NEW TESTAMENT 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 (or special Canonics) 
 
 ...By... 
 
 L.BERKHOF, B. D. 
 
 Limited Edition. 
 
 EERDMANS-SEVENSMA CO. 
 Grand Rapids, Mich. 
 
 }V^ 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This little work on New Testament Introduction is the re- 
 sult of labor done in and for the class-room, and is primarily 
 intended for my own students. It is not and does not pre- 
 tend to be a work of original research, but depends in a 
 large measure on the labors of such men as Davidson, Reuss, 
 Weiss, Westcott, Lightfoot, Godet, Holtzmann, Julicher, 
 Zahn, e. a. The indebtedness to these will be evident from 
 its pages. 
 
 In method of treatment I have partly gone my own way, 
 both in virtue of principles that are not generally recognized 
 in works of Introduction and for practical considerations. 
 As far as the limits of the work allowed, the directions given 
 by Dr. Kuyper in his Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology have 
 been followed; not only the human but also the divine side 
 of the Sacred Scriptures has been treated. 
 
 It has been my constant endeavor in writing this book, to 
 make it a work that would introduce the students to the 
 books of the New Testament, as they have in fact been trans- 
 mitted to the Church, and not as some critic or other would 
 have them be. Hence critical questions, though not dis- 
 regarded, do not loom as large on its pages as they often do 
 in works on Introduction; the positive constructive element 
 has a decided precedence over the apologetic; and the human 
 factor that operated in the origin and composition of the 
 Scriptures, is not studied to the neglect of the divine. 
 
 A limited number of copies was printed, partly in de- 
 ference to the expressed wish of some of my present and past 
 students, and partly because I desire to use it as a text-book 
 in the future, there being none of the smaller works on In- 
 troduction, such as those of Dods, Pullan, Kerr, Earth, 
 Peake e. a., however excellent some of them may be in their 
 own way, that gave me what I desired. If the book may in 
 some small measure be instrumental in leading others to a 
 greater appreciation and an ever better understanding of the 
 New Testament writings, I shall be very grateful indeed. 
 
 L. BERKHOF. 
 Grand Rapids, Mich., November 30, 1915. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Prolegomena : 
 
 1 Name and Idea 9 
 
 2 Function 10 
 
 3 Leading Principles 12 
 
 4 Encyclopaedic Place 13 
 
 5 Historical Review 14 
 
 6 Select Literature 15 
 
 The Gospels in General: 
 
 1 The Title of the Gospels 26 
 
 2 The Number of the Gospels recognized in the 
 
 Early Church 28 
 
 3 The Literary Character of the Gospels 30 
 
 4 The Synoptic Problem 33 
 
 5 The Relation of the Gospel of John to the 
 
 Synoptics 42 
 
 6 The Inspiration of the Gospels 52 
 
 7 The Canonical Significance of the Gospels as 
 
 a Whole 58 
 
The Gospels Separately: 
 
 1 The Gospel of Matthew 61 
 
 2 The Gospel of Mark 75 
 
 3 The Gospel of Luke 89 
 
 4 The Gospel of John 102 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles 117 
 
 The Epistles in General: 
 
 1 The Epistolary Form in Biblical Literature.... 129 
 
 2 The Inspiration of the Epistles 131 
 
 3 The Canonical Significance of the Epistles 
 
 in General 133 
 
 4 Classification 135 
 
 The Epistles of Paul:— Paul 139 
 
 1 The Epistle to the Romans 144 
 
 2 The first Epistle to the Corinthians 156 
 
 3 The second Epistle to the Corinthians 167 
 
 4 The Epistle to the Galatians 176 
 
 5 The Epistle to the Ephesians 188 
 
 6 The Epistle to the Philippians 199 
 
 7 The Epistle to the Colossians 209 
 
 8 The first Epistle to the Thessalonians 218 
 
 9 The second Epistle to the Thessalonians 227 
 
 10 The Pastoral Epistles — Authorship 235 
 
 11 The first Epistle to Timothy 245 
 
 12 The second Epistle to Timothy 252 
 
 13 The Epistle to Titus 256 
 
 14 The Epistle to Philemon 261 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews 265 
 
The General Epistles : 
 
 1 The General Epistle of James 279 
 
 2 The first General Epistle of Peter 292 
 
 3 The second General Epistle of Peter 306 
 
 4 The first General Epistle of John 316 
 
 5 The second and third General Epistles of 
 
 John 325 
 
 6 The General Epistle of Jude 332 
 
 The Revelation of John 339 
 
PROLEGOMENA. 
 
 1. NAME AND IDEA. 
 The name Introduction or Isagogks (from the Greek 
 
 etaaYoyi]) did not always denote what it does today. As 
 it is used by the monk Adrianus (circa 440) and by 
 Cassiodorus (circa 570), it designates a conglomeration of 
 linguistic, rhetorical, archaeological, geographical and his- 
 torical matter, such as might be helpful in the interpretation 
 of Scripture. In course of time the connotation of the 
 word changed. Michaelis (1750) was the first one to 
 employ it in something like its present sense, when he 
 entitled his work, devoted to the literary historical questions 
 of the New Testament, Einleitung in die gottlichen 
 Schriften des neuen Bundes. The study of Introduction 
 was gradually limited to an investigation of the origin, the 
 composition, the history, and the significance of the Bible 
 as a whole (General Introduction), or of its separate books 
 (Special Introduction). But as a designation of this disci- 
 pline the name Introduction did not meet with general 
 approval. It was pointed out — and correctly so — that the 
 name is too comprehensive, since there are other disciplinae 
 that introduce to the study of the Bible ; and that it does not 
 express the essential character of the discipline, but only one 
 of its practical uses. 
 
 Several attempts have been made to supply a name that 
 is more in harmony with the central contents and the 
 unifying principle of this study. But opinions differed as 
 to the essential character of the discipline. Some scholars, 
 as Reuss, Credner and Hupfeld, emphasizing its historical 
 nature, would designate it by a name something like that 
 
10 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 already employed by Richard Simon in 1678, when he 
 styled his work, ''Critical History of the Old Testament. 
 Thus Hupfeld says : "Der eigentliche und allein richtige 
 Name der Wissenschaft in ihrem heutigen Sinn ist demnach 
 Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testa- 
 ments." Begriff und Methode des sogenannten biblischen 
 Einleitung p. 12. Reuss arranged his work entirely on this 
 principle. It was objected, however, by several scholars that 
 a history of the Biblical literature is now, and perhaps for 
 all time an impossibility, and that such a treatment necessar- 
 ily leads to a co-ordination of the canonical and the apocry- 
 phal books. And this is just what we find in the History of 
 Reuss. Hence the great majority of New Testament 
 scholars, as Bleek, Weiss, Davidson, Holtzmann, Jiilicher, 
 Zahn e. a. prefer to retain the old name, either with or with- 
 out the qualification, "historical-critical." 
 
 Another and important stricture on the name suggested 
 by Hupfeld, is that it loses sight of the theological character 
 of this discipline. Holtzmann correctly says : "Als Glied 
 des Organismus der theologischen Wissenschaften ist die 
 biblische Einleitung allerdings nur vom Begriffe des Kanons 
 aus zu begreifen, nur in ihm findet sie ihre innere Einheit," 
 Historisch-critische Einleitung in das Neue Testament p. 11. 
 This consideration also leads Kuyper to prefer the name, 
 Special Canonics. Encyclopaedic der Heilige Godgeleerdheid 
 III p. 22 ff. Ideally this name is probably the best; it is 
 certainly better than the others, but for practical reasons 
 it seems preferable to abide by the generally recognized 
 name Introduction. There is no serious objection to this, 
 if we but remember its deficiency, and bear in mind that 
 verba valent usu. 
 
 2. FUNCTION. 
 
 What is the proper function of this discipline ? Accord- 
 ing to De Wette it must answer the questions : "Was ist 
 die Bibel, und wie ist sie geworden was sie ist?" Hupfeld 
 objects to the first question that it has no place in a histor- 
 
PROLEGOMENA 11 
 
 ical inquiry ; hence he would change it a little and state the 
 problem as follows : "Was war en die unter den Namen des 
 Bibel vereinigten Schriften ursprunglich, und wie sind sie 
 geworden was sie jetzt sind?" Begriff u. Meth. p. 13. It is 
 now generally understood and admitted that the study must 
 investigate the questions of the authorship, the composition, 
 the history, the purpose and the canonicity of the different 
 books of the Bible. 
 
 A difference of opinion becomes apparent, however, as 
 soon as we ask, whether the investigation should be limited 
 to the canonical books, or should include the Apocrypha as 
 well. The answer to that question will necessarily depend 
 on one's standpoint. They who regard Introduction as a 
 purely historical study of Hebrew and Old Christian litera- 
 ture, will hold with Rabiger and Reuss that the apocryphal 
 books must also receive due consideration. On the other 
 hand, they who desire to maintain the theological character 
 of this discipline and believe that it finds its unity in the 
 idea of the canon, will exclude the Apocrypha from the 
 investigation. 
 
 A similar difference obtains with reference to the ques- 
 tion, whether it is only the human or also the divine side 
 of the canonical books that should be the object of study. 
 It is perfectly obvious that, if the discipHne be regarded 
 as a purely historical one, the divine factor that operated 
 in the composition of the books of the Bible and that gives 
 them their permanent canonical significance, cannot come in 
 consideration. The Word of God must then be treated 
 like all purely human compositions. This is the stand taken 
 by nearly all writers on Introduction, and Hupfeld believes 
 that even so it is possible to maintain the theological char- 
 acter of the discipline. Begriff u. Meth. p. 17. It appears 
 to us, however, that this is impossible, and with Kuyper 
 we hold that we should not only study the human, but 
 should also have regard to the divine side of the Biblical 
 books, notably to their inspiration and canonical significance. 
 
12 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Lastly the conception of the final aim of this study also 
 varies. Many scholars are of the opinion that it is the final 
 purpose of Introduction to determine in a historico-critical 
 way what part of the Biblical writings are credible and 
 therefore really constitute the Word of God. Human 
 reason is placed as an arbiter over the divine Revelation. 
 This, of course, cannot be the position of those who believe 
 that the Bible is the Word of God. This belief is our 
 starting point and not our goal in the study of Introduction. 
 Thus we begin with a theological postulate, and our aim is 
 to set forth the true character of Scripture, in order to 
 explain, why the Church universal honors it as the Word 
 of God ; to strengthen the faith of believers ; and to vindi- 
 cate the claims of the canonical books over against the 
 assaults of Rationalism. 
 
 To define : Introduction is that Bibliological discipline 
 that investigates the origin, composition, history and pur- 
 pose of the Scriptural writings, on their human side ; and 
 their inspiration and canonical significance, on the divine 
 side. 
 
 3. LEADING PRINCIPLES. 
 
 There are certain fundamental principles that guide us 
 in our investigation, which it is desirable to state at the 
 outset, in order that our position may be perfectly clear. 
 For the sake of brevity we do not seek to establish them 
 argumentatively. 
 
 1. For us the Bible as a whole and in all its parts is 
 the very Word of God, written by men indeed, but organ- 
 ically inspired by the Holy Spirit ; and not the natural 
 product of the religious development of men, not merely 
 the expression of the subjective religious consciousness of 
 believers. Resting, as it ultimately does, on the testimony 
 of the Holy Spirit, no amount of historical investigation 
 can shake this conviction. 
 
 2. This being our position, we unflinchingly accept all 
 that the various books of the Bible tell us concerning their 
 
PROLEGOMENA 13 
 
 authorship, destination, composition, inspiration, etc. Only 
 in cases where the text is evidently corrupt, will we hesitate 
 to accept their dicta as final. This applies equally to all 
 parts of the Word of God. 
 
 3. Since we do not believe that the Bible is the result 
 of a purely natural development, but regard it as the product 
 of supernatural revelation, a revelation that often looks 
 beyond the immediate present, we cannot allow the so-called 
 seitgeschichtliche arguments the force which they are often 
 supposed to have. 
 
 4. While it is the prevailing habit of many New Tes- 
 tament scholars to discredit what the early Church fathers 
 say respecting the books of the Bible, because of the uncrit- 
 ical character of their work, we accept those early traditions 
 as trustworthy until they are clearly proven unreliable. 
 The character of those first witnesses warrants this position, 
 
 5. We regard the use of working-hypotheses as per- 
 fectly legitimate within certain limits. They may render 
 good service, when historical evidence fails, but even then 
 may not go contrary to the data at hand, and the problem- 
 atic character of the results to which they lead must always 
 be borne in mind. 
 
 6. It is not assumed that the problems of New Testa- 
 ment Introduction are insignificant, and that all the diffi- 
 culties that present themselves can easily be cleared up. 
 Whatever our standpoint, whatever our method of proced- 
 ure in studying these problems, we shall sometimes have 
 to admit our ignorance, and often find reason to confess 
 that we know but in part. 
 
 ENCYCLOPAEDIC PLACE. 
 
 There is little uniformity in Theological Encyclopaedias 
 with respect to the proper place of this discipline. They 
 all correctly place it among the Exegetical (Bibliological) 
 group of Theological disciplinse, but its relation to the other 
 studies of that group is a matter of dispute. The most usual 
 arrangement is that of Hagenbach, followed in our country 
 
14 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 by Schaff, Crooks and Hurst and Weidner, viz. : Biblical 
 Philology, dealing with the words, and Biblical Archaeology, 
 in its broadest sense, with the things of the Bible ; Biblical 
 Introduction, treating of the fortunes, and Biblical Criti- 
 cism, supplying the test of Scripture; Biblical Hermeneu- 
 tics, relating to the theory, and Biblical Exegesis, pertaining 
 to the practice of interpretation. The order of Rabiger is 
 unusual: Hermeneutics, Linguistics, Criticism, Antiquities, 
 Biblical History, Isagogics, Exegesis, and Biblical theology. 
 The disposition of Kuyper and Cave is preferable to either 
 one of these. They place Introduction (Canonics) first, as 
 pertaining to the formal side of Scripture as a book, and 
 then let the studies follow that have reference to the formal 
 and material side of the contents of the Bible. 
 
 HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 Although the beginnings of New Testament Isagogics 
 are already found in Origen, Dionysius and Eusehius; and 
 in the time of the Reformation some attention was devoted 
 to it by Pagninus, Sixtus of Siene and Serarius among the 
 Roman Catholics ; by Walther of the Lutherans ; and by the 
 Reformed scholars Rivetus and Heidegger ; — Richard Simon 
 is generally regarded as the father of this study. His works 
 were epoch-making in this respect, though they had refer- 
 ence primarily to the language of the New Testament. He 
 minimized the divine element in Scripture. Michaelis, who 
 in his, Einleitung in die gottlichen Schriften des neuen 
 Bundes, 1750, produced the first Introduction in the modern 
 sense, though somewhat dependent on Simon, did not alto- 
 gether share his rationalistic views. Yet in the succeeding 
 editions of his work he gradually relaxed on the doctrine of 
 inspiration, and attached no value to the Testimonium 
 Spiritus Sancti. 
 
 The next significant contribution to the science was made 
 by Semler in his, Ahhandlung von freier Untersuchung des 
 Kanons, 1771-75. He broke with the doctrine of inspira- 
 tion and held that the Bible was not, but contained the Word 
 of God, which could be discovered only by the inner light. 
 
PROLEGOMENA 15 
 
 All questions of authenticity and credibility had to be 
 investigated voraussetzungslos. Eichhorn also departed 
 decidedly from traditional views and was the first to fix 
 attention on the Synoptic problem, for which he sought the 
 solution in his Urevangelium, 1804-27. At the same time 
 the Johannine problem was placed in the foreground by 
 several scholars, especially by Bretschneider, 1820. An 
 acute defender of the traditional views arose in the Roman 
 Catholic scholar Hug, who fought the rationalistic critics 
 with their own weapons. 
 
 Meanwhile the Mediating school made its appearance 
 under the leadership of Schleiermacher, The critics belong- 
 ing to that school sought a mean between the positions of 
 Rationalism and the traditional views. They were naturally 
 divided into two sections, the naturalistic wing, inclining 
 towards the position of Semler and Eichhorn ; and the 
 evangelical wing, leaning decidedly toward traditionalism. 
 Of the first class De Wette was the ablest exponent, though 
 his work was disappointing as to positive results ; while 
 Credner, following in general the same line, emphasized the 
 historical idea in the study of Introduction. The other wing 
 was represented by Guericke, Olshausen and Meander. 
 
 The Tubingen school of New Testament criticism took 
 its rise with F. C. Batir, 1792-1860, who applied the 
 Hegelian principle of development to the literature of the 
 New Testament. According to him the origin of the New 
 Testament, too, finds its explanation in the three-fold 
 process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. There was 
 action, reaction and compromise. Paul defended his posi- 
 tion in the four great epistles (Romans, I and II Corinth- 
 ians and Galatians), the only genuine productions of the 
 apostle. This position is assailed by the Apocalypse, the 
 sole work of John. And all the other writings of the New 
 Testament were written by others than their reputed 
 authors in the interest of reconciliation, the fourth Gospel 
 and the first Epistle of John issuing in the blending of the 
 different parties. Among the immediate followers of Baur 
 
16 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 we have especially Zeller, Schwegler and Kostlin. The 
 further adherents of the school, such as Hilgenfeld, Hoist en 
 and Davidson, modified the views of Baur considerably ; 
 while later German scholars, as Pfieiderer, Hausrath, Holtz- 
 mann, Weizsdcker and Jillicher, broke with the distinctive 
 Tubingen theory and indulged independently in rationalistic 
 criticism. The wildest offshoot of the Tubingen school was 
 Bruno Bauer, who rejected even the four epistles regarded 
 as genuine by F. C. Baur. He had no followers in Ger- 
 many, but of late his views found support in the writings 
 of the Dutch school of Pierson, Naber, Loman and Van 
 Manen, and in the criticism of the Swiss scholar Steck. 
 
 Opposition to the radicalism of the Tubingen school 
 became apparent in two directions. Some scholars, as Bleek, 
 Ewald, Reuss, without intending a return to the traditional 
 standpoint, discarded the subjective element of the Tubingen 
 theory, the Hegelian principle of thesis, antithesis and syn- 
 thesis, in connection with the supposed second century 
 struggle between Petrine and Pauline factions. Ritschl also 
 broke away from the Tubingen tendency, but substituted 
 an equally subjective principle of criticism by applying his 
 favorite W erthurtheile to the authentication of the books of 
 the Bible. He had, as he claimed, no interest in saving 
 mere objective statements. What had for him the value 
 of a divine revelation was regarded as authentic. Some 
 of his most prominent followers are Harnack, Schiirer and 
 Wendt. 
 
 An evangelical reaction against the subjective Tubingen 
 vagaries also made its appearance in Ebrard, Dietlein, 
 Thiersch, Lechler, and the school of Hofmann, who himself 
 defended the genuineness of all the New Testament books. 
 His disciples are Luthardt, Gran, Nosgen and Th. Zahn. 
 The works of Beischlag and B. Weiss are also quite con- 
 servative. Moreover the writings of such men as Lightfoot, 
 Westcott, Ellicott, Godet, Dods, Pullan e. a. maintain with 
 great ability the traditional position respecting the books of 
 the New Testament. 
 
SELECT LITERATURE 
 
 Including the Works referred to in the Text. 
 
 In order that the list may serve as a guide for students, both 
 
 the edition and the value of the books are indicated. 
 
 I. 
 BOOKS ON INTRODUCTION, BIBLE DICTION- 
 ARIES AND RELATED WORKS. 
 
 Alexander, The Canon of the Old and New Testaments, 
 
 Philadelphia 1851. Conservative. 
 Andrews, The Life of our Lord upon the Earth, New 
 
 York 1894. Excellent for chronological and historical 
 
 discussions. 
 Bai JON, Geschiedenis van de Boeken des Nieuwen Ver- 
 
 honds, Groningen 1901. Scholarly with a liberal point 
 
 of view. 
 Barth, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Giitersloh 1908 ; 
 
 2d edit, since published. Conservative and good. 
 Baur, Church History of the first three Centuries, London 
 
 1878-79. Brilliant but written with a rationalistic 
 
 tendency. 
 Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, 
 
 New York 1864; 4th edit. 1878. A conservative and 
 
 valuable work. 
 Blass, Crammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gott- 
 
 ingen 1911. Supercedes Winer and Buttmann, but 
 
 does not render them worthless. An excellent work. 
 Bleek, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 4th edit, by 
 
 Mangold, Berlin 1886. Eng. transl. by W. Urwick, 
 
 London 1870. One of the best works on N. T. Introd. 
 
 Standpoint, moderately liberal. 
 
 ,/ 
 
18 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Buckley, Introduction to the Synoptic Problem, London 
 1912. Proceeds on the Combinations-hypothese. 
 
 Clark, Geo. W., Harmony of the Acts of the Apostles, 
 Philadelphia 1897. A very useful work. 
 
 Davidson, S., Introduction to the Study of the New Testa- 
 ment, London 1894. Scholarly, but extremely ration- 
 alistic and verbose. 
 
 Davis, A Dictionary of the Bible, Philadelphia 1903. The 
 best one volume Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, London 1911. 
 Very valuable for the new light it sheds on the language 
 of the N. T. 
 
 Deissmann, St. Paul, a Study in Social and Religious His- 
 tory, London 1912. A vivid and delightful portrayal of 
 Paul and his world. 
 ^ DoDS, An Introduction to the New Testament, London. A 
 useful manual. 
 
 Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul, London 1879. 
 Instructive and written in a beautiful style, but not 
 always characterized by sobriety. 
 ^ GoDET, Introduction to the New Testament, I Pauline 
 Epistles, Edinburgh 1894; // The Collection of the 
 Four Gospels and the Gospel of St. Matthew, Edin- 
 burgh 1899. Scholarly and conservative; devotes 
 much space to the contents of the books. 
 
 GoDET, Bijbelstudien over het Niemve Testament, Amster- 
 dam. Contains introductions to the Gospels and the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 Gregory, D. S., Why Four Gospels, New York 1907. The 
 work of a conservative scholar, valuable in differentiat- 
 ing the Gospels. 
 
 Gregory, C. R., Canon and Text of the New Testament, 
 New York 1907. A scholarly and moderately con- 
 servative work. 
 
 Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, dealing with its 
 Language, Literature and Contents, New York 1900-04. 
 
SELECT LITERATURE 19 
 
 Contains valuable introductions to the books of the 
 Bible. Those pertaining to the New Testament are 
 characterized by greater moderation than those relating 
 to the Old ; the latter are often extremely rationalistic, 
 the former usually moderately conservative. 
 
 Hausrath, History of New Testament Times : The Life of 
 Jesus 2 vols., Edinburgh 1878-80; The Life of the 
 Apostles 4 vols., Edinburgh 1895. A learned work, 
 full of information, but extremely rationalistic. 
 
 Hill, Introduction to the Life of Christ, New York 1911. 
 A concise statement of the problems that enter into a 
 study of the Life of Christ. 
 
 HoLDSWORTH, Gospel Origins. New York 1913. Though 
 differing somewhat from the work of Buckley, it also 
 advocates the Combinations-hypothese. 
 
 HoLTZMANN, Historisch-critische Einleitung in das Neue 
 Testament, Freiburg 1892. Perhaps the most important 
 representative of the rationalistic position in New Tes- 
 tament study. Very learned, and rich in historical 
 matter. 
 
 JiJLiCHER, Einleitung in des Neue Testament, Leipzig 
 1906. A scholarly work, written from the rationalistic 
 point of view. 
 
 King, The Theology of Christ's Teaching, New York 1903. 
 Conservative and very instructive ; weak in genetic 
 treatment. 
 
 Kerr, Introduction to New Testafnent Study, New York 
 1892. A conservative manual. 
 
 KuYPER, Encyclopaedic der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, Am- 
 sterdam 1894. 
 
 LuTHARDT, St. lohn the Author of the Fourth Gospel, 
 Edinburgh 1875. An able conservative defense, con- 
 taining a large Bibliography by C. R. Gregory. 
 
 McGiFFERT, The Apostolic Age, New York 1910. A schol- 
 arly but rationalizing work. 
 
 Moffat, An Introduction to the Literature of the New 
 
 y 
 
20 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Testament, New York 1911. Very able, but vitiated 
 
 by rationalistic principles. 
 Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels (abridged), Boston 
 
 1890. An able defense of the Gospels. The author 
 
 adheres to the Traditions-hypothese. 
 ^ Peake, a Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 
 
 New York 1910. Well written, able, but following 
 
 the line of negative criticism. 
 PuLLAN, The Books of the New Testament, London 1901. 
 
 A very useful manual ; conservative. 
 ' PuRVES, Christianity in the Apostolic Age, New York 1900. 
 
 The work of a scholar. In point of view the antipode 
 
 of McGififert's book. 
 Ramsay, Historical Commentary on the Galatians, London 
 
 1899. 
 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 
 
 London 1903. 
 Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, London 1893. 
 Ramsay, Luke the Physician (and other Studies), New 
 
 York 1908. The works of Ramsay have a charm of 
 
 their own : they are original and informing, based on 
 
 large historical and archaeological knowledge, and, on 
 
 the whole, written in a conservative spirit. 
 Real-En CYCLOP^DiE, Hauck, Leipzig 1896-1909. Contains 
 
 very valuable material for New Testament study, but 
 
 many of its articles are marred by their destructive 
 
 tendency. 
 Reuss, History of the New Testament, Boston 1884. The 
 
 work of a great scholar; its method is peculiar; its 
 
 standpoint moderately rationalistic. 
 V Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Books of the New 
 
 Testament, New York 1889. The antipode of David- 
 son's Introduction ; very able, but suffering from want 
 
 of method. 
 ScHURER, Geschichte des Judischcn Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu 
 
 Christi, Leipzig 1901-1911. The greatest work on the 
 
SELECT LITERATURE 21 
 
 subject, but, on account of its liberal tendency, to be 
 
 used with care. 
 SiMCOX, Writers of the New Testament, London 1890. 
 
 Contains a lucid discussion of the style of the N. T. 
 
 writers. 
 Stevens, Johannine Theology, New York 1894. 
 Stevens, Pauline Theology, New York 1903. Both works 
 
 are stimulating and helpful, but must be used with 
 
 discrimination. 
 Urquhart, The Bible, its Structure and Purpose, New 
 
 York 1904. 
 Urquhart, The New Biblical Guide, London. Written by 
 
 a staunch defender of the Bible, in popular style. 
 
 Often helpful, especially the last work, in clearing up 
 
 difficulties ; but sometimes too confident and fanciful. 
 Van Melle, Inleiding tot het Nieuive Testament, Utrecht 
 
 1908. A very good manual ; conservative in spirit. 
 Von Soden, Urchristliche Literaturgeschichte, Berlin 1905. 
 
 Rationalistic. 
 Weiss, Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, y 
 
 London 1888. One of the best Introductions to the 
 
 New Testament. Moderately conservative. 
 Weiss, Theology of the New Testament, Edinburgh 1892-3. 
 
 On the whole the best work on the subject. 
 Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Bos- 
 ton 1902. Very helpful in differentiating the Gospels ; 
 
 defends the Traditions-hypothese. 
 Westcott, The Canon of the New Testament, London 
 
 1881. One of the best works on the Canon of the 
 
 N. T. 
 Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the original 
 
 Greek; Introduction and Appendix, New York 1882. 
 
 The indispensible companion to the Greek Testament, 
 
 if one desires the reasons for the readings adopted. 
 Wrede, The Origin of the New Testament, London 1909. 
 
 Very brief and radical. 
 
22 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Wright, A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, London 1903. 
 The most able presentation of the Traditions-hypothese. 
 V Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig 1900; 3. 
 Aufl. 1906; Eng. transl. Edinburgh 1909. A work of 
 immense learning; the best on N. T. Introduction from 
 the conservative side. 
 
 II. 
 
 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 Alexander, Commentaries on Matthezv, New York 1867; 
 Mark, New York 1870; Acts 4th edit. New York 1884. 
 Valuable works, containing sound learning and thor- 
 oughly conservative. 
 
 Alford, The Greek Testament, Cambridge 1894 ; Vol I, 7th 
 edit. ; Vol. II, 7th edit. ; Vol. Ill, 5th edit. ; Vol. IV, 5th 
 edit, A truly great work ; brief, lucid, scholarly, con- 
 servative, embodying the results of German scholar- 
 ship, yet with a measure of independence, though in 
 some parts leaning rather much on Meyer. Still very 
 useful, though not up to date. Contains valuable 
 Prolegomena. 
 
 Barde, Kommentaar op de Handelingen der Apostelen, 
 Kampen 1910. A good commentary, written in a con- 
 servative spirit. 
 
 Beet, Commentaries on Romans, 10th edit. ; / and II Cor- 
 inthians, 7th edit. ; Galatians, 6th edit. ; and Ephesians, 
 Philippians, Colossians, 3d edit., all London 1891-1903. 
 Good commentaries by a Methodist scholar ; conserva- 
 tive, but must be used with care, especially in passages 
 pertaining to election, the doctrine of the last things, 
 e. a. 
 
 Biesterveld, De Brief van Paulus aan de Colossensen, 
 Kampen 1908. An excellent work. 
 
 Brown, J., Expositions of Galatians, Edinburgh 1853 ; 
 Hebrews, Edinburgh 1862; and / Peter, Edinburgh 
 
SELECT LITERATURE 23 
 
 1866. Sound works of a Puritan divine, learned but 
 somewhat diffuse. 
 
 Calvin, Commentaries in Opera, Vols. 24-55. There is a 
 fairly good English translation of the Calvin Transla- 
 tion Society. Calvin was undoubtedly the greatest 
 exegete among the Reformers. The value of his 
 exegetical work is generally recognized by present day 
 scholars. 
 
 Eadie, Commentaries on Galatians, 1869 ; Ephesians, 1883 ; 
 Colossians, 1884; Philippians, 1884; Thessalonians, 
 1877, all at Edinburgh. Able and reliable works of 
 a Presbyterian scholar. 
 
 Edwards T. C, Commentary on / Corinthians, 3d edit. 
 London 1897. A good and learned commentary, 
 though sometimes a little over-strained. 
 
 Ellicott, Commentaries on / Corinthians, Andover 1889; 
 Galatians, 1867 ; Ephesians, 1884 ; Philippians and 
 Colossians, 1861 ; Thessalonians, 1866 ; Pastoral Epis- 
 tles, 1869, all at London. Very able grammatical com- 
 mentaries ; conservative. 
 
 Expositor's Greek Testament, London 1912. A very schol- 
 arly work on the order of Alford's Greek Testament; 
 being more recent, it supersedes the latter. Stand- 
 point is on the whole moderately conservative ; it con- 
 tains valuable introductions. 
 
 GoDET, Commentaries on Luke, 1875 ; John, 1877 ; Romans, 
 1886; / Corinthians, 1886-7, all at Edinburgh. Very 
 able and reliable. 
 
 Greydanus, De Openbaring des Heeren aan Johannes, 
 Doesburg. A good popular commentary. 
 
 Hodge, Commentaries on Romans, 2d edit. 1886 ; / Corinth- 
 ians, 1860 ; // Corinthians, 1860 ; Ephesians, 1886. 
 Admirable commentaries, especialy the one on Romans. 
 
 International Critical Commentary, New York, in course of 
 publication. Some volumes of exceptional value; 
 
24 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 others of inferior merit. Characterized by a rational- 
 istic tendency, especially the volumes on the O. T, 
 
 Lange, a Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, 
 Doctrinal and Homiletical. On the whole a useful 
 work ; New Testament far better than the Old. Often 
 suffers for want of clearness, and sometimes loses 
 itself in mystical speculations. Its Homiletical material 
 has little value. 
 
 LiGHTFOOT, Commentaries on Galatians, 1895 ; Philip pians, 
 1895 ; Colossians and Philemon, 1895, all at London. 
 Very able commentaries, containing valuable disserta- 
 tions. Conservative. 
 
 Meyer (Liinemann, Huther and Diisterdieck), Commentary 
 on the New Testament, New York 1890. Meyer is 
 recognized as the prince of grammatical commentators. 
 Parts of Vol. 8 and Vols. 9, 10, 11, contain the work 
 of Liinemann, Huther and Diisterdieck, which though 
 good, is not up to the standard of Meyer's work. 
 Standpoint : moderately conservative. Last German 
 edition by Weiss, Haupt e. a. is no more the work of 
 Meyer. 
 
 Olshausen, Commentary on the New Testament, New 
 York 1860-72. Quite good. Excells in organic inter- 
 pretation of Scripture ; but its mysticism often runs 
 wild. 
 
 Pulpit Commentary, London 1880 sqq. This, as its name 
 indicates, is far more homiletical than exegetical ; yet it 
 contains some real exposition. 
 
 Stier, The Words of the Lord Jesus, New York 1864. Very 
 useful, but often fanciful and diffuse ; devout, but fre- 
 quently characterized by too great a desire to find a 
 deeper meaning in Scripture. 
 
 Strack und Zockler, Kursgefasster Commentar zu den 
 Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments, sowie zu 
 den Apokryphen, Munchen 1886-93. One of the best 
 
SELECT LITERATURE 25 
 
 recent German commentaries. Moderately conserva- 
 tive. 
 
 Vincent^ Word Studies in the New Testament, New York 
 1887-9L Contains some useful material. 
 
 Westcott, Commentaries on the Gospel of John, 1890; the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, 1892 ; and the Epistles of John, 
 t905, all at London. All very scholarly and reliable. 
 
 Zahn^ Kommentar sum Neuen Testament (several co-labo- 
 rators), Erlangen 1903 sqq., still in course of publica- 
 tion. ' Will constitute one of the best conservative com- 
 mentaries of the New Testament. 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL. 
 
 THE TITLE OF THE GOSPELS 
 
 The shortest form of the title is v-aia MairOatov, xaxa 
 Mapxov, etc. The Textus Receptus and some of the Mnn. 
 have TO xa-ra MaTOatov suaYYeXiov ; but the greater part 
 of the Mjj. read suaYyeXiov /.axa MaxOatov, etc. 
 
 The word euaY^sXiov passed through three stages in the 
 history of its use. In the older Greek authors it signified 
 a reward for bringing good tidings; also, a thankoffering for 
 good tidings brought. Next in later Greek it indicated the 
 good news itself. And finally it was employed to denote 
 the books in which the gospel of Jesus Christ is presented in 
 historic form. It is used very extensively in the New Testa- 
 ment, and always in the second sense, signifying the good 
 news of God, the message of salvation. This meaning is 
 also retained in the title of the gospels. The first trace of 
 the word as indicating a written gospel is found in the 
 Didache, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, discovered 
 in 1873 and in all probability composed between the years 
 90 and 100 A. D. This contains the following exhortation 
 in 15:3: "And reprove one another not in wrath but in 
 peace, as ye have it in the Gospel. Here the word suafY^^'O"^ 
 evidently refers to a written record. It is very explicitly and 
 repeatedly applied to a written account of the life of Christ 
 about the middle of the second century. The plural 
 &ua-{yi\ia, signifying the four Gospels, is first found in 
 Justin Martyr, about 152 A. D. 
 
 The expression v.ixxa MaxOatov, xaxa Mapxov, etc., has 
 often been misinterpreted. Some maintained that /.axa 
 simply indicated a genitive relation, so that we should read : 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 27 
 
 the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, etc. But if 
 this is the idea intended, why was not the simple genitive 
 used, just as it is employed by Paul, when he expresses a 
 similar idea, to euayyeXtov [lou, Rom. 2:16; 16:25? More- 
 over, it cannot be maintained that the preposition xccza 
 is equivalent to the Hebrew Lamedh of possession, for the 
 Septuagint never renders this by /.a-ua. Others inferred 
 from the use of this expression that the Gospels were not 
 written by the persons named, but were shaped after the 
 Gospel as they preached it. But on this interpretation it 
 seems very peculiar that the second and third Gospels were 
 not called xaxa IHxpov and y-axa HaiJXov, seeing that they 
 were fashioned after their type of preaching. The expres- 
 sion must be explained from the Church's consciousness 
 that there is but one Gospel of Jesus Christ, and indicates 
 that in these writings we have that Gospel, as it was shaped 
 (i. e. in writing) by the persons whose names they bear. 
 
 That the early Church caught the idea of the unity of 
 the Gospel is quite evident. It is true, the plural of 
 euctYYeXtov is sometimes employed, but the singular pre- 
 vails. Justin Martyr speaks of the Memoirs that are called 
 Gospels, but he also expresses himself thus : "the precepts 
 in what is called the Gospel," "it is written in the Gospel." 
 Irenaeus in one of his writings states his theme as : "The 
 Gospel is essentially fourfold." Clement of Alexandria 
 speaks of "the Law, the Prophets and the Gospel," and 
 Augustine, of "the four Gospels, or rather, the four books 
 of the one Gospel." 
 
 The English word Gospel is derived from the Anglo- 
 Saxon godspell, composed of god^God and spel=story, 
 thus indicating the story of the life of God in human flesh. 
 It is not improbable, however, that the original form of the 
 Anglo-Saxon word was godspell, from gdd=good and 
 spel=story, this being a literal translation of the Greek 
 eua-^fiXiow. It denotes the good tidings of salvation in 
 Christ for a perishing world. 
 
28 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 THE NUMBER OF THE GOSPELS RECOGNIZED 
 BY THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 In view of the fact that the first Christian century pro- 
 duced many Gospels besides those which are included in our 
 canon, and that many at the present day deny the authority 
 of some or all of our Gospels, it is important to know, how 
 many the early Church received as canonic. The apostolic 
 fathers, though often quoting the Gospels do not mention 
 their authors, nor do they enumerate them. They testify 
 to the substance and canonicity of the Gospels therefore, 
 but not, except indirectly, to their authenticity and number. 
 In all probability the earliest evidence that the Church of 
 the first ages accepted the four Gospels that we now possess 
 as canonic, is furnished by the Peshito, which most likely 
 dates from the first half of the second century. And being 
 a translation, it points to the fact that even before its origin 
 our four Gospels were received into the canon, while all 
 others were left out. Another early witness is found in the 
 Muratorian Fragment, a mutilated work of which the real 
 character cannot now be determined, and that was probably 
 written about 170 A. D. It commences with the last words 
 of a sentence that seemingly belongs to a description of 
 Mark's Gospel, and then tells us that "Luke's Gospel stands 
 third in order, having been written by Luke, the physician, 
 the companion of Paul." After making this statement it 
 proceeds to assign the fourth place to "the Gospel of John, 
 a disciple of the Lord." The conclusion seems perfectly 
 warranted that the first two Gospels, of which the descrip- 
 tion is lost, are those of Matthew and Mark. An important 
 witness, really the first one to a fourfold Gospel, i. e. to a 
 Gospel that is four and yet one, is Tatian, the Assyrian. 
 His Diatessaron was the first harmony of the Gospels. The 
 exact date of its composition is not known ; the meaning of 
 its name is obviously [the Gospel] by the Four. This, no 
 doubt, points to the fact that it was based on four Gospels, 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 29 
 
 and also implies that these four were our canonical Gospels, 
 since they constituted the only collection in existence that 
 needed no other description than "the Four." The testi- 
 mony of Eusebius is in harmony with this, when he says : 
 "Tatian, the former leader of the Encratites, having put 
 together in some strange fashion a combination and collec- 
 tion of the Gospels, gave it the name of the Diatessaron, and 
 the work is still partially current." Church History, IV, 2p. 
 Very important testimony to our four Gospels is found in 
 the writings of Irenaeus (c. 120-200) and of TertuUian 
 (c. 150-130). The former was a disciple of Polycarp, who 
 in turn had enjoyed the personal instruction of the apostle 
 John. He preached the Gospel to the Gauls and in 178 suc- 
 ceeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. In one of his books 
 he has a long chapter entitled : ''Proofs that there can he 
 neither more nor fewer than four Evangelists." Looking 
 at the Gospels as a unit, he called them "the Gospel with 
 four Faces." And he searched to find mystic reasons for 
 this quadruple form, thus showing how strongly he and his 
 age were persuaded that there were but four canonical Gos- 
 pels. He compares the quadriform Gospel (Texpapt-optpov) 
 to the four regions of the earth, to the four universal spirits, 
 to the cherubim with four faces, etc. The testimony of 
 TertuUian is equally explicit. This famous church father 
 received a liberal education at Rome, lived on in heathen 
 darkness until about his thirtieth or fortieth year, when he 
 was converted and entered the ministry. Embittered by the 
 treatment he received at the hands of the Church, he went 
 into the fold of the Montanists about the beginning of the 
 third century. He wrote numerous works in defense of 
 the Christian religion. In his work against Marcion he says, 
 after stating that the Gospel of Luke had been maintained 
 from its first publication : "The same authority of the apos- 
 tolic churches will uphold the other Gospels which we have 
 in due succession through them and according to their usage, 
 I mean those of [the apostles] Matthew and John ; although 
 
30 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 that which was published by Mark may also be maintained 
 to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was : for the narrative 
 of Luke also is generally ascribed to Paul : since it is allow- 
 able that that which scholars publish should be regarded as 
 their master's work." Just as those that went before him 
 Tertullian appealed to the testimony of antiquity as proving 
 the canonicity of our four Gospels and the other Scriptural 
 books ; and his appeal was never gainsaid. Another signi- 
 ficant testimony is that of Origin, the great teacher of Alex- 
 andria, of whom Eusebius records that in the first book of 
 his commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew he asserts that 
 he knows of only four Gospels, as follows : "I have learnt 
 by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are 
 uncontroverted in the Church of God spread under heaven, 
 that according to Matthew, who was once a publican but 
 afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; 
 . . . that according to Mark second ; . . . that according to 
 Luke third ; . . . that according to John last of all." Church 
 History VI, 25. Eusebius himself, who was the first his- 
 torian of the Christian Church, in giving a catalogue of the 
 New Testament writings, says : "First then we must place 
 the holy quaternion of the Gospels." 
 
 From the testimony which we have now reviewed the 
 conclusion seems perfectly warranted that the Church from 
 the earliest times knew four and only four canonical Gos- 
 pels ; and that these four are the same that she has recog- 
 nized ever since. It is true that the heretic Marcion 
 acknowledged only the Gospel of Luke, and this in muti- 
 lated form, but his attitude toward the Gospels finds a ready 
 explanation in his dogmatic bias. 
 
 THE LITERARY CHARACTER OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 The Gospels have a literary character all their own ; they 
 are siii generis. There is not another book or group of books 
 in the Bible to which they can be compared. They are four 
 and yet one in a very essential sense; they express four 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 31 
 
 sides of the one suocYYsXtov of Jesus Christ. In studying 
 them the question naturally arises, how we must conceive 
 of them. Now we need not argue that they are not mere 
 collections of myths and fables, with or without a historical 
 basis, as many Rationalists would have us believe. Nor is 
 it necessary to show at length that they are not four bi- 
 ographies of Jesus. If their authors intended them to be 
 such, they would be very disappointing indeed. There is, 
 however, another misconception against which we must 
 warn, because it is quite prevalent in the circles of those 
 who accept these writings unquestionably as a part of the 
 Word of God, and since it is a positive hindrance to a true 
 understanding of these priceless records. We refer to the 
 conviction that the writers of the Gospels were minded to 
 prepare for following generations more or less complete 
 histories of the life of Christ. In reading these writings we 
 soon find that, looked at as histories, they leave a great deal 
 to be desired. In the first place they tell us comparatively 
 little of that rich and varied life of Christ, of which they 
 knew so much, Cf. John 20:30; 21:25. The historical 
 facts narrated by John f . i. only represent the work of a few 
 days. His Gospel would thus be a life of Jesus with yawn- 
 ing gaps. The same is true of the other Gospels. In the 
 second place the materials, except those at the beginning 
 and at the end of Christ's life, are not arranged in chrono- 
 logical order. Any possible doubt that we may have on this 
 point is soon dispelled, when we compare the Gospels. The 
 same facts are often narrated in altogether different con- 
 nections. Closely allied with this is a third feature that 
 deserves attention. The casual relation of the important 
 events that are narrated is not traced, except in a few in- 
 stances, and yet this is just what one expects in histories. 
 And finally if they were really meant to be histories, why 
 was it necessary that we should have four of them ? 
 
 The harmonists generally proceeded on the erroneous 
 conception to which we refer. They were aware indeed that 
 
32 NEW TESTAM ENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 there were great lacunae in all the Gospels, but thought they 
 might remedy matters by supplying from one Gospel what 
 was wanting in the other. Thus the relation of the Gospels 
 to one another was conceived of as supplemental. But their 
 work was doomed to failure ; it did violence to the exquisite 
 compositions on which they operated, and marred the char- 
 acteristic beauty of those literary productions. They were 
 always uncertain as to the true order of events, and did not 
 know which one of the evangelists was the best chronological 
 guide. Some preferred Matthew, others chose Mark, and 
 still others followed Luke. And after all their efforts to 
 combine the four Gospels into one continuous narrative with 
 the facts arranged in the exact order in which they occurred, 
 their work must be pronounced a failure. The Gospels are 
 not histories of the life of Christ, nor do they, taken to- 
 gether, form one history. 
 
 But what are they, if they are neither biographies nor 
 histories? They are four pen-pictures, or better, a four- 
 fold portraiture of the Saviour; a fourfold representation 
 of the apostolic x-^puYixa; a fourfold witness regarding our 
 Lord. It is said that the great artist Van Dyke prepared a 
 threefold portrait of Charles I for the sculptor, that the lat- 
 ter might fashion an absolutely faithful likeness of the king. 
 These three portraits were necessary ; their differences and 
 agreements were all required to give a true representation 
 of the monarch. So it is in the case of the Gospels. Each 
 one of them gives us a certain view of the Lord, and only 
 the four taken together present to us his perfect likeness, 
 revealing him as the Saviour of the world. The apostolic 
 /.•^puyiAa had taken a wide flight. Its central content was the 
 cross and the resurrection. But in connection with this the 
 words and deeds of the Saviour and his history also formed 
 the subject of the apostles' preaching. And when this apos- 
 tolic v.'f\p\jy\i(X was reduced to writing, it was found neces- 
 sary to give it a fourfold form, that it might answer to the 
 needs of four classes of people, viz. to those of the Jews, 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 33 
 
 to those of the Romans, to those of the Greeks, and to those 
 of the people who confessed Christ as Lord ; needs that were 
 typical of the spiritual requirements of all future ages. 
 Matthew wrote for the Jews and characterized Christ as 
 the great King of the house of David. Mark composed his 
 Gospel for the Romans and pictured the Saviour as the 
 mighty Worker, triumphing over sin and evil. Luke in 
 writing his Gospel had in mind the needs of the Greeks and 
 portrayed Christ as the perfect man, the universal Saviour. 
 And John, composing his Gospel for those who already had 
 a saving knowledge of the Lord and stood in need of a more 
 profound understanding of the essential character of Jesus, 
 emphasized the divinity of Christ, the glory that was mani- 
 fested in his works. Each Gospel is complete in itself and 
 acquaints us with a certain aspect of the Lord's life. Yet 
 it is only the fourfold Gospel that furnishes us with a com- 
 plete, a perfect image of him whom to know is life eternal. 
 And it is only, when we grasp the different features that are 
 mirrored in the Gospels and see how they blend harmoni- 
 ously in that noblest of all lives, the life of Christ, that we 
 have found the true harmony of the Gospels. 
 
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. 
 
 The first three Gospels are known as the Synoptics, and 
 their authors are called the Synoptists. The name is derived 
 from the Greek auv and o^tq, and is applied to these Gos- 
 pels, since they, as distinguished from the fourth, give us 
 a common view of the life of our Lord. But notwithstand- 
 ing the great similarity by which these Gospels are charac- 
 terized, they also reveal very striking differences. This 
 remarkable agreement on the one hand, and these manifest 
 dissimilarities on the other, constitute one of the most diffi- 
 cult literary problems of the New Testament. The question 
 is, whether we can account for the origin of these Gospels 
 in such a manner that we can explain both the close re- 
 semblances and the often surprising differences. 
 
 In the first place the general plan of these Gospels ex- 
 
34 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 hibits a remarkable agreement. Only Matthew and Luke 
 contain a narrative of the infancy of our Lord and their 
 accounts of it are quite distinct ; but the history of Christ's 
 public ministry follows very much the same order in all the 
 Synoptics. They treat successively of the Lord's prepara- 
 tion for the ministry, John the Baptist, the baptism, the 
 temptation, the return to Galilee, the preaching in its villages 
 and cities, the journey to Jerusalem, the entrance into the 
 Holy City, the preaching there, the passion and the resur- 
 rection. The details that fit into this general plan are also 
 arranged in quite a uniform manner, except in some places, 
 especially of the first Gospel. The most striking differences 
 in the arrangement of the material results from the narrative 
 of a long series of events connected with the Galilean minis- 
 try, which is peculiar to Matthew and Mark, Matt. 14 : 22 — 
 16:12; Mark 6 : 45 — 8 : 26 ; and from the history of another 
 series of events related to the journey to Jerusalem that is 
 found only in Luke 9: 51 — 18: 14. 
 
 But there is not only similarity in the broad outlines of 
 those Gospels ; the particular incidents that are narrated are 
 also in many cases the same in substance and similar if not 
 identical in form. The amount of agreement that we find 
 in this respect is represented by Norton, Genuineness of the 
 Gospels p. 272, and by Westcott, Introduction to the Study 
 of the Gospels p. 20 1, in the following manner : If the total 
 contents of the Gospel is represented by 100, the follow- 
 ing result is obtained : 
 
 Mark has 7 peculiarities and — 93 coincidences 
 
 Matthew has 42 peculiarities and — 58 coincidences 
 
 Luke has 59 peculiarities and — 41 coincidences 
 
 If the extent of all the coincidences be represented by 
 100 their proportionate distribution will be : 
 
 Matthew, Mark and Luke 53 
 
 Matthew and Luke 21 
 
 Matthew and Mark 20 
 
 Mark and Luke 6 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 35 
 
 Still another estimate, viz. that by verses, is suggested 
 by Reuss, History of the New Testament, I p. 177: 
 Matthew out of a total of 971 verses has 330 peculiar to him. 
 Mark out of a total of 478 verses has 68 peculiar to him. 
 Luke out of a total of 1151 verses has 541 pecuHar to him. 
 
 The first two have 170 to 180 verses that are lacking in 
 Luke ; Matthew and Luke, 230 to 240 wanting in Mark ; 
 Mark and Luke about 50 wanting in Matthew. The number 
 common to all three is 330 to 370. 
 
 The preceding statements refer to the subject-matter of 
 the Synoptics. Taken by itself this might give us an exag- 
 gerated idea of the similarity of these Gospels. As a cor- 
 rective it is necessary to bear in mind that the verbal coinci- 
 dences, though they are remarkable indeed, are nevertheless 
 considerably less than one would expect. Dr. Schaff and his 
 son, after some calculations based on Rushbrooke's Synop- 
 ticon, get the following results : 
 
 "The proportion of words peculiar to the Synoptics is 
 28,000 out of 48,000, more than one-half. 
 
 In Matthew 56 words out of every 100 are peculiar. 
 
 In Mark 40 words out of every 100 are peculiar. 
 
 In Luke 67 words out of every 100 are peculiar. 
 
 The number of coincidences common to all three is less 
 than the number of divergences. 
 Matthew agrees with the other two gospels in 1 word out 
 
 of 7. 
 Mark agrees with the other two gospels in 1 word out of 4^. 
 Luke agrees with the other two gospels in 1 word out of 8. 
 
 But comparing the Gospels two by two, it is evident that 
 Matthew and Mark have most in common, and Matthew and 
 Luke are most divergent. 
 
 One-half of Mark is found in Matthew. 
 
 One-fourth of Luke is found in Matthew. 
 
 One-third of Mark is found in Luke. 
 
 The general conclusion from these figures is that all 
 three Gospels widely diverge from the common matter, or 
 triple tradition, Mark the least so and Luke the most (al- 
 
36 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 most twice as much as Mark). On the other hand, both 
 Matthew and Luke are nearer Mark than Luke and 
 Matthew to each other." Church History, I p. 597. 
 
 In connection with the preceding we should bear in mind 
 that these verbal agreements are greatest, not in the nar- 
 rative, but in the recitative parts of the Gospels. About one- 
 fifth of them is found in the narrative portion of the Gospel, 
 and four-fifths in the recital of the words of our Lord and 
 others. This statement will create a false impression, how- 
 ever, unless we bear in mind the proportion in which the 
 narrative parts stand to the recitative element, which is as 
 follows : Narrative Recitative 
 
 Matthew 25 75 
 
 Mark 50 50 
 
 Luke 34 66 
 
 From what has nov/ been said it is perfectly clear that 
 the Synoptics present an intricate literary problem. Is it 
 possible to explain their origin in such a manner that both 
 the resemblances and the differences are accounted for? 
 During the last century many scholars have applied them- 
 selves with painstaking diligence to the arduous task of 
 solving this problem. The solution has been sought along 
 different lines ; several hypotheses have been broached, of 
 which we shall name only the four most important ones. 
 
 In the first place there is what has been called (though 
 not altogether correctly) the mutual dependence theory 
 {Beniitzungshypothese, Augustine, Bengel, Bleek, Storr). 
 According to this theory the one Gospel is dependent on the 
 other, so that the second borrowed from the first and the 
 third from both the first and the second. On this theory, 
 of course, six permutations are possible viz. : 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke. 
 Matthew, Luke, Mark. 
 Mark, Matthew, Luke. 
 Mark, Luke, Matthew. 
 Luke, Matthew, Mark. 
 Luke, Mark, Matthew. 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 37 
 
 In every possible form this theory has found defenders, 
 but it does not meet with great favor at present. True, it 
 seems to account for the general agreement in a very simple 
 manner, but serious difficulties arise, when one seeks to deter- 
 mine which one of the Gospels was first, which second and 
 which third. This is perfectly evident from the difference 
 of opinion among the adherents of this hypothesis. Again 
 it fails to account for the divergencies ; it does not explain 
 why one writer adopts the language of his predecessor (s) 
 up to a certain point, and then suddenly abandons it. Of 
 late it is tacitly admitted, however, that it does contain an 
 element of truth. 
 
 In the second place the hypothesis of oral tradition 
 (Traditiofis-hypothese, Gieseler, Westcott, Wright), should 
 be mentioned. This theory starts from the supposition that 
 the Gospel existed first of all in an unwritten form. It is 
 assumed that the apostles repeatedly told the story of 
 Christ's life, dwelling especially on the most important inci- 
 dents of his career, and often reiterating the very words of 
 their blessed Lord. These narratives and words were 
 eagerly caught up by willing ears and treasured in faithful 
 and retentive memories, the Jews making it a practice to 
 retain whatever they learnt in the exact form in which they 
 received it. Thus a stereotyped tradition arose which served 
 as the basis for our present Gospels. Several objections 
 have been urged against this theory. It is said that, as a 
 result of the apostles' preaching in the vernacular, the oral 
 tradition was embodied in the Aramaic language, and hence 
 cannot account for the verbal coincidences in the Greek 
 Gospels. Again it is urged that the more stereotyped the 
 tradition was, the harder it becomes to account for the 
 differences between the Synoptics. Would anyone be apt 
 to alter such a tradition on his own authority? Moreover 
 this hypothesis offers no explanation of the existence of the 
 two-fold, the triple and the double tradition, i. e. the tradi- 
 tion that is embodied in all three of the Gospels and that 
 
38 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 which is found only in two of them. The majority of 
 scholars have now abandoned this theory, although it has 
 ardent defenders even at present. And no doubt, it must be 
 taken into account in the solution of this problem. 
 
 In the third place we have the hypothesis of one primi- 
 tive Gospel (Urevangeliums-hypothese), from which all 
 three of the Synoptists drew their material. According to 
 G. E. Lessing this Gospel, containing a short account of the 
 life of Jesus for the use of traveling missionaries, was writ- 
 ten in the popular language of Palestine. Eichhorn, how- 
 ever, following him, held that it was translated into Greek, 
 worked over and enriched in various ways, and soon took 
 shape in several redactions, which became the source of our 
 present Gospels. There is very little agreement among the 
 defenders of this theory regarding the exact character of 
 this original source. At present it finds little favor in scien- 
 tific circles, but has been discarded for various reasons. 
 There is absolutely no trace of such an original Gospel, nor 
 any historical reference to it, which seems peculiar in view 
 of its unique significance. And if the existence of such a 
 source be postulated, how must the arbitrary alteration of 
 it be explained, how did these different recensions come into 
 existence. It is evident that by this theory the problem is 
 not solved, but simply shifted to another place. Moreover 
 while in its original form this hypothesis accounted very well 
 for the agreement, but not for the dififerences found in the 
 Synoptics, in its final form it was too artificial and too com- 
 plicated to inspire confidence and to seem anything like a 
 natural solution of the Synoptic problem. 
 
 In the fourth place the so-called double source, or two 
 document theory {Comhinations-hypo these, Weisse, Wilke, 
 Holtzmann, Wendt) deserves mention, since it is the favorite 
 theory of New Testament scholars today. This hypothesis 
 holds that, in order to explain the phenomena of the Gospels, 
 it is necessary to postulate the existence of at least two 
 primitive documents, and recognizes the use of one Gospel 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 39 
 
 in the composition of the others. The form in which this 
 theory is most widely accepted at present is the following: 
 The Gospel of Mark was the first one to be written and, 
 either in the form in which we now have it, or in a slightly 
 different form was the source of the triple tradition. For 
 the double tradition, which is common to Matthew and Luke, 
 these writers used a second source that, for want of definite 
 knowledge regarding it, is simply called Q (from the Ger- 
 man Quelle). This Q may have been the Xo^ia of Matthew 
 mentioned by Papias, and was probably a collection of the 
 sayings of our Lord. The differences between Matthew 
 and Luke in the matter of the double tradition finds its 
 explanation in the assumption that, while Matthew drew 
 directly from Q, Luke derived the corresponding matter 
 from Q and other sources, or from a primitive Gospel based 
 on Q. On the last supposition the relation of Matthew and 
 Luke to Q would be as follows : 
 
 Luke Matthew 
 
 But even so the use of some inferior sources by both 
 Matthew and Luke must be assumed. The double source 
 theory presupposes the existence of a rather large pre- 
 canonical literature. 
 
 There are some evident objections to this theory also. 
 The assumption that the 'kb-^icc of Matthew was anything 
 else than the Hebrew or Aramaic original of our Greek 
 Matthew is a baseless supposition ; it has no historical foun- 
 dation whatever. Furthermore the theory offers no explan- 
 ation of the fact that the writers in some cases faithfully 
 copied their original and in others altered the text rather 
 freely or even departed from it entirely. And by postulat- 
 ing the development of a somewhat extensive Gospel litera- 
 ture previous to the composition of Matthew and Luke, it 
 
40 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 has naturally led to the position that our Gospels were writ- 
 ten late, and therefore in all probability not by their reputed 
 authors. Moreover it also requires us to believe that Luke 
 included the Gospel of Mark in the number of the attempted 
 Gospel stories which his Gospel was meant to supercede. 
 
 None of the theories broached up to the present time 
 has proved satisfactory. There is still a great deal of un- 
 certainty and confusion in the study of the Synoptic prob- 
 lem ; we do not seem to be nearer to its solution now than we 
 were fifty years ago. The great aim has always been to ex- 
 plain the origin of the Synoptics without taking into account 
 the supernatural factor that entered into their composition. 
 Now we do not doubt the value of these studies ; they have 
 already taught us a good many things regarding the origin 
 of these Gospels ; but they have proven themselves insuffi- 
 cient to lead to a final solution of the problem. It is, of 
 course, folly to rule this problem out of existence by simply 
 appealing to the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit. It 
 is true, if one believes in the mechanical inspiration of the 
 Bible, there is no Synoptic problem. This is quite different, 
 however, for those who believe that the Scriptures have been 
 inspired in an organic way. The more naturally we conceive 
 of the origin of these writings, the better it is, if we only do 
 not lose sight of the operation of the divine factor, of the 
 directing, the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit. Cf. 
 Kuyper, Encyclopedie HI p. 51 f. It is hardly sufficient to 
 say with Urquhart, New Biblical Guide VII p. 357, that the 
 key to the problem is found in the fact that the Synoptic 
 Gospels are all the work of one author, and that each book 
 is serving a distinct purpose. Yet this statement contains 
 two important truths that we should continually bear in 
 mind. 
 
 In any attempt to account for the similarities of the 
 Synoptics great allowance should be made for the influence 
 of oral tradition. It is very natural to suppose that, since 
 the apostles for some time labored together at Jerusalem 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 41 
 
 with Peter at the head, a particular, perhaps Petrine type 
 of tradition became the common property of these early 
 preachers and of their first hearers. And because the life 
 of Christ entered as a very important element into the life 
 of his apostles, and they felt the supreme significance of his 
 words, it is also reasonable to assume that they aimed at 
 inculcating the teachings of our Lord on their hearers in the 
 exact form in which He gave it. It is equally rational to 
 suppose that, at a comparatively early time, the desire to 
 escape the uncertainty that always attends oral transmission, 
 led to the composition of brief gospel narratives, containing 
 especially the sayings and discourses of our Lord. These 
 suppositions are entirely in harmony too with the opening 
 verses of the Gospel of Luke : "Forasmuch as many have 
 taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those mat- 
 ters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they deli- 
 vered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewit- 
 nesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, 
 etc." Some of these early documents may have been written 
 in Aramaic and others in Greek. The groundwork thus 
 furnished and drawn upon by the writers of our Gospels, 
 explains in a very natural way most of the agreements that 
 are found in the Synoptics. And those that cannot be ac- 
 counted for in that manner may have resulted directly from 
 the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, who led the writers 
 also in the choice of their words. These three Gospels are 
 in a very real sense the work of one Author. 
 
 In seeking to explain the differences that are found in 
 the Synoptical Gospels, we should bear in mind first of all 
 that they are no histories, but memoirs, historical arguments. 
 In composing them each one of the writers had his own pur- 
 pose. Matthew, writing for the Jews, made it his aim to 
 present Christ as the King, the great Son of David ; Mark, 
 intending his Gospel for the Romans, endeavored to draw 
 a vivid picture of the powerful Worker, conquering the 
 forces of evil; and Luke, addressing the Greeks and adjust- 
 
42 NEW TESTA MENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 ing his Gospel to their needs, sought to describe Christ as 
 the universal Saviour, as a person with wide sympathies. 
 This diversity of aim accounts to a great extent for the 
 variations exhibited in the Gospels, i. e. for omissions on the 
 one hand and additions on the other, for differences in the 
 distribution and arrangement of the material, etc. The writ- 
 ers of the Gospels selected from the great mass of early 
 traditions the material that was suited to their purpose and 
 used it to advantage. The difference between the Synoptics 
 is not accidental, is not the result of the chance use of certain 
 sources. And where the identical teachings of Christ are 
 sometimes found in different forms, we should remember, 
 first, that the Lord may have uttered the same truth at 
 different times in varying forms; and secondly, that the 
 Synoptists do not always give the identical words of the 
 Saviour, but were so guided by the Holy Spirit that they do 
 give an exact representation of the Lord's teachings, perhaps 
 in a form better adapted to their purpose than the original 
 would have been. Cf. Kuyper, Diet. Dogm., Locus de Sacra 
 Scriptura II p. 131 f. ; Gregory, Why Four Gospels; Van 
 Leeuwen, Literatuur en Schriftuur p. 14 ff . ; Urquhart, New 
 Biblical Guide VII p. 328-428. 
 
 For further study of the Synoptic Problem we refer to : 
 Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels; Westcott, Introduction 
 to the Study of the Gospels; Arthur Wright, A Synopsis of 
 the Gospels in Greek; Holdsworth, Gospel Origins; Buck- 
 ley, Introduction to the Synoptic Problem; Hill, Introduc- 
 tion to the Life of Christ; Reuss, History of the New Testa- 
 ment I p. 163-218 (where the most important German litera- 
 ture is referred to) ; and the various Introductions of David- 
 son, Weiss, Zahn, Jiilicher, Salmon, e. a. 
 
 THE RELATION OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN TO 
 
 THE SYNOPTICS. 
 
 After pointing out the remarkable agreement between 
 the synoptic Gospels and referring to some of the attempted 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 43 
 
 explanations of this feature, we must consider the equally 
 striking difference that exists between the Synoptics on the 
 one hand and the Gospel of John on the other. This differ- 
 ence is so great that even untrained minds immediately feel 
 it. Hence the question naturally arises : How can we ac- 
 count for it? This is in substance the Johannine problem. 
 The differences that are found may conveniently be 
 arranged under two heads: 1. Differences touching the 
 external course of events in the Lord's ministry ; and 2. 
 Differences in regard to the form and contents of Christ's 
 teaching. 
 
 /. Differences touching the external course of events 
 in the Lord's ministry. 
 
 a. According to the Synoptics the principal scene of the 
 Lord's activity is Galilee. He repairs to this Northern prov- 
 ince soon after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and 
 apparently does not return to Judea until the last Passover. 
 The representation that is found in the Gospel of John is 
 quite different. Very little is said about the Galilean minis- 
 try, while the activity of Christ in Judea looms large on his 
 pages. Most of the work of which John speaks was done 
 at Jerusalem. 
 
 b. The first three Gospels mention but one Passover in 
 their narrative of Christ's public ministry, viz. that at the 
 end of his life. This led many to the conviction that the 
 Lord's public ministry was limited to a period of one year. 
 In the Gospel of John, on the other hand, we find three Pass- 
 overs definitely mentioned, while a fourth is probably re- 
 ferred to in 5:1. Judging by this the length of the Lord's 
 ministry was at least two and possibly three years. 
 
 c. The people with whom Jesus deals primarily are not 
 the same in the Synoptics and in the Gospel of John. In the 
 first three Gospels we see Jesus moving along the Galilean 
 peasantry and preaching to them the gospel of the Kingdom, 
 while in the fourth the Jews (by which John means the lead- 
 ers of the people, i. e. Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisees) 
 
44 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 are generally in the foreground, and certain individuals, that 
 are not named, or are merely names, in the Synoptics, are 
 very prominent, such as Philip, Nathanael, the Samaritan 
 woman, Mary Magdalena and Thomas. 
 
 d. The attitude of the Jews towards Jesus appears to 
 be quite different in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel 
 of John. According to the Synoptics Jesus meets with great 
 success at first. The multitudes flock unto him, are delighted 
 to hear him and marvel at his teachings and work. And it 
 is only after He has clearly shown that He had not come to 
 establish an earthly kingdom that their enthusiasm dies 
 away, and that He begins to prepare his disciples for his 
 coming suffering and death. The Gospel of John makes it 
 appear that from the beginning of Christ's ministry at Jeru- 
 salem the hearts of the Jews were filled with a hatred that 
 gradually grew, reaching its highest pitch after the raising 
 of Lazarus, and that finally issued in the crucifixion of the 
 Lord of glory. 
 
 e. There are also several details in which the Gospel of 
 John does not agree with the Synoptics. We shall only men- 
 tion a couple of the most important examples. In the synop- 
 tic Gospels we find the cleansing of the temple at the end of 
 Christ's public ministry, while John places this at the very 
 beginning. Then there is also a difference in the representa- 
 tion of the time of the Lord's death. The Synoptics convey 
 the impression that Christ ate the Passover in the evening 
 of the 14th of Nisan, and was therefore crucified on the 
 15th; while the Gospel of John seems to say with equal 
 explicitness that He ate it a day in advance of the regular 
 time and died at the very hour, when the symbolic Paschal 
 lamb was slain. 
 
 //. Differences in respect to the form and contents of 
 our Lord's teaching. 
 
 a. There is a striking diversity in the form in which 
 the teaching of Jesus is cast. In the Synoptics we have short 
 incisive sayings of the Lord, which in some cases are and in 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 45 
 
 others are not connected with what immediately precedes or 
 follows. In the Gospel of John, on the other hand, we find 
 long and labored discourses, closely connected with the signs, 
 the miracles of our Lord. The first three Gospels contain a 
 goodly number of parables, which are strangely absent from 
 the fourth Gospel, where we have instead a few allegories, 
 such as the Door of the Sheepfold, the good Shepherd, and 
 the true Vine. The style of the Gospel of John too is quite 
 different from that of the Synoptics. It is a more Hebraic 
 style, in which the statements are brief, the construction is 
 simple and the sentences are usually connected with the 
 conjunction and. This style is carried through also in the 
 discourses of Christ, so that in some cases it is very hard, if 
 not impossible, to tell just where the words of the Lord 
 come to an end and those of the evangelist begin, or vice 
 versa. Notice this especially in the third chapter. 
 
 b. There is an equally great difference in the contents 
 of the Lord's teaching. In the Synoptics the central theme 
 on which Christ dwells is the Kingdom of God. He speaks 
 of its origin, its nature, its subjects, its King, its require- 
 ments, its righteousness, its enemies and its future glory. 
 In vain do we turn to the fourth Gospel for a corresponding 
 line of thought. The Kingdom of God is mentioned but 
 once there, viz. in the conversation of our Lord with Nico- 
 demus. Christ himself is the main theme of the discourses 
 found in the Gospel of John. The Lord speaks of his 
 heavenly origin, of his essential character and of his return 
 to glory. He presents himself to the Jews as the Messiah, 
 the Son of God, the heavenly manna, the water of life, the 
 true liberator, the light of the world, the good Shepherd, the 
 resurrection and the life, etc. In the Synoptics we find that 
 Jesus only occasionally, and then towards the end of his 
 ministry, speaks of himself. In connection with this we may 
 remark that the self-revelation of Christ both by his words 
 and works differs greatly in the Synoptics and in the fourth 
 Gospel. In the former Jesus begins by speaking of the 
 
46 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Kingdom and makes little mention of the King. Only grad- 
 ually does He reveal his true character and it is not until 
 He is well along in the course of his public ministry that 
 Peter is led up to the confession : "Thou art the Christ, 
 the Son of the living God." Only in the last week of his 
 life does Jesus throw off all reserve and speaks clearly of 
 himself as the Messiah sent from God. In the Gospel of 
 John, however, everything is quite clear from the beginning. 
 John the Baptist points to Christ as "the Lamb of God that 
 taketh away the sin of the world ;" to the Samaritan woman 
 Jesus says : "I am He ;" and to the Jews attending the 
 unnamed feast he speaks clearly of the unique relation in 
 which He stands to the Father. This is closely connected 
 with another fact. In the synoptic Gospels the humanity 
 of Christ is made very prominent. We behold him there 
 primarily as the Saviour who has taken on our nature, 
 shares in our infirmities, and is tempted even as we are, 
 though without sin. The fourth Gospel, on the other hand, 
 brings the divinity of Christ into strong relief. We notice 
 this at the very beginning of the Gospel: "In the beginning 
 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
 was God." It strikes us in the signs which Christ gave to 
 reveal his glory, and in the discourses that speak at length 
 of his essential nature, of his descending out of glory, his 
 being in glory, and his returning to the glory that He pos- 
 sessed from the foundation of the world ; and it rings in our 
 ears as we listen to the confession of Thomas : "My Lord 
 and my God." 
 
 There are many critics at the present time who magnify 
 these differences into discrepancies, and find in them a 
 ground on which to reject the authorship of John. They 
 maintain that the fourth Gospel is a treatise written with 
 marked theological bias, inspired by the controversy about 
 the person of Christ in the second century. The great 
 stumbling-block for them is the very clear teaching con- 
 tained in this Gospel respecting the divinity of Christ. This, 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 47 
 
 they hold, could only be the fruit of theological preconcep- 
 tions. And the great desire on the part of the author to 
 establish this beyond the shadow of a doubt is said to ex- 
 plain a good many of the other special features that charac- 
 terize this gospel. This explanation contains both a false- 
 hood and a truth. 
 
 A careful study of the Gospel of John, a study that takes 
 its true character in consideration, does not bear out the 
 contention that several of the differences between the Gospel 
 of John and the Synoptics amount to discrepancies. Neither 
 does it reveal differences that cannot be accounted for in a 
 perfectly natural way. We desire to point out first of all 
 that there are not only dissimilarities but also correspond- 
 ences between these Gospels. The incidents that we find 
 mentioned in all the Gospels are the following : The baptism 
 of John, the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on 
 the sea, the anointing at Bethany, the triumphal entry, the 
 last supper, the betrayal, the trial, the crucifixion, the burial 
 and the resurrection. Of course in some cases the details 
 of the narrative vary. Besides these parallel narratives 
 there are many passages in which we find imagery, sayings 
 or words that find their counterpart in the synoptic Gospels. 
 Davidson says that about one-third of the matter in John 
 agrees with that in the Synoptics. 
 
 It is evident from the foregoing that the diversity is 
 greater than the similarity, and the great question is : How 
 must we account for the differences? In pointing out the 
 way in which we must look for a solution of this problem 
 we call attention to several particulars. 
 
 1. We should not lose sight of the true character of 
 John's writing. Neither it nor the other Gospels are meant 
 to be complete histories of what the Lord did and said dur- 
 ing his life in the flesh. If this were its claim, it would be 
 disappointing in the extreme, since all that John narrates 
 happened in a few days. Like the Synoptics the Gospel of 
 John is a pen-picture of the Lord, is a witness to him from 
 
48 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 a particular point of view, and represents a phase of the 
 apostolic XTQpuYl^a. We must allow for the principle of 
 selection and of selective arrangement in the composition of 
 this work. It was John's aim to describe the Lord from a 
 particular point of view. Hence he chose from the great 
 mass of apostolic tradition, whether oral or written, the ma- 
 terials that suited his purpose best, and arranged them in 
 the most effective way, taking in consideration as much as 
 possible the chronological order in which the events oc- 
 curred. This general truth must be borne in mind continu- 
 ally, if we would understand the differences between the 
 Gospel of John and the Synoptics. 
 
 2. The great controlling factor, however, in the con- 
 struction of this Gospel, was the aim of the writer. There- 
 fore it is necessary that we have some understanding of this. 
 Happily we need not guess at it, because John himself tells 
 us what purpose he had in writing his Gospel. He says in 
 20: 31 : "But these things are written that ye might believe 
 that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing 
 ye might have life through His name." According to this 
 statement the apostle had a twofold aim, the one theoretical 
 and the other practical, the one his proximate, the other his 
 ulterior aim. The theoretical aim of the evangelist was two- 
 fold : he wanted to show in a convincing manner that the 
 historical Jesus was the Christ sent from God for the sal- 
 vation of the world ; and that this Christ was not a mere 
 man, but the very Son of God, who in his pre-existent state 
 shared in the divine glory, a glory which He radiated even 
 while He dwelt among men in the form of a servant, and 
 that would again shine forth in heavenly splendor after He 
 had finished his task. It was the desire of the writer 
 further, to present this Christ, this Son of God, to his read- 
 ers in such a manner that they might be led to believe in him, 
 and that they, being united to him the fountain of life by 
 faith, might have life everlasting. With this end in view 
 John, of course, selected those signs and discourses of the 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 49 
 
 Lord that were best adapted to bring out his glory and to 
 lead others to faith in him. He almost seems to tell us this 
 himself, when he concludes his narrative of the first miracle 
 performed by our Lord at Cana with the words : "This be- 
 ginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and mani- 
 fested his glory; and his disciples believed on Him." John 
 views the miracles of which he speaks as aY][xela that exhibit 
 the divine greatness of Christ. And he limits himself almost 
 exclusively to those of which he can say definitely that they 
 led men to believe on Christ, or of which Christ himself 
 points out the symbolic significance in His discourses, as : 
 
 The changing of water into wine at Cana ("and his 
 disciples believed on Him.") 
 
 The healing of the ruler's son at Cana (Capernaum) 
 ("and himself believed and his whole house.") 
 
 The healing of the impotent man at the pool Bethesda 
 (Christ the restorer of life). 
 
 The feeding of the five thousand near Bethsaida (Christ 
 the spiritual food, the heavenly manna). 
 
 The restoring of the blind man's sight at Jerusalem 
 (Christ the light of the world). 
 
 The raising of Lazarus at Bethany (Christ the resurrec- 
 tion and the life). 
 
 In harmony with his aim too the evangelist records such 
 discourses of the Lord as serve to explain the aiQ[jL£ta, to 
 bring out the unique relation in which Christ stands to the 
 Father, to accentuate Christ's authority, to emphasize the 
 divine character of his mission, etc. Moreover he intro- 
 duces several individuals to show us how Jesus labored to 
 bring them to the conviction that He was the Christ, the Son 
 of God, as f. i. Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman 
 and Thomas. 
 
 Now if we bear these things in mind, many of the differ- 
 ences between this Gospel and the Synoptics are immediately 
 explained. The aim of John being what it is, he naturally 
 speaks of Christ rather than of the Kingdom of God, intro- 
 
50 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 duces whatever accentuates the divinity of our Lord, and 
 brings out as much as possible that Christ revealed himself 
 as the Messiah from the very beginning of his public career. 
 But doing this in a historical way, he cannot represent the 
 Galilean peasants but only the leaders of the Jews at Jeru- 
 salem as the recipients of this revelation, for it was only to 
 them, who were versed in the Scriptures, that Christ spoke 
 so explicitly from the outset, and it was primarily for them 
 that He expressed his thought in profound discourses rather 
 than in parables. This in turn determines the time of which 
 John speaks in his gospel and also explains how it is that 
 he mentions so many feasts, because it was almost exclus- 
 ively on these occasions that Jesus visited Jerusalem and 
 came in contact with the Scribes and the Chief Priests. It 
 also sheds light on the difference in the attitude of the Jews 
 toward Jesus. For a long time the Galileans were attached 
 to Christ and marveled at his words and works ; the spirit 
 of opposition was aroused in them especially towards the 
 end of Christ's labors among them and mostly by the machi- 
 nations of the Pharisees that came from Jerusalem. The 
 leaders of the Jews in Judea, on the other hand, hated Jesus 
 almost from the beginning of his public ministry. Their 
 hatred kept pace with the knowledge they received of Christ. 
 3. Every attempt at solving the Johannine problem must 
 also make allowance for the fact that John was acquainted 
 with the other Gospels, and avoided as much as was con- 
 sistent with his aim the repetition of facts that were already 
 generally known. We have no doubt that John had read the 
 other Gospels before he wrote his own. There are certain 
 features in his Gospel that we can understand only on that 
 supposition. According to 21 : 19 John wrote his Gospel 
 after the death of Peter and therefore comparatively late. 
 Now he certainly would not be such a stranger in his own 
 world of thought as not to know the Gospels that had 
 already been composed. Then we find that in several places 
 the evangelist trusts to the previous knowledge of his read- 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 51 
 
 ers. He does not describe the institution of the Lord's 
 supper in his Gospel ; yet he clearly assumes in 6: 51-58 that 
 his readers were acquainted with it. Though he does not 
 give a description of the ascension, he proceeds on the 
 assumption that this fact is well known, 6:62; 20: 17. Cf. 
 further 1 :40 ; 3 :24 ; 6 :70, etc. In several cases in which the 
 persons introduced in the Gospel misunderstand the Lord, 
 the writer does not deem it necessary to explain for his 
 readers what Jesus really meant, because he knew that they 
 themselves were able to correct the mistake, Cf. 7:35, 36; 
 3 : 4 ; 4 : 15 ; 6 : 52. It is a very weighty consideration in this 
 connection too that John does not deign to answer objections 
 that are brought against the Messiah-ship of Christ. Notice 
 f. i. 1 : 45, 46 ; 7 : 41, 42 ; 7 : 52. The evangelist does not give 
 a single hint of the solution of the difficulty thus raised 
 repeatedly. We can understand this only on the supposi- 
 tion that he was aware of the fact that his readers knew 
 from the other Gospels how to solve the problem. John 
 evidently read the other Gospels and this explains how he 
 could avoid to such a great extent what they had already 
 brought to the knowledge of the people. 
 
 4. Finally we must also bear in mind that the indivi- 
 duality of the author is stamped on his literary production. 
 John was a profound meditative spirit, who drank deeply 
 at the fountain of life. He searched for the mainspring 
 of action in the career of our Saviour; he pondered on the 
 hidden background of the mysterious, the wonderful life of 
 his Master. He was the best qualified of all the apostles 
 to describe the divine greatness of the Lord. And it was no 
 small achievement of his, that he presented the profoundest 
 truths in the most simple manner. The simplicity of its 
 language is a very striking feature of the fourth Gospel. It 
 is due in part, no doubt, to John's idiosyncracy, and in part 
 to his habit of contemplating Christianity in its most funda- 
 mental relations. It need not surprise us that we find the 
 same style in the discourses of Christ, for in these also the 
 
52 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 style is to a great extent John's. Neither John nor the 
 other evangehsts always give us the exact words of Jesus. 
 It is true that he generally employs direct discourse in intro- 
 ducing the words of the Saviour, but this is merely an orien- 
 tal custom and does not imply that the words were used 
 exactly in that way. But the Spirit of God so guided the 
 writer that he reproduces, though possibly in a slightly dif- 
 ferent form, the exact truths which Jesus sought to incul- 
 cate on his hearers. And this Spirit, which is also the Spirit 
 of Christ, vouching for these words, makes them just as 
 really the words of Christ, as if they had been an exact 
 reproduction of the words Jesus had used in addressing the 
 Jews. 
 
 THE INSPIRATION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 During the past century the human origin of the Gospels 
 has been carefully investigated. With a great deal of pa- 
 tience and ingenuity every chapter and verse of these writ- 
 ings has been scrutinized and referred to its supposed ulti- 
 mate source. The discussion of the divine factor that oper- 
 ated in the composition of these books, however, has been 
 conspicuously absent from these studies. And this neglect is 
 not the result of chance, but of a very deliberate plan. A 
 large number of scholars today do not believe in any special 
 inspiration of these writings ; others, who do not wish to 
 deny their divine inspiration, nevertheless maintain that 
 their claim to this prerogative should be waived in the his- 
 torical investigation of their origin. 
 
 In the preceding century many were wont to label the 
 Gospels sneeringly as fictitious narratives, written by a few 
 religious fanatics, who deliberately lied about Jesus. This 
 crude and baseless opinion does not meet with great favor 
 today. People intuitively recoil from that position and feel 
 that they must take a more respectful attitude towards the 
 Gospels. They now regard these as the product of the 
 reverent and in part unconscious invention of the Church ; 
 or as the expression of the corporate consciousness and the 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 53 
 
 corporate mood of the first Christian community. Even so, 
 of course, they are simply human productions that contain 
 besides a large quota of truth a great deal of mythical and 
 lengendary matter. 
 
 Over against this position we hold that the Gospels were 
 written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and 
 that they are therefore absolutely trustworthy and authori- 
 tative accounts of the life of our Lord. They are inspired 
 records. They constitute one of the most precious fruits of 
 the apostolic inspiration, since they are one and all the 
 literary embodime(nt of the apostolic Y.ripu-^\K(x. The sub- 
 stance of what the apostles preached is contained in these 
 writings. Now as well as the prophets in the old dispen- 
 sation, the apostles in the new were inspired by the Holy 
 Spirit. This is quite evident from the New Testament. 
 Consider the promises which our Lord gave to His disciples : 
 Matt. 10 : 19, 20," . . . for it shall be given you in that same 
 hour what ye shall speak ; for it is not ye that speak, but the 
 Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." John 14:26, 
 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the 
 Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things 
 and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I 
 have said unto you." John 16: 13,14, "Howbeit when the 
 Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth ; 
 for He shall not speak of himself ; but whatsoever He shall 
 hear, that shall He speak ; and He will show you things to 
 come. He shall glorify me ; for He shall receive of mine, 
 and shall show it unto you." Notice too that these promises 
 found their initial fulfilment on the day of Pentecost. We 
 read in Acts 2:4: "And they were all filled with the Holy 
 Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit 
 gave them utterance." And after this day the apostles were 
 conscious of being guided by the Spirit of God. Paul says 
 in I Cor. 2: 11-13, "For what man knoweth the things of a 
 man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the 
 things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now 
 
54 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit 
 which is of God ; that we might know the things 
 which are freely given us of God. Which things also we 
 speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but 
 which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; comparing spiritual things 
 with spiritual." And in II Cor. 13:2b, 3, " — and being ab- 
 sent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and 
 to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare ; since ye 
 seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is 
 not weak, but is mighty in you." These few passages, which 
 might easily be multiplied, must suffice for the present. 
 
 Some who admit the inspiration of the prophets, do not 
 believe the apostles were also inspired, because in their case 
 they do not hear the familiar formula "thus saith the Lord," 
 nor behold the characteristic phenomena that accompanied 
 the inspiration of the prophets. They do not distinguish 
 between different kinds of inspiration. There are especially 
 three points of difference between the inspiration of the 
 prophets and that of the apostles. 
 
 1. Under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit did not yet 
 dwell in the Church, but operated on believers from without. 
 So it was also in the case of the prophets. The Holy Spirit 
 took possession of them, sometimes suppressed their person- 
 ality to a certain degree, and then employed their conscious- 
 ness for his purpose. In the new dispensation, however, He 
 took up his abode in the Church, and first of all in the 
 apostles, who were to be the Church's foundation ; and then, 
 identifying himself to a great extent with their conscious 
 life, used them as instruments to produce his revelation. 
 
 2. In the case of the prophets it was the entrance of a 
 foreign element, a foreign power into their lives, and some- 
 thing extraordinary in their career that impelled them to 
 prophesy. It was a power that they could not resist, because 
 it became as a fire burning within them. With the apostles, 
 on the other hand, it was the indwelling Spirit in connection 
 with their official task that led them to soeak the Word of 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 55 
 
 God. The inspiration of the prophets was intermittent ; that 
 of the apostles, continuous in the performance of their regu- 
 lar apostoHc duties. 
 
 3. The prophets often spoke of unknown and unseen 
 things, while the apostles discoursed on things which they 
 knew and saw. In connection with this the Holy Spirit did 
 not operate through the same faculty in both the prophets 
 and the apostles. In the former it was the imagination, in 
 the latter the understanding, especially memory and reflec- 
 tion, that constituted the medium of divine revelation. 
 Hence the prophets generally spoke in poetic and in symbolic 
 language, while the apostles as a rule clothed their thought 
 in ordinary prose. In the case of the Gospels the inspiration 
 of the apostles has above all the character of a uxoixviQati;. 
 Cf . John 14 : 26. 
 
 This apostolic inspiration gave birth to the Y.ripuy\L(x of 
 the apostles, but does not yet account for the infallible 
 records we have of this in the Gospels. Besides the apos- 
 tolic we must take into consideration a separate graphical or 
 transcriptive inspiration, if we would fully understand the 
 divine origin of the Gospels. The authors were led by the 
 Spirit of God in composing these writings, in giving to the 
 preaching of the apostles a definite written form. They 
 were guided in the selection of their material and its proper 
 arrangement, and in the choice of their words and expres- 
 sions, so that their records are truly a part of the Word of 
 God for the Church of all ages. 
 
 The question naturally arises, whether we have any rea- 
 sons to think that the Gospels were so inspired. In answer 
 we would say that we have, though we do not flatter ourself 
 with the idea that these reasons would convince anyone who 
 is disinclined to accept the Scriptures as the very Word of 
 God. 
 
 1. The contents of the Gospels testify to their divine 
 origin. We find in them a fourfold portraiture of the 
 Saviour. There are many differences in the individual 
 
56 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 pictures, yet together they form a grand unity. Four writ- 
 ers, each one portraying the life of Christ in his own way, 
 to a great extent without knowing each other's writings or 
 drawing on them, so that their individual portraits blend 
 perfectly into a harmonious whole, — it is marvelous, it can 
 only be understood, if we assume that these four writers 
 were all guided unerringly by the same superintending 
 Spirit. The Gospels are really the work of one author. And 
 the life that is pictured in them is a divine life, unfathom- 
 able, mysterious, far surpassing human understanding. And 
 yet that incomparable, that divine life has been so faithfully 
 portrayed, with such a profound insight into its real char- 
 acter and hidden depths, in such a simple, natural, artless 
 manner, that it has been the marvel of ages. Could man, 
 unaided by higher power, describe such a life? No, only 
 they who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, were equal to 
 the task. 
 
 2. Taking for granted the inspiration of the Old Testa- 
 ment, which is conclusively proved by the words of Jesus 
 and the apostles, we feel that it calls for an inspired com- 
 plement. It covers the period of preparation that is prophe- 
 tic of a future completion, the time in which the Church 
 was in its infancy, that points forward to the maturity of a 
 coming age. It is filled with prophecies that await fulfil- 
 ment ; it contains the shadow that is cast before the coming 
 body, growing more distinct as the ages roll on, until at last 
 it seems as if the body will presently appear, yet it does 
 not — the Old Testament requires a compliment. And in 
 harmony with it this too must be inspired. Of what avail 
 would the inspiration of the Old Testament be, if that in 
 which it culminates is not inspired. The divine surety would 
 be wanting. 
 
 3. At least two of our Gospels were written by apostles 
 who, in speaking to their contemporaries, were inspired by 
 the Spirit of God. Now it would be an anomaly that they 
 should be guided by the Holy Spirit in their oral witnessing 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 57 
 
 to Christ, and be without that divine guidance in perpetuat- 
 ing their testimony for all future ages. It was the will of 
 God that people until the end of the world should believe on 
 him through the word of the apostles, John 17:20; I John 
 1 : 3. Hence it was of the greatest importance that there 
 should be an infallible record of their testimony. 
 
 4. There are some Scripture passages that point to the 
 inspiration of the gospel records. The older Lightfoot, 
 (Works IV p. 113, 114; XII p. 7, and following him Urqu- 
 hart, The Bible its Structure and Purpose I Ch. 5), find a 
 proof for the inspiration of Luke's Gospel in 1:3, where 
 they would translate the words TcapYj/.oXouO'O/.OTc avwOev 
 by "having had perfect understanding of all things from 
 above." This interpretation is favored by the fact that 
 avtoOev has this meaning in eight of the thirteen times that 
 it occurs in the New Testament, and in three of the remain- 
 ing instances means again, while it is translated "from the 
 beginning" only here and in Acts 26 : 4. The expressed pur- 
 pose of Luke in writing his Gospel also falls in exceedingly 
 well with the rendering from above. It is, he writes to 
 Theophilus, that you may have the certainty of those 
 things in which you have been instructed." Yet the verb 
 TCapaxoXouOew, meaning, to follow up carefully, and thus, 
 to obtain knowledge, argues decisively against it. What is 
 of greater significance for us, is the fact that the Gospel of 
 Luke is quoted as r) '•(p<x<fri in I Tim. 5:18, where we read: 
 "For the Scripture saith. Thou shalt not muzzzle the ox that 
 treadeth out the corn, and, The laborer is worthy of his 
 hire." The only place in the entire Bible where the last 
 words are found, is Luke 10 : 7. Finally we call attention 
 to II Peter 3: 15. 16, where the apostle says: ". . . even as 
 our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given 
 unto him hath written unto you ; as also in all his epistles, 
 speaking of these things ; in which are some things hard to 
 be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable 
 wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own 
 
58 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 destruction." Here we find that the writings of Paul are 
 placed on a level with other inspired writings, which Peter 
 calls, "the other Scriptures." There is good reason to be- 
 lieve that this expression refers to the books of the Old 
 Testament, and to those of the New Testament that were 
 already composed, when Peter wrote his second epistle, 
 among which we may also reckon the Gospels of Matthew 
 and Luke. 
 
 5. The fact that the early Church from the very begin- 
 ning accepted these Gospels as canonical, is also a proof of 
 their inspired character, for in it the communal conscious- 
 ness of the Church expressed itself in regard to these writ- 
 ings ; and it is said of believers in their corporate existence 
 that they, taught by the Holy Ghost, know all things. Dean 
 Alf ord says : "The apostles being raised up for the special 
 purpose of witnessing to the gospel history, — and these 
 memoirs having been universally received in the early 
 Church as embodying that their testimony, I see no escape 
 left from the inference that they come to us with inspired 
 authority. The Greek Testament, Vol. I, Prolegomena Sec- 
 tion VI. 
 
 6. Finally the Holy Spirit testifies in the heart of every 
 believer to the divine character of the Gospels, so that they 
 feel assured that these writings contain the very Word of 
 God. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit they realize 
 that these Gospels too minister to the deepest needs of their 
 spiritual life, they realize their infinite value, marvel at their 
 exquisite beauty and find in them ever increasingly the 
 words of everlasting life. Thus they cannot but speak their 
 "Amen" to the contents of these books. 
 
 THE CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 
 
 GOSPELS AS A WHOLE. 
 
 The Gospels are, of course, closely related to the Old 
 Testament Scriptures. They describe in a vivid manner the 
 initial stage of the fulness of time, showing how all the 
 
THE GOSPELS IN GENERAL 59 
 
 prophecies that pointed to Christ and to a new and more 
 spiritual dispensation began to be fulfilled. Rather than 
 enlarge on this relation, however, we shall here briefly de- 
 scribe the peculiar function of the Gospels in the New Testa- 
 ment revelation. These writings are related to the rest of 
 the New Testament, as the Pentateuch is to the following 
 books of the Old Testament. Both are of a fundamental 
 character, laying foundations on which an imposing super- 
 structure is raised. In the case of the Gospels this is clearly 
 indicated by the opening words of Luke in the Acts of the 
 Apostles : "The former treatise have I written, O Theo- 
 philus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach." In 
 this passage the word Y]p^aTO is not pleonastic, as was held 
 by some, but emphatic. According to this word the Gospel 
 contained the narrative only of what Jesus began to do and 
 to teach, which would prove to be the solid foundation and 
 the germinating principle of all that He would continue to 
 do on earth (through His apostles) and in heaven. The 
 Gospels mark but an initial stage in New Testament revela- 
 tion ; they lack finality. 
 
 The form, the method and the substance of Christ's 
 teaching in the Gospels, — it all bears the stamp of an incipi- 
 ent stage. Everyone that reads the Gospels and compares 
 them with the epistles is struck by the simple manner in 
 which Christ presents his teachings to the multitude. He 
 gave his instruction primarily in the form of parables and 
 proverbial sayings. Now it is of the essence of proverbial 
 speech that it detaches itself from particular occasions, and 
 is therefore best adapted to the expression of general funda- 
 mental truths. Because parables and proverbs set forth the 
 truth in a lively and concrete way, they were very appro- 
 priate in teaching those that were just initiated in the spirit- 
 ual truths of the new dispensation. Since they generally 
 disclose the truth but partially, they stimulate the spirit of 
 inquiry. A very suitable way of instructing beginners in- 
 deed ! We notice that the disciples gradually longed for a 
 
60 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 different form of instruction, and towards the end of his 
 Hf e Christ says to them : "These things have I spoken unto 
 you in proverbs, but the time cometh, when I shall no more 
 speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly 
 of the Father." John 16 : 25. — The method of Jesus' work 
 points to the same general conclusion. His teaching has a 
 fragmentary character. He speaks a word here and a word 
 there, discourses now with this person and then with that 
 one, just as a missionary among the gentiles is apt to do, 
 expressing the deepest truths in a sporadic way. Important 
 doctrines were thus uttered without any attempt to relate 
 them to other truths. All this is in perfect harmony with 
 the initial character of Christ's work. — The contents of 
 Christ's teaching also are primitive and fundamental. Many 
 of the most important truths are indeed taught in the Gos- 
 pels, but they are not elaborated, nor set forth in all their 
 significance, as f. i. the doctrine of the atonement, of justi- 
 fication by faith, of the forgiveness of sins, of the Kingship 
 of Christ, etc. Other truths were suppressed, because, as 
 the Lord himself says, even the best of his hearers were not 
 yet able to bear them, John 16: 12. The works of Christ 
 were also initiatory. His miracles contained within them 
 the promise of still greater works in the future. He says 
 to his disciples : "He that believeth on me, the works that 
 I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he 
 do, because I go unto my Father," John 14 : 12. 
 
 Now the writers of the Gospels simply narrated this 
 initial work of Christ, as they remembered it. They do not 
 make mention of the greater works that followed after 
 Christ had gone to heaven, nor do they (except in very rare 
 instances) reflect on or seek to interpret the life and teach- 
 ings of the Saviour. This remains to be done in later 
 writings. 
 
The Gospel of Matthew. 
 
 CONTENTS.* 
 
 The Gospel of Matthew may be divided into five parts : 
 /. The Advent of the Messiah, 1 : 1 — 4: 11. Matthew 
 proves by the legal genealogy that Christ was the Son of 
 David, the child of the promise ; that, in harmony with the 
 prophecies, He was bom of a virgin at Bethlehem and his 
 way was prepared by John the Baptist ; and records his bap- 
 tism and temptation. 
 
 //. The Public proclamation of Messiah's Kitigdom, 
 4: 12 — 16: 12. Here we find Jesus, after John is taken cap- 
 tive, choosing his first disciples and beginning his work in 
 Galilee, 4: 12 — 4:25. Then follows a splendid example of 
 Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, in which the 
 law of the New Kingdom is promulgated, and its righteous- 
 ness and life are contrasted with those of Pharisees and 
 Scribes, 5-7. This is followed by the description of a series 
 of miracles, interspersed with brief teachings of the Lord 
 and the calling of Matthew, giving clear evidence of the 
 power and mercy of Jesus and establishing his authority to 
 set up the New Kingdom and to proclaim its laws, 8 : 1 — 9 : 38. 
 Next we have a catalogue of the twelve apostles and their 
 commission to announce the coming Kingdom to the house 
 of Israel, 10. It is brought out that the teachings and mir- 
 acles of Jesus lead to serious questionings on the part of 
 John the Baptist, to open opposition from the side of Phari- 
 sees and Scribes, and to the interference of his relatives, 
 11 : 1 — 12 :50 ; that as a result Christ substitutes parabolic for 
 plain teaching, 13: 1-53; and that the opposition finally cul- 
 
 * In giving the outline of the Gospels I have followed in 
 general Gregory in his Why Four Gospels? 
 
62 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 minates in his rejection by the synagogue of Nazareth, by 
 Herod and by the spiritual leaders of the people, both of 
 Jerusalem and of Galilee, leading in every instance to the 
 withdrawal of his gracious works and also to an exposition 
 and condemnation of the hypocracy and wickedness of the 
 leaders of the nation. 13 : 54 — 16: 12. 
 
 ///. The Distinct and Public Claim of Messiahship, 
 16: 13 — 23:39. In this section the evangelist shows, how 
 Christ instructs his disciples regarding the Messiahship. The 
 Lord calls forth their expHcit confession of him as Messiah, 
 16: 13-20; and teaches them in a threefold form that He 
 must suffer and die, but will rise again. In connection with 
 these announcements we have the narrative of the trans- 
 figuration and the healing of the epileptic demoniac, and 
 instruction regarding the civil and religious relations and 
 duties of the disciples, such as the payment of the temple 
 tribute, the self-denying, humble, loving and forgiving 
 spirit of true discipleship, divorce, the proper attitude 
 toward children, the danger of earthly possessions, the 
 gracious character of the reward in God's Kingdom, and 
 the ministering spirit demanded in his followers, 16:21 — 
 20 : 28. At Jerusalem also He now makes his claim, enter- 
 ing the city as the Son of David and assuming Messianic 
 authority in the temple. He brings out clearly the future 
 rejection of Israel, answers the test questions of his 
 enemies and pronounces a sevenfold woe on Pharisees and 
 Scribes, 20 : 29—23 : 39. 
 
 IV. The Sacrifice of Messiah the Priest, 24 : 1 — 27 : 66. 
 Matthew demonstrates that Christ, now that He is rejected 
 by the Jews, prepares his disciples for his sacrificial death 
 by unfolding the doctrine of his future coming in glory and 
 by teaching them the true posture of his followers in waiting 
 for the day of his coming, 24 : 1 — 25 : 46. He then describes 
 how Christ brought his sacrifice, after eating the Paschal 
 lamb, being betrayed by Judas, condemned by the Sanhedrin 
 and Pilate, and dying on the cross, 26 : 1 — 27 : 66. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 63 
 
 V. The Truhnph of Messiah the Saviour and King. 
 The author brings out that Jesus by rising again from the 
 dead fully established his claim to the Messiahship. Abun- 
 dant evidence of the resurrection is furnished and it is 
 clearly shown that in the end Christ is clothed with Mes- 
 sianic authority. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. As to form we find, in the first place, a characteris- 
 tically Jewish numerical arrangement of things in this Gos- 
 pel. The genealogy in ch. 1 consists of three groups of X 
 generations of fourteen each. There are seven beatitudes X 
 ch. 5 ; seven petitions in the Lord's prayer ch. 6 ; a group of ^ 
 seven parables ch. 13 ; and seven woes on Pharisees and "^ 
 Scribes ch. 23. As to the style of Matthew, in the second 
 place, may be said that it is smoother than that of Mark, 
 though not so vivid. But it is tinged with Hebraisms, less 
 indeed than the language of Luke, but more than that of 
 Mark. It is rather impersonal, lacking in individuality. Its 
 individualism of language consists mostly in the frequent use 
 of certain words and phrases. The Hebraistic formulae of 
 transition /.al sYeveTO and /.at iSou occur repeatedly, and 
 the simple xore is constantly used, especially with a histori- 
 cal tense. Further the following characteristic expressions 
 are found: yj ^aatXst'a twv oupaviov instead of the more 
 common y) ^, Toi; 9eou ; tva TrXr^poOri to prjOev utto /.upiou 8ta 
 Tou TCpo^Y^TOu, or an abbreviated form of this expression ; 
 and OTTtoi; instead of tva. 
 
 2. The arrangement of the material in this Gospel also 
 differs considerably from that in the other Synoptics. The 
 narrative is not continuous, but is interrupted by five great "^ 
 discourses, such as are not found in the Gospels of Mark 
 and Luke, viz. the Sermon on the Mount, chs. 5-7; the 
 charge to the apostles, ch. 10 ; the parables of the Kingdom, 
 ch. 13; the discourse on the church, ch. 18; and the final 
 eschatological discourses of Christ on the last judgment, chs. 
 
64 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 23-25. After every one of these discourses we find the 
 < words : "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended (made 
 an end of, finished) these sayings, etc. 
 
 3. As to contents the following peculiarities deserve our 
 attention : In the first place the Gospel of Matthew has a 
 more Jewish aspect than the other Synoptics. Its predomin- 
 ant subject is, the Messiah and his Kingdom. The discourses 
 of which we spoke all have reference to this Kingdom, and 
 it is clearly brought out that the mission of Christ is to the 
 Jews only and that the establishment of His rule will be a 
 restoration of the fallen throne of David. Cf . the genealogy 
 ch. 1 and also 2:2; 10:5, 6; 15:24; 19:28, etc. Yet we 
 must not think that it positively excludes the idea of salva- 
 tion for the gentiles ; it clearly holds out a hope to them and 
 even announces that the Kingdom will be taken from Israel 
 on account of its unfaithfulness. Cf. 2:1-13; 8:10-12; 
 15 : 28 ; 21 : 43 ; 22 : 1-14. In the second place the first Gos- 
 >' pel alludes to the Old Testament more frequently than any 
 other. It emphasizes the fact that the New Testament re- 
 veals the fulfilment of Old Testament promises ; that Christ 
 was born, revealed himself and labored as the prophets of 
 [[ old had foretold. Matthew contains more than 40 quota- 
 tions, while Mark has 21 and Luke, 22. The characteristic 
 use of tva (otcw?) TuXiQpwO'^ in quotations proves that Mat- 
 thew had an eye for the divine teleology in history. — And 
 in the third place Matthew looks at things in their grand 
 general aspect and pays less attention to the minor details 
 on which Mark so much loves to dwell. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The superscription ascribes the first Gospel to Matthew. 
 That this embodies the opinion of the early Church is evi- 
 dent from the testimony of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, 
 Eusebius and several others, who all point to Matthew as 
 the author. The Gospel itself shows unmistakably, by its 
 Jewish physiognomy, that its author was a Jew, yea even 
 that he was a Palestinian Jew, for he quotes from the He- 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 65 
 
 brew and not from the Septuagint. It contains no direct 
 evidence, however to the authorship of Matthew, though 
 there are a couple points of difference between it and the 
 other Synoptics that are best explained on the assumption 
 that Matthew wrote it. When we compare the lists of the 
 twelve apostles in Mt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3:16-19; and Luke 
 6: 14-16, we notice that only in the first Gospel the name 
 Matthew is followed by the less honorable qualification "the 
 publican ;" and that it has the order, "Thomas and Matthew'^ 
 instead of, "Matthew and Thomas.' 
 
 The apostolic authorship of this gospel is denied by sev- 
 eral rationalistic critics, such as Davidson, Jiilicher and Bal- 
 jon. Their reasons for rejecting it are the following: 
 
 ( 1 ) . Legend, misunderstanding and irrelevancy are very 
 prominent in this Gospel, which would not be the case if the 
 writer had been an eye and ear witness of Jesus. The refer- 
 ence is to such narratives as the story of the wise men, the 
 flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of the innocents, ch. 2 ; 
 the doublet of the miraculous feeding, 14: 16-21 ; 15 : 32-38; 
 the story of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two animals, 
 21:2, 7 ; the opening of the graves at the resurrection of 
 Christ, 27 : 52 ; the setting of a watch at the sepulchre and 
 the bribing of them, etc. (2). The Gospel of Matthew is 
 too closely dependent on Mark, not merely in choice of 
 matter and arrangement but in verbal detail, to be the work 
 of an apostle. (3). The author never indicates by the use 
 of the pronouns / or we that he was an eye witness of the 
 things which he narrates. 
 
 In answer to these objections it may be said that one's 
 disbelief in miracles does not prove them false, and that the 
 seeming difficulties to which reference is made easily yield 
 to good exegesis. The dependence of Matthew on Mark 
 (instead of the reverse as the Tubingen school believed) is 
 indeed accepted by a great number of scholars today, but is 
 not absolutely proven. And even if it were, it would be no 
 disparagement for Matthew. The impersonal objective style 
 
66 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 is the prevailing one in the historical books of the Bible and 
 is irrelevant as an objection to the authorship of the apostle. 
 Our information regarding Matthew is very scanty. We 
 read of him first in connection with the call to follow Jesus, 
 Mt. 9 : 9, 10 ; Mk. 2 : 14, 15 ; Lk. 5 : 27-29. There is no rea- 
 son to doubt that the Matthew of the first Gospel is the Levi 
 of the second and third. Possibly his name was changed by 
 the Lord after his call to the discipleship, just as those of 
 Peter and Paul. In Mark he is said to be the son of 
 Alphaeus, whom some identify with Alphaeus the father of 
 the apostle James. But this identification does not commend 
 itself to us, since we may assume that, if James and Matthew 
 had indeed been brothers, this would have been stated in 
 their case as well as it is in those of Andrew and Peter and 
 John and James. He belonged to the despised class of pub- 
 licans and hence cannot have been a very strict Jew. When 
 Jesus called him, he made a great feast for the Lord, to 
 which he also invited many publicans and sinners. Clement 
 of Alexandria describes him as a rigorous ascetic, living "on 
 seeds and herbs and without flesh." It is not impossible that 
 by a very natural reaction his sinful life changed into one of 
 great austerity. A veil of obscurity is cast over the apostolic 
 career of Matthew. Tradition has it that he remained at 
 Jerusalem with the other apostles for about twelve years 
 after the death of the Lord, laboring among his fellow- 
 countrymen. When the work was done, it is said, he 
 preached the Gospel to others, according to the popular opin- 
 ion in Ethiopia. He probably died a natural death. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 /. Original Language. A hotly debated question is that 
 regarding the language in which Matthew originally wrote 
 his Gospel. The difficulty of the problem arises from the 
 fact that external testimony and internal evidence seem 
 to disagree. As a result the camp is very much divided, 
 some scholars ardently defending a Hebrew, others with 
 equal zeal a Greek original. The earliest testimony in re- 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 67 
 
 gard to this matter is that of Papias and runs as follows : 
 "Matthew composed the oracles (Xoyta) in the Hebrew dia- 
 lect, and everyone interpreted them as he was able." It 
 is clear from the original that in these words the emphasis 
 falls on the phrase "in the Hebrew language." But Papias 
 does not stand alone in this assertion ; a similar statement 
 is found in Irenaeus : "Matthew among the Hebrews did 
 also publish a Gospel in writing in their own language." 
 Pantaenus is said to have gone to India, where he found 
 "the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters." Origen quoted 
 by Eusebius also says that "the first Gospel was written by 
 Matthew . . . who delivered it to the Jewish believers, com- 
 posed in the Hebrew language." Eusebius himself makes 
 the following statement : "For Matthew, having first 
 preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other 
 people, delivered to them in their own language the Gospel 
 written by himself." Jerome also states that "Matthew 
 wrote a Gospel of Jesus Christ in Judea in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage and letters for the benefit of those of the circumcision 
 who believed. Who afterwards translated it into Greek, is 
 uncertain." To these testimonies might be added those of 
 Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ebedjesu and 
 Chrysostom. 
 
 On the other hand it is pointed out that the present 
 Greek Gospel does not impress one as a translation, but has 
 all the appearance of an original work, since: (1.) The 
 hypothesis of a translation fails to account for the identity 
 seen in certain parts of the Synoptic Gospels. (2.) While 
 the author himself indeed quotes from the Hebrew text of 
 the Old Testament, the quotations of our Lord are almost 
 uniformly taken from the Septuagint. Is it conceivable that 
 this would be the case in a Hebrew Gospel? (3.) The 
 Gospel contains translations of Hebrew words, as : "They 
 shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, 
 God with us," 1 : 23 ; — "A place called Golgotha, that is to 
 say, a place of a skull," 27:33. (4.) There are certain 
 
68 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 explanations of Palestinian customs and habitual occur- 
 rences that would have been altogether superfluous in a 
 Hebrew Gospel, naturally intended only for the natives of 
 Palestine, f . i. in 22 : 23 ; 27 : 8, 15 ; 28 : 15. 
 
 The conclusion to which this evidence leads is corrobor- 
 ated by the following facts: (1.) In all probability no one 
 has ever seen the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and no trace 
 of it can now be found. (2.) All the quotations from Matt- 
 hew in the early Church fathers are taken from the present 
 Greek Gospel. (3.) The Gospel of Matthew always stood 
 on an equal footing with the other Gospels and is cited just 
 as much as they are. 
 
 This evidence both external and internal has given rise 
 to several theories, which we can briefly state in the follow- 
 ing manner: (1.) Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew 
 and someone else translated it into Greek. This position 
 was held by the Church in general until the time of the 
 Reformation. Since then several Protestant scholars took 
 another view, because Rome defended the ultimate author- 
 ity of the Vulgate by pointing out that the Greek Matthew 
 was also merely a translation. The attacks of Rationalism 
 on the so-called second-hand Matthew, and the dubious char- 
 acter of a part of the ancient testimony, also served to bring 
 this theory into discredit. Notwithstanding this, however, 
 some of the ablest scholars have defended it up to the pres- 
 ent. The prevailing idea among them is that the Greek 
 Matthew is not so much in all parts a literal translation as a 
 new redaction. According to Westcott it gives in writing 
 the Greek counterpart of the Hebrew Gospel, that had taken 
 shape in oral tradition from the beginning. Zahn regards 
 it as the ripe fruit of the interpretation of the Hebrew 
 original in the congregations to which Papias refers. 
 
 (2.) There never was a Hebrew original, but Matthew 
 wrote his Gospel in the Greek language. The present gospel 
 is not a translation, but an original work. They who hold 
 this view are of the opinion that the testimony of Papias and 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 69 
 
 of those following him was a sheer mistake, due partly to 
 ignorance and partly to a confounding of the Gospel of 
 Matthew with the Ebionite Gospel according to the He- 
 brews. 
 
 (3.) Matthew wrote neither a Hebrew nor a Greek 
 Gospel, but, if anything, a work called the Xofta by Papias, 
 which must have been a collection of the sayings or dis- 
 courses of the Lord. According to some these Xoyta are 
 lost, but must probably be identified with one of the sup- 
 posed sources (Q) of our present Gospels. Others as Godet 
 and Holdsworth believe that the work contained the dis- 
 courses that we find in the Gospel of Matthew and was 
 therefore incorporated bodily in our present Gospel. 
 
 (4.) The evangelist after writing his Gospel in Hebrew 
 with a view to his countrymen, possibly when he had left 
 Palestine to labor elsewhere, translated or rather furnished 
 a new recension of his Gospel in the Greek language with a 
 view to the Jews of the Diaspora. The former was soon 
 lost and altogether replaced by the latter. 
 
 In formulating our opinion in regard to this question, 
 we desire to state first of all that we have no sufficient rea- 
 son to discredit the testimony of the early Church. It is 
 true that Eusebius says of Papias that he was "a credulous, 
 weak-minded, though pious man," but in connection with 
 this we must bear in mind : ( 1 ) that Eusebius says this 
 in connection with the chiliastic opinions of Papias that were 
 odious to the historian; (2) that he himself elsewhere testi- 
 fies that Papias was a man "in the highest degree eloquent 
 and learned and above all skilled in the Scriptures," and (3) 
 that the peculiar views of Papias did not necessarily impair 
 his veracity, nor invalidate his testimony to a historical fact. 
 Let us remember also that it is inconsistent to believe Papias, 
 when he says that Matthew wrote the Gospel, and to dis- 
 credit his further testimony that the apostle wrote in 
 Hebrew, as some scholars do. It is indeed almost certain that 
 Pantaenus was mistaken, when he thought that he had found 
 
70 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 the Hebrew Gospel in India ; and that Jerome labored under 
 a delusion, when he imagined that he had translated it at 
 Cesarea. What they saw was probably a corruption of the 
 Hebrew original, known as, "the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews." But this possible mistake does not invalidate 
 the other independent testimony of Jerome and that of all 
 the early fathers to the effect that Matthew wrote the Gospel 
 in Hebrew. 
 
 In the second place we desire to point out that Papias in 
 speaking of the Xoyta of Matthew undoubtedly referred to 
 his Gospel. The word Xb-^ia does not mean speeches or 
 sayings, as is now often asserted. It is found four times in 
 the New Testament, viz. in Acts 7 : 38 ; Rom. 3:2; Heb. 
 5 : 12 ; I Peter 4:11, and in every one of these places it has 
 its classical meaning of oracles. It is applied to the divine 
 utterances of God in his Word. In later writers the word 
 is generally employed to indicate inspired writings. There 
 is no reason to think that Papias used the word in the sense 
 of XoYOi. If in addition to this we take in consideration that 
 in all probability the testimony of Irenaeus is based on that 
 of Papias and that he takes the word as referring to the 
 Gospel of Matthew, the presumption is that Papias had the 
 Gospel in mind. The meaning of his testimony is therefore, 
 that the first Gospel was written in Hebrew. The so-called 
 Logia-source is a creature of the imagination. 
 
 In the third place the internal evidence of our present 
 Gospel proves conclusively that this is not a mere transla- 
 tion of a Hebrew original. The evidence adduced seems 
 quite sufficient. The Greek Matthew may be and most 
 likely is in substance a translation of the original Hebrew ; 
 yet it must "be regarded as in many respects a new recension 
 of the Gospel. The loss of the Hebrew original and the 
 general substitution for it of the Greek version is readily 
 explained by the scattering of the Jews after the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, and by the early corruption of the Hebrew 
 Gospel in the circles of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 71 
 
 In the fourth place it seems most plausible that Matthew 
 himself, shortly after he had written the Hebrew Gospel, 
 translated it, adjusting it in several respects to the needs 
 of the Jews that were dispersed in different lands. True, 
 early tradition does not speak of this, and Jerome even says 
 that it was not known in his time who translated it into 
 Greek. This favors the idea that it was done very early. 
 Moreover our Greek Gospel was known from the beginning 
 as the Gospel xaxa MatOatov, just as the second and third 
 as the Gospel /.axa Mapxov and xaxa Aouxav. As such 
 it is also universally quoted by those fathers that are accus- 
 tomed to mention their authors. The case of Matthew would 
 thus be analogous to that of Josephus. 
 
 //. Readers and Purpose. The Gospel of Matthew was 
 undoubtedly destined for the Jews. This is expressly stated 
 by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, e. a. 
 This testimony is corroborated by internal evidence. The 
 genealogy of Jesus goes back only to Abraham, the father 
 of the Hebrew race ; and in harmony with the tenets of the 
 Jews the Messiahship of Christ is proved from the prophets. 
 The whole Gospel impresses one as being occasioned by the 
 exigencies of the Jews both in Palestine and without. In 
 none of the other Gospels is the false position of Pharisees 
 and Scribes so clearly exposed. 
 
 It was Matthew's purpose to convince the Jews that 
 Jesus was the Christ, the great Davidic King promised by 
 the prophets. He knew that, if this could be shown clearly, 
 they would be won for the Saviour. This purpose is very 
 evident from the Gospel. The legal genealogy of Christ is 
 traced back to Abraham ; and it is clearly brought out that 
 prophecy was fulfilled in the manner of Christ's birth 1 : 23 ; 
 the place of his nativity 2 : 6 ; his flight into Egypt 2:15; the 
 murder of the innocents 2:18; his residence at Nazareth 
 2:23; the ministry of his forerunner Z:Z; 11:10, his re- 
 moval to Capernaum 4: 15, 16; his healing the sick 8: 17; 
 his meek and retiring disposition 12 : 18-21 ; his teaching by 
 
i 
 
 72 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 parables 13:34, 35; his entry into Jerusalem 21:4, 5; his 
 rejection by the builders 21 : 42 ; his being David's Son and 
 Lord 22: 44; his desertion by his disciples 26: 31 ; the price 
 of his betrayal 27 : 9 ; the division of his raiment 27 : 35 ; 
 and his cry of agony 27 : 46. It is Matthew only that records 
 the sayings of the Lord : "I am not come to destroy, but 
 to fulfill," 5:17; and : "I was not sent but unto the lost sheep 
 of the house of Israel," 15 : 24. To him Jerusalem is "the 
 Holy City," "the Holy Place," and "the City of the great 
 King." On seven different occasions he calls the Lord "the 
 Son of David." In harmony with the prophets Christ the 
 King is most prominent in his Gospel, though of course the 
 prophetic and priestly character of the Lord are also clearly 
 revealed. 
 
 ///. Time and Place. Little can be said as to the time, 
 when Matthew wrote his Gospel ; and what few indications 
 we have of the time are rather uncertain, because we do not 
 know, whether they bear on the origin of the Hebrew origi- 
 nal or of the present Greek Gospel. Tradition generally 
 points to Matthew's Gospel as being the first. Irenaeus 
 makes a very definite statement, viz. : "Matthew among the 
 Hebrews published a Gospel in their own language, while 
 Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and 
 founding a church there." This must have been somewhere 
 between 63-67 A. D. 
 
 Something may be gathered in this respect from the con- 
 tents of the Gospel. We cannot, as some do, infer from 
 22: 7 that it was composed after the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem, for then we would have to assume that our Lord could 
 not have predicted this event. Moreover this argument 
 impugns the veracity of the evangelist. A proof for the con- 
 trary, viz. that this Gospel was written before the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, is found in 24: 15, where we find in a 
 discourse of the Saviour this parenthetic clause of the 
 writer: "let him that readeth understand," in connection 
 with the Lord's admonition to the inhabitants of Judea to 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 73 
 
 flee to the mountains, when they shall see the abomination 
 of desolation standing in the Holy Place. The same infer- 
 ence is drawn by some from the eschatological discourse of 
 Christ in chs. 24-25, where the beginning of sorrows, the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, and the Lord's return in glory 
 are placed alongside of each other, without any distinction 
 of time ; and the writer does not by a single word betray any 
 knowledge of the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem 
 would be separated in time from the Lord's return. But 
 this, being an argument from silence, is rather precarious. 
 The dates assigned to this Gospel by rationalistic critics 
 range from about 70 to 125 A. D. 
 
 As to the place, where the Gospel was written, Athana- 
 sius says that it was published at Jerusalem ; Ebedjesu, in 
 Palestine ; and Jerome, in Judea for the sake of those in 
 Judea who believed. There is nothing in the Gospel itself 
 that contradicts this. It is very likely, however, that the 
 Greek Gospel was written elsewhere. 
 
 IV. Method. The question arises, whether Matthew 
 used sources in the composition of his Gospel. The preva- 
 lent opinion at present is that the writer of this Gospel, 
 whoever he may have been, drew in the main on two sources, 
 viz. on the XoYtot of Matthew for the discourses of the Lord, 
 and on the Gospel of Mark for the narrative portion of his 
 work. It is found necessary, however, to assume several 
 other minor sources. Thus Weiss, Jiilicher, Baljon, Peake, 
 Buckley, Bartlet (in Hastings D. B.) e. a. Against these 
 see Davidson and Salmon. Zahn's opinion is that Mark 
 employed the Hebrew Matthew in the composition of his Gos- 
 pel, and that the writer of our Greek Matthew in turn used 
 the Gospel of Mark. The great diversity of opinion among 
 New Testament scholars in this respect shows clearly that 
 it is quite impossible to determine with any degree of cer- 
 tainty what sources Matthew employed. All we can say is 
 (1) that in all probability the Hebrew Matthew depended 
 on oral tradition only ; (2) that our Greek Matthew is based 
 
74 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 on the Hebrew ; and (3) that it is not impossible that Matt- 
 hew had read the Gospel of Mark before he composed the 
 present Greek Gospel. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The Gospel of Matthew has been accepted as canonical 
 from the earliest times. There are many traces of its use, 
 especially of the Sermon on the Mount in the Didache. 
 Next we find it clearly quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, 
 who cites ten passages with the significant formula "it is 
 written." This proves that the Gospel was used and recog- 
 nized as canonical in the early part of the second century. 
 Further it is abundantly testified to until the beginning of 
 the third century, when all controversy ceases, there being 
 up to that time altogether 21 witnesses, so that this Gospel 
 is one of the best attested books in the New Testament. 
 Among these witnesses are the old Latin and Syriac Versions 
 that contain this Gospel ; early church fathers that refer to 
 it as authoritative or quote it ; and heretics who, even while 
 attacking the truth, tacitly admit the canonical character of 
 the Gospel. 
 
 This book is properly placed at the very beginning of 
 the New Testament. It forms part of the foundation on 
 which the New Testament structure was to be reared. And 
 among the Gospels, which together constitute this founda- 
 tion, if is rightly put in the first place. It is, as it were, a 
 connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. 
 As the Old Testament had reference to the Jews only, so 
 the Gospel of Matthew is written for the old covenant peo- 
 ple. And it is clearly linked to the Old Testament by its 
 continual reference to the prophets. The permanent spirit- 
 ual value of this Gospel is that it sets forth in clear outline 
 Christ as the One promised of old; and, in harmony with 
 the prophetic literature, especially as the great divine King, 
 before whom the Church of all ages must bow down in 
 adoration. 
 
The Gospel of Mark. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 We may divide the contents of Mark's Gospel, that 
 treats of Christ as the mighty Worker, into five parts : 
 
 /. The Advent of the mighty Worker, 1 : 1 — 2 : 12. Jesus 
 is heralded as the mighty One by John the Baptist, and pro- 
 claimed as the Son of God by the Father, 1 : 1-13. After 
 calling some of his disciples. He taught the Galilean multi- 
 tudes as one having authority, worked mighty miracles 
 among them, as the casting out of demons, the healing of 
 Peter's mother-in-law, the cleansing of a leper, etc., and 
 showed His authority to forgive sins, 1 : \A — 2 : 12. 
 
 //. The Conflict of the mighty Worker, 2 : 12 — 8 : 26. In 
 connection with the feast of Levi, the fact that the apostles 
 did not fast, and that they plucked ears of corn on the sab- 
 bath, Jesus gives the Pharisees instruction regarding the 
 purpose of his coming, and the moral character of the re- 
 quirements of his Kingdom, 2 : 13 — 3 : 8. The healing of the 
 man with the withered hand leads to the enmity of Pharisees 
 and Herodians, which caused the withdrawal of Jesus. The 
 Lord now chose twelve apostles and continued his mighty 
 works, so that even his friends and relatives sought to re- 
 strain him, and his enemies claimed that He did them 
 through the power of the devil, 3 : 9-35. Next we find him 
 teaching the people regarding the origin, the quiet growth, 
 independent of man's efforts, and the future strength of the 
 Kingdom of God, 4: 1-34. His divine power shines forth in 
 his calming the sea, his curing the demoniacs in the land of 
 the Gadarenes and the woman that had the issue of blood, 
 and his raising the daughter of Jairus, 4 : 36 — 5 : 43. He finds 
 no faith at Nazareth, and now sends out the twelve into the 
 cities of Galilee, 6: 1-13. Herod, hearing of Christ, stands 
 
76 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 in awe of him, believing him to be John the Baptist, whom 
 he beheaded, 6: 14-29. Withdrawing with the twelve to a 
 desert place, He feeds the five thousand, and after that 
 shows his power over nature by walking on the sea, 6 : 30-56. 
 The Pharisees accost him, because his disciples eat bread 
 with unclean hands, 7 : 1-23. He now cures the daughter of 
 the Syro-Phoenician woman and the deaf and dumb man at 
 Decapolis, where He also feeds the four thousand, 7 : 24- 
 8 : 9. Once more the Pharisees ask him for a sign. Leaving 
 them. He restores the sight of the blind man at Bethsaida, 
 8:10-26. 
 
 ///. The Claim of the mighty Worker, 8:27 — 13:37. 
 The Lord shows the necessity of his suffering, leads his dis- 
 ciples to confess him as Messiah, and points out what is re- 
 quired of them, 8 : 27-38. His power and glory are seen in 
 the transfiguration and in the miracle following this, 9: 1-29. 
 Then follows a second revelation of his future suffering, 
 followed by teachings regarding humility and ofl:"enses, 
 9 : 30-50. In Perea Christ, tempted by the Pharisees, gives 
 his opinion on the question of divorce ; then He blesses little 
 children and points out the way of life to the young ruler, 
 10: 1-31. For the third time He reveals his future suffering, 
 and prepares his disciples for a life of service, 10:32-45 
 At Jericho He restores the sight of Bar-timeus. Next he 
 enters Jerusalem amid loud hosannas, curses the fig-tree and 
 cleanses the temple, 10 : 46 — 1 1 : 26. In the temple He reveals 
 his superiority by answering the questions of Pharisees, 
 Sadducees and Herodians, and points to himself as David's 
 Lord, 11:27 — 12:44. Then he speaks of his coming in 
 glory, 13. 
 
 IV. The Sacrifice of the mighty Worker, 14 : 1 — 15 : 47. 
 Preparation is made for Jesus' death by the Sanhedrin and 
 Judas on the one hand, and by Mary of Bethany on the 
 other, 14: 1-11. The passover is eaten and the Lord's sup- 
 per instituted, 14:12-25: In Gethsemane follows bitter 
 agony and captivity, 14 : 26-52. Then the Lord is tried and 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 77 
 
 condemned by the Sanhedrin and by Pilate, and finally He 
 is crucified, 14 : 53 — 15 : 47. 
 
 V. The mighty Worker as Conqueror of Death, 16 : 1-20. 
 Women go to the grave on the first day of the week and are 
 directed by the angels to go to Galilee, 16: 1-8. The Lord 
 appears several times, gives blessed promises, and at last 
 ascends to heaven, 14 : 9-20. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 There are certain characteristics by which the Gospel of 
 Mark is distinguished from the other Gospels : 
 
 1. The most striking peculiarity of the second Gospel 
 is its descriptive character. It is Mark's constant aim to 
 picture the scenes of which he speaks in lively colours. 
 There are many minute observations in his work that are not 
 found in the other Synoptics, some of which point to its 
 autoptic character. He mentions the look of anger that 
 Christ cast on the hypocrites about him, 3:5; relates the 
 miracles, performed immediately after the transfiguration, 
 with greater circumstantiality than the other Gospels, 9 : 9- 
 29 ; tells of Jesus taking little children in his arms and bless- 
 ing them, 9 : 36 ; 10:16; remarks that Jesus, looking at the 
 young ruler, loved him, 10: 21, etc. 
 
 2. This Gospel contains comparatively little of the teach- 
 ing of Jesus ; it rather brings out the greatness of our Lord 
 by pointing to his mighty works, and in doing this does not 
 follow the exact chronological order. Teaching is subordin- 
 ate to action, though we cannot maintain that it is ignored 
 altogether. Mark, though considerably smaller than Matt- 
 hew, contains all the miracles narrated by the latter except 
 five, and besides has three that are not found in Matthew. 
 Of the eighteen miracles in Luke, Mark has twelve and four 
 others above this number. 
 
 3. In the Gospel of Mark several words of Christ that 
 were directed against the Jews are left out, such as we find 
 in Mt. 3:7-10; 8:5-13; 15:24, etc. On the other hand 
 
78 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 more Jewish customs and Aramaic words are explained than 
 in the first Gospel, f . i. 2 : 18 ; 7 : 3 ; 14 : 12 ; 15 : 6, 42 ; 3 : 17 ; 
 5 : 41 ; 7 : 11, 34 ; 14 : 36. The argument from prophecy has 
 not the large place here that it has in Matthew. 
 
 4. The style of Mark is more lively than that of Matt- 
 hew, though not as smooth. He delights in using words hke 
 eiiOu? or euGewq and tcoXu?, prefers the use of the present 
 and the imperfect to that of the aorist, and often uses the 
 periphrastic sivat with a participle instead of the finite verb. 
 There are several Latinisms found in his Gospel, as 
 xevTupt'wv xopBavTY)?, xpa^^axo?, TrpatTwptov, UTCSitouXaTwp and 
 (fpaYsXXouv. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 Just as in the case of Matthew we are entirely dependent 
 on external testimony for the name of the author of the 
 second Gospel. And the voice of antiquity is unanimous in 
 ascribing it to Mark. The most ancient testimony to this 
 effect is that of Papias, who says : "Mark, the interpreter 
 of Peter, wrote down carefully all that he recollected, though 
 he did not [record] in order that which was either said or 
 done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed 
 him ; but subsequently, as I have said, [attached himself to] 
 Peter, who used to frame his teaching to meet the [imme- 
 diate] wants [of his hearers] ; and not as making a con- 
 nected narrative of the Lord's discourses. So Mark com- 
 mitted no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as 
 he called them to mind. For he took heed to one thing — to 
 omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing 
 falsely in [his narrative] of them." Several other church 
 fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertul- 
 Han, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, e. a., follow in his wake ; 
 there is not a dissentient voice. 
 
 We cannot glean a single hint from the Gospel itself as 
 to the identity of the author. It may be that the obscure 
 young man who followed Jesus in the night of his betrayal. 
 14: 51, 52, and who, stripped of his garment fled naked in 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 79 
 
 the darkness of night, was the author himself. The house 
 of Mark's mother was at least in later time a rendezvous 
 for the disciples of the Lord, Acts 12 : 12 ; so that it is not 
 improbable that Jesus and his disciples ate the Paschal sup- 
 per there, and that Mark, hearing them depart, left his bed 
 and stole after them. This would immediately explain the 
 acquaintance of the author with this interesting fact. 
 
 Some scholars have expressed doubt as to the identity 
 of Mark, the evangelist, and John Mark, the companion of 
 Barnabas and Paul. The general consensus of opinion, how- 
 ever, favors this. Proceeding on the assumption that this 
 view is correct, we find Mark mentioned first in connection 
 with Peter's deliverance from prison in 44 A. D. After 
 leaving the prison walls the apostle went to "the house of 
 Mary, the mother of John, whose surname was Mark," 
 Acts 12 : 12. From the way in which Luke introduces his 
 mother we gather that Mark was a well known person, when 
 the Acts were written. The fact that Peter calls him his 
 son, I Peter 5:13 naturally leads to the supposition that in 
 his early years he had frequent intercourse with the apostle 
 and was through the instrumentality of Peter led to a saving 
 knowledge of the truth. He was a cousin of Barnabas and 
 hence a Jew, probably even of a priestly family, Acts 4: 36. 
 When Barnabas and Paul set out on their first missionary 
 journey, Mark accompanied them until they came to 
 Pamphylia, when for some unknown, but as it seems repre- 
 hensible reason, he turned back. At the beginning of the 
 second missionary journey he was minded to accompany the 
 apostles again, but Paul positively refused to accept his 
 services. He now accompanied his uncle to Cyprus. When 
 we next hear of Mark, about ten years later, he is spoken of 
 by Paul as one of those few "fellow-laborers that have been 
 a consolation to him," Col. 4:10; Philem. 24. In his last 
 letter the apostle speaks of Mark once more, and in such a 
 laudatory manner as to prove that Mark has fully regained 
 his confidence, II Tim. 4:11. The last we hear of Mark in 
 
80 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Scripture is, when Peter sends the greetings of Mark, his 
 son, to the Christians in Asia Minor, I Peter 5 : 13. These 
 four passages lead us to the following construction of his 
 later history : He was with Paul during the apostle's first 
 imprisonment at Rome and then intended to visit the con- 
 gregation of Colossae. We have no reason to doubt that 
 he carried out this purpose. After Paul's release Mark was 
 at Rome with Peter, who in writing to the Christians of Asia 
 Minor assumes that they know Mark. Apparently he made 
 another visit to Asia Minor, since Paul requests Timothy, 
 II Tim. 4:11 to take Mark with him, when he comes to 
 Rome. After the death of Peter he is said to have visited 
 Alexandria, where he was the first to found Christian 
 churches, and finally died a martyr's death. This tradition, 
 though old, is not without suspicion. 
 
 It seems that Mark was "like Peter more a man of action 
 than of deep and abiding principle, a man of fervor and en- 
 thusiasm rather than of persevering effort ; but he was trans- 
 fused by the power of the same Christ who transfused Peter 
 into the man of rapid, continued and effective effort in the 
 missionary work of the Church." Gregory, Why Four Gos- 
 pels, p. 163. 
 
 The relation of Mark to Peter deserves special attention. 
 Scripture speaks of this in the two places already mentioned, 
 and tradition abundantly testifies to it. Papias says that 
 "Mark was Peter's interpreter and wrote down carefully 
 all that he recollected." Clement of Alexandria also says 
 that he wrote down the discourses of Peter, as he remem- 
 bered them. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Jerome all style Mark 
 "the interpreter of Peter." Tertullian even says that "the 
 Gospel published by Mark may be reckoned Peter's, whose 
 interpreter he was." And Origen still stronger : "Mark 
 wrote his Gospel according to the dictates of Peter." Simi- 
 larly Athanasius. All these testimonies agree in asserting 
 that Mark was dependent on Peter in writing his Gospel; 
 they disagree, however, as to the degree of dependence, 
 some claiming merely that Mark recorded what he remem- 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 81 
 
 bered of Peter's preaching, and others, that he wrote what 
 Peter dictated. Which representation is the true one ? 
 
 The title of the Gospel is against the dictation theory, for 
 if Peter had dictated the Gospel, it would in all probability 
 have been called by his name, just as the Epistles dictated 
 by Paul are universally ascribed to him. On the other hand 
 the autoptic touches in the Gospel make it probable that in 
 some parts of his work Mark employed the very words of 
 Peter ; they also suggest a possible basis for the later tradi- 
 tion that Peter dictated to Mark. However, it is not im- 
 possible that some of the Church fathers accentuated the 
 dependence of Mark on Peter unduly, merely to enhance the 
 authority of his work. The true relation of the evangelist 
 to the apostle is expressed in the words : "Mark was the 
 interpreter (ep[jLT]V£UT'n?) of Peter." This does not mean 
 that he accompanied Peter on his missionary journeys as 
 dragoman, translating Aramaeic discourses into Greek 
 (Davidson), or Greek into Latin (Bleek) ; but that he was 
 Peter's scholar and in his Gospel interprets i. e. sets forth 
 the doctrine of Peter for those who have not heard the 
 apostle. 
 
 The Gospel itself incidentally testifies to the relation in 
 which it stands to Peter. There are many touches that indi- 
 cate first-hand knowledge, as in 1 : 16-20 ; 1 :29 ; 9 :5 ; 15 :54, 
 72; 16: 7. Some things found in the other Synoptics are un- 
 expectedly omitted by Mark, as Peter's walking on the water, 
 Mt. 14 : 29 ; his appearance in the incident of the tribute 
 money, Mt. 17:24-27; the statement of Christ that He 
 prayed for Peter individually, Lk. 22 : 32 ; the significant 
 word spoken to him as the Rock, Mt. 16 : 18. In other cases 
 his name is suppressed, where it is used by Matthew or 
 Luke, as 7 : 17 cf . Mt. 15 : 15 ; 14 : 13 cf . Lk. 22 : 8. 
 
 The authorship of Mark is quite generally admitted ; yet 
 there are some, such as Beischlag and Davidson e. a. who 
 deny it. They maintain that our present Gospel does not 
 tally with the description of Papias, where he says that 
 
82 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Mark wrote down 'the things he heard of Peter "not in 
 order." Wendt supposes that Papias had in mind a series 
 of narratives that are embodied in our present Gospel, a 
 sort of Urmarkus. But when Papias said that the evange- 
 Hst wrote "not in order," he did not say anything that is not 
 true of our Mark, for in it we do not find things in the order 
 of their occurrence. And in ancient Hterature there is not 
 a single trace of an Urmarkus. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Readers and Purpose. External testimony enlightens 
 us respecting the circle for which the Gospel of Mark was 
 intended ; it points to Rome and the Romans. Clement of 
 Alexandria says that many of the converts of Rome desired 
 of Mark that he should write down the discourses of Peter. 
 Jerome also speaks of this "request of the brethren at 
 Rome" ; and Gregory Nazianzen says : "Mark wrote his 
 Gospel for the Italians." If we now turn to the Gospel 
 itself, we find that it was peculiarly adapted to the Romans. 
 They were a strenuous, a very active people ; Mark's Gospel 
 is pre-eminently the Gospel of action, and is written in a 
 brisk lively style. The fact that the argument from prophecy 
 holds an inferior place in it, and that so many Jewish 
 customs and Aramseic words are explained, points away 
 from the Jews ; while the Latin words contained in the gos- 
 pel, the reference to the Roman manner of divorce, 10: 12, 
 the reduction of a coin to the Roman quadrans, 12 : 42, the 
 knowledge of Pilate presupposed in 15 : 1 (cf. Mt. 27: 1 and 
 Lk. 3:1), and the introduction of Simon of Gyrene as the 
 father of Alexander and Rufus, 15 : 21 (cf. Rom. 16: 13), — 
 all point to Rome. 
 
 It stands to reason that the purpose of Mark in writing 
 stood in the closest relation to the circle of readers for 
 whom he intended his Gospel. It is certainly true, as Zahn 
 asserts, that his intention was to record the beginning 
 (apx'o) of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, i. e. the beginning of 
 its preaching and of its course; but he has this in common 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 83 
 
 with the other Synoptics; it is nothing distinctive (cf. p. 58 
 above). The theory of Hilgenfeld and Davidson, following 
 Baur, that the Gospel of Mark was written to conciliate the 
 two opposing parties of the apostolic age, the Petrine and the 
 Pauline, and therefore carefully avoids the exclusivism of 
 Matthew as well as the universalism of Luke can only be 
 sustained by the most forced and artificial interpretations. 
 Neither does the gospel support the view of Weiss, that it 
 was written at a time, when the hope of Christ's second com- 
 ing was on the decline, and intended to show that the Mes- 
 sianic character of Jesus' mission was sufficiently attested by 
 His earthly life. Mark's aim was simply to record the gos- 
 pel narrative without any special dogmatic aim, but to do 
 this in such a manner as would be most suitable for the 
 Romans, the busy Romans, the people of action. Hence he 
 places special emphasis on the acts of Christ. For those who 
 loved conquest and admired heroism he desired to picture 
 Christ as the mighty Conqueror that overcame sin and all 
 its consequences, yea even death itself. 
 
 2. Time and Place. As to the time when Mark wrote 
 his Gospel the witness of the early Church is not unanimous. 
 Irenaeus says that after the death of Peter and Paul Mark 
 wrote down what he had heard Peter preach. Clement of 
 Alexandria places the composition of the Gospel before the 
 death of Peter, stating that, when Peter heard of it, "he 
 neither obstructed nor encouraged the work." Jerome in- 
 forms us that Peter "approved and published it in our 
 churches, commanding the reading of it by his own author- 
 ity." Others say that Peter dictated to Mark. The question 
 to be decided is therefore, whether Mark wrote before or 
 after the death of Peter. It is generally assumed that the 
 testimony of Irenaeus is the most trustworthy. It is poss- 
 ible that some of the later Church fathers insisted on Mark's 
 having written the Gospel during the life of Peter, in order 
 to clothe it with apostolic authority. Zahn would harmonize 
 the testimony of the fathers by assuming that Mark began 
 
84 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 his work before and finished it after the death of the 
 apostle ; and that Peter on hearing of Mark's venture at first 
 said nothing regarding it ; then, seeing a part of the work, 
 rejoiced in it ; and still later, when it had almost reached 
 its perfect form, sanctioned it, Einl. II p. 203. 
 
 Turning to the Gospel itself, we find that it contains no 
 positive evidence as to the time of its composition. Some 
 inferred from 13:24 as compared with Mt. 24:29 that it 
 was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, the evan- 
 gelist being conscious of the lapse of a certain period be- 
 tween that catastrophe and the day of Christ's return. But 
 the foundation is too slender for the conclusion. With 
 greater probability others infer from 13: 14, "let him that 
 readeth understand," that the destruction of the city was 
 still a matter of expectation. This seems to follow also from 
 Mark's utter silence regarding that calamity. The probable 
 conclusion is therefore that the year 70 A. D. is the 
 terminus ad quern for the composition of this Gospel. From 
 Col. 4 : 10 we may infer that it was written after 62 A. D., 
 for if Paul had known Mark as an evangelist, he would most 
 likely have introduced him as such. A place of still greater 
 importance is II Peter 1 : 15. "Yea I will give diligence that 
 at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these 
 things to remembrance." Here Peter seems to promise that 
 there will be a record of his preaching after his demise. We 
 would therefore date the Gospel between 67 and 70 A. D. 
 Davidson without good reasons places it in the beginning of 
 the second century, about 125 A. D. Regarding the grounds 
 for his position, ( 1 ) that in this Gospel belief in the divinity 
 of Christ is more pronounced than in the first century ; and 
 (2) that the word euayyeXtov is used in a sense foreign to 
 the apostolic age, we merely remark that they are both un- 
 proved assumptions. 
 
 The testimony of the fathers points, almost without a 
 dissenting voice, to Rome as the place, where Mark com- 
 posed his gospel. Chrysostom, however, testifies that "Mark 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 85 
 
 wrote in Egypt at the request of the behevers there. But in 
 another statement he admits that he really knows nothing 
 about it. 
 
 3. Method. Augustine called Mark "the abridger of 
 Matthew," assuming that the second Gospel was an abbre- 
 viated compilation from the first. This theory has since 
 been defended by several scholars of the Tubingen school, 
 but is now abandoned. The general features of the Gospel 
 do not bear out that view. Zahn finds that Mark based his 
 Gospel both on the oral communications of Peter and on the 
 Hebrew Matthew, Einl. II p. 322. Davidson denies the 
 originality and priority of the Gospel by making it depend 
 to a great extent on Matthew and Luke, Introd. I p. 478. 
 Salmon finds throughout the Gospel many evidences of the 
 priority and independence of Mark, but believes that in 
 other places he is, with Matthew and Luke, dependent on a 
 common source, Introd. p. 155. The prevalent opinion at 
 present is that Mark's Gospel was prior to the other two, 
 though, at least according to some, he may have employed 
 the XoYta of Matthew. But in order to maintain this prior- 
 ity its defenders have resorted to such artificial and unlikely 
 theories that they in part defeated their own purpose. The 
 theory of an Urmarkus has been broached, but found little 
 acceptance. The opinion of Dr. Arthur Wright that we 
 must distinguish between a proto-, a deutero- and a trito- 
 Mark, a distinction applied to oral tradition by him, is now 
 by others applied to written documents. Cf. Holdsworth, 
 Gospel Origins p. 108. 
 
 Here again the great difference of opinion proves that it 
 is quite impossible to trace in all details the origin of the 
 material found in this Gospel. The great objection to sev- 
 eral of the theories propounded is that they seek to account 
 for the origin of Mark in a too mechanical way. We may 
 be certain of two things : (1) that Mark derived the great- 
 est part of his material from the preaching of Peter that 
 had gradually assumed a definite shape in his mind ; and (2) 
 
86 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 that he has recorded partly the ipsissima verba of Peter 
 (except for the occasional change of we into they), and 
 partly merely the substance of the apostle's /.•^puYtJi.a in a 
 form and with interpretations of his own. For the rest of 
 his material he probably depended on the Hebrew original 
 of Matthew. 
 
 INTEGRITY. 
 
 The integrity of the Gospel of Mark is generally main- 
 tained, with the exception, however, of the last twelve 
 verses, regarding which there is a great difference of opin- 
 ion. The critical camp of the past century is just about 
 equally divided, although at present the tide is somewhat 
 against these verses. The reasons for rejecting them are 
 both external and internal. These verses are wanting in the 
 two oldest and most valuable manuscripts, viz. the Sinaitic 
 and the Vatican. Eusebius and Jerome and a few others 
 state that they were wanting in almost all the Greek 
 copies of the gospels of their time. It is possible, however, 
 that the testimony of Jerome and the rest resolves itself 
 into that of Eusebius. This is all but certain with respect 
 to that of Jerome, as even Davidson admits. They are 
 wanting also in the important MS. k, representing the Afri- 
 can text of the old Latin Version, which has another and 
 shorter conclusion, like that in MS. L. They are also 
 absent from some of the best MSS. of the Armenian Ver- 
 sion. Then the style of this section is abrupt and sententious, 
 not graphic like that of the rest of the Gospel. It makes the 
 impression of a collection of brief notices, extracted from 
 larger accounts and loosely combined. Its phraseology is 
 also peculiar. Thus TupwTifi aa^^axou, verse 9 is used instead 
 of Y] [Jita Twv ca^^axcov, as in 16:2. The verb TropeueaOott, 
 which occurs three times in this section, is not found in the 
 body of the Gospel. Neither is the word OeaaOat, 16:11, 14. 
 Another unique feature is the use of 6 v.upioq as a designa- 
 tion of Christ, verses 19, 20. 
 
 These verses have also found ardent defenders, however. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 87 
 
 among whom especially Dean Burgon must be named, 
 though he is perhaps a little too positive. In his work on, 
 ^'The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to Mark," 
 he put up an able defense. The authenticity of this section 
 is favored by the following considerations : It is found in 
 most of the uncial MSS. and in all the cursives, though some 
 of these mark it with an asterisk, or indicate that it was 
 absent in older copies. Moreover its absence from Aleph and 
 E looks somewhat suspicious. It is also incorporated in most 
 of the ancient Versions, of which the Itala, the Curatorian 
 and Peshito Syriac, and the Coptic are older than any of 
 our Greek codices. All the existing Greek and Syriac lec- 
 tionaries, as far as they have now been examined, contain 
 these verses. Irenaeus quotes the 19th verse as a part of 
 the Gospel of Mark. Justin Martyr too in all probability 
 testifies to the authenticity of these verses. And several of 
 the later fathers, such as Epiphanius, Ambrose and Augus- 
 tine certainly quote from them. And as far as internal evi- 
 dence is concerned, it seems very unlikely that Mark would 
 end his Gospel with the words e^o^ouvTO ^<xp, without 
 recording a single appearance of the Lord. Moreover these 
 verses contain too many peculiarities to be a forgery. 
 
 We cannot delay to discuss the causes for the variation 
 of the MSS, nor to review the different conclusions to which 
 scholars have come as to the extent of Mark's Gospel. They 
 who wish to study the subject can do so in the work of 
 Burgon, in the Introductions of Guericke and Salmon and 
 in Urquhart's New Biblical Guide VII, where this section is 
 defended ; and in the work of Westcott and Hort, "The 
 New Testament in Greek," and in the Introductions of 
 Reuss, Weiss, Davidson and Zahn, who reject it. 
 
 It seems to us that the ground offered for the rejection 
 of these verses by external testimony is rather slender and 
 uncertain, while the internal evidence is weighty indeed. In 
 view of it we are inclined to accept one of two possible con- 
 clusions : either that Mark himself added these verses some 
 
88 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 time after he had written his Gospel, possibly culling his 
 material from Matthew and Luke ; or that someone else 
 wrote them to complete the work. The latter is favored by 
 the Armenian Gospel that was written in 986 and was dis- 
 covered by F. C. Conybeare in 1891, and which has the 
 superscription above this section : "Of the Presbyter Aris- 
 ton." In either case we see no reason, however, to doubt the 
 canonicity of this part of Mark's Gospel, though some have 
 attempted to make this suspicious especially by pointing to 
 the unlikely ( ?) miracles of verses 17, 18. Cf. Luke 10: 19. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 Though the external testimony to the canonicity of 
 Mark's Gospel is not so abundant as that for the Gospel of 
 Matthew, yet it is sufficient to establish this beyond a shadow 
 of doubt. It is quoted by at least two of the apostolic 
 fathers, by Justin Martyr and by the three great witnesses 
 of the end of the second century, Irenaeus, "Clement of Alex- 
 andria and Tertullian, and is referred to as a part of the 
 Word of God by several others. We find no expressions 
 of doubt in the early Church. 
 
 The special purpose of this Gospel in the canon is to 
 show us Christ in his divine power, destroying the works of 
 satan, and conquering sin and death. More than other Gos- 
 pels it places prominently before us the work of Christ in 
 behalf of those that are bound by the shackles of satan 
 and are suffering the consequences of sin. We here see the 
 Lion out of the tribe of Juda, conquering and ever to con- 
 quer. Mark is the only one of the evangelists that speaks 
 of the future Kingdom of God as coming with power, 9:1. 
 In that way this Gospel has special significance for the 
 Church of all ages. It gives her the blessed assurance that 
 her future is entrusted to One who has shown himself a 
 mighty Conqueror, and who is abundantly able to save to 
 the uttermost all who believe in Him, 
 
The Gospel of Luke. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Like the contents of the previous Gospels we may also 
 divide those of Luke's into five parts : 
 
 /. The Advent of the Divine Man, 1:-4:13. After 
 stating his aim the evangelist describes the announcement 
 from heaven of the forerunner, John the Baptist, and of 
 Christ himself, and their birth with the attendant circum- 
 stances, 1 : 1 — 2 : 20. Then he shows that Christ was made 
 subject to the law in circumcision, in the presentation in the 
 temple, and in his journey to Jerusalem, 2 : 21-52. He traces 
 the descent of the Son of Man to Adam, and points out that 
 He was prepared for his work by baptism and temptation, 
 3:1^1:13. 
 
 //. The Work of the Divine Man for the Jewish World, 
 4 : \A — 9 : 50. In this part we first see Christ preaching in the 
 synagogues of Nazareth, Capernaum and all Galilee ; per- 
 forming many miracles in Capernaum and by the sea of 
 Galilee, such as the curing of Peter's mother-in-law, the 
 wonderful draught of fishes, the cleansing of the leper, and 
 the healing of the palsied man ; calling Levi to follow him ; 
 and instructing his enemies regarding his authority, his pur- 
 pose, and the moral character of his demands, as a result of 
 which many were amazed and Pharisees and Scribes were 
 filled with hatred, 4 : \A — 6 : 11. After a night of prayer the 
 Lord now chooses his twelve disciples and proclaims the 
 constitution of his Kingdom, 6: 12-49. He cures the cen- 
 turion's servant, raises the widow's son, and gives instruc- 
 tion by word and example regarding the nature of his work 
 and the character of the subjects of his Kingdom, 7: 1-49. 
 The origin of the Kingdom is now illustrated in the parable 
 
90 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 of the sower, and the divine power of Christ over both the 
 natural and the spiritual world is shown in the stilling of the 
 storm, in the deliverance of the Gadarene demoniac, in his 
 curing the woman with the issue of blood and raising the 
 daughter of Jairus, 8: 1-56. The twelve are sent out and 
 on their return Christ retires with them to a desert place, 
 where He miraculously feeds the five thousand, after which 
 He once and again announced his future suffering and was 
 transfigured on the Mount, 9: 1-50. 
 
 ///. The Work of the Divine Man for the Gentiles, 
 9:51 — 18:30. Jesus in traveling towards Jerusalem sends 
 messengers before him, but these are rejected by the Samar- 
 itans ; then He sends out the seventy, who return with a good 
 report, teaches that neighborly love is not to be restricted to 
 the Jews (good Samaritan), and gives his disciples instruc- 
 tion regarding prayer, 9:51 — 11:13. The Pharisees now 
 claim that Christ casts out the devils through Beelzebub, in 
 answer to which He pictures their condition, and when they 
 tempt him in various ways, pronounces his woe upon them 
 and warns his disciples against them, 1 1 : 1^1 — 12 : 12. In con- 
 nection with the parable of the rich fool the Lord warns 
 against covetousness and anxious care, and bids his disciples 
 to be prepared for the day of his coming, 12: 13-53. Sit- 
 ting at meat in the house of a Pharisee, He teaches those 
 present true mercy, true humility, true hospitality, and the 
 fact that they, having refused the supper of the Lord, will 
 be rejected, 14: 1-24. Next the necessity of self-denial is 
 impressed on those that would follow Jesus, and in three 
 parables the Pharisees are made acquainted with the real 
 purpose of his coming, 14 : 25 — 15 : 32. The disciples are in- 
 structed in the careful use of their earthly possessions, and 
 to the Pharisees the law of retribution is explained, 16: 1-31. 
 In various ways the Lord impresses on his followers the 
 necessity of a forgiving spirit, of humility, of faith and 
 gratitude, of constant prayer with a view to the unexpected 
 character of his coming, of trusting in God and of self- 
 denial, — all ending in everlasting salvation, 17: 1 — 18: 30. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 91 
 
 IV. The Sacrifice of the Divine Man for all Mankind, 
 18:31 — 23 :49. Jesus announces once more his future suffer- 
 ing and death, at Jericho restores the sight of a blind man 
 and calls Zaccheus, and points out to his followers that his 
 Kingdom would not immediately come, 18 : 32 — 19 : 27. Tri- 
 umphantly He enters Jerusalem, where He cleanses the 
 temple, answers the questions of the Chief Priests, the 
 Scribes, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and instructs his 
 followers regarding his future coming, 19:28 — 21 :38. After 
 eating the passover with his disciples He was betrayed, con- 
 demned and crucified, 22 : 1 — 23 : 56. 
 
 V. The Divine Man Saviour of all Nations, 24. On the 
 morning of the first day Christ arose ; women seek him in 
 the grave ; He appears to two of his disciples on the way 
 to Emmaus, to the eleven, and finally departs from them 
 with the promise of the Spirit. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 The following are the most important characteristics of 
 the third Gospel : 
 
 1. In point of completeness it surpasses the other Synop- 
 tics, beginning, as it does, with a detailed narrative of the 
 birth of John the Baptist and of Christ himself, and ending 
 with a record of the ascension from the Mount of Olives. 
 In distinction from Matthew and Mark this Gospel even 
 contains an allusion to the promise of the Father, 24 : 29, 
 and thus points beyond the old dispensation to the new that 
 would be ushered in by the coming of the Holy Spirit. The 
 detailed narrative of Christ's going to Jerusalem in 9:51- 
 18: 14 is also peculiar to this gospel. 
 
 2. Christ is set before us in this Gospel as the perfect 
 Man with wide sympathies. The genealogy of Jesus is 
 traced back through David and Abraham to Adam, our com- 
 mon progenitor, thus presenting him as one of our race. We 
 are told of the truly human development both in body and 
 spirit of Jesus in 2 : 40-52, and of his dependence on prayer 
 
92 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 in the most important crises of His life, 3 : 21 ; 9 : 29. Those 
 features of the Lord's miracles of healing are clearly brought 
 out that show his great sympathy. "Peter's mother-in-law 
 suffers from a great fever ; and the leper is full of leprosy. 
 The hand restored on the sabbath is the right hand, the cen- 
 turion's servant is one dear to him, the son of the widow of 
 Nain, is an only son, the daughter of Jairus an only daugh- 
 ter, the epileptic boy at the hill of transfiguration is an only 
 child." Bruce, The Expositor's Greek Testament I p. 47. 
 
 3. Another feature of this Gospel is its universality. It 
 comes nearer than other Gospels to the Pauline doctrine of 
 salvation for all the world, and of salvation by faith, without 
 the works of the law. In the synagogue at Nazareth Christ 
 points out that God might again deal with the Jews as He 
 had done in the days of Elijah and Elishah, 4:25-27; He 
 declares that the faith of the centurion was greater than any 
 He had found in Israel, 7:2-10; sends messengers before 
 his face into Samaria, 9 : 52-56 ; demands love of Israel 
 even for the Samaritans, 10 : 30-37 ; heals the Samaritan 
 leper as well as the others, 17: 11-19; and speaks the signi- 
 ficant word : "Blessed are they that hear the word of God 
 and keep it, 11: 28. 
 
 4. More than the other evangelists Luke relates his nar- 
 rative to contemporaneous history and indicates the time of 
 the occurrences. It was in the days of king Herod that the 
 birth of John the Baptist and Christ was announced, 1:1, 
 26; during the reign of Caesar Augustus, that Christ was 
 born, 2:1; while Cyrenius was governor of Syria, that the 
 taxation took place, 2:2; in the fifteenth year of Tiberias, 
 etc., that Christ was baptized and began his public ministry, 
 3:1,2. Notice also the following chronological indications : 
 1:36, 56, 59; 2:42; 3:23; 9:28, 2>7, 51; 22:1, 7. We 
 should not infer from the foregoing, however, that Luke 
 furnishes us with a chronological record of the Lord's public 
 ministry. Very indefinite expressions of time are found 
 throughout the Gospel, as: "and it came to pass, when he 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 93 
 
 was in a certain city," 5:12; "and it came to pass on a 
 certain day," 5: 17; "and it came to pass also on another 
 sabbath," 6 : 6, etc. 
 
 5. Luke writes a purer Greek than any of the other 
 evangelists, but this is evident only, where he does not 
 closely follow his sources. The Greek of the preface is of 
 remarkable purity, but aside from this the first and second 
 chapters are full of Hebraisms. Of the rest of the Gospel 
 some parts approach very closely to classical Greek, while 
 others are tinged with Hebrew expressions. Plummer says : 
 "The author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most 
 versatile of all the New Testament writers. He can be as 
 Hebraistic as the LXX, and as free from Hebraisms as 
 Plutarch." Comm. on Luke in International Crit. Comm. 
 p. XLIX. His style is also very picturesque ; he tries to 
 make us see things, just as the eyewitnesses saw them. 
 Moreover his Gospel contains 312 words that are peculiar 
 to him. Several of these are ai:aB, XeYOjisva. There are also 
 five Latin words, viz. BYjvaptov, Xsyswv, aouSaptov, auaapiov 
 and pioSto?. Cf. lists in Plummer's Comm. and Davidson's 
 Introd. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 Though the author speaks of himself explicitly in the 
 preface of his Gospel, we are dependent on tradition for 
 his name. And here again the testimony of the fathers is 
 unanimous. Irenaeus asserts that "Luke, the companion of 
 Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him." 
 With this agrees the testimony of Origen, Eusebius, 
 Athanasius, Gregory, Nazianze, Jerome, e. a. 
 
 The Gospel itself offers us no direct collateral testimony. 
 Yet there are certain features that strengthen our belief in 
 the authorship of Luke. In the first place the writer evi- 
 dently looks at things with the eye of a physician. In 1882 
 Dr. Hobart published a work on, The Medical Language of 
 St. Luke, showing that in many instances the evangelist uses 
 the technical language that was also used by Greek medical 
 
94 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 writers, as xapaXeXuixevo?, 5:18, 24 (the other Gospels have 
 irapaXuTCXo?) ; auvexo[i£VY] Tcupextp [xsYaXw, 4:38; eaxY] t) 
 puat? Tou at[jLaTOi;, 8:44 (cf. Mt. 5:29); ovexaOctrsv, 7:14, 
 Luke carefully distinguishes demoniacal possession from 
 disease, 4:18; 13:32; states exactly the age of the dying 
 person, 8:42; and the duration of the affliction in 13: 11. 
 He only relates the miracle of the healing of Malchus' ear. 
 All these things point to Luke, "the beloved physician." 
 
 In the second place there is what has been called the 
 Paulinism of Luke. This has sometimes been emphasized 
 unduly, no doubt, but it certainly is a characteristic feature 
 of the third Gospel, and is just what we would expect in a 
 writing of Paul's companion. 
 
 In the third place we find great similarity between this 
 Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. If Luke wrote the 
 latter, he also composed the former. The general opinion 
 is expressed by Knowling in his introduction to the book 
 of Acts, in the Expositor's Greek Testament II p. 3 : "Who- 
 ever wrote the Acts wrote also the Gospel which bears the 
 name of Luke." It is true that there are more Hebraisms 
 in the Gospel than in Acts, but this is due to the fact that 
 the writer in composing the former was more dependent on 
 written sources than he was in writing the latter. 
 
 The only certain knowledge we have of Luke is derived 
 from the Acts of the Apostles and from a few passages in 
 the Epistles of Paul. From Col. 4:11, 14 it appears that 
 he was not a Jew and that his wordly calling was that of a 
 physician. Eusebius and Jerome state that he was originally 
 from Antioch in Syria, which may be true ; but it is also 
 possible that their statement is due to a mistaken derivation 
 of the name Luke from Lucius (cf. Acts 13: 1) instead of 
 from Lucanus. The testimony of Origen makes us suspect 
 this. Theophylact and Euthymius had the mistaken opinion 
 that he was one of the Seventy sent out by our Lord. This 
 is refuted by the preface of the Gospel, where Luke clearly 
 distinguishes himself from those that saw and heard the 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 95 
 
 Lord. Apparently the evangelist joined the company of 
 Paul and his co-laborers on the second missionary journey 
 at Troas. This may be inferred from the beginning of the 
 we-sections in Acts 16: 10. The first one of these sections 
 ends at 16: 17, so that Luke probably remained at Philippi. 
 He stayed there, so it seems, until Paul returned from 
 Greece on his third missionary journey, for in Acts 20:5 
 we suddenly come upon the plural pronoun of the first per- 
 son again. Then he evidently accompanied the apostle to 
 Jerusalem, 20:6, 13, 14, 15; 21 : 1-17. In all probability he 
 was with Paul at Caesarea, 27: 1, from where he accom- 
 panied the apostle to Rome, 27:1 — 28:16. He remained 
 at Rome during the first imprisonment, Col. 4: 14; Philem. 
 24, and was according to these passages a beloved friend and 
 fellow-laborer of the apostle. And when the great mission- 
 ary of the gentiles was imprisoned for the second time, Luke 
 was the only one with him, II Tim. 4:11, and thus gave 
 evidence of his great attachment to Paul. The last part of 
 Luke's life is involved in obscurity. Nothing certain can 
 be gathered from the conflicting testimony of the fathers. 
 Some claim that he gained a martyr's crown ; others, that 
 he died a natural death. 
 
 The question must be asked, whether Paul was in any 
 way connected with the composition of the third Gospel. 
 The testimony of the early Church is very uncertain on this 
 point. Tertullian says : "Luke's digest is often ascribed to 
 Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the master's 
 which is published by the disciples." According to Euse- 
 bius, "Luke hath delivered in his Gospel a certain amount 
 of such things as he had been assured of by his intimate 
 acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and his connection 
 with the other apostles." With this the testimony of Jerome 
 agrees. Athanasius states that the Gospel of Luke was dic- 
 tated by the apostle Paul. In view of the preface of the 
 gospel we may be sure that the Church fathers exaggerate 
 the influence of Paul in the composition of this Gospel, poss- 
 ibly to give it apostolic authority. Paul's relation to the 
 
96 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 third Gospel differs from that of Peter to the second ; it is 
 not so close. Luke did not simply write what he remem- 
 bered of the preaching of Paul, much less did he write 
 according to the dictation of the apostle, for he himself says 
 that he traced everything from the beginning and speaks of 
 both oral and written sources that were at his command. 
 Among these oral sources we must, of course, also reckon 
 the preaching of Paul. That the great apostle did influence 
 Luke's representation of "the beginning of the Gospel," is 
 very evident. There are 175 words and expressions in the 
 gospel that are peculiar to Luke and Paul. Cf. Plummer p. 
 LIV. Besides, as we have already seen, some of the leading 
 ideas of Paul are found in the third gospel, such as the uni- 
 versality of the Gospel, the necessity of faith, and the use 
 of the word Stxatow in a forensic sense, 7:29; 10:29; 
 16: 15; 18: 14. A striking resemblance exists also between 
 Luke's account of the institution of the Lord's supper, 
 22: 19-20. and Paul's memoir of this in I Cor. 11:23-25, 
 but this may be due to the use of a common source. 
 
 The Lukan authorship of the Gospel was generally ac- 
 cepted up to the time, when Rationalism began its attacks 
 on the books of the Bible. The Tubingen school, notably 
 F. C. Baur, maintained that the Gospel of Marcion, who 
 began to teach at Rome in 140 A. D., was the original of 
 our Gospel. Others followed where Baur led. In later 
 years, however, critical opinion wheeled about completely 
 and the opinion is generally held that Marcion's Gospel is 
 a mutilation of Luke's, though in some parts it may repre- 
 sent another and even an older text. This, of course, made 
 it possible again to maintain the authorship of Luke. But 
 even now there are several German scholars who doubt 
 that Luke wrote the Gospel, and Harnack's protest against 
 their contention seems ineffective. Their objections to the 
 Lukan authorship are based on the Acts of the Apostles 
 rather than on the Gospel, but, as has been intimated, the 
 two stand or fall together. We shall consider these ob- 
 jections, when we treat of Acts. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 97 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Readers and Purpose. The Gospel of Luke was first 
 of all intended for Theophilus, who is addressed as "most 
 excellent Theophilus" in 1:3, and is also mentioned in Acts 
 1:1. We have no means of determining who this Theo- 
 philus was. It has been supposed by some that the name 
 was a general one, applied to every Christian, as a beloved 
 one or a friend of God. But the general opinion now is, 
 and rightly so, that it is the name of an individual, prob- 
 ably a Greek. The fact that he is addressed by Luke in the 
 same manner as Felix, 23 : 26, 24 : 3, and Festus, 26 : 25 are 
 addressed, led to the conclusion that he was a person of high 
 station. Baljon thinks he was undoubtedly a Gentile Chris- 
 tian, while Zahn regards him as a Gentile who had not yet 
 accepted Christ, since Luke would have addressed a brother 
 differently. It is generally agreed, however, that the Gospel 
 was not intended for Theophilus only, but was simply ad- 
 dressed to him as the representative of a large circle of 
 readers. Who were these first readers of the gospel? Origen 
 says that the third gospel was composed "for the sake of the 
 Gentile converts ;" Gregory Nazianze, more definitely : 
 "Luke wrote for the Greeks." Now it is quite evident from 
 the gospel itself that the evangelist is not writing for the 
 Jews. He never gives the words of Jesus in the Aramaeic 
 language ; instead of a[xr)v 'ki-^m he has (zXtjOw? Xeyw, 9 :27 ; 
 12:44; 21:3; for ^pix\i\t.iXT:e.lq he uses vo(jLt/.6t, BtSa^xaXo?, 
 2:46; 7:30; 10:25; 11:45; and of many places in Pales- 
 tine he gives a nearer definition. It is very probable that 
 that Gospel of Luke was intended for the Greeks, because 
 Paul labored primarily among them, Theophilus was in all 
 probability a Greek, the preface of the gospel is in many 
 respects like those found in Greek historians, and the whole 
 Gospel is remarkably adjusted to the needs of the Greeks. 
 Cf. for this last point especially Gregory, Why Four Gospels 
 p. 207 flf. 
 
 The purpose of Luke is clearly stated in the preface, viz. 
 
98 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 that Theophilus and the Gentile readers in general might 
 know the certainty of those things, wherein they had been 
 instructed, 1:4. It is his desire to present clearly the truth 
 of all Gospel facts. In order to do this, he aims at fulness 
 of treatment ; traces all things from the beginning ; writes 
 an orderly account of all that has happened, recording the 
 sayings of the Lord in their original setting more than the 
 other evangelists do, thus promoting definiteness and 
 strengthening his representation of the reality of things ; 
 mentions the names not only of the principal actors in the 
 Gospel history, but also those of others that were in any 
 way connected with it, 2:1, 2 ; 3:1, 2 ; 7 : 40 ; 8:3; brings 
 the Gospel facts in relation with secular history, 2:1, 2; 
 3:1, 2; and describes carefully the impression which the 
 teachings of Christ made, 4:15, 22, 36; 5:8, 25; 6:11; 
 7:29; 8:37; 18:43; 19:37. From the contents of the 
 Gospel we may further gather that it was the author's nearer 
 purpose to present Christ in a very acceptable way to the 
 Greeks, viz. as the perfect man (cf. p. 91 above), as the 
 sympathetic friend of the afiflicted and the poor, 1 : 52 ; 
 2 : 7 ; 4 : 18 ; 6 : 20 ; 12 : 15 ff. 16 : 19, etc., and as the Saviour 
 of the world, seeking those that are lost, 7 : 36-50 ; 15 : 1-32 ; 
 18:9-14; 19: 1-10; 23: 43. 
 
 2. Time and Place. Tradition tells us very little regard- 
 ing the time, when Luke wrote his Gospel. According to 
 Eusebius Clement of Alexandria received a tradition from 
 presbyters of more ancient times "that the Gospels con- 
 taining the genealogies were written first." Theophylact 
 says: "Luke wrote fifteen years after Christ's ascension." 
 The testimony of Euthymius is to the same effect, while 
 Eutichius states that Luke wrote his Gospel in the time of 
 Nero. According to these testimonies the evangelist com- 
 posed his Gospel possibly as early as 54, and certainly not 
 later than 68 A. D. 
 
 Internal evidence is even more uncertain. Some infer 
 from 21 : 24 that Luke realized that a certain time was to 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 99 
 
 elapse between the destruction of Jerusalem and the final 
 judgment, and therefore wrote after the destruction of the 
 Holy City, a very inconclusive argument indeed, since this 
 is a prophetic word of Christ. We might argue in favor of 
 a date after the destruction of Jerusalem from the absence 
 of the warning note that is found in both Matthew and 
 Mark, but being an argument from silence even that does 
 not prove the point. Several scholars, especially of the 
 Tubingen school, date the Gospel near the end of the first 
 or in the beginning of the second century. The main argu- 
 ment for this date is the supposed fact that Luke is in some 
 parts of his Gospel dependent on the Antiquities of 
 Josephus, a rather chimerical idea. Both Zahn and Weiss 
 are of the opinion that Luke wrote after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, but not later than the year 80 A. D. Zahn settled 
 on this terminus ad quem, because he considers it likely that 
 Luke was a member of the Antiochian congregation as early 
 as the year 40 A. D., and would therefore be very old in 
 the year 80 A. D. ; Weiss, since the evangelist evidently 
 expected the second coming of Christ in his time, which was 
 characteristic of the first generation after Christ. The great 
 majority of conservative scholars place the composition of 
 this Gospel somewhere between 58 and 63 A. D. The main 
 arguments for this date are : ( 1 ) it is in harmony with 
 ancient tradition; (2) it best explains the total silence of 
 Luke regarding the destruction of Jerusalem; and (3) it is 
 most in harmony with the dating of Acts in 63 A. D., which 
 offers a good explanation of Luke's silence with respect to 
 the death of Paul. 
 
 As to the place, where the Gospel of Luke was written 
 tradition points to Achaia and Boeotia. We have no means 
 of controlling this testimony, however, so that it really leaves 
 us in ignorance. Some of the modern guesses are, Rome, 
 Caesarea, Asia Minor, Ephesus, and Corinth. 
 
 3. Method. In view of the preface of Luke's Gospel 
 we have reason to believe that in the composition of it the 
 evangelist depended on both oral tradition and written 
 
100 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 sources. In present day theories the emphasis is mainly 
 placed on written sources, and the most prevalent hypothesis 
 is that he employed the Gospel of Mark, either in the present 
 form or in an earlier recension ; the apostolic source Q or 
 some Sf^YTQaK;, containing this (from which two sources 
 he derived mainly the matter that he has in common with 
 Matthew and Mark) ; and a third main source of unknown 
 character and authorship, from which he drew the narrative 
 of the nativity, chs. 1, 2, and the account of the last journey 
 to Jerusalem, contained in 9 : 51 — 18 : 14. Zahn also believes 
 that Luke employed Mark as one of his sources, but does 
 not attempt to give a nearer definition of the other sources 
 used. The opinion that he drew part of his material from 
 Josephus deserves but a passing notice. It seems to us that 
 it is impossible to determine exactly what sources Luke 
 used ; all we can say is : ( 1 ) Having been an associate of 
 Paul for several years, part of which he spent in Palestine, 
 where he had abundant opportunity to meet other apostles 
 and eyewitnesses of the Lord's works, he must have gath- 
 ered a large store of knowledge from oral tradition, which 
 he utilized in the composition of his gospel. This accounts 
 for a great deal of the matter which he has in common with 
 Matthew and Mark. (2) During the time of his research 
 in Palestine he also became acquainted with a goodly number 
 of ^iri^riaziq, narratives of the Gospel facts, of which we 
 can no more determine the exact nature, and drew on them 
 for a part of his material. One of these probably contained 
 the matter found in chs. 1 and 2, and in 9: 51 — 18: 14. (3) 
 It does not seem likely that Luke read either the Gospel of 
 Matthew or that of Mark, and classed them or either one of 
 them with the previous attempts, on which he desired to im- 
 prove. Oral tradition in connection with the guidance of 
 the Holy Spirit is quite sufficient to explain the resemblance 
 between these Gospels and that of Luke. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The canonicity of this Gospel is well attested. Says 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 101 
 
 Alexander in his work on the Canon p. 177: "The same 
 arguments by which the canonical authority of the Gospels 
 of Matthew and Mark was established, apply with their full 
 force to the Gospel of Luke. It was universally received 
 as canonical by the whole primitive Church — has a place in 
 every catalogue of the books of the New Testament, which 
 was ever published — is constantly referred to and cited by 
 the Fathers as si part of sacred Scripture — and was one of 
 the books constantly read in the churches, as a part of the 
 rule of faith and practice for all believers." There are in 
 all 16 witnesses before the end of the second century that 
 testify to its use and general acceptance in the Church. 
 
 The gospel of Luke presents to us Christ especially as 
 one of the human race, the Seed of the woman, in his 
 saving work not only for Israel, but also for the Gentiles. 
 Hence it pictures him as the friend of the poor and as seek- 
 ing sinners, emphasizes the universality of the Gospel bless- 
 ings, and distinctly bespeaks a friendly relation to the 
 Samaritans. Its permanent spiritual value is that it reminds 
 the Church of all ages that in every nation he that feareth 
 God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him ; and 
 that we have a great High Priest that was touched with the 
 feeling of our infirmities, and was in all parts tempted like 
 as we are, yet without sin. 
 
The Gospel of John. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The contents of the Gospel of John is also divided into 
 five parts : 
 
 /. The Advent and Incarnation of the Word, 1 : 1-13. 
 John takes his point of departure in the pre-existence and 
 divine origin of Christ, and points out that He was heralded 
 by John the Baptist, was the, light of the world and gave 
 believers the power to become the children of God. 
 
 //. The Incarnate Word the only Life of the World, 
 1:14 — 6:71. The evangelist records the testimony to the 
 grace and truth of the incarnate Word given by John the 
 Baptist and by Christ himself in word and deed, 1 : \A — 
 2:11; and the self-revelation of Christ in the cleansing of the 
 temple, 2: 12-32; in the conversation with Nicodemus, 3: 1- 
 21; followed by the public testimony of John 3:22-36; in 
 the conversation with the Samaritan woman, 4: 1-42; and 
 in the healing of the nobleman's son, 4 : 43-54. More parti- 
 cularly he shows, how Christ reveals himself as the author 
 and sustainer of life in the healing of the impotent man and 
 its vindication, 5 : 1-47 ; and in the miracle of the loaves with 
 the following discourse, leading to desertion on the one and 
 to confession on the other hand, 6: 1-71. 
 
 ///. The Incarnate Word, the Life and Light, in Con- 
 flict with Spiritual Darkness, 7 : 1 — 1 1 : 54. On the feast of 
 tabernacles Christ reminds the Jews of the fact that He is 
 the life of the world, and presents himself to them as the 
 water of life, wherefore officers were sent to take him, 
 7 : 1-52. The following day He brings out the spiritual dark- 
 ness of the Jews in connection with the adulterous woman, 
 and declares that He is the light of the world, the only light 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 103 
 
 that can truly enlighten them ; and that He only could liber- 
 ate them from their spiritual bondage ; which leads to an 
 attempt to stone him, 8: 1-59. On a subsequent occasion 
 He proves himself to be the light of the world by healing 
 the blind man and speaks of himself as the good Shepherd 
 that lays down his life for his sheep; thereby provoking un- 
 belief and rage, 9 : 1 — 10 : 21. At the feast of the dedication 
 He declares that He and the Father are one, which again 
 leads to an attempt to stone him, 10 : 22-42. In raising 
 Lazarus Jesus presents himself as the resurrection and the 
 life, thus leading some of the people to believe in him, but 
 his enemies to the settled purpose to kill him, 11 : 1-54. 
 
 IV. The Incarnate Word saving the Life of the World 
 through his Sacrificial Death, 11 : 55 — 19: 42. The enemies 
 plan to kill Jesus, but Mary of Bethany anoints him and the 
 people meet him with glad hosannas ; the Greeks seek him 
 at Jerusalem, but the multitude turns from him in unbelief, 
 11 : 55 — 12 : 50. He sits at the Paschal supper with his dis- 
 ciples, gives them a lesson in humble service, exposes the 
 traitor and announces that the time has now come to leave 
 his disciples, 13:1-38. He discourses on the significance 
 of his departure and on the new life in communion with 
 the Father, 14 : 1 — 16 : 33 ; and offers the intercessory 
 prayer committing his followers to the Father, 17:1-26. 
 In Gethsemane He is taken captive, and after a preliminary 
 hearing before the high priest is brought before Pilate who, 
 though finding no guilt in Jesus, yet delivers him into the 
 hands of the Jews to be crucified, 18 : 1-16. After his cruci- 
 fixion He is buried by Joseph and Nicodemus, 19: 17-42. 
 
 V. The Incarnate Word, risen from the Dead, the 
 Saviour and Lord of all Believers, 20: 1 — 21 : 25. Having 
 risen from the dead, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalena and 
 on two successive Lord's days to his disciples, 20:1-31. 
 Later He is seen by some of his disciples at the sea of 
 Tiberias, where He restores Peter and points significantly to 
 the career of John, the writer of the Gospel, 31 : 1-25. 
 
104 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 Of the characteristics that mark the fourth Gospel the 
 following especially are to be noted : 
 
 1. The gospel of John emphasizes more than any of the 
 others the Divinity of Christ. It has no historical starting- 
 point, like the Synoptics, but recedes back into the depths of 
 eternity, and starts out with the statement sublime in its 
 simplicity : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God, and the Word was God." Positively, the 
 Logos-doctrine is peculiar to this Gospel ; negatively, every 
 indication of Christ's human development and of his gradu- 
 ally awakening self-consciousness is strikingly absent from 
 it. We find no genealogy here, no description of Christ's 
 birth with its attendant circumstances, and no narrative of 
 his baptism and temptation. John the Baptist testifies to 
 his Divinity, as soon as He enters on the scene, and He him- 
 self publicly claims this prerogative almost from the begin- 
 ning of his public ministry, cf. 3 : 13 ; 5 : 17 ff ; 6: 32, 40 ff., 
 etc. The miracles of the Lord, narrated in this Gospel, are 
 of such a character that they give great prominence to his 
 divine power. The nobleman's son was cured from a dis- 
 tance, 4 : 46 ff . ; the man at Bethesda had been infirm thirty- 
 eight years, 5:5; the bhnd man at Jerusalem had been horn 
 blind, 9:1; and Lazarus had already lain in the grave four 
 days, 11 : 17. 
 
 2. The teaching of Christ greatly predominates in John's 
 Gospel, but this is quite different from that contained in the 
 Synoptics. We find no parables here but elaborate dis- 
 courses, which also contain a couple of allegories. The all- 
 absorbing topic is not the Kingdom of God but the Person 
 of the Messiah. The simple rudimentary teaching regarding 
 the Kingdom is here replaced by a more penetrating (though 
 not developed) instruction in the deeper realities of faith. 
 In connection with his miracles or other historical facts 
 Christ presents himself as the source of life, 4:46 — 5:47; 
 the spiritual nourishment of the soul, 6: 22-65 ; the water of 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 105 
 
 life, 4 : 7-16 ; 7 : 37, 38 ; the true liberator, 8 : 31-58 ; the light 
 of the world, 9 : 5, 35-41 ; and the living principle of the 
 resurrection, 1 1 : 25, 26. The farewell discourses of the 
 Saviour, besides containing many profound truths respect- 
 ing his personal relation to believers, are also significant on 
 account of their clear references to the coming Paraclete. 
 
 3. The scene of action in this Gospel is quite different 
 from that in the Synoptics. In the latter the work of Christ 
 in GaHlee is narrated at length, while He is seen at Jeru- 
 salem only during the last week of His life. In the Gospel 
 of John, on the other hand, the long ministry of Christ in 
 Galilee is presupposed rather than narrated, while his work 
 and teaching in Judea and particularly at Jerusalem is made 
 very prominent. The great feasts afforded the occasion for 
 this work and are therefore distinctly mentioned. John 
 speaks of three, possibly four, Passovers, 2:13;5:1;6:4; 
 13:1; of the feast of Tabernacles, 7:2; and of the feast of 
 the Dedication, 10 : 22. 
 
 4. The Gospel of John is far more definite than the 
 Synoptics in pointing out the time and place of the occur- 
 rences that are narrated ; it is in a certain sense more chrono- 
 logical than the other Gospels. We are generally informed 
 as to the place of Christ's operation. Definite mention is 
 made of Bethany, 1:28; Cana, 2:1; Capernaum, 2:12; 
 Jerusalem, 2:13; Sychar, 4:5; Bethesda, 5:2, etc. The 
 designations of time are equally distinct, sometimes the hour 
 of the day being given. The chronological framework of 
 the gospel is found in its reference to the great feasts. John 
 the Baptist sees Christ coming to him the day after he had 
 met the delegation from Jerusalem, 1 : 29 ; and again on the 
 following day, 1 : 35. A day later Christ called Philip and 
 Nathanael, 1 : 43-51 ; on the third day there was a marriage 
 in Cana, 2 : 1 ; it was at the sixth hour that Christ sat down 
 at the well, 4:6; at the seventh, that the nobleman's son 
 was cured, 4 : 52 ; in the midst of the feast that Jesus went 
 into the temple, 7:14; and again on the last great day, 7 : 37 ; 
 
106 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 and about the sixth hour that Christ was delivered unto the 
 Jews by Pilate, 19 : 14. 
 
 5. The style of the fourth Gospel is not like that of the 
 other three. It is peculiar in that "it contains, on the one 
 hand, except in the prologue and /ocpa '/atpet in 3 :29, hardly 
 any downright Hebraisms," Simcox, The Writers of the 
 New Testament p. 73, while, on the other hand, it approaches 
 the style of Old Testament writers more than the style of 
 any other New Testament writing does. John evidently 
 commanded a fairly good Greek vocabulary, but does not 
 attempt any elaborate sentences. Rather than do this, he 
 will repeat part of a previous statement and then add a new 
 element to it. His sentences are generally connected in the 
 most simple way by v.ai, Ss or ouv, and his descriptions are 
 often elaborate and repetitious. He exhibits a special fond- 
 ness for contrasts and for the use of the parallelismus mem- 
 brorum. A very characteristic expression of his is ^(oy) 
 atwvoi;, which occurs 17 times in the Gospel. For other 
 phrases and expressions see Simcox. He also employs sev- 
 eral Aramaean words, as pa^^t, pa^^ouvl, xiQcpai;, \i.eaaiaq, 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The voice of antiquity is all but unanimous in ascribing 
 the fourth Gospel to John. The Monarchian sect, called 
 by Epiphanius, "the Alogi," forms the only exception. Little 
 is known of this sect, except that it rejected the doctrine of 
 the Logos. Salmon says : "In fact I now believe that "the 
 Alogi" consisted of Caius and, as far as I can learn, of 
 nobody else." Introd. p. 229. The internal evidence for the 
 authorship of the Gospel is now generally arranged under 
 the following heads : 
 
 1. The author was a Jew. He evidently had an intimate 
 acquaintance with the Old Testament, had, as it were, im- 
 bibed the spirit of the prophetical writings. He knew them 
 not only in the translation of the LXX, but in their original 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 107 
 
 language, as is evident from several Old Testament quota- 
 tions. Moreover the style of the author clearly reveals 
 his Jewish nationality. He wrote Greek, it is true, but his 
 construction, his circumstantiality and his use of parallelism, 
 are all Hebraic. "There is a Hebrew soul living in the lan- 
 guage of the evangelist." Luthardt, St. John the Author 
 of the Fourth Gospel, p. 166. Ewald comes to the con- 
 clusion, "that the Greek language of the author bears in 
 itself still the clearest and strongest mark of a genuine He- 
 brew, who born among the Jews in the Holy Land, and 
 grown up in this society without speaking Greek, carries in 
 himself the whole spirit and breath of his mother-tongue 
 even in the midst of the Greek raiment that he afterwards 
 learnt to cast about him, and has no hesitation to let himself 
 be led by that spirit." Quoted by Luthardt, p. 167. 
 
 2. The author was a Palestinian Jew. He clearly shows 
 that he is well at home in the Jewish world. He is inti- 
 mately acquainted with Jewish customs and religious obser- 
 vances and with the requirements of the law, and moves 
 about with ease in the Jewish world of thought. He knows 
 that, according to the strict Jewish conception, it was unlaw- 
 ful to heal on the sabbath, 5:1 ff. ; 9 : 14 fif. ; and also that 
 circumcision was allowed, 7 : 22 ff . He is aware of the 
 Jewish expectation of Elijah, 1 : 21 ; and of the ill-feeling 
 between the Jews and the Samaritans, 4 : 9. He under- 
 stood that the Jews regarded a misfortune as the result of 
 some particular sin, 9:2; and that they considered one un- 
 clean who had entered the house of a Gentile, 18:28. He 
 is thoroughly acquainted with Jerusalem, 5:2; with the val- 
 ley of Sichem and mount Gerezim, 4 : 5 ff . ; with the temple, 
 8 : 20 ; and with Capernaum and other places around the sea 
 of Galilee, 7. 
 
 3. The writer was an eyewitness of the events he re- 
 lates. He claims this explicitly, if not already in 1 : 14, "we 
 beheld his glory" (Cf. I John 1:1-3), certainly in 19:35. 
 "And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; 
 
108 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might beheve." 
 This claim is corroborated by the lively and yet simple 
 manner in which he pictures the events ; by the many definite 
 chronological data and naming of localities, to which we 
 have already referred ; and by the great prominence given to 
 certain individuals with whom Jesus came in contact. 
 
 4. The author was the apostle John. He often makes 
 mention in his Gospel of a disciple whom he never names, 
 but to whom he constantly refers as "the (an) other dis- 
 ciple," or as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Cf. 13:23; 
 18:15; 19:26; 20:2, 3, 4, 8; 21:7. At the close of his 
 Gospel he says of him : "This is the disciple which testi- 
 fieth these things ; and we know that his testimony is true," 
 21 : 24. Who was this disciple? The evangelist names only 
 seven of the disciples of the Lord, the five that are not 
 named being John and his brother James, Matthew, Simon 
 the Canaanite and James the son of Alpheus. Now it is 
 evident from 1 : 35-41 that said disciple was one of the first 
 ones called by the Lord, and these according to Mark 
 1 : 16-19 were Peter, Andrew, John and James. The first 
 two are explicitly named in John 1 : 41-43, so that the one 
 whose name is suppressed must have been either John or 
 James. But we cannot think of James as the author of this 
 Gospel, since he died a martyr's death as early as A. D. 44. 
 Therefore John must have been the writer. 
 
 According to Mt. 27:56 and Mk. 1:20; 15:40. John 
 was the son of Zebedee and Salome who probably belonged 
 to the middle class of society. His mother was among the 
 faithful followers of the Saviour, Mt. 27:56; Mk. 16:1. 
 He was one of the very first followers of Jesus and soon 
 appears as one of the innermost circle of the disciples, one 
 of the three that always accompany the Saviour. With the 
 Lord he enters the dwelling of Jairus, ascends the mount of 
 transfiguration and penetrates into the dark recesses of 
 Gethsemane. As he stands by the cross, the mother of Jesus 
 is entrusted to his care. On the morning of the resurrection 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 109 
 
 he is one of the first to visit the grave of the Saviour. In 
 the first part of the Acts of the Apostles he appears as one 
 of the faithful witnesses of the resurrection of the Lord. 
 After that we lose sight of John in Scripture, but tradition 
 tells us that he spent the last part of his life in Asia Minor, 
 especially at Ephesus, where he died in venerable age. 
 
 There is an apparent contradiction between the synop- 
 tical data regarding the character of John and the concep- 
 tion of it derived from his own writings, but this is easily 
 explained. The very first indication of his character we 
 glean from the statement in Mk. 3:17, that the Lord named 
 him and his brother James "Boanerges, which is, the sons 
 of thunder." This conveys the idea of an ardent temper, 
 of great strength and vehemence of character. And on 
 two occasions we find that they reveal just such traits, viz. 
 when they peremptorily forbade one who was casting out 
 devils in the name of Jesus to continue this, Mk. 9 : 38 ; Lk. 
 9 : 49 ; and when they desired permission to command fire 
 to come down from heaven to devour the Samaritans, Lk. 
 9 : 54. In both cases the Lord reproves their show of tem- 
 per. Another trait of their character is revealed in their 
 request to sit in the places of honor in the future Kingdom 
 of Jesus, Mt. 20:20-24; Mk. 10:35-41. Their ambition 
 was such as to offend the other disciples and to call forth a 
 severe rebuke from the Lord. John was, no doubt, zealous 
 for the Lord, but his zeal was mistaken ; he had a passionate 
 desire to be near his Master, but he showed this in a manner 
 that was not free from selfishness and pride. The Lord 
 directed his zeal and ambition into other channels by point- 
 ing out their unspiritual character and by teaching him that 
 one can be great in the Kingdom of God only by being the 
 servant of one's brethren. This undoubtedly made a pro- 
 found impression on the sensitive John and begot within 
 him the habit of introspection, of self-examination. He 
 became more quiet, more reserved with an inclination to 
 ponder on the mysteries that he encountered in his daily 
 association with the Lord, and penetrated farther than the 
 
110 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Other disciples into the hidden depths of the mysterious life 
 of Christ. As a result John, as he reveals himself in his 
 writings, is quite different from the John of the Synoptics. 
 From his Gospel and Epistles we learn to know him as a 
 man of deep religious feeling, beloved of Christ ; a man 
 that lived in close communion with his Lord, a communion 
 more spiritual, however, than he desired in his youthful 
 years. His exclusivism has made place for a love that would 
 embrace all ; his zeal is still operative, but it has been sancti- 
 fied and led into proper channels ; his strength has become 
 a tower of defense for spiritual truth. 
 
 Not until the last part of the eighteenth century was the 
 authorship of John attacked on critical grounds, and even 
 then the attacks were of small significance. Bretschneider 
 in 1820 was the first to assail it in a systematic way. But 
 he was soon followed by others, such as Baur, Strauss, 
 Schwegler, Zeller, Scholten, Davidson, Wrede e. a. It has 
 been their persistent endeavor to show that the Gospel of 
 John is a product of the second century. Some would 
 ascribe it to that shadowy person, the presbyter John, whose 
 existence Eusebius infers from a rather ambiguous passage 
 of Papias, but who, in all probability, is to be identified with 
 John the apostle. Others positively reject this theory. 
 Wrede, after arguing that the authorship of John cannot 
 be established, says : "Far less can the recent hypothesis be 
 regarded as proven which purports to find the author of the 
 Gospel in John the presbyter." The Origin of the New 
 Testament p. 89. 
 
 The most important considerations that led many ration- 
 alistic critics to the conclusion that the fourth Gospel was 
 written in the second century, are the following: (1) The 
 theology of the Gospel, especially its representation of 
 Christ, is developed to such a degree that it points beyond 
 the first and reflects the consciousness of the Church of the 
 second century. (2) The Gospel was evidently written un- 
 der the influence of the philosophic and religious tendencies 
 that were prevalent in the second century, such as Montan- 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 111 
 
 ism, Docetism and Gnosticism. (3) The great difference 
 between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics appears to be 
 the result of second century cavilling respecting the nature 
 of Christ, and of the Paschal controversy. 
 
 But the idea that the Gospel of John is a second century 
 product goes counter to both the internal evidence to which 
 we already referred, and to the external testimony, which is 
 exceptionally strong and which can be traced back to the 
 very beginning of the second century. Some of the Epistles 
 of Ignatius show the influence of John's Christology, and the 
 writings of both Papias and Polycarp contain allusions to 
 the first Epistle of John, which was evidently written at 
 the same time as the Gospel. The latter was in existence, 
 therefore, in the beginning of the second century. The theol- 
 ogy of the Gospel of John is no more developed than that of 
 Paul's Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, that 
 were written between A. D. 61 and 63. Critics generally 
 ceased to place any reliance on the so-called Montanistic 
 features of the Gospel, and although they still maintain that 
 some passages contain traces of a Docetic Gnosticism, these 
 are purely imaginary and readily vanish, when the light of 
 exegesis is turned on. The connection of the Gospel with 
 the Paschal controversy is now admitted to be very dubious. 
 And the difference between it and the Synoptics can be 
 satisfactorily explained without regarding it as a work of 
 the second century. Cf. above p. 19 ff. 
 
 Critics of the Tubingen school, who accepted the Johan- 
 nine authorship of the Apocalypse, were wont to deny that 
 John had written the Gospel, because it differed in so many 
 respects from the former work. At present this argument is 
 not insisted on, because scholars are not so sure as they 
 once were, that John wrote the book of Revelation. Reuss, 
 who still argues in that fashion, says : "It must be admitted 
 that even in the most recent times the decision of the ques- 
 tion as to the apostolic genuineness of the Apocalypse has 
 by both sides been made to depend upon a previously 
 
112 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 formed judgment as to the fourth Gospel." History of the 
 N. T., I p. 161. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Readers and Purpose. The Gospel of John was in 
 all probability written primarily for the Christians of Asia 
 Minor, among whom especially the heresy of Cerinthus had 
 arisen. Early tradition has it that John wrote it at the re- 
 quest of the bishops of Asia to combat that heresy. Internal 
 evidence certainly favors the hypothesis that it was com- 
 posed for Greek readers. The author carefully interprets 
 Hebrew and Aramaeic words, as in 1:38, 41, 42; 9:7; 
 11 : 16; 19: 13, 17; 20: 16. He makes it a point to explain 
 Jewish customs and geographical designations, 1 : 28 ; 2:1; 
 4:4, 5; 11:54, . ..7:37; 19:31,40, 42. Moreover, notwith- 
 standing his characteristically Hebrew style, he usually 
 quotes from the Septuagint. 
 
 It was not John's purpose to furnish a supplement to the 
 Synoptics, though his Gospel certainly contains a good deal 
 of supplemental matter ; neither did he mean to produce a 
 direct polemic against the Cerinthian heresy, even if this did 
 to a certain degree determine his special way of stating the 
 truth. He did not aim at conciliating the discordant parties 
 of the second century by leading them up to a higher unity, 
 as the Tubingen school asserted ; nor at refuting "Jewish 
 objections and invectives," and at providing "his fellow- 
 Christians with weapons ready to hand ;" a hypothesis of 
 which Wrede asserts : "This view is on the whole a recent 
 one, but it is making victorious progress among scholars." 
 The Origin of the New Testament, p. 84. 
 
 The apostle himself gives expression to his purpose, 
 when he says : "These things are written that ye might 
 believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that 
 believing, ye might have life in his name," 20:31. His 
 aim is twofold, therefore, theoretical and practical. He 
 desires to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, 
 and to lead believers to a life of blessed communion with 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 113 
 
 him. The means he employs to that end are : ( 1 ) The 
 miracles of the Lord, on which special emphasis is placed, 
 cf. 20:30; 31:25; and which are contemplated as ar)[xela, 
 as signs of the divine glory of Christ. (2) The long dis- 
 courses of the Saviour, which serve to interpret his signs 
 and to describe the unique relation in which He stands to 
 the Father. And (3) the narratives touching Jesus' dealing 
 with individuals, such as Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samari- 
 tan woman, Philip, Mary Magdalena and Thomas, showing, 
 how He led them to faith, a faith culminating in the con- 
 fession of Thomas : "My Lord and my God." 
 
 2. Time and Place. Since John was undoubtedly the 
 writer of the fourth Gospel, we have a terminus ad quem 
 in A. D. 98, for Irenaeus says that John lived to the time of 
 Trajan, who began his reign in that year. The testimony of 
 Jerome is to the same effect : "The apostle John lived in 
 Asia to the time of Trajan, and dying at a great age in the 
 sixty-eighth year of our Lord's passion, was buried near 
 the city of Ephesus." The same writer places the death of 
 John in A. D. 100. In all probability, however, John wrote 
 his Gospel several years before his death, since its style is, 
 as Alford remarks, "that of a matured, but not of an aged 
 writer." Prolegomena to the Gospels Ch. V., Sec. VI, 10. 
 It is not an easy matter to find a terminus a quo. We may 
 be sure that the apostle did not compose the Gospel until 
 Sifter the death of Paul in A. D. 68. The congregations of 
 A.sia Minor were the special charge of the great apostle of 
 the Gentiles, and he never makes any mention in his Epistles 
 of John's being in their midst, nor does he send him a single 
 salutation ; and when he parted from the Ephesian elders, 
 he evidently did not anticipate the coming of an apostle 
 among them. Moreover we infer from 21 : 19 that John 
 knew of the manner in which Peter died, and presupposes 
 this knowledge in his readers. Therefore it is unlikely that 
 the Gospel was written before A. D. 70. Bengel in his 
 Gnomon infers from the use of the present tense in 5 : 2 that 
 
114 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Jerusalem was still intact. But this argument is not con- 
 clusive, since the city was not completely demolished by the 
 Romans, and because we can with equal propriety conclude 
 from 11:18 that both Jerusalem and Bethany had been 
 swept off the face of the earth. John's utter silence regard- 
 ing the destruction of the city favors the idea that he wrote 
 the Gospel several years after that calamity. Zahn would 
 date the Gospel after A. D. 80, his terminus ad quem for 
 the composition of Luke's Gospel, since tradition teaches 
 that John wrote later than the Synoptics. Among rational- 
 istic critics the most divergent dates are suggested. Baur 
 held that the Gospel was composed between A. D. 160 and 
 170. At present the tendency is to revert to some date 
 nearer the limits indicated above. Thus Pfleiderer dates it 
 A. D. 140; Hilgenfeld believes that it originated between 
 A. D. 130 and 140. Harnack and Jiilicher are not inclined 
 to place it later than A. D. 110, and the former even admits 
 that it may have been written as early as A. D. 80. 
 
 Tradition points to Ephesus as the place of composition. 
 Origen testifies "that John, having lived long in Asia, was 
 buried at Ephesus." This is confirmed by Polycrates, a 
 bishop of Ephesus. Jerome says : "John wrote a Gospel at 
 the desire of the bishops of Asia." And Cosmas of Alexan- 
 dria informs us definitely that John composed his Gospel, 
 while dwelling at Ephesus. There is no reason to doubt this 
 testimony. 
 
 3. Method. John's Gospel is evidently of an autoptic 
 character. He may have read the Synoptics before he com- 
 posed his work, but he did not use them as sources from 
 which he drew a part of his material. In several places the 
 author indicates that he related what he had seen and heard, 
 cf . 1 : 14 ; 13 : 23 ; 18 : 15 ; 19 : 26, 35 ; 20 : 2. Compare what 
 he says in his first Epistle 1:1-3. While the Synoptic Gos- 
 pels were in all probability based to a great extent on oral 
 tradition and written sources, neither of these played an 
 appreciable part in the composition of the fourth Gospel. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 115 
 
 John, who had carefully stored in memory the profound 
 discourses of the Lord regarding his own Person, discourses 
 that made a deep and lasting impression on the beloved dis- 
 ciple, drew on that fountain of knowledge and, guided by 
 the Holy Spirit in all the truth, supplied us with an exact 
 record of the signs and words of the Saviour. 
 
 It has often been remarked that there is a great differ- 
 ence between the style of Christ's discourses in the Synop- 
 tics and that of those contained in the fourth Gospel ; and 
 that in this gospel there is so much similarity between the 
 narrative of the evangelist and the discourses of the Saviour 
 that it seems as if John clothed these in his own language. 
 But the Synoptics and John have so little such matter in 
 common that we cannot safely build a conclusion on it, and 
 in the discourses of Christ which they do have in common 
 no great difference of style in observable. And as far as the 
 second point is concerned, it may be, as Alford thinks prob- 
 able, that the Lord influenced John so profoundly that the 
 latter's style became very similar to that of the Master. But 
 even if John did reproduce the discourses of the Saviour 
 in his own style and language, we may rest assured that he 
 gives us the exact teaching of the Lord. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The Gospel of John was accepted as canonical in all parts 
 of the Church from the earliest time, the only exceptions 
 being the Alogi and Marcion. It is true, the apostolic 
 fathers do not quote it, but the writings of three of them 
 show traces either of it or of the first Epistle. Among the 
 Church fathers Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertul- 
 lian, Origen, Justin Martyr, Jerome e. a. either freely quote 
 it, or refer to it as an integral part of the Word of God. 
 Moreover it is included in Tatian's Diatessaron, the Mura- 
 tori canon, and the Syriac and old Latin Versions. In all 
 at least nineteen witnesses testify to the use and recognition 
 of the Gospel before the end of the second century. 
 
116 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 The great significance of this Gospel in Holy Writ is 
 that it places prominently before us the Son of Man as the 
 Son of God, as the eternal Word that became flesh. Accord- 
 ing to this Gospel Christ is the Son of God, who descended 
 from the Father, stood in a unique relation to the Father, 
 had come to do the Father's will on earth, and would return 
 to the glory that He had eternally possessed with the Father, 
 that He might send the Holy Spirit from the Father to abide 
 with his Church throughout all ages. In that Spirit He him- 
 self returns to his followers to dwell in them forever. He 
 is the highest revelation of God, and our relation to him, 
 either of faith or of unbelief, determines our eternal destiny. 
 Before this Christ the Church bows down in adoration with 
 Thomas and calls out : "My Lord and my God." 
 
The Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 The contents of this book is naturally divided into two 
 parts ; in each of which the main topic is the establishment 
 of the Church from a certain center : 
 
 /. The establishment of the Church from Jerusalem, 
 1 : 1 — 12 : 25. In this part we first have the last discourse 
 of Christ to his disciples, the ascension, the choice of an 
 apostle in the place of Judas, the fulfilment of the promise 
 in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the conversion of 
 three thousand, 1 : 1 — 2 : 47. Then follows the healing of 
 the lame man by Peter and John ; their faithful witnessing 
 for Christ in the temple, for which they were taken captive 
 by the priests, the captain of the temple and the Sadducees ; 
 their release, since the enemies feared the people ; and their 
 thanksgiving for deliverance, 3: 1 — 4:31. Next the condi- 
 tion of the Church is described : they had all things in com- 
 mon, and severe punishment was meted out to Ananias and 
 Sapphira for their deception, 4: 32 — 5: 11. On account of 
 their words and works the apostles were again imprisoned, 
 but delivered by the angel of the Lord ; they were brought 
 before the council of the Jews and dismissed after a warn- 
 ing, 5 : 12-42. The murmuring of the Grecians leads to the 
 appointment of seven deacons, one of which, viz. Stephen, 
 wrought miracles among the people, and after witnessing for 
 Christ before the council, became the first Christian martyr, 
 6 : 1 — 7 : 60. This is followed by a description of the perse- 
 cution of the Church and the resulting scattering of believ- 
 ers, of the work of Philip in Samaria, of Saul's conversion, 
 and of Peter's healing of Eneas and raising of Tabitha, 
 8 : 1 — 9 : 43. Then we have Peter's vision of the descending 
 vessel, his consequent preaching to the household of Corne- 
 lius, and the defense of his course before the brethren in 
 
118 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Judea, 10:1 — 11:18. The narrative of the estabHshment 
 of the Church at Antioch, of James' martyrdom, and of the 
 imprisonment and miraculous deliverance of Peter con- 
 cludes this section, 11 : 19 — 12: 25. 
 
 //. The Establishment of the Church from Antioch, 
 13 : 1 — 28 : 31. From Antioch Barnabas and Saul set out on 
 the first missionary journey, including visits to Cyprus, Pisi- 
 dian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, from where they 
 returned to Antioch, 13:1 — 14:28. Then an account is 
 given of the council of Jerusalem and its decisions affecting 
 the Gentiles, 15 : 1-34. After his contention with Barnabas, 
 Paul starts out on the second missionary journey with Silas, 
 passing through the Cilician gates to Derbe, Lystra, Icon- 
 ium and Troas, whence he was directed by a vision to pass 
 into Europe, where he visited Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, 
 Athens and Corinth, preaching the gospel and establishing 
 churches. From Corinth he again returned to Jerusalem 
 and Antioch, 15: 35 — 18:22. Shortly after Paul began his 
 third missionary journey, going through Asia Minor, staying 
 at Ephesus for over two years, and passing into Corinth, 
 from where he again returned to Jerusalem by way of 
 Troas, Ephesus and Cesarea, 18:23 — 21:16. At Jerusa- 
 lem the Jews sought to kill him, his defense both on the steps 
 of the castle and before the Sanhedrin merely inciting 
 greater rage and leading to a positive determination to kill 
 him, 21 : 17 — 23 : 14. A conspiracy leads to Paul's deporta- 
 tion to Cesarea, where he defends his course before Felix, 
 Festus and Agrippa, and on account of the unfair treatment 
 received at the hands of these governors, appeals to Caesar, 
 23: 15 — 26: 32. From Cesarea he is sent to Rome, suffers 
 shipwreck on the way, performs miracles of healing on the 
 island Melita, and on reaching his destination preaches the 
 gospel to the Jews and remains a prisoner at Rome for two 
 years, 27: 1—28:31. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. The great outstanding feature of this book is that it 
 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 119 
 
 acquaints us with the establishment of Christian churches, 
 and indicates their primary organization. According to it 
 churches are founded at Jerusalem, 2:41-47; Judea, Galilee 
 and Samaria, 9:31; Antioch, 11:26; Asia Minor, 14:23; 
 16:5; Philippi, 16 : 40 ; Thessalonica, 17 : 10 ; Berea, 17 : 14 ; 
 Corinth, 18:18, and Ephesus, 20:17-38. From the sixth 
 chapter we learn of the institution of the deacon's office, 
 and from 14:23 and 20: 17-38 it is clear that elders, also 
 called bishops, were already appointed. 
 
 2. The narrative which it contains centers about two 
 persons, viz. Peter and Paul, the first establishing the Jew- 
 ish, the second the Gentile churches. Consequently it con- 
 tains several discourses of these apostles, as Peter's sermon 
 on the day of Pentecost, 2 : 14-36 ; and in the temple, 3 : 12- 
 26; his defenses before the Jewish council, 4:8-12; 5:29- 
 32 ; his sermon in the house of Cornelius, 10 : 34-43 ; and his 
 defense before the brethren in Judea, 11:4-18. And of 
 Paul the book contains the sermons preached at Antioch, 
 13: 16-41; at Lystra, 14: 15-18; and at Athens, 17:22-31; 
 his address to the Ephesian elders, 20 : 18-35 ; and his de- 
 fenses before the Jews on the stairs of the castle, 22: 1-21 ; 
 before the Sanhedrin 23: 1-6; and before Felix and Agrip- 
 pa, 24: 10-21; 26: 2-29. 
 
 3. The many miracles recorded in this writing constitute 
 one of its characteristic features. Besides the miracles that 
 are not described and of which there were many "signs and 
 wonders" by the apostles, 2:43; 5 : 12, 15, 16; by Stephen, 
 6 : 8 ; by Philip, 8:7; by Paul and Barnabas, 14:3; and also 
 by Paul alone, 19: 11, 12; 28: 1-9; — the following miracles 
 are specifically described: the gift of tongues, 2: 1-11; the 
 lame man cured, 3:1-11; the shaking of the prayer hall, 
 4:31; the death of Ananias and Sapphira, 5:1-11; the 
 apostles delivered from prison, 5:19; the translation of 
 Philip, 8 : 39. 40 ; Eneas made whole, 9 : 34 ; Dorcas restored 
 to life, 9 : 36-42 ; Paul's sight restored, 9 : 17 ; the dehverance 
 of Peter from prison, 12 : 6-10 ; the death of Herod, 12 : 20- 
 
120 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 23; Elymas, the sorcerer, struck blind, 13:6-11; the lame 
 man at Lystra cured, 14:8-11; the damsel at Philippi de- 
 livered ,16:16-18; the jail at Philippi shaken, 16:25, 26; 
 Eutychus restored to hfe, 20:9-12; Paul unhurt by the bite 
 of a poisonous viper, 28:1-6; the father of Pubhus and 
 many others healed, 28 : 8, 9. 
 
 4. The style of this book is very similar to that of the 
 third Gospel, though it contains less Hebraisms. Simcox 
 says that "the Acts is of all the books included in the New 
 Testament the nearest to contemporary, if not to classical 
 literary usage, — the only one, except perhaps the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, where conformity to a standard of classical 
 correctness is consciously aimed at." The Writers of the 
 New Testament, p. 16. The tone is most Hebraic in the 
 first part of the book, especially in the sermons in chs. 2 
 and 13 and in the defense of Stephen ch. 7, in all of which 
 the Old Testament element is very large ; — and it is most 
 Hellenic in the last part of the book, as in the epistle of 
 the church at Jerusalem, the letter of Lysias, the speech of 
 Tertullus, and the defense of Paul before Agrippa. This is 
 undoubtedly due to the fact that the first part of the book 
 deals primarily with Jewish, and last part especially with 
 Gentile Christianity. 
 
 TITLE. 
 
 The Greek title of the book is xpa^eti; aTro(TT6X(i)v, Acts 
 of Apostles. There is no entire uniformity in the MSS. in 
 this respect. The Sinaiticus has simply Tcpa^et?, although 
 it has the regular title at the close of the book. Codex D is 
 peculiar in having xpa^ti; aTcoaxoXwv, Way of acting of the 
 Apostles. We do not regard the title as proceeding from 
 the author, but from one of the transcribers ; nor do we 
 consider it a very happy choice. On the one hand the title, 
 if translated, as is done in both the Authorized and the 
 Revised Version, by "The Acts of the Apostles," is too com- 
 prehensive, since there are but two apostles whose acts are 
 recorded in this book, viz. Peter and Paul. On the other 
 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 121 
 
 hand it is too restricted, because the book contains not only 
 several acts, but also many words of these apostles ; and also, 
 since it records besides these acts and words of other per- 
 sons, such as Stephen, Philip and Barnabas. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The voice of the ancient Church is unanimous in ascrib- 
 ing this book to Luke, the author of the third Gospel. 
 Irenaeus in quoting passages from it repeatedly uses the 
 following formula : "Luke the disciple and follower of Paul 
 says thus." Clement of Alexandria, quoting Paul's speech 
 at Athens, introduces it by, "So Luke in the Acts of the 
 Apostles relates." Eusebius says : "Luke has left us two 
 inspired volumes, the Gospel and the Acts." The external 
 testimony for the Lukan authorship is as strong as we could 
 wish for. 
 
 Now the question arises, whether the internal evidence 
 agrees with this. The book does not directly claim to have 
 been written by Luke. Our Scriptural evidence for the 
 authorship is of an inferential character. It seems to us 
 that the Lukan authorship is supported by the following 
 considerations : 
 
 1. The we-sections. These are the following sections, 
 16-10-17; 20:5-15; and 27:1—28:16, in which the pro- 
 noun of the first person plural is found, implying that the 
 author was a companion of Paul in part of the apostle's 
 travels. Since Paul had several associates, different names 
 have been suggested for the author of this book, as Timothy, 
 Silas, Titus and Luke, who according to Col. 4:14; Phile- 
 mon 24; and II Tim. 4: 11, was also one of the apostle's 
 companions and best friends. The first two persons named 
 are excluded, however, by the way in which they are spoken 
 of in 16: 19 and 20: 4, 5. And so little can be said in favor 
 of Titus that it is now quite generally agreed that Luke was 
 the author of the we-sections. But if this is true, he is also 
 the author of the book, for the style of the book is similar 
 throughout ; there are cross-references from the we-sections 
 
122 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 to the other parts of the book, as f. i. in 21 : 8, where PhiHp 
 is introduced as one of the seven, while we know only from 
 ch. 6 who the seven were, and from 8 : 40, how Philip came 
 to be in Cesarea ; and it is inconceivable that a later writer 
 should have incorporated the we-sections in his work in such 
 a skillful manner that the lines of demarcation cannot be 
 discovered, and should at the same time leave the tell-tale 
 pronoun of the first person undisturbed. 
 
 2. The medical language. Dr. Hobart has clearly- 
 pointed out this feature in both the Gospel of Luke and the 
 Acts of the Apostles. Some make light of this argument, 
 but Zahn says : "W. K. Hobart hat f lir J eden, dem liber- 
 haupt etwas zu beweisen ist, bewiesen, dass der Verfasser 
 des lucanischen Werks ein mit der Kunstsprache der griech- 
 ischen Medicin vertrauter Mann, ein griechischer Arzt ge- 
 wesen ist." Einl. II p. 429. We find instances of this medi- 
 cal language in <xyX6q, 13:11; xapaXeXuixevo?, 8:7; 9:33; 
 TcupeTOtq xat SuasvTept'a auvep/oixevov, 25 :8. 
 
 3. Assuming that Luke wrote the third Gospel, a com- 
 parison of Acts with that work also decidedly favors the 
 Lukan authorship, for : ( 1 ) The style of these two books is 
 similar, the only difference being that the second book is 
 less Hebraistic than the first, — a difference that finds a ready 
 explanation in the sources used and in the author's method 
 of composition. (2) Both books are addressed to the same 
 person, viz. Theophilus, who was, so it seems, a special 
 friend of the author. (3) In the opening verse of Acts the 
 author refers to a first book that he had written. Taking 
 the points just mentioned in consideration, this can be no 
 other than our third Gospel, though Baljon, following Schol- 
 ten, denies this. Geschiedenis v/d Boeken des N . V. p. 421. 
 
 4. The hook contains clear evidence of having been writ- 
 ten by a campanion of Paul. This follows not only from the 
 we-sections, but also from the fact that, as even unfriendly 
 critics admit, the author shows himself well acquainted with 
 the Pauline diction. We have reasons to think that he did 
 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 123 
 
 not derive this acquaintance from a study of Paul's Epistles ; 
 and if this is true, the most rational explanation is that he 
 was an associate of Paul and heard the great apostle speak 
 on several occasions. Moreover the author's characteriza- 
 tion of Paul is so detailed and individualized as to vouch 
 for personal acquaintance. 
 
 The authorship of Luke has not found general accept- 
 ance among New Testament scholars. The main objections 
 to it appear to be the following: (1) The book is said to 
 show traces of dependence on the Antiquities of Josephus, 
 a work that was written about A. D. 93 or 94. The refer- 
 ence to Theudas and Judas in 5 : 36, 37 is supposed to rest 
 on a mistaken reading of Josephus, Ant. XX, V, 1, 2. (2) 
 The standpoint of the author is claimed to be that of a sec- 
 ond century writer, whose Christianity is marked by uni- 
 versality, and who aims at reconciling the opposing tenden- 
 cies of his time. (3) The work is held by some to be his- 
 torically so inaccurate, and to reveal such a wholesale accept- 
 ance of the miraculous, that it cannot have been written by 
 a contemporary. There is supposedly a great conflict espe- 
 cially between Acts 15 and Galatians 2. 
 
 We cannot enter on a detailed examination of these ob- 
 jections ; a few remarks anent them must suffice. It is by 
 no means proven that the author read Josephus, nor that he 
 wrote his work after the Jewish historian composed his 
 Antiquities. Gamaliel, who makes the statement regarding 
 Theudas and Judas, may very well have derived his knowl- 
 edge from a different source ; and his supposed mistake 
 (which may not be a mistake after all) does not affect the 
 authorship, nor the trustworthiness of the book. That the 
 standpoint of the author is more advanced than that of the 
 Pauline Epistles (Baljon) is purely imaginary; it is in per- 
 fect harmony with the other New Testament writings. And 
 the idea of a struggle between the Petrine and Pauline fac- 
 tions is now generally discarded. Historical inaccuracy does 
 not necessarily imply that a book was written a considerable 
 
124 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 time after the events. Moreover in the book of Acts there 
 is no such inaccuracy. On the contrary, Ramsay in his, 
 St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen has conclus- 
 ively proved that this book is absolutely reliable and is a 
 historical work of the highest order. It may be that some 
 difficulties have not yet found an altogether satisfactory 
 solution, but this does not militate against the authorship 
 of Luke. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Readers and Purpose. It is not necessary to speak at 
 length about the readers for whom this book was first of all 
 intended, because like the Gospel of Luke it is addressed to 
 Theophilus, and like it too it was undoubtedly destined for 
 the same wider circle of readers, i. e. the Greeks. 
 
 But what was the purpose of the author in writing this 
 book ? This is a very much debated question. The book of 
 Acts is really a continuation of the third gospel and was 
 therefore, in all probability, also written to give Theophilus 
 the certainty of the things narrated. We notice that in this 
 second book, just as in the first, the author names many even 
 ^of the less important actors in the events, and brings out on 
 several occasions the relation of these events to secular his- 
 tory. Cf. 12: 1; 18:2; 23:26; 25: L Of what did Luke 
 want to give Theophilus certainty? From the fact that he 
 himself says that he wrote the first book to give his friend 
 the certainty of the things that Jesus began to do and to 
 teach, we infer that in the second book he intended to give 
 him positive instruction regarding the things that Jesus con- 
 tinued to do and to teach through his apostles. It seems that 
 he found his program in the words of the Saviour, 1:8: 
 "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is 
 come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jeru- 
 salem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the utter- 
 most parts of the earth." In harmony with this program he 
 describes the march of Christianity from Jerusalem, the 
 center of the Jewish Theocracy, to Rome, the center of the 
 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 125 
 
 world. With Paul in Rome, therefore, the author's task 
 is finished. 
 
 Opposed to this view are those that regard the book as a 
 tendency writing, in which history has been falsified with a 
 definite purpose. As such we have : 
 
 (1) The theory of the Tubingen school, that the book 
 was written to conciliate the Petrine and Pauline factions 
 in the early Church, and therefore represents Peter as more 
 liberal, and Paul as more Judaistic than is in harmony with 
 their own writings. The supposed parallelism between Peter 
 and Paul, according to some, ministers to the same purpose. 
 This theory in the bald form in which it was broached by 
 Baur, is now generally abandoned, and has been modified in 
 various ways. 
 
 (2) The view defended by some later scholars, such as 
 Overbeck and Straatman, that the book of Acts is really an 
 apology for Christianity over against the Gentiles, especially 
 the Romans. Hence the author gives the Romans due 
 honor, and clearly brings out the advantages which Paul de- 
 rived from his Roman citizenship. He desires to convey the 
 impression that the doctrine taught by Paul, who was pro- 
 tected by the mighty arm of Rome, who was acquitted of 
 false charges by Roman governors, and who with a good 
 conscience appealed to Cassar himself, could not be regarded 
 as dangerous to the state. Wrede considers this a subordin- 
 ate purpose of the author. 
 
 The abiding merit of these theories is that they contem- 
 plate the book of Acts as an artistic whole. For the rest, 
 however, they do not commend themselves to our serious 
 consideration. The basis on which they rest is too uncer- 
 tain ; they are not borne out by the facts ; they are inimical 
 to the well established historicity of the book ; and they come 
 to us with the unreasonable demand, born of unbelief and 
 aversion to the miraculous, to consider the author as a falsi- 
 fier of history. 
 
 2. Time and Place. As to the time, when the book was 
 
126 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 composed little can be said with certainty. It must have 
 been written after A. D. 63, since the author knows that 
 Paul staid in Rome two years. But how long after that 
 date was it written? Among conservative scholars, such 
 as Alford, Salmon, Barde e. a. the opinion is generally held 
 that Luke wrote his second book before the death of Paul 
 and the destruction of Jerusalem, because no mention what- 
 ever is made of either one of these important facts. Zahn 
 and Weiss naturally date it about A. D. 80, since they regard 
 this date as the terminus ad quem for the composition of the 
 third gospel. Many of the later rationalistic critics too are 
 of the opinion that the book was written after the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, some even placing it as late as A. D. 110 
 (Baljon) and 120 (Davidson). Their reasons for doing this 
 are: (1) the supposed dependence of Luke on Josephus ; 
 (2) the assumption, based on Lk. 21:20; Acts 8:26 fif. 
 that Jerusalem was already destroyed ; and (3) the supposed 
 fact that the state of affairs in the book points to a time, 
 when the state had begun to persecute Christians on poli- 
 tical grounds. None of these reasons are conclusive, and 
 we see no reasons to place the book later than A. D. 63. 
 The place of composition was in all probability Rome. 
 
 3. Method. The problem of the sources used by Luke 
 in the composition of this book has given rise to several 
 theories, that we cannot discuss here. And it is not neces- 
 sary that we should do this, because, as Zahn maintains, none 
 of these repeated attempts has attained any measure of 
 probability ; and Headlam says : "The statement of them is 
 really a sufficient condemnation." Hastings D. B. Art. Acts 
 of the Apostles. For a good discussion of the various theor- 
 ies of Van Manen, Sorof, Spitta and Clemen cf. Knowling's 
 Introduction to Acts in the Expositor's Greek Testament. 
 With Blass we believe that, if Luke is the author, the ques- 
 tion of sources for the greater part of the book need not be 
 raised. The writer may have learnt the early history of the 
 Jerusalem church from Barnabas at Antioch and from sev- 
 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 127 
 
 eral others who found refuge in that city after the perse- 
 cution ; from Philip, whose guest he was for several days, 
 21 : 8-15, and with whom he must have had frequent inter- 
 course during Paul's later stay at Cesarea ; and from 
 Mnason, an old disciple, 21 : 16. And regarding the mis- 
 sionary journeys of Paul he, in all probability, received full 
 information from the apostle himself, and could partly draw 
 on his own memory or memorandum. It is quite possible 
 that the author had written records of the speeches of Peter 
 and Paul, but he certainly did not reproduce them literally 
 but colored them in part with his own style. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 The book of Acts is a part of the inspired Word of God. 
 We have in it the fruit of apostolic inspiration, in so far as 
 we find here speeches of some of the apostles and of 
 Stephen, who was filled with the Holy Ghost, when he de- 
 fended his course before the Jewish council, 6: 5, 10. And 
 in the composition of his book Luke was guided by the Holy 
 Spirit, so that the whole work must be regarded as a product 
 of graphical inspiration. This follows from the fact that 
 this book is a necessary complement of the Gospels, which 
 are, as we have seen, inspired records. It is a continuation 
 of the Gospel of Luke, that is quoted as Scripture in I Tim. 
 5:18 (cf. Luke 10:7). If the Gospel is inspired, then, 
 assuredly, the work that continues its narrative is also writ- 
 ten by inspiration. Moreover we find that the Church 
 fathers from the earliest time appeal to this book as of 
 divine authority, — as an inspired work. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The place of Acts in the canon of Holy Scripture has 
 never been disputed by the early Church, except by such 
 heretical sects as the Marcionites, the Ebionites and the 
 Manichaeans, and then only on dogmatical grounds. Traces 
 of acquaintance with it are found in the apostolic fathers, as 
 also in Justin and Tatian. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria 
 
128 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 and Tertullian frequently quote from this book. It is named 
 in the Muratorian canon, and is also contained in the Syriac 
 and old Latin Versions. These testimonies are quite suffi- 
 cient to show that it was generally accepted. 
 
 As an integral part of Scripture it is inseparably con- 
 nected with the Gospels, and reveals to us, how the Gospel 
 was embodied in the life and institution of the Church. We 
 here see that the sowing of the precious seed that was en- 
 trusted to the apostles resulted in the planting and extension 
 of the Church from three great racial centers of the world, 
 from Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish Theocracy, from 
 Antioch, the center of Greek culture, and from Rome, the 
 capital of the world. The Gospels contain a revelation of 
 what Jesus began to do and to teach ; the book of Acts 
 shows us what he continued to do and to teach through the 
 ministry of men. There is an evident advance in the teach- 
 ing of the apostles ; they have learnt to understand much 
 that was once a mystery to them. In the Gospels we find 
 that they are forbidden to tell anyone that Jesus is the Mes- 
 siah ; here we read repeatedly that they preach Christ and 
 the resurrection. They now exhibit Christ in his true char- 
 acter as the Prince of Life and as the King of Glory. And 
 the effect of their teaching was such as to bear striking evi- 
 dence to the regenerating power of Him, who by the resur- 
 rection from the dead was powerfully declared to be the 
 Son of God. 
 
The Epistles in General. 
 
 THE EPISTOLARY FORM IN BIBLICAL 
 LITERATURE. 
 
 The revelation of God comes to us in many forms, in 
 diverse manners. It is not only embodied in facts, but also 
 in words ; it is borne not only by the prophets, but also by 
 the sweet singers and by the wise men of Israel ; it finds ex- 
 pression not only in the Gospels, but also in the Epistles. 
 About one-third of the New Testament is cast in the episto- 
 lary form. 
 
 This form of teaching was not something absolutely new 
 in the time of the apostles, although we find but few traces 
 of it in the Old Testament. Mention is made there of some 
 letters written by kings and prophets, f. i. in I Kings 21:8, 
 9 ; II Kings 5 : 5-7 ; 19 : 14 ; 20 : 12 ; Jer. 29 : 1 ; but these are 
 quite different from our New Testament Epistles. The 
 letter as a particular type of self-expression took its rise, 
 so it seems, among the Greeks and the Egyptians. In later 
 time it was also found among the Romans and in Hellenistic 
 Judaism, as we notice from the epistle of Aristion, that 
 treats of the origin of the Septuagint. According to Deiss- 
 mann the Egyptian papyri especially offer a great amount 
 of material for comparison. 
 
 In all probability, however, it was Paul who first intro- 
 duced the epistle as a distinct type of literary form for the 
 conveyance of divine truth. Aside from the Gospels his 
 Epistles form the most prominent part of the New Testa- 
 ment. In this connection it is well to bear in mind the im- 
 portant distinction made by Deissmann between a letter and 
 an epistle, of which the former is non-literary, or, as J. V. 
 Bartlet says, "pre-literary," and the latter is a literary artis- 
 
130 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 tic form of communication. It is Deissmann's conviction 
 that the writings of Paul have been very much misunder- 
 stood. "They have been regarded as treatises, as pamph- 
 lets in letter form, or at any rate as literary productions, 
 as the theological works of the primitive Christian dogma- 
 tist." He insists that they are letters, serving the purpose 
 of communication between Paul and the congregations, 
 letters that were not intended by Paul for publication, but 
 only for the private use of the addressees, arising from some 
 historical exigency, unsystematic and pulsating with the life 
 of the writer. Deissmann, St. Paul p. 7 if. This writer 
 certainly rendered us good service by calling attention to the 
 fact, often lost sight of, that the Epistles of Paul are the 
 living spontaneous expression of a great mind, continually 
 meditating and reflecting on the truth of God ; that they are 
 letters, often clearly revealing the changing moods of the 
 apostle. They are marked as letters by their occasional 
 character, by their being calculated for a single community 
 and situation, and by their addresses, praescripts and salu- 
 tations. 
 
 With respect to the fitness of this form for the communi- 
 cation of the divine thoughts the remarks of Bernard are 
 very valuable. He finds that it is in perfect harmony "with 
 that open and equal participation of revealed truth, which is 
 the prerogative of the later above the former dispensation ; 
 indicating too that the teacher and the taught are placed on 
 one common level in the fellowship of the truth. The 
 prophets delivered oracles to the People, but the apostles 
 wrote letters to the brethren, letters characterized by all that 
 fulness of unreserved explanation, and that play of various 
 feeling, which are proper to that form of intercourse. It 
 is in its nature a more familiar communication, as between 
 those who are or should be equals." . . . "The form adopted 
 in the New Testament combines the advantages of the treat- 
 ise and the conversation. The letter may treat important 
 subjects with accuracy and fulness, but it will do so in imme- 
 diate connection with actual life. It is written to meet any 
 
THE EPISTLES IN GENERAL 131 
 
 occasion. It is addressed to peculiar states of mind. It 
 breathes of the heart of the writer. It takes its aim from 
 the exigencies, and its tone from the feeHngs of the mo- 
 ment." Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine in the N. T. 
 pp. 156, 157. 
 
 THE INSPIRATION OF THE EPISTLES. 
 
 The Scriptural Epistles are as well as the Gospels and 
 Acts divinely inspired. Even as in their preaching, so also 
 in writing their letters the apostles were guided by the Holy 
 Spirit. Here again we must distinguish between the apos- 
 tolic and the graphical inspiration, although in this case the 
 two are very closely connected. For a general description of 
 the apostolic inspiration we refer to p. 30 ff. above. It is 
 necessary to remark, however, that in the case of the 
 Epistles, as distinguished from that of the Gospels, it did 
 not almost exclusively assume the character of a uTCOfjLv^aK;, 
 but was also to a great extent a StSaaxaXia. Both of those 
 elements are indicated in the promise of the Holy Spirit 
 given by Christ before his departure : "But the Comforter, 
 even the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name. 
 He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance 
 all that I said unto you." John 14: 26. Cf. also 16: 12, 13. In 
 the Gospels we have the totality of the apostolic Y,ripuy[i(x ; 
 hence their production naturally depended in great measure 
 on a faithful memory. The Epistles, on the other hand, 
 contain the fruit of the apostles' reflection on this xi^puytAa, 
 their interpretation of it. Therefore it was not sufficient 
 that the writers in composing them should faithfully remem- 
 ber former things ; they needed more light on them, a 
 better understanding of their real meaning and profound 
 significance. For that reason the Holy Spirit became their 
 
 The apostles were evidently conscious of being inspired 
 by the Holy Ghost in the composition of their Epistles. This 
 follows from the authority with which they address the con- 
 
132 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 gregations. They feel sure that their word is binding on 
 the conscience ; they condemn in unquahfied terms those 
 who teach any other doctrine as coming from God ; they 
 commend and praise all that diligently follow their direc- 
 tions ; but they also reprimand and censure those that dare 
 to follow another course. If this is not due to the fact that 
 they were conscious of divine inspiration, it bespeaks an 
 overweening arrogance ; which, however cannot be harmon- 
 ized with their life of service and their many expressions of 
 deep humility. 
 
 Moreover there are several explicit statements in the 
 Epistles testifying to the fact that the apostles were aware 
 of being the instruments of God's Spirit. Thus Paul claims 
 that the Spirit revealed to him the hidden things of God, 
 which he also spoke, not in words which man's wisdom 
 taught, but in words which the Spirit taught, I Cor. 2 : 10, 
 13. He is willing to subject his words to the judgment of 
 the prophets, I Cor. 14 : 37 ; and to give a proof of Christ 
 speaking in him, II Cor. 13:3. He thanks God that the 
 Thessalonians received the word of his message, not as the 
 word of man, "but as it is in truth, the word of God," I 
 Thess. 2:13; and admonishes them to hold the traditions 
 which they were taught by his word or by his Epistle. Peter 
 places the word of the prophets and that of the apostles on 
 a level as the Word of God, in I Pet. 1 : 10-12 ; and else- 
 where he arranges his Epistle alongside of those of Paul, 
 which he calls Scripture by implication, and thus clearly 
 shows that he also regards his own writing as a product of 
 the Spirit of God, II Pet. 3 : 15, 16. John writes : "We are 
 of God ; he that knoweth God knoweth us ; he that is not of 
 God knoweth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth 
 and the spirit of error." 1 John 4 : 6. This language is 
 intelligible only on the supposition that John spoke the 
 words of God. 
 
 Now we must bear in mind that the apostles speak thus 
 regarding their written words, so that they were evidently 
 conscious of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in writing their 
 
THE EPISTLES IN GENERAL 133 
 
 Epistles. To that extent they too shared in a separate tran- 
 scriptive inspiration. Their Epistles are a part of the Word 
 of God, and have been accepted as such by the Church. It 
 is true that for a time five of them, viz., the Epistles of 
 James and Jude, II Peter and II and III John, were classed 
 as antilegomena, but this only means that their canonicity 
 was subject to doubt and dispute for a while, not that they 
 were ever numbered among the spurious books. They have 
 been recognized by the majority of ecclesiastical writers 
 from the very beginning, and were generally accepted by 
 the Church after the council of Laodicea in A. D. 363. 
 
 THE CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 
 EPISTLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 The Old and the New Testament revelations run on 
 parallel lines. In the Old Testament we have the funda- 
 mental revelation of the Law in the Pentateuch ; in the New 
 Testament, the fundamental revelation of the Gospel in the 
 fourfold witness of the evangelists. This is followed in the 
 Old Testament by the historical books, revealing the institu- 
 tions to which the Law gave rise ; and in the New Testa- 
 ment, by a historical book, showing how the Gospel of 
 Jesus Christ found embodiment in the Church. After this 
 we find in the New Testament the Epistles that reveal the 
 operation of the truth in the churches, and contain, in con- 
 nection with the life of the churches, the interpretation of 
 the Gospel ; thus corresponding in part to the Old Testament 
 books of experience, such as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc., 
 and in part to the prophets as interpreters of the Law. The 
 Gospels show us, how Christ was preached to the world ; 
 the Epistles, how he was taught to the Church. The former 
 contain the facts of the manifestation of Christ ; the latter 
 the effects of it in the spiritual experience of the churches. 
 
 In the Epistles we get a glimpse of the inner life of the 
 congregations ; we see, how they receive the truth and to 
 what degree they are guided by it in their actions. We 
 behold Christian life in operation, working on the great 
 
134 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 principles that have been received. We find that some 
 heartily embrace the truth and endeavor to apply it consist- 
 ently to life in its manifold forms ; that others grasp it but 
 imperfectly and, as a result, misapply it in practical life ; 
 and that still others resist the truth and pervert it to their 
 own condemnation. And in connection with these condi- 
 tions the truth is now set forth and interpreted and applied 
 to the multifarious relations of life. 
 
 This teaching- is given in the epistolary form, of which 
 we have already spoken. Cf. p. 129 above. And the method 
 employed by the writers in presenting the truth is, as Ber- 
 nard says, "one of companionship rather than of dictation." 
 They do not announce a series of revelations that come to 
 them from without, but they speak out of the fulness of 
 their own Christian knowledge and experience. Neither do 
 they approach their readers with the authoritative prophetic 
 formula, "Thus saith the Lord," which in the Old Testa- 
 ment was the end of all contradiction; but they appeal to 
 the judgment and conscience of those whom they address. 
 They state their propositions and then substantiate them by 
 giving the grounds on which they rest. They argue with 
 their readers from the Old Testament, from generally ad- 
 mitted truths and from experience, often employing the 
 argumentum ad hominem to give point to their teachings ; 
 and they intercept the objections of their readers and refute 
 them. This method of teaching, as compared with that of 
 the prophets, is more truly human, the divine factor being 
 less prominent ; and as compared with that of Christ in the 
 Gospels, is far more argumentative, calculated to train the 
 minds of men to that thoughtf ulness that leads to a thorough 
 assimilation of the truth. 
 
 In their contents as well as in their form the Epistles 
 are a distinct advance on the Gospels. After the latter have 
 presented to us the manifestation of Christ in the world, the 
 former treat of the life in Christ, in which the acceptance of 
 his manifestation issues. After the Spirit of God has been 
 poured out, Christ, who had formerly dwelt among men, 
 
THE EPISTLES IN GENERAL 135 
 
 makes his abode in the very hearts of believers. Hence it is 
 especially of that new life of believers in union with Christ, 
 that the Epistles speak. They constantly emphasize the fact 
 that the individual believers and that the churches are "in 
 Christ," and that therefore their conversation too must be 
 "in Christ." They clearly interpret the significance of 
 Christ's work for believers out of every nation and tribe, 
 and point out that his experiences are paralleled in the life 
 of every believer. All those that are united with Christ by 
 faith suffer with Christ, are crucified with Christ, die with 
 Christ, and live with Christ in newness of life. And their 
 future life is hid with Christ in God. The origin of that 
 new life, its conditions, its nature, its progressive and com- 
 munal character, and its final perfection and glory, — are all 
 clearly described in the Epistles. As the foundation on 
 which all these' blessings rest we are pointed to the redemp- 
 tive, the justifying, the sanctifying, and the intercessory 
 work of Jesus Christ. He is the beginning and the end. 
 The Epistles contain clear evidence that believers are gath- 
 ered from every nation and tribe to Christ who is the Head 
 of the Church, and in whom they are builded together for 
 a habitation of God in the Spirit, that God may be all in all. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 The New Testament contains in all twenty-one Epistles, 
 which may be divided into two classes, viz., 1. The Pauline 
 Epistles ; and, 2. The General Epistles. 
 
 1. The Pauline Epistles. Thirteen of the New Testa- 
 ment Epistles bear the name of the great apostle to the 
 gentiles. Hence they are generally known as the Pauline 
 Epistles. By some the Epistle to the Hebrews is added to 
 this number, though it nowhere claims to have been written 
 by Paul. The Church has always been divided on the ques- 
 tion of its authorship, the Eastern church affirming and the 
 Western denying that Paul wrote it. Clement of Alexandria 
 states that the apostle composed it in the Hebrew language, 
 and that Luke translated it into Greek. From a statement 
 
136 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 of his we may probably infer that his teacher, Pantaenus, 
 also affirmed the Pauline authorship of this Epistle, which 
 would carry the testimony back another generation. Origen 
 admits that a very old tradition points to Paul as the author, 
 but he comes to the conclusion that only God knows who 
 wrote the book. Irenaeus does not attribute the Epistle to 
 Paul; nor does Tertullian, who regards Barnabas as the 
 author. Eusebius says : "Of Paul the fourteen Epistles 
 commonly received are at once manifest and clear. It is 
 not, however, right to ignore the fact that some have rejected 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting that it is gainsaid by 
 the church of Rome as not being Paul's." He was inclined 
 to believe that the apostle wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke, 
 or more likely, Clement of Rome translated it. The cata- 
 logue of the council of Laodicea also speaks of fourteen 
 Epistles of Paul. We shall leave the question of the author- 
 ship of this Epistle in suspense for the present, and classify 
 the fourteen Epistles of which we have now spoken, as 
 follows : 
 I. Pauline Epistles : 
 
 1. Those written during the period of Paul's mission- 
 ary activity : 
 
 a. The two Epistles to the Thessalonians ; 
 
 b. The Epistle to the Galatians ; 
 
 c. The two Epistles to the Corinthians ; 
 
 d. The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 2. Those written during Paul's imprisonment : 
 
 a. The Epistle to the Ephesians ; 
 
 b. The Epistle to the Colossians ; 
 
 c. The Epistle to Philemon ; 
 
 d. The Epistle to the Philippians. 
 
 3. Those written after Paul's release from the Roman 
 prison : 
 
 a. The two Epistles to Timothy ; 
 
 b. The Epistle to Titus. 
 n. Of uncertain Authorship : 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
THE EPISTLES IN GENERAL 137 
 
 It may well be supposed that Paul who always remained 
 in touch with the churches he founded wrote many more 
 letters than we now possess of him. This is evident also 
 from the Epistles themselves. I Cor. 5 : 9 refers to a letter 
 now lost, and it is possible that II Cor. 7 : 8 does also, 
 although this may refer to first Corinthians. Col. 4 : 16 
 speaks of a letter out of (ex) Laodicea, of which we have 
 no further knowledge. Although these letters were un- 
 doubtedly inspired as well as the ones we still possess, we 
 may rest assured that no Epistle intended by God for the 
 canon of Holy Scriptures was ever lost. 
 
 We may further remark that Paul evidently wrote very 
 little with his own hand ; he generally employed an amanu- 
 ensis in the corpposition of his Epistles and merely added 
 with his own hand the salutation to his friends and the 
 authenticating signature, cf. II Thess. 3:17; Philem. 19; 
 and Gal. 6:11, which is, however, of uncertain interpreta- 
 tion. Only in one letter do we find a definite designation of 
 the amanuensis, viz., in Rom. 16: 22. 
 
 2. The General Epistles. This is a group of seven 
 Epistles which in the old manuscripts usually follows imme- 
 diately after the Acts of the Apostles and therefore precedes 
 the Pauline Epistles, perhaps because they are the works of 
 the older apostles and in general represent the Jewish type 
 of Christianity. Their representation of the truth naturally 
 dififers from that of the Pauline Epistles, but is in perfect 
 harmony with it. Among these general Epistles there are : 
 
 1. Those written to a community of Christians: 
 
 a. The Epistle of James ; 
 
 b. The two Epistles of Peter ; 
 
 c. The first Epistle of John ; 
 
 d. The Epistle of Jude. 
 
 2. Those written to a certain individual : 
 
 a. The second Epistle of John ; ( ?) 
 
 b. The third Epistle of John. 
 
138 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Of these seven Epistles the first one of Peter and the 
 first one of John were generally accepted as canonical from 
 the beginning, while the other five were at first subject to 
 doubt and only gradually found acceptance throughout the 
 Church. Yet they were never regarded as spurious. 
 
 Why these Epistles should be called general or catholic, 
 is more or less of an enigma. Various interpretations of the 
 name have been given, but none of them is entirely satis- 
 factory. Some hold that they were so called, because they 
 contain the one catholic doctrine which was delivered to the 
 churches by the apostles ; but this is not a characteristic 
 mark of these Epistles, since those of Paul contain the same 
 doctrine. Others maintain that the adjective catholic was 
 used by some of the church fathers in the sense of canonical, 
 and was by them applied first to the first Epistle of Peter 
 and the first of John to indicate their general acceptance, 
 and afterwards to the entire group. But this explanation is 
 unlikely, because (1) there is scant proof that the term 
 catholic was ever equivalent to canonical ; and (2) it is hard 
 to see, if this really was the case, why the term should not 
 have been applied to the Pauline Epistles as well, that were 
 all accepted from the beginning. Still others think that they 
 received this appellation, because they were not addressed 
 to one person or church like the Epistles of Paul, but to 
 large sections of the Church. We consider this to be the 
 best explanation of the name, since it is most in harmony 
 with the usual meaning of the term, and accounts best for 
 the way in which it is used in patristic literature. Even so, 
 however the name cannot be regarded as entirely correct, 
 because on the one hand the second ( ?) and third Epistles 
 of John are written to individuals, and on the other, the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians is also an encyclical letter. These 
 two Epistles of John were probably included in this group, 
 because of their smallness and close relation to the first 
 Epistle of John. 
 
The Epistles of Paul. 
 
 PAUL. 
 
 There is no apostle of whose life we have such full in- 
 formation as we have regarding that of Paul. He was born 
 of Hebrew parents in the intellectual atmosphere of Tarsus 
 in Cilicia, where besides receiving the regular Jewish educa- 
 tion, he may have visited one of the many Greek schools 
 found there. Being exceptionally bright, he was sent to 
 Jerusalem to complete the study of the law and to be intro- 
 duced into rabbinic lore. In that center of Jewish learning 
 he received instruction at the feet of the greatest Jewish 
 teacher of his age, Gamaliel I, and a bright future was 
 opening up before him, since he was zealous for the law. 
 
 We first meet him in Scripture as a youth in connection 
 with the violent death of Stephen, and soon find in him the 
 most active persecuter of the Church of Christ. After he 
 has finished his destructive work at Jerusalem, he repairs to 
 Damascus with authority from the high priest to persecute 
 the Church in that city. On the way thither his course is 
 checked by the Lord of the Church, he becomes a penitent, 
 and turns into a zealous advocate of the principles that were 
 formerly obnoxious to him. Leaving Damascus, he spent 
 three years in Arabia, where he received further instruction 
 from God himself, and he learnt to adjust himself to the 
 new conditions of life ; after which he again returned to 
 Damascus. Being threatened with death at the hands of the 
 Jews, he fled from Damascus to Jerusalem, and from Jeru- 
 salem to his native city in Cilicia. After laboring there 
 for some years, he accompanied Barnabas to Antioch in 
 Syria, where he aided in establishing the youthful church in 
 that city. He ministered to the needs of that congregation 
 
140 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 for a whole year, during which time he and Barnabas also 
 went to Jerusalem to bring the contributions for the poor. 
 Soon after they were directed by the Holy Spirit to preach 
 the Gospel among the Gentiles. On this first journey they 
 labored on the island of Cyprus and in Pisidian Antioch, 
 Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, preaching the Gospel and work- 
 ing miracles. Notwithstanding fierce opposition from the 
 Jews, they succeeded in founding several churches. Having 
 finished their work, they returned to Antioch in Syria, and 
 during their stay there were delegated to the council of 
 Jerusalem to consult the mother church regarding the de- 
 bated question, whether circumcision was binding on the 
 Gentiles. Next Paul sets out on his second missionary 
 journey with Silas, revisiting the churches founded on the 
 first tour and by the direction of the Holy Spirit crossing 
 over to Europe, where he labored with varying success at 
 Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth, found- 
 ing churches in most of these places. From Corinth he 
 returned to Antioch, after first visiting Jerusalem. His 
 third missionary journey followed shortly. Passing through 
 Asia Minor, he finds a fruitful field of labor in Ephesus, 
 where he remains three years, bringing all Asia to the 
 knowledge of the truth and contending with idolatry and 
 superstition. From there he again passes through Mace- 
 donia to Corinth, spending the winter in that city, and then 
 returning by way of Troas, Ephesus and Cesarea to Jeru- 
 salem. Here he takes the necessary precautions to avoid all 
 possible provocation of the Jews, but notwithstanding this 
 they seek to kill him. Having been rescued by the chief 
 captain, he defends his course before the Jews. This only 
 increases their rage, however; wherefore he is taken into 
 the castle and is brought before the Sanhedrin on the fol- 
 lowing day, where his defense leads to dissension between 
 the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In the following night 
 he receives encouragement from the Lord and is told that 
 he must also bear witness in Rome. On account of a plot 
 laid by the Jews he is transferred to Cesarea, where he 
 
THE EPISTLES OF PAUL 141 
 
 again defends his course before Felix, Festus and Agrippa. 
 The wavering attitude of the governors, who are convinced 
 of his innocence and yet desire to favor the Jews, induces 
 him to appeal to Ceasar. As a result he is taken to Rome, 
 arriving there after suffering shipwreck, and remaining a 
 prisoner in his own dwelHng for two years. From the pas- 
 toral epistles and tradition we may infer that his first trial 
 ended in acquittal. His movements after this are uncertain, 
 though there are hints of visits to Philippi, Colossae, Ephe- 
 sus, Crete, Nicopolis and even Spain. After being impris- 
 oned again he was condemned and died as a martyr in 
 A. D. 68. 
 
 Little can be said regarding the personal appearance of 
 the great apostle. In the Acts of Paul and Thecla he is 
 represented as "short, bald, bow-legged, with meeting eye- 
 brows, hooked nose, full of grace." John of Antioch pre- 
 serves a similar tradition, which adds, however, that he was 
 "round-shouldered and had a mixture of pale and red in his 
 complexion and an ample beard." His opponents at Corinth 
 said of him : "His letters are weighty and powerful, but 
 his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible," 
 n Cor. 10: 10 ff. He himself refers once and again to his 
 physical weaknesses. In all probability he was not a man of 
 magnificent physique. 
 
 His personal life was full of contrasts, as Deissmann 
 correctly observes. He was encumbered with an ailing 
 body, and yet was a man of great endurance and of almost 
 unlimited capacity for work in the Kingdom of God. The 
 secret of his strength lay in his God, who spoke to him : 
 "My grace is sufficient for thee, and my strength is made 
 perfect in weakness." He was a man of great humility, but 
 was at the same time capable of uttering words of the great- 
 est self-confidence, "before God a worm, before men an 
 eagle" (Deissmann). It is Paul that says: "I am the least 
 of the apostles," I Cor. 15:9; "I am less than the least of 
 all the saints," Eph. 3:8; and: "of whom (sinners) I am 
 chief," I Tim. 1 : 16. But it is the same Paul that speaks : 
 
142 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 "I labored more abundantly than they all," I Cor. 15: 10; 
 and : "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very 
 chief est apostles," II Cor. 11:5. But he reahzes that all 
 that is commendable in him and that is praiseworthy in his 
 work, is fruit of the grace of God. Hence he follows up the 
 statement in I Cor. 15: 10 by saying: "yet not I, but the 
 grace of God which was with me." Paul was a tender- 
 hearted man, and was yet on certain occasions very severe. 
 He was capable of the most affectionate feeling, always 
 solicitous for the welfare of the churches; but just on that 
 account inexorable over against all those that were enemies 
 to the truth. Compare in this respect the epistle to the 
 Philippians with that to the Galatians. He placed himself 
 entirely at God's disposal, following where He led, and was 
 willing to be the unworthy instrument in the hand of his 
 Lord in spreading the glad tidings of salvation. Hence he 
 was great in the Kingdom of God. 
 
 The chronology of the life of Paul is a subject of great 
 difficulty. Aside from the date of the first Pentecost there 
 is but a single date in the Acts of the Apostles of which we 
 are sure, viz., that of the death of Herod in A. D. 44, and 
 this has little value in determining the chronological order 
 of the events in Paul's life. A question of great importance 
 is, in what year Felix was succeeded by Festus. We cannot 
 enter into the dispute about this date, but assume that 
 Schiirer is correct, when he fixes it at A. D. 60. Geschichte 
 des Judischen Volkes I p. 577. In the same year Paul was 
 sent to Rome, arriving there in the spring of the following 
 year, A. D. 61. He remained a prisoner at Rome for two 
 years, i. e., until A. D. 63, when he was probably released ; 
 and Hved until the fall of A. D. 67 (Eusebius), or until the 
 spring of A. D. 68 (Jerome), when he was martyred at 
 Rome. 
 
 Figuring back from the same date, we find that Paul was 
 imprisoned at Caesarea in A. D. 58, Acts 24 : 27. Since he 
 had spent the previous winter in Corinth and the fall in 
 Macedonia, Acts 20 : 2, 3, and had labored in Ephesus for a 
 period of three years. Acts 20: 31, he must have begun his 
 
THE EPISTLES OF PAUL 143 
 
 third missionary journey in the spring of A. D. 54. His 
 second missionary tour was concluded shortly before, prob- 
 ably in the fall of A. D. 53, Acts 16:23. This journey 
 undoubtedly lasted about two years and a half, since the 
 apostle would naturally set out in the spring of the year and 
 his stay of a year and a half at Corinth together with all the 
 work done in other places makes it impossible that he started 
 on his journey in A. D, 52, cf. Acts 15 : 36 — 17: 34. Hence 
 the second journey began in A. D. 51. This second journey 
 was preceded by the council of Jerusalem that most likely 
 convened in A. D. 50, Acts 15. The first missionary journey 
 must be placed somewhere between the date just named and 
 the year of Herod's death, A. D. 44. 
 
 Now it is probable that we must identify the visit of 
 Paul to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. 2 : 1 with that of Acts 
 15. What is the apostle's point of departure there, when 
 he says: "Then fourteen years after, etc."? Exegetically 
 it may be the visit spoken of in Gal. 1 : 18 ; more likely, 
 however, it is the time of his conversion, cf . Ellicott on Gal., 
 so that the year 37 was probably the year in which that 
 momentous change was wrought in his life. Then he spent 
 the years 37-40 in Arabia, at the end of which period he 
 again visited Jerusalem, Acts 9 : 26 ; Gal. 1 : 18. In the same 
 year he went to Tarsus, where he labored until about the 
 year of Herod's death. Acts 11 : 25 — 12 : 1. 
 
 Thus we obtain the following result : 
 
 Paul's Conversion A. D. 37 
 
 First Visit to Jerusalem A. D. 40 
 
 Beginning of his Work at Antioch A. D. 44 
 
 First Missionary Journey A. D. 45-48 
 
 Delegated to the Council of Jerusalem A. D. 50 
 
 Second Missionary Journey A. D. 51-53 
 
 Third Missionary Journey A. D. 54-58 
 
 Captivity at Jerusalem and Caesarea A. D. 58-60 
 
 Arrives at Rome A. D. 61 
 
 First Captivity at Rome A. D. 61-63 
 
 Period between first and second Captivity A. D. 63-67 
 
 Second Captivity and Death A. D. 67 or 68 
 
The Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 This Epistle consists of two clearly marked but very 
 unequal parts, viz. the doctrinal (1:1 — 11:36) and the 
 practical part (12: 1 — 16:27). 
 
 /. The Doctrinal Part, 1 : 1 — 1 1 : 36. In this part we 
 have first the introduction, containing the address, the cus- 
 tomary thanksgiving and prayer, and an expression of the 
 apostle's desire to preach the gospel also at Rome, 1 : 1-15. 
 In the following two verses the apostle states his theme : 
 "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one 
 that believeth. For therein is the righteousness of God re- 
 vealed from faith to faith," 1 : 16, 17. After announcing 
 this he describes the sinful state of the Gentiles, points out 
 that the Jews are likewise guilty, and declares that their 
 prerogatives do not exempt them from punishment but 
 rather increase their guilt, 1 : 18 — 3 : 20. He then defines 
 the righteousness which God has provided without the works 
 of the law, and proves that this is revealed in the Old Testa- 
 ment, is the basis of a Christian experience that is rich in 
 spiritual fruits, and proceeds on the same principle of moral 
 government on which God dealt with Adam, 3:21 — 5:21. 
 Next he replies to the objections that on his doctrine men 
 may continue in sin and yet be saved ; that his teaching re- 
 leases men from moral obligation ; and that it makes the law 
 of God an evil thing, 6: 1 — 7: 25. In the following chapter 
 he shows that on the basis of man's justification by faith his 
 complete sanctification and final glorification is assured, 
 8: 1-39. Having stated the way of salvation through faith, 
 he now points out that this does not conflict with the prom- 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 145 
 
 ises given to Israel by showing that these pertained only to 
 the elect among them ; that the rejection of Israel is due 
 to their refusal of the way of salvation ; that it is not a com- 
 plete rejection; and that in the end the Jews will be con- 
 verted and will turn to God, 9 : 1 — 1 1 : 36. 
 
 //. The Practical Part, 12 : 1 — 16 : 27. The apostle ad- 
 monishes the Christians at Rome that they be devoted to 
 God and love one another. 12: 1-21. He desires that they 
 willingly subject themselves to the civil authorities and meet 
 all their obligations, 13:1-14. He enjoins upon them due 
 regard for the weakness of others in matters of indifference, 
 and the proper use of their Christian liberty, 14 : 1-23. Then 
 he holds up to them Christ as their great example, and 
 speaks of his purpose to visit Rome, 15: 1-33. Finally he 
 sends a long list of greetings to Rome and closes his epistle 
 with a doxology, 16: 1-27. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. The characteristic feature of this Epistle is found 
 in the fact that it is the most systematic writing of the 
 apostle, an elaborate treatment of a single theme with appro- 
 priate practical exhortations. It contains a careful and 
 rather full statement of what Paul himself calls, "my Gos- 
 pel," 2: 16; 16:25. His Gospel is that man is justified by 
 faith and not by the works of the law. In harmony with 
 this theme the contents of the Epistle are Soteriological 
 rather than Christological. The apostle points out that both 
 Gentiles and Jews need this justification ; that it is the v/ay 
 of salvation provided by God himself ; that it yields the 
 most blessed spiritual fruits ; that it does not issue in the 
 moral degradation of man, but in a life sanctified by the 
 Spirit and culminating in everlasting glory ; and that, though 
 the Gentiles will have precedence over the Jews, who re- 
 jected the Gospel, these too will at last accept it and be saved. 
 Godet calls this Epistle, "The Cathedral of Christian Faith." 
 Because of its methodical character some have mistakenly 
 regarded it as a treatise rather than as a letter. If it were 
 
146 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 a treatise, it might have been sent to one church as well as 
 another, and it may be regarded as accidental that it was 
 sent to Rome. But this is not the case. We cannot under- 
 stand this, the greatest of Paul's literary productions, unless 
 we study it historically in its relation to the church of Rome. 
 2. The style of the Epistle is described by Sanday and 
 Headlam in the following words : "This Epistle, like all 
 the others of the group (I and II Cor. and Gal.), is char- 
 acterized by a remarkable energy and vivacity. It is calm 
 in the sense that it is not aggressive and that the rush of 
 words is always well under control. Still there is a rush of 
 words rising repeatedly to passages of splendid eloquence ; 
 but the eloquence is spontaneous, the outcome of strongly 
 moved feeling ; there is nothing about it of labored oratory. 
 The language is rapid, terse, incisive ; the argument is con- 
 ducted by a quick cut and thrust of dialectic ; it reminds us 
 of a fencer with his eye always on his antagonist." Intern. 
 Crit. Comm., Romans p. LV. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 Both external and internal evidence clearly point to Paul 
 as the author. We find the first direct evidence for his 
 authorship in the Apostolicon of Marcion. The letter is fur- 
 ther ascribed to Paul by the Muratori canon, and is quoted 
 as his by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and 
 a host of others. The Epistle itself claims to have been 
 written by Paul, and this claim is borne out by the contents, 
 so that even Davidson says : "The internal character of the 
 epistle and its historical allusions coincide with the exter- 
 nal evidence in proving it an authentic production of the 
 apostle." Introd. I p. 119. 
 
 The authenticity of this great letter, along with that of 
 the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Galatians has been 
 well-nigh universally admitted. The first one to attack it 
 was Evanson in 1792, followed by Bruno Bauer in 1852. 
 Their rather reckless criticism has made little impression on 
 German critical opinion. In more recent times the Pauline 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 147 
 
 authorship has been denied by the Dutch scholars Loman 
 (1882), Pierson and Naber (1886) and Van Manen (1892), 
 and by the Swiss scholar Steck (1888) ; but their arguments, 
 of which an epitomy may be found in Sanday-Headlam, 
 Romans p. LXXXVI ; Baljon, Gesch. v/d Boeken des N . V. 
 p. 97 f f . ; and Godet, Introd. to the N . T. I St. Paul's Epis- 
 tles p. 393, — failed to carry conviction among New Testa- 
 ment critics. 
 
 THE CHURCH AT ROME. 
 
 Regarding the church to which this letter is addressed 
 there are especially two questions that call for discussion, 
 viz. 1. Its Origin; and 2. Its Composition. 
 
 1. Its Origin. There are three theories respecting the 
 origin of the church at Rome. 
 
 a. According to a tradition dating from the fourth, and 
 probably from the third century, that found general accept- 
 ance in the Roman Catholic church, the congregation at 
 Rome was founded by Peter in A. D. 42 (Jerome and Euse- 
 bius) or in A. D. 44 (Acts 12:17). This view is now 
 generally given up and is even rejected by some Catholic 
 scholars. It finds no support in Scripture, but is rather con- 
 tradicted by its plain statements. From Acts 16 : 9, 10 we 
 get the impression that Paul was the first missionary to pass 
 into Europe (A. D. 52), and this is just what we would 
 expect, since he, in distinction from the other apostles, was 
 sent to the Gentiles. Moreover we still find Peter in the 
 East, when in A. D. 50 the council of Jerusalem is held, 
 which does not agree with the tradition that he was at Rome 
 25 years. And neither in this Epistle, nor in those written 
 from Rome do we find the slightest trace of Peter's pres- 
 ence there ; yet Paul would certainly have mentioned him, 
 had he been the bishop of the Roman church. It is also 
 impossible to reconcile Paul's plan to visit Rome with the 
 principle he himself lays down in 15 : 20, if the local church 
 had been founded by Peter. And finally tradition tells us 
 
148 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 that Linus was the first bishop of Rome, and Clement, the 
 second. 
 
 b. Protestants often ascribed the origin of this church 
 to the Roman Jews that were in Jerusalem at the feast of 
 Pentecost, Acts 2 : 10, and witnessed the extraordinary 
 phenomena that accompanied the descent of the Holy Spirit. 
 On that theory the church really originated among the Jews. 
 In proof of this the report which Suetonius gives of the 
 decree of expulsion issued by the emperor Claudius against 
 the Jews of Rome, is adduced : "Jiidaeos impulsore Chresto 
 assidue tmnultiiantes Roma expulit." It is said that this 
 Chresto must be Christ, whose religion spread in the Jew- 
 ish synagogue and caused violent dissensions that were dan- 
 gerous to the public peace ; but this may well be, and indeed 
 is, questioned by many scholars. Moreover it is rather 
 doubtful, whether the Jews converted at the time of Pente- 
 cost were in a position to evangelize others and to establish 
 a Christian church. And finally this explanation does not 
 square with the fact that the church at Rome, as we know 
 it from the Epistle, does not bear a Judaeo- but a Gentile- 
 Christian complexion. 
 
 c. It seems more likely, therefore, that the church at 
 Rome originated somewhat later, and in a different fashion. 
 We know that before A. D. 44 the gospel had been brought 
 to Antioch in Syria and spread rapidly among the Gentiles 
 of that region. Acts 11 : 20. Soon a flourishing church was 
 established in that beautiful city on the Orontes, a church 
 endowed with great spiritual gifts, having in its midst an 
 abundance of men that were well qualified for the work of 
 evangelization, Acts 13: 1. Now there was at that time a 
 lively intercommunication between Syria and Rome, and 
 it is certainly not improbable that some Gentile Christians, 
 filled with the spirit of evangelization, set out from here for 
 the capital of the world. Or if not from here, some such 
 persons may have gone forth from the other centers of 
 Christianity, established by Paul on his missionary jour- 
 neys. This would explain, how the great apostle acquired 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 149 
 
 so many acquaintances at Rome as he names in chapter 16, 
 mostly Gentiles, some of whom he calls his fellow-laborers 
 (cf. 3, 9, 12), while he characterizes others with some word 
 of endearment (cf. 5-8, 10, 11, 13). Some such friends 
 they must have been who went out to meet Paul on the 
 Appian way, Acts 28: 25, while the Jews at Rome were evi- 
 dently quite ignorant as to the teachings of Christianity, 
 Acts 28: 17-29. On this theory the Gentile character of the 
 church at Rome causes no surprise. 
 
 2. Its Composition. Quite a controversy has been 
 waged about the question, whether the church at Rome was 
 predominantly Jewish- or Gentile-Christian. The traditional 
 idea was that it consisted primarily of Christians from the 
 Gentiles ; but the view that it was composed mainly of Jew- 
 ish Christians gained currency through Baur and was widely 
 accepted for some time. In support of this theory scholars 
 appealed : ( 1 ) To the passages in the epistle, in which Paul 
 seems to include himself and his readers in the first person 
 plural, as 3:9 and 5:1. But notice the same feature in 
 I. Cor. 10:1, though the Corinthians were certainly Gen- 
 tiles. (2) To those passages that speak of the relation of 
 the readers, or of Paul and his readers alike to the law, as 
 7: 1-6. This argument is stronger than the preceding one; 
 yet we find that the apostle employs similar language with 
 reference to the Galatians, Gal. 3: 13 — 4:9, while most of 
 these were certainly outside the pale of Jewry. (3) To the 
 character of Paul's argumentation and the dialectical form 
 in which he presents his Gospel to the Romans. But even 
 this does not necessarily imply that he was writing primarily 
 to Jewish Christians, since he argues in similar fashion in 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, and because this finds a ready 
 explanation partly in the Jewish training of the apostle and 
 partly in the fact that Paul was fully conscious of the objec- 
 tions which legalistic adversaries were wont to bring against 
 his doctrine. Besides, he knew that there were Jewish con- 
 verts in the church at Rome too, who might make similar 
 strictures. (4) To the chapters 9-11, regarded by Baur as 
 
150 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 the kernel of the epistle, which relate particularly to the 
 Jews. Yet in these very chapters Paul addresses, in the 
 most unambiguous manner, the Gentiles, and refers to Israel 
 as distinct from his readers, cf. 9:3, 24; 10:1-3; 11:13, 
 17-20, 24, 25, 30, 31. 
 
 When in 1876 Weizsacker again took up the defense of 
 the older view, he produced a decisive reaction in its favor. 
 And, no doubt, it deserves the preference, for: (1) In 
 1 : 5, 6 Paul writes : "By whom we have received grace and 
 apostleship, for obedience to the faith among the Gentiles 
 (toi? lOveacv) for his Name; among whom ye are also the 
 called of Jesus Christ." (2) In verse 13 he says that he 
 had often purposed to come to Rome "that I might have 
 some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles." 
 (3) When the apostle says in 11 : 13 : "For I speak to you 
 Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I 
 magnify mine office," it is best to assume with Meyer and 
 Godet that he is addressing the whole congregation in its 
 chief constituent element. (4) According to 15: 15 ff. the 
 writer has spoken the more boldly to the Romans, because 
 of the grace that was given him "that he should be the min- 
 ister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel 
 of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be accept- 
 able, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." On the strength 
 of these passages we conclude that, though there was a 
 Jewish constituency in the church at Rome, it consisted pri- 
 marily of Gentile Christians, so that in ministering to it also 
 Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles. It seems almost cer- 
 tain, however, that a legalistic tendency had sprung up in 
 the congregation, but this tendency may have been char- 
 acteristically Roman rather than specifically Judaistic. For 
 further details of this controversy cf . Holtzmann, Einleitung 
 p. 232 ff.; Sanday-Headlam, Comm. p. XXXI f f . ; The 
 Expositor's Greek Test. II p. 561 f f . ; and Zahn, Einleitung 
 I p. 299 ff. etc. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 151 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. It is impossible to speak 
 with absolute certainly respecting the occasion of Paul's 
 writing this Epistle, although scholars are quite well agreed 
 that the apostle found it in the fact that he had finished his 
 work in the East and now intended to visit the imperial city, 
 on which he had long since cast his eye. Probably an immi- 
 nent journey of Phebe to the capital offered him, on the eve 
 of his departure for Jerusalem, the desired opportunity to 
 send his communication to Rome. 
 
 But if the question is asked, why the apostle wrote this 
 letter to the Romans, why he gave it the particular character 
 that it has, we find that there is a great variety of opinions. 
 Some regard the Epistle as historical and occasional ; others, 
 as dogmatic and absolute. There are those who hold that 
 the particular form of the letter was determined by the con- 
 dition of the readers ; and those that would make it depend- 
 ent on the state of Paul's mind. Some believe that the 
 apostle in writing it had in mind his Gentile readers, while 
 others hold that he had special reference to the Jewish con- 
 stituents of the church at Rome. The different theories 
 respecting the purpose of the letter may be reduced to three. 
 
 a. According to some the purpose of the letter is dog- 
 matic, the Epistle containing a systematic exposition of the 
 doctrine of salvation. But if Paul meant to give in it noth- 
 ing but an objective statement of the truth, the question may 
 be asked, why he should send it to Rome, and not to some 
 other church. 
 
 b. Others affirm that the aim of the Epistle is contro- 
 versial, Paul giving an exposition of the truth with special 
 reference to the opposition of Judaeism to his gospel. Now 
 we need not doubt that there is a polemic element in this 
 Epistle, but the question may well be raised, whether the 
 apostle did not combat legalism in general rather than 
 Judaeism. 
 
 c. Still others believe that the purpose of the letter is 
 conciliatory, aiming at the unity of Jew and Gentile in the 
 
152 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 church at Rome. This theory also contains an element of 
 truth, for Paul certainly was very solicitous about that 
 unity, when he wrote this Epistle ; but it is a mistake to 
 regard the promotion of it as his sole purpose in writing. 
 
 It seems to us that, with Holtzmann, Sanday-Headlam 
 and Denney (in Exp. Gk. Test.), we should combine these 
 various elements in stating the purpose of the Epistle. Paul 
 had long cherished a desire to visit the city on the Tiber. 
 Through his friends and associates he had received some 
 intelligence regarding the church that had been founded 
 there. And now that he is about to depart for Jerusalem, 
 he has evil forebodings ; he may never see Rome ; and yet 
 he deems it desirable that the Roman church, which had not 
 been founded by an apostle, should not only be notified of 
 his intended visit, but receive a full and clear statement of 
 his Gospel. Hence he prepares for the Romans a careful 
 exposition of the Gospel truth. And knowing, as he did, 
 the legalistic tendency of the human heart, accented, as it 
 often was in his time, by Judaeism, — a tendency that prob- 
 ably found a fruitful soil among the moralistic Romans, he 
 clearly exhibits its antagonism to the doctrine of salvation, 
 at the same time carefully guarding and assiduously culti- 
 vating the unity of the believers at Rome, of the weak and 
 the strong, of Jews and Gentiles. 
 
 2. Time and Place. As to the time, when Paul wrote 
 this Epistle, we can infer from 1:13 that he had not yet 
 been in Rome, and from 15 : 25 that he was still a free man. 
 Therefore he must have written it before Pentecost of A. D. 
 58, for then he was taken captive at Jerusalem. On the 
 other hand it is clear from 15 : 19-21 that the apostle has 
 finished his task in the East and is now about to transfer his 
 ministry to the West. Hence it follows that he composed 
 this letter at the end of his third missionary journey, i. e. 
 in the fall of A. D. 57, or in the spring of A. D. 58. This 
 also agrees with the fact that the apostle in the Epistles to 
 the Corinthians (I 16: 1-4; II 8, 9) is still occupied with the 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 153 
 
 collection for the saints at Jerusalem, while this work is 
 finished, when he writes to the Romans, 15 : 25. 
 
 If this date is correct, then the Epistle must have been 
 written at Corinth. And there are some data that corrobo- 
 rate this conclusion. The bearer of the letter is a member 
 of the church at Cenchrea, one of the ports of Corinth, 
 16: 1 ; and Gajus, the host of Paul, is most likely the person 
 mentioned in I Cor. 1 : 14. Moreover the salutations of 
 Timothy and Sopater or Sosipater in 16 : 21 is in perfect 
 agreement with what is said in Acts 20 : 4 regarding the 
 presence of these men at Corinth, when Paul started for 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 INTEGRITY. 
 
 Touching the integrity of the Epistle to the Romans two 
 questions have arisen: 1. Is the doxology, 16:25-27, in 
 the right place, or does it belong between 14: 23 and 15 : 1, 
 or is it spurious? And 2. Are the chapters 15 and 16 
 genuine or spurious ? 
 
 1. The place of the doxology at the end of chapter 16 
 was doubted as early as the days of Origen. External testi- 
 mony favors it, since it is found there in most of the MSS, 
 while some have it at the end of chapter 14, and a few, in 
 both places. Zahn is of the opinion, however, that internal 
 evidence decidedly favors placing it at the end of chapter 
 14, because: (1) Paul's letters are often interspersed with 
 doxologies, but never end with them. (2) It seems unlikely 
 that Paul should add a doxology, closely connected with the 
 body of the letter, after a list of personal greetings not so 
 connected with it. (3) The doxology is closely related to 
 the subject-matter of 14: 23 and 15 : 1. (4) It is far harder 
 to explain its transfer from the 16th chapter to the 14th 
 than the reverse. Einl. I p. 268 fif. 
 
 Some, as f. i. Davidson and Baljon, doubt the genuine- 
 ness of the doxology, but: (1) It is found in all the MSS. 
 (2) The thought expressed in it is too rich and varied to be 
 
154 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 an interpolation. (3) No possible motive can be found for 
 forging such a doxology. 
 
 2. The 15th chapter is regarded by some as spurious, 
 
 (1) because it is not found in the canon of Marcion ; and 
 
 (2) since the appellative applied to Christ in verse 8 is con- 
 sidered very strange as coming from Paul ; the expression 
 in verse 19 is not characterized by the usual Pauline mod- 
 esty ; and the verses 24, 28, 29 are held to be in conflict with 
 1 : 10-15, because they imply that Paul merely desired to 
 pay a short visit to Rome, when he was on his way to Spain. 
 But the first argument has little weight, since Marcion omits 
 many other parts of the New Testament, and several that 
 are generally admitted to be genuine ; and the difficulties 
 mentioned under (2) easily yield to exegesis. 
 
 A far greater number of scholars reject chapter 16, (1) 
 because Marcion's canon does not contain it; (2) since it is 
 contrary to the apostle's custom to end his letters with so 
 many greetings ; and (3) because Paul was not in a position 
 to know so many persons at Rome. To the first argument 
 we need not reply again (cf. above) ; and as far as the greet- 
 ings are concerned, it may be that Paul intentionally greeted 
 so many persons at Rome to bring out clearly that, though 
 he had not founded the church there, he was not a stranger 
 to it, and to cultivate a certain familiarity. It deserves our 
 attention that the only other Epistle in which we find a list 
 of greetings is that to the Colossian church, which was like 
 the church of Rome, in that it was not founded by the 
 apostle. And taking in consideration the extensive travels 
 of Paul in the East, and the constant movement of people 
 in all parts of the empire to and from Rome, it causes no 
 surprise that so many of the apostle's acquaintances were in 
 the capital. 
 
 Some who doubt the destination rather than the genuine- 
 ness of this chapter surmise that it or a part of it originally 
 constituted an epistle, or a fragment of one, that was ad- 
 dressed to the Ephesians. They point out that Phebe would 
 be more likely to journey to Ephesus tlian to Rome ; that, in 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 155 
 
 view of what is said in Acts 18: 19; I Cor. 16: 19; II Tim. 
 4:19, there is a greater probabiHty that Aquila and Pris- 
 cilla were at Ephesus than in the imperial city ; and that 
 Epenetus is called "the first-fruits of Achaia unto Christ, 
 16 : 5. But none of these proofs are conclusive. Moreover 
 Dr. Gififord points out in the Speaker's Commentary that of 
 the twenty-two persons named in verses 6-15, not one can 
 be shown to have been at Ephesus ; while ( 1 ) Urbanus, 
 Rufus, Ampliatus, Julia and Junia are specifically Roman 
 names ; and (2) besides the first four of these names, "ten 
 others, Stachys, Apelles, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Hermes, 
 Hermas, Patrobas (or (Patrobius), Philologus, Julia, 
 Nereus are found in the sepulchral inscriptions on the Ap- 
 pian way as the names of persons connected with 'Csesar's 
 household' (Phil. 4:22), and contemporary with St. Paul." 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans is one of the best attested 
 writings of the New Testament. Its canonicity was never 
 doubted by the Church, and it has been remarkably free 
 from the attacks of Rationalism up to the present time. 
 Before the beginning of the third century there are nineteen 
 witnesses to the canonicity of the letter, including some of 
 the apostolic fathers, the Testament of the Twelve Patri- 
 archs, Justin Martyr, the Muratori Canon, Marcion, Ire- 
 naeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. Both friends 
 and foes of Christianity accepted it as authoritative. 
 
 It is the most systematic of all the writings of Paul, con- 
 taining a profound and comprehensive statement of the way 
 of salvation, a statement made with special reference to the 
 legalistically inclined Romans. That salvation can be had 
 through faith only, and not by the works of the law, not by 
 one's works of morality, on which the man of the Roman 
 type was inclined to place his reliance, is at once the great 
 central doctrine of this epistle and its permanent lesson for 
 all asfes. 
 
The First Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The contents of this Epistle may be divided into five 
 parts: 
 
 /. Condemnation of the Factions in the Church, 1 : 1 — 
 4:21. After a brief introduction in 1 : 1-9 Paul states that 
 he had heard of the divisions among the Corinthians, 1:11- 
 12. In arguing against these he points out that his conduct 
 was free from party spirit, since this is opposed by the 
 gospel and forbidden by the character of Christ, 1 : 13-31. 
 Moreover he reminds the Corinthians that his preaching 
 had been free from all partisanship which glories in the 
 wisdom of man, because the gospel is the message of divine 
 wisdom, is revealed by the Spirit and is understood only 
 through the Spirit; while party spirit misapprehends the 
 nature of the ministry, 2 : 1 — 3 : 23. He concludes this argu- 
 ment by pointing to his own example, 4: 1-21. 
 
 //. The Necessity of Church Discipline urged, 5 : 1 — 
 6 : 20. The Corinthians are exhorted to cast out the incest- 
 uous person, 5:1-13; to desist from lawsuits before the 
 unrighteous, 6: 1-11 ; and to flee from fornication, 6: 12-20. 
 
 ///. Answer to Inquiries sent from the Church, 7 : 1 — 
 14 : 39. Here we find a discussion of the lawfulness of mar- 
 riage and its duties ; directions about mixed marriages and 
 an apostolic advice to the unmarried, 7 : 1-40. Then follows 
 a discussion of Christian liberty in the participation of food 
 offered to the idols, in which love must rule, and one must 
 beware of any participation in idolatrous practices. The 
 apostle illustrates this principle at length by pointing to his 
 own example. 8: 1 — 11 : 1. Next the place of woman in the 
 assemblies of the church, and the proper observance of the 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 157 
 
 Lord's supper is considered, 1 1 : 2-34. And finally the spir- 
 itual gifts manifest in the congregation come in for con- 
 sideration. Their source and diversity, their functions, the 
 superiority of love over the extraordinary gifts, and of 
 prophecy over the speaking of tongues, and the right service 
 of God, — all receive due treatment, 12 : 1 — 14 : 40. 
 
 IV. A Discussion of the Resurrection, 15 : 1-58. The 
 apostle shows that the resurrection of Christ is an essential 
 article of the apostolic testimony, and is the pledge of our 
 resurrection; and answers various objections, describing 
 the nature of the resurrection body and the final victory 
 over death. 
 
 V. Conclusion, 16: 1-24. In this chapter the apostle 
 commends to the Corinthians the collection for the saints at 
 Jerusalem, bespeaks a good reception for Timothy, and ends 
 his epistle with friendly admonitions and salutations. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. This Epistle is the most comprehensive of all the 
 writings of Paul. It is just about as long as the letter to the 
 Romans, and contains the same number of chapters ; but, 
 while the Epistle to the Romans systematically treats a sin- 
 gle theme, this letter discusses a great variety of subjects, 
 such as party spirit, church discipline, marriage and celi- 
 bacy, Christian liberty, the place of woman in the church, 
 the significance and use of the charismata, and the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead. And the apostle treats of these matters in 
 a very orderly way, first taking up the accusations contained 
 in the report of those from the household of Chloe, and then 
 answering the questions that were put to him in the letter 
 sent by the Corinthians. 
 
 2. Closely connected with the first is a second charac- 
 teristic, viz. that this Epistle is the most practical of all the 
 Pauline letters. It reveals to us, as no other New Testa- 
 ment writing does, the snares and pitfalls, the difficulties 
 and temptations to which a church just emerging from 
 
158 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 heathendom and situated in a wicked city, is exposed. Many 
 of the problems that arose in the Corinthian church con- 
 stantly recur in city congregations. As important as the 
 Epistle to the Romans is for instruction in Christian doc- 
 trine, the first Epistle to the Corinthians is for the study of 
 social relations. 
 
 3. Little need be said regarding the language of Paul 
 in this Epistle ; it is the Greek of a Hellenistic Jew. We 
 cannot call it Hebraistic ; neither is it literary Greek. It is 
 rather the Greek of Paul's own period, containing, aside 
 from a few Hebrew loanwords, such as iTaa-/a, very few 
 words that are found exclusively in the Septuagint. Find- 
 lay says : "Paul has become in this epistle more than else- 
 where TOtq "EXXY]atv wg "EXXy]v." Exp. Gk. Test. H p. 748. 
 The argumentative form too in which the apostle's thought 
 is cast here, as elsewhere, is far more Greek than Hebrew, 
 more Western than Oriental. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 This epistle also claims to have been written by Paul, 
 1:1, 2, and bears upon the face of it the earmarks of the 
 great apostle. The language, the style, the doctrine, and 
 the spirit which it breathes, — are all his ; and the historical 
 allusions in chapters 9 and 16 fit in exactly with what we 
 know of his life and acquaintances from other sources. 
 Besides this there is an imposing body of external evidence 
 from Clement of Rome down to the authenticity of the let- 
 ter. Hence it, like that written to the Romans, has been 
 remarkably free from hostile attacks. Robertson and Plum- 
 mer truly say in the Introduction to their Commentary on 
 this Epistle p. XVI : "Both the external and the internal 
 evidence for the Pauline authorship are so strong that those 
 who attempt to show that the apostle was not the writer 
 succeed chiefly in proving their own incompetence as critics." 
 
 The free-lance Bruno Bauer was the first, and for a long 
 time the only one, to attack the genuineness of I Corinthians. 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 159 
 
 But in the last two decennia of the preceding century the 
 Dutch critics Loman, Pierson, Naber and Van Manen, and 
 the Swiss professor Steck chimed in with a most irrespon- 
 sible kind of criticism, founded on supposed inconsistencies 
 and evidences of composite authorship found in the Epistle, 
 and on imaginary conflicts between it and the Acts of the 
 Apostles. No critic of name takes their argument serious ; 
 according to the general estimate they are scarcely worth 
 the paper on which they are written. 
 
 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 
 
 1. Its Origin. After Paul left Athens on his second 
 missionary journey, he came to the capital of Achaia, — to 
 Corinth, a city situated on the isthmus of the Peloponnese 
 between the Ionian and the Aegean sea. It was not the old 
 Corinth, since this had been destroyed by Mummius in 146 
 B. C, but Corinth redivivus, Corinth rebuilt by Ceasar just 
 a hundred years later, that had rapidly risen in fame, and 
 now had a population of between six and seven hundred 
 thousand, consisting of Romans, Greeks, Jews and people 
 of such other nationalities as were attracted by the commer- 
 cial advantages of Corinth. The East and the West met 
 there, and it soon became the mart of the world, where un- 
 paralleled riches were found alongside of the deepest poverty. 
 And with the increase of riches and luxury came a life of 
 ease and licentiousness. Worldly wisdom and great moral 
 degradation went hand in hand. On the Acropolis shone 
 the temple of Venus, where a thousand maidens devoted 
 themselves to the sensual service of the goddess. Corinthian 
 immorality became a byword; and the expression to live 
 like a Corinthian (/.optvOia^eiv) was indicative of the 
 greatest licentiousness. Farrar says : "Corinth was the 
 Vanity Fair of the Roman Empire, at once the London and 
 the Paris of the first century after Christ." St. Paul I p. 556. 
 
 To that worldly-wise profligate Corinth Paul wended his 
 way with a sad heart in A. D. 52. Depressed in spirit be- 
 cause of past experiences, he began his labors in the syna- 
 
160 NEW TESTAMENT INTROD UCTION 
 
 gogue, preaching to the Jews ; but when they opposed him, he 
 turned to the Gentiles and taught them in the house of a 
 certain Justus. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, became 
 one of his first converts, and many others believed and were 
 baptized, Acts 18:1-8. Encouraged by a vision, he now 
 began a ministry of a year and a half in that city. The 
 Jews, filled with hatred, brought him before Gallio, the pro- 
 consul of Achaia, but did not succeed in making out a case 
 against him. Even after this incident he labored a long 
 time in Corinth and the adjacent country and undoubtedly 
 established the Corinthian church on this occasion, Acts 
 18:18; I Cor. 1:1. 
 
 2. Its Composition and Character. We may be sure 
 that the church consisted primarily of Christians from the 
 Gentiles. This impression is conveyed by the account of 
 Paul's work in Corinth, preserved for us in Acts 18, and is 
 strengthened by a careful study of the epistle. The apostle 
 says of the congregation, describing it according to its main 
 constituent element : "Ye know that ye were Gentiles, car- 
 ried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led," 12 : 1. 
 Yet the church also comprised many Jews, as we may infer 
 from Acts 18 : 8 ; I Cor. 1 : 12 ; 7 : 18 ; 12 : 13. The majority 
 of the converts were of the poorer classes, 1 : 26 ; but there 
 were also Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue. Acts 18:8; 
 I Cor. 1 : 14, Erastus, the chamberlain of the city and Gajus, 
 Paul's host, Rom. 16:23, and several others that were in 
 more favorable circumstances, as we may infer from I Cor. 
 11:21,22. 
 
 As far as the complexion of the church is concerned we 
 find that it bore the impress of its surroundings. There was 
 a shallow intellectualism, coupled with a factiousness that 
 was "the inveterate curse of Greece." Lax morals and un- 
 seemly conduct disgraced its life. Christian liberty was 
 abused and idolatrous practices were tolerated. Even the 
 gifts of the Holy Spirit gave rise to vainglory ; and a false 
 spiritualism led, on the one hand, to a disregard of bodily 
 sin, and, on the other, to a denial of the bodily resurrection. 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 161 
 
 But these faults should not blind us to the fact that there 
 was a great deal in the church of Corinth that was praise- 
 worthy. The social relations among the Corinthians had 
 already undergone to a certain degree the elevating and 
 sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit ; the church was rich 
 in spiritual gifts, and was willing to impart of its substance 
 to the poor saints at Jerusalem. 
 
 The divisions at Corinth deserve more than a passing 
 notice, since they are made so prominent in the Epistle. The 
 question is, whether we can determine the character of the 
 existing parties. In attempting this we desire to point out 
 first of all that they were no parties in the strict sense of the 
 word, each with an organization of its own, but merely dis- 
 sensions in the church, representing a difference of opinion. 
 They had not led to an absolute split in the ranks of believ- 
 ers, for Paul distinctly recognizes a certain feeling of unity 
 in the church of Corinth, since he mentions meetings of the 
 whole church repeatedly, 11:18; 14:23. Yet there were 
 four divisions of which each one had his own slogan. 
 
 a. Some said : "I am of Paul !" This party is men- 
 tioned first, not necessarily because it comes first in chron- 
 ological order. Since the church had been founded by Paul, 
 it would seem that a separate party, using the apostle's 
 name as their shibboleth, could only arise in opposition to 
 another. It consisted most likely of those serious-minded 
 believers who had regard to the contents of the gospel 
 preaching rather than to its form ; and who heartily accepted 
 the simple doctrine of the cross, as Paul preached it, who 
 had come to them without wisdom of words that the cross 
 of Christ might not be made of non-effect. 
 
 b. Others said : "I am of Apollos !" We do not be- 
 lieve that the preaching of Apollos differed essentially from 
 that of Paul, nor that he was to blame for the dissension 
 that arose as a result of his work. Paul himself bears wit- 
 ness to his perfect unity of spirit with Apollos, where he 
 says that Apollos watered what he had planted, and that he 
 that planteth and he that watereth are one, 3 : 6-8 ; and that 
 
162 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 he had greatly desired to send ApoUos with Timothy and 
 the other brethren to Corinth, 15 : 12. And is it not likely 
 that Apollos refused to go, just because he feared that it 
 might foster the party spirit? The Apollos Christians were 
 in all probability those cultured Greeks who, while they 
 were in accord with the doctrine of free grace, greatly pre- 
 ferred a speculative and oratorical presentation of it to the 
 simple preaching of Paul. 
 
 c. Still others said : "I am of Cephas !" While the two 
 former parties undoubtedly constituted the bulk of the con- 
 gregation, there were also some who had scruples regarding 
 the doctrine of free grace. They were conservative Jewish 
 believers that adhered to the decisions of the council of 
 Jerusalem and persisted in certain legal observances. Nat- 
 urally they in spirit rallied around Peter, the apostle of 
 circumcision. It may be that the tradition preserved by 
 Dionysius of Corinth is true that Peter has at one time vis- 
 ited Corinth. If it is, this helps to explain their watchword. 
 
 d. Finally there were also those who said : "I am of 
 Christ!" This party has always been the most difficult to 
 characterize, and, as a result, a great number of theories 
 have been broached. After F. C. Baur many interpreted 
 this "of Christ" in the light of II Cor. 10:7, where the 
 opponents of whom Paul speaks are ultra-Judaeists. On 
 that theory the Christ-party would be even more strictly 
 Jewish than the party of Peter. Others, such as Hilgenfeld 
 and Hausrath maintain that it consisted of those that had 
 been in personal relation with the Lord, and probably be- 
 longed to the five hundred of I Cor. 15:5. Godet suggests 
 that they were such as were embued with the spirit of 
 Cerinthus, and believed in Christ in distinction from the 
 human Jesus. He identifies them with those who would call 
 Jesus accursed, I Cor. 12 :3. We prefer to think with Meyer, 
 Ellicott, Alford, Findley (Exp. Gk. Test.) and Biesterveld 
 that it consisted of the ultra-pious ones who. despising all 
 human leadership, arrogated the common watchword as their 
 own private property, and by so doing made it a party slogan. 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 163 
 
 They regarded themselves as the ideal party, were filled 
 with spiritual pride, and thus became a great stumblingblock 
 for the apostle. The key to this interpretation is found in 
 3 : 22, 23, where the apostle offers a corrective for the party 
 spirit, when he says : "Whether Paul, or Apollos, or 
 Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, 
 or things to come ; all are yours ; and ye are Christ's and 
 Christ is God's." Findlay correctly remarks that "the 
 catholic upiet? Xptaxou swallows up the self-assertive and 
 sectarian Eyw Se XptaxoO. 
 
 3. Paul's Communications with it. There are two ques- 
 tions that call for consideration under this heading : a. How 
 often did Paul visit Corinth? and b. Did he write more 
 letters to the Corinthian church than we now possess? 
 
 a. We know that Paul visited Corinth in A. D. 52, Acts 
 18: 1, and again in 57, Acts 20: 2. Are there traces of any 
 other visits? The allusions in II Cor. 2:1; 12: 14; 13: 1 
 seem to imply that he had been in Corinth twice before he 
 wrote II Corinthians, and hence prior to the visit of A. D. 
 57. In all probability we must assume a visit not recorded 
 in the Acts of the Apostles. The question is, however, 
 whether we must place it before the writing of I Corinth- 
 ians, or between this and the composition of II Corinthians. 
 This cannot be decided absolutely with the data at hand, but 
 we consider it preferable to place it before the first Epistle : 
 (1) because the time intervening between the two letters is 
 so short that a trip to Corinth in that time is exceedingly 
 improbable; (2) Since, Timothy and Titus having been in 
 Corinth a part of that time, we cannot understand, what 
 could make it imperative for Paul to make such a hasty 
 visit; and (3) II Corinthians constantly refers to things 
 written in the first Epistle in a way that would not have 
 been necessary if Paul had already been in Corinth himself. 
 In favor of placing it after the writing of the first Epistle, 
 it is urged that I Corinthians does not refer to a visit that 
 shortly preceded it. 
 
164 NEW TESTAMExNT INTRODUCTION 
 
 b. It seems to us that Paul unquestionably wrote more 
 epistles to the Corinthians than those which we now possess. 
 In I Cor. 5 : 9 the author clearly refers to an earher letter, 
 forbidding intercourse with immoral persons. That letter 
 had been misunderstood, and therefore the impression it 
 made is now corrected by the apostle. Very likely it also 
 spoke of the collection for the saints at Jerusalem, 16: 1, 
 and conveyed the apostle's intention to visit Corinth both 
 before and after his visit to Macedonia, to which II Cor. 
 1:15, 16 refers, and which he changed before writing I 
 Corinthians (cf. 16:5), thereby unwittingly exposing him- 
 self to the calumny of his enemies, II Cor. 1 : 15-18. From 
 II Cor. 7 : 6-^8 some infer that another letter, far more cen- 
 sorious than I Corinthians intervened between the two 
 canonical letters, and caused the apostle's uneasiness ; but 
 the evidence is not strong enough to warrant the conclusion. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. This letter was occasioned 
 by reports which Paul received from Corinth and by a series 
 of questions that were put to him by the Corinthians. Those 
 who were of the house of Chloe told him of the divisions in 
 their home church, 1:11, and common report had it that 
 fornication and even incest was permitted in the congrega- 
 tion, 5:1. Moreover the church sent a letter, probably by 
 the hand of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, 16:17, 
 asking the apostle's opinion in several matters, as marriage, 
 7:1; the eating of meat ofifered to the idols, 8:1; the proper 
 conduct in the church, 11 : 2; the right use of the spiritual 
 gifts, 12:1; and in all probability also respecting the doc- 
 trine of the resurrection, 15. 
 
 In harmony with this occasion the purpose of the Epistle 
 is especially twofold : In the first place the apostle desires 
 to quench the party spirit that was rife among the Corinth- 
 ians that he might lead them all to the unity of faith that is 
 in Jesus Christ ; and to correct the other evils that were 
 found in the church, such as the case of incest and the irreg- 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 165 
 
 ularities that disgraced their Agapae, which culminated in 
 the Lord's Supper. And in the second place it was his aim 
 to give the young church, struggling with temptations and 
 baffled by many difficult questions, further instruction along 
 the lines indicated by them in their letter. With great dili- 
 gence and care and solicitude for the welfare of the congre- 
 gation the apostle applies himself to this task. In answer to 
 the question, whether he also intended to defend his apostle- 
 ship over against his enemies we would say that, though this 
 was not altogether absent from his mind (cf. chs. 4 and 9), 
 he does not aim at this directly like he does in writing II 
 Corinthians, when the hostility of the false teachers has 
 become far more pronounced. 
 
 2, Time and Place. The place, where this Epistle was 
 written, is clearly indicated in 16 : 8, and therefore does not 
 call for further discussion. This also aids us in determining 
 the time of writing. The only stay of Paul at Ephesus of 
 any duration is described in Acts 19. If our chronological 
 calculations are correct, he came there in A. D. 54 and, after 
 a stay of three years, left there again in 57. According to 
 I Cor. 16:8 he wrote the epistle toward the end of his 
 Ephesian ministry, before Pentecost of A. D. 57, and there- 
 fore probably in the early part of that year. We cannot 
 conclude from I Cor. 5 : 7 that it was when the feast of 
 unleavened bread was celebrated, although it is very well 
 possible that the nearness of that feast gave rise to the line 
 of thought developed in that chapter. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The canonicity of the Epistle is abundantly attested by 
 early Christian literature. It is the first one of the New 
 Testament writings that is cited by name by one of the 
 apostolic fathers. Clement of Rome says in his first Epistle 
 to the Corinthians : "Take the Epistle of the blessed Paul 
 the apostle into your hands etc." The writings of the other 
 apostolic fathers, viz. Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius and Poly- 
 carp show clear traces of the use of this Epistle. From 
 
166 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Irenaeus on it is quoted as Holy Scripture. The Gnostics 
 regarded it with special favor. It was found in Marcion's 
 canon, in the Muratorian Fragment etc. The testimony to 
 it is very full and clear. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Romans we have a statement of the 
 way of salvation with special reference to the legalistic 
 Romans ; in this Epistle we find an exposition of it par- 
 ticularly with a view to the philosophically inclined Greeks. 
 It clearly reveals that the way of wordly ., wisdom is not the 
 way of life, a valuable lesson for the (Church of all ages. 
 But there is still another phase that gives the Epistle per- 
 manent value ; it contains the doctrine of the cross in its 
 social application. In it we see the church of God in the 
 world with all its glitter and show, its temptations and dan- 
 gers, its errors and crimes, and are taught to apply the 
 principles of the Christian religion to the diversified rela- 
 tions of life, as we meet them in the bustle of a great and 
 wicked city. 
 
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The contents of this Epistle are naturally divided into 
 three parts : 
 
 /. Review of Paul's Relations with the Corinthians, 
 1 : 1 — 7: 16. After the usual epistolary introduction, 1 : 1-11, 
 the apostle vindicates himself with respect to the change in 
 his intended visit, and with reference to what he had writ- 
 ten respecting the offender, 1 : 12 — 2: 13. Having done this, 
 he takes up the discussion of the apostleship. In the first 
 place he considers the office of an apostle, comparing the 
 ministry of the Law with that of the Gospel, 3 : 6-18, and 
 vindicating his own position as an apostle of the New Coven- 
 ant, 2: lA — 3: 5; 4: 1-6. Then he treats of the sufferings 
 of an apostle which are inseparably connected with his work, 
 but are alleviated by the hope of future glory, 4 : 7 — 5 : 10. 
 Next the life of an apostle passes the review, which finds its 
 constraining motive in the love of Christ, has its spiritual 
 basis in the life of the Redeemer, and is marked by suffer- 
 ings, dishonor and poverty, on the one hand ; but also by 
 longsuffering and kindness, by knowledge and righteousness, 
 on the other, 5 : 1 1 — 6 : 10. This is followed up by an appeal 
 of the apostle to the Corinthians that they should give him 
 place in their hearts, and should not be unequally yoked to- 
 gether with unbelievers, 6 : 1 1 — 7 : 4. Finally the apostle 
 tells the Corinthians that he had been comforted greatly by 
 the coming of Titus, by whom his fears that the former let- 
 ter might have estranged them, were allayed and made place 
 for rejoicing, 7: 5-16. 
 
 //. The Collection for the Judaean Christians, 8 : 1 — 
 
168 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 9: 15. The apostle points the Corinthians to the example of 
 the Macedonians who gave abundantly for the poor at Jeru- 
 salem, 8:1-7; and to the example of Christ who became 
 poor that the Corinthians might be enriched, 8:8-15. He 
 commends to them Titus and the two brethren that are sent 
 with him to gather the collection, 8 : 16-24 ; and exhorts them 
 to give abundantly for this worthy cause, 9: 1-15. 
 
 ///. Paul's Vindication of his Apostleship, 10 : 1 — 13 : 14. 
 In this part Paul deals directly with his opponents. First 
 of all he points out that the ministry entrusted to him also 
 extended to the Corinthians, 9:1-18. Then he rephes to 
 his opponents that he had been perfectly loyal to the cause 
 of Christ, 11 : 1-6; that he had not dealt deceitfully with the 
 Corinthians, when he refused support from them, 11 : 7-15 ; 
 that he had far greater things in which to glory than they 
 could boast of, 11 : 16 — 12: 10; and that it had never been 
 and was not now his aim to make a gain of the Corinthians, 
 12: 11-18. Finally he gives them warnings in view of his 
 coming visit, and closes his epistle with final salutations 
 and benediction, 12: 19 — 13: 13. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. n Corinthians is one of the most personal and the 
 least doctrinal of all the letters of Paul, except the one writ- 
 ten to Philemon. The doctrinal element is not altogether 
 wanting ; the great truths of salvation find expression in it, 
 as well as in the other letters of the apostle ; but, though they 
 enter into its composition, they have a subordinate place and 
 are, as it were, eclipsed by its large personal element, in 
 which we see the very heart of the apostle, with all its vary- 
 ing moods of courage and anxiety, of love and aversion, of 
 hope and disappointment. Alford says : "Consolation and 
 rebuke, gentleness and severity, earnestness and irony suc- 
 ceed one another at very short intervals and without notice." 
 
 2. The second characteristic of this Epistle is closely 
 connected with the preceding one ; it is the most unsystema- 
 tic of all the letters of Paul. How greatly it differs in this 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 169 
 
 respect from the Epistle to the Romans and from First 
 Corinthians, becomes perfectly evident, when one attempts 
 to give an outline of the contents. This irregularity is due 
 to the fact that in this letter we do not find a calm discussion 
 of doctrinal subjects or of certain phases of Christian life, 
 but above all an impassioned self-defense against unjust 
 charges and calumnies and insinuations. However humble 
 the apostle may be, and though he may regard himself as the 
 least of all the saints, yet in this letter he finds himself con- 
 strained to boast of his sufferings and of his work. 
 
 3. The language of this Epistle has been judged vari- 
 ously, some criticizing it severely and others praising its 
 excellencies. We cannot deny that it is more rugged and 
 harsh, more obscure and difficult of interpretation than we 
 are accustomed to in Paul's other writings. "Parentheses 
 and digressions often intersect the narrative and disturb its 
 sequence." (Davidson) Meyer says beautifully : "The ex- 
 citement and varied play of emotion with which Paul wrote 
 this letter, probably also in haste, certainly make the expres- 
 sion not seldom obscure and the sentences less flexible, but 
 only heighten our admiration of the great delicacy, skill and 
 power with which this outpouring of Paul's spirit and heart, 
 possessing as a defense of himself a high and peculiar inter- 
 est, flows and gushes on, till finally, in the last part, wave on 
 wave overwhelms the hostile resistance." Comm. p. 412. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The external testimony to the authorship of Paul is in- 
 ferior to that of I Corinthians ; yet it is so strong that it 
 leaves no room for honest doubt. Irenaeus, Clement of 
 Alexandria, TertuUian and many others, from all parts of 
 the early Church, quote it by name. 
 
 But even if this were not so strong, internal evidence 
 would be quite sufficient to settle the question of authenti- 
 city. In the first place the Epistle claims to be a product 
 of the great apostle. In the second place it is written in a 
 style that is in many respects characteristically Pauline, not- 
 
170 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 withstanding its unique features ; it contains the doctrine of 
 salvation, as we are wont to hear it proclaimed by the apostle 
 of the Gentiles ; and it reveals his character, as no other 
 Epistle does. And in the third place the thought of this 
 Epistle is closely interwoven with that of I Corinthians. In 
 I Cor. 16 : 5 Paul speaks of his plan of travel, and in II Cor. 
 1 : 15-24 he comments on it; in I Cor. 5 he urges that dis- 
 cipline be applied to the incestuous person, and in II Cor. 
 2: 5-11 he says, with reference to this case, that they have 
 inflicted sufficient punishment, and restrains their evident 
 severity ; respecting the collection for the Judsean Christians 
 which he enjoins on the Corinthians in I Cor. 16: 1-4, he 
 gives further directions in II Cor. 8 and 9; to the Judaeizers 
 who cast doubt on his apostleship he refers in I Cor. 4 and 9, 
 and speaks of them more at length in II Cor. 10-13. 
 
 The authenticity of the Epistle too was attacked by 
 Bruno Bauer and by the Dutch critics that we mentioned in 
 connection with the first Epistle. But their work failed to 
 convince anyone but themselves. Godet truly says : " — the 
 scholars who cannot discern, across these pages, the living 
 personality of St. Paul, must have lost in the work of the 
 study, the sense for realities." Introd. to the N. T. I p. 337. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. In order to understand the 
 occasion that induced Paul to write this Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, we must bring it in connection with the first letter, 
 which was in all probability borne to Corinth by Titus, 
 Paul's spiritual son. After it had gone forth, the apostle 
 pondered on what he had written in that letter, and it caused 
 him some uneasiness of mind, II Cor. 7 : 8. He reflected 
 that he had written in a rather severe strain regarding the 
 divisions at Corinth and the incestuous person, and feared 
 for a time that his words might be misconstrued, that his 
 letter might create a false impression, and that his severity 
 might provoke resentment and thus injure the cause of the 
 gospel that lay so near to his heart. 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 171 
 
 We are aware that some scholars, as f. i. Hausrath, 
 Schmiedel, Kennedy, Baljon, Findlay, Robertson (in Hast- 
 ings D. B.) and Davidson hold that II Cor. 2:4, 9; 7:8 
 refer to a second lost epistle of Paul, the so-called Painful 
 Letter; but with Zahn, Holtzmann and Bernard (in Exposi- 
 tor's Gk. Test.) we believe it to be a rather gratuitous as- 
 sumption that such an epistle ever existed. 
 
 Shortly after Paul had sent I Corinthians, he left Ephe- 
 sus for Troas, where a splendid opportunity for work 
 oflfered. Yet he was keenly disappointed, for he had ex- 
 pected to find Titus there with tidings from Corinth ; and 
 when he did not find him, his very anxiety caused him to 
 sail for Macedonia that he might meet his beloved brother 
 and co-laborer the sooner and be reassured by him, II Cor. 
 2: 12, 13. The mere change of the field of labor brought 
 him no relief, for he says : "When we were come into 
 Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on 
 every side ; without were fightings, within were fears." 7 : 5. 
 Soon, however, he was comforted by the coming of Titus, 
 7:6; the painful uncertainty now made place for calm 
 assurance, yea even for joy and thanksgiving. But his hap- 
 piness was not unalloyed, since the report of Titus was not 
 altogether favorable. The Corinthian congregation as a 
 whole had taken kindly to the warnings and directions of the 
 previous letter. The words of reproof had made a deep im- 
 pression on them, had saddened their hearts, had filled them 
 with sorrow, — ^but it was a godly sorrow that worked re- 
 pentance. Hence the apostle had occasion to rejoice and did 
 rejoice, 7:7-16. The enemies of Paul, however, had been 
 embittered by the former Epistle and had increased their 
 sinister work, attempting to undermine the apostolic author- 
 ity of Paul by charging that he was fickle and vacillating, 
 1: 15-24; that he was controlled by fleshly motives, 10:2; 
 that he was bold at a distance, but cowardly, when present, 
 10 : 10 ; that he was dealing deceitfully with the Corinthians 
 even in taking no support from them, 11 : 7-12; and that he 
 had not shown himself an apostle by his works, 12 : 11-13. 
 
172 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 The question may be asked to which one of the four 
 parties mentioned in I Corinthians the enemies belong with 
 which the apostle deals in II Cor. 10-13. It is quite clear, 
 and scholars are generally agreed, that they were in the 
 main, if not exclusively, ultra-Judaeists. But there is no 
 such unanimity in classifying them with one of the divisions 
 of which the first Epistle speaks. Following F. C. Baur 
 many, such as Baljon, Davidson, Weiss, identify them with 
 those whose watchword was : "I am of Christ !" Others, 
 however, as Meyer and Zahn regard them as belonging to 
 the party that professed special allegiance to Peter. To this 
 view we give preference ; however, with the proviso's that 
 in this letter Paul does not deal with the whole party, but 
 rather with its leaders, who had probably come from Judaea 
 with letters of commendation, 3:1, and whom Paul qualifies 
 as "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming them- 
 selves in apostles of Christ," 11: 13; — and that it is quite 
 possible that some of his words refer to those who, ignor- 
 ing and dispising all human authority, claimed to be of 
 Christ, and did not uphold the honor and faithfulness of the 
 apostle against the false teachers. Cf . 10 : 7. 
 
 This being the situation at Corinth, when the apostle 
 wrote his second letter, he was naturally led to write with a 
 twofold purpose. In the first place it was his desire to ex- 
 press his gratitude for the way in which the Corinthians 
 had received his former letter, and to inform them of the 
 joy he experienced, when they had manifested their willing- 
 ness to mend their ways and had been filled with godly 
 sorrow. And in the second place he considered it incumbent 
 on him to defend his apostleship against the calumnies and 
 the malignant attacks of the Judaeistic adversaries. 
 
 2, Time and Place. In view of the account we have 
 given of the course of events that followed the writing of 
 I Corinthians, it is not very difficult to establbish approxi- 
 mately both the time and the place of writing. We may 
 assume that, in accordance with the plan expressed in I Cor. 
 15:8, the apostle remained at Ephesus until Pentecost of 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 173 
 
 A. D. 57. On leaving Ephesus he went to Troas, from 
 where he crossed over to Macedonia. There he soon met 
 Titus, presumably in the summer of that same year, and 
 therefore some time before he was ready to visit Corinth, 
 and received information from him regarding the condition 
 of the Corinthian church. Overjoyed by what he heard, but 
 at the same time apprehending the danger that lurked in the 
 agitation of the Judaeizers, he immediately wrote II Corin- 
 thians, and sent it to Corinth by the hand of Titus, who was 
 accompanied on his journey by two of the brethren, whose 
 names are not recorded, 8 : 18, 22. The letter was written, 
 therefore, in the summer of A. D. 57, somewhere in Mace- 
 donia. 
 
 INTEGRITY. 
 
 The integrity of the letter has been attacked especially 
 on two points. It is claimed by some that the verses 6 : lA — 
 7 : 1 do not belong, where they stand, but form an awkward 
 interruption in the course of thought. A few scholars re- 
 gard them as a part of the lost letter to which I Cor. 5 : 9 
 refers. Now it is true that at first sight these verses seem 
 out of place, where they stand, but at the same time it is very 
 well possible to give a plausible explanation for their in- 
 sertion at this point. Cf. Meyer, Alford, Expositor's Greek; 
 Testament. 
 
 Several critics opine that the chapters 10-13 did not ori- 
 ginally form a part of this letter. Hausrath and Schmiedel 
 advocated the theory that they constituted a part of the so- 
 called Painful letter that intervened between I and II Corin- 
 thians. The reasons why they would separate this section 
 from the other nine chapters, are the following : ( 1 ) The 
 10th chapter begins with the words Au-o? Se evo) IlauXog, 
 which Se marks these words as an antithesis to something 
 that is not found in the preceding. (2) The tone of the 
 apostle in these last chapters is strikingly different from that 
 in the other nine ; from a calm and joyful tone it has changed 
 
174 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 to one of stern rebuke and of sharp invective. (3) Certain 
 passages found in the first part point back to statements 
 that are found in the last chapters, and thus prove that these 
 are part of a previous letter. Thus 2: 3 refers to 13: 10; 
 1:23 to 13:2; and 2:9 to 10:6. 
 
 But to these arguments we may reply, in the first place, 
 that Se often does no more than mark the transition to a 
 new subject (cf. I Cor. 15: 1 ; II Cor. 8: 1) ; in the second 
 place, that the change of tone need not surprise us, if we 
 take in consideration the possibility that Paul did not write 
 the whole Epistle at a single sitting and therefore in the 
 same mood ; and the fact that in the last chapters he deals 
 more particularly with the false teachers among the Corin- 
 thians ; and in the third place, that the passages referred to 
 do not necessitate the construction put on them by the above 
 named critics. Moreover, if we adopt the theory that an- 
 other letter intervened between our two canonical Epistles, 
 we are led to a very complicated scheme of Paul's transac- 
 tions with Corinth, a scheme so complicated that it is its own 
 condemnation. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The ancient Church was unanimous in accepting the 
 Epistle as a part of the Word of God. Of the apostolic 
 fathers Polycarp plainly quotes it. Marcion included it in 
 his canon, and it is also named in the Muratorian Fragment. 
 The Syriac and old Latin Versions contain it, and the three 
 great witnesses of the end of the second century quote it 
 by name. 
 
 This Epistle too has permanent value for the Church of 
 God. It is inseparably connected with I Corinthians, and 
 as such also brings out that it is not the wisdom of the 
 world but the foolishness of the cross that saves ; and sheds 
 further light on the application of Christian principles to 
 social relations. More than any other Epistle it reveals to 
 us the apostle's personality, and is therefore a great psycho- 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 175 
 
 logical aid in the interpretation of his writings. It also has 
 considerable doctrinal interest in that it exhibits a part of 
 the apostle's eschatology, 4:16 — 5:8; brings out the con- 
 trast between the letter and the spirit, 3 : 6-18 ; describes the 
 beneficent influence of the glory of Christ, 3: 18 — 4:6; and 
 contains an explicit statement of the reconciliation and 
 renovation wrought by Christ, 5 : 17-21. 
 
The Epistle to the Galatians. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The Epistle to the Galatians may be divided into three 
 parts : 
 
 /. Paul's Defense of his Apostleship, 1 : 1 — 2 : 21. After 
 the usual introduction the apostle states the occasion of his 
 writing, 1 : 1-10. In defense of his apostleship he points out 
 that he has been called by God himself and received his 
 Gospel by direct revelation, and had no occasion to learn it 
 from the other apostles, 1 : 11-24; that the apostles showed 
 their agreement with him by not demanding the circumcision 
 of Titus and by admitting his mission to the gentiles, 2 : 1- 
 10; and that he had even rebuked Peter, when this "pillar 
 of the church" was not true to the doctrine of free grace, 
 2:11-21. 
 
 //. His Defense of the Doctrine of Justification, 3 : 1— 
 4:31. Here the apostle clearly brings out that the Galatians 
 received the gift of the Spirit by faith, 3:1-5; that Abraham 
 was justified by faith, 3:6-9; that delivery from the curse 
 of the law is possible only through faith. 3: 10-14; and that 
 the law has merely a parenthetic character, coming, as it 
 does, between the promise and its fulfillment, 3: 15-29. He 
 compares Judseism to a son who is minor, and Christianity 
 to a son that has attained his majority. 4: 1-7; admonishes 
 the Galatians that, realizing their privilege, they should not 
 return to the beggarly elements of knowledge, 4:8-20; and 
 says that the Jew is like the child of Hagar, while the Chris- 
 tian resembles the child of Sara, 4: 21-31. 
 
 ///. Practical Exhortations, 5 : 1 — 6 : 18. The Galatians 
 are exhorted to stand in their Christian hberty. 5 : 1-12, a 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 177 
 
 liberty that is not license but obedience, 5 : 13-18. The 
 works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit are described 
 that the Galatians may avoid the former and yield the latter, 
 5 : 19-26. The right way of treating the erring and weak is 
 pointed out, and also the relation of what one sows to what 
 one reaps, 5: 1-10. With a brief summary and benediction 
 Paul ends his letter, 6: 11-18. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. The Epistle to the Galatians has a great deal in 
 common with that written to the Romans. They both treat 
 the same general theme, viz. that by the works of the law 
 no man will be justified before God. The same Old Testa- 
 ment passage is quoted in Rom. 4 : 3 and Gal. 3:6; and the 
 same general argument is built on it, that the promise be- 
 longs to those who have faith like that which Abraham had 
 even before he was circumcized. In both Epistles Paul aims 
 at reconciling his admission that the Mosaic law came from 
 God with his contention that it was not binding on Chris- 
 tians. Besides these similarities there are also several verbal 
 agreements and parallel passages in these letters. Of the 
 latter we may mention Rom. 8 : 14-17 and Gal. 4 : 5-7 ; Rom. 
 6 : 6-8 and Gal. 2 : 20 ; Rom. 13 : 13, 14 and Gal. 5 : 16, 17. 
 
 2. But however similar these Epistles may be, there are 
 also striking differences. In the Epistle to the Romans Paul 
 does not directly encounter such as are hostile to the truth 
 or personal adversaries ; hence it is written in a calm spirit 
 and is at most indirectly polemical. This is quite different 
 in the Epistle to the Galatians. There were those in the 
 churches of Galatia who perverted the doctrine of the cross 
 and called the apostolic authority of Paul in question. As a 
 result this is one of the most controversial writings of the 
 apostle ; it is an outburst of indignant feeling, written in a 
 fiery tone. 
 
 3. This Epistle abounds in striking contrasts. Grace 
 is contrasted with the Law in its Jewish application, and 
 especially on its ritual side ; faith is placed in antithetic rela- 
 
178 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 tion to the works of man ; the fruits of the Spirit are set 
 over against the works of the flesh ; circumcision is opposed 
 to the new creation ; and the enmity of the world to the cross 
 of Christ is brought out in strong relief, 
 
 4. The style of this letter is rather unique in that it 
 unites the two extreme affections of Paul's admirable char- 
 acter : severity and tenderness. At times he speaks in a cold 
 severe tone, as if he would scarcely recognize the Galatians 
 as brethren ; then again his whole heart seems to yearn for 
 them. It is hard to imagine anything more solemnly severe 
 than the opening verses of the epistle and 3 : 1-5 ; but it is 
 equally difficult to conceive of something more tenderly 
 affectionate than appeals such as we find in 4: 12-16, 18-20. 
 We find in this letter a beautiful blending of sharp invective 
 and tender pleading. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The authorship of the Epistle need not be subject to 
 doubt, since both the external and the internal evidence are 
 very strong. The letter is found in Marcion's canon, is 
 named in the Muratorian Fragment, and from the time of 
 Irenaeus is regularly quoted by name. But even if the ex- 
 ternal testimony were not so strong, internal evidence would 
 be quite sufficient to establish the Pauline authorship. The 
 letter is self-attested, 1:1, and clearly reveals the character 
 of the great apostle ; it does this all the better, since it is so 
 intensely personal. And though there are some harmonistic 
 difficulties, when we compare 1 : 18 and Acts 9 : 23 ; — 1 : 18, 
 19 and Acts 9:26;— 1:18; 2:1 and Acts 9:26; 11:30; 
 12:25; 15:2, — yet these are not insuperable, and, on the 
 whole, the historical allusions found in the epistle fit in well 
 with the narrative in Acts. 
 
 For a long time Bruno Bauer was the only one to ques- 
 tion the authenticity of this letter, but since 1882 the Dutch 
 school of Loman and Van Manen joined him, followed by 
 Friedrich in Germany. The principal reason for doubting 
 it is the supposed impossibility of so rapid a development 
 
THE EPISTI.E TO THE GALATIANS 179 
 
 of the contrast between Jewish and Pauhne Christianity as 
 this letter presupposes. But the facts do not permit us to 
 doubt that the conflict did occur then, while in the second 
 century it had died out. 
 
 THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 
 
 Among the Epistles of Paul this is the only one that is 
 expressly addressed, not to an individual nor to a single 
 church, but a group of churches, lalq iY.v.Xt](jiat,q iriq 
 TotXa-ziixq, 1 :2. When did the apostle found these Galatian 
 churches ? The answer to that question will necessarily de- 
 pend on our interpretation of the term Galatia, as it is used, 
 by the apostle. There is a twofold use of this appellative, 
 viz. the geographical and the political. Geographically the 
 term Galatia denotes one of the Northern districts of Asia 
 Minor, a district that was bounded on the North by Bithynia 
 and Paplagonia, on the East by the last named province and 
 Pontus, on the West by Phrygia, and on the South by 
 Lycaonia and Capadocia. The same name is employed in an 
 official, political sense, however, to designate the Roman 
 province which included Galatia proper, a part of Phrygia, 
 Pisidia and Lycaonia. This twofold significance of the name 
 Galatia has led to two theories respecting the location of the 
 Galatian churches, viz. the North and the South Galatian 
 theory. The former still represents the prevailing view ; but 
 the latter is accepted by an ever increasing number of 
 scholars. 
 
 According to the North Galatian theory the churches of 
 Galatia were situated in the geographical district indicated 
 by that name. Since about 280 B. C. this territory was in- 
 habited by a Celtic people, consisting of three separate tribes, 
 that had migrated thither from Western Europe, and who 
 constituted shortly before Christ the kingdom of Galatia. 
 They were given to the worship of Cybele "with its wild 
 ceremonial and hideous mutilations ;" and were character- 
 ized by fickleness and great instability of character. "In- 
 constant and quarrelsome," says Lightfoot, Com. p. 14, 
 
180 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 •'treacherous in their dealings, incapable of sustained effort, 
 easily disheartened by failures, such they appear, when 
 viewed on their darker side." The adherents of this theory 
 are generally agreed that Paul, in all probability, founded 
 the Galatian churches in the most important cities of this 
 district, i. e. in the capital Ancyra, in Pessinus, the principal 
 seat of the hideous service of Cybele, and at Tavium. at 
 once a strong fortress and a great commercial center. The 
 South Galatian theory, on the other hand, identifies the 
 Galatian churches with those founded by Paul on his first 
 missionary journey at Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra 
 and Derbe. not excluding any other churches that may have 
 been founded in the province. 
 
 The North Galatian theory is supported by the following 
 considerations : (T ) It is unlikely that Paul would address 
 the inhabitants of Phrygia, Pisidia and Lycaonia as Gala- 
 tians. That name could properly be given only to the Celts, 
 the Gauls that lived in Galatia proper. (2) It is improbable 
 that Paul would have referred to the churches founded by 
 him and Barnabas jointly, as if they had been established by 
 him alone. (3) The character of the Galatians, as it is re- 
 flected in this letter, is in remarkable agreement with that 
 of the Celts whose changeableness was a subject of common 
 comment. (4) Since in the Acts of the Apostles Mysia, 
 Phrygia and Pisidia are all geographical terms, without any 
 political significance, the inference seems perfectly war- 
 ranted that the name Galatia, when it is found alongside of 
 these, is employed in a similar sense. (5) "The expression 
 used in the Acts of Paul's visit to these parts, 'the Phrygian 
 and Galatian country,' shows that the district intended was 
 not Lycaonia and Pisidia, but some region which might be 
 said to belong either to Phrygia or Galatia, or the parts of 
 each contiguous to the other." (Lightfoot). 
 
 Now we are not inclined to underrate the value of these 
 arguments, but yet it seems to us that they are not altogether 
 conclusive. The first one impresses us as a rather gratuitous 
 assumption. Taking in consideration that the Roman prov- 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 181 
 
 ince of Galatia was organized as early as 25 B. C. (Cf. 
 Ramsay, Historical Conim. on the Galatians, p. 103 ff. and 
 J. Weiss, Real-Enc. Art. Kleinasien), and had therefore 
 existed at least 75 years, when Paul wrote this letter, it is 
 hard to see, why he could not address its inhabitants as 
 Galatians. This is true especially in view of the fact that 
 the apostle shows a decided preference for the imperial 
 nomenclature, probably since it was the most honorable. 
 Moreover in writing to the congregations in South Galatia 
 he could not very well use any other name, if he did not 
 wish to address them in a very cumbrous way. — In connec- 
 tion with the second argument we must bear in mind that 
 this Epistle was written after the rupture between Barnabas 
 and Paul, when, so it seems, the labor was divided so that 
 Paul received charge of the South Galatian churches. It 
 was but natural therefore that he should feel the sole 
 responsibility for them. — On the third argument Salmon, 
 who also advocates the North Galatian theory, would wisely 
 place little reliance, because "it may be doubted whether 
 Celts formed the predominating element in the churches of 
 Galatia," and since "men of different nationalities show a 
 common nature." Introd. p. 412. — We do not feel the 
 cogency of the fourth argument for, granted that Luke does 
 use the term Galatia in its geographical sense, this does 
 not prove anything as to Paul's usage. In fact the presump- 
 tion is that the apostle did not so use it. — And the last argu- 
 ment is of rather dubious value, since it rests on an uncertain 
 interpretation of the expressions ttjv ^poyiocw Y.a\ raXaTiy,Y)V 
 Xwpav, Acts 16:, and tyjv raXaTty.rjv Xwpov /.ac ^puyt'ov, 
 Acts 18 : 23. The expression in 16 : 6 can probably also be 
 translated "the Phrygo-Galatic region," referring to that 
 part of the province Galatia that included Antioch and 
 Iconium, and that originally belonged to Phrygia. In 18 : 23, 
 however, where the names are reversed, we must translate, 
 "the Galatic territory and Phrygia," the last name then, 
 according to Ramsay, referring to either Phrygia Galatica 
 or Phrygia Magna. In any event it seems peculiar that 
 
182 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Paul, if in these places he has reference to Galatia proper, 
 should speak of the Galatian territory rather than of Galatia. 
 The North Galatian theory is defended by Weiss, David- 
 son, Jiilicher, Godet and especially by Lightfoot. But the 
 South Galatian theory also has able defenders, such as 
 Renan, Hausrath, Zahn, Baljon and above all Ramsay, whose 
 extended travels and research in Asia Minor, combined with 
 great learning, enable him to speak with authority on ques- 
 tions pertaining to that district. This theory assumes that 
 Paul used the name Galatia in its official political sense, and 
 that the Galatian churches were those of Antioch, Iconium, 
 Lystra and Derbe, e. a. Although we do not feel inclined to 
 speak dogmatically on the subject, it seems to us that this 
 theory deserves preference for the following reasons: (1) 
 It was evidently Paul's uniform custom to denote the loca- 
 tion of the churches which he founded, not by the popular 
 but by the official nomenclature. Thus he speaks of the 
 churches of Asia, I Cor. 16:19; the churches of Macedonia, 
 II Cor. 8:1; and the churches of Achaia, II Cor. 1:1. And 
 that this was not something peculiar to Paul, is proved by 
 the fact that Peter does the same in I Peter 1:1, where the 
 term Galatia is obviously used in its political sense, since all 
 the other names refer to Roman provinces. Even Light- 
 foot admits that this is probably the case. (2) That Paul 
 founded churches in the Roman province of Galatia is a well 
 attested fact, of which we have a detailed narrative in Acts 
 13 and 14; on the other hand, we have no record whatever 
 of his establishing churches in the district of that name. It 
 is certainly not very obvious that Luke in Acts 16 : 6 wants 
 to convey the idea that the apostle established churches in 
 North Galatia. The most that can be said, is that Acts 
 18:23 implies such previous activity on the part of Paul; 
 but even this depends on the correct interpretation of the 
 phrase, "the country of Galatia and Phrygia." Lightfoot 
 himself regards it as "strange that, while we have more or 
 less acquaintance with all the other important churches of 
 St. Paul's founding, not a single name of a person or place, 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 183 
 
 scarcely a single incident of any kind, connected with the 
 apostle's preaching in Galatia, should be preserved either 
 in the history or in the epistle." Comm. p. 20. (3) The 
 Epistle refers to the collection for the Judaean saints, 2 : 10 
 and in I Cor. 16: 1 Paul says that he commanded the 
 churches in Galatia to take part in this. What is the mean- 
 ing of the term Galatia here? From the Epistles of Paul 
 we gather that the churches of Galatia, I Cor. 16: 1, Mace- 
 donia, II Cor. '8:1; 9:2; and Achaia, Rom. 15:26, con- 
 tributed for this cause ; while from Acts 20 : 4 we learn that 
 representatives from Asia also accompanied Paul to Jeru- 
 salem, according to the principle laid down in I Cor. 
 16:3, 4. Now if we take the name Galatia in its official 
 sense here, then all the churches founded by Paul are seen to 
 participate in this work of charity ; while if we interpret it 
 as referring to North Galatia, the churches of Antioch, 
 Iconium, Lystra and Derbe are not mentioned, and the im- 
 pression is created that they did not take part. But this is 
 exceedingly improbable, and the improbability is heightened 
 by the fact that among the representatives accompanying 
 Paul we also find Secundus and Gajus of Derbe and Timo- 
 theus of Lystra. while there are none to represent North 
 Galatia. (4) From Gal. 4:13 we learn that Paul first 
 preached the gospel to the Galatians through infirmity of the 
 flesh. This may mean that Paul, traveling through Galatia, 
 was detained there by sickness, or that he repaired to this 
 district, in order to recuperate from some disease. But the 
 road through North Galatia did not lead to any place, where 
 Paul was likely to go, and its climate was very undesirable 
 for an invalid. On the other hand the supposition is alto- 
 gether natural that the apostle contracted some disease in 
 the marshy lowlands of Pamphylia, and therefore sought 
 restoration in the bracing atmosphere of Pisidian Antioch. 
 (5) In this Epistle Paul repeatedly mentions Barnabas as 
 a person well known to the Galatians, 2:1, 9, 13. Now he 
 was Paul's co-laborer in establishing the South Galatian 
 churches, but did not accompany the apostle on his second 
 
184 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 missionary journey, when the churches of North Galatia are 
 supposed to have been founded. It is true that this argu- 
 ment is somewhat neutraHzed by the fact that Barnabas is 
 mentioned also in I Cor. 9:6; yet this is not altogether the 
 case, since the references in Galatians are more specific. In 
 2 : 9, where Paul seeks to establish his apostleship, he also 
 seems to consider it desirable to vindicate the legitimacy of 
 Barnabas' mission; while in 2: 13 he presupposes that his 
 readers have knowledge of the stand taken by Barnabas 
 with reference to the doctrine of free grace. We conclude, 
 therefore, that the Galatian churches were in all probability 
 those founded by Paul on his first missionary journey in 
 South Galatia. Cf. especially Ramsay, The Church in the 
 Roman Empire pp. 3-112; St. Paul the Traveler and the 
 Roman Citizen pp. 89-151 ; and Zahn's Einleitnng II pp. 
 124-139. 
 
 The Galatian churches were mainly composed of Gen- 
 tile-Christians, but also contained an important Jewish ele- 
 ment. This can be inferred from the narrative in Acts 
 13 and 14. The Gentiles were eager to receive the truth. 
 13:42, 46-48; 14:1, while the Jews were very much 
 divided, some believingly accepting the word of the apostles, 
 13:43; 14: 1, and others rejecting it with scorn and mal- 
 treating the messengers of the cross, 13 : 45, 50 ; 40 : 2, 5, 19. 
 The impression received from the narrative is corroborated 
 by the Epistle, which in the main addresses itself to the 
 Greeks who had not yet accepted circumcision, but had of 
 late been urged to submit to this rite, if not to all the Jew- 
 ish ceremonies, that they might share in the covenant bless- 
 ings of Abraham. The apostle describes the whole congre- 
 gation according to the majojrity of its members, when he 
 says in 4 : 8, "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did 
 service unto them which by nature are no gods." Yet it is 
 evident from 3 : 23-25, 28 that he also bears the Jewish ele- 
 ment in mind. We need not doubt, however, that the major- 
 ity of the Greeks that constituted the Galatian churches had 
 already for some time attended the synagogue of the Jews 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 185 
 
 before they were converted to Christianity, and therefore 
 belonged to the proselytes, the so-called devout persons of 
 whom Acts repeatedly speaks. This may be inferred from 
 Acts 13:43; 14: 1, and from the fact that the apostle pre- 
 supposes a certain familiarity in his readers with the patri- 
 archal history, the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. After Paul had preached the 
 gospel to the Galatians and had seen them well started on 
 the royal road to salvation, Judaeizing teachers entered the 
 field, jealous of their Jewish prerogatives. Probably they 
 were emissaries from Jerusalem that abused a commission 
 entrusted to them, or assumed an authority which they in 
 no way possessed. They did not combat Christianity as 
 such, but desired that it should be led in Judaeistic channels. 
 Every convert to Christianity should submit to circumcision, 
 if not to the whole ceremonial law. Their teaching was 
 quite the opposite of Paul's doctrine, and could only be 
 maintained by discrediting the apostle. Hence they sought 
 to undermine his personal influence and to depreciate his 
 apostolic authority by claiming that he had not been called 
 of God and had received the truth at second-hand from the 
 Twelve. It seems that Paul, when he last visited the Gala- 
 tian churches, had already encountered some such enemies, 
 1 : 9, but he now heard that their influence was increasing, 
 and that they were successful in persuading the Galatians 
 to forsake their Christian privileges, and thus virtually 
 though perhaps unwittingly, to deny Christ who had bought 
 them, 3 : 1 ; 4 : 9-11, 17 ; 5:7, 8, 10. Hence he deems it im- 
 perative to write them a letter. 
 
 The purpose of the author in writing this Epistle was, 
 of course, twofold. In order that his words might be effect- 
 ive, it was necessary, first of all, that he should defend his 
 apostolic authority by proving that God had called him and 
 had imparted the truth of the gospel to him by means of a 
 direct revelation. And in the second place it was incumbent 
 
186 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 on him that he should expose the Judaeistic error by which 
 they were led astray, and should defend the doctrine of 
 justification by faith. 
 
 2. Time and Place. There is great diversity of opinion 
 as to the time, when the Epistle was written. Zahn, Haus- 
 rath, Baljon and Rendall (in The Exp. Gk. Test.) regard 
 it as the earliest of Paul's Epistles, and assume that it was 
 written during the early part of his stay in Corinth in the 
 year 53. Ramsay thinks it was written from Antioch at the 
 end of the second missionary journey, i. e. according to his 
 dating, also in A. D. 53. Weiss. Holtzmann and Godet refer 
 it to the early part of Paul's Ephesian residence, about the 
 year 54 or 55, while Warfield prefers to place it towards the 
 end of this period in A. D. 57. And finally Lightfoot and 
 Salmon agree in dating it after Paul's departure from Ephe- 
 sus. This great variety of opinion proves that the data for 
 determining the time are few and uncertain. Those accept- 
 ing the North Galatian theory are virtually confined to a 
 date after the beginning of Paul's Ephesian residence in the 
 year 54, because the Tupoxepov of Gal. 4:13 seems to imply 
 that the apostle had visited the churches of Galatia twice 
 before he wrote his letter; while it is for the same reason 
 most natural that they who advocate the South Galatian 
 theory, find their terminus a quo in A. D. 52 (McGififert 
 notwithstanding), when Paul had paid a second visit to the 
 South Galatian churches. Assuming, as we do, that this letter 
 was addressed to the churches of South Galatia, we may dis- 
 miss the idea that the apostle wrote it during the third mis- 
 sionary journey, because this would imply that he had 
 already visited them three times, in which case he would 
 have used Tupwtov instead of Tcpoxepov in 4:13. Moreover 
 if Paul wrote it from Ephesus, the question is naturally 
 raised, why he did not visit the Galatians rather than write 
 to them, seeing that he had a great desire to be with them, 
 4 : 20. We are inclined to think that Paul wrote this letter 
 on his second missionary journey, after he had passed into 
 Europe, and probably during the first part of his residence 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 187 
 
 at Corinth, for: (1) Gal. 4:20 implies that Paul was at 
 some distance from the Galatian churches; (2) The letter 
 presupposes that some time had elapsed between its composi- 
 tion and the second visit of the apostle; and (3) The letter 
 contains no greetings from Silas and Timotheus, who were 
 both well known to the Galatians. Evidently they had not 
 yet reached Corinth. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 There has never been any serious doubt respecting the 
 canonicity of this Epistle. It was received as authoritative 
 in all sections of the Church from the very earliest times. 
 There are allusions to its language in the apostolic fathers, 
 Clement of Rome, Poly carp and Ignatius. Justin Martyr, 
 Melito and Athanagoras seem to have known it ; and some 
 of the heretics, especially the Ophites, used it extensively. 
 It is found in Marcion's canon, is named in the Muratorian 
 Fragment, and the Syriac and old Latin versions contain it. 
 From the end of the second century the quotations multiply 
 and increase in directness and definiteness. 
 
 This Epistle too has abiding significance for the Church 
 of God. It is essentially a defense of the doctrine of free 
 grace, of the Christian hberty of New Testament believers 
 over against those that would bring them under the law in 
 its Old Testament application, and would place them under 
 the obligation to submit to circumcision and to participate 
 in the shadowy ceremonies of a by-gone day. The great 
 central exhortation of this letter is : "Stand fast in the 
 liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not 
 tangled again with the yoke of bondage." The way of the 
 ritualist is not the way of life, is the lesson that should be 
 remembered by all those who are inclined to over-emphasize 
 the outward form of religion to the neglect of its spirit and 
 essence. 
 
The Epistle to the Ephesians. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The Epistle to the Ephesians is naturally divided into 
 two parts : 
 
 /. The Doctrinal Part, treating of the Unity of the 
 Church, 1 : 1 — 3: 21. After the address and salutation. 1 : 1, 
 2, the apostle praises God for the great spiritual blessings 
 received in Christ, in whom the Ephesians have been chosen, 
 adopted and sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 1 : 3-14. 
 He renders thanks for these blessings and prays that God 
 may make known to the Church, the glorious body of Christ, 
 who filleth all in all, the glory of its heavenly calling, 1:15- 
 23. Then he compares the past and present condition of the 
 readers, 2: 1-13, and describes Christ's work of reconcilia- 
 tion, resulting in the unity and glory of the Church, 2 : 14-22. 
 Next he enlarges on the mystery of the Gospel and reminds 
 his readers that he has been commissioned by God to make 
 it known to mankind, 3 : 1-13. He prays that they may be 
 strengthened and enabled to comprehend the greatness of 
 the love of Christ to the glory of God, 3 : 14-21. 
 
 //. The Practical Part, containing Exhortations to a 
 Conversation zvorthy of the Calling and Unity of the Read- 
 ers, 4 : 1 — 6 : 20. The readers are exhorted to maintain the 
 unity which God seeks to establish among them by distribut- 
 ing spiritual gifts and instituting different offices, 4:1-16. 
 They should not walk as the Gentiles do, but according to 
 the principle of their new life, shunning the vices of the old 
 man and practicing the virtues of the new, 4: 17-32. In 
 society it must be their constant endeavor to be separate 
 from the evils of the world and to walk circumspectly ; hus- 
 bands and wives should conform in their mutual relation to 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 189 
 
 the image of Christ and the Church ; children should obey 
 their parents and servants their masters, 5 : 1 — 6 : 9. Finally 
 Paul exhorts the readers to be strong in the Lord, having 
 put on the whole armour of God and seeking strength in 
 prayer and supplication ; and he closes his Epistle with some 
 personal intelligence and a twofold salutation, 6 : 10-24. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. This letter is marked first of all by its general char- 
 acter. It has this in common with the Epistle to the Romans, 
 that it partakes somewhat of the nature of a treatise ; yet it 
 is as truly a letter, as any one of the other writings of Paul. 
 Deissmann correctly remarks, however, that "the personal 
 element is less prominent in it than the impersonal." St. 
 Paul, p. 23. The letter does not presuppose, like those to 
 the Corinthians and to the Galatians, some special clearly 
 marked historical situation, does not refer to any historical 
 incidents known to us from other sources, except the im- 
 prisonment of Paul, and contains no personal greetings. The 
 only person mentioned is Tychicus, the bearer of the letter. 
 It treats in a profound and sublime manner of the unity of 
 all believers in Jesus Christ, and of the holy conversation 
 in Christ that must issue from it. 
 
 2. It is also characterized by its great similarity to the 
 letter sent to the Colossians. This is so great that some 
 critics have regarded it as merely a revised and enlarged 
 edition of the latter ; but this idea must be dismissed alto- 
 gether, because the difference between them is too great and 
 fundamental. The Epistle to the Colossians is more personal 
 and controversial than that to the Ephesians ; the former 
 treats of Christ, the Head of the Church, while the latter is 
 mainly concerned with the Church, the body of Christ. Not- 
 withstanding this, however, the resemblance of the two is 
 readily observed. There is good reason for calling them 
 twin letters. In many cases the same words and forms of 
 expression are found in both ; the thought is often identical, 
 
190 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 while the language differs ; and the general structure of the 
 Epistles is very similar. 
 
 3. The style of the letter is in general very exalted, and 
 forms a great contrast with that of the epistle to the Gala- 
 tians. Dr. Sanday says : "With few exceptions scholars 
 of all different schools who have studied and interpreted this 
 epistle have been at one in regarding it as one of the sublim- 
 est and most profound of all the New Testament writings. 
 In the judgment of many who are well entitled to deliver 
 an opinion, it is the grandest of all the Pauline letters." 
 The Exp. Gk. Test. IIJ p. 208. The style is characterized 
 by a succession of participial clauses and dependent sen- 
 tences that flow on like a torrent, and by lengthy digressions. 
 One is impressed by its grandeur, but often finds it difficult 
 to follow the apostle as he soars to giddy heights. The lan- 
 guage is further remarkable in that it contains a series of 
 terms with far-reaching significance, such as the council 
 (^ouXtq) of God, His will (GeXi^pLa), His purpose (TrpoOeat?), 
 His good pleasure (euSoxcos), etc., and also a great 
 number of aiua^ Xeyoixeva. According to Holtzmann 
 there are 76 words that are peculiar to this epistle, of which 
 18 are found nowhere else in the Bible, 17 do not occur in 
 the rest of the New Testament, and 51 are absent from all 
 the other Pauline letters (the Pastoral epistles being ex- 
 cepted). Einleitung p. 259. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The historical evidence for the Pauline authorship of the 
 Epistle is exceptionally strong. Some scholars claim that 
 Ignatius even speaks of Paul as the author, when he says 
 in his Epistle to the Ephesians : " — who (referring back 
 to Paul) throughout all his Epistle (ev iraar; extaxoXT]) 
 makes mention of you in Christ Jesus." But it is very doubt- 
 ful, whether the rendering, "in all the Epistle," should not 
 rather be, "in every Epistle." Marcion ascribed the letter 
 to Paul, and in the Muratorian Fragment the church of 
 Ephesus is mentioned as one of the churches to which Paul 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 191 
 
 wrote Epistles. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria refer 
 to Paul by name as the author of this letter and quote it as 
 his, while Tertullian mentions Ephesus among the churches 
 that had apostolic Epistles. 
 
 Internal evidence also points to Paul as the author. In 
 the opening verse of the Epistle the writer is named, and the 
 structure of the letter is characteristically Pauline. In the 
 first place it contains the usual blessing and thanksgiving; 
 this is followed in the regular way by the body of the epistle, 
 consisting of a doctrinal and a practical part ; and finally it 
 ends with the customary salutations. The ideas developed 
 are in perfect agreement with those found in the letters 
 which we already discussed, although in certain particulars 
 they advance beyond them, as f . i. in the theological concep- 
 tion of the doctrine of redemption ; and in the doctrine of 
 the Church as the body of Christ with its various organs. 
 The style of the Epistle too is Pauline. It is true that it 
 J differs considerably from that of Romans, Corinthians and 
 Galatians, but it shows great affinity with the style of Colos- 
 sians and of the Pastorals. 
 
 Notwithstanding all the evidence in favor of the Pauline 
 authorship of this Epistle, its authenticity has been ques- 
 tioned by several New Testament scholars. De Wette, Baur 
 and his school, Davidson, Holtzmann and Weizsacker are 
 among the most prominent. The idea is that some later, 
 probably a second century writer impersonated the great ' 
 apostle. The principal grounds on which the Epistle was 
 attacked, are the following : ( 1 ) It is so like the Epistle to 
 the Colossians that it cannot be an original document. De 
 Wette came to the conclusion that it was a "verbose ampli- 
 fication" of the Epistle to the Colossians. Holtzmann, find- 
 ing that in some parts the priority must be ascribed to 
 Ephesians rather than to Colossians, advocated the theory 
 that Paul wrote an Epistle to the Colossians shorter than 
 our canonical letter ; that a forger, guided by this, fabricated 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians ; and that this plagiarist was so 
 enamoured with his work that he, in turn, revised the Colos- 
 
192 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 sian Epistle in accordance with it. (2) The vocabulary and 
 in general the style of the Epistle is so different from that 
 of the other letters of Paul as to give it an un-Pauline stamp. 
 This objection is based partly, though not primarily, on the 
 numerous aTta^ Xexofieva ; but especially on the use of 
 Pauline words in a new sense, such as (jLuaxiQptov, ot^ovoiJLca 
 and TceptTTOtT^aK; ; on the expression of certain ideas by 
 terms that differ from those employed elsewhere by the 
 apostle for the same purpose, as f. i. 6 Oeog toy xupt'ou 
 ifj[jL(ov 'Iyjuou xptfJTOu, 1 :17, and above all toI? cxyioiq 
 aTCoaxoXoi? /.at xpo^-OTat?, 3:S, which, it is said, smacks of 
 a later time, when the apostles were held in great venera- 
 tion, and does not agree with the apostle's estimate of him- 
 self in 3 : 8 ; and on the fact that, as Davidson puts it, "there 
 is a fulness of expression which approaches the verbose." 
 (3) The line of thought in this letter is very different from 
 that of the recognized Pauline Epistles. The law is con- 
 templated, not in its moral and religious value, but only as 
 the cause of enmity and separation between Jew and Gen- 
 tile ; the death of Christ is not dwelt on as much as in the 
 other Epistles, while his exaltation is made far more promi- 
 nent ; the parousia is placed in the distant future ; and in- 
 stead of the diversity the unity of the Church in Jesus Christ 
 if emphasized. (4) The Epistle contains traces of Gnostic 
 and even of Montanist influences in such words as atwve?, 
 xXY]po)pLa and Ysveat. (5) The letter, along with the writ- 
 ings of John, evidently aims at reconciling the Petrine and 
 Pauline factions, and therefore emphasizes the unity of the 
 Church. This unmistakably points to the second century 
 as the time of its composition. 
 
 But these objections are not sufficient to discredit the 
 Pauline authorship. Such men as Lightfoot, Ellicott, Eadie, 
 Meyer, Hodge, Reuss, Godet, Weiss, Baljon, Zahn, Sanday 
 and Abbot defend it. The similarity of the Epistle and that 
 to the Colossians is most naturally explained by the fact that 
 the two were written by the same author, at about the same 
 time, under similar circumstances, and to neighboring con- 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 193 
 
 gregations. The idea that it is but a copy of the Epistle 
 to the Colossians is now generally given up, since it appears 
 that many passages favor the priority of Ephesians. The 
 theory of Holtzmann is too complicated to command serious 
 consideration. This whole argument is very peculiar in view 
 of the following ones. While it derives its point from the 
 Epistle's similarity to Colossians, their cogency depends on 
 the unlikeness of this letter to the other Epistles of Paul. 
 The linguistic features to which the critics call attention 
 are not such as to disprove the Pauline authorship. If the 
 (ZTca^ XeYOjJLSva found in this letter prove that it is un- 
 Pauline, we must come to a similar conclusion with respect 
 to the Epistle to the Romans, for this contains a hundred 
 words that are peculiar. The terms that are said to be used 
 in a new sense dwindle into insignificance on closer inspec- 
 tion. And of the expressions that are held to be unusual 
 only the one in 3 : 5 has any argumentative force. And even 
 this need not cause surprise, especially not, if we take in 
 consideration that Paul designates believers in general as 
 (ZYtot, and that in this place he applies this epithet at once 
 to the apostles and to the prophets. And further we may 
 ask, whether it is reasonable to demand that such a fertile 
 mind as that of Paul should always express itself in the same 
 way. The argument derived from the line of thought in this 
 Epistle simply succeeds in proving, what is perfectly obvi- 
 ous, that the apostle looks at the work of redemption from 
 a point of view different from that of the other letters, that 
 he views it sub specie aeternitatis. It is now generally ad- 
 mitted that the supposed traces of Gnosticism and Montan- 
 ism have no argumentative value, since the terms referred 
 to do not have the second century connotation in this Epistle. 
 Similarly that other argument of the Tubingen school, that 
 the letter was evidently written to heal the breach between 
 the Judaeistic and the liberal factions of the Church, is now 
 discarded, because it was found to rest on an unhistorical 
 basis. 
 
194 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 DESTINATION. 
 
 There is considerable uncertainty respecting the destina- 
 tion of this Epistle. The question is whether the words iv 
 'E(p£a<p in 1 :1 are genuine. They are indeed found in all 
 the extant MSS. with the exception of three, viz. the im- 
 portant MSS. Aleph and B and codex 67. The testimony 
 of Basil is that the most ancient MSS. in his day did not con- 
 tain these words. Tertullian informs us that Marcion gave 
 the Epistle the title ad Laodicenos; and Origen apparently 
 did not regard the words as genuine. All the old Versions 
 contain them ; but, on the other hand, Westcott and Hort 
 say : "Transcriptional evidence strongly supports the testi- 
 mony of documents against sv 'E^eato." New Testament 
 in Greek, Appendix p. 123. Yet there was in the Church an 
 early and, except as regards Marcion, universal tradition 
 that the Epistle was addressed to the Ephesians. Present 
 day scholars quite generally reject the words, although they 
 are still defended by Meyer, Davidson, Eadie and Hodge. 
 The conclusion to which the majority of scholars come is, 
 either that the Epistle was not written to the Ephesians at 
 all, or that it was not meant for them only, but also for the 
 other churches in Asia. 
 
 Now if we examine the internal evidence, we find that it 
 certainly favors the idea that this Epistle was not intended 
 for the Ephesian church exclusively, for ( 1 ) It contains no 
 references to the peculiar circumstances of the Ephesian 
 church, but might be addressed to any of the churches 
 founded by Paul. (2) There are no salutations in it from 
 Paul or his companions to any one in the Ephesian church. 
 (3) The Epistle contemplates only heathen Christians, while 
 the church at Ephesus was composed of both Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, 2: 11, 12; 4: 17; 5 : 8. (4) To these proofs is some- 
 times added that 1:15 and 3 : 2 make it appear as if Paul 
 and his readers were not acquainted with each other ; but 
 this is not necessarily implied in these passages. 
 
 In all probability the words sv 'Etpeaoi were not origin- 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 195 
 
 ally in the text. But now the question naturally arises, how 
 we must interpret the following words xotg (ZYtot? toI<; 
 ouatv xat TCtaxol? etc. Several suggestions have been 
 made. Some would read : "The saints who are really 
 such ;" others : "the samts existing and faithful in Jesus 
 Christ ;" still others : "the saints who are also faithful." But 
 none of these interpretations is satisfactory : the first two 
 are hardly grammatical ; and the last one implies that there 
 are also saints who are not faithful, and that the Epistle was 
 written for a certain select view. Probably the hypothesis 
 first suggested by Ussher is correct, that a blank was origi- 
 nally left after tot? oujtv, and that Tychicus or someone 
 else was to make several copies of this Epistle and to fill 
 in the blank with the name of the church to which each copy 
 was to be sent. The fact that the church of Ephesus was 
 the most prominent of the churches for which it was in- 
 tended, will account for the insertion of the words ev 'E<peff(j) 
 in transcribing the letter, and for the universal tradition 
 regarding its destination. Most likely, therefore, this was a 
 circular letter, sent to several churches in Asia, such as those 
 of Ephesus, Laodicea, Hierapolis, e. a. Probably it is iden- 
 tical with the Epistle iv. AaoStxta?, Col. 4:16. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. There is nothing in the 
 Epistle to indicate that it was called forth by any special 
 circumstances in the churches of Asia. To all appearances 
 it was merely the prospective departure of Tychicus and 
 Onesimus for Colossae, 6: 21, 22 ; Col. 4: 7-9, combined with 
 the intelligence that Paul received as to the faith of the 
 readers in the Lord Jesus, and regarding their love to all 
 the saints, 1 : 15, that led to its composition, 
 
 ■ Since the Epistle was not called forth by any special 
 historical situation, the purpose of Paul in writing it was 
 naturally of a general character. It seems as if what he had 
 heard of "the faith of the readers in the Lord Jesus, and 
 
196 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 of their love to all the saints," involuntarily fixed his thought 
 on the unity of believers in Christ, and therefore on that 
 grand edifice, — the Church of God. He sets forth the origin, 
 the development, the unity and holiness, and the glorious 
 end of that mystical body of Christ. He pictures the trans- 
 cendent beauty of that spiritual temple, of which Christ is 
 the chief cornerstone and the saints form the superstructure. 
 
 2. Time and Place. From 3 : 1 and 4 : 1 we notice that 
 Paul was a prisoner, when he wrote this Epistle. From the 
 mention of Tychicus as the bearer of it in 6:21, compared 
 with Col. 4:7 and Philemon 13, we may infer that these 
 three letters were written at the same time. And it has 
 generally been thought that they were composed during the 
 Roman imprisonment of Paul. There are a few scholars, 
 however, such as Reuss and Meyer, who believe that they 
 date from the imprisonment at Caesarea, A. D. 58-60. Meyer 
 urges this view on the following grounds : ( 1 ) It is more 
 natural and probable that the slave Onesimus had run away 
 as far as Caesarea than that he had made the long journey 
 to Rome. (2) If these Epistles had been sent from Rome, 
 Tychicus and Onesimus would have arrived at Ephesus first 
 and then at Colossse. But in that case the apostle would 
 most likely have mentioned Onesimus along with Tychicus 
 in Ephesians, like he does in Collossians 4:9, to insure the 
 runaway slave a good reception ; which was not necessary 
 however, if they reached Colossse first, as they would in 
 coming from Caesarea, since Onesimus would remain there. 
 (3) In Eph. 6:21 the expression, "But that ye also may 
 know my affairs," implies that there were others who had 
 already been informed of them, viz. the Collossians, Col. 
 4:8, 9. (4) Paul's request to Philemon in Philem. 22, to 
 prepare a lodging for him, and that too, for speedy use, 
 favors the idea that the apostle was much nearer Colossae 
 than the far distant Rome. Moreover Paul says in Phil. 
 2 : 24 that he expected to proceed to Macedonia after his 
 release from the Roman imprisonment. 
 
 But these arsfuments are not conclusive. To the first one 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 197 
 
 we may reply that Onesimus would be far safer from the 
 pursuit of the fugitivarii in a large city like Rome than in a 
 smaller one such as Csesarea. The second argument loses its 
 force, if this Epistle was a circular letter, written to the 
 Christians of Asia in general. The /.at in Eph. 6:21 is 
 liable to different interpretations, but finds a sufficient ex- 
 planation in the fact that the Epistle to the Colossians was 
 written first. And in reply to the last argument we would 
 say that Philem. 22 does not speak of a speedy coming, and 
 that the apostle may have intended to pass through Mace- 
 donia to Colossae. 
 
 It seems to us that the following considerations favor 
 the idea that the three Epistles under consideration were 
 written from Rome : ( 1 ) From Eph. 6 : 19, 20 we infer that 
 Paul had sufficient liberty during his imprisonment to preach 
 the gospel. Now this ill accords with what we learn of the 
 imprisonment at Csesarea from Acts 24 :23, while it perfectly 
 agrees with the situation in which Paul found himself at 
 Rome according to Acts 28: 16. (2) The many companions 
 of Paul, viz. Tychicus, Aristarchus, Marcus, Justus, 
 Epaphras, Luke and Demas, quite different from those that 
 accompanied him on his last journey to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 
 20:4), also point to Rome, where the apostle might utilize 
 them for evangelistic work. Cf. Phil. 1 : 14. (3) In all 
 probability Philippians belongs to the same period as the 
 other Epistles of the imprisonment ; and if this is the case, 
 the mention of Caesar's household in Phil. 4 : 22 also points 
 to Rome. (4) Tradition also names Rome as the place of 
 composition. Ephesians must probably be dated about A. 
 D. 62. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The early Church leaves no doubt as to the canonicity of 
 this Epistle. It is possible that we have the first mention of 
 it in the New Testament itself, Col. 4 : 16. The writings of 
 Ignatius, Polycarp, Herman and Hippolytus contain pass- 
 ages that seem to be derived from our Epistle. Marcion, 
 
198 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria 
 and TertuUian clearly testify to its early recognition and use. 
 There is not a dissentient voice in all antiquity. 
 
 The particular significance of the Epistle lies in its 
 teaching regarding the unity of the Church : Jews and Gen- 
 tiles are one in Christ. It constantly emphasizes the fact 
 that believers have their unity in the Lord and therefore 
 contains the expression "in Christ" about twenty times. The 
 unity of the faithful originates in their election, since God 
 the Father chose them in Christ before the foundation of 
 the world, 1:4; it finds expression in a holy conversation, 
 sanctified by true love, that naturally results from their liv- 
 ing relation with Christ, in whom they are builded together 
 for a habitation of God in the Spirit ; and it issues in their 
 coming in the "unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of 
 the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the 
 stature of the fulness of Christ." The great practical ex- 
 hortation of the Epistle is that believers live worthily of 
 their union with Christ, since they were sometime darkness, 
 but are now light in the Lord, and should therefore walk as 
 children of light, 5 : 8. 
 
The Epistle to the Philippians. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Phihppians we may distinguish five 
 parts : 
 
 /. Paul's Account of his Condition, 1 : 1-26. The apostle 
 addresses the Philippians in the usual way, 1, 2; and then 
 informs them of his gratitude for their participation in the 
 work of the Gospel, of his prayer for their increase in spirit- 
 ual strength and labor, of the fact that even his imprison- 
 ment was instrumental in spreading the Gospel, and of his 
 personal feelings and desires, 3-26. 
 
 //. His Exhortation to Imitate Christ, 1 : 27 — 2 : 18. He 
 exhorts the Philippians to strive after unity by exercising 
 the necessary self-denial, 1 : 27 — 2 : 4 ; points them to the 
 pattern of Christ, who humiliated himself and was glorified 
 by God, 2:5-11; and expresses his desire that they follow 
 the example of their Lord, 12-18. 
 
 ///. Information respecting Paul's Efforts in behalf of 
 the Philippians, 2 : 19-30. He intends to send Timotheus to 
 them that he may know of their condition, and therefore 
 commends this worthy servant of Christ to them, 19-23 ; 
 and though he trusted that he himself would come shortly 
 he now sends Epaphroditus back to them, and bespeaks a 
 good reception for him, 24-30. 
 
 IV. Warnings against Iiidaeism and Antinomian Error, 
 3:1-21. The apostle warns his readers against Judgeistic 
 zealots that boasted in the flesh, pointed to his own example 
 in renouncing his fleshly prerogatives that he might gain 
 Christ and experience the power of His resurrection, and in 
 striving after perfection, 1 :15. By way of contrast this in- 
 
200 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 duces him to warn them also for the example of those whose 
 lives are worldly and licentious, 16-21. 
 
 V. Final Exhortations and Acknozvledgment, 4:1-23. 
 He urges the Philippians to avoid all dissension, 1-3; ex- 
 horts them to joyfulness, freedom from care, and the pursuit 
 of all good things, 4-9 ; gratefully acknowledges their gifts, 
 invoking a blessing on their love, 10-20 ; and closes his 
 Epistle with salutation and benediction, 21-23. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. The Epistle to the Philippians is one of the most per- 
 sonal of Paul's letters, resembling in that respect II Corin- 
 thians. It has been called the most letter-like of all the 
 writings of Paul, and may be compared in this respect 
 with I Thessalonians and Philemon. The personal 
 note is very marked throughout the Epistle. There is not 
 much dogma, and what little is found is introduced for prac- 
 tical purposes. This holds true even with reference to the 
 classical passage in 2:6-11. The apostle, with the prospect 
 of an early martyrdom before him, yet not without hope of 
 a speedy release, opens his heart to his most beloved congre- 
 gation. He speaks of the blessings that attend his labors at 
 Rome, of the strait in which he finds himself, and expresses 
 his desire to remain with them. He manifests his love for 
 the Philippians, shows himself concerned for their spiritual 
 welfare, and expresses his profound gratitude for their sup- 
 port. Though in bonds, he rejoices, and bids the readers be 
 joyful. The tone of joyous gratitude rings through the en- 
 tire Epistle. 
 
 2. The letter is in no sense a controversial one. There 
 are in it no direct polemics ; there is very little that has to 
 any degree a polemical character. The apostle warns against 
 errorists that are without the church, but might disturb its 
 peace, and forestalls their attacks ; he hints at dissensions, 
 most likely of a practical nature, in the congregation, and 
 admonishes the readers to be peaceful and self-denying ; but 
 he never once assumes a polemical attitude, like he does in 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 201 
 
 Corinthians or Galatians. Stronger still, the Epistle is singu- 
 larly free from all denunciation and reproof ; it is written 
 throughout in a lauditory spirit. The apostle finds Httle to 
 chide and much to praise in the Philippian church. 
 
 3. The address of the Epistle is peculiar in that it names 
 not only, "the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi," 
 but adds, "with the bishops and deacons." In that respect 
 it stands in a class by itself. The greetings at the end of the 
 Epistle are also unique. On the one hand they are very 
 general, while, on the other, "the household of Caesar" is 
 singled out for special mention. 
 
 4. As to style, Alford reminds us, that this letter, like 
 all those in which Paul writes with fervor, "is discontinuous 
 and abrupt, passing rapidly from one theme to another ; full 
 of earnest exhortation, affectionate warnings, deep and won- 
 derful settings-forth of his individual spiritual condition and 
 feelings, of the state of the Christian and of the sinful 
 world, of the loving councils of our Father respecting us, 
 and the self-sacrifice and triumph of our Redeemer." Pro- 
 legomena Sec. IV. There are constant expressions of affec- 
 tion, such as dYaTUYjTOt and aSsX^ot. Notice especially 4:1, 
 "Therefore my brethren, my dearly beloved and longed for, 
 my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly 
 beloved." 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The Pauline authorship of this Epistle is established as 
 well as anything can be. We probably find the first refer- 
 ence to it in the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, where 
 we read : "The glorious Paul who, being personally among 
 you, taught you exactly and surely the word of truth ; who 
 also, being absent, wrote you letters (or, a letter) which you 
 have only to study to be edified in the faith that has been 
 given you." The passage does not necessarily refer to more 
 than one letter. Our Epistle formed a part of Marcion's 
 collection, is mentioned in the Muratorian canon, is found 
 in the Syriac and old Latin Versions, and is quoted by 
 
202 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and many 
 others. 
 
 And this testimony of antiquity is clearly borne out by 
 the evidence furnished by the Epistle itself. It is self- 
 attested and has, at the beginning, the usual Pauline blessing 
 and thanksgiving. Above all, however, it is like II Corin- 
 thians in that the personality of the apostle is so strongly 
 stamped on it as to leave little room for doubt. The histori- 
 cal circumstances which the Epistle presupposes, the type 
 of thought which it contains, the language in which it is 
 couched, and the character which it reveals, — it is all 
 Pauline. 
 
 The evidence in its favor is so strong that its authenticity 
 has been generally admitted, even by radical critics. Of 
 course, Baur and the majority of his school rejected it, but 
 even Hilgenfeld, Jiilicher and Pfleiderer accept it as Pauline. 
 The great majority of New Testament scholars regard the 
 objections of Baur as frivolous, as f. i. that the mention of 
 bishops and deacons points to a post-Pauline stage of ecclesi- 
 astical organization; that there is no originality in the 
 Epistle ; that it contains evident traces of Gnosticism ; that 
 the doctrine of justification which it sets forth is not that of 
 Paul ; and that the Epistle aims at reconciling the opposing 
 parties of the second century, typified by Euodia and 
 Syntyche. 
 
 Of late Holsten has taken up the cudgels against the 
 genuineness of this letter. Dismissing several of the argu- 
 ments of Baur as irrelevant, he bases his attack especially on 
 the Christological and Soteriological differences that he dis- 
 cerns between this Epistle and the other writings of Paul. 
 The most important points to which he refers are these : (1) 
 The idea of the pre-existent Christ in 2:6-11 does not agree 
 with that found in I Cor. 15 : 45-49. According to the first 
 passage the manhood of Christ begins with his incarnation ; 
 according to the second, He was even in his pre-existence 
 "a. heavenly man." (2) There is a glaring contradiction 
 between 3 : 6, where the writer says that he was blameless 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 203 
 
 as touching the righteousness which is in the law, and Rom. 
 7:21, where the apostle declares: " — when I would do 
 good, evil is present." (3) The doctrine of forensic, im- 
 puted righteousness is replaced by that of an infused righte- 
 ousness in 3:9-11. (4) The writer shows a singular indif- 
 ference to the objective truth of his Gospel in 1 : 15-18, an 
 attitude which compares strangely with that of Paul in II 
 Cor. 11 : 1-4, and especially in Gal. 1 : 8, 9. 
 
 But these objections are not of sufficient weight to dis- 
 prove the Pauline authorship. In I Cor. 15 the apostle does 
 not speak of the pre-existent Christ, but of Christ as he will 
 appear at the parousia in a glorified body. With what Paul 
 says in 3 : 6 we may compare Gal. 1 : 14. In both places he 
 speaks of himself from the standpoint of the Jew who re- 
 gards the law merely as an external carnal commandment. 
 From that point of view he might consider himself blame- 
 less, but it was quite different, if he contemplated the law in 
 its deep spiritual sense. It is not true that Paul substitutes 
 an infused for an imputed righteousness in this Epistle. He 
 clearly speaks of the latter in 2 : 9, and then by means of an 
 infinitive of purpose passes on to speak of the subjective 
 righteousness of life. The persons spoken of in 1 : 15-18 
 are not said to preach a Gospel different from that of the 
 apostle ; they preached Christ, but from impure motives. 
 Hence they can not be compared with the adversaries of 
 whom Paul speaks in Corinthians and Galatians. To these 
 he probably refers in 3 : 2. Schiirer says : "The arguments 
 of Holsten are such that one might sometimes believe them 
 due to a slip of the pen." 
 
 THE CHURCH AT PHILIPPI. 
 
 The city of Philippi was formerly called Crenides, and 
 derived its later name from Philip, the king of Macedonia, 
 who rebuilt it and made it a frontier city between his king- 
 dom and Thrace. It was situated on the river Gangites and 
 on the important Egnatian highway that connected the 
 Adriatic with the Hellespont. After the defeat of his 
 
204 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 enemies Octavius about 42 B. C. determined on Philippi 
 as one of the places, where Roman soldiers who had served 
 their time were to dwell. He constituted it a Roman colony, 
 with the special privilege of the jus Italicum, which included 
 "(1) exemption from the oversight of the provincial gover- 
 nors; (2) immunity from the poll and property taxes; and 
 (3) right to property in the soil regulated by Roman law." 
 These privileges, no doubt, attracted many colonists, so that 
 Philippi soon became a city of considerable size. It is de- 
 scribed in Acts 16 : 12 as, "the chief city of that part of 
 Macedonia and a colony." 
 
 To that city Paul first came, when about the year 52, in 
 obedience to the vision of the Macedonian man, he passed 
 from Asia into Europe. This was in harmony with his gen- 
 eral policy of preaching in the main centers of the Roman 
 empire. Apparently the Jews were not numerous in 
 Philippi : there was no synagogue, so that the small band of 
 Jews and proselytes simply repaired to the river side for 
 prayer; and one of the charges brought against Paul and 
 Silas was that they were Jews. At the place of prayer the 
 missionaries addressed the assembled women, and were in- 
 strumental in converting Lydia who, with characteristic 
 generosity, immediately received them in her house. We 
 read no more of the blessings that crowned their labors 
 there, but find that on their departure there was a company 
 of brethren to whom they spoke words of comfort. 
 
 Little can be said regarding the composition of the 
 Philippian church. In the narrative of its founding we find 
 no specific mention of Jews, although the assembly by the 
 river points to their presence. However the fact that there 
 was no synagogue, and that the enemies contemptuously 
 emphasized the Jewish nationality of the missionaries leads 
 us to think that they were few and greatly despised. It may 
 be that those who did live there had, under the pressure of 
 their environment, already lost many of their distinctive 
 features. The presumption is that some of them accepted 
 the teaching of Paul and Silas, but we cannot tell how 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 205 
 
 large a proportion of the church they formed. In all proba- 
 bility they were a small minority and caused no friction in 
 the congregation. Paul does not even refer to them in his 
 letter, much less condemn their Jewish tenets, like he does 
 the errors of the false brethren at Corinth and in the Gala- 
 tian churches. The adversaries of whom he speaks in 3 : 2 
 were evidently outside of the church. On the whole the 
 Philippian church was an ideal one, consisting of warm- 
 hearted people, diligent in the work of the Lord, and faith- 
 fully devoted to their apostle. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. The immediate occasion of 
 this Epistle was a contribution brought by Epaphroditus 
 from the Philippian church. They had often sent the apostle 
 similar tokens of their love (cf. 4: 15, 16; II Cor. 11:9), 
 and now, after they had for some time lacked the opportun- 
 ity to communicate with him, 4: 10, they again ministered 
 to his wants. From over-exertion in the work of God's 
 Kingdom their messenger was taken sick at Rome. On his 
 recovery Paul immediately sends him back to Philippi, in 
 order to allay all possible fears as to his condition ; and 
 utilizes this opportunity to send the Philippians a letter. 
 
 His purpose in writing this Epistle was evidently four- 
 fold. In the first place he desired to express his gratitude 
 for the munificence of the Philippians, especially because it 
 testified to the abundance of their faith. In the second place 
 he wished to give utterance to his sincere love for the Philip- 
 pian church that constituted his crown in the Lord. In the 
 third place he felt it incumbent on him to warn them against 
 the dangers that were present within the fold, and the 
 enemies that were threatening them from without. Appar- 
 ently there was some dissension in the church, 1 : 27 — 2 : 17; 
 4:2, 3, but, in all probability this was not of a doctrinal 
 character, but rather consisted of personal rivalries and divi- 
 sions among some of the church members. In 3 : 2 the 
 apostle most likely referred to the Judseizing Christians that 
 
206 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 traveled about to make proselytes, and also threatened the 
 church of Philippi. Finally he desires to exhort his most 
 beloved church to be joyful, notwithstanding his imprison- 
 ment, and to lead a truly Christian life. 
 
 2. Time and Place. Like the Epistle to the Ephesians 
 that to the Philippians was written at Rome. While several 
 scholars assign the former to the Csesarean captivity, very 
 few refer the latter to that period. The apostle's evident 
 residing in some great center of activity, the many friends 
 that surrounded him, his joyful expectation of being set free 
 soon, his mention of the prsetorium, 1 : 13, which may be the 
 praetorian guard (so most commentators), or the supreme 
 imperial court (so Mommsen and Ramsay), and the greet- 
 ings of Caesar's household, — all point to Rome. 
 
 The Epistle was written, therefore, between the years 
 61-63. The only remaining question is, whether it was com- 
 posed before or after the other three Epistles of the captiv- 
 ity. The prevailing view is that Philippians is the last of 
 the group. This view is supported by the following argu- 
 ments : (1) The apostle's words in 1 : 12 seem to imply that 
 a long period of imprisonment has already elapsed. (2) A 
 rather long time was required in the communications be- 
 tween Rome and Philippi indicated in the letter. The 
 Philippians had heard of Paul's imprisonment, had sent 
 Epaphroditus to Rome, had heard of the latter's illness 
 there, and of this their messenger, in turn, had received intel- 
 ligence. Four journeys are, therefore, implied. (3) Paul 
 anticipates that his case will soon come up for decision, and 
 although uncertain as to the outcome, he somewhat expects 
 a speedy release. These arguments are not absolutely con- 
 clusive, but certainly create a strong presumption in favor 
 of dating the Epistle after the other three. 
 
 Bleek was inclined to regard Philippians as the earliest 
 of the Epistles of the captivity. This view found a strong 
 defender in Lightfoot, who is followed by Farrar in his St. 
 Paul. Lightfoot defends his position by pointing to the 
 similarity of this Epistle to Romans, which implies, accord- 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 207 
 
 ing to him, that it immediately follows this in order of time ; 
 and to the fact that in this Epistle we have the last trace of 
 Paul's Judaeistic controversy, while in Ephesians and Colos- 
 sians he begins to deal with an incipient Gnosticism, and his 
 teachings respecting the Church bear a close resemblance 
 and are intimately related to the views presented in the pas- 
 torals. These Epistles, therefore, represent a further 
 developmnt in the doctrine of the Church. But these proofs 
 do not carry conviction, since the character of Paul's 
 Epistles was not necessarily determined by the order in 
 which they were written, and the apostle did not write as 
 one who is presenting his system of thought to the world in 
 successive letters. His Epistles were called forth and deter- 
 mined by special situations. And the question may be asked, 
 whether it seems plausible that any considerable develop- 
 ment of doctrine should take place within the course of at 
 most a year and a half. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The Epistle to the Philippians is not quoted as much as 
 some of the preceding ones, which is probably due to the 
 fact that it contains little doctrinal matter. Notwithstand- 
 ing this its canonicity is well established. There are traces 
 of its language in Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Polycarp, 
 addressing the Philippians, speaks more than once of Paul's 
 writing to them. The Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr 
 and Theophilus contain references to our letter. In the 
 Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons Phil. 2 : 6 is 
 quoted. Marcion has it and the Muratorian canon speaks of 
 it. And it is often directly quoted and ascribed to Paul by 
 Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. 
 
 Though the Epistle is primarily of a practical nature, it 
 has also great and abiding dogmatic significance. It con- 
 tains the classical passage on the important doctrine of the 
 kenosis of Christ, 2:6-11. Aside from this, however, its 
 great permanent value is of a practical character. It reveals 
 to us the ideal relation between Paul and his Philippian 
 
208 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 church, a relation such as the church of God should con- 
 stantly seek to realize : he, sedulously seeking to promote 
 the spiritual welfare of those entrusted to his care, even in 
 a time of dire distress ; and they, though possessing no great 
 wealth, willingly and lovingly ministering to the natural 
 wants of their beloved apostle. It points us to Christ as the 
 pattern of that self-denial and humiliation that should 
 always characterize his followers. It comes to us with the 
 grand exhortation, enforced by the example of the great 
 apostle, to press forward for "the prize of the high calling 
 of God in Christ Jesus." And finally it pictures us the 
 Christian satisfied and joyful, even when the shades of night 
 are falling. 
 
The Epistle to the Colossians. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The Epistle to the Colossians may best be divided into 
 two parts : 
 
 /. The Doctrinal Part, emphasizing the unique Signifi- 
 cance of Christ, 1 : 1 — 2 : 23. Paul begins the letter with 
 the apostolic blessing, the usual thanksgiving and a prayer 
 for his readers, 1 : 1-13. Then he describes the pre-eminence 
 of Christ as the Head of both the natural and the spiritual 
 creation, who has reconciled all things to God, 14-23, of 
 which mystery the apostle himself was made a minister, 
 24-29. He warns his readers against the inroads of a false 
 philosophy that dishonored Christ. Since the Colossians 
 have all the fulness of the Godhead in their Lord and 
 Saviour, are rooted in him, and have arisen with him to a 
 new life, they should walk in him and avoid semi- Jewish 
 practices and the worship of angels, 2: 1-19. This was all 
 the more necessary, because they had died with Christ to 
 their old life and to the beggarly elements of the world, 
 20-23. 
 
 //. The Practical Part, containing divers Directions and 
 Exhortations, 3 : 1 — 4: 18. Where believers have risen with 
 Christ to newness of life, they must part with the vices of 
 the old man and clothe themselves with Christian virtues, 
 3 : 1-17. Wives should submit themselves to their husbands 
 and husbands should love their wives ; children must obey 
 their parents and parents must beware of discouraging their 
 children ; servants should obey their masters and these 
 should give the servants their due, 18 — 4: 1. The duty of 
 prayer and thanksgiving is urged, and directions are given 
 for the right behavior of believers toward the unconverted. 
 
210 NEW TESTA MENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 2-6. With a few personal notices, several greetings and 
 a salutation the apostle closes his Epistle, 7-18. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. On its formal side this Epistle differs from that to 
 the Ephesians in its polemical character. It is not a general 
 exposition of the truth that is in Christ Jesus, without refer- 
 ence to antagonistic principles, but a statement of it with a 
 special view to the errors that were gradually creeping into 
 the Colossian church, insidious errors of which the Colos- 
 sians, so it seems, little realized the danger. It is true that 
 we find none of the fiery polemics of the Epistle to the 
 Galatians here, nor any of the sharp invective of II Corin- 
 thians ; — yet the controversial character of this letter is very 
 evident. 
 
 2. On its material side it exhibits great affinity with the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians. Hence the contention of the critics 
 that the one is but a copy of the other. We should not infer 
 from this, however, that the teaching of these Epistles is 
 identical. While that contained in Ephesians is in the main 
 Theological, that found in Colossians is primarily Christolo- 
 gical, the summing up of all things in Christ, the Head. 
 Essentially the Christology of this letter is in perfect har- 
 mony with that of previous Epistles, but there is a differ- 
 ence of emphasis. The writer here places prominently 
 before his readers, not only the Soteriological, but also the 
 Cosmical significance of Christ. He is the Head both of the 
 Church and of the new creation. All things were created 
 by him, and find the purpose of their existence in him. 
 
 3. In point of style and language too this Epistle shows 
 great similarity to its twin-letter. Of the 155 verses in 
 Ephesians 78 contain expressions that find parallels in Colos- 
 sians. There are the same involved sentences of difficult 
 interpretation, and also a great number of oi'Ka^ Xeyopieva. 
 The letter contains 34 words that are absent from all the 
 other writings of Paul, 12 of which are found in other New 
 Testament books, however, (cf. lists of these words in 
 
THE EPISLTE TO THE COLOSSIANS 211 
 
 Alford and in Abbott's Comm.) Of these 34 words at least 
 18, and therefore more than half, are found in the second 
 chapter. Owing to the polemical character of this letter the 
 author is generally speaking in a more matter-of-fact man- 
 ner than he is in Ephesians, and it is only, when he sets 
 forth the majesty of Christ, that he soars to sublime 
 heights. Comparing this Epistle with those to the Corin- 
 thians and the Philippians, Lightf oot says : "It is' distin- 
 guished from them by a certain ruggedness of expression, 
 a want of finish often bordering on obscurity." Comm. p. 
 123. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 There are no good reasons to doubt the Pauline author- 
 ship of this Epistle. Marcion and the school of Valentinus 
 recognized it as genuine. And the great witnesses of the end 
 of the second century, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and 
 Tertullian repeatedly quote it by name. 
 
 Moreover the internal evidence decidedly favors the 
 authenticity of the letter. It claims to be written by the 
 apostle in 1:1; the line of thought developed in it is dis- 
 tinctly Pauline and is in striking harmony with that of the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians ; and if we do not first rule out 
 several of the Pauline Epistles and then compare the style of 
 this letter with those that remain, we may confidently assert 
 that the style is Pauline. Moreover the persons named in 
 4:7-17 are all, with but a couple exceptions (viz. Jesus 
 called Justus and Nymphas) known to have been compan- 
 ions or fellow-laborers of Paul. 
 
 Yet the Epistle did not go unchallenged. Mayerhoflf 
 began the attack on it is 1838, rejecting it, because its vocab- 
 ulary, style and thought were not Pauline ; it was so similar 
 to Ephesians ; and it contained references to the heresy of 
 Cerinthus. The school of Baur and many other critics, such 
 as Hoekstra, Straatman, Hausrath, Davidson, Schmiedel 
 e. a., followed his lead and considered this Epistle as a 
 second century production. Holtzmann, as we have already 
 seen, found a genuine nucleus in it. 
 
212 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 There are especially three objections that are urged 
 against the Pauline authorship of this letter. ( 1 ) The style 
 is not that of the apostle. The fact that the letter contains 
 34 axa^ Xeyoixsva; that characteristically Pauline terms, 
 such as StxatoauvY], acaxripia, aicoicaXutJ/t? and xaxapyeiv are 
 absent, while some of the particles often employed by 
 the apostle, as -(ip, ouv, Stoxt and apa are rarely found; and 
 that the construction is often very involved and character- 
 ized by a certain heaviness, is urged against its genuineness. 
 
 (2) The error combated in this Epistle, it is said, shows 
 clear traces of second century Gnosticism. These are found 
 in the use of the terms ao(p(a, yvwa^i;, 2 :3, [AuaxiQpiov, 1 :26, 
 27; 2:2, xX-^pwixa, 1 :19, atwvei;. 1 :26, etc.; in the series of 
 angels named in 1 : 16; and in the conception of Christ in 
 1 : 15. It is held that they point to the Valentinian system. 
 
 (3) Closely related to the preceding is the objection that the 
 Christology of this Epistle is un-Pauline. Davidson regards 
 this as the chief feature that points to the Gnostics, Introd. 
 I p. 246, but it is also thought to conflict with the representa- 
 tion of Paul in his other writings, and to approach very 
 closely the Johannine doctrine of the Logos. Christ is rep- 
 resented as the image of the invisible God. 1:15, the central 
 Being of the universe, absolutely pre-eminent above all visi- 
 ble and invisible beings, 1 : 16-18, the originator and the 
 goal of creation, and the perfect Mediator, who reconciles 
 not only sinners but all things in heaven and on earth to 
 God, 1 : 16-20. 
 
 In answer to the first objection we may say that the 
 argument derived from the aiia^ Xeyoixsva is irrelevant and 
 would apply with equal force in the case of the Epistle to 
 the Romans. From the fact that more than half of them are 
 found in the second chapter it is quite evident that they are 
 due to the special subject-matter of this letter. The differ- 
 ence between Colossians and some of the other Pauline 
 writings also explains why the characteristically Pauline 
 terms referred to above are absent from our Epistle. Had 
 
THE EPISLTE TO THE COLOSSIANS 213 
 
 Paul used exactly the same words that he employs else- 
 where, that would also, in all probability, have been proof 
 positive for many critics that the letter was a forgery. 
 Moreover it should not be regarded as very strange that a 
 person's vocabulary changes somewhat in the course of 
 time, especially not, when he is placed in an altogether dif- 
 ferent environment, as was the case with Paul. We fully 
 agree with Dr. Salmon, when he says : "I cannot subscribe 
 to the doctrine that a man, writing a new composition, must 
 not, on pain of losing his identity, employ any word that he 
 has not used in a former one." Introd. p. 148. 
 
 As to the second objection we would reply that there is 
 absolutely no proof that the Epistle presupposes second 
 century Gnosticism. The Gnostics evidently did not regard 
 it as a polemic directed against their tenets, for Marcion and 
 the Valentinians made extensive use of it. Moreover some 
 of the most important elements of Gnosticism, such as the 
 creation of the world by a demiurge, ignorant of the 
 supreme God or opposed to Him, are not referred to in 
 the Epistle. An incipient Gnosticism there may have been in 
 Paul's time ; but it is also possible that the error of the 
 Colossian church is in no way to be identified with the Gnos- 
 tic heresy. Present day scholarship strongly inclines to the 
 view that it is not Gnosticism at all to which Paul refers in 
 this letter. 
 
 And with respect to the third argument, we do not see 
 why the further development of the Pauline Christology 
 cannot have been the work of Paul himself. There is noth- 
 ing in the Christology of this Epistle that conflicts with the 
 recognized representation of Paul. We clearly find the 
 essence of it in Rom. 8 : 19-22 ; I Cor. 8:6; II Cor. 4:4; 
 Phil, 2: 5-11. These passages prepare us for the statement 
 of Paul regarding the Cosmical significance of Christ, 1 : 16, 
 17. And the representation that all the forces of creation 
 culminate in the glory of Christ does not necessarily run 
 counter to Rom. 11:36 and I Cor, 15:28, according to 
 which all things exist to the praise of God, their Creator. 
 
214 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 THE CHURCH AT COLOSSAE. 
 
 Colossae was one of the cities of the beautiful Lycus 
 Valley in Phrygia, situated but a short distance from Laodi- 
 cea and Hierapolis. Herodotus speaks of it as a great city, 
 but it did not retain its magnitude until New Testament 
 times, for Strabo only reckons it as a •;c6Xta[xa. We have 
 no information respecting the founding of the Colossian 
 church. From the Acts of the Apostles we learn that Paul 
 passed through Phrygia twice, once at the start of his 
 second, and again at the beginning of his third missionary 
 journey, Acts 16: 6; 18: 23. But on the first of these jour- 
 neys he remained well to the East of Western Phrygia, 
 where Colossae was situated ; and though on the second he 
 may have gone into the Lycus Valley, he certainly did not 
 find nor found the Colossian church there, since he himself 
 says in Col. 2 : 1 that the Colossians had not seen his face in 
 the flesh. In all probability Paul's prolonged residence at 
 Ephesus and his preaching there for three years, so that "all 
 those in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus," Acts 
 19 : 10, was indirectly responsible for the founding of the 
 churches in the Lycus Valley. The most plausible theory is 
 that Epaphras was one of Paul's Ephesian converts and be- 
 came the founder of the Colossian church. This is favored 
 by 1 :7, where the correct reading is /.aOw? sixaOaxs, and not 
 y.a6o)q Y.OH e[xa6£TS. 
 
 The church consisted, so it seems, of Gentile Christians, 
 1:21, 27; 2:11-13; the Epistle certainly does not contain 
 a single hint that there were Jews among them. Yet they 
 were clearly exposed to Jewish influences, and this need not 
 cause surprise in view of the fact that Antiochus the Great 
 transplanted two thousand families of Jews from Babylonia 
 into Lydia and Phrygia, Jos. Ant. XII 6. 4. This number 
 had. of course, greatly increased by the time the Epistle 
 was written. Lightfoot estimates that the number of Jewish 
 freemen was more than eleven thousand in the single dis- 
 
THE EPISLTE TO THE COLOSSIANS 215 
 
 trict of which Laodicea was the capital. Cf. his essay on 
 The Churches of the Lycus Valley in his Comm. p. 20. 
 
 According to the Epistle the Colossians were in danger 
 of being misled by certain false teachings. As to the exact 
 nature of the Colossian heresy there is a great variety of 
 opinion. Some regard it as a mixture of Judseistic and 
 theosophic elements ; others dub it Gnosticism or Gnostic 
 Ebionism ; and still others consider it to be a form of Essen- 
 ism. We can infer from the Epistle that the errorists were 
 members of the congregation, for they are described as those 
 "not holding the head," 2 : 19, an expression that is applic- 
 able only to those that had accepted Christ. And it seems 
 perfectly clear that their error was primarily of a Jewish 
 character, since they urged circumcision, not, indeed, as an 
 absolute necessity, but as a means to perfection, 2: 10-13; 
 they appealed to the law and emphasized its ceremonial 
 requirements and probably also the ordinances of the rabbi's, 
 2: 14-17, 20-23. Yet they clearly went beyond the Judseism 
 that Paul encountered in his earlier Epistles, falsely empha- 
 sizing certain requirements of the law and adjusting their 
 views to those of their Gentile neighbors. Their dualistic 
 conception of the world led them, on the one hand, to an 
 asceticism that was not demanded by the law. They re- 
 garded it as essential to abstain from the use of meat and 
 wine, not because these were Levitically unclean, but since 
 this abstinence was necessary for the mortification of the 
 body, which they regarded as the seat of sin. They neglected 
 the body and apparently aspired after a pure spiritual exist- 
 ence ; to be like the angels was their ideal. On the other 
 hand the consciousness of their great sinfulness as material 
 beings made them hesitate to approach God directly. And 
 the Jewish doctrine that the law was mediated by the angels, 
 in connection with the influence that was ascribed to the 
 spirits in their heathen environment, naturally led them to a 
 worship of the angels as intermediaries between God and 
 man. Among the higher spirits they also ranked Christ and 
 thus failed to recognize his unique significance. The Colos- 
 
216 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 sian error was, therefore, a strange mixture of Jewish doc- 
 trines, Christian ideas and heathen speculation ; and this 
 composite character makes it impossible to identify it with 
 any one heretical system of the apostolic time. Cf. espe- 
 cially Zahn, Einl. I p. 329 ff . ; Holtzmann, Einl. p. 248 flf. ; 
 Lightfoot, Comm. pp. 71-111 ; Biesterveld, Comm. pp. 18-28. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. From the Epistle itself we 
 can readily infer what gave Paul occasion to write it. 
 Epaphras, the founder and probably also the minister of 
 the congregation, had evidently seen the danger, gradually 
 increasing, that was threatening the spiritual welfare of the 
 church. The errorists did not directly antagonize him or 
 Paul ; yet their teaching was a subversion of the Pauline 
 gospel. Hence he informed the apostle of the state of 
 affairs, and this information led to the composition of the 
 Epistle. 
 
 The object Paul has in view is the correction of the 
 Colossian heresy. Hence he clearly sets forth the unique 
 significance of Christ, and the all-sufficient character of his 
 redemption. Christ is the image of the invisible God, the 
 Creator of the world, and also of the angels, and the only 
 Mediator between God and man. He in whom all the ful- 
 ness of the Godhead dwells, has reconciled all things to 
 God and has delivered men from the power of sin and 
 death. In his death He abrogated the shadows of the Old 
 Testament and terminated the special ministry of the angels 
 that was connected with the law, so that even this vestige 
 of a supposed Biblical foundation for the worship of angels 
 has been removed. In him behevers are perfect and in him 
 only. Hence the Colossians should not fall back on the 
 beggarly elements of the world, nor in sham humility wor- 
 ship the angels. Having their life in Christ, they should 
 conform to his image in all their domestic and social rela- 
 tions. 
 
 2. Time and Place. For the discussion of these we refer 
 
THE EPISLTE TO THE COLOSSIANS 217 
 
 to what we have said in connection with the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians. The letter was written at Rome about A. D. 61 
 or 62. Of course the majority of those who reject this 
 Epistle date it somewhere in the second century. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The canonical character of this Epistle has never been 
 doubted by the Church. There are slight but uncertain 
 indications of its use in Clement of Rome, Barnabas and 
 Ignatius. More important references to it are found in 
 Justin Martyr and Theophilus. Marcion gave it a place in 
 his canon, and in the Muratorian Fragment it is named as 
 one of the Pauline Epistles. With Irenaeus, Clement of 
 Alexandria and Tertullian the quotations increase both in 
 number and definiteness. That the Epistle is not quoted as 
 often as Ephesians is probably due to its polemical character. 
 
 The permanent value of this letter is found primarily 
 in its central teaching, that the Church of God is made 
 perfect in Christ, its glorious Head. Since He is a perfect 
 Mediator and the complete redemption of his people, they 
 grow into him, as the Head of the body, they find the ful- 
 fillment of all their desires in him, as their Saviour, and they 
 reach their perfection in him, as the Goal of the new crea- 
 tion. His perfect life is the life of the entire Church. Hence 
 believers should seek to realize ever more in every atom of 
 their existence the complete union with their divine Head. 
 They should avoid all arbitrary practices, all human inven- 
 tions and all will-worship that is derogatory to the only 
 Mediator and Head of the Church, Jesus Christ. 
 
The First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 In the first Epistle to the Thessalonians we distinguish 
 two parts : 
 
 /. Paul's Apologia, 1 : 1 — 3: 13. The letter opens with 
 the usual apostolic blessing and thanksgiving, 1 : 1-4. This 
 thanksgiving was called forth by the fact that the apostle's 
 work in Thessalonica had not been in vain, but had resulted 
 in a faith that was spoken of throughout Macedonia and 
 Achaia, 5-10. The writer reminds the readers of his labors 
 among them, emphasizing his suffering, good moral be- 
 havior, honesty, faithfulness, diligence and love, 2 : 1-12. 
 He thanks God that they had received him and his message 
 and had suffered willingly for the cause of Christ at the 
 hands of the Jews, and informs them that he had often in- 
 tended to visit them, 13-20. His great love to them had 
 induced him to send Timothy to establish them and to 
 strengthen them in their affliction, 3 : 1-5 ; who had now re- 
 turned and gladdened his heart by a report of their stead- 
 fastness, 6-10. He prays that the Lord may strengthen 
 them, 11-13. 
 
 //. Practical Exhortations and Instruction regarding the 
 Parousia, 4 : 1 — 5 : 28. The apostle exhorts the Thessalon- 
 ians that they follow after sanctification, abstaining from 
 fornication and fraud, and exercising love, diligence and 
 honesty, 4: 1-12. He allays their fears respecting the future 
 of those that have died in Christ, 13-8, and admonishes 
 the Thessalonians in view of the sudden coming of Christ 
 to walk as children of the light that they may be prepared 
 for the day of Christ's return, 5 : 1-11. After exhorting the 
 brethren to honor their spiritual leaders, and urging them ta 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS 219 
 
 warn the unruly, to comfort the feeble-minded, to support 
 the weak, and to practice all Christian virtues, the apostle 
 closes his Epistle by invoking on the Thessalonians the 
 blessing of God, by expressing his desire that the Epistle 
 be read to all the brethren, and with the usual salutations, 
 12-28. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. This Epistle is like that to the Philippians one of the 
 most letterlike of all the writings of Paul. It is, as Deiss- 
 mann says, "full of moving personal reminiscences." The 
 practical interest greatly predominates over the doctrinal : 
 and though the polemical element is not altogether absent, 
 it is not at all prominent. The letter is primarily one of 
 practical guidance, instruction and encouragement, for a 
 faithful, persecuted church, whose knowledge is still defi- 
 cient, and whose weak and faint-hearted and idlers greatly 
 need the counsel of the apostle. 
 
 2. Doctrinally I Thessalonians is one of the eschato- 
 logical Epistles of Paul. It refers very little to Christ's 
 coming in the flesh to give himself a ransom for sin, but 
 discusses all the more Tiis future coming as the Lord of 
 Glory. There are at least six references to the parousia in 
 this short letter, two of which are rather extensive passages, 
 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:13-18; 5:1-11, 23. This doctrine is 
 at once the impelling motive for the exhortations of the 
 apostle, and the sufficient ground for the encouragement of 
 his readers, who expected the return of Christ in the near 
 future. 
 
 3. The Epistle never appeals to the Old Testament as 
 an authority, and contains no quotations from it. We find 
 a reference to its history, however, in 2: 15, and probable 
 reminiscences of its language in 2: 16; 4:5, 6, 8, 9; 5:8. 
 The language of 4: 15-17 shows some similarity to II Esdras 
 5 : 42, but the thought is quite different. 
 
 4. The style of this letter is thoroughly Pauline, con- 
 taining an abundance of phrases and expressions that have 
 
220 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 parallels in the other Epistles of Paul, especially in those to 
 the Corinthians. Comparing it with the other polemical 
 writings of the apostle, we find that it is written in a quiet 
 unimpassioned style, a style, too, far more simple and direct 
 than that of Ephesians and Colossians. There are 42 words 
 peculiar to it, of which 22 are not found elsewhere in the 
 New Testament, and 20 are, but not in the writings of Paul. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The external testimony in favor of the Pauline author- 
 ship is in no way deficient. Marcion included the letter in 
 his canon, and the Muratorian Fragment mentions it as one 
 of the Pauline writings. It is contained in the old Latin and 
 Syriac Versions ; and from the time of Irenaeus, Clement of 
 Alexandria and Tertullian it is regularly quoted by name. 
 
 The internal evidence also clearly points to Paul as the 
 writer. The Epistle comes to us under the name of Paul ; 
 and those that were associated with him in writing it, viz. 
 Silvanus (Silas) and Timotheus, are known to have been 
 Paul's companions on the second missionary journey. It is 
 marked by the usual Pauline blessing, thanksgiving and salu- 
 tation, and clearly reflects the character of the great apostle 
 to the Gentiles. Although it has been subject to attack, it 
 is now defended by critics of nearly every school as an 
 authentic production of Paul. 
 
 Schrader and Baur were the first ones to attack it in 
 1835. The great majority of critics, even those of Baur's 
 own school, turned against them ; such men as Hilgenfeld. 
 Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Davidson, Von Soden and Jiilicher 
 defending the genuineness of the letter. They found fol- 
 lowers, however, especially in Holsten and Van der Vies. 
 
 Of the objections brought against the Epistle the follow- 
 ing deserve consideration : ( 1 ) As compared with the other 
 writings of Paul, the contents of this Epistle are very insig- 
 nificant, not a single doctrine, except that in 4: 13-18, being 
 made prominent. In the main it is but a reiteration of Paul's 
 work among the Thessalonians, and of the circumstances 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS 221 
 
 attending their conversion, all of which they knew very well. 
 (2) The letter reveals a progress in the Christian life that is 
 altogether improbable, if a period of only a few months had 
 elapsed between its composition and the founding of the 
 church, cf. 1:7, 8; 4: 10. (3) The passage 2: 14-16 does 
 not fit in the mouth of him who wrote Rom. 9 — 11 and who 
 was himself at one time a fierce persecutor of the Church. 
 Moreover it impHes that the destruction of Jerusalem was 
 already a thing of the past. (4) The Epistle is clearly 
 dependent on some of the other Pauline writings, especially 
 I and II Corinthians. Compare 1 : 5 with I Cor. 2:4; — 
 1 : 6 with I Cor. 11 : 1 ;— 2 : 4 fif. with I Cor. 2 : 4 ; 4 : 3 ff. ; 
 9:15 ff.; II Cor. 2:17; 5:11. 
 
 The cogency of these arguments is not apparent. Paul's 
 letters have an occasional character, and the situation at 
 Thessalonica did not call for an exposition of Christian doc- 
 trine, save a deliverance on the parousia ; but did require 
 words of encouragement, guidance and exhortation, and 
 also, in view of the insinuations against the apostle, a care- 
 ful review of all that he had done among them. Looked at 
 from that point of view the Epistle is in no sense insignifi- 
 cant. The words of 1 : 7, 8 and 4 : 10 do not imply a long ex- 
 istence of the Thessalonian church, but simply prove the in- 
 tensity of its faith and love. Three or four months were 
 quite sufficient for the report of their great faith to spread 
 in Macedonia and Achaia. Moreover the very shortcomings 
 of the Thessalonians imply that their religious experience 
 was as yet of but short duration. In view of what Paul 
 writes in II Corinthians and Galatians respecting the Judse- 
 izers, we certainly need not be surprised at what he says in 
 2 : 14-16. If the words are severe, let us remember that they 
 were called forth by a bitter and dogged opposition that fol- 
 lowed the apostle from place to place, and on which he had 
 brooded for some time. The last words of this passage do 
 not necessarily imply that Jerusalem had already been de- 
 stroyed. They are perfectly intelligible on the supposition 
 that Paul, in view of the wickedness of the Jews and of the 
 
222 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 calamities that were already overtaking them, Jos. Ant. XX 
 2, 5, 6, had a lively presentiment of their impending doom. 
 The last argument is a very peculiar one. It is tantamount 
 to saying that the Epistle cannot be Pauline, because there 
 are so many Pauline phrases and expressions in it. Such 
 an argument is its own refutation, and is neutralized by the 
 fact that in the case of other letters dissimilarity leads the 
 critics to the same conclusion. 
 
 THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA. 
 
 Thessalonica, originally called Thermae (Herodotus), 
 and now bearing the slightly altered name Saloniki, a city of 
 Macedonia, has always been very prominent in history and 
 still ranks, after Constantinople, as the second town in Euro- 
 pean Turkey. It is situated on what was formerly known as 
 the Thermaic gulf, and is built "in the form of an amphi- 
 theater on the slopes at the head of the bay." The great 
 Egnatian highway passed through it from East to West. 
 Hence it was of old an important trade center and as such 
 had special attraction for the Jews, who were found there in 
 great numbers. Cassander, who rebuilt the city in 315 B. C. 
 in all probability gave it the name Thessalonica in honor of 
 his wife. In the time of the Romans it was the capital of 
 the second part of Macedonia and the seat of the Roman 
 governor of the entire province. 
 
 Paul, accompanied by Silas and Timothy, came to that 
 city, after they had left Philippi about the year 52. As was 
 his custom, he repaired to the synagogue to preach the 
 gospel of Jesus Christ. The result of this work was a 
 spiritual harvest consisting of some Jews, a great number of 
 proselytes (taking the word in its widest significance) and 
 several of the city's chief women. From the Acts of the 
 Apostles we get the impression (though it is not definitely 
 stated) that Paul's labors at Thessalonica terminated at the 
 end of three weeks ; but the Epistles rather favor the idea 
 that his stay there was of longer duration. They pre-sup- 
 pose a flourishing, well organized congregation, 5 : 12, whose 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS 223 
 
 faith had become a matter of common comment, 1 : 7-9 ; and 
 show us that Paul, while he was in Thessalonica, worked for 
 his daily bread, 2:9; II Thess. 3:8, and received aid at 
 least twice from the Philippians, Phil. 4: 16. 
 
 His fruitful labor was cut short, however, by the malign 
 influence of envious Jews, who attacked the house of Jason, 
 where they expected to find the missionaries, and failing in 
 this, they drew Jason and some of the brethren before the 
 rulers, TroXtiapxa? (a name found only in Acts 17:6, 8, but 
 proved absolutely correct by inscriptions, cf. Ramsey, St. 
 Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen p. 227) and 
 charged them with treason. "The step taken by the polit- 
 archs was the mildest that was prudent in the circumstances ; 
 they bound the accused over in security that peace should be 
 kept." (Ramsay) As a result the brethren deemed it advis- 
 able to send Paul and his companions to Berea, where many 
 accepted the truth, but their labors were again interrupted 
 by the Jews from Thessalonica. Leaving Silas and Timothy 
 here, the apostle went to Athens, where he expected them 
 to join him shortly. From the narrative in the Acts it 
 seems that they did not come to the apostle until after his 
 arrival at Corinth, but I Thess. 3 : 1 implies that Timothy 
 was with him at Athens. The most natural theory is that 
 both soon followed the apostle to Athens, and that he sent 
 Timothy from there to Thessalonica to establish and com- 
 fort the church, and Silas on some other mission, possibly 
 to Philippi, both returning to him at Corinth. 
 
 From the data in Acts 17:4 and I Thess. 1 : 9 ; 2 : 14 we 
 may infer that the church of Thessalonica was of a mixed 
 character, consisting of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Since 
 no reference is made in the Epistles to the tenets of the Jews 
 and not a single Old Testament passage is quoted, it is all 
 but certain that its members were mostly Christians of the 
 Gentiles. Only three of them are known to us from Scrip- 
 ture, viz. Jason, Acts 17 : 5-9, and Aristarchus and Secundus, 
 Acts 20 : 4. The congregation was not wealthy, II Cor. 8 : 2, 
 3 ; with the exception of a few women of the better class. 
 
224 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 it seems to have consisted chiefly of laboring people that had 
 to work for their daily bread, 4 : 11 ; II Thess. 3 : 6-12. They 
 had not yet parted company with all their old vices, for there 
 was still found among them fornication 4 : 3-5, fraud 4 : 6 
 and idleness 4:11. Yet they were zealous in the work of 
 the Lord and formed one of the most beloved churches of 
 the apostle. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. What led Paul to write this 
 letter, was undoubtedly the report Timothy brought him re- 
 specting the condition of the Thessalonian church. The 
 apostle felt that he had been torn away from them all too 
 soon and had not had sufficient time to establish them in 
 the truth. Hence he was greatly concerned about their 
 spiritual welfare after his forced departure. The coming of 
 Timothy brought him some relief, for he learnt from that 
 fellow-laborer that the church, though persecuted, did not 
 waver, and that their faith had become an example to many. 
 Yet he was not entirely at ease, since he also heard that the 
 Jews were insinuating that his moral conduct left a great 
 deal to be desired, while he had misled the Thessalonians for 
 temporal gain and vainglory, 2:3-10; that some heathen 
 vices were still prevalent in the church ; and that the doc- 
 trine of the parousia had been misconstrued, giving some 
 occasion to cease their daily labors, and others, to feel con- 
 cerned about the future condition of those who had recently 
 died in their midst. That information led to the composition 
 of our Epistle. 
 
 In view of all these things it was but natural that the 
 apostle should have a threefold purpose in writing this let- 
 ter. In the first place he desired to express his gratitude for 
 the faithful perseverance of the Thessalonians. In the sec- 
 ond place he sought to establish them in faith, which was all 
 the more necessary, since the enemy had sown tares among 
 the wheat. Hence he reminds them of his work among 
 them, pointing out that his conversation among them was 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS 225 
 
 above reproach, and that as a true apostle he had labored 
 among them without covetousness and vainglory. And in 
 the third place he aimed at correcting their conception of 
 the Lord's return, emphasizing its importance as a motive 
 for sanctification, 
 
 2. Time and Place. There is little uncertainty as to the 
 time and place of composition, except in the ranks of those 
 who regard the Epistle as a forgery. When Paul wrote this 
 letter, the memory of his visit to Thessalonica was still vivid, 
 chs. 1 and 2 ; and he was evidently in some central place, 
 where he could keep posted on the state of affairs in Mace- 
 donia and Achaia, 1:7, 8, and from where he could easily 
 communicate with the Thessalonian church. Moreover 
 Silas and Timothy were with him, of which the former at- 
 tended the apostle only on his second missionary journey, 
 and the latter could not bring him a report of conditions 
 at Thessalonica, until he returned to the apostle at Corinth, 
 Acts 18:5. Therefore the Epistle was written during Paul's 
 stay in that city. However it should not be dated at the 
 beginning of Paul's Corinthian residence, since the faith of 
 the Thessalonians had already become manifest throughout 
 Macedonia and Achaia, and some deaths had occurred in 
 the church of Thessalonica. Neither can we place it toward 
 the end of that period, for II Thessalonians was also written 
 before the apostle left Corinth. Most likely it was composed 
 towards the end of A. D. 52. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The canonicity of this Epistle was never questioned in 
 ancient times. There are some supposed references to it 
 in the apostolic fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Igna- 
 tius and Polycarp, but they are very uncertain. Marcion 
 and the Muratorian Fragment and the old Latin and Syriac 
 Versions testify to its canonicity, however, and from the end 
 of the second century its canonical use is a well established 
 fact. 
 
 In this letter we behold Paul, the missionary, in the ab- 
 
226 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 sence of any direct controversy, carefully guarding the in- 
 terest of one of his most beloved churches, comforting and 
 encouraging her like a father. He strengthens the heart of 
 his persecuted spiritual children with the hope of Christ's 
 return, w^hen the persecutors shall be punished for their evil 
 work, and the persecuted saints, both the dead and the 
 living, shall receive their eternal reward in the Kingdom of 
 their heavenly Lord. And thus the apostle is an example 
 worthy of imitation ; his lesson is a lesson of permanent 
 value. The glorious parousia of Christ is the cheering hope 
 of the militant church in all her struggles to the end of time. 
 
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The contents of the letter naturally falls into three parts : 
 
 /. Introduction, ch. 1. The apostle begins his letter 
 with the regular blessing, 1, 2. He thanks God for the in- 
 creasing faith and patience of the Thessalonians, reminding 
 them of the fact that in the day of Christ's coming God will 
 provide rest for his persecuted church and will punish her 
 persecutors ; and prays that God may fulfil his good pleas- 
 ure in them to the glory of his Name, 3 — 12. 
 
 //. Instruction respecting the Parousia, ch. 2. The 
 church is warned against deception regarding the imminence 
 of the great day of Christ and is informed that it will not 
 come until the mystery of iniquity has resulted in the great 
 apostacy, and the man of sin has been revealed whose com- 
 ing is after the work of satan, and who will utterly deceive 
 men to their own destruction, 1 — 12. The Thessalonians 
 need not fear the manifestation of Christ, since they were 
 chosen and called to everlasting glory ; and it is the apostle's 
 wish that the Lord may comfort their hearts and establish 
 them in all good work, 13 — 17. 
 
 ///. Practical Exhortations, ch. 3. The writer requests 
 the prayer of the church for himself that he may be de- 
 livered from unreasonable and wicked men, and exhorts 
 her to do what he commanded, 1 — 5. They should with- 
 draw from those who are disorderly and do not work, be- 
 cause each one should labor for his daily bread and thus 
 follow the example of the apostle, 6 — 12. Those who do 
 not heed the apostolic word should be censured, 13 — 15. 
 With a blessing and a salutation the apostle closes his let- 
 ter, 16—18. 
 
228 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. The main characteristic of this letter is found in the 
 apocalyptic passage, 2: 1-12. In these verses, that contain 
 the most essential part of the Epistle, Paul speaks as a 
 prophet, revealing to his beloved church that the return of 
 Christ will be preceded by a great final apostacy and by the 
 revelation of the man of sin, the son of perdition who, as 
 the instrument of satan, will deceive men, so that they ac- 
 cept the lie and are condemned in the great day of Christ. 
 II Thessalonians, no doubt, was written primarily for the 
 sake of this instruction. 
 
 2. Aside from this important doctrinal passage the 
 Epistle has a personal and practical character. It contains 
 expressions of gratitude for the faith and endurance of the 
 persecuted church, words of encouragement for the afflicted, 
 fatherly advice for the spiritual children of the apostle, and 
 directions as to their proper behavior. 
 
 3. The style of this letter, like that of I Thessalonians, 
 is simple and direct, except in 2: 1-12, where the tone is 
 more elevated. This change is accounted for by the pro- 
 phetic contents of that passage. The language clearly re- 
 veals the working of the vigorous mind of Paul, who in the 
 expression of his thoughts was not limited to a few stock 
 phrases. Besides the many expressions that are character- 
 istically Pauline the Epistle contains several that are peculiar 
 to it, and also a goodly number which it has in common only 
 with I Thessalonians. Of the 26 axa^ Xsyofxeva in the 
 letter 10 are not found in the rest of the New Testament, 
 and 16 are used elsewhere in the New Testament but not in 
 the writings of Paul. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The external testimony for the authenticity of this 
 Epistle is just as strong as that for the genuineness of the 
 first letter. Marcion has it in his canon, the Muratorian 
 Fragment names it, and it is also found in the old Latin and 
 Syriac Versions. From the time of Irenaeus it is regularly 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS 229 
 
 quoted as a letter of Paul, and Origen and Eusebius claim 
 that it was universally received in their time. 
 
 The Epistle itself claims to be the work of Paul, 1:1; 
 and again in 3: 17, where the apostle calls attention to the 
 salutation as a mark of genuineness. The persons associated 
 with the writer in the composition of this letter are the same 
 as those mentioned in I Thessalonians. As in the majority 
 of Paul's letters the apostolic blessing is followed by a 
 thanksgiving. The Epistle is very similar to I Thessalonians 
 and contains some cross-references to it, as f. i. in the case 
 of the parousia and of the idlers. It clearly reveals the char- 
 acter of the great apostle, and its style may confidently be 
 termed Pauline. 
 
 Nevertheless the genuineness of the Epistle has been 
 doubted far more than that of I Thessalonians. Schmidt 
 was the first one to assail it in 1804 ; in this he was followed 
 by Schrader, Mayerhof and De Wette, who afterwards 
 changed his mind, however. The attack was renewed by 
 Kern and Baur in whose school the rejection of the Epistle 
 became general. Its authenticity is defended by Reuss, 
 Sabatier, Hofmann, Weiss, Zahn, Jiilicher, Farrar, Godet, 
 Baljon, Mofifat e. a. 
 
 The principal objections urged against the genuineness 
 of this letter are the following : ( 1 ) The teaching of Paul 
 regarding the parousia in 2 : 1-12 is not consistent with what 
 he wrote in I Thessalonians 4: 13-18; 5: 1-11. According 
 to the first letter the day of Christ is imminent and will 
 come suddenly and unexpectedly ; the second emphasizes the 
 fact that it is not close at hand and that several signs will 
 precede it. (2) The eschatology of this passage 2: 1-12 is 
 not Paul's but clearly dates from a later time and was prob- 
 ably borrowed from the Revelation of John. Some identify 
 the man of sin with Nero who, though reported dead, was 
 supposed to be hiding in the East and was expected to re- 
 turn ; and find the one still restraining the evil in Vespasian. 
 Others hold that this passage clearly refers to the time of 
 Trajan, when the mystery of iniquity was seen in the ad- 
 
230 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 vancing tide of Gnosticism. (3) This letter is to a great 
 extent but a repitition of I Thessalonians, and therefore 
 looks more like the work of a forger than like a genuine 
 production of Paul. Holtzmann says that, with the excep- 
 tion of 1:5, 6, 9, 12; 2:2-9, 11, 12, 15; 3:2, 13, 14, 17, the 
 entire Epistle consists of a reproduction of parallel passages 
 from the first letter. Einl. p. 214. (4) The Epistle con- 
 tains a conspicuously large number of peculiar expressions 
 that are not found in the rest of Paul's writings, nor in the 
 entire New Testament. Cf. lists in Frame's Comm. pp. 28- 
 34, in the Intern. Crit. Comm. (5) The salutation in 3: 17 
 has a suspicious look. It seems like the attempt of a later 
 writer to ward off objections and to attest the Pauline 
 authorship. 
 
 But the objections raised are not sufficient to discredit 
 the authenticity of our Epistle. The contradictions in Paul's 
 teaching regarding the parousia of Christ, are more apparent 
 than real. The signs that precede the great day will not de- 
 tract from its suddenness any more than the signs of Noah's 
 time prevented the flood from taking his contemporaries by 
 surprise. Moreover these two features, the suddenness of 
 Christ's appearance and the portentous facts that are the 
 harbingers of his coming, always go hand in hand in the 
 eschatological teachings of Scripture. Dan. 1 1 : 1 — 12 : 3 ; 
 Mt. 24 : 1-44 ; Lk. 17 : 20-37. As to the immediacy of Christ's 
 coming we can at most say that the first Epistle intimates 
 that the Lord might appear during that generation (though 
 possibly it does not even imply that), but it certainly does 
 not teach that Christ will presently come. 
 
 The eschatology of the second chapter has given rise to 
 much discussion and speculation regarding the date and 
 authorship of the Epistle, but recent investigations into the 
 conditions of the early church have clearly brought out that 
 the contents of this chapter in no way militate against the 
 genuineness of the letter. Hence they who deny the Pauline 
 authorship have ceased to place great reliance on it. There 
 is nothing improbable in the supposition that Paul wrote the 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS 231 
 
 passage regarding the man of sin. We find similar repre- 
 sentations as early as the time of Daniel (cf. Dan. 11), in 
 the pseudepigraphic literature of the Jews (cf. Schiirer, 
 Geschichte des Judischen Volkes II p. 621 f.), and in the 
 eschatological discourses of the Lord. The words and ex- 
 pressions found in this chapter are very well susceptible of 
 an interpretation that does not necessitate our dating the 
 Epistle after the time of Paul. We cannot delay to review 
 all the preterist and futurist expositions that have been given 
 (for which cf. Alford, Prolegomena Section V), but can 
 only indicate in a general way in what direction we must 
 look for the interpretation of this difficult passage. In in- 
 terpreting it we should continually bear in mind its prophetic 
 import and its reference to something that is still future. 
 No doubt, there were in history prefigurations of the great 
 day of Christ in which this prophecy found a partial fulfil- 
 ment, but the parousia of which Paul speaks in these verses 
 is even now only a matter of faithful expectation. The his- 
 tory of the world is gradually leading up to it. Paul was 
 witnessing some apostacy in his day, the [xuaxi^ptov tiq? 
 avo[i(a<; was already working, but the great apostacy 
 (t) dTtOUTaat'a) could not come in his day, because there had 
 been as yet but a very partial dissemination of the truth ; and 
 will not come until the days immediately preceding the 
 second coming of Christ, when the mystery of godlessness 
 will complete itself, and will finally be embodied in a single 
 person, in the man of sin, the son of perdition, who will then 
 develop into a power antagonistic to Christ (anti-christ, 
 ovTiy.ec'iJL^'^oi;), yea to every form of religion, the very in- 
 carnation of satan. Cf. vs. 9. This can only come to pass, 
 however, after the restraining power is taken out of the way, 
 a power that is at once impersonal (v-aziyow) and personal 
 (xaxexwv), and which may refer first of all to the strict 
 administration of justice in the Roman empire and to the 
 emperor as the chief executive, but certainly has a wider 
 signification and probably refers in general to "the fabric of 
 
232 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 human polity and those who rule that polity." (Alford). 
 For a more detailed exposition cf. especially, Alford, Pro- 
 legomena Section V ; Zahn, Einleitung I p. 162 ff. ; Godet, 
 Introduction p .171 ft'. ; and Eadie, Essay on the Man of Sin 
 in Comm. p. 329 ft. 
 
 We fail to see the force of the third argument, unless it 
 is an established fact that Paul could not repeat himself to 
 a certain degree, even in two Epistles written within the 
 space of a few months, on a subject that engaged the mind 
 of the apostle for some time, to the same church and there- 
 fore with a view to almost identical conditions. This argu- 
 ment looks strange especially in view of the following one, 
 which urges the rejection of this letter, because it is so un- 
 like the other Pauline writings. The points of difference 
 between our letter and I Thessalonians are generally exag- 
 gerated, and the examples cited by Davidson to prove the 
 dissimilarity are justly ridiculed by Salmon, who styles 
 such criticism "childish criticism, that is to say, criticism 
 such as might proceed from a child who insists that a story 
 shall always be told to him in precisely the same way." 
 Introd. p. 398. The salutation in 3: 17 does not point to a 
 time later than that of Paul, since he too had reason to fear 
 the evil influence of forged Epistles, 2 : 2. He merely states 
 that, with a view to such deception, he would in the future 
 authenticate all his letters by attaching an autographic salu- 
 tation. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. Evidently some additional 
 information regarding the state of affairs at Thessalonica 
 had reached Paul, it may be through the bearers of the first 
 Epistle, or by means of a communication from the elders of 
 the church. It seems that some letter had been circulated 
 among them, purporting to come from Paul, and that some 
 false spirit was at work in the congregation. The persecu- 
 tion of the Thessalonians still continued and had probably 
 increased in force, and in some way the impression had been 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS 233 
 
 created that the day of the Lord was at hand. This led on 
 the one hand to feverish anxiety, and on the other, to idle- 
 ness. Hence the apostle deemed it necessary to write a 
 second letter to the Thessalonians. 
 
 The purpose of the writer was to encourage the sorely 
 pressed church ; to calm the excitement by pointing out that 
 the second advent of the Lord could not be expected imme- 
 diately, since the mystery of lawlessness had to develop first 
 and to issue in the man of sin ; and to exhort the irregular 
 ones to a quiet, industrious and orderly conduct. 
 
 2. Time and Place. Some writers, such as Grotius, 
 Ewald, Vander Vies and Laurent advocated the theory that 
 II Thessalonians was written before I Thessalonians, but 
 the arguments adduced to support that position cannot bear 
 the burden. Moreover II Thess. 2: 15 clearly refers to a 
 former letter of the apostle. In all probability our Epistle 
 was composed a few months after the first one, for on the 
 one hand Silas and Timothy were still with the apostle, 1:1, 
 which was not the case after he left Corinth, and they were 
 still antagonized by the Jews so that most likely their case 
 had not yet been brought before GaHio, Acts 18: 12-17; and 
 on the other hand a change had come about both in the senti- 
 ment of the apostle, who speaks no more of his desire to 
 visit the Thessalonians, and in the condition of the church 
 to which he was writing, a change that would necessarily 
 require some time. We should most likely date the letter 
 about the middle of A. D. 53. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE 
 
 The early Church found no reason to doubt the canoni- 
 city of this letter. Little stress can be laid, it is true, on the 
 supposed reference to its language in Ignatius, Barnabas, the 
 Didache and Justin Martyr. It is quite evident, however, 
 that Polycarp used the Epistle. Moreover it has a place in 
 the canon of Marcion, is mentioned among the Pauline let- 
 ters in the Muratorian Fragment, and is contained in the old 
 Latin and Syriac Versions. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexan- 
 
234 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 dria, TertulHan and others since their time, quote it by name. 
 The great permanent value of this Epistle lies in the fact 
 that it corrects false notions regarding the second advent of 
 Christ, notions that led to indolence and disorderliness. We 
 are taught in this Epistle that the great day of Christ will 
 not come until the mystery of iniquity that is working in the 
 world receives its full development, and brings forth the son 
 of perdition who as the very incarnation of satan will set 
 himself against Christ and his Church. If the Church of 
 God had always remembered this lesson, she would have 
 been spared many an irregularity and disappointment. The 
 letter also reminds us once more of the fact that the day of 
 the Lord will be a day of terror to the wicked, but a day 
 of dehverance and glory for the Church of Christ. 
 
The Pastoral Epistles. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 In the case of these Epistles it seems best to consider the 
 question of authorship first, and to treat them as a unity in 
 the discussion of their authenticity. When we examine the 
 external testimony to these letters we find that this is in no 
 way deficient. If many have doubted their genuineness, it 
 was not because they discovered that the early Church did 
 not recognize them. It is true that some early heretics, who 
 acknowledged the genuineness of the other letters attributed 
 to Paul, rejected these, such as Basilides and Marcion, but 
 Jerome says that their adverse judgment was purely arbi- 
 trary. From the time of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria 
 and Tertullian, who were the first to quote the New Testa- 
 ment books by name, until the beginning of the nineteenth 
 century, no one doubted the Pauline authorship of these let- 
 ters. The Muratorian Fragment ascribes them to Paul, and 
 they are included in all MSS., Versions and Lists of the 
 Pauhne letters, in all of which (with the single exception 
 of the Muratorian Fragment) they are arranged in the 
 same order, viz. I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus. 
 
 As far as the internal evidence is concerned we may call 
 attention in a preliminary way to a few facts that favor the 
 authenticity of these letters and take up the consideration of 
 other features in connection with the objections that are 
 urged against them. They are all self-attested ; they contain 
 the characteristic Pauline blessing at the beginning, end with 
 the customary salutation, and reveal the usual solicitude of 
 Paul for his churches and for those associated with him in 
 the work ; they point to the same relation between Paul and 
 his spiritual sons Timothy and Titus that we know from 
 
236 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 other sources; and they refer to persons (cf. II Tim. 4' 
 Titus 3) that are also mentioned elsewhere as companions 
 and co-laborers of Paul. 
 
 Yet it is especially on the strength of internal evidence 
 that these Epistles have been attacked. J. E. C. Schmidt in 
 1804, soon followed by Schleiermacher, was the first one to 
 cast doubt on their genuineness. Since that time they have 
 been rejected, not only by the Tubingen school and by prac- 
 tically all negative critics, but also by some scholars that 
 usually incline to the conservative side, such as Neander 
 (rejecting only I Timothy), Meyer; (Introd. to Romans) and 
 Sabatier. While the majority of radical critics reject these 
 letters unconditionally, Credner, Harnack, Hausrath and 
 McGiffert believe that they contain some genuine Pauline 
 sections ; the last named scholar regarding especially the 
 passages that contain personal references, such as II Tim. 
 1 : 15-18; 4:9-21 ; Titus 3: 12, 13, as authentic, and surmis- 
 ing that some others may be saved from the ruins, The 
 Apostolic Age p. 405 ff. The genuineness of the Pastorals 
 is defended by Weiss, Zahn, Salmon, Godet, Barth, and 
 nearly all the Commentators, such as Huther, Van Ooster- 
 zee, ElHcott, Alford, White (in The Exp. Gk. Test.) e. a. 
 
 Several arguments are employed to discredit the authen- 
 ticity of these letters. We shall briefly consider the most 
 important ones. (1) It is impossible to find a place for their 
 composition and the historical situation which they reflect 
 in the life of Paul, as we know it from the Acts of the 
 Apostles. Reuss, who provisionally accepted their Pauline 
 authorship in his, History of the New Testament 1 pp. 80- 
 85 ; 121-129, did so with the distinct proviso that they had to 
 ht into the narrative of Acts somewhere. Finding that his 
 scheme did not work out well, he afterwards rejected I 
 Timothy and Titus. Cf. his Commentary on the Pastorals. 
 (2) The conception of Christianity found in these letters is 
 un-Pauline and clearly represents a later development. They 
 contain indeed some Pauline ideas, but these are exceptional. 
 "There is no trace whatever," says McGififert, "of the great 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 237 
 
 fundamental truth of Paul's gospel, — death unto the flesh 
 and life in the Spirit." Instead of the faith by which we are 
 justified and united to Christ, we find piety and good works 
 prominently in the foreground. Cf. I Tim. 1:5; 2:2, 15; 
 4:7 f.; 5:4; 6:6;— II Tim. 1:3; 3:5, 12;— Titus 1:1; 
 2:12. Moreover the word faith does not, as in the letters 
 of Paul, denote the faith that believes, but rather the sum 
 and substance of that which is believed, I Tim. 1:19; 3:9; 
 4:1, 6; 5:8. And sound doctrine is spoken of in a way 
 that reminds one of the characteristic esteem in which 
 orthodoxy was later held, cf. I Tim. 1:10; 4:6; 6:3; — 
 II Tim. 4 : 3 ; — Titus 1:9;2:1, 7. (3) The church organi- 
 zation that is reflected in these letters points to a later age. 
 It is unlikely that Paul, believing as he did in the speedy 
 second coming of Christ, would pay so much attention to 
 details of organization ; nor does it seem probable that he 
 would lay such stress on the offices received by ecclesiastical 
 appointment, and have so little regard to the spiritual gifts 
 that are independent of official position and that occupy a 
 very prominent place in the undoubted writings of the 
 apostle. Moreover the organization assumed in these letters 
 reveals second century conditions. Alongside of the 
 7cp£(T^UTepot the eTrtaxoTcog is named as a primus inter pares 
 (notice the singular in I Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7); and the 
 office-bearers in general are given undue prominence. There 
 is a separate class of widows, of which some held an official 
 position in the Church, just as there was in the second cen- 
 tury, I Tim. 5. Ecclesiastical office is conferred by the lay- 
 ing on of hands, I Tim. 5 : 22 ; and the second marriage of 
 bishops, deacons, and ministering widows was not to be 
 tolerated, I Tim. 3:2, 12 ; 5 : 9-1 1 ; Tit. 1 : 6. (4) The false 
 teachers and teachings to which the Epistles refer are evi- 
 dently second century Gnostics and Gnosticism. The term 
 avTtOeaeti;, I Tim. 6:20, according to Baur, contains a refer- 
 ence to the work of Marcion which bore that title. And the 
 endless genealogies of I Tim. 1 : 4 are supposed to refer to 
 the Aeons of Valentinus. (5) The most weighty objection 
 
238 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 is, however, that the style of these letters dififers from that 
 of the Pauline Epistles to such a degree as to imply diver- 
 sity of authorship. Says Davidson : "The change of style 
 is too great to comport with identity of authorship. Imita- 
 tions of phrases and terms occurring in Paul's authentic 
 Epistles are obvious ; inferiority and feebleness show de- 
 pendence ; while the new constructions and words betray a 
 writer treating of new circumstances and giving expression 
 to new ideas, yet personating the apostle all the while. The 
 change is palpable ; though the author throws himself back 
 into the situation of Paul the prisoner." Introd. II p. 66. 
 Holtzmann claims that of the 897 words that constitute 
 these letters (proper names excepted) 171 (read 148) are 
 (ZTua^ XsYOfxeva, of which 74 are found in I Timothy, 46 
 in II Timothy, and 28 in Titus. Besides these there is a 
 great number of phrases and expressions that are peculiar 
 and point away from Paul, such as Bttoxstv St7,atoauvir]v, 
 I Tim. 6:11; II Tim. 2:22; cpuXacaetv ty]v TcapaO-^/.iQV, 
 I Tim. 6:20; II Tim. 1:12, 14; TcapaxoXouOelv T'fl 
 StSaaitaXta, I Tim. 4:6; II Tim, 3:10; ^i^rfkoi xsvo^wvtat, 
 
 I Tim. 6:20; II Tim. 2:16; avOpwTco? Osou, I Tim. 6:11; 
 
 II Tim. 3:17; etc. On the other hand many expressions 
 that play a prominent part in Pauline literature are absent 
 from these letters, as a3[/,oi;, ay-po^utTxta, -^voipi^eiv , 8ty.aioauvTr) 
 Gsoii, Stx,atW[JLa, Ipya v6[xou, opLOtot^a, irotpaSoatq, etc. 
 
 As far as the first argument is concerned, it must be 
 admitted that these Epistles do not fit in the life of Paul, as 
 we know it from the Acts of the Apostles. Their genuine- 
 ness depends on the question, whether or not Paul was set 
 free again after the imprisonment described in Acts 28. 
 Now we have reasons, aside from the contents of these 
 Epistles, to believe that he was liberated and resumed his 
 missionary labors. In view of the fact that Felix, Festus 
 and Agrippa found no guilt in Paul, and that the apostle 
 was sent to Rome, only because he appealed to Csesar, the 
 presumption is that he was not condemned at Rome. This 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 239 
 
 presumption is greatly strengthened by the fact that, when 
 the apostle wrote his letters to the Philippians and to Phile- 
 mon, the prospect of his release seemed favorable, Phil, 
 1:25; 2:24; Philem. 22; compare II Tim. 4:6-8. It is 
 objected to this that Paul, in taking his farewell of the Ephe- 
 s'an elders, says to them: "I know (olSa) that ye all — 
 shall see my face no more," Acts 20:25. But it may be 
 doubted, whether we have the right to press this olSa so 
 that it becomes prophetic; if we have, it is counterbalanced 
 by the olSa in Phil. 1 :25. The most natural inference from 
 the data of Scripture (outside of these Epistles) is that 
 Paul was set free ; and this is confirmed by the tradition of 
 the early Church, as it is expressed by Eusebius, Church 
 Hist. II 22: Paul is said (Xoyo? ix&i), after having de- 
 fended himself to have set forth again upon the ministry 
 of preaching, and to have entered the same city a second 
 time, and to have ended his life by martyrdom. Whilst 
 then a prisoner, he wrote the second Epistle to Timothy, in 
 which he both mentions his first defense, and his impending 
 death." Moreover the Muratorian Fragment speaks of a 
 visit that Paul paid to Spain, which cannot be placed before 
 the first Roman imprisonment. And Clement of Rome states 
 in his letter to the Corinthians, after relating that the apostle 
 labored in the East and in the West, that he came to "the 
 bounderies of the West." Now it does not seem likely that 
 he, who himself lived in Rome, would refer to the city on 
 the Tiber in those terms. And if this is not the import of 
 those words, the presumption is that he too has reference 
 to Spain. 
 
 Paul's movements after his release are uncertain, and all 
 that can be said regarding them is conjectural. Leaving 
 Rome he probably first repaired to Macedonia and Asia 
 Minor for the intended visits, Phil. 1 : 23-26 ; Philem. 22, 
 and then undertook his long looked for journey to Spain, 
 Rom. 15:24. Returning from there, he possibly went to 
 Ephesus, where he had a dispute with Hymenaeus and Alex- 
 
240 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 ander, I Tim. 1 : 20, and engaged the services of Onesi- 
 phorus, II Tim. 1 : 16-18. Leaving Timothy in charge of 
 the Ephesian church, he departed for Macedonia, I Tim. 
 1 : 3, from where he most likely wrote I Timothy. After 
 this he may have visited Crete with Titus, leaving the latter 
 there to organize the churches. Tit. 1 : 5, and returning to 
 F^phesus according to his wishes, I Tim. 3: 14; 4: 13, where 
 Alexander the coppersmith did him great evil, II Tim. 
 4: 14. From here he probably wrote the Epistle to Titus, 
 for he was evidently in some center of missionary enter- 
 prise, when he composed it, Tit. 3: 12-15. Departing from 
 Ephesus, he went through Miletus, II Tim. 4 : 20 to Troas, 
 II Tim. 4:13, where he was probably re-arrested, and 
 whence he was taken to Rome by way of Corinth, the abode 
 of Erastus, II Tim. 4 : 20 ; Rom. 16 : 23. In that case he 
 did not reach Nicopolis, where he intended to spend the 
 winter. In this statement we proceed on the assumption 
 that the winter mentioned in II Tim. 4:21 is the same as 
 that of Titus 3 : 12. The second imprisonment of Paul was 
 more severe than the first, II Tim. 1 : 16, 17 ; 2 : 9. His first 
 defense appears to have been successful, II Tim. 4: 16, 17, 
 but as his final hearing drew nigh, he had a presentiment of 
 approaching martyrdom. According to the Chronicles of 
 Eusebius Paul died as a martyr in the thirteenth year of 
 Nero, or A. D. 67. 
 
 The objection that the theological teaching of these 
 Epistles is different from that of Paul, must be taken cum 
 grano salts, because this teaching merely complements and 
 in no way contradicts the representation of the undoubted 
 Epistles. We find no further objective development of the 
 truth here, but only a practical application of the doctrines 
 already unfolded in previous letters. And it was entirely 
 fitting that, as every individual letter, so too the entire cycle 
 of Pauline Epistles should end with practical admonitions. 
 Historically this is easily explained, on the one hand, by the 
 fact that the productive period of the apostle's life had come 
 to an end, and it is now Paul the aged — for all the vicissi- 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 241 
 
 tudes of a busy and stormy life must greatly have sapped his 
 strength — that speaks to us, cf . Philem. 9 ; and, on the other 
 hand, by the fact that the heresy which the apostle here en- 
 counters had developed into ethical corruption. If it is said 
 that the writer of these Epistles ascribes a meritorious char- 
 acter to good works, we take exception and qualify that as 
 a false statement. The passages referred to, such as I Tim. 
 1 : 15 ; 3 : 13 ; 4 : 8 ; 6 : 18 ff. ; II Tim. 4 : 8, do not prove the 
 assertion. Since a rather full statement of the Christian 
 truth had preceded these letters, it need not cause surprise 
 that Paul should refer to it as "the sound doctrine," Cf. 
 Rom. 6: 17. Nor does it seem strange, in view of this, that 
 alongside of the subjective the objective sense of the word 
 faith should begin to assert itself. We find an approach to 
 this already in Rom. 12:6; Gal. 1 : 23 ; Phil. 1 : 27. 
 
 It is a mistake to think that the emphasis which these 
 letters place on the external organization of the churches, 
 and the particular type of ecclesiastical polity which they 
 reflect, precludes their Pauline authorship. There is noth- 
 ing strange in the fact that Paul, knowing that the day of 
 Christ was not at hand (II Thess. 2:1-12), should lay 
 special stress on church government now that his ministry 
 was drawing to a close. It might rather have caused sur- 
 prise, if he had not thus made provision for the future of 
 his churches. And it is perfectly natural also that he should 
 emphasize the offices in the church rather than the extraor- 
 dinary spiritual gifts, since these gradually vanished and 
 made place for the ordinary ministry of the Word. The 
 position that the office-bearers mentioned in these letters 
 prove a development beyond that of the apostolic age, is not 
 substantiated by the facts. Deacons were appointed shortly 
 after the establishment of the Church, Acts 6; elders were 
 chosen from place to place, as the apostle founded churches 
 among the Gentiles, Acts 14 : 23 ; and in Phil, 1 : 1 Paul 
 addresses not only the Philippians in general, but also "the 
 bishops and deacons." Moreover in Eph. 4:11 the apostle 
 says : "And He gave you some apostles ; and some prophets ; 
 
242 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 and some evangelists ; and some pastors and teachers." 
 Surely it does not seem that the Pastoral Epistles are strik- 
 ingly different in this respect from the others. If it be said 
 that the bishop becomes so prominent here as to indicate 
 that the leaven of hierarchy was already working, we 
 answer that in the New Testament the terms eTuto-xoTCO? 
 and TCpea^uxepoq are clearly synonymous. The fact that the 
 bishop is spoken of in the singular proves nothing to the 
 contrary. Not once are bishops and presbyters arranged 
 alongside of each other as denoting two separate classes, 
 and in Titus 1 : 5-7 the terms are clearly interchangeable. 
 The case of Phebe, Rom. 16: 1 certainly does not counte- 
 nance the theory that the office of deaconess was not called 
 into existence until the second century. And the passages 
 that are supposed to prohibit the second marriage of office- 
 bearers are of too uncertain interpretation to justify the 
 conclusions drawn from them. 
 
 Granted that the errors to which these letters refer were 
 of a Gnostic character — as Alford is willing to grant — , it by 
 no means follows that the Epistles are second century pro- 
 ductions, since the first signs of the Gnostic heresy are 
 known to have made their appearance in the apostolic age. 
 But it is an unproved assumption that the writer refers to 
 Gnosticism of any kind. It is perfectly evident from the 
 letters that the heresy was of a Judseistic, though not of a 
 Pharisseic type, resembling very much the error that threat- 
 ened the Colossian church. Hort, after examining it care- 
 fully comes to the conclusion that "there is a total want of 
 evidence for anything pointing to even rudimentary Gnosti- 
 cism or Essenism." In view of the fact that the errorists 
 prided themselves as being teachers of the law, I Tim. 1 : 7, 
 and that the term yeveaXoY'a is brought in close connection 
 with "strivings about the law" in Titus 3 : 9, the presump- 
 tion is that it contains no reference whatever to the emana- 
 tions of Gnostic aeons, but rather, as Zahn surmises, to rab- 
 binic disputations regarding Jewish genealogies. And the 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 243 
 
 word "antitheses," of which Hort says that it cannot refer 
 to Marcion's work, is simply descriptive of the opposition 
 in which the heretics that boasted of a higher knowledge 
 placed themselves to the Gospel. 
 
 The argument from style has often proved to be a very 
 precarious one. If a person's vocabulary were a fixed quan- 
 tity, he were limited to the use of certain set phrases and 
 expressions, and his style, once acquired, were unchangeable 
 and necessarily wanting in flexibility, a plausible case might 
 be made out. But as a matter of fact such is not the usual 
 condition of things, and certainly was not the case with Paul, 
 who to a great extent moulded the language of the New 
 Testament. We need not and cannot deny that the language 
 of the Pastorals has many peculiarities, but in seeking to 
 explain these we should not immediately take refuge in a 
 supposed difiference of authorship, but rather make allow- 
 ance for the influence of Paul's advancing years, of the 
 altered conditions of his life, of the situation in which his 
 readers were placed, and of the subjects with which he was 
 obliged to deal in these Epistles. And let us not forget what 
 N. J. D. White says, Exp. Gk. Test. IV p. 63, that "the 
 acknowledged peculiarities must not be allowed to obscure 
 the equally undoubted fact that the Epistles present not only 
 as many characteristic Pauline words as the writer had use 
 for, but that, in the more significant matter of turns of ex- 
 pression, the style of the letters is fundamentally Pauline. 
 Cf . also the judicious remarks of Reuss on the style of these 
 letters. History of the New Testament, I p. 123. 
 
 In concluding our discussion of the authenticity of the 
 Pastoral Epistles we desire to remark : ( 1 ) The critics 
 admit that the objections urged by them against the genuine- 
 ness of these letters do not apply to all three of them in the 
 same degree. According to Baur II Timothy and Titus are 
 the least suspicious. He maintains, however, that I Timothy 
 will always be "the betrayer of its spurious brothers." But 
 it would be reasonable to turn the statement about with 
 Reuss, and to say that "so long as no decisive and palpable 
 
244 NEW TESTA MENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 proofs of the contrary are presented the two which are in 
 and of themselves less suspicious ought always to aflford 
 protection to the third which is more so." Ibid. p. 84. (2) 
 Baur and his followers rightly held that, in order to prove 
 the spuriousness of these letters, they had to point out the 
 positive purpose of the forgery ; in which, according to 
 Reuss, they utterly failed, when they said that it was to com- 
 bat the Gnostic heresies that were prevalent after A. D. 150, 
 Ibid. p. 124 f. (3) It looks a great deal like a confession of 
 defeat, when several of the negative critics admit that the 
 passages in which personal reminiscences are found, must 
 be regarded as genuine, for it means that they yield their 
 case wherever they can be controlled. For a broader dis- 
 cussion of the authenticity of these letters, cf. Alford, Pro- 
 legomena Section I ; Holtzmann, Einl. pp. 274-292 ; Zahn, 
 Einl. I pp. 459-491 ; Godet, Introd. pp. 567-611 ; Farrar. St. 
 Paul, II pp. 607-622 ; Salmon, Introd. pp. 433-452 ; McGif- 
 fert, Apostolic Age pp. 399-423 ; Davidson, Introd. II pp. 
 21-76. Lock (in Hastings D. B. Artt. I Timothy, II Tim- 
 othy and Titus.) 
 
The First Epistle to Timothy. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The first Epistle to Timothy may be divided into four 
 parts : 
 
 /. Introduction, 1 : 1-20. The apostle begins by remind- 
 ing Timothy that he had been left at Ephesus to counteract 
 prevalent heresies, 1-10. He directs the attention of his 
 spiritual son to the Gospel contradicted by these errors, 
 thanks the Lord that he was made a minister of it, and 
 charges Timothy to act in accordance with that Gospel, 
 11-20. 
 
 //. General Regulations for Church Life, 2 : 1 — 4 : 5. 
 Here we find first of all directions for public intercession 
 and for the behavior of men and women in the meetings of 
 the church, 2 : 1-15. These are followed by an explicit state- 
 ment of the qualities that are necessary in bishops and dea- 
 cons, 3:1-13. The expressed purpose of these directions 
 is, to promote the good order of the church, the pillar and 
 ground of the truth, essentially revealed in Christ, from 
 which the false brethren were departing, 3 : 14 — 4 : 5. 
 
 ///. Personal Advice to Timothy, 4: 6 — 6: 2. Here the 
 apostle speaks of Timothy's behavior towards the false 
 teachers, 4: 6-11 ; of the way in which he should regard and 
 discharge his ministerial duties, 12-16; and of the attitude 
 he ought to assume towards the individual members of the 
 church, especially towards the widows, the elders and the 
 slaves, 5 : 1 — 6 : 2. 
 
 IV. Conclusion, 6:3-21. The apostle now makes an- 
 other attack on the heretical teachers, 3 — 10; and exhorts 
 Timothy to be true to his calling and to avoid all erroneous 
 
246 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 teachings, giving him special directions with respect to the 
 rich, 11-21. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. This letter is one of the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, 
 which are so called, because they were written to persons 
 engaged in pastoral work and contain many directions for 
 pastoral duties. They were sent, not to churches, but to 
 office-bearers, instructing them how to behave in the house 
 of God. It is evident, however, that, with the possible ex- 
 ception of II Timothy, they were not intended exclusively 
 for the persons to whom they were addressed, but also for 
 the churches in which these labored. Cf. as far as this 
 Epistle is concerned, 4:6, 11; 5:7; 6:17. 
 
 2. From the preceding it follows that this letter is not 
 doctrinal but practical. We find no further objective devel- 
 opment of the truth here, but clear directions as to its prac- 
 tical application, especially in view of divergent tendencies. 
 The truth developed in previous Epistles is here represented 
 as the "sound doctrine" that must be the standard of life and 
 action, as "the faith" that should be kept, and as "a faithful 
 word worthy of all acceptation." The emphasis clearly falls 
 on the ethical requirements of the truth. 
 
 3. The letter emphasizes, as no other Epistle does, the 
 external organization of the church. The apostle feels that 
 the end of his life is fast approaching, and therefore deems 
 it necessary to give more detailed instruction regarding the 
 office-bearers in the church, in order that, when he is gone, 
 his youthful co-laborers and the church itself may know 
 how its aflfairs should be regulated. Of the office-bearers 
 the apostle mentions the imcY-onoq and the TCpej^utepot, 
 which are evidently identical, the first name indicating their 
 work, and the second emphasizing their age; the Stavtovot, 
 the fuvacxe?, if 3:11 refers to deaconesses, which is very 
 probable (so Ellicott, Alford, White in Exp. Gk. Test.) 
 and the '/iipat, ch. 5, though it is doubtful, whether these 
 were indeed office-bearers. 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY 247 
 
 4. Regarding the style of the Pastoral Epistles in general 
 Huther remarks : "In the other Pauline Epistles the fulness 
 of the apostle's thoughts struggle with the expression, and 
 cause peculiar difficulties in exposition. The thoughts slide 
 into one another, and are so intertwined in many forms that 
 not seldom the new thought begins before a correct expres- 
 sion has been given of the thought that preceded. Of this 
 confusion there is no example in the Pastoral Epistles. Even 
 in such passages as come nearest to this confused style, such 
 as the beginning of the first and second Epistles of Timothy 
 (Tit. 2 : 11 ff. ; 3 : 4 fif.) the connection of ideas is still on the 
 whole simple." Comni. p. 9. This estimate is in general 
 correct, though we would hardly speak of Paul's style in 
 his other letters as "a confused style." 
 
 THE PERSON TO WHOM THE EPISTLE WAS 
 WRITTEN. 
 
 Paul addresses this letter to "Timothy my own son in 
 the faith," 1 : 2. We find the first mention of Timothy in 
 Acts 16: 1, where he is introduced as an inhabitant of Ly- 
 stra. He was the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek 
 father, of whom we have no further knowledge. Both his 
 mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois are spoken of as 
 Christians in II Tim. 1:5. In all probabihty he was con- 
 verted by Paul on his first missionary journey, since he was 
 already a disciple, when the apostle entered Lystra on his 
 second tour. He had a good report in his home town. Acts 
 16 : 2, and, being circumcised for the sake of the Jews, he 
 joined Paul and Silas in their missionary labors. Passing 
 with the missionaries into Europe and helping them at 
 Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea, he remanied with Silas in 
 the last named place, while Paul pressed on to Athens and 
 Corinth, where they finally joined the apostle again, Acts 
 17: 14; 18: 5. Cf. however also I Thess. 3:1 and p. 222 
 above. He abode there with the missionaries and his name 
 appears with those of Paul and Silvanus in the addresses 
 of the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. We next find him 
 
248 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 ministering to the apostle during his long stay at Ephesus, 
 Acts 19 : 22, from where he was sent to Macedonia and 
 Corinth, Acts 19:21, 22; I Cor. 4: 17; 16: 10, though it is 
 doubtful, whether he reached that city. He was again in 
 Paul's company, when II Corinthians was written, II Cor. 
 1 : 1, and accompanied the apostle to Corinth, Rom. 16:21, 
 and again on his return through Macedonia to Asia, Acts 
 20:3, 4, probably also to Jerusalem, I Cor. 16:3. He is 
 then mentioned in the Epistles of the imprisonment, which 
 show that he was with the apostle at Rome, Phil. 1:1; Col. 
 1:1; Philem. 1. From this time on we hear no more of him 
 until the Pastoral Epistles show him to be in charge of the 
 Ephesian church, I Tim. 1:3. 
 
 From I Tim. 4: 14, and II Tim. 1 : 6 we learn that he 
 was set apart for the ministry by Paul with the laying on of 
 hands, in accordance with prophetic utterances of the Spirit, 
 I Tim. 1 : 18, when he probably received the title of evange- 
 list, II Tim. 4 : 5, though in I Thess. 2 : 6 he is loosely classed 
 with Paul and Silas as an apostle. We do not know when 
 this formal ordination took place, whether at the very begin- 
 ning of his work, or when he was placed in charge of the 
 church at Ephesus. 
 
 The character of Timothy is clearly marked in Scripture. 
 His readiness to leave his home and to submit to the rite of 
 circumcision reveal his self-denial and earnestness of pur- 
 pose. This is all the more striking, since he was very affec- 
 tionate, II Tim. 1 : 4, delicate and often ill, 1 Tim. 5 : 23. 
 At the same time he was timid, I Cor. 16 : 10, hesitating to 
 assert his authority, I Tim. 4: 12, and needed to be warned 
 against youthful lusts, II Tim. 2:22, and to be encouraged 
 in the work of Christ, II Tim. 1 : 8. Yet withal he was a 
 worthy servant of Jesus Christ, Rom. 16:21, I Thess. 3:2; 
 Phil. 1:1; 2 : 19-21 ; and the beloved spiritual son of the 
 apostle, I Tim. 1 : 2 ; II Tim. 1 : 2 ; I Cor. 4 : 17. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. This letter was occasioned 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY 249 
 
 by Paul's necessary departure from Ephesus for Mace- 
 donia, 1 : 3, the apprehension that he might be absent longer 
 than he at first expected, 3:14, 15, and the painful con- 
 sciousness that insidious errors were threatening the Ephe- 
 sian church. Since Timothy was acquainted with these 
 heresies, the apostle refers to them only in general terms 
 which convey no very definite idea as to their real character. 
 The persons who propagated them were prominent members 
 of the church, possibly even office-bearers, 1:6, 7, 20 ; 
 3: 1-12; 5: 19-25. Their heresy was primarily of a Jewish 
 character, 1 : 7, and probably resulted from an exaggeration 
 of the demands of the law, a mistaken application of Chris- 
 tian ideas and a smattering of Oriental speculation. They 
 claimed to be teachers of the law, 1 : 7, laid great stress on 
 myths and genealogies, 1 : 4 ; 4 : 7, prided themselves like the 
 rabbi's on the possession of special knowledge, 6 : 20, and, 
 perhaps assuming that matter was evil or at least the seat 
 of evil, they propagated a false asceticism, prohibiting mar- 
 riage and requiring abstenence from certain foods, 4 : 3, 
 and taught that the resurrection was already past, most likely 
 recognizing only a spiritual resurrection, II Tim. 2 : 18. The 
 charge entrusted to Timothy was therefore a difficult one, 
 hence the apostle deemed it necessary to write this Epistle. 
 
 In connection with the situation described the purpose of 
 Paul was twofold. In the first place he desired to encourage 
 Timothy. This brother, being young and of a timid disposi- 
 tion, needed very much the cheering word of the apostle. 
 And in the second place it was his aim to direct Timothy's 
 warfare against the false doctrines that were disseminated in 
 the church. Possibly it was also to prevent the havoc which 
 these might work, if they who taught them were allowed in 
 office, that he places such emphasis on the careful choice of 
 office-bearers, and on the necessity of censuring them, should 
 they go wrong. 
 
 2. Time and Place. The Epistle shows that Paul had 
 left Ephesus for Macedonia with the intention of returning 
 soon. And it was because he anticipated some delay that 
 
250 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 he wrote this letter to Timothy. Hence we may be sure that 
 it was written from some place in Macedonia. 
 
 But the time when the apostle wrote this letter is not so 
 easily determined. On what occasion did Paul quit Ephesus 
 for Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind ? Not after his first 
 visit to Ephesus, Acts 18:20, 21, for on that occasion the 
 apostle did not depart for Macedonia but for Jerusalem. 
 Neither was it when he left Ephesus on his third missionary- 
 journey after a three years' residence, since Timothy was 
 not left behind then, but had been sent before him to 
 Corinth, Acts 19:22; I Cor. 4: 17. Some are inclined to 
 think that we must assume a visit of Paul to Macedonia 
 during his Ephesian residence, a visit not recorded in the 
 Acts of the Apostles. But then we must also find room 
 there for the apostle's journey to Crete, since it is improbable 
 that the Epistle of Paul to Titus was separated by any great 
 interval of time from I Timothy. And to this must be 
 added a trip to Corinth, cf. above p. 163. This theory is 
 very unlikely in view of the time Paul spent at Ephesus, 
 as compared with the work he did there, and of the utter 
 silence of Luke regarding these visits. We must date the 
 letter somewhere between the first and the second imprison- 
 ment of Paul. It was most likely after the apostle's journey 
 to Spain, since on the only previous occasion that he visited 
 Ephesus after his release he came to that city by way of 
 Macedonia, and therefore would not be likely to return 
 thither immediately. Probably the letter should be dated 
 about A. D. 65 or 66. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 There was not the slightest doubt in the ancient church 
 as to the canonicity of this Epistle. We find allusions more 
 or less clear to its language in Clement of Rome, Poly carp, 
 Hegesippus, Athenagoras and Theophilus. It was contained 
 in the old Latin and Syriac Versions and referred to Paul by 
 the Muratorian Fragment. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexan- 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY 251 
 
 dria and Tertullian quote it by name, and Eusebius reckons 
 it among the generally accepted canonical writings. 
 
 The great abiding value of the Epistle is found in the 
 fact that it teaches the Church of all generations, how one, 
 especially an office-bearer, should behave in the house of 
 God, holding the faith, guarding his precious trust against 
 the inroads of false doctrines, combating the evil that is 
 found in the Lord's heritage, and maintaining good order 
 in church life. "It witnesses," says Lock (Hastings D. B. 
 Art. I Timothy) "that a highly ethical and spiritual concep- 
 tion of religion is consistent with and is safeguarded by 
 careful regulations about worship, ritual and organized 
 ministry. There is no opposition between the outward and 
 the inward, between the spirit and the organized body." 
 
The Second Epistle to Timothy. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The contents of this Epistle falls into three parts : 
 
 /. Considerations to strengthen Timothy's Courage, 
 1:1 — 2:13. After the greeting, 1, 2, the apostle urges 
 Timothy to stir up his ministerial gift, to be bold in suffer- 
 ing, and to hold fast the truth entrusted to him, 3 — 14, en- 
 forcing these appeals by pointing to the deterrent example 
 of the unfaithful and the stimulating example of Onesi- 
 phorus, 15 — 18. Further he exhorts him to be strong in the 
 power of grace, to commit the true teaching to others, and 
 to be ready to face suffering, 2: 1-13. 
 
 //. Exhortations primarily dealing with Timothy's 
 Teaching, 2 : lA — 4 : 8. Timothy should urge Christians to 
 avoid idle and useless discussions, and should rightly teach 
 the truth, shunning vain babblings, 14-21. He must also 
 avoid youthful passions, foolish investigations, and false 
 teachers who, for selfish purposes, turn the truth of God 
 into unrighteousness, 2 : 22 — 3 : 9. He is further exhorted 
 to abide loyally by his past teaching, knowing that sufferings 
 will come to every true soldier and that deceivers will grow 
 worse, 10-17; and to fulfil his whole duty as an evangelist 
 with sobriety and courage, especially since Paul is now ready 
 to be offered up, 4 : 1-8. 
 
 ///. Personal Reminiscences, 4 : 9-22. Paul appeals to 
 Timothy to come to Rome quickly, bringing Mark and also 
 taking his cloak and books, and to avoid Alexander, 9-15. 
 He speaks of his desertion by men, the protection afforded 
 him by the Lord, and his trust for the future, 16-18. With 
 special greetings, a further account of his fellow-laborers, 
 and a final salutation the apostle ends his letter, 19-22. 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY 253 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. II Timothy is the most personal of the Pastoral 
 Epistles. Doctrinally it has no great importance, though it 
 does contain the strongest proof-passage for the inspiration 
 of Scripture. In the main the thought centers about 
 Timothy, the faithful co-laborer of Paul, whom the apostle 
 gives encouragement in the presence of great difficulties, 
 whom he inspires to noble, self-denying efforts in the King- 
 dom of God, and whom he exhorts to fight worthily in the 
 spiritual warfare against the powers of darkness, that he 
 may once receive an eternal reward. 
 
 2. It is the last Epistle of Paul, the swan-song of the 
 great apostle, after a life of devotion to a noble cause, a 
 life of Christian service. We see him here with work done, 
 facing a martyr's death. Looking back his heart is filled 
 with gratitude for the grace of God that saved him from 
 the abyss that yawned at his feet, that called and qualified 
 him to be a messenger of the cross, that protected him when 
 dangers were threatening, and that crowned his work with 
 rich spiritual fruits. And as he turns his eyes to the future, 
 calm assurance and joyous hope are the strength of his soul, 
 for he knows that the firm foundation of God will stand, 
 since the Lord will punish the evil-doers and be the eternal 
 reward of his children. He already has visions of the heav- 
 enly Kingdom, of eternal glory, of the coming righteous 
 Judge, and of the crown of righteousness, the blessed in- 
 heritance of all those that love Christ's appearance. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. The immediate occasion for 
 writing this Epistle was the apostle's presentiment of his 
 fast approaching end. He was anxious that Timothy should 
 come to him soon, bringing Mark with him. In all probabil- 
 ity he desired to give his spiritual son some fatherly advice 
 and some practical instruction before his departure. But 
 we feel that this alone did not call for a letter such as II 
 Timothy really is. Another factor must be taken in con- 
 
254 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 sideration. Paul was not sure that Timothy would succeed 
 in reaching Rome before his death, and yet realized that the 
 condition of the Ephesian church, the danger to which 
 Timothy was there exposed, and the importance of the work 
 entrusted to this youthful minister, called for a word of 
 apostolic advice, encouragement and exhortation. It seems 
 that the Ephesian church was threatened by persecution, 
 1:8; 2:3, 12 ; 3:12; 4:5; and the heresy to which the 
 apostle referred in his first epistle was evidently still rife 
 in the circle of believers. There were those who strove 
 about words, 2 : 14, were unspiritual, 2 : 16, corrupted in 
 mind, 3 : 8, indulging in foolish and ignorant questionings, 
 2 : 23, and fables, 4 : 4, tending to a low standard of morality, 
 2:19, and teaching that the resurrection was already past, 
 2:18. 
 
 Hence the object of the Epistle is twofold. The writer 
 wants to warn Timothy of his impending departure, to in- 
 form him of his past experiences at Rome and of his present 
 loneliness, and to exhort him to come speedily. Besides 
 this, however, he desired to strengthen his spiritual son in 
 view of the deepening gloom of trials and persecution that 
 were threatening the church from without ; and to fore-arm 
 him against the still sadder danger of heresy and apostasy 
 that were lurking within the fold. Timothy is exhorted to 
 hold fast the faith, 1 : 5, 13 ; to endure hardness as a good 
 soldier of Jesus Christ, 2:3-10; to shun every form of 
 heresy, 2 : 16-18 ; to instruct in meekness those that with- 
 stand the Gospel, 2 : 24-26 ; and to continue in the things he 
 had learnt, 3:14-17. 
 
 2. Time and Place. From 1 : 17 it is perfectly evident 
 -that this letter was written at Rome. The apostle was again 
 a prisoner in the imperial city. Though we have no absolute 
 certainty, we deem it probable that he was re-arrested at 
 Troas in the year 67. The situation in which he finds him- 
 self at Rome is quite different from that reflected in the 
 other epistles of the captivity. He is now treated like a 
 common criminal, 2:9; his Asiatic friends with the excep- 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY 255 
 
 tion of Onesiphorus turned from him, 1:15; the friends 
 who were with him during his first imprisonment are absent 
 now, Col. 4: 10-14; II Tim. 4: 10-12; and the outlook of 
 the apostle is quite different from that found in Philippians 
 and Philemon. It is impossible to tell just how long the 
 apostle had already been in prison, when he wrote the 
 Epistle, but from the fact that he had had one hearing, 4 : 16 
 (which cannot refer to that of the first imprisonment, cf. 
 Phil, 1 : 7, 12-14), and expected to be offered up soon, we 
 infer that he composed the letter towards the end of his 
 imprisonment, i. e. in the fall of A. D. 67. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The canonicity of this Epistle has never been questioned 
 by the Church ; and the testimony to its early and general 
 use is in no way deficient. There are quite clear traces of 
 its language in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin 
 Martyr, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, and Theophilus of 
 Antioch. The letter is included in all the MSS., the old 
 Versions and the Lists of the Pauline Epistles. The Mura- 
 torian Fragment names it as a production of Paul, and from 
 the end of the second century it is quoted by name. 
 
 The Epistle has some permanent doctrinal value as con- 
 taining the most important proof-passage for the inspiration 
 of Scripture, 3 : 16, and also abiding historical significance 
 in that it contains the clearest Scriptural testimony to the 
 life of Paul after his first Roman imprisonment. But Lock 
 truly says that "its main interest is one of character, and two 
 portraits emerge from it." We have here (1) the portrait 
 of the ideal Christian minister, busily engaged in the work 
 of his Master, confessing His Name, proclaiming His truth, 
 shepherding His fold, defending his heritage, and battling 
 with the powers of evil; and (2) the "portrait of the Chris- 
 tian minister, with his work done, facing death. He 
 acquiesces gladly in the present, but his eyes are turned 
 mainly to the past or to the future." (Lock in Hastings 
 D. B. Art. II Timothy) He is thankful for the work he was 
 permitted to do, and serenely awaits the day of his crowning. 
 
The Epistle to Titus. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The contents of this Epistle may be divided into three 
 parts : 
 
 /. Instruction regarding the Appointment of Ministers, 
 1 : 1-16. After the opening salutation, 1-4, the apostle re- 
 minds Titus of his past instruction to appoint presbyters, 5. 
 He emphasizes the importance of high moral character in an 
 overseer, in order that such an office-bearer may maintain 
 the sound doctrine and may refute the opponents that mis- 
 lead others and, claiming to know God, deny Him with their 
 words, 6-16. 
 
 //. Directions as to the Teaching of Titus, 2: 1 — 3: 11. 
 Paul would have Titus urge all the different classes that 
 were found in the Cretan church, viz. the elder men and 
 women, the younger women and men, and the slaves, to 
 regulate their life in harmony with the teachings of the 
 Gospel, since they were all trained by the saving grace of 
 God to rise above sin and to lead godly lives, 2: 1-14. As 
 regards their relation to the outer world, Titus should teach 
 believers to subject themselves to the authorities, and to be 
 gentle towards all men, remembering that God had delivered 
 them from the old heathen vices, in order that they should 
 set others an example of noble and useful lives, 3 : 1-8. He 
 himself must avoid foolish questionings and reject the here- 
 tics, who refused to listen to his admonition, 9-11. 
 
 ///. Personal Details, 3:12-15. Instructing Titus to 
 join him at Nicopolis after Artemus or Tychicus has come 
 to Crete, bringing with him Zenos and ApoUos, the writer 
 ends his letter with a final salutation. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO TITUS 257 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. Like the other Pastoral Epistles this letter is also of 
 a personal nature. It was not directed to any individual 
 church or to a group of churches, but to a single person, one 
 of Paul's spiritual sons and co-laborers in the work of the 
 Lord. At the same time it is not as personal as II Timothy, 
 but has distinctly a semi-private character. It is perfectly 
 evident from the Epistle itself (cf. 2: 15) that its teaching 
 was also intended for the church in Crete to which Titus 
 was ministering. 
 
 2. This letter is in every way very much like I Timothy, 
 which is due to the fact that the two were written about the 
 same time and were called forth by very similar situations. 
 It is shorter than the earlier Epistle, but covers almost the 
 same ground. We do not find in it any advance on the doc- 
 trinal teachings of the other letters of Paul ; in fact it con- 
 tains very little doctrinal teaching, aside from the compre- 
 hensive statements of the doctrine of grace in 2: 11-14 and 
 3 : 4-8. The former of these passages is a locus classicus. 
 The main interest of the Epistle is ecclesiastical and ethical, 
 the government of the church and the moral life of its mem- 
 bers receiving due consideration. 
 
 THE PERSON TO WHOM THE EPISTLE WAS 
 WRITTEN. 
 
 Paul addressed the letter to "Titus mine own son after 
 the common faith," 1 : 4. We do not meet with Titus in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, which is all the more remarkable, since 
 he was one of the most trusted companions of Paul. For 
 this reason some surmised that he is to be identified with 
 some one of the other co-laborers of Paul, as f. i. Timothy, 
 Silas or Justus, Acts 18 : 7. But neither of these satisfy the 
 conditions. 
 
 He is first mentioned in Gal. 2: 1, 3, where we learn that 
 he was a Greek, who was not compelled to submit to circum- 
 cision, lest Paul should give his enemies a handle against 
 himself. From Titus 1 : 4 we infer that he was one of the 
 
258 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 apostle's converts, and Gal. 2:3 informs us that he accom- 
 panied Paul to the council of Jerusalem. According to some 
 the phrase 6 auv i[L6i in this passage implies that he was 
 also with Paul, when he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, 
 but the inference is rather unwarranted. He probably bore 
 I Corinthians to its destination, II Cor. 2: 13, and after his 
 return to Paul, was sent to Corinth again to complete the 
 collection for the saints in Judaea, II Cor. 8: 16 ff. Most 
 likely he was also the bearer of II Corinthians. When next 
 we hear of him, he is on the island of Crete in charge of the 
 church(es) that had been founded there. Titus 1:4. 5, and 
 is requested to join Paul at Nicopolis, 3 : 12, Evidently he 
 was with the apostle in the early part of his second imprison- 
 ment, but soon left him for Dalmatia, either at the behest, 
 or against the desire of Paul. The traditions regarding his 
 later life are of doubtful value. 
 
 If we compare I Tim. 4: 12 with Titus 2: 15, we get the 
 impression that Titus was older than his co-laborer at Ephe- 
 sus. The timidity of the latter did not characterize the 
 former. While Timothy went to Corinth, so it seems, with 
 some hesitation, I Cor. 16: 10, Titus did not flinch from the 
 delicate task of completing the collection for the saints in 
 Judsea, but undertook it of his own accord, II Cor. 8 : 16, 
 17. He was full of enthusiasm for the Corinthians, was 
 free from wrong motives in his work among them, and fol- 
 lowed in the footsteps of the apostle, II Cor. 12 : 18. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. The occasion for writing this 
 Epistle is found in the desire of Paul that Titus should 
 come to him in the near future, and in the condition of the 
 Cretan church (es), whose origin is lost in obscurity. Prob- 
 ably the island was evangelized soon after the first Pentecost 
 by those Cretans that were converted at Jerusalem, Acts 
 2:11. During the last part of his life Paul visited the island 
 and made provision for the external organization of the 
 church (es) there. When he left, he entrusted this im- 
 
THE EPISTLE TO TITUS 259 
 
 portant task to his spiritual son, Titus, 1:5. The church (es) 
 consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, 1 : 10, of different ages 
 and of various classes, 2 : 1-10. The Cretans did not have 
 a very good reputation, 1 : 12, and some of them did not 
 belie their reputed character, even after they had turned to 
 Christ. Apparently the errors that had crept into the 
 church (es) there were very similar to those with which 
 Timothy had to contend at Ephesus, though probably the 
 Judseistic element was still more prominent in them, 1 : 10, 
 11, 14; 3:9. 
 
 The object of Paul in writing this letter is to summon 
 Titus to come to him, as soon as another has taken his 
 place ; to give him directions regarding the ordination of 
 presbyters in the different cities ; to warn him against the 
 heretics on the island ; and guide him in his teaching and in 
 his dealing with those that would not accept his word. 
 
 2. Time and Place. Respecting the time when this 
 Epistle was written there is no unanimity. Those who be- 
 lieve in the genuineness of the letter, and at the same time 
 postulate but one Roman imprisonment, seek a place for it 
 in the life of Paul, as we know it from the Acts. According 
 to some it was written during the apostle's first stay at 
 Corinth, from where, in that case, he must have made a trip 
 to Crete ; others think it was composed at Ephesus, after 
 Paul left Corinth and had on the way visited Crete. But 
 the word "continued" in Acts 18: 11 seems to preclude a 
 trip from Corinth to Crete. Moreover both of these theories 
 leave Paul's acquaintance with Apollos, presupposed in this 
 letter, unexplained, 3: 13. Still others would date the visit 
 to Crete and the composition of this letter somewhere be- 
 tween the years 54-57, when the apostle resided at Ephesus, 
 but this hypothesis is also burdened with insuperable ob- 
 jections. Cf. above p. 249. The Epistle must have been 
 composed in the interval between the first and the second 
 imprisonment of the apostle, and supposing the winter of 
 3: 13 to be the same as that of II Tim. 4:21, probably in 
 the early part of the year 67. We have no means to deter- 
 
260 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 mine, where the letter was written, though something can 
 be said in favor of Ephesus, cf. p. '-^39 above. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The Church from the beginning accepted this Epistle 
 as canonical. There are passages in Clement of Rome, 
 Ignatius, Barnabas, Justin Martyr and Theophilus that sug- 
 gest literary dependence. Moreover the letter is found in 
 all the MSS. and in the old Latin and Syriac Versions ; and 
 is referred to in the Muratorian Fragment. Irenaeus, 
 Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian quote it by name. 
 
 The permanent value of the letter is in some respects 
 quite similar to that of I Timothy. It has historical signi- 
 ficance in that it informs us of the spread of Christianity 
 on the island of Crete, a piece of information that we could 
 not gather from any other Biblical source. Like I Timothy 
 it emphasizes for all ages to com.e the necessity of church 
 organization and the special qualifications of the office- 
 bearers. It is unique in placing prominently before us the 
 educative value of the grace of God for the life of every 
 man, of male and female, young and old, bond and free. 
 
The Epistle to Philemon. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 We can distinguish three parts in this brief letter : 
 
 /. The Introduction, 1-7. This contains the address, 
 the customary blessing, and a thanksgiving of the apostle 
 for the charity of Philemon, for the increase of which Paul 
 hopes, because it greatly refreshes the saints. 
 
 //. The Request, 8-21. Rather than command Phile- 
 mon the apostle comes to him with a request, viz. that he 
 receive back the converted slave Onesimus and forgive him 
 his wrong-doing. Paul enforces his request by pointing to 
 the conversion of Onesimus, and to his own willingness to 
 repay Philemon what he lost, though he might ask retribu- 
 tion of him ; and trusts that Philemon will do more than he 
 asks. 
 
 ///. Conclusion, 22-25. Trusting that he will be set 
 free, the apostle requests Philemon to prepare for him a 
 lodging. With greetings of his fellow-laborers and a final 
 salutation he ends his letter. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. This letter is closely related to the Epistle that was 
 sent to the Colossian church. They were composed at the 
 same time, were sent to the same city and, with a single 
 exception (that of Justus), contain identical greetings. At 
 the same time it is distinguished from Colossians in that it 
 is a private letter. Yet it is not addressed to a single in- 
 dividual, but to a family and to the believers at their house. 
 
 2. The letter is further characterized by its great deli- 
 cacy and tactfulness. It bears strong evidence to Christian 
 
262 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 courtesy, and has therefore been called "the polite epistle." 
 In it we see Paul, the gentleman, handling a delicate question 
 with consummate skill. Though he might command, he 
 prefers to request that Philemon forgive and receive again 
 his former slave. Tactfully he refers to the spiritual benefit 
 that accrued from what might be called material loss. In a 
 delicate manner he reminds Philemon of the debt the latter 
 owed him, and expresses his confidence that this brother in 
 Christ would even do more than he requested. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 Marcion included this letter in his Pauline collection, and 
 the Muratorian Fragment also ascribes it to Paul. Tertul- 
 lian and Origen quote it by name, and Eusebius reckons it 
 among the Pauline letters. 
 
 Moreover the Epistle has all the marks of a genuine 
 Pauline production. It is self-attested, contains the usual 
 Pauline blessing, thanksgiving and salutation, reveals the 
 character of the great apostle and clearly exhibits his style. 
 
 Yet even this short and admirable Epistle has not en- 
 joyed universal recognition. Baur rejected it because of its 
 close relation to Colossians and Ephesians, which he re- 
 garded as spurious. He called it "the embryo of a Chris- 
 tian romance," like that of the Clementine Recognitions, 
 its tendency being to show that what is lost on earth is 
 gained in heaven. He also objects to it that it contains seven 
 words which Paul uses nowhere else. Weizsacker and 
 Pfleiderer are somewhat inclined to follow Baur. They find 
 proof for the allegorical character of the letter in the name 
 Onesimus = profitable, helpful. The latter thinks that this 
 note may have accompanied the Epistle to the Colossians, to 
 illustrate by a fictitious example the social precepts contained 
 in that letter. Such criticism need not be taken seriously. 
 Hilgenf eld's dictum is that Baur has not succeeded in rais- 
 ing his explanation to the level of probability. And Renan 
 says : "Paul alone can have written this little masterpiece." 
 
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 263 
 
 THE PERSON TO WHOM THE LETTER IS 
 WRITTEN. 
 
 The letter is addressed to "Philemon our dearly beloved 
 and fellow-laborer, and to our beloved Apphia, and Archip- 
 pus, our fellow-soldier, and to the church in thy house," 1, 2. 
 Little is known of this Philemon. He was evidently an in- 
 habitant of Colossse, Col. 4 : 9, and apparently belonged to 
 the wealthy class. He had slaves, received a circle of friends 
 in his house, and was able to prepare a lodging for Paul, 22. 
 His munificence was generally known, 5-7, and he made 
 himself useful in Christian service. He was converted by 
 Paul, 19, most likely during the apostle's three years resi- 
 dence at Ephesus. Apphia is generally regarded as the 
 wife of Philemon, while many consider Archippus as their 
 son. We notice from Col. 4: 17 that the latter had an office 
 in the church. Probably he was temporarily taking the place 
 of Epaphras. The expression "the church in thy house" un- 
 doubtedly refers to the Christians of Colossae that gathered 
 in the dwelling of Philemon for worship. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 L Occasion and Purpose. The occasion for writing this 
 Epistle is clearly indicated in the letter itself. Onesimus. 
 the slave of Philemon absconded and, so it seems, defrauded 
 his master, 18, 19. He fled to Rome, where in some way — it 
 is useless to guess just how — he fell in with Paul, whom he 
 may have known from the time of his Ephesian residence. 
 The apostle was instrumental in converting him and in show- 
 ing him the evil of his way, 10, and although he would gladly 
 have retained him for the work, sent him back to Colossae 
 in deference to the claims of Philemon. He did not send 
 him empty-handed, however, but gave him a letter of 
 recommendation, in which he informs Philemon of the 
 change wrought in Onesimus by which the former slave be- 
 came a brother, bespeaks for him a favorable reception in 
 the family of his master and in the circle that gathered at 
 
264 NEW TESTA MENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 their house for worship, and even hints at the desirability 
 of emancipating him. 
 
 2. Time and place. For the discussion of the time and 
 place of composition cf, what was said respecting the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians, 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 This Epistle is rarely quoted by the early church fathers,' 
 which is undoubtedly due to its brevity and to its lack of 
 doctrinal contents. The letter is recognized by Marcion 
 and the Muratorian Fragment, and is contained in the old 
 Latin and Syriac Versions. Tertullian quotes it more than 
 once, but no trace of it is found in Irenaeus and Clement of 
 Alexandria. Eusebius classes it with the Homologoumena 
 and Jerome argues at length against those who refused to 
 accept it as Pauline. The Church never doubted its 
 canonicity. 
 
 The permanent value of this little letter is both psycho- 
 logical and ethical. It shows us Paul as he corresponds in 
 a friendly way with a brother in Christ, and thus gives us a 
 new glimpse of his character, the character of a perfect 
 gentleman, unobtrusive, refined, skillful and withal firm, — a 
 character worthy of imitation. Moreover it reveals to us 
 how Paul, in view of the unity of bond and free in Jesus 
 Christ, deals with the perplexing question of slavery. He 
 does not demand the abolishment of the institution, since 
 the time for such a drastic measure had not yet come ; but he 
 does clearly hint at emancipation as the natural result of the 
 redemptive work of Christ. 
 
The Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 In this Epistle we may distinguish five parts. 
 
 /. The Superiority of Christ as Mediator, 1 : 1 — 4 : 16. 
 The writer begins by saying that the New Testament revela- 
 tion was mediated by the very Son of God, who is far 
 superior to the angels, 1:1-14; whose revelation one can 
 only neglect to the peril of one's soul, 2 : 1-4, and in whom 
 and through whom the ideal of man is realized through suf- 
 fering, 5-18. Then he points out that Christ is greater than 
 Moses, as the builder is greater than the house and the son 
 is superior to the servant, 3 : 1-6, wherefore it is necessary 
 that we should listen to his voice, since unbelief deprives 
 us of the blessings of salvation, as is clearly seen in the his- 
 tory of Israel, 7-19. They were not brought into the rest 
 by Joshua, so that the promise remains to be fulfilled, and 
 we should labor to enter into that rest, seeking strength in 
 our great High Priest, 4: 1-16. 
 
 //. Christ the true High Priest, 5 : 1 — 7 : 28. Like every 
 high priest Christ was taken from among men to represent 
 them in worship, and was called by God, 5:1-5; but in dis- 
 tinction from these He was made a Priest after the order of 
 Melchizedek, and thus became the author of eternal salva- 
 tion for those that obey him, 6-10. Since the readers were 
 not yet able to understand all that might be said regarding 
 the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek, the 
 author exhorts them to press on to more perfect knowledge, 
 to beware of apostasy, and to be diligent to inherit, through 
 faith and patience, the promises of the ever faithful God, 
 5:11 — 6:20. Returning now to the subject in hand, the 
 writer describes the unique character of Melchizedek, 
 
266 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 7: 1-10, and contrasts the priesthood of Christ with that of 
 the order of Aaron with respect to fleshly descent (Levi — 
 Judah), 11-14; endurance (temporal — eternal) 15-19; 
 solemnity and weight (without oath — with oath) 20-22; 
 number (many — one) 23-24; and then argues the necessity 
 of such a High Priest for us, 25-28. 
 
 ///. Pre-eminence of the New Covenant mediated by 
 Jesus Christ, 8 : 1 — 10 : 18. As High Priest Christ is now 
 ministering in heaven, of which the tabernacle on earth was 
 but a shadow, since He is the Mediator, not of the Old, but 
 of the New Covenant, 8: 1-13. The ordained services and 
 the sanctuary of the old dispensation were merely figures 
 for the time then present, and pointed to the better services 
 which Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant would ren- 
 der at the heavenly sanctuary, since He would not enter 
 with the blood of bulls and goats, but with his own blood, 
 thus bringing eternal redemption, 9 : 1-28. The sacrifices of 
 the old dispensation could not take away sin, and therefore 
 Christ ofl:'ered himself for our purification and to give us 
 access to the throne of God, 10: 1-18. 
 
 IV. Application of the Truths presented and Personal 
 Epilogue, 10:19 — 13:25. The writer exhorts the readers 
 to draw near to God with confidence, and warns them 
 against apostasy, reminding them of its dire consequences 
 and of their former endurance, and assuring them that the 
 just shall live by faith, 10: 19-39. He illustrates this point 
 by presenting to their view a long line of heroes that 
 triumphed in faith, 11 : 1-40. In view of these examples he 
 urges them to endure chastening which is a sign of their 
 sonship and ministers to their sanctification, and warns them 
 against despising the grace of God, 12:1-17. Since they 
 have received far greater privileges than Old Testament 
 saints, they should strive to serve God acceptably with rever- 
 ence and godly fear, 18-29. Then follow some general 
 exhortations respecting hospitality, marriage, contentment, 
 the following in the footsteps of their teachers, and the 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 267 
 
 necessity of guarding against strange doctrines, 13:1-17; 
 after which the writer closes the letter with a few personal 
 notices and salutations, 18-25. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. The Epistle to the Hebrews has not the letter-like 
 appearance of the confessedly Pauline writings. It does not 
 contain the name of the author, nor that of the addressees. 
 And if it were not for a few stray personal notes, 10 : 34 ; 
 13: 18, 25, and for the greetings and salutations found at 
 the end, we might regard this writing as a treatise rather 
 than an Epistle. Deissmann, who emphasizes the non- 
 literary character of the admittedly Pauline compositions, 
 and insists that they be looked upon as real letters, considers 
 this writing to be an Epistle as distinguished from a letter, 
 and thinks it is very important to recognize its literary char- 
 acter. According to him "it is historically the earliest exam- 
 ple of Christian artistic literature." Light from the Ancient 
 East p. 64 f . ; 236 f . ; 243. 
 
 2. The relation in which the teaching of this book stands 
 to that of the Old Testament is unique. It does not view the 
 Law as a body of commandments imposed on the obedience 
 of man, but as a system of ritual provided by the mercy of 
 God ; and clearly reveals its insufficiency as an institution for 
 the removal of sin, since it could only remove ceremonial 
 defilement and could not purify the heart. In harmony with 
 this divergence from the prevailing Pauline conception of 
 the Law, it does not, like the undoubted letters of Paul, re- 
 gard the Law as an episode temporarily intervening, on ac- 
 count of sin, between the promise and its fulfilment ; but as 
 a typical representation, as a primitive revelation of the 
 blessings to which the promise pointed. In it the image of 
 the New Testament realities is dimly seen ; it is the bud that 
 gradually develops into a beautiful flower. The realities 
 that answer to the shadows of the Old Testament are 
 pointed out in detail, and thereby this Epistle is for all ages 
 the inspired commentary on the ritual of the Old Covenant, 
 
268 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 making the pages of Leviticus luminous with heavenly light. 
 We should bear in mind that the terms type and antitype 
 are employed in a rather unusual sense in this letter ; their 
 meaning is in a way reversed. The holy places of the earthly 
 tabernacle are called the avtiTUTua of the true and heavenly, 
 9 : 24, according to which usage the latter are, of course, the 
 types of the former, cf . 8 : 5. 
 
 3. This letter is peculiar also in the way in which it 
 quotes the Old Testament. While in the writings that bear 
 Paul's name the quotations are partly from the Hebrew and 
 partly from the Septuagint, in this Epistle they are uni- 
 formly derived from the Greek. Moreover the formulae of 
 quotation are different from those in the other letters. While 
 these generally refer the passages quoted to their human 
 authors, except in cases where God speaks in the first person 
 in the Old Testament, our Epistle with but few exceptions 
 refers them to the primary author, i. e. to God or to the Holy 
 Spirit, thus offering indubitable proof of the author's belief 
 in the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 
 4. The language of this Epistle is the best literary Greek 
 of the New Testament. We do not find the author strug- 
 gling, as it were, with a scanty language to express the abun- 
 dance of the thoughts that are crowding in upon him. There 
 are no broken constructions, no halting sentences, and, al- 
 though a few parentheses are introduced, they do not disturb 
 the thought, cf. 11:38; 12:20, 21. The sentences are all 
 evenly balanced and the style flows on with great regularity. 
 The writer seems to have given special attention to the 
 rhetorical rhythm and equilibrium of words and sentences. 
 Westcott says : "The style of the book is characteristically 
 Hellenistic, perhaps we may say, as far as our scanty knowl- 
 edge goes, Alexandrian." Comm. p. LXI. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews constitutes 
 a very difficult question. The external testimony is of a 
 conflicting character. The oldest and most explicit tradition 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 269 
 
 is that of Alexandria, where Clement testified that the 
 Epistle was written by Paul in the Hebrezv language and 
 was translated by Luke into Greek. Origen regards the 
 thoughts of the Epistle as Paul's, but the language as that 
 of a disciple of the great apostle, and finally comes to the 
 conclusion that God only knows who wrote this letter. He 
 does not make mention of a Hebrew original. Both Clement 
 and Origen agree, however, in regarding the Greek Epistle 
 as Pauline only in a secondary sense. In Italy and Western 
 Europe generally the letter was not held to be Paul's. This 
 is the more remarkable, since we find the first trace of its 
 existence in the West, in the writings of Clement of Rome. 
 Hippolytus and Irenaeus were acquainted with it, but did 
 not accept it as Paul's ; Cajus reckoned only thirteen Pauline 
 Epistles and Eusebius says that even in his time the negative 
 opinion was still held by some Romans. In North Africa, 
 where the Roman tradition is usually followed, the letter was 
 not regarded as the work of Paul. TertuUian ascribes it to 
 Barnabas. In the fourth century the Eastern tradition grad- 
 ually prevailed over the Western, especially through the 
 influence of Augustine and Jerome, though they felt by no 
 means certain that Paul was the author. During the Middle 
 Ages this mooted question hardly ever came up for discus- 
 sion, but when the light of the Reformation dawned, doubts 
 were again expressed as to the authorship of Paul. Eras- 
 mus questioned whether Paul had written the letter ; Luther 
 conjectured that Apollos was the writer ; Calvin thought that 
 it might be the work of Luke or of Clement ; and Beza held 
 that it was written by a disciple of Paul. At present there 
 are comparatively few that maintain the authorship of Paul. 
 And if we examine the internal evidence of the Epistle, 
 we find that it points away from Paul. It must be admitted 
 that its teaching is in a general sense Pauline, but this does 
 not prove that Paul was the author. There are also some 
 expressions in the letter to which parallels are found in the 
 Epistles of Paul. Compare f . i. 2 : 14 with II Tim. 1 : 10 ; 
 I Cor. 15 : 26 ;— 2 : 8 with I Cor. 15 : 27. But this similarity 
 
270 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 may find its explanation in the author's acquaintance with 
 the Pauhne writings. The statement in 10 : 34 cannot be 
 urged in favor of Paul, especially not, if we adopt the read- 
 ing TOi? Se(j[x(otg auvexaGnia-axs, in which almost all the 
 critical editors concur, and which is certainly favored by the 
 context. The expression in 13: 19 does not prove that the 
 writer was a prisoner, when he wrote these words, much 
 less that he was Paul. Neither does the notice respecting 
 Timothy in 13 : 23 necessarily point to the apostle, for some 
 of the older companions of Paul might have made that same 
 statement. Moreover we know of no time in the life of Paul 
 when Timothy was a prisoner. If there were other positive 
 evidence for the Pauline authorship, some of these supposed 
 criteria might serve as corroborative proofs, but such evi- 
 dence is not forthcoming. The main features of the Epistle 
 are such as to discredit the authorship of Paul: (1) The 
 letter, in distinction from the Pauline Epistles, is entirely 
 anonymous. It contains neither the name of the author nor 
 that of the addressees. Moreover the customary blessing 
 and thanksgiving are altogether wanting. (2) In 2:3 the 
 writer clearly distinguishes himself and his hearers from 
 those who heard the Lord, i. e. from his immediate disciples 
 and apostles. Would Paul say that he had heard the word 
 of the Gospel only from the immediate followers of the 
 Lord, and not of the Lord himself? The assumption does 
 not seem reasonable in view of Gal. 1 : 12. (3) Though the 
 teaching of the Epistle is in full harmony with that of Paul, 
 yet it does not reveal the usual trend of Paul's reasoning. 
 As Bruce points out (Hastings D. B. Art. Hebrews, Epistle 
 to), there is an entire absence of the Pauline antitheses law 
 and grace, faith and works, flesh and spirit ; while there are 
 found instead the antitheses of shadow and reality, type and 
 antitype. (4) While Paul is wont to take some of his quo- 
 tations from the Hebrew and often quotes from memory, 
 the writer of this Epistle always derives his quotations from 
 the Septaugint, and with such exactness that he seems to 
 have had the manuscript before him. He does not like Paul 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 271 
 
 refer his quotations to the human author, but to the auctor 
 primarius. And instead of the Pauhne formulae of quota- 
 tion, Y^TfpaxTOft or T] '{pa<fri Xi'^si, he often employs [xapxupet 
 or <pY]a(. (5) There is also a great difference in the names 
 ascribed to the Mediator. In the writings of Paul we find 
 the names, Christ, the Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus 
 Christ our Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, and very seldom 
 the simple Jesus. In our Epistle, on the other hand, Jesus 
 is the regular name for the Saviour; Jesus Christ is used 
 three times, the Lord, twice, but the full Pauline name, our 
 Lord Jesus Christ is wanting altogether. (6) The strongest 
 proof against the Pauline authorship is generally considered 
 to be the argument from style. Says Dr. Salmon : "There 
 is here none of the ruggedness of St. Paul, who never seems 
 to be solicitous about forms of expression, and whose 
 thoughts come pouring out so fast as to jostle one another 
 in the struggle for utterance. This is a calm composition, 
 
 exhibiting sonorous words and well balanced sentences. 
 
 I have already shown that I do not ascribe to Paul any rigid 
 uniformity of utterance, and that I am not tempted to deny 
 a letter to be his merely because it contains a number of 
 words and phrases which are not found in his other composi- 
 tions ; but in this case I find myself unable to assert the 
 Pauline authorship in the face of so much unlikeness, in the 
 structure of sentences, in the general tone of the Epistle, in 
 the general way of presenting doctrines, and in other points 
 that I will not delay to enumerate." Introd. p. 464 f. 
 
 In view of all the foregoing it is all but certain that Paul 
 did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews. But now the ques- 
 tion naturally arises : Who did ? Several answers have 
 given, as Barnabas (Tertullian), Luke or Clement (Calvin), 
 Apollos (Luther), Silas (Bohme, Godet), (Aquila and) 
 Priscilla (Harnack), of which only two are at present seri- 
 ously considered, viz. Barnabas and Apollos, though the 
 suggestion of Harnack has found favor with some. Renan, 
 Hausrath, Weiss, Salmon and Barth accept the authorship 
 of Barnabas, relying especially on the facts : ( 1 ) that 
 
272 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Tertullian points to him as the author, thereby transmitting 
 not only his own private opinion, but the North African 
 tradition; (2) that Barnabas was an apostoHc man and as a 
 Levite would be well acquainted with the Jewish ritual ; and 
 (3) that, as an inhabitant of the island Cyprus, he would 
 in all probability have been subject to the influence of Alex- 
 andrian culture. On the other hand, Liinemann, Farrar, 
 Alford and Zahn hold that Apollos best answers the require- 
 ments, since (1) he was a man of fine Greek culture; (2) 
 was well acquainted with the writings of Paul; and (3) as 
 a native of Alexandria was deeply embued with the thoughts 
 of the Alexandrian school. But it has been objected to 
 Barnabas that he could not reckon himself to the second 
 generation of Christians, 2:3; and that he certainly knew 
 Hebrew, with which, so it seems, the author of this Epistle 
 was not acquainted ; — and to Apollos, that there is no tradi- 
 tion whatever connecting his name with the Epistle ; and that 
 the historical allusions in 13: 18-24 have no point of contact 
 in the life of Apollos as we know it from the Acts of the 
 Apostles. If we had to choos6 between the two, Barnabas 
 would be our choice, but we prefer with Moll, Westcott, 
 Dods, Baljon and Bruce (Hastuigs D. B.) to confess our 
 ignorance on this point and to abide by the dictum of Origen. 
 The general thought of the Epistle is Pauline, but God only 
 knows who wrote it. 
 
 DESTINATION. 
 
 Under this head we must consider two questions: 1. 
 Was the letter written for Jewish or for Gentile Christians ? 
 2. Where were the first readers located? 
 
 1. Until a comparatively recent date the general opinion 
 was that this Epistle was composed for Jewish Christians. 
 Of late, however, some scholars, as Schiirer, Weizsacker, 
 Von Soden, Jiilicher and McGilTert reached the opposite 
 conclusion. They argue that the fundamentals enumerated 
 in 6: 1, 2 are such as were suitable only to Gentile catechu- 
 mens ; that the expression "the living God" in 9 : 14 implies 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 273 
 
 a contrast between the true God and pagan idols ; and that 
 the exhortations at the end of the Epistle were more appro- 
 priate to Gentile than to Jewish Christians. From these 
 passages it has been argued with great ingenuity that the 
 original readers were Christians of the Gentiles ; but they 
 are also susceptible of a plausible interpretation on the oppo- 
 site view. Cf. the Commentaries and also Dods, Exp. Gk. 
 Test. IV p. 231. It seems preferable to hold that the first 
 readers were of Jewish extraction. In support of this theory 
 we cannot rely on the title rcpoq 'E^pat'oq, because the pre- 
 sumption is that this, though it can be traced to the second 
 century, is not original. Yet it does express the early con- 
 viction of the Church that the letter was destined first of all 
 for Jewish Christians. The general features of the letter 
 point in the same direction. The Epistle presupposes that 
 its readers are in danger of a relapse into Judaeism ; and its 
 symbolism, based entirely on the tabernacle and its services, 
 is peculiarly adapted to converted Jews. The whole Epistle 
 has a Jewish physiognomy. With Bruce we say : "If the 
 readers were indeed Gentiles, they were Gentiles so com- 
 pletely disguised in Jewish dress and wearing a mask with 
 so pronounced Jewish features, that the true nationality has 
 been hidden for nineteen centuries. Hastings D. B. 
 
 2. But where must we look for the first readers ? Some 
 scholars, regarding this writing as a treatise, are of the opin- 
 ion that it was not intended for any definite locality, but for 
 Christians in general, (Lipsius, Reuss) ; this opinion cannot 
 pass muster, however, in view of the many passages that 
 have no meaning unless they are addressed to a definite 
 circle of Christians, f. i. 5:11, 12; 6:9, 10; 10:32; 12:4. 
 At the same time it is impossible to determine with certainty 
 the exact locality in which the readers were found. The 
 four places that received the most prominent consideration 
 in this connection are Alexandria, Antioch (in Syria), Rome 
 and Jerusalem, of which, it would appear, the choice really 
 lies between the last two. The position that the letter was 
 sent to the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem or of entire 
 
274 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Judaea, is defended by Moll, Liinemann, Salmon, Weiss and 
 Westcott, and is supported by the following considerations : 
 (1) The name 'E^patoq, embodying an early tradition, cer- 
 tainly fits them better than it does Christians of any other 
 community. (2) They were the most likely to develop great 
 love for the Jewish ritual and to be exposed to danger from 
 these quarters. (3) Their church (es) was (were) well 
 nigh purely Jewish, which best accords with the total ab- 
 sence of any reference to Gentile Christians in the Epistle. 
 (4) They would certainly understand the symbolism of the 
 letter far better than the Christians of the diaspora. (5) 
 A passage like 13: 12, 13 has a peculiar appropriateness, if 
 it was written to them. The objections are urged against 
 this hypothesis, however, that the passages 3 : 2 and 5 : 12 
 are hardly applicable to the Christians of Jerusalem or 
 Judsea ; that these, rather than exercise liberality, 6 : 10, 
 were continually the objects of charity; that the letter was 
 written in Greek and not in Hebrew ; and that, as far as we 
 know, Timothy stood in no particular relation to the Jeru- 
 salem church. Many present day scholars, such as Alford, 
 Zahn, Baljon, Dods, Holtzmann, Jiilicher and Von Soden 
 fixed on Rome as the destination of this letter. In favor of 
 this they urge : (1) The greeting of 13 : 24 is evidently one 
 of such as had gone forth from Italy, to their old friends at 
 home. (2) The first traces of the use of this Epistle 
 are found in the writings of Clement and in the Shepherd 
 of Hermas, both issuing from Rome. (3) The term 
 YjYOujjievot, 13:7, 17, 24 was not in vogue in the Pauline 
 churches, but was used at Rome, since Clement speaks of 
 TCpoTiYOupi,£vot. (4) The persecutions mentioned in 10:32- 
 34 probably refer to those of Nero and his predecessors. 
 But this theory is burdened with the objections ; that it was 
 exactly at Rome that the canonicity of the letter was ques- 
 tioned for centuries ; that the congregation at Rome was 
 primarily Gentile-Christian (which Zahn denies, however) ; 
 and that the words of 12:4 were hardly applicable to the 
 Christians at Rome after the Neronian persecution. To 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 275 
 
 our mind the first theory deserves the preference, unless we 
 are prepared to admit that the Epistle was written to Gentile 
 Christians. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. This letter was occasioned 
 by the danger of apostasy that threatened the readers. For 
 a time they had professed Christianity, 5 : 12, and for the 
 sake of it had endured persecution, and had even joyfully 
 borne the spoiling of their goods, 10 : 32-34. But they were 
 disappointed, so it seems, in two respects. In the first place 
 in their expectation of the speedy return of Christ to trimph 
 over his enemies and to transform the affliction of his fol- 
 lowers into everlasting bliss. Christ remained hidden from 
 their view and their sufferings continued, yea even increased 
 in severity. In the encircling gloom they had no visible sup- 
 port for their faith. And in the second place they were dis- 
 appointed in the attitude their own people took to the new 
 religion. For a time they had combined their Christian ser- 
 vices with the worship of their fathers, but it became ever 
 increasingly evident that the Jews as a people would not 
 accept Christ. Their brethren according to the flesh per- 
 sisted in their opposition and waxed ever more intolerant 
 of the followers of Jesus. The time was fast approaching, 
 when these would have to break with the ministrations of 
 the temple and look elsewhere for the support of their faith. 
 Hence they had become feeble, 12 : 12, had ceased to make 
 progress, 5 : 12, were inclined to unbehef , 3 : 12, and in dan- 
 ger of falling away, 6 : 4-6. Returning to Jewry, they might 
 escape the persecution to which they were subjected, and 
 enjoy their former privileges. 
 
 The writer desires to warn them against the danger to 
 which they were exposed, and to exhort them to remain 
 loyal to their Christian standard. In order to do this he 
 points out by way of contrast the true nature and intrinsic 
 worth of the Christian religion. The Old Testament service 
 of God contained but the shadows of the New Testament 
 
276 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 realities. Christ is higher than the angels, ch. 1, is greater 
 than Moses, ch. 3, is our only true High Priest, who through 
 suffering opened up the way to heaven and gives us free 
 unrestricted access to God, chs. 5 — 10. He was perfected 
 through sufferings, that He might sympathize with his fol- 
 lowers in their trials and afflictions, 2: 10, 17, 18; 4: 15, and 
 might lead them through suffering to glory. If He is now 
 invisible to the eye, it is only because He has entered the 
 sanctuary, where He continually ministers to the spiritual 
 needs of his followers, and insures them free access to the 
 throne of God, 4 : 16 ; 6 : 18-20 ; 9 : 24 ; 10 : 18-22. He may 
 seem distant, yet He is near, and they who believe can en- 
 joy his presence and strength through faith. That is their 
 true support in time of need, ch. 11, 12: 1, 2. And though 
 He tarry for a while, He will surely come in due time to 
 lead his children to glory. They should willingly go forth 
 without the camp, bearing his reproach, since they enjoy 
 far greater privileges than the Old Testament saints and 
 will at last enter their eternal inheritance. 
 
 2. Time and Place. It is not easy to determine the date 
 of this letter, since it contains no definite notes of time. The 
 majority of scholars agree in placing it before the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem. Thus Moll, Kurtz, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, 
 Davidson, Weiss, Godet, Westcott, Salmon, Bruce, Barth, 
 Dods. Others, however, as Baur, Kluge, Zahn, Meijboom, 
 Volkmar and Hausrath bring it down to a later date. To 
 our mind the evidence favors a date before the destruction 
 of the temple, for (1) Though it is true that the author 
 does not speak of the temple but of the tabernacle, the dan- 
 ger to which the Hebrew Christians were exposed seems to 
 imply that the temple services were still carried on. (2) 
 If the Jewish ritual had already ceased, it is strange that 
 the writer does not refer to this, when he describes the tran- 
 sitory character of the old dispensation. And (3) the pres- 
 ent tense used by the writer in the description of the Jewish 
 services, 8: 4 f. ; 9: 6, 9 (cf. Gk.) ; 10: 1 ff. ; 13: 10 creates 
 the presumption that the ministry of the temple was still 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 277 
 
 continued. It is true that parallels to such presents use of 
 past events can be pointed out in Clement of Rome. But as 
 a rule the use of the present implies the existence of the 
 subject spoken of, at the time of the speaker; and the ques- 
 tion of 10 : 2, "Else would they not have ceased to be 
 offered ?" is certainly difficult to interpret on any other view. 
 It is not possible to say, how long before the destruction of 
 Jerusalem the Epistle was written, but from the solemn tone 
 of the writer, and from the fact that, according to him, the 
 readers saw the day of the Lord approaching, 10 : 25, we 
 infer that it was but shortly before that great catastrophe. 
 Cf . also 12 : 26, 27. We shall not go far wrong, if we date 
 the Epistle about the year 69. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The letter was not regarded as canonical in the Western 
 church until the fourth century ; in the Eastern church, how- 
 ever, the recognition of its apostolicity and canonicity went 
 hand in hand. Clement of Alexandria often quotes the let- 
 ter as canonical, and Origen does sometimes, though he felt 
 uncertain as to its Pauline authorship. The Epistle is found 
 in the Peshito, but it is uncertain, whether it also had a place 
 in the earliest Syriac translation. From the fourth century 
 the Western church also admitted its canonical authority. 
 The intrinsic value of the letter naturally commended it as 
 authoritative and as a part of the Word of God. Augustine 
 and Jerome regarded it as canonical, though they still had 
 scruples about the authorship of Paul; and it was included 
 in the Lists authorized by the Councils of Hippo in 393 and 
 of Carthage in 397 and 419. From that time the Church 
 did not again question the canonical authority of the Epistle 
 until the time of the Reformation, when some Lutheran 
 theologians had serious doubts. 
 
 The permanent value of this Epistle lies especially in two 
 facts, which may be said to imply a third. In the first place 
 it brings out, as no other New Testament book does, the 
 essential unity of both the Old and the New Testament reli- 
 
278 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 gions. They are both from God ; they both center in Christ ; 
 they both pertain to the same spiritual verities ; and they 
 both aim at bringing man to God. In the second place the 
 Epistle emphasizes the difference between the two dispensa- 
 tions, the one containing the shadows, the other the corres- 
 ponding realities ; the services of the one being earthly and 
 therefore carnal and temporal, those of the other being 
 heavenly and therefore spiritual and abiding ; the ministry 
 of the one effecting only ceremonial purity and union with 
 God, that of the other issuing in the purification of the soul 
 and in spiritual communion with God in heaven. And be- 
 cause the letter so presents the relation of the Old Covenant 
 to the New, it is an inspired commentary on the entire 
 Mosaic ritual. 
 
The General Epistle of James. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 There are no clearly defined parts in this Epistle ; hence 
 no classification of its contents is attempted. After the 
 opening salutation the writer points out the significance of 
 temptation in the life of his readers, exhorts them to ask in 
 faith for the wisdom needed in bearing them and warns 
 them not to refer their inward temptations to God, 1 : 1-18. 
 Then he admonishes them to receive the Word in all humil- 
 ity and to carry it out in action, 19-27. He warns them 
 against that respect of persons that reveals itself in favoring 
 the rich at the expense of the poor, reminding them of the 
 fact that he who violates the law in one point breaks the 
 whole law ; 2 : 1-13 ; and asserts that it is foohsh to trust to 
 a faith without works, since this is dead, 14-26. A warn- 
 ing against rash teaching and reproving follows, based on 
 the difficulty of controlling the tongue, which is yet of the 
 very greatest importance, 3 : 1-12. Wisdom from above is 
 commended to the readers, since the wisdom of this world 
 is full of bitter envy and works confusion and evil, while 
 heavenly wisdom is plenteous in mercy and yields good 
 fruits, 13-18. The author then reprimands the readers for 
 their quarrelsomeness, which results from a selfishness and 
 lust that infects even one's prayers and renders them futile ; 
 and exhorts them to humble themselves before God, 4: 1-12. 
 He condemns those who, in the pride of possession, forget 
 their dependence on God, and denounces the rich that op- 
 press and rob the poor, 4: 13 — 5:6; after which he urges 
 the brethren to be patient, knowing the Lord is at hand, 7- 
 11. Finally he warns his readers against false swearing, 
 gives special advice to the sick, exhorts them all to pray for 
 
280 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 one another, reminding them of the efficacy of prayer, and 
 of the blessedness of turning a sinner from his sinful way, 
 12-20. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. From a literary point of view the Epistle of James is 
 quite different from those of Paul. The latter are real let- 
 ters, which cannot be said of this Epistle. There is no bene- 
 diction at the beginning, nor any salutation or greeting at the 
 end. Moreover it contains very little that points to definite 
 historical circumstances such as are known to us from other 
 sources. Zahn calls this Epistle, "eine ... in schriftHche 
 Form gefasste Ansprache." Einl. I p. 73. Barth speaks of 
 it as, "eine Sammlung von Ansprachen des Jakobus an die 
 Gemeinde zu Jerusalem," which, he thinks were taken down 
 by a hearer and sent to the Jewish Christians of the diaspora. 
 Einl. p. 140. And Deissmann says : "The Epistle of James 
 is from the beginning a little work of literature, a pamphlet 
 addressed to the whole of Christendom, a veritable Epistle 
 (as distinguished from a letter). The whole of the con- 
 tents agrees therewith. There is none of the unique detail 
 peculiar to the situation, such as we have in the letters of 
 Paul, but simply general questions, most of them still con- 
 ceivable under the present conditions of church life." Light 
 from the Ancient East p. 235. 
 
 2. The contents of the Epistle are not doctrinal but 
 ethical. The writer does not discuss any of the great truths 
 of redemption, but gives moral precepts for the life of his 
 readers. There is no Christological teaching whatever, the 
 name of Christ being mentioned but twice, viz. 1:1; 2:1. 
 Beischlag correctly remarks that it is "so wesentlich noch 
 Lehre Christi und so wenig noch Lehre von Christo." The 
 letter may be called, the Epistle of the Royal Law, 2 : 8. The 
 emphasis does not rest on faith, but on the works of the 
 law, which the writer views, not in its ceremonial aspect, 
 but in its deep moral significance and as an organic whole, 
 so that transgressing a single precept is equivalent to a vio- 
 
THE GENERAL EPISLTE OF JAMES 281 
 
 lation of the whole law. The essential element of life ac- 
 cording to the law is a love that reveals itself in grateful 
 obedience to God and in self-denying devotion to one's 
 neighbor. 
 
 3. Some scholars, as f. i. Spitta, claim that this Epistle 
 is really not a Christian but a Jewish writing ; but the con- 
 tents clearly prove the contrary. Yet it must be admitted 
 that the Epistle has a somewhat Jewish complexion. While 
 the writer never once points to the examplary life of Christ, 
 he does refer to the examples of Abraham, Rahab, Job and 
 Elijah. In several passages he reveals his dependence on 
 the Jewish Chokmah literature, on the Sermon on the 
 Mount, and on the words of Jesus generally ; compare 1 : 2 
 with Matt. 5 : 12 ;— 1 : 4 with Matt. 5 : 48 ;— 1 : 5 with Matt. 
 7:7;— 1:6 with Mark 11:23;— 1:22 with Matt. 7:24;— 
 2:8 with Mark 12:31;— 2:13 with Matt. 5:7; 18:33;— 
 4 : 10 with Matt. 23 : 12 ; etc. Moreover the author does not 
 borrow his figurative language from the social and civil in- 
 stitutions of the Greek and Roman world, as Paul often 
 does, but derives it, like the Lord himself had done, from 
 the native soil of Palestine, when he speaks of the sea, 1:6; 
 3 : 4 ; of the former and the latter rain, 5 : 7 ; of the vine and 
 the fig-tree, 3 : 12 ; of the scorching wind, 1:11; and of salt 
 and bitter springs, 3 : 11, 12. 
 
 4. The Epistle is written in exceptionally good, though 
 Hellenistic Greek. The vocabulary of the author is rich and 
 varied, and perfectly adequate to the expression of his lofty 
 sentiments. His sentences are not characterized by great 
 variation ; yet they have none of the utter simplicity, border- 
 ing on monotony, that marks the writings of John. The 
 separate thoughts are very clearly expressed, but in certain 
 instances there is some difficulty in tracing their logical 
 sequence. We find some examples of Hebrew parallelism 
 especially in the fourth chapter; downright Hebraisms, 
 however are very few, cf. the adjectival genitive in 1:25, 
 and the instrumental ^z/ in 3 : 9. 
 
282 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 According to external testimony James, the brother of 
 the Lord, is the author of this Epistle. Origen is the first 
 one to quote it by name, and it is only in Rufinus Latin 
 translation of his works that the author is described as, 
 "James, the brother of the Lord." Eusebius mentions 
 James, the brother of Christ, as the reputed author, remark- 
 ing, however, that the letter was considered spurious. 
 Jerome, acknowledging its authenticity, says : "James, 
 called the Lord's brother, surnamed the Just, wrote but one 
 Epistle, which is among the seven catholic ones. 
 
 The author simply names himself, "James a servant of 
 God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," 1:1, thus leaving the 
 question of his identity still a matter of conjecture, since 
 there were other persons of that name in the apostolic 
 Church. It is generally admitted, however, that there is but 
 one James that meets the requirements, viz. the brother of 
 the Lord, for: (1) The writer was evidently a man of 
 great authority and recognized as such not only by the Jews 
 in Palestine but also by those of the diaspora. There is only 
 one James of whom this can be said. While James, the 
 brother of John, and James the son of Alphaeus soon disap- 
 pear from view in the Acts of the Apostles, this James 
 stands out prominently as the head of the Jerusalem church. 
 During the Lord's public ministry he did not yet believe in 
 Christ, John 7 : 5. Probably his conversion was connected 
 with the special appearance of the Lord to him after the 
 resurrection, I Cor. 15:7. In the Acts we soon meet him 
 as a man of authority. When Peter had escaped out of 
 prison, after James the brother of John had been killed, he 
 says to the brethren : "Go, show these things to James," 
 Acts 12: 17. Paul says that he, on his return from Arabia, 
 went to Jerusalem and saw only Peter and James, the Lord's 
 brother, Gal. 1 : 18, 19. On the following visit James, 
 Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave Paul and 
 Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Gal. 2 : 9. Still later 
 
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES 283 
 
 certain emissaries came from James to Antioch and appar- 
 ently had considerable influence, Gal. 2 : 12. The leading 
 part in the council of Jerusalem is taken by this James, Acts 
 15: 13 ff. And when, at the end of his third missionary 
 journey, Paul comes to Jerusalem, he first greeted the breth- 
 ren informally, and on the following day "went unto James, 
 and all the elders were present," Acts 21 : 18. (2) The author- 
 ship of this James is also favored by a comparison of the 
 letter. Acts 15:23-29, very likely written under the inspir- 
 ing influence of James, together with his speech at the 
 council of Jerusalem, and certain parts of our Epistle, which 
 reveals striking similarities. The salutation yaipziw, Acts 
 15 : 23, Jas. 1 : 1 occurs elsewhere in the New Testament 
 only in Acts 23 :26. The words to xaXov 6vo[xa to imv.'kriQh 
 e<p' ufJLaq, 2 :7, can only be paralleled in the New Testa- 
 ment in Acts 15:17. Both the speech of James and 
 the Epistle are characterized by pointed allusions to the Old 
 Testament. The affectionate term aSeX^o?, of frequent 
 occurrence in the Epistle (cf. 1 : 2, 9, 16, 19; 2 : 5, 15 ; 3 : 1 ; 
 4 : 1 1 ; 5 : 7, 9, 10, 12, 19) , is also found in Acts 15 : 13, 23 ; 
 compare especially Jas. 2: 5 and Acts 15 : 13. Besides these 
 there are other verbal coincidences, as eTutaxsicTsaOai, Jas. 
 1:27; Acts 15:14; TY^petv and StaTYjpstv, Jas. 1:27, Acts 
 15:29; s7rtaTpe<petv, Jas. 5:19, 20; Acts 15:19; dYaTCrjTO?, 
 Jas. 1:16, 19; 2:5; Acts 15:25. (3) The words of the 
 address are perfectly applicable to this particular James. 
 He does not claim that he is an apostle, as do Paul and Peter 
 in their Epistles. It might be objected, however, that if he 
 was the brother of the Lord, he would have laid stress on 
 that relation to enhance his authority. But does it not seem 
 far more likely, in view of the fact that Christ definitely 
 pointed out the comparative insignificance of this earthly 
 relationship, Matt. 12 : 46-50, that James would be careful 
 not to make it the basis of any special claim, and therefore 
 simply speaks of himself as a servant of God and of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ? 
 
284 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Now the question comes up, whether this James cannot 
 be identified with James, the son of Alphaeus, one of the 
 Lord's apostles, Mt. 10 : 3 ; Mk. 3 : 18 ; Lk. 6 : 15 ; Acts 1:13. 
 This identification would imply that the so-called brethren 
 of the Lord were in reality his cousins, a theory that was 
 broached by Jerome about A. D. 383, and which, together 
 with the view of Epiphanius (that these brethren were sons 
 of Joseph by a former marriage) was urged especially in 
 the interest of the perpetual virginity. But this theory is 
 not borne out by the data of Scripture, for: (1) The 
 brethren of the Lord are distinguished from his disciples in 
 John 2 : 12, and from the twelve after their calling in Mt. 
 12 : 46 if. ; Mk. 3 : 31 ff. ; Lk. 8 : 19 ff. ; and John 7:2>. It is 
 stated that they did not belong to the circle of his disciples, 
 indirectly in Mt. 13 : 55 ; Mk. 6 : 3, and directly in John 7 : 5. 
 (2) Although it is true that cousins are sometimes called 
 brethren in Scripture, cf. Gen. 14 16; 29: 12, 15, we need 
 not assume that this is the case also in the instance before 
 us. Moreover it is doubtful whether James the son of 
 Alphseus was a cousin of Jesus. According to some this 
 relationship is clearly implied in John 19 : 25 ; but it is by 
 no means certain that in that passage, "Mary the wafe of 
 Clopas," stands in apposition with, "his mother's sister." If 
 we do accept that interpretation, we must be ready to believe 
 that there were two sisters bearing the same name. It is 
 more plausible to think that John speaks of four rather than 
 of three women, especially in view of the fact that the 
 gospels speak of at least five in connection with Jesus' death 
 and resurrection, cf . Mt. 27 : 56 ; Mk. 16:1; Lk. 24 : 10. But 
 even if we suppose that he speaks of but three, how are we 
 going to prove the identity of Alphseus and Clopas? And 
 in case we could demonstrate this, how must we account for 
 the fact that only two sons are named of Mary, the wife of 
 Clopas, viz. James and Joses, Mt. 27:56; Mk. 15:40; Lk. 
 24 : 10, comp. John 19 : 25, while there are four brethren of 
 the Lord, Mt. 13 : 55 ; Mk. 6: 3, viz. James, Joses, Judas and 
 Simon? It has been argued that Judas is indicated as a 
 
THE GENERAL EPISLTE OF JAMES 285 
 
 brother of James the less in Lk. 6: 16; Acts 1 : 13, where we 
 read of a 'louSot? 'laxw^ou. But it is contrary to analogy to 
 supply the word brother in such cases. (3) We repeatedly 
 find the brethren of the Lord in the company of Mary, the 
 mother of Jesus, just as we would expect to find children 
 with their mother. Moreover in passages like Mt. 12:46; 
 Mk. 3: 31, 32; and Lk. 8: 19 it is an exegetical mistake to 
 take the word mother in its literal sense, and then to put a 
 different interpretation on the word brother. We conclude, 
 therefore, that James, the brother of the Lord and the author 
 of this Epistle, was not an apostle. There are two passages 
 that seem to point in a different direction, viz. Gal. 1 : 19 
 and I Cor. 15:7; but in the former passage £t \>-ri may be 
 adversative rather than exceptive, as in Lk. 4 : 26, 27, cf . 
 Thayer in loco ; and the name apostle was not limited to the 
 twelve. The considerations of Lange in favor of identifying 
 the author with James, the son of Alphseus, are rather sub- 
 jective. 
 
 James seems to have been a man of good common sense, 
 with a well balanced judgment, who piloted the little vessel 
 of the Jerusalem church through the Judaeistic breakers with 
 a skillful hand, gradually weaning her from ceremonial ob- 
 servances without giving offense and recognizing the greater 
 freedom of the Gentile churches. He was highly respected 
 by the whole Church for his great piety and whole-hearted 
 devotion to the saints. The account of Hegesippus with re- 
 spect to his paramount holiness and ascetic habits is in all 
 probability greatly overdrawn. Cf. Eusebius II 23. 
 
 The authorship of James has been called in question by 
 many scholars during the last century, such as DeWette, 
 Schleiermacher, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Harnack, 
 Spitta, Baljon e. a. The main reasons for regarding the 
 Epistle as spurious, are the following: (1) The condition 
 of the church reflected in it reminds one of the church at 
 Rome in the time of Hermas, when the glowing love of the 
 first time had lost its fervency. (2) The Greek in which 
 
286 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 the Epistle is written is far better than one could reason- 
 ably expect of James, who always resided in Palestine. 
 (3) The writer does not mention the law of Moses, nor 
 refer to any of its precepts, but simply urges the readers to 
 keep the perfect law that requires love, charity, peaceful- 
 ness, etc., just as a second century writer would do ; while 
 James believed in the permanent validity of the Mosaic law, 
 at least for the Jews. (4) The Epistle bears traces of de- 
 pendence on some of the Epistles of Paul, especially Romans 
 and Galatians, on the Epistle to the Hebrews and on I Peter ; 
 and clearly contradicts the Pauline doctrine of justification 
 by faith. 
 
 But these arguments need not shake our conviction as 
 to the authorship of James. The condition implied in this 
 letter may very well and, at least in part, is known to have 
 existed about the middle of the first century. Jos. Ant. XX 
 8.8; 9.2 Cf. especially Salmon, Introd, p. 501 f. With re- 
 spect to the second argument Mayor remarks that, accept- 
 ing the view that Jesus and his brethren usually spoke 
 Aramaeic, "we are not bound to suppose that, with towns 
 like Sepphoris and Tiberius in their immediate vicinity, with 
 Ptolomais, Scythopolis and Gadara at no great distance, they 
 remained ignorant of Greek." Hastings D. B. Art. James, 
 the General Epistle of. The idea that James was a fanatic 
 Judaeist and therefore could not but insist on keeping the 
 Mosaic law, is not borne out by Scripture. He was a Jewish 
 Christian and reveals himself as such f. i. in Acts 15 : 14-29; 
 21 : 20-25 and in his Epistle, cf . 2 : 5 fT. ; 3 : 2 ; 4 : 7, 14. His 
 insistence on the spirit of the law, not at all Judseistic, is in 
 perfect harmony with the teaching of the Lord. The liter- 
 ary dependence to which reference has been made may, in 
 so far as any really exists, just as well be reversed, and the 
 contradiction between James and Paul is only apparent. Cf. 
 the larger Introductions and the Commentaries. 
 
 DESTINATION. 
 
 The Epistle is addressed to "the twelve tribes which are 
 
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES 287 
 
 in the dispersion," 1 : L Who are indicated by these words ? 
 The adverbial phrase, "in the dispersion" excludes the idea 
 that the writer refers to all the Jewish Christians, including 
 even those in Palestine (Hofmann, Thiersch) ; and the con- 
 tents of the letter forbid us to think that he addresses Jews 
 and Jewish Christians jointly (Thiele, Guericke, Weiss). 
 There are, however, two interpretations that are admissible. 
 The expression may designate the Jewish Christians that 
 lived outside of Palestine (the great majority of scholars) ; 
 but it may also be a description of all the believers in Jesus 
 Christ that were scattered among the Gentiles, after the 
 analogy of I Pet. 1 : 1 and Gal. 6: 16 (Koster, Hilgenfeld, 
 Hengstenberg, Von Soden). Zahn is rather uncertain in his 
 interpretation. He finds that the twelve tribes mentioned 
 here form an antithesis to the twelve tribes that were in 
 Palestine, and refer either to Christianity as a whole, or to 
 the totality of Jewish Christians ; and reminds us of the fact 
 that there was a time, when the two were identical. Einl. 
 I p. 55. We prefer to think of the Jewish Christians of 
 the diaspora in Syria and neighboring lands, which were 
 probably called "the twelve tribes" as representing the true 
 Israel, because (1) the Epistle does not contain a single 
 reference to Gentile Christians ; (2) James was pre-emin- 
 ently the leader of the Jewish Church; (3) the entire com- 
 plexion of the Epistle points to Jewish readers. 
 
 The Epistle being of an encyclical character, naturally 
 does not have reference to the situation of any particular 
 local church, but to generally prevailing conditions at that 
 time. The Jewish Christians to whom the Epistle is ad- 
 dressed were subject to persecutions and temptations, and 
 the poor were oppressed by the rich that, possibly, did not 
 belong to their circle. They did not bear these temptations 
 with the necessary patience, but were swayed by doubt. 
 They even looked with envy at the glitter of the world and 
 favored the rich at the expense of the poor. In daily life 
 they did not follow the guidance of their Christian prin- 
 
288 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 ciples, so that their faith was barren. There may have been 
 dead works, but the fruits of righteousness were not appar- 
 ent. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. The occasion for writing 
 this Epistle is found in the condition of the readers which 
 we just described. James, the head of the Jerusalem church, 
 would naturally be informed of this, probably in part by his 
 own emissaries to the various churches of the diaspora, 
 Acts 15 : 22 ; II Cor. 3:1; Gal. 2:12, and in part by those 
 Jewish Christians that came from different lands to join 
 in the great festivals at Jerusalem. 
 
 The object of the Epistle was ethical rather than 
 didactic ; it was to comfort, to reprove and to exhort. Since 
 the readers were persecuted to the trial of their faith, and 
 were tempted in various ways, the writer comes to them with 
 words of consolation. Feeling that they did not bear their 
 trials with patience, but were inclined to ascribe to God the 
 temptations that endangered them as a result of their own 
 lust and worldliness, he reproves them for the error of their 
 way. And with a view to the blots on their Christian life, 
 to their worldHness, their respect of persons, their vainglory 
 and their envy and strife, he exhorts them to obey the royal 
 law, that they may be perfect men. 
 
 2. Time and Place. The place of composition was un- 
 doubtedly Jerusalem, where James evidently had his con- 
 tinual abode. It is not so easy to determine when the letter 
 was written. We have a terminus ad quern in the death of 
 James about the year 62, and a terminus a quo in the per- 
 secution that followed the death of Stephen about A. D. 35, 
 and that was instrumental in scattering the Jewish church. 
 Internal evidence favors the idea that it was written during 
 this period, for (1) There is no reference in the Epistle to 
 the destruction of Jerusalem either as past or imminent ; but 
 the expectation of the speedy second coming of Christ, that 
 
THE GENERAL EPISLTE OF JAMES 289 
 
 was characteristic of the first generation of Christians, was 
 still prevalent, 5 : 7-9. (2) The picture of the unbelieving 
 rich oppressing the poor Christians and drawing them be- 
 fore tribunals, is in perfect harmony with the description 
 Josephus gives of the time immediately after Christ, when 
 the rich Sadducees tyrannized over the poor to such a de- 
 gree that some starved. Ant. XX 8.8; 9.2. This condition 
 terminated with the destruction of Jerusalem. (3) The 
 indistinctness of the line of separation between the converted 
 and the unconverted Jews also favors the supposition that 
 the letter was composed during this period, for until nearly 
 the end of that time these two classes freely intermingled 
 both at the temple worship and in the synagogues. In 
 course of time, however, and even before the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, this condition was gradually changed. 
 
 But the question remains, whether we can give a nearer 
 definition of the time of composition. In view of the fact 
 that the Christian Jews addressed in this letter must have 
 had time to spread and to settle in the dispersion so that 
 they already had their own places of worship, we cannot 
 date the Epistle in the very beginning of the period named. 
 Neither does it seem likely that it was written after the year 
 50, when the council of Jerusalem was held, for (1) the 
 Epistle does not contain a single allusion to the existence in 
 the church of Gentile Christians ; and (2) it makes no 
 reference whatever to the great controversy respecting the 
 observance of the Mosaic law, on which the council passed 
 a decision. Hence we are inclined to date the Epistle be- 
 tween A. D. 45 and 50. 
 
 Some have objected to this early date that the Epistle 
 is evidently dependent on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews 
 and I Peter; but this objection is an unproved assumption. 
 It is also said that the Tupea^uxepot mentioned in 5 :14 imply 
 a later date. We should remember, however, that the 
 Church, especially among the Jews, first developed out of 
 the synagogue, in which presbyters were a matter of course. 
 
290 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Moreover some urge that the Christian knowledge assumed 
 in the readers, as in 1 : 3 ; 3 : 1, does not comport with such 
 an early date. It appears to us that this objection is puerile. 
 Of those who deny the authorship of James some would 
 date the Epistle after the destruction of Jerusalem, Reuss, 
 Von Soden, and Hilgenfeld in the time of Domitian (81- 
 96) ; Blom in A. D. 80; Bruckner and Baljon in the time 
 of Hadrian (117-138). 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 There was considerable doubt as to the canonicity of this 
 Epistle in the early church. Some allusions to it have been 
 pointed out in Clement of Rome, Hermas and Irenaeus, but 
 they are very uncertain indeed. We cannot point to a single 
 quotation in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertul- 
 lian, though some are inclined to believe on the strength 
 of a statement made by Eusebius, Ch. Hist. VI 14 that 
 Clement commented on this Epistle, just as he did on the 
 other general Epistles. There are reasons, however, to 
 doubt the correctness of this statement, cf . Westcott, on the 
 Canon p. 357. The letter is omitted from the Muratorian 
 Fragment, but is contained in the Peshito. Eusebius classes 
 it with the Antilegomena, though he seems uncertain as to 
 its canonicity. Origen was apparently the first to quote it 
 as Scripture. Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius and Gregory 
 of Nazianze recognized it, and it was finally ratified by the 
 third council of Carthage in A. D. 397. During the Middle 
 Ages the canonicity of the Epistle was not doubted, but 
 Luther for dogmatical reasons called it "a right strawy 
 Epistle." Notwithstanding the doubts expressed in the 
 course of time, the Church continued to honor it as a canon- 
 ical writing ever since the end of the fourth century. 
 
 The great permanent value of this Epistle is found in 
 the stress it lays on the necessity of having a vital faith, 
 that issues in fruits of righteousness. The profession of 
 Christ without a corresponding Christian life is worthless 
 
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES 291 
 
 and does not save man. Christians should look into the 
 perfect law, and should regulate their lives in harmony with 
 its deep spiritual meaning. They should withstand tempta- 
 tions, be patient under trials, dwell together in peace without 
 envying or strife, do justice, exercise charity, remember each 
 other in prayer, and in all their difficulties be mindful of 
 the fact that the coming of the Lord is at hand. 
 
The First General Epistle of Peter. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The contents of the Epistle can be divided into four 
 parts : 
 
 /. Introduction, 1 : 1-12. After the greeting, 1, 2, the 
 apostle praises God for the blessings of salvation, which 
 should raise the readers above all temporal sufferings, since 
 they are so great that the prophets searched them, and the 
 angels were desirous to understand their mystery, 3-12. 
 
 //. General Exhortations to a zvorthy Christian Conver- 
 sation, 1 : 13 — 2: 10. The writer exhorts the readers to be- 
 come ever more firmly grounded in their Christian hope. 
 To that end the holiness of God should be the standard of 
 their life, 1 : 13-16; they must fear God, and as regenerated 
 persons, love the brethren and seek to increase in spiritual 
 life, 1 : 17 — 2 : 3. This growth should not only be individual, 
 however, but also communal, a developing into a spiritual 
 unity, 4-10. 
 
 ///. Particular Directions for the special Relations of 
 Life, 2 : 1 1 — 4 : 6. The author urges the readers to be 
 dutiful to the authorities, 2:11-17; more particularly he 
 exhorts the servants among them to follow the example of 
 Christ in self-denying service, 18-25 ; the wives to submit 
 themselves to their husbands, and the husbands to love their 
 wives and to treat then with consideration, 3 : 1-7. Then he 
 admonishes them all to do good and to refrain from evil, 
 that in their sufferings they may be like their Master, whom 
 they should also follow in their Christian conversation, 
 3:8—4:6. 
 
 IV. Closing Instructions for the present Needs of the 
 Readers, 4 : 7 — 5 : 14. The apostle exhorts the readers to 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 293 
 
 prayer, brotherly love, hospitality, and conscientiousness in 
 the exercise of their official duties, 4:7-11. He warns them 
 not to be discouraged by persecutions, but to regard these 
 as necessary to the imitation of Christ, 12-19. Further he 
 exhorts the elders to rule the flock of Christ wisely, the 
 younger ones to submit to the elder ; and all to humble them- 
 selves and to place their trust in God, 5: 1-9; and ends the 
 letter with good wishes and a salutation, 10-14. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. Though there are some doctrinal statements in the 
 Epistle, its chief interest is not theoretical but practical, not 
 doctrinal but ethical. It has been said that, while Paul rep- 
 resents faith and John love, Peter is the apostle of hope. 
 This distinction, which may easily be misconstrued, never- 
 theless contains an element of truth. The basic idea of the 
 Epistle is that the readers are begotten again unto a lively 
 hope, the hope of an incorruptable, undefiled and unfading 
 inheritance. This glorious expectation must be an incentive 
 for them to strive after holiness in all the relations of life. 
 and to bear patiently the reproach of Christ, mindful of the 
 fact that He is their great prototype, and that suffering is 
 the pre-requisite of everlasting glory. 
 
 2. The Epistle has a characteristic impress of Old Testa- 
 ment modes of thought and expression. Not only does it, 
 comparatively speaking, contain more quotations from and 
 references to the Old Testament than any other New Testa- 
 ment writing, cf . 1 : 16, 24, 25 ; 2 : 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 22-24 ; 
 3: 10-12, 13, 14; 4:8, 17, 18; 5: 5, 7; but the entire com- 
 plexion of the letter shows that the author lived and moved 
 in Old Testament conceptions to such an extent, that he 
 preferably expresses his thoughts in Old Testament lan- 
 guage. 
 
 3. On the other hand, there is great similarity between 
 this Epistle and some of the New Testament writings, not- 
 ably the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and to the Ephe- 
 
294 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 sians, and the Epistle of James. And this likeness is of 
 such a character as to suggest dependence of the one on the 
 other. Nearly all the thoughts of Rom. 12 and 13 are also 
 found in this letter ; compare 2 : 5 with Rom. 12 : 1 ; — 1 : 14 
 with Rom. 12:2;— 4:10 with Rom. 12:3-8;— 1:22 with 
 Rom. 12 : 9 ; — 2 : 17 with Rom. 12 : 10, etc. The relationship 
 between it and the Epistle to the Ephesians is evident not 
 only from single passages, but also from the structure of 
 the letter. There is a certain similarity in the general and 
 special exhortations, which is probably due to the fact that 
 both Epistles are of a general character. Compare also the 
 passages 1 : 3 and Eph. 1 : 3 ; — 1 : 5 and Eph. 1 : 19 ; — 1 : 14 
 and Eph. 2:3; — 1 : 18 and Eph. 4: 17; — 2: 4, 5 and Eph. 
 2 : 20-22. There are also points of resemblance between this 
 Epistle and that of James, and though not so numerous, yet 
 they indicate a relation of dependence ; compare 1 : 6, 7 with 
 Jas. 1 : 2, 3 ;— 2 : 1 with Jas. 1 : 21 ;— 5 : 5-9 with Jas. 4 : 6, 
 7, 10. 
 
 4. The Greek in which this letter is written is some of 
 the best that is found in the New Testament. Though the 
 language is simple and direct, it is not devoid of artistic 
 quality. Simcox, comparing it with the language of James, 
 says : "St. Peter's language is stronger where St. James is 
 weak, and weaker where he is strong — it is more varied, 
 more classical, but less eloquent and of less literary power." 
 The Writers of the New Testament p. 66. The author's 
 vocabulary is very full and rich, and his sentences flow on 
 with great regularity, sometimes rising to grandeur. It is 
 noticeable, however, that the writer, though having a good 
 knowledge of Greek in general, was particularly saturated 
 with the language of the Septuagint. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The external authentication of this Epistle is very strong. 
 Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and 
 Cyprian all quote it by name and without expressing the 
 slightest doubt as to its canonicity. And Eusebius says : 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 295 
 
 "One Epistle of Peter called his first is universally re- 
 ceived." Salmon suggests that, in view of what Westcott 
 says, its omission from the Muratorian Canon may be due 
 to the error of a scribe, who left out a sentence. Cf. West- 
 cott, The canon of the N. T., Appendix C. 
 
 Aside from the fact that the letter is self-attested there 
 is very little internal evidence that can help us to determine 
 who the author was. There is nothing that points definitely 
 to Peter, which is in part due to the fact that we have no 
 generally recognized standard of comparison. The speeches 
 in Acts may not have been recorded literally by Luke ; and 
 II Peter is one of the most doubted Epistles of the New 
 Testament, partly because it is so dissimilar to our letter. 
 If we leave the first verse out of consideration, we can only 
 say on the strength of internal evidence that the writer was 
 evidently an eyewitness of the sufiferings of Christ, -^-Hr^ 
 that the central contents of his teaching is, like that of Peter 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, the death and the resurrection 
 of Christ ; and that his attitude toward the Christians of the 
 Gentiles is in perfect harmony with that of the apostle of 
 the circumcision. Moreover the persons mentioned in 5 : 12, 
 13 are known to have been acquaintances of Peter, cf. Acts 
 12:12; 15:22. 
 
 The apostle Peter, originally called Simon, was a native 
 of Bethsaida, John 1 : 42, 44. When the Lord entered on his 
 public ministry, Peter was married and dwelt at Capernaum, 
 Lk. 4:31, 38. He was the son of Jonas, Mt. 16: 17 and 
 was, with his father and his brother, by occupation a fisher- 
 man, Mk. 1 : 16. We find him among the first that were 
 called to follow the Lord, Mt. 4 : 18, 19, and he soon received 
 a certain prominence among the disciples of Jesus. This 
 was in harmony with the new name, Hixpoq, which the Lord 
 gave him, John 1 : 42. With John and James he formed the 
 inner circle of the disciples ; together they were the most in- 
 timate followers of the Saviour and as such enjoyed special 
 privileges. They only entered with the Lord into the house 
 
296 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 of Jairus, Lk. 8: 51 ; none but they witnessed his glory on 
 the Mount of Transfiguration, Mt. 17:1; and they alone 
 beheld him in his hour of great grief in the garden of Geth- 
 semane, Mt. 26 : 37. The trial of Jesus was also the hour 
 of Peter's deepest fall, for on that occasion he thrice denied 
 his Master, Mt. 26:69-75. He truly repented of his deed, 
 however, and was restored to his former position by the 
 Lord, John 21 : 15-17. After the ascension he is found at 
 the head of the disciples at Jerusalem, guiding them in the 
 choice of an apostle in the place of Judas, Acts 1 : 15-26, and 
 preaching the Pentecostal sermon. Acts 2 : 14-36. Laboring 
 at first in connection with John, he healed the lame man, 
 repeatedly addressed the people in the temple, executed 
 judgment on Ananias and Sapphira, and once and again de- 
 fended the cause of Christ before the Sanhedrin, Acts 3-5. 
 During the time of persecution that followed the death of 
 Stephen, they together went to Samaria to establish the work 
 of Philip, Acts 8 : 14 ff. In Lydda he healed Aeneas, Acts 
 9 : 22 f . and raised up Tabitha in Joppa, Acts 9 : 36 f . By 
 means of a vision he was taught that the Gentiles too were 
 to be admitted to the Church, and was prepared to go and 
 preach Christ to the household of Cornelius, Acts 10: 1-48. 
 After James, the brother of John was killed, Peter was cast 
 in prison, but, being delivered by an angel, he left Jerusalem, 
 Acts 12 : 1-17. Later he returned thither and was present 
 at the council of Jerusalem, Acts 15. Nothing certain is 
 known of his movements after this time. From I Cor. 9 : 5 
 we infer that he labored at various places. On one occasion 
 Paul rebuked him for his dissimulation, Gal. 2:11 ff . From 
 all the traditions regarding his later life we can gather only 
 one piece of reliable information, to the effect that towards 
 the end of his life he came to Rome, where he labored for 
 the propagation of the Gospel and suffered martyrdom un- 
 der Nero. 
 
 Peter was a man of action rather than of deep thought. 
 He was always eager and impulsive, but, as is often the case 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 297 
 
 with such persons, was wanting in the necessary stability of 
 character. Burning with love towards the Saviour, he was 
 always ready to defend his cause, Mt. 17:24, 25; 16:22; 
 Lk, 22 : 33 ; John 18 : 10, and to confess his name, John 
 6: 68 f . ; Mt. 16: 16. But his action was often characterized 
 by undue haste, as f. i. when he rebuked Christ, Mt. 16: 22, 
 smote the servant of the high priest, John 18 : 10, and re- 
 fused to let the Saviour wash his feet, John 13:6; and by 
 too much reliance on his own strength, as when he went out 
 upon the sea, Mt. 14:28-31, and declared himself ready to 
 die with the Lord, Mt. 26 : 35. It was this rashness and 
 great self-confidence that led to his fall. By that painful 
 experience Peter had to be taught his own weakness before 
 he could really develop into the Rock among the apostles. 
 After his restoration we see him as a firm confessor, ready, 
 if need be, to lay down his life for the Saviour. 
 
 Until the previous century the Epistle was generally re- 
 garded as the work of Peter, and even now the great ma- 
 jority of New Testament scholars have reached no other 
 conclusion. Still there are several, especially since the time 
 of Baur, that deny its authenticity, as Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, 
 Weizsacker, Hausrath, Keim, Schiirer, Von Soden e. a. 
 The most important objections urged against the traditional 
 view, are the following : ( 1 ) The Epistle is clearly depend- 
 ent on Pauline letters, while it contains very few traces of 
 the Lord's teaching. This is not what one would expect of 
 Peter, who had been so intimate with the Lord and had 
 taken a different stand than Paul, Gal. 2: llff. Harnack 
 regards this argument as decisive, for he says : "Were it 
 not for the dependence (of I Peter) on the Pauline 
 Epistles, I might perhaps allow myself to maintain its gen- 
 uineness ; that dependence, however, is not accidental, but is 
 of the essence of the Epistle." Quoted by Chase, Hastings 
 D. B. Art. I Peter. (2) It is written in far better Greek 
 than one can reasonably expect of a Galilean fisherman 
 like Peter, of whom we know that on his missionary jour-. 
 
298 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 neys he needed Mark as an interpreter. Davidson regards 
 it as probable that he never was able to write Greek. (3) 
 The Epistle reflects conditions that did not exist in the life- 
 time of Peter. The Christians of Asia Minor were evi- 
 dently persecuted, simply because they were Christians, per- 
 secuted for the Name, and this, it is said, did not take place 
 until the time of Trajan, A. D. 98-117. (4) It is very un- 
 likely that Peter would write a letter to churches founded 
 by Paul, while the latter was still living. 
 
 As to the first argument, we need not deny with Weiss 
 and his pupil Kiihl that Peter is dependent on some of the 
 writings of Paul, especially on Romans and Ephesians. In 
 all probability he read both of these Epistles, or if he did 
 not see Ephesians, Paul may have spoken to him a good deal 
 about its contents. And being the receptive character that 
 he was, it was but natural that he should incorporate some 
 of Paul's thoughts in his Epistle. There was no such anta- 
 gonism between him and Paul as to make him averse to the 
 teachings of his fellow-apostle. The idea of an evident 
 hostility between the two is exploded, and the theory of 
 Baur that this letter is a Unionsschrift, is destitute of all 
 historical basis and is burdened with a great many improb- 
 abilities. Moreover it need not cause surprise that the 
 teaching of this Epistle resembles the teaching of Paul more 
 than it does that of Christ, because the emphasis had shifted 
 with the resurrection of the Lord, which now, in connection 
 with his death, became the central element in the teaching of 
 the apostles. Compare the sermons of Peter in the Acts of 
 the Apostles. 
 
 With respect to the objection that Peter could not write 
 such Greek as we find in this Epistle, we refer to 
 what Mayor says regarding James, cf. p. 286 above. The 
 fact that Mark is said to have been the interpreter of Peter 
 does not imply that the latter did not know Greek, cf. p. 80 
 above. It is also possible, however, that the Greek of this 
 Epistle is not that of the apostle. Zahn argues with great 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 299 
 
 plausibility from 5 :12, Aca StXouavou, that Silvanus took 
 an active part in the composition of the letter, and in all 
 probability wrote it under the immediate direction rather 
 than at the verbal dictation of Peter, Einl. II p. 10 f. 
 Cf. also Brown on / Peter in loco,, and J. H. A. Hart, Exp. 
 Gk. Test. IV p. 13 f. Against this, however, cf. Chase, Hast- 
 ings D. B. Art. / Peter. It is possible that Silvanus was both 
 the amanuensis of Peter and the bearer of the Epistle. 
 
 The third argument is open to two objections. On the 
 one hand it rests on a faulty interpretation of the passages 
 that speak of the sufferings endured by the Christians of 
 Asia Minor, as 1 : 6 ; 3 : 9-17 ; 4 : 4 f ., and especially 4 : 12-19 ; 
 5 : 8-12. And on the other hand it is based on a misunder- 
 standing of the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan 
 A. D. 112. The passages referred to do not imply and do 
 not even favor the idea that the Christians were persecuted 
 by the state, though they do point to an ever increasing 
 severity of their sufferings. There is no hint of judicial 
 trials, of the confiscation of property, of imprisonments or 
 of bloody deaths. The import of the Epistle is that the 
 readers were placed under the necessity of bearing the re- 
 proach of Christ in a different form. As Christians they 
 were subject to ridicule, to slander, to ill treatment, and 
 to social ostracism ; they were the outcasts of the world, 
 4 : 14. And this, of course, brought with it manifold temp- 
 tations, 1:6. At the same time the correspondence of Pliny 
 and Trajan does not imply that Rome did not persecute 
 Christians as such until about A. D. 112. Ramsay says that 
 this state of affairs may have arisen as early as the year 80 ; 
 and Mommsen, the greatest authority on Roman history, is 
 of the opinion that it may have existed as early as the time 
 of Nero. 
 
 The last objection is of a rather subjective character. 
 Peter was undoubtedly greatly interested in the work among 
 the Christians of Asia Minor ; and it is possible that he him- 
 self had labored there for some time among the Jews and 
 
300 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 thus became acquainted with the churches of that region. 
 And does it not seem Hkely that he, being informed of their 
 present sufferings, and knowing of the antagonism of the 
 Jews, who had occasionally used his name to undermine the 
 authority and to subvert the doctrine of Paul, would con- 
 sider it expedient to send them a letter of exhortation, 
 urging them to abide in the truth in which they stood, and 
 thus indirectly strengthening their confidence in his fellow- 
 apostle ? 
 
 DESTINATION. 
 
 The letter is addressed to "the elect who are sojourners 
 of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and 
 Bithynia," 1 :1. The use of the strictly Jewish term StacTCopa 
 is apt to create the impression that the letter was sent to 
 Jewish Christians. Origen said, presumably on the strength 
 of this superscription, that Peter seems to have preached to 
 the Jews in the dispersion. And Eusebius felt sure that this 
 letter was sent to Hebrews or to Jewish Christians. The 
 great majority of the church fathers agreed with them. 
 Among recent scholars Weiss and Kiihl defend the position 
 that the letter was addressed to Jewish congregations 
 founded in Asia Minor by Peter. But the idea that the 
 original readers of this Epistle were Christians of Jewish 
 extraction is not favored by internal evidence. Notice espe- 
 cially ( 1 ) the passages that point to the past moral condition 
 of the readers, as 1 : 14 (comp. Gal. 4:8; Eph. 4 : 18) ; 1 : 18 
 (comp. Eph. 1:17); 4:2-4 (comp. I Thess. 4:5; Eph. 
 2:11); and (2) the emphatic use of "you" as distinguished 
 from the "us" found in the context, to mark the readers as 
 persons that were destined to receive the blessings of the 
 gospel and to whom these at last came. Moreover this is 
 in perfect agreement with what we know of the churches 
 of Asia Minor; they certainly consisted primarily of Gen- 
 tile Christians. But the question is naturally asked, whether 
 this view is not contradicted by the address. And to that 
 question we answer that it certainly is, if the word BcaaTropa? 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 301 
 
 must be taken literally ; but this will also bear, and, in har- 
 mony with the contents of the Epistle, is now generally 
 g'ven a figurative interpretation. The word ^laizopaq is a 
 Genitivus appostitivus (for which cf. Blass, Grammatik 
 p. 101) with TuapeirtS'^fjLoti;. Taken by itself the address is 
 a figurative description of all believers, whether they be 
 Jewish or Gentile Christians, as sojourners on earth, who 
 have here no abiding dwellingplace, but look for a heavenly 
 city ; and who constitute a dispersion, because they are 
 separated from that eternal home of which the earthly Jeru- 
 salem was but a symbol. In agreement with this the apostle 
 elsewhere addresses the readers as "pilgrims and strangers," 
 2:11, and exhorts them "to pass the time of their sojourning 
 here in fear," 1 : 17. Cf. the Comm. of Huther, Brown, and 
 Hart {Exp. Gk. Test.), and the Introductions of Zahn, 
 Holtzmann, Davidson and Earth. Salmon admits the possi- 
 bility of this interpretation, but is yet inclined to take the 
 word ScaaTCopa? literally, and to believe that Peter wrote 
 his letter to members of the Roman church that were scat- 
 tered through Asia Minor as a result of Nero's persecution. 
 Introd. p. 485. 
 
 As to the condition of the readers, the one outstanding 
 fact is that they were subject to hardships and persecutions 
 because of their allegiance to Christ, 1 : 17 ; 2 : 12-19. There 
 is no sufficient evidence that they were persecuted by the 
 state ; they suffered at the hands of their associates in daily 
 life. The Gentiles round about them spoke evil of them, 
 because they did not take part in their revelry and idolatry, 
 4 : 2-4. This constituted the trial of their faith, and it seems 
 that some were in danger of becoming identified with the 
 heathen way of living, 2:11, 12, 16. They were in need of 
 encouragement and of a firm hand to guide their feeble 
 steps. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. In a general way we can say 
 that the condition just described led Peter to write this 
 
302 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Epistle, He may have received information regarding the 
 state of affairs from Mark or Silvanus, who is undoubtedly 
 to be indentified with Paul's companion of that name, and 
 was therefore well acquainted with the churches of Asia 
 Minor. Probably the direct occasion for Peter's writing 
 must be found in a prospective journey of Silvanus to those 
 churches. 
 
 The writer's purpose was not doctrinal but practical. He 
 did not intend to give an exposition of the truth, but to em- 
 phasize its bearings on life, especially in the condition in 
 which the Christians of Asia Minor were placed. The 
 Tubingen critics are mistaken, however, when they hold that 
 the unknown writer, impersonating Peter, desired to make 
 it appear as if there was really no conflict between the 
 apostle of the circumcision and the apostle of the Gentiles, 
 and to unite the discordant factions in the Church ; for ( 1 ) 
 such antagonistic parties did not exist in the second century, 
 and (2) the Epistle does not reveal a single trace of such a 
 tendency. The writer incidentally and in a general way 
 
 states his aim, when he says in 5 : 12, "By Silvanus I 
 
 have written briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the 
 true grace of God wherein ye stand." The main purpose of 
 the author was evidently to exhort the readers to suffer, not 
 as evil-doers, but as well-doers, to see to it that they should 
 suffer for the sake of Christ only; to suffer patiently, re- 
 maining steadfast in spite of all temptations; and to bear 
 their sufferings with a joyful hope, since they would issue in 
 a glory that never fades away. And because these suffer- 
 ings might lead them to doubt and discouragement, the 
 writer makes it a point to testify that the grace in which they 
 stand, and with which the sufferings of this present time 
 are inseparably connected, is yet the true grace of God, thus 
 confirming the work of Paul. 
 
 2. Time and Place. There are especially three theories 
 regarding the place of composition, viz. ( 1 ) that the Epistle 
 was sent from Babylon on the Euphrates; (2) that it was 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 303 
 
 composed at Rome; and (3) that it was written from Baby- 
 lon near Cairo in Egypt. The last hypothesis found no sup- 
 port and need not be considered. The answer to the ques- 
 tion respecting the place of composition depends on the in- 
 terpretation of 5: 13, where we read: "She (the church) 
 that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you." 
 The prima facie impression made by these words is that the 
 writer was at ancient Babylon, the well known city on the 
 Euphrates. Many of the early church fathers, however, 
 (Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Eusebius, 
 Jerome) and several later commentators and writers on In- 
 troduction (Bigg, Hart, Salmon, Holtzmann, Zahn, Chase) 
 regard the name Babylon as a figurative designation of 
 Rome, just as it is in the Apocalypse, 17:5; 18:2. 10. In 
 favor of the literal interpretation it is argued, (1) that its 
 figurative use is very unlikely in a matter-of-fact statement ; 
 and (2) that in 1 : 1 the order in which the provinces of 
 Asia Minor are named is from the East to the West, thus 
 indicating the location of the writer. Aside from the fact, 
 however, that the last argument needs some qualification, 
 these considerations seem to be more than off-set by the fol- 
 lowing facts : ( 1 ) An old and reliable tradition, that can 
 be traced to the second century, informs us that Peter was 
 at Rome towards the end of his life, and finally died there 
 as a martyr. This must be distinguished from that fourth 
 century tradition to the effect that he resided at Rome for 
 a period of twenty-five years as its first bishop. On the 
 other hand there is not the slightest record of his having 
 been at Babylon. Not until the Middle Ages was it inferred 
 from 5:13 that he had visited the city on the Euphrates. 
 (2) In the Revelation of John Rome is called Babylon, a 
 terminology that was likely to come into general use, as 
 soon as Rome showed herself the true counterpart of ancient 
 Babylon, the representative of the world as over against the 
 Church of God. The Neronian persecution certainly began 
 to reveal her character as such. ( 3 ) The symbolical sense is 
 in perfect harmony with the figurative interpretation of the 
 
304 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 address, and with the designation of the readers as "pilgrims 
 and strangers in the earth." (4) In view of what Josephus 
 says in Ant, XVIII 9. it is doubtful, whether Babylon would 
 offer the apostle a field for missionary labors at the time, 
 when this Epistle was composed. We regard it as very 
 likely that the writer refers to Rome in 5 : 13. 
 
 With respect to the time when this Epistle was written, 
 the greatest uncertainty prevails. Dates have been suggested 
 all the way from 54 to 147 A. D. Of those who deny the 
 authorship of Peter the great majority refer the letter to the 
 time of Trajan after A. D. 112, the date of Trajan's re- 
 script, for reasons which we already discussed. Thus Baur, 
 Keim, Lipsius, Pfieiderer, Hausrath, Weizsacker, Hilgen- 
 feld, Davidson e. a. In determining the time of writing we 
 must be guided by the following data : ( 1 ) The Epistle 
 cannot have been written later than A. D. 67 or 68, the tradi- 
 tional date of Peter's death, which some, however place in 
 the year 64. Cf. Zahn Eml. II p. 19. (2) Peter had evi- 
 dently read the Epistles of Paul to the Romans (58) and 
 that to the Ephesians (62), and therefore cannot have writ- 
 ten his letter before A. D. 62. (3) The letter makes no 
 mention whatever of Paul, so that presumably it was writ- 
 ten at a time when this apostle was not at Rome. (4) The 
 fact that Peter writes to Pauline churches favors the idea 
 that Paul had temporarily withdrawn from his field of labor. 
 We are inclined to think that he composed the Epistle, when 
 Paul was on his jojurney to Spain, about A. D. 64 or 65. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The canonicity of the letter has never been subject to 
 doubt in the opening centuries of our era. It is referred to 
 in II Peter 3:1. Papias evidently used it and there are clear 
 traces of its language in Clement of Rome, Hermas and 
 Polycarp. The old Latin and Syriac Versions contain it, 
 while it is quoted in the Epistle of the churches of Vienne 
 and Lyons, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and TertuUian 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 305 
 
 all quote it by name, and Eusebius classes it with the Homo- 
 logoumena. 
 
 Some scholars objected to this Epistle that it was charac- 
 terized by a want of distinctive character. But the objec- 
 tion is not well founded, since the letter certainly has a 
 unique significance among the writings of the New Testa- 
 ment. It emphasizes the great importance which the hope 
 of a blessed and eternal inheritance has in the life of God's 
 children. Viewed in the light of their future glory, the 
 present life of believers, with all its trials and sufferings, 
 recedes into the background, and they realize that they are 
 strangers and pilgrims in the earth. From that point of 
 view they understand the significance of the sufferings of 
 Christ as opening up the way to God, and they also learn 
 to value their own hardships as these minister to the devel- 
 opment of faith and to their everlasting glory. And then, 
 living in expectation of the speedy return of their Lord, 
 they realize that their sufferings are of short duration, and 
 therefore bear them joyfully. In the midst of all her strug- 
 gles the Church of God should never forget to look forward 
 to her future glory, — the object of her living hope. 
 
The Second General Epistle of Peter. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The contents of the Epistle can be divided into two parts : 
 /. The Importance of Christian Knowledge, 1 : 1-21. 
 After the greeting, 1, 2, the author reminds the readers of 
 the great blessings they received through the knowledge of 
 Jesus Christ, and urges them to live worthy of that knowl- 
 edge and thus to make sure their calling and election, 3-11. 
 He says that he deemed it expedient to put them in mind of 
 what they knew, and that he would see to it that they had a 
 remembrance of these things after his decease, 12-15. This 
 knowledge is of the greatest value, because it rests on a sure 
 foundation, 16-21. 
 
 //. Warning against False Teachers, 2: 1 — 3: 18. The 
 apostle announces the coming of false prophets, who shall 
 deny the truth and mislead many, 2: 1-3. Then he proves 
 the certainty of their punishment by means of historical 
 examples, 4-9, and gives a minute description of their sen- 
 sual character, 10-22. Stating that he wrote the letter to 
 remind them of the knowledge they had received, he in- 
 forms them that the scoffers that will come in the last days, 
 will deny the advent of Christ, 3:1-4. He refutes their 
 arguments, assuring the readers that the Lord will come, 
 and exhorting them to a holy conversation, 5-13. Referring 
 to his agreement with Paul in this teaching, he ends his letter 
 with an exhortation to grow in grace and in the knowledge 
 of Jesus Christ, 14-18. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. Like the first Epistle this second one is also a letter 
 of practical warning, exhortation and encouragement. But 
 
THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 307 
 
 while in the former the dominant note is that of Christian 
 hope, the controlling idea in the latter is that of Christian 
 knowledge. It is the "eTrtYvo)at(; ypiazob, which consists 
 essentially in the acknowledgment of the Suva[i,t(; /.dt 
 Tcapouata of Christ. Advancement in this eTciYvwatq, as the 
 ground and aim of the exercise of all Christian virtues, is 
 the prominent feature of every exhortation." Huther, 
 Comm. p. 344. This knowledge, resting on a sure founda- 
 tion, must be the mainstay of the readers, when false doc- 
 trines are propagated in their midst, and must be their in- 
 centive to holiness in spite of the seducing influences round 
 about them. 
 
 2. This Epistle has great affinity with that of Jude, cf. 
 2: 1-18; 3: 1-3. The similarity is of such a character that 
 it cannot be regarded as accidental, but clearly points to 
 dependence of the one on the other. Though it cannot be 
 said that the question is absolutely settled, the great major- 
 ity of scholars, among whom there are some who deny the 
 authorship of Peter (Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Chase, Strachan. 
 Barth e. a.), and others who defend the authenticity of the 
 Epistle (Wiesinger, Bruckner, Weiss, Alford, Salmon), 
 maintain the priority of Jude. The main reasons that lead 
 them to this conclusion, are the following : ( 1 ) The phrase- 
 ology of Jude is simpler than that of Peter in the related 
 passages. The language of the latter is more laborious and 
 looks like an elaboration of what the former wrote. (2) 
 Several passages in Peter can be fully understood only in 
 the light of what Jude says, compare 2 : 4 with Jude 6 ; 
 2:11 with Jude 9 ; 3 : 2 with Jude 17. (3) Though the simi- 
 lar passages are adapted to the subject-matter of both 
 Epistles, they seem more natural in the context of Jude than 
 in that of Peter. The course of thought is more regular in 
 the Epistle of Jude. — The priority of Jude is quite well 
 established, though especially Zahn, Spitta (who defends 
 the second Epistle of Peter at the cost of the first) and Bigg 
 put up an able defense for the priority of Peter. 
 
308 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 3. The language of II Peter has some resemblance to 
 that of the first Epistle, cf. Weiss, Introd. II p. 166, but the 
 difiference between the two is greater than the similarity. 
 We need not call special attention to the axa^ Xeyoixeva 
 found in this letter, since it contains but 48, while I Peter 
 has 58. But there are other points that deserve our atten- 
 tion. Bigg says : "The vocabulary of I Peter is dignified ; 
 that of II Peter inclines to the grandiose." Comm. p. 225. 
 And according to Simcox, "we see in this Epistle, as com- 
 pared with the first, at once less instinctive familiarity with 
 Greek idiom and more conscious effort at elegant Greek 
 composition." Writers of the N. T. p. 69. 
 
 There are 361 words in I Peter that are not found in this 
 Epistle, and 231 in II Peter that are absent from the first 
 letter. There is a certain fondness for the repetition of 
 words, cf. Holtzmann, Einl. p. 322, which Bigg, however, 
 finds equally noticeable in I Peter. The connecting particles, 
 tva, OTt, ouv, piev, found frequently in I Peter, are rare in 
 this Epistle, where instead we find sentences introduced with 
 xruTO or xauxa, cf. 1:8, 10; 3:11, 14. And while in the 
 first Epistle there is a free interchange of prepositions, we 
 often find a repetition of the same preposition in the second, 
 f . i. Bta is found three times in 1 :3-5 and ev seven times 
 in 1 : 5-7. Different words are often used to express the 
 same ideas; compare oi-xov.ocXwht.q, I Pt. 1:7, 13; 4:13 with 
 irapouata, II Pt. 1:16; 3:4; — pavTtajxo?, I Pt. 1:2 with 
 xa6apt(7[jL6i;, II Pt. 1:9; — /,XY]povopi.t'a, I Pt. 1:4 with atwvoi; 
 PaatXeia, II Pt. 1:11. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 This Epistle is the most weakly attested of all the New 
 Testament writings. Besides that of Jerome we do not find 
 a single statement in the fathers of the first four centuries 
 explicitly and positively ascribing this work to Peter. Yet 
 there are some evidences of its canonical use, which indi- 
 rectly testify to a belief in its genuineness. There are 
 
THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 309 
 
 some phrases in Clement of Rome, Hermas, the Clementine 
 Recognitions and Theophilus that recall II Peter, but the 
 coincidences may be accidental. Supposed traces of this 
 Epistle are found in Irenaeus, though they may all be ac- 
 counted for in another way, cf. Salmon, Introd. p. 324 f. 
 Eusebius and Photius say that Clement of Alexandria com- 
 mented on our Epistle, and their contention may be correct, 
 notwithstanding the doubt cast on it by Cassiodorus, cf. 
 Davidson, Introd. II p. 533 f. Origen attests that the book 
 was known in his time, but that its genuineness was dis- 
 puted. He himself quotes it several times without any ex- 
 pression of doubt. It is pointed out, however, that these 
 quotations are found in those parts of his work that we 
 know only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, which is not 
 always reliable ; though, according to Salmon, the presump- 
 tion is that Rufinus did not invent them, Introd. p. 533 f. 
 Eusebius classes this letter with the Antilegomena ; and 
 Jerome says : "Simon Peter wrote two Epistles, which are 
 called catholic ; the second of which most persons deny to 
 be his, on account of its disagreement in style with the first." 
 This difference he elsewhere explains by assuming that 
 Peter employed a different interpreter. From that time the 
 Epistle was received by Rufinus, Augustine, Basil, Greg- 
 ory, Palladius, Hilary, Ambrose e. a. During the Middle 
 Ages it was generally accepted, but at the time of the 
 Reformation Erasmus and Calvin, though accepting the let- 
 ter as canonical, doubted the direct authorship of Peter. 
 Yet Calvin believed that in some sense the Petrine author- 
 ship had to be maintained, and surmised that a disciple wrote 
 it at the command of Peter. 
 
 The Epistle itself definitely points to Peter as its author. 
 In the opening verse the writer calls himself, "Simon Peter, 
 a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ," which clearly ex- 
 cludes the idea of Grotius, that Symeon, the successor of 
 James at Jerusalem, wrote the letter. From 1 : 16-18 we 
 learn that the author was a witness of the transfiguration 
 of Christ ; and in 3 : 1 we find a reference to his first Epistle. 
 
310 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 As far as style and expression are concerned there is even 
 greater similarity between this letter and the speeches of 
 Peter in the Acts of the Apostles than between the first 
 Epistle and those addresses. Moreover Weiss concludes 
 that, from a biblical and theological point of view, no New 
 Testament writing is more like I Peter than this Epistle, 
 Introd. II p. 165. Besides the whole spirit of the Epistle 
 is against the idea that it is a forgery. Calvin maintained 
 its canonicity, "because the majesty of the Spirit of Christ 
 exhibited itself in every part of the Epistle." 
 
 Notwithstanding this, however, the authenticity of the 
 letter is subject to serious doubt in modern times, such 
 scholars as Mayerhofif, Credner, Hilgenfeld, Von Soden, 
 Hausrath, Mangold, Davidson, Volkmar, Holtzmann, 
 Jiilicher, Harnack, Chase, Strachan e. a. denying that Peter 
 wrote it. But the Epistle is not without defenders ; its 
 authenticity is maintained among others by Luthardt, Wie- 
 singer, Guericke, Windischmann, Bruckner, Hofmann, Sal- 
 mon, Alford, Zahn, Spitta, and Warfield, while Huther, 
 Weiss, and Kuhl conclude their investigations with a non 
 liquet. 
 
 The principle objections to the genuineness of II Peter 
 are the following: (1) The language of the Epistle is so 
 different from that of I Peter as to preclude the possibility 
 of their proceeding from the same author. (2) The de- 
 pendence of the writer on Jude is inconsistent with the idea 
 that he was Peter, not only because Jude was written long 
 after the lifetime of Peter, but also since it is unworthy of 
 an apostle to rely to such a degree on one who did not have 
 that distinction. (3) It appears that the author is over- 
 anxious to identify himself with the apostle Peter: there 
 is a threefold allusion to his death, 1 : 13-15 ; he wants the 
 readers to understand that he was present at the transfigura- 
 tion, 1 : 16-18; and he identifies himself with the author of 
 the first Epistle, 3:1. (4) In 3:2, where the reading u^jlwv 
 is better attested than r)[xwv, the writer by using the expres- 
 
THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 311 
 
 sion, iriq twv (ZTCoaToXtov u(xoJv evxoX'^i;, seems to place 
 himself outside of the apostolic circle. Deriving the expres- 
 sion from Jude, the writer forgot that he wanted to pass for 
 an apostle and therefore could not use it with equal propri- 
 ety. Cf. Holtzmann, Einl. p. 321. (5) The writer speaks 
 of some of Paul's Epistles as Scripture in 3 : 16, implying 
 the existence of a New Testament canon, and thus betrays 
 his second century standpoint. (6) The Epistle also refers 
 to doubts regarding the second coming of Christ, 3:4 fif., 
 which points beyond the lifetime of Peter, because such 
 doubts could not be entertained before the destruction of 
 Jerusalem. (7) According to Dr. Abbott (in the Expositor) 
 the author of II Peter is greatly indebted to the Antiquities 
 of Josephus, a work that was published about A. D. 93. 
 
 We cannot deny that there is force in some of these argu- 
 ments, but do not believe that they compel us to give up the 
 authorship of Peter. The argument from style is un- 
 doubtedly the most important one ; but if we accept the 
 theory that Silvanus wrote the first Epistle under the direc- 
 tion of Peter, while the apostle composed the second, either 
 with his own hand or by means of another amanuensis, the 
 difficulty vanishes. — As far as the literary dependence of 
 Peter on Jude is concerned, it is well to bear in mind that 
 this is not absolutely proved. However, assuming it to be 
 established, there is nothing derogatory in it for Peter, since 
 Jude was also an inspired man, and because in those early 
 days unacknowledged borrowing was looked at in a far dif- 
 ferent light than it is today. — That the author is extremely 
 solicitous to show that he is the apostle Peter, is, even if it 
 can be proved, no argument against the genuineness of this 
 letter. In view of the errorists against which he warns the 
 readers, it was certainly important that they should bear in 
 mind his official position. But it cannot be maintained that 
 he insists on this over-much. The references to his death, 
 his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and his first 
 Epistle are introduced in a perfectly natural way. More- 
 over this argument is neutralized by some of the others 
 
312 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 brought forward by the negative critics. If the writer really 
 was so over-anxious, why does he speak of himself as Simon 
 Peter, cf . I Pt. 1:1; why does he seemingly exclude himself 
 from the apostolic circle, 3:2; and why did he not more 
 closely imitate the language of I Peter? — The difficulty 
 created by 3 :2 is not as great as it seems to some. If that 
 passage really disproves the authorship of Peter, it certainly 
 was a clumsy piece of work of a very clever forger, to let 
 it stand. But the writer, speaking of the prophets as a class, 
 places alongside of them another class, viz. that of the 
 apostles, who had more especially ministered to the New 
 Testament churches, and could therefore as a class be called, 
 "your apostles," i. e. the apostles who preached to you. The 
 writer evidently did not desire to single himself out, prob- 
 ably, if for no other reasons, because other apostles had 
 labored more among the readers than he had.— The refer- 
 ence to the Epistles of Paul does not necessarily imply the 
 existence of a New Testament canon ; and it is a gratuitous 
 assumption that they were not regarded as Scripture in the 
 first century, so that the burden of proof rests on those who 
 make it. — The same may be said of the assertion that no 
 doubt could be entertained as to the second coming of Christ 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem. Moreover the author 
 does not say that these were already expressed, but that they 
 would be uttered by scoffers that would come in the last 
 days. — The attempt to prove the dependence of II Peter on 
 Josephus, has been proved fallacious, especially by Salmon 
 and by Dr. Warfield. The former says in conclusion : "Dr. 
 Abbot has completely failed to establish his theory ; but I 
 must add that it was a theory never rational to try to estab- 
 lish." Introd. p. 536. 
 
 DESTINATION. 
 
 The readers are simply addressed as those "that have 
 obtained like precious faith with us through the righteous- 
 ness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," 1:1. From 3 : 1 
 we gather, however, that they are identical with the readers 
 
THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 313 
 
 of the first Epistle; and from 3:15, that they were also the 
 recipients of some Pauline Epistle (s). It is vain to guess 
 what Epistle (s) the writer may have had in view here. Zahn 
 argues at length that our Epistle was written to Jewish 
 Christians in and round about Palestine, who had been led 
 to Christ by Peter and by others of the twelve apostles. He 
 bases his conclusion on the general difference of circum- 
 stances presupposed in the two letters of Peter, and on such 
 passages as 1 : 1-4, 16-18; 3: 2. But it seems to us that the 
 Epistle does not contain a single hint regarding the Jewish 
 character of its readers, while passages like 1 :4 and 3: 15 
 rather imply their Gentile origin. Moreover, in order to 
 maintain his theory, Zahn must assume that both 3 : 1 and 
 3: 15 refer to lost letters, cf. Einl. II p. 43 ff. 
 
 The condition of the readers presupposed in this letter 
 is indeed diff'erent from that reflected in the first Epistle. 
 No mention is made of persecution ; instead of the affliction 
 from without, internal dangers are now coming in view. The 
 readers were in need of being firmly grounded in the truth, 
 since they would soon have to contend with heretical teach- 
 ers, who theoretically would deny the Lordship of Jesus 
 Christ, 2:1, and his second coming, 3:4; and practically 
 would disgrace their lives by licentiousness, ch. 2. These 
 heretics have been described as Sadducees, as Gnostics, and 
 as Nicolaitans, but it is rather doubtful, whether we can 
 identify them with any particular sect. They certainly were 
 practical Antinomians, leading careless, wanton and sinful 
 lives, just because they did not believe in the resurrection 
 and in a future judgment. Their doctrine was, in all prob- 
 ability, an incipient Gnosticism. 
 
 Since the author employs both the future and the present 
 tense in describing them, the question arises, whether they 
 were already present or were yet to come. The most natural 
 explanation is that the author already knew such false 
 teachers to be at work in some places (cf. especially 
 I Corinthians and the Epistles to the Thessalonians), so that 
 he could consequently give a vivid description of them ; and 
 
314 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 that he expected them to extend their pernicious influence 
 also to the churches of Asia Minor. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. The occasion that led to the 
 composition of this Epistle must be found in the dangerous 
 heresies that were at work in some of the churches, and that 
 also threatened the readers. 
 
 In determining the object of the writer the Tubingen 
 school emphasized 3: 15, and found it in the promotion of 
 harmony and peace between the Petrine and Pauline parties 
 (Baur, Schwegler, Hausrath). With this end in view, they 
 say, the writer personating Peter, the representative of Jew- 
 ish Christendom, acknowledges Paul, who represents the 
 more liberal tendency of the Church. But it is unwarranted 
 to lay such stress on that particular passage. Others re- 
 garded the Epistle as primarily a polemic against Gnosti- 
 cism, against the false teachers depicted in the letter. Now 
 it cannot be denied that the Epistle is in part controversial, 
 but it is only its secondary character. The main object of 
 the letter, as indicated in 1 : 16 and 3:1, 2, was to put the 
 readers in mind of the truth which they had learned, in 
 order that they might not be led astray by the theoretical and 
 practical libertines that would soon make their influence 
 felt, and especially to strengthen their faith in the promised 
 parousia of Jesus Christ. 
 
 2. Time and Place. The Epistle contains no certain 
 data as to the time of its composition. We can only infer 
 from 3 : 1 that it was written after I Peter, though Zahn, 
 who is not bound by that passage, places it before the first 
 Epistle, about A. D. 60-63. The fact that the condition of 
 the churches, which is indicated in this letter, is quite differ- 
 ent from that reflected in the earher writing, presupposes 
 the lapse of some time, though it does not require many 
 years to account for the change. A short time would suffice 
 for the springing up of the enemies to which the Epistle 
 refers. Can we not say, in view of the tendencies apparent 
 
THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER 315 
 
 at Corinth that their doctrines had already been germinating 
 for some time ? Moreover, according to 1:14 the writer 
 felt that his end was near. Hence we prefer to date the 
 letter about the year 66 or (>7 . 
 
 They who deny the authenticity of the Epistle generally 
 place it somewhere between the years 90 and 175, for such 
 reasons as its dependence on Jude and on the Apocalypse 
 of Peter, its reference to Gnosticism, and its implication 
 respecting the existence of a New Testament canon. 
 
 Since a trustworthy tradition informs us that Peter spent 
 the last part of his life at Rome, the Epistle was in all prob- 
 ability composed in the imperial city. Zahn points to 
 Antioch, and Jiilicher suggests Egypt as the place of com- 
 position. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 For the reception of this Epistle in the early church, we 
 refer to what has been said above. 
 
 Like all the canonical writings this one too has abiding 
 significance. Its importance is found in the fact that it em- 
 phasizes the great value of true Christian knowledge, espe- 
 cially in view of the dangers that arise for believers from 
 all kinds of false teachings, and from the resultant example 
 of a loose, a licentious, an immoral life. It teaches us that 
 a Christianity that is not well founded in the truth as it is 
 in Christ, is like a ship without a rudder on the turbulent 
 sea of life. A Christianity without dogma cannot maintain 
 itself against the errors of the day, but will go down before 
 the triumphant forces of darkness ; it will not succeed in 
 cultivating a pure, noble spiritual life, but will be conformed 
 to the life of the world. In particular does the Epistle re- 
 mind us of the fact that faith in the return of Christ should 
 inspire us to a holy conversation. 
 
The First General Epistle of John. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 It is impossible to give a satisfactory schematic repre- 
 sentation of the contents of this letter. After the introduc- 
 tion, 1 : 1-4, in which the apostle declares that the purpose of 
 his ministry is to manifest the life-giving divine Word, in 
 order that the readers may have fellowship with him and 
 the other apostles, and through them with God and Christ, 
 he defines the character of this fellowship and points out 
 that, since God is light, believers also should be and walk 
 in the light, 5-10, i. e. they should guard against sin and keep 
 God's commandments, 2 : 1-6. He reminds the readers of 
 the great commandment, which is at once old and new, that 
 they should love the brethren, 7-14; and in connection with 
 this warns them not to love the world, and to beware of the 
 false teachers that deny the truth, 15-27. 
 
 The representation of God as light now passes over into 
 that of God as righteous, and the writer insists that only he 
 that is righteous can be a child of God, 2 : 28 — 3 : 6. He 
 reminds the readers of the fact that to be righteous is to do 
 righteousness, which in turn is identical with love to the 
 brethren, 7-17. Once more he warns the readers against the 
 love of the world, and points out that the commandment of 
 God includes two things, viz. belief in Christ and love to 
 the brethren, 18-24. 
 
 In view of the false teachers he next reminds the readers 
 that the test of having the Spirit of God, is to be found in 
 the true confession of Christ, in adherence to the teaching 
 of the apostles, and in that faith in Jesus that is the condition 
 of love and of true spiritual life, 4 : 1 — 5 : 12. Finally he 
 states the object of the Epistle once more, and gives a brief 
 summary of what he has written, 13-21. 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN 317 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. The literary form of this Epistle is different from 
 that of all the other New Testament letters, the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews and that of James resembling it most in this 
 respect. Like the Epistle to the Hebrews it does not name 
 its author nor its original readers, and contains no apostolic 
 blessing at the beginning ; and in agreement with that of 
 James it has no formal conclusion, no greetings and saluta- 
 tions at the end. This feature led some to deny its epis- 
 tolary character; yet, taking everything into consideration, 
 the conclusion is inevitable that it is an Epistle in the proper 
 sense of the word, and not a didactic treatise. "The free- 
 dom of the style, the use of such direct terms as, 'I write 
 unto you,' *I wrote unto you,' and the footing on which 
 writer and readers stand to each other all through its con- 
 tents, show it to be no formal composition." (Salmond) 
 Moreover it reveals no such plan as would be expected in a 
 treatise. The order found in it is determined by association 
 rather than by logic, the thoughts being grouped about cer- 
 tain clearly related, ruling ideas. 
 
 2. The great affinity of this Epistle with the Gospel of 
 John naturally attracts attention. The two are very similar 
 in the general conception of the truth, in the specific way of 
 representing things, and in style and expression. Besides 
 there are several passages in both that are mutually explan- 
 atory, as f . i. : 
 
 1 : 1, 2....John 1 : 1, 2, 4, 14 3:11, 16...John 15 : 12, 13 
 
 2: 1 John 14: 16 4: 6 John 8: 47 
 
 2: 2 John 11:51, 52 5:6 John 19: 34, 35 
 
 2: 8 John 13: 34; 15: 10, 12 5:9 John 5: 32, 34, 36; 8: 17, 18 
 
 2: 10 John 11: 9, 10; 12:35 5: 12 John 3: 36 
 
 2: 23 John 15 : 23, 24 5 : 13 John 20: 31 
 
 2: 27 John 14: 26; 16: 13 5: 14 John 14: 13, 14; 16: 23 
 
 3 : 8, 15..John 8 : 44 5 : 20 John 17 : 3 
 
 Hence many scholars assume a very intimate connection 
 of the Epistle with the Gospel, regarding it as a kind of in- 
 
318 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 troduction (Light foot), a sort of dedicatory writing (Haus- 
 rath, Hofmann), or a practical companion (Michaelis, Storr, 
 Eichhorn), destined to accompany the Gospel. At the same 
 time there are differences of such a kind between the two 
 writings, as make it seem more likely that the Epistle is an 
 independent composition. Cf . Holtzmann, £/;;/. p. 478 ; Sal- 
 mond, Hastings D. B. Art. I John, 5. 
 
 3. The truth is represented in this Epistle ideally rather 
 than historically. This important fact is stated by Salmond 
 concisely as follows : "The characteristic ideas of the 
 Epistle are few and simple, they are of large significance, 
 and they are presented in new aspects and relations as often 
 as they occur. They belong to the region of primary prin- 
 ciples, realities of the intuition, certainties of the experience, 
 absolute truths. And they are given in their absoluteness. 
 (Italics are ours). The regenerate man is one who cannot 
 sin; Christian faith is presented in its ideal character and 
 completeness ; the revelation of life is exhibited in its final- 
 ity, not in the stages of its historical realization." Cf. espe- 
 cially Weiss, Biblical Theology of the N. T. II p. 311 fif. 
 Stevens, Johannine Theology, p. 1 ff. 
 
 4. The style of the Epistle is very similar to that of the 
 Gospel. Fundamental words and phrases are often re- 
 peated, such as "truth," "love," "light," "in the light," "being 
 born of God," "abiding in God," etc. ; and the construction 
 is characterized by utter simplicity, the sentences being co- 
 ordinated rather than subordinated, and involved sentences 
 being avoided by the repetition of part of a previous sen- 
 tence. There is a remarkable paucity of connecting par- 
 ticles, f . i. Y«P occurs only three times ; Se but nine times ; 
 [i.ev T£ and ouv are not found at all (while the last is of 
 frequent occurrence in the Gospel). On the other hand ott 
 is often used, and vcat is the regular connective. In many 
 cases sentences and clauses follow one another without con- 
 necting particles, e. g. 2:22-24; 4:4-6, 7-10, 11-13. 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN 319 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The authorship of John is clearly attested by external 
 testimony. Eusebius says that Papias employed this Epistle, 
 and also that Irenaeus often quoted from it. The last asser- 
 tion is borne out by the work against heresies, in which 
 Irenaeus repeatedly quotes the letter and ascribes it to John. 
 Clement of Alexandria, TertuUian, Cyprian and Origen all 
 quote it by name ; it is contained in the Muratorian Frag- 
 ment and in the old Latin and Syriac Versions ; and Euse- 
 bius classes it with the writings universally' received by the 
 churches. This testimony may be regarded as very strong, 
 especially in view of the fact that the author is not named 
 in the Epistle. 
 
 That conviction of the early church is corroborated by 
 what internal evidence we have. All the proofs adduced for 
 the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel also apply in 
 the case of this Epistle, cf . p. 106 above. The two writings 
 are so similar that they evidently were composed by the same 
 hand. It is true, there are some points of difference, but 
 these divergencies are of such a kind that they altogether 
 preclude the idea that the Epistle is the product of a forger 
 trying to imitate John. The almost general verdict is that 
 he who wrote the one, also wrote the other. From 1 : 1-3 it 
 is evident that the author has known Christ in the flesh ; and 
 the whole Epistle reveals the character of John as we know 
 it from the Gospel and from tradition. 
 
 But the authenticity of the letter did not go unchallenged. 
 In the second century the Alogi and Marcion rejected it, 
 but only for dogmatical reasons. The truth presented in it did 
 not fit their circle of ideas. The next attack on it followed 
 in the sixteenth century, when Joseph Scaliger declared that 
 none of the three Epistles that bear the name of John, were 
 written by him ; and S. G. Lange pronounced our letter un- 
 worthy of an apostle. It was not until 1820, however, that 
 an important critical assault was made on the Epistle by 
 Bretschneider. He was followed by the critics of the Tiibin- 
 
320 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 gen school who, however they may differ in the details of 
 their arguments, concur in denying the Johannine author- 
 ship and in regarding the Epistle as a second century pro- 
 duction. Some of them, such as Kostlin, Georgii, and Hil- 
 genfeld maintain that this Epistle and the fourth Gospel 
 were composed by the same hand, while others, as Volkmar, 
 Zeller, Davidson, Scholten e. a. regard them as the fruit of 
 two congenial spirits. 
 
 The main arguments against the Johannine authorship 
 are the following : ( 1 ) The Epistle is evidently directed 
 against second century Gnosticism, which separated in a 
 dualistic manner knowledge and conduct, the divine Christ 
 and the human Jesus, cf. 2:4, 9, 11; 5:6, etc. (2) The 
 letter also seems to be a polemic against Docetism, another 
 second century heresy, cf. 4:2, 3. (3) There are references 
 to Montanism in the Epistle, as f . i. where the writer speaks 
 of the moral perfection of believers, 3:6, 9, and distin- 
 guishes between sins unto death and sins not unto death, 
 3 : 16, 17, a distinction which, Tertullian says, was made by 
 the Montanists. (4) The difference between this Epistle 
 and the Apocalypse is so great that it is impossible that one 
 man should have written both. 
 
 We need not deny that the Epistle is partly an indirect 
 polemic against Gnosticism, but we maintain that this was 
 an incipient Gnosticism that made its appearance before the 
 end of the first century in the heresy of Cerinthus, so that 
 this does not argue against the authorship of John. — The 
 supposed references to Docetism are very uncertain indeed ; 
 but even if they could be proved, they would not point be- 
 yond the first century, for most of the Gnostics were also 
 Docetse, and the Cerinthian heresy may be called a species 
 of Docetism. — The representations of John have nothing in 
 common with those of the Montanists. When he speaks of 
 the perfection of believers, he speaks ideally and not of a 
 perfection actually realized in this life. Moreover the "sin 
 unto death" to which he refers, is evidently a complete fall- 
 ing away from Christ, and is not to be identified with the 
 
THE FIRS T GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN 321 
 
 sins to which Tertullian refers, viz. "murder, idolatry, fraud, 
 denial of Christ, blasphemy, and assuredly also adultery and 
 fornication." — With reference to the last argument we refer 
 to what we have said above p. HI, and to the explanation 
 given of the difference between the Apocalypse and the 
 other Johannine writings below p. 321. 
 
 DESTINATION. 
 
 There is very little in the letter that can help us to deter- 
 mine the location of the original readers. Because there is 
 no local coloring whatever, it is not likely that the Epistle 
 was sent to some individual church, as Ephesus (Hug) or 
 Corinth (Lightfoot) ; and since the letter favors the idea 
 that it was written to Gentile, rather than to Jewish Chris- 
 tians, it is very improbable that it was destined for the 
 Christians of Palestine (Benson). There is not a single Old 
 Testament quotation in the Epistle, nor any reference to the 
 Jewish nationality or the Jewish tenets of the readers. The 
 statement of Augustine that this is John's letter "ad 
 Parthos" is very obscure. Some, as f. i. Grotius, inferred 
 from it that the Epistle was written for Christians beyond 
 the Euphrates ; but most generally it is regarded as a mis- 
 taken reading for some other expression, the reading izpbc, 
 irapOevou?, finding most favor, which, Gieseler suggests, may 
 in turn be a corruption of the title tou TrapOevou, which was 
 commonly given to John in early times. 
 
 In all probability the correct opinion respecting the des- 
 tination of this Epistle is that held by the majority of schol- 
 ars, as Bleek, Huther, Davidson, Plummer, Westcott, Weiss, 
 Zahn, Alford e. a., that it was sent to the Christians of Asia 
 Minor generally, for (1 ) that was John's special field of labor 
 during the latter part of his life; (2) the heresies referred 
 to and combated were rife in that country ; and (3) the Gos- 
 pel was evidently written for the Christians of that region, 
 and the Epistle presupposes similar circumstances. 
 
 We have no definite information regarding the condition 
 
322 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 of the original readers. They had evidently left behind the 
 Church's early struggles for existence and now constituted 
 a recognized xotvovi'a of believers, a community that placed 
 its light over against the darkness of the world, and that 
 distinguished itself from the unrighteous by keeping the 
 commandments of God. They only needed to be reminded 
 of their true character, which would naturally induce them 
 to a life worthy of their fellowship with Christ. There 
 are dangerous heresies abroad, however, against which they 
 must be warned. The pernicious doctrine of Cerinthus, that 
 Jesus was not the Christ, the Son of God, threatened the 
 peace of their souls ; and the subtle error, that one could be 
 righteous without doing righteousness, endangered the fruit- 
 fulness of their Christian life. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. Although the Epistle is not 
 primarily and directly polemical, yet it was most likely occa- 
 sioned by the dangers to which we already referred. 
 
 As to the object of the letter the author himself says: 
 "that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you 
 also, that ye also may have fellowship with us ; yea, and 
 our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus 
 Christ," 1:3; and again in 5:13: "These things have I 
 written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, 
 even unto you that believe in the Name of the Son of God." 
 The direct purpose of the author is to give his readers 
 authentic instruction regarding the truth and reality of the 
 things which they, especially as believers in Jesus Christ, 
 accepted by faith ; and to help them to see the natural issues 
 of the fellowship to which they had been introduced, in order 
 that they might have a full measure of peace and joy and 
 life. The purpose of the writer is therefore at once theoreti- 
 cal and practical. 
 
 2. Time and Place. What we said above, pp. 113, 114, 
 respecting the date of the fourth Gospel and the place of its 
 composition, also favors the idea that this Epistle was writ- 
 
THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN 323 
 
 ten between the years 80-98, and at Ephesus. It is impossible 
 to narrow down these time-limits any more. The only 
 remaining question is, whether the Epistle was written prior 
 to the Gospel, (Bleek, Huther, Reuss, Weiss), or the Gospel 
 prior to the Epistle (DeWette, Ewald, Guericke, Alford, 
 Plummer). It appears to us that the grounds adduced for 
 the priority of the Epistle, as f. i. that a writing of momen- 
 tary design naturally precedes one of permanent design ; 
 a letter of warning to particular churches, a writing like the 
 Gospel addressed to all Christendom, — are very weak. And 
 the arguments for the other side are almost equally incon- 
 clusive, although there is some force in the reasoning that 
 the Epistle in several places presupposes a knowledge of the 
 Gospel, cf. the points of resemblance referred to on p. 311 
 above. But even this does not carry conviction, for Reuss 
 correctly says : "For us, the Epistle needs the Gospel as 
 a commentary ; but inasmuch as at the first it had one in the 
 oral instruction of the author, it is not thereby proved that 
 it is the later." History of the N. T. I p. 237. Salmond 
 and Zahn wisely conclude their discussion of this point with 
 a non liquet. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The canonicity of this letter was never doutbed by the 
 Church. Polycarp and Papias, both disciples of John, used 
 it, and Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, directly ascribes it 
 to John. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, 
 Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria all quote it by name, 
 as a writing of the apostle John. It is referred to as John's 
 in the Muratorian Fragment, and is contained in the old 
 Latin and Syriac Versions. 
 
 The abiding significance of this important Epistle is, that 
 it pictures us ideally the community of believers, as a com- 
 munity of life in fellowship with Christ, mediated by the 
 word of the apostles, which is the Word of life. It describes 
 that community as the sphere of life and light, of holiness 
 and righteousness, of love to God and to the brethren ; and 
 
324 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 as the absolute antithesis to the world with its darkness and 
 death, its pollution and unrighteousness, its hatred and de- 
 ception. All those who are introduced into that sphere 
 should of necessity be holy and righteous and filled with 
 love, and should avoid the world and its lusts. They should 
 test the spirits, whether they be of God, and shun all anti- 
 Christian error. Thus the Epistle describes for the Church 
 of all ages the nature and criteria of heavenly fellowship, 
 and warns believers to keep themselves unspotted from the 
 world. 
 
The Second and Third 
 General Epistles of John. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The Second Epistle. After the address and the apostoHc 
 blessirxg, 1-3, the writer expresses his joy at finding that 
 some of the children of the addressee walk in the truth, and 
 reiterates the great commandment of brotherly love, 4-6. He 
 urges the readers to exercise this love and informs them 
 that there are many errorists, who deny that Jesus Christ is 
 come in the flesh, admonishing them not to receive these, 
 lest they should become partakers of their evil deeds, 7-11. 
 Expressing his intention to come to them, he ends his Epistle 
 with a greeting, 12, 13. 
 
 The Third Epistle. The writer, addressing Gajus, sin- 
 cerely wishes that he may prosper, as his soul prospereth, 
 1-3. He commends him for receiving the itinerant preach- 
 ers, though they were strangers to him, 5-8. He also in- 
 forms the brother that he has written to the church, but 
 that Diotrephes resists his authority, not receiving the 
 brethren himself and seeking to prevent others from doing 
 it, 9, 10. Warning Gajus against that evil example, he com- 
 mends Demetrius, mentions an intended visit, and closes the 
 Epistle with greetings, 11-14. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. These two Epistles have rightly been called twin- 
 epistles, since they reveal several points of similarity. The 
 author in both styles himself the elder; they are of about 
 equal length ; each one of them, as distinguished from the 
 first Epistle, begins with an address and ends with greet- 
 
326 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 ings ; both contain an expression of joy ; and both refer to 
 itinerant preachers and to an intended visit of the writer. 
 
 2. The letters show close affinity to I John. What little 
 they contain of doctrinal matter is closely related to the con- 
 tents of the first Epistle, where we can easily find statements 
 corresponding to those in II John 4-9 and III John 11. 
 Several concepts and expressions clearly remind us of 
 I John, as f. i. "love," "truth," "commandments," "a new 
 commandment," one "which you had from the beginning," 
 "loving truth," "walking in the truth," "abiding in" one, "a 
 joy that may be fulfilled," etc. Moreover the aim of these 
 letters is in general the same as that of the first Epistle, viz. 
 to strengthen the readers in the truth and in love ; and to 
 warn them against an incipient Gnosticism. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 Considering the brevity of these Epistles, their author- 
 ship is very well attested. Clement of Alexandria speaks 
 of the second Epistle and, according to Eusebius, also com- 
 mented on the third. Irenaeus quotes the second Epistle by 
 name, ascribing it to "John the Lord's disciple." Tertullian 
 and Cyprian contain no quotations from them, but Dionysius 
 of Alexandria, Athanasius and Didymus received them as 
 the work of the apostle. The Muratorian Canon in a rather 
 obscure passage mentions two Epistles of John besides the 
 first one. The Peshito does not contain them ; and Eusebius, 
 without clearly giving his own opinion, reckons them with 
 the Antilegomena. After his time they were generally re- 
 ceived and as such recognized by the councils of Laodicea 
 (363), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). 
 
 Internal evidence may be said to favor the authorship of 
 John. One can scarcely read these letters without feeling 
 that they proceeded from the same hand that composed 
 I John. The second Epistle especially is very similar to the 
 first, a similarity that can hardly be explained, as Baljon 
 suggests, from an acquaintance of the author with I John, 
 Iiil. p. 237, 239. And the third Epistle is inseparably linked 
 
THE SECOND AND THIRD GEN. EPIS. OF JOHN 327 
 
 to the second. The use of a few Pauline terms, TupoxetxTietv, 
 euoSoudOat and uYtat'vecv, and of a few peculiar words, as 
 9Xuapstv, ftXoTuptOTSustv UTCoXa[x^aveiv, prove nothing to the 
 contrary. 
 
 The great stumbling block, that prevents several scholars 
 from accepting the apostolic authorship of these Epistles, is 
 found in the fact that the author simply styles himself 
 6 xpsa^uxepo?. This appellation led some, as Erasmus, 
 Grotius, Beck, Bretschneider, Hase, Renan, Reuss, Wieseler 
 e. a., to ascribe them to a certain well-known presbyter John, 
 distinct from the apostle. This opinion is based on a pass- 
 age of Papias, as it is interpreted by Eusebius, The pass- 
 age runs thus : "If I met anywhere with anyone who had 
 been a follower of the elders, I used to inquire what were 
 the declarations of the elders ; what was said by Andrew, by 
 Peter, by Philip, what by Thomas or James, what by John 
 or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord ; and 
 the things which Aristion and the presbyter John, the dis- 
 ciples of the Lord say ; for I did not expect to derive so 
 much benefit from the contents of books as from the utter- 
 ances of a living and abiding voice." From this statement 
 Eusebius infers that among the informants of Papias there 
 was besides the apostle John also a John the presbyter, 
 Church Hist. Ill 39. But the correctness of this inference 
 is subject to doubt. Notice (1) that Papias first names 
 those whose words he received through others and then 
 mentions two of whom he had also received personal instruc- 
 tion, cf. the difference in tense, elTcev and XsYOuatv; (2) 
 that it seems very strange that for Papias, who was himself 
 a disciple of the apostle John, anyone but the apostle would 
 be 6 Tcpea^uxepo? ; (3) that Eusebius was the first to dis- 
 cover this second John in the passage of Papias : (4) that 
 history knows nothing of such a John the presbyter ; he is 
 a shadowy person indeed; and (5) that the Church historian 
 was not unbiased in his opinion ; being averse to the supposed 
 
328 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Chiliasm of the Apocalypse, he was only too glad to find 
 another John to whom he could ascribe it. 
 
 But even if the inference of Eusebius were correct, it 
 would not prove that this presbyter was the author of our 
 Epistles. The same passage of Papias clearly establishes 
 the fact that the apostles were also called elders in the early 
 Church. And does not the appellation, 6 Tupea^Su-rspoi;, ad- 
 mirably fit the last of the apostles, who for many years was 
 the overseer of the churches in Asia Minor? He stood pre- 
 eminent above all others ; and by using this name designated 
 at once his official position and his venerable age. 
 
 DESTINATION. 
 
 The second Epistle is addressed to "ivXzv.iri ^t>P'<? and 
 her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but all 
 those that know the truth," 1:1. There is a great deal of 
 uncertainty about the interpretation of this address. On the 
 assumption that the letter was addressed to an individual, 
 the following renderings have been proposed : ( 1 ) to an 
 elect lady ; (2) to the elect lady ; (3) to the elect Kuria ; (4) 
 to the Lady Electa; (5) to Electa Kuria. 
 
 The first of these is certainly the simplest and the 
 most natural one, but considered as the address of an Epistle, 
 it is too indefinite. To our mind the second, which seems 
 to be grammatically permissible, is the best of all the sug- 
 gested interpretations. As to the third, it is true that the 
 word xupt'a does occur as a proper name, cf. Zahn, Einl. 
 II p. 584 ; but on the supposition that this is the case here 
 also, it would be predicated of a single individual, which in 
 Scripture is elsewhere done only in Rom. 16: 13, a case that 
 is not altogether parallel ; and the more natural construction 
 would be xupt'a t^ exXey.x'^. Cf. Ill John 1:1; the case in 
 I Pet. 1 :1 does not offer a parallel, because xapsTctS-^ptot? 
 is not a proper noun. The fourth must be ruled out, since 
 ez-Xexxa is not known to occur as a nomen proprium ; and if 
 this were the name of the addressee, her sister, vs. 13, would 
 
THE SECOND AND THIRD GEN. EPIS. OF JOHN 329 
 
 strangely bear the same name. The last rendering is the 
 least likely, burdening the lady, as it does, with two strange 
 names. If the letter was addressed to an individual, which 
 is favored by the analogy of the third Epistle, and also by 
 the fact that the sister's children are spoken of in vs. 13, 
 while she herself is not mentioned, then in all probability 
 the addressee was a lady well known and highly esteemed 
 in the early church, but not named in the letter. Thus 
 Salmond (Hastings D. B.), while Alford and D. Smith re- 
 gard Kuria as the name of the lady. 
 
 In view of the contents of the Epistle, however, many 
 from the time of Jerome on have regarded the title as a 
 designation of the Church in general (Jerome, Hilgenfeld, 
 Liinemann, Schmiedel), or of some particular church 
 (Huther, Holtzmann, Weiss, Westcott, Salmon, Zahn, Bal- 
 jon). The former of these two seems to be excluded by 
 vs. 13, since the Church in general can hardly be represented 
 as having a sister. But as over against the view that the 
 Epistle was addressed to an individual, the latter is favored 
 by ( 1 ) the fact that everything of a personal nature is ab- 
 sent from the Epistle; (2) the plurals which the apostle 
 constantly uses, cf. 6, 8, 10, 12; (3) the way in which he 
 speaks to the addressee in vss. 5, 8; (4) the expression, 
 "and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth," 
 1, which is more applicable to a church than to a single in- 
 dividual ; and (5) the greeting, 13, which is most naturally 
 understood as the greeting of one church to another. If this 
 view of the Epistle is correct, and we are inclined to think 
 it is, xupta is probably used as the feminine of /.upto?, in 
 harmony with the Biblical representation that the Church 
 is the bride of the Lamb. It is useless to guess, however, 
 what particular church is meant. Since the church of 
 Ephesus is in all probability the sister, it is likely that one of 
 the other churches of Asia Minor is addressed. 
 
 The third Epistle is addressed to a certain Gajus, of 
 whom we have no knowledge beyond that gained from the 
 
330 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 Epistle, where he is spoken of as a beloved friend of the 
 apostle, and as a large-hearted hospitable man, who with a 
 willing heart served the cause of Christ. There have been 
 some attempts to identify him with a Gajus who is men- 
 tioned in the Apostolic Constitutions as having been ap- 
 pointed bishop of Pergamum by John, or with some of the 
 other persons of the same name in Scripture, Acts 19 : 29 ; 
 20:4, especially with Paul's host at Corinth, Rom. 16:23; 
 I Cor. 1:14; but these efforts have not been crowned with 
 success. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. In all probability the false 
 agitators to whom the apostle refers in the second Epistle, 
 7-12, gave him occasion to write this letter. His aim is to 
 express his joy on account of the obedience of some of the 
 members of the church, to exhort all that they love one an- 
 other, to warn them against deceivers who would pervert the 
 truth, and to announce his coming. 
 
 The third Epistle seems to have been occasioned by the 
 reports of certain brethren who traveled about from place 
 to place and were probably engaged in preaching the Gospel. 
 They reported to the apostle that they had enjoyed the hos- 
 pitality of Gajus, but had met with a rebuff at the hands of 
 Diotrephes, an ambitious fellow (probably, as some have 
 thought, an elder or a deacon in the church), who resisted 
 the authority of the apostle and refused to receive the 
 brethren. The author's purpose is to express his satisfaction 
 with the course pursued by Gajus, to condemn the attitude 
 of Diotrephes, to command Demetrius as a worthy brother, 
 and to announce an intended visit. 
 
 2. Time and Place. The assumption seems perfectly 
 warranted that John wrote these Epistles from Ephesus, 
 where he spent perhaps the last twenty-five years of his life. 
 We have no means for determining the time when they 
 were composed. It may safely be said, however, that it was 
 after the composition of I John. And if the surmise of Zahn 
 
THE SECOND AND THIRD GEN. EPIS. OF JOHN 331 
 
 and Salmon is correct, that the letter referred to in III John 
 9 is our second Epistle, they were probably written at the 
 same time. This idea is favored somewhat by the fact that 
 the expression, "I wrote somewhat (i^pcci^d Tt) to the 
 church," seems to refer to a short letter; and by the men- 
 tion of an intended visit at the end of each letter. But from 
 the context it would appear that this letter must have treated 
 of the reception or the support of the missionary brethren, 
 which is not the case with our second Epistle. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 There was some doubt at first as to the canonicity of 
 these Epistles. The Alexandrian church generally accepted 
 them, Clement, Dionysius and Alexander of Alexandria all 
 recognizing them as canonical, though Origen had doubts. 
 Irenaeus cites a passage from the second Epistle as John's. 
 Since neither Tertullian nor Cyprian quote them, it is uncer- 
 tain, whether they were accepted by the North African 
 church. The Muratorian Fragment mentions two letters of 
 John in a rather obscure way. In the Syrian church they 
 were not received, since they were not in the Peshito, but in 
 the fourth century Ephrem quotes both by name. Eusebius 
 classed them with the Antilegomena, but soon after his time 
 they were universally accepted as canonical. 
 
 The permanent significance of the second Epistle is that 
 it emphasizes the necessity of abiding in the truth and thus 
 exhibiting one's love to Christ. To abide in the doctrine of 
 Christ and to obey his commandments, is the test of sonship. 
 Hence believers should not receive those who deny the true 
 doctrine, and especially the incarnation of Christ, lest they 
 become partakers of their evil deeds. 
 
 The third Epistle also has its permanent lesson, in that it 
 commends the generous love that reveals itself in the hospi- 
 tality of Gajus, shown to those who labor in the cause of 
 Christ, and denounce the self -centered activity of Dio- 
 trephes ; for these two classes of men are always found in 
 the Church. 
 
The General Epistle of Jude. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The writer begins his Epistle with the regular address 
 and apostolic blessing, 1, 2. He informs his readers that he 
 felt it incumbent on him to warn them against certain in- 
 truders, who deny Christ, lead lascivious lives and will cer- 
 tainly be punished like the people delivered from Egypt, the 
 fallen angels and the cities of the plain, 3-7. These intrud- 
 ers are further described as defilers of the flesh and as de- 
 spisers and blasphemers of heavenly dignities, and the woe 
 is pronounced on them, 8-11. After giving a further de- 
 scription of their debauchery, the author exhorts the readers 
 to be mindful of the words of the apostles, who had spoken 
 of the appearance of such mockers, 12-19. Admonishing 
 them to increase in faith and to keep themselves in the love 
 of God, and giving them directions as to the correct be- 
 haviour towards others, he concludes his Epistle with a 
 doxology, 20-25. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. This Epistle is characterized by its very close re- 
 semblence to parts of II Peter. Since we have already dis- 
 cussed the relation in which the two stand to each other 
 (cf. p. 307 above), we now simply refer to that discussion. 
 
 2. The letter is peculiar also in that it contains quota- 
 tions from the apocryphal books. The story in verse 9 is 
 taken from the Assumption of Moses, according to which 
 Michael was commissioned to bury Moses, but satan claimed 
 the body, in the first place because he was the lord of matter, 
 and in the second place since Moses had committed murder 
 in Egypt. The falsity of the first ground is brought out by 
 Michael, when he says : "The Lord rebuke thee, for it was 
 
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE 333 
 
 God's Spirit which created the word and all mankind." He 
 does not reflect on the second. The prophecy in verses 14, 
 15 is taken from the Book of Enoch, a book that was highly 
 esteemed by the early church. According to some the state- 
 ment regarding the fallen angels, verse 6, is also derived 
 from it. The latest editor of these writings, R. H. Charles, 
 regards the first as a composite work, made up of two dis- 
 tinct books, viz. the Testament and the Assumption of 
 Moses, of which the former, and possibly also the latter 
 was written in Hebrew between 7 and 29 A. D. With re- 
 spect to the Book of Enoch he holds, "that the larger part 
 of the book was written not later than 160 B. C, and that no 
 part of it is more recent than the Christian era." Quoted 
 by Mayor, Exp. Gk. Test. V p. 234. 
 
 3. The language of Jude may best be likened to that of 
 his brother James. He speaks in a tone of unquestioned 
 authority and writes a vigorous style. His Greek, though it 
 has a Jewish complexion, is fairly correct ; and his descrip- 
 tions are often just as picturesque as those of James, f. i. 
 when he compares the intruders to "spots (R. V. 'hidden 
 rocks') in the feasts of charity;" "clouds without water, 
 carried along by winds," "autumn trees without fruit, twice 
 dead, plucked up by the roots," "wild waves of the sea, foam- 
 ing out their own shame;" etc., 12, 13. Like James also he 
 employs some words that are otherwise exclusively Pauline, 
 as atStoi;, xuptoxY]?, ocx-Yi-ci^ptov, TupoYpafpstv. Moreover the 
 letter contains a few aza^ XeyopLeva. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The Muratorian Canon accepts Jude, but indicates that 
 it was doubted by some. Clement of Alexandria commented 
 on it, and Tertullian quotes it by name. Origen acknowl- 
 edges that there were doubts as to the canonicity of Jude, 
 but does not seem to have shared them. Didymus of 
 Alexandria defends the Epistle against those who questioned 
 its authority on account of the use made in it of apocryphal 
 books. Eusebius reckoned it with the Antilegomena ; but it 
 
334 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 was accepted as canonical by the third council of Carthage 
 in 397 A. D. 
 
 The author designates himself as "Jude the servant of 
 Jesus Christ, and brother of James. There are several 
 persons of that name mentioned in the New Testament, of 
 which only two can come in consideration here, however, 
 viz. Jude, the brother of the Lord, Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3, 
 and Jude the apostle, Lk. 6:16; Acts 1:13, also called 
 Lebbeus, Mt. 10:3, and Thaddeus, Mk. 3: 18. It appears 
 to us that the author was Jude, the brother of the Lord, 
 because: (1) He seeks to give a clear indication of his 
 identity by calling himself, "the brother of James." This 
 James must have been so well known, therefore, as to need 
 no further description ; and there was but one James at 
 that time of whom this could be said, viz. James the brother 
 of the Lord. (2) It is inconceivable that an apostle, rather 
 than name his official position, should make himself known 
 by indicating his relationship to another person, whoever 
 that person might be. (3) Though it is possible that the 
 writer, even if he were an apostle, should speak as he does 
 in the 17th verse, that passage seems to imply that he stood 
 outside of the apostolic circle. — In favor of the view that 
 the author was the apostle Jude, some have appealed to 
 Lk. 6:16; Acts 1:13, where the apostle is called TouSa? 
 Taxco^ou but it is contrary to established usage to supply 
 the word brother in such a case. 
 
 Very little is known of this Jude. If the order in which 
 the brethren of the Lord are named in Scripture is any indi- 
 cation of their age, he was the youngest or the youngest but 
 one of the group ; compare Mt. 13 : 55 with Mk. 6: 3. ¥/ith 
 his brothers he was not a believer in Jesus during the Lord's 
 public ministry, John 7 : 5, but evidently embraced him by 
 faith after the resurrection. Acts 1 : 14. For the rest we 
 can only gather from I Cor. 9 : 5 respecting the brethren of 
 the Lord in general, undoubtedly with the exception of 
 James, who resided at Jerusalem, that they traveled about 
 
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE 335 
 
 with their wives, willing workers for the Kingdom of God, 
 and were even known at Corinth. 
 
 The authenticity of the Epistle has been doubted, be- 
 cause: (1) The author speaks of faith in the objective 
 sense, as a fides quae creditnr, 3, 20, a usage that points to 
 the post-apostolic period; (2) He mentions the apostles as 
 persons who lived in the distant past, 17; and (3) he evi- 
 dently combats the second century heresy of the Carpocra- 
 tians. But these grounds are very questionable indeed. The 
 word faith is employed in the objective sense elsewhere in 
 the New Testament, most certainly in the Pastorals, and 
 probably also in Rom. 10:8; Gal. 1 : 23 ; Phil. 1 : 27. And 
 there is nothing impossible in the assumption that that mean- 
 ing should have become current in the time of the apostles. 
 The manner in which Jude mentions the apostles does not 
 necessarily imply that they had all passed away before this 
 letter was composed. At most the death of a few is implied. 
 But we agree with Dr. Chase, when he judges that the sup- 
 position that the apostles were dispersed in such a way that 
 their voice could not at the time reach the persons to whom 
 this letter is addressed, meets all the requirements of the 
 case. Hastings D. B. Art. Jude. The assumption that the 
 heretics referred to were second century Carpocratians, is 
 entirely gratuitous ; it rests on a mistaken interpretation of 
 three passages, viz. the verses 4b, 8, 19. 
 
 DESTINATION. 
 
 Jude addresses his Epistle to "those that are sanctified 
 by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and 
 called." On account of the very general character of this 
 designation some, as Ewald, regard the Epistle as a circular 
 letter ; but the contents of the Epistle are against this as- 
 sumption. Yet we are left entirely to conjecture as to the 
 particular locality in which the readers dwelt. Some schol- 
 are, e. g. Alford and Zahn, believe that the Epistle was writ- 
 ten to Jewish readers, but we are inclined to think with 
 Weiss, Chase, Bigg, Baljon e. a. that the recipients of the 
 
336 NEW TESTAMENT INTR ODUCTION 
 
 letter were Gentile Christians, (1) because the letter is so 
 closely related to II Peter, which was sent to the Christians 
 of Asia Minor; and (2) since the heresies to which it refers 
 are known to have arisen in Gentile churches. Cf . especially 
 I Corinthians and the letters to the seven churches in the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 Many expositors are inclined to look for the first readers 
 in Asia Minor on account of the resemblance of the heresies 
 mentioned in the Epistle to those referred to in II Peter. 
 But possibly it is better to hold with Chase that the letter 
 was sent to Syrian Antioch and the surrounding district, 
 since they had evidently received oral instruction from the 
 apostles generally, and were therefore most Hkely in the 
 vicinity of Palestine. Moreover Jude may have felt some 
 special responsibility for the church in that vicinity since 
 the death of his brother James. 
 
 In the condition of the readers there was cause for 
 alarm. The danger that Peter saw as a cloud on the distant 
 horizon, Jude espied as a leaven that was already working 
 in the ranks of his readers. False brethren had crept into 
 the church who were, it would seem, practical libertines, 
 enemies of the cross of Christ, who abused their Christian 
 liberty (Alford, Salmon, Weiss, Chase), and not at the same 
 time heretical teachers (Zahn, Baljon). Perhaps they were 
 no teachers at all. Their life was characterized by lascivi- 
 ousness, 4, especially fornication, 7, 8, 11, mockery, 10, un- 
 godliness, 15, murmuring, complaining, pride and greed, 16. 
 Their fundamental error seems to have been that they de- 
 spised and spoke evil of the authorities that were placed over 
 them. They were Antinomians and certainly had a great 
 deal in common with the Nicolaitans of the Apocalypse. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. The danger to which these 
 Christians were thus exposed, led to the composition of this 
 Epistle. Apparently Jude intended to write to them of the 
 common salvation, when he suddenly heard of the grave 
 
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE 337 
 
 situation and found it necessary to pen a word of warning, 
 3. In the verse from which we draw this conclusion, the 
 author also clearly states his aim, when he says that he 
 deemed it imperative to write to them that they should earn- 
 estly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the 
 saints. In order to do this, he pictures to them the dis- 
 obedient and immoral character of the ungodly persons that 
 had unawares crept into the fold and endangered their 
 Christian faith and life ; reminds them of the fact that God 
 would certainly punish those wanton libertines, just as He 
 had punished sinners in the past ; and exhorts them to stand 
 in faith and to strive after hohness. 
 
 2. Time and Place. We have absolutely no indication 
 of the place where this Epistle v/as written ; it is not un- 
 likely, however, that it was at Jerusalem. 
 
 With respect to the time of its composition we have a 
 terminus ad quern in the date of II Peter, about A. D. 67, 
 since that Epistle is evidently dependent on Jude. On the 
 other hand it does not seem likely that Jude would write 
 such a letter, while his brother James was still living, so 
 that we have a terminus a quo in A. D. 62. A date later 
 than 62 is also favored by the Pauline words employed in 
 this letter, in some of which we seem to have an echo of 
 Ephesians and Colossians. Moreover the great similarity 
 between the conditions pictured in this letter and those de- 
 scribed in II Peter is best explained, if we date them in 
 close proximity to each other. We shall not go far wrong 
 in dating the Epistle about the year 65. 
 
 The older critics of the Tubingen school dated the Epistle 
 late in the second century, while more recent critics, as 
 Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Harnack, Baljon, think it 
 originated about the middle or in the first half of the second 
 century. They draw this conclusion from, (1) the way in 
 which the writer speaks of faith, 3, 20; (2) the manner in 
 which he refers to the apostles, 17; (3) the use of the 
 apocryphal books ; and (4) the supposed references to the 
 
338 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 doctrines of the Carpocratians. But these arguments can 
 all be met by counter-arguments, cf. above. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 In the early Church there was considerable doubt as to 
 the canonicity of this Epistle, especially because it was not 
 written by an apostle, and contained passages from apocry- 
 phal books. There are allusions more or less clear to the 
 Epistle in II Peter, Poly carp, Athenagoras and Theophilus 
 of Antioch. The Muratorian Canon mentions it, but in a 
 manner which implies that it was doubted by some. It is 
 found in the old Latin Version, but not in the Peshito. 
 Clement of Alexandria, TertuUian and Origen recognized it, 
 though Origen intimates that there were doubts regarding 
 its canonicity. Eusebius doubted its canonical authority, but 
 the council of Carthage (397) accepted it. 
 
 In the Epistle of Jude we have the Christian war-cry, 
 resounding through the ages : Contend earnestly for the 
 faith that was once delivered unto the saints ! This letter, 
 the last of the New Testament, teaches with great emphasis 
 that apostacy from the true creed with its central truths of 
 the atonement of Christ and the permanent validity of the 
 law as the rule of life, is assured perdition ; and clearly re- 
 veals for all generations the inseparable connection between 
 a correct belief and a right mode of living. 
 
The Revelation of John. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 After the introduction and the apostoHc blessing, 1 : 1-8, 
 the book contains seven visions or series of visions, extend- 
 ing from 1 : 9 — 22 : 7, followed by a conclusion, 22 : 8-21. 
 
 /. The first Vision, 1 : 9 — 3 : 22, is that of the glorified 
 Christ in the midst of the Church, directing John to w^rite 
 letters of reproof, of warning, of exhortation and of conso- 
 lation to seven representative churches of proconsular Asia, 
 viz. to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatire, Sardis, Phila- 
 delphia and Laodicea. 
 
 //. The second Vision, 4: 1 — 8: 1, reveals God as ruling 
 the world's destiny, and the Lamb as taking the book of the 
 divine decrees and breaking the seven seals of which each 
 one represents a part of God's purpose, the first four refer- 
 ring to the terrestrial, and the last three to the celestial 
 sphere. Between the sixth and seventh seals an episode is 
 introduced to show the safety of the people of God amid 
 the judgments that are inflicted on the world. 
 
 ///. The third Vision, 8:2 — 11:19. shows us seven 
 angels, each one having a trumpet. After an angel has 
 offered up the prayers of the saints to God, the seven angels 
 blow their trumpets, and each trumpet is followed by a 
 vision of destruction on the sinful world, the destruction of 
 the last three being more severe than that of the first four. 
 Between the sixth and seventh trumpets there is again an 
 episode describing the preservation of the Church. 
 
 IV. The fourth Vision, 12:1 — 14:20, describes the 
 conflict of the world with the Church of God. The Church 
 is represented as a woman bringing forth the Christ, against 
 whom the dragon representing satan wages war. In succes- 
 
340 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 sive visions we behold the beasts which satan will employ 
 as his agents, the militant Church, and the advancing stages 
 of Christ's conquest. 
 
 V. The fifth Vision, 15:1 — 16:21, once more reveals 
 seven angels, now having seven vials or bowls containing 
 the last plagues or judgments of God. First we have a de- 
 scription of the Church that triumphed over the beast, glori- 
 fying God ; and this is followed by a picture of the sevenfold 
 judgment of God on the world, represented by the seven 
 vials. 
 
 VI. The sixth Vision, 17: 1 — 20: 15, reveals the harlot 
 city Babylon, the representative of the world, and the victory 
 of Christ over her and over the enemies that are in league 
 with her, the great conflict ending in the last judgment. 
 
 VII. The seventh Vision, 21 : 1 — 22 : 7, discloses to the 
 eye the ideal Church, the new Jerusalem, and pictures in 
 glowing colors her surpassing beauty and the everlasting, 
 transcendent bliss of her inhabitants. 
 
 The book closes with an epilogue in which the seer 
 describes its significance and urges the readers to keep the 
 things that are written on its pages, 22 : 7-21. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 1. The Revelation of John is the only prophetic book in 
 the New Testament. It is called a prophecy in 1 : 3, 22 : 7, 
 10, 18, 19. A nearer description of the book is given, how- 
 ever, in the name Apocalypse, for there is a difference be- 
 tween the prophetic books of the Bible in general and that 
 part of them that may be said to belong to the Apocalyptic 
 literature. Naturally the two have some elements in com- 
 mon : they both contain communications, mediated by the 
 Holy Spirit, of the character, will and purposes of God ; and 
 the one as well as the other looks to the future of the King- 
 dom of God. But there are also points of difference. 
 Prophecy, while it certainly has reference also to the future 
 of God's Kingdom, is mainly concerned with a divine inter- 
 
THE REVELATION OF JOHN 341 
 
 pretation of the past and the present, while the chief interest 
 of Apocalyptic lies in the future. Prophecy again, where it 
 does reveal the future, shows this in its organic relation with 
 principles and forces that are already working in the present, 
 while Apocalyptic pictures the images of the future, not as 
 they develop out of existing conditions, but as they are 
 shown directly from heaven and to a great extent in super- 
 natural forms. 
 
 2. A characteristic feature of the bok is that its thought 
 is largely clothed in symbolic language derived from some of 
 the prophetic books of the Old Testament. Hence its cor- 
 rect understanding is greatly facilitated by studying the 
 writer's Old Testament sources. Yet we must constantly 
 bear in mind that he does not always employ the language so 
 derived in its original significance. Compare ch. 18 with Is. 
 13, 14; Jer. 50, 51 ; — 21 : 1 — 22: 5 with various parts of Is. 
 40-66 ; Ezek. 40-48 ;— 1 : 12-20 with Dan. 7, 10 ;— ch. 4 with 
 Is. 6; Ezek. 1, 10. But however dependent the author may 
 be on the prophets, he does not slavishly follow them, but 
 uses their language with great freedom. The symbolic num- 
 bers 3, 4, 7 , 10, 12 and their multiples also play an important 
 part in the book. 
 
 3. The language of the Apocalypse differs from that of 
 all the rest of the New Testament. It is very decidedly 
 Hebraistic Greek. According to Simcox its vocabulary is 
 far less eccentric than its style and grammar. This author 
 in his, Writers of the Neiv Testament pp. 80-89 classifies 
 the most important peculiarities of the language of Revela- 
 tion under several heads : ( 1 ) As in Hebrew the copula is 
 generally omittted, cf. 4: 1, 3; 5 : 2; 6: 8; 9: 7, 10, 16, 17; 
 10:1; 11:8; 19:1, 12; 21:8, 13, 19. (2) Apparently the 
 writer, at least in several instances, does not use the Greek 
 tenses in their purely temporal sense, but more like the He- 
 brew perfect and imperfect, cf . 2 : 5, 22, 24 ; 4:10; 10 : 7 ; 
 12:4. (3) The use of a redundant pronoun or pronominal 
 adverb is very frequent, cf . 3 : 8 ; 7 : 2. 9 ; 12 : 6, 14 ; 13:12; 
 17:9; 20:8. (4) When two nouns are in opposition, the 
 
342 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 second is usually put in the nominative, whatever be the 
 case of the first, cf . 1 : 5 ; 2 : 13, 20 ; 3 : 12 ; 7 : 4 ; 8 : 9 ; 9 : 14 ; 
 14: 12, 14; 17: 3; 20:2. (5) There are some irregularities 
 which, considered abstractly are perfectly legitimate, but are 
 contrary to established Greek usage, as f. i. the use of the 
 dative instead of the double accusative in 2 : 14 ; and the use 
 of the plural of verbs with a subject in the neuter nomina- 
 tive, as in 3 : 4 ; 4 : 5 ; 1 1 : 13. (6) False concords in gender, 
 constructions ad sensum are also frequently found, 4:7, 8 ; 
 7 : 4, 8 ; 9 : 5, 6, etc. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The external testimony for the authorship of the apostle 
 John is quite strong. Justin Martyr clearly testifies that the 
 book was written by "John one of the apostles of the Lord." 
 Irenaeus, whose teacher was Polycarp, the disciple of John, 
 gives very decisive and repeated testimony for the author- 
 ship of the apostle. The Muratorian Canon mentions John 
 as the author of the book, and the context shows that the 
 son of Zebedee is meant. Hippolytus quotes the Apocalypse 
 several times as a work of John ; and that the John which 
 he has in mind is the apostle, is clear from a passage in 
 which he speaks of him as "an apostle and disciple of the 
 Lord." Clement of Alexandria names the apostle as the 
 author of the book, as do also Origen, Victorinus, Ephrem 
 the Syrian, Epiphanius e. a. In the West Ambrose and 
 Augustine repeatedly quote the Apocalypse as written by 
 John the apostle, and Jerome speaks of the apostle John as 
 also being a prophet. 
 
 This strong external testimony is corroborated by in- 
 ternal evidence: (1) The author repeatedly calls himself 
 John, 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8, and there is but one person who 
 could use the name thus absolutely to designate himself 
 without fear of being misunderstood, viz. John the apostle. 
 (2) The writer evidently stood in some special relation to 
 the churches of proconsular Asia (i. e. Mysia, Lydia, Caria 
 and a part of Phrygia), which is in perfect harmony with 
 
THE REVELATION OF JOHN 343 
 
 the fact that John spent the later years of his life at Ephe- 
 sus. (3) The author was evidently banished to the island 
 called Patmos in the Aegean sea, one of the Sporades to the 
 South of Samos. Now a quite consistent tradition, which is, 
 however, discredited by some scholars, says that this hap- 
 pened to the apostle John ; and there are some features 
 that seem to mark this as an independent tradition. (4) 
 There are also notes of identity between the writer and the 
 author of the fourth Gospel and of I John. Like in John 
 1 : 1 if . and I John 1:1, so also in Rev. 19: 13 the name 
 6 XoYO? is given to our Lord. He is called apv(ov twenty- 
 nine times in this book, a word that is used elsewhere only 
 in John 21 : 15, as a designation of the disciples of the Lord. 
 It is remarkable also that the only place, where Christ is 
 called a Lamb outside of this book, is in John 1 : 29, the word 
 d(jLv6<; being used. The term dXY]6tv6<;, found but once in 
 Luke, once in Paul and three times in Hebrews, is em- 
 ployed nine times in the gospel of John, four times in the 
 first Epistle, and ten times in the Apocalypse, though not 
 always in exactly the same sense. Compare also with the 
 repeated expression 6 vtxov, 2:7, 11, 17, etc.; John 16:33; 
 I John 2: 13, 14; 4: 4; 5 : 4, 5. 
 
 Still there have been dissentient voices from the begin- 
 ning. The Alogi for dogmatical reasons impugned the 
 authorship of John and ascribed the book to Cerinthus. 
 Dionysius of Alexandria for more critical reasons, but also 
 laboring with a strong anti-chiliastic bias, referred it to an- 
 other John of Ephesus. Eusebius wavered in his opinion, 
 but, led by considerations like those of Dionysius, was in- 
 clined to regard that shadowy person, John the presbyter, 
 as the author. And Luther had a strong dislike for the 
 book, because, as he said, Christ was neither taught nor 
 recognized in it ; and because the apostles did not deal in 
 visions, but spoke in clear words, he declared that it was 
 neither apostolic nor prophetic. 
 
 The Tubingen school accepted the Johannine authorship 
 
344 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 of the Apocalypse, while it denied that the apostle had writ- 
 ten any of the other books that are generally ascribed to him. 
 A great and increasing number of critical scholars, however, 
 do not believe that the apostle John composed the Apoca- 
 lypse. Some of them, as Hitzig, Weiss and Spitta, suggest 
 John Mark as the author, while many others, such as Bleek, 
 Credner, Diisterdieck, Keim, Ewald, Weizsacker e. a., re- 
 gard it as the work of John the presbyter. The principal 
 objections urged against the authorship of the apostle are 
 the following : ( 1 ) While the apostle in the gospel and in 
 the first Epistle does not mention his name, the writer of 
 this book names himself both in the first and in the third 
 person. (2) The genius of the two writers is quite dififer- 
 ent : the one is speculative and introspective, the other, 
 imaginative, looking especially to the external course of 
 events ; the one is characterized by mildness and love, the 
 other is stern and revengeful ; the views of the one are 
 spiritual and mystic, those of the other are sensuous and 
 plastic. (3) The type of doctrine found in the Apocalypse 
 has a Jewish stamp and is very unlike that of the gospel of 
 John, which is idealizing and breaks away from the Mosaic 
 basis. In this book we find the Old Testament conception 
 of God as a fearful Judge, of angels and demons, and of the 
 Church as the new Jerusalem. There are twenty-four elders 
 round about the throne, twelve thousand of each tribe that 
 are sealed, and the names of the apostles are engraved on 
 the foundation stones of the heavenly city. Moreover the 
 necessity of good works is strongly emphasized, cf. chs. 
 2, 3 and also 14: 13. (4) The style of the book is of a very 
 distinct Hebraic type, different from anything that is found 
 in the other writings of John. Instead of the regular and 
 comparatively faultless construction of the Gospel, we here 
 find a language full of irregularities. 
 
 But we do not believe that these considerations necessi- 
 tate the assumption that the author of the book cannot be 
 identified with the writer of the fourth gospel. It is in 
 perfect harmony with the usage of the historical and the 
 
THE REVELATION OF JOHN 345 
 
 prophetical writers of the Bible throughout that the writer 
 conceals his name in the Gospel and mentions it in the 
 Apocalypse. The different light in which we see him in his 
 various books is the natural result of the vastly different 
 character of these writings. We should also remember that 
 a prophetic book naturally reflects far less of the personal 
 character of its author than epistolary writings do. The 
 alleged Judaeistic type of the teachings found in the Apoca- 
 lypse does not militate against the authorship of John. In 
 a symbolic description of the future condition of the Church 
 it is perfectly natural and indeed very fitting that the author 
 should derive his symbolism from Old Testament sources, 
 since the Old Testament is symbolically and typically re- 
 lated to the New. It cannot be maintained that the Christo- 
 logical and Soteriological teaching of the Apocalypse is es- 
 sentially Jewish. The Jews that oppose Jesus are denounced, 
 3:9; the Church is composed of people out of every nation, 
 7:9; salvation is the free gift of grace, 21 : 6; 22: 17; and 
 though the necessity of good works is emphasized, those are 
 not regarded as meritorious, but as the fruits of righteous- 
 ness, and are even called the works of Jesus, 2 : 26. The 
 strongest argument against the authorship of John is un- 
 doubtedly that derived from the style and language of the 
 book. There has been an attempt on the part of some 
 scholars, as Olshausen and Guericke, to explain the linguis- 
 tic differences between the Apocalypse and the Gospel of 
 John by assuming that the former preceded the latter by 
 about 20 or 25 years, in which time the author's knowledge 
 of Greek gradually matured. But the differences are of such 
 a kind that it may be doubted, whether the lapse of a few 
 years can account for them. The language of the fourth 
 Gospel is not that of the Apocalypse in a more developed 
 form. While it is questionable, whether an altogether satis- 
 factory explanation can be given with the data at hand, it 
 seems certain that the solution must be found, at least in 
 part, in the transcendent nature of the subject-matter and 
 in the symbolic character of the book. The fact that the 
 
346 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 author so often violates the rules of Greek grammar, does 
 not necessarily mean that he did not know them, but may 
 also indicate that under the stress of the lofty ideas that 
 he wished to express, he naturally resorted to Aramaic 
 usage, which was easier for him. The facts in the case do 
 not prove that the Greek of the Gospel is superior to that of 
 the Apocalypse. In the former writing the author does not 
 attempt so much as in the latter ; the language of the one is 
 far simpler than that of the other. 
 
 DESTINATION. 
 
 The apostle addresses the Apocalypse to "the seven 
 churches which are in Asia," 1:4. Undoubtedly this num- 
 ber is not exhaustive but representative of the Church in 
 general, the number seven, which is the number of complete- 
 ness, forming a very important element in the texture of 
 this prophetic writing. These churches are types that are 
 constantly repeated in history. There are always some 
 churches that are predominantly good and pure like those 
 of Smyrna and Philadelphia, and therefore need no reproof 
 but only words of encouragement ; but there are also con- 
 stantly others like Sardis and Laodicea in which evil pre- 
 ponderates, and that deserve severe censure and an earnest 
 call to repentance. Probably the greater number of 
 churches, however, will always resemble those of Ephesus, 
 Pergamus and Thyatire in that good and evil are about 
 equally balanced in their circle, so that they call for both 
 commendation and censure, promise and threatening. But 
 while there is a great difference both in the outward cir- 
 cumstances and in the internal condition of these churches, 
 they all form a part of the militant Church that has a severe 
 struggle on earth in which it must strive to overcome by 
 faith (notice the constantly repeated 6 vtxov) and that 
 may expect the coming of the Lord to reward her according 
 to her works. 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 1. Occasion and Purpose. The historical condition that 
 
THE REVELATION OF JOHN 347 
 
 led to the composition of the Apocalypse was one of increas- 
 ing hardships for the Church and of an imminent life and 
 death struggle with the hostile world, represented by the 
 Roman empire. The demand for the deification of the em- 
 peror became ever more insistent and was extended to the 
 provinces. Domitian was one of the emperors who delighted 
 to be styled dominus et deus. To refuse this homage was 
 disloyalty and treason ; and since the Christians as a body 
 were bound to ignore this demand from the nature of their 
 religion, they stood condemned as constituting a danger to 
 the empire. Persecution was the inevitable result and had 
 already been suffered by the churches, when this book was 
 written, while still greater persecution was in store for them. 
 Hence they needed consolation and the Lord directed John 
 to address the Apocalypse to them. Cf. especially Ramsay, 
 The Church in the Roman Empire pp. 252-319. 
 
 It is but natural therefore that the contents of the book 
 are mainly consolatory. It aims at revealing to the servants 
 of Christ, i. e. to Christians in general the things that must 
 shortly (not quickly, but before long) come to pass. This 
 note of time is to be considered as a prophetic formula, in 
 connection with the fact that one day is with the Lord as a 
 thousand years and thousand years as one day. The central 
 theme of the book is, 'T come quickly," and in the elabora- 
 tion of this theme Christ is pictured as coming in terrible 
 judgments on the world, and in the great final struggle in 
 which He is conqueror, and after which the ecclesia mili- 
 tans is transformed into the ecclesia triumphans. 
 
 2. Time and Place. There are especially two opinions 
 as to the composition of the Apocalypse, viz. (1) that it 
 was written toward the end of Domitian's reign, about A. 
 D. 95 or 96; and (2) that it was composed between the 
 death of Nero in the year 68 and the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 ( 1 ) . The late date was formerly the generally accepted 
 time of composition ( Hengstenberg, Lange, Alford, Godet 
 e. a.) and, although for a time the earlier date was looked 
 
348 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 upon with great favor, there is now a noticeable return to 
 the old position (Holtzmann, Warfield, Ramsay, Porter 
 (Hastings D. B.), Moffat (Exp. Gk. Test.) e. a. This view 
 is favored by the following considerations: (a) The testi- 
 mony of antiquity. While there are a few witnesses that 
 refer the book to an earlier date, the majority, and among 
 them Irenaeus whose testimony should not lightly be set 
 aside, point to the time of Domitian. (b) The antithesis of 
 the Roman empire to the Church presupposed in the Apoca- 
 lypse. The persecution of Nero was a purely local and some- 
 what private affair. The Church did not stand opposed to 
 the empire as representing the world until the first century 
 was approaching its close ; and the Apocalypse already looks 
 back on a period of persecution. Moreover we know that 
 banishment was a common punishment in the time of Domi- 
 tian. (c) The existence and condition of the seven churches 
 in Asia. The utter silence of Acts and of the Epistles re- 
 garding the churches of Smyrna, Philadelphia, Sardis, Per- 
 gamus and Thyatira favors the supposition that they were 
 founded after the death of Paul. And the condition of 
 these churches presupposes a longer period of existence than 
 the earlier date will allow. Ephesus has already left her 
 first love; in Sardis and Laodicea spiritual life has almost 
 become extinct ; the Nicolaitans, who are not mentioned 
 elsewhere in the New Testament, have already made their 
 pernicious influence felt in the churches of Ephesus and 
 Pergamus, while similar mischief was done in Thyatira by 
 the woman Jesebel. Moreover Laodicea, which was de- 
 stroyed by an earthquake in the 6th (Tactitus) or in the 10th 
 (Eusebius) year of Nero, is here described as boasting of 
 her wealth and self-sufffciency. 
 
 (2). Against this and in favor of the earlier date, de- 
 fended by Diisterdieck, Weiss, Guericke, Schaff, are urged : 
 (a) The late testimony of the Syrian Apocalypse that John 
 was banished in the time of Nero, and the obscure and self- 
 contradictory passage in Epiphanius that places the banish- 
 ment in the time of Claudius. Cf. Alford, Prolegamena 
 
THE REVELATION OF JOHN 349 
 
 Section II. 14, where the weakness of this testimony is 
 pointed out. (b) The supposed references in the /Vpocalypse 
 to the destruction of the Holy City as still future in 11 : 1, 
 2, 13. But it is quite evident that these passages must be 
 understood symbolically. Regarded as historical predic- 
 tions of the destruction of Jerusalem they did not come true, 
 for according to 11:2 only the outer court would be abol- 
 ished, and according to vs. 13 merely the tenth part of the 
 city would be destroyed, and that not by Rome but by an 
 earthquake, (c) The supposed indications of the reigning 
 emperor in 13: 1 ff., especially in connection with the sym- 
 bolical interpretation of the number 666 as being equal to 
 the Hebrew form of Nero Ceasar. But the great diversity 
 of opinion as to the correct interpretation of these passages, 
 even among the advocates of the early date, proves that 
 their support is very questionable, (d) The difference be- 
 tween the language of this book and that of the Gospel of 
 John is thought to favor an early date, but, as we have 
 already pointed out, this is not necessarily the case. 
 
 It is impossible to tell, whether John wrote the 
 Apocalypse while he was still on the island of Patmos, or 
 after his return from there. The statement in 10:4 does 
 not prove the former theory, nor the past tenses in 1:2, 9, 
 the latter. 
 
 3. Method. Of late several theories have been broached 
 to explain the origin of the Apocalypse in such a manner as 
 to account satisfactorily for the literary and psychological 
 features of the book. (1) The Incorporation-hypothesis 
 holds to the unity of the Apocalypse, but believes that sev- 
 eral older fragments of Jewish or Christian origin are in- 
 corporated in it (Weizsacker, Sabatier, Bousset, McGiffert, 
 Moffat, Baljon). (2) The Revision-hypothesis assumes that 
 the book has been subject to one or more revisions, (Erbes, 
 Briggs, Barth). The last named author is of the opinion 
 that John himself in the time of Domitian revised an 
 Apocalypse which he had written under Nero. (3) The 
 Compilation-hypothesis teaches that two or more sources 
 
350 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 fairly complete in themselves have been pieced together by 
 a redactor or redactors, (Weyland, Spitta, Volter at least 
 in part). (4) The Jewish and Christian hypothesis main- 
 tains that the gromidwork of the Apocalypse was a Jewish 
 writing in the Aramaic language, written about 65-70, that 
 was later translated and edited by a Christian (Vischer, 
 Harnack, Martineau). In connection with these we can 
 only say that to us these theories seem unnecessary and in 
 the majority of cases very arbitrary. There is every reason 
 to maintain the unity of the Apocalypse. The use of written 
 sources in its composition is an unproved assumption ; but 
 the author was evidently impregnated with Old Testament 
 ideas and modes of expression, and drew largely on the 
 storehouse of his memory in the symbolic description of the 
 supernatural scenes that were presented to his vision. 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
 Various principles of interpretation have been adopted 
 with reference to this book in the course of time : 
 
 1. The older expositors and the majority of orthodox 
 Protestant commentators adopted the Continuist (kirchen- 
 geschichtliche) interpretation, which proceeds on the as- 
 sumption that the book contains a prophetic compendium of 
 Church history from the first Christian century until the 
 return of Christ, so that some of its prophecies have now 
 been realized and others still await fulfilment. This theory 
 disregards the contemporaneous character of the seven series 
 of visions and has often led to all sorts of vain speculations 
 and calculations as to the historical facts in which particular 
 prophecies are fulfilled. 
 
 2. In course of time the Futurist (endgeschichtliche) 
 interpretation found favor with some, according to which 
 all or nearly all the events described in the Apocalypse must 
 be referred to the period immediately preceding the return 
 of Christ. (Zahn, Kliefoth) Some of the Futurists are 
 so extreme that they deny even the past existence of the 
 seven Asiatic churches and declare that we may yet expect 
 
THE REVELATION OF JOHN 351 
 
 them to arise in the last days. As a matter of course this 
 interpretation fails to do justice to the historical element in 
 the book. 
 
 3. Present day critical scholars are generally inclined to 
 adopt the Prasterist (zeitgeschichtliche) interpretation, 
 which holds that the view of the Seer was limited to mat- 
 ters within his own historical horizon, and that the book 
 refers principally to the triumph of Christianity over Judae- 
 ism and Paganism, signalized in the downfall of Jerusalem 
 and Rome. On this view all or almost all the prophecies 
 contained in the book have already been fulfilled. (Bleek, 
 Diisterdieck, Davidson, F. C. Porter e. a.) But this theory 
 does not do justice to the prophetic element in the Apoca- 
 lypse. 
 
 Though all these views must be regarded as one-sided, 
 each one contains an element of truth that must be taken 
 in consideration in the interpretation of the book. The 
 descriptions in it certainly had a point of contact in the his- 
 torical present of the Seer, but they go far beyond that pres- 
 ent; they certainly pertain to historical conditions of the 
 Church of God, and conditions that will exist in all ages, 
 but instead of arising successively in the order in which they 
 are described in the Apocalypse, they make their appear- 
 ance in every age contemporaneously ; and finally they will 
 certainly issue in a terrific struggle immediately preceding 
 the parousia of Christ and in the transcendent glory of the 
 bride of the Lamb. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 The particular form of inspiration in which the writer 
 shared was the prophetic, as is perfectly evident from the 
 book itself. The author, while in the Spirit, was the recipi- 
 ent of divine revelations, 1:1, 10, and received his intelli- 
 gence by means of visions, in part at least mediated and 
 interpreted by angels. 1 : 10, 19 ; 4 : 1, 2 ; 5 : 1 ; 6 : 1 ; 17 : 7-18 ; 
 21 : 9. He received the command to write and to prophecy 
 from God himself, 1:19; 10:4, 11; 14:13. And the 'T" 
 
352 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 
 
 speaking in the book is sometimes that of the Lord himself 
 and sometimes that of the prophet, which is also a charac- 
 teristic mark of the prophetic inspiration. In chapters 2 and 
 3 f. i. the Lord speaks in the first person, and again in 
 16: 15 and 22:7. 
 
 CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 The canonical authority of the Apocalypse has never 
 been seriously doubted by the Church. Hermas, Papias and 
 Melito recognized its canonicity, and according to Eusebius 
 Theophilus cited passages from it. The three great wit- 
 nesses of the end of the second century all quote it by name 
 and thus recognize its authority. Hippolytus and Origen 
 also regarded it as canonical. Similarly Victorinus, Am- 
 brose, Jerome and Augustine. Gradually, however, the fact 
 that Millenarians found their chief support in the book, 
 made it obnoxious to some of the Church fathers, who 
 deemed it inexpedient to read it in the churches. This ex- 
 plains, why it is absent from some MSS. and from some of 
 the catalogues of the ancient councils. 
 
 The book is primarily a book of consolation for the mili- 
 tant Church in its struggles with the hostile world and with 
 the powers of darkness. It directs the glance of the strug- 
 gling, suffering, sorrowing and often persecuted Church 
 toward its glorious future. Its central teaching is, "I come 
 quickly !" And while it reveals the future history of the 
 Church as one of continual struggle, it unfolds in majestic 
 visions the coming of the Lord, which issues in the destruc- 
 tion of the wicked and of the evil One, and in the everlasting 
 bliss of the faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ. Hence the 
 book comes to the enemies of God's Kingdom with words 
 of solemn warning and with threatenings of future punish- 
 ment, while it encourages the followers of the Lord to ever 
 greater faithfulness, and opens up to them bright visions of 
 the future, thus inspiring the Church's constant prayer: 
 "Even so, come, Lord Jesus !" 
 
BS2361 .B51 
 
 New Testament introduction (or special 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1012 00060 8200