MAY 1 2 2004 IxHEoioG^^siMlNARYl APOSTOLIC History AND Literature. PREPARED BY THE SENIOR CLASS, KOR THK LSE OF STUDENTS IN Princeton Theological Se7ninary. COMPILED FROM NOTES UPON THE LECTURES OF DR. C. W. HODGE. F R I y C ETO y LIBRARY OF PRINCETON MAY 1 2 2004 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY »■ K E S S PRIMING E S T A B L I S H M 1. X T , 1878. PREFACE. This volume has been prepared by the members of the Class of 1878, for the use of students in Princeton Theological Seminary. While it is issued with the permission of Dr. C. W. Hodge, yet it contains only what the editors could gather from notes in their possession, and has not been reviewed nor corrected by the Professor. The Editors have endeavored to adhere to the idea of a synopsis, and at the same time to embody as much as possible of the essential matter of the course. Apostolic History and Literature. PART I -CHAPTERS 1 -XII. mTKODUCTORY REMARKS. There are tlivce special subjects of critical attack on the Book of" Acts : L Authorship. 1. The " "vve " passages in the latter part of the book — are thpse by the same author? 2. Is it a e;enuine history, or is it a Uiidinnj -uritiug, as tlie Germans call it — that is, is it written to reconcile history and doctrine ? In favor of the latter, tliey allege an assimilation between Paul and Peter. There is lio doubt a certain similarity both in doctrine and miracles, between the former and latter part of the book. II. The Historical Qvestiov. Tlie accepted epistles of Paul are the source of the foundation facts. The Acts, therefore, should harmonize with these epistles. The destructive critics magnify a})parent discrepancies into disagreements. III. The Supernatural. Tliey regard Paul as the cen- tral figure ; the founder and builder of Christianity. Is he a believer in the supernatural ? How is his belief in his conversion to be accounted for on naturalistic prin- ciples ? The above points we treat as we reaclj them, for thus («) we do not traverse the sanie ground twice, and (h) they may be more intelligently considered. CHRON^OLOaY. Chronological Table, A. D. 60.— Pestus succeeds Felix— Acts 24 : 27. 2 years a prisoner in Cuesarea. 58— Arrest..— Acts 21 : 33. Sd .foiirne)/.=^S years in Ephesus, and winter in Greece. 54. 2nd JoiLDiey. — 18 niontlis in Achaia. Voyages in A. M. and to Europe — 1 year. 50-51. — Council of Jerusalem. 1st Journeif. — Antiocli, Cyprus, Pisidia, Paniphylia, Jerusalem. . 44. — Death of Agrippa. — Acts XII. Visit to Jerusalem. 3 years in Arabia, Jei'usalera, Tarsus, 1 year in Antioch. _ ^36-37. — Conversion. The book covers a period of 34 years ; from death of Christ to A. D. 63 or 64, the end of Paul's first impris- onment. There is a lack of chronological statements, but we have two fi.Ked points, and otlier events are cal- culated from these : — 1. The beginning of the 1st Jour- ney. Death of Herod Agrippa, A. D. 44. — Acts 12. 2. The end of 3d Journey. Accession of Festus, A. D. 60.— Acts 24. Paul was arrested in A. I). 58 — in the fall of A. D. 60, w^as sent to Rome — arrived spring of A. D. 61 — there 2 years, which would give us A. D. 63 or perhaps 64. The persecution of Nero was in 64, therefore Paul's sojourn was finished before this. Reckoning backward, the winter before was spent in Corinth, to which place he came from Ephesus in spring of 57. At Ephesus 3 years. Came to Ephesus in 54. This is the dividing- line between 2d and 3d journeys — slightly marked in Acts 18: 22. 2nd Journey. — 18 months, spent in Corinth gives 52 when he arrived there. Lons; traveling in Asia Minor and Europe consumed at least 1 year, which makes beginning of 2ud Journey A. D. 50 or 51 (Acts 15 : 41 — 18 : 22.) Before thi« he was lit Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15.) The 1st Jouruev ruust Ijave been between A. D. 45 and 49. Gal. 2 : 1 — " 14 years after " — probably refers to the time intervenini:^ between his conversion (A. D. 36 or 37) and tlie Council of Jerusalem A. 1). 50 or 61. Tl)is gives about enougli room for details in Acts and Gal. for Paul's actions. 2 Cor. 11 : 32, Paul escajjcd from Damas- cus through a window during the reign of Aretas, king of Arabia, Damascus was a Eoman post, when could it have come under power of the king of Arabia? The only gap in the Roman possession was at death of Tibe- rius, A. I). 37. Tliis was a period of border wars, and the facts are not well known. Damascus may liave been caj'tured at this time by Aretas. Design of the Book of Acts. — " It is not the biog- raphy of Peter and Paul, as Apostles by way of emi- nence ; for each of them is prominent in one part only, and the whole history of neither is recorded in detail. It is not a general history of the Apostolic period, as dis- tinguished from the ministry of Christ himself; for many intere3ting facts belonging to that subject are omitted, some of which have been preserved in the Ejiistles. But the hook before i(s is a fpfckil history of ihc jjlcnidng and extension of the e/n/reh, both an/ove/ Jncs and Ge/diles, by the gradual estahlishwevt of radiating ventres o? sovrees of wfiv- ence at certain salient points throughout a laige jxirt oj the empire, beginning at Jeriisahw and ending at ii'cwf." — (Alex- ander's Acts, page 13 of Introduction.) SECTION I. THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM. CHAPTERS I — VII. I. Ch. I. — n. — Founding of the Church A, D. 30—36. (1.) Introduction, I: 1 — 11. The introduction is appro- priateand skilful. Fundamental thought is carried into all details — the founding of the church by the risen Christ. This is presented as the immediate act of Christ. lie goes to the Father and yet continues his work in the church. From the Father's right hand lie sends the Sjtirit as He had promised. This is the reason that Luke dates from the Asceusioii. He regards the Ascension as the turning point between the two Dispensations. The Church is the Kingdom of Christ by the Holy Spirit. This is the fundamental idea of the church and a fulfiUraent of the O. T. pretliction of the Spirit's work in the last Dispen- sation. Luke regar^ls this as the fuliillment of Christ's promise to lead them into all truth. The " former treatise" he describes as containing what "Jesus bej'in both to do and teach." Christ's work was not completed; He liad yet much to teach by the Apostles through the Spirit. He refers to the " many infallible proofs" of the resurrection. These appear- ances were continued during 40 days, atiording ample time for many to recognize him. By the extraordinary character of these appearances, diftering from any pre- vious ones. He accustome I them to the idea of His omnipresence. Luke looks upon the Resurrection and Ascension as one composite act, and the founding of the church as the work of the risen Christ. His parting instructions relate to The Place.. They were not to depart from Jerusalem, — not because this was the most con- venient place, for most of the disciples were from G-ali- lee. There they had been wont to associate with Him, and Jerusalem had forfeited its claims to be the center of the new Dispensation. To all believing Jews the promises were thus fulfilled, and the fact is emplia- sized that the Christian church is not represented as antagonistic to the Jewish Church, but as a development of it, as would have appeared if He had set up His King- dom in another part of the country. This was to be the mother of churches as long as they were allowed to remain there, and in all cities the offer of salvation was made first to the Jews. Nature of the Kingdom. " The promise of the Father," (Luke 24: 49,) to send the H. S. signalizes the spiritual nature of the Kingdom. The church is a fulfillment of the O. T. Dispensation as a promising system. Li v. 5 the two Dispensations are contrasted. In the 0. T., bap- tism was with water, in the N. T., with the. Spirit. In O. D. the sign predominated — in X. D. the Spirit. 9 Observe the allusion to the three Persons of the Trinity ; also the indirect reference to the Gos[)el of ,Tohn, The promises in the last chapters of John (and not in Luke) and before John had put them in writing, are referred to here. Other evangelists omit them, probably because tliey knew these discourses had been committed to John. The. Time. He closely connects the gift of the Spirit with the Ascension, " Not many days iience." The church contrasted with the false expectations of the Jews. Their ideas of a temporal kingdom are revived though somewhat modified. "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again tlie kingdom to Israel." They con- cede His departure and the coming of H. G. and yet think He is to set up a temporal kingdom. This mis- conception remained with them for some time. He replies, (1) Not theirs to know, the times or sea- sons. (2) They should be zealous only in the perform- ance of their own duties. v. 8. " Ye shall receive powers," &c. There was to be no external ritualistic kingdom, but they themselves w^ere to be the deposita- ries of this power. Commission Renewed to the Apostles. The H. S. was to come upon them and they were to be His witnesses. The account of the Ascension is closed by a dramatic stroke of great beauty. He was giving these directions, and, " while they beheld, he was taken up." He continues His reign in heaven, and acts through His agencies on earth, until the second coming. Critical Questions. The statement in the 12th v. as to place, time, and words employed, does not conflict with Lk. 24 : 50, as some allege. Even Strauss concedes that the two passages do not involve a contradiction. (See Lange in loc.) Are different interviews intended in 4th and 6th ver- ses ? The most natural conclusion is, that the conversa- tion occurred at one and the same meeting. It is, how- ever, possible, that Luke may intend liere a summary of Christ's last teaching with His disciples. (2.) From Ascension to Pentecost, ch. 1 : 11-26 — 10 days. Employment during the ten days — waiting and prayer. A time of suspense — no boldness — no proselyting zeal — 10 no plaiiiiiiig ; bound together by a common interest, their single duty was to wait on the Lord, and their attitude evinced perfect faith and coiilidence in Christ. Persons mmtio?ied.— AposUes, women, and the brethren of Jesus. The list of the names of the Apostles appro- priately introduced here. The church was (then) a visi- ble counterpart of the twelve tribes. Women, not the women as in A. V., showing that the church was not to be exclusively of males. " Miii'y, the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." These relatives were held in special honor and some of them were admitted to office. His brethren who had been skeptical were probably con- vinced by his resurrection and ascension, v. 15. Does the number 120 comprise all the Christians in Jerusalem, or is it the size of one assembly. It is uncertain, in any event the whole number was small. Since the Cruci- fixion, there had been, doubtless, according to his pre- diction, a falling away of numbers wdio had been favor- able to Christ. How reconcile the number given here with the statement in 1 Cor. 15 : 6, that he appeared to above 500 brethren at once ? That appearance was in Galilee, and Luke does not say that this included all the believers in Jerusalem at the time, although that is the natural inference. Place of Assemblage. — Some think a room in the Tem- ple, and support by Lk. 24: 53, " they were continually in the temple," but this merely states that they kept up the Jewish form of worship. It was probably the upper room where the Passover had been celebrated. Choice of a New Apostle. — Were the Apostles a self- perpetuating body, or was this an exceptional case ? Peter's argument : 1. The original apostasy of Judas had been predicted. 2. Connects his fate vvitli that predic- tion. 3. Shows from Scripture the necessit}- of filling his place. " His bishoprick let another take." Peter alludes to and implies an argument from the number 12. Bases the election not on his own authority, but upon inference from Scriptures. Assumes no superiority, but acts as spokesman of the 11. The whole church was au- thorized to take part, which shows that the Apostles did not profess to be a self-perpetuating body. They only 11 applied tests and qualifications laid down by Christ Him- self. The selection must be made from those who had companied with them from the bejj^inning, and had wit- nessed His resurrection. This shows what Peter consid- ered the fundamental design of the office. Why this mixture of human tests and appeal to Divine Providence ? If competent to choose two, why not to choose one ? What right had this assembly to restrict God's choice to two whom they had previc^usly fixed upon ? The most natural supposition is, that these two were the only per- sons within reach who possessed the necessary qualifi(!a- tions. (See Alexander.) To whom was Peter's prayer addressed ? Probably to Christ, because of use of x'jfxo^, and because all the Apostles had been appointed by Him. Also leaves the im[)ression tliat they still looked to Christ's immediate direction, Peter quotes Ps. 69: 25, and Ps. 109: 8 as applicable to Judas. How can a Ps. which contains a confession of sin be considered Messianic ? Here is an instance of generic interpretation, the whole class of the righteous under persecution being represented. Was the transaction authorized or not ? Many or- thodox interpreters, among them Stier and Schaff, an- swer in the negative. The Apostles were told to wait for the H. S. Before His descent they had no right to act. A case of Peter's rashness. If the number twelve was important, they say, it leaves no place for Paul, and Mat- thias nowhere reappears. They think this an inspired record of a mistake. On the other hand, it may be said several others appear only in the lists. Paul may have taken the place of James, or have been a supernumerary Apostle to the Gentiles. (1 Cor. 15:8). It devolved upon the church to recognize the vacancy. Improbable that Luke writing under Paul's guidance would record a mistake without censure. Church had always the guid- ance of the Spirit although never 3'et fully poured out. Appointment is made by Divine selection and b}' lot. Peter bases the action on Scripture. After the resurrec- tion, the body of disci[)les were uniformly called the eleven, after election uniformly called the Ticelve. Luke writing a generation afterward says, " and he was numbered with 12 the eleven apostles," This is not the first act of the new church, but the divinely directed last act of preparation. Bauingarten calls it the " final preparation for the church." (3.) Pentecost, ch. II. A Descent of the Spirit. — III: 1-13 — We look for the essential traits of an institu- tion in the history of its first establishment; whatever comes afterwards is not essential, though of authority. The one salient fact is, that the H. S. descended into the hearts of believers, and without distinction of age, sex, or class. Here is the germ of all subsequent church history — the imparting of a new life to the church to lead it to a higher plane until perfected at the second coming. The H. S. had been given in 0. T. and by Christ, but always in a way that was adapted to a state of pupilai^e. Present Characteristics of His Outpouring. (1.) In full measure — potentially and progressively — the beginning of plenary imparting of H. S. to church. (2.) Immedi- ately to the soul, without intervention of prescribed rites. (3.) To all men, as a consequence of abolition of forms. Nature and extent of tlie gift closely connected. The design of gospel forall men is thegreatN". T. doctrine; the fact of ]Sr. T. history is the actual spread of the truth in world. This event is coordinate in dignity, and import- ance with the Incarnation of the Son of God. That was for sacrifice, this to unite to Christ ; that, God becoming man, this, God dwelling in man; that for justification and government, this, for adoption, sanctification, and eternal life. Trinity under O. T. obscurely revealed ; now the H. S. is set forth as one with, but distinct from, the Father. This fact of Pentecost, historically accred- ited, is the refutation of all naturalistic theories. Like resurrection, it corroborates the supernatural claims of Christianity. The power of this argument cannot be ex- aggerated. Rationalists, den\' it as a historical fact and found Christianity simply in Christians' belief in it. To this J. S. Mill attributes our exemption from idolatry. The rationalistic position necessitates an a priori recon- struction of church history. The idea that the risen Jesus still governs the church, is farther carried out in the importance attached to the time " was fully come." 13 The Time — " was fully come." Christ dwelt on the time as prominent feature. Why on Pentecost ? (1.) A practical reason. It was at Jerusalem the place of suf- fering. Feast bi-ouglit a groat concourse from all parts of the world, (a) The Ijreaking down of Judaism empha- sized, (b) witnesses secured. Historical attestation of this fact, unlike resurrection and ascension, does not rest entirel}' upon primary testimony of friends. All promi- nent cities into which Paul entered contained persons acquainted with these facts, who miglit liave contradicted him, when he preached them. Facts preceded the Apos- tles and in many places they found churches already established by these witnesses. (2.) Pent, emphasized the source of this gift — it completed the idea of Pass. Pent, reckoned from and de[)endent upon Pass. JSTaone connects the two {tzsvtyjxo:; rrj^ " fiftieth''^ day). Called also the Feast of Weeks (Lev. 28 : 15, 16 ; Ex. 34 : 22). In- ward connection in events. On the second day of Pass, the first sheaf of the cereal harvest was brought to the Temple; on Pent, two loaves of leavened bread. First signalized the beginning of harvest, the second, the com- pletion of ingathering. So Christ's death at Pass, repre- sented the ottering of first fruits, and the Spirit's descent at Pent, the ingathering of the harvest. (3.) Although Pent, is only represented as close of the harvest in O. T., it is usually conceded that it is associated with giving of law on Sinai. Lechler disputes this but (a) all the other feasts were historical memorials, and the antecedent probability is that this was also, (b) it is so represented in the Talmud. Law was given on 50th day after the exodus (Ex. 12 : 2-18.) That was the beginning of a new revelation. So Pent, was the new revelation of the H. S. It is so argued by the Apostle in Hebrews. At the first Pent, the people were driven away from the moun- tain by fear — necessity of mediation — imperfect commu- nion, now they are filled with joy, praise — immediate union — no external mediation — the results of the com- pleted atonement. The first Pent, followed Pass, when lamb was ottered, last Pent, followed Pass, when Christ was ottered. (4.) Historically it was " the fullness of time." Whole world prepared, Jewish and heathen. 14 Apostles prepared by disappointment — were humbled — reduced to waitina; — a period of almost absolute suspense of faith. The narrative shows that the Apostles were not expecting descent of H. S. on that day more than any other day. It was the third hour of the day, says Peter, Such times are never known beforehand — so will it be at the second coming. True preparation is absolute faith, prayer, and labor. Day of the week — two opinions ; Saturday or Sunday? Depends upon what was date of the crucifixion. If as according to Bleek, Schatf, and others, it was on Friday, 14th Nisan, the weeks being computed from the second day, Saturday, the 15th, the fiftieth day (Pent.) would fall on Sunday — the Christian Sabbath. If we follow Wieseler, Robinson and the chronol. of The Gospel History of Dr. C. W. H., John harmonizes with Synoptists, crucifixion was on Friday the 15th jSTisan (i. e., second day offcast) and the fiftieth day would fall on Saturday — the Jewish Sabbath. It must be regarded as an open question. It would seem as appropriate to have this event mark the end of the 0. D. as the beginning the N. D. Place of Assemblage. Some think in an apartment of the Temple. Thus the new church was formed in the bosom of the old — and this explains great concourse. But the people may have been attracted by the noise of the tongues, and the term, o«oc, not easil}^' referred to an apartment of the temple. Probably "the upper room." Miraculous accompaniments. 1. " Sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind." Sound filled the house — not said to have been the wind. " From heaven " — ref- erence to Christ's ascension into heaven. Wind is a common symbol of the H. S. 2. Visible signs — tongues "as of fire." Not of fire — reference is to the appearance. Not cloven, but disirihuted to each. Fire a double symbol ; (a) of punishment, {h) of purification. Latter most com- mon. Tongue — organ of expression fi)r the soul. Indi- cates (a) that whole inward man was cleansed, (6) pre- pared also to spread the knowledge to others. The very form of the gift shows that it was to be given to others. The H. G. descended upon Christ in the form of a dove, emblemizing His purity. He descended upon the church 15 in the form of tono:iies of tire, sii^nityiiig consecration and cornmisaion. Here is a new association with Mt. Sinai— same elements are employed in different ways. 3. Began to speak with other tongues. Great dispute as to what this means. Christ promised that they should "speak with new tongues." Mk. 16 : 17. Paul speaks of "kinds of tongues " (1 Cor. 12: 10.) First interpret- ers think that the language in Acts clearly implies for- eign languages; some that it refers to ecstatic utterances. It was an assemblage largely of foreigners, and the former view will alone explain their wonder. Av^aed per cojitra (1 Cor. 14) that Paul seems to imply that the speaker did not understand his own words. lie contrasts praying in an unknown tongue and praying with the understanding. There are two general questions : I. What was the nature of the gift of tongues ? and II. How harmonize Luke and Paul ? Two general theories as to the former question. 1, 1. ISTeander, Meyer, Schaff, and a large number of in- terpreters, think it consisted of ecstatic or elevated dis- course in praise of God. Tongue was the organ of the Spirit and not of individual. Words devotional, not for instruction. (Neander's Planting and Training of the Church, p. 13 ; Schaff's Ap. Hist. p. 199 tf.) They main- tain (1.) that Paul makes no mention of foreign languages being introduced at Corinth. If we had 1 Cor. alone we would never form the idea of there being foreign tongues. (2.) Paul teaches that the understanding of the speaker was not engaged. (3.) The people could not understand them at Pentecost — accused them of raving. (4.) What was uttered was addressed to God and not to man. Think that Pett^* interpreted to them in Greek. 2. The other theory intelligible utterances in tongues before uid^nown. (1.) The plain exegesis of Luke's language implies this. (2.) The character of the gift as miraculous could thus only be recognized by the people. This accounts for the impression made upon the multitude, that they were drunken, but as each listened, he could distinguish his own language. II. How harmonize with Paul (1 Cor. 14) ? It does not accord with the terms used to say that it was a mira- cle in the minds of the hearers and not of speakers. 16 Schaft' adheres to fair exegesis — thinks that a change took place in the character of the gift. Speaking in for- eign tongues merely incidental to Pent, and does not re- appear in after accounts. Neander and Me^^er think that Luke incorporated a myth into his history. Old explana- tion {vide Hodge on Cor.) the gift was always that of speaking in foreign languages. Whole argument — in passage in Cor. confirms this view. Paul makes thecon- trast between praying in an unknown tongue, and pray- ing so as to be understood. Design of miraculous accompaniments. 1. To attest His presence. Every new stage of revelation accredited by a miracle. When a revelation is well established miracles cease. They are tj'pical oftrutli — outward mani- festations of an inward gift. Publicity verj' great. Skeptics of the miraculous period do not denj' them. They were also experienced hy many. Difference between attestation when it is not only perceived by the senses, but also attested by the consciousness. Here is the diffi- culty of explaining to an unregenerate man the experi- ences of regeneration. From the outset it was impossi- ble for those experiencing these thing? to doubt them. The Apostolic age was characterized by intensity of con- viction. 2. It was also highly symbolical of gifts of H. S. — signified both the completeness of the change wrought, and universality of gifts. The flame was not only now in Shekinah, but descended upon every believer. New revelation not confined to one language, but given to all. Gift of tongues wa-^ counterpart of confusion at Babel. One reverse of the other. Prefigures final union of all the elect in Christ. Hence enumeration of nations represented, the whole empire from East to West— most of the then known tongues, v, 5, not only resident for- eigners, xarocxouvzez but v. 9-10 — transient dwellers — iTTidrjfxdvrec; i. e. strangers. 3, Practical design. First impression that the design was to enable the Apostles to communicate the truth to men of different languages. This a subordinate consideration. Unnecessary, because Greek language almost universally spoken from India to Rome. There strangers were actually using it. No trace of the use of this gift by the Apostles subsequently. 17 Next the case of Cornelius (Acts 10) but the gift was imparted after Peter's discourse in Greek. iSo. Paul (Acts 19 : 6) instructs John's disciples before gift conies upon them. So in Corinth the gift not necessary for communication. At Lystra (Acts 14 : 11) Paul and Bar- nabas evidentlj' did not understand " the s|)eech of Ly- caonia." No evidence that the gift was [>ermanent. Apostolic Period one of miracles. There is difficulty in getting the real historical conception of the times. It was one of the powers of the age, and unless we realize this, we cannot read the history aright. Design 1. To attest new revelation. 2 Practical design to do good. Also cases of judgment, Ananias and iSapphira. Latter rare. 3. To arouse attention and give confidence both to the world and believers. Christianity was introduced into the world against will of the pet)ple. Had to con- tend with ordinary forces and [>rejudices of society. Remarkable success of the church was due to the accom- paniment of miracles and to the peculiar state of society at that time. These facts not considered by those who decry missionary eitbrt now. Such dwell on the unified eflbrt of that period. Not too much to say that unity was then due to a state of infancy and imperfect devel- opment, and not entirely to greater purity of the clinrch. 4. Teaching design — contrasted with Christ's miracles. Our Lord's were largely to exliibit His divine power — traversed all the spheres in which power was manifested. The Apostles' miracles were confined to healing sick and casting out devils. Christ wrought immediately. Apos- tles through Ilim. In Apostolic I'eriod gifts of teaching were most prominent. 5. To facilitate transfer from Ritual to S[iiritual system. Neander dwells upon this. Miracles were the evidence that the prescriptive power of Judaism was done away, and that the H. S. is now given immediately, and to all. We see something of the [lower of forms even with us, what must liave been their power then, when the Jews could show Divine authority for them ? Hence necessity of these gifts to authenticate a change, and in order that they might realize the descent of the H. S. without distinction upon all, as Joel had prophesied, and the universal priesthood of believers. 18 This design prored (1) from the fact that tlie gift was not confine:! to Apostles, or cointnunicated hy them. Acts 4. All wei'e filled with H. G. This term always refers to external gifts — yapiaiiaza and nothing else. Stephen, Acts 6:5. Philip, Acts 8:17. {Vide Acts 10:44; 19 : 6) Agabus — four daughters of Philip. 1 Cor. 12-14 proves that members of churches had the gifts, and had choice among them. (2) In directions given bv Paul 1 Cor., RomT 12: 6, IThess. 5: 19. Gifts were exer- cised by so many that these directions were given to preserve order in the churches. Danger of spurious imi- tation. (3) Ordinary and extraordinary gifts of H. S. classed together by Luke. This shows that the two usually went together. Two things follow : 1. Miracu- lous element is historical. 2. Miracles are not to be looked for later. They only come as evidence of new revelations. When did miracles cease? Of what value is the evidence for their existence in sub-Apostolic Age? Not until after Origen in 3d century, are they spoken of as past. Justin Martyr speaks of many Christians heal- ing those possessed of evil spirits. Irenseus speaks of many brethren then living who " possessed gifts of prophecy and spoke in thedi\ers languages by the Spirit." Origen vs. Celsus appeals to what he had seen as an eye- witness. Celsus accounts for the growth of Christianity by the credulity of the people. Tertullian also refers to them. Some are slow to admit their existence after the specific design had ceased. They urge 1. The meager- ness of the testimony — a few isolated passages. Miracles not I'ule in sub- Apostolic Age, but exception. 2. These Fathers may have been themselves mistaken. Many edu- cated Roman Catholics believe in miracles of saints. Many in Ap. Age, when true and false might have been contrasted, were deceived. In every age there is a class of occult facts and phenomena which are on the verge of thenatural and supernatural. Irvingism and the miracles of Xavier believed by many. This class of facts though inexplicable, are not necessarily supernntural. Fathers may have mistaken for genuine miracles cases of natural cure. 3. The Ap. Age was very long — John lived to the end of the centur3^ Some of his converts who possessed 19 git't8 may liHVC -survived, and coutiiuied use of tht'iii for 50 or 60 years. We must remember tliat these Fathers are in the very forefront as witnesses for our canon. Probably true conception is that of Neander in his Chnr(;h History, — " a series of gradual and insensible changes." Matiy more miracles in first part of Ap. Age tlian in latter. We must hold fast tlie fact that Ap. Age was a mi- raculous one — they were then needed for attestation. After all, the question of their continuance is reduced to the dimensions of historical and antiquarian interest. Gifts enumerated ; 1 Cor. 12-14. Most complete record by Paul liimself. But even here the description is only incidental. His object was not to describe them, but to correct disorder in use of them. All classes shared them, giving rise to some confusion, and ostentatious display, calling for his Apostolic directions. We learn from Paul as to their nature: 1. That they were true gifts — under the free determination and control of the will of those receiving th/em. They were therefore responsible for the proper e.xercise of them. This refutes all those who regard the Corinthian piienomena as enthusiasm. 2. Not for individual good, but for the advancement of the church. They were of different grades — so given as to make them mutually dependent. 3. By conse- quence their use v.-as to be governed by the rule of Chris- tian love. 4. Measured by this standard, the gift of in- struction was to be preferred to gift of tongues. 5. While he believed the gifts were miraculous, some were more evidently so than others. Some so closely con- nected with ordinar}' natural endowments as to seem only a strengthenimr of latter — an extension of their knowledge of God's providence of their capacity for investigation and discernment of good and evil. (Lechler). In all these, Paul teaches there is an unusual divine energy guiding and strengthening these gifts. 1 Cor. 12 : 8-10 nine of these gifts are enumerated, Numerous attempts have been made to classify them. Meyer's classification based on recurrence of kzipwdk : 1. Intellectual, (wis- dom and knowledge.) 2. Faith and its effects (healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits.) 3. Tongues, 20 (speaking and interpreting.) This is a defective classifi- cation because faitii may as well come under 1st, and prophecy and discernment of spirits should not be sub- ordinate to faith. Distinctions clear in the chap, itself: 1. Miracles. 2. Teaching. 3. Tongues. Faith belongs to all alike. Difference between XoyoQ aofio.^ and Xoyoi; Yvioaeco<:t Neander makes the diflference between intel- lect and prophetic teaching. Meyer makes a6(pca intui- tive knowledge, and yvwac^ logical or speculative knowl- edge. Hodge takes wisdom {a6(fco.), io be the gospel, the whole system of revealed truth, and [■fvcoac(;) knowledge as the gift which belonged to teachers. Gift of faith. Neander : "The practical power of the will animated bv faith." Hodge : " A higher measure of the ordinary grace of faith." (Heb. ll": 33-40). Gift of healing? Christ's promise, Mk. 16 : 18, perhaps referred to in Jas. 5 : 14, 15. Most important class of Apostolic miracles. No actual record of miracles by any but Apostles, except in case of Stephen and Philip. Gifts of prophecy ? Speaking to another for God by insjtiration. The idea of revealing the future is involved in this, though sub- ordinately. Fundamental meaning same in O. and N. T. Bestowed on others than Apostles, e. g. Agabus. Diffi- cult and important to distinguish between gifts of prophecy and Apostolic inspiration. Former inferior to latter. 1. For a time only and for a specific purpose. 2. They differed in fullness. Prophecy directed to the enforcement of a particular revelation, fact, or truth. Apostolic inspiration both constant and general. Dif- fered from teaching in that latter did not imply inspira- tion. Led to imitation — damsel at Philippi, and 7 sons of Sceva at Ephesus (Acts 19). These spurious cases required a gift of discernment. The Rationalists ridicule this coloring of the Apos- tolic Period. The evident meaning of the sacred his- torian that these gifts were common through all the churches is to them a refutation of the credibility of the account. Their fundamental position is that the super- natural element is unhistorical. Hence they reject the Gospels and the Acts. Remand historical books to a later day, when miracles were commonly believed by the 21 ciiurch. They claim that the author of Acts is unknown to ns, hence his testimony is of no value They reject all K T. hut 4 epistles of Paul, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal. and Rom., except last two chapters. Skej)tics admit that Paul himself helieved in and preached miracles, especially those of Resurrection and Ascension, that he helieved that he had the j/ift himself. What shall they (h) with the testimony of one whom they profess so much to revere, and who was an eyewitness? They affirm that there is no instance where I*aul claims to have performed a mira- cle himself This assertion made hy Rationalists in Ger- many and by author of "Supernatural Religion." An- swered by VV'estcott and (Ellicott?). They quote the fol- lowins; passages where Paul claims the pcnver of working miracles: 2 Cor. 12: 12; Gal. 3:5; and Rom. 15; 19. The author of " Supernatural Religion " replies that after all these do not come within meaning of liis remark. There is no historical instance referred to. Claims that these general statements of Paul do not have force of a definite case. Is this so? Would the claim to have worked a [larticular miracle have the force of this gen- eral assertion of a power everywhere conceded to him ? But what does Paul actually say, leaving out Rom. 15: 19, which these critics reject? Gal. 3: 5. Here skeptics say that the translation, "worketh miracles among you," is inaccurate. They render ku 6ficu, "m you," not "■among you.'" But duud/jisi^ remains, and unbiased critics (Meyer) say that it applies not only to the power of the H. S. but metonymically, to tlie effect produced. Skeptics say never means this, and that there no ground for mak- ing any distinction here between the ordinary spiritual powers and miraculous power given by H. S. 2 Cor. 12: 12. How can these "signs of an Apostle," say skeptics, refer to mira(;les if wrought " in all patience ?" Tlie most natural explanation is that he refers to his patient waiting for the effect of the faith produced by his miracles. The3' argue that Paul refers to y^aoiaixaTa, and not to miracles wrought by himself. His descrip- tions are to be confined to -^aoiaiiaza. Is there anything miraculous in them, or are they simply natural gifts? They say that in his actual descriptions he betrays that 22 he knows of nothing bat natural endowments. By his expressions " word of wisdom " and " word of knowl- edge" they maintain that he refers only to the Gospel. As to gifts of healing they admit that men were cnred, but think that Paul simply ascribed to miraculous agency, cures which were effected by natural means. Tlieir argu- mentum ad hominem is, if P;iul had the power, why did he not heal himself, Timothy, Epaphroditus and others for whom he prayed. If he did claim this power, it was only the pious imagination of the Apostle which referred every- thing good in man to the supernatural. Inconsistencies in their position. 1. Paul, they confess, believed in his power to work miracles, but when they come to exegesis they reduce everything to ya(naiiaxa. 2. They conceive of Paul as an enthusiast, dreamer, believer in supernatural, and as not able to distinguish between fact and fancy, and yet after all he is the practical worker and logician of Christianity, and but for him the life and death of Christ would have been swallowed up in Judaism. This is analogous to their argument about Christ, and fur- nishes us with an impossible conception. But we need not confine ourselves to their ground. This separation of Books of Paul from Historical Books is unwarranted. If true, we have all of them to interpret Paul's use oi buvafxztz. Two things to be noticed; (1) The word buva.p.ztc, is joined with rEpaxo. and aqp.zia^ and (2) it is used in the plural, powers ; and being combined with signs and wonders there is no reason to doubt that he refers to external eifects. All the best exegetes decide for this wide meaning. B. Peter's Sermon. (Chap. II : 14-41.) — After the de- scription of the descent of the H. S. we have the actual founding of the church. We have here the first sermon, first increase, first baptism — elements of all subsequent church work. When the multitude were attracted by the noise, Peter stood up and explained. There were three points on which the audience needed instruction. Christians did not separate from the temple, yet claimed something new and additional, and substantiated it by external manifestations of power. Jews knew that noth- ing was true which contradicted the old revelation, and 23 oti their face tliese movements seemed so to contradict it. Thev must be satisfied tliat their own rehgion in its na- ture contemphited this extension. He shows: 1. That the new order was com[)!etion of the old. Peter appeals to Joel — 2: 28. The application in this and many other places in N. T. is our guide in inter- preting O. T. propliecy. The difficulty here is, that he groups in a single picture things which history shows were separated by a long time. The interval is ignored in the propliecy. i*eterdid not comprehend the relation of these events in time. The dela}' to liim and to early- church was a surprise. 2. That the H. S. was to be given to all men. All distinctions of classes done away. "Who- soever shall call upon the name of the Lord." 3. That Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiali, whose coming ushered in the Spirit. Peter proves (a) by miracles of Chrint, and (b) by His resurrection. Resurrection the turning point of the whole. Mass of the Jews did not know it or be- lieve it. Hore again is illustrated the office of the Apostles as witnesses of resurrection. To Jewish audi- ence he proves it from Scripture, and not simplj' by tes- timony. Cites Ps. 16: 8-11. Exegesis here difficult. This Ps. seems to refer to inward experiejice of writer, but Peter argued that David's flesh did see corruption. Old interpretation is that refers exclusively to Christ. Others insist on its plain meaning. David is rejoicing over his enemies. Add to this that othei- Messianic Ps. contain confessions of sin and weakness. By tjipieal or generic method, the original reference to David may be pre- served. The Ps. also proves His Messiahship. David was a proptiet, saj-s Peter, and directly predicted that God would raise up Christ. His exaltation predicted also in Ps. 110. Next he argues that Apostles were wit- nesses of resurrection, (v. 34). 1. Notice credibilit}- of these witnesses. He makes these assertions in the pres- ence of enemies as well as friends. Contained necessa- rily a challenge to Jews. So many knew the facts that deceit was impossible. But even according to the critics the Apostles were incapable of such deceit. 2. Notice the rhetorical power of the sermon. He chooses those passages which bring out the religious responsibility of the 24 Jews, and set forth penalties affixed to unbelief in the Messiah. 3. Notice chancre prodnce'l by inspiration in Peter's bearing. In the Gospels he is rash, vacillating, overbold, and his very last question showed his miscon- ception of Christ's kingdom. Now he shows profound insight into the Scriptures and wonderful undei'standing of Christ's death and resurrection. He resumes his fore- most place, 3'et the other Apostles are coordinate with him in distinction from multitude. He is associated with the Eleven. Doctrine of Peter's Discourse. — It is natural for us to interpret every part of the Bible by our idea of the whole developed scheme of truth — to interpret Christ's dis- courses by Paul's epistles, forgetting that prior to the resurrection the Apostles were only Jews in process of instruction. After this crisis they had a fuller knowl- edge. Not always easy to distinguish between what they realized at first and what they learned better later. We have no right to ascribe to Peter or any of them, a more developed view at any time than we have historical ground for so doing. Biblical Theologi/ investigates N. T. by historical periods, and traces the development of one period out of another. 1. The statement in the Gospels. 2. As held by primitive church prior to !St. Paul. 3. The progress of Paul's delivery of doctrine. 4. Its completed form in John's works. Within these i)eriods it follows main topics of Systematic Theology ; Christ's doctrine of sin, its relation to the law, the question of salvation, per- son and work of the Redeemer, etc., eliminating every- thing that is not in Christ's own words, distinguishing between the point of view of Synoptists and John. Passing on, we observe the particular truths before Peter and the primitive church in the Acts, and we compare discourses with the epistles and with early teachings of James, who remained in Jerusalem, and whose concep- tion was ethical not doctrinal — also with Mark among the gospels and Jude. The same process is to be fol- lowed with Paul, Luke, and John. This department is closely related to Isagogics and Exegesis. It takes for granted that the authorship, canonicity, date and his- torical position is fixed before it can investigate. It is 25 the last result of true exegesis In this course we are forced to follow cliroiiologieal order rather than the periods. Can ot)ly give the main illustrations of pro- gress in doctrine in N". T. period. What do we mean b\' development of doctrine, and iiow does it consist with inspiratitMi of the Apostles? There are two extreme ways of looking at it. 1. Take [>oint of view of the catechism, ((^ues. 2.) Proof texts are selected from any part of the Bible overlooking tlie proportion or historical relation. It is too common to take for grunted tlie fullness of creed before the coming of Paul's doctrinal teacliiug, and which the church her- self did not get out of Paul's writings for centuries, 2. The Rationalistic position. Here all doctrines are viewed as the natural products of the religious consciousnesses of men, developed under the influence of external circum- stances. What did the early church believe? Skeptics regard the Gospels as not authentic, especially the Gospel of Jolin — Acts unauthentic, and they eliniinate from the Synoptists every dogmatic statement and the supernatural element, leaving only the ethical or moral element of Christ's teaching. This leaves scarcely any residuum of belief in the supernatural on part of early church, altliough these speeches contain more theology than skeptics acknowledge. They reduce primitive church very much to level of Judaism — liad nothing beyond, but that Christ was the Messiah. Renan says they had no speculative theology, only believed Jesus was Son of God. Jesus had very wisely kept from His disciples everything metapliysical. The author of " Supernatural Religion " sa^'s that Christianity did not ditt'er from Mosaism except in single fact that they believed Jesus was Messiah, and this lested on the Apostles' declarations as to resurrection. They continued to call themselves Jews and practiced Jewish rites till Paul came. He began to teach from the universality of sin the application of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Paul is regarded as founder of Christian docti-ine and this author even asserts that figure of Paul overshadows the figure of Christ, and that it is only by retracing our steps that we arrive at facts and principles at basis of Christianity. Christianity 26 starts with the common Jewish ideas. Under Paul's teaching the religious consciousness goes on to develop new truth until it reaches the theology of St. John. Thus tliey reduce the developmentof doctrine within the N. T. to the same level with the apprehension and state- ment of doctrine subsequent!}-. Development within and without the church has carried us to higher and purer views than Paul himself had, and ultimately all dogma will disappear and only the morality of the N. T. remain. They la}' down two canons of criticism. 1. Any book which asserts the divinity of Christ cannot be earlier than the '2nd century. The actual recognition of that doctrine was not made till then. Consequently Gospel of John is placed in last part of 2nd century. 2. Those books are genuine which support one side or other of the doc- trinal conflict between Peter and Paul. There were two great parties in the church : (1) The Jewish or Petrine party, holding that Gentiles could become Christians only by becoming Jews. (2) The Pauline or Broad cliurch part3% which obliterates the distinction between Jew and Gentile. Only the books which represent these two extremes are genuine. On the one side the 4 letters of Paul : Gnl., Rom., 1 and 2 Cor. (or as some say, 7,) are genuine, for in them Paul charges Peter with teaching what is not the true Gospel. On the other side books of Jewish cast of thought are genuine, e. g., Revelation, because it evidently emanated from a Jewish minded man. Fault is found with the lapsed churches because of their holding doctrine of St. Paul. All books not coming within these two canons, grew out of a later attempt to reconcile the parties. After the rise of the Gnostics, an attempt was made to unify and bring together these conflicting views in the epistles to the Eph. and Col., and especially in rewriting the history. The Gospels and Acts are the outgrowth of the irenic period. It was necessary to make the life of Christ present both as- pects of the truth, and to show that He had taught all the Christian doctrine from the beginning. In book of Acts Peter is represented by his speeches and conversion of Cornelius, as preparing the way for Paul. Peter's dis- 27 courses are made to teach Pauline doctrine. And F*anl is represented as having circumcised Timothy, and as having in other points conformed to Juchiizing princi- ples. All this de[)end8 upon correctness of critical results. If the Gospels are genuine, then the essential truth was delivered hv Christ Himself. One great purpose of His life was to convince men that lie was Son of God, claim- ing equality with God, as well as the Messiah. Of course, tlien, there is no a />r?'or/ objection to John. There is not a truth in the epistles which is not in some shape contained in the words of Jesus Himself. In His final discourse He promised the Spirit, and He expressly de- ferred telling them man\' things until they should be able to bear it. What is then the true historical development? That is a difficult question. According to Protestant rule of faith, all truth of salvation is revealed in the Scriptures. Any doctrine that is new, must therefore be rejected. Development of doctrine must be confined to the reve- lation in the N. T. itself, and what flows from it by logi- cal inference and insight into its underlying principles. After all, the whole substance is matter of revelation. It is generally believed that there is a progress iu the Scriptures in two respects : I. There is progress in actual revelation. Is there not a progress from the O. T. to '^. T. ? and within the 0. T. itself from the patriarchal promises to the 53d of Is. ? Christ Himself recognized this principle. (John 16 : 12.) There is a difference between His teachings in Galilee and Judea. Progress : (a) According to prepara- tion of men to receive it. (b) According to concrete circumstances — in condition of church itself In the life of Christ, the great point was the Messiahship— all truth relating to that. After the resurrection, while the church was being established in India, the essential thing was to convince men that Jesus was the Messiah, and of the truth of the resurrection and the outpouring of the H. S. For that purpose only a very general state- ment was necessary, and in poi>ular form, (c) vVhen Paul begins to argue that Judaism was done away, the 28 reasons and principles are given. The doctrine of sin and nature of the atonement were ap[:)Hc;il)le to all, yet the statement of them grew out of the actual contro- versy. II. In the truth as apprehended hy the church. They could not at first sufficiently appropriate all the truth and formulate it into a creed. Just as the Apostolic Fathers aiter the close of the revelation were not ahle to see the truth in all its relations. No one could cover the whole ground. So there is growth in Peter's mind. He at first expects all men to become Jews, yet Christ had taught him better. He held the essential truth in regard to the Gentiles, but looked at it with his 0. T. concep- tions. Only years after were his eyes opened. He states that he had changed his mind. I'here was a difference in inspired men themselves in what tliey taught and in what they thought was involved in that teaching. "J'here is a difficulty in fixing place of books in N. T. fiistory of doctrine. Immense distance between Peter's discourses and John's Gospels. John was reserved for late publication until circumstances of church and long course of preparation called for it. Plere is best brought out the essential relation of the believer to Christ. Christ gave more than could be apprehended at the time. It was necessary to authenticate His claims. Ex- amine early deliverances of doctrine and we fitid that was kept back wliich did not bear directly upon establish- ment of the church in Jadea, not only because it was not necessary, but because it would have actually impeded the cause. If Peter had preached the doctrines of the epistle to Rom. to the Jews at Pent., he would have scattered tlie church. It was best for him not to realize the full N. T. conception at this time. Peter's great doc- trine was the unity of Christianity with Judaisn), and for proof he appeals to prophecy. Paul appeals to the dis- tinctions between the two, and shows that Christianity has something more than the prophets. The leading doctrines brought forward by Peter were the Messiahship of Jesus, necessity of faith in Him, and the unity of the two dispensations. Interesting to con- trast Peter's conceptions with Paul on the one hand, and 29 James on tlie otlier. 1. He dwells on tlie historical aspects of work ot Clirist ratlicr fliaii the doctrines — consequently lie adduces (). 1\ rct'erences to ('hrist's life rather tlian llis teachings. 2. He dwells upon proph- ecy — tlie positive fnlfilhnent of O. T. in N. T. Contrasts liere witli Jarnes, whose point of view is development of new covenant out of old on side of law rather than prophecy. His teaching is of an ethical character, like ser- mon on mount. 3. Peter is the Apostle of hope. This idea very prominent in liis first epistle — dwells much on second coming of Christ. He associates Messiah as con- (jueror with Messiali as sufferer. This led to his dwelling on second coming. It is alleged that liardly any theol- ogy is to be f(i(iie. He went up to tiie feast, Acts 18: 21, Acts 18:18. Had his head "sjiorn in Cenchrea, for he had a vow." He was arrested while worshiping in the temple. Here we have the two dispensations side by side overlapi^inoc as the work of John Baptist overlapped that of Christ. Design of this 1. Shows that there was no break necessarily between the two systems — the tiew was en- grafted on the old. Christianity was necessary to the dignity of O. D. as giving it substance and value. 2. i^'ultills the j)romises of God in that the abrogation of the old dispensati(Mi was a Judicial judgment npnu their continued persecution and rejection. 3. Greatly en- hanced success of church. Rulers were willing for the sect to exist as long as they paid tithes and submitted to priestly authority. Tlius also it was recommended to the multitude. Tliis anomalous state of things was kept up tlirougiiout all l*auPs life. This was the very con- ception of the ministry of James, who held the door open for the Jews to come in during all Paul's life, keep- ing up a Christian element in the temple and making it easy for the Jews to become Christians. This showslhe essential unity of Christian life under various forms. Contrast the freedojn of the church at Corinth witli the formality of that at Jerusalem. 4. Enabled Christianity to retain all that was serviceable in the traditions and organization of the O. D. Synagogue naturally passed over and gave form to the Christian assemblies. Office of elder continued. Reading of and reverence for O. T. Scriptures prepared the way for collecting N". T. canon. It is difficult to conceive of transfer to N. D. without some such juxtaposition. Baur says that if Christianity be supernatural, it cannot be historical, as history pre- supposes development. All that is historical in the church is Jewish. The whole Gentile world thus had a training in the 0. T. and by tliis process those Gentiles who had not had the teaching of proselytes were made familiar with O. T. ideas out of which Christianity grew. They were led to look on Jewish system as living but 34 not completed. 5. On tlie other hand, evil whs con- nected with it, because it facilitated the introduction into the church of Judaizing and Pharisaical influences. A converted Pharisee often became a Christian IMiarisee. Every conversion was not like St. Paul's. This led to formation of parties, doctrinal controversies and aber- rati(uis. Skeptics seize on this to show that early church was Judaic in form and practice. Parts of Worship. 1. Adhered to the teachino^ of the Apostles. 2. Public prayer. 3. Breaking of bread. Some refer this to Eucharist exclusively, others to social meals afterwards developed into the acidpm. Might apply to either or both, as Eucharist was first taken in connection with ordinaiy meals. No mention of singing or of reading Sci'iptures, but these were parts of syna- gogue worship. N. T. list of books was gradually fonried, and the epistles were directed to be read in churches. Charismata not mentioned here, but full description in 1 Cor. 4. " Fellowship " [xocvcovia) joint participation applied both to communion and distrilnitimi of charities. "Had all things in common," ch. 4 : 32-34. Two views : (1.) Absolute community of goods, (a) Some consider this the normal state of the church, (b) Others regard it as temporary. Skeptics take the extreme view and then say it is unhistorical. (2.) All distinction of property was not destroyed. The grace of charity flour- ished so all realized that they were stewards of the Lord. They sold and parted their possessions as " every man had need." They did not give where there was no want. This view is proven (1) from the expression just quoted. (2) Joses Barnabas (ch. 4 : 36, 37) is singled out as a remark- able case. (3.) From Peter's rebuke (ch. 6 : 4) of Ana- nias and Sapphira. (4 ) There was a distinction of prop- erty still in Jerusalem, for mother of John Mark had a house. The epistles show that there were rich as well as poor in church. James speaks of rich men in the assemblies. (5.) No such practice mentioned elsewhere in N. T. No teaching as to charity precludes this idea. No mention of church organization. It does not follow that such was not essential. Church government grew out of known wants. This comraunitv of goods with the 35 spiritual life, and miraculous powers of the Christians, produced a o;reat effect on the community without. Such were tirst effects of Spirit in church. Exao:ii:;eration of this description is the foundation of the skeptical aro^u- ments. They say tlie early church was a band of enthu- siasts. II. History of Oiiuhcii at Jeuusalkm till Death OF Stephen — about 6 years, chs. 3-7. What was to be the effect of introduction of Christianity into Jewish so- ciety ? .('hrist had just left His disciples telling them He would come again. Had [»roniiscd them assistance. They felt that tlie community was in their favor. They would expect the cliurch rapidly to increase until the world came to an end. There were two mistakes which they were liable to fall into: 1. Ex|iecting the speedy conquest of the world. 2. Looking for perfect purity of the church by reason of the presence of the II. S. The one was corrected l)y persecution, the other by corruj)- tion within. The method of the historian is not to give a con- nected narrative, but a series of instances, typical of cliurch history in all ages. Conflicts of the church were overruled to secure first conquest. Persecution led to the scattering of the disci[)Ies, and the consequent ex- tension of tlie church. Corruption was overruled so as to induce watchfulness. (1.) First /Persecution. (Chs, 3-4.) Miracle recorded in ch. 3 is selected, because it occasioned the persecution. Effect of miracle was such that the people were filled with fear. They went to Solomon's porch, and Peter de- livers another sermon. • He disclaims all power — refers all to Christ. 1. Miracle by power of God and for glory of Christ. 2. God the Father of Christ. 3. Christ de- scribed as the " Holy One and the Just," 4. Repentance and confession, conditions of salvation throiigli Him. 5. Unity of Scripture. Persecution (ch. 4) was at first apparently accidental and not an act of rulers. Apostles were arrested to quiet the uproar in the temple, caused by miracles. Paul and John were arrested at the insti- gation of the priests, jealous of the power of the twelve. Sadducees took part i-ather than Pharisees. Pharisaic 36 opposition to Christ was on account of the spirituality of His doctrine. Sadduceea now take the lead on account ot" Apostles' doctrine of resurrection. This gave safety to the church because the Pharisees were in power. Sad- ducees were phihjsopliers, inclined to free-thinking, and did not exercise much influence. Inactivity of Pharisees caused by contempt for the Christians. They took little notice of disciples after death of Christ. Christians paid tithes and worshiped in the temiile — hence, were; re- garded as only a sect among the Jews. When the power of the twelve returned, the hostility of the Pharisees was renewed. The Apostles were arraigned before the Sanhedrin. "Peter filled with the H. G." answered with a bold and condensed statement of the Gospel. They could not deny the miracle, but forbade the Apos- tles to preach any more in Christ's name. Apostles re- fused to submit, but the priests let them go because they feared the people. 1. Efi:'ects : Priests were amazed at the learning of Peter and John, " and they took knowledge of them that they had been witli Jesus." Some say they simply recognized the twelve as having been seen with Christ. Others, that they acknowledged Christ's power in them. 2. There was a fresh revival, — about 5,000 believed. This probably includes the previous 3,000. Audf»£^ sometimes used strictly for males, sometimes includes both sexes. 3. The church brought anew into notice, and its spiritual power increased. jSText follows the prayer of the church, V. 24, IF. Did all pray in the same words ? Some think there was a prescribed form used. Others think they were made to use the same words by the Spirit. The substance of the prayer doubtless is given, all having joined with one leader. Second general description of the church occurs in latter part of this chap. — elements of it discussed above. (2.) First Corruption. — Ch. 6 : 1-16. Persecution and corruption alternate. This corrects the mistake that the church should remain pure. Ananias is contrasted with Barnabas. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira consisted in lying to the H. G., because tlie Spirit dwelt in the Apos- tles and the church. As this was their worst sin, Peter 37 does not notice tlie rest — hypocrisy, covetoiisiiess, &c. " Laid the price at the A|)ostles' feet." Some infer that this was an ostentations }»resentation of cliarity. Peter refers their sin to Satan, hnt ch:ir<)^es them with acconnt- ahility for it. What part had Peter in death of An.inias? Some deem it a miracle consciouslv' [lerformed by him, others think not Peter's act at all. Neander thinks that tiieir sndden disappointment and discovery killed them. This is not probable, especially as there are two cases. Donbtless l)y direct act of God with a view of shielding the church from danger, and teaching that her purity was to be jirotectod by discipline. Upon this view their punishment was not disproportionate to their crime. Skeptics refer the eftect produceil by this miracle to the enthusiasm and ci-edulity of the early Christians, Some believe usojTSf/ui, "young men," to have been deacons, but this office was not originated until time of Stephen. Eftect upon the church was to fill them with awe and to. keep them from becoming careless. Effect on commun- ity, V. 11, "Great fear came upon all liearing it," vs. 12, 18, "Of the rest durst no man join himself to them." This probably refers to others like Ananias. There was now an increase of gifts of liealing, and many cures were wrought. The faith of the church was strength- ened, and their numbers were again multiplied. This account dwells more on the inner life of the church than the descri[)tions in chs. 2 and 4. (3.) Second Persecution, (Ch. V. 17-42). Notice again the alternation between persecution and corrtiption. Church is now formidable, and success brought persecu- tion. High priest and his party joined with the Saddu- cees, who were the active party. From the prominence of Sadducees in this persecution, it is inferred that the H. P. was a Sadducee, for (1) history shows that Saddu- cees were more cruel than Pharisees, (2) the Sanhedrin was composed of sycophants and creatures of Rome. Tliese more likely to be Sadducees. (3) Later H. P. known to be a Sadducee. (4) The name of Pharisees as persecutors of the chur(;li is dropped after crucifixion. This is not a mere repetition of first persecution. That was accidental in its origin, but in this there was con- 38 eerted action, and more violence. In first, only Peter and John were accused, but in this the movement was against all the Apostles as representing the church. Divine interference b}' a miracle was called for. There was also greater popular excitement, so that rulers charge the Apostles with intending to avenge Christ's death upon them. The Aj'ostles being thrown into "the com- mon prison," the angel of the Lord was sent to release them. Skeptics here ask, what was the use of this release if they were again arrested next day ? And why did the Apostles not invoke such aid before the Sanhedrin ? Real design was to encourage the church — to show that Christ knew and permitted what happened to them, Baumc/atten compares this to Christ's exhibition of power in striking down the soldiers who came to arrest Ilim, though He did not afterwards use it. The disciples were scourged (v. 40), showing that theii- possession of mirac- ulous powers did not exempt them from the sufferings of their Master. As a further design it was a warning to their enemies. Trial before Sanhedrin. Some think the whole bench of elders was present. Tlie charge was the old one — teaching in the name of Christ. Peter's answer was brief, pointed and bold. "He ought to obey God rather than man." Notice his short, pithy state- ment of essential doctrines. Advice of Gamaliel — if this be of man it will come to nought, if of God ye can not overthrow it. Why not right principle ? Did not rise above worldly wisdom. They were in a dangerous posi- tion and it was prudent to wait. The Sanhedrin com- promises. They condemn the Apostles to silence after scourging them. As one effect of the persecution the church grew bolder. Objections to the narrative : 1. Gamaliel's course was impossible if the previous miracle was true. If the miracle was untrue, tlien all the pas- sage is untrue. 2. Pharisees would not become the pro- tectors of the church. Ans. This is a proof of authen- ticity, as no pseudo-Luke would represent the Pharisees as defending the church. 3. An anachronism is charged in Gamaliel's reference to Theudas. Josephus gives the account (Jos. XX. 5-11) but makes it ten years after date of Gamaliel, also places him aftfr Judas. Hence 39 some critics reject this wliolc account as an aftei-work. Some say tliat Joso[)luis is as likely to make a mistake as Luke, but that is not probable, as he gives details. Jo- seplius may refer to a subse([iient Judas, as it was a com- mon name. There were 4 Simons and o Judases that led revolts. Another explanation identifies Theudas with Mattliias who was with Judas. Hence Gamaliel jMits them totretlier. Wieseler says Theudas is equal to Mat- thias in Greek and Hebrew. The mention of later tax- ing under Quirinus by Luke, shows that he knew, (cf. Luke 2 : 1, 2, with Acts 5 : 37). Gamaliel's History. Was a grandson of Hillel, and son of Rabbi Simon, and head of strictest sect of the Jews. Lived till 43 or 53 A. D. The tradition which makes Gamaliel a Christian is not reliable. Saul would not have studied with a Christian. (4.) Second dijficalt>/ inithiii, leading to a new office in the cliurch, ch. 6 : 1-7). The narrative is introduced incidentally, hence no fuller account of the office. Trouble results from same source as before, viz : com- munity t)f goods. The Hellenistic Jews complained that their widows had been " neglected in the daily ministra- tion," The original Christians were Hebrew-speaking Jews, the otliers were Greek-speaking. The latter wer^ more liberal and less Pharisaic. Rman says Hellenistic Jews were more credulous. They received the truth more readily because of the liberality of foreign culture. The Jerusalem Jews held themselves above the foreign Jews. Whicli class pre(h)minated it is hard to say ; probably at first the Aramaic-s|>eaking Jews. This diffi- cultly was natural and less bhuneworthy tlian the fornier. If the cause really existed, it was justitiable. There was ])robably some just though unintentional cause for com- plaint, and tlie Apostles take stejis to remove it at once. They meet the (Jifficulty by the organization of a new office, thus recognizing the necessity of a more complete organization, which was in a(;cordance with their needs. Power of appointment resided in the church and not in the Apostles. It is now by election, whereas before it was by lot. They called the people together, and directed them to choose whom tliey thought worthy. They would 40 teach the cliurch that the H. S. was within her, and her members must exercise their power. Seven men were chosen, all of whom had Greek names. Some infer that the office previously existed, and was held by the He- brews. They refer to the '* young men," (ch. 5 : 6). But we have here the institution of an office, not the enlargement of an old office. This service had before been dischai-ged by the Apostles. (Ch. 5 : 2.) Others infer that the new office was an evidence of extraordinar}- charity on part of Hebrews. But Greek names do not prove that all were Hellenists. .Many flebrews had Greek names. Many Jews becoming Christians would take Greek names. Thus they would be more widely known. The only name rea|ipearing afterwards, besides Stephen and Philip, is Nicholas. Tradition derives the Nicolaitanes from hioK I'his sect is censured in Revela- tion, for making their liberty a cloak for licentiousness. Office was that uf deacons. Their function was probably more comprehensive than waiting on the poor and " serv- ing tables." The latter phrase includes all but prayer and teaching. This is the first step towards the univer- sality of the Gospel. Two, Stephen and Philip, became champions of emancipation. As a result of this the church increased. This was due to a better distribution of cliarities, the division of labor, and the zeal of those appointed. Promoted personal acquaintance and sympa- thy. " Great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." Their most violent opponents we see were being reached. They probably lost their office and live- lihood and were exposed to social obloquy. This con- version of priests not contradicted by the following per- secution on the part of the priests, because they were numerous, and divided in belief This new arrangement shows importance of ministry of word as related to other things. Apostles give themselves wholly to it. Ration- alists claim that power of Christianity lies in its social benefits. It is the elevation of slaves and women. Renan says Christianity was a movement of the poorer classes. Rationalists say deacons were best preachers. To them we are indebted for the power of Christianity. But the Apostles instituted this new office in order that they might give themselves to " the ministry of the word." 41 (5.) Third Persecution. Oil. 6: 8 — 7. Observe again the alternation ot'internal difficulty and outward persecution. The occasion of this persecution was Stephen's success in disi)uting with the unbelieving Jews, v. 9. Notice five names of countries. Some say two synagogues are here referred to — one of Northern Africa and one of Asia. Others one synagogue, others five. This perse- cution was a popular movement of zealots. Priests seized their opportunity. It proved to be a providential mode of scattering the Gros])el. This persecution distin- guished from others. 1. Oame from Pharisees and not Sadducees. Not asserted in te.xt, but consistent with its origin in Hellenistic synagogues. All Hellenists were not Sadducees, e. g., Paul. 2. The Ilelleui'^tic move- ment was onlv a connnencement. The churcli had grown rapidly and Pharisees were Jealous. Reasons: 1. The charge against Ste})hen is not of preaching doctrine of resurrection, but hlnsp}iern;i — the charge of Pharisees against Christ. It is said that Luke errs in calling thes*^ men false witnesses, for Stephen did teach thus. Thej' were false in perversion and exaggeration. 2. Change of popular feeling. The Pharisees were the popular party. Hitherto for 6 years the Christians had been in great favor. Many priests were converted. People joined with unbelieving priests and drove the Christinns from the city. 3. Pait taken by Saul of Tarsus. The list of synagogues includes Cilicia. He had attempted, poesibi}', to argue with Stephen out of the O. T. Hence his anger was aroused. Baur says this persecution dis- proves the former peace. Stephen's Defence. (Ch. 7.) In advance of his age. Takes a stand that the cliurch does not reach till Council of Jerusalem. Gives a profound view of philosophy of 0. T. history. This shows he was inspired, for he pre- cedes his time. Argument involves three elements : 1. Changes involved in old economy itself. Pharisees said any change is blasphemy. He traces this change thr(Mighout its history. The existing state of things did not antedate Solomon's time. It was oidy designed to be temporary. Pharisees, plan was contrary to mode of development. 2. Change involved in divine purpose. 42 3. These changes had been accomplished by the opposi- tions of the nation. Hence tlieir present opposition nothing strange. Why was persecution on this gronnd postponed till now? Because the particular eftect of Christianity had been left in abeyance until now. Stephen's doctrine was in advance of Peter's. This appears from a comparison with Peter's discourses. 1. Latter treated of the fullill- ment of prophecy — said nothing about the abrogation of Judaism. 2. Peter's surprise at the conversion of Cor- nelius. He thought Christianity was to be engrafted on the temple religion. Even after this at Antioch, he re- fused to meet the Gentile Christians at table. Peter's doctrine represented the church of his day, while that of Stephen was a positive advance. Not inconsistent with the Apostolic inspiration. There is no contradiction between Stephen and Peter. Peter's teaching implied change, but he did not fully realize it. He might have learned this of Christ. Christ liad taught that His second coming would involve a change. Isaiah's predictions involve all that Paul's writings contain, but he had not the same definiteness of view. Peter was inspired for one purpose, Stephen for another. The wonder is, not that Peter did not see, but that Paul and Steplien did. We find that the Apostles retired to the background here. Church under guidance of H. S. was in advance of the Apostles. The facts of the churcli were before the doctrines. Historically, the life of the church outran the Apostles. They conveyed divine sanction to what vv-as already done. Design was to train the church to be in- dependent of the Apostles — allowed healthful growth in the church. Advanced teaching was to result in Stephen's death -he was to be the martyr, and not Peter. The nar- rowness of Peter's mind gave him influence among the Jews. Now a more intellectual element asserts itself. Hellenistic circles were more liberal and cultured. Ste- phen's position is intermediate between Peter and Paul. Advance on Peter not merely in points of doctrine, but in the tendency of his whole teaching. He sees the destruction of Jewish worship, but does not yet declare abrogation of circumcision, and is not so full as Paul. 43 His speech suits its historical position — it is, therefore, a transitional discourse. Doctrine and history parallel. Desitrn was to gii\u the Jews. Did not preach the cutting oft' the Jews as Paul, as it was not suitahle for the time. It wotikl have increa.>*ed persecution. Church was not ready to understand till fact of calling the Gentiles was accomplished. Skeptics make Luke the author of the S|»eech. They ohject : 1, That the speech is artificial in arrangement. 2. It is jjremature and Pauline in doctrine. 3. How could his speec;h he preserved ? These difficulties apply to all these discourses. A view of its historical position answers these ohjections. There are two questions here : 1. Did Stephen finish his argument, or was he inter- rujited hy the judges ? He stops the history with David, hut he is not relating history for its own sake. He had arrived at the highest point of the national history, and had completed liis argument. Peivsonal application made proves that he had finished. 2. Was his death judicial, or by a mob ? There is no sentence recorded, and it is said, that the narrative reads like a description of mob violence. On the other hand, it was a regular court, a legal trial as in case of Christ. Violence is caused by Jewish prejudice. How came the Sanhedrin to have power of death sentence ? (Jno. 18 : 31.) But the policy of the Roman government was mild. First martyr, and the only one upon whom stress is laid. An instance of divine support to martyrs. The description here is ex- quisite — his tiice was radiant like an angel. "Fell asleep." Direct contrast between his mode of death and the tumult of the infuriated populace. Prayed to Jesus — committed his spirit to Jesus, v. 56. Only place title " Son of Man " used in N. T. except by Christ Himself. In most cases Christ is represented as sittinfj. but here as standing on right hand of God. This incident must have made a great impression upon Saul, who was standing by. Stephen has been called the forerunner of Paul. Ditficulties. This passage is parallel to the 0. T. Hence the ap[»arent ditficulties of which skeptics make the most. In v. 2, Abraham is said to have been called before, and in Gen. 12 : 7, after he dwelt in Haran. 44 But the call was repeated, Gen. 15 : 7. In v. 4, it is said that he came into Canaan wlien his father died. But (Gen. 11 : 26-32) Terali lived 60 years after Ahraham left Haran. But his age was given when the eldest son was born. (See Alexander on Acts, Vol. 1, p. 258.) Compare v. 5 with Gen. 11 : 26-32. In v. 14, it is said that the number wdiieh came out of Egvpt was 75 souls, which agrees with tlie nun)ber given in LXX., but in the Hebrew the round number 70 is given. Dr. Alex- ander proposes three probable wa^-s of accounting for this variation. (See Commentary on Acts.) In v."l6, it is said that the bones of the Patriarchs were buried in a field which " Abraham bought of sons of Emmor," but in Gen. 33: 9, Jacob is said" to have bought the field. v. 23. Age of Moses when he returned to Egypt not found in 6. T. — exegesis of v. 43. There is only one case of all these difficulties, the explanation of which is not easy, and as to this, our judgment may fairly be held in suspense. This closes the First Period. The details are full and skillfully selected. We have seen the origin and progress of persecution. Church has increased by receiving ele- ments from all classes. The doctrines of Peter's dis- courses are not inconsistent with Paul's. The corres- pondence is too striking, say the skeptics. In the epistles we find Paul and Peter in dispute. They find a difficulty in the foct that Peter teaches in Acts some of Paul's doctrines. Paul teaches Christ as u^oc deou and Peter as Ttaci: deou — both speak of death and resurrection, but Peter as foretold, and esjiecially of resurrection. Paul brings out the death as foundation of Christianity — repentance and faith— justification by faith. Both teach that Jews and Gentiles should receive the Gospel, but Peter thought they liad first to come within the pale of Judaism. Pilate is removed from office 86 A. D. Tiberius died in 37 A. D., and the new emperor Caligula appointed Marcellus procurator. Pilate had incurred the serious displeasure of the Jews during his tyrannical rule. Mar- cellus indulged tlie Jews, and this led to a greater perse- cution of the Christiana. Caligula's policy w^as to deify 46 himself, and fortius purpose he had -statues of himself erected all over the empire. This led to the violent op- position of Jews. The attitude of the civil power was favorable to tlie extension of the extra-Palestinian church, hut favor to the Jews permitted persecution of Christians at home. SECTION 2.— EXTP]N8rON OF THE WORK FROM JERUSALEM TO ANTIOCII. CHAPTERS VIII-Xll. I, The Preparation for Gentile Missions [VIII: 1- 4] is found in the dispersion which followed the third persecution, vs. 1-4. V. 2 contains account of Stephen's burial. The epithet "devout men" is nowhere applied to Christians. It probably refers to Jews who had no sym- pathy with the violent measures against Stephen. In v. 1 the term ixxk/jaio. is first used in Acts. It is taken here in local sense, because it occurs at the beginning of tlie [)eriod, when organizations began to be formed elsewhere than at Jerusalem, after this model of the body first organized at Pentecost. The ])ersecuti(yn was severe. The anxiety and jealousy of priests and Jews was very great. The first martyrdom seems to have intensified the opposition. Saul was dis- tinguished by his furious zeal, lie made havoc — ravaged the church, going from house to house. Murders were committed (26 : 10), neither age nor sex was respect- ed. There was public punishment in the synagogues. Christians were compelled to blaspheme. The immediate result of the persecution was that the community was scattered throughout Judea and Samaria, though the organization was not destroyed. Before this time there wa3 no disposition to leave Jerusalem. No missionary spirit liad as yet appeared. They were at this time forced by Providence into the world for the spread of the gos- pel. The}' learned that Jei'usalem was no longer to be their Zion. By the dispersion they learned the divine plan. They were "all scattered." Rationalists (Baur) say- TTcfj/rec means Hellenists. But this would leave the 46 church in Jerusalem entirely Judiiistic, which is contrary to Pauline type, Banms^arten says 7idvz£^ refers to the congregation about Stephen on the day of his death. The common view makes Trd^'ve^ hyperbolical for "most" or "many." Some must have stayed behind, as Paul made havoc of the church after the dispersion. IJAtju zibv \^7:oar6Mov is by some taken as additional proof that the persecution was only Hellenistic. Others say it is foreign to the text. Its real significance appears in the fact that the Apostles had no command to depart. They did not leave through fear, because persecution had been foretold. Besides, the divine purpose was carried out in the founding of the Gentile church without the interven- tion of the Apostles, who u}) to this time had Judaistic conceptions of the work. As to the manner in which the Apostles were spared, notldng is known. Some suppose they were regarded with awe, but all that appears in the narrative is that they were spared. Those scat- tered went everywhere preacliing. Conversions were effected and churches founded through individuals. This period is one of transition between the mother churcli and the works of Paul. (Ch. 18.) Its length, about eight years. Everything recorded in it has a ref- erence to Paul's future work, and in it various changes were effected which made his work possible. The church was gradually educated to the work of Gentile missions. Stages in this preparation appear: (1.) In the formation of the opinion especially among Hellenists, that Judaism was to be abolished. (2.) In the conversion of Gentiles prior to the sending of missionaries. They were in the first instance introduced into the church without formal action on their own part or that of the Apostles. Their reception without circumcision was sanctioned by the vision of Peter in the case of Cornelius, though it was not sanctioned by the whole church, and finally an- nounced till some years later. (3.) In the great widen- ing of the basis of the church, Syria, (Damascus,) Sama- ria, Judea, Arabia and Rome, received the Word. (4.) In the preparation of the man for the work (Paul,) as the age had been preparing for him. 47 The history is not n full narrative, but illustrates by striking examples. The work in Samaria and the narra- tive of Philip and the Eunuch are typical. II. First Extension to Samaria under Philip. Ch. VIII: 4-26. This brinies into the narrative an entire change of scene, and introduces to a heathen community. Pliilip, the agent, is mentioned ne.xt to Stephen in the list of deacotis, and appears to have been like liim in general qualifications. The place to which Philip went is in A. V. called "the city of Samaria." B. and Cod. Sin. give the article, but the weight of evidence is against it. The place designated is by some regarded as Sychar, and by others as Saniaria. But from vs. 9, 14, the designation applies to the whole district. V. 25 also indicates that the whole province was evangelized. This rapidity of the spread of the (Gospel among Samaritans is due (1) To their previous knowledge of the Scriptures. They wor- shiped Jehovah and (John 4 : 25) expected the .Messiah. (2) To their knowledge of the life and death of Christ. The memory of His visit to tiiem was also in their minds. As they heard Him gladly then, they would now he wil- ling to listen to Ilis followers. Their susceptibility is shown by the easy triumphs of Simon Magus. Relation to Cornelius. The relation of these Samaritan converts to the conversion of Cornelius is a matter of importance. Three opinions are held about it. (1) Cor- nelius was the first Gentile received withoutcircnmcision, for the Samaritans were received as circumcised and worsliipers of Jehovah. (2) Intermediate: Those who hold that preaching to the Gentiles could be done first only by the Apostles, as in the case of Cornelius, say that the Samaritans were not strict heathen, but occupied an intermediate position. Peter might, therefore, go so far as to receive them after tliey had already received the Word under Philip. (8) The estimate which was made of the Samaritans indicates that they were virtually Gen- tiles. They were excluded from tlie temple and classed among Gentiles both in O. T. and N. T. Christ forbade the disciples to go into any of their villages, and Ilia own visit was an exception. Ue called the breach between them and the Jews greater than that between Jews and 48 Gentiles. They were practically in the place of heathen, and therefore Cornelius was not the first Gentile convert. The wall of exclnsiveness was broken down. Jew and Gentile were one. The reception of tlie Gentiles is thus due, not to the agency of the Apostles, but to the inward growth of the cl)urch. It was later merely contirrnedby the Apostles. This idea of the spontaneous reception of Gentiles is contirnied by Ch. 11 : 19, 20. Two par- ties, Jews and Hellenists, seem to liave arisen and exerted their influence. These vs. do not show the chronologi- cal relation of the context, the}' refer back to time of Stephen's death. The Gospel was preached to the Jews, and according to T. R. to the 'EUr^ueazd^. If this read- ing, supported by B. E. G. H. be correct, the verse con- tradicts the above mode of the spread of the Word. The other reading ' EUr^va:: is sujtported by A. D. and the only coherent reading of Cod. Sin. It is also formed by the internal argument, as it was Jiothing new that the gospel should be preached to the 'A7//jv;Ovver of God, or according to the sys- tem, asoneofthe highest emanations from deity. There is ditiiculty in deciding what is the truth concerning him. 51 He was more than jiif^glcr, and probably entertained rudimentary Gnostic ideas. In bis relation to Ibe Gos- pel be is tyi)ic'al of beatben [)bih)S()pby in opposition to Ciiristianity, as death of Ste[)iien represents tbe bitter- ness of Jmbustie opposition. III. Pjiilipandtue KuNUCii. 8:2G-40. Pbibp, aft(;r his work in Samaria, was directed by an ansfel sontbward toward Gaza, On bis way lie met tbe ennticb. Tbe interview and its result ntixt occupy tbe narrative. Its t3[)ical cbaracter justities its place at tins point in tbe history. The conversion of tbe eunuch is significant of tbe spread of tlie Gos[iel to tbe entls of tbe earth. He represented tbe heathen farthest removed from tbe , Jews. Rationalists say that the narrative, though beautiful, is not historic. The term fyji^ubyo^ is ditferently explained. (1) some take it to indicate that the man was a proselyte, because he was reading the Scriptures, and had been to Jerusalem to worship. (2) Others think it designates liim as a court officer. (3) Others take the term in its ordinary sense, and because it makes tbe man a pagan, consider bis conversion as the more remarkable. Euse- bius says be was tbe tirst uncircumcised heathen con- verted. If so, his conversion is another anticipation of the typical case of Cornelius. The eunuch was from tbe island of Meroe, 300 miles up tbe Nile, where tbe Candace dynasty reigned, as we learn from Strabo and Dion Cassius. This identitication favors tbe third view, and shows the eunuch as the representative of the Gos- pel in f(U'eign lands. He came tVom a wealthy land, the mart ossession of such a city on Roman ter- ritory, appears from the knowledge we iiave of the ill feeling between Aretas and Herod Antipas, because Herod liad repudiated his wife, who was the king's daugh- ter. Tlie withdrawal of the Roman army under Vitellius gave Aretas oj)portunity to occupy Damascus. His actual possession is conlirmed by the fact tliut noRr.man coins of Damascus are found in the reigns of Caligula and Claudius, while coins of Augustus and Tiberius, and again of Nero and his successors, imply that Damascus 53 wa.s Roman. The coins of Aretas, bearinij tlu' inscrip- tion [-iaatlzM^ \li)sz()0 ^r/£///^voc, J^'e 1)V t^ome taken to con- tirni the Arabian possession, thoujjh what the inscription means, is not clear. The conversion of Saul is made prominent in the narrative. He was a new man for a new work, an ait|»earM in the necessity for an nnder- standiiiii: between him and the other Apostles. The unity of the church demanded it. Scliism seemed imminent otherwise. And yet there was no formal recognition of his authority, lest it siiould be thoui!:ht he gained it from the Apostles, instead of Christ. Whether Paul's visit was before the conversion of Cornelius is not knowti, but his ministry to the Gentiles was not recognized for nearly two years after he went to Jerusalem, Gal. 2 : 7. When the Afiostles had seen his success, they gave him the right hand of fellowship. They came to a recogni- tion of liis specific ministry a long while after his call to it. Paul was led gradually to his work. No work appears under him among the Gentiles till seven years after his conversion. He at first seemed inclined to tarry at Jeru- salem. Several visions were given to guide him. The church was being made ready. He does not seem to have begun his distinctively Apostolic work till Barnabas brought him to Antioch. His preparation was long. He spent three years in Tarsus or Cilicia, because he was there from 40 till one year prior to 44, the date of his first journey, Acts 11:25-26. There is no account of the founding of the Cilician churches, but from 15: 41 it is gathered that they were founded by Paul during this residence in Tarsus, as no other date for them suits the narrative better. The two lines of preparation appear throughout, that of tiie woi-k and the man, and the agency of God's [)rovidence is seen in all. V. The Conversion of Cornelius. 9: 31 — 11:18. (1) Introductory, ch. 9:31-43. This takes the history back to show the condition of the Jewish church, and how it had prospered. Ch. 11 : 1-18 gives the sequel of the conversion, in wliich Peter answers the objections urged by the Jews against fellowsliip with the Gentiles, and satisfies their minds. The two miracles in ch. 9 were private in their character, and have no essential bearing on the history. They come in to give us a picture of the Jewisli church prior to the commencement of the great work of Paul. It was important that it should not be forgotten. As a result of the miracles the churches grew. The narrative represents them at this point as receiving ©2 many accessions, and shows this to he the reason for selectinoj and recording these two miracles. The "churches" also, 9 : 31, had rest or peace. Instead of the plural, however, Cod. Sin. A. B.and C. read "church," and if this be adopted it signities the essential unity of the body. That the church had peace at this time indi- cates its internal unity at the time of its enlargement, a fact requiring distinct recognition. By the A. V. the con- nection of this verse is lost. It apparently refers to the conversion of Paul, and gives the idea that the rest and increase resulted from the change in him. But the verse does not refer to Paul. He had himself suffered in the persecutions which he raised. His influence could not account for such increase. The verse, therefore, is to be taken in connection with the narrative of Stephen's death. It begins anew paragraph in the history. Addi- tional reason for this connecting of v. 31 may be found by remembering that Peter's tour of visitation was prior to Paul's visit to Jerusalem, three _years after his conver- sion, Gal. 1 : 18. Tlie peace existed before Paul's recog- nition by Peter and the other Apostles. This fact also shows that Peter's change of mind was not due to the influence of Paul. The conversion of Cornelius was before Peter met Paul. The persecution was lessened because the disciples were driven from Jerusalem and scattered. Besides, peace for the church resulted from a change in the Roman policy. Caligula, (37-40) the ruling emperor, was at flrst mild toward the Jews, but became cruel, and called for the visit of Philo on behalf of his persecuted countrymen. While the Jews were suffering the Christians were left in comparative peace. Evidence of the peaceful condition appears (1) In Peter's tour of visits. (2) From the formation of churches in Saron, (Acts 9:32,) not previously mentioned. (3) In the grace of the primitive church manifested in the case of Tabitha. (4) In the conversion of the people resulting from con- spicuous, miracles e. g., the conversion of Eneas and rais- ing of Tabitha. Ch."9:43 indicates that Peter's Jewish prejudices had been mitigated. Simon's trade was con- sidered unclean by the Jews. Peter's residence with him is significant of the immediately future policy of the church. 63 (2.) The Convkrhion. Chapter 10 opens with the con- version of Cornelius, the event vvhiclifi^ivve divine sanction to the admission of the Gentiles, and prepared tlie way for missions. Its importance appears in its averting schism. Some Gentiles liad already been received, and the time of crisis concernini; their rii^ht to enter tlie church had now come. Both the Apostles and the Jews must be instructed. An Apostle, therefore, first has it revealed to him that the church is to be gathered from the uncircnmcision as well as the circumcision. The conversion of Cornelius was, however, the confirmation, fiot the initiation of Gentile reception. That he was the tirst uncircumcised heathen received is still held, but various opinions exist on the matter. Lechler, Alford, Schaff, Banmgarten give cotitradictory views on this mat- ter, maintaining that the conversion occurred prior to the accessions to the church at Antioch. But it does not appear that the conversion came bel'ore the work at Antioch. There was no connection between the two events. One occurred in Palestine at Coesarea under Peter, the oth^r far north, under other preachers, after Peter went back to Jerusalem. Besides, the movement at Antioch was at iirst directed specially to the Jews, that at Ccesarea to the Gentiles. The misconception as to C/ornelius being the iirst heathen convert arises from tiie fact that Luke records it first, and from the assump- tion that the Apostles must originate every movement. " The case of Cornelius is in no causal relation to tlie entrance of Gentiles." [Neander.] The Hellenists first made their way among the Gentiles, and gave them the Gospel. The importance of the conversion leads to great circumstantiality in its narration. The conversion is thrice told, the vision thrice repeated, wydle the conver- sion of the 5000 at Pentecost is mentioned in a single sentence. The miraculous is made prominent, because a Jew would not give u}) his exclusive privileges without clear evidence of the divine will. The selection of the persons concerned is significant. Peter was a recognized leader in the Jewish church, and was therefore a suitable agent to confirm the reception of the Gentiles, where Paul, e. g., would have had no influence. 64 Cornelius was a representative of the heathen world. He was a Roman soldier, an instrument of Roman powder, represented by the- fourth beast in the vision of Daniel. He was one of that nation which took away the theocrat- ic power of the Jews — a typical Roman. Besides, he was a representative of the heathen in a moral sense. He was dissatisfied with heathen reliijion, sympathized with the Jews, was charitable and God-fearing. Some main- tain that he was a proselyte of the gate. But the dis- tinction between a proselyte of tlie gate and a prosel^'te of righteousness was not till after the Jews came under the power of the Romans. So that if Cornelius was not a proselyte of righteousness, a proselyted Jew, he was a heathen in the Jews' eyes. The Italian band, of which he was a member, constituted the body-guard of the governor. It was a cohort, which was the tenth part of a legion, A cohort consisted of three maniples, and each maniple of two centuries, which originally were made by a hundred men, but later by a number between 60 and 100, and were under command of a centurion. Rcvelaiinn was by visions. Cornelius was prepared by prayer. Peter's hunger prepared him for the nature of his vision. The double vision has analogy in the gos- pels of Mt. and Luke in revelation of the name of Jesus to Joseph and Mary. Cornelius' vision, occurred at 3 P. M, Peter's came at noon the next day. A sheet was let down from heaven containing all manner of clean and unclean animals, i. e., specimens. Otliei-s say it contain- ed four-footed animals of all sorts or very many kinds, and others say it contained all kinds of four-footed beasts, as well as reptiles and birds. "Slay and eat" is variously explained. Dr. Alexan- der says the usual doco is here used in its sense of slaying for sacrifice. Dr. Lange thinks otherwise. It seems to refer, not merely to the satisfaction of his appe- tite, but to those ceremonial restrictions under which the law of Moses placed the Jews, both in their worship and the daily use of necessary food. Peter was to make his selection from among those animals, either for food or for sacrifice, without distinction as to clean or unclean. Vision was repeated twice. Some think the beasts de- 65 sceiiditig from heaven are symbolical of the fact that the Gentilea were the offspring of God. Others think tlie vision was intended to repeal all ceremonial laws. The common view is best, that the ceremonial law with regard to food is taken as representative of al! ceremonial require- ments. See the teachings of Christ concerning food. If men were separated by the food they ate, when tliese requirements were abolished, men could come into social intercourse. These distinctions of clean and unclean food were of greatest moment to the Jews. As Peter pondered, the men from Cornelius asked for him. It was shown to him l)y the Spirit that the three men sought for h\\n, 10:19. The Spirit made the application of his vision to him. lie did not go on his own authority. The time at which his vision occurred left time for the journey of the men from Csesarea to Joppa, a distance of 35 miles. Discourse of Peti^ir, 34-43, is similar to that at Pen- tecost, though the latter is fuller of doctrine. It there- fore shows an advance in Peter's views. It was the first discourse delivered to a Gentile congregation. His hear- ers were Cornelius, his household and his near tViends. The advance in Peter's views appears (1) In his know- ing now, what he did not know before, and his confession that his mind was ciianged. (2) Enlarged doctrinal views in connection with truth already revealed. He preached before, salvation by faith and grace — but here, he shows it to be a personal matter. God looks at the heart. He sketches the work of Christ as the basis of universal acceptance. He mentions Christ's proplietic work towards the Jews, He refers to His priestly work in His atoning death and to His kingly office in the exaltation succeed- ing the resurrection. He is Lord of all. By Him God is to judge world. The condition of salvation is shown to be faitii ; its api)lication is confessed to be universal. (10: 43) And all this (he says) was foretold by the prophets. Holy Ghost fell on all. This direct divine interposition is a climax of the narrative. Demonstra- tion of the Holy Ghost's presence is in tlie gift of tongues. This represents the union of the divided human family. Jew^s and Gentiles have the same Savior, hence this has been well called the" Gentile Pentecost." 66 (3.) Effect Produced on the Jews. Ch. XI. : 1-18. The Jewisli Cliristians who were brethren were taken an witnesses. The matter of evidence was not left to Peter alone. (10: 23-11:12.) Peter was taken to task by " them of the circumcision," who represented the party who believed in the necessity of this rite. All in Jerusa- lem were circumcised. Peter said God had sanctioned the work, showing he was led to higher doctrine b}- re- vealed instructions which were given to him personally. Advance here in the mind of the church as well as in the mind of the Apostle. Peter now recalls the truth before taught by Christ. The promise of the Spirit (11: 15, 16). What the Apostles see now, they compare with what they heard before. This is no new truth, but development of tlie old. This is a, fine illustration of the advance in understanding of the truth. Effect of Peter's speech is stated. There was great joy at the reception of Christianity by the Gentiles, which fact proves the humility of Christians at Jerusalem. Such action was in reality a substantial sacrifice on their part. It is objected tliat this rejoicing is inconsistent with the subsequent jealousy of tlie Jews, because the Gentiles were received witliout circumcision. Ans. : Statement is general. It does not say, all re- joiced. Many did rejoice at the admission of first Gen- tile to the church. So clearly sanctioned by God. They did not foresee its practical consequences, and the}' after- wards changed their minds when tliey saw the Gentiles outnumbering them, and their privileges taken away. Rationalistic View. Tiibingen critics say, the narra- tive is at variance with the alleged fact that the Gentiles were admitted by Paul. The doctrines of grace are peculiar to Paul, and hence Peter did not arrive at the view exhibited here by a process independently of Paul. Hence tliis narrative of Luke is pronounced a myth, or regarded, with Baur, as a pious fraud designed to har- monize late diflferences between Peter and Paul. The nucleus of the myth is Peter's baptism of a Roman proselyte — an incident wliich attracted great attention. Argument: 1. Peter's position is indisputably inconsist- ent with Paul's statement regarding him in Galatians 2: 67 12-14, wlieii the former is re[)resente(] as fearing to do what he is exhibited in Actts as sanctioning. Ans. Objection is based on a misinterpretation of the passage in (irahitians. Then Peter is confessedly inconsistent with himself, not with doctrine concerning circumcision. Peter exacted more than lie did liimself. He acknowl- edged the inconsistency as recorded in Galatians by his action here as recorded in Acts. Argument 2. Peter's discourse could not have been written before Paul's epistles were written. Its contents are Pauline. Ans.: This is a begging of the question and is not true. Be- sides, Pauline characteristics Jiot yet reached ; people have not cotne to see the conseciuences of the admission and of the discourse. Arguments. There are too many visions. Those of Peter ai'e imitation of Paul's, whose position it was attempted to vindicate. This could be known only to the recipient. Could be accounted for by high state of emotion brought on b}' fasting. Answer: Two instances so remote from each other could not be explained without involving the supernatural. The two visions authenticate each other as in case of Paul and Ananias. This vision was necessary to produce a cliange in Peter, as is evident from the narrative in Galatians. Peter could not co-operate with Paul except on ground of such vision. Renan and Tiibingen scholars admit the facts — but hold they were perverted by the writer and transformed for basis of reconciliation. VI. Antioch; XI:19-30. (43— 44 A. D.) Fourth radiation from Jerusalem. Conversion of Gentiles at Antioch did not result from that of Cornelius, because it is said that majority of those who went from Jerusalem to Antioch preached to Jews only. Besides, if conver- sion of Gentiles resulted from conversion of Cornelius, Peter would in all probability have remained in vicinity of Caisarea, where one-half of population was pagan, to prosecute the work. Whereas, after his brief mission, confined to one family, he goes to Jerusalem. V. 19 evidently goes back to death of Stephen. If so we have parallel lines of preparation in the church and in the man. Both Paul was now ready for his work, and the whole church ready to accept his teaching. Place — 68 Antioch, which was most suitable, exquisitely situated on tlie Orontes, 15 miles from the coast; the capital of Syria, the seat of the procurator, the third city in the empire ; with a population of half a million ; of commer- cial importance; wiiere Greek element predominated ; hio^hly cultivated; wealthy; luxurious; mythological. The Gentile mind sought after solution of great problems of religion in the speculations of ])hilosophy, or skepti- cism buried them out of sight in immorality. It is impos- sible to think of the success of the Gosjiei in the world without changing its center from Jerusalem, which pos- sessed neither the wealth nor the energy adapted to spread of the Gospel. The chuix-li tlien simply awaited the destruction of tlie city. This apparentlj- jeopardized the unity of the Christian organization. But the mother church at Jerusalem exercised her relative authoi-ity. Pains are taken here to illustrate the introduction of the new element. Mother cliurch questions Peter concern- ing the conversion of Cornelius, and sends Barnabas to Antioch. Barnabas sent. The question here raised, why were Apostles not sent, as Peter and John to Samaria, and why was not Barnabas sent by the Apostles. Rationalists say this shows the prejudices of the Apostles against the Gentiles. They would not recognize them as a new party in the church, nor continue the movement. Some say that this proves theEbionisni of the Apostles. True view : There were none but Hellenists engaged in preaching to the Hellenists at Antioch. Barnabas was a Hellenist of Cyprus, eh. 4 : 36, and a " good man," that is, liberal, large-hearted. Baumgarten : It shows a con- scious reserve and self-denial on the part of the Apostles. Some say that the Apostles felt that their own activities must be directed to Jewish church. They were of opinion that Paul was sufficient for Gentile work. Some : The Apostles lacked true sympathy, yet we see the plan of Christ to separate the growth of the church from their authority, and to pass over the work among the Gentiles to Paul. Dr. Alexander: "Paul was included in the Apos- tolic commission with Barnabas, who was authorized by the mother church to associate Paul with him as soon as 69 he found that the fuovenieiit at Antiocli was ij^eiiuine," This point is strengthened by the onHtf)m of (Christ send- \ug the Apostles two by two. The sjreat objection to this view is that it is not in the text. This, however, may be partly met by believing that Paul was away from Jerusalem at the time wlien Barnabas was sent. Why was Barnabas sent by church and not by Apostles, Some : The message from Antioch comes to the churcli. She com{)lies. Some : What was done by the church in Jerusalem was done by the Apostles. Great success attended the prcaciiing of Barnabas, the work increased. [le went to Tarsus for Saul. They both worked together for a whole year 48, 44, A, D. [Date of Herod's death.] Nein name of Christians is connected with the new movement. As tlie organization was called a cliurch on day of l*entecost. So its members are designated Chris- tians witli reference to missionary woi'k. Name was evidently not given by themselves, as it occurs onlv 3 times in'K T. (Acts 11: 26; 26: 28; 1 Peter 4: 16,) and in those passages applied from without. It did not come from tlie Jews; for Christ was a Messianic title. They would have likely called them Jesuits. It seems to have been given and chiefly used by pagans. Probably its origin is Roman (Olsiiausen.) It was not at first given in a good sense though hardly framed out of contempt, Baumgarten, DeWette. Its significance in marking a new era is great. The church required a new name. As long as Christians were confined to Pales- tine, the Gentiles could see no difterence between them and Jews. In Antioch, however, the people were hostile to the-Jew8. They now constituted a new body and would refuse to lose tlieir identity among the Jews. The name conveys a deeper meaning. Christ announced that His church should receive the unction of the Holy Spirit. Christ=Messiah = Anointed. Christians anointed by the Spirit in union with Christ. The Jews and Gentiles were fused together. Both are called Christians. In sight of the world they are one body. 2nd chapter of Galatians shows that the two parties continued there in the one church. 70 Befijimiing of the church at Antioch is marked by the same graces as the beginning at Jerusalem, (community of goods at Jerusalem has its counterpart in collection made at Antioch for churches in Judea. Here is the obligation to mother church exemplitied, and spiritual benetit derived by the Gentiles acknowledged. Like- wise is the calling of the Gentiles and their admission to the church sanctioned to Peter by gift of tongues as at Pentecost. The charity thus manifested and thus devel- oped preserved unity of tlie church which was endan- gered just now. Paul made collections for this end in various places, to mitigate the jealousy between Jew and Gentile. Calling of the Gentiles indicate that the abro- gation of the old system was at hand. Agabus prophe- sied that a famine was approaching. Now the famine was predicted by Christ to be a precursor of the destruc- tion of Jerusalem. After which event, the temple being razed to tlie ground, the Jewish religion was virtually abolished. The church at Antioch was founded in view of this destruction. Offices mentioned. Prophet and elder. Prophet in O. T. was inspired teacher who gave particular attention to prediction of future events; in N.T. this element is sub- ordinate. The case of Agabus is one of the few instan- ces of prediction. Elders first mentioned v. 30. This office was borrowed from tlie synagogue, after tlie model of which, and not after 'the model of the temple the Christian church was constituted b}' the Apostles. Hence the eldership is not mentioned as new. Difficulties : 1. It is alleged that there was no such unusual dearth during the reign of Claudius Caesar (41-54) who succeeded Caligula. Ans : Four local fam- ines occurred during his reign, which succeeded one another so rapidly, that they may be considered as con- stituting one continuous, progressive famine. A famine visited Judea and the adjacent countries in 41 A. D., (according to Lardner) or according to others in 44, which is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 20: 2: 5) as the cause of many deaths, and which is represented bj' Suetonius and Tacitus as a great dearth which came upon the whole empire in the days of Claudius Csesar. This gives siguifi- 71 cance to the aid sent from Antioch. It was directed to Judea alone. At this time the dearth in Palestine was specially severe, for Izates, king of Adiabene, and his mother Helena, a Jewisli proselyte then at Jernsalem, im])()rted food from Egypt and Cy[)rns, to be distributed among the people. Joseplins (Ant. 20 : 2 : 5.) 2. Some deny that the church at Antioch was recognized by the church in Jerusalem, claiming that Paul and Barnabas went on a mission independent of the church, and not Hcnt by her. We never reaearance of the owl of ill-omen ; (3) and mentions only violent abdominal pains. I^uke : " he was eaten of worms." These accounts agree in important features and are complementary. The death of Herod was the knell of Jewish independence. Relig- ious oversight was then esiablished by the Romans. Although this oversight was committed, for a time, to Herod of Chalcis, and to Agrippa H., before whom Paul was tried. The death of Herou is set in contrast with the persecution of the brethren and the death of James. In s[iite of all, the word of the Lord grew and multi[»lied. This is the key-note to the book of Acts. Luke now resumes the history of the church, with which the events recorded in vs. 19-23, were only indirectly connected. 74 PART II. PAUL AND THE CHURCH AMONG THE GENTILES. CHS. XIII— XXVIII. Period I. Paul's First Missionary Journly. Chs. 13, 14. A. D. 44—50. I. Apostles chosen for the work. Ch. XIII. : 1-3. Paul retmiis to Aiitioch with Biiniabas and Mark. Nar- rative now turns from Peter to Paul, and from Jerusalem to Antioch. Tliose holding documentary hypothesis consider chs. 13 and 14, to be incorporated into the nar- rative of Luke. There are points of analogy between the beginning of cliurch in Jerusalem and at Antioch; (1) great development of charity and Christian love in An- tioch flowing in two directions — more catholic and with wider range. Relief sent to the church — missionaries ^o tlie Ijeathen world. (2) Manifestation of the Spirit by extraordinary gifts. In Antioch there were prophets and teachers. Holy Ghost remained in the church. " The Holy Ghost said, sei»arate me Barnabas and Saul." Points of contrast. Development of Christianity in Jeru- salem more sudden and miraculous than at Antioch, wliere it is gradual and practical. Predominance of miracles in early pei-iod,say some. Analogous with same phenomena at birth of Christ. Contrast explained by the following considerations: In Jerusalem the church was founded by immediate interposition of God Himself. In Antioch the church was founded by an extension of the church in Jerusalem. Jerusalem experienced a Pente- costal outpouring. In Antioch there was the preaching of converts. In Jerusalem the Apostles take the lead. In Antioch Paul does not assume tlie same absolute con- trol. The church at Antioch acts, though Paul was jires- jent. In realit\', the church and her ministry are com- bined. By laying on of hands on Paul and Barnabas; the church recognizes their call to a specific work. It is not an act calling them to a higher office — but an act of separation. Lechler: "Paul here for first time assumes his Apost(dic office, on recognition of the church." This is untenable, for he had been already preaching six years as missionary of the church, and had exercised Apostolic 75 authority. But now he comes to a new stasre of his work. Here we see the Imnian and the divine as^encies proui- inent. The Holy Ghost called them to the work — the church acknowledujes the divine command. The names oftlie ministers are Hellenistic, except Manaen, (a He- brew name), who was foster-brother of Herod Antipas. Paul is mentioned last. The expense of tlie mission was probably assumed by the church, for when Paul returns he goes to the church to give an account. Such was the first formal foundation of missions, hitherto the gospel had been preached hy individuals. n. The Journey. XHI : 4— XIV : 28. (1) Paul IN Cyprus. XTH: 4-12. Paul went by Seleu- cia to Cyprus, whose ]")eople liad been among the first to preach the Gospel to Antiochians. Reasons for going to Cyi»rus are : 1. It was near and populous. 2. It was the birth-place of Barnabas. 3. The truth when brought by Bariiabas and kinsman Mark, would attract attention of their friends. 4. Some of the Cypriotes were already Christians and preachers of the Word. Cyprus lay west- ward. PauTs journey and work always lay westward. Renan says, '• the direction of his journey was ever controlled by the Roman Empire and Mediterranean Sea." The Gospel was to go from Jerusalem to Rome, and the great sea facilitated communication. After land- ing at Salamis, Paul and Barnabas preached in the syna- gogue, and were aided by John Mark, who was a Jeru- salem Jew, and wlio took part in the Jf^wish work. Paul preached to the Jews at first in Salamis, and elsewhere in every availahle synagogue. It is objected, 1. that this action of Paul is inconsistent. If he preached to the Jews first, there was nothing new in the Antioch move- ment, as that had always been customar3\ (Baur.) This, saj' the Rationalists, was introduced for irenic pur- poses, to reconcile the practice of Peter with that of Paul. Ans. : The objection is absurd. Because in Salamis they preached to the Jews first is no proof that Paul's, intention was not to preach to the Gentiles. 2. It is ob- jected again that this course is contradictory to Paul's own doctrine in Romans and Galatians regarding the 76 rejection of the Jews. Ans. : 1. Prophets, Apostles and Christ liimself taiijylit that rejection of the Jews was the consequence of their own sins. Jew must yet be first. li ejection of tlie Gospel at Jerusalem was not merely representative. It is a local, per- sonal, individual matter. The Gospel offered to the Jews everywhere, and rejected everywhere. 2. Rejec- tion of the Jews was not to he lir.al ; the offer of Christ must he continued even until now. The Gospel is for individuals, as well as nationi. 3. The objection pro- ceeds on a false idea that Paul should go to the Gentiles alone. His Gospel was for all who would accej)t it. 4. Objection is contrary to Komans 1 : 16. This course manifests earnest desire for the salvation of Jews (Horn. 11 : 14.) 5. Practical reason. This was best mode of teacliing the people. Those in the Jewisli synagogues would understand him, ai.d through them an introtbic- tion to heathen society would be gained. Paul went westward to Paphos, capital of Cyprus, where lived the ruler, Sergius Paulus,his first lieatlien convert, and wliere Elymas, the sorcerer, was struck blind. Acts 13: 6-12. Notice here the accuracy of Luke : It was long thought be was mistaken in calling the governor Sergius Paulus, avdv-oxo^. Augustus divided tlie prt)vinces of the Iion)an emjtire into prormo'cB senatorice, and p^'ovincice impera- tori(E vel Ccesari, tlie former being left under the nomi- nal care of the senate, tiie latter under the direct control of the emperor. To the former, the senate sent (»fficers for one year, called di'd'jzaTOi, or proconsids. Those sent to command in the latter were called proprietors. Now Cyjjrus wasan im])erial province, reserved by Augustusfor himself, and of course as such would be governed by pro- prretors, such as Pilate, Festus, Felix, and not by pro- consuls or duO'jTzaToc. But sliortly befoie this time, as is expressly stated by Strabo, Dion Cassius, Cyprus was re- stored to the senate, and hence was governed now by a proconsul or duduTzato:;. In confirmaiion of the minute accuracy of Luke, coins of Proclus, his successor, have been found in this I'lace stamped with the Latin (procon- sul) and with tlie Greek {di^du-azoz) name. The miracle of blindness is rejected by the skeptics, who allege that 77 it was borrowed from Paul's own experience, and that the anah>gy between Paul and Elynias, and Peter and Simon Maijns, betrays artifice and ai)ologetic desitrii. Ans. : Anahigy exists, because tlie work was the same, and maijicians were numerous. Paul assumes a new atti- tude now in the missionary work in relation to Barna- bas and the other Apostolic workers. Hitherto he lias been subordinate. He was mentioned last anionf^ the prophets and teachers of Antioch. He lias risen to prominence by successive Pte])S, This prominence is recognized by the facts of his life, by change of name, and order in which it is mentioned. It is now " Paul and Barnabas," except in Acts 15 : 25, where the old order is used, a? being familiar to the j)eoj)le. A notable miracle marks the outset of his leadership, and this im- portant conversion manifests the presence of the Spirit. Whether the name Paul is now assumed on account of his Roman citizenship or whether in honor of the procon- sul, it makes a new era in his life. It makes the turn- ing-point between Saul's activity among his own country- men, and Paul's new labors among tlie Jews. There was doubtless a corresponding subjective change at this time. lie was filled with the Holy Ghost. (2) Paul in Asia M'inor. XIII: 13— XIV : 26. Leaving Cyprus, they cross to Pamphylia and Pisidia, points next west to Cilicia, wh.ere they had been before. Paul's oliject is to establish a continuous line of churches as centers of Christian influence, westward over all Asia Minor, before he goes to Eurojje. Church commenced in Jerusalem, and extended to Rome and Spain. This general plan shows itself more clearly in second journey. Mark left them at Perga. An act strongly disapjtroved of by Paul (15: 38), as shown by his refusal to associate with him on next journey, thouffh a full reconciliation took ]>lace between them alterwards, cf. Col. 4 : 10, 11 and 2 Tim. 4: 11. Reasons for Mark's course: 1. He was a near relative of Barnabas, (a sister's son), and was jealous of the change in relative position of Patd and Barnabas. 2, Was a Jerusalem Jew, and not ready for such success among the heathen. (More probable). He agreed with the principle, but was alarmed at the results. 78 3. Mark was tired of his work, and shrank from the dancrers and fatisjues tliat lay before him. . Paul at Antigcii in Pisidia. XIII: 13-52. The best account of their labor in Asia Minor, is that of the work at Antioch of Pisidia, wliere was founded the first church in a heathen city. Antioch was a Roman colony so similar in customs and style to the motlicr cit}^ that Augustus called it "Little Rome." Of commercial im- portance, and though composed principally of Greeks, it had a synagogue of Jews, which Paul entered, and where he was invited to speak. The whole region round was priest-ridden, especially Phrygja. (Date — about 14 years after Pentecost.) First Sermon of Paid shows develop- ment of doctrine. It should be studied in connection with discourse of Peter, cii. 2 ; with that of Stephen, ch. 7 ; and with Epistles of Paul. (17-22.) He runs over the history of Israel to connect the offer of Christ with O. T., and to refer every change to tlie immediate agency of God. Sovereignty of God is the thread run- ning through the whole sermon. God chose them. Some say this is the first clear enunciation of the doctrine of free gi'ace and divine sovereignty. (23-25.) He passes along the line of judges and of kings till he comes to David. He naturally speaks of " David's son," v. 23. He shows that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and types centering in David. (24, 25.) Gives history of John the Baptist. (26-29.) He was rejected at Jerusalem. He is now offered to you in Antioch. This is a striking point in the discourse. They would naturally say : If Christ has been rejected by the heads of our church at Jerusa- lem, is it safe for us to accejjt Him, a man humbly born and ignominiously put to death ?" Hence Paul proceeds to the resurrection, to overcome the unfavorable effect produced by considering his birth and death. (30-37.) (a) Paul was himself a witness of the resurrection, (b) He appeals to prophecy to confirm what he says. (Ps. 2; Ps. 16). Which is same argument as Peter used. (vs. 38-41.) Remission of sin and justification by faith alone. Law could not justify. Pauline doctrine doc- trine not set forth by Peter. He closes discoui'se with a warning to avoid judgment. Tubingen scholars reject 79 this discourse as miPanline, Peter in bis sertuon is made to talk like a Pauline Christian ; so Paul is here made to speak ill a Jewish C'hristian tone. lie does not begin his discourse, which evinces an entire lack of Paul's man- ner, as one would suspect the author of epistle to Romans would. The discourse is a mere echo of thuse of Peter and Stephen. The latter's speech gives the his- torical part, tiie former's supplies the resurrection, rather than the death of Christ (which is Paul's favorite,) to urge an aijceptance of the (i()s])el. The terms inti'o- duced at the close are from Paul, "justification by faith,'" and are used to conceal the object of the writer. It was necessary to do so, to gi\e Pauline tone to the discourse. Ans. 1. In Stephen's and Paul's discourses, references to Old Testament were necessary. Both end with David. Doubtless Stejthen's address did affect Paul, (7-58.) They are not the same. Their distinct characteristics justify the originality of each. Paul makes every change iii history due to God; Stephen does not. It is thought that Stei)hen rejtresents every change as punitive. (7: 43) Paul's address is to conciliate. (13-38.). 2. Difference be- tween Peter and Paul apj»ears in allusion to John 13a]:)tist. Peter omits it at Pentecost; mentions it at conversion of Cornelius, wlien he merely uses it as a date. (10 : 37.) Paul uses it for doctrinal purposes, to prove the sin of tliose addressed, the necessity of repentance, and as a testimony to Jesus Christ. The prominence given to the resurrection is the main argument for Petrine char- acter of this discourse. Paul uniformly presents the death of Christ as ground of atonement. Peter adduces the resurrection. Olshausen : The death of Christ was reserved at first, because offensive to the Jews. The resurrection was v, more inviting theme, which wa8 exhil)ited as an evidence of Christ's glory. Against tlie charge it ma}' be urged, 1. It is based on rejection of Peter's epistles, which are confessedly Pauline, then the death of Clirist is emphasized. 2. This objection makes »io allowance for circumstances. Paul here speaks to tliose who hear him for tii-st time, hence he represents facts best calculated to accredit Christ as Messiah. (Peter did the same.) In his epistles the truth is developed and 80 83'steTnatized. 3. His death is referred to in what is said of the persecution (13: 28.) 4. Allusion to justification by faith is said to be a forijer}- from the ejustles of Paul. An attempt on part of Luke to impart a PanHne tone to the discourse, (a) Peter had preaclied remission of sins. Paul preaclies justification by faith. (b) Refers all change to God's sovereignty, (e) lie offers Jesus not as Christ, but as Savior of all who repent and bplieve. (d) He draws a contrast between justification by law and justification by faith. The only exception is " every one that heUcreth." 5. Peter and Paul refer to same pro- pliecies. These are the very ones wanted in both cases. These were tlie common battleground where both might enter. Similarity is to be expected. It is tlie same Gos- pel, and tlie same period. There is conspicuous variety in that. "Let the discourse be compared with Peter'a sei-monsand with Paul's ejjistles, we find the same differ- ence as circumstances would lead us to expect." (Alex- ander.) Tmdency Theory of the Tubingen School. Similarity is the principal basis of this theory. Conscious assimila- tion is carried out in details. It is of later con^position. It misrei)resents the history of tlie church so as to accord with the growing Union of the church. The church at first was Ebionite. Early church in Judea never held to divinity of Chi'ist, or to any of Paul's distinctive doc- trines. Hence Paul was at discord, when at Jerusalem, with the Jews and the early church. Now the Jewish restrictions must be eliminated, — and Luke makes the effort to rewrite the history (in Gospel and Acts) to rep- resent a certain idea of the church. The history was written to represent a certain doctrine or tendency, and assimilates evidence. Peter's sujtprnatural acts are ac- cording to this theory untrue. They have their origin in the mythical tendency of the times and in the alleged necessity of connecting the early history of the church with the miraculous. These recorded miracles of F'eter must find their counterpart in the life of Paul. The grounds for belief in this assimilation which skeptics allege are : Peter and John heal man born lame. So Paul at Lystra. Peter and Simon Magus analogous to 81 Paul and Elymas. Shadow of Peter had its counterpart in brinjjing handkerchief to Paul at Euhesus. Peter raises Tabitha ; Paul raises Entychns. Peter was wor- pliil»ed by Cornelius; Paul at Lystra. Peter was saved by advice of Gamaliel. Paul by the outcries between Pharisees and Sadducees. The gift of tongues and of the Holy Spirit follows the blessing of both. All is done skilfully. The artifice is in the representation, and not in the reading. Sufferings of Paul are similar to those of Peter and of the early Christian community. Stephen was stoned. So was Paul. Peter and Paul both impris- oned — both miraculously delivered — one in Jerusalem — the other in Phiiipiii. Hence it follows : 1. Account of the persecution must be doubted. 2. Persecutions of Paul must have been ignored by Luke — they are never alluded to in Acts. Paul complains of bodily weakness in Acts, no mention of it. In Acts Paul is made to approach Jewish modes of thought. His alignments used in Acts distinct from those used in epistles. At Athens he preaches monotheism. Peter is Paulinized. He first brought in the Gentiles. The journey to Arabia is left out of Acts, so that Peter may bring in thefirst Gentile. Paul is a seer of visions. Peter must have visions also. Hence botli hail a double vision. Paul's controversies with Jews at Home, Corinth, etc., are omitted — as is the con- flict with Peter recorded in Galatians. Most remarkable of all, Titus is not mentioned by Luke. Ans. in general: 1. Much of the alleged similarity is forced. What connec- tion is there between the stoning of Paul and the stoning of Stephen ? 2. Paul's concession to Judaism is no more than natural, considering his birth and earl}^ training. He circumcised Timothy, (16 : 3.) This was a matter of expediency. A heathen minister would have been an offense to the Jews. Titus was not circumcised, because a principle was involved. 3. As to his visits to Jerusa- lem, they are mentioned in the most casual manner in Acts. One visit (18-22) is passed over. Controversies are passed over : (a) This is not in accordance with the plan of the book, (b) It was not his plan to mention the collection to " the poor saints in Jerusalem," Rom. 15: 26; 1 Cor. 16: 1; 2 Cor. 9: 1; Gal. 2: 10; though 82 he did mention the one in Antioch for the churches in Judea. 4. Similarity of the speeches due to Luke, who freely reported tiiem. We have not the ipsissima verba. The speeches are characteristic. This appears further from a comparison with epistles of both Apostles. Doc- trine of Justification and Atonement; (Acts 10: 36 and Romans 1.) There are miracles of Paul in the epistles. Unity of the doctrines, similarity of circumstances, identity of office and work, is the real explanation. The ditterences are as many and as great as the resemblances, and the book is inartificial. Effect of the work at Antioch. Gentile church was founded. The whole region was evangelized. V. 42. Jews, Synagogue, Gentiles, these terms are interpolations ix r^c Gouayioyvj^ zcop 'loudacwu is found only in G., which the teztus receptus follows. Simple auTwv is supported by A., B., C., D., E., Vulgate, Cod. Sin., Text of Chrysos- tom, Lachmann, Tischcndorf, Alford. 7V>. iOy/^ is found in G., omitted in A., B., C., D., E., Cod. Sin. Autmu Tzapey.dXouv. Expression indefinite, probably has for its subject the mixed congregations. Then we read i^couzcov auTcov. " Now as they were going out of the synagogue they besouglit," i. e., not the Gentiles, whose case comes in afterward, but the mixed congregation of Jews and proselytes, to whom the discourse had been addressed. IS'ext Sabbath the whole city came to hear them. This shows the favorable impression made, and tliat the fields were whitening to the harvest. The' Jews took alarm, and sought to excite a persecution: but as Antioch was a Roman colony they dared not openly persecute, hence they resorted to intrigue. There were in the city women of the better class, more devout than the men, proselytes to Judaism. Through these, Jews influenced the chief men and instigated persecution, which resulted in Paul's flight to Iconium. B. Paul AT Iconium. Ch. XIV: 1-5. Iconium was a populous city, 45 miles S. E. from Pisidian Antioch. It largely contributed to the consolidation of the Turkish empire. It was the capital of the Seljukian sultans. It was not a colony now, but had a population similar to that of Antioch. Same results followed, the city was 83 divided. Preachers were assaulted and fled to Derbe and Lystra, 30 miles soiitli of Iconiiini, They visited tlirouii^h the country round about. Population was ruder and less Greek. C. Paul at Lystra. Cii. XIV : 6-21. At Lystra, Paul heals the impotent man. Heathen mythology was still exerting its influence. The legend of the visit of Jupiter and Mercurius to that part of the country was current. His temple stood in front of the gates of the city. The people sought to pay divine honors to Paul, wlio, being the chief speaker, was called Mercurius, and to Barnabas, who, from liis commanding mien (Chrysostom) was called Jupiter. The forenamed legend accounts for the identification. The apparent delay on part of Paul and Barnabas in preventing the ottering of \ sacrifice is explained from the following facts. The people spoke a barbarous dialect, the speech of Lycaonia. P. and B. did not understand it. The gift of tongues appears not to have been bestowed for preaching the Gospel. Paul spoke in Greek, which would not be easily understood. To put a stop to the ceremony, they rush in among the people and " rend their clothes." Pei-se- cution drove them out of Lystra, Jews come from Antioch and Iconium and appeal to the mob. Paul was stoned, and drawn out of the city as dead. They fly to Derbe, where they meet with success and where the account of the first missionary journev ended. D. The Return. Cii. XIV: 21-26. The Apostles return via Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, confirming, exliorting and ordaining elders. 3. Paul again with the Church at Antioch. After each journey, Paul returns to Antioch. (1.) He makes Antioch the central point for the sake of preserving the unity of the church, From this lie carries forth life to all points on his circuit. (2.) He returns over the same road, that beginnings of work might be consolidated. (3.) We see early evi- dence of organization. " They ordained elders in every church." These churches, left for years to themselves, must have been organized. Important questions : What were the elders? What is the meaning of" ordained?" 84 Was " ordination*' an Apostolic act, or does the expres- sion include the church. [These questions belong to anotlier chair of the seminary, and cannot be discussed here.] Ch. 16 shows us how these churches grew in Paul's absence. Timothy was now living in Lystra or Derbe. He was a convert, well reported of there. On Paul's next visit he attached himself to his service. (4.) Four independent churches were established by this tour. Remarkable readiness to receive the Gospel is shown. (5.) The Jews of tlie dcaarcofid, in their si;)irit of opposi- tion, manifested tlie same disposition as those in Jerusa- lem. Paul was even more persecuted in remote regions than were Peter and James in Jerusalem. These churches probably did not belong to Galatia, according to N. T. usage. Period II. The Council of Jerusalem. Acts XV : 1-35. [Gal. 2: 1-11.] This event marks a crisis in Apostolic history. It was not occasioned by a few bigots : the causes are to be found in the historic condition of the times. The transition from Ritunl to Gospel was not yetcomplete. Thequesrion is, Shall the church be cum- bered with O. T. forms? It is a question between authority and Christian liberty. Ritual had power of divine sanction as w-ell as of family ties and national pride. Its previous advant:ige to the church argued its continued preservation. The system was rooted in human nature, as history shows, e. g., Sacramentarian contro- versy. Success of church was at stake. If circumcision was imposed on all converts, Christianity would be limited, or else a schism would ensue. Already they had two kinds of religion, and two centers of influence estab- lished at Jerusalem and Antioch. There was imminent danger, thei-efore, that Gentiles would revolt from Jeru- salem and Jewish churches degenerate to sectarianism. Relation of Apostles to question. Peter and Paul had acted as though all could become Christians. The pouring out of the Spirit on the Gentiles had divinely aiithorized this position. The liberality of the churches in Jerusalem is evinced in their rejoicing at the work of Paul and Bar- nabas among the Gentiles. Acts 15 : 3 ; Gal. 1 : 21. But at Autioch there was a circumcision party opposed 85 to Feter, who, even after tlio haptism of Cornelius, con- tinued to preach to Jews only. These were strengthened by emissaries sent from Jerusalem, who, however, were not commissioned by the Apostles (15 : 5,) but repre- eented a discontented minority. Paul's mission to Asia put a new face on the question. The Gentiles were becoming' moi-e numerous in the churches tlian the Jews. The church at Jerusalem was losing prominence and hopes of restoring national honor were einhmgered. Those who rejoiced at the baptism of Cornelius now up- braid, and the Jewish Christians are roused to concerted action action. V. 2. Excitement ran liigli. There is no evidence that the Pharisaic sect liad much success at Antioch. The mode "in wliich the difficulty is met : The Apostles as a body miglit have bound the church by a decree, but they recognize tlie enlightening presence of tlie Spirit in the church ; opinions of the body of believers must not be forced. Intelligent conviction is required. A council was therefore called to decide the matter. This council was truly a representative assembly, (v, 12, 25, 26) com- posed of delegates from the two great centers Jerusalem and Antioch, and other neighboring places, and repre- senting the whole membership, Apostles, elders and brethren. Tlie Judaizers held to the necessity of circumcision and observance of the law of Moses. They held that salvation is secured bj- faith in Christ, but that faith comes oidy through circumcision, (analogous to Ritua- lists of the present day.) Therefore circumcision repre- sented their whole sj'stem. The Apostles were all on one side. According to Paul, circumcision is a matter of choice. Notice here the connection between the history and the doctrine : 1. Peter's speech is the most advanced statement of the doctrine of grace yet made. He had said before that the Gentiles must be received on equal terms, but never that the Jews could be saved without circumcision, nor that the law was a burden. He con- trasts law and grace, saying that they as well as Gentiles must be saved by grace alone, that circumcision was of no advantage to them. This Pauline contrast between 86 law and s^race is new to Peter. His work hitherto had been to secure faith in the Jews, now he comes to adjudi- cate between differences in doctrine. 2. Connection be- tween liistory and doctrine is further sliown by the fact that altliough Paul and Barnabas do not ao-ree, there is no argument or discussion of principles in the council, but simply a statement of the case by Peter showing that the facts contain the doctrine. James then shows that the doctrine thus attested by God was not new, but that it was a fulfillment of prophecy, (Amos 9 : 11,12.) And proposes action on the part of the council. A decree is then formulated. (Vs. 20, 29.) With reference to this decree the question arises, Why should fornication be classed in the same category with things of no moral character? Two views: 1. Forced interpretation by those who reject the history. They say that James means to place fornication and eating meats on the same level; therefore the account is unhistorical. But true interpre- tation is his motive to urge the Gentiles to restrict their liberties whether as to things moral or ritual. These things were connected with idolatry, and therefore especially hateful to the Jews. Fornication was very common and regarded by the heathen as venial. View of Lipsius. These demands are the same as those made on proselytes of tlie gate. The basis of the demand is sanctit}- of blood, Fornication is therefore forbichlen as a defilement of blood. Inference : This would admit uncircumcised Gentile converts to nothing more than they had always enjoyed, and therefore the narrative does not teach that Jerusalem Apostles came to Paul's views. Church converts were only admitted to privileges of Gen- tile converts. The reason for these requirements James gives in v. 21, i. e., either law is kept in remembrance by the people, and therefore the Gentiles would abstain from what the law forbids, or the verse is an answer to the objection that admitting the Gentiles is a dislionor to Moses. "But no," says James, "for Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath day." 2nd. The resolution was a compromise. All agree in the principle of salvation by faith, but there were cer- tain things to be voluntarily conceded on both sides. Jews 87 were to retain their ceremonies, and Gentiles to i^ive up wliat was offensive. Paul api)Iie(l same principle in Corinth. Concession is here rnntual. Thisi)rings ahout union, and separates Gentiles from heathen friends, and restricts social customs tendins^ to sin. Lipsius : Decree impossible because contradicted in Galatians. If circumcised Christ will profit nothing. Here he says it is indifferent, therefore this decree is incorDorated in the liistory by the psendo-Luke. Baur says it was invented for conciliatory purposes. But this explanation is inadequate. Decree does not involve Gentile equality as being the design of book of Acts. Decree was only enforced in the Jewish church. Resolutions were embodied in a paper addressed to churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. Churches founded by Paul in Asia Minor were not included, being distant, and it may have been intended only for Pales- tine, hence Paul does not mention it in his epistles. Some date it subsequent to the epistle of James. Sup- posed to be drawn up by him, and sent by Judas and Silas (Jerusalem Apostles) to the churches, to wliom it gave great consolation. The rights of the Gentiles were tiow ensured. Harmon)/ of Acts and Galatians. Gal. II : 1-11. Paul's own account of his visit to the council at Jerusa- lem is here given witli additional details. Identity with Acts 15 disputed. Luke records five visits of Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion. (1st.) From Damascus, (Acts 9 : 26.) (2nd.) From Antioch before missionary journey, (11 : 30.) (3rd.) To council at Jerusalem after first missionary journey, (15.) (1th.) From Corinth after second, (18: 21.) (oth.) Afterthe third journey, (21 : 17.) The first is not the same as the Galatian visit, (Gal. 2 : 1,) because it is mentioned as distinct. Nor is it the same fifth, because Paul was imprisoned, and could not return to Antiocli. Leaving. out these two visits, three remain to be accounted for. 2nd visit. Calvin says that Galatian visit (2 : 1,) is identified with that from Antioch with contributions. Also argued that it is mentioned 2nd in Galatians and is here 2nd. Baur says it was necessary for Paul to enume- 88 rate all his visits to Jerusalem in his epistle to Galatians. There he says " 14 years a^ter," lieiice journey in Acta never occurred. Is this to be reckoned from conversion or from visit in context ? " 14 years after, I went to Jerusalem," if reckoned from journe}' in context, would be 30 A. D., entirely too earl}'. He does not use the word osuTSfiou, but TtaAcu. Wieseler dates from Acts 18 : 21, A. D. 54, and places the conversion A. D. 40. He identities the Galatian visit witli Acts 18 : 21. But Paul did not need to give all his journeys. lie is proving hia Apostolic authority, not giving an account of his life. Visit with contributions had no bearing on his argument for Apostolic authority. The second visit mentioned in Acts is therefore not the sanie as second in Galatians. For the 3rd visit: Majority of authorities identity this with 2nd in Galatians. (1.) It suits chronology with re- gard to the council. (2.) Barnabas accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, and retnrned to Antioch with him, (2 : 13.) But afterwards separated from him, (Acts 15.) It is not likely the}' came together again to go to Jernsalem. (3.) Internal evidence. Both accounts agree as to the object of the visit. In Acts he comes up to settle the relation of tlie Gentile converts to the church, which involved the validity of Paul's claim to Apostleship, If the dis- pute is settled there. Gentile converts are recognized. Galatians has to do with the personal qu(;sti(ui of his authority as the Apostle of tlie Gentiles. Which the Galatians called in question. (4) Galatians 2 cannot re- fer to a later visit than Acts 15, because it is impossible that Paul should have omitted that visit from his argu- ment in Galatians. For 4th visit : Acts 18 : 21 : Gal. 2 : 1. The visit in Acts 18 : 21, was to the feast, and not from Antioch, but from Ephesus, and not accompanied by Barnabas, but by Aquila and Priscilla. Wieseler con- cedes the principle in dispute in saying that the two passages cannot be harmonized. This is yielding the most important point. He argues from the differences and tries to meet the skeptical argument by denj'ing the identity. Baur's use of the passage. — He says that the epistle to Galatians affords the chief proof that Peter and primitive Christianity was Ebionistic and hostile to Paul, 89 and this passasje especially. Argument. (1.) In Acts 15 Paul and Bartiabas are sent to Jerusalem by the church ; in Gal. 2 the}' go up by revelation. The account in Acts involves recognition of Paul's authority. Paul and Barnabas are commissioned to make known decree. It is claimed that the object is to show that Paul is de- pendent on Peter. According to Galatians Paul is mis- chief-maker, disobedient to authority he had already re- cognized. But there is no contradiction. Paul might fear to subject his authority to question without revela- tion, lie does not give details because not necessary. Account in Galatians is supi)lementary to Acts. (2.) The second and most obvious difference is that Acts 15 describes a public and formal transaction, and makes no mention of private intercourse with the Apostles. Galatians insists that it was private x«r' idiav, and no mention is made of public intercourse. But there is no contradic- tion. We are not to take xaf iduiv as meaning " one by one," " separately," but " private conference between me and them." This does not exclude public intercourse. The one account does not deny what is in the other. It is Luke's purpose to give public meeting : Paul's private acts are not in his plan. But Paul must state his per- sonal relations. Objected : Why did he not tell the Galatians of the decree of the council ? (a) His argu- ment is his personal treatinent; more to this point how Peter and James received him. (b) History of the coun- cil was well known to the Galatians. Ellicott, Meyer and Lightfoot say that Galatians refers also to public transactions. (2: 2.) "Told to them," i. e., Christians at Jerusalem, not solely to the Apostles as related by Luke. Objection. He had met Peter and James before, but there was something new to demand attention, for there were large accessions to the church from the Gentiles. Hence reason for second journey to Jerusalem. (3.) No mention made of the case of Titus in Acts, but in Gal. 2 : 3 it is said that Paul took him with him as a type of the uncircumcised Greek. According to Galatians Paul resists circumcising, but afterwards, Acts 16: 3, he cir- cumcises Timothy. Objected that Acts passes over in silence the case of Titus because there was a quarrel, 90 and so there is nn inconsistency. Wieseler solves the difficulty chronologically, putting case of Timothy prior in accordance with Acts 16 and the refusal to circum- cise Titus later. This marks a higher ground reached by the Apostles. Objected. This implies a change of princi- ple. But true explanation is that the question of circum- cision was the chief one of the time. Titus was a pure Greek, while Timothy was a Jew by his mother, and therefore his circumcision a case of charity. (4.) Personal relations between Paul and tlie other Apostles are given differently in the two accounts. In Acts very friendly. Peter uses Pauline terms, but in Galatians Paul speaks of them slightingly as having withstocKJ him. The Jerusa- lem Apostles are identified by him with the extreme Juda- izers. The phrase "seemeth to be something" is a false translation. It is not contemptuous. The Greek means " they were what they seemed;" and thus emphasizes their authority. Even these had given their assent to Paul. So they cannot be identified with his opponents. (5.) Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles just after the council. Some say that this is incredible ; it must have beeu before the council and not after. For after the council had given its decision he could have no fear of incurring the displeasure of James. Wieseler argues that the quarrel in Galatians happened before the coun- cil, and after Paul's visit in Acts 18. Gal. 2 : 13. Shows that Barnabas does not agree with Paul. Just after the council in Acts there is given the quarrel of Barnabas with Panl. This is probably the same dispute, and agrees with Mark's conduct in the case. But Peter's conduct does not prove he did not agree to the decision of the council. The narrative in Galatians proves this quarrel was not a division in doc- trine and principle. Paul's charge upon Peter is that he did not live up to what he himself required of the Gen- tiles, therefore the charge is Peter's inconsistent personal practices. Baur objects: — Why does Acts not mention this quarrel ? He says that the omission is intentional, as if the quarrel was merely a trifling difterence in regard to Mark. It is further argued by some that the quarrel does show a difference of belief, as Peter still continued 91 to preach to the Jews. These siime differences bear with increasing force against James in Acts, because he favors Paul, yet insists tliat the Gentiles should observe the Mosaic law. (6.) Doctrinal position different. Acts makes Paul allow circumcision. In Galatians no com- promise. Answer : In Acts the parties are the Church against Paul, but in Galatians it is the Judaizers or indi- vidual enemies against l*aul. In Acts he does not allow Gentiles to compromise their liberty in use of meats, and classes fornication along with them ; (hence the latter is morally impure, which he denies in Corintliians ;) yet in Acts 21 submits to ordinances and allows Gentile con- verts to be subjected to them. Acts says the decree pac- ified the churches : yet in the epistles it is never men- tioned, but Paul takes opposite ground to it. The charge is not only one of inconsistenc}', but if Acts is true, he was guilty of intentional suppression of the most important point with his enemies. Wieseler's view is that Gal. 2 is later than Acts 15. The decree had tem- porary force, but the boldness of the Judaizers liad forced Paul to higher ground. But this admits change of ground. Paul's gospel is a new thing. Jewish Chris- tians believed in Messiah's death and resurrection as testimony to the law. The Gentiles were to be brought in at the second advent. Paul is gradually emancipated from Jewish prejudices. Pressure is brought to bear upon him at Antiocii, and this is the turning point. He sees the danger of ritual observance, and declares cir- cumcision opposed to the freedom of the Gospel. He goes to Jerusalem to be at council v^rith the other Apos- tles, taking Titus with him as specimen of a Greek con- vert. Apostles are convinced that a great work is going on. They agree to stand aloof, but still adhere to the doctrine of circumcision. They tell him to w'ork on alone. The extreme Judaizers do not go so far. None of them recognize Paul's Apostleship, nor that his converts are members of the Christian church, but they merely admit them to the position of " proselytes of the gate." The conversion of the Gentiles is with them a mere side issue. From this point, henceforth, a split is recognized in the Jewish Church. Lipsius thus far differs from 92 Baur ill his new view as to the creed of Acts 15, (which is that the decree of the Council is false), Baur rejectn, Lipsius accepts it. In other particulars they ajj^ree. Wieseler yields the question that there is a change of doctrine. At next conference (Gal. 2) higher ground is taken. The interval, however, is too short for such a change. It is not probable that the circumcision of Jew- ish Christians was prohibited when Gal. was written. Lightfoot says there is no real inconsistency, only a difference of tone. In Acts it is conciliatory, and in Gal. severe. In Gal. Paul speaks, and in Acts he consents, and Apostles speak. In Acts, the wiiole Jewish church party is addressed, and honest conviction is appealed to. In Gal., persistent enemies and deniers of the truth are the parties. In Acts, circumcision is an allowable cus- tom, in Gal. it is an enforced ritualism, but the doctrine is the same. In Acts, liberty is recognized, for conces- sions are asked for charity's sake, but there is no dilier- ence in doctrine. The epistles establish the points given in Acts. All the Apostles (Acts 15) lay the same foun- dation for salvation as Paul does in Gal, Our knowledge of the intention of Paul depends upon epistles as well as upon Acts, In Romans he admits prior right of the Jews, — is a Jew to the Jews, This one change is against him. So in Corinthians Paul allows the use of meats forbidden in Acts. No difference in p^rinciple but in application. Voluntary compromises were regulated by circumstances. This question in Europe has assumed different proportions. It could not be expected that Jewish rules would be observed in Gentile society. The eating of meats with reference to idolatry is all one, but not with reference to Jewish circumstances. Doctrinal ground is the same, for practice is declared to be indif- ferent. But Paul never mentions the Council in Gal. or Cor. because he assumes this was well known, or he may have avoided reference to it out of regard to his own independent authority. The whole system of modern attack on N". T. canon fails at this point. Baur quotes contemporary literature, and attenjpts to show that the abandonment of Jewish customs was gradual. Hence Acts belongs to later times, when Jews had become more 93 liberal. (Vide Liglitfoot, Gal.,) Brinsrino^ in Gentiles was great triumph of the church, example of the power of love, sacrifice of personal opinion, pride of birth and nationality. All O. T. traditions on one aide, all hatred of Jews by Gentiles on the other. It was the conspicuous fact of the time. Lightfoot saj's : "• To impose circum- cision, would deny that Gospel was a new covenant." If the initiatory rite of the old economy be denied, there is involved the principles which become dogmas of the sys- tem of grace. Controversy would tlius have been per- petuated. Yet sacrifices were united in one and the same cliurch with culture and freedom, and not by Apostolic authority or union in external worship, but by moulding power of faith and love. Peter's course at Antioch is an illustration. 1. It shows that the effect of the decree was to admit Gentile Christians to absolute equality. 2. It illustrates the persistency of the Judaizing party. Their position is hencefortli changed. Those who opposed Paul become actively hostile to the Apostles and church — become Pharisees and separatists. 8. It illustrates the difference effected by a change of locality. Although there were Jews at Antioch, Peter ate with the Gentiles, but when Jews came from Jerusalem, he refused to do so. Some try to prove that Peter was right, and that being inspired, his conduct is for our example, but this over- looks the fact, that 1. Example is only binding when it can be proved that it was so intended, and inspiration does not secure infallibility in personal conduct. Wiese- ler finds a difficulty in collating Gal. 2; Acts 18 : 21, and 1 Cor. 16. In Gal. 2 : 10 we learn that at the council Paul was exhorted to remember the poor. Paul said that he had already done so, (Gal. 2 : 10). But, it is urged, collections were not made until after the counci 1 (1 Cor. 16, and Acts 18 : 21). But Paul had already pre- viously made some collections, (e. g., Acts 11 : 29), and this charity served to mitigate in some degree the evils incident upon the controversy. Period III. Second Journey. Acts XV : 36 — XVIII: 22. A. D. 51-53. Comprises two great events. The Gospel is carried to Europe, and Paul begins to write his epistles. The wisdom of Providence in the choice of 94 time is apparent. The security of the Gentiles is attained and their freedom established. A continuous line of churches is established from Antioch westward. Next comes Greece, more remote from. Jerusalem. Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth and Athens open a new stage. In this emergency and extremity of the church there was a necessity for Paul's letters. New com.plications arise which are treated in the epistles. In the increase of doc- trinal discussion and, in the internal development of N. T. doctrine we see adaptation to the times. The history of the church precedes the doctrine. This the proper date of the ejiistles. From historical illustration and recognition of doctrine of grace we pass to argumenta- tive epistles, because opponents continue their attacks. Epistle to Galaiians now becomes possible, but not be- fore Jewish o})position calls forth that wliichthe church is now prepared to receive, justification by faith and sanctifi- cation by grace alone. The development of the doctrine follows step by step the progress of the church. Proposi- tion for a journey originates with Paul. BarnaV^as insists on taking Mark, Paul refuses, and a separation ensues which results in widening the work. Little of Barnabas is now known. He went to Cyprus, but it is not known whether he desired to form a new church. Paul's desire is to visit old churches. He takes with him Silas, who had been sent from Jerusalem to Antioch with the decree. Paul hastil}' passes through Sj-ria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. This is the first mention of churches in Cilicia. Probably founded when Paul was in Tarsus. Hence we should not limit the progress of the church to the history in Acts. Confirming here not restricted to Catechists. Some think that it includes the establish- ment of new churches. Shows that Paul came to strengthen them. (Chapter 16.) Coming to Derbe and Lystra they find Timothy. Some say his home was in Lystra, because the nearest antecedent to " there " is Lystra. Others say Derbe. There was no synagogue in Lystra. Yet Timothy was reared in the faith. ("Paul's sou in the faith,") hence converted, probably, on Paul's first tour. Paul now circumcises him to give him access to the Jews. This act shows that Paul was not bound 95 by forms coiiceniiDC^ circninoisioii. Good effect of the decree is metitioned v. 4. Tliev next pass through Phrygia and Galatia, The narrative moves rapidly over this part of the journoy. Although large churches were founded, and that of Galatia hy Paul personally, where he was well received, 5'Ot it is not mentioned here by Luke. We learn from Galatiana that Paul was now in bad health. Wliy is Luke so brief here ? 1. The churches of Galatia are associated with the bitterest con- flict of Paul's life, therefore Paul compromised, and Luke does not metition it. 2. It is said Galatia was out of the line of subsequent development of the church, and its history is of use chiefly for doctrinal purposes. 3. As neither Acts nor Galatians mentions any great cities in which churches were formed, many small churches came into existence, and it was not in Luke's plan to notice them. Mode by which journey to Europe w^as determined. It was supernatural. Paul designed to go to the west coast of Asia Minor, but the Holy Spirit forbade him. It was either a direct communication or an unusual providen- tial hindrance. They intended to go to Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not, and they came to Troas, where Paul had a vision which explained previous hindrances. Troas was a Roman colony, scene of oldest contact be- tween Asia and Europe. The call comes from Macedonia, probably because nearest land to Europe, and occupying a position of mediation. It was the stronghold ofRoman domination in the East. Population simple and trust- worthy. The church in Philippi purest in I^. T. and most beloved by Paul. Renan compares its inhabitants to Ger- man peasantry. Authorship and sources of Acts. Here in v. 12 we meet for theflrst time, the flrst person plural " we endeavored," *' we came." These " we " passages are 16 : 10-15; 20: 5-15; 21: 1-18 and 27: 1-28. This opens up two im- portant questions as to authorship and sources of the book. The old opinion is that the companion was an eye-witness. Schleiermacher says MSS. left by Timothy, and incorporated by Luke into the narrative. This is Documentary Theory. Inasmuch as comparison of style 96 reveals no ditterence, therefore he concludes that the whole book was written by Timoth3^ Silas is sometimes sinajled out as the author. But 1. Timothy is not the author. There is no break in the narrative where for- eign document could be introduced. 2. Plienomenon ceases at Philippi, but Timothy goes with Paul to Thessa- lonica, and then to Berea he is not mentioned till 19: 22, when sent from Paul at Corinth. He was not sepa- rated from Paul all that time. A most important event occurs when Timothy is away, (uproar at Ej>hesus, v. 23- 41.) 3. Chapter 20 : 1-3. Timothy is with Paul. Yet there is no minuteness of detail. Eighteen months con- densed in 3 verses. 4. " We" occurs when Timothy is included in the list of companions of Paul sent away, yet " we " remain. Silas could not have remained, for after chapter 18 he does not appear in Acts. Common view is that Luke is the author. One question remain- ing is this: Was Luke the author only of the "we" pass- ages? Were these documents worked over by the pseudo-Luke, and the "we" passages retained by his (Luke's) authority to concilid^te parties in the church? They say that documents were left by Luke, and after- wards incorporated by a later writer. But on this as- sumption the style should differ. Hence a rewriting by the compiler. This is to get a late date for Acts. It is not later than the year A. D. 80. And this argument is derived from the language. According to which a late authority rewrites the " we " passages, thus coming over to apologetic ground. If a traveling companion, he would have written more graphically in many places. The answer is he was eye-witness, but not on every occasion. Paul mentions Luke in his epistles, but this view is not concurred in b}' the Rationalists. The same man writes the whole book. Real proof of author- ship lies in perfect uniformity and constant tradition. Two great lines of discrimination. The assimilation of Peter to Paul, and the authorship of " we " passages. We see the providential purpose of Luke in joining Paul just here. Paul on the eve of a great advance. Doctri- nal points mainly settled. The church must be estab- lished in Europe, where it should find its chief seat. 97 This gives Luke a fine point of view of the stages of Paul's work. In his writing, he looks back, and is thus able to understand tlie relations of his views. It is the history of the extension of the church to the Gentiles, and establishment of the doctrine of grace. Luke's Greek culture and J'aul's companionship well fit him t» be the historian of the N. T. They came v»-ith a fair wind to Neapolis, which is not an influential place, thence to Philippi. Here the first church was founded by Paul in Europe. Some argue from epistle to Romans and decree of Claudius, A. J). 54, that the church at Rome was established before this. " First city;*' not the capital, nor the first to which Paul came but first in importance. Gold mines in the vicinity. Here a battle was fought A. T>. 42 between Brutus and Cassius and Octavius and Antony. Augustus made it a colony. It was a center of military power and had the Jus Kalicum, i. e., privileges of Roman citizenship and exemption from land tax ; as such both exempted from scourging, and in ordinary cases from arrest, and entitled to appeal from the local magistrate to the emperor. This gave the church protection, and prepared for Paul's appeal to Csesar. Here Paul came in contact with Roman Gov- ernor. Antioch. Pisidia and Iconium were colonies, but not mentioned because no contact with authorities. There were few Jews here and no synagogue, but they had erected a house of worship near the river, npoazoy^ means " prayer-place," occurs 34 times in the N. T. and gen- erally in this sense. Lydia, or the woman of Lydia, was baptized here and her whole house. First mention of baptism in Paul's journe>'s. Girl with spirit of divina- tion. Contact of Christianity with heathenism. Divina- tion conducted under the auspices of Apollo, very attract- ive to the heathen mind. On the way to the 7t(}oazuyrq Paul is molested by a girl possessed of the spirit of divi- nation : an evil spirit, but people thought it was the spirit of Apollo. The state of this " female slave," re- sembled the phenomena of somnambulism. She had probably frequent opportunities of hearing Paul, and his words had left an impression on her heart. In her con- vulsive fits these impressions were revived, and mingling 98 what she had heard from Paul, with her own heathenish notions, she frequently followed the preachers to the izpoatoy^fj crying after them, (v. 17.) Do Luke and Paul teach that the spirit of divination was a reality ? Yes : there is no mere juggling here. A demon is cast out of the girl ; and Paul says in Corinthians that the heathen sacrifice to devils when they sacrifice to idols. Two alter- natives are here presented : 1. Either idols were mere cheats ; then this case and those of Christ involved no more than heathen oracles. Thus all may be referred to natural causes; or 2. If this was a devil, then what the people generally thought was under the control of oracles was the work of demons. This does not naturally follow as an exegeticalfactin this case. In Luke 11 : 19: " By whom do your sons cast them out?" Christ teaches that demons are intelligences, and the belief is common that the N. T. recognizes that the sorceries of the heathen were not altogether unreal, but presided over by Satan, who used religious belief of the people to lead them away from God. Persecution from heathen sources now begins. Persecu- tion by the Pharisees was based on religious grounds: that from the Romans not till later. They prided them- selves on their tolerance. Persecution because of refusal to recognize heathen sacrifices was not begun till much later. Here, as in Ephesus, the motive is selfish and monetary. Owners of the girl had lost their trade. So avarice to-day is the motive in heathen lands. The pre- text was, that the Christians taught what was unlawful for Romans to believe. But this was an appeal to prej- udice. Any worship not authorized by the state was forbidden, but Jewish religion was authorized, and Jews and Christians were yet classed together, therefore the charge was illegal, no breach of the law was established. Magistrates carried away by excitement. Paul and Silas stripped, and beaten, and cast into prison. Luke and Timothy are not mentioned. The jailor's is the second family baptized. Magistrates in the morning command release of the prisoners. Some think the}^ were terrified by the earthquake. Others, that they intended from the first to release them, and their motive in scourging and 99 imprisoning tlieni \va8 to protect them fron\ the mob. Paul refuses to go. Why does he appeal now, and not before he suffered the abuse ? Proi)ably out of regard for the welfare of the church. Tlie fear into which the magistrates were thrown was not without' its value. A hold was tlius gained upon the people. The church was left on better footing, and put in a position of honour, and Koman law protects Christianity on its first entrance into Europe. Skeptics say this is not like human na- ture. Paul waits for the Spirit's direction. They now leave the city. Here the narrative resumes the third per- son. Inference is that Luke remained behind and rejoined Paul (chapter 20: 5., A. D. 58,) just before the arrest. During this interval of seven years Luke takes charge of the Philippian cliurch. Neander thinks Timothy is left also. Instruction here. He trains them as helpers, and thus multiplies his influence when he himself is forced to leave. The skeptics repudiate the whole narrative at Philippi, or deride the supernatural element. Paul alone entered Europe, deserted by the other Apostles, in oppo- sition to them and to the Jewish church. They say all the incidents of the narrative unnatural. Miracles unnec- essary. Praj'er by night, and earthquake shaking off the shackles, and his appeal to Roman citizenship, unlikely and untrue. The tendency is to honor Paul and assim- ilate him to Peter in his deliverance from prison, ch. 12. Journey to T/iessalonica, Berea, Athens. Ch. XVII. Thessalonica (17 : 1-9) When they had passed through Amphipolis they came to Thessalonica, where was the syn- agogue of the Jews. This determined the character of persecution. Many Jews settled there. A place of great political importance. Its situation determined its sub- sequent importance. At the head of the Thermaic gulf, and the highway between the Adriatic and the Helles- pont. The old name was Therma, given because of the warm springs in the neighborhood. After death of Alexander many Jews went there. It was the center of the whole country, and prominent in the history of the church. It is now called Salonica. Ranks next Constantinople. Population from 60,000 to 70,000. The account of Paul's labors at Thessalonica instructive 100 through brief. Founding of the church and personal inci- dents present his mode of labor. He preached in syna- gogue. There were conversions among Jews, proselytes and chief women. (Acts 17 : 4.) The epistles which sup- plement the account in Acts inform us of Gentile converts. (1 Thess. 2: 11, 14.) Somo came directly from the hea- then, so exhortations are adapted to a church composed of Gentiles aud Jews. This a general type of church's composition. The companions of Paul were Silas, and probably Timothy. The latter was with him just before. From the epistles we learn that he supported himself by manual labor. His trade was that of a tent-maker. In Thessalonica he labored day and night. (1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3 : 7-10.) This wan his usual practice. Refer- red to in 2 Cor. and Acts 20. Exception is made in case of Philippi. Phil. 4 , 15, 16. While in Thessalonica, he receives aid from Philippi and also when in Rome. The reason is that hostility did not exist at Philippi. We learn from the epistles that the church was organ- ized and officers appointed. (1 Thess. 5 : 12.) There were also extraordinary manifestations of the Holy Spirit. (vs. 19, 20.) Objection is raised to the fact that Paul preached three Sabbaths in the synagogue. It is said that this is too short a time for so much work. But this does not exclude labor out of the synagogue. He may have preached elsewhere on other Sabbaths. Progress of the church must not be judged as related to ordinary means. Doctrine of Paul at Thessalonica : 1. We have it in Acts 17 : 3. Christ must sufler and rise again from the dead. He opens up the Messianic doctrine from the prophecies oftheO. T. The humility and death of the Messiah a great stumbling-block to the Jews. Paul shows that O. T. teaches the necessity for Christ to suffer and rise again. Therefore the necessity for Christ's sufferings is established. Interesting point is that Paul here dwells on this particular. He also teaches that this Jesus was Christ. This is an advance on Peter's and other previous discourses. This is all from Acts. 2. From the epistles. He insists upon the doctrine of salvation by faith, and the necessity of holiness of life. This against the Phar- isaic influence in the church, (2 Thess. 2 : 12.) and to pre- 101 vent antinomiaii abuse of the doctrine. This was a mistake which the Gentiles were apt to make. Paul shows that holiness of life must accompan}- faith. lie exhorts them to avoid fornication and extortion. Notice how historical necessity of the church led to develop- ment of doctrine. Here was a practical necessity arising out of antinomian views. 3. From the epistles. The doctrine of tlie second coming of Christ, and the resur- rection. Error on this subject was the main reason for the epistles. He dwelt on this subject (1.) because the doctrine of the suifering Messiah seemed contrary to the predictions of his reign. He sliowed that Christ's king- dom should Still be glorious, although he should first suffer. (2.) Also the presence of personal persecution led him to the comfort of this doctrine. Persecution was an obscuration of divine power and glory. It needed explanation (1 Thess. 2: 1-8.) 4. Doctrine of Christ's resurrection could not be dwelt on without dwel- ling on the resurrection of the believer also. 1 Thess. 4: 14. It was too earlj' for Judean controversy to have reached these remote churches. This throws light on the account of persecution in Acts. Persecution which drove Paul from Thessalouica was not the usual Jewish charge, nor that at Philippi, but treason. They accuse Paul of being a political disturber. " These do contrary to the decrees of Cffisar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus." This troubled rulers and people. Paul's doctrine of the reign of Christ was perverted, as antagonistic to Csesar. Natural that this charge might originate. Method of Jewish leaders different in this case from any previous ones. They stirred up persons of the baser sort, and assaulted the house of Jason. The intention was not to mob the Apostle, as would be inferred from A. V. Thes- salouica was not a colony, governed by a triumvirate, but a free city. The assembly of the people was its chief governing body. They took Jason and exacted securit}' from him. The brethren sent Paul and Silas by night to Berea. Critics raise two objections. 1. Too early in Paul's ministry for Jews to say that he had turned the world upside down. Answer : Illustrates rapidity of success and fear of the Jews. 2. Political ground of per- 102 secutiou was not made till close of 2nd century. Answer : But the Government did not persecute till then, and the life of Christ shows the persecution of the Jews was foreshadowed by their conduct. Paul at Berea. XVII: 10-14. 30 miles southwest of Thessalonica. Not mentioned elsewhere in N. T. People of high character. They searched the Scriptures, and therefore many believed among the proselytes and up- per class of women. Renan remarks : Wh}' is this church not mentioned elsewhere? Some say they were safe from future opposition, or they were merged into the church of the Thessalonians. The Jews from Thessa- lonica pursued Paul to Berea, and raised persecution against him. The same method is there employed for stirring up the people. Paul escapes from Macedonia to Greece. Silas and Timothy remain. This is the end of his first Macedonian mission. He left his work involved. Yet this is one of the best results of his life. None of the other churches which he founded have the character the N. T. gives these churches, for sympathy, liberality and orthodoxy. Did Paul go by land or sea ? V. 14. d»^ "as it were" do<'S not affirm or deny. Probably by sea. Easiest way and no intervening cities mentioned. Comes to Greece proper. Paul at Athens. XVII: 15-34. Bereau companions leave him with message to Silas and Timothy to rejoin him, which they do when he reaches Corinth. The purity of the Gospel is secured before it is preached to the cultured Greeks at Athens and Alexandria. Paul now stands before a highly cultured, philosophic people. The discourse is given in full, but no church founded either here or at Alexandria, Not many wise were called in Paul's uwn day. The Gospel had less influence in Alexandria than in any city elsewhere. Athens and Alexandria were the only great cities where the Gospel did not take root. They were not so receptive, and the simplicity of the Gospel was the longer preserved from the taint of philosophy. These cities were so imbued with pride of intellect that they could not receive Chris- tianity. Later period of Paul's life full of the evil efliects arising from the mixture of Christianity and philosophy. 103 If the head schools of Athens had iirst become Chris- tian, then how different would have been the result. The Athenian treatment of Paul is gentlemanly. There is manifested curiosity and refined sarcasm. He is not arrested, but politely asked to go to the Areopagus. Polite insincerity, " we will hear thee again." The Areopagus, a supreme court with independent jurisdiction and un- limited power. Baur says Acts describes a trial. It is a question whether the court was present or not. Of the four schools, only two are mentioned in this account, those of Zeno and Epicurus. The Lyceum and Academy and Agora lay further out. Thej^ are selected as examples of the antagonism of philosophy to Christianity, (See Lightfoot on Paul, and Seneca, Com. on Philippians.) Paul stood in the midst of Mars Hill. The temples of Mars and Eumenides were below liim. Colossus of Minerva near by, standing almost beneath its shade. Saw suc- cession of rich statues — the works of Phidias. Saw ob- jects of devotion in the grand temple of Theseus. All this enhanced by coloriui^ of gold and silver. The cit}' was wholly given to idolatry. His position illustrates the declaration of God the Creator, before the flood. He does not begin therefore with the O. T. and prove that Jesus was the Messiah, nor does he show God's abhorrence of idolatry, but he is conciliatory and com- plimentary in tone. " Too superstitious," means very devout in fear of the gods. To the fourth century this was the recognized boast of the Athenians. " Tlie un- known God " should be " an unknown God." There were many altars to unknown Gods. The definite article implies a specific altar. Among the heathen there was uncertainty as to what deity must be propitiated. In pagan writers it is " ui] known Gods,"" plural. In de- scription, the plural is used instead of the singular, and singular instead of plural. So Paul saw one such altar, or the inscription may have been in the plural. Baur says, it is instruction put in Paul's mouth, in making the peo- ple worshipers of Jehovah. Paul does not identify Jehovah with their gods. He appeals to that which is common to all men, viz., the sense of dependence, which even polytheism recognizes, and declares the reveakdGodi 104 the only satisfaction. " Him declare I unto you." From this he goes on to truths common to natural and revealed religion. He exhibits the fundamental truths of Chris- tianity, Theology, Anthropology and Christology. (Vs. 24, 25.) He sets forth God as creator. Their gods were deified men. Stoics thought that God was the spirit of the universe. Matter inseparable from deity. Reuter says that the Stoics were Pantheists. Epicureans were Atheistical materialists. The reception of a personal Savior was the first necessary truth for these men. In V. 25 the doctrine of Providence is taught, " He giveth all things," as creation was taught in v. 24. (Vs. 26-28.) Anthropology. The unity of the race, " Made all of one blood " opposed to their idea of having sprung from the soil, and of divine appointment, (vs. 29-31.) The moral government of God is taught. Idola- try before allowed, but now men are commanded to repent, because of judgment of which the resurrection of Jesus is the proof. Stoics thought that the soul would be burned. Resurrection disbelieved in as an irrational idea. To the Epicureans pleasure not duty was the motive of exertion. Pain was not an evil. Principle the same as that of the Sensualist. In future there would be no soul without a body. Both perish together. Hence to the Stoics the resurrection was absurd. These the two ruling princi- ples against which Christianity has to contend. Renan says the speech is that of a rude iconoclast, substituting for truth of reason the superstitions of judgment. Baur says that it is artificial. The design was to prove that Christianity was superior to philosophy in its chief seat. The whole story of the Areopagus arises from the tradition that the Areopagite Dionysius was the first bishop of Athens. The introduction of the resur- rection was impossible at this time. The converts made to idolatry and philosophy were the last to yield. Athens the last great city where a church was founded. Paul passes on to Corinth, where he wrote the second epistle to Thessalonians. Paul now becomes secondary to his epistles. 105 Scheme of the Epistles, according to Hilgenfeld. I. Apostolic Times. 1. Paul and his Epistles. 1 Thessalonians. Galatians. 1 Corinthians. 2 Corinthians. Romans. Philemon. Philippians. Hebrews. 2. Original Apostles and Apostolic men. John and Apocalypse. Matthew and his Gospel. Mark and his Gospel. James and his Epistle. 3. IJnion-Paulinism. Luke and his Gospel. The Acts. II.' Sub- Apostolic Times. Peter and his 1st Epistle. 2 Thessalonians. Colossians. Ephesians. The Dentero-Johannic writings. j Epistles of John. \ Gospel of John. Jude and his Epistles. The Pastoral Epistles. 2 Peter. FIRST GROUP. Epistles to Thessalonians. Special introduction takes up two classes of facts. 1. Time and place, authenticity, canonicity, occasion and design of each epistle. Also outline view of the principal characteris- ^ 106 tics of the epistles. 2. The historical facts therein recorded, additional and supplementary. Confirmatory apparently contradictory. This constitutes an important part of Apologetics. Upon denial of this harmony rests the Tiibingen theory. Each epistle may be regarded as throwing light on passages in Acts, e. g. , 1. The charac- ter of the church to which the epistle was addressed; 2, They illustrate the founding of the church to which they were addressed, and the condition of the church from which they w^ere sent. More is known of Paul from his letters than from Acts. They show the state of his mind and the glow of his feeling. First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Time and place of composition of first ep. to Thessalonians. Probably early part of the stay (18 mos.) in Corinth. (Acts 18 : 1-18.) The occasion was the arrival of Timothy from Thessalonica with news. (1 Thess. 3:6) A later date is assigned by some. Either during an unrecorded jour- ney from Antioch to Greece (Acts 18 : 23), or during his three months' stay in Greece (Acts 21 : 8). The passages on which the theory is based are, 1. 1 Thess. 1 : 7, 8. The argument is that this implies that churches had been founded in Corinth, and allows time for the fame of the Thessalonian churches to be spread in those places. But six months was sufficient, and Corinth was a central place. 2. 1 Thess. 3: I, 2, 6. Paul and Timothy were in Athens when the letter was written. But we know that Timothy and Silas had been left in Berea (Acts 17 : 15, 16), and had rejoined Paul in Corinth. The reference in 1 Thess. 3 : 6 must be to a later visit to Athens re- corded in Acts 20. But, either Timothy accompanied Paul to Athens, and was immediately sent back to Thes- salonica, and rejoined him at Corinth ; or Paul left him in Berea, sends for him from Athens, and rejoins him at Corinth. Sylvan us also with him w^hen the letter was written, and he is not mentioned after this visit to Cor- inth. Acts 18 : 5 and 2 Cor. 1 : 19 identify the company at Corinth at this time. 3. 1 Thess. 4 : 13. Said to imply that time had elapsed for members of the church to die; but a few months may have been sufficient for this, or the anxiety may have been hypothetical — in prospect of 107 death. Earlier date probable, becunse the circumstances of the Thessaloiiiaii visit were prominently before his mind, causing him his great anxiety to return. Therefore must be soon after his leaving them. Again, the state of the church indicates the early stage of Christian life. 2^0 special interest in great controversy is manifested. Great simplicity, as in church at Philippi. The nature of their difficulty such as arises at the beginning of the life of a church.^ (Compare 1 Thess. 1:6-9; 2^: 13, 14, 16 ; 3 : 2-5.) The first difficulty arose in connection with the Advent. It was too early for Judean contro- versy to reach the Macedonian churches. The conclu- sion is thus almost certain that the epistle was written when Paul came to Corinth in the fall of 52 A. J). We know it was the fall, because he staj'ed 18 months and ^ left in the spring (Acts 18 : 21,) to attend the Passover. The subscription in the A. V. to the eflfect that the letter was "from Athens," is derived from Theodoret. This opinion is based on a mistaken understanding of 1 Thess. 3:6. It is correct to place this epistle in the first list. Notice that the date is only approximate. Besides infor- mation above illustrating Acts 17, we learn that severe persecution continued (2 Thess. 2 : 14 ; 8:3; 1:6), and we also learn of their endurance (1 : 3, 4, 9, 10). Perse- cution arose, not from the government, but from the Jews who were in a position to stir up great difficulties. They could perpetuate persecutions and render Gentile Chris- tians unpopular. Their patience is commended, and their steadfastness, of which Timothy brought informa- tion, is a matter of admiration. Paul was sent away from Thessalonica by night, and it is interesting to com- bine the statement in the epistles of his desire to return. (1 Thess. 2 : 17; 3 : 10.) The views by which they were brought to steadfastness are important. Reference is made to their charity and faith (1 : 3), to their deficien- cies and tendencies to corruption. The sins of the hea- then were not entirely given up by them. We find the evils of Corinth here — fornication, and covetousness (4 : 3-8), and dissension and disregard of church authority (5 : 12, 13). Especially fanatical opinion and disquiet on the subject of the Second Advent. (5:11,12.) They 108 were in sorrow, as those who had no hope in regard to their departed friends, lest they should not share in the benefits of the Advent. (4 : 13.) The object of writing is to exhort against these sins and instruct them con- cerning the Advent. Canoniciiy and Authenticity. External testimony is very abundant. Chief witnesses go back as far as Tertullian. Not often quoted in the 2nd century, but in Syriac, Lat- in and Muratori Canon, also evidence from the number of Paul's epistles. The Tiibingeu school are the only objectors. Schrader, and especially Baur, apply to the epistles of Paul in general the two fundamental canons of historical criticism : 1. The doctrine of Christ's divin- ity, not taught by Christ or Apostles, hence any book that makes Christ divine belongs to later period. 2. All books not presenting a division between Paul and Jeru- salem Apostles are not genuine. The primitive church was essentially Jewish, and the twelve Apostles all of this type. Paul in advocating the universal character of the church creates a split. The two opposing tendencies co-existed in the church. Those books are genuine which admit this appearance of difference. To retain authority in the church, books were ascribed to the Apostles. Thus Acts was written. Three classes of books result from the application of these canons. 1. Gal., Cor. and Rom- ans are genuine. 2. Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Philemon and Thess. are Pauline, but belong to a later date. 3. The Pastoral Epistles are evidently spurious. Baur styles the first class bfjioXoyoupiEva. the second class di^TcAeyojusva, and the Pastorals belong to the pcoda. Some admit 1 Thess., Eph., and Philemon, but they are re- jected because they do not contain the controversy. Argument against 1 Thess. is (1) that it contains nothing of doctrinal importance, therefore not genuine. But Paul did not need to write only argument and doctrine. The epistle was written to meet the difliculties in the church. (2) A mere spinning out of Acts 17, with additions from 1 Cor. which treats of the resurrection. The constant repetition of the phrase " ye know " ia noticeable. But Paul had recently left them and was in close sym- pathy with them. Correspondence is natural to narra- 109 tives of the same events. Therefore the similarity to Luke's history confirms rather than invaliflates its gen- uineness, (3) Unpauline in style. There is an absence of his particular expressions, special phrases and second clauses. Answer (a) The inconsistency of the objectors, any resemblance proves an imitation, any difference an unsuccessful forgery ; (b) no greater difference from Paul's acknowledged epistles, than is common to all acknowledged books. Every acknowledged epistle has peculiarities found in no other. The difference of style further accounted for by the absence of the polemic ele- ment ; tliere was no need for polemic style as in other letters. His opponents were Jews not Jewish Christians, hence doctrine of justification is not so prominent as Advent. Controversy with Jews had not yet reached \ Europe— never much in Macedonia. They continued per- secutors of Paul throughout, and he holds Jewish Chris- tians in Judea as examples. They say Saul would not hold them examples for anything. (4) He says things that are untrue of a church so recently founded. This argument answered above. (5) Chapter 4: 14-18, concerning the Second Advent. This was the motive of the whole epistle. Objected (a) that his manner of presenting this topic is unlike his manner of presenting it elsewhere. He does not go into detail. It is treated in the Jewish Rabbinical style, pomp, etc., the same writer could not have written this and 1 Cor. 15. This description is natural in the early history of the church. The subject of the resurrection was matter of the earliest preaching, hence the first diffi- culties arose about it, and was the subject of the earliest letters. Difficulty had been settled once and needed not to be referred to again. Paley says that later writers would not speak of Paul as expecting immediate Advent after these expectations have been proved unfounded. Analysis of the First Epistle. [Ellicott's Analysis.] Objects of thb Epistles : I. To console : (1.) In reference to certain external trials and afflictions, (ch. 2 : 14, sq.) 110 (2.) In reference to internal trials arising from anxieties as to the state of their departed friends, (ch. 4, sq.) 11. To admonish : (1.) With reference to grave moral principles, (ch. 4 : 1 sq.) (2.) With reference to Christian watchfulness, (ch. 5: 1 sq.) (3.) With reference to various practical duties, (ch. 5 : 14 sq.) Analysis. 1. 1 : 1. Apostolic Address and Salutation. 2. 1 : 2-10. We thank God for your spiritual progress. The manner in which we preached and ye heard is now well known to all men. 3. II : 1-12. Our entrance was not empty ; we neither beguiled you nor were burdensome, but toiled bravely and encouraged you both by actions and words. 4. II : 13-16. We thank God that ye received our preach- ing. Ye suffered from your own people as we did from the Jews. 5. II : 17-20. I endeavored to see you but was hindered by Satan. Ye truly are our crown and glory. 6. Ill: 1-5. As we could not forbear any longer, we sent Timothy to reassure you in your affliction. 7. Ill : 6-18. When he came to us and reported your faith, we were greatly comforted, and are deeply thankful. 8. IV : 1-8. Abound ye according to my commands. God's will is your sanctification, wherefore be chaste and continent. 9. IV: 9-12. On brotherly love I need say nothing, I beseech you to be quiet, industrious and orderly. 10. IV : 13-18. Do not grieve for those that sleep. We shall not anticipate them, but at the last trump they will be raised, and we translated. 11. V : 1-11. Ye know that the day of the Lord cometh suddenly. Be watchful and prepared, for God has not appointed us for wrath but salvation. Ill 12, V: 12-24. Reverence your spiritual rulers; be peace- ful and forbearing and thankful. Quench not the Spirit, and ma}' God sanctify and preserve you. 13. V : 25-27. Pray for us. Salute the brethren and cause this epistle to be read before the church. U. V: 28. Benediction. The development of New Testament doctrine re- verses the order of systematic theology. SECOND THESSALONIANS. Time and place. Soon after the first epistle, and at Corinth. 1. The same subject, viz., the Advent, is still prominent in the church. 2. Same practical dangers, idle- ^ ness, etc. 3. Same relations to the world, persecution. 4. Same companions with Paul, Silas and Timothy. There is time enough for the effect of the first letter and develop- ment of thedifliculty. Paul's request for prayer (3, 2,) may refer, to opposition in Corinth. (Acts 18.) Hence about the spring of 54 A. D. Grotius says that the second was written first because of 3 : 17, and because the "man of sin " refers to Caligula, who died 41 A. I). Before Paul went there. So Ewald and Davidson. Hilgenfeld and Hare identify Nero with the man of sin, (69 A. D.) But this is too late for Paul's life. " The mystery of iniquity must refer to gnosticism, hence the book must be later. The climactic arrangement of persecution stronger in 2nd Thessalonians. Hence martyrdom must have been established. Hilgenfeld puts it in Trajan's day, but Ewald and Davidson with Grotius put 2nd Thessalonians earlier. (Ch. 2: 15.) " Whether by word or our epistle" proves the correct order, also the inter- nal connection reference being to previous epistle. The subscription in A. V. is erroneous. Historical information. (1.) The persecutions in Tliessalonica were more than mere temporary outbursts of excitement. From Acts we might judge that persecu- tion was directed against Paul personally, but the im- port of the epistles gives a different conception. The church was the object of hatred to the Jews. (2.) Their trials did not break down their endurance. This illus- 112 trates the rapid growth of Christianity in actual wants of the people. (3.) Anxiety in previous letter in regard to death seems to be al]a3'ed when the second was writ- ten. Those alive at the coming of Christ know better than those dying in the future. But the teaching of the 1st epistle as to the Advent, that it should be sudden perhaps near, and required watchfulness, was perverted, and produced the usual bad effects. Here, too, climactic arrangement. In the first idleness, in the second breach of authority. (3: 6-15.) The inference from the second chapter is that false teachers had come in and tried to gain Paul's authority by forging letters, (vs. 2, 3.) "Neither by spirit " i. e., tklse interpretation of O. T. prophecy, or rather false prophets, " nor by word," i. e., discourses of Christ delivered by oral reports from the Apostles. " Nor by letter as from us," i. e., misinterpretations of former letter or forgeries. Their efforts gave occasion to this second letter. Canonical/ and Authenticity. External evidence undoubt- ed. Polycarp writing to Justin Martyr uses the expres- sion " man of sin." There are direct quotations in Ter- tullian and Clement of Alexandria, arguments on internal grounds are more formidable than those against Ist epis- tle. It is more attacked than the Ist. The Tiibingen school, Schmidt, Kern and Baur reject it. De Wette did, but has changed his opinion. Argument 1. It is objected that the 2nd contradicts the 1st epistle in regard to its teachings on the Advent; alleged that Ist epistle takes for granted that the Advent would be in writer's own day. " We which are alive," (1 Thess. 4: 17.) The 2nd writ- ten with express object of correcting this mistake and allaying excitement. Baur declares this is a contradic- tion of 1 Cor. 15 : 52. We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed, which he claims to mean, the men of Paul's generation should not pass away till Christ came. Answer 1. There is no positive statement that it would be soon — only inferential. The 1st person plural does not imply this, but includes the whole church. Paul does not confine it to his own day when he says " we shall all be changed." The most that can be said is that the Apostle shared in what according to many was the com- 113 mon belief of the early elinrcli, viz., that Christ should come soon. lie made no definite statement. lie may have expected a speedy fnlfiHrnent and told them "to watch and l»e ready." He left the church in an attitude of k)okingfor (/hrist's cotniiiif. Naturally they e.\'[)ected Iliin soon. The mode of His de|)arture and the promises that He made also produced this expectation. If so Paul ex[)ected the events, of chapter two in his own time. The conception of the inunediate coming quite |)ossibIe to those of that cjeneration. These were times of supernatu- ral proujress. Nothing unreasonable according to present growth of the church. Paul already looking to Rome. In 2nd Thess. lie declares that the Advent is not immedi- ate, but he does not say that it is not to be soon. There were to be certain signs, and Paul may not have thoiiglit that it required so much time for the fulfillment of his prophecies. Besides it is characteristic of a pro[)])et to take little note of time. A prophet does not always un- derstand his own profjhecy. 2. On the other hand Paul may not have shared this expectation. The " we" has reference to all who shall pai'ticipate in the event, the exhortation to watch always applicable. The epistle to Romans shows that Paul knew that great national move- ments must su|)ervene. The argument in 2 Thess. ac- cords with Romans that before the end should come all Israel should be saved. He must have thought chansfes should be so \ery rai)id as to be compressed into a gen- eration. Van Oosterzee holds that there were changes in Paul's private opinion, that in the 1st letter he ex|)ected immediate advent, but iinds show of progress, and then in the 2nd epistle his mind is changed. This is entirely consistent with his inspiration. 2nd objection. Unpau- line method of treatment. This needs no answer. 3rd objection. The doctrine of antichrist is said to be un- pauline. It belongs to the Apocalypse. It is the only passage in Paul's epistles where it is found. It is said to be written after the Montanist heresy. This is a cu- rious fact and accords with John's usage in Revelation. It should occur now as he refers to Eschatology, " once and for all," 2 Thess. 2: 1-12 is a clear passage concern- ing " nian of sin," " mystery of inicpiity," " Antichrist." Something is hindering, a principle is at work. 114 4. Scheckenburger makes the " man of sin" to be Judaism, and its rejection Christianity. Ans. : No fuoof of unpanline cliaracter from its appearing only once, all these predictions have an element of uncertainty about them, and the whole idea refers to the conflict of Messiah and Satan. 5. Kern and Ililgenfeld say that it is based on Reve- lation, and imi)ossible before Revelation. 6. Dollinger and Kenan sa}' the " nuin of sin" is a heathen trait. The man of sin is Nero, and the hinderer is Clandins. Hence both ai-e written to bring the doc- trine of the Advent to the mind of the church. The autogra|)h of the Apostle is said to be a sign of later ori- gin of the epistle but the ])resence of false jtroidiets necessitated it. Chap. 1 is an inti-oduction, contains cora- mendat'n)n and encouragement to steadfastness; cliap. 2: 1-12, didactic, contains the doctrines of the Advent and Antichrist. It contains a clear statement concerning future sin, and of the mystei-y of iniquity. The man of sin, already working, yet to be more fully revealed. This hindrance is expressed by the neuter and masculine as a thing or a person. When it is removed, then Christ will come. Three interpretations are given of this. 1. Prjie- rerist Inter[)retation. This refers the prophecy entirely to the past, say Paul's time, and seeks out some Roman emperor, e. g., Nero or Caligula. The olijection to this is, the exegesis of the passage declares that th.e develop- ment of Antichrist is from within the church. It is apostasy, not persecution. 2nd Interj)retatiou, the Futurists. This held by the great mass of Reformed theologian?. They refer it to the apostasy of the Pope of Rome. The chief motive for this view is the ex- actness with which the passage answers the Romish as- sumption. The terms ai-e rennirkably fulfilled in the Romish church. DilHculties of this view. When Paul writes, this iniquity is already working and is to continue. Evidently it must mean some jirinciple which began in Paul's time and continues to the end. 3rd. Intermediate view, (held by Iloffnian, Baunigarten and Light foot.) Paul had in his mind his chief enemies, the Jews, miuI the chief restraint was the Roman empire, which protected 115 the churcli. This is taken in a typical sense, as an ex- ample ot the future. The opposition of his day but a specimen (Daiiiel 10:20.) 'llns generic view interprets Atiticlirist as including all forms of error and apostasy in the history of the church, jteriiing its piii'ify. The opposing power is the sum of all Christian and providen- tial influences. By this, a|)i»lications of specilic passai^es are explained, for it was already at work in Paul's day. Certain times and instances taken as sample of the whole period. The generic view is the best. Analysis of the Second Epistle. [Ellicott's Analysis.] Objects of the Etistle : I. Corrective instruction : (a) Second Advent not close at hand. (b) Certain events must lirst arise and be de- veloped. II. Consolation under affliction (ch. 1 : 4, sq.) III. Exhortation to order, (ch. 3: 6,) industry, (ch. 3: 8, sq.) and quietness, (cli. 3 : 12.) Analysis. 1. I: 1-2. Apostolic address and salutation. 2. I: 3-12. We thank God for your faith and patience, He will recomi)ense you and avenge you. May lie count you worth}' of His calling. 3. II: 1-12. 13e not disquieted concerning the Lord's coming. The man of sin, as ye know, must first be revealed; and then shall be destroyed by the Lord. 4. II: 13-17. We ought to thank God that he hath chosen and called you. Hold what we delivered unto you. And may God stablish you. 5. Ill: 1-5. Finally, pray for the advance of the Lord's word, and for ns. He will stablish you ; and may lie guide your hearts. 6. Ill: 6-16. Avoid all disorderly brethren and imitate us. "We charge such to labor, and bid you mark them that disobey. The Lord give yoa peace. 7. Ill: 17,18. Autograph salutatiou and benediction. 116 More doctrinal thnn previous epistle. Special com- mentaries : Lilly, EHicott, Jowett, articles in Smith's Dictionary, Prof. Liij;hlfoot. Paul's first residence and ministry in Corinth, Acts 18: 18. Duration: 18 months. Time: fall of 52. Paul's visit to Corinth marked a crisis in his ministry. The situation of the city, and its relation to the com- merce of the Mediterranean, made it an important centre for the spread of the Gospel. It stood on the isthmus connecting the Peloponnesus with the mainland. It was called the " city of the two seas," its two [jorts, Cenclirea on the east, and Lechaeum on the west, being places of transshij)ment for the traders of the Levant, This was preferred to the passage around Cape Malea, which was like Cape Horn in danger. The country was rocky and barren. Its strong military position made it the key of the Peloponnesus. Ancient Corinth, the cajiital of the Achaian League, was not the scene of Paul's labors. It was captured by Mummius 146 B. C, the inhabitants slain, and the city burnt. Lay desolate for a century, when Jtilius Csesar sent a colony rhere in 41 B. C, who rebuilt it. In the century which elapsed between this and the Apostle's visit, the city regained its ancient splendor, in wealth, art, and literature, and acquired a new importance as the metropolis of the Roman province of Achaia. It was not a military i)ost; hence Paul had no contact here with military authorit}-. In Paul's time the population comprised Greeks, Pomans and Jews. The heterogeneous character, mental activ- ity, great wealth, luxurious habits, and licentious wor- ship of its inhabitants, called for the solution of ques- tions of a practical bearing. Tlie grossest immoralities were practised under cover of religion ; viohitions of the seventh commandment were regarded with indiiierence; and even incest among church members was deemed excusable, (1 Cor. 5 : 1.) The social condition of the church in Corinth as contrasted witli that of the churches in Macedonia, affords an explamition of the difference in the epistles to these respective churches. Paul on his arrival associated himself with Priscilla and Aquila, Jews who had been driven from Pome, in consequence 117 of a decree of Claiidina commaTKling all Jews to depart from the city. (Acta 18: 2.) Were Aqnilaand Priscilla converted or not? Two opinions. (1) They were Chris- tians. Evidenced by tlieir immediate reception of Paul. Ans. : They are inclnded under the decree of Clandins. Reply: The tnrhiilenee of the Jews against the Chris- tians occasioned the decree. Tlie Romans did not dis- criminate between Jews and Christians. (2) Meyer's : (best) they were not converted until tiiey met Paul at Corinth, because Aquila is called a Jew without modifi- cation. Suetonius, referring to this decree, says that the Jews were continually making a disturbance Chresto imptdsore, i. e., according to some, at the instance of a person named Chrestus, now unknown ; others, that Chretsto is a mistake for Christo, (a frequent error, Tert.,) his Messiahship being a constant subject of dispute among the Jews, with whom the Christians were con- founded. This decree and its occasion as given by Suetonius imply the existence of a Christian church in Rome in the time of Claudius. Aquila and Priscilla are subsequently mentioned as laboring at Ephesus, (18 : 1, 18, 26.) and Rome, (Rom. 16: 3.) They were tent-makers ; therefore Paul "abode with them and wrought." This is the tirst mention of Paul's manual labor. V.5. Some say that the arrival of Silas and Tiiuothy made a change in Paul's preaching. Otiiers : "pressed in spirit " indi- cated the state of mind in which they found Paul, based on imperfect tense, or better, with the amended text, aup£;yjTo t(o Inyio. Engrossed with doctrine. Jewish interference caused change. V. 6. lie left them and went to the Gentiles. Synagogue abandoned, and ser- vices lield in house of Justus adjoining. Paul's state of mind, vs. 5, 9, 10. Reference to Paul's state of mind in the Acts and epistles are of great interest, as coincident with advances in teaching. Special vision, v. 9. Reason for it : 1. Paul was discouraged, and needed the encour- agement it would afford. 2. The hostility of tlie Jews caused this distress. 3. Fear that he should not succeed in establishing a churcii in Greece. 4. His cares, as set forth in the coistles to Corinthians (1 Cor. 2: 3) and Thessalonians (1 Thess. 3 : 10 ; 2 Thess. 2: 2, 3.) Per- 118 haps his vow also was connected with this depression. Tliis depression is exphiined by the liistory of this his second jonrney. lie was watching the deveU)pnient of Cliristian doctrine. Had been driven to Corinth by per- secniion. The indications were that Greece had no i-e- ceptivity for the Gospel Both Jews and Gentiles had rejected liim. Sahjeci and manner of Jiis preaching. Crucifixion and resurrection go togetlier. SoPaul's dejection drove liim to the resurrection and second coming of the Lord for conifoit, (1 Thess. 4 and 5 chs.) In Acts tlic subject of preaching is that Jesus is the Messiah, (18 : 5 ;) from Cor. we learn that he taught Cl)rist and him crucitied. (1 Cor, 2: 1, 2.) This seems an advance in Paul's doctrine of the atonement. AVe know tliat tlie resurrection also was taught at Corinth, (1 Cor. 15.) The preaching of the resurrection implies the death of Christ. Manner of his preaching, not with enticing words of man's wisdom (1 Cor. 2:4.) Due to conscious weakness and growing trust in Christ. Many, with Neander, refer this sim- plicity of manner to the ill-snccess of his more philo- sophical and intellectual attempt at Athens. This wrong, for the exce|)tional character of his preaching at Athens was due to the exceptional character of his audi- ence. Moreover it is an evidence of Paul's wisdom in adapting style to audience, as here, and presents the les- son that " not many wise, etc., are calle(h" (1 Cor. 1:26.) Ilisroin,v. 18. Best understood as outward expres- sion of his inward depression, and as a token of self-abne- gation and reliance on Christ. Some say Aquihi was the subject of the vow. Grounds (1) nearest to the par- ticiple, (2) transposition of names. Ans. : Unnecessary granuTiaticall}', names have same order elsewhere. Objec- tions : (1) Paul says man to have loug hair is shame. Ans. : From Num. 6 we learn longhair was in one who had vowed. A token of humility or shame, hence expresses sincei'ity which secured blessings. (2) Contrary to Paul's teaching freedom from the law. Ans. : This founded on assump- tion that it was Nazaritic vow, oa which it is further urged (3) that language required this vow to be absolved iu temple and by a priest, Ans. I'aul did not become a 119 Nazarite. He adopts certain principles of a religious vow with which all Jews were familiar. This the only view consistent with the facts of history. Some say, with Calvin, made to conciliate Jews. Neander, that it was a vow to he completely fiiHilled in Jerusalem as a pnhlic acknowledgment of his gratitude. This inltillment hegan with his departure from Corinth, lie also pnt the dis- pute with Peter at Antioch in this connection, soon after Paul's arrival at Jerusalem. Others say vow taken on account of persecution and his religious life; some to please Judaizers. Afrer receiving his vision, and leaving the city on account of the persecution stirred up hy his great success, Paul's mind is changed. Being comforted, he la3's aside his vow. Success of Gospel in Corinth was great, (1 Cor. 1 : 27) ^ and attended hy signs, wonders and mighty deeds (2 Cor. 12 : 12.) Some came into the church directly from their idols, as appears from their idolatrous practices, an:l (1 Cor. 6 : 11) among the converts was Crispus, chief ruler of synagogue ; some say Sosthenes also, making him the same as the one mentioned in the epistle (1 Cor. 1:1); also Gains and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1 : 14-16.) This success ex- cited Jewish opposition, for an outhreak of which the accession of Gallio to the ofiicc of proconsul furnished an occasion, as they imagined he would seek to conciliate them and gain favor. Question as to the date of the occurrence,' whether it wiis 18 months after Paul's arri- val, (v. 11) or hefore their e.\'[)iration. Latter view is best, (v. 18.) Ohmy/e. Teaching a religion contrary to the law. What law? Some say (best) Mosaic, because Gal- lio refused to take cognizance of the charge, (14, 15); otherssay Roman, because Ronniu law forl)ade all religions unlicensed by the state. The scene before the tribunal was clniracteristic of the public assemblies of the age. The Jews were turbulent, and would not yield until driven out of court. This obstinacy so provoked the Greeks (v. 17) that they seized the leader Sosthenes and beat. Question as to text of v. 17. Best critics expunge 01 'A'//-^'v2c ; then the reading is indefinite " the// all," refer- ing to (1) all the Greeks, (2) all the Jews, (3) some say pagan witnesses against the Jews, (4) true view, iudefi- 120 nite, admittiiifij both terms, but referring particularly to tlie Greek's who were indignant at the Jews' treatment of Paul. GaWo ; original name was Annteus Ilovatus, brother of Seneca, the philosoplier. His name Gallio was due to his adoption into the family of Junius Gallio, the rhetorician. " lie cared for none of these things." Some say he was indifferent as to the great questions of the time. Some, that he was a type of indifference to religious questions. This is not a just inference from the narrative. There is nothing to show that he was more than ordinarily indifferent to personal religion. His known character for integrity and mildness contra- dicts this assumption. Seneca says of his brother: nemo enim mnrtalium imi tarn diikis est. qiiam hie omnibits." He merely did not care for Jewish religious usages. This case illustrates the protection given Christianity by Koman government, which looked upon Christians as a sect of the Jews. All questions of difference were to be settled among themselves. This decision would be a precedent in similar cases in other ju'oviuces, and is therelbre im- poi'tant. It is also remarkable as the first instance in which persecution did not affect Paul'n movements. He did not have to urge his own defence, and continued iu Corinth until he felt that his work there was for the time completed. The church at Corintii became the metro- politan church of Greece, making with those at Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea four great centers established during the second journey. These were the last churches founded by Paul, unless those in Crete are to be added to the number so founded. Hereafter he visits those already founded, either by himself or others. V. 18. Paul now returns to Jerusalem and Antioch to keep up the unity of the church. Sailed from Cenchrea with Aquila and Priscilla in company. These mentioned because subsequently in Ephesus they were the teachers of Apollos. Stopped at Ephesus, but for a short lime only, then pressed forward in his journey answering their solicitations for liis presence by a promise to return. Hitherto (16 : 6, 7) he had been forbidden by the Spirit from entering Asia, (Ephesus,) now feels this prohibition ig removed. Ques. : Did Paul at this time visit Jerusa- 121 leni ? Critical text in verse 21 omits the whole clause relatiiis^ to Jeriisaleiii. Common view; fomi'led (1) on the force of the word?? ava,9«c iU'd 'Aara^q sajs he went np to Jerusalem from Ciiesarea, and thence to Antioch. These words cainiot (as some say) refer to debarkatii^i. This view is also in accoi'dance with Luke's usaije. (2) Ca^sarea was the port for Jernsalem, and ont of the way of the conrse to Antioch. His short stay in Jerusalem was due to the fact that he had little to tell and nothing to detain liim. As to the feast mentioned in v. 21 (T. K.) was it Passover or Pentecost ? Some say it could not be Passover, because that occurred too early for naviga- tion. But we know the Jews annually went up to the feast of the Passover. Wieseler here introduces the visit mentioned in Gal.-(2: 1) and recrards the feast as that of Pentecost. Meander makes this visit the cause of Peters gointj to Antioch, and the re[)ort of Paul's success the occasion for the revival of the Judaizing spirit. Paul returns to Antioch whence, he shorti}' after set out upon his third missionary journey. TnruD Missionary JouRNKY. Acts 18 : 22; 21: 32.) A. D. 54 or 55-58. On account of Luke,8 historical de- sign the dividing points of the narrative ai'e obscure. He makes the Ajiostle pass quickly from Corinth to E|)hesus, with the simple statenient that Paul went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strength- ening all the disciples (v. 23.) Apollos is here mentioned with reference either to the |.»revious passage concerning Corinth, or the following about Ephesus. The {jersonal gifts contrast strongly with those of Paul. He was defi- cient in the knowledge of Christ, but having received instruction from Aquila and Prescilla heat their recom- mendation went to Corinth as the successor of Paul. His work was to convince the Jews b}' arguments drawn from O. T. Did not extend the Churcli but watered what Paul [danted. Did not present himself as a disciple of Paul yet in conjunction with indei)endence and strength of character he displayed gi-eat docility. Ephesus. (Chap. 19,) A. D. 54-57. It was^the capi- tal of Paul's Eastern labors as Corinth was the capital or centre of his Western. It lay half-way between Jerusa- 122 lem and Corinth, and tluis forms a meetins: place for Greeks and Borliorians. It was the commercial mont of Asia Minor, vest of Tarsus, and was connected by two great roads with the table lands (v. 1, " upper coasts'' of Galatia and Phrygia. Under the Roman domination it was the greatest city of Asia Minor. Now it exists only in ruins near tlie Turkish village Ayasaluk. Its geographical relation with the east and west corresponded with its mediating position in N. T. liistory. The church now established in Jerusalem and Greece was here uni- fied. It was also the meeting place between Greek and barbarian civilization and the religion of tlie true God. Here too eastern philosopnical ideas were lirst brought into contact with Christianity. In the developmet of the constitution of the church the controversy between Paul and the Judaizers had ended in the triumph of Pauline views. A new movement therefore starts from Ephesus, viz. : to unify the various forms of the faith, then held in the church. Hence it became tlie residence in turn of the chief Apostles. Paul labors here at this time for 3 3'ears. Peter addresses his epistles among others to Christians in Asia, i. e., western port of Asia Minor. Jolin afterwards settled in this region and delivered the chureli over to its ordinary ofiicers. Points of interest in Paul'sstayat Ephesus: preached for three months in the synagogue. On account of op- position, he withdrew with his disciples from the syna- gogue to the school of Tyrannus, probably a Greek rhetorician. Great work done, much oi)position en- countered. (1 Cor. 16: 8, 9.) The churches of Asia mentioned in Apocalypse the result of the moven)ent. Stress is to be laid on the miraculous element in the Ephesian ministry, because Ephesus was at that time overrun with magicians. Hence need for a contrast of real miracles witJi false. In v. 10 Luke does not men- tion the preaching of the Gospel at Corinth and else- where, because his statement is introductory to mention of the miracles wrought by Paul at Ephesus. Cf. the effects of handkercliiefs and aprons taken from Paul's body with that of the sliadow of Peter at Jerusalem. Paul's wonder-working success led the magicians to seek 123 like success in castincj out (lemons in the name of Jesus (vs. 13, 14.) Such Jin attemi)t on the [tart of the seven sons of Sceva resulted so as to make a deep impression on tlie muhitude and njreatly magnify the name of tiie Lord Jesus. Exorcists brouirht their books, charms, and amulets, to Paul, and burned them publicly, ihe price of wliich 50,000 pieces of silver, |7,000 or $8,000. Great benetit resulted to the church. Althougli Paul seems to have been driven from E[)hosus, it aj)pears from V. 21, he had formed the pui'pose to de[)art. In this verse Luke gives the first intimation that Paul looked forward to a visit to Home. Just when Paul felt that the work in east was a success, occurred the uproar, in- cited by Demetrius, (v. 24 ff.) As at Philipi»i, so here, love of gain was the motive for the persecution of Chris- tians l)y their enemies. The trade of making shrines of Diana wa^interfered with. Diana was totally distinct from the Greek and Roman goddess of that name, ditt'ering much in the attributes ascribed to her, and the character of her worshi[). Perhaps she is rather to be identified with AsTarte and other female divinities of th(! east. The image of the goddess was a ver}' unattractive figure made of wood, so timeworn that its kind, whether vine, cedar, or ebonv, could not be told. The upper [larts were covered with paps, symbolizing the productive and sui^taining powers of nature. She was the goddess of rivers, pools, and hai'bors, and her temple glittered in brilliant beauty at the head of the harbor. It was said that the sun saw notliing in his course more magnificent than Diana's temple. The " shrines " referred to were small portable images or models of the temple. It was customary to carry these shrines on journe3's and mili- tary ex|»editions, and set them u|> as objects of worship in private dwellings. The (heater to which the mob rushed with Paul's comfianions was excavated from the 8loi»ing side of Mt. Coressus, looked towards the west, was faced with a portico, but roofless. It is said to have been the largest edifice of the kind ever erected by the Grf^eks. It could seat 50,000 [jcrsons, and was adjacent to the Agora, whence the crowd naturally rushed into it. The Asiarchs (A. V. chief of Asia) who dissuaded Paul 124 from entering the theater were not civil masristrates, nor priests in the ordinary sense, altlionuh tlieir office was connected with leligion. Tliey were annnally cliosen in the cities of tlie province to conduct tlie sacriiicial ser- vices and pnhlic games, in honor of Diana, and derived tlieir titles from the nanje of the province. Town clerk (v. 35) is mnch too modest a descri|)tion of the person wliose appearance restored the mol) to order. It is prohahle that his otHce emhraced functions hoth of a civil and religious charactei*. He was evidently a leader of the people in a free city. He was therefore more careful of the ohservance of the law, for the violation of which in a jiroronsular province, as a deputy, he would be held amenable. The action of the Jews (v. 33) in putting forward Alexander has been variously iuterpre- ted. 8()me suppose that he was to defend them from the charge of having anything to do with Paul, and to ex- plain the difference between Jews and Christians. Others, that he was a couvert to the new reliiiion, and was maliciously thrust forward by the unconverted Jews to divert attention from themselves. Calvin and others 8up|)0se this to be Alexander the copyyer-smith. (2 Tim. 4: 14.) Doubtful. The reference of the matter to the "open courts" illustrates again the )»rotection which Roman law afforded to the i)eaceful spread of the Gospel. At Miletus (Acts 20: 19) Paul refers to these persecu- tions; also in 1 Cor. 4: 9 and 15; 32. Twelve disciples. Paul, on his arrival at Ephesns found twelve disciides who had been baptized, but only with the baptism of John. Who and what were those men ? Ditficult. Neander thinks it impossible to form a correct idea con- cerning them. There are certain traits — to l)e gleaned from the context. They were most probably strangers in Ephesus, few in numbers, distinct from the Christians; yet they were such, for Paul so recognized them in call- ing them disciples. Term •' believe" used absolutely, always in N. T. means faith in Jesus Christ. Meaniiifi of PauVs qupsdon and iJieir answer. Quest. I: How could they be Christians without the Holy Ghost ? One an- swer makes the question turn on the vlistinctioii between miraculous and urdinary gifts of the Spirit. Then it 125 would not be implied that they were ignorant of the H. G. as taught in the O. T., but on!}* of his niiracnlons gitts. As in the case of the converts of Samaria, these they did not receive at first. This nnsatisfactory. It involves two degrees of tlie Spirit's presence in the heart — and it is improbable that they had not heard of Pente- cost. A second answer is that Joljn's baptism was Jew- ish, and that the Holy Spirit is a giit of the Messianic time. Paul's question W(Mild then be erpiivalent to — Did ye receive the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit. Their reply may then be understood in several ways : — 1. Our bap- tism had no reference to this period ; it referred to John's, and not to Christian baptism. Did not know the Spirit had been given in this measure. (So Alexander and Lechler.) 2. Others say that " ioriu" is used in the ex- < elusive serse. Then they did not know of his existence. (Kennder and Meyer.) 3. It was due to their obscure knowledge concerning the Spirit. Did not know him as a person or as a distinct gift. Their knowledge of Jesus was confined to what tliey had learned from John. During the Anabaptist controversy at time of the Kefor- matit)n they quoted this passage as favoring the rebap- tism of children. Calvin says tlie baptism in v. 5 refers only to the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Result. Uf)on Paul's presentation of the intent of John's mission, and its relation to Christ, they were rebaptized in the name Lord Jesus, and received the extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit. We must therefore admit some dis- tinction between John's and Christian baptism. Out of tliis has arisen the question whether all the disciples of John were rebaptized in the name o^ Jesus or not? Data are insuflicient for a definite answer, but that it is unessential, aiqjears from the silence of the record on this point in reference to Apollos — (18 : 25-26.) Notice that this, the first mention of the baptismal formula made in Acts^ is in the name of Jesus Christ, instead of the Trin- ity, as commanded in Matt. 28: 19-20. This exalts Christ, proving his divinity, and virtually establishing tlie Trinity. In introducing into the narrative at this jKtint this meeting between Paul and the disciples of John, Baur finds au attempt ou the part of Luke to 126 glorify Paul amoTis: John's disciples, as an ofF'^et to the esteem in wliich Peter was heh] by the Samaritans and family of Cornelius, on account of his power of bestow- ing niiraculons gifts. (Sec vs. 6 and 7.) But the only historical point to be noted is that Apollos, who was a type of the Johannean school, joined Paul as a liberal. During this stay at Ephesiis Paul wrote his episiles to Galatians and First to the Corinthians. SECOND GROUP. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Galatia is the Gallia of the east. The inhabitants were called Gauls bv the Romans, just as the Greek writers called the in- habitants of ancient France, /l/xrira./, which is the same as A'i/ro;=: Celts. Certain tribes of Gauls below the Pyrenees in the fourth century began to move eastward, in a sort of reliex wave, along the Adriatic and Danube. They made ravages in Mace(h)nia, and there came in con- tact with Alexander. In 297 they divided; part attacked Delphi and were repulsed. Under Brennius they at- tacked Rome, and were scattered, the other division took possession of Chersonesus, (Thrace.) Invited bylSicome- des I., of Bithynia, they in 287 crossed over into Asia Minor, where for a century they were the scourge of that country, and extended their invasion far and wide. They were first checked by Attilus of Pergamos about 200 B. C, and contined within a limit of a province called by their own name. Then the Romans encountered them. Manlius in 189 defeated them. One of their princes was made king, and the}^ were governed as a tetrarchate for three reigns. At the beginning of the empire, made a province, including also Pisidia and Lycaonia, Phrygia and Pamphylia. Some say they were the first Germans of antiquity. Wieseler, Ols., Luther. But ancient testimony, and especially that of their lan- guage, shows that they were Celts. Jerome says that they kept their own langnas^e of the Rhine. But while they retained their own, they adopted and spoke the Greek as well. At the time of Paul's visit they were under Roman domination, and we thus see the people 127 nnder the two forms of Grecian and Roman civilization. The}- present in Piinl's time, the cfiaracteristics peculiar to the Ganls of Cfesar's time. They were quick, rest- less, fickle, cruel, and fond of externulism in reliorion. On the third journey, the church there was already cs- tahlished. Laro;cly composed of Gentile converts. Time and place of writhui. Can only be slathered from indirect sources ; hence nothino; certain can be stated. Marcion and some modern critics have placed it first amonsc PauTs epistles. The fathers were divided between Ephesus and Rome. Theodoret and others made it first of ei»istle8 written from Roman prison. Others say it was written last of all. The Syriac and Coptic W, also con- tain the subscription bfiin.'fq aTib ^Piojifj^^ based doubt- less upon the supposed allusion to bonds of imprison-"- Dient in G: 17 and 4: 20, The majority, however, hold that it was written during the aforementioned stay at Ephesus. Of these, some say it was written, in the earlier, others in the later part of the three years. 1. The arirument for E[)hesu3 is based on the fact that Paul was in Galatia tv/ice before the letter was written. In 4: 13, "Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the Gospel unto you at the first," to Tzpozsiiou evidently implies a second visit, which probably men- tioned (Acts 18 : 23, " went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order.") The enthusiasm with which they received the Gospel from Paul (4: 14,) soon gave way under false instruction to distrust and change of faith (1 : 6.) From the context, some say, this nuist have occurred soon after their reception of the Gospel. Others, soon after Paul's second visit; and others, soon after the entrance of the false teachers. The difi'or- ences on this point are not essential. Ellicott and others fix the date of writing early in the three years. 2. Another view makes the qtiestion turn upon the persons addressed, whether they were the inhabitants of Galatia proper, or of the province of Galatia as mentioned above. If the latter, they urge that the Galatians are included among the churches of the first journey, (Acts 14 : 6- 24.) Consequently the second visit had taken place, and the epistle had been written before the third jouruGiy. 128 Even before the Jerusalem council, (15) or Paul would have cited liis positio?i in it, and ita decision. To this view it is ohjected that Luke distins^ni-^hes by name the divisions of the Roman provinceofGalatia, and more accu- rately refers to the sub-provinces, Lycaonia and Pisidia. We know from history that the political relations of these divisions were constantly changing;. 3rd view, tiiat of Bleek, Cony beare and Howson, l^ightfoot,et al., is that the epistle wa.s not written from Ephesus, but still later, from Corinth, or on the way to Corinth (20: 1 3,) after the epistles to the Corinthians. Urged it) defence of this view : 1. The weakness of the other side, o'jzio raykiuc, is indefinite. 2. Internal evidence of the epistle shows that it is most nearly allied to 2 Corinthians and Romans, and therefore naturally comes between them, (a) It agrees with 2 Corinthians in display of personal feelings. (b) With Romans in subject, style, and individual ex- pressions, as the Ephesians and Colossians agree. In- stances from Lightfoot's table : (Gal. 3: 6 and Rom. 4: 3,) airreenn-nt on the ground of justilication ; (Gal. 3: 10 and Romans 4: 15,) inability of ^<'r/c/Z justification ; (Gal. 8: 12 and Rom. 10: 5,) perfect obedience to the law secures life; (Gal. 3: 22 and Rom. 11 : 32.) God con- trols sin in order to the fuller exhibition of ijrace ; (Gal. 4 : 5-7 and Rom. 8 : 14-17,) adoption ; (Gal. 4 : 23-28 and Rom. 9: 7,) believers the children of the promise ; (Gal. 5 : 16 and Rom. 8 : 4, spiritual vs. worldly life, (c) Galatians bears evidence of iiaving been written in the heat of personal controversy and presents the jirst argu- ment in behalf of Pauline Christianit}'. Romanj8 seems to have been written after a triumph, and contains a com- plete essay, (d) This agrees best with the history of Paul's persecution. This is first alluded to in 1 Corin- thians. In 2 Corinthians it is at its height. In Gala- tians it is subsiding (6 : 17.) In Romans it is over, (e) In Corinthians, the Judaizing tenets are not promi- nently referred to, but both in Romans and Galatians they are special subjects of attention. Answer: 1. o\)TM r«jfiwc, as stronger than a mere temporal reference, embodying and implying the presence in the Apostle's minds of vivid recollections of his relatious to them, and 129 hence liis astonisliment that such relations should so readily he chanired. 2. Their jiositive argument rests on the similarity of style and thought hetween Galatians and Romans. But similarity may arise from similarity of circumstances and suhject as well as juxtaposition in time. Moret)ver tenets of the Judaizers were not a sub- ject of controversy in Corinthians, because they were not prominent in that Church. l)esiistle early in the sojourn at Ephesus mentioned, (ch. 19,) is of special importance against the skeptical doc- trine of modern Rationalists, who derive from this epistle their outline of N. T. history. But the facts are, it tells us little of the foundation of Christianity and is addressed to churches already founded. (1.) " Ye did run well," (5 : 7.) (2.) " Unto the churches of Galatia," (1 : 2.) The chief towns of Galatia were Tavium, Pessinua and Ancyra, which was declared the capital by Augustus, to whom a temple was dedicated there. Pessinus, under the shadow of Mt. Dindymus, was the cradle of the wor- ship of the great goddess Cybele, and one of the princi- pal commercial towns of the district. Tavium was at once a strong fortress and a great emporium. The gross superstitions and cruel rites, appealing to the senses and passions of their native religion, (Druidism) prepared the Gauls to accept the worship of Cybele, with its wild cere- monial and hideous mutilations. This embodiment of the spirit of the old popular i-eligions came in contact at Ancyra with the new political worship, which Roman statecraft had devised to secure the respect of its subject peoples. Among these people it was not the Apostle's intention to f)reach the gospel, but he was detained by illness and his preaching met with an eager reception (4 : 13, 14). The church was composed chiefly of Gen- tiles — "Heirs of the promise" (3:29) — worshipers of heathen gods (4: 8), who embraced Christianity directly without subn)itring to the rites of Judaism (5 : 2; 6: 12). The rai)id rise and prevalence of Judaizing influence in these churches upon the departure of the Apostles may be accounted for, (1) By the large number of resident Jews. These had since the conquest of Maiilius been 130 attracted thither by the great mercantile advantages offered by tlie country. We know that in the generation before St. PanI, Augustus dii-ccted a decree granting special privileges to the Jews to be inscribed in the tem- ple at Ancyra, the Galatian metropolis. (2) By the influence of false teachei'B who had come before and after from Jerusalem, who treated slightingly Paul's apostolic office and authority, alleginif that circumcision was necessary (1 : 1 and 11 ; 5 : 2 ; 6 : 12). Against these Paul had warned them when present. It is very clear that the decree of the council had not satisfied the Jewish party in the church. Not content with their opposition in Palestine, they followed up Paul in his missionary journeys. They carried their regard for o.Kternals to the neglect of the vitality of religion. Moreover, the char- acter of the Galatians and their former religious training predisposed them to accept the Judaistic ritual and Phar- isaic ceremonies (4 : 9). In order to accomi»lish the pur- pose of the Juilaizers, the system of doctrine taught hy Paul, and his authority, must be broken down. This could be effected only by an attack upon Paul. Hence (1) they charge him with time-serving (1 : 10); (2) as not having seen Christ, and hence without apostolic author- ity (1 : 1 and 16 ;) (3) «s self-contradictory and inconsist- ent, in disregarding the law and forsaking circumcision (5: 11). This was based on his concessions to the Jewish party, as in the case of Timoth\-. But that Paul had not changed his views as alleged, appears from the stand he took in reference to Titus, cited in chajiter 2 of the epis- tle. The effect of these arguments, however, was to mislead many (3 : 1 ; 4 : 16). In refutation, Paul was led to review his previous n)inistry. This takes up the first of the three sections, which comprise the epistle. 8ec. I. His personal vindication (chs. 1 and 2). Sec. II. Doctrinal — mostly argumentative. Theme: Justification by faith — not by law (chs. 3 and 4). Sec. III. Hortatory and prac- tical application (chs. 5 and 6). Connection between history and the doctrine of this epistle. Paul had in- structed the Galatians as to the person and sufferings of Christ (3 : 1); but the continued attack calls for tiiis full argument in defence of his faith. This was drawn (1) 131 from tlie evidence of tlie Holy Spirit (3 : 2-5); (2) from the case of Abraliani (3 : 6-9) ; (3) from the nature of the hiw (3: 10); (4) from tlie perjietnit}' of the covenant with Abraham (3 : ir)-17). Then he shows the end of the law — a schoolmaster to lead to Christ, (3: 10-29); and then illustrates the relation between tlie old and new systems, (ch. 4). Of the ettect of this epistle on the Galatiaii church we know nothing, except inforentially from 5:10. In post-apostolic times, Galatia was a hot-bed of ritual- ism, a tendency to which is referred to, 4 : 10. "Asia Minor was the nursery of heresy, and of all the Asiatic churches it was nowhere so rite as in Galatia." Ancyra was the "stronghold of the Montanist revival, which lingered on for more than two centuries, splitting into diverse sects, each distinguished hy some fantastic ges-_ ture or ritual observance. Here too we lind Ophites, Manichajans, and sectarians of all kinds." In the fourth century the peace of the church was disturbed by two bishops from this quarter, and by Marcellus, whose rep- utation suffered from the more decided Sabellianism of his pupil, the hcresiarch Photinus, likewise a Galatian, and by Basiiius, who leaned to the opposite extreme, Ai'ianism, and presided over the semi-Arian synod of Ancyra, A. D. 358. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of" the folly of the Galalians who abound in many impious denominations." The emjieror Julian " affirms thai whole villages in Galatia were depopulated by the Christ- ians in their intestine quarrels." On the other hand, tho churches of this region furnished numerous martyrs in the Diocletian persecution. Subsequently under Julian the forces of Galatia were concentrated upon Galatia, as a key to the heathen position, but the attempt was almost fruitless. Analysis. — There is a marked advance in the histor- ical development of truth as seen from this epistle. Contents of the Epistlk. I. Personal — chiefly in form of a narrative. 1. The salutation, inti'oducing its subject (1: 1-5). 2. Rebukes apostasy, denounces false teachers, and declares eternal truth of the Gospel which he preached (6-10). 132 3. This Gospel came directly from God. (1) By siieciiii revelation (11, 12). (2) Not result of previous education (13, 14). (3) Not learned from Apostles of the circumcis- ion, etc. (15-17). (4) His first visit to Jerusalem after conversion afforded him neither close nor protracted intercourse with them (18-24). (5) In his next visit, he carefully maintained his independence and equality (2: 1-10). (6) At Antioch he rebuked I'eter's inconsistency (2:11-21). The principles involved in this incident introduce the doctrinal section of the epistle. II. Doctrinal, mostly arjrumentative : 1. The Galatians self-stultifiod in substituting the works of the law for the obedience of faith ^(3:1-5). 2. The true children, with Abraham, justified by faith (3 : 6-9). 3. The law only condemned ; from this condemna- tion Christ rescued (8 : 10-14). 4. Thus he fulfilled the promise given to Abraham, which being prior to the law could not be annulled by it (3: 15-18). 6. If so, what was the purpose of the law ? (3 : 19). (1) Inferior disj)ensation, preparatory to the Gospel (3: 19-23). (2) Education for the freedom of the Gospel (3 : 24-29). (3) To meet the conditions of minority, but now we are our own masters (4 : 1-7). (4) Yet to this stale of tutelage the Galatians are bent on returning (4 : 8-11). [This suggests his personal relations with liis converts and the conduct of their false teachers (4 : 12-20).] 6. The relation of the covenants of law and grace, WMth the triumph of the latter, are typified by the history of llagar, Sarah, and tlieir child- ren (4 : 21-30). 133 Tiie word free is the vinculum of the third section. III. Hortatory, practical applications. 1. This freedom false teachers are endanf^ering (5:1-12). 2. Let it not degenerate into license. The walk in the Spirit is the antidote both to license and ritualism (5 : 13-26). 3. Two special injunctions, (1) Mutual forbearance and brotherly sympathy (6 : 1-5). (2) Liberality (6:6-10). Conclu.^ion, in Apostle's handwriting (6 : 11.) 4. Repeated warning vs. Judaizers (6:12-16). 5. Ke assertion of his authority (6 : 17). 6. Farewell (6:18). [^Suhftiantialb/ from IJghlfoot. See also, Luther, Jowett, Eadie, Ellicott, Meyer, Lange, and other special com- mentaries.] First Epistle to the Corinthians. The place and time of compoMlion are clearly given in the epistle and in Acts. The only existent difference respects the order. Some who deny Paul's second imprisonment maintain that 1 Timothy precedes. The Epistle was written near the close of the three years stay in Ephesua (1 Cor. 4: 19; Acts 19). 1. Li the^ spring of 57 or 58 A. D., Paul left that city (1 Cor. 16:8). 2. He sends the greetiiisfs of Arpiihi and Priscilla (1 Cor. 16: 19 — cf 'Acts 18 : 18). 3. The plan of travel (1 Cor. 11:5 — cf. Acts 20 : 1. 2, and 19 : 21). 4. Timothy had been sent to Corinth prior to writing of this letter (cf. 1 Cor. 4 : 17 with Acts 19 : 22), but it was uncertain whether he had arrived before the letter (1 Cor. 16 : 10). These passages indicate the time to be the latter part of the Apostle's stay at Ephesus. 5. The collections mentioned (1 Cor. 16 : 1-3 and 2 Cor. 8 and 9 chs.) coincide with the Apos- tle's above-mentioned plan of going via Greece to Jeru- salem. See also Acts 21 : 17, where these collections are referred to as already completed. So also Rom. 15: 25, 26. 6. 1 Cor. 5 : 6-8 seems to refer incidentally to the approach of the passover of year 57, where the emended text has the present indie, instead of the present subj. 134 with future signification. The inscription kypdiptj dTrb 7i()J.--iov is erroneous, arising from a mistaken rendering of M (jLxaoov'fJv yan dcsfiyonac — I am passing tli rough Mace- donia (1 Cor. 11:5)."" GeuiUDencss and. AutJienficil)/. These are universally acknowledged. The whole epistle springs naturally out of the circumstances, and presents no difficulties arising from change of style. References to the epistle occur very eai'ly. Cleniont of Rome refers to it in his epistle to this very church; Polycarp. in cfjistle to Philippians; Irenasus quotes it in his book '' Against the Heretics ;" Athenagoras, quotes 1 Cor. 15 : 53; Clement of Alexan- dria cites it frequently and expli(;itly. This is one of the four epistles unflisputed by the Tiihingen school. This epistle is of special histoi-ical importance, in that it gi\es the details of daily life and practice. In Ccn-inth Christianity first came into contact with Greek civiliza- tion, and hence the inner life of that church is there- fore illustrative of Christianity under those conditions, and in its outward relations to society and government. Hence the importance of the epistle as to social and practical questions. On account of the diverse composi- tion of its membership, the church was early split into parties. To solve these practical problems and subdue this party-strife, drew out the personal traits of the Apostle's character. Additional liisiorical jjoints. 1. Metropolitan churches implied counin/ churches. (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1.) Some say that these are but general expressions, some that they are catholic epistles; others, that these salu- tations imply the existence of Christians outside, but not churches, or the plural would be used. The common view, however, is supported by iThess. 1: 7-8 and 2 Thess. 1:4." the churches of God." The existence of country churches is supported by the probable spread of the Gos- pel while the Apostle was in Asia ; by the Jewish popu- lation in the Peloponnesus ; by Paul's use of Achaia, and not Corinth, when he alludes to his wish to revisit the churches there, and by the testimony of Pliu}-, Justin, &c ; e. g., Pliny in a letter to Trajan says: " this conta- gious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but 135 has ppread its infection among the country villages." So Justin in Dialogue with Tryplio. 'Oudk eu yu/t oXo^ itrzi TO yivo:; avd^iuoTuov^ ecrs ftafil^dfxov, ec'rs "^ fC^j.rjvwv, ec're &n?uo; wrcvco'ju ovnaazc rcooaayoiiouufiiuajv, yj d-iia^o^uov, iy 6.i):/uov xalo'JuiviDV^ -q iu a/.r^vrv.^ XTf/VOznoipiou ocxwji^tiov. iu o}^ firj (iui rob uvoaaro:; to-j (rra'jtxor^^si^-o^ /qaoD vjyjn xahu- ■^ayiffTiai nv Tzazjil xo'i ■rzotffzyj zCov o)mv ycuouTac 2. Lost letters and unrecorded visits. It was mani- fest that freciuent intercourse was sustained, between Cor- inth and Ei)hesns diiriuij^ the Apostle's stay in the latter place. The evidence for the unrecorded visits properly belongs to an exe^resis of 2nd Cor. It is clear from 1 Cor. (5 : 9-12) that tiie Apostle had written a letter prior to this epistle, which seems to have started questions in, the rninds of the (yorinthians, which the Apostle answers in ch. 7 and the following chapters. Oi)j. The fathers held that an ins|)ii'ed letter could not be lost, and some hold that the reference is to tlie letter in hand. But this is unnatural. There is nothing in the former part of the epistle similar to what Paul refers to here. Thelossof this epistle is accounted for by its speciiic nature and purpose. It seems to have been uritten after his unrecorded visit. E.xtant apo(!ryi)hal epistles claim to be these lost letters. In reference to his communication with Corinth, note the return of Apollos from Corinth to Ephesus (1 Cor. 16 : 12), — the coming to him of members of the household of Chloe, 1 : 11 ; of Stophanasand Fortunatusand Achaicus, l(j : 17. Again Timothy was sent from Ephesus to Corinth (4 :^ 17 and 16 : 10), and Titus, ])erhaps with this epistle, as we learn from 2 Cor. 12: 17. Both returned to Paul in Macedonia before 2 Cor. was written, 2 Cor. 1 : 1 and 7 : 6. Hence we see that intercommunication was constant, and that both by land and sea it was easy. These instances give us an idea of the fullness of the Apostle's care and labors for the churches. 3. Corinthian Parties. (Ch. 1: 12.) The party spirit pervaded the entire church. It arose (1) from the Greek character. (2) From the activity of a metropoli- tan community. Surrounded by liabits of gross immor- ality and intellectual pride and speculation, Christians were liable to be corrupted in their conduct, and tempted 136 to despise the simplicity of their first teacher. (3) From Jewish teachers, who had cotne thither recommeiided hy other churches, disparaging in every way the office, character and work of Panl. The sn(hlenness with which these parties spran.": up is noticeahle. It was after he left, and he lieard of them through Cliloe's househoUl (1 Cor. 1: 11.) Further tlie names of these parties refer to persons who came after his leaving. These divisions did not involve doctrinal issues, but turned on personal matters. Consequently raul'sdefence and cliarges against them are personal, and not based on discussions of princi- ples respecting the way of salvation or the efficacy of faith. The church waspredominantly Gentile, and hetice the Judaizers could not insist on circumcision. They tlierefore change their method of opposition to a personal attack. They question Paul's authority, but dare not oppose his influence. These distinctions were local and accidental, but not permanent. That they did not con- tinue, is evident from Clement of Rome, who refers to them as past. For this reason Paul does not distinguish between them in his answer, but merely treats of their existence and the difficulties resulting therefrom. The o[)inion that the names Paul, Apollos and Cephas by which the parties called themselves respectivel}-, are used figuratively, is unnatural, and has been almost univer- ssdly abandoned. 1. Those who adopted Paul's name, in the main Gentile converts, were free and refused to submit to ceremonial law. They, however, carried his views to the extreme of Antinomianism, thus misrepre- senting him, and neglecting the grace of charit}' in insist- ing upon their personal liberty. 2. Those who took Apol- los' name, were personal admirers of the eloquent preach- ing of Apollos, and objectors to the mode of the Apos- tle's teaching, as appears from Paul's defence of his lack of rhetoric and " wisdom of words." (1 Cor. 2 : 1-8 inc.) That the difference between this and the former party was not doctrinal appears from Paul's endorsement of Apollos (16: 12.) (Cf. 1: 17 and 2: 16.) Note that Paul's defence gives important information as to the method of preaching. The best preaching is not the most popular. Neander says " that Paul 137 had never yet been able to lead them by his dis- courses to perceive in the simple doctrine of the Gos- pel, which in the eyes of the world was foolishness, the depths of divine wisdom, because an ungodly dis- position predominated in their mir)ds, of which these party strifes were an evident sign." 3. The Cephas party were the Judaizors above referred to. Professing to be ministers of Christ, (2 Cor. 11 : 23,) they were false Apostles (2 Cor. 11 : 13,) assumed Peter's name without his authority', and had come with* letters of commenda- tion from other churches (2 Cor. 3 : 1.) As is evident from the defence which the Apostle makes of his com- mi.nsion, (1 Cor. 9: 1-3; 2 Cor. 12: 11, 12,) they ques- tioned his apostleship, and accused him of inconstancy and insincerity, (2 Cor. 1 : 17-20.) 4. The Christ Party. There is difficulty in determin- ing the characteristics of this party. All that is clear is that it was a sect called by the name of Christ, and founded on undiscoverable relations to Christ, (a) Some have surmised that they were opposed to the factious spirit of those who followed the leadership of men, and carried their dislike to this spirit to the extreme of form- ing a new party. But they are censured as well as the others, (b) Others suppose that this party was so called because they admitted as authoritative only the dis- courses of Christ, (c) Others, with Thiersch, and Lechler tliat they had been personal disciples of Christ, (d) Others that they were the adherents of James, the " brother of the Lord." (e) Others that they were a sect of mystics, who, taking Paul's visions as a basis, believed that they enjoyed visions and revelations of Christ, (f) Neander's view : " a party desirous of attaching them- selves to Christ alone, independently of the Apostles, who constructed in their own way, a Christianity differ- ent from that announced by the Apostles," either by means of a collection of Christ's sayings, (see b above,) or vis- ions or inward light, (3) or by means of the light of natural reason, which Neander prefers, from the known peculiarities of the Grecian mind. The same party denied the resurrection from the dead, (1 Cor. 15 : 12,) and illustrates the connection between rationalism and 138 the rejection of church authority. If this view be true, Paul, doubtless has these in mind, when he contrasts rea- son and revehition, (ch. 2.) (g) View of Baur and Tiibiu- gen school. Start with the fundamental assumption of two conflicting parties in the church. Here Paul and Apollos are arrayed against the Peter — and Christ— party ; the latter viewed as legalists are the Petrine party, and as against Paul, (no apostle) call themselves the Christ party, embracing the extreme Judaizers. This they say agrees with our previous knowledge of parties in the church, and accounts for the objection urged against Paul that he had never seen Christ. Further, these crit- ics cite those passages in this epistle, where Paul refutes the objection just named. (4:1; 9:1; 15: 8; 2: 16.) Paul, they say, renews his assertions in 2 Cor. 10: 7 and 11 ch. They allege that the whole structure of the epistle is based on this controversy, and accordingly re- ceive it as genuine. Objections to this theory : 1. We have four names, not two ; and separate names forbid identifications. (1 : 12.) 2. The inferences drawn from the passages quoted are forced and fallacious. They only prove that Paul was attacked on that ground. The per- sonal attack of the extreme Judaizers is insufficient ground for classing them as a distinct party. 4. Relation to heathen community. The infant church struggled for life in the midst of a heathen com- munity, surrounded by every incitement and facility to evil. The epistle presents the eftects of these on the chnrch, and corrects the false notions concerning the purity of the primitive church, now prevalent. We are here informed that these churches suftered from the same evils as those of the present day. In this respect, the mother church in Jerusalem was distinguished from the church in Gentile lands. It was founded on morality, yet suff'ered from internal corruptions, corrected by per- secution. But in Corinth there was little persecution. Notice that much gross evil may exist with religious vitality. These churches far from being in a dead con- dition. We have in this case an answer to those who oppose the success of missionaries. Grace leaves nature to a great extent as it was. Much of their immorality 139 grew out of false principles, which placed certain immo- ralities in the same category as questions of food. See the Apostle's treatment of these (clis. 5 and 6.) The posi- tion of woman was very degraded. Under pretext of religion, license existed, and though its presence in the church was recognized, yet so tainted was their morality, that it was excused on the ground of liberty. To the prevailing sentiment on this point, Paul opposes the scriptural representation that the bodv is a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Ghost (6: 12-20.) In chapter o : 1-5 Paul rebukes the church for allowing a man guilty of incest to remain in its communion. This crime was regarded by the Gentiles with abhorrence. Cicero speaks of such a connection as an incredible crime — as with one exception unheard of (Pro Cluent. 5, 6.) Some have endeavored to explain this, and the church's remissness, by a principle taught by many of the Jews, that all bonds of relationship were dissolved by conver- sion. The proselyte became a new creature, received a new name. The Rabbins taught, therefore, that a prose- lyte might lawfully marry any of his nearer kindred. Others that the Old Testament was not then in vogue. But, in the fact that the Apostle here distinguishes incest from adultery, we find a recognition of the perpetual obligation of the Levitical law. (Lev. 18.) As to the punishment " to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh," there are two interpretations : One that it is simply excommunication ; the other, a miraculous subjection of the person to the power of Satan. Some find an explanation of the phrase — " for the destruction of the flesh" — in the gnostic idea of matter as the seat of evil. From 2 Cor. 5 : 11 it appears that the repentance of the otiender followed upon the censure of the church, and so the execution of the sen- tence was remitted. Riickert, with whom Baur agrees, thinks there was no repentance — and although the majority of the church disapproved of the oflenders, con- duct, they were unwilling to execute Paul's severe sen- tence. Accordingly from prudential motives, the Apos- tle compromised. The main point in the passage is not the sin of the individual but of the church's laxity of 140 discipliDe — and the effect of the rebuke is seen in 2 Cor. 7 : 7-16. From this passage we may deduce the follow- ing principles and mode of discipline: (1) Discipline is to be exercised by the church as a body, and not by the officers alone. (2) Its exercise — solemn and public. (3) Its object, not simply the preservation of the purity of the church, but the recover}^ of the offender (5 : 5-11.) 5. Relation to heathen magistrates (6 : 1-11.) Re- bukes spirit of litigation and exposure before heathen tribunals. 6. The Apostle's treatment of marriage in the 7th chapter refers to the peculiar relations the church sus- tained to heathen society, as base:l on heathen religion. 7. Meats offered to idols. Markets were supplied from the temples with meats that had been used in sacrifices. Hence a difficulty arose. Eating such meat Paul states to be a matter of indifference in which Christian liberty was limited only by the conscientious scruples of others. He forbids the eating of them within the precincts of the temples. (8: 10; 10: 21-28.) Notice that the council of Jerusalem is said to be opposed to this action of Paul. There is no difference in principle. The council's deci- sion was a compromise, and not a declaration of princi- ple. This could not be carried out literally in Corinth. Moreover the Jewish claim was not disregarded, for the Christians w^ere enjoined to exercise charity when the question was raised. The Apostle does not mention the decree of the council because it was well-known, and not addressed to those churches (Acts 15: 24.) The whole affords an illustration of the laxity of Christian life and Paul's liberality. This abstinence from participation in heathen feasts was construed into atheism, and made a ground of persecution. Christians were regarded as ignorant fanatics, the people hated them as de-^pisers of the gods, and the causes of their misfortune, the cultivated laughed contemptuously at the obstinacy and confidence of their faith. Celsus employed all the resources of his intellect and eloquence to paint Christianity as a ridicu- lous and contemptible system, and its followers as a sect dangerous to the well-being of the state. When to shield himself from suspicion, Nero charged the Christians 141 with firing Rome, their fiendish execution served as an amusement to the populace. 8. Worship. (Ch. 11.) Women took part in the worship with uncovered heads. In all eastern countries tiie veil is a symbol of modesty and subjection. For Corinthian women to discard the veil was to r(;nounce their claim to modesty, and relying on the doctrine of Chrit^tian freedom and tlie aboli,tion of se.xual distitiction in Christ (Gal. 3 : 28), too eagerly to aspire to female independence. This the Apostle rebukes, and (14 : 34) forbids their public speaking in the church. Lord's Sup- per was celebrated in cotinection with, though distinct from an ordinary meal, called agape (dyaKrj). Thii had a reference not only to tlie original institution, but also to the sacred festivals botli of the Greeks and Jews, con- cerning wliich we learn (Xen. Mem. III. 14) that the per- sons assembled brought their own provisions, which formed a common stock. This communion on terms of equality was essential to the idea of a Christian feast. But there were divisions in the Corinthian church even at the Lord's table — the rich eating by themselves and leaving their poor brethren mortified and hungry. Com- pare this with the treatment of the poor in modern churclies. Spiritual gifts. Chs. 12 and 14. See under Acts 2 chapter. 9. The Resurrection was denied by some in the Cor- inthian church (ch. 15). By whom? Some say Saddu- cees. But they were so opposed to Christianity, that no party in the church was dominated b^; their influence. Others infer from Paul's answer, in which he quotes their maxim, "Eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,'' that they were Epicureans. The common opinion is that the influence of oriental philosophy in the Corinthian church — referred to in later epistles — gave rise to this heresy. They objected that it was impossible to recover the identical body, and — agreeably to their dualistic ideas — undesirable, as the body would only bean imped- iment to the spirit. Thus the Christ-party (rationalists) misinterpreted Christ's word and expected a spiritual resurrection only (15 : 35). Neander agrees with this view. The denial of this doctrine, however, might have 142 come from ai^v source. The Stoics were pantheists, and regarded the soul as etherealized matter. The Epicureans believed in the annihilation of body and soul together. The Platonists believed in the immortality of the soul only, which they regarded as eternal, as eternally pre- existent, and as passing through an endless series of transmigrations. In Athens, where Paul came in conflict with these same systems of philosophy, the resurrection was denied (Acts 18 : 32). Analysis. I. Salutation (1 : 1-9). II. Reproof of the factions, (1 : 10—4 : 20). 1. Contrasts human and divine wisdom, (1: 11-2: 5). 2. " his own simple preaching with the presumption of his followers, (2 : 6-3 ch.) 3. The proper relation of teachers and disciples, (3 to 4 : 20.) III. Intercourse with heathen, (4: 21—6: 20.) a. Incest and discipline. (5 chapter.) b. Lawsuits, (6 : 1—12.) c. Christian department in sexual relations, (6 : 12 — 6 : 20.) IV. Answers to the letter of the Corinthian church, (7 to 14: 40.) a. Marriage, (7 c.) b. Heathe^n feasts, (8 to 11 : 1.) c. Public Worship, (11 : 2—14 : 40.) (1.) Male and female head-dress, (11 : 2—11 : 16.) (2.) Lord's Supper, (11 : 17 to 34.) (3.) Exercise of spiritual gifts, (12 to 14 : 25.) (4.) Unity and uniformity, (14: 26 to 14: 40.) V. Resurrection of the dead, (15 c.) Future state the aim and end of Christian life. VI. Conclusion of a personal nature, (16 c.) Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The events in the life of Paul, from the spring of 57 until the last journey to Jerusalem, a period of some ten months, Luke sums up in three verses. (Acts 20: 1-3.) Intellectually this period was the most active and influ- ential of Paul's career, as we learn from the epistles. 2 Corinthians and Romans, written within its limits. From 143 ch. 2 we learn that Paul left Ephesus, in deep dejection, on account of the cljaracter of the Corinthian church. He had however determined not to visit tlieni in this state of mind, (2 Cor. 2: 1) and had previously sent Timothy (1 Cor. 4 : 17) to forward the collection and counteract the disturbing influence in the Corinthian church. Failing to hear from or through Timothy, the Apostle in his anxiety dispatclied Titus, (2 Cor. 2: 12-13,) and instead of sailing directly to Corinth, took his de- parture through Macedonia, when the outbreak at Ephe- sus forced him to leave, delaying his visit until the eifect of his former letter should be made known to him by Titus. lie accoi'dingly, tarried on h\% way at Troas, waiting for Titus, but in his eagerness to hear from Corinth, he pressed forward to Macedonia, where he raet" Titus with a good report, (2 Cor. 7: 6, 7.) In Macedonia he w\is rejoined by Timothy also. Whether he had reached Corinth, or been delaj-ed in Macedonia, is uncer- tain (1 Cor. 16: 10; 2 Cor. 1:1.) Time and place of composition. From Macedonia, he sends Titus, with tliis epistle, desiring him to complete the collections, (2 Cor. 8 : 6.) In corning to Corinth the third time, Paul in writing to the Corinthians boasts of the liberality of the churches iji Macedonia, and in Mace- donia he boasts of tlie churches in Achaia. (8 : 1-5 and ch. 9.) But inasmuch as certain Macedonians might ac- company him to Corinth, he exhorts them in this letter to sustain the reputation he had given them (vs. 3 and 4.) Tlie Syriac version and B say it was written from Philippi. Time — a few months later than the 1 Cor., in the ftill of A. D, 57, sufficient to allow Titus to reach Rome and return to Philipi)i, It is the least methodical of Paul's epistles, abounding in severity and vindication of charac- ter. As 1 Corinthians affords the most complete picture of the church among the heathen, this gives the most complete portraiture of Paul. HiMorical Points. (1.) Evidence of an unrecorded visit to Corinth — (12 : 14.) This must have occurred before the first epistle was written, as may be seen from com- parison of 1st and 2d epistles. Certain points of 2 Cor. are otherwise not easily explained — (12 : 14 ; 13 : 1 ; 2:1; 144 12: 21.) Some say that he was ready to come the third time, but the Apostle says — " Am coming the third time." (18 : 1.) So (13 : 2) a second time to rebuke, which does not include the first visit. Again, (2 : 1) " will not come again in heaviness." It is objected from 1 : 15, 16 that the " second benefit" — refers to his pro- posal to visit them twice on the same journej^, instead of indicating a third visit. But it is simply a notice of a contemplated change of the plan mentioned (1 Cor. 16 : 5.) It is urged further that Luke does not mention this journey. Ans. This does not fall in with Luke's design of recording the work at centers, and occurs within the period of the Apostle's labors at Ephesus. (Acts 19.) Some think this visit merely a return from an excursion made, during the stay at Corinth (Acts 18.) Most sav — it was made from Ephesus — direct to Corinth and before the writing of 1 Cor., because in 1 Cor. 16 : 5 the visit he had then in mind was to be made through Macedonia, a reference to which they say is found in 2 Cor. 15 : 16. But the plain inference from that passage is that the visit there projected was not fulfilled. (2.) Second lost letter. Bleek with whom iTeander agrees, holds to a second lost letter, written after the sending of 1 Corinthians, Timothy had returned from the vistt mentioned in 1 Cor. with a bad report, respect- ing the disposition of a part of the church. In conse- quence Paul wrote a severe letter and sent it by Titus, and remained in great anxiety until he heard of its effect. See 2 Cor. This view turns upon the point, that there is nothing in 1 Cor. severe enough to form a basis for the references in the second epistle. Meyer denies this. Alford — possible ; Kling, et al. — not proven. (3.) Description of hardships (1 Cor. 15 : 32.) Some understand a literal exposure to wild beasts. Against this is urged— (1.) the improbability that a Roman citi- zen should be subjected to that punishment. But lioman citizenship did not prevent Paul's being twice beaten with rods. (2.) Silence of Acts, on this point. But scarcely a tithe of what Paul did and suftered is recorded in the Acts. (3.) It is not mentioned in 2 Cor. 11 : 23-29. In as much as this expression — " fighting with wild 145 beasts," is often used figuratively by the ancients for con- tests with enraged men, and since Paul was exposed to tlie violent tumult of the people at Ephesus, it is most probably to be understood figuratively here. Mostadopt this view. (1 Cor. 16 : 9,)" and refer (2 Cor. 1 : 8, 9) to the same conflict, which was so severe that the Apostle almost despaired of life, and hoped only in the resurrec- tion. A like reference is made of the temptations and the labor accomplished by tears in Acts 20: 19. To this time of confiict is also referred the occasion in which Aquila and Priscilla risked themselves (Romans 16 : 8, 4.) This state of affairs shows tlie activity of the Jewish enemies in P]phesns — and indicates that they sent their emissaries to Corinth at the same time. AIford_ says that 2 Cor. 1 : 8, 9 refers to sickness). In ('orinth" Paul endured a process of mental suffering. In E|)hesus he went through a corresponding process of external suffering. Gives a review of his external afflictions in contrast with his bodily infirmity. In ten years he had been beaten 8 times, yet Acts mentions but one (Acts 16: 22, 23); suffered three shipwrecks, none of which is mentioned in Acts. (2 Cor. 11 : 23-28.) Theories of the thorn in the iiesh (2 Cor. 12 : 7). (1) Spiritual solicitation of the devil. (2) Opposition from one or more adversaries. Calvin et i Jerusalem. The combi- nation of the passages referring to this collection forms 147 one of the threads for determining the time of the com- position of the epistle. Acts 11 : 20 shows the oriijin of the movement. Acts 15 : 6, Gal. 2 : 10, 1 Cor. 16: 1, show the authoritative recog'nition of it. Acts 18 : 23 exhibits the beginnintr of its operation. 1 Cor. 16: 1-2 shows the method : Titus is sent to further and complete it (2 Cor. 8 : 6-10) ; and afterwards (Ronnins 15 : 25) we have notice of its completion, and Paul's readiness to depait with it to Jerusalem (cf Acts 20 : 22.) In 2 Cor. 9 we learn of the liberality of the church — whilst the whole is an evidence of its unity and systematic effort. The fact of commissioners accompanying Paul is an evi- dence of his caution against susi:)icion. Notice the pov- ert}' of the church evidenced here, as compared with the motiier cliurch in Jerusalen). Analysis. I. Vindication of his life, chs. 1 to 7. IT. Collections, 8, 9. III. Justification of his apostleship, 10, 11, 12, 13. Remai-k : the unity of this epistle has been attacked. Wieseler says that the first 7 chapters were written be- fore Titus arrived. References, special commentaries on I. and II. Corinthians, Peile, Stanley, Hodge, Ellicott. articles in Smith's Dictionary, Lange, Meyer. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Time and Place of Composition. Written from Corinth in the spring of 58 A. D., or as others with Meyer 59 A. D. Argu- ment, (1) From Rom. 15 : 25, we find this letter was written when the Apostle was about to depart for Jer. with the contributions from the Macedonian and Achaian churches. According to 1 Cor. 16: 1-3, 2 Cor. 9 : 5 he brought this collection to an end in Corinth, and from Acts 20: 3 we learn that prior to setting out for Jerusalem he had spent three months in the vicinity of that city, whence he expected to sail via Ephesus, so as to reach Jer. by Pentecost, (Acts 20 : 16.) (2) From Rom. 15 : 19-23 we learn that at the time of writing his labors in the east were completed. In tliis connection tlie question has been raised, wliether Paul entered Illyr- icum, or but extended his labors unto its borders. 148 From tlie force of the language in v. 23 and the fact that Titns afterwards preached the Gospel in Dalmatia, (2 Tim. 4: 10,) some with Meyer have adopted the possi- ble interpretation that Paul extended his labors into that province. There is however no express mention of the fact either in Acts or the Epistles. (3) Iji Rom. 15 : 30- 31 Paul regards the danger connected with a visit to Jerusalem as imminent, "(cf Acts 20 : 25 and 21 : 20 ff.) (4) The place is pointed out by evidejice whicli cannot he misap|»lied, i. e., names in tlie salutation. Tlie letter was written in the city by Tertius : it mentions Gaius, Paul's host, (16 : 23) who was probably one of the chief members of the Coiinthian church (1 Cor. 1 : 14.) Also Erastus " the treasurer of the city," (16 : 23) elsewhere mentioned in connection with Corinth (2 Tim. 4 : 20) ; (cf. Acts 19 : 22.) Timothy and Sosipater were also with him (Rom. 16 : 21,) who as we learn from Acts 20 : 4 were his companions at Corinth. The epistle was sent by Phoebe, wdiom the Apostle specially commends to tlie Romans, (16 : 1) and who was a deaconess of Cenclirea, a port town of Corinth. The word deaconess never occurs in the A. V. and our/ouoc: is properly translated in the feminine here only. It is said this use of the term implies tlie existence of the office more fully described in 1 Tim. 5: 9. Also that where women are spoken of as Paul's companions we ai-e to understand them as hold- ing this office. The identification of this office with the "widows" mentioned 1 Tim. 5:9-11 and Tit. 2 : 4 is disputed by Neander, but we are at least dependent upon these j)assages for the qualifications of the historic othce, mentioned in Apos. Const. Bk. Ill, and in Pliny's letter to Trajan. Origin of the Church in Rome. Of the official founding we have no record. The first mention of the fact that Christians were in Rome occurs in Acts 18 : 2, where the decree of Claudius (A. D. 41-45) is alluded to as the cause of Aquila and Priscilla's leaving Rome. Suetonius gives as the cause of this decree (Vita Claud. 25) the tumultuous l)ehaviour of the Jews (Chresto impulsore.) This as we have seen is to be taken as a proper name, and the reference is either to an ajritation over the Jew- 149 ish doctrine of a reif]^nin<; and conquering Messiah, or over tlie Cliristinn doctrine of the Messiahship of Jesus. Tiie Christiiins as a sect were not distinguished from tlie hody of Jews, and conse((nenth- banished with thern, sometime between 49 and 63 A. D. There were Chris- tians living in Puteoli, a suburban city, on Paul's arrival there in 63 A. D., and at Appii Forum and the Three Taverns he was met l)y l)rethren from Rome (Acts 28: 14-15,) lience we infer the existence of a prominent cliurch in the latter place (cf Kom. 1 : 8-15.) To this is objected that tiie Jewish elders (Acts 28 : 21-22,) were ignorant of the tenets of Christianity, which ignorance, it is said, would argue the insignificance of the church there. Baur accepting the description of the church found in 1 chiip. of this f pistle regards tlie above |>assage in-_ Acts unliistoricid and illustrative of the doctrinal tend- ency of the author, to harmonize the Petrine and Pauline sections of the church. Olshausen thinks the expulsion of the Jews had induced the Roman Jewish-Christians to separate themselves entirely from the Jews, so that on the return of the latter the former remained unnoticed by them. Neander accounts for their want of knowledge by the vast size of the city. Baumgarten by the pre- dominance of the Gentile Christians leading Jevvs to ignore them. The best view is that the Jewish leaders liere dissemble or disguise their knowledge of the Chris- tian sect, either from a 8ui)erci lions disposition to dis- parage its importance in addi-essing one of its I'ing-lead- ers, (Acts 24 : 5,) or, with Meyer and Lightfoot, from pru- dential motives, and an unwillingness to be involved in quarrels which had previously caused their misfortunes. Size of the church. The ef)istle [)rove8 that it was large and distinguished (1 : 8-13.) (1.) There were distin- guished teachers among them who had been Christians before Paul, (16 : 5, 7.) (2.) The numerous salutations contained in ch. 16. (3.) The fact that the most im- portant of Paul's letters was written to the Romans proves that the church there was large and organized, and had existed for years before 58 (Ron). 15 : 23 ; cf. 22 and I: 13.) Gibbon says :—" The Christians at Rome at the time of the accidental persecution of Nero, are 150 represented by Tacitus ' wgens midtitudo.' " " A more careful inquiry, liowever, sooti demonstrated that the ottenders did not exceed 7000." Merivale, speaking of the tire in the year 64, says of Christianity that it was then eliecting " conversions even in high places, not among the freedmen of the great Roman families only, but among Romans themselves, men, and still more, women of tlie highest rank." Some argue from the silence of the Satirists that the church was small. But we do find that the Jews were a subject of satire, and it is known that long after this the Christians were still con- founded with the Jews. (Cf. Juvenal, XIV., Sat. 96 ff.) (Horace Sat. 1, V. 96 ; 1, IV., 142.) Silence of the phi- loso[»hers can be accounted for in the same way. Note Seneca's remark concerning the Jews. Victi ricforibus leges dederimi. Tacitus is as late as Marcus Aurelius, in whose army large numbers of Christians served, yet he says nothing about them. By their withdrawal fi-om the public and social habits of the lieathen, and their purity of life. Christians excited in the breasts of others feel- ings of mingled hatred and respect. Hence the silence of public comment and the caution of the Jewish elders. It is not difficult to account for the introduction of the Gospel to Rome. The Jews were there in very large nundjers. It was the metro]K)lis of the world, to which captives in war were carried from all nations, Many converts would thus appear. It is probable that some of the converts at Pentecost (Acts 2 : 10) were from Rome. On the persecution following the death of Stephen, dis- ciples went to Cyprus and Phoenicia, and probably to Rome also (Acts 11 : 19, 20.) It could not have been organized by Peter according to the well-known tradi- tion, because Paul wrote his epistle about A. D. 59. Peter was not in Rome and never had been there, (Acts 19 : 21 ; Romans 15: 20.) There is, moreover, no refer- ence to Peter's being in Rome in Luke's nor in Paul's letters from Rome. Meyer says the church of Rome had a Pauline organization, (as opposed to a Petrine.) Lightfoot thinks the organization was not perfected until Paul's arrival. It was probably organized by pupils of Paul, among whom note Priscilla and Aquila, (Rom. 16 : 3.) 151 Composition of the church. (1.) Baur and the Tiibin- cTQw critics say that the Jewish element largely predomi- nated, becanse (7 : 1) they are spoken of as knowina^ the law, and the O. T. is frequently referred to. (2.) Others with Meyer hold that the Gentile element ytredominated, becanse this is not a [lolemic letter, nor addressed to the circumcision. Paul approves the doctrines tanij^ht in the church, (1 : 6-13) calls them Gentiles, and asserts himself to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. (8.) The third view, seekino: to combine the references in the epistle, con- cludes that the church was larj^ely composed of prose- lytes, of whom there were many in Rome. This how- ever does not explain the difficulty. The apostle directly addresses Jews and Gentiles. (4.) Correct view. Cliurch contains both elements. The Gentiles are exhorted to" humility, and the Jews warned of the final rejection of the Judean opjjonents, (16 : 17, 18.) Lightfoot reo-ards the Jewish element as the stronojer, basing his conclusion on the supposition tlnit Philippians was the first of the epistles written in prison, and that it is directed agidnst Jewisli opponents. Meyer says thattliis opposition arose later, and is mentioned in later epistles, and Philippians is conciliatory in tone. The Jews are saluted (ch. 3 : 3 ff.) and both parties are freely exhorted. The Gentiles, as in Corinthians, are exhorted to abstain from giving offence, and the Jews to know their place (Phil. 3 : IG- 18.) h\ Philemon Paul simply refers to the fact that some about him preach Christ even of envy and strife, (1 : 15.) Drawing an inference from (16 : 17,) Lightfoot regards the church as heterogeneous, whose only bond of uinon was faith in Christ, and not formed into one body until Paul came. Again, the Roman church was not Latin, but chiefly Greek. This is well established : (1.) From the fact that the salutations contain chiefly Greek names. (2.) The names of the bishops of Rome for the first two centuries were Greek, with few excep- tions. (3.) All the literature of the early Roman church was written in the Greek tongue. (Milman's Latin Christianity, p. 127.) (4.) Tlie inscriptions found in the Catacombs put the question beyotid dispute, and it is clearly established that the early Latin versions of the N. 152 T. were made not for the use of Rome but of the provin- ces, «,-^peci ally Africa. (Westcott, Canon, p. 269.) Many Greeks were amonoj the retainers of the o;reat families; the influence they were acquiring by their numbers and versatility was a constant theme of reproach in the Roman philosophers and satirists. From these the Gen- tile portion of the churcli was largely drawn. The names of tlie Koman believers belong for tlie most part to the middle and lower grades of societ}'. Added to these were a few from the higher classes, e. g., Pomponia Graicina, Clemens, and Domitilla, a cousin to Domitian, Occasion and object. Tlie occasion is found in the Apostle's long cherished and fixed desire to preach the Gospel in person at Rome, for which the epistle was to be an introduction. (Acts 19 : 21 and Rom. 1 : 13.) We learn from 15 : 23-28 that Spain, not Rome, was to be the goal of his travels to the west. We infer from this that a lengthened stay in Rome was not part of his plan at that time. Hitherto Paul's letters had been occasioned by the special wants of the churches. Of all the epistles, the present has least arisen out of necessity of dealing with special casual circumstances. The view that it was occasioned by the Judaizing spirit of the church (Baur) imports into the epistle a specifically polemical charac- ter, which it does not possess. (1.) It is purely a treatise as to his doctrines, and contains in general a statement of principles, elicited before partially in Galatians, and par- tially in Corinthians. ELerein the Apostle sets forth his doctrine, in the entire connection of its fundamental principles. In no other letter has he done this so com- pletely. Hence it is justly regarded as a grand scheme of his whole teaching, in the precise form which he held to be suitable, for its presentation to the Romans. The actual dangers in the church for the time were more of a moral than doctrinal character, yet the great ques- tion of the day, the relation of the Old Testament to the New, pervades the epistle and gives historic connection to the doctrines here presented. Lightfoot and Meyer infer from its references to the O, T. that the Jewish teachers and influences were already at work, and hence it was the aim of the Apostle to discuss the relation of 153 Cbristinnity to JiKhiism. I>iit nil exliihitioii of tlio Gos- pel tVoiii its very iiatnre must coiitaiii imikjIi of O. T. law and tVefjiioiit roterPiicti to Judaism. WIh.mi tlio Apostle would jtiovo that all ai'e simiers, it is done iirst l)y proving tlio Gentiles and then the Jews to be such. The same fiith is neeessary tor both, and tiMie faith is illnstiMted by that of Abraham. In iinfcldinLC the doctrine of sanetifie ition, the exhibition of the pnr|)>so and use of the law wis necessarily involved. Paul havin'en Jew and Gentile. (3.) Others say it was to conciliate the two, to counteract and obviate misunderstandiu^j^s between Jewisii ami Gen- tile Christians. Xo references in the epistle to actual circumstances that would justify such special delinition of its object. (4.) Baur regards it as an ari^nment with Judaizing Christianity, which he says was then dominant in Ivonie. The latter assertion is unbistorical, and the epistle is not controversial. In no other I'aul ne epistle is the polemical element so much in the background. (o.) Hoffman and Schott make the epistle personally apologetic in design, assuming it to be a matter of sur- prise that hitherto, he had kept aloof from the world's ca|iital. It might seem as it' the church that had arisen without bis ai(J, had no interest for him, or as though he were afraid to proclaim the message of salvation in the centre of Gentile culture. Against this l*aul sets forth what in his view the message of salvation was, hoping thus to g:iin the church of Rome, as u point of support for bis ministry in the fai'thest west. But this assumes an object and design not expressed in the epistle. T\\Q r/enidnencss of clis. XV. and XVI. has i)een called in question on the following grounds: — (1.) We find a 154 doxoloijy at the end of the fifteenth chapter. Tills 18 probahly due to the circMdation of the ei)istle in early times wi I ho lit thepcrsoiial sahitatioiis. (2.) The er- fecily with the fourteenth chapter. The ohjection that 6o many Greek names are nscil falls, with the estahlisli- nient of the Greek composition of the church. Some say that these cha[»ters were orii^inally separate from the letter — either as an introduction and directions to the bearer, (Semler) or, with Ncander — Paul was pre- vented when he luid finished the fourteenth chapter from continuing;' the epistle to the close — and on resuminpr felt liiinself imi»elled to add somethiiiij^ on the theme last treated, seeking on the one hand to check the free Gen- tile Christians tVom self-e.\altation. and to remind the Jewish Chi istians that the |iarticipatiou of the Gentile Christians in the kingdom of God was not an infringe- ment on the rights of the Jewish people, Baiir says the last two chajiters belong to a l?auline- writer, " who in the spirit of the author of the book of Acts, wishes to oppose to the sliar[» anti-Judaism of the Ai)ostle, a soft- ening and siiothing counter[)rise in favor of the Judaists and in the interests of unity. Some W. and MSS., and Fathers introduce the doxology of the 16th ch. between the 14th and 15th chapters — probably foi* the reason above stated — the use of the didactic p(n-tion alone. The external evidence |n'oves the L'enuineness of the last two chapters. " Ske[»tical notions concerning them remain the exclusive pro[»ertv of their originators." — Alford. Analysis. [From Oxford " Teachers' Bible."] I. Sinfulness of the human race. (a) Of the heathen, (ch. I.) (b) Of Jews, (II.) (c) Comparison of Jews and Gentiles, (III. : 1-20.) 155 II. rinn of snlvation explaiiieil. (i.) In Tlieorv, (HI. : 20-80.) (I.) By Ilhislialion, (IV.-V.) III. Its viilno. (ii) Union witli C-hrist, (VI.) (I)) A.-* Servants of Christ, (VI.) (u) Sniiitlyinu' defects of the Law. IV. Jiistitiealion Ity Faith. (a) Christian (liity and privilei^e, VIII. (Ij) Cause of rejection lA' some — eleetion of others, Al)raharn\s Seed, IX. (e) Blindness and linal rejection of Jews, (X, XL) V. Bevelopnieiit of Trnlh, XII-XV. VI. [V'i'sonal Conininnieations, XVI. Commentaries: Ciialmers, llalduiie, D. B'-own. J. Brown, Jowett, Stuart, lIody;e, Tholuek, Article Smith's Diet"y, Lightfoot, Lange, Meyer. THIRD GROUP. Period V. Acts xxi : 38 — xxvin. Paul a Prisoner, Epiiesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians. (Acts XX.) After spending three months in Aehaia, Paul leaves Greece, wilh the sums of money collected for the church at Jerusalem. He pi'oposcd at first to go by sea into Syria, l)ut being made aware of the purjiose of the Jews to destroy liim,he changed his jilan of Journey and returned through Maceihinia (v. 3.) He takes with hiin seven representatives from the churches of Gentile Cliristiaiis in Asia and Europe, (v, 4. See also 1 Cor. 16 : 3, 4.) Luke accompanied Paul from Philippi, and at Troas they Join their companions who had gone before by sea (v. 5.) Discourse at Miletus. At Miletus Paul sent for the elders of the Church at Ephesiis, and delivered to thorn the address recorded in vs. 18-35. Ch. XXf. Thence to Cresarea, thence to Jerusalem. He visits James, (v. 18.) Advice of James. Paul relates the success of tlio gospel anuuig the Gentiles. In view of a report that he had taught the Gentiles to forsake the law of Moses, he is advised to jiut himself under vow with four Nazarites, and to suii[)ly the cost of their ofleringa, (vs. 23-24.) 156 Pnnl's arrest and rescue. TTis perform ince of the vow did not sMtisifv the Jews, and lie isjirrested on the eharrisoiier at Cfiesarea. Jonmey to Rome in the winter. Two years in lunne. A prisoner from A. D. 69-G'^. Ai>(»lo<^ies very full. Why so full? Some say that Ltike was present. Bnt in relation to history these apologies are the final sienes in controversy with Jmhi- izers. i'ani re-asserts his anthority from Clirist, his innocence toward the law, his doctrine of Christ and the Kesnri-ection ; (see Bei'iiard's Progress of Doctrine, Lec- tni'e II.) Epistles of this gronp contain distinct allu- sions To his condition at LJome. Where written ? Si>me say all written in Cfiesarea. Uniform tradition shows all to have been written at Rome. (1.) The corresjiondence between Acts and ei)istles as to his confinement at Rome. (2.) The distinct forms of iiom ni imprisonment, (a) Ctistod/fi. paltlica w'iiA l\\iHi()u\\\\o\\ prison, ( W) 7'Af; Cii>peal, Panl as a Roman citizen couli stay further proceedings before the Governor by 157 appcnli'iir iiiito '"'•T'^nr ; ;ui(l tlii^ luMlid. (Ch. XXV. 11.) The V()vnii:i>. ITo is<;iveii in clniriiu of Julius, coiitiirioii of Aiiirtistiis' l);ni(l, who trentod him coiirteon^ly siiid allowed hini nioie liherty, (Ch. XXVII. 3.) His triid before A:> had ])roved his imioceiiec. (Ch. XXV. 31-2.) Fiivonihle I'epoi't to the Emi»eror. At lionie ho \v:is delivered to the I'riiefectiis Prjietoris, (XXVIII. 16.) Wieseler nrirnes from the 8iiii;iilar {azo(/-o-Z')diiy/i] that the Prefect was Biirriis, he^aiise ui^iially two were in command and it was only diirinij^ reiiijn of Claiidins that Bnrrns Afranins held the appointment as sole [nefect. After death of Bnrrns, A. D. G2, two prefects are spoken of. The conclnsion is correct, hnt is not ]»roved liy the sin<;nlar, which iiniy as well deiu)te the one on dnty, or nniy mean one of the prefects. (Alex.) The clanse, bly.azn\'7ai>'/nc - - (TT'iazoTZsodny/j, is wantin<2r in A. B. and Vnlirate, anent without trial. The law allowed time for caHin<; witnes- ses. May Inive been dcla^eil by caprice of Emperor. (See Conybearo and Ilowsim, ))- 376.) Panl's arrival at Kome in advance of his accusers. MissicMi of Onesimns. (I'hilemon 1:10-12. Conybeare and Ilowson, ]j. 380.) That the fonr letters from captivity were written by PanI is evident from his frecpient references to himself, (Eph. 3:1. Col. 1 :23-4. Phil. 1:7. PhilcMn. 9.) Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon writth- ras, itc. Tune and -place. Some 8ny a'l from Cresarea, even Timothy. Meyer, Roiiss, Thierscii, tirst three tVom CiB-ia- rea, and the rest from Rome. But tmitorm tradition says all were from Rome. Meyer says Ci^sarea, for Onesi- mus would escape to CiXi.sarea. Only reason for mention- ing Onesimns in Colossians was that I'hilemon his master lived in Colossjm. Tvcliicns from Rome would reach Eph- Gsustirst, but he was recommended only to Colossne. (Eph. G : 21.) " Ye also" imjilies that he went to Colossre first. (Phil. 22.) Paul desires Piiilemon to ])ri'pare lod<;in strong objections. Some, after Marcion, say it is e])istle to Laodi- ceans. (Liiihtfoot.) (Col. 4 : 16.) Ai^ain, a circular letter for all the neii^hboringchurches. In some MSS. the i)lace ft)i" the name is blank. Why no other name ? Common opinion in favor of common te.xt. Accounts for ji^eneral tone of e[)istle, (E[)h. 1 : 15.) G : 22 indicates u particular churcii. Aathentmt;/ atUickeil. De Wette, Baur, Davidson. I. Verbose expansion of Colossians, (Epl). 1: 10; Col. 1 : 20; E[)h. 1: 21; Col. 1: 1(5); ex|iressions borrowed, (a) GccuiM'ence oi similar words and jihrases. (b) Iden- tical expressions, (cr) Same expression diiiers. (d) Same to]iic. (e) And difl'ereut tojtics following in same suc- cession. Inference one or i)oth spurious. (E[d). 3 : 9; Col. 1 : 21).) (Eph. 4:16; Col. 1 : 10 : 2 : 19.) (Eph. 4: 17; Col. 3 : 8-9.) Conclusion however forced. (1.) Their, resemblance casual, and not chief characteristics of epis- tles. Each has unit}' and force of its own. (2.) Ditler- 160 enecs between the epistles far more chnrnoteri^tic than resenililiiiices. Similarity acc-niinted for Ity clmrclies beiiis: in same condition. Difi'orence of intention of epistles. Epiiesians, doctrinal, i. e., not in polemic ft>rm of warning, but in form of statement of doctrinal trnth, Avbich had been attacked. Colossians pi-actical and polemical vs. ijnosticisni ; Colossians aimed aijainst cer- tain false teachers and is fonnd to be clii'isroloirical. Christ head of the church; Ephesians ecclcsi(»loi::ical, cl)ni'ch in Christ. Succession of subjects ditfcrent ; one is not the expansion of the other because sometimes reverse. Unit}- of each e.\[)laiued by their liavinLf been written at the same time, in same state of mind, and to cliurdies in same condition, want of analogy with Paul's other let- ters is De Wette's objection. With Baur the want of unifVnni style, weak iccnrrinoj of same thoujxhts un- ■\v(n'thy of much consideration. IT. Unpauline expres- sions; reference to demons, doctrine of Justification ; (Eph. 2 : 8, 10.) Faith and love on sanie level. Passaije quoted not in 0. T. (5 : 14.) III. Style said to be turirid, no definite object, obscure con(.'eptions. DUierences fi-om circumstances and subject. Forgery. But why should forirer confine liimself to a single epistle ? Why not take pains to make Paul apjtear plainly as having written to Ejihesus? Why omit personal allusions to Patd's life at Ephesus ? Motive to promote unit}- inadeqmite. Moral responsibility of forgery denied. With respect to the ejiistle external testimony ur.animons and full. Eei-eived by early church as St. Paul's e[)istle, and quoted as such bv l*olvcarp and Irena^us. (Cased on Christology. There is a constant increasing clearness in Paul on this snbject. Contrast Paul and John. The general character of the letter does not exclude unex- pressed intention to state the truths which exclude these errors. Redemption by eternal purpose, by grace, througl) Christ, who unites all in a spiritual body a tem- ple of God. Analysis of Epistle to the Epiiesians. > (Taken from Dr. Braune, Lange's commentary.) Address and Salutation (I. 1, 2.) 1 'a rt first : Thefilory of the Church of Christ. (I. 3 — III. 21.) A. The f/roioid and f/oal of the church. (I. 3-23.) (a) Grateful praise of the decree of grace. (I. 3-14.) (b) Exhortation springing out of tlie Apostle's supplication for tlie churcli as the Body of Ciirist, who is the head. Thanksgiving and petition. (I. 15-23.) B. The extent and mission of the clairch. (II.) (a) Reminder of the previous condition of deatli, and the glorious new creation. (II. 1-10.) (b) Extolling comparison of the previous and pres- ent condition. (II. 11-22.) C. Tlie office ami service of the church. (Ill, 1-21.) (a) The office in and for the church. (III. 1-13.) (b) The Apostle's petition, with an exliortation for the church. (II. 11-22.) (c) Conclusion in form of a Doxology. (III. 20-21.) Part second : TJt'c spirit ruling in the church of Christ. (IV. 1— VI. 20.) A. Theme of the whole pari (IV. 1-3) : Wal/c loorthy of the calling in love and unity. H. Three motives to the 2)t'('''^c>'vation of the unify in the spirit. (IV. 4-16.) (a) The working of the Triune God in the church. (IV. 6.) 162 (b) The gift of Christ to individuals. (IV. 7-10.) (c) The organization and organism of the church. (IV. 11-16.) C. General Christian duties. (IV. 17— V. 21.) (a) Principle of the new walk with reference to the antitheses of the old and the new man. (IV. 17-24.) (b) Special traits of the new walk. (IV. 25-32.) (c) Threepointsof view for the new walk. (V. 1-14.) CI. Look above Thyself, (vers. 1-2.) ^ 2. Look into Thjself, (vers. 3-5.) (3. Look about Thyself; (vers. 6-14.) (d) Exhortation to walk with careful consideration of the Christian position. (V. 15-21.) D. Special Christian duties in domestic relations. (V. 22— VI 9.) (a) Wives and husbands. (V. 22-23); (b) Chil- dren and parents. (VI. 1-14); (c) Servants and Masters. (VL 5-9.) E. Concluding exhortation. (VL 10-20.) Close of the Epistle. (VI. 21-24.) r A. Personal intelligence from Paul. (vers. 21-23.) \ B. Two-fold salutation, (vers. 23-24.) (a) Peace, love, faith among them, (b) Grace upon and with them. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians. Colosspe ; a city of Great Phrygia on the river Lycus. Once of great importance. In middle ages called Xcovac and hence the modern name of the village on its site, Chouas. Epistle to Colossians, an instance of a letter addressed by Paul to a church he had not founded, (Col. 2 : 1.) Assumed that Paul had never been there. Paul twice in Phrygia. (Acts 16: 6; 18: 23.) Epaphras probably the true founder. (Col. 1 : 6, 7 ; 4 : 12.) Grotius thinks that Epaphras was same as Epaphroditus. (Phil. 2: 25.) Tradition says he was the first bishop, and martyred. Condition of the church. Epaphras brought favorable news. (1:8.) But there were errors in vogue against which Paul instructed them, (ch. 2.) This was predicted in address at Miletus (Acts 20 : 29, 30.) His anxiety was now increased (1: 9.) Errorists of Colossse. TheJudaiz- 163 ing party of Galilee separated in second century, as Ehioiiites ; they held perpetuity of the law, also the doctrine of circntncision. They opposed tiie epistles of Paul. They held Jesus to be only a human prophet, taught by a divine spirit at buptisni, and Millenarianism. Must be distinguished from Nazartiiies, who were descend- ants of Jewish Christians under James, remnants of the church of Palestine until the sixth century. Gnosticism. Opposite form of error in New Test. Not developed into heresy until second century. An attempt so to assimilate Christianity and philosophy as to form unity. Origin not referred to any one school. Fanatical and mystical spirit showed to be more closely related to east than west. The decay of original schools gave way to eclecticism. Especially Neoplatonism, which rejecteii both Judaism and Christianity. Two prominent features, striving for higher knowledge of tilings ; and asceticism. The body must be ignored. True morality consists in physical freedom from e.vternal objects. Gnosticism in- cluded. 1. Concerning God, an absolute impersonal being. The sum of all existence absolutely in Ilim. 2. Doctrine of emanations. The development of powers or attributes of the Infinite, called JEons. All these emanations constitute the pleroma, in which God mani- fests Himself. 3. Dualism, the external and material world cannot come from God, being evil. Matter inher- ently evil and at war with the principle of life. Lives only by union with the pleroma. The connection be- tween these opposing principles, God and matter, formed hj the last ^on in the procession descending in grade. 4. The Demiurge, ruler of the natural world, who created it by combining the contradictory elements of spirit and matter, 5. Redemption consists in the return of the spirit to God from its bondage to matter. This is effected by Christ. He descends and assumes the form of man. The Logos has only transient union with mat- ter. This union communicates the true spirit to men. 6. Ethics based on physical system. Freedom from mat- ter is the liighest moral good, since matter is evil in itself. This leads to two opposing errors, asceticism and liber- tinism. Term gnosticism used of New Testament errors 164 in the sense that they embodied or involved its principles. Some features of gnosticism are wanting in New Test. Opposite tendencies mingled opinions of philosophy with the prejudices of Judaism. Errors rebuked in the epistle. Claim of a gnosis, or philosoi)hia, as opposed to revela- tion. (Col. 1^: 9 ; 21 : 2-8 ; 1 : 23-6.) Effect of heathen phil- osophy is pride (2:18), as contrasted with Christian knowledge (2 : 2.) 2. As to God and his relations to the world, Paul guards against the doctrine that God is unknowable, (2 : 2 ; 1 : 10,) insisting on increase of the knowledge of God. Proves the person of God by declar- ing that the world was created by flim. (1 : 16.) Holds Hi"m up as the Father of His people. (1 : 14 ; 19 ; 27 ; 11.) 3. Doctrine of emanation. Opposed by the doctrine of creation. This is seen from direct reference to existing order of spiritual beings in their order as held by the philosophers. (1 : 16.) Attributed to them the worship of angels (2 : 18.) Some refer this worship of angels to Jewish conceptions, but such worship is the reverse of Jewish practices. Others refer to this as a practice cur- rent in Phrj'gia. At council of Laodicea worship of angels was forbidden. Still more interesting is Paul's usage of the word Plerouia. Pie never uses it elsewhere than in Col. and Eph. to indicate the sum of spiritual beings. He applies it to God and Christ. (Col. 1 : 19. 2 : 9.) " It pleased " &c., not in sons but in Christ. (Eph. 3 : 19 ; 4 : 10.) (See also Rom. 15 : 29 ; 1 Cor. 10 : 26-28.) The doctrine of the Demiurge is never distinctly ascribed to any of these errorists in the the !N"ew Test. 4. Dual- ism appears in the principle of mortifying the body to obtain a higher mode of life, more than ceremonial fast- ing and legal discipline. (2:20.) It detracts from the work of Christ. (2 : 13-14.) Paul contrasts with it Christ- ian morality. (Ch. 3.) 5. Jewish elements. Reference to circumcision, (2 : 11,) to ceremonials, (2 : 16,) to sepa- ration, (3 : 11.) 6. Christology. Refutation of false views concerning Christ's person occasions three principal pas- sages in the Roman letters. 1. Against Ebionism, which denies divinity of Christ. 2. Against Gnosticism, which denies His humanity. 3. Against the Docetre, who re- gard Christ's body only a phantasm. It is commonly 165 said that errorists among the Col. were Ebionites ; that there was no Docetic element, and therefore Paul asserts tlie Divinity ot' Christ. But there was also a speculative element. Their philosophical statements do not so much deny His Divinity as make Him one among many forms of l)ivine essence. Christ is only the image of the invis- ible Pleroma before creation. They denied His Head- ship (2:18, 19). Also His relation to God, to the uni- verse, and to the church (1 : 15-20). Christ is the divine human [)erson, redeeming men by atonement and uniting all to him. 7. Denial of His resurrection (1 : 18 ; 2 : 12). Worshiped angels. The tendency was to degrade Christ and His redemptive work. (1:20; 2:20, 14). These evidently were not heathen philosophers in general or an}- school of them. They are in the churcli and of an east- ern character. Not Neo-Platonists, nor Christians, nor Jews leaning toward Christianity. Nor were they Phar- isees. — Stanley. How these parties arose in Asia Minor is uncertain. Some say they were direct from Alexan- dria. Large number of Alexandrian Jevvs had settled here and disseminated their spirit. Neander, Schaff. Essenes were often admitted into the Church. Paul's mode of procedure against errorists is interesting — does not attack them polemically, but states the opposite truths. Remarkable as being different from his style in Gal. and elsewhere. Here no personal enmity against Paul. They were regarded not as direct opponents to Christianity, but as misguided men. Interesting analogy. Jewish portions of the Church, including Apostle Peter and James, at first disagreed with Paul, but afterward in har- mony with him; at the time of writing the Galatiansall were subjected to censure, but when writing to the Col- ossians Paul is very lenient, uses stronger language in the pastorals. Authentic'dy. Mayerhoff attacks it on the usual grounds of style. Also its similarity to Ephesians. Epistle is charged with containing phrases and ideas de- rived from the later heretical philosophers, as Cerinthus, which makes the date later than Paul. Baur's objections against Ephesians and Colossians. Errors combated were Ebionistic. The source of the letters was the gnos- 166 tic sect. 1. That the Christology differs from Paul's. The epistles are not directly against philosophical tend- ency, but one product of that philosophy. The Christ- ology is gnostic. The leading idea of Christ is that He was a pre-existent being and His great work was to unify and restore all things to Himself. The ideas all belong to a later period. 2. That expressions occur everywhere which are the watchwords of gnostic speculations, prin- cipalities, and powers, thrones, pleroma. Great stress is laid on the idea that Christ is the medium through which God reveals Himself. The only difference is this mani- festation of God in Christ as opjiosed to the gnostic idea of a plurality of ^Eons. Palentinus arranges these ^Eons in pairs, male and female, and thus explains the relation of Christ to the church as His bride, (Eph. 1 : 23.) The " manifold wisdom" said to be emendations, (Eph. 4 : 10.) Mystery, wisdom, knowledge, light and darkness — the zEon of this world, world rules, &c. So also Montanism is taken to be the source of the doctrine of Holy Spirit ; also that prophecy was continued in the church, (Eph. 4 : 11.) Stages of growth of the spiritual in the church, (4 : 13-14.) Opposition to the Montanist view of mar- riage, (Eph. 5 : 31.) Held that these facts indicate the rise of the epistle after Montanism. The opposing views or errorists, are Ebionitic; circumcision, etc. There are frequent self-assertions of the author (3:1,4; 6 : 20 ; Col. 1 : 23), and allusions to gospels Mark and Luke. Alleged that frequent assertions concerning persecutions cast suspicion on the writer. Inference is that writings date from second century. Some say the epistle was written by Pauline Christians, based on a letter written by Paul. Hence they were Gnostic writings designed to harmonize Gentile and Jewish Christianity ; held that the death of Christ not to atone but to unite ; conciliation to Judaism unpauline ; heathen share what the Jews before had. Answer: 1. Exaggeration of coincidences of language. Critics have done utter violence to exegetical meaning. Paul's terms have been interpreted from Gnostic writings. Paul does not use the same words in same sense with Valentinus. The ideas are not contrary to those of his other epistles. A logical advance; if written so late as 167 alleged would be more defmite. 2. WeakiieHS especially seen in applying Montanism to the epistle, since it is directly opposed to Gnosticism. 3. The errorists are not simply Ebionites. Certain principles by the 2d century had developed into Gnosticism. These errors were con- troverted by putting truth in the same form to satisfy this special tendency. But if not Gnostic we are at sea, for no otlier error can be discerned. . Some say that errorists denounced Gnosticism. 4, The conclusion is unfair. Gnosticism was avowedly borrowed from Chris- tianity, and not Christianity from Gnosticism. The gen- uine precedes the counterfeit. 5. Philosophical phrases used in common. Critics ignore external evidence. These epistles were accepted long before the rest of t4ie canon. This school utterly ignored this point. Idea of forgery is even more incredible than the fact that Paul wrote them. 6. Inspiration of epistle not accounted for. Not probable that the clnirch would accept a forgery. (Col. 4 : 16) " and that ye likewise read the Cjyistle from Laodicea." Suggests question whether an epistle from Laodicea to Paul, or to Colossse. But an epistle of Paul's. There was an epistle to be brought from Laodi- cea. Some say it was Ephesians ; others Hebrews ; 1st John; Philemon. Epistle to Laodicea now lost. Some epistles saved, others lost — illustrates the formation of the canon. Analysis of Epistle to the Colossians. (Taken from Dr. Braune, Lange's Commentary.) I. Address and Salutation, (1 : 1-2.) 11. Part first : Mention of the ground of Christian fellow- ship, and warninr/ against apostasy, (1 : 3 — 2 : 23.) 1. Tlianks to God for the faith and love of his read- ers from the beginning, (1 : 3-8.) 2. Earnest supi)lication for the progress of the church in true knowledge, especially of the Being and work of Christ, (1: 9-23.) 3. Joy of the Apostle in his suiierings and labors, (1: 14-29.) 4. Anxiety of the Apostle lest tliey be led away through false wisdom, (2 : 1-15.) 168 5. Two special warnings, (2: 16-23.) j a. Against carnal legal service, (vs. 16-17.) \ b. Against superstitions angel worship, (vs. 18-19.) III. Part second : Exhortation to true rital saiictijieaiioii , (3 : 1—4 : 6.) 1. The foundation and prospect of a genuine Chris- tian sentiment and walk, (3: 1-4.) 2. General exhortations, (3 : 5-17.) (a) Negatively, to put off the carnal nature, (3 : 5-11.) (b) Positively, to practice Christian affection, etc., (3 : 12-17.) 3. Special exhortations, (3 : 18 — 4: 1.) (a) To wives and husbands, (vs. 18-19.) (b) To children and ftithers, (v. 21.) (c) To servants and masters, (vs. 22-25 — 4: 1.) ■4. Concluding exhortations, (4: 2-6,) in relation to {Prayer, (vs. 2-4.) Conduct, (v. 5.) Speech, (v. 6.) IV. Conclusion, (4 : 7-18.) 1. Personal intelligence, (vs. 7-9.) 2. Salutations and Messages, (vs. 16-17.) 3. Closing words, (v. 18.) [Autograph salutation, exhortation and benediction.] Commentaries : Eadie, Ellicott, Braune in Lange, Arti- cle Smith's Bible Dictionary. Paul's Epistle to Philemon. Of peculiar interest as referring to personal relations. Tenderness, wisdom, firmness in principle laid down. Philemon was a resi- dent of Colossse as appears from Col. 4 : 9. Paul speaks of Onesimus as one of them, and (Col. 4 : 17), of Philemon. 2nd mention made of Archippus. (Home's Intro., Epistle to Philemon). Converted under the min- istry of Paul, (19.) Tradition says that he was made Bishop of Beroea. Martyred under Nero. Onesimus, a slave of Philemon, who liad robbed his master and escaped as far as Rome, (11.) Became a convert under Paul's ministry, during the latter's imprisonment in Rome, and sent back to his master with commendation from Paul. Martyred at Rome. Account rejected only 169 by Banr, becniise of nnpnnline expressions, and little itniiortance. Embryo of Christian jioetry. The union effected by Christianity is set forth by the retnrn of Onesimns to his nnistor. The epistle an example of a Christian letter. Note Luther's Introduction, quoted in Alford's Grk. Test., p. 115. Analysis of Epistle to Philemon. [Taken from Van Oosterzee.] I. Address and salutation, (vs. 1-3.) II. An expression of Cliristian sym[)atliy and recogni- tion, (vs. 4-7.) III. (The proper kernel of the epistle,) intercession for Onesinius and commendation of bin), (vs. 8-22.) IV. Request for a lodL£ini-ayer for spiritual blessings, (vs. 22-25.) PniLiPPiANS. Church at Phiiippi first one founded by Paul in Europe, (Acts 16 and 20.) Time and place of icrilivr/ almost universally conceded to have been at Rome. Late in his imprisonment. Probably written alter the close of the Acts. Another opinion places it in the first Roman imprisonment. Later date is better suited to circumstances. 1. Large size and irn]»ortance of the church referi-ed to. Paul writes as if well acqmiinted with the church. 2. Conil)iiiations of companions with Paul. Luke and Aristarchus mention- ed in early writings from Rome, but are not mentioned in IMiilippians. 3. We tin. 1 indicated tour journeys be- tween Phiiippi and Rome. l*hilippians had heard of I'aul's imprisonment in Rome and that he was sick — send Epajihroditus to him, (4:18.) Then Paul sendf? Epaphroditus back to the Ephesians, (2:25.) Again change in Paul's condition, greater constraints and anx- iety. Really ex[)ects release in hopes to see his friends at Phil., (2:" 24.) Lightfoot, Bleek, put it before Ephe- sians and Colossians on internal grounds. 1. IMiil. more like the earlier epistles, especially Romans. 2. Transi- tion in the controversy better brought about by this arrangement. Pause in controvei'sy. 3. Ei)hesians and Colossians need to be put as late as possible on account 170 of ditfereiice in style and subject, and brought near to the Pastorals. O/iJecf and Character. Not controversial. Tliere were no ])ractieal dangers against Avhieh to give warning. Paul replies to the accounts which they sent to him by writing this letter. The great object of the epistle, ac- cording to Lightfoot, is to set fortli the power of the Gos- pel to jiroduce tlie highest moral results, and the closest union among men. i'ersonal relations indicaten as to whether this is same as Phil. 4:15; 4: 10. And these contributions were out of their [loverty, for the i\lace(h)nian churches were not wealthy communities like the church of Corinth. (See Conybeare and IIi)\vson. 2 p. 123.) Baur says his receiving contributions contradicts (1 Cor. 9 : 15.) But this latter merely asserts the right to receive. (See also 2 Cor. 11: 9.) Reason for purity of the church. Phi- lippi free from lalse teachers ; the church was persecuted (1 : 29, 30 :) (chap. 3,) speaks of Juchiizers again. It is commonly said that they had no power in Pliilippi. They were referred to as a future evil, or the warning was suggested by circumstances external to the I'hilip- pian church. Lightfoot says that chap. 3 : 12-18 al- ludes to the opposite danger of antinomianism (pp. 67- 69.) Special ditiiculty. It is evident that' they were 172 liable to pride, rind disputes perhaps about social dis- tinctions. (2: 14; 4: 2.) Paul's exliort;itions to hu- mility introduce the sjreat cliristological passaoje (2:5- 16.) Lightfoot justly makes a combination of the liis- tory in the Acts, and the epistle. From prominence given to women in the conversions at Philippi and in the persecutions afterv/ards, combined with the disputes be- tween Euodias and Syntyche (Phil. 4: 2) he concludes that the position of women in Macedonia was unusually high. This opinion is confirmed by Macedonian inscrip- tions. (Lightfoot, Com. on Phil. p. 55.) Subsequent his- tory : Church at Philippi little known, not iDcntioned till early in the second century, when Ignatius, on his way to Rome, wliere he is condemned to sutler niartyr(h)m, passes tlirough Philii)pi, and is kindly entertained by members of the church. Their kind treatment of Igna- tius gave rise to communications with Polycarp in which the Philippians invite him to give them some words of advice. (Lightfoot, p. 62.) Polycari)'s letter extant. The See continued to exist but had no history. Was Clement, Paul's fellow laborer, (4 : 3,) the same as Cle- ment of Rome? Uniform tradition attirms it. Light- foot, Meyer and De Wette doubt it. (See Lightfoot, p. 166. Notices of place and time opposed to identification of the two. At tlie time of the ei)istle Clement would be about 25 or 30. He is mentioned in the shepherd of Hernias, A. D., 140 as alive. This does not aifect the facts about Clement of Rome as the friend of Peter and Paul. He stands out as a very prominent post-apostolic figure. This question does not affect the canonicity of the epistle. Alleged from (3 : 1,) '' same things," tiiat there were other letters to the Philipi:)ians, but lost. Polycarj) in a letter to the Philippians uses tiie plural "epistles" in speaking of Paul's writing to Philippians. But "same things" mentioned in 3: 1, refers to the duty of rejoicing, spoken of above in the epistle. Hence the doubt with respect to the other letters. Genuineness. The ejustle was rejected by the earlier Tubingen critics on the ground of gnostic expressions, e. g. (II, 5-8). Sophia made an impious attempt to knovv God fully and fell — Tiibingen's explanation of 2 : 5-8. 173 I. II. But the ai\£^miient is disuvowcd by later writers of the Banie sehool. Analysis of Philtppians. (Taken from Lightfoot.) 1-2. Opening Salutation. 3-11. Tiianksgiving ami prayer for his converts. 12-2G. Account of personal circumstances and feeling; Progress of Gospel in Rome. 27-2: 4. Exhortation to unity iind self negation. 5-11. Christ the pattern of humility. 12-16. Practical following of His example. III. 2: 17-30. Exjtlanation of his intended movements, the ]>ropose(l visit to Timothy ; the illness, recovery, and mission of Epajjhroditus. IV. 3: 1-2. The Apostle begins his final injunctions; but is interrupted and breaks oii" suddenly. [3: 3-4: 1. lie resumes and warns them against two antagonistic errors. Jii({aism (3: 3-14.) He contrasts the doctrine of works with the doctrine of grace; his former life with the [irescnt. The doctrine of grace leads to a progressive morality. Thus he is brought to speak sec- ondly of Anlinoniunv'sm (3: 15-4: 1.) He points to his own exami)Ie ; and warns his convei'ts airainst diverii^mi'- from the right path. He appeals to thenj as citizens of heaven.] Here the digression ends; the main thread of the letter is recovered ; and 4:2,3. Tlie Apostle once more urges them to lieal their dissensions by appealing to them by name. 4 : 4-13. He exhorts them to joyfulness, to freedom from care, to the pursuit of all good aims. V. 4: 10-20. He gratefully acknowledges their alma received trom Epaphroditus, and invokes a blessing on their thoughtful love. VI. 4: 21-23. Salutations from'all and to all. The farewell benedictions. Commentaries: Neander; Eadie ; Ellicott; Lightfoot. 174 FOURTH GROUP. Pastoral Efistlis. Name: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Gciiuine Pauline epistles. So regarded by the orthodox clmrches from the end of the second century. Only in modern times has their genuineness been called in question, eithei- thai of all or mure j)articularly of 1st Tim., (Bleek 2, p. 52.) They give instruction in jiastorai dut}'. Addi'essed to church organizations and office bearers as preventives against falling into la.xif-}' of disci- f)line and ei-ror in doctrine. They ai'e nccessai-y to tlie completeness of Paul's epistles. They relate to the na- ture and duty of church oflices. Intei-esting in three points, viz. : 1. Organization and duties of officers ; 2. Growth of false doctrines in the cliui'ch ; 3. Additional information about Paul and his companions. Authenu- city is attacked from the alleged impossibility of Inirmon- izing the facts of the ejjistles with Acts. The best way to avoid this difficulty is to assume that the second im- prisonment was ende(h Then Paul enters upon a second series of journeys ; at which time ejtistles to Timothy were written. This has external evidence from wide- spi-ead o[)inion, from Fathers, and later evidence. The letters ihcmselves prcsup[)ose great advance in the cliurch. 1. False doctrines encumbered it, same state of eri'ors as in Colossians and Ephesians. 2. A more ad- van(.-ed «taie of organization. AVieseler argues against a second imprisonment ; and endeavors to harmonize with statement in Acts. But opinion does not gain favor. External evidence in i'avor of second imprisonment. 1. Clement of Rome commends Paul's zeal. In this he uses two expressions from which the date may be infer- re(h (a) "Paul martyred in time of the rulers." If this be the correct rendering the question is settled. For we may infei'fr(mi this expression tiiat N'ero was ai)sent from Rome, and the government under i-egents or prefects. Now Nero was absent A. D. 66, 67. (b) " Coming to the limits of the west." It is alleged that this means Sitain or Britain. Answers : "Limit of the west" may mean the limit of his work; or Rome; or as the the text is uncertain, whether -/.ac stzi or xai u-o that he appeared be- fore the highest powers of the west. i. e. Nero. This 175 exegesis is rather atteisiiated. Clement is not quoted in proof l)y Ensebins, 2. A passnii^e in Dionysins' letter to the Corinthians " Paul and Peter tanijht in Corinth and were martyred at Rome." Sitnply draws oomoni-ison between Paul and Peter. If true in re_opsil)le to rei)eat all the events of Paul's life. But why impossible? Theie was no real cause wliy jiot. There were chances that Paul would be free. But after the burning of Rome he is again arrested. It is thought the hatred of the peojile in Nero's persecu- cutions was so great, he wonhl not escape the first im- prisonment. There are doubts about tliis. Gibbon and Merivale deny the Neronian persecution on tlie ground of tlie insignificance of the church. But the church was not so small and the tire (A. D. 64) changed the feeling. Improbable circumstances of arrest repeat themselves. 176 Internal Arguments for the second imprisonment : — These pastonil epistles are so alike and so ditforent from the otliers that they may jioint to a remote period in Piinl's lire. 1. They presuppose olahorate organization — implying a later date than Paul's first imjorisonrnent. This argument is used hy the rejectors of the letters. But the church was organized tVom the iirst. The dis- course to the Ephesian elders gives evidence of con)i)lete church organization. That this implies new offices is in accor(hince with the prelatic argnnient. But this is not true historically. There was no hierai'clucal tenden- C3^ Mosheim says, that the oi-ganization in the epistles was so jtrimitive as to show an early date. The argument is valid, that the sid)ject of oi'ganization hecomes more prominent late in the ajiostolic period. 2. The erro-ists are Judaizing Gnostics, same as referred to in Colossians and Ephesians. In Acts 20 : 29, 30 he speaks of these erroi's as future. But now they are prominent. Could Ist Timothy have heen written prior to this? In Acts they are predicted, in 1st Timothy they are present. Answer (Wieseler and Schafi'.) The address at .\iiletus is not predictive, but puts envphasis on " among them- selves." The crrorists existed, and the warning against the future did not prove that the errors had not already besrun. The advance in Acts— Ephesians and Colossians — Timothy. 3. Style. Their similarity sliows that they were conqiosed together, and they are alike in man\' ] oints in which they diifer from other epistles. The^- contain a great man\' Pauline expressions, the sequence of thought is quiet and simple. Subjects are treated much in same way. In gcnerid design they all point to a later date. This point luis been exaggerated by oppo- nents. Paul's 1st Epistle to Timothy. Four tilings inregard to date of this epistle. 1. Written some time after Paul had left Ejihesus on his way to Macedonia. 2. Timothy was left at Ephesus to oppose false teacliera (I : 3.) 3. Paul was free (3: 14.) 4. Timothy was to remain in Ephesus till Paul should return tl.ere, (3 : 14,4:13.) But Paul was twice in Ejihesus (Acts 18 : 19 and Acts 19.) 1. Calvin says it was written after the first visit to Ephe- 177 8I1S. But there was a clmrcli there, arid he did not leave Timothy but Aquihi and Piiscilhi; Tanl went immedi- ately to Jerusalem after the tirst visit (18: 21.) 2, The- odoret says it was written after Acts 19 from Macedonia soon after leavinji^ Epliesus, between 2 Corinthians and Romans. But Timothy had i^one to Corinth (1 Cor. 4: 17; Acts 19: 22.) Paul did not then expect to retiiru 8oon(Actsl9:21)(lCor. 16:3; Rom. 15 : 23-27.) Timothy went with him to Macedonia, (2 Cor. 1:1; Rom, 10 : 21 ; Acts 20 : 4.) There was no object in such a letter so soon. 8. That it was on his return from Corinth, (Acta 20:4-6.) This attended witli the same difficulties. 4. An alternative nnd(4: 13.) (3.) Friends were absent (4: iO; Philem. 24.) (4.) Paul had been at Troas and left his cloak and books, (4 : 13.) Left Trophinius sick at Miletus and Erastus at Corinth, (4 : 20 ) When was the epistle loritten. 1. Bes^inning of first imprisonment and before the other epistles. But the dilHculty with this is the movement of his companions, (4:20.)" Col, Philem., etc. (Introduction to the New Test., Bleek, Vol. 2, p. 75.) Expects Timothy to reach Rome so soon. Occasions an unnatural coml>ination as to his condition as a prisoner. Now he is ready to be executed, (4 : 6.) In Philippians either execution or re- lease. 2. At end of the first imprisonment. Wieseler and Schaff. But Paul's condition in second imprison- ment far worse than in previous one, owing to political changes, in close confinement and situation extremely dangerous, (4: 6, 7, 16.) But if written in fir^t imprisou- ment he had not been at Troas for five years. lie was two years at Csesarea. Also he had abundant opportu- nities to send for the articles, and it is natural to think he would liave done so. New names are introduced, as seen in the greetings, which implies a ditference in the time of composition. Similarities of the epistle with 1 Timothy and Titus. Again, Paul had left Trophimus at Miletus, sicic (4 : 20.) When did he leave him? This could not have happened on the journey to Jerusalem, for Trophimus was with Paul at Jerusalem, (Acts 21 : 29.) Some say that Miletus was in Crete, to make out that Paul left Trophimus there on his journey from Caesarea into Italy. Some say that Paul took another ship at Myra and that Trophimus remained in the first and sailed therein to Miletus. But Timothy was with Paul and knew all this ; why then should he te.ll him? When did Erastus stay at Corinth ? If epistle was writ- ten in first imprisonment Paul had not been in Corinth for five years. Wieseler explains it by saying that Paul had sent for him to come to Rome but he did not come. Also Timothy had been at Rome, and had gone to Phi- lippi and was immediately summoned back from Ephe- 8118. All would be easy if the epistle were put at the 181 close of the secoiul imprisonniont. It would explain the introdiictioM of" new names, the change of condition, also time would he given for the events recorded. Conihination of data. Assuming the genuineness of the e[iistle and rememljcring the data of the epistle to Titus, and the j»as,sage from Clement of Rome. 1. He went from liome to Spain, and thence eastward to Crete and thence to Asia Minor and Greece. (Bleek, 2, p. 77.) 2. He was re-arrested early because he could not travel, after the persecution of Gi. But that panic was confined to Rome, and the time specified crowds the journeys too much. 3. After being released, he goes first to E[)hesus, thence to Macedonia, leaving Timothy in E|)hesus ; thence to Crete leaving Titus; thence to Corinth b-y Miletus leaving Trophimus sick there, and Erastus in Corinth ; and spends the winter in Epirus, where some 8;iy he was arrested, because this was the last mention made of him in the Xew Testament. Others say in Spain or Britain. Analysis of 2 Timothy. Part I. The rnscripfion, (1 : 1-5.) Part II. An Exhortation to Timothy. Section 1. To be diligent, patient and firm in keeping the form of sound doctrine, in which is in- troduced a prayer foi- Onesiphorus, (1 : 2- 18.) Section 2. To fortitude ; to preach the pure doctrine of the Gospel to others, and to purity of life, (2.) Section 3. To beware of fulse teachers who should come in the last times; to be constant in his profession of tlie Gospel, resting on the plenary authority of the Holy Scripture; and to be diligent in his ministerial labors, (3 and 4 : 1-8.') Part III. The conclus;ion. Containing (1) The Apostle's request to Timothy to come to him as soon as possible. (2) Various salutations, (4: 9-22.) Time of Paul's death. Tradition says it was 66 or 67, during Nero's journey to Greece, or just before bis 182 suicide in tlie 13th or 14th year of hisreis^n. Pan I'p death is recorded by his coiiteiiiporary Clerneut of Rome; also by the "Roman Presbyter C'ains 200 A. 1)., wlio says that he was shiin by a s\vor:i because he wjis a Roman citizen, and the site of liis deatli was the Ostian Road — the site of the present Protestant burial ground. (Conybe.are and Ilowson, 2, pp. 486-7). Contrast Paul's condition in 2 Timothy and in Philippians. In 2 Tin)otliy (1 : 9) re- garded in tlielightof an "evil doer." J^opniar violence e.xcited against him. There was a change in the position .of Christians since the buruing of Rome 64 A. I). Paul expects deatli (4 : 6,) lie lias fought the good fight (4 : 7.) lie mimes Eubulns, Pudens, Linus, Claudia. Mar- tial, the Spanish poet, went to liomeA.l). QG. Mentions two contem))oraries, Pudens and Claudia, the daughter of a British king, as husband and wife. An English in- scription, found in 1723 at Cliichester, connects a Pudens witli Britain and with a Claudian name. Lii^htfoot doubts because Martial came later, and connects Pudens with idolatry. (See Smith's Dictionary, Art. I^ulens.) Is Linus the hi'^hop of Rome ? So stated by Rulinus. (See Smith's Dictionary, Art. Liuus.) Genuineness of the Pastorals. This unquestioned till this century, when they were attacked by Schmidt and Schleiermacher ; the latter gave up 1 Tim. DeWette denied tlie genuineness of all three. Baur and David- son put them late in the second century, subsequent to the appearance of Marcion and other Gnostics. The special ditficulries with 1 Tim. are : 1. The qualifications biid down to admit ofRcei's into the church are too simple. Common sense would dictate this. Appro])riate for Crete, but Ephesus an old church. Paul had lived long at Epliesus and we would e.xpect persomil allusions. But because of errors there was need of care in the selection of officers. There must be some such genei-al directions for the whole church. The personal supervision of Paul was withdrawn. Ilis pastoral epistles were a safeguard for the chiirch against hierarchical pretensions. 2. (1 Tim. 1 : 20.) Ilymenaeus and Alexander are excommun- icated, but in 2 Tim. 2 : 17 Ilymenaeus and Philetus spoken of as denying the resurrection. Tliis does not 183 prove thatbe hiid not been diseiplnied, or there rna_y have been two llyinciinensos. 8. 1 Tim. 4 : 12 implies that Timotliy \va3 yonno;. But the youth of Timothy presents no diliiciilty. Supposed to be about 40 or 45 years ohl. 5:18 contains a quotation from Dent. 25:4, com- bined with a saying of Christ. Hence the inference that tliese words were written after the Gospels had been re- conled. But the fact of this combimition doe-^ not prove that the saying of Christ had been reduced to writing. General argument against tin; three epistles. 1. Lun- guaiff. The use of [jeculiar words especially such as are analogous to gnostic expressions. And want of logical sequence. The argument is intermingled with cxlio_r- tation. Timothy and Titus treated as though they were children, lie states the first principles of holy living. Ans. The style is diff'i!rent on account of the advanced aire of the apostle. He is writing as an old man to a son. It is written to individuals, and not dictated. And there is a difference in subject in the several epistles. lie is not ignorant of the errors which existed. The whole argument mistakes tliese supplementary positions in the canon. The differences have been very greatly exagger- ated. The resemblances are more numerous tlian the differences. There is no more dift'rireuce between these ejiistles than between others of the second and third groufts. 2. Advanced organization. Alleged that Charismata are thrown into the background. More stress is laid on outward organization. They iniply a hierarchical development. The priest reappears in the church. We liear of Bishops, Presbyters, etc. It is true that the gifts are withdrawn to the background, but not true that tliese letters prove the existence in the church of a liierarchical system. The fact itself is denied except by pi-elatists and rationalists. In 1 Tim. 5:11 the word widows is applied to those of a consecrated life, but in Acts G : 1, to those who were proper objects of charity. Alleged that bishops, deacons and presbyters are used in the sense of orders of the ministry. But E[)is- copos and Presbutei-os are used as synonymous in the Pastorals. (Titus. 1 : 5-7.) There was no intermediate order between bishops and deacons. (1 Tim. 3.) So 3 : 12 184 does not imply an advance in orders. Laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4 : 14.) Said tliat the word lierotic is used in a later sense ; and that excommunication for heresy belongs to a later tin\e. (Titus 3 : 10.) On the other hand it is not used in later sense of finuL'imeutal error in this ejiistle. The hei-esv here is used in the same sense as in Gal. and 1 Cor. Ellicott and Alford insist that there is no evidence of a hierarcliical system. (x\lford Greek Testament on Pastoral epistles.) Organiz- ation began from the very lirst. Compare Ignatius. 3. JSrrorists. Alleged that errorists are Judaizing Gnostics and hence the letters are late, (1) The writer warns the church against " endless genealogies." (1 Tim. 1 : 4.) (Titus 3 : 9.) These ai-e said gnos^tic " Aeons." Also 1 Tim. 6 : 20 " science falsely so called" is taken as evi- dence that tliey had exalted the gnosis. The errorists held to SI spiritual resurrection, (2 Tim. 2 : 18.) Baur says this was held only in the time of Marcion. But the fal.se doctrine of matter and body led to the false views concerning death and the resurrection. In 1 Tim 2 : 5, from the expression " Man Christ Jesus," the person of Christ was ]'\.\t on Docetic grounds. The doctrine of Dualism is implied from the ascetic prohibitions in 1 Tim. 4 : 3 — forbidden to rnari'y and to eat flesh. Baur says this was not Judaic Gnosticism, for it was opposed to the law. He refers it to Marcion. But these same tilings are seen before in the case of the Esseucs and Therapeutce. Some say these put the letters early in the second century. Baur sa^-s these letters came from tlie school of Marcion, because Hegesippus in the mid- dle of the second century says " After the apostles were dead Gnosticism arose." Also said to be a similarity of ex))ressions in Marcion with the epistles. (1 Tim. 1 : 1-10, etc.) They opposed the Law. (1 Tim. 1 •: 7-8.) Hence "Law is good," is said to be in opposition to an- tinomian teachers (1 Tim. 1 : 7,) and legal strifes. But the reverse is obvious; they insisted on the law. The oppositions of science in 1 Tim. 6: 20 is said to refer to a work of Marcion, called Antitheses. Baur says the errors were Gnostic, yet that the writer himself is taint- ed with Gnostic terminology and Ciiristology. All that 185 is proved is tlint liere, ns in Colossions and E|)liesinns, the error is m-owini^. There is evidence tliat it is more advanced. 1. !So i^'reat a prominence ^iven to the sub- ject in the letters. 2. 0|>itosition to false " science," and resistance ot" "lieretic" imply a delinite shajie taken by the teacliersif not actnal separation, Tenet.s aie be- come more detinitc. Organization is relied on to resist error; and care is taken in the selection of otHcers. It is alicijed that there was an intention of a former to med- iate between two parties in the church. (DeWette.) To oppose err(n"s he wrote 2 Timothy and Titus. But not satislied with this he wrote 1 Timothy last. But a (iilen\ma i)resented itself. If lie should describe the errors derinitely it would betray a late date.- Hence the confusion and disarrani;em(M»t of 1 Timothy-. 'J'he fraud was a |)ious one. It was an extreme case ; mimicking tlie feelings of Paul at the end of his life. Davidson denied that there is any evidence of the canonicity of these ejVi.stles till IfiO A."l). But the Peshito and Miir- atori 170 A. D, Number of epistles attributed to Paul is always thirteen or fourteen. Quotations and allusions are made in Clement of Rome, Leniieus, and Epistle of Diognetus. The burden of proof rests on opponents. The internal proof of genuineness is their intrinsic value, and the necessity of them to the completeness of the canon. FIFTH GROUP. Epistle to the Hebrew?. The great fact of the A])ostolic age is the change of the dis|(ensations. The ejiistle which describes the rtdation of the two is im- portant. Soon after l^aul's release from prison in Rome A. 1). 63, persecution broke out in Jerusalem, and James was beheaded. The Jews were despondent, and u)ider these circumstances Paul was the one to write the ei/istle of exhortation and consolation. Authorship. The main argument for its Pauline autluM'sliip is internal. The style and peculiarity of doctrinal exposition have always been considered Pauline. The earliest testimony of the eastern church is in favor of its Pauline origin. There was a general ackuowledgment that Paul either wrote 186 it or superintended its composition. Opposing views prevailed in the western clinrcli, and doubts as to its authoi'siiii). till the seventh century. It was received as Pauline at the Ret'orniation. Since then in Germany its Pauline autliorsliip has been largely but not exclusively denied. In England and America opposite opinions [)i-e- vail. External evidence : Su|:»posed allusions to its Pauline authorsh.ip are found in 2 Pet. 3 : 12, 15, 16. Heb. 10: 25; 11: 31, James 2: 24, 25. The earliest Patristic testimony is tVom Clement of Rome who makes frequent quotations from, and allusions to, the epistle without reference to the author. Here arisen the ques- tion, what constitutes canonicity. Some infer its Pauline authorship on the ground of its accejitanco as canonical. Bleek, Alford and others set aside this testimony of Cle- ment as liaving no beai'ing on the authorship; but Cle- ment quotes Ilebrews in the same way that he does all the epistles of Paul, hence the inference that had it been b}' another, he would have mentioned the fact. Sup- posed allusions are made to the e[»istle by Polycarp, Igna- tius and Justin. Alexamlrine testimony. In the second and third centuries testimony is traiisrerrej'oc of John, wliich is the same as tluit of Philo. Answer: Christ is here set forth by comparison as su])erior to Moses, as an High Priest, as mediator and as above angels. lie is called Son, Lord, God, Creator, uiiholder, and lience pree.xi.'^tent. Anti-docetic terms are used to insist on the humanity of Christ as illustrated by the expressions, " partaker of flesh and blood." "strong crying and tears." Oidy as a man could He be the Savior of the world. From these expressions there is no objection to its Pau- line authorship, unless we reject Ephesians and Colos- sians. 4. It is objected that faith in this ei)istle termi- nates on God's promise of favor and not on the ]>erson of Christ. There is no discussion about faith and works, and no mentionof justification, repentance, effectual call- ing, nor the resurrection. Answer : (a) The writer de- fines faith so as to include believers i^oth under tlm old and new covenants. (1)) His object was not to define faith but to confirm tlie Jewish believers by reference to the promises and fidelity of God. (c) The promises of God are taken for granted as including and coming through Christ. The objection is futile against a. letter so full of Christ, (d) This objection contradicts the t» 189 third. 5. It is objected tliat tlie doctrine of aalvntion is presented as dependent npon the idea of the his^h priest- hood of Christ ahine, without an anal3-sis of the jiarts of the work of salvation. Answer: This is oidy a differ- ence in the mode of presentation and may he accounted for hy the object of the writer witli reference to O. T, ideas. Most of those who rely on a diffei-ence of con- ception to jM'ove a ditfei'cnt anthorship acknowled^je an essential airreenient wich the other Panline epistles. 6. It is stated that the quotations are from Sept. IJIeek in his compai'ison of Paul's (piotations says that he usually fol- low-art in sacrifices niiide hy all the i)riests, or we may suppose that the resrular acts of its priesthood are attrihuted to the liilieu3 the s;ime with James the brother <»f Lord ? 1. Jerome and iheLtitin eliureh held the Identity Hypothesis aijainst Ilelvidius who attacked eeiibacy on the fi^romul that Christ had brothers. This theory make.s the brethren of our Lord cousins. 2. The Uterine Ilyjtothesis or Ilclvidiiin which makes James the son of Josc])h and Mary. 3. The Step-brother, or Epi]>hanian IIy|)othe.si3 which makes James the son ot Joseph by a former mar- I'iai^e. This is u qnestion in the life of our L(n"d havin<' a bearin<]j on the ascetic Romish doctrines. It is also a qnestion of ecclesiastical interest to determine whether the head of the church of Jei-nsaiem was an Apostle or ir)t, and wln-ther the author of the epistle was an Apostle. 1. Identity Ilyporhesis. Ar<2;nments in its' fiivor. (1) Luke knows but two Jameses, viz : James son of Zebedee and James s(m of Alpheus. In Acts 7 both are s'poken of in verse 2, the son of Zebedee is put to death, in 12: 17 and 15 : 13, Luke refers to another Jfimes without distinction. Answers: LnivC says iioth- inij about other Apostles after the catalo. 76.) But Paul arjxues that he is an Apostle of Christ because lie did not derive his authority from those who held it betorehim. The argument determines the strict sense in which the word is used. In favor of rhe supposition that James who was over the church at Jerusalem was an Ai)ostle. Dr. Alexander says : (vide Com. Acts 21 : 18,) " The constitution of the church re(]uired the con- stant [iresence of an A])ostle while the oihers were en- gai^ed perhaps on distant missions, this responsible and arduous commission, which was far more than the jjas- toral care of any single church, would not have been as- signed to one of less than Apostolic rank, and is there- fore sufficient proof that James was an A|)OstIe." Wieseler sees a distinction between James spoken of in Gal. 1 : 19, as brother of our Loi'd and the one men- tioned in Gal. 2 : 9, the latter according to him, being tlio son of Alpheus and leader of the church of JeiMisalem. (3) Argument from names. In Mk. 13: 55 certain per- sons James, Joses, Simon and Jude are called ''l)rethren of our Lord." In the lists of Apostles we tind three of these names occurring in the same order. The argu- ment is not merely from the identity of nam.es which might be accidental, but Matt. 23 : 50 ; Mark.l5:40, mention Mary Magdaleneand Mary the mother of James and Joses to distinguish her from rhe Virgin, If these were not tlic same men, there must have been two sets qf brothers with the same names in the family circle and no means of distinguishing them. This conclusion; bears equally agair.st the uterine and stei)-brother hy- pothesis. The'exegesis of Jno. 19 : 24 has been ques- 195 tioned. It lins l)ccn dispose 1 of hy the Pci^liito In- in- sei'tiuii' yju after " tlie sister of his mother," and hofore " iMary t>f Cleoi)as," thus mukinir four women instead of three. 'J'lie nnnamed one wonhl he Salome and tiie sons of Zehedee wonhl he iirst-eon'^ins of Christ, and Maiy wife of Alphens, mother of James and Joses, would ho left ont of onr qiestimi. This exeijesis is suppoi-ted hy the ditticnhy was thi'oiiij;h the fatiiers, Alphens was a brother of Joseph, or as some say .Mury the wife of Ah^dieus nniy have heen a sister of Joseph. The cnmn- lation of the aru him. This is the stroui^est e.\ey dis- turbances. Ilegisippus says that James the brf)ther of our Lord was an Apostle, placed over the church at Jerusalem and was surnamed the " Just '' by all. Origen quote3 the ei>istle as written by an Apostle. The Alex- andrine tradition is in favor of identifying James the son of Alpheus with tlie brother of our Lord. What be- came of "James of Alpheus?" if he is not the same as Jame8 of Jerusalem, even tradition knows nothing of bim. 197 Canonkihj. Besides references to tlie Catholic Epistles as n whole, references are iuhiressed in Clement of l{oine, and Hernias to James 2: 7; 4: 7-12. Irenrens has some sti'ikinij: references to the ej^istle, althongh ohjection is made that he does not mention James hy name as ho does other wi-iters. Athanasins qnote.s the epistle hy name. Clement of Alexandria says there are seven catliolic epistles and quotes this one. Origen, Knsel)iu3 and Jerome all quote it, namiuir the author. Tradition of the Syrian church is uniform and emphatic. The early douhts are accounted for on the foIIo\vin<>^ grounds. (1.) There was doul)t as to the writer. (2.) It did not afford material for contro\ ersial use. (3.) It is addressed only to a part of the church, and its doctrinal |)osiiif*n was nnsunderstood. Douhts as to canonicity which arose at the Reformation were on internal grounds. Luther said it contradicted Paul, althouiih he ascrihed the ejiistle to James. But the writer takes no notice of Paul ov of any Autinomian controversy, hence we niay suppose that it was written earlier than I'aul's. Again it is ohjected that James is not evangelical, that he makes too little of Christ. But he refers the same word xofno^ to both God and Christ. lie teaches that salvation I'cqui res faith and appeals to Christian motives, (1 : 36; 2:15; 4: 17.) The writer stands like Peter the representative of the O. T. dispensation : he w-is stationed in Jerusalem to keep the door ojicu to the Jews. 'J)'me. There are two views as to the time of its com- position, 1. Those who see in it a desire to counteract a false interpretation of Paul's (htctrine of justitication, (chap. 2: 14,) and who see a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 5 : 1, and an allusion to the name " Chris- tian" in 2: 7, argue in favor of 62 A. D. 2. Those who liold that the epistle could not have been written by James after the council of Jerusalem, without an allusion to its decision and because Gentile Christians do not yet appear to be recognized, are in favor of 45 A. 1). as the time of its composition. .S'/y/c. The e|iistle is written in remarkably pure Hellenistic Greek. In tliis respect it surpa-ses all other books of the N. T. Fersons ad- dressed. Tlie twelve tribes in dispersion. 1. Literal, 198 unconvertecl Jew?, Lnrdnei". 2. Je\vs,convertO(l iiiul iiii- C(Mivc'rte(l, Grotiiis. 3. Spiritual, Jewish nnd Gentile Cliristians ns oiiposiiiir partios. 4. Bost Jewisli Christians, Seliniid. The epistle Jewish in form ot'address, fornudas o[" Jewish oaths. Annointinif hy ehlers and Jewish faidts correcte(h Hence christian 1 : 12; 2;7andwh()lo book re2;ai"ded Christian. Sonie h)cali/ce and make them Christians of Palestine or Antioch or Asia Minor. But common view is tlnit Jewisli Christians in i^eneral, who looked to James as their leader. They were persecnted by unconverted Jews 1 : 2-4; 5: 7-11. Comj). Ileh. 10: 24; 12: 1-13. They were in danf^er of !Ov^ini-actieaf against a barren chrif^- tianity without good woi-ks and against dispersion. In its relation to O. T. the first effect of Christianity was to establish its unity with O. T. I'eter and James. Next came the effort to establish its conti-ast to and superiority over O. T., Paul and John. Under unit}' came the two relations to law and to ])i-ophec3-. James re])i'esents Christianity as \\\q perfect Inn. The O. T. law is fulfilled only in it. Hence the ethical side as in the Gospel of Matthew. Peter shows the correspondence with prophecy and complete fulfillment in the future. See Sell mid Biblical Theology of N". T. p. 334. Lange'3 James p. 6. Three views of the relation of Judaism. 1. The lowest extreme, Sclnvegler. Thoroughly Ebion- istic, void of all later Christology in resting on the law 199 as perpetual and savino;. At the same time eiideavorincr to associate stmie Pauline ideas wirli this. Hence too mild for tlie Apostolic sta^e of the controversy hut very late. 2. Neander dwells on the ol)S(;nrity of Pauline theoloL'^y, which l)ecame that of the church. No allusioiis to the council at Jerusaleiri or the whole controvei-sy with Judaizers. The writer has no knowIcdi'escnt a certain view of the Gospel in his own way, to warn his (nvn f)eoi)le against the vices of surrounding Jews and against a dead formal- ism, lie urges the Gospel. New and higher law, and urges them not to give w;iy to prevalent famiticisms but adhere to their profession. The ethical purjjose explains lack of development in doctrinal starement. These taken for granted. Not denied oi- unknown. See Dorner. ]-*erson of C'hi'ist inti'oduction, [>. (Jo. Sehmid p. 360. Lange pp. 25-29. Van Oosterzee. Wiessenger is extreme, says the object is to counteract the Autinomian al)use of I'aul's docti'ine. Terms refer to Paul 1:3; Rom. 5 : 3; 4: 1; 7: 23; 2: 23; Gal. 3:2-25; Ileb. 11: 31. P:s- pecially diii'erent ideas of faith, woi'ks and jnstitication show tlie direct reference to Paul. But abuse of J'aui's doctrine not the sin of the Jews. The. rdalions of the teac/unt/ of ike cpisllc of P'taVs. Faith a practi- cal liviuii: principle 2: 17-2G. Its object God and Christ 2:' 19; 1:1; 2: 1, 5, 7, 8. jlistirieatii)n 2: 14-26. Paul's word reckoned for righteousness 2 : 23. A nd 1>\' works not by faith alone. But works are not op- posed to faith, but manifest and evidence faith. Not of the law but proceeding frcnn the new princii)Ie of life which is from Chi-ist. Acknowledges sin in all 2 : 23 ; 3:2; 5 : 15, 16, 20. Relation "to Sermon on the coo ATonnt. Same as?ertions arc made of absence of doc- trine ; both assnme tbe trntb. More albisions in James to GosjieU than in any otlier epistles. Brcitber of our Lord. Matthew desiirncd for Jewish readers. Point of view— fnltillment of law in Christiainty. Sermon on the Mount the hi^cher spiritual fufilbnent of the hiw. Di- rected against pervei-sion of the hiw as rooted in Phar- isaism. The connection causal. Matthew mucii fuller in revelation of Christ. Jn reference to prnj)hocy, in indication of the abolition of the external pai't of law. But like James, has in view the unity of the new cov- enant with the old. For striking details see Schmid, p. 365. And as Christianity a law, so God viewed as a Law-giver and Judge, but Christology though not dwelt on is the sjime in outline. This new law is brought about by the revelation through Christ. Christ is the Lord of Glory. E(p)al authority is ascribed to Ilim with God, 1 : 1. The title of Judge is {ip])lied both to God and Christ and term Lord to both, (Schtnid )). 344, 346, 360) — hence neither in ignorance of Paul, Acts lo. nor aL'ainst uerverters of Paul, but pre-supj»oses him. Date. This is involved in the |)revious question. If 1. Post-apostolic. If 2. As Keauder about A. D. 45. If S. The diites in the life of James. Wiesinger argues from refei-ence as above to Paul. But others from pre- supjtosed knowledge of Christianity and the time needed for the development of vices and tem[»tations. Condi- tion of Palestine about 62 A. D. Persecution from the Jews. Zealotry and turbulence. This the historical point of attachment for Hebrews — James (and Lange includes 1st Peter.) Addressed to Jewish Christians, encourag- ing them to fidelity under trial. The idea of Neander involves diiiiculty of ascribing it to the limited period before the council at Jerusalem. This doctrinal peculi- arit}' of James, whereas his iniiuence and position con- tinued. Agreeing but distinct. Keeping (b)or open for converts from Jews. Xot prior but i)araliel. Local allusions 1:6; 3:6, 12; 5 : 17, 19; 1 : 11, etc. First Epistle of Pktkr. Three stages of history. 1. Theg(»spel Acts 1 : 12. Removal toAntioch and later life. Epistles and tradition. Personal traits and adaptation to 201 his special work. Tradition is of two forms. The old form relates to Ins d«:;atli. The later t'orin fills tip sjiaee in N. T. recoi'd-*. Acts 12-15 ijive account of" him about the time 44-50 A. I). Enseliins and Jerome say he foun- ded the einirch in Antioi-h and went to Rome in the time of ('laiidins, who died 54 A. D. They also say that he was bisli()[» there '25 years, Imt Acts 11 : 19 Barnabas as in Antocli. iSilence of Paul. Panl in Rome in Gl A. D. NcMir close of Panl's life wrote 2nd Tim., and sil- ence in all letters from time of impi'isonment. Ai>-reea with tradition that Teter :e. These jM-innirily th()ii;, however, that the epistle was held liy some to be spni-ioiis on account of the difference of its style from 1 Peter, Ensebins reckons it anmnii' the ayTchyoiava. Orii^en, while men- tioninij the donbtthat prevailed as to its canonicity, cites it in several passages as a [tart of the N. T, The l*eshito and Muratori Ciinon (h) not contain it. Internal testi- mony. Against the argnnjent tVom internal testimony for its canonicity, we have three classes of objections, 1. Those arising out of comi>ai-ison with 1 Peter, (a) We find that the jtersons addressed in this epistle are diflerent and ditferently related to the writer. In tho first they are addressed as being persecuted, in second heresies are sjioken of. Answer: Tlii^re is no real dilii. cully since Peter couid write on ditforeut subjects at different times, (b) Tbc objection from alleged ditt'er- ences in doctrine. In 1 P, we have the death and resur- rection and second advent of Christ treated of. It is alleged that £/-^c i^ the leading idea of the Hrst while £-^j'i/^y«Trc i>redominates in the latter ; but there is no in- consistency since each epistle is consistent with its own plan, (c) The differences in style wei'e early objected to; but this diversity is not important and is (.'ounterbalanceJ by obvious coincidences. 2. A second elass of objec- tions is urged on the ground of the resemblances of this epistle to Jude, second chapter and Jude e.xhibit so remarkable an agreement that tlie dependence of the one upon the other is undeniable. Such a resemblance may be explained on the following hy|(otheses, (a) That both drew from the same ancient Jewish books, (b) That there was a communication between the two writers and 204 an agreement on tlio use of terms, (c) That a forjrcr, a pseinio- Peter, draws verbally yet eliimsily from Jnde. (d) Tliat one writer wrote witli the otlier in his mind or at hand, (e) The common ojiinion is that Jnde wrote first, for liis' descriptions ai-e more (general and some ex- pressions of 2 P. need the inter|iretaTion of Jnde. 3. Tlie third class of objections are drawn from the ejiistle itself (a) Neandcr l)ases an objection on the nse b}' the wi-iter of tlie name Peter and his Apostolic authority, and attribntes is to the an.xiety of a tori>;er. (b) It is allci^ed that 3: 15 assumes that a collection of Paul's wi'itinijs was already circnlatinij in the clinrch. Answer: But the reference does not say that snch a collection was com- plete. Referring to his approaching death, the writer assigns as grounds of assurance for believers, his own testimony as eye-witness of the tr;,insfiguration. Neander says he ought to liave rell'rred to Christ's resurrection. It has been admitted by most critics to have an A[»ostoIic tone. Jude's Epistle. Authorship avd CiuiovicHii. That the writer of tliis epistle is the same Jude spoken of (Matt, 13: 55; ?dls. 6: 3,) as the bi-other of our Loid, depends on the truth or the Identity Ilyiiothesis, The epistle is one of the ai^rehjoneva^ it is wanting in the Peshiro, the earliest positive reference to it is m the Muratoi-i canon, Origen, Tertullian and Eusebius quote it. Objections to its authenticity have been i-aised on internal grounds, liefercnce is made in vs. 17 and 18, to the sayings of the Apostles. From this some argue that it must have l)een written after Apostolic times, and is therefore a forgery. Also in vs. 14 and 15 the A|K)cryphal Book of Enoch is quoted. Answer : It is said the book of Enoch is of late date, some assigning it 100 A. D. It is urged that Jnde by this quotation gives authority to Apocryphal writings ; but he only says that the prediction contained in tiie book was a f»ropliecy of Enoch. Again it is argued that verse 9 contains statements not fo'.iud in tho O^T. The Targum of Jonathan says that •' the body of Moses" is mentioned allegorically for the law given to Moses. Date. It must have been written late since it de- nounces tlie same errors alluded to in 2nd Peter. It is 205 siipposed to have been written (lnrin2^ tlie interval, be- tween tbe death of Peter and the destrnetiiMi of Jerusa- lem, because it contains no reference to the hitter, l^rob- ably it was aibh-essed to the same readers in Asia Minor to whom 2nd I'cter was aihlressed, witli a view to sup- port and stienj^then tlie exiiortations and warnings of Peter. Writings of Joiix. Tliese writin<;s represent a new stage (»f N. T. literature. The time of writing is said to be 20 or oO years afrer the destruction of Jerusalem. It is clear that John was in Ephesus during a part of liis life, lie issiioken of in Acts 15 : G as being in Jerusa- lem, but does not appear again in tlie N. T. until in hi.^ own writings. Some say that during this interval he was in I>al>ylon with Peter; others assert that he was in Ephesns from the errors spoken of in his epistles which corres|iond with those in the church of that place. It is said that he remained in Jerusalem until the death of Mary the mothei' of our Lord 41 A. D. Jerome says he went East tt) India. i\,>lycrates asserts that John died at Ephesns. Jei-ome [tuts his death at 101 A. D. ; Eiise- bius at 100. The prevalent opinion is that Revelation was written in the time of Domitian and the Gc)spel and E[)istles were wi-itten at a later date. First Ei'IStlic of John. Gcniiinevess and Canon- iciti/. The external testimony begins with the contem- poraneous writings of Polyeai'p who says in the word.s of John : " For every one that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Hesli is antichrist." Papias ac- coriJing to the testimony of J^^nsebins quoted from "former Epistle of Joiin. ('lement of Alexandria, Ter- tnllian, J uncus, the Peshito and Muratori canon all have evidence as to the canonicity of this epistle. Internal evidence is based on its resemblance to the Gospel of John. Both range of thought and manner of expression as well as diction are the same as in the Gospel. The da/i; is uncertain and must be determined from internal evidence and its relation tf) the Gosjtel and Revelation. The common view is that it was written after the Gospel from Ephesns. The ohjcct of the epistle is didactic, not controversial. It aims at the rel'ntation of error by tho presentation of fundamental truth. 206 ANALYSIS OF THE LECTURES. PART I. Peter and the chnrcli among ilie Jews. Introductory remarks, 5. Points of critical attack, 5. I. Autliorsliip. ;'). II. Historical Question, 5. III. "Jlie Supernatural, 5. Chronoiofry. ti. Design of Acts. 7. Section 1st. 'J'he clmrcli at .lernsalem, 7. I. Founding of tlie cliurcli, 7. 1. Introduction. 7. General character, 7. Place, 8. Nature of the Kingdom, 8. Time, 9. Church contrasted with false expectations of the .lews. H Commissicm renewed to the Apostles, 9. Critical questions, !•. 2. From ascension to Pentecost. 9, Employment during the ten days, 9. Persons mentioned, 10. Place of assemblage, 10. Choice of a new Apostle, 10. 3. Pentecost, 12. A. Descent of the Spirit, 12, General traits, 12. Time, l:^.. Place of assemblage, 14. Miraculous accompaniments, 14. Critical questions — ■ J Nature of gift of tongues. "I ,,, I How harmonize Lnke and Paul. /■ Design of the gifts — proof, 18. Gifts enumerated, 19. B. Peter's sermon, 22. General characteristics, 23. Doctrine, 24. Effects, SO. 'J'he word etKArjo-ia, 31. Mode of reception into the church — bap tism, 31. 207 C. Oeneral description of the mother church, 32. II. History of the church of Jerusalem until the death of Stephen, 35. 1. First persecution. 3-5. 2. First corruption. 36. 3. Second persecution. 37. 4. Second interuiil difficulty— new office of cJeiicon. -V.K 5. Third persecution. 41. Section 2ni). E.stension of tlie work from Jerusalem to Antioch, 4o. I. Preinvrntii.n for the Gentile mission, 45. Criticii! point. 45. J^ersecution. 45. Character of the period, 4f). II. First extension to Sam;iri;i under Philip. 47. (Jeneral characteristics, 47. liow related to tiie case of Cornelius, 47. Helative position of the Apostles. 48. - First heathen opposition. Simon Magus, 49. III. rhili|. and the Eunuch, 51. IV. The conversion of Saul, 52. Discrepancies. 54. Tile supernatural, 55. C()utradic;tiuu> between Acts and Epistles, 68. Visit to .lerusaleni, til. V. The conversion of Cornelius, 61. Introductory, 01. Tlie conversion (53. Persons selected. 03. Jieveiation by visions, 64. Discourse of Peter, t)5. Effect on the Jews — true and rationalistic views, 60. VI. Antioch, 07. Place, 68. Barnabas sent, not an Apostle. 68. New name '"Christians," 69. OiHces mentiojied. 70. VII. Herodian persecution, 71. I'olilical changes. 72. PART II. Paul and the church among the Oentilea. 74. Period 1. I'auls lirst Missionary Journey, 74. I. Apostles chosen for the work, 74. II. The journey. 75. 1. Paul in Cyprus. 75. 2. I'anI in Asia Minor. 77. A. Antioch in l^isidia, 78. Paul's first sermon, 78. 'JTihingen tendency theory, 80. Etfeci. 82. B. Iconium. 82. C. Eysira and Derbe, 83. D. 'I'he return, 83. 3. I'aul again with the church at Antioch, 83 208 Period II. The Coiinr-il of .Tpni«alein. 84. Hi^lntioii of tlio Apostles to the question, 84. Hiinnoiiy nf Act.s and Gal.. 87. Period III. Paul's second niissionafy journey, !J8. Autliorslii|i and sources of Acts' " We" passajres, !)'). Perseciiiion iVoin heathen sources, 08. P^irst Grouf) of lOpistles. lO-'). Epistles to the i licssalonians, 10.'). First ]'45i,-tle to tne 'l'lu's.=alonians, 106. Time and place of composition. 100. Canonicity and anlheniicity, 1U8. Analysis. lO'.l. Second iOpistle to the Thessaloiiians, 111. 'Jime and place of composition. 111. Canonicity and authenticity, 112. Analysis, llo. Sulijec! and manner of Paul's preaching at Corinih. 118. Period IV. Paul's third missionary journey 121. Second (Jroup of l^'pistles, 120. Epistles 1o the (lahilians. 120. 'I'ime and place of comj)Osition, 127. Desiirn. 12'.). Analysis, I'il. First Epistle to the Corintliiaus, 13-3. '1 ime and place of composition, 133. (icnuinencss and authenticity, 134. Historical points, 184. Analysis, 142. Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 142. 'Jime and place of composition, 143. Historical points, 143. Analysis, 147. Epistle to the I'omans, 147. 'lime and place of composition. 147- Origin of the church at Home, 148. Coin|)osition of the church, 151. Occasion and object. 1-52. Genuineness of chapters, 15 and 16, 153. Analysis. 154. Period V. Paul a prisoner, 155. Third Group of I-'.pistles, 155. 'lime and phice of composition, 158. Epistle to the ICphesians, 158. Authenticity. 150. Olject and character, 160. Analysis. 101. Epistle to tlie Colossians. 102. Condition of the church, 162. Authenticity, 105. Analysis. 1()7. Philemon — Analysis, 108-169. 209 l'liilip|)iaiiR, Kill. 'J'inie iiiid jjlace of composition, IB'.t. Olijoct and character, 170. Purilj' of the church, 171. Genuineness, 172. Analysis, 173. Fourth Group of Epistles — The Pastorals, 174. First Epistle to Timothy. 176. lime and place of composition, 17H. Analysis, 177. Epistle to 'i'itus— Analysis. 178-179. .Second Epistle to Timothy, 17'J. 'I'ime and place of composition, ISd. Genuinenesss, 181. Analysis, 181. Fifth Group of Epistles — Hebrews. 185. Authorship, 18o. Contents, 188. Canonicity, 189. To whom addressed, 190. Time and place of composition, 191. Analysis, 191. Sixth Group of Epistles— The Catholic Epistles. ]'J2. Why so called, 192. Their position in the canon. 192. Ejiistlc of .lames, 192. Authorship, 192. Canonicity, 197. Time of composition, 197. To whom addressed, 197. Epistle of Peter, 200. First Epistles of Peter, 200. Canonicity, 2tl2. Time of composition, -202. Design, 202. Second Ejiistle of Peter, 203. Genuineness and Canonicity, 203. Epistle of .hide, 204. Authorship and Canonicity, 204. Date of writing, 20.5. .lohn's writings, 20o. First Epistle of .lohn, 205. (jenuineness. Canonicity, Date and Design. 205. 9482TC W LBC UUU 04-29-04 32180 MS Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 01129 6177