnfortunately the worldly power of the Maccabees had brought\nworldliness of spirit. The first revolt had been undertaken from a\nlofty religious motive, in order to maintain the worship of Jehovah.\nAs the years went on, the Maccabean rulers became increasingly\nengrossed in the extension of political power. Allying themselves\nwith the aristocratic party among the Jews, they came to favor the\nextension of those Greek influences--though not in the sphere of\nreligion--which at first they had opposed. Under Queen Alexandra\n(76-67 B. C.) it is true, there was a reaction. The strictly Jewish,\nanti-Hellenistic party again became dominant. But under Alexandra's\nsuccessors there was civil strife, and the all-conquering Romans\nfound the country an easy prey. Pompey took possession of Jerusalem\nin 63 B. C.\n\nThe years that followed saw the gradual rise of the family of\nHerod the Great, who, as vassal of the Romans, became king of all\nPalestine in 37 B. C. and ruled until 4 B. C. Herod was an Idum\u00e6an,\nnot a genuine Jew. Idum\u00e6a, however, the country to the south of\nJudah, had been Judaized some time before. Herod was at heart a\nHellenist. He built Greek theaters and amphitheaters not only in the\nnumerous Greek cities in or near Palestine, but also in Jerusalem\nitself. Nevertheless he was wise enough to support the Jewish\nreligion and generally to respect the customs of the people. His\nmagnificent rebuilding of the temple was probably intended chiefly\nto win popular favor.\n\nAt Herod's death, his territory was divided among his sons.\nArchelaus was given Judea, Antipas--the \"Herod\" of Jesus' public\nministry--received Galilee and Perea, with the title of \"Tetrarch,\"\nand Philip received certain territories to the east of Galilee.\nArchelaus was banished in A. D. 6, Antipas was banished in A. D.\n39, and Philip died in A. D. 33. After the banishment of Archelaus,\nJudea was administered by Roman procurators till A. D. 41, when all\nPalestine was given to Herod Agrippa I. Acts 12:1-4,18-23. After A.\nD. 44, procurators were again in control.\n\nThe misgovernment of the procurators led to the great revolt in A.\nD. 66. After four years of war, Jerusalem was taken by the Roman\narmy in A. D. 70. The temple was destroyed, and the offering of\nsacrifices ceased. The destruction of the temple marks an epoch in\nJewish history. Henceforth the national center was gone.\n\nThere was another uprising in A. D. 132-135, but that was the last.\nA Gentile city was erected on the ruins of Jerusalem, and for a\nconsiderable time at least the Jews were forbidden even to enter its\nprecincts.\n\n\n3. ADMINISTRATION AND PARTIES\n\nAfter the return from the Exile, the priests occupied a position\nof leadership. The high priest, whose office was hereditary, was\npractically head of the Jewish state. With him was associated a\ncouncil, composed of members of the priestly aristocracy. This state\nof affairs prevailed during the Persian and Greek periods. Under the\nMaccabees the power of the high priest reached its highest point.\nFor after a time the Maccabean rulers themselves assumed the title\nof high priest, and still later the title of king. The high priest,\nthen, under the Maccabees, was also king. Under Herod the Great, on\nthe contrary, the high priesthood sank to its lowest ebb. Herod made\nand unmade high priests at pleasure.\n\nThe council associated with the high priest was, under Alexandra,\nopened to the members of the strict anti-Hellenistic party. At the\ntime of Christ it included both Pharisees and Sadducees.\n\nThese parties became distinct at the time of the Maccabees. The\nSadducees--the origin of the name is not altogether clear--were\nthe aristocratic party, hospitable to Greek culture. The Pharisees\nwere the strict Jewish party, devoted to the law, and opposed to\nforeign influences. The name \"Pharisee\" means \"separated.\" The\nPharisees were \"separated\" from the mass of the people by a stricter\nobservance of the Mosaic law. At first the Pharisees supported the\nMaccabean leaders; for the Maccabean revolt was in the interests\nof the Jewish religion. But when the Maccabees became engrossed in\nworldly politics and susceptible to Greek influences the Pharisees\nopposed them. At the time of Christ the essential characteristics of\nthe parties remained unchanged.\n\n\n4. LANGUAGE\n\nSome centuries before Christ, Hebrew had ceased to be the ordinary\nlanguage of Palestine. As the language of the Old Testament it\ncontinued to be studied. Old Testament passages in Hebrew were\nread in the synagogue. Hebrew was used also to some extent as the\nlanguage of learned discussion. But for all ordinary purposes its\nplace had been taken by Aramaic, a language of the Semitic family\nclosely related to Hebrew. At the time of Christ Aramaic was the\nspoken language of the Palestinian Jews. Even in the synagogues,\nthe Old Testament passages, after having been read in Hebrew,\nwere translated orally into the language which the people could\nunderstand.\n\nBut, since the time of Alexander the Great, another language had\nmade its way into Palestine along with Aramaic. This was the Greek.\nThe kingdoms into which Alexander's empire was divided were Greek\nkingdoms. Two of them, Syria and Egypt, bore rule alternately over\nPalestine. With the Greek government came Greek culture and the\nGreek language. Then, under Antiochus Epiphanes, there was a mighty\nreaction. Thereafter religion, at least, was kept altogether free\nfrom Greek influences.\n\nIn other spheres, however, under the Maccabean kings and still more\nunder the Romans, Greek culture effected an entrance. At the time\nof Christ there were typical Greek cities not only to the east of\nthe Jordan in Decapolis, where magnificent ruins even to-day attest\nthe ancient Greco-Roman civilization, and not only along the coast\nof the Mediterranean, but even within the confines of Palestine\nproper. With some truth Palestine in the first century may be called\na bilingual country. Greek and Aramaic were both in use.\n\nAramaic was the language of the mass of the people. Many, no doubt,\ncould speak no other language. But if a man desired to make his way\nin the world in any public capacity or in trade he would be obliged\nto learn the cosmopolitan language of the time. No doubt very many\ncould speak both languages.\n\nJesus and his apostles belonged to those circles which were least\naffected by the encroachments of Greek civilization. The whole\natmosphere of the Gospels is as un-Greek as could be imagined. As is\nproved by the presence of Aramaic words even in our Greek Gospels,\nAramaic was undoubtedly the language in which the gospel was\noriginally proclaimed. Aramaic was the language of Jesus' boyhood\nhome, and Aramaic was the language of his intercourse with the\ndisciples and of his public preaching.\n\nIt is perfectly possible, however, that even Jesus may have used\nGreek upon rare occasions, for example in conversation with Pilate,\nthe Roman procurator. His disciples, after the resurrection,\nfound themselves at the head of a Greek-speaking community. The\nearly Church in Jerusalem was composed not only of \"Hebrews,\" but\nalso of \"Grecians,\" or Hellenists. Acts 6:1. The Hellenists were\nGreek-speaking Jews of the dispersion who were sojourning more or\nless permanently in the holy city. The apostles seem to have entered\nupon their new functions without difficulty. Some knowledge of\nGreek, no doubt, all of them brought with them from their Galilean\nhomes, and their knowledge would be increased through practice. It\nis not surprising then that several of the original apostles and two\nof the brothers of Jesus were the authors of Greek books of the New\nTestament.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Riggs, \"A History of the Jewish People,\" especially\npp. 105-116, 143-153, 215-231. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\":\narticles on \"Council,\" \"Pharisees,\" \"Sadducees,\" \"Synagogue,\"\n\"School,\" \"Scribe,\" \"Aramaic,\" and \"Hebrew.\" The outline of Jewish\nhistory and institutions which is provided in the lesson helps for\nthis lesson and the following is dependent especially upon the large\nGerman work of Sch\u00fcrer.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON V\n\nTHE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF CHRISTIANITY\n\nII. THE JUDAISM OF THE DISPERSION\n\n\nThe presentation of the lesson in class may be begun somewhat in\nthe manner suggested in the Student's Text Book. The student should\nbe made to appreciate the practical problem of a missionary in a\nnew city. Various solutions of the problem may be adopted. The\nmissionary may simply engage in conversation with individuals in the\nstreet, or he may hire a room and advertise his preaching. In any\ncase the securing of an audience is usually no easy matter. It is\ndifficult to know how to begin.\n\nThe case might naturally have been the same with Paul and his\ncompanions when, for example, after the journey up from Perga they\narrived at Pisidian Antioch. Complete strangers were perhaps not\nmuch better received in those days than they are now. How could\nthe missionaries get a hearing for their message? In some cases,\nthey might simply take their stand in the market place and talk\nto the passers-by. Paul tried that method in Athens. It might do\nwhen nothing better offered. But fortunately there was usually a\nfar better opportunity. The synagogue offered an audience. What is\nmore, it offered just exactly the most promising audience that could\npossibly have been secured.\n\nThe scene in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch is typical of what\nhappened again and again. The student should be made to appreciate\nthe remarkable liberality and informality of the synagogue customs.\nThere seem to have been no set preachers. Any Jew who really had a\nmessage could be heard. He needed only to go in and sit down. Acts\n13:14. Paul and Barnabas had no difficulty in making their fitness\nknown. \"Brethren,\" said the rulers of the synagogue, \"if ye have any\nword of exhortation for the people, say on.\" Acts 13:15. They had a\nword of exhortation indeed. \"Jesus is the Messiah for whom you are\nwaiting. He has died for your sins. He has risen from the dead, and\nis now alive to save you.\" It was a powerful word, and it bore fruit.\n\nThe native Jews, it is true, soon came out in opposition. The\nreasons for their opposition are not far to seek. Jealousy was an\nimportant factor. Christianity was evidently too radical a thing\nto be simply a sect of Judaism. If allowed to continue, it would\ndestroy the prerogatives of Israel. It could not be controlled. Its\nsuccess was too great. On that next Sabbath in Pisidian Antioch,\n\"almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of\nGod.\" The Jewish mission had never had a success like that. \"When\nthe Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy.\"\nChristianity had taken away the heritage of Israel.\n\nIn one way the Jewish opposition displayed genuine insight into the\nsituation. Christianity was really destined to be a fatal rival to\nthe older Judaism. What took place on a small scale at Antioch was\nrepeated on the larger stage of history. When the Christian mission\nbegan, Judaism was a successful missionary religion. Soon afterwards\nit had withdrawn hopelessly into its age-long isolation. Various\ncauses contributed to this result. The destruction of the national\nlife in Palestine and the increasing influence of the strict\nrabbinical schools both had an important part. But at least one\nfactor in the process was the competition of the Christian Church.\nChristianity offered the world everything that Judaism could offer,\nand more. It offered the knowledge of the one God, and the lofty\nmorality, and the authoritative Book. In addition, it offered a way\nof redemption--and the men of that time were pre\u00ebminently seekers\nafter redemption--through the sacrifice of Christ. It offered all\nthese things, moreover, without requiring any relinquishment of\npurely national characteristics. Christianity did not demand union\nwith any one race. It had a gospel for the world.\n\nNo wonder, then, that those who had been attracted by Judaism now\nbecame adherents of Christianity. The Jews were filled with envy.\nIt was natural from their point of view, but it was a sad mistake.\nHad they themselves accepted the gospel, the gospel would have been\nto their glory. How glorious was the mission of Israel! A blessing\nto the whole world! Far better than any narrow particularism! But\nthey were not willing to accept the message. Nevertheless, despite\ntheir opposition, the Church should not forget the debt which she\nowes to Israel. The dispersion was like the Judaism of Palestine.\nIn both cases the men themselves were opposed to the gospel. But in\nboth cases they had preserved the deposit of divine truth. Judaism,\ndespite itself, opened the way for the Christian Church.\n\nOne service which the dispersion rendered to Christianity has been\nillustrated by the scene at Pisidian Antioch. That service was the\nproviding of an audience. Another service was the assurance of\nlegal protection. This may be illustrated by another incident in\nThe Acts--the appeal to Gallio. Acts 18:12-17. There the opposition\nof the Jews appears in all its bitterness. No doubt that opposition\nwas a serious hindrance to the work of the Church. Just because\nChristianity was regarded as a Jewish sect, the Christians were\nsubject to persecution by the Jewish authorities. But persecutions\nby the Jews, annoying though they were, were far less serious than\nopposition on the part of the Roman authorities. And the latter was,\nat first, conspicuously absent. Gallio's decision is a fair example\nof the general attitude of the Roman magistrates. Christianity, as\na Jewish sect, was allowed to go its way. Judaism, despite itself,\nafforded the Church legal protection.\n\nBeginning with these two striking scenes, the teacher may proceed to\nthe more general presentation of the lesson. In what follows, the\noutline of the Student's Text Book will be supplemented at one or\ntwo points.\n\n\n1. THE CAUSES AND EXTENT OF THE DISPERSION\n\nDeportations of Jews to foreign countries took place at various\ntimes. The most famous of those deportations was carried out by\nNebuchadnezzar after his conquest of Judah, about 600 B. C. Many\nof Nebuchadnezzar's captives did not join in the return under the\nPersian monarchy, but remained permanently in the east and formed\nthe nucleus of the large Jewish population of Mesopotamia. When\nPompey conquered Palestine in the first century before Christ, he\ncarried many Jews as slaves to Rome. Afterwards they were liberated,\nand formed a large Jewish colony at the capital of the empire. These\nare merely examples. Part of the dispersion was due to forcible\nexile.\n\nOther causes have been mentioned in the Student's Text Book. It\nis a question, however, whether all of these causes combined\nare sufficient to account for the extraordinary growth of the\ndispersion. Sch\u00fcrer believes that the vastness of the Jewish\npopulation presupposes the merging of large bodies of proselytes\ninto the Jewish people. He also believes, however, that these\nthoroughgoing conversions were less numerous in New Testament times\nthan they had been before.\n\nHarnack calculates that at the time of the death of Augustus there\nwere from four million to four and a half million Jews in the Roman\nEmpire, including about seven hundred thousand in Palestine, and\nthat, if that estimate be correct, then the Jews formed perhaps\nsome seven per cent of the total population. Of course, Harnack is\nhimself the first to admit that such calculations are exceedingly\nuncertain. But so much at least is clear--the Jews in the first\ncentury were surprisingly numerous.\n\n\n2. THE SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATION AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\n\nThe name \"Septuagint,\" derived from the Latin word for \"seventy,\"\nhas been applied to the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament\nin reference to an ancient story about its origin. According to\nthis story, the translation was made by seventy-two men summoned\nfrom Jerusalem by Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, in order to\nadd the Jewish law to the royal library at Alexandria. The story\nis certainly not true in details, and is probably not even correct\nin representing the translation as destined primarily for the\nroyal library. More probably the translation was intended for the\nGreek-speaking Jews of Egypt.\n\nThe Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into\nthe Greek world language of the period, and into the popular,\nspoken form of that language, not into the literary form. The\ntranslation differs widely in character in the different books,\nfor many different translators had a part in it. Some of the books\nare translated with such slavish literalness as to be almost\nunintelligible to a Greek. Everywhere, indeed, the influence of the\nHebrew original makes itself felt to some degree. Hebrew idioms are\noften copied in the translation instead of being remolded according\nto the peculiarities of the Greek language.\n\nThe Septuagint exerted an important influence upon the language of\nthe New Testament. The Septuagint was the Greek Bible of the New\nTestament writers, and the influence of a Bible upon language is\nvery strong. A good example is afforded by the influence of the King\nJames Version upon the whole development of modern English. It is\nnot surprising, therefore, that as the Septuagint was influenced by\nHebrew, so the language of the New Testament also displays a Semitic\ncoloring. That coloring was induced partly by the Septuagint, but\nit was also induced in other ways. Part of the New Testament, for\nexample the words of Jesus, goes back ultimately to an Aramaic\noriginal. All the New Testament writers except one were Jews,\nand had spoken Aramaic as well as Greek. No wonder, then, that\ntheir Greek was influenced by the Semitic languages. This Semitic\ninfluence upon the language of the New Testament is not so great as\nwas formerly supposed, but it cannot be ignored. The New Testament\nis written in the natural, non-literary form of the Greek world\nlanguage. That is the main thing to be said. But upon this base is\nsuperposed an appreciable influence of Hebrew and Aramaic.\n\nThe importance of the Septuagint for the early Christian mission was\ninestimable. Every pioneer missionary knows how difficult it is to\ncreate the vocabulary necessary to express new religious ideas. In\nthe case of the earliest Christian mission, that labor had already\nbeen done. It had been done by the Jews of Alexandria. By the\nSeptuagint, the great ideas of the Old Testament--and upon these\nideas Christianity was based--had already been put into a Greek\nform. The Christian Church needed only to develop what had been\nbegun. The Church made good use of her opportunity. The influence of\nthe Septuagint upon the religious vocabulary of the New Testament\nwriters was profound. The Septuagint had provided a vocabulary which\nwas understood already by great masses of people--by the Jews of the\ndispersion and by the hosts of the \"God-worshipers\" who attended\nthe synagogues. Naturally the Christian missionaries used the words\nwhich people could understand.\n\n\n3. CONCLUSION\n\nThe Judaism of the dispersion was a wonderful preparation for the\ngospel. Israel ought to be regarded with gratitude and sympathy. But\nthe ultimate object of gratitude is God.\n\nThe Church was founded in a time of opportunity. The Roman\nGovernment had brought peace. The Greek language had welded the\nnations together. The dispersion of the Jews had prepared the way.\nThese things did not come by chance. The nations were instruments in\nthe hand of God. But instruments for what? A mighty, age-long plan!\nCenturies of preparation! At last the Saviour came. But did he come\nfor naught? Or is he Saviour of you and me?\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Edersheim (revised by White), \"History of the\nJewish Nation,\" pp. 45-79. \"The Jewish Encyclopedia\": Reinach,\narticle on \"Diaspora.\" Hastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Sch\u00fcrer,\narticle on \"Diaspora,\" extra volume, pp. 91-109.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON VI\n\nTHE MESSIAH\n\n\nThe teaching of this lesson may be begun with Acts 2:17-21. Surely\nthe outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was something\nnew. Yet even that was explained by a reference to prophecy. And the\nreference is of remarkable aptness and beauty.\n\nThe Pentecostal speech of Peter is full of the appeal to prophecy.\nPrimarily, indeed, the claims of Jesus are supported by the direct\ntestimony to his resurrection. Without the facts, of course appeal\nto prophecy would have been useless; for it was just the wonderful\ncorrespondence of the facts with the prophecies that could induce\nbelief. Along with the direct testimony to the facts went the appeal\nto prophecy. The promised king of David's line at last has come.\nActs 2:30; II Sam. 7:12,13; Ps. 89:3,4; 132:11. And David's son\nis David's Lord--David's Lord and ours. Acts 2:34,35; Ps. 110:1;\ncompare Matt. 22:41-46.\n\n\n1. THE NEW TESTAMENT APPEAL TO PROPHECY\n\nThis speech of Peter is typical of the preaching of the early\nChurch. The appeal to prophecy was absolutely central in the\npresentation of the gospel. Proof of that fact does not need to be\nsought. It is written plain on the pages of the New Testament. Old\nTestament prophecy was found to apply not merely to one side of\nthe work of Christ, but to all sides. Israel had looked not merely\nfor a king, but also for a prophet and a priest. Peter, after his\nfirst arrest, for example, could appeal to the notable prophecy of\nDeuteronomy: \"A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from\namong your brethren, like unto me.\" Acts 3:22; Deut. 18:15,19. The\nauthor of Hebrews could appeal to the priest after the order of\nMelchizedek, Heb. 5:6; Ps. 110:4, and to the symbolic sacrifices of\nthe temple which found their fulfillment on Calvary.\n\nThe appeal to prophecy extended even to those things which were\nmost distinctive of the Christian message. \"I delivered unto you\nfirst of all,\" says Paul, \"that which also I received: that Christ\ndied for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was\nburied; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to\nthe scriptures.\" I Cor. 15:3,4. Here the death and the resurrection\nof Christ are both declared to be according to the Scriptures. That\nmeans that they were the subject of prophecy. But the death and the\nresurrection of Christ were the fundamental elements of the gospel.\nThe gospel, then, in the form of prophecy, is to be found in the Old\nTestament.\n\nWhat Old Testament passages has Paul here in mind? With regard\nto the death for our sins, the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah\nwas probably in his mind. That passage was being read by the\nEthiopian when Philip met him, and Philip made the passage a\nbasis for preaching about Jesus. Acts 8:27-35. With regard to the\nresurrection, it is natural to think of Ps. 16:10. Paul himself\nquoted that passage in his speech at Pisidian Antioch. Acts 13:34-37.\n\nThe appeal to prophecy did not begin with the apostles. It was\ninitiated by Jesus himself. \"To-day,\" said Jesus at Nazareth after\nthe reading of Isa. 61:1,2, \"hath this scripture been fulfilled\nin your ears.\" A large claim! No wonder they found it difficult\nto accept. When John the Baptist asked, \"Art thou he that cometh,\nor look we for another?\" it was to \"the works of the Christ\" that\nJesus appealed. Matt. 11:2-6; Isa. 35:5,6; 61:1. These are merely\nexamples. Throughout, Jesus represented himself and his kingdom as\nthe fulfillment of the ancient promise. \"O foolish men,\" he said to\nthe disciples on the way to Emmaus, \"and slow of heart to believe\nin all that the prophets have spoken! Behooved it not the Christ to\nsuffer these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning from\nMoses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the\nscriptures the things concerning himself.\" Luke 24:25-27.\n\n\n2. THE MESSIANIC HOPE A PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL\n\nWhen the gospel was preached to pure Gentiles, a great deal of\npreliminary labor had to be done. Under what title should the\nclaims of the Saviour be presented? \"Christ\" to the Gentiles was\nalmost meaningless, till explained. \"Son of God\" was open to sad\nmisconception. There were \"sons of God\" in Greek mythology, but they\nwere not what the early Christians meant to show that Jesus was.\nThese difficulties were overcome, and speedily. Gentile Christians\nwere imbued with a lofty and adequate conception of the Lord. The\nlabor was great, but it was gloriously accomplished.\n\nIn this labor, however, the missionaries were assisted by the\nsynagogues of the Jews. In the synagogues, \"Christ\" was no new term,\nand no new conception. In the synagogues, one proposition needed\nfirst to be proved, \"This Jesus ... is the Christ.\" Acts 17:3. If\nthat were proved, then the rest would follow. The Jews knew that\nthe Messiah was Lord and Master. Identify Jesus with him, and all\nthe lofty claims of Jesus would be substantiated. How the identity\nwas established may be observed in the speech of Peter on the day\nof Pentecost, or in the speech of Paul at Pisidian Antioch. Acts\n13:16-43.\n\nIt will be remembered that the synagogues attracted not merely Jews\nbut also Gentiles. The Gentile \"God-fearers,\" as well as the Jews,\nwere acquainted with the Messianic hope. Even the Gentile mission,\ntherefore, was prepared for by the prophets of Israel.\n\n\n3. THE PERMANENT VALUE OF PROPHECY\n\nThe appeal to prophecy, however, was not merely valuable to\nthe early Church. It is of abiding worth. It represents Jesus\nas the culmination of a divine purpose. The hope of Israel was\nin itself a proof of revelation, because it was so unlike the\nreligious conceptions of other nations. The covenant people, the\nrighteous king, the living God, the world-wide mission--that is\nthe glory of Israel. The promise is itself a proof. But still\nmore the fulfillment. The fulfillment was an unfolding. Wonderful\ncorrespondence in detail--and far more wonderful the correspondence\nof the whole! The promise was manifold. Sometimes the Messiah is\nin the foreground. Sometimes he is out of sight. Sometimes there\nis a human king, sometimes Jehovah himself coming to judgment;\nsometimes a kingdom, sometimes a new covenant in the heart;\nsometimes a fruitful Canaan, sometimes a new heaven and a new\nearth. But manifold though the promise, Christ is the fulfillment\nof it all. \"How many soever be the promises of God,\" in Christ is\nthe yea. II Cor. 1:20. There is the wonder. In Christ the apparent\ncontradictions of the promise become glorious unity, in Christ the\ndeeper mysteries of the promise are revealed. Christ the keystone\nof the arch! Christ the culmination of a divine plan! That is the\nwitness of the prophets. It is a witness worth having.\n\n\n4. THE MESSIANIC HOPE OF LATER JUDAISM\n\nAfter the close of the Old Testament, the promise did not die.\nIt was preserved in the Scriptures. It continued to be the life\nof the Jewish nation. But it was not only preserved. It was also\ninterpreted. Some of the interpretation was false, but much of it\nwas true. The Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament promise is\nworthy of attention. What did the Jews of the first century mean by\nthe Messiah, and what did they mean by the Messianic age?\n\nIn the first place, they retained the hope of a king of David's\nline--a human king who should conquer the enemies of Israel. When\nit was held in a one-sided form this was a dangerous hope. It led\nlogically to materialistic conceptions of the kingdom of God and to\npolitical unrest. It led to the effort of the Jews to take Jesus\nby force and make him a king. John 6:15. It led to the quarrel of\nthe disciples about the chief places in the kingdom. Matt. 18:1-4;\nMark 9:33-35; Luke 9:46,47. This conception of the Messiah had to be\ncorrected by Jesus. \"My kingdom is not of this world.\" John 18:36.\n\nYet even where the Messiah was conceived of as an earthly ruler,\nthe spiritual hope was by no means always and altogether lost. The\n\"Psalms of Solomon,\" for example, Pharisaic psalms of the first\ncentury before Christ, though they look for an earthly ruler,\npicture him as one who shall rule in righteousness. \"And a righteous\nking and taught of God is he that reigneth over them; And there\nshall be no iniquity in his days in their midst, for all shall be\nholy and their king is the Lord Messiah\" (Ps. Sol. xvii, 35, 36. See\nRyle and James, \"Psalms of the Pharisees,\" especially pp. 137-147).\nNo iniquity in the days of the Messiah! That is true understanding\nof the Old Testament, even joined with the political ideal.\n\nIn the second place, however, the Messianic age is sometimes in\nlater Judaism conceived of as purely supernatural. The Messiah is\nnot an earthly ruler, merely helped by God, but himself a heavenly\nbeing, a pre\u00ebxistent \"Son of Man,\" judge of all the earth. The\nMessianic age is ushered in not by human warfare, but by a mighty\ncatastrophic act of God. Not a liberated Canaan is here the ideal,\nbut a new heaven and a new earth.\n\nThis transcendental, supernaturalistic form of the Messianic hope\nappears in the \"Book of Enoch\" and other \"apocalypses.\" Its details\nare fantastic, but it was by no means altogether wrong. In many\nrespects it was a correct interpretation of the divine promise.\nThe new heavens and the new earth are derived from Isa. 65:17. The\ndoctrine of the two ages was accepted by Jesus and by Paul--for\nexample Matt. 12:32; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21. The heavenly \"Son of Man\"\ngoes back to Dan. 7:13,14. The Book of Enoch was not altogether\nwrong. Its use of the title \"Son of Man\" prepared for the title\nwhich Jesus used.\n\nFinally, the Messianic hope was held in a pure and lofty form by\nthe \"poor of the land\"--simple folk like those who appear in the\nfirst two chapters of Luke. In the hymns of Mary and Zacharias and\nSimeon, purely political and materialistic conceptions are in the\nbackground, and the speculations of the apocalypses do not appear.\nThe highest elements of prophecy are made prominent. \"For mine eyes\nhave seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of\nall peoples; a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory\nof thy people Israel.\" Luke 2:30-32. In those circles, the hope of\nIsrael burned still and pure.\n\nLater Judaism thus preserved the manifoldness of prophecy. There was\nexaggeration and there was one-sidedness; but in Judaism as a whole\nthe promise was preserved. One element at most was forgotten--the\nsuffering servant and his sacrificial death. The death of the\nMessiah was no easy conception. The disciples had difficulty with\nit. When Peter heard of it, he took Jesus, and began to rebuke him.\nMatt. 16:22. The lesson was not easy, but it had to be learned. And\nit was worth learning. The cross is the heart of the gospel.\n\nThus in Jesus nothing was left out, except what was false. The\nwhole promise was preserved. The revealer of God, the ruler of the\nkingdom, the great high priest, the human deliverer, the divine\nLord--these are the elements of the promise. They find their union\nin Christ. Leave one out, and the promise is mutilated. Such\nmutilation is popular to-day. The whole Christ seems too wonderful.\nBut the Church can be satisfied with nothing less.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Beecher, \"The Prophets and the Promise,\" pp.\n173-420.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON VII\n\nTHE BOOK OF THE ACTS\n\n\nThe teaching of the lesson may be begun with some very simple\nquestions. If rightly put, they will open up a fresh way of\nlooking at a New Testament book. The way will thus be prepared for\nconsidering the deeper elements of the lesson. If interest can be\naroused in the book itself, the contents of the book, in the lessons\nwhich follow, will be studied with much livelier attention.\n\n\n1. AUTHORSHIP\n\nWho wrote the book of The Acts? How do you know? The former question\nwill probably be answered without difficulty, but the latter may\nreveal difference of opinion. Many of the students will know that\nThe Acts was written by the same man as the Gospel of Luke. But that\ndoes not settle the question. How do you know that Luke was written\nby Luke? The name does not occur in the Gospel itself. The title,\n\"According to Luke,\" was probably added later. So, in order to\ndetermine the authorship both of Luke and of The Acts, recourse must\nbe had to Christian tradition.\n\nFortunately, however, tradition in this case is quite unimpeachable.\n\nIn the first place, although the author of The Acts is not named in\nthe book, yet the book is not an anonymous work. Undoubtedly the\nname of the author was known from the beginning. For the book is\ndedicated to an individual, Theophilus. Evidently Theophilus knew\nwho the author was. Information about the author could thus be had\nfrom the start. If, therefore, Luke did not really write The Acts,\nsome one has removed the name of the true author and substituted\n\"Luke\" in place of it. That is an exceedingly unlikely supposition.\n\nIn the second place, it is evident quite independently of any\ntradition that the book was written by an eyewitness of part of\nPaul's missionary journeys. This fact appears from the so-called\n\"we-sections\" of the book. In certain portions of the narrative\nthe author uses the first person instead of the third. Of this\npeculiarity there is only one satisfactory explanation. The author\nuses the first person when he is describing the experiences in which\nhe himself had a part. When, for example, the author says, not,\n\"They made a straight course to Samothrace,\" but \"We made a straight\ncourse,\" Acts 16:11, he means that he was present on that voyage.\nThis natural supposition is confirmed by the character of the\n\"we-sections.\" These sections are full of such a wealth of artless\ndetail that no one but an eyewitness could possibly have written\nthem.\n\nThe only possible way of avoiding the conclusion that a companion\nof Paul wrote the book of The Acts is to maintain that although\nsuch a man wrote the \"we-sections\" some one else wrote the rest of\nthe book. But that is unlikely in the extreme. If a later author\nhad been simply using as a source a diary of a companion of Paul,\nhe would surely either have told us he was quoting, or else have\nchanged the first person to the third. By leaving the third person\nin he would simply have been producing nonsense. Everyone knew who\nthe author of the book was. The book is dedicated to a definite\nman. The author evidently could not have palmed himself off as\na companion of Paul even if he would. And if he desired to do\nit, he would not have chosen this remarkable way of doing it. Of\ncourse if he had been a mere thoughtless compiler he might have\ncopied his source with such slavish exactness as to leave the \"we\"\nin without noticing that in the completed work it would produce\nnonsense. But he was most assuredly not a mere compiler. If he used\nsources, he did not use them that way. The book shows a remarkable\nunity of style. Modern research has demonstrated that fact beyond\nperadventure. There is a remarkable similarity of style between the\n\"we-sections\" and the rest of the book. Only one hypothesis, then,\ndoes justice to the facts. The author of the \"we-sections\" was also\nthe author of the whole book. When he comes to those parts of the\nnarrative in which he himself had a part, he says very naturally\n\"we,\" instead of \"they.\"\n\nThe book of The Acts, then, was written by a companion of Paul. That\nfact stands firm, even apart from any tradition. And that is the\nreally important fact. If the book was written by an eyewitness, the\nparticular name of the eyewitness is comparatively unimportant. But\nthe tradition as to the name is without doubt correct. There is not\nthe slightest reason for calling it in question. What the book of\nThe Acts itself says about its author fits exactly what Paul says\nabout Luke.\n\n\n2. DATE\n\nThe authorship of The Acts is certain. The date, however, is not so\nclear. The book was written by Luke. But when was it written? The\nlatter question cannot be answered with perfect precision. At least,\nhowever, since the book was written by Luke, it must have been\nwritten during the lifetime of a companion of Paul. A. D. 100, for\nexample, would be too late, and A. D. 90 would be unlikely. A good\ndeal can be said for putting the date at about A. D. 63. This early\ndate would explain the abrupt ending of the book.\n\nOne of the most curious things about The Acts is that the narrative\nis suddenly broken off just at the most interesting point. The\ntrial of Paul is narrated at very great length, but we are not\ntold how it came out. The final decision, the climax of the whole\nlong narrative, is just at hand; but with regard to it we are\nleft altogether in suspense. Was Paul released? Was he condemned\nand executed? The author does not say. His silence requires an\nexplanation.\n\nThe simplest explanation would be that Luke wrote his book at the\nvery point of time where the narrative is broken off. Of course he\ncould not tell us any more if nothing more had happened. He brought\nhis narrative right up to date. Nothing more was possible.\n\nIt is true, other explanations may be proposed.\n\n(a) It has been suggested, for example, that The Acts closes so\nabruptly because the author was saving something for another work.\nAs The Acts is the continuation of the Gospel of Luke, so a third\nwork, it is said, was planned as the continuation of The Acts. But\neven so, it seems rather strange that the author should not have\ngiven at least a hint of the outcome of that trial in order to take\nthe edge off our curiosity. He has done something like that at the\nconclusion of his Gospel; why not also at the conclusion of The Acts?\n\n(b) But perhaps the ending is not so abrupt as it looks. The\nauthor's purpose, it is said, was not to write a biography of Paul,\nbut to show how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome. When\nRome was reached, then the narrative was broken off. Biographical\ndetails--even the most interesting details about the most\ninteresting character--were ruthlessly excluded. The plan of the\nbook had been accomplished. For this explanation there is much to be\nsaid. But the trouble with it is that especially in the latter part\nof the book the author as a matter of fact does show considerable\ninterest in biographical details. The trial and shipwreck of Paul\nare narrated with a fullness which is quite out of proportion to\nthe rest of the history. After such a full account of the trial, it\nremains rather strange that the author has said not a word about the\noutcome.\n\nEither of these last two explanations is perfectly possible.\nPossibly The Acts was written as late as A. D. 80. But the early\ndate at least explains the peculiar ending best of all.\n\n\n3. SOURCES\n\nWhere did Luke get the materials for his work? Did he use written\nsources as well as oral information? The question has been discussed\nat very great length, but without much uniformity in the results. If\nhe used written sources, at least he used them skillfully, placing\nupon them the imprint of his own style. The book possesses genuine\nunity.\n\nThe really important fact about the sources of the book of The\nActs is a negative fact. Whatever the sources were, the Pauline\nepistles were not among them. Compare the passages where Paul and\nLuke narrate the same events--for example Gal., chs. 1, 2, with\nthe corresponding passages in The Acts--and it becomes evident\nthat the two narratives are entirely independent. Luke did not use\nthe Pauline epistles in writing his book. That is an exceedingly\nsignificant fact. It shows that The Acts is an independent witness.\nWhat is more, it strengthens materially the argument for the early\ndate of The Acts. The Pauline epistles at a very early time began\nto be collected and used generally in the Church. In A. D. 100,\nfor example, they would certainly have been used by anyone who was\nwriting an account of Paul's life. Since, therefore, the book of The\nActs does not use them, that book must have been written earlier,\nand probably very much earlier. Even in A. D. 80, it would perhaps\nhave been strange that the epistles should not have been used.\n\n\n4. PURPOSE\n\nThe proper purpose of a historian is to tell the truth. And Luke\nwas a genuine historian. His own account of his method, Luke 1:1-4,\nshows that he knew the meaning of historical research, and the\ncharacter of his books bears this out. Luke did not permit any\ndesire of putting Christianity in a good light, or of defending one\nkind of Christianity against another, to interfere with the primary\nduty of truthfulness.\n\nThat does not mean, however, that the book of The Acts is like some\nmodern university dissertations--written simply and solely in order\nto say some new thing, whether interesting or no. No great historian\ngoes to work that way. Of course Luke had an interest in his subject\nmatter. Of course he was convinced that Christianity was a great\nthing, and was full of enthusiasm in narrating its history. In that\nhe was perfectly right. Christianity really was a great thing. The\nbest celebration of its greatness was a narration of the facts.\nChristian faith is based on fact. Luke wrote, not only in the Gospel\nbut also in The Acts, in order that his readers might know the\ncertainty concerning the things wherein they were instructed. Luke\n1:4.\n\n\n5. LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS\n\nThe author of The Acts was well acquainted with the Old Testament.\nHe was able to catch the spirit of the primitive Palestinian church.\nHis books exhibit the influence of the Semitic languages. But he\nwas also capable of a Greek style which would have passed muster\nin the schools of rhetoric. Luke 1:1-4, for example, is a typical\nGreek sentence. Evidently Luke could move with ease in the larger\nGreek world of his time. His references to political and social\nconditions are extraordinarily exact. His narrative is never lacking\nin local color. He knows the proper titles of the local officials,\nand the peculiar quality of the local superstitions. His account\nof the shipwreck is a mine of information about the seafaring of\nantiquity. Evidently he was a keen observer, and a true traveler\nof a cosmopolitan age. His narrative is characterized by a certain\ndelightful urbanity--an urbanity, however, which is deepened and\nennobled by profound convictions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Warfield, \"Acts, Timothy, Titus and Philemon,\" in\n\"The Temple Bible,\" pp. i-xxvii. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\":\nPurves, article on \"Acts of the Apostles.\" Purves, \"Christianity\nin the Apostolic Age,\" pp. 1-8. M'Clymont, \"The New Testament and\nIts Writers,\" in \"The Guild Text Books,\" pp. 41-46. Hastings,\n\"Dictionary of the Bible\": Headlam, article on \"Acts of the\nApostles.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON VIII\n\nTHE CROSS AND THE RESURRECTION THE FOUNDATION OF APOSTOLIC PREACHING\n\n\n1. THE RESURRECTION A FACT OF HISTORY\n\nWhich of the books of the New Testament contain the evidence for\nthe resurrection of Jesus? That question will serve to begin the\nteaching of the lesson. In answer to it, the students will probably\nmention the four Gospels. To the Gospels, however, should be added\nespecially the First Epistle to the Corinthians.\n\nThe passage in First Corinthians is deserving of very careful\nattention. For, unlike the Gospels, that epistle can be dated to\nwithin a year or so. It was written only about twenty-five years\nafter the crucifixion. Even though possibly some of the Gospels\nwere written still earlier, the precision with which the epistle\ncan be dated makes its witness particularly valuable. Furthermore,\nthe author of the epistle is well known. No one doubts that First\nCorinthians was written by Paul, and Paul is the best-known man of\napostolic times. Evidently his witness to the facts is of the utmost\nvalue.\n\nPaul himself was a direct witness of the resurrection. He saw the\nrisen Lord. I Cor. 9:1; 15:8. In I Cor. 15:1-8, however, he does not\ncontent himself with his own witness, but reproduces the testimony\nof others in an extended list. That testimony had come to Paul by\nordinary word of mouth. \"I delivered unto you first of all,\" says\nPaul, \"that which also I received.\" In what follows there is a list\nof the appearances of the risen Christ. \"He appeared to Cephas;\nthen to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren\nat once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are\nfallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles;\nand last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me\nalso.\" Evidently these appearances are not conceived of merely as\n\"visions,\" but as events in the external world. The mention of the\nburial, v. 4, is a plain hint that what Peter and the rest saw was\nthe body of Jesus raised from the tomb.\n\nThat view of the matter is amply confirmed in the Gospels and in\nthe book of The Acts. In the Gospels, we are told that the tomb was\nfound empty on the morning of the third day after the crucifixion.\nIt was found empty by some women and by Peter and John. Since the\ntomb was empty, the body which appeared to the disciples had some\nconnection with the body which had been taken down from the cross.\nFurthermore, the Gospels and The Acts make the bodily character of\nthe appearances abundantly plain. Jesus did not merely appear to the\ndisciples at a distance. He walked with them on the road to Emmaus.\nHe broke bread with them. He came into the very midst of them when\nthey were assembled in a room. Thomas could even touch his hands\nand his side. These are merely examples. Clearly the testimony\nof the disciples is testimony not to mere spiritual experiences,\nbut to the bodily presence of the Lord. It may be admitted that\nthe body was a glorified body. After his resurrection Jesus was\nfreed from the limitations of his earthly life. Nevertheless, he\nwas not merely a \"spirit.\" Luke 24:39. There was some real, though\nmysterious, connection between the glorified body and the body that\nhad been laid in the tomb. The New Testament attests not merely the\nimmortality of Jesus, but his resurrection.\n\nThe resurrection, in these days, is hard to accept. For it is a\nmiracle. Against any miracle there is a tremendous presumption. In\nthis case, however, the presumption has been overcome. It has been\novercome by the character of Jesus. It is in the highest degree\nunlikely that an ordinary man should rise from the dead; but it\nis not unlikely that Jesus should have risen. The resurrection is\nunique. But so is the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The two wonders\nsupport one another. Explain away the testimony to the resurrection,\nand your task is not done. You must also explain away that sinless\nlife. If Jesus rose from the dead he had a unique experience. But\nthat is to be expected. For Jesus himself was unlike any other of\nthe children of men. There are mysteries in his life that have never\nbeen explained.\n\nThe resurrection of Jesus is a well-attested fact of history. The\nproof of it is cumulative. Any one of the proofs might be regarded\nas insufficient when taken alone, but when taken together they are\noverpowering. The sinless, unearthly character of Jesus separates\nhim from the rest of men, so that probabilities which apply to\nothers do not apply to him. His mysterious self-consciousness\ninvolves so lofty a claim, that if he was not divine he was\na megalomaniac--he whose calmness and strength have left an\nimpression which the centuries have done nothing to efface! The\nspecific testimonies to the empty tomb and to the plain bodily\nappearances of the risen Lord are independent and varied. Finally,\nunless the resurrection be a fact, the very origin of the Christian\nChurch becomes an insoluble mystery. The resurrection alone can\nexplain the sudden transformation of a company of weak, discouraged\nmen into the conquerors of the world.\n\nThe resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history. It is not an\naspiration of the heart. It comes ultimately through the testimony\nof the senses. The apostles came forward with a piece of plain\ninformation. They were witnesses to a fact in the external world.\nThat fact has put a new face upon life. It is good news of salvation.\n\n\n2. THE RESURRECTION CONFIRMED BY EXPERIENCE\n\nThe resurrection is a fact of history. Accept it as true, and you\ncan have hope for time and for eternity. At this point, however,\nsome men experience a difficulty. How can the acceptance of a\nhistorical fact satisfy the longing of our souls? Must we stake our\nsalvation upon the intricacies of historical research? Surely some\nmore immediate certitude is required.\n\nThe objection would be valid if history stood alone. But history\ndoes not stand alone. It has suffered from a false isolation.\nA Christian certitude that is founded solely upon history is\ninsufficient. History is necessary, but not sufficient. We need\nhistory, but we need something else as well.\n\nA historical conviction of the resurrection of Jesus is not the end\nof faith, but only the beginning. If faith stops there, it will\nnever stand the fires of criticism. We are told that Jesus lives. So\nmuch is a matter of testimony, a matter of history. If we believe\nthe witness, then we can have hope. But the religious problem of our\nlives has not yet been solved. Jesus lives. But what good is it to\nus? If he lives, we need to find him. We need to find him, and we\ncan find him. We accept the message of the resurrection enough to\nmake trial of it. And making trial of it, we find that it is true.\nJesus is found to be alive, for he makes answer to our prayer, and\nheals us. We never could have come to him unless we had accepted\nthe historical evidence for the resurrection. But starting with\nthat historical belief we went on to the blessed experience of\nsalvation. Christian experience cannot do without history. But it\nadds to history that directness, that immediateness, that simplicity\nof conviction, which delivers us from fear. We began with history.\nBut we went on to experience. \"Now we believe, not because of thy\nspeaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is\nindeed the Saviour of the world.\"\n\n\n3. THE DEATH\n\nJesus is alive. If we find him, he will heal us. But how shall we\nfind him? In the New Testament we receive instruction.\n\nIn the New Testament a strange fact stares us in the face. The New\nTestament seems far more concerned with the death of Jesus than\nwith the details of his life. Learned men have tried in vain to\nexplain that curious fact. In elaborate treatises they have sought\nthe explanation. But it is really very simple. The New Testament\nemphasizes the death of Jesus because that is what Jesus did for\nus--or rather, coming after his perfect obedience to the law, it is\nthe culmination of what he did for us. In the account of Jesus' life\nwe are told what Jesus did for others. That account is absolutely\nnecessary. Without it we should never have been interested in Jesus\nat all. But it is to us a means to an end, not an end in itself.\nWe read in the Gospel what Jesus did for others. For one he placed\nhis fingers in the ears and said, \"Be opened\"; to another he said,\n\"Arise, take up thy bed, and walk\"; to another, \"Thy sins are\nforgiven.\" These things are what Jesus did for others. But what has\nhe done for us? The answer of the New Testament is plain. For us he\ndoes not say, \"Arise and walk.\" For us--he died. That mysterious\nthing which was wrought on Calvary--that was his work for us. The\ncross of Christ is a mystery. In the presence of it theology walks\nafter all with but trembling, halting footsteps. Learning will never\nunlock its meaning. But to the penitent sinner, though mysterious,\nthough full of baffling riddles, it is plain enough. On the cross\nJesus dealt with our sin. Our dreadful guilt, the condemnation of\nGod's law--it is wiped out by an act of grace. It seemed inseparable\nfrom us. It was a burden no earthly friend could bear. But Christ\nis Master of the innermost secrets of the moral world. He has\naccomplished the impossible, he has borne our sins.\n\nBy the cross he has healed us. But through whom does he apply the\nhealing touch? Through no one, save his Spirit. For he is here\nhimself. If we are seekers for him, then this day our search is\nover.\n\nThe death of Christ, in the modern Church, is often subordinated.\nExclusive emphasis is laid upon the holy example and teaching of the\nGalilean prophet. The modern theologians would be right if there\nwere no such thing as sin. If there were no such thing as guilt, and\nif there were no such thing as a dreadful enslaving power of evil,\nthen a noble ideal might be sufficient. But to talk about an ideal\nto a man under the thralldom of sin is a cruel mockery.\n\nSin may indeed be glossed over. Let us make the best of our\ncondition, we are told, let us do the best we can, let us simply\ntrust in the all-conquering love of God. Dangerous advice! By it a\ncertain superficial joy of life may be induced. But the joy rests\nupon an insecure foundation. It is dangerous to be happy on the\nbrink of the abyss. Permanent joy can come only when sin has been\nfaced honestly, and destroyed. It has been destroyed by the death\nand resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nIt is true that God is loving. He has manifested his love, however,\nbetter than by complacency toward sin. He has manifested it by the\ngracious gift of a Saviour.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Denney, \"The Death of Christ.\" Orr, \"The\nResurrection of Jesus.\" Crawford, \"The Doctrine of Holy Scripture\nRespecting the Atonement.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON IX\n\nTHE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH\n\n\nThe author of The Acts has given a wonderful picture of the early\ndays of the Christian Church. The teacher should endeavor to present\nthe picture before the mental vision of the class. History should\nnot be studied merely as a dry record of events. The events should\nbe seen as well as understood. They can be seen by what is called\nthe historical imagination. The term \"imagination\" often contains a\nsuggestion of unreality. But that is a secondary use of the word.\n\"Imagination\" means \"picturing.\" You can make a picture of what\nreally happened as well as of what happened only in fiction. The\nhistorical imagination is a very important faculty in the student of\nthe New Testament. In many persons it is almost wholly lacking. But\nfortunately it may be acquired.\n\nIn the lessons that follow, great stress should be laid upon\nthe simple memorizing of the course of events. Advanced study,\nor topical study, is useless unless it is based upon an orderly\nacquaintance with the contents of The Acts. History comes\nfirst--then the interpretation of the history.\n\nThe dominant note in the early chapters of The Acts is the note of\njoy. After the three dark days of discouragement, after the quiet\nperiod of waiting, the life of the Church suddenly bursts forth with\npower. Everything is fresh and new. Difficulties and dangers have\nnot yet emerged. Even persecution is lacking. The Church enjoys\nfavor with the people. Thousands are converted in a day.\n\n\n1. THE GIFT OF TONGUES\n\nThe gift of tongues, as it was exercised on the day of Pentecost, is\nnot altogether an isolated phenomenon. It appears also elsewhere in\nThe Acts, Acts 10:46; 19:6, though it may be doubted whether in all\nthree cases it assumed exactly the same form. In the First Epistle\nto the Corinthians, Paul discusses the gift at considerable length.\nI Cor., ch. 14. It is interesting to compare that passage with the\npassage in the second chapter of The Acts.\n\nThere are a number of resemblances between the two. Both Paul\nand Luke represent the gift of tongues as a supernatural thing,\na special endowment from the Spirit of God. Both Paul and Luke,\nfurthermore, represent the gift as an ecstatic, temporary expression\nof spiritual exultation rather than as a faculty intended to be\npractically useful in the work of the Church. On the other hand,\nthere are such marked differences between the two accounts as to\nmake it evident that the gift as it was manifested at Pentecost was\nvery considerably different from that which was exercised in the\nchurch at Corinth.\n\nThe speaking with tongues as Paul describes it was a kind of\nejaculation, expressive of the religious life of the speaker, but\nincomprehensible to others. In order, therefore, to make the gift\nedifying to the congregation at large there had to be some one\nelse present who was in possession of another gift, the gift of\ninterpretation. The speaking with tongues at Pentecost, however,\nwas a miraculous use of various languages. Some have supposed\nthat Luke is describing rather a new language, which possessed\nthe supernatural quality of being understood by men of various\nnationalities. The most natural interpretation of the passage,\nhowever, is that which has just been suggested. The disciples,\nfilled with the Spirit, spoke some in one language and some in\nanother, or perhaps the same individuals used different languages at\nsuccessive moments. The outsiders received various impressions of\nthe strange phenomenon. Some, mocking, declared that the disciples\nwere drunk. These, we may suppose, were men who came into contact\nwith those disciples who were speaking some language known only\nto another group among the hearers. The general impression seems\nto have been wonder at the miraculous gift. The gift of tongues\nprovided an opportunity for the first Christian preaching. In just\nthis form it was perhaps never repeated. It was a unique gift\nprovided for an absolutely unique occasion.\n\n\n2. THE SPEECHES\n\nAncient historians often put imaginary speeches into the mouths\nof their characters. The speeches were intended to represent not\nwhat was actually said but what might have been said under the\ncircumstances. This procedure of the historians was not intended\nto deceive the readers. It was merely a literary form, a method of\nvivid description.\n\nLuke, however, seems not to have allowed himself even the license\nwhich was regarded as allowable by the best historians of antiquity.\nThe speeches in The Acts are apparently either verbatim reports of\nwhat was actually said, or else summaries based upon trustworthy\ntradition. If they had been composed freely by the historian himself\ntheir characteristic differences and their perfect adaptation to\ndifferent occasions would be difficult to explain.\n\nThe speeches of Peter and of the earliest disciples, in particular,\nare very different from those of Paul. They contain a number of\nfeatures which occur either not at all or only rarely in the rest\nof the New Testament. The designation of Jesus as \"the Servant,\"\nfor example, a designation taken from the latter part of Isaiah, is\ncharacteristic of these speeches. Another characteristic designation\nof Jesus is \"Prince\" or \"Prince of life.\" Acts 3:15; 5:31. In\ngeneral, the representation of Jesus in the early chapters of The\nActs is just what might have been expected under the circumstances.\nAt the beginning of the Church's life, everything is simple and easy\nof comprehension even by outsiders. The apostles represented Jesus\nfirst as a man approved of God by the miracles which he had wrought.\nTo have delivered up such a man to death was itself a grievous sin.\nBut that was not all. This Jesus who was crucified had been raised\nfrom the dead; and both in his death and in his resurrection he\nhad fulfilled the Messianic predictions of the ancient prophets.\nHe was then nothing less than the Christ. Now, too, his period of\nhumiliation was over. He had been given the full powers of Lordship.\nFrom him had come the wonder-working Spirit. It will be observed\nthat these speeches, though they begin with what is simplest and\neasiest of acceptance by an outsider, really contain, at least in\ngerm, the full doctrine of the divine Christ.\n\n\n3. THE CONVERTS\n\nThe body of disciples who were assembled before the day of Pentecost\nconsisted of only about one hundred and twenty persons. Acts 1:15.\nAfter the notable sermon of Peter, which was spoken in explanation\nof the gift of tongues, three thousand were converted. A little\nlater the Church possessed five thousand men. Acts 4:4.\n\nThe outward sign of conversion was baptism. \"Repent ye,\" said Peter,\n\"and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto\nthe remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the\nHoly Spirit.\" Baptism was not altogether new. It had been practiced\nnot only among converts to Judaism, but especially by John the\nBaptist. Christian baptism, however, is sharply distinguished from\nthe baptism of John. Mark 1:7,8; Acts 18:25; 19:1-6. Both were\nexpressive of repentance. But Christian baptism was connected\nspecifically with Jesus, and also with the bestowal of the Spirit.\n\nBaptism was \"in the name of Jesus Christ,\" or \"into the name of the\nLord Jesus.\" It was the sacrament by which the convert signified\nhis cleansing from sin and his entrance into that peculiarly close\nrelation to Christ which is of the essence of Christian experience.\nIn itself, of course, the rite of baptism is useless. But when\naccompanied by faith it is a means of real blessing. Baptism, like\nthe other Christian sacrament, the Lord's Supper, was instituted\nby Christ himself. Matt. 28:19. In The Acts the full trinitarian\nformula of baptism is not given. \"In the name of Jesus Christ\" is\nsufficient to designate the sacrament.\n\n\n4. JOY AND FEAR\n\nThe mysterious power that was working among the disciples was\nbeneficent. It accomplished miracles of healing. As in the case\nof Jesus himself so now among his disciples the Spirit of God was\nmanifested in the expulsion of demons. Matt. 12:28; Acts 5:16. The\nSpirit was manifested also in the healing of disease.\n\nOne cure, in particular, is narrated with a wealth of vivid detail.\nThe healing of the lame man led to the opposition of the Sanhedrin.\nIt led also to favor among the people. All the people ran together\nin Solomon's porch greatly wondering. Acts 3:11. Peter and John took\nno credit for what they had done. They attributed the miracle solely\nto the power of Jesus. It was the same Jesus against whom the crowd\nhad shouted, \"Crucify him, crucify him,\" only a few weeks before.\nSurely a reason for remorse rather than joy! But God is gracious.\nThrough Jesus, the crucified One, salvation was offered even to the\nmurderers. Repentance was followed by rejoicing. The envy of the\nSanhedrin was held in check. A notable miracle had been wrought.\n\nThat miracle was not isolated. Many signs and wonders were wrought\nby the hands of the apostles. The people even \"carried out the\nsick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that, as\nPeter came by, at the least his shadow might overshadow some one of\nthem.\" Acts 5:12-15. Perhaps we are to understand that that method\nof seeking cure was actually successful. Certainly it was an unusual\nmethod. But God adopts unusual methods at unusual times. He adapts\nhis mercy to the needs of men.\n\nThe general impression left by the early chapters of The Acts is an\nimpression of light and gladness. There is opposition, but it is\npowerless against triumphant joy. One incident, however, introduces\na discordant note. It is the incident of Ananias and Sapphira.\n\nThe early Church was animated by a spirit of self-sacrifice. Many of\nthe disciples sold their possessions and devoted the price to the\ncommon good. One of those who did so was Joseph Barnabas, who was to\nbe prominent in the subsequent history.\n\nA certain man, Ananias, however, and Sapphira his wife, after they\nhad sold their possession kept back part of the price. In itself\nthat was not necessarily wrong. Their sin was the sin of deception.\nThey pretended to have given all, though they had really given only\na part. A more destructive sin could scarcely have been imagined.\nThey had lied unto the Holy Spirit. Such conduct would bring\ncontempt upon the Church. Ananias and Sapphira discovered that God\ncannot be trifled with. And the judgment wrought upon them inspired\nfear in all who heard.\n\nIt is well that this incident has been recorded. It prevents a\none-sided impression of the Church's life. The power that animated\nthe Church was beneficent. But it was also terrible and mysterious\nand holy. In the presence of it there was joy. But that joy was\nakin to fear. \"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the\nliving God.\" The lesson is of permanent value. The Spirit of God\nmust be received with joy. But not with a common joy. Not with the\njoy of familiarity. But rather with the wondering, trembling joy of\nadoration.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n21-46. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on \"Weeks, Feast\nof\" and \"Temple.\" \"The Cambridge Bible for Schools\": Lumby, \"The\nActs of the Apostles,\" 1880, pp. 1-61. \"The Bible Commentary,\" vol.\nii: Cook, \"The Acts of the Apostles,\" pp. 351-386. Ellicott, \"A\nNew Testament Commentary for English Readers,\" vol. ii: Plumptre,\n\"The Acts of the Apostles,\" pp. 1-28. Rackham, \"The Acts of the\nApostles,\" pp. 1-69. These commentaries will be designated hereafter\nby the names of the authors only.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON X\n\nTHE FIRST PERSECUTION\n\n\nThe persecution which arose in connection with Stephen marks a\nturning point in the history of the Church. Up to that time, the\ndisciples had been content, for the most part, with laboring in\nJerusalem. Now they were forced out into a broader field. One result\nof the persecution was the geographical extension of the Church.\n\nAnother result was perhaps even more important. The extension\ncaused by persecution was not merely geographical; it was also,\nperhaps, intellectual and spiritual. The Church was really from the\nbeginning in possession of a new religious principle, but at first\nthat principle was not fully understood. Persecution probably helped\nto reveal the hidden riches. The Pharisees were keener than the\ndisciples themselves. Hostility sharpened the vision. The disciples\nthemselves were still content to share in the established forms\nof Jewish worship; but the Pharisees saw that they were really\nadvocates of a new principle. Christianity, unless it were checked,\nwould supersede Judaism. The Pharisees were right. Jealous fear\ndetected what ancestral piety had concealed.\n\nThe hostility of the Jews perhaps helped to open the eyes of the\nChurch. No doubt, a development was already at work. Persecution\nwas the result as well as the cause of the new freedom. Stephen\nwas persecuted possibly just because his preaching went beyond\nthat of Peter. With or without persecution, the Church would have\ntranscended the bounds of the older Judaism. It contained a germ of\nnew life which was certain to bear fruit. But persecution hastened\nthe process. It scattered the Church abroad, and it revealed the\nrevolutionary character of the Church's life.\n\nWith the coming of Jesus a new era had begun. Judaism had before\nbeen separate from the Gentile world. That separation had been due\nnot to racial prejudice, but to a divine ordinance. It had served\na useful purpose. Jewish particularism should never be despised;\nit should be treated with piety and gratitude. It had preserved\nthe precious deposit of truth in the midst of heathenism. But its\nfunction, though useful, was temporary. It was a preparation for\nChrist. Before Christ it was a help; after Christ it became a\nhindrance.\n\nPersecution was not the beginning of the new freedom. Freedom was\nbased upon the words of Jesus. It had become plainer again, perhaps,\nin the teaching of Stephen. Furthermore, if freedom was not begun by\nthe persecution, it was also not completed by it. The emancipation\nof the Church from Judaism was a slow process. The unfolding of that\nprocess is narrated in The Acts. Even after the Church was scattered\nabroad through Judea and Samaria, much remained to be done.\nCornelius, Antioch, Paul were still in the future. Nevertheless,\nthe death of Stephen was an important event. It was by no means the\nwhole of the process; but it marks an epoch.\n\nThe gradual rise of persecution should be traced in class--first\nthe fruitless arrest of Peter and John and their bold defiance;\nthen the arrest of the apostles, the miraculous escape, the\npreaching in the temple, the re-arrest, the counsel of Gamaliel,\nthe scourging; then the preaching of Stephen and the hostility of\nthe Pharisees. The opposition of the Sadducees was comparatively\nwithout significance. The Sadducees were not Jews at heart. They\nmight persecute the Church just because the Church was patriotically\nJewish. But the Pharisees were really representative of the existing\nJudaism. Pharisaic persecution meant the hostility of the nation.\nAnd it implied the independence of the Church. If the disciples were\nnothing but Jews, why did the Jews persecute them?\n\nIn what follows, a few details will be discussed.\n\n\n1. THEUDAS AND JUDAS\n\nJudas the Galilean, mentioned by Gamaliel, Acts 5:37, appears also\nin Josephus. His insurrection occurred at the time of the great\nenrollment under Quirinius, the Syrian legate. This enrollment was\ndifferent from that which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem at\nthe time of the birth of Jesus. Luke 2:2-5. That former enrollment\noccurred before the death of Herod the Great in 4 B. C. Luke 1:5;\nMatt. 2:1. The enrollment to which Gamaliel referred was carried out\nafter the deposition of Archelaus in A. D. 6.\n\nWith regard to Judas all is clear. But Theudas is known only from\nActs 5:36. The Theudas who is mentioned in Josephus is different,\nfor his insurrection did not occur till about A. D. 44, after\nthe time of Gamaliel's speech. Gamaliel was referring to some\ninsurrection of an earlier period. The name Theudas was common, and\nso were tumults and insurrections.\n\n\n2. THE SEVEN\n\nIt has been questioned whether the seven men who were appointed to\nassist the apostles were \"deacons.\" The title is not applied to\nthem. The narrative does, indeed, imply that they were to \"serve\ntables,\" Acts 6:2, and the Greek word here translated \"serve\" is the\nverb from which the Greek noun meaning \"deacon\" is derived; but the\nsame word is also used for the \"ministry [or service] of the word\"\nin which the apostles were to continue. V. 4. The special technical\nuse of the word \"deacon\" appears in the New Testament only in Phil.\n1:1; I Tim. 3:8,12. Compare Rom. 16:1.\n\nNevertheless, though the word itself does not occur in our passage,\nit is perhaps not incorrect to say that the seven were \"deacons.\"\nTheir functions were practically those of the diaconate; their\nappointment, at any rate, shows that the apostles recognized the\nneed of some such office in the Church. It is not quite clear what\nis meant by the expression, to \"serve tables.\" The reference is\neither to tables for food, or else to the money tables of a banker.\nIf the former interpretation be correct, then the deacons were to\nattend especially to the management of the common meals. Even then,\nhowever, the expression probably refers indirectly to the general\nadministration of charity, a prominent part of the service being\nmentioned simply as typical of the whole.\n\n\n3. THE SYNAGOGUES\n\nThe Greek word translated \"Libertines\" in Acts 6:9 comes from the\nLatin word for \"freedmen.\" The freedmen here mentioned were probably\ndescendants of Jews taken by Pompey as slaves to Rome. The Jewish\nopponents of Stephen therefore included Romans, men of eastern and\nmiddle north Africa, and men of eastern and western Asia Minor.\nThese foreign Jews, when they settled in Jerusalem, had their own\nsynagogues. It is doubtful how many synagogues are mentioned in our\npassage. Luke may mean that each of the five groups had a separate\nsynagogue, or he may be grouping the men of Cilicia and Asia in one\nsynagogue. The wording of the Greek perhaps rather favors the view\nthat only two synagogues are mentioned--one consisting of Libertines\nand men of Cyrene and Alexandria, and the other consisting of\nCilicians and Asians.\n\n\n4. THE SPEECH OF STEPHEN\n\nIn defending himself, Stephen gave a summary of Hebrew history. At\nfirst sight, that summary might seem to have little bearing upon the\nspecific charges that had been made. But the history which Stephen\nrecited was a history of Israel. \"You are destroying the divine\nprivileges of Israel\"--that was the charge. \"No,\" said Stephen,\n\"history shows that the true privileges of Israel are the promises\nof divine deliverance. To them law and temple are subordinate. From\nAbraham on there was a promise of deliverance from Egypt. After\nthat deliverance another deliverance was promised. It is the one\nwhich was wrought by Jesus. Moses, God's instrument in the first\ndeliverance, was rejected by his contemporaries. Jesus, the greater\nDeliverer, was rejected by you. We disciples of Jesus are the true\nIsraelites, for we, unlike you, honor the promises of God.\"\n\nOther interpretations of the speech have been proposed. For example,\nsome find the main thought of the speech to be this: \"The wanderings\nof the patriarchs and the long period of time which elapsed before\nthe building of the temple show that true and acceptable worship of\nGod is not limited to any particular place.\" At any rate, the speech\nrequires study--and repays it.\n\nWhat was said in the last lesson about the speeches of The Acts\nin general applies fully to the speech of Stephen. The very\ndifficulties of the speech, as well as its other peculiarities, help\nto show that it represents a genuine tradition of what, in a unique\nsituation, was actually said.\n\n\n5. MARTYRDOM\n\nThe word \"martyr\" is simply the Greek word for \"witness.\" That\nis the word which is translated \"witness\" in Acts 1:8. \"Ye shall\nreceive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall\nbe my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Jud\u00e6a and Samaria,\nand unto the uttermost part of the earth.\" There, of course, there\nis no special reference to dying for the sake of Christ. It is\nprimarily the ordinary verbal testimony which is meant. The special\nmeaning \"martyr\" is not often attached to the Greek word in the New\nTestament. Probably even in Acts 22:20, where the word is applied to\nStephen, it is to be translated \"witness\" rather than \"martyr.\"\n\nMartyrdom, then, is only one kind of witnessing. But it is a very\nimportant kind. Men will not die for what they do not believe. When\nStephen sank beneath the stones of his enemies he was preaching a\npowerful sermon. The very fact of his death was a witness to Christ.\nThe manner of it was still more significant. Stephen, crying in the\nhour of death, \"Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,\" Stephen dying with\nwords of forgiveness on his lips, \"Lord, lay not this sin to their\ncharge,\" was a witness indeed.\n\nThe Church can never do without that kind of witnessing. True,\nit may not now often appear as actual martyrdom. But bravery is\nneeded as much as ever--bravery in business, men who will not say,\n\"Business is business,\" but will do what is right even in the face\nof failure; bravery in politics, men to whom righteousness is\nmore than a pose; bravery in social life, men and women who will\nsacrifice convention every time to principle, who, for example,\nwill maintain the Christian Sabbath in the face of ridicule. Modern\nlife affords plenty of opportunities for cowardice, plenty of\nopportunities for denying the faith through fear of men. It also\naffords opportunities for bravery. You can still show whether you\nare of the stuff that Stephen was made of--above all, you can show\nwhether you are possessed by the same Spirit and are a servant of\nthe same Lord.\n\n\n6. THE RESULT OF THE PERSECUTION\n\nThe persecution resulted only in the spread of the gospel. Gamaliel\nwas right. It was useless to fight against God. The disciples were\nin possession of an invincible power, and they knew it from the very\nbeginning. When Peter and John returned from their first arrest,\nthe disciples responded in a noble prayer. Acts 4:24-30. Herod\nand Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,\ngathered together against Jesus, had accomplished only what God's\nhand and God's counsel foreordained to come to pass. So it would be\nalso with the enemies of the Church. When the disciples had prayed,\n\"the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together; and they\nwere all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spake the word of God\nwith boldness.\" The answer to that prayer was prophetic of the whole\nhistory of the Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\"\npp. 40-42, 47-55. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on\n\"Gamaliel,\" \"Theudas,\" \"Judas\" (6), \"Deacon\"; Purves, article on\n\"Stephen.\" Ramsay, \"Pictures of the Apostolic Church,\" pp. 44-65.\nRackham, pp. 69-111. Lumby, pp. 61-97. Plumptre, pp. 28-47. Cook,\npp. 386-406.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XI\n\nTHE FIRST GENTILE CONVERTS\n\n\nThis lesson treats of a number of steps in the extension of the\ngospel. The beginning is the purely Jewish Church that is described\nin the first chapters of The Acts; the goal is the Gentile\nChristianity of Paul. Gentile Christianity was not produced all at\nonce. The extension of the gospel to Gentiles was a gradual process.\nThe present lesson is concerned only with the early stages. The\nteacher should present the lesson in such a way as to emphasize the\nmain feature of the narrative. The main feature is the central place\nassigned to the Holy Spirit. Though the extension of the gospel to\nthe Gentiles was a process, that process was due not to mere natural\ndevelopment, but to the gracious leading of God.\n\nAs was observed in Lesson X, Stephen perhaps introduced into the\nChurch a more independent attitude toward the existing Judaism.\nThere is no reason, indeed, to suppose that he thought either of\npreaching to Gentiles or of forsaking the ceremonial law. But\npossibly he did venture to exhibit the temporary and provisional\ncharacter of the temple worship as compared with the promises of\nGod. Indirectly, therefore, though certainly not directly, Stephen\nopened the way for the Gentile mission.\n\nThe persecution was another step in the process. It scattered the\nJews abroad into regions where Gentiles were more numerous than in\nJerusalem, and served perhaps also to reveal to the Church itself\nits incompatibility with Pharisaic Judaism.\n\nThe evangelization of Samaria was another important step. Though the\nSamaritans were only half Gentiles, they were particularly detested\nby the Jews. In preaching to them, the disciples were overcoming\nJewish scruples, and thus were moving in the direction of a real\nGentile mission. The baptizing of the Ethiopian may have been\nanother step in the process.\n\nThe most important event, however, was the conversion of Cornelius\nand his household. Here the issue was clearly raised. Cornelius did\nnot, like the Ethiopian, depart at once after baptism to a distant\nhome. His reception into the Church was a matter of public knowledge.\n\nLuke was well aware of the importance of the story about Cornelius.\nThat appears from the minuteness with which the story is narrated.\nAfter it has been completed once, it is repeated, at very\nconsiderable length, as a part of Peter's defense at Jerusalem. The\neffect is as though this incident were heavily underscored.\n\nThe importance of the Cornelius incident appears also in the\nfact that it gave rise to criticism. Apparently this was the\nfirst serious criticism which the gradually widening mission had\nencountered within the Church. There is no suggestion of such\ncriticism in the case of the preaching in Samaria. But now a much\nmore radical step had been taken. Peter had eaten with uncircumcised\nmen. Acts 11:3. A more serious violation of Jewish particularism\ncould hardly have been imagined.\n\nIn defense, Peter appealed simply to the manifest authorization\nwhich he had received from God. That authorization had appeared\nfirst of all in the visions which Peter and Cornelius had received,\nwith other direct manifestations of the divine will, and also more\nparticularly in the bestowal of the Spirit. If the Spirit was given\nto uncircumcised Gentiles, then circumcision was no longer necessary\nto membership in the Church. In the narrative about Cornelius, there\nis a remarkable heaping up of supernatural guidance. Vision is\nadded to vision, revelation to revelation. The reason is plain. A\ndecisive step was being taken. If taken by human initiative, it was\nopen to criticism. The separateness of Israel from other nations was\na divine ordinance. Since it had been instituted by God, it could\nbe abrogated only by him. True, Jesus had said, \"Make disciples of\nall the nations.\" Matt. 28:19. But the how and the when had been\nleft undecided. Were the Gentiles to become Jews in order to become\nChristians, and was the Gentile mission to begin at once? Those were\ngrave questions. They could not be decided without divine guidance.\nThat guidance was given in the case of Cornelius.\n\nPeter's defense was readily accepted. \"And when they heard these\nthings, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to\nthe Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.\" The active\nopposition to the Gentile mission did not arise until later. But how\ncould that opposition arise at all? Since God had spoken so clearly,\nwho could deny to the Gentiles a free entrance into the Church?\nAfter the case of Cornelius, how could any possible question arise?\n\nAs a matter of fact--though it may seem strange--the acceptance of\nCornelius did not at first determine the policy of the Church. That\nincident remained, indeed, stored up in memory. It was appealed to\nyears afterwards by Peter himself, in order to support the Gentile\nChristianity of Paul. Acts 15:7-9,14. But so far as the practice\nof the Jewish Church was concerned, the Cornelius incident seems\nto have remained for a time without effect. The bestowal of the\nSpirit upon Cornelius and his friends was regarded, apparently, as\na special dispensation which fixed no precedent. Before engaging in\nfurther preaching to Gentiles, the Church was waiting, perhaps, for\nmanifestations of the divine will as palpable as those which had\nbeen given to Peter and to Cornelius.\n\nThis attitude is rather surprising. It must be remembered,\nhowever, that for the present the Church was fully engrossed in\nwork for Jews. Undoubtedly, a Gentile work was to come, and the\nCornelius incident, as well as what Jesus had said, was regarded\nas prophetic of it, Acts 11:18; but the time and the manner\nof its institution were still undetermined. Were the Gentile\nconverts generally--whatever might be the special dispensation for\nCornelius--to be required to submit to circumcision and become\nmembers of the chosen people? This and other questions had not yet\neven been faced. Engrossed for the present in the Jewish mission,\nthe Church could leave these questions to the future guidance of God.\n\nIn what follows, a number of special points will be briefly\ndiscussed.\n\n\n1. PHILIP\n\nAfter the baptism of the Ethiopian, \"the Spirit of the Lord caught\naway Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way\nrejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he\npreached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to C\u00e6sarea.\" The\nmeaning of these words is not perfectly plain. Are we to understand\nthat Philip was carried away to Azotus by a miracle, or is nothing\nmore intended than a sudden departure under the impulsion of the\nSpirit? The latter interpretation is not at all impossible. What\nhas been emphasised in the whole narrative is the strangeness, the\nunaccountableness of Philip's movements. This appears particularly\nin the sudden separation from the eunuch. The eunuch expected\nfurther conference with Philip but suddenly Philip rushed off, as\nthough snatched away by a higher power. All through this incident,\nthere is something strangely sudden and unexpected about Philip's\nmovements. Human deliberation evidently had no part in his actions.\nHe was under the immediate impulsion of the Spirit.\n\nThe narrative leaves Philip at C\u00e6sarea, and there he appears years\nafterwards, at the time of Paul's last journey to Jerusalem. Acts\n21:8,9. Luke was at that time one of the company, and may have\nreceived directly from Philip the materials for the narrative in the\neighth chapter of The Acts. Philip appears in Christian tradition,\nbut there is some confusion between Philip the evangelist and Philip\nthe apostle.\n\n\n2. SIMON MAGUS\n\nSimon the sorcerer, or \"Simon Magus,\" is an interesting figure.\nHe has laid hold of the fancy of Christendom. From his name--with\nreference to Acts 8:18,19--the word \"simony\" has been coined to\ndesignate the sin of buying or selling any sort of spiritual\nadvantage. Simon is very prominent in Christian tradition, where he\nis regarded as the fountainhead of all heresy.\n\n\n3. CORNELIUS\n\nCornelius was a \"centurion,\" or captain of a company in the Roman\narmy consisting of about one hundred men. The \"Italian band\" to\nwhich he belonged was apparently a \"cohort,\" composed of soldiers\nfrom Italy. Cornelius was stationed at C\u00e6sarea, the residence of the\nprocurators of Judea. With the favorable description of his attitude\nto the Jews and to the Jewish religion, Acts 10:2, should be\ncompared what Luke, in his Gospel, records about another centurion.\nLuke 7:4,5. These are sympathetic pictures of the \"God-fearing\"\nadherents of Judaism, who formed so important a class at the time of\nthe first Christian preaching.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\"\npp. 59-67, 91-98. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on\n\"Samaria,\" \"Samaritan,\" \"Philip\" (7), \"Simon\" (9), \"C\u00e6sarea,\"\n\"Cornelius.\" Ramsay, \"Pictures of the Apostolic Church,\" pp. 66-104.\nRackham, pp. 111-124, 141-163. Lumby, pp. 97-108, 122-142. Plumptre,\npp. 47-55, 63-73. Cook, pp. 407-413, 419-430.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XII\n\nTHE CONVERSION OF PAUL\n\n\nChristianity a supernatural thing and a gift of God's grace--that is\nthe real theme of the lesson. The theme is brought home by means of\nan example, the example of the apostle Paul.\n\nThe religious experience of Paul is the most striking phenomenon\nin the history of the human spirit. It really requires no defense.\nGive it sympathetic attention, and it is irresistible. How was it\nproduced? The answer of Paul himself, at least, is plain. According\nto Paul, his whole religious life was due, not to any natural\ndevelopment, but to an act of the risen Christ. That is the argument\nof the first chapter of Galatians. He was advancing in Judaism, he\nsays, beyond his contemporaries. He was laying waste the Church.\nAnd then suddenly, when it was least to be expected, without the\ninfluence of men, simply by God's good pleasure, Christ was revealed\nto him, and all was changed. The suddenness, the miraculousness of\nthe change is the very point of the passage. Upon that marvelous act\nof God Paul bases the whole of his life work.\n\nShall Paul's explanation of his life be accepted? It can be accepted\nonly by the recognition of Jesus Christ, who was crucified, as a\nliving person. In an age of doubt, that recognition is not always\neasy. But if it be refused, then the whole of Pauline Christianity\nis based upon an illusion. That alternative may well seem to be\nmonstrous. The eighth chapter of Romans has a self-evidencing power.\nIt has transformed the world. It has entered into the very fiber of\nthe human spirit. But it crumbles to pieces if the appearance on\nthe road to Damascus was nothing but a delusive vision. Let us not\ndeceive ourselves. The religious experience of Paul and the whole\nof our evangelical piety are based upon the historical fact of the\nresurrection. But if so, then the resurrection stands firm. For the\nfull glory of Pauline Christianity becomes a witness to it. The\nwriter of the epistle to the Romans must be believed. But it is that\nwriter who says, \"Last of all ... he appeared to me also.\"\n\nThe wonder of the conversion can be felt only through an exercise\nof the historical imagination. Imagine the surroundings of Paul's\nearly life in Tarsus, live over again with him the years in\nJerusalem, enter with him into his prospects of a conventional\nJewish career and into his schemes for the destruction of the\nChurch--and then only can you appreciate with him the catastrophic\nwonder of Christ's grace. There was no reason for the conversion of\nPaul. Everything pointed the other way. But Christ chose to make of\nthe persecutor an apostle, and the life of Paul was the result. It\nwas a divine, inexplicable act of grace--grace to Paul and grace\nto us who are Paul's debtors. God's mercies are often thus. They\nare not of human devising. They enter into human life when they are\nleast expected, with a sudden blaze of heavenly glory.\n\nIn the review of Paul's early life various questions emerge. They\nmust at least be faced, if not answered, if the lesson is to be\nvividly presented.\n\n\n1. PAUL AT TARSUS\n\nIn the first place, what was the extent of the Greek influence\nwhich was exerted upon Paul at Tarsus? The question cannot be\nanswered with certainty, and widely differing views are held. It is\naltogether unlikely, however, that the boy attended anything like\nan ordinary Gentile school. The Jewish strictness of the family\nprecludes that supposition, and it is not required by the character\nof Paul's preaching and writing. It is true that he occasionally\nquotes a Greek poet. I Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12; Acts 17:28. It is\ntrue again that some passages in Paul's letters are rhetorical--for\nexample, I Cor. 1:18-25; ch. 13--and that rhetoric formed an\nimportant part of Greek training in the first century. But Paul's\nrhetoric is the rhetoric of nature rather than of art. Exalted\nby his theme he falls unconsciously into a splendid rhythm of\nutterance. Such rhetoric could not be learned in school. Finally, it\nis true that Paul's vocabulary is thought to exhibit some striking\nsimilarities to that of Stoic writers. But even if that similarity\nindicates acquaintance on the part of Paul with the Stoic teaching,\nsuch acquaintance need not have been attained through a study of\nbooks.\n\nHowever, the importance of Paul's Greek environment, if it must\nnot be exaggerated, must on the other hand not be ignored. In the\nfirst place, Paul is a consummate master of the Greek language.\nHe must have acquired it in childhood, and indeed in Tarsus could\nhardly have failed to do so. In the second place, he was acquainted\nwith the religious beliefs and practices of the Greco-Roman world.\nThe speech at Athens, Acts 17:22-31, shows how he made use of\nsuch knowledge for his preaching. In all probability the first\nimpressions were made upon him at Tarsus. Finally, from his home in\nTarsus Paul derived that intimate knowledge of the political and\nsocial relationships of the men of his day which, coupled with a\nnative delicacy of perception and fineness of feeling, resulted in\nthe exquisite tact which he exhibited in his missionary and pastoral\nlabors. The Tarsian Jew of the dispersion was a gentleman of the\nRoman Empire.\n\nThat Aramaic, as well as Greek, was spoken by the family of Paul is\nmade probable by Phil. 3:5 and II Cor. 11:22. The word \"Hebrew\" in\nthese passages probably refers especially to the use of the Aramaic\n(\"Hebrew\") language, as in Acts 6:1, where the \"Hebrews\" in the\nJerusalem church are contrasted with the \"Grecian Jews.\" \"A Hebrew\nof Hebrews,\" therefore, probably means \"an Aramaic-speaking Jew and\ndescended from Aramaic-speaking Jews.\" In Acts 21:40; 22:2 it is\nexpressly recorded that Paul made a speech in Aramaic (\"Hebrew\"),\nand in Acts 26:14 it is said that Christ spoke to him in the same\nlanguage. Conceivably, of course, he might have learned that\nlanguage during his student days in Jerusalem. But the passages just\nreferred to make it probable that it was rather the language of his\nearliest home. From childhood Paul knew both Aramaic and Greek.\n\n\n2. THE INNER LIFE OF PAUL THE RABBI\n\nThe most interesting question about Paul's life at Jerusalem\nconcerns the condition of his inner life before the conversion. Paul\nthe Pharisee is an interesting study. What were this man's thoughts\nand feelings and desires before the grace of Christ made him the\ngreatest of Christian missionaries?\n\nThe best way to answer this question would be to ask Paul himself.\nOne passage in the Pauline epistles has been regarded as an answer\nto the question. That passage is Rom. 7:14-25. There Paul describes\nthe struggle of the man who knows the law of God and desires to\naccomplish it, but finds the flesh too strong for him. If Paul is\nthere referring to his pre-Christian life, then the passage gives\na vivid picture of his fruitless struggle as a Pharisee to fulfill\nthe law. Many interpreters, however, refer the passage not to the\npre-Christian life but to the Christian life. Even in the Christian\nlife the struggle goes on against sin. And even if Paul is referring\nto the pre-Christian life, he is perhaps depicting it rather as it\nreally was than as he then thought it was. The passage probably does\nnot mean that before he became a Christian Paul was fully conscious\nof the fruitlessness of his endeavor to attain righteousness by the\nlaw. Afterwards he saw that his endeavor was fruitless, but it is\ndoubtful how clearly he saw it at the time.\n\nIt would, indeed, be a mistake to suppose that Paul as a Pharisee\nwas perfectly happy. No man is happy who is trying to earn\nsalvation by his works. In his heart of hearts Paul must have\nknown that his fulfillment of the law was woefully defective.\nBut such discontentment would naturally lead him only farther on\nin the same old path. If his obedience was defective, let it be\nmended by increasing zeal! The more earnest Paul was about his law\nrighteousness, the more discontented he became with his attainments,\nso much the more zealous did he become as a persecutor.\n\nSome have supposed that Paul was gradually getting nearer to\nChristianity before Christ appeared to him--that the Damascus\nexperience only completed a process that had already begun. There\nwere various things, it is said, which might lead the earnest\nPharisee to consider Christianity favorably. In the first place,\nthere was the manifest impossibility of law righteousness. Paul had\ntried to keep the law and had failed. What if the Christians were\nright about salvation by faith? In the second place, there were\nthe Old Testament prophecies about a suffering servant of Jehovah.\nIsa., ch. 53. If they referred to the Messiah, then the cross might\nbe explained, as the Christians explained it, as a sacrifice for\nothers. The stumblingblock of a crucified Messiah would thus be\nremoved. In the third place, there was the noble life and death of\nthe Christian martyrs.\n\nThese arguments are not so weighty as they seem. Paul's\ndissatisfaction with his fulfillment of the law, as has already\nbeen observed, might lead to a more zealous effort to fulfill the\nlaw as well as to a relinquishment of the law. There seems to be\nno clear evidence that the pre-Christian Jews ever contemplated a\ndeath of the Messiah like the death of Jesus. On the contrary the\ncurrent expectation of the Messiah was diametrically opposed to\nany such thing. And admiration of the Christian martyrs is perhaps\ntoo modern and too Christian to be attributed to the Pharisee.\nThe fundamental trouble with this whole argument is that it proves\nmerely that the Pharisee Paul ought to have been favorably impressed\nwith Christianity. So he ought, but as a matter of fact he was not\nso impressed, and we have the strongest kind of evidence to prove\nthat he was not. The book of The Acts says so, and Paul says so\njust as clearly in his letters. The very fact that when he was\nconverted he was on a persecuting expedition, more ambitious than\nany that had been attempted before, shows that he was certainly\nnot thinking favorably of Christianity. Was he considering the\npossibility that Christianity might be true? Was he trying to stifle\nhis own inward uncertainty by the very madness of his zeal? Then,\nin persecuting the Church, he was going against his conscience. But\nin I Tim. 1:13 he distinctly says that his persecuting was done\nignorantly in unbelief, and his attitude is the same in his other\nepistles. If in persecuting the Church he was acting contrary to\nbetter conviction, then that fact would have constituted the chief\nelement in his guilt; yet in the passages where he speaks with the\ndeepest contrition of his persecution, that particularly heinous sin\nis never mentioned. Evidently, whatever was his guilt, at least he\ndid not have to reproach himself with the black sin of persecuting\nChrist's followers in the face of even a half conviction.\n\nAccordingly, the words of Christ to Paul at the time of the\nconversion, \"It is hard for thee to kick against the goad,\" Acts\n26:14, do not mean that Paul had been resisting an inward voice of\nconscience in not accepting Christ before, but rather that Christ's\nwill for Paul was really resistless even though Paul had not known\nit at all. Christ's loving plan would be carried out in the end.\nPaul was destined to be the apostle to the Gentiles. For him to try\nto be anything else was as useless and as painful as it is for the\nox to kick against the goad. Christ will have his way.\n\nThus before his conversion Paul was moving away from Christianity\nrather than toward it. Of course, in emphasizing the suddenness of\nthe conversion, exaggerations must be avoided. It is absurd, for\nexample, to suppose that Paul knew nothing at all about Jesus before\nthe Damascus event. Of course he knew about him. Even if he had been\nindifferent, he could hardly have failed to hear the story of the\nGalilean prophet; and as a matter of fact he was not indifferent\nbut intensely interested, though by way of opposition. These things\nwere not done in a corner. Paul was in Jerusalem before and after\nthe crucifixion, if not at the very time itself. The main facts in\nthe life of Jesus were known to friend and foe alike. Thus when in\nthe first chapter of Galatians Paul declares that he received his\ngospel not through any human agency but directly from Christ, he\ncannot mean that the risen Christ imparted to him the facts in the\nearthly life of Jesus. It never occurred to Paul to regard the bare\nfacts as a \"gospel.\" He had the facts by ordinary word of mouth from\nthe eyewitnesses. What he received from the risen Christ was a new\ninterpretation of the facts. He had known the facts before. But they\nhad filled him with hatred. He had known about Jesus. But the more\nhe had known about him, the more he had hated him. And then Christ\nhimself appeared to him! It might naturally have been an appearance\nin wrath, a thunderstroke of the just vengeance of the Messiah.\nProbably that was Paul's first thought when he heard the words, \"I\nam Jesus whom thou persecutest.\" But such was not the Lord's will.\nThe purpose of the Damascus wonder was not destruction but divine\nfellowship and world-wide service.\n\n\n3. PAUL'S EXPERIENCE AND OURS\n\nIn one sense, the experience of Paul is the experience of every\nChristian. Not, of course, in form. It is a great mistake to\ndemand of every man that he shall be able, like Paul, to give day\nand hour of his conversion. Many men, it is true, still have such\na definite experience. It is not pathological. It may result in\nglorious Christian lives. But it is not universal, and it should\nnot be induced by tactless methods. The children of Christian homes\noften seem to grow up into the love of Christ. When they decide\nto unite themselves definitely with the Church, the decision need\nnot necessarily come with anguish of soul. It may be simply the\nculmination of a God-encircled childhood, a recognition of what\nGod has already done rather than the acquisition of something new.\nBut after all, these differences are merely in the manner of God's\nworking. In essence, true Christian experience is always the same,\nand in essence it is always like the experience of Paul. It is no\nmere means of making better citizens, but an end in itself. It is no\nproduct of man's effort, but a divine gift. Whatever be the manner\nof its coming, it is a heavenly vision. Christ still lives in the\nmidst of glory. And still he appears to sinful men--though not now\nto the bodily eye--drawing them out of sin and misery and bondage\nto a transitory world into communion with the holy and eternal God.\n\nThe result of Paul's vision was service. How far his destination as\napostle to the Gentiles was made known to him at once is perhaps\nuncertain. It depends partly upon the interpretation of Acts\n26:14-18. Are those words intended to be part of what was spoken at\nthe very time of the conversion? There is no insuperable objection\nto that view. At any rate, no matter how much or how little was\nrevealed at once, the real purpose of Christ in calling him was\nclearly that he should be the leader of the Gentile mission. Gal.\n1:16. He was saved in order that he might save others. It is so\nnormally with every Christian. Every one of us is given not only\nsalvation, but also labor. In that labor we can use every bit of\npreparation that is ours, even if it was acquired before we became\nChristians. Paul, the apostle, used his Greek training as well as\nhis knowledge of the Old Testament. We can use whatever talents we\npossess. The Christian life is not a life of idleness. It is like\nthe life of the world in being full of labor. But it differs from\nthat life in that its labor is always worth while. Connection with\nheaven does not mean idle contemplation, but a vantage ground of\npower. You cannot move the world without a place to stand.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n68-85. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": article on \"Damascus.\"\nRamsay, \"Pictures of the Apostolic Church,\" pp. 113-120; \"St. Paul\nthe Traveller and the Roman Citizen,\" pp. 29-39; \"The Cities of\nSt. Paul,\" pp. 85-244 (on Tarsus). Conybeare and Howson, \"The Life\nand Epistles of St. Paul,\" chs. ii and iii. Lewin, \"The Life and\nEpistles of St. Paul,\" chs. i and iv. Stalker, \"The Life of St.\nPaul,\" pp. 1-42. Rackham, pp. 124-135, 421-424, 462-470. Lumby, pp.\n108-116, 302-307, 344-349. Plumptre, pp. 55-61, 150-152, 165-167.\nCook, pp. 413-417, 498-500, 516-519.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XIII\n\nTHE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH\n\n\nChristianity originated in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire, in\nthe midst of a very peculiar people. At first, it was entirely out\nof relation to the larger life of the time. The atmosphere of the\nGospels is as un-Greek as could be imagined; the very conception of\nMessiahship is distinctively Jewish.\n\nYet this Jewish sect soon entered upon the conquest of the empire,\nand the Jewish Messiah became the Saviour of the world. Starting\nfrom Jerusalem, the new sect spread within a few decades almost\nto the remotest corners of the civilized world. This remarkable\nextension was not the work of any one man or group of men. It seemed\nrather to be due to some mysterious power of growth, operating in\nmany directions and in many ways. In this manifold extension of the\ngospel, however, the central event of to-day's lesson stands out\nwith special clearness. Christianity began as a Jewish movement,\nquite incongruous with the larger life of the empire. What would be\nthe result of its first real contact with the culture of the time?\nThis question was answered at Antioch.\n\nAt Antioch, the principles of the Gentile mission had to be\nestablished once for all--those principles which have governed the\nentire subsequent history of the Church. The extension of the gospel\nto the Gentiles was not a mere overcoming of racial prejudice,\nfor the separateness of Israel had been of divine appointment; it\ninvolved rather the recognition that a new dispensation had begun.\nPrimitive Christianity was not governed merely by considerations of\npractical expediency; it sought justification for every new step\nin the guidance of the Spirit and in the fundamental principles of\nthe gospel. The development of those fundamental principles was\nnecessary in order to show that Christianity was really more than\na Jewish sect. Then as always, religion without theology would\nhave been a weak and flabby thing. Christianity is not merely an\ninstrument for the improving of social conditions, but rather an\nanswer to the fundamental questions of the soul. It can never do\nwithout thinking, and Christian thinking is theology.\n\nFortunately the church at Antioch did not long remain without a\ntheologian. Its theologian was Paul. Paul was not the founder of the\nchurch at Antioch; but the theology of Paul was what gave to that\nchurch its really fundamental importance in the history of the world.\n\nThe lesson for to-day is of extraordinary richness and variety.\nMuch can be learned, for example, from the characters of the story.\nBarnabas, with his generous recognition of the great man who was\nsoon to overshadow him; those obscure men of Cyprus and Cyrene, not\neven mentioned by name, whose work at Antioch was one of the great\nturning points of history; Agabus, the prophet, and the charitable\nbrethren of Antioch; Rhoda, the serving girl, and the prayerful\nassembly in the house of the mother of Mark--every one of these\nteaches some special lesson. One lesson, moreover, may be learned\nfrom them all--God is the real leader of the Church, and true\ndisciples, though different in character and in attainments, are all\nsharers in a mighty work.\n\nIn what follows, an attempt will be made to throw light upon a few\nof the historical questions which are suggested by the narrative in\nThe Acts, and to picture as vividly as possible the scene of these\nstirring events.\n\n\n1. THE ACTS AND THE PAULINE EPISTLES\n\nThe differences between the narrative in The Acts and the account\nwhich Paul gives of the same events have caused considerable\ndifficulty. This very difficulty, however, is by no means an unmixed\nevil; for it shows at least that Luke was entirely independent of\nthe Epistles. If he had employed the Epistles in the composition\nof his book he would surely have avoided even the appearance of\ncontradicting them. The divergences between The Acts and the Pauline\nEpistles, therefore, can only mean that Luke did not use the\nEpistles when he wrote; and since the Epistles came to be generally\nused at a very early time, The Acts cannot have been written at so\nlate a date as is often supposed. But if the book was written at an\nearly time, then there is every probability that the information\nwhich it contains is derived from trustworthy sources.\n\nThus the very divergences between The Acts and the Pauline Epistles,\nunless indeed they should amount to positive contradictions,\nstrengthen the argument for the early date and high historical\nvalue of the Lucan work. The independence of The Acts is supported\nalso by the complete absence of striking verbal similarity between\nthe narrative in The Acts and the corresponding passages in the\nEpistles. Even where the details of the two accounts are similar,\nthe words are different. The few unimportant coincidences in\nlanguage are altogether insufficient to overthrow this general\nimpression of independence.\n\nThe most natural supposition, therefore, is that in The Acts and in\nthe Epistles we have two independent and trustworthy accounts of the\nsame events. This supposition is really borne out by the details of\nthe two narratives. There are differences, but the differences are\nonly what is to be expected in two narratives which were written\nfrom entirely different points of view and in complete independence\nof one another. Contradictions have been detected only by pressing\nunduly the language of one source or the other. Thus, in reading The\nActs alone, one might suppose that Paul spent the whole time between\nhis conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem in Damascus, and\nthat this period was less than three years; but these suppositions\nare only inferences. Apparently Luke was not aware of the journey to\nArabia; but an incomplete narrative is not necessarily inaccurate.\nAgain, in the account of that first visit to Jerusalem, the reader\nof The Acts might naturally suppose that more than one of the Twelve\nwas present, that the main purpose of the journey was rather to\nengage in preaching than to make the acquaintance of Peter, and\nthat the visit lasted longer than fifteen days; and on the other\nhand, the reader of Galatians might perhaps suppose that instead\nof preaching in Jerusalem Paul remained, while there, in strict\nretirement. Again, however, these suppositions would be inferences;\nand the falsity of them simply shows how cautious the historian\nshould be in reading between the lines of a narrative. Finally, the\ndifferences between Paul and Luke are overbalanced by the striking\nand undesigned agreements.\n\nIn Galatians, Paul does not mention the visit which he and Barnabas\nmade in Jerusalem at the time of the famine. This conclusion has\nbeen avoided by those scholars who with Ramsay identify the \"famine\nvisit\" with the visit mentioned in Gal. 2:1-10. The more usual view,\nhowever, is that Gal. 2:1-10 is to be regarded as parallel, not with\nActs 11:30; 12:25, but with Acts 15:1-30. The second visit mentioned\nby Paul is thus identified with the third visit mentioned by Luke.\nPaul did not mention the famine visit because, as was probably\nadmitted even by his opponents in Galatia, the apostles at the time\nof that visit were all out of the city, so that there was no chance\nof a meeting with them. The subject under discussion in Galatians\nwas not Paul's life in general, but the relation between Paul and\nthe original apostles.\n\n\n2. THE PREACHING TO \"GREEKS\"\n\nIn Acts 11:20, the best manuscripts read \"spake unto the Hellenists\"\ninstead of \"spake unto the Greeks.\" The word \"Hellenist\" usually\nmeans \"Grecian Jew.\" Here, however, if this word is to be read, it\nmust refer not to Jews, but to Gentiles; for the contrast with the\npreaching to Jews that is mentioned just before, is the very point\nof the verse. Perhaps at this point the manuscripts which read\n\"Greeks\" (that is, \"Gentiles\") are correct. In either case, the\nmeaning is fixed by the context. These Jews of Cyprus and Cyrene,\nwhen they arrived at Antioch certainly began to preach regularly to\nGentiles.\n\n\n3. PETER'S ESCAPE FROM PRISON\n\nIn Acts 12:1-24, Luke brings the account of affairs in Jerusalem up\nto the time which has already been reached in the narrative about\nAntioch. The journey of Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem, Acts 11:30;\n12:25, supplied the connecting link. While the church at Antioch was\nprogressing in the manner described in Acts 11:19-30, a persecution\nhad been carried on in Jerusalem by Herod Agrippa I. The escape of\nPeter is narrated in an extraordinarily lifelike way. Evidently\nLuke was in possession of first-hand information. The vividness of\nthe narrative is very significant. It shows that the unmistakable\ntrustworthiness of The Acts extends even to those happenings which\nwere most clearly miraculous. The supernatural cannot be eliminated\nfrom apostolic history.\n\n\n4. ANTIOCH\n\nAntioch on the Orontes was founded by Seleucus Nicator, the first\nmonarch of the Seleucid dynasty, and under his successors it\nremained the capital of the Syrian kingdom. When that kingdom was\nconquered by the Romans, the political importance of Antioch did\nnot suffer. Antioch became under the Romans not only the capital of\nthe province Syria but also the residence of the emperors and high\nofficials when they were in the east. It may be regarded as a sort\nof eastern capital of the empire.\n\nThe political importance of Antioch was no greater than its\ncommercial importance. Situated near the northeastern corner of the\nMediterranean Sea, where the Mediterranean coast is nearer to the\nEuphrates than at any other point, where the Orontes valley provided\neasy communication with the east and the Syrian gates with the west,\nwith a magnificent artificial harbor at Seleucia, about twenty miles\ndistant, Antioch naturally became the great meeting point for the\ntrade of east and west. It is not surprising that Antioch was the\nthird city of the empire--after Rome and Alexandria.\n\nThe city was built on a plain between the Orontes on the north\nand the precipitous slopes of Mount Silpius on the south. A great\nwall extended over the rugged heights of the mountain and around\nthe city. A magnificent street led through the city from east to\nwest. The buildings were of extraordinary magnificence. Perhaps as\nmagnificent as the city itself was the famous Daphne, a neighboring\nshrine and pleasure resort, well-known for its gilded vice.\n\nThe dominant language of Antioch, from the beginning, had been\nGreek. The Seleucids prided themselves on the Greek culture of\ntheir court, and Roman rule introduced no essential change. Of\ncourse, along with the Greek language and Greek culture went a\nlarge admixture of eastern blood and eastern custom. Like the other\ngreat cities of the empire, Antioch was a meeting place of various\npeoples, a typical cosmopolitan center of a world-wide empire. The\nJewish population, of course, was numerous.\n\nSuch was the seat of the apostolic missionary church. Almost lost\nat first in the seething life of the great city, that church was\ndestined to outlive all the magnificence that surrounded it. A new\nseed had been implanted in the ancient world, and God would give the\nincrease.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\"\npp. 85-90, 98-110. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on\n\"Agabus,\" \"Antioch,\" \"Arabia,\" \"Aretas,\" \"Barnabas,\" \"Herod\" (3).\nRamsay, \"St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen,\" pp. 40-69;\n\"Pictures of the Apostolic Church,\" pp. 121-128. Lewin, \"The Life\nand Epistles of St. Paul,\" chs. v, vi and vii. Conybeare and Howson,\n\"The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,\" ch. iv. Stalker, \"The Life of\nSt. Paul,\" pp. 44-63. Lumby, pp. 116-122, 142-155, 307-309. Cook,\npp. 416-418, 430-433, 500, 501. Plumptre, pp. 60-62, 73-79, 152.\nRackham, pp. 136-141, 163-184.\n\n\n\n\nPart II:\n\nChristianity Established Among\nthe Gentiles\n\nThe Principles and Practice\nof the Gospel\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XIV\n\nTHE GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES\n\n\nIt was a dramatic moment when Paul and Barnabas, with their helper,\nset sail from Seleucia, on the waters of the Mediterranean. Behind\nthem lay Syria and Palestine and the history of the chosen people;\nin front of them was the west. The religion of Israel had emerged\nfrom its age-long seclusion; it had entered at last upon the\nconquest of the world.\n\nThe message that crossed the strait to Cyprus was destined to be\ncarried over broader seas. A mighty enterprise was begun. It was an\naudacious thought! The missionaries might well have been overpowered\nby what lay before them--by the power of a world empire, by the\nprestige of a brilliant civilization. How insignificant were their\nown weapons! Would they ever even gain a hearing? But though the\nenterprise was begun in weakness it was begun in faith. At their\ndeparture from Antioch the missionaries were \"committed to the grace\nof God.\"\n\nThe account of this first missionary journey is one of the most\nfascinating passages in The Acts. The interest never flags; incident\nfollows incident in wonderful variety. In reading this narrative,\nwe are transplanted into the midst of the ancient world, we come\nto breathe the very atmosphere of that cosmopolitan age. In the\nlesson of to-day the teacher has an unusual opportunity. If he uses\nit well, he may cause the Bible story to live again. Absolutely\nessential to that end is the judicious use of a map--preferably\nsomething larger than the small sketch map of the Text Book. A\ntravel narrative without a map is a hopeless jumble. The map is an\naid both to memory and to imagination. Tracing the route of the\nmissionaries on the map, the teacher should endeavor to call up the\nscenes through which they passed. The student should be made to see\nthe waters of the Mediterranean, with the hills of Cyprus beyond,\nthe interminable stretches of the Roman roads, the lofty mountains\nof the Taurus, the perils of rivers and the perils of robbers, the\nteeming population of the countless cities--and through it all the\nsimple missionaries of the cross, almost unnoticed amid the turmoil\nof the busy world, but rich in the possession of a world-conquering\ngospel and resistless through the power of the living God.\n\n\n1. THE PROPHETS AND TEACHERS\n\nBoth prophecy and teaching were gifts of the Spirit. I Cor.\n12:28-31. Prophecy was immediate revelation of the divine plan or\nof the divine will; teaching, apparently, was logical development\nof the truth already given. Which of the men who are mentioned in\nActs 13:1 were prophets and which were teachers is not clear. If any\ndivision is intended it is probably between the first three and the\nlast two. For this grouping there is perhaps some slight indication\nin the connectives that are used in the Greek, but the matter is not\ncertain. Perhaps all five of the men were possessed of both gifts.\n\nLucius was perhaps one of the founders of the church, for he\ncame from Cyrene. Compare Acts 11:20. Manaen is an interesting\nfigure. He is called \"foster-brother\" of Herod the tetrarch. The\nword translated \"foster-brother\" is apparently sometimes used in\na derived sense, to designate simply an intimate associate of a\nprince. If that be the meaning here, then at least one member of the\nchurch at Antioch was a man of some social standing. In Antioch,\nas in Corinth, probably \"not many wise after the flesh, not many\nmighty, not many noble\" were called, I Cor. 1:26; but in Antioch as\nin Corinth there were exceptions. The Herod who is here meant is\nHerod Antipas, the \"Herod\" of the Gospels.\n\n\n2. ELYMAS\n\nWhen the Jewish sorcerer is first mentioned he is called\nBar-Jesus--that is, \"son of Jesus,\" Jesus being a common Jewish\nname. Then, a little below, the same man is called \"Elymas the\nsorcerer,\" and the explanation is added, \"for so is his name by\ninterpretation.\" Apparently the new name Elymas is introduced\nwithout explanation, and then the Greek word for \"sorcerer\" is\nintroduced as a translation of that. The word Elymas is variously\nderived from an Arabic word meaning \"wise,\" or an Aramaic word\nmeaning \"strong.\" In either case the Greek word, \"magos,\" for which\nour English Bible has \"sorcerer,\" is a fair equivalent. That Greek\nword is the word that appears also in Matt. 2:1,7,16, where the\nEnglish Bible has \"Wise-men\"; and words derived from the same root\nare used to describe Simon of Samaria in Acts 8:9,11. The word\ncould designate men of different character. Some \"magi\" might be\nregarded as students of natural science; in others, superstition and\ncharlatanism were dominant.\n\n\n3. SAUL AND PAUL\n\nAt Acts 13:9 Luke introduces the name \"Paul\"--\"Saul, who is also\ncalled Paul.\" Previously the narrative always uses the Jewish name\n\"Saul\"; after this \"Paul\" appears with equal regularity, except in\nthe accounts of the conversion, where in three verses a special,\nentirely un-Greek form of \"Saul\" is used. Acts 22:7,13; 26:14. Since\nin our passage in the original the name of the proconsul, Paulus, is\nexactly like the name of the apostle, some have supposed that Paul\nassumed a new name in honor of his distinguished convert. That is\naltogether unlikely. More probable is the suggestion that although\nPaul had both names from the beginning, Luke is led to introduce the\nname Paul at just this point because of the coincidence with the\nname of the proconsul. Even this supposition, however, is extremely\ndoubtful. Probably the Roman name, which Paul uses invariably in\nhis letters, is introduced at this point simply because here for\nthe first time Paul comes prominently forward in a distinctly Roman\nenvironment.\n\n\n4. PAUL AND BARNABAS\n\nConnected with this variation in name is the reversal in the\nrelation between Paul and Barnabas. Previously Barnabas has been\ngiven the priority; but immediately after the incident at Paphos the\nmissionaries are designated as \"Paul and his company,\" Acts 13:13,\nand thereafter when the two are mentioned together, Paul, except at\nActs 14:12,14; 15:12,25, appears first. In the presence of the Roman\nproconsul, Paul's Roman citizenship perhaps caused him to take the\nlead; and then inherent superiority made his leadership permanent.\n\n\n5. THE RETURN OF JOHN MARK\n\nThe reasons for John Mark's return from Perga to Jerusalem can\nonly be surmised. Perhaps he was simply unwilling, for some reason\nsufficient to him but insufficient to Paul, to undertake the\nhardships of the journey into the interior. Certainly it was an\nadventurous journey. Paul was not always an easy man to follow.\n\nThe severity of Paul's judgment of Mark was not necessarily so great\nas has sometimes been supposed. One purpose of the second journey\nwas to revisit the churches of the first journey. Acts 15:36.\nWhether for good or for bad reasons, Mark, as a matter of fact,\nhad not been with the missionaries on a large part of that first\njourney, and was, therefore, unknown to many of the churches. For\nthis reason, perhaps as much as on account of moral objections, Paul\nconsidered Mark an unsuitable helper. In his later epistles Paul\nspeaks of Mark in the most cordial way. Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; II\nTim. 4:11. In the last passage, he even says that Mark was useful to\nhim for ministering--exactly what he had not been at the beginning\nof the second missionary journey.\n\n\n6. HARDSHIPS AND PERSECUTIONS\n\nIt is evident from II Cor. 11:23-27 that Luke has recorded only a\nsmall fraction of the hardships which Paul endured as a missionary\nof the cross. The tendency to lay exaggerated stress upon martyrdom\nand suffering, which runs riot in the later legends of the saints,\nis in The Acts conspicuous by its absence. Of the trials which are\nvouched for by the unimpeachable testimony of Paul himself, only\na few may be identified in the Lucan narrative. It is natural,\nhowever, to suppose that some of the \"perils of rivers\" and \"perils\nof robbers\" were encountered on the journey through the defiles of\nthe Taurus mountains from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, and the one\nstoning which Paul mentions is clearly to be identified with the\nadventure at Lystra. In II Tim. 3:11 Paul mentions the persecutions\nat Antioch, Iconium and Lystra.\n\n\n7. GEOGRAPHY OF THE FIRST JOURNEY\n\nThe first missionary journey led the missionaries into three Roman\nprovinces: Cyprus, Pamphylia and Galatia. The name \"Galatia\" had\noriginally designated a district in the north central part of Asia\nMinor, which had been colonized by certain Celtic tribes several\ncenturies before Christ. By the Romans, however, other districts\nwere added to this original Galatia, and in 25 B. C. the whole\ncomplex was organized into an imperial province under the name\nGalatia. In the first century after Christ, therefore, the name\nGalatia could be used in two distinct senses. In the first place, in\nthe earlier, popular sense, it could designate Galatia proper. In\nthe second place, in the later, official sense, it could designate\nthe whole Roman province, which included not only Galatia proper,\nbut also parts of a number of other districts, including Phrygia and\nLycaonia. Of the cities visited on the first missionary journey,\nPisidian Antioch--which was called \"Pisidian\" because it was near\nPisidia--and Iconium were in Phrygia, and Lystra and Derbe in\nLycaonia; but all four were included in the province of Galatia.\nMany scholars suppose that the churches in these cities were the\nchurches which Paul addresses in the Epistle to the Galatians. That\nview is called the \"South Galatian theory.\" Others--adherents of\nthe \"North Galatian theory\"--suppose that the epistle is addressed\nto churches in Galatia proper, in the northern part of the Roman\nprovince, which were founded on the second missionary journey. This\nquestion will be noticed again in connection with the epistle.\n\n\n8. TIME OF THE FIRST JOURNEY\n\nLuke gives very little indication of the amount of time which was\nconsumed on this first journey. The hasty reader probably estimates\nthe time too low, since only a few incidents are narrated. The\nrapidity of the narrative should not be misinterpreted as indicating\ncursoriness of the labor. The passage through Cyprus, Acts 13:6, was\nprobably accompanied by evangelizing; the extension of the gospel\nthrough the whole region of Antioch, v. 49, must have occupied\nmore than a few days; the stay at Iconium is designated as \"long\ntime,\" Acts 14:3; the change of attitude on the part of the Lystran\npopulace, v. 19, was probably not absolutely sudden; not only Lystra\nand Derbe but also the surrounding country were evangelized, v.\n6; and finally the missionaries could hardly have returned to the\ncities from which they had been driven out, v. 21, unless the heat\nof persecution had been allowed to cool. Perhaps a full year would\nnot be too high an estimate of the time that was occupied by the\njourney, and still higher estimates are by no means excluded.\n\n\n9. THE SCENE AT LYSTRA\n\nThe account of the incident at Lystra is one of those inimitable\nbits of narrative which imprint upon The Acts the indisputable\nstamp of historicity. Lystra, though a Roman colony, lay somewhat\noff the beaten track of culture and of trade; hence the extreme\nsuperstition of the populace is what might be expected. It may seem\nrather strange that Paul and Barnabas should have been identified\nwith great gods of Olympus rather than with lesser divinities or\nspirits, but who can place a limit upon the superstition of an\nuncultured people of the ancient world? The identification may\nhave been rendered easier by the legend of Philemon and Baucis,\nwhich has been preserved for us by Ovid, the Latin poet. According\nto that legend, Zeus and Hermes appeared, once upon a time, in\nhuman form in Phrygia, the same general region in which Lystra was\nsituated. Zeus and Hermes are the gods with whom Barnabas and Paul\nwere identified; the English Bible simply substitutes for these\nGreek names the names of the corresponding Roman deities. The temple\nof Zeus-before-the-city and the preparations for sacrifices are\ndescribed in a most lifelike way, in full accord with what is known\nof ancient religion. We find ourselves here in a somewhat different\natmosphere from that which prevails in most of the scenes described\nin The Acts. It is a pagan atmosphere, and an atmosphere of ruder\nsuperstition than that which prevailed in the great cities. The\n\"speech of Lycaonia,\" v. 11, is an especially characteristic touch.\nApparently the all-pervading Greek was understood at Lystra even by\nthe populace; but in the excitement of their superstition they fell\nvery naturally into their native language.\n\nAs in the case of Peter's release from prison, so in this incident,\nwonderful lifelikeness of description is coupled with a miracle. The\nscene at Lystra is unintelligible without the miraculous healing of\nthe lame man, with which it begins. It is impossible, in The Acts as\nwell as in the Gospels, to separate the miraculous from the rest of\nthe narrative. The evident truthfulness of the story applies to the\nsupernatural elements as well as to the rest. The early Christian\nmission is evidently real; but it is just as evidently supernatural.\nIt moved through the varied scenes of the real world, but it was not\nlimited by the world. It was animated by a mysterious, superhuman\npower.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n111-122. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on \"Cyprus,\"\n\"Antioch\" (2), \"Iconium,\" \"Lystra,\" \"Derbe,\" \"Galatia.\" Hastings,\n\"Dictionary of the Bible\": Muir, article on \"Cyprus\"; Massie,\narticle on \"Bar-Jesus\"; Headlam, article on \"Paulus, Sergius\";\nRamsay, articles on \"Antioch in Pisidia,\" \"Iconium,\" \"Lystra,\"\n\"Derbe,\" \"Galatia.\" Ramsay, \"St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman\nCitizen,\" pp. 64-129; \"The Cities of St. Paul,\" pp. 247-419;\n\"Pictures of the Apostolic Church,\" pp. 129-153. Lewin, \"The Life\nand Epistles of St. Paul,\" chapter viii. Conybeare and Howson, \"The\nLife and Epistles of St. Paul,\" chapters v and vi. Stalker, \"The\nLife of St. Paul,\" pp. 65-71. Lumby, pp. 155-183. Cook, pp. 437-451.\nPlumptre, pp. 79-93. Rackham, pp. 194-238.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XV\n\nTHE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM\n\n\nThe lesson for to-day deals with one of the most important events in\napostolic history. At the Jerusalem council the principles of the\nGentile mission and of the entire life of the Church were brought\nto clear expression. If the original apostles had agreed with the\nJudaizers against Paul, the whole history of the Church would have\nbeen different. There would even have been room to doubt whether\nPaul was really a disciple of Jesus; for if he was, how could he\ncome to differ so radically from those whom Jesus had taught? As a\nmatter of fact, however, these dire consequences were avoided. When\nthe issue was made between Paul and the Judaizers, the original\napostles decided whole-heartedly for Paul. The unity of the Church\nwas preserved. God was guiding the deliberations of the council.\n\n\n1. THE ACTS AND GALATIANS\n\nThe treatment of to-day's lesson in the Student's Text Book is\nbased upon the assumption that Gal. 2:1-10 is an account of the\nsame visit of Paul to Jerusalem as the visit which is described in\nActs 15:1-29. That assumption is not universally accepted. Some\nscholars identify the event of Gal. 2:1-10, not with the Apostolic\nCouncil of Acts 15:1-29, but with the \"famine visit\" of Acts 11:30;\n12:25. Indeed, some maintain that the Epistle to the Galatians not\nonly contains no account of the Apostolic Council, but was actually\nwritten before the council was held--say at Antioch, soon after the\nfirst missionary journey. Of course this early dating of Galatians\ncan be adopted only in connection with the \"South Galatian theory\";\nfor according to the \"North Galatian theory\" the churches addressed\nin the epistle were not founded until after the council, namely at\nthe time of Acts 16:6.\n\nUndoubtedly the identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with Acts 11:30;\n12:25, avoids some difficulties. If Gal. 2:1-10 be identified\nwith Acts 15:1-29, then Paul in Galatians has passed over the\nfamine visit without mention. Furthermore there are considerable\ndifferences between Gal. 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-29. For example, if\nPaul is referring to the Apostolic Council, why has he not mentioned\nthe apostolic decree of Acts 15:23-29? These difficulties, however,\nare not insuperable, and there are counter difficulties against the\nidentification of Gal. 2:1-10 with the famine visit.\n\nOne such difficulty is connected with chronology. Paul says\nthat his first visit to Jerusalem took place three years after\nhis conversion, Gal. 1:18, and--according to the most natural\ninterpretation of Gal. 2:1--that the visit of Gal. 2:1-10 took place\nfourteen years after the first visit. The conversion then occurred\nseventeen years before the time of Gal. 2:1-10. But if Gal. 2:1-10\ndescribes the famine visit, then the time of Gal. 2:1-10 could not\nhave been after about A. D. 46. Counting back seventeen years from\nA. D. 46 we should get A. D. 29 as the date of the conversion, which\nis, of course, too early.\n\nThis reasoning, it must be admitted, is not quite conclusive. The\nancients had an inclusive method of reckoning time. According to\nthis method three years after 1914 would be 1916. Hence, fourteen\nplus three might be only what we should call about fifteen years,\ninstead of seventeen. Furthermore, Paul may mean in Gal. 2:1 that\nhis conference with the apostles took place fourteen years after the\nconversion rather than fourteen years after the first visit.\n\nThe identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with the famine visit is not\nimpossible. But on the whole the usual view, which identifies the\nevent of Gal. 2:1-10 with the meeting at the time of the Apostolic\nCouncil of Acts 15:1-29, must be regarded as more probable. The\nApostolic Council probably took place roughly at about A. D. 49. The\nconversion of Paul then should probably be put at about A. D. 32-34.\n\n\n2. THE JUDAIZERS\n\nConceivably the question about the freedom of the Gentiles from the\nlaw might have arisen at an earlier time; for Gentiles had already\nbeen received into the Church before the first missionary journey.\nAs a matter of fact, indeed, some objection had been raised to the\nreception of Cornelius. But that objection had easily been silenced\nby an appeal to the immediate guidance of God. Perhaps the case of\nCornelius could be regarded as exceptional; and a similar reflection\nmight possibly have been applied to the Gentile Christians at\nAntioch. There seemed to be no danger, at any rate, that the\npredominantly Jewish character of the Church would be lost. Now,\nhowever, after a regular Gentile mission had been carried on with\nsignal success, the situation was materially altered. Evidently the\ninflux of Gentile converts, if allowed to go on unhindered, would\nchange the whole character of the Church. Christianity would appear\naltogether as a new dispensation: the prerogatives of Israel would\nbe gone. The question of Gentile Christianity had existed before,\nbut after the first missionary journey it became acute.\n\nPerhaps, however, there was also another reason why the battle\nhad not been fought out at an earlier time. It looks very much as\nthough this bitter opposition to the Gentile mission had arisen only\nthrough the appearance of a new element in the Jerusalem church.\nWere these extreme legalists, who objected to the work of Paul and\nBarnabas--were these men present in the Church from the beginning?\nThe question is more than doubtful. It is more probable that these\nlegalists came into the Church during the period of prosperity\nwhich followed upon the persecution of Stephen and was only briefly\ninterrupted by the persecution under Herod Agrippa I.\n\nThese Jewish Christian opponents of the Gentile mission--these\n\"Judaizers\"--must be examined with some care. They are described not\nonly by Luke in The Acts but by Paul himself in Galatians. According\nto The Acts, some of them at least had belonged to the sect of the\nPharisees before they had become Christians. Acts 15:5.\n\nThe activity of the Judaizers is described by Luke in complete\nindependence of the account given by Paul. As usual, Luke contents\nhimself with a record of external fact, while Paul uncovers the\ndeeper motives of the Judaizers' actions. Yet the facts as reported\nby Luke fully justify the harsh words which Paul employs. According\nto Paul, these Judaizers were \"false brethren privily brought in,\nwho came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ\nJesus, that they might bring us into bondage.\" Gal. 2:4. By calling\nthem \"false brethren\" Paul means simply that they had not really\ngrasped the fundamental principle of the gospel--the principle\nof justification by faith. They were still trying to earn their\nsalvation by their works instead of receiving it as a gift of God.\nAt heart they were still Jews rather than Christians. They came in\nprivily into places where they did not belong--perhaps Paul means\nespecially into the church at Antioch--in order to spy out Christian\nliberty. Gal. 2:4. Compare Acts 15:1.\n\nThe rise of this Judaizing party is easy to understand. In\nsome respects the Judaizers were simply following the line of\nleast resistance. By upholding the Mosaic law they would escape\npersecution and even obtain honor. We have seen that it was the\nJews who instigated the early persecutions of the Church. Such\npersecutions would be avoided by the Judaizers, for they could\nsay to their non-Christian countrymen: \"We are engaged simply in\none form of the world-wide Jewish mission. We are requiring our\nconverts to keep the Mosaic law and unite themselves definitely\nwith the people of Israel. Every convert that we gain is a convert\nto Judaism. The cross of Christ that we proclaim is supplementary\nto the law, not subversive of it. We deserve therefore from the\nJews not persecution but honor.\" Compare what Paul says about the\nJudaizers in Galatia. Gal. 6:12,13.\n\n\n3. THE APOSTOLIC DECREE\n\nAt first sight it seems rather strange that Paul in Galatians does\nnot mention the apostolic decree. Some have supposed that his words\neven exclude any decree of that sort. In Gal. 2:6 Paul says that\nthe pillars of the Jerusalem church \"imparted nothing\" to him. Yet\naccording to The Acts they imparted to him this decree. The decree,\nmoreover, seems to have a direct bearing upon the question that\nPaul was discussing in Galatians; for it involved the imposition of\na part of the ceremonial law upon Gentile Christians. How then, if\nthe decree really was passed as Luke says it was, could it have been\nleft unmentioned by Paul?\n\nThere are various ways of overcoming the difficulty. In the first\nplace it is not perfectly certain that any of the prohibitions\ncontained in the decree are ceremonial in character. Three of\nthem are probably ceremonial if the text of most manuscripts of\nThe Acts is correct. Most manuscripts read, at Acts 15:29: \"That\nye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and\nfrom things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep\nyourselves, it shall be well with you.\" Here \"things offered to\nidols\" apparently describes not idolatrous worship, but food which\nhad been dedicated to idols; and \"blood\" describes meat used for\nfood without previous removal of the blood. This meaning of \"blood\"\nis apparently fixed by the addition of \"things strangled.\" Since\n\"things strangled\" evidently refers to food, probably the two\npreceding expressions refer to food also. According to the great\nmass of our witnesses to the text, therefore, the apostolic decree\ncontains a food law. A few witnesses, however, omit all reference\nto things strangled, not only at Acts 15:29 but also at v. 20 and\nat ch. 21:25. If this text be original, then it is possible to\ninterpret the prohibitions as simply moral and not at all ceremonial\nin character. \"Things offered to idols\" may be interpreted simply\nof idolatry, and \"blood\" of murder. But if the prohibitions are\nprohibitions of immorality, then they cannot be said to have\n\"imparted\" anything to Paul; for of course he was as much opposed to\nimmorality as anyone.\n\nHowever, the more familiar form of the text is probably correct.\nThe witnesses that omit the word \"strangled\" are those that attest\nthe so-called \"Western Text\" of The Acts. This Western Text differs\nrather strikingly from the more familiar text in many places. The\nquestion as to how far the Western Text of The Acts is correct is a\nhotly debated question. On the whole, however, the Western readings\nare usually at any rate to be discredited.\n\nIn the second place, the difficulty about the decree may be overcome\nby regarding Gal. 2:1-10 as parallel not with Acts 15:1-29 but with\nActs 11:30; 12:25. This solution has already been discussed.\n\nIn the third place, the difficulty may be overcome by that\ninterpretation of the decree which is proposed in the Student's Text\nBook. The decree was not an addition to Paul's gospel. It was not\nimposed upon the Gentile Christians as though a part of the law were\nnecessary to salvation. On the contrary it was simply an attempt\nto solve the practical problems of certain mixed churches--not\nthe Pauline churches in general, but churches which stood in an\nespecially close relation to Jerusalem. This interpretation of the\ndecree is favored by the difficult verse, Acts 15:21. What James\nthere means is probably that the Gentile Christians should avoid\nthose things which would give the most serious offense to hearers of\nthe law.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n125-166. Lightfoot, \"Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians,\" pp.\n123-128 (\"The later visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem\"), 292-374 (\"St.\nPaul and the Three\"). Ramsay, \"St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman\nCitizen,\" pp. 48-60, 152-175. Lewin, \"The Life and Epistles of St.\nPaul,\" ch. ix. Conybeare and Howson, \"The Life and Epistles of St.\nPaul,\" ch. vii. Stalker, \"The Life of St. Paul,\" pp. 108-118. Lumby,\npp. 185-200. Cook, pp. 451-458. Plumptre, pp. 93-101. Rackham, pp.\n238-259, 263-270.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XVI\n\nTHE GOSPEL CARRIED INTO EUROPE\n\n\nFrom the rich store of to-day's lesson only a few points can be\nselected for special comment.\n\n\n1. TITUS AND TIMOTHY\n\nAt Lystra, Paul had Timothy circumcised. Acts 16:3. This action\nhas been considered strange in view of the attitude which Paul had\npreviously assumed. At Jerusalem, only a short time before, he had\nabsolutely refused to permit the circumcision of Titus. Evidently,\ntoo, he had regarded the matter as of fundamental importance. Had\nTitus been circumcised, the freedom of the Gentile Christians would\nhave been seriously endangered.\n\nThe presence of Titus at the Apostolic Council is mentioned only by\nPaul in Galatians. It is not mentioned in The Acts. Indeed, Titus\ndoes not appear in The Acts at all, though in the epistles he is\nrather prominent. This fact, however, really requires no further\nexplanation than that the history of Luke is not intended to be\nexhaustive. The restraint exercised by the author of The Acts has\nalready been observed, for example, in a comparison of the long list\nof hardships in II Cor. 11:23-27 with what Luke actually narrates.\nThe helpers of Paul whom Luke mentions are usually those who\ntraveled with him. Titus was sent by Paul on at least one important\nmission, II Cor. 7:13,14, but was apparently not his companion on\nthe missionary journeys. Luke does not concern himself very much\nwith the internal affairs of the churches, and it is in this field\nthat Titus is especially prominent in the epistles. With regard\nto the presence of Titus in Jerusalem, the different purposes of\nthe narratives in Galatians and in The Acts must be borne in mind.\nThe non-circumcision of Titus, so strongly emphasized by Paul, was\nmerely preliminary to the public action of the church in which Luke\nwas interested. Luke has thought it sufficient to include Titus\nunder the \"certain other\" of the Antioch Christians who went up with\nPaul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.\n\nThe different policy which Paul adopted in the case of Timothy, as\ncompared with his policy about Titus, is amply explained by the wide\ndifferences in the situation.\n\nIn the first place, when Titus was at Jerusalem, the matter of\nGentile freedom was in dispute, whereas when Timothy was circumcised\nthe question had already been settled by a formal pronouncement of\nthe Jerusalem church. After Paul had won the victory of principle,\nhe could afford to make concessions where no principle was involved.\nTimothy was recognized as a full member of the Church even before\nhis circumcision. Circumcision was merely intended to make him a\nmore efficient helper in work among the Jews.\n\nIn the second place--and this is even more important--Timothy\nwas a half-Jew. It is perhaps doubtful whether Paul under any\ncircumstances would have authorized the circumcision of a pure\nGentile like Titus. But Timothy's mother was Jewish. It must always\nbe borne in mind that Paul did not demand the relinquishment of\nthe law on the part of Jews; and Timothy's parentage gave him at\nleast the right of regarding himself as a Jew. If he had chosen to\nfollow his Gentile father, the Jews could have regarded him as a\nrenegade. His usefulness in the synagogues would have been lost.\nObviously the circumcision of such a man involved nothing more than\nthe maintenance of ancestral custom on the part of Jews. Where no\nprinciple was involved, Paul was the most concessive of men. See\nespecially I Cor. 9:19-23. The final relinquishment of the law on\nthe part of Jews was rightly left to the future guidance of God.\n\n\n2. THE ROUTE THROUGH ASIA MINOR\n\nThe difficulty of tracing the route of the missionaries beyond\nLystra is due largely to the difficulty of Acts 16:6. A literal\ntranslation of the decisive words in that verse would be either\n\"the Phrygian and Galatian country\" or \"Phrygia and the Galatian\ncountry.\" According to the advocates of the \"South Galatian theory,\"\n\"the Galatian country\" here refers not to Galatia proper but to\nthe southern part of the Roman province Galatia. \"The Phrygian\nand Galatian country\" then perhaps means \"The Phrygo-Galatic\ncountry,\" or \"that part of Phrygia which is in the Roman province\nGalatia.\" The reference then is to Iconium, Pisidian Antioch and\nthe surrounding country--after the missionaries had passed through\nthe Lycaonian part of the province Galatia (Derbe and Lystra) they\ntraversed the Phrygian part of the province. The chief objection\nto all such interpretations is found in the latter part of the\nverse: \"having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word\nin Asia.\" It looks as though the reason why they passed through\n\"the Phrygian and Galatian country\" was that they were forbidden to\npreach in Asia. But South Galatia was directly on the way to Asia.\nThe impossibility of preaching in Asia could therefore hardly have\nbeen the reason for passing through south Galatia.\n\nApparently, therefore, the disputed phrase refers rather to some\nregion which is not on the way to Asia. This requirement is\nsatisfied if Galatia proper is meant--the country in the northern\npart of the Roman province Galatia. When they got to Pisidian\nAntioch, it would have been natural for them to proceed into the\nwestern part of Asia Minor, into \"Asia.\" That they were forbidden\nto do. Hence they turned north, and went through Phrygia into\nGalatia proper. When they got to the border country between Mysia\nand Galatia proper, they tried to continue their journey north into\nBithynia, but were prevented by the Spirit. Then they turned west,\nand passing through Mysia without preaching arrived at last at the\ncoast, at Troas.\n\nNothing is said here about preaching in Galatia proper. But in Acts\n18:23, in connection with the third missionary journey, it is said\nthat when Paul passed through \"the Galatian country and Phrygia\" he\nestablished the disciples. There could not have been disciples in\nthe \"Galatian country,\" unless there had been preaching there on the\nprevious journey. On the \"North Galatian\" theory, therefore, the\nfounding of the Galatian churches to which the epistle is directed\nis to be placed at Acts 16:6, and the second visit to them, which\nseems to be presupposed by the epistle, is to be put at Acts 18:23.\nIf it seems strange that Luke does not mention the founding of these\nchurches, the hurried character of this section of the narrative\nmust be borne in mind. Furthermore, the epistle seems to imply\nthat the founding of the churches was rather incidental than an\noriginal purpose of the journey; for in Gal. 4:13 Paul says that\nit was because of an infirmity of the flesh that he preached the\ngospel in Galatia the former time. Apparently he had been hurrying\nthrough the country without stopping, but being detained by illness\nused his enforced leisure to preach to the inhabitants. It is not\nimpossible to understand how Luke came to omit mention of such\nincidental preaching. On the second missionary journey attention is\nconcentrated on Macedonia and Greece.\n\n\n3. THE MOVEMENTS OF SILAS AND TIMOTHY\n\nWhen Paul went to Athens, Silas and Timothy remained behind in\nMacedonia. Acts 17:14. They were directed to join Paul again as soon\nas possible. V. 15. In Acts 18:1,5 they are said to have joined him\nat Corinth. The narrative in The Acts must here be supplemented by\nthe First Epistle to the Thessalonians. What Luke says is perfectly\ntrue, but his narrative is not complete. According to the most\nnatural interpretation of I Thess. 3:1-5, Timothy was with Paul in\nAthens, and from there was sent to Thessalonica. The entire course\nof events was perhaps as follows: Silas and Timothy both joined\nPaul quickly at Athens according to directions. They were then sent\naway again--Timothy to Thessalonica, and Silas to some other place\nin Macedonia. Then, after the execution of their commissions, they\nfinally joined Paul again at Corinth. Acts 18:5; I Thess. 3:6. Soon\nafterwards, all three missionaries were associated in the address of\nFirst Thessalonians.\n\n\n4. PAUL AT ATHENS\n\nIn Athens Paul preached as usual in the synagogue to Jews and\n\"God-fearers\"; but he also adopted another and more unusual\nmethod--he simply took his stand without introduction in the\nmarket place, and spoke to those who chanced by. This method was\ncharacteristically Greek; it reminds us of the days of Socrates.\n\nIn the market place, Paul encountered certain of the Epicurean\nand Stoic philosophers. Both of these schools of philosophy had\noriginated almost three hundred years before Christ, and both were\nprominent in the New Testament period. In their tenets they were\nvery different. The Stoics were pantheists. They conceived of the\nworld as a sort of great living being of which God is the soul. The\nworld does not exist apart from God and God does not exist apart\nfrom the world. Such pantheism is far removed from the Christian\nbelief in the living God, Maker of heaven and earth; but as against\npolytheism, pantheism and theism have something in common. Paul in\nhis speech was able to start from this common ground. In ethics, the\nStoics were perhaps nearer to Christianity than in metaphysics. The\nhighest good they conceived to be a life that is led in accordance\nwith reason--that reason which is the determining principle of the\nworld. The passions must be conquered, pleasure is worthless, the\nwise man is independent of external conditions. Such an ethic worked\nitself out in practice in many admirable virtues--in some conception\nof the universal brotherhood of mankind, in charity, in heroic\nself-denial. But it lacked the warmth and glow of Christian love,\nand it lacked the living God.\n\nThe Epicureans were materialists. The world, for them, was a\nvast mechanism. They believed in the gods, but conceived of them\nas altogether without influence upon human affairs. Indeed, the\ndeliverance of man from the fear of the gods was one of the purposes\nof the Epicurean philosophy. The Epicureans were interested chiefly\nin ethics. Pleasure, according to them, is the highest good. It\nneed not be the pleasure of the senses; indeed Epicurus, at least,\nthe founder of the school, insisted upon a calm life undisturbed by\nviolent passions. Nevertheless it will readily be seen how little\nsuch a philosophy had in common with Christianity.\n\nThe conditions under which Paul made his speech cannot be determined\nwith certainty. The difficulty arises from the ambiguity of\n\"Areopagus.\" \"Areopagus\" means \"Mars' hill.\" But the term was also\napplied to the court which held at least some of its meetings on\nthe hill. Which meaning is intended here? Did Paul speak before\nthe court, or did he speak on Mars' hill merely to those who were\ninterested? On the whole, it is improbable at any rate that he was\nsubjected to a formal trial.\n\nThe speech of Paul at Athens is one of the three important speeches\nof Paul, exclusive of his speeches in defense of himself at\nJerusalem and at C\u00e6sarea, which have been recorded in The Acts.\nThese speeches are well chosen. One of them is a speech to Jews,\nActs 13:16-41; one a speech to Gentiles, Acts 17:22-31; and the\nthird a speech to Christians, Acts 20:18-35. Together they afford\na very good idea of Paul's method as a missionary and as a pastor.\nAs is to be expected, they differ strikingly from one another. Paul\nwas large enough to comprehend the wonderful richness of Christian\ntruth. His gospel was always the same, but he was able to adapt the\npresentation of it to the character of his hearers.\n\nAt Athens, an altar inscribed TO AN UNKNOWN GOD provided a starting\npoint. The existence of such an altar is not at all surprising,\nalthough only altars to \"unknown gods\" (plural instead of singular)\nare attested elsewhere. Perhaps the inscription on this altar\nindicated simply that the builder of the altar did not know to which\nof the numberless gods he should offer thanks for a benefit that he\nhad received, or to which he should address a prayer to ward off\ncalamity. Under a polytheistic religion, where every department of\nlife had its own god, it was sometimes difficult to pick out the\nright god to pray to for any particular purpose. Such an altar was\nat any rate an expression of ignorance, and that ignorance served as\na starting point for Paul. \"You are afraid that you have neglected\nthe proper god in this case,\" says Paul in effect. \"Yes, indeed,\nyou have. You have neglected a very important god indeed, you have\nneglected the one true God, who made the world and all things\ntherein.\"\n\nIn what follows, Paul appeals to the truth contained in Stoic\npantheism. His words are of peculiar interest at the present day,\nwhen pantheism is rampant even within the Church. There is a great\ntruth in pantheism. It emphasizes the immanence of God. But the\ntruth of pantheism is contained also in theism. The theist, as well\nas the pantheist, believes that God is not far from every one of us,\nand that in him we live and move and have our being. The theist, as\nwell as the pantheist, can say, \"Closer is he than breathing, and\nnearer than hands and feet.\" The theist accepts all the truth of\npantheism, but avoids the error. God is present in the world--not\none sparrow \"shall fall on the ground without your Father\"--but\nhe is not limited to the world. He is not just another name for\nthe totality of things, but an awful, mysterious, holy, free and\nsovereign Person. He is present in the world, but also Master of the\nworld.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n177-197. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on \"Troas,\"\n\"Philippi,\" \"Thessalonica,\" \"Athens,\" \"Areopagus,\" \"Stoics,\"\n\"Epicureans,\" \"Corinth,\" \"Gallio,\" \"Silas.\" Ramsay, \"St. Paul the\nTraveller and the Roman Citizen,\" pp. 175-261; \"Pictures of the\nApostolic Church,\" pp. 197-239. Lewin, \"The Life and Epistles of\nSt. Paul,\" chs. x, xi, and xii. Conybeare and Howson, \"The Life\nand Epistles of St. Paul,\" chs. viii, ix, x, xi, and xii. Stalker,\n\"The Life of St. Paul,\" pp. 71-81. Lumby, pp. 200-239. Cook, pp.\n458-476. Plumptre, pp. 101-124. Rackham, pp. 260-263, 271-331. For\ninformation about the recently discovered Gallio inscription, see\n\"The Princeton Theological Review,\" vol. ix, 1911, pp. 290-298:\nArmstrong, \"Epigraphical Note.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XVII\n\nENCOURAGEMENT FOR RECENT CONVERTS\n\n\nThe Pauline Epistles fall naturally into four groups: (1) the\nepistles of the second missionary journey (First and Second\nThessalonians); (2) the epistles of the third missionary journey\n(Galatians, First and Second Corinthians and Romans); (3) the\nepistles of the first imprisonment (Colossians and Philemon,\nEphesians and Philippians); (4) the epistles written after the\nperiod covered by The Acts (First Timothy, Titus and Second Timothy).\n\nEach of these groups has its own characteristics. The first group\nis characterized by simplicity of subject matter, and by a special\ninterest in the second coming of Christ. The second group is\nconcerned especially with the doctrines of sin and grace. The third\ngroup displays a special interest in the person of Christ and in\nthe Church. The fourth group deals with organization, and with the\nmaintenance of sound instruction.\n\n\n1. SIMPLICITY OF THE THESSALONIAN EPISTLES\n\nThe reason for the peculiarities of First and Second Thessalonians\nhas often been sought in the early date of these epistles. On the\nsecond missionary journey, it is said, Paul had not yet developed\nthe great doctrines which appear at later periods of his life. This\nexplanation may perhaps contain an element of truth. Undoubtedly\nthere was some progress in Paul's thinking. Not everything was\nrevealed to him at once. The chief cause, however, for the\nsimplicity of the Thessalonian epistles is not the early date but\nthe peculiar occasion of these epistles. Paul is here imparting\nhis first written instruction to an infant church. Naturally he\nmust feed these recent converts with milk. The simplicity of the\nletters is due not to immaturity in Paul but to immaturity in the\nThessalonian church. After all, at the time when the Thessalonian\nepistles were written, the major part of Paul's Christian\nlife--including the decisive conflict with the Judaizers at Antioch\nand Jerusalem--lay already in the past.\n\nAt any rate the simplicity of the Thessalonian epistles must not be\nexaggerated. In these letters the great Pauline doctrines, though\nnot discussed at length, are everywhere presupposed. There is the\nsame lofty conception of Christ as in the other epistles, the same\nemphasis upon his resurrection, the same doctrine of salvation\nthrough his death. I Thess. 1:10; 5:9,10.\n\n\n2. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST\n\nUndoubtedly the second advent, with the events which are immediately\nto precede it, occupies a central position in the Thessalonian\nepistles. A few words of explanation, therefore, may here be in\norder.\n\nEvidently the expectation of Christ's coming was a fundamental part\nof Paul's belief, and had a fundamental place in his preaching. \"Ye\nturned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to\nwait for his Son from heaven\"--these words show clearly how the hope\nof Christ's appearing was instilled in the converts from the very\nbeginning. I Thess. 1:9,10. To serve the living God and to wait for\nhis Son--that is the sum and substance of the Christian life. All\nthrough the epistles the thought of the Parousia--the \"presence\" or\n\"coming\"--of Christ appears as a master motive. I Thess. 2:19; 3:13;\n4:13 to 5:11,23,24; II Thess. 1:5 to 2:12.\n\nThis emphasis upon the second coming of Christ is explained if Paul\nexpected Christ to come in the near future. The imminence of the\nParousia for Paul appears to be indicated by I Thess. 4:15: \"For\nthis we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are\nalive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise\nprecede them that are fallen asleep.\" This verse is often thought to\nindicate that Paul confidently expected before his death to witness\nthe coming of the Lord. Apparently he classes himself with those who\n\"are left unto the coming of the Lord\" as over against those who\nwill suffer death. In the later epistles, it is further said, Paul\nheld a very different view. From Second Corinthians on, he faced\never more definitely the thought of death. II Cor. 5:1,8; Phil.\n1:20-26. A comparison of I Cor. 15:51 with II Cor. 5:1,8 is thought\nto indicate that the deadly peril which Paul incurred between the\nwriting of the two Corinthian epistles, II Cor. 1:8,9, had weakened\nhis expectation of living until Christ should come. After he had\nonce despaired of life, he could hardly expect with such perfect\nconfidence to escape the experience of death. The possibility of\ndeath was too strong to be left completely out of sight.\n\nPlausible as such a view is, it can be held only with certain\nreservations.\n\nIn the first place, we must not exaggerate the nearness of the\nParousia according to Paul, even in the earliest period; for in II\nThess. 2:1-12 the Thessalonians are reminded of certain events that\nmust occur before Christ would come. The expression of the former\nepistle, I Thess. 5:2, that the day of the Lord would come as a\nthief in the night, was to be taken as a warning to unbelievers to\nrepent while there was yet time, not as a ground for neglecting\nordinary provision for the future. In Second Thessalonians Paul\nfinds it necessary to calm the overstrained expectations of the\nThessalonian Christians.\n\nFurthermore, it is not only in the earlier epistles that expressions\noccur which seem to suggest that the Parousia is near. Rom. 13:11;\nPhil. 4:5. And then it is evident from II Cor. 11:23-29 and from\nI Cor. 15:30-32 that Paul had undergone dangers before the one\nmentioned in II Cor. 1:8,9, so that there is no reason to suppose\nthat that one event caused any sudden change in his expectations.\n\nLastly, in I Cor. 6:14 Paul says that \"God both raised the Lord, and\nwill raise up us through his power.\" If that refers to the literal\nresurrection, then here Paul classes himself among those who are to\ndie; for if he lived to the Parousia, then there would be no need\nfor him to be raised up.\n\nIt is therefore very doubtful whether we can put any very definite\nchange in the apostle's expectations as to his living or dying\nbetween First Corinthians and Second Corinthians. A gradual\ndevelopment in his feeling about the matter there no doubt was.\nDuring the early part of his life his mind dwelt less upon the\nprospect of death than it did after perils of all kinds had made\nthat prospect more and more imminent. But at no time did the\napostle regard the privilege of living until the Parousia as a\ncertainty to be put at all in the same category with the Christian\nhope itself. Especially the passage in First Thessalonians can\nbe rightly interpreted only in the light of the historical\noccasion for it. Until certain members of the church had died, the\nThessalonian Christians had never faced the possibility of dying\nbefore the second coming of Christ. Hence they were troubled. Would\nthe brethren who had fallen asleep miss the benefits of Christ's\nkingdom? Paul writes to reassure them. He does not contradict their\nhope of living till the coming of Christ, for God had not revealed\nto him that that hope would not be realized. But he tells them\nthat, supposing that hope to be justified, even then they will have\nno advantage over their dead brethren. He classes himself with those\nwho were still alive and might therefore live till Christ should\ncome, as over against those who were already dead and could not\ntherefore live till Christ should come.\n\nCertain passages in the epistles of Paul, which are not confined to\nany one period of his life, seem to show that at any rate he did\nnot exclude the very real possibility that Christ might come in\nthe near future. At any rate, however, such an expectation of the\nearly coming of Christ was just as far removed as possible from the\nexpectations of fanatical chiliasts. It did not lead Paul to forget\nthat the times and the seasons are entirely in the hand of God. It\nhad no appreciable effect upon his ethics, except to make it more\nintense, more fully governed by the thought of the judgment seat of\nChrist. It did not prevent him from laying far-reaching plans, it\ndid not prevent his developing a great philosophy of future history\nin Rom., chs. 9 to 11. How far he was from falling into the error he\ncombated in Second Thessalonians! Despite his view of the temporary\ncharacter of the things that are seen, how sane and healthy was his\nway of dealing with practical problems! He did his duty, and left\nthe details of the future to God. Hence it is hard to discover what\nPaul thought as to how soon Christ would come--naturally so, for\nPaul did not try to discover it himself.\n\n\n3. THE PERSONS ASSOCIATED IN THE ADDRESS\n\nAlmost always other persons are associated with Paul in the\naddresses of the epistles. With regard to the meaning of this\ncustom, extreme views should be avoided. On the one hand, these\npersons--usually, at any rate--had no share in the actual\ncomposition of the epistles. The epistles bear the imprint of one\nstriking personality. On the other hand, association in the address\nmeans something more than that the persons so named sent greetings;\nfor mere greetings are placed at the end. The truth lies between\nthe two extremes. Probably the persons associated with Paul in the\naddress were made acquainted at least in general with the contents\nof the epistles, and desired to express their agreement with what\nwas said. In the Thessalonian epistles Silas and Timothy, who had\nhad a part in the founding of the Thessalonian church, appear very\nappropriately in the address.\n\nA question related to that of the persons associated in the\naddresses is the question of the so-called \"epistolary plural.\"\nThe epistolary plural was analogous to our \"editorial we\" it was\na usage by which the writer of a letter could substitute \"we\" for\n\"I\" in referring to himself alone. In many passages in the letters\nof Paul it is exceedingly difficult to tell whether a plural is\nmerely epistolary, or whether it has some special significance. For\nexample, whom, if anyone, is Paul including with himself in the \"we\"\nof I Thess. 3:1? In particular, the question often is whether, when\nPaul says \"we,\" he is thinking of the persons who were associated\nwith him in the address of the epistle. On the whole it seems\nimpossible to deny that Paul sometimes uses the epistolary plural,\nthough his use of it is probably not so extensive as has often been\nsupposed.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n197-203. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves (supplemented),\narticle on \"Thessalonians, Epistles to the.\" Hastings, \"Dictionary\nof the Bible\": Lock, articles on \"Thessalonians, First Epistle to\nthe\" and \"Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the.\" M'Clymont, \"The\nNew Testament and Its Writers,\" pp. 47-57. Ramsay, \"Pictures of the\nApostolic Church,\" pp. 240-246. Stalker, \"The Life of St. Paul,\" pp.\n85-107. Ellicott, \"A New Testament Commentary for English Readers,\"\nvol. iii, pp. 125-170: Mason, \"The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to\nthe Thessalonians.\" \"The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges\":\nFindlay, \"The Epistles to the Thessalonians.\" Zahn, \"Introduction\nto the New Testament,\" vol. i, pp. 152-164, 203-255. Milligan, \"St.\nPaul's Epistles to the Thessalonians.\" The two last-named works are\nintended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but\ncan also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XVIII\n\nTHE CONFLICT WITH THE JUDAIZERS\n\n\n1. APOLLOS\n\nBefore the arrival of Paul at Ephesus an important event had\ntaken place in that city--the meeting of Aquila and Priscilla\nwith Apollos. Apollos was a Jew of Alexandrian descent. He had\nalready received instruction about Jesus--perhaps in his native\ncity. Of all the great cities of the Roman Empire Alexandria alone\nwas approximately as near to Jerusalem as was Syrian Antioch. The\nfounding of the church at Alexandria is obscure, but undoubtedly it\ntook place at a very early time. At a later period Alexandria was\nof the utmost importance as the center of Christian learning, as\nit had been already the center of the learning of the pagan world.\nUntil instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos had known only\nthe baptism of John the Baptist. Apparently one important thing\nthat he had lacked was an acquaintance with the peculiar Christian\nmanifestation of the Holy Spirit. He seems to have been trained\nin Greek rhetoric, whether the word translated \"eloquent\" in Acts\n18:24 means \"eloquent\" or \"learned.\" Apollos did not remain long\nin Ephesus, but went to Corinth, where, as can be learned from\nFirst Corinthians as well as from The Acts, his work was of great\nimportance.\n\n\n2. GALATIANS A POLEMIC\n\nAfter studying first the Thessalonian epistles and then Galatians\nin succession the student should be able to form some conception\nof the variety among the epistles of Paul. Certainly there could\nbe no sharper contrast. First and Second Thessalonians are simple,\naffectionate letters written to a youthful church; Galatians is\none of the most passionate bits of polemic in the whole Bible. We\nought to honor Paul for his anger. A lesser man might have taken a\ncalmer view of the situation. After all, it might have been said,\nthe observance of Jewish fasts and feasts was not a serious matter;\neven circumcision, though useless, could do no great harm. But Paul\npenetrated below the surface. He detected the great principles that\nwere at stake. The Judaizers were disannulling the grace of God.\n\n\n3. THE ADDRESS. GAL. 1:1-5\n\nThe addresses of the Pauline epistles are never merely formal. Paul\ndoes not wait for the beginning of the letter proper in order to say\nwhat he has in mind. Even the epistolary forms are suffused with the\ndeepest religious feeling.\n\nThe opening of the present letter is anticipatory of what is to\nfollow. Dividing the opening into three parts--the nominative (name\nand title of the writer), the dative (name of those to whom the\nletter is addressed), and the greeting--it will be observed that\nevery one of these parts has its peculiarity as compared with the\nother Pauline epistles.\n\nThe peculiarity of the nominative is the remarkable addition\nbeginning with \"not from men,\" which is a summary of the first\ngreat division of the epistle, Paul's defense against the personal\nattack of his opponents. Since the Epistle to the Galatians is\npolemic from beginning to end, it is not surprising that the very\nfirst word after the bare name and title of the author is \"not.\"\nPaul cannot mention his title \"apostle\"--in the addresses of First\nand Second Thessalonians he had not thought it necessary to mention\nit at all--without thinking of the way in which in Galatia it was\nmisrepresented. \"My apostleship,\" he says, \"came not only from\nChrist, but directly from Christ.\"\n\nThe peculiarity of the dative is its brevity--not \"beloved of God,\ncalled to be saints,\" or the like, but just the bare and formal \"to\nthe churches of Galatia.\" The situation was not one which called for\npleasant words!\n\nThe greeting is the least varied part in the addresses of the\nPauline epistles. The long addition to the greeting in Galatians is\nabsolutely unique. It is a summary of the second and central main\ndivision of the epistle, Paul's defense of his gospel. \"Christ has\ndied to free you. The Judaizers in bringing you into bondage are\nmaking of none effect the grace of Christ, manifested on the cross.\"\nThat is the very core of the letter. In all of the Pauline epistles\nthere is scarcely a passage more characteristic of the man than the\nfirst five verses of Galatians. An ordinary writer would have been\nmerely formal in the address. Not so Paul!\n\nThe exultant supernaturalism of the address should be noticed.\nThis supernaturalism appears, in the first place, in the sphere of\nexternal history--\"God the Father, who raised him from the dead.\"\nPauline Christianity is based upon the miracle of the resurrection.\nSupernaturalism appears also, however, in the sphere of Christian\nexperience--\"who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver\nus out of this present evil world.\" Christianity is no mere easy\ndevelopment of the old life, no mere improvement of the life, but a\nnew life in a new world. In both spheres, supernaturalism is being\ndenied in the modern Church. Pauline Christianity is very different\nfrom much that is called Christianity to-day.\n\nFinally, this passage will serve to exhibit Paul's lofty view\nof the person of Christ. \"Neither through man,\" says Paul, \"but\nthrough Jesus Christ.\" Jesus Christ is here distinguished sharply\nfrom men and placed clearly on the side of God. What is more, even\nthe Judaizers evidently accepted fundamentally the same view. Paul\nsaid, \"Not by man, but by Jesus Christ\"; the Judaizers said, \"Not by\nJesus Christ, but by man.\" But if so, then the Judaizers, no less\nthan Paul, distinguished Jesus sharply from ordinary humanity. About\nother things there was debate, but about the person of Christ Paul\nappears in harmony even with his opponents. Evidently the original\napostles had given the Judaizers on this point no slightest excuse\nfor differing from Paul. The heavenly Christ of Paul was also the\nChrist of those who had walked and talked with Jesus of Nazareth.\nThey had seen Jesus subject to all the petty limitations of human\nlife. Yet they thought him divine! Could they have been deceived?\n\n\n4. THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE. GAL. 1:6-10\n\nThe thanksgiving for the Christian state of the readers, which\nappears in practically every other of the Pauline epistles, is here\nconspicuous by its absence. Here it would have been a mockery. The\nGalatians were on the point of giving up the gospel. There was just\na chance of saving them. The letter was written in a desperate\ncrisis. Pray God it might not be too late! No time here for words of\nthanks!\n\nIn vs. 6-10, Paul simply states the purpose of the letter in a few\nuncompromising words: \"You are falling away from the gospel and I am\nwriting to stop you.\"\n\n\n5. PAUL'S DEFENSE OF HIS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. GAL. 1:11 to 2:21\n\nAfter stating, Gal. 1:11,12, the thesis that is to be proved in this\nsection, Paul defends his independent apostolic authority by three\nmain arguments.\n\nIn the first place, vs. 13-24, he was already launched upon his\nwork as apostle to the Gentiles before he had even come into any\neffective contact with the original apostles. Before his conversion,\nhe had been an active persecutor. His conversion was wrought,\nnot, like an ordinary conversion, through human agency, but by an\nimmediate act of Christ. After his conversion it was three years\nbefore he saw any of the apostles. Then he saw only Peter (and\nJames) and that not long enough to become, as his opponents said, a\ndisciple of these leaders.\n\nIn the second place, Gal. 2:1-10, when he finally did hold a\nconference with the original apostles, they themselves, the very\nauthorities to whom the Judaizers appealed, recognized that his\nauthority was quite independent of theirs, and, like theirs, of\ndirectly divine origin.\n\nIn the third place, Gal. 2:11-21, so independent was his authority\nthat on one occasion he could even rebuke the chief of the original\napostles himself. What Paul said at that time to Peter happened to\nbe exactly what he wanted to say, in the epistle, to the Galatians.\nThis section, therefore, forms a transition to the second main\ndivision of the epistle. It has sometimes been thought surprising\nthat Paul does not say how Peter took his rebuke. The conclusion has\neven been drawn that if Peter had acknowledged his error Paul would\nhave been sure to say so. Such reasoning ignores the character of\nthis section. In reporting the substance of what he said to Peter,\nPaul has laid bare the very depths of his own life. To return, after\nsuch a passage, to the incident at Antioch would have been pedantic\nand unnecessary. Long before the end of the second chapter Paul\nhas forgotten all about Peter, all about Antioch, and all about\nthe whole of his past history. He is thinking only of the grace of\nChrist, and how some men are trampling it under foot. O foolish\nGalatians, to desert so great a salvation!\n\n\n6. PAUL'S DEFENSE OF HIS GOSPEL. GAL. 3:1 to 5:12\n\nSalvation cannot be earned by human effort, but must be received\nsimply as a free gift: Christ has died to save us from the curse of\nthe law: to submit again to the yoke of bondage is disloyalty to\nhim--that is the great thesis that Paul sets out to prove.\n\nHe proves it first by an argument from experience. Gal. 3:1-5. You\nreceived the Holy Spirit, in palpable manifestation, before you ever\nsaw the Judaizers, before you ever thought of keeping the Mosaic\nlaw. You received the Spirit by faith alone. How then can you now\nthink that the law is necessary? Surely there can be nothing higher\nthan the Spirit.\n\nIn the second place, there is an argument from Scripture. Not those\nwho depend upon the works of the law, but those who believe, have\nthe benefit of the covenant made with Abraham. Vs. 6-22.\n\nIn the third place, by the use of various figures, Paul contrasts\nthe former bondage with the present freedom. Gal. 3:23 to 4:7. The\nlife under the law was a period of restraint like that of childhood,\npreliminary to faith in Christ. The law was intended to produce the\nconsciousness of sin, in order that the resultant hopelessness might\nlead men to accept the Saviour. Vs. 23-25. But now all Christians\nalike, both Jews and Gentiles, are sons of God in Christ, and\ntherefore heirs of the promise made to Abraham. Vs. 26-29. Being\nsons of God, with all the glorious freedom of sonship, with the\nSpirit crying, \"Abba, Father,\" in the heart, how can we think of\nreturning to the miserable bondage of an external and legalistic\nreligion? Gal. 4:1-11.\n\nIn the fourth place, Paul turns away from argument to make a\npersonal appeal. Vs. 12-20. What has become of your devotion to me?\nSurely I have not become your enemy just because I tell you the\ntruth. The Judaizers are estranging you from me. Listen to me, my\nspiritual children, even though I can speak to you only through the\ncold medium of a letter!\n\nIn the fifth place, Paul, in his perplexity, bethinks himself of\none more argument. It is an argument that would appeal especially\nto those who were impressed by the Judaizers' method of using the\nOld Testament, but it also has permanent validity. The fundamental\nprinciple, says Paul, for which I am arguing, the principle of\ngrace, can be illustrated from the story of Ishmael and Isaac.\nIshmael had every prospect of being the heir of Abraham. It seemed\nimpossible for the aged Abraham to have another son. Nature was on\nIshmael's side. But nature was overruled. So it is to-day. As far as\nnature is concerned, the Jews are the heirs of Abraham--they have\nall the outward marks of sonship. But God has willed otherwise.\nHe has chosen to give the inheritance to the heirs according to\npromise. The principle of the divine choice, operative on a small\nscale in the acceptance of Isaac, is operative now on a large scale\nin the acceptance of the Gentile church.\n\nFinally, Paul concludes the central section of the epistle by\nemphasizing the gravity of the crisis. Gal. 5:1-12. Do not be\ndeceived. Circumcision as the Judaizers advocate it is no innocent\nthing; it means the acceptance of a law religion. You must choose\neither the law or grace; you cannot have both.\n\n\n7. THE RESULTS OF PAUL'S GOSPEL. GAL. 5:13 to 6:10\n\nIn this third main division of the epistle Paul exhibits the\npractical working of faith. Paul's gospel is more powerful than the\nteaching of the Judaizers. Try to keep the law in your own strength\nand you will fail, for the flesh is too strong. But the Spirit is\nstronger than the flesh, and the Spirit is received by faith.\n\n\n8. CONCLUSION. GAL. 6:11-18\n\nThis concluding section, if not the whole epistle, was written\nwith Paul's own hand. V. 11. In his other letters Paul dictated\neverything but a brief closing salutation.\n\nIn the closing section, Paul lays the alternative once more before\nhis readers. The Judaizers have worldly aims, they boast of worldly\nadvantages; but the true Christian boasts of nothing but the cross.\nChristianity, as here portrayed, is not the gentle, easy-going\ndoctrine that is being mistaken for it to-day. It is no light thing\nto say, \"The world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the\nworld.\" But the result is a new creature!\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n203-213. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": article on \"Ephesus\";\nPurves, articles on \"Galatia\" and \"Galatians, Epistle to the\"\n(supplemented). Hastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Ramsay, article\non \"Ephesus\"; Dods, article on \"Galatians, Epistle to the.\" Ramsay,\n\"St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen,\" pp. 262-282;\n\"Pictures of the Apostolic Church,\" pp. 247-269, 293-300. Lewin,\n\"The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,\" chs. xii, xiii. Conybeare and\nHowson, \"The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,\" chs. xii, xiii, xiv, xv\nand xvi. Stalker, \"The Life of St. Paul,\" pp. 82-84, 108-118. Lumby,\npp. 239-266. Cook, pp. 476-485. Plumptre, pp. 124-136. Rackham, pp.\n331-370. M'Clymont, \"The New Testament and Its Writers,\" pp. 70-76.\nEllicott, \"A New Testament Commentary for English Readers,\" vol.\nii, pp. 419-468: Sanday, \"The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the\nGalatians.\" \"The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges\": Perowne,\n\"The Epistle to the Galatians.\" Zahn, \"Introduction to the New\nTestament,\" vol. i, pp. 164-202. Lightfoot, \"Saint Paul's Epistle\nto the Galatians.\" The two last-named works are intended primarily\nfor those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by\nothers.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XIX\n\nPROBLEMS OF A GENTILE CHURCH\n\n\nChristianity, according to Paul, is an escape from the world. Gal.\n1:4. All human distinctions are comparatively unimportant. \"There\ncan be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free,\nthere can be no male and female.\" Gal. 3:28. Such a doctrine might\nseem logically to lead to fanaticism. If the Christian is already a\ncitizen of heaven, may he not be indifferent to the conditions of\nlife upon this earth? Such a conclusion was altogether avoided by\nPaul. In First Corinthians Paul is revealed as the most practical of\nmen. All human distinctions are subordinate and secondary--and yet\nthese distinctions are carefully observed. Paul was a man of heroic\nfaith, but he was also possessed of admirable tact.\n\nIt is not that the one side of Paul's nature limited the other;\nit is not that common sense acted as a check to transcendental\nreligion. On the contrary, the two things seemed to be in perfect\nharmony. Just because Paul was inwardly so entirely free from the\nworld, he was also so wise in dealing with worldly affairs. The\nsecret of this harmony was consecration. Human relationships, when\nconsecrated to God, are not destroyed, but ennobled. They cease,\nindeed, to be an end in themselves, but they become a means to\nChristian service. The Christian man has no right to be indifferent\nto the world. If he is, he is no true son of the God who made the\nworld, and sent the Lord to save it. The Christian, like the man of\nthe world, is profoundly interested in the conditions of life on\nthis earth. Only, unlike the man of the world, he is not helpless\nand perplexed in the presence of those conditions; but from his\nvantage ground of heavenly power, he shapes them to the divine will.\nHe is interested in the world, but he is interested in it, not as\nits servant, but as its master.\n\nSo in First Corinthians Paul lays hold of certain perplexing\npractical problems with the sure grasp of one who is called to rule\nand not to serve. Everything that he touches he lifts to a higher\nplane. In his hands even the simplest things of life receive a\nheavenly significance.\n\nThe problems that are discussed in First Corinthians stood in a\nspecial relation to the environment of the Corinthian church. Most\nof them were due to the threatened intrusions of Greek paganism.\nThey are closely analogous, however, to the problems which we have\nto solve to-day. Paganism and worldliness are not dead. The Church\nstill stands in the midst of a hostile environment. We can still use\nthe teaching of Paul. That teaching will now be examined in a few of\nits important details.\n\n\n1. THE PARTIES\n\nPaul mentions four parties that had been formed in the Corinthian\nchurch--a Paul-party, an Apollos-party, a Cephas-party and a\nChrist-party. These parties do not seem to have been separated\nfrom one another by any serious doctrinal differences, and it\nis impossible to determine their characteristics in detail. In\nthe section where the party spirit is discussed, Paul blames the\nCorinthians for intellectual pride. This fault has often been\nconnected with the Apollos-party. Apollos was an Alexandrian, and\nprobably had an Alexandrian Greek training. He might therefore have\nunconsciously evoked among some members of the Corinthian church an\nexcessive admiration for his more pretentious style of preaching,\nwhich might have caused them to despise the simpler manner of Paul.\nEven this much, however, is little more than surmise. At any rate,\nApollos should not be blamed for the faults of those who misused his\nname. He is praised unstintedly by Paul, who was even desirous that\nhe should return at once to Corinth. I Cor. 16:12. Paul blames the\nPaul-party just as much as any of the other three.\n\nThe Peter-party was composed of admirers of Peter, who had either\ncome to Corinth from the scene of Peter's labors elsewhere, or\nsimply had known of Peter by hearsay. It is unlikely that Peter\nhimself had been in Corinth, for if he had Paul would probably have\nlet the fact appear in First or Second Corinthians. The Christ-party\nis rather puzzling. A comparison with the false teachers who are\ncombated in Second Corinthians has led some scholars to suppose that\nit was a Judaizing party, which emphasized a personal acquaintance\nwith the earthly Jesus as a necessary qualification of apostleship.\nIn that case, however, Paul would probably have singled out the\nChrist-party for special attack. More probably these were simply men\nwho, in proud opposition to the adherents of Paul, of Apollos and\nof Cephas, emphasized their own independence of any leader other\nthan Christ. Of course, the watchword, \"I am of Christ,\" if used in\na better spirit, would have been altogether praiseworthy, and indeed\nPaul desires all the parties to unite in it. I Cor. 3:21-23.\n\nPerhaps it is a mistake to attribute to these parties anything like\nstability. On the whole, the passage gives the impression that it is\nnot the individual parties that Paul is condemning, but the party\nspirit. That party spirit was manifested by watchwords like those\nwhich are enumerated in I Cor. 1:12, but that that enumeration was\nmeant to be complete, does not appear. The whole effort to determine\nthe characteristics of the individual parties--an effort which has\nabsorbed the attention of many scholars--should perhaps be abandoned.\n\nPaul's treatment of the party spirit exhibits his greatness not\nonly as an administrator, but also as a writer. The subject was\ncertainly not inspiring; yet under Paul's touch it becomes luminous\nwith heavenly glory. The contrast of human wisdom with the message\nof the cross, I Cor. 1:18-31, where a splendid rhythm of language\nmatches the sublimity of the thought, the wonderful description of\nthe freedom and power of the man who possesses the Spirit of God,\nthe grand climax of the third chapter, \"For all things are yours;\nwhether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or\ndeath, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye\nare Christ's; and Christ is God's\"--these are among the passages\nthat can never be forgotten.\n\n\n2. THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS\n\nThe question of meats offered to idols, which Paul discusses in I\nCor. 8:1 to 11:1, was exceedingly intricate. To it Paul applies\nseveral great principles. In the first place, there is the principle\nof Christian freedom. The Christian has been delivered from\nenslaving superstitions. Idols have no power; they cannot impart\nany harmful character to the good things which God has provided\nfor the sustenance of man. In the second place, however, there is\nthe principle of loyalty. The fact that idols are nothing does not\nrender idol-worship morally indifferent. On the contrary, idolatry\nis always sinful. If the eating of certain kinds of food under\ncertain conditions involves participation in idolatry then it is\ndisloyalty to the one true God. The joint operation of the two\nprinciples of freedom and of loyalty seems to lead in Paul's mind\nto the following practical conclusion:--The Christian may eat the\nmeat that has been offered to idols if it is simply put on sale in\nthe market place or set before him at an ordinary meal; but he must\nnot take part with the heathen in specifically religious feasts. The\nwhole question, however, is further viewed in the light of a third\nprinciple--the principle of Christian love. Even things that are in\nthemselves innocent must be given up if a brother by them is led\ninto conduct which for him is sin. Christ has died for that weaker\nbrother; surely the Christian, then, may not destroy him. Thus\nlove, even more than loyalty, limits freedom--but it is a blessed\nlimitation. The principles here applied by Paul to the question of\nthe Corinthian Christians will solve many a problem of the modern\nChurch.\n\n\n3. SPIRITUAL GIFTS\n\nThe principle of Christian love, with the related principle of\ntoleration, is applied also to another set of problems, the problems\nwith regard to the exercise of spiritual gifts. The passage in which\nPaul discusses these problems, aside from its spiritual and moral\nteaching, is of singular historical interest. It affords a unique\npicture of the devotional meetings of an apostolic church. The\ncharacteristic of these meetings was the enthusiasm which prevailed\nin them. Paul is not at all desirous of dampening that enthusiasm.\nOn the contrary the gifts in question were in his judgment really\nbestowed by the Holy Spirit. Even the gift of tongues, which Paul\nlimits in its operation, is in his judgment of genuine value.\nIndeed, he himself had exercised it even more than the other\nChristians. I Cor. 14:18. This last fact should correct any unworthy\nimpression which we might have formed with regard to the gift. If\nspeaking with tongues was practiced by Paul, then it was no mere\nunhealthy emotionalism. We are to-day unable to understand it fully,\nbut in the apostolic Church it was a real expression of Christian\nexperience.\n\nPaul desires, not to dampen the enthusiasm of the Corinthian church,\nbut merely to eliminate certain harmful by-products of that which\nwas in itself altogether excellent. The first principle which he\napplies is the principle of toleration. There is room in the Church\nfor many different kinds of workers. \"There are diversities of\ngifts, but the same Spirit.\" The principle is often neglected in the\nmodern Church. Toleration, indeed, is on everyone's lips; but it\nis not the kind of toleration that Paul means. It is often nothing\nmore than indifference to the great verities of the faith. Such\ntoleration would have met with nothing but an anathema from Paul.\nThe toleration that Paul is commending is a toleration, not with\nregard to matters of doctrine, but with regard to methods of work.\nSuch toleration is often sadly lacking. Some advocates of missions\nthink that almost every Christian who stays at home is a coward;\nsome good, conservative elders, on the other hand, have little\ninterest in what passes the bounds of their own congregation. Some\nChristians of reserved habits are shocked at the popular methods\nof the evangelists; some evangelists are loud in their ignorant\ndenunciation of the Christian scholar. In other words, many very\ndevout Christians of the present day act as though they had never\nread the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians.\n\nThe principle of toleration, however, culminates in the principle of\nlove. If there must be a choice between the exercise of different\ngifts, then the choice should be in favor of those gifts which are\nmost profitable to other men. Finally, even the highest spiritual\ngifts are not independent of reason. I Cor. 14:32,33. That is a\nfar-reaching principle. Some modern Christians seem to think that an\nappeal to the inward voice of the Spirit excuses them from listening\nto reasonable counsel. Such is not the teaching of Paul.\n\n\n4. THE RESURRECTION\n\nThe error which is combated in the fifteenth chapter of the epistle\ncould hardly have been a denial, in general, of continued existence\nafter death, but was rather a denial of the resurrection of the body\nas over against the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul.\nIn reply, Paul appeals to the resurrection of Jesus. The appeal\nwould seem to be futile unless Paul means that the resurrection of\nJesus was a bodily resurrection. If the appearances of Jesus were no\nmore than incorporeal manifestations of his spirit, then obviously\nthe believer in a mere immortality of the soul remained unrefuted.\nIn this chapter there is an advance over the simple teaching of\nFirst Thessalonians. Here the character of the resurrection body\ncomes into view. The resurrection body will have a real connection\nwith the old body--otherwise there would be no resurrection--but the\nweakness of the old body will be done away. There is continuity, but\nalso transformation.\n\n\n5. INCIDENTAL INFORMATION ABOUT JESUS\n\nCertain passages in First Corinthians, which are introduced only in\nan incidental way, as illustrations of the principles which are\nbeing applied, are of inestimable historical value. These passages\ninclude not only the great autobiographical passage in the ninth\nchapter, where Paul illustrates from his own life the limitation\nof the principle of freedom by the principle of love, but also two\nall-important passages which refer to the life of Christ.\n\nIt is generally admitted that First Corinthians was written at about\nA. D. 55. The eleventh chapter of the epistle gives an account of\nthe institution of the Lord's Supper, in which Jesus teaches the\nsacrificial significance of his death; and the fifteenth chapter\ngives a list of the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection. The\ninformation contained in these passages was not invented by Paul;\nindeed he distinctly says that it was \"received.\" In A. D. 55, then,\nnot only Paul, but also the Church generally believed that Jesus'\ndeath, according to his own teaching, was sacrificial, and appealed\nin support of his resurrection to a wealth of competent testimony.\nBut from whom had Paul \"received\" these things? Hardly from\nanyone except those who had been Christians before him--in other\nwords, from the Palestinian church. We have here an irremovable\nconfirmation of the Gospel view of Jesus. First Corinthians is a\nhistorical document of absolutely priceless value.\n\nThe incidental character of these historical passages is especially\nnoteworthy. It shows that Paul knew far more about Jesus than he\nfound occasion in the epistles to tell. If he had told more, no\ndoubt the Gospel picture of Jesus would have received confirmation\nthroughout.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n213-221. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": article on \"Apollos\";\nPurves and Davis, article on \"Corinthians, Epistles to the.\"\nHastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Robertson, article on\n\"Corinthians, First Epistle to the.\" M'Clymont, \"The New Testament\nand Its Writers,\" pp. 58-64. Ellicott, \"A New Testament Commentary\nfor English Readers,\" vol. ii, pp. 281-356: Shore, \"The First\nEpistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.\" \"The Cambridge\nBible for Schools\": Lias, \"The First Epistle to the Corinthians.\"\nZahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. i, pp. 256-306.\n\"The International Critical Commentary\": Robertson and Plummer, \"A\nCritical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul\nto the Corinthians.\" The two last-named works presuppose a knowledge\nof Greek.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XX\n\nTHE APOSTLE AND HIS MINISTRY\n\n\n1. ADDRESS AND THANKSGIVING. II Cor. 1:1-11\n\nIn First Corinthians the obscure Sosthenes is found to be associated\nwith Paul in the address of the epistle; in Second Corinthians it\nis Timothy, one of the best-known of the helpers of Paul. Even if\nthat mission of Timothy to Corinth which is mentioned in First\nCorinthians had resulted in failure, Timothy's usefulness in the\nchurch was not permanently affected.\n\nAfter the address, comes, as is usual in the Pauline Epistles,\nan expression of thanksgiving to God. This time, however, it is\nnot thanksgiving for the Christian state of the readers, but\nthanksgiving for Paul's own escape from danger. The absence of\nthanksgiving for the readers does not mean here, as in the case of\nGalatians, that there was nothing to be thankful for in the church\nthat is being addressed, for the whole first section of the letter\nis suffused with a spirit of thankfulness for the Corinthians'\nreturn to their true allegiance; it means rather simply that the\nthought of the deadly personal danger, and of the remarkable escape,\nwere for the moment in the forefront of Paul's thought. Even that\npersonal matter, however, was used by Paul to fortify his readers\nagainst similar trials, and especially to strengthen still further\nthe bonds of sympathy which had at last been restored between him\nand them.\n\nWhat this danger was from which Paul had just escaped cannot be\ndetermined. It is as much a puzzle as the fighting with beasts\nat Ephesus, which Paul mentions in I Cor. 15:32. Neither one nor\nthe other can very well be identified with the trouble caused by\nDemetrius the silversmith, Acts 19:23-41, for there Paul does not\nseem to have been in deadly danger. Some suppose that the fighting\nwith beasts is literally meant; that Paul was actually exposed to\nthe wild beasts in the arena and escaped only in some remarkable\nway. It should be observed that Paul does not say, with regard to\nthe danger mentioned in Second Corinthians, that it occurred in\nEphesus, but only that it occurred in Asia. The expression, \"weighed\ndown,\" in II Cor. 1:8 perhaps points to some form of illness rather\nthan to persecution.\n\n\n2. THE APOSTLE AND THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION. II Cor. 1:12 to\n7:16\n\nImmediately after the thanksgiving for his escape from death,\nPaul begins the defense of his ministry. After the suspense of\nthe previous days, he feels the need of reviewing the methods\nand motives of his labor among the Corinthians, in order that\nthe last vestige of suspicion may be removed. This he does in an\nunrestrained, cordial sort of way, which reveals the deepest secrets\nof his heart, and culminates here and there in grand expositions of\nthe very essence of the gospel.\n\nFirst, in just a passing word, ch. 1:13,14, he defends his letters\nagainst that charge of obscurity or concealment which is hinted at\nelsewhere in the epistle. Compare ch. 4:1-4; 11:6.\n\nNext, he defends himself against the charge of fickleness in\nhis journey plans. At some time, probably during or after the\nunsuccessful visit alluded to in ch. 2:1, Paul had formed the plan\nof returning to Corinth by the direct route. This plan he had not\ncarried out, and his abandonment of it apparently confirmed the\nimpression of weakness which had been left by the unsuccessful\nvisit. \"He is very bold in letters,\" said his opponents, \"but when\nhe is here he is weak, and now he is afraid to return.\" It was a\npetty criticism, and a lesser man might have answered it in a petty\nway. But Paul was able to lift the whole discussion to a loftier\nplane. His answer to the criticism was very simple--the reason\nwhy he had not returned to Corinth at once was that he did not\nwant to return again in grief and in severity; for the sake of the\nCorinthians themselves he wanted to give them time to repent, before\nthe final and fatal issue should be raised. Characteristically,\nhowever, Paul does not content himself with this simple answer;\nindeed he does not even begin with it. A specific explanation of the\nchange in his plans would have refuted the criticism immediately\nunder consideration, but Paul felt the need of doing far more than\nthat. What he desired to do was to make not only this criticism,\nbut all similar criticisms, impossible. This he does by the fine\nreference to the positive character of his gospel. \"You say that I\nam uncertain in my plans, that I say yes and no in one breath. Well,\nthe gospel that I preached, at any rate, was no such uncertain thing\nas that. My gospel was a great 'Yes' to all the promises of God.\"\nSuch a method of refutation lifts the reader far above all petty\ncriticisms to the great things of Paul's gospel.\n\nYet this reference to great principles is no mere excuse to avoid\nthe simple question at issue. On the contrary, Paul is perfectly\nfrank about the reason why he had not gone to Corinth as he had\nintended. It was out of love to the Corinthian church, and this had\nalso prompted the writing of a severe letter. Here, ch. 2:5-11,\nPaul refers to the offender whose case had been made a test at\nthe time of the recent painful visit. This offender was probably\ndifferent from the incestuous person who is so sternly dealt with\nin I Cor. 5:1-5. His offense is thought by many to have been\nsome personal insult to Paul, II Cor. 2:5, but this is not quite\ncertain. At any rate, whatever his original offence, Paul's demand\nfor his punishment had become a test of the loyalty of the church.\nAt first the demand had been refused, but now the majority of the\ncongregation has agreed and the man himself is deeply repentant, so\nthat Paul is only afraid lest severity may go too far. It is hardly\nworth while saying that the character of Paul was entirely free from\nvindictiveness. When the discipline of the Church would permit it,\nPaul was the first to propose counsels of mercy.\n\nThe reference to the epistles of commendation which had been used\nby Paul's opponents in Corinth, ch. 3:1, has been made the basis of\nfar-reaching conclusions about the whole history of the apostolic\nage. From whom could the opponents have received their letters of\nintroduction? Only, it is said, from Palestine, and probably from\nthe original apostles. This conclusion is hasty, to say the least.\nIt should be noticed that not only letters to the Corinthian church\nbut also letters from the church are apparently in mind. V. 1. If,\nthen, the Corinthian church had been asked to supply these false\nteachers with letters of commendation, perhaps the other churches\nthat had supplied them with letters were no nearer to Jerusalem than\nCorinth was.\n\nThe mention of these letters of commendation introduces one of the\ngrandest passages in the New Testament. \"I,\" says Paul, by way of\ntransition, \"do not need any letters of commendation. My work is\nsufficient commendation. What I have accomplished in the hearts of\nmen is an epistle written by the Spirit of God.\" Then follows the\nmagnificent exposition of the ministry of the new covenant. That\nministry is first contrasted with the old dispensation, perhaps\nwith reference to an excessive valuation, by the opponents, of a\ncontinued Judaism in the Church. The old covenant was glorious,\nbut how much more glorious is the new! The old was a ministry of\ncondemnation, but the new is a ministry of justification. The old\nwas a ministry of an external law, the new is a ministry of the\nlife-giving power of the Spirit of God. There is no reason any\nlonger for concealment. The Spirit brings freedom and openness and\nlight.\n\nThis treasure is held indeed in earthen vessels. The recent danger\nthat Paul has passed through, as well as the overpowering hardships\nof his life, make him painfully conscious of human weakness. But\nthat weakness is blessed which in all the fuller glory reveals the\nall-conquering power of God. The Christian need never despair, for\nby the eye of faith he can detect those unseen things which are\neternal. The present body may be dissolved, but the resurrection\nbody will be ready. Indeed, even if the Christian by death is\nseparated for a time altogether from the body, he need not fear. To\nbe absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.\n\nThe climax of the whole glorious passage is the brief exposition\nof the ministry of reconciliation which begins with ch. 5:11. Here\nwe are introduced to the secret of the remarkable life which is\nrevealed in Second Corinthians and in the other epistles of Paul.\nReconciliation with God through the death of Christ in our behalf\nand in our stead, consequent freedom from sin and from the world, a\nnew and glorious life under the favor of God--these are the things\nthat Paul experienced in his own life, these are the things that he\npreached to others, regardless of all hardship and criticism, and\nthese are the things, now and always, which contain the real springs\nof the Church's power.\n\nAfter an uncompromising warning against impurity and worldliness,\ndelivered from the lofty vantage ground that has just been reached,\nthe apostle gives expression once more to the joy that he has\nreceived from the good news which Titus brought him; and then\nproceeds to an entirely different matter.\n\n\n3. THE COLLECTION. II Cor., chs. 8, 9\n\nTwo whole chapters of the epistle are devoted to the collection\nfor the Jerusalem church. The history of this matter, so far as it\ncan be traced, is briefly as follows: At the time of the Jerusalem\ncouncil, the pillars of the Jerusalem church had requested Paul to\nremember the Jerusalem poor. At the time when First Corinthians was\nwritten, Paul had already started a collection for this purpose\nin the churches of Galatia, and in First Corinthians he asks the\nCorinthians to take part. I Cor. 16:1-4. In Second Corinthians\nhe announces that the churches of Macedonia have contributed\nbountifully, II Cor. 8:1-5, and urges the continuance of the\ncollection in Corinth. Finally, in the Epistle to the Romans, which\nwas written from Corinth only a short time after Second Corinthians,\nhe mentions the collection in Macedonia and Achaia, announces his\nintention of journeying to Jerusalem with the gifts, and asks the\nRoman Christians to pray that the ministration may be acceptable to\nthe Jerusalem church. Rom. 15:25-27,31,32.\n\nWith his customary foresight, Paul made careful provision for\nthe administration of the gifts, in order to avoid all possible\nmisunderstanding or suspicion. For example, the churches are to\nchoose delegates to carry their bounty to Jerusalem. I Cor. 16:3.\nPossibly the delegates are to be identified with the persons who are\nnamed in Acts 20:4. Luke does not mention the collection, but it is\nalluded to in Acts 24:17.\n\nPaul's treatment of the collection in II Cor., chs. 8, 9, was not\nonly adapted to accomplish its immediate purpose, but also has been\nof high value to the Christian Church. These chapters have assured\nto the right use of wealth a place of real dignity among the forms\nof Christian service.\n\n\n4. THE OPPONENTS. II Cor., chs. 10 to 13\n\nThe striking change of tone at ch. 10:1 is amply explained by the\nchange of subject. In the first part of the epistle, Paul has been\nthinking of the return of the majority of the congregation to their\nallegiance; now he turns to deal with the false teachers who have\nbeen causing all the trouble. It is still necessary to meet their\nattacks and remove every vestige of influence which they may still\nhave retained over the church. Their attack upon Paul was of a\npeculiarly mean and unworthy character; the indignation which Paul\ndisplays in these chapters was fully justified.\n\nThe opponents were certainly Jews, and prided themselves on the\nfact. Ch. 11:22. But it does not appear with certainty that they\nwere Judaizers. If they were intending to come forward with any\ndemand of circumcision or of observance of the Mosaic law, such\ndemand was still kept in the background. Indeed, there is no\nindication that the doctrine that they preached was different in\nimportant respects from that of Paul. In particular, there is no\nindication that they advocated a different view about Jesus. One\nverse, ch. 11:4, has, indeed, been regarded as such an indication,\nbut only by an exceedingly doubtful interpretation. Probably the\nother Jesus whom the opponents preached existed only in their own\nclaim. They said merely, \"Paul has kept something back,\" v. 6,\nmargin; ch. 4:3; \"we alone can give you adequate information; we\nalone can proclaim the true Jesus, the true Spirit and the true\ngospel.\" In reality, however, they had nothing new to offer. Paul\nhad made the whole gospel known.\n\nIt is further not even quite clear that the opponents laid stress\nupon a personal acquaintance with the earthly Jesus, and so played\nthe original apostles off against Paul. The expression \"chiefest\napostles,\" ch. 11:5, is clearly nothing more than an ironical\ndesignation of the false teachers themselves. It is true, the false\nteachers claimed to belong in a special sense to Christ, ch 10:7,\nand to be in a special sense \"ministers of Christ.\" Ch. 11:23. But\nit is not at all clear--despite ch. 5:16--that the connection which\nthey claimed to have with Christ was that of personal acquaintance,\neither directly or through their authorities, with the earthly\nJesus. Finally, these false teachers cannot with any certainty be\nconnected with the Christ-party of First Corinthians.\n\nThe chief value of the last four chapters of the epistle is the\nwealth of autobiographical material which they contain. Against the\ninsidious personal attacks of the opponents, Paul was obliged to\nspeak of certain personal matters about which he might otherwise\nhave been silent. Had he been silent, the Church would have been the\nloser. To know the inner life of the apostle Paul is to know Christ;\nfor Paul was in Christ and Christ was in Paul. What could compensate\nus for the loss of II Cor. 12:7-10? Through these words the bodily\nweakness of Paul has forever been made profitable for the strength\nof the Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n221-225. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves and Davis, article\non \"Corinthians, Epistles to the.\" Hastings, \"Dictionary of the\nBible\": Robertson, article on \"Corinthians, Second Epistle to the.\"\nM'Clymont, \"The New Testament and Its Writers,\" pp. 65-69. Beet,\n\"A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians,\" seventh\nedition, pp. 1-20, 317-542. Ellicott, \"A New Testament Commentary\nfor English Readers,\" vol. ii, pp. 357-417: Plumptre, \"The Second\nEpistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.\" \"The Cambridge\nBible for Schools\": Lias, \"The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.\"\nZahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. i, pp. 307-351. The\nlast-named work presupposes a knowledge of Greek.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXI\n\nTHE GOSPEL OF SALVATION\n\n\nThe Epistle to the Romans, though it is not merely a systematic\ntreatise, is more systematic than any other of the Pauline Epistles.\nUnlike the epistles that preceded it, it was written in a period of\ncomparative quiet between two great stages in the apostle's work.\nNot unnaturally, therefore, it contains something like a summary of\nPaul's teaching. The summary, however, does not embrace the whole\nof the Pauline theology, but only one important department of it.\nThe nature of God, for example, and the person of Christ, are not\ndiscussed in the Epistle to the Romans. Of course Paul held very\ndefinite views upon these subjects, and these views are presupposed\non every page of the epistle--especially the loftiest possible\nconception of the person of Christ lies at the background of this\nentire account of Christ's work--but such presuppositions do not\nin this epistle receive an elaborate exposition. The real subject\nof the first eight chapters of Romans is not theology in general,\nbut simply the way of salvation. How can man be saved--that is the\nquestion which Paul answers in this epistle.\n\nObviously the question is of the utmost practical importance.\nThe Epistle to the Romans is absolutely fundamental for the\nestablishment of Christian faith. This estimate, which was formerly\na matter of course, has in recent years unfortunately fallen into\ndisrepute. The Epistle to the Romans, after all, it is said, is\nconcerned with theology, whereas what we need is simple faith. We\nmust return from Romans to the Gospels, from Paul to Christ. The\nwords of Jesus, recorded in the Gospels, are thus emphasized to the\nprejudice of the teaching of the apostle.\n\nThis tendency should be resisted with the utmost firmness. It\nis striking at the very vitals of the Church's life. After all,\nJesus came, as has been well said, not to say something, but to do\nsomething. His words are very precious, we could never do without\nthem; but after all they are subsidiary to his deeds. His life\nand death and resurrection--these are the things that wrought\nsalvation for men. And these great saving acts could not be fully\nexplained till after they had been done. For an explanation of them,\ntherefore, we must turn not only to the Gospels but also to the\nepistles, not only to Jesus but also to Paul. Paul was in a special\nsense our apostle; like us, he had never known the earthly Jesus.\nJust for that reason, through the divine revelation that was granted\nhim, he could guide all subsequent generations to the risen Christ.\nThe Epistle to the Romans, more fully perhaps than any other book,\npoints out the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ. It\ndoes not, indeed, solve all mysteries; but it reveals enough to\nenable us to believe.\n\n\n1. THE EDICT OF CLAUDIUS\n\nThe edict of Claudius which expelled the Jews from Rome was\ncertainly not permanently effective; indeed there are some\nindications that it was modified almost as soon as it was issued.\nBut although it did not keep the Jews out of Rome, it may at least\nhave hastened the separation between Judaism and Christianity.\nIf the conflict between the two, as a conflict within Judaism,\nhad given rise to the hostile edict, then, as has plausibly been\nsuggested, the separation might be in the interests of both parties.\nIf the church were kept separate from the synagogue, the Jews would\nbe protected from dangerous disorders and from the opposition\nwhich would be encountered by a new and illegal religion, and the\nChristians, on the other hand, would be protected from the Claudian\nedict against the Jews.\n\n\n2. ADDRESS, THANKSGIVING AND SUBJECT. Rom. 1:1-17\n\nThe address of the Epistle to the Romans is remarkable for the long\naddition which is made to the name of the author. Paul was writing\nto a church which he had never seen. His excuse for writing was to\nbe found only in the gospel with which he had been intrusted. At the\nvery start, therefore, he places his gospel in the foreground. Here,\nhowever, it is rather the great presupposition of the gospel which\nis in mind--Jesus Christ in his double nature. One who has been\ncommissioned to preach to the Gentiles the gospel of such a Christ\nmay certainly address a letter to Rome.\n\nIn connection with the customary thanksgiving, Paul mentions his\nlong-cherished desire of visiting the Roman Christians. He desires\nto impart unto them some spiritual gift--no, he says, rather he\ndesires to receive from them as well as to give. The correction is\ncharacteristic of Paul. Some men would have felt no need of making\nit. As a matter of fact, Paul was fully in a position to impart\nspiritual gifts. But he was afraid his readers might feel hurt--as\nthough the apostle thought they could make no return for the benefit\nwhich the visit would bring them. It is an exquisite bit of fine\ndiscernment and delicate courtesy. But like all true courtesy, it\nwas based on fact. Paul was really not a man to decline help and\ncomfort from even the humblest of the brethren.\n\nIn vs. 16, 17, the theme of the epistle is announced--the gospel\nthe power of God unto salvation, the gospel which reveals a\nrighteousness of God that is received by faith. The meaning of \"a\nrighteousness of God\" has been much disputed. Some think that it\nrefers to the righteousness which is an attribute of God. More\nprobably, however, it is to be interpreted in the light of ch. 10:3;\nPhil. 3:9. It then refers to that right relation of man to God which\nGod himself produces. There are two ways of receiving a sentence\nof acquittal from God the Judge. One is by keeping the law of God\nperfectly. The other is by receiving through faith the righteousness\nof Christ. The former is impossible because of sin. The latter\nhas been made possible by the gift of Christ. As sinners, we are\nsubject to the punishment of death. But that punishment has been\npaid for us by Christ. We therefore go free; we can start fresh,\nwith the consciousness of God's favor. We are \"justified\"--that\nis, \"pronounced righteous\"--not because we are free from sin, but\nbecause by his grace God looks not upon us but upon Christ. We have\nbeen pronounced righteous, but not on account of our own works. We\npossess not our own righteousness but \"a righteousness of God.\"\n\nThis righteousness of God is received by faith. Faith is not a work,\nit is simply the willingness to receive. Christ has promised by\nhis death to bring us to God. We may not understand it all, but is\nChrist to be believed? Study the Gospel picture of him, and you will\nbe convinced that he is.\n\nJustification by faith, then, means being pronounced righteous by\nGod, although we are sinners. It might seem to be a very dangerous\ndoctrine. If we are pronounced righteous whether we are really\nrighteous or not, then may we not go on with impunity in sin? Such\nreasoning ignores the results of justification. Faith brings more\nthan forgiveness. It brings a new life. In the new life sin has\nno place. The Christian has broken forever with his old slavery.\nThough perfection has not yet been attained in practice, it has\nbeen attained in principle, and by the power of the Spirit all sin\nwill finally be removed. The Christian cannot compromise with sin.\nSalvation is not only from the guilt of sin, but also from the\npower of it. The sixth chapter of Romans leaves no room for moral\nlaxness.\n\n\n3. ROMANS AND GALATIANS\n\nIt is interesting to compare Romans with Galatians. The subject of\nthe two epistles is the same. Both are concerned with salvation\nby faith alone, apart from the works of the law. In many passages\nthe two are parallel. The fuller exposition in Romans is often\nthe best commentary upon the briefer statements of Galatians. For\nexample, the words: \"What then is the law? It was added because\nof transgressions\"--very obscure as they stand in Galatians--are\nexplained by Rom. 5:20; ch. 7. In tone, however, the two epistles\nare widely different. Galatians is written in view of one definite\nattack upon the gospel; Romans is a general exposition summing up\nthe results of the conflict. When Paul wrote Galatians he was in the\nthick of the battle; at the time of Romans he had fought his way\nthrough to the heights.\n\nThe Epistle to the Romans, however, is no cold, purely logical\ntreatise. Theology here is interwoven with experience. No exposition\ncan do justice to this wonderful letter. To read about it is\nsometimes dull; but to read it is life.\n\n\n4. THE PAULINE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. Rom., chs. 9 to 11\n\nChapters 9 to 11 of this epistle are interesting in a great many\nways. They are interesting, for example, in their tremendous\nconception of the mystery of the divine will. The ninth chapter of\nRomans is a good corrective for any carelessness in our attitude\ntoward God. After all, God is a mystery. How little we know of his\neternal plan! We must ever tremble before him. Yet it is such a God\nwho has invited us, through Christ, to hold communion with himself.\nThere is the true wonder of the gospel--that it brings us into\nfellowship, not with a God of our own devising, not with one who\nis a Father and nothing else, but with the awful, holy, mysterious\nMaker and Ruler of all things. The joy of the believer is the\ndeepest of all joys. It is a joy that is akin to holy fear.\n\nThese chapters are also interesting because they attest the\nattachment of Paul to the Jewish people. Where is there a nobler\nexpression of patriotism than Rom. 9:1-5? Exclusive attention to the\npolemic passages where Paul is defending the Gentile mission and\ndenying the efficacy of the Mosaic law, have produced in the minds\nof some scholars a one-sided view of Paul's attitude toward Israel.\nPaul did not advocate the destruction of the identity of his\npeople. He believed that even the natural Israel had a part to play\non the stage of history. These chapters of Romans, together with\nsome other passages in the epistles, such as I Cor. 9:20, confirm\nwhat the Book of The Acts tells us about Paul's willingness, when no\nprinciple was involved, to conform to Jewish custom.\n\n\n5. INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE\n\nThe genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans is undoubted, but its\n\"integrity\" has been questioned. The epistle was certainly written\nby Paul, but was it all, as we now have it, originally part of one\nletter? By many scholars the greater part of the sixteenth chapter\nis supposed to have originally formed part of an epistle of Paul\nwritten not to Rome but to Ephesus. The chief argument for this\nhypothesis is derived from the long list of names in ch. 16:3-15.\nCould Paul have had so many personal acquaintances in a church which\nhe had never visited? The argument is not conclusive. Just because\nPaul could not appeal in his letter to any personal acquaintance\nwith the Roman church as a whole, it would be natural for him to\nmention at least all the individuals in the church with whom he\nstood in any sort of special relation. Furthermore, the frequency\nof travel in the Roman Empire must be borne in mind. Many persons\nwhom Paul had met on his travels would naturally find their way to\nthe capital. Finally, Aquila and Priscilla, though they had recently\nlived in Ephesus, I Cor. 16:19, may easily have resumed their former\nresidence in Rome. Acts 18:2; Rom. 16:3-5.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n226-231. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves, (supplemented)\narticle on \"Romans, Epistle to the.\" Hastings, \"Dictionary of the\nBible\": Robertson, article on \"Romans, Epistle to the.\" M'Clymont,\n\"The New Testament and Its Writers,\" pp. 77-82. Gifford, \"The\nEpistle of St. Paul to the Romans.\" Ellicott, \"A New Testament\nCommentary for English Readers,\" vol. ii, pp. 193-280: Sanday, \"The\nEpistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans.\" \"The Cambridge Bible for\nSchools\": Moule, \"The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans.\"\n\"The International Critical Commentary\": Sanday and Headlam, \"A\nCritical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.\"\nZahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. i, pp. 352-438. The\ntwo last-named works presuppose a knowledge of Greek.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXII\n\nPAUL'S JOURNEY TO ROME\n\n\nThe material of this lesson is so extensive that only the barest\nsummary can be attempted in the class. The great features of the\nnarrative should be made to stand out clear--the bitter opposition\nof the Jews, the favorable attitude of the Roman authorities, the\njourney to Rome. Before the lesson is over the student should have\na deeper impression of the character of Paul--his perfect ease\nand tactfulness in the various relations of life, his unswerving\nboldness where the gospel was concerned, his inexplicable\npower. Finally, the peculiar quality of the narrative should be\nappreciated. These chapters contain the two longer \"we-sections\" of\nThe Acts.\n\n\n1. THE JOURNEY TO TROAS\n\nAt first Paul had intended to sail direct from Corinth to Syria, but\na plot of the Jews caused him to change his plan. Acts 20:3. It has\nbeen suggested that the ship upon which he was intending to sail may\nhave carried non-Christian Jews, going to the approaching feast in\nJerusalem, v. 16, who could have done him harm upon the voyage. By\nchoosing the route through Macedonia he averted the immediate danger.\n\nThe use of the first person plural begins again at Acts 20:5. It\nwas broken off at ch. 16:17. Luke had parted from Paul at Philippi\non the second missionary journey; and it is at Philippi that he now\nappears again. The following journeys, in which Luke himself took\npart, are narrated with the utmost vividness and minuteness. The\nnarrative amounts practically to a diary--in some sections every day\nis accounted for.\n\nThe departure from Philippi took place \"after the days of unleavened\nbread,\" that is, after the passover week. Acts 20:6. From the\naccount of the subsequent journey it is not quite possible to tell\nwhether Paul actually succeeded in carrying out his plan of being in\nJerusalem at Pentecost. Pentecost, it will be remembered, came fifty\ndays after the beginning of the passover week.\n\n\n2. TROAS\n\nThe description of the last evening at Troas, when Paul prolonged\nhis discourse in the lighted room, is one of the inimitably vivid\nscenes of The Acts. Probably we are to understand that Eutychus, who\nfell down from a window in the third story, was really killed and\nnot merely stunned. Verse 10 might seem to indicate that he was only\nstunned, but the last words of v. 9 point rather to actual, and not\nmerely apparent, death. The miracle is paralleled by the raising of\nDorcas by Peter. Acts 9:36-42.\n\n\n3. THE ELDERS OF EPHESUS\n\nWhen Paul told the elders that they would see his face \"no more,\" or\nperhaps rather \"no longer,\" Acts 20:25,38, he did not necessarily\nmean that he would certainly never return to Ephesus. For a period\nof years, at any rate, he was intending to transfer his labors\nto the west; his return to Ephesus, therefore, was at all events\nuncertain. His long activity at Ephesus, which had occupied the\nbetter part of the past three years, was for the present at an end.\nFrom the Pastoral Epistles it appears that as a matter of fact Paul\ndid visit Ephesus again after his release from the first Roman\nimprisonment.\n\n\n4. ARRIVAL IN PALESTINE\n\nAt Tyre and at C\u00e6sarea, Paul received warnings against visiting\nJerusalem. These warnings came through the Spirit, Acts 21:4,11, but\nnot in the sense that the Holy Spirit commanded Paul not to go. The\nmeaning is that the Spirit warned him of the dangers that were to\nbefall him. In meeting these dangers bravely he was acting in full\naccordance with the divine will.\n\nAt Acts 21:18 the use of the first person plural ceases, because\nLuke had no immediate part in the events that followed. It is\nnatural to suppose, however, that he remained in Palestine, for he\njoined Paul again in C\u00e6sarea, at the beginning of the journey to\nRome. For the events of Paul's imprisonment in Jerusalem and in\nC\u00e6sarea he had first-hand information.\n\nThe vow in which Paul took part at the request of James was at least\nsimilar to the Nazirite vow described in Num. 6:1-21. Not all the\ndetails of such vows are perfectly clear. Paul himself, on his own\naccount, had assumed a similar vow on his second missionary journey,\nActs 18:18--unless indeed, as is grammatically possible, the words\nin that passage refer to Aquila rather than to Paul.\n\nIt was not true, as the Christians of Judea had been led to\nthink, that Paul taught the Jewish Christians of the dispersion\nto forsake the law of Moses, though he was insistent that the\nGentile Christians must not adopt that law. It was not even true\nthat he himself had altogether given up keeping the law, though\nthe exigencies of his Gentile work required him to give it up very\noften, and though he regarded himself as inwardly free from the\nlaw. His willingness to take part in a Jewish vow in Jerusalem is\ntherefore not surprising. His action on this occasion was fully\njustified by the principles of his conduct as described in I\nCor. 9:20,21. The keeping of the law was not for Paul a means of\nobtaining salvation. Salvation was a free gift of God, through the\ndeath of Christ. But for the present the general relinquishment of\nthe law and abandonment of the distinctive customs of Judaism on\nthe part of Jewish Christians was not required. Paul was willing to\nleave that question to the future guidance of God.\n\nIt is somewhat surprising that the Book of The Acts mentions the\ngreat collection for the Jerusalem church only incidentally, in the\nreport of a speech of Paul. Acts 24:17. The interest of Luke in this\npart of the narrative is absorbed in the relations between Paul\nand the non-Christian Jews and the Roman authorities. The internal\naffairs of the Church are left for the most part out of account. The\nActs and the Pauline Epistles, here as so often, must be allowed to\nsupplement each other. Luke gives a vivid picture of the external\nevents, and a clear view of the relations of Christianity to the\noutside world; while Paul affords us a deeper insight, in some\nrespects at least, into the inward development of the Church's life.\n\n\n5. PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA\n\nThe famous reply of Agrippa to Paul, Acts 26:28, is exceedingly\ndifficult to translate and to interpret. The translation in the\nRevised Version is by no means certainly correct. The words may\nmean, \"A little more of this persuasion will make me a Christian!\"\nor else, \"You seem to think that the little persuasion you have used\nis sufficient to make me a Christian.\" In any case, the sentence\ndisplays a certain perplexity on the part of the king. He certainly\ndoes not mean that he is on the point of accepting Christianity--his\nwords have a half-ironical tone--but on the other hand his interest\nis aroused. The same thing is probably to be said for Festus. He\nsaid, \"Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad,\"\nbut he said it with a loud voice as though he were agitated. There\nwas something uncanny about this prisoner!\n\n\n6. THE ACCESSION OF FESTUS\n\nThe dates of many events in the apostolic age have usually been\nfixed by counting from the accession of Festus. Unfortunately,\nhowever, that event itself cannot be dated with certainty. Some put\nit as late as A. D. 61, others as early as A. D. 55. If the date\nA. D. 60 be provisionally adopted, then Paul's arrest in Jerusalem\noccurred in A. D. 58, and his arrival in Rome in A. D. 61. The\nconclusion of the narrative in The Acts would then fall in the year\nA. D. 63. It will be remembered that the proconsulship of Gallio\nnow affords an additional starting point for a chronology of the\napostolic age.\n\n\n7. LATER HISTORY OF THE JERUSALEM CHURCH\n\nAfter the meeting between Paul and James, which is narrated in\nActs 21:17-26, the Jerusalem church, at least so far as any direct\nnarrative is concerned, disappears from the pages of the New\nTestament. It will be observed that in the account of Paul's last\nvisit, only James, the brother of the Lord, and \"the elders\" are\nmentioned as representatives of the church. Possibly some of the\ntwelve apostles may be included under the term \"elders,\" but it is\nalso perfectly possible that the apostles were all out of the city.\n\nJames, the brother of the Lord, continued to be the head of the\nJerusalem church until he was martyred--in A. D. 62, or, as others\nsuppose, in A. D. 66. Before the war which culminated in the capture\nof Jerusalem in A. D. 70, the Christians of the city fled to Pella\nbeyond the Jordan. From that time, on, though the Christians\nreturned after the war, Jewish Christianity was quite uninfluential.\nThe supremacy of the Jerusalem church was gone. But that church had\nalready rendered a priceless service. It had laid the foundations\nof Christendom. It had sent forth the first missionaries. And it\nhad preserved the record of Jesus' life. The Synoptic Gospels, in\nsubstance at least, are a product of the Jerusalem church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n160-166, 231-239. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on\nthe many persons and places mentioned in the narrative, especially\n\"Felix,\" \"Festus,\" and \"Herod\" (4). Ramsay, \"St. Paul the Traveller\nand the Roman Citizen,\" pp. 283-362; \"Pictures of the Apostolic\nChurch,\" pp. 270-285, 310-364. Lewin, \"The Life and Epistles of St.\nPaul,\" vol. ii, chs. ii, iii, iv, v, and vi. Conybeare and Howson,\n\"The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,\" chs. xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii,\nxxiv and xxv. Stalker, \"The Life of St. Paul,\" pp. 121-133. Lumby,\npp. 266-380. Cook, pp. 485-534. Plumptre, pp. 136-184. Rackham, pp.\n370-513.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXIII\n\nTHE SUPREMACY OF CHRIST\n\n\n1. THE EPISTLES OF THE THIRD GROUP\n\nWith the lesson for to-day, we are introduced to the third group\namong the epistles of Paul. The epistles of the second group, which\nwere written during the third missionary journey, are concerned\nwith the problem of sin and salvation; the epistles of the third\ngroup are interesting especially for their teaching about the\nperson of Christ and about the Church. A period of about three or\nfour years separates the last epistle of the second group from the\nfirst epistle of the third. Most of this interval had been spent\nby Paul in captivity. Undoubtedly, during this period of enforced\nleisure, there had been development in Paul's thinking, but it\nis very difficult to determine exactly wherein that development\nconsisted. The differences of the third group of epistles from the\nsecond are due to the difference in the readers at least as much as\nto a difference in Paul himself. It is hard to say just how much of\nColossians and Ephesians Paul would have been incapable of writing\nduring the third missionary journey.\n\nAt any rate, the epistles of the captivity differ from those of the\nformer group in being for the most part quieter in tone. During\nthe third journey Paul had had to continue the great battles of\nhis career against various forms of Judaizing error. Christianity\nat one time seemed to be in danger of being reduced to a mere\nform of Judaism; the free grace of God was being deserted for a\nlaw religion; faith was being deserted for works. In Galatia, the\nquestion of principle had been uppermost; in Corinth, the personal\nattack upon Paul. Everywhere, moreover, the gospel of salvation by\nfaith was exposed to misconception. Pagan license was threatening to\ncreep into the Church. Unless it could be kept out, the legalists\nwould have some apparent show of reason on their side. Taking it\nall in all, it had been a hard battle. But it had been gloriously\nfought, and it had been won. Now Paul was able to turn his attention\nto new fields of labor and to new problems.\n\n\n2. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF COLOSSIANS\n\nThe Epistle to the Colossians is peculiarly \"Christological.\" More\nfully and more expressly than in any other of his letters Paul here\ndevelops his view about the person of Christ. Even here, however,\nthis teaching is incidental; it was simply Paul's way of refuting\ncertain errors that had crept into the Colossian church. Except for\nthose errors Paul would perhaps never have written at length, as\nhe does in Col. 1:14-23, about the relation of Christ to God and\nto the world. Yet in that case his own views would have been the\nsame, and they would have been just as fundamental to his whole\nreligious life. In the epistles, which are written to Christians,\nPaul takes many things for granted. Some of the things which are\nmost fundamental appear only incidentally. Just because they were\nfundamental, just because they were accepted by everyone, they did\nnot need to be discussed at length.\n\nSo it is especially with the person of Christ. From the first\nepistle to the last, Paul presupposes essentially the same view\nof that great subject. Practically everything that he says in\nColossians could have been inferred from scattered hints in the\nearlier epistles. From the beginning Paul regarded Jesus Christ\nas a man, who had a real human life and died a real death on the\ncross. From the beginning, on the other hand, he separated Christ\nsharply from men and placed him clearly on the side of God. From\nthe beginning, in other words, he attributed to him a double\nnature--Jesus Christ was always in Paul's thinking both God and man.\nFinally, the pre\u00ebxistence of Christ, which is so strongly emphasized\nin Colossians, is clearly implied in such passages as Gal. 4:4; and\nhis activity in creation appears, according to the best-attested\ntext, in I Cor. 8:6.\n\nNevertheless, the more systematic exposition in Colossians is of\nthe utmost value. It serves to summarize and explain the scattered\nimplications of the earlier epistles. Christ according to Paul is,\nin the first place, \"the image of the invisible God.\" Col. 1:15.\nHe is the supreme Revealer of God, a Revealer, however, not merely\nby words but by his own nature. If you want to know what God is,\nlook upon Christ! In the second place, he is \"the firstborn of all\ncreation.\" Of itself that phrase might be misconstrued. It might be\nthought to mean that Christ was the first being that God created.\nAny such interpretation, however, is clearly excluded by the three\nfollowing verses. There Paul has himself provided an explanation\nof his puzzling phrase. \"The firstborn of all creation\" means that\nChrist, himself uncreated, existed before all created things; he was\nprior to all things, and, as befits an only son, he possesses all\nthings. Indeed he himself was active in the creation of all things,\nnot only the world, and men, but also those angelic powers--\"thrones\nor dominions or principalities or powers\"--upon whom the errorists\nin Coloss\u00e6 were inclined to lay too much emphasis. He was the\ninstrument of God the Father in creation. And he was also the end of\ncreation. The world exists not for its own sake, but for the sake\nof Christ. Especially is he the Head of the Church. His headship\nis declared by his being the first to rise from the dead into that\nglorious life into which he will finally bring all his disciples. In\na word, the entire \"fulness\" of the divine nature dwells in Christ.\nThat word \"fulness\" was much misused in the \"Gnostic\" speculations\nof the second century. It is barely possible that the word had\nalready been employed in the incipient Gnosticism of the Colossian\nerrorists. If so, Paul by his repeated use of the word in Colossians\nand Ephesians, is bringing his readers back to a healthier and\nsimpler and grander conception.\n\n\n3. THE PERSON OF CHRIST AND THE WORK OF CHRIST\n\nIn Col. 1:20-23, Paul bases upon the preceding exposition of the\nnature of Christ a noble description of Christ's work. The work\nwhich has been intrusted to Christ is nothing less than that of\nreconciling the creation unto God. Through sin, an enmity had been\nset up between God and the work of his hands. That enmity applies\nprimarily of course to the sinful persons themselves. They are\nunder God's wrath and curse. Sin is not a trifle. It cannot simply\nbe treated as though it had never been. If God be righteous, then\nthere is such a thing as a moral order. The wrath of God rests upon\nthe sinner. But by the sacrifice of Christ, that enmity has been\nwiped out. Christ has paid the awful penalty of sin. Christ has\nbrought the sinner again near to God. The enmity and the following\nreconciliation concern primarily the men who have sinned. But they\nalso apply to the whole world. The ground has been cursed for man's\nsake. The end of the reconciliation will be a new heaven and a new\nearth. The groaning and travailing of the creation will one day have\nan end. Compare Rom. 8:18-25.\n\nThis brief description of the work of Christ in Col. 1:20-22;\n2:10-15, can be richly paralleled in the earlier epistles. What now\nneeds to be emphasized is that the Pauline view of Christ's work\ndepends absolutely upon the Pauline view of Christ's person. All\nthrough the epistles of Paul the life and death and resurrection\nare represented as events of a cosmic significance. But they can\nhave such significance only if Christ is the kind of being that is\ndescribed in the Epistle to the Colossians. The glorious account\nof salvation, which runs all through the epistles and forms the\nespecial subject of the second group, is unintelligible if Christ\nwere merely an inspired prophet or merely the greatest of created\nthings. It becomes intelligible only if Christ is \"the image of\nthe invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.\" The mysterious\nChristology of Colossians lies at the very heart of Christian faith.\n\n\n4. THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON\n\nThe Epistle to the Colossians, though addressed to a church that\nPaul had never visited, is full of warm-hearted affection. Paul\ncould hardly have been cold and formal if he had tried. He was a man\nof great breadth of sympathy. Hence he was able to enter with the\ndeepest interest into the problems of the Colossian Christians--to\nrejoice at their faith and love, to lament their faults, and to\nlabor with whole-souled devotion for their spiritual profit.\n\nThe simple, unconstrained affection of Paul's nature, however, had\nfreer scope in the delightful little letter to Philemon. Philemon\napparently was a convert of Paul himself. Philem. 19. He was not\na man with whom Paul had to be on his guard. Paul is perfectly\nconfident that Philemon will fully understand the motives of his\naction and of his letter.\n\nThe letter is addressed to Philemon primarily, but also to Apphia\nand to Archippus and to the church in Philemon's house. We are\nhere introduced into a Christian household of the apostolic age.\nApphia was probably Philemon's wife and Archippus perhaps his son.\nEvidently Archippus held some sort of office in the Colossian\nchurch. \"Say to Archippus,\" says Paul in a strangely emphatic way,\nat the very end of the Epistle to the Colossians, \"Take heed to the\nministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill\nit.\" We should like to know what the ministry was which Archippus\nhad received. At any rate, we hope that he fulfilled it. It was a\nsolemn warning which he received--a warning which might well have\nmade him tremble. We also may well take the warning to heart. Our\ntask of imparting Bible truth is no light responsibility. To us\nalso the warning comes, \"Take heed to the ministry which thou hast\nreceived in the Lord, that thou fulfill it.\"\n\nThe letter is addressed not only to Philemon and his family, but\nalso to the \"church\" which met in his house. This \"church\" was a\npart of the Colossian congregation. In the early days, when it was\ndifficult to secure meeting places, well-to-do Christians frequently\noffered the hospitality of their own homes. A certain Nympha or\nNymphas--the name varies in the manuscripts--performed this service\nin Laodicea, Col. 4:15, Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, I Cor.\n16:19, and also Gaius in the same city. Rom. 16:23.\n\nThe Epistle to Philemon exhibits that perfection of courtesy and\ndelicacy of feeling which has been observed again and again in\nPaul. A man of coarser feeling might have kept Onesimus with him\nuntil receiving the response of Philemon. In that case no doubt\nPhilemon would have replied not only that Onesimus was forgiven,\nbut that Paul might retain the benefit of his services. But Paul\nsaw clearly that that would have made Philemon's goodness seem to\nbe of necessity and not of free will. Philem. 14. There was only\none really fine, honorable, high-toned way of dealing with the\nsituation, and that was the way which Paul adopted.\n\nThe letter is informal and affectionate. There is even apparently a\nlittle delicate play on the name Onesimus, which means \"helpful.\"\nOnce Onesimus belied his name, but now he has become helpful again.\nPhilem. 11. In v. 20, also, where Paul says, \"Let me have joy\nof thee,\" he uses a word which comes from the same root as that\nwhich appears in the name of the slave. Nevertheless, despite all\ninformality, Paul has succeeded, here as always, in lifting the\nmatter to a lofty plane. Paul was a man who ennobled everything that\nhe touched.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n241-246. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible,\" articles on \"Coloss\u00e6,\"\n\"Hierapolis\" and \"Laodicea\": Purves, articles on \"Colossians,\nEpistle to the\" and \"Philemon\" (supplemented). Hastings, \"Dictionary\nof the Bible\": Ramsay, articles on \"Coloss\u00e6,\" \"Hierapolis,\" and\n\"Laodicea\"; Murray, article on \"Colossians, Epistle to the\";\nBernard, articles on \"Philemon,\" and \"Philemon, Epistle to.\"\nM'Clymont, \"The New Testament and Its Writers,\" pp. 91-98. Ellicott,\n\"A New Testament Commentary for English Readers,\" vol. iii: Barry,\n\"The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians, Philippians, and\nColossians,\" pp. 1-8, 96-124; \"The Epistle of Paul to Philemon,\" pp.\n265-274. \"The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges\": Moule, \"The\nEpistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.\" Zahn, \"Introduction to\nthe New Testament,\" vol. i, pp. 439-479. Lightfoot, \"Saint Paul's\nEpistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.\" The two last-named\nworks are intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of\nGreek, but can also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXIV\n\nTHE CHURCH OF CHRIST\n\n\nThe special effort in the lessons of the second quarter has been\nto produce some lively impression of the wonderful variety among\nthe letters of Paul. That variety is due largely to the variety in\nthe occasions of the letters. Just because Paul entered with such\nsympathy into the varying circumstances of his many churches, the\nletters of Paul reflect the wonderful manifoldness of life.\n\nNevertheless, it is also an advantage that at least one letter is\nlargely independent of any special circumstances whatever. This is\nthe case with the epistle which is to be studied to-day. The Epistle\nto the Ephesians is addressed to a definite group of churches, but\nthat group is addressed not with regard to its own special problems,\nbut simply as representative of Gentile Christianity in general. For\nonce Paul allows his thoughts to flow unchecked by the particular\nneeds of his readers.\n\n\n1. STYLE OF EPHESIANS\n\nThe purpose of Ephesians, therefore, is quite different from the\npurpose of any other of the Pauline Epistles. To the difference in\npurpose corresponds a difference in style. The style of Ephesians is\ncharacterized especially by long sentences, heaped full of an almost\nbewildering wealth of thought. This characteristic had appeared\nto some extent even in the earliest epistles--compare II Thess.\n1:3-10--but in Ephesians it becomes more pronounced. Ephesians\n1:3-14, for example, is only one sentence, but it is a world in\nitself. Apparently in this epistle Paul has allowed his mind and\nheart to roam unchecked over the whole realm of the divine economy.\nThis freedom might conceivably be thought to involve a sacrifice of\nlogical symmetry and of euphonic grace, but at any rate it possesses\na certain beauty and value of its own. Ephesians may lack the\nsplendid rhythm of the first chapter of First Corinthians or the\neighth chapter of Romans, but on the other hand these tremendous\nperiods, with their heaping-up of majestic phrases, serve admirably\nto express the bewilderment of the soul in the presence of divine\nwonders. Human language is inadequate to do full justice to the\ngrace of God. In Ephesians, we see an inspired apostle striving\nto give utterance in human language to things which in their full\nreality are unspeakable.\n\n\n2. COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS\n\nThe Epistle to the Ephesians is strikingly similar to the Epistle\nto the Colossians, not only in thought, but also in many details of\nlanguage. Another case of striking similarity between two epistles\nof Paul was encountered in First and Second Thessalonians. There\nthe two similar letters were written both to the same church,\nthough at no very great interval of time. The similarity was due\nto the desire which Paul felt of reiterating, with some additions\nand explanations, the teaching of his former letter. In the case\nof Ephesians and Colossians the similarity is even more easily\nexplained. These two epistles were written to different churches at\nthe same time. What more natural than that the same thoughts and to\nsome extent the same words should appear in both? Only, the teaching\nwhich in Colossians is directed against a definite form of error is\nin Ephesians reproduced in freer, more general form. The relation\nbetween the two epistles is somewhat like that which exists between\nGalatians and Romans. In Galatians, the doctrine of salvation by\nfaith appears in conflict with the opposing error; in Romans, the\nsame doctrine finds expression, but this time in quieter, more\nsystematic development, after the conflict is over. The similarity\nbetween Galatians and Romans is, however, not so close as that\nbetween Colossians and Ephesians--partly because the contrast of\nspirit is not so striking in the latter case, Colossians being far\nless bitterly polemic than Galatians; and more particularly because\na considerable interval separates Romans from Galatians, whereas\nColossians and Ephesians were dispatched by the same messenger.\n\n\n3. THE ADDRESS OF EPHESIANS. EPH. 1:1,2\n\nIn the Student's Text Book, it has been shown that the words \"at\nEphesus\" in the first verse may perhaps be no part of what Paul\nwrote, but a later addition. It cannot be claimed, however, that the\nproblem of the address has been completely solved. Without the words\n\"at Ephesus,\" the address becomes very difficult. \"To the saints\nthat are and the faithful in Christ Jesus\" hardly seems to make\nsense. The Greek words might be construed perfectly well to mean,\n\"To the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus,\" but that is\na rather unusual expression. The suggestion has been made that in\nthe first copies of the epistle a blank space was left after \"the\nsaints that are,\" to be filled in with the names of the particular\nchurches of the group which is addressed. Every church among the\ngroup would thus receive a copy with its own name inserted. The\nhypothesis is not altogether satisfactory. Probably we shall simply\nhave to admit that there is an unsolved problem here.\n\n\n4. THANKSGIVING FOR THE PLAN OF SALVATION. EPH. 1:3-14\n\nBefore the customary thanksgiving for the Christian state of the\nreaders, Paul inserts here, in accordance with the nature of this\nepistle, a general thanksgiving for the whole Church, which is\napplied especially to the readers only at the very end. The passage\ncontains a wonderful summary of the whole of salvation, but it\nbegins with the plan of God and it closes with the glory of God.\nGod is the beginning and end of all things. His mysterious decree\nis the cause of our being chosen for salvation, and his own glory\nis the ultimate object in view. Men are often rebellious against\nsuch a God-centered view of things. Predestination is an unpopular\ndoctrine. But it was at any rate the doctrine of Paul, and it lay\nat the roots of his experience. It is sometimes hard for us to\nwrite God so large in our thoughts. Because we think of him merely\nas a somewhat greater man, we are inclined to reject the doctrine\nwhich attributes all things to the workings of his will and to the\nfurtherance of his glory. If, however, we could think of him, not\nonly as a person, but also as an infinite, eternal and holy person,\nthen we should murmur no longer, but should, with Paul, burst forth\nin praise of the inscrutable wonder of his grace. The glory of a\nmerciful God has involved for its full unfolding the salvation of\nguilty sinners. God's glory finds its full expression only when he\nis revealed as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n\n\n5. THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER FOR THE READERS. EPH. 1:15 to 2:10\n\nBeginning with thanksgiving for the present faith and love of the\nreaders, Paul passes at once to a prayer that they may be given\nunderstanding to appreciate the wonderful salvation which has\nbeen celebrated in the preceding section, especially the mighty\nSaviour who has been bestowed upon the Church. Then the greatness\nof the present salvation, not only of Gentiles, but also of Jews,\nis celebrated by a contrast with the previous condition of sin and\nmisery. The blessed change has been due, not to anything in man, but\nsimply and solely to the grace of God, received by faith.\n\n\n6. RECEPTION OF THE GENTILES. EPH. 2:11-22\n\nHere the contrast between past and present is applied especially to\nthe Gentiles. Formerly they were excluded from the people of God.\nBut now by the death of Christ the \"middle wall of partition\" has\nbeen broken down. Gentiles and Jews have now a common access to the\nFather.\n\n\n7. THE MINISTRY OF PAUL. EPH., ch. 3\n\nThis reception of the Gentiles is the work that has been intrusted\nespecially to Paul. It is a glorious ministry, far too great for\nhuman strength. It can be fulfilled only through the grace of God.\nThe full mystery of God's grace, concealed for many generations, has\nat last been revealed. The first half of the epistle is fittingly\nclosed by a doxology.\n\n\n8. LIFE IN THE CHURCH. EPH., chs. 4 to 6\n\nThis section may be called the practical part of the epistle. It\nexhibits the results in holy living which proceed from the glorious\ngospel which has just been proclaimed. Even in the \"practical\"\npart, however, the great doctrines of God's grace are so constantly\nfinding renewed expression that it is difficult to separate one part\nfrom the other. Paul never separated moral precepts from the great\ntruths which give them force. Let the readers live like citizens of\nthe commonwealth of God, and members of the body of Christ!\n\nNaturally, in this part of the epistle the unity of the\nChurch--which is perhaps the central theme of the whole--is\nespecially emphasized. The first half of the fourth chapter, for\nexample, is a magnificent hymn to Christian unity. Even in the midst\nof the directions for the various relationships of life the great\ntheme of Christ and the Church, under the figure of husband and\nwife, is brought again into view.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n246-249. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves and Davis, article\non \"Ephesians, Epistle to the.\" Hastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible\":\nLock, article on \"Ephesians, Epistle to.\" M'Clymont, \"The New\nTestament and Its Writers,\" pp. 99-103. Ellicott, \"A New Testament\nCommentary for English Readers,\" vol. iii: Barry, \"The Epistles of\nPaul the Apostle to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians,\"\npp. 9-60. \"The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges\": Moule,\n\"The Epistle to the Ephesians.\" Zahn, \"Introduction to the New\nTestament,\" vol. i, pp. 479-522. Robinson, \"St. Paul's Epistle to\nthe Ephesians.\" The two last-named works are intended primarily for\nthose who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by\nothers.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXV\n\nCHRIST AND HIS FOLLOWERS\n\n\nThe Epistle to the Philippians is the only one of the letters of\nPaul which is addressed to an approved church with whom he stood\non terms of untroubled intimacy and affection. In Galatians and\nboth the Corinthian epistles, serious errors in the churches\naddressed, as well as unscrupulous personal criticism, lend a\ntone of bitterness to the apostle's words; Romans, Colossians\nand perhaps \"Ephesians\" are addressed to churches which he had\nnever seen. In some ways the little letter to Philemon is very\nsimilar to Philippians. Both Philippians and Philemon display the\nsame perfect confidence in the readers, the same perfection of\ncourtesy, the same tone of untroubled cordiality. But Philemon is\naddressed primarily to an individual, and Philippians to a church;\nPhilemon confines itself almost exclusively to one little personal\nmatter, while Philippians discusses a variety of topics. Among the\nletters addressed to churches, perhaps the First Epistle to the\nThessalonians is more similar to Philippians, at least in tone, than\nis any of the others. Like Philippians it is animated by a deep\nsatisfaction with the readers, and a certain pleasing simplicity\nof manner. But here again of course there are wide differences.\nFirst Thessalonians is addressed to an infant church, which has\njust passed through its first trial, and needs the most elementary\ninstruction; in Philippians Paul is writing to old friends, to\na church which for ten years has endured bravely the hardships\nincident to the Christian profession, and has shared in fullest\nsympathy the joys and sorrows of the apostle's life.\n\nDuring the ten years, moreover, which have elapsed between First\nThessalonians and Philippians, there has been a change in the\napostle himself, as well as in his readers. Those years of conflict\nand labor and meditation and suffering have borne fruit in the\napostle's own thinking. His gospel was the same from the beginning,\nbut the expression of it has become richer and maturer and nobler\nwith the advancing years. Philippians is a wonderful letter.\nSimplicity and profundity are here combined. This simple letter of\nthanks, with its delicate courtesy and tactful admonition, has\nengaged the profoundest study of the theologians, and touched the\ngrandest chords of the Christian heart.\n\n\n1. THE ADDRESS. Phil. 1:1,2\n\nThe address of Philippians is remarkable because of the mention of\nbishops and deacons, which occurs in this way in no other of the\nPauline Epistles. Possibly, as has been suggested, these officers\nare here mentioned because they had had a special part in sending\nthe gifts of the church. It is important to observe that there was\na plurality of bishops in the Philippian church. At a later time,\nwhen the \"bishops\" were exalted above the other presbyters, there\nwas only one bishop in every church. In The Acts and in the Pauline\nEpistles, \"bishop\" and \"presbyter\" appear plainly as nothing more\nthan two names for exactly the same office.\n\nIt should be noticed that the title \"apostle,\" which appears at the\nbeginning of all the other Pauline Epistles addressed to churches,\nexcept First and Second Thessalonians, the two earliest, is lacking\nin the address of Philippians. Perhaps in writing to such a devoted\nchurch Paul considered it unnecessary to mention his apostleship\nas he had regularly done in his epistles since the denial of it in\nGalatia. On account of the peculiar nature of the Philippian church,\nthe Epistle to the Philippians partakes somewhat of the informality\nand intimacy of such a letter as that to Philemon, where the title\nis also lacking in the address.\n\nVery naturally Timothy is associated with Paul in the address of\nthe epistle, for he had been one of Paul's companions in founding\nthe Philippian church. At what time Timothy had come to Rome we do\nnot know. His name appears also in the address of Colossians and of\nPhilemon. Luke, although he had journeyed with Paul to Rome, and was\nin Rome at the time when Colossians and Philemon were written, Col.\n4:14; Philem. 24, was apparently absent at the time of Philippians;\nfor since he, like Timothy, had assisted in founding the Philippian\nchurch, and perhaps had even remained in Philippi for years after\nthe departure of the others, he would probably have been associated\nin the address, or at least would have sent greetings, if he had\nbeen at hand.\n\n\n2. THE THANKSGIVING. Phil. 1:3-11\n\nAs might have been expected, the thanksgiving for the Christian\nstate of the readers is in this epistle of unusual cordiality. In\nthe mention of their \"fellowship in furtherance of the gospel from\nthe first day until now,\" there is perhaps a delicate allusion to\nthe material assistance which they had sent him from time to time\nand especially a little while before the writing of the letter;\nbut such material assistance was for Paul of course not the only,\nor even the principal, manifestation of their fellowship. Here as\noften, the thanksgiving runs over into a prayer--and this time it is\na prayer of singular beauty and depth.\n\n\n3. PROGRESS OF AFFAIRS IN ROME. Phil. 1:12-30\n\nIn this section, Paul hastens to relieve the minds of his readers\nabout the course of events in Rome. Even his bonds, and the jealousy\nof certain preachers, have resulted only in the furtherance of the\ngospel. With regard to the outcome of his trial, there is every\nreason to be hopeful. For his part he would prefer to depart and to\nbe with Christ, but there is still work for him to do. And whether\nhe is present or absent, let the Philippians give him joy by living\nin a manner worthy of the gospel, and by being steadfast in the\npersecutions which are bound to come to them as well as to him.\nIt is a high privilege not only to believe in Christ, but also to\nsuffer for him.\n\n\n4. EXHORTATION TO UNITY. Phil. 2:1-18\n\nWith the utmost earnestness, Paul here appeals to his readers to\nkeep their Christian life free from selfishness and quarreling. The\nstupendous \"Christological\" passage of the epistle, vs. 5-11, which\nhas given rise to endless discussion, is introduced merely in an\nincidental way, in order to strengthen the apostle's exhortation. So\nit is frequently in the letters of Paul. The apostle was always able\nto make the profoundest verities of the faith immediately effective\nin conduct. Theology in Paul was never divorced from practice.\nThe converse of the proposition, however, is also true. If Paul's\ntheology did not exist apart from practice, neither did his practice\nexist apart from theology. It is the latter proposition which needs\nto be emphasized to-day. Modern liberalism has sometimes endeavored\nto reproduce Paul's religion apart from his theology; but the effort\nhas resulted in failure.\n\nThe example of Christ which Paul holds up before his readers\nis briefly as follows: Originally Christ not only existed in\nthe form of God--that is, was in full possession of the divine\nattributes--but also lived in glory, in a way befitting deity.\nInstead, however, of keeping hold of this heavenly glory, he humbled\nhimself by becoming man. He laid aside, not indeed his divine\nattributes, but the enjoyment of his divine glory. He who was Lord\nof all took the form of a servant like other men. And even more. His\nobedience extended even to death, and to the shameful death of the\ncross. But after humiliation came exaltation. God gave to him a name\nthat is above every name. At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,\nin earth and in heaven, to the glory of God the Father.\n\n\n5. THE MISSION OF TIMOTHY AND OF EPAPHRODITUS. Phil. 2:19-30\n\nThe personal appeal with which the preceding section closed leads\nPaul to speak of the plans which he has for the comfort and help of\nthe readers. Timothy will be sent as soon as the issue of Paul's\ntrial is definitely in view; Epaphroditus will return to Philippi at\nonce.\n\n\n6. WARNING AGAINST OPPONENTS. Phil., ch. 3\n\nThe men who are rebuked in very vigorous language in the former\npart of this section evidently placed an excessive emphasis upon\ncircumcision and connection with the people of Israel. Perhaps also\nthey were advocates of a law righteousness. V. 9. The most obvious\nsuggestion is that they were Judaizers like those in Galatia, or\nat least like the opponents of Paul in Corinth. Paul's account\nin vs. 4-6 of the Jewish advantages, fully equal to those of his\nopponents, which he counts as nothing in view of the superior\nadvantages of faith in Christ, is strikingly similar to II Cor.\n11:21,22. If, however, Paul is here referring to Judaizers, it\nlooks as though they were at least as cautious as the opponents in\nCorinth about presenting the claims of the law. At any rate, the\ndanger of a legalistic propaganda either in Philippi or in Rome does\nnot seem to be very seriously in view. Apparently the acute stage\nof the Judaistic controversy is over. It is possible that Paul is\nreferring to Jews rather than Jewish Christians. We must remember\nthat Judaism in the first century was still an active missionary\nreligion. A Jewish propaganda, with stress upon circumcision and law\nrighteousness, might conceivably become, even in Philippi, where the\nJews seem not to have been numerous, a serious danger, if not to the\nstability, at least to the rapid extension, of the Christian Church.\n\nFinally, it is uncertain whether \"the enemies of the cross of\nChrist,\" Phil. 3:18, are the same as those who are combated in the\nformer part of the section.\n\nFortunately these various uncertainties do not affect the lofty\nteaching of this part of the epistle. Whoever the opponents were,\nwhat Paul says in opposition to them is the thing of real value.\nIn the wonderfully terse, complete, vigorous description of the\nChristian salvation and of the Christian life which Paul gives in\nch. 3:7-14,20,21, the long years of the Judaistic controversy have\nborne glorious fruit. The final, eternal truth of God, in classic\nstatement, has at last emerged triumphant from the conflict.\n\n\n7. EXHORTATION, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, GREETINGS AND BENEDICTION. Phil.,\nch. 4\n\nThe principal contents of this section have been discussed in the\nStudent's Text Book. First Paul applies the general exhortation to\nunity, Phil. 2:1-11, to the case of Euodia and Syntyche, and adds\ncertain other brief exhortations. The \"true yokefellow\" of ch. 4:3\nprobably refers to Epaphroditus, the bearer of the epistle. Then,\nin a characteristically delicate and worthy manner, he acknowledges\nthe gift of the Philippians. Next, in just a word, he transmits,\nalong with his own, the greetings of his immediate companions, and\nof the Roman church in general, especially of those members who were\nconnected, as slaves or officials, with the immediate service of the\nemperor. Finally, with a brief benediction, the epistle closes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n249-251. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves (edited) article\non \"Philippians.\" Hastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Gibb, article\non \"Philippians, Epistle to the.\" M'Clymont, \"The New Testament and\nIts Writers,\" pp. 83-90. Ellicott, \"A New Testament Commentary for\nEnglish Readers\", vol. iii: Barry, \"The Epistles of Paul the Apostle\nto the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians,\" pp. 61-90. \"The\nCambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges\": Moule, \"The Epistle to\nthe Philippians.\" Zahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. i,\npp. 522-564. Lightfoot, \"Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians.\"\nThe two last-named works are intended primarily for those who have\nsome knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXVI\n\nTRAINING NEW LEADERS\n\n\nThe emphasis which the Pastoral Epistles lay upon sound instruction\nand upon orderly government is sometimes looked upon with distaste.\nOrthodoxy and organization are thought to be destructive of\nreligious fervor. In the New Testament, however, the two aspects\nof the Church's life appear side by side. In the New Testament,\nenthusiasm and sanity are united. And the New Testament is right.\nReligion is a concern of every individual soul--the final decision\nmust be made by every man in the immediate presence of his God--but\nnormally no man can do without association with his fellows.\nThe Church is a great permanent community. It is not merely an\naggregation, but an institution. To break away from its restraints\nmay be attractive, it may produce a certain temporary impression of\nzeal and new life; but in the long run the old way is usually best.\n\nThe Pastoral Epistles, however, are sometimes thought to indicate\nan unfortunate change in Paul himself as well as in the Church.\nSome students would prefer to know only the Paul of Galatians and\nCorinthians and Romans. This judgment is one-sided. The Pastorals\ndo not contradict, but supplement, the earlier letters. The earlier\nperiod, no doubt, is the more inspiring; there is nothing in the\nPastoral Epistles like the first few chapters of First Corinthians,\nor the fifth chapter of Second Corinthians, or the eighth chapter\nof Romans. These passages are overpowering in the intensity of\ntheir eloquence; the later letters are soberer, graver, more\nmatter-of-fact. These latter qualities, however, are much needed\nin the Church. The Church needs enthusiasm; but she also needs\ngravity and sanity. Her function is not merely evangelistic; it\nis also conservative and educational. In both functions Paul was\na leader. The quiet gravity of the Pastoral Epistles supplements\nthe glories of Galatians and Romans. Only when these last epistles\nare added to the others can the many-sided greatness of Paul be\nfully appreciated. Exaggerations, moreover, should be avoided. The\nsoberness of the Pastorals is not commonplace. Back of the details\nof organization, back of the concern for sound instruction, there\ncan be detected throughout the glow of the Pauline gospel. The\nPastoral Epistles, like the other letters of Paul, are a perennial\nfountain of Christian life.\n\nThe Second Epistle to Timothy was clearly the last of the extant\nepistles of Paul; but the order of First Timothy and Titus cannot be\ncertainly determined. The difficulty of reconstructing the history\nimplied by the Pastoral Epistles reveals anew the supreme value of\nThe Acts. After the conclusion of the Lucan narrative the historian\nis almost helpless. From about A. D. 63 on into the second century,\nthe history of the Church is shrouded in profound darkness, with\ngleams of light only here and there.\n\n\n1. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY\n\nAt the time when First Timothy was written, Paul had recently made a\njourney to Macedonia. I Tim. 1:3. Perhaps he had gone thither from\nEphesus, though the words do not make that perfectly clear. At any\nrate, he had directed Timothy to remain in Ephesus, where he hoped\nto join him before long. In case of delay, however, he writes the\nepistle. Chs. 3:14,15; 4:13.\n\nOn a previous occasion, perhaps by word of mouth when he had been\nin Ephesus, he had warned Timothy to put a stop to certain false\nteaching in the Church, and the warning is now reiterated in the\nepistle. The exact nature of this teaching is somewhat difficult\nto determine. Apparently it had been concerned with the Jewish\nlaw. Ch. 1:7-11. Compare Titus 1:10,14. Like the false teaching at\nColoss\u00e6, it seems not to have been directly subversive of the truth\nof the gospel. At least, however, it diverted attention from the\ngreat things of the faith to useless questionings. I Tim. 6:4. The\nmyths and endless genealogies, ch. 1:4, compare 4:7, were perhaps\nelaborations of the Old Testament history. Whether the ascetic\ntendency which is combated in ch. 4:3,8, is connected with this same\nteaching, is not certain, but is on the whole perhaps probable.\n\nThe first reference to the false teaching, ch. 1:3-10, leads Paul\nto speak of the norm by which it could be combated. Vs. 11-20. That\nnorm was the gospel with which he had been intrusted. The bestowal\nof the gospel had changed him from a blasphemer and persecutor\ninto an apostle. The gospel had been bestowed purely by the free\ngrace of Christ, and its content was the salvation which Christ\noffers. A doxology to God, v. 17, is natural whenever that gospel\nis mentioned. That gospel will overcome all error, and if attended\nto diligently will prevent disasters like that which has befallen\nHymen\u00e6us and Alexander.\n\nIn the second chapter, Paul insists upon gravity and order in\nthe public worship of the Church. In the prayers which are to be\noffered, the civil authority is not to be forgotten, even though it\nbe non-Christian. The sympathies of the Christian must be broad. God\ndesires all men to come to a knowledge of the truth.\n\nThe highest regular officers of the Church are in the third chapter\ncalled \"bishops.\" It is abundantly evident, however--especially from\nTitus 1:5,7--that \"bishop\" is only another name for \"presbyter\" or\n\"elder.\" At a later time the term \"bishop\" was applied to an officer\nwho had the supreme oversight over a church and to whom the elders\nwere subject. These conditions did not prevail at the time of the\nPastoral Epistles. At first sight, indeed, it might seem as though\nTimothy and Titus themselves were \"bishops\" in the later sense of\nthe word. But this also is false. Timothy and Titus do not appear\nat all as officers of individual congregations. They had oversight\nover a plurality of churches, and evidently their authority was\nspecial and temporary. They did not fill an office which was\nintended to become permanent in the Church, but were simply special\nrepresentatives of the apostle. As the apostles had no successors,\nso no man after the apostolic age had a right to assume the\nfunctions of Timothy and Titus.\n\nThe fourth chapter calls attention to the revelation of the Holy\nSpirit, probably through the lips of Christian prophets, that in the\nfuture there would appear apostates from the faith. The errorists\nwho are combated in vs. 7-10 are apparently to be regarded as\nforerunners, still within the Church, of the more open apostasy\nwhich is one day to follow.\n\nThe institution of the \"widows,\" which is discussed in the fifth\nchapter, is to us somewhat obscure. Evidently those who were\naccounted \"widows,\" being helpless, were entitled to support by the\nchurch. The necessity of sound teaching, with emphasis upon the\nreally fundamental things of the faith, is again insisted upon; and\ncertain false teachers are accused of practicing or inculcating\npiety as a means of worldly gain. Ch. 6:3-10. The last warning\nof the epistle characteristically concerns vain babblings and\noppositions of a so-called knowledge. Probably these errors are\nconnected in some way with those which are combated in the first\nsection of the epistle. In the final words, \"Grace be with you,\" the\n\"you\" in the Greek, according to the best attestation, is plural;\nand in the corresponding passages at the end of Titus and of Second\nTimothy, it is certainly plural. This may furnish an indication--to\nbe added to more general considerations--that the Pastoral Epistles\nwere intended not merely for those to whom they are formally\naddressed, but also to the churches under their care.\n\n\n2. THE EPISTLE TO TITUS\n\nThe address of the Epistle to Titus is noteworthy for the long\naddition to the title of the author, which is to be compared with\nthe similar addition in Romans.\n\nAt the time when the epistle was written, Paul had recently been\nwith Titus in Crete. Paul had not labored on that island before\nthe first Roman imprisonment. His journeys in the east between\nthe two imprisonments therefore involved something more than the\nrevisitation of former fields. The reason why Titus was left behind\nin Crete was somewhat similar to the reason why Timothy, according\nto First Timothy, was told to remain in Ephesus. Titus was to\ngive attention to organization, and to the maintenance of sound\ninstruction.\n\nLike Timothy, Titus is given the power of establishing presbyters,\nand of establishing them not merely in one church but in various\nchurches. The function of the presbyter was that of \"bishop\" or\n\"overseer.\" Titus 1:5-7. In vs. 9-16, the close connection of\norganization with sound doctrine becomes particularly apparent. One\nimportant function of the presbyters was to counteract the errors\nwhich were springing up. The account of the errorists in Crete is\nperhaps in some respects clearer than that which is given of the\nrelated phenomenon in Ephesus. The false teachers were animated\nby a love of gain. V. 11. Some of them were Jews or proselytes.\nV. 10. They had a fondness for Jewish fables. Apparently, also,\nthey tried to atone for a lack of real inward purity by an outward\nasceticism. Vs. 15, 16. They were concerned with vain questionings\nand genealogies and legal disputes. These last are perhaps to be\nregarded as casuistic discussions like those which play such a large\npart in Jewish tradition.\n\nThe Epistle to Titus is somewhat richer than First Timothy in\npersonal details. After Titus has been relieved in Crete by Artemas\nor Tychicus, who may soon be sent, he is to join Paul in Nicopolis.\nTychicus, it will be remembered, had served as Paul's messenger\nduring the first imprisonment. He was the bearer of Colossians\nand Ephesians. The Nicopolis where Paul is intending to pass the\napproaching winter, is probably the chief of the many cities of that\nname, the Nicopolis in Epirus. Zenas, a lawyer otherwise unknown,\nand the well-known Apollos, who appears so prominently in The\nActs and in First Corinthians, are to be furnished in Crete with\neverything that they need for their further journey.\n\n\n3. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY\n\nThe First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are in many\nrespects strikingly similar. A certain strong family resemblance\nextends also to Second Timothy. Evidently all three of the Pastoral\nEpistles belong to the same general period of Paul's life, and were\nintended to subserve similar purposes. Second Timothy, however, as\ncompared with the other two, exhibits some marked peculiarities.\n\nThe personal element, in particular, is in this letter much\nmore prominent. Second Timothy contains a wealth of interesting\nbiographical details about Timothy, about Paul, and about a very\nconsiderable number of other persons. Some of these last are known\nonly from this epistle; others have been brought to our attention\nagain and again.\n\nIn Second Timothy Paul appears as a prisoner, no doubt at Rome.\nThis time there seems to be little hope of his release. Apparently\nhis imprisonment is not of long standing. Only recently he has been\nat Corinth and at Miletus. II Tim. 4:20. He speaks in one place of\nhis first defense. V. 16. Some suppose that this is a reminiscence\nof the trial which had taken place years before, during the first\nimprisonment. More probably it refers to some preliminary hearing\nwhich had only recently been held. Paul is oppressed with a sense\nof loneliness, even more than during the first imprisonment. There\nwas no one to stand by him at his first hearing. For one reason\nor another, his intimate associates have been scattered--some of\nthem, no doubt, for good and sufficient reasons, but Demas, at any\nrate, out of an unworthy love of the world. Luke, fortunately, is\nstill with him; and Timothy, with Mark, is urged to come before\nthe winter. Vs. 11, 21. Mark seems to have changed since he turned\nback from the work at Perga. At the beginning he was rebuked for\ndesertion; but now at the end he is one of the few faithful ones.\n\nIt is not quite clear where Timothy was when the letter was\naddressed to him. The greeting to Priscilla and Aquila might seem\nto point to Ephesus. They had lived there before; perhaps they\nreturned thither after a residence in Rome. Rom. 16:3. If Timothy\nwas in Ephesus, then Tychicus, who was sent thither, II Tim. 4:12,\nwas probably expected to linger by the way; otherwise his sending\nwould be no news to the reader of the letter. Something is to be\nsaid, perhaps, for the view that Timothy was not at Ephesus, but\nperhaps at Lystra, his original home.\n\nThe Second Epistle to Timothy contains warnings against false\nteaching similar to those which appear in First Timothy and Titus.\nBut the characteristic feature of the letter is to be found in\nthe references to the apostle's own life. Even the warnings\nand admonitions are brought into relation to these. Paul does\nnot hesitate to point to himself as an example for his beloved\nfollowers. He does so, without a touch of vain glory, in the\nsimple consciousness of a divine commission. Second Timothy is\na letter of farewell, in which reminiscence and exhortation are\ncharacteristically blended. It is a farewell from the apostle,\nprimarily for Timothy, though he is expecting to see Timothy again,\nbut also for all of the Pauline churches. The letter has taken\ndeep hold of every generation in the history of the Church. The\nfitting end of a life of true service, the calm facing of death,\nthe certainty of heavenly communion with the Lord--these are the\nthings above all others that have been learned from the last of the\nepistles of Paul.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\"\npp. 252-261. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves, articles\non \"Timothy\" and \"Titus.\" M'Clymont, \"The New Testament and Its\nWriters,\" pp. 104-115. Lewin, \"The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,\"\nvol. ii, chs. vii, viii, ix, x and xi. Conybeare and Howson, \"The\nLife and Epistles of St. Paul,\" ch. xxvii. Stalker, \"The Life of St.\nPaul,\" pp. 133-136. Warfield, \"Acts, Timothy, Titus and Philemon,\"\nin \"The Temple Bible,\" pp. xxvii-xliii. Ellicott, \"A New Testament\nCommentary for English Readers,\" vol. iii, pp. 171-264: Spence, \"The\nPastoral Epistles of St. Paul.\" \"The Cambridge Bible for Schools and\nColleges\": Humphreys, \"The Epistles to Timothy and Titus.\" Zahn,\n\"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. ii, pp. 1-133. The last\nnamed work is intended primarily for those who have some knowledge\nof Greek, but can also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nPART III:\n\nThe Presentation and Defense of\nChristianity\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXVII\n\nA PRESENTATION OF JESUS TO JEWISH CHRISTIANS\n\nThe Gospel According to Matthew\n\n\nThe Gospel of Matthew is probably, as has been said, the most\nimportant book that was ever written. Its importance is due to the\ninformation which it contains about Jesus Christ. More fully perhaps\nthan any other one book, the Gospel of Matthew has preserved the\nknowledge of Jesus.\n\nWhatever be the future of the Church, the life of Jesus will now\nalways remain the central fact of history. Even the secondary\ninfluence of Jesus is incalculable; even if none were left to own\nhim as Lord and Master, still he would remain incomparably the most\ninfluential man that has ever lived. As a matter of fact, however,\nsuch a condition has never existed and never will exist. From the\nvery beginning the life of Jesus made itself felt through those who\naccepted him, to the exclusion of all others, as the supreme Lord of\ntheir lives. If Jesus had been regarded merely as a quiet teacher\nof ethics, the Gospel of Matthew never would have been written, and\nprobably the very name of Jesus would have perished. The wonderful\ninfluence of Jesus, which has transformed the world from darkness to\nlight, which alone gives promise of a final reign of righteousness,\nhas been exerted through the instrumentality, not of admirers, but\nof disciples. Jesus has been a Teacher only because he has been a\nMaster.\n\nTo make Jesus Master in the lives of men was the purpose of the\nGospel of Matthew, and it is the purpose of our study of the book.\nThe Gospel was not written with merely scientific interest; it was\nnot written merely to preserve certain gems from the lips of an\ninspired teacher. The ultimate purpose of the book was to make men\nfall at Jesus' feet with the words, \"My Lord and my God.\" Such a\npurpose is not inconsistent with the most scrupulous truthfulness.\nAdoration of Jesus can be induced best of all, not by fanciful\nelaboration, but by sober fact. In the case of Jesus, truth was more\nglorious by far than the boldest fiction.\n\nTo make Jesus Lord and Saviour is the purpose of our work as\nteachers. That purpose cannot be attained by exhortation or by\nthreatening, but only by impartation of knowledge. To know Jesus is\nto trust him and adore him. Many readers of the Gospels never attain\nto the true knowledge. Their failure is due to various causes--to\nmoral laxness, to preconceived opinions, to spiritual dullness.\nOne obstacle, however, is of a simpler kind. One thing that stands\nin the way of a real understanding of the Gospels is the habit\nof piecemeal reading. We read the Gospels bit by bit instead of\nallowing the whole to make its impression. We do not see the wood\nfor the trees. Jesus is concealed from us by his individual acts.\nThe Gospels should be read as well as studied--read rapidly, like\nan ordinary book, preferably in some rational form of printing\nwhere verse numbers and all editorial matters are relegated to the\nmargin and the lines stretch across the page. These things may seem\nto be trivialities, and certainly they are not essential. What is\nessential--not in place of detailed study, but in addition to it--is\na rapid reading of the Gospels, by which, through the exclusion of\nall non-essentials, the mysterious, holy person of Jesus is brought\nsimply and freshly before the wondering soul. Not to know about\nJesus, but to know him, is the prime object of our study. To know\nabout him is a valuable part of education; but to know him is life\neternal.\n\n\n1. MEANING OF \"GOSPEL\"\n\nThe Greek word for \"gospel\" means \"good news.\" Nowhere in the New\nTestament, however, is that word applied to a book. There is no\nreference in the New Testament to a \"Gospel\" of Matthew or of Mark\nor of Luke or of John. In the New Testament the word \"gospel\" has a\nmore general reference. It designates the \"good news\" which lies at\nthe basis of Christian preaching, however that news may be known.\nChristianity is based upon \"a piece of information.\" The subject of\nthat information is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus\nChrist. Without Christ we should have been hopeless, but Christ has\nsaved us. Information about what he has done for us, however that\ninformation be conveyed, is the gospel.\n\nThis broad use of the word \"gospel\" appears even in the titles\n\"Gospel according to Matthew,\" \"Gospel according to Mark,\" \"Gospel\naccording to Luke,\" and \"Gospel according to John,\" which are not\ndue to the original authors of the books. \"Gospel according to\nMatthew\" did not originally mean the same thing as \"Gospel of\nMatthew.\" It did not mean the Gospel which Matthew produced, but the\none Gospel of Jesus Christ as Matthew narrated it. Matthew, Mark,\nLuke and John produced simply four accounts of the same thing. That\ncommon subject of the four accounts is the gospel, the good news, of\nwhat Jesus Christ has done for his followers.\n\nAt a very early time, however, books which had the gospel as their\nsubject came themselves to be designated as \"Gospels.\" The usage is\nconvenient, and will be freely adopted in these textbooks. We may\nspeak indiscriminately of the \"Gospel according to Matthew\" and of\nthe \"Gospel of Matthew.\"\n\n\n2. AUTHORSHIP OF THE FIRST GOSPEL\n\n=(1) Not Indicated in the Gospel Itself.=--The Gospel of Matthew\nshould be sharply distinguished from those books which themselves\nmake definite claims as to their authorship. The Epistle to the\nRomans, for example, claims to have been written by the apostle\nPaul. If it was not written by Paul, it is a forgery. The book of\nThe Acts, also, though it does not mention the name of the author,\nclaims at least--through the use of the first person plural--to have\nbeen written by some companion of the apostle Paul. Even the Gospel\nof John, as we shall see, really affords clear indications about\nits own authorship. The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, lays\nno claim to any particular authorship. We might believe that it was\nwritten by some other person than Matthew and yet be perfectly loyal\nto the book itself. The self-witness of the book is confined merely\nto a claim of truthfulness. If we believe that the record which the\nbook contains is true, then we might, in perfect loyalty to the\nGospel, believe that it was written by some one like Luke or Mark,\noutside of the company of the apostles. Such a view, however, would\ndisplay an unreasonable distrust of Christian tradition.\n\n=(2) Papias on the First Gospel.=--The earliest extant information\nabout the authorship of the First Gospel is to be found in a\nfragment which Eusebius, the church historian of the fourth century,\nhas preserved from a lost work of Papias. Papias was bishop of\nHierapolis in Asia Minor in the former half of the second century.\n\nThe fragment from Papias, which is found in Eusebius, Church\nHistory, iii, 39, 16, may be translated as follows:\n\n\"Matthew accordingly wrote [or compiled] the oracles in the Hebrew\ndialect, and everyone translated them as he was able.\"\n\nIt seems pretty evident that Papias is here referring to the First\nGospel. Some, indeed, have supposed that he means by \"the oracles\"\na writing composed almost exclusively of sayings of Jesus, which\nformed merely one of the sources of our First Gospel. This view is\nprobably incorrect. Papias could designate the Gospel of Matthew\nas \"the oracles\" either because of the large place which sayings\nof Jesus have in this Gospel, as compared, for example, with the\nGospel of Mark, or else because the whole Gospel, both speeches\nand narrative, was of divine, oracular authority. The view that\n\"according to Matthew\" in the ancient title and in Christian\ntradition means not that Matthew wrote the book, but that it is\nbased in some way ultimately on his authority, is opposed by the\nanalogy of Mark. As we shall see, the Gospel of Mark, in early\ntradition, was referred ultimately to the authority of Peter; if,\ntherefore, \"according to\" was used in the sense indicated above, the\nSecond Gospel would have been called the Gospel \"according to Peter\"\ninstead of the Gospel \"according to Mark.\"\n\nThe testimony of Papias involves two principal assertions: in the\nfirst place, that Matthew wrote the First Gospel; and in the second\nplace, that he wrote it in the \"Hebrew\" language.\n\nThe former assertion, which is supported by a striking consensus of\nearly writers, has already been considered. The latter is much more\npuzzling.\n\n\n3. WAS THE FIRST GOSPEL ORIGINALLY ARAMAIC?\n\n=(1) Meaning of \"Hebrew.\"=--By \"the Hebrew dialect,\" Papias no doubt\nmeans Aramaic rather than what we call Hebrew. The term \"Hebrew\"\nwas applied to both of the two closely related languages. Compare\nActs 21:40. It is exceedingly unlikely that a Gospel would have been\nwritten in Hebrew; for before the time of Christ that had ceased to\nbe the living language of Palestine. What Papias asserts, then, is\nthat Matthew wrote in Aramaic.\n\n=(2) \"Everyone Translated Them as He Was Able.\"=--Papias asserts\nfurther that everyone translated the oracles as he was able. These\nwords may be interpreted in various ways. Perhaps they mean that\nevery man who used the original of Matthew had to translate it for\nhimself; or perhaps that the Gospel was translated orally in the\nchurches, as the Jews translated the Hebrew Old Testament into\nAramaic in the synagogues; or perhaps that a number of written\ntranslations of the Gospel were made. At any rate Papias seems to\nimply that the condition which he here describes had come to an end\nwhen he wrote. Some one Greek form of the Gospel had gained general\nacceptance; the time when everyone translated as he was able was at\nan end.\n\n(3) Value of the Tradition.--The tradition of an Aramaic original\nof Matthew is not preserved merely by Papias, but appears in a\nconsiderable number of early writers. How far the other writers\nare independent of Papias is a disputed question. The tradition\nmay be variously estimated. Some have supposed that it is entirely\ncorrect--that our Greek Gospel of Matthew is a translation, by\nMatthew himself or by some one else, of an Aramaic work: others\nhave supposed that the tradition is altogether false--for example,\nthat an Aramaic translation of the Greek Gospel was mistaken for an\noriginal from which the Greek Gospel had been translated: others\nhold intermediate views--for example, that one of the sources of\nour Greek Gospel was written in Aramaic. An important objection to\nthe view that there was an Aramaic original of Matthew is that the\nGreek Gospel looks more like an original Greek work than like a\ntranslation. The tradition of the Aramaic Matthew places before us\none of the unsolved problems of New Testament criticism.\n\nOne thing is certain--the language of the Gospel of Matthew, like\nthat of the other Gospels, has a strong Aramaic coloring. This,\nhowever, does not require the hypothesis that our Matthew was\ntranslated from an Aramaic original. Undoubtedly, however our\nGreek Matthew was written, there was a time in the early days of\nthe Church when the tradition of the life of Christ was carried\non chiefly or wholly in the Aramaic language. The words of Jesus,\nat any rate, as they appear in our Gospels, have at some time or\nother undergone translation; for Jesus taught in Aramaic. The\nAramaic coloring of the Gospels is one of the evidences of their\ntrustworthiness. Though written in Greek, they are evidently rooted\ndeep in the original Palestinian soil.\n\n\n4. DATE\n\nThe date of the Gospel cannot be determined with accuracy. Some\nindication, however, is afforded by the assertion of Iren\u00e6us, of the\nlatter part of the second century, that Matthew published his Gospel\nwhile Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome. Even if this assertion\nshould prove not to be absolutely correct, it would exhibit an early\ntradition for the years between about A. D. 60 and 70 as the date of\nthe Gospel. This tradition is confirmed by the widespread view among\nearly writers that Matthew was written before Mark; for Mark is now\ngenerally admitted to have been written before the destruction\nof Jerusalem in A. D. 70. There is really no serious objection to\nthe traditional dating of Matthew. It was probably written in the\nsixties of the first century, and probably, as tradition says, in\nPalestine.\n\nThere are traces of the use of the Gospel in writers of the early\nhalf of the second century. On the other hand, there is no clear\nindication that it was used by any New Testament writer. The absence\nof citations from our Gospels in the epistles of Paul would tend to\nindicate that in the very earliest period the gospel tradition was\ncarried on by word of mouth rather than by books.\n\n\n5. THE APOSTLE MATTHEW\n\nIn the four lists of the apostles, Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke\n6:13-16; Acts 1:13, Matthew is designated by the bare name, except\nin his own Gospel, where he appears as \"Matthew the publican.\" In\nMatt. 9:9, his call is narrated. In the parallel passages in Mark\nand Luke, Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27,28, the name of the publican who was\ncalled is given only as \"Levi.\" Without the Gospel of Matthew we\nshould not have been able to identify Levi and Matthew. Evidently\nthe apostle had two names, as was the case with so many others\nof the persons mentioned in the New Testament. After his call,\nMatthew made a great feast for Jesus. Luke 5:29; compare Mark\n2:15. Matthew himself, alone among the Synoptists, does not even\nmake it perfectly clear that it was he in whose house Jesus sat at\nmeat. The peculiarities of the First Gospel in what is said about\nMatthew become significant when the authorship is known. Of course\nof themselves they would be quite insufficient to indicate who the\nauthor was. The assertion by early writers that Matthew wrote the\nGospel, was based not upon indications in the Gospel itself, but\nupon independent tradition.\n\n\n6. \"THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST\"\n\nThe first verse of the Gospel is evidently based upon the formula,\noccurring for the first time at Gen. 5:1, which marks off the\ndivisions of the book of Genesis. It is most naturally regarded as\na heading for the genealogy that follows in Matt. 1:2-17. There\nis only one objection to that view. In Genesis \"the book of the\ngenerations of Adam,\" or \"the generations of Shem\" or the like,\nintroduces an account, not of ancestors of the persons in question,\nbut of their descendants. In Matt. 1:2-17, on the contrary, we have\nan account not of descendants of Jesus, but of ancestors. This\nobjection has led some scholars to regard Matt. 1:1 as the title\nnot of the genealogy but of the whole Gospel. The title would then\nrepresent Jesus as the beginning of a new race, or of a new period\nin the history of humanity.\n\nThis interpretation is unnecessarily subtle. It should rather be\nadmitted that there is a difference between the phrase in Genesis\nand that in Matthew. The difference is very natural. In the case of\nAbraham the descendants were in view; in the case of the Messiah,\nthe ancestors. Adam and Noah and Abraham were bearers of a promise;\nChrist was the culmination. Genesis looks forward; Matthew looks\nback. The difference in the use of the phrase is natural and\nsignificant.\n\nThe title, with the whole genealogy, is significant of what is to\nfollow. At the very start, the ruling thought of Matthew's Gospel\nfinds expression. Jesus is son of David, and son of Abraham; he is\nthe culmination of the divine promise.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\"\npp. 270-272, 290-293. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves\n(supplemented), articles on \"Gospel\" and \"Matthew.\" M'Clymont,\n\"The New Testament and Its Writers,\" pp. 1-20. Stevens and Burton,\n\"A Harmony of the Gospels.\" Ellicott, \"A New Testament Commentary\nfor English Readers,\" vol. i: Plumptre, \"The Gospel According to\nSt. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke,\" pp. xli-xliii, 1-186. Zahn,\n\"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. ii, pp. 367-427, 506-601.\nThe last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some\nknowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXVIII\n\nA GRAPHIC SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF JESUS\n\nThe Gospel According to Mark\n\n\nThe Gospel of Mark contains scarcely any material which is not also\ncontained in one or both of the other two Synoptic Gospels. The\nloss of Mark would not diminish appreciably the number of facts\nthat we know about Jesus. Nevertheless, the Second Gospel is of the\nutmost importance; for although it narrates for the most part only\nthe same facts as are also narrated elsewhere, it narrates them in\na different way. Indeed the very brevity of the Gospel adds to its\nspecial value. A picture is sometimes the more impressive by being\nlimited in extent. Read the Gospel of Mark, not piecemeal but as a\nwhole, and you obtain an impression of Jesus which can be obtained\nfrom no other book.\n\n\n1. THE TRADITION\n\n=(1) Papias on Mark.=--As in the case of Matthew, so in that of Mark\nit is Papias of Hierapolis who provides the earliest information\nabout the production of the Gospel. Again also the words of Papias\nare quoted by Eusebius (Church History, iii, 39, 15). The passage\nfrom Papias is as follows:\n\n\"This also the presbyter said: 'Mark, on the one hand, being\nan interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately as many things as he\nremembered, yet not in order, the things which were either said\nor done by the Lord.' For neither did he hear the Lord nor did\nhe follow him, but afterwards, as I said, he followed Peter, who\ncarried on his teaching as need required but not as though he were\nmaking an ordered account of the oracles of the Lord; so that Mark\ncommitted no fault when he wrote some things as he had remembered\nthem. For he had one care--that he should not leave out anything\nof the things that he had heard, or represent anything among them\nfalsely.\"\n\n=(2) Antiquity of the Papian Tradition.=--It will be observed\nthat Papias is here represented as quoting from \"the presbyter.\"\nProbably, however, it is only the first sentence that is quoted; the\nrest seems to be an explanation by Papias himself. By \"presbyter,\"\nor \"elder,\" Papias means not an officer in the Church, but a man of\nan older generation. The tradition is therefore very ancient. Papias\nhimself lived in the former half of the second century; a man of a\nstill older generation would probably have acquired his information\nabout Mark well before A. D. 100. Such information is not to be\nlightly rejected.\n\n(3) Mark an Interpreter of Peter.--According to the presbyter, Mark\nwas an \"interpreter\" of Peter. If the word be taken strictly it\nmeans that Mark translated the words of Peter from one language into\nanother--probably from Aramaic into Greek. On the whole, however, it\nis not probable, in view of linguistic conditions in Palestine and\nin the Church, that Peter would be unable to speak Greek. Perhaps,\nthen, the sentence means that Mark was merely the mediator, in a\ngeneral sense, of Peter's preaching. He presented the teaching\nof Peter to those who had not had the opportunity of hearing it\nthemselves. Perhaps the meaning is that he had done so formerly by\nword of mouth. Perhaps, however, it is rather the Gospel itself that\nis referred to. By writing the Gospel Mark became an interpreter or\nmediator of the preaching of Peter.\n\nAt any rate, whatever meaning be given to the word \"interpreter,\"\nthe general sense of the sentence--especially when taken in\nconnection with the following explanation by Papias is fairly clear.\nMark derived the information for his Gospel not from personal\nacquaintance with the earthly Jesus, but from association with Peter.\n\n(4) Mark Not Written \"In Order.\"--The presbyter said further that\nalthough Mark wrote accurately what he heard from Peter, he did not\nsucceed in giving \"in order\" an account of the things that Jesus\ndid and said. Evidently the historical incompleteness, the lack of\nuninterrupted sequence, of the Gospel of Mark is here in view.\n\nBut by what standard is the Gospel judged? It can hardly be by\nthe standard of Matthew, for Matthew pays even less attention to\ntemporal sequence than Mark does. The order in Luke also is by no\nmeans in all respects more strictly chronological than that in Mark.\nOnly one standard satisfies the requirements of the presbyter's\nwords--the standard provided by the teaching of John. John was the\ngreat leader of the Church of Asia Minor. His teaching naturally\nformed the standard of authority in that region. Perhaps at the time\nwhen the presbyter expressed his judgment on Mark the Gospel of\nJohn had already been written, so that one Gospel could be compared\nwith the other; perhaps, however, it was merely the oral teaching\nof John, afterwards embodied in the Gospel, which afforded the\nbasis of comparison. The Gospel of John alone provides something\nlike a chronological framework of the public ministry of Jesus:\nJohn alone mentions the early Judean ministry; John alone narrates\nthe successive visits of Jesus to the feasts in Jerusalem. If, as\nis possible, \"the presbyter\" of Papias was none other than John\nhimself, then of course the whole matter becomes especially plain.\nJohn knew that there were important omissions in the Gospel of Mark;\nhe probably observed, for example, that that Gospel if taken alone\nmight readily create the impression that the ministry of Jesus\nlasted only one year instead of three or four. No doubt he corrected\nthis impression in his oral teaching; certainly he corrects it in\nhis Gospel. In commending the Gospel of Mark, John would naturally\ncall attention to its chronological incompleteness.\n\n\n2. THE HEADING\n\nLike the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark opens not with a\nsentence, but with a heading. As in the former case, however, the\nexact reference of the heading is uncertain. \"The beginning of the\ngospel of Jesus Christ\" may, in the first place, mean merely, \"Here\nbegins the gospel of Jesus Christ.\" \"The gospel of Jesus Christ\"\nwould then be simply the story about Christ that is narrated in the\nbook that follows.\n\nIn the second place, the phrase may be taken as a description of\nthe contents of the book. The whole of Jesus' life would then be\ndescribed as the beginning of that proclamation of the gospel which\nwas afterwards continued by the apostles and by the Church.\n\nIn the third place, the phrase may be merely a heading for the\nsection that immediately follows, for Mark 1:2-8, or for vs. 2-13.\nIn this case the preaching of John the Baptist, with or without the\nbaptism of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit, and the temptation,\nwould be described as the beginning of, as preliminary to, the\nproclamation of the gospel, which is mentioned in vs. 14, 15.\n\nPerhaps the first interpretation is to be preferred as being the\nsimplest, though it must be admitted that the phrase is a little\npuzzling.\n\n\n3. MARK THE MISSIONARY GOSPEL\n\nIt is significant that the Gospel of Mark begins not with the birth\nand infancy of Jesus, but with the ministry of John the Baptist\nand the subsequent preaching of Jesus in Galilee. Mark seems to\nbe following with great exactness the scheme of early apostolic\npreaching as it is laid down in Acts 10:37-43. Apparently Mark is\npre\u00ebminently the missionary Gospel; it contains only those things\nwhich had a place in the first preaching to unbelievers. That does\nnot mean that the things which Mark omits are necessarily less\nimportant than the things which it contains. Mark gives a summary,\nnot exactly of the most important things about Jesus, but rather of\nthe things which unbelievers or recent converts could most easily\nunderstand. Hence the omission of the mystery of the birth, of the\nprofound teaching of the early Judean ministry, of the intimate\ninstructions to the disciples. These things are of fundamental\nimportance. But they can best be understood only after one has first\nacquired a thorough grasp of the public ministry, and of the death\nand resurrection.\n\nThe Second Gospel, judged by purely formal standards, cannot\nbe called exactly a beautiful book. It lacks the rhythm of Old\nTestament poetry, and the grace of the Gospel of Luke. But its\nrough, vigorous naturalness conveys a message of compelling power.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves (edited)\narticle on \"Mark.\" M'Clymont, \"The New Testament and Its Writers,\"\npp. 21-26. Stevens and Burton, \"A Harmony of the Gospels.\" Ellicott,\n\"A New Testament Commentary for English Readers,\" vol. i: Plumptre,\n\"The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke,\" pp.\n187-234. \"The Cambridge Bible for Schools\": Maclear, \"The Gospel\naccording to St. Mark.\" Zahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\"\nvol. ii, pp. 427-506, 601-617. The last-named work is intended\nprimarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also\nbe used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXIX\n\nA GREEK HISTORIAN'S ACCOUNT OF JESUS\n\nThe Gospel According to Luke\n\n\nThe purpose of the Gospel of Luke was, the author says in his\nprologue, that Theophilus might know the certainty concerning\nthe things wherein he had been instructed. These words involve\nrecognition of a fundamental need of the Church, which is to-day\noften ignored. After interest in Christianity has been aroused,\nafter faith has been awakened, the Christian feels the need of a\ndeeper intellectual grounding of the faith that is in him. This\nfeeling is perfectly legitimate; it should not be stifled; the\nexpression of it should not be treated necessarily as sinful doubt.\n\nThe treatment of these natural questionings is one of the most\nimportant problems that faces the teachers of the present course. We\nare dealing with young men and women of maturing minds, many of whom\ncan no longer be satisfied with the unthinking faith of childhood.\nIf Christianity is to remain permanently a force in their lives it\nmust be related to their entire intellectual equipment; it must be\nexhibited as a reasonable thing, which is consistent with a sane and\nhealthy view of the world. In other words, we are dealing with the\nproblem of religious doubt, which is almost an inevitable stage in\nthe development of intelligent Christians of the present day.\n\nUndoubtedly the problem is often very unwisely handled. By hearing\nevery natural expression of their doubt unmercifully decried as\nrebellion against the Word of God, many intelligent young people\nare being driven into hopeless estrangement from the Church. It is\nuseless to try to bully people into faith. Instead, we ought to\nlearn the method of the Third Gospel.\n\nVery possibly Luke was facing the very same problem that is before\nus teachers to-day--very possibly Theophilus, to whom the Gospel\nand The Acts were dedicated, was a young man who had grown up in\nthe Church and could now no longer be satisfied with the vague and\nunsystematic instruction that had been given him in childhood. At\nany rate, whether he was a young man grown up in the Church, or\na recent convert, or merely a Gentile interested in Christianity,\nhe was a person of intellectual interests, and those interests are\ntreated by the evangelist not with contempt but with the utmost\nsympathy. The Gospel was written in order that Theophilus might\n\"know the certainty\" of those things wherein he had been instructed.\n\nThat might be regarded as the motto for the entire course of study\nwhich we have undertaken this year. It should be our aim to lay\nbefore young people of the Church the certainty of the things\nwherein they have been instructed--to enable them to substitute\nfor the unreasoning faith of childhood the profound convictions of\nfull-grown men and women. Moreover, exactly like the author of the\nThird Gospel, we are endeavoring to accomplish this aim, not by\nargument, but by an orderly presentation of \"those matters which\nhave been fulfilled among us.\" A simple historical presentation of\nthe facts upon which Christianity is founded is the surest safeguard\nof Christian faith.\n\n\n1. THE PROLOGUE\n\nAlone among the Synoptists Luke gives his readers some direct\ninformation about the methods of his work. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1,2.\nThis information, which was barely touched upon in the Student's\nText Book, must here be considered somewhat more in detail.\n\n=(1) Luke Not an Eyewitness from the Beginning.=--From the prologue\nto the Gospel, Luke 1:1-4, it appears, in the first place, that Luke\nwas not an eyewitness of the events that he narrates--at least he\nwas not an eyewitness \"from the beginning.\"\n\n=(2) His Predecessors.=--In the second place, it appears that he\nhad had predecessors in his task of writing an account of early\nChristian history. Apparently, however, none of these previous works\nwere produced by an apostle or by an eyewitness of the earthly\nministry of Jesus. The previous writers, like Luke himself, were\ndependent upon the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The Gospel of\nMatthew, therefore, since it was written by an apostle, was not one\nof the works to which reference is made. This conclusion is amply\nconfirmed by a comparison of Matthew with Luke. Evidently, at least,\nthe two are entirely independent. If Luke refers to the First Gospel\nin the prologue, at any rate he made no use of it.\n\n=(3) Was Mark One of the Predecessors?=--The Gospel of Mark, on\nthe contrary, answers to the description of the previous works.\nIt was written not by an eyewitness, but by one who listened to\neyewitnesses. Perhaps, therefore, it was one of the many works to\nwhich Luke refers. If so, it may well have been used by Luke in\nthe preparation of his own Gospel. This supposition is by no means\nexcluded by a comparison of the two books. As a matter of fact, the\ngreat majority of modern scholars suppose that the writer of the\nThird Gospel made use of the Gospel of Mark. All that can here be\nasserted is that this view, though not required by what Luke says in\nhis prologue, is perfectly consistent with it.\n\n=(4) Luke's Attitude Toward the Predecessors.=--It should be\nobserved that Luke attaches no blame whatever to the efforts of\nhis forerunners. When he says that they had \"taken in hand\" or\n\"attempted\" to write accounts of certain things, he does not imply\nin the slightest that their attempts had been unsuccessful. He means\nsimply to justify his own procedure by a reference to what had\nalready been done. \"My effort at writing an account of the origin\nof Christianity,\" he says in effect, \"is no strange, unheard-of\nthing. I have had many predecessors.\" Such a reference to the work\nof predecessors was in antiquity a common literary form. At the\nvery beginning of his work, Luke displays the effects of his Greek\nliterary training.\n\nOf course, however, although Luke attaches no blame to his\npredecessors, he would not have undertaken a new work if he had\nthought that the old satisfied all needs. Evidently he hoped to\naccomplish by his own book something that his predecessors had not\naccomplished or had accomplished only in part.\n\n=(5) The Subject of the Gospel.=--Finally, therefore, Luke informs\nhis readers what his own peculiar methods and purposes were. The\nmain subject of the Gospel is not described with any definiteness in\nLuke 1:1-4, but it appears in the retrospect at the beginning of the\nsecond work. There the subject of the Gospel is designated as \"all\nthat Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he\nwas received up, after that he had given commandment through the\nHoly Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen.\" Acts 1:1,2. The\nsubject of the Gospel, in other words, was the earthly life of Jesus.\n\n=(6) Completeness of the Narrative.=--In treating this subject, Luke\nhad striven, he says, Luke 1:3, first of all for completeness. In\nhis investigations he had followed all things from the beginning.\nThis feature appears plainly in the Gospel. Instead of beginning as\nMark does, with the public ministry of Jesus, Luke first gives an\naccount of the birth and infancy, and not content with that, he\ngoes back even to events preceding the birth not only of Jesus, but\nalso of his forerunner.\n\n=(7) Accuracy.=--In the second place, Luke says that he had striven\nafter accuracy. Here again the Gospel justifies the claim of its\nauthor. The effort after precision may be seen perhaps especially in\nsuch a passage as Luke 3:1,2, where there is an elaborate dating of\nthe beginning of John the Baptist's ministry.\n\n=(8) Orderly Arrangement.=--The effort at orderly arrangement,\nwhich forms a third part of the claim which the author makes,\nwas, especially in the Gospel, limited by the material that was\nat hand. Evidently in Palestine in the early period, the memory\nof the earthly ministry of Jesus was preserved not in a connected\nnarrative, but in isolated anecdotes. It was impossible, therefore,\neven for a historian like Luke to maintain a chronological\narrangement throughout; where chronological arrangement was\nimpossible he was obliged to be satisfied with an arrangement\naccording to logical affinities. This logical method of arrangement,\nhowever, is not resorted to by Luke so much as by Matthew; and for\nconsiderable sections of his narrative he was able to gratify his\nhistorian's desire for recounting events in the order in which they\nhappened.\n\n=(9) Luke a Historian.=--Detailed examination of the prologue should\nnot be allowed to obscure the outstanding fact that the sum of what\nLuke here attests is a genuine historical aim and method in the\ncomposition of his work. Of course, history in Luke's mind did not\nexist for its own sake. The Gospel of Luke is not a mere scientific\ndissertation. On the contrary, the history which is narrated was\nto the author a thing of supreme value. But it was valuable only\nbecause it was true. There is not the slightest evidence that\nLuke was a bad historian because he was a good Christian. On the\ncontrary, he was a Christian just because he was a historian. In\nthe case of Jesus, knowledge of the real facts is the surest way to\nadoration.\n\n=(10) Is Luke 1:1-4 a Prologue to both the Gospel and The\nActs?=--The first four verses of the Gospel of Luke may be taken as\na prologue either to the Gospel alone or else to the entire work,\nincluding both the Gospel and The Acts. The latter view, since the\nsubject is described in v. 1 only in very broad terms, is not to\nbe rashly rejected. No doubt, however, in the prologue Luke was\nthinking especially of the former part of the work--the part for\nwhich he was dependent altogether upon the testimony of others. The\nfirst verses of The Acts link the two parts close together. Their\nconnection has been obscured by the traditional arrangement of our\nNew Testament books. But that arrangement is altogether advisable.\nThe former part of the Lucan work certainly belongs among the\nGospels; and of the Gospels the Gospel of John must certainly be\nplaced last, as being supplementary to the others.\n\n\n2. TYPICAL PASSAGES\n\nThe characteristics of the Gospel of Luke may perhaps be presented\nmore vividly than by the general description in the Student's Text\nBook, by an examination of a few typical passages. The two such\npassages which we shall choose somewhat at random, are the narrative\nof the birth and infancy in Luke 1:5 to 2:52, and the parable of the\nProdigal Son. Ch. 15:11-32. Both of these are without any parallel\nin the other Gospels. Matthew provides an infancy narrative, but it\nis concerned for the most part with events different from those that\nappear in Luke.\n\n=(1) The Narrative of the Birth and Infancy.=--It has often been\nobserved that the characteristic Greek sentence of the prologue,\nLuke 1:1-4, is immediately followed by the most strongly Hebraistic\npassage in the New Testament. The Semitic style of Luke 1:5 to 2:52\nbecomes explicable only if Luke was here making use of Palestinian\nsources, either oral or written. This conclusion is confirmed by\nthe whole spirit and substance of the narrative. In this narrative\nas clearly as anywhere else in the New Testament we find ourselves\ntransplanted to Palestinian soil.\n\nThe early date of the narrative is as evident as its Jewish\nChristian and Palestinian character. There is here no reference\nto concrete events in the later history of the Church. Messianic\nprophecy appears in its Old Testament form uncolored by the details\nof the fulfillment. Evidently this narrative is no product of the\nChurch's fancy, but genuine history told in the very forms of speech\nwhich were natural to those who participated in it.\n\nThe first two chapters of Luke are in spirit really a bit of the Old\nTestament continued to the very threshold of the New. These chapters\ncontain the poetry of the New Testament, which has taken deep hold\nof the heart and fancy of the Church.\n\nIn this section of his Gospel, Luke shows himself to be a genuine\nhistorian. A biographer is not satisfied with narrating the public\nlife of his hero, but prefaces to his work some account of the\nfamily, and of the birth and childhood. So our understanding of the\nministry of Jesus becomes far deeper when we know that he grew up\namong the simple, devout folk who are described in the first two\nchapters of Luke. The picture of Mary in these chapters, painted\nwith an exquisite delicacy of touch, throws a flood of light upon\nthe earthly life of the Son of Man.\n\nBeauty of detail, however, must not be allowed to obscure the\ncentral fact. The culmination of the narrative, undoubtedly, is\nto be found in the stupendous mystery of Luke 1:34,35. Far from\nbeing an excrescence in the narrative, as it has sometimes been\nrepresented in an age of rampant naturalism, the supernatural\nconception of Jesus is the very keystone of the arch. In this\ncentral fact, Matthew and Luke, totally independent as they are, are\nperfectly agreed. By this fact Jesus is represented, more clearly\nperhaps than by anything else, as not a product of the world but a\nSaviour come from without.\n\n=(2) The Prodigal Son.=--The parable of the Prodigal Son, simple\nthough it is, has often been sadly misinterpreted. It has been\nthought to mean, for example, that God pardons sin on the basis\nsimply of human repentance without the necessity of the divine\nsacrifice. All such interpretations are wide of the mark. The\nparable is not meant to teach how God pardons sin, but only the fact\nthat he does pardon it with joy, and that we ought to share in his\njoy.\n\nMisinterpretation of the parable has come from the ignoring of its\noccasion. The key to the interpretation is given in Luke 15:1,2.\nJesus was receiving publicans and sinners. Instead of rejoicing at\nthe salvation of these poor, degraded sons of Abraham, the Pharisees\nmurmured. In rebuke, Jesus spoke three parables. One of them,\nthe parable of the Lost Sheep, is reported also by Matthew, ch.\n18:12-14; but the last two, the parables of the Lost Coin and of the\nProdigal Son, appear only in Luke.\n\nThe teaching of all three of these parables is exactly the same. The\nimagery varies, but the application is constant. That application\nmay be expressed very simply: \"God rejoices at the salvation of a\nsinner; if, therefore, you are really sons of God, you will rejoice\ntoo.\" In the parable of the Prodigal Son, however, the application\nis forced home more poignantly than in either of the other two. In\nthat parable alone among the three, the Pharisees could see--in the\nelder brother--a direct representation of themselves.\n\nThe incident of the elder brother, sometimes regarded as a mere\ndetail, really introduces the main point of the parable. Everything\nelse leads up to that. The wonderful description of the joy of the\nfather at the prodigal's home-coming is all intended as a contrast\nto the churlish jealousy of the brother. The elder brother was as\nfar as possible from sharing in the father's joy. That showed that\nhe was no true son. Though he lived under the father's roof, he\nhad no real inward share in the father's life. So it was with the\nPharisees. They lived in the Father's house; they were, as we should\nsay, members of the Church. But when salvation, in the person of\nJesus, had at last come to the poor, sinful outcasts of the people,\nthe Pharisees drew aside. God rejoiced when the publicans crowded in\nto Jesus; but the Pharisees held back. That showed that after all\nthey were not, as they thought, true sons of God. If they had been,\nthey would have shared God's feeling.\n\nIt should be noticed that the parable ends with an invitation. The\nelder brother is not harshly rebuked by the father, but tenderly\nurged to come in still. Will the invitation be accepted? The\nquestion is not answered; and there lies the crowning beauty of the\nparable. The Pharisees are still given a chance. Will they still\nshare the joy of God at the return of his lost children? They must\nanswer the question for themselves.\n\nAnd we, too, have the same question to answer. If we are really\nchildren of God, then we shall not despise the outcasts and the\nsinners, but shall rejoice with him at their salvation. The parable\nis characteristic of the Gospel of Luke. Of course, Luke did not\ncompose it. Nothing in the Gospels bears more indisputably the\nmarks of Jesus' teaching. But from the rich store of Palestinian\ntradition Luke sought out those things which displayed sympathy for\nthe downtrodden and the sick and the sinful. It was an inestimable\nservice to the Church. Shall we heed the message? God rejoices at\nthe salvation of a sinner. Shall we be sharers in his holy joy?\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves (edited),\narticle on \"Luke.\" M'Clymont, \"The New Testament and Its Writers,\"\npp. 27-32. Stevens and Burton, \"A Harmony of the Gospels.\" Ellicott,\n\"A New Testament Commentary for English Readers,\" vol. i: Plumptre,\n\"The Gospel According to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke,\" pp.\n235-365. Zahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. iii, pp.\n1-173. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have\nsome knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXX\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE\n\nThe Gospel According to John\n\n\n1. THE EVANGELIST A WITNESS\n\nThe author of the Fourth Gospel was a great man. He was great,\nhowever, not as a philosopher or as a religious genius, but as\nan apostle; not as the originator of great ideas, but as one who\nreceived the teaching of another. He was great, not as one who\ncreated a profound theology, but as one who could understand the\nLord Jesus Christ. The \"Johannine theology\" is the theology not of\nJohn but of Jesus. So at least John himself represents it. He claims\nto be not a theologian, but a witness. The value of his book depends\nupon the truth of his witnessing. If the Johannine picture of Christ\nis the creation of the author's genius, it commands admiration; but\nonly if it is a true picture of the historic Jesus can it offer\neternal life.\n\nIs the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel fiction or fact, a splendid\nproduct of religious genius or a living Saviour?\n\nFew questions have caused profounder agitation in the modern Church.\nThe question cannot be separated from the question of authorship.\nClearly if the book was written by an intimate friend of Jesus, its\nwitness must be true. Who wrote the Fourth Gospel? This question is\nof vital importance.\n\n\n2. THE TRADITION\n\nAt the close of the second century--the earliest period from\nwhich any really abundant Christian literature outside of the New\nTestament has been preserved--the tradition about the authorship\nof the Gospel was practically unanimous. Even the one small and\nuninfluential sect that disagreed practically supports the common\nview, for its denial was evidently based upon objections to\nthe contents of the Gospel and not at all upon any independent\ninformation.\n\n=(1) Iren\u00e6us and Polycarp.=--Of the three important writers of\nthe close of the second century, all of whom attest the Johannine\nauthorship of the Gospel, Iren\u00e6us deserves special mention. Iren\u00e6us\nspent his early life in Asia Minor, but afterwards became the\nleader of the Church in Gaul. Before he left Asia Minor he had\nsome very interesting associations. One of them was with Polycarp,\nbishop of Smyrna, who was martyred in A. D. 155. Polycarp would be\nan important figure merely on account of the early period in which\nhe lived; but what makes his testimony supremely valuable is his\npersonal association with John. Iren\u00e6us himself in his early youth,\nbefore he had left Asia Minor, had heard Polycarp discoursing about\nthe things he had heard John say. Polycarp, then, was a personal\ndisciple of John, and Iren\u00e6us was a personal disciple of Polycarp.\nOnly one link, therefore, separated Iren\u00e6us from John. Moreover,\nsince Iren\u00e6us in his youth had lived in Asia Minor, the very place\nof John's residence, it is natural to believe that what he heard\nPolycarp say about John could be supplemented in other ways.\n\nNow beyond any reasonable doubt whatever, Iren\u00e6us supposed that\nthe John of whom he had heard Polycarp speak was none other than\nJohn the apostle, the son of Zebedee. If that supposition was\ncorrect, then the connection between Iren\u00e6us and the apostle John\nwas exceedingly close; and when Iren\u00e6us exhibits an absolutely\nunwavering belief that the Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle,\nit is very unlikely that he was mistaken. He had known one of the\npersonal disciples of John; he himself had lived in Asia Minor\nwhere John had been the well-known leader of the Church, and where\nthe Fourth Gospel, no matter who wrote it, was almost certainly\nproduced. When, therefore, he asserts, not as something new, but\nas a thing which he had known from the beginning, that the Fourth\nGospel was written by the apostle John, surely he must be believed.\n\nThis conclusion has been avoided by the hypothesis that the John\nabout whom Polycarp spoke was not really, as Iren\u00e6us supposed, John\nthe son of Zebedee, but another John, a certain John the presbyter,\nwho was not one of the twelve apostles at all. The unnaturalness\nof such an hypothesis appears on the surface. Could a native of\nAsia Minor who had repeatedly heard Polycarp speak about the John\nin question, and who had many other opportunities for acquainting\nhimself with the traditions of the church in Asia Minor--could such\na man, together with all his contemporaries, have come to labor\nunder so egregious a misapprehension?\n\n=(2) Other Attestation.=--The testimony of Iren\u00e6us to the Fourth\nGospel is of particular importance, on account of Iren\u00e6us'\nconnection with Polycarp. But it is only one detail in a remarkable\nconsensus. When the most widely separated portions of the Church\nbefore the close of the second century all agreed that the Fourth\nGospel was written by John the son of Zebedee, their common belief\ncould not have been of recent origin. Earlier writers, moreover, by\ntheir use of the Gospel attest at least its early date.\n\n\n3. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF\n\nThe tradition which attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the son of\nZebedee is confirmed by the testimony of the Gospel itself. Although\nthe book does not mention the name of its author it clearly implies\nwho he was.\n\n=(1) Indirectness of the Testimony.=--This testimony of the Gospel\nitself is all the more valuable because it is indirect. If the name\nJohn had been mentioned at the beginning, then it might conceivably\nbe supposed that an unknown author had desired to gain a hearing for\nhis work by putting it falsely under the name of a great apostle.\nAs it is, the inference that the author claims to be John the son\nof Zebedee, though certain, does not force itself upon the careless\nreader. A forger would not thus, by the indirectness of his claim,\nhave deprived himself of the benefits of his forgery.\n\nThe testimony of the Gospel to its author must now be considered.\n\n=(2) The Author an Eyewitness.=--In the first place, almost at\nthe very beginning, we observe that the author claims to be an\neyewitness of the life of Jesus. \"We beheld his glory,\" he says in\nJohn 1:14. By beholding the glory of Christ he evidently does not\nmean merely that experience of Christ's power which is possessed\nby every Christian. On the contrary, the glory of Christ, as it is\nintended by the evangelist, is fully explained by such passages as\nch. 2:11. The miracles of Jesus--palpable, visible events in the\nexternal world--are clearly included in what is meant. It will be\nobserved that in ch. 1:14 it is very specifically the incarnate\nChrist that is spoken of. The evangelist is describing the condition\nof things after \"the Word became flesh.\" Evidently, therefore, it\nwas the earthly life of Jesus which the evangelist claims to have\n\"beheld.\"\n\nThis conclusion is confirmed by I John 1:1-4. Scarcely anyone doubts\nthat the First Epistle of John was written by the man who wrote\nthe Gospel. When, therefore, the author of the epistle speaks of\n\"that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes,\nthat which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word\nof life,\" evidently these words have significance for the Gospel\nalso. The author fairly heaps up expressions to show, beyond all\npossibility of misunderstanding, that he had come into actual\nphysical contact with the earthly Jesus.\n\n=(3) The Unnamed Disciple of John 1:35-42.=--The author of the\nFourth Gospel, then, clearly claims to be an eyewitness of the\nearthly life of Christ. Further indications identify him with a\nparticular one among the eyewitnesses. In John 1:35-42, an unnamed\ndisciple of Jesus is mentioned. \"One of the two,\" it is said in v.\n40, \"that heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon\nPeter's brother.\" Who was the other? There is some reason for\nthinking that he was one of the two sons of Zebedee. But the matter\nwill become clearer as we proceed.\n\nAnother question is why this disciple is not mentioned by name. The\nFourth Gospel is not chary of names. Why, then, is the disciple who\nappears so prominently along with Andrew and Simon not mentioned\nby name? Only one plausible explanation suggests itself--the\nexplanation that the unnamed disciple was the author of the Gospel,\nwho, through a feeling common in the literature of antiquity, as\nwell as of our own time, did not like to mention his own name in\nthe course of his narrative. We have already observed that the\nauthor claims to be an eyewitness of the life of Christ. John 1:14.\nWhen, therefore, near the beginning of the narrative a disciple of\nJesus is introduced, rather mysteriously, without a name, when,\nfurthermore, events in which this disciple was immediately concerned\nare narrated with unusual vividness and wealth of detail, vs. 35-42,\nthe conclusion becomes very natural that this unnamed disciple is\nnone other than the author himself.\n\n=(4) The Beloved Disciple.=--This conclusion, it must be admitted,\nso far as this first passage is concerned, is nothing more than a\nlikely guess. But by other passages it is rendered almost certain.\n\nIn John 13:21-25, a disciple is mentioned as leaning on Jesus'\nbreast and as being one whom Jesus loved. This disciple is not\nnamed. But who was he? Evidently he was one of the twelve apostles,\nfor only the apostles were present at the Supper which is described\nin chs. 13 to 17. The disciple \"whom Jesus loved,\" however, was not\nonly among the Twelve; he was evidently among the innermost circle\nof the Twelve. Such an innermost circle appears clearly in the\nSynoptic Gospels. It was composed of Peter and James and John. The\nbeloved disciple was probably one of these three; and since he is\nclearly distinguished from Peter, ch. 13:24, he was either James or\nJohn.\n\nThe introduction of an unnamed disciple, which seemed significant\neven in John 1:35-42, becomes yet far more significant in the\npresent passage. In the account of the Last Supper, a considerable\nnumber of the disciples are named--Peter, Judas Iscariot, Thomas,\nPhilip, Judas not Iscariot--yet the disciple who is introduced with\nespecial emphasis, whose very position at table is described with a\nwealth of detail far greater than is displayed in the case of any\nof the others, is designated merely as \"one of his disciples, whom\nJesus loved.\" The strange omission of this disciple's name can be\nexplained only if he was the author of the book. Clearly the painter\nhas here introduced a modest portrait of himself in the midst of his\ngreat picture.\n\nPassing by John 18:15,16, where \"the other disciple\" is probably\nthe author, and ch. 19:26,27, where the repetition of the strange\ndesignation, \"the disciple ... whom he [Jesus] loved,\" confirms the\nimpressions derived from ch. 13:21-25, we discover another important\nindication in ch. 19:35. \"And he that hath seen hath borne witness,\nand his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye\nalso may believe.\" \"He that hath seen\" can scarcely refer to anyone\nother than the beloved disciple who was mentioned just before as\nstanding by the cross. In the present verse, this beloved disciple\nis represented as the one who is now speaking. The identification\nof the beloved disciple with the author of the Gospel, which was\nimplied before, here becomes explicit.\n\nIn John 20:1-10, \"the other disciple whom Jesus loved\" is of course\nthe same as the one who appears in ch. 13:21-25; 19:26,27,35.\n\n=(5) Testimony of the Appendix.=--In John 21:7,20-23, the beloved\ndisciple appears again, and in v. 24 he is identified, in so many\nwords, with the writer of the Gospel. In this verse the first person\nplural is used; other persons seem to be associated with the author\nin commending the Gospel to the attention of the Church. This\nphenomenon is explained if the twenty-first chapter be regarded as\na sort of appendix, perhaps added at the request of a circle of\nfriends. It will be observed that ch. 20:30,31 forms a fit ending to\nthe book; what follows therefore appears the more like an appendix,\nthough it was certainly written by the author's own hand and\npublished before his death along with the rest of the book.\n\n=(6) Why Are John and James Not Mentioned by Name?=--The conclusion\nof our investigation is that the author of the Fourth Gospel\nindicates clearly that he was either one or the other of the two\nsons of Zebedee. This conclusion is confirmed by the curious\ncircumstance that neither one of these men is mentioned in the\nGospel by name. How did they come to be omitted? They were in the\nvery innermost circle of Jesus' disciples; many apostles far less\nprominent than they are named frequently on the pages of the\nGospel. There can be only one solution of the problem: one at least\nof these men is, as a matter of fact, introduced in the Gospel as\nthe beloved disciple, and the reason why he is introduced in such a\ncuriously anonymous way and why his brother also is not named, is\nthat the author felt a natural delicacy about introducing his own\nand his brother's name into a narrative of the Lord's life.\n\nOne statement that has just been made requires qualification: it is\nnot quite true that the sons of Zebedee are not designated by name\nin the Gospel. They are not indeed called by their individual names,\nbut in ch. 21:2, they are designated by the name of their father.\nPossibly this slight difference of usage between chapter 21 and the\nrest of the Gospel has something to do with the fact that chapter 21\nseems to be an appendix.\n\n=(7) The Author Was Not James, but John.=--The author of the Fourth\nGospel, then, identifies himself with one or the other of the sons\nof Zebedee. As to which one of the two is meant there cannot be the\nslightest doubt. James the son of Zebedee was martyred in A. D. 44.\nActs 12:2. There is abundant evidence that the Fourth Gospel was not\nwritten so early as that; and John 21:20-23 apparently implies that\nthe author lived to a considerable age. Evidently, therefore, it is\nJohn and not James with whom the author identifies himself.\n\n=(8) Is the Gospel's Own Testimony True?=--Thus the singularly\nstrong tradition which attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the\nson of Zebedee is supported by the independent testimony of the\nbook itself. Conceivably, of course, that testimony might be false.\nBut it is very hard to believe that it is. It is very hard to\nbelieve that the author of this wonderful book, who despite all\nthe profundity of his ideas exalts in a very special manner the\nimportance of simple testimony based upon the senses, John 19:35; I\nJohn 1:1-4, has in a manner far subtler and more heinous than if he\nhad simply put a false name at the beginning palmed himself off as\nan eyewitness of the Saviour's life. Many learned men have found it\npossible to accept such a view; but the simple reader of the Gospel\nwill always be inclined to dissent. The author of this book has\nnarrated many things hard to be believed. But there are still found\nthose who accept his solemn testimony; there are still found those\nin whom the purpose of the book is achieved, who through this Gospel\nbelieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing have\nlife in his name. John 20:31.\n\n\n4. TRADITIONAL TIME AND PLACE AND PLAN\n\nThe tradition about the Fourth Gospel is not confined to the bare\nfact of Johannine authorship; it has preserved certain other very\ninteresting information.\n\n(=1=) =The Ephesian Residence.=--For example, tradition represents\nthe Fourth Gospel as written after the other three Gospels and at\nEphesus. The evidence for the Ephesian residence of the apostle John\nis singularly abundant and weighty; and the contrary evidence which\nhas been thought to attest an early death of John is exceedingly\nweak. At first, John, like the others of the original apostles,\nremained in Palestine. He appears in Jerusalem a little before A.\nD. 50 at the Apostolic Council. Gal. 2:9. At some subsequent time,\nperhaps at the outbreak of the Jewish war in A. D. 66, he journeyed\nto Asia Minor and there for many years was the revered head of the\nChurch. He lived indeed until the reign of Trajan, which began in A.\nD. 98.\n\n(=2=) =The Gospel of John Supplementary to the Synoptic\nGospels.=--According to tradition, the Gospel of John was not\nonly written after the Synoptic Gospels, but was intended to be\nsupplementary to them. This information is amply confirmed by\nthe Gospel itself. Evidently John presupposes on the part of his\nreaders a knowledge of the Synoptic account. This explains his\npeculiar choice of material--for example, his omission of most of\nthe Galilean ministry, and of such events as the baptism and the\ninstitution of the Lord's Supper. It explains also, for example, a\nverse like John 3:24: \"For John was not yet cast into prison.\" The\nSynoptic Gospels begin their account of the ministry of Jesus with\nwhat happened after the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Mark 1:14.\nReaders of Mark might even receive the impression that Jesus had\nnot begun his teaching till after that time. John corrects any such\nimpression in ch. 3:24.\n\nIf, then, the Gospel of John is intended not to compete with the\nSynoptic Gospels, but to supplement them, in what direction does the\nsupplementing move? What is it that John adds to what had already\nbeen told? Here, again, tradition affords us useful hints.\n\nEusebius, in the early part of the fourth century, writes as follows\n(Church History, iii, 24, 7-13, translated by McGiffert, in \"Nicene\nand Post-Nicene Fathers,\" second series, vol. i, p. 153):\n\n\"And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they\nsay that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the\nGospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason.\nThe three Gospels already mentioned [Matthew, Mark and Luke] having\ncome into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he\naccepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that\nthere was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ\nat the beginning of his ministry. And this indeed is true. For\nit is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds\ndone by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John\nthe Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account.\nFor Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which\nfollowed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: 'Now\nwhen he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into\nGalilee.' Mark likewise says: 'Now after that John was delivered up\nJesus came into Galilee.' And Luke, before commencing his account\nof the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that\nHerod, 'adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up\nJohn in prison.' They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being\nasked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the\nperiod which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of\nthe deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those\nwhich were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is\nindicated by him, they say, in the following words: 'This beginning\nof miracles did Jesus'; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in\nthe midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in \u00c6non near\nSalim; where he states the matter clearly in the words: 'For John\nwas not yet cast into prison.' John accordingly, in his Gospel,\nrecords the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist\nwas cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the\nevents which happened after that time. One who understands this can\nno longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another,\ninasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts\nof Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of\nhis life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh\nJohn quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by\nMatthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which\nhad, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the\ndivine Spirit.\"\n\nAccording to Eusebius, then, John intended to treat the time before\nthe imprisonment of the Baptist as the Synoptists treated the time\nafter that event. We have already noted the element of truth in this\nobservation. Of course it is not the only observation that needs to\nbe made. Much of what John narrates occurred after the imprisonment\nof the Baptist.\n\nAccording to Clement of Alexandria, of the close of the second\ncentury, who here reports what had been said by his predecessors in\nAlexandria, John, seeing that \"bodily\" matters had been treated by\nthe Synoptists, supplemented their work by writing a \"spiritual\"\nGospel. In this testimony also there is no doubt an element of\ntruth. It is true that the Fourth Gospel reproduces certain profound\nelements in the teaching of Jesus which in the earlier Gospels\nappear only incidentally.\n\nThe oral tradition which forms the chief basis of the Synoptic\nGospels was rooted deep in the earliest missionary activity of the\nChurch. Especially, perhaps, in the Gospel of Mark, but also in\nMatthew and Luke, we have for the most part those facts about Jesus\nand those elements of his teaching which could appeal at once to\nsimple-minded believers or to outsiders. The Gospel of John, on the\nother hand, drawing, like the others, from the rich store of Jesus'\nteaching and Jesus' person, has revealed yet deeper mysteries. In\nthis profound book, we have the recollections of a beloved disciple,\nat first understood only imperfectly by the apostle himself, but\nrendered ever clearer by advancing experience, and firmly fixed by\nbeing often repeated in the author's oral instruction of the Church.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible,\" article on \"John\"\n(7): Purves, article on \"John, Gospel according to St.\" M'Clymont,\n\"The New Testament and Its Writers,\" pp. 33-40. Stevens and Burton,\n\"A Harmony of the Gospels.\" Westcott, \"The Gospel according to St.\nJohn: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes.\" \"The\nCambridge Bible for Schools\": Plummer, \"The Gospel According to St.\nJohn.\" Browning, \"A Death in the Desert\" (vol. iv, pp. 191-206 of\nthe Riverside Edition). Zahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\"\nvol. iii, pp. 174-355. The last-named work is intended primarily\nfor those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by\nothers.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXI\n\nTHE JESUS OF THE GOSPELS\n\n\nIt is possible to speak of \"the Jesus of the Gospels\" only if the\nGospels are in essential agreement. If the features of the four\nportraits are so different that they never could have been united\nreally in the same person, then there is no such thing as a Jesus of\nthe Gospels, but only a Jesus of Matthew and a Jesus of Mark and a\nJesus of Luke and a Jesus of John.\n\n\n1. AGREEMENT AMONG THE SYNOPTISTS\n\nAmong the Synoptic Gospels, at any rate, no such difference exists.\nThough every one of these Gospels possesses its own characteristics,\nthe peculiarities are almost negligible in comparison with the\nunderlying unity. There is certainly such a thing as \"the Synoptic\nJesus.\" His words and deeds are narrated in each of the Gospels in a\ndifferent selection and in a different style, but the characteristic\nfeatures are everywhere the same.\n\n\n2. THE SYNOPTISTS AND JOHN\n\nWith regard to the Fourth Gospel, the matter is not quite so\nplain. The contrast between the Synoptists and John has already\nbeen noticed. It forces itself upon even the most casual reader.\nDifference, however, is not necessarily contradiction. It may be\ndue to a difference in the point of view. Both the Synoptists and\nJohn give a true picture of Jesus; the same features appear very\ndifferent when viewed from different angles.\n\n\n3. DIVINITY AND HUMANITY\n\nAt any rate, if there is a contradiction between the first three\nGospels and the Gospel of John, the contradiction is by no means\neasy to formulate. It cannot be said, for example, simply that the\nSynoptists present a human Jesus and John a divine Jesus. Whatever\nthe differences among the four Gospels, all four agree at least in\ntwo essential features. All four present Jesus, in the first place\nas a man, and in the second place as something more than a man.\n\n(=1=) =Humanity in the Synoptists.=--The former feature is perhaps\nespecially clear in the Synoptists. According to the first three\nGospels, Jesus led a genuine human life from birth to death. As\na child he grew not only in stature, but also in wisdom. He was\nsubject to human parents and to the requirements of the Jewish law.\nEven after the inauguration of his ministry the human conditions of\nhis life were not superseded. He was even tempted like other men.\nHe grew weary and slept. He suffered hunger and thirst. He could\nrejoice and he could suffer sorrow. He prayed, like other men, and\nworshiped God. He needed strengthening both for body and for mind.\nNo mere semblance of a human life is here presented, but a genuine\nman of flesh and blood.\n\n(=2=) =Humanity in John.=--But if the Jesus of the Synoptists is\na true man, how is it with the Jesus of John? Does the Fourth\nGospel present merely a heavenly being who walked through the world\nuntouched and unruffled by the sin and misery and weakness that\nsurrounded him? Only a very superficial reading can produce such\nan impression. The Fourth Gospel indeed lays a supreme emphasis\nupon the majesty of Jesus, upon his \"glory\" as it was manifested in\nworks of power and attested by God himself. But side by side with\nthese features of the narrative, as though to prevent a possible\nmisunderstanding, the author presents the humanity of Jesus with\ndrastic touches that can scarcely be paralleled in the Synoptists\nthemselves. It is John who speaks of the weariness of Jesus at the\nwell of Samaria, ch. 4:6; of the human affection which he felt for\nLazarus and Martha and Mary, ch. 11:3,5,36, and for an individual\namong the disciples, ch. 13:23; of his weeping, ch. 11:35; and\nindignant groaning, v. 38; and of his deadly thirst. Ch. 19:28. As\nclearly as the other evangelists John presents Jesus as a man.\n\n(=3=) =Divinity in John.=--In the second place, all four Gospels, if\nthey present Jesus as a man, also present him as something far more\nthan a man. With regard to the Gospel of John, of course the matter\nis unmistakable. The very first verse reads: \"In the beginning was\nthe Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.\" Jesus\naccording to John was plainly no product of the world, but God come\nin the flesh. John 1:14. The teaching of Jesus himself, as it is\nreported in the Fourth Gospel, is concerned with the relation of\nperfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son.\n\n(=4=) =Divinity in the Synoptists.=--In the Synoptists the\nsupernatural character of Jesus is somewhat less on the surface.\nHis teaching, as the Synoptists report it, is largely concerned not\ndirectly with his own person, but with the kingdom that he came to\nfound. Even his Messiahship is often kept in the background; the\ndemons are often commanded not to reveal it.\n\nA closer examination, however, reveals the essential unity between\nthe Synoptists and John. If the supernatural character of Jesus\nappears in the Synoptists less plainly on the surface, it is really\nno less pervasive at the center. It does not so often form the\nsubject of direct exposition, but it is everywhere presupposed. The\ndoing by Jesus of what only God can do, Mark 2:5,7; the sovereign\nway in which he legislates for the kingdom of God, Matt. 5:17-48;\nhis unearthly holiness and complete lack of any consciousness of\nsin; the boundlessness of his demand for obedience, Luke 9:57-62;\nhis expected freedom from limitations of time and place, Matt.\n28:20; the absolutely central place which he claims for himself\nas ruler and judge; the substantiation of all his lofty claims\nby wonderful power over the forces of nature--these are only\nindications chosen almost at random of what is really plain upon\nevery page of the Synoptic Gospels, that the Jesus who is there\ndescribed is no mere human figure but a divine Saviour of the world.\nThe invitation of Matt. 11:28-30, which is typical of the Synoptic\nteaching, would have been absurd on the lips of anyone but the Son\nof God.\n\nMoreover, the divine nature of Jesus is not merely implied in the\nSynoptic Gospels; there are times when it even becomes explicit.\nThe relation of perfect mutual knowledge that exists between Jesus\nand the Father, Matt. 11:27, reveals a perfect unity of nature. The\nJesus of the Synoptists, as well as the Jesus of John, might say, \"I\nand the Father are one.\"\n\n\n4. THE MANNER OF JESUS' TEACHING\n\nThe Synoptic Gospels, therefore, imply everywhere exactly the same\nJesus who is more expressly presented in the Gospel of John. If,\nthen, there is a contradiction between the Synoptists and John,\nit can be concerned only with the manner of Jesus' teaching. The\nSynoptists as well as John present Jesus as a supernatural person,\nit is said, but unlike John they represent him as keeping his own\nperson in the background.\n\nEven here, however, maturer consideration shows that the difference\ndoes not amount to anything like contradiction. May not the same\nperson have spoken the discourses of the Fourth Gospel and also\nthose of the Synoptists? It must be remembered that the ministry\nof Jesus was varied, and that the first three evangelists confine\nthemselves almost exclusively to one phase of it. In the public\nGalilean ministry, which the Synoptists describe, it was necessary\nfor Jesus to keep even his Messiahship for a time in the background.\nPublication of it, owing to the false political conception which\nthe Jews had of the Messiah's work, would have been fatal to Jesus'\nplan. Here, as so often, the Fourth Gospel explains the other\nthree. After the feeding of the five thousand, John tells us, the\ncrowd wanted to take Jesus by force and make him a king. John 6:15.\nPopularity was dangerous. Jesus could not proclaim himself publicly\nas the Messiah, until by explaining the spiritual nature of the\nkingdom he had prepared the people for the kind of Messiah which it\nwas his mission to be.\n\nOf course, it is difficult for us to understand at every point just\nwhy Jesus acted as he did. All that we are now maintaining is that\nthe considerations just adduced, and others like them, show that it\nis perfectly conceivable that Jesus, before his intimate disciples\nand in Jerusalem and at a special crisis, John, ch. 6, adopted\na method of teaching which in the greater part of the Galilean\nministry he considered out of place. There is room in a true\nnarrative of Jesus' life both for the Synoptists and for John.\n\n\n5. THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF JESUS\n\nJesus was many-sided. He was Lawgiver, he was Teacher, he was\nHealer, he was Ruler, he was Saviour. He was man and he was God. The\nGospels have presented him in the richness of his mysterious person.\nModern historians are less comprehensive. They have been offended\nat the manifoldness of the Gospel picture. They have endeavored to\nreduce Jesus to the level of what they can comprehend. But their\neffort has been a failure. After the supposed contradictions have\nbeen removed, greater contradictions remain; and the resulting\nfigure is at any rate too small to account for the origin of\nChristianity. The partial Jesus of modern criticism, despite his\ncomparative littleness, is a monstrosity; the comprehensive Jesus of\nthe Gospels, though mysterious, is a self-evidencing and life-giving\nfact.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves, article\non \"Jesus Christ.\" Warfield, \"The Lord of Glory,\" pp. 125-173.\nRobertson, \"Epochs in the Life of Jesus.\" Stalker, \"The Life of\nJesus Christ.\" Denney, \"Jesus and the Gospel.\" Andrews, \"The Life of\nOur Lord.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXII\n\nA DOCUMENT OF THE JERUSALEM CHURCH\n\nThe Epistle of James\n\n\n1. THE CHRISTIANITY OF JAMES\n\nThe Epistle of James has been called the least Christian book in\nthe New Testament. Superficially this judgment is true. The name of\nJesus occurs only twice in the epistle, James 1:1; 2:1, and there\nis no specific reference to his life and death and resurrection. A\nclose examination, however, reverses the first impression.\n\n(=1=) =James and the Synoptic Discourses.=--In the first place,\nthe ethical teaching of James is permeated by the spirit of Jesus.\nEven the form of the epistle displays a marked affinity for the\ndiscourses of the Synoptic Gospels, and the affinity in content is\neven more apparent. Many striking parallels could be cited; but\nwhat is more convincing than such details is the indefinable spirit\nof the whole. The way in which James treats the covetousness, the\npride, the heartlessness, the formalism, the pettiness and the\nmeanness of his readers, is strikingly similar to the way in which\nhis Master dealt with the Pharisees. James does not indeed actually\ncite the words of Jesus; but the absence of citations makes the\nunderlying similarity all the more significant. The writer of this\nepistle did not live at a time when the knowledge of the words of\nJesus was derived from books; rather he had himself listened to the\nMaster--even though he was not at first a disciple--and was living\nin a community where the impression of Jesus' teaching and Jesus'\nperson was still fresh in the memory of those who had known him on\nearth.\n\n(=2=) =James and Christian Doctrine.=--In the second place,\nmoreover, the Christianity of James is religious as well as ethical.\nOf course it could not be like the teaching of Jesus if it were\nmerely ethical; for everything that Jesus taught even about the\nsimplest matters of human conduct was determined by the thought\nof the heavenly Father and by the significance of his own person.\nBut by the religious character of the Epistle of James even more\nthan this is meant. Like all the writers of the New Testament\nJames was well aware of the saving significance of Jesus' death\nand resurrection. For him as well as for the others, Jesus was\nLord, ch. 1:1, and a Lord who was possessed of a heavenly glory.\nCh. 2:1. James, as well as the others, was waiting for the second\ncoming of Christ. Ch. 5:8. He does not directly refer to the saving\nevents that form the substance of Christian faith; but he takes\nthem everywhere for granted. The word of truth through which the\ndisciples have been formed by God, ch. 1:18, the implanted word,\nv. 21, that needs ever to be received anew, can hardly be anything\nelse than the apostolic gospel as it was proclaimed in the earliest\nspeeches of Peter which are recorded in The Acts, and as it found\nits rich unfolding in the teaching of Paul. Just because that gospel\nin our epistle is presupposed, it does not need to be expounded\nin detail. The men to whom James was writing were not lacking in\northodoxy. If they had been, he would have set them right, and we\nshould have had another exposition of the gospel. As a matter of\nfact their fault was in practice, not in theory; and it is in the\nsphere of practice that they are met by James. The epistle would\nbe insufficient if it stood alone. It does not lay the foundation\nof Christian faith. But it shows how, upon that foundation, may be\nbuilt not the wood, hay and stubble of a wordy orthodoxy, but the\ngold and silver and precious stones of an honest Christian life.\n\nThis epistle, then, might be misleading if taken by itself; but it\nbecomes salutary if it is understood in its historical connections.\nFar from disparaging Christian doctrine--as the modern Church is\ntempted to suppose--it builds upon doctrine. In that it agrees with\nthe whole of the Bible. Christianity, as has been finely said, is\na life only because it is a doctrine. Only the great saving events\nof the gospel have rendered possible a life like that which is\ndescribed in the Epistle of James. And where the gospel is really\naccepted with heart as well as mind, that life of love will always\nfollow.\n\n\n2. DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE\n\nThe view which will be held about the date of the Epistle of James\nwill depend very largely upon the interpretation of the passage\nabout faith and works. James 2:14-26. In that passage, some of the\nsame terms appear as are prominent in connection with the great\nJudaistic controversy in which Paul was engaged from the time of\nthe Apostolic Council to the time of the third missionary journey.\nThree views have been held with regard to the date of the Epistle\nof James. The epistle may be regarded as written (1) before the\nJudaistic controversy arose, (2) during that controversy or while it\nwas still fresh in men's minds, or (3) long after the controversy\nhad been settled.\n\n(=1=) =The Intermediate Date.=--The second of these three views may\nbe eliminated first. This intermediate view has the advantage of\nplacing the epistle within the lifetime of James. It can treat the\nepistle as authentic. It has furthermore the advantage of explaining\nthe coincidences between James 2:14-26 and Rom., ch. 4. For if the\nepistle was written at the very close of the lifetime of James--say\nabout A. D. 62, or, following Hegesippus, A. D. 66--the author may\nhave become acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans.\n\nBut the difficulties of this view far overbalance the advantages.\nIf James was writing with Galatians and Romans before him, then\napparently in ch. 2:24 he intends to contradict those epistles. As\na matter of fact, however, as is shown in the Student's Text Book,\nhe does not really contradict them, but is in perfect harmony with\nthem. He has therefore gone out of his way in order to introduce a\nformal contradiction of the great apostle to the Gentiles although\nthere is no real contradiction of meaning at all! What could he\npossibly gain by such useless trouble-making? If James really wanted\nto combat Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, he would have\ndone so very differently; and if he did not want to combat it, he\nwould certainly not have uselessly created the appearance of doing\nso.\n\nPerhaps, however, James 2:14-26 is a refutation not of Paul but of\na misunderstanding of Paul. This also is very improbable. If the\npassage was a refutation not of Paul but of a misunderstanding of\nPaul, why did James not say so? Why did he not distinguish Paul\nclearly from his misinterpreters? Instead he has indulged uselessly\nin a formal contradiction of Paul, and has in refutation of a\nmisunderstanding of Paul not even used the abundant materials which\nPaul himself could offer! And where was such a misunderstanding of\nPaul possible in Jewish Christian circles of A. D. 62?\n\nWhat makes every form of this intermediate dating impossible is the\ntotal absence from the epistle of any reference to the question of\nthe conditions upon which Gentiles were to be received into the\nChurch. In A. D. 62 this question had recently been the subject of\nbitter controversy. At that time no one could have touched upon the\nclosely related topic of faith and works as James does and yet have\nignored so completely the controversial question.\n\nEvidently, therefore, the epistle was written either before the\nJudaistic controversy arose or else long after it was over.\n\n(=2=) =The Late Date.=--The latter view makes the epistle a\npseudonymous work--it assumes that an unknown author has here tried\nto enhance the influence of his work by putting it under the\nname of the first head of the Jerusalem church. This is of itself\nsufficient to refute the late dating. For the procedure of the\nsupposed falsifier is quite incomprehensible. He has chosen James as\nthe alleged author only because of the lofty position which James\nheld, and yet he has designated him in the first verse merely as a\nsimple Christian! The procedure of real forgers is very different.\n\nThere are also, however, other objections to the late dating.\nWould any writer in the second century, when the authority of Paul\nwas well established, have ventured to introduce such an apparent\ncontradiction of Paul as appears in James 2:24? In a writer of A.\nD. 150 we should have had formal agreement with Paul and material\ndisagreement; in the Epistle of James we have formal disagreement\nand material harmony. Apparent contradiction of expression combined\nwith perfect unity of thought is a sure sign of independence. The\nEpistle of James has made no use of the epistles of Paul.\n\nAgainst this conclusion may be urged only the coincidence that\nJames and Paul both use the example of Abraham, and cite the same\nverse, Gen. 15:6, with regard to him. But it must be remembered\nthat to every Jew Abraham offered the most obvious example in all\nthe Scriptures. It is possible, too, that the faith and works of\nAbraham had in pre-Christian Jewish circles already been the subject\nof controversy. Furthermore, James does not confine himself to\nAbraham, but introduces Rahab also, who is not mentioned by Paul.\nThe coincidence between Paul and James is quite insufficient to\noverbalance the clear evidence of independence.\n\n(=3=) =The Early Date.=--Only one hypothesis, then, suits the facts.\nThe Epistle of James was clearly written before the Judaistic\ncontroversy became acute at the time of the Apostolic Council. In\nthe second chapter of the epistle, James has used the same terms\nthat became prominent in that controversy, but he has used them in\nrefuting a practical, not a theoretical, error--an error that is\nrelated only indirectly to the great subject of Galatians and Romans.\n\n\n3. UNDERLYING UNITY OF THE EPISTLE\n\nAt first sight the Epistle of James seems to possess very little\nunity. Topic follows topic often with little apparent connection.\nBut the connection between the individual sections is closer than\nappears at first; and the epistle as a whole possesses at least a\nperfect unity of spirit.\n\n(=1=) =Reality in Religion.=--The ruling tone of the epistle,\nwhich may be detected beneath all the varying exhortations, is a\ncertain manly honesty, a certain fierce hatred of all sham and cant\nand humbug and meanness. James is a stern advocate of a practical\nreligion.\n\n(=2=) =Supremacy of Religion.=--It must be noticed, however, that\nthe religion of this writer is none the less religious because it is\npractical. James is no advocate of a \"gospel of street-cleaning.\" On\nthe contrary he insists with characteristic vehemence upon personal\npiety. The same writer who has been regarded as emphasizing works at\nthe expense of faith, who might be hailed as a leader of those who\nwould make religion terminate upon man rather than God, who might\nbe thought to disparage everything but \"social service\"--this same\nwriter is one of the most earnest advocates of prayer. James 1:5-8;\n4:2,3; 5:14-18. This apostle of works, this supposed disparager\nof faith, is almost bitter in his denunciation of unbelief! Ch.\n1:6-8. God, not man, according to James, is the author of every\nperfect gift. V. 17. Prayer is the remedy both for bodily and for\nspiritual ills. Ch. 5:14-18. James lends no countenance to the\nmodern disparagement of religious devotion. The same uncompromising\nseverity with which he lashes an inactive religion is also applied\njust as mercilessly to an irreligious activity. Ch. 4:13-15. James\ndoes not attack religion in the interests of reality; he attacks\nunreality in the interests of religion.\n\n\n4. CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE\n\nThe opening of the epistle, like that of the letters contained in\nActs 15:23-29; 23:26-30, is constructed according to the regular\nGreek form.\n\nAfter the opening, James speaks first of trials or temptations.\nRightly used they will lead to perfection. If, however, there\nis still imperfection, it can be removed by prayer to God. The\nimperfection which is here especially in view is an imperfection\nin wisdom. Apparently the readers, like the Pharisees, had laid\nan excessive stress upon knowledge. The true wisdom, says James,\ncan be obtained not by human pride, as the readers seem to think,\nbut only by prayer. Prayer, however, must be in faith--there must\nbe no wavering in it. Pride, indeed, is altogether blameworthy.\nIf there is to be boasting, it should certainly be not in earthly\nwealth but in those spiritual blessings which often reverse earthly\ndistinctions. Returning to the subject of temptations, James insists\nthat in their evil they do not come from God, but from the depths\nof man's own desires. From God comes no evil thing, but every\nperfect gift; and in the gospel God has bestowed upon us his richest\nblessing.\n\nThat gospel must be received with all diligence. It will exclude\nwrath and insincerity. True religion consists not merely in hearing\nbut in doing; good examples of the exercise of it are the visitation\nof the fatherless and widows and the preservation of one's own\npersonal purity of life.\n\nFaith in Christ, James continues in similar vein, excludes all undue\nrespect of persons. Indeed God in his choice of those who should\nbe saved has especially favored the poor. The rich as a class are\nrather the oppressors of the Christians. Surely then the Christians\nshould not favor rich men for selfish reasons. The law of love will\nexclude all such unworthy conduct.\n\nThat law of love requires an active life. Faith, if it be true\nfaith, leads to works. Away with a miserable faith that is expressed\nonly in words!\n\nWords, indeed, are dangerous. The tongue is a prolific source of\nharm. Evil speech reveals the deep-seated corruption of the heart.\nThe readers must be careful, therefore, about seeking the work of a\nteacher. The true wisdom, which fits a man to teach, is not of man's\nacquiring, but comes from God.\n\nQuarreling--which was produced especially by the inordinate ambition\namong the readers to pose as teachers--must be counteracted by\nsubmission to God.\n\nThe constant thought of God excludes all pride in human planning.\nEspecially the rich must reflect upon the transitoriness of earthly\npossessions and above all must be sure that their wealth is honestly\ngained.\n\nFinally, patient waiting for the Lord, the example of the Old\nTestament saints, and the earnest practice of prayer will make\neffective all the exhortations of the epistle.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n123-138. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Warfield, articles on\n\"James\" and \"James, Epistle of.\" M'Clymont, \"The New Testament and\nIts Writers,\" pp. 123-129. Knowling, \"The Epistle of St. James.\"\n\"The Cambridge Bible for Schools\": Plumptre, \"The General Epistle of\nSt. James.\" Zahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. i, pp.\n73-151. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have\nsome knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXIII\n\nJESUS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\nThe Epistle to the Hebrews\n\n\n1. PAUL NOT THE AUTHOR\n\n(=1=) =The Tradition.=--At Alexandria in the latter part of the\nsecond century Paul was thought to be the author of the Epistle\nto the Hebrews; but in North Africa a little later Tertullian\nattributed the epistle to Barnabas, and in other portions of the\nChurch the Pauline authorship was certainly not accepted. In the\nwest, the Pauline authorship was long denied and the inclusion of\nthe epistle in the New Testament resisted. At last the Alexandrian\nview won universal acceptance. The Epistle to the Hebrews became an\naccepted part of the New Testament, and was attributed to Paul.\n\nClement of Alexandria, who had apparently received the tradition of\nPauline authorship from Pant\u00e6nus, his predecessor, himself declares\nthat Hebrews was written by Paul in the \"Hebrew\" (Aramaic) language,\nand was translated by Luke into Greek. The notion of a translation\nby Luke was based upon no genuine historical tradition--Hebrews\nis certainly an original Greek work--but was simply an hypothesis\nconstructed to explain the peculiarities of the epistle on the\nsupposition that it was a work of Paul.\n\n(=2=) =The Value of the Tradition.=--The tradition of Pauline\nauthorship is clearly very weak. If Paul had been the author,\nit is hard to see why the memory of the fact should have been\nlost so generally in the Church. No one in the early period had\nany objection to the epistle; on the contrary it was very highly\nregarded. If, then, it had really been written by Paul, the Pauline\nauthorship would have been accepted everywhere with avidity. The\nnegative testimony of the Roman church is particularly significant.\nThe epistle was quoted by Clement of Rome at about A. D. 95; yet\nat Rome as elsewhere in the West the epistle seems never in the\nearly period to have been regarded as Pauline. In other words, just\nwhere acquaintance with the epistle can be traced farthest back,\nthe denial of Pauline authorship seems to have been most insistent.\nIf Clement of Rome had regarded Paul as the author, the history of\nRoman opinion about the epistle would have been very different.\n\nOn the other hand, on the supposition that there was originally no\ntradition of Pauline authorship, the subsequent prevalence of such\na tradition is easily explained. It was due simply to the evident\napostolic authority of the epistle itself. From the start, Hebrews\nwas felt to be an authoritative work. Being authoritative, it would\nbe collected along with other authoritative works. Since it was\nan epistle, and exhibited a certain Pauline quality of spirit and\nsubject, it would naturally be associated with the other works of\nthe greatest letter writer of the apostolic age. Being thus included\nin a collection of the Pauline Epistles, and being regarded as of\napostolic authority, what was more natural than to attribute it\nto the apostle Paul? Such, very possibly, was the origin of the\nAlexandrian tradition.\n\nThis tradition did not win immediate acceptance, because the rest\nof the Church was still aware that the epistle was not written by\nPaul. What led to the final conquest of the Pauline tradition was\nsimply the character of the book itself. The question of Pauline\nauthorship, in the case of this book, became connected with the\nquestion of apostolic authority. The Church had to choose between\nrejecting the book altogether, and accepting it as Pauline. When\nshe finally adopted the latter alternative, undoubtedly she chose\nthe lesser error. It was an error to regard the epistle as the work\nof Paul; but it would have been a far greater error to exclude\nit from the New Testament. As a matter of fact, though the book\nwas not written by Paul, it was written, if not by one of the\nother apostles, at least by an \"apostolic man\" like Mark or Luke.\nScarcely any book of the New Testament bears clearer marks of true\napostolicity.\n\n(=3=) =Internal Evidence.=--The argument against Pauline\nauthorship which is derived from tradition is strongly supported\nby the contents of the epistle itself. In the first place, it is\nexceedingly doubtful whether Paul could have spoken of himself as\nhaving had the Christian salvation confirmed to him by those who had\nheard the Lord. Heb. 2:3. Knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus\nwas indeed conveyed to Paul by ordinary word of mouth from the\neyewitnesses; but the gospel itself, as he insists with vehemence\nin Galatians, was revealed to him directly by Christ. In the second\nplace, the style of the epistle is very different from that of Paul,\nbeing, as we shall see, far more carefully wrought. In the third\nplace, the thoughts developed in Hebrews, though undoubtedly they\nare in perfect harmony with the Pauline Epistles, are by no means\ncharacteristically Pauline. It is a little hard to understand,\nfor example, how Paul could have written at such length about the\nlaw without speaking of justification by faith or the reception\nof Gentiles into the Church. This last argument, however, must\nnot be exaggerated. Undoubtedly Paul would have agreed heartily\nto everything that Hebrews contains. Paul and the author of this\nepistle have developed merely somewhat different sides of the same\ngreat truth.\n\n\n2. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR?\n\nIf Paul did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews, who did write it?\nProdigious labor has been expended upon this question, but with\nvery little result. In ancient times, Barnabas, Luke and Clement of\nRome, were each regarded as the author. Of these three views the\nfirst is most probable; the second is exceedingly unlikely; and\nthe last is clearly impossible. Whoever wrote the epistle, Clement\ncertainly did not. The letter which we possess from his pen is\nimmeasurably inferior to the apostolic writings to which Hebrews\ncertainly belongs. Clement was a humble reader of Hebrews, not the\nauthor of it. Luther was inclined to regard Apollos as the possible\nauthor of Hebrews; and of all the many suggestions that have been\nmade, this is perhaps the best. Undoubtedly the circumstances\nand training of Apollos were in a number of respects like those\nwhich might naturally be attributed to the author of the epistle.\nApollos was closely associated with Paul, and perhaps at a later\ntime with others of the apostles, just as might be expected of the\nauthor of an apostolic work such as Hebrews. On the other hand,\nlike the author of the epistle, he was not an eyewitness of the\nlife of Jesus. Compare Heb. 2:4. Like the author of the epistle he\nwas no doubt acquainted with Timothy. Compare ch. 13:23. He was\nan \"eloquent\" or \"learned\" man, Acts 18:24, who might well have\nproduced the splendid rhetoric of the epistle. He was a Jew and\nmighty in the Scriptures, as was also the author of Hebrews. He\nwas a native of Alexandria, the university city of the period, and\nthe seat of a large Jewish community, where just that combination\nof Greek rhetorical training with Scriptural knowledge which is\nexhibited in the epistle is most naturally to be sought.\n\nThese indications, however, can merely show that Apollos might\nconceivably have written the epistle; they do not show that he did\nwrite it. The authorship of this powerful work will always remain\nuncertain. How little we know, after all, of the abounding life of\nthe apostolic Church!\n\n\n3. WHERE WERE THE READERS?\n\nIn the Student's Text Book, it has been shown that the readers\nof the epistle were probably members of some rather narrowly\ncircumscribed community. Where this community was is by no means\nclear. The one indication of place which the epistle contains\nis ambiguous. In ch. 13:24 it is said, \"They of Italy salute\nyou.\" These words may mean that the author is in Italy and sends\ngreetings from the Christians of that country, or they may mean that\nthe author is outside of Italy and sends greetings from Italian\nChristians who happened to be with him. In the latter case, probably\nthe readers were in Italy; for otherwise they would have no special\ninterest in the Italian Christians. All that we can say is then that\nthe epistle was probably written either from Italy or to Italy. If\nit was written from Italy, then since the readers were Jews, it is\nnatural to seek them in Palestine. The Palestinian Christians were\n\"Hebrews\" in the narrower, linguistic sense of the word, as well as\nin the broader, national sense. The ancient heading of the epistle\nthus comes to its full rights. On the other hand the Palestinian\nhypothesis faces some rather grave difficulties. If the readers are\nto be sought in Italy, then perhaps they formed a Jewish Christian\ncommunity in Rome or in some other Italian city. The question cannot\nbe settled with any certainty. The destination of the epistle is an\neven greater riddle than the authorship.\n\n\n4. WHEN WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN?\n\nThe Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written before A. D. 95,\nfor at about that time it was quoted by Clement of Rome. The mention\nof Timothy in ch. 13:23 perhaps does not carry us much farther, for\nTimothy, who was a grown man at about A. D. 50, Acts 16:1-3, may\nhave lived till the end of the first century. The epistle, however,\ndoes not bear any of the marks of late origin. The question of date\nis closely connected with the question whether in the epistle the\ntemple at Jerusalem is regarded as still standing. This question\ncannot be settled with certainty. But on the whole the continuance\nof the Levitical ceremonies seems to be assumed in the epistle,\nand at any rate there is no clear reference to their cessation.\nProbably therefore the Epistle to the Hebrews was written before the\ndestruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.\n\n\n5. HEBREWS A LITERARY WORK\n\nThe Epistle to the Hebrews is a product of conscious literary art.\nThe rhetoric of Paul is unconscious; even such passages as the\nfirst few chapters of First Corinthians or the eighth chapter of\nRomans may have been composed with the utmost rapidity. The author\nof Hebrews probably went differently to work. Such sentences as\nHeb. 1:1-4, even in an inspired writer, can only be the result of\ndiligent labor. By long practice the writer of Hebrews had acquired\nthat feeling for rhythm and balance of phrase, that facility in\nthe construction of smooth-flowing periods, which give to his\nepistle its distinctive quality among the New Testament books.\nGreek rhetoric of the Hellenistic age, freed from its hollow\nartificiality, is here laid under contribution for the Saviour's\npraise.\n\nThe presence of such a book in the New Testament is highly salutary.\nDevout Christians in their enthusiasm for the simplicity of the\ngospel are sometimes in danger of becoming one-sided. They are\nsometimes inclined to confuse simplicity with ugliness, and then to\nprize ugliness for its own sake. It is perfectly true that the value\nof the gospel is quite independent of \u00e6sthetic niceties, and that\nthe language of the New Testament is for the most part very simple.\nBut it is not true that the simplicity of the New Testament has\nanything in common with the bad taste of some modern phraseology, or\nthat eloquence is of itself evil. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows\nby a noble example that there is such a thing as Christian art. The\nmajestic sentences of this ancient masterpiece, with their exquisite\nclearness and liturgic rhythm and uplifting power, have contributed\ninestimably to the Christian conception of the Saviour. The art of\nHebrews is not art for art's sake, but art for the sake of Christ.\nLiterary perfection is here combined with profound genuineness and\napostolic fervor; art is here ennobled by consecration.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\" pp.\n164, 165, 265-267, 286-289. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\":\nPurves, article on \"Hebrews, Epistle to the.\" M'Clymont, \"The New\nTestament and Its Writers,\" pp. 116-122. Ellicott, \"A New Testament\nCommentary for English Readers,\" vol. iii, pp. 275-348: Moulton,\n\"The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.\" Westcott, \"The\nEpistle to the Hebrews.\" Zahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\"\nvol. ii, pp. 293-366. The two last-named works are intended\nprimarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also\nbe used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXIV\n\nCHRISTIAN FORTITUDE\n\nThe First Epistle of Peter\n\n\n1. SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD\n\nThe First Epistle of Peter is the epistle of separateness. The\nmodern Church is in grave danger of forgetting the distinctiveness\nof her gospel and the glorious isolation of her position. She is\ntoo often content to be merely one factor in civilization, a means\nof improving the world instead of the instrument in creating a new\nworld.\n\nThe first readers of the epistle were subject to a similar danger,\nthough it arose from a somewhat different cause. To-day we are no\nlonger subject to persecution; but the danger is fundamentally\nthe same. The world's friendship may be even more disastrous than\nthe world's hatred. The readers of First Peter were tempted to\nrelinquish what was distinctive in their faith in order to avoid\nthe hostility of their heathen neighbors; we are tempted to do the\nsame thing because the superficial respectability of modern life\nhas put a gloss of polite convention over the profound differences\nthat divide the inner lives of men. We, as well as the first readers\nof the epistle, need to be told that this world is lost in sin,\nthat the blood of Christ has ransomed an elect race from the city\nof destruction, that the high privileges of the Christian calling\ndemand spotless purity and unswerving courage.\n\n(=1=) =The Character of the Persecution.=--The character of the\npersecution to which the readers of the epistle were subjected\ncannot be determined with perfect clearness. It is not even certain\nthat the Christian profession in itself was regarded officially as\na crime. Apparently charges of positive misconduct were needed to\ngive countenance to the persecutors. I Peter 2:12. The Christians\nneeded to be warned that there is no heroism in suffering if the\nsuffering is the just punishment of misdeeds. Chs. 2:20; 4:15. What\nparticular charges were brought against the Christians it is of\ncourse difficult to determine. Perhaps they were sometimes charged\nwith gross crimes such as murder or theft. But a more frequent\naccusation was probably \"hatred of the human race,\" or the like. The\nChristians were thought to be busybodies. In setting the world to\nrights they seemed to meddle in other people's affairs. In claiming\nto be citizens of a heavenly kingdom, they seemed indifferent or\nhostile to earthly relationships. As subjects of the emperor and of\nhis representatives, the Christians were thought to be disloyal; as\nslaves, they seemed disobedient.\n\n(=2=) =Duties of Earthly Life.=--In view of these accusations,\nPeter urges his readers to avoid all improper employment of their\nChristian freedom. Christian freedom does not mean license;\nChristian independence does not mean indifference. There is no\nreason why a good Christian should be a bad citizen, even of a\nheathen state, ch. 2:13-17, or an unprofitable servant, even of\na harsh master, vs. 18-25, or a quarrelsome wife, even of an\nunconverted husband. Ch. 3:1-6. On the contrary, Christians must\napprove themselves not only in the spiritual realm, but also in the\nordinary relationships of this life.\n\n(=3=) =Application to Modern Conditions.=--Here again the lesson is\nimportant for the present day. Now as always fervent realization of\nthe transcendent glory of Christianity tends sometimes to result\nin depreciation of ordinary duties. Men of exceptional piety\nsometimes seem to feel that civilization is unworthy of their\nattention, even if it is not actually a work of Satan. Of all such\nvagaries the First Epistle of Peter is the best corrective. Truth\nis here admirably guarded against the error that lurks at its root.\nThe very epistle that emphasizes the separateness of the Church\nfrom the world, that teaches Christian people to look down upon\nearthly affairs from the vantage ground of heaven, is just the\nepistle that inculcates sober and diligent conduct in the various\nrelationships of earthly life. In the effort at a higher morality,\nthe simple, humble virtues that even the world appreciates should\nnot be neglected; piety should involve no loss of common sense. Now\nas always the Christian should be ready to give a reason for the\nfaith that is in him; now as always he should be able to refute\nthe slanders of the world; now as always he should commend his\nChristianity by his good citizenship. Only so will the example of\nChrist be fully followed. Jesus was in possession of a transcendent\nmessage; but he lived the life of a normal man. The Christian, too,\nis a man with a divine mission; but like his Master he must exercise\nhis mission in the turmoil of life. He must not be a spoilsport at\nfeasts; his is no desert r\u00f4le like John the Baptist's. Christianity\nhas a mission from without; but its mission is fulfilled in loving\ncontact with the world of men.\n\n(=4=) =The Christian's Defense.=--The Christians who suffered\npersecution should first of all, according to Peter, defend\nthemselves to the very best of their ability. They should do their\nbest to remove dishonor from the name of Christ. They should show\nthe baselessness of the accusations which are brought against\nthem. Then, if they still suffer, it will be clearly suffering for\nChrist's sake. Such suffering is glorious. It is a test from which\nfaith emerges strong and sure, ch. 1:7; it is true conformity to the\nexample of Christ. Chs. 2:21-24; 3:18; 4:1,13.\n\n\n2. THE DATE OF THE PERSECUTIONS\n\nFrom the persecutions presupposed in First Peter no very certain\nconclusion can be drawn with regard to the date of the epistle.\nA late date has sometimes been inferred from such passages as I\nPeter 4:16. Christians were not punished as Christians, it is said,\nuntil the beginning of the second century, and especially no such\npersecution was carried out in the early period throughout the whole\nempire. Ch. 5:9.\n\nThis argument breaks down at a number of points. In the first\nplace, as has already been observed, it is by no means clear that\nFirst Peter presupposes a persecution of the Christians simply as\nChristians. Apparently special charges of immorality were still in\nthe foreground, though these charges were often mere pretexts in\norder to secure the punishment of members of the hated sect.\n\nIn the second place, it is not clear exactly when Christians first\nbegan to be punished as \"Christians\" by the Roman authorities.\nUndoubtedly the legal basis for such persecution was present as\nsoon as Christianity began to be regarded as separate from Judaism.\nJudaism had a legal status; Christianity, strictly speaking, had\nnone.\n\n\n3. DEPENDENCE AND ORIGINALITY\n\nFirst Peter is clearly dependent upon a number of the Pauline\nEpistles, and apparently also upon the Epistle of James. The\ndependence, however, is by no means slavish; the epistle possesses\nmarked characteristics of its own. As compared with Paul, for\nexample, First Peter is somewhat simpler both in thought and in\nexpression. No mere imitator, but a genuine personality, speaks to\nus from the noble simplicity of these pages.\n\n\n4. COMPARISON WITH THE SPEECHES OF PETER\n\nIt is interesting to compare this epistle with the early\nspeeches of Peter that are recorded in The Acts. Part of the\ndifference--similarities also have been pointed out--no doubt,\nwas due to the difference in the persons addressed. In those early\nspeeches, Peter was preaching to unconverted Jews, and had to\ncontent himself with a few outstanding facts. In the epistle, he\nwas addressing Christians, before whom he could lay bare the deep\nthings of the faith. Nevertheless, the passing years had brought a\nchange in Peter himself. Upon him as upon everyone else the mighty\ninfluence of Paul made itself felt; and even the revelation which\ncame directly to him was progressive. The essence of the gospel\nwas present from the beginning; but the rich unfolding of it which\nappears in First Peter was the product of long years spent in an\never-widening service.\n\n\n5. THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE\n\nThe style of First Peter, though not at all rhetorical, like that\nof Hebrews, is smooth and graceful. It has often been considered\nstrange that a fisherman of Galilee should have been so proficient\nin Greek. But probably we have an exaggerated notion of the poverty\nand roughness of the first disciples of Jesus. Undoubtedly they had\nnot enjoyed a rabbinical education; in the technical Jewish sense\nthey were \"unlearned and ignorant men.\" Acts 4:13. Nevertheless,\nthey clearly did not belong at all to the lowest of the population;\nPeter in particular seems to have been possessed of considerable\nproperty. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Greek culture\nin the first century was making itself felt very extensively in\nGalilee. No doubt Peter could use Greek even before he left Galilee,\nand in the course of his later life his linguistic attainments must\nhave been very greatly improved. It is by no means impossible that\nhe wrote First Peter entirely without assistance.\n\n\n6. SILVANUS\n\nIn order, however, to account for the linguistic excellence of this\nepistle, and in particular for the striking difference between it\nand Second Peter, a rather attractive hypothesis has been proposed.\nIn I Peter 5:12, Peter says: \"By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as\nI account him, I have written unto you briefly.\" Undoubtedly these\nwords may designate Silvanus merely as the messenger who carried\nthe letter to its destination. Compare Acts 15:23. It is also\npossible, however, that Peter meant to say that Silvanus had written\nthe letter under his direction. In that case the thought would be\ndue altogether to Peter; but the form, to some extent at least,\nwould be the work of Silvanus. The hypothesis, of course, is only\nplausible, not necessary. There are other ways of accounting for the\npeculiarities of the epistle.\n\nIn all probability, the Silvanus of First Peter is the same as\nthe Silvanus of the Pauline Epistles and the Silas of The Acts.\nIf so, his association with Peter is altogether natural; he was\noriginally a member of the Jerusalem church. If, in accordance with\nthe hypothesis which has just been mentioned, Silvanus was really\nconcerned in the composition of the epistle, the choice of such a\nman for the task was, as has been pointed out by the chief advocate\nof the hypothesis, exceedingly wise. Silvanus, who had been a\ncompanion of Paul and his associate in founding many of the churches\nof Asia Minor, would be just the man who could find the right tone\nin writing to the churches to which the epistle is addressed.\n\n\n7. MARK\n\nThe appearance of Mark in I Peter 5:13 confirms the strong tradition\nwhich makes Mark a disciple of Peter and associates him with Peter\nin the production of the Second Gospel. The only two individuals\nwhom Peter mentions in his First Epistle were both natives of\nJerusalem, and both, during part of their lives, companions of\nPaul. The unity of the apostolic Church was preserved not only by a\nunity of spirit, but also by the changing associations of Christian\nworkers.\n\n\n8. FORTITUDE IN THE MODERN CHURCH\n\nThe First Epistle of Peter has a varied message to the Church of\nto-day. Even in its exhortations to bravery and steadfastness it is\nvery much needed. We are not subject to persecution by the state,\nbut still there are a thousand circumstances of life in which we\nneed to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, casting all\nour anxiety upon him, because he careth for us. Ch. 5:6,7.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\"\npp. 267, 275-282. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Warfield\n(supplemented), article on \"Peter.\" M'Clymont, \"The New Testament\nand Its Writers,\" pp. 130-136. Ellicott, \"A New Testament Commentary\nfor English Readers,\" vol. iii, pp. 385-436: Mason, \"The First\nEpistle of St. Peter.\" Zahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\"\nvol. ii, pp. 134-194. The last-named work is intended primarily for\nthose who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by\nothers.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXV\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN'S ATTITUDE TOWARD ERROR AND IMMORALITY\n\nThe Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude\n\n\n1. AUTHENTICITY\n\nThe Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude are among\nthe least known and most seriously questioned parts of the New\nTestament. Even in ancient times their authenticity was disputed; in\nthe third and fourth centuries there were some at least who desired\nto exclude them from the New Testament. These ancient doubts have\nbeen continued in the modern Church. By very many scholars of the\npresent day, Second Peter and Jude are assigned to second-century\nwriters who falsely assumed the names of an apostle and of a brother\nof the Lord.\n\nAgainst such views as these, a number of arguments might be\nemployed. But the strongest argument of all is provided by\nthe self-witness of the epistles themselves. Second Peter, in\nparticular, not only lays claim to apostolic authorship in the\naddress, but is written throughout in the name of an apostle. Either\nit was really written by an apostle or else it was a deliberate\nfraud. The latter alternative is excluded by the epistle itself.\nSecond Peter does not look at all like a pseudonymous work, but is\na weighty bit of writing, full of the sincerest moral earnestness.\nBoth Second Peter and Jude ring true, with the genuine apostolic\nnote.\n\n\n2. SECOND PETER AND FIRST PETER\n\nResemblances have often been pointed out among all three divisions\nof the New Testament material attributed to Peter. Second Peter has\nbeen shown to resemble not only First Peter, but also the speeches\nof Peter as they are reported in The Acts. Such similarities of\ncourse point to a common authorship. It cannot be denied, however,\nthat differences stand side by side with the similarities. In the\ncomparison of the epistles with the speeches, such differences are\nof course not surprising. The total difference of subject and the\nwide interval of time provide an amply sufficient explanation. But\nhow is it with the difference between Second Peter and First Peter?\n\n(=1=) =Difference of Purpose and Subject.=--In the first place, the\ndifference may be partly explained by the difference of purpose and\nsubject. First Peter is a presentation of the glories of the faith\nin order to encourage Christians under trial and make them feel\ntheir separateness from the world; Second Peter is a solemn warning\nagainst dangerous perverters of the life of the Church.\n\n(=2=) =Difference of Time.=--In the second place, a considerable\ninterval of time may separate the two epistles. Here we find\nourselves on uncertain ground. On the whole it is perhaps better to\nput the epistles near together at the close of Peter's life.\n\n(=3=) =Work of Silvanus.=--In the third place, recourse may be had\nto the hypothesis, mentioned in the last lesson, which attributes a\nconsiderable share in the composition of First Peter to Silvanus.\n\n(=4=) =Conclusion.=--Finally, there may be still further\npossibilities of explanation which cannot now be detected. The\ndifferences of style and of thought between the two epistles of\nPeter are far from sufficient to show diversity of authorship, and\nit must be remembered that similarities are to be balanced against\nthe differences.\n\n\n3. VALUE OF SECOND PETER AND JUDE\n\nAlthough Second Peter and Jude are not so familiar as most of the\nNew Testament, yet even these two brief epistles have entered deep\ninto the mind and heart of the Church.\n\n(=1=) =Expressive Phrases.=--Even the inimitably expressive phrases\nand sentences that have been derived from the epistles have produced\nno small enrichment of Christian life. The \"exceeding great and\nprecious promises,\" and the \"partakers of the divine nature\" of II\nPeter 1:4, the chain of virtues in vs. 5-7, the \"make your calling\nand election sure\" of v. 10, the \"sure word of prophecy\" of v. 19,\nthe description of inspired prophecy in vs. 20, 21--\"no prophecy of\nthe scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy\ncame not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake\nas they were moved by the Holy Ghost\"--the \"vexed his righteous\nsoul\" of ch. 2:8, the \"railing accusation\" of v. 11; Jude 9, the\n\"stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance\" of II Peter 3:1,\nthe \"not willing that any should perish, but that all should come\nto repentance\" of v. 9, the \"faith which was once delivered unto\nthe saints\" of Jude 3, the magnificent doxology of vs. 24, 25--a\nreview of these passages as they appear in the King James Version\nwill bring some realization of the profound influence which even the\nmost obscure books of the New Testament have exerted both upon the\nEnglish language and upon the character of Christian men.\n\nThe influence of Second Peter and Jude, however, is not merely\nthe influence of isolated phrases. The epistles as a whole have a\ndistinctive message for the Church. That message is twofold. It\nembraces in the first place an emphasis upon authority, and in the\nsecond place an insistence upon holiness.\n\n(=2= =)The Emphasis Upon Authority.=--The adversaries who are\ncombated in Second Peter and Jude were impatient of restraint.\nApparently they distinguished themselves, as possessing the Spirit,\nfrom the ordinary Christians, as being merely \"natural.\" Jude 5, 19;\nII Peter 2:12. They appealed to their own deeper insight, instead of\nlistening to what apostles and prophets had to say. In reply, Peter\nand Jude insisted upon the authority of the Old Testament prophets,\nand upon the authority of the apostles, which was ultimately the\nauthority of Christ. See especially II Peter 3:2.\n\nA similar insistence upon authority is greatly needed to-day.\nAgain men are inclined to appeal to an inward light as justifying\nfreedom from ancient restraints; the Christian consciousness is\nbeing exalted above the Bible. At such a time, renewed attention\nto Second Peter and Jude would be salutary. False notions are rife\nto-day with regard to apostolic authority. They can be corrected\nby our epistles. Peter as well as Paul exerts his authority not in\nan official or coldly ecclesiastical way, but with an inimitable\nbrotherliness. The authority of the apostles is the authority of\ngood news. Subjection to such authority is perfect freedom.\n\nThe authority which Peter and Jude urge upon their readers is a\ndouble authority--in the first place the authority of the Old\nTestament, and in the second place the authority of Christ exerted\nthrough the apostles. For us, however, the two become one. The\napostles, like the Old Testament prophets, speak to us only through\nthe Bible. We need to learn the lesson. A return to the Bible is the\ndeepest need of the modern Church. It would mean a return to God.\n\n(=3=) =Insistence Upon Holiness.=--The second characteristic of\nSecond Peter and Jude is the insistence upon holiness. Religion\nis by no means always connected with goodness. In the Greco-Roman\nworld, the two were often entirely separate. Many pagan cults\ncontained no ethical element whatever. The danger was therefore very\ngreat that Christianity might be treated in the same way. The early\nChristians needed to be admonished ever and again that their God was\na God of righteousness, that no unclean thing could stand in his\npresence.\n\nInsistence upon holiness is in itself no peculiarity of Second\nPeter and Jude. It runs all through the New Testament. But in these\nepistles it is directed more definitely perhaps than anywhere else\nagainst the opposite error. The opponents of Peter and Jude did\nnot merely drift into immorality; they defended it on theoretical\ngrounds. They were making a deliberate effort to reduce Christianity\nto the level of a non-ethical religion. Such theoretical defense of\nimmorality appears, indeed, in a number of places in the apostolic\nChurch. A certain party in Corinth, for example, made a wrong\nuse of Christian freedom. But what is more or less incidental in\nFirst Corinthians forms the main subject of Second Peter and Jude.\nChristianity is here insisting upon its thoroughly ethical character.\n\nAt first sight the message might seem obsolete to-day. We always\nassociate religion with morality; we can hardly understand how the\ntwo ever could have been separated. It is to be feared, however,\nthat the danger is not altogether past. In our thoughts we preserve\nthe ethical character of Christianity. But how is it with our lives?\nHow is it with our religious observances? Are we not constantly in\ndanger of making religion a mere cult, a mere emotional excitement,\na mere means of gaining earthly or heavenly advantages, a mere\neffort to bribe God by our worship? The danger is always with us.\nWe need always to remind ourselves that Christian faith must work\nitself out in holy living.\n\nPeter in his second epistle has provided us with one important means\nto that end. It is the thought of Christ's coming. There can be no\nlaxness in moral effort if we remember the judgment seat of Christ.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\"\npp. 267-270, 282-285. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Warfield\n(supplemented), article on \"Jude.\" M'Clymont, \"The New Testament and\nIts Writers,\" pp. 137-143. Ellicott, \"A New Testament Commentary\nfor English Readers,\" vol. iii, pp. 437-463, 505-519: Plummer,\n\"The Second Epistle of St. Peter\" and \"The Epistle of St. Jude.\"\nZahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. ii, pp. 194-293.\nThe last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some\nknowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXVI\n\nTHE LIFE OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD\n\nThe Epistles of John\n\n\n1. AUTHORSHIP OF THE FIRST EPISTLE\n\nThe First Epistle of John does not contain the name of its author.\nAccording to tradition, however, it was written by the apostle\nJohn, and tradition is here supported by the characteristics of the\nepistle itself. The author of the epistle was evidently the same as\nthe author of the Fourth Gospel. The marked similarity in style can\nbe explained in no other way. Even the careless reader observes that\nthe style of the Fourth Gospel is very peculiar. Short sentences are\njoined to one another with the utmost simplicity; the vocabulary is\nlimited, but contains expressions of extraordinary richness; the\ntotal effect is singularly powerful. These same characteristics,\nthough they are so peculiar, appear also in the epistle. There is\nthe same simplicity of sentence structure, the same use of such\nterms as \"life\" and \"light\" and \"love,\" the same indescribable\nspirit and tone. Yet the epistle is no slavish imitation of the\nGospel--differences stand side by side with the similarities. These\ntwo works are evidently related, not as model and copy, but as\nliving productions of the same remarkable personality.\n\n\n2. TESTIMONY OF AN EYEWITNESS\n\nAs in the Gospel, so also in the epistle the author presents himself\nclearly as an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, I John 1:1-3; 4:14;\nas in the Gospel he lays stress upon simple testimony. Even those\nthings which have just been noticed as characteristic of his style\nare connected ultimately with the teaching of Jesus. In both Gospel\nand epistle, the beloved disciple has reproduced what he heard\nin Galilee and in Judea, though in both he has made the memory a\nliving, spiritual fact.\n\n\n3. DESTINATION AND DATE\n\nThe First Epistle of John is perhaps scarcely to be called an\nepistle at all. Practically all the characteristics of a letter are\nmissing. There is no address; there is no greeting at the close;\nthere are no personal details. The readers are indeed referred to\nin the second person; but preachers as well as letter-writers say,\n\"you.\" First John is a sort of general address written probably to\nsome extended group of churches.\n\nThese churches are probably to be sought in Asia Minor. Throughout\nthe epistle the readers are addressed in a fatherly tone. See, for\nexample, ch. 2:1. Evidently the writer was well known as a sort of\npatriarch throughout an extended region. Such conditions prevailed\nin Asia Minor after the apostle John had begun to reside at Ephesus.\nTrustworthy tradition as well as the New Testament informs us of a\nperiod in the apostle's life when he had outlived all or most of\nthe other apostles and was revered as the head of the Asian church.\nAt some time within this period--probably nearer the end than the\nbeginning--the First Epistle of John was written.\n\n\n4. THE FALSE TEACHERS\n\nThe form of error against which the epistle is directed becomes\nclearest, perhaps in ch. 4:2,3. The false teachers had denied that\nJesus Christ was come in the flesh. This may be interpreted in\nseveral different ways.\n\n(=1=) =Docetism.=--In the first place, John may mean that the\nopponents simply denied the reality of the earthly life of Jesus.\nSuch a form of error is by no means unknown in the history of the\nChurch. It is called \"Docetism.\" According to Docetism the Son of\nGod did not really live a human life--with human sufferings and a\nhuman death--but only appeared to do so.\n\n(=2=) =Cerinthus.=--In the second place, the meaning of the passage\nmay be that the opponents denied the unity of the person of Jesus\nChrist. Compare ch. 2:22. Some persons in the early Church supposed\nthat there were two separate persons in the figure that is described\nin the Gospels. A heavenly being, the Christ, it was thought, united\nhimself with the man Jesus at the time when the dove descended after\nthe baptism. Matt. 3:16,17. Such was the view of Cerinthus, who is\ndeclared by tradition to have been an opponent of the apostle John\nat Ephesus. It has been suggested, therefore, that it was actually\nCerinthus, with his disciples, who is combated in the First Epistle\nof John.\n\n(=3=) =Denial of the Incarnation.=--Both Cerinthus and the Docetists\ndenied the reality of the incarnation--both denied that the Son of\nGod actually assumed a human nature and lived a complete human life.\nAccording to Cerinthus and others like him, the Christ stood only\nin somewhat loose relation to the man Jesus. He was united with him\nonly late in life, he left him before the crucifixion. On this view,\nit was not the Christ who lay in the manger at Bethlehem, it was not\nthe Christ who suffered on the cross. Cerinthus, like the Docetists,\nkept the Son of God out of any close relation to the world and to us.\n\n(=4=) =John's Reply.=--Against some such view as one of these, John\nwas concerned to establish the reality of the incarnation--the truth\nthat \"the Word became flesh.\" In the Gospel, that truth underlies\nthe whole of the narrative; in the First Epistle it is directly\ndefended against the opposing error. It is defended first of all\nby an appeal to what the writer had seen and heard. \"We knew Jesus\nin Palestine,\" says John in effect, \"and we can testify that Jesus\nhimself was none other than the Christ, the Son of God.\" I John,\n1:1-4.\n\n(=5=) =John, the Opponents, and Cerinthus.=--The false teachers who\nare combated in the epistle had apparently withdrawn from the Church\nand formed a separate sect. I John 2:19. Their separateness of mind\nand heart and life had found expression in open schism. Whether\nthey are to be identified with disciples of Cerinthus is at least\ndoubtful. False speculation about the person of Christ no doubt\nassumed many forms in the closing years of the first century.\n\n\n5. CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE\n\nIn III John 9, the apostle tells Gaius that he had written \"somewhat\nunto the church.\" This letter to the church may have been written\nat some previous time. It is also possible, however, that it was\nwritten together with the letter to Gaius. The Greek word for\n\"I wrote\" admits of that interpretation. If that interpretation\nbe correct, then John perhaps means to say that although he has\nwritten a letter to the church he could not in that letter urge\nthe hospitable reception of the missionaries. For the present, the\ninfluence of Diotrephes was too strong. The letter to the church had\nto be concerned with other matters.\n\nIf this view of the letter mentioned in III John 9 be adopted, then\nthe Second Epistle of John corresponds to the description. The\nSecond Epistle is addressed to a church, and it is written with\nsome reserve. If \"certain\" of the children of \"the elect lady\"\nwere walking in truth, II John 4, the inference is that others\nwere conducting themselves very differently. Evidently there was\ndanger of false teaching among the readers. Hospitality to men like\nDemetrius and his companions could hardly be expected of such a\nchurch. If hospitality should be practiced, it was only too likely\nto be hospitality to men of a very different stamp. Vs. 10, 11.\n\nPossibly, therefore, the Second Epistle of John is actually the\nletter that is referred to in III John 9, a letter to the church\nof which Gaius was a member. This hypothesis is supported by\nthe striking formal similarity of the two letters. They are of\nalmost exactly the same length; the openings and especially the\nconclusions, II John 12, 13; III John 13, 14, are couched in almost\nexactly the same terms. They look very much like twin epistles,\nwritten on two sheets of papyrus of the same size.\n\nOf course the hypothesis is by no means certain. Perhaps the\nletter referred to in III John 9 was a previous letter bespeaking\nhospitality, which had failed of its effect. When the apostle saw,\nfrom the answer or lack of answer to the previous letter, that the\nchurch was ill disposed, he had recourse to an individual member of\nit. Even in this case, however, it remains probable that our two\nepistles were written at about the same time.\n\n\n6. VALUE OF THE SHORTER EPISTLES\n\nThese last two epistles of John do not deserve the neglect which\nthey have sometimes suffered. Despite their brevity--they are the\nshortest books of the New Testament--they are instructive in a\nnumber of ways.\n\n(=1=) =Historical.=--It is exceedingly interesting, for example,\nto compare them with the private letters of the same period which\nhave recently been discovered in Egypt--see Lesson III, Teacher's\nManual, in this course. In form, the opening of the Third Epistle\nis very much in the manner of the papyrus letters. Compare, for\nexample, with III John 1-4 the following opening of a letter of the\nsecond century after Christ: \"Apion to Epimachus his father and lord\nheartiest greetings. First of all I pray that you are in health and\ncontinually prosper and fare well with my sister and daughter and\nmy brother. I thank the lord Serapis....\" (The translation is that\nof Professor Milligan. See p. 20 of Teacher's Manual, Part I, of\nthis course.) The differences, however, are even more instructive\nthan the resemblances. What was said in Lesson I about the epistles\nof Paul applies in full measure to the epistles of John. Even the\nepistolary forms are here modified so as to be the vehicle of a new\nmessage and a new spirit.\n\nFurthermore, the two epistles, especially Third John, cast a flood\nof light upon the internal development of the Church. In one\nrespect indeed the historical significance of the Third Epistle has\nsometimes been exaggerated. It is not true that we have here the\nemergence of the monarchical episcopate--that is, the pre\u00ebminence\nof one presbyter, called a \"bishop,\" over his brother presbyters.\nDiotrephes does not appear clearly as a bishop. At about A. D. 110\nin the epistles of Ignatius the episcopate is very prominent; but\nThird John belongs to an earlier period.\n\nNevertheless, this concrete picture of the internal affairs of\na late first-century church is absolutely unique. The period is\nvery obscure; these few brief lines illumine it more than pages of\nnarrative. The traveling preachers of Third John are particularly\ninteresting. Similar missionaries appear also in the \"Didache,\" a\nsort of church manual which may probably be dated in the early part\nof the second century. In that later period, however, care had to be\ntaken lest the hospitality of the churches should be abused. \"But\nlet every apostle,\" says the writer--the word \"apostle\" is used in\na very broad sense to designate wandering preachers--\"who comes to\nyou be received as the Lord. He shall remain, however, no more than\none day, or if necessary two. If he remains three days he is a false\nprophet.\" Such precautions, we may be sure, were not needed in the\ncase of Demetrius and his companions.\n\n(=2=) =Practical.=--Despite its individual address and private\ncharacter, the Third Epistle of John is not an ordinary private\nletter. Like all the books of the New Testament, it has a message\nfor the entire Church. The devout reader rises from the perusal of\nit with a more steadfast devotion to the truth and a warmer glow of\nChristian love.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\"\npp. 272-274, 294-308. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves\n(supplemented), article on \"John, Epistles of.\" M'Clymont, \"The New\nTestament and Its Writers,\" pp. 144-149. Ellicott, \"A New Testament\nCommentary for English Readers,\" vol. iii, pp. 467-502: Sinclair,\n\"The Epistles of St. John.\" Westcott, \"The Epistles of St. John.\"\nZahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. iii, pp. 355-384.\nThe two last-named works are intended primarily for those who have\nsome knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXVII\n\nTHE MESSAGES OF THE LIVING CHRIST\n\nThe Book of Revelation (First Lesson)\n\n\n1. THE APOCALYPSE AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN\n\nIn the Student's Text Book it was maintained that the Apocalypse was\nwritten by John the son of Zebedee. The strongest objection to this\nview is to be found in the striking difference of language and style\nwhich exists between the Apocalypse on the one side and the Gospel\nand Epistles of John on the other. The style of the Apocalypse is\nextraordinarily rough; in it the most elementary laws of Greek\ngrammar are sometimes disregarded. Such peculiarities appear\nscarcely at all in the Gospel; the language of the Gospel, though\nsimple, is perfectly grammatical.\n\nThis observation has led many scholars to decide that the Gospel and\nthe Apocalypse never could have been written by the same person;\nthe argument, indeed, was advanced as early as the third century by\nDionysius of Alexandria. Those who thus deny the unity of authorship\ndo not all reject either one book or the other as authoritative;\nsome suppose that the John whose name appears in the Apocalypse,\nthough not the same as John the son of Zebedee, was a genuine\nprophet.\n\nThe evidence, however, for attributing all the Johannine books to\nthe son of Zebedee is exceedingly strong. If the Apocalypse is to\nbe attributed to some one else, tradition is very seriously at\nfault, and it is also very difficult to see how another John could\nhave introduced himself to the churches of Asia Minor in the way\nthat the author does at the beginning and end of the book without\ndistinguishing himself from the greater man of the same name who\nwas residing at Ephesus at the very same time. The Apocalypse\nmust therefore be assigned to the son of Zebedee unless there is\nabsolutely unimpeachable evidence to the contrary.\n\nSuch evidence is not really forthcoming. The difference of style\nbetween the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel is capable of\nexplanation.\n\n(=1=) =Possible Difference of Date.=--In the first place, it might\nbe explained by a wide difference of date. If the Apocalypse was\nwritten at about A. D. 68, then an interval of some twenty-five\nyears or more separates it from the Gospel. Such an interval would\nallow plenty of time for the style of the author to change. When the\nGalilean fisherman first left his home in Palestine, his command\nof the Greek language might conceivably be slight; whereas after a\nlong residence in Asia Minor, as leader of a group of Greek-speaking\nchurches, the roughness of his style would be removed. Hence the\nun-Greek, strongly Hebraistic usages of the Apocalypse would in the\nGospel naturally give place to a correct, though simple style.\n\nThis hypothesis, however, is beset with serious difficulties. It\nis difficult to suppose that the Apocalypse was written before the\nclosing decade of the first century. Some passages, it is true, have\nbeen strongly urged in favor of the early date. Particularly the\nreference to the seven kings in Rev. 17:10 has been thought by many\nexcellent scholars to be decisive. The reference to the seven hills\nin the preceding verse seems to show that the \"beast\" represents\nRome; the seven kings therefore naturally represent Roman emperors.\nThe fifth emperor, beginning with Augustus, was Nero. If at the time\nwhen the book was written five were fallen, one was and the other\nwas not yet come, v. 10, the book must apparently have been written\nunder Nero's successor. His successor, Galba, reigned only a few\nmonths: the book was therefore written in A. D. 68 or 69. Or if the\nvery brief reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius be not counted, then\nthe book was written between A. D. 69 and 79, during the reign of\nVespasian.\n\nThe passage remains, however, so obscure that it is very doubtful\nwhether any one interpretation of it should be allowed to\noverbalance the evidence for the later date. Such evidence is\nabundant. Most weighty of all, perhaps, is the strong tradition\nwhich places the Apocalypse in the closing years of Domitian. It\nis hard to believe that that tradition is seriously at fault. The\ncondition of the Church, moreover, as it is presupposed in the book,\nis more naturally to be sought at A. D. 95 than twenty-five years\nearlier. The persecution, for example, which the writer describes,\nseems far more like the persecution under Domitian than it is like\nthe outbreak which was occasioned by the cruelty of Nero.\n\n=(2) The Difference of Subject.=--If the later date be accepted,\nthen the Gospel and the Apocalypse were written in the same period\nof the apostle's life, and the difference of style cannot be\nexplained by a difference of date. Another explanation, however, is\nsufficient. The difference between the two books may be explained\nby the total difference of subject. The Gospel is a narrative of\nJesus' life, written with abundant opportunity for reflection; the\nApocalypse is a record of wonderful visions, where stylistic nicety\nwould have marred the immediateness of the revelation. The very\nroughness of the Apocalypse is valuable as expressing the character\nof the book. In the Gospel, John brought to bear all his power of\nreflection and of expression; in the Apocalypse, he wrote in haste\nunder the overpowering influence of a transcendent experience.\n\nThe grammatical irregularities of the Apocalypse, moreover, often\ncreate the impression that they are intentional. They belonged,\napparently, to an apocalyptic style which to a certain extent had\nalready been formed; they were felt to be suited to the peculiar\ncharacter of the work.\n\nFinally, it must not be forgotten that side by side with the\ndifferences of style there are some remarkable similarities. The\nunderlying unity of thought and expression points to unity of\nauthorship.\n\n\n2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APOCALYPSE\n\n(=1=) =A Record of Visions.=--In what has just been said, the\ndominant peculiarity of the Apocalypse has already been indicated.\nThe Apocalypse is no careful literary composition, pieced together\nfrom previous works of a similar character. On the contrary, it is a\nrecord of genuine revelations. Before writing, the seer was \"in the\nSpirit.\"\n\n(=2=) =Influence of the Old Testament.=--Nevertheless, although\nthe Apocalypse is a record of visions, and was written consciously\nunder the impulsion of the Spirit, it is by no means uninfluenced\nby previous works. To a degree that is perhaps not paralleled by\nany other New Testament book, the Apocalypse is suffused with the\nlanguage and with the imagery of the Old Testament. Though there is\nnot a single formal quotation, the Old Testament Scriptures have\ninfluenced almost every sentence of the book. Particularly the books\nof Ezekiel and Daniel, which, like the Apocalypse, are composed\nlargely of the records of visions, have supplied much of the imagery\nof the New Testament work.\n\nThis wide-spread influence of the Old Testament upon the Apocalypse\nis by no means surprising. The Apocalypse is based upon direct\nrevelation, but direct revelation is not necessarily out of relation\nto everything else. On the contrary, it uses the language which its\nrecipients can understand; and part of the language of the apostle\nJohn was the phraseology and imagery of the Old Testament.\n\nIt has already been hinted that works very similar in form to the\nApocalypse are to be found in the Old Testament. This apocalyptic\nform was continued in a number of Jewish works written after the\nconclusion of the Old Testament canon. Superficially these works\nbear considerable resemblance to the New Testament Apocalypse;\nbut closer examination reveals profound differences. The Jewish\napocalypses appeared under assumed names--the most important of\nthem under the name of Enoch--while John is so firmly convinced of\nhaving received genuine revelation that he requires no such spurious\nauthority for his work. The similarity between our Apocalypse and\nits extra-canonical Jewish predecessors and contemporaries is a\nsimilarity at most of form; in spirit and content the difference is\nincalculable. Unlike these other works, the Apocalypse is a genuine\nprophecy.\n\n\n3. THE MESSAGES TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES\n\nThe so-called letters to the seven churches were never intended to\nbe circulated separately. From the beginning the letters formed part\nof the Apocalypse, which was addressed to all seven of the churches.\nFrom the beginning, therefore, each of the letters was intended to\nbe read not only by the church whose name it bears, but also by all\nthe others. The seven churches, moreover, are representative of the\nChurch at large.\n\nNevertheless, despite the universal purpose of the letters, they\nare very concrete in the information that they provide about the\nchurches in Asia Minor. Like the Second and Third Epistles of John\nthey illumine an exceedingly obscure period in the history of\nChristianity.\n\n(=1=) =The \"Angels\" of the Churches.=--Some details in the letters,\nit is true, are to us obscure. What, for example, is meant by the\n\"angels\" of the churches to which the several letters are addressed?\nThe Greek word translated \"angel\" may also mean simply \"messenger.\"\nConceivably, it might designate merely a congregational officer.\nMany have supposed that it designates a bishop. In the epistles\nof Ignatius, which were written not very many years after the\nApocalypse, the term \"bishop\" is applied to an officer who had\nsupreme authority over a congregation including the presbyters. The\nappearance of these \"angels\" or \"messengers\" in the Apocalypse has\nbeen urged as proof that John as well as Ignatius recognized the\ninstitution of the episcopacy.\n\nSurely, however, the matter is more than doubtful. The Greek word\nused, whether it be translated \"angel\" or \"messenger,\" is a very\nstrange designation of a bishop. Moreover, in the rest of the\nJohannine literature there is no recognition of the episcopacy. In\nthe Third Epistle of John, for example, even if Diotrephes had set\nhimself up as a bishop--which is itself exceedingly doubtful--his\nclaim is certainly not accepted by the apostle.\n\nOn the whole, it seems better to regard the \"angels\" to which the\nseven letters of the Apocalypse are addressed merely as ideal\nrepresentatives of the churches--representatives conceived of\nperhaps as guardian angels. Compare Matt. 18:10.\n\n(=2=) =The Nicolaitans.=--Another puzzling question concerns the\n\"Nicolaitans\" who appear in several of the letters. The name itself\nis obscure. By tradition it is connected with that Nicola\u00fcs of\nAntioch who was one of the seven men appointed in the early days of\nthe Jerusalem church to attend to the administration of charity.\nActs 6:5. The tradition may possibly be correct. If it is correct,\nthen Nicola\u00fcs, in his later life, had not justified the confidence\noriginally reposed in him.\n\nAt the first mention of the Nicolaitans, in the letter to Ephesus,\nRev. 2:6, nothing whatever is said about their tenets. Their error,\nhowever, was not merely theoretical, but practical, for it was their\n\"works\" that the Lord is represented as hating. In the letter to\nPergamum, the Nicolaitans are probably meant in v. 14. Like Balaam,\nthey enticed the people of God to idolatry and impurity. The form\nwhich their idolatry took was the eating of meats offered to idols.\nThe question of meats offered to idols was no simple matter. In the\nFirst Epistle to the Corinthians Paul had permitted the eating of\nsuch meats under certain circumstances, but had sternly forbidden it\nwherever it involved real or supposed participation in idolatrous\nworship. The form in which it was favored by the Nicolaitans\nevidently fell under the latter category. In a time of persecution,\nthe temptation to guilty compromise with heathenism must have been\ninsidious; and also the low morality of the Asian cities threatened\never and again to drag Christian people back into the impure life of\nthe world.\n\nIn the letter to Thyatira, also, \"the woman Jezebel\" is apparently\nto be connected with the same sect, for the practical faults in\nThyatira and in Pergamum were identical. Jezebel, the Phoenician\nwife of Ahab, was, like Balaam, a striking Old Testament example\nof one who led Israel into sin. It is significant that the woman\nJezebel in Thyatira called herself a prophetess. Rev. 2:20. This\ncircumstance seems to indicate that the Nicolaitans had excused\ntheir moral laxness by an appeal to special revelations. The\nimpression is confirmed by v. 24. Apparently the Nicolaitans had\nboasted of their knowledge of the \"deep things,\" and had despised\nthe simple Christians who contented themselves with a holy life. At\nany rate, whatever particular justification the Nicolaitans advanced\nfor their immoral life, they could not deceive the all-searching eye\nof Christ. Their \"deep things\" were deep things, not of God, but of\nSatan!\n\nWho is meant by \"the woman Jezebel\"? Some interpreters, who suppose\nthat the \"angel\" of the church was the bishop, regard Jezebel as\na designation of the bishop's wife. This whole interpretation is,\nhowever, beset with serious difficulty. Perhaps \"the woman Jezebel\"\ndoes not refer to an individual at all, but is simply a figurative\ndesignation of the Nicolaitan sect. The description of the coming\nretribution in vs. 21-23 seems to be highly figurative.\n\nIt will be observed that the sin of the churches at Pergamum\nand Thyatira was not limited to those who actually accepted the\nNicolaitan teaching. Even to endure the presence of the guilty\nsect was the object of the Lord's rebuke. Toward the works of the\nNicolaitans only hatred was in place. Rev. 2:6. That is a solemn\nlesson for modern indifferentism. Tolerance is good; but there are\ntimes when it is a deadly sin.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, \"Christianity in the Apostolic Age,\"\npp. 274, 308-312. Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Purves\n(supplemented), article on \"Revelation.\" M'Clymont, \"The New\nTestament and Its Writers,\" pp. 150-155. Milligan, \"Lectures on the\nApocalypse\" and \"Discussions on the Apocalypse.\" Ellicott, \"A New\nTestament Commentary for English Readers,\" vol. iii, pp. 523-641:\nCarpenter, \"The Revelation of St. John.\" Ramsay, \"The Letters to\nthe Seven Churches of Asia.\" Plumptre, \"A Popular Exposition of the\nEpistles to the Seven Churches of Asia.\" Swete, \"The Apocalypse of\nSt. John.\" Zahn, \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" vol. iii, pp.\n384-449. The two last-named works are intended primarily for those\nwho have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXVIII\n\nA VISION OF THE FINAL TRIUMPH\n\nThe Book of Revelation (Second Lesson)\n\n\n1. THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE APOCALYPSE\n\nThe interpretations of the Apocalypse may be divided into four\nclasses.\n\n(=1=) =Unfulfilled Prophecies.=--According to one method of\ninterpretation, the prophecies of the book are all unfulfilled. In\nthe last days there will be a mighty revival of evil like that which\nis symbolized by the dragon and the beast and the false prophet,\nthere will be plagues and woes like those which are described in\nconnection with the seals and the trumpets and the bowls, and there\nwill be a triumph of God's people and an eternal blessedness of the\nnew Jerusalem. This interpretation would place the Apocalypse out of\nanalogy with the other prophecies of the Bible. Prophecy is seldom\nout of all connection with the immediate present. Even where the\nprophetic vision reaches to the very end of time, the fulfillment\nor the preparation for the fulfillment is usually represented as\nbeginning at once. In the Apocalypse, as in other prophecy, there is\nevident reference to the circumstances of the original readers.\n\n(=2=) =Contemporary Events.=--A second method of interpretation goes\nto an opposite extreme. By this method the prophecies of the book\nare thought to be concerned merely with events of the writer's own\nage. \"The beast\" is the Roman Empire; \"Babylon\" is the city of Rome;\nthe author expected the destruction of both to take place within\na few years' time. In its thoroughgoing form this interpretation\nalso is to be rejected. It degrades the Apocalypse to the level of\na mistaken prediction, and reduces the self-evidencing glories of\nthe book to trivialities. Evidently the outlook of the seer was\nfar broader and far more spiritual than it is represented by the\nadvocates of this interpretation.\n\n(=3=) =The Whole History of the Church.=--By a third method of\ninterpretation, the first two methods are combined. The book is\nwritten distinctly in view of conditions of the first century, its\npredictions concern partly the immediate future; but there is also\nan outlook upon remoter ages. By this interpretation the prophecies\nare held to provide an epitome of the whole of history from the\nfirst coming of Christ to his second coming.\n\n(=4=) =Mixture of Discordant Traditions.=--A fourth method of\ninterpretation, which has become influential in very recent years,\nabandons all hope of discovering a unitary message in the book, and\nproceeds to divide it into its component parts. The analysis was\ncarried on first by literary criticism. An older work of the time\nof Nero was supposed to have been revised at a later period; or\nnon-Christian Jewish works were supposed to have been incorporated\nin the present work by a Christian compiler. This sort of literary\ncriticism has in the last few years given place sometimes to a\nsubtler method. Investigation is now directed to the materials of\nwhich the book is composed, whether those materials were embodied\nin previous literary works or only in previous traditions. The\nultimate source of much of the material is found in Babylonia or\nother eastern countries; this material is thought to be not always\nin accord with the context into which in our Apocalypse it has been\nintroduced.\n\nThis method must emphatically be rejected. It contains, indeed,\nan element of truth. Undoubtedly the Apocalypse makes use of\nalready-existing materials. But these materials are, for the most\npart at least, of genuinely Hebrew origin; and they have been\nthoroughly assimilated for the purposes of the present prophecy.\nThe Apocalypse is not a compilation full of contradictions, but a\nunitary work, with one great message for the Church.\n\n(=5=) =Wrong Use of the Third Method.=--Of these four methods of\ninterpretation the third has been adopted in the Student's Text\nBook. The prophecies of the Apocalypse concern the entire history of\nthe Church. Undoubtedly this interpretation is subject to abuse. It\nhas been employed in the interests of special controversy, as when\nthe Protestants saw in the scarlet woman a representation of papal\nRome.\n\n(=6=) =Principles, Not Individual Facts.=--All such abuses may be\navoided, however, if the interpreter will remember that the book\ndeals with great principles, rather than with individual facts. The\nbeast is neither the Roman Catholic Church, nor the religion of\nMohammed, nor the Turkish Empire. Undoubtedly it expressed itself in\nsome phases of each of those institutions. But no one of them can be\nidentified with it outright. The beast of the Apocalypse is nothing\nless than the blatant, godless power of worldly empire, however that\npower may be manifested. At the time of John it was manifested\nespecially in the empire of Rome. Even Rome, however, cannot be\nidentified with the beast entirely without qualification. Even Rome\nhad its beneficent side. John as well as Paul, even in the fire\nof persecution, might have expressed the thought of Rom. 13:1-7.\nPeter also wrote in the midst of persecution; yet Peter could say,\n\"Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether\nto the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for\nvengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well.\" I\nPeter 2:13,14.\n\nThe other side of Rome's power, it is true, was prominent at the\nclose of the first century. More systematically than before,\nRome had begun to persecute the Church of God. By the demand of\nemperor-worship she had tried to put her stamp upon the followers of\nJesus. Through her priesthood she had endeavored to lead men astray.\nIn these things she was a manifestation of the beast. As such she\nwas execrated and resisted to the death by every loyal Christian.\nThere could be no hope of compromise. Hope lay rather in the power\nof God. God would give the just reward; God would give the final\nvictory. Such was the message of the Apocalypse.\n\nThe message is of perennial value. The beast is not yet dead. His\nmethods are different, but still he oppresses the Church. Wherever\nhis power is felt--whether in ruthless oppression or impious warfare\nor degrading superstition--there the prophecy of John is a comfort\nand an inspiration to the people of God.\n\nUndoubtedly this method of interpretation, which detects in the book\nprinciples rather than individual facts, involves a reduction in the\namount of direct information which the Apocalypse may be thought to\ngive. A detailed account, whether of the progress of the Church, or\nof the final catastrophe, is by this interpretation no longer found\nin the book.\n\n\n2. THE THOUSAND YEARS\n\nAt one point at least, this conclusion has been regarded by many\ndevout Christians as involving a serious loss. That point is\nconcerned with the thousand years of Rev. 20:1-8. According to the\ninterpretation that has just been advocated, the thousand years are\nmerely a symbol for the time of the present Christian dispensation,\nand the rule which the saints are represented as bearing with\nChrist probably refers to the condition of the blessed dead up to\nthe final resurrection. To many devout readers of the Bible this\ninterpretation seems to be an impoverishment of the prophet's\nwords. In reality, they maintain, the passage predicts a return of\nJesus to earth before the final judgment, and a long period of his\nblessed sway.\n\nUndoubtedly this more literal interpretation of the millennium seems\nat first sight to be required by certain phrases of the passage.\nBut the highly figurative character of apocalyptic language must\nalways be borne in mind. Numbers, in the Apocalypse, are usually\nsymbolic; so it may be with the thousand years. During the present\ndispensation Satan is in one sense bound, and in another sense he\nis free. In principle he has been conquered; but in the sphere of\nworldly power he continues to work his wrathful will.\n\n\n3. THE CHRISTIAN HOPE\n\nOne thing at least is clear. No interpretation of the Apocalypse is\ncorrect if it fails to do justice to the hope of Christ's return.\nIf the figurative interpretation weakens our expectation of that\ndread meeting with the Lord, then it is untrue to the mind of the\nSpirit. There are difficulties connected with the idea of a literal\nmillennium; but such difficulties are inconsiderable in comparison\nwith those that result from any rationalizing, any explaining away,\nof the universal Christian hope. The Apocalypse, according to any\nright interpretation, is a vision of final triumph.\n\nThat triumph is a triumph of Christ. Back of all the lurid imagery\nof the book, back of the battles and the woes, and back of the\nglories of God's people, stands the figure of the Saviour. With him\nthe book began, and with him, too, it ends. He is the same who lived\nthe life of mercy and of glory on earth, the same who died for our\nsins on the cross. To the Lamb all power is given--all power in\nheaven and on earth. By him all enemies are conquered; by him the\nwhole earth will be judged. To those who bear the mark of the beast\nhe is an Avenger; to his Church he is an ever-living Saviour.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--The reading suggested under Lesson XXXVII is\nintended for both of the lessons on the Apocalypse.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXIX\n\nREVIEW\n\n\nThis review lesson is fully as important as any other lesson of\nthe first three quarters. Without reviewing, the study of history\nis unproductive; only a review can make of the facts a permanent\npossession. The story of the apostolic age, as it is narrated in the\nwork of Luke, is really very simple; it becomes confusing only when\nit is imperfectly mastered. A little time spent in turning over the\npages of the Lucan narrative, or even of the Student's Text Book,\nwill accomplish wonders.\n\n\n1. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS\n\nThe New Testament account of the apostolic age is indeed only\nfragmentary. Many questions must be left unanswered. Of the original\ntwelve apostles only Peter and the sons of Zebedee and Judas\nIscariot receive in The Acts anything more than a bare mention; and\neven the most prominent of these disappears after the fifteenth\nchapter. What did Paul do in Arabia and in Tarsus? What was the\norigin of the great church at Alexandria? Who founded the church\nat Rome? These questions, and many like them, must forever remain\nunanswered.\n\nIf, moreover, even the period covered by The Acts is obscure, far\ndeeper is the darkness after the guiding hand of Luke has been\nwithdrawn. For the death of the apostle Paul, there is only a meager\ntradition; the latter years of Peter are even more obscure. For the\nimportant period between the release of Paul after his first Roman\nimprisonment and the death of the apostle John at about the end of\nthe first century, anything like a connected narrative is quite\nimpossible.\n\n\n2. THE NERONIAN PERSECUTION\n\nA few facts, however, may still be established. The Roman historian\nTacitus tells of a persecution of the Christians at Rome at the\ntime of the burning of the city in A. D. 64. The emperor Nero,\nsuspected of starting the fire, sought to remove suspicion from\nhimself by accusing the Christians. The latter had already become\nunpopular because of their peculiar ways, and were thought to be\nguilty of abominable crimes; but the cruelty of Nero almost exceeded\nthe wishes of the populace. The Christians were put to death under\nhorrible tortures. Many were burned, and their burning bodies served\nas torches to illumine the emperor's gardens.\n\nThe beheading of Paul has often been brought into connection with\nthis persecution, but more probably it occurred a few years later.\nPaul had been released from his first imprisonment, and his second\nimprisonment, at the time of the Neronian outbreak, had not yet\nbegun.\n\nThe extent of the Neronian persecution cannot be determined with\ncertainty. Probably, however, although there was no systematic\npersecution throughout the empire, the provinces would not be\naltogether unaffected by what was happening at Rome. The causes of\npopular and official disfavor were always present; it required only\na slight occasion to bring them actively into play.\n\n\n3. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM\n\nEven more important than the Roman persecution of A. D. 64 was the\ndestruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. At the outbreak of the war\nwhich culminated in that catastrophe, the Jerusalem Christians took\nrefuge in Pella, east of the Jordan; Jerusalem ceased to be the\ncenter of the Christian Church. After the war, the Jerusalem church\nnever regained its old position of leadership; and specifically\nJewish Christianity, suffering by the destruction of the national\nJewish life, ceased to be influential in Christian history.\n\n\n4. THE PROGRESS OF THE GOSPEL\n\nFrom the years between the destruction of Jerusalem and the closing\nyears of the century, scarcely any definite incidents can be\nenumerated. Undoubtedly the missionary activity of the Church was\ncontinuing; the gospel was making rapid progress in its conquest of\nthe empire. In this missionary activity probably many of the twelve\napostles were engaged; but details of their work are narrated for\nthe most part only in late tradition.\n\n\n5. JOHN AT EPHESUS\n\nAt some time--whether before or after A. D. 70 is uncertain--the\napostle John went to Ephesus, and there became the leader of\nthe Asian church. Detailed information about his position and\nthe churches under his care is provided not only in trustworthy\ntradition--especially that which comes through Iren\u00e6us from\nPolycarp, the hearer of John--but also in the writings of John\nhimself. The two shorter epistles of John, though each embraces\nonly a small page, are extraordinarily rich in information about\ncongregational matters, and even more instructive are the seven\nmessages of the Apocalypse. By means of the latter the moral\ncondition of the church in Asia Minor is characterized with a\nvividness that is scarcely to be paralleled for any other period of\nthe apostolic age.\n\n\n6. THE PERSECUTION UNDER DOMITIAN\n\nDuring the latter part of the residence of John in Asia Minor there\nwas an important event in the history of the Church. This was the\noutbreak of the persecution under Domitian--a persecution which\napparently exceeded in extent, if not in severity, every persecution\nthat had preceded it. Under Domitian the Roman authorities became\ndefinitely hostile; apostasy from Christ was apparently demanded\nsystematically of the Christians--apostasy from Christ and adhesion\nto the imperial cult. The latter, in the Apocalypse, is represented\nas an example of the mark of \"the beast\"; the Roman Empire, as would\nhave been unnatural in the days of Paul, appears in that book as an\nincorporation of Satanic power. The long conflict between the Church\nand the empire had at last begun. Which side would be victorious? In\nthe Apocalypse the answer is plain. The Lord himself was fighting\nfor his Church!\n\n\n7. THE NEW TESTAMENT GOSPEL\n\nOur knowledge of the apostolic age, though fragmentary, is\nsufficient--sufficient not indeed for a complete history, but for\nthe requirements of Christian faith. The information provided in the\nNew Testament makes up in quality for what it lacks in quantity. Its\nextraordinary vividness and concreteness possesses a self-evidencing\nvalue. The life of the apostle Paul--revealed with unmistakable\nfidelity--is itself a sufficient bulwark against historical\nskepticism; it involves inevitably the supernatural Christ. The\ngospel is no aspiration in the hearts of dreamers; it is a real\nentrance of divine power into the troubled battle field of human\nhistory. God was working in the apostolic Church, God is speaking in\nthe New Testament--there is the summation of our study.\n\n\n\n\nPART IV:\n\nThe Apostolic Church and the\nChurch of To-Day\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XL\n\nTHE CHURCH AND THE WORLD\n\n\nThe apostolic Church, as was observed in the Student's Text Book,\nfound itself from the beginning in the midst of an environment more\nor less actively hostile. If we had been in Jerusalem at about the\nyear 30, we should have observed a small group of disciples of\nJesus, outwardly conforming to Jewish customs, but inwardly quite\ndifferent from their countrymen. In Corinth and in other pagan\ncities of the Greco-Roman world, the contrast between the Church and\nits environment was even more striking; these cities were sunk in\nsuperstition and vice; the Church was leading, in the eyes of the\nworld, a very peculiar life.\n\nThe presence of a common enemy led in the apostolic age to a closer\nunion among the Christians themselves, and so it will always be.\nWhen Christian people realize the power of the enemy against whom\nthey are all fighting, then they will have no time to fight among\nthemselves. The Christian life is a warfare against sin--sin in\na thousand deadly forms. In such a warfare, if we are to be good\nsoldiers, we must all stand shoulder to shoulder.\n\nThe apostolic Church was waging an audacious warfare against the\nintrenched forces of heathenism and sin. Fortunately it had a\nLeader; and by that Leader alone it won the victory. The Leader was\nChrist. The primary relation of the soldier is the relation to the\ncommander; the relation of the individual soldiers to one another\nis dependent upon that. So we shall study to-day the lordship\nof Christ; by that study, the work of the whole quarter will be\nintroduced.\n\n\n1. TERMS DESCRIPTIVE OF DISCIPLESHIP\n\nThe lordship of Christ may profitably be studied by an examination\nof some of the various names which in the New Testament are applied\nto the Church and its individual members. The individual titles\nshould be studied first. After all, the Church exists for the\nindividual believer rather than the individual believer for the\nChurch. The primary relation is the relation between Christ and\nthe individual soul. Brotherhood comes only through the union of\nindividuals with a common Lord.\n\n(=1=) \"=Christians.=\"--Probably the first title that occurs to us\nto-day to designate the individual members of the Church is the\ntitle \"Christian\"; yet as a matter of fact that title appears only\nthree times in the New Testament, and then only as it was taken from\nthe lips of unbelievers. In accordance with the explicit testimony\nof Acts 11:26, the name was given for the first time at Antioch;\nit had no place, therefore, in the early Jerusalem church. A\nmoment's thought will reveal the reason. The name \"Christians\" would\nhave meant to a Jew adherents of the \"Christ,\" or the \"Messiah.\"\nObviously no Jew would have applied such a name specifically to the\ndisciples of Jesus; for all the Jews, in one sense or another, were\nadherents of the Messiah. The Jews were adherents of him by way of\nanticipation; the disciples thought he had already appeared; but all\nearnest Jews alike would have rejoiced to be called by his name.\n\nEvidently the name was applied in Antioch by the pagan population.\nThe Church had become so clearly separate from Judaism that a\nseparate name for it was required. The name \"Christian\" suggested\nitself very naturally. \"Jesus Christ\" was forever on the lips of\nthese strange enthusiasts! \"The Christ\" was indeed also spoken of\nby the Jews, but only careful observers would necessarily be aware\nof the fact. The Messianic hope was an internal concern of the\nsynagogues, with which outsiders would usually have little to do.\nThe new sect, on the other hand, brought the title \"Christ\" out from\nits seclusion; \"Christ\" to these enthusiasts was something more than\na title, it was becoming almost a proper name; like \"Jesus,\" it\nwas a designation of the Founder of the sect, and accordingly the\nadjective derived from it could be used to designate the sect itself.\n\nIn Acts 26:28, the name appears as used by Agrippa; in I Peter\n4:16, also, it is evidently taken from the lips of the opponents\nof the faith. The Christians, however, Peter implies, need not be\nashamed of the name which has been fastened upon them. Rather let\nthem strive to be worthy of it! It is the highest honor to be called\nby the name of Christ; and if they are true \"Christians,\" their\nconfession will redound to the glory of God.\n\nIn modern times, the name is often misapplied; the use of it is\nbroadened and weakened. Nations are declared to be Christian\nalthough only a very small percentage of their citizens really\ndeserve the name; teaching is called Christian though it is\nonly similar in some respects to the teaching of Christ. Such a\nuse of terms should be avoided wherever possible; the original\npoignancy of the designation should be restored. Properly speaking,\n\"Christian\" means not \"like Christ\" but \"subject to Christ.\" A\nChristian is not one who admires Christ or is impressed with\nChrist's teaching or tries to imitate Christ, but one to whom Christ\nis Saviour and Lord.\n\nAre we willing to be known as \"Christians\" in that sense? At the\ntime of First Peter, it would have been a serious question; an\naffirmative answer would have meant persecution and perhaps death.\nBut it is also a serious question to-day. Confession of Christ\ninvolves solemn responsibilities; dishonor to the \"Christian\" means\ndishonor to Christ; the unworthy servant is a dishonor to his\nMaster. But let us not fear; Christ is Helper as well as Lord.\n\n(=2=) \"=Disciples.=\"--The earliest designation of the followers of\nJesus was \"disciples\" or \"learners\"; during the earthly ministry\nperhaps scarcely any other designation was commonly used. Jesus\nappeared at first as a teacher; the form of his work was somewhat\nlike that of other teachers of the Jews. Nevertheless, although he\nwas a teacher from the beginning, he was also from the beginning\nsomething more. He had not only authority, but also power; he was\nnot only Teacher, but also Saviour. His followers were not merely\ninstructed, but were received into fellowship; and that fellowship\nmade of them new men. \"Disciples\" in the Gospels is more than\n\"learners\" or \"students\"; it is a fine, warm, rich word; the Teacher\nwas also Friend and Lord.\n\nThe same term was continued in the early Palestinian Church, and the\nresurrection had brought an incalculable enrichment of its meaning.\nThe \"disciples\" were not merely those who remembered the words of\nJesus, but those who had been redeemed by his blood and were living\nnow in the power of his Holy Spirit. If we use the term, let it be\nin the same lofty sense. Let us be learners, indeed; let us hear the\nwords of Jesus, as they are recorded in the Gospels; but let us hear\nthem not from a dead teacher, but ever anew from the living Lord.\n\n(=3=) \"=Saints.=\"--A third designation is \"saints.\" This term is\nused as a title of the Christians in Acts 9:13,32,41; 26:10, and\nfrequently in the epistles of Paul and in the Apocalypse. Its use\nin the New Testament is very different from some uses of it that\nappeared at a later time. The Roman Catholics, for example, employ\nthe term as a title of honor for a number of persons carefully\nlimited by the Church; Protestants often designate by it persons\nof exceptional purity or goodness. In the New Testament, on the\ncontrary, the title \"saints\" is clearly applied to all Christians.\n\nIn the original Greek the word is exactly the same as a word meaning\n\"holy\"; it is simply the adjective \"holy\" used as a noun. \"Saints,\"\ntherefore, really means \"holy persons.\" Unfortunately, however, the\nword \"holy,\" as well as the word \"saint\" has undergone modifications\nof usage. \"Holy,\" in the Bible, is not simply another word for\n\"good\" or \"righteous,\" but expresses a somewhat different idea. It\nhas the idea of \"sacred\" or \"separate\"--separate from the world. God\nis holy not merely because he is good, but because he is separate.\nUndoubtedly his goodness is one attribute--perhaps the chief\nattribute--that constitutes the separateness; but other attributes\nalso have their place. His omnipotence and his infinitude, as well\nas his goodness, make him \"holy.\"\n\nThe word \"holy\" or \"saint\" as applied to Christians has\nfundamentally the same meaning. Believers are \"holy\" because they\nare in communion with the holy God and therefore separate from the\nworld. Undoubtedly the most obvious element in their separateness\nis their goodness; the moral implications of the term \"holy\" are\nsometimes so prominent that the specific meaning of the word seems\nobscured. But that specific meaning is probably never altogether\nlost. Christians are called \"saints\" because they are citizens, not\nof the present evil world, but of a heavenly kingdom.\n\nThe familiar word, thus interpreted, has a startling lesson for the\nmodern Church. Can modern Christians be called \"saints,\" in the\nNew Testament sense? Are we really separate from the world? Are we\nreally \"a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation,\na peculiar people\" (A. V.)? Do we really feel ourselves to be\nstrangers and pilgrims in the earth? Or are we rather salt that has\nlost its savor? Have we become merged in the life of the world?\n\n(=4=) \"=Brethren.=\"--A fourth designation is concerned, not with\nthe relation of the believer to Christ or to the world, but with\nthe relation of believers among themselves. That designation\nis \"brethren.\" It is a very simple word; it requires little\nexplanation; the rich meaning of it will be unfolded in the whole of\nthis quarter's study.\n\n(=5=) \"=Church.=\"--After studying the New Testament terms that\ndenote the disciples of Jesus individually, it will now be well to\nturn for a moment to the chief designation of the body of disciples\nconsidered as a unit. That designation is \"church,\" or in the Greek\nform, \"ecclesia.\"\n\nThe word \"ecclesia\" is in itself a very simple term indeed. It\nis derived from the verb \"call\" and the preposition \"out.\" An\n\"ecclesia\" is a body of persons called out from their houses to a\ncommon meeting place, in short it is simply an \"assembly,\" and an\nassembly of any kind. This simple use of the word is found in Acts\n19:32,39,41; the Greek word which is there translated \"assembly\" is\nexactly the same word as that which is elsewhere translated \"church.\"\n\nEven before New Testament times, however, the word had begun to\nbe used in a special, religious sense. Here, as so often, the\nSeptuagint translation of the Old Testament prepared the way for New\nTestament usage. In the Septuagint the word \"ecclesia\" was used to\ndenote the solemn assembly of the people of Israel. That assembly\nwas of course religious as well as political; for Israel was a\ntheocratic nation. Hence it was no abrupt transition from previous\nusage when the New Testament writers selected the word \"ecclesia\" to\ndenote the Christian congregation.\n\nIn the New Testament, the word is used in various ways. In the\nfirst place, it designates the body of Christians who lived in\nany particular place. So, for example, the epistles of Paul are\naddressed to individual \"churches.\" In the second place, however,\nthe word designates the whole body of Christians throughout the\nworld. This usage is prominent in the Epistle to the Ephesians,\nbut it also appears even in the Gospels, in the memorable words of\nJesus at C\u00e6sarea Philippi. Matt. 16:18. It is a wonderfully grand\nconception which is thus disclosed by the familiar word. \"The\nChurch\" is a chosen people, ruled by the Lord himself, a mighty\narmy, engaged, not in earthly warfare, but in a spiritual campaign\nof salvation and love.\n\n(=6=) \"=The Kingdom of God.=\"--One further conception requires at\nleast a word. What is meant by \"the kingdom of God\"? This conception\nis evidently related to the conception of \"the Church,\" but the\ntwo are not identical. The kingdom of God is simply that place or\nthat condition where God rules. As the kingdom of C\u00e6sar was the\nterritory over which C\u00e6sar held sway, so the kingdom of God is the\nrealm where God's will is done. In one sense, of course, the kingdom\nof God embraces the whole universe, for nothing is beyond the reach\nof God's power. But in the New Testament the term is used in a far\ndeeper sense; it is used to denote the realm where God's will is\ndone, not of necessity, but by willing submission. Wherever human\nhearts and wills are in true accord with the will of God, there the\n\"kingdom\" has come.\n\nIn one sense the kingdom of God belongs to the future age. It is\nnever realized fully upon earth; there is here always some lurking\ntrace of sinful resistance. Nevertheless, in the New Testament the\nkingdom is by no means always represented as future. Though it has\nnot yet been fully realized, it is already present in principle; it\nis present especially in the Church. The Church gives clear, though\nimperfect, expression to the idea of the kingdom; the Church is a\npeople whose ruler is God.\n\nEntrance into the Church is not to be obtained by human effort; it\nis the free gift of God through the Lord Jesus Christ. No other gift\nis so glorious. If we are members of that chosen people, we need\nfear nothing in heaven or on earth.\n\n\n2. PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS\n\nTwo lessons should be conveyed by our study of to-day: in the first\nplace the lesson of separateness, and in the second place the lesson\nof unity. Neither can be truly learned without the other. There can\nbe no true Christian unity if individual members of the Christian\nbody make common cause with the unbelieving world. A knowledge\nof the common enemy will draw us all into closer fellowship.\nThat fellowship need not necessarily be expressed in a common\norganization; but it will be expressed at least in a common service.\nSeparateness from the world will not mean leaving the world to its\nfate; the Christian salvation will be offered freely to all. But\nthe gravity of the choice should never, by any false urbanity, be\ndisguised. It is no light difference whether a man is within the\npeople of God or without; there is a definite line of demarcation,\nand the passing of it means the transition from death into life.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on\n\"Church,\" \"Disciple,\" \"Christian.\" Hastings, \"Dictionary of\nthe Bible\": Gayford, article on \"Church.\" Hort, \"The Christian\nEcclesia.\" Charteris, \"The Church of Christ.\" Westcott, \"The\nTwo Empires: The Church and the World,\" in \"The Epistles of St.\nJohn,\" pp. 250-282. \"The Epistle to Diognetus,\" introduction and\ntranslation in Lightfoot, \"The Apostolic Fathers,\" pp. 487-489,\n501-511. Erdman, \"Coming to the Communion.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XLI\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN MESSAGE\n\n\n1. A PHILOSOPHY, OR A TESTIMONY?\n\nIn the Student's Text Book the Christian message has been\nrepresented as primarily a piece of good news, a story of something\nthat happened. That representation does not pass unchallenged\nto-day. Many suppose that the message of the apostles was concerned\nsimply with reflection upon eternal truths. For centuries, it is\nsaid in effect, men had been reflecting upon the problems of God and\nthe world and sin; what the apostles did in Jerusalem and elsewhere\nwas simply to provide better instruction on these great themes;\nJesus had taught men that God is a Father, the apostles simply\ncontinued his teaching.\n\nSuch a view, of course, can be held only by rejecting or distorting\nthe testimony of the New Testament. If the book of The Acts is\ncorrect, if Paul is correct, then the preaching that founded the\napostolic Church was not better instruction about old facts, but\ninformation about a new fact. Before Jesus came, the world was\nlost under sin; but Jesus lived and died and rose again, and gave\nsalvation to all who would receive. According to the New Testament,\nJesus did not come to tell men that they were God's children; he\ncame to make them God's children. John 1:12; Gal. 4:3-5. Without\nhim they were under God's wrath and curse; but by faith in him, by\nacceptance of his sacrifice of himself for them, by receiving from\nhis Spirit the power to believe, they could call God Father. On the\nday of Pentecost Jesus was presented as more than a Teacher; he was\npresented as a Saviour.\n\n\n2. THE EFFECTS OF THE MESSAGE\n\n=(1) In the Apostolic Age.=--The effects of that presentation have\nbeen considered briefly in the Student's Text Book, and what was\nsaid there might easily be supplemented. The conversion of the three\nthousand was only a beginning. The new spirit of the Christian\ncommunity, the brotherly love and holy joy of the disciples, indeed\neverything that will be treated in the lessons of the quarter,\nwere the result of a simple piece of news. By the wise men of the\nworld--then as now--the message was despised, but \"the foolishness\nof God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than\nmen.\" I Cor. 1:25.\n\nThis lesson offers a singular opportunity to the teacher. The\nChristian message in the apostolic Church was a message of power.\nThe story of its progress is full of dramatic vigor; it appeals\neven to the non-Christian historian. The story of the apostolic age\nis full of surprises--the sudden transformation of bitter Jewish\nenemies into humble disciples; the triumphant spread of the faith\nwhen everything seemed opposed; the establishment of Christian\nchurches in the very centers of pagan vice; the astonishingly\nrapid preparation for the conquest of the empire; and all this\naccomplished not by worldly wisdom, but by simple men who only had a\nbit of news--a bit of news, and God!\n\n=(2) In the History of the Church.=--The triumphs of the gospel,\nhowever, were not confined to the age of the apostles. The apostolic\nage was prophetic of the Christian centuries. There were many\ndays of darkness; but the Church always emerged again triumphant.\nSo it will be to-day. God has not deserted his people; he will\nattest his truth with the power of his Spirit; there is no room\nfor discouragement. One thing, however, should be remembered; the\nvictories of the Church are victories, not of brilliant preachers,\nnot of human wisdom or human goodness, but of the cross of Christ.\nUnder that banner all true conquests move.\n\n\n3. THE PRESENTATION OF THE MESSAGE\n\nThe Christian message was presented in the apostolic Church in many\ndifferent ways. The gospel was everywhere essentially the same,\nbut the presentation of it was adapted to the needs of particular\nhearers, and the understanding of it became ever more complete under\nthe illumination of the Holy Spirit. It is interesting to collect\nthe various types of missionary speeches that are found in the New\nTestament.\n\n=(1) The Missionary Preaching of the Jerusalem Church.=--The early\nchapters of The Acts preserve a number of speeches that were\naddressed to Jews. As might have been expected, these speeches\nare intended primarily to prove the Messiahship of Jesus. If that\ncould be proved, then--among the Jews--the rest would follow. The\nMessiahship was proved first by an appeal to the Scriptures, and\nsecond by the fact of the resurrection. Even the death of Jesus on\nthe cross, which was to the Jews a stumblingblock, was predicted by\nthe prophets, and so served to prove that Jesus was the promised\nOne. The resurrection was also predicted; and the resurrection was\nestablished first by the simple testimony of eyewitnesses and second\nby the wonderful works of the living Christ.\n\nThese early speeches contain only a little of the full truth of\nthe gospel. In them, for example, the significance of the death\nof Christ as an atonement for sin is not fully explained. Such\nomissions were due no doubt to two causes.\n\n(a) Limitations Due to the Hearers.--In the first place, the\npeculiar needs of the hearers had to be considered. The hearers were\nJews; to them the death of the Messiah was an unheard-of paradox;\nto them the cross was a stumblingblock. Before the inner meaning of\nthe crucifixion could be explained, obviously the objections derived\nfrom it needed to be overcome. The first task of the missionaries\nwas to show that Jesus, although he had been crucified, was the\nMessiah. That was done by an appeal to prophecy and to the plain\nfact of the resurrection. After conviction had thus been produced,\nit would be time enough to show that what was at first regarded as a\nstumblingblock was really the supreme act of divine grace.\n\n(b) Limitations Due to an Early Stage of Revelation.--The omissions\nin the early speeches were due, however, not merely to the peculiar\nneeds of the hearers, but also to limitations in the knowledge\nof the apostles. Christian truth was not all revealed at once;\nundoubtedly the full explanation of the cross, the full exposition\nof the atonement, was revealed only when the disciples could bear\nit. Such is the divine method, even in revelation. The disciples\nwere brought gradually, by the gracious leading of the Holy Spirit,\ninto ever richer knowledge of the truth.\n\n(c) The Significance of the Cross.--Nevertheless, the meagerness\nof the early teaching must not be exaggerated. In the very first\nmissionary speech of Peter, Jesus was represented as \"delivered\nup by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.\" Acts\n2:23. What happened \"by the determinate counsel ... of God\" was\nno meaningless chance; the crucifixion was not a victory of evil\nover God, it must have had some beneficent purpose. Furthermore,\nJesus himself had explained what that purpose was. He had spoken\nof giving his life a ransom for many, Mark 10:45; still more\nplainly, on the last solemn passover evening, he had represented\nhis death as sacrificial. These words were certainly not forgotten\nin the Jerusalem church; they were called to mind in the repeated\ncelebration of the Lord's Supper, and must have formed the subject\nof meditation. The Jerusalem Christians knew that Jesus' death was a\ndeath on their behalf.\n\n(d) The Lordship of Jesus.--The lordship of Jesus, moreover, was\nfully recognized from the very beginning. The risen Christ had\nascended into glory, and had poured forth his mighty Spirit. The\nbeliever was no mere learner of the words of a dead teacher; he was\ncalled into communion with a Lord and Saviour. Such communion meant\nnothing less than an entirely new life, in which sin could have\nno rightful place. It was a life of conflict, but also a life of\nhope. The Saviour would come again in like manner as he had gone.\nThe spiritual victory, already won, would be perfected by a final\nvictory in every realm.\n\n=(2) The Missionary Preaching of Paul.=--The gospel of the early\npreachers was a glorious message. It was a piece of glad tidings,\nsuch as the world had never known. Yet even greater things were in\nstore; even more wondrous mysteries were to be revealed. They were\nrevealed especially through the instrumentality of the apostle Paul.\nThe gospel had been preached from the beginning, but much of its\ndeeper meaning was reserved for Paul.\n\n(a) Truth and Error.--In the teaching of Paul, truth became plainer\nby being contrasted with error. The original apostles had really\nbeen trusting in the atonement of Christ for salvation; but now\nthat trust became plainer and more explicit by being contrasted\nwith works of the law. The original apostles had really grasped the\ninner significance of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament;\nbut now that significance became still plainer by the contrast with\nPharisaic legality. Now at length the death and resurrection were\nrepresented sharply and clearly as great representative acts in\nwhich the believer shares through faith. The original apostles were\nnot overwhelmed and confused by the new revelation; they recognized\nthe grace of God. Their perfect agreement with Paul exhibited the\nunity of the apostolic gospel.\n\nScarcely anything would be more interesting than a full collection\nof the missionary speeches of Paul. Such a collection, however, has\nnot been preserved. The writings that we possess from the hand of\nPaul are not missionary addresses, but letters written to those who\nwere already Christians. We should not, however, complain of the\nprovidence of God. God has not thought good to give us everything,\nbut what he has given us is enough.\n\n(b) Information Provided by The Acts.--The book of The Acts,\nin the first place, affords valuable information. The author\nwas interested, indeed, chiefly in beginnings. The examples of\nPaul's missionary preaching which Luke has preserved, are perhaps\npreliminary to evangelism, rather than evangelism itself. The\nspeech at Pisidian Antioch shows how Paul proved the Messiahship\nof Jesus. In winning the Jews, that proof was the first step. The\nPauline gospel indeed appears, but it appears only at the very\nend of the speech. The speech at Athens is still more clearly of\npreliminary character. Monotheism needed to be established before\nthe gospel of Christ could be understood. Despite their necessary\nlimitations however, these speeches are instructive. They show, in\nthe first place, that Paul adapted his preaching to the needs of his\nhearers. He did not preach the same sermon mechanically to all. He\nsought really to win men over, he began with what his hearers could\nunderstand. They show, in the second place, that all preliminary\nmatters were kept strictly subordinate. These matters were not made\nan end in themselves, as is often the case in the modern Church, but\nwere merely a means to an end. No matter where he began, Paul always\nproceeded quickly to the center of the gospel. Both at Pisidian\nAntioch and at Athens, he hastened on to the resurrection.\n\n(c) Information Provided by the Epistles.--The Pauline Epistles, in\nthe second place, though they are addressed to Christians, really\nafford sufficient information, at least in outline, about the\nmissionary preaching of Paul. Incidental references are sufficient\nto show at least that the cross and the resurrection were the center\nand core of it. The Thessalonians, for example, under the preaching\nof Paul, \"turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true\nGod, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the\ndead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come.\" This\nlittle passage is worth pages of exposition. Preaching to Gentiles\nis here reviewed in epitome, though of course not with studied\nsymmetry and completeness. The knowledge of the one true God formed\nof course, for Gentiles, the starting point for all the rest, but\nfrom that starting point the preacher at once proceeded to tell of\nthe work of Christ. Just as illuminating are passages like I Cor.\n2:2; Gal. 3:1. In Corinth Paul knew nothing save \"Jesus Christ,\nand him crucified\"; in Galatia the story of the cross was made so\nplain that it was as though Jesus Christ crucified were held up\nbefore the eyes of the Galatians on a great picture or placard.\nThe famous passage in First Corinthians, ch. 15:1-8, is, however,\nperhaps clearest of all. At the very beginning Paul had spoken of\nthe death of Christ and the resurrection. The death, moreover, was\nnot presented as a mere inspiring story of a holy martyrdom, but\nas a death \"for our sins\"; and the resurrection was supported not\nprimarily by an inward experience, but by simple testimony.\n\nApostolic preaching was everywhere essentially the same. The\napostles never began, like many modern preachers, with exhortation;\nthough they proceeded to exhortation, they always began with facts.\nWhat was always fundamental was the simple story of the life and\ndeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ crucified and\nrisen was the subject of the good news that conquered the world.\nWhen will the modern Church take up the message with new power? We\ndo not know. The times are in God's hand. But when the blessed day\ncomes, it will be a day of victory.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Bunyan, \"The Pilgrim's Progress.\" Warfield, \"The\nSaviour of the World,\" and \"The Power of God Unto Salvation\" (the\nlatter in \"The Presbyterian Pulpit\"). Hodge, \"The Way of Life.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XLII\n\nTHE WORD AND THE SACRAMENTS\n\n\nThis lesson and the two following are intended primarily to\nencourage in the student the diligent use of \"the means of grace.\"\nThe wise teacher will keep the practical purpose steadily in view.\nThat practical purpose may now be examined a little more in detail.\nWhy should the example of the apostolic Church be followed in the\nmatter of Bible-reading, of the sacraments, of prayer, of Christian\nmeetings? What was God's purpose in providing these simple exercises\nof the Christian life--what benefit do we receive from them? Perhaps\nthe briefest and simplest answer is that we receive from them what\nis often known as \"reality\" in religion.\n\n\n1. REALITY IN RELIGION\n\nMany Christians are puzzled by the lack of the sense of \"reality\"\nin their Christian life. They have believed in Christ, but often\nhe seems far from them. It is not so much that positive doubts\nhave arisen, though certainly the lack of fervency gives doubt its\nopportunity. Rather is it an inexplicable dulling of the spiritual\neye. The gospel still seems wonderful to the intellect, but to the\nheart it has somehow lost its power.\n\n=(1) The Need of Diligence.=--This condition is due very often to\na neglect of \"the means of grace,\" which we shall study in this\nlesson and the two lessons following. It is a great mistake to\nsuppose that the spiritual life is altogether beyond our control.\nUndoubtedly it is instituted only by an immediate exercise of\nthe divine power, independent of the human will; undoubtedly the\nmaintenance of it would be impossible without the assistance of the\nHoly Spirit. Nevertheless, in that work of maintenance, we have a\nvery definite part. Many Christians suppose that any performance\nof religious exercises merely for duty's sake, without immediate\nspiritual profit, is a mere form. This supposition is erroneous.\nNot performance of religious exercises without spiritual profit,\nbut performance of them without the desire of spiritual profit, is\nformalism. The appointed means of grace must continue to be used\neven when no immediate benefit can be discerned. In the reading of\nthe Bible, in prayer, in public worship, the Christian should first\nof all do his duty. The result may safely be left to God.\n\n=(2) The Danger of Neglect.=--Without such attention to duty, the\nChristian life becomes merely a matter of inclination. In times of\ngreat spiritual distress we call upon God for comfort and help;\nbut in the long, level weeks of comparative prosperity we think we\ncan do without him. Such thoughts are the height of folly. God is\nnot our servant, he is not one who can safely be left out of our\nthoughts except when we think we especially need him. If we neglect\nGod in time of prosperity, we may call in vain when adversity comes.\n\n=(3) The Reward of Duty.=--The religious life is not merely a matter\nof inclination; it must be diligently fostered. Such attention\nto duty, however, will never be merely drudgery. It may begin\nwith drudgery, and it may become drudgery again at times, but if\npersisted in, it will be an ever-widening avenue of joy and power.\n\n\n2. THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE\n\nThe reading of the Bible is such a simple thing, and so obviously\nnecessary to the Christian life, that it requires comparatively\nlittle discussion. Despite its indispensableness, however, it is\nbeing sadly neglected to-day. Our fathers learned the Bible with\na thoroughness which to-day is almost unknown. The change is full\nof danger. A Bible-reading Church is possessed of power; without\nthe Bible the Church loses its identity altogether and sinks back\ninto the life of the world. The process, unfortunately, has gone to\nconsiderable lengths. How may it now be checked?\n\n=(1) The Study Should Be Made Interesting.=--Something, no doubt,\nmay be done by making the study of the Bible more interesting.\nCertainly the Bible does not yield in interest to any other branch\nof knowledge. The Bible does not merely present spiritual truth; it\npresents it in a wonderfully rich and varied way. If the study of\nthe Bible is stupid, the fault lies not in the subject matter, but\nin the student or in the teacher.\n\n=(2) The Motive of Duty.=--Nevertheless, a mere appeal to the\ninterest of the students is entirely insufficient. After all,\nthere is no royal road to learning--not to Biblical learning any\nmore than to the learning of the world. Solid education can never\nbe attained without hard work; education that is easy is pretty\nsure to be worthless. Especially at the beginning the chief appeal\nin education must be to a sense of duty. So it is in the case\nof the Bible. The Bible is the word of God; obviously it may not\nbe neglected. Let us study it, then, primarily because the study\nof it is an obvious duty. As a matter of fact the duty will soon\nbecome a pleasure, but let not that be the motive. Let us read\nthe Bible regularly and persistently, in entire independence of\nchanging impulse. That is the kind of study that is blessed of God.\nSuperficial study, determined by mere inclination, may at first\nsight seem just as good. But when adversity or temptation comes,\nthen the difference appears. It is the difference between a house\nbuilt upon the sand and a house built upon the rock. The two houses\nlook alike, but when the rains descend and the floods come, one\nfalls and the other stands. The Christian whose knowledge of the\nBible is obtained by old-fashioned, patient study, never interrupted\nby changing inclination, has dug deep and founded his house upon the\nrock.\n\n=(3) The Example of the Apostolic Church.=--The example of the\napostolic Church in the matter of the means of grace is especially\nsignificant. In the apostolic age, it might have seemed as though\nthese simple exercises might be dispensed with. What need of\nregularly appointed forms when the Holy Spirit was so immediately\nmanifested? Yet as a matter of fact all of the essential forms\nof Christian custom were present from the beginning. Regularity\nand diligence were cherished even in the first exuberance of the\nJerusalem church. Enthusiasm of spiritual life did not lead to\nthe despising of ordinary helps; the early disciples \"continued\nstedfastly,\" \"day by day,\" \"with one accord in the temple, and\nbreaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and\nsingleness of heart.\" Acts 2:46.\n\nThe use which the apostolic Church made of the Bible might seem\nto some modern men particularly surprising. A book religion, men\nsay, is a stagnant religion; living faith is independent of dead\ndocuments; it is only when the early enthusiasm is lost that\nbelief becomes crystallized in submission to venerable authority.\nThis sort of religious philosophy shatters on the plain facts of\nthe apostolic age. Admittedly that was an age of freshness and\nindependence. There never has been such an outburst of religious\nenthusiasm as that which planted the faith in Jerusalem and carried\nit like wildfire throughout the civilized world. Yet another fact\nis equally plain--this wonderful enthusiasm was coupled with the\nutmost reverence for a book. Nothing could exceed the unquestioning\nsubmission which the early Christians paid to the Old Testament\nScriptures. The exuberance of apostolic Christianity was intertwined\nwith a book religion!\n\nThe explanation, of course, is simple. Submission to a human book\nmeans stagnation; but genuine submission to the Word of God means\nalways what it meant in the apostolic age--heroism and victory and\nlife.\n\n\n3. BAPTISM\n\n=(1) Baptism and Circumcision.=--The sacrament of baptism had its\ntruest predecessor in circumcision, the Old Testament sign of union\nwith the covenant people. Baptism as well as circumcision is a sign\nof the covenant, though the varied symbolism marks the advance of\nthe new covenant over the old.\n\n=(2) Christian Baptism and the Baptism of John.=--In form, moreover,\nand to a considerable extent also in meaning, Christian baptism\nin the early Church was prepared for by the baptism of John the\nBaptist, which had even been continued by the disciples of Jesus\nduring Jesus' earthly ministry. John 4:1,2. Both the baptism of John\nand Christian baptism symbolized cleansing from sin. Compare Acts\n2:38 with Matt. 3:6,11.\n\nChristian baptism, however, differed from every rite that had\npreceded it by its definite reference to Christ, and by its definite\nconnection with a new manifestation of the Holy Spirit.\n\n=(3) Baptism \"Into Christ.\"=--In the apostolic writings, baptism\nis sometimes spoken of as a baptism \"into Christ.\" Gal. 3:27; Rom.\n6:3. The meaning of this phrase has often been obscured both in\ntranslation and in interpretation. The phrase \"into Christ\" in this\nconnection means something more than \"with reference to Christ\";\nit means rather \"into a position within Christ.\" The Christian,\naccording to a common Pauline expression, is \"in Christ\"; he is in\nsuch close union with Christ that the life of Christ might almost be\ndescribed as the atmosphere which he breathes. To be baptized \"into\nChrist\" means to come by baptism into this state of blessed union\nwith the Saviour.\n\n=(4) Baptism and Faith.=--At this point, however, a serious\nquestion arises. How can baptism be described as the means by which\nthe Christian comes into union with Christ, when at other times\nsalvation is declared to be by faith? One solution of the difficulty\nwould be simply to say that baptism and faith are both necessary--a\nman must believe if he is to be saved, but he must also be baptized.\nClearly, however, this view does not represent the meaning of the\nNew Testament. The passages where faith alone is represented as\nthe condition of salvation are too strong; especially the vigorous\ncontrast which Paul sets up between faith and works prevents\nany inclusion of such a work as baptism along with faith as an\nadditional condition of acceptance with God. The true solution is\nthat baptism is related to faith, or rather to the regenerative work\nof the Holy Spirit, as the sign is related to the thing signified.\nBaptism represents the work of the Spirit; it is a means which the\nSpirit uses. If it stood alone, it would be a meaningless form, but\nwhen it is representative of spiritual facts it becomes a channel of\ndivine grace.\n\n\n4. THE LORD'S SUPPER\n\nThe celebration of the Lord's Supper in the Jerusalem church was\nprobably connected in some way with \"the breaking of bread,\" which\nis mentioned in Acts 2:42. Every common meal was an expression of\nChristian communion, but the solemn words of Christ at the Last\nSupper could not have been forgotten. Here, as so often, the book of\nThe Acts affords little information about the internal affairs of\nthe Church.\n\nFortunately, Paul, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, is far\nmore explicit, and inferences can be drawn from him with regard\neven to Jerusalem. Paul represents the Lord's Supper, not as an\ninnovation, but as something that had been given to the Corinthians\nas a matter of course, at the very beginning of their Christian\nlives; evidently the sacrament was celebrated universally in the\nchurches; Paul had \"received\" the account of the institution of the\nSupper from the Lord through the first Christians.\n\nIn Corinth, as was also probably the case in the early days in\nJerusalem, the Supper was celebrated in connection with the common\nmeals of the Christian community. Certain abuses had arisen; the\nrich brought food and drink with them and feasted luxuriously in\nthe presence of their poorer brethren; the spiritual significance\nof the Supper was profaned. Against such abuses Paul enunciates the\ngreat principle that the Supper does not work a magical benefit; if\npartaken of irreverently it brings condemnation rather than blessing.\n\nIn I Cor. 10:14-22, the Lord's Supper appears as a warning against\nparticipation in heathen feasts. The pagan fellow citizens of the\nCorinthian Christians, by their religious feasts, held communion\nwith idols; the Christians cannot remain with them and at the same\ntime commune with Christ. A man must take his choice--either\nChrist or idols; he must choose either the Lord's Supper or heathen\nfeasts. Here the Lord's Supper appears especially as a sign of\ncommunion with Christ, as in ch. 11:26 it appears especially as a\ncommemoration of his death. These two aspects of the Supper, and\ntheir intimate connection with each other, should now be explained a\nlittle more in detail.\n\n=(1) A Representation of the Death of Christ.=--The Lord's Supper,\nas is observed in the Student's Text Book, is representative of\nthe death of Christ on our behalf. In many passages of the New\nTestament, the significance of that death is explained in words;\nin the Lord's Supper it is represented in visible form. The Lord's\nSupper is related to the story of the gospel, as the picture or the\nacted representation is related to ordinary discourse. In the broken\nbread and poured-out wine we not only apprehend with the mind, but\nactually see the broken body and shed blood of the Lord. Of course\nthat does not mean, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, that the\nbread and wine are actually by a miracle, at every celebration of\nthe Supper, changed into the body and blood of Christ, but only\nthat they represent them. The very simplicity of the sacrament\nshould have guarded against misinterpretation. An actual image of\nthe dying Saviour might lead to idolatry, or to an overemphasis\nupon the details of the scene on Calvary; the simple representation\nthat Christ ordained is enough to be vivid, without being enough to\nbecome misleading.\n\n=(2) A Representation of Our Union with Christ.=--The Supper\nrepresents the death of Christ not as a mere drama, remote from us,\nbut as a death on our behalf. In the Supper we do not merely witness\nthe breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine; we\npartake of the bread and wine ourselves. Plainly the symbolism means\nthat we who are disciples of Christ do not merely admire the holy\nself-sacrifice of Christ, but rather receive the benefits of it. We\nfeed upon the body and blood of Christ in the high spiritual sense\nthat by faith we obtain from Christ's death pardon for our sins and\na fresh start in the full favor of God. These benefits we obtain not\nby our own efforts, but by a free gift. It was Christ himself who\nbroke the bread and poured out the wine on the last evening before\nthe crucifixion; it is also Christ who, through his minister, at\nevery celebration of the sacrament, is represented as offering to us\nhis body and blood.\n\nThe Lord's Supper, therefore, is not merely a commemoration of an\nevent in the past; it is also the symbol of a present fact. It\nsymbolizes the blessed communion of believers with one another and\nwith Christ.\n\n\n5. THE SACRAMENTS MORE THAN A PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL\n\nSo far we have considered the sacraments merely as one means of\nproclaiming the gospel. The Bible proclaims the gospel in words;\nthe sacraments proclaim it in pictures. Even if that were all, the\nsacraments would be of great value. By these symbolic actions the\ngospel message attains a new vividness and definiteness.\n\nAs a matter of fact, however, baptism and the Lord's Supper are more\nthan peculiar ways of making a vivid presentation of the gospel.\nThey were instituted especially by Christ, and the Holy Spirit has\nconnected with them a special blessing. The Spirit can use what\nmeans he will, and he has chosen to use these. In the Lord's Supper,\nfor example, the Lord is really present in the midst of his people.\nHe is not present, indeed, in \"a corporal and carnal manner\"; but\nhis spiritual presence is a blessed fact.\n\nThe sacraments, therefore, should not be neglected. In themselves,\nwhen unaccompanied by faith, they are valueless; and they are not\nnecessary for salvation. Ordinarily, however, they are a chosen\nmeans of blessing. When God wills, other means can take their place,\nbut under all ordinary circumstances they are used. Certainly they\nshould not be neglected without adequate cause. They have been\nprovided by God, and God is wiser than men.\n\nThe Lord's Supper should be received with solemnity; but sometimes\nyoung Christians have perhaps an exaggerated dread of it. The error\nof the Corinthian Christians should indeed be carefully avoided;\nwanton carelessness in the solemn act will of course bring the\ncondemnation of God. But the Supper does not demand perfection,\neven in faith; on the contrary it is intended to help to remove\nimperfection. The Lord's Supper is not a dangerous bit of magic,\nwhere any little mistake might break the charm. Let us partake of it\nwith a simple prayer, and leave the results to the goodness of God.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": article on\n\"Lord's Supper\"; Purves, article on \"Baptism.\" W. W. Moore, \"The\nIndispensable Book.\" Candlish, \"The Christian Sacraments\" (In\n\"Handbooks for Bible Classes,\" edited by Dods and Whyte). Lilley,\n\"The Lord's Supper.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XLIII\n\nPRAYER\n\n\n1. THE ANSWERER OF PRAYER\n\nThe prayers of the apostolic age reveal with startling clearness the\napostolic conception of God; and one chief reason why our prayers\nfall short of the apostolic standard is that our idea of God is\ndifferent.\n\n=(1) God Is a Person.=--In the first place, true prayer always\nconceives of God as a Person; whereas much of modern religious\nthinking conceives of him as only another name for the world. Human\nlife, it is said, is a part of the life of God; every man, to\nsome degree, is divine. Such a philosophy makes prayer logically\nimpossible. It is impossible for us to speak to an impersonal\nworld-force of which we ourselves are merely an expression; the\npersonal distinction between man and God is absolutely essential to\nprayer.\n\nThe transcendence of God as over against the world is grandly\nexpressed in the prayer of the Jerusalem church, which was studied\nin the Student's Text Book; the Jerusalem Christians addressed God\nas the Lord who made \"the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all\nthat in them is.\" Acts 4:24. God, in other words, is not another\nname for the world, but Creator of the world. He is indeed present\nin the world; not a single thing that happens is independent of him;\nthe world would not continue for a moment without God's sustaining\nhand. But that means, not that God is identical with the world, but\nthat he is Master of it. God pervades all things; he is present\neverywhere; but he is also free.\n\nThat conception pervades all the prayers of the apostolic Church;\nin all of them man comes to God as one person to another. God is\nfree; God can do what he will; through Christ he is our Father. He\nis not bound by his own works; he is independent of nature; he will\noverrule all things for the good of his children. Such is the God\nthat can answer prayer.\n\n=(2) God Is an Infinite and Holy Person.=--If, however, the prayers\nof the apostolic age conceive of God as a Person, they also conceive\nof him as very different from men. Here, also, they provide a\nsalutary example for the modern Church. Many devout Christians of\nto-day, in avoiding the error which has just been described, in\nthinking of God plainly as a person, are inclined to fall into the\nopposite mistake. In their clear realization of God as a person\nthey think of him as a person exactly like ourselves. They regard\nthe difference between God and man as a difference of degree\nrather than a difference of kind; they think of God as merely a\ngreater man in the sky. The result of such thinking is disastrous\nfor prayer. Prayer, to be sure, is here not absolutely destroyed;\ncommunion with God remains possible; but such communion is degraded.\nCommunion loses that sense of mystery and awe which properly belongs\nto it. Man becomes too familiar with God; God takes merely the\nleading place in a circle of friends; religion descends to the\nplane of other relationships. Prayer to such a God is apt to become\nirreverent. If our prayers are to lift us fully into the presence of\nGod they must never lie on the same plane with the communion that we\nenjoy with our fellow men, but must be filled with a profound sense\nof God's majesty and power.\n\nThe danger of permitting prayer, on account of its very privilege,\nto become a commonplace thing is one that threatens us all. It may\nbe overcome, however, in the first place, by the contemplation of\nnature. \"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament\nshoweth his handiwork\"--and it is a terrible, mysterious God that\nthey reveal. The stupendous vastness of the universe and the\nbaffling mystery of the surrounding infinity oppress the thoughtful\nmind with a profound sense of insignificance. And God is the Maker\nand Ruler of it all, the One in whom all the mystery finds its\nexplanation! Such is the employment of nature in the prayer of the\nJerusalem church. Acts 4:24.\n\nAll the prayers of the apostolic Church illustrate the principle\nwhich is now being emphasized. There is never anything trite or\nvulgar about the prayers that are contained in the New Testament;\nthey are all characterized by a wonderful dignity and reverence.\n\nIf the infinity and omnipotence of God should prevent any\nirreverence in our prayers, the thought of his holiness is perhaps\neven more overwhelming. We are full of impurity. Who can stand\nbefore the white light of God's awful judgment throne?\n\n=(3) God Is a Gracious Person.=--Nevertheless, despite the majesty\nand holiness of God, he invites us into his presence. It is a\nstupendous wonder. No reasoning could have shown it to be probable;\nonly ignorance can regard it as a matter of course. If God were\nonly a somewhat greater man, there would have been comparatively\nlittle mystery in prayer; but communion with the infinite and\neternal and holy One, the unfathomed cause of all things, is\nthe wonder of wonders. It is a wonder of God's grace. It is too\nwonderful to be true; yet it has become true in Christ. True prayer\nbrings us not before some God of our own devising, before whom\nwe could stand in our own merit without fear, but into the dread\npresence of Jehovah. Let us not hesitate to go; God has called us;\nhe loves us as a Father, far more than we can ever love him. Prayer\nis full of joy; the joy is so great that it is akin to fear.\n\n\n2. THE INFLUENCE OF JESUS' TEACHING UPON THE PRAYERS OF THE\nAPOSTOLIC CHURCH\n\nIn studying the prayers of the apostolic age, it must always be\nremembered that they stood upon the foundation of Jesus' example and\nprecept.\n\n=(1) The Example of Jesus.=--With all his power and holiness Jesus\nwas not above asking for strength to perform his gracious work;\nafter that long, wearying day in Capernaum he \"departed into a\ndesert place, and there prayed.\" Mark 1:35. In the hour of agony in\nGethsemane, he prayed a truly human, though holy, prayer: \"Abba,\nFather, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me:\nhowbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt.\" Ch. 14:36. Prayer,\nmoreover, was not something which Jesus reserved for himself;\nclearly it was a privilege which he extended to all his disciples.\nIn the prayer that he taught his disciples, he summed up all that\nour prayer should be. Matt. 6:9-15.\n\n=(2) God as Father.=--One thing in particular was derived by the\napostolic Church from Jesus--the conception of God as Father. This\nconception appears in the epistles of Paul as a matter of course;\nevidently it was firmly established among the readers; it no longer\nrequired defense or explanation. Yet it had not lost, through long\nrepetition, one whit of its freshness; in Paul it is never a mere\nphrase, but always a profound spiritual fact.\n\nObviously this idea of the fatherhood of God was of particular\nimportance for prayer. It taught the disciples \"to draw near to God\nwith all holy reverence and confidence, as children to a father,\nable and ready to help\" them. A characteristic way of addressing God\neven in the Gentile churches of Paul was \"Abba, Father.\" Gal. 4:6;\nRom. 8:15. The Aramaic word \"Abba\" is sufficient to show that this\nhallowed usage was based ultimately upon the teaching and example of\nJesus; the word was the very one that Jesus had used both in his own\nprayers, for example in Gethsemane, Mark 14:36, and in the \"Lord's\nPrayer\" which he taught to his disciples.\n\n=(3) The Right of Sonship.=--What needs to be observed especially,\nhowever, is that the right of addressing God as \"our Father\" was\nnot in the apostolic Church extended to all men. Certainly no\njustification for such an extension could have been found in the\nteaching of Jesus; it was not the unbelieving multitude, but his own\ndisciples, to whom Jesus taught the Lord's Prayer. Matt. 5:1; 6:9;\nLuke 11:1, 2. Paul is even more explicit; the cry \"Abba, Father\" was\nto him a proof that a great change had taken place, that those who\nhad been formerly under bondage to the world had now become sons\nof God. This change Paul represents especially under the figure of\nadoption, Gal. 4:5; men have to be adopted by God before they can\ncall God Father; and adoption is accomplished only by the work of\nChrist. Vs. 4,5.\n\n=(4) The Intercession of the Spirit.=--The cry, \"Abba, Father\" can\nnever be uttered by sinful man alone, but only by the power of\nChrist's Spirit. The prayers even of the redeemed are faulty. But\nthe Holy Spirit takes up their cry. \"And in like manner the Spirit\nalso helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought;\nbut the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings\nwhich cannot be uttered; and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth\nwhat is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for\nthe saints according to the will of God.\" Rom. 8:26, 27.\n\nThere lies the true ground of confidence in prayer. Prayer does not\nderive its efficacy from any merit of its own, but only from the\ngoodness of God. Let us not worry too much as to whether our prayers\nare good or bad; let them only be simple and sincere; God knows our\nweakness; his Spirit will make intercession for us far better than\nwe can intercede for ourselves.\n\n\n3. PUBLIC PRAYERS OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH\n\nThe few individual prayers that have been preserved from the\napostolic age are for the most part prayers of a more or less public\ncharacter. The spontaneous outpourings of the hearts of individual\nsaints before God would usually not be put into writing; the full\nsecrets of the prayer closet are known to God alone.\n\n=(1) Spontaneity and Sincerity.=--Nevertheless, the public character\nof the prayers of the New Testament does not mean that they are cold\nand formal. On the contrary, at a time when set liturgies had not\nyet been formed, public prayer possessed all the spontaneity of more\nprivate devotions; the thought of the listening congregation or of a\ncircle of readers did not bring any hampering restraint. There is a\nsterling sincerity about all the prayers or fragments of prayers in\nthe New Testament.\n\n=(2) Dignity.=--The spontaneity and sincerity of the prayers,\nhowever, did not involve any sacrifice of dignity. The prayer of\nthe Jerusalem congregation, Acts 4:24-30, is a marvel of exalted\nspeech; its employment of Scripture phrase is an admirable example\nfor public prayers of all ages. That prayer received a glorious\nanswer; indeed the true prayer of the congregation never remains\nunheard. Christ's promise is always fulfilled; where two or three\nare gathered together in his name there is he in the midst of them.\n\nIn the epistles, there is to be found here and there what may be\ncalled, if not the beginning of liturgy, at any rate material of\nwhich a magnificent liturgy can be formed. The benediction of Heb.\n13:20,21, for example, is characterized by a splendid rhythm as well\nas by true evangelical fervor. Such a prayer lifts the hearts of the\ncongregation up into the presence of God. There is use for beauty,\neven in prayer; and the truest beauty is to be found in the prayers\nof the Bible.\n\n\n4. PRIVATE PRAYERS OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH\n\nThe apostolic guidance in prayer extends even to those private\nprayers which no one hears except God. In this field, the epistles\nof Paul are of special value. More fully than any other one man of\nthe apostolic age, Paul has revealed the very secrets of Christian\nexperience; and that experience is rooted in prayer. A glance at\nthe beginnings and endings of the epistles will be sufficient to\nshow how fundamental prayer was in Paul's life; news of the churches\nwas never received without issuing at once in thanksgiving or in\nintercession, and Paul desires, not merely the good wishes, but the\nprayers, of his beloved converts. Paul practiced what he preached\nwhen he urged the Thessalonian Christians to \"pray without ceasing.\"\nI Thess. 5:17. Compare chs. 1:3; 2:13; Rom. 1:9; II Tim. 1:3.\nEvidently, moreover, he regarded prayer as something far more than\nan incidental expression of the Christian life; he believed in its\nreal efficacy with the Ruler of the world.\n\n\n5. \"MY POWER IS MADE PERFECT IN WEAKNESS\"\n\nOne passage, particularly, will repay special study. In II Cor.\n12:8,9, we have information about the most intimate, the most\npersonal of the prayers of Paul. The apostle had been afflicted with\na persistent illness; it had apparently hampered him in his work,\nand caused him acute distress. In his trouble he called upon the\nLord; and by that prayer Paul's affliction has been made to redound\nto the lasting instruction and encouragement of the Church.\n\n=(1) Prayer Concerning Physical Ills.=--In the first place, the\nprayer concerns not spiritual matters, or the needs of the Church\nat large, but a simple affair of the physical life. As life is\nconstituted here on earth, we are intimately connected with the\nphysical world; the body is necessary to the soul. But God is Master\nof earth as well as of heaven; even the simplest needs of life may\nbe laid before him in prayer. To teach us that, we have here the\nexample of Paul, as well as the precept of the Saviour himself.\n\n=(2) The Answer.=--In the second place, the prayer was answered, and\nanswered in a very instructive way. The illness was not removed;\nbut it was made an instrument of blessing. The purpose of it was\nrevealed: \"My power,\" said Christ, \"is made perfect in weakness.\"\nPhysical suffering is worth while if it leads to heroism and faith.\nSuch is often the Lord's will. He himself trod the path of suffering\nbefore us, and in his case as in ours, the path led to glory.\n\n=(3) The Prayer Addressed to Christ.=--In the third place, this\nprayer was addressed, not to God the Father, but to Christ.\nCompare Acts 7:59,60. Without doubt \"the Lord\" in II Cor. 12:8,\nas practically always in the Pauline Epistles, refers to Christ.\nUsually, in the New Testament, prayer is addressed, through Christ,\nto God the Father; but there is no reason why it should not be\naddressed to the Son. The Son as well as the Father is a living\nPerson; and the Son as well as the Father is God. It is well that\nwe have apostolic examples for prayer addressed directly to the\nSaviour. Christ, to Paul, was no mere instrument in salvation,\nthat had served its purpose and was then removed; he was alive and\nsovereign, and the relation to him was a relation of love. In a time\nof acute physical distress, Paul turned to the Saviour. Three times\nhe called, and then the answer came. The answer will always come in\nthe Lord's way, not in ours; but the Lord's way is always best.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Hastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Bernard,\narticle on \"Prayer\" (III). Thomas, \"The Prayers of St. Paul.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XLIV\n\nTHE CONGREGATION\n\n\n1. CONGREGATIONAL MEETINGS IN PALESTINE\n\nIn studying the congregational meetings of the apostolic churches\nit must be remembered that the Christian community in Jerusalem\ncontinued for many years its participation in the worship of temple\nand synagogue. Specially Christian meetings, therefore, were at\nfirst not the sole expression of the collective worship of the\nJerusalem Christians. Nevertheless, such meetings were undoubtedly\nheld, even from the beginning. From the days when the one hundred\nand twenty brethren were gathered together before Pentecost, the\nChurch was not without some outward expression of its distinctive\nlife.\n\n=(1) As Indicated in The Acts.=--The circumstances of such early\nmeetings of the congregation are, however, obscure. The very\nconsiderable numbers of the converts, Acts 2:41,47; 4:4; 5:14, would\nperhaps sometimes make it difficult to gather the whole congregation\ntogether in one place; if, however, that were done, it would perhaps\nbe usually in some part of the temple area. There seem to have been\ngeneral meetings--for example, Acts 15:1-29--but it is perhaps not\nnecessary to suppose that they included every individual member of\nthe Jerusalem church.\n\nCertainly, however, no members of that first Christian community\nneglected the assembling of themselves together. Evidently the sense\nof brotherhood was strongly developed, and evidently it expressed\nitself not only in the regular relief of the needy, Acts 6:1, but\nalso in meetings for instruction and worship and prayer. Ch. 2:42;\n4:23-31. These meetings were only outward indications of a wonderful\nunity of mind and heart. Ch. 4:32. The cause of that unity was the\ncommon possession of the Spirit of God.\n\nAs might have been expected in a book which is interested chiefly\nin the outward extension of the kingdom, the book of The Acts\ngives us little detailed information about the conduct of these\nearliest Christian meetings. Probably, however, the example of the\nJewish synagogue made itself strongly felt. There was no violent\nbreak with Judaism; a new spirit was infused into ancient forms.\nThe resemblance between the synagogue service and even the fully\ndeveloped Christian meetings of to-day was noted in connection with\nLesson IV.\n\n=(2) As Indicated in the Epistle of James.=--The Epistle of James\nperhaps helps somewhat to supply the need of detailed information.\nThat epistle, as was observed in Lesson XXXII, was written by the\nhead of the Jerusalem Church, and probably to Jewish Christians\nbefore A.D. 49. Apparently, therefore, we have in James 2:1-6 some\nwelcome information about Christian assemblies, if not in Jerusalem,\nat least in other Jewish Christian churches. In v. 2, the word\n\"synagogue\" is applied to the meeting which is described, but that\nword in Greek means simply \"gathering together\"--almost the same\nword is used in Heb. 10:25. The use of the word by James shows\nsimply that at that early time \"synagogue\" had not become purely a\ntechnical designation of a non-Christian Jewish assembly.\n\nSo interpreted, the passage in James indicates--what might indeed\nhave been expected--that the early Christian meetings were not\nalways perfect. A Pharisaical habit of respect of persons and desire\nfor the chief seats had crept even into the Church. If similar\nfaults appear in modern times, we should not despair, but should\nfight against them in the spirit of James.\n\n\n2. CONGREGATIONAL MEETINGS IN THE PAULINE CHURCHES\n\nWith regard to the Pauline churches information about the conduct\nof religious services is far more abundant than it is with regard\nto the churches of Palestine; for we have here the inestimable\nassistance of the Pauline Epistles. The First Epistle to the\nCorinthians, especially, is a mine of information; but much can also\nbe learned elsewhere.\n\n=(1) The Place of Meeting.=--From The Acts it appears that Paul\nregularly began his work in any city by preaching in the Jewish\nsynagogue, but that the opposition of the Jews soon made it\nnecessary to find another meeting place. Often, a private house,\nbelonging to one of the converts, served the purpose. Rom. 16:23;\nI Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2. Sometimes there seem to\nhave been a number of such house-churches in the same city; yet\ncommon meetings of all the Christians of the city seem also to\nbe presupposed. In Ephesus Paul used for his evangelistic work\na building or a room belonging to a certain Tyrannus, who was\nprobably a rhetorician. The erection of buildings especially for\nChristian use belongs of course to a considerably later time.\n\n=(2) The Time of Meeting.=--The frequency of the meetings does not\nappear, and may well have varied according to circumstances. There\nis some indication, however, that the first day of the week, the\npresent Sunday, was especially singled out for religious services. I\nCor. 16:2; Acts 20:7. The same day is apparently called \"the Lord's\nday\" in Rev. 1:10.\n\n=(3) Temporary Gifts of the Spirit.=--In the actual conduct of the\nmeetings, some features appear which are not to be observed in the\nmodern Church. A number of the gifts discussed in I Cor., chs. 12 to\n14--for example, miracles, speaking with tongues, the interpretation\nof tongues, and prophecy in the strict sense--have become extinct.\nThe cessation of them need cause no wonder; the apostolic age was\na time of beginnings, when the Church was being established by the\nimmediate exercise of the power of God; it is no wonder that at\nsuch a time the Spirit manifested himself as he did not in later\ngenerations. There is a fundamental difference between the apostolic\nage and all subsequent periods in the history of the Church.\n\nNevertheless, all the essential features of our modern church\nservices were present from the earliest time about which we have\ndetailed information. The example of the apostles is here very\nexplicit.\n\n=(4) Scripture-Reading.=--In the first place, the Pauline churches\ncertainly practiced the reading of the Bible. That would be proved\nsufficiently by the evident familiarity of the Christians with the\nOld Testament Scriptures; for in those days such familiarity would\nundoubtedly be received in large measure by having the Bible read\naloud. The example of the synagogue would also have its influence.\nIt must be remembered that some even of the Gentile converts were\nfamiliar with the synagogue service before they became Christians.\nBut there is also the explicit testimony of I Thess. 5:27, Col.\n4:16. There the reading of Pauline Epistles is specifically\nenjoined. The Apocalypse also was clearly intended to be read aloud.\nRev. 1:3; 22:18.\n\n=(5) Preaching.=--In the second place, there was preaching. No doubt\nthis part of the service often took a somewhat different form from\nthat which it assumes to-day. Prophecy, for example, was a kind of\npreaching which has been discontinued. The exercise of the gift of\n\"teaching\" perhaps corresponded more closely to the sermons of the\npresent day; certainly an exposition of the Scripture passages read\nwould have been according to the analogy of the Jewish synagogue. At\nany rate, in some form or other, there was certainly instruction in\nthe Scriptures and in the gospel, and exhortation based upon that\ninstruction.\n\n=(6) Prayer.=--In the third place, there was prayer; directions for\npublic prayer are given at some length in I Tim., ch. 2; and there\nare indications that prayer was practiced also in the meetings of\nthe Corinthian church. See for example, I Cor. 11:4,5.\n\n=(7) Singing.=--In the fourth place, there was probably singing,\nthough the direct information about this part of the service is\nslight. See, for example, I Cor. 14:26. Certainly no elaborate\nargument is necessary in order to exhibit the Scripture warrant for\nsinging in the worship of God. Psalms were sung in Old Testament\ntimes to an instrumental accompaniment, and there is no evidence\nthat the customs of the Church were changed in this respect under\nthe new dispensation. Indeed, if singing is an expression of joy, it\nwould seem to be especially in place after the fulfillment of the\npromises has come.\n\n\n3. PAUL'S DIRECTIONS FOR CONGREGATIONAL MEETINGS\n\nTwo features balance each other in Paul's directions for the public\nworship of the Corinthian church.\n\n=(1) The Principle of Freedom.=--In the first place he is in full\nsympathy with the freedom and informality that prevailed. There seem\nto have been no set speakers in Corinth; every man spoke as the\nspirit gave him utterance; the service must have been characterized\nby great variety. This variety, Paul says, is not disturbing,\nbecause it finds its higher unity in the Holy Spirit. \"There are\ndiversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.\" I Cor. 12:4.\n\n=(2) The Principle of Dignity.=--In the second place, however,\nPaul has a strong sense of dignity. The enthusiastic expression of\nreligious feeling must not degenerate into anything like a senseless\norgy; spiritual gifts, however exalted, are not independent of\nreason. \"The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;\nfor God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.\" I Cor. 14:32,33.\n\"Let all things be done decently and in order.\" V. 40.\n\nDignity was to be preserved, moreover, not merely in the ordering of\nthe service itself, but also in the dress and behavior of those who\ntook part. So much at least is clear in the difficult passage, ch.\n11:2-16. Apparently the full equality which was granted to women in\nthe Christian life led the women of the Corinthian congregation to\ngive a kind of expression to their freedom which at least at that\ntime was not seemly. Paul detected the danger and guarded against\nit. The lesson always needs to be learned. However dignity may be\npreserved in detail, in any particular country and at any particular\ntime, the principle itself should always be borne in mind exactly as\nPaul enunciated it.\n\nAt a later period in the apostolic age, the sense of dignity seems\nto have found expression in a quieter sort of religious service than\nthat which prevailed at the time of First Corinthians. The First\nEpistle to Timothy lays great stress upon sobriety and gravity in\nvarious departments of the life of the Church.\n\n=(3) The Principle of Love.=--These two principles--the principle\nof freedom and the principle of dignity--are kept each in its own\nproper place only when they are submitted to the governance of a\nhigher principle. That higher principle is love. The ultimate aim of\ncongregational meetings, according to Paul, is not the benefit of\nthe individual, but the edification of the whole body, and of the\nstranger who may come in. The man who has the principle of Christian\nlove in his heart, as it is grandly described in I Cor., ch. 13,\nwill never push himself forward in the congregation in such a way as\nto display his own spiritual gifts at the expense of others. On the\nother hand, he will not be inclined to check the operations of the\nSpirit; it is the Spirit alone who can convert the stranger, it is\nthe Spirit alone who can build up Christian people in the life of\nfaith and hope and love.\n\nThe principle of love is often neglected in the modern Church.\nPeople say they will not go to church because they get nothing out\nof it. No doubt they are mistaken; no doubt if they did go, the\nbenefit would appear clearly in the long run in their own lives.\nBut at any rate they have ignored the highest motive altogether. We\nshould go to church not only to obtain benefit for ourselves, but\nalso, and especially, to benefit our brethren by joining with them\nin worship, in prayer and in instruction.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Hastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible\"; Gayford,\narticle on \"Church\"; Adeney, article on \"Worship (in N.T.).\"\nCharteris, \"The Church of Christ,\" pp. 44-90.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XLV\n\nTHE RELIEF OF THE NEEDY\n\n\nIn the Student's Text Book, special emphasis was laid upon the\nrelief of the needy as it was practiced in the Jerusalem church.\nHere it may be well to supplement what was there said by a somewhat\nmore detailed treatment of the great collection that was undertaken\nby Paul. The exposition will serve to illustrate the apostolic\nprinciples of Christian giving.\n\n\n1. THE PAULINE COLLECTION ACCORDING TO FIRST CORINTHIANS\n\n=(1) The Beginning in Galatia and in Corinth.=--Writing from Ephesus\nduring his long stay in that city, Acts 19:1 to 20:1, Paul tells\nthe Corinthians that he had already given directions about the\ncollection to the churches of Galatia, I Cor. 16:1; he had probably\ndone so either during the second visit to Galatia, Acts 18:23, or\nby letter after his arrival at Ephesus. Now, at any rate, he asks\nthe Corinthians--very simply and briefly, and evidently presupposing\nprevious information on the part of his readers--to prosecute the\ncollection during his absence in order that when he should arrive at\nCorinth everything might be ready.\n\n_(2) Laying in Store on the First Day of the Week._--The manner in\nwhich the collection was to be managed is exceedingly interesting.\n\"Upon the first day of the week,\" Paul says, \"let each one of you\nlay by him in store, as he may prosper.\" I Cor. 16:2. Apparently\nno permanent church treasury was used for the reception of the\ngifts, every man was to save his own money at home, very much as\nprivate collection barrels are used to-day. The laying up of the\nmoney, however, was to take place on the first day of the week; we\nhave here probably an early trace of the Christian Sabbath. Perhaps\nwe may conclude that the act of giving was regarded as a part of\nreligious worship. Such a conclusion is at any rate in thorough\nharmony with all that Paul says about the collection. Some people\nseem to feel that the taking of an offering rather mars the dignity\nof a church service. In reality it has that effect only if it is\nexecuted in the wrong spirit. Christian giving is treated by Paul as\na legitimate part of the worship of God.\n\n=(3) The Delegates of the Corinthian Church.=--When Paul should\narrive at Corinth, he was to receive the collection and either\nsend or take it to Jerusalem by the help of delegates whom the\nCorinthians themselves should choose. The purpose of choosing these\ndelegates appears more plainly in Second Corinthians.\n\n\n2. THE PAULINE COLLECTION ACCORDING TO SECOND CORINTHIANS\n\n=(1) The Situation.=--After the writing of the First Epistle to the\nCorinthians, there had followed a period of serious estrangement\nbetween Paul and the Corinthian church. Naturally enough the\ncollection suffered during this period, as did other Christian\nactivities. At the time of Second Corinthians, perhaps about a year\nafter the first letter had been written, Paul was obliged to remind\nhis readers that although they had begun the work the year before,\nmuch remained still to be done. II Cor. 8:10; 9:2. Nevertheless,\nTitus, during his recent visit to Corinth, when the repentance\nof the church had become manifest, had apparently been able to\ntake the matter again in hand. Such seems to be the most probable\ninterpretation of ch. 8:6; 12:18. If Titus did take up the matter on\nthe very visit when the rebellion against Paul had been only with\ndifficulty quelled, that is a striking indication of the importance\nwhich Paul and his associates attributed to the collection. It\nwas not a matter that could wait until some convenient season; it\nhad to be taken in hand vigorously, even perhaps at the risk of\nmisunderstanding and suspicion, the very moment when Paul's relation\nto the church became again tolerably good.\n\n=(2) Courtesy of Paul.=--Like all of Paul's management of money\nmatters, his treatment of the collection is characterized by\nadmirable delicacy and tact. Instead of berating the Corinthians\nroundly for their delinquency, as so many modern organizers would\nhave done, he seeks to win them over by worthier methods. He points,\nindeed, to the example of the Macedonian Christians, in order to\nfire the zeal of the Corinthians; the poverty of the Macedonian\nchurches had not stood in the way of their liberality; they had\ngiven up to their power and indeed beyond their power; they had\ngiven, not of compulsion, but willingly, dedicating themselves as\nwell as their goods to the Lord. II Cor. 8:1-5. But the Corinthians\nare allowed to draw their own conclusion; Paul does not force it\nupon them. He does not press the matter home brutally; he does not\nput the Corinthians to shame by expressly pointing out how much\nmore generously the poorer Macedonian Christians had contributed\nthan they. Indeed he gives his readers full credit; he courteously\ncalls their attention to the fact that it was they who had made the\nbeginning, v. 10, and that he had been able to boast of them to the\nMacedonians, so that their zeal had stirred up their Macedonian\nbrethren. Ch. 9:1,2. He appeals especially to the pride that they\nought to feel in the boasting which Paul had ventured upon in their\nbehalf; Paul had boasted to the Macedonians that Achaia had been\nprepared for a year; how sad an end it would be to such boasting if\nMacedonians should go to Corinth with Paul and should find that the\ncollection was not ready after all! Paul urges the Corinthians not\nto leave any part of the work until after his arrival; if they do,\nthey will put both him and themselves to shame. Vs. 1-5.\n\nWith equal delicacy Paul hints that the achievements of the\nCorinthians in other directions ought to be supplemented by this\ngrace of giving. The Corinthians, according to the first epistle,\nhad been very proud of their power of \"utterance\" and their\n\"knowledge\"; to these Paul can now add--after the loyalty of the\nchurch has finally been established--earnestness and love, II Cor.\n8:6-8; but all these excellences will be incomplete unless there\nis also liberality. The Christian life must express itself in the\nsimpler graces, if the more conspicuous activities are to be of\ngenuine value.\n\n=(3) No Unfair Burdens to Be Borne.=--The delicacy of Paul's\ntreatment of the matter is observed also in II Cor. 8:10-15; he\nis careful to explain that the Corinthians are not asked to lay\nunfair burdens upon themselves. There should be an equality among\nChristians; it is now time for the Corinthians to give rather than\nto receive, but if circumstances should change they might count on\nthe aid of their brethren. Furthermore, no one should be discouraged\nif he can give only a little; \"if the readiness is there, it is\nacceptable according as a man hath, not according as he hath not.\"\n\n=(4) Cheerful Giving.=--Paul urges his readers, indeed, to be\nbountiful. \"He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly;\nand he that soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.\" II\nCor. 9:6. But this bountifulness was to be secured, not by pressing\nout the last cent, but by promoting real cheerfulness in giving.\n\"Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart: not\ngrudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.\" The\nPauline method is wisest in the end. Men can seldom be bullied into\nliberality; they will give liberally only when giving becomes, not a\nmere duty, but a joy. Cheerfulness in giving, moreover, possesses a\nvalue of its own, quite aside from the amount of the gift; it is a\ntrue expression of Christian communion.\n\n=(5) The Unity of the Church.=--Probably Paul desired to accomplish\nby the collection something even more important than the relief of\nthe Jerusalem poor. Many Palestinian Christians--not only extreme\nJudaizers, but also apparently considerable numbers among the rank\nand file--had been suspicious of the Gentile mission. Acts 21:20,21.\nSuch suspicions would be allayed by deeds more effectively than by\nwords; a generous offering for the poor of the Jerusalem church\nwould show that Jews and Gentiles were really united in the bonds of\nChristian love. II Cor. 9:12-14.\n\n=(6) The Glory of God.=--Ultimately, however, the purpose of the\ncollection, as of all other Christian activities, is to be found,\naccording to Paul, in God. \"For the ministration of this service\nnot only filleth up the measure of the wants of the saints, but\naboundeth also through many thanksgivings unto God.\" The unity of\nthe Church, inspiring though it is, is desired, not for its own\nsake, but for the sake of the glory of God. By the simple means of\nthe collection, Paul hopes to present a united Church--united in\nthanksgiving and in love--as some poor, human return to him who has\ngranted us all the \"unspeakable gift\" of salvation through his Son.\n\n=(7) Sound Business Methods.=--The arrangements which Paul made for\nthe administration of the gifts are as instructive in their way as\nare the lofty principles that he applied. In order to avoid base\nsuspicions, II Cor. 8:20; 12:16-18, he determined that delegates\napproved by the Corinthians themselves should carry the gifts to\nJerusalem, I Cor. 16:3,4, and secured for the prosecution of the\nwork in Corinth men who had the full indorsement of the churches.\nII Cor. 8:16-24. The lesson is worth learning. It will not do to be\ncareless about the money matters of the Church; it will not do to\nsay that the Church is above suspicion. Like Paul, \"we take thought\nfor things honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also\nin the sight of men.\" In other words, we must be not only honorable\nin managing the money affairs of the Church, but also demonstrably\nhonorable. To that end sound business methods should always be used.\nThe accounts of the Church should be audited, not with less care,\nbut if anything with more care, than those of ordinary business\nenterprises.\n\n\n3. THE PAULINE COLLECTION ACCORDING TO ROMANS\n\nIn the Epistle to the Romans, written from Corinth a little after\nthe time of Second Corinthians, Paul speaks of the collection\nagain. Rom. 15:22-29,31. He is on the point of going with the\ngifts to Jerusalem, and asks the Roman Christians to pray that\nthe ministration of the Gentiles may be \"acceptable to the\nsaints.\" There is no reason to suppose that such prayers were\nunanswered; Paul was cordially received by the Jerusalem Christians,\nActs 21:17-26; the trouble which caused his arrest came from\nnon-Christian Jews.\n\n\n4. TO WHOM WAS RELIEF EXTENDED?\n\n=(1) Breadth of Christian Sympathy.=--The relief of the needy\nin the apostolic Church, as it has been studied in the present\nlesson, concerned, not outsiders, but Christian brethren. This fact\ncertainly does not mean that the early Christians were narrow in\ntheir sympathies; they had received from Jesus the command to love\ntheir enemies, and the command was reiterated by the apostles. Rom.\n12:20. They were commanded, furthermore, to \"work that which is good\ntoward all men.\" Gal. 6:10.\n\n=(2) Special Attention to Christian Brethren.=--There were reasons,\nhowever, why such good works should be directed \"especially toward\nthem that are of the household of the faith.\"\n\n(a) The Special Rights of Brethren.--In the first place, there was\na general reason, which applies to all ages. Though the Church has\na duty to all men, it has a special duty to its own members; for\nChristian people to allow their brethren to starve is as unnatural\nas for a father to neglect a son, or a husband a wife. Community in\nthe faith does create a special bond, which should make itself felt\nin all departments of life.\n\nIt should be observed that in the matter of the collection Paul\ntakes altogether for granted the right of the poor saints to the\nsupport of the Church. He does not think it worth while to go into\ndetails about the suffering of the Jerusalem poor; he does not\nattempt to play upon the sympathies of his readers; he does not\npatronizingly represent the recipients of the bounty as paupers.\nIndeed, the Jerusalem Christians, he tells the Romans, though they\nare receiving material aid, are not really debtors, but rather\ncreditors. \"If the Gentiles have been made partakers of their\nspiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in\ncarnal things.\" Rom. 15:27. This attitude toward poorer Christians\nis worthy of all emulation. Aid to the brethren is not \"charity,\" in\nthe degraded sense which that fine word has unfortunately assumed,\nbut a solemn and yet joyful duty. It should never be undertaken in\na patronizing spirit, but in a spirit of love that multiplies the\nvalue of the gift.\n\n(b) Avoidance of Idleness in the Church.--On the other hand,\nhowever, the apostolic Church did not encourage begging or\npauperism. What the special reason was for the poverty of the\nJerusalem church we do not know. Perhaps many of the Jerusalem\nChristians had been obliged to leave their homes in Galilee and in\nthe Dispersion. At any rate, we may assume that the poverty of the\nchurch was not due to idleness. In the Thessalonian epistles Paul\ntakes occasion to warn his converts against an idle life; they are\nto do their own business and work with their hands; \"if any will\nnot work, neither let him eat.\" I Thess. 4:10-12; II Thess. 3:6-15.\nCertainly Paul was the best example of such diligence; despite his\nwonderful gifts and lofty duties he had made himself independent by\nmanual labor. In the First Epistle to Timothy, moreover, particular\nprecautions are taken against allowing the bounty of the Church to\nbe abused. I Tim. 5:3-16. The treatment of the poor in the apostolic\nChurch exhibits everywhere an admirable combination of common sense\nwith lofty idealism.\n\n(c) Conditions in the Apostolic Church and Conditions To-day.--If\nthe gifts of the apostolic Church were devoted chiefly to Christian\nbrethren rather than to outsiders, that is no justification for such\nlimitation to-day. In the apostolic age there were special reasons\nwhy the Church could not often deal extensively with the material\nneeds of the world at large. The Church was exceedingly poor; many\nof the converts probably suffered serious losses by the very fact\nof their being Christians; under such conditions the first duty\nwas obviously at home. Conditions to-day are widely different.\nThe Church has become wealthy; she is well able to extend her\nministrations far and wide. Only by unlimited breadth of service\nwill she really be true to the example of Jesus and of his first\ndisciples; only by universal helpfulness will she be true to her\ngreat commission.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Uhlhorn, \"Christian Charity in the Ancient Church.\"\nBrace, \"Gesta Christi,\" pp. 93-105. Charteris, \"The Church of\nChrist,\" pp. 91-129.\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XLVI\n\nORGANIZING FOR SERVICE\n\n\nWhatever the organization of a body of Christians may be, the body\nitself is a true branch of the Church if it consists of those who\nbelieve in Christ. Nevertheless, if the Church is to be more than an\naggregation of individuals, if it is not only to be something, but\nalso to do something, it requires some sort of organization. This\nfundamental need was clearly recognized in the apostolic age; and\nit was met by certain provisions which we believe ought still to be\nfollowed. These provisions, however, do not amount to anything like\nan elaborate constitution; they do not hinder adaptation to changing\nconditions.\n\n\n1. ELDERS ACCORDING TO THE PASTORAL EPISTLES\n\nIn the Pastoral Epistles, which afford more detailed information\nabout organization than is to be found anywhere else in the New\nTestament, the government of the local church is seen to be\nintrusted to a body of \"elders,\" with whom \"deacons\" are associated.\nNo one of the elders, so far as can be detected, possessed authority\nat all different in kind from the authority of the others; all had\nthe function of ruling; all were \"overseers\" or \"bishops\" of the\nchurch.\n\nThe functions of the elders are not described in detail; but\nevidently they had a general oversight over the affairs of the\ncongregation. That is the meaning of the word \"bishop\" as it is\napplied to them. Some of them at least also labored \"in the word and\nin teaching,\" but all seem to have been alike in their function of\nbearing rule.\n\n\n2. ELDERS ACCORDING TO THE PRESBYTERIAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT\n\nThe similarity of such an arrangement to our own Presbyterian\nform of government is plain. Our churches also are governed not\nby an individual, but by a body of \"elders\" who are equal to\none another in authority. Changing conditions have of course\nintroduced elaboration of the simple apostolic model. Thus the\nteaching function, for example, which in apostolic times was perhaps\nexercised more or less informally by those of the elders who\npossessed the gifts for it, is now naturally assigned for the most\npart to men who have received a special training. These \"teaching\nelders\" in our church are the ministers. Conditions have become so\ncomplex that men of special training, who devote their whole time\nto the work of the Church, are imperatively required. The pastors\nand teachers, Eph. 4:11, even in the apostolic Church, seem to have\nformed a fairly definite group. This class of gifts is exercised\nto-day especially by the ministers, though similar functions should\nalso be exercised by other members of the Church.\n\n\n3. HOW WERE ELDERS TO BE CHOSEN?\n\nWith regard to the government of the apostolic Church a number of\ninteresting questions can never be definitely answered. For example,\nhow were the elders to be chosen?\n\n=(1) Sometimes Appointed by the Apostles.=--Such passages as Acts\n14:23; Titus 1:5, do not settle the question. According to the\nformer passage, elders were appointed in the churches of southern\nGalatia by Paul and Barnabas. But it must be remembered that the\nauthority of the apostles was peculiar and temporary. Because the\napostles had power to appoint elders it does not follow that any\nindividuals at a later time would possess a similar power. The\nsituation, at the time of the first Christian mission, was peculiar;\nsmall bodies of Christians had just been rescued from heathenism;\nat first they would need a kind of guidance which could afterwards\nsafely be withdrawn. According to Titus 1:5, Titus was to appoint\nelders in the churches of Crete. But clearly Titus, like Timothy,\nwas merely a special and temporary representative of the apostle\nPaul; for Titus to appoint elders, under the definite direction of\nPaul, was no more significant than for Paul to appoint them himself.\n\n=(2) The Right of Congregational Election.=--On the whole, it may\nbe confidently maintained that the Presbyterian method of choosing\nelders--namely the method of election by the whole congregation--is\nmore in accordance with the spirit of apostolic precedent than\nany other method that has been proposed. Throughout the apostolic\nChurch, the congregation was evidently given a very large place in\nall departments of the Christian life. The Jerusalem congregation,\nfor example, had a decisive voice in choosing the very first\nChurch officers who are known to have been added to the apostles.\nActs 6:2-6. In Thessalonica and in Corinth the whole congregation\nwas active in the matter of church discipline. II Thess. 3:14,15;\nI Cor. 5:3-5; II Cor. 2:6. The whole congregation was also invited\nto choose delegates for carrying the gifts of the Corinthian church\nto Jerusalem. I Cor. 16:3. These are merely examples. It must be\nremembered, moreover, that the authority of the congregation in the\napostolic age was limited by the authority of the apostles, which\nwas special and temporary; when the apostles should be removed, the\ncongregational functions would be increased. Yet even the apostles\nwere exceedingly careful not to destroy the liberties of the rank\nand file. Nowhere in the apostolic Church were the ordinary church\nmembers treated as though they were without rights and without\nresponsibilities. Indeed, even when the apostles appointed elders,\nthey may have previously ascertained the preferences of the people.\n\n\n4. THE APOSTOLIC PRECEDENT AND DEPARTURES FROM IT\n\nThe presbyterial form of church government--that is, government\nby a body of elders--which is found in the apostolic age, differs\nstrikingly from certain later developments. In several particulars,\nat least, principles have become prevalent which are at variance\nwith the apostolic model.\n\n=(1) The Monarchical Episcopate.=--The first particular concerns the\nrelation of the church officers to one another. In the apostolic\nChurch, as we have observed, there was a parity among the elders;\nthe local congregation was governed, not by an individual, but by a\nbody. As early, however, as the first part of the second century,\na change had taken place, at least in many of the churches. The\nsupreme authority had come to be held by an individual, called\n\"bishop\"; all other officers were clearly subordinate to him; the\ngovernment of the local congregation was no longer presbyterial, but\nmonarchical; the so-called \"monarchical episcopate\" had been formed.\n\nThis state of affairs appears clearly in the epistles of Ignatius,\nwhich were written a short time before A. D. 117. But all attempts\nto find traces of the monarchical episcopate in the apostolic age\nhave resulted in failure. The Greek word _episcopos_, which is\ntranslated in the English Bible--rather misleadingly, perhaps--by\n\"bishop,\" is applied, not to a special officer standing above the\nelders, but simply to the elders themselves. \"Elder\" designates\nthe office; _episcopos_ designates one function of the office. The\nlatter word could hardly have been used in this general way if it\nhad already acquired its technical significance.\n\nThe efforts which have been made to discover references to the\noffice of bishop in the apostolic age are unconvincing. It is\nexceedingly doubtful whether the \"angels\" of the seven churches\nto which messages are sent in the Apocalypse are to be regarded\nas church officers; and even if they were church officers it is\nby no means clear that they exercised the functions of bishops.\nUndoubtedly Timothy and Titus appear in the Pastoral Epistles with\nfunctions similar in many respects to those of bishops, but it is\nalso clear that they exercised those functions, not as officers\nof the Church who might have successors, but merely as temporary\nrepresentatives of the apostle Paul.\n\n=(2) The Priesthood of the Clergy.=--An even more important\ndivergence from apostolic conditions concerns the functions of the\nchurch officers. According to a theory which has become widely\nprevalent, certain officers of the Church are to be regarded\nas \"priests\"--that is, they are mediators between God and man.\nCuriously enough the English word \"priest,\" is nothing but another\nform of the word \"presbyter,\" which means \"elder\"; \"presbyter\" is\nonly \"priest\" \"writ large.\" In actual usage, however, \"priest\" means\nvastly more than \"presbyter\"; it designates a man who represents\nmen to God and mediates God's actions to men. So understood, the\nterm is never applied in the New Testament to church officers as\nsuch. According to the New Testament, the only priest (in the\nstrict sense) under the new dispensation is Christ; Christ is the\nonly mediator between God and man, I Tim. 2:5; the high-priesthood\nof Christ is elaborated in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In another\nsense, indeed, all believers are priests, I Peter 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6;\n5:10; 20:6; all have the right of direct access to God; all are\ndevoted to a holy service. The idea of a special priesthood in\nthe Christian Church is strikingly at variance with the apostolic\nteaching.\n\n=(3) Apostolic Succession.=--Another point of variance concerns the\nmanner in which the officers of the Church should receive their\nauthority. By a theory prevalent in the Church of England and in\nthe Protestant Episcopal Church in America as well as in the Greek\nand Roman Catholic Churches, the authority of the clergy has been\nreceived through an unbroken line of transmission from the apostles;\nthe immediate successors of the apostles received the right of\nhanding down the commission to others, and so on through the\ncenturies; without an ordination derived in this way no one can be a\nruler in the true Church; and without submission to such regularly\nordained rulers no body of persons can constitute a branch of the\ntrue Church. This theory places a tremendous power in the hands of\na definite body of persons whose moral qualifications for wielding\nthat power are often more than doubtful. Surely so stupendous\na claim can be made good only by the clear pronouncement of a\nrecognized authority.\n\nSuch a pronouncement is not to be found in the New Testament. There\nis not the slightest evidence to show that the apostles provided for\na transmission of their authority through a succession of persons.\nOn the contrary, their authority seems to have been special and\ntemporary, like the miraculous powers with which they were endowed.\nThe regular church officers who were appointed in the apostolic age\nevidently possessed no apostolic authority; however chosen, they\nwere essentially representatives of the congregation. A true branch\nof the Church could exist, at least in theory, without any officers\nat all, wherever true believers were together; the Church did not\ndepend upon the officers, but the officers upon the Church.\n\n\n5. RELATIONS OF THE CONGREGATIONS TO ONE ANOTHER\n\nSo far, the organization of the apostolic Church has been considered\nonly in so far as it concerned the individual congregation; a word\nmust now be said about the relation of the congregations to one\nanother.\n\nThat relation, in the apostolic age, was undoubtedly very close.\nThe Pauline Epistles, in particular, give an impression of active\nintercourse among the churches. The Thessalonian Christians \"became\nan ensample to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia\"; the\nstory of their conversion became known \"in every place.\" I Thess.\n1:7-10. In the matter of the collection, Macedonia stirred up\nAchaia, and Achaia Macedonia. II Cor. 8:1-6; 9:1-4. The faith of\nthe Roman Christians was \"proclaimed throughout the whole world.\"\nRom. 1:8. Judea heard of the missionary labors of Paul, Gal.\n1:21-24; fellowship between Jews and Gentiles was maintained by the\ncollection for the Jerusalem saints. Evidently the apostolic Church\nwas animated by a strong sense of unity.\n\nThis feeling of unity was maintained especially by the\ninstrumentality of the apostles, who, with their helpers, traveled\nfrom one congregation to another, and exerted a unifying authority\nover all. Certainly there was nothing like a universal Church\ncouncil; Christian fellowship was maintained in a thoroughly\ninformal way. In order that such fellowship should be permanent,\nhowever, there would obviously be an increasing need for some\nsort of official union among the congregations. When the apostles\npassed away, their place would have to be taken by representative\nassemblies; increasing complexity of life brought increasing\nneed of organization. The representative assemblies of our own\nChurch, therefore, meet an obvious need; and both in their free,\nrepresentative character and in their unifying purpose it may fairly\nbe claimed that they are true to the spirit of the apostolic age.\n\n\n6. PRINCIPLES\n\nThe apostolic precedent with regard to organization should always be\nfollowed in spirit as well as in form. Three principles, especially,\nare to be observed in the Church organization of the apostolic age.\nIn the first place, there was considerable freedom in details. No\nChristian who had gifts of any kind was ordinarily prevented from\nexercising them. In the second place, there was respect for the\nconstituted authority, whatever it might be. Such respect, moreover,\nwas not blind devotion to a ruling class, but the respect which\nis ennobled by love. Finally, in Church organization, as in all\nthe affairs of life, what was regarded as really essential was the\npresence of the Holy Spirit. When Timothy laid his hands upon a new\nelder, the act signified the bestowal of, or the prayer for, divine\nfavor. This last lesson, especially, needs to be learned to-day.\nWithout the grace of God, the best of Church organizations is mere\nmachinery without power.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": articles on\n\"Elder,\" \"Deacon,\" \"Deaconess,\" \"Laying on of Hands.\" Hastings,\n\"Dictionary of the Bible\": Gayford, article on \"Church\"; Gwatkin,\narticle on \"Church Government in the Apostolic Age.\" Lightfoot,\n\"The Christian Ministry,\" in \"Saint Paul's Epistle to the\nPhilippians,\" pp. 181-269, and in \"Dissertations on the Apostolic\nAge,\" pp. 135-238. Charteris, \"The Church of Christ,\" pp. 1-43,\n130-170, 205-239. Falconer, \"From Apostle to Priest.\" MacPherson,\n\"Presbyterianism\" (in \"Handbooks for Bible Classes\").\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XLVII\n\nA MISSION FOR THE WORLD\n\n\n1. JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY\n\nIn teaching the lesson in class, it might be well simply to review\nthe principal steps in the geographical extension of the apostolic\nChurch. This geographical advance, however, was made possible only\nby an advance in principles which should not be ignored. The really\ngreat step in the early Christian mission was not the progress from\nJerusalem to Antioch, or from Antioch to Asia Minor and to Greece,\nbut the progress from a national to a universal religion. Judaism,\ndespite its missionary activity, always identified the Church more\nor less closely with the nation; it was a distinctly national\nreligion. Full union with it meant the abandonment of one's own\nracial and national relationships.\n\n=(1) Limitations of Judaism.=--The national character of Judaism\nwas an insurmountable hindrance to the Jewish mission. Despite the\nhindrance, it is true, Judaism achieved important conquests; it won\nmany adherents throughout the Greco-Roman world. These missionary\nachievements undoubtedly form an eloquent testimony to the power of\nIsrael's faith; despite those features of Jewish custom which were\nrepulsive to the Gentile mind, the belief in the one true God and\nthe lofty ethical ideal of the Old Testament Scriptures possessed\nan irresistible attraction for many earnest souls. Nevertheless, so\nlong as Jewish monotheism and Jewish ethics were centered altogether\nin the life of a very peculiar people, they could never really\nsucceed in winning the nations of the world.\n\n=(2) Apparent Identity of Judaism and Christianity.=--At first it\nlooked as though Christianity were to share in the limitation; it\nlooked as though the disciples of Jesus formed merely a Jewish sect.\nUndoubtedly they would bring the Jewish people to a loftier faith\nand to a purer life; they would themselves become better and nobler\nJews; but Jews they would apparently always remain.\n\n=(3) The Great Transition.=--Before many years had passed, however,\nthe limitation was gloriously transcended. Christianity was no\nlonger bound to Judaism. It became a religion for the world, within\nwhose capacious borders there was room for every nation and every\nrace. How was the transition accomplished?\n\nIt was not accomplished by any contemptuous repudiation of the\nage-long exclusiveness of Israel. Such repudiation would have\ninvolved the discrediting of the Old Testament, and to the Old\nTestament the Church was intensely loyal. Jewish particularism had\nbeen ordered of God; the Scriptures were full of warnings against\nany mingling of the chosen people with its neighbors. Jehovah had\nmade of Israel a people alone; he had planted it in an inaccessible\nhill country, remote from the great currents of the world's thought\nand life; he had preserved its separateness even amid the changing\nfortunes of captivity and war. Salvation was to be found only in\nIsrael; Israel was the chosen people.\n\nThe Church never abandoned this view of Israelitish history. Yet\nfor herself she transcended the particularism that it involved. She\ndid so in a very simple way--merely by recognizing that a new era\nhad begun. In the old era, particularism had a rightful place; it\nwas no mere prejudice, but a divine ordinance. But now, in the age\nof the Messiah, particularism had given place to universalism; the\nreligion of Israel had become a religion of the world. What had\nformerly been right had now become wrong; God himself had ushered in\na new and more glorious dispensation. Particularism, in the divine\neconomy, had served a temporary, though beneficent, purpose; God had\nseparated Israel from the world in order that the precious deposit\nof Israel's faith, pure of all heathen alloy, might finally be given\nfreely to all.\n\nThe recognition of this wonderful new dispensation of God was\naccomplished in two ways.\n\n\n2. THE DIVINE GUIDANCE\n\nIn the first place, it was accomplished by the direct command of\nthe Holy Spirit. The first preaching to Gentiles was undertaken\nnot because the missionaries understood why it should be done, but\nsimply because God commanded.\n\n=(1) Philip.=--For example, when Philip preached to the\nEthiopian--who was not in the strictest sense a member of the\nJewish people--he was acting not in accordance with any reflection\nof his own--a desert road was a very unlikely place for missionary\nservice--but under the plain and palpable guidance of the Spirit.\nWhat is emphasized in the whole narrative is the strange,\nunaccountable character of Philip's movements; evidently his actions\nat such a time were not open to criticism; what Philip did God did;\nif Philip preached to an outsider, such preaching was God's will.\nActs 8:26-40.\n\n=(2) Cornelius.=--In the case of the conversion of Cornelius and\nhis friends, Acts 10:1 to 11:18, the divine warrant was just as\nplain. Both Cornelius and Peter acted altogether in accordance with\nGod's guidance. On the housetop, Peter's scruples were unmistakably\novercome. \"What God hath cleansed,\" he was told, \"make not thou\ncommon.\" Peter did not fully comprehend the strange command that he\nshould eat what the law forbade, and it was not explained to him;\nbut at least the command was a command of God, and must certainly\nbe obeyed. The meaning of the vision became clear when Cornelius'\nhouse was entered; a Gentile had evidently been granted the offer\nof the gospel. God was no respecter of persons. Finally the Holy\nSpirit fell on all the Gentiles who heard the message; they spake\nwith tongues as the disciples had done at the first. That was the\ncrowning manifestation of God's will. There was no reason to wait\nfor circumcision or union with the people of Israel. \"Can any man\nforbid the water,\" said Peter, \"that these should not be baptized,\nwho have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?\" Acts 10:47. All\nopposition was broken down; only one conclusion was possible; the\nJerusalem Christians \"glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles\nalso hath God granted repentance unto life.\" Acts 11:18.\n\n=(3) The Grace of God in the Gentile Mission.=--Scarcely less\npalpable was the divine guidance in the subsequent developments of\nthe Gentile mission. After the momentous step of certain unnamed\nJews of Cyprus and Cyrene, who founded the church at Antioch,\nBarnabas had no difficulty in recognizing the grace of God. Acts\n11:23. Not suspicion, but only gladness, was in place. When Paul and\nBarnabas returned from the first Gentile mission, they could report\nto the Antioch church that God had plainly \"opened a door of faith\nunto the Gentiles.\" Ch. 14:27. If God had opened, who could close?\nAt the apostolic council, in the very face of bitter opposition, the\nsame great argument was used. The missionaries simply \"rehearsed\nall things that God had done with them,\" ch. 15:4, especially \"what\nsigns and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.\"\nV. 12. There was only one thing to be done; the Gentile mission\nmust be accepted with gladness as a gift of God; he that wrought\nfor Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for Paul\nalso unto the Gentiles, Gal. 2:8; James and Peter and John could\nrecognize, both in the Gentile mission and in the inner life of the\nchief missionary, the plainest possible manifestation of the grace\nof God. V. 9.\n\n\n3. REASONS FOR GENTILE FREEDOM\n\nThe Church transcended the bounds of Judaism, then, primarily\nbecause of a direct command of God. Such commands must be obeyed\nwhether they are understood or not. As a matter of fact, however,\nGod did not leave the matter in such an unsatisfactory state; he\nrevealed not only his will, but also the reason for it; he showed\nnot only that the Gentiles must be received into the Church, but\nalso why they must be received. The essence of the gospel had\ndemanded Gentile freedom from the beginning; the justification of\nthat freedom at the bar of reason, therefore, brought a clearer\nunderstanding of the gospel itself.\n\nTwo contrasts, at least, enabled the Church to explain the reason\nwhy the Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews. The first was\nthe contrast between faith and works, between grace and the law; the\nsecond was the contrast between the type and the thing typified. The\nformer was revealed especially to Paul; the latter to the author of\nHebrews.\n\n=(1) The Law and Grace.=--Salvation through Christ, according to\nPaul, is an absolutely free gift. It cannot be earned; it must\nsimply be received. In other words, it comes not by works, but by\nfaith. The law of God, on the other hand, of which the Mosaic law\nwas the clearest embodiment, offers a different means of obtaining\nGod's favor. It simply presents a series of commandments, and\noffers salvation on condition that they be obeyed. But the trouble\nis, the commandments, since the fall, cannot be obeyed; everyone\nhas incurred deadly guilt through his disobedience; the power of\nthe flesh is too strong. At that point, however, God intervened.\nHe offered Christ as a sacrifice for sin that all believers might\nhave a fresh start; and he bestowed the Spirit of the living Christ\nthat all might have strength to lead a new life. But Christ will do\neverything or nothing. A man must take his choice. There are only\ntwo ways of obtaining salvation--the perfect keeping of the law, or\nthe simple, unconditional acceptance of what Christ has done. The\nfirst is excluded because of sin; the second has become a glorious\nreality in the Church.\n\nIf, however, salvation is through the free gift of Christ, then the\nlaw religion has been superseded. All those features of the law\nwhich were intended to make the law palpable, as a set of external\nrules, are abrogated. The Christian, indeed, performs the will of\nGod--in the deepest sense Christianity only confirms the law--but\nhe performs it, not by slavish obedience to a complex of external\ncommandments, but by willing submission to the Spirit of God.\n\nOf course, the religion of the Old Testament was not, according\nto Paul, purely a law religion; on the contrary Paul quotes the\nOld Testament in support of faith. But there was a law element in\nthe Old Testament; and the law served merely a temporary, though\nbeneficent, purpose. It was intended to deepen the sense of sin and\nhopelessness, in order that finally salvation might be sought not in\nman's way but in God's. The new order at length has come; in Christ\nwe are free men, and should never return to the former bondage.\nThe middle wall of partition has been done away; the ordinances of\nthe law no longer separate Jew and Gentile; all alike have access\nthrough one Saviour unto God, all alike receive power through the\nHoly Spirit to live a life of holiness and love.\n\n=(2) The Type and the Fulfillment.=--The contrast which was worked\nout in the Epistle to the Hebrews was especially a contrast between\nthe sign and the thing signified. The ceremonial law, which had\nseparated Jew from Gentile, was intended to point forward to Christ;\nand now that the fulfillment has come, what further need is there of\nthe old types and symbols? Christ is the great High Priest; by him\nall alike can enter into the holy place.\n\n=(3) The Meaning of the Gospel.=--The transition from Jewish\nChristianity, with all the difficulties of that transition, led\nfinally to a deeper understanding of the gospel. It showed once for\nall that the salvation of the Christians is a free gift. \"Just as\nI am, without one plea but that thy blood was shed for me\"--these\nwords are a good summary of the result of the Judaistic controversy.\nThe transition showed, furthermore, what had really been felt from\nthe beginning, that Christ was the one and all-sufficient Lord.\nWhen he was present, no other priest, and no other sacrifice was\nrequired. That is the truly missionary gospel--the gospel that will\nfinally conquer the world.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Orr, \"Neglected Factors in the Study of the Early\nProgress of Christianity\" and \"The Early Church.\" George Smith,\n\"Short History of Christian Missions\" (in \"Handbooks for Bible\nClasses\").\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XLVIII\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN IDEAL OF PERSONAL MORALITY\n\n\nIn treating the lesson for to-day, the teacher will be embarrassed\nby the wealth of his material. It is important, therefore, that\nthe chief purpose of the lesson should not be lost amid a mass of\ndetails. That chief purpose is the presentation of Christianity as\nsomething that has a very definite and immediate bearing upon daily\nlife. Christianity is first of all a piece of good news, a record\nof something that has happened; but the effect of it, if it be\nsincerely received, is always manifest in holy living.\n\n\n1. THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS\n\nIn the Student's Text Book, little attempt was made at detailed\nanalysis of the apostolic ideal. The defect should be supplied by\ncareful attention to the \"Topics for Study,\" and also, if possible,\nby the treatment of the lesson in class. First of all, however,\nit should be observed how naturally the apostolic presentation of\nthe ideal grows out of the teaching of Jesus. The advance which\nrevelation made after the close of Jesus' earthly ministry concerned\nthe fuller explanation of the means by which the moral ideal is to\nbe attained rather than additional exposition of the ideal itself.\nThat does not mean that the apostles did no more, in the field of\nethics, than quote the words of Jesus; indeed there seem to be\nsurprisingly few direct quotations of the words of Jesus in the\napostolic writings; the ethical teaching of the apostolic Church was\nno mere mechanical repetition of words, but a profound application\nof principles. Nevertheless the teaching of Jesus was absolutely\nfundamental; without an examination of it, the moral life of the\napostolic Church cannot be fully understood.\n\n=(1) The Inexorableness of the Law.=--Jesus had insisted, for\nexample, upon the inexorableness of the law of God. To the keeping\nof God's commandments everything else must be sacrificed. \"If thy\nright eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from\nthee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should\nperish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell.\" Matt. 5:29. In\nthis respect the apostles were true disciples of their Master. The\nChristian, they insisted, must be absolutely ruthless; he must be\nwilling to sacrifice everything he has for moral purity.\n\nThis ruthlessness, however, this thoroughgoing devotion to moral\npurity, did not mean in the teaching of Jesus, any more than in\nthat of the apostles, that under ordinary conditions the Christian\nought to withdraw from the simple pleasures that the world offers.\nJesus himself took his place freely at feasts; so far was he from\nleading a stern, ascetic life that his enemies could even accuse\nhim of being a winebibber and a friend of publicans and sinners.\nThe fidelity with which the apostles followed this part of their\nMaster's example has been pointed out in the Student's Text Book.\nThe enjoyable things of the earth are not evil in themselves; they\nare to be received with thanksgiving as gifts of the heavenly\nFather, and then dedicated to his service.\n\n=(2) The Morality of the Heart.=--Furthermore, Jesus, as well as his\napostles, emphasized the inwardness of the moral law. Here again the\napostolic Church was faithful to Jesus' teaching. The seat of sin\nwas placed by the apostles in the very center of a man's life; the\nflesh and the Spirit wage their warfare in the battle field of the\nheart. See, for example, Gal. 5:16-24.\n\n\n2. CONTRASTS\n\nThe sharp difference between the Christian life and the life of the\nworld was set forth in the apostolic teaching by means of various\ncontrasts.\n\n=(1) Death and Life.=--In the first place, there was the contrast\nbetween death and life. The man of the world, according to the\napostles, is not merely ill; he is morally and spiritually dead.\nCol. 2:13; Eph. 2:1,5. There is no hope for him in his old\nexistence; that existence is merely a death in life. But God is One\nwho can raise the dead; and as he raised Jesus from the tomb on the\nthird day, so he raises those who belong to Jesus from the deadness\nof their sins; he implants in them a new life in which they can\nbring forth fruits unto God. A moral miracle, according to the New\nTestament, stands at the beginning of Christian experience. That\nmiracle was called by Jesus himself, as well as by the apostles,\na new birth or \"regeneration.\" It is no work of man; only God can\nraise the dead. See John 1:13; 3:1-21; I John 2:29; I Peter 1:3,23.\n\n=(2) Darkness and Light.=--The contrast between darkness and light,\nalso, was common to the teaching of Jesus and that of his apostles.\nIt appears particularly in the Gospel of John, but there are also\nclear traces of it in the Synoptists, Matt. 5:14-16; the righteous\nare \"the sons of the light.\" Luke 16:8. In the writings of the\napostles the contrast appears in many forms. \"Ye are all sons of\nlight,\" said Paul, \"and sons of the day: we are not of the night,\nnor of darkness; so then let us not sleep, as do the rest, but let\nus watch and be sober.\" I Thess. 5:5,6. \"Ye were once darkness, but\nare now light in the Lord: walk as children of light.\" Eph. 5:8. God\nhas called us \"out of darkness into his marvellous light.\" I Peter\n2:9. The contrast serves admirably to represent the honesty and\nopenness and cleanness of the true Christian life.\n\n=(3) Flesh and Spirit.=--An even more important contrast is the\ncontrast of flesh and Spirit, which is expounded especially by Paul.\n\"Flesh\" in this connection means something more than the bodily\nside of human nature; it means human nature as a whole, so far as\nit is not subjected to God. \"Spirit\" also means something more than\nmight be supposed on a superficial examination. It does not mean the\nspiritual, as distinguished from the material, side of human nature;\nbut the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God. The warfare, therefore,\nbetween the flesh and the Spirit, which is mentioned so often in the\nPauline Epistles, is a warfare between sin and God.\n\nThe flesh, according to Paul, is a mighty power, which is too strong\nfor the human will. It is impossible for the natural man to keep\nthe law of God. \"I know,\" says Paul, \"that in me, that is, in my\nflesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but\nto do that which is good is not.... I find then the law, that, to\nme who would do good, evil is present. For I delight in the law of\nGod after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members,\nwarring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity\nunder the law of sin which is in my members.\" Rom. 7:18,21-23. In\nthis recognition of the power of sin in human life, Paul has laid\nhis finger upon one of the deepest facts in human experience.\n\nThe way of escape, however, has been provided; sin has been\nconquered in two aspects.\n\nIt has been conquered, in the first place, in its guilt. Without\nthat conquest, everything else would be useless. The dreadful\nsubjection to the power of sin, which becomes so abundantly plain in\nevil habit, was itself a punishment for sin; before the effect can\nbe destroyed, the guilt which caused it must be removed. It has been\nremoved by the sacrifice of Christ. Christ has died for us, the\nJust for the unjust; through his death we have a fresh start, in the\nfavor of God, with the guilty past wiped out.\n\nSin has been conquered, in the second place, in its power. Together\nwith the very implanting of faith in our hearts, the Holy Spirit has\ngiven us a new life, a new power, by which we can perform the works\nof God. A mighty warfare, indeed, is yet before us; but it is fought\nwith the Spirit's help, and by the Spirit it will finally be won.\n\n=(4) The Old Man and the New.=--As the contrast between the flesh\nand the Spirit was concerned with the causes of the Christian's\nescape from sin, so the contrast now to be considered is concerned\nwith the effects of that escape. The Christian, according to Paul,\nhas become a new man in Christ; the old man has been destroyed.\nThe Gentiles, he says, are darkened in their understanding, and\nalienated from God. Eph. 4:17-19. \"But ye did not so learn Christ;\nif so be that ye heard him, and were taught in him, even as truth\nis in Jesus: that ye put away, as concerning your former manner of\nlife, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit;\nand that ye be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the\nnew man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and\nholiness of truth.\" Vs. 20-24. Compare Col. 3:5-11. This putting\non of the new man is included in what Paul elsewhere calls putting\non Christ. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 13:14. The true Christian has clothed\nhimself with Christ; the lineaments of the old sinful nature have\nbeen transformed into the blessed features of the Master; look upon\nthe Christian, and what you see is Christ! This change has been\nwrought by Christ himself; \"it is no longer I that live,\" says Paul,\n\"but Christ liveth in me\"; Christ finds expression in the life of\nthe Christian. It is noteworthy, however, that the \"putting on\" of\nChrist, which in Gal. 3:27 is represented as an accomplished fact,\nis in Rom. 13:14 inculcated as a duty. It has been accomplished\nalready in principle--in his sacrificial death, Christ has already\ntaken our place in the sight of God--but the practical realization\nof it in conduct is the lifelong task which every earnest disciple,\naided by the Holy Spirit, must prosecute with might and main.\n\n\n3. THE NEW MAN\n\nDetails in the character of the \"new man,\" as they are revealed in\nthe apostolic writings, can here be treated only very briefly.\n\n=(1) Honesty.=--Certainly the Christian, according to the apostles,\nmust be honest. Honesty is the foundation of the virtues; without\nit everything else is based upon the sand. Nothing could exceed\nthe fine scorn which the New Testament heaps upon anything like\nhypocrisy or deceit. The Epistle of James, in particular, is a plea\nfor profound reality in all departments of life. Away with all\ndeceit! The Christian life is to be lived in the full blaze of God's\nsunlight.\n\nMany hours could be occupied in the class with the applications\nof honesty under modern conditions. Student life, for example, is\nfull of temptations to dishonesty. To say nothing of out-and-out\ncheating, there are a hundred ways in which the fine edge of honor\ncan be blunted. In business life, also, temptations are many; and\nindeed no one can really escape the test. The apostolic example\ndeserves to be borne in mind; Christian honesty ought to be more\nthan the honesty of the world.\n\n=(2) Purity.=--In the second place, the apostolic Church presents\nan ideal of purity, purity in thought as well as in word and deed.\nThe ideal must have seemed strange to the degraded populations of\nCorinth and Ephesus; but it is also sadly needed to-day. Let us not\ndeceive ourselves. He who would hold fellowship with Christ must put\naway impurity; Christ is the holy One. Purity, however, is to be\nattained not by unaided human effort, but by the help of the Spirit\nof God. The Holy Spirit, if he be admitted to the heart, will purge\nit of unclean thoughts.\n\n=(3) Patience and Bravery.=--In the third place, patience and\nhumility are prominent in the Christian ideal. These virtues are\ncoupled, however, with the most vigorous bravery. There is nothing\nweak or sickly or sentimental about the Christian character. \"Watch\nye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.\" I Cor.\n16:13.\n\n=(4) Love.=--The summation of the Christian ideal is love. Love,\nhowever, is more than a benevolent desire. It includes purity and\nheroism as well as helpfulness. In order to love in the Christian\nsense, one must attain \"unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of\nthe stature of the fulness of Christ.\" Eph. 4:13.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Hastings, \"Dictionary of the Bible\": Strong,\narticle on \"Ethics\" (II). Kilpatrick, \"Christian Character.\" Bruce,\n\"The Formation of Christian Character.\" Luthardt, \"Apologetic\nLectures on the Moral Truths of Christianity.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON XLIX\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS\n\n\n1. THE PROBLEM\n\nTwo apparently contradictory features appear in the life of\nthe apostolic Church. In the first place, there was an intense\nother-worldliness; the Christians were regarded as citizens of a\nheavenly kingdom. In the second place, there was careful attention\nto the various relationships of the present life; no man was excused\nfrom homely duty. The two sides of the picture appear in the\nsharpest colors in the life of the apostle Paul. No one emphasized\nmore strongly than he the independence of the Christian life with\nreference to the world; all Christians, whether their worldly\nstation be high or low, are alike in the sight of God; the Church\noperates with entirely new standards of value. Yet on the other\nhand, in his actual dealing with the affairs of this world Paul\nobserved the most delicate tact; and in all history it is difficult\nto find a man with profounder natural affections. Where is there,\nfor example, a more passionate expression of patriotic feeling\nthan that which is to be found in Rom. 9:3? \"I could wish that I\nmyself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen\naccording to the flesh.\"\n\nOn the one hand, then, the apostolic Church regarded all earthly\ndistinctions as temporary and secondary, and yet on the other hand\nthose same distinctions were very carefully observed. The apparent\ncontradiction brings before us the great question of the attitude\nof Christianity toward human relationships. This question may be\nanswered in one of three ways.\n\n\n2. THE WORLDLY SOLUTION\n\nIn the first place, there is the worldly answer. The Christian finds\nhimself in a world where his time and his thoughts seem to be fully\noccupied by what lies near at hand. The existence of God may not be\ndenied, but practically, in the stress of more obvious duties, God\nis left out of account.\n\n=(1) \"Practical Christianity.\"=--In its crude form, of course,\nwhere it involves mere engrossment in selfish pleasure, this answer\nto our question hardly needs refutation. Obviously the Christian\ncannot devote himself to worldly enjoyment; a cardinal virtue of\nthe Christian is self-denial. Worldliness in the Church, however,\nmay be taken in a wider sense; it has often assumed very alluring\nforms. At the present day, for example, it often represents itself\nas the only true, the only \"practical\" kind of Christianity. It is\noften said that true religion is identical with social service,\nthat the service of one's fellow men is always worship of God. This\nassertion involves a depreciation of \"dogma\" in the interests of\n\"practical\" Christianity; it makes no difference, it is said, what a\nman believes, provided only he engages in the improvement of living\nconditions and the promotion of fairer laws.\n\n=(2) This World Is Not All.=--This tendency in the Church really\nmakes religion a thing of this world only. Undoubtedly, much good\nis being accomplished by social workers who have given up belief\nin historic Christianity; but it is good that does not go to the\nroot of the matter. Suppose we have improved conditions on this\nearth, suppose more men have healthy employment and an abundance of\nworldly goods. Even so the thought of death cannot be banished. Is\nthe totality of man's happiness limited to a brief span of life; are\nwe after all but creatures of a day? Or is there an eternal life\nbeyond the grave, with infinite possibilities of good or evil? Jesus\nand his apostles and the whole of the apostolic Church adopted the\nlatter alternative.\n\n=(3) The Secularization of Religion.=--We lay our finger here upon\none of the points where the modern Church is in danger of departing\nmost fundamentally from the apostolic model. Religion is in serious\ndanger of being secularized; that is, of being regarded as concerned\nmerely with this life. The only corrective is the recovery of the\nold conception of God. God is not merely another name for the\nhighest aspirations of men, he is not merely the summation of\nthe social forces which are working for human betterment. On the\ncontrary, he is a living Person, working in the world, but also\neternally independent of it. You can work for the worldly benefit\nof your fellow men without coming into any saving contact with God;\nit does make a vast difference what you believe; it makes all the\ndifference between death and life.\n\n=(4) The Teaching of Jesus and of the Apostles.=--Only one-sided\nreading of the New Testament can find support for the opposite view.\nJesus said, \"Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren,\neven these least, ye did it unto me,\" Matt. 25:40; but the same\nJesus also said, \"If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his\nown father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and\nsisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.\"\nLuke 14:26. The giving of a cup of cold water, which receives the\nblessing of Jesus, is done for \"one of these little ones ... in the\nname of a disciple.\" Matt. 10:42. Evidently the good works of the\nChristian are not independent of the attitude of the doer toward\nJesus and toward God; Jesus regards the personal relation between\nhimself and his disciples as one which takes precedence of even\nthe holiest of earthly ties. Far more convincing, however, than\nany citation of definite passages is the whole spirit of the New\nTestament teaching; evidently both Jesus and his early disciples had\ntheir lives determined by the thought of the living, personal God,\nholy and mysterious and independent of the world. Social service\nexists for the sake of God, not God for the sake of social service.\nThe reversal of this relationship is one of the most distressing\ntendencies of the present day; a study of the apostolic Church may\nbring a return to sanity and humility.\n\n\n3. THE ASCETIC SOLUTION\n\nThe second answer to our question is the answer of ascetics of many\ndifferent kinds. According to this answer, the relationship of the\nChristian to God on the one hand, and his relationship to his fellow\nmen on the other, are in competition. Consequently, in order to\nstrengthen the former, the latter must be broken off. In its extreme\nform, this way of thinking leads to the hermit ideal, to the belief\nthat the less a man has to do with his fellow men the more he has to\ndo with God. Such conceptions are not always so uninfluential as we\nare inclined to think, even in our Protestant churches. Monasticism\nis not indeed consistently carried out, but it is often present in\nspirit and in principle. Some excellent Christians seem to feel that\nwhole-hearted, natural interest in earthly friends is disloyalty to\nChrist, that all men must be treated alike, that admission of one\nman into the depths of the heart more fully than another is contrary\nto the universality of the gospel. By such men, individuals are\nnot treated as persons, with a value of their own, but merely as\nopportunities for Christian service.\n\n=(1) This Solution Defeats Its Own End.=--It is evident, in the\nfirst place, that such an attitude defeats its own aim. Evidently\nthe power of a Christian worker depends partly at least upon his\ninterest in individuals. It will not do, for example, for the\nteachers in this course to let their students say, \"The teacher\nloves Christ supremely, but he has no interest in me.\" Evidently\nthe power of influencing our fellow men is largely increased by\nan intimate personal relationship; if we are to serve Christ by\nbringing men to his feet, then we ought not to dissolve but rather\nto strengthen the bonds of simple affection which unite us to our\nhuman friends.\n\n=(2) This Solution Is Opposed to Apostolic Example.=--The example of\nthe apostolic Church points in the same direction; we have already\nnoticed the intensity of natural affection which was displayed even\nby a man so thoroughly and heroically devoted to Christian service\nas was the apostle Paul. This example might well be supplemented,\nand supplemented most emphatically of all by the example which lies\nat the basis of all of the apostolic Church--the example of Jesus\nhimself. If any man might have been aloof from his fellow men, it\nwas Jesus, yet as a matter of fact, he plainly had his earthly\nfriends.\n\n\n4. THE TRUE SOLUTION\n\nThe true solution of the problem is found in consecration. Human\nrelationships are not to be made the sole aim of life; neither\nare they to be destroyed; but they are to be consecrated to the\nservice of God. Love for God under normal conditions comes into no\ncompetition with love for man, because God takes a place in the life\nwhich can never be filled by any human friend; by lopping off human\nfriendships we are not devoting ourselves more fully to God, but\nmerely becoming less efficient servants of him.\n\n\n5. CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL SERVICE\n\nConsecration of human relationships to God does not involve any\ndepreciation of what is known to-day as \"social service.\" On the\ncontrary it gives to social service its necessary basis and motive\npower. Only when God is remembered is there an eternal outlook in\nthe betterment of human lives; the improvement of social conditions,\nwhich gives the souls of men a fair chance instead of keeping them\nstunted and balked by poverty and disease, is seen by him who\nbelieves in a future life and a final judgment and heaven and hell\nto have value not only for time, but also for eternity, not only for\nman, but also for the infinite God.\n\n=(1) Society or the Individual?=--It is sometimes regarded as a\nreproach that old-fashioned, evangelical Christianity makes its\nfirst appeal to the individual. The success of certain evangelists\nhas occasioned considerable surprise in some quarters. Everyone\nknows, it is said, that the \"social gospel\" is the really effective\nmodern agency; yet some evangelists with only the very crudest\npossible social program are accomplishing important and beneficent\nresults! The lesson may well be learned, and it should never be\nforgotten. Despite the importance of social reforms, the first\npurpose of true Christian evangelism is to bring the individual man\nclearly and consciously into the presence of his God. Without that,\nall else is of but temporary value; the human race is composed of\nindividual souls; the best of social edifices will crumble if all\nthe materials are faulty.\n\n=(2) Every Man Should First Correct His Own Faults.=--The true\nattitude of the Christian toward social institutions can be learned\nclearly from the example of the apostolic Church. The first lesson\nthat the early Christians learned when they faced the ordinary\nduties of life was to make the best of the institutions that were\nalready existing. There was nothing directly revolutionary about\nthe apostolic teaching. Sharp rebuke, indeed, was directed against\nthe covetousness of the rich. But the significant fact is that such\ndenunciations of wealthy men were addressed to the wealthy men\nthemselves and not to the poor. In the apostolic Church, every man\nwas made to know his own faults, not the faults of other people.\nThe rich were rebuked for their covetousness and selfishness; but\nthe poor were commanded, with just as much vehemence, to labor for\ntheir own support. \"If any will not work,\" said Paul, \"neither let\nhim eat.\" II Thess. 3:10. In short, apostolic Christianity sought\nto remove the evils of an unequal distribution of wealth, not by a\nviolent uprising of the poor against the rich, but by changing the\nhearts of the rich men themselves. Modern reform movements are often\nvery different; but it cannot be said that the apostolic method is\naltogether antiquated.\n\n=(3) The Ennobling of Existing Institutions.=--Certainly the\napostolic method has been extraordinarily successful; it has\naccomplished far more than could have been accomplished by a violent\nreform movement. A good example is afforded by the institution of\nslavery. Here, if anywhere, we might seem to have an institution\nwhich was contrary to the gospel. Yet Paul sent back a runaway\nslave to his master, and evidently without the slightest hesitation\nor compunction. That action was a consistent carrying out of the\nprinciple that a Christian man, instead of seeking an immediate\nchange in his social position, was first of all to learn to make\nthe best of whatever position was his already. \"Let each man abide\nin that calling wherein he was called. Wast thou called being\na bondservant? care not for it: nay, even if thou canst become\nfree, use it rather. For he that was called in the Lord being a\nbondservant, is the Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called\nbeing free, is Christ's bondservant. Ye were bought with a price;\nbecome not bondservants of men. Brethren, let each man, wherein he\nwas called, therein abide with God.\" I Cor. 7:20-24. The freedom of\nthe Christian, in other words, is entirely independent of freedom\nin this world; a slave can be just as free in the higher, spiritual\nsense as his earthly master. In this way the position of the slave\nwas ennobled; evidently the relation of Onesimus to Philemon was\nexpected to afford both slave and master genuine opportunity for\nthe development of Christian character and for the performance of\nChristian service.\n\n=(4) The Substitution of Good Institutions for Bad.=--In the long\nrun, however, such conceptions were bound to exert a pervasive\ninfluence even upon earthly institutions. If Philemon really adopted\nthe Christian attitude toward one who was now \"more than a servant,\na brother beloved\" in Christ, then in the course of time he would\nnaturally desire to make even the outward relationship conform more\nperfectly to the inward spiritual fact. The final result would\nnaturally be emancipation; and such was the actual process in the\nhistory of the Church. Slavery, moreover, is only an example; a host\nof other imperfect social institutions have similarly been modified\nor removed. What a world of progress, for example, is contained in\nGal. 3:28: \"There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither\nbond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye are all one\nman in Christ Jesus.\" Not battles and revolutions, the taking of\ncities and the pulling down of empires, are the really great events\nof history, but rather the enunciation of great principles such as\nthis. \"Ye are all one man in Christ Jesus\"--these words with others\nlike them have moved armies like puppets, and will finally transform\nthe face of the world.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--R. E. Thompson, \"De Civitate Dei. The Divine Order\nof Human Society.\" Clow, \"Christ in the Social Order.\" Cunningham,\n\"Christianity and Social Questions.\" Schmidt, \"The Social Results of\nEarly Christianity.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON L\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN USE OF THE INTELLECT\n\n\n1. THE PROBLEM OF CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE\n\nThe last two lessons have emphasized the duty of consecration. The\nenjoyment of simple, physical blessings, the opportunities afforded\nby earthly relationships, are all to be devoted to the service of\nGod. Exactly the same principle must be applied in the lesson for\nto-day. If physical health and strength and the companionship of\nhuman friends may be made useful in the Christian life, surely\nthe same thing is true of intellectual gifts. The most powerful\nthing that a man possesses is the power of his mind. Brute force\nis comparatively useless; the really great achievements of modern\ntimes have been accomplished by the intellect. If the principle of\nconsecration is true at all--if it be true that God desires, not the\ndestruction of human powers, but the proper use of them--then surely\nthe principle must be applied in the intellectual sphere.\n\nThe field should not be limited too narrowly; with the purely\nlogical and acquisitive faculties of the mind should be included the\nimagination and the sense of beauty. In a word, we have to do to-day\nwith the relation between \"culture\" and Christianity. For the modern\nChurch there is no greater problem. A mighty civilization has been\nbuilt up in recent years, which to a considerable extent is out of\nrelation to the gospel. Great intellectual forces which are rampant\nin the world are grievously perplexing the Church. The situation\ncalls for earnest intellectual effort on the part of Christians.\nModern culture must either be refuted as evil, or else be made\nhelpful to the gospel. So great a power cannot safely be ignored.\n\n=(1) The Obscurantist Solution.=--Some men in the Church are\ninclined to choose a simple way out of the difficulty; they are\ninclined to reject the whole of modern culture as either evil\nor worthless; this wisdom of the world, they maintain, must be\ndeserted for the divine \"foolishness\" of the gospel. Undoubtedly\nsuch a view contains an element of truth, but in its entirety it is\nimpracticable. The achievements of modern culture are being made\nuseful for the spread of the gospel by the very advocates of the\nview now in question; these achievements, therefore, cannot be\naltogether the work of Satan. It is inconsistent to use the printing\npress, the railroad, the telegraph in the propagation of our gospel\nand at the same time denounce as evil those activities of the human\nmind by which these inventions were produced. Indeed, much of modern\nculture, far from being hostile to Christianity, has really been\nproduced by Christianity. Such Christian elements should not be\ndestroyed; the wheat should not be rooted up with the tares.\n\n=(2) The Worldly Solution.=--If, however, the Christian man is in\ndanger of adopting a negative attitude toward modern culture, of\nwithdrawing from the world into a sort of unhealthy, modernized,\nintellectual monastery, the opposite danger is even more serious.\nThe most serious danger is the danger of being so much engrossed\nin the wonderful achievements of modern science that the gospel is\naltogether forgotten.\n\n=(3) The True Solution.=--The true solution is consecration. Modern\nculture is a stumblingblock when it is regarded as an end in itself,\nbut when it is used as a means to the service of God it becomes a\nblessing. Undoubtedly much of modern thinking is hostile to the\ngospel. Such hostile elements should be refuted and destroyed; the\nrest should be made subservient; but nothing should be neglected.\nModern culture is a mighty force; it is either helpful to the gospel\nor else it is a deadly enemy of the gospel. For making it helpful\nneither wholesale denunciation nor wholesale acceptance is in\nplace; careful discrimination is required, and such discrimination\nrequires intellectual effort. There lies a supreme duty of the\nmodern Church. Patient study should not be abandoned to the men of\nthe world; men who have really received the blessed experience of\nthe love of God in Christ must seek to bring that experience to\nbear upon the culture of the modern world, in order that Christ\nmay rule, not only in all nations, but also in every department of\nhuman life. The Church must seek to conquer not only every man, but\nalso the whole of man. Such intellectual effort is really necessary\neven to the external advancement of the kingdom. Men cannot be\nconvinced of the truth of Christianity so long as the whole of their\nthinking is dominated by ideas which make acceptance of the gospel\nlogically impossible; false ideas are the greatest obstacles to the\nreception of the gospel. And false ideas cannot be destroyed without\nintellectual effort.\n\nSuch effort is indeed of itself insufficient. No man was ever argued\ninto Christianity; the renewing of the Holy Spirit is the really\ndecisive thing. But the Spirit works when and how he will, and he\nchooses to employ the intellectual activities of Christian people in\norder to prepare for his gracious coming.\n\n\n2. THE APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE\n\nAbundant support for what has just been said may be discovered in\nthe history of the apostolic Church. Paul's speech at Athens, for\nexample, shows how the Christian preacher exhibited the connection\nbetween the gospel and the religious aspirations of the time. This\nline of thought, it is true, was merely preliminary; the main thing\nwith which the apostles were concerned was the presentation and\nexplanation of the gospel itself. Such presentation and explanation,\nhowever, certainly required intellectual effort; and the effort was\nnot avoided. The epistles of Paul are full of profound thinking;\nonly superficiality can ignore the apostolic use of the intellect.\n\n=(1) Christianity Based Upon Facts.=--The fundamental reason why\nthis intellectual activity was so prominent in the apostolic age\nis that the apostles thought of Christianity as based upon facts.\nModern Christians sometimes cherish a different notion. A false\nantithesis is now sometimes set up between belief and practice;\nChristianity, it is said, is not a doctrine, but a life. In reality,\nChristianity is not only a doctrine, but neither is it only a life;\nit is both. It is, as has been well said, a life because it is a\ndoctrine. What is characteristic of Christianity is not so much that\nit holds up a lofty ethical ideal as that it provides the power by\nwhich the ideal is to be realized. That power proceeds from the\ngreat facts upon which Christian belief is founded, especially the\nblessed facts of Christ's atoning death and triumphant resurrection.\nWhere belief in these facts has been lost, the Christian life may\nseem to proceed for a time as before, but it proceeds only as a\nlocomotive runs after the steam has been shut off; the momentum\nis soon lost. If, however, Christianity is based upon facts, it\ncannot do without the use of the mind; whatever may be said of\nmere emotions, facts cannot be received without employment of\nthe reason. Christian faith is indeed more than intellectual; it\ninvolves rejoicing in the heart and acceptance by the will, but the\nintellectual element in it can never be removed. We cannot trust\nin Christ, in the Christian sense, unless we are convinced that he\nlived a holy life when he was on earth, that he claimed justly to be\ndivine, that he died on the cross, and that he rose again from the\ndead.\n\n=(2) Christianity Involves Theology.=--Furthermore, Christian faith\ninvolves not only a bare acceptance of these facts, it involves also\nsome explanation of them. That explanation can never be complete;\nthe gospel contains mysteries in the presence of which only\nwondering reverence is in place; but some explanation there must be.\nIt is quite useless, for example, to know merely that a holy man,\nJesus, died on the cross; it is even useless to know that the Son\nof God came to earth and died in that way. The death of Christ has\nmeaning for us only because it was a death for our sins; the story\nof the cross becomes a gospel only when the blessed meaning of it\nis explained. The explanation of that meaning forms the subject of\na large part of the New Testament. The apostolic Church had none of\nour modern aversion to theology.\n\nIt is time for us to return to the apostolic example. Mere bustling\nphilanthropy will never conquer the world. The real springs of\nthe Church's power lie in an inward, spiritual realm; they can be\nreached only by genuine meditation. The eighth chapter of Romans\nhas been neglected long enough; neglect of it is bringing deadly\nweakness. Instead of adapting her message to the changing fashions\nof the time, the Church should seek to understand the message\nitself. The effort will not be easy; in a \"practical\" age, honest\nthinking is hard. But the results will be plain. Power lies in the\ndeep things of God.\n\n=(3) The Duty of Every Man.=--The great intellectual duty of the\nmodern Church is not confined to a few men of scholarly tastes. On\nthe contrary, the simplest Christian may have his part; what is\nneeded first of all is common sense. By an unhealthy sentimentalism,\nold-fashioned study has been discredited. If God is speaking in the\nBible, surely the logical thing for us to do is to hear. Yet modern\nChristians are strangely neglectful of this simple duty. Bible study\nis regarded as of less importance than social service; improvement\nof earthly conditions is preferred to acquaintance with God's Word.\nThe evil may easily be corrected, and it may be corrected first\nof all by the old-fashioned reading of the Bible. That requires\nintellectual effort--there is no use in turning the pages if the\nmind is elsewhere--but the effort can be made by the plain man as\nwell as by the scholar. Simple acquaintance with the Bible facts by\nthe rank and file of the Church will accomplish as much as anything\nelse toward meeting the arguments of opponents. By learning what\nChristianity is, we shall be able, almost unconsciously, to refute\nwhat can be said against it.\n\n\n3. THE PRACTICE OF THE TRUTH\n\nThis intellectual effort, however, should never be separated from\npractice. The best way to fix truth in the mind is to practice it\nin life. If our study teaches us that God is holy, let us hate sin\nas God hates it. If we learn that God is loving, let us love our\nfellow men as God loves them. If the Bible tells us of the salvation\noffered by Christ, let us accept it with a holy joy, and live in the\npower of it day by day. That is the true \"practical Christianity\", a\nChristianity that is based solidly upon facts. Conduct goes hand in\nhand with doctrine; love is the sister of truth.\n\n\n4. GOD THE SOURCE OF TRUTH\n\nThe ultimate Source of all truth, as of all love, is God. The\nknowledge for which we are pleading can never result in pride,\nfor it is a knowledge that God gives, and a knowledge consecrated\nat every point to God's service. Presumptuous reliance upon human\nwisdom comes from knowledge that ignores part of the facts; true\nscience leads to humility. If we accept all other facts, but ignore\nthe supreme fact of God's love in Jesus Christ, then of course our\nknowledge will be one-sided. It may succeed in producing creature\ncomforts; it may improve the external conditions of life upon this\nearth; it may afford purely intellectual pleasure; but it will never\nreveal the really important things. This one-sided knowledge is what\nPaul was speaking of in I Cor. 1:21 when he said that \"the world\nthrough its wisdom knew not God.\" The true wisdom takes account of\nthe \"foolishness\" of God's message, and finds that that foolishness\nis wiser than men. The true wisdom of the gospel is revealed only\nthrough the Holy Spirit; only the Spirit of God can reveal the\nthings of God. Without the Spirit, the human mind becomes hopeless\nin dismal error; it is the Spirit of truth who sheds the true light\nover our path.\n\n \"O grant us light, that we may know\n The wisdom Thou alone canst give;\n That truth may guide where'er we go,\n And virtue bless where'er we live.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Patton, \"A Summary of Christian Doctrine.\" Greene,\n\"Christian Doctrine.\" A. A. Hodge, \"Outlines of Theology\" and\n\"Popular Lectures on Theological Themes.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON LI\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN HOPE AND THE PRESENT POSSESSION\n\n\nA type of religious effort has become prevalent to-day which is\ndirected chiefly to the present life; the improvement of worldly\nconditions is often regarded as the chief end of man. All such\ntendencies are strikingly at variance with apostolic Christianity.\nThe apostolic Church was intensely other-worldly. The chief gift\nthat the apostles offered was not a better and more comfortable life\nin this world, but an entrance into heaven.\n\n\n1. THE END OF THE WORLD\n\nOnly the great outlines of the events connected with the end\nof the world are revealed in the New Testament. Minute details\ncannot be discovered except by an excessively literal method of\ninterpretation, which is not really in accord with the meaning of\nthe apostolic writers. Some have supposed, for example, that there\nare to be two resurrections, first a resurrection of the Christian\ndead and long afterwards a resurrection of other men; expectation\nof a thousand-year reign of Christ upon earth has been widely\nprevalent. Such beliefs are not to be lightly rejected, since they\nare based upon an interpretation of certain New Testament passages\nwhich is not altogether devoid of plausibility; but on the whole\nthey are at least doubtful in view of other passages, and especially\nin view of the true nature of prophecy. God has revealed, not\ndetails to satisfy our curiosity, but certain basal facts which\nshould determine our lives.\n\nThose basal facts, connected with the end of the world, are a second\ncoming of Christ, a resurrection of the dead, a final judgment, an\neternity of punishment for the wicked and of blessing for those who\nhave trusted in Christ. It is not maintained that these facts stand\nabsolutely alone; certainly they are fully explained, at least in\ntheir spiritual significance; but the devout Bible-reader should be\ncautious about his interpretation of details.\n\n\n2. FEAR AND JOY\n\nThe practical effect of the apostolic teaching about the end of\nthe world should be a combination of earnestness with joy. A man\nwho lives under the expectation of meeting Christ as Judge will\ndesert the worldly standard of values for a higher standard. He\nwill rate happiness and worldly splendor lower, in order to place\nthe supreme emphasis upon goodness. The difference between evil and\ngood, between sin and holiness, is not a trifle, not a thing of\nmerely relative importance, as many men regard it; it enters deep\ninto the constitution of the universe, it is the question of really\neternal moment. Again and again, in the New Testament, the thought\nof Christ's coming and of the judgment which he will hold is made\nthe supreme motive to a pure and holy life. The apostolic example\nmay well be borne in mind. When we are tempted to commit a mean or\ndishonest or unclean act, when unholy thoughts crowd in upon us like\na noisome flood, we cannot do better than think of the day when we\nshall stand in the presence of the pure and holy Judge.\n\nOn the other hand, the thought of Christ's coming is to the believer\nthe source of inexpressible joy. Christ has saved us from a terrible\nabyss. Our joy in salvation is in proportion to our dread of the\ndestruction from which we have been saved. To the truly penitent\nman, the thought of the righteous God is full of terror. God\nis holy; we would sometimes endeavor vainly to shrink from his\npresence. Yet such a God has stretched out his hand to save--there\nis the wonder of the gospel--and if we trust in the Saviour the last\ngreat day need cause no fear. We are lost in sin, but God looks\nnot upon us but upon him who died to save us. \"Salvation\" to the\napostolic Church meant \"rescue,\" rescue from the just and awful\njudgment of God.\n\n\n3. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE\n\nThe time of that judgment has not been revealed, but so far as any\noffer of repentance is concerned the time comes to every man at\ndeath. One question of detail cannot altogether be ignored. What did\nthe apostles teach about the condition of the believer between death\nand the final resurrection? Upon this subject, the New Testament\nsays very little, but it becomes clear at least that the believer,\neven when absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord,\nII Cor. 5:8, and that to die is to be with Christ. Phil. 1:23. On\nthe whole, no better statement of the apostolic teaching about the\n\"intermediate state\" can be formulated than that which is contained\nin the Shorter Catechism: \"The souls of believers are at their death\nmade perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and\ntheir bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves,\ntill the resurrection.\" The hope of an immediate entrance into bliss\nat the time of death should not be allowed, however, to obscure the\nimportance of the resurrection. The resurrection of the body will be\nnecessary to \"the full enjoying of God to all eternity.\"\n\n\n4. THE FINAL BLESSEDNESS\n\nThat enjoying of God is no mere selfish pleasure; it means first\nof all a triumph of holiness. Every last vestige of evil will\nbe removed. No taint of sin will separate the redeemed creature\nfrom his God. Service will be free and joyous. The consummation,\nmoreover, will concern not merely individuals, but the race; no mere\nexpectation of the personal immortality of individuals begins to do\njustice to the apostolic teaching. The ultimate end, indeed, is not\nour own enjoyment, but the glory of God. Some carnal, materialistic\nconceptions of the future age would really remove God from his own\nheaven, but such is not the teaching of the New Testament. God will\nbe all and in all; only in his glory is to be found the true glory\nof a redeemed race. The power of loving God is the highest joy that\nheaven contains.\n\n\n5. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SPIRIT\n\nThe present age, according to the New Testament, is a time of\nwaiting and striving; it is related to the future glory as a\nbattle is related to the subsequent victory. Satisfaction with the\npresent life, even as it is led by the best of Christians, would\nto the apostles have been abhorrent; the Christian is still far\nfrom perfect. A prime condition of progress is a divine discontent.\nJesus pronounced a blessing upon them that \"hunger and thirst\nafter righteousness.\" Eternal things to us are unseen; they can be\ndiscovered only by the eye of faith; we long for a time when hope\nwill be supplanted by sight. Nevertheless, there is no room for\ndespondency; the blessed time is surely coming.\n\nIts coming is rendered certain by the presence, here and now, of the\nHoly Spirit. The Spirit may be relied upon to prepare us, both in\nsoul and in body, for the glory of heaven.\n\n=(1) The Spirit in the Old Testament and in the Life of Jesus.=--The\nSpirit of God was mentioned even in the Old Testament. At the\nbeginning he \"moved upon the face of the waters,\" Gen. 1:2; he\nwas the source of the mighty deeds of heroes and of the prophets'\ninspired words. In the life and teaching of Jesus, however, the\nSpirit was far more fully revealed than he had ever been revealed\nbefore. He was the source of Jesus' human nature, Matt. 1:18, 20;\nLuke 1:35; he descended upon the newly proclaimed Messiah, Matt.\n3:16, and was operative in all the earthly ministry of the Lord.\n\n=(2) The Spirit in the Church.=--For the disciples, however, the\nfull glory of the Spirit's presence was manifested only after\nJesus himself had been taken up into heaven; the present age,\nfrom Pentecost to the second coming of the Lord, is peculiarly\nthe dispensation of the Holy Spirit. Discontent with the Church's\nimperfections and dismay at her many adversaries should never cause\nus to lose confidence in the work that is being done by the Spirit\nof God. It was expedient that Jesus should go away; through the\nother \"Comforter\" whom he has sent, he manifests himself even more\ngloriously than he did to the disciples in Galilee.\n\n=(3) The Nature of the Spirit.=--The apostles never discuss the\nnature of the Holy Spirit in any thoroughly systematic way. But two\ngreat facts are really presupposed in the whole New Testament. In\nthe first place, the Holy Spirit is God, and in the second place he\nis a person distinct from the Father and from the Son. The divinity\nof the Spirit appears, for example, in I Cor. 2:11. The point of\nthat verse is that the Spirit is as closely related to God as the\nhuman spirit is to a man. \"For who among men knoweth the things of\na man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the\nthings of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.\" The distinct\npersonality of the Spirit appears with special clearness in Rom.\n8:26, 27. There the Spirit is represented as making intercession\nwith him \"that searcheth the hearts\"; the one who intercedes is\npersonally distinct from him before whom he makes intercession.\nEven more convincing, perhaps, is the great promise of Christ in\nJohn 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15, where the other \"Comforter\" is\nspoken of in clearly personal terms and is distinguished both from\nthe Father and from the Son. Personal distinctness, however, is\nnot inconsistent with a perfect unity of nature. What the Spirit\ndoes the Son and the Father do; when the other Comforter comes to\nthe Church, Christ himself comes. The doctrine of the \"Trinity\" is\na profound mystery, but its mysteriousness is no obstacle to the\nacceptance of its truth. Mystery in the depths of God's nature is\nsurely to be expected. This mystery, taught by the pen of inspired\nwriters, has brought salvation and peace into the lives of men.\nDistinctly Trinitarian passages, such as Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14,\nare merely the summation of the New Testament teaching about God,\nand that teaching has worked itself out in unspeakable blessing in\nthe life of the Church.\n\n=(4) The Work of the Spirit.=--A complete summary of the belief of\nthe apostolic Church about the work of the Holy Spirit would be\nimpossible in one brief lesson. The Christian life is begun by the\nSpirit, and continued by his beneficent power. Conversion, according\nto Jesus and his apostles, is only the manward aspect of a profound\nchange in the depths of the soul. That change is \"regeneration,\" a\nnew birth. Christian experience is no mere improvement of existing\nconditions, but the entrance of something entirely new. Man is not\nmerely sick in trespasses and sins, but \"dead\"; only a new birth\nwill bring life. That new birth is a mysterious, creative act of the\nSpirit of God. John 3:3-8.\n\nBut the Spirit does not leave those whom he has regenerated to\nwalk alone; he dwells in them and enables them to overcome sin.\nThe motive of his work is love. He is no blind force, but a loving\nPerson; the Christian can enjoy a real communion with him as with\nthe Father and the Son. In the presence of the Spirit we have\ncommunion with God; the Persons of the Godhead are united in a\nmanner far beyond all human analogies. There is no imperfect medium\nseparating us from the divine presence; by the gracious work of the\nHoly Spirit we come into vital contact with the living God.\n\nThe Spirit is the ground and cause of Christian freedom. \"Where the\nSpirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.\" II Cor. 3:17. \"For as\nmany as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For ye\nreceived not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received\nthe spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.\" Rom. 8:14,\n15. This liberty that the Spirit brings is, however, not a liberty\nto sin; it is liberation from sin. The body of the Christian is a\ntemple of the Holy Spirit; in that temple only purity is in place.\nThe inward power of the Holy Spirit in the heart is more powerful\nthan the law; if a man yields to that power he will overcome the\nflesh; the law of God is fulfilled by those \"who walk not after the\nflesh, but after the Spirit.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nIN THE LIBRARY.--Vos, \"The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom\nof God and the Church.\" Crane, \"The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the\nHoly Spirit.\" Swete, \"The Holy Spirit in the New Testament.\" Thomas,\n\"The Holy Spirit of God.\"\n\n\n\n\nLESSON LII\n\nRETROSPECT: THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CENTURY\n\n\nThe apostolic example can be applied intelligently to the problems\nof our time only if there be some understanding of the intervening\ncenturies. We are connected with the apostolic Church by an unbroken\nsuccession. A study of Church history would help us to apply the New\nTestament teaching to our own age.\n\nThe Christian writings which have been preserved from the early\npart of the second century show a marked decline from the spiritual\nlevel of the apostles. Evidently the special inspiration which had\nmade the New Testament a guide for all ages had been withdrawn. Yet\nthe Spirit of God continued to lead the Church. Even in the darkest\nperiods of Church history God did not forget his people.\n\nOnly scanty Christian writings have been preserved from the first\nthree-quarters of the second century; the extant works of the\nso-called \"Apostolic Fathers\" and of the \"Apologists\" are of limited\nextent. About the close of the century, however, the record becomes\nmore complete. Clement of Alexandria, Iren\u00e6us of Asia Minor and\nGaul, and Tertullian of North Africa, give a varied picture of\nthe Christian life of the time. The Church had gained rapidly in\ninfluence since the conclusion of the apostolic age; persecutions\nhad not succeeded in checking her advance. Finally, under\nConstantine, in the first part of the fourth century, Christianity\nbecame the favored religion of the Roman Empire.\n\nAbout the same time, in A.D. 325, the first ecumenical council, at\nNic\u00e6a, undertook the work of formulating the belief of the Church.\nThe creeds which were adopted at the great ancient councils are\naccepted to-day in all parts of Christendom. During the same general\nperiod, the power of the bishop of Rome was gradually increased\nuntil it culminated in the papacy.\n\nAfter the conquest of the western part of the Roman Empire in\nthe fifth century, Christianity was accepted by the barbarian\nconquerors, and during the dark ages that followed the Church\npreserved the light of learning and piety until a better day should\ndawn. During the middle ages, though there was for the most part\nlittle originality in Christian thinking, great scholars and\ntheologians formed striking exceptions to the general condition.\nThe political power of the papacy became enormous, but was hindered\nby the personal weakness and immorality of many of the popes.\nThe degraded moral and spiritual condition of the Church was\ncounteracted here and there by the establishment of monastic orders,\nwhose purpose at the beginning was good, by the writings of certain\nmystics, and by the work of the three \"pre-reformers,\" Wyclif in\nEngland, Huss in Bohemia and Savonarola in Italy.\n\nA genuine advance, however, did not come until the Reformation\nof the fifteenth century, when Luther in Germany and Zwingli in\nSwitzerland, almost at the same time and at first independently,\nbecame the leaders in a mighty protest. A little later Calvin\ncarried out the principles of the Reformation in a comprehensive\ntheological system, and by the power of his intellect and the\nfervency of his piety exerted an enormous influence throughout the\nworld. The Reformation was distinctly a religious movement, though\nit had been prepared for by that revival of learning which is called\nthe Renaissance. The work of Luther was a rediscovery of Paul. Not\nthe performance of a set of external acts prescribed by the Church,\nbut, as Paul taught, the grace of God received by faith alone, is,\naccording to Luther, the means of salvation.\n\nThe Reformation brought about a counter-reformation in the Roman\nCatholic Church, and the western European world was finally divided\nbetween the two great branches of Christendom. After a period of\ncontroversy and wars between Protestants and Catholics, the Church\nwas called upon to fight a great battle against unbelief. That\nbattle, begun in its modern form about the middle of the eighteenth\ncentury, continues unabated until the present day. We are living in\na time of intellectual changes. To maintain the truth of the gospel\nat such a time and to present it faithfully and intelligently to\nthe modern world is the supreme task of the Church. The task to\nsome extent has been accomplished; and the missionary movement of\nthe nineteenth and twentieth centuries attests the vitality of the\nancient faith. God has not deserted his Church. There are enemies\nwithout and within, compromise will surely bring disaster; but the\ngospel of Christ has not lost its power. This is not the first time\nof discouragement in the history of the Church. The darkest hour has\nalways been followed by the dawn. Who can tell what God has now in\nstore?\n\n\n\n\n * * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nMinor typographical errors have been corrected without note.\n\nIrregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained\nas printed.","title":"The Literature and History of New Testament Times","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":111562}